From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Thu Jan 23 2003 - 19:13:11 MST
Ron writes
> [Christian (naddy@mips...)] writes
> > The raving US American nationalists that have
> > largely hijacked this list since September 11,
> > 2001 (and diverted it from Extropian themes to
> > atavistic talk securely rooted in the frame of
> > mind of the nation states from the first half
> > of the 20th century
I haven't heard anyone "raving" on either side. Yes, some
speak more emotionally than others, but it's all pretty
rational IMO, even the most uncompromising contributors
(e.g. Ron and Kai).
This list was *not* hijacked ;-) There has always been
a healthy IMO variety of political and extropian themes
discussed here. One can pick and choose what one attends
to, which for some of us even depends on mood.
> >--but I digress)
says Ron:
> I don't think you digressed, at least not very much if at all. If
> America is reduced to an impotent mess exactly how do you think this will
> affect the world the Extropians are hoping to build? When Europe is second
> in the list of people to be reduced to impotence where will the Extropian
> world be then?
It seems quite exaggerated to talk of either of these nations
or nation-groups being "reduced to an impotent mass (or "mess")".
What you seem to be talking about is something like as follows:
if the U.S., U.K., and their friends do not depose Saddam Hussein,
then a "green light" will be given all sorts of 3rd world dictators
and brutal tyrants. Some people really do respect only force.
But even so, the U.S. and Europe could sit comparatively comfortably
by, given the worst that the terrorists could do. Do you realize how
hard it would be for the terrorists to put the vast U.S.A. and
Europe through the same treatment they've put Israel through?
And yet to this day, four times as many Israelis are killed in
automobile accidents than by terrorists. The sad truth (for
the Islamic civilization) is that the West is sitting pretty
no matter what happens. (I still agree with you that an invasion
is likely to be the correct move for the West, though.)
> Or could you possibly mean that Sadaam and Osama will now turn into
> lambs and peaceably lie down together to chew their cuds? If so I can't see
> how you could possibly come to that conclusion.
Surely you know that that *exaggerates* their views! Yet it's
true that if they reflected on just how inaction by the West
will be perceived there, it only eggs them on and makes their
attacks worse.
> My interpretation, and this is surely no surprise, of your attitude is
> that you do see a threat to [us] Americans and you are quite willing to
> sacrifice America to your short term safety.
Sacrifice? Surely you jest.
> But [I] and many other Americans will not stand still to
> allow your vision for our future to come to pass.
Well, ;-), yeah, sure, there are always a number of people,
even including Americans, who are so resentful of the U.S.
that they'd be secretly glad if the whole thing sunk under
the waves in some cataclysm. I dunno, though; I didn't get
the impression that Christian or even Kai is that far gone.
> For that you pull out your curse, "Nationalists."
> When I say the time for talking is over I mean only that it is time
> for you to recognize that we not going to be destroyed by the likes of
> Sadaam/Osama without exerting ourselves to the fullest. Nor or we going to
> be endlessly sidetracked into an impotent debate by Europeans that privately
> hate us and wish to see us fall -- like you.
Besides, it would be sheer fantasy for anyone to suppose
that the U.S. is going away. But again, there is just NO
WAY that Saddam or Osama can seriously hurt the U.S. Yes,
9-11 was bad, and traumatic. But don't forget, the population
of the U.S. that day did not decrease! Instead of going up
7,000+ per day, it went up only 3,000 or so. The GNP for
2001 and 2002 have both been well into the black.
In fact, if you didn't read newspapers or watch TV, you'd
never have known that anything happened. Yeah, a lot of
people put flags on their cars, but it could have meant
that they were rooting for a U.S. Olympic team.
World War II was the last time that you would have noticed
anything (slightly) funny here: a lot of women working,
and a lot of men seemingly absent, and severe gasoline
rationing. But even then, we are lucky that unless you
were observant, you'd hardly have noticed.
> You called our position "incredibly distorted." I see yours as
> incredibly cold and self serving.
Exaggerations all around, clearly. Those of us on this list
who favor invasion cannot be said to be "incredibly distorted".
Many of the most judicial commentators, long known for their
restraint and sobriety on this list, consider it a difficult
question.
But how could their point of view be "incredibly self-serving"?
Unless you mean that, internally to their own psychology they
are extremely eager to see American foreign policy reverses.
Maybe. But the fall of Iraq would ultimately benefit them too,
and besides, their countries get no great benefit from the U.S.
not settling scores in the Mid-East.
> You want to see our citizenry killed,
Please find ONE SINGLE POST in the history of this
list that backs up your claim. You're being ridiculous.
> you want to see us threatened by further injury [doubtful]
> and you want to see us stand quietly until we are hurt again.
Yes, you've got that right. That's EXACTLY what the
critics of a current invasion want. Just turn the other
cheek.
Ah, phooey! Iraq will get its just desserts, and the
European critics you refer to can even watch it on TV.
Serves 'em right. ;-)
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Feb 02 2003 - 21:26:02 MST