Skip to main content
news

Re: Republicanism still an ...

David Flood
Google Google
SubjectRe: Republicanism still an offence in England? (wasRe: Queen mother (of
FromDavid Flood
Date2002-04-15 23:10 (2002-04-15 22:10)
Message-ID<a9fjm9$2qm5v$2@ID-121201.news.dfncis.de>
Client
Newsgroupsalt.fan.tolkien
FollowsGraeme
FollowupsGraeme (22h & 51m)
"Graeme" <graemecree@aol.compost>wrote in message news:20020415132453.22879.00004078@mb-mc.aol.com...

This is no laughing-matter. Are you *completely* unaware of

international

Graeme
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.

Take away the aggressive policies of Zionism which are radicalizing young Arab people to go out and do such horrible things, and you'll be on the home run to solving the problem.

With all due respect - exactly which part of this do you find difficult to grasp?

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??

Ask GW Shrub for answers.

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.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. You don't appear to be responding to anything I've stated in that post.

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?

'Course. I hope he finds an early grave - the sooner the better.

And it would have been nice if the US had 'discovered' his wickedness back when he was a Reaganite pin-up boy.

If your position is actually not having anything to do with ruthless governments at all, then I could respect that.

'Tis. But my problem is that that's *not* the way US foreign policy works.

I might question whether total isolationism works,

Isolationism is a fable.

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.

The Palestinians have a genuine grievance. Any Arab regimes trying to hitch their wagons to the 'cause' don't alter that singular reality.

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 issue of 'aggressors' and 'victims' in the Palestine/Israel context is moot - you'll end up going around in endless circles over who's who.

The best practice is to start from scratch again, probably with Jon Beck's sensible suggestions.

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.

*That* case is too clear-cut to apply here.

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?

You could stop supporting oppressive regimes (and trying to topple democracies like Venezuela and Chile), for an *excellent* start.

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?

I don't want to sully the word unnecessarily by association. After all, it took them long enough killing people to gain wisdom that normal decent people already innately have.

cheers, D.

Google
Graeme (22h & 51m)