Post #17,401
11/8/01 6:10:27 PM
|
Covered in another thread.
#1. Destroy their fanaticism. Export Disney'fied versions of their religion.
#2. Fill the void we just created with consumer goods.
#3. Ensure that the AVERAGE person in that country can purchase those goods.
Bombing is the quick answer.
I mean, it worked in the past. We've bombed or subverted just about every country over there. We've even provided training to bin Laden himself. And we've never regretted those actions.
Realize that the average person in Afghanistan doesn't have a FRACTION of what we have. And s/he has NO HOPE of ever getting it.
Which leaves many of them with nothing to live for and makes them vulnerable to whatever fundamentalists they run into ("It sucks now, kid, but you'll be in paradise if you carry this bomb. Besides, you're family will be proud to have a martyr. What else do you have to live for?")
Without the hope that they can do better, we will always have the suicide bombers.
Give them that hope.
Show them how much better it can be.
Destroy their current culture.
We have the skills. We've done it in the past.
We can bomb civilians, but we can't organize to replace their culture.
|
Post #17,411
11/8/01 7:56:18 PM
11/8/01 9:32:33 PM
|
But when we try >that<...
#1. Destroy their fanaticism. Export Disney'fied versions of their religion.
#2. Fill the void we just created with consumer goods.
#3. Ensure that the AVERAGE person in that country can purchase those goods. ...through guaranteed loan programs and "technology assistance" programs to these nations...we get thousands of summer vacationers chasing down World Bank and WTO meetings and tearing up Seattle and Philadelphia...as examples. Farakhan is doing a pretty good job of creating an Islam completely unrelated to that practiced in the region. Are you suggesting good, old fashioned imperialism? That didn't work historically. A huge part of problem in this area of the world is our inconsistency of policy. The sheer amount of western money that goes into this region should have brought them out of poverty long ago...except their leadership will NEVER stand for the wealth actually being distributed. That cycle has to be broken. To do >that<...we need to be able to support our own energy needs...because if we can't...we have no leg to stand on...so theres a huge amount that we need to do domestically that our own people won't support. Conservation, nukes, little tiny cars, further exploitation of our own Alaskan reserves, exploitation of Rocky Mtn shale, WV coal. Bush mentioned about 2 of those things and the Green Party, Greenpeace and all the other "Society"s had a freakin bird. 55 years ago we created a state for the jews...yet we don't do the same for the Palestinians. We raise cries of anguish when children die in Jerusalem...yet we're silent when the same happens in Gaza. Its not simple...and elements of your position can and should be used...as well as the current action...which is more aimed at deterring other countries from supporting terror than actually catching terrorists. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
Edited by bepatient
Nov. 8, 2001, 09:32:33 PM EST
|
Post #17,421
11/8/01 9:28:39 PM
|
No quarrel with that list
A few angles to your -why do they Do that?- response.
WTO functioning to date aka NAFTA locally - has produced the Machiladores, encouraged the disregard of all environmental considerations - in the name of cheapest possible prices.
Mexico (for just one) has little idea of sane safeguards, little funds and merely token interest. (Book-length - to detail Mexico's traditional problems, of course, and the New exploitations at border)
These poorly planned WTO 'rules' have had the effect of enouraging that we do likewise; scrap most environmental concern, and join in this endless creation of consumer toys - worldwide race to the bottom.
Heh - a Billion lines of code? in those agreements - all about maximizing Corp profits / ignoring as much as possible the consequences to *all* but: the Corporate bottom line(s). Have I missed something important in that simplification?
Muricans don't save much (except the minority who can fund a retirement 'instrument') - surely not the millions at McDs, the growing army of Temps, incl IT? more&more - surely a growth- and also perk-free- 'industry'. Maxed-out CCs is now an epidemic - and many have no choice:
Remember the story/book by the NYorker (?) writer who tried to live as a waitress, maid, etc. for some weeks - motels only option, or the street. Lots of etcs. A microcosm for how many millions of Muricans merely try to get by. Think this was ref'd in a thread..
Agree about 'what we *might* do, in your list. But first we'd have to kick the maxed-CC habit, the automatic shopping for recreation (on those CCs) and lots more: we could live quite well on much less energy usage, begin rebuilding our infrastructure -- much of that neglected since WPA in the Thirties !! Pay 'em! to Fix Us.
