RE: Predictable catastrophes of human stupidity

From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Sun Apr 13 2003 - 12:55:49 MDT

  • Next message: Doug Thayer: "Re: [XTropes] Re: FITNESS: Diet and Exercise"

    Karen writes

    > [Lee wrote]
    > > Karen writes
    > > > I want also to point out that the Shiite
    > > > cleric Khoei who was murdered by Iraqi's,
    > > > and whom the USA backed (according to the
    > > > news), was not a friend to the USA. The
    > > > USA has a history of supporting and
    > > > empowering new leadership (e.g. Qadhdhafi
    > > > of Libya) over their predecessors and having
    > > > these new leaders turn out to be very poor
    > > > choices.

    Here, you evidently mean, in context, that they
    turn out not to be friends of the U.S. The
    decision about Libra's Qadhdhafi had to have
    been made during the cold war; therefore it
    becomes interesting to ponder why he turned
    against his benefactor. This (if I'm correct
    so far) could imply that there exists genuine
    and strong anti-U.S. elements of the population,
    one of whose main motives is to be simply anti-
    U.S. An excellent book I'm reading, "World on
    Fire", describes the unfortunate aspects of
    globalization on most countries around the world,
    and goes into detail about this kind of thing.

    > > > I am afraid that the USA is going to make
    > > > such a mistake again in Iraq. The USA
    > > > support of Khoei is fueling my fears.
    > >
    > > What would be the attributes of a "good"
    > > choice, and why do you think that it's
    > > possible for any choice to create a
    > > situation in Iraq that would meet with
    > > our hopes?
    >
    > ^^^^Attributes of a "good" choice. Hm. Very
    > hard question. Very hard. It is hard for me
    > to imagine.

    Well, then, this certainly weakens your criticism
    of the Rumsfeld choice (I've forgotten his name,
    and don't really know anything about the situation).

    > Let me ask first what you mean by a good choice.
    > For example, what I would consider a good choice
    > for Iraq would most definitely not be what most
    > Iraqi's would consider a good choice for Iraq.

    Probably. One of the points in the aforementioned
    book I'm reading is that democracy and free markets
    don't mix very well outside the already developed
    countries. In most Arab countries, for example,
    the most rigid fundamentalists would win any general
    election, and this, in the long run, (we here all
    think), would not be beneficial to the people of
    the country.

    > I can't think of a leadership/government in Iraq
    > which I believe could bridge all the conflicting
    > religious and cultural attitudes currently
    > troubling the region. Perhaps someone else can
    > think of one; can you? I am not an Iraq hobby-ist,
    > and I am a bit of a pessimist when it comes to the
    > middle east.

    Yes, me too. It may be a horrible choice between
    chaos and a ruthless dictator. If the latter, then
    the most we may be able to ask for is that he rules
    in such a way as to put his country on the best
    possible road towards modernization. In other words,
    we might have to find a Shah-of-Iran clone. The
    people endure his oppression for a generation or
    so, but he yields (perhaps at our behest) gradually
    over time to liberalization. I think that this is
    what happened to Pinochet, who finally lost an
    election.

    > Again, I am not a student especially of Iraq.
    > My area of special interest (in my earlier
    > life) was mostly North Africa, specifically
    > Libya.

    Well, hasn't Libya shown some progress? I admit
    that all I'm thinking of is that Qadhdhafi has
    (internationally) seemed very reasonable lately.
    He's denounced terrorism, and has taken
    responsibility for the downed airliner over
    Scotland, and has recompensated the survivors.

    > Sorry to be so uninformative. What about you?
    > Do you favor any groups there?

    No, it's too complicated, and I haven't even spent
    any time reading about the situation. I'd be
    prejudiced in favor of Bush's or Rumsfeld's choice,
    however, as it seems to me they have shown the
    greatest understanding of the situation there.
    The war has so far gone about the way they thought,
    and right now it does look like the effect on the
    Arab world will be salutary.

    But it's too early to tell for sure, as hardly
    needs to be said. Everyone must guess what policies
    will really lead to long term progress. All I know
    is that the United Nations-type policies are destined
    to fail, because they use only carrots, and they and
    their backers seem incapable of understanding the
    role of sticks.

    Lee



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Apr 13 2003 - 13:03:48 MDT