From: Mike Lorrey (mlorrey@yahoo.com)
Date: Tue Aug 05 2003 - 10:14:06 MDT
--- Lee Corbin <lcorbin@tsoft.com> wrote:
Mike Lorrey writes
>
> > That was not my conclusion. My conclusion was that the very REAL
> > threats and risks of terrorism (and the damage it does, counting in
> the
> > thousands of lives and many hundreds of billions of dollars) are a
> > better insurance for the ruling parties to retain leadership than
> the
> > Soviet Union ever was. Who wants to risk voting in some unknown
> freaky
> > third party candidate when we have a 'war' to run?
> >
> > So there is a vested interest in maintaining the sort of conditions
> > that give rise to anti-US organizations of militant or non-militant
> > bent,
>
> So you are implying that the Bush administration (and other
> administrations) have an incentive to make progress in the
> war against terrorism---so that they'll be re-elected---
> but not *too* much progress, or else the "ruling leadership"
> won't be able to retain power?
>
> But what if a chance to pass up capturing Osama Bin Laden
> eventuated in a traceable terrorist attack the A-bombing
> of Philadelphia? Unless the "ruling leadership" was absolutely
> certain that their easing up on terrorists was untraceable,
> then they'd be taking a terrible risk.
Taking out Osama, or capturing him, will not end the threat. When I
speak of progress that solves the problem I am talking about helping to
democratize the muslim world, and to civilize it with republican
protections of individual liberties.
>
> > Similarly, many other nations ruling parties have a vested interest
> > in using an anti-US position and anti-US propaganda to maintain
> > their own grips on power.
>
> But I think that this depends on the fundamental constituency
> of the nation in question. Yes, in Germany or France, one
> certainly does not want to appear to be less anti-US than
> the opposition, so there you are right. But what about
> Australia or Poland?
>
> You see, it is sometimes more easily explained conventionally
> by such cynical interpretations.
The polish people are very pro-US for very good reason, so the rulers
there don't need anti-US attitudes. What I am talking about are
countries which are repressive and use an anti-US stance, either in
their government controlled media, in the educational system, or in
their actual pronouncements, to maintain some measure of popular support.
=====
Mike Lorrey
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
- Gen. John Stark
Blog: Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com
Flight sims: http://www.x-plane.org/users/greendragon/
Pro-tech freedom discussion:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/exi-freedom
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Aug 05 2003 - 10:22:45 MDT