Author
|
Topic: virus: The Ideohazard 1.1 (Read 4913 times) |
|
Blunderov
Archon
Gender: 
Posts: 3160
Reputation: 8.90
Rate Blunderov
"We think in generalities, we live in details"
  
|
 |
RE: virus: The Ideohazard 1.1
« Reply #15 on: 2003-09-15 09:35:52 » |
 |
More Xenophobia?
I was both shocked and amused to read in the paper this morning that one
of the criticisms leveled by the current administration against the
possible presidential candidate Howard Dean was that he 'looks French'.
Qu'importe!
Best Regards
Blunderov
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
|
|
|
|
JD
Adept
Gender:
Posts: 542
Reputation: 7.39
Rate JD
|
|
RE: virus: The Ideohazard 1.1
« Reply #16 on: 2003-09-15 09:36:14 » |
|
That the term has wide use does not render it meaningless.
Anti-American means: 1. Opposed or hostile to the government, official
policies, or people of the United States, their aims, or interests, or to
their institutions.
2. To be against America or Americans. 3. Predisposed to hostility towards
America, Americans or things American.
That the USA is disliked for simply being powerful is a point I have also
made elsewhere. That said, to surrender to anti-American prejudice is
logically unsound and generally unhelpful (you know I am not referring to
you here).
Regards
Jonathan
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-virus@lucifer.com [mailto:owner-virus@lucifer.com] On Behalf Of
Kharin
Sent: 15 September 2003 13:24
To: virus@lucifer.com
Subject: Re:virus: The Ideohazard 1.1
"Whilst most nations would not expect to be unconditionally loved, neither
would they expect to be reflexively hated. "
Then they must be singularly naive. On the whole, I am inclined to agree
with Niall Ferguson that the US has effectively become an imperial power but
is reluctant to accept the full philosophical implications of that, one of
which happens to be that imperial powers are not generally well liked. That
is an occupational hazard and one I doubt that too many previous Empires
concerned themselves with.
"Anti-Americanism is simply an abstraction of being anti-American . It means
what it says. "
Well, what does it mean or say? Since I have heard the term reflexively used
to cover anything from European dislike of American popular culture to Asian
dislike of American business practises one is left suspecting the term to be
devoid of content.
----
This message was posted by Kharin to the Virus 2003 board on Church of Virus
BBS.
<http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=54;action=display;threadid=292
59>
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to
<http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
|
|
|
|
JD
Adept
Gender:
Posts: 542
Reputation: 7.39
Rate JD
|
|
RE: virus: The Ideohazard 1.1
« Reply #17 on: 2003-09-15 09:47:49 » |
|
I suggest you ask Nicole Fritz to support her incredible claim. I doubt it
is true.
Jonathan
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-virus@lucifer.com [mailto:owner-virus@lucifer.com] On Behalf Of
Blunderov
Sent: 15 September 2003 14:36
To: virus@lucifer.com
Subject: RE: virus: The Ideohazard 1.1
More Xenophobia?
I was both shocked and amused to read in the paper this morning that one of
the criticisms leveled by the current administration against the possible
presidential candidate Howard Dean was that he 'looks French'.
Qu'importe!
Best Regards
Blunderov
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to
<http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
|
|
|
|
Kharin
Archon
Posts: 407
Reputation: 8.42
Rate Kharin
In heaven all the interesting people are missing.
|
|
Re:virus: The Ideohazard 1.1
« Reply #18 on: 2003-09-15 10:27:21 » |
|
Quote:| "That the term has wide use does not render it meaningless." |
Actually, I think it does. Whereas the term 'un-american' had a relatively precise notion of what the term implied (in terms of what it is to be American and what it was to undermine that), the term 'Anti-American' is far more dilute and lacks any such precision. All that can be said about it is that it appears to imply the term 'American' to be both clear and unambiguous whilst doing nothing to make it so. For example, your first definition assumes opposition to us government policy is identical with opposition to the US public. Democracy may have much to recommend it, but I can think of no country in the world where that identification is reliable.
http://www.artsandopinion.com/2003_v2_n1/roy.htm
Quote:| "What does the term mean? That you're anti-jazz? Or that you're opposed to free speech? That you don't delight in Toni Morrison or John Updike? That you have a quarrel with giant sequoias? Does it mean you don't admire the hundreds of thousands of American citizens who marched against nuclear weapons, or the thousands of war resisters who forced their government to withdraw from Vietnam? Does it mean that you hate all Americans?" |
Quote:"1. Opposed or hostile to the government, official
policies, or people of the United States, their aims, or interests, or to
their institutions.
2. To be against America or Americans. 3. Predisposed to hostility towards
America, Americans or things American." |
Again, these terms are so broad and abstract (not to mention self-referential sinceit doesn't define what it means by America) as to convey nothing other than 'anti-americanism means whatever it is convenient for it to mean.' Usually in the course of some op-ed writer being anti-European, anti-German or anti-French. For the people who complain of anti-Americanism surrendering to any of these things is, if they won't forgive the phrase, de rigeur. As I expect French wine exporters could testify... wonder if US imports to France suffered anywhere near as much?
Quote:"That the USA is disliked for simply being powerful is a point I have also
made elsewhere. " |
Does it not strike you as being at all odd that this powerful state should spend so much time enaged in hysterical handwringing over the fact that the other children don't want to play with it? Did Kitchener or Bismarck lose much sleep over that sort of thing? At the risk of sounding like a spiked columnist the only thing the existence of the term tells us is that US seems to suffer from a certain lack of confidence.
|
|
|
|
|
JD
Adept
Gender:
Posts: 542
Reputation: 7.39
Rate JD
|
|
RE: virus: The Ideohazard 1.1
« Reply #19 on: 2003-09-15 10:59:26 » |
|
Regarding anti-American, I accept your points, but I have a simple use of
the term. As Hermit might do, I simply restate Webster 1913: "Opposed or
hostile to the government, official policies, or people of the United
States." This captures a certain mood, personality and class of acts.
Anti-Americanism takes myriad forms, but is essentially a constant.
Why can people fully understand someone being an anti-Semite but cannot
understand labelling something anti-American? If one is routinely hostile
towards the USA, I characterize that hostility as anti-American. Simple.
[Jonathan 1] "That the USA is disliked for simply being powerful is a point
I have also made elsewhere. "
Does it not strike you as being at all odd that this powerful state should
spend so much time enaged in hysterical handwringing over the fact that the
other children don't want to play with it?
[Jonathan 2] Does it really? No. It simply is making an effort to establish
allies and foes. This is both understandable and advisable.
[Kharin 1] Did Kitchener or Bismarck lose much sleep over that sort of
thing? At the risk of sounding like a spiked columnist the only thing the
existence of the term tells us is that US seems to suffer from a certain
lack of confidence.
[Jonathan 2] I disagree, the existence of the term arises to meet a very
real and often unfair hostility towards America and Americans. As you said,
the term Anti-British had wide currency during the empire precisely because
it was an empire. Perhaps the same is true of the USA?
Regards
Jonathan
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
|
|
|
|
Kharin
Archon
Posts: 407
Reputation: 8.42
Rate Kharin
In heaven all the interesting people are missing.
|
|
Re:virus: The Ideohazard 1.1
« Reply #20 on: 2003-09-15 12:01:48 » |
|
Quote:| "This captures a certain mood, personality and class of acts." |
Pity it fails to provide a definition though. We are still at the point where someone with an intense dislike of American film and television must have the same label as an Islamic terrorist.
