[extropy-chat] Politics: As if your life depended on it

[Samantha Atkins]

On Dec 27, 2005, at 10:10 PM, Robert Bradbury wrote:

> Friedman's perspective (given my abstractions) is that Rumsfeld is  
> "evil" (acting in his own self-interest) and Bush was "duped".   
> These are my best impressions of the "read" of the U.S . media.   
> Yet, in spite of his opposition to the politics, he was still in  
> favor of an invasion of Iraq -- *if* one can win the conflict.   As  
> Friedman put it, "winning would be hard, perhaps impossible" but  
> essential -- in contrast to the general poltical perspective that  
> "winning would be easy".  I have seen little or no discussion as to  
> why the establishment of a "real" democracy in the Middle East is  
> essential to offset the western developed countries (this includes  
> the U.S., Europe and AU) .
>

What precisely can be won in this?   Is what can be won more  
important than bedrock perhaps illusory principles that keep an  
unsteady international peace?  Do you personally believe our goal was  
or is the establishment of democracy in Iraq?   Do you believe that  
can be established by invasion and force even among a people who have  
relatively little basis for it?  Do you believe that democracy alone  
is an unlimited good that justifies any means?


> Given my impression of Friedman's background I would say that  
> anyone *not* citing him as an authoritative source doesn't know  
> what they are talking about.  (I particularly stress this point to  
> liberal U.S. commentators as well as off-shore commentators)

He has some good points and many quite questionable notions as well.

>
> Stretching this still further... If extropian principal #7 is  
> "rational thought" -- how does suicide bombing support that?
>

How does invading a country and imposing foreign forms of government  
on it support rational thought?

- samantha