RE: GOV: US Reputation (RE: Arab World Stunned by Baghdad's Fall)

From: Keith Elis (hagbard@ix.netcom.com)
Date: Mon Apr 14 2003 - 15:36:47 MDT

  • Next message: Damien Sullivan: "Re: FITNESS: Diet and Exercise"

    John K. Clark:

    > hagbard@ix.netcom.com writes:
    >
    >> Justifying a pre-emptive strike without a smoking gun requires your
    >> audience to believe in your voodoo.
    >
    > If I wait until your gun is literally smoking it's too late for me,
    > I'm dead. If I see you pull out a gun and point it at me I'm going
    > to do my damn best to get my gun smoking before yours. Is my
    > "audience" happy about that? I don't care. Am I "justified"?
    > I don't care because I'm better than justified, I'm alive.

    Not only that, but you're right. I, too, would pre-empt that threat with
    everything I have. But when I want to do it with your money, you'll
    probably need some convincing. Of course, if I'm in a position to take
    your money by force, and spend it on pre-empting threats to me, then
    you're screwed. But I bet you'll make a fuss about it. If I want you to
    play along, to give me your money so I can protect myself, I'll have to
    convince you I'm protecting you, too. I'd say "This threat to me may
    materialize into a threat to you, too." I'm probably right no matter
    what the circumstances are. There is a chance, however vanishingly
    small, that the Teletubbies will present a threat to you in the future.
    Do you believe me? Do you trust me? Where's the evidence? How did I
    arrive at this conclusion? If I want you to invest in my protection,
    it's reasonable to give you a prospectus.

    Or is my voodoo good enough?

    > Today the USA has a reputation of Mr. Tough Guy
    > and that might prove to be more useful.

    As a deterrent?

    Keith



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Apr 14 2003 - 15:45:04 MDT