Quote:"Why can people fully understand someone being an anti-Semite but cannot understand labelling something anti-American? If one is routinely hostile
towards the USA, I characterize that hostility as anti-American. Simple. " |
If one is routinely hostile to France does anyone characterise that hostility as anti-French? No, of course not. A term that appears to lack any antonyms or synonyms in common currency, and where equivalent terms do not exist for any other democratic nation, has some obvious problems. The anti-semitism parallel is an interesting one, particularly as the term has been similarly diluted, so that criticism of Israel/Zionism can be considered anti-semitic irrespective of the actual arguments.
Quote:| "the term Anti-British had wide currency during the empire precisely because it was an empire. Perhaps the same is true of the USA?" |
I'm not aware that that term was used during the British Empire, except outside of very specific military contexts. As I said, I don't think it's the sort of thing Kitchener or Palmerston cared much about. I'll check on it though.
|
|
|
|
|
JD
Adept
Gender:
Posts: 542
Reputation: 7.39
Rate JD
|
|
RE: virus: The Ideohazard 1.1
« Reply #21 on: 2003-09-15 12:19:07 » |
|
I have defined the term twice. It has the antonym pro-American. It has the
synonym America-hating. If one is routinely hostile to France one might
reasonably label one anti-France or Francophobe. That Kitchener or Palmerton
were worried about anti-Brutishness is moot. Worries about anti-British
sentiment were certainly on the minds of imperial administrators where
hearts and minds were concerned in Ireland, India and Africa.
Handy Guide to Understanding the meaning of Anti-[enter nation]
1. pursuing an opposite policy to [enter nation] 2. opposing or hostile to
in opinion, sympathy, or practice to [enter nation] 3. opposing [nation] in
effect or activity 4. combating or defending against [nation].
Regards
Jonathan
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-virus@lucifer.com [mailto:owner-virus@lucifer.com] On Behalf Of
Kharin
Sent: 15 September 2003 17:02
To: virus@lucifer.com
Subject: Re:virus: The Ideohazard 1.1
"This captures a certain mood, personality and class of acts."
Pity it fails to provide a definition though. We are still at the point
where someone with an intense dislike of American film and television must
have the same label as an Islamic terrorist.
"Why can people fully understand someone being an anti-Semite but cannot
understand labelling something anti-American? If one is routinely hostile
towards the USA, I characterize that hostility as anti-American. Simple. "
If one is routinely hostile to France does anyone characterise that
hostility as anti-French? No, of course not. A term that appears to lack
any antonyms or synonyms in common currency, and where equivalent terms do
not exist for any other democratic nation, has some obvious problems. The
anti-semitism parallel is an interesting one, particularly as the term has
been similarly diluted, so that criticism of Israel/Zionism can be
considered anti-semitic irrespective of the actual arguments.
"the term Anti-British had wide currency during the empire precisely because
it was an empire. Perhaps the same is true of the USA?"
I'm not aware that that term was used during the British Empire, except
outside of very specific military contexts. As I said, I don't think it's
the sort of thing Kitchener or Palmerston cared much about. I'll check on it
though.
----
This message was posted by Kharin to the Virus 2003 board on Church of Virus
BBS.
<http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=54;action=display;threadid=292
59>
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to
<http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
|
|
|
|
Kharin
Archon
Posts: 407
Reputation: 8.42
Rate Kharin
In heaven all the interesting people are missing.
|
|
Re:virus: The Ideohazard 1.1
« Reply #22 on: 2003-09-15 12:57:16 » |
|
Quote:| " I have defined the term twice." |
In very broad and vague terms.
Quote:| "It has the antonym pro-American." |
I said in common currency. One almost never hears the term 'pro-American' being awarded, merely the converse as a slur.
Quote:| "If one is routinely hostile to France one might reasonably label one anti-France or Francophobe. " |
One might. So why doesn't one? As far as I can tell the term is solely used as a badge of honour by the same people quite happy to use the term anti-american.
Quote:| "That Kitchener or Palmerton were worried about anti-Brutishness is moot. Worries about anti-British sentiment were certainly on the minds of imperial administrators where hearts and minds were concerned in Ireland, India and Africa. " |
As I mentioned, the term had a specific military context. Equally, one could use the term anti-american in a specific manner with regard to present Iraq. My point was that the term has been hopelessly diluted beyond such contexts to encompass almost anything.
|
|
|
|
|
JD
Adept
Gender:
Posts: 542
Reputation: 7.39
Rate JD
|
|
RE: virus: The Ideohazard 1.1
« Reply #23 on: 2003-09-15 13:04:25 » |
|
"My point was that the term has been hopelessly diluted beyond such contexts
to encompass almost anything. "
Ok, fair enough, I accept your point. But like "racism", the term may have
been abused so as to render itself near meaningless, but we still have
racists and racism. That the term is abused does not remove the correctness
of justified uses for the term.
Regards
Jonathan
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-virus@lucifer.com [mailto:owner-virus@lucifer.com] On Behalf Of
Kharin
Sent: 15 September 2003 17:57
To: virus@lucifer.com
Subject: Re:virus: The Ideohazard 1.1
" I have defined the term twice."
In very broad and vague terms.
"It has the antonym pro-American."
I said in common currency. One almost never hears the term 'pro-American'
being awarded, merely the converse as a slur.
"If one is routinely hostile to France one might reasonably label one
anti-France or Francophobe. "
One might. So why doesn't one? As far as I can tell the term is solely used
as a badge of honour by the same people quite happy to use the term
anti-american.
"That Kitchener or Palmerton were worried about anti-Brutishness is moot.
Worries about anti-British sentiment were certainly on the minds of imperial
administrators where hearts and minds were concerned in Ireland, India and
Africa. "
As I mentioned, the term had a specific military context. Equally, one could
use the term anti-american in a specific manner with regard to present Iraq.
My point was that the term has been hopelessly diluted beyond such contexts
to encompass almost anything.
----
This message was posted by Kharin to the Virus 2003 board on Church of Virus
BBS.
<http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=54;action=display;threadid=292
59>
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to
<http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
|
|
|
|
Blunderov
Archon
Gender:
Posts: 3160
Reputation: 8.90
Rate Blunderov
"We think in generalities, we live in details"
|
|
RE: virus: The Ideohazard 1.1
« Reply #24 on: 2003-09-15 14:06:03 » |
|
Is it really necessary to remind you of recent events? The war against
Iraq was undertaken in spite of the fact that it was/is against
international law as embodied in the UN Charter to which the USA is a
signatory. The USA, at the time, went so far as to say that the UN was
irrelevant. The fact that no WOMD have been, or ever will be, found, has
done nothing to ameliorate this massively contemptuous behavior and has
in fact served only to emphasise it's arrogance.
The fact that the USA has seen fit to create and implement a doctrine of
pre-emptive self defence, which is not only against reason (the tu
quoque fallacy) but also a complete repudiation of the most fundamental
tenets international law, is, I would say, contemptuous of the community
of nations.
The (continuing) incarceration of prisoners at Guantanemo Bay is a
violation of so many articles of the Geneva Convention, to which the USA
is signatory, that it is difficult to count them all. This goes beyond
contemptuous and is simply evil. I hope I live to see the day when
Rumsfeld et al pay the penalty applicable to these despicable war
crimes. (Under the circumstances, it is hardly surprising that the USA
prefers not to support the establishment of a permanent International
War Crimes Court. There is, as they say, nothing like the threat of
execution to enhance the concentration.) Then of course, there is
depleted uranium munitions etc, etc.
