Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [existlist] Re: A Real Life Application? The Media's Role

Expand Messages
  • John Taft
    Simply because we relate to them and their plight. We saw the results of WW2 and the butchery of 7 million humans and we just can t forget it. We also feel
    Message 1 of 16 , Apr 4, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      Simply because we relate to them and their plight. We saw the results of
      WW2 and the butchery of 7 million humans and we just can't forget it.

      We also feel for the Palestinians too, and yet the Israelis have pulled
      themselves up by the bootstraps, it is hard to feel the same as the Arabs
      seem to be locked into a low productive tribal mentality, it has been said
      that the only thing an Arab does well is hate.

      Perhaps we are looking for balance, 6 million in a sea of 150 million need a
      friend.

      The basis of everything: Christian = Jew = Islam = Others, including
      non-believers, we are all members of human race!

      John
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: <CLSeaWasp@...>
      To: <existlist@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2002 6:06 PM
      Subject: Re: [existlist] Re: A Real Life Application? The Media's Role


      > Can someone tell me why exactly the U.S. is so damn supportive of Israel
      all
      > the time? Is it just 'cause we helped set them up in 1948?
      >
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
      >
      >
      > Our Home: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist
      > (Includes community book list, chat, and more.)
      >
      > TO UNSUBSCRIBE from this group, send an email to:
      > existlist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      >
      > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
      >
      >
    • Nickerson, James A.
      I don t think it has anything to do with ideology. How many African nations are constantly butchering their neighbors and/or the minorities within their own
      Message 2 of 16 , Apr 5, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        I don't think it has anything to do with ideology. How many African nations
        are constantly butchering their neighbors and/or the minorities within their
        own countries? Do we intervene in the same way?

        As to relating to their (Israelis) plight of WW2....there were a heck of
        alot more Russians decimated at the hands of the Nazis and we're not taking
        care of the former Soviet Union in a proportional way.

        I'm all for assisting countries in need (when we are able) but there should
        be parity.

        -----Original Message-----
        From: John Taft [mailto:J-Taft@...]
        Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2002 21:49
        To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: Re: [existlist] Re: A Real Life Application? The Media's Role


        Simply because we relate to them and their plight. We saw the results of
        WW2 and the butchery of 7 million humans and we just can't forget it.

        We also feel for the Palestinians too, and yet the Israelis have pulled
        themselves up by the bootstraps, it is hard to feel the same as the Arabs
        seem to be locked into a low productive tribal mentality, it has been said
        that the only thing an Arab does well is hate.

        Perhaps we are looking for balance, 6 million in a sea of 150 million need a
        friend.

        The basis of everything: Christian = Jew = Islam = Others, including
        non-believers, we are all members of human race!

        John
        ----- Original Message -----
        From: <CLSeaWasp@...>
        To: <existlist@yahoogroups.com>
        Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2002 6:06 PM
        Subject: Re: [existlist] Re: A Real Life Application? The Media's Role


        > Can someone tell me why exactly the U.S. is so damn supportive of Israel
        all
        > the time? Is it just 'cause we helped set them up in 1948?
        >
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
        >
        >
        > Our Home: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist
        > (Includes community book list, chat, and more.)
        >
        > TO UNSUBSCRIBE from this group, send an email to:
        > existlist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
        >
        > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
        >
        >



        Our Home: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist
        (Includes community book list, chat, and more.)

        TO UNSUBSCRIBE from this group, send an email to:
        existlist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

        Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
      • Eduard Alf
        James, I am not that much up on African wars, but should think that there has been a lot of intervention. Angola is an example. How much did the US spend to
        Message 3 of 16 , Apr 5, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          James,

          I am not that much up on African wars, but should think that there has been
          a lot of intervention. Angola is an example. How much did the US spend to
          counteract the Cuban support in that conflict. Or was that Namibia [it is
          hard to remember]? Then there was French military which went into Chad.
          What about the US involvement in Somalia? What of the French involvement in
          Algeria.

          Perhaps the wars in Africa do not hit the headlines, because there is not an
          immediate interest on the part of the public. After all newspapers are
          there to make money. This can be noticed in Quebec. The French newspapers
          tend to have more news on Africa than the English newspapers.

          As to the new Russia Federation, I wonder how much money is now spent to
          keep it out of a total economic meltdown. As to the old Soviet Union, there
          was an American military contingent sent to maintain the Tran Siberian
          railway at the time of the struggle of the Whites against the Reds around
          1918.

          With respect to the middle east, keep in mind that the struggle is not
          Israel against the Palestinians, but rather the overall state of conflict
          between Israel and the Arab League. That is a population ratio of something
          like 50 to 1.

          eduard


          -----Original Message-----
          From: Nickerson, James A. [mailto:james.nickerson@...]
          Sent: Friday, April 05, 2002 9:04 AM
          To: 'existlist@yahoogroups.com'
          Subject: RE: [existlist] Re: A Real Life Application? The Media's Role


          I don't think it has anything to do with ideology. How many African
          nations
          are constantly butchering their neighbors and/or the minorities within
          their
          own countries? Do we intervene in the same way?

          As to relating to their (Israelis) plight of WW2....there were a heck of
          alot more Russians decimated at the hands of the Nazis and we're not
          taking
          care of the former Soviet Union in a proportional way.

          I'm all for assisting countries in need (when we are able) but there
          should
          be parity.


          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • james tan
          From: Christopher Bobo Reply-To: WisdomForum@yahoogroups.com To: Wisdom Forum Subject: Re: [WisdomForum] Re:
          Message 4 of 16 , Apr 6, 2002
          • 0 Attachment
            From: "Christopher Bobo" <cbobo@...>
            Reply-To: WisdomForum@yahoogroups.com
            To: "Wisdom Forum" <WisdomForum@yahoogroups.com>
            Subject: Re: [WisdomForum] Re: A Real Life Application? The Media's Role
            Date: Sat, 6 Apr 2002 14:23:39 -0800

            Tommy wrote:
            >>The point is though that they do not. What I am calling your
            attention to is not the question of whether it is right or wrong to
            kill other people but the scale of the action that is being employed
            by the Palestinions. Perhaps if they had nuclear weapons they would
            nuke Israel in a grand, final gesture of hopelessness. But the point
            is, they do not. They don't even have any tanks!<<

            In don't think that the scale of the Israeli actions are disproportionate to
            the threat. The Israeli's have not wantonly been killing women, children or
            the unarmed. They have engaged in battle with men firing at them with
            AK-47s. The Palestinians should not start a fight with a superior force and
            then claim the fight is unfair. Just look at the Taliban and Al Qaeda.
            They found themselves in a similar situation. I'm curious to know if that
            is an especial feature of Arab or Islamic culture. I'm really growing
            increasingly curious about the value system such acts express. And I think
            it's a good thing that the Palestinians don't have nuclear weapons, since
            they seem to be prone two what I might regard as irrational acts. I'm not
            as concerned about the Israeli's, however, employing the nuclear weapons
            that they do have against the Palestinians, because as far as I can see, the
            Israelis appear to be behaving rationally.

