Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup metatuning If you were president, what would you do?

"John Starrett" wrote:
> There have been some fine and true sentiments expressed here about
> the cause of the current problems, and the dismay at how we are
> approaching the situation, but as far as I have seen, no concrete
> proposals as to how we can handle the problem. So I ask,
>
> If you were the president of the US, how would you deal with the
> situation?
>
> John Starrett

Unfortunately this seems to be the loudest question being asked:
what's the solution to the problem? But there just AREN'T any quick-
fix solutions, and this is precisely why we should consider deeply
the causes. By my reckoning, our first step is to recognize that
our "first level of self-defense" (as Johnny Reinhard puts it) is
precisely that: OUR FIRST LEVEL OF SELF-DEFENCE - it's not the
solution, and it certainly won't make terrorism go away (we would be
extremely simple-minded if we thought it would). Yes, the terrorist
acts were unthinkably horrific, but we too - as members of the first
world - need to recognize our own part in this problem instead of
just crying 'victim'. Only then will we be able to enter into a form
of global exchange that is not dependent upon the very violence that
was the cause of this war in the first place.

Alex Carpenter

http://www.transparentmeans.com

🔗John A. deLaubenfels <jdl@...>

[John Starrett wrote:]
>There have been some fine and true sentiments expressed here about
>the cause of the current problems, and the dismay at how we are
>approaching the situation, but as far as I have seen, no concrete
>proposals as to how we can handle the problem. So I ask,

>If you were the president of the US, how would you deal with the
>situation?

A fair question. I would consider the answer in two parts, tactical
and strategic:

. The criminals at hand must be pursued if their identities are
known. I would, however, release a bit more evidence than Bush
has. I would stop bombing Afghanistan till the refugee situation
is under control.

. I would get the U.S. out of Saudi Arabia and would end our one-
sided support of Israel. The time has long passed when Israel was
on the brink of extinction, and their aggressive policies (not to
mention outright theft of precious water from surrounding land)
have led to their current mess, which has now also become _our_
mess.

The U.S. is paranoid about oil, yet we forbid Iraq from selling much of
it openly on the world market (they smuggle it out, of course). The
idea that we need gunboats around all the oil-producing countries
strikes me as silly: they are _not_ going to stop selling it to us!

Another important strategic move: never, never again support a brutal
government in its suppression of its citizens. Close the School of the
Americas (whatever its present name).

And of course, I'd end the ridiculous drug war, which is based upon
stupidity and fantasy, or more accurately, on lies told by politicians
like Bush, who profit directly or indirectly from the war.

George Washington had it exactly right when he advised this nation to
avoid foreign entanglements. We should trade peacefully with the world,
and stop sticking our fat noses into other people's business.

JdL

🔗John Starrett <jstarret@...>

--- In metatuning@y..., "Alex Carpenter" <acarp@a...> wrote:
> "John Starrett" wrote:
> > There have been some fine and true sentiments expressed here about
> > the cause of the current problems, and the dismay at how we are
> > approaching the situation, but as far as I have seen, no concrete
> > proposals as to how we can handle the problem. So I ask,
> >
> > If you were the president of the US, how would you deal with the
> > situation?
> >
> > John Starrett
>
> Unfortunately this seems to be the loudest question being asked:
> what's the solution to the problem? But there just AREN'T any quick-
> fix solutions, and this is precisely why we should consider deeply
> the causes.
<snip>
> http://www.transparentmeans.com

Of course we should consider the causes. I am not asking a simple
question here, like "what military action would you take", rather, I
am interested in what you and others see as a practical approach to
dealing with this problem. It is fine to disagree with the way is is
being handled, but we need practical workable solutions appropriate to
this very dangerous situation. Let me offer a couple of suggestions.

If I were president, I would continue the nuke buydown program begun
11 years ago and now all but abandoned by the Bush administration. We
need to keep the old Soviet nuclear bombs and material from falling
into the hands of terrorists.

If I were president, I would force the overturn of the rules that
prohibit fingerprinting and FBI background checks for airline
mechanics and airport personnel.

Etc.

John Starrett

🔗John Starrett <jstarret@...>

--- In metatuning@y..., "John A. deLaubenfels" <jdl@a...> wrote:
> [John Starrett wrote:]
> >There have been some fine and true sentiments expressed here about
> >the cause of the current problems, and the dismay at how we are
> >approaching the situation, but as far as I have seen, no concrete
> >proposals as to how we can handle the problem. So I ask,
>
> >If you were the president of the US, how would you deal with the
> >situation?
>
> A fair question. I would consider the answer in two parts, tactical
> and strategic:
>
> . The criminals at hand must be pursued if their identities are
> known. I would, however, release a bit more evidence than Bush
> has. I would stop bombing Afghanistan till the refugee
situation
> is under control.
>
> . I would get the U.S. out of Saudi Arabia and would end our one-
> sided support of Israel. The time has long passed when Israel
was
> on the brink of extinction, and their aggressive policies (not
to
> mention outright theft of precious water from surrounding land)
> have led to their current mess, which has now also become _our_
> mess.
>
> The U.S. is paranoid about oil, yet we forbid Iraq from selling much
of
> it openly on the world market (they smuggle it out, of course). The
> idea that we need gunboats around all the oil-producing countries
> strikes me as silly: they are _not_ going to stop selling it to us!
>
> Another important strategic move: never, never again support a
brutal
> government in its suppression of its citizens. Close the School of
the
> Americas (whatever its present name).
>
> And of course, I'd end the ridiculous drug war, which is based upon
> stupidity and fantasy, or more accurately, on lies told by
politicians
> like Bush, who profit directly or indirectly from the war.
>
> George Washington had it exactly right when he advised this nation
to
> avoid foreign entanglements. We should trade peacefully with the
world,
> and stop sticking our fat noses into other people's business.
>
> JdL

Thanks, John. Excellent points and good policy.

