Articulating Points of View Fairly (was FWD (SK) Fear Inside the Power Elite)

From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Thu Mar 13 2003 - 17:18:35 MST

  • Next message: Michael M. Butler: "Iraq: DU deliberation, was Re: FWD (SK) Fear Inside the Power Elite"

    Steve Davies writes an amazingly long paragraph depicting
    what he infers is the state of mind of people who, I have
    some reason to believe, are political opponents of his.

    Yet you could read his entire post, not just that paragraph,
    and yet remain uncertain of his own position on these issues.
    Where are the usual straw men? Where are the give-away
    slogans and indictments? Where is the biased vocabulary?

    I cannot think of anyone else on this list, out of hundreds of
    people, who could write so informatively and yet so objectively.

    That in itself is quite sad.

    (And I can think of only two people I know of, for sure, who
    even appreciate it, or recognize its value at all.)

    Lee

    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: owner-extropians@extropy.org
    > [mailto:owner-extropians@extropy.org]On Behalf Of Steve Davies
    > Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2003 10:32 AM
    > To: extropians@extropy.org
    > Subject: Re: FWD (SK) Fear Inside the Power Elite
    >
    > > Could you describe their vision?
    >
    > I think their vision [the viewpoint of Wolfowitz and American Vice-
    > President Cheney] is pretty clear, as set out in their various
    > publications and in journals such as 'Weekly Standard'. Broadly it is that
    > the US (along with other countries in the Anglosphere and a few others)
    > represents the values of modernity broadly defined (rationalism, democracy,
    > rule of law, market economy et al). These face ideological and physical
    > challenges from several sources but above all from the combination of
    > militant anti-modernity movements such as Islamic fundamentalism and 'failed
    > states' such as Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen. The solution cannot be a Pat
    > Buchanan style withdrawal. Therefore the US has to use the power it has to
    > 'sort out' problematic areas of the world and in some sense has the
    > responsibility to do so, given the values it espouses and the position it
    > finds itself in. The underlying belief is that the us has the opportunity
    > and duty almost to realise the Enlightenment project of a global
    > civilisation. There is one division among folks who think this way. The
    > neo-con exponents of this view differ from their New Democrat equivalents in
    > thinking the US can do this unilaterally, rather than through international
    > institutions such as the UN. It's Teddy Roosevelt versus Woodrow Wilson
    > basically. I think myself that after 9/11 the thinking has gone something
    > like this. "These bastards are after us because they are opposed to our
    > basic principles. The existence of many failed states and the generally
    > screwed up nature of the Middle East gives them a steady supply of recruits
    > and the chance of getting their hands on some really nasty stuff. We can't
    > depend on corrupt clients to do the work for us - they are part of the
    > problem anyway. So we have to intervene directly in the ME to lance this
    > boil and that requires a permanent base in the shape of a country we can
    > reshape as an exemplar. We also can't trust the Saudis any longer. Lets kill
    > two birds with one stone and knock off Saddam and use Iraq in this way. We
    > also have to set an example so that no other state even thinks about
    > developing WMD, much less supplying them to the bad guys, that requires a
    > doctrine of preemptive intervention. We can use Iraq as the test case. The
    > Middle East and militant Islam are the major problem for our values so if we
    > scotch them the main danger is removed"



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Mar 13 2003 - 17:21:58 MST