That it signs free trade agreements and then doesn't hesitate to
repudiate them when expediency serves also seems to me to be massively
contemptuous. This is nothing short of saying 'Our interests are far
more important than your piffling little concerns". I seem to recall
some business just recently where the US Steel industry was afforded a
subsidy by the US government in direct contravention of an agreement
with the EEU. I also recall some business where Mexican milk was
consistently turned back at the border because it failed to come up to
scratch in terms of quality. Oddly, the same fate befell American milk
when it was exported to Mexico and then re-imported to America.
I dispute your statement "If an agreement disadvantages you, you are
entitled to void the agreement..." This is quite simply dishonest and is
no different from stealing. You might as well say if somebody has
something that you want, you are entitled to take it if it is to your
disadvantage not to have it. Is this the same Jonathan Davis that was
plainting about the Chinese proclivity for stealing technology and
disregarding intellectual property rights? It is my view that commitment
is the heart of any relationship. To dismiss a commitment is to dismiss
the relationship as unimportant. This is contemptuous.
I do not dispute the right to renegotiate if the other party is willing
to do so, but if the other party is not willing to do so then, I am
sorry to say, it is just tough titty.
I think I have provided enough examples, just from my own immediate
knowledge, to demonstrate that my assertion is reasonably true - the USA
holds the community of nations in manifest contempt. I have no doubt
that if I was to engage in a little research I could provide a myriad
more.
As far as I can tell, the US chooses 'diplomacy and consensus' as a
preliminary and then only when these routes offer some reasonable
prospect of success. If and when this is not the case she just does
whatever she wants anyway. I would be most interested in any recent
examples you could provide where this was not the case. I cannot, at the
moment, think of any myself.
Brotherly* Regards
Blunderov
*Disagreements between brothers are by no means uncommon. At least no
women are involved in this one.
PS It is my view that the second biggest curse of mankind is
nationalism. The first is, of course, the theistic religions. (Buddhists
will be spared the ire of Blunderov you will all doubtless be relieved
to know) Often they are the same thing. But not always. Possibilities
for future discussion?
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-virus@lucifer.com [mailto:owner-virus@lucifer.com] On
Behalf
> Of Jonathan Davis
> Sent: 15 September 2003 1102
> To: virus@lucifer.com
> Subject: RE: virus: The Ideohazard 1.1
>
> You say the USA holds the community of nations in manifest contempt,
yet
> I
> see no such contempt. I see the USA, despite its overwhelming power,
> choosing diplomacy and consensus. The USA has withdrawn from some
> treaties,
> but it was perfectly fair for them to do so. If an agreement
disadvantages
> you, you are entitled to void the agreement and renegotiate.
>
> Regards
>
> Jonathan
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-virus@lucifer.com [mailto:owner-virus@lucifer.com] On
Behalf
> Of
> Blunderov
> Sent: 15 September 2003 08:45
> To: virus@lucifer.com
> Subject: RE: virus: The Ideohazard 1.1
>
>
>
> Jonathan Davis
> > Sent: 14 September 2003 1840
> > To: virus@lucifer.com
> > Subject: RE: virus: The Ideohazard 1.1
> >
> > I was spooked by Hermit's Chinese-commit-genocide piece but for me
it
> was
> > ruined by its overt anti-Americanism (if that term can be applied to
> what
> > appears *in my opinion* to be Hermit's pathological hatred of
> America).
>
>
> [Bl.] Whether Hermit has a hatred of America, and whether, if so, this
> hatred is pathological or not, I cannot say. What I can say is that it
is
> equally possible, based on the evidence before us, that he is a
fervent
> patriot. It depends on your point of view.
>
> When the British invaded China in the 18th Century they found maps in
> which
> China occupied the almost whole of the document; peeping in at the
corners
> of these maps were tiny representations of what were characterized as
> 'Barbarian' nations - Britain, France and the USA. It was clear that
the
> Chinese world view allocated no importance to anything other than
China.
>
> Ironically, if one reads the Hermits list of broken American promises
and
> treaties, it is difficult to conclude that the American world-view is
any
> less solipsistic than the Chinese maps of yore.
>
> It is almost risible that such a self-avowedly 'democratic' nation
should
> hold the community of nations in such manifest contempt. Almost.
>
>
> Best Regards
> Blunderov
>
>
>
>
> ---
> To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to
> <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
>
> ---
> To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-
> bin/virus-l>
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
|
|
|
|
Hermit
Archon
Posts: 4287
Reputation: 8.94
Rate Hermit
Prime example of a practically perfect person
|
|
Re:virus: The Ideohazard 1.1
« Reply #25 on: 2003-09-16 02:13:41 » |
|
Blunderov,
I wish I'd written it.
Thank-you
Hermit
|
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
|
|
|
JD
Adept
Gender:
Posts: 542
Reputation: 7.39
Rate JD
|
|
RE: virus: The Ideohazard 1.1
« Reply #26 on: 2003-09-16 06:09:31 » |
|
Dear Brother B,
Here is my reply.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-virus@lucifer.com [mailto:owner-virus@lucifer.com] On Behalf Of
Blunderov
Sent: 15 September 2003 19:06
To: virus@lucifer.com
Subject: RE: virus: The Ideohazard 1.1
[Blunderlov 2] Is it really necessary to remind you of recent events? The
war against Iraq was undertaken in spite of the fact that it was/is against
international law as embodied in the UN Charter to which the USA is a
signatory. The USA, at the time, went so far as to say that the UN was
irrelevant.
[Jonathan 2] The war was not and in a way the UN is.
[Blunderlov 2] The fact that no WOMD have been, or ever will be, found, has
done nothing to ameliorate this massively contemptuous behavior and has in
fact served only to emphasise it's arrogance.
[Jonathan 2] The fact that no WMD have yet been found is neither here nor
there. There was sufficient good reason to suspect their existence (and in
my opinion the war was justified for overthrowing Saddam alone). Saddam
certainly had them and used them, that he destroyed them prior to the
invasion (or more likely smuggled them to Jordan) does not have any bearing
on the fact that the reasons for war were (need I insert this, in my opinion
and the US President's) sound.
[Blunderlov 2] The fact that the USA has seen fit to create and implement a
doctrine of pre-emptive self defence, which is not only against reason (the
tu quoque fallacy) but also a complete repudiation of the most fundamental
tenets international law, is, I would say, contemptuous of the community of
nations.
[Jonathan 2] Of course USA reserves the right to act pre-emptively in
self-defence. All self-defence necessarily contains pre-emption. Does one
defend oneself before or after the robber has shot one? pre-emptive actions
are designed (or have the power) to deter or prevent an anticipated
situation or occurrence. In the age of international terrorism this is
simple self-preservation. Over time this will become a staple of
international law and in 50 years our grandchildren will depose governments
who violate international law and the law of self-preservation by not
defending their citizens by acting against clear threats that mature into
harm.
[Blunderlov 2] The (continuing) incarceration of prisoners at Guantanemo Bay
is a violation of so many articles of the Geneva Convention, to which the
USA is signatory, that it is difficult to count them all.
[Jonathan 2] Guantanemo works beautifully. The legalities of it are still
being worked out, but in the meantime it is a valuable tool in the
psychological war against Islamic terror.
[Blunderlov 2] This goes beyond contemptuous and is simply evil.