🔗Afmmjr@...

In a message dated 11/13/01 9:40:11 AM Eastern Standard Time,
jstarret@... writes:

> > . I would get the U.S. out of Saudi Arabia and would end our one-
> > sided support of Israel. The time has long passed when Israel
> was
> > on the brink of extinction, and their aggressive policies (not
> to
> > mention outright theft of precious water from surrounding land)
> > have led to their current mess, which has now also become _our_
> > mess.
> >
>

If we are "chased" out of Saudi Arabia we will look worse (IMO) and we will
continued to be mocked and be further taken advantage upon. I'm sure many
Americans want to get the hell out of that desert and the government must be
awaiting a better timing...perhaps after Afghanistan falls from Taliban hands
(which may be sooner that list members think).

As for Israel, I had not heard, John, about Israel stealing water from
outlying districts of Palestine. I know that the Karakapaltak people who live
on the western third of Uzbekistan have had THEIR water taken from them by
the Uzbeks. The Aral Sea has been essentially drained due to irrigation by
non-Karakapaltaks (the "black headed" Turks). To my knowledge, Israel has
turned desert into paradise, digging through malaria-ridden swamps that Arabs
had thought hopeless for development.

As for Israel's aggressive posture, they have long held that if they lose a
battle, they lose a war. If one had SHARED the experiences of the Jews of
Israel, one might feel quite differently. I guess the suicide bombers of the
Intifada are considered "okay" to some in a rationalization of Palestinian
rights. But to others, it remains terrorism of the worst kind. It is not a
basis for negotiation, which is the Israeli experience. Of course, we could
run from there with possibly worse results in the world. Regardless, Bin
Laden said nothing about Palestine when he was getting U.S. money to gain
arms to fight against the Russian infidels. It's only when the Saudi's
preferred the U.S. to al-Queda in fighting Iraq that Bin Laden's milk curdled.

Johnny Reinhard

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

🔗Alex Carpenter <acarp@...>

John S. wrote:

> Of course we should consider the causes. I am not asking a simple
> question here, like "what military action would you take", rather,
> I am interested in what you and others see as a practical approach
> to dealing with this problem. It is fine to disagree with the way
> is is being handled, but we need practical workable solutions
> appropriate to this very dangerous situation.

Maybe I have not been giving you the benefit of the doubt ever
since you wrote: "for me it is a prophyllactic measure to destroy
him", thereby equating Osama bin Laden to a disease!

I know your question is not simple, which is why I resist offering a
simple solution. I guess I just feel the issue runs deeper than your
question. For me the question is one of morality not power, and the
president is not the arbiter of morality. In the last part of my
previous post, which you seem to have overlooked, I addressed your
question as best as I could:

By my reckoning, our first step is to recognize that our "first level
of self-defense" is precisely that: OUR FIRST LEVEL OF SELF-DEFENCE
(i.e. it's not the solution, and it certainly won't make terrorism go
away). We - as members of the first world - need to recognize our own
part in this problem instead of just crying 'victim' - then we may be
able to enter into a form of global exchange that is not dependent
upon violence.

Thanks,

Alex

🔗John A. deLaubenfels <jdl@...>

[Johnny wrote:]
>If we are "chased" out of Saudi Arabia we will look worse (IMO) and we
>will continued to be mocked and be further taken advantage upon. I'm
>sure many Americans want to get the hell out of that desert and the
>government must be awaiting a better timing...perhaps after Afghanistan
>falls from Taliban hands (which may be sooner that list members think).

You are a guest in a large house. The manager has assured you that you
are welcome. You awake one day and realize that you are _not_ welcome
to the vast majority of the people who live in the house. Do you:

. Leave as soon as reasonably possible?

. Worry about the way your leaving might _appear_ to some others,
for whom you feel appearances are, for some reason, very important?

Me, I'd get the heck out. That doesn't mean you can't go after the guy
who shot your sister (to carry the analogy). He's still guilty, whether
or not you're a guest in his cousin's house, and he's still got to stand
trial.

Afghanistan falling from Taliban hands may or may not be an improvement.
I'm sure you are aware of the lousy past histories of the factions in
the Northern Alliance. The U.S. didn't even want them to take Kabul,
but they did. Now what?

[Johnny:]
>As for Israel, I had not heard, John, about Israel stealing water from
>outlying districts of Palestine.

It's something I saw years ago on "60 Minutes". Back when I had been
shocked by early activists for the Palestinians, and needed some serious
educating.

>I know that the Karakapaltak people who live on the western third of
>Uzbekistan have had THEIR water taken from them by the Uzbeks. The
>Aral Sea has been essentially drained due to irrigation by
>non-Karakapaltaks (the "black headed" Turks). To my knowledge, Israel
>has turned desert into paradise, digging through malaria-ridden swamps
>that Arabs had thought hopeless for development.

