Leftwatch
TVsHenry
http://www.leftwatch.com/articles/2002/000008.html
___________________________________________
"What lesson did you hope to teach us by your coward's attack on our World
Trade Center, our Pentagon, us? What was it you hoped we would learn? Whatever
it was, please know that you failed." - Leonard Pitts
Matthew Healey
<sigh>
Not more of this whole left vs right false dichotomoy crap that folk
here love so much (is it just an american thing? I dunno).
What about posting some links that actually take into account
fact/evidence and provide a reasoned debate with multiple prespectives
instead of just playing the old dualist 'ad hom' game.
btw as for your sig....someone has just flown large planes into your
buildings with a hugh loss of life thats turned the country upside down
and you wish people to think that you've 'failed to learn anything'??
Bizarre.
matt
:p
TVsHenry
>From: Matthew Healey md...@nospam.student.canterbury.ac.nz
>Date: 1/9/02 8:05 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <3C3CE8D7...@nospam.student.canterbury.ac.nz>
>
>
>
>TVsHenry wrote:
>>
>> http://www.leftwatch.com/articles/2002/000007.html
>> http://www.leftwatch.com/articles/2002/000008.html
>> ___________________________________________
>>
>> "What lesson did you hope to teach us by your coward's attack on our World
>> Trade Center, our Pentagon, us? What was it you hoped we would learn?
>Whatever
>> it was, please know that you failed." - Leonard Pitts
>
><sigh>
>Not more of this whole left vs right false dichotomoy crap that folk
>here love so much (is it just an american thing? I dunno).
>
>What about posting some links that actually take into account
>fact/evidence and provide a reasoned debate with multiple prespectives
>instead of just playing the old dualist 'ad hom' game.
>
The point of those links is Chomsky throws "fact/evidence" and "reasoned
debate" right out the window when responding to criticism. Time and again he
has done this.
>btw as for your sig....someone has just flown large planes into your
>buildings with a hugh loss of life thats turned the country upside down
>and you wish people to think that you've 'failed to learn anything'??
>Bizarre.
>
>matt
>
>:p
>
Pitts (a leftie FYI) had it right on the money. An act of mass murder is not a
"learning experience," nor should it ever be confused for one.
Matthew Healey
TVsHenry wrote:
>
> >Subject: Re: Leftwatch
> >From: Matthew Healey md...@nospam.student.canterbury.ac.nz
> >Date: 1/9/02 8:05 PM Eastern Standard Time
> >Message-id: <3C3CE8D7...@nospam.student.canterbury.ac.nz>
SNIP
>
> The point of those links is Chomsky throws "fact/evidence" and "reasoned
> debate" right out the window when responding to criticism.
and it seemed to me that the criticism (your links) "throws
'fact/evidence' and 'reasoned debate' right out the window"
also...perhaps just an interpretation of a misrepresentation of a
criticism that was misinterpreted (what were the issues again? ;))
venomous 'ad hom' (leftywatch) is no answer to avoidant 'ad hom'
(chomsky).
> Time and again he
> has done this.
and the cycle continues.....(what were the issues?)
> >btw as for your sig....someone has just flown large planes into your
> >buildings with a hugh loss of life thats turned the country upside down
> >and you wish people to think that you've 'failed to learn anything'??
> >Bizarre.
> >
> >matt
> >
> >:p
> >
>
> Pitts (a leftie FYI)
I couldn't give a toss whether he is or not. Bad arguments are bad
arguments.
>had it right on the money. An act of mass murder is not a
> "learning experience," nor should it ever be confused for one.
The more horrific the experience (murder or otherwise) one would think
the more there is to be learned from it. Failure to learn from
experience is failure to grow..irrespective of your politics.
matt
:p
TVsHenry
WE'LL GO FORWARD FROM THIS MOMENT
(c) Leonard Pitts, Miami Herald
It's my job to have something to say.
They pay me to provide words that help make sense of that which troubles the
American soul. But in this moment of airless shock when hot tears sting
disbelieving eyes, the only thing I can find to say, the only words that seem
to fit, must be addressed to the unknown author of this suffering.
You monster. You beast. You unspeakable bastard.
What lesson did you hope to teach us by your coward's attack on our World Trade
Center, our Pentagon, us? What was it you hoped we would learn? Whatever it
was, please know that you failed.
Did you want us to respect your cause? You just damned your cause.
Did you want to make us fear? You just steeled our resolve.
Did you want to tear us apart? You just brought us together.
Let me tell you about my people. We are a vast and quarrelsome family, a family
rent by racial, social, political and class division, but a family nonetheless.
We're frivolous, yes, capable of expending tremendous emotional energy on pop
cultural minutiae -- a singer's revealing dress, a ball team's misfortune, a
cartoon mouse. We're wealthy, too, spoiled by the ready availability of
trinkets and material goods, and maybe because of that, we walk through life
with a certain sense of blithe entitlement. We are fundamentally decent, though
-- peace-loving and compassionate. We struggle to know the right thing and to
do it. And we are, the overwhelming majority of us, people of faith, believers
in a just and loving God.
Some people -- you, perhaps -- think that any or all of this makes us weak.
You're mistaken. We are not weak. Indeed, we are strong in ways that cannot be
measured by arsenals.
IN PAIN
Yes, we're in pain now. We are in mourning and we are in shock. We're still
grappling with the unreality of the awful thing you did, still working to make
ourselves understand that this isn't a special effect from some Hollywood
blockbuster, isn't the plot development from a Tom Clancy novel. Both in terms
of the awful scope of their ambition and the probable final death toll, your
attacks are likely to go down as the worst acts of terrorism in the history of
the United States and, probably, the history of the world. You've bloodied us
as we have never been bloodied before.
But there's a gulf of difference between making us bloody and making us fall.
This is the lesson Japan was taught to its bitter sorrow the last time anyone
hit us this hard, the last time anyone brought us such abrupt and monumental
pain. When roused, we are righteous in our outrage, terrible in our force. When
provoked by this level of barbarism, we will bear any suffering, pay any cost,
go to any length, in the pursuit of justice.
I tell you this without fear of contradiction. I know my people, as you, I
think, do not. What I know reassures me. It also causes me to tremble with
dread of the future.
In the days to come, there will be recrimination and accusation, fingers
pointing to determine whose failure allowed this to happen and what can be done
to prevent it from happening again. There will be heightened security,
misguided talk of revoking basic freedoms. We'll go forward from this moment
sobered, chastened, sad. But determined, too. Unimaginably determined.
THE STEEL IN US
You see, the steel in us is not always readily apparent. That aspect of our
character is seldom understood by people who don't know us well. On this day,
the family's bickering is put on hold.
As Americans we will weep, as Americans we will mourn, and as Americans, we
will rise in defense of all that we cherish.
So I ask again: What was it you hoped to teach us? It occurs to me that maybe
you just wanted us to know the depths of your hatred. If that's the case,
consider the message received. And take this message in exchange: You don't
know my people. You don't know what we're capable of. You don't know what you
just started.
But you're about to learn.
Matthew Healey
TVsHenry wrote:
>
> In full context:
>
> WE'LL GO FORWARD FROM THIS MOMENT
> (c) Leonard Pitts, Miami Herald
>
> It's my job to have something to say.
SNIP
Thanks for that, it helped put your sig in context...
Having said that, there is a word that well describes the evocative and
emotive nature of the article...Propoganda.
heres an extra $1 to go with my 2cents.
"So I ask again: What was it you hoped to teach us?"
Its a rhetorical question obviously but asking literally might provide
some insight.
"It occurs to me that maybe you just wanted us to know the depths of
your hatred."
I agree.
"If that's the case, consider the message received."
But has it been truly considered and have you actually listened??
"And take this message in exchange: You don't know my people."
I think they do. People are people. They love, they hate......
"You don't know what we're capable of."
I think the point is that they do know and they've had enough already.
"You don't know what you just started."
I reckon they do and I also reckon they would welcome the response that
has been given.
anger feeds anger.....hate feeds hate.....
matt
:p
TVsHenry
>Message-id: <3C3CF428...@nospam.student.canterbury.ac.nz>
Perhaps I misstated it... an act of mass murder should not be accepted as "an
education..." it's basic psychology that if you show someone that their actions
produce results (i.e. bin Laden's "grievances"), they will do it again for more
results. However we have started to make some progress in airport security
obviously. Some, anyway.
TVsHenry
>Message-id: <3C3CFC6A...@nospam.student.canterbury.ac.nz>
Al Qaeda welcomes being nearly crippled? The Taliban welcomes being driven out
of power? Oookay...
Matthew Healey
TVsHenry wrote:
>
> >Subject: Re: Leftwatch
> >From: Matthew Healey md...@nospam.student.canterbury.ac.nz
> >Date: 1/9/02 9:28 PM Eastern Standard Time
> >Message-id: <3C3CFC6A...@nospam.student.canterbury.ac.nz>
SNIP
> Al Qaeda welcomes being nearly crippled? The Taliban welcomes being driven out
> of power? Oookay...
well no (actually what have the Taliban got to do with it? Wouldn't that
be like saying the US is responsible for the acts of the Israelis)...but
the idea that the 'war' is against an organisation that can be targeted
isn't totally correct I (I'm sure you know this). A loose network of
individuals that have minimal contact but a definate agenda is more
correct and IMHO more dangerous.
Anyways the point still stands..."if you go out and kill the 500 (or
whatever) terrorists in the world and then expect the population of
terrorists to be 0 your kidding yourself".
> ___________________________________________
>
> "What lesson did you hope to teach us by your coward's attack on our World
> Trade Center, our Pentagon, us? What was it you hoped we would learn? Whatever
> it was, please know that you failed." - Leonard Pitts
matt
:p
TVsHenry
>Message-id: <3C3CFFAD...@nospam.student.canterbury.ac.nz>
>
>
>
>TVsHenry wrote:
>>
>> >Subject: Re: Leftwatch
>> >From: Matthew Healey md...@nospam.student.canterbury.ac.nz
>> >Date: 1/9/02 9:28 PM Eastern Standard Time
>> >Message-id: <3C3CFC6A...@nospam.student.canterbury.ac.nz>
>
>SNIP
>
>> Al Qaeda welcomes being nearly crippled? The Taliban welcomes being driven
>out
>> of power? Oookay...
>
>well no (actually what have the Taliban got to do with it? Wouldn't that
>be like saying the US is responsible for the acts of the Israelis)...
The more we hear about how the Taliban ran their organization, the more we hear
it was bin Laden calling the shots.
but
>the idea that the 'war' is against an organisation that can be targeted
>isn't totally correct I (I'm sure you know this). A loose network of
>individuals that have minimal contact but a definate agenda is more
>correct and IMHO more dangerous.
>
>Anyways the point still stands..."if you go out and kill the 500 (or
>whatever) terrorists in the world and then expect the population of
>terrorists to be 0 your kidding yourself".
That was never a point to begin with (until now)... and I wasn't arguing that
the terrorists would be zero. But you can get rid of governments that would
provide them safe harbor.
Matthew Healey
TVsHenry wrote:
>
> >Subject: Re: Leftwatch
> >From: Matthew Healey md...@nospam.student.canterbury.ac.nz
> >Date: 1/9/02 8:53 PM Eastern Standard Time
> >Message-id: <3C3CF428...@nospam.student.canterbury.ac.nz>
SNIP
> >The more horrific the experience (murder or otherwise) one would think
> >the more there is to be learned from it. Failure to learn from
> >experience is failure to grow..irrespective of your politics.
> >
> >matt
> >
> >:p
> >
>
> Perhaps I misstated it... an act of mass murder should not be accepted as "an
> education..."
Why not...didn't you guys teach the Japs a lesson in good ole WW2?? Or
how about the 'lecture' that was given in Laos a few years back now?
etcetctetc
>it's basic psychology that if you show someone that their actions
> produce results (i.e. bin Laden's "grievances"), they will do it again for more
> results.
You don't need to 'show them'. Just reinforcing their behaviour will
more often than not do it.
Your point is a good one BUT ;) .....its not really a suitable answer to
the current situation (at least not for those of us who don't wish to
see the world degenerate into further horror). I would argue that
(carrying on with the psyc analogies) you're just treating the symptoms
and not the disease as such, by solely conducting an aggressive response
(I don't suggest that NO use of force is appropriate) and not a
reflective one.
> However we have started to make some progress in airport security
> obviously. Some, anyway.
> ___________________________________________
>
> "What lesson did you hope to teach us by your coward's attack on our World
> Trade Center, our Pentagon, us? What was it you hoped we would learn? Whatever
> it was, please know that you failed." - Leonard Pitts
matt
:p
TVsHenry
>Message-id: <3C3D0275...@nospam.student.canterbury.ac.nz>
>
>
>
>TVsHenry wrote:
>>
>> >Subject: Re: Leftwatch
>> >From: Matthew Healey md...@nospam.student.canterbury.ac.nz
>> >Date: 1/9/02 8:53 PM Eastern Standard Time
>> >Message-id: <3C3CF428...@nospam.student.canterbury.ac.nz>
>
>SNIP
>
>> >The more horrific the experience (murder or otherwise) one would think
>> >the more there is to be learned from it. Failure to learn from
>> >experience is failure to grow..irrespective of your politics.
>> >
>> >matt
>> >
>> >:p
>> >
>>
>> Perhaps I misstated it... an act of mass murder should not be accepted as
>"an
>> education..."
>
>Why not...didn't you guys teach the Japs a lesson in good ole WW2??
Or
>how about the 'lecture' that was given in Laos a few years back now?
>etcetctetc
>
Apples and oranges in the Japanese case clearly since it was an act of defense.
Didn't agree with Vietnam but one can't call it something like a "lecture."
"3000 people were deliberately killed without provocation, what did we learn?"
is the kind of thing I'm talking about.
>>it's basic psychology that if you show someone that their actions
>> produce results (i.e. bin Laden's "grievances"), they will do it again for
>more
>> results.
>
>You don't need to 'show them'. Just reinforcing their behaviour will
>more often than not do it.
>
>Your point is a good one BUT ;) .....its not really a suitable answer to
>the current situation (at least not for those of us who don't wish to
>see the world degenerate into further horror). I would argue that
>(carrying on with the psyc analogies) you're just treating the symptoms
>and not the disease as such, by solely conducting an aggressive response
>(I don't suggest that NO use of force is appropriate) and not a
>reflective one.
>
SOLELY aggressive? You haven't been following the news.
Matthew Healey
TVsHenry wrote:
>
> >Subject: Re: Leftwatch
> >From: Matthew Healey md...@nospam.student.canterbury.ac.nz
> >Date: 1/9/02 9:42 PM Eastern Standard Time
> >Message-id: <3C3CFFAD...@nospam.student.canterbury.ac.nz>
> >> Al Qaeda welcomes being nearly crippled? The Taliban welcomes being driven
> >out
> >> of power? Oookay...
> >
> >well no (actually what have the Taliban got to do with it? Wouldn't that
> >be like saying the US is responsible for the acts of the Israelis)...
>
> The more we hear about how the Taliban ran their organization, the more we hear
> it was bin Laden calling the shots.
Then I must profess ignorance on this one...I wasn't aware that the
"Taliban ran AlQueda"
What exactly is the evidence? Or more specifically what is the evidence
that proved the Taliban govt. gave orders for/knew of/sanctioned etctec
the attacks.
> but
> >the idea that the 'war' is against an organisation that can be targeted
> >isn't totally correct I (I'm sure you know this). A loose network of
> >individuals that have minimal contact but a definate agenda is more
> >correct and IMHO more dangerous.
> >
> >Anyways the point still stands..."if you go out and kill the 500 (or
> >whatever) terrorists in the world and then expect the population of
> >terrorists to be 0 your kidding yourself".
>
> That was never a point to begin with (until now)... and I wasn't arguing that
> the terrorists would be zero. But you can get rid of governments that would
> provide them safe harbor.
Now thats a tricky one I reckon. (Though in theory I dont really believe
any nation has the right to aggressive response, regardless of the
provocation, when other options remain open)
It all depends on our definition of terrorism I suppose.
Does the Israeli govt qualify? Or the Russian govt? Or even the US govt?
(the chinese have the worlds worst human rights record but the three
I've just mentioned surely are the biggest culprits when it comes to
murdering foriegn nationals on their own soil, without explicit 'war
conditions', to suit their own agendas)
All I see in the current situation is a 'might is right' argument. No
one (in their respective ballparks) can challange the Big3 terror
nations so their trangressions 'go unnoticed'. But if you mess with them
then wow you'd better watch out....Fair enough (especially when 3000+ of
your country men/women are dead) but dont you find it at all
hypocritical, I find it worrying (as I dont believe that US interests
worldwide reflect my own interests)
> ___________________________________________
>
> "What lesson did you hope to teach us by your coward's attack on our World
> Trade Center, our Pentagon, us? What was it you hoped we would learn? Whatever
> it was, please know that you failed." - Leonard Pitts
matt
:p
TVsHenry
>Message-id: <3C3D06D9...@nospam.student.canterbury.ac.nz>
Well, first of all, it's the old adage, "you can't please everyone all the
time" yet that seems to be an argument out there, that the U.S. is so great and
powerful that they SHOULD please everyone all the time, which is not going to
happen.
China's record is abhorrent and I have no idea why they get "most favored
nation" status but it's clearly not the same as harboring (nay, taking orders
from) a group whose soul purpose is death and destruction to support whatever
"grievance" they feel like discussing on videotape when they got up that
morning.
TVsHenry
Matthew Healey
TVsHenry wrote:
SNIP
> >Why not...didn't you guys teach the Japs a lesson in good ole WW2??
> Or
> >how about the 'lecture' that was given in Laos a few years back now?
> >etcetctetc
> >
>
> Apples and oranges in the Japanese case clearly since it was an act of defense.
As far as "acts of defense" go I think thats too easy to provide
justification for. One might say that OBL and his buddies thought they
had sufficient justification for their attacks on the US. Why not?
The Japs made a preemptive strike on a US naval facility...you responded
by unleashing the 2 most horrific acts of human made destruction on
them.....
> Didn't agree with Vietnam but one can't call it something like a "lecture."
I must be confused here..I didn't realise the carpet bombing of Laos was
part of the Vietnam war.
Source:
http://www.sumeria.net/politics/usa.html
You're right though it wasn't a 'lecture' it was sheer murder (do you
realise that someone in Laos dies every week from unexploded US bombs).
Why didn't they retailiate? Would they have sufficient justification?
> "3000 people were deliberately killed without provocation, what did we learn?"
I would hope that if it happened in my country the Govt. would learn how
to act in a way that doesn't encourage people to do it again.
> is the kind of thing I'm talking about.
SNIP
> >Your point is a good one BUT ;) .....its not really a suitable answer to
> >the current situation (at least not for those of us who don't wish to
> >see the world degenerate into further horror). I would argue that
> >(carrying on with the psyc analogies) you're just treating the symptoms
> >and not the disease as such, by solely conducting an aggressive response
> >(I don't suggest that NO use of force is appropriate) and not a
> >reflective one.
> >
>
> SOLELY aggressive? You haven't been following the news.
Initially is was. Initially there was an all-out attack with GW even
commenting that it was the only option open (which isn't technically
true is it? The most satisfying from a US perspective, yes, but the ONLY
option....)
The reconstruction of the afghan govt and rebuilding of the
infrastructure I would think is only fair. Though its hardly democratic
(thats important isn't it ;)) to install a leader who has ties with the
old crocked monarchy that the afghan people long ago diposed.
matt
:p
TVsHenry
>Message-id: <3C3D0C2A...@nospam.student.canterbury.ac.nz>
>
>
>TVsHenry wrote:
>
>SNIP
>
>> >Why not...didn't you guys teach the Japs a lesson in good ole WW2??
>> Or
>> >how about the 'lecture' that was given in Laos a few years back now?
>> >etcetctetc
>> >
>>
>> Apples and oranges in the Japanese case clearly since it was an act of
>defense.
>
>As far as "acts of defense" go I think thats too easy to provide
>justification for. One might say that OBL and his buddies thought they
>had sufficient justification for their attacks on the US. Why not?
>
OBL, et al. were not at the end of a 4 year war with us, they were merely
attacking us, we barely responded. OBL's reasons for deliberately killing 3000
people are absurd, not to mention bigoted and insane.
>The Japs made a preemptive strike on a US naval facility...you responded
>by unleashing the 2 most horrific acts of human made destruction on
>them.....
>
Four years later when it became obvious far more would die otherwise, at the
end of an actual back-and-forth war.
>> Didn't agree with Vietnam but one can't call it something like a "lecture."
>
>I must be confused here..I didn't realise the carpet bombing of Laos was
>part of the Vietnam war.
>
>Source:
>http://www.sumeria.net/politics/usa.html
>
>You're right though it wasn't a 'lecture' it was sheer murder (do you
>realise that someone in Laos dies every week from unexploded US bombs).
>Why didn't they retailiate? Would they have sufficient justification?
>
Then why did you call it a lecture? What was the point of that at all?
Would they have sufficient justification? Probably not since the order was not
given to detonate "unexploded bombs" to kill 3000 civilians in one fell swoop.
>
>> "3000 people were deliberately killed without provocation, what did we
>learn?"
>
>I would hope that if it happened in my country the Govt. would learn how
>to act in a way that doesn't encourage people to do it again.
>
Driving them out of power and crippling them does not encourage anyone to do
something like that again. If it were encouraging them, the "Arab street" would
be a lot louder about now.
>> is the kind of thing I'm talking about.
>
>SNIP
>
>> >Your point is a good one BUT ;) .....its not really a suitable answer to
>> >the current situation (at least not for those of us who don't wish to
>> >see the world degenerate into further horror). I would argue that
>> >(carrying on with the psyc analogies) you're just treating the symptoms
>> >and not the disease as such, by solely conducting an aggressive response
>> >(I don't suggest that NO use of force is appropriate) and not a
>> >reflective one.
>> >
>>
>> SOLELY aggressive? You haven't been following the news.
>
>Initially is was. Initially there was an all-out attack with GW even
>commenting that it was the only option open (which isn't technically
>true is it? The most satisfying from a US perspective, yes, but the ONLY
>option....)
>
We're not talking about "initially," we're talking about the present, now.
There are many parts of this war, not just involving "aggressive" actions.
>The reconstruction of the afghan govt and rebuilding of the
>infrastructure I would think is only fair. Though its hardly democratic
>(thats important isn't it ;))
No, since we are not a democracy.
to install a leader who has ties with the
>old crocked monarchy that the afghan people long ago diposed.
>
The idea that we were going to turn them into a representative republic
overnight is absurd.
>matt
>
>:p
Matthew Healey
TVsHenry wrote:
>
> >Subject: Re: Leftwatch
> >From: Matthew Healey md...@nospam.student.canterbury.ac.nz
> >Date: 1/9/02 10:13 PM Eastern Standard Time
> >Message-id: <3C3D06D9...@nospam.student.canterbury.ac.nz>
> >
> >
> >
> >TVsHenry wrote:
SNIP
> >All I see in the current situation is a 'might is right' argument. No
> >one (in their respective ballparks) can challange the Big3 terror
> >nations so their trangressions 'go unnoticed'. But if you mess with them
> >then wow you'd better watch out....Fair enough (especially when 3000+ of
> >your country men/women are dead) but dont you find it at all
> >hypocritical, I find it worrying (as I dont believe that US interests
> >worldwide reflect my own interests)
> >
>
> Well, first of all, it's the old adage, "you can't please everyone all the
> time"
You've lost me....who are the US trying to please?
> yet that seems to be an argument out there, that the U.S. is so great and
> powerful that they SHOULD please everyone all the time, which is not going to
> happen.
still lost ;)
> China's record is abhorrent and I have no idea why they get "most favored
> nation" status but it's clearly not the same as harboring (nay, taking orders
> from) a group whose soul purpose is death and destruction to support whatever
> "grievance" they feel like discussing on videotape when they got up that
> morning.
My point was that "harboring (nay, taking orders from) a group whose
soul purpose is death and destruction to support whatever "grievance"
they feel like discussing on videotape when they got up that morning" is
the same as........"Harbouring/funding (nay, giving orders to) a group
(CIA, Mossad?, IRA, KGB) whose sole purpose is furthering their own
agenda via death and destruction (if noncompliance it met) whenever they
feel their interests are to be served".
As the aggrieved you feel justified in handing out a kickass response.
Would you be as willing to accept a kickass in return for every time
your govt was guilty of the same? If not then this 'fighting talk' is
just propoganda (as I suggested Pitts article was) and the maxim "tit
for tat" rules where "do unto others...." should really stand in its
place.
> ___________________________________________
>
> "What lesson did you hope to teach us by your coward's attack on our World
> Trade Center, our Pentagon, us? What was it you hoped we would learn? Whatever
> it was, please know that you failed." - Leonard Pitts
matt
:p
TVsHenry
>Message-id: <3C3D0FDB...@nospam.student.canterbury.ac.nz>
>
>
>
>TVsHenry wrote:
>>
>> >Subject: Re: Leftwatch
>> >From: Matthew Healey md...@nospam.student.canterbury.ac.nz
>> >Date: 1/9/02 10:13 PM Eastern Standard Time
>> >Message-id: <3C3D06D9...@nospam.student.canterbury.ac.nz>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >TVsHenry wrote:
>SNIP
>
>> >All I see in the current situation is a 'might is right' argument. No
>> >one (in their respective ballparks) can challange the Big3 terror
>> >nations so their trangressions 'go unnoticed'. But if you mess with them
>> >then wow you'd better watch out....Fair enough (especially when 3000+ of
>> >your country men/women are dead) but dont you find it at all
>> >hypocritical, I find it worrying (as I dont believe that US interests
>> >worldwide reflect my own interests)
>> >
>>
>> Well, first of all, it's the old adage, "you can't please everyone all the
>> time"
>
>You've lost me....who are the US trying to please?
>
You said "your interests..." everyone has interests. It is the U.S. government.
They will look out for their interest. It's kind of their job.
Do unto others? You're kidding me. Bin Laden and his cronies have shown time
and time again that their response to a softened response is more death and
destruction. However in this time (you know the present, now) we are avoiding
civilians more than any army in any war in history, but if we were targeting
civilians in the way al Qaeda did, it would be another story.
Matthew Healey
TVsHenry wrote:
>
> >Subject: Re: Leftwatch
> >From: Matthew Healey md...@nospam.student.canterbury.ac.nz
> >Date: 1/9/02 10:36 PM Eastern Standard Time
> >Message-id: <3C3D0C2A...@nospam.student.canterbury.ac.nz>
> >
> >
> >TVsHenry wrote:
> >
> >SNIP
> as "acts of defense" go I think thats too easy to provide
> >justification for. One might say that OBL and his buddies thought they
> >had sufficient justification for their attacks on the US. Why not?
> >
>
> OBL, et al. were not at the end of a 4 year war with us, they were merely
> attacking us, we barely responded.
Now thats an understatement ;)
> OBL's reasons for deliberately killing 3000
> people are absurd, not to mention bigoted and insane.
As I said before "justification is easy to find". There is no universal
logic here. As Nietzsche said "Only the Frog is entitled to the frogs
perspective" (or he said something similar at least)
> >> Didn't agree with Vietnam but one can't call it something like a "lecture."
> >
> >I must be confused here..I didn't realise the carpet bombing of Laos was
> >part of the Vietnam war.
> >
> >Source:
> >http://www.sumeria.net/politics/usa.html
> >
> >You're right though it wasn't a 'lecture' it was sheer murder (do you
> >realise that someone in Laos dies every week from unexploded US bombs).
> >Why didn't they retailiate? Would they have sufficient justification?
> >
>
> Then why did you call it a lecture?
Just carrying on your whole 'lesson' theme. It also seemed
appropriate.....
> What was the point of that at all?
I've heard US atrocities defended by US citizens as "teaching them
Japs/Reds/Koreans etctect a lesson".
I was being sarcastic when I said "Why not...didn't you guys teach the
Japs a lesson in good ole WW2??"
> Would they have sufficient justification?
The country was bombed for 9 years solid with 580,344 bombing missions
logged (according to the pentagon) and over 30% of bombs dropped not
detonating.
Source:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/asia-pacific/newsid_1100000/1100842.stm
You dont think that would give them sufficient justification for
destroying your government and bombing the US and its citizens in
return.
>Probably not since the order was not
> given to detonate "unexploded bombs" to kill 3000 civilians in one fell swoop.
I reckon the US bombing of Laos was more morally repugnant than the
attacks on the US.....why shouldn't they have the right to defend
themselves like the US has.....Of course I'm now being rhetorical....the
issue is 'might is right' is how the world works.
> >
> >> "3000 people were deliberately killed without provocation, what did we
> >learn?"
> >
> >I would hope that if it happened in my country the Govt. would learn how
> >to act in a way that doesn't encourage people to do it again.
> >
>
> Driving them out of power and crippling them does not encourage anyone to do
> something like that again.
I think you fail to realise the psyche of folk who commit those acts.
> If it were encouraging them, the "Arab street" would
> be a lot louder about now.
What I meant was it would be more mature to examine their grievences
(regardless of their crime against you) rather than strike out in
retribution. Someone has to break the cycle of violence. And if not you
then who?
SNIP
> >Initially is was. Initially there was an all-out attack with GW even
> >commenting that it was the only option open (which isn't technically
> >true is it? The most satisfying from a US perspective, yes, but the ONLY
> >option....)
> >
>
> We're not talking about "initially," we're talking about the present, now.
> There are many parts of this war, not just involving "aggressive" actions.
Yes but my point was retalitory violence was initiated as a default
option (which is precisely the tactic of those you fight and that you
should be trying to avoid). Its a case of "staring into the abyss"
> >The reconstruction of the afghan govt and rebuilding of the
> >infrastructure I would think is only fair. Though its hardly democratic
> >(thats important isn't it ;))
>
> No, since we are not a democracy.
hehe nice one (I reached the same conclusion myself ;))
> to install a leader who has ties with the
> >old crocked monarchy that the afghan people long ago diposed.
> >
>
> The idea that we were going to turn them into a representative republic
> overnight is absurd.
I agree.
matt
:p
TVsHenry
>Message-id: <3C3D1604...@nospam.student.canterbury.ac.nz>
>
>
>
>TVsHenry wrote:
>>
>> >Subject: Re: Leftwatch
>> >From: Matthew Healey md...@nospam.student.canterbury.ac.nz
>> >Date: 1/9/02 10:36 PM Eastern Standard Time
>> >Message-id: <3C3D0C2A...@nospam.student.canterbury.ac.nz>
>> >
>> >
>> >TVsHenry wrote:
>> >
>> >SNIP
>
>> as "acts of defense" go I think thats too easy to provide
>> >justification for. One might say that OBL and his buddies thought they
>> >had sufficient justification for their attacks on the US. Why not?
>> >
>>
>> OBL, et al. were not at the end of a 4 year war with us, they were merely
>> attacking us, we barely responded.
>
>Now thats an understatement ;)
>
>> OBL's reasons for deliberately killing 3000
>> people are absurd, not to mention bigoted and insane.
>
>As I said before "justification is easy to find". There is no universal
>logic here. As Nietzsche said "Only the Frog is entitled to the frogs
>perspective" (or he said something similar at least)
>
That of course only works if you deal with sensible people.
Any number of reasons starting with the fact that deliberate attacks on
thousands of civilians all at once, unprovoked, were not ordered.
>> >
>> >> "3000 people were deliberately killed without provocation, what did we
>> >learn?"
>> >
>> >I would hope that if it happened in my country the Govt. would learn how
>> >to act in a way that doesn't encourage people to do it again.
>> >
>>
>> Driving them out of power and crippling them does not encourage anyone to
>do
>> something like that again.
>
>I think you fail to realise the psyche of folk who commit those acts.
>
And you do? Psyche doesn't much matter when they have fewer places to hide.
>> If it were encouraging them, the "Arab street" would
>> be a lot louder about now.
>
>What I meant was it would be more mature to examine their grievences
>(regardless of their crime against you) rather than strike out in
>retribution. Someone has to break the cycle of violence. And if not you
>then who?
>
"Cycle of violence" looks good on paper but has little basis in reality.
>SNIP
>
>> >Initially is was. Initially there was an all-out attack with GW even
>> >commenting that it was the only option open (which isn't technically
>> >true is it? The most satisfying from a US perspective, yes, but the ONLY
>> >option....)
>> >
>>
>> We're not talking about "initially," we're talking about the present, now.
>> There are many parts of this war, not just involving "aggressive" actions.
>
>Yes but my point was retalitory violence was initiated as a default
>option (which is precisely the tactic of those you fight and that you
>should be trying to avoid).
We had certainly tried everything else for about 8 years give or take.
Its a case of "staring into the abyss"
>
>> >The reconstruction of the afghan govt and rebuilding of the
>> >infrastructure I would think is only fair. Though its hardly democratic
>> >(thats important isn't it ;))
>>
>> No, since we are not a democracy.
>
>hehe nice one (I reached the same conclusion myself ;))
>
>> to install a leader who has ties with the
>> >old crocked monarchy that the afghan people long ago diposed.
>> >
>>
>> The idea that we were going to turn them into a representative republic
>> overnight is absurd.
>
>I agree.
Tim Starr
says...
[snip]
>I must be confused here..I didn't realise the carpet bombing of Laos was
>part of the Vietnam war.
Yes, US operations in Laos were part of the Vietnam War. The Ho Chi
Minh Trail went from North Vietnam through Laos & Cambodia into
South Vietnam. The US tried to deny use of Laotian territory for the
transport of soldiers & supplies from North to South Vietnam. That
included supporting the Hmong guerillas of Vang Pao and MACVSOG's
covert operations.
>You're right though it wasn't a 'lecture' it was sheer murder...
Nope, it was an attempt to stop totalitarian Commie aggressors from
invading Laos, setting up a puppet regime, and using it as a supply route
for their campaign of totalitarian Commie aggression against South
Vietnam.
>(do you realise that someone in Laos dies every week from unexploded
>US bombs)...
Too bad, wouldn't have happened if not for Viet Cong aggression.
Tim Starr
Matthew Healey
TVsHenry wrote:
>
> >Subject: Re: Leftwatch
> >From: Matthew Healey md...@nospam.student.canterbury.ac.nz
> >Date: 1/9/02 11:18 PM Eastern Standard Time
> >Message-id: <3C3D1604...@nospam.student.canterbury.ac.nz>
SNIP
> >As I said before "justification is easy to find". There is no universal
> >logic here. As Nietzsche said "Only the Frog is entitled to the frogs
> >perspective" (or he said something similar at least)
> >
>
> That of course only works if you deal with sensible people.
I would argue that folk are entitled to their own perspective regardless
of their 'sensibleness'.
If we can examine their internal justification and consider it invalid
why can't they do the same to ours. I don't believe the US has a right
to adopt a position of 'moral superiority' in this case. They've set the
rules (via their actions) historically now they are faced with the 'boot
on the other foot' type scenario. Don't get me wrong I think the
response by US govt was understandable but was not arrived at via any
appeal to universal morality. Therefore you have no right to call the
actions of OBL unjustified or wrong etcetc and thus the 'spin' we find
in the US media about 'evil incarnate' and all this 'god bless USA'
stuff is just propoganda by compliant media effectively working as govt
publication (excuse the chomskyism ;))
SNIP
> >I reckon the US bombing of Laos was more morally repugnant than the
> >attacks on the US.....why shouldn't they have the right to defend
> >themselves like the US has.....Of course I'm now being rhetorical....the
> >issue is 'might is right' is how the world works.
> >
>
> Any number of reasons starting with the fact that deliberate attacks on
> thousands of civilians all at once, unprovoked,
Now this is the tricky bit. You consider the attacks unprovoked. Those
who committed the acts consider there to be sufficient provocation.
Remember OBL has been calling for the same things for a number of years
and the west just ignores him. I find that weird or more to the point a
typical display of western style arrogance (hey it made our countries
what they are today but is it really how we wish to proceed in the
modern world). If a country or organisation questions the authority of
the 'strong nations' to exert their will within the borders of our
country (regardless of whether of not our govt allows it) if we
personally decide differently then surely we have the right to protest
or even fight back. Isn't this type of struggle what made the US what it
is today (and France etctetc)
> were not ordered.
makes no difference. They were done and done for a reason and sadly they
will be done again and again and again and again untill either we've
killed them all or untill we finally start to listen.
> >
> >I think you fail to realise the psyche of folk who commit those acts.
> >
>
> And you do?
Sorry I didn't mean that to sound exclusive.
> Psyche doesn't much matter when they have fewer places to hide.
You suggested the kickass US scenario would have OBL and co running
scared. I was meaning that these folk are very highly motivated and
driven toward certain goals (there aint nothing more certain or holy
than a moslem on jihad, well perhaps Pat Robertson on the 700club ;)).
Only death or compromise will stop them.
> >> If it were encouraging them, the "Arab street" would
> >> be a lot louder about now.
> >
> >What I meant was it would be more mature to examine their grievences
> >(regardless of their crime against you) rather than strike out in
> >retribution. Someone has to break the cycle of violence. And if not you
> >then who?
> >
>
> "Cycle of violence" looks good on paper but has little basis in reality.
So you think there is no hope for any conflict that degenerates into
'tit for tat'. I admitt the prospects for peace for the Israel/Palestine
conflict look bleak indeed. But this isn't some pipe-dream of eternal
peace as some hippy concept. This is the simple fact that if you wish to
live in the world with folk whos perspective is radically different from
your own then you MUST make concessions. If you dont and act as the
aggressor always then you must expect to have conflict thrust upon you.
> >Yes but my point was retalitory violence was initiated as a default
> >option (which is precisely the tactic of those you fight and that you
> >should be trying to avoid).
>
> We had certainly tried everything else for about 8 years give or take.
except actually doing as was asked. This might be considered blackmail
but remember this tactic is one that the US has been using the world
over for many a year, ie, if you don't change your
policy/ideology/outlooketctetc to one that we dictate we will make your
life difficult (or come invade/bomb/sanction etcetc your country). So
why shouldn't other countries use a similar tactic (the only answer I
can find is cos the US is strong and thus it is prudent to comply,
though the funny thing about people is that some would rather die than
accept the will of others)
> Its a case of "staring into the abyss"
SNIP
matt
:p
Matthew Healey
Tim Starr wrote:
>
> In article <3C3D0C2A...@nospam.student.canterbury.ac.nz>, Matthew Healey
> says...
>
> [snip]
>
> >I must be confused here..I didn't realise the carpet bombing of Laos was
> >part of the Vietnam war.
>
> Yes, US operations in Laos were part of the Vietnam War. The Ho Chi
> Minh Trail went from North Vietnam through Laos & Cambodia into
> South Vietnam. The US tried to deny use of Laotian territory for the
> transport of soldiers & supplies from North to South Vietnam. That
> included supporting the Hmong guerillas of Vang Pao and MACVSOG's
> covert operations.
>
> >You're right though it wasn't a 'lecture' it was sheer murder...
>
> Nope, it was an attempt to stop totalitarian Commie aggressors
heheheh good old Uncy Sam...come to save the world from those Red
Devils. Can't have anyone thinking differently than we do now can we can
we.
Yeahyeah commies are bad, killed lots of folk, didn't have democracy, no
free markets blahblahblah. Our response KILL THEM ALL!!!!! Lovely.
