Anders Sandberg wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 12, 2001 at 01:52:50PM -0400, Dickey, Michael F wrote:
> > The US was not attacked because 'it was a beacon of freedom' as
> > BUsh said so melodramatically, it was attacked because we have been doing
> > things in other peoples countries to piss them off. Stop pissing these
> > other countries off (that is, remove the military presence which is a direct
> > represnetation of the US as a country) and no longer does anyone breed
> > hatred of the US and want to kill every working US citizen. Has Sweden ever
> > been terrorist attacked? The only way to get rid of terrorism is to remove
> > the incentive people have to commit it.
The way to get rid of terrorism against us is to make the
repurcussions of attacking us so very, very undesirable that no
remotely sane group would attempt such a thing and no remotely
sane government would harbor or aid those who attempt such a
thing. The time for appeasing other people and playing politics
and respecting other country's right to hate us and actively
seek our destruction is past. We have seen what it has bought
There is no way a free, individual rights afffirming, secular
government could help but piss off those countries and inviduals
of very different mindset. Our very existence pisses them off.
There is no way to appease such. We can only make clear that
when they attack us we will respond as to an act of war.
If we removed the military presence then Iraq would run much of
the Gulf and the forces that oppose liberty or even relative
liberty would be further squashed in the area.
> There is another reason for such attacks on the US, and that is
> antiamericanism. It might appear absurd to many on this list, but there
> are plenty of people who are deeply suspicious and prejudiced against
> the US worldwide - including highly educated intellectuals. Just think
> about how attacks on McDonald's in Europe has been framed not as attacks
> on a local franchise, but attempts to stop American cultural
> imperialism. Part of this is remaining cold war rhethoric that has
> spread far beyond the left, a bit like sticky tar that sticks to
> whatever is touching it and hence spreads everywhere. Part of it is of
> course envy. Another part is the western sympathy for David versus
> Goliath - the underdog is always the hero, the giant is never the hero:
> since the US is a giant, it can't be good. All these things combine to
> make prejudices against americans acceptable like no other prejudices
> and biases the media - which reinforces the antiamericanism.
> In many ways the fact that the US has become very rich and powerful by
> being a beacon of freedom is the reason so many feel it acceptable to
> attack it. That US foreign policy also gives them ample reason is simply
> the igniting spark that ignites the fuel that is already there.
In short we are largely hate for our good before we are hated
for any actual evil we have, may have or will commit.
> While an isolationist policy might earn the US a few brownie points in
> many eyes, it wouldn't be enough. Especially if you factor in people who
> have long memories and still want a revenge for what happened to their
It stops here. The line has been crossed. It is not time to be
isolationist and it hasn't been time every since relative
isolationism resulted in Hitler nearly becoming unstoppable.
Isolationism in the modern world simply buys us larger and more
organized enemies including enemies of those who were our friend
and allies when their sworn enemies and our pound them into the
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:40:30 MDT