File spoon-archives/lyotard.archive/lyotard_2003/lyotard.0307, message 32


Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2003 14:51:53 -0400
From: hbone <hbone-AT-optonline.net>
Subject: Re: Rights


This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

--Boundary_(ID_c/ATXGIoNArBlBO8x8Lwqg)

Judy/All,

I just heard the Dick Cheney speech which addresses some of the questions Bush2 has avoided.  I think it is very significant re: your observations of the Administration's probable actions to oppose worldwide terrorist activity from Al Queda or the "evil empires" of Iran and North Korea.  I didn't hear the first part of it, however what I did hear did not include the UN or NATO.  It was definitely unilateral.

Here are some additional comments:

Judy wrote,
> If, alternatively, one thinks the world is a worse place related to 
> these acts of aggression (in Afghanistan and Iraq), then the role of 
> deceit in engineering domestic public support, is salient, in fact, 
> central, in looking to the future.  To resist the power grabbing acts 
> of these people, exposing deceit is key because legitimation is key. 
I think the deceit is exposed.  What next?

Hugh wrote,
> >Should the U.S. maintain its hyperpower status or disarm and let 
> >Osama and Saddam or their associates, Saudis, Egyptians, as >>well as the North Koreans, continue to terrorize and de-stabilize >>the world.

Judy wrote,
> Do you think these are the only alternatives?  Terrorization is a two 
> way street.  The above characterization sounds as if the US is on 
> the defensive, needing to be constantly belligerent in order to 
> survive  and to intimidate enemies to deter attack.  Is it the 
> chicken or the  egg?  Who is making who the enemy?  Who's
> interests are best served by belligerence?
The Cheney speech is definitely unilateral.   As I've written, multi-
lateral action would be better.  Bush1 talked about "new world order".
We do need a world order that would prevent or limit terrorism of both the Al Queda variety, the Saddam variety, the genocide in Bosnia and Kosovo, and the tragedy of Israel-Palestinians.  The U.S. was instrumental in Bosnia and Kosovo, but was supported by the  U.N. and NATO. 

> To see it as a choice between either disarming or containing the 
> bad guys seems overly limited.  Isn't the US military budget many
> times more than several other industrialized countries combined?  > > Isn't it the US that has by far the largest stockpiles of WMD?  Isn't it > the  US alone that has used nuclear weapons on masses of 
> civilians, and  has recently stated that limited nuclear attacks are > > currently  considered acceptable? 

I was not aware that limited nuclear attacks are acceptable.  

The military budget and stockpiles are huge.  The problem in Iraq is manpower and morale.  Total U.S. Armed Forces are 1.5 million, which, are scattered all over the world.  If I remember correctly, Europe has armed forces totalling about 2 million, there are supposed to be 1 million under arms in North Korea, and I would guess China has more than any of the above.  I don't know how many there are in Japan and South Korea.

The sophisticated military equipments require educated and highly trained  military personnel to operate effectively.  Rotation of troops within one year (recently announced for Iraq) means rest, recuperation and updated training in the U.S. for those troops in Iraq who are relieved.

Afghanistan and Iraq demonstrate the lack of forces trained for occupation and policiing of a defeated nation.  Any scenario for future conquest and occupation would require more highly trained troops, not less.

Cooperation with, and use of UN and or NATO forces seem essential, and regional cooperation of China, Japan and South Korea would be necssary to respond to North Korea.  If they can be restrained by non-military means, that would be the better course, but it should include cooperation with neighbor countries.

Judy wrote,
> As for the retiring baby boom, that's pretty scary.  But the rulers 
> have people thinking that if the economy goes bad, it's the 
> terrorists' fault.  And whoever is in their way are "the terrorists." 
> And if Social Security is gone, that's obviously the terrorists' 
> fault.  If the tax refund to the rich plan doesn't work, and the 
> economy continues to worsen for most people, that is still the 
> terrorists' fault.  Those folks are getting a lot of mileage out of 
> 'the neverending war on terror.'  

