Re: Peaceful change L3

2005-04-17 Thread Dan Minette

- Original Message - 
From: "Nick Arnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" 
Sent: Saturday, April 16, 2005 8:52 PM
Subject: Re: Peaceful change


> On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 11:25:07 -0500, Dan Minette wrote
>
> > Actually, the definition of a good guy is anyone who wants to live
> > in peace and freedom and would be willing to let his neighbor do the
> > same.  That's not really that bad of a definition.
>
> Whose definition is it?  Yours?  Bush's?  Mine?

Bush's.

> > had to seek peace at the barrel of the gun, I don't see how we can
> > automatically declare all such views evidence of bad theology.
>
> I haven't said that I think Bonhoeffer's theology is bad.  I know
Bonhoeffer's
> theology and George Bush is no Bonhoeffer.

But, Bonhoeffer sought peace through a bomb...which is the same as seeing
peace at the barrel of a gun.  There are times when Gandhi's techniques are
best, there are times when Bonhoeffer's are.

> > But, it was faith in human institutions. It was faith in the power
> > of human law.  By doing things the right we, we somehow evoke God's
> > power and everything turns out for the best.
>
> That's rather ambiguous, isn't it.  Whose definition of "best?"  Ours or
> God's?

Ours...or theirs.  We cannot know God's will well, but scripture does give
us some clues.  The God I know does not want innocence to suffer, He "so
loved the world that he gave us his only begotten Son."  It would be best
if people were not tortured and murdered.  I don't think one could say that
this is simply earthly thinking, out of touch with God's will.

> I heard a news item about a Marine regiment in Iraq that had a large
>number of churches praying for it, and none of their troops were killed
>or suffered amputations.  All that prayer worked, the report said.  Does
>this mean that  our prayers for Wes didn't "work?"  What were they praying
>for, exactly?

I'd guess "safe return."

>and is the survival of all of those Marines proof that prayer works?

No.  I wrote earlier that this was bad theologythat we can somehow
influence/control God's will.  I believe that God loved Wes just as much as
the people in the regiment that survived virtually unscathed.  I also
believe that God loved European Jews during the 1940s.  I believe that God
is involved in the world but doesn't intervene in the way the people who
claimed that their prayers worked think he does.


>How can  prayer, which is based in faith, ever be proven?

If prayer works in such a  manner then, one can look at the differences in
survival rates for, say, cancer patients who are prayed for and those who
are not. But, we have such proof.  The lack of such proof, requiring faith,
supports my understanding of prayer as dealing with changing our own
hearts instead of changing God's mind.

> As far as I'm concerned, things worked out for Wes's company, which
> had a lot of losses, for the best, too, as long as we make the best of
>it, trusting that God redeems all.

I wouldn't phrase it quite that way.  I really don't see every outcome as
being for the best.  I see God as making us free; which requires the
potential for bad things happening.  It would have been better if
Bonhoeffer's bomb had gone off and millions of Jews were not
killed...or if the other European powers and the US stopped Hitler early.
God's will was not that Hitler came close to exterminating German Jews
(2/3rds killed). But, it does appear to be God's will to give us the chance
to stop it, and to not directly intervene if we chose not to.  I agree with
Bonhoeffer, we were called to stop Hitler, and chose not to.  But, I will
be more than willing to accept as faithful Christians pacifists who think
we were not called in this manner.

> There was nothing in the six-point plan that claimed that God was
>behind it or  that it would surely work.  It was presented with churches
>behind it in hope of success and under a moral imperative to try all other
>alternatives before going to war.

It would be helpful for you to tell me why you differ with my
differentiation between hope and wishful thinking.  If Hussein stayed in
power through a massive defeat, very strong sanctions, and allied control
of most of his air space, then it is not reasonable to think that an
unenforceable legal proceeding in the Netherlands would work when stronger
actions have not.  This is not what I call Christian hope.

Is one required to try alternatives that have virtually no chance of
working?  Is one suppose to not use one's gifts of intellect and
observation to determine probabilities of success by various techniques.
Isn't someone who proposes an alternative required to give support for her
argument,
in terms of reason and fairly detailed analysis of history?

> > But, in a world where theological
> > understanding about the consequences of war and inaction in the face
> > of dictators
>
> I feel angry when anyone bring up "inaction" or "doing nothing," etc., in
this
> thread.  Nobody is suggest

Re: Peaceful change L3

2005-04-17 Thread Nick Arnett
On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 20:14:08 -0500, Dan Minette wrote

> > Whose definition is it?  Yours?  Bush's?  Mine?
> 
> Bush's.

Cite please, in that case.

> But, Bonhoeffer sought peace through a bomb...which is the same as seeing
> peace at the barrel of a gun.  There are times when Gandhi's 
> techniques are best, there are times when Bonhoeffer's are.

Did I suggest that I believe that Gandhi's "techniques" are best in all 
situations?  I held him up as an example of the reality that regime change, 
even in the face of oppressive rule, can take place peacefully.  I think his 
approach would be a wonderful way to deal with the existence of nuclear 
weapons, but not one that's flying toward me at Mach 5.  I'm not asking the 
Marines to stop fighting and talk nice to the people who are shooting at them.

> Is one required to try alternatives that have virtually no chance of
> working?  

I don't feel required to respond to an argument from your premise.  My premise 
is that when most of the churches of the world say that what you're about to 
do is wrong, it is imperative to stop and consider what they are saying, to at 
least meet with their leaders and listen.

> This may be a good place to point out that this type of argument 

I was reporting that I felt angry, not making an argument.

> >but God asked us to let  events unfold, rather than insisting on unfolding
> them our way.
> 
> OK, can you tell me how to discern this?  

We cannot easily, which is why the moral presumption must be against actions 
that cause great evil, such as war, especially when many others in the body of 
Christ oppose it.

> When, according to our best
> understanding,  we have an opportunity to decrease human suffering 
> and death, when does God call us to let things unfold instead, 
> increasing human suffering and death? When does God call us to say 
> no when people ask for help?

Who called for help?  Exactly which Iraqis called for us to invade and occupy 
their country?  Was there any evidence of even an partial consensus for that?  
It is exactly this kind of situation when we are most susceptible to the 
temptation to believe that "we" are good victims and "they" are bad people, so 
anything goes.  That's when it becomes most critical to listen to others 
instead of shutting them out.

> So, if we use  reason to see who has the capacity to physically stop 
> a dictator and the short list has one name, then it's presumptuous 
> to trust reason.  

Must dictators be physically stopped?  That is not only morally unclear, but 
it is certainly not political policy, so I can't see it as anything but a 
straw man.

> But, that's not what I am doing.  I can understand the rational 
> behind such a presumption.  But, I do not accept denying that the 
> result of not going to war would be that Hussein would stay in power 
> for the foreseeable future.

And we absolutely had to remove him from power as quickly as possible?  Why?  
On what basis was there such urgency all of a sudden?  

> That wasn't the question I was asking.  The question is whether it 
> was faith to believe that, if we act is manner X, God would change 
> the course of the river (metaphorically).  I don't think that is 
> sound theology.

Of course it isn't.  Who do you think was making such a magical argument?  I 
believe that when God intervenes, it is almost always through us.  There's a 
statue of Christ in Germany, as I recall, that lost its hands in the bombings 
of WW II.  Someone put a sign on it that say, "Christ has no hands but yours."

> One 
> way of phrasing it is to count on God to work wonders to get us out 
> of having to deal with a moral dilemma is putting God to the test.

I can't see that as anything but a straw man.  Are you under the impression 
that I am advocating that we stand back and wait for a miracle?

We could go on and on about this, I'm sure, but it seems to me that you're 
arguing for a God who is pro-war, an idea that I cannot swallow.  Even when 
the Old Testament speaks of war, it has to do with human failure, not God's 
will.  Anything that even suggests that God wishes for us to go to war seems 
like a terrible, triumphalist twisting of Scripture to me.  What do you 
imagine God has to say to our soldiers who have had to kill in the line of 
duty?  Congratulations for doing my will?  Or, I understand and forgive?

"Our task should not be to invoke religion and the name of God by claiming 
God's blessing and endorsement for all our national policies and practices - 
saying, in effect, that God is on our side. Rather, we should pray and worry 
earnestly whether we are on God's side."  --Abraham Lincoln

Nick

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l


Re: Peaceful change L3

2005-04-17 Thread Gautam Mukunda
--- Nick Arnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Our task should not be to invoke religion and the
> name of God by claiming 
> God's blessing and endorsement for all our national
> policies and practices - 
> saying, in effect, that God is on our side. Rather,
> we should pray and worry 
> earnestly whether we are on God's side."  --Abraham
> Lincoln
> 
> Nick

A quote entirely stripped of its moral and historical
context - remarkably so, in fact.  Lincoln is the
historical figure you can _least_ enlist in your
cause, Nick, because he is one whom most people agree
is the paragon of the modern statesman who _also_
chose to fight an optional war far more terrible than
any other his nation has ever fought, before or since.
 The Lincoln whom you quote approvingly _chose_ to
unleash total war in a way that the West had not seen
in centuries and the United States had never seen.  He
did this despite the opposition of most of the rest of
the world (Britain and France, for example, _both_
supported mediation of the conflict and, de facto, the
split of the United States into separate countries). 
There is just no possible way to take his example and
use it to argue that we must not go to war in the face
of great evil.  That's precisely what he did.  You are
twisting his statement into an excuse for inaction -
we do not know God's will, so we must do nothing. 
That's exactly wrong.  What Lincoln was saying is
exactly the opposite of that point - he was saying, we
cannot know God's will, so we must do the best we can
given what we _do_ know.  Lincoln's last great speech,
and the one that seems to have best expressed his
intentions, says it best - "With malice towards none,
with charity for all, _with firmess in the right as
God gives us to see the right_, let us strive on to
finish the work we are in..."  With firmness in the
right.  Because he did believe in that, he authorized
(for example) the complete destruction of the civilian
infrastructure of Georgia and South Carolina.  That's
not peaceful change.  But it was a man doing the best
he could in an uncertain world, and knowing that
sometimes the best he could meant warfare of
unimaginable horror.  Lincoln contained multitudes,
but none of those multitudes can plausibly be enlisted
in an argument that we should sit on our hands in the
face of great evil.

Gautam Mukunda
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Freedom is not free"
http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com



__ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Make Yahoo! your home page 
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l


Re: Peaceful change L3

2005-04-18 Thread Dan Minette

- Original Message - 
From: "Nick Arnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" 
Sent: Sunday, April 17, 2005 8:54 PM
Subject: Re: Peaceful change L3



> We cannot easily, which is why the moral presumption must be against
actions
> that cause great evil, such as war, especially when many others in the
body of
> Christ oppose it.

Let me clarify this with a question.  Do you think that the death and
maiming of people due to war is worse than death and maiming of people
under a government that is in near total control?  I listed my criterion
for determining whether a war was in the interests of the people of
Iraq...if my kids were magically transported there and were randomly
assigned to take the place of 3 people in Iraq, would I personally favor
the war?

> > When, according to our best
> > understanding,  we have an opportunity to decrease human suffering
> > and death, when does God call us to let things unfold instead,
> > increasing human suffering and death? When does God call us to say
> > no when people ask for help?
>
> Who called for help?
>Exactly which Iraqis called for us to invade and occupy
> their country?  Was there any evidence of even an partial consensus for
that?


There were Iraqis who were in the US, some who were partially maimed, who
were asking for us to help their families back in Iraq.  But, I think it is
not unreasonable to assume that people living horribly under conditions
where they could be reported for something they didn't do and be taken away
to be tortured and killed would prefer to not have that happen.  We
couldn't do an opinion poll in Rwanda either, but I think it was a fair
assumption that the tribes being murdered would have a strong preference to
have it stopped.

The real point is that such actions cries to the heavens for justice.  And,
I certainly agree that God has no hands to work upon this earth except our
own.  It is not arrogance or illusion of control to think that we are
called to stop such actions. But, we have to be sure that the cure isn't
worse than the disease.  Personally, that is where I've come to
stand.asking if the people where we will be fighting will be better off
with the war than without.

In Rwanda, the answer seemed extremely clear.  In Sudan, Neli is mad as
hell that the UN really couldn't care less that this is happening.  In
Iraq, I thought that the people of Iraq would be better off with a war to
remove Hussein, but that the world as a whole would be better off with
containmentso I opposed the war.



> It is exactly this kind of situation when we are most susceptible to the
> temptation to believe that "we" are good victims and "they" are bad
people, so
> anything goes.  That's when it becomes most critical to listen to others
> instead of shutting them out.

Actually, if you look at Bush's speach that I posted at length, it seems
clear to me that the "we" are not Americans but the peoples of the world
who want and deserve to be free and the "they" are the dictators who want
to keep them down.  The world is, indeed more complicated than Bush
imagines. But, making him into a zenophobiac doesn't help us understand the
situation.

This is not what Bush's fault is, IMHO.  I think I can identify two of
them:

1) He believes that the nobelness of his goals provides an assurance of
sucess.  In a sense, he acted in Iraq as a clueless do-gooder.  Overthrow
the guy opressing the people and their natural desire for freedom and
justice will take care of everything else.  This led to his criminal
incompetence in the aftermath of the actual war.  If you remember, I
predicted that we'd bumble the peace afterwards before the war.  But even I
could not imagine the magnitude of his incompetence.

2) He does have a tendency to a black and white WWF view.  It's not that
the good guys are Americans and the bad guys are Arabs.it's that he
thinks that the bad guys are identifyable and that it's acceptable to use
all means necessary against the evil doers.  That is somewhat similar to
what you've been arguing, but there is a critical difference.  It's not
Christians or Americans who are the good people, its the majority of
people.  Bush has a vision of a world of freedom, peace, and prosperity for
all, and he is trying to bring it about.

> > So, if we use  reason to see who has the capacity to physically stop
> > a dictator and the short list has one name, then it's presumptuous
> > to trust reason.
>
> Must dictators be physically stopped?  That is not only morally unclear,
but
> it is certainly not political policy, so I can't see it as anything but a
> straw man.

No, it was one of the justifications for used in the discussions before the
war.  Thomas Friedman, laid out the case of

Re: Peaceful change L3

2005-04-18 Thread Nick Arnett
On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 19:32:35 -0700 (PDT), Gautam Mukunda wrote
> You are
> twisting his statement into an excuse for inaction -
> we do not know God's will, so we must do nothing. 

Are you willing to stop saying that, since it's not true?

> That's exactly wrong.  What Lincoln was saying is
> exactly the opposite of that point - he was saying, we
> cannot know God's will, so we must do the best we can
> given what we _do_ know.  

So we agree.  But we seem to disagree about what is the best we can do.

> Lincoln contained multitudes,
> but none of those multitudes can plausibly be enlisted
> in an argument that we should sit on our hands in the
> face of great evil.

Have you ever considered the fact that if I really believed this poppycock, I 
would speak rather differently about my dead nephew?

Nick
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l


Re: Peaceful change L3

2005-04-18 Thread Gautam Mukunda
--- Nick Arnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 19:32:35 -0700 (PDT), Gautam
> Mukunda wrote
> > You are
> > twisting his statement into an excuse for inaction
> -
> > we do not know God's will, so we must do nothing. 
> 
> Are you willing to stop saying that, since it's not
> true?

Well, Nick, when you provide _one single example_ of
wanting to do something more meaningful than getting
an indictment at the World Court(!), which is what
your fabled Council of Churches plan adds up to, I'll
stop saying it.  Your vague pronouncements that you
wanted to do something, while you strenuously attack
all the somethings that might actually have _achieved_
anything, are less convincing than that would be. 
> 
> > That's exactly wrong.  What Lincoln was saying is
> > exactly the opposite of that point - he was
> saying, we
> > cannot know God's will, so we must do the best we
> can
> > given what we _do_ know.  
> 
> So we agree.  But we seem to disagree about what is
> the best we can do.

No.  Because "doing something" doesn't mean doing
something that we know, before doing it, will have no
effect whatsoever.  It means doing something that
might actually have an impact on the problem we're
trying to solve.  The other is magical thinking, as
Dan has pointed out.
> 
> > Lincoln contained multitudes,
> > but none of those multitudes can plausibly be
> enlisted
> > in an argument that we should sit on our hands in
> the
> > face of great evil.
> 
> Have you ever considered the fact that if I really
> believed this poppycock, I 
> would speak rather differently about my dead nephew?
> 
> Nick

You can love him and still not support the cause for
which he gave his life.  My parents opposed the war
and did everything short of threatening to disown me
to stop me from volunteering to go.  It didn't mean
that they loved me, or, for that matter, freedom, any
less.  They just didn't want me to be at risk for it,
however much I believed in the cause.  My parents are
not terribly susceptible to feeling that wishing makes
things so, so they did recognize the trade-offs,
though.

I'm going to make one rather more delicate point, I
think.  Two of my best friends on this list are devout
Christians.  In Real Life, several of my best friends
are devout Evangelicals, Orthodox Catholics, or even
Fundamentalists.  I have never felt uncomfortable with
their way of explaining how their faith informs their
beliefs about politics, even when that meant that we
very strongly disagreed in our views on government
policies.  I, as a non-Christian, find President
Bush's expressions of faith and how it informs his
policies to be remarkably welcoming, in fact.  But, to
be blunt, the way in which you use faith - stripped,
so far as I can tell, from rational analysis of means
and ends - makes my skin crawl, which is one of the
main reasons I think you often get such an emotional
response from me.  The conflation of all types of
moral analysis with that that of your own particular
religious principles is one thing - the second is the
consistent failure to acknowledge that just having
faith that something will happen is not a policy.  God
does not, so far as I can tell, intervene to make the
government policies I want successful just because I
believe in Him.  The best I can do is support policies
that history and political science and every other
type of knowledge and analysis tell me might work and
that are as ethical as I can make them, in the hope
that, as Lincoln said, this puts me on His side.  But
arguing that I should - in this case - not go to war
because God is opposed to war (maybe he is, but I
think and pray that He is opposed to other things far
more than He is to war) and therefore I should do
other things (like your council of churches plan) that
could work only if He directly intervenes on this
earth in a way that He certainly didn't in the last
fifty years for European Jews, or Guatemalans, or
Cambodians, or Russians, or Chinese, or Rwandans, or
Kosovars, or Bosnian Muslims - that, it seems to me,
is arguing that your faith dictates specific policy in
a way that I have never seen (for example) the
President do.  I can't really see how it's different,
in fact, from saying we should do this because God
told you that's what to do, and that's not an attitude
that's healthy for democracy, or safe for those of us
who are religious minorities in the world's most
tolerant and diverse democracy.

Gautam Mukunda
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Freedom is not free"
http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com



__ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Plan great trips with Yahoo! Travel: Now over 17,000 guides!
http://travel.yahoo.com/p-travelguide
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l


Re: Peaceful change L3

2005-04-18 Thread Nick Arnett
On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 07:39:14 -0700 (PDT), Gautam Mukunda wrote

> Well, Nick, when you provide _one single example_ of
> wanting to do something more meaningful than getting
> an indictment at the World Court(!), which is what
> your fabled Council of Churches plan adds up to

Harvard takes Jim Wallis seriously.

Nick
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l


Re: Peaceful change L3

2005-04-18 Thread Dan Minette

- Original Message - 
From: "Nick Arnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" 
Sent: Monday, April 18, 2005 10:01 AM
Subject: Re: Peaceful change L3


> On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 07:39:14 -0700 (PDT), Gautam Mukunda wrote
>
> > Well, Nick, when you provide _one single example_ of
> > wanting to do something more meaningful than getting
> > an indictment at the World Court(!), which is what
> > your fabled Council of Churches plan adds up to
>
> Harvard takes Jim Wallis seriously.

In what sense is this true?  Did Sam Huntington or Stanley Hoffman state
that?  Or did some folks in other fields decide that idea should be taken
seriously. I think there is a great deal of difference between the two.
.
Why should I take Jim Wallis's analysis of international relationships
seriously?  Has he shown good craftsmanship in this or related field
before?  Can you give an example of when he has formulated an explanation
of historical events, giving detailed backup with data?  Can you
demonstrate a rigorous paper that he has written?

I view the 6 point plan as somewhat akin to creationism. Now international
relationships is not a science, so there is more wiggle room.  But, there
is a disturbing similarity between refusing to use reason, observation, and
education to determine the most likely outcome of any action and refusing
to use it in describing the earth's past.  Both assume a preferential place
for one's own faith and place it above the observations of others.

