Return-Path: <sentto-279987-2163-1001111905-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); Fri, 21 Sep 2001 15:41:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 29982 invoked by uid 510); 21 Sep 2001 22:39:16 -0000 Received: from n14.groups.yahoo.com (216.115.96.64) by 204.181.12.215 with SMTP; 21 Sep 2001 22:39:16 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: sentto-279987-2163-1001111905-fc=all.net@returns.onelist.com Received: from [10.1.1.221] by jk.egroups.com with NNFMP; 21 Sep 2001 22:38:55 -0000 X-Sender: Ross.Leo@csoconline.com X-Apparently-To: iwar@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2_2); 21 Sep 2001 22:38:25 -0000 Received: (qmail 53691 invoked from network); 21 Sep 2001 22:38:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by 10.1.1.221 with QMQP; 21 Sep 2001 22:38:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO csoc-fire05.csoconline.com) (140.169.36.3) by mta3 with SMTP; 21 Sep 2001 22:38:53 -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; 21 Sep 2001 22:37:26 UT Received: by csoc-mail-msfc.csoconline.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <TLAMSYVW>; Fri, 21 Sep 2001 17:38:29 -0500 Message-ID: <72222DC86846D411ABD300A0C9EB08A156FF27@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: Fri, 21 Sep 2001 17:38:55 -0500 Reply-To: iwar@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [iwar] A Hard Problem Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The only thing that really seems hard (for everyone) is having to pay the price for questionable practices, policies, and "marriages of convenience". In one sense it is much like committing a crime...if you didn't believe you had a better than even chance of getting away with it, you probably wouldn't commit it in the first place. We all perform some sort of risk management every day. Your last line echoes the diplomatic disasters, started in the late '40's and '50's by us in So America and elsewhere (Iran springs to mind), that eventually got the US hip-deep in Fascists, even while it kept Communists "out". The old Domino theory rearing its ugly head again? Again, a timely comment from a voice of reason. Thanks, Tony. Ross A. Leo -----Original Message----- From: Tony Bartoletti [mailto:azb@llnl.gov] Sent: Friday, September 21, 2001 17:29 To: iwar@yahoogroups.com Subject: [iwar] A Hard Problem I would like to expand on the problem Fred poses. Let us assume that, although some violation of civil rights in the US and (for instance) Europe may occur, that these will be dealt with and rectified eventually by the strong democratic institutions that are in place. (And let us hope that I am not guilty of wishful thinking.) At the other extreme, we understand how (again, for instance) Pakistan will be in a very difficult position to assist in "rooting out terrorists" when its ruling regime sees its very existence threatened from internal forces. Granted, this is a bed of their own making, to some degree, and there will not be much western sympathy for that situation. We do not tend to worry much about whether Pakistan will respect the civil liberties of its citizens in its assistance to our anti-terror campaign. What concerns me are the ... "middle countries". I am not sure who these are specifically (Malasia, Phillipines, etc). In years past, we might be discussing Marcos in the Phillipines, or other self-declared "Presidents for life" of institutions that wrap the term "democratic republic" about themselves as if it has meaning to them. What will/should be the US response to regimes that might interpret themselves as having a free hand to engage in the mass murder of their political challengers, under the guise of "assisting the US-led coalition in rooting out terrorism." The very last thing the west needs right now is to be seen as giving a moral "carte blanc" to "western-leaning" totalitarian regimes. Thoughts? >[Original] Subject: [iwar] Bus speech and some comments > > >Bush's speech was, no doubt, the finest of his career, but underlying >his comments were some issues I think are worth serious consideration. > >As many of you already know there were anti-war demonstrations by >students throughout the US yesterday. They fear the draft, of going to >war without a well defined enemy, and of the potential for government to >assume too much power over peoples' lives. > >Bush asked for, among other things, lots of money, a poorly defined >mission, and the right to not EVER tell our citizens what is actually >being done. He also asked for expanded intelligence powers and >lessenning of civil rights. > >We must watch such things very closely in my view. > >FC Tony Bartoletti 925-422-3881 <azb@llnl.gov> Information Operations, Warfare and Assurance Center Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Livermore, CA 94551-9900 ------------------ http://all.net/ Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> Pinpoint the right security solution for your company- Learn how to add 128- bit encryption and to authenticate your web site with VeriSign's FREE guide! http://us.click.yahoo.com/JNm9_D/33_CAA/yigFAA/kgFolB/TM ---------------------------------------------------------------------~-> ------------------ 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 21:08:46 PDT