OT: Michael Moore Sends AMK His Regards
Padraig L Henry
.:-) :-) o o :-) :-)
:-) | :-)
:-) :-)
:-) :-):-) :-) :-) :-) :-)
_____________________________
October 1, 2002
"YOU ARE EITHER WITH US, OR YOU ARE FIRED!"
Dear AMK Friends,
I was going to write you a letter about what a pathetic liar George W,
Bush is -- but then I figured, hey, why waste your time telling you
something you already know!
You already know that his planned invasion of Iraq is a ruse meant to
distract the public from the real issues, those issues being the
following:
1. The number of people unemployed since he "took" office has risen by
35%.
2. We had a federal SURPLUS of $281 billion when he was inaugurated;
today we have a DEFICIT of $157 billion.
3. TWO MILLION jobs have been eliminated since Bush began his
occupation of the Oval Office.
4. The stock market is down 34% since January of 2001.
5. Another 1.4 million people now have NO health insurance, making it
a total of over 41 million Americans who can't afford to get sick.
6. Only 13 corporate crooks out of HUNDREDS have been indicted, and
none of them have been the close personal friends of Mr. Bush.
THOSE are the real issues facing us, not some phony excuse for a war.
But, like I said, you already know that. You know that Bush is lying
through his smirk when he says Iraq has "weapons of mass destruction."
He has not offered one shred of evidence to prove this. Not one! You
know he is lying when he says that there is a "connection" between
Saddam and bin Laden. Even members of his own administration have
admitted that is not true. It's just one lie after another, and I
applaud those three congressmen who went to Iraq this week and told it
like it is -- and demanded that the sanctions which have already
killed a half-million Iraqi children be ended. Sen. Trent Lott said
"they should come home and keep their mouths shut." I say, we need
more damn Democrats with that kind of courage and with mouths like
that!
Which brings me to the real point of this letter. The Democrats.
I have never seen a more lame bunch of cowards and appeasers in my
life. They are ready to bow down before Bush and give him what he
wants to wage war against Iraq. This pathetic excuse of a party is an
embarrassment to us all. The fact that they let Robert Torricelli run
for re-election in New Jersey, knowing how dirty he was, shows just
how capable they are of handing the Senate over to Bush and the
Republicans come November. They have blown it over and over again, and
lots of good people I know who keep putting their faith in the
Democrats are just giving up -- and that is the worst thing to happen
in a free society.
What are we going to do? Left to their own devices, the Democrats will
not only hand both the House and the Senate to the Republicans in
November, they will guarantee that Bush gets his second undeserved
term in 2004. We must not let that happen. This year's election was
theirs for the taking. Just look at the state of the union Bush gave
us: Bush cronies caught stealing from the corporate till, Bush and
Cheney caught breaking the law in the '90s, the economy in the toilet,
and Bush failing to do the only real job he had to do since 9/11: Get
bin Laden! What a disgrace! Yet the Democrats could not even find
enough candidates to offer a REAL challenge to the Republicans in
nearly 200 House districts for the November 5th elections. What an
appalling excuse of a party.
OK, I know, there is not much we can do about this now. But we all
need to get busy and ensure that this whole rotten system is rocked by
the disgruntled millions come election day 2004. Otherwise, we have no
right to complain.
In the meantime, we must stop the Bush attack on Iraq. We must find
out now, as W says, "who is wid us and who is agin us." I am asking
each of you to please sign the petition I have posted here
(http://www.michaelmoore.com/petitions/peacepledge/index.php) and on
my website (www.michaelmoore.com) informing the Democrats that whoever
amongst them votes for this war, we pledge NEVER to vote for them
again. I will personally see that your on-line signatures are
delivered to every member of Congress. I guarantee your voice will be
heard loud and clear.
Go to http://www.michaelmoore.com/petitions/peacepledge/index.php and
sign the petition to the Democrats: "You're Either With Us Or You're
Fired." Then let's figure out together what we can do to turn things
around by 2004.
Thanks for taking the time to do this. We have no other choice.
Yours,
Michael Moore
Winston Castro
wrote:
>
>October 1, 2002
>
>"YOU ARE EITHER WITH US, OR YOU ARE FIRED!"
>
>Dear AMK Friends,
>
>I was going to write you a letter about what a pathetic liar George W,
>Bush is -- but then I figured, hey, why waste your time telling you
>something you already know!
>
>You already know that his planned invasion of Iraq is a ruse meant to
>distract the public from the real issues, those issues being the
>following:
>1. The number of people unemployed since he "took" office has risen by
>35%.
>2. We had a federal SURPLUS of $281 billion when he was inaugurated;
>today we have a DEFICIT of $157 billion.
>3. TWO MILLION jobs have been eliminated since Bush began his
>occupation of the Oval Office.
>4. The stock market is down 34% since January of 2001.
>5. Another 1.4 million people now have NO health insurance, making it
>a total of over 41 million Americans who can't afford to get sick.
>6. Only 13 corporate crooks out of HUNDREDS have been indicted, and
>none of them have been the close personal friends of Mr. Bush.
>
>THOSE are the real issues facing us, not some phony excuse for a war.
As horrendous as all the above is, Ashcroft, with Shrub's full
blessing, has used the 9-11 tragedy to whittle our constitutional
right away one by one. I find that prospect equally if not more
frightening.
>
>Which brings me to the real point of this letter. The Democrats.
>
>I have never seen a more lame bunch of cowards and appeasers in my
>life. They are ready to bow down before Bush and give him what he
>wants to wage war against Iraq. This pathetic excuse of a party is an
>embarrassment to us all.
Keep in mind, the present climate in this country as of late casts
anyone who objects to the war as a traitor or a "Hanoi-Jane," as I
heard one right-wing editorial columnist refer to the Democrats
today. "You are either with us or against us!" Crude, but effective.
Sadly, most all leaders trying to drum up support for an unpopular war
use this tried and true technique to great advantage.
Morgands1
which Dick Cheney was riding a Tomahawk missile towards Baghdad -- the
Strangelove influence was pretty heavy but, alas, not nearly as funny.
Chris Cathcart
> You already know that his planned invasion of Iraq is a ruse meant to
> distract the public from the real issues, those issues being the
> following:
> 1. The number of people unemployed since he "took" office has risen by
> 35%.
> 2. We had a federal SURPLUS of $281 billion when he was inaugurated;
> today we have a DEFICIT of $157 billion.
> 3. TWO MILLION jobs have been eliminated since Bush began his
> occupation of the Oval Office.
> 4. The stock market is down 34% since January of 2001.
> 5. Another 1.4 million people now have NO health insurance, making it
> a total of over 41 million Americans who can't afford to get sick.
> 6. Only 13 corporate crooks out of HUNDREDS have been indicted, and
> none of them have been the close personal friends of Mr. Bush.
Of course, while it's not stated outright, there is the clearly
irrational suggestion that Bush is somehow at fault for the poor state
of the economy and the fiscal turnaround.
And what other suggestion may be contained therein? That the gov't
should "do somethin' about the economy"? Yes, there is something it
can do: leave it the fuck alone. (As far as the budget goes, there's
the matter of getting it balanced, and of course the best way to do
it, particularly from the moral angle, is to cut spending. You ain't
going to get much mileage out of raising taxes in the midst of a
recession -- when has that ever worked to solve a fiscal or economic
problem? -- and you can't expect a whole lot of fiscal improvement in
a cyclical downturn to begin with.)
Felix Tiaka
There's a better argument that the current economic downturn, if it might
indeed be blamed on one specific individual in the whitehouse, was caused by
Clinton.
Here's a Atlantic article by Joseph Stiglitz, chairman of Clinton's council
of economic advisors.
http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2002/10/stiglitz.htm
There are others, but I don't feel like looking them up. Ofcourse one has to
wonder why the radical-left's so willing to jump Bush, and not the
terrorists who fucking flew planes into two of the biggest standing
buildings in New York city costing thousands of lives and billions upon
billions of economic damage to the area. There are differences as to the
final outcome of the damages to the country, but it's likely in trillions.
In Las Vegas, one is every 20 jobs was cut in the 6 weeks after the attack.
The same went all over the country.
But no, wait... what are we talking about here? Terrorists? Such people
don't exist, because it clearly was the Mossad and the fucking Jews who blew
the towers up with missiles and blamed it on poor paleostinians... and then
Bush went over to give Sharon a blowjob. Yep, keep on believing that, and
clean renewable energy like windmills are being kept down by the evil oil
companies. Eek!
Padraig L Henry
<at7000@_no_spam_hotmail.com> wrote:
> Keep in mind, the present climate in this country as of late casts
>anyone who objects to the war as a traitor or a "Hanoi-Jane," as I
>heard one right-wing editorial columnist refer to the Democrats
>today. "You are either with us or against us!" Crude, but effective.
>Sadly, most all leaders trying to drum up support for an unpopular war
>use this tried and true technique to great advantage.
Such intimidation is effective on whom? Those who no longer believe in
freedom of speech?
Enemies of America, like that "right-wing editorial columnist," need
to be directly confronted just like McCarthy was.
What are principled Americans afraid of? Psychos like the right-wing,
war mongering lunatics who post here (a growing list, I'm afraid,
because oh-so many of AMK's long-time contributors no long give a damn
about what's happening in their country, or even care to do anything
about it)?
Winston, the entire international community is behind those of you in
America who are against Bush's insanity. Even in Britain, whose lapdog
government supports some of that madness, some 70 percent of the
population are against "war" (though "unilateral slaughter" is a more
accurate description for what is planned by these criminals)
You can try to impeach a president for flirting with a member of
staff, but you can do nothing about a president who is planning to
commit genocide abroad and undermine your rights at home, not to
mention much else that is odious?
Padraig
[sigh]
Padraig L Henry
wrote:
>There are others, but I don't feel like looking them up. Ofcourse one has to
>wonder why the radical-left's so willing to jump Bush, and not the
>terrorists who fucking flew planes into two of the biggest standing
>buildings in New York city costing thousands of lives and billions upon
>billions of economic damage to the area.
Oh, how convenient! Its all the terrorists' fault! (But then, as Bush
is, in fact, now the world's biggest and most dangerous terrorist,
yes, terrorists are indeed to blame for the state of your now morally
reprehensible ex-nation).
>There are differences as to the
>final outcome of the damages to the country, but it's likely in trillions.
>In Las Vegas, one is every 20 jobs was cut in the 6 weeks after the attack.
>The same went all over the country.
Yes, scumbags exploiting the tragedy to their own petty advantage,
like you are doing right now, Felix. To think that you were once a
Kubrick fan ...
Padraig
Felix Tiaka
"Padraig L Henry" <phe...@iol.ie> wrote in message
news:3da0edf6...@news.iol.ie...
> On Sun, 6 Oct 2002 13:59:37 -0500, "Felix Tiaka" <podz...@tiaka.com>
> wrote:
>
> >There are others, but I don't feel like looking them up. Ofcourse one has
to
> >wonder why the radical-left's so willing to jump Bush, and not the
> >terrorists who fucking flew planes into two of the biggest standing
> >buildings in New York city costing thousands of lives and billions upon
> >billions of economic damage to the area.
>
> Oh, how convenient! Its all the terrorists' fault! (But then, as Bush
> is, in fact, now the world's biggest and most dangerous terrorist,
> yes, terrorists are indeed to blame for the state of your now morally
> reprehensible ex-nation).
Hmm.. see, I can't really reply to something like that. I can't claim I'm
getting all the facts right, but I'm fairly confident that I'm somewhere in
the ballpark. (I can look the better figures up later on) Atleast I'm
provided signal, it was a reply to another signal that Chris originally
sent. While you on the other hand are replying noise that carries no
information. Your reply mirrors what I've said a couple of lines above,
except severely distorted (I perceive it's sarcasm on your part). No it's
not all the terrorist's fault, it's also the dot-com burst, the generally
faulty accounting practices held by various companies during the 90's.
As far as I can recall, Bush never tried to push a radical religious
ideology by killing as many innocent civilians as possible. I'm being
utilitarian here, and that's a practical definition. Webster's definition is
a bit more broad but is basically the same. I don't really know who the
world's biggest terrorist is, as much as there can be a 'worlds greatest'
anything.
> >There are differences as to the
> >final outcome of the damages to the country, but it's likely in
trillions.
> >In Las Vegas, one is every 20 jobs was cut in the 6 weeks after the
attack.
> >The same went all over the country.
>
> Yes, scumbags exploiting the tragedy to their own petty advantage,
> like you are doing right now, Felix. To think that you were once a
> Kubrick fan ...
Again, I'm receiving severe noise on your part, there is some information
here though. Who are these scumbags? Using deductive reasoning I perceive
them to be 'greedy capitalist fascist pigs' who own businesses in Las Vegas?
Am I approximately correct? You might have the whole of the United States in
mind though. Please correct me if I'm getting it wrong.
United States is a fairly capitalist country, and I see it to be fairly free
in it's labor practices, for most part ofcourse. There are labor unions and
such, but I don't perceive there to be a Las Vegas Local Casino Workers #102
(Or such). I could be wrong. (I have nothing against Unions) That differs
greatly from much of Europe though, and I don't claim to be an expert to
hiring and firing practices there, but from what I've read, they are
severely more controlled by the government. Like an employer has to go to
court to prove that his firing of someone was justified and can face
penalties if shown wrong. I think this is where you are coming from; that
companies (and also government) are required to provide jobs, that it is an
end. I don't know what you consider the motives of those that are doing the
firing, but again, I think you're considering it to be corporate greed. I
can't say that that is not the case some times, but I'd say it's an
exception to a rule. Companies have to be profitable to a certain extent and
if business falters, actions have to be taken.
I'm not sure how I'm using the terrorist attacks of 9/11 to my own
advantage. I'm not getting any kind of reward from anything, including
writing in this thread. I've just been lurking for the longest time and got
kind of tired, Chris said something interesting and I replied. I'm also not
sure how I'm no longer a Kubrick fan, is it a membership kind of deal? I'm a
Kubrick fan as much as I ever was. I'm being courteous, I never insulted you
, in any way or by any association. I'm not your enemy, I think you are
trying to categorize me with some perceived wrong and are not giving my
argument an open chance. You automatically consider me wrong. I can't say
I'm very much surprised to this, earlier in the month, riots took place in
Montreal where Netanyahu was to hold a speech. He had to cancel. They won.
The protestors broke windows, trashed local businesses, called death to
"Jews" and I've even read one report of someone carrying explosives. Their
mentality is "no free speech for hate speech", do you consider me spouting
hate speech?
Felix.
Listening to Arvo Part - Tabula Rasa.
JW Moore
wrote:
>On Sun, 6 Oct 2002 13:59:37 -0500, "Felix Tiaka" <podz...@tiaka.com>
I don't know where the line is on this NG anymore, but this is way
over it. Your manifest hatred of America is blinding you to the fact
that al Qaeda, not Bush, set in motion the Afghan war, the increased
scrutiny of visa applications, and all the other events you glibly
categorize as racist, terrorist ... ad nauseam. Bin Laden and his
fellow fanatics are bad, bad boys Padraig. They cannot be reasoned
with; they clearly don't give a damn about human life, their own or
anybody else's. They must be stopped, killed if necessary. The job is
far from over. As for Iraq, I was a frequent lurker here back in 1998
when the US rained missiles all over Baghdad -- where was all this
righteous indignation then?
Finally, to suggest that every true Kubrick fan must agree with you on
events totally unrelated to Kubrick -- and that Kubrick would of
course agree with you! -- is arrogant to say the least. There are
plenty of other NGs that would be happy to indulge your Yank-bashing
rants. Go there. And take Michael Moore with you.
~~Jack
iHĞ
wrote:
>There's a better argument that the current economic downturn, if it might
>indeed be blamed on one specific individual in the whitehouse, was caused by
>Clinton.
>
>Here's a Atlantic article by Joseph Stiglitz, chairman of Clinton's council
>of economic advisors.
>
>http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2002/10/stiglitz.htm
>
>There are others, but I don't feel like looking them up.
Yeah, "effort" is over-rated, like "caring."
BTW, it's fair enough to offer Stiglitz's article as a condemnation of
Clinton economic policy, but I hope you're not suggesting it's an
endorsement of the Bush team's handling of the economy.
> Ofcourse one has to
>wonder why the radical-left's so willing to jump Bush, and not the
>terrorists who fucking flew planes into two of the biggest standing
>buildings in New York city
Because they're "fucking dead", along with their victims? And Bush is
about to ensure that more people wind up dead, people who had nothing
to do with 9/11, people who pose no threat to anyone?
>costing thousands of lives and billions upon
>billions of economic damage to the area. There are differences as to the
>final outcome of the damages to the country, but it's likely in trillions.
Well I guess by that logic, the USA could be economically wiped out
with the destruction of a few dozen more buildings. Are you sure
you're not giving future terrorists hope?
>In Las Vegas, one is every 20 jobs was cut in the 6 weeks after the attack.
>The same went all over the country.
Let's see now -- two buildings (I'll omit the Pentagon attack, like
you), 5% of jobs; 40 buildings, 100% of jobs. I hope no terrorists
are reading this...
>But no, wait... what are we talking about here? Terrorists? Such people
>don't exist, because it clearly was the Mossad and the fucking Jews who blew
>the towers up with missiles and blamed it on poor paleostinians... and then
>Bush went over to give Sharon a blowjob. Yep, keep on believing that, and
>clean renewable energy like windmills are being kept down by the evil oil
>companies. Eek!
And why not stop puffing at the windmills of your mind and deal with
the arguments presented on AMK? Or is that too much effort and too
little fun?
"All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy."
Thornhill
> Finally, to suggest that every true Kubrick fan must agree with you on
> events totally unrelated to Kubrick -- and that Kubrick would of
> course agree with you! -- is arrogant to say the least. There are
> plenty of other NGs that would be happy to indulge your Yank-bashing
> rants. Go there. And take Michael Moore with you.
>
> ~~Jack
Jack,
Have you considered taking your arrogance along with you, too, by
leaving Moore to post whatever he wishes at AMK?
Just an idea to ponder.
Thornhill
Padraig L Henry
wrote:
>I don't know where the line is on this NG anymore, but this is way
>over it.
No it ain't. Any informed, rational discussion concerning current US
foreign policy on this newsgroup - which, incidentally, is 100 per
cent on topic for AMK (or haven't you yet heard of such films as FMJ
or Dr S, etc?) - is incessantly met with uninformed, dismissive or
evasive rants from people like yourself, Jack (as further evidenced
below), and when this happens, I respond in kind, because that is all
such complacent propaganda deserves.
>Your manifest hatred of America
What utter nonsense; is this all you can say about anyone who
challenges US foreign policy? It is that policy which is, among other
things, anti-American.
>is blinding you to the fact
>that al Qaeda, not Bush, set in motion the Afghan war, the increased
>scrutiny of visa applications, and all the other events you glibly
>categorize as racist, terrorist ... ad nauseam.
Again, nonsense; this is just the official Bush rhetoric. Who set in
motion al Qaeda? Go look it up. (Or should that be "Go check it out,
haha, go check it out, Wendy!!").
>Bin Laden and his
>fellow fanatics are bad, bad boys Padraig.
You don't say! And what this has to do with starting a bloody war,
first in Iraq, and later elsewhere ... is anyone's guess, isn't it?
Bush and his proxy dictators are a bigger threat to world peace than a
hundred bin Ladens.
>They cannot be reasoned
>with; they clearly don't give a damn about human life, their own or
>anybody else's.
Ditto the Bush Administration.
>They must be stopped, killed if necessary.
An International Court is there to handle that, but you'd rather just
go on killing thousands of innocent people on the pretext of hunting
down one little CIA-nourished monster.
>The job is
>far from over. As for Iraq, I was a frequent lurker here back in 1998
>when the US rained missiles all over Baghdad -- where was all this
>righteous indignation then?
If you wish to dismiss the sentiments of those opposed to further
slaughter in the Middle East as "Righteous indignation", well then,
I'm all for it! The imminent mass slaughter is all just another
"job" to you, just "business", isn't it? No need to discuss it ...
>Finally, to suggest that every true Kubrick fan must agree with you on
>events totally unrelated to Kubrick -- and that Kubrick would of
>course agree with you! -- is arrogant to say the least.
If it is arrogant to expose the pro-war hypocrites on this newsgroup,
to discuss events totally related to Kubrick and all he stood for in
his work, then I'm all for it!
>There are
>plenty of other NGs that would be happy to indulge your Yank-bashing
>rants. Go there. And take Michael Moore with you.
No, >you< go there :-) ... and take your war-mongering nutcases with
you.
Padraig
Padraig L Henry
wrote:
>Perhaps it's time we consider Padrig a troll and have each of his posts
>followed by an obnoxious L.B. styled "Please Consider The Following Before
>Replying to Padrig" memo.
YOU are the obnoxious troll. LB is much more welcome here, despite his
chronic mis-information about Kubrick and his family, than the likes
of sinister trolls like you.
>
>For example:
>
>The denial--
>
>> >Your manifest hatred of America
>>
>> What utter nonsense; is this all you can say about anyone who
>> challenges US foreign policy?
>
>The reality--
>
>> Oh, how convenient! Its all the terrorists' fault! (But then, as Bush
>> is, in fact, now the world's biggest and most dangerous terrorist,
>> yes, terrorists are indeed to blame for the state of your now morally
>> reprehensible ex-nation).
You have a problem with that? You reveal yourself to deem Bush as
representing core American values? That is to laugh.
Padraig
... and, BTW, ye'll be hearin' from Turing-Test-proof Micheal here
shortly ...
iHĞ
wrote:
>It wasn't even posted by in AMK by Michael Moore. It's the standard letter
>on Moore's web site. He writes one every week or so. I've been reading them
>for quite a while now. It was deliberately misleadingly posted as coming
>from Michael Moore to AMK by Uber-US-hater Padrig as part of his
>mis/dis-information, anti-US propoganda campain.
You are the proverbial strainer-outer of gnats and swallower of
camels: you, and a few others on AMK, to whom the rules of debate are
about as well understood and important as international law is to
Bush.
>Perhaps it's time we consider Padrig a troll and have each of his posts
>followed by an obnoxious L.B. styled "Please Consider The Following Before
>Replying to Padrig" memo.
>
>For example:
>
>The denial--
>
>> >Your manifest hatred of America
>>
>> What utter nonsense; is this all you can say about anyone who
>> challenges US foreign policy?
>
>The reality--
>
>> Oh, how convenient! Its all the terrorists' fault! (But then, as Bush
>> is, in fact, now the world's biggest and most dangerous terrorist,
>> yes, terrorists are indeed to blame for the state of your now morally
>> reprehensible ex-nation).
(I'll assume you don't think that Bush *is* America, so I'll deal with
the second half of the paragraph you've extracted.)
To the extent that the USA's is controlled and run by a group of men
having already committed (and now preparing further) terror and
slaughter of civilians, it is indeed "morally reprehensible". When
this control has been seized via electoral fraud and against the
country's own constitution and democratic principles, it is indeed an
"ex-nation."
Now, Race, am I wrong to support Padraig's assessment like this?
Maybe. Argue me wrong. Or would you rather add me to the troll list?
OtiGoji
Your opinions are not about Kubrick movies. Your opinions are about
international relations.
Perhaps if that famous Iranian cinematic artist had cooperated with the
authorities in NYC and consented to having his picture and fingerprints taken,
he could have caught his flight. (If he had shown me invitations to a film
festival as proof of identification, I might have asked him to sit on the bench
for a while myself!)
Michael Moore sends his regards for your help promoting his new movie.
Perhaps you should take a stress pill, sit down and think things over...
Otius Gojius
"Kong! Please... don't... shake... the ship! I sleep... and I eat... on...
this...ship!"
Felix Tiaka
> >indeed be blamed on one specific individual in the whitehouse, was caused
by
> >Clinton.
> >
> >Here's a Atlantic article by Joseph Stiglitz, chairman of Clinton's
council
> >of economic advisors.
> >
> >http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2002/10/stiglitz.htm
> >
> >There are others, but I don't feel like looking them up.
>
> Yeah, "effort" is over-rated, like "caring."
How do you figure? I don't perceive my posting on this newsgroup to be too
terribly important, and certainly I feel I'm putting in greater effort than
most of the other poster. Typical post: "Bush is evil, here read Chomsky or
Moore, I preach to the converted"
> BTW, it's fair enough to offer Stiglitz's article as a condemnation of
> Clinton economic policy, but I hope you're not suggesting it's an
> endorsement of the Bush team's handling of the economy.
I did not say that, I showed that article to illustrate that the current
economic troubles have very real roots in the 90's, and that really has not
all that much to do with Clinton as such. I don't have much against the man.
Infact, the most I can laugh at him for are his military actions. I
sometimes wonder if he even heard of Clausewitz. Well, maybe I'm being too
severe here, I would doubt anyone would actually respond in any meaningful
way to the african embassy bombings. Even Bush if he were the president at
the time. I feel that's the reason Al Quaeda felt so comfortable attacking
the US, they probably thought cia or fbi would be on the job and a missile
would be directed at a cowfield, end of story.
> > Ofcourse one has to
> >wonder why the radical-left's so willing to jump Bush, and not the
> >terrorists who fucking flew planes into two of the biggest standing
> >buildings in New York city
>
> Because they're "fucking dead", along with their victims?
The same could be said about many other historically "bad" people. But
alright, let me change that, why not talk instead about the currently living
terrorists, even Saddam? Arafat? The whole extremely religious environment
that's driving this? I'm not going to say that you are supporting terrorism
(that's even cliché), but I can say that the extreme left is awfully willing
to let it slide. "Palestinian suicide bombers aren't immoral, they're
freedom fighters, who are you to judge them?" is something I hear a lot.
Infact, at Berkeley, they're organizing a rally -
http://www.ucdivest.org/wheelersolidarity/O16.php I can't understand how
someone might come to that conclusion though. It's kind of sickening also
how these freedom fighters are romanticized, you know, great guerillas cast
in revolutionary red and all that. Certainly the racist Che from Cuba was
one of them.
>And Bush is
> about to ensure that more people wind up dead, people who had nothing
> to do with 9/11, people who pose no threat to anyone?
Ensure. Nothing is certain, but I'm almost sure there will be civilian
casualties in Iraq, should US-led coalition attack. But they won't be done
on purpose. Not the administration, and certainly not the US forces
(individual solder, pilot, marine) are operating in a homicidal frame of
mind. They're not trying to kill as many people as possible. This was seen
in Afghanistan, where precision bombing brought civilian casualties down to
a minimum. And the only reason civilians were hurt in the first place was
because they were used as hostages by the Taliban, and will be used again by
Saddam. Yes, that's a shame, and it's horrible.
There are alternatives, one is to let Saddam live and continue to develop
weapons of mass destruction. During this time it's almost guaranteed that he
himself will kill more of his own people than the civilian casualties that
would happen by a US attack. I'm not even talking about gas weapons or
sniping off Kurds or such, but people the secret police would see unfit to
live. And with his son Uday taking over, it's an even a greater risk.
Another is his invading a country like Kuwait again, though this time using
his wmd's to bargain off any force the US might have applied. He always had
aspirations for countries close to him, his dream is to organize the mideast
countries and create a great world power. Certainly with this power he can
rid of the Jews. He might even be able to do it with just wmds.
If he wanted to just lift the sanctions he would have let the inspectors
back in, if his people's best intentions were in mind, he would do the right
thing. But even with the imminent threat of an attack by the US, he refuses
to back down. All of his talks with Europe on letting the inspectors back in
were conditional, included not letting inspectors in into the presidential
palaces and into restricted areas. This with a amazing probability
demonstrates that he is indeed building these weapons and for good use too.
There is a lot of crying of the sanctions, the 7000 babies killed daily
because of them have shown to be false. Even UK's Guardian said as much in
this article
http://www.observer.co.uk/worldview/story/0,11581,742303,00.html "The dead
babies are blamed by Saddam's regime on cancers and birth defects which
first appeared in 1991 and were, it says, caused by depleted uranium
weapons... Cancers do not develop overnight. Bombs that fell in 1991 could
not have caused cancers or birth defects in that year. Fast leukaemias might
occur in four or five years, heavy tumours around now, said Plowman."
But I've gotten ahead of myself here, we are not fighting to save innocent
Iraqi lives, as we were not fighting to save innocent Afghani lives, though
that's was and will be part of it. We are fighting to save innocent American
lives and cities. Israel's future is dependent on this too to some extent.
You say "people who pose no threat to anyone", and I guess you are referring
to civilian Iraqis, who sure enough may not pose a threat to us; Saddam and
his guard and cronies are the ones that do pose a threat. I've outlined that
above and state again that the threat is very solid.
> >costing thousands of lives and billions upon
> >billions of economic damage to the area. There are differences as to the
> >final outcome of the damages to the country, but it's likely in
trillions.
>
> Well I guess by that logic, the USA could be economically wiped out
> with the destruction of a few dozen more buildings. Are you sure
> you're not giving future terrorists hope?
By what logic? US's economy is not in ruins, the stock market is down
severely to be sure, and I'm mainly addressing the claims in the original
post. I don't recall ever stating that buildings, in concrete were the
important part. But this you might have missed about the United States, if
some part of it gets attacked, we all care. We are all Americans and are
caring enough to see fellow people are suffering. It is practically
impossible to destroy a few dozen buildings by any conventional means,
mostly it would have to be a nuclear weapon of some kind. And should it
happen to be New York or Chicago or LA, it would indeed damage the economy,
not to mention kill millions of people. You know, that sort of thing effects
the economy. Which is again why it is so important to make sure someone like
Saddam does not get a hold of one.
> And why not stop puffing at the windmills of your mind and deal with
> the arguments presented on AMK? Or is that too much effort and too
> little fun?
I'm, you have yet to respond to anything I've written, so please do so.
Felix
Listening to Sukhwinder Singh - Aaj Mera Jee Karda
iHĞ
Cathcart) wrote:
Disclaimer: none of my following remarks should be read as an
endorsement of modern US Democrats, the Clinton presidency, Al Gore or
any other grouping of jackasses, except in relation to modern US
Republicans, the Bush nearly-presidency, Dick Cheney, and the criminal
conspiracy currently running the US. In that relation, the former
appear as the very angels of heaven (albeit with somewhat grubbier
wings).
>Of course, while it's not stated outright, there is the clearly
>irrational suggestion that Bush is somehow at fault for the poor state
>of the economy and the fiscal turnaround.
Tell you what -- when (if) a Democrat becomes President after Bush,
you can take credit for any economic improvements that are seen then.
Oh wait, no need to tell you that -- you were planning to do so
anyway, right?
>And what other suggestion may be contained therein? That the gov't
>should "do somethin' about the economy"?
Hell no, the economy should be left entirely in the hands of the most
powerful corporations.
>Yes, there is something it
>can do: leave it the fuck alone. (As far as the budget goes, there's
>the matter of getting it balanced, and of course the best way to do
>it, particularly from the moral angle,
Ah, the "moral angle": this should be interesting...
>is to cut spending.
Spending on wars, perhaps? Or is that too promising an investment
(now it's *our* oil, heh heh).
Or did you have single mothers on welfare in mind? And schools,
libraries, health care, housing, firefighters, social workers, public
amenities and the general civilan infrastructure -- you know, a
healthy chunk of the US nation? By George, I'm sure that's overdue
for some cut-backs!
>You ain't
>going to get much mileage out of raising taxes in the midst of a
>recession -- when has that ever worked to solve a fiscal or economic
>problem?
"Raising taxes"?! What about tax cuts for those who need them least?
Does that make sense to you?
>-- and you can't expect a whole lot of fiscal improvement in
>a cyclical downturn to begin with.)
If it's Bush or some other Republican, it's all part of the great
cycle of (economic) nature; if Clinton, it's still part of the
cyclical nature of things, but he got to ride the up- and not the
down-turn, the lucky, fornicatin' SOB.
Can't the Republicans get *anything* right nowadays?
--
iHŠ
"In politics stupidity is not a handicap." -Napoleon Bonaparte
Felix Tiaka
> endorsement of modern US Democrats, the Clinton presidency, Al Gore or
> any other grouping of jackasses, except in relation to modern US
> Republicans, the Bush nearly-presidency, Dick Cheney, and the criminal
> conspiracy currently running the US. In that relation, the former
> appear as the very angels of heaven (albeit with somewhat grubbier
> wings).
Ofcourse I'm skeptical. I'm skeptical towards anyone who perceives to hold a
clearer, truer vision of the world or knowledge. It implies that everyone
else is an idiot, or at best a corrupt devil. I persuade you to state the
proof to what you have said above in paper and submit it to the Department
of Justice. If what you say is true then certainly something must be done.
You would justly become a national hero even.
> Hell no, the economy should be left entirely in the hands of the most
> powerful corporations.
The economy is not in the hands of anyone, large and powerful corporations
sway it some, sure, but that's how Capitalism works. There are millions of
small business out there as well, as are there individual consumers. Your
world view is simplisme at best. There are wonderful books written on the
subject, something like Basic Economics would do you well at the start. I
don't claim to be an economics major, so don't view the above as
condescending.
> Spending on wars, perhaps? Or is that too promising an investment
> (now it's *our* oil, heh heh).
What is this fascination with oil? I recall prior to involvement in
Afghanistan everyone kept on screaming how there was a secret Afghani
oil-pipe line waiting to be built, that it was the real reason for the
attack. Almost a year later we are not at all involved in Afghanistan
(except for peacekeeping, though that is permanent), they have their own
government, which is free, people can do what they want to, women don't get
stoned to death. What is wrong with that?
> Or did you have single mothers on welfare in mind? And schools,
> libraries, health care, housing, firefighters, social workers, public
> amenities and the general civilan infrastructure -- you know, a
> healthy chunk of the US nation? By George, I'm sure that's overdue
> for some cut-backs!
Military investment is not targeted at making the army, the navy or such
larger, but making it smarter; were we to cut spending, none of the current
smart weapons would be available and more of our troops would be killed. It
certainly paid off in Afghanistan, as you have seen.
The rest of the world's military is obsolete in almost every sense. The
closest ally we have is UK, their military is good shape.
You are I think falling back on promises of Socialism, no war, but great
social programs like schooling and welfare do sound great. They do not
translate good in practice though, which is why Europe is in such bad shape.
Felix
Listening to Serge Gainsbourg - L'eau a bouche
Peter Tonguette
>Just what do you think you're doing, Padraig?
>
>Your opinions are not about Kubrick movies. Your opinions are about
>international relations.
Heaven forbid!
Felix Tiaka
> shortly ...
I somehow doubt Michael Moore could pass such a test. I'm being naughty
here, so play along.
amk: are you Michael Moore?
mm: yes
amk: how do we know this?
mm: buy my book.
amk: that doesn't sound very convincing
mm: buy my book, watch my movie?
amk: we're not convinced.
mm: Republicans are evil, down with capitalism, except for my million dollar
new york apartment and buy my book and watch my movie?
amk: ahh.. there's the Michael Moore we know.
Felix
Listening to Brian Eno - Music for Airports - 2/1
M4RV1N
writes, in part:
>Your manifest hatred of America is blinding you to the fact
>that al Qaeda, not Bush, set in motion the Afghan war,
Wait a second. Bin Laden and company are partly a monster of our own creation:
http://www.theatlantic.com/ads/popup-ptc-inv-19.htm?campaign=subsoffer&nam
e=ptcinv19&weight=1&url=http://www.theatlantic.com/unbound/flashbks/jihad.htm
Surely you are aware of this.
>Bin Laden and his
>fellow fanatics are bad, bad boys Padraig. They cannot be reasoned
>with;
Certainly true, and who can reason with the neoconservative power brokers who
run the White House? Are they encouraging debate or thought?
>Kubrick fan must agree with you on
>events totally unrelated to Kubrick -- and that Kubrick would of
>course agree with you! -- is arrogant to say the least.
There's no certainty here, but SK's attitude towards war and militarism in
"Paths of Glory" and towards both of those plus politics in "Dr. Strangelove"
are clear. While not a complete pacifist (as he indicated in the Playboy
interview) his skepticism about US motivations and immoral tactics was clear in
a wide range of comments. No rational person could argue that Kubrick would be
supportive of our actions in Vietnam, Central America, or the Middle East.
>There are
>plenty of other NGs that would be happy to indulge your Yank-bashing
>rants. Go there. And take Michael Moore with you.
Padraig's verbal sparring tactics aside, he's one of the best contributor's
this newsgroup has had. Moore has been associated with this group for years
and sometimes posts. Like them or not, they and their ideas are welcome here,
and if you don't like them, either make an argument in opposition or ignore
them (like everyone does Paulo).
Mark Ervin
iHĞ
Kubrick sympathised with the underdog when it came to power relations
(POG, ACO, BL, TS, EWS) and was never approving of any of the wars he
depicted. He also possessed a healthy degree of scepticism about the
motives of those in positions of power and shared that vision quite
openly in his films, not least in his last.
>>Kubrick fan must agree with you on
>>events totally unrelated to Kubrick -- and that Kubrick would of
>>course agree with you! -- is arrogant to say the least.
>
>There's no certainty here, but SK's attitude towards war and militarism in
>"Paths of Glory" and towards both of those plus politics in "Dr. Strangelove"
>are clear. While not a complete pacifist (as he indicated in the Playboy
>interview) his skepticism about US motivations and immoral tactics was clear in
>a wide range of comments. No rational person could argue that Kubrick would be
>supportive of our actions in Vietnam, Central America, or the Middle East.
Why don't we have a quick look-see at that Playboy interview:
PLAYBOY: Are you a pacifist?
KUBRICK: I'm not sure what pacifism really means. Would it have been
an act of superior morality to have submitted to Hitler in order to
avoid war? I don't think so. But there have also been tragically
senseless wars such as World War One and the current mess in Vietnam
and the plethora of religious wars that pockmark history.
More recently, a close collaborator described him as "a committed
pacifist" after his death,
http://www.theasc.com/magazine/oct99/sword/pg1.htm
but no doubt some self-regarding clever dick will be quick to point
out that that collaborator could have misunderstood him, and that
"pacifism" is too simple-minded a motivation to apply to someone of
the stature of Kubrick (whose war films should be mainly enjoyed for
their matchless spectacle); because, after all, wasn't that pacifist
Bertrand Russell a comparative fool?
>>There are
>>plenty of other NGs that would be happy to indulge your Yank-bashing
>>rants. Go there. And take Michael Moore with you.
>
>Padraig's verbal sparring tactics aside, he's one of the best contributor's
>this newsgroup has had. Moore has been associated with this group for years
>and sometimes posts. Like them or not, they and their ideas are welcome here,
>and if you don't like them, either make an argument in opposition or ignore
>them (like everyone does Paulo).