Perhaps the water-stealing issue is ancient history by now. And I
certainly won't claim that the Israelies have not done good things to
some of the land under their control.

[Johnny:]
>As for Israel's aggressive posture, they have long held that if they
>lose a battle, they lose a war. If one had SHARED the experiences of
>the Jews of Israel, one might feel quite differently. I guess the
>suicide bombers of the Intifada are considered "okay" to some in a
>rationalization of Palestinian rights. But to others, it remains
>terrorism of the worst kind. It is not a basis for negotiation, which
>is the Israeli experience.

Where is "okay" coming from? Please tell me if I'm wrong, but I feel
that you're saying, "either you support everything Israel is doing, or
else you're saying that suicide bombers are 'okay'". It seems self-
evident to me that the possibilities are not this limited.

Israel's settlement building policies have been a major scandal in and
of themselves. What kind of long-term seeds did they think they were
sowing with such behavior? This is _not_ how anyone makes peace with
his neighbors.

All of us know of the suffering and death that Jews suffered during WWII
at the hands of the Nazis. The U.S., too, was very unsympathetic to
Jews who were trying to escape Germany before the war was over. But
this can _not_ excuse the aggressive and brutal actions that the
Israelies have undertaken in the last 50 years.

[Johnny:]
>Of course, we could run from there with possibly worse results in the
>world. Regardless, Bin Laden said nothing about Palestine when he was
>getting U.S. money to gain arms to fight against the Russian infidels.
>It's only when the Saudi's preferred the U.S. to al-Queda in fighting
>Iraq that Bin Laden's milk curdled.

So, we can't leave, because it might be perceived as "running"? The
U.S. doesn't need to prove anything, in my eyes, other than perhaps to
demonstrate some actual wisdom to substitute for our mindless behavior
in the past.

And bin Laden: what's to be proved by saying he changed his tune when
the U.S. stopped giving him arms? I am concerned, not with him (he's
destined to die or stand trial for his apparent crimes in any case),
but with the millions or billions of Muslims who have not yet declared
war on us, but _do_ feel they have grievances against us.

JdL

🔗monz <joemonz@...>

> From: John A. deLaubenfels <jdl@...>
> To: <metatuning@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2001 3:12 AM
> Subject: [metatuning] Re: If you were president, what would you do?
>
>
> And of course, I'd end the ridiculous drug war, which is based upon
> stupidity and fantasy, or more accurately, on lies told by politicians
> like Bush, who profit directly or indirectly from the war.

Ah... here's the opportunity to express my cynical viewpoint
that this conflict in Afghanistan is a *necessary* war in
the eyes of President Dubya and his administration.

America's economy began a long slow ride down the drain
about 9 months ago, and there's nothing like a long and
well-supported war to stop that!

Most recent evidence: the $200 billion (yes, that's *B*illion
and not million!!) contract that just went to Lockheed-Martin
to build fancy new fighter jets.

Isn't that more than enough money to run the majority of the
world's countries for a year? Or several? How about all the
food it could buy to feed the starving all over the planet?
But hell... using it to build bombs will keep more people
in a job!

love / peace / harmony ...

-monz
http://www.monz.org
"All roads lead to n^0"

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @... address at http://mail.yahoo.com

🔗John A. deLaubenfels <jdl@...>

[I wrote:]
>>You are a guest in a large house. The manager has assured you that
>>you are welcome. You awake one day and realize that you are _not_
>>welcome to the vast majority of the people who live in the house. Do
>>you:

[Johnny:]
>Governments are not large houses.

No, nations are large houses in this analogy.

[Johnny:]
>And no, I don't run away when a vast majority of people are not
>welcoming. I had that feeling when I was in Erfurt, just after the
>wall fell down. People would not look me in the eye. Swastikas were
>everywhere painted on walls. A door was held against me so that I
>could not enter the building where my room was located. Jews have
>always had these reactions.

Well, Johnny, I'm sorry you had those experiences. But I'm talking here
about a country (the U.S.) not being welcome in a nation (Saudi Arabia).

>Jews stayed in Islamic countries until it was no longer safe for them.
>Hence, Israel.

You haven't heard me call for the dissolution of Israel. Only for
Israel to obey the basic laws that any member of the international
community is expected to obey.

[JdL:]
>>Afghanistan falling from Taliban hands may or may not be an
>>improvement. I'm sure you are aware of the lousy past histories of
>>the factions in the Northern Alliance. The U.S. didn't even want them
>>to take Kabul, but they did. Now what?

[Johnny:]
>Don't live in the past. People were not "living" under the Taliban.
>That is not life. Would you have been a Tory that fled to Canada?

LOL! Are you not aware that many people didn't "live" under the members
of the Northern Alliance, when _they_ held power? They were, and
apparently are, murderous thugs. Are you going to tell me that you have
no concern about turning the country over to them, with the U.S.'s help
and blessing?

And, BTW, my ancestors were here, and they fought the British, and I
take their sacrifices seriously. Do you?

[Johnny:]
>>>As for Israel's aggressive posture, they have long held that if they
>>>lose a battle, they lose a war. If one had SHARED the experiences of
>>>the Jews of Israel, one might feel quite differently. I guess the
>>>suicide bombers of the Intifada are considered "okay" to some in a
>>>rationalization of Palestinian rights. But to others, it remains
>>>terrorism of the worst kind. It is not a basis for negotiation,
>>>which is the Israeli experience.

