Advice Goddess Blog
« Previous | Home | Next »

Terrorists Have Feelings, Too?
A woman in my weekly French class who has way too much contact with the Hollywood left to ever be sensible about national or global affairs was mourning the lot of the Palestinians (ie, at the hands of those horrible Israelis). Another woman and I pointed out, while speaking pretty good French, wowee, that while the Israelis aren't always in the right, they basically just want to live their lives in peace. The Israeli Jews get along just dandy with the Israeli Kurds, who just want to live their lives and do their business.

I pointed out to the woman that Jews aren't exactly the fighters of the globe. The Israeli Jews just want to make money and scientific discoveries and grow oranges; they don't want to be permanently at war. If the Israeli Arabs wanted to live in peace, the situation there would be so much different. Imagine the prosperity -- instead of the dead kids -- if, as Golda Meir once put it, the Palestinian Arabs loved their kids more than they hate the Israelis'.

And, as I've pointed out before, for those who think the Israelis are wrong in their response -- to people who've said over and over that what they want is not to live in peace, but is the destruction of Israel -- think Mexico for a moment. The land claim situation vis a vis the United States is somewhat similar to that of the Palestinians in Israel. Imagine if Mexicans were terrorists in California, and every time you went to pick up your dry cleaning, you'd have to worry, not that you'd get a parking ticket, but that there'd be a car bomb on Wilshire. Casts kind of a different light on it, huh?

I later got to thinking, in the shower, of the general geekiness of Jews, and got to wondering whether the cure for cancer or other terrible diseases was killed in the Holocaust. Perhaps the parents of the person who would've discovered it perished at Auschwitz or Bergen-Belsen. Just a mental fantasy of mine, I know...but very possibly the case.

Anyway, this got me to thinking about who the Muslim fundamentalists want to kill. Essentially, it's progress. They're looking for the triumph of primitivism over modernity. They're murdering each other, of course, Sunni vs. Shiite in some sick real-life version of Mad's Spy vs. Spy. But, they're killing the people who might be making the important discoveries for people around the globe, and in the case of the WTC mass murder, the people who make the money to fund the discoveries.

This is no small thing. It's not about "hating brown people" or "the other." I live in Los Angeles, not Michigan, so I can be around more brown people -- and black people, and Asians, among others. What I'm opposed to is anybody who wants to kill to set the world back centuries...and for what? So they can eventually get laid by a lot of virgins in a place there's no evidence exists?

What's the solution? Well, I think globalization could help. Spread money and opportunity (and it won't be easy in the Middle East, with the backward, anti-western, anti-woman cultures) and you might open some minds along the way. Imagine if we'd dropped job vouchers in Iraq instead of bombs?

Posted by aalkon at November 16, 2006 11:26 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.advicegoddess.com/mt4/mt-tb.cgi/1849

Comments

Are you a teacher or student in this class?

Posted by: Crid at November 16, 2006 7:41 AM

Was someone smoking grass in the shower this morning?

Posted by: eric at November 16, 2006 7:58 AM

Me, a French teacher? Now, that's funny. No, I am a struggling student of French, thanks to the bright American idea that we are the center of the universe, and there's no reason to learn any other language but English, except, say, at age 15, as a sort of dabbling thing.

Learn another language before puberty and you have a good chance of having some facility with it. Learn it really early, and it seems you open pathways for language in the brain.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at November 16, 2006 7:59 AM

Smoking grass? What in here seems so whack?

PS I don't smoke pot. It makes me extremely hungry and very tired and I can do that all on my own.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at November 16, 2006 8:07 AM

The general geekiness of Jews.... are you kidding? Tell that to Netanyahu and company. The cure for cancer may have been lost in the holocaust? Maybe. Probably not, 50+ years later. Just seemed a bit stream-of-consciousness us vs. them thinking to me....

