Good evening again, Tim! Tim Bedding wrote to Bill Anderson...
Bill Anderson previously posted: > > If he had taken the "stand" you suggest, he'd have done worse. > > The votes to the contrary would have been > > even more significant and well pointed out by his opponents. To which, you replied thusly: > The issue is human rights. I would have wanted Kerry to take > on that issue and thus distinguish himself from Bush. > On December 10, 1948 the General Assembly of the United Nations > adopted and proclaimed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Well, at least for me, this raises at least two questions, perhaps some additional minor ones as well. Would you really have liked to see John Kerry raising the spectre of human rights given his own historical past, and voting record? Actually, that might have shot him in the foot even worse, perhaps not. But I doubt seriously if that would have, in itself, made a significant difference in the overall vote count results. Secondly, the UN's so-called Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a piss poor example of substance supporting Human Rights given the UN's own historical track record in places such as the Congo during the 1960s, for example. I'm not trying to suggest here, of course that The Shrub's track record, at least as judged by his first term in office is any better than Kerry's is, but as you suggest, Bush didn't have the audacity to proclaim that as a giant issue surrounding his 'gunboat diplomacy' foreign policy which he largely ran under. You're certainly right about one thing, and I'll have to give you a huge credit for that certainly, we do need to look for Candidates who have a proven historical human rights record. You may not be entirely familiar with American political personalities, but we do have one gentleman in the US Congress, Congressman Dr. Ron Paul from the State of Texas who does have a stellar historical voting track record on human rights. He has served several terms in the US Congress, and has been an outspoken critic of the Iraq aggression by the US, and also on such things as the draconian 'anti-liberty' Patriot Act. Again, you wrote to Bill Anderson: > It would seem that you and Lowell are not too anxious to have > human rights respected. Torture seems a clear step too far. > The battle to win hearts and minds should continue although I agree > with Frank that the current situation is not altogether inspiring > in that regard. I certainly agree with you here, also on a couple of fronts. I don't want to dwell too far on Lowell and Bill's commitment to human rights since they have published enough material here to show where their positions on this matter lie. But the second front you raised concerning winning hearts and minds is something that I personally believe can never be achieved by resorting to the use of lethal and deadly force by US military action. If that was a winning card to play it isn't evidenced very much by history in places such as Vietnam, Somalia, and at least to this day in Iraq where it has gone far beyond what most people perceived it might go. The truth is, that the use of US military force has, as it did during the later stages of the Vietnam War, resulted in recruiting more enemies and losing the battle over the 'hearts and minds' of the targeted base in which it was directed. I have gone on record, and spoken to this issue on many occasions, particularly here on this forum and elsewhere, that we are created more 'terrorists' (or freedom fighters, depending upon your slant) that we are killing or capturing via the tremendous force employed by the US government. That is certainly not my idea of 'winning hearts and minds'. Last week I was on the radio discussing this very thing here at our local radio station. The topic at that time was the Patriot Act. But during that radio segment I also had the opportunity to raise the fundamental flaw of the American ability to win hearts and minds. A lot of that is the result of five or six decades of a fatally flawed US foreign policy relying heavily upon military force. This has in large part created a situation in which we currently find ourselves facing today with this 'terrorism' thing that seems to be the driving force behind losing our own liberties in BOTH the US and Britain for the sake of security! Imagine that?! During the above radio interview, I did say, for what it's worth, that if we surrender our liberties upon the altar of safety and security, the 'terrorists' have won! And indeed they have. I've watched Tony Blaire recently trying to justify this tremendous abrogation of liberty for the sake of safety and security and it is almost identical to the Shrub Regime's<tm> rhetoric in support of the USA Patriot Act here in this country. But the point is here, that during the above interview I was able to suggest that the current threat of terror today is largely a result of our own making. Since it has taken five or six decades to piss off this large of a segment of the world, it can never be resolved in a matter of weeks, months, and will take very many years to turn this sordid and stinking mess around. > I do not know how much people here are following the UK situation > but we have just adopted an act of parliament, giving the government > the power to place restrictions on liberty, using intelligence > reports as justification. Previously the power existed but only > for foreign nationals I think. Yes. I have been following it as best as I can. I do pick up and listen to the BBC "American Broadcast" which is broadcast here locally on Public Television at 5 p.m. local time. Again, as I pointed out above, both the UK and the US are surrendering to the very issues in which the so-called 'terrorists' have demanded in the first place, that is by a wholesale abandonment of human and civil rights! It is getting more difficult by the moment to differentiate anything substantial between what the terrorists are demanding, and how we seem to reflect upon this so-called external threat. If you recall, just last week, the USCIA sent agents into Stockholm, Sweden to kidnap, abduct and transport 'suspected' terrorists who resided in Stockholm, to Egypt for interrogation! This is so blatantly against any notion of civilized behaviour and an abject denial of human rights if there ever was one! Yes, this US Administration is guilty, by default of using torture by default, as a standard practice based largely on this idea of fighting 'terror'! So, any rational thinker of the human race might ask: Who really are the terrorists? Unfortunately, the answer to that is a mixed bag. Maybe I might suggest, at least conservatively: We might be losing the 'war on terrorism' internally while in the process of fighting against it externally. The 'Axis of Evil' in this case may not entirely be the fault of radical muslim fundamentalists. There may be other players involved on the world stage that also fit into this category in much the same way as we are accustomed to understanding such terms. But, since Liberty Northwest is a Conference and Forum for discussing 'Liberty'; I believe we really have to ask whether the direction in this sordid mess is really furthering Liberty in the long run. How can we sign on and support suppression of Liberty within the UK or the US, or anywhere else, when we are willing to revoke or suspend it on such false presuppositions as fighting those who many claim wish to take it away as the course for invoking terror? Think about that folks. And, to address Tim Bedding's considerations over winning 'hearts and minds': Isn't the most effective way to show success just to live it, and demonstrate it for all to see, without reservation? Sure it is. If we want to promote Liberty, we have to live Liberty and showcase its' success by how, and in the way that we conduct ourselves. It is through persuasion, not military force, in which individuals will become convinced that 'Liberty Works', while the alternative is terror and everything that goes along with that to suppress Liberty. There are many historical precedents that support this, but too numerous to mention in a short email message tonight. Kindest regards, Frank _______________________________________________ Libnw mailing list Libnw@immosys.com List info and subscriber options: http://immosys.com/mailman/listinfo/libnw Archives: http://immosys.com/mailman//pipermail/libnw
