Bush War rumination
JIM BALDAUF
jfbaldauf@prodigy.net
Sun, 7 Oct 2001 18:35:36 -0500
Bill hoped:
>that this experience will qualify me in your eyes to exercise
my rights of free speech to express my concerns and criticism
of my government as I see it. After all, isn't it the "American
way" to be allowed the freedom to express our opinions?<
That's what I'm talkin' 'bout!
Saving Corporal Baldauf
(Would it be unpatriotic to oppose the following, on the heels
of the bailout for airline companies that loath burdensome
regulations and security procedures?)
NYT - BUSINESS
=========================
In Bush Plan, Taxpayers Would Cover Terror Claims
The Bush administration and Congress are preparing
legislation to have taxpayers pay major insurance claims
arising out of terrorist attacks. Profits demand the insurance
industry just collect premiums, not actually pay claims.
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/07/business/07INSU.html?todaysheadlines
----- Original Message -----
From: Bill Irwin <billi@aloha.net>
To: telebob x <telebob98@hotmail.com>
Cc: <austin-ghetto-list@pairlist.net>
Sent: Sunday, October 07, 2001 5:38 PM
Subject: Re: Bush War rumination
> Bob:
> I served from 1963 to 65 (if some of you don't remember me from those
years
> well now you know why). I didn't see any combat nor was I in any harms
way.
> However, I did see lots of blood and guts and a number of dead soldiers so
I
> feel that I have some idea of what is at stake. I hope that this
experience
> will qualify me in your eyes to exercise my rights of free speech to
express
> my concerns and criticism of my government as I see it. After all, isn't
> it the "American way" to be allowed the freedom to express our opinions?
> As a veteran, tax payer (well, most of the time), citizen, and now senior
> citizen I expect to be allowed to do so in an environment free from snide
> comments about ones character, patronizing talk, and threats of violence.
> Particularly if we are participating in a forum of our former friends and
> acquaintances. I would hope that we could all strive to understand each
> others opinions in a gentlemanly and scholarly manner (a little humor and
> spiritual understanding would help also). Who knows, some of us may learn
a
> little something new - I heard that learning something new helps prevent
> brain ossification in senior citizens. I must say that I am a bit shocked
> at what I have heard several people say about Roger. I think it is
uncalled
> for and not correct. If you disagree, present your case in a logical
manner
> not by personal attacks that you would feel bad about latter.
>
> I don't agree with you that our only options are 'fight or flee'. Flee is
> out of the question and for the most part war is the result of failed
> policies of the past, which I think is the case this time. The WTC is not
> the first action of this war, it has been going for at least 25 years and
> has it's roots going back even farther. During this time we have done
very
> little to address the root causes of Muslim discontent. Mostly we have
put
> them on notice, shot off a few rockets and hoped that everything would die
> down before elections. Never have we asked what the problem was or sought
> real solutions that would neutralize the radicals. Until we make some
> effort at peace and reconciliation we will never have any security. There
> is plenty to criticize from the past and as long as our government
continues
> the failed policies of the past there will be more cause to continue that
> criticism. I too would like to see us bring Bin Ladin to justice but we
all
> know that there will be others in his footsteps because so far, our only
> solution is to "get Bin Ladin" and not get to the heart of the matter.
> Toughing some band-aids and Big Macs at the problem will not do any good.
> Likewise, "little flowers and signs" will not solve the problem but it may
> start some people thinking about the problems and if there are enough
> "little flowers and signs" the government may do something meaningful. As
a
> small citizen with no big campaign contributions my only recourse is to
get
> out them "little flowers and signs".
> Bill "Ewie" Irwin
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: telebob x <telebob98@hotmail.com>
> To: <austin-ghetto-list@pairlist.net>
> Sent: Saturday, October 06, 2001 5:15 AM
> Subject: Bush War rumination
>
>
> > Frances et al....