            The U.S. certainly does not refrain from using B-52, B-1s, Tommahawk Cruise
            Missles, AC-130 gunships, daisy cutter bombs, bunker buster bombs and
            thermobaric bombs against those who do not have them. What rationale would
            the Israelis have to leave their tanks and armored personnel carriers at
            home when they go off to fight. And Tommy, that you could even complain
            about this point makes me wonder about your views, when the entire object of
            warfare since the practically the dawn of time has been to have better and
            more sophisticated weapons than your opponent and to use them to you
            advantage to defeat your enemy. Surely you remember the passage from the
            stone age to the metal age, and the passage from bronze weapons to iron,
            from calvary to armored tanks. Why should the Israelis commit suicide to
            satisfy your idea of fairness in a fight.

            And I think all this talk about Palestinian "hopelessness" is pure
            propaganda and non-sense. You should examine it more carefully. Take, for
            instance, the 18 year old girl who decided one day to become a suicide
            bomber. She was engaged to be married and was planning to go to college.
            In what way was she hopeless? I don't think hopeless people have video
            cameras and TV sets for the purpose of making and showing suicide bomber
            last wills and testaments. American TV interviewed one of the families of
            one of the early suicide bombers and he seemed to come from a nice home, he
            was educated, he had nice clothes, his family was well fed, oddly enough he
            had a think for Disney knick knacks and had a lot of Mickey Mouse statues,
            posters and memorabilia in his room. In what sense was he hopeless. In my
            book, truly hopeless people are starving, homeless, lack basic comforts,
            wear tattered clothes, etc. None of these indicia of hopelessness apply to
            the Palestinians that I have seem. Rather, I suspect there is something
            going on behind this unsupported rhetoric of hopelessness. People are just
            making choices about how to achieve their aims. That 18 year old girl was
            offered a choice--get married and got to college or go straight to heaven as
            a suicide bomber. She choose to go straight to heaven. The choice was
            hers. To lay the blame on others for that choice is simply bad faith.

            Tommy said:
            >>A country can only take responsibility for its actions if it has a
            border and an army capable of defending it. Palestine has neither of
            these things but its people are discriminated against on account of
            their race and culture and confined into refugee camps which have
            become their permanent homes.<<

            But the Paletinians do not yet constitute a country, and I think you are
            wrong about this. The Palestinians Authority, I believe, has a security
            force of some 30,000. What have they done with it. Absolutely nothing to
            secure peaceful co-existence with its neighbor, Israel.

            I have been reading Kant's Perpetual Peace lately and come across these
            worlds "We ordinarily assume that no one may act inimically toward another
            except when he has been actively injured by the other. This is quite
            correct if both are under civil law, for, by entering into such a state ,
            they afford each other the requisite security through the sovereign which hs
            power over both. Man (or the people) in the state of nature deprives me of
            this security and injures me, if he is near me, by this mere status of his,
            even though he does not injure me actively; he does so by the lawlessness of
            his condition which constantly threatens me. Therefore, I can compel him
            either to enter with me in a state of civil law or to remove himself from my
            neighborhood....All mem who can reciprocally influence each other must stand
            under some civil constitution." And here the Israelis are with respect to
            the radical Palestinians--either they we place themselves under a civil law
            with the Israelis, or the Israelis will be compelled to attempt to remove
            them from the neighborhood.

            Tommy wrote:
            >>The situation is directly analogous to that of South Africa ten years
            ago. There is almost universal agreement after the successful
            election of the ANC to power that what Mandela and his black
            compatriots did was just and right. But look at the right wing press
            prior to the fall of apartheid and you will find all sorts of
            justifications for its continuation, mainly based around the general
            premise (however well disguised) of "you can't trust the blacks". The
            violence that was taking place in the townships, both black-on-white
            and black-on-black, was cited as one of the reasons that the blacks
            weren't to be trusted. This is exactly the argument Israel is using
            to justify its continued racist oppression of a subjugated people.<<

            But Tommy, the situation is nothing like that in South Africa. The ANC was
            negotiating with the white majority government peacefully. The ANC was not
            fire-bombing restaurants or killing civilians, as far as I recall. Even the
            blacks in the white townships were fighting the South African security
            forces, I don't recall them bursting into wedding and banquets and killing
            every white person they could find, although there were no doubt instances
            of lawless murder motivated by racial hatred. The two situations are
            incomparable. No one is saying you can't trust the Palestinians. Even the
            right wing is saying there are Palestinians who want peace and who they can
            negotiate with, but it may be highly likely that Yasser Arafat is not that
            person. Arafat is no Mandela. I think he's amply proved that. Mandela
            rejected even his own lifelong mate and wife when it became apparent that
            she was involved in a political murder, whereas Arafat is the sponsor of
            murderers.

            If he were a leader the stature of Mandela, I believe this conflict would
            never have reached the level of violence and wanton destruction that it has,
            and what's more, it would have resulted in a final peace by now. Arafat has
            done absolutely nothing effectieve to indicate a willing to make peace with
            the Israelis or to stop suicide bombing. At best, he plays lip service to
            peace when he speaks English for the Western press, but when he speaks
            Arabic to his supporters he's ordering them to Jihad, Jihad, and more Jihad
            and acquiring weapons and bombs from Iran.

            Tommy wrote:
            >>Back to communicationalism: we must trust the Other (currently being
            defined, generally, as "Arab", "terrorist", "Al-Quaeda" etc.) not to
            nuke us or otherwise make our citizens dead and our countries
            uninhabitable. This trust will not be achieved by preventing the
            Other from developing "weapons of mass destruction", such as those
            possessed in the large part by the US and Israel, but by ensuring
            that the Other has as much of a stake in the overall health and
            wealth of the world as we do. This quite patently not presently the
            case. We will only begin to understand all the reasons why the Other
            doesn't feel as if s/he has as much of a stake in the overall health
            of the world as we do once we start taking on board the factors that
            go into the decision of someone to strap explosives to his or her
            body to attack an oppressive enemy.<<

            The great statesman Henry Clay once said "Cultivate calmness of mind but
            prepare for the worst." Ronald Reagan prudently observed that we should
            "Trust but verifiy." The stakes are too high to be naively optimistic, or
            to allow ourselves to be misguided by idealism. I agree that the other
            should have as much at stake in the world as do we. What's more, I think
            that they do have as much at stake in the world as we do but that they
            motivations and reasons for action are very different from what you suppose,
            Tommy. You know, Osama bin Laden did not seek to wage war against the U.S.
            because he was poor, or that Arabs were poor or suffering, but because U.S.
            troops are in what he regards as the sacred land. Bin Laden and his Sheik
            friends are multimillionaires. They have more money than you and your
            neighbors can even dream of. They are not poor and desperate. And neither
            are the terrorists. Many of them were educated, had jobs, family and money.
            They are engineers and computer programmers. They are motivated by
            hopelessness or desperation and you should stop deluding yourself that they
            are. You've been listening to their rhetoric far too long and not observing
            the facts. They have thousands of dollars to spend on bombs, millions on
            weapons, and plenty of cash to feed and equip armies of terrorists.