[Jonathan 2] My chief problem with Hermit - who like you I consider a fellow
and friend - and now you, is that you limn the United States with terms like
"Evil" or "Uncivilized" or "Contemptuous". I reject this characterization
Compared against a proper benchmark (not an ideal) the USA is greatest,
fairest, most free, and just countries on earth. Its people are enormously
generous, it has protected Europe for a generation and utterly defeated two
of the most murderous ideologies in all humanity (Communism and Nazism). All
great nations do some harm, but it most be seen in the context of history
and circumstances.
[Blunderlov 2] I hope I live to see the day when Rumsfeld et al pay the
penalty applicable to these despicable war crimes. (Under the circumstances,
it is hardly surprising that the USA prefers not to support the
establishment of a permanent International War Crimes Court. There is, as
they say, nothing like the threat of execution to enhance the
concentration.) Then of course, there is depleted uranium munitions etc,
etc.
[Jonathan 2] "Despicable war crimes" LOL! Easy on the purple prose. What
superlative do you use to describe those other war crimes, you know, the
real ones where SS machine gun villagers into pits and stuff?
[Blunderlov 2] That it signs free trade agreements and then doesn't hesitate
to repudiate them when expediency serves also seems to me to be massively
contemptuous. This is nothing short of saying 'Our interests are far more
important than your piffling little concerns".
[Jonathan 2] Dead right! Are you seriously asking that the USA, in a
hostile world jockeying to hurt it, grab advantage and support
self-interest, must act against its self-interest? Agreements can be called
off at any time. By doing so I simply say "I no longer agree about this
issue, the agreement does not suite me so it is void". There is nothing
contemptuous about this, it is as simple expression of fact or opinion
weighted with action. When compatibility of observations is no longer a
reality, or the conditions of a promise no longer supported, one is entitled
to call it off.
[Blunderlov 2] I seem to recall some business just recently where the US
Steel industry was afforded a subsidy by the US government in direct
contravention of an agreement with the EEU. I also recall some business
where Mexican milk was consistently turned back at the border because it
failed to come up to scratch in terms of quality. Oddly, the same fate
befell American milk when it was exported to Mexico and then re-imported to
America.
[Jonathan 2] Yes, people experience this problem with the Chinese, Japanese
and EU too. Even within trading block, there is cheating and stretching the
rules to accommodate unfair advantage (see EU rows over fishing, farm
subsidies and chocolates). I say let it play out, balance comes eventually.
[Blunderlov 2] I dispute your statement "If an agreement disadvantages you,
you are entitled to void the agreement..." This is quite simply dishonest
and is no different from stealing.
[Jonathan 2] Dispute it if you like, but it is axiomatically true. I can
honestly and openly announce that circumstances in which I made an agreement
have changed so I no longer wish to participate in the agreement.
[Blunderlov 2] You might as well say if somebody has something that you
want, you are entitled to take it if it is to your disadvantage not to have
it.
[Jonathan 2] I am surprised to see you Brother B furiously attacking a straw
man. Please explain how you arrived at "you are entitled to take it if it is
to your disadvantage not to have it" from "If an agreement disadvantages
you, you are entitled to void the agreement". The right to void underlies
every contact and agreement.
[Blunderlov 2] Is this the same Jonathan Davis that was plainting about the
Chinese proclivity for stealing technology and disregarding intellectual
property rights?
[Jonathan 2] I am Jonathan Davis and I have recently broached the Chinese
proclivity for stealing technology and intellectual property.
[Blunderlov 2] It is my view that commitment is the heart of any
relationship. To dismiss a commitment is to dismiss the relationship as
unimportant. This is contemptuous.
[Jonathan 2] What commitment? Voiding an agreement is not dismissing a
commitment to say fair dealing or respect. It simply means that a party
chooses to no longer participate in an agreement. Thus I or a nation might
say that it no longer agrees with a decision or arrangement. Its reasons may
be sound or faulty, but it is fully entitled to do so and it does not
necessarily imply contempt. There are many vestigial agreements, treaties,
pacts and truces that range from useless to downright damaging for all
participating parties. If America chose to withdraw from NATO tomorrow
would you be outraged by the contempt of it? If it chose to stop making aid
payments to Israel, would you rage at the unilateralist bastards? If the USA
chose to void all agreements developing world countries had with it in term
of paying back their debts, would you declare such breach of agreement utter
contemptuous, nay EVIL Yankee lone wolfer.
Well?
[Blunderlov 2] I do not dispute the right to renegotiate if the other party
is willing to do so, but if the other party is not willing to do so then, I
am sorry to say, it is just tough titty.
[Jonathan 2] This is incorrect. In a binding agreement you may have duties,
but not in elective treaty participation. That is why countries can and do
withdraw. They simply say, "We do not to agree with you on this", hence no
agreement. Similarly, "We no longer agree with you, whereas one we did, so
we withdraw".
[Blunderlov 2] I think I have provided enough examples, just from my own
immediate knowledge, to demonstrate that my assertion is reasonably true -
the USA holds the community of nations in manifest contempt. I have no doubt
that if I was to engage in a little research I could provide a myriad more.
[Jonathan 2] I am sorry to report that I disagree with your conclusions. I
think the opposite is true, that the United States - given its overwhelming
superiority - is a marvel of consideration, and diplomatic restraint. Here
is nation that could, if it chose, really brush aside anyone. It chooses to
remain within the system, largely agreeing to restraints it could easily
break and destroy, rules that do not serve it well and obeying the authority
of hostile an corrupt institutions for the sake of international order. Its
transgressions are minor, it acts no more selfishly than any other nation
and considering its we facto power we ought to be careful it grateful it
chooses to comply at all.
[Blunderlov 2] As far as I can tell, the US chooses 'diplomacy and
consensus' as a preliminary and then only when these routes offer some
reasonable prospect of success. If and when this is not the case she just
does whatever she wants anyway. I would be most interested in any recent
examples you could provide where this was not the case. I cannot, at the
moment, think of any myself.
[Jonathan 2] Kosovo and Liberia.
[Blunderlov 2] It is my view that the second biggest curse of mankind is
nationalism. The first is, of course, the theistic religions. (Buddhists
will be spared the ire of Blunderov you will all doubtless be relieved to
know) Often they are the same thing. But not always. Possibilities for
future discussion?
[Jonathan 2] Brother Blunderlov this was an excellent post of yours. Thanks.
I am particularly gratified to see us come back to what we agree on
forcefully. Can I recommend you look into a book called "The New Barbarians"
by Ian Angel
(http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0749435054/202-6883905-2633466).
He argues persuasively that people like us (the CoV) are the new barbarians
primed to benefit and feed on the benighted who will cling to ethnicity,
nationalism, religion and socialism.
Finally, did you know the Buddhists were a violent oppressor religion who
displaced and nearly wiped out their nearest competitor faith - the Bon of
Tibet? File them with the rest. That said, I have recently taken up yoga and
despite myself I am thoroughly loving it.
Kind regards
Jonathan
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
|
|
|
|
Blunderov
Archon
Gender:
Posts: 3160
Reputation: 8.90
Rate Blunderov
"We think in generalities, we live in details"
|
|
RE: virus: The Ideohazard 1.1
« Reply #27 on: 2003-09-18 07:28:31 » |
|
> From: Jonathan Davis
> Sent: 16 September 2003 1210
> To: virus@lucifer.com
> Subject: RE: virus: The Ideohazard 1.1
>
> Dear Brother B,
>
> Here is my reply.
>
> [Blunderlov 2] Is it really necessary to remind you of recent events?
The
> war against Iraq was undertaken in spite of the fact that it was/is
> against international law as embodied in the UN Charter to which the
USA >is a signatory. The USA, at the time, went so far as to say that
the UN was
> irrelevant.