>
>Mark Ervin
Indeed Padraig's posts are always a welcome read, and not just when
they speak of whatever "current mess" the US is creating. And if his
detractors possessed a tiny smidgeon of his verbal sparring skills
(they should be so lucky) we might at least enjoy some entertainment
once in a while.
"The great nations have always acted like gangsters, and the small
nations like prostitutes."
Stanley Kubrick
"Me love you long time."
Tony Blair (or words to that effect)
--
IHĞ
Winston Castro
wrote:
>
>Winston, the entire international community is behind those of you in
>America who are against Bush's insanity. Even in Britain, whose lapdog
>government supports some of that madness, some 70 percent of the
>population are against "war" (though "unilateral slaughter" is a more
>accurate description for what is planned by these criminals)
>
>You can try to impeach a president for flirting with a member of
>staff, but you can do nothing about a president who is planning to
>commit genocide abroad and undermine your rights at home, not to
>mention much else that is odious?
>
>Padraig
>[sigh]
Still, there remain small pockets of hope. Today whilst listening
to the news in may car on the way home from work, I heard of two US
cities that have basically stated that they "are against any action
against Iraq." One of them was Ithaca, New York but the name of the
other city fails me now.
Felix Tiaka
Probably Berkeley, a couple of months ago the city council there outlawed
coffee that was not shade grown. They do things like that. I'm almost
willing to be on it.
Felix
Listening to Komeda - Oj Vilket Liv!
Race Bannon
> On Mon, 07 Oct 2002 19:04:00 GMT, "Race Bannon" <ra...@quest.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Perhaps it's time we consider Padrig a troll and have each of his posts
> >followed by an obnoxious L.B. styled "Please Consider The Following
Before
> >Replying to Padrig" memo.
>
> YOU are the obnoxious troll. LB is much more welcome here, despite his
> chronic mis-information about Kubrick and his family, than the likes
> of sinister trolls like you.
*I* am sinister for pointing out that you're a liar and hate inciter? Damn,
you are an idiot.
> >
> >For example:
> >
> >The denial--
> >
> >> >Your manifest hatred of America
> >>
> >> What utter nonsense; is this all you can say about anyone who
> >> challenges US foreign policy?
> >
> >The reality--
> >
> >> Oh, how convenient! Its all the terrorists' fault! (But then, as Bush
> >> is, in fact, now the world's biggest and most dangerous terrorist,
> >> yes, terrorists are indeed to blame for the state of your now morally
> >> reprehensible ex-nation).
>
> You have a problem with that? You reveal yourself to deem Bush as
> representing core American values? That is to laugh.
I don't support Bush and yes I do have a problem with you referring to more
than a quarter of as billion people as a morally reprehensible ex-nation.
You are either a dolt or drunk. Not that I say that because you're Irish.
> Padraig
> ... and, BTW, ye'll be hearin' from Turing-Test-proof Micheal here
> shortly ...
Oh good. I can tell him how much I enjoyed the first chapter of his latest
book but found the rest to be disappointing, stereotypical crap.
Wordsmith
I must concur. Righties and lefties both can love Kubrick.
And why can't Mr. Moore send his own regards? Is he too busy lounging in
his new hot tub bought with the royalties from his latest bestseller?
Wordsmith :(
David Sticher
m4r...@aol.com wrote on 10/7/02 6:22 PM:
> Moore has been associated with this group for years
> and sometimes posts. Like them or not, they and their ideas are welcome here,
> and if you don't like them, either make an argument in opposition or ignore
> them (like everyone does Paulo).
When did Moore post? There was another forwarded email two or three years
back regarding his tussles with Kael - not simply a Mike's Militia forward -
but my early morning Googling hasn't turned up anything.
Not that it didn't necessarily happen - I'm still getting my caffeine on.
- Dave
Thornhill
Oh God! mwaaa-haa--hu--hh- (catching breath)....Oh Lord!
I needed a good laugh this morning! Now...That's Entertainment!," in effect.
Thornhill
Matthew Dickinson
thank you for posting this! i wasn't aware of it. do you happen to
know of any interviews with nigel galt?
matt
mark de rozario
>
> > Hell no, the economy should be left entirely in the hands of the most
> > powerful corporations.
>
> The economy is not in the hands of anyone, large and powerful corporations
> sway it some, sure, but that's how Capitalism works.
'Sway it some'? You have a way with understatement.
>There are millions of
> small business out there as well, as are there individual consumers. Your
> world view is simplisme at best. There are wonderful books written on the
> subject, something like Basic Economics would do you well at the start.
>
Yes, I think Basic Economics is the level we are talking here.
>
> What is this fascination with oil? I recall prior to involvement in
> Afghanistan everyone kept on screaming how there was a secret Afghani
> oil-pipe line waiting to be built, that it was the real reason for the
> attack. Almost a year later we are not at all involved in Afghanistan
> (except for peacekeeping, though that is permanent), they have their own
> government, which is free, people can do what they want to, women don't get
> stoned to death. What is wrong with that?
The Afghan pipeline was not so secret. As I understand it, the Taliban
- before they were officially 'evil' of course :-) - were being
wined and dined by Texas oil barons a year or two ago. Do you
seriously think that the _real_ motivation for the attack on
Afghanistan was humanitarian relief? And that Bush et al are
interested in women's rights? If they were concerned with these
matters, why didn't they intervene earlier? And why are they propping
up so many other oppressive regimes the world over?
The irony of praising free government in a country where you can face
jail for being unpatriotic (see thread below) should be obvious to
all.
I'll grant that last year's neo-imperialist slaughter did have some
beneficial effects, in reversing the effects of previous US foreign
policy (the funding and backing of militant Islamists, including OBL).
The 'fascination with oil' in respect of the Iraq debate is in part
inspired by the fact that the motives for the proposed attack are
otherwise inexplicable. Constant references to al Qaeda/ September 11
are a smokescreen intended to create the impression that Iraq was
involved in some substantial way with the 9/11 attacks --- case
unproven, to say the least. The country most involved with 9/11- much
more than the medieval Afghanistan - was US ally Saudi Arabia ----
with its wonderful record on women's rights and democratically elected
government.
>
> Military investment is not targeted at making the army, the navy or such
> larger, but making it smarter; were we to cut spending, none of the current
> smart weapons would be available and more of our troops would be killed. It
> certainly paid off in Afghanistan, as you have seen.
> The rest of the world's military is obsolete in almost every sense. The
> closest ally we have is UK, their military is good shape.
Well, clearly the money devoted to propoganda was well-spent. Is there
_anything_ that rich and powerful lobbies say which you don't swallow
whole? As an antidote, how about some reading matter: Basic Politics,
perhaps?
Padraig L Henry
wrote:
>> >There are
>> >plenty of other NGs that would be happy to indulge your Yank-bashing
>> >rants. Go there. And take Michael Moore with you.
>>
>> No, >you< go there :-) ... and take your war-mongering nutcases with
>> you.
>>
>> Padraig
>
>Pardig, you've really got your head up your arse. The stink of hate speech
>permeates every opinion you state. It's trully sad you can't see that while
>ironically claiming anyone who challenges you is the victim of propoganda,
>and while dismissing any argument againt you as "not allowing any criticism
>of the US at all. " Maybe you should take up a more productive hobby, like
>masturbation.
Hate is what your posts, and the planned butchery abroad by your
unelected regime, currently specialise in practicing. Like others here
who purport to "defend" the principles enshrined in your constitution,
when put to the test, you reprehensibly regress into a feverish,
zealous, and blind subversion of "patriotism". And, yes, you are so
fundamentally insecure that you resort to arrogantly demonising those
that , again, question your current foreign policy. And, yes, we are
equally critical of the likes of the UK's Blair government for its
self-serving, Thatcher-arms-sales-inspired endorsment of the imminent
slaughter in Iraq (70 percent of the UK's electorate, in fact, along
with a recent peaceful demonstration in London that attracted around
400,000-450,000 protesters). And the same is true in Ireland. The
entire international community, from China and Russia to Germany and
France, oppose your imminent, unilateral disregard for international
laws and human life. It is >you< who is the hateful one ... rather
than engage in constructive debate (fearing that you'll be found
wanting) you turn instead to your military ...
Padraig
"Sir, the private believes that anything he says will be wrong, and if
he reverses himself, the senior drill instructor will beat him even
harder."
Padraig L Henry
>Just what do you think you're doing, Padraig?
Posting on-topic thoughts. Just what do you think you're doing,
HumptiBumti?
>
>Your opinions are not about Kubrick movies. Your opinions are about
>international relations.
They are more relevant to Kubrick's films than most of the
self-indulgent, shallow off-topic threads now wasting bandwidth here,
including your contributions.
>
>Perhaps if that famous Iranian cinematic artist had cooperated with the
>authorities in NYC and consented to having his picture and fingerprints taken,
>he could have caught his flight. (If he had shown me invitations to a film
>festival as proof of identification, I might have asked him to sit on the bench
>for a while myself!)
Let us all witness >your< consent to being treated as a criminal, not
that anyone would ever know or care ...
>Perhaps you should take a stress pill, sit down and think things over...
Perhaps you should get a life, while you still have the chance.
Padraig
Padraig L Henry
wrote:
>
>"Padraig L Henry" <phe...@iol.ie> wrote in message
>news:3da1f0dd...@news.iol.ie...
>> On Mon, 07 Oct 2002 19:04:00 GMT, "Race Bannon" <ra...@quest.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Perhaps it's time we consider Padrig a troll and have each of his posts
>> >followed by an obnoxious L.B. styled "Please Consider The Following
>Before
>> >Replying to Padrig" memo.
>>
>> YOU are the obnoxious troll. LB is much more welcome here, despite his
>> chronic mis-information about Kubrick and his family, than the likes
>> of sinister trolls like you.
>
>*I* am sinister for pointing out that you're a liar and hate inciter? Damn,
>you are an idiot.
You contribute nothing of substance to this newsgroup. Where are all
your noteworthy recent posts analysing Kubrick''s work, or that of the
wider film world, or posts on topics broadly relevant to his work? In
the land of Zilch. Your only "contribution" here is to invade this
newsgroup for purposes of attacking any of its posters who seriously
question your countries' present foreign policies.
Yes, you are an obnoxious troll, an arrogant, chauvinistic
nationalist, and a lying hate-inciter. And how dare you
presumptiously use "we" above; you don't "own" this newsgroup, troll.
Usenet is international, you insular dick-head. Now, away with you ...
Padraig
OtiGoji
>Posting on-topic thoughts.
>They are more relevant to Kubrick's films than most of the
>self-indulgent, shallow off-topic threads
So, like I'm all: You could be right comparing this to the above mentioned
threads, it is about Mr. Moore's new movie after all, but I am sick and tired
of the sick and tired "Strangelove Is In The Whitehouse" media campaign. I
resent seeing my favorite movie's legacy being inaccurately hijacked for a
current journalistic shorthand.
Dr. Strangelove is not in the Whitehouse, he is in the War Room.
>Perhaps you should get a life..
Dude, if you knew how busy I am with my 2.5 careers...
Felix Tiaka
> > > powerful corporations.
> >
> > The economy is not in the hands of anyone, large and powerful
corporations
> > sway it some, sure, but that's how Capitalism works.
>
> 'Sway it some'? You have a way with understatement.
How is that? The guy was making out like there's some kind of a secret
ews-type of orgy club where 5 guys show up and think "Gee... we need to send
the economy to hell.. let's do it Bob" "Okay!" I mean, if that's what you
think? But I doubt it.
> The Afghan pipeline was not so secret. As I understand it, the Taliban
> - before they were officially 'evil' of course :-) - were being
> wined and dined by Texas oil barons a year or two ago. Do you
> seriously think that the _real_ motivation for the attack on
> Afghanistan was humanitarian relief? And that Bush et al are
> interested in women's rights? If they were concerned with these
> matters, why didn't they intervene earlier? And why are they propping
> up so many other oppressive regimes the world over?
I think the reason why we didn't intervene earlier was because we weren't
attacked on such a scale before. 9/11 attacks really changed things. We were
forced to respond, to prevent the same thing from happening again. It was
not about humanitarian relief, and I've said so in my post to which you have
replied. There's actually an interesting article I've read earlier in the
day on the future of humanitarian relief -
http://www.calendarlive.com/books/bookreview/cl-bk-power6oct06,0,374950.stor
y?coll=cl-bookreview
I'm not going to deny that the US foreign policy has been greatly wrong in
the past, stupid, short-sighted and such, but that has hardly anything to do
with the current matter. I feel as though you're saying "well, you've been
wrong before, therefore you can't do anything to defend yourself ever
again". By the same I could claim the rest of the world does not deserve to
even breathe and Germans should be gag-tied. I don't like the Saudis either,
but attacking them would be a pretty bad idea at this moment. And even
bigger mistake would be attacking Iran, another country cited in the 'why
not them as well?' category. Al Quaeda is indeed concerned with us
'propping' regimes up, regimes like Israel, Jordan and Egypt. I can't say I
like the latter two.
> The irony of praising free government in a country where you can face
> jail for being unpatriotic (see thread below) should be obvious to
> all.
What? Weinstein post-poning a release of a film? I'm missing something.
Please give me an example where someone was jailed for being unpatriotic.
> The 'fascination with oil' in respect of the Iraq debate is in part
> inspired by the fact that the motives for the proposed attack are
> otherwise inexplicable. Constant references to al Qaeda/ September 11
> are a smokescreen intended to create the impression that Iraq was
> involved in some substantial way with the 9/11 attacks --- case
> unproven, to say the least. The country most involved with 9/11- much
> more than the medieval Afghanistan - was US ally Saudi Arabia ----
> with its wonderful record on women's rights and democratically elected
> government.
Though I've not read greatly on the *supposed* 9/11 Iraqi connection, I
don't really take it into account. I've outlined why Saddam is a *present*
threat at this time, mostly it is his weapons. There would be no US attack
should Saddam let inspectors in. Almost everyone, UN, Powell, European
politicians and even Bush have bargained with him to no avail. Isn't that
reason enough? How is it inexplicable? Again, in the last post I've said as
much, I've not mentioned an Al Quaeda/9/11 connection. I'm not really sure
on how much a role Saudis played in 9/11 attacks, most likeley they
sponsored Al Quaeda, I've read they held secret talks with Taliban
officials. Again, I don't like these guys, but they don't have aspirations
for nuclear weapons. That's a big difference.
> >
> > Military investment is not targeted at making the army, the navy or such
> > larger, but making it smarter; were we to cut spending, none of the
current
> > smart weapons would be available and more of our troops would be killed.
It
> > certainly paid off in Afghanistan, as you have seen.
> > The rest of the world's military is obsolete in almost every sense. The
> > closest ally we have is UK, their military is good shape.
>
> Well, clearly the money devoted to propoganda was well-spent. Is there
> _anything_ that rich and powerful lobbies say which you don't swallow
> whole? As an antidote, how about some reading matter: Basic Politics,
> perhaps?
Well, perhaps you should like to show me some proof of this propaganda? I
mean, did thousands of American troops die and are being kept in body bags
somewhere in secret? Did the Taliban overpower our forces and score a
decisive victory? Are they or Al Quaeda still in power and CNN/Fox News
keeping the rest of us idiots in the dark?
I favor action because I fear that US might be attacked again. Last time it
were planes, next time it might be a nuclear weapon. I don't trust the likes
of FBI and CIA, or the even more incompetent pricks like Ashcroft to protect
us.
I think you've raised good points in your post, and I've tried my best to
reply. I'm not all that enthusiastic about the way you go about it though.
If you have a legitimate point, please explain it clearly instead of trying
to call me a moron by association. "Do you swallow everything the rich
lobbies tell you?" is a loaded insult and does not progress the argument
further. I could do the same in connecting you to pedophilia or subject du
jour - "Do you hate the Bush administration because they might interfere
with your child trafficking?" Again, a question with no base and no purpose
other than insult. I'm being extreme here to be sure, but I'm not trying to
insult you or anyone else.
Felix
Listening to Wendy Carlos - Switched on Bach - Air on G String.
Padraig L Henry
wrote:
>There is a lot of crying of the sanctions, the 7000 babies killed daily
>because of them have shown to be false. Even UK's Guardian said as much in
>this article
>http://www.observer.co.uk/worldview/story/0,11581,742303,00.html "The dead
>babies are blamed by Saddam's regime on cancers and birth defects which
>first appeared in 1991 and were, it says, caused by depleted uranium
>weapons... Cancers do not develop overnight. Bombs that fell in 1991 could
>not have caused cancers or birth defects in that year. Fast leukaemias might
>occur in four or five years, heavy tumours around now, said Plowman."
Some advocates of war have suggested that if the economic sanctions on
Iraq are as horrible as the left claims, then a war, even a war that
killed 100,000 civilians, would be a humanitarian blessing, since,
presumably, after a U.S. victory there would be no more sanctions. How
do you answer this argument?
Chomsky: "I've heard some zany arguments in the past, but this must
break some new records. I suspect it was offered tongue in cheek. Note
first the conception of "the left": the UN's humanitarian coordinators
(Denis Halliday, Hans van Sponeck) who know more about the country
than anyone else, UNICEF, etc. It's a bit like saying that the left is
concerned about global warming -- and tells us something about where
those who question "the claim" place themselves on the political
spectrum.
But that aside, the argument does have appeal. For example, we could
offer Iran assistance in conquering Israel and carrying out
appropriate "regime change," so that suicide bombings would stop.
Since the war advocates doubtless regard suicide bombing as atrocious,
they should be calling for that. Or, we could help Russia grind
Chechnya to dust, so that Chechens would no longer have to suffer
Russian terror and atrocities. The possibilities are endless."
Padraig
... and Bush-admirer Jean Marie Le Pen has "clearly" shown claims
about the alleged Nazi Holocaust to be entirely spurious ...
Padraig L Henry
wrote:
>What is this fascination with oil? I recall prior to involvement in
>Afghanistan everyone kept on screaming how there was a secret Afghani
>oil-pipe line waiting to be built, that it was the real reason for the
>attack. Almost a year later we are not at all involved in Afghanistan
>(except for peacekeeping, though that is permanent), they have their own
>government, which is free, people can do what they want to, women don't get
>stoned to death. What is wrong with that?
My!! Bush a feminist!
There are currently approx. 10,000 US "peacekeepers" in Afghanistan,
ensuring a bumper opium crop for its Afghan allies, while rounding up
the usual suspects for "interrogation," and further escalating the
current mayhem and humanitarian disaster that is that unfortunate
country. But what do you care, as long as your gas doesn't hit two
bucks? . As for a pipe-line, as for oil, how presumptious to even
suggest the notion!
What in your view are the true motives propelling a possible war?
Chompyskislopes: "There are longstanding background reasons, which are
well known. Iraq has the second largest oil reserves in the world. It
has always been likely that sooner or later, the US would try to
restore this enormous prize to Western control, meaning now US
control, denying privileged access to others. But those considerations
have held for years. 9-11 offered new opportunities to pursue these
goals under the pretext of a "war on terror" -- thin pretexts, but
probably sufficient for propaganda purposes. The planned war can serve
immediate domestic needs as well. It's hardly a secret that the Bush
administration is carrying out an assault against the general
population and future generations in the interest of narrow sectors of
wealth and power that it serves with loyalty that exceeds even the
usual norms. Under those circumstances, it is surely advisable to
divert attention away from health care, social security, deficits,
destruction of the environment, development of new weapons systems
that may literally threaten survival, and a long list of other
unwelcome topics. The traditional, and reasonable, device is to
terrify the population. "The whole aim of practical politics," the
great American satirist H. L. Mencken once said, is "to keep the
public alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing
it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." In
fact the menaces invoked are rarely imaginary, though they are
typically inflated beyond all reason. That's a good part of the
history of "practical politics," not only here of course. It doesn't
take much skill to evoke an image of Saddam Hussein as the ultimate
force of evil about to destroy the world, maybe the universe. And with
the population huddling in fear as our gallant forces miraculously
overcome this awesome foe, perhaps they won't pay attention to what is
being done to them, and may even join the chorus of distinguished
intellectuals chanting praises for Our Leaders. The US preponderance
of power is so extraordinary that there will be plenty in reserve if
things seem to be going wrong. And if that happens down the road, it
can all be shovelled deep into the memory hole, or blamed on someone
else, or maybe on our naive faith that others are as benign as we are.
It's pretty easy: there's a treasure trove of experience to draw
from." "
Padraig
Felix Tiaka
questions. I think he basically builds a strawman and makes accusations
without basis. Notice how everything is assumed as true, "ofcourse Saddam is
only portrayed evil" (I don't know if he thinks actually believes
otherwise), "ofcourse Oil is the only motive". It is really not different
from what you've said before, but I'll try to go through each thing point by
point.
> Chompyskislopes: "There are longstanding background reasons, which are
> well known. Iraq has the second largest oil reserves in the world. It
> has always been likely that sooner or later, the US would try to
> restore this enormous prize to Western control, meaning now US
> control, denying privileged access to others.
His assumptions are not based on anything. He does not write further on how
they are true. "It is well know and widely supposed and god may strike me
down right this instant if it is not true". I'm not sure how the oil would
be restored to US control, US never controlled Iraq and I don't think Bush
plans to setup Iraq up as a 52nd state. Do you? There's also a smug
implication as though the United States is the only country in the world who
needs oil, as though the rest of Europe are operating on wind technology and
drive anti-matter propelled cars. France and Germany report that they mostly
worry about Iraq because their oil prices might go up. There is nothing
wrong with stating that, they want to protect their Economy.
> But those considerations
> have held for years. 9-11 offered new opportunities to pursue these
> goals under the pretext of a "war on terror" -- thin pretexts, but
> probably sufficient for propaganda purposes. The planned war can serve
> immediate domestic needs as well. It's hardly a secret that the Bush
> administration is carrying out an assault against the general
> population and future generations in the interest of narrow sectors of
> wealth and power that it serves with loyalty that exceeds even the
> usual norms.
Again, "it is no secret", "it's publicly written on bathroom stalls", "Bush
told me this in my sleep", "I'm smarter than everyone else and have indented
a time machine and what I'm telling you is directly from the future, trust
me". Why are these "thin" pretexts not at all addressed? How does he just
rule them "thin"? That is what I've asked in my previous post. No answer
yet.
> Under those circumstances, it is surely advisable to
> divert attention away from health care, social security, deficits,
> destruction of the environment, development of new weapons systems
> that may literally threaten survival, and a long list of other
> unwelcome topics.
In other words "you're not paying attention to building *OUR* socialist
utopia, you stupid cowboy!". Destruction of the environment! Ha! Europe pays
great attention to all those problems and look where they're at now. Last
I've heard, I really mean today, Europe is asking the United States to
finance the final formation of EU central command. They also want to build
up their military, and ofcourse the United States should financially help,
because it's military is too powerful, thus there needs to be an offset. Now
where did that Srebrenica massacre took place?
That, above, really has not much to do with what Chomsky said. So, anyway.
His argument assumes that _those_ are the important issues to talk about.
Also that discussion of those issues has stopped completely. That national
security is not an important subject, because there is an assumption that
Iraq, nor Al Quaeda pose a threat. In Chomsky's universe it seems, 9/11 is
only a right-wing scheme (I wonder if he shares the view of certain french
writers who blame the attacks on a CIA/FBI/Mossad conspiracy), not an actual
attack that killed thousands. Not something to ponder and consider as
evidence for future threats.
> The traditional, and reasonable, device is to
> terrify the population. "The whole aim of practical politics," the
> great American satirist H. L. Mencken once said, is "to keep the
> public alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing
> it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." In
> fact the menaces invoked are rarely imaginary, though they are
> typically inflated beyond all reason. That's a good part of the
> history of "practical politics," not only here of course. It doesn't
> take much skill to evoke an image of Saddam Hussein as the ultimate
> force of evil about to destroy the world, maybe the universe. And with
> the population huddling in fear as our gallant forces miraculously
> overcome this awesome foe, perhaps they won't pay attention to what is
Here Chomsky provides an unrelated quote and then assumes it true to the
current situation and ends the story. Where does he assume that the threat
posed by Saddam is unfounded and exadurated? If there is a man who does not
need exaduration it is Saddam.
> being done to them, and may even join the chorus of distinguished
> intellectuals chanting praises for Our Leaders. The US preponderance
> of power is so extraordinary that there will be plenty in reserve if
> things seem to be going wrong. And if that happens down the road, it
> can all be shovelled deep into the memory hole, or blamed on someone
> else, or maybe on our naive faith that others are as benign as we are.
> It's pretty easy: there's a treasure trove of experience to draw
> from." "
Am I missing something or is trying to paint this as a Vietnam situation?
Any attack on Iraq will go wrong; we will shortly get our soldiers back in
body bags? Does he remember what happened in Afghanistan several months ago?
I remember those who before the action went to great length to state how
fierce the Afghani troops were; how the harsh the Afghani winter was; how
we'd be caught in a Quagmire. Who's doing the exadurations? Saddam is not
dangerous, but Afghanistan was, those guys eat marines for breakfast.
I don't like Chomsky, I admit it, his linguistic work might be interesting,
but I can't say I care on his writings on foreign policy. He is savagely
anti-capitalistic and a huge hypocrite. He owns a plush house worth several
million dollars, drives a new Audi A4, has 4 boats and several vacation
homes. Not that he will answer to any of it.
Felix
Listening to El Gran Combo - Vas Bien.
Felix Tiaka
Chosmky does not take anything seriously, in all the quotes that you
provided. Here he does not at all address that claim, in fact the first
sentence is a quick-ended dismissal. He only talks about how those that ask
this question are doing so under the wrong assumptions. Note that in my
earlier post, with the link to the Guardian, it was Saddam who is doing the
'babies' killed argument. That that article also plainly said that Saddam
lies and distorts facts to paint himself as a victim. He is the reason there
are sanctions, all he has to do is disarm fully, show that he has done that
and there wouldn't be any questions. He is in fact diverting the aid that is
being sent for building the weapons, feeding his army and funding his secret
police. The sanctions are there for a reason, Saddam must disarm. He is
unwilling to do so and all he can do is shout out numbers every month. My
original point of this was not to say that "the reason we should attack is
we will take sanctions out and save people", though that will probably
happen. The reason to attack Iraq is to disarm Saddam so that he does not
pose a threat to us.
> But that aside, the argument does have appeal. For example, we could
> offer Iran assistance in conquering Israel and carrying out
> appropriate "regime change," so that suicide bombings would stop.
> Since the war advocates doubtless regard suicide bombing as atrocious,
> they should be calling for that. Or, we could help Russia grind
> Chechnya to dust, so that Chechens would no longer have to suffer
> Russian terror and atrocities. The possibilities are endless."
The cases he cites are different. Let's play a hypothetical game; say the
reason for taking out Saddam is to lift sanctions and save babies; that
would require taking out some of his army and ofcourse Saddam himself. They
are the reason the babies are dying in the first place. Suicide bombers are
Palestinians and they kill Israeli civilians; wiping out Israel would be
like wiping out Babies in the Iraqi situation so they won't die at the hands
of Saddam. The same is with the Chechnya example. That is not what that
hypothetical argument talked about in the first place. So, infact, by
Chomsky's argument, "war mongers" should be calling for the death of
Palestinians, not something they are doing, though sometimes are frustrated
enough.
> Padraig
> ... and Bush-admirer Jean Marie Le Pen has "clearly" shown claims
> about the alleged Nazi Holocaust to be entirely spurious ...
Le Pen can admire anyone, you are assaulting by association again. All I can
say is that Le Penn was really popular in France, perhaps that should be
studied more? Rise of French nationalism perhaps? I'm being cheeky. :)
Felix
Listening to Katerine - Le Jardin Anglais
Btw, did you know that I was mostly raised in Chechnya? Wonderful country,
shame what happened.
JW Moore
>>JW Moore
>writes, in part:
>
>>Your manifest hatred of America is blinding you to the fact
>>that al Qaeda, not Bush, set in motion the Afghan war,
>
>Wait a second. Bin Laden and company are partly a monster of our own creation:
>
>
>http://www.theatlantic.com/ads/popup-ptc-inv-19.htm?campaign=subsoffer&nam
>e=ptcinv19&weight=1&url=http://www.theatlantic.com/unbound/flashbks/jihad.htm
>
>Surely you are aware of this.
>
I am. What's your point? That Osama is any less a monster? If
anything, it makes it more incumbent on the US to drain that swamp we
filled over the years.
Thanx for the link BTW.
>>Bin Laden and his
>>fellow fanatics are bad, bad boys Padraig. They cannot be reasoned
>>with;
>
>Certainly true, and who can reason with the neoconservative power brokers who
>run the White House? Are they encouraging debate or thought?
>
The debate is occurring as we speak -- e.g. the House of
Representatives, whose minority leader, Dick Gebhardt, is foursquare
in favor of military action against Saddam. Other right-wing whack
jobs like Joe Lieberman and John Edwards (odds-on favorite for Dem
prez nominee in 2004) have also signed up.
Surely you know that.
>>Kubrick fan must agree with you on
>>events totally unrelated to Kubrick -- and that Kubrick would of
>>course agree with you! -- is arrogant to say the least.
>
>There's no certainty here, but SK's attitude towards war and militarism in
>"Paths of Glory" and towards both of those plus politics in "Dr. Strangelove"
>are clear. While not a complete pacifist (as he indicated in the Playboy
>interview) his skepticism about US motivations and immoral tactics was clear in
>a wide range of comments. No rational person could argue that Kubrick would be
>supportive of our actions in Vietnam, Central America, or the Middle East.
>
You omit one salient fact: Kubrick was by all accounts a New Yorker
through and through. Surely he would have been horrified by the Sept.
11 attacks, and pondered the possible "mating combinations". Among
other virtues, routing the Taliban addressed the terrorist threat by
killing or sending to ground bin Laden and many of his henchmen. It is
not out of the question to think that Kubrick would have found this
response appropriate, expedient, maybe even moral. But it is not
certain either. I don't know. Part of me is thankful he didn't have to
witness the carnage. Let's leave it at that.
>>There are
>>plenty of other NGs that would be happy to indulge your Yank-bashing
>>rants. Go there. And take Michael Moore with you.
>
>Padraig's verbal sparring tactics aside, he's one of the best contributor's
>this newsgroup has had. Moore has been associated with this group for years
>and sometimes posts. Like them or not, they and their ideas are welcome here,
>and if you don't like them, either make an argument in opposition or ignore
>them (like everyone does Paulo).
>
Ordinarily I would agree with you. But what you call "verbal sparring"
I call simplistic demagoguery, based on no "ideas" other than
knee-jerk prejudices. There are principled objections to be made
against any number of American policies, but there is nothing
principled about the abuse Padraig heaps on anyone with the audacity
to question him. And I don't care how long someone's been posting here
-- nobody should have to defend their love of SK's work based on such
unrelated matters. Should they? Or is there some vesting clause I
don't know about?
Indeed, there is a pronounced paucity of constructive ideas here: What
exactly should the US do, exactly? Wait patiently for the next round
of attacks? Toady up to the Russians and Chinese to secure yet another
ineffectual UN "demand" for "unfettered" inspections of Iraq? What?
Michael Moore and his ilk offer little beyond the boilerplate assaults
on Bush and vague insistence on an "internation coalition" -- as if
that were an end unto itself. Absent is anything resembling an
alternative argument, let alone a strategy.
And I'll ask again the question you conveniently snipped: where was
this righteous indignation four years ago?
~~Jack
JW Moore
wrote:
>On Mon, 07 Oct 2002 03:19:32 GMT, jackpeg...@att.net (JW Moore)
>wrote:
>
>>I don't know where the line is on this NG anymore, but this is way
>>over it.
>
>No it ain't. Any informed, rational discussion concerning current US
>foreign policy on this newsgroup - which, incidentally, is 100 per
>cent on topic for AMK (or haven't you yet heard of such films as FMJ
>or Dr S, etc?) - is incessantly met with uninformed, dismissive or
>evasive rants from people like yourself, Jack (as further evidenced
>below), and when this happens, I respond in kind, because that is all
>such complacent propaganda deserves.
>
Demonizing the US does not a "rational discussion" make. Suggest an
alternative. Lead, follow, or get out of the way.
>>Your manifest hatred of America
>
>What utter nonsense; is this all you can say about anyone who
>challenges US foreign policy? It is that policy which is, among other
>things, anti-American.
>
?????
>>is blinding you to the fact
>>that al Qaeda, not Bush, set in motion the Afghan war, the increased
>>scrutiny of visa applications, and all the other events you glibly
>>categorize as racist, terrorist ... ad nauseam.
>
>Again, nonsense; this is just the official Bush rhetoric. Who set in
>motion al Qaeda? Go look it up. (Or should that be "Go check it out,
>haha, go check it out, Wendy!!").
>
Bitch-slapping Bush don't wash when the majority of Democrats are on
board. Again, what is >your< solution Padraig?
>>Bin Laden and his
>>fellow fanatics are bad, bad boys Padraig.
>
>You don't say! And what this has to do with starting a bloody war,
>first in Iraq, and later elsewhere ... is anyone's guess, isn't it?
>Bush and his proxy dictators are a bigger threat to world peace than a
>hundred bin Ladens.
>
If you believe this, you are truly delusional.
>>They cannot be reasoned
>>with; they clearly don't give a damn about human life, their own or
>>anybody else's.
>
>Ditto the Bush Administration.
>
Care to elaborate?
>>They must be stopped, killed if necessary.
>
>An International Court is there to handle that, but you'd rather just
>go on killing thousands of innocent people on the pretext of hunting
>down one little CIA-nourished monster.
>
The ICC is a laughingstock (bang-up job they've done with Milosevic,
eh?) The day Osama surrenders to any international authority is the
day pigs fly.
>>The job is
>>far from over. As for Iraq, I was a frequent lurker here back in 1998
>>when the US rained missiles all over Baghdad -- where was all this
>>righteous indignation then?
>
>If you wish to dismiss the sentiments of those opposed to further
>slaughter in the Middle East as "Righteous indignation", well then,
>I'm all for it! The imminent mass slaughter is all just another
>"job" to you, just "business", isn't it? No need to discuss it ...
>
Bush is proposing nothing more than what international law >already<
calls for, or what Clinton actually did in 1998 (with neither
Congressional nor UN approval). Saddam has flagrantly flouted every
single condition of his surrender in 1991. Or do you assume he has
voluntarily disposed of his chemical and biological weapons? Wanna buy
some Enron stock?
>
>>Finally, to suggest that every true Kubrick fan must agree with you on
>>events totally unrelated to Kubrick -- and that Kubrick would of
>>course agree with you! -- is arrogant to say the least.
>
>If it is arrogant to expose the pro-war hypocrites on this newsgroup,
>to discuss events totally related to Kubrick and all he stood for in
>his work, then I'm all for it!
>
hypocrite (n.): anyone who disagrees with Padraig.
I'll make a note of it.
>>There are
>>plenty of other NGs that would be happy to indulge your Yank-bashing
>>rants. Go there. And take Michael Moore with you.
>
>No, >you< go there :-) ... and take your war-mongering nutcases with
>you.
>
Excellent! Cheap shots, insults, ad hominems, ignorant hyperbole ...
the whole demagogue package. Hope you fell better, Pad.
And think about that Enron deal.
~~Jack
Victor Morton
> Excellent! Cheap shots, insults, ad hominems, ignorant hyperbole ...
> the whole demagogue package. Hope you fell better, Pad.
> And think about that Enron deal.
Here's an interesting of a kind that will never be written by Padraig -- a
liberal admitting that the left has just becoming unhinged in the past year
(he also takes up most of Paddyboy's ranting canards and dismisses them in
one sentence):
http://www.observer.com/pages/edgy.asp
Victor
mark de rozario
> > > > Hell no, the economy should be left entirely in the hands of the most
> > > > powerful corporations.
> > >
> > > The economy is not in the hands of anyone, large and powerful
> corporations
> > > sway it some, sure, but that's how Capitalism works.
> >
> > 'Sway it some'? You have a way with understatement.
>
> How is that? The guy was making out like there's some kind of a secret
> ews-type of orgy club where 5 guys show up and think "Gee... we need to send
> the economy to hell.. let's do it Bob" "Okay!" I mean, if that's what you
> think? But I doubt it.
OK. Fair enough, I don't think that. But I do think that the idea that
an EWS-cabal runs things is closer to the mark than the notion that we
are in a 'basically free' market. I share Braudel's view that
capitalism is an anti-market, structurally biased against competition.
Now I'll grant that not _all_ or even _most_ aspects of the economy
are under human control, let alone the control of a few men in smoky
rooms. I accept that the economy is like a force of nature. But that
isn't to say that a few powerful and privileged parties aren't in a
much better position to influence and harness economic developments
than most of the population of the world. They clearly are.
>
> I think the reason why we didn't intervene earlier was because we weren't
> attacked on such a scale before. 9/11 attacks really changed things. We were
> forced to respond, to prevent the same thing from happening again. It was
> not about humanitarian relief, and I've said so in my post to which you have
> replied. There's actually an interesting article I've read earlier in the
> day on the future of humanitarian relief -
> http://www.calendarlive.com/books/bookreview/cl-bk-power6oct06,0,374950.stor
> y?coll=cl-bookreview
OK. I apologise for attributing the view that the attack on
Afghanistan was motivated by humanitarian concerns. But if the sole
_motive_ for the attack was defence (and/or revenge) then it is
inconsistent to claim credit for apparently fortunate humanitarian
_consequences_. They are happy accident. And any cost-benefit analysis
of the attack from a humanitarian point of view must take into account
the innocent Afghani lives lost.
>
> I'm not going to deny that the US foreign policy has been greatly wrong in
> the past, stupid, short-sighted and such, but that has hardly anything to do
> with the current matter. I feel as though you're saying "well, you've been
> wrong before, therefore you can't do anything to defend yourself ever
> again". By the same I could claim the rest of the world does not deserve to
> even breathe and Germans should be gag-tied.
Hmmm, it's a bit of a step from 'you shouldn't defend yourself again'
to 'you don't deserve to breathe', not really sure I followed your
reasoning there. But we are not talking about what the Germans did
fifty years ago; we are talking about the currently dominant global
Empire.
>I don't like the Saudis either,
> but attacking them would be a pretty bad idea at this moment. And even
> bigger mistake would be attacking Iran, another country cited in the 'why
> not them as well?' category.
The issue here was that, if the motive for attacking Iraq was
involvement in 9/11, then the Saudis would be a better target than
Saddam. But you are not playing on the 9/11 link, so we'll let that
lie.
