The Parable of the Two Giants Once upon a time, two giants stared at each other from the far ends of the Earth, with blackest hate gleaming in their eyes, each wanting nothing more than to stomp over there and beat the other one bloody. They both knew that if they ever went ahead and did it, they would probably wind up killing not only themselves and each other but also all the other folks that had chosen up sides and gathered around the two of them. Eventually, one of them died of natural causes, leaving the other giant alone with the title of He With The Biggest Club. Satisfied, he turned away and tried to go sit off by himself and figure out what to do with himself now. But the others wouldn't leave him alone. They resented knowing that one giant remained, and that they could never be the biggest or strongest as long as he was still around. Some tried to band together, standing on each other's shoulders and shouting with many voices, "Look at me! I'm as big as you!" Others kicked him in the shins, spat in his face, and sneered, "You ain't so tough." The giant could have knocked down the pyramid or swatted away the bothersome annoyances, but he was oh, so very tired, and he wanted to see the others grow so that he might have friends who were his equals, and perhaps take on some of the responsibilities, such as protecting the weak from the wild animals of the forest, and feeding and housing and clothing them, and caring for them when they were sick, which he had been shouldering for so very long. So, he paid them as little attention as he could manage, which seemed only to infuriate the pyramid-builders. They didn't want to be ignored. They wanted the giant to admit that they had as much power as he did. Failing to receive such validation, they took it upon themselves to use what power they did have to make life as difficult for the giant as they could manage. The giant smiled weakly and continued to try to ignore them, instead focusing on other, personal matters. Meanwhile, the same lack of attention emboldened the shin- kickers. They started kicking harder, at more and more sensitive areas, and watched the giant flinch and brush off the attack, then move on. This led them to believe they could do anything they wanted to the giant, look tough to their friends, and intimidate their enemies, without risking any serious consequences. Occasionally, they kicked too hard, or in a particularly sensitive spot, and the giant smacked them as if swatting a mosquito. However, the giant never bothered to work out where the mosquitos were coming from. A few times, reluctantly and with great trepidation, the giant listened to the pleas for help from some of those who were being attacked by their neighbors and stepped in to put a stop to it. He did this not out of any personal stake, but because something needed to be done and he was best qualified to do it. He would have preferred that the parties involved worked things out among themselves, but that rarely happened. The task done, he turned once again to his own affairs and let the rest of the world go to hell in its own way. Then, one day, while the giant was napping, some of the lowest echelon of shin-kickers, in the ultimate display of misplaced bravado, walked into the giant's house and hit him where he lived, so to speak. Shocked and furious, the giant looked around at the world he had been ignoring and saw what had flourished in the power vacuum left after the sudden ending of his conflict with his erstwhile foe. He was dismayed, disgusted, and distressed. So much had gone so wrong so quickly. He had saved them. They were supposed to be better than this. Yet all they had thought of to do was to compare themselves to him, and come up short in their own eyes. The world was broken. There was only one thing to do about it. The giant would have to fix it. Not because he wanted to. Not because it made him feel good. Not because he wanted to take anything away from any of the others or subsume them into himself. Only this: Because somebody had to do it, and he was best qualified. Slowly, heavily, the giant picked up his burden once again and set off to make the world a better place and put an end to those who would tear it down. And they all hated him for it. --- To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
Oaky Joe, now this is ridiculous. The US isn't the saint you're making it look like all the time. Your parable seems to ignore the fact that the US helped numerous dictators get in control of their countries. The US overthrew many democracies. The US used its army to secure economic interests. Basically, it's been behaving like any other country. What were you trying to achieve with this parable, which looks like it was designed for children?
--------------------------------- Do You Yahoo!? -- Une adresse @yahoo.fr gratuite et en français ! Testez le nouveau Yahoo! Mail
So, given your charges and the above, by her own expressed new "order" where slippery slope arguments suffice to launch "preventive operations" against "terrorist" nations, should the USA not be attacked in order to facilitate "regime change"? The answer, in an insane world, might be yes. The trouble is, there is no one body that can successfully achieve this, and in any case, as we are seeing ad nauseam on television, all war is harmful, to all parties involved in it, and particularly to those caught in the cross-fire. Perhaps the only lesson to be drawn from the actual situation, as opposed to poor analogy, is that might is right. An argument that it seems that all giants eventually offer, without bothering to explain just why this should be so.
Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The United States now appears to hold absolute power. The corollary is evident in her actions. Nevertheless, those of her citizens, engaged in advocating and justifying such ethically suspect dicta, would rather see her as a "jolly green giant" even when this means that they are forced to live in an ever more deluded world, inhabited largely by highly suspect, reality denying, mythical analogies. But then we knew all that already.
So why bother entering into discussion with the deluded? More especially, why give the deluded the attention they so desperately seek, in the not entirely mistaken idea that the engagement of the credible validates their assertions and hence their sanity.
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
Neither of your links support your assertion. The "World Court did rule against the Reagan administration in the Nicaragua case" suddenly translates into "The US is the only country so far proven to have engaged in terrorism against another country in the International court"?
The World Court demanded the US stop supporting the Contras. The US ignored it (in my opinion rightly so).
The US congress chose to stop any support for the Contras in the mid eighties. We know that the Reagan administration tried to keep supporting their allies by other means - leading to the Irangate affair.
This was not terrorism, was all Cold War related and 20 years ago.
I am going to be checking your sums from now on old pal. I don't think you are being as careful with your "facts" and figures as I might expect of a respected fellow Virian.
You might want to abandon this tactic of presenting Cold War era events out of context and pretending they have any relevance to the 21st century situation. It makes you look like a desperate anti-US radical and confuses our search for some useful truths by serving up 20 year old irrelevancies for our consideration.