[JdL:]
>>Where is "okay" coming from? Please tell me if I'm wrong, but I feel
>>that you're saying, "either you support everything Israel is doing, or
>>else you're saying that suicide bombers are 'okay'". It seems self-
>>evident to me that the possibilities are not this limited.

[Johnny:]
>No, there is no binary thinking on my part. All people on this planet
>are guilty of horrors, collectively. All do bad and good. Murdering
>through suicide is perhaps more of a virus than we have admitted. That
>is the danger that could spread which is so fear provoking. Now, I
>wouldn't like to an autopsy, but there are people who can. Thankfully,
>these people are in place.

I'm drawing a complete blank on this paragraph.

[JdL:]
>>Israel's settlement building policies have been a major scandal in and
>>of themselves. What kind of long-term seeds did they think they were
>>sowing with such behavior? This is _not_ how anyone makes peace with
>>his neighbors.

[Johnny:]
>Israel was attacked by ALL of the Arabic world as soon as it was
>mandated by the British. Great neighbors, huh? The Ramadan war (which
>would have been more accurately called the Yom Kippur war since it
>usually goes with the winner) was a kick in the collective crotch of
>Israel. Suicide bombers take off, with apparent PLO monies (see
>DebkaFile), to destroy Israeli children, and there is little to no
>mention of it in the Left press. Sorry, but to use your words, "this
>is not how anyone makes peace with his neighbors."

Do you expect me to excuse the atrocities of the enemies of Israel?
Is it always one extreme or the other with you? From such a
perspective, the world can never arrive at peace.

[JdL:]
>>All of us know of the suffering and death that Jews suffered during
>>WWII at the hands of the Nazis. The U.S., too, was very unsympathetic
>>to Jews who were trying to escape Germany before the war was over.
>>But this can _not_ excuse the aggressive and brutal actions that the
>>Israelies have undertaken in the last 50 years.

[Johnny:]
>Read this paragraph following my points preceding it and it seems that
>you are not that familiar, still, with what is going on.

Nonsense. I see what's going on. I see people trying to make excuses
for the inexcusable by invoking obfuscating guilt-trips. That won't
fly. That won't bring the world to peace.

[JdL:]
>>And bin Laden: what's to be proved by saying he changed his tune when
>>the U.S. stopped giving him arms? I am concerned, not with him (he's
>>destined to die or stand trial for his apparent crimes in any case),
>>but with the millions or billions of Muslims who have not yet declared
>>war on us, but _do_ feel they have grievances against us.

[Johnny:]
>Yes, you are afraid. That is fully understandable. Luckily for you,
>there are people who will defend you, and I believe they will succeed.

If that's as sanctimonious as it sounds, please _spare_ me. Believe me,
I am not as afraid of Muslims as I am of my own countrymen, the ones who
refuse to take their blinders off. Defend me? In the end, each one of
us is responsible for his own defense, and of course, each one of us
must die at some time or other. I do not live so much in fear of
anything or anyone as in horror of massive self-induced stupidity,
which, unfortunately, reaches ascendency in times of war.

>I trust that the billions of Moslems will come to realize that we all
>have to live together on this globe.

Yes. It'll help if we're not out there blasting innocents by the
thousands into little bits, or starving them to death, don't you agree?

>The infidels have inalienable rights.

JdL

🔗Afmmjr@...

John wrote:

> [Johnny:]
> >Governments are not large houses.
>
> No, nations are large houses in this analogy.
>

I do not accept this premise. There are over 14 distinct groups within Saudi
Arabia, different than the Saud family. Are you aware of each of their
specific wishes? Regardless, there are different rules for governments and
owners of large houses.

> Johnny:
> >Jews stayed in Islamic countries until it was no longer safe for them.
> >Hence, Israel.
>
> You haven't heard me call for the dissolution of Israel. Only for
> Israel to obey the basic laws that any member of the international
> community is expected to obey.
>

I'm glad to hear this, and I agree.

> [JdL:]
> >>Afghanistan falling from Taliban hands may or may not be an
> >>improvement. I'm sure you are aware of the lousy past histories of
> >>the factions in the Northern Alliance. The U.S. didn't even want them
> >>to take Kabul, but they did. Now what?
>
I'm sorry for all the cynicism on this list...and in this world. I believe
that the whole world is watching and we--the collective "we"--will see to it
that Afghanistan is a better place for our--the U.S.--intervention.

> [Johnny:]
> >No, there is no binary thinking on my part. All people on this planet
> >are guilty of horrors, collectively. All do bad and good. Murdering
> >through suicide is perhaps more of a virus than we have admitted. That
> >is the danger that could spread which is so fear provoking. Now, I
> >wouldn't like to perform an autopsy, but there are people who can.
> Thankfully,
> >these people are in place.
>
> I'm drawing a complete blank on this paragraph.
>

Sorry, I left out the word "perform" in the above paragraph. And I am
suggesting the vicious Vikings are not the way to perceive modern Norwegians.
Even the Mongols of Genghis Khan has received positive treatment. Past
Northern Alliance behavior will not be tolerated. The people seem to be with
the liberators (e.g., shaving of beards, shedding of burqas, listening to
music). Don't you think this is an improvement?