>Al Quaeda is indeed concerned with us
> 'propping' regimes up, regimes like Israel, Jordan and Egypt. I can't say I
> like the latter two.
But you think Sharon's regime in Israel is fine and dandy? I hope not.
> Though I've not read greatly on the *supposed* 9/11 Iraqi connection, I
> don't really take it into account. I've outlined why Saddam is a *present*
> threat at this time, mostly it is his weapons.
I'd love to see Saddam go, just as I'd love to see all the tyrants in
the world deposed. But I do question whether Saddam is a present
threat. What evidence is there of this? Al Qaeda are demonstrably
suicidal - but there is no evidence that Saddam is. Any attack Saddam
made or explicitly sponsored on the USA would meet with immediate and
decisive reprisal. There's nothing in what Saddam has done so far to
suggest that he is prepared to risk such a reprisal.
> > > Military investment is not targeted at making the army, the navy or such
> > > larger, but making it smarter; were we to cut spending, none of the
> current
> > > smart weapons would be available and more of our troops would be killed.
> It
> > > certainly paid off in Afghanistan, as you have seen.
> > > The rest of the world's military is obsolete in almost every sense. The
> > > closest ally we have is UK, their military is good shape.
> >
> > Well, clearly the money devoted to propoganda was well-spent. Is there
> > _anything_ that rich and powerful lobbies say which you don't swallow
> > whole? As an antidote, how about some reading matter: Basic Politics,
> > perhaps?
>
> Well, perhaps you should like to show me some proof of this propaganda? I
> mean, did thousands of American troops die and are being kept in body bags
> somewhere in secret? Did the Taliban overpower our forces and score a
> decisive victory? Are they or Al Quaeda still in power and CNN/Fox News
> keeping the rest of us idiots in the dark?
My point was that the supposed effectiveness of the US campaign in
Afghanistan does not in itself establish that the military's stated
motives for expanding investment are in fact genuine.
>
> I favor action because I fear that US might be attacked again. Last time it
> were planes, next time it might be a nuclear weapon. I don't trust the likes
> of FBI and CIA, or the even more incompetent pricks like Ashcroft to protect
> us.
But there's no consistency to what you're saying now. Previously
you've disclaimed any connection between 9/11 and Iraq. Now you are
saying that the only reason to attack Iraq is the fear that the US
might be attacked again. Iraq hasn't attacked the US; Al Qaeda has.
Would you be so supportive of the proposed war if 9/11 had not
occurred? According to your previous logic, you should be. But I don't
think you would be. Maybe I'm wrong, but if I'm not, it suggests that
the willingness to attack is due to a shift in American psychology,
not a genuine threat assessment.
>
> I think you've raised good points in your post, and I've tried my best to
> reply. I'm not all that enthusiastic about the way you go about it though.
> If you have a legitimate point, please explain it clearly instead of trying
> to call me a moron by association. "Do you swallow everything the rich
> lobbies tell you?" is a loaded insult and does not progress the argument
> further. I could do the same in connecting you to pedophilia or subject du
> jour - "Do you hate the Bush administration because they might interfere
> with your child trafficking?" Again, a question with no base and no purpose
> other than insult. I'm being extreme here to be sure, but I'm not trying to
> insult you or anyone else.
>
I accept what you are saying. To be honest, what annoyed me in your
initial post was the 'Basic Economics' crack; I thought that justified
some invective. The only point I would make about the above was that
your post showed evidence of credulity in response to the accounts
power gives of itself, whereas there is nothing in my post implying an
approval of child trafficking :-)
Clay Waldrop
> Here's an interesting of a kind that will never be written by
> Padraig -- a liberal admitting that the left has just becoming
> unhinged in the past year (he also takes up most of Paddyboy's
> ranting canards and dismisses them in one sentence):
>
> http://www.observer.com/pages/edgy.asp
If ever there was an article right on the money, this is it.
But unhinged in just the past year? I think that's a decade or
two off. I think it's just that these Wrong Way Corrigans have
become increasingly shrill of late. They doubtless feel their
influence slipping away, having shot any credibility they once
had long ago.
Indeed, I still believe the troubles of the Left -- and I am
speaking here primarily of the American Left -- began during
the Reagan administration. The abject failure of the Carter
administration followed by the abject success of the Reagan
administration clearly was a very powerful unhinging factor,
it having led to the triumph of capitalism over communism,
which is the very triumph of freedom over oppression (not that
Leftists see it that way, having been long ago blinded by
their own stillborn ideology).
Having believed Khrushchev when he pounded the table with his
shoe and uttered the immortal words, "We will bury you!" --
in Russian, of course ... we are all indebted to a nameless
U.N. translator for that historic quote -- this utter and
complete triumph of the Devil Capitalists over the Angelic
Communists was certainly a double-barrelled body blow to the
precious Marxist sensibilities embraced by the Left, a blow
that led (a shrink might say understandably) to a double-
barrelled unhingement and thence to the Left's present
blathering, shrill tone.
Clay
Felix Tiaka
above from the previous replies by Padraig and others. It is like the
morning coffee I've had an hour earlier, potent, clear and with cream. No,
wait; I'm bad with metaphors. :)
> > How is that? The guy was making out like there's some kind of a secret
> > ews-type of orgy club where 5 guys show up and think "Gee... we need to
send
> > the economy to hell.. let's do it Bob" "Okay!" I mean, if that's what
you
> > think? But I doubt it.
>
> OK. Fair enough, I don't think that. But I do think that the idea that
> an EWS-cabal runs things is closer to the mark than the notion that we
> are in a 'basically free' market. I share Braudel's view that
> capitalism is an anti-market, structurally biased against competition.
> Now I'll grant that not _all_ or even _most_ aspects of the economy
> are under human control, let alone the control of a few men in smoky
> rooms. I accept that the economy is like a force of nature. But that
> isn't to say that a few powerful and privileged parties aren't in a
> much better position to influence and harness economic developments
> than most of the population of the world. They clearly are.
Ofcourse, I didn't say that some people don't have potential control of the
economy, this is what I've meant by sway. Enron is a huge swayer, if it's
ceos (the privileged party) should, as they actually have done, run the
company into the ground and then steal money, it would hurt the economy. The
same thing with Global Crossing, Worldcom and such. The difference I
perceive is corruption; I'm not for it, nor is anyone else who is sane. I
think ceos have too much power. The stockholders clearly need to bring
things in order. I think that's different from what iHD has said. From as
much as I've read, I believe he holds that the ceos work in unison to bring
the economy down and that government should step in. Stepping in, I imagine,
would not involve creating a better oversight of accounting practices or pro
secution of certain ceos responsible. I think he's arguing for socialism a
la Europe. I should remind that Europe is not immune to corrupt ceos and
huge corporations who own politicians.
I've not really read Braudel, except for a few mentions of him, from what I
understand he wrote much of his work in the 70's when things were indeed
going bad. I might have a different definition of capitalism though. I'm
mostly Libertarian and believe in free-markets, I think the world is moving
towards that goal, away from Socialism. I don't like Bush meddling in that
stuff, a year ago he set tariffs on steel, but I haven't really read
anything else he's done.
> > I think the reason why we didn't intervene earlier was because we
weren't
> > attacked on such a scale before. 9/11 attacks really changed things. We
were
> > forced to respond, to prevent the same thing from happening again. It
was
> > not about humanitarian relief, and I've said so in my post to which you
have
> > replied. There's actually an interesting article I've read earlier in
the
> > day on the future of humanitarian relief -
> >
http://www.calendarlive.com/books/bookreview/cl-bk-power6oct06,0,374950.stor
> > y?coll=cl-bookreview
>
> OK. I apologise for attributing the view that the attack on
> Afghanistan was motivated by humanitarian concerns. But if the sole
> _motive_ for the attack was defence (and/or revenge) then it is
> inconsistent to claim credit for apparently fortunate humanitarian
> _consequences_. They are happy accident. And any cost-benefit analysis
> of the attack from a humanitarian point of view must take into account
> the innocent Afghani lives lost.
I don't think it's inconsistent. Analogy-wise it's like going down to a bar
to have a drink, your mission is to relax and have a drink; should you spot
a lovely young lady or lad and then spend the rest of your life with him/her
is a happy accident. You're not going to say your reason for going down to
the bar is to seek a partner for life. I'm not sure how helpful that was
though. : )
I think the reason that humanitarian outcome is mentioned at all is because
a lot of protests and 'peace' rallies have been held decrying the number of
possible civilian casualties. The same thing is happening now. I'm not
really aware of any wars in history that totally eliminated any civilian
casualties. As I've said, it's horrible, but it's the best option out of two
or three. The others being doing nothing or sending Ashcroft to assassinate
OBL himself.
The number of civilian casualties in Afghanistan is around 1100 or so,
perhaps more. The Mark Herold study is severely flawed, it included
double-counting, taking Taliban's word and dismissing later more accurate
reports from several sources. AP has done their reports and they show an
even lower number if I recall correctly. There are several crazy killing
sprees that the Taliban went on, one I can recall cost about 5000-7000
lives. Perhaps it was less, perhaps more. I still think that overall, there
wasn't a humanitarian disaster that the US had caused. I was reading a
couple of weeks ago that Afghani refugees are also returning home. That's
good news.
> > I'm not going to deny that the US foreign policy has been greatly wrong
in
> > the past, stupid, short-sighted and such, but that has hardly anything
to do
> > with the current matter. I feel as though you're saying "well, you've
been
> > wrong before, therefore you can't do anything to defend yourself ever
> > again". By the same I could claim the rest of the world does not deserve
to
> > even breathe and Germans should be gag-tied.
>
> Hmmm, it's a bit of a step from 'you shouldn't defend yourself again'
> to 'you don't deserve to breathe', not really sure I followed your
> reasoning there. But we are not talking about what the Germans did
> fifty years ago; we are talking about the currently dominant global
> Empire.
That isn't meant to be taken literally. Remember how I said I was bad with
metaphors? I'm just taking into account all the historical bad that European
countries have done in the past and then imagining the kind of argument that
would be built against them. I'm also not talking about German's actions
some 50 years ago; Russia is no angel either, though you would think that
hearing them talk today.
You can read almost any article on why war against Iraq should be opposed
and there'll be reference to Vietnam and South America. Root causes are said
to blame and the US is told to sit back and take the beating it deserves.
> >I don't like the Saudis either,
> > but attacking them would be a pretty bad idea at this moment. And even
> > bigger mistake would be attacking Iran, another country cited in the
'why
> > not them as well?' category.
>
> The issue here was that, if the motive for attacking Iraq was
> involvement in 9/11, then the Saudis would be a better target than
> Saddam. But you are not playing on the 9/11 link, so we'll let that
> lie.
> >Al Quaeda is indeed concerned with us
> > 'propping' regimes up, regimes like Israel, Jordan and Egypt. I can't
say I
> > like the latter two.
> But you think Sharon's regime in Israel is fine and dandy? I hope not.
I don't like this though. Sharon does not lead a regime, Israel is about the
only open and free democratic country in the middle east. It actually holds
free elections and is a good friend of the United States. It is surrounded
by 21 (highly) hostile Islamic dictatorships, all of them together 640 times
as large as Israel. Imagine, 640 times larger, their population is also 60
times larger. It's about 8,000 square miles. It also does not kill civilians
for fun. In fact it has one of the best human rights record in the world
(I'm not saying it doesn't have it's dark spots). The total number of all
Palestinians, terrorists or not killed between 1948 and today is still
smaller than the number that Jordan has killed. Israel has several times
offered Arafat a Palestinian state and each time the offer was rejected.
Arafat simply calls for the death of all Jews, nothing less will do. I can't
take anyone seriously when they advocate terrorism, the killings of innocent
civilians *on purpose*; that's why I hate Arafat. It's really time for him
to go and for Palestinians to hold their first election.
> > Though I've not read greatly on the *supposed* 9/11 Iraqi connection, I
> > don't really take it into account. I've outlined why Saddam is a
*present*
> > threat at this time, mostly it is his weapons.
>
> I'd love to see Saddam go, just as I'd love to see all the tyrants in
> the world deposed. But I do question whether Saddam is a present
> threat. What evidence is there of this? Al Qaeda are demonstrably
> suicidal - but there is no evidence that Saddam is. Any attack Saddam
> made or explicitly sponsored on the USA would meet with immediate and
> decisive reprisal. There's nothing in what Saddam has done so far to
> suggest that he is prepared to risk such a reprisal.
This is a good question, more direct than all of the rest of the posts put
together.
Ofcourse I would like to have those tyrants go as well, but I'm thinking the
same way you do about them, that if we were to declare war on all of them
we'd be severely short handed and would suffer greater casualties; In a case
like North Korea we'd face nuclear weapons. I'm not sure we would not
systematically go after some of those regimes after Iraq, but I figure it
improbable at this time. I don't have a crystal glass, I can't read Bush's
mind.
The reason we're going after Iraq is because it is a threat that no time
will solve, and the more we wait the more the stakes go up. This is
different from the situation in the other countries you have mentioned. Good
example is Iran, there is a solid reform movement developing there that is
trying to cut down the Bathist movement; left alone it has a good chance.
Iran does not pose an imminent threat to us, they do hate us though.
Saddam is a present threat because he is developing nuclear and biological
weapons. There is a lot of evidence for this, satellite photos, testimonies
of defected scientists, and most importantly Saddam himself. He does not
want inspectors to do their job because he is hiding his development.
Here are several links to those satellite photos and quotes and analysis:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iraq/nuke.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iraq/tuwaitha-imagery.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2002/020906-iraq2.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2002/021001-iraq1.htm
You can explore the site further, more information there.
I would also argue that there is a false assumption that Saddam is a
rational player. Rational in as much as the Soviet Union was during the cold
war. That is just not true. Al-Queda is suicidal and stupid, Saddam is just
stupid, there isn't much difference between their thinking. He has shown
enough boldness to be a risk, mostly when he invaded Kuwait. That is not
rational, it is suicidal and Saddam is all the more an idiot for not
thinking the whole thing through. I would not trust him with Nuclear
weapons.
He is not afraid of an attack on his people, he can really care less if some
part of Iraq gets nuked. But to US it does matter, it is not an option for
New York or Boston or Chicago to get nuked. US and Soviet capabilities were
the same and they had just as much to lose, millions and millions of people,
thus things kept neutral except for a few proxy wars. Saddam has much less
to loose than the US, he is not a rational player. He is one madman with a
switch.
Another plausible scenario involved Saddam secretly giving terrorists a
nuke. It doesn't even matter who he would have to give it to. Al-Queda said
they would want a nuclear weapon, and they are currently seeking one. Saddam
does not have to love Al-Queda, but he can assume the enemy of his enemy is
his friend. It could even be stolen or traded off without Saddam's
knowledge. I worry about someone stealing a Soviet nuke, but Iraq would be
in an even greater danger.
I've talked about the ways in which Saddam could use his nuclear weapons to
bargain out of things. "You either get rid of sanctions tomorrow or I'll
nuke Tel Aviv"; "You either stand back and let me invade Kuwait or I'll nuke
Washington". This way he thinks he can also finally form his great state and
then declare war on the west. There is no good outcome of it here. Saddam
simply must not be able to develop weapons of mass destruction.
Well, sorry then, I've read that as though you were saying Afghanistan as a
successful campaign is mere propaganda and does not have basis.
> > I favor action because I fear that US might be attacked again. Last time
it
> > were planes, next time it might be a nuclear weapon. I don't trust the
likes
> > of FBI and CIA, or the even more incompetent pricks like Ashcroft to
protect
> > us.
>
> But there's no consistency to what you're saying now. Previously
> you've disclaimed any connection between 9/11 and Iraq. Now you are
> saying that the only reason to attack Iraq is the fear that the US
> might be attacked again. Iraq hasn't attacked the US; Al Qaeda has.
> Would you be so supportive of the proposed war if 9/11 had not
> occurred? According to your previous logic, you should be. But I don't
> think you would be. Maybe I'm wrong, but if I'm not, it suggests that
> the willingness to attack is due to a shift in American psychology,
> not a genuine threat assessment.
Iraq was prohibited from developing WMDs before 9/11, infact it expelled the
inspectors back in 98 (I think). 9/11 did change many things, it proved that
US is not invulnerable and there is a declared war on us. Saddam himself
said as much. I suppose the US would have had to act, maybe later, maybe at
the same time had 9/11 not happened. Years of talks between Saddam and UN
had not yielded any progress and the possibility of him owning wmds was
always a threat. Again, I state that an attack on Iraq was not always
concrete after Afghanistan. All Saddam had to do is let the inspectors back
in unconditionally. Let them inspect all the facilities and presidential
palaces. Let them take nuclear scientists and their families to the safe
territory to be interviewed. Let us see for ourselves that Saddam is not
infact building nuclear weapons. He is not doing any of this, because he is
building Nukes and making anthrax and other weapons.
> >
> > I think you've raised good points in your post, and I've tried my best
to
> > reply. I'm not all that enthusiastic about the way you go about it
though.
> > If you have a legitimate point, please explain it clearly instead of
trying
> > to call me a moron by association. "Do you swallow everything the rich
> > lobbies tell you?" is a loaded insult and does not progress the argument
> > further. I could do the same in connecting you to pedophilia or subject
du
> > jour - "Do you hate the Bush administration because they might interfere
> > with your child trafficking?" Again, a question with no base and no
purpose
> > other than insult. I'm being extreme here to be sure, but I'm not trying
to
> > insult you or anyone else.
> >
> I accept what you are saying. To be honest, what annoyed me in your
> initial post was the 'Basic Economics' crack; I thought that justified
> some invective. The only point I would make about the above was that
> your post showed evidence of credulity in response to the accounts
> power gives of itself, whereas there is nothing in my post implying an
> approval of child trafficking :-)
Well, perhaps I should have provided a different example. "Do you swallow
everything that the Arab News tells you?". I guess that's a bit more
related. I did got a bit overboard with that other quip there. So, I'm
sorry.
Felix
Listening to Handel - Concerto Grosso No.6 in g minor.
Victor Morton
> "Victor Morton" wrote:
>> Here's an interesting piece of a kind that will never be written by
>> Padraig -- a liberal admitting that the left has just become
>> unhinged in the past year (he also takes up most of Paddyboy's
>> ranting canards and dismisses them in one sentence):
>>
>> http://www.observer.com/pages/edgy.asp
>
> If ever there was an article right on the money, this is it.
>
> But unhinged in just the past year? I think that's a decade or
> two off.
I wouldn't exactly dispute that and Ron Rosenbaum says that his doubts had
been percolating for some time and that the September 11 reactions were the
last straw. I wouldn't myself dispute anything significant in your
paragraphs that I snipped, but that's an essentially partisan argument. But
the last year has been unique in at least one sense.
What September 11 did do was to clarify who on the left was genuinely
motivated by an all-inclusive vision of justice (however wrong those of us
on the right might see that vision as being) and who was simply
rationalizing such arguments to cover an existential loathing of the United
States. It separated the Christopher Hitchenses and Todd Gitlins from the
Arundhati Roys and Noam Chomskys. Because here was an event were Americans
were as manifestly wronged as possible, where 3,000 civilians were
slaughtered, and by a group that could have no possible truck with the
secular Western left -- Islamicist fanatics who execute gays, keep women
illiterate and veiled, destroy Buddha statues, and glory in mass murder as
such. And STILL (from a significant quarter of the left -- the Roys,
Chomskys, Padraigs, etc) came all the same, habitual excuses, equivocations,
buts, what abouts, contextualizations, lectures about our past wrongs, and
intimations that America was really at fault. In plain language ... if those
lefties aren't on our side now, then they plainly never will be and have
defined themselves as simply anti-American.
And more than a few liberals or leftists took note of this -- Hitchens being
the best-known, the Rosenbaum article I linked to another -- and walked. At
least a few others indicated themselves capable of harshly criticizing their
comrades for their anti-Americanism -- I've pasted an article Todd Gitlin
wrote for Open Democracy back in December at the end of my note.
But for that segment of the left I am talking about -- they HAVE since
September 11 become completely unhinged. Not in the sense that their critics
think their ideas nutty (that's been true since the late 60s) but "unhinged"
in the sense of becoming more shrill and desperate and also in the sense of
becoming unhinged and isolated from the mainstream -- losing contact with
any respectable political elements other than themselves (even former
allies). Hitchens called The Nation an echo chamber for those who think
Ashcroft a greater danger than Osama bin Laden -- that's what the latter
point is getting at.
Anyway ... here's the Gitlin piece. Ten'll get you twenty Padraig will
dismiss Gitlin as another insane warmonger who drinks the blood of Arab
children.
Victor
The ordinariness of American feelings
Todd Gitlin
Much of the world outside America has reacted to 11 September with criticism
of the country as well as sympathy. Some of it seems impelled by a denial of
the human normality of Americansą post-disaster emotional cycle. A global
conversation between equals is precluded when rational political criticism
falls before the confirmation of prejudice.
As the thick gray ash of the World Trade Center poured down on Manhattan,
Americans were moved by messages of solidarity from every land. łWe Are All
New Yorkers,˛ we heard, and an American could be forgiven for imagining that
new understandings might be pouring in, too. Here and there, yes. Along with
straightforward, unqualified condemnation of terrorism came the passionate
hope that 11 Septemberąs crimes might elicit from Americans a stronger
feeling for the whole of assaulted humanity.
The Chilean writer, Ariel Dorfman, would recall that another 11 September ‹
this one in 1973 ‹ was the day of the American-supported coup that installed
a dictatorship there. He added: łOne of the ways for Americans to overcome
their trauma and survive the fear and continue to live and thrive in the
midst of the insecurity which has suddenly swallowed them is to admit that
their suffering is neither unique nor exclusive, that they are connected ‹
as long as they are willing to look at themselves in the vast mirror of our
common humanity ‹ with so may other human beings who, in faraway zones, have
suffered similar situations of unanticipated and often protracted injury and
fury.˛
Breaking the chains of reflex
Dorfman wrote with compassion and without bitterness. But from others there
have come reversions to old reflexes and tones ‹ smugness, acrimony,
Schadenfreude. Long before the attacks on the Taliban regime, the worldąs
fellow-feeling began to subside, displaced by apprehension about the scale
and focus of the impending war ‹ legitimate apprehension, in my view ‹ but
other feelings, too: that the attacks of 11 September were ‹ well, not a
just desert, exactly, but ... damnable yet understandable payback ... rooted
in injustice; reaping what empire had sown. After all, was not America
essentially the oil-greedy, Islam-disrespecting oppressor of Iraq, Sudan,
Palestine? Were not the ghosts of the Shahąs Iran, of Vietnam and the Cold
War Afghani jihad rattling their bones?
Then too, were not Americans, having been jolted into the world of the
vulnerable, quickly settling back into their damnable ignorance? Indeed,
from Washington, for ten days, spasms of jingo rhetoric sounded like the
irrepressible return of the repressed. Didnąt George W. Bush speak loosely
of a Ścrusadeą? Didnąt the Pentagon float the label Operation Infinite
Justice? Were there not highly placed American howls to Śend states,ą to
pulverize Kabul, to make someone ‹ anyone ‹ pay?
Bush repented of his Texas-Christian excess, probably having been told it
sounded as though his remark had been telepathically scripted by Osama bin
Laden. His speechwriters, and some reality principle, took over (no doubt
with his gratitude). Flagrant errors receded. Rumsfeld backed down, at least
rhetorically, and Powell spoke sense. The branding brigade reverted to the
blander, less euphonious Operation Enduring Freedom. Everyone in authority
rejected indiscriminate retaliation.
But writers who identified America as the unswerving world bully took little
note. Like certain American jingos who thought the effort to understand
terrorists immoral ‹ on the ground that to understand is to endorse ‹ they
disdained understanding. Because thought can be burdensome (as if the
absence of thought were not), they preferred, rhetorically, to shoot first
and ask questions afterward. This is not the first time such know-nothing
spasms have been heard in American history. Neither is it the first time
America has been equated with vulgar interest and brute power ‹ by those who
fear both and those who boast of them.
Of the perils of American ignorance, our fantasy life of pure and
unappreciated goodness, much can be said. The failures of intelligence that
made 11 September possible include not only security oversights but a
widespread combination of stupefaction and arrogance, from the
all-or-nothing thinking that armed the Islamic jihad in Afghanistan to fight
our own jihad against Soviet Communism, to a general disrespect for the
intellect that not so long ago permitted half the citizens of a flabby,
self-satisfied democracy to vote for a man unembarrassed by (even proud of)
his lack of acquaintanceship with the world.
Still, know-nothing sentiments are not unique to the United States. What are
we to make of the fact that some who beg us to understand terrorism, or bin
Laden, or Islamic fundamentalism, do not trouble themselves to understand
America? You must not only know your enemy. You must also know your
well-meaning, tolerant, short-sighted, liberal, selfish, generous,
trigger-happy, dumb, glorious, fat-headed, on-again-off-again friend.
Thinking the worst
Not a bad place to start is Americaąs current, reluctant warmindedness. Is
it surprising that suffering close up is felt more urgently, more deeply,
than suffering at a distance? After disaster comes a desire to reassemble
the shards of a broken community, withstand the loss, defeat the enemy. So
wounds inflame the identities closest at hand. The attack stirs, in other
words, patriotism ‹ love of oneąs people and desire to keep them from being
hurt anymore. And then, too, the wound is inverted, transformed into a badge
of honor. It is translated into protestation (łwe didnąt deserve this˛), and
pride (łthey canąt do this to us˛). Pride can go toward the quest for
justice, the rage for punishment, the pleasures of smugness. The dangers are
obvious. But it should not be hard to understand that the American flag
sprouted first, for many of us, as a badge of belonging, not a call to shed
innocent blood.
This sequence is not an artefact of American arrogance, ignorance and
insularity. It is simply and ordinarily human. It operates as clearly, as
humanly, among nonviolent Palestinians attacked by West Bank and Gaza
settlers and their soldier-protectors, as among Israelis suicide-bombed at a
nightclub or a pizza joint. Yet those who, by argument, tone, and emphasis,
are ready with automatic arguments against American policies and dislike of
American wealth, vulgarity, arrogance, and ignorance are slow to acknowledge
that Americans, too, suffer from this sequence. Some who instantly (and
rightly) understand that Palestinians may burn to avenge their compatriots
killed by American weapons assume that Americans have only interests (at
least the elites do) and, at best, gullibilities (the best the masses are
capable of). Those who are quick to read the mind of the executioner ‹
crediting him with the longest possible list of legitimate grievances ‹
forfeit understanding of the victim.
The style of anti-Americanism I am writing about is different from the
terroristąs logic that because, say, the US maintains bases in Saudi Arabia,
because your symbols in Mecca and Medina have been (in your mind) traduced,
God calls you to slaughter innocents and crush their own temples to dust.
The terrorist logic of Osama bin Laden is transpolitical ‹ that is to say,
nihilistic. Issues are fodder for his apocalyptic imagination. He wants
power and calls it God. Were Palestinians to win all their demands, he would
move on, in his next video, to his next issue.
The soft anti-American, by contrast, sincerely wants US policies to change,
but lays even the mass murderer (if not the mass murder) at the door of the
US itself. The soft anti-American not only notes but gloats that, after all,
the US built up Islamic fundamentalism in Afghanistan as a counterfoil to
the Russians. The US part in arming these legions is undeniable and
important. But what follows? American policy has often been vile (in the
name of Islam in this case, but never mind), but must we then be righteously
condemned to blowback forever? Since there were American companies and
rightists who welcomed Hitler, should America not have (belatedly) declared
war on Nazi Germany? Since the US tilted toward Saddam Hussein against Iran,
was his invasion of Kuwait to be cavalierly accepted? Is America some frozen
essence perennially condemned to be worthy of condemnation?
Occidentalist radicalism
So we move quickly past a condemnation of mass murder to a cascade of
whataboutism. Americans died on 11 September, thatąs terrible, but what
about the victims of American foreign policy? In the present, Palestinians
and Iraqis. Half a century back, Iran. For decades, Soviet apologists were
quick with their riposte to Americans: łWhat about the Red Indians?˛
Whataboutism is the stuff of feuds, not politics. It is not an engagement
with reality, but a retreat from it into stampeding certainty.
And the seductions of closure are irresistible even to those dedicated, in
other circumstances, to intellectual glasnost. Edward Said, for example,
writes of the łdepressing˛ reality that in American commentary łlittle time
is spent trying to understand Americaąs role in the world,˛ then (in the
passive voice, which would seem to not to require any evidence) of łthe
vague suggestion that the Middle East and Islam are what Śweą are up
against, and that terrorism must be destroyed˛ (of the first, only yahoos
are guilty, and of the second, what is wrong with it as a goal, were it
possible?), and then adds (with revealingly odd inverted commas): łYouąd
think that ŚAmericaą was a sleeping giant rather than a superpower almost
constantly at war, or in some sort of conflict, all over the Islamic
domains.˛
Any enlightened American shares Saidąs disgust with American ignorance. But
even as a characterisation of American action in relation to łthe Islamic
domains,˛ this is breathtakingly skewed. And in two directions ‹ for in
flattening a US role in which the complex stories of Suez, Kuwait, the Oslo
agreement, Bosnia and Kosovo also figure, it also reduces łthe Islamic
domains˛ to homogenised, supine victimhood. Elsewhere, Said has deplored the
intellectual slovenliness of reducing all Islam to a single solid substance.
Here, he indulges in precisely that: an intellectual legerdemain that
dissolves historical truth into exoticising fantasy.
From the Indian novelist Arundhati Roy, who has admirably criticised her
countryąs nuclear weapons and development policies, there is a tender
concern that łAmerican people ought to know that it is not them but their
governmentąs policies that are so hated.˛ One reason why Americans are not
exactly clear about the difference is that the murderers of 11 September did
not trouble themselves to make such a nice distinction. (Just what were some
300 firefightersą views of American bases in Saudi Arabia?). This extends to
a fear that if America łdoesnąt find its enemy, for the sake of the enraged
folks back home, it will have to manufacture one.˛
Does Arundhati Roy really need reminding that the enemy does not need to be
manufactured? And when she describes bin Laden as łthe American presidentąs
dark doppelganger ... the twins are blurring into one another and gradually
becoming interchangeable,˛ is she aware how the lazy, patronizing coupling
demeans its author?
What links Roy and Said is what demarcates anti-Americanism, that peculiar
empire of the one-eyed, from reasoned political opposition to US policies.
Real, not gestural politics must worry about the breadth of the brush; but
anti-Americanism is one of those prejudices that musters evidence to suit a
conclusion already in place. For it, ordinary Americans can never be just
that. They can certainly never just be victims, a status already monopolized
elsewhere. Americans, or łthe West,˛ are blithely dehumanized into the
molecules of a structure, what bin Laden calls Americaąs łvital organs.˛ As
for their government, its policies amount to a condition, an essence. The
actions of various mass murderers (the Khmer Rouge, Bin Laden) must,
rightly, be łcontextualized.˛ But to the anti-American, American policy
never has łcontext.˛ It is.
The presumptive certainty here, the sneeringly sovereign gaze, the casual
contempt for the ordinary humanity of the łother,˛ is all the more
astonishingly unreflective from writers who elsewhere anatomise sensitively
the duplicities of imaginative colonisation.
Insofar as Arundhati Roy and Edward Said genuinely want Americans to wake up
to the world ‹ to overcome what Anne Taylor Fleming called our serial
innocence, ever replenished, ever absurd ‹ they must speak to Americans, in
recognition of the common perplexity and vulnerability, now globalised
forever. Toward this end, myopia in the name of weak is no help to the weak.
Behind the crude cliches about America and its people can be glimpsed a
deeper truth: that we are not alone in either our narrowness or our
ignorance.
Enjoyed this article? Receive our weekly content updates via email by
sending your full name to subs...@opendemocracy.net
Copyright © Todd Gitlin, 2001. Published by openDemocracy. Permission is
granted to reproduce articles for personal and educational use only.
Commercial copying, hiring and lending is prohibited without permission. If
this has been sent to you by a friend and you like it, you are welcome to
join the openDemocracy network.
Padraig L Henry
>>phenry is all:
>>Posting on-topic thoughts.
>>They are more relevant to Kubrick's films than most of the
>>self-indulgent, shallow off-topic threads
>
>So, like I'm all: You could be right comparing this to the above mentioned
>threads, it is about Mr. Moore's new movie after all, but I am sick and tired
>of the sick and tired "Strangelove Is In The Whitehouse" media campaign. I
>resent seeing my favorite movie's legacy being inaccurately hijacked for a
>current journalistic shorthand.
>Dr. Strangelove is not in the Whitehouse, he is in the War Room.
Nah, he's in a Los Alamos laboratory ...
-----------------------------------------
U.S. government pushes nuclear revival
As the cold war drew to a close in 1989, the antinuclear movement,
thinking it had thwarted Mutual Assured Destruction, lost its sense of
urgency and quickly faded into the background.
But while the peaceniks slacked, a small crew of Dr. Strangelove types
spearheaded by Stephen Younger, the associate director for nuclear
weapons research at Los Alamos national lab, was quietly planning the
nuke's resurgence. The bomb-backers include weapons designers, Energy
Department officials, right-wing foundations, and former military
chiefs. And boy, do they have some plans.
For starters, they want the citizenry to pony up $8 billion just to
maintain our aging stockpile of nuclear warheads. The real hope of the
nuke-lovers, though, is a massive reinvestment in weapons production -
which has been stalled for a decade - and the development of a whole
new range of nuclear armaments.
One concept currently in vogue is the "battlefield nuke," or
"mini-nuke," a relatively small missile that could be used in
conventional combat scenarios - something that should terrify every
U.S. Army grunt - to penetrate hardened enemy hideouts, ą la Tora
Bora.
Word of the nuke revival surfaced briefly in the big media in March
2002 when the Los Angeles Times revealed the Bush administration's
revamped nuclear battle plans, or "Nuclear Posture Review." The
classified, apparently tentative plans include the use of mini-nukes
and strategic offensive strikes against enemy countries (a huge shift
in strategy) and target China, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya, North Korea,
and Russia. But the L.A. Times and other establishment media outlets
lost interest in the renewed arms race - days after the story hit, it
fell off the radar.
Stephen I. Schwartz, Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, 6/7/01.
iHĞ
wrote:
>Here's an interesting of a kind that will never be written by Padraig -- a
>liberal admitting that the left has just becoming unhinged in the past year
>(he also takes up most of Paddyboy's ranting canards and dismisses them in
>one sentence):
>
>http://www.observer.com/pages/edgy.asp
>
>
>Victor
Yes, trust Victor to offer some beside the point proxy "response" to
Padraig's (and presumably, my) "ranting canards"; and it's only too
obvious why he'd find "dismissing them in one sentence" specially
appealing.
Still, there's no denying the virtues of brevity, and in that spirit I
offer my own three-sentence challenge to those suing for war in Iraq:
If you're so certain of the case for war that you're prepared to pay
for it with the broken bodies and extinguished lives of children, why
don't you offer your own children on the altar of your beliefs instead
of somebody else's? Arranging a temporary child exchange program for
the duration of the war would make this an entirely feasible option.
Any takers?
--
iHÐ
"What's that supposed to be, some kind of sick joke?!"
"I think I was trying to suggest something about the double standards
in AMeriKa, sir."
Padraig L Henry
wrote:
>On 07 Oct 2002 22:22:04 GMT, m4r...@aol.com (M4RV1N) wrote:
>
>>>JW Moore
>>writes, in part:
>>
>>>Your manifest hatred of America is blinding you to the fact
>>>that al Qaeda, not Bush, set in motion the Afghan war,
>>
>>Wait a second. Bin Laden and company are partly a monster of our own creation:
>>
>>
>>http://www.theatlantic.com/ads/popup-ptc-inv-19.htm?campaign=subsoffer&nam
>>e=ptcinv19&weight=1&url=http://www.theatlantic.com/unbound/flashbks/jihad.htm
>>
>>Surely you are aware of this.
He'd prefer an awareness that Dr Frankenstein was an angel.
>
>I am. What's your point? That Osama is any less a monster?
Because unless you take some responsibility for - and acknowledgement
of - the monsters you create, fund, and arm (bin Laden, Hussein,
Sharon etc), you will go on doing it ... (wondering why history isn't
taught in many US schools ...).
>If
>anything, it makes it more incumbent on the US to drain that swamp we
>filled over the years.
It makes it incumbent on the US to begin respecting international laws
and the international community.
>>>Kubrick fan must agree with you on
>>>events totally unrelated to Kubrick -- and that Kubrick would of
>>>course agree with you! -- is arrogant to say the least.
>>
>>There's no certainty here, but SK's attitude towards war and militarism in
>>"Paths of Glory" and towards both of those plus politics in "Dr. Strangelove"
>>are clear. While not a complete pacifist (as he indicated in the Playboy
>>interview) his skepticism about US motivations and immoral tactics was clear in
>>a wide range of comments. No rational person could argue that Kubrick would be
>>supportive of our actions in Vietnam, Central America, or the Middle East.
>>
>
>You omit one salient fact: Kubrick was by all accounts a New Yorker
>through and through. Surely he would have been horrified by the Sept.
>11 attacks,
We were all horrified by those events, just as we were later horrified
by the slaughter in Afghanistan (who among you will mourn their
loss?).
>and pondered the possible "mating combinations". Among
>other virtues, routing the Taliban addressed the terrorist threat by
>killing or sending to ground bin Laden and many of his henchmen. It is
>not out of the question to think that Kubrick would have found this
>response appropriate, expedient, maybe even moral.
Not only is Kubrick again turning in his grave, associating, as you
do, mass slaughter - whatever its pretext - with the "moral", but I
think you urgently need to flush out much more than your head gear.
The invasion of Afghanistan, like the assault on the Twin Towers, was
both an illegal act and a moral outrage.
>But it is not
>certain either. I don't know. Part of me is thankful he didn't have to
>witness the carnage. Let's leave it at that.
>
>>>There are
>>>plenty of other NGs that would be happy to indulge your Yank-bashing
>>>rants. Go there. And take Michael Moore with you.
>>
>>Padraig's verbal sparring tactics aside, he's one of the best contributor's
>>this newsgroup has had. Moore has been associated with this group for years
>>and sometimes posts. Like them or not, they and their ideas are welcome here,
>>and if you don't like them, either make an argument in opposition or ignore
>>them (like everyone does Paulo).
>>
>
>Ordinarily I would agree with you. But what you call "verbal sparring"
>I call simplistic demagoguery, based on no "ideas" other than
>knee-jerk prejudices.
Simplistic, dark demagoguery is all I've been hearing from you and
others on this newsgroup, based on nothing more than blood-lust and
ignorance of your own country's history.