> from
> invading Laos, setting up a puppet regime
> and using it as a supply route
> for their campaign of totalitarian Commie aggression against South
> Vietnam.
Do you have a copy of the Defense Department brochure from which you
lifted that piece of insightful literary genius. Cos I love to collect
kitch 70's propoganda leaflets. (Tim sorry for the 'ad hom' but thats
was the best example of 'party line' rhetoric I've seen in ages).
> >(do you realise that someone in Laos dies every week from unexploded
> >US bombs)...
>
> Too bad
:(
your lack of sentiment is revealing.
> wouldn't have happened if not for Viet Cong aggression.
You comments remind me of the "None that matter" article by David
Potorti (I think I got it from here but here it is again)
> Tim Starr
"David Potorti, AlterNet October 10, 2001
[Ed's note: On Tuesday, September 11, the writer lost his brother, James
Potorti, at the World Trade Center. James worked on the 96th Floor of
the first tower for a company called Marsh & McLennan.]
On October 8th, as most Americans rose concerned and curious about the
military action taking place on the other side of the globe, NPR's
Morning Edition host Bob Edwards asked Cokie Roberts to weigh in.
"Leaders of Congress were quick to issue a statement in support of the
military action in Afghanistan," he said. "Were there any dissenters?"
"None that matter," she replied.
It's a jaw-dropping statement when you think about it, one that says
nothing and yet says everything. There was opposition to the bombing.
But how much? From whom? But before you go demanding simple facts or
objective reportage, let's cut to the chase: it doesn't matter.
It's an opinion unlikely to be shared by California Representative
Barbara Lee, the only member of Congress brave enough to vote her
conscience in declining to authorize the use of military force. Or to
other members of Congress who expressed similar concerns. Do they
matter? To countless Americans who share their concerns, they do.
But in a larger sense, of course, Roberts is right. In a media universe
where you're likely to find right-wing conservatives on ABC, Fox, or
NPR, the facts don't matter; only the framing. And in the hands of
biased pundits posing as objective journalists, the framing is always
going to be the same: pro-military, pro-government, and pro-war.
Still, Roberts may have done us a favor with her comment. Those three
little words tell us worlds about the values informing the operation of
U.S. intelligence, the State
Department, and the Pentagon. Understanding those words may bring us
some much-needed clarity on U.S. policies seemingly at odds with U.S.
values.
Have sanctions against Iraq have killed more than 500,000 innocent
children? None that matter. Did bombing Yugoslavia kill more civilians
than soldiers? None that matter. Did lobbing cruise missiles at a
Sudanese pharmaceutical factory result in the deaths of medicine-starved
civilians? None that matter.
The phrase is useful for understanding domestic policies as well. At
the Koyoto summit, did any significant criticisms of U.S. energy
policies emerge? None that matter. Has the U.S. stance on eliminating
the ABM treaty produced any significant concerns from the rest of the
civilized world? None that matter. Has U.S. reliance on the death
penalty inflicted any damages on our moral authority? None that matter.
It's equally handy at explaining our current crisis. Are the
militaristic responses to the terrorist attacks likely to endanger the
lives of more American civilians? None that matter. Will the war on
terrorism endanger the civil liberties of Americans at home? None that
matter. Will bombing Afghanistan cause any significant improvements in
the lot of the innocent Afghan people? None that matter.
And let's not forget: it's a handy phrase you can use at home as well.
Will network news divisions, owned by defense contractors, give us any
useful insights into the workings of the U.S. military? None that
matter. Will you hear any coherent news reports from outside of a
narrow, statist perspective? None that matter. And are there any
mainstream media outlets willing to criticize U.S. foreign policy? None
that matter.
Thanks, Cokie. By telling us it doesn't matter, you've done more than
express your biased political opinion. You've explained the arrogant,
provincial, and value-free attitudes at work behind American foreign
policy. And you've also given us valuable insight into the mindset of
the terrorists behind the events of September 11.
Won't innocent American civilians die in the attacks? None that
matter. Won't Islam be defamed in the eyes of other nations? None that
matter. And, in the end, are the
attacks likely to achieve much-needed changes in U.S. foreign policy?
None that matter."
matt
:p
James Teo
Matt, please don't feed the troll.
TVsHenry
>Message-id: <3C3E0627...@nospam.student.canterbury.ac.nz>
>
>
>
>TVsHenry wrote:
>>
>> >Subject: Re: Leftwatch
>> >From: Matthew Healey md...@nospam.student.canterbury.ac.nz
>> >Date: 1/9/02 11:18 PM Eastern Standard Time
>> >Message-id: <3C3D1604...@nospam.student.canterbury.ac.nz>
>
>SNIP
>
>> >As I said before "justification is easy to find". There is no universal
>> >logic here. As Nietzsche said "Only the Frog is entitled to the frogs
>> >perspective" (or he said something similar at least)
>> >
>>
>> That of course only works if you deal with sensible people.
>
>I would argue that folk are entitled to their own perspective regardless
>of their 'sensibleness'.
>
They threw away any such entitlement long ago.
>If we can examine their internal justification and consider it invalid
>why can't they do the same to ours.
Sure they can. Doesn't make them right.
I don't believe the US has a right
>to adopt a position of 'moral superiority' in this case.
Sure we do, especially if you are ascribing rights to them that they threw away
when they started deliberately attacking civilians, etc.
They've set the
>rules (via their actions) historically now they are faced with the 'boot
>on the other foot' type scenario. Don't get me wrong I think the
>response by US govt was understandable but was not arrived at via any
>appeal to universal morality. Therefore you have no right to call the
>actions of OBL unjustified or wrong etcetc and thus the 'spin' we find
>in the US media about 'evil incarnate' and all this 'god bless USA'
>stuff is just propoganda by compliant media effectively working as govt
>publication (excuse the chomskyism ;))
>
>SNIP
>
>> >I reckon the US bombing of Laos was more morally repugnant than the
>> >attacks on the US.....why shouldn't they have the right to defend
>> >themselves like the US has.....Of course I'm now being rhetorical....the
>> >issue is 'might is right' is how the world works.
>> >
>>
>> Any number of reasons starting with the fact that deliberate attacks on
>> thousands of civilians all at once, unprovoked,
>
>Now this is the tricky bit. You consider the attacks unprovoked. Those
>who committed the acts consider there to be sufficient provocation.
Based on their Islamo-Fascist ideas on the "infidel" being in their midst. The
KKK probably feels they have been sufficiently provoked as well.
>Remember OBL has been calling for the same things for a number of years
>and the west just ignores him.
We should not have ignored him, but that's probably not what you meant.
I find that weird or more to the point a
>typical display of western style arrogance (hey it made our countries
>what they are today but is it really how we wish to proceed in the
>modern world).
"Arrogance" regarding mass murderers?
If a country or organisation questions the authority of
>the 'strong nations' to exert their will within the borders of our
>country (regardless of whether of not our govt allows it) if we
>personally decide differently then surely we have the right to protest
>or even fight back. Isn't this type of struggle what made the US what it
>is today (and France etctetc)
>
Not even close.
>> were not ordered.
>
>makes no difference.
Of course it does.
They were done and done for a reason and sadly they
>will be done again and again and again and again untill either we've
>killed them all or untill we finally start to listen.
>
>
>> >
>> >I think you fail to realise the psyche of folk who commit those acts.
>> >
>>
>> And you do?
>
>Sorry I didn't mean that to sound exclusive.
>
>> Psyche doesn't much matter when they have fewer places to hide.
>
>You suggested the kickass US scenario would have OBL and co running
>scared. I was meaning that these folk are very highly motivated and
>driven toward certain goals (there aint nothing more certain or holy
>than a moslem on jihad, well perhaps Pat Robertson on the 700club ;)).
>Only death or compromise will stop them.
>
A compromise was made with Hitler, we saw what happened after that.
>> >> If it were encouraging them, the "Arab street" would
>> >> be a lot louder about now.
>> >
>> >What I meant was it would be more mature to examine their grievences
>> >(regardless of their crime against you) rather than strike out in
>> >retribution. Someone has to break the cycle of violence. And if not you
>> >then who?
>> >
>>
>> "Cycle of violence" looks good on paper but has little basis in reality.
>
>So you think there is no hope for any conflict that degenerates into
>'tit for tat'. I admitt the prospects for peace for the Israel/Palestine
>conflict look bleak indeed. But this isn't some pipe-dream of eternal
>peace as some hippy concept. This is the simple fact that if you wish to
>live in the world with folk whos perspective is radically different from
>your own then you MUST make concessions. If you dont and act as the
>aggressor always then you must expect to have conflict thrust upon you.
>
They acted as the aggressor. In this instance, we were constantly on the
defensive. Didn't work.
>
>> >Yes but my point was retalitory violence was initiated as a default
>> >option (which is precisely the tactic of those you fight and that you
>> >should be trying to avoid).
>>
>> We had certainly tried everything else for about 8 years give or take.
>
>except actually doing as was asked.
Because doing what was asked is to be soft on religious Fascism and bigotry,
for starters.
This might be considered blackmail
>but remember this tactic is one that the US has been using the world
>over for many a year, ie, if you don't change your
>policy/ideology/outlooketctetc to one that we dictate we will make your
>life difficult (or come invade/bomb/sanction etcetc your country). So
>why shouldn't other countries use a similar tactic (the only answer I
>can find is cos the US is strong and thus it is prudent to comply,
>though the funny thing about people is that some would rather die than
>accept the will of others)
We usually use things like sanctions, etc., not attacking innocent civilians
deliberately.
>> Its a case of "staring into the abyss"
>
>SNIP
>
>matt
>
>:p
>
___________________________________________
Tim Starr
says...
>
>Tim Starr wrote:
>>
>>In article <3C3D0C2A...@nospam.student.canterbury.ac.nz>, Matthew Healey
>>says...
>>
>>[snip]
>>
>>>I must be confused here..I didn't realise the carpet bombing of Laos was
>>>part of the Vietnam war.
>>
>>Yes, US operations in Laos were part of the Vietnam War. The Ho Chi
>>Minh Trail went from North Vietnam through Laos & Cambodia into
>>South Vietnam. The US tried to deny use of Laotian territory for the
>>transport of soldiers & supplies from North to South Vietnam. That
>>included supporting the Hmong guerillas of Vang Pao and MACVSOG's
>>covert operations.
>>
>>>You're right though it wasn't a 'lecture' it was sheer murder...
>>
>>Nope, it was an attempt to stop totalitarian Commie aggressors
>
>heheheh good old Uncy Sam...come to save the world from those Red
>Devils. Can't have anyone thinking differently than we do now can we can
>we.
>
>Yeahyeah commies are bad, killed lots of folk, didn't have democracy, no
>free markets blahblahblah. Our response KILL THEM ALL!!!!! Lovely.
"hehehe good old Uncy Sam...come to save the world from those Nazi
Devils. Can't have anyone thinking differently than we do now can we can
we.
"Yeahyeah nazis are bad, killed lots of Jews, didn't have democracy, no
free markets blahblahblah. Our response KILL THEM ALL!!!!! Lovely."
What response would you have recommended? Easy for you to make
fun of the Communist threat more than a decade after the collapse of
the Soviet Union, but most people considered the threat quite serious
at the time. Australia even contributed troops to the defense of South
Vietnam, athough I'm not sure about New Zealand.
Tim Starr
Matthew Healey
James Teo wrote:
>
> Matt, please don't feed the troll.
While I fully understand the general maxim, in this case (correct me if
I'm wrong), we appear to be having an amicable and rational discussion
that hasn't yet degenerated into the typical and fallacious afn-c left
vs right contradiction.
'k
matt
:p
Matthew Healey
Tim Starr wrote:
>
> In article <3C3E09A1...@nospam.student.canterbury.ac.nz>, Matthew Healey
> says...
> >
> >Tim Starr wrote:
> >>
SNIP
> "hehehe good old Uncy Sam...come to save the world from those Nazi
> Devils. Can't have anyone thinking differently than we do now can we can
> we.
good point....though it does reinforce the further point that there is
no real objective enemy/objective evil. Just responses to particular
problems with the response being dictated by things like self defense
etc. Though in the coldwar scenario IMHO responses were dictated by
threats to ideology. And personally I dislike the idea of ideology being
used as justification for war (same for religion)
> "Yeahyeah nazis are bad, killed lots of Jews, didn't have democracy, no
> free markets blahblahblah. Our response KILL THEM ALL!!!!! Lovely."
>
> What response would you have recommended?
In the case of Hitler the answer was obvious since his motives were
explicit but in the case of the rise of communism the problem is more
complex.
My 'recommendation' depends on my interpretation of the facts at the
time obviously. ie, is the soviet union seeking world domination (no),
is the particular 'communist' revolution initiated to improve the lot of
the average citizen (?) or as a means of stabilising national military
power (in the end yes) etctetc.
Coupled with the above other questions arise ie 'if we invade a country
on the notion that their newly adopted ideology is a threat to ours then
aren't we just legitimising this type of conflict?' ectetc
I honestly don't believe the soviet union was intent on world domination
(of course they would have loved the workers of the west to rise up and
overthrow the capitalist swine etctetc) but I felt they were attempting
to secure their position (east european occupations/afghanistan) and get
modernised asap. Trouble is this conflicted with US interests (while
much of the developing world was screaming out for some sort of 'worker
revolution') Most of the objections to communism circa 50's ,60's were
ideological.
It seems to me the general idea of communism (at least that which sticks
true to marx) is about a better life for all especially those who's
labour has been responsible for the generation of wealth that the
'capitalists' so tightly hold. I dont really see anything wrong with the
idea per se. As far as 'communism is bad cos its not democratic' I
believe was just a smokescreen. I dont believe in freedom, its just an
illusion and all we need is the illusion. The US has an illusionary
freedom IMHO (not as restrictive as other regimes historically but an
illusion all the same). There is no difference between state imposed
ideology/available products/movement restrictions ectetc and market
imposed ideology/available products/movement restrictions ectetc (just a
matter of degree and not of kind).
Sorry Tim I've been waffling and not actually offering a 'recommended
course of action'. ;)
> Easy for you to make
> fun of the Communist threat more than a decade after the collapse of
> the Soviet Union
Fair enough call.....though in all honesty one would think we would
welcome a true 'Communist Threat' since if implemented properly it
should in fact benefit the majority. Yet the communists (in particular
some of the southeast asian ones) were just oppressive military regimes,
though they certainly weren't expansionalitic outside of their immediate
sphere.
> but most people considered the threat quite serious
> at the time.
Fear (post WWII) and paranoia (via propoganda) could make Ghandi look
like a threat if it was 'spun' the right way. The 'communist threat' I
believe was created by the west via conflict with their particular
ideology, the communist nations themselves were more concerned with
either improving the lot of their citizens or securing internal power
via oppression (and these are not tactics restricted to
commies/totatalitarians)
> Australia even contributed troops to the defense of South
> Vietnam, athough I'm not sure about New Zealand.
I'm pretty sure NZ had troops in Korea and Vietnam.
> Tim Starr
matt
:p
Matthew Healey
TVsHenry wrote:
>
> >Subject: Re: Leftwatch
> >From: Matthew Healey md...@nospam.student.canterbury.ac.nz
> >Date: 1/10/02 4:22 PM Eastern Standard Time
> >Message-id: <3C3E0627...@nospam.student.canterbury.ac.nz>
> >SNIP
> >
> >> >As I said before "justification is easy to find". There is no universal
> >> >logic here. As Nietzsche said "Only the Frog is entitled to the frogs
> >> >perspective" (or he said something similar at least)
> >> >
> >>
> >> That of course only works if you deal with sensible people.
> >
> >I would argue that folk are entitled to their own perspective regardless
> >of their 'sensibleness'.
> >
>
> They threw away any such entitlement long ago.
hmmm even the most vicious of psychopaths has rights? No?
> >If we can examine their internal justification and consider it invalid
> >why can't they do the same to ours.
>
> Sure they can. Doesn't make them right.
No I'm not saying it makes them right, I'm saying that doesn't make your
take on matters right. I just makes it "your take on matters".
> I don't believe the US has a right
> >to adopt a position of 'moral superiority' in this case.
>
> Sure we do, especially if you are ascribing rights to them that they threw away
> when they started deliberately attacking civilians, etc.
I dont understand this false sentimentality. If you wish to wage war
then kill people!!!!! (I would say 'dont wage war' not 'dont kill people
in war'). OBL declared war on the US many years ago (owing to the issues
he has raised time and time again) the US and the west failed to listen.
Given the resources they (OBL and cronies) had they have waged a very
effective war against the US (mil targets/embassies/civilian targets
etc). I dont buy this bull about 'minimising civilising casualities'. If
you are prepared to send in a bunch of hired killers (the military) to
blow the crap out of a country's infrastructure etctect dont patronise
me with this whole 'but we dont wanna kill anyone who is innocent'
baloney.
The killing of civilians is not a tactic reserved to OBL it has been
used time and time again by many of the 'civilised countries' and I have
no doubt will continue to be used.
The current trend of 'minimising civilian casualities' is just another
way of making war more palettable to the general public. Which is
essential in a 'democracy'.
SNIP
> >Now this is the tricky bit. You consider the attacks unprovoked. Those
> >who committed the acts consider there to be sufficient provocation.
>
> Based on their Islamo-Fascist ideas on the "infidel" being in their midst.
No they consider they were sufficiently provocated. Time and time again
their concerns were told (did they make the US media?) and ignored.
Threats were made, injustices were suffered ectetctect. If you disagree
with their ideology then fair enough, so do I.
Do they have the right to hold it. Yes.
Do they have the right to show concern when our actions threaten their
world. Within their sphere of influence Yes.
Do they have the right to armed conflict in our lands if we continually
fail to listen and provide enough provocation for them to feel they are
justified in doing so (I'd say NO but then again why should we expect
them not to react in a manner that we ourselves have acted in
historically)
> The
> KKK probably feels they have been sufficiently provoked as well.
Perhaps they do.
> >Remember OBL has been calling for the same things for a number of years
> >and the west just ignores him.
>
> We should not have ignored him, but that's probably not what you meant.
Yes I meant 'he shouldn't have been ignored'.
Do you mean 'he should have been eliminated there and then'. If so, do
you really wish to live in a world where we kill every one who's
ideology conflicts with ours. (remember OBL didn't just start attacking
US interests for the hell of it..he had reasons)
> I find that weird or more to the point a
> >typical display of western style arrogance (hey it made our countries
> >what they are today but is it really how we wish to proceed in the
> >modern world).
>
> "Arrogance" regarding mass murderers?
If we go back to say..sep 10th I would still say the 'west' acts in an
arrogant manner (the status of OBL as murderer is irrelevant to our
status as arrogant). The only thing that is important is our own
ideological interests (this is fairly natural I conceed).
On sep10th OBL and crew had for years been shouting and screaming their
interests and desires. We didn't listen. We arrogantly said 'why do we
care', 'don't threaten us we're more powerful', 'our interests in your
countries are more important than your interests in your countries'. As
I said before OBLs demands were dismissed as blackmail (despite it being
one of the main ways of international coercioan that western countries
use)
> If a country or organisation questions the authority of
> >the 'strong nations' to exert their will within the borders of our
> >country (regardless of whether of not our govt allows it) if we
> >personally decide differently then surely we have the right to protest
> >or even fight back. Isn't this type of struggle what made the US what it
> >is today (and France etctetc)
> >
>
> Not even close.
Our interpretation of history is different obviously.
> >> were not ordered.
> >
> >makes no difference.
>
> Of course it does.
Why? I'm not sure what 'the attacks were not ordered' has to do with
anything.
SNIP
> >You suggested the kickass US scenario would have OBL and co running
> >scared. I was meaning that these folk are very highly motivated and
> >driven toward certain goals (there aint nothing more certain or holy
> >than a moslem on jihad, well perhaps Pat Robertson on the 700club ;)).
> >Only death or compromise will stop them.
> >
>
> A compromise was made with Hitler, we saw what happened after that.
Yes I would then suggest that action against Hilter was prudent given
his actions AFTER having his demands acted on.
I would also suggest that if OBL or hizbollah or the even the IRA had
concessions made to their demands and THEN they acted in the similar
manner then it would be wise to <ahem> kick their butts.
It seems the mentality in the US for the last 20 years has been 'who
cares what a few towelheads want. Whataretheygonnado?'. hmmmm.
SNIP
> >So you think there is no hope for any conflict that degenerates into
> >'tit for tat'. I admitt the prospects for peace for the Israel/Palestine
> >conflict look bleak indeed. But this isn't some pipe-dream of eternal
> >peace as some hippy concept. This is the simple fact that if you wish to
> >live in the world with folk whos perspective is radically different from
> >your own then you MUST make concessions. If you dont and act as the
> >aggressor always then you must expect to have conflict thrust upon you.
> >
>
> They acted as the aggressor.
I think the point here is the causal chain extend alot further then
sep11. OBL and various other factions have expressed their concerns
repeatedly. Before sep11 I would seriously have considered these parties
as the aggrieved not the aggressor.
> In this instance, we were constantly on the
> defensive.
I dont wish to play the 'whos to blame initially' game with you, thats
why I try to refer to a 'cycle of violence' since once its started the
instigator is irrelevant. But your denial that the US is nothing more
than (dodgy analogy time) 'a person minding their own business at a bus
stop when suddenly a thug runs by and, though no fault of their own,
punches them in the head knocking them to the ground' is just naive and
historically innaccurate.
> >except actually doing as was asked.
>
> Because doing what was asked is to be soft on religious Fascism and bigotry,
> for starters.
First of all I wasn't aware that that was the case. I thought the issues
and demands were somewhat different ie US military presence in unwanted
places, funding of ones enemies (the particulars are irrelevant for the
current discussion).
I say the particulars are irrelevant (at this level of analysis at
least) cos we take it for granted that the west has the right to decide
how others should live. As a general rule I disagree with that (more
western arrogance). Obviously in particular cases this could be argued
as a sensible plan but not as a rule of action (remember we support
oppressors the world over when they support our interests)
> This might be considered blackmail
> >but remember this tactic is one that the US has been using the world
> >over for many a year, ie, if you don't change your
> >policy/ideology/outlooketctetc to one that we dictate we will make your
> >life difficult (or come invade/bomb/sanction etcetc your country). So
> >why shouldn't other countries use a similar tactic (the only answer I
> >can find is cos the US is strong and thus it is prudent to comply,
> >though the funny thing about people is that some would rather die than
> >accept the will of others)
>
> We usually use things like sanctions, etc., not attacking innocent civilians
> deliberately.
>
Again I think my reading of history differs from yours slightly ;)
matt
:p
Matthew Healey
TVsHenry wrote:
>
> >Subject: Re: Leftwatch
> >From: Matthew Healey md...@nospam.student.canterbury.ac.nz
> >Date: 1/9/02 10:51 PM Eastern Standard Time
> >Message-id: <3C3D0FDB...@nospam.student.canterbury.ac.nz>
SNIP
> >> Well, first of all, it's the old adage, "you can't please everyone all the
> >> time"
> >
> >You've lost me....who are the US trying to please?
> >
>
> You said "your interests..." everyone has interests.
Yes.
> It is the U.S. government.
> They will look out for their interest.
Yes and they can run the US how they like. Fair enough.
> It's kind of their job.
As long as they keep their interests to their our land and dont push
them on the rest of us.
ie globalisation/free trade/judeoxstian derived ideology/military bases
throughout the pacific etctetc.
SNIP
> >As the aggrieved you feel justified in handing out a kickass response.
> >Would you be as willing to accept a kickass in return for every time
> >your govt was guilty of the same? If not then this 'fighting talk' is
> >just propoganda (as I suggested Pitts article was) and the maxim "tit
> >for tat" rules where "do unto others...." should really stand in its
> >place.
> >
>
> Do unto others? You're kidding me. Bin Laden and his cronies have shown time
> and time again that their response to a softened response is more death and
> destruction.
Yes but what is a 'softened response'. Are you refering to diplomatic
sanctions/leverage via financial aid/ a few missiles fired from the sea
ectetc. All these are responses that seek to secure the interests of the
US (ie protecting external military bases/ port of call /finances
etctec.) These 'soft responses' are not motivated by a desire to reach a
synthesis of both parties perspectives.
When I said 'do unto others...'. (ok its sounds cheesy but..)I mean even
something as simple as 'if you dont respect the views of others why
should they respect your own' or 'if you send aid to an ally that kills
their people why should you not expect then to start killing your
people'.
Seems like a fairly prudent rule of action to me.
> However in this time (you know the present, now) we are avoiding
> civilians more than any army in any war in history, but if we were targeting
> civilians in the way al Qaeda did, it would be another story.
I agree. But I don't like the idea of a watered down war where we 'try'
not to kill innocents (did the US succeed and actually not kill any
innocents. NO). The watered down war is too easy to justify <- and thats
not good (IMHO).
matt
:p
TVsHenry
>Message-id: <3C3E3DC7...@nospam.student.canterbury.ac.nz>
>
>
>
>TVsHenry wrote:
>>
>> >Subject: Re: Leftwatch
>> >From: Matthew Healey md...@nospam.student.canterbury.ac.nz
>> >Date: 1/10/02 4:22 PM Eastern Standard Time
>> >Message-id: <3C3E0627...@nospam.student.canterbury.ac.nz>
>
>> >SNIP
>> >
>> >> >As I said before "justification is easy to find". There is no universal
>> >> >logic here. As Nietzsche said "Only the Frog is entitled to the frogs
>> >> >perspective" (or he said something similar at least)
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> That of course only works if you deal with sensible people.
>> >
>> >I would argue that folk are entitled to their own perspective regardless
>> >of their 'sensibleness'.
>> >
>>
>> They threw away any such entitlement long ago.
>
>hmmm even the most vicious of psychopaths has rights? No?
>
Depends on the case.
>> >If we can examine their internal justification and consider it invalid
>> >why can't they do the same to ours.
>>
>> Sure they can. Doesn't make them right.
>
>No I'm not saying it makes them right, I'm saying that doesn't make your
>take on matters right. I just makes it "your take on matters".
>
>> I don't believe the US has a right
>> >to adopt a position of 'moral superiority' in this case.
>>
>> Sure we do, especially if you are ascribing rights to them that they threw
>away
>> when they started deliberately attacking civilians, etc.
>
>I dont understand this false sentimentality. If you wish to wage war
>then kill people!!!!! (I would say 'dont wage war' not 'dont kill people
>in war'). OBL declared war on the US many years ago (owing to the issues
>he has raised time and time again) the US and the west failed to listen.
>Given the resources they (OBL and cronies) had they have waged a very
>effective war against the US (mil targets/embassies/civilian targets
>etc). I dont buy this bull about 'minimising civilising casualities'. If
>you are prepared to send in a bunch of hired killers (the military) to
>blow the crap out of a country's infrastructure etctect dont patronise
>me with this whole 'but we dont wanna kill anyone who is innocent'
>baloney.
>
Sorry you see it as "baloney" but it's the truth.
>The killing of civilians is not a tactic reserved to OBL it has been
>used time and time again by many of the 'civilised countries' and I have
>no doubt will continue to be used.
>
Again you seem to want to drag the past into the present.
>The current trend of 'minimising civilian casualities' is just another
>way of making war more palettable to the general public. Which is
>essential in a 'democracy'.
>
When did democracies come into this?
>SNIP
>
>> >Now this is the tricky bit. You consider the attacks unprovoked. Those
>> >who committed the acts consider there to be sufficient provocation.
>>
>> Based on their Islamo-Fascist ideas on the "infidel" being in their midst.
>
>No they consider they were sufficiently provocated. Time and time again
>their concerns were told (did they make the US media?) and ignored.
We all have concerns which go ignored, doesn't give us a right to go around
killing innocent people without genuine provocation ("they ignored us" is not
all that genuine). If we do that we should not be surprised if there are not
dramatic repercussions.
>Threats were made, injustices were suffered ectetctect. If you disagree
>with their ideology then fair enough, so do I.
>Do they have the right to hold it. Yes.
>Do they have the right to show concern when our actions threaten their
>world. Within their sphere of influence Yes.
>Do they have the right to armed conflict in our lands if we continually
>fail to listen and provide enough provocation for them to feel they are
>justified in doing so (I'd say NO but then again why should we expect
>them not to react in a manner that we ourselves have acted in
>historically)
>
"Failing to listen," again, is not provocation. No sooner did bin Laden make
his threats did he bomb the WTC the first time. Forgetting that, are we? We
barely knew he was a terrorist until the puzzle pieces came together. It's not
as though he gave us "fair warning" or anything like that. We gave the Taliban
fair warning, again and again.
>> The
>> KKK probably feels they have been sufficiently provoked as well.
>
>Perhaps they do.
>
So you would see it reasonable for them to go killing Blacks left and right?
They "feel" provoked.
>> >Remember OBL has been calling for the same things for a number of years
>> >and the west just ignores him.
>>
>> We should not have ignored him, but that's probably not what you meant.
>
>Yes I meant 'he shouldn't have been ignored'.
>
His acts of terrorism shouldn't have been as ignored as they were, is what I
meant.
>Do you mean 'he should have been eliminated there and then'. If so, do
>you really wish to live in a world where we kill every one who's
>ideology conflicts with ours. (remember OBL didn't just start attacking
>US interests for the hell of it..he had reasons)
>
It's not ideology, it's an act of deliberate violence on citizens, unprovoked,
despite how he feels.
>> I find that weird or more to the point a
>> >typical display of western style arrogance (hey it made our countries
>> >what they are today but is it really how we wish to proceed in the
>> >modern world).
>>
>> "Arrogance" regarding mass murderers?
>
>If we go back to say..sep 10th I would still say the 'west' acts in an
>arrogant manner (the status of OBL as murderer is irrelevant to our
>status as arrogant).
It most certainly is relevant, no matter what.
The only thing that is important is our own
>ideological interests (this is fairly natural I conceed).
>On sep10th OBL and crew had for years been shouting and screaming their
>interests and desires. We didn't listen.
They continued to bomb us. You're confusing him again with someone who was
pushed into violence, the man has shown no real interest in sitting down at
the bargaining table. He was violent from day one.
We arrogantly said 'why do we
>care', 'don't threaten us we're more powerful', 'our interests in your
>countries are more important than your interests in your countries'. As
>I said before OBLs demands were dismissed as blackmail (despite it being
>one of the main ways of international coercioan that western countries
>use)
>
As a last resort usually. OBL made it his first.
>> If a country or organisation questions the authority of
>> >the 'strong nations' to exert their will within the borders of our
>> >country (regardless of whether of not our govt allows it) if we
>> >personally decide differently then surely we have the right to protest
>> >or even fight back. Isn't this type of struggle what made the US what it
>> >is today (and France etctetc)
>> >
>>
>> Not even close.
>
>Our interpretation of history is different obviously.
>
>> >> were not ordered.
>> >
>> >makes no difference.
>>
>> Of course it does.
>
>Why? I'm not sure what 'the attacks were not ordered' has to do with
>anything.
>
Of course it does. My gun accidentally goes off and kills someone. Am I just as
to blame as if I shot that person on purpose?
>SNIP
>
>> >You suggested the kickass US scenario would have OBL and co running
>> >scared. I was meaning that these folk are very highly motivated and
>> >driven toward certain goals (there aint nothing more certain or holy
>> >than a moslem on jihad, well perhaps Pat Robertson on the 700club ;)).
>> >Only death or compromise will stop them.
>> >
>>
>> A compromise was made with Hitler, we saw what happened after that.
>
>Yes I would then suggest that action against Hilter was prudent given
>his actions AFTER having his demands acted on.
>
>I would also suggest that if OBL or hizbollah or the even the IRA had
>concessions made to their demands and THEN they acted in the similar
>manner then it would be wise to <ahem> kick their butts.
>
But of course, they didn't come to the bargaining table, as it were, to begin
with, showed absolutely no interest.
>It seems the mentality in the US for the last 20 years has been 'who
>cares what a few towelheads want. Whataretheygonnado?'. hmmmm.
>
The mentality of a self-consumed president anyway, despite many warnings by
others in the government. They don't all think the same way, you know.
>SNIP
>
>> >So you think there is no hope for any conflict that degenerates into
>> >'tit for tat'. I admitt the prospects for peace for the Israel/Palestine
>> >conflict look bleak indeed. But this isn't some pipe-dream of eternal
>> >peace as some hippy concept. This is the simple fact that if you wish to
>> >live in the world with folk whos perspective is radically different from
>> >your own then you MUST make concessions. If you dont and act as the
>> >aggressor always then you must expect to have conflict thrust upon you.
>> >
>>
>> They acted as the aggressor.
>
>I think the point here is the causal chain extend alot further then
>sep11. OBL and various other factions have expressed their concerns
>repeatedly.
In blood, more than in words.
Before sep11 I would seriously have considered these parties
>as the aggrieved not the aggressor.
>
Despite their many acts of aggression.
>> In this instance, we were constantly on the
>> defensive.
>
>I dont wish to play the 'whos to blame initially' game with you, thats
>why I try to refer to a 'cycle of violence' since once its started the
>instigator is irrelevant. But your denial that the US is nothing more
>than (dodgy analogy time) 'a person minding their own business at a bus
>stop when suddenly a thug runs by and, though no fault of their own,
>punches them in the head knocking them to the ground' is just naive and
>historically innaccurate.
>
You're misunderstanding what I'm saying apparently...
>
>> >except actually doing as was asked.
>>
>> Because doing what was asked is to be soft on religious Fascism and
>bigotry,
>> for starters.
>
>First of all I wasn't aware that that was the case. I thought the issues
>and demands were somewhat different ie US military presence in unwanted
>places,
Because the "infidel" is there, not for any other reason. It's an
Islamo-Fascist belief.
funding of ones enemies (the particulars are irrelevant for the
>current discussion).
>
>I say the particulars are irrelevant (at this level of analysis at
>least) cos we take it for granted that the west has the right to decide
>how others should live. As a general rule I disagree with that (more
>western arrogance). Obviously in particular cases this could be argued
>as a sensible plan but not as a rule of action (remember we support
>oppressors the world over when they support our interests)
>
When it is the lesser of two evils, yes.
>> This might be considered blackmail
>> >but remember this tactic is one that the US has been using the world
>> >over for many a year, ie, if you don't change your
>> >policy/ideology/outlooketctetc to one that we dictate we will make your
>> >life difficult (or come invade/bomb/sanction etcetc your country). So
>> >why shouldn't other countries use a similar tactic (the only answer I
>> >can find is cos the US is strong and thus it is prudent to comply,
>> >though the funny thing about people is that some would rather die than
>> >accept the will of others)
>>
>> We usually use things like sanctions, etc., not attacking innocent
>civilians
>> deliberately.
>>
>
>Again I think my reading of history differs from yours slightly ;)
>
>matt
>
>:p
>
>
TVsHenry
>Message-id: <3C3E40E1...@nospam.student.canterbury.ac.nz>
>
>
>
>TVsHenry wrote:
>>
>> >Subject: Re: Leftwatch
>> >From: Matthew Healey md...@nospam.student.canterbury.ac.nz
>> >Date: 1/9/02 10:51 PM Eastern Standard Time
>> >Message-id: <3C3D0FDB...@nospam.student.canterbury.ac.nz>
>
>
>SNIP
>
>> >> Well, first of all, it's the old adage, "you can't please everyone all
>the
>> >> time"
>> >
>> >You've lost me....who are the US trying to please?
>> >
>>
>> You said "your interests..." everyone has interests.
>
>Yes.
>
>> It is the U.S. government.
>> They will look out for their interest.
>
>Yes and they can run the US how they like. Fair enough.
>
>> It's kind of their job.
>
>As long as they keep their interests to their our land and dont push
>them on the rest of us.
>ie globalisation/free trade/judeoxstian derived ideology/military bases
>throughout the pacific etctetc.
>
Unfortunately sometimes those are unavoidable and not only because of the
actions of the U.S. (believe it or not).
>SNIP
>
>> >As the aggrieved you feel justified in handing out a kickass response.
>> >Would you be as willing to accept a kickass in return for every time
>> >your govt was guilty of the same? If not then this 'fighting talk' is
>> >just propoganda (as I suggested Pitts article was) and the maxim "tit
>> >for tat" rules where "do unto others...." should really stand in its
>> >place.
>> >
>>
>> Do unto others? You're kidding me. Bin Laden and his cronies have shown
>time
>> and time again that their response to a softened response is more death and
>> destruction.
>
>Yes but what is a 'softened response'. Are you refering to diplomatic
>sanctions/leverage via financial aid/ a few missiles fired from the sea
>ectetc. All these are responses that seek to secure the interests of the
>US (ie protecting external military bases/ port of call /finances
>etctec.) These 'soft responses' are not motivated by a desire to reach a
>synthesis of both parties perspectives.
>
OBL showed no interest in "synthesis" when he responded, first and foremost
with violent action. Methinks you misunderstand him entirely.
>When I said 'do unto others...'. (ok its sounds cheesy but..)I mean even
>something as simple as 'if you dont respect the views of others why
>should they respect your own' or 'if you send aid to an ally that kills
>their people why should you not expect then to start killing your
>people'.
>
>Seems like a fairly prudent rule of action to me.
>
We did unto others... didn't work.
>> However in this time (you know the present, now) we are avoiding
>> civilians more than any army in any war in history, but if we were
>targeting
>> civilians in the way al Qaeda did, it would be another story.
>
>I agree. But I don't like the idea of a watered down war where we 'try'
>not to kill innocents (did the US succeed and actually not kill any
>innocents. NO).
And is that entirely the fault of the U.S.? No.
The watered down war is too easy to justify <- and thats
>not good (IMHO).
>
How?
Nathan Folkert
[snip]
> Initially is was. Initially there was an all-out attack with GW even
> commenting that it was the only option open (which isn't technically
> true is it? The most satisfying from a US perspective, yes, but the
> ONLY option....)
What other options do you suggest? What should we have tried that we
had not been trying for three years before then in order to eliminate
the threat that al Qaeda posed to international peace and security?
How long should we wait for non-violent means to achieve our goals?
Three years isn't long enough, apparently. Five years? Ten years?
How many terrorist attacks should we have to endure? Three thousand
dead isn't enough, obviously. Seven thousand or twenty thousand must
not be, either, because we weren't hearing calls for military
intervention by the left when these were figures being bandied about
by the media. What do you need? Fifty thousand dead? An atom bomb
in downtown New York (or Christchurch, would that persuade you)?
> The reconstruction of the afghan govt and rebuilding of the
> infrastructure I would think is only fair. Though its hardly democratic
> (thats important isn't it ;)) to install a leader who has ties with the
> old crocked monarchy that the afghan people long ago diposed.
The monarchy, which at least attempted to make reforms toward
constitutional democracy, was deposed by Daoud, a strongman dictator,
not by the "Afghan people". If the Afghan government were returned to
the "old crocked monarchy" tomorrow, the Afghan people would be freer
than they've been in thirty years. Not that I would advocate such a
return -- I just wanted to point this out and suggest that perhaps you
should read other sources than back issues of Pravda for your
historical information on Afghanistan.