The bias against war cannot provide a bias in analysis.  Facts are, history
was, and people of different faiths who are committed to rigor should be
able to come to an understanding. Faith becomes important when we ask,
given my choices, what should I do?  Observations and models of
observations do not provide fundamental axioms of morality.  They can tell
us if we do X, they is Y chance of someone being hurt.  A pacifist should
accept that never using force will result in numerous deaths under certain
circumstances.  If they still say it is wrong to use force, that is their
moral decision...it's not denial.  But, if they state that indicting the
tyrant will change things, so force is not needed, they are practicing
denialwhich is not a moral action.

Finally, I'd be curious to see how the 6-point plan would change the minds
of the Republican guard.  It appears that the mechanism would be that the
indictment would appeal to their consciences...so they would remove Hussein
out of shame, once the world proclaimed the evil of his actions in court.
I do not consider that plausible.  If that isn't the mechanism, what is?

Dan M.

Dan M.


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l


Re: Peaceful change L3

2005-04-18 Thread Nick Arnett
On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 10:26:29 -0500, Dan Minette wrote
> - Original Message - 
> From: "Nick Arnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" 
> Sent: Monday, April 18, 2005 10:01 AM
> Subject: Re: Peaceful change L3
> 
> > On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 07:39:14 -0700 (PDT), Gautam Mukunda wrote
> >
> > > Well, Nick, when you provide _one single example_ of
> > > wanting to do something more meaningful than getting
> > > an indictment at the World Court(!), which is what
> > > your fabled Council of Churches plan adds up to
> >
> > Harvard takes Jim Wallis seriously.
> 
> In what sense is this true?  

He teaches at Harvard, at the Kennedy School of Government.

> The bias against war cannot provide a bias in analysis.  Facts are, history
> was, and people of different faiths who are committed to rigor 
> should be able to come to an understanding. 

What do you mean by "should?"

Perhaps it will be helpful to acknowledge that I have the advantage of knowing 
the outcomes of the decision to go to war, while those who insist that this 
war was the best course of action have the disadvantage of not being able to 
demonstrate that alternatives would not have worked.

Still, I'll take advantage of my advantage and point out that this decision 
has enmeshed us in a horrible situation, in which the very people we 
supposedly are liberating are killing our troops and demonstrating against our 
presence.  Those who ambushed our troops in Sadr City a year ago were not 
Saddam's people, they were not imported terrorists, they were not even Sunnis! 
They were Shiites, the people we supposedly are helping.  About 300,000 of 
them took to the streets recently to demonstrate against our occupation -- 
again, not the former oppressors, not a minority, but the majority.  

To those who demand that I offer something that "works," I offer the same 
challenge.  Show me something in what we have done that *is* working.  I'm 
sure the election will come up... but to say that it has brought democracy to 
Iraq is one heck of a stretch of reality.  If and when *Iraq* holds an 
election in Iraq, then we could say that democracy is arriving.

Nick

Nick

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l


Re: Peaceful change L3

2005-04-18 Thread Dave Land
On Apr 17, 2005, at 7:32 PM, Gautam Mukunda wrote:
Lincoln's last great speech, and the one that seems to have best
expressed his intentions, says it best - "With malice towards none, 
with
charity for all, _with firmess in the right as God gives us to see the
right_, let us strive on to finish the work we are in..."

With firmness in the right.
"... as God gives us to see the right."
This elision is telling, and is for me the crux of the problem.
Too often, we fail to remember that we only see so far, that our
certainties are only so certain.
Lincoln contained multitudes, but none of those multitudes can 
plausibly
be enlisted in an argument that we should sit on our hands in the face
of great evil.
And this is a result of that failure: the oversimplification of complex
issues. Who, is it -- citations, please -- is arguing that we should sit
on our hands in the face of great evil?
While I've certainly heard you, Gautam, and others making the claim that
Nick has made that argument, I haven't seen him or anyone else argue 
that
inaction was the solution.

I see a pattern here:
Urge cautious language and be accused of cowardice and/or pretense.
Urge cautious action and stand accused of inaction.
Isn't the world more complex than this?
Dave
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l


Re: Peaceful change L3

2005-04-18 Thread Dan Minette

- Original Message - 
From: "Dave Land" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" 
Sent: Monday, April 18, 2005 2:18 PM
Subject: Re: Peaceful change L3


> On Apr 17, 2005, at 7:32 PM, Gautam Mukunda wrote:
>
> > Lincoln's last great speech, and the one that seems to have best
> > expressed his intentions, says it best - "With malice towards none,
> > with
> > charity for all, _with firmess in the right as God gives us to see the
> > right_, let us strive on to finish the work we are in..."
> >
> > With firmness in the right.
>
> "... as God gives us to see the right."
>
> This elision is telling, and is for me the crux of the problem.
>
> Too often, we fail to remember that we only see so far, that our
> certainties are only so certain.
>
> > Lincoln contained multitudes, but none of those multitudes can
> > plausibly
> > be enlisted in an argument that we should sit on our hands in the face
> > of great evil.
>
> And this is a result of that failure: the oversimplification of complex
> issues. Who, is it -- citations, please -- is arguing that we should sit
> on our hands in the face of great evil?

It's not that we should sit on our hands, exactlybut that is close to a
first order approximation when it comes to stopping Hussein within Iraq.
As of 2003 we had
1) dealt Hussein an embarassing defeat
2)  strong sanctions
3)  off and on inspections
4) no fly zones over most of Iraq
5) multiple Security Council resolutions condemning his actions.

The consensus in '91 was that this would probably be enough to get him
knocked out of power.  I thought that in '91.  But, in '03, it appears that
the consensus was wrong.  After 12 years of enduring some of the strongest
measures short of war that could be devised, there was no evidence that
Hussein's grip on Iraq had weakened.  Thus, a wide range of people
(including me) concluded that containment could limit the damage Hussein
could do outside of Iraq, but that there was minimal evidence that it was
leading to the fall of Hussein and/or the Bathists.  Therefor, it is not
reasonable to suggest that simply a different type of condemnation in
Euorpe would have much of an affect on his grip on power.


> Urge cautious language and be accused of cowardice and/or pretense.
> Urge cautious action and stand accused of inaction.

It's not cautious language that bothers me, it is vauge language.

> Isn't the world more complex than this?

The world is complex, and one cannot solve problems in political science
the way one does in physics, but I think there are some things that can be
done.  For example, I assign a high probability to the following
statements.

"Since 12 years of containment has not weakened Hussein's grip on power,
but instead has brought condemnation to those that have been containing
him, the probability that further containment will result in Hussein's
downfall is low."

"Since the Republican Guard has kept Hussein in power through intimidation
and the force of arms, and since there is no evidence that this Guard gives
high regard to pronouncements in the Hague, such a pronouncement has a low
probability of causing his removal from power."

>From these two statements I deduced a conclusion:

"Everyone who thinks that continued containment is the best option needs to
be aware of the likelihood that there is a significant negative consequence
to this: Hussein will continue his murder and torture in Iraq during the
containment.  Tens of thousands will be killed each year and millions will
live in fear."

Now, as I think I've stated in most of my posts in this thread, "Everyone
who thinks that continued containment is the best option" includes me.  I
said before the war that containment was the preferred option, and I have
not changed my mind on that in over two years.  But, I consider it a matter
of intellectual honesty to critically review the negative aspects of _my
own_ choice as well as choices I differ with.

In short, I think it is reasonable for me to ask others who were opposed to
invading to  either show how an option like the 6-point plan has a
reasonable chance of overthrowing Hussein or join me in acknowledging that
what we advocate, as well as what we reject, has significant negative
consequences.

Dan M.


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l


Re: Peaceful change L3

2005-04-18 Thread Gautam Mukunda
--- Dave Land <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Apr 17, 2005, at 7:32 PM, Gautam Mukunda wrote:
> 
> > Lincoln's last great speech, and the one that
> seems to have best
> > expressed his intentions, says it best - "With
> malice towards none, 
> > with
> > charity for all, _with firmess in the right as God
> gives us to see the
> > right_, let us strive on to finish the work we are
> in..."
> >
> > With firmness in the right.
> 
> "... as God gives us to see the right."
> 
> This elision is telling, and is for me the crux of
> the problem.
> 
> Too often, we fail to remember that we only see so
> far, that our
> certainties are only so certain.

Yes, but it doesn't seem to me that that problem is
particularly represented on my side of this particular
debate.  However uncertain you are, _you still have to
make a choice_.  Choosing to do nothing is a choice
every bit as much as choosing to do something is. 
Saying I'm not sure what to do and throwing up your
hands is not a justification, it's an excuse.  

> While I've certainly heard you, Gautam, and others
> making the claim that
> Nick has made that argument, I haven't seen him or
> anyone else argue 
> that
> inaction was the solution.

He's arguing that something functionally equivalent to
inaction was the solution - a six point plan whose
only point relevant to the removal of Saddam (a
necessary condition for the other points) was moral
condmenation.  Saddam Hussein had people tortured to
death as entertainment.  Moral condemnation was not
going to achieve much.
> 
> I see a pattern here:
> 
> Urge cautious language and be accused of cowardice
> and/or pretense.
> 
> Urge cautious action and stand accused of inaction.
> 
> Isn't the world more complex than this?
> 
> Dave

I too see a pattern here.  Use vague and inspecific
action, be called on it, and then respond by
distorting what other people are claiming.  Seems to
me we _just had_ this discussion, Dave.  Cautious
language is different from vague language.  Cautious
action is different from inaction, for that matter,
because cautious action has a chance of achieving
soemthing.  A world court indictment?  Doesn't.

"Cautious" language _that consistently refuses to
acknowledge the consequences of the position that
"cautious" language is advocating isn't cautious at
all, it's morally dishonest, camouflaging a refusal to
face consequences behind a guise of caution and haze. 
The world is more complex than this.  One of the
consequences of its complexity is that all choices
have consequences.  A primary requirement - perhaps
_the_ primary requirement - of moral decisionmaking is
an acknowledgement of the fact that the actions _you_
advocate have negative consequences, along with the
actions that your opponents advocate.  Note that Dan
and I, for example, despite different positions on the
war, have consistently acknowledged that going to war
has costs.  What's striking is the asymmetry here
because, of course, _not_ going to war has costs as
well, and the reason this discussion isn't going very
far is the failure to acknowledge that simple fact.

Gautam Mukunda
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Freedom is not free"
http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com



__ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Plan great trips with Yahoo! Travel: Now over 17,000 guides!
http://travel.yahoo.com/p-travelguide
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l


Re: Peaceful change L3

2005-04-18 Thread Robert Seeberger

- Original Message - 
From: "Dave Land" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" 
Sent: Monday, April 18, 2005 2:18 PM
Subject: Re: Peaceful change L3


> On Apr 17, 2005, at 7:32 PM, Gautam Mukunda wrote:
>
>> Lincoln's last great speech, and the one that seems to have best
>> expressed his intentions, says it best - "With malice towards none, 
>> with
>> charity for all, _with firmess in the right as God gives us to see 
>> the
>> right_, let us strive on to finish the work we are in..."
>>
>> With firmness in the right.
>
> "... as God gives us to see the right."
>
> This elision is telling, and is for me the crux of the problem.
>
> Too often, we fail to remember that we only see so far, that our
> certainties are only so certain.
>
>> Lincoln contained multitudes, but none of those multitudes can 
>> plausibly
>> be enlisted in an argument that we should sit on our hands in the 
>> face
>> of great evil.
>
> And this is a result of that failure: the oversimplification of 
> complex
> issues. Who, is it -- citations, please -- is arguing that we should 
> sit
> on our hands in the face of great evil?
>
> While I've certainly heard you, Gautam, and others making the claim 
> that
> Nick has made that argument, I haven't seen him or anyone else argue 
> that
> inaction was the solution.
>
> I see a pattern here:
>
> Urge cautious language and be accused of cowardice and/or pretense.
>
> Urge cautious action and stand accused of inaction.
>
> Isn't the world more complex than this?
>
It is.
And some of those who warned us about binary thinking on this list in 
years past are practicing it today.

xponent
Continuum Maru
rob 


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l


Re: Peaceful change L3

2005-04-18 Thread Nick Arnett
On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 13:18:35 -0700 (PDT), Gautam Mukunda wrote

> Note that Dan
> and I, for example, despite different positions on the
> war, have consistently acknowledged that going to war
> has costs.  What's striking is the asymmetry here
> because, of course, _not_ going to war has costs as
> well, and the reason this discussion isn't going very
> far is the failure to acknowledge that simple fact.

Good grief, Gautam. 

I've held the remaining hand of a double amputee from Iraq and could hardly 
speak as we looked into each other's eyes and I told him about Wes.  I've 
visited our returning soldiers in VA hospitals.  I've planted a few hundred 
crosses in the ground at an Iraq memorial.  I've thanked and hugged more 
Marines in the last few months than I can count.  I've seen my 21-year-old 
niece bury her husband of 13 months.  A half-dozen relatives of dead soldiers 
and I share a kind of friendship for which I don't even have words. 

My father is mostly deaf from his time in the belly turret of a light attack 
bomber in WWII.  I have had people die in my hands from violence.  I've made 
the kind of triage decisions that cannot be left behind.  I've spent time in 
dialog with people tortured and targeted by Central American death squads.  
I've traveled to squatter's settlements and remote Third World villages to 
learn from the poor, surrounded by children going blind and dying from 
malnutrition.  Please spare me the arguments that I'm thinking magically and 
don't know the costs of action, inaction or anything in between.  

I choose to have hope for better ways of dealing with conflict *despite* the 
fact that my experiences scream at me to run and hide in cynicism or self-
righteousness.

It's a hell of a thing to suggest that anybody who lost a family member in 
Iraq is failing to acknowledge that our decisions about war come with costs.   
It's a hell of a thing to suggest that anybody who's been a first responder 
fails to acknowledge the cost of violence.  I'm feeling pretty stinking angry 
right now and I'm extremely tempted to dump a truckload of 
"whatthehelldoyouknow" on you...  but I know that you *do* know a great deal 
about the costs and benefits of political decisions.

I acknowledge your education and contacts, so about how giving me the benefit 
of the doubt about my knowledge and experiences.  Please, spare me the 
suggestion that I don't know or acknowledge that there are costs of going to 
war or not going to war.  I know far more than I have words to describe.

Peace!

Nick
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l


Re: Peaceful Change L3

2005-04-20 Thread Gautam Mukunda
> > From: "Nick Arnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 13:18:35 -0700 (PDT), Gautam
> > Mukunda wrote
> > >
> > > > Note that Dan
> > > > and I, for example, despite different
> positions
> > on the
> > > > war, have consistently acknowledged that going
> > to war
> > > > has costs.  What's striking is the asymmetry
> > here
> > > > because, of course, _not_ going to war has
> costs
> > as
> > > > well, and the reason this discussion isn't
> going
> > very
> > > > far is the failure to acknowledge that simple
> > fact.
> > >
> > > Good grief, Gautam.
> > >
> > > I've held the remaining hand of a double amputee
> > from Iraq and could
> > hardly
> > > speak as we looked into each other's eyes and I
> > told him about Wes.  
> 
  
 
 I'm not exactly clear how I was supposed to respond
 to
 your post unless I, personally, had died in Iraq. 
 It
 was so emotional and yet irrelevant to the
 discussion.

 None of us have said that you don't care about
 American soldiers - although you've done your best
 in
 posts like this to imply that you do far more than
 people who disagree with you.  The point of this
 discussion isn't caring about Americans (even though
 that's the most important thing for me), it's caring
 about _Iraqis_.

 You mention being a first responder.  Let me see if
 an
 analogy in that context gets through.  When
 firefighters go into houses, some of them may die. 
 If
 they go into enough houses, some of them _will_ die.
 
 So a house is on fire and people inside it are
 burning
 to death.  We can hear them screaming.  You are
 saying
 - don't send firefighters into that house, some of
 them will die.  Dan and I are saying - okay, that
 might be a reasonable position, because some fires
 are
 just too dangerous to send people in.  But when you
 make that decision, isn't it important to take into
 account the people in the house?  And you're saying,
 no, we should send the firefighters in, because we
 don't want firefighters to die.  Other fires have
 gone
 out because we asked them to - we didn't have to
 send
 firefighters in.  To which we reply, okay, but those
 fires have nothing in common with this fire, so that
 doesn't have anything to do with whether
 firefighters
 should go into _this_ fire.  So you say - no
 firefighters should only go in when their _own_
 house
 is on fire.  To which we say, look, what if an
 entire
 apartment building was on fire?  To which your
 response is that's absurd, but you won't explain why
 your criteria would allow us to send firefighters
 into
 that apartment building.  So I say, look, all I'm
 saying is that the lives of people _inside the
 building_ are also a factor.  To which your response
 is, look, I'm really angry, I know firefighters and
 you couldn't possibly 
 
 Now, do you understand why some people might say -
 protecting the lives of firefighters is important. 
 We
 all want to do that.  It's really a little offensive
 that you imply that I don't want to do that.  But I
 don't want a fire marshall to make decisions based
 solely upon the fact that fighting fires risks
 firefighters.  It's also important to save the
 people
 in the buildings.
 
 We've talked about prayer a lot in this discussion -
 I
 am praying that this analogy is sufficiently clear
 that I don't have to spell out each particular
 parallel.
 
 So yes, I acknowledge that you've spoken to lots of
 soldiers have suffered.  Have you spoken to Iraqis
 who, say, saw their children raped and tortured in
 front of them as a routine method of interrogation? 
 How about ones whose hands, ears, or tongues were
 chopped off for opposing the regime?  All of these
 are
 things that would be happening _right now_ if the
 war
 had not happened.  They're also powerful and
 emotional.  Why don't they matter?  If they do, why
 shouldn't that at least be part of the calculation
 when we decide what to do?
 
 Gautam Mukunda
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 "Freedom is not free"
 http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com

Gautam Mukunda
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Freedom is not free"
http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com

__
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l


Re: Peaceful change L3

2005-04-20 Thread JDG
At 04:27 PM 4/18/2005 -0700, Nick wrote:
>On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 13:18:35 -0700 (PDT), Gautam Mukunda wrote
>
>> Note that Dan
>> and I, for example, despite different positions on the
>> war, have consistently acknowledged that going to war
>> has costs.  What's striking is the asymmetry here
>> because, of course, _not_ going to war has costs as
>> well, and the reason this discussion isn't going very
>> far is the failure to acknowledge that simple fact.
>
>Good grief, Gautam. 
>
>I've held the remaining hand of a double amputee from Iraq and could hardly 
>speak as we looked into each other's eyes and I told him about Wes.  I've 
>visited our returning soldiers in VA hospitals.  I've planted a few hundred 
>crosses in the ground at an Iraq memorial.  I've thanked and hugged more 
>Marines in the last few months than I can count.  I've seen my 21-year-old 
>niece bury her husband of 13 months.  A half-dozen relatives of dead
soldiers 
>and I share a kind of friendship for which I don't even have words. 
>
>My father is mostly deaf from his time in the belly turret of a light attack 
>bomber in WWII.  I have had people die in my hands from violence.  I've made 
>the kind of triage decisions that cannot be left behind.  I've spent time in 
>dialog with people tortured and targeted by Central American death squads.  
>I've traveled to squatter's settlements and remote Third World villages to 
>learn from the poor, surrounded by children going blind and dying from 
>malnutrition.  Please spare me the arguments that I'm thinking magically and 
>don't know the costs of action, inaction or anything in between.  
>
>I choose to have hope for better ways of dealing with conflict *despite* the 
>fact that my experiences scream at me to run and hide in cynicism or self-
>righteousness.
>
>It's a hell of a thing to suggest that anybody who lost a family member in 
>Iraq is failing to acknowledge that our decisions about war come with
costs.   
>It's a hell of a thing to suggest that anybody who's been a first responder 
>fails to acknowledge the cost of violence.  I'm feeling pretty stinking
angry 
>right now and I'm extremely tempted to dump a truckload of 
>"whatthehelldoyouknow" on you...  but I know that you *do* know a great deal 
>about the costs and benefits of political decisions.
>
>I acknowledge your education and contacts, so about how giving me the
benefit 
>of the doubt about my knowledge and experiences.  Please, spare me the 
>suggestion that I don't know or acknowledge that there are costs of going to 
>war or not going to war.  I know far more than I have words to describe.
>
>Peace!
>
>Nick

Nick,

I have quoted your whole piece here, because I am not at all sure how it
responds to Gautam's point.   

Gautam's point was that he doesn't feel that you are acknowledging that
*not* going to war has costs as well.You responded with a discussion of
the costs of going to war.

This is a partial sports score, its like saying "Baltimore 2" without at
all mentioning the other half.

Under Saddam Hussein, many families were losing loved ones directly to
torture, disappearances, and summary executions.   Tens of thousands of
others were losing their beloved children because Saddam Hussein was
spending the country's oil revenue on palaces and weapons rather than basic
food and medicine.  These are costs of *not* going to war.   Gautam was
asking you to acknowledge this, and as near as I can tell, you have not
bothered to respond.

JDG
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l


RE: Peaceful Change L3

2005-04-20 Thread Andrew Paul


Gautam Mukunda
> 
>  So yes, I acknowledge that you've spoken to lots of
>  soldiers have suffered.  Have you spoken to Iraqis
>  who, say, saw their children raped and tortured in
>  front of them as a routine method of interrogation?
>  How about ones whose hands, ears, or tongues were
>  chopped off for opposing the regime?  All of these
>  are
>  things that would be happening _right now_ if the
>  war
>  had not happened.  They're also powerful and
>  emotional.  Why don't they matter?  If they do, why
>  shouldn't that at least be part of the calculation
>  when we decide what to do?
> 

So Gautam, are you saying that the US invaded Iraq out of a deeply felt
need to save the Iraqi people? Not cos of WMD risks, not cos of issues
over oil?

Now, I know you are not, it was for a lot of complex intertwined
reasons.
So please leave a little of the high moral ground for others to stand
on.

Call me a cynic, but I just can't see GWB weeping at night in bed over
the plight of Iraqi children. I am not saying he is a bastard, but just
that I doubt it was top of his list. And it certainly was not the thrust
of the argument put to justify the war.

Also, your statement that peoples hands etc would still be being chopped
off if the war had not happened. How can you say that? How do you know?
There were other alternatives. That's one of the points that we lefty
extremists keep making and that keeps falling on deaf ears.

How about a UN sanctioned multinational force, that planned it properly
and put in some thought about dealing with the peace. That did it with
the full agreement of the only body that can be seen as bi-partisan
enough to actually be doing it for moral reasons i.e. the terribly
flawed, but at least globally based UN. Sure it was hard, those damn
frenchies so much easier just to send in the Marines and shoot all
the stupid ragheads... but at least it would have been a consensus. 

Perhaps than you would have an Iraqi where 60 bodies turning up floating
in some canal is not page three news. Well, I guess they all had their
hands and tongues.

And it's interesting; the main driver for US foreign policy is caring
for cute little Iraqi kids unlike those greedy French and Germans etc,
whose only interests are oil and power.

Please, climb down from your high horse and discuss this rationally. We
were all there, we know what we were told, and it was precious bloody
little about Iraqi children. At least that part of the drivel we were
fed was honest.

You nor I have any idea what other outcomes were possible, because GWB
rushed into a war that he did not have to, on a timing driven by his
electoral interests. Not, and I repeat, not, cos he was losing sleep
over the fate of Iraqi children.

I am sorry, but you have already suggested that cos of my misgivings
about the war that had a secret crush on Saddam Hussien, to now suggest
that I/we actually wanted to see the tongues torn out of Iraqi children
is too much.

Nick never suggested you did not care about American soldiers, and if
you found it a 'little offensive' when you misread what he wrote, than
why did you shoot it right back at him, suggesting he does not care
about Iraqi children.

Anyway, I am sorry for getting emotive. I actually wanted to debate some
things:

1) Why did the war have to start when it did, what was the cost of
waiting and planning better (and perhaps getting a broader level of
support)?

2) What kind of precedent has been set for future invasions of countries
that the US government takes a dislike to?

3) Are the acts of 9/11 now morally justified, as OBL did not like the
US government and acted to release the children of America from what he
perceives as a terrible godless tyranny that is tearing out their souls?

4) How many Iraqi people are dying each day now as compared to before
the war, and does this matter?

I will stop there as its getting emotional again. There are many
sides to this debate, and none are all right, nor all wrong. That, I
hope, we can all agree on.

Andrew




___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l


Re: Peaceful Change L3

2005-04-20 Thread Doug Pensinger
Andrew Paul wrote:
How about a UN sanctioned multinational force, that planned it properly
and put in some thought about dealing with the peace. That did it with
the full agreement of the only body that can be seen as bi-partisan
enough to actually be doing it for moral reasons i.e. the terribly
flawed, but at least globally based UN.
I've never been in favor of the invasion but neither am I under the 
illusion that the U.N. would ever have enough backbone to do anything 
decisive in Iraq ar anywhere else for that matter.  Its a shame, but the 
U.N.s record is pretty miserable.

Perhaps if we had a United Democratic Nations we would be able to expect 
more of them.

Oh, and maybe we should elect our representatives to that body rather than 
allowing someone to nominate borderline psycopaths to be our 
representative.

--
Doug
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l


Re: Peaceful Change L3

2005-04-21 Thread Gautam Mukunda
--- Doug Pensinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Oh, and maybe we should elect our representatives to
> that body rather than 
> allowing someone to nominate borderline psycopaths
> to be our 
> representative.
> 
> -- 
> Doug

Ah, the height of rational argumentation - calling
someone who disagrees with you a psychopath.  Even
when I _caricature_ leftists I couldn't come up with
you, Doug.

Gautam Mukunda
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Freedom is not free"
http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com

__
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l


RE: Peaceful Change L3

2005-04-21 Thread Gautam Mukunda
--- Andrew Paul <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Gautam Mukunda
> So Gautam, are you saying that the US invaded Iraq
> out of a deeply felt
> need to save the Iraqi people? Not cos of WMD risks,
> not cos of issues
> over oil?

Again with this?  Why are people who think _George
Bush_ is dumb unable to understand the concept of
doing things for more than one reason?

> Now, I know you are not, it was for a lot of complex
> intertwined
> reasons.
> So please leave a little of the high moral ground
> for others to stand
> on.

Why, when they're abandoning it as fast as possible? 
Moral calculations are part of international
relations.  They are one of the most important parts. 
They are not the _only_ part, but that's not the same
thing as saying that they aren't one part.  It is
possible to do things that are in your interest _and
have them still be moral acts_.
> 
> Call me a cynic, but I just can't see GWB weeping at
> night in bed over
> the plight of Iraqi children. I am not saying he is
> a bastard, but just
> that I doubt it was top of his list. And it
> certainly was not the thrust
> of the argument put to justify the war.

It was, however, _a_ thrust.  The argument before the
UN was largely about WMD, because that was a legal
argument.  When the President spends time on an issue
in front of Congress, it's a pretty major focus.  Now,
by David Brin standards, what you wrote above was a
lie, because it's a misstatement of fact :-).  But I
don't operate by David Brin standards.  It's just a
mistake.  President Bush spent lots of time talking
about humanitarian reasons for invading.  He spent
more time on WMD.  That doesn't mean that they weren't
both important.  It really just means that it's
convenient for opponents of the war to _pretend_ they
weren't both important.
> 
> Also, your statement that peoples hands etc would
> still be being chopped
> off if the war had not happened. How can you say
> that? How do you know?

Well, because Saddam had been doing it for more than
20 years and didn't seem to have any intent of
stopping.  I don't _know_ that Kate Bosworth isn't
going to walk into my apartment in 30 seconds.  I
don't think it's very likely, though.



Nope.  No luck.

> There were other alternatives. That's one of the
> points that we lefty
> extremists keep making and that keeps falling on
> deaf ears.

That's because it's an absurd point.  Kate Bosworth is
going to walk into my apartment.  This statement does
not make it more likely that it will happen.
> 
> How about a UN sanctioned multinational force, that
> planned it properly
> and put in some thought about dealing with the
> peace. That did it with
> the full agreement of the only body that can be seen
> as bi-partisan
> enough to actually be doing it for moral reasons
> i.e. the terribly
> flawed, but at least globally based UN. Sure it was
> hard, those damn
> frenchies so much easier just to send in the
> Marines and shoot all
> the stupid ragheads... but at least it would have
> been a consensus. 

Again, this is an argument that flys in the face of
_all_ the evidence.  Did you say this about Kosovo? 
Kosovo didn't have Security Council approval either. 
In fact the only difference between the Kosovo and
Iraq coalitions was the presence of Germany and France
in the former.  So if you _didn't_ make this argument
about Kosovo, you cannot consistently make this
argument about Iraq.  If you _did_, we can talk about
why you attach such moral importance to the decisions
of two dictatorships.  We've had this argument over
and over again.  _Three of the five members of the
Security Council_ were going to vote against the
invasion, no matter what.  Now, you may feel that
Communist China, a newly dictatorial Russia, and the
French are moral authorities.  But I don't, actually. 
So your point is - if these impossible things were to
happen, you would have supported the war.  This is the
same thing as saying that there was no real situation
to support the war.  If I were a billionaire, then I
suppose the odds that Kate Bosworth is about to come
here would be higher.  But I'm not, so _in the real
world_, what could be done?

> Perhaps than you would have an Iraqi where 60 bodies
> turning up floating
> in some canal is not page three news. Well, I guess
> they all had their
> hands and tongues.

Well, you know, they appear to have been killed by
supporters of the old regime.  Some of us think that's
probably evidence that they weren't such nice people.
> 
> And it's interesting; the main driver for US foreign
> policy is caring
> for cute little Iraqi kids unlike those greedy
> French and Germans etc,
> whose only interests are oil and power.

No, but it's _a_ driver.  There's plenty of evidence
of just how the corrupting influence of just how
ruthless and amoral French and German foreign policy
is.  The difference - to be blunt - is that the Left
hates the US, so it _doesn't care_ about the actions
of those other countries.
> 
> Please, climb dow

Re: Peaceful Change L3

2005-04-21 Thread Nick Arnett
On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 19:08:23 -0700 (PDT), Gautam Mukunda wrote

> If they do, why
>  shouldn't that at least be part of the calculation
>  when we decide what to do?

If I understand this correctly, you're saying that you believe that I have 
said we should not care about the people affected by the status quo when we 
make a decision about going to war?  You're saying that I'm arguing that it 
doesn't matter if people are suffering terribly, that isn't a consideration 
when deciding whether to go to war or a lesser form of intervention?

If so, then perhaps you'd like to try again, because you really don't get what 
I am saying.  At all.  Want to try again?

Nick
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l


Re: Peaceful Change L3

2005-04-21 Thread Erik Reuter
* Nick Arnett ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:

> If so, then perhaps you'd like to try again, because you really don't
> get what I am saying.  At all.  Want to try again?

I'd hazard a guess, probably not. Since what you are saying is both
nonsense and changes to some other nonsense (or just pathetic denial)
every time someone explains what you are saying is nonsense.

By the way, nice fire analogy, Gautam. If that wasn't clear enough,
then it is hard to imagine what could be. Patience may be a virtue, but
recognizing a lost cause is surely one, too!

--
Erik Reuter   http://www.erikreuter.net/
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l


Re: Peaceful change L3

2005-04-21 Thread Nick Arnett
On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 22:39:11 -0400, JDG wrote

> Gautam's point was that he doesn't feel that you are acknowledging that
> *not* going to war has costs as well.You responded with a 
> discussion of the costs of going to war.

And how are they different?  Is there an important distinction between the 
suffering of an Iraqi being executed or tortured and an American soldier being 
blown to bits or shot by a sniper?  Is there a difference between the 
suffering of a child dying of malnutrition in Mexico and an American crushed 
under the World Trade Center?  Is there an important difference between 
children starving in Central American, where I've been, and children starving 
in Iraq, where I haven't been?

In case it still isn't clear, I was saying that not only do I know the cost of 
not doing anything about poverty, injustice, terrorism and torture, I've been 
with people who are paying those costs, touched them, listened to them.  The 
problem of suffering is hardly limited to Iraq, so the idea that it is 
*obvious* that we had to spend untold billions making war against that 
country, even as people suffer and die in many places around the world makes 
no sense to me.

The utilitarian arguments for war certainly become moot by considering the 
fact that for the money we're spending on this war, we could be saving far, 
far, far more lives by providing food and health care around the globe. 

The fact that we imagine we can solve one problem through force doesn't mean 
that it's okay to ignore myriad others that would take a bit more subtlety. 

> This is a partial sports score, its like saying "Baltimore 2" 
> without at all mentioning the other half.

Only if you believe that we're on different teams, or that war is a sporting 
match, that the rest of the world is the audience, rather than being our 
companions in problems and solutions.

> Under Saddam Hussein, many families were losing loved ones directly 
> to torture, disappearances, and summary executions.   Tens of 
> thousands of others were losing their beloved children because 
> Saddam Hussein was spending the country's oil revenue on palaces and 
> weapons rather than basic food and medicine.  

Isn't that *exactly* what is happening in the United States right now?  We've 
had tax cuts for the wealthiest, poverty is increasing and the war budget is 
skyrocketing.  At what point does this justify an invasion?

Nick
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l


RE: Peaceful Change L3

2005-04-21 Thread Gautam Mukunda
--- Gautam Mukunda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
 If you _did_, we can talk
> about
> why you attach such moral importance to the
> decisions
> of two dictatorships.  

I appear to have edited out a sentence in this
post...odd.  Not sure how that happened.  The "two
dictatorships" are Russia and China, of course, not
Germany and France.

Gautam Mukunda
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Freedom is not free"
http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com

__
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l


Re: Peaceful Change L3

2005-04-21 Thread Gautam Mukunda
--- Nick Arnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If I understand this correctly, you're saying that
> you believe that I have 
> said we should not care about the people affected by
> the status quo when we 
> make a decision about going to war?  You're saying
> that I'm arguing that it 
> doesn't matter if people are suffering terribly,
> that isn't a consideration 
> when deciding whether to go to war or a lesser form
> of intervention?
> 
> If so, then perhaps you'd like to try again, because
> you really don't get what 
> I am saying.  At all.  Want to try again?
> 
> Nick

No.  That _is_ what you are saying.  It may not be
what you are _trying_ to say, but it is what you are saying.

Gautam Mukunda
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Freedom is not free"
http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com

__
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l


Re: Peaceful change L3

2005-04-21 Thread Gautam Mukunda
--- Nick Arnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Under Saddam Hussein, many families were losing
> loved ones directly 
> > to torture, disappearances, and summary
> executions.   Tens of 
> > thousands of others were losing their beloved
> children because 
> > Saddam Hussein was spending the country's oil
> revenue on palaces and 
> > weapons rather than basic food and medicine.  
> 
> Isn't that *exactly* what is happening in the United
> States right now?  We've 
> had tax cuts for the wealthiest, poverty is
> increasing and the war budget is 
> skyrocketing.  At what point does this justify an
> invasion?
> 
> Nick

.  I'm pretty sure that in the United States
many families are _not_ "losing loved ones directly to
torture, disappearance, and summary executions."  If
they are, you're in a lot of trouble.  Rest assured
though, Nick, if something does happen to you, I'd
want someone to do something about it more likely to
be effective than asking it to stop.  Another
difference in our positions, I guess.  I'm just going
to ignore the rest of the rhetoric on the assumption
that it's just a spinal reflex - tap a leftist and
he'll claim that tax cuts are murder, no matter how
ridiculous it looks.

Gautam Mukunda
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Freedom is not free"
http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com

__
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l


RE: Peaceful Change L3

2005-04-21 Thread Nick Arnett
On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 06:38:42 -0700 (PDT), Gautam Mukunda wrote

> No, we can't, actually.  None of them are all right,
> no.  International ANSWER, the group primarily
> responsible for organizing the anti-war protests in
> the United States, 

Although I find the anti-war leadership to be a discouraging band, you're 
giving ANSWER way too much credit for leadership.  Its goal is to coordinate 
action across many organizations.  In reality, the anti-war movement seems to 
be full of petty turf wars and is not very well organized, although that's 
changing as the days go by.

> is a Stalinist organiation that is
> actively pro-Saddam.  

Good heavens.  Guilt by association, anyone?  ANSWER is associated with IAC, 
IAC is associated with WWP and WWP (which is disintegrating) didn't go along 
with Trotsky so it was labeled Stalinist.  Meanwhile, the vast majority of war 
protestors are pro-democracy and reject virtually all of the WWP's ideology.

Didn't you say something about doing things for more than one reason?

There are extreme leftists at every anti-war protest, I expect.  There are 
people who advocate the the overthrow of the U.S. government at them.  But to 
paint the whole anti-war movement that way would be like saying that you're a 
danger to the public health because your body contains some germs.  We have 
immune systems to deal with the nasties.

Nick

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l


RE: Peaceful Change L3

2005-04-21 Thread Gautam Mukunda
--- Nick Arnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Good heavens.  Guilt by association, anyone?  ANSWER
> is associated with IAC, 
> IAC is associated with WWP and WWP (which is
> disintegrating) didn't go along 
> with Trotsky so it was labeled Stalinist. 
> Meanwhile, the vast majority of war 
> protestors are pro-democracy and reject virtually
> all of the WWP's ideology.

I'm sure that's true.  So the next time Republicans
march in something organized by the KKK you'll say,
ohh, that's guilt by association, really you shouldn't
critcize.  Wait.  No Republican in this day and age
would _ever_ do something like that.  It would be
outrageous and unforgivable.  We do have immune
systems.  One of them is you don't associate yourself
with anything that someone like ANSWER organizes ever,
for any reason.  And if you don't think ANSWER is a
Stalinist, pro-Saddam organization, Nick, you're just
not paying attention.  They'll tell you that themselves.

Gautam Mukunda
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Freedom is not free"
http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com

__
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l


Re: Peaceful Change L3

2005-04-21 Thread Nick Arnett
On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 07:47:14 -0700 (PDT), Gautam Mukunda wrote

> No.  That _is_ what you are saying.  It may not be
> what you are _trying_ to say, but it is what you are saying.

While there are undoubtedly things about me that I cannot see, but you can, it 
appears that perhaps you're getting rather carried away with that idea.

Nick
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l


Re: Peaceful change L3

2005-04-21 Thread Nick Arnett
On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 07:51:59 -0700 (PDT), Gautam Mukunda wrote
> ... I'd
> want someone to do something about it more likely to
> be effective than asking it to stop.  

Ah, reduction to the absurd continues... the gap remains wide.

> he'll claim that tax cuts are murder, no matter how
> ridiculous it looks.

Our spending reveals our priorities.

Despite various reductions to the absurd, I think it is safe to say that we 
both believe that the issue of suffering people in Iraq is relevant to our 
decisions about intervention.  Surely you're not suggesting that the issue of 
suffering people elsewhere, including our homeland, is irrelevant?

I think I've invested more than I'd have liked in revisiting the decision to 
go to war, and I'm going to try to shift into the present.  Though the blame 
game remains a constant temptation for me, I wish to resist it.

Nick

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l


Re: Peaceful Change L3

2005-04-21 Thread Dan Minette

- Original Message - 
From: "Nick Arnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" 
Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2005 10:36 AM
Subject: Re: Peaceful Change L3


> On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 07:47:14 -0700 (PDT), Gautam Mukunda wrote
>
> > No.  That _is_ what you are saying.  It may not be
> > what you are _trying_ to say, but it is what you are saying.
>
> While there are undoubtedly things about me that I cannot see, but you
can, it
> appears that perhaps you're getting rather carried away with that idea.

That's not the point.  The text anyone, including writes, has a plain sense
to it.  You write text that a number of people concur on the
straightforward meaning of the text.  That meaning is not what you say you
intend to convey.  It would be extraordinarily helpful to give clues we can
better understand, if we are not understanding the meaning you intend to
convey.

It sounds about like this to me.  You say A.  We seem to agree A->B.  Then
I ask why you believe B and you say I'm jumping to invalid conclusions.  I
go back to A and A->B and I still don't get anything that shows me that I
misunderstood the syllogism. Usually, the questions I ask are met with
silence and another tact is given instead.  I'm not trying to put you to
the question, I'm just trying to figure things out.  By asking questions, I
hope I can fit what you write into a framework.

Dan M.



Dan M.


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l


RE: Peaceful Change L3

2005-04-21 Thread Nick Arnett
On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 08:08:29 -0700 (PDT), Gautam Mukunda wrote

> I'm sure that's true.  So the next time Republicans
> march in something organized by the KKK you'll say,
> ohh, that's guilt by association, really you shouldn't
> critcize.  