>There are principled objections to be made
>against any number of American policies, but there is nothing
>principled about the abuse Padraig heaps on anyone with the audacity
>to question him.
I see, so your support of mass murder (in the name of American
justice) is "moral" but those who verbally challenge such positions
and behaviour are "unprincipled"? Welcome to the new world order ...
>And I don't care how long someone's been posting here
>-- nobody should have to defend their love of SK's work based on such
>unrelated matters. Should they? Or is there some vesting clause I
>don't know about?
You have just attempted to do this yourself, Jack. Though if you can
find anything in Kubrick's work that supports your contention that war
is moral, well, Chaplin Charlie and the rest of us would really like
to be informed about it.
>
>Indeed, there is a pronounced paucity of constructive ideas here: What
>exactly should the US do, exactly? Wait patiently for the next round
>of attacks? Toady up to the Russians and Chinese to secure yet another
>ineffectual UN "demand" for "unfettered" inspections of Iraq? What?
>Michael Moore and his ilk offer little beyond the boilerplate assaults
>on Bush and vague insistence on an "internation coalition" -- as if
>that were an end unto itself. Absent is anything resembling an
>alternative argument, let alone a strategy.
>
>And I'll ask again the question you conveniently snipped: where was
>this righteous indignation four years ago?
Uh, because some people here didn't publicly protest about the bombing
of Iraq four years ago, they now have no right to complain about the
present, potentially world shattering, US plans? Your red-herring
reasoning is boundless in its capacity for deviancy , Jack. (And if
those people had expressed "righteous indignation" [quite a notion of
"righteous" and "indignation" you have, Jack!] 4 years ago, their
present expression of it you'd dismiss as boringly "predictable"?)
To rewind just a little, all of these threads began as a result of -
were provoked by - the US rejection of Kiarostami's visa application,
its unblinking contempt for one of the world's most respected artists
and film-makers (no contemporary American film-maker could ever hope
to equal his cinematic achievements) just because he happens to be an
Iranian national. Posters here attempted to dismiss this as a mere
procedural failure on Kiarostami's part, and shure, aren't there much
bigger issues to be dealing with, anyway (like AMK discussing aspect
ratios, continuity errors, and LB's latest Kubrickean "theories" and
so on)? Such a US policy was further demonstrated by other posts
revealing the treatment of another Iranian film-maker, Jafar Panahi,
in the hands of US immigration officials. But rather than rationally
discuss these developments, you and others went about lazily
rationalising them while demonising those who expressed serious
concern about them, and then the "debate" descended into trench
warfare, and, yes, I take a measure of responsibility for that. Why
wouldn't I?
I would have liked to have thought that this newsgroup, as a film
discussion forum concentrating in the main on the films of a
film-maker who took his work and his role as an independent artist
very seriously indeed, might at least have been a little shocked by
this news. Instead the group has chosen to take a darker course, and
we are all the worse for it ...
Padraig
Gordon Dahlquist
On Wed, 9 Oct 2002, Victor Morton wrote:
> In plain language ... if those lefties aren't on our side now, then they
> plainly never will be and have defined themselves as simply anti-American.
are you a teenager? is this a schoolyard? do you have the slightest
respect for what the constitution stands for, or the vital part dissnet
must play in the democratic process? set up all the straw men you like -
just like the administration has done with each successive wave of
assertion-stands-for-proof for a war that just patently, patently has
much more to do with winning the senate for the republicans than
addressing any immediate needs of international security, but it doesn't
change adolescent mentality behind your "objection".
you're talking about the left being bankrupt because it still embraces
institutionalized >communism<?! who are you possibly taking about? what
year do you think it is in this argument-land of yours?
it's not a binary situation, and pretending it is won't make it so.
fundamentalist islam (and christianity, for that matter) is a grave
problem in this world, and it's tearing the muslim world apart (and
everyone else with it). at the same time, it's ludicrous to pretend that
the united states hasn't supported any number of brutal regimes in the
service of some large realpolitik agenda like "stopping communism at any
cost". pretending that no one else is the world has noticed that we
supported saddam hussein for years, or pinochet, or suharto, does nothing
to help us understand what we're really facing in trying to combat
something like a world-wide guerrilla war against terrorism.
Padraig L Henry
wrote:
"Maybe I'm wrong, but if I'm not, it suggests that the willingness to
attack [Iraq] is due to a shift in American psychology, not a genuine
threat assessment."
Yes, sound reasoning, and Felix's response to your post is ample
further evidence of that shift. (Always sadly fascinating to witness
posters who's daily lives are so completely immersed in and
self-absorbed by the seductions of pop culture suddenly try to launch
themselves as informed "political commentators".)
Padraig
"Personal [mis]perception is all, the evidence is nothing."
iHĞ
<gd...@columbia.edu> wrote:
>it's not a binary situation, and pretending it is won't make it so.
Which reminded me of a cartoon just published in the UK satirical
magazine (best known to AMK readers for lampooning one self-regarding
F. Raphael, Esquire). No need to scan it, the image is a familiar
one, the White House, from which emanates the speech bubble: "I hate
him, let's kill him." Caption: "The Black and White House"
mark de rozario
> Thank you Mark for a thoughtful reply.
Thank you. I think this is a worthwhile exchange now. People are too
ready to take entrenched positions on this matter --- when for me it
is very fraught and difficult, not at all straightforward ----
> The difference I
> perceive is corruption; I'm not for it, nor is anyone else who is sane. I
> think ceos have too much power. The stockholders clearly need to bring
> things in order. I think that's different from what iHD has said. From as
> much as I've read, I believe he holds that the ceos work in unison to bring
> the economy down and that government should step in. Stepping in, I imagine,
> would not involve creating a better oversight of accounting practices or pro
> secution of certain ceos responsible. I think he's arguing for socialism a
> la Europe. I should remind that Europe is not immune to corrupt ceos and
> huge corporations who own politicians.
Governments are as bad as CEOs as far as I'm concerned. Socialism is
totally discredited and failed. But the current crisis is not just to
do with (criminal) corruption - it has to do with the centralization
of economic power to a few multinationals.
> I've not really read Braudel, except for a few mentions of him, from what I
> understand he wrote much of his work in the 70's when things were indeed
> going bad. I might have a different definition of capitalism though. I'm
> mostly Libertarian and believe in free-markets, I think the world is moving
> towards that goal, away from Socialism. I don't like Bush meddling in that
> stuff, a year ago he set tariffs on steel, but I haven't really read
> anything else he's done.
I believe in free markets, too; but I happen to think that the world
is _not_ moving towards them. Perhaps the opposite. The power of
Braudel's position - and that of people influenced by him, such as
Manuel de Landa - is that it articulates an anti-capitalist but
pro-market stance. A situation in which the market is dominated by big
multinationals is no different - is in many important respects worse -
than the old socialist command economy model.
>
> I don't think it's inconsistent. Analogy-wise it's like going down to a bar
> to have a drink, your mission is to relax and have a drink; should you spot
> a lovely young lady or lad and then spend the rest of your life with him/her
> is a happy accident. You're not going to say your reason for going down to
> the bar is to seek a partner for life. I'm not sure how helpful that was
> though. : )
Well, exactly: the fact you met her/him is a happy accident ---- not
something you can claim credit for planning!
>
> I think the reason that humanitarian outcome is mentioned at all is because
> a lot of protests and 'peace' rallies have been held decrying the number of
> possible civilian casualties. The same thing is happening now. I'm not
> really aware of any wars in history that totally eliminated any civilian
> casualties.
I read something today that said, prior to the twentieth century,
ninety per cent of people killed in wars were combatants; now ninety
per cent killed are civillians. A sad comment on 'progress', that.
> You can read almost any article on why war against Iraq should be opposed
> and there'll be reference to Vietnam and South America. Root causes are said
> to blame and the US is told to sit back and take the beating it deserves.
Well: the point of referring to past US FP gaffes may not simply be a
moral one (the USA deserves what it gets) but a practical one (the USA
should learn from its mistakes). The fact that the CIA funded OBL in
order to overthrow the Soviets ought to be provide a hard lesson: the
consequences of intervention may not be what you expect, or want.
>
> > >Al Quaeda is indeed concerned with us
> > > 'propping' regimes up, regimes like Israel, Jordan and Egypt. I can't
> say I
> > > like the latter two.
> > But you think Sharon's regime in Israel is fine and dandy? I hope not.
>
> I don't like this though. Sharon does not lead a regime, Israel is about the
> only open and free democratic country in the middle east. It actually holds
> free elections and is a good friend of the United States. It is surrounded
> by 21 (highly) hostile Islamic dictatorships, all of them together 640 times
> as large as Israel. Imagine, 640 times larger, their population is also 60
> times larger. It's about 8,000 square miles. It also does not kill civilians
> for fun. In fact it has one of the best human rights record in the world
> (I'm not saying it doesn't have it's dark spots). The total number of all
> Palestinians, terrorists or not killed between 1948 and today is still
> smaller than the number that Jordan has killed. Israel has several times
> offered Arafat a Palestinian state and each time the offer was rejected.
> Arafat simply calls for the death of all Jews, nothing less will do. I can't
> take anyone seriously when they advocate terrorism, the killings of innocent
> civilians *on purpose*; that's why I hate Arafat. It's really time for him
> to go and for Palestinians to hold their first election.
I feel if we started debating this, we'd never stop. Suffice it to say
that I believe your account is a little one-sided here.
> >
> > I'd love to see Saddam go, just as I'd love to see all the tyrants in
> > the world deposed. But I do question whether Saddam is a present
> > threat. What evidence is there of this? Al Qaeda are demonstrably
> > suicidal - but there is no evidence that Saddam is. Any attack Saddam
> > made or explicitly sponsored on the USA would meet with immediate and
> > decisive reprisal. There's nothing in what Saddam has done so far to
> > suggest that he is prepared to risk such a reprisal.
>
> This is a good question, more direct than all of the rest of the posts put
> together.
> Ofcourse I would like to have those tyrants go as well, but I'm thinking the
> same way you do about them, that if we were to declare war on all of them
> we'd be severely short handed and would suffer greater casualties; In a case
> like North Korea we'd face nuclear weapons. I'm not sure we would not
> systematically go after some of those regimes after Iraq, but I figure it
> improbable at this time. I don't have a crystal glass, I can't read Bush's
> mind.
I wasn't suggesting that the US should begin act to remove all
despots; just the opposite in fact. What I meant was, while it would
be great if they all went away, it's never going to be as simple as
that, and there has to be a strong case for moving against any one of
them.
> Saddam is a present threat because he is developing nuclear and biological
> weapons. There is a lot of evidence for this, satellite photos, testimonies
> of defected scientists, and most importantly Saddam himself. He does not
> want inspectors to do their job because he is hiding his development.
>
I accept that he may be developing such weapons. But the question is:
will he use them? And, also, does the USA have the right to police who
has such weapons (it's quite happy for other undemocratic regimes such
as Pakistan to have nuclear weapons for example).
> I would also argue that there is a false assumption that Saddam is a
> rational player. Rational in as much as the Soviet Union was during the cold
> war. That is just not true. Al-Queda is suicidal and stupid, Saddam is just
> stupid, there isn't much difference between their thinking. He has shown
> enough boldness to be a risk, mostly when he invaded Kuwait. That is not
> rational, it is suicidal and Saddam is all the more an idiot for not
> thinking the whole thing through. I would not trust him with Nuclear
> weapons.
Well, I'm not keen on his having them either, funnily enough! But
there is no evidence that he would take action that would lead to his
own destruction. His behaviour has consistently been that of a
brinkman; he continually tests limits. Invading Kuwait was not
suicidal; it was just such a testing of limits. It was rational to try
for territorial expansion at that time; Saddam can't have known that
the US would strike back at him. Remember the situation before the
Gulf War was very different - US military confidence was still badly
affected by Vietnam, and it wasn't obvious that it would want to
intervene in a volatile region far away.
>
> He is not afraid of an attack on his people, he can really care less if some
> part of Iraq gets nuked. But to US it does matter, it is not an option for
> New York or Boston or Chicago to get nuked. US and Soviet capabilities were
> the same and they had just as much to lose, millions and millions of people,
> thus things kept neutral except for a few proxy wars. Saddam has much less
> to loose than the US, he is not a rational player. He is one madman with a
> switch.
Maybe this is true. I don't think there is much evidence for it, just
yet. But if it's true that he couldn't care less about a _nuclear_
attack on Iraq, isn't that an argument against a conventional attack
on the nation? Why should he care about that? Won't he just take to
his bunker and let the country get flattened by smart bombs?
> Another plausible scenario involved Saddam secretly giving terrorists a
> nuke. It doesn't even matter who he would have to give it to. Al-Queda said
> they would want a nuclear weapon, and they are currently seeking one. Saddam
> does not have to love Al-Queda, but he can assume the enemy of his enemy is
> his friend. It could even be stolen or traded off without Saddam's
> knowledge. I worry about someone stealing a Soviet nuke, but Iraq would be
> in an even greater danger.
>
> I've talked about the ways in which Saddam could use his nuclear weapons to
> bargain out of things. "You either get rid of sanctions tomorrow or I'll
> nuke Tel Aviv"; "You either stand back and let me invade Kuwait or I'll nuke
> Washington". This way he thinks he can also finally form his great state and
> then declare war on the west. There is no good outcome of it here. Saddam
> simply must not be able to develop weapons of mass destruction.
Some of this could happen. But I'm genuinely not sure how plausible
these scenarios are. I think another issue is personalising everything
onto Saddam; the war, when it comes, will not be on Saddam, it will be
on Iraq and its long-suffering people. Everyone can agree that an
attack on Saddam is legitimate; it's not so clear-cut that an attack
on the Iraqi people is.
>
>
> Iraq was prohibited from developing WMDs before 9/11, infact it expelled the
> inspectors back in 98 (I think). 9/11 did change many things, it proved that
> US is not invulnerable and there is a declared war on us.
But I reiterate that 9/11 has little or nothing to do with Saddam. If
Iraq is a threat to the USA, it was a threat regardless of 9/11. 9/11
seems to be totally tangled up with the motives for the attack, and,
as I said before, that has much more to do with American psychology
than the geo-political situation. The US was vulnerable to the
asymmetrical threat of deterritorialized terrorists, not to other
State combatants, any of which it can defeat. My suspicion is that the
US is shifting the focus from a battle it can't win (the ridiculous
war on terrorism) onto one it can (war against other states).
Any way, thanks for the careful and thoughtful response, Felix. No
doubt we'll talk again soon.
OtiGoji
> I am sick and tired
>>of the sick and tired "Strangelove Is In The Whitehouse" media campaign. I
>>resent seeing my favorite movie's legacy being inaccurately hijacked for a
>>current journalistic shorthand.
>phenry replied by quoting:
OtiGoji
>phenry quoted:
>a small crew of Dr. Strangelove types
>spearheaded by Stephen Younger, the associate director for nuclear
>weapons research at Los Alamos national lab, was quietly planning the
>nuke's resurgence.
Now there's a reference to Dr. Strangelove that's right on!
>Stephen I. Schwartz, Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, 6/7/01.
Better late than never...
Victor Morton
> On Wed, 9 Oct 2002, Victor Morton wrote:
>
>> In plain language ... if those lefties aren't on our side now, then they
>> plainly never will be and have defined themselves as simply anti-American.
>
> are you a teenager?
No.
> is this a schoolyard?
No.
> do you have the slightest
> respect for what the constitution stands for,
Yes. Please detail what you think I said that proved the contrary.
> or the vital part dissnet must play in the democratic process?
There's nothing wrong with dissent. However, dissent for dissent's sake or
dissent from an existential loathing (anti-Americanism, anti-Semitism or any
other pathological form of hate) rather than a reasoned, fact-based critique
of the status quo are quite different matters. They DO have no place in the
democratic process because they are not based on reason. I was quite careful
to say how to tell the two kinds of dissent apart and to give examples of
lefties (who need no lessons on dissent from you, Padraig or anyone else)
whose dissent I have no problem with. Maybe you missed that part.
> set up all the straw men you like -
At the end of those fragments of yours ... that charge is just rich. Are you
channeling Padraig?
> you're talking about the left being bankrupt because it still embraces
> institutionalized >communism<?! who are you possibly taking about? what
> year do you think it is in this argument-land of yours?
Um ... I never said any such thing. "institutionalized communism" -- a
phrase you emphasized -- has never appeared in my posts. The bankruptcy of
the contemporary left has nothing at all to do with the Second International
and I'm at an absolute loss to understand what I could have written that a
speaker of English could understand that way. Can you PLEASE give a citation
for where you think I said that???
> it's not a binary situation, and pretending it is won't make it so.
I agree that binary "us and them" thinking is almost always a bad way to
think about internal affairs in a polity. But war (and make no mistake, the
Islamofascists HAVE declared war ... we're in one ... whether we like it or
not) IS a binary situation. Pretending it isn't won't make it not. Don't
think for one second, Gordon, that Osama's men would have excused you had
you been on those planes on the count of "he's one of the good, peace-loving
dissenting Americans."
> fundamentalist islam (and christianity, for that matter) is a grave
> problem in this world, and it's tearing the muslim world apart (and
> everyone else with it). at the same time, it's ludicrous to pretend that
> the united states hasn't supported any number of brutal regimes in the
> service of some large realpolitik agenda like "stopping communism at any
> cost".
Who "pretends" THAT? Of course the U.S. has supported some nasty characters
-- usually because the alternative was even nastier. Can you not at least
imagine that it is possible to completely wrong on one matter AND completely
right on another. And what is the purpose of bringing this point up in a
discussion of September 11 except to say something like "the U.S. deserved
it" and delegitimize American self-defense. The only possible effect of
bringing up, let's say Pinochet (as Ken Loach does in his segment of the
11'9"01 movie), is to deny to America through taint by association both the
ability to be simply and wholly wronged and the ability to defend itself
against those like Osama and Saddam whose agenda is plain and has been
plainly stated -- kill all Americans everywhere you can.
> pretending that no one else is the world has noticed
Please ... we've heard practically nothing else from a certain corner of the
left for 13 months now. Nobody is "pretending" what you seem to think they
are.
> that we supported saddam hussein for years
That's far FAR too strong. The US gave Saddam access to some loans and
import credits; it restored diplomatic relations sometime in the mid-1980s;
during his war with Iran, we gave him some limited covert military
cooperation (satellite and other intelligence data mostly) and diplomatic
support (Iran had invaded the United States in 1979, let us not forget).
Buthe US never sold him arms or nuclear technology or was even a major
customer for his oil.
In fact, the countries that gave Saddam Hussein most of his political
support, all of his arms and all of the materials for his weapons of mass
destruction were the Soviet Union and France (and to a lesser extent other
Europeans). And for those of you who are saying "go through the U.N." for
weapons inspections and whatnot, let me make it perfectly clear. THOSE are
the countries who built up Saddam Hussein AND the ones holding the cards at
the U.N. And yet you claim America is somehow tainted by its piddling games
of footsie with Saddam, while Moscow and Paris are the great moral arbiters
when they were practically doing a nightly threesome with Saddam. It's hard
not to conclude that this is just the rationalization of a belief that
America is always wrong.
And further, as Christopher Hitchens has never tired of pointing out, to the
extent the United States WAS responsible for Saddam Hussein, Osama bin
Laden, the Taliban or anyone else bad, elementary moral reasoning ("you
always have to clean up your own mess, Timmy") puts on the U.S. therefore a
GREATER obligation to overthrow him, not a lesser one. Again ... unless the
real point is simply the moral deligitimization of anything the U.S. does,
it's really hard for me to see what is the relevance of this argument.
, or pinochet, or suharto, does nothing
> to help us understand what we're really facing in trying to combat
> something like a world-wide guerrilla war against terrorism.
U.S. support for Pinochet or Suharto has not anything to do with fighting al
Qaeda, Saddam or Islamo-fascism at any level whatsoever, unless it's the
argument noted above -- anti-Americanism pure and simple.
Victor
Felix Tiaka
>
> Thank you. I think this is a worthwhile exchange now. People are too
> ready to take entrenched positions on this matter --- when for me it
> is very fraught and difficult, not at all straightforward ----
As is for me, I'm not claiming to know everything nor have tunnel vision of
kind. I simply looked at the matter from a lot of sources; from both left
and right I might mention too. I'm willing to admit error. However, as you
might have guessed already, I do feel passionately about the issue. I think
there is a bit of a misunderstanding on my current frame of mind though, but
I'll mention this later in the post.
> > The difference I
> > perceive is corruption; I'm not for it, nor is anyone else who is sane.
I
> > think ceos have too much power. The stockholders clearly need to bring
> > things in order. I think that's different from what iHD has said. From
as
> > much as I've read, I believe he holds that the ceos work in unison to
bring
> > the economy down and that government should step in. Stepping in, I
imagine,
> > would not involve creating a better oversight of accounting practices or
pro
> > secution of certain ceos responsible. I think he's arguing for socialism
a
> > la Europe. I should remind that Europe is not immune to corrupt ceos and
> > huge corporations who own politicians.
>
> Governments are as bad as CEOs as far as I'm concerned. Socialism is
> totally discredited and failed. But the current crisis is not just to
> do with (criminal) corruption - it has to do with the centralization
> of economic power to a few multinationals.
I don't think there are a 'few' multinationals, and the number there are I
don't perceive to run everything under the sun. Even then I don't see a way
to change that, unless you install some kind of system to break them up.
There are monopoly laws but I doubt those would apply. I'm all for
prosecuting someone like Microsoft if they abuse power. I still think that
the problem is mostly with corporate corruption.
I think you're arguing for a 'small is beautiful' type of a solution,
separate, self-sufficient businesses running locally from each town? I'm not
going to comment further because I don't know exactly what your views are
and I don't want to put words in your mouth.
<Unrelated>I was actually looking info on multinationals up and I found that
the US hold about 160 of the largest companies in the world, Japan holds 130
or so, France, Germany and Britain about 40 each. It was a 500 companies
list.</Unrelated>
I don't have a problem with multinationals or big companies in general
though, Wal-Mart and Target are successful because they are a better
alternative to smaller local stores. It might be a shame that the local folk
are having to fold up, but overall, consumers have much more choice these
days. I don't think that competition is being hurt. Just last evening, I was
over at Woodfield Mall here in Schaumburg, IL; I don't particularly like
malls but I hardly had much say in the matter. What I saw (and see in daily
life) ran counter to your position that competition is being stiffed. There
must be about 50 clothings stores, carrying perhaps thousands of different
labels; Perhaps 10 or more different restaurants that feature everything
from Chinese dumplings to Cheese Cake. We have an apple store, EB and Sam
Goody while a block away is a Towers Records, Borders, CompUSA, Tweeter and
a local pc maker. I don't think the consumers ever in history, anywhere, had
as many choices as they do today. James Lileks wrote brilliantly on this
subject, though I can't find the link to this at the moment. In jest, as
much as I can remember, he joked on how just about anything, from
toothbrushes to computers, to tupperwear, comes in so many sizes and shapes
and designs and colors that it overall reflects on the kind of person you
are. "You are a man of excellent taste, I can see that by your matching
Tupperware" or something to that extent. I think it was a James Bond riff.
I think the competition here in the US is still much healthier than it is in
Europe where EU council takes over and sets up all kinds of regulations it
wishes. This is true for the rest of the world as well I'd venture to say. I
should also mention that I completely ignored the service sector, but the
situation is about the same.
> > I've not really read Braudel, except for a few mentions of him, from
what I
> > understand he wrote much of his work in the 70's when things were indeed
> > going bad. I might have a different definition of capitalism though. I'm
> > mostly Libertarian and believe in free-markets, I think the world is
moving
> > towards that goal, away from Socialism. I don't like Bush meddling in
that
> > stuff, a year ago he set tariffs on steel, but I haven't really read
> > anything else he's done.
>
> I believe in free markets, too; but I happen to think that the world
> is _not_ moving towards them. Perhaps the opposite. The power of
> Braudel's position - and that of people influenced by him, such as
> Manuel de Landa - is that it articulates an anti-capitalist but
> pro-market stance. A situation in which the market is dominated by big
> multinationals is no different - is in many important respects worse -
> than the old socialist command economy model.
Well, I do, I think markets are being open, slowly perhaps, but surely, and
this is happening globally. There are exception, and most of those are
failed states where religion rules supreme. One good example is India, one
of my favorite books on the failed socialism there is "India unbound",
written by an ex-ceo of Procter and Gamble India, Gurcharan Das. There, he
wonderfully writes on how much the 90's reforms transformed the business
climate for the better; software companies, telecoms, electronics makers and
perhaps hundreds of other industries came about just recently. He also
describes how much local lives are changing, how these days even Buddhist
priests have a cellphone dangling off their belt. I think taking that
country alone for the 90's is probably enough to warrant a charge that
markets are expanding and becoming more free.
I have Lindsey's Against the Dead Hand waiting to be read, but from the
reviews I can gather it goes further to that assumption. I wish I had read
it now though.
I'm still not really clear on the anti-capitalist, pro-market position. If
you could elaborate further. I'm just don't feel sure enough to comment on
it yet.
> >
> > I don't think it's inconsistent. Analogy-wise it's like going down to a
bar
> > to have a drink, your mission is to relax and have a drink; should you
spot
> > a lovely young lady or lad and then spend the rest of your life with
him/her
> > is a happy accident. You're not going to say your reason for going down
to
> > the bar is to seek a partner for life. I'm not sure how helpful that was
> > though. : )
>
> Well, exactly: the fact you met her/him is a happy accident ---- not
> something you can claim credit for planning!
>
>
> >
> > I think the reason that humanitarian outcome is mentioned at all is
because
> > a lot of protests and 'peace' rallies have been held decrying the number
of
> > possible civilian casualties. The same thing is happening now. I'm not
> > really aware of any wars in history that totally eliminated any civilian
> > casualties.
>
> I read something today that said, prior to the twentieth century,
> ninety per cent of people killed in wars were combatants; now ninety
> per cent killed are civillians. A sad comment on 'progress', that.
I kind of have trouble accepting that. I can't imagine the number in my
head, that sound rather made up, but I'm not sure. Maybe you can provide a
link? Is it just the World Wars or?
I didn't take credit for planning that 'happy accident', though it's not
something that's totally surprising either. So, that example was bad.
>
> > You can read almost any article on why war against Iraq should be
opposed
> > and there'll be reference to Vietnam and South America. Root causes are
said
> > to blame and the US is told to sit back and take the beating it
deserves.
>
> Well: the point of referring to past US FP gaffes may not simply be a
> moral one (the USA deserves what it gets) but a practical one (the USA
> should learn from its mistakes). The fact that the CIA funded OBL in
> order to overthrow the Soviets ought to be provide a hard lesson: the
> consequences of intervention may not be what you expect, or want.
Ofcourse, but I think the problem with say the proxy war in Afghanistan
against the Soviets was insufficient follow-up. Should there be an attack on
Iraq, that would not happen. I'll talk more about this below.
> I feel if we started debating this, we'd never stop. Suffice it to say
> that I believe your account is a little one-sided here.
I'm sure of it! heh. :)
> > He is not afraid of an attack on his people, he can really care less if
some
> > part of Iraq gets nuked. But to US it does matter, it is not an option
for
> > New York or Boston or Chicago to get nuked. US and Soviet capabilities
were
> > the same and they had just as much to lose, millions and millions of
people,
> > thus things kept neutral except for a few proxy wars. Saddam has much
less
> > to loose than the US, he is not a rational player. He is one madman with
a
> > switch.
> Maybe this is true. I don't think there is much evidence for it, just
> yet. But if it's true that he couldn't care less about a _nuclear_
> attack on Iraq, isn't that an argument against a conventional attack
> on the nation? Why should he care about that? Won't he just take to
> his bunker and let the country get flattened by smart bombs?
> Some of this could happen. But I'm genuinely not sure how plausible
> these scenarios are. I think another issue is personalising everything
> onto Saddam; the war, when it comes, will not be on Saddam, it will be
> on Iraq and its long-suffering people. Everyone can agree that an
> attack on Saddam is legitimate; it's not so clear-cut that an attack
> on the Iraqi people is.
This is what I have to offer. There is a high probability that his nuclear
weapons might be used against us. Hardly anything is certain, he might even
have a change of heart and kill himself right after destroying all of his
wmd and eliminating all related programs. However, chances of that are a lot
slimmer, I'd say almost certainly nil (one can wish though). I think you
have understood my reasons for favoring a pre-emptive attack, you are
uncertain because there isn't direct evidence like (the following is a bit
of humor on my part) Saddam standing in front of a nuke with a map of United
states in the background. I don't think there can be such evidence, the
first time we will be 100% positive is when Saddam announces his success
himself, or worse yet when a nuke goes off somewhere like San Francisco or
Tel Aviv.
Saddam is just one man, and he can be protected by a few hundred bodyguards,
his rule is the problem, not the man in flesh. It is important that his
development of wmds should be stopped and that a new government should be
formed, one that holds real elections and has a constitution close to our
own; include things like civil liberties for all races and sexes and such. I
think this step is crucial, it is what had not happened in Afghanistan after
the soviets left. In essence what should be done is the same thing the US
did in Japan after WW2, rebuild and ensure Japan does not rise militarily
again.
There is also a bit of a false assumption here, I think you assume this war
to not be different from say World War 2, where to win we would need to
level Baghdad (for example). We did that in Japan back then, true, but
things have changed since then. We would not cluster bomb Baghdad to kill as
many civilians as possible to get a surrender; we would target military
installations and troops only. Back in 1991 Iraqi armed forces proved to be
incompetent and today they're in an even worse shape. We don't need Saddam
to surrender himself, just his troops, so it should not matter if he is in a
bunker or not.
> Well, I'm not keen on his having them either, funnily enough! But
> there is no evidence that he would take action that would lead to his
> own destruction. His behaviour has consistently been that of a
> brinkman; he continually tests limits. Invading Kuwait was not
> suicidal; it was just such a testing of limits. It was rational to try
> for territorial expansion at that time; Saddam can't have known that
> the US would strike back at him. Remember the situation before the
> Gulf War was very different - US military confidence was still badly
> affected by Vietnam, and it wasn't obvious that it would want to
> intervene in a volatile region far away.
I'm not so sure. Perhaps I was a bit too simplisme in my past generalization
of Saddam being just stupid. I don't have solid proof for the following, it
is what I think Saddam's reasoning might be based on what he has done and
said in the past. I'd say that he perhaps lives in a bit of a fantasy world
and holds himself a great leader with massive aspirations. History certainly
does not lack men of his kind. Territorial expansion was/is not limited to
Kuwait or Iran, I think he, and I've said this before, wants to reunite all
the Arab nations around him, with Baghdad being the capital. I think that's
his rationality behind this all. In 1991, his conventional forces were not
enough for the job, that is one reason he is developing nukes. So, in this
light, he clearly is not rational to our worldview. Really, he is quiet
insane then.
I think he showed this exactly by underestimating the United States response
time and time again, it is irrational for him to be so arrogant all the
time. Perhaps, again, he thinks that a man of his stature should not be
hampered by the likes of US. He certainly holds himself powerful and wise
enough to kill thousands of his own people. I think that's quiet irrational
and insane. You've said yourself that he is constantly testing limits and
underestimating appropriate response; why wouldn't he do so again by
secretly exporting a nuclear weapon across Syria to someone like Hamas or
Hezbollah? He's been smuggling tons of oil across; a wmd would be trivial.
There really is no way to stop it coming from here, it is almost impossible.
The way to stop it is to stop the source.
> But I reiterate that 9/11 has little or nothing to do with Saddam. If
> Iraq is a threat to the USA, it was a threat regardless of 9/11. 9/11
> seems to be totally tangled up with the motives for the attack, and,
> as I said before, that has much more to do with American psychology
> than the geo-political situation. The US was vulnerable to the
> asymmetrical threat of deterritorialized terrorists, not to other
> State combatants, any of which it can defeat. My suspicion is that the
> US is shifting the focus from a battle it can't win (the ridiculous
> war on terrorism) onto one it can (war against other states).
>
> Any way, thanks for the careful and thoughtful response, Felix. No
> doubt we'll talk again soon.
I respectfully disagree. : ) 9/11 did change many things, and I've said what
they were in my previous post. I haven't tried to play 9/11 as a reason for
a pre-emptive strike on Iraq, I've just said that did indeed change the mood
and policy. We aren't taking severe risks anymore, and right now there is a
serious risk that Iraq poses. Any kind of an attack is not acceptable. Some
have argued that, should, say, Miami be nuked, the US would still bounce
back eventually. I still claim that this is not acceptable. I'm not willing
for war to be brought to US soil again.
I don't think the war on terror is ridiculous, progress is being made. War
on terror locally as headed by Ashcroft certainly is though. I think you
also classify it into different categories, war on terror being some kind of
an intelligence operation? It is on a level, but military force plays a
great part. Afghanistan is also a state which was easily defeated, so, maybe
Iraq isn't all that different? Terrorism by nuclear weapons is what we are
talking about here, and stopping that source is certainly a part of it.
Padraig, though ignored my answers to his posts, made a quick insult to the
effect that I'm basically crazy and self absorbed in by pop culture? Ohh
well, He can say his mind. But I imagine the accusation was "Yes, you over
in the States got attacked and you're angry, but calm down, get some group
therapy, clear your mind and stop acting like a bunch of cowboys". I think
that's the jest of it. I think that is also quiet insulting really, I've
tried my best to clearly and articulately state the case for a pre-emptive
attack beside 9/11. I can say that my judgment is not clouded by any kind of
a revenge. I never thought in terms of revenge, just prevention.
I'm sure we'll continue this real soon; again, thank you for your thoughtful
post, it is quiet contrasting to Padraig's recent comments.
Felix
Listening to Adham Shaikh with Shankar - fullset.
Thornhill
>
> Victor
Snipping this intransigent "debate," I'd point out that
"pro-Americanism," as well as "anti-Americanism," are never "pure and
simple," but both are, always and in every way, purely simplistic.
Thornhill
mark de rozario
> > Thank you. I think this is a worthwhile exchange now. People are too
> > ready to take entrenched positions on this matter --- when for me it
> > is very fraught and difficult, not at all straightforward ----
>
> As is for me, I'm not claiming to know everything nor have tunnel vision of
> kind. I simply looked at the matter from a lot of sources; from both left
> and right I might mention too. I'm willing to admit error. However, as you
> might have guessed already, I do feel passionately about the issue. I think
> there is a bit of a misunderstanding on my current frame of mind though, but
> I'll mention this later in the post.
Yes, I wasn't meaning to imply that you had tunnel vision or anything
like it. Quite the contrary.
<Big snip - because I want to deal with the anti-capitalism issue
below>
> I think the competition here in the US is still much healthier than it is in
> Europe where EU council takes over and sets up all kinds of regulations it
> wishes. This is true for the rest of the world as well I'd venture to say. I
> should also mention that I completely ignored the service sector, but the
> situation is about the same.
You'll get no arguments from me about the EU; Thatcher was right about
some things - socialism by the back door. :-)
> I'm still not really clear on the anti-capitalist, pro-market position. If
> you could elaborate further. I'm just don't feel sure enough to comment on
> it yet.
Here's a sample from De Landa:
'Capitalism was, from its beginnings in the Italy of the thirteenth
century, always monopolistic and oligopolistic. That is to say, the
power of capitalism has always been associated with large enterprises,
large that is, relative to the size of the markets where they operate.
Also, it has always been associated with the ability to plan economic
strategies and to control market dynamics, and therefore, with a
certain degree of centralization and hierarchy.
[I]f capitalism has always relied on non-competitive practices, if the
prices for its commodities have never been objectively set by
demand/supply dynamics, but imposed from above by powerful economic
decision-makers, then capitalism and the market have always been
different entities.'
You can read the full piece at:
http://www.t0.or.at/delanda/a-market.htm
> >
> > I read something today that said, prior to the twentieth century,
> > ninety per cent of people killed in wars were combatants; now ninety
> > per cent killed are civillians. A sad comment on 'progress', that.
>
> I kind of have trouble accepting that. I can't imagine the number in my
> head, that sound rather made up, but I'm not sure. Maybe you can provide a
> link? Is it just the World Wars or?
Umm, sorry. Can't remember where I read it, stupidly on my part. It
does make sense though; wars prior to the twentieth century were
probably much more limited skirmishes given the nature of weapons
then.
> I didn't take credit for planning that 'happy accident', though it's not
> something that's totally surprising either. So, that example was bad.
>
> >
> > > You can read almost any article on why war against Iraq should be
> opposed
> > > and there'll be reference to Vietnam and South America. Root causes are
> said
> > > to blame and the US is told to sit back and take the beating it
> deserves.
> >
> > Well: the point of referring to past US FP gaffes may not simply be a
> > moral one (the USA deserves what it gets) but a practical one (the USA
> > should learn from its mistakes). The fact that the CIA funded OBL in
> > order to overthrow the Soviets ought to be provide a hard lesson: the
> > consequences of intervention may not be what you expect, or want.
>
> Ofcourse, but I think the problem with say the proxy war in Afghanistan
> against the Soviets was insufficient follow-up. Should there be an attack on
> Iraq, that would not happen. I'll talk more about this below.
Maybe.But it could be argued that backing OBL and the radical
Islamists in the first place was the problem. What would follow-up
have involved? Giving them more support, or weaning them off it?
Either option seems bad.
>
> > I feel if we started debating this, we'd never stop. Suffice it to say
> > that I believe your account is a little one-sided here.
>
> I'm sure of it! heh. :)
So you admit that your position on Israel is a little skewed? :-)
>
> > > He is not afraid of an attack on his people, he can really care less if
> some
> > > part of Iraq gets nuked. But to US it does matter, it is not an option
> for
> > > New York or Boston or Chicago to get nuked. US and Soviet capabilities
> were
> > > the same and they had just as much to lose, millions and millions of
> people,
> > > thus things kept neutral except for a few proxy wars. Saddam has much
> less
> > > to loose than the US, he is not a rational player. He is one madman with
> a
> > > switch.
>
>
> > Maybe this is true. I don't think there is much evidence for it, just
> > yet. But if it's true that he couldn't care less about a _nuclear_
> > attack on Iraq, isn't that an argument against a conventional attack
> > on the nation? Why should he care about that? Won't he just take to
> > his bunker and let the country get flattened by smart bombs?
>
> This is what I have to offer. There is a high probability that his nuclear
> weapons might be used against us.
<snip>
>I don't think there can be such evidence, the
> first time we will be 100% positive is when Saddam announces his success
> himself, or worse yet when a nuke goes off somewhere like San Francisco or
> Tel Aviv.