>
> [Jonathan 2] The war was not and in a way the UN is.
[Blunderov3] So you concur that the US has ('in a way') a 'lack of
respect or reverence for' the UN? This definition, as I am sure you have
guessed, is a very serviceable one for the word 'contempt' if
Merriam-Webster is to be believed. I feel, under the circumstances,
quite justified in characterizing the US, as 'manifestly contemptuous'.
Apparently you do too, 'in a way'.
Also to be considered is
http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/
Without, I confess, having read the whole document, I feel compelled to
recommend to you the preamble which states, amongst other things that:
<q>
WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED
to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in
our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and
to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth
of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations
large and small, and...
AND FOR THESE ENDS...
to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, and
to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of
methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common
interest,
</q>
[Bl.]
It is clear (to me at any rate) that the US trampled rough shod over
these ideals. The US made it plain that it considered its own interests
to take precedence to the common interest. 'You are with us or against
us' is the vapid jingle that bleated from the White House. Quite apart
from the extremely dubious logic of the slogan, it seems to me to run
directly counter to the grain of the UN Charter which is, as far as I
can tell, that of consultation, consensus and compromise. There was NO
Security Council resolution empowering the US (or anyone else) to attack
Iraq. Therefore any such attack was and is, by definition, illegal
according to international law. The fact that the US actively sought,
and obtained such a resolution in 1991 and did not seek, or obtain, such
a resolution in 2003 speaks not only for itself, but also for the
justification of assertion. Clearly the US is a rather fair-weather
friend to the community of nations that the UN represents.
> [Blunderlov 2] The fact that no WOMD have been, or ever will be,
found,
> has done nothing to ameliorate this massively contemptuous behavior
and >has in fact served only to emphasise it's arrogance.
>
> [Jonathan 2] The fact that no WMD have yet been found is neither here
nor
> there. There was sufficient good reason to suspect their existence
(and in
> my opinion the war was justified for overthrowing Saddam alone).
Saddam
> certainly had them and used them, that he destroyed them prior to the
> invasion (or more likely smuggled them to Jordan) does not have any
> bearing on the fact that the reasons for war were (need I insert this,
in >my opinion and the US President's) sound.
[Blunderov 3] I dispute that there was good, or even any, reason to
suspect their existence. (Had there been I have little doubt that the
Security Council, including even the French, would have been able to
recognize it.)There was, in fact, overwhelming evidence to the contrary,
Powell's Krushevian theatrics in the Security Council notwithstanding.
On the other hand there is clear evidence, which is now a matter of
public record, that both Bush and Blair, as and when expediency served,
either fabricated or distorted intelligence to support this lie, and/or
ignored any intelligence that tended to militate against their
predetermined agenda of attacking Iraq. (I recall that is a matter of
public record that Rumsfeld said to Bush, at a meeting about Afghanistan
that 'They might as well get Iraq as well'. Everything that followed was
pure 'wag the dog'. The fact that NO weapons of mass destruction, nor
even any traces thereof, have been or will be found proves that not only
was the US wrong in law, it was also wrong in fact.
It also goes along way towards showing that there are very good reasons
for the international law to be maintained exactly as it is, uninfected
by the toxic 'pre-emptive self-defence' oxymoron. All of which suggests
that your confidence in the US Presidents judgment seems to have been
sorely misplaced.
When you say that 'the war was justified for overthrowing Saddam alone',
what you mean by 'justified' is not quite clear to me. Possibly you
could direct me to section of the United Nations Charter that would
clarify this?
Unless, of course, what you have in mind is some sort of moral
imperative? In which case I would be interested to know how just how far
you think this should be taken - is, would you say, the US morally bound
to forcibly eliminate every single leader of any country that is, or
might become, objectionable to either the US or to it's own citizens?
I think the speculation that WOMD were smuggled to Jordan is about as
likely as someone saying 'Quick let me hold that reeking joint for you,
the police are here!'
> [Blunderlov 2] The fact that the USA has seen fit to create and
implement
> a doctrine of pre-emptive self defence, which is not only against
reason
> (the tu quoque fallacy) but also a complete repudiation of the most >
> >fundamental tenets international law, is, I would say, contemptuous
of the >community of nations.
>
> [Jonathan 2] Of course USA reserves the right to act pre-emptively in
> self-defence. All self-defence necessarily contains pre-emption. Does
one
> defend oneself before or after the robber has shot one? pre-emptive
> actions
> are designed (or have the power) to deter or prevent an anticipated
> situation or occurrence. In the age of international terrorism this is
> simple self-preservation. Over time this will become a staple of
> international law and in 50 years our grandchildren will depose
> governments
> who violate international law and the law of self-preservation by not
> defending their citizens by acting against clear threats that mature
into
> harm.
[Blunderov 3] In order to' act pre-emptively in self-defence' it is
necessary that there be at least a threat of attack. There was none. The
only threat that existed was a wag-the-dog lie designed to stampede the
electorate. Now Bush now tries to pretend that the Iraq war was really
about 'The War on Terror' hoping that everyone will forget that it's
original urgent necessity was justified in terms of the existence of
WOMD, which, (did I mention?) have not and never will be found. The
threat was faked. Spurious. Not-genuine. A counterfeit. Of no value.
And Bush knew it. How long will you go on believing this liar?
Furthermore, this argument is, in any case, nothing more than a sly
variation of the fallacy 'argumentum ad baculum' aka Appeal to Force: (
A sub-variation of the Appeal to Emotion)
Explanation: (Courtesy About.com)
<q>
The Latin term "argumentum ad baculum" literally means "argument to the
stick" - this fallacy makes an implict or explicit threat of physical or
psychological violence against others if they refuse to accept the
conclusions offered. You can think of it as having this form:
1. Some threat of violence is made or implied. Therefore, conclusion C
should be accepted.
It would be highly unusual for such a threat to be logically relevant to
the conclusion, or for the truth-value of a conclusion to be made any
more likely by such threats...</q>
>
> [Blunderlov 2] The (continuing) incarceration of prisoners at
Guantanemo
> Bay is a violation of so many articles of the Geneva Convention, to
which >the USA is signatory, that it is difficult to count them all.
>
> [Jonathan 2] Guantanemo works beautifully. The legalities of it are
still
> being worked out, but in the meantime it is a valuable tool in the
> psychological war against Islamic terror.
[Blunderov 3] I don't know that I would personally have chosen the
adjective 'beautifully' - I am not amongst those who find systematic
torture an aesthetically appealing concept but then I am rather a
sensitive blossom. Be that as it may, and notwithstanding how effective
Guantanemo Bay may or may not be, it is completely illegal according to
the Geneva convention which states quite explicitly that when there is
any doubt about the precise status of any combatants, or indeed, anyone
at all, these persons are to be treated exactly according to the
provisions set down for ordinary prisoners-of-war until such time as an
appropriate tribunal can be convened to make a further determination.
The United States military, or its agents, is NOT an appropriate
tribunal; the US is a combatant. The Geneva Convention makes no
exceptions with regard to 'valuable tools'. The Convention makes no
mention of the end justifying the means, nor does it state that two
wrongs will now be reckoned equal to a right.
There are no 'legalities to be worked out' - they have already been
concluded and the US signed on the dotted line. I am not aware that the
Geneva Convention contains any retroactively applicable unilateral
variance clauses to be decided and implemented at the discretion of the
USA at any time and place of its choosing. Guantanemo Bay is a blatant
war crime. This is a 24 karat fact. I defy you, or anyone, to
demonstrate otherwise. In furtherance of my assertion I offer the
following:
http://www.multimedia-star-one.co.uk/peaceactions/guantanemo.asp
> [Blunderlov 2] This goes beyond contemptuous and is simply evil.
