I won't argue with that -- this would just bring us into another
discussion of whether or not we should have invaded Iraq. It's all
besides the point now. What I'm concerned about in the article is the
attitudes revealed by our rhetoric and our entertainment. The attitudes
seem to be that we can really solve problems through retaliatory
vengeance, and that this won't have negative consequences (that won't
outweigh the problems left by not acting). I'm worried about present
attitudes (to the extent we can undestand them through language use)
because that is what will determine future actions, and if this attitude
is right, it also means that whatever people say about the possible
consequences of retaliation is probably wrong.
Jim
Yocum Daniel GS 21 CES/CEOE wrote:
> Some problems can be solved with vengeance Jim but nothing is without
> consequences including the choice not to retaliate. Your cautions are
> heard but what makes you think that your hamlet considerations are not
> occurring? To leave the usurping King to rule usually results in an
> oppressed populace of a Kingdom. If one is willing to take power by
> amoral means then what restrains the hand bearing the scepter? There
> is always suffering when one must over throw evil. You assume that
> eyes are not open but is that not your acorn generalization striving
> to become a mighty oak? I am much more concerned that 9/11 has still
> failed to open some eyes.
> Daniel
-
* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
Received on Wed Sep 17 12:13:07 2003
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Dec 06 2003 - 16:07:05 EST