[snip]
-Nathan Folkert
Matthew Healey
TVsHenry wrote:
>
> >Subject: Re: Leftwatch
> >From: Matthew Healey md...@nospam.student.canterbury.ac.nz
> >Date: 1/10/02 8:20 PM Eastern Standard Time
> >Message-id: <3C3E3DC7...@nospam.student.canterbury.ac.nz>
SNIP
> >I dont understand this false sentimentality. If you wish to wage war
> >then kill people!!!!! (I would say 'dont wage war' not 'dont kill people
> >in war'). OBL declared war on the US many years ago (owing to the issues
> >he has raised time and time again) the US and the west failed to listen.
> >Given the resources they (OBL and cronies) had they have waged a very
> >effective war against the US (mil targets/embassies/civilian targets
> >etc). I dont buy this bull about 'minimising civilising casualities'. If
> >you are prepared to send in a bunch of hired killers (the military) to
> >blow the crap out of a country's infrastructure etctect dont patronise
> >me with this whole 'but we dont wanna kill anyone who is innocent'
> >baloney.
> >
>
> Sorry you see it as "baloney" but it's the truth.
What? Is it the truth the the US military really cares for foreign
innocents and it doesn't wish to harm them (all the while blowing up
their houses, markets, hospitals etcetc). Or is it the truth that the US
military wishes to push the 'mininising civilian casualities' line cos
this makes the war easier to sell?
I just dont like govt. hypocrisy and this new type of war stinks of it.
> >The killing of civilians is not a tactic reserved to OBL it has been
> >used time and time again by many of the 'civilised countries' and I have
> >no doubt will continue to be used.
> >
>
> Again you seem to want to drag the past into the present.
Some yard stick is need. This doesn't mean we must always do what we did
in the past. But we can't cry "Hey OBL killing civilians is wrong" when
we ourselves have used the tactic on a number of occasions in the past.
> >The current trend of 'minimising civilian casualities' is just another
> >way of making war more palettable to the general public. Which is
> >essential in a 'democracy'.
> >
>
> When did democracies come into this?
I was just looking for an explanation for why 'minimising civilian
casualities' is such an issue these days. I really do doubt its cos the
US military actually cares about the folk its bombing. I suggested its
more likely cos this new type of war is easier to accept. In a
'democracy' having the people accept the war is a great help.
> >SNIP
> >
> >> >Now this is the tricky bit. You consider the attacks unprovoked. Those
> >> >who committed the acts consider there to be sufficient provocation.
> >>
> >> Based on their Islamo-Fascist ideas on the "infidel" being in their midst.
> >
> >No they consider they were sufficiently provocated. Time and time again
> >their concerns were told (did they make the US media?) and ignored.
>
> We all have concerns which go ignored, doesn't give us a right to go around
> killing innocent people without genuine provocation ("they ignored us" is not
> all that genuine).
They might argue those folk who died weren't 'innocent civilians' but
casualities of war. Remember they called 'war' a long time ago.
You are right though, being ignored isn't a very good reason to kill
(regardless of status). The issue is certainally more involved than
that, for example they probably see the US funding of Israel and the
subsequent deaths of palestinian children as a better reason etctetc.
> If we do that we should not be surprised if there are not
> dramatic repercussions.
I wouldn't think OBL was surprised by the US reaction. The Taliban may
have been but I'm sure they honestly thought they could win a war
against anyone, so I doubt they cared that much at the time (assuming of
course they were 'in the know').
SNIP
> >> The
> >> KKK probably feels they have been sufficiently provoked as well.
> >
> >Perhaps they do.
> >
>
> So you would see it reasonable for them to go killing Blacks left and right?
> They "feel" provoked.
We haven't actually said what the hypothetical 'provocation' could be in
this case. But if they feel aggrieved enough to act in any manner then
they obviously have sufficient justification to do so. Don't get me
wrong just cos an act can be justified that doesn't make it right.
Justification is really a trivial point, finding it is easy.
> >> >Remember OBL has been calling for the same things for a number of years
> >> >and the west just ignores him.
> >>
> >> We should not have ignored him, but that's probably not what you meant.
> >
> >Yes I meant 'he shouldn't have been ignored'.
> >
>
> His acts of terrorism shouldn't have been as ignored as they were, is what I
> meant.
Yes I agree. No acts of that nature should be ignored. Trouble is what
is the 'west' to do. Since it uses similar tactics when dealing with its
enemies it must be careful when chastising others for using the same
tactics. The fact that it took such an extreme event like sep11 to
provoke a decisive response is evidence to that.
> >Do you mean 'he should have been eliminated there and then'. If so, do
> >you really wish to live in a world where we kill every one who's
> >ideology conflicts with ours. (remember OBL didn't just start attacking
> >US interests for the hell of it..he had reasons)
> >
>
> It's not ideology
> it's an act of deliberate violence on citizens
That happens in wars.
> unprovoked
I'm confused that you keep saying that the violence was unprovoked.
Things that might be meaningless to you (US troops near holysites) might
make the bloodboil of a moslem.
> despite how he feels.
I agree in part. Killing isn't a good thing regardless of the
circumstances. But where would the world be if those who consider
themselves aggrieved or oppressed didn't set fire to things to make
others take notice.
> >> I find that weird or more to the point a
> >> >typical display of western style arrogance (hey it made our countries
> >> >what they are today but is it really how we wish to proceed in the
> >> >modern world).
> >>
> >> "Arrogance" regarding mass murderers?
> >
> >If we go back to say..sep 10th I would still say the 'west' acts in an
> >arrogant manner (the status of OBL as murderer is irrelevant to our
> >status as arrogant).
>
> It most certainly is relevant, no matter what.
.....Our european ancestors hacked and slashed their way through the
world. Raping, pillaging and leaving the other inhabitants of this
planet with bugger all. Consequently we have wealth, power and strength.
Also we still see in our govts. an air of arrogance that understandably
is a result of a conscious decision to hangon to this wealth, power and
strength (who wouldn't). This attitude is seen in how (predominately)
the US conducts its affairs ie how we percieve other cultures
(assimilation), how we treat other nations (as a means to an end) and
how we live our lives (personal wealth at the expensive of others/the
planet) etcetc....that was what I meant by OBL's status as a murderer is
irrelevant to our status as arrogant nations.
> The only thing that is important is our own
> >ideological interests (this is fairly natural I conceed).
> >On sep10th OBL and crew had for years been shouting and screaming their
> >interests and desires. We didn't listen.
>
> They continued to bomb us. You're confusing him again with someone who was
> pushed into violence
And you continue to miss the point that just cos you dont find a certain
act repugnant it doesn't mean others won't and won't be sufficiently
compelled to kill in revenge.
> the man has shown no real interest in sitting down at
> the bargaining table.
I dunno about this one. I would think that if a genuine attempt to not
only talk but to provide concession was offered he would surely come to
the table. Dunno. Any evidence to the contrary?
> He was violent from day one.
Dunno about that either.
> We arrogantly said 'why do we
> >care', 'don't threaten us we're more powerful', 'our interests in your
> >countries are more important than your interests in your countries'. As
> >I said before OBLs demands were dismissed as blackmail (despite it being
> >one of the main ways of international coercioan that western countries
> >use)
> >
>
> As a last resort usually. OBL made it his first.
Again I'm not sure where you are getting these facts from. I doubt that
OBL got out of bed one day and said 'damn those yankees and jews I'm
gonna start attacking them without a word to anyone'.
SNIP
> >Why? I'm not sure what 'the attacks were not ordered' has to do with
> >anything.
> >
>
> Of course it does. My gun accidentally goes off and kills someone. Am I just as
> to blame as if I shot that person on purpose?
perhaps we are using the word 'ordered' differently. You are refering to
intentionality.
I agree with the phrase "the attacks were intentional" but I still don't
know what "the attacks were ordered" means in the context.
SNIP
> >I would also suggest that if OBL or hizbollah or the even the IRA had
> >concessions made to their demands and THEN they acted in the similar
> >manner then it would be wise to <ahem> kick their butts.
> >
>
> But of course, they didn't come to the bargaining table, as it were, to begin
> with, showed absolutely no interest.
Why not? If a genuine acceptance of their terms was up for discussion
(where all parties were in agreement over outcomes/agenda) then why
wouldn't they 'come to the table'. It would be in their interest to?
Where are you sourcing these claims?
> >It seems the mentality in the US for the last 20 years has been 'who
> >cares what a few towelheads want. Whataretheygonnado?'. hmmmm.
> >
>
> The mentality of a self-consumed president anyway, despite many warnings by
> others in the government. They don't all think the same way, you know.
While I usually avoid generalisations I can't help but feel the majority
view in the US over the last 20 years has been that the US is pretty
safe from external threat (nuclear attacks aside) or that there would be
no way a bunch of arabs could with one attack bring the country to a
standstill.
SNIP
> >I think the point here is the causal chain extend alot further then
> >sep11. OBL and various other factions have expressed their concerns
> >repeatedly.
>
> In blood, more than in words.
Yes cos words get them nowhere. We just dont want to listen. Our
interests (even if they are in someone elses country) are too important
to take notice of a small bunch of rabble rousers on camels who want us
out.
As I said earlier armed struggle per se is not a bad thing. It is though
if you don't write the history books.
> Before sep11 I would seriously have considered these parties
> >as the aggrieved not the aggressor.
> >
>
> Despite their many acts of aggression.
No because of our many acts of aggression and because of our history of
many acts of aggression, marginalisation and subjegation.
Does this make their acts 'right', far from it. But it does make them
understandable and helps us see their justification for the hatred
etcetc they show us.
SNIP
> >First of all I wasn't aware that that was the case. I thought the issues
> >and demands were somewhat different ie US military presence in unwanted
> >places,
>
> Because the "infidel" is there, not for any other reason.
They want the infidel out. Fair enough its their land not ours.
> It's an
> Islamo-Fascist belief.
cool phrase :) (not quite sure of its validity though ;))
SNIP
matt
:p
TVsHenry
>Message-id: <3C3E7090...@nospam.student.canterbury.ac.nz>
>
>
>
>TVsHenry wrote:
>>
>> >Subject: Re: Leftwatch
>> >From: Matthew Healey md...@nospam.student.canterbury.ac.nz
>> >Date: 1/10/02 8:20 PM Eastern Standard Time
>> >Message-id: <3C3E3DC7...@nospam.student.canterbury.ac.nz>
>
>SNIP
>
>> >I dont understand this false sentimentality. If you wish to wage war
>> >then kill people!!!!! (I would say 'dont wage war' not 'dont kill people
>> >in war'). OBL declared war on the US many years ago (owing to the issues
>> >he has raised time and time again) the US and the west failed to listen.
>> >Given the resources they (OBL and cronies) had they have waged a very
>> >effective war against the US (mil targets/embassies/civilian targets
>> >etc). I dont buy this bull about 'minimising civilising casualities'. If
>> >you are prepared to send in a bunch of hired killers (the military) to
>> >blow the crap out of a country's infrastructure etctect dont patronise
>> >me with this whole 'but we dont wanna kill anyone who is innocent'
>> >baloney.
>> >
>>
>> Sorry you see it as "baloney" but it's the truth.
>
>What? Is it the truth the the US military really cares for foreign
>innocents and it doesn't wish to harm them (all the while blowing up
>their houses, markets, hospitals etcetc). Or is it the truth that the US
>military wishes to push the 'mininising civilian casualities' line cos
>this makes the war easier to sell?
>
>I just dont like govt. hypocrisy and this new type of war stinks of it.
>
Hypocrisy or not, they have assured that there were a minimal number of
civilians killed.
>> >The killing of civilians is not a tactic reserved to OBL it has been
>> >used time and time again by many of the 'civilised countries' and I have
>> >no doubt will continue to be used.
>> >
>>
>> Again you seem to want to drag the past into the present.
>
>Some yard stick is need. This doesn't mean we must always do what we did
>in the past. But we can't cry "Hey OBL killing civilians is wrong" when
>we ourselves have used the tactic on a number of occasions in the past.
>
Yes but circumstances were far different, and no one is claiming the U.S. is
perfect.
>> >The current trend of 'minimising civilian casualities' is just another
>> >way of making war more palettable to the general public. Which is
>> >essential in a 'democracy'.
>> >
>>
>> When did democracies come into this?
>
>I was just looking for an explanation for why 'minimising civilian
>casualities' is such an issue these days. I really do doubt its cos the
>US military actually cares about the folk its bombing. I suggested its
>more likely cos this new type of war is easier to accept. In a
>'democracy' having the people accept the war is a great help.
>
Well in that sort of thing delving into motivation doesn't really have much of
a point.
>> >SNIP
>> >
>> >> >Now this is the tricky bit. You consider the attacks unprovoked. Those
>> >> >who committed the acts consider there to be sufficient provocation.
>> >>
>> >> Based on their Islamo-Fascist ideas on the "infidel" being in their
>midst.
>> >
>> >No they consider they were sufficiently provocated. Time and time again
>> >their concerns were told (did they make the US media?) and ignored.
>>
>> We all have concerns which go ignored, doesn't give us a right to go around
>> killing innocent people without genuine provocation ("they ignored us" is
>not
>> all that genuine).
>
>They might argue those folk who died weren't 'innocent civilians' but
>casualities of war. Remember they called 'war' a long time ago.
>
>You are right though, being ignored isn't a very good reason to kill
>(regardless of status). The issue is certainally more involved than
>that, for example they probably see the US funding of Israel and the
>subsequent deaths of palestinian children as a better reason etctetc.
>
Only recently, to get other Arabs to their side. Hasn't really worked.
>> If we do that we should not be surprised if there are not
>> dramatic repercussions.
>
>I wouldn't think OBL was surprised by the US reaction. The Taliban may
>have been but I'm sure they honestly thought they could win a war
>against anyone, so I doubt they cared that much at the time (assuming of
>course they were 'in the know').
>
The higher ups were, but bin Laden was calling the shots from what we know now.
>SNIP
>
>> >> The
>> >> KKK probably feels they have been sufficiently provoked as well.
>> >
>> >Perhaps they do.
>> >
>>
>> So you would see it reasonable for them to go killing Blacks left and
>right?
>> They "feel" provoked.
>
>We haven't actually said what the hypothetical 'provocation' could be in
>this case. But if they feel aggrieved enough to act in any manner then
>they obviously have sufficient justification to do so.
In their mind... any number of mass murderers or serial killers can rattle off
a litany of provocations.
Don't get me
>wrong just cos an act can be justified that doesn't make it right.
>Justification is really a trivial point, finding it is easy.
>
>> >> >Remember OBL has been calling for the same things for a number of years
>> >> >and the west just ignores him.
>> >>
>> >> We should not have ignored him, but that's probably not what you meant.
>> >
>> >Yes I meant 'he shouldn't have been ignored'.
>> >
>>
>> His acts of terrorism shouldn't have been as ignored as they were, is what
>I
>> meant.
>
>Yes I agree. No acts of that nature should be ignored. Trouble is what
>is the 'west' to do. Since it uses similar tactics when dealing with its
>enemies it must be careful when chastising others for using the same
>tactics.
Similar if you do away with things like intention, whether it was first or last
resort, etc.
The fact that it took such an extreme event like sep11 to
>provoke a decisive response is evidence to that.
>
>> >Do you mean 'he should have been eliminated there and then'. If so, do
>> >you really wish to live in a world where we kill every one who's
>> >ideology conflicts with ours. (remember OBL didn't just start attacking
>> >US interests for the hell of it..he had reasons)
>> >
>>
>> It's not ideology
>> it's an act of deliberate violence on citizens
>
>That happens in wars.
>
Rarely, especially of late... and we were not in a war with them at the time.
They started one instead.
>> unprovoked
>
>I'm confused that you keep saying that the violence was unprovoked.
>Things that might be meaningless to you (US troops near holysites) might
>make the bloodboil of a moslem.
>
>> despite how he feels.
>
>I agree in part. Killing isn't a good thing regardless of the
>circumstances. But where would the world be if those who consider
>themselves aggrieved or oppressed didn't set fire to things to make
>others take notice.
>
It would probably be much better off but now we're just debating "what if's."
>> >> I find that weird or more to the point a
>> >> >typical display of western style arrogance (hey it made our countries
>> >> >what they are today but is it really how we wish to proceed in the
>> >> >modern world).
>> >>
>> >> "Arrogance" regarding mass murderers?
>> >
>> >If we go back to say..sep 10th I would still say the 'west' acts in an
>> >arrogant manner (the status of OBL as murderer is irrelevant to our
>> >status as arrogant).
>>
>> It most certainly is relevant, no matter what.
>
>.....Our european ancestors hacked and slashed their way through the
>world. Raping, pillaging and leaving the other inhabitants of this
>planet with bugger all. Consequently we have wealth, power and strength.
>Also we still see in our govts. an air of arrogance that understandably
>is a result of a conscious decision to hangon to this wealth, power and
>strength (who wouldn't). This attitude is seen in how (predominately)
>the US conducts its affairs ie how we percieve other cultures
>(assimilation), how we treat other nations (as a means to an end) and
>how we live our lives (personal wealth at the expensive of others/the
>planet) etcetc....that was what I meant by OBL's status as a murderer is
>irrelevant to our status as arrogant nations.
>
It's still relevant, of course it is. "Forget that OBL killed thousands."
Sorry, it's relevant to this conversation no matter how you look at it.
>> The only thing that is important is our own
>> >ideological interests (this is fairly natural I conceed).
>> >On sep10th OBL and crew had for years been shouting and screaming their
>> >interests and desires. We didn't listen.
>>
>> They continued to bomb us. You're confusing him again with someone who was
>> pushed into violence
>
>And you continue to miss the point that just cos you dont find a certain
>act repugnant it doesn't mean others won't and won't be sufficiently
>compelled to kill in revenge.
>
A woman doesn't find her dress all that provocative but perhaps a rapist
will... Should she wear a less revealing dress?
>> the man has shown no real interest in sitting down at
>> the bargaining table.
>
>I dunno about this one. I would think that if a genuine attempt to not
>only talk but to provide concession was offered he would surely come to
>the table. Dunno. Any evidence to the contrary?
>
>> He was violent from day one.
>
>Dunno about that either.
>
Well we have no evidence showing that he tried anything else. He was in hiding
for a long time there, but his main interest was clearly terrorism, not a
"treaty" or anything like that.
>> We arrogantly said 'why do we
>> >care', 'don't threaten us we're more powerful', 'our interests in your
>> >countries are more important than your interests in your countries'. As
>> >I said before OBLs demands were dismissed as blackmail (despite it being
>> >one of the main ways of international coercioan that western countries
>> >use)
>> >
>>
>> As a last resort usually. OBL made it his first.
>
>Again I'm not sure where you are getting these facts from. I doubt that
>OBL got out of bed one day and said 'damn those yankees and jews I'm
>gonna start attacking them without a word to anyone'.
>
Oh he told a word to people, just not to us. He told his followers, trained
thousands to attack the U.S. You're portraying it as though he called us up on
the phone one day pleading with us "or else."
>SNIP
>
>> >Why? I'm not sure what 'the attacks were not ordered' has to do with
>> >anything.
>> >
>>
>> Of course it does. My gun accidentally goes off and kills someone. Am I
>just as
>> to blame as if I shot that person on purpose?
>
>perhaps we are using the word 'ordered' differently. You are refering to
>intentionality.
>I agree with the phrase "the attacks were intentional" but I still don't
>know what "the attacks were ordered" means in the context.
>
It has to be ordered to know if it was intentional.
>SNIP
>
>> >I would also suggest that if OBL or hizbollah or the even the IRA had
>> >concessions made to their demands and THEN they acted in the similar
>> >manner then it would be wise to <ahem> kick their butts.
>> >
>>
>> But of course, they didn't come to the bargaining table, as it were, to
>begin
>> with, showed absolutely no interest.
>
>Why not? If a genuine acceptance of their terms was up for discussion
>(where all parties were in agreement over outcomes/agenda) then why
>wouldn't they 'come to the table'. It would be in their interest to?
>
They have shown no interest in doing so, just more violence.
>Where are you sourcing these claims?
>
Their behavior, their statements. They pile grievance upon grievance upon
grievance at a whim, show an interest in violence and only violence to get
their way. No mention at all of "discussion."
>> >It seems the mentality in the US for the last 20 years has been 'who
>> >cares what a few towelheads want. Whataretheygonnado?'. hmmmm.
>> >
>>
>> The mentality of a self-consumed president anyway, despite many warnings by
>> others in the government. They don't all think the same way, you know.
>
>While I usually avoid generalisations I can't help but feel the majority
>view in the US over the last 20 years has been that the US is pretty
>safe from external threat (nuclear attacks aside) or that there would be
>no way a bunch of arabs could with one attack bring the country to a
>standstill.
>
Unfortunately, yes. Standstill? Not exactly in this case.
>SNIP
>
>> >I think the point here is the causal chain extend alot further then
>> >sep11. OBL and various other factions have expressed their concerns
>> >repeatedly.
>>
>> In blood, more than in words.
>
>Yes cos words get them nowhere.
As if they ever tried them.
We just dont want to listen.
???
Our
>interests (even if they are in someone elses country) are too important
>to take notice of a small bunch of rabble rousers on camels who want us
>out.
>
>As I said earlier armed struggle per se is not a bad thing. It is though
>if you don't write the history books.
>
It's fair to say we have a policy of "not listening" to those who use violence
against innocents *as a rule* to get their way. But the problem is you're
assuming we're "not listening" for some arbitrary reason.
>> Before sep11 I would seriously have considered these parties
>> >as the aggrieved not the aggressor.
>> >
>>
>> Despite their many acts of aggression.
>
>No because of our many acts of aggression and because of our history of
>many acts of aggression, marginalisation and subjegation.
>
>Does this make their acts 'right', far from it. But it does make them
>understandable and helps us see their justification for the hatred
>etcetc they show us.
>
"Their" justification. It's not just "hatred," it's aggression, attacks on
innocents, "etcetc." Two wrongs do not make a right.
>SNIP
>
>> >First of all I wasn't aware that that was the case. I thought the issues
>> >and demands were somewhat different ie US military presence in unwanted
>> >places,
>>
>> Because the "infidel" is there, not for any other reason.
>
>They want the infidel out. Fair enough its their land not ours.
>
Actually no, it's not even bin Laden's decision to make, not least of which
because he was banished from Saudi Arabia.
>> It's an
>> Islamo-Fascist belief.
>
>cool phrase :) (not quite sure of its validity though ;))
>
Anyone who has studied bin Ladenism can see the Fascist statements therein.
>SNIP
Tim Starr
says...
>
>Tim Starr wrote:
>>
>> In article <3C3E09A1...@nospam.student.canterbury.ac.nz>, Matthew Healey
>> says...
>> >
>> >Tim Starr wrote:
>> >>
>
>SNIP
>
>> "hehehe good old Uncy Sam...come to save the world from those Nazi
>> Devils. Can't have anyone thinking differently than we do now can we can
>> we.
>
>good point....though it does reinforce the further point that there is
It does no such thing, it points out that both the Nazis and Commies were
evil, and that the response to them wasn't simply based upon the fact that
they thought differently.
>Just responses to particular
>problems with the response being dictated by things like self defense
>etc. Though in the coldwar scenario IMHO responses were dictated by
>threats to ideology.
Gee, that's funny, I thought the Western response to, say, the North Korean
invasion of South Korea was to contain Communist aggression and protect
the South Korean people, not because of some abstract threat to
"ideology."
>>What response would you have recommended?
>
>In the case of Hitler the answer was obvious since his motives were
>explicit but in the case of the rise of communism the problem is more
>complex.
>
>My 'recommendation' depends on my interpretation of the facts at the
>time obviously. ie, is the soviet union seeking world domination (no),
>is the particular 'communist' revolution initiated to improve the lot of
>the average citizen (?) or as a means of stabilising national military
>power (in the end yes) etctetc.
How did Stalin's support for Mao "stabilize national military power" in the
Soviet Union?
>Coupled with the above other questions arise ie 'if we invade a country
>on the notion that their newly adopted ideology is a threat to ours...
What country did the West invade just because it went Communist? Certainly not
South Korea, South Vietnam, etc.
>I honestly don't believe the soviet union was intent on world domination...
About a dozen different countries around the world aligned with the Soviets
between '75 and '80. There was hardly a continent in the world where the
Soviets weren't actively sponsoring Commie terrorist movements - Africa, Asia,
Latin America, Europe, etc.
>...much of the developing world was screaming out for some sort of 'worker
>revolution')...
Funny, those "screams" for "worker revolution" seem to have a high correlation
with Soviet funding.
>It seems to me the general idea of communism (at least that which sticks
>true to marx) is about a better life for all...
Thanks for showing where your true sympathies lie.
>Sorry Tim I've been waffling and not actually offering a 'recommended
>course of action'. ;)
Precisely. You have no positive alternatives to propose, you just criticize the
policies of others in a vacuum.
>>Easy for you to make
>>fun of the Communist threat more than a decade after the collapse of
>>the Soviet Union
>
>Fair enough call.....though in all honesty one would think we would
>welcome a true 'Communist Threat'...
No more so than a "true Nazi Threat."
>since if implemented properly it
>should in fact benefit the majority. Yet the communists (in particular
>some of the southeast asian ones) were just oppressive military regimes,
>though they certainly weren't expansionalitic outside of their immediate
>sphere.
Depends on what you consider "their immediate sphere." North Vietnam
fought wars with all of its neighbors, conquered three of them (South
Vietnam, Laos, & Cambodia), & established puppet regimes in all of those.
The Indonesian Communist Party tried to take over Indonesia by coup
d'etat while it was under Maoist sponsorship.
>>but most people considered the threat quite serious
>>at the time.
>
>Fear (post WWII) and paranoia...
Actually, the US demobilized greatly after WWII, and the US military
intelligence estimates of the Soviet threat were pretty low. They
weren't revised until Stalin Sovietized Eastern Europe and the
intelligence data the US acquired from Reinhard Gehlen, former head
of German military intelligence, had been analyzed. The OSS was
totally abolished, and the CIA wasn't formed until years later.
Tim Starr
Matt H.
> >> In article <3C3E09A1...@nospam.student.canterbury.ac.nz>, Matthew
Healey
> >> says...
> >> >
> >> >Tim Starr wrote:
SNIP
> >good point....though it does reinforce the further point that there is
> >no real objective enemy/objective evil...
>
> It does no such thing, it points out that both the Nazis and Commies were
> evil
good/evil right/wrong, Tim your world must be very compartmentalised and
simple.
> and that the response to them wasn't simply based upon the fact that
> they thought differently.
I disagree but then I feel that might be a recurring theme in this post ;)
> >Just responses to particular
> >problems with the response being dictated by things like self defense
> >etc. Though in the coldwar scenario IMHO responses were dictated by
> >threats to ideology.
>
> Gee, that's funny, I thought the Western response to, say, the North
Korean
> invasion of South Korea was to contain Communist aggression
And why was it a threat? I guess you'd say cos they were evil murdering
commies (as opposed to righteous murdering capitilists) , I'd say they were
a threat cos of the incompatability of ideology.
> and protect
> the South Korean people
maybes. Though we only appear to give a toss about other countries when
there is something in it for us (ie mainting the status quo especially in
'high priority regions'). Question....Why didn't we intervene in Rwanda when
upto 80,000 people
were needlessly slaughtered if we care so much about others? Why are some
deaths worthy of our attention and others not?
my answer: ideological interest drives foreign policy (is this not fairly
basic sociology/pol sci?)
>not because of some abstract threat to
> "ideology."
I dont think it was an abstract threat. It was very real but still a threat
to ideology (which is the driving force in both internal and external policy
making?)
> >>What response would you have recommended?
> >
> >In the case of Hitler the answer was obvious since his motives were
> >explicit but in the case of the rise of communism the problem is more
> >complex.
> >
> >My 'recommendation' depends on my interpretation of the facts at the
> >time obviously. ie, is the soviet union seeking world domination (no),
> >is the particular 'communist' revolution initiated to improve the lot of
> >the average citizen (?) or as a means of stabilising national military
> >power (in the end yes) etctetc.
>
> How did Stalin's support for Mao "stabilize national military power" in
the
> Soviet Union?
I presented three factors that might influence my 'recommendation of action'
(the list is not exhaustive). I'll add another one to please you...."is the
particular regime seeking to stabilise external relations by entering
treaties etctetc (yes)".
Now what was your point again?
> >Coupled with the above other questions arise ie 'if we invade a country
> >on the notion that their newly adopted ideology is a threat to ours...
>
> What country did the West invade just because it went Communist?
So you dispute the claim that the west has been actively and covertly
meddling in the affairs of other countries so as to further their own
ideologically driven agendas (you seem to think that only direct invasion is
where the problem lies, I would disagree, its just a matter of degree not of
kind)....anyways I was just trying to make the point that often retaliation
can be seen as legitimising the prior acts.
> Certainly not
> South Korea, South Vietnam, etc.
>
> >I honestly don't believe the soviet union was intent on world
domination...
>
> About a dozen different countries around the world aligned with the
Soviets
> between '75 and '80. There was hardly a continent in the world where the
> Soviets weren't actively sponsoring Commie terrorist movements - Africa,
Asia,
> Latin America, Europe, etc.
You mean 'commie insurgence' I think. Whats wrong with it (aside form the
obvious deaths but then again people die at the hands of even the most
moderate democratic state) thats how movements start and take hold isn't it?
That in itself isn't 'bad' is it ie what if the world was wholly communist
and capitalist insurgence sprung up...etcetc I doubt you'd have a problem
with that but the ruling hegemony might consider it a threat. So the problem
isn't that communism was a threat in the sense that say OBL is a threat. It
was a threat in that the prevailing ideology was under attack.
> >...much of the developing world was screaming out for some sort of
'worker
> >revolution')...
>
> Funny, those "screams" for "worker revolution" seem to have a high
correlation
> with Soviet funding.
Yeah but so what? One might say that oppressed peoples are happy (read:
pacified) to except their lot unless an alternative is provided. A similar
phenomenon could be said to have occured in the Soviet Union in the 80's
where western ideas/values/goods started to appear with increased frequency
on Soviet streets.
> >It seems to me the general idea of communism (at least that which sticks
> >true to marx) is about a better life for all...
>
> Thanks for showing where your true sympathies lie.
I also think the general idea of xstianity, that we should 'love each other
and show forgiveness etctetc', is in general a great idea. But I'd rather
cut my head off then blindly follow any dogma..
Is the point that you're making that you are unable to see outside your
narrow world view Tim? Cos you've made it very well.
> >Sorry Tim I've been waffling and not actually offering a 'recommended
> >course of action'. ;)
>
> Precisely. You have no positive alternatives to propose
Do excuse my own personal style but lurking experience tells me that if I
actually presented a 'plan of action' the posts would degenerate into a
contradiction instead of a discussion of ideas. You see I'm prepared to
alter my view but I'll only do it by thinking for myself not via you telling
me what is right/wrong.
>you just criticize the
> policies of others in a vacuum.
Yes my default option in all cases is to criticise. I feel its more
conducive to learning than just blind acceptance.
> >>Easy for you to make
> >>fun of the Communist threat more than a decade after the collapse of
> >>the Soviet Union
> >
> >Fair enough call.....though in all honesty one would think we would
> >welcome a true 'Communist Threat'...
>
> No more so than a "true Nazi Threat."
I've read 'mine kampf' and found little but anger, frustration and the
search for a scapegoat and while I haven't actually read 'das kapital' (a
friend warned me of the hard to penetrate Marx style) in the commentaries
I've read I found a lot that made egalitarian sense (and a fair bit that
didn't also).
Anyways the ideology of Marx is far removed from the manifestations of 20th
Century communism.
> >since if implemented properly it
> >should in fact benefit the majority. Yet the communists (in particular
> >some of the southeast asian ones) were just oppressive military regimes,
> >though they certainly weren't expansionalitic outside of their immediate
> >sphere.
>
> Depends on what you consider "their immediate sphere." North Vietnam
> fought wars with all of its neighbors, conquered three of them (South
> Vietnam, Laos, & Cambodia), & established puppet regimes in all of those.
> The Indonesian Communist Party tried to take over Indonesia by coup
> d'etat while it was under Maoist sponsorship.
Yip thats pretty much what I consider "their immediate sphere".
> >>but most people considered the threat quite serious
> >>at the time.
> >
> >Fear (post WWII) and paranoia...
>
> Actually, the US demobilized greatly after WWII, and the US military
> intelligence estimates of the Soviet threat were pretty low. They
> weren't revised until Stalin Sovietized Eastern Europe and the
> intelligence data the US acquired from Reinhard Gehlen, former head
> of German military intelligence, had been analyzed. The OSS was
> totally abolished, and the CIA wasn't formed until years later.
Fair enough but how does that undermine the point that something might be
percieved as a threat (via fear/propoganda etc) regardless of its actually
capacity to cause harm. You haven't actually established that the Stalinist
Soviet state was a threat to the US in any sense except ideological (minus
the obvious nuclear conflict).
> Tim Starr
matt
:p
Matt H.
"Nathan Folkert" <nfol...@cs.stanford.edu> wrote in message
news:4b923300.02011...@posting.google.com...
> Matthew Healey <md...@nospam.student.canterbury.ac.nz> wrote in message
news:<3C3D0C2A...@nospam.student.canterbury.ac.nz>...
>
> [snip]
>
> > Initially is was. Initially there was an all-out attack with GW even
> > commenting that it was the only option open (which isn't technically
> > true is it? The most satisfying from a US perspective, yes, but the
> > ONLY option....)
>
> What other options do you suggest? What should we have tried that we
> had not been trying for three years before then in order to eliminate
> the threat
How about removing all military bases from Muslim lands etc. Censure Isreal
for it expansionalist policy via either withdrawing financial support or
supporting resolution against it in the UN etcetc (or even try treating it
like any other rogue state)
(note: these are not my own personal views (except the bracketed one. Though
I would like to see all 'external nation' military bases removed from the
pacific) but then again I'm not flying planes into your buildings).
>that al Qaeda posed to international peace and security?
whats done is done.
> How long should we wait for non-violent means to achieve our goals?
> Three years isn't long enough, apparently. Five years? Ten years?
> How many terrorist attacks should we have to endure? Three thousand
> dead isn't enough, obviously. Seven thousand or twenty thousand must
> not be, either, because we weren't hearing calls for military
> intervention by the left
By the 'left', do you mean those people on the lefthand side of the USA. I
didn't realise those in LA were all that different than those in NY ;)
>when these were figures being bandied about
> by the media. What do you need? Fifty thousand dead? An atom bomb
> in downtown New York (or Christchurch, would that persuade you)?
That speech could have been given by OBL himself 20 years ago. By that I
mean he might suggest that 'his people' have been dying at the hands of
infidels for hundreds (anyone remember 'the crusades') of years and have had
their interests marginalised and their govts bought by western interests
etcetcetc, and how much more will they put up with before striking back.
They might consider sept11 in the same light as you are portraying further
conflict.
> > The reconstruction of the afghan govt and rebuilding of the
> > infrastructure I would think is only fair. Though its hardly democratic
> > (thats important isn't it ;)) to install a leader who has ties with the
> > old crocked monarchy that the afghan people long ago diposed.
>
> The monarchy, which at least attempted to make reforms toward
> constitutional democracy, was deposed by Daoud, a strongman dictator,
> not by the "Afghan people".
My apologies I never claimed to be omniscient.
> If the Afghan government were returned to
> the "old crocked monarchy" tomorrow, the Afghan people would be freer
> than they've been in thirty years. Not that I would advocate such a
> return -- I just wanted to point this out and suggest that perhaps you
> should read other sources than back issues of Pravda for your
> historical information on Afghanistan.
How about you tell me what you read and think and I'll try to copy that and
then we can all be the same.
> [snip]
>
> -Nathan Folkert
matt
:p
Rob Findlay
One comment.
It is my view that the only "idealogical" drive behind US foreign policy
is the idealogical drive of maintaining the US 'empire'.
If you look at the comments of the strategic planners of the time no one
seriusly viewed communism of as a threat. What they feared was the risk
such countries would present to American Corporate profits. And that if
say Chile managed to build a social democracy that addressed the needs
of the people that other nations might get the idea that they had
a right to self detirmination.
This whole "idealogical conflict" is an example of liberal white washing,
it serves the instutionalized framework of debate to insure we never
qustion the Overclass or its empire.
--
New flag as issued by the Office of "Fatherland Security". .
__________________________________________________________________
| OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO|
| ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::|
| ****** ****** ****** ** ** OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO|
| ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::|
| ** ** ****** ****** ** OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO|
| ** ** ** ** ** ** ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::|
| ****** ****** ****** ** OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO|
| ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::|
| OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO|
|::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::|
|OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO|
|::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::|
|OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO|
|::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::|
|OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO|
|::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::|
|__________________________________________________________________|
| |
|Peace & Solidarity rfindlay(@)iww.org |
|-- |
|Rob Findlay (I.U. 560) IWW |
|-- |
|http://slagnet.dhs.org http://utah.indymedia.org |
|http://iww.org http://anarchosyndicalism.org |
| |
| http://beehivecollective.8m.com |
|__________________________________________________________________|
"Wage slavery or starvation? Thats not a choices its a THREAT!"
[ The comments herein are the comments of the sender and the sender
alone. NOT the Industrial Workers of the World. UNLESS explicitaly
stated otherwise. ]
Real name
> Then I must profess ignorance on this one...I wasn't aware that the
> "Taliban ran AlQueda"
>
> What exactly is the evidence? Or more specifically what is the evidence
> that proved the Taliban govt. gave orders for/knew of/sanctioned etctec
> the attacks.
Actually, I believe evidence is piled on the other side, that Al Qaeda
was a sponsor of the Taliban through monetary and political support.
[find your own http link]
Real name
Matthew Healey <md...@nospam.student.canterbury.ac.nz> wrote:
> I would hope that if it happened in my country the Govt. would learn how
> to act in a way that doesn't encourage people to do it again.
But, realistically what would you expect to read only days after any of
the following headines?
-- Sikhs hijack airliner - destroy Taj Mahal
-- Algerians hijack airliner - destroy Eiffel Tower
-- Chechnyans hijack airliner - destroy Kremlin
To my mind, given their fearsome military capability, the Americans
exercised restraint in that they paused at all. Only Polyanna would
have expected anything less than severe military retribution.
We British are perhaps more resigned after years of terrorism.
But,
-- Libyans pilot airliner into Buckingham Palace
BBC News at 11? Blair nukes Khadafi?
Probably not. It would, however, have been an armed and bloody-minded,
total response (hell, the Maldives and a couple of sheep were enough to
set us off last time).
Real name
> What? Is it the truth the the US military really cares for foreign
> innocents and it doesn't wish to harm them (all the while blowing up
> their houses, markets, hospitals etcetc). Or is it the truth that the US
> military wishes to push the 'mininising civilian casualities' line cos
> this makes the war easier to sell?
My understanding of the US military training at West Point is that it
includes ethics, rules of engagement, and political science, as do
Politics degrees at Harvard, Yale, Princeton and other Ivy league
feeders to the State dept. and the Washington bureaucracy. Concepts like
proportionality and discrimination in war are studied and discussed.
The fact of the matter, however, is Bin Laden crossed the line. Pissed
them off. Friends and family were killed, and the establishment was
traumatized.
Minimising Afghani casualties was not an American priority after that.
Removing any further threat from Bin Laden was.
Most of the people in question (soldiers, Elis, Princetonians, State Dep
geeks, et al.) would, under better circumstances, have behaved better.
