|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
But Saddam is still in power, still idolized by many in the Middle
East, still supporting terrorism, still making money on oil, still
maintaining an army, still taunting us. No, we won a battle but lost
the war. And now, seemingly unable to learn from our own or others
history, we are on the eve of a potential war that will result in
further death. Masked and promoted as a patriotic war on terrorism,
this war is really just an excuse for more blood and revenge by the
hawkish Christen right. Our God will beat your God, sigh...
CNN is running a piece showing that the beginnings of a strong peace
movement is forming at a number of the nations university's. I
watched and listened to voices of reason from students who are young
but able to think clearly, students saying that they didn't want to
go to war, that waging a military war was not the path to a
solution. Dissent is increasing in the USA and the "Bush without
thinking" coalition is already beginning to fracture. Of 8 related
letters to the editor in the SF Chronicle today, 5 are against
present US actions, while 3 ask for support of Bush's initiives at
all costs.
Parents of Flight 93 victim call for peace
They fear U.S. will retaliate in kind
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?
file=/chronicle/archive/2001/09/22/MN123903.DTL
---
JW
--- In realtraders@xxxx, "Norman Winski" <nwinski@xxxx> wrote:
> RS,
>
> The historical facts on the Gulf War are that we kicked Saddam's
butt via we lost about 50 people and he lost 100,000. Bush Sr., due
to the alliance (read European state craft advice) and to maintain
some ba;amce of power in the region, made the flawed decision not to
behead the Iraqi menace. Those are the facts. Ok, now you can go
back to watching, what was it? KCN? Kabul Cable News?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Norman
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Rakesh Sahgal
> To: realtraders@xxxx
> Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2001 11:16 AM
> Subject: Re: [RT] [Fwd: article]
>
>
> Try watching the BBC. They have been presenting a much more
objective assessment of U.S. capabilities. That should be sobering
for all those gung ho cowboys on CNN who think it is going to be a
cake walk.
>
> Once this issue snowballs into a Christianity vs Muslim thing,
which it surely will given the irresponsible nonsense being bandied
about, not only in the U.S.( by all and sundry excepting the senior
levels of the U.S. administration) but in the muslim world as well,
then the disruptions in the global energy supplies and the
consequences are going to be unimaginable. The only saving grace here
is the presence of the Euorpeans who have more experience in
statecraft and have been much more restrained in their utterances and
reactions.
>
> Already Pakistan is witnessing riots on the issue of support to
the U.S. . While it is the fringe element that is creating problems
right now, the refusal of the West to provide conclusive evidence is
only making a hero of bin laden and making the vast majority wonder
what do the western nations want to hide. The efforts to impose the
puppet king Zahir Shah (deposed in a popular uprising decades ago) on
Afghanistan by the U.S., racist attacks on South Asians and Arabs in
North America and U.K. , offloading South Asian passengers from
flights in the U.S. , insulting South Asian women , albeit by a few
extreme right wing imbeciles, prohibiting mercantile vessels from
most muslim origin ports entering the U.S. ports, are all playing
into the hands of the people who orchestrated this damn nonsense.
>
> This response of "we are going to change the way they live" is
nonsense. If the energy supplies dry up due to popular disaffection
in the middle east, what will the west do, recolonize the gulf?
>
> All those in the United States who think they are going to do a
Grenada here(the only notable victory the U.S has had in an
engagement on the ground after world War 2 or maybe Panama - please
do correct me if I am wrong ) are going to get a rude jolt. The only
problem is it might be too bloody late for the rest of us that live
in the region.
>
>
> Rakesh
>
>
> At 08:11 AM 9/22/01 -0400, you wrote:
>
> Sending this to the list as it is certainly worth reading.
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> realtraders-unsubscribe@xxxx
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
> Return-Path: <royfeld3@xxxx>
> Received: from hotmail.com ([64.4.17.239]) by almond.epix.net
with ESMTP
> id <20010922032221.XPAV23831.almond@xxxx>
> for <ariel@xxxx>; Fri, 21 Sep 2001 23:22:21 -0400
> Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with
Microsoft SMTPSVC;
> Fri, 21 Sep 2001 20:22:21 -0700
> Received: from 63.28.34.73 by lw11fd.law11.hotmail.msn.com with
HTTP;
> Sat, 22 Sep 2001 03:22:20 GMT
> X-Originating-IP: [63.28.34.73]
> From: "Roy Feld" <royfeld3@xxxx>
> To: ariel@xxxx
> Subject: article
> Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2001 23:22:20 -0400
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
> Message-ID: <F239LzEDYZqB2xyPaZI000029b4@xxxx>
> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 22 Sep 2001 03:22:21.0074 (UTC) FILETIME=
[CA509F20:01C14315]
> X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
>
>
> Truth or Consequences
> By William Saletan
>
> Wednesday, Sept. 19, 2001, at 4:00 p.m. PT
>
> Why do they hate us?
>
> That's the question many people are asking about the
terrorists who struck
> the Pentagon and the World Trade Center last week. At first,
the question
> was raised simply to make sense of the tragedy. Then it was
posed for
> investigative reasons, to understand who was involved in the
crime and what
> they might do next. Now the purpose of the question is
changing again.
> Commentators are wondering how we made the terrorists angry
enough to hurt
> us and how we might change our behavior to avoid further
attacks.