            Tommy asked:
            >>Dropping communicationalism for the moment and thinking instead about
            pragmatic solutions to the problem of the Middle East, why don't you
            create a homeland for the Jewish People in America and let the
            Palestinians have Palestine? It would be cheaper in the long run and
            there is really quite a lot of land in the US, a lot of it better
            than what you will find in Palestine. And you folks do seem to get
            along remarkably well with one another. Just think of the economic
            benefits of having all those clever people under the one roof so to
            speak. Sharon could be given a ranch in Idaho. We in Europe will
            agree on our part to change our immigration laws to permit more Arabs
            to settle here (there already are quite a few, especially in France).<<

            Palestinian Muslims as well as Muslims from all of the world are free to
            immigrate to America and have been welcomed here, as have been Jews from all
            over Europe. They have all been guarantee the equal protection of the laws
            and life free from discrimination and persecution because of their race,
            creed or national origin. There are about 3 million Arab Americans here and
            8 million Jewish Americans. And that is more Arabs than are in the West
            Bank and more Jews than are in the entire state of Israel. They all already
            have a homeland here. The only thing asked of them--in addition to paying
            taxes, of course--is that that respect the creed that this is one nation
            under God with liberty and justice for all, or in other words they pledge
            allegiance to the constitution of the United States, which requires a
            separation of church and state. Because this is one nation, there cannot be
            other nations within it--except for Native American Tribes, which are
            themselves sovereign nations which pre-existed the U.S. We know from our
            history, in particular the Civil War, that we cannot have separate nations
            in the U.S. and that once a state enters the Union, it cannot leave. I'm
            sure we'd take in the rest suffeing in Israel today, as this country is
            already home to over 24 million people who were not born here, but were, of
            course, welcomed. To be sure, they'd have to agree to live in peace and
            obey the laws of the land, but that's not a very burdensome requirement
            after all.

            And I'm serious, as usual.

            Chris

            ----- Original Message -----
            From: Tommy Beavitt
            Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2002 3:37 PM
            To: WisdomForum@yahoogroups.com
            Subject: Re: [WisdomForum] Re: A Real Life Application? The Media's Role

            At 9:47 am -0800 4/4/02, Christopher Bobo wrote:
            >Tommy observed:
            > >>I don't think we can reasonably complain that people who have lived
            >for more than a generation in a refugee camp take exception to their
            >plight, strap explosives to their bodies and obliterate a handful of
            >those who must directly be considered their oppressors.<<
            >
            >I do and I think we must so complain. The world is populated with
            >people who believe they have gotten a raw deal from one party or
            >another. If all the aggrieved peoples of the world were to start
            >strapping explosives to their bodies and obliterating those who they
            >considered their oppressors, there would be mountains of dead people
            >all over the world and no end to the carnage. Which is why such
            >conduct is clearly beyond the pale of any notion of civilization and
            >is so unprecedented. Perhaps all Europeans in Africa would be piled
            >together and slaughtered. Perhaps all Chinese in Tibet or Singapore
            >would be next. All Koreans in Japan might feel inclined to start
            >killing Japanese. Native Americans would start killing everyone is
            >sight who wasn't a native American. Under your philosophy, we might
            >as well just nuke the planet and be done with it now.

            The point is though that they do not. What I am calling your
            attention to is not the question of whether it is right or wrong to
            kill other people but the scale of the action that is being employed
            by the Palestinions. Perhaps if they had nuclear weapons they would
            nuke Israel in a grand, final gesture of hopelessness. But the point
            is, they do not. They don't even have any tanks!

            A country can only take responsibility for its actions if it has a
            border and an army capable of defending it. Palestine has neither of
            these things but its people are discriminated against on account of
            their race and culture and confined into refugee camps which have
            become their permanent homes.

            It is only Israel that can be considered capable of acting
            responsibly to change this situation because only it has both borders
            and an army.

            The situation is directly analogous to that of South Africa ten years
            ago. There is almost universal agreement after the successful
            election of the ANC to power that what Mandela and his black
            compatriots did was just and right. But look at the right wing press
            prior to the fall of apartheid and you will find all sorts of
            justifications for its continuation, mainly based around the general
            premise (however well disguised) of "you can't trust the blacks". The
            violence that was taking place in the townships, both black-on-white
            and black-on-black, was cited as one of the reasons that the blacks
            weren't to be trusted. This is exactly the argument Israel is using
            to justify its continued racist oppression of a subjugated people.

            Dropping communicationalism for the moment and thinking instead about
            pragmatic solutions to the problem of the Middle East, why don't you
            create a homeland for the Jewish People in America and let the
            Palestinians have Palestine? It would be cheaper in the long run and
            there is really quite a lot of land in the US, a lot of it better
            than what you will find in Palestine. And you folks do seem to get
            along remarkably well with one another. Just think of the economic
            benefits of having all those clever people under the one roof so to
            speak. Sharon could be given a ranch in Idaho. We in Europe will
            agree on our part to change our immigration laws to permit more Arabs
            to settle here (there already are quite a few, especially in France).

            Only joking. Kind of.

            Tommy








            _________________________________________________________________
            Join the world�s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
            http://www.hotmail.com
          • John Taft
            James, Well written, I can t find one iota of contention about your thoughts on your perception of the relation of the Palestinians and the Israeli s. This is
            Message 5 of 16 , Apr 6, 2002
            • 0 Attachment
              James,

              Well written, I can't find one iota of contention about your thoughts on
              your perception of the relation of the Palestinians and the Israeli's.

              This is the 70% that makes up American thought, which though has
              preconceived ideas about what an Israeli is and same for a Palestinian, yet
              basis their perception on the actual situation that is in play. Suicide
              bombers are terrorists to the receiving party, even they may be political or
              religious heroes to the sending party, this is all that matters.

              I can't help feel that the moderate Palestinians are going along with what
              is happening in the hopes of getting a windfall gain at no expense of their
              own, hopefully not though, and I hope they are just the silent majority that
              only wants fair play.