Many did, in fact, resist darker impulses toward revenge, and spoke out
for thoughtful reflection. Many leaned, however, toward action. But not
as many as called for outright, biblical retribution.
Do you want to claim you're really that different? Or are you just
relatively powerless?
Given the ability to snuff out an implacable adversary, do you really
claim you'd turn the other cheek? Let him be? Negotiate?
Don't forgot that popular sentiment in the US favoured the nuking of
Afghanistan, if neccessary.
Do try to grasp the power relations involved.
Matthew Healey
Real name wrote:
>
> Matthew Healey <md...@nospam.student.canterbury.ac.nz> wrote:
>
> > What? Is it the truth the the US military really cares for foreign
> > innocents and it doesn't wish to harm them (all the while blowing up
> > their houses, markets, hospitals etcetc). Or is it the truth that the US
> > military wishes to push the 'mininising civilian casualities' line cos
> > this makes the war easier to sell?
SNIP
> Minimising Afghani casualties was not an American priority after that.
The US newsfeeds we get here tell us otherwise.
> Removing any further threat from Bin Laden was.
> Most of the people in question (soldiers, Elis, Princetonians, State Dep
> geeks, et al.) would, under better circumstances, have behaved better.
> Many did, in fact, resist darker impulses toward revenge, and spoke out
> for thoughtful reflection. Many leaned, however, toward action. But not
> as many as called for outright, biblical retribution.
>
> Do you want to claim you're really that different?
So you're saying 'the response could have been worse so we should accept
it'. Fair enough call I suppose, it could have been worse. In fact I
would have liked to have actually seen a real 'war on terrorism'. The
modern world is changing, those type of acts should not be tolerated
regardless of who does them. Trouble is according to US/Alliance govt
the only folk who commit these wrongs are middle easterns, islamics etc.
Yet we (or US past-president/CIA bosses/KGB/Mossad/IRA etctetc are the
biggest culprits historically. Lets get rid of the terrorists (govt or
religious or whatever) in Israel/Palestine/Ireland first and then go
after those who have funded them for the last 30 years ie US
business/corps with Irish sympathies/Past US leaders/Gaddaffi/Sadam
etctetc. There should be no distinction between west/east etcte.
>Or are you just
> relatively powerless?
I don't buy the whole 'power corrupts' line. I would think you're a
better leader if you can find ways NOT to use your large armies/navies
etctetc then using them cos they are there. I reckon this stems from
nationalism, ie there is something more important then individual lives
being threatened ie Mother Russia or the USA. These things dont actually
exist, they certainally they don't have mental states/minds/will. Yet we
refer to them as if they do. And we appeal to them to justify our acts
that normally as individuals we would avoid. So in that sense I'm more
compelled to see Plato's philosopher/kings as a just leader in contrast
to a senate or democracy.
> Given the ability to snuff out an implacable adversary, do you really
> claim you'd turn the other cheek? Let him be? Negotiate?
I agree the rabid dog needs putting down. But the issue remains that the
world is full of dogs and we seem to have this knack of creating the
conditions that rabies flourish under. We seem too arrogant to realise
it and too wrapped up in selfinterest to do anything about it.
> Don't forgot that popular sentiment in the US favoured the nuking of
> Afghanistan, if neccessary.
I'm not really interested in what they do. Just why they do it, their
reasons/justification etcetc.
> Do try to grasp the power relations involved.
thanks for the advice. I'll try that in future and if I get lost I'll
just ask you for "truth".
matt
:p
Matthew Healey
Real name wrote:
>
> In article <3C3D0C2A...@nospam.student.canterbury.ac.nz>,
> Matthew Healey <md...@nospam.student.canterbury.ac.nz> wrote:
>
> > I would hope that if it happened in my country the Govt. would learn how
> > to act in a way that doesn't encourage people to do it again.
>
> But, realistically what would you expect to read only days after any of
> the following headines?
>
> -- Sikhs hijack airliner - destroy Taj Mahal
> -- Algerians hijack airliner - destroy Eiffel Tower
> -- Chechnyans hijack airliner - destroy Kremlin
>
> To my mind, given their fearsome military capability, the Americans
> exercised restraint in that they paused at all. Only Polyanna would
> have expected anything less than severe military retribution.
As I've said elsewhere what is being done is not the issue. In all
honesty what OBL did also isn't an issue to me (that doesn't mean I
agree nor think its 'right'), war/ conflict etctec are inevitable unless
we actively seek to live in a manner that is aimed at conflict
resolution as opposed to acting in a way that furthers our own interests
at the expense of others. The US has their reasons for doing x, OBL had
his reaons for y etcetc. People die horribly all the time for no reason
in particular. Yes I care when folk die needlessly, it upsets me, it
angers me etctetc but my reaction doesn't alter the fact that it is the
way of things (no metaphysics intended). But unless it is someone close
to me I can easily objectify it.
My point was there is a difference between 'making a happy-smiley world
via pushing your own values/ideology/interests etc (which both OBL and
the US like to do)' and 'making a happy-smiley world by balancing the
interests/ values etc of all nations/cultures'. The US as primarily a
culture of assimilation is in part the source of this problem. Colonial/
imperial arrogance via our European heritage is another.
So US actions in Afghanistan are understandable but far from 'right' or
'just'.
> We British are perhaps more resigned after years of terrorism.
Yeah your colonial history is steeped in subjegation/ violence/ conquest
and terrorism. I'm sure you're immune to it by now ;)
> But,
>
> -- Libyans pilot airliner into Buckingham Palace
Your 'blinkered' thinking betrays you. They were Lybian therefore they
must have been ordered by that despot madmad Khaddafi. Funnily enough
he's done some great things for that country. But he's one of our
offical enemies so demonising him is par for the course huh?
> BBC News at 11? Blair nukes Khadafi?
Blair couldn't knock the top off a hand-shandy without getting orders
from GW. ;)
> Probably not. It would, however, have been an armed and bloody-minded,
> total response (hell, the Maldives and a couple of sheep were enough to
> set us off last time).
Yes because 'Britain' has been slated. Shame it doesn't actually exist
(not as a intentional entity as least)
matt
:p
Matthew Healey
TVsHenry wrote:
>
> >Subject: Re: Leftwatch
> >From: Matthew Healey md...@nospam.student.canterbury.ac.nz
> >Date: 1/10/02 8:33 PM Eastern Standard Time
> >Message-id: <3C3E40E1...@nospam.student.canterbury.ac.nz>
SNIP
> >As long as they keep their interests to their our land and dont push
> >them on the rest of us.
> >ie globalisation/free trade/judeoxstian derived ideology/military bases
> >throughout the pacific etctetc.
> >
>
> Unfortunately sometimes those are unavoidable
I don't believe that, perhaps its wishful thinking but I believe that
modern govts. should be responsible for conflict resolution. The old
'well they started it first' is just bull and avoidable IMHO.
> and not only because of the
> actions of the U.S. (believe it or not).
I fully agree. The US is not the only culprit here. Trouble is they have
the most powerful 'ministry of spin' the world has ever seen. This I
object to. While it might be true that places like china have the
largest incidence of state propoganda aimed internally. The US is the
front runner in external propoganda (selling the american lie to the
world ie that only through democracy/ freemarkets etc can we be free and
happy), the worst thing for me is that it isn't just the govt. doing it
(unlike china) it is also corporations/ businesses/ interest groups/ the
media etc who push it on the world.
At least with China there is an obvious target to blame. In the US there
is no single 'giver of orders/ setter of agenda' just the gentle but
unstoppable momentum of ideology.
SNIP
> >Yes but what is a 'softened response'. Are you refering to diplomatic
> >sanctions/leverage via financial aid/ a few missiles fired from the sea
> >ectetc. All these are responses that seek to secure the interests of the
> >US (ie protecting external military bases/ port of call /finances
> >etctec.) These 'soft responses' are not motivated by a desire to reach a
> >synthesis of both parties perspectives.
> >
>
> OBL showed no interest in "synthesis" when he responded
I agree.
> first and foremost
Find yourself a rotwieller (sp?) and stand on its neck for a while
(maybe torment it a bit as well). Then let it go and walk away. When it
jumps up and bites you on the arse if your powerful enough you can kill
it (who wouldn't). But you can't take the moral highground and say 'that
nasty dog just attacked me first for no reason, it must die'.
> with violent action.
violence breeds violence. I have a poster with a picture of the twin
towers and two boomerangs lodged in them with 'US interventionist
policy' written on them, underneath is the title "what you reap is what
you sow".
Fairly heartless and insensitive that poster, but it rings true.
>Methinks you misunderstand him entirely.
Since I've never met him I can't profess to being on oracle on the
matter. But unless I'm sorely mistaken neither have you. Why do you
appear to know the truth yet others are ignorant of it?
> >When I said 'do unto others...'. (ok its sounds cheesy but..)I mean even
> >something as simple as 'if you dont respect the views of others why
> >should they respect your own' or 'if you send aid to an ally that kills
> >their people why should you not expect then to start killing your
> >people'.
> >
> >Seems like a fairly prudent rule of action to me.
> >
>
> We did unto others... didn't work.
When and how? (try to give an answer the doesn't assume that US interets
must be satisfied first)
> >> However in this time (you know the present, now) we are avoiding
> >> civilians more than any army in any war in history, but if we were
> >targeting
> >> civilians in the way al Qaeda did, it would be another story.
> >
> >I agree. But I don't like the idea of a watered down war where we 'try'
> >not to kill innocents (did the US succeed and actually not kill any
> >innocents. NO).
>
> And is that entirely the fault of the U.S.?
Not the US people. It is fault of the State Dept. or Ministry of Defense
(whatever you call it), for selling the lie at least.
> The watered down war is too easy to justify <- and thats
> >not good (IMHO).
> >
>
> How?
Why do we not encourage wars? Cos we generally dont like the idea of
folk dying (either our folk or others or especially innocents). If you
remove the 'innocents' the war is easier to initiate (in a dictatorship
this isn't a problem but in a 'democracy' it is). trouble is innocents
still die, infrastructure of countries is still destroyed (ie iraq via
allied bombing) and that can result in less obvious deaths (that the
media can ignore). So all we seem concerned about is our own conscience
yet we try to push the line that its 'cos we care'. Baloney.
We want our intersts served (be it via war or whatever) but we don't
want to feel too bad about doing it.
matt
:p
TVsHenry
>Message-id: <3C420133...@nospam.student.canterbury.ac.nz>
>
>
>
>TVsHenry wrote:
>>
>> >Subject: Re: Leftwatch
>> >From: Matthew Healey md...@nospam.student.canterbury.ac.nz
>> >Date: 1/10/02 8:33 PM Eastern Standard Time
>> >Message-id: <3C3E40E1...@nospam.student.canterbury.ac.nz>
>
>SNIP
>
>> >As long as they keep their interests to their our land and dont push
>> >them on the rest of us.
>> >ie globalisation/free trade/judeoxstian derived ideology/military bases
>> >throughout the pacific etctetc.
>> >
>>
>> Unfortunately sometimes those are unavoidable
>
>I don't believe that, perhaps its wishful thinking but I believe that
>modern govts. should be responsible for conflict resolution. The old
>'well they started it first' is just bull and avoidable IMHO.
>
Yes but this is a special case, as we have seen.
>> and not only because of the
>> actions of the U.S. (believe it or not).
>
>I fully agree. The US is not the only culprit here. Trouble is they have
>the most powerful 'ministry of spin' the world has ever seen. This I
>object to. While it might be true that places like china have the
>largest incidence of state propoganda aimed internally. The US is the
>front runner in external propoganda (selling the american lie to the
>world ie that only through democracy/ freemarkets etc can we be free and
>happy), the worst thing for me is that it isn't just the govt. doing it
>(unlike china) it is also corporations/ businesses/ interest groups/ the
>media etc who push it on the world.
>
>At least with China there is an obvious target to blame. In the US there
>is no single 'giver of orders/ setter of agenda' just the gentle but
>unstoppable momentum of ideology.
>
Got any better ideas?
>SNIP
>
>> >Yes but what is a 'softened response'. Are you refering to diplomatic
>> >sanctions/leverage via financial aid/ a few missiles fired from the sea
>> >ectetc. All these are responses that seek to secure the interests of the
>> >US (ie protecting external military bases/ port of call /finances
>> >etctec.) These 'soft responses' are not motivated by a desire to reach a
>> >synthesis of both parties perspectives.
>> >
>>
>> OBL showed no interest in "synthesis" when he responded
>
>I agree.
>
>> first and foremost
>
>Find yourself a rotwieller (sp?) and stand on its neck for a while
>(maybe torment it a bit as well). Then let it go and walk away. When it
>jumps up and bites you on the arse if your powerful enough you can kill
>it (who wouldn't). But you can't take the moral highground and say 'that
>nasty dog just attacked me first for no reason, it must die'.
>
You seem to continue to ignore that the "rotweiler" responded with further
attacks, more devastating each time.
>> with violent action.
>
>violence breeds violence.
Cliche...
I have a poster with a picture of the twin
>towers and two boomerangs lodged in them with 'US interventionist
>policy' written on them, underneath is the title "what you reap is what
>you sow".
>
>Fairly heartless and insensitive that poster, but it rings true.
>
For the Chomskyites perhaps.
>>Methinks you misunderstand him entirely.
>
>Since I've never met him I can't profess to being on oracle on the
>matter. But unless I'm sorely mistaken neither have you. Why do you
>appear to know the truth yet others are ignorant of it?
>
SOME others. I've read many of his speeches and there is much that the left
willfully ignores.
>> >When I said 'do unto others...'. (ok its sounds cheesy but..)I mean even
>> >something as simple as 'if you dont respect the views of others why
>> >should they respect your own' or 'if you send aid to an ally that kills
>> >their people why should you not expect then to start killing your
>> >people'.
>> >
>> >Seems like a fairly prudent rule of action to me.
>> >
>>
>> We did unto others... didn't work.
>
>When and how? (try to give an answer the doesn't assume that US interets
>must be satisfied first)
>
By responding with reactive instead of proactive actions, which did nothing to
prevent further acts of terror. And yes that can be seen, cynically, as a "US
interest" but the "US interest" is to prevent further loss of life by its
citizens and they will not apologize for that.
>> >> However in this time (you know the present, now) we are avoiding
>> >> civilians more than any army in any war in history, but if we were
>> >targeting
>> >> civilians in the way al Qaeda did, it would be another story.
>> >
>> >I agree. But I don't like the idea of a watered down war where we 'try'
>> >not to kill innocents (did the US succeed and actually not kill any
>> >innocents. NO).
>>
>> And is that entirely the fault of the U.S.?
>
>Not the US people. It is fault of the State Dept. or Ministry of Defense
>(whatever you call it), for selling the lie at least.
>
Not entirely at all.
>> The watered down war is too easy to justify <- and thats
>> >not good (IMHO).
>> >
>>
>> How?
>
>Why do we not encourage wars? Cos we generally dont like the idea of
>folk dying (either our folk or others or especially innocents). If you
>remove the 'innocents' the war is easier to initiate (in a dictatorship
>this isn't a problem but in a 'democracy' it is). trouble is innocents
>still die, infrastructure of countries is still destroyed (ie iraq via
>allied bombing) and that can result in less obvious deaths (that the
>media can ignore). So all we seem concerned about is our own conscience
>yet we try to push the line that its 'cos we care'. Baloney.
>
I don't think your grasping the situation.
>We want our intersts served (be it via war or whatever) but we don't
>want to feel too bad about doing it.
>
So you would be better if we felt bad and killed more? Many of your statements
demand the question: "As opposed to what?"
Matthew Healey
TVsHenry wrote:
>
> >Subject: Re: Leftwatch
> >From: Matthew Healey md...@nospam.student.canterbury.ac.nz
> >Date: 1/13/02 4:50 PM Eastern Standard Time
> >Message-id: <3C420133...@nospam.student.canterbury.ac.nz>
SNIP
> >I don't believe that, perhaps its wishful thinking but I believe that
> >modern govts. should be responsible for conflict resolution. The old
> >'well they started it first' is just bull and avoidable IMHO.
> >
>
> Yes but this is a special case, as we have seen.
Only cos it happened to you guys and not some people in Africa.
SNIP
> >At least with China there is an obvious target to blame. In the US there
> >is no single 'giver of orders/ setter of agenda' just the gentle but
> >unstoppable momentum of ideology.
> >
>
> Got any better ideas?
What do you mean by that? I would say the push of western ideology as
'world saviour' when it only serves to promote the interets of the
instigators should be stopped. My better idea is to let others dictate
their own future, embrace their own ideology (if they must) ectetc. For
us to insist that our world view is the most important world view and
that our interests come above those of others (especially within their
own countries) is wrong.
> >SNIP
> >Find yourself a rotwieller (sp?) and stand on its neck for a while
> >(maybe torment it a bit as well). Then let it go and walk away. When it
> >jumps up and bites you on the arse if your powerful enough you can kill
> >it (who wouldn't). But you can't take the moral highground and say 'that
> >nasty dog just attacked me first for no reason, it must die'.
> >
>
> You seem to continue to ignore that the "rotweiler" responded with further
> attacks, more devastating each time.
Hang on a minute....(while I dislike looking for ultimate causes) the
fact is that OBL didn't start attacking US interests and THEN the US
started intervening in areas that are the bone of contention. It was the
other way around. So with my analogy the fact is (from OBLs perspective)
the US stepped on his neck first.
> >> with violent action.
> >
> >violence breeds violence.
>
> Cliche...
whats your point. Its true. Its true within families, its true between
neighbours etcetc. Tit for tat is an often used strategy in times of
conflict. trouble is its not the 'best' solution for either party (See
Game Theory).
> I have a poster with a picture of the twin
> >towers and two boomerangs lodged in them with 'US interventionist
> >policy' written on them, underneath is the title "what you reap is what
> >you sow".
> >
> >Fairly heartless and insensitive that poster, but it rings true.
> >
>
> For the Chomskyites perhaps.
OBL isn't a 'chomskyite', again what is your point? It doesn't matter
what I think or what wee box you can neatly place me into cos I'm not
flying planes into your buildings. OBL has cited historical events as
issues, he has (as have other Islamic groups/states) said that this
state of affairs is not tolerable from their perspective. The US has
responded to perceived threats to its interests by adding to the problem
areas (ie more troops, more financial pressure on host nations etc).
The US has interved in the affairs of others for decades now. Do you
deny this? Why do they do this? To serve their own interests (be they
financial/ ideological)
Now we have a group of people who wish to use heinous methods to show
their anger. I don't agree with what they do. But I can see why they do
it. Why can't you recognise their perspective? (you don't have to agree
with it, but if you do acknowledge it you're part way there to
acknowledging where a solution lies, ie not through more violence......)
> >>Methinks you misunderstand him entirely.
> >
> >Since I've never met him I can't profess to being on oracle on the
> >matter. But unless I'm sorely mistaken neither have you. Why do you
> >appear to know the truth yet others are ignorant of it?
> >
>
> SOME others. I've read many of his speeches and there is much that the left
> willfully ignores.
The man is psychotic and fuelled by hatred and dogma. This is
irrelevent. It is ad hominen. His argument stands and can be verified by
appeals to US foriegn policy acts over the past 40years.
SNIP
> >> We did unto others... didn't work.
> >
> >When and how? (try to give an answer the doesn't assume that US interets
> >must be satisfied first)
> >
>
> By responding with reactive instead of proactive actions, which did nothing to
> prevent further acts of terror. And yes that can be seen, cynically, as a "US
> interest" but the "US interest" is to prevent further loss of life by its
> citizens and they will not apologize for that.
OK, America acts by doing x (securing overseas interest/ military
installations). Citizens of the country shout and scream and throw
things and say get out leave us alone (is that not their right, cos as
we know their govt. aren't democracies). The US says hey lets talk about
this, or in other words says to the govt. stop your people from giving
us a hard time or well cut off all benefits and not play with you any
more. Govt cracks down on insurgence (or makes a token effort to at
least). The people realise that nothing has actually changed and still
noone is listening.....so they start throwing things again....the cycles
goes on.....'till eventually they realise that thowing things at the US
would make the point better....
If keep your ideology and interests within your own borders, I bet you
anything you'll see a dramatic decrease in folk wanting to blow parts of
your country up.
SNIP
> >Why do we not encourage wars? Cos we generally dont like the idea of
> >folk dying (either our folk or others or especially innocents). If you
> >remove the 'innocents' the war is easier to initiate (in a dictatorship
> >this isn't a problem but in a 'democracy' it is). trouble is innocents
> >still die, infrastructure of countries is still destroyed (ie iraq via
> >allied bombing) and that can result in less obvious deaths (that the
> >media can ignore). So all we seem concerned about is our own conscience
> >yet we try to push the line that its 'cos we care'. Baloney.
> >
>
> I don't think your grasping the situation.
Perhaps I'm not making my point obvious enough. Or you can perhaps
explain what the situation actually is.
> >We want our intersts served (be it via war or whatever) but we don't
> >want to feel too bad about doing it.
> >
>
> So you would be better if we felt bad and killed more?
It might make you think a lot harder before actually embarking on war.
You think that a few weeks of selective bombing with at the end some
statistician saying 'well we estimate we reduced civilian casualities by
75%' makes war ok(What about the infrastructure? What about war driving
professional folk elsewhere? etcetc.) , trouble is very few countries
can conduct that type of war. Does that mean that only western
technological countries can conduct wars?. You would think that sending
people to fly planes into buidling is cowardly and not 'good sport', I
say the 'bravery of being out of range' via missiles, bombers is the
same. People use whatever means they have.
The last thing you want to do is create a situation where there is only
one country or interest group that can conduct war. In the current
climate it appears that the US/Nato has created the image that only they
can carry out justifable wars. IMHO there are either no rules in war or
their are no wars. The rest is just false sentiment.
Anyways....Innocents did die in afghanistan. There is no deying this,
saying 'but we tried not to kill them so thats ok' is just bewildering
to me.
> Many of your statements
> demand the question: "As opposed to what?"
No not true, ie, I think that the death penalty is not a good thing for
the simple fact that folk who aren't guilty could be killed (and murder
is no answer to murder)....but I'm under no obligation to provide an
alternative etctetc.
Ideas rest and fall on their own merits. To judge an idea (or argument)
on anything else is dangerous.
Though having said that in this case I have presented a vague idea of my
own opinion, that if we wish to conduct wars we must realise that no
matter how much we water them down other people die (either immediately
or in the long term through disease, no food etc), people suffer
(physically or emotionally) and destruction is inevitable. Either we
admitt this and also that these things are unimportant usually because
fullfilling our own interests/ agenda is what matters (sometimes they
are unimportant because our interest overlap with their interets) or we
do everything in our power to avoid war. Even if we have to stop pushing
our interst/worldview etc onto those who don't want it.
matt
:p
TVsHenry
>Message-id: <3C421613...@nospam.student.canterbury.ac.nz>
>
>
>
>TVsHenry wrote:
>>
>> >Subject: Re: Leftwatch
>> >From: Matthew Healey md...@nospam.student.canterbury.ac.nz
>> >Date: 1/13/02 4:50 PM Eastern Standard Time
>> >Message-id: <3C420133...@nospam.student.canterbury.ac.nz>
>
>SNIP
>
>> >I don't believe that, perhaps its wishful thinking but I believe that
>> >modern govts. should be responsible for conflict resolution. The old
>> >'well they started it first' is just bull and avoidable IMHO.
>> >
>>
>> Yes but this is a special case, as we have seen.
>
>Only cos it happened to you guys and not some people in Africa.
>
>SNIP
>
>> >At least with China there is an obvious target to blame. In the US there
>> >is no single 'giver of orders/ setter of agenda' just the gentle but
>> >unstoppable momentum of ideology.
>> >
>>
>> Got any better ideas?
>
>What do you mean by that? I would say the push of western ideology as
>'world saviour' when it only serves to promote the interets of the
>instigators should be stopped. My better idea is to let others dictate
>their own future, embrace their own ideology (if they must) ectetc. For
>us to insist that our world view is the most important world view and
>that our interests come above those of others (especially within their
>own countries) is wrong.
>
You're painting with a broad brush it seems... if we insisted there would be a
lot more countries out there just like us.
>> >SNIP
>
>> >Find yourself a rotwieller (sp?) and stand on its neck for a while
>> >(maybe torment it a bit as well). Then let it go and walk away. When it
>> >jumps up and bites you on the arse if your powerful enough you can kill
>> >it (who wouldn't). But you can't take the moral highground and say 'that
>> >nasty dog just attacked me first for no reason, it must die'.
>> >
>>
>> You seem to continue to ignore that the "rotweiler" responded with further
>> attacks, more devastating each time.
>
>Hang on a minute....(while I dislike looking for ultimate causes) the
>fact is that OBL didn't start attacking US interests and THEN the US
>started intervening in areas that are the bone of contention. It was the
>other way around. So with my analogy the fact is (from OBLs perspective)
>the US stepped on his neck first.
>
Oh give me a break... we didn't "step on his neck," because we didn't realize
his neck was there to step on in the first place. We don't go asking every
person "is this okay? does this offend you?" in everything we do, that would be
absurd.
>> >> with violent action.
>> >
>> >violence breeds violence.
>>
>> Cliche...
>
>whats your point. Its true. Its true within families, its true between
>neighbours etcetc. Tit for tat is an often used strategy in times of
>conflict. trouble is its not the 'best' solution for either party (See
>Game Theory).
>
Yet it is not true in every situation, it's just a cliche.
>> I have a poster with a picture of the twin
>> >towers and two boomerangs lodged in them with 'US interventionist
>> >policy' written on them, underneath is the title "what you reap is what
>> >you sow".
>> >
>> >Fairly heartless and insensitive that poster, but it rings true.
>> >
>>
>> For the Chomskyites perhaps.
>
>OBL isn't a 'chomskyite', again what is your point? It doesn't matter
>what I think or what wee box you can neatly place me into cos I'm not
>flying planes into your buildings. OBL has cited historical events as
>issues, he has (as have other Islamic groups/states) said that this
>state of affairs is not tolerable from their perspective. The US has
>responded to perceived threats to its interests by adding to the problem
>areas (ie more troops, more financial pressure on host nations etc).
>
You're simplifying his views and leaving some out to push your point.
>The US has interved in the affairs of others for decades now. Do you
>deny this? Why do they do this? To serve their own interests (be they
>financial/ ideological)
>
>Now we have a group of people who wish to use heinous methods to show
>their anger. I don't agree with what they do. But I can see why they do
>it. Why can't you recognise their perspective? (you don't have to agree
>with it, but if you do acknowledge it you're part way there to
>acknowledging where a solution lies, ie not through more violence......)
>
I recognize it and I recognize that it's wrong. Their first and only method was
violence, violence against innocents. This is why you cannot say they are "like
the U.S." It's ignorance of the facts.
>> >>Methinks you misunderstand him entirely.
>> >
>> >Since I've never met him I can't profess to being on oracle on the
>> >matter. But unless I'm sorely mistaken neither have you. Why do you
>> >appear to know the truth yet others are ignorant of it?
>> >
>>
>> SOME others. I've read many of his speeches and there is much that the left
>> willfully ignores.
>
>The man is psychotic and fuelled by hatred and dogma. This is
>irrelevent.
How?
It is ad hominen.
It's true.
His argument stands and can be verified by
>appeals to US foriegn policy acts over the past 40years.
>
It is very relevant, sorry. Perhaps McVeigh's argument "stood," so what? He's
still psychotic.
>SNIP
>
>> >> We did unto others... didn't work.
>> >
>> >When and how? (try to give an answer the doesn't assume that US interets
>> >must be satisfied first)
>> >
>>
>> By responding with reactive instead of proactive actions, which did nothing
>to
>> prevent further acts of terror. And yes that can be seen, cynically, as a
>"US
>> interest" but the "US interest" is to prevent further loss of life by its
>> citizens and they will not apologize for that.
>
>OK, America acts by doing x (securing overseas interest/ military
>installations). Citizens of the country shout and scream and throw
>things and say get out leave us alone (is that not their right, cos as
>we know their govt. aren't democracies). The US says hey lets talk about
>this, or in other words says to the govt. stop your people from giving
>us a hard time or well cut off all benefits and not play with you any
>more. Govt cracks down on insurgence (or makes a token effort to at
>least). The people realise that nothing has actually changed and still
>noone is listening.....so they start throwing things again....the cycles
>goes on.....'till eventually they realise that thowing things at the US
>would make the point better....
>
>If keep your ideology and interests within your own borders, I bet you
>anything you'll see a dramatic decrease in folk wanting to blow parts of
>your country up.
>
How do you guarantee that doesn't anger others? There are others who want the
U.S. in everyone's business? How do you guarantee there aren't psychos who
believe that? You're trying to have all the people satisfied and it won't
happen.
>SNIP
>
>> >Why do we not encourage wars? Cos we generally dont like the idea of
>> >folk dying (either our folk or others or especially innocents). If you
>> >remove the 'innocents' the war is easier to initiate (in a dictatorship
>> >this isn't a problem but in a 'democracy' it is). trouble is innocents
>> >still die, infrastructure of countries is still destroyed (ie iraq via
>> >allied bombing) and that can result in less obvious deaths (that the
>> >media can ignore). So all we seem concerned about is our own conscience
>> >yet we try to push the line that its 'cos we care'. Baloney.
>> >
>>
>> I don't think your grasping the situation.
>
>Perhaps I'm not making my point obvious enough. Or you can perhaps
>explain what the situation actually is.
>
You're dismissing the U.S. out of hand without proof, for one.
>> >We want our intersts served (be it via war or whatever) but we don't
>> >want to feel too bad about doing it.
>> >
>>
>> So you would be better if we felt bad and killed more?
>
>It might make you think a lot harder before actually embarking on war.
>You think that a few weeks of selective bombing with at the end some
>statistician saying 'well we estimate we reduced civilian casualities by
>75%' makes war ok(What about the infrastructure? What about war driving
>professional folk elsewhere? etcetc.) , trouble is very few countries
>can conduct that type of war. Does that mean that only western
>technological countries can conduct wars?. You would think that sending
>people to fly planes into buidling is cowardly and not 'good sport', I
>say the 'bravery of being out of range' via missiles, bombers is the
>same. People use whatever means they have.
>
This seems to be something of a straw man.
>The last thing you want to do is create a situation where there is only
>one country or interest group that can conduct war. In the current
>climate it appears that the US/Nato has created the image that only they
>can carry out justifable wars. IMHO there are either no rules in war or
>their are no wars. The rest is just false sentiment.
>
>Anyways....Innocents did die in afghanistan. There is no deying this,
>saying 'but we tried not to kill them so thats ok' is just bewildering
>to me.
>
So you would rather we did?
>> Many of your statements
>> demand the question: "As opposed to what?"
>
>No not true, ie, I think that the death penalty is not a good thing for
>the simple fact that folk who aren't guilty could be killed (and murder
>is no answer to murder)....but I'm under no obligation to provide an
>alternative etctetc.
>
Yes you are actually, if you're going to live in the real world.
>Ideas rest and fall on their own merits. To judge an idea (or argument)
>on anything else is dangerous.
>
???
>Though having said that in this case I have presented a vague idea of my
>own opinion, that if we wish to conduct wars we must realise that no
>matter how much we water them down other people die (either immediately
>or in the long term through disease, no food etc), people suffer
>(physically or emotionally) and destruction is inevitable. Either we
>admitt this and also that these things are unimportant usually because
>fullfilling our own interests/ agenda is what matters (sometimes they
>are unimportant because our interest overlap with their interets) or we
>do everything in our power to avoid war.
It seems in most cases we do but I'm sure you'll dismiss that out of hand as
well...
Even if we have to stop pushing
>our interst/worldview etc onto those who don't want it.
>
Then others will demand we do...
Dan Clore
>
> http://www.leftwatch.com/articles/2002/000007.html
> http://www.leftwatch.com/articles/2002/000008.html
Quite interesting. The first contains a link to a David
Horowitz article in which Horowitz pleads with readers to
send him money so he can spend (he says) $10,000.00 to print
100,000 copies of one his lie-filled anti-Chomsky rants
gratis on university campus. He even warns that Chomsky fans
being notorious book burners who will likely try to destroy
these libelous pamphlets. Pretty incredible that someone
this insane is taken seriously.
--
Dan Clore
mailto:cl...@columbia-center.org
Now available: _The Unspeakable and Others_
http://www.wildsidepress.com/index2.htm
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1587154838/thedanclorenecro
Lord We˙rdgliffe:
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9879/
Necronomicon Page:
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9879/necpage.htm
News for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
"It's a political statement -- or, rather, an
*anti*-political statement. The symbol for *anarchy*!"
-- Batman, explaining the circle-A graffiti, in
_Detective Comics_ #608
TVsHenry
>From: Dan Clore cl...@columbia-center.org
>Date: 1/13/02 8:46 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <3C423873...@columbia-center.org>
>
>TVsHenry wrote:
>>
>> http://www.leftwatch.com/articles/2002/000007.html
>> http://www.leftwatch.com/articles/2002/000008.html
>
>Quite interesting. The first contains a link to a David
>Horowitz article in which Horowitz pleads with readers to
>send him money so he can spend (he says) $10,000.00 to print
>100,000 copies of one his lie-filled anti-Chomsky rants
>gratis on university campus. He even warns that Chomsky fans
>being notorious book burners who will likely try to destroy
>these libelous pamphlets. Pretty incredible that someone
>this insane is taken seriously.
>
Interesting again how you miss the fact that Chomsky lied, yet you would rather
take him seriously... Any examples of "lie-filled anti-Chomsky rants?"
Matthew Healey
TVsHenry wrote:
SNIP
> >What do you mean by that? I would say the push of western ideology as
> >'world saviour' when it only serves to promote the interets of the
> >instigators should be stopped. My better idea is to let others dictate
> >their own future, embrace their own ideology (if they must) ectetc. For
> >us to insist that our world view is the most important world view and
> >that our interests come above those of others (especially within their
> >own countries) is wrong.
> >
>
> You're painting with a broad brush it seems... if we insisted
I'm sure we all do it to some degree. We all tend to think that others
value the things we ourselves do. Trouble is it isn't true.
> there would be a
> lot more countries out there just like us.
by 'insist' I don't mean forcing every one to do so. I just mean we
operate within a framework where its assumed our goals/agenda is
everyone elses. They are not.
SNPI
> >Hang on a minute....(while I dislike looking for ultimate causes) the
> >fact is that OBL didn't start attacking US interests and THEN the US
> >started intervening in areas that are the bone of contention. It was the
> >other way around. So with my analogy the fact is (from OBLs perspective)
> >the US stepped on his neck first.
> >
>
> Oh give me a break... we didn't "step on his neck," because we didn't realize
> his neck was there to step on in the first place.
Funny that the US sets up military bases in countries the world over and
doesn't realise that 'noses get put out of joint' by the locals. I would
agree that they 'don't care' but then thats why we sep11 happened IMHO.
> We don't go asking every
> person "is this okay? does this offend you?" in everything we do, that would be
> absurd.
Just like it is absurd for the French to ask people who live in the
pacific if they can test their nukes there or that its absurd for the US
to ask the people of Okinawa if they put a military base there. I know
that often (as in Saudi, Japan) the govts. are happy to have US presence
but govts. are whores and liars who's goals are not the goals of the
individuals who they rule over. If the people dislike the situation I
would hope they'd do something about it.
> >> >> with violent action.
> >> >
> >> >violence breeds violence.
> >>
> >> Cliche...
> >
> >whats your point. Its true. Its true within families, its true between
> >neighbours etcetc. Tit for tat is an often used strategy in times of
> >conflict. trouble is its not the 'best' solution for either party (See
> >Game Theory).
> >
>
> Yet it is not true in every situation, it's just a cliche.
I'm not sure why you keep saying that its a cliche, thats not a very
useful thing to keep parroting. The fact is its true. Violence tends to
breed violence and where it doesn't it breeds fear and acquiescience.
SNIP
> >OBL isn't a 'chomskyite', again what is your point? It doesn't matter
> >what I think or what wee box you can neatly place me into cos I'm not
> >flying planes into your buildings. OBL has cited historical events as
> >issues, he has (as have other Islamic groups/states) said that this
> >state of affairs is not tolerable from their perspective. The US has
> >responded to perceived threats to its interests by adding to the problem
> >areas (ie more troops, more financial pressure on host nations etc).
> >
>
> You're simplifying his views and leaving some out to push your point.
Which ones am I leaving out?
> >Now we have a group of people who wish to use heinous methods to show
> >their anger. I don't agree with what they do. But I can see why they do
> >it. Why can't you recognise their perspective? (you don't have to agree
> >with it, but if you do acknowledge it you're part way there to
> >acknowledging where a solution lies, ie not through more violence......)
> >
>
> I recognize it and I recognize that it's wrong.
In the sense that killing anyone is wrong, I agree. In the same sense
that the folk of Hiroshima or Nagasaki or Laos were innocent. The
instigator of acts that kill people like this still never fail to
provide a justification for their acts (I bet you can justify the atomic
attacks at the end of WWII from within your own world view, I also bet
OBL could do the same for his attacks).
> Their first
Our interpretations of the 'causal chain' are at odds here.
I'm of the opinion that if Mr X opens a shop (or whatever: military
base) in my area that I (and others) do not want there and all our
words, writings get us nowhere then I WILL if I feel so empowered take
steps to rectify the matter. I personally wouldn't take life but since
taking life for your cause is nothing unusual (certainally by western
standards) then so be it. OBL did what he thought necessary (as the US
did in return and historically in many other situations).
> and only method was
> violence
Yes but you yourself have been saying that violence could possibly be a
solution to a problem (isn't that how you've been justifying the US
response in Afghan.)
> violence against innocents.
I think this is a matter of perspective. For you they were innocent. For
OBL they were not. I doubt you could conclusively prove that the US has
never targetted innocents in the quest to push its own interests. All
I'm asking is that you apply the same standard to the behaviour of your
own country as you do to those who seek to harm you. Why? Cos then I
reckon you might start to question your own behaviour.
> This is why you cannot say they are "like
> the U.S."
So the US has never directly targeted those who are innocent in various
conflicts etcetc.
> It's ignorance of the facts.
I say OBL was acting in a way the US has been doing for the last 40years
(particulars are different obviously). You say OBL is wrong and the US
is not to blame. I agree OBL is wrong in what he did.....but the US
isn't blameless via its attitude in foreign policy and pushing its
interests the world. Hhaving said that I'd fully agree with what Russil
W wrote in the post 'Chomsky Bashing - If you....' about the US playing
a pivotal role in conflict resolution. This I agree is an excellent use
of international influence (but who the peace maker is to me is
irrelevant it could be US or China or whoever, and anyways who mediates
when the US is in conflict??). The US role in Saudi etc isn't IMHO given
the US administration seems, or did seem, oblivious to Moslem sentiment.
SNIP
> >> SOME others. I've read many of his speeches and there is much that the left
> >> willfully ignores.
> >
> >The man is psychotic and fuelled by hatred and dogma. This is
> >irrelevent.
>
> How?
>
> It is ad hominen.
>
> It's true.
>
> His argument stands and can be verified by
> >appeals to US foriegn policy acts over the past 40years.
> >
>
> It is very relevant, sorry. Perhaps McVeigh's argument "stood," so what? He's
> still psychotic.
Ronald Reagen was a total nutter. So....was everything he did in regard
US policy wrong or bad etcte??
