From: Spudboy100@aol.com
Date: Sun Nov 24 2002 - 17:48:51 MST
Ron h opined:
<<Spudboy,
It was your email that got me thinking. You included the Robert
Bradbury comment above.
I won't attempt to analyze European motives -- obviously at this
distance I have no idea what is in their hearts and minds. But trying to
devise a possible strategy to explain their conduct is easy.
I imagine some are honestly motivated to take a pacifist stance or
strategy due to concerns over their past conduct. But for others I think
they possibly have hit on a great strategy.
They make noises that will sound conciliatory to the terrorists hoping
they will not be hit. They let the Americans take the lead hoping that we
will do the dying required to remove the terrorists. If we take out the Al
Qaeda all is well and good -- they will be rid of the terrorists at no cost
in lives or money to themselves. As to having the Europeans dislike us they
will be our good buddies as soon as they see an economic advantage. If we
don't remove the Al Qaeda then hopefully we will have bled the Al Qaeda to
the point that they will be an easy target by the time the Europeans are
forced to take action.>>
Again, not to pee in the harmonious soup of the world, but there is the
apparent appeal to play both ends against the middle. Many European
intellectuals and politician have sought out this exploitationist route, and
will continue to do so, until such a time as Ulm or London or Bologna get
depopulated. Its a bit a grand denial. Note: the oil tanker attacked at the
port in Yemen, and it was French owned and operated. This, despite a decades
long placation, by France, of Islamic societies. Did Macheavelli state that
"kissing ass will only get ya so far?"
Let us not forget our own President's resistance to follow the money trail
from global terrorists back to Saudi. Please notice how Bush Jr, and the
State Department, seek to insulate Saudi Arabia from all responsibility, even
though the Wahabbis are the primary instigators of Islamic Jihadism currently
(tip o' the hat to the Iranian Shiites and Hezzbolah in 2nd place). It
currently appears that a bi-partisan group in the US House and Senate
(basically the Joint Committee on Intelligence) are over-running the
administrations stonewalling.
So where does this leave us?
1. Realize that the primary reason for overthrowing Saddam may not
simply be to deprive a Stalin-admirer or nasty toys, but to relieve
global reliance on Saudi petroleum. This would inhibit funding of
Wahabbi causes.
2. We still need to move the agenda of alternate fuel for transportation.
Notice that I am not suggesting that we currently require alternatives
to electric power production for homes and factories, hospitals and
airports? Let's break the problem down into definitive pieces is why.
3. Perhaps developing West Africa (offshore) as the USA and the UK did
starting in 1960, with how the Persian Gulf Oil was rapidly developed.
The move to OPEC would not have happened with USA meddling, by
permitting our Oil Companies to "develop" the gulf--same goes with
West Africa. Note: The Nigerian reaction to the Satanic Mrs. World
Contest is a bit discouraging in this regard
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:58:21 MST