> >
> > There may one or two others on this list who 'served' but from the tone,
I
> > expect not many. I was in the Army in 1964-65. I was in and out before
> the
> > going got hot and steamy in VC land, but I can tell you, as much as I
> hated
> > the military at the time, it was certainly one of the most intense and
in
> a
> > way, better times of my life. The best thing was that I didn't have to
'go
> > anywhere and kill anybody.' But I can tell you for the most part, the
guys
> > in my units felt the same way. So this constant characterization of the
> > Army as a bunch of low-IQ kill-crazies is both uninformed and kinda
> stupid.
> > My dad was a light colonel in the Army in Burma during WWII. He served
> with
> > the Burma Surgeon Dr. Gordon Seagrave under Gen Joe Stillwell (read
> Barbara
> > Tuchman's book on this era of history). I think of the US military, just
> as
> > I do of the firemen in NYC. They are mainly just people who want to
> protect
> > their friends and family...whatever their smaller more tactical reasons
> > might be for being in the service.
> >
> > I remember someone saying that a gun is just a tool, but it is a tool
for
> > use when no other tool will do. Let the same be said for military
action.
> > Certainly there are some testosterone overamped gung-hos that want to
> engage
> > in the 'ultimate football game', but they are hardly the rule. Maybe
that
> > is what was wrong with Tim McVeigh, and maybe that is why they did not
let
> > him in to Special Forces. The army is pretty good at screening out the
> nut
> > cases. And even these gung-hos have a place and make pretty good
weapons
> to
> > boot, if not great neighbors and citizens.
> >
> > I think about this stuff when I am driving down the road. But before we
> can
> > begin our Marshall Plan for Afghanistan, just as in Nazi Germany and
> Japan,
> > the atavistic monsters in charge have to be removed from power. Now,
only
> > the military can do this.
> >
> > No, I do not want the USA making the world safe for further corporate
> > domination, Disneyland, and freeways, but I do want it to be a place
where
> I
> > do not have to see office workers jumping out of firey buildings and
> people
> > hauling away kidneys and fingertips in buckets.
> >
> > When I see the peaceniks, the main thing I want them ask themselves, is,
> > would they defend their belief in pacifism with their lives? That is,
if
> > someone who hates you and your belief system comes up and sees you with
> your
> > little flowers and signs and says...."Ah great, more enemy to kill, and
> > these will be easier, since they will not defend themselves."
> > Would they suddenly change their minds and fight or flee? And make no
> > mistake, with the enemy we are facing today...those are our choices,
fight
> > or flee. Maybe later, or simultaneously we can begin our war for hearts
> and
> > minds....that phrase again.
> >
> > I, of course, have a special anger reserved for our bureaucratic
> > "Intelligence Comunity" whose meddling I believe instigated many of the
> > sources of the resentment we so achingly experienced on 9/11. Just as in
> > Viet Nam, the 'blowback' from their actions is felt in far away places
and
> a
> > lot closer to home than we expected. Perhaps this is the kind of thing
> that
> > will make every American realize how important it is to not leave policy
> in
> > the hands of a small group of 'professionals'. Small groups of
'experts'
> > always operate to first benefit the 'small group's' interests, and only
in
> a
> > later sense to benefit the stated larger interest. That is how we got in
> > Viet Nam and the Gulf War, and now that is how we are where we are now.
> But
> > FOR THE MOMENT, HOW WE GOT HERE DOESN'T MATTER. We have to end the
present
> > danger in order to re-think and re-structure the way "we are" and the
way
> > the USA relates to the rest of the world. (I have plenty to say on that
> > topic too.)
> >
> > I do not think it does us much good to call this the 'Bush War'...the
> action
> > against us was planned long before the election. And would you be
calling
> it
> > the Gore War if the exact same thing was happening with a different
> > president? (I wonder if the Bush folks would have worked so hard at
> stealing
> > the election if they had know this was going to end up in their laps?)
> >
> > Hauling our all our old Viet Nam reactions to a totally different
> situation
> > is not constructive, and while I do not think of myself as a knee-jerk
> > nationalist, I do think one has to make a decision as to which side of
the
> > 'fight or flee' line you are on.