Kind regards
Jonathan
« Last Edit: 2003-03-24 09:51:15 by Jonathan Davis »
> > Oaky Joe, now this is ridiculous. The US isn't the saint you're making > it look like all the time. Your parable seems to ignore the fact that > the US helped numerous dictators get in control of their countries. > The US overthrew many democracies. The US used its army to secure > economic interests. Basically, it's been behaving like any other > country. What were you trying to achieve with this parable, which > looks like it was designed for children? > It was written by someone else. And the helping dictators thing is ancient history. Since the Soviet Union fell apart, the US has been preventing dictators from slaughtering or starving their people - in Haiti, Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo, and the two latest countries whose names are filtered. > > Do You Yahoo!? -- Une adresse @yahoo.fr gratuite et en français ! > Testez le nouveau Yahoo! Mail
Re:virus: The Parable of the Two Giants
« Reply #5 on: 2003-03-25 00:47:47 »
[Sun Tzu 1] [Hermit 2]
[Jonathan Davis 3] Neither of your links support your assertion. The "World Court did rule against the Reagan administration in the Nicaragua case" suddenly translates into "The US is the only country so far proven to have engaged in terrorism against another country in the International court"?
[Hermit 4] Perhaps you should have read the findings of fact before making the assertions you do. I didn't think the extremely lengthy formal judgement (e.g. at Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua, Nicaragua v. United States of America, Merits, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1986, p. 14.1986-06-27) was misportrayed by the referenced articles, and note that the first, exerpted from "Terrorism and War" by Howard Zinn was titled "A Brief History of Terrorism by the USA" which seems to support my assertion rather directly, and the second includes, "the mining of Nicaragua's harbors" which given the lack of a state of war, the lack of warning, and the civilian vessels damaged and non-combatants killed and wounded was an act of terrorism. Further, I have studied the formal judgement and as I cite below, think that my assertions were fair, appropriate and are well supported by the actual judgement.
[Hermit 4] Refer particularly 75-80 supra, "the Court finds it established that, on a date in late 1983 or early 1984, the President of the United States authorized a United States government agency to lay mines in Nicaraguan ports; that in early 1984 mines were laid in or close to the ports of El Bluff, Corinto and Puerto Sandino, either in Nicaraguan internal waters or in its territorial sea or both, by persons in the pay and acting on the instructions of that agency, under the supervision and with the logistic support of United States agents; that neither before the laying of the mines, nor subsequently, did the United States Government issue any public and official warning to international shipping of the existence and location of the mines; and that personal and material injury was caused by the explosion of the mines, which also created risks causing a rise in marine insurance rates." (an act of terrorism, vide US assertions in the action against the USS Cole and further against the Hague Convention No. VIII, vide 212-215 supra as well as 249-255) and 81-86 supra in particular in 86, "the Court finds the remaining incidents listed in paragraph 81 to be established":
(ii) 13 September 1983: an underwater oil pipeline and part of the oil terminal at Puerto Sandino were blown up; (iv) 10 October 1983: an attack was made by air and sea on the port of Corinto, involving the destruction of five oil storage tanks, the loss of millions of gallons of fuel, and the evacuation of large numbers of the local population; (v) 14 October 1983: the underwater oil pipeline at Puerto Sandino was again blown up; (vi) 4/5 January 1984: an attack was made by speedboats and helicopters using rockets against the Potosi Naval Base; (viii) 7 March 1984: an attack was made on oil and storage facility at San Juan del Sur by speedboats and helicopters; (ix) 28/30 March 1984: clashes occurred at Puerto Sandino between speedboats, in the course of minelaying operations, and Nicaraguan patrol boats; intervention by a helicopter in support of the speedboats; (x) 9 April 1984: a helicopter allegedly launched from a mother ship in international waters provided fire support for an ARDE attack on San Juan del Norte.
If the above were not acts of terrorism, it is difficult to imagine what would count as terrorism, and as a perusal of the document will show, the court indeed made a finding of culpability, vide, "The imputability to the United States of these attacks appears therefore to the Court to be established."
[Hermit 4] Further, in 122 supra, "122. The Court concludes that in 1983 an agency of the United States Government supplied to the FDN a manual on psychological guerrilla warfare which, while expressly discouraging indiscriminate violence against civilians, considered the possible necessity of shooting civilians who were attempting to leave a town; and advised the "neutralization" for propaganda purposes of local judges, officials or notables after the semblance of trial in the presence of the population. The text supplied to the contras also advised the use of professional criminals to perform unspecified "jobs", and the use of provocation at mass demonstrations to produce violence on the part of the authorities so as to make "martyrs". "
[Hermit 4] The specific section is quoted at length in 118 supra, and includes, "Specific tasks will be assigned to others, in order to create a martyr' for the cause, taking the demonstrators to a confrontation with the authorities, in order to bring about uprisings or shootings, which will cause the death of one or more persons, who would become the martyrs, a situation that should be made use of immediately against the regime, in order to create greater conflicts."" I would suggest that it is difficult for me to envisage this as anything but terrorism. This view is further supported by the Court in 255-256 supra, inter alia, vide 255 supra, "The Court has also found (paragraphs 219 and 220 above) that general principles of humanitarian law include a particular prohibition, accepted by States, and extending to activities which occur in the context of armed conflicts, whether international in character or not. By virtue of such general principles, the United States is bound to refrain from encouragement of persons or groups engaged in the conflict in Nicaragua to commit violations of Article 3 which is common to all four Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949. The question here does not of course relate to the definition of the circumstances in which one State may be regarded as responsible for acts carried out by another State, which probably do not include the possibility of incitement. The Court takes note of the advice given in the manual on psychological operations to "neutralize" certain "carefully selected and planned targets", including judges, police officers, State Security officials, etc., after the local population have been gathered in order to "take part in the act and formulate accusations against the oppressor". In the view of the Court, this must be regarded as contrary to the prohibition in Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, with respect to non-combatants, of
"the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples"
and probably also of the prohibition of "violence to life and person, in particular murder to all kinds, . . .". "
[Hermit 4] Finally in the specific findings, the Court:
292 (4) supra, "Decides that the United States of America, by certain attacks on Nicaraguan territory in 1983-1984, namely attacks on Puerto Sandino on 13 September and 14 October 1983 ; an attack on Corinto on 10 October 1983 ; an attack on Potosi Naval Base on 4/5 January 1984; an attack on San Juan del Sur on 7 March 1984; attacks on patrol boats at Puerto Sandino on 28 and 30 March 1984; and an attack on San Juan del Norte on 9 April 1984; and further by those acts of intervention referred to in subparagraph (3) hereof which involve the use of force, has acted, against the Republic of Nicaragua, in breach of its obligation under customary international law not to use force against another State;"
292 (6) supra, "Decides that, by laying mines in the internal or territorial waters of the Republic of Nicaragua during the first months of 1984, the United States of America has acted, against the Republic of Nicaragua, in breach of its obligations under customary international law not to use force against another State, not to intervene in its affairs, not to violate its sovereignty and not to interrupt peaceful maritime commerce;"
292( 8 ) supra, "Decides that the United States of America, by failing to make known the existence and location of the mines laid by it, referred to in subparagraph (6) hereof, has acted in breach of its obligations under customary international law in this respect;"
292(9) supra, "Finds that the United States of America, by producing in 1983 a manual entitled Operaciones sicologicas en guerra de guerrillas, and disseminating it to contra forces, has encouraged the commission by them of acts contrary to general principles of humanitarian law; but does not find a basis for concluding that any such acts which may have been committed are imputable to the United States of America as acts of the United States of America;"
[Jonathan Davis 3] The World Court demanded the US stop supporting the Contras. The US ignored it (in my opinion rightly so).
