| |
Let me just say that we, as Americans, should not be so sheepish to jump on
the war bandwagon. War against whom? How in Heaven's name will killing other
civilians ever make things better in the world? That is not justice, that is
revenge and no one has the right to condemn the citizenry for the sins of
it's government or leadership. The attack yesterday is proof of that, we
shouldn't make the same mistake and become "indiscriminate" murderers.
Yesterday morning I went to get my hair cut and the hairstylist was
commenting on the attack. I only said that I hope the people responsible
will be brought to justice. She said "They're all Iranian." Hopefully such
ignorant comments are few and far between. If we resort to such thinking we
are no better than those who carried out this attack, Arab or otherwise. It
is yet to be determined who carried out this attack (usually a group will
step forward and claim responsibility).
We should avoid stirring up hatred against Arabs. I recall the hours after
the Oklahoma City bombing and the immediate call to arms against certain
Arab nations, not considering that it may have been one of our own citizens.
At this point, we still don't know who is behind this. And if it turns out
the ethnicity of the attackers is Arab, it does not justify blanket hatred
of Arabs. We'd be no better than the Nazi's with regard to the Jews of Europe.
Regarding the scenes of Palestinians cheering after the attack, I have
learned that the footage shown (or several portions of the footage) was
possibly before the attack, and was the Palestinian reaction to Israeli
troops withdrawing from that town. Around the Arab world, the feeling is
mostly one of shock and outrage. If the Palestinian footage is indeed in
celebration of the attack, then such behavior is very disappointing. But I
want to remind everyone that the Palestinians are a people who have suffered
under brutal military occupation for nearly 50 years. Their cheers are
perhaps no different than our own when the bombs rained on Baghdad, even
though innocent civilians were being killed in both cases.
What happened yesterday was a murderous and destructive act of hatred
against our nation. But it should also be considered a wake up call to our
government for it's unarguable role in fostering aggression and hatred
around the world, and within our own borders as with Oklahoma City. The
innocent shouldn't be condemned and suffer and die for the sins of the
leadership. We should seriously examine why someone, or some group, would
feel compelled to carry out such a horrible act. There are several lessons
to be learned here, the main one is that killing innocent men, women and
children is wrong. Most important, let our comments rest on peace and
justice, not war and revenge.
Dan
|
|
| |
Daniel Jassim wrote:
> Let me just say that we, as Americans, should not be so sheepish to jump on
> the war bandwagon. War against whom? How in Heaven's name will killing other
> civilians ever make things better in the world? That is not justice, that is
> revenge and no one has the right to condemn the citizenry for the sins of
> it's government or leadership. The attack yesterday is proof of that, we
> shouldn't make the same mistake and become "indiscriminate" murderers.
I didn't actually hear anyone advocate attacking civilians. I guess I only assume when various gov officials say war, they mean war on terror, on the terrorists. I may be wrong, of course...
> Yesterday morning I went to get my hair cut and the hairstylist was
> commenting on the attack. I only said that I hope the people responsible
> will be brought to justice. She said "They're all Iranian." Hopefully such
> ignorant comments are few and far between. If we resort to such thinking we
> are no better than those who carried out this attack, Arab or otherwise. It
> is yet to be determined who carried out this attack (usually a group will
> step forward and claim responsibility).
if any group would to claim responsibility for this terrible act, they would have by now. I don't think anyone will - no one wants to face the reaction of the US here. Btw, and I'm not saying this is more than a coincidence, but weren't Bin-Laden's other attacks unclaimed as well?
> We should avoid stirring up hatred against Arabs. I recall the hours after
> the Oklahoma City bombing and the immediate call to arms against certain
> Arab nations, not considering that it may have been one of our own citizens.
> At this point, we still don't know who is behind this. And if it turns out
> the ethnicity of the attackers is Arab, it does not justify blanket hatred
> of Arabs. We'd be no better than the Nazi's with regard to the Jews of Europe.
Absolutly, 100% agreed on this.
> Regarding the scenes of Palestinians cheering after the attack, I have
> learned that the footage shown (or several portions of the footage) was
> possibly before the attack, and was the Palestinian reaction to Israeli
> troops withdrawing from that town. Around the Arab world, the feeling is
> mostly one of shock and outrage. If the Palestinian footage is indeed in
> celebration of the attack, then such behavior is very disappointing. But I
> want to remind everyone that the Palestinians are a people who have suffered
> under brutal military occupation for nearly 50 years. Their cheers are
> perhaps no different than our own when the bombs rained on Baghdad, even
> though innocent civilians were being killed in both cases.
hmmm... Can you quote ANY source (I'll even accept palestinian sources for now) that says that the cheering was not for the success of the attack? I would defenitly say it's "disappointing" except that I have come to expect such a reaction. If they cheer when a bomb goes off in Jeruzalem, killing innocent civilians, what's the difference in this case? Both the Hamas and Islamic Jihad said that while they didn't carry out this attack, the US deserves it. Do you think they did not cheer in their HQ when they got the news?
As for the "brutal military occupation for 50 year", that's for a whole other debate.
> What happened yesterday was a murderous and destructive act of hatred
> against our nation. But it should also be considered a wake up call to our
> government for it's unarguable role in fostering aggression and hatred
> around the world, and within our own borders as with Oklahoma City. The
> innocent shouldn't be condemned and suffer and die for the sins of the
> leadership. We should seriously examine why someone, or some group, would
> feel compelled to carry out such a horrible act. There are several lessons
> to be learned here, the main one is that killing innocent men, women and
> children is wrong. Most important, let our comments rest on peace and
> justice, not war and revenge.
"unarguable role in fostering aggression and hatred"... hmmm... excuse me, I want to argue this. How has the US forstered aggression and hatred, please tell?
Dan Boger
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Daniel Jassim writes:
> Let me just say that we, as Americans, should not be so sheepish to jump on
> the war bandwagon. War against whom? How in Heaven's name will killing other
> civilians ever make things better in the world? That is not justice, that is
> revenge and no one has the right to condemn the citizenry for the sins of
> it's government or leadership. The attack yesterday is proof of that, we
> shouldn't make the same mistake and become "indiscriminate" murderers.