My point, and this is fairly basic logic, that an argument rests or
falls on its premises. Not on the personality of the person putting
forth the argument.
SNIP
> >If keep your ideology and interests within your own borders, I bet you
> >anything you'll see a dramatic decrease in folk wanting to blow parts of
> >your country up.
> >
>
> How do you guarantee that doesn't anger others?
If you keep out of their business and don't intervene then they are the
aggressor. If they are angered then so be it. What can you do?
> There are others who want the
> U.S. in everyone's business?
If someone wants the US meddling in their affairs then cool. If this
implies that a nondemocratic govt. uses US interests to help further its
own at the expense of its people then the US is in part responsible for
whatever transpires. Remember western countries have a history of
refusing to admit to past transgressions.
> How do you guarantee there aren't psychos who
> believe that?
Yeah its complicated, I don't wish to continually simplify issues. I
think the better point to make is that which I made above. If you are
going to intervene in the affairs of others then you must in part be
responsible for the consequences of your actions.
> You're trying to have all the people satisfied and it won't
> happen.
No not really. Isn't that what we're meant to think the US is doing by
acting as 'world police'.
> >SNIP
> >
> >> >Why do we not encourage wars? Cos we generally dont like the idea of
> >> >folk dying (either our folk or others or especially innocents). If you
> >> >remove the 'innocents' the war is easier to initiate (in a dictatorship
> >> >this isn't a problem but in a 'democracy' it is). trouble is innocents
> >> >still die, infrastructure of countries is still destroyed (ie iraq via
> >> >allied bombing) and that can result in less obvious deaths (that the
> >> >media can ignore). So all we seem concerned about is our own conscience
> >> >yet we try to push the line that its 'cos we care'. Baloney.
> >> >
> >>
> >> I don't think your grasping the situation.
> >
> >Perhaps I'm not making my point obvious enough. Or you can perhaps
> >explain what the situation actually is.
> >
>
> You're dismissing the U.S. out of hand without proof, for one.
errr I'm just talking about a kind of war that I find hypocritical. I'm
not dismissing anyone. These modern wars are tailor made for modern
democracies. I have an issue with that and hopefully you can see my
point.
SNIP
> >It might make you think a lot harder before actually embarking on war.
> >You think that a few weeks of selective bombing with at the end some
> >statistician saying 'well we estimate we reduced civilian casualities by
> >75%' makes war ok(What about the infrastructure? What about war driving
> >professional folk elsewhere? etcetc.) , trouble is very few countries
> >can conduct that type of war. Does that mean that only western
> >technological countries can conduct wars?. You would think that sending
> >people to fly planes into buidling is cowardly and not 'good sport', I
> >say the 'bravery of being out of range' via missiles, bombers is the
> >same. People use whatever means they have.
> >
>
> This seems to be something of a straw man.
To be strawman I must first misrepresent a position.
In the above paragraph I said...
"selective bombing with minimal casualisties is used to justify modern
wars where recording of casualities is limited to effects of direct
conflict not including those from destruction of infrastructres over
time"
AND
"I find this type of war limited to technological countries, and if we
accept them as the norm we find we start judging other conflicts by our
standards, thus only we can commit the 'just' war and all others are
unjust"
AND
"I hear reports of 'those cowardly terrorists'. Their actions while
reprehensible I would think are far from cowardly. If they are then so
is sitting in a control room thousands of Km's from your target pushing
buttons".
Which of those three statements is a strawman?
SNIP
> >Anyways....Innocents did die in afghanistan. There is no deying this,
> >saying 'but we tried not to kill them so thats ok' is just bewildering
> >to me.
> >
>
> So you would rather we did?
I would rather you didn't kill anyone else. I know thats an
impossibility and just my opinion. So given that you will (and have) I
would say stop pushing 'its ok though cos we aren't trying to kill
anyone who doesn't deserve it'. I understand this is for the benefit of
those in the US who have a conscience and who's voice counts, but I find
the sentimentality rather fake and transparent.
> >> Many of your statements
> >> demand the question: "As opposed to what?"
> >
> >No not true, ie, I think that the death penalty is not a good thing for
> >the simple fact that folk who aren't guilty could be killed (and murder
> >is no answer to murder)....but I'm under no obligation to provide an
> >alternative etctetc.
> >
>
> Yes you are actually, if you're going to live in the real world.
Now you are confusing what you think with what I think ;)
I don't see why I can't argue against a position for no other reason
than to point the fallaciousness of the position out.
> >Ideas rest and fall on their own merits. To judge an idea (or argument)
> >on anything else is dangerous.
> >
>
> ???
Strange that you are confused by that. I tend to take it for granted
that its how rational folk progress in thought (no offense meant :)), as
opposed to those who judge the world by preconceptions or ideology or
dogma without first examining the problem.
> >Though having said that in this case I have presented a vague idea of my
> >own opinion, that if we wish to conduct wars we must realise that no
> >matter how much we water them down other people die (either immediately
> >or in the long term through disease, no food etc), people suffer
> >(physically or emotionally) and destruction is inevitable. Either we
> >admitt this and also that these things are unimportant usually because
> >fullfilling our own interests/ agenda is what matters (sometimes they
> >are unimportant because our interest overlap with their interets) or we
> >do everything in our power to avoid war.
>
> It seems in most cases we do but I'm sure you'll dismiss that out of hand as
> well...
No I wont. In fact I'll say that US actions in many areas have lead in
part to the current situation of relative world stability. This I think
is a good thing. It is also a consequentionalist approach, that is, the
acts and interventions themselves may have been wrong in but the
consequences proved relatively good.
Trouble with this is that it works for anything, ie, maybes if Hitler
had won WWII and slaughtered all the undesirables, maybe in 1000years
time their (newly enlightened) descendants would look at their now
prosperous and peaceful world and say that what Hitler did was wrong but
the world because of it is a good place (Yo I hope noone takes offence
at any of that it is purely for illustrative purposes)
> Even if we have to stop pushing
> >our interst/worldview etc onto those who don't want it.
> >
> Then others will demand we do...
I agree, some will want you to leave them alone, others will wish you to
intervene. Perhaps intervention should be limitied to logistics etc
(since you insist I offer an alternative ;)) I know its not the most
popular idea in the US but I have no problem in theory with an
organisation like the UN acting as a communal voice. Trouble is in the
modern world the US don't like it cos the objectives/ interests of the
majority of countries is not their own.......
matt
:p
TVsHenry
>Message-id: <3C424839...@nospam.student.canterbury.ac.nz>
>
>
>
>TVsHenry wrote:
>
>SNIP
>
>> >What do you mean by that? I would say the push of western ideology as
>> >'world saviour' when it only serves to promote the interets of the
>> >instigators should be stopped. My better idea is to let others dictate
>> >their own future, embrace their own ideology (if they must) ectetc. For
>> >us to insist that our world view is the most important world view and
>> >that our interests come above those of others (especially within their
>> >own countries) is wrong.
>> >
>>
>> You're painting with a broad brush it seems... if we insisted
>
>I'm sure we all do it to some degree. We all tend to think that others
>value the things we ourselves do. Trouble is it isn't true.
>
>> there would be a
>> lot more countries out there just like us.
>
>by 'insist' I don't mean forcing every one to do so. I just mean we
>operate within a framework where its assumed our goals/agenda is
>everyone elses. They are not.
>
I don't think that's the case.
>SNPI
>
>> >Hang on a minute....(while I dislike looking for ultimate causes) the
>> >fact is that OBL didn't start attacking US interests and THEN the US
>> >started intervening in areas that are the bone of contention. It was the
>> >other way around. So with my analogy the fact is (from OBLs perspective)
>> >the US stepped on his neck first.
>> >
>>
>> Oh give me a break... we didn't "step on his neck," because we didn't
>realize
>> his neck was there to step on in the first place.
>
>Funny that the US sets up military bases in countries the world over and
>doesn't realise that 'noses get put out of joint' by the locals. I would
>agree that they 'don't care' but then thats why we sep11 happened IMHO.
>
Sorry but it's ridiculous to change your policies based on what some yahoo with
murderous tendencies thinks of them.
>> We don't go asking every
>> person "is this okay? does this offend you?" in everything we do, that
>would be
>> absurd.
>
>Just like it is absurd for the French to ask people who live in the
>pacific if they can test their nukes there or that its absurd for the US
>to ask the people of Okinawa if they put a military base there. I know
>that often (as in Saudi, Japan) the govts. are happy to have US presence
>but govts. are whores and liars who's goals are not the goals of the
>individuals who they rule over. If the people dislike the situation I
>would hope they'd do something about it.
>
So you do support OBL? You seem to be contradicting yourself.
>> >> >> with violent action.
>> >> >
>> >> >violence breeds violence.
>> >>
>> >> Cliche...
>> >
>> >whats your point. Its true. Its true within families, its true between
>> >neighbours etcetc. Tit for tat is an often used strategy in times of
>> >conflict. trouble is its not the 'best' solution for either party (See
>> >Game Theory).
>> >
>>
>> Yet it is not true in every situation, it's just a cliche.
>
>I'm not sure why you keep saying that its a cliche, thats not a very
>useful thing to keep parroting. The fact is its true. Violence tends to
>breed violence and where it doesn't it breeds fear and acquiescience.
>
Well you said only violence earlier and now it has changed. One could argue
violence in Japan led to much success for Japan. It's not always true, sorry.
>SNIP
>
>> >OBL isn't a 'chomskyite', again what is your point? It doesn't matter
>> >what I think or what wee box you can neatly place me into cos I'm not
>> >flying planes into your buildings. OBL has cited historical events as
>> >issues, he has (as have other Islamic groups/states) said that this
>> >state of affairs is not tolerable from their perspective. The US has
>> >responded to perceived threats to its interests by adding to the problem
>> >areas (ie more troops, more financial pressure on host nations etc).
>> >
>>
>> You're simplifying his views and leaving some out to push your point.
>
>Which ones am I leaving out?
>
Where to begin... for one he wants a pure Islamic state pretty much everywhere,
he wants the Jews dead, etc.
>
>> >Now we have a group of people who wish to use heinous methods to show
>> >their anger. I don't agree with what they do. But I can see why they do
>> >it. Why can't you recognise their perspective? (you don't have to agree
>> >with it, but if you do acknowledge it you're part way there to
>> >acknowledging where a solution lies, ie not through more violence......)
>> >
>>
>> I recognize it and I recognize that it's wrong.
>
>In the sense that killing anyone is wrong, I agree. In the same sense
>that the folk of Hiroshima or Nagasaki or Laos were innocent. The
>instigator of acts that kill people like this still never fail to
>provide a justification for their acts (I bet you can justify the atomic
>attacks at the end of WWII from within your own world view, I also bet
>OBL could do the same for his attacks).
>
Unless you're willing to argue that WWII is an imagined war in one person's
mind, the comparison isn't valid.
>> Their first
>
>Our interpretations of the 'causal chain' are at odds here.
>
>I'm of the opinion that if Mr X opens a shop (or whatever: military
>base) in my area that I (and others) do not want there and all our
>words, writings get us nowhere then I WILL if I feel so empowered take
>steps to rectify the matter. I personally wouldn't take life but since
>taking life for your cause is nothing unusual (certainally by western
>standards) then so be it. OBL did what he thought necessary (as the US
>did in return and historically in many other situations).
>
Unfortunately he thought wrong.
>> and only method was
>> violence
>
>Yes but you yourself have been saying that violence could possibly be a
>solution to a problem (isn't that how you've been justifying the US
>response in Afghan.)
>
Seeing as that is consistently the language OBL speaks, yes but it is almost
always last resort.
>> violence against innocents.
>
>I think this is a matter of perspective. For you they were innocent. For
>OBL they were not. I doubt you could conclusively prove that the US has
>never targetted innocents in the quest to push its own interests. All
>I'm asking is that you apply the same standard to the behaviour of your
>own country as you do to those who seek to harm you. Why? Cos then I
>reckon you might start to question your own behaviour.
>
But that of course would keep the U.S. government from defending the country as
is prescribed in the Constitution.
>> This is why you cannot say they are "like
>> the U.S."
>
>So the US has never directly targeted those who are innocent in various
>conflicts etcetc.
>
There's that straw man again.
>> It's ignorance of the facts.
>
>I say OBL was acting in a way the US has been doing for the last 40years
>(particulars are different obviously). You say OBL is wrong and the US
>is not to blame. I agree OBL is wrong in what he did.....but the US
>isn't blameless via its attitude in foreign policy and pushing its
>interests the world. Hhaving said that I'd fully agree with what Russil
>W wrote in the post 'Chomsky Bashing - If you....' about the US playing
>a pivotal role in conflict resolution. This I agree is an excellent use
>of international influence (but who the peace maker is to me is
>irrelevant it could be US or China or whoever, and anyways who mediates
>when the US is in conflict??). The US role in Saudi etc isn't IMHO given
>the US administration seems, or did seem, oblivious to Moslem sentiment.
>
Oblivious? Hardly?
>SNIP
>
>> >> SOME others. I've read many of his speeches and there is much that the
>left
>> >> willfully ignores.
>> >
>> >The man is psychotic and fuelled by hatred and dogma. This is
>> >irrelevent.
>>
>> How?
>>
>> It is ad hominen.
>>
>> It's true.
>>
>> His argument stands and can be verified by
>> >appeals to US foriegn policy acts over the past 40years.
>> >
>>
>> It is very relevant, sorry. Perhaps McVeigh's argument "stood," so what?
>He's
>> still psychotic.
>
>Ronald Reagen was a total nutter.
So....was everything he did in regard
>US policy wrong or bad etcte??
>
Absurd comparison on its face.
>My point, and this is fairly basic logic, that an argument rests or
>falls on its premises. Not on the personality of the person putting
>forth the argument.
>
Well no it tends to reject certain concepts of logic as put forth by Aristotle
for one.
>SNIP
>
>> >If keep your ideology and interests within your own borders, I bet you
>> >anything you'll see a dramatic decrease in folk wanting to blow parts of
>> >your country up.
>> >
>>
>> How do you guarantee that doesn't anger others?
>
>If you keep out of their business and don't intervene then they are the
>aggressor. If they are angered then so be it. What can you do?
>
Quite a bit.
>> There are others who want the
>> U.S. in everyone's business?
>
>If someone wants the US meddling in their affairs then cool. If this
>implies that a nondemocratic govt. uses US interests to help further its
>own at the expense of its people then the US is in part responsible for
>whatever transpires. Remember western countries have a history of
>refusing to admit to past transgressions.
>
As opposed to eastern... Right.
>> How do you guarantee there aren't psychos who
>> believe that?
>
>Yeah its complicated, I don't wish to continually simplify issues. I
>think the better point to make is that which I made above. If you are
>going to intervene in the affairs of others then you must in part be
>responsible for the consequences of your actions.
>
>> You're trying to have all the people satisfied and it won't
>> happen.
>
>No not really. Isn't that what we're meant to think the US is doing by
>acting as 'world police'.
>
I disagree with that concept but that's hardly what's going on here.
>> >SNIP
>> >
>> >> >Why do we not encourage wars? Cos we generally dont like the idea of
>> >> >folk dying (either our folk or others or especially innocents). If you
>> >> >remove the 'innocents' the war is easier to initiate (in a dictatorship
>> >> >this isn't a problem but in a 'democracy' it is). trouble is innocents
>> >> >still die, infrastructure of countries is still destroyed (ie iraq via
>> >> >allied bombing) and that can result in less obvious deaths (that the
>> >> >media can ignore). So all we seem concerned about is our own conscience
>> >> >yet we try to push the line that its 'cos we care'. Baloney.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> I don't think your grasping the situation.
>> >
>> >Perhaps I'm not making my point obvious enough. Or you can perhaps
>> >explain what the situation actually is.
>> >
>>
>> You're dismissing the U.S. out of hand without proof, for one.
>
>errr I'm just talking about a kind of war that I find hypocritical. I'm
>not dismissing anyone. These modern wars are tailor made for modern
>democracies. I have an issue with that and hopefully you can see my
>point.
>
War must be "fair' now? There is another cliche you may have heard of...
You're taking three other statements, other than the one I had an issue with.
>> >Anyways....Innocents did die in afghanistan. There is no deying this,
>> >saying 'but we tried not to kill them so thats ok' is just bewildering
>> >to me.
>> >
>>
>> So you would rather we did?
>
>I would rather you didn't kill anyone else. I know thats an
>impossibility and just my opinion. So given that you will (and have) I
>would say stop pushing 'its ok though cos we aren't trying to kill
>anyone who doesn't deserve it'. I understand this is for the benefit of
>those in the US who have a conscience and who's voice counts, but I find
>the sentimentality rather fake and transparent.
>
I don't think anyone is actually saying htat though... So be it if you find it
fake, I do not.
>> >> Many of your statements
>> >> demand the question: "As opposed to what?"
>> >
>> >No not true, ie, I think that the death penalty is not a good thing for
>> >the simple fact that folk who aren't guilty could be killed (and murder
>> >is no answer to murder)....but I'm under no obligation to provide an
>> >alternative etctetc.
>> >
>>
>> Yes you are actually, if you're going to live in the real world.
>
>Now you are confusing what you think with what I think ;)
>
>I don't see why I can't argue against a position for no other reason
>than to point the fallaciousness of the position out.
>
In the real world, you must deal with real issues and not just be cynical about
everything with no real solutions.
>> >Ideas rest and fall on their own merits. To judge an idea (or argument)
>> >on anything else is dangerous.
>> >
>>
>> ???
>
>Strange that you are confused by that. I tend to take it for granted
>that its how rational folk progress in thought (no offense meant :)), as
>opposed to those who judge the world by preconceptions or ideology or
>dogma without first examining the problem.
>
"Judging" ideas is what rational debate is usually about and there is more than
just "merits" to consider, the source for one...
>> >Though having said that in this case I have presented a vague idea of my
>> >own opinion, that if we wish to conduct wars we must realise that no
>> >matter how much we water them down other people die (either immediately
>> >or in the long term through disease, no food etc), people suffer
>> >(physically or emotionally) and destruction is inevitable. Either we
>> >admitt this and also that these things are unimportant usually because
>> >fullfilling our own interests/ agenda is what matters (sometimes they
>> >are unimportant because our interest overlap with their interets) or we
>> >do everything in our power to avoid war.
>>
>> It seems in most cases we do but I'm sure you'll dismiss that out of hand
>as
>> well...
>
>No I wont. In fact I'll say that US actions in many areas have lead in
>part to the current situation of relative world stability. This I think
>is a good thing. It is also a consequentionalist approach, that is, the
>acts and interventions themselves may have been wrong in but the
>consequences proved relatively good.
>
>Trouble with this is that it works for anything, ie, maybes if Hitler
>had won WWII and slaughtered all the undesirables, maybe in 1000years
>time their (newly enlightened) descendants would look at their now
>prosperous and peaceful world and say that what Hitler did was wrong but
>the world because of it is a good place (Yo I hope noone takes offence
>at any of that it is purely for illustrative purposes)
>
Again a pretty shabby comparison...
>> Even if we have to stop pushing
>> >our interst/worldview etc onto those who don't want it.
>> >
>> Then others will demand we do...
>
>I agree, some will want you to leave them alone, others will wish you to
>intervene. Perhaps intervention should be limitied to logistics etc
>(since you insist I offer an alternative ;)) I know its not the most
>popular idea in the US but I have no problem in theory with an
>organisation like the UN acting as a communal voice. Trouble is in the
>modern world the US don't like it cos the objectives/ interests of the
>majority of countries is not their own.......
>
Strange though many of those countries aren't in a position to talk about how
much better they are seeing how they are dictatorships.
>matt
>
>:p
Dan Clore
> >Subject: Re: Leftwatch
> >From: Dan Clore cl...@columbia-center.org
> >Date: 1/13/02 8:46 PM Eastern Standard Time
> >Message-id: <3C423873...@columbia-center.org>
> >
> >TVsHenry wrote:
> >>
> >> http://www.leftwatch.com/articles/2002/000007.html
> >> http://www.leftwatch.com/articles/2002/000008.html
> >
> >Quite interesting. The first contains a link to a David
> >Horowitz article in which Horowitz pleads with readers to
> >send him money so he can spend (he says) $10,000.00 to print
> >100,000 copies of one his lie-filled anti-Chomsky rants
> >gratis on university campus. He even warns that Chomsky fans
> >being notorious book burners who will likely try to destroy
> >these libelous pamphlets. Pretty incredible that someone
> >this insane is taken seriously.
> >
>
> Interesting again how you miss the fact that Chomsky lied,
Since he didn't.
> yet you would rather
> take him seriously... Any examples of "lie-filled anti-Chomsky rants?"
Anything about Chomsky by David Horowitz.
TVsHenry
>Message-id: <3C4318E0...@columbia-center.org>
>
>TVsHenry wrote:
>> >Subject: Re: Leftwatch
>> >From: Dan Clore cl...@columbia-center.org
>> >Date: 1/13/02 8:46 PM Eastern Standard Time
>> >Message-id: <3C423873...@columbia-center.org>
>> >
>> >TVsHenry wrote:
>> >>
>> >> http://www.leftwatch.com/articles/2002/000007.html
>> >> http://www.leftwatch.com/articles/2002/000008.html
>> >
>> >Quite interesting. The first contains a link to a David
>> >Horowitz article in which Horowitz pleads with readers to
>> >send him money so he can spend (he says) $10,000.00 to print
>> >100,000 copies of one his lie-filled anti-Chomsky rants
>> >gratis on university campus. He even warns that Chomsky fans
>> >being notorious book burners who will likely try to destroy
>> >these libelous pamphlets. Pretty incredible that someone
>> >this insane is taken seriously.
>> >
>>
>> Interesting again how you miss the fact that Chomsky lied,
>
>Since he didn't.
>
Yes he did, Horowitz has the documentation and any fool can fact check Chomsky
by reading one of Chomsky's own books... Chomsky made himself a liar, that's
how pathetic it is.
>> yet you would rather
>> take him seriously... Any examples of "lie-filled anti-Chomsky rants?"
>
>Anything about Chomsky by David Horowitz.
So you have no specific examples, you just think it's true because you say it.
Matthew Healey
TVsHenry wrote:
>
> >Subject: Re: Leftwatch
> >From: Matthew Healey md...@nospam.student.canterbury.ac.nz
> >Date: 1/13/02 9:53 PM Eastern Standard Time
> >Message-id: <3C424839...@nospam.student.canterbury.ac.nz>
> >by 'insist' I don't mean forcing every one to do so. I just mean we
> >operate within a framework where its assumed our goals/agenda is
> >everyone elses. They are not.
> >
>
> I don't think that's the case.
Ohhhh....I suppose though this isn't just a US thing. It is 'natural'
for countries/ organisations etctc (if they wish to be affective at
least) to work within their their ideological framework and push for
outcomes that work toward THEIR goal. Fair Enough. With the US this is
obvious from where I sit since (I dislike ideology dictating thought for
astart) a) US interest are ideologically driven b) US interests are just
in the interests of the US not the country I live nor the world in
general c) these interest by their very nature are creeping into my own
country/culture via the power of the dollar d)I don't consider the US as
a model of statehood to aspire to (and I don't have to offer an
alternative :p)
I have feeling you do realise this, but (IMHO) you've set yourself up
(via ideology presumably) to have canned responses to particular issues.
Or perhaps you just need to be outside the US to see how much it has
influenced the likes of NZ/AUS.
Of course I could also add a list of all the wonderful things the US has
done but then there is no need since I'm not being anti-US just trying
to justify why I think "countries operate within a framework where its
assumed our goals/agenda is everyone elses"
SNIP
> >> Oh give me a break... we didn't "step on his neck," because we didn't
> >realize
> >> his neck was there to step on in the first place.
> >
> >Funny that the US sets up military bases in countries the world over and
> >doesn't realise that 'noses get put out of joint' by the locals. I would
> >agree that they 'don't care' but then thats why we sep11 happened IMHO.
> >
>
> Sorry but it's ridiculous to change your policies based on what some yahoo with
> murderous tendencies thinks of them.
This is getting very 'chicken and the egg'. You think OBL is a murder
who shat on the US for no good reason. I think the reasons are fairly
obvious and have been documented for a number of years and I also think
OBL is a murder who shat on the US but there are reasons. Reasons that
have at their root western arrogance which makes us oblivious to the
concerns of those who aren't of our mindset.
> >> We don't go asking every
> >> person "is this okay? does this offend you?" in everything we do, that
> >would be
> >> absurd.
> >
> >Just like it is absurd for the French to ask people who live in the
> >pacific if they can test their nukes there or that its absurd for the US
> >to ask the people of Okinawa if they put a military base there. I know
> >that often (as in Saudi, Japan) the govts. are happy to have US presence
> >but govts. are whores and liars who's goals are not the goals of the
> >individuals who they rule over. If the people dislike the situation I
> >would hope they'd do something about it.
> >
>
> So you do support OBL? You seem to be contradicting yourself.
I support the right of any individual to set fire to anything that
squashes their interests (especially when outside entities interfere in
your own land etc). I dilike the idea of killing for that goal and I
dislike the idea of letting ideology dictate what those goals are. But a
quick look through times show that our history is full of just that.
Trouble is we only remember or revere the victors (usually us) and we
consider those who lost as some kind of demon come to destroy the world.
I certainally dont support OBL and the taking of so many lives ectetc.
But I feel that in these days countries are more focused on
globalisation, modernisation, with policy choices dicated by profit etc.
The only recourse for the individual is to destroy those things before
they totally destroy the place of the individual in the world.
SNIP
> >I'm not sure why you keep saying that its a cliche, thats not a very
> >useful thing to keep parroting. The fact is its true. Violence tends to
> >breed violence and where it doesn't it breeds fear and acquiescience.
> >
>
> Well you said only violence earlier and now it has changed.
Well I using violence as best outcome example. You said I was being
narrow so I though about it some more and tried to present something
that covered all options. Ok...one person is violent toward another (or
country) what are the possible outcomes a)more violence b) the aggrieved
becomes subservient/acquiescent c)they become fearful and submissive d)
they become violent and fearful etctec (now I'm just recombining those
three points.) What you initially tried to say is something like this
(correct me if I'm wrong) "the US strikes back with violence and they
all live happily ever after"
> One could argue
> violence in Japan led to much success for Japan.
So the atomic attacks at the end of WWI led to much success (ie
modernisation) in Japan. Kinda like how violence in NY (via OBL) could
lead to much success in the USA (ie national cohesion, increased
security ectec). I agree. As I said also from a consequentialist
perspective the most horrific acts can have great future outcomes.
> It's not always true, sorry.
In the case of Japan they became very subservient/acquiesent to the West
after WWII. So that appears to be in line with my comment. No?
SNIP
> >> You're simplifying his views and leaving some out to push your point.
> >
> >Which ones am I leaving out?
> >
>
> Where to begin... for one he wants a pure Islamic state pretty much everywhere,
> he wants the Jews dead, etc.
You say "why should we take notice of someone who will murder for their
agenda". I say they are exactly the type of people you should take
notice of, unless of course you like having planes flown into your
buildings. Your solution "kill em all if they try". I say then that
makes you as bad as them. Justification is easy to find, there is no
objective good /evil (assuming you aren't blinded by religious dogma) or
no right or wrong. All we have is our own perspective usually driven by
our own goals/ideology. From what I can see in politics and
international affairs the only thing that can be used as a good/bad yard
stick is to examine who won various conflicts or wrote the history
books, cos these folk are invariable the good guys ie usually us.
What OBL wants is not what you want nor is it what I want. So what...the
real issue is how does he goes about voicing his concern. I was
(apparently mistaken) when I thought he also tried other means except
violence and these proved futile. I can easily understand why he should
be so compelled to do what he did next and I can see why(i aint saying
its right/its wrong but it can explained). trouble is the US seems to
have learnt little by his actions they seem bent on a quest to fix the
symptoms (kill terrorists and those who look like a threat) and not the
cause (failure of foriegn policy makers to take responsibility for their
actions: by this I dont just mean say after the event "oops I think we
contributed to that")
A good example of this (while not a policy maker but a solider) is the
US female solider who got all bitchy about being made to wear a burkha
in Saudi. Either she learns to accept that the world is not all how she
wants it to be, thinks it is, or is taught it is or she stays in the
trailer backhome in Fife, Alabama and never experiences the richness and
diversity that the world has to offer.
SNIP
> >In the sense that killing anyone is wrong, I agree. In the same sense
> >that the folk of Hiroshima or Nagasaki or Laos were innocent. The
> >instigator of acts that kill people like this still never fail to
> >provide a justification for their acts (I bet you can justify the atomic
> >attacks at the end of WWII from within your own world view, I also bet
> >OBL could do the same for his attacks).
> >
>
> Unless you're willing to argue that WWII is an imagined war in one person's
> mind, the comparison isn't valid.
There you go again dehumanising the adversary. It makes him easier to
hate doesn't it when you believe he's not rational and has
hallucinations and delusions and is the son of Satan.
SNIP
> >I'm of the opinion that if Mr X opens a shop (or whatever: military
> >base) in my area that I (and others) do not want there and all our
> >words, writings get us nowhere then I WILL if I feel so empowered take
> >steps to rectify the matter. I personally wouldn't take life but since
> >taking life for your cause is nothing unusual (certainally by western
> >standards) then so be it. OBL did what he thought necessary (as the US
> >did in return and historically in many other situations).
> >
>
> Unfortunately he thought wrong.
Since it is your country who has written the history books on this one I
have no doubt he's wrong.
> >> and only method was
> >> violence
> >
> >Yes but you yourself have been saying that violence could possibly be a
> >solution to a problem (isn't that how you've been justifying the US
> >response in Afghan.)
> >
>
> Seeing as that is consistently the language OBL speaks, yes but it is almost
> always last resort.
Trouble is when you let ideology dictate your thoughts, while violence
may be the last resort, the first few options ie diplomacy or discussion
go like this "this is our agenda we want x, if you dont we have no
option but to destroy you. We'll only do it as a last resort though".
That method of dialectic that has been used by nations historically is
laughable.
> >> This is why you cannot say they are "like
> >> the U.S."
> >
> >So the US has never directly targeted those who are innocent in various
> >conflicts etcetc.
> >
>
> There's that straw man again.
I think you are mixing up your 'fallacies'. To be a strawman I must
misrepresent a position. The one line claim I've made above is hardly
that. It might be false but its not a strawman.
I dont think the US is evil or bad etc but you seem to think that it is
the only country on the face of the earth that hasn't ever "directly
targeted those who are innocent in various conflicts etcetc". Fair
enough I suppose, those damn commie Laos women and children certainally
weren't innocent.
SNIP
> The US role in Saudi etc isn't IMHO given
> >the US administration seems, or did seem, oblivious to Moslem sentiment.
> >
>
> Oblivious?
Apologies, they are aware of it
> Hardly?
They just don't give a shit.
SNIP
> >Ronald Reagen was a total nutter.
> So....was everything he did in regard
> >US policy wrong or bad etcte??
> >
>
> Absurd comparison on its face.
Not at all. It conforms to rules of logic. Any example of that nature
where 'an argument or claim is judged not on its internal merit (ie its
premises) but on external factors' is valid but the ad hom claim (as in
this case) isn't.
> >My point, and this is fairly basic logic, that an argument rests or
> >falls on its premises. Not on the personality of the person putting
> >forth the argument.
> >
>
> Well no it tends to reject certain concepts of logic as put forth by Aristotle
> for one.
heheh. Now I'm on firmer ground with philosophy as opposed to all this
politics etc. I'm not sure how this invalidates my claim of sticking to
syllogism as a form of sound reasoning as opposed to the introduction of
unrelated ad hom to prove an argument <- this sounds like sophistry
which is precisely what socrates/plato/aristotle we reacting to (in a
sense).
Standford is a good place for philosophy reference stuff on the net.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-logic/
> >SNIP
> >If someone wants the US meddling in their affairs then cool. If this
> >implies that a nondemocratic govt. uses US interests to help further its
> >own at the expense of its people then the US is in part responsible for
> >whatever transpires. Remember western countries have a history of
> >refusing to admit to past transgressions.
> >
>
> As opposed to eastern... Right.
No I'm not trying to suggest that the 'east' is blameless. But we write
the history books. We say whats good/ bad. And we even claim to be
responsible mature nations. If so then why then can't the Aus govt. even
apologise for the wrongs the Aboriginies have suffered at their hands
for the last few hundred years.etcetc (most western countries have
similar stories, US included). The fact is we got where we are today by
hacking and slashing our way through the world. Don't get me wrong I'm
not trying to be all sensitive and newage here, but its just another
example of western hypocrisy. Our ancestors were barbarians and
murderers bent on pushing their own agenda on the world for selfgain.
Fair enough I say. Yet we portray ourselves now as enlightened, mature
and careing. Sounds like more propoganda to me.
SNIP
> >errr I'm just talking about a kind of war that I find hypocritical. I'm
> >not dismissing anyone. These modern wars are tailor made for modern
> >democracies. I have an issue with that and hopefully you can see my
> >point.
> >
>
> War must be "fair' now?
I'm arguing exactly the opposite. War is never 'fair'. It is death,
disease, suffering etc. What it is not is 'bombcam' replays on CNN
showing just how safe we can feel smiting our enemies while sitting at
home on the couch all nice and safe (while a few 'towelheads' die but
hey we didn't mean to kill them so thats ok)
> There is another cliche you may have heard of...
errr 'war is hell'? dunno, I'm not good with the whole mind reading
stuff.
SNIP
> >I would rather you didn't kill anyone else. I know thats an
> >impossibility and just my opinion. So given that you will (and have) I
> >would say stop pushing 'its ok though cos we aren't trying to kill
> >anyone who doesn't deserve it'. I understand this is for the benefit of
> >those in the US who have a conscience and who's voice counts, but I find
> >the sentimentality rather fake and transparent.
> >
>
> I don't think anyone is actually saying htat though... So be it if you find it
> fake, I do not.
From where you sit I'd wouldn't expect you to think so.
SNIP
> >I don't see why I can't argue against a position for no other reason
> >than to point the fallaciousness of the position out.
> >
>
> In the real world, you must deal with real issues and not just be cynical about
> everything with no real solutions.
I'm not sure of your source for this. This is no law dictating how and
what I think.
Again you are confusing what you think is correct with what I should
think.
SNIP
> >Strange that you are confused by that. I tend to take it for granted
> >that its how rational folk progress in thought (no offense meant :)), as
> >opposed to those who judge the world by preconceptions or ideology or
> >dogma without first examining the problem.
> >
>
> "Judging" ideas is what rational debate is usually about and there is more than
> just "merits" to consider, the source for one...
Yes I agree. Funny you say that though because you appear to have this
habit of posting links to articles that are 95% of the time agenda
ridden, you seem more disposed to pushing your own personal beliefs
(ideology) then on a presentation of fact. A true source should be
factual with little or no interpretation.
SNIP
> >Trouble with this is that it works for anything, ie, maybes if Hitler
> >had won WWII and slaughtered all the undesirables, maybe in 1000years
> >time their (newly enlightened) descendants would look at their now
> >prosperous and peaceful world and say that what Hitler did was wrong but
> >the world because of it is a good place (Yo I hope noone takes offence
> >at any of that it is purely for illustrative purposes)
> >
>
> Again a pretty shabby comparison...
I like analogies (sometime they are pretty cruddy admittedly but fun all
the same). Though the above ain't too bad. Its just an example to show
how consequentalist thinking can make good from bad.
SNIP
> >I agree, some will want you to leave them alone, others will wish you to
> >intervene. Perhaps intervention should be limitied to logistics etc
> >(since you insist I offer an alternative ;)) I know its not the most
> >popular idea in the US but I have no problem in theory with an
> >organisation like the UN acting as a communal voice. Trouble is in the
> >modern world the US don't like it cos the objectives/ interests of the
> >majority of countries is not their own.......
> >
>
> Strange though many of those countries aren't in a position to talk about how
> much better they are seeing how they are dictatorships.
It not about who's has a better political system etcetc. It about
letting nations dictate their own destiny. Instead of the US deciding
what is best for all. You may say but those living under dictatorship
are just slaves well I'd say its better to be the salve to another then
a slave to yourself (ie us fools in the west who think we have freedom).
Thats the big lie.
matt
:p
TVsHenry
>Message-id: <3C43532B...@nospam.student.canterbury.ac.nz>
I'm sorry but your statements aren't making a whole lot of sense. "There's no
need" to say good things about the U.S. because you aren't anti-U.S.?
>SNIP
>
>> >> Oh give me a break... we didn't "step on his neck," because we didn't
>> >realize
>> >> his neck was there to step on in the first place.
>> >
>> >Funny that the US sets up military bases in countries the world over and
>> >doesn't realise that 'noses get put out of joint' by the locals. I would
>> >agree that they 'don't care' but then thats why we sep11 happened IMHO.
>> >
>>
>> Sorry but it's ridiculous to change your policies based on what some yahoo
>with
>> murderous tendencies thinks of them.
>
>This is getting very 'chicken and the egg'. You think OBL is a murder
>who shat on the US for no good reason.
The means by which he "shat" are unjustified for any reason.
I think the reasons are fairly
>obvious and have been documented for a number of years and I also think
>OBL is a murder who shat on the US but there are reasons. Reasons that
>have at their root western arrogance which makes us oblivious to the
>concerns of those who aren't of our mindset.
>
Unfortunately you tend to simplify when there is much more here at work than
"western arrogance." In fact to write it off as that and that alone is very
much anti-U.S. by definition.
>> >> We don't go asking every
>> >> person "is this okay? does this offend you?" in everything we do, that
>> >would be
>> >> absurd.
>> >
>> >Just like it is absurd for the French to ask people who live in the
>> >pacific if they can test their nukes there or that its absurd for the US
>> >to ask the people of Okinawa if they put a military base there. I know
>> >that often (as in Saudi, Japan) the govts. are happy to have US presence
>> >but govts. are whores and liars who's goals are not the goals of the
>> >individuals who they rule over. If the people dislike the situation I
>> >would hope they'd do something about it.
>> >
>>
>> So you do support OBL? You seem to be contradicting yourself.
>
>I support the right of any individual to set fire to anything that
>squashes their interests (especially when outside entities interfere in
>your own land etc). I dilike the idea of killing for that goal and I
>dislike the idea of letting ideology dictate what those goals are. But a
>quick look through times show that our history is full of just that.
>Trouble is we only remember or revere the victors (usually us) and we
>consider those who lost as some kind of demon come to destroy the world.
>
>I certainally dont support OBL and the taking of so many lives ectetc.
>But I feel that in these days countries are more focused on
>globalisation, modernisation, with policy choices dicated by profit etc.
>The only recourse for the individual is to destroy those things before
>they totally destroy the place of the individual in the world.
>
You're continuing to make contradictory statements it seems.
>SNIP
>
>> >I'm not sure why you keep saying that its a cliche, thats not a very
>> >useful thing to keep parroting. The fact is its true. Violence tends to
>> >breed violence and where it doesn't it breeds fear and acquiescience.
>> >
>>
>> Well you said only violence earlier and now it has changed.