Food, shelter, clothing, schools first? -- while less.. of $3K digital Tee Vees, $28K 'family UAVs' and 5000 sq. ft. 'starter homes' - to name just 3 specifics of 'lifestyle' we could live with quite less-of, and live well. We could learn to make things again - not just import them (!)
These trends alone (if started, despite the buy! buy! messages 24/7) would force a restructuring of {shudder} Economists'! thinking / calculating - in search of a viable means for living [again] -- and not merely living-to-buy.
Our entire economy has been based, since I could spell the word - upon not merely constant consumption for its own sake, but: ever increasing consumption. No?
Think that the two categories above - WTO and US habits - might (alone) be related to a 'fix' we made for ourselves and could.. unmake, if we had the will and the smarts?
(My simple mind can't handle a billion lines of NAFTA code, but I can count to 3) I also believe I know what an exponential is, and that More.. as a life principle: describes the exact same philosophy as a cancer cell.
So.. are we ready to look for radical change?
ie that word derived from radix = 'root', as in root causes of our discontent?
Naaah - didn't think so ;-) It ain't quite Dire enough. Yet.
Ashton
PS - then the Afgh and related problems would decrease as.. our need to support the Saudis who despise us - would also decrease >>> as we waste less and less. (Ever read The Waste Makers in your Econ 101 days?)
|
Post #17,520
11/9/01 2:00:20 PM
|
WTO?
WTO isn't about improving the life in that country.
It's about exploiting the worker resources in that country so WE can get even cheaper goods.
Or to make it a little clearer, they want to allow the corporations to move production to the cheapest countries.
When the average Afghanistan citizen is complaining about the fools driving SUV's, then we'll be safe.
When the average Afghanistan citizen cannot afford a computer, then we'll still have to worry.
|
Post #17,524
11/9/01 2:16:08 PM
|
Exploitation vs. Protectionism
Or to make it a little clearer, they want to allow the corporations to move production to the cheapest countries. Well there's two alternatives to this. First, we could stop these companies from moving their production facilities out of the rich countries. Problem with this is that it means no jobs or economic development for the cheapest countries (which happen to be in the third world). Second, we could require these countries to pay the same wages and have the same labor and environmental standards as the rich countries. Which basically removes any economic incentive for corporations to move production to the cheapest countries - i.e. they are no longer cheap. Again, it basically amounts to keeping production and wealth inside the rich countries and denying the third world. I suppose there's some alternatives for developing the third world. But I wonder sometimes whether most people are really more concerned with protectionism than they are about exploitation. They seem to be conveniently intertwined.
|
Post #17,527
11/9/01 2:28:21 PM
|
Well said.
|
Post #17,588
11/9/01 5:28:52 PM
|
Develop local businesses.
Big difference between protectionism and exploitation.
One example: Environmental regulations.
Exploitation is when we polute their country.
Protectionism isn't covered under that.
I don't see the problem with companies paying similar benefits to other workers as they do to workers here. Medical/Dental/etc.
Sure, that will raise the cost of moving production overseas.
But, so what?
That isn't Protectionism. Although the end result might be that fewer companies would move their production overseas.
If the only reason for moving production is to avoid our labour laws and environmental regulations, how can applying them be Protectionism?
|
Post #17,599
11/9/01 5:48:55 PM
|
Catch 22
Because when we move our production overseas with the kind of strings you are attaching...we are "dictating" how those operations are to be run and the laws that they must be run under. That is generally met with a "who the hell do you think you are" attitude.
While you may think that its done "just for the money"...in many cases its not. Sometimes its done to provide access to local markets. Sometimes its done to put manufacturing in closer proximity to the raw materials. And yes...sometimes its done to save labor costs.
Supporting >their< businesses does NOT guarantee that they will automatically follow our regulations. The Chinese have a huge chemical industry...and they can sell in the US at drastically lower prices. They can do this because the Chinese do NOT require their industries to follow the same environmental regulations as we do. These are very expensive regulations to follow. They also have nowhere near the same safety requirements for the workers.
So...if we were to support local business in the Far East...the chem industry is one of those...and we would be supporting companies with worse environmental records than our own...and supporting companies that show a complete disregard for worker safety.
