[ExI] riots again

Omar Rahman rahmans at me.com
Thu Oct 4 11:00:01 UTC 2012


> On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 11:19 AM, Stefano Vaj <stefano.vaj at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> Let us split it into its components:
>> - Is US policy in the M-E "noble"?
>> - Is US policy in the M-E good in some moral terms or other?
>> - Is US policy in the M-E good for the interest of the US government
>> and/or regime?
>> - Is US policy in the M-E good for the interest of the US?
>> I am inclined to answer "no" to *all* of those questions, but I do not
>> think one's answer must necessarily be one and the same to all of them.
>> 
> 
> The Middle East is a big place and there can't just be one policy for all
> of it. The USA policy in Afghanistan was noble and the 2001 invasion
> necessary, although with each passing year the reasons for staying there
> become weaker, particularly now that Bin Laden is dead.  The USA policy in
> Iraq is neither noble nor ignoble it is idiotic, mythical weapons of mass
> destruction level idiotic, thank you so much George Fucking Bush.
> 
>  John K Clark


Astounding! How exactly is US policy in Afghanistan noble? Propping up the corrupt 'mayor of Kabul' is noble? Perhaps the nobility is in the enabling of the drug trade? Is spending money/time/lives on a 'war' that can't ever be won noble? (Because it's 'on terror'...when exactly is terror going to cease to exist? I forget, which bomb blows that up again?)

The invasion necessary? Al-qaeda was/is the enemy in this situation and, as a clandestine terrorist organisation, it is almost impossible to defeat by direct military action. It is only by similar clandestine operations by the CIA and other agencies are you able to effectively retaliate; that's the purpose of having these organisations. In the end it was intelligence gathering that got to Bin Laden. The actual strike team might have been military but a CIA team could have carried out the same mission but it wouldn't have been as good PR.

Iraq was even more messed up than Afghanistan and I agree with you there.

The only thing necessary about these wars was generating private revenues through contracts to the most bloated inefficient organ of the US Government; the US Military. 

As yet another attempt to steer this discussion into an extropian direction: Unless we can find some means of growing our resource base faster than both the growth of population and our growing basic 'needs' how can we avoid Malthusian collapse and/or war?

If we chose to limit our reproduction? What will be the fitness function? (belief sets, mental abilities, etc.)

If we choose not to limit our reproduction? How will we fight our wars? (against who, rules, technologies, etc.)

Omar Rahman


P.S. A war on terror, literally destroying the feeling, might be a VERY extropian/post-singularity type goal. The question remains whether we would want to win that war or not. "Terror might well be the right response for some situations."  vs. "There is nothing to fear except fear itself." Anyone care to discuss?



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20121004/384e8d28/attachment.html>


More information about the extropy-chat mailing list