('binary' encoding is not supported, stored as-is)
>Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2001 14:24:48 -0700
> email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org Re: George W. Bush's Speech on September 20, 2001Reply-To: email@example.com
>Greg Burch writes:
>> <> Since the end of the Cold War, there has been a distinct lack of
>> morality in the conception of the foreign policy of the United States.
>> After the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the Soviet Union, and
>> with China slowly but surely abandoning its communist ideological position
>> toward its own people and the world, there has not been a basis for a clear
>> moral contrast between the values of liberty, opnness and tolerance upon
>> which the civilization of the West is premised, and the civilizations with
>> which it competes for influence in the world. Last night, an unmistakable
>> line was drawn between things that are good and right and things that are
>> evil. Although it was done in a distinctly American way in a distinctly
>> American voice, the call went out to the world to make a clear-cut choice.
>I wish I could agree, but it seems to me that in many ways the U.S. is
>increasing its commitment to immoral actions in foreign policy.
>The most obvious is the proposal to remove 1970's era restrictions on the
>CIA which prevent them from using criminals as operatives. VP Cheney
>and several others have said that we can no longer afford the luxury
>of working only with people who are honest and peacable. In order to
>infiltrate thugs and murderers, we are going to hire thugs and murderers.
>Those 1970s limitations were put into place after decades of abusive
>behavior by the CIA. US sponsored thugs commited terrible acts which
>continue to hurt the American image overseas. We are opening the door to
>returning to that pattern of behavior. It is very questionable whether
>this will advance the long-term interests of the US.
It takes the co-operation of a Gravano to bring down a Gotti network.
>Another moral issue is our continued support for repressive governments
>in Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia. President Bush singled out those
>three countries in his speech last night, I believe. These are our
>"friends" among the Arabs. But they are among the most authoritarian
>regimes in the region.
Would you prefer their replacements? Egyptian Jihad spawned Rahman, the mastermind of the 1993 WTC bombing, and Harawiri, widely regarded as Bin Ladin's mentor. The Wahabi clerics of Saudi Arabia spawned Bin Ladin. And the only reason that the Palestinians are contending to take over Israel is that Jordan was much more brutal in suppressing such aspirations, killing 20,000 of them in a single city at one time (they'll take any close territory they can get - check out Lebanon and parts of Egypt and Syria). Do we really want Israel replaced by a nation that broadcasts childrens' songs about how sweet the smell is of a burning martyr's body (only to be surpassed by the fragrance emanating from his slain victims), whose schools explicitly program the yourng to become suicide bombers, and whose leader proclaims that those who pump bullets in the brains of israelis are blessed of Allah?
>Likewise we are backing away from criticism of Russia over its actions
Chechnyans trained by Bin Ladin bombed Moscow; we are more sympathetic now that we know how it feels.
> we are supporting the Pakistani strongman who currently
>runs the country,
Musharraf took over when Pakistan's democratically elected previously moderate leader began going fundy fanatic Islam on the country, and the military, who knew what the Bomb could do, felt that they could no longer trust him with it.
>and we are undoubtedly going to mute our criticism of
>Chinese human rights violations as we look for support from the East.
China already lost the battle to preserve totalitarianism when they ordered the tanks into the students; that generation is assuming power soon, and everything there that is already changing will change much faster.
>All of these are countries where the US previously took a strong moral
>stance of disapproval. But in a war we can't afford to antagonize those
>whom we hope to keep as allies.
>In short it looks to me like the pressures of war are forcing us to
>take a number of moral shortcuts. The point of morality, I believe,
>is to provide a set of heuristics that will tend to advance long-term
>interests over short-term expediencies. We seem to be moving in exactly
>the opposite direction as we gear up for the coming fight.
Looking for a book? Want a deal? No problem AddALL!
http://www.addall.com compares book price at 41 online stores.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:40:55 MDT