From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Sat Sep 29 2001 - 01:57:14 MDT
Jacques Du Pasquier wrote:
>
> Second, there are 4 main reasons for which the US are aimed : support
> for Israel, presence in Saudi (sacred home land of islam), general
> world domination, and cultural influence.
>
I see no really good reason for a continuing large force in
Saudi Arabia. It doesn't provide significant enough detterrent
relative to our ability to quickly move in forces when necessary
for the level of action present imho. And it costs an arm and a
leg financially as well as in good will of the people in the
region.
I don't see why it is the business of the US to practice world
domination nor do I see us really doing that. If it is our
business then we should do it honestly imho and establish a true
one-world government and mono-culture. If it isn't our business
then we should spend a lot less time and energy butting into the
business of others.
> Basically, you can't help on any of these points. In particular, world
> domination will be more and more necessary, as more destructive
> weapons get available (for the long term, see Drexler for example) and
> will imply things like presence in Saudi and support for Israel.
> Cultural influence seems inevitable, too, disrupting their society,
> and giving women for example "absurd and dangerous" ideas.
>
You can help on these points by having a clearer foreign policy
and notion of what our goals and interests are and are not and
what means are and are not acceptable for attaining those ends.
> >
> > Such hatred is not compatible with much of most religious belief
> > systems or their literature. It is practiced by some subset of
> > some
> > religious groups. It is quite questionable even within their
> > religion. Such questioning by other members of their religion
> > of differening opinions is probably one of the fastest peaceful
> > ways to diffuse such "religious" hatred.
>
> That may well be, but I'm not sure how we make this happen.
>
> ANd you should not dismiss too easily that there is something in islam
> that makes it produce with regularity this tiny minority of terrorists.
>
I don't dismiss it easily but I don't believe the fault is in
Islam
itself. If you want terrorists and mad crusades look at
Christianity
about 500 years ago and some of the continuing extremism to this
day. Yet there is no real support for such methods in the New
Testament.
> For example, in Christianism, force is not well regarded. It is in
> islam. In Christianism, you should love even your ennemy. Not in
> islam.
>
Not quite true. Even your enemy should be treated with honor
and using respectable means.
> > > The word "valid" is the problem. Their claims (like having Jews out of
> > > Palestine, and having US out of Saoudi, and finally extending islam
> > > over the planet) are valid according to them, but not according to you
> > > (well, to me at least). As this translates in attacks on you, you
> > > cannot afford so much tolerance as to treat them as "valid", even if
> > > they are valid in some sense (= they are consistant with their sense
> > > of justice).
> >
> >
> > Even without these very questionable things there are many
> > claims that are perfectly valid where we did in fact act in a
> > slimey and underhanded fashion. We can at least address those
> > honestly.
>
> You sure can and should. But be prepared that it won't solve the
> problem.
>
> And if these very points were done for opportunistic reasons, as a way
> of protecting your control and domination, then "correcting" them
> might make things even worse.
>
I don't think we have any business doing control and domination
games that haven't been broadly approved and aren't honestly
pursued.
> > > Of course this is a bit of a constraint. But I think it is quite
> > > understandable. The US have been hurt, they seek back up. It doesn't
> > > seem very responsible from us (France) to decline it -- and then ask
> > > more support from you when things go worse.
> > >
> >
> > Sure but this is not the point. France should not support US
> > policies and actions on this blindly any more than Americans should.
> > Freedom includes the right to freely question and to disagree. It
> > doesn't make you or your country complicit in terrorism if you do
> > disagree.
>
> I think this is not a yes/no problem. Imagine that your friend is
> badly hurt, and asks help from you to counter. Depending on the kind
> of help she asks, what really happened, what might happen next, who is
> the attacker, etc., you will have a tension between various desires
> and fears. It's a matter of nuance and quantity, and to make the right
> choice you need to limitate the amount of blindness and cowardness that
> you put in the resolution of the problem.
>
Where did cowardice entere into this? How does any blindness at
all help? We have been blind and in reaction mode and tweak a
dangerously unstable pile of potentialities for reliatively
unstated goals for a long time. It is part of what got us into
this mess. I don't see where more of the same or more of a show
of faith toward whatever is proposed now by the US is actually
helpful.
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:11:02 MST