From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Thu Dec 26 2002 - 22:40:19 MST
Spudboy100@aol.com wrote:
> America as a world-devouring menace, and Saddam's Iraq as pitiful 1939
> Poland? Ok. I don't see the necessity of the USA defining its role in
> the world as some kind of global people-pleaser; every-ready to
> reasure and consult withw anyone and everyone who makes a complaint.
You have a gift for studiously missing the point. You also seem to have
a lot of bile. The US has annouced it will do whatever it considers to
be in its interest without approval of UN, without being subject to any
sort of world court and without regard for the borders of sovereign
nations, pesky treaties, niceties like a declaration of war and so on.
That strikes me as more than a little dangerous and worrisome. How
does it strike you? There is certainly no question of us being
"people-pleasers". There is a very valid question of whether we are
claiming the right and intent to become the biggest and most dangerous
rogue nation of all.
>
> My contention is, if the populace is going to hate you in the middle
> east, or europe; they are going to hate you, no matter what you do.
> America as some kind of intercontinental pretzel, bending to and fro,
> to the delight of its critics, doesn't appeal to me. Fortunately, for
> this list, there are other, voices, ready to define the US role in a
> more "flexible" way.
Well, this will keep you from asking whether you (US) are doing things
that cause legitimate concern and upset and whether those are wise,
reasonable, ethical and responsible things to do. Why on earth do you
prattle on as if the only alternative to doing whatever we please,
whenever we please is to be a total non-entity?
- samantha
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:58:54 MST