The WWP isn't organzing any anti-war rallies.  It is hardly even organized 
itself.  Like most every other extreme leftist organization on the planet, it 
ain't working.  I don't favor McCarthyism for any cause.

> ... you don't associate yourself
> with anything that someone like ANSWER organizes ever,
> for any reason.  

Let me see if I do understand.  If ANSWER is involved in organizing anything, 
I should have nothing to do with it, even if I agree with the purpose of the 
event?  Is this the flip side of going along with *everything* that the "good" 
people organize?  They seem like the same idea to me... what's that word for a 
tendency toward extreme authority?  Starts with an "f?"

ANSWER doesn't have any more authority over me than the GOP has over you, even 
though they're attached to various things we do.  Is there any cause (or 
organism) that doesn't have extremist elements?

> And if you don't think ANSWER is a
> Stalinist, pro-Saddam organization, Nick, you're just
> not paying attention.  

Are you claiming they are pro-Saddam because Ramsey Clarke is U.S. counsel for 
Iraq?  Or is there some other reason you are making this argument?

Goodness, it seems as if you're saying that every war protester is seeking to  
return Saddam to power so that Iraq will be restored to the good ol' days 
before there were any sanctions.  Please, explain to me why that isn't what 
you're saying?  What the heck do you mean by "pro-Saddam?"

Nick
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l


RE: Peaceful Change L3

2005-04-21 Thread Gautam Mukunda
--- Nick Arnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 08:08:29 -0700 (PDT), Gautam
> Mukunda wrote
> The WWP isn't organzing any anti-war rallies.  It is
> hardly even organized 
> itself.  Like most every other extreme leftist
> organization on the planet, it 
> ain't working.  I don't favor McCarthyism for any
> cause.

Ah, the last defenses of the leftist who has lost an
argument.  Cry McCarthyism, however irrelevant it may
be to the point.  There's one more of those coming
up...

> > ... you don't associate yourself
> > with anything that someone like ANSWER organizes
> ever,
> > for any reason.  
> 
> Let me see if I do understand.  If ANSWER is
> involved in organizing anything, 
> I should have nothing to do with it, even if I agree
> with the purpose of the 
> event?  

Yes.  Is that so hard to understand?  If the American
Nazi Party had organized an antiwar event (which they
did, I think) I suppose you think it would have been
okay to show up, but I don't.  It's that simple.  If
you believe in the cause that much, organize your own
damn event.

> Is this the flip side of going along with
> *everything* that the "good" 
> people organize?  They seem like the same idea to
> me... what's that word for a 
> tendency toward extreme authority?  Starts with an
> "f?"

Ah, the other defense of the pathetic left.  Cry
fascism.  This isn't even worth discussing.  If you're
using it honestly (and I don't think you are, because
you're too smart to actually think this) then, as they
said in The Princess Bride, "That word.  I do not
think it means - what you think it means."


Gautam Mukunda
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Freedom is not free"
http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com

__
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l


Re: Peaceful Change L3

2005-04-21 Thread Dan Minette

- Original Message - 
From: "Nick Arnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" 
Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2005 11:04 AM
Subject: RE: Peaceful Change L3



> > ... you don't associate yourself
> > with anything that someone like ANSWER organizes ever,
> > for any reason.
>
> Let me see if I do understand.  If ANSWER is involved in organizing
anything,
> I should have nothing to do with it, even if I agree with the purpose of
the
> event?

I think that is not unreasonable.  I wouldn't go to a Klan rally even if
they were actually promoting something I agreed with.  Let me give an
example.  Reasonable people can believe that we should tighten up our
border security.  But, I'd be outraged if my neighbors went to a Klan rally
that advocated strong border controls.

You really think I'm facist for believing that?


Dan M.


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l


RE: Peaceful Change L3

2005-04-21 Thread Nick Arnett
On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 09:18:22 -0700 (PDT), Gautam Mukunda wrote

> Yes.  Is that so hard to understand?  If the American
> Nazi Party had organized an antiwar event (which they
> did, I think) 

Reduction to the extreme again!  The parallel would actually be if the 
American Nazi Party was associated with an organization that was trying to 
coordinate activies of a bunch of loosely organized coalitions, one of which 
sponsored an event that I went to.

Indulge me while I tell a story of guilt by association.

Many years ago I was working on a story about a publicly supported 
construction project whose investors, as it turned out, included several  
organized crime figures (perhaps I should note that the local branch of "Our 
Thing" is mostly notorious for incompetence).  A while later, I found that 
another investor was a well-respected judge, who had failed to include the 
investment on his legally required annual conflict-of-interest report.  It was 
just a small one of many investments he made, and he made them through an 
attorney who seemed to manage most of his activity of this sort, and the 
attorney had a relationship through his law firm with the organized crime 
people.

The red flag was not the fact that he was a co-investor with these crime 
family people, it was that he failed to report it.  As I was working on this 
story, the judge was nominated to a rather high court.  No more time to think 
about it, it's time to either publish the story or not.  When I called him, he 
assumed I was writing a story about his nomination.  When I asked him if he 
realized he hadn't reported that investment, he said it was probably just a 
clerical error and he would submit a revised statement.  That's really no big 
deal, it happens fairly often.  But he was aware of his investment; it wasn't  
arms-length.  

When I asked if he realized that so-and-so were investors in the same project, 
he sounded like he was going to have a heart attack.  He started saying he was 
going to withdraw his name from consideration.  He told me he'd always worked 
very hard to keep distance from that sort because he is the son of Italian 
immigrants.

We dropped the story.  Guilt by association stinks, even in the newspaper 
game, where the standards are quite low in comparison to courts.

I'm sure you can trace a fairly short line from some of the organizations I'm 
involved in, such as Veterans for Peace, to extreme leftists.  I'm also sure 
you can trace a short line from other organizations I belong to, such as my 
church or the Marine Corps League, to some extreme right-wing nutjobs, too.

Life is full of conflicts.

Nick
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l


Re: Peaceful Change L3

2005-04-21 Thread Dan Minette

- Original Message - 
From: "Nick Arnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" 
Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2005 11:36 AM
Subject: RE: Peaceful Change L3



> When I asked if he realized that so-and-so were investors in the same
project,
> he sounded like he was going to have a heart attack.  He started saying
he was
> going to withdraw his name from consideration.  He told me he'd always
worked
> very hard to keep distance from that sort because he is the son of
Italian
> immigrants.

Would working very hard to keep distance include trying to not have mob
members at his parties and not going to mob sponsered events?

Dan M.


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l


RE: Peaceful Change L3

2005-04-21 Thread Gautam Mukunda
--- Nick Arnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 09:18:22 -0700 (PDT), Gautam
> Mukunda wrote
> 
> > Yes.  Is that so hard to understand?  If the
> American
> > Nazi Party had organized an antiwar event (which
> they
> > did, I think) 
> 
> Reduction to the extreme again!  The parallel would
> actually be if the 
> American Nazi Party was associated with an
> organization that was trying to 
> coordinate activies of a bunch of loosely organized
> coalitions, one of which 
> sponsored an event that I went to.

  Not really, no.  A short history of ANSWER,
put together by a blogger and veteran of the Iraq War:
http://www.lt-smash.us/archives/002981.html

Some highlights:
The man who started it all was Ramsey Clark. Clark
served as the US Attorney General under Lyndon B.
Johnson, but has more recently made a name for himself
by representing such upstanding world citizens as
Liberia's Charles Taylor, Serbia's Radovan Karadzic,
and Iraq's Saddam Hussein.
...
Under the leadership of Ramsey Clark, the IAC was the
only major "anti-war" group that refused to condemn
Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait in 1990. Indeed,
Clark actually flew to Baghdad and met with Saddam
Hussein in November 1990, returning home with a
handful of Saddam's "guests" (diplomats' families held
hostage) as a token of the Iraqi dictator's goodwill.
...
The IAC would go on to become leading apologists for
Serbian war criminals in Bosnia and Kosovo, labeling
reports of rape camps and ethnic cleansing "fabricated
atrocities" (never mind those embarassing mass
graves). When NATO unleashed a bombing campaign in
response to the Serbian ethnic cleansing campaign in
Kosovo, Clark flew to Belgrade to express his support
for Milosevic.


Not a good bunch of people.


Gautam Mukunda
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Freedom is not free"
http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com

__
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l


Re: Peaceful Change L3

2005-04-21 Thread Nick Arnett
On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 11:43:21 -0500, Dan Minette wrote

> Would working very hard to keep distance include trying to not have mob
> members at his parties and not going to mob sponsered events?

If you're trying to draw a parallel to AIC and WWP, it is not apropos.  WWP is
not the organization that organizes anti-war events.

Nick
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l


Re: Peaceful Change L3

2005-04-21 Thread Dan Minette

- Original Message - 
From: "Nick Arnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" 
Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2005 1:28 PM
Subject: Re: Peaceful Change L3


> On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 11:43:21 -0500, Dan Minette wrote
>
> > Would working very hard to keep distance include trying to not have mob
> > members at his parties and not going to mob sponsered events?
>
> If you're trying to draw a parallel to AIC and WWP, it is not apropos.
WWP is
> not the organization that organizes anti-war events.

I thought ANSWER organized some.  If not, then were they invited to speak
at them?  If they just showed up, and the organizers of the rally distanced
themselves from ANSWER, then that's very reasonable.  So, if you dispute
the facts in Gautam's assertions then I'd be interesting in seeing
countering evidence.  But, I'm almost positive that I've seem some folks
from that group speaking from the podium at anti-war rallies.

Dan M.


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l


RE: Peaceful Change L3

2005-04-21 Thread Nick Arnett
On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 09:50:03 -0700 (PDT), Gautam Mukunda wrote

> Under the leadership of Ramsey Clark, the IAC was the
> only major "anti-war" group that refused to condemn
> Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait in 1990. 

So, we've jumped from organizations that put together anti-war events, such as
South Bay Mobilization here in my area, to ANSWER, which tries to coordinate
activites of organizations like it, to AIC, with which ANSWER has an
affiliation... and AIC has some ties to some people who disagreed with
Trotsky, and he opposed Stalin, so therefore the anti-war demonstrations are
Stalinist.

Come on.  What were you just saying about conspiracy theories?

Ramsey Clark is representing Saddam Hussein.  You say that makes him a bad
person.  Are you saying that anybody who would provide legal representation
for Saddam Hussein is bad?  Or that anyone who represents any criminal is bad?
 Are you opposed to civil rights, fair trials, the right to be represented by
an advocate?  Does he have any right to a trial, or should be just shoot him?  

Where do you draw the line?  It seems as if you're saying that Clark's
representation of Saddam proves that Clark is a bad person... how did you get
there?

Nick

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l


Re: Peaceful Change L3

2005-04-21 Thread Dan Minette

- Original Message - 
From: "Nick Arnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" 
Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2005 1:37 PM
Subject: RE: Peaceful Change L3


> On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 09:50:03 -0700 (PDT), Gautam Mukunda wrote
>
> > Under the leadership of Ramsey Clark, the IAC was the
> > only major "anti-war" group that refused to condemn
> > Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait in 1990.
>
> So, we've jumped from organizations that put together anti-war events,
such as
> South Bay Mobilization here in my area, to ANSWER, which tries to
coordinate
> activites of organizations like it, to AIC, with which ANSWER has an
> affiliation... and AIC has some ties to some people who disagreed with
> Trotsky, and he opposed Stalin, so therefore the anti-war demonstrations
are
> Stalinist.
>
> Come on.  What were you just saying about conspiracy theories?
>
> Ramsey Clark is representing Saddam Hussein.

Gautam's statement involves much more than that:

"The IAC would go on to become leading apologists for
Serbian war criminals in Bosnia and Kosovo, labeling
reports of rape camps and ethnic cleansing "fabricated
atrocities" (never mind those embarassing mass
graves). When NATO unleashed a bombing campaign in
response to the Serbian ethnic cleansing campaign in
Kosovo, Clark flew to Belgrade to express his support
for Milosevic."

To me, the only difference between this and "6 million lies" is the
magnitude of the denial.

Dan M.


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l


Re: Peaceful Change L3

2005-04-21 Thread Warren Ockrassa
On Apr 21, 2005, at 6:13 AM, Gautam Mukunda wrote:
--- Doug Pensinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Oh, and maybe we should elect our representatives to
that body rather than
allowing someone to nominate borderline psycopaths
to be our
representative.
--
Doug
Ah, the height of rational argumentation - calling
someone who disagrees with you a psychopath.  Even
when I _caricature_ leftists I couldn't come up with
you, Doug.
Well, while "borderline psychopath" is an extreme sentiment, I wouldn't 
be so easily dismissive of the case against Bolton. His behavior 
apparently has been ... erratic at times, and it's not necessarily the 
best idea to position someone with a heavily aggressive -- one might 
say bullying -- method of dealing with disagreement in the position of 
being the US ambassador to the UN.

If the US currently has image issues with other nations, for example, 
it might not be the best plan to appoint as ambassador someone who (if 
reports of his past behavior are correct) seems to embody the way this 
nation is perceived by a significant proportion of people in other 
nations. That is, if Bolton's an erratic man prone to fits of rage, is 
he really the best choice to serve as our face to the UN assembly?

It seems to me that a wiser choice would be someone who is 
*consistently* an effective negotiator and bridge builder.

On a different tack, what would be the merits and disadvantages of 
having the position be decided by election rather than appointment?

--
Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books
http://books.nightwares.com/
Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror"
http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l


Re: Peaceful Change L3

2005-04-21 Thread Nick Arnett
On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 13:53:22 -0500, Dan Minette wrote

...

> To me, the only difference between this and "6 million lies" is the
> magnitude of the denial.

And because of Ramsey Clark's actions, it is wrong to have anything to do with
any anti-war group in the United States

Nick
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l


Re: Peaceful Change L3

2005-04-21 Thread Warren Ockrassa
On Apr 21, 2005, at 7:01 AM, Erik Reuter wrote:
By the way, nice fire analogy, Gautam. If that wasn't clear enough,
then it is hard to imagine what could be. Patience may be a virtue, but
recognizing a lost cause is surely one, too!
I thought the fire analogy was flawed in an important respect: Fire is 
not volitional. National leaders are. *Presumably* this means the 
latter can be swayed or reasoned with.

It was certainly evocative imagery, but the flaw really stood out to me.
--
Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books
http://books.nightwares.com/
Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror"
http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l


Re: Peaceful Change L3

2005-04-21 Thread Dan M.

- Original Message - 
From: "Nick Arnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" 
Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2005 2:11 PM
Subject: Re: Peaceful Change L3


> On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 13:53:22 -0500, Dan Minette wrote
>
> ...
>
> > To me, the only difference between this and "6 million lies" is the
> > magnitude of the denial.
>
> And because of Ramsey Clark's actions, it is wrong to have anything to do
with
> any anti-war group in the United States

No.  Because of the actions of his group, it is wrong to associate with
_that group_.  Don't go to _their_ rallies.  Don't invite them to speak at
yours.

Dan M.
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l


Re: Peaceful Change L3

2005-04-21 Thread Warren Ockrassa
On Apr 21, 2005, at 8:08 AM, Gautam Mukunda wrote:
So the next time Republicans
march in something organized by the KKK you'll say,
ohh, that's guilt by association, really you shouldn't
critcize.  Wait.  No Republican in this day and age
would _ever_ do something like that.
You seem to be suggesting here that no Klan members are Republicans. 
Are you certain?

Or do you mean instead that no elected Republican official would show 
public support for the Klan?

--
Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books
http://books.nightwares.com/
Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror"
http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l


Re: Peaceful Change L3

2005-04-21 Thread Gautam Mukunda
--- Warren Ockrassa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Apr 21, 2005, at 8:08 AM, Gautam Mukunda wrote:
> 
> > So the next time Republicans
> > march in something organized by the KKK you'll
> say,
> > ohh, that's guilt by association, really you
> shouldn't
> > critcize.  Wait.  No Republican in this day and
> age
> > would _ever_ do something like that.
> 
> You seem to be suggesting here that no Klan members
> are Republicans. 
> Are you certain?
> 
> Or do you mean instead that no elected Republican
> official would show 
> public support for the Klan?

The latter - or, more accurately, that none _should_
(I'm sure it's possible to find one who has), and that
if one did, everyone would attack him/her, and they
_should_ do so.  The fact that Robert Byrd - the
seniormost Democrat in the Senate - is a former Klan
leader is an embarassment to the whole country.

Gautam Mukunda
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Freedom is not free"
http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com

__
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l


Re: Peaceful Change L3

2005-04-21 Thread Warren Ockrassa
On Apr 21, 2005, at 12:48 PM, Gautam Mukunda wrote:
--- Warren Ockrassa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

You seem to be suggesting here that no Klan members
are Republicans.
Are you certain?
Or do you mean instead that no elected Republican
official would show
public support for the Klan?
The latter - or, more accurately, that none _should_
(I'm sure it's possible to find one who has), and that
if one did, everyone would attack him/her, and they
_should_ do so.
Agreed on all those counts, yeah. The last time I heard of anyone 
marginally associated with the Republican party also being associated 
with the Klan, it was David Duke, and IIRC he was more or less 
pilloried for it.

The fact that Robert Byrd - the
seniormost Democrat in the Senate - is a former Klan
leader is an embarassment to the whole country.
It's a problem. It's a significant one. But there've been some rather 
reactionary sentiments to come from other elected Republican officials. 
I seem to recall problems with both Jesse Helms and Strom Thurmond, but 
can't remember the particulars.

But hey, there's a new Pope with a history in the Hitlerjugend, so who 
are we to judge? ;)

--
Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books
http://books.nightwares.com/
Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror"
http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l


Re: Peaceful Change L3

2005-04-21 Thread Ronn!Blankenship
At 02:09 PM Thursday 4/21/2005, Warren Ockrassa wrote:
On Apr 21, 2005, at 6:13 AM, Gautam Mukunda wrote:
--- Doug Pensinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Oh, and maybe we should elect our representatives to
that body rather than
allowing someone to nominate borderline psycopaths
to be our
representative.
--
Doug
Ah, the height of rational argumentation - calling
someone who disagrees with you a psychopath.  Even
when I _caricature_ leftists I couldn't come up with
you, Doug.
Well, while "borderline psychopath" is an extreme sentiment, I wouldn't be 
so easily dismissive of the case against Bolton. His behavior apparently 
has been ... erratic at times, and it's not necessarily the best idea to 
position someone with a heavily aggressive -- one might say bullying -- 
method of dealing with disagreement in the position of being the US 
ambassador to the UN.

If the US currently has image issues with other nations, for example, it 
might not be the best plan to appoint as ambassador someone who (if 
reports of his past behavior are correct) seems to embody the way this 
nation is perceived by a significant proportion of people in other 
nations. That is, if Bolton's an erratic man prone to fits of rage, is he 
really the best choice to serve as our face to the UN assembly?

So what if he decides to, oh, pound his shoe on the table?  It's not like 
the UN hasn't seen that before . . .

-- Ronn!  :)
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l


RE: Peaceful Change L3

2005-04-21 Thread Gautam Mukunda
--- Nick Arnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ramsey Clark is representing Saddam Hussein.  You
> say that makes him a bad
> person.  

  Continuing my descent down the rabbit hole...
Ramsey Clark _is_ a bad person.  Defending Saddam
Hussein was really just a confirmation of that fact,
as anyone with eyes to see knew it.  From Salon
Magazine, which by most people's standards is a
left-wing site:

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/1999/06/21/clark/

The title of the article is "Ramsey Clark, The War
Criminal's Best Friend" which kind of tells you what
you need to know.  After this article was written he
defended people who committed genocide in Rwanda. 
It's not just that he's Saddam's defense attorney -
although making your entire practice out of genocidal
mass murderers seems like an odd way to go about
things - it's that there is no enemy of the United
States, no matter how vile whom he does not support. 
The fact that you feel somehow compelled to defend
such a thoroughly disgusting figure leads me to ask,
Nick, if there is any opponent of President Bush whom
you don't think is one of the good guys?  No matter
how viciously anti-American, deluded, or actively
vile?  I mean, really, defending Ramsey Clark?  What's
next - telling us how Kim Jong Il is really a
misunderstood warm and fuzzy guy?


