|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Didn't the Hitler appeasers say more or less the same thing?
Wong
============
At 08:24 PM 9/22/01 -0000, JW wrote:
>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.
>
>
>
>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/
>
>
>
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
FREE COLLEGE MONEY
CLICK HERE to search
600,000 scholarships!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/47cccB/4m7CAA/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/
|