|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
RE: Jim Bronke
Phoenix, AZ
I am a devoted atheist, but still take offense that Bronke
places this argument (sic) under the title "God Bless
America." Even atheists can respect the meaning of that
phrase -- especially at a time such as this.
One does not have reasoned discussions with thugs or
terrorists. Nor does one need a majority opinion to defend
oneself. The U.N. is based on the fallacious concept that
somehow various barbarians can instruct the U.S. in
determining what is correct & in our self-interest.
Morality is not determined by majority rule.
In a prior message Bronke mentioned retribution. That
misses the point entirely. There are two basic issues: one
is justice (which is quite different than retribution, or
punishment). The second issue is even more selfish:
self-defense.
It is frightening -- philosophically, psychologically, &
practically -- that Bronke would be willing to place his
life, & those of his loved-ones, in the hands of U.N.
members, rather than in the U.S.; fortunately most of the
U.S. will not relinquish the right of self-determination.
In a prior message Jim Bronke said:
We have created fertile ground for the hatred of
America by picking allies
and over injecting ourselves in other parts of the
world. For that we pay.
Michael Berger continues:
I contend the U.S. has provided the world with unparalleled
political & economic freedom, and a standard of living far
beyond the world could have conceived. But for the moment
I'll grant Bronke's clearly anti-American position stated
above. I'll also grant for the moment that the entire
world has reason to hate America.
But the span between the internal emotional state of hate,
and externalizing that via terrorist action is massive.
Bronke seems not to see, or make a distinction between the
two. Thoughts are not the same as action. Wishing you have
a million dollars, as your neighbor does, is not the same as
taking his million dollars. And minor action, like some
Iranians burning the American Flag, is not the same as an
attack on the WTC.
I'm not writing the above for Bronke. I'm rather confident
he is not open to any arguments.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Bronke" <jvbronke@xxxxxxxx>
To: "Bob Heisler" <BHEISLER@xxxxxxxxx>;
<bogeybunky@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; "MikeSuesserott"
<MikeSuesserott@xxxxxxxxxxx>; <realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>;
<omega-list@xxxxxxxxxx>; <metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>;
<qcharts@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, September 15, 2001 8:54 PM
Subject: Re: God Bless America
> Well with all due respect, I think you are missing
something. The problem is
> that there hasn't been any diplomatic effort, really. The
US and Israel have
> made up their mind on what to do and they don't care what
anyone has to say.
> Now we have to put up with the brainwashing attempts by
the Prime Minister
> of Israel and other friends of Israel when for quite some
time now they have
> been the problem and refuse to listen. For example, do you
know how many
> other nations supported the US and Israel on six
resolutions involving
> Palestine and the middle east back on December 1,2000?
> Zero, and as much as 145 nations voting against Israel.
This is something
> they keep quiet. They have found a big brother who will
help them bully
> others around and they won't listen to anybody. Go to
Press release GA/9838
> of the United Nations. It is this kind of thing that makes
for fertile
> ground for terrorism. Diplomacy means listening to others,
not giving them
> lip service. The kind of dipolomacy that you are referring
to is just that,
> lip service. The friends of Israel in this country care
more about Israel
> than they do about this country and wake up in the morning
asking what can
> they do for Israel, not what can they do for this country.
The result is
> that it is the US and Israel vs the world on many middle
east issues. That
> is not diplomacy. The folllowing is the URL for that paper
>
http://srch1.un.org/plweb-cgi/fastweb?state_id=1000599246&vi
ew=unsearch&numh
>
itsfound=1&query=ga%2F9838&&docid=2277&docdb=pr2000&dbname=w
eb&sorting=BYREL
> EVANCE&operator=adj&TemplateName=predoc.tmpl&setCookie=1
> If that doesn't work go to www.un.org and search for
GA/9838.
>
> The other issue is our presence in Iraq. There is no
question that the
> leadership over there is incorrigible and that their
country has made no
> substantial changes in their war machine philosophy since
they invaded
> Kuwait, but, does that really justify that we should stay
there monitoring
> everything that they do(slapping their hand occasionally),
and if we do,
> what are the consequences? By virtue of the fact that we
are still over
> there occasionally making bombing runs means that we
already are technically
> at war. This gets lost on americans who end up watching
the latest police
> chase du jour at night instead of there being real
discussion and concern
> about these issues. I believe that we have worn out our
welcome over there
> in the middle east for a number of years. Meaning that we
had the support of
> all the nations when Iraq invaded Kuwait, but, if we took
a poll right now
> we would find that the other nations don't want us there.
So, this becomes a
> sticky issue that people have to really consider if you
really want to do
> what is best. On the surface the middle east nations play
along with us,
> but, underneath some are seething. The only way you can
read in to this is
> by how they vote. We should have a policy that requires us
to have support
> for continued military intervention. This would require
that we have
> approval of the UN or neighboring nations when ever
conflict and military
> intervention extends for more than a year. We ought to
continue to seek this
> approval. If we don't then we are really arrogant, and, we
hurt ourselves in
> the long run.
>
> I just listened to an interview of Henry Kissinger, and
for the first time,
> I felt that he had nothing of real value to say. I'm
starting to see the
> truth in him. He is a blind supporter of our support and
alliance with
> Israel. He and others like him want to brainwash the
American public in to
> believing that this is a war against terrorism. It is a
diplomatic war and
> if we were managing our foreign affairs well Israel would
have to take a
> back seat in ours. That is an option he doesn't want to
consider. It is an
> option Americans ought to consider.
>
> I consider that the involvement of the US with Israel is
analogous to
> picking a favorite in a family feud(like the Hatfields and
McCoys) and
> expecting that the unchosen one will not be pissed and
come after you. Good
> luck.
>
> We pulled one over on the British in 1776 when we started
hiding behind
> trees, now the only revenge that people can get is
terrorism. There is no
> buildings and no military to strike here.
>
>
> Jim Bronke
> Phoenix, AZ
>
>
|