>
> Yesterday morning I went to get my hair cut and the hairstylist was
> commenting on the attack. I only said that I hope the people responsible
> will be brought to justice. She said "They're all Iranian." Hopefully such
> ignorant comments are few and far between. If we resort to such thinking we
> are no better than those who carried out this attack, Arab or otherwise. It
> is yet to be determined who carried out this attack (usually a group will
> step forward and claim responsibility).
>
> We should avoid stirring up hatred against Arabs. I recall the hours after
> the Oklahoma City bombing and the immediate call to arms against certain
> Arab nations, not considering that it may have been one of our own citizens.
> At this point, we still don't know who is behind this. And if it turns out
> the ethnicity of the attackers is Arab, it does not justify blanket hatred
> of Arabs. We'd be no better than the Nazi's with regard to the Jews of Europe.
>
> Regarding the scenes of Palestinians cheering after the attack, I have
> learned that the footage shown (or several portions of the footage) was
> possibly before the attack, and was the Palestinian reaction to Israeli
> troops withdrawing from that town. Around the Arab world, the feeling is
> mostly one of shock and outrage. If the Palestinian footage is indeed in
> celebration of the attack, then such behavior is very disappointing. But I
> want to remind everyone that the Palestinians are a people who have suffered
> under brutal military occupation for nearly 50 years. Their cheers are
> perhaps no different than our own when the bombs rained on Baghdad, even
> though innocent civilians were being killed in both cases.
>
> What happened yesterday was a murderous and destructive act of hatred
> against our nation. But it should also be considered a wake up call to our
> government for it's unarguable role in fostering aggression and hatred
> around the world, and within our own borders as with Oklahoma City. The
> innocent shouldn't be condemned and suffer and die for the sins of the
> leadership. We should seriously examine why someone, or some group, would
> feel compelled to carry out such a horrible act. There are several lessons
> to be learned here, the main one is that killing innocent men, women and
> children is wrong. Most important, let our comments rest on peace and
> justice, not war and revenge.
>
> Dan
This whole letter strikes me as a political letter.
I disagree with so many points that I think I must cool off before replying.
I think the whole political debate is unappropriate at this hour and (as was
commented to me before) is disrespectful to the victims of this horrible
attack.
I'm so angry right now at the people who carried out the attack that I feel I
should wait before replying to such posts.
- David
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Daniel Jassim writes:
> Let me just say that we, as Americans, should not be so sheepish to jump on
> the war bandwagon. War against whom? How in Heaven's name will killing other
> civilians ever make things better in the world? That is not justice, that is
> revenge and no one has the right to condemn the citizenry for the sins of
> it's government or leadership. The attack yesterday is proof of that, we
> shouldn't make the same mistake and become "indiscriminate" murderers.
>
> Yesterday morning I went to get my hair cut and the hairstylist was
> commenting on the attack. I only said that I hope the people responsible
> will be brought to justice. She said "They're all Iranian." Hopefully such
> ignorant comments are few and far between. If we resort to such thinking we
> are no better than those who carried out this attack, Arab or otherwise. It
> is yet to be determined who carried out this attack (usually a group will
> step forward and claim responsibility).
>
> We should avoid stirring up hatred against Arabs. I recall the hours after
> the Oklahoma City bombing and the immediate call to arms against certain
> Arab nations, not considering that it may have been one of our own citizens.
> At this point, we still don't know who is behind this. And if it turns out
> the ethnicity of the attackers is Arab, it does not justify blanket hatred
> of Arabs. We'd be no better than the Nazi's with regard to the Jews of Europe.
>
> Regarding the scenes of Palestinians cheering after the attack, I have
> learned that the footage shown (or several portions of the footage) was
> possibly before the attack, and was the Palestinian reaction to Israeli
> troops withdrawing from that town. Around the Arab world, the feeling is
> mostly one of shock and outrage. If the Palestinian footage is indeed in
> celebration of the attack, then such behavior is very disappointing. But I
> want to remind everyone that the Palestinians are a people who have suffered
> under brutal military occupation for nearly 50 years. Their cheers are
> perhaps no different than our own when the bombs rained on Baghdad, even
> though innocent civilians were being killed in both cases.
>
> What happened yesterday was a murderous and destructive act of hatred
> against our nation. But it should also be considered a wake up call to our
> government for it's unarguable role in fostering aggression and hatred
> around the world, and within our own borders as with Oklahoma City. The
> innocent shouldn't be condemned and suffer and die for the sins of the
> leadership. We should seriously examine why someone, or some group, would
> feel compelled to carry out such a horrible act. There are several lessons
> to be learned here, the main one is that killing innocent men, women and
> children is wrong. Most important, let our comments rest on peace and
> justice, not war and revenge.
Well said, although I can't agree with the timing of bringing up
the last two paragraphs--it's still far too emotional a time to
start dragging the political roots of terrorism into it. But I
agree 100% with the first part of this *and* its timing--here in
NJ I've been hearing about a LOT of heckling, spitting, and general
hostility directed at Arabs in general and even American Muslims
in particular. Let's find and punish the guilty and show that
even in our deepest pain and anger, we're better and stronger people
than the terrorists. Hate is the weapon of the weak.
Let's deal with this shock, horror, and anger first, and then
look rationally at the roots of it all. And, of course, remember
that evil never justifies evil in response. Whoever quoted Gandhi
was right on the mark. I hope that the world will show the wisdom
of Gandhi today.
all best
LFB
|
|
| |
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dan Boger writes:
> hmmm... Can you quote ANY source (I'll even accept palestinian sources for now) that says that the cheering was not for the success of the attack?
The Syrian, Egyptian and Saudi Arabian broadcast news made note that
portions of the footage shown on American TV were actually unrelated to the
attacks. You must take everything with a grain of salt. I don't doubt that
there were Palestinians who celebrated this blow to our nation. I think it's
sad that a people are reduced to such stupid behavior, but I am certain that
it stems from their frustration of having their homes and land taken away
and subsequent occupation by Zionists.
It's never been a secret that America has supported the Israeli occupation.