[Hermit 4] This ignores the findings of fact - where the US engaged in terrorism. Further, I choose to prefer the Court's supported findings over your unsupported opinions.
[Hermit 4] It should be noted that your assertions regarding US responsibility via the contras were specifically not judged by the court (in a very Scotish (unproven) finding), on the grounds that it was not proven that the US directly controlled the contras (vide 93 - 116 supra and 216 supra), as well as 277 supra, "Even if the provision for "equitable treatment" in the Treaty is read as involving an obligation not to kill, wound or kidnap Nicaraguan citizens in Nicaragua -- as to which the Court expresses no opinion -- those acts of the contras performed in the course of their military or paramilitary activities in Nicaragua are not conduct attributable to the United States.", even though, 228 "the Court finds that, subject to the question whether the action of the United States might be justified as an exercise of the right of self-defence, the United States has committed a prima facie violation of that principle by its assistance to the contras in Nicaragua, by "organizing or encouraging the organization of irregular forces or armed bands . . . for incursion into the territory of another State", and "participating in acts of civil strife . . . in another State", in the terms of General Assembly resolution 2625 (XXV)." which should be read with 238 supra, "Accordingly, the Court concludes that the plea of collective self-defence against an alleged armed attack on El Salvador, Honduras or Costa Rica, advanced by the United States to justify its conduct toward Nicaragua, cannot be upheld; and accordingly that the United States has violated the principle prohibiting recourse to the threat or use of force by the acts listed in paragraph 227 above, and by its assistance to the contras to the extent that this assistance "involve[s] a threat or use of force" (paragraph 228 above)."
[Hermit 4] From this the court concluded, 241 supra "It appears to the Court to be clearly established first, that the United States intended, by its support of the contras, to coerce the Government of Nicaragua in respect of matters in which each State is permitted, by the principle of State sovereignty, to decide freely (see paragraph 205 above); and secondly that the intention of the contras themselves was to overthrow the present Government of Nicaragua. The 1983 Report of the Intelligence Committee refers to the contras' "openly acknowledged goal of overthrowing the Sandinistas". Even if it be accepted, for the sake of argument, that the objective of the United States in assisting the contras was solely to interdict the supply of arms to the armed opposition in El Salvador, it strains belief to suppose that a body formed in armed opposition to the Government of Nicaragua, and calling itself the "Nicaraguan Democratic Force", intended only to check Nicaraguan interference in El Salvador and did not intend to achieve violent change of government in Nicaragua. The Court considers that in international law, if one State, with a view to the coercion of another State, supports and assists armed bands in that State whose purpose is to overthrow the government of that State, that amounts to an intervention by the one State in the internal affairs of the other, whether or not the political objective of the State giving such support and assistance is equally far-reaching." and 242 supra, "The Court therefore finds that the support given by the United States, up to the end of September 1984, to the military and paramilitary activities of the contras in Nicaragua, by financial support, training, supply of weapons, intelligence and logistic support, constitutes a clear breach of the principle of non-intervention."
[Jonathan Davis 3] The US congress chose to stop any support for the Contras in the mid eighties. We know that the Reagan administration tried to keep supporting their allies by other means - leading to the Irangate affair.
[Hermit 4] I'm sure you don't mean to assert that this excused their earlier terrorism, or persuaded those most nearly concerned with implementing these policies and who are now driving US policy that terrorism was unacceptable? After all, we know from current action that they and their poodle are currently ignoring the Courts dicta on a wholesale basis, else how do we explain Iraq in the light of:
"The Court now turns to another factor which bears both upon domestic policy and foreign policy. This is the militarization of Nicaragua, which the United States deems excessive and such as to prove its aggressive intent, and in which it finds another argument to justify its activities with regard to Nicaragua. It is irrelevant and inappropriate, in the Court's opinion, to pass upon this allegation of the United States, since in international law there are no rules, other than such rules as may be accepted by the State concerned, by treaty or otherwise, whereby the level of armaments of a sovereign State can be limited, and this principle is valid for all States without exception."
"In the view of the Court, under international law in force today -- whether customary international law or that of the United Nations system -- States do not have a right of "collective" armed response to acts which do not constitute an "armed attack"."
"the alleged right of intervention as the manifestation of a policy of force, such as has, in the past, given rise to most serious abuses and such as cannot, whatever be the present defects in international organization, find a place in international law. Intervention is perhaps still less admissible in the particular form it would take here; for, from the nature of things, it would be reserved for the most powerful States, and might easily lead to perverting the administration of international justice itself." (I.C.J. Reports 1949, p. 35.) "
[Jonathan Davis 3] This was not terrorism, was all Cold War related and 20 years ago.
