"If you genuinely believe that the US was targeted because it sees itself as the living embodiment
of the free world, then I would suggest you need to encounter more overseas perspectives. The US is
viewed with suspicion around the world not because the US brand of freedom poses a threat to local
regimes, but because the US refusal to admit of the possibility that any other system could be as
good is widely seen as cultural imperialism."
The US was targetted because, for instance, those who saw themselves as God's unique interpreters
also saw the US as lacking values. The stupidly reasoned that success corrupts values, without
realizing that values create success. That's one piece of it. They don't *get* it.
This cultural imperialism nonsense just doen't make sense. I mean, we've proven that whatever is
going on here is better, and that it needn't destroy culture. The problem is, essentially, that
people still think socialism viable. That's what "cultural imperialism" is all about. It's just
another version of the blame game. And it *will* get us all killed if it's not stopped. All we can
do is play for time, hoping there's same way to correct or cure this "thought virus" before it wipes
us all out.
Buttom line, the issue is totalitarianism. That's been the issue throughout the 20th Century, and
it's still the issue. It's just adopted a slightly different form. It's a virus that mutates.
Gotto go. Have a class.
--
--Scott
[email protected] Cut the "tail" to send email.
"Just zis Guy, you know?" <
[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 2 Feb 2003 18:40:32 -0500, "Freewheeling" <
[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >>"There is a great deal of truth in this, I think. The CIA has had a hand in a great many violent
> >>incidents over the years, and the reason Sept. 11 happened is mainly because of US foreign
> >>policies over a very long time."
>
> >Utter nonsense. Sorry. In the first place 9-11 happened because of the rise of a neo-totalitarian
> >ideology masquerading is religion. it was
*not*
> >a response to any actions by the USA except in the sense that the USA is unalterably opposed to
> >totalitarianism, as it has been throughout the
20th
> >C.
>
> If you genuinely believe that the US was targeted because it sees itself as the living embodiment
> of the free world, then I would suggest you need to encounter more overseas perspectives. The US
> is viewed with suspicion around the world not because the US brand of freedom poses a threat to
> local regimes, but because the US refusal to admit of the possibility that any other system could
> be as good is widely seen as cultural imperialism.
>
> And who trained Al-Quaeda? Who did the Iran-Contra arms deals?
>
> >In the second place, the 9-11 incident could not but reinvigorate the CIA
as
> >well as bring back the "black ops" that had been forbidden after the
Church
> >Commission, as they are now a matter of necessity to protect vast populations.
>
> Yeah, right. The spooks never went away, and anything which can be used to built paranoia is fair
> game. The CIA have made some major screwups which have resulted in thousands of civilian
> casualties - but since the body bags weren't full of American bodies they got away with
> it. Have you no idea how much resentment that causes?
>
> >>"If the US is now going to think twice before weighing in on one side or the other (or indeed
> >>one side *then* the other, as with Iraq and Iran) that can only be a good thing. "
>
> >I think you completely misunderstood our involvement in that dispute. We came in on the side of
> >Iraq in order to reestablish a balance, and did
not
> >maintain that support once the balance was established. The "First Gulf War" ended in a draw. Had
> >either side won decisively it would've been a disaster for the Middle East. Doing this sort of
> >thing is what's
required
> >of a great power. This isn't checkers.
>
> It's not a game at all. You supply Saddam with weapons to kill Iranians, then you sell Iran some
> weapons to kill the Iraquis. Result: you ******** both sides. Why get involved in the first place?
> Why get involved there and not in Georgia or Chechnya? Surely nothing to do with the fact that the
> middle east region has oil, of course.
>
> >>"The French and Germans are well acquainted with homeland terrorism - Bader-Meinhof and the
> >>Algerians have kept them up to speed over the years - and the US was unusual I think in having
> >>had (as I understand
> >>it) no significant externally organised terrorism before Sept. 11."
>
> >9-11 was less an act of terrorism than an act of war.
>
> But not perpetrated by a national government, so all that anger has to be directed against someone
> who isn't constantly on the move. Afghanistan (where the US had trained Al-Quaeda and Dubya had an
> oil pipeline deal in his back pocket) and Iraq (where his daddy's nose had been tweaked with
> weapons his own advisers had sold to Saddam) conveniently present themselves.
>
> >Which places the French and Germans in the position of believing they can duck out the back door
> >and let someone else take care of things for them.
>
> No, the French and German position is more that they don't feel obliged to be grateful for the US
> telling them to come and help sort out a mess which the US in large part created.
>
> For my part every time I look at the history of the UK and its relations with that part of the
> world, it's been one f**k-up after another. We should learn our lesson and leave well alone.
>
> >>"Still and all, if Bush were up-front about acknowledging his own personal reasons for going to
> >>Iraq I woudl be more likely to trust him. And having read Stupid White Men probably doesn't
> >>boost him in my estimation either "
>
> >I'm afraid I literally despise Michael Moore.
>
> The hallmark of effective satire.
>
> >That cartoonish mischaraterization of American History in his recent movie is about as blatant an
> >attempt to pander to the left by propagating a lie as I've
ever
> >seen.
>
> It is sideplsittingly funny, and nobody is pretending it's accurate history, least of all Moore.
>
> >I have a great deal more to say about Moore, but will spare you unless you want to email me
> >about it.
>
> No thanks.
>
> >I'd just say this, however. What "personal reasons?"
>
> Have you really not noticed? Remember Poppy's nose being put out of joint by Saddam, using those
> weapons Rummy negotiated for him? No, come on, however much you hate the liberal peace agenda you
> have to admit that it's all awfully convenient. Even the Washington Post has caught on!
>
> >One does not make war, and risk the lives of thousands, for "personal reasons" unless
you're
> >some sort of monster.
>
> It depends whose bodies are in the bag. Remember Noriega? 3,000 dead civilians in that action.
>
> >You'd only need to see the reluctance and regret on the face of Bush Sr. about his decision to
> >comit troops to the Gulf to
know
> >that *he* didn't do it "for personal reasons."
>
> Whereas Junior seems to be having a ball.
>
> >And if he didn't, there's no reason to believe Bush, Jr. did either. If, as the Chief Executive
> >and Commander in Chief, he takes such actions for "personal reasons" he ought
to
> >be impeached.
>
> Quite possibly.
>
> >Michael Moore is an idiot, and a liar.
>
> Ah, the unmistakable sound of reasoned argument.
>
> You have to understand, I don't disrespect your position, I just don't buy it. I think I will
> leave it there.
>
> Guy
> ===
> ** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony.
http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
> dynamic DNS permitting)
> NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
> work. Apologies.
