economic self interests of governments

[Julie Hotard]

Hi, Artur

All governments "selfishly" try to act in their own economic
best interests, and tare sometimes short-sighted in that 
area, and he U.S. is no different.  I suppose the
most reasonable course would be something between the
generosity which the U.S. has already extended to many 
countries being extended to the Arab world, and a path of 
defending itself and pursuing justice when attacked.  I suppose
that is what the U. S. government thinks it is pursuing now in
Afghanistan.  

Actually pursuing economic gain is often easier on the folks affected than pursuing religious zealotry.  The unemployed folks of both genders would  in Afghanistan would certainly eat better if employed at jobs having to do with a new oil pipeline put in by some oil company, than they do now.  When people stop making war or terrorism to pursue money, sometimes that's good, or at least it's the lesser of the 2 evils.  Terrorists in the mid-East might do themsleves and the world a favor by facing the fact that if commercial airlines suffer because people are afraid to fly, and so airlines buy less oil, that doesn't help the mid-East economies very much, nor does it take care of the interests of  the wealthy folks who are funding the terrorists with their oil profits.  .

Perhaps one solution to this whole issue is for everyone to
use less and less oil and to search high and low for alternative
fuels.

Although I like the ideas of love and peace, I am not one myself to think that Hitler, or similar personalities, should be left to keep their programs going, because all problems can be solved through peace and love, or because some Germans wouldn't have liked it if we had taken out Hitler, so they might have hated the U.S.  If we had only gone after Hitler and others in control of and directly responsible for the mass murders, we might have saved a lot of lives of young soldiers--, German, American, and from other countries too.  If we 
would have needed a small cover war to cover it up while we searched them out, it would have killed far fewer people than the WWII did have.
     
Julie  .  
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Artur F. Silva 
  To: OSLIST at LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU 
  Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2001 11:45 AM
  Subject: Re: 1998 retired Lt. Col. (Dr. Robert Bowman) letter


  At 22:25 12-10-2001, Julie Hotard wrote:

  Thanks, Julie. I have printed your message and only now I had the 
  oportunity to read it. And yes, the words of the American President 
  of the Institute for Space and Security Studies are worth reading.

  They are so clear that I wonder why they are not understood by the
  American Government and the war pundits. Is it that the economical 
  interests they are affiliated to prevent them to understand? Or is it that
  they still live in an old (medieval?) paradigm - like the one of the
  talibans - and are not aware of it? Or both?
   
  Anyhow, I am sending above again the parts that I found more interesting.
  Those parts are also the ones that, in my opinion, are more related to a 
  very interesting point that I found in the link Chris sent to us (see next 
  post)


  Artur
  ----


    The Long and Short of Terrorism and Security

    by Dr. Robert M. Bowman, Lt. Col., USAF, ret.

    In 1998, I said that if the lies about the causes of terrorism go
    unchallenged, then the terror war now unleashed will likely continue
    until it destroys us. We are not the target of terrorists because we
    practice freedom, democracy, and human rights, but because our 
    government denies these to people in the Third World whose 
    resources are coveted by our multinational corporations.


    (...) all my military experience 
    and knowledge tells me that retaliation hasn't rid us of the problem 
    in the past, and won't this time. If retaliation worked, Israelis would be 
    the world's most secure people.


     (...) The long-term solution is to stop making new terrorists and render 
    current ones impotent.

    Only one thing has ever ended a terrorist campaign -- denying the
    terrorist organization the support of the larger community it
    represents. And the only way to do that is to listen to and alleviate
    the legitimate grievances of the people.

    A massive military retaliation causing the deaths of thousands of Arabs is 
    the worst possible thing we could do. It would only guarantee an endless 
    supply of fresh terrorists for decades to come. We can have security, or we
    can have revenge. We cannot have both.

    If indeed we can prove the guilt of Osama bin Laden or others, we should 
    indict  them as common criminals. This would be supported by the vast 
    majority of the world's Muslims (..)



  ----


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openspacetech.org/pipermail/oslist-openspacetech.org/attachments/20011017/81ae9524/attachment-0016.htm>