>
>Well I using violence as best outcome example. You said I was being
>narrow so I though about it some more and tried to present something
>that covered all options. Ok...one person is violent toward another (or
>country) what are the possible outcomes a)more violence b) the aggrieved
>becomes subservient/acquiescent c)they become fearful and submissive d)
>they become violent and fearful etctec (now I'm just recombining those
>three points.) What you initially tried to say is something like this
>(correct me if I'm wrong) "the US strikes back with violence and they
>all live happily ever after"
>
Absolutely wrong.
>> One could argue
>> violence in Japan led to much success for Japan.
>
>So the atomic attacks at the end of WWI led to much success (ie
>modernisation) in Japan. Kinda like how violence in NY (via OBL) could
>lead to much success in the USA (ie national cohesion, increased
>security ectec). I agree. As I said also from a consequentialist
>perspective the most horrific acts can have great future outcomes.
>
>> It's not always true, sorry.
>
>In the case of Japan they became very subservient/acquiesent to the West
>after WWII. So that appears to be in line with my comment. No?
>
"Subservient?" To reply with "hardly" is an understatement.
I don't know where to begin with this obvious straw man. I did not say OBL
should be ignored, in fact I said just the opposite on one occasion. I am of
two minds on the subject of the woman regarding the "burqa" (though that's not
what she is wearing).
>SNIP
>
>> >In the sense that killing anyone is wrong, I agree. In the same sense
>> >that the folk of Hiroshima or Nagasaki or Laos were innocent. The
>> >instigator of acts that kill people like this still never fail to
>> >provide a justification for their acts (I bet you can justify the atomic
>> >attacks at the end of WWII from within your own world view, I also bet
>> >OBL could do the same for his attacks).
>> >
>>
>> Unless you're willing to argue that WWII is an imagined war in one person's
>> mind, the comparison isn't valid.
>
>There you go again dehumanising the adversary. It makes him easier to
>hate doesn't it when you believe he's not rational and has
>hallucinations and delusions and is the son of Satan.
>
I don't think you're understanding my argument here at all either. He could not
truly have been going to war with us because only one side believed it was a
war. It's not "dehumanization," it's cold hard fact.
>SNIP
>
>> >I'm of the opinion that if Mr X opens a shop (or whatever: military
>> >base) in my area that I (and others) do not want there and all our
>> >words, writings get us nowhere then I WILL if I feel so empowered take
>> >steps to rectify the matter. I personally wouldn't take life but since
>> >taking life for your cause is nothing unusual (certainally by western
>> >standards) then so be it. OBL did what he thought necessary (as the US
>> >did in return and historically in many other situations).
>> >
>>
>> Unfortunately he thought wrong.
>
>Since it is your country who has written the history books on this one I
>have no doubt he's wrong.
>
Tell me again how you are not "anti-U.S."...
>> >> and only method was
>> >> violence
>> >
>> >Yes but you yourself have been saying that violence could possibly be a
>> >solution to a problem (isn't that how you've been justifying the US
>> >response in Afghan.)
>> >
>>
>> Seeing as that is consistently the language OBL speaks, yes but it is
>almost
>> always last resort.
>
>Trouble is when you let ideology dictate your thoughts, while violence
>may be the last resort, the first few options ie diplomacy or discussion
>go like this "this is our agenda we want x, if you dont we have no
>option but to destroy you. We'll only do it as a last resort though".
>
>That method of dialectic that has been used by nations historically is
>laughable.
>
But effective. So not all that laughable.
>
>> >> This is why you cannot say they are "like
>> >> the U.S."
>> >
>> >So the US has never directly targeted those who are innocent in various
>> >conflicts etcetc.
>> >
>>
>> There's that straw man again.
>
>I think you are mixing up your 'fallacies'. To be a strawman I must
>misrepresent a position. The one line claim I've made above is hardly
>that. It might be false but its not a strawman.
>
Okay, it's false. I never made that position, so it's a misrepresentation too.
>I dont think the US is evil or bad etc but you seem to think that it is
>the only country on the face of the earth that hasn't ever "directly
>targeted those who are innocent in various conflicts etcetc".
Nope.
Fair
>enough I suppose, those damn commie Laos women and children certainally
>weren't innocent.
>
>
>SNIP
>
>> The US role in Saudi etc isn't IMHO given
>> >the US administration seems, or did seem, oblivious to Moslem sentiment.
>> >
>>
>> Oblivious?
>
>Apologies, they are aware of it
>
>> Hardly?
>
>They just don't give a shit.
>
Now I know that isn't true.
>SNIP
>
>> >Ronald Reagen was a total nutter.
>> So....was everything he did in regard
>> >US policy wrong or bad etcte??
>> >
>>
>> Absurd comparison on its face.
>
>Not at all. It conforms to rules of logic. Any example of that nature
>where 'an argument or claim is judged not on its internal merit (ie its
>premises) but on external factors' is valid but the ad hom claim (as in
>this case) isn't.
>
"Nutter" is hardly a description that can be described as logical in any way.
However the differences between now and then are plain as day and cannot be
easily dismissed.
>SNIP
>
>> >errr I'm just talking about a kind of war that I find hypocritical. I'm
>> >not dismissing anyone. These modern wars are tailor made for modern
>> >democracies. I have an issue with that and hopefully you can see my
>> >point.
>> >
>>
>> War must be "fair' now?
>
>I'm arguing exactly the opposite. War is never 'fair'. It is death,
>disease, suffering etc. What it is not is 'bombcam' replays on CNN
>showing just how safe we can feel smiting our enemies while sitting at
>home on the couch all nice and safe (while a few 'towelheads' die but
>hey we didn't mean to kill them so thats ok)
>
First, most of those shots are of buildings being blown up, no one is actually
being killed. When your enemies who vow to kill you are killed (Taliban, al
Qaeda), that's exactly the point, if they do not seriously surrender. And yes,
like it or not, intent has a lot to do with it. No one is cheering over the
deaths of any innocents (though I did see some in the Middle East do just
that).
>> There is another cliche you may have heard of...
>
>errr 'war is hell'? dunno, I'm not good with the whole mind reading
>stuff.
>
"All's fair..."
>SNIP
>
>> >I would rather you didn't kill anyone else. I know thats an
>> >impossibility and just my opinion. So given that you will (and have) I
>> >would say stop pushing 'its ok though cos we aren't trying to kill
>> >anyone who doesn't deserve it'. I understand this is for the benefit of
>> >those in the US who have a conscience and who's voice counts, but I find
>> >the sentimentality rather fake and transparent.
>> >
>>
>> I don't think anyone is actually saying htat though... So be it if you find
>it
>> fake, I do not.
>
>From where you sit I'd wouldn't expect you to think so.
>
Well now you're just condescending.
>SNIP
>
>> >I don't see why I can't argue against a position for no other reason
>> >than to point the fallaciousness of the position out.
>> >
>>
>> In the real world, you must deal with real issues and not just be cynical
>about
>> everything with no real solutions.
>
>I'm not sure of your source for this. This is no law dictating how and
>what I think.
>
Who said law? Do you want to debate real world issues, yes or no? If so, deal
in the real world or your claims won't hold water.
>Again you are confusing what you think is correct with what I should
>think.
>
>SNIP
>
>> >Strange that you are confused by that. I tend to take it for granted
>> >that its how rational folk progress in thought (no offense meant :)), as
>> >opposed to those who judge the world by preconceptions or ideology or
>> >dogma without first examining the problem.
>> >
>>
>> "Judging" ideas is what rational debate is usually about and there is more
>than
>> just "merits" to consider, the source for one...
>
>Yes I agree. Funny you say that though because you appear to have this
>habit of posting links to articles that are 95% of the time agenda
>ridden,
Not really I have actually been posting quite a bit sites that have the
opposite agenda or no agenda at all.
you seem more disposed to pushing your own personal beliefs
>(ideology) then on a presentation of fact.
As opposed to you? Feel free to point out which parts are wrong (fact-wise, not
opinion-wise) because I have pointed out where Chomsky, for example, got some
of his wrong.
A true source should be
>factual with little or no interpretation.
>
"No True Scotsman" Fallacy. In fact you seem to be arguing against your
previous statement on "merits."
>SNIP
>
>> >Trouble with this is that it works for anything, ie, maybes if Hitler
>> >had won WWII and slaughtered all the undesirables, maybe in 1000years
>> >time their (newly enlightened) descendants would look at their now
>> >prosperous and peaceful world and say that what Hitler did was wrong but
>> >the world because of it is a good place (Yo I hope noone takes offence
>> >at any of that it is purely for illustrative purposes)
>> >
>>
>> Again a pretty shabby comparison...
>
>I like analogies (sometime they are pretty cruddy admittedly but fun all
>the same). Though the above ain't too bad. Its just an example to show
>how consequentalist thinking can make good from bad.
>
Not really...
>SNIP
>
>> >I agree, some will want you to leave them alone, others will wish you to
>> >intervene. Perhaps intervention should be limitied to logistics etc
>> >(since you insist I offer an alternative ;)) I know its not the most
>> >popular idea in the US but I have no problem in theory with an
>> >organisation like the UN acting as a communal voice. Trouble is in the
>> >modern world the US don't like it cos the objectives/ interests of the
>> >majority of countries is not their own.......
>> >
>>
>> Strange though many of those countries aren't in a position to talk about
>how
>> much better they are seeing how they are dictatorships.
>
>It not about who's has a better political system etcetc. It about
>letting nations dictate their own destiny. Instead of the US deciding
>what is best for all. You may say but those living under dictatorship
>are just slaves well I'd say its better to be the salve to another then
>a slave to yourself (ie us fools in the west who think we have freedom).
>Thats the big lie.
>
>matt
>
>:p
>
But they have no freedom to decide for themselves, that's why a dictatorship...
I don't even know what you're getting at with the "slave to yourself" stuff.
Nathan Folkert
> "Nathan Folkert" <nfol...@cs.stanford.edu> wrote in message
> news:4b923300.02011...@posting.google.com...
[snip]
> > What other options do you suggest? What should we have tried that we
> > had not been trying for three years before then in order to eliminate
> > the threat
>
> How about removing all military bases from Muslim lands etc. Censure Isreal
> for it expansionalist policy via either withdrawing financial support or
> supporting resolution against it in the UN etcetc (or even try treating it
> like any other rogue state)
> (note: these are not my own personal views (except the bracketed one. Though
> I would like to see all 'external nation' military bases removed from the
> pacific) but then again I'm not flying planes into your buildings).
I am fully aware that these are not your own personal views. They
are, in fact, two of the central planks of the al Qaeda fatwa for a
"Jihad Against Crusaders and Jews", which openly called for the murder
of American and Israeli civilians. I suppose that you are correct in
saying that our "options" included rewarding al Qaeda for the murder
of three thousand innocents by fulfilling a few of their objectives,
though I don't expect the moral basis of this argument to sway anyone
sane, at least since Chamberlain left office. As it stands, there are
American policies that need to be reflected upon and possibly
reversed, but regarding this as a proper response to a heinous crime
is moral idiocy. I don't like the drug laws, either, and they have
undoubtedly ruined a number of lives here in America, but the proper
response to a drug-related murder is the capture and prosecution of
the murderer, not the repeal of drug laws (which should, however, be
reflected upon and revised or revoked, entirely independently of any
possibly related crime).
> >that al Qaeda posed to international peace and security?
>
> whats done is done.
No, the string of attacks had every appearance that it would continue
as it had been continuing since some time in the past. Even if, as
you suggest above, we withdrew military forces from the Middle East
and financial support from Israel, al Qaeda would remain a threat to
international peace and security for as long as their main goals were
not fulfilled (and probably after that as well), which included the
recapture of the al-Aqsa mosque from Israel amongst other things, and,
presumably, Afghanistan would continue to harbor and support these and
other international terrorists who targeted not only America but
Israel and India, among other states and peoples.
> > How long should we wait for non-violent means to achieve our goals?
> > Three years isn't long enough, apparently. Five years? Ten years?
> > How many terrorist attacks should we have to endure? Three thousand
> > dead isn't enough, obviously. Seven thousand or twenty thousand must
> > not be, either, because we weren't hearing calls for military
> > intervention by the left
>
> By the 'left', do you mean those people on the lefthand side of the USA. I
> didn't realise those in LA were all that different than those in NY ;)
There is no "lefthand side" of the USA, unless you are one of those
who agree with peculiar Eurocentric ideas about the proper orientation
of maps. You are correct in snidely pointing out that this is
incorrect usage, however. I had thought of that when I was writing
it, but decided to use it anyway, as I knew the meaning would get
across (which, of course, it did). The original alternative, "the
antiwar crowd", would have been a little contradictory: "we weren't
hearing calls for military intervention by the antiwar crowd".
> >when these were figures being bandied about
> > by the media. What do you need? Fifty thousand dead? An atom bomb
> > in downtown New York (or Christchurch, would that persuade you)?
>
> That speech could have been given by OBL himself 20 years ago.
It could likewise have been given by Roosevelt, or Hitler, or Stalin,
or Churchill at various times during their administrations. Calls for
self-defense are not of themselves indicative of evil intent nor are
they indicative of righteousness. All states have a right to
self-defense as enshrined in the United Nations Charter, and all
people have a right to self-defense, as a commonly understood human
right. The moral question (to me, anyway, though not to Christian
pacifists, for example) is not whether one has a right to
self-defense, but rather what justifiably represents a threat for
which the principle of self-defense can apply, and what non-violent
measures must one reasonably take before violent means are justified.
Most critics here assert, without knowing or caring to know the
background, that we should use negotiations and diplomacy, ignorant of
the fact that we have been using negotiations and diplomacy for years,
without effect. Some rather less common critics assert, as you do
above, that we should have tried appeasement and surrender, an
approach which, if applied in other situations, one easily sees to be
morally vacant.
[snip]
> > > The reconstruction of the afghan govt and rebuilding of the
> > > infrastructure I would think is only fair. Though its hardly democratic
> > > (thats important isn't it ;)) to install a leader who has ties with the
> > > old crocked monarchy that the afghan people long ago diposed.
> >
> > The monarchy, which at least attempted to make reforms toward
> > constitutional democracy, was deposed by Daoud, a strongman dictator,
> > not by the "Afghan people".
>
> My apologies I never claimed to be omniscient.
No, you claimed that the Afghan people deposed the monarchy in
Afghanistan, which is nonsense.
[snip]
- Nate
Matthew Healey
> >TVsHenry wrote:
> >>
> >> >Subject: Re: Leftwatch
> >> >From: Matthew Healey md...@nospam.student.canterbury.ac.nz
> >> >Date: 1/13/02 9:53 PM Eastern Standard Time
> >> >Message-id: <3C424839...@nospam.student.canterbury.ac.nz>
SNIP
> >Of course I could also add a list of all the wonderful things the US has
> >done but then there is no need since I'm not being anti-US just trying
> >to justify why I think "countries operate within a framework where its
> >assumed our goals/agenda is everyone elses"
> >
>
> I'm sorry but your statements aren't making a whole lot of sense.
apologies for lack of clarity.
> "There's no
> need" to say good things about the U.S. because you aren't anti-U.S.?
meaning that I don't just wish to be seen as presenting onesided
arguments which has the US as it target since one might (particularly a
lurker) get the impressions I am antiUS. This is not my intention nor my
belief.
> >SNIP
> >
> >> >> Oh give me a break... we didn't "step on his neck," because we didn't
> >> >realize
> >> >> his neck was there to step on in the first place.
> >> >
> >> >Funny that the US sets up military bases in countries the world over and
> >> >doesn't realise that 'noses get put out of joint' by the locals. I would
> >> >agree that they 'don't care' but then thats why we sep11 happened IMHO.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Sorry but it's ridiculous to change your policies based on what some yahoo
> >with
> >> murderous tendencies thinks of them.
> >
> >This is getting very 'chicken and the egg'. You think OBL is a murder
> >who shat on the US for no good reason.
>
> The means by which he "shat" are unjustified for any reason.
As I've said before, only the frog is entitled to the frogs perspective.
> I think the reasons are fairly
> >obvious and have been documented for a number of years and I also think
> >OBL is a murder who shat on the US but there are reasons. Reasons that
> >have at their root western arrogance which makes us oblivious to the
> >concerns of those who aren't of our mindset.
> >
>
> Unfortunately you tend to simplify when there is much more here at work than
> "western arrogance."
Now you are failing to offer anything but criticism.
> In fact to write it off as that and that alone is very
> much anti-U.S. by definition.
err I live in the west also and I'm not from the US. I'm critical of my
govt. as much as yours. That hardly makes me antiUS.
> >I certainally dont support OBL and the taking of so many lives ectetc.
> >But I feel that in these days countries are more focused on
> >globalisation, modernisation, with policy choices dicated by profit etc.
> >The only recourse for the individual is to destroy those things before
> >they totally destroy the place of the individual in the world.
> >
>
> You're continuing to make contradictory statements it seems.
Not at all. How so?
SNIP
> >Well I using violence as best outcome example. You said I was being
> >narrow so I though about it some more and tried to present something
> >that covered all options. Ok...one person is violent toward another (or
> >country) what are the possible outcomes a)more violence b) the aggrieved
> >becomes subservient/acquiescent c)they become fearful and submissive d)
> >they become violent and fearful etctec (now I'm just recombining those
> >three points.) What you initially tried to say is something like this
> >(correct me if I'm wrong) "the US strikes back with violence and they
> >all live happily ever after"
> >
>
> Absolutely wrong.
You criticise me when I say violence breeds violence. You criticise me
when I say violence breeds violence, fear and submission. Yet you don't
provide arguments against. All the while you try to justify violence via
either as a consequentalist (ie they'll be better off for it) or as an
means of justise (ie we'll get revenge). Then when I paraphrase your
general idea "the US strikes back with violence and they all live
happily ever after" (oh "and we get the bad guy") you disagree
'absolutely'.
> >In the case of Japan they became very subservient/acquiesent to the West
> >after WWII. So that appears to be in line with my comment. No?
> >
>
> "Subservient?" To reply with "hardly" is an understatement.
I'm glad we agree.
SNIP
> >A good example of this (while not a policy maker but a solider) is the
> >US female solider who got all bitchy about being made to wear a burkha
> >in Saudi. Either she learns to accept that the world is not all how she
> >wants it to be, thinks it is, or is taught it is or she stays in the
> >trailer backhome in Fife, Alabama and never experiences the richness and
> >diversity that the world has to offer.
> >
>
> I don't know where to begin with this obvious straw man.
Apologies for incorrectly presenting the story. I thought a US
highranking female officer (the highest?) had filed a grievence against
her bosses for them making her wear 'demeaning clothes' that were
unbefitting her rank while in Saudi? Is this not the case?
> I did not say OBL
> should be ignored, in fact I said just the opposite on one occasion.
Yes you implied that he should have been eliminated long ago.
> I am of
> two minds on the subject of the woman regarding the "burqa" (though that's not
> what she is wearing).
'k
SNIP
> >There you go again dehumanising the adversary. It makes him easier to
> >hate doesn't it when you believe he's not rational and has
> >hallucinations and delusions and is the son of Satan.
> >
>
> I don't think you're understanding my argument here at all either. He could not
> truly have been going to war with us because only one side believed it was a
> war.
heheh. I'm not sure about this one. So there must be a'gentlemans
agreement' (or so to speak) between factions that they will hold a war
from a given date for it actually to be a war.
I do understand your argument I just don't buy the idea that this isn't
a war cos we haven't declared one (as if the US has to give its approval
first). Because of this you have painted a picture of an individual that
is plainly dehumanising.
> It's not "dehumanization," it's cold hard fact.
You are making statements about the personality/psychological makeup of
someone you have never met nor studied. Yet it is fact.
SNIP
> >> Unfortunately he thought wrong.
> >
> >Since it is your country who has written the history books on this one I
> >have no doubt he's wrong.
> >
>
> Tell me again how you are not "anti-U.S."...
I am being my usual cynical self ;). Truth is we (the US/Europe) write
the history books. So typically we write favourable things (nothing too
radical being said there). Our achievments are grand etc, our conquests
are hard fought, valient etcetc. Those who stand against us and fail
tend to not to get favourable write ups (ie cos they don't by definition
get to tell the event from their perspective).
How is this anti-US?
SNIP
> >Trouble is when you let ideology dictate your thoughts, while violence
> >may be the last resort, the first few options ie diplomacy or discussion
> >go like this "this is our agenda we want x, if you dont we have no
> >option but to destroy you. We'll only do it as a last resort though".
> >
> >That method of dialectic that has been used by nations historically is
> >laughable.
> >
>
> But effective. So not all that laughable.
I don't disagree its effective. Might is right tends to work (but it
aint actually 'RIGHT'). Our method of political dialectic involves us
telling folk how things are going to be and if they disagree then "you
leave us with no choice.....". This I find ironic (dialectic with only
one view taken into account)
SNIP
> >> >So the US has never directly targeted those who are innocent in various
> >> >conflicts etcetc.
> >> >
> >>
> >> There's that straw man again.
> >
> >I think you are mixing up your 'fallacies'. To be a strawman I must
> >misrepresent a position. The one line claim I've made above is hardly
> >that. It might be false but its not a strawman.
> >
>
> Okay, it's false. I never made that position, so it's a misrepresentation too.
hehe. So the US didn't indiscriminately bomb Laos (i use this example
cos it is probably the most horrific i could mention, there are others).
You can't deny the event happened. You can say but 'we were at
war'..that wont cut it cos they were still innocents (ie women,
children). You could say 'they were all commies so no one was innocent',
if you like :( ..., you could say 'but they weren't DIRECTLY targetted.
Then I suppose this degenerates into a quibble about the right to bomb
whole villages on suspicion of them harbouring your enemies ectetc.
I dunno about this cos I've seen how these debates work out, ie I
present case studies of american atrocities and you justify them by
appeals to war, striking first etcetc. And all I can say in return is
that atrocities are seldom considered atrocious by the country
conducting them ectetc.
I'll ask one more time 'do you truly believe the US military/CIA etc has
NEVER directly targeted innocents'.
> >I dont think the US is evil or bad etc but you seem to think that it is
> >the only country on the face of the earth that hasn't ever "directly
> >targeted those who are innocent in various conflicts etcetc".
>
> Nope.
This is unclear? The US has committed atrocities or not?
> >They just don't give a shit.
> >
>
> Now I know that isn't true.
You say the US govt. is concerned about the opinion of others but not
enough to change policy. I would say that implies they don't care too
much for the perspective of others (seems like a token gesture "we care
what they think but why should we do anything about it". I would answer
'YOUR IN THEIR COUNTRY').
> >SNIP
> >
> >> >Ronald Reagen was a total nutter.
> >> So....was everything he did in regard
> >> >US policy wrong or bad etcte??
> >> >
> >>
> >> Absurd comparison on its face.
> >
> >Not at all. It conforms to rules of logic. Any example of that nature
> >where 'an argument or claim is judged not on its internal merit (ie its
> >premises) but on external factors' is valid but the ad hom claim (as in
> >this case) isn't.
> >
>
> "Nutter" is hardly a description that can be described as logical in any way.
The president of one of the most powerful nations uses astrology to make
administrative (maybe policy) decisions. He read a fake nuclear attack
announcement from the whitehouse and fails to realise its being
broadcast. He was a nutter (or I can use sanctified psych terms if you
wish) point is my simple ad hom (he's a freak, a nutter, a munter does
NOT in itself provide evidence against any argument he may present).
SNIP
> >No I'm not trying to suggest that the 'east' is blameless. But we write
> >the history books. We say whats good/ bad. And we even claim to be
> >responsible mature nations. If so then why then can't the Aus govt. even
> >apologise for the wrongs the Aboriginies have suffered at their hands
> >for the last few hundred years.etcetc (most western countries have
> >similar stories, US included). The fact is we got where we are today by
> >hacking and slashing our way through the world. Don't get me wrong I'm
> >not trying to be all sensitive and newage here, but its just another
> >example of western hypocrisy. Our ancestors were barbarians and
> >murderers bent on pushing their own agenda on the world for selfgain.
> >Fair enough I say. Yet we portray ourselves now as enlightened, mature
> >and careing. Sounds like more propoganda to me.
> >
>
> However the differences between now and then are plain as day and cannot be
> easily dismissed.
Cliche time again "if you fail to learn from the mistakes in history you
are destined to repeat them".
So you're saying that it is an anachronism. Then it wouldn't be
particularly useful.
SNIP
> >I'm arguing exactly the opposite. War is never 'fair'. It is death,
> >disease, suffering etc. What it is not is 'bombcam' replays on CNN
> >showing just how safe we can feel smiting our enemies while sitting at
> >home on the couch all nice and safe (while a few 'towelheads' die but
> >hey we didn't mean to kill them so thats ok)
> >
>
> First, most of those shots are of buildings being blown up, no one is actually
> being killed.
I'll have to take your word for that cos I doubt the US Def.Dept will
admitt to anything of the sort (I assume you're in the know)
> When your enemies who vow to kill you are killed (Taliban, al
> Qaeda), that's exactly the point, if they do not seriously surrender. And yes,
> like it or not, intent has a lot to do with it. No one is cheering over the
> deaths of any innocents (though I did see some in the Middle East do just
> that).
I've had some account by folk in the US recently and they say there are
alot of folk who have been 'cheering' for the destruction of afghanistan
and the related deaths. 'Crying out for blood' is how it was reported to
me.
SNIP
> >> I don't think anyone is actually saying htat though... So be it if you find
> >it
> >> fake, I do not.
> >
> >From where you sit I'd wouldn't expect you to think so.
> >
>
> Well now you're just condescending.
Yes that came across that way, I'm sorry. But (IMHO) its fairly accurate
given the hype/propoganda ectetc in the US of recent times. This air of
infallibality that eminates from US politicians/govt/media must to some
degree rub off on Joe Average. Some of my more 'non-conservative'
friends in the US have even taken to signing emails/xsmas cards these
days with "God Bless America" or other patriotic slogans. Few Americans
even wish to entertain the idea (or even hear the idea discussed) that
America is totally blameless in these matters. Yet most of my Oceanic or
European friends (who certainally aren't anti-US) straight away can see
a connection between US conduct historically via foriegn policy and
current world events.
So I was just suggesting that I'm not really surprised by your claim.
SNIP
> >I'm not sure of your source for this. This is no law dictating how and
> >what I think.
> >
>
> Who said law? Do you want to debate real world issues, yes or no? If so, deal
> in the real world or your claims won't hold water.
Fair enough but not every criticism has to have a replacement. As I said
I can logically pick flaws in dogmatic reasoning but I am under no
obligation to offer a replacement. Anyways the odd 'thought experiment'
is fun. It takes us out of our 'thought rut' and allows to speculate
from a different perspective.
SNIP
> >Yes I agree. Funny you say that though because you appear to have this
> >habit of posting links to articles that are 95% of the time agenda
> >ridden,
>
> Not really I have actually been posting quite a bit sites that have the
> opposite agenda or no agenda at all.
My apologies if this is the case, I haven't in all honesty read every
single one of your links.
> you seem more disposed to pushing your own personal beliefs
> >(ideology) then on a presentation of fact.
>
> As opposed to you?
I have no ideology or agenda. I'm not really interested in 'what'
happens in the world, more-so 'why?'. I have an interest in epistemology
and phil. of sci. and psychology. So I'm interested in why people
believe what they do....
> Feel free to point out which parts are wrong (fact-wise, not
> opinion-wise) because I have pointed out where Chomsky
Not in this thread you haven't. Anyways I don't give a shit. The main
thing I get from chomsky is him saying 'question everything and everyone
(even me) and don't take anything at face value etctec'.
Do you have a Horowitz quote to show the above is just Chomsky lying
also? (sorry couldn't resist ;))
> for example, got some
> of his wrong.
All I know is that if you start from a position dictated by ideology
then your responses to particular questions are based on your
preconceptions and not arrived at via logic and appeal to facts.
> A true source should be
> >factual with little or no interpretation.
> >
>
> "No True Scotsman" Fallacy.
Hmmm. Technically a 'no true scotsman fallacy' involves making an ad hoc
assertion. I could provide an non ad hoc explanation for why a source
should be free of agenda or interpreration, especially if a discussions
of 'facts' is taking place.
In fact you seem to be arguing against your
> previous statement on "merits."
Not at all. facts speak for themselves (ie you're entitled to your own
opinion or interpretation but you're not entitled to your own facts)
whereas interpretation involves the presentation of an argument that
should appeal to facts <- arguments must be judged on their own merits,
ie are the premises true (appeal to facts is necessary for
this)....etcetc.
SNIP
> >I like analogies (sometime they are pretty cruddy admittedly but fun all
> >the same). Though the above ain't too bad. Its just an example to show
> >how consequentalist thinking can make good from bad.
> >
>
> Not really...
err Do you mean...it is not an example of how consequentialist thinking
makes good from bad (I could offer hundreds of others) or that
consequentialist thinking can't make the move from good to bad..???
SNIP
> But they have no freedom to decide for themselves, that's why a dictatorship...
I conceed that in principle.
> I don't even know what you're getting at with the "slave to yourself" stuff.
I mean that under a particular interpretation of things I could suggest
that even in a democracy we aren't free. We just have the illusion of
freedom.
The 'slave to yourself' stuff comes via Nietzsche who suggested that its
better to be forced into slavery for another than to be slave to your
own delusions and misconceptions about the world(he was actually
refering to xstians iirc). An example is..I have a friend who when asked
why he always buys McDonalds and doesn't opt for cheaper/healthier food
from less commerical outlets he replies that it is because he 'chooses'
to eat McDonalds and that is his right as a free citizen. Trouble is he
ignores that fact that his cravings coincide in frequency and timing
with current advertisements for McDonalds products on TV etc. In that
sense I suggest that he isn't truly making a 'free' choice and not only
that his behaviour and subsequent denial is self imposed slavery of a
sort (I bet you're not gonna agree with that one ;))
matt
:p
Matthew Healey
Nathan Folkert wrote:
>
SNIP
> > How about removing all military bases from Muslim lands etc. Censure Isreal
> > for it expansionalist policy via either withdrawing financial support or
> > supporting resolution against it in the UN etcetc (or even try treating it
> > like any other rogue state)
> > (note: these are not my own personal views (except the bracketed one. Though
> > I would like to see all 'external nation' military bases removed from the
> > pacific) but then again I'm not flying planes into your buildings).
>
> I am fully aware that these are not your own personal views. They
> are, in fact, two of the central planks of the al Qaeda fatwa for a
> "Jihad Against Crusaders and Jews", which openly called for the murder
> of American and Israeli civilians. I suppose that you are correct in
> saying that our "options" included rewarding al Qaeda for the murder
> of three thousand innocents by fulfilling a few of their objectives,
> though I don't expect the moral basis of this argument to sway anyone
> sane, at least since Chamberlain left office.
No no, iirc you asked "what could we have done?" Thats what I answered.
Not "what shall we do now?"
As it stands, there are
> American policies that need to be reflected upon and possibly
> reversed
Yes I was just suggesting as per your question that this should have
been done earlier. Actually your question was "What should we have tried
that we had not been trying for three years before then in order to
eliminate the threat that al Qaeda posed to international peace and
security?"
> but regarding this as a proper response to a heinous crime
> is moral idiocy. I don't like the drug laws, either, and they have
> undoubtedly ruined a number of lives here in America, but the proper
> response to a drug-related murder is the capture and prosecution of
> the murderer, not the repeal of drug laws (which should, however, be
> reflected upon and revised or revoked, entirely independently of any
> possibly related crime).
I agree.
SNIP
> > By the 'left', do you mean those people on the lefthand side of the USA. I
> > didn't realise those in LA were all that different than those in NY ;)
>
> There is no "lefthand side" of the USA, unless you are one of those
> who agree with peculiar Eurocentric ideas about the proper orientation
> of maps.
Acutally the world map is upside down.
Its true.
> You are correct in snidely pointing out that this is
> incorrect usage, however. I had thought of that when I was writing
> it, but decided to use it anyway, as I knew the meaning would get
> across (which, of course, it did).
Of course. But I couldn't resist anyways :)
SNIP
>The moral question (to me, anyway, though not to Christian
> pacifists, for example) is not whether one has a right to
> self-defense, but rather what justifiably represents a threat for
> which the principle of self-defense can apply
yesyesyes I totally agree.
> and what non-violent
> measures must one reasonably take before violent means are justified.
ditto.
> Most critics here assert, without knowing or caring to know the
> background, that we should use negotiations and diplomacy, ignorant of
> the fact that we have been using negotiations and diplomacy for years,
> without effect. Some rather less common critics assert, as you do
> above, that we should have tried appeasement and surrender, an
> approach which, if applied in other situations, one easily sees to be
> morally vacant.
Not as a response but as an avoidance of the problem in the first place.
On sep11 I heard someone say "why would they do such a thing", my reply
"cos obviously the US did something to piss them off". An insensitive
comment I agree but true from their perspective (assuming of course
you're not one of these fools who scream "its cos they hate freedom and
are jealous of us")
> [snip]
>
> > > > The reconstruction of the afghan govt and rebuilding of the
> > > > infrastructure I would think is only fair. Though its hardly democratic
> > > > (thats important isn't it ;)) to install a leader who has ties with the
> > > > old crocked monarchy that the afghan people long ago diposed.
> > >
> > > The monarchy, which at least attempted to make reforms toward
> > > constitutional democracy, was deposed by Daoud, a strongman dictator,
> > > not by the "Afghan people".
> >
> > My apologies I never claimed to be omniscient.
>
> No, you claimed that the Afghan people deposed the monarchy in
> Afghanistan, which is nonsense.
I believe you. I would also be interested to read your source, mine,
which claimed that he had the backing of the people is obviously
incorrect.
matt
:p
Dan Clore
> >> >> http://www.leftwatch.com/articles/2002/000007.html
> >> >> http://www.leftwatch.com/articles/2002/000008.html
> >> >
> >> >Quite interesting. The first contains a link to a David
> >> >Horowitz article in which Horowitz pleads with readers to
> >> >send him money so he can spend (he says) $10,000.00 to print
> >> >100,000 copies of one his lie-filled anti-Chomsky rants
> >> >gratis on university campus. He even warns that Chomsky fans
> >> >being notorious book burners who will likely try to destroy
> >> >these libelous pamphlets. Pretty incredible that someone
> >> >this insane is taken seriously.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Interesting again how you miss the fact that Chomsky lied,
> >
> >Since he didn't.
> >
> Yes he did, Horowitz has the documentation and any fool can fact check Chomsky
> by reading one of Chomsky's own books... Chomsky made himself a liar, that's
> how pathetic it is.
The lame attempts on the web page you cite above wouldn't
convince anyone who wasn't driven by ideology to the point
of insanity.
> >> yet you would rather
> >> take him seriously... Any examples of "lie-filled anti-Chomsky rants?"
> >
> >Anything about Chomsky by David Horowitz.
>
> So you have no specific examples, you just think it's true because you say it.
Brilliant argument. There is a specific example given above
-- the rant that Horowitz intends to distribute on college
campuses. Likewise, the claim that Chomsky fans are
notorious book burners is an obvious lie, with no foundation
in fact.
--
Dan Clore
mailto:cl...@columbia-center.org
Now available: _The Unspeakable and Others_
http://www.wildsidepress.com/index2.htm
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1587154838/thedanclorenecro
Lord Weÿrdgliffe:
TVsHenry
>Message-id: <3C43863C...@columbia-center.org>
>
>TVsHenry wrote:
>
>> >> >> http://www.leftwatch.com/articles/2002/000007.html
>> >> >> http://www.leftwatch.com/articles/2002/000008.html
>> >> >
>> >> >Quite interesting. The first contains a link to a David
>> >> >Horowitz article in which Horowitz pleads with readers to
>> >> >send him money so he can spend (he says) $10,000.00 to print
>> >> >100,000 copies of one his lie-filled anti-Chomsky rants
>> >> >gratis on university campus. He even warns that Chomsky fans
>> >> >being notorious book burners who will likely try to destroy
>> >> >these libelous pamphlets. Pretty incredible that someone
>> >> >this insane is taken seriously.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Interesting again how you miss the fact that Chomsky lied,
>> >
>> >Since he didn't.
>> >
>> Yes he did, Horowitz has the documentation and any fool can fact check
>Chomsky
>> by reading one of Chomsky's own books... Chomsky made himself a liar,
>that's
>> how pathetic it is.
>
>The lame attempts on the web page you cite above wouldn't
>convince anyone who wasn't driven by ideology to the point
>of insanity.
>
Please point out then how Chomsky isn't lying by saying he has never read
Horowitz. He quoted Horowitz in his book. Clearly I am not the one driven by
ideology.
>> >> yet you would rather
>> >> take him seriously... Any examples of "lie-filled anti-Chomsky rants?"
>> >
>> >Anything about Chomsky by David Horowitz.
>>
>> So you have no specific examples, you just think it's true because you say
>it.
>
>Brilliant argument. There is a specific example given above
>-- the rant that Horowitz intends to distribute on college
>campuses. Likewise, the claim that Chomsky fans are
>notorious book burners is an obvious lie, with no foundation
>in fact.
>
However the history of suppression of non-leftist thought on college campuses
is hard to ignore... Again you ignore the Chomsky lie so I wouldn't be the one
talking about "obvious lies."
Nathan Folkert
[snip]
> Your 'blinkered' thinking betrays you. They were Lybian therefore they
> must have been ordered by that despot madmad Khaddafi. Funnily enough
> he's done some great things for that country.
Name a few of the "great things" he's done for the Libyan people.
And, if you don't mind, please cite references.
[snip]
- Nate
Rob Findlay
I can't believe that the Chomsky bashers are so far gone that this has to be
explained.
Ok, whack-nuts, read and try to pay attention.
Chomsky wasn't *lying*. He was employing two tactics that are commonly used
when sane people are confronted with the likes of David Horowitz.
A. Main Entry: sar·casm
Pronunciation: 'sär-"ka-z&m
Function: noun
Etymology: French or Late Latin; French sarcasme, from Late Latin
sarcasmos, from Greek sarkasmos, from sarkazein to tear flesh, bite
the lips in rage, sneer, from sark-, sarx flesh; probably akin to
Avestan thwar&s- to cut
Date: 1550
1 : a sharp and often satirical or ironic utterance designed to
cut or give pain <tired of continual sarcasms>
2 a : a mode of satirical wit depending for its effect on bitter,
caustic, and often ironic language that is usually directed
against an individual b : the use or language of sarcasm <this
is no time to indulge in sarcasm>
synonym see WIT
B.Main Entry: iro·ny
Pronunciation: 'I-r&-nE also 'I(-&)r-nE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -nies
Etymology: Latin ironia, from Greek eirOnia, from eirOn dissembler
Date: 1502
1 : a pretense of ignorance and of willingness to learn from
another assumed in order to make the other's false conceptions
conspicuous by adroit questioning -- called also Socratic irony
2 a : the use of words to express something other than and
especially the opposite of the literal meaning b : a usually
humorous or sardonic literary style or form characterized by
irony c : an ironic expression or utterance
3 a (1) : incongruity between the actual result of a sequence
of events and the normal or expected result (2) : an event or
result marked by such incongruity b : incongruity between a
situation developed in a drama and the accompanying words or
actions that is understood by the audience but not by the
characters in the play -- called also dramatic irony, tragic
irony synonym see WIT
Now run along, and let the grownups continue.
>>> >> yet you would rather
>>> >> take him seriously... Any examples of "lie-filled anti-Chomsky rants?"
>>> >
>>> >Anything about Chomsky by David Horowitz.