Gautam Mukunda
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Freedom is not free"
http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com

__
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l


RE: Peaceful Change L3

2005-04-21 Thread Nick Arnett
On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 16:26:53 -0700 (PDT), Gautam Mukunda wrote

> The fact that you feel somehow compelled to defend
> such a thoroughly disgusting figure 

When did I defend Ramsey Clark?  I was trying to follow an argument you 
offered.  I'm not taking issue with your assessment of Ramsey Clark.  I'm not 
even commenting on him.  I'm taking issue with your association of him and his 
politics with *anybody* who would participate in any peace and justice event. 
In that I see as McCarthyism -- guilt by association, very distant association 
in this case.  

You went to Harvard, so should we assume that you therefore endorse and stand 
for Jim Wallis' ideas, since he teaches there?  Heck, you participate in Brin-
L and so do I, so does that mean you endorse all of *my* ideas?  All of David 
Brin's?  Are your conservative friends going to tell you that by participating 
here, you are showing that you are a fool, a traitor or worse?  That's guilt 
by much closer association than you're proposing is true of Clark and the 
peace movement.

Nick
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l


Re: Peaceful Change L3

2005-04-21 Thread Dan Minette

- Original Message - 
From: "Nick Arnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" 
Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2005 6:48 PM
Subject: RE: Peaceful Change L3


> On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 16:26:53 -0700 (PDT), Gautam Mukunda wrote
>
> > The fact that you feel somehow compelled to defend
> > such a thoroughly disgusting figure
>
> When did I defend Ramsey Clark?


Ramsey Clark is representing Saddam Hussein.  You say that makes him a bad
person.  Are you saying that anybody who would provide legal representation
for Saddam Hussein is bad?  Or that anyone who represents any criminal is
bad?
 Are you opposed to civil rights, fair trials, the right to be represented
by
an advocate?  Does he have any right to a trial, or should be just shoot
him?

Where do you draw the line?  It seems as if you're saying that Clark's
representation of Saddam proves that Clark is a bad person... how did you
get
there?


>I'm taking issue with your association of him and his  politics with
*anybody* who would participate in >any peace and justice event.  In that I
see as McCarthyism -- guilt by association, very distant association
> in this case.

Nick, are you reading different posts than I am?

Dan M.




> You went to Harvard, so should we assume that you therefore endorse and
stand
> for Jim Wallis' ideas, since he teaches there?  Heck, you participate in
Brin-
> L and so do I, so does that mean you endorse all of *my* ideas?  All of
David
> Brin's?  Are your conservative friends going to tell you that by
participating
> here, you are showing that you are a fool, a traitor or worse?  That's
guilt
> by much closer association than you're proposing is true of Clark and the
> peace movement.
>
> Nick
> ___
> http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
>


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l


Re: Peaceful Change L3

2005-04-21 Thread Nick Arnett
On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 18:56:59 -0500, Dan Minette wrote

> Nick, are you reading different posts than I am?

I don't see how you are reading that as defense of Ramsey Clark.  I asked if 
the fact that he's defending Saddam Hussein proves that he is a bad person.  
If it is true, then he is a bad person.  If it is not true, then it doesn't 
prove anything, since it only means that defending Saddam does not make a 
person necessarily bad.  I don't see how the fact that he's chosen to defend 
genocidal dictators proves his goodness or badness one way or the other.

If he's only doing these things in order to have a platform to attack the 
administration's policies, without really defending Saddam, then I have no 
problem considering that to be bad.  If he's doing it out of a sense of 
fairness for all people, seeking justice for those whom seem to least deserve 
it, then he may be doing a good thing.  But those are entirely unrelated the 
the argument at hand.

Nick
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l


Re: Peaceful Change L3

2005-04-21 Thread Robert Seeberger
Dan Minette wrote:
> - Original Message -
> From: "Nick Arnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" 
> Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2005 11:04 AM
> Subject: RE: Peaceful Change L3
>
>
>
>>> ... you don't associate yourself
>>> with anything that someone like ANSWER organizes ever,
>>> for any reason.
>>
>> Let me see if I do understand.  If ANSWER is involved in organizing
>> anything, I should have nothing to do with it, even if I agree with
>> the purpose of the event?
>
> I think that is not unreasonable.  I wouldn't go to a Klan rally 
> even
> if they were actually promoting something I agreed with.  Let me 
> give
> an example.  Reasonable people can believe that we should tighten up
> our border security.  But, I'd be outraged if my neighbors went to a
> Klan rally that advocated strong border controls.
>
> You really think I'm facist for believing that?
>

That depends on if ANSWER is in any reasonable way equivilent to the 
KKK.

The KKK is known to have killed people.
ANSWER is desperate for support and will include even extremists.

To me, making ANSWER and the KKK in any way equivilent is an exercise 
in idiocy.


xponent
A Compendium Of Whackos Maru
rob 


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l


Re: Peaceful Change L3

2005-04-21 Thread Gautam Mukunda
--- Robert Seeberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> To me, making ANSWER and the KKK in any way
> equivilent is an exercise 
> in idiocy.
> 
> 
> xponent
> A Compendium Of Whackos Maru
> rob 

I don't think so, Rob.  I'm assuming that you just
haven't looked at them in detail - they're purely a
front group for a Stalinist organization.  That's it
-, as far as I can tell they really have no indpendent
existence, something that's been confirmed all across
the political spectrum that I have heard.  The whackos
of the Left are not less acceptable than the whackos
of the right - the people they support killed more
people, if nothing else, something that the left hsa
carefully tried to erase from our historical memory.

Gautam Mukunda
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Freedom is not free"
http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com

__
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l


Re: Peaceful Change L3

2005-04-21 Thread Robert Seeberger
Gautam Mukunda wrote:
>
>
> Ah, the other defense of the pathetic left.  Cry
> fascism.  This isn't even worth discussing.  If you're
> using it honestly (and I don't think you are, because
> you're too smart to actually think this) then, as they
> said in The Princess Bride, "That word.  I do not
> think it means - what you think it means."
>

Think you could tone down the insult rhetoric a bit?
Remember that you guys have an audience.


TIA


xponent
Concrete Maru
rob 


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l


Re: Peaceful Change L3

2005-04-21 Thread Gautam Mukunda
--- Robert Seeberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Think you could tone down the insult rhetoric a bit?
> Remember that you guys have an audience.
> 
> 
> TIA
> 
> 
> xponent
> Concrete Maru
> rob 

I'm sorry, Nick just called me a McCarthyite and a
Fascist and you object to me telling Nick the word
doesn't mean what he claims it means?  I mean, as a
conservative I accept that this is an automatic
reaction - disagree with a leftist and being called a
fascist is pretty much a first response - but this is
a bit much.  If I wanted to insult him, trust me, it
would have been a lot more pointed than that.

Gautam Mukunda
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Freedom is not free"
http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com

__
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l


RE: Peaceful Change L3

2005-04-21 Thread Gautam Mukunda
--- Nick Arnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You went to Harvard, so should we assume that you
> therefore endorse and stand 
> for Jim Wallis' ideas, since he teaches there? 
> Heck, you participate in Brin-
> L and so do I, so does that mean you endorse all of
> *my* ideas?  All of David 
> Brin's?  Are your conservative friends going to tell
> you that by participating 
> here, you are showing that you are a fool, a traitor
> or worse?  That's guilt 
> by much closer association than you're proposing is
> true of Clark and the 
> peace movement.
> 
> Nick

OK, this is just pointless at this point.  Nick, do
you know _anything_ about Ramsey Clark?  Read a single
one of his interviews?  Noticed that he was accepting
awards from the genocidal government in Serbia? 
Checked up on what he says about the United States? 
At this point we're pretty much in cloud cuckoo land.

By the way, Jim Wallis was a Fellow at some center at
the KSG which, I have to tell you, isn't really the
earth-shattering credential that you've managed to
persuade yourself it is, but okay.  No, it's not at
all a much closer connection.  If I go to something
that someone has organized for the explicit purpose of
promoting their agenda - this is a much closer
connection than attending a school where the guy was
an obscure hanger-on of a center at a school
affiliated with the one where I got a degree.  Heck, I
was a Program Coordinator at the Kennedy School and
the first I heard of Wallis was when I saw him
bloviating on TV. 

Gautam Mukunda
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Freedom is not free"
http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com

__
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l


Re: Peaceful Change L3

2005-04-21 Thread Robert Seeberger
Warren Ockrassa wrote:
> On Apr 21, 2005, at 8:08 AM, Gautam Mukunda wrote:
>
>> So the next time Republicans
>> march in something organized by the KKK you'll say,
>> ohh, that's guilt by association, really you shouldn't
>> critcize.  Wait.  No Republican in this day and age
>> would _ever_ do something like that.
>
> You seem to be suggesting here that no Klan members are Republicans.
> Are you certain?

David Duke


>
> Or do you mean instead that no elected Republican official would 
> show
> public support for the Klan?

Maybe a Klan member



xponent
The Argument Works Both Ways Maru
rob 


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l


Re: Peaceful Change L3

2005-04-21 Thread Robert Seeberger
Gautam Mukunda wrote:
> --- Robert Seeberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>> To me, making ANSWER and the KKK in any way
>> equivilent is an exercise
>> in idiocy.
>>
>>
>> xponent
>> A Compendium Of Whackos Maru
>> rob
>
> I don't think so, Rob.  I'm assuming that you just
> haven't looked at them in detail - they're purely a
> front group for a Stalinist organization.  That's it
> -, as far as I can tell they really have no indpendent
> existence, something that's been confirmed all across
> the political spectrum that I have heard.  The whackos
> of the Left are not less acceptable than the whackos
> of the right - the people they support killed more
> people, if nothing else, something that the left hsa
> carefully tried to erase from our historical memory.
>

Dr Brin, I mean Gautam...you seem to be saying that 
ANSWER has killed people. More peole than the KKK if I am reading you 
correctly.

I think that deserves some explaination.

xponent
Just Teasing You Dude! Maru
rob 


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l


Re: Peaceful Change L3

2005-04-21 Thread Gautam Mukunda
--- Robert Seeberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Dr Brin, I mean Gautam...you seem to
> be saying that 
> ANSWER has killed people. More peole than the KKK if
> I am reading you 
> correctly.
> 
> I think that deserves some explaination.
> 
> xponent
> Just Teasing You Dude! Maru
> rob 

:-)  "The people they support".  ANSWER's parent
organization is Stalinist.  I don't mean this in a
metaphoric sense - the way Nick used fascist against
me, for example - but in a literal one.  They actively
supported Stalin himself, and various Stalinist
dictators (Kim Jong Il and Saddam himself - Saddam,
btw, considered Stalin to be his hero, which really
does tell you everything you need to know).  Ramsey
Clark similarly didn't just defend Milosevic in court,
but defended him rhetorically and politically _while
he was committing genocide_.  Milosevic wasn't Joe
Stalin, but he wasn't a nice guy, either.  

Gautam Mukunda
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Freedom is not free"
http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com

__
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l


Re: Peaceful Change L3

2005-04-21 Thread Robert Seeberger
Gautam Mukunda wrote:
> --- Robert Seeberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>> Think you could tone down the insult rhetoric a bit?
>> Remember that you guys have an audience.
>>
>>
>> TIA
>>
>>
>> xponent
>> Concrete Maru
>> rob
>
> I'm sorry, Nick just called me a McCarthyite and a
> Fascist and you object to me telling Nick the word
> doesn't mean what he claims it means?  I mean, as a
> conservative I accept that this is an automatic
> reaction - disagree with a leftist and being called a
> fascist is pretty much a first response - but this is
> a bit much.  If I wanted to insult him, trust me, it
> would have been a lot more pointed than that.
>



I can appreciate that, but when you take broad swipes with remarks 
like "pathetic left" it could easily be taken as an insult to anyone 
who votes left of center by anyone who votes left of center.
I don't think you are intending to do such. You are a decent fellow 
and I think almost everyone would support me when I say so. It might 
help if you take that for granted in the times when tempers get a bit 
testy.

I pay attention to the "smart" people on the list. I notice that guys 
like Dan and Ronn! and even Bob C make their points without stepping 
into a testosterone pissing contest. I try to follow that example and 
try to take the kindest interpretation of others comments I can.
I don't think Nick intended to call you a McCarthyite (though I am 
just skimming mostly tonight and could be wrong), but if in fact he 
did, that is his problem and you should not allow it to become yours. 
The tit-for-tat games should have been left in the schoolyard and the 
high ground lies elsewhere.
As someone who has commited this particular sin often enough and is 
tempted frequently, I would hope that those of you who have the 
advantage of a good education would endevour to match that knowledge 
with the wisdom of how to respond morally and ethically in stressful 
social situations. The enviroment of the List is much improved over 
the last couple of years (with a few exceptions and qualifications) 
and I hope we can continue to follow this trend.

Gautam, you are one of the most respected members of our list. I hope 
that you "know" this and recognize that when people disagree with you 
it is not for a lack of or diminished respect.
>From outside the discussion I do not ever get such an impression.

xponent
Sharing The High Ground Maru
rob 


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l


RE: Peaceful Change L3

2005-04-21 Thread Andrew Paul
Gautam Mukunda
> 
> --- Andrew Paul <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Gautam Mukunda
> > So Gautam, are you saying that the US invaded Iraq
> > out of a deeply felt
> > need to save the Iraqi people? Not cos of WMD risks,
> > not cos of issues
> > over oil?
> 
> Again with this?  Why are people who think _George
> Bush_ is dumb unable to understand the concept of
> doing things for more than one reason?
> 

Umm, Doh... You were the one going on about George's deep humanitarian
concerns. I was just objecting to the weight you were placing on it.
Perhaps we got an odd slant from the media down here, but it was WMD,
WMD, imminent end of the world, WMD, WMD, ohh and by the way he is a bit
of a bastard.



> > Now, I know you are not, it was for a lot of complex
> > intertwined
> > reasons.
> > So please leave a little of the high moral ground
> > for others to stand
> > on.
> 
> Why, when they're abandoning it as fast as possible?
> Moral calculations are part of international
> relations.  They are one of the most important parts.
> They are not the _only_ part, but that's not the same
> thing as saying that they aren't one part.  It is
> possible to do things that are in your interest _and
> have them still be moral acts_.

/me leaps a bit deeper into the pits of hell and immorality
Yes, I know. I never suggested otherwise. 


> > Call me a cynic, but I just can't see GWB weeping at
> > night in bed over
> > the plight of Iraqi children. I am not saying he is
> > a bastard, but just
> > that I doubt it was top of his list. And it
> > certainly was not the thrust
> > of the argument put to justify the war.
> 
> It was, however, _a_ thrust.  The argument before the
> UN was largely about WMD, because that was a legal
> argument.  When the President spends time on an issue
> in front of Congress, it's a pretty major focus.  Now,
> by David Brin standards, what you wrote above was a
> lie, because it's a misstatement of fact :-).  But I
> don't operate by David Brin standards.  It's just a
> mistake.  President Bush spent lots of time talking
> about humanitarian reasons for invading.  He spent
> more time on WMD.  That doesn't mean that they weren't
> both important.  It really just means that it's
> convenient for opponents of the war to _pretend_ they
> weren't both important.
> >

What did I say that was a lie? I don't mind, I am just curious.
And I am sure GWB spent a lot of time paying lip service to the save the
children part. It would have been a focus to convince wavering lefties.
I am not convinced however that it was really a concern in the briefing
papers he got from the Pentagon. Judging by the aftermath, I'd say
that's a pretty safe bet.


> > Also, your statement that peoples hands etc would
> > still be being chopped
> > off if the war had not happened. How can you say
> > that? How do you know?
> 
> Well, because Saddam had been doing it for more than
> 20 years and didn't seem to have any intent of
> stopping.  I don't _know_ that Kate Bosworth isn't
> going to walk into my apartment in 30 seconds.  I
> don't think it's very likely, though.
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.  No luck.
> 

 Ahh, that's cos she is down in Australia filming Superman Returns
!

> > There were other alternatives. That's one of the
> > points that we lefty
> > extremists keep making and that keeps falling on
> > deaf ears.
> 
> That's because it's an absurd point.  Kate Bosworth is
> going to walk into my apartment.  This statement does
> not make it more likely that it will happen.
> >
> > How about a UN sanctioned multinational force, that
> > planned it properly
> > and put in some thought about dealing with the
> > peace. That did it with
> > the full agreement of the only body that can be seen
> > as bi-partisan
> > enough to actually be doing it for moral reasons
> > i.e. the terribly
> > flawed, but at least globally based UN. Sure it was
> > hard, those damn
> > frenchies so much easier just to send in the
> > Marines and shoot all
> > the stupid ragheads... but at least it would have
> > been a consensus.
> 
> Again, this is an argument that flys in the face of
> _all_ the evidence.  Did you say this about Kosovo?
> Kosovo didn't have Security Council approval either.
> In fact the only difference between the Kosovo and
> Iraq coalitions was the presence of Germany and France
> in the former.  So if you _didn't_ make this argument
> about Kosovo, you cannot consistently make this
> argument about Iraq.  If you _did_, we can talk about
> why you attach such moral importance to the decisions
> of two dictatorships.  We've had this argument over
> and over again.  _Three of the five members of the
> Security Council_ were going to vote against the
> invasion, no matter what.  Now, you may feel that
> Communist China, a newly dictatorial Russia, and the
> French are moral authorities.  But I don't, actually.
> So your point is - if these impossible things were to
> happen, you would have supported the war.  This is the
> same th

Re: Peaceful Change L3

2005-04-21 Thread Warren Ockrassa
On Apr 21, 2005, at 7:09 PM, Robert Seeberger wrote:
Warren Ockrassa wrote:
On Apr 21, 2005, at 8:08 AM, Gautam Mukunda wrote:
So the next time Republicans
march in something organized by the KKK you'll say,
ohh, that's guilt by association, really you shouldn't
critcize.  Wait.  No Republican in this day and age
would _ever_ do something like that.
You seem to be suggesting here that no Klan members are Republicans.
Are you certain?
David Duke
I hadn't forgotten him, but TTBOMK he is no longer active in politics. 
I think Gautam was speaking of the present day, not events of a few 
(how many?) years back.

As it happens that wasn't what Gautam was saying anyway, so Duke's 
membership status in the Klan (are his dues current, or has he quit for 
good) doesn't factor in.

--
Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books
http://books.nightwares.com/
Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror"
http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l


Re: Peaceful Change L3

2005-04-21 Thread Robert Seeberger
Gautam Mukunda wrote:
> --- Robert Seeberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>> Dr Brin, I mean Gautam...you seem to
>> be saying that
>> ANSWER has killed people. More peole than the KKK if
>> I am reading you
>> correctly.
>>
>> I think that deserves some explaination.
>>
>> xponent
>> Just Teasing You Dude! Maru
>> rob
>
> :-)  "The people they support".  ANSWER's parent
> organization is Stalinist.  I don't mean this in a
> metaphoric sense - the way Nick used fascist against
> me, for example - but in a literal one.  They actively
> supported Stalin himself, and various Stalinist
> dictators (Kim Jong Il and Saddam himself - Saddam,
> btw, considered Stalin to be his hero, which really
> does tell you everything you need to know).  Ramsey
> Clark similarly didn't just defend Milosevic in court,
> but defended him rhetorically and politically _while
> he was committing genocide_.  Milosevic wasn't Joe
> Stalin, but he wasn't a nice guy, either.
>

I went to answers website (I hope that doesn't make me a commie) 
and couldn't find anything incriminating. (Other than they typical 
extreme left orgs on the steering commitee)
Got Links?

For such an organisation to have supported Stalin, it would have to be 
long lived.
ANSWER has not been around *that* long.

The problem I have with your argument is that Americans will go to 
anti-war protests for their own purposes, not the purposes of some 
sinister organization. So if every American went to an ANSWER 
organized protest, it would not do one whit towards supporting Stalin 
or Stalinism, or commienism, or even consumerism. It might not even 
stop a war.

I think the same logic applies for Republicans (or Democrats). Little 
effort has been made to remove former members of the KKK from party 
membership and quite obviously that has not translated into a public 
acceptance of racist murder and bombings.

I think there is a significant disconnect between the motivations of 
individuals and the intent of camoflauged organizations.  I think a 
suspicion is justified but the automatic claim of connection is not.

xponent
Syllogisms? Maru
rob 


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l


Re: Peaceful Change L3

2005-04-21 Thread Doug Pensinger
Gautam wrote:
Ah, the height of rational argumentation - calling
someone who disagrees with you a psychopath.
I don't know if I disagree with him.  I do think the U.N. could use 
reform, but a conservative Republican colleague of his called him a 
"serial abuser" and three Republicans on the committee expressed doubts 
that he was fit for the job based on his behavioral anomalies...


