security and insecurity

--- In ssi_list@... "Valens Agnitio"

> Whew! I, too, am in the financial industry, and I barely have time
> to read such thorough posts - much less write them... How do you
> do it? :)

At the expense of much leisure time. My wife & I used to dance a lot
but more responsibilty at her work this past year has cut into our
leisure pursuits, hence my whiling away my free time on space
dreams. :) Besides I don't have to maintain the killer hours at work
any longer having earned my reward :)

> Those experiences opened my eyes to some very interesting things,
> not the least of which is an appreciation of how very differently
> some view and interact with the world.

Which is why politics sometimes seems an unseemly business. Making
deals with the devil is often necessary. Everyone can't be pure
sunshine, even though there are political philosophies which
presuppose the goodness of humanity.

> In addition, you say that we were to hasty, that more political
> efforts were needed? I think 10 years of giving the UN the finger
> should have been enough.

On this point I agree, but when war became a likely course of action
and the Bush Administration saw that others weren't on board, that's
the point that I think more time in coalition building should have
been spent. This would have addressed the criticism of *rush to war.*

> Also, waiting gave him more time to prepare (and thus more
> casualities on both sides),

The US wasn't building up its forces in secrecy :) Saddam had months
to prepare.

> and possibly hide what we were lookin for.

Looks like they hid things pretty well. More time wouldn't help make
things more hidden :) But we couldn't know that.

> The UN should have looked at the whole thing favorably - we gave
> them teeth instead of continued existence as an impotent and
> therefore largely irrelevant body.

You have to understand the purpose of the UN. It is largely a veto
body designed to check the power of two superpowers so that neither
could act in a rash manner and such a forum would allow stability to
reign.

The UN is the wrong design for the times. Why is France on the
Security Council but not Germany? I know why, but Germany is a
bigger player in on the World scene than France. Where are the 1
Billion Indians represented in the scheme of things? They're a
democracy compared to the 1.2 Billion Chinese communists.

The whole set-up worked well for a different age. It's an
anachronism today.

> While I agree to some extent, you more than anyone would probably
> agree that the world is one big interconnected economy,

I do indeed.

> and Europe is certainly not isolated from that. Being as the
> standards of living in the Western world are largely dependent on
> cheap access to large amounts of energy (thank God for the
> Grid! :) ), and that, of course means oil.

You are correct sir!

> Europe is much more dependent on Middle Eastern oil than the US
> (aside from the impact a dent in oil flow to Japan would make).

Very good distinction. They are indeed more dependent on *Middle
Eastern* oil.

> So, stability in the Mid East is of paramount importance to the
> free world, France and Germany included. I wonder if there might
> not be a little collusion between big business in these countries
> (who were profiting in Iraq legal and otherwise) and the gov'ts.

Do you really think so? :)

> It becomes quite clear that SPS should be more than a thought
> experiment on the web.

Yes indeed, but the time to fruitition is too long. The rewards
would accrue to a future generation, no hang on, a future
administration, so what's the point of bearing the expense now.

> >The price that is paid for world stability is one that is borne by
> >the US, and it is in the US interest to maintain order even if
> >other ountries are reducing their defense budgets. For those who
> >resent the role of the US as the world's policeman they can look
> >to themselves to do more. The atrocities in Yugoslavia are a
> >testament to Europe's inability to influence foreign affairs
> >through persuasion, even events that take place within Europe.
>
> EXACTLY - why don't you see that kind of analysis in the news???

Look at how Rumsfeld's comment on Old Europe/New Europe went over.
One just has to look at the statistics to see that the center of
gravity will be moving in an Easterly direction and the ethos of the
East is different than that of Western Europe. Being released from
the clutches of communism is seen largely as a result of American
policy, not French or German action. Besides, the Eastern Europeans
are less concerned with thwarting American Power as are France,
Germany and Belgium.

Simply, it would be offensive to publicly comment on their lack of
power.

> How true! If you find you have the time, read 'Panzer Battles' by
> General Von Mellinthin.

Thanks for the tip. I will find time to read this. Military strategy
is of keen interest to me.

> Again, the shouldering of many a burden for Europe allowed them to
> spend on themselves... Probably closer proximity to Soviet psyops
> as well with Marxist programs in effect. That may sound nuts, but
> its true.

I'm not exactly certain of what you mean by this, but if you're
implying that the Europeans had Communist and Socialist Parties
vying for political representation within their societies, then yes,
the very presence of the ideologies and a means to give electoral
voice to their ideals will have a profound effect on European
outlook. America, almost alone in the world, has never had the
influence of Socialism, that is until the Green Party showed up,
premeating into the civilian consciousness. That may explain the
differing world views. It's not that those who don't see the world
with the same perspective as Americans are socialists, it's just
that socialist ideals have been in their environment and have become
part of the acceptable range of viewpoints. Kind of muddying the
waters, so that even capitalism has been influenced by socialism.
You see what I mean? Is this what you meant?

> And they're going to start fixing it by banning muslim head
> scarves in schools. Can't they learn from our blunders during the
> civil rights era? It be nice to think that someone else could
> learn vicariously from our mistakes, thus giving them value
> instead of just being wastesof time and energy.

But the lessons and situations faced are not the same. In France the
ideal is not so much multi-culturalism as we know it but a more
egalitarian outlook where all should aspire to be French.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1596012.stm

"The contrast to the more liberal, multi-cultural philosophy which
prevails in Britain for example could not be clearer. In Britain,
immigrants are encouraged to sustain their cultures. Diversity is
often celebrated."

"In France, multi-culturalism is a dirty word."

"Immigrant children are expected to pass through the mill of the
French educational system and emerge at the end with a universally-
shared package of knowledge and values."

"In theory this makes for a more homogeneous society."

"The same is true of religion. "Religion is fine," said Jerome
Seguy, a town official in Mantes-La-Jolie, a high-immigration town
west of Paris. "As long as it's in its place - out of public view."

The wearing of headscarves sets up a different standard for some
children. Pretty soon you'll be seeing young boys wearing kirpans to
school.

I agree with the French position. The essence of being French must
be maintained. Multiculturalism is great if you want to eat at
different restaurants but not so great when there is nothing that
binds all these disparate communties that share the borders of a
nation.

> Also, if it is a war for oil, so what? We all know that our
> economies, and therefore our abilities to pursue the loftier
> things that will make the world a better place, depend on oil.

So what? I'll step outside the world of realpolitik for a moment and
assume the hat of a moralist. The oil doesn't belong to the US, and
it's not theirs to take. That's theft. It doesn't matter how much
you need the oil, it's not yours to take. Your only moral option is
to suffer without it. Ok, moralist hat is off.

> A thought: if the powers that be can be made to appreciate the
> economic signifigance of things such as SPS, think of the spin
> offs for everyone else...

It would definitely be an economic driver. If we could only find a
way to spread the wealth away from the major aerospace companies who
have forgotten what the free market and competition are all about
after spending decades at the teat of the Pentagon.

> If those minds focused on SPS? Wow. I look forward to it - again,
> for everything, and, not to sound like a beauty contestant, world
> peace :)
>
> Val

LOL. I'd just be happy to diminish the American need to play
policeman to the world. Lot's of bad news is coming down the road,
especially in the Middle East, and I'd rather not see other
scenarios like Iraq. Let the Germans and French handle the next
crisis after the US has more energy coming from SPS.

TangoMan