One thing the Israelis definitely did that the Muslim world has not done was reign in their own nutcases. Remember about a decade ago the Israeli settlers... those were some pretty primitive thinkers as well. And I agree with you that many of the causes here are economically based, though you did have an interesting post a few days back that seemed to refute that idea.

Posted by: eric at November 16, 2006 8:35 AM

Maybe not the person who'd discover a cure for cancer, or invent progress-making devices, but their ancestors. See a lot of big discoveries coming out of the Middle East these days? Half their population, in the Arab countries, can't even fully participate in society. And if you're gay...forget it. Fundamentalism has so many costs.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at November 16, 2006 8:47 AM

No, not much innovation coming out of the middle east nowdays. Yes, fundamentalist Islam is terrible to gays. But our own society is not too far removed from days when lynching was entertainment, and many of the economic effects of slavery remain to this day. What interests me most is the leap the average white American made from hating/distrusting black Americans to accepting them. The changes came from culture (ie Bill Cosby, Flip Wilson, etc) politics (MLK to Malcom X) and everything in between.

How can we utilize this example and apply it to the middle east situation?

One thing that exacerbates this problem is our general misunderstanding of the people we are so afraid of. This can be easily demonstrated by our bungling of Iraq. What sort of looney thinks that people will greet you asliberators after blowing up their neighborhoods?

When I worked in California for a large engineering company, many of the engineers were Arab, Persian and Palestinian. They were generally first generation Americans, some brought their families over a relative at a time. Though they were now as American as you and I, some certainly had a different view of Israel than you and I. (And of abortion and euthenasia by the way- BIG heated discussions over those two topics!)

Man, this is difficult to express, and I gotta get back to work. I'll try to do better later. Mostly I was just kidding abouth the marijuana in the shower Amy.

Posted by: eric at November 16, 2006 9:32 AM

> The land claim situation vis a vis the United States is somewhat similar to that of the Palestinians in Israel.


Hardly. Alta Califonia was annexed by the USA as a result of the Mexican-American "War" (1846-1848). At the time it was a sparsely-populated, fever-infested desert. It was so far from the Mexican capital city that political and military control was in any case impractical. As part of the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, the USA paid cash for the land, and there were no forced expulsions of Mexican nationals.


Israel, by contrast, was an artificial concept imposed on a well-populated nation by a bunch of senile old Brits as a way of getting them out of a mandate they no longer wished to maintain. At least half a million Palestinians were expelled. To assert that Israelis "just want to live in peace" a mere three months after the invasion of Lebanon by the Israeli army, you have to be pretty wilfully blind to current events.

Posted by: Stu "El Inglés" Harris at November 16, 2006 9:44 AM

If Mexico were lobbing Katyusha rockets over our border, do you think we'd invade or cross our fingers that not too many San Diegans would get killed?

Posted by: Amy Alkon at November 16, 2006 9:50 AM

We'd probably invade Costa Rica.

Posted by: eric at November 16, 2006 10:04 AM

Or New Mexico.

Posted by: eric at November 16, 2006 10:04 AM

Isn't that part of "the radical gay agenda"?

http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2006/11/the_gay_agenda_1.html

Posted by: Amy Alkon at November 16, 2006 10:06 AM

The land claim of Mexico isn't a bad analogy, but it might be better if you used American Indians as an example, and then added that let's say all the U.S. wanted was a tiny bit of land about the size of New Jersey to live in peace. The Indians could have the rest of the continental U.S., and Mexico etc.

Then let's say that pretty much everyone in the huge surrounding area thought this was nevertheless an outrage, that they couldn't live happily until New Jersey was regained and all its inhabitants destroyed, that they regularly lobbed rockets into New Jersy and the world thought that it was outrageous for people in this tiny sliver of land to defend themselves.

Of course, it's not a perfect analogy, because the Indians were here first -- while the Jews were actually in Israel first, some two thousand yrs ago. It's one of the big triumphs of Arab propaganda that pretty much everyone on the left has forgotten that.

