Re: Fighting Terrorism (was Being Extropic)

From: Mike Lorrey (mlorrey@yahoo.com)
Date: Tue Aug 05 2003 - 10:14:06 MDT

  • Next message: Mike Lorrey: "Re: Vatican Endorses Frankenfood"

    --- 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