> >
> > Tele
> >
> >
> > >From: "Wayne Johnson" <cadaobh2@brgnet.com>
> > >To: <frances_morey@excite.com>, "telebob x" <telebob98@hotmail.com>,
> > ><austin-ghetto-list@pairlist.net>
> > >Subject: RE: [Austin-ghetto-list] Re: Bush War needs Arab approval
> > >Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2001 08:28:20 -0400
> > >
> > >Uh, some how the idea of a lot of low IQ sociopaths running amok with
> some
> > >70T M1A2 tanks is not my idea of a good time.
> > >
> > >B.
> > >
> > >-----Original Message-----
> > >From: austin-ghetto-list-admin@pairlist.net
> > >[mailto:austin-ghetto-list-admin@pairlist.net]On Behalf Of Frances
Morey
> > >Sent: Friday, October 05, 2001 3:31 PM
> > >To: telebob x; austin-ghetto-list@pairlist.net
> > >Subject: [Austin-ghetto-list] Re: Bush War needs Arab approval
> > >
> > >
> > >tele,
> > >That was a brilliant analysis, and a perfect solution: civilize the
> > >bastards. Unfortunately it is a terrible challenge to re-educate the
> > >individual for sanity. Timothy McVeigh didn't suffer a third world
> > >upbringing. His profound disappointment at being rejected from the
> special
> > >forces propelled him to get even with the federal government and blow
up
> > >the
> > >federal building. Since when did we allow the military to become
> > >"selective." I am for bringing back the draft and letting those who
would
> > >otherwise be in prison play soldier to their hearts content.
> > >Frances
> > >On Fri, 05 Oct 2001 05:13:15 +0000, telebob x wrote:
> > >
> > > > Roger's perceptions are all very well for leading us into group
> > >suicide,
> > >but
> > > > check this one out.....Skunk Baxter? SKUNK BAXTER FROM STEELY DAN?
> > >Yes,
> > >
> > > > one and the same...Skunk is now a military analyst and he has some
> > > > suggestions on how to deal with the ongoing crisis....
> > > > BTW...calling it Bush War is
> > > >
> > > > (forwarded from the Jive95 list)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > excerpted from --- Unlikely Doves: Counter-terrorism Experts
> > > > David Corn, AlterNet
> > > > September 28, 2001
> > > >
> > > > The need to think beyond military solutions was also raised at a
> > > > bizarre talk given by Jeff "Skunk" Baxter before a group of
military
> > > > policymeisters, defense contractors, and Defense Department
employees
> > > > a few days after the attack. Weeks before September 11, the Potomac
> > > > Institute for Policy Studies, a Pentagon-friendly think tank, had
> > > > asked Baxter, who was a lead guitarist for the Doobie Brothers and
> > > > Steely Dan and a music-technology wiz before fashioning himself
into
> > > > a military-technology expert, to present the case for a national
> > > > missile defense. After the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks,
> > > > Baxter -- with his droopy mustache and old-guy pony tail -- was
still
> > > > happy to do so. He argued that in the post-9/11 world, missile
> > > > defense remains "imperative" because China still could intimidate
the
> > > > United States by threatening to launch one or more of its two dozen
> > > > or so nuclear missiles. Beijing, he claimed, would not be deterred
by
> > > > a U.S. counterstrike: "If we launch a nuclear attack against
China --
> > > > all we do is solve their housing crisis." He maintained that
Chinese
> > > > leaders do not think about "protecting the public." So imagine, he
> > > > commanded his audience, if in the midst of another September
11-like
> > > > event, China moved against Taiwan and told Washington, back off or
> > > > we'll take out Los Angeles. How could the president appear on
> > > > television and say, I am going to prosecute a war in Taiwan, and
> > > > America must prepare for further casualties?
> > > >
> > > > Here was an undiluted Star Wars fanatic. What was interesting,
> > > > however, was that even a hawk like Baxter, who is a consultant to
the
> > > > Pentagon, saw the limits of a counterterrorism policy that depends
> > > > upon military action. The problem, as he put it, is the United
States
> > > > faces an adversary driven by powerful forces: "You live in a
> > > > dirt-poor place, but if you blow yourself up in the name of Allah,
> > > > you'll get 73 virgins, all the dope you can smoke, a backstage
passes
> > > > to Bruce Springsteen ... How do we nullify and negate that threat?"