>>>
>>> So you have no specific examples, you just think it's true because you say
>>it.
>>
>>Brilliant argument. There is a specific example given above
>>-- the rant that Horowitz intends to distribute on college
>>campuses. Likewise, the claim that Chomsky fans are
>>notorious book burners is an obvious lie, with no foundation
>>in fact.
>>
>
>However the history of suppression of non-leftist thought on college campuses
>is hard to ignore... Again you ignore the Chomsky lie so I wouldn't be the one
>talking about "obvious lies."
What Chomsky said wasn't a sarcastic pot shot but an outright lie? But when
Horowitz accuses chomsky fans of burning books this ISNT a lie?
Tell ya what. Why don't you admit that BOTH comments by both parties were likely
comments made in sarcasm.
And on a side note. The suppression you speak of almost always came from the
"liberal" or Authoritarian left. Not the anarchists like Chomsky.
>___________________________________________
>
>"What lesson did you hope to teach us by your coward's attack on our World
>Trade Center, our Pentagon, us? What was it you hoped we would learn? Whatever
>it was, please know that you failed." - Leonard Pitts
--
New flag as issued by the Office of "Fatherland Security". .
__________________________________________________________________
| OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO|
| ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::|
| ****** ****** ****** ** ** OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO|
| ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::|
| ** ** ****** ****** ** OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO|
| ** ** ** ** ** ** ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::|
| ****** ****** ****** ** OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO|
| ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::|
| OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO|
|::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::|
|OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO|
|::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::|
|OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO|
|::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::|
|OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO|
|::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::|
|__________________________________________________________________|
| |
|Peace & Solidarity rfindlay(@)iww.org |
|-- |
|Rob Findlay (I.U. 560) IWW |
|-- |
|http://slagnet.dhs.org http://utah.indymedia.org |
|http://iww.org http://anarchosyndicalism.org |
| |
| http://beehivecollective.8m.com |
|__________________________________________________________________|
"Why of course the people don't want war... But, after all, it is
the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always
a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy,
or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship.
Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of
the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are
being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and
exposing the country to danger."
-- Hermann Goering At the Nuremberg trials.
Matt H.
"Nathan Folkert" <nfol...@cs.stanford.edu> wrote in message
news:4b923300.02011...@posting.google.com...
news:<3C41FA04...@nospam.student.canterbury.ac.nz>...
>
> [snip]
>
> > Your 'blinkered' thinking betrays you. They were Lybian therefore they
> > must have been ordered by that despot madmad Khaddafi. Funnily enough
> > he's done some great things for that country.
>
> Name a few of the "great things" he's done for the Libyan people.
I was primarily refering to the water pipeline project. I found a very funny
(ihmo) web article on it for you to check out (I assume you do humor nathan
;))
http://www.twf.org/News/Y1997/LibyaTunnels.html
While not one of the smartest feats in history the building of the
administrative/govt city in the desert is one of his more wacky escapades.
I can't provide a ref. for this. I'm hunting on the net but to no avail. A
source for this is a 'time' magazine article from (iirc) dec. (apologies for
the vagueness but seldom do I read 'time' I only usually do so while I rip
pages from it between arse-wipes :))
or try this
"The economic change between independence and the 1980s was dramatic. In
1951, on the eve of independence, Libya, underdeveloped and backward, was
characterized by the United Nations (UN) as perhaps the world's poorest
country. Experts predicted that the country would have to be supported for
years by international grants-in-aid while it organized itself to try to
live within its own meager means. However, in less than 25 years, Libya had
turned into a rapidly developing country with accumulated net gold and
foreign-exchange reserves equivalent to upward of US$4 billion and an
estimated annual income from oil revenues of between US$6 and US$8 billion.
Although Libya suffered few balance-of- payments problems, it was beginning
to be bothered by inflation. The country seemed to have adequate funds at
its disposal, however."
Admittedly its from an old web site.
http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?frd/cstdy:@field(DOCID+ly0073)
Try this for interest...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/africa/newsid_434000/434876.stm
Sorry I can't prove he does miracles (though I'm sure he's done some nasty
stuff as well) but I have to admit I have a personal foundness for the
Gadafi kookiness. And his ideology is..well...its ideology (nuff said)....
it does make interesting reading though. The greenbooks are worthy of
examination.
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/8744/readgb.htm
gotta love that rocket car too.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/middle_east/newsid_440000/440161.stm
> And, if you don't mind, please cite references.
Apologies for the lack of Journal refs. I'm no longer at uni. but home for
the day :)
Ohh...I suppose my fondness for the Gman makes me a terrorist sympathiser
and an atrocity denier <smile and shrug>
matt
:p
TVsHenry
>From: slag...@billybeckloon.org (Rob Findlay)
>Date: 1/14/02 11:22 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <slrna47bks....@slacknet.slacknet.com>
Why don't you take it up with the Noamster himself instead of just guessing his
meaning? Of course now it's too late, of course he will agree with you. Sorry
but this comes across as too little, too late.
TVsHenry
>Message-id: <3C437BF5...@nospam.student.canterbury.ac.nz>
You're circling the wagons... his only answer was violence, treating all as the
"infidel" (even fellow Muslims) and no distinguishing between military and
civilian whatsoever.
>> I think the reasons are fairly
>> >obvious and have been documented for a number of years and I also think
>> >OBL is a murder who shat on the US but there are reasons. Reasons that
>> >have at their root western arrogance which makes us oblivious to the
>> >concerns of those who aren't of our mindset.
>> >
>>
>> Unfortunately you tend to simplify when there is much more here at work
>than
>> "western arrogance."
>
>Now you are failing to offer anything but criticism.
>
That's pretty much what you are doing in regards to the U.S. however.
>> In fact to write it off as that and that alone is very
>> much anti-U.S. by definition.
>
>err I live in the west also and I'm not from the US. I'm critical of my
>govt. as much as yours. That hardly makes me antiUS.
>
Anti-west... whatever.
>
>> >I certainally dont support OBL and the taking of so many lives ectetc.
>> >But I feel that in these days countries are more focused on
>> >globalisation, modernisation, with policy choices dicated by profit etc.
>> >The only recourse for the individual is to destroy those things before
>> >they totally destroy the place of the individual in the world.
>> >
>>
>> You're continuing to make contradictory statements it seems.
>
>Not at all. How so?
>
You don't support him but you see "no other option" for him, when there clearly
are other options.
>SNIP
>
>> >Well I using violence as best outcome example. You said I was being
>> >narrow so I though about it some more and tried to present something
>> >that covered all options. Ok...one person is violent toward another (or
>> >country) what are the possible outcomes a)more violence b) the aggrieved
>> >becomes subservient/acquiescent c)they become fearful and submissive d)
>> >they become violent and fearful etctec (now I'm just recombining those
>> >three points.) What you initially tried to say is something like this
>> >(correct me if I'm wrong) "the US strikes back with violence and they
>> >all live happily ever after"
>> >
>>
>> Absolutely wrong.
>
>
>You criticise me when I say violence breeds violence. You criticise me
>when I say violence breeds violence, fear and submission. Yet you don't
>provide arguments against.
You haven't been reading my arguments I guess...
All the while you try to justify violence via
>either as a consequentalist (ie they'll be better off for it) or as an
>means of justise (ie we'll get revenge). Then when I paraphrase your
>general idea "the US strikes back with violence and they all live
>happily ever after" (oh "and we get the bad guy") you disagree
>'absolutely'.
>
Because it's not my general idea, it's a misrepresentation.
>
>> >In the case of Japan they became very subservient/acquiesent to the West
>> >after WWII. So that appears to be in line with my comment. No?
>> >
>>
>> "Subservient?" To reply with "hardly" is an understatement.
>
>I'm glad we agree.
>
"Hardly" as in "hardly subservient." Japan has become quite successful beating
the U.S. at its own game for quite a while.
>SNIP
>> >A good example of this (while not a policy maker but a solider) is the
>> >US female solider who got all bitchy about being made to wear a burkha
>> >in Saudi. Either she learns to accept that the world is not all how she
>> >wants it to be, thinks it is, or is taught it is or she stays in the
>> >trailer backhome in Fife, Alabama and never experiences the richness and
>> >diversity that the world has to offer.
>> >
>>
>> I don't know where to begin with this obvious straw man.
>
>Apologies for incorrectly presenting the story. I thought a US
>highranking female officer (the highest?) had filed a grievence against
>her bosses for them making her wear 'demeaning clothes' that were
>unbefitting her rank while in Saudi? Is this not the case?
>
Again, you're confusing what I was calling the straw man and now I see you have
snipped the straw man I was referring to...
>> I did not say OBL
>> should be ignored, in fact I said just the opposite on one occasion.
>
>Yes you implied that he should have been eliminated long ago.
>
So that's not "ignored."
>> I am of
>> two minds on the subject of the woman regarding the "burqa" (though that's
>not
>> what she is wearing).
>
>'k
>
>SNIP
>
>> >There you go again dehumanising the adversary. It makes him easier to
>> >hate doesn't it when you believe he's not rational and has
>> >hallucinations and delusions and is the son of Satan.
>> >
>>
>> I don't think you're understanding my argument here at all either. He could
>not
>> truly have been going to war with us because only one side believed it was
>a
>> war.
>
>heheh. I'm not sure about this one. So there must be a'gentlemans
>agreement' (or so to speak) between factions that they will hold a war
>from a given date for it actually to be a war.
>
>I do understand your argument I just don't buy the idea that this isn't
>a war cos we haven't declared one (as if the US has to give its approval
>first). Because of this you have painted a picture of an individual that
>is plainly dehumanising.
>
Both sides are well aware they are at war... Declaring a war is a formality
that is not necessary for the UN, etc.
>> It's not "dehumanization," it's cold hard fact.
>
>You are making statements about the personality/psychological makeup of
>someone you have never met nor studied. Yet it is fact.
>
Psychologists do it all the time.
>SNIP
>
>> >> Unfortunately he thought wrong.
>> >
>> >Since it is your country who has written the history books on this one I
>> >have no doubt he's wrong.
>> >
>>
>> Tell me again how you are not "anti-U.S."...
>
>I am being my usual cynical self ;). Truth is we (the US/Europe) write
>the history books. So typically we write favourable things (nothing too
>radical being said there). Our achievments are grand etc, our conquests
>are hard fought, valient etcetc. Those who stand against us and fail
>tend to not to get favourable write ups (ie cos they don't by definition
>get to tell the event from their perspective).
>
You haven't read many history books.
>How is this anti-US?
>
>SNIP
>
>> >Trouble is when you let ideology dictate your thoughts, while violence
>> >may be the last resort, the first few options ie diplomacy or discussion
>> >go like this "this is our agenda we want x, if you dont we have no
>> >option but to destroy you. We'll only do it as a last resort though".
>> >
>> >That method of dialectic that has been used by nations historically is
>> >laughable.
>> >
>>
>> But effective. So not all that laughable.
>
>I don't disagree its effective. Might is right tends to work (but it
>aint actually 'RIGHT').
Yet you seem to ignore the instances in which might actually happens to be
right for reasons other than might, you seem to argue might is wrong.
Which does not wipe out the reasons given.
>I'll ask one more time 'do you truly believe the US military/CIA etc has
>NEVER directly targeted innocents'.
>
I never stated they have not... but all of human history does not somehow
magically make two wrongs into a right.
>> >I dont think the US is evil or bad etc but you seem to think that it is
>> >the only country on the face of the earth that hasn't ever "directly
>> >targeted those who are innocent in various conflicts etcetc".
>>
>> Nope.
>
>This is unclear? The US has committed atrocities or not?
>
You're again misrepresenting my point. It's not enough to quote me, you must
recreate a totally different point and call it mine.
>> >They just don't give a shit.
>> >
>>
>> Now I know that isn't true.
>
>You say the US govt. is concerned about the opinion of others but not
>enough to change policy. I would say that implies they don't care too
>much for the perspective of others (seems like a token gesture "we care
>what they think but why should we do anything about it". I would answer
>'YOUR IN THEIR COUNTRY').
>
Again you're applying a lot of positions to me that I never stated, in a way
you're answering arguments before I have even had the first chance to make
them, just assuming I would make them.
>> >SNIP
>> >
>> >> >Ronald Reagen was a total nutter.
>> >> So....was everything he did in regard
>> >> >US policy wrong or bad etcte??
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Absurd comparison on its face.
>> >
>> >Not at all. It conforms to rules of logic. Any example of that nature
>> >where 'an argument or claim is judged not on its internal merit (ie its
>> >premises) but on external factors' is valid but the ad hom claim (as in
>> >this case) isn't.
>> >
>>
>> "Nutter" is hardly a description that can be described as logical in any
>way.
>
>The president of one of the most powerful nations uses astrology to make
>administrative (maybe policy) decisions. He read a fake nuclear attack
>announcement from the whitehouse and fails to realise its being
>broadcast. He was a nutter (or I can use sanctified psych terms if you
>wish) point is my simple ad hom (he's a freak, a nutter, a munter does
>NOT in itself provide evidence against any argument he may present).
>
A) It was his First Lady, B) anecdotal evidence does not make one a "nutter," a
pattern of behavior does, and even then it is subjective.
>SNIP
>
>> >No I'm not trying to suggest that the 'east' is blameless. But we write
>> >the history books. We say whats good/ bad. And we even claim to be
>> >responsible mature nations. If so then why then can't the Aus govt. even
>> >apologise for the wrongs the Aboriginies have suffered at their hands
>> >for the last few hundred years.etcetc (most western countries have
>> >similar stories, US included). The fact is we got where we are today by
>> >hacking and slashing our way through the world. Don't get me wrong I'm
>> >not trying to be all sensitive and newage here, but its just another
>> >example of western hypocrisy. Our ancestors were barbarians and
>> >murderers bent on pushing their own agenda on the world for selfgain.
>> >Fair enough I say. Yet we portray ourselves now as enlightened, mature
>> >and careing. Sounds like more propoganda to me.
>> >
>>
>> However the differences between now and then are plain as day and cannot be
>> easily dismissed.
>
>Cliche time again "if you fail to learn from the mistakes in history you
>are destined to repeat them".
>
>So you're saying that it is an anachronism. Then it wouldn't be
>particularly useful.
>
However I would argue lessons have most certainly been learned.
>SNIP
>
>> >I'm arguing exactly the opposite. War is never 'fair'. It is death,
>> >disease, suffering etc. What it is not is 'bombcam' replays on CNN
>> >showing just how safe we can feel smiting our enemies while sitting at
>> >home on the couch all nice and safe (while a few 'towelheads' die but
>> >hey we didn't mean to kill them so thats ok)
>> >
>>
>> First, most of those shots are of buildings being blown up, no one is
>actually
>> being killed.
>
>I'll have to take your word for that cos I doubt the US Def.Dept will
>admitt to anything of the sort (I assume you're in the know)
>
Well it's pretty obvious, they don't just say "here are the tapes, guess what
this is" and no one has offered up any evidence to counter what it is.
>> When your enemies who vow to kill you are killed (Taliban, al
>> Qaeda), that's exactly the point, if they do not seriously surrender. And
>yes,
>> like it or not, intent has a lot to do with it. No one is cheering over the
>> deaths of any innocents (though I did see some in the Middle East do just
>> that).
>
>I've had some account by folk in the US recently and they say there are
>alot of folk who have been 'cheering' for the destruction of afghanistan
>and the related deaths. 'Crying out for blood' is how it was reported to
>me.
>
The destruction of innocents? No, the destruction of the Taliban and al Qaeda,
clearly. Those who are cheering the destruction of innocents are the "nutters"
you speak of.
>SNIP
>
>> >> I don't think anyone is actually saying htat though... So be it if you
>find
>> >it
>> >> fake, I do not.
>> >
>> >From where you sit I'd wouldn't expect you to think so.
>> >
>>
>> Well now you're just condescending.
>
>Yes that came across that way, I'm sorry. But (IMHO) its fairly accurate
>given the hype/propoganda ectetc in the US of recent times. This air of
>infallibality that eminates from US politicians/govt/media must to some
>degree rub off on Joe Average. Some of my more 'non-conservative'
>friends in the US have even taken to signing emails/xsmas cards these
>days with "God Bless America" or other patriotic slogans. Few Americans
>even wish to entertain the idea (or even hear the idea discussed) that
>America is totally blameless in these matters. Yet most of my Oceanic or
>European friends (who certainally aren't anti-US) straight away can see
>a connection between US conduct historically via foriegn policy and
>current world events.
>
>So I was just suggesting that I'm not really surprised by your claim.
>
Because what has been said would be done has been done from every report I've
seen. When it gets down to it, it doesn't matter if it's fake or not, as long
as that's what is occuring.
The problem is Chomsky presents some dubious sources which he hopes his
followers will not question, and his parsing of certain sources he hopes will
not be questioned. So he probably is lying about the "question me" part.
>> for example, got some
>> of his wrong.
>
>All I know is that if you start from a position dictated by ideology
>then your responses to particular questions are based on your
>preconceptions and not arrived at via logic and appeal to facts.
>
Not true is all I can say in response.
>> A true source should be
>> >factual with little or no interpretation.
>> >
>>
>> "No True Scotsman" Fallacy.
>
>Hmmm. Technically a 'no true scotsman fallacy' involves making an ad hoc
>assertion. I could provide an non ad hoc explanation for why a source
>should be free of agenda or interpreration, especially if a discussions
>of 'facts' is taking place.
>
Yes but you can't arbitrarily start defining "real sources." You can say the
source is wrong, that's something else.
>
> In fact you seem to be arguing against your
>> previous statement on "merits."
>
>Not at all. facts speak for themselves (ie you're entitled to your own
>opinion or interpretation but you're not entitled to your own facts)
>whereas interpretation involves the presentation of an argument that
>should appeal to facts <- arguments must be judged on their own merits,
>ie are the premises true (appeal to facts is necessary for
>this)....etcetc.
>
Yes but again you got into "real sources..."
>SNIP
>
>> >I like analogies (sometime they are pretty cruddy admittedly but fun all
>> >the same). Though the above ain't too bad. Its just an example to show
>> >how consequentalist thinking can make good from bad.
>> >
>>
>> Not really...
>
>err Do you mean...it is not an example of how consequentialist thinking
>makes good from bad (I could offer hundreds of others) or that
>consequentialist thinking can't make the move from good to bad..???
>
It's a bad example.
>SNIP
>
>> But they have no freedom to decide for themselves, that's why a
>dictatorship...
>
>I conceed that in principle.
>
>> I don't even know what you're getting at with the "slave to yourself"
>stuff.
>
>I mean that under a particular interpretation of things I could suggest
>that even in a democracy we aren't free. We just have the illusion of
>freedom.
>
>The 'slave to yourself' stuff comes via Nietzsche who suggested that its
>better to be forced into slavery for another than to be slave to your
>own delusions and misconceptions about the world(he was actually
>refering to xstians iirc). An example is..I have a friend who when asked
>why he always buys McDonalds and doesn't opt for cheaper/healthier food
>from less commerical outlets he replies that it is because he 'chooses'
>to eat McDonalds and that is his right as a free citizen. Trouble is he
>ignores that fact that his cravings coincide in frequency and timing
>with current advertisements for McDonalds products on TV etc. In that
>sense I suggest that he isn't truly making a 'free' choice and not only
>that his behaviour and subsequent denial is self imposed slavery of a
>sort (I bet you're not gonna agree with that one ;))
>
>matt
>
>:p
Free will always exists, I have always had a problem with the idea that someone
is being forced into something because they saw it on television, etc.
Rob Findlay
This latest episode cleary demonstrates that none of the chomsky
bashers have ANY credibility.
Thanks for playing.
___________________________________________
>
>"What lesson did you hope to teach us by your coward's attack on our World
>Trade Center, our Pentagon, us? What was it you hoped we would learn? Whatever
>it was, please know that you failed." - Leonard Pitts
TVsHenry
>Message-id: <slrna48q81....@slacknet.slacknet.com>
No it shows you're hasty to ascribe a meaning to something that isn't readily
apparent if you read the quote in context... either interpretation shows
Chomsky to be an arrogant prick who refuses to respond to criticism in any
serious way. Witness Hitchens.
TVsHenry
extraordinary attack on you [a column entitled "The Sick Mind of Noam Chomsky"
in which he describes Chomsky as a "pathological" "ayatollah of anti-American
hate"]?
CHOMSKY: I haven't read Horowitz. I didn't used to read him when he was a
Stalinist and I don't read him today. Haven't seen it.
QUESTION: Okay.
No laughter, absolutely nothing in the text points to sarcasm. He quite
seriously seems to say he hasn't seen it, so we are to assume that the rest of
his response is a joke? If this is a joke, he should stick with his day job.
But nothing in the text points to that. The man goes on to say he will "spare"
Chomsky, so Chomsky the great doesn't even have to face criticism of any kind.
It's more of a character assassination on Horowitz than a serious response. If
this is how your emperor responds to criticism, your emperor has no clothes.
Rob Findlay
So wait, he's not a liar but a prick?
Chomsky responds to any *serious* criticism. He rightly ignores the nuts
and fruitcakes like Horowitz. I'm sure next you'll think Chomksy owes
a reply to "Dick Eastman" and "Liberator".
___________________________________________
>
>"What lesson did you hope to teach us by your coward's attack on our World
>Trade Center, our Pentagon, us? What was it you hoped we would learn? Whatever
>it was, please know that you failed." - Leonard Pitts
Rob Findlay
>QUESTION: ... Are you upset or shocked by [right-wing author David] Horowitz's
>extraordinary attack on you [a column entitled "The Sick Mind of Noam Chomsky"
>in which he describes Chomsky as a "pathological" "ayatollah of anti-American
>hate"]?
>
>CHOMSKY: I haven't read Horowitz. I didn't used to read him when he was a
>Stalinist and I don't read him today. Haven't seen it.
>
>QUESTION: Okay.
>
>No laughter, absolutely nothing in the text points to sarcasm. He quite
>seriously seems to say he hasn't seen it, so we are to assume that the rest of
>his response is a joke? If this is a joke, he should stick with his day job.
>But nothing in the text points to that. The man goes on to say he will "spare"
>Chomsky, so Chomsky the great doesn't even have to face criticism of any kind.
>It's more of a character assassination on Horowitz than a serious response. If
>this is how your emperor responds to criticism, your emperor has no clothes.
You haven't actually read ANY of Chomskys books have you? If you had, you
would now his frequent use of sarcasm and ironical wit.
Really if this is the BEST you can do to paint Chomksy a 'liar', then well
I think you've going to do just *FINE*
___________________________________________
>
>"What lesson did you hope to teach us by your coward's attack on our World
>Trade Center, our Pentagon, us? What was it you hoped we would learn? Whatever
>it was, please know that you failed." - Leonard Pitts
TVsHenry
>Message-id: <slrna490sl....@slacknet.slacknet.com>
Not at all, but if an interviewer is going to bring up his criticism, Chomsky
owes an actual reply, not some lie or "sarcastic quip."
TVsHenry
>Message-id: <slrna4919e....@slacknet.slacknet.com>
>
>In article <20020115124852...@mb-fv.aol.com>, TVsHenry wrote:
>>QUESTION: ... Are you upset or shocked by [right-wing author David]
>Horowitz's
>>extraordinary attack on you [a column entitled "The Sick Mind of Noam
>Chomsky"
>>in which he describes Chomsky as a "pathological" "ayatollah of
>anti-American
>>hate"]?
>>
>>CHOMSKY: I haven't read Horowitz. I didn't used to read him when he was a
>>Stalinist and I don't read him today. Haven't seen it.
>>
>>QUESTION: Okay.
>>
>>No laughter, absolutely nothing in the text points to sarcasm. He quite
>>seriously seems to say he hasn't seen it, so we are to assume that the rest
>of
>>his response is a joke? If this is a joke, he should stick with his day job.
>>But nothing in the text points to that. The man goes on to say he will
>"spare"
>>Chomsky, so Chomsky the great doesn't even have to face criticism of any
>kind.
>>It's more of a character assassination on Horowitz than a serious response.
>If
>>this is how your emperor responds to criticism, your emperor has no clothes.
>
>You haven't actually read ANY of Chomskys books have you?
I have read much of his writings, yes.
If you had, you
>would now his frequent use of sarcasm and ironical wit.
>
He uses sarcasm therefore everything he says, one can guess, is sarcasm, even
when it appears on the surface that there is no trace of sarcasm. Nice logic
there... Usually there is something to point to it but actual sarcasm, no sign.
>Really if this is the BEST you can do to paint Chomksy a 'liar', then well
>I think you've going to do just *FINE*
>
Far from the best, his lies are many and well-known, it's interesting how you
make up excuses for them with little evidence to back them up other than
"Chomsky sometimes uses sarcasm."
Matthew Healey
> >> >TVsHenry wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >Subject: Re: Leftwatch
> >> >> >From: Matthew Healey md...@nospam.student.canterbury.ac.nz
> >> >> >Date: 1/13/02 9:53 PM Eastern Standard Time
> >> >> >Message-id: <3C424839...@nospam.student.canterbury.ac.nz>
> >
> >SNIP
> >Now you are failing to offer anything but criticism
>
> That's pretty much what you are doing in regards to the U.S. however.
I suppose cos I'm not a US ciziten I'm not too concerned (and am
probably ignorant of some political subtleties). If this discussion
centered on NZ policy I could offer more.
> >> In fact to write it off as that and that alone is very
> >> much anti-U.S. by definition.
> >
> >err I live in the west also and I'm not from the US. I'm critical of my
> >govt. as much as yours. That hardly makes me antiUS.
> >
>
> Anti-west... whatever.
not Anti. Just critical of....(just cos I'm not 'with you' doesn't mean
I'm 'against you')
SNIP
> You haven't been reading my arguments I guess...
Of course I have.
> All the while you try to justify violence via
> >either as a consequentalist (ie they'll be better off for it) or as an
> >means of justise (ie we'll get revenge). Then when I paraphrase your
> >general idea "the US strikes back with violence and they all live
> >happily ever after" (oh "and we get the bad guy") you disagree
> >'absolutely'.
> >
>
> Because it's not my general idea, it's a misrepresentation.
must be my attention span (or lack of) kicking in.
SNIP
>
> Again, you're confusing what I was calling the straw man and now I see you have
> snipped the straw man I was referring to...
Yeah It does get confusing after a while. I was thinking the same about
some of your replies to my comments.
Perhaps this is a sign that this thread is about to croak.
SNIP
> >You are making statements about the personality/psychological makeup of
> >someone you have never met nor studied. Yet it is fact.
> >
>
> Psychologists do it all the time.
Pop psychologists do it after reading a couple of articles. Reputable
ones require a bit more info then we have access to.
> >SNIP
>Those who stand against us and fail
> >tend to not to get favourable write ups (ie cos they don't by definition
> >get to tell the event from their perspective).
> >
>
> You haven't read many history books.
Nothing could be further from the truth than that statement. What you
really mean is 'I see you haven't reached the same interpretation of
historical events as I have'.
SNIP
> >I don't disagree its effective. Might is right tends to work (but it
> >aint actually 'RIGHT').
>
> Yet you seem to ignore the instances in which might actually happens to be
> right for reasons other than might
errrr you say 'might is right' might be true, when its not the might
that makes it right. Right.
> you seem to argue might is wrong.
No, just that 'might is right' is about the justification of acts (to
say the will of the mighty is always right (or wrong) is dubious). You
claim the mighty are often right. I agree (probably compared to 'chance'
they are right as much as the weak are right). I also agree that the
mighty are right more often then not for reasons that are nothing to do
with 'might'.
SNIP
> >This is unclear? The US has committed atrocities or not?
> >
>
> You're again misrepresenting my point. It's not enough to quote me, you must
> recreate a totally different point and call it mine.
Apologies to you for that. My anal nature 'demands' I trim threads while
replying, so sometimes the context of previous comments is lost.
> >> >They just don't give a shit.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Now I know that isn't true.
> >
> >You say the US govt. is concerned about the opinion of others but not
> >enough to change policy. I would say that implies they don't care too
> >much for the perspective of others (seems like a token gesture "we care
> >what they think but why should we do anything about it". I would answer
> >'YOUR IN THEIR COUNTRY').
> >
>
> Again you're applying a lot of positions to me that I never stated in a way
> you're answering arguments before I have even had the first chance to make
> them, just assuming I would make them.
Its not so much that..more like I try to present points that show
progression of thought and not just pure opinion. I wasn't trying to put
words in your mouth, I was just trying to put my thoughts (and chain
of...) into words.
SNIP
> >So I was just suggesting that I'm not really surprised by your claim.
> >
>
> Because what has been said would be done has been done from every report I've
> seen. When it gets down to it, it doesn't matter if it's fake or not, as long
> as that's what is occuring.
Fair enough I have no probs with 'living a lie' as long one is aware of
it ('scuse my obvious lack of common morality)
SNIP
> >Do you have a Horowitz quote to show the above is just Chomsky lying
> >also? (sorry couldn't resist ;))
> >
>
> The problem is Chomsky presents some dubious sources which he hopes his
> followers will not question
I wouldn't think he cares too much what his 'followers' think.
> and his parsing of certain sources he hopes will
> not be questioned.
I really doubt he thinks that he can preach 'question everything' and
folk aren't going to come along and put his work under a microscope. I'm
sure he's aware of this. I'm sure he doesn't care too much.
The way I see it is I've never come across anyone who hasn't at
somepoint either lied/ twisted facts/ fudged arguments, even in the
academic field this is true. I don't judge people as 'always wrong or
bad' just cos I can show there are problems with a particular argument
or position (especially if they change over time). I become dubious yes
but mainly of the particular argument but not of the person themselves.
Example Konrad Lorenz is an ethologist I've read often. He also had ties
with the Nazis, one might call him a bad and evil man etctetc. Fair
enough but the fact remains his research is invaluable and stands or
falls on nits own merits not on his 'character'.
> So he probably is lying about the "question me" part.
:p
> >> for example, got some
> >> of his wrong.
> >
> >All I know is that if you start from a position dictated by ideology
> >then your responses to particular questions are based on your
> >preconceptions and not arrived at via logic and appeal to facts.
> >
>
> Not true is all I can say in response.
My guess is that you think I'm suggesting YOU make judgements based on
ideology and not via reason (opps I've done it again ;)). Thats not my
point. People often adopt positions on issues before they have examined
the evidence etc (we all do it). I would argue that things like ones
religion/politics etc or in otherwords ideology, usually give them the
answers, especially true of children (hence I consider it dangerous to
indoctrinate kids with ideology, cos while its easy to remember stuff
its very hard to forget things: refs. Kahnmen & Tversky, Hogarth). The
average person in their daily lives doesn't have the time or means to
rationally investigate every issue so the solution they arrive at in
these cases has more to do with their own prior beliefs than it does
with the evidence per se.
> >> A true source should be
> >> >factual with little or no interpretation.
> >> >
> >>
> >> "No True Scotsman" Fallacy.
> >
> >Hmmm. Technically a 'no true scotsman fallacy' involves making an ad hoc
> >assertion. I could provide an non ad hoc explanation for why a source
> >should be free of agenda or interpreration, especially if a discussions
> >of 'facts' is taking place.
> >
>
> Yes but you can't arbitrarily start defining "real sources." You can say the
> source is wrong, that's something else.
Err I'm refering refering to 'facts' via 'sources'. I was refering to
'sources' in the sense that all sources must appeal to facts (or
reference those who do). If the source doesn't refer to facts nor
presents a hypothesis (an argument) then they are either 1) stating
opinion (ie no facts) or 2) meaninglessly refering to data (without a
hypothesis there is no evidence just data).
> >
> > In fact you seem to be arguing against your
> >> previous statement on "merits."
> >
> >Not at all. facts speak for themselves (ie you're entitled to your own
> >opinion or interpretation but you're not entitled to your own facts)
> >whereas interpretation involves the presentation of an argument that
> >should appeal to facts <- arguments must be judged on their own merits,
> >ie are the premises true (appeal to facts is necessary for
> >this)....etcetc.
> >
>
> Yes but again you got into "real sources..."
a real source must not only have appeals to 'fact' (on their own) but
more precisely must use data to provide evidence for a hypothesis. I
have noted a distinct lack of coherent argument in political writings,
especially the populist writings that come from journalists and assorted
'web experts'. Fairs fair though this is a problem with the 'softer
sciences' (and history etc) in general and is probably more indictative
of the type of claims being made and not the people making them
(hopefully ;))
> >SNIP
> Free will always exists, I have always had a problem with the idea that someone
> is being forced into something because they saw it on television, etc.
While this isn't the place to go into this it must be said that what
you've described above isn't what I said ie "someone is being forced
into something because they saw it on television"
matt
:p
Rob Findlay
You're not very bright are you? It's readilly apparent that the comment you're
ascribing to a "lie" was meant as a jab to Horowitz. Nearly everytime Chomksy
"jabs" someone. It's employing wit and sarcasm.
It's readilly apparant to anyone with half a brain, your foot stamping to the
contrary is driven by ideology and not any REAL motivation to expouse a lie.
>>Really if this is the BEST you can do to paint Chomksy a 'liar', then well
>>I think you've going to do just *FINE*
>>
>
>Far from the best, his lies are many and well-known,
Citation. (this is my 2nd request from you, if you choose to ignore it I'll
assume, your making this "lie" business up.)
>it's interesting how you
>make up excuses for them with little evidence to back them up other than
>"Chomsky sometimes uses sarcasm."
Chomsky CONSTANTLY uses sarcasm. Sarcasm lends it's self to the type of analsys
he does. You haven't read him much have you?
>___________________________________________
>
>"What lesson did you hope to teach us by your coward's attack on our World
>Trade Center, our Pentagon, us? What was it you hoped we would learn? Whatever
>it was, please know that you failed." - Leonard Pitts
Rob Findlay
So what is he a liar? or a sarcastic quip'er?
>___________________________________________
>
>"What lesson did you hope to teach us by your coward's attack on our World
>Trade Center, our Pentagon, us? What was it you hoped we would learn? Whatever
>it was, please know that you failed." - Leonard Pitts
TVsHenry
>From: Matthew Healey md...@nospam.student.canterbury.ac.nz
>Date: 1/15/02 5:19 PM Eastern Standard Time
>
>
>
>
>> >> >TVsHenry wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >Subject: Re: Leftwatch
>> >> >> >From: Matthew Healey md...@nospam.student.canterbury.ac.nz
>> >> >> >Date: 1/13/02 9:53 PM Eastern Standard Time
>> >> >> >Message-id: <3C424839...@nospam.student.canterbury.ac.nz>
>> >
>> >SNIP
>
>> >Now you are failing to offer anything but criticism
>>
>> That's pretty much what you are doing in regards to the U.S. however.
>
>I suppose cos I'm not a US ciziten I'm not too concerned (and am
>probably ignorant of some political subtleties). If this discussion
>centered on NZ policy I could offer more.
>
>> >> In fact to write it off as that and that alone is very
>> >> much anti-U.S. by definition.
>> >
>> >err I live in the west also and I'm not from the US. I'm critical of my
>> >govt. as much as yours. That hardly makes me antiUS.
>> >
>>
>> Anti-west... whatever.
>
>not Anti. Just critical of....(just cos I'm not 'with you' doesn't mean
>I'm 'against you')
>
There isn't much logic in that sentence. Even Switzerland has helped the U.S.
out, they're not exactly known for taking sides.
>SNIP
>
>> You haven't been reading my arguments I guess...
>
>Of course I have.
>
>> All the while you try to justify violence via
>> >either as a consequentalist (ie they'll be better off for it) or as an
>> >means of justise (ie we'll get revenge). Then when I paraphrase your
>> >general idea "the US strikes back with violence and they all live
>> >happily ever after" (oh "and we get the bad guy") you disagree
>> >'absolutely'.
>> >
>>
>> Because it's not my general idea, it's a misrepresentation.
>
>must be my attention span (or lack of) kicking in.
>
>SNIP
>>
>> Again, you're confusing what I was calling the straw man and now I see you
>have
>> snipped the straw man I was referring to...
>
>Yeah It does get confusing after a while. I was thinking the same about
>some of your replies to my comments.
>
>Perhaps this is a sign that this thread is about to croak.
>
>SNIP
>> >You are making statements about the personality/psychological makeup of
>> >someone you have never met nor studied. Yet it is fact.
>> >
>>
>> Psychologists do it all the time.
>
>Pop psychologists do it after reading a couple of articles. Reputable
>ones require a bit more info then we have access to.
>
Well there is plenty to observe in endless videotapes, and plenty of knowledge
of his upbringing and history, etc.
>> >SNIP
>>Those who stand against us and fail
>> >tend to not to get favourable write ups (ie cos they don't by definition
>> >get to tell the event from their perspective).
>> >
>>
>> You haven't read many history books.
>
>Nothing could be further from the truth than that statement. What you
>really mean is 'I see you haven't reached the same interpretation of
>historical events as I have'.
>
No. There are history books out there in the U.S. that take a very critical
view of the U.S. Sorry to burst your bubble but they exist. You seem to be
painting a lot with a broad brush.
>SNIP
>> >I don't disagree its effective. Might is right tends to work (but it
>> >aint actually 'RIGHT').
>>
>> Yet you seem to ignore the instances in which might actually happens to be
>> right for reasons other than might
>
>errrr you say 'might is right' might be true, when its not the might
>that makes it right. Right.
>
Those who have the might can and have been correct. It's not the might that
makes them wrong is basically what I'm saying.
>> you seem to argue might is wrong.
>
>No, just that 'might is right' is about the justification of acts (to
>say the will of the mighty is always right (or wrong) is dubious). You
>claim the mighty are often right. I agree (probably compared to 'chance'
>they are right as much as the weak are right). I also agree that the
>mighty are right more often then not for reasons that are nothing to do
>with 'might'.
>
Well we agree, on the whole for once. Maybe this thread really is nearly
finished, LOL...
It's splitting hairs to attack someone for their motivations (which are very
difficult to discover in the first place) behind doing the right thing. They
still did the right thing.
>SNIP
>
>> >Do you have a Horowitz quote to show the above is just Chomsky lying
>> >also? (sorry couldn't resist ;))
>> >
>>
>> The problem is Chomsky presents some dubious sources which he hopes his
>> followers will not question
>
>I wouldn't think he cares too much what his 'followers' think.
>
I think he probably very much cares whether or not an audience is there to
listen to his speeches or read his books.
>> and his parsing of certain sources he hopes will
>> not be questioned.
>
>I really doubt he thinks that he can preach 'question everything' and
>folk aren't going to come along and put his work under a microscope. I'm
>sure he's aware of this. I'm sure he doesn't care too much.
>
Clearly because he doesn't seem to care about refuting any criticism.
>The way I see it is I've never come across anyone who hasn't at
>somepoint either lied/ twisted facts/ fudged arguments, even in the
>academic field this is true. I don't judge people as 'always wrong or
>bad' just cos I can show there are problems with a particular argument
>or position (especially if they change over time). I become dubious yes
>but mainly of the particular argument but not of the person themselves.
>Example Konrad Lorenz is an ethologist I've read often. He also had ties
>with the Nazis, one might call him a bad and evil man etctetc. Fair
>enough but the fact remains his research is invaluable and stands or
>falls on nits own merits not on his 'character'.
>
We'll have to agree to disagree here but I think we've already discussed that.