 Even when I _caricature_ leftists I couldn't come up with
you, Doug.
I don't know.  I think your EEVVIILL, EEVVIILL was pretty good.
--
Doug
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l


Re: Peaceful Change L3

2005-04-21 Thread Nick Arnett
On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 19:02:20 -0700 (PDT), Gautam Mukunda wrote

> I'm sorry, Nick just called me a McCarthyite and a
> Fascist 

I'd appreciate it if you'd differentiate comments about behavior from comments 
about people... and questions from statements.

> and you object to me telling Nick the word
> doesn't mean what he claims it means?  I mean, as a
> conservative I accept that this is an automatic
> reaction - disagree with a leftist and being called a
> fascist is pretty much a first response - but this is
> a bit much.  If I wanted to insult him, trust me, it
> would have been a lot more pointed than that.

I notice that you've been bringing in the conservative/liberal ideology 
division a bit lately.  I hope that we can rise above such simplicity, which 
isn't working well for anyone in today's world, as far as I can tell.  There 
are more than two sides to many issues and fewer than two for some.

Nick
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l


RE: Peaceful Change L3

2005-04-21 Thread Nick Arnett
On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 19:09:09 -0700 (PDT), Gautam Mukunda wrote

> OK, this is just pointless at this point.  Nick, do
> you know _anything_ about Ramsey Clark?  Read a single
> one of his interviews?  Noticed that he was accepting
> awards from the genocidal government in Serbia? 
> Checked up on what he says about the United States? 
> At this point we're pretty much in cloud cuckoo land.

And what does that have to do with guilt by association?  I hear you 
complaining about Clark, but you sure haven't convinced me that there is any 
sort of serious connection between AIC and the groups that demonstrate for 
peace and justice.  Any *evidence* that there really is a Ramsey Clark-led 
conspiracy that is the hidden hand in charge of all peace ralleys?  And is he 
perhaps a Knight Templar, too?

Innuendo and guilt by association stink.

Nick
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l


Re: Peaceful Change L3

2005-04-21 Thread Nick Arnett
On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 21:55:50 -0500, Robert Seeberger wrote
> I don't think Nick intended to call you a 
> McCarthyite 

It was a particular argument that I said I see as McCarthyism.  It was 
Gautam's argument, which I'm sure doesn't represent the whole of his being and 
thinking, not the man himself, just an argument he made in a couple of 
messages on an obscure Internet mailing list.  And I stand by my view still, 
as he'd have us believe that anyone who participates in any peace and justice 
demonstration in the United States is a Stalinist because a guy (Clark) behind 
an organization (AIC) that is related to an anti-Trotsky organization (WPP), 
helped to create another organization (ANSWER) that is trying to coordinate 
action among a large number of independently organized local and regional 
peace and justice organizations.  Gautam seems to be saying that this actually 
is not a set of distant relationships, but that everyone who participates in 
any event in this web of relationships is therefore Stalinist.  If that isn't 
a concept worthy of McCarthy, I don't know what is.

I'm quite sure that the leaders of activist groups are not under the command 
of Clark or contemplating, "What would Ramsey do?"  Or "What would Stalin do?" 
 
Are we to believe that people who are outraged by the violence of war would 
worship a mass murdering dictator?  I've met people who suggest ending the 
trouble in Iraq with nuclear weapons, who somehow think that because I lost a 
family member there, I'll agree.  But they aren't at peace rallys.

Nick
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l


Re: Peaceful Change L3

2005-04-22 Thread Gautam Mukunda
--- Nick Arnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 21:55:50 -0500, Robert Seeberger
> wrote
> > I don't think Nick intended to call you a 
> > McCarthyite 
> 
> It was a particular argument that I said I see as
> McCarthyism.  It was 
> Gautam's argument, which I'm sure doesn't represent
> the whole of his being and 
> thinking, not the man himself, just an argument he
> made in a couple of 
> messages on an obscure Internet mailing list.  And I
> stand by my view still, 
> as he'd have us believe that anyone who participates
> in any peace and justice 
> demonstration in the United States is a Stalinist
> because a guy (Clark) behind 
> an organization (AIC) that is related to an
> anti-Trotsky organization (WPP), 
> helped to create another organization (ANSWER) that
> is trying to coordinate 
> action among a large number of independently
> organized local and regional 
> peace and justice organizations.

OK, I'm done arguing with you Nick, because you're
just lying now.  That's simply dishonest.  I don't
know what's wrong with you, but I'm finished.  I
didn't say any of that, and you know I didn't say any
of that, and the fact that you feel compelled to lie
and pretend that I said something like that suggests
you might want to think about _therapy_, not politics.
 For the last time - because I have no interest in
continuing this.  I didn't say any of that.  I did say
that people who supported those organizations -
whatever their own beliefs - should be ashamed of
themselves.  And they should be.  If you _have_ no
shame, then I guess you wouldn't be.  But that's not
my game.

Gautam Mukunda
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Freedom is not free"
http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com

__
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l


Re: Peaceful Change L3

2005-04-22 Thread JDG
>--- Nick Arnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> And I
>> stand by my view still, 
>> as he'd have us believe that anyone who participates
>> in any peace and justice 
>> demonstration in the United States is a Stalinist
>> because a guy (Clark) behind 
>> an organization (AIC) that is related to an
>> anti-Trotsky organization (WPP), 
>> helped to create another organization (ANSWER) that
>> is trying to coordinate 
>> action among a large number of independently
>> organized local and regional 
>> peace and justice organizations.

Nick,

Dan M., Gautam, and probably others have pointed out to you on multiple
occasions that it is *not* _anyone_ who participates in _any_ peace and
justice demonstration. It  has been _specific_ people participating in
_specific_ demonstrations, sponsored by _specific_ groups.

JDG
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l


RE: Peaceful Change L3

2005-04-22 Thread Andrew Paul

> 
> OK, I'm done arguing with you Nick 

I for one am in favour of changing the subject. As you said Gautam, we
are just going over lots of old ground here. We agree to differ. And I
retract any remarks which you found offensive. I did not intend them to
be so, and I don't think Nick et al did either. 

If we are going to argue, let's argue over the future, not the past. Or
perhaps we could even agree on a few things. I think if we put our
energies toward a few different topics, we might find that happens more
often than we might think.

So have a good weekend.

Andrew



___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l


Re: Peaceful Change L3

2005-04-22 Thread Nick Arnett
On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 07:58:58 -0400, JDG wrote

> Dan M., Gautam, and probably others have pointed out to you on multiple
> occasions that it is *not* _anyone_ who participates in _any_ peace and
> justice demonstration. It  has been _specific_ people 
> participating in _specific_ demonstrations, sponsored by _specific_ groups.

Really?  Here's what Gautam wrote:

"International ANSWER, the group primarily 
responsible for organizing the anti-war protests in 
the United States, is a Stalinist organiation that is 
actively pro-Saddam.  They were all wrong."

How can you read that as saying that ANSWER is behind specific people 
participating in specific demonstrations?

The problems that I see in the statement are:

1.  It is factually wrong. ANSWER is not primarily responsible for organizing 
war protests.  ANSWER's goal is to try to coordinate the primary organizers, 
most of whom are local.  There are many, many organizations, with various 
missions, beliefs and ideologies, who organize peace and justice events.

2.  It is McCarthyist in its guilt-by-distant-association with WWP.  ANSWER is 
not Stalinist.  

Nick
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l


Re: Peaceful Change L3

2005-04-22 Thread Matt Grimaldi

Robert Seeberger wrote:
> Think you could tone down the insult rhetoric a bit?
> Remember that you guys have an audience.


Hear hear!  Your (plural) need to put people down
only serves to make you look arrogant and elitist.

-- Matt


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l


Lincoln Re: Peaceful change L3

2005-04-20 Thread JDG
At 07:32 PM 4/17/2005 -0700, Gautam wrote:
>--- Nick Arnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> "Our task should not be to invoke religion and the
>> name of God by claiming 
>> God's blessing and endorsement for all our national
>> policies and practices - 
>> saying, in effect, that God is on our side. Rather,
>> we should pray and worry 
>> earnestly whether we are on God's side."  --Abraham
>> Lincoln
>> 
>> Nick
>
>A quote entirely stripped of its moral and historical
>context - remarkably so, in fact.  Lincoln is the
>historical figure you can _least_ enlist in your
>cause, Nick, because he is one whom most people agree
>is the paragon of the modern statesman who _also_
>chose to fight an optional war far more terrible than
>any other his nation has ever fought, before or since.
> The Lincoln whom you quote approvingly _chose_ to
>unleash total war in a way that the West had not seen
>in centuries and the United States had never seen.  He
>did this despite the opposition of most of the rest of
>the world (Britain and France, for example, _both_
>supported mediation of the conflict and, de facto, the
>split of the United States into separate countries). 

Indeed, to this day, many Confederacy sympathizers in this country can't
understand why Lincoln did not simply "let the Confederacy walk", since
substantial majorities in each of the Confederate States clearly wanted to
go their own way.   

JDG
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l


Removing Dictators Re: Peaceful change L3

2005-04-20 Thread JDG
At 06:54 PM 4/17/2005 -0700, Nick wrote:
>> When, according to our best
>> understanding,  we have an opportunity to decrease human suffering 
>> and death, when does God call us to let things unfold instead, 
>> increasing human suffering and death? When does God call us to say 
>> no when people ask for help?
>
>Who called for help?  Exactly which Iraqis called for us to invade and
occupy 
>their country?  Was there any evidence of even an partial consensus for
that?  

Nick, this is a curious standard.   Would a consensus of Rwandans been
necessary to justify intervention in that country?   

Also, given the constrainst upon freedom of speech in Iraq, weren't the
reactions of people dancing in the streets worth something to you?

You later ask if "must dictators be physically stopped?"

I would respond by noting that you seem to agree that Christians are called
to do justice.   I think that Christians should stop dictators if to do so
would be justice.   For example, if a dictator is killing his own citizens,
and we have the power to save those lives from that killing, is it not just
to do so?Even if it requires the use of force?   

I think that you sense the weakness of the rhetorical question "must
dictators be physically stopped?" because you proceed shortly to the
question of urgency:

>And we absolutely had to remove him from power as quickly as possible?
Why?  
>On what basis was there such urgency all of a sudden?  

I think that here you need to weigh the damage being done vs. the
probability of success.   For example, we know Saddam Hussein was killing
some several thousand Iraqis each month.   We also know that for 12 years,
various condemnations of international condemnation; diplomatic, military
and economic sanctions;  covert support for opposition parties; and
targeted airstrikes had failed to make any noticeable progress in
dislodging him.   Therfore, we could reasonably conclude that continuing
these policies would likely not result in the removal of Saddam Hussein for
several years - particularly based on our experiences in Cuba, DPRK, and
elsewhere.   

Thus, Nick, we have the situation where choosing to continue condemnation
and sanctions, etc. would result in the deaths of innocent Iraqis and war
would result in the death of innocent Iraqis.   I think that a great many
people were able to judge that war would most likely result in the deaths
of fewer Iraqis in the long run.  

JDG

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l


RE: Removing Dictators Re: Peaceful change L3

2005-04-20 Thread Andrew Paul


JDG
> 
> elsewhere.
> 
> Thus, Nick, we have the situation where choosing to continue
condemnation
> and sanctions, etc. would result in the deaths of innocent Iraqis and
war
> would result in the death of innocent Iraqis.   I think that a great
many
> people were able to judge that war would most likely result in the
deaths
> of fewer Iraqis in the long run.
> 


Why wasn't this decision made in say June 2001? What was it that drove
the timing? 

And why isn't the US invading North Korea?
Why is it, as you put it "doing nothing"?

Poor George, no wonder he looks tired, tossing all night, crying over
the starving Koreans kiddies etc...

Andrew



___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l


RE: Removing Dictators Re: Peaceful change L3

2005-04-21 Thread JDG
At 03:29 PM 4/21/2005 +1000, Andrew Paul wrote:
>> Thus, Nick, we have the situation where choosing to continue
>condemnation
>> and sanctions, etc. would result in the deaths of innocent Iraqis and
>war
>> would result in the death of innocent Iraqis.   I think that a great
>many
>> people were able to judge that war would most likely result in the
>deaths
>> of fewer Iraqis in the long run.
>> 
>
>
>Why wasn't this decision made in say June 2001? What was it that drove
>the timing? 

George Bush gave the "axis of evil" speech in January 2002, one year after
being elected.Beterrn January 2002 and March 2003, the US spent a lot
of time attempting to persuade the world of the merits of liberating Iraq,
and listening to their objections.

>And why isn't the US invading North Korea?
>Why is it, as you put it "doing nothing"?

The calculation has to include the probability of success.   While "doing
nothing' in the DPRK is clearly resulting in the deaths of North Koreans,
the probability that an invasion of DPRK would result in the flattening of
Seoul, or worse, the detonation of one or more of the DPRK's nuclear
weapons has to weigh in the balance *against* war in DPRK.   That is, it is
likely that a war against DPRK would likely result in more deaths than the
status quo.

And as I have noted, the DPRK situation is a key reason why it was
important to liberate Iraq.   Once a dictator acquires nuclear weapons, it
is *too late*.So, to go back to your earlier question - once we learned
in 2001 that the DPRK had built nuclear weapons, there was suddenly a very
real possibility that an impoverished DPRK might sell a fully assembled
nuclear weapon to a country with large oil revenues - like Iraq. 

JDG

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l


RE: Removing Dictators Re: Peaceful change L3

2005-04-21 Thread Andrew Paul
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of JDG 



>>And why isn't the US invading North Korea?
>>Why is it, as you put it "doing nothing"?

>The calculation has to include the probability of success.   While "doing
>nothing' in the DPRK is clearly resulting in the deaths of North Koreans,
>the probability that an invasion of DPRK would result in the flattening of
>Seoul, or worse, the detonation of one or more of the DPRK's nuclear
>weapons has to weigh in the balance *against* war in DPRK.   That is, it is
>likely that a war against DPRK would likely result in more deaths than the
>status quo.

Yes, the realities of global politics. I guess thats what I was getting at. It 
suited the US to Invade Iraq, for a whole lot of reasons. It does not suit them 
to invade the DPRK. It wasnt cos GWB was worried about the little Iraqi 
kiddies, as my rather intemperate response to Gautum's post was trying to make 
clear. I am fine with that, its the dressing it up as some sweet natured 
lovey-dovey caring for the people of Iraq bit that annoys me. It was part of 
the Great Game. And if had not suited GWB to invade Iraq, almost no amount of 
starving kiddies would have made him. The timing was right, he had a 
justification ( one I believe he misused, and played upon the baser parts of 
human nature to get what he wanted, and to be fair, what he thought was best 
for America, and perhaps the world) and he took the opportunity. Good  luck to 
him. Just dont expect me to buy that he did it for the poor starving kiddies of 
Iraq. He didn't. He did it as part of as plan to cement American control in a 
crucial part of the world.

What annoys me is that he started a war. And he dragged my country in with him. 
I dont like staring wars. And there were other ways, flawed as they may have 
been. How patient do we need to be? When is enough enough? These are the 
questions I ask myself.  And it set a precedent. This idea of a "Justified 
War", who defines the parameters for that? Does it not give any nation the 
right, in a philosophical sense, to invade any other nation, on the grounds 
that they think it is just? Well, the US did it, Australia did it. England did 
it. Do you see my quandry. I am glad of be rid of Saddam, and I hope Iraq 
becomes a stable, strong democracy. But, and call me a wimp, but for mine, the 
only body that has the moral authority to condone the starting of a war is the 
united people of the world., in the only shape we currently have, ie, that of 
the UN. 

I know the UN is a mess, but if not them who? I asked the silly question, about 
does this validate 9/11. I know it does not. But where is that line, who 
decides? I am upset that we started a war. Its as simple as that. Without being 
attacked, we started a war, and a lot of people have died, and more will. This 
whole doctrine of premptive attack is so fraught with danger, it scares the 
crap out of me. And to do it on the basis of such flimsy and flawed evidence. 
Its dangerous incompetence in my mind, and I can see why the Arab world views 
it as American Imperalism. Thats cos, and I would be interested in your 
thoughts on this, thats cos it basically is. GWB was elected President of 
America, not the world.  He chose to impose what he saw as American interests 
on the Middle East. I know why he did it, and in many ways it makes a lot of 
sense, if you are the President of  the USA. Now, and this is another 
interesting question, is that democracy?

>And as I have noted, the DPRK situation is a key reason why it was
>important to liberate Iraq.   Once a dictator acquires nuclear weapons, it
>is *too late*.So, to go back to your earlier question - once we learned
>in 2001 that the DPRK had built nuclear weapons, there was suddenly a very
>real possibility that an impoverished DPRK might sell a fully assembled
>nuclear weapon to a country with large oil revenues - like Iraq.

I am opposed to the proliferation of nuclear weapons. They are way kinky, 
nasty, bad shit, way too dangerous to have live, ( I think we need some on hand 
for odd alien invasion scenarios, but thats another story, I am talking about 
live nuclear weapons). But again, who decides that its just fine and hunky-dory 
for country A to have to have bunkers full of ticking ICBM's and yet a mortal 
sin, punishable by immediate invasion, for country B to even contemplate the 
idea of having a few scientists working on them in some back room. The American 
nuclear deterent is appareantly moral and justified, and needed... the DPRK's 
nuclear deterent is a crime against humanity. Apparantly. Just as the USA acts 
in its own interests, so does the DPRK. If the USA was threated with invasion, 
would it lay down its ICBM's cos they would kill a few people? Why arent we 
persecuting Pakistan or India, France or England. If you were the President of 
North Korea, what actions would you take to defend your country? Accord them 
the same need, and the same right to defend their way of life.

Re: Removing Dictators Re: Peaceful change L3

2005-04-21 Thread Nick Arnett
On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 22:23:43 -0400, JDG wrote

> I would respond by noting that you seem to agree that Christians are 
> called to do justice.   I think that Christians should stop 
> dictators if to do so would be justice.   For example, if a dictator 
> is killing his own citizens, and we have the power to save those 
> lives from that killing, is it not just to do so?Even if it 
> requires the use of force?

This discussion has never been about whether or not to intervene (no matter 
how many times people try to reduce it to that), it is about *how* to 
intervene and why there is a moral presumption against war.  For me, it has 
been about faith that regards war as failure, rather than pro-war 
triumphalism.

> Therfore, we could 
> reasonably conclude that continuing these policies would likely not 
> result in the removal of Saddam Hussein for several years -
>  particularly based on our experiences in Cuba, DPRK, and elsewhere.

Reasonable people have reached other conclusions as well.  

Nick
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l


Re: Removing Dictators Re: Peaceful change L3

2005-04-21 Thread Dan Minette

- Original Message - 
From: "Andrew Paul" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" 
Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2005 12:29 AM
Subject: RE: Removing Dictators Re: Peaceful change L3



>And why isn't the US invading North Korea?
>Why is it, as you put it "doing nothing"?

As JDG said, the answer to that is fairly straightforward.  South Korea
begged Clinton not to.  Even before they had nuclear weapons, the proximity
of Seoul to the border, and the training of mutiple (10k)  guns/morters on
Seoul by North Korea would result in massive casualties.  While there is
little doubt that the US and South Korea would quickly win any war with
North Korea, it wouldn't be quick enough to prevent 100,000-200,000 deaths.
That was an overwhelming price to pay, and Clinton decided to accept the
half a loaf solution with a verifyable freeze on plutonium extraction and
production from the known nuclear reactor.

JDG called this a failure, pointing out that other secret facilities were
built and that N. Korea probably already had enough material for 1 or 2
more bombs.  I differ with that assessemnt.  As it stood, N. Korea had the
ability to kill 100k-200k without nuclear weapons.  This was the functional
equivalant of roughly 2-3 atomic bombs of the caliber that N. Korea would
have.  If the US attacked, it was considered very likely that N. Korea
would counterattack.

Not making a partial deal and not attacking would leave the status quo in
place.  N. Korea had just extracted fuel rods that could be used for ~6
more weapons.  They were also working on a large reactor that, by about
1998, woiuld be able to produce enough plutonium for about 40-50
bombs/years.


>Poor George, no wonder he looks tired, tossing all night, crying over
>the starving Koreans kiddies etc...

