[aclug-L] Re: Richard Reid

[Tom Hull <thull2@xxxxxxx>]

John Goerzen wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 02, 2003 at 04:20:46PM -0600, Tom Hull wrote:
> 
>>My apologies for continuing this thread, especially to Scott Rarden,
>>whose very different response is equally valid. But Michael Moore's
> 
> 
> Feel free to interrupt a flamewar with insight anytime :-)  I found your
> post most interesting and thoughtful.
> 
> 
>>One such problem is that the U.S. has gone deep into hock to support its
>>bloated world-wide military, while the rest of the relatively well-to-do
>>nations have cut back and steered clear from debilitating wars. The U.S.
> 
> 
> That is a key point, and one worth developing a bit.  Many Americans are
> proud and get a sense of security from having military spending far in
> excess of any other nation; yet it is really something I feel embarrassed
> by.
> 
> 
>>Materialism is a rather imprecise, misleading code-word here. It's mostly
>>used by people on the religious right (Muslims, Christians, Jews; I don't
>>know but I'd bet that there are Hindus who are worked up over it too) to
>>disparage a supposed loss of spiritual values in capitalist society. Some
> 
> 
> As a religious person, but not a "religious right" one, I might say that I
> have somewhat different view of materialism that is distinct from whether or
> not a society is capitalist.  Basically, I think that there are better ways
> to achieve happiness and fulfillment in life than always having the latest
> car, the best house, most powerful computer, etc.  It's not solely a
> religious position, either.
> 
> 
>>of us unreligious types actually think it's a pretty good thing. But to
> 
> 
> It sounds like you might be talking about a rising standard of living, which
> I agree is a good thing.  Though I might take this opportunity to point out
> that many countries have a higher standard of living than the US.

I hear different arguments about this -- there are a number of countries
that have higher per capita GDP than the U.S., but they also have higher
taxes and have to pay more for basic goods and services. But in the U.S.
you are likely to have more debt and less long-term economic security,
and health care expense in particular is much higher here. Still, it
depends a lot of where you fit on the economic ladder here: the U.S. is
a pretty good place to be if you're rich, but not nearly as good a deal
if you're poor. And there are other things that figure into a standard
of living, like how many hours you have to work. Among "advanced" nations
only in Japan do people work more hours than in the U.S.

>>But the point that I really have to take exception to is the idea that
>>terrorists even could "come and destroy us" -- I really can't believe
>>that such a small and pathetic group could do any real damage, except
>>by provoking the U.S. government into acts of insanity.
> 
> 
> Which may have been the point.

Giles Kepel, in "Jihad: The Trail of Political Islam", argues that what
he calls salafist-jihadism has been waning as a political force in the
Arab world ever since the early 1990's. He sees the WTC attack as an
act of desperation.

>>(then) have the reputation as an unfair or unreasonable power. Things
> 
> 
> I'd be interested to hear your comparison of the US to the British Empire. 
> Seems that the British seem to be in constant agreement with the US on
> anything related to military action, but I can't really find a convincing
> explanation as to why.

I'm not sure how convincing this is, but I have two thoughts:

  1) The British have long believed, and never disabused themselves of
     the idea, that the world needs a leader. This was their self-concept,
     especially during/following the Napoleonic Wars, when they made a
     strategic move from pure self-interest to the notion that England
     should act as a countervailing power to keep any European power from
     gaining advantage. WW I/II weakened the U.K. to the point where they
     could no longer lead, but since they think someone has to, they fancy
     the U.S. as their surrogate.

  2) The British still have a very patronizing attitude toward what they
     insist on calling "the States"; this seems to give them a little
     clandestine thrill, especially that their relationship to the U.S.
     distinguishes them from ordinary Europeans.

I've seen it argued that the Iraq invasion is really Tony Blair's idea,
that it is a liberal program, and that he's been immensely clever in
getting the U.S. to go along with him. Personally, I rather doubt this:
there are Bush administration people who have been promoting this from
day one (the first thing Bush did after inauguration was to bomb Iraq).
Also, Britain's alliance with the U.S. on Iraq has been lockstep all
the way back to 1990, going well back into the John Major period.

Speaking of Major, I saw him interviewed on TV shortly after 9/11,
where he pointed out that the U.K. can teach the U.S. a lot about
terrorism and how to handle it. Sure, I thought, that would be like
studying hygiene from Typhoid Mary. But I suppose it's also worth
noting that the U.K. still has a heavy institutional investment in
"counterterrorism", originally built up during their colonial period
and maintained due to Northern Ireland. Also that Britain held the
post-WWI colonial mandate to Iraq, which they continued to occupy
for 25 years after they nominally granted Iraq independence, until
the Baathists threw them out and nationalized BP oil properties.
Clearly one of the problems with the U.S./U.K. alliance against
Iraq is that both countries carry a lot of smelly baggage.

-- 
/*
  *  Tom Hull * thull2 at cox.net * http://www.tomhull.com/
  */

-- This is the discussion@xxxxxxxxx list.  To unsubscribe,
visit http://www.complete.org/cgi-bin/listargate-aclug.cgi