Another reason it's not a perfect analogy is that American Indians don't want to impose their beliefs on the rest of the world.

Posted by: Cathy Seipp at November 16, 2006 10:12 AM

But we do bad things too! BLAH BLAH BLAH

Posted by: Jim Treacher at November 16, 2006 10:50 AM

PS: Your reader Stu doesn't know his history if he thinks California was a "sparsely populated desert" and Israel/Palestine in 1948 was any different. About the "forced expulsion" -- if all Arabs were expelled from Israel, then why are so many still there, including those who have seats in the Israeli Knesset? Most Arabs left willingly in 1948, following the instructions from Arab leaders who said they could return after all the Jews were destroyed. Boo hoo for them, I suppose, that this didn't happen, but I don't see why anyone is still sympathetic to their "plight." I guess you could compare their situation to the free Chinese in Tawian, who if they'd followed the Palestinian model would have accomplished nothing after all these years except sitting in refugee camps and blowing up people. But the the Taiwanese, of course, decided to do things differently.

Posted by: Cathy Seipp at November 16, 2006 10:52 AM

PS: Your reader Stu doesn't know his history if he thinks California was a "sparsely populated desert" and Israel/Palestine in 1948 was any different. About the "forced expulsion" -- if all Arabs were expelled from Israel, then why are so many still there, including those who have seats in the Israeli Knesset? Most Arabs left willingly in 1948, following the instructions from Arab leaders who said they could return after all the Jews were destroyed. Boo hoo for them, I suppose, that this didn't happen, but I don't see why anyone is still sympathetic to their "plight." I guess you could compare their situation to the free Chinese in Tawian, who if they'd followed the Palestinian model would have accomplished nothing after all these years except sitting in refugee camps and blowing up people. But the the Taiwanese, of course, decided to do things differently.

Posted by: Cathy Seipp at November 16, 2006 11:18 AM

After 9/11 the American people would have done anything that was asked of them to fight the “war on terror”. I’m talking rationing, increased taxes, draft, etc. Instead we were hoodwinked into Bush’s version of whatever in the hell he’s doing.

The Bush administration used fear as a political weapon against its own people. Who was it that said, “We have nothing to fear but fear itself”? Sure wasn’t this president. We raise the threat level or lower gas prices anytime there is an upcoming election.

Bring the reservist home from Iraq, send a fully prepared army to win the war on terror, and cut the bullshit.

Posted by: Roger at November 16, 2006 12:23 PM

> Your reader Stu doesn't know his history if he thinks California was a "sparsely populated desert" and Israel/Palestine in 1948 was any different.


Well, let's see Cathy:

1845 population of Calif: 92,500

Area of Calif: 410,000 kM²

1948 population of Israel (at partition): 1,900,000 (68% Arab, by the way)

Area of Israel: 22,145 kM²


You do the math. Well.... nah, I'll do it for you, your finger might slip. It's 0.22 people per kM², compared with 86.


Now which of us is distorting history?


Posted by: Stu "El Inglés" Harris at November 16, 2006 1:50 PM

I love blog hardball, especially between aggressive, principled contestants.


Posted by: Crid at November 16, 2006 3:14 PM

And by the way, that 68% is one motherfucker statistic.

Posted by: Crid at November 16, 2006 3:15 PM

Stu- I'm with you, but the 92.5K number sounds fishy... California is pretty bi.

PS- (For Crid Only) If you like Audrey Tatou, check out Barbara Mori. La Mujer de mi Hermano

Posted by: eric at November 16, 2006 6:46 PM

I meant BIG! damn spilled Coke in the keyboard.

Posted by: eric at November 16, 2006 6:47 PM

Ok- smoked a bit, listened to Tompetty while playing with my boy, had a shower, and a lovely roast chicken.

In my life, I have been told to fear the Russian commies, the Sandinistas, the gooks, El Salvadoran rebels, the Chinese, Jews, Canadian Indians, Iran (over and over), pre marital sex, aryans, homosexuals, (by the way, not in this order) Idi Amin, ricin, herpes, butter, moral terpitude and about 100 other things that never turned out to be squat.