              John
              ----- Original Message -----
              From: "james tan" <tyjfk@...>
              Sent: Saturday, April 06, 2002 8:51 PM
              Subject: [existlist] Re: A Real Life Application? The Media's Role


              > From: "Christopher Bobo" <cbobo@...>
              > Reply-To: WisdomForum@yahoogroups.com
              > To: "Wisdom Forum" <WisdomForum@yahoogroups.com>
              > Subject: Re: [WisdomForum] Re: A Real Life Application? The Media's Role
              > Date: Sat, 6 Apr 2002 14:23:39 -0800
              >
              > Tommy wrote:
              > >>The point is though that they do not. What I am calling your
              > attention to is not the question of whether it is right or wrong to
              > kill other people but the scale of the action that is being employed
              > by the Palestinions. Perhaps if they had nuclear weapons they would
              > nuke Israel in a grand, final gesture of hopelessness. But the point
              > is, they do not. They don't even have any tanks!<<
              >
              > In don't think that the scale of the Israeli actions are disproportionate
              to
              > the threat. The Israeli's have not wantonly been killing women, children
              or
              > the unarmed. They have engaged in battle with men firing at them with
              > AK-47s. The Palestinians should not start a fight with a superior force
              and
              > then claim the fight is unfair. Just look at the Taliban and Al Qaeda.
              > They found themselves in a similar situation. I'm curious to know if that
              > is an especial feature of Arab or Islamic culture. I'm really growing
              > increasingly curious about the value system such acts express. And I
              think
              > it's a good thing that the Palestinians don't have nuclear weapons, since
              > they seem to be prone two what I might regard as irrational acts. I'm not
              > as concerned about the Israeli's, however, employing the nuclear weapons
              > that they do have against the Palestinians, because as far as I can see,
              the
              > Israelis appear to be behaving rationally.
              >
              > The U.S. certainly does not refrain from using B-52, B-1s, Tommahawk
              Cruise
              > Missles, AC-130 gunships, daisy cutter bombs, bunker buster bombs and
              > thermobaric bombs against those who do not have them. What rationale
              would
              > the Israelis have to leave their tanks and armored personnel carriers at
              > home when they go off to fight. And Tommy, that you could even complain
              > about this point makes me wonder about your views, when the entire object
              of
              > warfare since the practically the dawn of time has been to have better and
              > more sophisticated weapons than your opponent and to use them to you
              > advantage to defeat your enemy. Surely you remember the passage from the
              > stone age to the metal age, and the passage from bronze weapons to iron,
              > from calvary to armored tanks. Why should the Israelis commit suicide to
              > satisfy your idea of fairness in a fight.
              >
              > And I think all this talk about Palestinian "hopelessness" is pure
              > propaganda and non-sense. You should examine it more carefully. Take,
              for
              > instance, the 18 year old girl who decided one day to become a suicide
              > bomber. She was engaged to be married and was planning to go to college.
              > In what way was she hopeless? I don't think hopeless people have video
              > cameras and TV sets for the purpose of making and showing suicide bomber
              > last wills and testaments. American TV interviewed one of the families of
              > one of the early suicide bombers and he seemed to come from a nice home,
              he
              > was educated, he had nice clothes, his family was well fed, oddly enough
              he
              > had a think for Disney knick knacks and had a lot of Mickey Mouse statues,
              > posters and memorabilia in his room. In what sense was he hopeless. In
              my
              > book, truly hopeless people are starving, homeless, lack basic comforts,
              > wear tattered clothes, etc. None of these indicia of hopelessness apply
              to
              > the Palestinians that I have seem. Rather, I suspect there is something
              > going on behind this unsupported rhetoric of hopelessness. People are
              just
              > making choices about how to achieve their aims. That 18 year old girl was
              > offered a choice--get married and got to college or go straight to heaven
              as
              > a suicide bomber. She choose to go straight to heaven. The choice was
              > hers. To lay the blame on others for that choice is simply bad faith.
              >
              > Tommy said:
              > >>A country can only take responsibility for its actions if it has a
              > border and an army capable of defending it. Palestine has neither of
              > these things but its people are discriminated against on account of
              > their race and culture and confined into refugee camps which have
              > become their permanent homes.<<
              >
              > But the Paletinians do not yet constitute a country, and I think you are
              > wrong about this. The Palestinians Authority, I believe, has a security
              > force of some 30,000. What have they done with it. Absolutely nothing to
              > secure peaceful co-existence with its neighbor, Israel.
              >
              > I have been reading Kant's Perpetual Peace lately and come across these
              > worlds "We ordinarily assume that no one may act inimically toward another
              > except when he has been actively injured by the other. This is quite
              > correct if both are under civil law, for, by entering into such a state ,
              > they afford each other the requisite security through the sovereign which
              hs
              > power over both. Man (or the people) in the state of nature deprives me
              of
              > this security and injures me, if he is near me, by this mere status of
              his,
              > even though he does not injure me actively; he does so by the lawlessness
              of
              > his condition which constantly threatens me. Therefore, I can compel him
              > either to enter with me in a state of civil law or to remove himself from
              my
              > neighborhood....All mem who can reciprocally influence each other must
              stand
              > under some civil constitution." And here the Israelis are with respect
              to
              > the radical Palestinians--either they we place themselves under a civil
              law
              > with the Israelis, or the Israelis will be compelled to attempt to remove
              > them from the neighborhood.
              >
              > Tommy wrote:
              > >>The situation is directly analogous to that of South Africa ten years
              > ago. There is almost universal agreement after the successful
              > election of the ANC to power that what Mandela and his black
              > compatriots did was just and right. But look at the right wing press
              > prior to the fall of apartheid and you will find all sorts of
              > justifications for its continuation, mainly based around the general
              > premise (however well disguised) of "you can't trust the blacks". The
              > violence that was taking place in the townships, both black-on-white
              > and black-on-black, was cited as one of the reasons that the blacks
              > weren't to be trusted. This is exactly the argument Israel is using
              > to justify its continued racist oppression of a subjugated people.<<
              >
              > But Tommy, the situation is nothing like that in South Africa. The ANC
              was
              > negotiating with the white majority government peacefully. The ANC was not
              > fire-bombing restaurants or killing civilians, as far as I recall. Even
              the
              > blacks in the white townships were fighting the South African security
              > forces, I don't recall them bursting into wedding and banquets and killing
              > every white person they could find, although there were no doubt instances
              > of lawless murder motivated by racial hatred. The two situations are
              > incomparable. No one is saying you can't trust the Palestinians. Even
              the
              > right wing is saying there are Palestinians who want peace and who they
              can
              > negotiate with, but it may be highly likely that Yasser Arafat is not that
              > person. Arafat is no Mandela. I think he's amply proved that. Mandela
              > rejected even his own lifelong mate and wife when it became apparent that
              > she was involved in a political murder, whereas Arafat is the sponsor of
              > murderers.
              >
              > If he were a leader the stature of Mandela, I believe this conflict would
              > never have reached the level of violence and wanton destruction that it
              has,
              > and what's more, it would have resulted in a final peace by now. Arafat
              has
              > done absolutely nothing effectieve to indicate a willing to make peace
              with
              > the Israelis or to stop suicide bombing. At best, he plays lip service to
              > peace when he speaks English for the Western press, but when he speaks
              > Arabic to his supporters he's ordering them to Jihad, Jihad, and more
              Jihad
              > and acquiring weapons and bombs from Iran.
              >
              > Tommy wrote:
              > >>Back to communicationalism: we must trust the Other (currently being
              > defined, generally, as "Arab", "terrorist", "Al-Quaeda" etc.) not to
              > nuke us or otherwise make our citizens dead and our countries
              > uninhabitable. This trust will not be achieved by preventing the
              > Other from developing "weapons of mass destruction", such as those
              > possessed in the large part by the US and Israel, but by ensuring
              > that the Other has as much of a stake in the overall health and
              > wealth of the world as we do. This quite patently not presently the
              > case. We will only begin to understand all the reasons why the Other