This is one case where US owned companies operating overseas are often operated at much higher standards than the local regulations require.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #17,604
11/9/01 6:06:39 PM
|
Easy answer.
"That is generally met with a "who the hell do you think you are" attitude."
Well, that would be the country that made your business possible. Wouldn't it be?
"While you may think that its done "just for the money"...in many cases its not."
That is true. Would you care to estimate how often it is done for any of the reasons you've mentioned as opposed to just for the money?
In other words, how many times are the regulations of the US followed by the company when shifting production?
As for China, I don't see them needing our help.
"So...if we were to support local business in the Far East...the chem industry is one of those...and we would be supporting companies with worse environmental records than our own...and supporting companies that show a complete disregard for worker safety."
If we were supporting the chemical industry in China. Which I don't seem to recall advocating.
Remember, we're looking for ways to develop the country.
Not ways to rape their resources.
|
Post #17,634
11/9/01 11:30:26 PM
|
Re: Easy answer.
You wish it were so easy.
Lets utilize >their< businesses...care to ask Cathy Lee how well that works out?
And in multinational business..my guess is at least half if not more of the time...business is shifted oversees to be nearer the market and nearer the resources. Both reduce cost.
Of course...the obvious choices would be to point the finger across the border to Mexico...but those businesses are a very small fraction of what gets invested overseas.
We built a factory in Singapore. It had nothing to do with wage levels. WE built a factory in China. It had nothing to do with labor cost. We built refining capacity in Iran...it had nothing to do with labor cost.
Just a couple of real examples of something I'm sure you think could never...ever happen. Our last 3 major international investments. Not 1 was done to reduce labor...and all are operated to US/EU specifications for emissions.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #17,814
11/11/01 11:02:53 PM
|
Exploitation vs development.
"Lets utilize >their< businesses...care to ask Cathy Lee how well that works out?"
So, child labour is okay?
If it isn't okay, then why was she doing business with a company that utilized it?
Again, this is REALLY easy.
Do NOT do business with businesses that violate the regulations that businesses in the US operate under.
"And in multinational business..my guess is at least half if not more of the time...business is shifted oversees to be nearer the market and nearer the resources. Both reduce cost."
You're right. That is your guess.
My experience has been otherwise.
"Of course...the obvious choices would be to point the finger across the border to Mexico...but those businesses are a very small fraction of what gets invested overseas."
Yet they seem to be representative of the process.
"We built a factory in Singapore."
I'm glad you did. Why?
"Just a couple of real examples of something I'm sure you think could never...ever happen."
Whatever. Live in your fantasy land if it makes you feel better. I'm sure you know exactly what I believe and know.
|
Post #17,862
11/12/01 10:20:39 AM
|
Re: Exploitation vs development.
And your experience is the absolute...while mine is the fantasy world?
Great way to continue a discussion.
Have you...perhaps...lived and worked in other countries?
Have you...perhaps...been involved in investment decisions that involve building large scale facilities in countries other than the US.
Or do you read about Nike and decide that should be your world view?
And...you decide to miss the point again...Cathy Lee did business with a company outside of the US. She supported >their< business...as you tell her she should. Just so happens, their child labor laws are quite different than ours. So...in supporting >their< businesses...she offended >our< sensibilities.
You want your cake and the ability to eat it too. It doesn't work that way. If you are going to say..."We will only support businesses who do it >our< way...then you might as well just give them >our< businesses.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #17,943
11/12/01 5:28:46 PM
|
Pattern recognition time, again..
