I know I criticize the Americans as being no superior species, but the other side isn't exactly setting precedents for civilized behavior either. > > > [Original Message] > > From: Omar Kusturica <omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx> > > To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Date: 5/7/2006 2:11:18 AM > > Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: See SAW > > > > > > > > --- Lawrence Helm <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > But back to the point: I asked Andreas, "Are you > > > arguing that the largely > > > Shiite government doesn't want our continued > > > support?" > > > > > > > > > > > > Andreas seemed to think he was providing evidence > > > that the Shiite government > > > didn't want our continued support, but nothing he > > > provided contained that > > > evidence. > > > > *He did provide evidence that the Iraqi public, > > including Shiite, wants the US withdrawal. But I am > > not sure that the current Shiite government wants it, > > seeing that it is too weak to control Shia and Sunni > > militias. See: > > > > http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HE06Ak02.html > > > > So it looks like the US has created a failed state > > that it will permanently require US military presence > > to keep it from falling apart. Maybe this has been the > > goal all along. > > > > > Based on what I see in our media, I honestly doubt that this was the goal, > or in fact that there was ever any goal. I've asked the warmongers on this > list how they saw the world post Saddam when they were advocating invading > Iraq, and how they envision the world post an Iran invasion, and there are > no answers. Lawrence repeatedly has used the words 'global leadership' yet > when asked a couple of times to define the terms, to say what global > leadership looks like, he hasn't done it. Why? Clearly because none of > these things were ever thought through, never had words attached to them. > If they can't be articulated beyond vague Fukuyama style ramblings, there > can't be any 'goal'. > > Then this vague, smoky, hazy ideology and 'mission' was implemented, and it > was done as Lawrence writes, by overestimating themselves and > underestimating the other side, using ideology and logic instead of facts > and common sense. The ?end of history? idea lent itself to the logical, > even if against all common sense, use of last resort first. Result: > undefined mission is unaccomplished three years later. Added to this was > their experimental new and improved high tech military, another idea > bordering on ideology that didn't work out. > > I think if you want answers, psychohistory is the place to get them. > Otherwise, we have to accept Lawrence's explanation that this is simply the > way it's always been done, which in fact it has. In other words, that > enough humans enjoy war, death, misery such that all humans have to > participate. And indeed, the most advanced civilization the world has seen > is presenting us with yet another glorious opportunity to die for something. > > Attributing words like goal to this emotional, hysterical nonsense is > after-the-fact rationalizing bordering on flattery. > > > > > > O.K. > > > > __________________________________________________ > > Do You Yahoo!? > > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around > > http://mail.yahoo.com > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > > To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, > > digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, > digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html ------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html