----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter K." <peterk at enteract.com> To: <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com> Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2001 6:00 PM Subject: interview with Ali
> http://www.progressive.org/0901/intv0102.html
>
> No not Muhammad, Tariq. He seems to agree
> with all you ultras out there. He says about
> the War on Al Queda,
>
> "It was essentially a crude war of revenge designed largely to
> appease the U.S. public. In Canada in mid-November, I was
> debating Charles Krauthammer, and I said it was a war of revenge
> and he said, "Yeah, it was, so what?" The more hardline people,
> who are also more realistic, just accept this."
==============
Krauthammer's & Co. amoralist approach to international relations just goes to show that the Bushies use of moral rhetoric is a smokescreen; Machiavelli and Hobbes are alive and well and popping Viagra inside the Beltway. They can't deal with the fact that their amoralism is contagious and that others would act in ways consistent with an amoral outlook. Selective moralism is even more problematic than Max' 'selective pacifism.' Sooner or later the Weberian/State's monopoly on violence assertion was going to get a big kick in the teeth by somebody and we may just be at the beginning of a new era of non-state/state violence; asymmetric warfare is young but it's potential market is huge given the technological innovations in the pipeline that can be used for nasty purposes.
> I think they did a good job of destroying Al Queda and the proof
> is in the
> pudding. There hasn't been a terrorist attack since the 9.11
> (knock on wood).
>
> Peter
============ Um, what about the recent attack on the Indian parliament and the amassing of troops along the Pakistan-India border? Start knocking, you need to drop the isolationism you claim other US citizens harbor....
Ian