Bomb them with butter, bribe them with hope.

jay gee jgj23 at
Thu Sep 20 18:02:56 EDT 2001

Hi Jill, 

You're welcome.  Here's a little more...

>> A U.S. led "intervention" into Afghanistan is ill-advised because it will
>> not be successful and will carry a very high real price tag, excluding the
>> loss of human life.  I am not advocating conventional warfare methods.
>So, what do you advocate instead of conventional warfare methods?

Advanced technological weapons used with accurate intelligence,
without regard to "collateral damage."  When properly waged,
"War is Hell" as Sherman said.

>> The trial and incarceration of the bombers of Pan Am 103, and the World
>> Trade Center in 1992 has done nothing to slow the spread or scale of
>> terrorist acts.
>Yes, I know.  And bringing bin Laden to trial would not end terrorism
>either.  I didn't put it forth as a means to end terrorism, but rather to
>initiate a way to justice.  Nor would bombing, invading, nuking, etc end
>terrorism - in fact they would only increase the incidences of terrorism by
>increasing enmity and desperation.

What kind of "justice" are you looking for???
If you saw an individual walk into a supermarket and start shooting
people to death without regard... is justice killing the shooter on the
spot in the act -- or is it waiting until s/he runs out of ammunition,
arresting and prosecuting and then parking them in prison until they

>> There is no need to bomb civilians unnecessarily.  But terrorists tend
>> to be civilians by definition.  Those who follow or support terrorist
>> training camps are not innocent, they are complicit.
>We must look at ourselves here in the same light.  The US funded, armed,
>trained Contras - which are also terrorists - and we have not yet been
>brought to account for it - only because we are so powerful and refuse to be
>accountable.  The US is currently funding/arming/perhaps training terrorists
>in Columbia.  I am not advocating terrorism by mentioning this, but rather
>advocating equal rules/justice for all world participants.  If Afghanis who
>support terrorist training camps are complicit, then those of us who
>supported Contras, or who support the activities in Columbia are complicit
>as well.  What is abominable when done by others is abominable when done by
>us as well.

It was ever thus.  When the world decides to arrest and convict the
Richard Nixons, Ronald Reagans, Franklin Delano Roosevelts and
Henry Kissengers of the world, and carries out such activities, you will
not hear me complaining.

>> The United States needs to clean it own house and get it's act in order.
>> But it does not need to be apologetic for its success.  It does need to
>> be less arrogant and more neutral, allowing the zealots in other parts of
>> the world to kill each other when they choose to, without sticking our
>> necks out for contrived political reasons.

>And here is where we differ greatly.  Our success is due to repression
>around the world - and that does indeed deserve an apology.  If the US can
>not bear to apologize, then at least it can change its policies so as to end
>its leechlike behavior.

No doubt, some portion of our success results from repression of those
who want to change the affairs, governments or power elites of states
we deem "friendly" to the United States' cause.  It seems foolish to me
to offer an apology absent a reason.  Do marathon winners apologize
to those they beat?

>> One hundred years ago the U.S. was a beacon of freedom to the
>> world.  We need to be more of an example and let freedom spread
>> by choice, where other people want it and are willing to die to get it.
>> Only then do they appreciate it.
>Jay, many have died attempting to gain freedom - and we have been
>instrumental in their deaths.  I find your statement above objectionable.

You can't have it both ways Jill.  People living in repressive states have
a choice, accept their fates or change them.  Either way you eventually
die.  That is what happened in the thirteen colonies in 1776.  The
decision of the time was to live free or die.  Without that attitude we
would not be having this discussion today.

Many in Afghanistan would tell you they are happy with their
style of "freedom" because it suits their beliefs -- not ours.

>There are good people in the US - many good people.  But most people
>are not aware - and are therefore complicit in many many things.

There are also bad people in the US, even in positions of influence.
Complicity goes without saying and is the bedfellow of complacency.

>> I share your aspirations for a better world, but my studies of history and
>> behavioral science lead me to believe that to save the house from a fire,
>> one starts by extinguishing the fire.  After the fire is out one acts to
>> prevent the next fire, and lastly investigates the causes of the fire just
>> extinguished.
>How would you extinguish the fire, and what do you think are the causes of

To stop a fire you remover the oxygen, lower the temperature below
the ignition point (apply water), or remove the fuel.  The last option
means destroying the house.  I recommend the first or second options.
The first two options, in effect, "kill" the fire; the last one merely
"starves" it to death.

Fires begin as the result of carelessness with an open flame, circuit
overloads, lightning strikes, earthquakes, accident side effects or arson.


More information about the Market-farming mailing list