You want your cake and the ability to eat it too. It doesn't work that
way. If you are going to say..."We will only support businesses who do
it >our< way...then you might as well just give them >our<
businesses. I don't doubt your assertion that, any decision to make business investment *anywhere* - is not exactly.. a simplistic process involving *only* the bottom line. But see little evidence that the bottom line is Not the #1 consideration in any bizness proposal. That IS the veritable mantra! of Econ - divorced as the numbers game is, from most all societal consequences except one: Will they let us get away with this, if we do ___ and seem to do ___ at least until - they get used to our presence and dependent upon it?I am sure there are exceptions - as with the N.E. owner of a mill: rebuilt so as to keep the jobs alive. This instead of the usual and expected EZ out: take the insurance money; screw any local effects - move offshore for lower costs and pay lip-service only, to env. consequences on all scales. I don't know what evidence you'd ever settle for re the 'motivations of bizness'; numbers are so malleable and divorced from the universe of consequences a Corp decision ever creates - and you are a proponent of the numerical, if not an obsessive (?) Certainly workers are rarely consulted nor are even a factor in Corp Am. They are a liability in the mentation of those who have stated this as a principle. What could such a principle mean except ~ the desire for increased roboticization: more muman-replacing robots + a corporate aim to robiticize the necessary humans awaiting later redundancy? Would you deny that Corp-speak already has homogenized many topics into rote scripts? The mill story was big news for obvious reasons - as a rare aberration. Why Else? You appear to consistently accept the role of Corp as a substitute for Government, unwilling to address the purchase of legislat -ion -ors, via the patently sustained election loopholes (by these 'representatives' allegedly.. of us all). Shall the 'blame' be apportioned not only among the ovine electorate - but shared also by those who cynically exploit the weakness of the society? Or is that just smart bizness too? Where IS this vaunted Responsibility, so beloved of a notoriouly vociferous set. What IS the 'Ethics of Bizness 2000+' ? (I know I know - M$ has an Integrity \ufffd on its site too! if one can imagine such a travesty.) What about the Others' travesties, then? Your field - right? I'll keep calling you on the neatness of your paradigm, and what the sociopathic effects are seen to be, of reducing life to the mere equations of Econ. Your Market Forces are as chimerical, as flawed a measure of "what life might be for" as was Phlogiston a flawed concept of "how things burn" IMhO. Ashton Nemesis of Nattering Nabobs of Noisome Nostrums
|
Post #17,952
11/12/01 7:05:56 PM
11/12/01 8:12:42 PM
|
Keep up...
Never did I say that the bottom line was ignored in these investment decisions. Just that the decision to build overseas was not a simple matter of "finding cheap labor". And it is interesting that you appear to think that every corporation regards its employees as a liability. That would be a tad difficult, imo...considering that without employees...there would be no corporations. But then it must be those >bad bad< MBA types...they don't really count as employees...no "management" person can qualify as an employee...the employees are the ones holding the broom...and none of those >liabilities< mean anything to their employer, right? (No need to answer...I know yours already) You appear to consistently accept the role of Corp as a substitute for Government, unwilling to address the purchase of legislat -ion -ors, via the patently sustained election loopholes Where? Never have I been unwilling to accept the corporate lobby for what it is. And...just to blow your tidy view...I support campaign finance reform...because I don't like the fact that big money has the type of influence you seem to >think< I'd like them to have. HOWEVER having people with just a >little< business sense in charge of this country's finances does make a little sense, no? Or should we continue to allow legislators who don't have to (and are likely incapable) of balancing their own checkbook be responsible for the disposition of >trillions< of dollars of our money? I have no problem accepting that there are things that the "market" and "bizness" are not prepared to handle. However, I also have no problem accepting that there are certain things that they >are< prepared to handle..and handle responsibly. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
Edited by bepatient
Nov. 12, 2001, 08:12:42 PM EST
|
Post #17,956
11/12/01 7:30:59 PM
|
OK I think we have a platform here
1) (Actually) reform campaign financing - even in the face of massively financed lobbying against any such thing.
2) Elect new folks, soon as possible - preferably of the sort for whom #1 would have been redundant; no Sales Price tag on the new group (except for the inevitable practiced scum as will slip through).
3) Ensure that 2) possess minimal business comprehension.
4) Employ 2) to ferret out practitioners of that sleazy bizness behavior as also proves to be illegal activity: after overhaul and *enforcement* of anti-trust and other business regulations, undertaken after 1) made the rules more conducive to overall social survival.
5) Live happier ever after - with a fresh agenda of problems to keep us busy solving - replacing the sleaze problems formerly untouchable.
6) Eventually die - opening up new spots.
The Reformat Reload and Reconfigure Party ? R\ufffd fer ads.
May we expect a generous Founders donation from you?
Ashton Party Creators Ltd.
Tell us how you want to live.