[Hermit 4] Attempting to write these findings of fact off to "This was not terrorism, was all Cold War related and 20 years ago" is absurd. This was undoubtedly "terrorism", and the attempted justification of the terrorism was specifically and repeatedly rejected by the court. So it is difficult to comprehend how you can now attempt to reject the findings of fact and judicial dicta on your asertion, or attempt to trivialize the heinious crimes involved by ascribing them to the "Cold War". In addition, given the ongoing complicity of those involved in the Nicaragua affair in US and particularly NeoCon driven US politics, your putative attempt to consign these crimes to history is, in my opinion, ludicrous in the extreme.
[Jonathan Davis 3] I am going to be checking your sums from now on old pal. I don't think you are being as careful with your "facts" and figures as I might expect of a respected fellow Virian.
[Hermit 4] I always advocate that others check anything provided, and suggest that my justification for my position using the readily accessible judgement indicates that your jibe applies better to yourself than to me.
[Jonathan Davis 3] You might want to abandon this tactic of presenting Cold War era events out of context and pretending they have any relevance to the 21st century situation. It makes you look like a desperate anti-US radical and confuses our search for some useful truths by serving up 20 year old irrelevancies for our consideration.
[Hermit 4] If I saw evidence that the people running the show in the US were not the same as those involved in those supposed "Cold War era events" or indications that the US were a little more prepared to respect International law and opinion, or even if I did not think that the US was not sewing a hurricane for itself and the world I might not argue as I do. However, I think that you will find that no matter how many badly argued opinions you might submit, the facts show otherwise. I think that dubya has created a "Soweto COINOP" situation for the US in Afghanistan and another in Iraq, and fear that painfully purchased global stability will take another century or more to recover from the damage inflicted by just 3 years of his monkeying around. I know you disagree to the extent of attempting to defend the plagiarised "Jolly Green Giant" mythos. Which is why I have merely noted - and ignored - your opinions on the Dawkins passage as being of little relevance - and why I have restricted this particular response to a refutation of your opinion masquerading as fact.
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
Re:virus: The Parable of the Two Giants
« Reply #6 on: 2003-03-25 07:17:22 »
Hermit,
The court does not mention "terrorism" anywhere. It is you who has adjudged mining to constitute "terrorism". This would stretch almost any definition of terrorism to absurdity.
One also has to ask a salient question when I am confronted by most of your anti-American claims: so what?
That the US (and virtually every country with any power whatever) has acted disgracefully at certain points in its history is neither novel information nor illuminating.
As Fred Reed noted in this week's FOE column: "Morality? Countries have none. They pretend for political effect. China objects to our brutalizing of Iraq, yet was perfectly happy to brutalize Tibet. France objects to our behavior in the Mid-East but behaved savagely in Algeria. Countries celebrate defensive wars to drive out invaders but, a few years later, are invading someone else's country. It's how we are. You might as well look for morality in a used-car lot. " [ http://fredoneverything.net/FreeWill.shtml ]
Is your apparent anti-US stance simply an attempt to take on US chauvinism; an attempt to balance the jingoism of the US with some sobering facts about it's past?
If that is your intention then I think it is worthwhile. A friend chiding a friend for being over zealous. A noble aim.
That said, since I have participated in this forum I have never seen you waver from what I would describe as an intensely anti-American position. I cannot recount a single positive paragraph about the US in the tens of thousands of your words that I have read in this forum.
I really only started involving myself in the CoV after September the 11th 2001. Since then you and I have journeyed through the intellectual aftermath of that attack, the Afghan war, the CoV schism, the build up for the Iraqi war and now the war itself.
Your position has always been a sort of inverse partisan: fiercely and predictably attacking everything American, predicting the worst of every enterprise and consistently operating in bad faith where there is any scope for interpretation of actions or words.
This smacks of the type chauvinism you might be attempting to fight in your American neighbours.
Please forgive all this focusing on you and your motivations. They have no real relevance on the merits of your arguments and I am not trying to say that they do.
You fierce anti-American 'attitude' does however affect my reaction to what you write about US related matters (and it may have a similar effect on others in your audience)
I would consider it as one of your (very few) weakness. Like all preset ideas that generate strong emotions, it leads to a cognitive blind spot. It can allow one to be manipulated and in your case, it has resulted in you poisoning your own well (at least as far as I am concerned).
Re:virus: The Parable of the Two Giants
« Reply #7 on: 2003-03-25 09:03:00 »
Your attempted aspersions miss the mark again.
To be against policies I see as hypocritical, stupid, unjust and wrong-headed, and indeed, against the people and parties proposing such, is not to be against either a country or the people of such a country. Indeed, the only time I am against a country is where there is compelling evidence that the vast majority of its population actually benefit through injuring the lives of others. Such examples are few and far between. Three that come to mind are Serbia (vs the Croats), Israel (vs the Palestinians) and Indonesia (vs East Timor). In the case of the US, this is palpably far from the truth. In my eyes, most US government actions these days seem more prejudicial to herself and the welfare of her own citizens than they are to those of other nations, in everything bar blood. So no, despite your and McPees' caterwalling, in the best McCarthyite style of those currently baying at the supposedly anti-American (i.e. anyone not wholeheartedly endorsing the urge to war and the NeoCon (Israeli) agenda), I am not "anti-American." This despite despising dubya, his cronies, and those few of his supporters intelligent - and cynical - enough to see that he can be used to increase the importance of the US, not through anything uplifting, but by knocking the rest of the world (excluding Israel) into chaos. I'm not particularly "anti-British" either, despite my embarrassment at holding her passport and thinking that dubya's poodle has possibly involved her in a greater debacle than even the Suez craziness. Hell, I'm not even "anti-Iraq" despite all the propaganda asserting that I should be - because I have seen no evidence that I should be.
In the case of the US, I largely blame an education system which has left the vast bulk of her citizens unable to discriminate between information and propaganda intended to drag them willy-nilly down a path by an unelected despot too stupid or too fervent to see that it leads to the need for ever increasing actions against everyone, until what once served as a testbench for some of the greatest political idea to hit mankind, has apparently decided to immolate itself in a cloud of jingoistic polemics without ever achieving its true potential. And as I think that would be a pity, I try to do what I can to change that. As I am of the opinion that most of the harm done by the West as a whole, and currently, very specifically, the US, is caused by her complete inability to grasp the importance of tribal affairs to nations which have never comprehended or accepted the concept of a country, and our attempts to force disparate groups into inconvenient, ill-assorted conglomerates where no member is able to realize its own self-objectives due to internal tension, all the while profiting vastly from the resources of these as we watch them slip ever further into chaos, subjugation and debt, I try to draw attention to such issues.
