On Tue, 2 Aug 2005 21:20:25 -0500, "Morris Dovey"
wrote:
Doug Miller (in ) said:
| There was *no* national interest of the United States at stake in
| Bosnia or Kosovo, and only a tenuous interest, at best, in Somalia.
[USA-centric]
When a usenet discussion devolves to a contest about who's right, it
becomes fairly tiresome to a captive audience. While I care about
cause and effect, events and consequences, and the effects on both
participants and bystanders; I'd be much more interested in reading
about what you guys *agree* on...
Perhaps I have a latent hippie streak; but one of my favorite lines
from a song goes something like: "When they're saying who ain't free,
then they're saying it right to me." I *believe* that all persons
should be equal before the law - and that *all* persons everywhere
have the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
I detest bullies and murderers and find it not in *my* best interest
to allow them to deprive others of life or liberty or pursuit of
happiness. My observation is that such thugs seem to have endless
appetite for destruction and I'm convinced that the removal of such
people from power is essential if humanity is to thrive - be they in
Belgrade, Baghdad, Mogadishu, or Washington.
I'm willing to concede that /my/ best interest is not necessarily the
/nation's/ best interest - but I am one of many individuals who make
up my nation. Perhaps a statement by each participant of their own
"best interest" would be worthwhile in any discussion of "national
interest"?
One of the problems might be the difficulty in reaching agreement as
to when behavior crosses the line into the "unacceptable" range.
Another problem will almost certainly be the difficulty in reaching
agreement as to what should be done once there is general (majority?)
agreement that a person/group/nation has crossed that line.
Only the truly naive and chronically incompetent can believe that any
such problem would be solved by kicking the "bad guys" out and handing
power to "good guys" (which statement will probably offend politicians
on both sides of the aisle.)
Seems to me that the difference between fools and wise men is that
fools act on "what feels right" and wise men are "consequence-aware".
FWIW, I'm not seeing much that I can recognize as
consequence-awareness in DC of late...
I'm perfectly willing to stipulate that both Clinton and Bush
(both/all of 'em) are well-intentioned (although John Bunyan's
statement about good intentions is to the point) and that they made
both good and bad decisions in terms of the consequences produced.
Ok, here're my challenges to the political monday morning
quarterbacks: [1] Can you guys find anything that you agree on? [2]
Can you identify the political decisions relevant to the events you're
discussing and make constructive commentary as to their wisdom? And
[3] can you deduce a behavior model (action:consequence) that can be
used to deal better with similar situations in the future?
yes well I have deduced a behavior model (action:consequence) that can
be used to deal better with not only similar situations in the future
but ALL situations that reside in the future. Let me sum it up in
verse.
I'd like to buy the world a home
And furnish it with love
Grow apple trees and honey bees
And snow white turtle doves
(Chorus)
I'd like to teach the world to sing
In perfect harmony
I'd like to buy the world a Coke
And keep it company
That's the real thing
(Repeat Chorus)
(Chorus 2)
What the world wants today
Is the real thing
****
and you are the real thing boyo, if a bit verbose, spaced out,
off-topic, air-head, when you come down it won't sound a third as
profound as when wrote it. @}:-(|)~
|