My level of fear starts at about 50 yards these days.

Posted by: eric at November 16, 2006 8:01 PM

Does La Mujer make Meixco City (or wherever) look as good as Amelie makes Paris look?

Posted by: Crid at November 16, 2006 9:04 PM

Bottom line; it takes two to tango in peace and at war. Right now, it seems to me that Hamas don't want to dance. Their problem.

Posted by: Toubrouk at November 16, 2006 9:10 PM

Also Eric, what's CDA like in the worst of winter and the worst of summer?

Posted by: Crid at November 16, 2006 9:14 PM

1.) Worst of winter: 12-15+ ft snow. On a goddamn hillside! Worst of summer: 4 months no rain, 90degrees (about) plus, wife bitching about dust for 15 years.

Our seasons are snow, rain, dust and really cold. repeat. Relocating soon to Oregon Coast! (better schools, less fanatics.) (Everyone's invited!) Idaho's beautiful, but Christ! (see Amy on marriage. When it becomes work, rethink.)

I tellya Crid, Barabara.... is ... it. Geography irrelevant. Think a 35 year old Diane Lane from Rumblefish. The last woman I thought this highly of was Paz Vega in Sex & Lucia. Cher in Moonstruck. Before that Anne Margaret. Sophia Loren. Valerie Perrine, Hyapatia Lee, Tina Turner...

Posted by: eric (totally gone) at November 16, 2006 10:13 PM

What's the solution? [...] Spread money and opportunity [...]. Imagine if we'd dropped job vouchers in Iraq instead of bombs?


Glad to see someone is coming round to my way of thinking! Imagine we'd spent the gazillions on giveaways instead of bombs. It couldn't be any worse, could it? And there would be some benefits for sure - improved economy at home, for one.

Posted by: Norman at November 17, 2006 6:45 AM

> Imagine we'd spent the gazillions
> on giveaways

We did, it was called oil for food. Were you happy with the results? You're just begging the question: "Job vouchers" for what? Customer service on telephones for Northwest Ohio Gas & Electric?

Listen, until people learn how to *create wealth*, or add value, they're never able to take control of their lives. In South Central as in Takrit, you're at the mercy of corruption until you can do something someone will pay you for. Taking checks from people doesn't make you more valuable to them, just the opposite. How is sending money away going to help our stateside economy? I think you're justr trying to buy off the little people. But on paper, the Iraqis are some of the richest people on Earth: They got the oil!

Charity has other problems:


http://www.beliefnet.com/story/204/story_20419.html

Posted by: Crid at November 17, 2006 11:50 AM

Eric, did you ever see a 1977 film (swedish but in English) called "Providence"? I fell in love with an extra in that film and have been looking for a vhs ever since.

Posted by: Crid at November 17, 2006 11:52 AM

Crid-


You miss the point. It's not to make them like us more or to kickstart their economy. It's exactly the opposite: to destroy their economy, but to do so without also destroying the infrastructure or killing people. We've discussed this before.


How does sending money away help the stateside economy? This war (just like the next one!) has cost billions of dollars. These are dollars that the government takes from you and spends on bombs. Bombs are expensive; lots of people get wages every month from makig them. But bombs aren't good for much except destroying things. Then the government needs more taxes to repair what the bombs broke. Besides, bombs kill lots of people and that makes 'em ornery. The survivors, that is.


Instead of bombs, I suggest the government spends money on stuff like food and cloothes and toys and books, and drops that on the enemy, so they don't have to do any work for a living. (Ignore for the moment why that destroys their economy.) So the government is creating, in the case of Iraq, with a population of 20M compared to the US with 200M, perhaps an extra 10% demand for goods in the home economy. That's why the economy flourishes. Lots more little business making stuff, and the prices dropping with economies of scale. With bombs, by contrast, all that happens is that the same amount of money is injected into the economy with no extra demand (except for bombs, which not many people buy) leading to 10% inflation.