This does not mean I am anti-the-West either. As you should know, I am not. For historic reasons, the West has been left as the standard bearer of science, industrial undertaking and humanism, the only systems under which significant progress for individuals has occurred. Yet, even in the West, our actions are bringing these issues into disrepute. As for how the rest of the world sees them, I shudder to think. As standard bearers, we are doing a miserable job. Our standards are now largely perceived as part of the battery of colonialism, subjugation, enslavement and inhumanity by those who have experienced our not-terribly-tender mercies.
If you have not read anything positive about America written by me, then either you have not read sufficient of my writings or perhaps it is just that you are looking for "positive" writings about the things you imagine are important, and which I possibly see as trivial, hypocritical or even harmful. You see, the positive I see in the US is not found in those set in their ways or unable to think. It is not in the "Republican ideals" of a system long broken. The "positive" I see lies in the goodwill, optimism and dynamism of the youth and those few others who have not yet been made entirely apathetic by a system which, IMO, had it been designed to produce apathy, hypocricy and hysteria, could hardly do a better job of it. It is in the appreciation of the competence and idealism of those I have worked with here, in scientific and military fields. It is in the farmers of the MidWest, who have undergone vast challenges in the past century, and still manage to relate to the land. It is in the sheer wealth of this country, unmatched by any other, and its consequent ability, if directed towards improving the world to do so - and in so doing, could improve its own lot beyond belief. You see, as I said, things which, from your words, I don't think you see as important. And while, on the one hand, you are, perhaps, not atypical of many Americans on the other, they are not the Americans I am speaking with. So I really don't mind if you have an opinion of me at odds with how I - and others see me, but please don't imagine for a moment that your image of me represents anything other than that. A picture in your minds eye. Any conclusions you may attempt to draw from that will likely say more about you than they might about me.
PS. The court found that the US had engaged in activities which the US has characterised as terrorism. Should you - or anyone else - attempt to mine Puget Sound, and in consequence, some fishing boats were sunk do you imagine for an instant that you would not be charged, tried and convicted of terrorism? If that is the case, you are more naive than bin Laden - or General Franks.
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
Re:virus: The Parable of the Two Giants
« Reply #8 on: 2003-03-25 12:12:04 »
Dear Hermit,
There were no aspersions at any time to hit your imagined marks.
So you are claiming neutrality? You suggest that you have a disinterested contempt for all hypocrisy, stupidity, injustice and wrong-headedness in general and this accounts for what might appear to be anti-American sentiment. This in turn suggest that America is uniquely hypocritical, stupid, unjust and wrong-headed by the simple fact that you next to never single out anyone else for this attention.
This sounds like a clever fudge. "It is not that I hate America, it is just that America is odious and naturally I hate what is odious." You have a way of sneaking in assumed premises that I genuinely envy.
It is a measure of how different we see the world that I am a firm supporter of Israel and the Serbs. We are agreed on the Indonesians being a nasty bunch but I am sure you will concede there are usually two sides to every story.
As for the US, I see it as trying to cope with a very difficult situation that it finds itself in. I am pro-American. I am positively disposed towards the USA but of course this does not mean I am blind to its fault. That is my bias. Yours is the inverse.
So whilst you may declare you are not "anti-American" de jure, you are de facto (This is independent of specific policy endorsements and refers to attitude).
Come to think of it, do you actually support anything apart from the Croats and Palestinians?
I am curious about your attitude to Britain. You say you are not particularly "anti-British" but are embarrassed to hold a British passport. Why are you embarrassed about this? Britain under Tony Blair is certainly not a US lapdog. They are an extremely highly respected ally. Wave your that British passport of yours in some New York hotels and you will find you get a 20% discount on your bill.
I take it you think this Iraq mission is/will be a disaster? This echoes your insistent claims before the Afghan war that it would be a bloodbath and millions of Afghans would starve. I suppose that you may be right this time. On the day before doomsday the kook with the "Doomsday tomorrow" sign will be right, for once.
I note with some amusement that you blame the US education system for what you claim is "her citizens [being] unable to discriminate between information and propaganda". There is no evidence that American are any more or less sceptical than the people of any other Western nation. They may have a slightly more biased broadcast/print media set than most western countries, but that is it (I see no point in comparing Americans with the people of the developing world or China where rank ignorance and superstition mean people can and do believe just about anything).
Your post informs us of your opinion that the American people are being "drag[ged]...willy-nilly down a path by an unelected despot...leads to the need for ever increasing actions against everyone". This is hyperbolic bunk. The American people are not being dragged anywhere and their leader was elected by their system and his status was confirmed by the highest court of the land. When he was voted into power, roughly half of voting Americans chose him. Now something like 70% of Americans support him.
The Americans will decide who they will engage henceforth, not the UN. This is bad news for the UN and for enemies of America; good news for the rest of us.
America is standing up for itself - finally - and has chosen to be respected and hated rather just hated and disrespected.
One segment of your post that I may agree with is your analysis of "the importance of tribal affairs to nations which have never comprehended or accepted the concept of a country". I agree that this side effect of the Western universalist ambition may be misguided. It is folly to "attempt[] to force disparate groups into inconvenient, ill-assorted conglomerates where no member is able to realize its own self-objectives" but where is this happening? Recent history provides us with several examples of the exact opposite, most notably the Balkans, where ethnic-nationalist ambitions were facilitated by the West in Bosnia, Kosovo and Macedonia.
I do not think you are anti-the-West. I do take issue however with our failing to be standard bearers of science, industrial undertaking and humanism. We bear the standard still, but it is elements within our culture - most notably in the academies - that have attacked it from within. It is this culture war that has lead to a focus on the purported evils of colonialism and the subjugation, enslavement and inhumanity that it implies. The immense positive effects are ignored, so are the economic benefits and the fact that just about everything that works in the modern era is based on what was established then.