Yes, unfortunately, yes.

regards,
Hugh


--Boundary_(ID_c/ATXGIoNArBlBO8x8Lwqg)

HTML VERSION:

Judy/All,
 
I just heard the Dick Cheney speech which addresses some of the questions Bush2 has avoided.  I think it is very significant re: your observations of the Administration's probable actions to oppose worldwide terrorist activity from Al Queda or the "evil empires" of Iran and North Korea.  I didn't hear the first part of it, however what I did hear did not include the UN or NATO.  It was definitely unilateral.
 
Here are some additional comments:
 
Judy wrote,
> If, alternatively, one thinks the world is a worse place related to
> these acts of aggression (in Afghanistan and Iraq), then the role of
> deceit in engineering domestic public support, is salient, in fact,
> central, in looking to the future.  To resist the power grabbing acts
> of these people, exposing deceit is key because legitimation is key.
I think the deceit is exposed.  What next?
 
Hugh wrote,
> >Should the U.S. maintain its hyperpower status or disarm and let
> >Osama and Saddam or their associates, Saudis, Egyptians, as >>well as the North Koreans, continue to terrorize and de-stabilize >>the world.
 
Judy wrote,
> Do you think these are the only alternatives?  Terrorization is a two
> way street.  The above characterization sounds as if the US is on
> the defensive, needing to be constantly belligerent in order to
> survive  and to intimidate enemies to deter attack.  Is it the
> chicken or the  egg?  Who is making who the enemy?  Who's
> interests are best served by belligerence?
The Cheney speech is definitely unilateral.   As I've written, multi-
lateral action would be better.  Bush1 talked about "new world order".
We do need a world order that would prevent or limit terrorism of both the Al Queda variety, the Saddam variety, the genocide in Bosnia and Kosovo, and the tragedy of Israel-Palestinians.  The U.S. was instrumental in Bosnia and Kosovo, but was supported by the  U.N. and NATO. 
 
> To see it as a choice between either disarming or containing the
> bad guys seems overly limited.  Isn't the US military budget many
> times more than several other industrialized countries combined?  > > Isn't it the US that has by far the largest stockpiles of WMD?  Isn't it > the  US alone that has used nuclear weapons on masses of
> civilians, and  has recently stated that limited nuclear attacks are > > currently  considered acceptable? 
 
I was not aware that limited nuclear attacks are acceptable.  
 
The military budget and stockpiles are huge.  The problem in Iraq is manpower and morale.  Total U.S. Armed Forces are 1.5 million, which, are scattered all over the world.  If I remember correctly, Europe has armed forces totalling about 2 million, there are supposed to be 1 million under arms in North Korea, and I would guess China has more than any of the above.  I don't know how many there are in Japan and South Korea.
 
The sophisticated military equipments require educated and highly trained  military personnel to operate effectively.  Rotation of troops within one year (recently announced for Iraq) means rest, recuperation and updated training in the U.S. for those troops in Iraq who are relieved.

Afghanistan and Iraq demonstrate the lack of forces trained for occupation and policiing of a defeated nation.  Any scenario for future conquest and occupation would require more highly trained troops, not less.
 
Cooperation with, and use of UN and or NATO forces seem essential, and regional cooperation of China, Japan and South Korea would be necssary to respond to North Korea.  If they can be restrained by non-military means, that would be the better course, but it should include cooperation with neighbor countries.
 
Judy wrote,
> As for the retiring baby boom, that's pretty scary.  But the rulers
> have people thinking that if the economy goes bad, it's the
> terrorists' fault.  And whoever is in their way are "the terrorists."
> And if Social Security is gone, that's obviously the terrorists'
> fault.  If the tax refund to the rich plan doesn't work, and the
> economy continues to worsen for most people, that is still the
> terrorists' fault.  Those folks are getting a lot of mileage out of
> 'the neverending war on terror.'  
 
Yes, unfortunately, yes.
 
regards,
Hugh
 
 
--Boundary_(ID_c/ATXGIoNArBlBO8x8Lwqg)--

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005