From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Mon Aug 04 2003 - 17:11:05 MDT
By the way, speaking of terrorism, let's all practice
what we will say the day that the first terrorist nuke
goes off in the U.S., probably in 2005:
Hubert: Man's inhumanity to man reaches unacceptable
heights---but the Americans did ask for it.
Damien: This terrible tragedy compels everyone to
root for the Americans (today).
Mikey: We should have enforced Patriot II, but now
hopefully all the wheedling naysayers and
fainthearts will finally get a clue and we
can start taking *action*.
Samantha: Morals around the world are in an incredibly
sad state and we simply must do better to
raise everyone's understanding, consciousness,
compassion, and acceptance of each other.
Robert: I calculate that with 4x10^4 ten-megaton weapons
2x10^9 people can be killed, and with a prob-
ability of .8, 7.2x10^13 present and future
people's lives will be saved.
Lee: I told you so.
Mike Lorrey writes
> [Emyln wrote]
>
> > That said, I agree that the actions of our domestic governments under
> > the banner of fighting terrorism pose more of a threat than does
> > terrorism itself. Although I'm sure they have must have secret
> > information to which I am not privy, which would change my mind.
> > Otherwise, how could they sleep at night?
>
> That was not my conclusion. My conclusion was that the very REAL
> threats and risks of terrorism (and the damage it does, counting in the
> thousands of lives and many hundreds of billions of dollars) are a
> better insurance for the ruling parties to retain leadership than the
> Soviet Union ever was. Who wants to risk voting in some unknown freaky
> third party candidate when we have a 'war' to run?
>
> So there is a vested interest in maintaining the sort of conditions
> that give rise to anti-US organizations of militant or non-militant
> bent,
So you are implying that the Bush administration (and other
administrations) have an incentive to make progress in the
war against terrorism---so that they'll be re-elected---
but not *too* much progress, or else the "ruling leadership"
won't be able to retain power?
But what if a chance to pass up capturing Osama Bin Laden
eventuated in a traceable terrorist attack the A-bombing
of Philadelphia? Unless the "ruling leadership" was absolutely
certain that their easing up on terrorists was untraceable,
then they'd be taking a terrible risk.
Oh, now I recall. President Clinton *did* pass up a chance
to get Osama, and no one is complaining too much. But what
would happen if a Republican were to miss a chance to corral
a well known terrorist? If it were at all traceable, all
hell would break loose!
> Similarly, many other nations ruling parties have a vested interest in
> using an anti-US position and anti-US propaganda to maintain their own
> grips on power.
But I think that this depends on the fundamental constituency
of the nation in question. Yes, in Germany or France, one
certainly does not want to appear to be less anti-US than
the opposition, so there you are right. But what about
Australia or Poland?
You see, it is sometimes more easily explained conventionally
by such cynical interpretations.
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Aug 04 2003 - 17:19:47 MDT