When I wrote that I had not read anything positive about America written by you that was just a statement of fact (weighed by the possibility I have forgotten it).
I am pleased to see that this post of your may be a landmark of its own - Hermit expounding on what is good about America: "The "positive" I see lies in the goodwill, optimism and dynamism of the youth". But what is this about their being subjected to a "system...designed to produce apathy, hypocrisy and hysteria". What system is that? The 21st century Infotainment complex? The capitalist machine? How are we in Britain spared from this monster? Looks like these youths don't stand much of a chance. Baby seals in sea full of Great Whites.
You see positives in "the appreciation of the competence and idealism of those I have worked with here, in scientific and military fields. It is in the farmers of the MidWest, who have undergone vast challenges in the past century, and still manage to relate to the land. It is in the sheer wealth of this country, unmatched by any other, and its consequent ability, if directed towards improving the world to do so - and in so doing, could improve its own lot beyond belief." But what were these ideals? What were the principles of these good folk? How was this wealth created? Is it not all tied up - positives and negatives?
You have asked that I "don't imagine for a moment that your image of me represents anything other than that. A picture in your minds eye." How could it be otherwise? Ultimately I will accept exactly what you tell me about your own motives and reasons.
Kind regards
Jonathan
P.S. If I had mined Puget Sound in 1884 it would have been blamed on the Soviets or the Cubans and passed off as exactly what it most likely would have been - another small blow in a very big Cold War. Then, as now, it would not be considered "terrorism" but an act of state aggression.
Re:virus: The Parable of the Two Giants
« Reply #9 on: 2003-03-25 18:05:02 »
<snip Jonathan Davis attempting to "interpret" what I said in order to support his perspective.>
[Hermit 6] As I suggested beforehand, your mental picture said a lot more about yourself than it did of me. This response suggests disingenuity or stupidity or both to me. I'd suggest that "neutrality" is nothing I have ever claimed. Purported "neutrality" in the face of evidence is not rational. Nor do I see it as desirable and I'm sure I'm not entirely alone. As Dante put it, "The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who, in times of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality.".
[Hermit 6] Criticism of action does not speak to "pro" or "anti" and inferring such is a stretch. As I think you are smart enough to know that there is a qualitive difference between "American actions are odious" and "Americans are odius", I can only understand that this is deliberate misrepresentation on your part, and see it as merely the latest of a long series of such.
[Hermit 6] As to frequency analysis as a means of inferring dislike, consider only that I prefer to speak of things I know about and which may be of topical interest. So while the USA receives more than her fair share of attention, this is simply because I am here, and perceive that she not only does more stupid things than most countries, but also that her stupidities tend to be more hurtful than most. Even so, you must be misreading, filtering and skipping more than ever these days, or you would surely have noticed that I have repeatedly said that unlike e.g. Israel, the US causes harm without intent on the part of her population who apparently don't know, or don't care what her government does, so long as it does not affect them. In other words, that most Americans are shortsighted and stupid rather than malicious.
[Jonathan Davis 5] As for the US, I see it as trying to cope with a very difficult situation that it finds itself in. I am pro-American. I am positively disposed towards the USA but of course this does not mean I am blind to its fault. That is my bias. Yours is the inverse.
[Hermit 6] You do not seem to me to be pro-American. You appear to be pro the Republican Administration - which some 75% of American voters dislike and, or mistrust, and, or, whatever, sufficiently not to have voted for them. I merely join with the majority.
[Jonathan Davis 5] So whilst you may declare you are not "anti-American" de jure, you are de facto (This is independent of specific policy endorsements and refers to attitude).
[Hermit 6] This is your assertion, and as it speaks to my internal state, I submit that you don't have a wooden leg to stand it upon.
[Jonathan Davis 5] Come to think of it, do you actually support anything apart from the Croats and Palestinians?
[Hermit 6] International law. Justice. The ethical treatment of all humans by a consistent standard, taking their backgrounds into account when attempting to interpret their actions or infer their motivations. The development of resource and structure such that no person need be without the essentials to a happy and fulfilled life. Not breaking that which I cannot make. Doing the best I can with what I am. Upholding and exemplifying the Virian virtues and eschewing the "sins" in my own life. Avoiding or minimizing harm. Helping others. Enjoying life while I have it. Love. Friendship. A lot of things. Apropos of something, see [Hermit, Resend of Yugoslavian History and a 1st reply to Andrijana, 1999-04-08] or don't. I won't bother addressing the Israel question again, its been done to death and nothing I can say will change your opinion anyway. You have to be prepared to listen before you can have a conversation. I have listened carefully to you, and fail to see where you have proved that it is right for the Palestinians to be displaced from a land that is historically theirs, to be denied their right of self-determination or even to be subjected to an ecological disaster at the hands of the ideology of others.
[Jonathan Davis 5] I am curious about your attitude to Britain. You say you are not particularly "anti-British" but are embarrassed to hold a British passport. Why are you embarrassed about this? Britain under Tony Blair is certainly not a US lapdog. They are an extremely highly respected ally. Wave your that British passport of yours in some New York hotels and you will find you get a 20% discount on your bill.
[Hermit 6] I am difficult to buy, so I will ignore the latter. It is interesting to think that today my German passport will earn a better reception in most parts of the world than my British passport - and that this was by no means always the case. So it must have something to do with the perception of Britain around the world. A perception that apparently differs from yours. So pardon me if I disagree while I note that dubya's Poodle has repeatedly asserted that it is "vital" for British interests (meaning Tony Bleh?) to maintain her "special relationship" with the U.S. Perhaps that is what bought his favor and his honor.
[Jonathan Davis 5] I take it you think this Iraq mission is/will be a disaster?
[Hermit 6] Of course. Oppressing and controlling a population that hates you and your actions is always expensive. Always in time. Always in money. Always in dignity. When it is in an area as well supplied with weapons as in Iraq, usually in blood. When it occurs in an urban area, where the tactical advantage is entirely with the defender, it is worse. When the invader is powerful and unable to evaluate the true cost (including the cost of their reputation), these costs are huge. The war, as badly as it is being run (too few effectives, badly thought out logistics, very faulty premise), will be cheap in comparison to what will almost certainly follow.
