a quibble

Wed, 05 Mar 2003 21:53:01 -0600

I get your point, and do agree.  The terrorism of the WTC attack was
compounded by the effect it had on our financial/economic network whatever.
And that it scared us all to know that it can happen here.  Not by a looney
fanatic who's one of us, but as part of an agenda by forces from another part
of the world.

d

Frances Morey wrote:

> Carolyn, Michael and Byron,
> My attitude is that terrorist attacks are overblown when compared to death
> and destruction brought on by handgun saturation in our society; (See
> "Bowling for Columbine") the 300,000 per year who it is estimated die from
> overeating because of capitalist pressures that make it so ordinary to
> overeat; the 100,000 per year that die from hospital and prescribed drug
> error; and the thousands who die in traffic accidents because of the
> disparity of size of vehicles on the road--far outweigh the actual numbers
> lost to terrorists. I think the figures on death in America are obfuscated
> by the CDC and grouped under heart failure, cancer, etc. and not kept by
> life style syndrome or events that precede and in effect cause deaths which
> are not properly attributed.
> Just a quibble on my part,
> Frances
>
> >From: Carolyn Garner Siscoe <globe@zipcon.net>
> >To: Michael Eisenstadt <michaele@ando.pair.com>
> >CC: byronmarshall2001@yahoo.com, austin-ghetto-list@pairlist.net
> >Subject: Re: a quibble
> >Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003 11:19:37 -0800
> >
> >I disagree about the threat of new terrorist attacks being overblown.
> >The bombings in Bali and the Philippines indicates that the threats are
> >very much alive.
> >  Carolyn
> >
> >Michael Eisenstadt wrote:
> >
> > > Byron,
> > >
> > > a quibble about one part of your argument. i dont
> > > believe 9/11 was preventable by ANY secret service
> > > and, further, I doubt the total destruction of the
> > > twin towers was even anticipated by the bombers.
> > > it was a kind of accident (that the buildings came
> > > down) apparently based on the fact that the strength
> > > of the buildings to resist collapse was comprised
> > > by bad design factors.
> > >
> > > and further that the danger of new terrorist attacks
> > > is way overblown.
> > >
> > > Mike
> > >
> > > Byron wrote:
> > > >
> > > > One of the more obvious things about the arguments, so
> > > > to speak, for dragging us into a horrific mess in the
> > > > Middle East, is their circular nature.
> > > >
> > > > This is clear, even as we are now moving our planes
> > > > closer to North Korea.
> > > >
> > > > The Eye of the Hurricane: what is it?
> > > >
> > > > Is the motive of the Bush Administration for a war in
> > > > the Middle East simply political?
> > > >
> > > > 2.
> > > >
> > > > Is it really guided by the bizarre plans for creating
> > > > a Middle Eastern Empire (and perhaps even a wider
> > > > empire, if you listen to their really wild remarks)
> > > > pushed aggressively by the neoconservatives, many of
> > > > whom occupy leading positions in the Bush
> > > > Administration?
> > > >
> > > > A similar set of quasi-academic and altruistic
> > > > Wilsonians played a role in the process by which the
> > > > United States was trapped into a costly war it could
> > > > not win or would not win in Vietnam.
> > > >
> > > > The "idealists" provided over-the-top "visions" of how
> > > > we would reform, democratize, and purify Vietnam.
> > > >
> > > > Their vision of "doing good around the world and
> > > > especially in Vietnam" got a highly ethical sendoff
> > > > with our sponsorship of the assassination of the
> > > > elected leader on "our side" in Vietnam, Diem.
> > > >
> > > > Some of these same visionaries played a role in actual
> > > > evil committed in Vietnam, such as when we destroyed
> > > > peasant villages and moved the inhabitants into prison
> > > > camps, to "protect them"... and build democracy, no
> > > > doubt.
> > > >
> > > > But although they fashioned some of the more grotesque
> > > > events in Vietnam, the Wilsonian visionaries served a
> > > > primary purpose: they helped to provide a "good
> > > > intentions" justification for our involvement in the
> > > > Vietnamese quagmire.
> > > >
> > > > It may be the same, today.
> > > >
> > > > The neoconservatives may be doing little more than
> > > > providing window dressing for an Iraqi war planned for
> > > > other motives: it is hard to tell, just as it is hard
> > > > to find any consistent motive.
> > > >
> > > > But given that the neoconservatives occupy several key
> > > > positions, the Bush Administration may actually be
> > > > planning the unthinkable: sinking the United States
> > > > into an incredibly expensive and disastrous folly:
> > > > nation building, "hegemony", in the Middle East.
> > > >
> > > > 3.
> > > >
> > > > But there seems, at the center, to be a vacuum: and
> > > > this may explain the erratic, bungling, belligerant
> > > > fashion by which the Administration pushes war.
> > > >
> > > > Whether a kind of "no nothing" jingoism is making one
> > > > incompetent decision after another; whether a bland
> > > > delusion that "God wants this"--and perhaps wants a
> > > > U.S. propelled Armageddon; whether a blundering desire
> > > > to assert U.S. power for reasons that vary from day to
> > > > day: it is hard to tell.
> > > >
> > > > What is clear is that this approach has achieved the
> > > > usual degree of success with popular opinion, which
> > > > calls for war with the enthusiasm of a crowd at the
> > > > Wide World of Wrestling.
> > > >
> > > > In the early days of war, jingoism and rabble-rousing
> > > > is easy to achieve.
> > > >
> > > > 4.
> > > >
> > > > What is clear is that a great deal of the public does
> > > > not clearly see that
> > > >
> > > > (a) Iraq is, remarkably, no threat to the United
> > > > States at all;
> > > >
> > > > (b) that we are planning a war of unprovoked
> > > > aggression;
> > > >
> > > > (c) that Iraq has no connections to nine-eleven and
> > > > none to Al Qaeda;
> > > >
> > > > (d) that the overthrow of Iraq, a secular
> > > > dictatorship, poses great risks of further
> > > > strengthening  Islamic fundamentalism (perhaps in
> > > > Iraq) ...
> > > >
> > > > In short, that wars, costly and with harsh
> > > > consequences for civilians of the conquored country
> > > > and the lives of the victors, require a kind of
> > > > warrant which is nowhere to be found in this sad
> > > > story.
> > > >
> > > > To the contrary.
> > > >
> > > > A war in the Middle East is not only not required by
> > > > nor serves U.S. interests, but is likely to be harmful
> > > > to U.S. interests.
> > > >
> > > > And starting a war which is *not* required by our
> > > > miitary, security, and long term interests is a
> > > > separate folly, all by itself.
> > > >
> > > > 5.
> > > >
> > > > It is also clear that the public does not perceive
> > > > that this Administration, which was at the time
> > > > already planning a war in Afghanistan, dropped the
> > > > ball in 2001.
> > > >
> > > > An apology is called for, if not impeachment.
> > > >
> > > > The Administration's act of omission in 2001 is made
> > > > all the worse because it has repeatedly shown by word
> > > > and by deed that it is not attempting to protect U.S.
> > > > soil from future disasters.
> > > >
> > > > Instead, as it pushes for war, the Administration is
> > > > diverting its energies from fighting terrorism, from
> > > > protecting U.S. soil, from the problems in Korea and
> > > > elsewhere.
> > > >
> > > > ===================================================
> > > >
> > > > __________________________________________________
> > > > Do you Yahoo!?
> > > > Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more
> > > > http://taxes.yahoo.com/
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE*
> http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus