Nah, I'm not serious. It's just applying reverse-logic on the statements of US government representatives.
However, it's true that the little people have gotten the shorter end of the stick when it comes to privatization.
Oh, add Cuba to the list of countries to be toppled. They will do a lot better without the US embargo when it's done, but they could do so already, it doesn't depend on their government but on the US government's will.
// Jei
On Thu, 4 Mar 2004, Jonathan Davis wrote:
> "American's just hate the freedoms that Iraqi's, Afghanis, Venezuelans and > Haiti's used to have" > > Can you support this statement? Whilst you are at it, can you confirm that > you are stating, seriously, that: > > 1) Americans (all Americans or the majority) hate(d) the people of Taliban > Afghanistan, Saddam's Iraq, Chavez's Venezuela and Aristede's Haiti. > 2) That they did so because these citizens of those countries had civil > rights whereas US citizens do not. > > Regards > > Limbic > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-virus@lucifer.com [mailto:owner-virus@lucifer.com] On Behalf Of > Jei > Sent: 03 March 2004 19:49 > To: virus@lucifer.com > Subject: RE: RE virus: More bush democracy > > > One can only explain it with that American's just hate the freedoms that > Iraqi's, Afghanis, Venezuelans and Haiti's used to have. > > Why do they hate them so? - Simply because they don't have them. > Their government looks after the pockets of their corporate elites. > Not the little people. This is what incites hatred in americans to such an > extent that they make war upon the free countries of the world. > > On Wed, 3 Mar 2004, Jonathan Davis wrote: > > > "Real democracies" like pre-War Iraq or Afghanistan, contemporary > > Iran, North Korea and Libya? > > > > I prefer these false democracy police states like the UK and the USA. > > > > Regards > > > > Limbic > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-virus@lucifer.com [mailto:owner-virus@lucifer.com] On > > Behalf Of Erik Aronesty > > > > It sounds very consistent with our foreign policy of "zero tolerance > > for real democracy" > > > > Then again, that's our new domestic policy as well. > --- > 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>
Too many unclear definitions to answer that, but for example if you mean losing our ozone layer and global warming, and you attribute it's cause to that group, then in a sense, no.
It's just a question of belief.
Now humor me in return,
Are there any people or nations on earth whose problems you would see are caused by americans?
What nations do you see as causing problems for the americans and why?
On Thu, 4 Mar 2004, Jonathan Davis wrote:
> Humour me Jei, > > Are there any people or nations on earth whose problems are not directly > caused by white Jewish republican American corporate kleptocrat oil barons? > > <limbic limns the extent of the lunacy> > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-virus@lucifer.com [mailto:owner-virus@lucifer.com] On Behalf Of > Jei > Sent: 03 March 2004 21:39 > To: virus@lucifer.com > Subject: RE: RE virus: More bush democracy > > On Wed, 3 Mar 2004, Blunderov wrote: > > > Sent: 03 March 2004 08:16 PM > > > > Thanks B. Interesting, but a bit short on evidence. > > > > Bye the way, US/French intervention - good or bad? > > Good for Bush buddies, French and US corporations, bad for the most Haitis. > > SNIP > > > --- > 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>
Re: RE virus: More bush democracy
« Reply #19 on: 2004-03-04 13:22:33 »
I always find it very amusing when people say that Switzerland and Sweden are “homogenous” and that's why real democracy works there.
The presupposition of this argument is that people of different races should have different levels of involvement in government and representation.
The other argument, frequently wielded, is that the US is so “big”.
That's true, and therefore it should be held up to a *more* stringent a standard, if only to take greater care with the greater power - lest it be abused.
The US, with its vast resources has no excuse for NOT implementing a true democracy, replete with the education and secure voting mechanism required.
We spent billions on closed-source proprietary corporate voting systems that can and has been hacked into. It's laughable. And 5 random people off the openssl mailing list could build a more secure system in a few months with a hundredth of the resources.