We'll write the Code.
|
Post #17,964
11/12/01 8:08:43 PM
|
Wow...
except for the R3 tag...cause who needs a Republican raised to the 3rd power...but you could end up as the MS Tech Support Party (except there's no reboot on the platform...just >the boot<...so you would be the "boot, reformat, reload and reconfigure party."
Make my check payable to you I'd imagine ;-)
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #17,977
11/12/01 8:54:35 PM
|
Yes, bad association: *The Nothing Party* it is!
After all:
Nothing lasts forever.
Nothing will eliminate war, famine, plague, pestilence, even graft, corruption and Government waste in a New York minute.
Nothing will enable you to double your IQ in the time it takes to brush your teeth.
Nothing will endow politicians with the ability to answer a yes or no question with a "yes" or "no".
In a Nutshell, NOTHING is Perfect!
[\ufffd 1992 by Franko Toth] - the Nothing Party is Nothing if not Principled.
Now which PR Corp do we hire for recruitment? (Wagg Edd has a Good Bizness credential there - successful, pervasive, predictable - unencumbered by ethical quandary or by any substantive factual content within any 'Product')
Could that be Fluffy Bunny ^h^h er Nothing's first representative? Nothing could better represent the Murican Corporate Ethic better than Wagg-Edd. No?
Operators are standing by for your Pay-Pal contribution.
Nothing matters more than this!
Sartre Productions Ltd.
Being and Nothingness - what Else ya got?
|
Post #17,993
11/12/01 11:35:22 PM
|
Re: OK I think we have a platform here
>1) (Actually) reform campaign financing - even in the face of massively financed lobbying against any such thing.
One thing that I never could understand is folks are totally pissed off when there's financing from corps/countries over US's politics, but no one really speaks out abt US arbituarily selecting who should rule other countries.
Witness Afghanistan right now. Because the current ruling government refuses to turn over OBL without any proof (that's another thread), the US is assisting the NA to take over the country.
???
|
Post #17,999
11/13/01 12:17:49 AM
|
reread the treaty of the high seas
as well as the history of war against the pirates (afgans landlock is no excuse) and the history of the indonesians, malays moros, Japan vs Korea, China vs British (HONG CONG) china vs mongols etc.
thanx,
bill
tshirt front "born to die before I get old"
thshirt back "fscked another one didnja?"
|
Post #18,002
11/13/01 12:32:24 AM
|
Correction...
...we do not want the NA to take power.
And just because you haven't seen it doesn't mean there is not proof. Something must have been offered to the leaders of the major members of the coalition that convinced them that this was the correct course.
Just think...the French government is still in support. That would take proof...considering they wouldn't even return a convicted murderer to the US because they thought convicting him in absentia was "bad form"...even though there was ample proof of guilt.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #18,015
11/13/01 8:34:03 AM
|
Re: Correction...
>...we do not want the NA to take power
That's not how it appeared, and it appears now that the NA has taken power.
>And just because you haven't seen it doesn't mean there is not proof. Something must have been offered to the leaders of the major members of the coalition that convinced them that this was the correct course.
Like I said, that's another thread... don't want to get into that... but it seems quite a number of folks share the opinion that the US should have "conceded" to the Taliban's request to produce proofs and THEN will the US have the moral high ground when it then went ahead to attack the Taliben. I share that opinion too.
>Just think...the French government is still in support. That would take proof...considering they wouldn't even return a convicted murderer to the US because they thought convicting him in absentia was "bad form"...even though there was ample proof of guilt.
That's relatively easy. It's NOT them that's at the receiving end, no? :)
|
Post #18,048
11/13/01 11:15:26 AM
|
I don't think we're interested in "moral high ground"
And neither are the Taliban. And if, by chance, the Taliban were shown proof (the debate over its existence aside), they would have rejected it (naturally) and the intelligence sources used to gather that proof would have been forever compromised.
Sorry...in war...which this is...I don't think trading strategic info for moral high ground is a very good idea.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #18,518
11/16/01 3:58:05 AM
|
Re: I don't think we're interested in "moral high ground"
BP, I hope you understand what I'm trying to get here.
I've never defended the terrorists' action. Nor do I support any nation that "harbour" terrorists and "support" terrorism KNOWINGLY. I believe folks with sanity will probably have the same stance.
