From: Kai M. Becker (kmb@kai-m-becker.de)
Date: Wed Jan 22 2003 - 10:07:15 MST
Dehede011@aol.com schrieb:
> In a message dated 1/22/2003 7:08:32 AM Central Standard Time,
> kmb@kai-m-becker.de writes: ... with a rather small nation of only 280mio.
> people called the USA, compared to the rest of that continent. But that's
> exactly the problem: The US are one among others. Seems hard for them to
> acknowledge that.
>
> Sorry Kai,
> When the US was a 3rd world country nobody much cared that we called
> ourselves America. It was only when we became a 1st world country that you
> discovered we were unworthy.
*g* First world? Maybe by some technology and financial power, but
neither by political standards, nor by credibility of its government. A
president not elected by the majority of the voters, the voting system
faultier than once in east Germany, power-shortages like in Sibiria,
human rights non-existent if you unfortunately become suspect of certain
crimes, big brother around the corner and in the sky, ... I'd rather
say: A threshold country on its way back into the middle ages - only
with TV.
And a country with a regime that thinks it will get away with
everything. What would you for example think if european secret agencies
would openly eavesdrop almost every telephone call in your country,
automatically read almost every e-mail and if a european president had
officially given out the order, to promote any relevant information
gained to european companies?[1]
What would you think, if some of the most important software packages,
say e.g. SAP, would be tampered, so that the german agencies could
always read everything your companies do with that software?[2]
What would you think, if a country as far away as Japan would threaten
the US with war, because the US is not obeying some resolutions of the
UN security council?[3]
What would you think, if the same country would only attack you, with
your resources, but not it's "friend" nation, which it lets get away
with any breach of resolutions, even state terrorism against its
neighbors[4]? What would you think, if this rogue state would start to
lay fire onto your whole region, destroying your social and economical
basis?[5]
Wouldn't you think, that such a country uses double measure? Wouldn't
you say the ethics of that government is -well- not very ethical? Hm?
Can you understand, why half of the world would like such a government
to get a real good kick in the face, so that it has to sit back and
behave in a proper and decent way?
> But then the news is out that 80 of your
> companies are trading with Sadaam so you accuse us to cover yourself.
You obviously didn't read the original article in Tageszeitung.
According to that paper, the list in the UN report contains the names of
companies who delivered to Iraq since the 70s! No wonder that you'll
find almost every company on this list. I have, btw, seen several trials
against german companies here.
I don't know wether any officials here silently support any illegal
activities. AFAIK, there are no current news about this in our political
press. But from my point of view, I don't embrace any proliferation of
weapons, neither from here, nor from any other country. And I don't
embrace deals with "bad guys", neither by my country nor by any other.
> Anyway, it is good to hear from a friend of Sadaam and Osama, thanks
> for writing. At least we now know where your preferences lay -- with the
> totalitarians and oppressors.
That's simply bullshit, made up by yourself. And it shows the same
mechanism of mistake like the above story. I could call it the Extropian
List Strategy for Misleaded Reasoning, because most discussions here
suffer from it. It starts by coming up with some unproven idea, for
which then some simple facts need to be found. The pro facts will never
need any proof. It's enough when they fit the opinion. The contra facts
on the other hand are always forged, wrong and have to be proven better
than "2 H2 + O2 --> 2 H20". In case someone mentions that this view is
too simplistic, he'll get called a leftie, a luddite or both. A simple
strategy from simple minds?
Take this "Iraq discussion" for example. A brilliant example indeed for
total ignorance of the context. Has anyone here thought about what the
consequences will be? What the rest of the arab states will do, what the
people there will do? This Rambo style of Mr. Bush will surely produce
more fanatics, more terrorism, more war, more money burned instead of
used productively, less predictable politics and less freedom for all of us.
A military action by an "outsider", a nation seen as "imperialistic,
evil and greedy" (cf. iraq propaganda), would play thousands of new
potential terrorists into the hands of every militia in that region,
just because they don't know better. Another wave of terrorist attacks
will be the logical consequence. Instead of one dictator, you'll get
dozens of potential bin Laden's. I wouldn't call that a good deal.
Take a look at these numbers:
Iraq | USA
23.3 mio. | 287.6 mio. citizens
222 | 2118 radios / 1000 citizens
83 | 854 TV / 1000 citizens
30.1 | 664.5 telephones / 1000 citizens
no longer av. | 371.4 internet accesses / 1000 citizens
9 | 1489 different daily newspapers with ...
500,000 | 56 mio. ... copies
Plus an illiteracy in Iraq of 34% (men) and 54% (women). These people
know even less about the world than the average american does. But they
can't even get other informations. That's the way believers are made.
And most other countries in that region are not any better. Just make it
clear to yourself, that these people do not live in the same
(information) world as you and I do. A war against Iraq will make every
anti-US fanatic look right.
We have seen this process at work. Shortly after he came to power, Mr.
Bush said, that the middle east were not his concern, the USA would
withdraw all personnel and cancel all diplomatic actions. Unfortunately,
the problems of the middle east followed him home...
Or take for example Afganistan. The Taliban are beaten, but not really
gone. The whole country is now a power vacuum, that could easily become
a shelter for terrorists again. Therefore, the international forces have
to stay there and help to rebuild the country. Happy and well fed people
don't become terrorists so easy, but desperate and mislead people do.
Unfortunately, this process needs a lot of time, money, personnel and
is, on the other hand, not as spectactular as laser controlled bombs or
other ways of killing humans and destroying their belongings. It also
needs careful longterm planning and tiresome talks with the persons on
the other side (instead of simply shooting them...).
Nothing of this has been seen from the USA. Instead, others are now
there, dutch, british - and germans. What do you think will be the
lesson learned by the people of Afganistan (remember their sources of
information and their even greater illiteracy)? They'll say: The
Americans bombed our houses and the Europeans helped us to rebuild them...
Where are the plans for Iraq _after_ Saddam? Where is the alternative?
Where is the coalition with the other countries in that region?
That's exactly what I meant with "one amongst others": Too short-sighted
plans with too few variables and not enough understanding for the context.
Kai
[1] The Echelon network of the US army records almost every long
distance call and most of the internet activity in Europe. The
presidents Bush sen., Clinton and Bush jun. have approved this and
ordered the agencies to support US companies with these informations.
[2] One half of the keys of Lotus Notes and several other software
packages were given to the NSA by the software companies itself. Every
message encoded with these keys can be read by the NSA. See above.
[3] The US itself has broken international treaties (Kyoto, SALT2, ...).
[4] While being overly strict when it come to Iraq, the US have never
forced Israel to obey the UN resolutions. Iraq was attacked because it
claimed Kuwait. The military action was therefore justified. But
protecting Israels occupation of palestinian land is double measure.
[5] A second war against Iraq without a credible reason - which has nit
been given yet - can probably ignite the whole middle east, including
Israel into a years long civil wars, religious uproars, immigration
waves, etc. Since nothing has been done yet to contain these
consequences, I consider the US gvnmt very shortsighted and very dangerous.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Feb 02 2003 - 21:26:02 MST