>but, hey, as charlesj says, "As >dangerous as the world may seem at >times,
anti-social pathology is not a >viable equilibrium state for most >societies
or individuals." if charlesj is >right, then we can count on the USG to
>back down AND for the NA to change >their ways. afterall, it's a natural
human
>tendency to engage only in episodic >periods of anti-social pathology.
>such profound thinking coming out of >the left these days
Yours or mine? Next thing you'll be calling me a bleeding heart liberal, er, was that bleeding heart pacifist?
If one of the most obvious and least interesting things I said in my post could sear itself in your memory for such fluent quoting, then I must be doing something right afterall.
The way I see it, most people are really in the world for two reasons: to reproduce their genes in recombination with someone elses and to reproduce their ideas in and across social networks. LBO-Talk is a good case in point. And no doubt some of you are just dying to exchange chromosomes as you exchange ideas.
Societies and individuals want to survive wars and conflicts so they can get on with life. Even the Taliban wanted that chance. The NA and the non-Taliban Pashtun might well if they don't try to change the tribal makeup too much. They will mourn for their dead when the killing stops and try to get on with life.
The US experienced its share of disequilibrium after the Persian Gulf War--LA, McVeigh for example.
Doug suggests pacifists invite Mullah Omar to coffee on the lower east side. I think that makes perfectly good sense. The Arabs he knew probably shared coffee, and he tea.
Perhaps had something real been exchanged a long time ago, it would never have come to this.
Charles Jannuzi