Re: [sixties-l] An Act of War?

Date: Tue Sep 18 2001 - 00:38:01 EDT

  • Next message: monkerud: "[sixties-l] Re: whole world is watching"

    In a message dated 09/17/2001 9:09:53 PM Central Daylight Time, writes:

    > Friends
    > This is part of the puzzle - the failure of Bush foreign policy particularly
    > in regard to the Israeli Palestinian conflict. The article below is from the
    > Jordan Times. So from stumbling, bumbling, inarticulate Bush pummeled by
    > a falling economy, an isolationist foreign policy, and a disastrous
    > environmental policy, we now have King Bush leading us into WWI III without
    > opposition. Translate that to invading Iraq and possibly Afghanistan.
    > Allen Cohen

    The idiocy of ideologues continues to amaze me. To attribute the bombing of
    the WTC and the Pentagon on the failure of the Bush administration alone
    shows a total lack of historical understanding of the problem at hand. The
    previous administrations prior to Bush II FAILED to achieve anything in the
    Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Clinton managed to get some papers signed
    between the two parties, but they were dead in the water. Part of this is
    attributed to Arafat's unwillingness to compromise and part to the return of
    Ariel Sharon, another person who does not have the term compromise in his

    The deep-seeded hatred of the United States among many of the Middle Eastern
    peoples goes back to developments that began in the early 20th century that
    deteriorated as time went on, going from bad to worse. Their contention that
    the United States has exerted its influence by military and economic force
    is, sadly, borne out as true historically. In many ways, the Bush foreign
    policy (or lack thereof) doesn't look to much different from that of Clinton.
     They both had all the influence and power of a used kleenex...a lot of
    bluster behind them...with a big mess the result. I wonder if Sharon called
    Bush urging "restraint" after the bombings of September 11, seeing as that
    was the typical American response to every attack in the West Bank.

    At the same time, I could not help but fall out of my chair in hysterical
    laughter at some of the comments on this list, including the one above.
    Excuse me for being so blunt, but come down from your tie-dyed ivory tower
    where the solution to the world's problems is a group hug, the collected
    works of Allen Ginsberg, and a hooch of Columbian power weed...followed by a
    march in the streets to assure adequate air time and a good headline on an
    MTV newsbreak. Stumbling, bumbling and inarticulate describes two-thirds of
    America's presidents in our history, so no revelation there. At the same
    time, you claim this buffoon has destroyed the country and the environment
    after being in office for only nine months....and you have proclaimed him
    king. Wow. The last question I have is what kind of a foreign policy should
    we have? Interventionist...or isolationist? If Bush was isolationist, we
    condemn him. If he is interventionist, we condemn him. The guy can't win.

    As usual, this is little more than name-calling and finger-pointing.
    Whatever the cause, this is where we are, for better or worse. Any
    alternative proposals on how to deal with what has happened? Or is this just
    another case of nothing to contribute but several cellars of vintage whine?

    Brad L. Duren
    Instructor of History
    Oklahoma Panhandle State University
    213 Hamilton Hall
    Goodwell, Oklahoma 73939
    work phone: 580-349-1498

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Sep 18 2001 - 19:17:21 EDT