Our government is beyond “inefficient”. At this point, its failures of intelligence, security and integrity are bizarre and inexcusable. --- To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
Re: RE virus: More bush democracy
« Reply #20 on: 2004-03-04 16:47:14 »
Two dozen Nobel laureates and 40 other leading researchers have signed a statement accusing the Bush administration of “misrepresenting and suppressing scientific knowledge”
Check out ucsusa.org
Before Hitler started his conquests of other nations and his butchery of the Jews, scientists began to walk out of Germany and terrorism was used as an excuse to curtail civil rights... --- To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
RE: RE virus: More bush democracy
« Reply #21 on: 2004-03-04 17:16:57 »
Jonathan Davis Sent: 04 March 2004 01:40 PM
<snip> I think foreign policy of virtually every state is rightly about self-interest (yes, even Sweden and Switzerland). </snip> [Blunderov] Yes, but to what extent is it permissible to pursue self interest? Someone, it may have been Churchill, once remarked that 'War is foreign policy by other means'.
If war is in the interest of a particular state is it ok to just go for it irrespective of the circumstances?
The Limbic whom I know and respect is not, as far as I know, a proponent of 'might is right'. I feel reasonably certain that we can agree that war is an order of magnitude different to plain old foreign policy and that Churchill (if it was he) was overstating the case.
So, perhaps persons who criticize a pragmatic foreign policy and who simultaneously criticize a pragmatic war are not being inconsistent; they are talking about two different things. The fact that both decisions are 'pragmatic' does not necessarily make them equally virtuous surely?
Re:RE virus: More bush democracy
« Reply #22 on: 2004-03-04 18:02:34 »
Blunderov wrote:
Quote:
"Someone, it may have been Churchill, once remarked that 'War is foreign policy by other means'."
I believe you are probably thinking of Carl Von Clausewitz:
“War is not merely a political act, but also a real political instrument, a continuation of political commerce, a carrying out of the same by other means. ... for the political view is the object, War is the means, and the means must always include the object in our conception”
"The United States has sanctions against Cuba (a communist dictatorship and long time enemy) and participated in UN sanctions against Saddam's Iraq. Occasionally it gets into tangles with other trade blocks like the protectionist EU, that is destroying Caribbean fruit farmers (amongst others) and the US is trying to help. "
Hmm. For the most part, I am inclined to think that sanctions are rarely effective and rarely humane. They have a nasty habit of penalising the populace and leaving the elites unaffected. Unless the populace are able to put pressure on elites, sanctions afford no reliable mechanism for regime change (the only exception I can think of is Libya). In the case of Cuba, I think there is a very good case to be made for the sanctions having preserved the Castro regime.
Regarding the allegedly protectionist EU, I have noted a sequence of defeats for the US at the WTO against complaints from many trade blocs, the EU amongst them. I hardly think the US a bastion of free trade.
Two dozen Nobel laureates and 40 other leading researchers have signed a statement accusing the Bush administration of "misrepresenting and suppressing scientific knowledge"
Check out ucsusa.org
Before Hitler started his conquests of other nations and his butchery of the Jews, scientists began to walk out of Germany and terrorism was used as an excuse to curtail civil rights... --- To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
RE: RE virus: More bush democracy
« Reply #24 on: 2004-03-04 18:53:08 »
I appear to have amused accidentally because I did not say that homogeneity is the cause of Switzerland or Sweden's "real democracy". But the size and cultural homogeneity is a factor in how well representative democracy works. Generally the smaller and wealthier, the better. Anyway, the US is a real democracy in my view, as is the UK.
I also did not mention race.
There are some flaws in the US voting technology. The press has discovered them and true to America's democratic and free people are dealing with the threat now that it is been made public by the free press.
This is how free democracies work.
You dodged the point about a simple comparison between the USA similarly sized (and complex) countries of political systems.
Small, wealthy countries seem to have better representative democracies that larger countries. The chain of representation is shorter. These are inherent advantages such nations have.
The USA must be judged in class, and as such is a star performer.
It is not perfect, no nation is. And it certainly is not the Nazi killer state you appear to suggest it is.
Measured against the benchmark of ideal, everything is found wanting.
I always find it very amusing when people say that Switzerland and Sweden are "homogenous" and that's why real democracy works there.
The presupposition of this argument is that people of different races should have different levels of involvement in government and representation.
The other argument, frequently wielded, is that the US is so "big".
That's true, and therefore it should be held up to a *more* stringent a standard, if only to take greater care with the greater power - lest it be abused.
The US, with its vast resources has no excuse for NOT implementing a true democracy, replete with the education and secure voting mechanism required.
We spent billions on closed-source proprietary corporate voting systems that can and has been hacked into. It's laughable. And 5 random people off the openssl mailing list could build a more secure system in a few months with a hundredth of the resources.
Our government is beyond "inefficient". At this point, its failures of intelligence, security and integrity are bizarre and inexcusable. --- To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
RE: RE virus: More bush democracy
« Reply #25 on: 2004-03-04 18:58:56 »
Hi K,
I are to with you on both the objections you raised. I am also against sanctions, but their use by the US against Cuba is understandable. I personally think the sanctions should be lifted.
You are right about the trade issues, but my point about the trade disputes was not to really debate who is right or wrong, but to point out that self-interest drives much of the behaviour of these blocs and they all at various times have flouted the rules and conventions.
"Someone, it may have been Churchill, once remarked that 'War is foreign policy by other means'."
I believe you are probably thinking of Carl Von Clausewitz:
"War is not merely a political act, but also a real political instrument, a continuation of political commerce, a carrying out of the same by other means. ... for the political view is the object, War is the means, and the means must always include the object in our conception"
"The United States has sanctions against Cuba (a communist dictatorship and long time enemy) and participated in UN sanctions against Saddam's Iraq. Occasionally it gets into tangles with other trade blocks like the protectionist EU, that is destroying Caribbean fruit farmers (amongst others) and the US is trying to help. "
Hmm. For the most part, I am inclined to think that sanctions are rarely effective and rarely humane. They have a nasty habit of penalising the populace and leaving the elites unaffected. Unless the populace are able to put pressure on elites, sanctions afford no reliable mechanism for regime change (the only exception I can think of is Libya). In the case of Cuba, I think there is a very good case to be made for the sanctions having preserved the Castro regime.
Regarding the allegedly protectionist EU, I have noted a sequence of defeats for the US at the WTO against complaints from many trade blocs, the EU amongst them. I hardly think the US a bastion of free trade.
Re: RE virus: More bush democracy
« Reply #26 on: 2004-03-04 17:34:03 »
...when considering eugenics and the like, how would one approach such genetic mutations such as sickle-cell anemia? i would imagine that were it not for the existence of malaria, such a trait would be considered entirely negative, useless, and destructive to the human organism...and thus eliminated.
...this example brings up an important question; shouldnt we make sure we've acheived sufficient mastery over genetics before we start trying to make significant subtractions? or at least be extremely careful in our assessments? unfortunately, genetic mutation is a survival mechanism with the interest of the whole in mind...not the individual. so if we're going to put the cart before the horse, we better make certain we have the capacity to switch the horse and cart back again. or just strap Walter to the horse's back.
...for now i say, "say NO to retardation!"
DrSebby. "Courage...and shuffle the cards".
----Original Message Follows---- From: "Erik Aronesty" <erik@zoneedit.com> Reply-To: virus@lucifer.com To: virus@lucifer.com Subject: Re: RE virus: More bush democracy Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2004 10:59:40 -0400
Haven't ruined it. Put it into perspective.
A free society, a true system that values life in any form...is required before genetic engineering can proceed responsibly.
We depend heavily on a diverse and thriving ecosystem.
People don't understand that we'd all be dead if there were no bacteria on this planet.
RE: RE virus: More bush democracy
« Reply #27 on: 2004-03-04 19:11:07 »
Hi B,
Your faith in me is was justified. I am neither a proponent of might is right nor am I meaning to suggest that just because things are "pragmatic" they are the same.
My vague point (as this is only a half-cooked notion) is about motives.
I supported the war because I was convinced of the moral use for it. I believe it was the right thing to do. Those who opposed it no doubt believed the same thing. When I discussed this with anti-war friends etc, some used the argument that the war was unjustified on pragmatic grounds even if there was some justification for the idea of getting rid of Saddam. There were many good arguments against and I am just discussing one.
My objection was that the same people were often against the consequences of similar pragmatic approaches in the past: Vietnam, arming the Mujeheddin etc.
Of course I am pointing out two extremes On the one hand bleeding heart humanitarian intervention and on the other pure calculated rational advantage.
