Again there is a major disjunction between what I say and your response.
| You are against the
| militarism of the US, ok. But you are not interested in the violence done
| by others, to the US or to others.
I thought that even a shallow reading of my last and previous messages would
demonstrate to you that I am against _militarism_, not _US militarism_ but
militarism_. In case that is not clear, I say it here: I am against
militarism (; but that has nothing to do with what I was saying)
But the existence of extreme violence
| requires a response. Do you use military force to restore order an defend
| civil society, or it it just something that "happens", as you put it?
I did not so put it. You have changed _happened_ to _happens_ and in so
doing quite altered the meaning. Not for the first time you are arguing with
your self. (Nor is it anything to do with what I was saying.)
Your suggestion that
_It seems to be a
| non-problem for you, as long as you have more fodder to condemn your
| supposed enemies._
does rather sound self-reflective to me; or you would answer what I actually
say; and it would be more useful to me, and possibly to you, to engage with
what I am saying rather than noting that I repeat what you see as a
condemnation. I know I am repeating it.
& _ Or are you not interested in that, either?_ is gratuitous, and
suggests it is I who will not answer.
but wouldn't you
| agree that an attack on a nation poses some problems for its elected
I'm not sure what it has to do with it whether the govt is elected or
not... Pakistan is having a fine time imitating the USA's rhetoric without
any pretence that its govt has been elected
It is unuseful to speak of Sep 11th as an _attack on a nation_. It's too
raises the temperature.
My main objection to the US response to Sep 11th is that it was simplistic.
*A response, yes. That response, no. It was wrong. It has made things even
more dangerous without solving the complex problem. In Islamabad and Delhi
and in Jerusalem they are imitating Bush's dangerous rhetoric...
I mentioned this last time, pointing clearly - I thought, but I am clearly
wrong - to the dominant world situation as a development of the US response
to Sep 11th
But my objection is not so much, in this context, to the actions of the
govt, than to the sentimentality about Sep 11th at all levels; you have
changed what I was saying.
Is this complex? you ask. Yes, I answer, and more complex than you are
allowing, when you apparently conflate personal response, national response
and the pre-planned govt response
There is so much that US cld have done after Sep 11. Instead, it decided to
lead _an attack on a nation_, and ally itself with countries which are
leading attacks on nations.
The harm it has done far exceeds the harm done to it