Hey, I'm not an economist, but I wish one would come forward and explain why I'm wrong.

Posted by: Norman at November 17, 2006 2:50 PM

> to destroy their economy, but to do
> so without also destroying the
> infrastructure or killing people.

Like, WTF?

> We've discussed this before

Not possible. I'd remember if you'd ever said something so inane before.

> Bombs are expensive;

It depends on how many people they kill per dollar spent. The United States is still the global leader in efficiency for this important field!

> so they don't have to do any
> work for a living.

1. That's your idea of a stable society, a dependible cousin in the family of nations?

2. They don't have to "work for a living." They have oil! Yippee!

> come forward and explain why I'm wrong

You've grotesquely misappraised human nature: You've crudely extrapolated from your teenage burger-flipping daydreams about the appeal of leisure and horridly shortchanged meaningful aspiration.

It will be fun to watch you defend policies design to 'destroy the Iraqi economy'. Three... Two... One.... GO!

Posted by: Crid at November 17, 2006 6:15 PM

OK, that tone may have been mean-spirited.... But seriously, Norman.....

Posted by: Crid at November 17, 2006 10:08 PM

"It depends on how many people they kill per dollar spent. The United States is still the global leader in efficiency for this important field!"

Oh baby, that was COLD. Just reading that gave me frostbite. Chilly Willy!

Posted by: Lena at November 18, 2006 12:55 AM

I remember that chill. In fifth grade, they took us for a week of camp at Bradford Woods.

http://tinyurl.com/srp6z

On Thursday morning we assmbled us down at the lake for a presentation from the Indiana State Police, which included a demonstration of an M-14. They let Mrs. Stuckey (home room/science) fire that sucker, and she sent an old Folger's can straight to Hell. The officer offered a thought that seemed out of the blue at the time, but in retrospect, he must have known we'd been watching Batman for the last three years: "Guns aren't made to hurt people or scare people, guns are meant to kill people."

He was right, and it was good to know: Guns weren't tools for shooting other guns out of the hands of bank robbers, they were for killing guys. Having that chill ripple through a nine-year-old heart has kept things warmer and clearer ever since.

Steven Den Beste once wrote a blog post suggesting that our weapons have ironically become too precise and incisive: Having killed such a slender slice of the Iraqi population, we haven't given the rest an impression of this being a new day in their history. This wasn't a problem in Germany or Japan, and sixty years later, those countries are doing OK.

Norman's thinking is four-fifths fantasy. It's got that offhanded cruelty we remember from pre-adolescence ("destroy their economy").

Grrr.

Posted by: Crid at November 18, 2006 6:59 AM

(Apologies in advance for the length of this post!)


Fantasy, me? Perhaps. But fantasy, in how Iraq has been handled? No doubt about it. We all get caught up in it, the jingoism, about bombing them back to the stone age. Then GWB stands on an aircraft carrier and says the war is over. You have to admit that was sheer fantasy.


What is the purpose of warfare? And how is this purpose best achieved?


The purpose is not actually to kill people or destroy their homes, raods, schools, hospitals and bridges. The purpose is to change their behaviour. The enemy is threatening you in some way, and you want to remove that threat. Traditional warfare assumes you cannot change the enemy's mind and so you has to remove the threat by rendering the enemy incapable of carrying it out. You have to destroy the enemy's military capability, which is embodied in its domestic economy, infrastructure, command and control systems etc. So you bomb them to bits, until the bits are so small and disorganised that there is no threat to you.