The Palestinians ARE civilians and HAVE been repeatedly attacked by the
Israeli military and even Israeli citizens and such violence begets
violence. It's all a tragedy in my opinion and too many innocnet people have
suffered on both sides. And now that suffering has been inflicted upon our
citizens and we must truly answer: Why did this happen? Why were innocent
civilians murdered and what does this mean?
If in fact the motivation for this brutal attack was hatred for America's
support of Israel, then can we argue that what happened yesterday could have
been avoided if we didn't support Israel? I know a lot of Americans,
including Jews, who feel exactly this way. I hope we can come together as a
people and question our government's dealings with other nations. I'm an
American and I've never supported our policy with Israel and I don't feel
it's fair that innocent Americans should fear for their lives because our
government quite possibly pissed off a group of people to the point they'd
go and do something this horrible.
> As for the "brutal military occupation for 50 year", that's for a whole other debate.
Not really if the motivation for the attack was hatred for America's support
of Israel.
> "unarguable role in fostering aggression and hatred"... hmmm... excuse me, I want to argue this. How has the US forstered aggression and hatred, please tell?
Perhaps you should turn on your TV and take a look at what just happened.
Someone is mad at us and was hateful and stupid enough to carry out perhaps
the most devestating attack against our soil in the history of this nation.
We must ask ourselves why and what can we do cooperatively with the rest of
the world so that this never happens again to any nation or people.
Dan
|
|
| |
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Lindsay Frederick Braun writes:
>
> Well said, although I can't agree with the timing of bringing up
> the last two paragraphs--it's still far too emotional a time to
> start dragging the political roots of terrorism into it.
I understand, Lindsay :)
I speak from the heart and I am outraged by all of this! But, in my heart
and mind, I cannot help but think the blame is two-fold and things don't
just happen out of the blue, though I deplore such hatred and inhumanity as
witnessed yesterday.
On a personal level, I know that life for me and my family may well take a
terrible turn for who knows how long, just as a few decades ago with the
fallout from the Iran Hostage crisis. If there is an anti-Arab build-up in
this country, I truly fear that some fool may vent hatred upon me or my
family simply because of ethnicity. It has happened before, I don't want it to
happen again. I encourage everyone to rid their hearts of hatred and even
help dispell the hate amidst them, such as hateful language or actions taken
by those around them. Let us seriously examine the many, many steps that can
be taken to help ensure a lasting peace throughout the world for many years
to come and let's hope for no more killing.
> But I agree 100% with the first part of this *and* its timing--here in
> NJ I've been hearing about a LOT of heckling, spitting, and general
> hostility directed at Arabs in general and even American Muslims
> in particular. Let's find and punish the guilty and show that
> even in our deepest pain and anger, we're better and stronger people
> than the terrorists. Hate is the weapon of the weak.
Bravo!
> Let's deal with this shock, horror, and anger first, and then
> look rationally at the roots of it all. And, of course, remember
> that evil never justifies evil in response. Whoever quoted Gandhi
> was right on the mark. I hope that the world will show the wisdom
> of Gandhi today.
Equally well said!
Dan
|
|
| |
In no way am I right or may have the right to write this, but when you watch
people in pain and know there isn't much you can do, all you can say is...
(the following is a request, nothing else, it's not to offend or blame
anyone at all)...
After watching/reading countless hours of TV/News/Newspapers and Internet
info, as another person on the other side of the world, it's hard to even
acknowledge what happened over the last 36+ hours. I think as a Nation,
America knows what it needs to do (we will not all agree with it either, and
other nations will have some impact on their decision too, making it not all
just an American idea), not because of what happened to their buildings etc
but what happened to their people and other nations people too.
I think after watching all this, that a time like this needs to be avoided
in every way to start any debates (and this is not the start of one, may I
add) in any way or form, it's a plea for those who are suffering at the loss
of a loved one or a friend... and even to what's happened in their own country.
This is not the time for debates and nonsense remarks (I am also not saying
anyone is or has started these)... specially when no-one really knows what
is going to happen and how... remember their are a lot of flared up people
right now and people say lots of things, until all information is collected
people will continue to say and do certain things.
Being in a situation like this will make many people unhappy and their heads
filled with thoughts that first come to mind. Being Australian I too feel
terrible for those who lost their lives and the basic principle that such a
thing could happen. After all there were lots of Australians and many other
nations whose own people were victims or witnesses (in which case our
country and others will give full support on many issues).
Please let things cool off for a moment, watch the news, read the facts (the
more realistic ones if possible) and follow with what is going on, everyone
will have a opinion about this and that, and it will never satisfy
everyone's needs, no matter what you say. I also feel this too maybe too
upsetting for some, and I am sorry, but this is to those who feel some or
any sort of debate or plan to mention anything that will obviously tick the
wrong person, a emotional or someone with some connection to anyone or
themselves as a victim etc.
As I said, being in a country so far away can possibly sit back and watch
what is happening to those going through this and some of you may not in the
same sense, everyone is mad and all over the place, that is understandable
and must be remembered, even in my case in which I do. Being there in
America would give anyone else a different feeling, I guess you have to be
there to feel the true pain, it's all still so hard to believe. It's there
and sadly could have been anyone of you. I hope no-one from Lugnet has
perished away due to this... sad enough anyone had to.
Anyway, please keep the debates away and anything that will only be
upsetting to others (I hope this isn't the first or near it), it only makes
people at a time like this madder and frustrated and more emotional (totally
understandable), to some it will be like water off a ducks back and their
day will return to normal, others a total loss and their worlds ripped apart
and may take a little longer. And remember, what ever the government will
do, no-one can change that, not us that's for sure... we'll all have to wait
and see, remember that NATO etc is basically 100% behind this as is many
country's. There could be more to this than we realise, we don't know
everything that has been going on just yet. Only time can tell...
Let's all hope for the best, give our wishes to those who are victims and
those who survived, it's amazing they survived, lets hope their is more....
support those on Lugnet who are deeply affected by this!
I wish you all the very best and a quick recovery
Mel
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Lindsay Frederick Braun writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Daniel Jassim writes:
> > Let me just say that we, as Americans, should not be so sheepish to jump on
> > the war bandwagon. War against whom? How in Heaven's name will killing other
> > civilians ever make things better in the world? That is not justice, that is
> > revenge and no one has the right to condemn the citizenry for the sins of
> > it's government or leadership. The attack yesterday is proof of that, we
> > shouldn't make the same mistake and become "indiscriminate" murderers.
