Subject:
|
Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 12 May 2001 05:38:53 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
905 times
|
| |
|
|
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> It is not clear to *me* that I believe America will always have any
> (significant) enemy. I rather think that as countries become more free, more
> of the world will become less belligerent. Many countries that used to be
> belligerent have, as they moved toward democratic systems and free market
> economies, become quite peaceful. (1)
What is this "belligerent" stuff? Are you to decide which country is
"belligerent"? Belligerent to whom? To us? What, we aren't belligerent? Are
they more belligerent? Don't you find this attitude the least bit arrogant?
> So I hope over time most of our enemies will fade away in importance and
> threat level.
I believe we will fade them in and out as needed. Remember the Somolia
affair, how we went in and got stomped, then we became pals with the warlord
responsible for killing U.S. troops?
> For example, China's days as a belligerent are numbered,
> unless we screw things up badly. One component of not screwing it up is
> ensuring that we cannot be effectively threatened (which implies our
> surveillance flights in international airspace need to continue but this
> time with fighter escort scrambled and ready to go).
As if "surveillance" flights aren't already belligerent, now fighter jets as
well?
> So you must know me better than I know myself I guess, if you know what I
> believe when I in fact think I believe the opposite. I'll tell you what *is*
> clear to me, though, you're not even reading what I wrote, perhaps because
> it doesn't fit your preconceived notions of what it is that I think.
I said before, this is a different tangent. It began with me stating that
the U.S. creates enemies in order to justify trillions in military spending.
I pointed out the paranoia involved in having "boogeymen" like Saddam
Hussein and I indirectly cited your example of space based weapons platforms
to better protect us from Iraqi "Scuds". I respected your anonymity and left
your name out of my post. Tell me who wrote this:
> Brilliant Pebbles could have, again according to unverified and biased
> sources, stopped the Iraqi Scud attacks with 100% success. Something the
> Patriot system did not do. Those were non nuclear yet still were a big
> nuisance and stopping them early in boost phase would have been far
> preferable to when Patriots stopped them. So I don't see this need as a
> "created and ficticious" need.
Is this not an example of using an "enemy" to justify the need for arms
spending? You clearly brought up the threat of Iraqi "Scuds" as a reason for
developing a space based missile defense weapons system. Then, in a more
recent post, you wrote this:
> Such a system *could* stop "Iraqi Scuds" from reaching their intended
> targets. Since Scuds are short range missiles, obviously their intended
> targets do not include the continental US unless they are based a lot closer
> to the US than Iraq.
So, although you used Iraqi "Scuds" as an example before, it sounds like you
changed your mind and decided we don't really need the system to protect
America from "Scuds" after all. Okay, then why should we have the system?
Here's what you said:
> - because we could make some cash by charging 1 B USD per intercept (cash in
> advance, please :-) ) to clients. This answer I like. Do good and get paid. >Still, it's rather flippant and not likely to be politically viable at this >point in time.
Not politically viable, eh? Well, I'm sure the spin doctors can make it
"politically viable" by inflating adversarial threats or pitting a few more
nations against each other and supply arms and intelligence to both sides
(ahem, Central America, Iran-Iraq War...). Yet still, you had another answer:
> - because it will cause a space based manufacturing infrastructure to come
> into existance.
Exactly as I said, using paranoia to justify the business of warfare.
> Hence I favor trying to build such a system for the side effect of getting a >manufacturing infrastructure *more* than for the primary reason of keeping >the world safe.
So, in the end, it's all about money and greed! Forget humanity, forget
morals, forget peace, forget the environment...let's cash in on war!
> Instead you launch into another rant which has little or nothing to do with
> my post. Some of which I agree with, but that's irrelevant too. Go back and
> reread what I said, if you would.
Another rant? As I said, this is an entirely different tangent. It was never
my intent to get into the discussion about missile defense, but if you come
at me expect the same. Look back and you'll see I never joined that
discussion. I was posting a reply to Bruce's remark about "Red Dawn". As I
said, I made sure to leave your name out of my cite about "Scuds" and
missile defense. You chose to reply directly as if I singled you out. That's
your mindset, not mine. You are the one who believes in making enemies. Did
you not tell me that there's one person on LUGNET you actively hate? Who
believes in enemies? Who is being belligerent?
Dan
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
246 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