>> So he probably is lying about the "question me" part.
>
>:p
>
>
>> >> for example, got some
>> >> of his wrong.
>> >
>> >All I know is that if you start from a position dictated by ideology
>> >then your responses to particular questions are based on your
>> >preconceptions and not arrived at via logic and appeal to facts.
>> >
>>
>> Not true is all I can say in response.
>
>My guess is that you think I'm suggesting YOU make judgements based on
>ideology and not via reason (opps I've done it again ;)). Thats not my
>point. People often adopt positions on issues before they have examined
>the evidence etc (we all do it). I would argue that things like ones
>religion/politics etc or in otherwords ideology, usually give them the
>answers, especially true of children (hence I consider it dangerous to
>indoctrinate kids with ideology, cos while its easy to remember stuff
>its very hard to forget things: refs. Kahnmen & Tversky, Hogarth). The
>average person in their daily lives doesn't have the time or means to
>rationally investigate every issue so the solution they arrive at in
>these cases has more to do with their own prior beliefs than it does
>with the evidence per se.
>
To an extent that can be said of everyone and everything...
>> >> A true source should be
>> >> >factual with little or no interpretation.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> "No True Scotsman" Fallacy.
>> >
>> >Hmmm. Technically a 'no true scotsman fallacy' involves making an ad hoc
>> >assertion. I could provide an non ad hoc explanation for why a source
>> >should be free of agenda or interpreration, especially if a discussions
>> >of 'facts' is taking place.
>> >
>>
>> Yes but you can't arbitrarily start defining "real sources." You can say
>the
>> source is wrong, that's something else.
>
>Err I'm refering refering to 'facts' via 'sources'. I was refering to
>'sources' in the sense that all sources must appeal to facts (or
>reference those who do). If the source doesn't refer to facts nor
>presents a hypothesis (an argument) then they are either 1) stating
>opinion (ie no facts) or 2) meaninglessly refering to data (without a
>hypothesis there is no evidence just data).
>
Well any data can be used as a source... a lot of newspaper articles have no
"hypothesis."
Isn't that what "slavery" is? But if you don't wish to go off on that tangent,
I understand.
Tim Starr
news:<slrna3vgqn....@slacknet.slacknet.com>...
[snip]
>...the only "idealogical" drive behind US foreign policy is the idealogical
>drive of maintaining the US 'empire'.
>
>If you look at the comments of the strategic planners of the time no one
>seriusly viewed communism of as a threat.
West Germany certainly took the Communist threat seriously, as did Britain,
France, & the rest of NATO's founders. US participation in NATO was originally
supposed to be temporary, but the US not only had to be dragged kicking &
screaming into it in the first place, but once the US was in most NATO members
never wanted the US to leave. SEATO was formed to contain Communism in
South-East Asia. Australia & New Zealand took the Communist threat seriously
enough to contribute troops to the defense of South Vietnam, Britain fought a
Communist insurgency in Malaya - surely you don't think the Australians, New
Zealanders, & British were merely US puppets?
>What they feared was the risk such countries would present to American
>Corporate profits.
Why should the Australians, New Zealanders, & British give a fig about
American Corporate profits?
>And that if say Chile managed to build a social democracy that addressed the
>needs of the people...
How would that have differed from what the Costa Ricans did, which was not
interfered with by the USA?
Tim Starr
TVsHenry
>Message-id: <slrna49bht....@slacknet.slacknet.com>
Not at all.
Nearly everytime Chomksy
>"jabs" someone. It's employing wit and sarcasm.
>
Not very witty... Only part of the statement can fit any reasonable definition
of sarcasm at all, but the main point of contention does not.
>It's readilly apparant to anyone with half a brain, your foot stamping to the
>contrary is driven by ideology and not any REAL motivation to expouse a lie.
>
Ad hominem, just like old Noam.
>
>>>Really if this is the BEST you can do to paint Chomksy a 'liar', then well
>>>I think you've going to do just *FINE*
>>>
>>
>>Far from the best, his lies are many and well-known,
>
>Citation. (this is my 2nd request from you, if you choose to ignore it I'll
>assume, your making this "lie" business up.)
>
Where to begin? One to chew on:
"Noam Chomsky in 'American Power and the New Mandarins' (New York, 1969) twice
claimed that [President] Truman had said, 'All power is dependent on freedom of
enterprise.... The whole world should adopt the American system.... The
American system can survive in America only if it becomes a world system.'
Truman said nothing of the sort at Baylor [where Chomsky claims he said it] or
elsewhere. The quotation is fabricated." (Arthur Schlesinger Jr., "The Cycles
of American History", 1986.)
>>it's interesting how you
>>make up excuses for them with little evidence to back them up other than
>>"Chomsky sometimes uses sarcasm."
>
>Chomsky CONSTANTLY uses sarcasm. Sarcasm lends it's self to the type of
>analsys
>he does. You haven't read him much have you?
Yes, but his "sarcasm" is either a) extremely shabby or b) not sarcasm at all.
Either way, he comes across as very arrogant and if he never wanted to be
labeled a liar he shouldn't have said it. However I've done a search and have
yet to see anyone else (least of all Chomsky) call that statement "sarcasm."
Tim Starr
[snip]
>>>Just responses to particular
>>>problems with the response being dictated by things like self
defense
>>>etc. Though in the coldwar scenario IMHO responses were dictated by
>>>threats to ideology.
>>
>>Gee, that's funny, I thought the Western response to, say, the North
> Korean
>>invasion of South Korea was to contain Communist aggression
>
>And why was it a threat?
Why was the NKPA's invasion a threat to South Korea? Because the NKPA
was
killing South Koreans, stealing their property, torturing them, etc.
> > and protect
> > the South Korean people
>
> maybes. Though we only appear to give a toss about other countries when
> there is something in it for us...
Why should we give a toss when there's nothing in it for us?
>Question....Why didn't we intervene in Rwanda...
Because the UN got burned in Mogadishu.
>>not because of some abstract threat to "ideology."
>
>I dont think it was an abstract threat. It was very real but still a
threat
>to ideology...
No, it was a threat to the concrete lives, liberties, property, and
happiness
of real people, not just their ideas.
>I presented three factors that might influence my 'recommendation...
...but no actual recommendation.
>>>Coupled with the above other questions arise ie 'if we invade a
country
>>>on the notion that their newly adopted ideology is a threat to
ours...
>>
>>What country did the West invade just because it went Communist?
>
>So you dispute the claim that the west has been actively and covertly
>meddling in the affairs of other countries...
No, I dispute that it did so "just because... [they] went Communist,"
although
I can think of one example that might fit your description: Grenada.
>You mean 'commie insurgence' I think. Whats wrong with it (aside form
the
>obvious deaths but then again people die at the hands of even the
most
>moderate democratic state...
Communist regimes tend to mass-murder their own people in peacetime.
Democracies tend to kill foreigners in wartime. Communist regimes
also tend to
mass-murder much greater numbers of people than democracies. There is
both a
great difference in kind and a great difference in degree between the
two.
>>Funny, those "screams" for "worker revolution" seem to have a high
>>correlation with Soviet funding.
>
>Yeah but so what?
So, that casts doubt upon the authenticity of the alleged popular
desire for
"worker revolution," if it was so dependent upon Soviet sponsorship.
>One might say that oppressed peoples are happy (read: pacified) to
except
>their lot unless an alternative is provided.
Soviet sponsorship was simply trading one puppetmaster for another,
far worse, one. Hardly much of an alternative. Independence would be
the obvious
alternative to colonial rule.
>A similar phenomenon could be said to have occured in the Soviet
Union in the
>80's where western ideas/values/goods started to appear with
increased
>frequency on Soviet streets.
Moral equivalency between sponsorship of Commie insurrection and free
trade in
Western goods?
>>>>Easy for you to make
>>>>fun of the Communist threat more than a decade after the collapse
of
>>>>the Soviet Union
>>>
>>>Fair enough call.....though in all honesty one would think we would
>>>welcome a true 'Communist Threat'...
>>
>>No more so than a "true Nazi Threat."
>
>I've read 'mine kampf' and found little but anger, frustration and
the
>search for a scapegoat and while I haven't actually read 'das
kapital' (a
>friend warned me of the hard to penetrate Marx style) in the
commentaries
>I've read I found a lot that made egalitarian sense...
...appeals to envy, hatred of the rich for being rich, hatred of the
strong
for being strong, etc. Funny, those inspired by Marx have
mass-murdered far
more than those inspired by "Mein Kampf."
>Anyways the ideology of Marx is far removed from the manifestations
of 20th
>Century communism.
Bullshit.
>>>>but most people considered the threat quite serious at the time.
>>>
>>>Fear (post WWII) and paranoia...
>>
>>Actually, the US demobilized greatly after WWII, and the US military
>>intelligence estimates of the Soviet threat were pretty low. They
>>weren't revised until Stalin Sovietized Eastern Europe and the
>>intelligence data the US acquired from Reinhard Gehlen, former head
>>of German military intelligence, had been analyzed. The OSS was
>>totally abolished, and the CIA wasn't formed until years later.
>
>Fair enough but how does that undermine the point that something
might be
>percieved as a threat (via fear/propoganda etc) regardless of its
actually
>capacity to cause harm.
I didn't think you'd be so stupid as to suggest that the Soviets
lacked the
capacity to cause harm to Western Europe. The Soviets had more ground
troops
in Europe than any other European power, and the best tanks of WWII.
They had
fought their way all the way from Stalingrad to Berlin, against the
best army
Europe had to offer. Look at the distance between those two cities
sometime,
and the numbers of troops on both sides of the Russian Front. What
makes you
think they weren't capable of overwhelming the West European forces
and going
all the way to the English Channel, if not beyond, if the US hadn't
protected
Western Europe?
>You haven't actually established that the Stalinist Soviet state was
a threat
>to the US in any sense except ideological (minus the obvious nuclear
conflict).
Yes, well, the nuclear threat was certainly there, wasn't it? Europe
had
already dragged America in to save it from the Nazis, what makes you
think
Europe wouldn't also want America to save it from the Soviets? What
makes
you think that a US leadership which had just fought one war to save
Western
Europe from totalitarianism would simply let it fall into the hands of
another
totalitarian regime?
Tim Starr
TVsHenry
>Message-id: <slrna49bli....@slacknet.slacknet.com>
Nothing in the text leads me to believe the big point of contention is intended
as sarcastic.
Rob Findlay
>slag...@billybeckloon.org (Rob Findlay) wrote in message
>news:<slrna3vgqn....@slacknet.slacknet.com>...
>
>[snip]
>
>>...the only "idealogical" drive behind US foreign policy is the idealogical
>>drive of maintaining the US 'empire'.
>>
>>If you look at the comments of the strategic planners of the time no one
>>seriusly viewed communism of as a threat.
>
>West Germany certainly took the Communist threat seriously, as did Britain,
>France, & the rest of NATO's founders. US participation in NATO was originally
>supposed to be temporary, but the US not only had to be dragged kicking &
>screaming into it in the first place, but once the US was in most NATO members
>never wanted the US to leave. SEATO was formed to contain Communism in
>South-East Asia. Australia & New Zealand took the Communist threat seriously
>enough to contribute troops to the defense of South Vietnam, Britain fought a
>Communist insurgency in Malaya - surely you don't think the Australians, New
>Zealanders, & British were merely US puppets?
Yes, I'm sure that European and Asian powers were also afraid of what
soical revolution would to their own empires, and hence saw the nesscity of
waging a the 'cold war'.
>>What they feared was the risk such countries would present to American
>>Corporate profits.
>
>Why should the Australians, New Zealanders, & British give a fig about
>American Corporate profits?
They weren't. They were concerned with maintaining the profitibility of
the local overclass.
>
>>And that if say Chile managed to build a social democracy that addressed the
>>needs of the people...
>
>How would that have differed from what the Costa Ricans did, which was not
>interfered with by the USA?
Because Costa Rica didn't do anything insane like nationalizing an industry
that would cut into American proffits. Had they done that, a "commie" threat
would have been invented and the mass murders would have ensued.
Besides costa rica continued to suppress labor and allow its country to
be raped by American investors If the Sandinista's had done that, then
perhaps, several hundred thousand less of them would have been mass murdered.
>Tim Starr
Nathan Folkert
> "Nathan Folkert" <nfol...@cs.stanford.edu> wrote in message
> news:4b923300.02011...@posting.google.com...
> > Matthew Healey <md...@nospam.student.canterbury.ac.nz> wrote in message
> news:<3C41FA04...@nospam.student.canterbury.ac.nz>...
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > > Your 'blinkered' thinking betrays you. They were Lybian therefore they
> > > must have been ordered by that despot madmad Khaddafi. Funnily enough
> > > he's done some great things for that country.
> >
> > Name a few of the "great things" he's done for the Libyan people.
>
> I was primarily refering to the water pipeline project. I found a very funny
> (ihmo) web article on it for you to check out (I assume you do humor nathan
> ;))
> http://www.twf.org/News/Y1997/LibyaTunnels.html
Yes, I read Margolis's piece in 1997, when it was published. The
tunnel idea is indeed humorous, and to be honest, I suspect that it
was just an idiotic idea and not a "secret tunnel of death", though
I'm not in possession of all the information. Regardless, the "man
made river" is not something "great" for the Libyan people. It was a
colossal waste of resources that could have been put to other uses,
which is also the conclusion of the article's author. Margolis
sometimes has interesting commentary, but occasionally he spouts
lunacy (for example, his recent reiteration of the discredited USS
Liberty criticism of Israel). I've yet to decide whether his analysis
of this tunnel or of the Libyan threat (or both) is just more of this
lunacy.
> While not one of the smartest feats in history the building of the
> administrative/govt city in the desert is one of his more wacky escapades.
[snip uncited reference]
> or try this
> "The economic change between independence and the 1980s was dramatic. In
> 1951, on the eve of independence, Libya, underdeveloped and backward, was
> characterized by the United Nations (UN) as perhaps the world's poorest
> country. Experts predicted that the country would have to be supported for
> years by international grants-in-aid while it organized itself to try to
> live within its own meager means. However, in less than 25 years, Libya had
> turned into a rapidly developing country with accumulated net gold and
> foreign-exchange reserves equivalent to upward of US$4 billion and an
> estimated annual income from oil revenues of between US$6 and US$8 billion.
> Although Libya suffered few balance-of- payments problems, it was beginning
> to be bothered by inflation. The country seemed to have adequate funds at
> its disposal, however."
This is from the Library of Congress Country Study of Libya. You read
this one paragraph, apparently, and none of the rest of the site.
Qadafi, of course, rose to power in 1969, so the first 18 years of the
25 years discussed here, during which the oil boom gave Libya
disproportionate wealth compared to its neighbors in North Africa, had
nothing to do with him. His policies, starting with the
nationalizations and confiscations of the 1970's, the tyrannical
restrictions on personal property, and the absurd and poorly planned
development schemes, squandered Libya's opportunity to nurture a
modern economy.
> Admittedly its from an old web site.
>
> http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?frd/cstdy:@field(DOCID+ly0073)
>
> Try this for interest...
This doesn't say anything about Qadafi doing anything for the Libyan
people. There's only one statement by a former ambassador to the
effect that recently the Libyan government has been *more* concerned
with the welfare of the Libyan people, but that does not suggest that
it previously was doing or currently is doing some (or any) "great
things" for them.
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/africa/newsid_434000/434876.stm
>
> Sorry I can't prove he does miracles (though I'm sure he's done some nasty
> stuff as well) but I have to admit I have a personal foundness for the
> Gadafi kookiness. And his ideology is..well...its ideology (nuff said)....
> it does make interesting reading though. The greenbooks are worthy of
> examination.
The Green Books are nothing but incoherent idiocy, though I suspect
that if one were to select random phrases from it and form it into an
online survey without mentioning the source, most of the "anarchist"
and "parecon" sympathizers here would find it quite agreeable.
His "kookiness" might be a little more humorous were it not that he
reigns over one of the most draconian dictatorships on earth. One
wonders: if Qadafi were a traditional hereditary monarch instead of an
ideological dictator, would you be so forgiving of and flippant about
his behavior (hint: the king of Afghanistan was quite a bit less
capricious with the lives of his people than Qadafi is)?
> http://www.geocities.com/Athens/8744/readgb.htm
>
> gotta love that rocket car too.
The rocket car is nonsense, another hare-brained scheme and propaganda
ploy by a failed dictator. I suspect that you are not so impressed by
what you view as American propaganda, but the propaganda of an
eccentric tyrant, now that's just plain fun.
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/middle_east/newsid_440000/440161.stm
>
> > And, if you don't mind, please cite references.
>
> Apologies for the lack of Journal refs. I'm no longer at uni. but home for
> the day :)
>
> Ohh...I suppose my fondness for the Gman makes me a terrorist sympathiser
> and an atrocity denier <smile and shrug>
Yes, in the same way that someone's fondness for Mussolini would make
them a fascist sympathizer.
What I find humorous is that anyone could blame another for "blinkered
thinking" while simultaneously accepting Soviet, Taliban, and Libyan
propaganda at face value.
Nathan Folkert
[snip]
> Besides costa rica continued to suppress labor and allow its country to
> be raped by American investors If the Sandinista's had done that, then
> perhaps, several hundred thousand less of them would have been mass murdered.
Nobody even pretends that "several hundred thousand" people were
killed as a result of US support for the Contras. If you add up *all*
deaths that occurred in Nicaragua *for any reason* between 1980 and
1990 you don't get more than 350,000 (based on a population of 3.5
million and a death rate of 10 per 1000 per year, both of which are
significant overestimates of the demographic figures for that period).
[snip]
- Nate
Nathan Folkert
> Nathan Folkert wrote:
[snip]
> No no, iirc you asked "what could we have done?" Thats what I answered.
> Not "what shall we do now?"
No, I asked (or my intention was to ask) what we should have done
after September 11 but before resorting to force that we hadn't done
for the previous three years, in response to your claim that we had
other options. I see that you misunderstood what I wrote (I probably
worded my question poorly), so we'll let this slide.
[snip]
> > > > > The reconstruction of the afghan govt and rebuilding of the
> > > > > infrastructure I would think is only fair. Though its hardly democratic
> > > > > (thats important isn't it ;)) to install a leader who has ties with the
> > > > > old crocked monarchy that the afghan people long ago diposed.
> > > >
> > > > The monarchy, which at least attempted to make reforms toward
> > > > constitutional democracy, was deposed by Daoud, a strongman dictator,
> > > > not by the "Afghan people".
> > >
> > > My apologies I never claimed to be omniscient.
> >
> > No, you claimed that the Afghan people deposed the monarchy in
> > Afghanistan, which is nonsense.
>
> I believe you. I would also be interested to read your source, mine,
> which claimed that he had the backing of the people is obviously
> incorrect.
You're changing your position. You did not claim that Daoud, with the
backing of the people, deposed the king. You claimed that the Afghan
people deposed the king. There undoubtedly was some popular
resentment of the monarchy there, as in all such socieities, and the
abolition of the monarchy was probably greeted favorably at first.
However, Daoud was a dictator (though worse was yet to come for poor
Afghanistan), not the "will of the masses". He was supported in his
actions not by a popular uprising, but by the Soviet-backed Parcham
faction of the Afghan communist movement, which was extremely
unpopular with the rural (that is, the bulk of the) population. There
are a lot of good histories of Afghanistan on the web. You were able
to find the Library of Congress Country Study for Libya -- go to the
same site and look up the entry for Afghanistan. Or enter "Daoud"
into google, and see where it takes you.
- Nate
Rob Findlay
My bad, I should have said 10's of thousands.
>[snip]
>
>- Nate
john smith
does it somehow matter wether it was 90.000 or 200.000 ?
it seems to me its still a sickening crime agains humanity and UN
charters.
And what are correct the figures for Guatemala, El Salvador and the rest
of C.America?
--js
john smith
>
> Matthew Healey <md...@nospam.student.canterbury.ac.nz> wrote in message news:<3C41FA04...@nospam.student.canterbury.ac.nz>...
>
> [snip]
>
> > Your 'blinkered' thinking betrays you. They were Lybian therefore they
> > must have been ordered by that despot madmad Khaddafi. Funnily enough
> > he's done some great things for that country.
>
> Name a few of the "great things" he's done for the Libyan people.
>
>
> - Nate
why jump the argument?
Because you've found a new one you can "win"?
Kadaffi took the oil industry from the multinationals
and even if it hasnt benefited his people optimally
they at least have a greater oportunity to control
their own production, income and destiny.
Not very unlike what Norway did in the 60s and 70s
by strongly restricting the multinationals
and nationalising most of the oil industry.
-- js
Nathan Folkert
> >>...the only "idealogical" drive behind US foreign policy is the
> >> idealogical drive of maintaining the US 'empire'.
> >>If you look at the comments of the strategic planners of the time no
> >>one seriusly viewed communism of as a threat.
[snip]
> Yes, I'm sure that European and Asian powers were also afraid of what
> soical revolution would to their own empires, and hence saw the
> nesscity of waging a the 'cold war'.
Let me understand what you're saying here: you're saying that the
Western elite saw no serious threat coming from the Soviets, who had
an army several million strong, modern military technology, nuclear
weapons, and were sworn ideological enemies of the West who maintained
support for global communist revolution, but they were afraid of
isolated and unorganized peasants in domains over which they had total
military and administrative control?
[snip]
- Nate
M J Carley
>Let me understand what you're saying here: you're saying that the
>Western elite saw no serious threat coming from the Soviets, who had
>an army several million strong, modern military technology, nuclear
>weapons, and were sworn ideological enemies of the West who maintained
>support for global communist revolution, but they were afraid of
>isolated and unorganized peasants in domains over which they had total
>military and administrative control?
More or less. Europe was carved up by the Allied powers and both sides
stuck to the deal: Stalin didn't help the Greek communists when they
were attacked by Britain and the US and NATO didn't help the
Hungarians or the Czechs when they were being butchered by Soviet
tanks. With the exception of a bit of rhetorical abuse, the
arrangement suited both sides. Incidentally, I think you are
overstating Soviet military power: they didn't have very many nuclear
weapons (indeed, when NATO was founded, they didn't have any).
In the rest of the world, it wasn't a sham: the `peasants', who were
by no means unorganized, had something to fight for. This control of
local resources by local people could not be allowed, so it was
stamped out.
--
`The question of whether Wittgenstein ever entered a Dublin pub cannot
be answered definitively.'
Matt H.
"Nathan Folkert" <nfol...@cs.stanford.edu> wrote in message
news:4b923300.02011...@posting.google.com...
> "Matt H." <md...@student.canterbury.ac.nz> wrote in message
news:<a20e3t$ah0$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz>...
funny
> > (ihmo) web article on it for you to check out (I assume you do humor
nathan
> > ;))
> > http://www.twf.org/News/Y1997/LibyaTunnels.html
>
> Yes, I read Margolis's piece in 1997, when it was published.
> This is from the Library of Congress Country Study of Libya. You read
> this one paragraph, apparently, and none of the rest of the site.
false.
> Qadafi, of course, rose to power in 1969, so the first 18 years of the
> 25 years discussed here, during which the oil boom gave Libya
> disproportionate wealth compared to its neighbors in North Africa, had
> nothing to do with him. His policies, starting with the
> nationalizations and confiscations of the 1970's, the tyrannical
> restrictions on personal property, and the absurd and poorly planned
> development schemes, squandered Libya's opportunity to nurture a
> modern economy.
the bastard :(
SNIP
> The Green Books are nothing but incoherent idiocy, though I suspect
> that if one were to select random phrases from it and form it into an
> online survey without mentioning the source, most of the "anarchist"
> and "parecon" sympathizers here would find it quite agreeable.
do you only ever read things you agree with? The more I disagree with
something the more I research it.
> His "kookiness" might be a little more humorous were it not that he
> reigns over one of the most draconian dictatorships on earth.
You'll have to excuse me but I'll laugh at anything.
> One
> wonders: if Qadafi were a traditional hereditary monarch instead of an
> ideological dictator, would you be so forgiving of and flippant about
> his behavior (hint: the king of Afghanistan was quite a bit less
> capricious with the lives of his people than Qadafi is)?
>
> > http://www.geocities.com/Athens/8744/readgb.htm
> >
> > gotta love that rocket car too.
>
> The rocket car is nonsense, another hare-brained scheme and propaganda
> ploy by a failed dictator.
The Gman is the King of 'playing the crowd' via propoganda and selective
information. He's also a kind of antihero-hero. I find that amusing and
appealing.
> I suspect that you are not so impressed by
> what you view as American propaganda
If I lived in the Lybia and was affected negatively by his actions then I
would be critical of the BigG, I have no doubt. But I live in a small
country with little international economic and political voice. So I
criticise those who (from my observations) do exert influence on where I
live.
> but the propaganda of an
> eccentric tyrant, now that's just plain fun.
ya gotta laugh don't ya. He's just the best.
SNIP
> > Ohh...I suppose my fondness for the Gman makes me a terrorist
sympathiser
> > and an atrocity denier <smile and shrug>
>
> Yes, in the same way that someone's fondness for Mussolini would make
> them a fascist sympathizer.
Don't you mean 'fondness for Mussolini's fascism' would made them a
'fascist' sympathiser. Because fondness for 'Mussolini' would make them a
'Mussolini' sympathiser. I can like the man (who I dont really have an
opinion about in this case) without embracing their ideology.The reverse is
true also....I could dislike someone personally but still like what they
have to say.
> What I find humorous is that anyone could blame another for "blinkered
> thinking"
I meant that without hesitation you condemed something or someone along
ideological lines (I understand thats par for the course around here) but I
still dislike it. You appeared to let ideology do your thinking for you
(apologies for appearing judgemental ;)) That is what I mean by blinkered.
>while simultaneously accepting Soviet, Taliban, and Libyan
> propaganda at face value.
No not really. Though I am drawn to 'novelty' and to be honest Western
propoganda is not a novelty to me. Divergent perspective are though.
matt
:p
Rob Findlay
Yeap, that about spells it out. Both sides benefitted more from the
war being kept 'cold' as opposed to hot.
>--
>`The question of whether Wittgenstein ever entered a Dublin pub cannot
> be answered definitively.'
>
> http://www.bath.ac.uk/~ensmjc/
Matthew Healey
Nathan Folkert wrote:
>
> Matthew Healey <md...@nospam.student.canterbury.ac.nz> wrote in message news:<3C437FF5...@nospam.student.canterbury.ac.nz>...
> > Nathan Folkert wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > No no, iirc you asked "what could we have done?" Thats what I answered.
> > Not "what shall we do now?"
>
> No, I asked (or my intention was to ask) what we should have done
> after September 11 but before resorting to force that we hadn't done
> for the previous three years, in response to your claim that we had
> other options. I see that you misunderstood what I wrote (I probably
> worded my question poorly)
I'll go with the last one.
>, so we'll let this slide.
How gracious of you ;)
SNIP
> > I believe you. I would also be interested to read your source, mine,
> > which claimed that he had the backing of the people is obviously
> > incorrect.
>
> You're changing your position.
I have no 'position;' just what I read.
> You did not claim that Daoud, with the
> backing of the people, deposed the king.
I suggested that the King had been ousted by the people.
> You claimed that the Afghan
> people deposed the king.
Yes but I never thought for a moment that they 'all' would try to take
the reins. I assumed a popular figure or similar was leading the charge.
> There
> are a lot of good histories of Afghanistan on the web.
Yes I'm sure.
> -- go to the
> same site and look up the entry for Afghanistan. Or enter "Daoud"
> into google, and see where it takes you.
Tnankyou but I do know and actually I did do that after your initial
correction. Am I forgiven?
matt
:p
Tim Starr
>In article <9384ebd6.02011...@posting.google.com>, Tim Starr wrote:
>>slag...@billybeckloon.org (Rob Findlay) wrote in message
>>news:<slrna3vgqn....@slacknet.slacknet.com>...
>>
>>[snip]
>>
>>>...the only "idealogical" drive behind US foreign policy is the idealogical
>>>drive of maintaining the US 'empire'.
>>>
>>>If you look at the comments of the strategic planners of the time no one
>>>seriusly viewed communism of as a threat.
>>
>>West Germany certainly took the Communist threat seriously, as did Britain,
>>France, & the rest of NATO's founders. US participation in NATO was
>>originally supposed to be temporary, but the US not only had to be dragged
>>kicking & screaming into it in the first place, but once the US was in most
>>NATO members never wanted the US to leave. SEATO was formed to contain
>>Communism in South-East Asia. Australia & New Zealand took the Communist
>>threat seriously enough to contribute troops to the defense of South
>>Vietnam, Britain fought a Communist insurgency in Malaya - surely you don't
>>think the Australians, New Zealanders, & British were merely US puppets?
>
>Yes, I'm sure that European and Asian powers were also afraid of what
>soical revolution would to their own empires, and hence saw the nesscity of
>waging a the 'cold war'.
What empires did Australia & New Zealand have?
>>>What they feared was the risk such countries would present to American
>>>Corporate profits.
>>
>>Why should the Australians, New Zealanders, & British give a fig about
>>American Corporate profits?
>
>They weren't. They were concerned with maintaining the profitibility of
>the local overclass.
How was "the profitability of the local overclass" of Australia & New Zealand
maintained by ANZAC military support for the Korean and Vietnam Wars? How was
it maintained by Canadian military support for the Korean War?
>>>And that if say Chile managed to build a social democracy that addressed the
>>>needs of the people...
>>
>>How would that have differed from what the Costa Ricans did, which was not
>>interfered with by the USA?
>
>Because Costa Rica didn't do anything insane like nationalizing an industry
>that would cut into American profits.
Thanks for admitting that you advocate the nationalization of industry. BTW,
Pinochet never de-nationalized Anaconda Copper, so how could that have been the
pretext for the overthrow of Allende?
>Besides costa rica continued to suppress labor...
Really? How, other than by banning the Communist Party? Costa Rica's labor
unions are quite powerful.
>and allow its country to be raped by American investors...
What do you mean, specifically? How would you have done things differently?
Costa Rica has been one of the most peaceful & prosperous countries in Latin
America for decades. Doesn't sound like too bad an outcome for me. Things are
so good down there that many Americans and Canadians retire there, with a
living standard comparable to that of the USA.
>If the Sandinista's had done that, then perhaps, several hundred thousand less
>of them would have been mass murdered.
Nice exagerration, so much for accuracy. BTW, death in combat is not the same
as murder.
Tim Starr
Tim Starr
>In the referenced article, nfol...@cs.stanford.edu (Nathan Folkert) writes:
>
>>Let me understand what you're saying here: you're saying that the
>>Western elite saw no serious threat coming from the Soviets, who had
>>an army several million strong, modern military technology, nuclear
>>weapons, and were sworn ideological enemies of the West who maintained
>>support for global communist revolution, but they were afraid of
>>isolated and unorganized peasants in domains over which they had total
>>military and administrative control?
>
>More or less. Europe was carved up by the Allied powers and both sides
>stuck to the deal: Stalin didn't help the Greek communists when they
>were attacked by Britain and the US and NATO didn't help the
>Hungarians or the Czechs when they were being butchered by Soviet
>tanks. With the exception of a bit of rhetorical abuse, the
>arrangement suited both sides.
If the West didn't consider the Soviets to be any threat, then how do you
explain the formation of NATO in the first place? Containment was the public
strategy of the West for dealing with Communism, and the need to contain it
implies that it threatened to expand. You're using the success of the policy
as an argument against the need for it in the first place.
Also, your description of how Stalin played by the rules doesn't apply to how
the game was played in Asia. Mao broke the rules by continuing the Chinese
Civil War instead of entering into a coalition government with the KMT, the
North Koreans broke the rules by invading South Korea, the Viet Cong broke
the rules by not withdrawing their cadre from South Vietnam, violating Laotian
and Cambodian neutrality, infiltrating guerillas into South Vietnam, etc.
Tim Starr
Nathan Folkert
> Nathan Folkert wrote:
[snip]
> > Nobody even pretends that "several hundred thousand" people were
> > killed as a result of US support for the Contras. If you add up *all*
> > deaths that occurred in Nicaragua *for any reason* between 1980 and
> > 1990 you don't get more than 350,000 (based on a population of 3.5
> > million and a death rate of 10 per 1000 per year, both of which are
> > significant overestimates of the demographic figures for that period).
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > - Nate
>
> does it somehow matter wether it was 90.000 or 200.000 ?
The reasonable estimates are in the range of 30-60k, or several tens
of thousands, a factor of ten less than the provided estimate, which
makes some but not much difference to me. Regardless, that is not the
reason why I posted.
> it seems to me its still a sickening crime agains humanity and UN
> charters.
So was the Sandanista support for the rebels in El Salvador and their
treatment of the Nicaraguan people, but for which probably 100,000
people, Nicaraguans and Salvadoreans, might not have been killed. Are
you concerned about their crimes as well? Now for me, my concern is
clearly hypocritical, since the Nicaraguan crimes are crimes that I
could do nothing about, whereas, being a ten year old in America, I
had the power *and* the moral responsibility to halt the US support
for the Contras. You, you're Norwegian, aren't you? Or was that
someone else? If so, nothing's stopping you from being equally
critical of the Sandanista's hypocritical violation of international
law.
> And what are correct the figures for Guatemala, El Salvador and the rest
> of C.America?
There are no "correct figures" for these or for Nicaragua. The
*reasonable estimates* are 70-80k for El Salvador and 140-200+k for
Guatemala, last I heard. I'm not sure what the relevance of your
question is, though. You can look those up yourself if you'd like.
- Nate
Nathan Folkert
>
> >Let me understand what you're saying here: you're saying that the
> >Western elite saw no serious threat coming from the Soviets, who had
> >an army several million strong, modern military technology, nuclear
> >weapons, and were sworn ideological enemies of the West who maintained
> >support for global communist revolution, but they were afraid of
> >isolated and unorganized peasants in domains over which they had total
> >military and administrative control?
>
> More or less.
How much more, how much less?
> Europe was carved up by the Allied powers and both sides
> stuck to the deal: Stalin didn't help the Greek communists when they
> were attacked by Britain and the US and NATO didn't help the
> Hungarians or the Czechs when they were being butchered by Soviet
> tanks.
Let us ignore for the moment that while perhaps Stalin didn't want to
aid the Greek Communists, they did, in fact, rely on support from
Tito's Communist Yugoslavia (the revolt ended quite shortly after Tito
ceased aiding them, after the Yugoslav-Moscow split). Even if the
Communist front in Europe was fairly stable, Stalin did, in fact, help
Mao and Kim Il Sung expand the reach of Communism over hundreds of
millions of people and millions of square miles of territory, as well
as actively aiding (and directing) revolutionaries in Southeast Asia
and elsewhere, among them Ho Chi Minh.
> With the exception of a bit of rhetorical abuse, the
> arrangement suited both sides. Incidentally, I think you are
> overstating Soviet military power: they didn't have very many nuclear
> weapons (indeed, when NATO was founded, they didn't have any).
When the US joined NATO, we didn't have very many nuclear weapons,
either, which is irrelevant regardless, since the Cold War lasted
significantly past 1949. How many nuclear weapons does a hostile
power need to have to be considered a threat?
> In the rest of the world, it wasn't a sham: the `peasants', who were
> by no means unorganized, had something to fight for. This control of
> local resources by local people could not be allowed, so it was
> stamped out.
I see. I couldn't have put it better myself, a year ago. Yet the
major interventions -- Vietnam and Korea -- were in response to the
rather obvious threat that the control of the local resources might
fall into the hands of Communist bureaucrats either allied with or
directed by foreign Communist empires; though I suppose the euphemism
"local people" works just as well. (Also, there was no massive
intervention when political control really was given to local people
in India or throughout British Africa.) For some reason, I suspect
your thesis is in some sense lacking.
Nate
Nathan Folkert
> "Nathan Folkert" <nfol...@cs.stanford.edu> wrote in message
> news:4b923300.02011...@posting.google.com...
> > "Matt H." <md...@student.canterbury.ac.nz> wrote in message
> news:<a20e3t$ah0$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz>...
[snip]
> > This is from the Library of Congress Country Study of Libya. You read
> > this one paragraph, apparently, and none of the rest of the site.
>
> false.
Then you should realize that the rest of their history contradicts
your suggestion that Qadafi did some "great things" for the Libyan
people.
[snip]
> > The Green Books are nothing but incoherent idiocy, though I suspect
> > that if one were to select random phrases from it and form it into an
> > online survey without mentioning the source, most of the "anarchist"
> > and "parecon" sympathizers here would find it quite agreeable.
>
> do you only ever read things you agree with? The more I disagree with
> something the more I research it.
I've read all of the Green Books, which should have been clear from my
comments above, and I certainly don't agree with them, so I'm not sure
how you're coming up with this criticism.
[snip]
> > I suspect that you are not so impressed by
> > what you view as American propaganda
>
> If I lived in the Lybia and was affected negatively by his actions then I
> would be critical of the BigG, I have no doubt. But I live in a small
> country with little international economic and political voice. So I
> criticise those who (from my observations) do exert influence on where I
> live.
Yeah, like Israel, which quite obviously exerts great influence over
New Zealand. Too bad Sharon's not quite as crazy as Qadafi, and
didn't help kill quite as many people as Qadafi, otherwise you might
have more affection for him.
[snip]
> > > Ohh...I suppose my fondness for the Gman makes me a terrorist
> > > sympathiser and an atrocity denier <smile and shrug>
> >
> > Yes, in the same way that someone's fondness for Mussolini would make
> > them a fascist sympathizer.
>
> Don't you mean 'fondness for Mussolini's fascism' would made them a
> 'fascist' sympathiser.
I might mean that, perhaps, had you said "Qadafi is a funny and
likeable guy, in a kooky sort of way" instead of "He's done some great
things for that country".
[snip]
> > What I find humorous is that anyone could blame another for "blinkered
> > thinking"
>
> I meant that without hesitation you condemed something or someone along
> ideological lines (I understand thats par for the course around here) but I
> still dislike it. You appeared to let ideology do your thinking for you
> (apologies for appearing judgemental ;)) That is what I mean by blinkered.
Not me. You were responding to "Real Name". (Though maybe you feel
that way about me as well...)
[snip]
- Nate
Nathan Folkert
> Nathan Folkert wrote:
> >
> > Matthew Healey <md...@nospam.student.canterbury.ac.nz> wrote in message news:<3C41FA04...@nospam.student.canterbury.ac.nz>...
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > > Your 'blinkered' thinking betrays you. They were Lybian therefore they
> > > must have been ordered by that despot madmad Khaddafi. Funnily enough
> > > he's done some great things for that country.
> >
> > Name a few of the "great things" he's done for the Libyan people.
> > And, if you don't mind, please cite references.
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > - Nate
>
> why jump the argument?
>
> Because you've found a new one you can "win"?
>
> Kadaffi took the oil industry from the multinationals
> and even if it hasnt benefited his people optimally
> they at least have a greater oportunity to control
> their own production, income and destiny.
I "jumped the argument" to challenge this kind of apologia. The
Libyan people are amongst the least free in the world. They do not
have any opportunity "to control their production, income, or
destiny".
> Not very unlike what Norway did in the 60s and 70s
> by strongly restricting the multinationals
> and nationalising most of the oil industry.
Nationalizing the oil industry is one thing. Giving the government
absolute and arbitrary control over every citizen's income and
personal property is quite another.