> >
> > Yesterday morning I went to get my hair cut and the hairstylist was
> > commenting on the attack. I only said that I hope the people responsible
> > will be brought to justice. She said "They're all Iranian." Hopefully such
> > ignorant comments are few and far between. If we resort to such thinking we
> > are no better than those who carried out this attack, Arab or otherwise. It
> > is yet to be determined who carried out this attack (usually a group will
> > step forward and claim responsibility).
> >
> > We should avoid stirring up hatred against Arabs. I recall the hours after
> > the Oklahoma City bombing and the immediate call to arms against certain
> > Arab nations, not considering that it may have been one of our own citizens.
> > At this point, we still don't know who is behind this. And if it turns out
> > the ethnicity of the attackers is Arab, it does not justify blanket hatred
> > of Arabs. We'd be no better than the Nazi's with regard to the Jews of Europe.
> >
> > Regarding the scenes of Palestinians cheering after the attack, I have
> > learned that the footage shown (or several portions of the footage) was
> > possibly before the attack, and was the Palestinian reaction to Israeli
> > troops withdrawing from that town. Around the Arab world, the feeling is
> > mostly one of shock and outrage. If the Palestinian footage is indeed in
> > celebration of the attack, then such behavior is very disappointing. But I
> > want to remind everyone that the Palestinians are a people who have suffered
> > under brutal military occupation for nearly 50 years. Their cheers are
> > perhaps no different than our own when the bombs rained on Baghdad, even
> > though innocent civilians were being killed in both cases.
> >
> > What happened yesterday was a murderous and destructive act of hatred
> > against our nation. But it should also be considered a wake up call to our
> > government for it's unarguable role in fostering aggression and hatred
> > around the world, and within our own borders as with Oklahoma City. The
> > innocent shouldn't be condemned and suffer and die for the sins of the
> > leadership. We should seriously examine why someone, or some group, would
> > feel compelled to carry out such a horrible act. There are several lessons
> > to be learned here, the main one is that killing innocent men, women and
> > children is wrong. Most important, let our comments rest on peace and
> > justice, not war and revenge.
>
> Well said, although I can't agree with the timing of bringing up
> the last two paragraphs--it's still far too emotional a time to
> start dragging the political roots of terrorism into it. But I
> agree 100% with the first part of this *and* its timing--here in
> NJ I've been hearing about a LOT of heckling, spitting, and general
> hostility directed at Arabs in general and even American Muslims
> in particular. Let's find and punish the guilty and show that
> even in our deepest pain and anger, we're better and stronger people
> than the terrorists. Hate is the weapon of the weak.
>
> Let's deal with this shock, horror, and anger first, and then
> look rationally at the roots of it all. And, of course, remember
> that evil never justifies evil in response. Whoever quoted Gandhi
> was right on the mark. I hope that the world will show the wisdom
> of Gandhi today.
>
> all best
>
> LFB
|
|
| |
Hey I got an idea...
How about we allow people to have their debates, as long as they keep it
in off-topic.debate. People who are offended by debates can refrain from
reading this newsgroup.
Some of us deal with things by debating and thinking about them.
Some deal with it by not thinking about them.
Let's all deal in our own ways, and in the appropriate places.
This is the appropriate forum for debate.
~Grand Admiral Muffin Head
--
Mark's Lego(R) Creations
http://www.nwlink.com/~sandlin/lego
In article <GJKIyM.A3G@lugnet.com>,
"Melody Brown" <black666beast@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Anyway, please keep the debates away and anything that will only be
> upsetting to others (I hope this isn't the first or near it), it only makes
> people at a time like this madder and frustrated and more emotional (totally
> understandable), to some it will be like water off a ducks back and their
> day will return to normal, others a total loss and their worlds ripped apart
> and may take a little longer.
--
~Grand Admiral Muffin Head
--
Mark's Lego(R) Creations
http://www.nwlink.com/~sandlin/lego
|
|
| |
Agreed. I personally deal with it by discussing it. Staying silent is the worst
thing to do at this point, IMO.
Just try not to drop to personal attacks, or pigeonholing entire
races/nationalities/beliefs into a box and condemning all in that group. If a
terrorist is a Moslem, that doesn't mean all Moslems are terrorists. Keep that in
mind.
Mark Sandlin wrote:
> Hey I got an idea...
>
> How about we allow people to have their debates, as long as they keep it
> in off-topic.debate. People who are offended by debates can refrain from
> reading this newsgroup.
>
> Some of us deal with things by debating and thinking about them.
>
> Some deal with it by not thinking about them.
>
> Let's all deal in our own ways, and in the appropriate places.
>
> This is the appropriate forum for debate.
>
> ~Grand Admiral Muffin Head
> --
> Mark's Lego(R) Creations
> http://www.nwlink.com/~sandlin/lego
>
> In article <GJKIyM.A3G@lugnet.com>,
> "Melody Brown" <black666beast@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Anyway, please keep the debates away and anything that will only be
> > upsetting to others (I hope this isn't the first or near it), it only makes
> > people at a time like this madder and frustrated and more emotional (totally
> > understandable), to some it will be like water off a ducks back and their
> > day will return to normal, others a total loss and their worlds ripped apart
> > and may take a little longer.
>
> --
> ~Grand Admiral Muffin Head
> --
> Mark's Lego(R) Creations
> http://www.nwlink.com/~sandlin/lego
--
| Tom Stangl, iPlanet Web Server Technical Support
| Netscape Communications Corp
| A division of AOL Time Warner
| iPlanet Support - http://www.iplanet.com/support/
| Please do not associate my personal views with my employer
|
|
| |
> What happened yesterday was a murderous and destructive act of hatred
> against our nation. But it should also be considered a wake up call to our
> government for it's unarguable role in fostering aggression and hatred
> around the world, and within our own borders as with Oklahoma City. The
> innocent shouldn't be condemned and suffer and die for the sins of the
> leadership. We should seriously examine why someone, or some group, would
> feel compelled to carry out such a horrible act. There are several lessons
> to be learned here, the main one is that killing innocent men, women and
> children is wrong. Most important, let our comments rest on peace and
> justice, not war and revenge.