What I don't understand is, given that I'm pretty sure I already mentioned
this to you in an earlier discussion, why you don't consider any answer but
Bush is a bad boy.  Did you ask yourself "what are the differences between
N. Korea and Iraq?"  "Is there any difference in the estimated number of
civilian casualties in each war?"

Dan M.


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l


RE: Removing Dictators Re: Peaceful change L3

2005-04-21 Thread Andrew Paul
Dan Minette
> From: "Andrew Paul" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: RE: Removing Dictators Re: Peaceful change L3
> 
> 
> 
> >And why isn't the US invading North Korea?
> >Why is it, as you put it "doing nothing"?
> 
> As JDG said, the answer to that is fairly straightforward.  South
Korea
> begged Clinton not to.  Even before they had nuclear weapons, the
> proximity
> of Seoul to the border, and the training of mutiple (10k)
guns/morters on
> Seoul by North Korea would result in massive casualties.  While there
is
> little doubt that the US and South Korea would quickly win any war
with
> North Korea, it wouldn't be quick enough to prevent 100,000-200,000
> deaths.
> That was an overwhelming price to pay, and Clinton decided to accept
the
> half a loaf solution with a verifyable freeze on plutonium extraction
and
> production from the known nuclear reactor.
> 
> JDG called this a failure, pointing out that other secret facilities
were
> built and that N. Korea probably already had enough material for 1 or
2
> more bombs.  I differ with that assessemnt.  As it stood, N. Korea had
the
> ability to kill 100k-200k without nuclear weapons.  This was the
> functional
> equivalant of roughly 2-3 atomic bombs of the caliber that N. Korea
would
> have.  If the US attacked, it was considered very likely that N. Korea
> would counterattack.
> 
> Not making a partial deal and not attacking would leave the status quo
in
> place.  N. Korea had just extracted fuel rods that could be used for
~6
> more weapons.  They were also working on a large reactor that, by
about
> 1998, woiuld be able to produce enough plutonium for about 40-50
> bombs/years.
>

Dan, it was a rhetorical question. I know why he isn't, and frankly very
glad he isn't. But thank you for the refresher. I must learn to put more
umm, nuance in my typing tone.
 
> 
> >Poor George, no wonder he looks tired, tossing all night, crying over
> >the starving Koreans kiddies etc...
> 
> What I don't understand is, given that I'm pretty sure I already
mentioned
> this to you in an earlier discussion, why you don't consider any
answer
> but
> Bush is a bad boy.  Did you ask yourself "what are the differences
between
> N. Korea and Iraq?"  "Is there any difference in the estimated number
of
> civilian casualties in each war?"
> 

I was not saying that Bush is a bad boy. I was expressing my disbelief
that he can probably walk on water, and then turn it into wine. He is
the President of the USA, and not a very gentle or non-confrontational
one at that.  I have no problem with Bush being able to do good things,
or the USA doing good things. I just don't accept that _everything_ he
and/or America does shines with a golden light from on high. Apparently
that means I am a child torturing Stalinist, and one with few manners at
that. 

Andrew


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l


Re: Removing Dictators Re: Peaceful change L3

2005-04-21 Thread Dan Minette

- Original Message - 
From: "Andrew Paul" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" 
Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2005 10:34 PM
Subject: RE: Removing Dictators Re: Peaceful change L3


Dan Minette
> From: "Andrew Paul" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: RE: Removing Dictators Re: Peaceful change L3
>
>
>
> >And why isn't the US invading North Korea?
> >Why is it, as you put it "doing nothing"?
>
> As JDG said, the answer to that is fairly straightforward.  South
Korea
> begged Clinton not to.  Even before they had nuclear weapons, the
> proximity
> of Seoul to the border, and the training of mutiple (10k)
guns/morters on
> Seoul by North Korea would result in massive casualties.  While there
is
> little doubt that the US and South Korea would quickly win any war
with
> North Korea, it wouldn't be quick enough to prevent 100,000-200,000
> deaths.
> That was an overwhelming price to pay, and Clinton decided to accept
the
> half a loaf solution with a verifyable freeze on plutonium extraction
and
> production from the known nuclear reactor.
>
> JDG called this a failure, pointing out that other secret facilities
were
> built and that N. Korea probably already had enough material for 1 or
2
> more bombs.  I differ with that assessemnt.  As it stood, N. Korea had
the
> ability to kill 100k-200k without nuclear weapons.  This was the
> functional
> equivalant of roughly 2-3 atomic bombs of the caliber that N. Korea
would
> have.  If the US attacked, it was considered very likely that N. Korea
> would counterattack.
>
> Not making a partial deal and not attacking would leave the status quo
in
> place.  N. Korea had just extracted fuel rods that could be used for
~6
> more weapons.  They were also working on a large reactor that, by
about
> 1998, woiuld be able to produce enough plutonium for about 40-50
> bombs/years.
>

Dan, it was a rhetorical question. I know why he isn't, and frankly very
glad he isn't. But thank you for the refresher. I must learn to put more
umm, nuance in my typing tone.

>
> >Poor George, no wonder he looks tired, tossing all night, crying over
> >the starving Koreans kiddies etc...
>
> What I don't understand is, given that I'm pretty sure I already
mentioned
> this to you in an earlier discussion, why you don't consider any
answer
> but
> Bush is a bad boy.  Did you ask yourself "what are the differences
between
> N. Korea and Iraq?"  "Is there any difference in the estimated number
of
> civilian casualties in each war?"
>

>I was not saying that Bush is a bad boy. I was expressing my disbelief
>that he can probably walk on water, and then turn it into wine. He is
>the President of the USA, and not a very gentle or non-confrontational
>one at that.  I have no problem with Bush being able to do good things,
>or the USA doing good things. I just don't accept that _everything_ he
>and/or America does shines with a golden light from on high.

But, that's not what you wrote.  With all due respect, if you want a debate
on the issue, dragging out old clichés isn't helpful.  Think about it.
AFAIK, we have one regular on this list who has expressed strong support of
Bush.  Gautam gave him a D- rating as president during the fall elections.
I voted for him once, when he was reelected governor of Texas, because the
Democrats ran a yellow dog against him. (A yellow dog Democrat is one who
would vote for the Democrat even if they were running a yellow dog for the
office.)  I think his tax cuts are dangerous and counter-productive.  I
think his handling of the reconstruction in Iraq during the last two years
shows criminal incompetence.

Yet, I find myself arguing for him when you post  because I think to myself
"he's no prize, but he's not _that_ bad."

Dan M.



___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l


RE: Removing Dictators Re: Peaceful change L3

2005-04-21 Thread Andrew Paul


Dan Minette wrote
> > From: "Andrew Paul" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


> > >Poor George, no wonder he looks tired, tossing all night, crying over
> > >the starving Koreans kiddies etc...
> >
> > What I don't understand is, given that I'm pretty sure I already
> mentioned
> > this to you in an earlier discussion, why you don't consider any
> answer
> > but
> > Bush is a bad boy.  Did you ask yourself "what are the differences
> between
> > N. Korea and Iraq?"  "Is there any difference in the estimated number
> of
> > civilian casualties in each war?"
> >
> 
> >I was not saying that Bush is a bad boy. I was expressing my disbelief
> >that he can probably walk on water, and then turn it into wine. He is
> >the President of the USA, and not a very gentle or non-confrontational
> >one at that.  I have no problem with Bush being able to do good things,
> >or the USA doing good things. I just don't accept that _everything_ he
> >and/or America does shines with a golden light from on high.
> 
> But, that's not what you wrote.  With all due respect, if you want a
> debate
> on the issue, dragging out old clichés isn't helpful.  Think about it.
> AFAIK, we have one regular on this list who has expressed strong support
> of
> Bush.  Gautam gave him a D- rating as president during the fall elections.
> I voted for him once, when he was reelected governor of Texas, because the
> Democrats ran a yellow dog against him. (A yellow dog Democrat is one who
> would vote for the Democrat even if they were running a yellow dog for the
> office.)  I think his tax cuts are dangerous and counter-productive.  I
> think his handling of the reconstruction in Iraq during the last two years
> shows criminal incompetence.
> 
> Yet, I find myself arguing for him when you post  because I think to
> myself
> "he's no prize, but he's not _that_ bad."
> 
> Dan M.
> 

Dan, I am unable to find what I wrote that you are referring to. I don't 
actually recall saying Bush is a bad boy, or anything like it. I said I did not 
like what he had done (or more how he had done it). I said that I doubted that 
the well being of the Iraqi people was uppermost in his mind when he decided to 
invade Iraq. In neither of those cases did I suggest he was bad. I can happily 
disagree with GWB without needing to consider him bad. What I was reacting too, 
and what prompted my colorful phrasing was the contention that GWB invaded Iraq 
to save the Iraqi people. It was being suggested that this was maybe the _real_ 
reason behind the invasion (Most of the others having run out of any relevance 
long ago) and that that was made clear at the time, that he and the government 
put this forward in such a way that it had some parity with the issue of WMD. 
My memory is not perfect, but it ain't that bad. Frankly, the whole idea is 
total revisionist bollocks.

He was (and as President of the USA this is his job, so it's not insulting to 
suggest it I hope) acting in what he saw as the best interests of the United 
States. And, no, I don't think that makes him bad.

Your point about old clichés is an interesting one. I am sorely tired of being 
fed similar things, day after day, lies basically, dressed up often in some 
slighty funkier post-cliché form, by my and other governments et al. Groupthink 
is not my scene. If others wish to paint the invasion of Iraq as some noble 
'Save the Iraqi kiddies from Evil' thing then fine, they can go right ahead. I 
would call them naive, but if that's what they want, fine. 

I am sorry that I overreact to such concepts as the idea that I should be 
ashamed of myself for having misgivings about the war, or that I am somehow 
complicit in the torturing of Iraqi children because of these misgivings, by 
using a few tired old cliché's. I guess its cos I am sometimes speechless at 
the hypocrisy (not specifically of those here, don't get me wrong) of the 
world, and how easily we forget because it suits us.

We invaded Iraq to save the Iraqi children from Saddam. Yea. Right. Sure.

We invaded Iraq because we saw a chance to get away with it, on the back of 
9/11, and because it suited our long term strategic interests.

(*Note - long term strategic interests involve many things, including even 
making life a little better for people. And long term strategic interests are 
not, of themselves, a bad thing).

I can deal with that, I don't need it dressed up as some noble humanitarian act 
to be able to sleep at nights. To pretend that would be a lie, and there have 
enough of them already.

Andrew


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l


RE: Removing Dictators Re: Peaceful change L3

2005-04-22 Thread JDG
At 01:34 PM 4/22/2005 +1000, Andrew Paul wrote:
>Dan, it was a rhetorical question. I know why he isn't, and frankly very
>glad he isn't. But thank you for the refresher. I must learn to put more
>umm, nuance in my typing tone.

It clearly wasn't a very good rhetorical question - and it wasn't the lack
of nuance, it was the weakness of the question itself.

JDG
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l


RE: Removing Dictators Re: Peaceful change L3

2005-04-22 Thread Andrew Paul
JDG wrote
> 
> At 01:34 PM 4/22/2005 +1000, Andrew Paul wrote:
> >Dan, it was a rhetorical question. I know why he isn't, and frankly
very
> >glad he isn't. But thank you for the refresher. I must learn to put
more
> >umm, nuance in my typing tone.
> 
> It clearly wasn't a very good rhetorical question - and it wasn't the
lack
> of nuance, it was the weakness of the question itself.
> 

Well, it was a poorly phrased rhetorical question, I concede. As a
simple question, I don't see it as weak. I am not sure how such a blunt
question can be weak (or strong for that matter)

> >And why isn't the US invading North Korea?

I will happily accept that the answer may be obvious, hence the
rhetorical nature of it, and even that it could be considered a stupid
question.

Anyway. What do you think should be done about North Korea?
It is troublesome that such an unstable state has nuclear weapons.
And an apparent lack of interest in its own peoples welfare.

Andrew



___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l


Re: Removing Dictators Re: Peaceful change L3

2005-04-22 Thread Dan Minette

- Original Message - 
From: "Andrew Paul" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" 
Sent: Friday, April 22, 2005 1:45 AM
Subject: RE: Removing Dictators Re: Peaceful change L3




Dan Minette wrote
> > From: "Andrew Paul" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


> > >Poor George, no wonder he looks tired, tossing all night, crying over
> > >the starving Koreans kiddies etc...
> >
> > What I don't understand is, given that I'm pretty sure I already
> mentioned
> > this to you in an earlier discussion, why you don't consider any
> answer
> > but
> > Bush is a bad boy.  Did you ask yourself "what are the differences
> between
> > N. Korea and Iraq?"  "Is there any difference in the estimated number
> of
> > civilian casualties in each war?"
> >
>
> >I was not saying that Bush is a bad boy. I was expressing my disbelief
> >that he can probably walk on water, and then turn it into wine. He is
> >the President of the USA, and not a very gentle or non-confrontational
> >one at that.  I have no problem with Bush being able to do good things,
> >or the USA doing good things. I just don't accept that _everything_ he
> >and/or America does shines with a golden light from on high.
>
> But, that's not what you wrote.  With all due respect, if you want a
> debate
> on the issue, dragging out old clichés isn't helpful.  Think about it.
> AFAIK, we have one regular on this list who has expressed strong support
> of
> Bush.  Gautam gave him a D- rating as president during the fall
elections.
> I voted for him once, when he was reelected governor of Texas, because
the
> Democrats ran a yellow dog against him. (A yellow dog Democrat is one who
> would vote for the Democrat even if they were running a yellow dog for
the
> office.)  I think his tax cuts are dangerous and counter-productive.  I
> think his handling of the reconstruction in Iraq during the last two
years
> shows criminal incompetence.
>
> Yet, I find myself arguing for him when you post  because I think to
> myself
> "he's no prize, but he's not _that_ bad."
>
> Dan M.
>
>What I was reacting too, and what prompted my colorful phrasing was the
contention that GWB
>invaded Iraq to save the Iraqi people. It was being suggested that this
was maybe the _real_
>reason behind the invasion (Most of the others having run out of any
relevance long ago) and that that
>was made clear at the time, that he and the government put this forward in
such a way that it had some >parity with the issue of WMD. My memory is not
perfect, but it ain't that bad. Frankly, the whole idea is >total
revisionist bollocks.

Hmm, maybe part of the problem is that you jumped in the middle of a
debatewithout seeing what at least I thought was the premise: whether
the decision to go in was indefensible (maybe another word was used, but
that was the idea).  After a long sub-thread with Warren, we've agreed that
he writes like a fiction writer (his poor excuse for that is that he _is_ a
fiction writer and editorbut we'll let that pass for
now  ), so he used a bit of hyperbola there.

Part of the background was the long debate _here_ on whether the invasion
was the right thing to do, where the status of the people of Iraq came up
frequently.  In fact, one of the rules for a voluntary war given by Gautam
was that it would, at least, do no net harm to the people in the region.
Invading a dictatorship like, say, Singapore, would be different than
invading Iraq because the people in Singapore do not live in fear of being
tortured and killed by the government.  I guess I can see where you thought
that it was argued that it was pure benevolence on the part of the US, but
that's certainly not what I was arguing.

>He was (and as President of the USA this is his job, so it's not insulting
to suggest it I hope) acting in what >he saw as the best interests of the
United States. And, no, I don't think that makes him bad.

Noand I think the criterion that one should do no significant harm to
others while pursuing those interests is a valid oneand one that is
usually met.



I am sorry that I overreact to such concepts as the idea that I should be
ashamed of myself for having misgivings about the war, or that I am somehow
complicit in the torturing of Iraqi children because of these misgivings,
by using a few tired old cliché's. I guess its cos I am sometimes
speechless at the hypocrisy (not specifically of those here, don't get me
wrong) of the world, and how easily we forget because it suits us.

We invaded Iraq to save the Iraqi children from Saddam. Yea. Right. Sure.

We invaded Iraq because we saw a chance to get away with it, on the back

Rhetorical Questions RE: Removing Dictators Re: Peaceful change L3

2005-04-24 Thread JDG
At 10:13 PM 4/22/2005 +1000, Andrew Paul wrote:
>JDG wrote
>> 
>> At 01:34 PM 4/22/2005 +1000, Andrew Paul wrote:
>> >Dan, it was a rhetorical question. I know why he isn't, and frankly
>very
>> >glad he isn't. But thank you for the refresher. I must learn to put
>more
>> >umm, nuance in my typing tone.
>> 
>> It clearly wasn't a very good rhetorical question - and it wasn't the
>lack
>> of nuance, it was the weakness of the question itself.
>> 
>
>Well, it was a poorly phrased rhetorical question, I concede. As a
>simple question, I don't see it as weak. I am not sure how such a blunt
>question can be weak (or strong for that matter)
>
>> >And why isn't the US invading North Korea?
>
>I will happily accept that the answer may be obvious, hence the
>rhetorical nature of it, and even that it could be considered a stupid
>question.

Well, ordinarily, a rhetorical quesiton is one so pointed that it conveys a
line of argumentation without requiring an answer.   When a rhetorical
question is trivially simple to dismiss, as yours way, it probably fails in
conveying any meaningful line of argumentation.

>Anyway. What do you think should be done about North Korea?
>It is troublesome that such an unstable state has nuclear weapons.
>And an apparent lack of interest in its own peoples welfare.

Pray.

Now that we've let the DPRK gain nuclear weapons, there are simply no good
options.  

JDG
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l


Re: Rhetorical Questions RE: Removing Dictators Re: Peaceful change L3

2005-04-24 Thread Dan Minette

- Original Message - 
From: "JDG" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" 
Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2005 6:03 PM
Subject: Rhetorical Questions RE: Removing Dictators Re: Peaceful change L3



> Pray.
>
> Now that we've let the DPRK gain nuclear weapons, there are simply no
good
> options.

Were there good options when they could kill 200k in Seoul without nuclear
weapons.  It's not nuclear weapons, per se, that are the problem.  It's the
ability of those weapons to enhance the damage that could be done.  So,
since the three options that Clinton had in '94 were:

1) The buy half a loaf option
2) Invade and have hundreds of thousands of S. Koreans killed
3) Let things progress, and see N. Korea producing 40-50 bombs/year by
2000.

You said #1 was a failure.  Which one of the others would you have picked
when Clinton had this choice?  It appears to me that Bush has chosen
#3.except that construction on the big reactor has not restarted yet.

Dan M.


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l


Re: Rhetorical Questions RE: Removing Dictators Re: Peaceful change L3

2005-04-24 Thread dland
On Apr 24, 2005, at 4:03 PM, JDG wrote:

> Now that we've let the DPRK gain nuclear weapons,

Assuming, that is, that the US rules the world, and therefore is in a
position to "let" or "not let" nations like the DPRK gain nuclear
weapons. Perhaps we might consider other nations as adults, instead
of recalcitrant children that pappa America needs to discipline.

> there are simply no good options.

Certainly none that begin with war. Then again, I imagine that there are
plenty of options that begin with the assumption that war is the *last*
resort, not the first.

Dave


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l


Re: Rhetorical Questions RE: Removing Dictators Re: Peaceful change L3

2005-04-24 Thread Dan Minette

- Original Message - 
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2005 11:01 PM
Subject: Re: Rhetorical Questions RE: Removing Dictators Re: Peaceful
change L3


> On Apr 24, 2005, at 4:03 PM, JDG wrote:
>
> > Now that we've let the DPRK gain nuclear weapons,
>
> Assuming, that is, that the US rules the world, and therefore is in a
> position to "let" or "not let" nations like the DPRK gain nuclear
> weapons. Perhaps we might consider other nations as adults, instead
> of recalcitrant children that pappa America needs to discipline.

That's an easy rhetorical point which I've never found useful.  The mob is
filled with adults.  A police force that looks the other way lets them run
a city.  One can let adults do damaging things in relationships too...its
often associated with codependancy.

> > there are simply no good options.
>
> Certainly none that begin with war. Then again, I imagine that there are
> plenty of options that begin with the assumption that war is the *last*
> resort, not the first.

OK, let's go back 11 years.  Clinton had the three options...he chose to
pay money in a deal to slow down the development of nuclear weapons by
North Korea.  They agreed to stop processing fuel...leaving then with
enough in hand for two nuclear weapons.  Unsurprisingly, they had a
clandescent program going on, and were in a position to develop enough
enriched U for about 1 bomb every 3-4 years.  Much better than 50/year.