What we differ in is the way things are being handled, or rather mishandled.
9/11 was a tragedy.
However, a little introspective will reveal that such a tragedy was one that was waiting to happen in view of US foreign policy, past and present. Justifiable, no. To be expected, yes.
After the 9/11, the US could have had a legitimate WAR against terrorism. Instead, it has become a "hand over OBL or we'll bomb you, fuck the proofs" "terrorist action" in the eyes of many. Almost every nation denounced terrorism. Whether they are paying lips service or not, we won't know. Is the US really against terrorism itself if it wasn't the victim?
Nevertheless, many "allies" in this war are allies because they can't afford to be in the "against US" category, economically and militarily. So are they victims of terrorism? "You're with us, or you are with the terrorists" (and you know what we will do to the terrorists, don't you?)
And then, the biggest irony of all, the US "ally" itself with the NA, a bunch of looters and rapists no less, which is at war with the then-ruling regime in their civil war, thus again ignoring the sovereignty of another nation and propping up the US-preferred faction.
So does the end justify the means? How really different is the US from the terrorists of 9/11?
|
Post #17,961
11/12/01 8:01:05 PM
11/12/01 8:22:50 PM
|
Re: Keep up...
Or should we continue to allow legislators who don't have to (and are likely incapable) of balancing their own checkbook be responsible for the disposition of >trillions< of dollars of our money? cite: House checking scandal of (?late 80's early 90's?) Dozens and hundreds of other examples of course. Ah, if I were Czar for four years.... (ashton, stop looking so green at the gills, it's not likely to happen. I'd actually rescind multiple Ashcroft decrees.) "Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it."
-- Donald Knuth
Edited by wharris2
Nov. 12, 2001, 08:22:50 PM EST
|
Post #17,965
11/12/01 8:11:16 PM
|
Great....
I can't edit >your< post to fix >my< typo.
Damn
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #17,968
11/12/01 8:23:31 PM
11/12/01 8:23:52 PM
|
I was kind.
I actually didn't notice it myself until you pointed it out.
"Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it."
-- Donald Knuth
Edited by wharris2
Nov. 12, 2001, 08:23:52 PM EST
|
Post #17,973
11/12/01 8:36:34 PM
|
Thanks
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #17,998
11/13/01 12:09:29 AM
|
point of order
If an American Company uses offshore labor to produce finished items for the American domestic market, are they charged the same income tax on profit as an American Company purchasing 3rd party manufactured goods in the third world? They are not, multinationals claim that the spread is non taxable by the US. That is the difference on wht the american worker is getting fscked by low labor rates outside.
thanx,
bill
tshirt front "born to die before I get old"
thshirt back "fscked another one didnja?"
|
Post #17,556
11/9/01 4:05:38 PM
|
I think it's dangerous...
to assume that this is purely a financial problem. (Just as it's dangerous to assume that this is a 'jealousy' problem.)
First, the Afghans didn't attack us. They may be poor, they may be playing host to bin Ladin and the Taliban, but they weren't on the planes.
Those were (for the most part) Saudias...and the Saudias Royal family has the money to buy SUV's and computers and whatnot.
|
Post #17,567
11/9/01 4:39:40 PM
|
Thanks UK for the term, 'sticky wicket' :(
|
Post #17,423
11/8/01 9:48:48 PM
|
You'll get no argument here...
with those objectives... after we take care of the business at hand the old fashioned way. I'm still stuck on the "or else" factor that needs be established in the next few years for humankind to function as a "civilized" global world. I would argue that the reason that religion (monotheism as currently practiced) exists is because man's laws were not enough of an "or else" to go from hunter/gatherers to agricultural civilizations. People still would rob, steal, adulter and blow up buildings. The every present "eye in the sky" that is watching you when the soldiers and police weren't seems much more effective in conjunction... Like Santa Claus...
I digress, your points are well taken and I agree. Hopefully, we won't lose track of the necessity of the "civilized" world to rain fire upon the infidels in this current situation for the possible deterrent effect.
Just a few thoughts,
Screamer
"I'll tip my hat to the new constitution, take a bow for the new revolution, smile and grin at the change all around, pick up my guitar and play, just like yesterday..."
P. Townshend
"Nietzsche has an S in it"
Celina Jones
|