              > doesn't feel as if s/he has as much of a stake in the overall health
              > of the world as we do once we start taking on board the factors that
              > go into the decision of someone to strap explosives to his or her
              > body to attack an oppressive enemy.<<
              >
              > The great statesman Henry Clay once said "Cultivate calmness of mind but
              > prepare for the worst." Ronald Reagan prudently observed that we should
              > "Trust but verifiy." The stakes are too high to be naively optimistic, or
              > to allow ourselves to be misguided by idealism. I agree that the other
              > should have as much at stake in the world as do we. What's more, I think
              > that they do have as much at stake in the world as we do but that they
              > motivations and reasons for action are very different from what you
              suppose,
              > Tommy. You know, Osama bin Laden did not seek to wage war against the
              U.S.
              > because he was poor, or that Arabs were poor or suffering, but because
              U.S.
              > troops are in what he regards as the sacred land. Bin Laden and his Sheik
              > friends are multimillionaires. They have more money than you and your
              > neighbors can even dream of. They are not poor and desperate. And
              neither
              > are the terrorists. Many of them were educated, had jobs, family and
              money.
              > They are engineers and computer programmers. They are motivated by
              > hopelessness or desperation and you should stop deluding yourself that
              they
              > are. You've been listening to their rhetoric far too long and not
              observing
              > the facts. They have thousands of dollars to spend on bombs, millions on
              > weapons, and plenty of cash to feed and equip armies of terrorists.
              >
              >
              > Tommy asked:
              > >>Dropping communicationalism for the moment and thinking instead about
              > pragmatic solutions to the problem of the Middle East, why don't you
              > create a homeland for the Jewish People in America and let the
              > Palestinians have Palestine? It would be cheaper in the long run and
              > there is really quite a lot of land in the US, a lot of it better
              > than what you will find in Palestine. And you folks do seem to get
              > along remarkably well with one another. Just think of the economic
              > benefits of having all those clever people under the one roof so to
              > speak. Sharon could be given a ranch in Idaho. We in Europe will
              > agree on our part to change our immigration laws to permit more Arabs
              > to settle here (there already are quite a few, especially in France).<<
              >
              > Palestinian Muslims as well as Muslims from all of the world are free to
              > immigrate to America and have been welcomed here, as have been Jews from
              all
              > over Europe. They have all been guarantee the equal protection of the
              laws
              > and life free from discrimination and persecution because of their race,
              > creed or national origin. There are about 3 million Arab Americans here
              and
              > 8 million Jewish Americans. And that is more Arabs than are in the West
              > Bank and more Jews than are in the entire state of Israel. They all
              already
              > have a homeland here. The only thing asked of them--in addition to paying
              > taxes, of course--is that that respect the creed that this is one nation
              > under God with liberty and justice for all, or in other words they pledge
              > allegiance to the constitution of the United States, which requires a
              > separation of church and state. Because this is one nation, there cannot
              be
              > other nations within it--except for Native American Tribes, which are
              > themselves sovereign nations which pre-existed the U.S. We know from our
              > history, in particular the Civil War, that we cannot have separate nations
              > in the U.S. and that once a state enters the Union, it cannot leave. I'm
              > sure we'd take in the rest suffeing in Israel today, as this country is
              > already home to over 24 million people who were not born here, but were,
              of
              > course, welcomed. To be sure, they'd have to agree to live in peace and
              > obey the laws of the land, but that's not a very burdensome requirement
              > after all.
              >
              > And I'm serious, as usual.
              >
              > Chris
              >
              > ----- Original Message -----
              > From: Tommy Beavitt
              > Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2002 3:37 PM
              > To: WisdomForum@yahoogroups.com
              > Subject: Re: [WisdomForum] Re: A Real Life Application? The Media's Role
              >
              > At 9:47 am -0800 4/4/02, Christopher Bobo wrote:
              > >Tommy observed:
              > > >>I don't think we can reasonably complain that people who have lived
              > >for more than a generation in a refugee camp take exception to their
              > >plight, strap explosives to their bodies and obliterate a handful of
              > >those who must directly be considered their oppressors.<<
              > >
              > >I do and I think we must so complain. The world is populated with
              > >people who believe they have gotten a raw deal from one party or
              > >another. If all the aggrieved peoples of the world were to start
              > >strapping explosives to their bodies and obliterating those who they
              > >considered their oppressors, there would be mountains of dead people
              > >all over the world and no end to the carnage. Which is why such
              > >conduct is clearly beyond the pale of any notion of civilization and
              > >is so unprecedented. Perhaps all Europeans in Africa would be piled
              > >together and slaughtered. Perhaps all Chinese in Tibet or Singapore
              > >would be next. All Koreans in Japan might feel inclined to start
              > >killing Japanese. Native Americans would start killing everyone is
              > >sight who wasn't a native American. Under your philosophy, we might
              > >as well just nuke the planet and be done with it now.
              >
              > The point is though that they do not. What I am calling your
              > attention to is not the question of whether it is right or wrong to
              > kill other people but the scale of the action that is being employed
              > by the Palestinions. Perhaps if they had nuclear weapons they would
              > nuke Israel in a grand, final gesture of hopelessness. But the point
              > is, they do not. They don't even have any tanks!
              >
              > A country can only take responsibility for its actions if it has a
              > border and an army capable of defending it. Palestine has neither of
              > these things but its people are discriminated against on account of
              > their race and culture and confined into refugee camps which have
              > become their permanent homes.
              >
              > It is only Israel that can be considered capable of acting
              > responsibly to change this situation because only it has both borders
              > and an army.
              >
              > The situation is directly analogous to that of South Africa ten years
              > ago. There is almost universal agreement after the successful
              > election of the ANC to power that what Mandela and his black
              > compatriots did was just and right. But look at the right wing press
              > prior to the fall of apartheid and you will find all sorts of
              > justifications for its continuation, mainly based around the general
              > premise (however well disguised) of "you can't trust the blacks". The
              > violence that was taking place in the townships, both black-on-white
              > and black-on-black, was cited as one of the reasons that the blacks
              > weren't to be trusted. This is exactly the argument Israel is using
              > to justify its continued racist oppression of a subjugated people.
              >
              > Dropping communicationalism for the moment and thinking instead about
              > pragmatic solutions to the problem of the Middle East, why don't you
              > create a homeland for the Jewish People in America and let the
              > Palestinians have Palestine? It would be cheaper in the long run and
              > there is really quite a lot of land in the US, a lot of it better
              > than what you will find in Palestine. And you folks do seem to get
              > along remarkably well with one another. Just think of the economic
              > benefits of having all those clever people under the one roof so to
              > speak. Sharon could be given a ranch in Idaho. We in Europe will
              > agree on our part to change our immigration laws to permit more Arabs
              > to settle here (there already are quite a few, especially in France).
              >
              > Only joking. Kind of.
              >
              > Tommy
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > _________________________________________________________________
              > Join the world's largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
              > http://www.hotmail.com
              >
              >
              >
              > Our Home: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist
              > (Includes community book list, chat, and more.)
              >
              > TO UNSUBSCRIBE from this group, send an email to:
              > existlist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
              >
              > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
              >
              >
            • james tan
              From: Christopher Bobo Reply-To: WisdomForum@yahoogroups.com To: Wisdom Forum Subject: Re: [WisdomForum] Re:
              Message 6 of 16 , Apr 7, 2002
              • 0 Attachment
                From: "Christopher Bobo" <cbobo@...>
                Reply-To: WisdomForum@yahoogroups.com
                To: "Wisdom Forum" <WisdomForum@yahoogroups.com>
                Subject: Re: [WisdomForum] Re: A Real Life Application? The Media's Role
                Date: Sat, 6 Apr 2002 21:49:34 -0800

