>That may well be so - I think it might be, too. But do we know this isn't
>already part of that demise? The beginning of a desperate attempt to
>reorganise the planet and access to its extant largesse by a hegemon
>trying desperately to delay the moment of structural crisis?
ach, sorry forgot to address this.
if the attackers had been a different group, i might agree. but i happen to think the attackers are nothing more than another group that wants to share the imperialist stage. i cannot support anything that encourages them to think that their action was appropriate and that their action got them what they want. i cannot support policies that will help bring them to power. they aren't fascists, but they're close enough for mine. as i keep saying, they're reactionaries. i refuse to support them. it would be like supporting the reactionaries during the french revolution because they recognized how awful some aspects of the emerging industrial capitalist state were.
if i'd had my druthers, as i said, i would have encouraged them to attack us again and again and again and again. we could engage in violence in self-defense. and, in the meantime, we could start doing things to mitigate the conditions that gave rise to problems in the ME. eventually, we'd know who did it and then, and only then, would I feel that we would have had a reason to go after them.
that answer had everything to do with my desire to make all of us be responsible for blowback by taking a spore in defense of those ideals that USers say they stand for. i gave that answer b/c i do not want to see the military and police state powers grow.
etc.
sheesh. i've expl'd this so many frickin times. i HAVE considered the arguments you presented above. that's why i gave the answer above when i gave it, twice on this damn list already! :)
kelley