I'm just not sure about this. I think that Saddam entering into
nuclear conflict with the States or its allies is something that goes
far beyond anything he's done up till now. For one thing, it is
playing to American strengths. His aim would have to be a
go-down-in-flames one-time retributive strike against America, since
any such act would be followed by his sure and certain total
destruction. But Saddam shows all the signs of someone desperate to
cling onto power; he is not like the stateless Islamist zealots who
flew into the WTC.
> Saddam is just one man, and he can be protected by a few hundred bodyguards,
> his rule is the problem, not the man in flesh. It is important that his
> development of wmds should be stopped and that a new government should be
> formed, one that holds real elections and has a constitution close to our
> own; include things like civil liberties for all races and sexes and such. I
> think this step is crucial, it is what had not happened in Afghanistan after
> the soviets left. In essence what should be done is the same thing the US
> did in Japan after WW2, rebuild and ensure Japan does not rise militarily
> again.
But can the principle of regime change be accepted? It's a dangerous
precedent, and does raise the issue of all the other tyrannical
regimes in the world.
> There is also a bit of a false assumption here, I think you assume this war
> to not be different from say World War 2, where to win we would need to
> level Baghdad (for example). We did that in Japan back then, true, but
> things have changed since then. We would not cluster bomb Baghdad to kill as
> many civilians as possible to get a surrender; we would target military
> installations and troops only. Back in 1991 Iraqi armed forces proved to be
> incompetent and today they're in an even worse shape. We don't need Saddam
> to surrender himself, just his troops, so it should not matter if he is in a
> bunker or not.
Point taken. But the myth of the 'clean war' is one that needs to be
taken apart. Thousands will die --- as millions have already died,
because of US sanctions on Iraq.
> I'm not so sure. Perhaps I was a bit too simplisme in my past generalization
> of Saddam being just stupid. I don't have solid proof for the following, it
> is what I think Saddam's reasoning might be based on what he has done and
> said in the past. I'd say that he perhaps lives in a bit of a fantasy world
> and holds himself a great leader with massive aspirations. History certainly
> does not lack men of his kind. Territorial expansion was/is not limited to
> Kuwait or Iran, I think he, and I've said this before, wants to reunite all
> the Arab nations around him, with Baghdad being the capital. I think that's
> his rationality behind this all. In 1991, his conventional forces were not
> enough for the job, that is one reason he is developing nukes. So, in this
> light, he clearly is not rational to our worldview. Really, he is quiet
> insane then.
His ambition to unite the Arab world around him might be best served
by a US attack. I think it is highly unlikely that the Arabs would
unite around him willingly, and if he tried to force the issue, we are
in a whole new ballgame.
>
> I think he showed this exactly by underestimating the United States response
> time and time again, it is irrational for him to be so arrogant all the
> time. Perhaps, again, he thinks that a man of his stature should not be
> hampered by the likes of US. He certainly holds himself powerful and wise
> enough to kill thousands of his own people. I think that's quiet irrational
> and insane. You've said yourself that he is constantly testing limits and
> underestimating appropriate response; why wouldn't he do so again by
> secretly exporting a nuclear weapon across Syria to someone like Hamas or
> Hezbollah? He's been smuggling tons of oil across; a wmd would be trivial.
> There really is no way to stop it coming from here, it is almost impossible.
> The way to stop it is to stop the source.
But this is all speculative. He underestimated the response in 1991,
but he hasn't really done so since, and has led the UN/US a merry
dance, carefully avoiding reprisal by backing down at the last
possible moment.
>
> > But I reiterate that 9/11 has little or nothing to do with Saddam. If
> > Iraq is a threat to the USA, it was a threat regardless of 9/11. 9/11
> > seems to be totally tangled up with the motives for the attack, and,
> > as I said before, that has much more to do with American psychology
> > than the geo-political situation. The US was vulnerable to the
> > asymmetrical threat of deterritorialized terrorists, not to other
> > State combatants, any of which it can defeat. My suspicion is that the
> > US is shifting the focus from a battle it can't win (the ridiculous
> > war on terrorism) onto one it can (war against other states).
> I respectfully disagree. : ) 9/11 did change many things, and I've said what
> they were in my previous post. I haven't tried to play 9/11 as a reason for
> a pre-emptive strike on Iraq, I've just said that did indeed change the mood
> and policy. We aren't taking severe risks anymore, and right now there is a
> serious risk that Iraq poses. Any kind of an attack is not acceptable. Some
> have argued that, should, say, Miami be nuked, the US would still bounce
> back eventually. I still claim that this is not acceptable. I'm not willing
> for war to be brought to US soil again.
Well, I hope no-one (apart from Strangelove-types) think that a Miami
strike (or its equivalent) is acceptable. For me, the 9/11 issue is at
the heart of the matter. Yes, you're right, 9/11 did 'change the mood
and policy.' That's precisely the problem, though. If there's no - or
at most, limited - connection between Iraq and international
terrorism, then the policy towards it should not alter because of a
'mood' change brought about by Sept 11. That's exactly what I meant
before: we're talking about a change in American psychology, not a
change in Iraq or the threat that it poses.
>
> I don't think the war on terror is ridiculous, progress is being made. War
> on terror locally as headed by Ashcroft certainly is though. I think you
> also classify it into different categories, war on terror being some kind of
> an intelligence operation? It is on a level, but military force plays a
> great part. Afghanistan is also a state which was easily defeated, so, maybe
> Iraq isn't all that different? Terrorism by nuclear weapons is what we are
> talking about here, and stopping that source is certainly a part of it.
Well, I think war on terror is an odd kind of paradox to begin with.
Ordinarily, terrorists are precisely those whom States will not accept
as a group against which one can go to war. Saying you are at war with
terrorists give them a kind of legitimacy: can you really call those
you are at war with 'terrorists'? In addition, the idea of a war on
terrorism smacks of the ludicrous war on drugs, but with an even more
nebulously defined object - fitting that Bush invoked the language of
'evil', because isn't the supposed war on terrorism really a 'war on
evil' - a righteous campaign for 'infinite justice' that can have no
end except in some kind of eschatological consummation? In that
respect, Bush's righteous fundamentalism echoes that of his putative
enemies all too clearly.
>
> Padraig, though ignored my answers to his posts, made a quick insult to the
> effect that I'm basically crazy and self absorbed in by pop culture?
Well, speaking for myself, I'm sure that I am _at least_ as absorbed
in popular culture as anybody else on this NG :-)
Gordon Dahlquist
On Thu, 10 Oct 2002, Victor Morton wrote:
> Gordon Dahlquist wrote:
>
> There's nothing wrong with dissent. However, dissent for dissent's sake or
> dissent from an existential loathing (anti-Americanism, anti-Semitism or any
> other pathological form of hate) rather than a reasoned, fact-based critique
> of the status quo are quite different matters. They DO have no place in the
> democratic process because they are not based on reason. I was quite careful
> to say how to tell the two kinds of dissent apart and to give examples of
> lefties (who need no lessons on dissent from you, Padraig or anyone else)
> whose dissent I have no problem with. Maybe you missed that part.
all this is the pretense of dissent, undercut by the characterization of
any serious disagreement as "existential loathing". and to say that
something as "problematic" - I assume you'd include this in your crazy
left tally - as sontag's post-9/11 new yorker piece is not reasoned is
just willful. it's very reasoned, as much as you (or I, or whomever)
might disagree with it.
> > you're talking about the left being bankrupt because it still embraces
> > institutionalized >communism<?! who are you possibly taking about? what
> > year do you think it is in this argument-land of yours?
>
> Um ... I never said any such thing. "institutionalized communism" -- a
> phrase you emphasized -- has never appeared in my posts. The bankruptcy of
> the contemporary left has nothing at all to do with the Second International
> and I'm at an absolute loss to understand what I could have written that a
> speaker of English could understand that way. Can you PLEASE give a citation
> for where you think I said that???
I'm responding here more to your endorsement of Rosenbaum, who's entire
rejection of the left is a rejection of the extreme and generally childish
part of any political movement. do conservatives enjoy having themselves
judged by the light of jerry falwell? well, I don't going to
demonstrations where I'm surrounded by "free mumia" t-shirts either. but
for rosenbaum, or anyone, to drag ligering affection for marxism into any
serious view of the criticism of the bush administration, particularly as
it relates to invading iraq, is ridiculous. it's not dissimilar from
people referring to bill clinton, a president whose domestic policy wasn't
frankly all that different from richard nixon's, as "left-wing" or
"liberal" ...
> > it's not a binary situation, and pretending it is won't make it so.
>
> I agree that binary "us and them" thinking is almost always a bad way to
> think about internal affairs in a polity. But war (and make no mistake, the
> Islamofascists HAVE declared war ... we're in one ... whether we like it or
> not) IS a binary situation. Pretending it isn't won't make it not. Don't
> think for one second, Gordon, that Osama's men would have excused you had
> you been on those planes on the count of "he's one of the good, peace-loving
> dissenting Americans."
no, this is exactly wrong. first, who do you exactly mean by
"islamofacsists"? do you mean free-floating terrorist cells like al
qaeda? do you mean the people in saudi arabia who fund them? do you mean
the government of iran? the hussein regime in iraq? or arafat? or
palestinian groups like hamas? or kids throwing rocks at israeli
soldiers? or do you mean the large and varied population of muslims across
the world who are reacting to all of these groups with every emotion
between sympathy and disgust? NONE OF THESE THINGS ARE THE SAME.
and all of this takes place in a large international community. and most
of it takes place on top of the world's oil reserves. and, again, within
a muslim world that's practically in a cultural civil war between
fundamentalism and a more secular view. and - for example - in this
particular struggle, bin laden and hussein - dangerous tyrant that he is -
are on EXACTLY OPPOSITE SIDES.
the problem with launching into war with iraq is that it hasn't been
shown to have a single fucking thing to do with al qaeda or bin laden.
and the quotes you hear about iraq sheltering al qaeda fighters are
bullshit: these fighters were in "iraq", all right - seeking refuge with
the very kurds hussein has spent a long time trying to exterminate (and
most of the al qaeda fighters were killed by the kurdish authorities or
driven into iran).
it's not the same. it's not a binary struggle - it's a different country,
a different war, without the same coalition (and why is that, do you
think? don't you think for a minute that countries like germany, or
long-time allies like turkey wouldn't go along with the us - it's not like
it's comfortable for them to deny us - if we had anything compelling to
show them as evidence? of course they would! and they haven't!), and
without the same justifications.
we can ask ourselves, "what's changed since we last looked at iraq?"
well, we dont have any proof of anything that's changed inside iraq, but
1) we haven't found bin laden (or mullah omar), 2) there's crisis
domestically as the nation has lost >trillions< of dollars due to
corporate scandals and ill-advised tax policies, and 3) there's a mid-term
election which could restore the senate to the republicans.
> > fundamentalist islam (and christianity, for that matter) is a grave
> > problem in this world, and it's tearing the muslim world apart (and
> > everyone else with it). at the same time, it's ludicrous to pretend that
> > the united states hasn't supported any number of brutal regimes in the
> > service of some large realpolitik agenda like "stopping communism at any
> > cost".
>
> Who "pretends" THAT? Of course the U.S. has supported some nasty characters
> -- usually because the alternative was even nastier. Can you not at least
> imagine that it is possible to completely wrong on one matter AND completely
> right on another. And what is the purpose of bringing this point up in a
> discussion of September 11 except to say something like "the U.S. deserved
> it" and delegitimize American self-defense. The only possible effect of
> bringing up, let's say Pinochet (as Ken Loach does in his segment of the
> 11'9"01 movie), is to deny to America through taint by association both the
> ability to be simply and wholly wronged and the ability to defend itself
> against those like Osama and Saddam whose agenda is plain and has been
> plainly stated -- kill all Americans everywhere you can.
again, you're parroting a link between bin laden and hussein when none
has been established, and when they're two very different kinds of
dangers. and you're equating honesty about the us's misdeeds in the past
with "moral justification" about "deserving" 9/11. understanding what
actions may have led to the terrorists making those attacks is not the
same thing as endorsing them. much of this does have a great deal to do
with how the us is perceived, and our perceived hypocrisy. which isn't to
say we're the only ones (for example, it's telling that most of the 9/11
terrorists were actually middle-class, educated men, who had studied
abroad, i.e., they were the farthest thing from the kid throwing rocks on
the west bank. they got drunk and went to >strip clubs< for god's sake -
these aren't meditate-to-purify-myself-for-allah zealots. it would be
easier if they were. instead, they're bitter, jealous men who see what we
have and what they don't and are angry about it. it's >very different<,
and fucking complicated to deal with as far as the future, as far as
the [necessary] non-military action to put forward a different view of the
united states into the islamic world.), but the the fact is, this is a
guerrilla war we've engaged in - very much like vietnam, but with much
higher stakes (and as we've seen, the world is vulnerable in a way it
hasn't been before). and like vietnam, the "war" is only fought partially
in military terms.
but instead, we're launching an old-fashioned war at a sitting duck who
hasn't been shown to have done anything to directly threaten us, nor is he
appreciably different than any number of similar dictators presently in
power (or he is different in that he's got significantly less resources at
his disposal). because it's been seen satisfies an immediate domestic need
(or to be even more cynical, because it will satisfy more long-term
financial needs of an administration with its roots in the petroleum
industry).
> > that we supported saddam hussein for years
>
> That's far FAR too strong. The US gave Saddam access to some loans and
> import credits; it restored diplomatic relations sometime in the mid-1980s;
> during his war with Iran, we gave him some limited covert military
> cooperation (satellite and other intelligence data mostly) and diplomatic
> support (Iran had invaded the United States in 1979, let us not forget).
> Buthe US never sold him arms or nuclear technology or was even a major
> customer for his oil.
bullshit. the us gave him chemical weapons, and supported him with
significant intelligence and in the un throughout the iran-iraq war. we've
helped him consistently in economic terms, and in strongarming other
countries, like the uk and saudi arabia, to help iraq as well. we've
been very aware that he was gassing the kurds and did nothing - and made
sure the world did nothing - and we even, apparently by mistake, gave him
tacit approval to invade kuwait. and in fact, the us to this day gets a
good percentage of its oil from iraq.
> In fact, the countries that gave Saddam Hussein most of his political
> support, all of his arms and all of the materials for his weapons of mass
> destruction were the Soviet Union and France (and to a lesser extent other
> Europeans). And for those of you who are saying "go through the U.N." for
> weapons inspections and whatnot, let me make it perfectly clear. THOSE are
> the countries who built up Saddam Hussein AND the ones holding the cards at
> the U.N. And yet you claim America is somehow tainted by its piddling games
> of footsie with Saddam, while Moscow and Paris are the great moral arbiters
> when they were practically doing a nightly threesome with Saddam. It's hard
> not to conclude that this is just the rationalization of a belief that
> America is always wrong.
see, binary again. no, I don't think russia or france is any moral
paragon, nor do I think the UN is anything but problematic. but I do
think that maintaining international law is crucial if we're to continue
with an international coalition to fight a world-wide guerrilla war that
will require a great deal of international cooperation and support. and
seeing that I've seen nothing but assertion-for-proof from the bush
administration as far as iraq, I see no reason to drop the options of
international law.
> And further, as Christopher Hitchens has never tired of pointing out, to the
> extent the United States WAS responsible for Saddam Hussein, Osama bin
> Laden, the Taliban or anyone else bad, elementary moral reasoning ("you
> always have to clean up your own mess, Timmy") puts on the U.S. therefore a
> GREATER obligation to overthrow him, not a lesser one. Again ... unless the
> real point is simply the moral deligitimization of anything the U.S. does,
> it's really hard for me to see what is the relevance of this argument.
bullshit again. our culpability in supporting these regimes onlymenas
that we have the greater need to address the issue responsibly, not to do
so in a manner that creates the same mistakes all over again and tramples
over our own stated ideals in the process.
> , or pinochet, or suharto, does nothing
> > to help us understand what we're really facing in trying to combat
> > something like a world-wide guerrilla war against terrorism.
>
> U.S. support for Pinochet or Suharto has not anything to do with fighting al
> Qaeda, Saddam or Islamo-fascism at any level whatsoever, unless it's the
> argument noted above -- anti-Americanism pure and simple.
it doesn't to you. tell it to the rest of the world, who see it
differently. that they do see it differently isn't about binary politics.
it's about realizing that we need to connect what we supposedly stand for
to what we actually do if we're going to persuade people to help us
achieve what we believe in.
I don't believe in manufacturing a war (when we're already in a war) so
the republicans can claim the senate, or so halliburton can gain more oil
concessions in the mideast.
M4RV1N
writes:
>>>Your manifest hatred of America is blinding you to the fact
>>>that al Qaeda, not Bush, set in motion the Afghan war,
>>
>>Wait a second. Bin Laden and company are partly a monster of our own
>creation:
<excised busted link (sorry)>
>>Surely you are aware of this.
>>
>
>I am. What's your point?
Let me repeat your quote.
>the fact
>>>that al Qaeda, not Bush, set in motion the Afghan war,
It's Rube-Golberg foreign policy, Jack, for ever and ever, and ever. The final
hammer hits us, and hits the innocent. Hard. It doesn't hit Bush and
corporate buddies yet, but they don't care about the future.
>That Osama is any less a monster?
How do we measure monsterhood? Let me count the ways... Osama and friends
killed around 3000 innocent people. Union Carbide killed 16,000 (and nobody on
the payroll had to kill themselves in the process). You need to expand your
thinking about what being a "monster" can entail. Please read this (it's just
one example, but a crystal clear one):
http://www.earthrights.org/irtk/bhopal.html
> If
>anything, it makes it more incumbent on the US to drain that swamp we
>filled over the years.
The moral logic here is sound. I was in favor of removing the Taliban, but our
method was not to drain a swamp but to bash a honet's nest. Do you know the
number of Al Quaeda killed? Supposedly their numbers were 60,000. In all the
promotions of our success (and we did free Afghanistan of a good deal of
oppression--even though they still embrace a great deal of it) I have never
heard this figure cited >anywhere<. They are gone elsewhere and everywhere.
If we invade Iraqi, there are perhaps ten million Arabs who would be inspired
to join or help Al Quaeda. War without end, indeed, Mr. Rumsfeld.
> who can reason with the neoconservative power brokers who
>>run the White House? Are they encouraging debate or thought?
>The debate is occurring as we speak
What did Daschle say today?
What does Rumsfeld say about those intelligent folks in the defense department,
who know this invasion-occupation-democratization idea is distilled insanity,
who have tried to stop it with endless leaks? Rumsfeld calls them, basically,
traitors who want American soldiers to be killed. Bush condemns those who wish
to debate as not carring about national security. These tactics have worked.
As you point out:
> the House of
>Representatives, whose minority leader, Dick Gebhardt, is foursquare
>in favor of military action against Saddam. Other right-wing whack
>jobs like Joe Lieberman and John Edwards (odds-on favorite for Dem
>prez nominee in 2004) have also signed up.
>Surely you know that.
Surely you know that I have no faith in the democratic party.
You do know that, don't you?
Put it this way: I have no confidence in the Republicratic party.
>>There's no certainty here, but SK's attitude towards war and militarism in
>>"Paths of Glory" and towards both of those plus politics in "Dr.
>Strangelove"
>>are clear. While not a complete pacifist (as he indicated in the Playboy
>>interview) his skepticism about US motivations and immoral tactics was clear
>in
>>a wide range of comments. No rational person could argue that Kubrick would
>be
>>supportive of our actions in Vietnam, Central America, or the Middle East.
>>
>
>You omit one salient fact: Kubrick was by all accounts a New Yorker
>through and through.
This is almost insidious, in implication. Are you saying a resident of New
York, because the terrorism is closer to home, should be, by that fact, more
aligned with unbridled militarism? If this is not the implication, then what
did you mean?
Surely he would have been horrified by the Sept.
>11 attacks, and pondered the possible "mating combinations". Among
>other virtues, routing the Taliban addressed the terrorist threat by
>killing or sending to ground bin Laden and many of his henchmen.
There is no evidence of that. No one on any side thinks the that we have now
"addressed the terrorist threat." No thinking person would say that. That the
Taliban is no longer in power in Afghanistan is very good for most people
there. They can dance, listen to music have pets, and as a big bonus women get
an addtional 3% of the kind of treatment they would get here. But where are
the Taliban folks at? They simply gave up almost at once, and have simply
blended in the Afghan population, with the Afghanies' blessing.
Drawing on the analogy above, these particular hornets don't sting right away,
and they will never forget. And again, the Al Quaeda hornets are just >gone<
(and I don't mean killed).
It is
>not out of the question to think that Kubrick would have found this
>response appropriate, expedient, maybe even moral. But it is not
>certain either. I don't know. Part of me is thankful he didn't have to
>witness the carnage. Let's leave it at that.
>
>>>There are
>>>plenty of other NGs that would be happy to indulge your Yank-bashing
>>>rants. Go there. And take Michael Moore with you.
>>
>>Padraig's verbal sparring tactics aside, he's one of the best contributor's
>>this newsgroup has had. Moore has been associated with this group for years
>>and sometimes posts. Like them or not, they and their ideas are welcome
>here,
>>and if you don't like them, either make an argument in opposition or ignore
>>them (like everyone does Paulo).
>>
>
>Ordinarily I would agree with you. But what you call "verbal sparring"
>I call simplistic demagoguery, based on no "ideas" other than
>knee-jerk prejudices. There are principled objections to be made
>against any number of American policies, but there is nothing
>principled about the abuse Padraig heaps on anyone with the audacity
>to question him.
You wanted an argument. This is abuse. (Sorry, that's line from Monty
Python). Padraig does hit people with ad hominems, I tend not to unless they
just can't think at all. But there are facts in his posts as well. As I say,
fire back with arguments if you've got them, and point out where he does not
address them intelligently, or ignore him.
On Michael Moore, you underestimate him, if I may say so. He pretends to be a
working-class Joe to reach a big audience, but he is >quite< perceptive and
thoughtful.
And I don't care how long someone's been posting here
>-- nobody should have to defend their love of SK's work based on such
>unrelated matters. Should they? Or is there some vesting clause I
>don't know about?
The thing about SK's work, is that he >wanted to deal with the most important
issues that face mankind<. That's >his< choice, and it certainly follows to me
that people who see the quality of his work would also care deeply about such
things. Alt.movies.kubrick has always discussed such topics, more or less
relating them to his films, as might be. This is in the TKS meta-FAQ
somewhere.
>Indeed, there is a pronounced paucity of constructive ideas here: What
>exactly should the US do, exactly? Wait patiently for the next round
>of attacks?
Think about innocent people, and how our actions would hurt or help them, now
and in the future. How's that for a novel approach?
Toady up to the Russians and Chinese to secure yet another
>ineffectual UN "demand" for "unfettered" inspections of Iraq?
What would happen if we stopped the sale of Iraqi oil to anyone, until they
comply, while allowing shipment of food into the country? Again a novel idea
inconceivable in the present mindset.
What?
>Michael Moore and his ilk offer little beyond the boilerplate assaults
>on Bush
If the assaults were not devastating, no character assassination would be
necessary.
and vague insistence on an "internation coalition" -- as if
>that were an end unto itself.
What are the implications of (alternatively) an "international coalition" of
fundamentalist arabs united against us? Are you clearly aware of what a
knife-edge Pakistan is walking on, right this moment? What is the comparitive
nuclear weapons threat--Iraq versus Pakistan?
>
>And I'll ask again the question you conveniently snipped: where was
>this righteous indignation four years ago?
Compare and contrast the situations and the potential gravity of outcomes, and
then I'll answer this one.
Mark Ervin
Chris Cathcart
Should I bother . . . should I not . . .
Nah, I won't bother.
Incidentally, I'm a libertarian, not a conservative/Republican. Hope
that raises your ire even more.
Laissez faire,
cc
iH <talk...@talk21.com> wrote in message news:<jju3qus8shrer2m7k...@4ax.com>...
> On 6 Oct 2002 10:35:58 -0700, cath...@liquidinformation.com (Chris
> Cathcart) wrote:
>
> Disclaimer: none of my following remarks should be read as an
> endorsement of modern US Democrats, the Clinton presidency, Al Gore or
> any other grouping of jackasses, except in relation to modern US
> Republicans, the Bush nearly-presidency, Dick Cheney, and the criminal
> conspiracy currently running the US. In that relation, the former
> appear as the very angels of heaven (albeit with somewhat grubbier
> wings).
>
> >Of course, while it's not stated outright, there is the clearly
> >irrational suggestion that Bush is somehow at fault for the poor state
> >of the economy and the fiscal turnaround.
>
> Tell you what -- when (if) a Democrat becomes President after Bush,
> you can take credit for any economic improvements that are seen then.
> Oh wait, no need to tell you that -- you were planning to do so
> anyway, right?
>
> >And what other suggestion may be contained therein? That the gov't
> >should "do somethin' about the economy"?
>
> Hell no, the economy should be left entirely in the hands of the most
> powerful corporations.
>
> >Yes, there is something it
> >can do: leave it the fuck alone. (As far as the budget goes, there's
> >the matter of getting it balanced, and of course the best way to do
> >it, particularly from the moral angle,
>
> Ah, the "moral angle": this should be interesting...
>
> >is to cut spending.
>
> Spending on wars, perhaps? Or is that too promising an investment
> (now it's *our* oil, heh heh).
>
> Or did you have single mothers on welfare in mind? And schools,
> libraries, health care, housing, firefighters, social workers, public
> amenities and the general civilan infrastructure -- you know, a
> healthy chunk of the US nation? By George, I'm sure that's overdue
> for some cut-backs!
>
> >You ain't
> >going to get much mileage out of raising taxes in the midst of a
> >recession -- when has that ever worked to solve a fiscal or economic
> >problem?
>
> "Raising taxes"?! What about tax cuts for those who need them least?
> Does that make sense to you?
>
> >-- and you can't expect a whole lot of fiscal improvement in
> >a cyclical downturn to begin with.)
>
> If it's Bush or some other Republican, it's all part of the great
> cycle of (economic) nature; if Clinton, it's still part of the
> cyclical nature of things, but he got to ride the up- and not the
> down-turn, the lucky, fornicatin' SOB.
>
> Can't the Republicans get *anything* right nowadays?
Padraig L Henry
wrote:
<Incoherent adolescent rant snipped>
>
>I don't like Chomsky, I admit it,
You a personal acquaintance of his? He gave you the cold shoulder?
>his linguistic work might be interesting,
>but I can't say I care on his writings on foreign policy.
You studied them (even his linguistics research)?
>He is savagely
>anti-capitalistic and a huge hypocrite.
And you spuriously, savagely pro-capitalistic and too naive to be a
hypocrite?
>He owns a plush house worth several
>million dollars,
You'd prefer he lived powerlessly in a commune for the homeless?
>drives a new Audi A4,
Is that the one with the rear-seat airbags?
>has 4 boats
Watch out everybody, here comes the chompy water-skiing Anarchist
Navy!
>and several vacation
>homes.
And they all have a Colerado Lounge too, complete with colour-coded
typewriter, family scrapbook, and failed-novelist caretaker.
>Not that he will answer to any of it.
You ever asked him?
Are you suggesting that his four decades of political research and
commentary were purely motivated by greed? Actually, he is one of the
few reasonably wealthy American academics I know of who would openly
forfeit much of his own wealth in exchange for a more just and
equitable world economic order.
Padraig
Padraig L Henry
<gd...@columbia.edu> wrote:
>the problem with launching into war with iraq is that it hasn't been
>shown to have a single fucking thing to do with al qaeda or bin laden.
>and the quotes you hear about iraq sheltering al qaeda fighters are
>bullshit: these fighters were in "iraq", all right - seeking refuge with
>the very kurds hussein has spent a long time trying to exterminate (and
>most of the al qaeda fighters were killed by the kurdish authorities or
>driven into iran).
Yes indeed, Gordon.
Obviously, one cannot prove the absence of connections between Iraq
and Al Qaeda. There are, however, good reasons for doubting any
serious ties between the two.
Saddam Hussein's Ba'athist regime has been ruthlessly secular and has
had no love for fundamentalist groups. Al Qaeda, for its part,
considers its task the overthrow of all governments in the region that
are insufficiently Islamic, and certainly Hussein's regime counts as
such. (One might note that Iraq did not have diplomatic relations with
the Taliban regime -- in fact, the only countries that did have
diplomatic relations with the Taliban were the U.S. allies Saudi
Arabia, United Arab Emirates, and Pakistan.)
Of course, hostile parties can sometimes be useful to one another
against a common enemy, but no evidence has come to light of
cooperation between al Qaeda and Iraq. Ever since September 11, U.S.
officials have been frantically looking for some connection between
the two. War hawks leapt on the report that Mohammed Atta, the leader
of the September 11 hijackers, met in Prague with an Iraqi
intelligence agent in April 2001. The Czech government, basing itself
on the evidence of one informant -- a student who said he recognized
Atta's photograph as someone he had seen with the Iraqi agent five
months earlier -- said it was 70 percent sure the story was accurate,
but the former director of Czech intelligence noted that "These
informants tend to tell you what you want to believe" and the head of
Czech foreign intelligence was skeptical. The FBI (which ran down
"hundreds of thousands of leads") and the CIA concluded that the
report was inaccurate; they found no evidence that Atta was in Prague
on the relevant date and some evidence that he was in the United
States (Washington Times, 6/19/02; Prague Post, 7/17/02; Washington
Post, 5/1/02; Newsweek, 4/28/02 web exclusive; Newsweek, 8/19/02, p.
10; LA Times, 8/2/02).
On September 24, 2002, the British government released a 55 page
dossier laying out its case against Iraq. The evidence was said to
come from British intelligence and analysis agencies, but also from
"access to intelligence from close allies" (p. 9). Surely this
includes the United States and surely whatever hesitancy the United
States government might have about revealing intelligence information
publicly would not prevent it from sharing such information with its
closest ally. The dossier presented zero evidence of any al Qaeda-Iraq
links
In the last week of September -- in the face of international and
domestic hesitancy regarding the rush to war -- U.S. officials again
raised the specter of al Qaeda-Saddam Hussein links. Rumsfeld said he
had "bulletproof" evidence tying the two together, but, significantly,
he did not present any of that evidence and admits that it wouldn't
hold up in a U.S. court of law.
There was one report, charged Rumsfeld, that Iraq provided
"unspecified training relating to chemical and/or biological matters."
The report apparently came from Abu Zubaydah, a high-ranking al Qaeda
prisoner who, according to an intelligence source cited by Newsday,
"often has lied or provided deliberately misleading information." As
one U.S. official told USA Today, "detainees have a motive to lie to
U.S. interrogators: to encourage a U.S. invasion of Iraq, the better
to make the case that the United States is the mortal enemy of Muslim
countries."
The head of the Senate intelligence committee, Bob Graham, said he had
seen nothing connecting al Qaeda and Iraq. Sen. Joseph Biden, who
heard a classified CIA briefing on the matter, disputes Rumsfeld's
summary. Nebraska Republican, Senator Chuck Hagel, commented that "To
say, 'Yes, I know there is evidence there, but I don't want to tell
you any more about it,' that does not encourage any of us. Nor does it
give the American public a heck of a lot of faith that, in fact, what
anyone is saying is true." Intelligence experts inside and outside the
U.S. government expressed skepticism, and a Pentagon official called
the new claims an "exaggeration." And French intelligence has found
not a >trace< of evidence of any link. (NYT, 9/28/02; Newsday,
9/27/02; USA Today, 9/27/02; Washington Post, 9/27/02; Financial
Times, 10/6/02.)
This said, there is one connection between Iraq and al Qaeda: namely,
that an attack on Iraq may well play into al Qaeda's hands by
destabilizing much of the Middle East and, in the words of former
General Wesley Clark, possibly "supercharge" recruiting for the
terrorist network (NYT, 9/24/02).
Padraig L Henry
wrote:
"Indeed, there is a pronounced paucity of constructive ideas here:
What exactly should the US do, exactly? Wait patiently for the next
round of attacks? Toady up to the Russians and Chinese to secure yet
another ineffectual UN "demand" for "unfettered" inspections of Iraq?
What? Michael Moore and his ilk offer little beyond the boilerplate
assaults on Bush and vague insistence on an "internation coalition" --
as if that were an end unto itself. Absent is anything resembling an
alternative argument, let alone a strategy."
Alternative? Let's, for starters, look at an alternative strategy for
dealing with Weapons of Mass Destruction.
Security Council resolution 687, the resolution calling for the
post-Gulf War destruction of Iraq's WMD systems, noted in paragraph 14
that the disarmament actions "represent steps towards the goal of
establishing in the Middle East a zone free from weapons of mass
destruction and all missiles for their delivery and the objective of a
global ban on chemical weapons." The acquisition of WMD by one state
generally encourages, rather than discourages, their acquisition by
others. Thus, Anthony Cordesman notes that "Given the other major
proliferators in the region -- which include India, Iran, Israel,
Pakistan, and Syria -- even a[n Iraqi] regime that is not actively
hostile to the U.S. might continue to develop nuclear weapons and
long-range missiles in spite of its agreements not to do so." (The
Military Balance in the Gulf, CSIS, July 2001, p. 107) So the best
method for dealing with Iraqi WMD -- both from the point of view of
justice and efficacy -- is in the context of global or, barring that,
regional disarmament.
To the United States and many other WMD states, however, serious
disarmament is not on the agenda. The United States is a party to the
Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which sets up a class of
"have" and "have-not" nations, with the U.S. in the privileged "have"
category, but Washington has refused to meet its obligation under the
treaty to move towards disarmament; it has refused, for example to
ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty which have-not nations
consider a minimal litmus test indicating a country's commitment to
the NPT.
The United States is also a party to the Chemical Weapons Convention
(CWC). As a report for the Center for Nonproliferation Studies at the
Monterey Institute of International Studies noted,
"After signing the treaty in 1993, Washington largely ignored it,
escaping national embarrassment only with a last-minute ratification
just four days before its entry into force. Moreover, the United
States took steps to dilute the Convention by including waivers in its
resolution of ratification and implementing legislation exempting U.S.
sites from the same verification rules that American negotiators had
earlier demanded be included in the treaty."
Among the exemptions were the U.S. President's right to refuse an
inspection of U.S. facilities on national security grounds. (See Amy
E. Smithson, U.S. Implementation of the CWC," in Jonathan B. Tucker,
The Chemical Weapons Convention: Implementation Challenges and
Solutions, Monterey Institute, April 2001, pp. 23-29,
http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/reports/tuckcwc.htm ).
The United States is also a party to the Biological and Toxin Weapons
Convention (BWC), but efforts to improve compliance with the treaty
floundered after Washington blocked continued discussions. (See
Jonathan Tucker's Feb. 2002 analysis,
http://www.nti.org/e_research/e3_7b.html ). Among other WMD states,
Israel has refused to sign the NPT or the BWC or ratify the CWC; India
and Pakistan have refused to sign the NPT; and Egypt and Syria have
not ratified either the CWC or the BWC.
But even though many nations act hypocritically, it would still be a
good thing if Iraq's WMD programs were effectively inspected (not
least, for establishing a precedent that could be extended to others).
Most everyone favors the inspection of Iraqi WMD, other than Saddam
Hussein and, as we can infer from its actions, Washington. Everything
the United States has done for the last few months, and indeed for the
last eleven years, has had the effect of discouraging Iraq's
cooperation with inspections. Security Council resolution 687 declared
that sanctions would be lifted when Iraq was disarmed, but the United
States promptly removed Hussein's incentive for disarmament when in
May 1991 deputy national security adviser Robert Gates officially
announced that all sanctions would remain as long as Saddam Hussein
remained in power. In March 1997, secretary of state Madeleine
Albright stated that "We do not agree with the nations who argue that
if Iraq complies with its obligations concerning weapons of mass
destruction, sanctions should be lifted" -- and Hussein became more
uncooperative with the inspectors.
After the inspectors were withdrawn in 1998 so U.S./U.K. bombing could
proceed, it was discovered that the United States had used the
inspection teams for spying. Obviously, Iraq would be disinclined to
admit the inspectors again if the United States was determined to
attack Iraq no matter what, for in that case admitting them would only
weaken Iraq's defenses in the face of the inevitable assault. So an
assurance from Washington that compliance with UN inspections would
forestall an attack would provide an incentive for Hussein's
cooperation. But declared Secretary of State Powell (ABC News,
5/5/02), regardless of whether inspectors are admitted, the United
States "reserves its option to do whatever it believes might be
appropriate to see if there can be a regime change." And then, when
Iraq on September 16 declared its willingness to allow in the
inspectors, the White House replied: "This is not a matter of
inspections. It is about disarmament of Iraq's weapons of mass
destruction and the Iraqi regime's compliance with all other Security
Council resolutions."
Now the United States is trying to force through a Security Council
resolution on inspections that could not possibly be accepted by Iraq
-- essentially allowing U.S. military forces full access to Iraq and
the right to unilaterally declare Iraq in non-compliance, thereby
allowing the U.S. to invade Iraq without having to force its way
across the border and with spies already in place to direct the attack
(Guardian, 10/3/02). Such a proposal could have no other purpose than
to make sure that inspections don't take place. Yes, Saddam Hussein
has tried to obstruct and manipulate previous inspections and
loopholes need to be closed -- as inspections need to be imposed on
all other WMD states as well. But U.S. efforts here are not aimed at
making inspections effective but at making them impossible.
Padraig L Henry
wrote:
>This is what I have to offer. There is a high probability that his [Hussein's] nuclear
>weapons might be used against us.
No one knows what weapons Saddam Hussein has. Most analysts assume
that he has biological and chemical weapons. No one believes he has
nuclear weapons. Israel is the only country in the Middle East with
nuclear weapons (around 200 war-heads).
We can presume that the most damning claims about the extent of his
arsenal are contained in two recent documents: the September 24, 2002
dossier issued by the British government and an October 4, 2002 report
by the CIA. There is good reason for thinking these documents
exaggerated. For example, the British dossier identifies several once
destroyed sites that it says have been rebuilt by the Iraqis. But Hans
Von Sponeck, the former UN humanitarian coordinator for Iraq, visited
two of these sites and found that in fact they were still destroyed
(http://www.irak.be/ned/bivv/iraq4questions4answers.htm ). Other
British reporters visited some of the sites listed in the dossier
(chosen by them) and found nothing suspicious (Guardian, 9/25/02).
Even if these documents were not exaggerated, however, they would make
a good case for inspections, not war.