[Hermit 6] The secondary disaster is what it has already done to the rest of the world, and to the perception of International law and bodies as exemplified by yourself and innumerable interviews around the world.
[Jonathan Davis 5] This echoes your insistent claims before the Afghan war that it would be a bloodbath and millions of Afghans would starve.
[Hermit 6] It seems to me that you are repeating McPees previously invalidated claims (Refer [Hermit, Re:The Requiem Thread, Reply #8 and #9, 2003-03-02] instead of reading what I wrote. I guess this makes your assertions as invalid as his and as such, I can save myself the trouble of responding.
[Jonathan Davis 5] I suppose that you may be right this time. On the day before doomsday the kook with the "Doomsday tomorrow" sign will be right, for once.
[Hermit 6] Your premise fails, so I have no need to address the consequent, however sneering.
[Jonathan Davis 5] I note with some amusement that you blame the US education system for what you claim is "her citizens [being] unable to discriminate between information and propaganda". There is no evidence that American are any more or less sceptical than the people of any other Western nation. They may have a slightly more biased broadcast/print media set than most western countries, but that is it (I see no point in comparing Americans with the people of the developing world or China where rank ignorance and superstition mean people can and do believe just about anything).
[Hermit 6] When we look at the supposed "popular support" which is obviously desperately sought by the "coalition of the invisible but billing", we see that despite the fact that the UK has been exposed to essentially the same propaganda as the US, there appears to be a much larger group in the UK who remain skeptical about the current war. So the propaganda flood is undoubtedly working in the US, and apparently largely failing in the UK. Which seeing that the propaganda is the same, says that the people of the US are less able to see through it? And quantified testing reflects the reason. A brief glimpse at history, geography, current affairs and other comparative test results (including science and maths) for young Americans in relation to their global peers (including some in the "developing world/China) demonstrates conclusively that there is nothing whatsoever to be amused about.
[Jonathan Davis 5] Your post informs us of your opinion that the American people are being "drag[ged]...willy-nilly down a path by an unelected despot...leads to the need for ever increasing actions against everyone". This is hyperbolic bunk.
[Hermit 6] Only if you can prove your following assertions.
[Jonathan Davis 5] The American people are not being dragged anywhere and their leader was elected by their system
[Hermit 6] I recommend you read the Supreme court determination, which was in essence that the election was invalid but that there was no remedy available in the two hours they aqllowed for it. A "translation" is available at http://www.iknowwhatyoudidlastelection.com/bush-supreme-court.htm "The US Supreme Court, after admitting the December 12 deadline is not binding, set December 12 as a binding deadline at 10 p.m. on December 12."
[Jonathan Davis 5] and his status was confirmed by the highest court of the land.
[Jonathan Davis 5] When he was voted into power, roughly half of voting Americans chose him.
[Hermit 6] Not even slightly. Gore beat Bush in the national popular vote by over 540,000 votes. That is more than four times the size of John F. Kennedy's victory margin in 1960 over Richard Nixon. It is nearly as big as Nixon's margin over Hubert Humphrey in 1968. In percentage terms, a national lead of more than half a percent (0.516 percent) is not trivial. Refer also http://www.bushwatch.com/gorebush.htm and http://legitgov.org/index_hot_April5.html
[Jonathan Davis 5] Now something like 70% of Americans support him.
[Hermit 6] I see this too as a completely absurd statement, resulting from extrapolation from poll results in the midst of one of the most intense propaganda campaigns in history and in an environment where questioning dubya's divine right is unpatriotic. Do you think that this figure is more or less legitimate than Robert Mugabwe's similar claims? How about the Russian claim that 96% of Chechnyans want to remain attached to the CIS?
[Hermit 6] So are your assertions proven? Can you support them? Going to try? Now given that the US has put herself into the invidious position of attempting to “defend from the inside” and that every previous attempt to suppress terrorism by military action has failed at horrendous cost, do you still assert that “This is hyperbolic bunk.”?
[Jonathan Davis 5] The Americans will decide who they will engage henceforth, not the UN. This is bad news for the UN and for enemies of America; good news for the rest of us.
[Hermit 6] I think you are premature in reaching your conclusion. It is quite clear that the US can only do this by discarding its constitution, as its signature on the founding charter of the UN bound it irrevocably to that body. And in terms of the US constitution, a US without a constitutional authority is no longer a legitimate nation. Having such a powerful nation as the US running rogue is not good for anybody – including the US.
[Jonathan Davis 5] America is standing up for itself - finally - and has chosen to be respected and hated rather just hated and disrespected.
[Hermit 6] I think that you accurately characterize the NeoCon position, but I do not for a moment imagine that that is the position of any but a small number of antediluvian bigots and knee-jerk pro-Israelis. Else I for one would lose my respect for Americans - which I suggests tends to disprove the universality of your assertion.
[Jonathan Davis 5] One segment of your post that I may agree with is your analysis of "the importance of tribal affairs to nations which have never comprehended or accepted the concept of a country". I agree that this side effect of the Western universalist ambition may be misguided. It is folly to "attempt[] to force disparate groups into inconvenient, ill-assorted conglomerates where no member is able to realize its own self-objectives" but where is this happening? Recent history provides us with several examples of the exact opposite, most notably the Balkans, where ethnic-nationalist ambitions were facilitated by the West in Bosnia, Kosovo and Macedonia.
[Hermit 6] Can you spell Afghanistan? How about Iraq? Palestine? Chechnya? Zimbabwe? South Africa? And I think you misunderstand the Balkan solution. We are keeping the powder and detonators together until at least 2005.
[Jonathan Davis 5] I do not think you are anti-the-West. I do take issue however with our failing to be standard bearers of science, industrial undertaking and humanism. We bear the standard still, but it is elements within our culture - most notably in the academies - that have attacked it from within.
[Hermit 6] I disagree. I think that the pernicious history defying idea of the "self-made man" and the discounting of "giant's shoulders" predates any academic movement - at least in the US. And that a century of religious backlash, rapid change and unsound education have combined to create a population quite immune to rational thinking or the analysis of cause and effect (or its absence).