>
> [Jonathan 2] My chief problem with Hermit - who like you I consider a
> fellow and friend - and now you, is that you limn the United States
with > >terms like "Evil" or "Uncivilized" or "Contemptuous". I reject
this >characterization.
> Compared against a proper benchmark (not an ideal) the USA is
greatest,
> fairest, most free, and just countries on earth. Its people are
> enormously generous, it has protected Europe for a generation and
utterly >defeated two of the most murderous ideologies in all humanity
(Communism >and Nazism).All great nations do some harm, but it most be
seen in the >context of history and circumstances.
[Blunderov 3] Limn. Nice word but why limn me with limning? I said
Guantanemo bay is evil, not that the USA is generally evil. I have shown
that the US is, as represented by its current officials, contemptuous of
the community of nations. ('Uncivilised' is not one of mine is it? I
don't recall saying this anyway.)
Without wishing to quibble, I think it is worth pointing out that
communism, as an ideology, is, although not as vigorous as it once was,
very far from dead. Thankfully the same cannot be said of Nazism. And
yes, the people of the USA are, for the most part, a generous and
vibrant nation. And yes, the USA has done much that is good in the
world. There is much to be admired in and about the United States. But
in recent times, it seems to me, she is doing far more harm that good in
the world. I will return to your point about the context and
circumstances of history at a later point if you will bear with me.
>
> [Blunderlov 2] I hope I live to see the day when Rumsfeld et al pay
the
> penalty applicable to these despicable war crimes. (Under the
> circumstances,
> it is hardly surprising that the USA prefers not to support the
> establishment of a permanent International War Crimes Court. There is,
as
> they say, nothing like the threat of execution to enhance the
> concentration.) Then of course, there is depleted uranium munitions
etc,
> etc.
>
> [Jonathan 2] "Despicable war crimes" LOL! Easy on the purple prose.
What
> superlative do you use to describe those other war crimes, you know,
the
> real ones where SS machine gun villagers into pits and stuff?
[Blunderov 3] The phrase 'Torture Lite' makes for an interesting google.
I suggest to you that torture is indeed a 'real' war crime. So is
murder.
<q>
Independent [b](via Agonist): Terror suspects at Bagram airbase in
Afghanistan and elsewhere subjected to "duress" that has resulted in the
death of two prisoners so far.
</q>
Strange that you should mention machine guns and pits; may I bring the
following to your attention?
http://www.multimedia-star-one.co.uk/peaceactions/guantanemo.asp
<q>
As Jamie Doran's film Afghan Massacre: Convoy of Death records, some
hundreds, possibly thousands, of them were loaded into container lorries
at Qala-i-Zeini, near the town of Mazar-i-Sharif, on November 26 and 27.
The doors were sealed and the lorries were left to stand in the sun for
several days. At length, they departed for Sheberghan prison, 80 miles
away. The prisoners, many of whom were dying of thirst and asphyxiation,
started banging on the sides of the trucks. Dostum's men stopped the
convoy and machine-gunned the containers. When they arrived at
Sheberghan, most of the captives were dead.
The US special forces running the prison watched the bodies being
unloaded. They instructed Dostum's men to "get rid of them before
satellite pictures can be taken". Doran interviewed a Northern Alliance
soldier guarding the prison. "I was a witness when an American soldier
broke one prisoner's neck. The Americans did whatever they wanted. We
had no power to stop them." Another soldier alleged: "They took the
prisoners outside and beat them up, and then returned them to the
prison. But sometimes they were never returned, and they disappeared."
Many of the survivors were loaded back in the containers with the
corpses, then driven to a place in the desert called Dasht-i-Leili. In
the presence of up to 40 US special forces, the living and the dead were
dumped into ditches. Anyone who moved was shot. The German newspaper Die
Zeit investigated the claims and concluded that: "No one doubted that
the Americans had taken part. Even at higher levels there are no doubts
on this issue." The US group Physicians for Human Rights visited the
places identified by Doran's witnesses and found they "all... contained
human remains consistent with their designation as possible grave
sites".
</q>
>
> [Blunderlov 2] That it signs free trade agreements and then doesn't
> hesitate to repudiate them when expediency serves also seems to me to
be >massively contemptuous. This is nothing short of saying 'Our
interests are >far more important than your piffling little concerns".
> [Jonathan 2] Dead right! Are you seriously asking that the USA, in a
> hostile world jockeying to hurt it, grab advantage and support
> self-interest, must act against its self-interest? Agreements can be
> called off at any time. By doing so I simply say "I no longer agree
about >this issue, the agreement does not suite me so it is void". There
is >nothing contemptuous about this, it is as simple expression of fact
or >opinion> weighted with action. When compatibility of observations
is no >longer a reality, or the conditions of a promise no longer
supported, one >is entitled to call it off.
[Blunderov 3] Are you saying that if, for instance, you and I were to
make an arrangement to meet for coffee somewhere and I failed to turn up
because I decided that I would prefer to spend the time doing something
else more interesting, that would be just fine by you?
Sadly, you attitude is shared by many. I don't know how it is in the US,
but here hardly any businesses are willing to accept cheques any more
because so many are not met. Call me old fashioned, but to me a promise
is a lot like a cheque; not lightly bounced. If doing so in the
commercial world is called fraud, why should it be called anything else
in the business of nations?
> [Blunderlov 2] I seem to recall some business just recently where the
US
> Steel industry was afforded a subsidy by the US government in direct
> contravention of an agreement with the EEU. I also recall some
business
> where Mexican milk was consistently turned back at the border because
it
> failed to come up to scratch in terms of quality. Oddly, the same fate
> befell American milk when it was exported to Mexico and then
re-imported
> to
> America.
>
> [Jonathan 2] Yes, people experience this problem with the Chinese,
> Japanese and EU too. Even within trading block, there is cheating and
>stretching the rules to accommodate unfair advantage (see EU rows over
>fishing, farm subsidies and chocolates). I say let it play out, balance
>comes eventually.
[Blunderov 3] OK. So you don't really mind that the Chinese steal your
technology and counterfeit your software. Gotcha.
> [Blunderlov 2] I dispute your statement "If an agreement disadvantages
> you, you are entitled to void the agreement..." This is quite simply
>dishonest and is no different from stealing.
>
> [Jonathan 2] Dispute it if you like, but it is axiomatically true. I
can
> honestly and openly announce that circumstances in which I made an
> agreement have changed so I no longer wish to participate in the
>agreement.
[Blunderov 3] If it is part of the agreement that you may withdraw at
any time that it suits you, then fine. If not, then it's dishonest.
>
> [Blunderlov 2] You might as well say if somebody has something that
you
> want, you are entitled to take it if it is to your disadvantage not to
> have it.
>
> [Jonathan 2] I am surprised to see you Brother B furiously attacking a
> straw man. Please explain how you arrived at "you are entitled to take
it > if it is to your disadvantage not to have it" from "If an agreement
> disadvantages you, you are entitled to void the agreement". The right
to > > void underlies every contact and agreement.
[Blunderov 3] In chess there is an expression ' A man that would take
back a move would pick a pocket'. But OK. Conceded. Possibly this is
this is a straw man. I offer you, as a replacement, the following one
instead:
<q>
'Strawman' by Lou Reed from the Album 'New York'
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/LeftBank/2800/lou.html
(Lou Reed, according to Bob Ezrin, is "the most underrated contemporary
poet in America ". From " Heroin " in 1965 to today's " Perfect Night ",
thirty years passed, but Lou is still the avant-garde before the times,
and still in his black suit .)