Winston Castro
wrote:
>
>The head of the Senate intelligence committee, Bob Graham, said he had
>seen nothing connecting al Qaeda and Iraq. Sen. Joseph Biden, who
>heard a classified CIA briefing on the matter, disputes Rumsfeld's
>summary. Nebraska Republican, Senator Chuck Hagel, commented that "To
>say, 'Yes, I know there is evidence there, but I don't want to tell
>you any more about it,' that does not encourage any of us. Nor does it
>give the American public a heck of a lot of faith that, in fact, what
>anyone is saying is true." Intelligence experts inside and outside the
>U.S. government expressed skepticism, and a Pentagon official called
>the new claims an "exaggeration." And French intelligence has found
>not a >trace< of evidence of any link. (NYT, 9/28/02; Newsday,
>9/27/02; USA Today, 9/27/02; Washington Post, 9/27/02; Financial
>Times, 10/6/02.)
>
>This said, there is one connection between Iraq and al Qaeda: namely,
>that an attack on Iraq may well play into al Qaeda's hands by
>destabilizing much of the Middle East and, in the words of former
>General Wesley Clark, possibly "supercharge" recruiting for the
>terrorist network (NYT, 9/24/02).
This newsgroup has been taken over by right-wing ideologues and
fanatics, draconian religious right-wingers of both the Catholic and
Protestant ilk; intelligent and well reasoned discourse has taken a
backseat to fundamentalist agenda. Global intellectualism has been
ridiculed, whilst nationalist fanaticism is wholeheartedly endorsed. I
would have thought more of this group...My faith in humanity as a
whole, has just been kicked down a notch.
jolmes
Winston Castro <at7000@_no_spam_hotmail.com> wrote:
> This newsgroup has been taken over by right-wing ideologues and
> fanatics, draconian religious right-wingers of both the Catholic and
> Protestant ilk; intelligent and well reasoned discourse has taken a
> backseat to fundamentalist agenda. Global intellectualism has been
> ridiculed, whilst nationalist fanaticism is wholeheartedly endorsed. I
> would have thought more of this group...My faith in humanity as a
> whole, has just been kicked down a notch.
This newsgroup *hasn't* been taken over by anyone. These recent OT
threads have involved fanatical rhetoric on *both* ends of the political
spectrums. Amidst the bandied fireballs, there has been some fascinating
point-and-counterpoint debate between the two sides. But I don't see the
religious Christian fundamentalism that you somehow infer from those
posters on the "Right". I haven't seen any poster calling for Iraqi
souls to be cleansed in the blood of the Lamb. Nationalism, yes;
religion, nah. You paint the right-wingers with the same "idealogues and
fanatics" brush as they would with left-wingers. *Everything* has been
ridiculed, and everything has been endorsed. Global intellectualism?
Endorsed. Nationalism? Ridiculed. And vice versa. Your faith in humanity
seems to be rather fragile if it can be shaken by a couple of OT
threads. Better yet, don't put your faith in humanity in a movie
newsgroup! ;)
j.
Felix Tiaka
>
> You ever asked him?
No, but Elliott Marc Davis has asked how he reconciles his socialist beliefs
with his
seemingly capitalist lifestyle; Chomsky's reply was:
"we ask ourselves, at any point, how to distribute time and
energy so as to yield the maximal effect in trying to help suffering people
and make it a somewhat better world."
Elliot's reply to that was:
"I am curious as to how driving an Audi or owning four boats is
incorporated into yielding the "maximal effect in trying to help
suffering people". Certainly, a 1988 Nissan Sentra (which I am told Ted
Turner drives) will get you to most
of the same places as does your Audi (excluding, of course, off-road
areas, as Nissans lack the excellent Quattro system). And the $25,000
price difference can go to your favorite leftist cause of choice.
But since we're on the topic of living one's life, I find it interesting
(and amusing, I daresay) that the same capitalist hegemony you do an
excellent (and eloquent) job of railing against provides for you such
niceties. It simply seems rather two-faced."
Felix
Listening to Birdie - Sakura tree song.
Felix Tiaka
If
> > you could elaborate further. I'm just don't feel sure enough to comment
on
> > it yet.
>
> Here's a sample from De Landa:
>
> 'Capitalism was, from its beginnings in the Italy of the thirteenth
> century, always monopolistic and oligopolistic. That is to say, the
> power of capitalism has always been associated with large enterprises,
> large that is, relative to the size of the markets where they operate.
> Also, it has always been associated with the ability to plan economic
> strategies and to control market dynamics, and therefore, with a
> certain degree of centralization and hierarchy.
>
> [I]f capitalism has always relied on non-competitive practices, if the
> prices for its commodities have never been objectively set by
> demand/supply dynamics, but imposed from above by powerful economic
> decision-makers, then capitalism and the market have always been
> different entities.'
>
> You can read the full piece at:
>
> http://www.t0.or.at/delanda/a-market.htm
Ok, there we go. I just wasn't sure where you stood, that link helped me a
lot. My initial opinion of his ideas was that his argument wasn't very
impressive; But I though it better to get a second opinion, and I have one
from an economist friend of mine. Below is her response to my questions
about Delanta and the essays over at the t0.or.at site.
Interesting.
Well, to judge from what I read, the work cited by Braudel was done over 20
years ago. That paper was written ten years ago, which accounts for the
idea that we might be about to switch the "world city" from New York to
Tokyo. It's really not standard practice to cite work that old. Of course,
it's history, not economics, but still.
I would also say that when I see someone base their reasoning on one writer,
I suspect something's up. That's college-student thinking -- revamping your
entire belief system based on one guy who's talking about a subject you
don't know much about. Like my roommate who thought she knew everything
about Buddhism and Physics because she read the Dancing Wu-Li Masters, which
apparently got most of the physics wrong.
More basically, the paper is refuting a straw-man idea of economics.
Economists do not, contrary to leftish belief, think that markets are always
and everywhere in competitive equilibrium. I went to the University of
Chicago, which is by far the most free-market oriented school out there, and
they certainly don't believe that.
Some of key points:
First of all, while some firms are price setters, many more aren't. Does
Proctor and Gamble set the price of shampoo? Unlikely, as the market is
fiercely competitive. Perdue, likewise, is a price taker, not a price
setter. It is not the kind of undifferentiated market-clearing model of
perfect competition, but pricing power is very weak in many markets
dominated by large companies.
Second of all, the only economist he quotes is John Kenneth Galbraith, who
has literally been proven wrong about every major economic idea he ever
advanced. I don't mean that the weight of economic opinion is against him;
I mean that his models made wildly inaccurate predictions that didn't come
to pass. This was the guy who was waiting for the Soviet Union's GDP to
surpass ours as the Berlin Wall came tumbling down, and has been predicting
for the past 60 years that the central planning of the Soviet Union, the
generous welfare states of Europe, and the mercantilism of Japan, were going
to far surpass the grubby capitalism of the US. Meanwhile, the income gap
between us an everyone else keeps growing.
Third of all, it's simply untrue that economists model the economy from "the
top down". I don't even know what that would look like. The models we
built started with basic things, like taxes, spending, wages, etc., and then
modeled emergent behavior in the macroeconomy. It may deal with aggregate,
rather than atomic, components, but I've worked with the kind of models this
guy is describing, where you attempt to model an entire economy from
microeconomic components, and while they're interesting, they're nowhere
near predictive. The real economy is far too complex for us to get a grip
on modeling it at the micro level.
Fourth of all, markets don't just self organize without a framework of
government to supply property rights, etc. There are interesting situations
where you get small emergent phenomenon, but there's also Somalia.
Fifth of all, there aren't just "a few" multinational corporations. There
are a lot of them, and their interests conflict. While I am second to none
in my distaste for corporate welfare, there is no cabal running things.
There is, in fact, an entire school of economics called Public Choice
economics which attempts to explain the very complex interactions of various
rent-seeking interest groups. Government's End, by Jonathan Rauch, is a
good introductory primer to this.
Sixth, while corporations behave in various inefficient ways, that doesn't
mean they're unnecessary. It would be awfully nice if we could all be
independant contractors, but there are reasons that we are not. Transaction
costs are part of it, as are several game theory issues of trust in
alliances.
Seventh, the inefficiencies that arise from the lack of internal pricing
were noted twenty years ago, and firms have actually changed this. Most
major corporations actually use internal pricing mechanisms to ensure that
asset value is maximized. While internal politics often does override these
mechanisms, that is changing as companies recognize the value of such
systems. It is the small actors that Delanda likes who lack the knowlege or
capital to implement full resource costing.
We would certainly like to model the economy as an emergent phenomenon of
microeconomic actors. The problem is, to really do it we'd have to model
all the people in it. To do it even half-assed, we would need a much
clearer picture of what happens in companies than we currently have. While
it's everyone's goal, we're still at the level of Newtonian Physics. . . and
given the complexity of the phenomenon that are emerging, it is going to be
a long, long, long time before we are able to build a quantum economic
model.
Overall, it's clear to me that he lacks the mathematical or quantitative
skills to understand what he's talking about. He throws around a lot of
buzzwords, but really, this is Readers Digest level summary of what are some
very, very complicated ideas. Because it's hopelessly simplistic, it's hard
to know where to start -- it's like trying to sink your teeth into cotton
candy. But if I had to summarize, I'd say that the parts that are true
aren't interesting, and the parts that are interesting aren't true.
> > >
> > > I read something today that said, prior to the twentieth century,
> > > ninety per cent of people killed in wars were combatants; now ninety
> > > per cent killed are civillians. A sad comment on 'progress', that.
> >
> > I kind of have trouble accepting that. I can't imagine the number in my
> > head, that sound rather made up, but I'm not sure. Maybe you can provide
a
> > link? Is it just the World Wars or?
>
> Umm, sorry. Can't remember where I read it, stupidly on my part. It
> does make sense though; wars prior to the twentieth century were
> probably much more limited skirmishes given the nature of weapons
> then.
It still doesn't to me, and I've looked the figures up, from Mongols to the
Romans to Chinese dynasties, civilians were always very much so in the line
of fire. Cities and villages were being burnt without much thought, women
were raped and babies were set to fire. I'm sure some of that is my biased
review of the Mongolian occupation as it was taught to me in my school days
in Russia. The number of people killed by their own government is also
pretty staggering. One must also not forget Colonialism, especially in South
America and Caribbean.
> > Ofcourse, but I think the problem with say the proxy war in Afghanistan
> > against the Soviets was insufficient follow-up. Should there be an
attack on
> > Iraq, that would not happen. I'll talk more about this below.
>
> Maybe.But it could be argued that backing OBL and the radical
> Islamists in the first place was the problem. What would follow-up
> have involved? Giving them more support, or weaning them off it?
> Either option seems bad.
There should be a distinction, US did back groups (not Taliban) who worked
with OBL, but it did not specifically take Bin Laden out of a playpen and
make him a monster. US backing in Afghanistan during that time was strictly
to stop the Russians. OBL's ideology was already well formed, and really was
the reason he was in Afghanistan in the first place (he came on his own
steam). As far as follow-up, I was talking about making sure that the
Taliban could not have formed after the Russians left. That did not happen,
but I'm not sure it even could have. American policy at that time was too
narrowly focused on curving Russian expansion, I doubt radical Islam was
even considered a threat.
> > > I feel if we started debating this, we'd never stop. Suffice it to say
> > > that I believe your account is a little one-sided here.
> >
> > I'm sure of it! heh. :)
>
> So you admit that your position on Israel is a little skewed? :-)
I admit that I might be a little biased towards Israel. :-)
That argument is fallacious, everything that Saddam has done up to this
point has played to American strengths, certainly gassing his own people the
worst of them. It's a part of the same argument taken up before we went into
Afghanistan. That by attacking an Arab country, US would enrage the Arab
street and they'd unite together to kick ass fast. That has never happened,
not in 1948, not in 1967, not in 1991, not in 2001 and certainly not today.
And, really, as I've said, the only way it could happen is if Saddam would
use his nuclear weapons to conquer the neighboring countries.
In my last post I've said that he has underestimated an American response
each and every time and is doing so now. If he was carefully crafting some
kind of a strategy or is at all thinking ahead, he would consider Congress
easily passing an action allowing Bush unrestricted power to take action
against Iraq (as they have today); He has not. He has always thought that
by crying loud enough he could somehow stop the resolve of the American
people. He did not. He still does not understand that there will be an
attack should he continue to be defiant. That's just not sane.
I don't buy the idea that he understands the consequences of his actions,
I've said why. I don't think he would understand what leaking a dirty bomb
to the likes of Hezbollah might bring to him.
> > Saddam is just one man, and he can be protected by a few hundred
bodyguards,
> > his rule is the problem, not the man in flesh. It is important that his
> > development of wmds should be stopped and that a new government should
be
> > formed, one that holds real elections and has a constitution close to
our
> > own; include things like civil liberties for all races and sexes and
such. I
> > think this step is crucial, it is what had not happened in Afghanistan
after
> > the soviets left. In essence what should be done is the same thing the
US
> > did in Japan after WW2, rebuild and ensure Japan does not rise
militarily
> > again.
>
> But can the principle of regime change be accepted? It's a dangerous
> precedent, and does raise the issue of all the other tyrannical
> regimes in the world.
Yes, if that regime poses a certain and present threat to us. North Korea or
Iran do not currently. I'm not advocating that it's good clean fun, it's
dangerous and it's going to be hard and lives will be lost. The reason is
that it's the best available option to take. I wish as much as anyone for
Saddam to disarm tomorrow and to not have to send our men and women in the
line of fire.
> > There is also a bit of a false assumption here, I think you assume this
war
> > to not be different from say World War 2, where to win we would need to
> > level Baghdad (for example). We did that in Japan back then, true, but
> > things have changed since then. We would not cluster bomb Baghdad to
kill as
> > many civilians as possible to get a surrender; we would target military
> > installations and troops only. Back in 1991 Iraqi armed forces proved to
be
> > incompetent and today they're in an even worse shape. We don't need
Saddam
> > to surrender himself, just his troops, so it should not matter if he is
in a
> > bunker or not.
>
> Point taken. But the myth of the 'clean war' is one that needs to be
> taken apart. Thousands will die --- as millions have already died,
> because of US sanctions on Iraq.
I never said, nor do I believe there is a clean war. There is no such thing.
I'm saying that whatever military action that would be taken against Iraq
would be done most delicately to minimize the risk to Iraqi civilians as
well as our own troops.
It's hard enough to arrive at a reliable number of dead in Iraq. It's even
harder arriving at who's to blame. The number, millions, as you have said is
a huge exaduration. I'm providing a link to an article written by Matt Welch
(a green party supporter) - http://reason.com/0203/fe.mw.the.shtml ;
But I think we have agreed that it's almost certain that Saddam is currently
developing wmds, nukes among them. We, nor the surrounding Arab countries,
would have many options if he should use them to bargain. Say he would
invade Kuwait again, he then would set a condition "You, the US, - do not
intervene, if you do, I'll nuke Kuwait City"
> Well, I hope no-one (apart from Strangelove-types) think that a Miami
> strike (or its equivalent) is acceptable. For me, the 9/11 issue is at
> the heart of the matter. Yes, you're right, 9/11 did 'change the mood
> and policy.' That's precisely the problem, though. If there's no - or
> at most, limited - connection between Iraq and international
> terrorism, then the policy towards it should not alter because of a
> 'mood' change brought about by Sept 11. That's exactly what I meant
> before: we're talking about a change in American psychology, not a
> change in Iraq or the threat that it poses.
Actually, I've read the opinions of several opponents of war and some have
made that exact claim. That claim was "The US is resilient, it would bounce
back should there be a nuclear attack on one city". It is true, but they're
making out like it's acceptable. To me, it is not.
I don't think your logic follows through. We have been attacked, we are
looking to prevent that from happening again. That's the extent of 9/11. In
essence, it doesn't have much to do with terrorism. The agreement made
between Iraq and the US states as much; Iraq does pose a threat if it is not
disarmed, should it be defiant, military action would be taken. Iraq is
extremely defiant and we are given caution when Saddam calls for the death
of all Americans.
But there is a change in Iraq. I never claimed there wasn't. 8 years have
been wasted with Saddam essentially continually developing his wmds, and now
4 years have passed since the last time inspectors were in Iraq. There's
much evidence that Iraq is finally close to achieving their goals. We have
acted in good faith and given Saddam every available chance to stop. There
is simply no time left. Every day the stakes become that much higher. Even
without 9/11 we would have had to respond.
> > I don't think the war on terror is ridiculous, progress is being made.
War
> > on terror locally as headed by Ashcroft certainly is though. I think you
> > also classify it into different categories, war on terror being some
kind of
> > an intelligence operation? It is on a level, but military force plays a
> > great part. Afghanistan is also a state which was easily defeated, so,
maybe
> > Iraq isn't all that different? Terrorism by nuclear weapons is what we
are
> > talking about here, and stopping that source is certainly a part of it.
>
> Well, I think war on terror is an odd kind of paradox to begin with.
> Ordinarily, terrorists are precisely those whom States will not accept
> as a group against which one can go to war. Saying you are at war with
> terrorists give them a kind of legitimacy: can you really call those
> you are at war with 'terrorists'? In addition, the idea of a war on
> terrorism smacks of the ludicrous war on drugs, but with an even more
> nebulously defined object - fitting that Bush invoked the language of
> 'evil', because isn't the supposed war on terrorism really a 'war on
> evil' - a righteous campaign for 'infinite justice' that can have no
> end except in some kind of eschatological consummation? In that
> respect, Bush's righteous fundamentalism echoes that of his putative
> enemies all too clearly.
You are right, war on terrorism does sound like war on drugs. For record,
I'm opposed to the war on drugs. Really, I think they should be legalized.
Not that I do drugs. That might come as a surprise to some, like Castro, who
believe I'm some kind of a religious nut. I want to say that I'm an atheist
and I'm (somewhat reluctantly) for legalizing drugs. How is that
fundamentalist? I'm for every person having the exact same rights, be they
of different color, background or sex. I'm also enthusiastically for gay
marriage. So, let's stick to the point. I'm not hijacking this newsgroup.
I'm one person.
> >
> > Padraig, though ignored my answers to his posts, made a quick insult to
the
> > effect that I'm basically crazy and self absorbed in by pop culture?
>
> Well, speaking for myself, I'm sure that I am _at least_ as absorbed
> in popular culture as anybody else on this NG :-)
Haha! We are all the better for it.
Felix
Listening to Bonnie Pink - Inue to tsukete.
Felix Tiaka
> > does make sense though; wars prior to the twentieth century were
> > probably much more limited skirmishes given the nature of weapons
> > then.
>
> It still doesn't to me, and I've looked the figures up, from Mongols to
the
> Romans to Chinese dynasties, civilians were always very much so in the
line
> of fire. Cities and villages were being burnt without much thought, women
> were raped and babies were set to fire. I'm sure some of that is my biased
> review of the Mongolian occupation as it was taught to me in my school
days
> in Russia. The number of people killed by their own government is also
> pretty staggering. One must also not forget Colonialism, especially in
South
> America and Caribbean.
I want to do a follow up quickly. I try to be fair in all my arguments, and
if I'm not sure on some that or this statistic I withhold it until that
ceases to be the case. I don't think this is the case in what I've written
about above, but just to be fair to Mark, I have consulted another friend,
this time a bit of a history buff. He wrote:
When Rome won the Punic wars, they put Carthage to the sword, killing
everyone.
But huge numbers of civilians died in nearly every major war up until about
350 years ago in Europe, and civilian casualties routinely dwarfed military
casualties.
One of the reasons why is that traditionally armies largely supplied
themselves by "foraging", which is to say by looting food and other supplies
from the territory through which they travelled during the campaign. As a
result, it was common for them to leave a trail of starvation behind them as
they left, having seized all the food. This almost always resulted in vast
numbers of civilians who died, either violently when resisting the foragers
or slowly later by starvation.
A lot of other crappy things happened to civilians. For instance, in any
large siege the civilian casualties were going to be immense, if for no
other reason than that when supplies ran short, the civilians were cut off
first.
The Mongols slaughtered every single person in several major cities during
their wars of conquest in the Middle East.
Over 4 million civilians died during the 30 Years War (1618-1648). Large
areas of Germany were totally depopulated. After that, there came to be an
agreement in Europe that civilians should largely be spared in war, but this
wasn't so much out of humanitarian impulses as much as that civilians were a
financial asset and worth capturing during conquest. That agreement lasted
until the French Revolution. During the first few years of the Republic, the
French Army supported itself by foraging, with the expected result of
civilian starvation deaths.
As to the 90% civilian casualty rate in 20th century wars, it depends
enormously on which war you're talking about. World War I had a relatively
low percentage of civilian deaths, but that was mostly because the military
casualties were so gawdawful high. The civilians took it in the teeth in
World War II and that 90% figure is probably pretty close overall. Most of
those civilians were Chinese or occupants of the areas of the USSR which
were occupied by Germany. The overall death toll among the Germans and
Japanese as a result of bombing was much smaller, though still huge in
absolute terms.
Civilian deaths were not really vast in Korea.
Viet Nam was bad for civilians, but in Desert Storm you had essentially none
who died because all the fighting was in open desert. (However, a lot of
civilians suffered pretty badly in Iraq's conquest and occupation of
Kuwait).
The ratio of civilian to combatant deaths in Afghanistan will never be
known, because we're never going to know how many combatants we killed.
However, given somewhere between 600 and 900 civilian deaths (the best
estimates now) and the likelihood of 10-20 thousand enemy combatants killed
in bombings, that 90% civilan number is more than a little bit high.
Actually, no one has any idea how many enemy were killed. But it's certain
it was more than 100, so the civilian death rate in Afghanistan wasn't even
remotely 90%.
Felix
Listening to Ella Fitzgerald - Night and Day
Felix Tiaka
"Padraig L Henry" <phe...@iol.ie> wrote in message
news:3da62d8c...@news.iol.ie...
> On Thu, 10 Oct 2002 04:46:16 -0500, "Felix Tiaka" <podz...@tiaka.com>
> wrote:
>
> >This is what I have to offer. There is a high probability that his
[Hussein's] nuclear
> >weapons might be used against us.
>
> No one knows what weapons Saddam Hussein has. Most analysts assume
> that he has biological and chemical weapons. No one believes he has
> nuclear weapons. Israel is the only country in the Middle East with
> nuclear weapons (around 200 war-heads).
No, indeed, but there's a consensus that he is indeed building those nuclear
weapons. There is tons written on places like the complexes in Tuwaitha.
> We can presume that the most damning claims about the extent of his
> arsenal are contained in two recent documents: the September 24, 2002
> dossier issued by the British government and an October 4, 2002 report
> by the CIA. There is good reason for thinking these documents
> exaggerated. For example, the British dossier identifies several once
> destroyed sites that it says have been rebuilt by the Iraqis. But Hans
> Von Sponeck, the former UN humanitarian coordinator for Iraq, visited
> two of these sites and found that in fact they were still destroyed
> (http://www.irak.be/ned/bivv/iraq4questions4answers.htm ). Other
> British reporters visited some of the sites listed in the dossier
> (chosen by them) and found nothing suspicious (Guardian, 9/25/02).
>
> Even if these documents were not exaggerated, however, they would make
> a good case for inspections, not war.
Saddam has not shown a willingness to have unrestricted inspections which
indicates that he is perhaps close to having nuclear weapons and is
stalling. In the position that he is in right now, facing an almost certain
military response by the US, he is still being defiant. He's quiet insane
really. That he led tv crews around some of his facilities proves little, he
does this often. He should instead let inspectors have unrestricted access
to all facilities and personnel. He should allow his scientists and their
families be interviewed in safe territory, not under the watch of the
republican guard. As of today he has done neither. That Sponeck is led
around the nose by Saddam is hardly anything new, the same could be said of
the 2-3 other former inspectors, who have an uncanny ability to recite
Chomsky by word.
I should also argue that Iraq is a big place, and given enough time Saddam
can hide his research, that he's stalling now is all more the evidence. I
could say I was for inspections as I've outlined them above up to a few
weeks ago, but now, if he suddenly has a change of heart in a month or more
(perhaps with conditions like limited time terms - "if you don't find
anything within the next couple of months, you'll have to call it off"),
it'll be too late. Inspections aren't an end to themselves as some people
believe, disarming Saddam is. I think the case for war is quiet clear.
Felix
Listening to Buddha Brand - Buddha No Kyuujitsu
Thornhill
> >>Surely you are aware of this.
> >>
> >
> >I am. What's your point?
>
> Let me repeat your quote.
>
> >the fact
> >>>that al Qaeda, not Bush, set in motion the Afghan war,
>
> It's Rube-Golberg foreign policy, Jack, for ever and ever, and ever. The final
> hammer hits us, and hits the innocent. Hard. It doesn't hit Bush and
> corporate buddies yet, but they don't care about the future.
To their standards, "the future" consists solely of income generated
for them, their pals and families (seems oddly like American Corporate
Tribalism). Beyond the year, say, 2050, the future will just have to
fend for itself, poor, dumb bastard.
>
> >That Osama is any less a monster?
>
> How do we measure monsterhood? Let me count the ways... Osama and friends
> killed around 3000 innocent people. Union Carbide killed 16,000 (and nobody on
> the payroll had to kill themselves in the process). You need to expand your
> thinking about what being a "monster" can entail. Please read this (it's just
> one example, but a crystal clear one):
>
> http://www.earthrights.org/irtk/bhopal.html
Even without the link, your example and the manner of presentation is
also crystal clear. Paradoxically though, if we devise a true
"Monster Index," it could well be that pissant monster characters
(UBL, et al) might come out surprisingly low and petty on that scale,
compared to the wholesale, governmental slaughters in wars ranging
from (working in reverse here) Vietnam, Korea, WWII & I, the
Spanish-American War, the Civil War, etc. (I won't bother mentioning
'eliminations' in Russia, China, Africa, etc.).
>
> > If
> >anything, it makes it more incumbent on the US to drain that swamp we
> >filled over the years.
>
> The moral logic here is sound. I was in favor of removing the Taliban, but our
> method was not to drain a swamp but to bash a honet's nest. Do you know the
> number of Al Quaeda killed? Supposedly their numbers were 60,000. In all the
> promotions of our success (and we did free Afghanistan of a good deal of
> oppression--even though they still embrace a great deal of it) I have never
> heard this figure cited >anywhere<. They are gone elsewhere and everywhere.
> If we invade Iraqi, there are perhaps ten million Arabs who would be inspired
> to join or help Al Quaeda. War without end, indeed, Mr. Rumsfeld.
What becomes really frightening is that the Administration and other
certain parties, are so enamoured with their own propaganda, they
clasp her, body and soul, as if she were anything other than
meretricious tart-fraud. It's bracing to hear that this month is the
40th anniversary of the Cuban Missile Crisis. Kennedy overruled
Curtis LeMay who said that removing Cuba's weapons _might_ lead to
nuclear war, but, in essence, we can handle it (even if we get our
hair mussed). Creepy is the same attitude of "We can do it all!" that
comes out daily from the Bush and his own henchmen (I can hardly
imagine the sort of high pitched, chortling, delight today's Senate
vote will produce from the likes of Rush Limbaugh).
As for associated dissociations, I've seen too few point out that the
effects of "freedom" delivered to the Afghanis was simply a happy
coincidence in the unmindful prosecution of war against the Taliban,
hosts to Al Quaeda, and no one at all pointing out how it is, in many
ways, identical to the Emancipation Proclamation. Of course, the
latter had a specific political and military objective, but even the
arch-slavery hating Lincoln stated that if slavery were the cost to
keep the States as one nation, then so be it. That the States were
joined together again AND slavery was largely abolished, was also
happy coincidence.
> > who can reason with the neoconservative power brokers who
> >>run the White House? Are they encouraging debate or thought?
>
> >The debate is occurring as we speak
>
> What did Daschle say today?
>
> What does Rumsfeld say about those intelligent folks in the defense department,
> who know this invasion-occupation-democratization idea is distilled insanity,
> who have tried to stop it with endless leaks? Rumsfeld calls them, basically,
> traitors who want American soldiers to be killed. Bush condemns those who wish
> to debate as not carring about national security. These tactics have worked.
Here, a little helpful quote:
"The common people don't want war but they can always be brought to
the
bidding of the leaders: All you have to do is to tell them they are
being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism."
Herman Goering
Since 'The White House of Silence' has, as yet, offered no
"Congratulations" for Schroeder's recent election win, one can only
guess that having pointed out how certain tactics resemble other
certain tactics cuts just a little too close to the bone for the
lower-gentry, effete Bushsters.
> >>There's no certainty here, but SK's attitude towards war and militarism in
> >>"Paths of Glory" and towards both of those plus politics in "Dr.
> Strangelove"
> >>are clear. While not a complete pacifist (as he indicated in the Playboy
> >>interview) his skepticism about US motivations and immoral tactics was clear
> in
> >>a wide range of comments. No rational person could argue that Kubrick would
> be
> >>supportive of our actions in Vietnam, Central America, or the Middle East.
> >>
> >
> >You omit one salient fact: Kubrick was by all accounts a New Yorker
> >through and through.
>
> This is almost insidious, in implication. Are you saying a resident of New
> York, because the terrorism is closer to home, should be, by that fact, more
> aligned with unbridled militarism? If this is not the implication, then what
> did you mean?
At best, he may have meant that SK was a cultured, flexible,
'man-of-the-world', having been born to wiseacre NY....but I doubt it.
>
> Surely he would have been horrified by the Sept.
> >11 attacks, and pondered the possible "mating combinations". Among
> >other virtues, routing the Taliban addressed the terrorist threat by
> >killing or sending to ground bin Laden and many of his henchmen.
Pondering possibilities and "mating combinations," is one thing.
Another thing entirely is a wish to shoot from the hip, now the
quasi-stated American quick-draw for the 21st Century.
Listen to the news of yesterday and today and see how well the vaunted
routing of the Taliban has resulted in the death and/or suppression of
Bin Laden and henchmen. It has been fuel on their fire.
> The thing about SK's work, is that he >wanted to deal with the most important
> issues that face mankind<. That's >his< choice, and it certainly follows to me
> that people who see the quality of his work would also care deeply about such
> things. Alt.movies.kubrick has always discussed such topics, more or less
> relating them to his films, as might be. This is in the TKS meta-FAQ
> somewhere.
Yup. Oddly, he was, I think, among the great moralist in the film
world, despite so many taking his work as precisely the opposite and
the filmic definition of immorality.
> > >Indeed, there is a pronounced paucity of constructive ideas here: What
> >exactly should the US do, exactly? Wait patiently for the next round
> >of attacks?
>
> Think about innocent people, and how our actions would hurt or help them, now
> and in the future. How's that for a novel approach?
Good God, Mark! You actually _"think"_ about innocent people? You
sound like some sort of Socialist/Marshall Plan/Bolshy tree-hugger.
Don't you know that ALL people, especially the so-called innocent, are
just targets? What innocence still exists? Just face the hard, cold
truth.
By the way, given the Senate approval just now of the War Resolution
Acts, who wants to put bets that the most used term in the White House
today will be, "BOOO-yah!!"?
Thornhill
iHĞ
Cathcart) wrote:
>Sigh . . .
>
>Should I bother . . . should I not . . .
>
>Nah, I won't bother.
>
>Incidentally, I'm a libertarian, not a conservative/Republican. Hope
>that raises your ire even more.
What sort of lib would that be, in your case? Libertine? Liberace?
Or as I think most likely, flibbertigibbet?
>Laissez faire,
Oh, a lazy fart. Ok. Should have been obvious from your opening
lines.
--
iHĞ
...libertarian socialism, now *that* makes sense! "Huh?"
mark de rozario
I don't understand why something is automatically invalid just because
it was written a while ago.
>
> I would also say that when I see someone base their reasoning on one writer,
> I suspect something's up. That's college-student thinking -- revamping your
> entire belief system based on one guy who's talking about a subject you
> don't know much about. Like my roommate who thought she knew everything
> about Buddhism and Physics because she read the Dancing Wu-Li Masters, which
> apparently got most of the physics wrong.
I don't know whether it is me or De Landa who is being attacked here.
De Landa clearly has a variety of sources (scientific, historical,
economic) informing his theories; as do I. De Landa is just the most
concise statement of the pro-markets anti-capitalism position.
Plus, I don't see something _inherently_ wrong with 'basing your
reasoning' on one theorist- if reasoning is valid, it's valid. Plus
Marxists, Lacanians, Deleuzians, etc in one sense 'base their
reasoning on one theorist.'
>
> More basically, the paper is refuting a straw-man idea of economics.
> Economists do not, contrary to leftish belief, think that markets are always
> and everywhere in competitive equilibrium. I went to the University of
> Chicago, which is by far the most free-market oriented school out there, and
> they certainly don't believe that.
The idea that anyone criticising economics must be 'leftish' is in
danger of setting up another type of straw man. In what sense is De
Landa 'leftish'? Is he in favour of command economies? No. Supportive
of big government? No.
Not being an economist myself, and not having a handy one to call upon
to defend me, I'll have to let some of the points stand for the
moment. I wish I knew more about economics, but I am willing to defer
to expertise. It may be that some of what De Landa (and Braudel) claim
is not borne out factually. But this is not only an economic/
economics issue; the distinction between markets and capital is also a
political and philosophical matter. I am concerned that political
positions are being concealed behind a mask of 'quantitative and
mathematical' neutrality, and would like to reply to the following:
>
> Third of all, it's simply untrue that economists model the economy from "the
> top down". I don't even know what that would look like. The models we
> built started with basic things, like taxes, spending, wages, etc., and then
> modeled emergent behavior in the macroeconomy. It may deal with aggregate,
> rather than atomic, components, but I've worked with the kind of models this
> guy is describing, where you attempt to model an entire economy from
> microeconomic components, and while they're interesting, they're nowhere
> near predictive. The real economy is far too complex for us to get a grip
> on modeling it at the micro level.
How can something be _too complex_ to model at the micro level? Are
you arguing that the macro is _more complex_ than the micro? Odd....
>
> Fourth of all, markets don't just self organize without a framework of
> government to supply property rights, etc. There are interesting situations
> where you get small emergent phenomenon, but there's also Somalia.
Ah, here we go. In come the political investments - how do we know
about what a market would be like in a situation without government?
We can only get glimpses, because government is everywhere (if only in
some imploded form) - and increasingly so. That's where the free
market=capitalism line falls down; capitalism has not threatened or
decreased state power at all. On the contrary; capitalism depends upon
States, whose function is to regulate markets.
>
> Fifth of all, there aren't just "a few" multinational corporations. There
> are a lot of them, and their interests conflict. While I am second to none
> in my distaste for corporate welfare, there is no cabal running things.
> There is, in fact, an entire school of economics called Public Choice
> economics which attempts to explain the very complex interactions of various
> rent-seeking interest groups. Government's End, by Jonathan Rauch, is a
> good introductory primer to this.
Depends what you mean by a few, really. A few hundred is still a few.
>
> Sixth, while corporations behave in various inefficient ways, that doesn't
> mean they're unnecessary. It would be awfully nice if we could all be
> independant contractors, but there are reasons that we are not. Transaction
> costs are part of it, as are several game theory issues of trust in
> alliances.
Unnecessary or necessary for what? Global capitalism? The maintenance
of the current social order? Political positions and evaluations are
being smuggled in again, in the guise of scientific neutrality.
(Funny, that.) And, while alliance and trust are clearly important (to
say the least) in social relations, I should have thought that it was
patently obvious that corporations are not the only ways of achieving
alliance and trust. I wouldn't have thought anyone would associate big
corporations with 'trust' now. Even Americans :-)
>
> We would certainly like to model the economy as an emergent phenomenon of
> microeconomic actors. The problem is, to really do it we'd have to model
> all the people in it. To do it even half-assed, we would need a much
> clearer picture of what happens in companies than we currently have. While
> it's everyone's goal, we're still at the level of Newtonian Physics. . . and
> given the complexity of the phenomenon that are emerging, it is going to be
> a long, long, long time before we are able to build a quantum economic
> model.
'We're still at the level of Newtonian Physics'; hardly a defence.
More a concession of the point De Landa is trying to make about the
rudimentary status of economics as a 'science.'
>
> Overall, it's clear to me that he lacks the mathematical or quantitative
> skills to understand what he's talking about. He throws around a lot of
> buzzwords, but really, this is Readers Digest level summary of what are some
> very, very complicated ideas. Because it's hopelessly simplistic, it's hard
> to know where to start -- it's like trying to sink your teeth into cotton
> candy. But if I had to summarize, I'd say that the parts that are true
> aren't interesting, and the parts that are interesting aren't true.
>
Sounds like academic snobbishness to me. The piece is deliberately
intended for a relatively general audience (which is of course in
itself a sin), and De Landa makes it clear that he is unable in so
short a piece to fully substantiate all his arguments. Of course, he
doesn't hold a university position, so he must be stupid. Silly me for
taking him seriously.
BTW, nice slogan, but _which_ parts are true, and _which_ interesting?
>
> > > >
> > > > I read something today that said, prior to the twentieth century,
> > > > ninety per cent of people killed in wars were combatants; now ninety
> > > > per cent killed are civillians. A sad comment on 'progress', that.
> > >
> > > I kind of have trouble accepting that. I can't imagine the number in my
> > > head, that sound rather made up, but I'm not sure. Maybe you can provide
> I've looked the figures up, from Mongols to the
> Romans to Chinese dynasties, civilians were always very much so in the line
> of fire. Cities and villages were being burnt without much thought, women
> were raped and babies were set to fire. I'm sure some of that is my biased
> review of the Mongolian occupation as it was taught to me in my school days
> in Russia. The number of people killed by their own government is also
> pretty staggering. One must also not forget Colonialism, especially in South
> America and Caribbean.
We better let this rest, in the lack of hard data to back it up. I
would never want to downplay colonialism, but only some of those
events would be classed as wars, presumably. I would guess that the
mass devastation of Dresden/Hiroshima/Nagasak/London in the twentieth
century - densely populated modern cities - has few historical
precedents.
>
> it could be argued that backing OBL and the radical
> > Islamists in the first place was the problem. What would follow-up
> > have involved? Giving them more support, or weaning them off it?
> > Either option seems bad.
>
> There should be a distinction, US did back groups (not Taliban) who worked
> with OBL, but it did not specifically take Bin Laden out of a playpen and
> make him a monster.
A very fine distinction. US funded and supported his cause, then
dropped it. Naturally, this caused annoyance :-) Plus, the US is
militarily occupying the Muslim 'holy land' in Saudi Arabia. The US is
the leading power in a world in which the majority of muslims are poor
and disenfranchised. The US supports the Israelis in their oppression
of the Palestinians (please, I know there are two sides to this story,
but no-one could seriously maintain that Israeli policy towards the
Palestinians has been acceptable). All of these issues were factors
leading to OBL becoming a 'monster.' This is not to say that they
directly determined OBL's philosophy or choice of strategies.
