Return-Path: <sentto-279987-2012-1000820373-fc=all.net@returns.onelist.com> Delivered-To: fc@all.net Received: from 204.181.12.215 by localhost with POP3 (fetchmail-5.1.0) for fc@localhost (single-drop); Tue, 18 Sep 2001 06:41:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 27265 invoked by uid 510); 18 Sep 2001 13:39:52 -0000 Received: from n19.groups.yahoo.com (216.115.96.69) by 204.181.12.215 with SMTP; 18 Sep 2001 13:39:52 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: sentto-279987-2012-1000820373-fc=all.net@returns.onelist.com Received: from [10.1.1.221] by mw.egroups.com with NNFMP; 18 Sep 2001 13:39:37 -0000 X-Sender: Ross.Leo@csoconline.com X-Apparently-To: iwar@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2_2); 18 Sep 2001 13:39:33 -0000 Received: (qmail 86025 invoked from network); 18 Sep 2001 13:39:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by 10.1.1.221 with QMQP; 18 Sep 2001 13:39:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO csoc-fire05.csoconline.com) (140.169.36.3) by mta1 with SMTP; 18 Sep 2001 13:39:36 -0000 Received: from csoc-mail-msfc.csoconline.com by csoc-fire05.csoconline.com via smtpd (for mta1.onelist.com [208.48.218.7]) with SMTP; 18 Sep 2001 13:38:14 UT Received: by csoc-mail-msfc.csoconline.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <QYZ6262V>; Tue, 18 Sep 2001 08:39:12 -0500 Message-ID: <72222DC86846D411ABD300A0C9EB08A156FEE0@csoc-mail-box.csoconline.com> To: "'iwar@yahoogroups.com'" <iwar@yahoogroups.com> X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) From: "Leo, Ross" <Ross.Leo@csoconline.com> Mailing-List: list iwar@yahoogroups.com; contact iwar-owner@yahoogroups.com Delivered-To: mailing list iwar@yahoogroups.com Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:iwar-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com> Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2001 08:39:36 -0500 Reply-To: iwar@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [iwar] A Modest Proposal Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In my mind, anyone who preaches peace is headed down a road that I believe we all want to travel. However, peace at any price works only for the party being appeased. (I recognize this is not what you are extolling here). Bear in mind that one still must know who your "adversary" (not always a real enemy) is and what motivates him. Knowing these things will assist in getting to core issues when working towards peace or (sometimes) negotiated non-aggression. Your adversary must buy in, and put something he doesn't want to lose into the mix before he has any vested interest in keeping the peace going (the same psychology as "what's in it for me?"). As for it being cheaper and more effective - historically many alliances or peace settlements have been marriages of convenience for the parties involved (the US included). This has been especially true for the Arabian countries in recent history (at least that is what we have learned - they have probably always done it this way). But that is their culture. Part of the US problem has been, for many years, the understanding of the minds and true motivations of those we have dealt with, whether they are political, religious, or neither. We have often thought that "everyone out there thinks just like we do", or something along those lines. More often, I think we just haven't thought about it period. Until we truly understand this aspect, we will have (have had) regular problems dealing with forces and peoples outside the US. We don't have to accept or agree with those others, but if we don't understand them in this way, we will never fathom the extents to which they will go, what limits and pressure points they may have. By the same token, we will never be able to gauge our own responses to their actions effectively. Nothing justifies what happened Sept. 11, 2001. However, we had best understand fully what truly brought it about so that we can avoid being doomed to repeat history for not having learned from it (I paraphrase). The next time might be a whole lot bigger. Ross Leo -----Original Message----- From: ellisd@cs.ucsb.edu [mailto:ellisd@cs.ucsb.edu] Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2001 08:06 To: iwar@yahoogroups.com Subject: [iwar] A Modest Proposal Would it be cheaper and more effective to make friends than destroy enemies? We are combating an interpretation of an ideology moreso than we are fighting people or an organization. If we destroy the organization (lets just optimistically assume that we can), another will just replace it, like a weed-infested garden. Another approach might be to invite the peoples of the nations on the "black list" to come visit us for a few weeks/months. We could provide government-funded airline tickets (no complaints from the airline industry and hurting economy) for any citizen of those nations and put them up in hotels all across America for several weeks. We could sponsor tours of our monuments, living elements and representatives of our culture and way of life. Who knows, they might even change their minds about the "big devil." They would learn about us, and we about them. Fears would dwindle. More importantly, they would estrange themselves from or refine the ideology. They would destroy the threat. Sure, some will remain hardened and loyal to the adversarial disposition of enmity. They may even continue to cause some real damage for a period of time. But they will be disenfranchised and will loose the support that they so much depend on. The very nature of the soil would change to support the growth of understanding and tolerance. Now, admittedly, I am naive (all grad students are). I am also angry and hurt but what happened last week. But maybe another approach would more effectively heal the wound and prevent further injury. P.S. -- This is not an attempt to defame the revered Jonathon Swift ------------------ http://all.net/ Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ ------------------ http://all.net/ Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : 2001-09-29 21:08:44 PDT