Subject:
|
Re: Are we doing the right thing?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 2 Sep 2001 11:44:49 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
842 times
|
| |
|
|
First, Lindsay, I don't want to gush, but I really just love reading your
stuff. Your only problem is that you're too sporadic. :-) Do you teach like
this? Or does the nature of the college classroom require the lecture to be
generally dry? Most people seem to object to history on the basis that it's
boring. I think it's partly because it's presented as a series of generally
unconnected facts, and partly because there is often no relevent tie-in to the
here and now.
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Lindsay Frederick Braun writes:
> See above. Yes, it is imperative to national security to defend
> ourselves against attacks--but the defence should really be in
> line with the potential and nature of attack.
Mightn't it be that our missile defense system would lead to infrastructure
development that would allow us to not only defend against ICBMs, but also to
project force around the globe? What if this is merely an intermediate step to
space-based rail guns that can closely target individuals? It might be that we
don't really need the ABS (Anti-Ballistic Shield), but we do want future
spin-offs.
> > > Nuclear terrorism won't come from above--it'll come from within,
> > > and just when we foolishly believe we're safe. But also don't
> > > *over*estimate the ruthlessness of terrorists--the sheer horror
> > > of the nuclear nightmare is anathema to most of them.
> >
> > Why is that? I would think they'd be giddy at the thought of nuking one of • our
> > cities.
Why? Does the thought of nuking them make _you_ giddy? They're just people.
> And since the terrorist has no homeland to be retaliated against...
I don't particularly have a homeland against which to retaliate, but I don't
think we should be swatting people with nukes.
> Not directly. But if a group should nuke a city, do you think
> *any* legitimate government--or even most other terrorist organ-
> izations--would have *anything* to do with them?
Maybe not, but at least largely because to do so would be dangerous. I don't
doubt there are enough folks out there who'd like to spit some nukes, that they
could get a mutual admiration society together after the fact.
> > While I of course think that
> > they're worthy of being called 'human,' their terrorism is unquestionably
> > inhumane. I fully support retaliations for terrorist acts against the US and
> > against American citizens when there is a sufficient trail to 'whodunnit.'
>
> Ditto. But again, to play devil's advocate: The terrorist feels
> that their acts are analagous to the kind of evil violence perpe-
> trated against them and their people.
From your comments at the bottom, it sounds as if you actually disagree with
them on this? Is that right? It seems to me that some people do have an
actually valid beef with the US. You know how they say we control way more
than our "share" of the resources of the earth? That's because we were best at
manipulating things so that other folks didn't get them. So we live the good
life and (and because) other people don't. Why shouldn't they be ticked?
> I definitely support retaliation--it is in
> all senses a war, except that detecting the enemy is a lot harder.)
Couldn't war (just like domestic crime) be averted by working to make their lot
better?
Are Israel and Palestine in conflict _really_ because of the Holy Land, or is
it because there are two few of whatever resources to go around? Why not step
in with a method of better each group's lot without taking (much) from the
other?
> > Its unfortunate for the Muslim world that their small percentage of extermist
> > groups give them a bad rap as a stereotype.
That's true about everyone. You have, IIRC (though maybe it was someone else),
bristled about negative characterizations of Christians. It's the same thing.
The extremists give the rest of you a bad name. On the other hand, I also
think that if you're not kind of radical it's because you're not paying
attention. So what's to be done?
> > It also baffles me that the
> > extremist groups are so senseless and insane in their acts.
>
> I rarely hear of a group terrorist act that's senseless. They
> seem insane, but usually not. Horrific, yes. Indefensible,
> certainly.
I disagree. Any people should use whatever methods they have at their disposal
to secure a fair measure of life. To do less is to accept slavery. If their
only recourse is terrorism, then their neighbors damn well need to help solve
their problems (or snuff them).
> 2) Oil. The US government aids its corporations in arm-twisting of
> Arab nations for the only commodity they have that the West
> seems to value: Oil. Oil holds out the possibility of giving
> a real chance to Arab nations--the United Arab Emirates have
> shown what can be done with truly careful and wise use of oil
> income for desalinization plants, factories, schools, roads,
> rail, those magnificent airports, commercial nexuses, telecom
> hubs, and more. If the price of oil is allowed to rise, that's
> a much greater share of world wealth that comes in to fund the
> development. However, to maintain the present system of
> inequality, the West operates in unison against OPEC nations,
> seeking to drive wedges between them whenever possible. I'd
> be surprised if OPEC can ever blindside the US and its allies
> the way they did in the 1970s. Solidarity is just too deeply
> compromised. The thinkers among the militant disaffected see
> this and hold the United States responsible--our whining over
> having to pay $2 a gallon for gasoline (less than desalinized
> water, by the way), which is highly publicized, doesn't help
> to dispel this impression.
With exactly which part(s) of this analysis do you disagree?
> 3) History. This isn't about Israel, it's about US lies and
> deceit. Time and time again, the United States spouts off
> one set of standards and goals for the developed world and
> another for the "Third world." This goes back to Versailles,
> really, when Wilson allowed the Arab world to be carved up
> among Europeans in the Mandate system, despite an Arab delegation
> appearing at Versailles (they were refused admittance to the
> talks over the future of their own lands) and their very public
> embrace of the Fourteen Points. Ever since then the US has
> been duplicitous, selfish, and plutocratic, caring not
> whether Muslims live or die, only that *USians* remain rich
> and free. You can see where this leads, right?
With exactly which part(s) of this analysis do you disagree?
Chris
|
|
Message has 4 Replies:
 | | Re: Are we doing the right thing?
|
| (...) Don't you, though? It's really cool. He has tons to say. (...) (Not to go off to a tangent, but that's why I had so much fun in my American Studies class, a combination of English and U.S. History... they were two seperate classes but the (...) (23 years ago, 2-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Are we doing the right thing?
|
| (...) Depends. I try to draw relevance to the here and now, elements of the present-day psyche or political order, whenever possible. (...) You're telling a story, kind of like Grandpa's family lore. It's just on a national--or world--scale. When it (...) (23 years ago, 3-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Are we doing the right thing?
|
| (...) Chris: With all due respect, I take personal moral umbrage with this statement. You and I have already well-established that our world-views diverge just about as much as any two humans' world-views can, but, I think that this idea is still (...) (23 years ago, 4-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Are we doing the right thing?
|
| (...) Yes, but the perception--which is based in our adulation over technological can-do fixes, something the US has always had a severe disposition toward indulging in--is what's important. (...) It's the question of which is more dangerous: The (...) (23 years ago, 2-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
50 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- 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
|
|
|
|