I'm just not sure how useful employing the emotive language and easy
binaries favoured by the (Black and) Whitehouse is; what use is it to
say that OBL is a 'monster'? He has a different set of values to those
of post-Protestant Americans - for one thing, he is next- rather than
this- world-focused - but he does have values. It is not helpful on
any level to characterise him as a madman acting without any kind of
rationality. In many ways, OBL is more rational than Bush - unlike
Bush, he has a clear purpose, which he wants to achieve by whatever
means necessary. He believes he is at war with a nation that he takes
to be the total embodiment of evil. Even if you reject it, you have to
take his ontology seriously. Perhaps especially if you reject it.
One of the problems with the US conceding that it is at war with Al
Qaeda is that it retroactively legitimates the attacks on the Twin
Towers. Seen as an act of war, the attack seems morally
indistinguishable from what happened at Nagasaki, Hiroshima, or in
Vietnam. Which could equally well be seen as 'terroristic.'
>US backing in Afghanistan during that time was strictly
> to stop the Russians.
Exactly, exactly. Just as attacking Iraq now would be 'strictly to
stop Saddam.' But stopping the 'Russians' led to much worse
consequences for the US (Al Qaeda managed a massive attack on US soil,
something the Soviets never did).
>OBL's ideology was already well formed, and really was
> the reason he was in Afghanistan in the first place (he came on his own
> steam).
Yes, but it wouldn't have taken the direction it did without US
involvement.
>As far as follow-up, I was talking about making sure that the
> Taliban could not have formed after the Russians left. That did not happen,
> but I'm not sure it even could have.
Yes, but this would have been very inconsistent. You can't back a
group one minute, then abandon it the next. Or, at least, you can't do
so without expecting consequences (whether deserved or not). The US
backed radical Islamists and encouraged a situation where the war
against the USSR was seen as a war between it and Islam. It created a
situation where the likes of OBL would travel from far away to join in
an Islamic war.
> American policy at that time was too
> narrowly focused on curving Russian expansion, I doubt radical Islam was
> even considered a threat.
You're now making my arguments for me! Couldn't it be argued that it
is 'too narrowly focused' on present enemies now?
> >
> > So you admit that your position on Israel is a little skewed? :-)
>
> I admit that I might be a little biased towards Israel. :-)
As long as you admit it. :-)
> >
> > I think that Saddam entering into
> > nuclear conflict with the States or its allies is something that goes
> > far beyond anything he's done up till now. For one thing, it is
> > playing to American strengths. His aim would have to be a
> > go-down-in-flames one-time retributive strike against America, since
> > any such act would be followed by his sure and certain total
> > destruction. But Saddam shows all the signs of someone desperate to
> > cling onto power; he is not like the stateless Islamist zealots who
> > flew into the WTC.
>
> That argument is fallacious, everything that Saddam has done up to this
> point has played to American strengths, certainly gassing his own people the
> worst of them.
I don't see how that was playing to American strengths. It was done
with tacit American approval, using weapons supplied by other Western
powers, but that's another matter. By 'America's strengths', I meant
'military strengths.'
>It's a part of the same argument taken up before we went into
> Afghanistan. That by attacking an Arab country, US would enrage the Arab
> street and they'd unite together to kick ass fast.
How do you know that isn't happening now? The attack on the WTC was
presumably motivated in part by perceived previous attacks on Islam
(which is not synonymous with the 'Arab' world).
>That has never happened,
> not in 1948, not in 1967, not in 1991, not in 2001 and certainly not today.
But surely there is a large, committed, ever-growing, international
body of enraged Muslims. Just because, for whatever reason,
_governments_ won't take an anti-American stance, doesn't mean that
the wider population won't. 9/11 was the first evidence of that. I
don't think it will be the last.
> In my last post I've said that he has underestimated an American response
> each and every time and is doing so now. If he was carefully crafting some
> kind of a strategy or is at all thinking ahead, he would consider Congress
> easily passing an action allowing Bush unrestricted power to take action
> against Iraq (as they have today); He has not.
I don't think he is thinking ahead at all. I said his strategy is
brinkmanship; the exact opposite of forward planning.
>He has always thought that
> by crying loud enough he could somehow stop the resolve of the American
> people. He did not. He still does not understand that there will be an
> attack should he continue to be defiant. That's just not sane.
How do you know this? It's dangerous to speculate on Saddam's
psychology on the basis of flimsy or non-existent evidence.
Speculation about 'Saddam underestimating the resolve of the American
people' seem to me no less a fantasy than any of the delirium
attributed to Saddam.
>
> I don't buy the idea that he understands the consequences of his actions,
> I've said why. I don't think he would understand what leaking a dirty bomb
> to the likes of Hezbollah might bring to him.
Again, there is no evidence of this. Why does he play ball with the UN
inspectors and the US _at all_ if he doesn't understand or expect
consequences?
> > But can the principle of regime change be accepted? It's a dangerous
> > precedent, and does raise the issue of all the other tyrannical
> > regimes in the world.
>
> Yes, if that regime poses a certain and present threat to us.
I guess we're going to go round and round over this issue, aren't we?
>> the myth of the 'clean war' is one that needs to be
> > taken apart. Thousands will die --- as millions have already died,
> > because of US sanctions on Iraq.
>
> I never said, nor do I believe there is a clean war. There is no such thing.
> I'm saying that whatever military action that would be taken against Iraq
> would be done most delicately to minimize the risk to Iraqi civilians as
> well as our own troops.
And to Iragi troops I hope - who, unlike the Americans are likely to
be conscripts, who have had not had a say in the election of their
govt (well, I suppose in this last respect they _are_ like the US
troops ;-) ).
>
> It's hard enough to arrive at a reliable number of dead in Iraq. It's even
> harder arriving at who's to blame. The number, millions, as you have said is
> a huge exaduration. I'm providing a link to an article written by Matt Welch
> (a green party supporter) - http://reason.com/0203/fe.mw.the.shtml ;
'Millions' is almost certainly an exaggeration. I put my hands up.
It's obviously dificult to calculate how many people died as a result
of sanctions. But whether it's several hundred thousand or a million
(more reasonable ballpark figures), it's still horrific, monstrous.
> > His ambition to unite the Arab world around him might be best served
> > by a US attack. I think it is highly unlikely that the Arabs would
> > unite around him willingly, and if he tried to force the issue, we are
> > in a whole new ballgame.
>
> But I think we have agreed that it's almost certain that Saddam is currently
> developing wmds, nukes among them. We, nor the surrounding Arab countries,
> would have many options if he should use them to bargain. Say he would
> invade Kuwait again, he then would set a condition "You, the US, - do not
> intervene, if you do, I'll nuke Kuwait City"
And, when he says, that --- the US will say, if you nuke city, we will
nuke the whole of Iraq. Still want to proceed?
>
> > Well, I hope no-one (apart from Strangelove-types) think that a Miami
> > strike (or its equivalent) is acceptable. For me, the 9/11 issue is at
> > the heart of the matter. Yes, you're right, 9/11 did 'change the mood
> > and policy.' That's precisely the problem, though. If there's no - or
> > at most, limited - connection between Iraq and international
> > terrorism, then the policy towards it should not alter because of a
> > 'mood' change brought about by Sept 11. That's exactly what I meant
> > before: we're talking about a change in American psychology, not a
> > change in Iraq or the threat that it poses.
>
> Actually, I've read the opinions of several opponents of war and some have
> made that exact claim. That claim was "The US is resilient, it would bounce
> back should there be a nuclear attack on one city". It is true, but they're
> making out like it's acceptable. To me, it is not.
And to me.
>
> I don't think your logic follows through. We have been attacked, we are
> looking to prevent that from happening again. That's the extent of 9/11.
But why does the US 'being attacked' have _anything to do with Iraq_?
Plus, the US must accept that perceptions of US FP contributed to why
it was attacked in the first place. Note: I am not saying that the US
'deserved' 9/11: just that there is a _causal_ link between previous
American policy and the current situation.
>In
> essence, it doesn't have much to do with terrorism. The agreement made
> between Iraq and the US states as much; Iraq does pose a threat if it is not
> disarmed, should it be defiant, military action would be taken. Iraq is
> extremely defiant and we are given caution when Saddam calls for the death
> of all Americans.
>
Of course.
Fundamentalism refers not only to religion, but to a dogmatic
certainty about the superiority of one's own convictions and values
over those of others; an innate suspicion of pluralism; a willingness
to consider opponents or different cultures 'evil.' This position is
clearly not limited to religious 'nuts' (though they have developed
something of a monopoly on it). Please note: I am talking about Bush
and his coterie here, not you personally.
> >
> > Well, speaking for myself, I'm sure that I am _at least_ as absorbed
> > in popular culture as anybody else on this NG :-)
>
> Haha! We are all the better for it.
>
Let's hope so.
Wordsmith
> >JW Moore
> writes:
>
> >>>Your manifest hatred of America is blinding you to the fact
> >>>that al Qaeda, not Bush, set in motion the Afghan war,
> >>
> >>Wait a second. Bin Laden and company are partly a monster of our own
> >creation:
>
> <excised busted link (sorry)>
>
> >>Surely you are aware of this.
> >>
> >
> >I am. What's your point?
>
> Let me repeat your quote.
>
> >the fact
> >>>that al Qaeda, not Bush, set in motion the Afghan war,
>
> It's Rube-Golberg foreign policy, Jack, for ever and ever, and ever. The final
> hammer hits us, and hits the innocent. Hard. It doesn't hit Bush and
> corporate buddies yet, but they don't care about the future.
>
> >That Osama is any less a monster?
>
> How do we measure monsterhood? Let me count the ways... Osama and friends
> killed around 3000 innocent people. Union Carbide killed 16,000 (and nobody on
> the payroll had to kill themselves in the process). You need to expand your
> thinking about what being a "monster" can entail. Please read this (it's just
> one example, but a crystal clear one):
What Osama did was intentional. What Union Carbide didn't do was neglegent.
(No, I'm not an UC groupie.) My point: murder is one thing, accidents another.
Lumping them together is foolish. Please expand your thinking about what
the differences entail.
Wordsmith :)
mark de rozario
in itself render his accounts of capitalism invalid?
No.
Ad hominem attacks of this type are unworthy. They bespeak a mix of
implicit pessimism and smug complacency often to be found lurking
beneath most Right wing positions: a sense that everyone always acts
according to base motives, why expect or pretend anything else? ('You
too are as selfish/ miserably compromised as the rest of us.')
Strange at this time (post Enron/ worldcom etc) for the apologists of
capital to accuse capitalism's _critics_ of hypocrisy and lack of
probity. O sorry, I forget that all the people exposed in these
scandals were just _bad apples_, anomalous, not at all _typical_ ....
But all of this is missing the point. A century and a half ago, Marx
exposed the complicity of Socialist moralism with a Christian ontology
of individual guilt and responsibility. Capitalism, he showed, should
not be critiqued on this basis, but as an impersonal _system_, with
its own ineluctable laws and tendencies. This is far beyond trivial
playground catcall issues of who owns which car.
M4RV1N
writes:
>> How do we measure monsterhood? Let me count the ways... Osama and friends
>> killed around 3000 innocent people. Union Carbide killed 16,000 (and
>nobody on
>> the payroll had to kill themselves in the process). You need to expand
>your
>> thinking about what being a "monster" can entail. Please read this (it's
>just
>> one example, but a crystal clear one):
>
>What Osama did was intentional. What Union Carbide didn't do was neglegent.
You sound just like a corporate defense lawyer. Get this clear: what both did
was intentional. What both did was to disregard the humanity of a set of
people. Companies like Union Carbide routinely factor in death from accidents,
and even the resulting lawsuit costs in their balance sheet. Just like Ford
and Firestone in deciding whether to incur cost associated with making safer
vehicles and tires--as opposed to whether it costs more to settle some
lawsuits, when a company allows for a certain amount of death, they become
killers. It's just as quote, >inadvertent<, unquote, as it is to bin Laden.
To make a moral distinction here is to say that some kinds of murder are good,
and that some kinds of murder victims matter less than others. If I were you
I'd rethink that position, because at some point, you could wind up on the
expendable list (assuming you're not already).
>(No, I'm not an UC groupie.)
The word is "shill."
My point: murder is one thing, accidents
>another.
>Lumping them together is foolish.
What's foolish is a failure to understand human behavior such that you become
an apologist for killers. As Plato pointed out, every person does what they
think are the right things to do. Osama bin Laden did so, Union Carbide did
so, and the neocons running the White House are doing so. But thinking you're
doing the right thing and doing the right thing are different things. The
families of the dead can perhaps help you with that distinction.
Please expand your thinking about what
>the differences entail.
Here's some mind expansion for you:
Think about how you would explain to the families of those 16,000 who were
poisoned to death that those lives lost are less important--as an
injustice--than the lives of those lost on 9-11. Think about how you would
tell them about how the "differences" make their loss less important.
Perhaps if you're really good at doing this some giant chemical corporation
will hire you for their PR staff.
Mark Ervin
Victor Morton
it pretty much exhausts everything I have to say, unless somebody says
something truly Padraish.
Gordon Dahlquist wrote:
> do conservatives enjoy having themselves
> judged by the light of jerry falwell?
We already are by quite a few people, including several of the lefties here
to judge from recent appearances. Whether we enjoy it has got nothing at all
to do with it.
As a general rule though, you ARE known by the company you keep -- it helps
determine what you think the contours of legitimate debate, legitimate
comradeship, legitimate disagreement and the criteria (or not) for
excommunication. But I would certainly rather have Jerry Falwell on my team
than Noam Chomsky.
> it's not dissimilar from
> people referring to bill clinton, a president whose domestic policy wasn't
> frankly all that different from richard nixon's, as "left-wing" or
> "liberal" ...
Actually ... in terms of domestic policy, Richard Nixon's was the second
most liberal administration of the century, behind only Lyndon Johnson (and
not by much). Nixon ratified the Great Society de facto and even
nationalized cash welfare, he began the routine of peacetime deficit
spending, he began affirmative action, he founded the EPA and approved every
manner of 'environmental' regulation, he signed off on Title IX, he
appointed three of the justices who signed Roe vs. Wade, he even imposed
wage-and-price controls (no contemporary Dem to my knowledge even ADVOCATES
that, for fook's sake). Even in foreign policy, he wasn't as right-wing as
his reputation (which dates from his now-vindicated stance at the Alger Hiss
hearings) -- detente with the Soviet Union and the warming to Communist
China were both his and Kissinger's projects.**
** BTW, do those actions mean the U.S. was in any way responsible for the
imprisoning of the refuseniks and the massacre at Tiananmen Square -- as you
seem to imply by your reasoning in re Saddam Hussein.
>>> it's not a binary situation, and pretending it is won't make it so.
>>
>> I agree that binary "us and them" thinking is almost always a bad way to
>> think about internal affairs in a polity. But war (and make no mistake, the
>> Islamofascists HAVE declared war ... we're in one ... whether we like it or
>> not) IS a binary situation. Pretending it isn't won't make it not. Don't
>> think for one second, Gordon, that Osama's men would have excused you had
>> you been on those planes on the count of "he's one of the good, peace-loving
>> dissenting Americans."
>
> no, this is exactly wrong.
War is NOT a binary situation? Of course, it often involves coalitions of
often incompatible-in-the-longer-run parties. But so what? We don't call
World War 2 a failure or not worth fighting merely because of the undoubted
fact that the victorious alliance of convenience between the liberal West
and the Communist Soviet Union was ideologically incompatible and
predictably broke up almost immediately thereafter. Nor was it therefore not
a binary situation AT THE TIME.
> first, who do you exactly mean by
> "islamofacsists"?
The anti-Western, anti-Christian, anti-Semitic, anti-modern strain of Islam.
Besides al Qaeda and the Taliban, it includes other terrorist groups like
Islamic Jihad, Hamas and Hezbollah; the ideology of Wahhabism; the
anti-Semitic crusade against Israel; the Islamic Republic; and all who
support and succor them in the Muslim world, which includes Saddam Hussein
(with whom we also have some unfinished business from 1991). On that
decision rests the question of whether this will be a short war or a
decades-long clash of civilizations. Certainly, no peace could be worth it
without a major reformation (or should that be Reformation) in Arab/Muslim
political culture. The enemy may very well be Islam itself, only time and
the Muslims themselves will tell on that front.
> or do you mean the large and varied population of muslims across
> the world who are reacting to all of these groups with every emotion
> between sympathy and disgust? NONE OF THESE THINGS ARE THE SAME.
I realize that ... but the extent to which the Islamofascists speak for
Islam as such or whether other Muslims prefer backing them to the West is a
choice I can only leave to "the rest of" Islam. The behavior after September
11 (and long before the war in Afghanistan) was not encouraging to say the
least -- the cheering, the kids named "Osama," the anti-Semitic conspiracy
mongering (a majority or significant minority opinion in every poll I've
seen), the "America deserved it" stance (a majority opinion in every poll
I've seen, even the ones taken among Muslims in the West). To the extent
John Q. Muslim or Muslim regimes want to join the Islamofascists, they're
welcome to share in the beating. Once war has been joined (the gloves come
off, so to speak), the finer points of the diplomatic minuet certainly
always will be discarded -- for now.
> and, again, within
> a muslim world that's practically in a cultural civil war between
> fundamentalism and a more secular view.
Using the Christian term "fundamentalism" in any description of Islam is
just lazy. The clashes with Islam do not really involve secularism but are
more akin to (but not really analogous to) the battles between Christian
sects during the Reformation era. But what there is not anywhere in the
Middle East outside Turkey is a mass "secular Muslim" view -- for a variety
of historical and religious reasons (Hanan Ashrawi and Edward Said, e.g.,
are both Christians and have their constituencies in the already-secular
West). And as you point out, often the secular rulers like Saddam can be
bigger bastards than the religious ones, and even in Turkey secularism had
to imposed from the top and only survives because the democracy is thus
constrained and demarcated by the military.
> and - for example - in this
> particular struggle, bin laden and hussein - dangerous tyrant that he is -
> are on EXACTLY OPPOSITE SIDES.
Do you really think that those of us who back a war against Saddam don't
KNOW that? But unless it yields political salience in re their stances on
the United States or the West (the lands of the Jews and Crusaders), it is a
piece of trivia for us somewhat akin to the (equally manifest) differences
between Hitler's Germany and Mussolini's Italy (who began as rivals and
almost came to blows over Austria in 1934 -- you can look it up). And these
Saddam/Osama rivalries manifestly do not matter once the planes start
crashing. Saddam cheered September 11. Bin Laden began parroting Saddam's
line on sanctions.
Years ago, Saddam even gave shelter and a megaphone to the Ayatollah
Khomeini (as a way of undermining the Shah of Iran) even though the Persian,
Shiite cleric Khomeini never concealed his distaste for the Arab, Sunni
militaryman Saddam. But y'know what ... Iraq STILL backed Khomeini anyway,
since doing so served its purposes then. But it then invaded Iran when
Khomeini was in power. Of such stuff is the history of politics, precisely
BECAUSE of the fact that you state, that international politics is fluid and
multipolar.
> the problem with launching into war with iraq is that it hasn't been
> shown to have a single fucking thing to do with al qaeda or bin laden.
Why is that a dispositive problem in itself? Yes ... we understand that
there's no evidence of any actual Iraqi role in September 11 and that Saddam
was not al Qaeda's sponsor during the 1990s (although by the standard that
the U.S. "backed" Saddam in the 1980s, Saddam certainly "backs" al Qaeda now
and may even have then). As Bush has pointed out over the last week, it's
not any one thing about Iraq that makes it a unique threat. It's the
combination of Saddam Hussein's terrorist ties (more with other groups than
al Qaeda, sure), his obvious Moby Dick efforts to get weapons of mass
destruction, his demonstrated willingness and ability to use them, his
demonstrated willingness to invade neighbors, and the terrorists'
demonstrated willingness and ability to kill Americans by the thousands. No
regime friendly to al Qaeda (to whatever extent) and as flamboyantly
anti-American as Saddam's can be allowed to have weapons of mass
destruction. That's why even as odious a regime as Communist China is not
the (near-term) threat Iraq is.
> and the quotes you hear about iraq sheltering al qaeda fighters are
> bullshit: these fighters were in "iraq", all right - seeking refuge with
> the very kurds hussein has spent a long time trying to exterminate (and
> most of the al qaeda fighters were killed by the kurdish authorities or
> driven into iran).
That's true of some, but not all, of the al Qaeda links detailed in recent
weeks, which are nevertheless fairly flimsy. But their nonexistence
beforehand means they have accelerated since September 11 -- which says
everything one needs to know about the Saddam regime. In fact, fairly flimsy
links now are in some ways MORE damnable than stronger ones then -- "hey, we
didn't know they were trying THAT kinda stuff; we wash our hands of them,"
one could in principle say.
>> Of course the U.S. has supported some nasty characters
>> -- usually because the alternative was even nastier. Can you not at least
>> imagine that it is possible to completely wrong on one matter AND completely
>> right on another. And what is the purpose of bringing this point up in a
>> discussion of September 11 except to say something like "the U.S. deserved
>> it" and delegitimize American self-defense. The only possible effect of
>> bringing up, let's say Pinochet (as Ken Loach does in his segment of the
>> 11'9"01 movie), is to deny to America through taint by association both the
>> ability to be simply and wholly wronged and the ability to defend itself
>> against those like Osama and Saddam whose agenda is plain and has been
>> plainly stated -- kill all Americans everywhere you can.
>
> again, you're parroting a link between bin laden and hussein when none
> has been established
That paragraph, which I left unsnipped, neither parroted nor even said
ANYTHING about a "link between bin Laden and Hussein." It said "those like
Osama and Saddam whose agenda is plain" -- and for all their differences,
both Osama and Saddam have BOTH sworn to destroy the United States, acting
as an instrument of God's wrath against the unbelievers.
> and you're equating honesty about the us's misdeeds in the past
> with "moral justification" about "deserving" 9/11.
It's the context that makes it offensive. In a discussion of U.S. foreign
policy toward Latin America or somesuch, mentioning and debating Pinochet is
quite appropriate. In a discussion of September 11 or the worldview of
Muslims or Arabs, Pinochet or Suharto is as relevant as the price of tea in
China. And in a matter where the United States was wholly wronged, it can
only serve as a statement of pure anti-Americanism.
> understanding what
> actions may have led to the terrorists making those attacks is not the
> same thing as endorsing them. much of this does have a great deal to do
> with how the us is perceived, and our perceived hypocrisy.
But we know why the terrorists committed the September 11 attacks -- al
Qaeda was always quite clear itself what it was about. They hate our
secularism and our materialism, they see our troops (including women walking
around unveiled like whores) as defiling the land of the holy mosques, they
see us as Jews or the Crusader stooges of the Jews. And I wear the hatred of
them, and anyone who cares to join them, as a badge of honor. Let them hate
us, as long as they fear us.
All the bitching about the Palestinians and Iraqi sanctions was only added
by al Qaeda after September 11 (in fact, Osama volunteered to dissolve the
group and join Saudi Arabia in fighting Saddam after the invasion of Kuwait)
as an appeal to the Arab street and gullible Westerners. And give me a break
... "hypocrisy"??? That is only a vice, the sin of sins, to post-Christian
Westerners and those who are making appeals to their ears.
> (or to be even more cynical, because it will satisfy more long-term
> financial needs of an administration with its roots in the petroleum
> industry).
Is there any oxygen in the house? It's statements like this that make it
very hard for me to take seriously the anti-war dissenters.
First of all, the sanctions regime on Iraq and intermittent air strikes were
continued through eight years of the Clinton administration, whose only oil
ties to my knowledge were Gore's family holdings in a company wth some
rights in Colombia. Certainly calling it "an administration with its roots
in the petroleum industry" doesn't even pass the laugh test. As far as I
know neither Donald Rumsfeld nor Condoleezza Rice (the administration's two
biggest hawks) have significant ties to the oil industry. All of which to
suggest that a tough stance against Saddam is not correlated with oil
holdings.
Second, even Bush and Cheney as a former president and vice president, can
write their own ticket for the future -- regardless of their past business
dealings. Certainly, all the people high enough to actually be making the
decisions don't need the friendship of one particular industry to make out
like gangbusters afterward.
Third, if the administration were genuinely taking its foreign policy cues
from the needs of the petroleum industry, it would have done the opposite of
what it has done -- lift the sanctions on Iraq long ago and let the American
petroleum industry profit. After all, it's not exactly like the Iraqis can
do anything with their oil other than sell it or that their oil-industry
infrastructure won't need extensive rebuilding (American firms are
near-hegemonic in THAT field) and indeed, lefties have pointed out in other
contexts that Halliburton has lobbied for the lifting of sanctions. The
Iraqis have said they'd be glad to welcome U.S. companies were the sanctions
to be lifted. Businesses NEVER like sanctions because they get in the way of
making money. After all, every sanction, every embargo, every boycott is an
offense against (amoral) commerce by government (or some other collective
noneconomic group like the NAACP) in the name of morality. We see this
universal rule about the political interests of business in a variety of
other contexts -- the wish by US satellitemakers to help China's space
program, with all the military implications thereby entailed; Donald
Kendall, the chairman of Pepsi, was one of the leading detentists in the
1980s about the Soviet Union -- where Pepsi had a guaranteed monopoly; in
the 1930s Henry Ford was an isolationist (and worse) on Nazi Germany, where
Ford had a subsidiary.
Fourth, war is generally bad for business (tho' it may help a few particular
businesses in the short run). It carries risks of national defeat and even
specific losses (was war good for Cantor Fitzgerald?) and always introduces
uncertainty. The declines in the stock market since September 11
(attributable to many factors, sure, but the war drums are surely near the
top) have cost American corporations more wealth than anyone could possibly
hope to reap.
>>> that we supported saddam hussein for years
>>
>> That's far FAR too strong. The US gave Saddam access to some loans and
>> import credits; it restored diplomatic relations sometime in the mid-1980s;
>> during his war with Iran, we gave him some limited covert military
>> cooperation (satellite and other intelligence data mostly) and diplomatic
>> support (Iran had invaded the United States in 1979, let us not forget).
>> Buthe US never sold him arms or nuclear technology or was even a major
>> customer for his oil.
>
> the us gave him chemical weapons
What is your basis for saying this? I'd like a citation, and yes, I AM
calling you on it cause I don't think you know what you're talking about.
First of all ... "the US" unmodified means the government. Saddam never was
eligible for the Foreign Military Sales program (and Iraq hadn't been since
the 1960s). Second ... "chemical weapons" are never sold (or "given") either
by the U.S. government or any U.S. businesses (who don't have "chemical
weapons" to sell or "give" in the first place).
What you can show is that some U.S. companies sold him dual-use materials
that HE used to make chemical weapons. But be careful where you go with that
-- if you're saying that private U.S. sales of anything that could be used
to make chemical weapons should be barred (and if you're not saying that,
what IS the point), you're essentially supporting some of the most-onerous
of the U.N. sanctions.
> and supported him with
> significant intelligence and in the un throughout the iran-iraq war.
Well ... "significant" is open to interpretation, but the essential point is
not in dispute.
And again, my response is "so what?" Iraq was then helping to contain Iran,
a nation that invaded the U.S. in 1979. Just because a nation is an ally one
day doesn't mean it can't be an enemy the next (or vice versa). We aided and
fought alongside the Soviet Union during World War II -- does that mean it
was wrong to resist Communism during the Cold War? Did France having been
the enemy for the previous 200 years morally preclude Britain from allying
with it for virtually the entire 20th century, first against (both
Wilhelmine and Nazi) Germany and then against the Soviet Union.
> we've
> helped him consistently in economic terms, and
But yet you people complain about the U.N. economic sanctions and embargos
against Saddam?!?!?! Which is it -- should we embargo him (and be blamed for
the resulting civilian suffering) or do business with him (and be blamed for
having supported and created him).
I mean this sort of double standard reasoning is why I think what animates a
significant segment of the left is anti-Americanism, pure and simple -- the
U.S. is damned if it does and damned if it doesn't.
> in strongarming other
> countries, like the uk and saudi arabia, to help iraq as well.
Citations please of where these countries did anything contrary to their own
interests and under U.S. strongarming, to aid Iraq. Saudi Arabia had their
own, Arab nationalist and anti-Shiite reasons to back Saddam (mostly with
money and oil pipelines) throughout the 1980s against Iran.
> we've
> been very aware that he was gassing the kurds and did nothing - and made
> sure the world did nothing
And yet you complain now that the U.S. is no longer "doing nothing." What
SHOULD the U.S. (or the world) have done in 1989 when this happened? The war
over Kuwait was only a year later BTW and so you could just as persuasively
say that because Britain and France refused to fight Hitler over
Czechoslovakia (or over Kristallnacht, to be even more precise in the
analogy) this somehow taints their decision to fight over Poland a year
later.
But what should have happened over the gassing of the Kurds? Economic
sanctions or an embargo? You're complaining about the one imposed a mere
years later (and to such spectacular effect, BTW). Overthrowing Saddam?
That's "regime change" and cannot happen except through war, which you
oppose. Arming the Kurdish guerrillas? Similar U.S. aid to the mujaheddin in
Afghanistan in the 1980s is now being cited to blame the U.S. for creating
Osama bin Laden, and would be certain to "enrage the Arab street" (the Kurds
not being Arabs) as anything.
> and we even, apparently by mistake, gave him
> tacit approval to invade kuwait.
"Tacit approval" is a bit strong. April Glaspie failed to say "an invasion
of Kuwait means war" -- do you want U.S. ambassadors to be able to make that
threat on their own authority by the way? Instead, Glaspie said "we take no
position on your dispute with Kuwait over oil quotas and the border, but
such disputes should be resolved peacefully" and her State Department
superiors repeated similar boilerplate, which plays well with Westerners, to
their Iraqi opposite numbers not realizing that Saddam would take it as
tacit approval. Not a good moment in the annals of diplomacy, sure. Not
"tacit approval."
> and in fact, the us to this day gets a
> good percentage of its oil from iraq.
Depending on the month, anywhere from less than 2 percent to about 5 percent
of U.S. oil consumption comes from Iraq.
>> In fact, the countries that gave Saddam Hussein most of his political
>> support, all of his arms and all of the materials for his weapons of mass
>> destruction were the Soviet Union and France (and to a lesser extent other
>> Europeans). And for those of you who are saying "go through the U.N." for
>> weapons inspections and whatnot, let me make it perfectly clear. THOSE are
>> the countries who built up Saddam Hussein AND the ones holding the cards at
>> the U.N. And yet you claim America is somehow tainted by its piddling games
>> of footsie with Saddam, while Moscow and Paris are the great moral arbiters
>> when they were practically doing a nightly threesome with Saddam. It's hard
>> not to conclude that this is just the rationalization of a belief that
>> America is always wrong.
>
> see, binary again. no, I don't think russia or france is any moral
> paragon, nor do I think the UN is anything but problematic.
But THOSE are your choices. "Working through the Security Council" and
"international law" sounds so high-minded, but it really means cutting deals
and seeking moral imprimaturs from the realpolitique cynics in Paris, the
ex-apparatchiks in Moscow and the Tainanmen Square butchers in Peking. And
most of the governments in the U.N. outside Europe and America (North and
South) are tyrannies of one or another form. I mean, how can one even take
seriously a human-rights panel with Libya and Cuba among its members? To say
a course of action (like war against Iraq) is morally tainted by U.S. sins
but somehow wouldn't be morally tainted if approved by the United Nations or
the Security Council is ... just hard to take seriously. Most of the world
doesn't conduct politics in the fashion of Western bourgeoise states, as
September 11 if nothing else should have made absolutely clear. Nations will
cooperate (or not) with the war on al Qaeda if, and to the extent that, it
helps their interests to do so. Petty points of consistency on pious
declarations will be sacrificed to sovereign interest every time.
As for "international law" ... when it acquires sovereignty, popular
legitimacy, the power to tax, or the ability to use force, wake me up and
I'll consider it.
>> And further, as Christopher Hitchens has never tired of pointing out, to the
>> extent the United States WAS responsible for Saddam Hussein, Osama bin
>> Laden, the Taliban or anyone else bad, elementary moral reasoning ("you
>> always have to clean up your own mess, Timmy") puts on the U.S. therefore a
>> GREATER obligation to overthrow him, not a lesser one. Again ... unless the
>> real point is simply the moral deligitimization of anything the U.S. does,
>> it's really hard for me to see what is the relevance of this argument.
>
> bullshit again. our culpability in supporting these regimes only menas
> that we have the greater need to address the issue responsibly, not to do
> so in a manner that creates the same mistakes all over again
What does "address the issue responsibly" mean? As far as I can tell, you're
opposed to doing everything specific against Saddam Hussein except pious
U.N. resolutions of denunciation (but no teeth -- "sanctions" become
"genocide" very quickly) or maybe some sort of war-crimes or human-rights
tribunal (equally unrealistic without force -- Nazi Germany and Yugoslavia
were both militarily defeated first).
But we can never know every possible consequences of every action we take,
short of foolish utopianism of perfect knowledge and perfect foresight --
ideas that are incompatible with human freedom. And no, the policies in
question were not mistakes, or rather were mistakes only if Heaven be the
standard. Any political or military action, any political or military
arrangements short of Utopia (i.e. "no place") ... will leave some things
unsettled or create new issues of conflict. That doesn't taint the initial
action -- "WW2 begat Cold War" analogy above. Even though Osama bin Laden
found rejectionist Islam in Afghanistan, the U.S. backing of the mujaheddin
helped play a role in cracking the myth of the invincible Soviets and in
undermining Soviet morale and thus ultimately helped bring down Communism.
We always knew the next day would be a new day -- the Cold War was politics,
not eschatology.
>>> , or pinochet, or suharto, does nothing
>>> to help us understand what we're really facing in trying to combat
>>> something like a world-wide guerrilla war against terrorism.
>>
>> U.S. support for Pinochet or Suharto has not anything to do with fighting al
>> Qaeda, Saddam or Islamo-fascism at any level whatsoever, unless it's the
>> argument noted above -- anti-Americanism pure and simple.
>
> it doesn't to you. tell it to the rest of the world, who see it
> differently.
Usenet is international, so I think I already have. Frankly, if a billion
people think something stupid, it is still stupid. And please ... did any of
the 9/11 hijackers even know who Pinochet was or would they likely have
disapproved of killing socialists and communists (i.e. atheists) if they
did. We don't need to interpret why al Qaeda did it -- they were quite
upfront and "Pinochet" and "Suharto" didn't quite make the cut into the Al
Qaeda Bill of Particulars.
Victor
mark de rozario
thoughts, I want to take up some more issues from your 'economist
friend.'
>
> First of all, while some firms are price setters, many more aren't. Does
> Proctor and Gamble set the price of shampoo? Unlikely, as the market is
> fiercely competitive. Perdue, likewise, is a price taker, not a price
> setter. It is not the kind of undifferentiated market-clearing model of
> perfect competition, but pricing power is very weak in many markets
> dominated by large companies.
How does this conflict with what De Landa says? He isn't saying that
_every_ big company is a price setter, and in fact goes out of his way
to suggest that capitalism (the monolithic concept of which he any way
rejects ) combines elements of meshworks and command hierarchies.
>
> Second of all, the only economist he quotes is John Kenneth Galbraith, who
> has literally been proven wrong about every major economic idea he ever
> advanced. I don't mean that the weight of economic opinion is against him;
> I mean that his models made wildly inaccurate predictions that didn't come
> to pass. This was the guy who was waiting for the Soviet Union's GDP to
> surpass ours as the Berlin Wall came tumbling down, and has been predicting
> for the past 60 years that the central planning of the Soviet Union, the
> generous welfare states of Europe, and the mercantilism of Japan, were going
> to far surpass the grubby capitalism of the US. Meanwhile, the income gap
> between us an everyone else keeps growing.
I wonder if Americans are aware of how sentences like that last one
sound to those of us not privileged enough to live in your great
country. That this US uber-alles paean comes at the end of a wholly
irrelevant attack on command economy thinking which no-one - not me,
not De Landa - is advocating makes horrifically compounds its pompous
triumphalism. Then there is the issue of basic misreading, upon which
this 'second' point is based. De Landa does not cite Galbraith
approvingly, as is clear to anyone who gives the relevant passage even
a cursory reading:
'Even non-Marxists economists like Galbraith, agree that capitalism
began as a competitive pursuit and stayed that way till the end of the
nineteenth century, and only then it reached the monopolistic stage,
at which point a planning system replaced market dynamics.
However, Fernand Braudel has recently shown, with a wealth of
historical data, that this picture is inherently wrong.'
It's a good job that the text had the alleged complexity of 'cotton
candy', since it clearly taxed your 'expert's' powers of
interpretation. The only other occasion Galbraith is cited is on his
comments about the military being opposed to markets - an
uncontroversial point, De Landa's citing of which doesn't really
suggest that he is buying into any of Galbraith's discredited
theories.
And, funnily enough, the growing gap between the rich and the poor is
something that people a bit less credulous about capitalism's claims
for itself are also concerned about. Of course, the gap is due only to
the US's pursuit of free market economics, and not in any way
connected with anti-market practices.
>
> We would certainly like to model the economy as an emergent phenomenon of
> microeconomic actors. The problem is, to really do it we'd have to model
> all the people in it.
Why are individual people to be treated as the most basic level? Here
is another telling insight into an underlying ontology: the liberal
assumption of the primacy of the individual 'actor', which presumably
comes with the associated absurdity of rational agent theory. Also,
there is another basic misreading of De Landa's supposedly 'Reader's
Digest' level 'simplistic' text: bizarrely, De Landa seems to be being
attributed the position of favouring microeconomics, when quite
clearly he attacks both macro- _and_ micro-economics. For instance:
'Both macroeconomics, which begins at the top with concepts like gross
national product, as well as microeconomics, in which a system of
preferences guides individual choice, are purely analytical in
approach.' It is not (only) the attention to micro-detail that is
missing according to De Landa: it's the lack of focus on _conflictual
dynamics_, in other words, power and politics, that he decries;
something your economist chum's comments confirm. Focus on 'individual
persons' will always screen out the power dynamics which cut through
the social field (everywhere except in the power-free liberal-rational
world of economics). As someone who has written a wonderful study of
warfare, De Landa is interested in large-scale as well as small-scale
phenomena; what he resists is the linear approach to both.
You don't have to be an economics genius to see that much of
capitalism is very far from being a free market. You just have to walk
down your average metropolitan high street, and witness the domination
of the same tawdry players (Starbucks, Microsoft, we all know the
drill). In modern capitalism, most people are workers, not traders,
certainly unable to effectively market their labour. The labour market
is nowhere near 'free.'
