From: Harvey Newstrom (mail@HarveyNewstrom.com)
Date: Sat Dec 28 2002 - 11:30:26 MST
Phil Osborn wrote,
> If so, then we can expect that if 911, Saddam, Korea,
> et al are not sufficient, then other excuses may be
> "found." One way or another, the logic inescapably
> leads to the conclusion that a very strong push toward
> a world state - or at minimum, a "Federation," led by
> the U.S., (of course) - is in the cards.
Why would any other country agree to this?
If we just declare ourselves the leader, wouldn't that
be a dictatorship? If we enforce our leadership position
with our weapons and prevent other countries from developing
what we already have for ourselves, wouldn't that be the
same as a military take-over of the world? If we expect
other countries to follow the UN, treaties, the world court,
while we are exempt, wouldn't that be the same as being
a rogue state?
It seems like countries would secretly develop militant
freedom fighters to combat such a foreign power before
it is too late. Isn't this exactly what the terrorists
claim is happening?
I can't tell if you are claiming we are already doing
this, which would imply that the terrorists were right
all along, or if you are claiming that we should start
doing this, which could imply that we should become
what the terrorist claim for us. Either way, it seems
to be a recipe for more terrorism.
-- Harvey Newstrom, CISSP <http://HarveyNewstrom.com>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:58:55 MST