Brave words. But they are words I agree with. It is time for everyone in the
west to see and understand the full implications of our "foreign policy". I
hope it is a gross exaggeration, but I heard last night that the sanctions
in Iraq had killed 500,000 in total. Can that be justified?
Scott A
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dan Boger writes:
> "unarguable role in fostering aggression and hatred"... hmmm... excuse me, I >want to argue this. How has the US fostered aggression and hatred, please >tell?
Years ago, the U.S. and other members of the world community sat on their
hands as the Nazis performed atrocities before the world. Behind the scenes,
many of our corporate "persons" profited from the blood and suffering of
others (recently settled in European courts). Years later, we fought a
"cold war", engaged in police actions (unofficial wars), and protected
corporate interests abroad on the back of many a teenager's innocent blood.
For decades we have turned the blind eye from the acts of those committing
genocide. People die homeless in our streets so that McDonald's can have
some pork barrel money to spend on advertising abroad.
Some people think that the U.S. trained the world torturer network from
locations in Virginia (connect the dots...), killed Che Guevara in Bolivia,
sent young men to die in Viet Nam for the profit interests of a very few in
rubber trees, continues to allow the death penalty to be carried out in a
racially selective manner, and protects the interests of its corporate
fictitious "persons" at the expense of its natural citizens, etc., etc....
I guess you could argue these points, but my point is merely that "no one is
innocent."
We can't arrive at peace with anyone if we insist that we are 100% in the
right about everything -- we have to accept that we also are not perfect and
that we have our share of blame for the suffering in the world.
<3
-- Hop-Frog
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Daniel Jassim writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dan Boger writes:
> > hmmm... Can you quote ANY source (I'll even accept palestinian sources for now) that says that the cheering was not for the success of the attack?
>
> The Syrian, Egyptian and Saudi Arabian broadcast news made note that
> portions of the footage shown on American TV were actually unrelated to the
> attacks.
While it may be true that _portions_ of the footage were not in celebration
of the attacks, the majority of it most definitely was. I have a friend and
co-worker who is visiting family in Jordan. He managed to get an e-mail
through and said that people were crowding the streets, cheering and
celebrating, when they heard about the attacks.
Whether or not the footage was related to the attacks does not really matter
all that much. The fact is that they did celebrate over it.
--
Jeromy Irvine
|
|
| |
bin Laden declared war on the US some time ago. We were fools for not paying
attention. But that's what we do, we ignore small pests until they get out
of hand...
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Daniel Jassim writes:
> What happened yesterday was a murderous and destructive act of hatred
> against our nation.
Correct.
> But it should also be considered a wake up call to our
> government
Correct. It is indeed a wake up call.
> for it's unarguable role in fostering aggression and hatred
> around the world, and within our own borders as with Oklahoma City.
You're full of it here, though. It's extremely arguable.
I'm dismayed, and even a little sickened, but not surprised, that you'd use
any opportunity to parrot your usual tripe. The US, flaws and all, is more
of a world saviour than a world oppressor. It is time you realised that.
> The
> innocent shouldn't be condemned and suffer and die for the sins of the
> leadership.
Agreed. And when we disassemble Afghanistan and Iraq and Libya and N. Korea
to root out the harborers of this evil, we should be sure not to make
innocents suffer needlessly. But the guys dancing in the street in glee over
this aren't innocents.
> We should seriously examine why someone, or some group, would
> feel compelled to carry out such a horrible act.
Because they are not human. No other explanation is needed. No other
explanation can be accepted.
They're not the only ones, mind you, but I say the race will be better off
without their genes. No grievance, no mission from Allah, no moral
justification, can justify this. None.
> There are several lessons
> to be learned here, the main one is that killing innocent men, women and
> children is wrong.
In what way is this a lesson? Are you saying that you didn't already know
this? If you didn't, I pity you. If you did know this, it's not a lesson.
> Most important, let our comments rest on peace and
> justice, not war and revenge.
How about war and justice?
I support the notion of the civilized nations of the world going to the
Talibans and Libyas of the world and saying "turn them all over now or you
will be disassembled and another government put in place." and then carrying
it out. This attack cost us hundreds of billions of dollars. I'll pay my
share of trillions if that's what it takes to drastically reduce this
scourge. The time for measured responses is over. Massive overwhelming force
is the appropriate response to the initiators of force.
Do it in a way that minimises innocent civilians. Drop leaflets first saying
"now is the time to rise up against the tyrants. If you don't, stand back
out of the way. If you support your misguided terrorist harboring government
even now, after this, prepare to face the consequences, you're no longer an
innocent.".
bin Laden has said he's declared war on the US. Fine. We should have took
him at his word back then, but better late than never. It matters not
whether he was behind this or not, we'll figure it out either way. But he's
behind enough other stuff that I am content to see him and his pack of rabid
dogs brought to justice for those acts regardless. And while we're at it,
let's take care of some of the other terrorists as well.
The US is not the world's policeman. But we can and should defend our shores
when they are attacked, wherever in the world that takes us.
The US is not perfect, and we have things we should fix. Lots of them. But
it sickens me to hear people say "too bad about the deaths, you had it
coming" and sickens me even worse to see people handing out candy to
celebrate death and destruction, whether they were victims or not. They
deserve our scorn, not our sympathy.
|
|
| |
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Richard Marchetti writes:
> We can't arrive at peace with anyone if we insist that we are 100% in the
> right about everything -- we have to accept that we also are not perfect and
> that we have our share of blame for the suffering in the world.
Well said, Richard. In the worst possible way, we have become the victims of
indiscriminate murder whereas, as you noted, America (specifically
government and corporate entities) had undeniably been perpetrators or
collaborators elsewhere. I realize some may see such comments as
anti-American but as a patriot I feel compelled to seek the truth behind our
existence as a nation. In the worst possible way, we have been given a taste
of what it feels like to have our homeland violated and the lives of our
family and friends brutally extinguished. It isn't fair or just. I do
believe in innocence and I don't think innocent people should needlessly
suffer and die so that some political point could be made through a
deplorable, criminal act. However, I hold an equal measure of contempt for
our government's dealings in foreign affairs and contributing to the
conditions that spawned such hatred and violence.
