Skip to main content
news

Re: Republicanism still an ...

Graeme
Google Google
SubjectRe: Republicanism still an offence in England? (wasRe: Queen mother (of
FromGraeme
Date2002-04-15 19:24 (2002-04-15 19:24)
Message-ID<20020415132453.22879.00004078@mb-mc.aol.com>
Client
Newsgroupsalt.fan.tolkien
FollowsDavid Flood
FollowupsDavid Flood (3h & 45m) > Graeme
This is no laughing-matter. Are you *completely* unaware of international

affairs, and of how bad a condition Russia's military is in?

I think he realizes that. But he also realizes that your appeasement policies never work.

Well... I hate to have to point this out, but GWB & Co. obviously didn't

give a shit about how fundamentalist or murderous the Taliban were, pre-Sept. 11th.

Those hypocrites! They're only mad at the Taliban for murdering a couple of thousand people! How cheesy can you get??

America doesn't seem to have a problem with ruthless dictators _per se_, only

ones who come to impinge on "vital strategic interests". I think you should ponder why *this* one, above all others, overnight went from 'our sonofabitch' to an obsession for oilmen Presidents named Bush.

There's no secret about that. Doing what you imply would mean trying to conquer the world, which I'm sure you don't really want either. You do give the appearance though, of being equally critical when the US *doesn't* do that as you are when they do.

The only policy which stands a snowball's chance of success is to address the

*genuine* grievances of the Muslim world, such as your support of nasty, dictatorial regimes and kingships.

So you DO favor going after Saddam Hussein then? If your position is actually not having anything to do with ruthless governments at all, then I could respect that. I might question whether total isolationism works, or whether the "genuine" grievances of the Muslim world are *really* based against their own governments (to all appearances they've heaped it all on Israel), but at least the position might be internally sound.

And then of course, you could also *actually* become an honest broker in

Palestine,

Already have done. Treating aggressors and victims equally (as you seem to be implying, though granted you're not quite clear) would in fact be DIShonest.

The World War II analogy still applies. Poland and Germany weren't on an equal footing after September 1. You could argue that Germany used to own some of that land, and you'd be right, but that doesn't really address the issue.

And besides, how COULD one really be what you call an "honest broker", when you've just finished telling us not to have anything to do with oppressive regimes at all?

and observed a number of current and former paramilitaries at close hand and

heard their 'philosophies' at length.

David

Why is 'philosophies' in quotes, by the way?

Google
David Flood (3h & 45m) > Graeme