                Tommy wrote:
                >>It seems to me also that your argument tends in the direction of
                regarding there to be some kind of inherent racial element here, eg.
                Arabs are inherently unstable whereas blacks are inherently
                peace-loving. I don't think that is the case. While I am no
                determinist, I do believe that behaviour such as suicide bombing or
                necklacing (the treatment given by blacks to other blacks who
                collaborated with the apartheid oppressors) is elicited by the
                situation within which choices such as "shall I get married or go
                straight to heaven?" are made.<<

                Taking this, your most grievous accusation against me, I will attribute it
                to your fatigue before bedtime. I do not now, nor have I ever believed that
                people are inherently one thing or the other because of their race or
                ethnicity. What I am trying to understand is what I suspect may be learned
                cultural differences that manifest themselves in different ways in different
                people. There is no doubt that there are good people and bad people of
                every color, race and creed. What I think we are discussing are the
                attributes, inclinations, characters, decisions and actions of political
                leaders chosen to guide particular societies. Necklacing and suicide
                bombing are very different things. Necklacing was directed at people
                believed to be guilty of specific wrongful acts, whereas suicide bombing is
                directed against people innocent of any wrongdoing under any rational
                account. And that is a huge difference. Still, I think necklacing
                suspected collaborators is morally wrong, although not as reprehensible as
                suicide bombing weddings, banquets and restaurants.

                Tommy said:
                >>There my objection breaks down and so does yours I suppose since we
                cannot, as Sartreans, ever say of somebody that they are inherently
                this or that. It is the choices they make from moment to moment
                within the contingency of their situation and how these choices are
                viewed from without.<<

                I think we must make a distinction here. It is true that we may not know
                what lies deep inside the character of Arafat as a man. But as a political
                leader, we must judge him on the ground of practice by what he does, even
                more so than by what he says. What he has done in leading his people has
                taken them into the horrific realm of murderous terrorism and plunge them
                into the abyss of a mindless war. And even you must admit, the Israeli
                aggression is a response to suicide bombing and not the cause of it. The
                bombing preceded in time the military incursions of the Israelis. And
                that's a simply fact.

                Tommy wrote:
                >>The Palestinian Authority is not doing these things either. There is
                some question of whether it is using its influence over the other
                groups sufficiently proactively. But that is completely a moot point
                since its ability and will to use this influence diminishes daily due
                to the emasculation it has been receiving from Sharon's Israel.<<

                Again I think you are buying a load of political propaganda and hogwash.
                Arafat called for Jihad and started supporting suicide bombers and
                glorifying them long before there was any emasculation of his position by
                Sharon's Israel.

                Tommy said:
                >>Your point about the Palestinians having TVs and Disney toys rather
                than wearing rags and starving is, I am afraid, not worthy of you.
                There is a fundamental point about occupation in terms of how humans
                see themselves and behave which is not a simple sliding scale of
                personal involvement in consumerist technological advances.<<

                I think this is a relevant point. At what point does political oppression,
                which comes in degrees, warrant murderous violence? Just because you find
                the occupation rude, disrespectful or hurtful to your feelings does not
                justify one in killing innocent men, women and children. If the oppression
                rises to the level of starvation, mass murder, or genocide, then one ways
                more warrant for extreme and violent actions. My point is that the
                Palestinians are utterly lacking in the degree of justification, if any
                there could be, for the heinousness of their actions. In the course of
                human history, many people have endured much worse without stooping to the
                levels of murder and mayhem that the Palestinian suicide bombers have
                inflicted. Many peoples throughout time have achieved their political aims
                without blowing up innocent civilians. The sooner they realize that these
                actions are utterly unacceptable and unjustifiable from any civilized
                perspective the better we will all be. I doubt seriously if European Jewry
                on the way to the their near extermination ever thought the solution lay is
                killing innocent German children in pizza parlors. I don't even think the
                blacks of apartheid South Africa engaged in such tactics.

                We have a saying for the person who occupies the top political position in
                the U.S. That saying is that the buck stops on his desk. He can't pass
                around the blame. He takes his office with all the burdens of
                responsibility that it brings with it. The buck stops on
                Chairman/President/General Arafat's too. He's responsible for what goes on
                under his authority, the buck stops on his desk. He doesn't get to make
                excuses, he only gets to accept responsibility and to act responsibly, in
                accordance with the rights, privileges and powers of his office as leader of
                his people. Sadly, he doesn't seem to realize that.


                ----- Original Message -----
                From: Tommy Beavitt
                Sent: Saturday, April 06, 2002 4:08 PM
                To: WisdomForum@yahoogroups.com
                Subject: Re: [WisdomForum] Re: A Real Life Application? The Media's Role

                >At 2:23 pm -0800 6/4/02, Christopher Bobo wrote:
                >The ANC was negotiating with the white majority government
                >peacefully. The ANC was not fire-bombing restaurants or killing
                >civilians, as far as I recall.

                That is right. What we call the ANC today was not, prior to the fall
                of the apartheid system run by white supremacists, fire-bombing
                restaurants or killing 'civilians'. But others were.

                The Palestinian Authority is not doing these things either. There is
                some question of whether it is using its influence over the other
                groups sufficiently proactively. But that is completely a moot point
                since its ability and will to use this influence diminishes daily due
                to the emasculation it has been receiving from Sharon's Israel.

