Re: Wow! - don't the Japanese make great cameras?!....

On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 13:55:00 -0400, ASAAR <caught@xxxxxx> wrote:

>On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 09:54:07 -0700, Bill Funk wrote:
>
>>> No, we restrict that behavior only to nations that have oil.
>>
>> Ah, so you narrow it down.
>> So you think we should invade Mexico, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia?
>
> I'm not familiar with Mexico, but we're getting what we want from
>the Saudis, who were essentially anointed as rulers of their country
>by us, and have enjoyed our protection as part of the deal. And
>despite recent disclaimers by the administration over the Pat
>Robertson embarrassment, we've been actively, albeit covertly trying
>to overthrow the Chavez government in Venezuela.

Yes, we have. No question.
Well, small quibble: "overthrow" is a word best used in spy novels, in
my opinion. It has bagage that makes it look like we're doing
somethiong that's practiced in banana republics. :-)
But, you're right. Of course, this goes on all the time; we are far
from alone in that respect. And we do it in ways that are far more
ethical than the attempts of some countries.

As the problem of terrorism moves into the front pages worldwide,
relationships between countries have changed, and this will continue.
Saudi Arabia is coming to be recognized as a breeding round for
twerrorists in several ways. We (the US) are not the only ones looking
to SA to begin to show more energy in changing this.

The world changes. Now, the biggest threat that occupies the minds and
governments of the countries is terrorism. This threat has changed
over the years. It wasn't that long ago that this threat was the
ideological differences between the Communist East and the Capitalist
West. As time goes on, the threat will change, possibly to someting to
do with oil supplies.
The point is to recognize that as the threat changes, the relationship
between countries will also change. Our relationship with a given
country during the cold war will change as that threat changes to
terrorism. This relationship will change again with the next threat.
Because the US is the current "big gun", we have a choice: disengage,
or engage. History has shown that an isolationist attitude is not only
not a good one, but as the world shrinks in many ways, it isn't even
an attainable goal. We are all joined in many ways. We need to change
our engagement in many ways; we need to adjust to be able to compete
with an EU economic engine (if it appears); we need to adjust tpo a
Pacific Rim economy that's growing quickly; we need to adjust to the
fact that China and India are becomong majope competition for trhe
world's oil supplies; and on and on.
Will we do things that differ from what was done in the past?
Obviously, the answer is yes. Will we do our best to cajole or coerce
others to align themselves with us? Again, yes.
When a country such as Venezuela, from which we get much of our oil,
is led by a nutcase of a President (he's pretty much universally seen
as a paranoid who's growing his military out of all proportion to any
threat around him, and is voicing his concerns that the US is planning
to invade with the help of his neighboring countries; those neighbors
are voicing their concern over this), it's in our interest to
"stabilize" the situation. While this *might* incklude a regime
change, the simple assumption by those who don't like the US that we
*will* invade is without basis.
Your part about the US "actively, albeit covertly" trying to overthrow
Chavez points this out; if the plan is "covert", why does everyone
know it? This sounds much like the classic comment by conspiracy
fanatics: "Of course no one knows about it: it's a CONSPIRACY!"
Or the classic heard on a talk radio show here in Phoenix:
Talk show host: "If it's a secret, how do you know about it?"
Caller: "It's on the Internet."
:-)
--
Bill Funk
Replace "g" with "a"
funktionality.blogspot.com
.

Relevant Pages