>
> These writers don't exactly fault the United States. They
simply argue that
> the attacks were a consequence of American behavior. "The
suicide attacks in
> Israel-and now in the United States-are reactions to specific
actions and
> policies," writes The Nation's David Corn. In The New Yorker,
Susan Sontag
> says the terrorist strikes were "undertaken as a consequence
of specific
> American alliances and actions." Salon Executive Editor Gary
Kamiya
> concludes that "our only real defense will be winning the
hearts and minds
> of those who hate us. . We must pressure Israel to take the
concrete steps
> necessary to provide justice for the Palestinian people."
>
> The practical point made by these consequentialists is that
we can't stop
> terrorism without addressing its causes. A diagnostic
approach, they argue,
> is wiser than simply lashing out in anger. They're right
about that. But
> their wisdom falls short of the next insight:
Consequentialism is a two-way
> street. It's true that terrorists can impose consequences on
us. But it's
> just as true that we can impose consequences on terrorists.
>
> Superficially, it's empowering to analyze every situation in
terms of the
> consequences of our own acts. Understanding how we can change
the enemy's
> behavior by changing our own appears to put control in our
hands. It also
> gratifies our egos by preserving our sense of free will while
interpreting
> the enemy's conduct as causally determined. We're the
subjects; they're the
> objects. But the empowerment and the ego gratification are
illusory. By
> accepting as a mechanical fact the enemy's aggressive
response to our
> offending behavior, we surrender control of the most
important part of the
> sequence.
>
> Imagine yourself as a rat in a behavioral experiment. You're
put in a cage
> with three levers. When you press the first lever, you get
food. When you
> press the second, you get water. When you press the third,
you get an
> electric shock. You quickly learn to press the first two
levers and not the
> third. You think you're in control because you're choosing
the levers that
> get you what you want. But the real power belongs to the
scientists who
> built the cage and run the experiment, because they determine
which acts
> produce which consequences.
>
> Now imagine yourself as a battered wife. Every so often, your
husband gets
> angry and hits you. Why? You struggle to understand the
connection between
> your behavior and his response. What are you doing that
causes him to react
> this way? You hope that by identifying and avoiding the
offending behavior,
> you can regain domestic peace and a sense of control. You're
deluding
> yourself. As long as your husband decides which of your acts
will earn you a
> beating, he's the master, and you're the slave.
>
> This is the problem with the consequentialist argument for
revising U.S.
> policy in the Middle East. Maybe it's true, for other
reasons, that we
> should rethink our position in the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict, withdraw
> our troops from Saudi Arabia, or ease sanctions on Iraq. But
if we do these
> things to avoid further attacks on our cities, we're granting
terrorists the
> power to dictate our acts by dictating the consequences.
>
> The consequentialists present themselves as humanitarians and
idealists.
> They purport to speak up for the plights, principles, and
aspirations of
> people who are driven to commit acts of terror. But their
mechanistic
> analysis dehumanizes these people. Terrorists aren't animals.
No law of
> nature compels them to blow up buildings when they're angry.
We don't have
> to accept their violent reactions to our policies. We can
break that causal
> chain.
>
> How? By turning consequentialism on its head. We can dictate
what happens to
> people who attack us. Suicidal terrorists may be impervious
to this logic,
> but their commanders and sponsors aren't. Launder money for a
man who
> destroys the World Trade Center, and your assets will be
confiscated.
> Shelter an organization that crashes a plane into the
Pentagon, and your
> government buildings will be leveled. Expel terrorists from
your country,
> freeze their bank accounts, and you'll be liberated from
sanctions and debt.
>
> Will this approach succeed? We don't know how each would-be
terrorist or
> sponsor will respond. It's an open question. But that's the
point. As long
> as we view it the other way around-ourselves as the actors,
and our enemies
> as the imposers of consequences-the question is closed. Our
enemies'
> reactions, and therefore our options, are rigidly defined. We
can have
> troops in Saudi Arabia, or we can have peace at home, but we
can't have
> both.
>
> Challenging the false objectivity of these dilemmas doesn't
require us to
> ignore the potential consequences of our acts. Some of our
Middle East
> policies do anger many Arabs or Muslims. We ought to worry
when others don't
> like our behavior. But just as surely, they ought to worry
when we don't
> like theirs.
>
> Two years ago, when President Clinton waged war against
ethnic cleansing in
> Kosovo, consequentialists on the American right blamed him
for the
> bloodshed. His aggression, they argued, had provoked the
Serbs to violence.
> Now that President Bush is girding for war, consequentialism
has broken out
> on the left. To his credit, Bush is defying it with equal
vigor. The
> terrorists who struck the Pentagon and the World Trade
Center "are clearly
> determined to try to force the United States of America and
our values to
> withdraw from the world," Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld
observed
> yesterday. "We have a choice: either to change the way we
live, which is
> unacceptable; or to change the way that they live. And we
chose the latter."
> Amen.
>
>
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at
http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
>
>
>
>
>
> Rakesh Sahgal
> Online Status:
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> ADVERTISEMENT
>
> Start here...
>
> Height:
> 345678 ft 01234567891011in
>
> Weight:
> lbs. kg.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> realtraders-unsubscribe@xxxx
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Get your FREE credit report with a FREE CreditCheck
Monitoring Service trial
http://us.click.yahoo.com/MDsVHB/bQ8CAA/ySSFAA/zMEolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
realtraders-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|