                If the western world were to grant the PA the moral authority it
                granted the ANC it may very well be that we would say of it in
                retrospect (once the vision of a Palestinian state has been
                achieved), "it negotiated with the Jewish majority government
                peacefully".

                The only legitimate question, it seems to me, is whether Mandela is a
                man of integrity similar in inherent moral stature to a Gandhi or a
                Luther King while Arafat is fatally flawed.

                There my objection breaks down and so does yours I suppose since we
                cannot, as Sartreans, ever say of somebody that they are inherently
                this or that. It is the choices they make from moment to moment
                within the contingency of their situation and how these choices are
                viewed from without.

                It seems to me also that your argument tends in the direction of
                regarding there to be some kind of inherent racial element here, eg.
                Arabs are inherently unstable whereas blacks are inherently
                peace-loving. I don't think that is the case. While I am no
                determinist, I do believe that behaviour such as suicide bombing or
                necklacing (the treatment given by blacks to other blacks who
                collaborated with the apartheid oppressors) is elicited by the
                situation within which choices such as "shall I get married or go
                straight to heaven?" are made.

                Your point about the Palestinians having TVs and Disney toys rather
                than wearing rags and starving is, I am afraid, not worthy of you.
                There is a fundamental point about occupation in terms of how humans
                see themselves and behave which is not a simple sliding scale of
                personal involvement in consumerist technological advances.

                Anyway, I have written far too much here. A few words would have
                sufficed. I am off to bed.

                Good night!

                Tommy








                _________________________________________________________________
                MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
                http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
              • Eduard Alf
                james, I can see your point, but I tend to agree with Tommy on the aspect of Palestinians with TVs and such. In a society, those who are in the middle class
                Message 7 of 16 , Apr 7, 2002
                • 0 Attachment
                  james,

                  I can see your point, but I tend to agree with Tommy on the aspect of
                  Palestinians with TVs and such. In a society, those who are in the middle
                  class are usually those who have the time, connections and inclination to
                  act. Those at the lower ranks are too busy trying to survive to do
                  likewise. Those who participated in the 9-11 terrorism were well educated
                  and could hardly be said to be suffering. Yet they were more open to the
                  "meme" that suicide has its own reward.

                  My other fear is that, if Israel military withdraws from their latest
                  advancement into the occupied territories, it will be seen that terrorism
                  does indeed have a result in causing change. If there is no positive
                  indication of security for the Israeli state by the Arab League, this will
                  go on forever. You can see the some of the thinking now in the references
                  to the American revolution. "Give me Liberty or Give me Death". The point
                  is being made that if the Americans took such action [in essence terrorism]
                  against Britain, then why not the Palestinians. Of course the situations
                  are not the same, but you can see how this is going.

                  As to Arafat, I think that in his old age he is unable to take positive
                  action. I think that he was a prisoner within his own community, even
                  before the Israelis laid a siege on his headquarters. It may well be that
                  he is not capable of acting responsibly even if he wanted to. Unfortunately
                  he is the only figure head that is available. Perhaps the actions of the
                  Israelis in regard to preventing him from travelling, and the visits by
                  American spokesmen, may actually do him some good.

                  eduard


                  -----Original Message-----
                  From: james tan [mailto:tyjfk@...]
                  Sent: Sunday, April 07, 2002 7:02 AM
                  Subject: [existlist] Re: A Real Life Application? The Media's Role


                  From: "Christopher Bobo" <cbobo@...>
                  Reply-To: WisdomForum@yahoogroups.com
                  To: "Wisdom Forum" <WisdomForum@yahoogroups.com>
                  Subject: Re: [WisdomForum] Re: A Real Life Application? The Media's Role
                  Date: Sat, 6 Apr 2002 21:49:34 -0800

                  Tommy wrote:
                  >>It seems to me also that your argument tends in the direction of
                  regarding there to be some kind of inherent racial element here, eg.
                  Arabs are inherently unstable whereas blacks are inherently
                  peace-loving. I don't think that is the case. While I am no
                  determinist, I do believe that behaviour such as suicide bombing or
                  necklacing (the treatment given by blacks to other blacks who
                  collaborated with the apartheid oppressors) is elicited by the
                  situation within which choices such as "shall I get married or go
                  straight to heaven?" are made.<<

                  Taking this, your most grievous accusation against me, I will attribute it
                  to your fatigue before bedtime. I do not now, nor have I ever believed
                  that
                  people are inherently one thing or the other because of their race or
                  ethnicity. What I am trying to understand is what I suspect may be
                  learned
                  cultural differences that manifest themselves in different ways in
                  different
                  people. There is no doubt that there are good people and bad people of
                  every color, race and creed. What I think we are discussing are the
                  attributes, inclinations, characters, decisions and actions of political
                  leaders chosen to guide particular societies. Necklacing and suicide
                  bombing are very different things. Necklacing was directed at people
                  believed to be guilty of specific wrongful acts, whereas suicide bombing
                  is
                  directed against people innocent of any wrongdoing under any rational
                  account. And that is a huge difference. Still, I think necklacing
                  suspected collaborators is morally wrong, although not as reprehensible as
                  suicide bombing weddings, banquets and restaurants.

                  Tommy said:
                  >>There my objection breaks down and so does yours I suppose since we
                  cannot, as Sartreans, ever say of somebody that they are inherently
                  this or that. It is the choices they make from moment to moment
                  within the contingency of their situation and how these choices are
                  viewed from without.<<

                  I think we must make a distinction here. It is true that we may not know
                  what lies deep inside the character of Arafat as a man. But as a
                  political
                  leader, we must judge him on the ground of practice by what he does, even
                  more so than by what he says. What he has done in leading his people has
                  taken them into the horrific realm of murderous terrorism and plunge them
                  into the abyss of a mindless war. And even you must admit, the Israeli
                  aggression is a response to suicide bombing and not the cause of it. The
                  bombing preceded in time the military incursions of the Israelis. And
                  that's a simply fact.

                  Tommy wrote:
                  >>The Palestinian Authority is not doing these things either. There is
                  some question of whether it is using its influence over the other
                  groups sufficiently proactively. But that is completely a moot point
                  since its ability and will to use this influence diminishes daily due
                  to the emasculation it has been receiving from Sharon's Israel.<<

                  Again I think you are buying a load of political propaganda and hogwash.
                  Arafat called for Jihad and started supporting suicide bombers and
                  glorifying them long before there was any emasculation of his position by
                  Sharon's Israel.

