Roger,
thanks for the article.
Just, there's not only one left. Tony Blair is laborist, and his government is
completely in line with Washington. The former Italian government of D'Alema,
socialist, has been decisive in supporting the NATO attacks on Serbs. Italy
offered military airports, and also Italian air forces have been engaged (for
that, at times, we were menaced of terrorist attacks). That caused a division
within the Italian lefts, as the more extremist communist party was against the
Italian intervention. By the way, even between the rights there were different
positions, and one of the rightist parties (today at government) declared
sympathy for the Serbs (!).
I don't know what left is this British left your article is talking about. Just,
there is not only one left.
Ciao,
Marco
(ranked exactly on the borderline between "centrist" and "leftist" in your
political test....)
----- Original Message -----
From: <RISKYBIZ9@aol.com>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2001 2:29 AM
Subject: Re: MD Pursuit of happiness AKA GREED
> To: All interested in MORALITY
> From:Rog
>
> In response to Squonk and Gerhard and the others that squeel with glee at a
> chance to align with the sentiments of terrorists and to criticize the Great
> Satan as she burns, attached are excerpts from a British collumnist that I
> found on the web. She reinforces the disturbing popularity of the
> America-bashing and gives her two cents on the topic. Her emphasis on
> morality is appropo.
>
> *****************
>
> A message to the Left: grow up, this isn't a game
> By Janet Daley
>
>
> A WHOLE swathe of this country's educated class is unable to distinguish
> between right and wrong. There is no other possible conclusion. There are
> apparently thousands of people out there (or maybe hundreds, or maybe it is
> just a few dozen with exceptionally good media contacts) who think that it
> is quite acceptable to see the mass murder of innocent people as a "message"
> that needed to be delivered. The puerile anti-Americanism of the British
> Left has seemed a harmless enough joke during the good, safe years when
> there was enough capitalist bounty to give socialists a good party. Now, in
> this moment of terrifying international crisis, we are discovering something
> in our midst that goes way beyond the rather cuddly imbecility that most of
> its critics have attributed to it. For how long exactly has the liberal
> conscience been this malignant? Has the hatred and foaming malevolence now
> rising to the surface been bubbling away under that smug, lazy facade for a
> generation, just waiting for the triumphal moment to gloat about what many
> of its spokesmen have called America's "defeat"?
>
> ....anything is
> acceptable if it helps to undermine the great United States plot to force
> American values on the rest of the world. Preventing the dissemination of
> free markets, with their corrupting prosperity and materialism, must be
> worth sacrificing a few mundane moral assumptions. Who is America, after
> all, to tell the world how it should live: if local populations prefer their
> Marxist tyrannies or their theocratic dictatorships, where does the United
> States get the right to bully them into personal freedom and private
> economic security? And when the theocrats and the dictators strike back,
> surely we should spare our sympathy for their tormentor.
>
> This is grotesque.
> But it is also a revelation, as fascinating as it is repulsive. On the one
> hand, it has the clear ring of elaborated neurosis: the extrapolation of
> your own adolescent rebellion into a cosmic political philosophy in which
> the most powerful country in the world personifies the domineering adult
> authority against which you pit yourself. But it also suggests an
> intellectual decadence that should be laughable - and was, in the innocent
> past of a week or so ago, laughed at. But they aren't funny any more. These
> are not champagne adventurists but salon terrorists who are excited - really
> excited - by this horrible event. Even when they contain their outright
> vindictiveness toward the country upon whose successful economy the
> developing world is utterly dependent, they suggest that there is something
> rational and meaningful in this "message" that has been delivered. As Martin
> Amis puts it in (where else?) yesterday's Guardian: "Terror is political
> communication by other means." What kind of discourse is it that includes
> this kind of utterance? At what point would these people decide that an
> action was so evil, so utterly beyond the pale of human conscience, that it
> was ruled out as part of the argument?
>
> And, as any sane person should be able to say with ease, there are not two
> possible answers to the question: was the attack on innocent civilians in
> America justifiable? There may be differences of opinion about the
> appropriate tactics for dealing with this gross criminality which threatens
> the lives of free people (and the freedoms which make their lives so worth
> living), and those differences will certainly be aired in private.
>
> The moral confusion of a whole section of opinion formers and
> well-educated British people is being exposed and tested. No one will forget
> what has been said and written this past week.
>
> ***********************
>
> Very true final words. "No one will forget
> what has been said and written this past week."
>
> Roger Parker
>
>
> MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
> Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
>
> To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
> http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
>
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:01:31 BST