[Bl.] (Not too sure that I entirely agree with either the grammar or the
hyperbole of the above glowing assessment; but Lou Reed does write some
interesting lyrics and also plays some kickass rock guitar.)
<q>
Strawman Lyrics:
We who have so much to you who have so little
To you who don't have anything at all
We who have so much more than any one man does need
And you who don't have anything at all, ah
Does anybody need another million dollar movie
Does anybody need another million dollar star
Does anybody need to be told over and over
Spitting in the wind comes back at you twice as hard
Strawman, going straight to the devil
Strawman, going straight to hell
Strawman, going straight to the devil
Strawman
Strawman
Strawman
Strawman, yes
Does anyone really need a billion dollar rocket
Does anyone need a 60,000 dollars car
Does anyone need another president
Or the sins of Swaggart parts 6, 7, 8 and 9, ah
Does anyone need yet another politician
Caught with his pants down and money sticking in his hole
Does anyone need another racist preacher
Spittin' in the wind can only do you harm, ooohhh
Strawman, going straight to the devil
Strawman, going straight to hell
Strawman, going straight to the devil
Strawman
Strawman
Strawman
Strawman
Does anyone need another faulty shuttle
Blasting off to the moon, venus or mars
Does anybody need another self-righteous rock singer
Whose nose he says has led him straight to god
Does anyone need yet another blank skyscraper
If you're like me I'm sure a minor miracle will do
A flaming sword or maybe a gold ark floating up the hudson
When you spit in the wind it comes right back at you
Strawman, going straight to the devil
Strawman, going straight to hell
Strawman, going to the devil
Strawman, strawman
Strawman, ...., ah
Strawman
Strawman
</q>
Whilst we're on the subject of straw men, it strikes me that Saddam
Hussein is an outstanding example of the species. I have read that
something like 53% of Americans believe that he had something to do with
9/11. This in spite of the fact that, like WOMD, (Did I mention this
before?) no evidence to this effect has been, or ever will be, found.
This was made abundantly clear to both Bush and Blair by both their
intelligence services. Of course they chose to ignore it.
> [Blunderlov 2] Is this the same Jonathan Davis that was plainting
about
> the Chinese proclivity for stealing technology and disregarding
[Bl.] > >intellectual property rights?
>
> [Jonathan 2] I am Jonathan Davis and I have recently broached the
Chinese
> proclivity for stealing technology and intellectual property.
[Blunderov 3] Just checking. The Rhinoceros' post about multiple
personality disorder must have wandered unbidden into periphery of my
thoughts during an unguarded moment.
> [Blunderlov 2] It is my view that commitment is the heart of any
> relationship. To dismiss a commitment is to dismiss the relationship
as
> unimportant. This is contemptuous.
>
> [Jonathan 2] What commitment? Voiding an agreement is not dismissing a
> commitment to say fair dealing or respect. It simply means that a
party
> chooses to no longer participate in an agreement. Thus I or a nation
might
> say that it no longer agrees with a decision or arrangement. Its
reasons
> may be sound or faulty, but it is fully entitled to do so and it does
not
> necessarily imply contempt. There are many vestigial agreements,
treaties,
> pacts and truces that range from useless to downright damaging for all
> participating parties. If America chose to withdraw from NATO
tomorrow
> would you be outraged by the contempt of it? If it chose to stop
making
> aid payments to Israel, would you rage at the unilateralist bastards?
If >the USA chose to void all agreements developing world countries had
with it >in terms of paying back their debts, would you declare such
breach of >agreement utter contemptuous, nay EVIL Yankee lone wolfer.
>
> Well?
[Blunderov 3] Speaking for myself, I would have no problems with it
although I still think that such actions would be contemptuous. I think
it entirely possible that both NATO and Israel would squeak about it
quite a lot though. With regard to the developing-world debt, I cannot
imagine that such a step would be anything other than welcome to it.
Here, for once, I can say that I thoroughly approve of the USA reducing
the amount of its loan guarantee ($9 bl) to Israel by the exact amount
that Israel spends on illegal construction in Palestinian areas. An
admirable step in the right direction. I hope there are more to follow.
> [Blunderlov 2] I do not dispute the right to renegotiate if the other
> party is willing to do so, but if the other party is not willing to do
so >then, I am sorry to say, it is just tough titty.
>
> [Jonathan 2] This is incorrect. In a binding agreement you may have
> duties, but not in elective treaty participation. That is why
countries > >can and do withdraw. They simply say, "We do not to agree
with you on >this", hence no agreement. Similarly, "We no longer agree
with you, whereas >one we did, so we withdraw".
[Blunderov 3]Cash only from now on please.
> [Blunderlov 2] I think I have provided enough examples, just from my
own
> immediate knowledge, to demonstrate that my assertion is reasonably
true -
> the USA holds the community of nations in manifest contempt. I have no
> doubt
> that if I was to engage in a little research I could provide a myriad
> more.
>
> [Jonathan 2] I am sorry to report that I disagree with your
conclusions.
> I think the opposite is true, that the United States - given its
> overwhelming superiority - is a marvel of consideration, and
diplomatic >restraint. Here is nation that could, if it chose, really
brush aside >anyone. It chooses to remain within the system, largely
agreeing to >restraints it could easily break and destroy, rules that do
not serve it >well and obeying the authority of hostile an corrupt
institutions for the >sake of international order. Its transgressions
are minor, it acts no more >selfishly than any other nation and
considering its de facto power we ought >to be careful it grateful it
chooses to comply at all.
[Blunderov 3] We should all be grateful that the US doesn't (always)
behave like the Nazis and Communists it so morally overthrew? For this
reason we should consider it a marvel of restraint? Seems to me this is
'damning with faint praise' indeed!
>
> [Blunderlov 2] As far as I can tell, the US chooses 'diplomacy and
> consensus' as a preliminary and then only when these routes offer some
> reasonable prospect of success. If and when this is not the case she
just
> does whatever she wants anyway. I would be most interested in any
recent
> examples you could provide where this was not the case. I cannot, at
the
> moment, think of any myself.
>
> [Jonathan 2] Kosovo and Liberia.
[Blunderov 3]OK. The US does sometimes act altruistically and for the
greater good of the community of nations. But, IMO, it is, at the
moment, doing far more harm than good in the world.
>
> [Blunderlov 2] It is my view that the second biggest curse of mankind
is
> nationalism. The first is, of course, the theistic religions.
(Buddhists
> will be spared the ire of Blunderov you will all doubtless be relieved
to
> know) Often they are the same thing. But not always. Possibilities for
> future discussion?
>
> [Jonathan 2] Brother Blunderlov this was an excellent post of yours.
> Thanks.
> I am particularly gratified to see us come back to what we agree on
> forcefully. Can I recommend you look into a book called "The New
> Barbarians"
> by Ian Angel
>
(http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0749435054/202-6883905-2633466
).
[Blunderov 3]I will be sure to do so at the first opportunity. Thank you
for the recommendation.
>
> He argues persuasively that people like us (the CoV) are the new
> barbarians
> primed to benefit and feed on the benighted who will cling to
ethnicity,
> nationalism, religion and socialism.
>
> Finally, did you know the Buddhists were a violent oppressor religion
who
> displaced and nearly wiped out their nearest competitor faith - the
Bon of
> Tibet? File them with the rest. That said, I have recently taken up
yoga
> and despite myself I am thoroughly loving it.
