:-)
-Chip
----- Original Message ----- From: "Carrol Cox" <cbcox at ilstu.edu> To: <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com> Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2001 11:49 PM Subject: [Fwd: [Fwd: Re: [R-G] Fw: [L-I] Re: WWIII: 'Between Oct. 8 and mid-November']]
> I am reforwarding (somewhat cut) a post from Mark Jones that I forwarded
> a week ago. No one seemed to take notice of it at that time, since
> members of the list (especially Doug, Max, Steve Perry, and Seth
> continue to offer "practical" suggestions of what to do (i.e., what
> leftists should urge the government to do) which, in fact, are merely
> more delicate versions of what Mark describes as surrender. In other
> words the practical solutions being recommended on this list, when
> stripped of their rhetoric, are grounded on the proposition that
> terrorism works.
>
> Max, Doug, Seth, and Steve Perry all say we should advise the government
> to give in to terrorism. I agree; but this "advice" should present
> itself for what it is, not as a supposedly more practical and moderate
> program.
>
> Carrol
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: [Fwd: Re: [R-G] Fw: [L-I] Re: WWIII: 'Between Oct. 8 and
> mid-November']
> Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2001 09:28:19 -0500
> From: Carrol Cox <cbcox at ilstu.edu>
> Reply-To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
> To: "lbo-talk at lists.panix.com" <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com>
>
>
> I don't think I agree with this, but it seems to me more in touch with
> reality than some of the "sensible" positions being bruited about on
> this list. By "sensible" I mean any program that presupposes any degree
> of good faith by the U.S. in carrying it out, and that covers all
> proposals for leftist action beyond saying No as loudly as possible.
>
> Carrol
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [R-G] Fw: [L-I] Re: WWIII: 'Between Oct. 8 and
> mid-November'
> Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2001 12:26:43 +0100
> From: Mark Jones <jones118 at lineone.net>
>
> [clip]
> My consistent approach starting with my first post on this topic, sent
> about 2 days after 9/11, was that people hoping for swift retrubution,
> 'nuking 'em', etc, should not hold their breath. And so it has proved:
> in the first days the US elites were full of warmongering frenzy, to the
> point where people like that boss-eyed, bat-eared Berengaria
> of the Buchanan right, Ann Coulter, were seriously talking about a
> Crusade conducted in terms that Richard the Lionheart (1157-1199) would
> have instantly understood: 'Kill their leaders and convert them all to
> Christianity' babbled the overheated far-right guruette, writing,
> appropriately, in the Jewish World Review.
>
> But cooler heads have prevailed. Oy vey, only a decade since MAD
> (mutually assured destruction) passed into history along with the cold
> war, and already they've forgotten the obvious truth which Hitler also
> forget in is day: there is no guarantee they won't do the same thing to
> you, and worse, as soon as they get the chance.
>
> Fortunately for all of us they remembered in time, so there the Taleban
> still is and here we still all are. The idea of a swift war of revenge .
> . .ignoring all the mid-east fundamentals, ignoring the fact that even
> more terribly retribution . . .is
> still available to the enemy.... this idea was never very plausible. Our
> rulers aren't *that* dumb. In fact, what they all want above all is to
> get back to business as usual as quickly as possible. However, this must
> also now include *no repetitions of 9/11* and that is what the game is
> all about. No repetitions may or may not mean bombing Kabul, "getting
> bin Laden's head on a plate" etc, but it definitely does involve
> dealing with the underlying causes, the social ills and historical
> grievances, which
> makes such things happen in the first place.
>
> So now a huge shuttle diplomacy is going on. . . . The big losers (as
> was also obvious from the start) will be the Israelis. The big gainers
> will be the Palestinians and the Arab cause generally. This fact is so
> obvious that this more than anything makes 9/11 a strategic disaster for
> the rulers of the world. . . . Because it provides an obvious example
> and a clear envouragement to imitators. Something like this should never
> have been let happen, and the persons most directly responsible are the
> unelected, irresponsible Bushies themselves, they and their corporate
> backers.
>
> Now they have been shown the limits of power in a brutally direct way
> and they also will have to change, to learn to listen more, and to do
> something about grievances. . . .Since there has been no repetition of
> 9/11 it is surely obvious that the perpetrators themselves are also part
> of the graeat non-zero sum game of optimising social advantages. All
> they ever wanted was to be heard, but no-one listened. They asked
> politely, many times, but were ignored. Finally, they put a brick thru
> the window, and boy, are people
> listening now.
>
> Of course, this, as I say, only means that war *probably* will not
> happen *yet*.
>
> Mark