iN REPLY TO Robert's question
"Which side(s) do you see?"
From the standpoint of a person who is oppressed
and will be liberated:
Do you realize most Americans are embedded in their own traps too? Our economy provides a freedom which is kind of meaningless in some ways. We have more mountains for hydro-electric power, and a great breadbasket of soil. We have great rivers for navigating, and ports facing both ends of the world. So we are more prosperous...but are we actually more free? Our controllers ahve more skillful control -- all the gum-and-candy pursuits you could want.
Have you ever tried to choose your own vocation from a standing start?
I don't have time to write a real essay right now and for the money I am paid, might never do so.
Regarding the war:
Imagine this is all being done in the name of
the American people. Did we talk with Iraq first?
I notice our message to Iraq is that we could not talk philosophy with them and build a bright new tomorrow until after we blow up a lot of persons and things. Why was this?
I notice Iraq's message to us is rather unknown.
What a conversation.
13 years of sanctions sent a message to the average Iraqi that we thought "putting the squeeze" is exactly how the big boys do it.
Lots of children starve and we of course blame someone else.
Gee, that's how our government said Saddam governs, from what I hear.
Why could we not talk philosophy with Iraq?
Well, maybe neither George W. Bush nor Saddam Hussein was capable of talking philosophy.
It is important that folks give both leaders intelligent razz, or their decisions on the granular level will have less grit to grind them and polish them. I could not influence Iraq, as far as I know. Nor do I have much influence on U.S. leaders, probably. I don't think George W. Bush thought it was important to study in college. Did he answer the objections of critics of the war with reasoned, point-by-point responses? I don't think so. Of course, national security requires silence on some issues. I would admit that maybe we cannot always have the luxury of debating all sides of a question without inflaming passions in the world forum. If nations said right out what was wrong with one another, they might not get anything good accomplished. It's diplomatic to stick to the art of the possible even though the clocks to various types of doom are clicking.
"We need world stability." Why? From what I have been seeing, it is so that all nations,
many of whom are led by control freaks, can
control their populations and have a shallow creative life, and oppose aggressive environmental protections Or so they can practice the bogus religions which the controllers prefer.
What about a creative future? Why can't our
lovely motion pictures with the happy times and the good endings take place on the real landscape?