Dan
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> bin Laden declared war on the US some time ago. We were fools for not paying
> attention. But that's what we do, we ignore small pests until they get out
> of hand...
>
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Daniel Jassim writes:
>
> > What happened yesterday was a murderous and destructive act of hatred
> > against our nation.
>
> Correct.
>
> > But it should also be considered a wake up call to our
> > government
>
> Correct. It is indeed a wake up call.
>
> > for it's unarguable role in fostering aggression and hatred
> > around the world, and within our own borders as with Oklahoma City.
>
> You're full of it here, though. It's extremely arguable.
>
> I'm dismayed, and even a little sickened, but not surprised, that you'd use
> any opportunity to parrot your usual tripe. The US, flaws and all, is more
> of a world saviour than a world oppressor. It is time you realised that.
This really is rich coming from you, the USA may well be viewed as a world
saviour by many - but my understanding is that "world saviour" is not a roll
you are happy with. Or have events this week changed that?
> > The
> > innocent shouldn't be condemned and suffer and die for the sins of the
> > leadership.
>
> Agreed. And when we disassemble Afghanistan and Iraq and Libya and N. Korea
> to root out the harborers of this evil, we should be sure not to make
> innocents suffer needlessly. But the guys dancing in the street in glee over
> this aren't innocents.
>
> > We should seriously examine why someone, or some group, would
> > feel compelled to carry out such a horrible act.
>
> Because they are not human. No other explanation is needed. No other
> explanation can be accepted.
>
> They're not the only ones, mind you, but I say the race will be better off
> without their genes. No grievance, no mission from Allah, no moral
> justification, can justify this. None.
>
> > There are several lessons
> > to be learned here, the main one is that killing innocent men, women and
> > children is wrong.
>
> In what way is this a lesson? Are you saying that you didn't already know
> this? If you didn't, I pity you. If you did know this, it's not a lesson.
>
> > Most important, let our comments rest on peace and
> > justice, not war and revenge.
>
> How about war and justice?
>
> I support the notion of the civilized nations of the world going to the
> Talibans and Libyas of the world and saying "turn them all over now or you
> will be disassembled and another government put in place." and then carrying
> it out. This attack cost us hundreds of billions of dollars. I'll pay my
> share of trillions if that's what it takes to drastically reduce this
> scourge. The time for measured responses is over. Massive overwhelming force
> is the appropriate response to the initiators of force.
>
> Do it in a way that minimises innocent civilians. Drop leaflets first saying
> "now is the time to rise up against the tyrants. If you don't, stand back
> out of the way. If you support your misguided terrorist harboring government
> even now, after this, prepare to face the consequences, you're no longer an
> innocent.".
>
> bin Laden has said he's declared war on the US. Fine. We should have took
> him at his word back then, but better late than never. It matters not
> whether he was behind this or not, we'll figure it out either way. But he's
> behind enough other stuff that I am content to see him and his pack of rabid
> dogs brought to justice for those acts regardless. And while we're at it,
> let's take care of some of the other terrorists as well.
>
> The US is not the world's policeman. But we can and should defend our shores
> when they are attacked, wherever in the world that takes us.
>
> The US is not perfect, and we have things we should fix. Lots of them. But
> it sickens me to hear people say "too bad about the deaths, you had it
> coming" and sickens me even worse to see people handing out candy to
> celebrate death and destruction, whether they were victims or not. They
> deserve our scorn, not our sympathy.
Rather than giving them either, you should first understand what has lead
them down the path that put them in that frame of mind. Compare their
actions to the mood during WW2 when the allies were killing 50,000
civilians on a good night. Compare that to the general mood when we started
bombing Iraq. You are reacting to TV pictures rather than understanding what
is happening.
Scott A
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > > But it should also be considered a wake up call to our
> > > government
> >
> > Correct. It is indeed a wake up call.
> >
> > > for it's unarguable role in fostering aggression and hatred
> > > around the world, and within our own borders as with Oklahoma City.
> >
> > You're full of it here, though. It's extremely arguable.
> >
> > I'm dismayed, and even a little sickened, but not surprised, that you'd use
> > any opportunity to parrot your usual tripe. The US, flaws and all, is more
> > of a world saviour than a world oppressor. It is time you realised that.
>
>
> This really is rich coming from you, the USA may well be viewed as a world
> saviour by many - but my understanding is that "world saviour" is not a roll
> you are happy with. Or have events this week changed that?
I am comfortable with being a world saviour in the sense that we set a good
example to the rest of the world on how to do things and how be free
(imperfect, but better than, say, Syria), but not in the sense of being the
world's policeman. We did not take on the duty of fixing everything. But now
that we have been attacked by snakes we must go and root out the nest for
our own safety's sake. If it makes the rest of the world a better place as a
by product, I'm OK with that as well.
I have never supported foreign intervention for any reason other than a
selfish one, to wit, that it was the only way to defend our own citizens at
home. Not because it was our duty to defend the rest of the world, or even
our citizens abroad.
But defeating the USSR, for example, although done for selfish reasons, had
a great by product, it made the rest of the world safer.
The aggressor has made the mistake of attacking the homeland. They will pay.
If I were Saddam Hussein, who has made the foolish mistake of exulting, I'd
be enjoying the running water while I could. That country needs to be
disassembled too, their citizens freed, and the oil pumped out and sold to
pay war reparations.
Latest news is that the "Afghan government is in hiding". They can run and
hide but they cannot escape. Secretary Powell declined to specify what would
be done but said a week deadline for all of bin Laden's organization to be
turned over to the west was not unreasonable. He's being too generous.
I note that you did not respond to my call for concrete suggestions with
concrete suggestions. Rather you sniped. Predictable.
L. Wilkes, who I fundamentally disagree with on many levels, at least took
the time to think through some of the ramifications and raised some very
good points, making the key point that there is no way to win a permanent
and absolute victory "forever" without fundamentally changing who we are.
You might take a lesson from your countryman and try more thinking and less
sniping.
++Lar
|
|
| |
"Larry Pieniazek" <lpieniazek@mercator.com> wrote in message news:GJM51s.HFz@lugnet.com...