At the time the North Korean government was willing to starve millions of
its own citizens to death as an acceptable price for not just changing the
government, but not changing how the government was run.  If Clinton wasn't
given a third "half loaf" option at the last minute,

You obviously were not in favor of stopping the weapons development by
force.  200k dead S. Koreans was certainly an overwhelming price.  But, to
let North Korea get to the point where they could flatten both South Korea
and Japan (say 90% dead) would be inexcusable.  We have a government that's
willing to starve millions of its own citizens for some principal.  Why
wouldn't it be willing to bring down the whole region instead of giving up
that principal?  If we don't stop it, when we can, are we not somewhat
responsible for that result?

Dan M.


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l


Re: Rhetorical Questions RE: Removing Dictators Re: Peaceful change L3

2005-04-24 Thread dland
Dan, et al,

OK, I wrote the whole message below, then realized that I'm getting way
too much into argumentation and not nearly enough into being simple and
clear.

So go ahead and read and tear apart the message that begins with "Dan
Wrote:", but consider this my reply:

The main thing that promted me to reply to JDG was the phrase "there are
simply no good options." I worry when I hear language like that. It
triggers the "desperate times call for desperate measures" meme, in which
people and nations often become careless about the relative goodness or
badness of options, and start just "killing 'em all and letting god sort
'em out." That's really my point: I don't want to stop trying to find the
least bad options that are left.

Dave

-- And now, my "not-as-good option" in replying --

Dan Wrote:

>> On Apr 24, 2005, at 4:03 PM, JDG wrote:
>>
>> > Now that we've let the DPRK gain nuclear weapons,
>>
>> Assuming, that is, that the US rules the world, and therefore is in a
>> position to "let" or "not let" nations like the DPRK gain nuclear
>> weapons. Perhaps we might consider other nations as adults, instead
>> of recalcitrant children that pappa America needs to discipline.
>
> That's an easy rhetorical point which I've never found useful.  The mob is
> filled with adults.  A police force that looks the other way lets them run
> a city.

OK, and yours is a rhetorical device that I don't find particularly
useful, either, especially given this administration's disregard for
international legal systems.

The activities that the mob engages in violate the laws of the communities
(states and nations included) in which they operate. Those communities,
states, and nations employ police of various sorts to enforce their laws.
(Almost) nobody in those communities questions the right of the police to
act on their behalf.

What law is the DPRK violating in building nukes, and what "community"
employed the US as its police force? These are not (just) rhetorical
questions. If the DPRK is the mob, then of what community's laws is it in
violation? Would the US would subject itself to that same authority? In
what community would (almost) nobody question our right to act on their
behalf?

> One can let adults do damaging things in relationships too...its often
> associated with codependancy.

I'm glad you brought up codependency. A common -- in fact, almost defining
-- facet of codependent behavior is trying to solve someone else's
problems when they didn't ask you to. Like invading a country to rid it of
a dictator.

>> > there are simply no good options.
>>
>> Certainly none that begin with war. Then again, I imagine that there are
>> plenty of options that begin with the assumption that war is the *last*
>> resort, not the first.
>
> OK, let's go back 11 years.  Clinton had the three options...he chose to
> pay money in a deal to slow down the development of nuclear weapons by
> North Korea.  They agreed to stop processing fuel...leaving then with
> enough in hand for two nuclear weapons.  Unsurprisingly, they had a
> clandescent program going on, and were in a position to develop enough
> enriched U for about 1 bomb every 3-4 years.  Much better than 50/year.

Are you defending John's statement, "there are simply no good options"
with this history lesson? If Clinton had chosen to do nothing, that would
go some way towards demonstrating that there were and are *no* good
options. But, as you point out, Clinton did chose an option. Is the jury
still out as to whether it is a "good" option? Did he choose the only
remaining "good" option? What is your criteria for a "good" option?

> At the time the North Korean government was willing to starve millions of
> its own citizens to death as an acceptable price for not just changing the
> government, but not changing how the government was run.  If Clinton
> wasn't given a third "half loaf" option at the last minute,

[digression]
I see this a lot in your messages: paragraphs that just sort of trail off
in the middle of a sentence. Is it something technical, or do you start a
paragraph, think of something else to write, and never get back to
finishing the one you left off? I'm genuinely curious.
[/digression]

> You obviously were not in favor of stopping the weapons development by
> force.  200k dead S. Koreans was certainly an overwhelming price.  But, to
> let North Korea get to the point where they could flatten both South Korea
> and Japan (say 90% dead) would be inexcusable.

Inexcusable by whom? The UN? Like we care. International courts? Don't
make me laugh. This gets back to the point I made earlier about global
entities to whom the US would subject itself.

> We have a government that's willing to starve millions of its own
> citizens for some principal. Why wouldn't it be willing to bring down the
> whole region instead of giving up that principal?  If we don't stop it,
> when we can, are we not somewhat responsible for that result?

Without getting too tautologica

Re: Rhetorical Questions RE: Removing Dictators Re: Peaceful change L3

2005-04-25 Thread Dan Minette

- Original Message - 
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" 
Sent: Monday, April 25, 2005 12:57 AM
Subject: Re: Rhetorical Questions RE: Removing Dictators Re: Peaceful
change L3


> Dan, et al,
>
> OK, I wrote the whole message below, then realized that I'm getting way
> too much into argumentation and not nearly enough into being simple and
> clear.
>
> So go ahead and read and tear apart the message that begins with "Dan
> Wrote:", but consider this my reply:
>
> The main thing that promted me to reply to JDG was the phrase "there are
> simply no good options." I worry when I hear language like that.

I can understand that, but if you look at the preface (now that N. Korea
has nuclear weapons) I think it is clear that JDG now considers military
options less attractive than they were before.  I think this is fair, with
capacity for 6-8 atomic bombs, as well as a decent delivery system, N.
Korea's government's ability to drag people down with it has increased from
roughly a quarter million to roughly 2.0-2.5 million.  Plus, with the fuel
that can be extracted during the present shutdown, there should be an
additional capacity for 6 more bombsallowing N. Korea to obtain a good
deal of money from the right sources by selling these bombs while
maintaining the deterrent of 6-8 bombs.

>It triggers the "desperate times call for desperate measures" meme, in
which
> people and nations often become careless about the relative goodness or
> badness of options, and start just "killing 'em all and letting god sort
> 'em out." That's really my point: I don't want to stop trying to find the
> least bad options that are left.

I agree with that.  I interpret "no good option" as indicating that the
demonstration that the proposed path is an extremely unappealing option is
not sufficient to reject the path.  Rather, it most be compared with the
other extremely unappealing options to see which is best to do.

The real risk of the US going into a "killing 'em and letting God sort 'em
out" mode is a very significant attack on the US.  By very significant, I'm
referring to something that will kill multiple tens of thousands of people.
The main worry for me is a shielded A-bomb in a shipping container, sent to
a US address.  It hits a major port, such as NY, LA, or Houston and is set
off before or as customs inspects it.



> -- And now, my "not-as-good option" in replying --
>
> Dan Wrote:
>
> >> On Apr 24, 2005, at 4:03 PM, JDG wrote:
> >>
> >> > Now that we've let the DPRK gain nuclear weapons,
> >>
> >> Assuming, that is, that the US rules the world, and therefore is in a
> >> position to "let" or "not let" nations like the DPRK gain nuclear
> >> weapons. Perhaps we might consider other nations as adults, instead
> >> of recalcitrant children that pappa America needs to discipline.
> >
> > That's an easy rhetorical point which I've never found useful.  The mob
is
> > filled with adults.  A police force that looks the other way lets them
run
> > a city.
>
> OK, and yours is a rhetorical device that I don't find particularly
> useful, either, especially given this administration's disregard for
> international legal systems.

OK, you don't like the analogy...the point is that one often lets adults do
things by not setting up boundaries.  But, given the track record of the
international legal system with regard to genocide...in particular the fact
that international law required government to step aside in the Balkans,
I'm not sure that always abiding by it is called for.  I asked an
unanswered question about the past and potential for future genocide in
Sudan.

1) Is the African violation of international law by temporarily stopping
the genocide in the Sudan wrong?
2) Would it be wrong for NATO to help them if called upon?


> (Almost) nobody in those communities questions the right of the police to
> act on their behalf.

> What law is the DPRK violating in building nukes, and what "community"
> employed the US as its police force?

The nuclear non-proliferation treaty is the obvious one.  The North Korean
government letting their own citizens starve to death is clearly acceptable
under the UN; I won't argue that point.

>These are not (just) rhetorical
> questions. If the DPRK is the mob, then of what community's laws is it in
> violation? Would the US would subject itself to that same authority? In
> what community would (almost) nobody question our right to act on their
> behalf?

I wasn't
> > One can let adults do damaging things in relationships too...its often
> > ass

Re: Rhetorical Questions RE: Removing Dictators Re: Peaceful change L3

2005-04-25 Thread Frank Schmidt
I wonder if people forget that China is just next door to North Korea, and
that they even have an alliance. Not that the Chinese like Kim Jong Il so
much, but they'd never tolerate an invasion like the US did in Afghanistan
or Iraq. However the Chinese might topple Kim Jong Il themselves if the USA
would give them Taiwan in exchange. Which opens another can of worms.

-- 
+++ GMX - die erste Adresse für Mail, Message, More +++

10 GB Mailbox, 100 FreeSMS  http://www.gmx.net/de/go/topmail
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l


Re: Rhetorical Questions RE: Removing Dictators Re: Peaceful change L3

2005-04-25 Thread Nick Arnett
On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 13:32:37 -0500, Dan Minette wrote

> We are lucky in that we can collectively,  within the nation, intervene
> with professionals by calling 911 in those cases or reporting suspected
> abuse to authorities. 

I think Dave's point was that you can't solve somebody else's problem with 
addiction, nor can any authority.  It is up to the person with the addiction.  
 No addict ever quit as a result of threats and attacks, I'm fairly certain.  
Those who seek to change have been helped by people who know how to nurture, 
including having tough boundaries that seem like punishment to the addict.  
Recovery starts with things like sleep and nutrition.

To stretch the analogy to international relations, we can't force democracy 
(our definition of healthy government) on a nation that doesn't want it, for 
example.  Sanctions and monitoring, such as the inspections and no-fly zone 
seem to parallel the idea of putting boundaries on the misbehaving individual. 
 Food for oil was an attempt to tackle basic health issues.  Invading, 
occupying and demanding democracy don't fit into any personal recovery model I 
can imagine.

> By moral people.  The US will not for the forseeable future subject itself
> to submission to outside agencies. It's wrong to sit back and let 
> Japan be obliterated by N. Korea if we could stop it.  It's also 
> very much against the interests of the US.  Combining the two, we 
> have compelling reasons to not allow N. Korea this capacity.

Stopping a nuclear attack has never been the question (since WW II ended), 
since nobody has actually tried to launch one.  The question has always been 
much murkier -- do we allow further development of nuclear weapons?  Stopping 
nuclear proliferation has the approval of most of the world; the question is 
how to go about it, not whether or not it is appropriate to stop anyone from 
launching nukes.

> Preventing someone from causing grave harm to us and our allies is 
> not codependant behavior.

Of course.  But how do we decide that someone is about to cause grave harm?  
That's the hard question, not whether to respond.  Ideally, like the police at 
their best, we do absolutely everything we can to avoid coming to such a 
confrontation, then do everything we can to allow the other party to back 
down.

Do we trust that we can decide when to use deadly force on our own, despite 
our capacity for self-deceit and our selfish side that thirsts for wealth and 
power?  How do we take into account the fact that our response to threats may 
cause enormous suffering?  

I think your wife might say that these are just the problems that people 
struggle with on a personal level, too -- what seems to be done selflessly is 
often discovered to be self-interest; much harm is done in the name of doing 
good for others.  That's codependency for ya.  The answer, I think, lies in 
self-awareness... so how does a nation develop its self-awareness?  How do we 
look in the mirror, how do we discover our motives?

Nick

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l


Re: Rhetorical Questions RE: Removing Dictators Re: Peaceful change L3

2005-04-25 Thread Frank Schmidt
Dan:
>dland: 

> > Dan Wrote:
> >
> > >> On Apr 24, 2005, at 4:03 PM, JDG wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > Now that we've let the DPRK gain nuclear weapons,
> > >>
> > >> Assuming, that is, that the US rules the world, and
> > >> therefore is in a position to "let" or "not let"
> > >> nations like the DPRK gain nuclear weapons. Perhaps
> > >> we might consider other nations as adults, instead
> > >> of recalcitrant children that pappa America needs
> > >> to discipline.
> > >
> > > That's an easy rhetorical point which I've never
> > > found useful. The mob is filled with adults. A
> > > police force that looks the other way lets them
> > > run a city.

The US does not rule the world, the US is not a pappa,
and the US is not a police force. The US is just the
strongest nation today. An alliance of other nations
can be stronger than the US, but at present these
nations have different goals. If the US pushes harder,
this alliance might form, which might start another
cold war. Which would mean a higher risk of nuclear
annihilation.

> > OK, and yours is a rhetorical device that I don't
> > find particularly useful, either, especially given
> > this administration's disregard for international
> > legal systems.
> 
> OK, you don't like the analogy...the point is that
> one often lets adults do things by not setting up
> boundaries.  But, given the track record of the
> international legal system with regard to genocide...
> in particular the fact that international law required
> government to step aside in the Balkans, I'm not sure
> that always abiding by it is called for.  I asked an
> unanswered question about the past and potential for
> future genocide in Sudan.
> 
> 1) Is the African violation of international law by
> temporarily stopping the genocide in the Sudan wrong?
> 2) Would it be wrong for NATO to help them if called
> upon?

If the US against the international legal system, they
should think about the reactions. Other nations might
not trust the US to keep their treaties with them any
more. And then the US people will wonder once again
why the world hates them so much...

If, on the other hand, the US could prove that they
didn't do it for themselves but to stop a horrible
genocide, and accidents with US troops killing
civilans are rare, the US might even get a better
reputation.

(I don't believe for a second that starving Iraqi
children were the main reason for the invasion. But
I heard lots about WMD, which were not present, and
Saddam being behind 9/11, which was not true.)

Now for Sudan, if the African intervention, aided by
NATO, actually benefits Sudan more than any of the
intervening forces, I'd be impressed. I think true
altruism is a good excuse for going against a legal
system if that system is deadlocked by non-democratic
nations.

I have hoped for such altruistic interventions
several times in recent years, but most of the time
they either weren't altruistic or there was no
intervention...

-- 
Frank Schmidt
Onward, radical moderates!
www.egscomics.com

+++ Sparen beginnt mit GMX DSL: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/dsl
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l


Re: Rhetorical Questions RE: Removing Dictators Re: Peaceful change L3

2005-04-25 Thread Dave Land
On Apr 25, 2005, at 2:30 PM, Nick Arnett wrote:
On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 13:32:37 -0500, Dan Minette wrote
Preventing someone from causing grave harm to us and our allies is
not codependant behavior.
Of course.  But how do we decide that someone is about to cause grave 
harm?
That's the hard question, not whether to respond.  Ideally, like the 
police at
their best, we do absolutely everything we can to avoid coming to such 
a
confrontation, then do everything we can to allow the other party to 
back
down.
Most police forces have a "Crime Prevention Unit." It does not, 
generally
speaking, preemptively invade the homes of potential criminals. It does 
run
programs that aim to address the causes of crime. If we're going to use 
a
criminal justice model to describe international relations, perhaps 
that's
what's needed, as opposed to a SWAT team.

Dave
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l


Re: Rhetorical Questions RE: Removing Dictators Re: Peaceful change L3

2005-04-25 Thread Dan Minette

- Original Message - 
From: "Dave Land" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" 
Sent: Monday, April 25, 2005 5:11 PM
Subject: Re: Rhetorical Questions RE: Removing Dictators Re: Peaceful
change L3


> On Apr 25, 2005, at 2:30 PM, Nick Arnett wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 13:32:37 -0500, Dan Minette wrote
> >
> >> Preventing someone from causing grave harm to us and our allies is
> >> not codependant behavior.
> >
> > Of course.  But how do we decide that someone is about to cause grave
> > harm?
> > That's the hard question, not whether to respond.  Ideally, like the
> > police at
> > their best, we do absolutely everything we can to avoid coming to such
> > a
> > confrontation, then do everything we can to allow the other party to
> > back
> > down.
>
> Most police forces have a "Crime Prevention Unit." It does not,
> generally speaking, preemptively invade the homes of potential criminals.
It does
> run programs that aim to address the causes of crime. If we're going to
use
> a criminal justice model to describe international relations, perhaps
> that's what's needed, as opposed to a SWAT team.

OK, I never meant to advance the criminal justice model for international
relationships.  I was merely pointing out a counter example to the notion
that interfering with the actions of another country presupposes that the
leaders of the other country are children.

Do you think that the criminal justice model as a good one?

Dan M.


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l


Re: Rhetorical Questions RE: Removing Dictators Re: Peaceful change L3

2005-04-25 Thread Dave Land
On Apr 25, 2005, at 3:16 PM, Dan Minette wrote:
OK, I never meant to advance the criminal justice model for
international relationships.  I was merely pointing out a counter
example to the notion that interfering with the actions of another
country presupposes that the leaders of the other country are children.
Do you think that the criminal justice model as a good one?
Not really. I think a "community of nations" is more apt, and does not
preclude recognition of the need for a criminal justice system within
that community. It calls upon "citizen-nations" to be responsible
members of the community, to respect others' rights, and to contribute
to the common wealth.
Personally, I am drawn to the "family of nations" analogy, but it
suffers from the problem that you point out above: it implies that there
are parent nations and child nations, and that's not necessarily
conducive to clear thinking about our roles in the world.
Your question reminds me that the metaphors we choose have power. The
president's use of the phrase "permission slip" in the state of the
union address was carefully chosen to call up visions of the United
States as a child, having to go begging some adult nation for a kind of
"hall pass." That vision was intended to be so repulsive that to suggest
that the US must seriously consider the opinions of other nations before
acting was to reduce our great nation to childishness.
Thanks for reminding me of that,
Dave
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l


Re: Rhetorical Questions RE: Removing Dictators Re: Peaceful change L3

2005-04-25 Thread Dan Minette

- Original Message - 
From: "Dave Land" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" 
Sent: Monday, April 25, 2005 5:57 PM
Subject: Re: Rhetorical Questions RE: Removing Dictators Re: Peaceful
change L3


> Your question reminds me that the metaphors we choose have power. The
> president's use of the phrase "permission slip" in the state of the
> union address was carefully chosen to call up visions of the United
> States as a child, having to go begging some adult nation for a kind of
> "hall pass." That vision was intended to be so repulsive that to suggest
> that the US must seriously consider the opinions of other nations before
> acting was to reduce our great nation to childishness.

The obvious question here is whether "seriously consider" means more than
just "seriously consider."  The US is unique in that it can project
meaningful military power.  The strongest example of that is the Balkans,
where Europe was unable to project power 500 miles from the German border
against a relatively weak Yugoslavian army. Thus, the heavy lifting in any
significant military action must be done by the United States.  Do you
think that, after seriously considering objections, it is OK for the US to
go ahead, or must it get approval.

For me, the argument that the United States should have had Russia approval
(needed for UN approval) to stop the genocide in the Balkans is  not very
strong.  The Russian government had reasons to turn a blind eye to this
genocide.  I think that the decision as to the wisdom of invading Iraq need
not give a strong weight to France's position, since they appeared to be in
a position to gain significantly if Hussein stayed in power.

So, if your argument is that Bush tends to be pigheaded and plow ahead
without regard to other views when he is certain, then I will agree.  But,
if it that, for the US to properly consider the views of other nations,
that it must give veto rights over certain foreign policy actions to other
nations, then I would tend to differ with that.

An extremely good set of articles that relate to this are available at:

http://www.policyreview.org/JUN02/kagan.html

http://www.carnegiecouncil.org/viewMedia.php/prmTemplateID/8/prmID/871

I think much of the argument can be framed as a difference between two
worldviews:

If we want the world to be a Kantian paradise then we should start acting
in accordance with the rules that should govern nations in a Kantian
paradise now.

If we want the world to be a Kantian paradise, we need to live in the
world, recognizing that the present rules are Hobbsnian.  If we act as
though it were presently a Kantian paradise, we invite disaster.

I'll agree beforehand that the first position may actually be more
idealistic than the views of folks on the list, but I think I  heard that
type of argument a good deal in the last couple of weeks here.

Dan M.
Dan M.


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l


  1   2   >