The people who once were resolutely on one side or the other have swapped and it I fun to point out the apparent inconsistency (even if as you have pointed out, it is only apparent).
<snip> I think foreign policy of virtually every state is rightly about self-interest (yes, even Sweden and Switzerland). </snip> [Blunderov] Yes, but to what extent is it permissible to pursue self interest? Someone, it may have been Churchill, once remarked that 'War is foreign policy by other means'.
If war is in the interest of a particular state is it ok to just go for it irrespective of the circumstances?
The Limbic whom I know and respect is not, as far as I know, a proponent of 'might is right'. I feel reasonably certain that we can agree that war is an order of magnitude different to plain old foreign policy and that Churchill (if it was he) was overstating the case.
So, perhaps persons who criticize a pragmatic foreign policy and who simultaneously criticize a pragmatic war are not being inconsistent; they are talking about two different things. The fact that both decisions are 'pragmatic' does not necessarily make them equally virtuous surely?
Just when I thought I was out-they pull me back in
Re: RE virus: More bush democracy
« Reply #28 on: 2004-03-04 19:59:51 »
Was that a compliment?
Walter <always looking for same> <<I love you regardless, Seb>>
Dr Sebby wrote:
> ...when considering eugenics and the like, how would one approach such > genetic mutations such as sickle-cell anemia? i would imagine that were it > not for the existence of malaria, such a trait would be considered entirely > negative, useless, and destructive to the human organism...and thus > eliminated. > > ...this example brings up an important question; shouldnt we make sure we've > acheived sufficient mastery over genetics before we start trying to make > significant subtractions? or at least be extremely careful in our > assessments? unfortunately, genetic mutation is a survival mechanism with > the interest of the whole in mind...not the individual. so if we're going > to put the cart before the horse, we better make certain we have the > capacity to switch the horse and cart back again. or just strap Walter to > the horse's back. > > ...for now i say, "say NO to retardation!" > > DrSebby. > "Courage...and shuffle the cards". > > ----Original Message Follows---- > From: "Erik Aronesty" <erik@zoneedit.com> > Reply-To: virus@lucifer.com > To: virus@lucifer.com > Subject: Re: RE virus: More bush democracy > Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2004 10:59:40 -0400 > > Haven't ruined it. Put it into perspective. > > A free society, a true system that values life in any form...is required > before genetic engineering can proceed responsibly. > > We depend heavily on a diverse and thriving ecosystem. > > People don't understand that we'd all be dead if there were no bacteria on > this planet. > > --- > To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to > <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l> > > _________________________________________________________________ > Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. > http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail > > --- > To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
--
Walter Watts Tulsa Network Solutions, Inc.
"Reminding you to help control the human population. Have your sexual partner spayed or neutered."
Re: RE virus: More bush democracy
« Reply #29 on: 2004-03-04 20:34:32 »
Yes.
-----Original Message----- From: "Dr Sebby" <drsebby@hotmail.com> Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2004 23:34:03 To:virus@lucifer.com Subject: Re: RE virus: More bush democracy
...when considering eugenics and the like, how would one approach such genetic mutations such as sickle-cell anemia? i would imagine that were it not for the existence of malaria, such a trait would be considered entirely negative, useless, and destructive to the human organism...and thus eliminated.
...this example brings up an important question; shouldnt we make sure we've acheived sufficient mastery over genetics before we start trying to make significant subtractions? or at least be extremely careful in our assessments? unfortunately, genetic mutation is a survival mechanism with the interest of the whole in mind...not the individual. so if we're going to put the cart before the horse, we better make certain we have the capacity to switch the horse and cart back again. or just strap Walter to the horse's back.
...for now i say, "say NO to retardation!"
DrSebby. "Courage...and shuffle the cards".
----Original Message Follows---- From: "Erik Aronesty" <erik@zoneedit.com> Reply-To: virus@lucifer.com To: virus@lucifer.com Subject: Re: RE virus: More bush democracy Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2004 10:59:40 -0400
Haven't ruined it. Put it into perspective.
A free society, a true system that values life in any form...is required before genetic engineering can proceed responsibly.
We depend heavily on a diverse and thriving ecosystem.
People don't understand that we'd all be dead if there were no bacteria on this planet.
Author
Logged