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
>
> L. Wilkes, who I fundamentally disagree with on many levels, at least took
> the time to think through some of the ramifications and raised some very
> good points, making the key point that there is no way to win a permanent
> and absolute victory "forever" without fundamentally changing who we are.
Larry, where do you fundamentally disagree with me on many levels?
When have we had disagreements?
I hope you were not reading my earlier reply as my views on what should be done.
You asked for suggestions, I made some.
I said I didnt necessarily support them.
regards
lawrence
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> bin Laden declared war on the US some time ago. We were fools for not paying
> attention. But that's what we do, we ignore small pests until they get out
> of hand...
Bin Laden was trained by the CIA to fight the Soviets. At the time, he
probably thought the USA was supporting his ideology, rather than simply
persuing its own anti-communist one. USA suport then rapidly disappeared.
He was then witness to further examples of the USA meddling in
middle-eastern affairs to support their own domestic interests. Support of
Iraq against Iran, then attacking it when it turned on Kuwait. To some, the
very principles of what the USA calls freedom - pursuit of hapiness - is
seen simply as the pursuit of personal material wealth, and is thus evil.
It's not a case of ignoring small pests - it's a case of causing incredible
resentment through the pursuit of short-term gain, and worse, being totally
oblivious to it.
America has made great contributions to the world - I don't dispute that.
The Clinton administration made great strides in fostering peace around the
world too, but that disappeared overnight at the last presidential election.
What was needed was that support in the long-term.
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Daniel Jassim writes:
>
> > What happened yesterday was a murderous and destructive act of hatred
> > against our nation.
>
> Correct.
>
> > But it should also be considered a wake up call to our
> > government
>
> Correct. It is indeed a wake up call.
>
> > for it's unarguable role in fostering aggression and hatred
> > around the world, and within our own borders as with Oklahoma City.
>
> You're full of it here, though. It's extremely arguable.
No, he's not. He has an opinion which many others are expressing too.
> I'm dismayed, and even a little sickened, but not surprised, that you'd use
> any opportunity to parrot your usual tripe. The US, flaws and all, is more
> of a world saviour than a world oppressor. It is time you realised that.
So what? No amount of good acts can justify continuing to do bad ones. The
point is to identify and learn from errors, not ignore and repeat them.
> > The
> > innocent shouldn't be condemned and suffer and die for the sins of the
> > leadership.
>
> Agreed. And when we disassemble Afghanistan and Iraq and Libya and N. Korea
> to root out the harborers of this evil, we should be sure not to make
> innocents suffer needlessly. But the guys dancing in the street in glee over
> this aren't innocents.
And no American will cheer when they see that nation bombed, live on Fox?
> > We should seriously examine why someone, or some group, would
> > feel compelled to carry out such a horrible act.
>
> Because they are not human. No other explanation is needed. No other
> explanation can be accepted.
Now, let me make a division here. The acts of these terrorists is without
justification. I wholly support their pursuit, capture and punishment.
However, I do not support this being done by any means George W Bush may
think is necessary.
> They're not the only ones, mind you, but I say the race will be better off
> without their genes. No grievance, no mission from Allah, no moral
> justification, can justify this. None.
>
> > There are several lessons
> > to be learned here, the main one is that killing innocent men, women and
> > children is wrong.
>
> In what way is this a lesson? Are you saying that you didn't already know
> this? If you didn't, I pity you. If you did know this, it's not a lesson.
>
> > Most important, let our comments rest on peace and
> > justice, not war and revenge.
>
> How about war and justice?
>
> I support the notion of the civilized nations of the world going to the
> Talibans and Libyas of the world and saying "turn them all over now or you
> will be disassembled and another government put in place." and then carrying
> it out. This attack cost us hundreds of billions of dollars. I'll pay my
> share of trillions if that's what it takes to drastically reduce this
> scourge. The time for measured responses is over. Massive overwhelming force
> is the appropriate response to the initiators of force.
Try it. What you will find is people who hate the US more than they
disapprove of these terrorists. People who would rather hide someone they
know is a criminal (who, of course, is no threat to them) rather than
capitulate to what they perceive as an evil foreign agressor. By its own
terms, the USA will start another world war. It will be the cause, but will
refuse to see it that way.
These terrorists will be unreachable because of the resentment the US has
generated. The US will then drive itself to a war against entire nations.
> Do it in a way that minimises innocent civilians. Drop leaflets first saying
> "now is the time to rise up against the tyrants. If you don't, stand back
> out of the way. If you support your misguided terrorist harboring government
> even now, after this, prepare to face the consequences, you're no longer an
> innocent.".
Then go in and teach everyone how to read. Obtain signatures that they have
read and fully understand the content of that document. Or, leave the
general population alone. No doubt there are operatives already in there
who could tell if the people will support an invasion or not. Do not assume
that just because the US opposes a government, it's populace does too.
> bin Laden has said he's declared war on the US. Fine. We should have took
> him at his word back then, but better late than never. It matters not
> whether he was behind this or not, we'll figure it out either way. But he's
> behind enough other stuff that I am content to see him and his pack of rabid
> dogs brought to justice for those acts regardless. And while we're at it,
> let's take care of some of the other terrorists as well.
>
> The US is not the world's policeman. But we can and should defend our shores
> when they are attacked, wherever in the world that takes us.
>
> The US is not perfect, and we have things we should fix. Lots of them. But
> it sickens me to hear people say "too bad about the deaths, you had it
> coming" and sickens me even worse to see people handing out candy to
> celebrate death and destruction, whether they were victims or not. They
> deserve our scorn, not our sympathy.
It sickens me to see an act committed by a few evil individuals taken as
justification for initiating a war.
You make out that those who point out the long-term results of short-term US
foreign policy, those who rejoice in the destruction, and those who
committed these acts are one and the same. All enemies of the USA.
I'm currently facing the possibility of redundancy, as my company proceeds
with a breakup and buyout, yet my chief concern for the future is that some
illiterate Texan on the other side of the world is about to drag my
countrymen and I into a global ideological war, for reasons which I cannot
support.