> > > > Simple, he said: "The way to keep a kamikaze pilot out of aircraft
> > > > ... is to deal with it at the source" -- that is, the motivation.
> > > >
> > > > The goal of U.S. policy, he said, should be to "re-engineer the
> > > > perceptions of our enemies." Suicide bombers have to be convinced
> > > > "they get nothing for dying for Allah," and the people who support
> > > > terrorists -- leaders or commoners -- have to be persuaded such
> > > > violence is an insult to Islam and counterproductive. So Baxter
> > > > proposed a Manhattan Project of "perception engineering," which
would
> > > > explore and develop a variety of means: psychological warfare,
> > > > propaganda campaigns designed by advertising executives ("these
guys
> > > > were selling Chevrolets when they were crap with the 'heartbeat of
> > > > America'"); nanomachines that can invade the circulatory system and
> > > > effect the brain and thought patterns of the target; cultural
> > > > products that can engender warm feelings toward the United States.
> > > > "This World War III is a different war," Baxter commented. "It's an
> > > > information war ... a war fought with ideas ... I can give you a
> > > > valium and make you feel good. I can give you a musical score and
> > > > engineer your perceptions ... All this is doable."
> > > >
> > > > The audience's positive response was intriguing. Most listeners
> > > > appeared to accept his premise that motivation and causation had to
> > > > be addressed. Baxter, of course, skipped past the possibility that
> > > > persons who harbor ill-will toward the United States might possess
> > > > legitimate grievances about, say, economic conditions, the
repressive
> > > > conduct of governments backed by Washington, or the pervasive
> > > > influence of American culture. His answer was not to solve
problems,
> > > > but to manipulate the responses to problems. Nevertheless, his
kooky
> > > > proposal focused on ideas, not missiles.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >From: Roger Baker <rcbaker@infohiwy.net>
> > > > >Reply-To: rcbaker@eden.infohwy.com
> > > > >To: austin-ghetto-list@pairlist.net
> > > > >Subject: [Austin-ghetto-list] Bush War needs Arab approval
> > > > >Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2001 03:07:33 -0500
> > > > >
> > > > >When the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor things were simple; we just
> went
> > >to
> > > > >war and bombed them right back twice as hard with weapons of mass
> > > > >destruction. Whatever.
> > > > >
> > > > >But Bush's new infinite crusade against terrorism, fought wherever
> it
> > >lurks
> > > > >and as long as it takes, is a bit trickier than he made it seem at
> > >first:
> > > > >
> > > > >"...The central strategic conundrum is this: the more the United
> > >States
> > > > >presses moderate, often autocratic leaders in the Middle East to
> help
> > >in
> > >
> > > > >its
> > > > >campaign, the more it jeopardizes them. If they go too far, they
> risk,
> > >at
> > > > >best, being labeled American stooges, and at worst, losing power
to
> > >Islamic
> > > > >militants in their own societies..."
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >It seems that we forgot that we might need Arab permission to go
to
> > >war
> > >or
> > > > >else the war itself could destabilize the Arab host countries,
kind
> of
> > >like
> > > > >the evil Mr. bin Laden was warning us. So this will necessarily
have
> > >to
> > >be
> > > > >a kinder and gentler war calculated not to create too many
> inflamatory
> > > > >headlines in Egyptian newspapers, etc.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > _________________________________________________________________
> > > > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at
> > >http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >"The Skinny on Weight Loss: One Woman's
> > >True Journey to Fat and Back" by Frances Morey
> > >Order online <www.xlibris.com/bookstore>
> > >or by phone at 1-888-795-4274 Extension #276
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >_______________________________________________________
> > >Send a cool gift with your E-Card
> > >http://www.bluemountain.com/giftcenter/
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at
http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
> >
>
>