On Wed, Jan 28, 2004 at 10:09:57PM -0800, Steve Lamb wrote: > Mike M wrote: > >I am not going to defend .gov's oil policy. My point is there has to be > >an oil policy. You can't disengage and think things will just turn out > >alright. > > Why does there have to be one that includes invasion?
There's two things going on (honest): (1) Changing the Arab psyche: from the Greeks forward, the Arabs never fought like men. They believe if merely to survive is victory. I base my statements on John Keegan's "A History of War" from the introduction of Chariot battle tatics, and again with the Mongols, and again with the Crusades. In Baghdad it is called being an "Ali Baba." Short answer is, it only worked with the Mongols, by exceeding them in cruelty. Or, in plain simple terms, we are picking one bully and beating the sh*t out of them. The intention is we won't have to do it to everybody. Trust me, with that culture, it will *work*. (2) The oil thing. Yeah, there's some of that. But do me a favor and separate out (1) from this in your rhetoric. Most of us are really going for (1). Trust me, enough of us have our eyes open checking and balancing forces here, (2) is not what's driving this. (1) is. The best thing you can do about (2) is change cars, the the oil companies will become other kinds of companies. Arabs didn't used to be important 100 years ago. It will be that way again. Actually, that will probably fix (1) as well. Focus on that. Stop worrying about monsters in the closet. > >My concept of "local" and "nation" are changing. I'm pretty sure we're > >not going to see eye-to-eye on this one. > > So you believe that any time any nation has a problem with out we > (meaning your nation) does something it is perfectly OK for them to invade? > What are you, new? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