The problem with this approach is that it works by stressing the enemy's systems to breaking point and beyond. But like all species on this planet, we have evolved to be able to withstand stress and hardship very well. If you bomb people, they don't throw up their hands in despair. They band together to stand against the common enemy, like chimpanzees facing a leopard. Even if they weren't banding before, there's nothing like an external threat to unite a nation. That's why politicians like a little bit of external threat, or a faraway war. It takes the voter's minds off domestic issues. This means that if you want to bomb people into submission you need a heck of a lot of bombs. Germany in WWII was reduced to rubble and still they wouldn't give in. In that same war, the blitz on London made photo opportunities for "business as usual' propaganda.


So, pushing against a state is not an easy way to change things, because it, and the people in it, are designed to cope with exactly these stresses. My suggestion is to pull instead of pushing. States are not designed for that, because it doesn't happen in ordinary life. It does happen occasionally, when one country dumps goods on another at a low price. This damages the recipient because they can't compete. So economic dumping does harm. My suggestion is to take this to an extreme as a weapon of war. Dump like crazy. The enemy economy will collapse because the nation will turn into subsidy junkies. Dedicated people like doctors might still work. One thing they they won't be short of is medical supplies, because these will be dropping out of the sky everywhere. But people who turn up every day and take orders, which is what keeps the economy going, will stay home and barbecue. Or run away. Or run amok, if the drops include weaponry. Nobody needs to get killed, except if a house lands on them by accident.


Meanwhile, back home, our economy is working a little bit harder to produce the stuff to sell to the government to drop on the enemy. The same happens in traditional warfare, when the government buys bombs to drop on the enemy. The difference in my scheme is that the economy is not producing bombs, it is producing extra consumer goods. The spin-off is that production gears up for this so there's high employment and plenty to spend your money on.


Would it work? I don't really know, but it sounds like it just might. Calling it fantasy doesn't convince me. I need to see a quantitative argument. It is a new form of warfare that has only become possible in the last century or so, though it has echoes of the Opium Wars. If you are not quite convinced, ask yourself if China and India currently pose any kind of threat to the US. I think that many people in the US are scared because these two nations are on the brink of economic expansion. They're not scared of the Chinese or Indians for military reasons - just for economic reasons. And that's just because of ordinary commercial competition, without any hint of economic warfare.


Your point about Germany and Japan is interesting. Don't forget the Marshall Plan - an wonderful combination of generosity and self interest. Was there something similar for Japan?


Off to watch James Bond on the telly now.

Posted by: Norman at November 18, 2006 11:18 AM

> We all get caught up in it,
> the jingoism

Speak for yourself.

> You have to admit that was
> sheer fantasy

I've forgotten the name of the general who ordered that Mission Accomplished sign posted. I think he was Chair of the Joint Chiefs. I'll look it up later. He wasn't a WH operative.

> What is the purpose of warfare?

In this case, regime change.

> And how is this purpose best
> achieved?

You had an alternate plan?

> So you bomb them to bits

No, we've been very, very discriminating in our use of force, perhaps too timid. See the earlier comment.

> here's nothing like an external
> threat to unite a nation

It hasn't worked in Iraq... So perhaps the majority of Iraq doesn't view us as a threat. Jonah Goldberg says we should ask them in a referendum whether or not we should leave, which I think is an excellent idea.

> pushing against a state is not
> an easy way to change things

No one said this was going to be easy... We'd tried the easy stuff.

> our economy is working a
> little bit harder

Markets are strong, we have muscle to burn.

> The problem with this approach is
> that it works by stressing the
> enemy's systems to breaking point

This from the guy who wants to destroy their economy?

> extra consumer goods. The spin-off
> is that production gears up for this
> so there's high employment and
> plenty to spend your money on.

Our economy is having no problems getting things made. You're solving problems that nobody has. "Extra goods" are by definition a financial burden.

You can't seem to take the point, but I'll say it again: In Iraq, poverty is not the problem. They're flush with green, they're fat 'n' happy, they're rolling in dough. They've got the first or second-best pool of oil in the Universe! They're the envy of the world... Financially.

Prager like to say this is a liberal thing, thinking that poverty is the causes evil. But if poverty caused crime, Bel Air would be a seminary. It just ain't so.

