Posted by Adam on September 12, 2001, at 10:07:32
In reply to Re: two wrongs... » Adam, posted by Elizabeth on September 12, 2001, at 4:40:23
>
> Pardon my ignorance, but which one is the War Powers Act?
>
OOPS, I really blew it on that one. I got it backwards (it's been a while since that class on Vietnam). The War Powers Act was signed as a countermeasure to the Executive Order for military action. Basically, the president has the ability to commit military forces for a certain period of time before either A) congress must vote to declare war or B) no war is declared and forces are returned. I'm not sure how that all fits in with "peace-keeping" and so on. Anyway, as I'm sure you know, we never declared war on Vietnam, the presidents during that period just recycled their executive prerogative over and over to keep troops there. The legislative response to that was the War Powers Act (I think in 1973). So I inverted my terms (not uncommon for me). You get the idea, though: The president, according to the constitution, can commit the full military for something like 100 days before a vote on whether or not we are technically at war must be made. I guess the War Powers Act seeks to assure that when the time is up, Executive Order can't be extended indefinitely.
> > Powell, no doubt, will not dream of cutting off the marionet strings at a moment like this.
>
> I'm a little confused by this remark too.
>
Powell is the only real dyed-in-the-wool moderate in the cabinet right now, and I think his lustre may have faded when he took on the whole Republican party at their national convention. You know, those rather bold statements about the need for affirmative action. He made very few friends for not towing the party line at a key function, and lost a lot of cachet as a result. He is one of the least independant Secretaries of State in recent memory, and the word in Washington is that his moderate stance on a variety of issues isn't really appreciated by the Bush-Rice-Rumsfeld troika. So he's been marginalized, which is fairly remarkable for a Secretary of State. Rather than make a stink about it, Powell has capitulated completely. He does what he's told, and apparently provides little input. He has comfortably put himself in the role of underachiever, perhaps to avoid perpetual conflict and alienation.> > It's not good, this attitude. Look at Israel. What has a hard-liner (Sharon) gotten them so far?
>
> Although I can hardly blame the US govt for siding with Israel (Israel is, after all, the only democracy in the region), but the Palestinians did have their country taken away from them.This statement would likely end my friendship with my former boss if she ever found out, but here's how I see it: Calling Israel a democracy is kind of like calling pre-Mandela South Africa a democracy. Apartheid is slightly more constitutionally subtle in Israel, but it is just as devastating to the Palestinians who live there. This is, in no way, meant as a vote of support for the likes of Arafat (who's Nobel Peace Price has renedered the entire concept of a Nobel Peace Price a ludicrous joke). But the Palestinians are the big Losers in the geopolitical scheme, something that has been true since English occupation of the region, and the subsequent incorporation of a state of Israel in 1946. It must be noted that "Israel" as an independant nation had not existed, if it ever in fact existed, for something like 2500 years. The Palestinian Arabs in the region sided with the Germans during WWII, hardly suprising given the English occupation (Lawrence of Arabia, etc., etc.), so, when the war ended, the UN formed, and national boundaries were widely reset, the losers lost again. The Palestinians, from the outset, rejected the legitimacy of the new state of Israel, and have been paying for that, ever since. It's not just the Israel, mind you, who have hurt them (the Jordanian Bedouins, ironically enough, killed tens of thousands of them in Jordan, when they got out of line), but since the Arab world has become more-or-less united against Israel, Jews are now the primary target of united Arab wrath.
>
> > More dead, an even greater resolve on the part of their enemies, with no end in sight. You fight religious fanatics with force, and they'll throw their dead babies at you before they'll give up fighting you back.
>
> Yes, exactly. Yet the hatred keeps escalating.
>>
>Once you eliminate the fanatics, there's a chance of negotiating peace with the sane majority.
>
> What do you think?
>
I don't think there is any effective, forcible way to eliminate the fanatics. Religious fanaticism is a disease that thrives on violence, and on real or perceived victimization to perpetuate itself. It preys on the helpless and disenfranchised, those who have little or nothing to lose, and uses them to do its dirty work. For every one of them you kill, you create two or more. Every action creates a geometric reaction unless you A) find a better approach, or B) exterminate all of them. That means everyone, their friends, their family, those who share their convictions. It is one of the most unbeatable forces in the world today, perhaps the only unbeatable force, from a military perspective. Making love instead of war, under such circumstances, isn't just airy-fairy-mooshy-queer-commie-liberal nonsense, it's about the only effective policy. These aren't demons with horns, they're horribly misinformed and desperate people. What's the point in killing someone who wants to die and take you out with him? The worst thing you could do to someone like that (in their mind) is make them embrace you.
> -elizabeth
poster:Adam
thread:11152
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20010909/msgs/11236.html