[Jonathan Davis 5] It is this culture war that has lead to a focus on the purported evils of colonialism and the subjugation, enslavement and inhumanity that it implies. The immense positive effects are ignored, so are the economic benefits and the fact that just about everything that works in the modern era is based on what was established then.
[Hermit 6] Babies and bathwaters are indubitably confused, but I suggest that a person or group, which has experienced the “subjugation, enslavement and inhumanity”, is unlikely to provide unqualified approbation for the system that resulted in this. And they don't. Which seems to indicate that my side of the argument has the virtue of at least describing the world as is.
[Jonathan Davis 5] When I wrote that I had not read anything positive about America written by you that was just a statement of fact (weighed by the possibility I have forgotten it).
[Hermit 6] Accepted. I don't think I challenged this, although I will still say that I think that my analysis that you are looking for "positive" writings about the things you imagine are important is applicable, and as such you may have missed the "positive" things I have said on other scores due to the fact that we self-evidently have many serious perceptual differences which preclude agreement on scores of issues (but which, so long as we remember that differences don't necessarily mean that somebody differing is a fool, or imply it by engaging in deceptive "translation" or bad manners, does not preclude agreement in other areas or even working towards common goals).
[Jonathan Davis 5] I am pleased to see that this post of your may be a landmark of its own
[Hermit 6] Don't try to be patronizing. I don’t have to elucidate my positions except where I have made assertions concerning them. I hadn’t. But in these McCarthyite times, given that it seemed to me that you have taken up the default NeoCon strategy of simply calling anyone who objects to their bigotry “Anti-American” in an ad populam fallacy, long exemplified by McPees, and in consequence already thoroughly debunked, I decided to state, quite clearly where I stood. The fact that you then attempted to explain that I really was “de facto Anti-American” in the face of my assertion to the contrary, and in so doing attempted the always invalid claim that you comprehend me better than I can know myself, speaks volumes about the decline in the validity of the positions you are espousing and the techniques you are attempting to use.
[Jonathan Davis 5] Hermit expounding on what is good about America: "The "positive" I see lies in the goodwill, optimism and dynamism of the youth". But what is this about their being subjected to a "system...designed to produce apathy, hypocrisy and hysteria". What system is that? The 21st century Infotainment complex? The capitalist machine? How are we in Britain spared from this monster? Looks like these youths don't stand much of a chance. Baby seals in sea full of Great Whites.
[Hermit 6] No, the education and social systems. Keen 14 year olds turn into apathetic 18 year olds (datum voting registration). Justice loving youths turn into hypocritical adults (Iraq should not show interviews with POWs, but the US can show Afghans being treated worsse than slaves and Fox can show the incarceration of Iraqi prisoners. The US and her allies are entitled to WMDs. Nobody else can, no matter how much of a threat they may perceive themselves to be facing. etc.). Hysteria. Well, think of the response to the anthrax letters or the Washington sniper stories - or even to 911. Somebody should teach these folks common sense. I have some ideas, but why don’t you tell me why the UK is different.
[Jonathan Davis 5] You see positives in "the appreciation of the competence and idealism of those I have worked with here, in scientific and military fields. It is in the farmers of the MidWest, who have undergone vast challenges in the past century, and still manage to relate to the land. It is in the sheer wealth of this country, unmatched by any other, and its consequent ability, if directed towards improving the world to do so - and in so doing, could improve its own lot beyond belief." But what were these ideals?
[Hermit 6] Self determination. Equality. Liberty including economic independence and lassez-faire capitalism. The rights of men. Separation of church and state. Humanism. Notice that these are modern ideas and I don't think they are shared by all Americans. So I spoke to those I have know and have worked with.
[Jonathan Davis 5] What were the principles of these good folk?
[Hermit 6] I don't think I addressed this.
[Jonathan Davis 5] How was this wealth created?
[Hermit 6] On the wealth of the land, on the geographic location which shielded her from the devastating wars of Europe and allowed her rapid industrialization, on the capital she extracted from the old world when their markets (and purses) were opened by war, on the trade she has engaged in, in the tactics employed to entrench her position.
[Jonathan Davis 5] Is it not all tied up - positives and negatives?
[Hermit 6] I'm not sure. Yes, many things have aspects of both from some perspectives, but by no means as many as we have been taught to believe. Most positives and negatives depend entirely on perspective. What is, from a multi-cultural perspective, is much easier to analyze. And some things are almost entirely bad (war is a primary example of this), other things are almost entirely good (progress and education are unexceptional examples).
<snip>
[Jonathan Davis 5] P.S. If I had mined Puget Sound in 1884 it would have been blamed on the Soviets or the Cubans and passed off as exactly what it most likely would have been - another small blow in a very big Cold War. Then, as now, it would not be considered "terrorism" but an act of state aggression.
[Hermit 6] While the Soviet didn't exist, and while rather than Cuba it would have been Spain that might have taken the blame back in 1884, the point is that actions define the interpretation of words. Today the US calls such actions as she has been found guilty of taking terrorism. The fact that I used terrorism in quotations in the next paragraph, and your repetition of this above denotes the “special use” to which I think this word has been put, and your recognition of the fact despite your protestations to the contrary. My initial point was that nobody can rely on switching the definitions of “terrorism” in order to attempt to make a case against those whom they would oppose, while rejecting the same definition when it is used to prove that they are guilty of worse and still hope to be perceived as honest. Even when you attempt the same. Given your poor memory, you might like to reread this thread to determine for yourself, this was the entire point of my reply to Sun Tzu on 2003-03-23 when you interjected with unsubstantiated and as demonstrated, incorrect assertions, for which you have issued no apology.
[Hermit 6] It took 12 hours work to prove that your assertion that I was incorrect in asserting that the US had been found guilty of terrorism by the International Court was in turn incorrect. I notice that rather than responding to this, that you simply attempt to dismiss it in the postscript of this message (which demanded a further 8 hours). I’m sorry, I don’t have the time for this, and due to my perception that you are attempting to distort my words, don’t receive the enjoyment from writing this that pays for my sacrificing other important things. So this is the last long response you will receive to missives of this nature.
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
Author
Logged
