Re: World Peace and a pyschological war

["Mark R. Leaman" <mleaman@sccoast.net>]

> How can anyone comment on the future without looking at the past?

Stoo:

There is using history as a tool and there's believing (as Gregg does) that
what happened in the past will happen again. You don't know our background
as it's largely private, but I've had to caution, warn and finally admonish
Gregg that his theories are no longer relevent. And what happened in all of
the previous wars is out the window on this one...surely you can see that!
And Gregg just as obviously does NOT!
His solution to terrorism before this incident (which hopefully he's learned
from): arm everyone, twisting the constitutional passage about "a well-armed
milita" into meaning every single man woman and child in the nation. I tried
to point out a militia was an organized group of people BY DEFINITION, but
he refused to acknowledge this fact. And so our discussions went.

> They *can* be beaten.

And neither of you acknowledge the fact that our technology is about 1000 x
better now! This is a MAJOR factor! All this talk about a "secret base in
the mountains" is cover-up for the press. You can bet when Laden was riding
up there on horseback (according to CNN) our satellites were watching every
step (they could read a license plate in the `80's). And if the base is as
reported sophisticated and in touch with the world, those are signals which
can be traced. Hell, even a generator can be spotted with infrared! They can
tell if you have Pot plants inside your house, fer cripes sakes!
Things have changed significantly, and our weapontry is much better than
even what their most recent adversary (USSR) had. So once again the school
of thinking which says we can't beat the Afghans can only be called "old
school." Or, in some cases: raised in a barrel.

> Hmmm.    Could this mean that we are at the 11th hour of this age?

Jon:

Or maybe it's all just  bullshit.

> sucessful results, but suddenly they strangely
> disappear.

People who have control tend to do what needs to be done to keep it. The Oil
companies are no exception, despite the almost universal understanding that
hydrocarbons are destroying the atmosphere. Short term thinking...I needn't
mention who supports the Oil companies, need I?

> That's exactly how I think. The arise of hostility
> against muslims as a whole worries me.

That's why Bush's first priority after the attack should have been to expell
all illegal aliens. They're arresting more every day, but it's not nearly
what needs to be done. This is his first failure (so far), but otherwise it
appears as if whoever's giving him advice is pretty close to what the
situation is. We'll see.

> And what if, by chance, President Bush were to do something in 4 years
that
> you agreed with? Would we ever hear you admit it? Or do you just hate the
man?

I don't hate the man, although computer "shorthand" could lead you to
believe so I guess. Let me make this clear here and now: I don't hate him, I
think he's a fool. A buffoon. A harlequin. A poseur. A puppet.
And he has done a few things I agree with, albeit mostly under stress of
compromise. He's done a lot more I think is ultimately bad for the country,
and history so far is bearing me out on that too. However using the war
popularity to further his agenda is distasteful to say the least.

> Intelligence is one thing, Wisdom is quite another.

He is the least qualified President in so long that it was in the timeframe
of Gregg's expertise.

> all. It doesn't take a person of superior intellect to realize that this
> gesture was to show clearly that this is the time to put aside our petty

I think this was an obvious move. My worries about his lack of intellect
come when he has to make a decision about how the war is waged. More and
more I'm coming to the conclusion that 90% of this war is going to have to
be psychological rather than physical, and that would be where 90% of his
weakness is. His lack of understanding is evident.

> thing that he could have done.  This was no small thing.

I think quoting the Bible in the first evening's speech was a really bad
idea, once again from a psychological standpoint. I think we all agree that
making this a Holy war is a really bad idea...but from the outset he set
that tone. And that was just (as they say here in the South) butt-dumb.
Hey, there's just too much religion in this war! NOT GOOD! We need to keep
it secular.

> I agree with the liberal view on this. That is what I meant about the
> balance. What I mean about selfishness in the liberals is the MY RIGHTS
> attitude above what is good and decent for society.

Well, perhaps we disagree there because the liberals I see are about OTHERS'
rights, rather than their own rights (which seems to be the arena of the
conservatives). They tend to be willing to sacrifice for them too. I mean,
most liberals aren't gay (for instance, not that there's anything wrong with
that) but they are for gay marriage. The GOP was opposed to civil rights for
African-Americans, and again at the time most voting liberals weren't black.
And so on.
History, while we're on the subject, tends to see the more liberal views as
correct once time has passed, and conservative ideas as backward thinking.

> It varies of course, but if one is honest with one's self, one will see it
in
> time. I am not so self assured, especially as I get older.

Really? I find that surprising. I think we go through stages in life, swing
up and down in self image and assurance, but essentially success breeds
confidence. And so as I get older, I find have more self assurance. I take
chances I wouldn't have when I was younger, because the consequences seem
smaller in comparison. The hurdles seem lower.

> most hope from him. He wants to know, but will admit when he doesn't.

Yeah, but Pete was in his 20's then. Well, maybe so are you. I wasn't as
confident when I was in mine. So maybe you have something to look forward
to.

> Here's some interesting hearsay:  The footage of celebrating Arabs shown
on
> TV after the terrorist attack is ten years old, the same as shown after
the
> invasion of Kuwiat.  This was posted on another list--supposedly it's
> identified by a Brazilian reporter.

Keets:

Watch out...sounds like you're talking about a conspiracy!


"God may have mercy on you, but we won't."
        Senator John McCain


               Cheers                 ML