Various & sundry

[The Great Quail]

Richard writes,

>One wonders if borders truly mean anything anymore or legal 
>declarations of war--as far as I know we haven't declared war of 
>afghanistan

Well, part of the problem here is that Afghanistan is more of a 
geographical place now than a nation-state. Since only one government 
on earth currently recognizes the Taliban as a legitimate government, 
it does open the question -- just what *are* the niceties of legal 
borders and declarations of war? We are bombing selected targets in 
Afghanistan because that's where the Taliban are; but the Taliban are 
not synonymous with Afghanistan. It's a weird situation and an 
unusual distinction.

Barbara asks,
>What's this "multiple persona" business? Does DM have you believing 
>it too? Gee, fellows, where're your critical eyes when you need 
>them?  Granted Doug and I are share similar ideologies, but our 
>writing styles are very different. I should think readers of Pynchon 
>would notice those little subtlties of language.

Indeed; but I am not sure you are making a good point here for 
yourself! One could make the argument that readers of Pynchon are 
perfectly equipped to look beyond differing styles in order to see a 
single authorial voice.

>God, what am I saying! How I expect you'd notice *that* when you 
>can't even see the obvious messages in his work.

Aha! I would warrant that statements like this, statements that 
reveal the speaker to possess a higher truth regarding comprehension 
of Pynchon, are the sort of thing that makes a few people wonder if 
you are not a figment of Doug's imagination.

For the record, I do not believe Doug is so vain that he needs to 
cobble together alter egos to support him. But I do think it's a cool 
idea! Barbara as Doug's Wanda Tinasky!

>But doesn't the US support fundamentalist regimes when it suits our 
>purposes? Like Saudi Arabia, for example. I know a little about that 
>country, and it's second in fundamentalist repression only to the 
>Taliban.

Well, perhaps before you make a statement such as SA being second 
only to the Taliban regarding Fundamentalist repression, perhaps you 
*should* "know a little" about the country. SA is hardly a paradise 
by western standards, and they are certainly corrupt and repressive, 
but they are not a fundamental Islamic theocracy. In fact, like 
Egypt, they tend to crack down on fundamentalists when the heat gets 
too close to their own Monarchist asses. Of course, this is not to 
say that some members of the SA government do not sympathize with the 
Jihadists, but they are certainly not "Number Two."

>They have more money there, but the average citizen has far fewer 
>freedoms than one does in Iran.

I would like to see some of your facts and figures on this one! But 
it is true that Iran has loosened up a but lately, let's hope that 
Khatami can hold it together.

>And the fact that the US supports the Saudi government is a major 
>source of Osama's anger.

Well, it didn't bother him when it was expedient!

>I don't think the US cares about fundamentalism so much as it does 
>having those little nations kiss our big Red, White and Blue ass.

Now, now, that's really a reductionist way of looking at it. The 
problem is, there really aren't that many non-repressive, free 
democracies in the region! As long as we continue to support Isreal 
and continue to have a stake in the region's oil, we are going to 
have to support regimes we do not like. And these regimes in turn 
will continue to play upon our own fears -- "You continue to push us 
about human rights, and we may end up victims of an Islamic 
revolution...."

The problem is that region has a tendency, let's face it, for 
religious fervor, repression, and political strife. Of course, the 
money and support we put into the region inflames some of this, but 
the root of the problem is deeper than US interference. I may be 
naive, or unfashionably not paranoid enough, but I think if Saudi 
Arabia or Iraq or Kuwait suddenly transformed themselves into a free 
democracy with respect to human rights, the US would be overjoyed. 
(As long as they continued to sell us oil, of course.)

Ah, imagine if all the oil were in Switzerland.

--Quail