>
> Kind regards
>
> Jonathan
Thank you too, brother Jonathan, for you courteous reply. I was once
aware of the warlike nature of early Buddhism in Tibet but thank you for
drawing it to my attention again; I had forgotten it. I suppose I am
inclined to be more in favour of Buddhism than not because they consider
it a duty to sincerely try to understand the nature of the universe. As
for yoga, I discovered quite early in life that I was not sufficiently
supple to attempt it. Pity, but there it is.
Finally, to address your point about judging a nation within its
historical context, I think I can agree. A political analyst that I
spoke to told me that, in his view, the USA felt that it had to be seen
to be kicking butt after 9/11 and it didn't very much matter whose butt
it was.
To me, it is understandable that the US, so to speak, lost its temper
after 9/11. But as Virians do we not prefer reason to rage? And, because
rage begets violence, should we not argue for a return to reason as soon
as may be? And is dressing rage in the robes of reason helpful to this
end?
Respectfully, Brother Jonathan, I suggest that it is not.
Best Regards
Blunderov
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
|
|
|
|
JD
Adept
Gender:
Posts: 542
Reputation: 7.39
Rate JD
|
|
RE: virus: The Ideohazard 1.1
« Reply #28 on: 2003-09-18 08:49:47 » |
|
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-virus@lucifer.com [mailto:owner-virus@lucifer.com] On Behalf Of
Blunderov
Sent: 18 September 2003 12:29
To: virus@lucifer.com
Subject: RE: virus: The Ideohazard 1.1
> [Jonathan 2] The war was not and in a way the UN is.
[Blunderov3] So you concur that the US has ('in a way') a 'lack of respect
or reverence for' the UN? This definition, as I am sure you have guessed, is
a very serviceable one for the word 'contempt' if Merriam-Webster is to be
believed. I feel, under the circumstances, quite justified in characterizing
the US, as 'manifestly contemptuous'. Apparently you do too, 'in a way'.
[Jonathan 3] No, I was saying the war was not and the UN is "in a way"
useless.
SNIP UN CHARTER
[Blunderlov 3] It is clear (to me at any rate) that the US trampled rough
shod over these ideals.
[Jonathan 3] I disagree completely. It has merely protected itself from
those who have are not even party to this agreement and never could be. A
rational corporate actor (USA) versus a non-state player with no regard for
any convention, accord treaty or agreement. Necessarily it may need to step
outside the confines of ideal and into the muck of pragmatic defence.
[Blundelov 3] The US made it plain that it considered its own interests to
take precedence to the common interest. 'You are with us or against us' is
the vapid jingle that bleated from the White House.
[Jonathan 3] Where did it make it so plain? It simply said you either have
common interest with us or you do not (ie.. leave us alone in peace). If you
don't then we are at war. Simple, honest and right.
[Blunderlov 3] Quite apart from the extremely dubious logic of the slogan,
it seems to me to run directly counter to the grain of the UN Charter which
is, as far as I can tell, that of consultation, consensus and compromise.
There was NO Security Council resolution empowering the US (or anyone else)
to attack Iraq. Therefore any such attack was and is, by definition, illegal
according to international law.
[Jonathan 4] Incorrect. Which law says the USA could NOT attack Iraq?
[Blundelov 3] The fact that the US actively sought, and obtained such a
resolution in 1991 and did not seek, or obtain, such a resolution in 2003
speaks not only for itself, but also for the justification of assertion.
Clearly the US is a rather fair-weather friend to the community of nations
that the UN represents.
[Jonathan 3] The community of nations gets what it deserves from the USA. US
allies proper, its enemies suffer. Sound operant conditioning and absolutely
fair.
> [Blunderlov 2] The fact that no WOMD have been, or ever will be,
found,
> has done nothing to ameliorate this massively contemptuous behavior
and >has in fact served only to emphasise it's arrogance.
>
> [Jonathan 2] The fact that no WMD have yet been found is neither here
nor
> there. There was sufficient good reason to suspect their existence
(and in
> my opinion the war was justified for overthrowing Saddam alone).
Saddam
> certainly had them and used them, that he destroyed them prior to the
> invasion (or more likely smuggled them to Jordan) does not have any
> bearing on the fact that the reasons for war were (need I insert this,
in >my opinion and the US President's) sound.
[Blunderov 3] I dispute that there was good, or even any, reason to suspect
their existence. (Had there been I have little doubt that the Security
Council, including even the French, would have been able to recognize
it.)There was, in fact, overwhelming evidence to the contrary, Powell's
Krushevian theatrics in the Security Council notwithstanding.
[Jonathan 3] The evidence was sufficient for me. The very fact he had them
and refused to account for them made him guilty in my view. The onus was on
Saddam to prove his innocence because of his established guilt. As fore the
French, their opinion counts for ought in my vie. They are the worst
self-selling thugs in Europe. Need I remind you of the Rainbow Warrior and
the Nuclear Tests?
[Blunderlov 3] On the other hand there is clear evidence, which is now a
matter of public record, that both Bush and Blair, as and when expediency
served, either fabricated or distorted intelligence to support this lie,
and/or ignored any intelligence that tended to militate against their
predetermined agenda of attacking Iraq.
[Jonathan 3] There is no such "clear evidence"!
[At this point I realized I still had well over 3,000 words to pour through
and I realized I simply did not have the time to answer properly. Even what
is written above is rushed. This debate, whilst interesting, is not
subservient to your interests or mine. We will either have to finish this
some other time or simply agree to disagree.]
Massive snip...
[Blunderlov 3]
...it is understandable that the US, so to speak, lost its temper after
9/11. But as Virians do we not prefer reason to rage? And, because rage
begets violence, should we not argue for a return to reason as soon as may
be? And is dressing rage in the robes of reason helpful to this end?
Respectfully, Brother Jonathan, I suggest that it is not.
[Jonathan 3] The USA did not lose into temper after 9/11. Quite the
opposite, it has been a model of restraint and tempered focus. If he USA
were to exhibit the characteristics of other great nations of the past,
billions would be dead now. Whole cabinets of the Smithsonian would be
filled with kerosene filled jars containing heads of Arab leaders. Instead
we have two liberated nations and a disrupted Islamic terror system fighting
a rearguard retreat.
Half of me wished the USA did behave like a vengeful Kitchener and mete out
utter brutality after 911. Its measured responses have earned it no thanks.
History will show just how calm and restrained the Americans have been so
far, but perhaps only if they are forced to get really nasty in future.
I am with them.
Kind regards
Jonathan
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
|
|
|
|
Blunderov
Archon
Gender:
Posts: 3160
Reputation: 8.90
Rate Blunderov
"We think in generalities, we live in details"
|
|
RE: virus: The Ideohazard 1.1
« Reply #29 on: 2003-09-18 12:55:54 » |
|
> From: Jonathan Davis
> Sent: 18 September 2003 1450
> Subject: RE: virus: The Ideohazard 1.1
[Bl.]
<Big Snip>
> [At this point I realized I still had well over 3,000 words to pour
> through
> and I realized I simply did not have the time to answer properly. Even
> what
> is written above is rushed. This debate, whilst interesting, is not
> subservient to your interests or mine. We will either have to finish
this
> some other time or simply agree to disagree.]
</big snip>
OK. Bandwidth is a precious commodity. I feel I have made my case. So, I
suppose, do you. Let's leave it at that then.
Now, where were we before this all came up?
Best regards
Blunderov
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
