From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Sun Feb 16 2003 - 15:01:26 MST
Mike Lorrey writes (I have disturbed the order of his remarks)
> As I've detailed recently, freeing the Iraqi people from Saddam and
> opening Iraqi oil to full exploitation by western industry will cause
> the collapse of the European social welfare infrastructure, because
> doing so means one thing: cheap oil.
> It is understandable that Germans are so hip-deep in their social
> welfare state that the need to keep it financed is the primary domestic
> and foreign policy dog-wagger, such that any policy by any country that
> threatens it is automatically wrong and evil. Even socialists are
> primarily motivated by self-interest, even if it is a collective one.
> Given this, it is understandable that Germans cannot help but look on
> Bush with distain and hate.
Your analysis (which I hope you keep developing and explaining)
of the economic implications to their welfare state is much
appreciated. And it could be that those---the "influential"---
who shape public opinion understand this the threat to their
system. But are you also claiming that the typical German does?
> What surprises me is that so many Germans, and others, seem to think
> that the problem is with Bush and not Saddam. This is a blind spot on
> the part of the Germans. While Arnett might be right about the US, I
> can say the same thing about Germany: Germans do not seem to be
> constitutionally capable of having a rational discussion about the need
> to dispose of Saddam's regime and free the Iraqi people.
>
> Is it because German companies are so complicit in the Iraqi war
> machine? How many German politicians are being paid off by these German
> companies? How many German TV channels are owned by these companies?
We need a thread on how opinions spread and develop within
free countries. Now, if everyone were as much an ideologue
as I am---and consciously or not this may be the case---then
it all comes down to whose side you're on. Deep emotions
unconsciously guide the perception process so that you almost
cannot help but come to the desired ideological conclusions.
But suppose that I'm wrong, and the "influential" determine
most things, as a new book claims. What do you (or does
anyone) suppose is really the truth about this?
> Here in the US, we've had more than a decade of dealing with Saddam's
> lies and deceptions. He is a known quantity, and for Americans, the
> idea that there is any reason for any person with an ounce of
> intelligence to have not made up their mind about doing something about
> him by this point in time is ludicrous.
As I said in an earlier post, I don't understand how you can consider
it to be a question of intelligence. So I presume that the foregoing
is indicative of a bad verbal habit. On the other hand, perhaps you
are quite correct (I don't really know) about Saddam's behavior being
more in the public eye in the U.S. than elsewhere. Frankly, I doubt
it---well-informed people overseas surely understood his shenanigans
as well as well-informed people here.
> Americans know what their self interest is, and that interest is
> to take a principled stand for the liberty of the Iraqi people.
Why would you suppose that Americans were more idealistic and
less prone to be acting self-interestedly than the others?
> I find it rather hilarious that the French see no problem with
> themselves taking unilateral action in the Ivory Coast for their
> own self interest, yet continue to call the Anglospheric coalition
> of the US, Britain, Australia, along with countries like Spain,
> Portugal, Italy, and many eastern European nations a 'unilateral'
> action if we take it outside the UN umbrella.
Yes, that conclusion seems inescapable.
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Feb 16 2003 - 14:57:51 MST