[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] Indexes: Main | Date | Thread | Author

Re: [ba-unrev-talk] NOT: Really, It's That Simple

John, Eric, Peter.    (01)

I Found Eric's e-mail after responding to John.    (02)

Interesting the difference between our responses; the different
foundations on which they are based. Our "global brain" is still not
functioning in unison as that label kind of implies.    (03)

Henry    (04)

Eric Armstrong wrote:    (05)

> John, I respect your opinions and the reasoning behind them, but
> on this on I have to disagree.
> It is in the nature of a bully to use force to achieve their goals.
> It is in the nature of the truly brave (Ghandi, for example) to
> achieve their ends peaceably.
> In Ghandi's case, too, occupation was ended, but by far less
> brutal, despicable means.
> What holds back Western nations is *conscience*. Massive
> retaliation of the kind never before experienced on this planet
> would else end the atrocities. But Western nations are held in
> check by their own conscience. They do want the slaughter
> of innocents on their hands.
> Fantatics, on the other hand, know no such restrictions. That
> puts even a large power at a disadvantage.
> A lack of conscience allows a foreign leader to cry out against
> the injustices done to him, while inciting equal and greater injustices
> at the very same time.
> The question is, at what point can a nation afford to *stop*
> standing for fair play and honor??
> It is lost in the dim recesses of history that the Palestinian state
> was formed on the very same day as the Israeli state, by the
> very same decree.
> Immediately, the Israeli state was declared unacceptable by
> the Palestinians, and war ensued.
> Once vanguished, the Palestinians immediately set about hollering
> about how their land was unjustly taken from them. Yet, once
> given back, the wars resumed -- time and again, in one form or
> another.
> Each time, promises were made: "Give us back our land, and
> there will be peace". But there never has been peace. This is
> the way of things when you deal with people who have no honor.
> They will say anything. They will promise anything. But they will
> do nothing.
> Unfortunately, Arafat is as totally without honor as anyone who
> has ever existed on this planet. His words mean exactly nothing.
> To accept any representation he makes is simply to play into his
> hands, and to gain nothing in return.
> For years now, the argument has been "We own it all. The Isreali's
> have no right here. Israel has no right to exist."
> Although there has been some softening of that position recently,
> it has only come about as a result of the realization that force will
> not rule the day.
> To retreat in the face of that force is to give the bully everything
> he wants. And after a stake has been driven far enough into the
> heart of Isreal's borders, Isreal, too, will fall -- if the religious
> fanatics have their way.
> Maybe the Israeli state should have been founded on some
> unoccupied islands in the South Pacific. I don't know. It sure
> would have solved some problems -- not that anyone would
> have gone there.
> Personally, I see religious movements as the cause of the greatest
> human suffering and the greatest travesties against mankind. To
> be so totally enamored of some rock in the middle of a dessert
> that one cannot even think of living elsewhere -- well, that defies
> sensibility, in my book.
> After religious fervor comes national fervor, and after that comes
> free market excesses, in their capacity to do harm in the name of
> good. But, like it or not, people do have those religious beliefs,
> and they do hunger after the same piece of barren rock.
> So, what is there to do?
> The options are:
>    1) Pick up the Isreali state and move it somewhere else.
>    2) Get out, stay out, and don't care what happens to
>        Israel.
>    3) Keep working, by a combination of means, to fix the
>        situation with carrots (concessions) and sticks (force)
>        even if it takes 40 years, as with the cold war, or
>        a few hundred years.
>    4) Get really nasty and start hurting people so badly that
>         they either quit, or there aren't enough left to make a
>        difference.
> I've no doubt left out some valid alternatives, but of that
> list, I think #3 makes the most sense. It combines a sense
> of honor and decency with the gumption not to get pushed
> around.
> On the other hand, when we start thinking about the problem
> of nuclear waste, it occurs to me that I can think of a few
> places I wouldn't mind dumping it....    (06)