> [JdL:]
> >>Israel's settlement building policies have been a major scandal in and
> >>of themselves. What kind of long-term seeds did they think they were
> >>sowing with such behavior? This is _not_ how anyone makes peace with
> >>his neighbors.
>

> [JdL:]
> >>All of us know of the suffering and death that Jews suffered during
> >>WWII at the hands of the Nazis. The U.S., too, was very unsympathetic
> >>to Jews who were trying to escape Germany before the war was over.
> >>But this can _not_ excuse the aggressive and brutal actions that the
> >>Israelies have undertaken in the last 50 years.
>
> [Johnny:]
> >Read this paragraph following my points preceding it and it seems that
> >you are not that familiar, still, with what is going on.
>
> Nonsense. I see what's going on. I see people trying to make excuses
> for the inexcusable by invoking obfuscating guilt-trips. That won't
> fly. That won't bring the world to peace.
>

My point was upon the history of Israel since 1948 and the behavior of the
Arabic world to the fledgling state. Any guilt trips are your own. Peace
occurs when people that have been brutal to each other want it to stop.
History serves a purpose in this, but it must be put aside for there to be
progress. Just look at the world's success stories to see this (Japan and
U.S., Germany and U.S., Germany with Israel, etc.)

> [Johnny:]
> >Yes, you are afraid. That is fully understandable. Luckily for you,
> >there are people who will defend you, and I believe they will succeed.
>
> If that's as sanctimonious as it sounds, please _spare_ me. Believe me,
> I am not as afraid of Muslims as I am of my own countrymen, the ones who
> refuse to take their blinders off. Defend me? In the end, each one of
> us is responsible for his own defense, and of course, each one of us
> must die at some time or other. I do not live so much in fear of
> anything or anyone as in horror of massive self-induced stupidity,
> which, unfortunately, reaches ascendency in times of war.
>

To me, you are sounding sanctimonious. And this is the difficulty of making
peace.
"Horror of massive self-induced stupidity" as heightened in times of war
might verily apply to your stated positions.

> >I trust that the billions of Moslems will come to realize that we all
> >have to live together on this globe.
>
> Yes. It'll help if we're not out there blasting innocents by the
> thousands into little bits, or starving them to death, don't you agree?
>

This is not what happened in recent Afghanistan. You sound like you are
panicking.

> >The infidels have inalienable rights.
>
> ?
>
>

As an infidel in a future Muslim world, I would like to have a clear Bill of
Rights. Wouldn't you?

best, Johnny Reinhard

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

🔗John A. deLaubenfels <jdl@...>

[Johnny:]
>>>Governments are not large houses.

[JdL:]
>>No, nations are large houses in this analogy.

[Johnny:]
>I do not accept this premise. There are over 14 distinct groups within
>Saudi Arabia, different than the Saud family. Are you aware of each of
>their specific wishes? Regardless, there are different rules for
>governments and owners of large houses.

Funny you should mention this, since that has been exactly _my_ point
when you've claimed we're welcome in Saudi Arabia! If the analogy
of house/country troubles you, let us drop it.

[JdL:]
>>You haven't heard me call for the dissolution of Israel. Only for
>>Israel to obey the basic laws that any member of the international
>>community is expected to obey.

[Johnny:]
>I'm glad to hear this, and I agree.

Well then, I'm still waiting for some serious rationale for the
settlements in territory outside the border of Israel.

[Johnny:]
>I'm sorry for all the cynicism on this list...and in this world. I
>believe that the whole world is watching and we--the collective
>"we"--will see to it that Afghanistan is a better place for our--the
>U.S.--intervention.

I hope this is how things unfold! But your faith in the members of the
Northern Alliance does not dovetail with their past behavior.

[Johnny:]
>Past Northern Alliance behavior will not be tolerated. The people seem
>to be with the liberators (e.g., shaving of beards, shedding of burqas,
>listening to music). Don't you think this is an improvement?

Oh yeah, especially listening to music! ;->

[JdL:]
>>>>All of us know of the suffering and death that Jews suffered during
>>>>WWII at the hands of the Nazis. The U.S., too, was very unsympathetic
>>>>to Jews who were trying to escape Germany before the war was over.
>>>>But this can _not_ excuse the aggressive and brutal actions that the
>>>>Israelies have undertaken in the last 50 years.

[Johnny:]
>>>Read this paragraph following my points preceding it and it seems that
>>>you are not that familiar, still, with what is going on.

[JdL:]
>>Nonsense. I see what's going on. I see people trying to make excuses
>>for the inexcusable by invoking obfuscating guilt-trips. That won't
>>fly. That won't bring the world to peace.

[Johnny:]
>My point was upon the history of Israel since 1948 and the behavior of
>the Arabic world to the fledgling state. Any guilt trips are your own.

No. Israel has for years hidden behind the Holocaust to excuse its
transgressions against acceptable behavior. That's Israel's guilt trip,
not mine. And I'm not buying it any more.

[Johnny:]
>Peace occurs when people that have been brutal to each other want it to
>stop.

Absolutely. As Golda Meir said (paraphrase from memory), "We will
continue to have war until we love our children more than we hate our
enemies." I'm still waiting for the rest of Israel to show some
understanding of this wisdom.

[Johnny:]
>>>Yes, you are afraid. That is fully understandable. Luckily for you,
>>>there are people who will defend you, and I believe they will
>>>succeed.