Posted by: Crid at November 18, 2006 1:22 PM

The problem with this approach is that it works by stressing the enemy's systems to breaking point


This from the guy who wants to destroy their economy?



I'm not objecting to the end here, just the means. Stressing these systems is hard work. There may be an easier way to break them.


I don't think my proposal applies to Iraq as it is now. But it might have applied as it was 10 years ago. I am not saying that poverty is the problem. The problem is:



  1. Your enemy is a threat.

  2. To realise a threat requires an economy capable of sustaining an attack.

  3. The economy depends on an infrastructure and a motivated workforce.

  4. For most people the motivation is the need to earn a living.

  5. A hyper-rich nation can afford to remove that motivation by giving away free stuff.



To repeat, I'm not saying poverty is the problem, and I'm not doing the enemy any favours. The result is not that the enemy loves you for your largesse, but that they stop supporting their own economy, which weakens and can then be taken over without a shooting war. The original threat is thereby removed. I'm proposing a new form of warfare - hopefully one that is less destructive than traditional warfare.

Posted by: Norman at November 19, 2006 2:44 AM

You're trying to imbue the phrase "killing them with kindness" with magical powers, and it won't work. If we shipped over 500,000 washing machines, there'd be 500,000 washing machines sitting out in the desert.... They don't have electricity to run them, or a reliable retail economy to distribute them, or a government to (righteously) tax them.

If warfare's less destructive, it ain't warfare.

Posted by: Crid at November 19, 2006 6:55 AM

If warfare's less destructive, it ain't warfare.


No, destruction is the means, not the end. It's been the means for so long that you think it is the end. But it's not. Take Iraq: suppose the original aim was regime change. Suppose there was a way, 10 years ago, we could have magically removed, say, 1000 selected individuals by rapturing them away to the space station or to Guantanamo. I know this is pure fantasy, but bear me out. If that had been an option, do you think it would have been sufficient to achieve regime change? If so, it shows that traditional warfare might not be the only way to achieve our ends. There may be other ways which become possible as technology changes. I submit that that has happened. The enormous production capacity of capitalist free enterprise can be used as a weapon. We can't rapture people out, but we can rapture in food, books, cellphones, medicine, currency (counterfeit or genuine), arms - all without, as you say, breaking a sweat.


The aim is still to render the enemy incapable of attacking you. It's still warfare, it's just not so destructive.


Actually, the real difficulty would be the home population, who would be wondering why they were working to give stuff to the enemy. I've no idea how you'd convince them it was actually harming the enemy. The red tops (= newspapers read by the masses) would have a field day.

Posted by: Norman at November 19, 2006 9:01 AM

> I know this is pure fantasy...

Apparently not.

Posted by: Crid at November 19, 2006 9:24 AM

Not the carefully argued response I was hoping for!

Posted by: Norman at November 20, 2006 5:55 AM

There's no purpose Norman, you can't seem to take a point. You think there are no boundaries or meaning to anything ('non-destructive war'). You're fascinated with the idea that we can just cut off a slice of pie for these people and make their problems go away.

> I know this is pure fantasy...

No. You don't.

Posted by: Crid at November 23, 2006 8:19 AM

For what it's worth, I agree with you: we can't just cut off a slice of pie for these people and make their problems go away.

I hope that shows I'm listening; what you write shows you aren't, so please try. You can't seem to get past the idea that I'm trying to be nice to the enemy. In fact I'm proposing turning them into junkies. If that's nice, then it's nice in the way a dealer is nice when he gives you a free sample. We cut a slice of pie for these people to give them a whole bunch of new problems, not to cure their problems.

And if you insist on quoting the fantasy bit out of context, here's some more words you can quote in your reply: rubbish, liberal, wishy-washy, french, surrender, homophobia, erectile. Perhaps you can get them all into one sentence!

Posted by: Norman at November 27, 2006 5:42 AM

Leave a comment