Too much sanity to pass muster

The conclusion:

Let us be a more modest nation. We will then be more secure.
The modest nations of the world don't face the threat of
terrorism.

Such a fundamental change in foreign policy is hardly to be
expected. It would threaten too many interests: the power of
political leaders, the ambitions of the military, the corporations
that profit from the nation's enormous military commitments.

Change will come, as at other times in our history, only when
American citizens-- becoming better informed, having second
thoughts after the first instinctive support for official
policy--demand it. That change in citizen opinion, especially if it
coincides with a pragmatic decision by the government that its
violence isn't working, could bring about a retreat from the
military solution.

It might also be a first step in the rethinking of our nation's role
in the world. Such a rethinking contains the promise, for
Americans, of genuine security, and for people elsewhere, the
beginning of hope.

This postulates a functioning 'democracy'/Republic - not one whose leaders are selected among the few favored by Corporate / moneyed interests - a miniscule minority. It also presupposes that some effective plurality of the nation possesses understanding of all the histories mentioned, remains interested and informed by sources apart from the (also Corporate owned) media.

Finally it suppposes that (most? a majority?) care, are full-fledged citizens of the country limned by the Founding Mothers. Instead, we have a caricature of that - all the fine sound bytes, no sane political dialog for there being only One Party - with jargon tilted Rightwards for at least 20 years. With no 'Left' there can be no actual debate, only obsolete slogans. Consumers are not necessarily citizens, but their passion for their stuff - seems to supersede any desire to become citizens. All one need do is, watch where the majority place their attention. Thus with few voting citizens, fewer still - informed voting citizens:

It Can't Happen Here. Certainly not in time to make any difference in the open-ended bellicose plans being worked out hourly, from little strategic aim except: We Must Win! [Something]. (No matter how beautiful/ugly that Something turns out to be, for all reasons expressed in the article.)

Could the kids in Lord of the Flies have comprehended the ideas expressed by Mr. Zinn? Given the bastards we have supported for 'strategic reasons' all along, for now ~two generations since WW-II - could the Murican Peepul comprehend them either?

I don't think so.

Ashton

First, we clobber anyone connected with the terrorist attacks. Make it clear, you mess with us, you will hurt bad.

Then, we reformulate a foreign policy that has, as one plank, that we don't dick around with other governments if they don't dick around with us. (We need spy organizations to keep tabs on what others may be trying to do, but we keep our noses out of other peoples' business.) Keep reasonable tabs on national interests like oil (but, dammit, develop energy sources to free us from the damn middle east oil pool! Once we do that, we pull out of the region and tell them all to go to hell.)

(To a lesser extent, same policy with our friends and allies. Our REAL friends and allies, none of this Saudi "money under the table to bin Laden" friendliness. Someone attacks England, we help them.)

Cripes, I'm sounding half like Pat Buchannan. OMG.

Post #18,480 by Ashton 11/15/01 8:04:42 PM Reply	Too much sanity to pass muster The conclusion: Let us be a more modest nation. We will then be more secure. The modest nations of the world don't face the threat of terrorism. Such a fundamental change in foreign policy is hardly to be expected. It would threaten too many interests: the power of political leaders, the ambitions of the military, the corporations that profit from the nation's enormous military commitments. Change will come, as at other times in our history, only when American citizens-- becoming better informed, having second thoughts after the first instinctive support for official policy--demand it. That change in citizen opinion, especially if it coincides with a pragmatic decision by the government that its violence isn't working, could bring about a retreat from the military solution. It might also be a first step in the rethinking of our nation's role in the world. Such a rethinking contains the promise, for Americans, of genuine security, and for people elsewhere, the beginning of hope. This postulates a functioning 'democracy'/Republic - not one whose leaders are selected among the few favored by Corporate / moneyed interests - a miniscule minority. It also presupposes that some effective plurality of the nation possesses understanding of all the histories mentioned, remains interested and informed by sources apart from the (also Corporate owned) media. Finally it suppposes that (most? a majority?) care, are full-fledged citizens of the country limned by the Founding Mothers. Instead, we have a caricature of that - all the fine sound bytes, no sane political dialog for there being only One Party - with jargon tilted Rightwards for at least 20 years. With no 'Left' there can be no actual debate, only obsolete slogans. Consumers are not necessarily citizens, but their passion for their stuff - seems to supersede any desire to become citizens. All one need do is, watch where the majority place their attention. Thus with few voting citizens, fewer still - informed voting citizens: It Can't Happen Here. Certainly not in time to make any difference in the open-ended bellicose plans being worked out hourly, from little strategic aim except: We Must Win! [Something]. (No matter how beautiful/ugly that Something turns out to be, for all reasons expressed in the article.) Could the kids in Lord of the Flies have comprehended the ideas expressed by Mr. Zinn? Given the bastards we have supported for 'strategic reasons' all along, for now ~two generations since WW-II - could the Murican Peepul comprehend them either? I don't think so. Ashton
Post #18,482 by wharris2 11/15/01 8:16:46 PM Reply	That's the second step First, we clobber anyone connected with the terrorist attacks. Make it clear, you mess with us, you will hurt bad. Then, we reformulate a foreign policy that has, as one plank, that we don't dick around with other governments if they don't dick around with us. (We need spy organizations to keep tabs on what others may be trying to do, but we keep our noses out of other peoples' business.) Keep reasonable tabs on national interests like oil (but, dammit, develop energy sources to free us from the damn middle east oil pool! Once we do that, we pull out of the region and tell them all to go to hell.) (To a lesser extent, same policy with our friends and allies. Our REAL friends and allies, none of this Saudi "money under the table to bin Laden" friendliness. Someone attacks England, we help them.) Cripes, I'm sounding half like Pat Buchannan. OMG. "Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it." -- Donald Knuth
Post #18,488 by TTC 11/15/01 8:33:36 PM Reply	Re: That's the second step >First, we clobber anyone connected with the terrorist attacks. Make it clear, you mess with us, you will hurt bad. Question, is this supposed to be a US one-way street? I mean, can ANY non-American living outside the US have similar feelings? Then what? Just curious.

Welcome to IWETHEY!