[JdL:]
>>If that's as sanctimonious as it sounds, please _spare_ me. Believe
>>me, I am not as afraid of Muslims as I am of my own countrymen, the
>>ones who refuse to take their blinders off. Defend me? In the end,
>>each one of us is responsible for his own defense, and of course, each
>>one of us must die at some time or other. I do not live so much in
>>fear of anything or anyone as in horror of massive self-induced
>>stupidity, which, unfortunately, reaches ascendency in times of war.

[Johnny:]
>To me, you are sounding sanctimonious.

To paraphrase, "If this be sanctimoniousness, then make the most of it."

>And this is the difficulty of making peace.

Making peace is not that difficult, but it requires putting aside the
"us vs. them" mentality. Are you ready to do that?

>"Horror of massive self-induced stupidity" as heightened in times of
>war might verily apply to your stated positions.

If you say so.

[Johnny:]
>>>I trust that the billions of Moslems will come to realize that we all
>>>have to live together on this globe.

[JdL:]
>>Yes. It'll help if we're not out there blasting innocents by the
>>thousands into little bits, or starving them to death, don't you
>>agree?

[Johnny:]
>This is not what happened in recent Afghanistan. You sound like you
>are panicking.

If I were prone to panicking, I would have done so long ago. Are you
blind to the death that the U.S. has been dealing out in Afghanistan?

I would say that it is Bush, and those who support his indiscriminate
bombing, who are panicking. Gotta kill someone, guilty or not, to prove
that we're not wimps, eh?

[Johnny:]
>>>The infidels have inalienable rights.

[JdL:]
>>?

[Johnny:]
>As an infidel in a future Muslim world, I would like to have a clear
>Bill of Rights. Wouldn't you?

I'd like to have a Bill of Rights that really meant something in the
U.S., for that matter. Wouldn't you?

JdL

🔗David Beardsley <db@...>

🔗Paul Erlich <paul@...>

🔗John A. deLaubenfels <jdl@...>

🔗Paul Erlich <paul@...>

--- In metatuning@y..., "John A. deLaubenfels" <jdl@a...> wrote:
>
> We can easily fall into the trap of refusing to do anything [evil
person
> x] wants, for fear of seeming weak. That just gives him another
way to
> lead us around by the nose.

How will ignoring his wishes give him a way to lead us around by the
nose?

> I would base policy, not upon either following or opposing some
> "millionaire's antics",

I was not suggesting we _base_ policy on that!!

> but rather upon respecting the wishes of rank
> and file men and women of the world.

In many -- but not all -- cases, this would be an improvement over
current policy. Firstly, I'd prefer "good" over "wishes", and I think
you would too -- the rank and file men and women of the world include
vast numbers of bigots, and even vaster numbers who have been fed
bigoted propaganda since birth. Secondly, politics, unfortunately, is
not always so simple, and ultimately it is quite complex to attempt
to determine how to frame policy to do the greatest good for the
greatest number of people. Thirdly, even attempting to define "good"
can be a matter of politics. If you see a train about to hit five
people, and you're standing on a bridge above the train, and you know
that the only way to stop the train is to shove the heavy person (no
disrespect for the heavy meant here) in front of you down onto the
tracks to stop the train, killing the heavy person -- what do you do?

> In this regard, the U.S. has been
> decidedly deficient in the past,

No argument there.

> and we're now paying the price.

That's buying into Bin Laden's trap, hook line and sinker (excuse the
mixed metaphors).

🔗John A. deLaubenfels <jdl@...>

🔗Paul Erlich <paul@...>

--- In metatuning@y..., "John A. deLaubenfels" <jdl@a...> wrote:
> [I wrote:]
> >>We can easily fall into the trap of refusing to do anything [evil
> >>person x] wants, for fear of seeming weak. That just gives him
> >>another way to lead us around by the nose.
>
> [Paul E:]
> >How will ignoring his wishes give him a way to lead us around by
the
> >nose?
>
> If bin Laden forbade you to jump off a bridge, would you jump, just
to
> prove he can't order you around?

Not at all. That's nothing like what I'm suggesting.

> That's what I'm talking about. We
> should do what's right no matter what _his_ position is.

And I agree completely.

> [JdL:]
> >>and we're now paying the price.
>
> [Paul:]
> >That's buying into Bin Laden's trap, hook line and sinker (excuse
the
> >mixed metaphors).
>
> I would say that acting mindlessly macho is playing into bin Laden's
> hands. We've had some serious soul-searching to do for decades
now, and
> we've put it off far too long already. As I've made abundantly
clear,
> I don't excuse murder. Are we also required to switch off our
brains
> as we chase the murderer? I would prefer the opposite.

And my point is that as we delve into this soul-searching, we should
be very intelligent, rather than listening to Bin Laden's rhetoric
(as skilled as it is) and presuming he speaks for the good or the
masses or the victims of wrongheaded American policies. He does not,
though he has done a great job of fooling many people that he does. I
got the impression that you may have succumbed somewhat to this
rhetoric based on your second point in
/metatuning/topicId_1046.html#1048.

🔗John A. deLaubenfels <jdl@...>

>And my point is that as we delve into this soul-searching, we should
>be very intelligent, rather than listening to Bin Laden's rhetoric
>(as skilled as it is) and presuming he speaks for the good or the
>masses or the victims of wrongheaded American policies. He does not,
>though he has done a great job of fooling many people that he does. I
>got the impression that you may have succumbed somewhat to this
>rhetoric based on your second point in
>/metatuning/topicId_1046.html#1048.