JSpringer0953
<snip>What's foolish is a failure to understand human behavior such that you
become
>an apologist for killers.
You were just such an "apologist for killers" in a recent thread.
JOn
JSpringer0953
Winston Castro
> This newsgroup has been taken over by right-wing ideologues and
>fanatics, draconian religious right-wingers of both the Catholic and
>Protestant ilk; intelligent and well reasoned discourse has taken a
>backseat to fundamentalist agenda. Global intellectualism has been
>ridiculed, whilst nationalist fanaticism is wholeheartedly endorsed. I
>would have thought more of this group...My faith in humanity as a
>whole, has just been kicked down a notch.
So your newsgroup has been overtaken, huh? So Catholics and Protestants are now
fundamentalists? Do you realize how paranoid and ignorant you sound?
Calling every Catholic and Protestant "fundamentalist" is like calling every
Muslim you see a terrorist. I think the world, and people, are a little more
complex than you imagine. And I am at a lost to figure out why your "faith in
humanity has been kicked down a notch." Because there are people here with
different views? Because of free speech? What about your apparent lament of AMK
do you thing is constructive or insightful?
I have listened to you here for years, and I simply at a lost to understand
such a insipid contempt for religion. I do agree that fundamentalism can be a
dangerous thing, and that makes your statement above even more repugnant and
offensive. It reeks of ignorance, hate and prejudice - not the elements of
reasoned discourse.
JOn
Gordon Dahlquist
On Fri, 11 Oct 2002, Victor Morton wrote:
> But I would certainly rather have Jerry Falwell on my team than Noam
> Chomsky.
I'm sorry, victor, I can't make it past this comment. it literally makes
no earthly sense to me that any intelligent human would say such a thing
and therefore - as you obviously think the opposite, it seems really
useless to go into a point-by-point dispute of your post, answering your
facts with my facts, your sources with my sources, when the brick wall
that this comment embodies is staring me in the face, just as, apparently,
it's staring the world in the face.
and why someone who could make this comment would be found on a newsgroup
devoted to stanley kubrick of all people boggles my mind, but again,
obviously you feel the exact opposite, so it really is pointless to
continue. I appreciate that you're trying to make your case in clear
terms, but I find what you say here to be simply apalling in very way.
Victor Morton
Kubrick:
Gordon Dahlquist wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Oct 2002, Victor Morton wrote:
>
>> But I would certainly rather have Jerry Falwell on my team than Noam
>> Chomsky.
> and why someone who could make this comment would be found on a newsgroup
> devoted to stanley kubrick of all people boggles my mind, but again,
> obviously you feel the exact opposite, so it really is pointless to
> continue.
Obviously, if that's what you think, I can't make you respond (and shouldn't
even if I could). And for the record, that was a 90 percent anti-Chomsky
comment rather a pro-Falwell one (I'm a Roman Catholic, not a fundamentalist
Baptist).
But I do ask one question. Why should it "boggle the mind" that someone who
holds Chomsky in no esteem whatsoever would have an interest in Kubrick,
whose films are nothing if not politically nondoctrinaire? In fact, DR.
STRANGELOVE aside, I can't immediately think of any material in all of
Kubrick's films that has narrowly-topical political salience. And more
broadly philosophical-political material (which IS everywhere in Kubrick)
doesn't graft as easily as some people think (not attributing anything to
anyone here in particular) onto the political issues of a given day.
Victor
Wordsmith
> >Wordsmith
> writes:
>
> >> How do we measure monsterhood? Let me count the ways... Osama and friends
> >> killed around 3000 innocent people. Union Carbide killed 16,000 (and
> nobody on
> >> the payroll had to kill themselves in the process). You need to expand
> your
> >> thinking about what being a "monster" can entail. Please read this (it's
> just
> >> one example, but a crystal clear one):
> >
> >What Osama did was intentional. What Union Carbide didn't do was neglegent.
>
> You sound just like a corporate defense lawyer. Get this clear: what both did
> was intentional.
Really? So UC sat down and said: "Hey, let's proactively intend to
slaughter
as many folks as we can just for the sake of doing so." Not good
business,
that policy. I am, believe me, no fan of corporate neglegence, but to
equate Osama with UC is strange.
What both did was to disregard the humanity of a set of
> people. Companies like Union Carbide routinely factor in death from accidents,
> and even the resulting lawsuit costs in their balance sheet.
That's true. It will, we can hope, end when enough people clamor for
it.
Just like Ford
> and Firestone in deciding whether to incur cost associated with making safer
> vehicles and tires--as opposed to whether it costs more to settle some
> lawsuits, when a company allows for a certain amount of death, they become
> killers.
Do you drive? If so, you probably use products from Firestone or some
other
killer company. How many deaths would you allow a company to have
before
you labled them killers?
It's just as quote, >inadvertent<, unquote, as it is to bin Laden.
> To make a moral distinction here is to say that some kinds of murder are good,
> and that some kinds of murder victims matter less than others. If I were you
> I'd rethink that position, because at some point, you could wind up on the
> expendable list (assuming you're not already).
"We will all go together when we go."
--Tom Lehrer
> >(No, I'm not an UC groupie.)
>
> The word is "shill."
A shill is usually a groupie, but a groupie isn't always a shill.
> My point: murder is one thing, accidents
> >another.
> >Lumping them together is foolish.
>
> What's foolish is a failure to understand human behavior such that you become
> an apologist for killers.
I'm not apologising. I'm being descriptive. Things will change when
enough
of us turn up the heat.
As Plato pointed out, every person does what they
> think are the right things to do. Osama bin Laden did so, Union Carbide did
> so, and the neocons running the White House are doing so. But thinking you're
> doing the right thing and doing the right thing are different things. The
> families of the dead can perhaps help you with that distinction.
Osama proactively planned an attack. UC, while I wince at their
tallying
in probable deaths into their business plan, is engaged in creative
prognostication, and while that is, in and of itself, a form of
proactivity,
it is not of the same type as Osama's. It's a fine distinction, but
one
which must be made.
> Please expand your thinking about what
> >the differences entail.
>
> Here's some mind expansion for you:
>
> Think about how you would explain to the families of those 16,000 who were
> poisoned to death that those lives lost are less important--as an
> injustice--than the lives of those lost on 9-11. Think about how you would
> tell them about how the "differences" make their loss less important.
I would never presume to declare those poisoned were less important
than
those lost on 9/11. The terrorists sought out people to kill. UC
anticipated
possible or probable future deaths. Can't you see the distinction?
> Perhaps if you're really good at doing this some giant chemical corporation
> will hire you for their PR staff.
I have not now, nor have I ever, nor will I ever, want such work.
Wordsmith
> Mark Ervin
Wordsmith
Let's give *that* a rest for a spell, shall we? *towels off*
Wordsmith :)
Wordsmith
You are soooooooo level-headed.
Wordsmith :)
Padraig L Henry
wrote:
>The ratio of civilian to combatant deaths in Afghanistan will never be
>known, because we're never going to know how many combatants we killed.
>However, given somewhere between 600 and 900 civilian deaths (the best
>estimates now) and the likelihood of 10-20 thousand enemy combatants killed
>in bombings, that 90% civilan number is more than a little bit high.
>
>Actually, no one has any idea how many enemy were killed. But it's certain
>it was more than 100, so the civilian death rate in Afghanistan wasn't even
>remotely 90%.
Michael Finkel reported in the New York Times Magazine (2/17/02) that
in the single Afghan district of Abdulgan, out of 15,000 residents,
the total number of dead during the war "has to run into the 1,000s."
An estimate in the Guardian (Jonathan Steele, 5/20/02) puts the
indirect death toll at 20,000. Nakamura Tetsu, a Japanese doctor who
heads an NGO that has worked in Afghanistan and Pakistan for 19 years,
has said that "tens of thousands" starved to death as a result of the
bombing ...
Padraig L Henry
Quite right, Mark.
The law distinguishes between premeditated murder and accidental
killing. But, as Arnold Chien has noted, quoting law professor Michael
Tonry:
"An action taken with a purpose to kill is no more culpable than an
action taken with some other purpose in mind but with knowledge that a
death will probably result. Blowing up an airplane to kill a passenger
is equivalent to blowing up an airplane to destroy a fake painting and
thereby to defraud an insurance company, knowing that the passengers
will be killed. Both are murder."
And both are murder even if the bomber regretted the fact that
innocent passengers had to die in the second example. Nor would the
bomber be absolved if he expressed regret for the slaughtered
passengers and then did the same thing again and again. Or say the
bomber doesn't know that passengers will be killed -- the bomb may go
off in the luggage hold before the passengers board -- but is
indifferent to the passengers' fate. Again, it is morally
reprehensible.
Admittedly the U.S. military could have killed more Afghan civilians
if it wanted to. But that doesn't refute the claim that Washington
showed a morally unacceptable disregard for the lives of Afghans.
Consider some analogies. Suppose al Qaeda could have targeted a sports
stadium to kill more people than in the World Trade Center, but chose
the WTC for its symbolic value. Would we say that this makes the WTC
attack not terrorism? Suppose a Palestinian bombed a passenger bus to
kill an Israeli soldier riding on the bus, but in the process killed
dozens of civilians. Isn't this terrorism?
Is it worse to kill a person eagerly than out of indifference?
Perhaps, but that's not the relevant comparison raised by the Afghan
war. Despite warnings from many food aid organizations that the U.S.
bombing put hundreds of thousands or millions of Afghan civilians at
increased risk of starvation, the United States continued with the
bombing. So the question becomes: is it worse to kill 3,000 people
eagerly or to risk the lives of an immensely greater number of people
out of indifference?
Padraig L Henry
wrote:
>
>"Padraig L Henry" <phe...@iol.ie> wrote in message
>news:3da62d8c...@news.iol.ie...
>> On Thu, 10 Oct 2002 04:46:16 -0500, "Felix Tiaka" <podz...@tiaka.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >This is what I have to offer. There is a high probability that his
>[Hussein's] nuclear
>> >weapons might be used against us.
>>
>> No one knows what weapons Saddam Hussein has. Most analysts assume
>> that he has biological and chemical weapons. No one believes he has
>> nuclear weapons. Israel is the only country in the Middle East with
>> nuclear weapons (around 200 war-heads).
>
>No, indeed, but there's a consensus that he is indeed building those nuclear
>weapons. There is tons written on places like the complexes in Tuwaitha.
There is no such consensus whatsoever. There is no evidence for this
whatsoever. There has been nothing whatever of substance written about
"the complexes in Tuwaitha", because no such nuclear "complexes"
exist. Where are your sources for the above fantasising?
>> We can presume that the most damning claims about the extent of his
>> arsenal are contained in two recent documents: the September 24, 2002
>> dossier issued by the British government and an October 4, 2002 report
>> by the CIA. There is good reason for thinking these documents
>> exaggerated. For example, the British dossier identifies several once
>> destroyed sites that it says have been rebuilt by the Iraqis. But Hans
>> Von Sponeck, the former UN humanitarian coordinator for Iraq, visited
>> two of these sites and found that in fact they were still destroyed
>> (http://www.irak.be/ned/bivv/iraq4questions4answers.htm ). Other
>> British reporters visited some of the sites listed in the dossier
>> (chosen by them) and found nothing suspicious (Guardian, 9/25/02).
>>
>> Even if these documents were not exaggerated, however, they would make
>> a good case for inspections, not war.
>
>Saddam has not shown a willingness to have unrestricted inspections which
>indicates that he is perhaps close to having nuclear weapons and is
>stalling.
That's some "perhaps" you've got there, chap. The lives of "perhaps"
millions, not to mention a major war illegally orchestrated by the US,
not to mention an unprecedented growth in international terrorism,
depend on that "perhaps". Incidentally, the US ( as with all other
countries with WMDs) has itself not shown any willingness to have
unrestricted inspections of its WMDs; what does this, perhaps,
indicate?
>In the position that he is in right now, facing an almost certain
>military response by the US, he is still being defiant. He's quiet insane
>really.
Is this supposed to be some kind of "argument"?
>That he led tv crews around some of his facilities proves little, he
>does this often.
You know this? Where are your sources?
>He should instead let inspectors have unrestricted access
>to all facilities and personnel. He should allow his scientists and their
>families be interviewed in safe territory, not under the watch of the
>republican guard. As of today he has done neither.
I think you've completely lost the plot here. The US WANTS WAR, NOT
INSPECTIONS, as members of Bush's gang keep telling the media. Only
the UN can stop this now.
>That Sponeck is led
>around the nose by Saddam is hardly anything new, the same could be said of
>the 2-3 other former inspectors, who have an uncanny ability to recite
>Chomsky by word.
So everyone in the UN is a Chomsky disciple now, eh? And in the very
unlikely event that such were the case, how does this alter the
empirically verifiable findings of their widely documented
inspections?
Child, in later life it is very likely you will deeply regret the
irresponsible prejudices and sentiments you now express here, as will
pro-war Americans, via their self-serving politicians, regret handing
over absolute world military power to a cabal of blood-lusting,
wannabe war criminals
>I think the case for war is quiet clear.
Well then, Felix, and your little fairy-bag of goblins and imaginary
tricks, please clarify that case for us, as your infantile prejudices
and out-of-a-hat assertions so far articulated conclusively reinforce
the very opposite.
Even if Hussein did have nuclear weapons (as you like to imagine),
there would be an even stronger case against illegally invading his
country, just as there is no case for invading such nuclear powers as
Pakistan, India, China, Russia, Israel, North Korea, France, Britain
or the US. Indeed, invading any country, whatever the justification,
with nuclear warheads would be potentially suicidal, as it could very
likely lead to nuclear catastrophy for large areas of the wider world
in the last resort.
Wars are inherently unpredictable and hence should be undertaken only
after meeting a very high burden of proof, especially when, as here,
we know that the scurrilous motives of Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld
will be operative, and with a zero burden of proof.
Padraig
Padraig L Henry
wrote:
>WARNING: very long and this will likely be my last post on this matter, as
>it pretty much exhausts everything I have to say, unless somebody says
>something truly Padraish.
Then you'd better prepare yourself for further bouts of exhaustion,
because nothing in your post even remotely justifies your embrace of a
suicidal imperialist war.
> But I would certainly rather have Jerry Falwell on my team
>than Noam Chomsky.
And you ask us to take your belligerent assertions and gung-ho
imperialism seriously?
>
>The anti-Western, anti-Christian, anti-Semitic, anti-modern strain of Islam.
>Besides al Qaeda and the Taliban, it includes other terrorist groups like
>Islamic Jihad, Hamas and Hezbollah; the ideology of Wahhabism; the
>anti-Semitic crusade against Israel; the Islamic Republic; and all who
>support and succor them in the Muslim world, which includes Saddam Hussein
>(with whom we also have some unfinished business from 1991). On that
>decision rests the question of whether this will be a short war or a
>decades-long clash of civilizations. Certainly, no peace could be worth it
>without a major reformation (or should that be Reformation) in Arab/Muslim
>political culture. The enemy may very well be Islam itself, only time and
>the Muslims themselves will tell on that front.
You are your own worst enemy if you believe that; clearly, your above
sentiments are intended to use the criminal activities of a small
bunch of CIA-created al Qaeda terrorists (who are now concentrating on
economic targets, like the recent attack on the French tanker) as a
pretext for immorally blackening and implicating over a billion people
(all those living under Islam) by eagerly labelling them "the enemy."
> Yes ... we understand that
>there's no evidence of any actual Iraqi role in September 11 and that Saddam
>was not al Qaeda's sponsor during the 1990s (although by the standard that
>the U.S. "backed" Saddam in the 1980s, Saddam certainly "backs" al Qaeda now
>and may even have then).
What evidence have you for this, apart from all the cheering? Cheering
is easy and cheap, anyone can do it, and hardly a pretext for mass
slaughter.
> As Bush has pointed out over the last week, it's
>not any one thing about Iraq that makes it a unique threat. It's the
>combination of Saddam Hussein's terrorist ties (more with other groups than
>al Qaeda, sure), his obvious Moby Dick efforts to get weapons of mass
>destruction, his demonstrated willingness and ability to use them, his
>demonstrated willingness to invade neighbors, and the terrorists'
>demonstrated willingness and ability to kill Americans by the thousands. No
>regime friendly to al Qaeda (to whatever extent) and as flamboyantly
>anti-American as Saddam's can be allowed to have weapons of mass
>destruction.
That is so arrogant Apart from the fact, unlike the US pre-9/11, that
Hussein has no demonstrated connection to al Qaeda, the rest of what
Bush says above applies equally to the US, having just demonstrated
its willingness and >intention< to invade Iraq, having already invaded
Afghanistan. Nobody should be allowed to have weapons of mass
destruction; this is the goal of the UN Security Council resolutions
and of all citizens opposed to the wanton destruction of human life.
>
>> and you're equating honesty about the us's misdeeds in the past
>> with "moral justification" about "deserving" 9/11.
>
>It's the context that makes it offensive. In a discussion of U.S. foreign
>policy toward Latin America or somesuch, mentioning and debating Pinochet is
>quite appropriate. In a discussion of September 11 or the worldview of
>Muslims or Arabs, Pinochet or Suharto is as relevant as the price of tea in
>China. And in a matter where the United States was wholly wronged, it can
>only serve as a statement of pure anti-Americanism.
Nonsense. Comparing US support for monsters like Pinochet and Suharto
with its previous support for Hussein, while commiting his worst
atrocities, is entirely legitimate, as it delineates the underlying
goals, which have nothing to do with "right" or "wrong", of its
foreign policies everywhere. Are you attempting to imply that the US
has never done wrong, ever? That it has never apologised or made
reparations for all the dispicable wrongs it has perpetrated in the
past is implicitly being used by you here as "evidence" of never
having done any wrong, of how "right" it is ... Brilliant.
The United States government does bear a special moral burden in
countries where it has caused great human suffering. But that doesn't
mean we should ask for intervention from a U.S. government that does
not recognize any moral debt, but is instead still intent on pursuing
the same immoral agenda that gave rise to that debt in the first
place.
The Iraqi government surely owes a special moral debt to the people of
Kuwait. Should we therefore urge Saddam Hussein to invade Kuwait to
end a corrupt and undemocratic monarchy?
If there were fundamental social change in the United States bringing
to office a new government committed to offering reparations for all
the international misdeeds carried out by previous U.S. governments,
then one might reasonably argue that some U.S. military action might
set things right in some part of the world (though even in this case,
there might still be many reasons to reject intervention). But when
the Bush administration -- whose only criticism of past U.S. policy is
that it has been insufficiently ruthless -- goes to war, it is
obfuscation to treat this as reparations.
You misunderstand the real nature of US foreign policy realpolitic:
"Oil of course plays a greater or lesser role in everything political
and economic that happens in the Mideast, sometimes forefront,
sometimes background. U.S. geopolitical and economic policies have as
one of their prime motives maintaining access to and virtual control
over oil sources around the globe. Pursuit of profit per se, and oil
profit, are at the foundation of U.S. institutional arrangements in
general, and thus impact our large-scale motives, of course. But the
idea that oil is the proximate reason for the attack on Afghanistan,
is very far fetched, just as the notion that the U.S. engaged in the
war in Vietnam to gain access to minerals within Vietnam was far
fetched. What is primarily at stake, geopolitically and economically,
is not access to specific resources (or pipeline routes) but the rules
of global interaction, the further delegitimating of international
law, the development of a replacement for the Cold War in this case, a
war on terrorism as well as actual concerns about terrorism itself."
-- Michael Albert.
>
>> the us gave him chemical weapons
>
>What is your basis for saying this? I'd like a citation, and yes, I AM
>calling you on it cause I don't think you know what you're talking about.
>
>First of all ... "the US" unmodified means the government. Saddam never was
>eligible for the Foreign Military Sales program (and Iraq hadn't been since
>the 1960s). Second ... "chemical weapons" are never sold (or "given") either
>by the U.S. government or any U.S. businesses (who don't have "chemical
>weapons" to sell or "give" in the first place).
>
>What you can show is that some U.S. companies sold him dual-use materials
>that HE used to make chemical weapons. But be careful where you go with that
>-- if you're saying that private U.S. sales of anything that could be used
>to make chemical weapons should be barred (and if you're not saying that,
>what IS the point), you're essentially supporting some of the most-onerous
>of the U.N. sanctions.
Nonsense and twisted reasoning again.
If we are to believe the U.S. and British governments, which claim -
without any evidence - that Hussein has been able to rebuild his WMD
programs by easily evading the sanctions, then those sanctions have
failed in their primary purpose.
Blocking weapons transfers and WMD components makes good sense -- and
not just to Iraq, but the sanctions regime in Iraq blocks far more
than military supplies. In July 2002, $5.4 billion worth of goods were
being held up, almost always at the insistence of the United States or
Britain, covering such supplies as water purification systems, sewage
pipes, medicines, hospital equipment, electricity and communications
infrastructure, and oil field equipment.
We should also note that Hussein's chemical munitions are not the only
weapons of mass destruction that have been used in Iraq. Far more
people have died -- and are still dying -- from the diseases
attributable to the U.S.-British sanctions than from Hussein's past
uses of mustard gas or tabun. Indeed, as Karl and John Mueller noted
in the mainstream journal Foreign Affairs (May-June 1999), "economic
sanctions may well have been a necessary cause of the deaths of more
people in Iraq than have been slain by all so-called weapons of mass
destruction throughout history."
The sanctions have undergone various changes, but in all versions the
people of Iraq have been the victims, while Hussein and his inner
circle have, if anything, been strengthened -- the exact opposite of
how sanctions ought to be targeted.
Victor Morton
<snip ... it's irrelevant>
Awwww ... dude. You promised to put me in your kill file the other day.
Victor
iHĞ
wrote:
>Padraig ranted:
More pertinently, why haven't you put yourself in your killfile yet?
From: Victor Morton <vjmo...@erols.com>
Subject: Re: NOT: Anti-American, Arundhati Roy
Date: Thu, 03 Oct 2002 14:22:14 -0400
Message-ID: <B9C20316.B46C%vjmo...@erols.com>
iHÐ wrote:
>It will have to stand as all you could muster unless and until you improve on
>it.
Bud ... I don't mind vigorously-stated disagreement or occasional
rhetorical excesses in re third parties, ideas and public figures. But
direct personal insults of an interlocutor -- "pathetic" "you little
fuck" "putrid pipsqueak" "creep" etc. -- are never morally acceptable,
even if you're right on the merits.
No ... there is one more thing I can do. Welcome to my killfile.
<PLUNK>
Victor
From: Victor Morton <vjmo...@erols.com>
Subject: Re: OT: Iran's leading filmmaker denied U.S. visa
Date: Sun, 06 Oct 2002 02:46:16 -0400
Message-ID: <B9C55477.B6CD%vjmo...@erols.com>
{{jump-cut to funny bit:}}
...arrogant, self-righteous fucking prick you are.
Victor
--
iHÐ
Can we expect another pathetic "Touche" [Message-ID:
<B9C218B7.B47E%vjmo...@erols.com>] in lieu of an attempt to fix your
moral compass so that it becomes capable of pointing at yourself?
Padraig L Henry
>On Sat, 12 Oct 2002 04:10:43 -0400, Victor Morton <vjmo...@erols.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Padraig ranted:
>>
>><snip ... it's irrelevant>
Given that you responded before you would have had time to read it,
your [pre] evaluation is very intriguing.
>>
>>Awwww ... dude. You promised to
<snip>.
No chance, he's demagnetised.
Padraig
Thornhill
> On Sat, 12 Oct 2002 04:10:43 -0400, Victor Morton <vjmo...@erols.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Padraig ranted:
> >
> ><snip ... it's irrelevant>
> >
> >Awwww ... dude. You promised to put me in your kill file the other day.
> >
> >
> >Victor
>
> More pertinently, why haven't you put yourself in your killfile yet?
But, wouldn't that be asking the Victor to become the Vanquished by
committing "lexicide"? And, is that even a reasonable expectation??
Thornhill
M4RV1N
actually wrote:
<just noticed this>
>But I would certainly rather have Jerry Falwell on my team
>than Noam Chomsky.
This is the single most ignorant statement I have ever come across on Usenet.
Anywhere, actually.
M4RV1N
writes:
>You were just such an "apologist for killers" in a recent thread.
Given you would not understand if I responded with reasoned argument (again)...
I shall wax analogic-poetic:
Your ability to understand my points in that thread is like the flying ability
of a butterfly superglued to a block of granite.
Flap, Jon, flap.
Mark Ervin
M4RV1N
writes:
> All of which to
>suggest that a tough stance against Saddam is not correlated with oil
>holdings.
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2002/09/29/MN116803.DTL
Oopsie. Delusion dam bursts.
Mark Ervin
Winston Castro
It also speaks volumes about the poster who made it. He has bought
into the US government's nationalistic rhetoric and nuevo-patriotic
fervor, hook, line and sinker...
JW Moore
>>JW Moore
>writes:
>
>>>>Your manifest hatred of America is blinding you to the fact
>>>>that al Qaeda, not Bush, set in motion the Afghan war,
>>>
>>>Wait a second. Bin Laden and company are partly a monster of our own
>>creation:
>
><excised busted link (sorry)>
>
>>>Surely you are aware of this.
>>>
>>
>>I am. What's your point?
>
>Let me repeat your quote.
>
>>the fact
>>>>that al Qaeda, not Bush, set in motion the Afghan war,
>
>It's Rube-Golberg foreign policy, Jack, for ever and ever, and ever. The final
>hammer hits us, and hits the innocent. Hard. It doesn't hit Bush and
>corporate buddies yet, but they don't care about the future.
>
Let's keep the focus on the immediate present, which increasingly
seems desperate. Look hard enough at any successful leader - FDR,
Kaiser Wilhelm, Abraham Lincoln, Napoleon, Catherine the Great,
Charlemagne - they all killed many innocent people for what they
rationalized to be the greater good. You're not arguing that the US
should have kept out of WW II, are you? And let's not pretend that
corporate cronyism began with Bush: it's the price of doing ze
beezeenezz… Suffice it to say, the world is a far more complicated
place than the demagogues on either "wing" would have us think. They'd
rather we not think at all.
>>That Osama is any less a monster?
>
>How do we measure monsterhood? Let me count the ways... Osama and friends
>killed around 3000 innocent people. Union Carbide killed 16,000 (and nobody on
>the payroll had to kill themselves in the process). You need to expand your
>thinking about what being a "monster" can entail. Please read this (it's just
>one example, but a crystal clear one):
>
Please don't ask me to quantify human life. Bhopal was an atrocity,
yes; I remember it well (reading about it I mean.). But is Union
Carbide more "monstrous" (>your< terminology BTW) than al Qaeda? At
least UC forked over the $470 million in atonement -- we're still
waiting for Osama's check. And where does Saddam Hussein fall on the
"monster" scale? It's a semantic exercise really, and a fairly
pointless one.
>http://www.earthrights.org/irtk/bhopal.html
>
>> If
>>anything, it makes it more incumbent on the US to drain that swamp we
>>filled over the years.
>
>The moral logic here is sound. I was in favor of removing the Taliban, but our
>method was not to drain a swamp but to bash a honet's nest. Do you know the
>number of Al Quaeda killed? Supposedly their numbers were 60,000. In all the
>promotions of our success (and we did free Afghanistan of a good deal of
>oppression--even though they still embrace a great deal of it) I have never
>heard this figure cited >anywhere<. They are gone elsewhere and everywhere.
>If we invade Iraqi, there are perhaps ten million Arabs who would be inspired
>to join or help Al Quaeda. War without end, indeed, Mr. Rumsfeld.
>
It should go without saying (but obviously doesn't) that the CIA,
Pentagon and various international intellegence agencies possess much
information that never reaches the general public. T'was ever thus.
Which is where a free press comes in -- to check the military
propaganda and find the leaky "faucets". No Islamic state has one. For
that matter neither do Russia or China, yet they are permanent members
of the UN Security Council.
But I digress...
>> who can reason with the neoconservative power brokers who
>>>run the White House? Are they encouraging debate or thought?
>
>>The debate is occurring as we speak
>
>What did Daschle say today?
>
"Me too." Call it Profiles in Poll-Reading.
>What does Rumsfeld say about those intelligent folks in the defense department,
>who know this invasion-occupation-democratization idea is distilled insanity,
>who have tried to stop it with endless leaks? Rumsfeld calls them, basically,
>traitors who want American soldiers to be killed. Bush condemns those who wish
>to debate as not carring about national security. These tactics have worked.
>As you point out:
>
>> the House of
>>Representatives, whose minority leader, Dick Gebhardt, is foursquare
>>in favor of military action against Saddam. Other right-wing whack
>>jobs like Joe Lieberman and John Edwards (odds-on favorite for Dem
>>prez nominee in 2004) have also signed up.
>
>>Surely you know that.
>
>Surely you know that I have no faith in the democratic party.
>
I must have missed that memo too.
>You do know that, don't you?
>
>Put it this way: I have no confidence in the Republicratic party.
>
Delighted to hear it. Next round's on me!
>
>>>There's no certainty here, but SK's attitude towards war and militarism in
>>>"Paths of Glory" and towards both of those plus politics in "Dr.
>>Strangelove"
>>>are clear. While not a complete pacifist (as he indicated in the Playboy
>>>interview) his skepticism about US motivations and immoral tactics was clear
>>in
>>>a wide range of comments. No rational person could argue that Kubrick would
>>be
>>>supportive of our actions in Vietnam, Central America, or the Middle East.
>>>
>>
>>You omit one salient fact: Kubrick was by all accounts a New Yorker
>>through and through.
>
>This is almost insidious, in implication. Are you saying a resident of New
>York, because the terrorism is closer to home, should be, by that fact, more
>aligned with unbridled militarism? If this is not the implication, then what
>did you mean?
>
You're putting words in my mouth. All I'm saying -- I did say -- that
it was "not out of the question" (as opposed to "a certainty") that
Stanley might have taken personal umbrage at having his hometown
attacked. This was mainly in response to the received wisdom that SK
would have recoiled at US policy in general and W in particular. I was
speculating, not insinuating. As an aside, I live less than 5 miles
from the Pentagon and know who had loved ones killed or injured on
Sept. 11. There are F-14s flying overhead 24 hrs. a day. My post
office was shut down for a week because of anthrax (a forgotten and
still-unsolved act of terrorism), and now we have a psycho sniper
randomly picking off people at an almost daily rate. We are, in short,
in a world of shit.
So... yeah, when terrorism hits "close to home" there is a natural
emotional response; IOW it is no longer an abstraction, like 3,000 or
16,000 or 1 million. You tend to take it personally. Would SK have
felt the same about New York? Once again, for the record, >I don't
know<. Neither do you. I can think of only a few people who might, and
they haven't weighed in to my knowledge
>Surely he would have been horrified by the Sept.
>>11 attacks, and pondered the possible "mating combinations". Among
>>other virtues, routing the Taliban addressed the terrorist threat by
>>killing or sending to ground bin Laden and many of his henchmen.
>
>There is no evidence of that. No one on any side thinks the that we have now
>"addressed the terrorist threat." No thinking person would say that. That the
>Taliban is no longer in power in Afghanistan is very good for most people
>there. They can dance, listen to music have pets, and as a big bonus women get
>an addtional 3% of the kind of treatment they would get here. But where are
>the Taliban folks at? They simply gave up almost at once, and have simply
>blended in the Afghan population, with the Afghanies' blessing.
>
Do you know any "Afghanies"? I do. They came here because they were
educated, which under the Taliban was tantamount to the death penalty.
Ending that regime was good for >everyone< there, especially for women
(who were treated worse than dogs under the Taliban). And yes, ending
a regime that openly harbors terrorists is one way of "addressing" the
terrorist threat - the word choice is deliberate - but a long way from
ending it. But you have to start somewhere. Where would you start?
>Drawing on the analogy above, these particular hornets don't sting right away,
>and they will never forget. And again, the Al Quaeda hornets are just >gone<
>(and I don't mean killed).
>
Nobody claims that al Qaeda has disappeared. To the contrary, they
just killed hundreds of people in Indonesia - INNOCENT people I might
add - and undoubtedly will keep killing until somebody stops them. If
not us, who? If not now, when?
> It is
>>not out of the question to think that Kubrick would have found this
>>response appropriate, expedient, maybe even moral. But it is not
>>certain either. I don't know. Part of me is thankful he didn't have to
>>witness the carnage. Let's leave it at that.
>>
>>>>There are
>>>>plenty of other NGs that would be happy to indulge your Yank-bashing
>>>>rants. Go there. And take Michael Moore with you.
>>>
>>>Padraig's verbal sparring tactics aside, he's one of the best contributor's
>>>this newsgroup has had. Moore has been associated with this group for years
>>>and sometimes posts. Like them or not, they and their ideas are welcome
>>here,
>>>and if you don't like them, either make an argument in opposition or ignore
>>>them (like everyone does Paulo).
>>>
>>
>>Ordinarily I would agree with you. But what you call "verbal sparring"
>>I call simplistic demagoguery, based on no "ideas" other than
>>knee-jerk prejudices. There are principled objections to be made
>>against any number of American policies, but there is nothing
>>principled about the abuse Padraig heaps on anyone with the audacity
>>to question him.
>
>You wanted an argument. This is abuse.
No it isn't!
>(Sorry, that's line from Monty
>Python).
No need to apologize. We need more existential humor on this NG!
> Padraig does hit people with ad hominems, I tend not to unless they
>just can't think at all. But there are facts in his posts as well. As I say,
>fire back with arguments if you've got them, and point out where he does not
>address them intelligently, or ignore him.
>
What actually set me off was the implication that Kubrick fandom was
subject to a ideological litmus test. Like I said, the Usenet has no
shortage of NGs for Padraig's brand of "argument." There has to be a
line somewhere, and IT's RIGHT OUT!.
>On Michael Moore, you underestimate him, if I may say so. He pretends to be a
>working-class Joe to reach a big audience, but he is >quite< perceptive and
>thoughtful.
>
There are more thoughtful liberals out there IMO. Moore's bubba-hat
populist schtick wore thin for me long ago. But I enjoyed his TV show
… what was it called? ... "TV Nation" I believe. He had a picnic with
Dr. Kevorkian with the song "Afternoon Delight" in the background. A
total hoot. Like most filmmakers, indeed like Kubrick, Gilliam and
Moore should stick to making films.
>And I don't care how long someone's been posting here
>>-- nobody should have to defend their love of SK's work based on such
>>unrelated matters. Should they? Or is there some vesting clause I
>>don't know about?
>
>The thing about SK's work, is that he >wanted to deal with the most important
>issues that face mankind<. That's >his< choice, and it certainly follows to me
>that people who see the quality of his work would also care deeply about such
>things. Alt.movies.kubrick has always discussed such topics, more or less
>relating them to his films, as might be. This is in the TKS meta-FAQ
>somewhere.
>
Is it not possible to "care" yet disagree? Moral ambiguity (for lack
of a better word) was a hallmark of Kubrick's films. No other
filmmaker I know of could make a sociopath like Alex into something
like a sympathetic character, or turn a computer into a villain (and
then a victim of sorts), or make a comedy out of Armageddon. If he had
an agenda, it was to expose the hypocricy that underlies many facile
conventions and verities.
>>Indeed, there is a pronounced paucity of constructive ideas here: What
>>exactly should the US do, exactly? Wait patiently for the next round
>>of attacks?
>
>Think about innocent people, and how our actions would hurt or help them, now
>and in the future. How's that for a novel approach?
>
What about the thousands of people who have already been killed, are
being killed right now and will be killed in the future? For the
umpteenth time: what >action< are we to undertake in order to prevent
future slaughter? Omphaloskepsis is not an option.
>Toady up to the Russians and Chinese to secure yet another
>>ineffectual UN "demand" for "unfettered" inspections of Iraq?
>
>What would happen if we stopped the sale of Iraqi oil to anyone, until they
>comply, while allowing shipment of food into the country? Again a novel idea
>inconceivable in the present mindset.
That dog won't hunt. In fact, there is >already< a US oil embargo
against Iraq. If oil were the motivation, we would simply lift it!
Meanwhile our good friends Russia, China and France are waist-deep in
Iraqi oil. And we've learned from decades of despots and throughout
the world that dictatorships ultimately control the availability of
foreign goods, especially food, to the masses, reserving the most and
best imports for themselves and their households. And so it goes …
>
> What?
>>Michael Moore and his ilk offer little beyond the boilerplate assaults
>>on Bush
>
>If the assaults were not devastating, no character assassination would be
>necessary.
>
Whatever. One man's "devastating assaults" are another's "character
assassination." More unavailing semantics.
>and vague insistence on an "internation coalition" -- as if
>>that were an end unto itself.
>
>What are the implications of (alternatively) an "international coalition" of
>fundamentalist arabs united against us? Are you clearly aware of what a
>knife-edge Pakistan is walking on, right this moment? What is the comparitive
>nuclear weapons threat--Iraq versus Pakistan?
>
First, there is no more support of Saddam among Arab or other Muslim
states today than there was during Desert Storm. Iran spent most of a
decade (and a million people) trying to defeat Iraq. The Kurds
obviously bear him little affection, and the Shiites even less.
Second, Pakistan is not a model world citizen, to be sure, but
Musharraf is a marked improvement over his predecessor. It would be
wonderful if we could retroactively disarm Pakistan (and India, and
Russia, and ... ) but the real world doesn't work that way. Third, the
question of Iraq having nukes: if Saddam doesn't have them already,
it seems we should do everything possible to keep it that way. But it
is important to note that he is >already< in violation of
international law. Either that means something or it doesn't -- if it
doesn't, let's at least be honest enough to say so.
My point, lest it be lost completely, was simply that one builds a
coalition to attain some tangible result, not just for the exercise of
coalition-building. One need not >necessarily< abandon the goal for
lack of a coalition if it can be attained otherwise.
>>
>>And I'll ask again the question you conveniently snipped: where was
>>this righteous indignation four years ago?
>
>Compare and contrast the situations and the potential gravity of outcomes, and
>then I'll answer this one.
>
It's a rhetorical question, obviously. My objection is not to any
particular presidential policy, but rather to the fecklessness and
intellectual dishonesty of those who now condemn the same policy they
once praised (or purposely ignored). If overthrowing Saddam is wrong
today, it was wrong four years ago, no matter which administration is
in power. Personally, I care less about Saddam than what may come
after him and how long we'll have to stay. But I appreciate your not
calling me a coffee-nosed malodorous pervert.
Lucky I didn't say anything about the dirty knife…
~~Jack