                  Tommy said:
                  >>Your point about the Palestinians having TVs and Disney toys rather
                  than wearing rags and starving is, I am afraid, not worthy of you.
                  There is a fundamental point about occupation in terms of how humans
                  see themselves and behave which is not a simple sliding scale of
                  personal involvement in consumerist technological advances.<<

                  I think this is a relevant point. At what point does political
                  oppression,
                  which comes in degrees, warrant murderous violence? Just because you find
                  the occupation rude, disrespectful or hurtful to your feelings does not
                  justify one in killing innocent men, women and children. If the
                  oppression
                  rises to the level of starvation, mass murder, or genocide, then one ways
                  more warrant for extreme and violent actions. My point is that the
                  Palestinians are utterly lacking in the degree of justification, if any
                  there could be, for the heinousness of their actions. In the course of
                  human history, many people have endured much worse without stooping to the
                  levels of murder and mayhem that the Palestinian suicide bombers have
                  inflicted. Many peoples throughout time have achieved their political
                  aims
                  without blowing up innocent civilians. The sooner they realize that these
                  actions are utterly unacceptable and unjustifiable from any civilized
                  perspective the better we will all be. I doubt seriously if European Jewry
                  on the way to the their near extermination ever thought the solution lay
                  is
                  killing innocent German children in pizza parlors. I don't even think the
                  blacks of apartheid South Africa engaged in such tactics.

                  We have a saying for the person who occupies the top political position in
                  the U.S. That saying is that the buck stops on his desk. He can't pass
                  around the blame. He takes his office with all the burdens of
                  responsibility that it brings with it. The buck stops on
                  Chairman/President/General Arafat's too. He's responsible for what goes
                  on
                  under his authority, the buck stops on his desk. He doesn't get to make
                  excuses, he only gets to accept responsibility and to act responsibly, in
                  accordance with the rights, privileges and powers of his office as leader
                  of
                  his people. Sadly, he doesn't seem to realize that.


                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • CLSeaWasp@aol.com
                  The U.S. really screwed up the Angolan war. I m pasting below an article that I recieved via email about recent investigations into the US involvement. It s
                  Message 8 of 16 , Apr 7, 2002
                  • 0 Attachment
                    The U.S. really screwed up the Angolan war. I'm pasting below an article that
                    I recieved via email about recent investigations into the US involvement.
                    It's very interesting.
                    Claire ;D


                    Published on Sunday, March 31, 2002 in the New York Times

                    From Old Files, a New Story of U.S. Role in Angolan War

                    by Howard W. French

                    In the summer of 1975, with the cold war raging and the
                    memory of Saigon's fall terribly fresh, the United States
                    sponsored a covert operation to prevent another Communist
                    takeover, this time across the world, in Angola.

                    The effort failed to keep a Marxist government from taking
                    power but ushered in a long and chaotic civil war, involving
                    American, Chinese and Russian interests, and Cuban and South
                    African soldiers.

                    Now, coinciding with the death last month of Washington's
                    longtime rebel ally in Angola, Jonas Savimbi, a trove of
                    recently declassified American documents seem to overturn
                    conventional explanations of the war's origins.

                    Historians and former diplomats who have studied the
                    documents say they show conclusively that the United States
                    intervened in Angola weeks before the arrival of any Cubans,
                    not afterward as Washington claimed. Moreover, though a
                    connection between Washington and South Africa, which was
                    then ruled by a white government under the apartheid policy,
                    was strongly denied at the time, the documents appear to
                    demonstrate their broad collaboration.

                    "When the United States decided to launch the covert
                    intervention, in June and July, not only were there no
                    Cubans in Angola, but the U.S. government and the C.I.A.
                    were not even thinking about any Cuban presence in Angola,"
                    said Piero Gleijeses, a history professor at Johns Hopkins
                    University, who used the Freedom of Information Act to
                    uncover the documents. Similarly, cables of the time have
                    now been published by the National Security Archive, a
                    private research group.

                    "If you look at the C.I.A. reports which were done at the
                    time, the Cubans were totally out of the picture," Dr.
                    Gleijeses said. But in reports presented to the Senate in
                    December 1975, "what you find is really nothing less than
                    the rewriting of history."

                    Cuba eventually poured 50,000 troops into Angola in support
                    of a Marxist independence group, the Popular Movement for
                    the Liberation of Angola. The group held the capital in the
                    months just before independence from Portugal, declared in
                    August 1975.

                    But Dr. Gleijeses's research shows that the Cuban
                    intervention came in response to a C.I.A.-financed covert
                    invasion via neighboring Zaire, now known as Congo, and
                    South Africa's simultaneous drive on the capital, using
                    troops who posed as Western mercenaries.

                    The United States gradually switched its support to Mr.
                    Savimbi's movement, Unita, and continued to support it
                    intermittently during nearly two decades of warfare.

                    Dr. Gleijeses's research documents significant coordination
                    between the United States and South Africa, from joint
                    training missions to airlifts, and bluntly contradicts the
                    Congressional testimony of the era and the memoirs of Henry
                    A. Kissinger, the former secretary of state.

                    The work draws heavily on White House, State Department and
                    National Security Council memorandums, as well as extensive
                    interviews and archival research in Cuba, Angola, Germany
                    and elsewhere. It was carried out in preparation of Dr.
                    Gleijeses's recently published history of the conflict,
                    "Conflicting Missions, Havana, Washington and Africa,
                    1959-1976" (Chapel Hill).

                    The book strongly challenges common perceptions of Cuban
                    behavior in Africa. In the 1960s and 1970s, when Havana and
                    Washington clashed repeatedly in central and southern
                    Africa, Cuban troops in the continent were typically seen as
                    foot soldiers for Soviet imperialism.

                    In fact, Dr. Gleijeses writes, Cuba intervened in Angola
                    without seeking Soviet permission. Eager not to derail an
                    easing of tension with Washington, the Soviets limited
                    themselves to providing 10 charter flights to transport
                    Cubans to Angola in January 1976. The next year, Havana and
                    Moscow supported opposite sides in an attempted coup in
                    Angola, in which the Marxist government, Cuba's ally,
                    prevailed.

                    After reviewing Dr. Gleijeses's work, several former senior
                    United States diplomats who were involved in making policy
                    toward Angola broadly endorsed its conclusions.

                    "Considering that things came to a head over covert action
                    in the U.S. government in mid-July, there is no reason to
                    believe we were responding to Cuban involvement in Angola,"
                    said Nathaniel Davis, who resigned as Mr. Kissinger's
                    assistant secretary of state for African affairs in July
                    1975 over the Angola intervention.

                    Mr. Davis said he could find no fault with Mr. Gleijeses's
                    scholarship. Asked why the story of America responding to
                    Cuban intervention in Angola had persisted for so long, Mr.
                    Davis said: "Life is funny. What catches on in terms of
                    public debate is hard to predict."

                    The United States denied collaboration with South Africa
                    during the Angolan war, but it was quickly discovered by
                    China, an erstwhile American ally against the Marxists in
                    Angola, and was suspected and deeply resented by
                    Washington's main African partners.

                    --
                    Dan Clore




                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.