The point about getting out of Saudi Arabia and ending one-sided support
for Israel? I've felt this way about Israel for 20 years: supportive
of their existence (the creation was rather badly handled, but is now
past history; it would not help to wipe them off the map!), but very
critical of their excesses. You refer to Israel as a "tiny" country,
and indeed it is, but that doesn't tell the story of their power: they
are bristling with high-tech military hardware, not to mention nuclear
warheads. I ask again, do you support the building of settlements on
occupied foreign land? I think it's a clear recipe for disaster, and
illegal by any standard. And how do you feel about their extra-judicial
killings, wiping out entire families of people because one of them might
be a bad guy, with no trial, no nothin', just bang you're all dead? I
resent a single dollar of my taxes going to support such behavior.

As for Saudi Arabia, we haven't been as aware of the deep-seated anger
that our presence has engendered as we should have been in hindsight.
But it doesn't exist because bin Laden says it does! He may (and, no
doubt, does) exploit it as best he can to grind his own axes, but that
anger exists independent of him. That truck blast a few years ago
probably should have been a bigger wake-up call for us than it was.

There are many other mistakes the U.S. has made for which, as far as
we know, no terrorists have (yet) come forth in retaliation. I would
like to clean this nation's act up even if we could magically stop all
acts of violence against us: it is simply not _necessary_ for us to act
like brutal bullies. But we do: look, for example, at what's going on
in Bolivia as we speak. Or Colombia, to take an even more extreme
example. We are not, of course, responsible for every one of those
nations' problems, but our actions make things _so_ much worse. If _I_
were a citizen of South America, I might consider taking up arms against
the U.S. myself!

JdL

🔗John A. deLaubenfels <jdl@...>

🔗Paul Erlich <paul@...>

🔗John A. deLaubenfels <jdl@...>

[I wrote:]
>>I ask again,

[Paul E:]
>I didn't know you asked me before.

/metatuning/topicId_900.html#907

[JdL:]
>>do you support the building of settlements on
>>occupied foreign land?

[Paul:]
>Like Johnny, I do not.

Ok, I'm glad to hear that. Johnny more or less waffled on the point.

[Paul:]
>None of this has anything to do with my point.

[JdL:]
>>There are many other mistakes the U.S. has made for which, as far as
>>we know, no terrorists have (yet) come forth in retaliation.

[Paul:]
>And you've obviously missed my point completely.

I am very sorry if I have missed your point. The point that I thought
I understood to be under consideration was, "Let's make sure to
distinguish the actions we take based upon whether they are issues
outstanding before bin Laden, or whether they are manipulations that
bin Laden is placing upon us." Please help me understand where I have
gone wrong.

We _do_ agree, do we not, that we should take the actions that are
morally correct, whether or not they coincide or conflict with what
bin Laden wants us to do?

[JdL:]
>>I would like to clean this nation's act up even if we could magically
>>stop all acts of violence against us:

[Paul:]
>And I would like to clean this nation's act up even if it has no
>effect on acts of violence against us.

Great! How to you feel about Bolivia, just to take one example?

JdL

🔗John A. deLaubenfels <jdl@...>

[John asked Paul:]
>> I ask again,
>> do you support the building of settlements on
>> occupied foreign land?

[Jeff:]
>And Paul said no.

>Just wondering if this is a policy that applies only in
>certain situations, or if you all believe in this
>policy in general. For example, does Paul support
>his own personal illegal theft occupation of land
>belonging to American Indians in Massachusetts & does
>John support his own personal illegal theft occupation
>of land belonging to American Indians on Cranston
>Court, Duluth, Georgia?

Hmmm, when you say "his own _personal_ ..." (emphasis added), do you
mean to imply that _I_ stole the land? No, that can't be right. You
mean that someone stole the land many generations ago. Someone whose
connection to me vs. to anyone else is quite tenuous at this time and
place.

Yes, the European settlers stole the land from the Native Americans,
in many shameful acts of deception and treachery. Lest we forget, those
same Native Americans apparently had little compunction when it came to
raping and pillaging themselves! Displacing others from their ancestral
homes was an ongoing activity before the Europeans arrived.

Please tell me, Jeff, what sort of guilt you would like me to take on as
a result of all this? Heck, I don't even own the house I live in, I
rent! Maybe you should try to guilt-trip my landlord.

Sorry, but I don't accept any blame or guilt except for the acts that I
myself have undertaken. Does that answer your question?

JdL

🔗Paul Erlich <paul@...>

--- In metatuning@y..., "X. J. Scott" <xjscott@e...> wrote:
>
> [John asked Paul:]
>
> >> I ask again,
> >> do you support the building of settlements on
> >> occupied foreign land?
>
> And Paul said no.
>
> Just wondering if this is a policy that applies only in
> certain situations, or if you all believe in this
> policy in general. For example, does Paul support
> his own personal illegal theft occupation of land
> belonging to American Indians in Massachusetts & does
> John support his own personal illegal theft occupation
> of land belonging to American Indians on Cranston
> Court, Duluth, Georgia?
>
> - Jeff

Well, let's see . . . I'd like to give my home over to the American
Indians who ancestrally occupied Massachusetts . . . where do I go?
My ancient ancestral home is most likely in an Arab-controlled
region, where, if somehow I managed to bravely settle, I would be
faced with complete pariah status and almost certain hostility. Sound
familiar? A more recent ancestral home would be Lithuania and the
Ukraine, from which my parents were driven by rampant hatred
emanating from all elements in society. Would they welcome us back
now? Perhaps I should look into it.

However, Jeff, there's a point where the definitions of "occupied"
and "foreign" get a little blurry. Wouldn't you say? And does any
individual really have the "right" to any particular piece of land,
just because of ancestral and religious significance, when there are
plenty of perfectly good alternatives available which wouldn't come
into as direct a conflict with the ancestral and religious claims of
others? Doesn't it, past a certain point, become a matter of
religious pride and fervor, rather than a justified struggle for
existence?

🔗Paul Erlich <paul@...>

🔗Afmmjr@...

🔗John A. deLaubenfels <jdl@...>

[JdL:]
>>>>do you support the building of settlements on occupied foreign land?

[Paul:]
>>>Like Johnny, I do not.

[JdL:]
>>Ok, I'm glad to hear that. Johnny more or less waffled on the point.

[Johnny:]
>John, I think you are being dishonest here.

Am I? In

/metatuning/topicId_978.html#978

[Johnny:]
>>>I do not agree with the continuing settlements, though I understand
>>>why they took place.

I responded in

/metatuning/topicId_978.html#981

[JdL:]
>>Really? Perhaps you can explain their rationale to me again? To my
>>eyes, they are illegal acts of aggression, a big part of the way
>>Israel has blundered for decades.

[Johnny:]
>[no response]

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I interpreted your words to mean
that at one time at least, you supported them, though now you don't.

If I have mischaracterized your position, my apologies.

JdL

🔗Afmmjr@...

🔗Paul Erlich <paul@...>

What would I do if I were president?

If I were president, I wouldn't be a puppet of the giant oil
companies.

I would ask some serious questions, and get some serious answers.

Why did the attacks happen? For the most part, the Taliban and the
Sept. 11th hijackers are a _direct_ result of an education system set
up by a powerful Saudi religious sect called "Wahidism". These
clerics from Saudi Arabia have been setting up multi-million dollar
churches and schools in poor communities in Pakistan, Africa, and
anywhere there is no serious competition in the way of affordable
education. Children in these areas are taught the strictest version
of Islam (to the exclusion of all other subjects), and taught that
only the worst treatment is deserved by the infidels. Eventually many
of these children end up in al-Qaeda training camps, living the
only "life" they ever knew.

How did this Saudi religious sect get so rich and powerful?
Appeasement from the Saudi goverment (an aristocracy). The
aristocracy could hardly be called legitimate representatives of the
Arabian people, and their daily lives are so hedonistic as to be
diametrically opposed to the strict version of Islam that the
religious leaders teach. The aristocracy knows that if their
lifestyles were known to the people as a whole, they would surely be
overthrown. The Wahid sect is the only other organization with any
real power, influence, and claim to sovereignty in Arabia. Hence the
government appeases the sect by enforcing the most oppressive form of
religious law over the people (not too different from what the
Afghans suffered under the Taliban, except the Saudi people are far
more wealthy). This includes a "voluntary" religious tax, paid by
everyone including the hyper-rich aristocracy, which funds the clergy
most grandly and allows them to spread their philosophy to
impoverished peoples around the world, building gradiose mosques to
dazzle and ultimately to brainwash.

How did the Saudi aristocracy become so rich and hedonistic? Because
vast economies around the globe, such as the United States, are
hugely dependent on their oil. The United States knows that a change
of leadership in Saudi Arabia will almost certainly mean the
ascension of a theocracy, with ascetic and xenophobic values which
would all but close off trade with the United States. Thus it is in
the interest of the big-oil-invested government to "preserve
stability" in Saudi Arabia by not upsetting the status quo. We
provide the Saudi government with incredible military stockpiles, in
exchange for their guaranteeing a continued flow of billions of
barrels of cheap oil. This enrages the Wahids, so the Saudi
government pays off the clergy even more highly and expands religious
law to even more facets of Arabian life. And the vicious circle
continues.

If I were president, I would say that this is too high a price to pay
for oil. Let us move now to alternative energy sources. I'd get on TV
and say, "hey, america, it's time for us to be great. we sent a man
to the moon -- surely we can adapt our economy to run without Saudi
oil!" I read in the paper today about an amateur chemist who was
running his car and heating his home this winter with about 600
gallons of used vegetable oil from restaurants. It costs him about 50
cents to process each gallon of this stuff into directly usable fuel.
If I were president, I would end the influence of the oil lobby, and
set up incentives for alternative energy technologies such as this.
No doubt entrepreneurs will come up with far more sophisticated and
efficient strategies -- the point being I _know_ that this country,
with all our ingenuity, can do just fine without Saudi oil, if we put
our mind to it.

What will happen in Saudi Arabia? I don't know. But the "stability"
we're currently "preserving" in that region is only a stability for a
small power elite and for our oil companies. The amount of freedom
enjoyed by Saudi people, especially women, is so limited that
certainly, as lovers of democracy, we are hypocrites to preserve that
state of affairs. If I were president, I would work closely with the
United Nations and other organizations to try to ensure, in as
peaceful a way as possible, that impoverished children in Africa,
Asia, and elsewhere have access to a decent education that will allow
them to prosper in the modern world using whatever talents and
interests they have. Then I'd pull out the plug on our importing of
Saudi oil. Yes, "instability" may result for a time, but the end
result, I'd wager, would be a far more stable world for all of us.