Perhaps the question of how the US engenders this sort of resentment in its
closest allies could be tackled first, if the one about the middle east is
too difficult.
The fight against terrorism will not be won overnight, nor with a single
military strike, nor by blaming everyone else. Find another way.
Jason J Railton
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Jason J. Railton writes:
> It sickens me to see an act committed by a few evil individuals taken as
> justification for initiating a war.
You're gerrymandering the facts, either deliberately or otherwise. The
attack on US soil was itself an act or war, and if bin Laden is indeed
responsible, he himself declared war on the US long ago. If the US responds
to his declaration by likewise declaring war, that's hardly "initiating a war."
Further, war would not be declared upon a few evil individuals but rather
upon the nations knowingly harboring a multinational band of known thugs and
murderers, as well as the thugs and murderers themselves.
> The fight against terrorism will not be won overnight, nor with a single
> military strike, nor by blaming everyone else. Find another way.
No one is blaming everyone else; the US is blaming those individuals who
conceived and planned this attack, as well as the nations providing
sanctuary to them.
Dave!
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Jason J. Railton writes:
>
> > It sickens me to see an act committed by a few evil individuals taken as
> > justification for initiating a war.
>
> You're gerrymandering the facts, either deliberately or otherwise. The
> attack on US soil was itself an act or war, and if bin Laden is indeed
> responsible, he himself declared war on the US long ago. If the US responds
> to his declaration by likewise declaring war, that's hardly "initiating a war."
> Further, war would not be declared upon a few evil individuals but rather
> upon the nations knowingly harboring a multinational band of known thugs and
> murderers, as well as the thugs and murderers themselves.
Declarations of war come from nations, not from individuals. His
declaration of war against the US was his own posturing. He does not
represent his country, as the actions of the IRA do not represent theirs.
> > The fight against terrorism will not be won overnight, nor with a single
> > military strike, nor by blaming everyone else. Find another way.
>
> No one is blaming everyone else; the US is blaming those individuals who
> conceived and planned this attack, as well as the nations providing
> sanctuary to them.
And this is exactly my point. Let's do this line by line...
> No one is blaming everyone else;
Good...
> the US is blaming those individuals who conceived and planned this attack,
Marvellous...
> as well as the nations providing sanctuary to them.
Now, here's the issue. Why would they provide sanctuary? Because each
citizen is planning similar attacks? Because they support and fund anti-US
agression? Because they don't happen to sympathise with the US? Or because
they feel they'll be damned[1] if they're going to hand anyone over to the US?
Do you believe this would justify an international decleration of war? I do
not. I think anyone who does is blind to the consequences. And where do
you draw the line? What if someone speaks out against this crusade of
yours? Are they an enemy too?
Jason J Railton
[1] And in some cases, I do mean this quite literally.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Lawrence Wilkes writes:
>
> "Larry Pieniazek" <lpieniazek@mercator.com> wrote in message news:GJM51s.HFz@lugnet.com...
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> > > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> >
> > L. Wilkes, who I fundamentally disagree with on many levels, at least took
> > the time to think through some of the ramifications and raised some very
> > good points, making the key point that there is no way to win a permanent
> > and absolute victory "forever" without fundamentally changing who we are.
>
>
> Larry, where do you fundamentally disagree with me on many levels?
> When have we had disagreements?
> I hope you were not reading my earlier reply as my views on what should be done.
> You asked for suggestions, I made some.
> I said I didnt necessarily support them.
LW it's with regard to some old threads, some things were said by you there
that I did fundamentally disagree with. If I get time I will go back and
respond in a bit more detail.
Also you do have a tendency to view Britain as above reproach and the US as
fundamentally flawed... witness your lashing out about the war of 1812. The
historical facts are what they are, Britain tried to reimpose tyranny and
failed. That was then. This is now. Most Americans view Britain as a fast
and true friend... we help each other out all the time.
I think your suggestions in this thread have merit as thought starter
questions because they imply that a knee jerk reaction, taken to its logical
extreme, can often have very grave and unintended consequences. I didn't
take them all seriously, I don't think you intended them that way at all.
More like Johnathan Swift on the Irish Question... suggestions to make
people think.
I'll admit I am knee jerking myself right now but I am massively pissed. It
took a while to sink in, on Tuesday I was just numb... Tuesday night I
started to grieve... all day Wednesday just about anything could make me
cry, but now I am just pissed.
I suspect I am not going to change my views much though, we have a disease
on our hands and it's time to do something about it. Terrorists (once
identified as such with certainty) must be destroyed and those who applaud
terrorism must be punished.
++lar
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Jason J. Railton writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Jason J. Railton writes:
> >
> > > It sickens me to see an act committed by a few evil individuals taken as
> > > justification for initiating a war.
> >
> > You're gerrymandering the facts, either deliberately or otherwise. The
> > attack on US soil was itself an act or war, and if bin Laden is indeed
> > responsible, he himself declared war on the US long ago. If the US responds
> > to his declaration by likewise declaring war, that's hardly "initiating a war."
> > Further, war would not be declared upon a few evil individuals but rather
> > upon the nations knowingly harboring a multinational band of known thugs and
> > murderers, as well as the thugs and murderers themselves.
>
> Declarations of war come from nations, not from individuals. His
> declaration of war against the US was his own posturing. He does not
> represent his country, as the actions of the IRA do not represent theirs.
And the Barbary Pirates did not represent any particular country but the US
nevertheless declared war on them and dealt with them, quite effectively. If
we should decide to make the symbolic act of declaring war on terrorism, it
will be the same thing. Countries would be involved only if they (as the
thugs at the helm of much of Afghanistan seem to have done) harbor terrorists.
> > > The fight against terrorism will not be won overnight, nor with a single
> > > military strike, nor by blaming everyone else. Find another way.
> >
> > No one is blaming everyone else; the US is blaming those individuals who
> > conceived and planned this attack, as well as the nations providing
> > sanctuary to them.
>
> And this is exactly my point. Let's do this line by line...
>
> > No one is blaming everyone else;
>
> Good...
>
> > the US is blaming those individuals who conceived and planned this attack,
>
> Marvellous...
>
> > as well as the nations providing sanctuary to them.
>
> Now, here's the issue. Why would they provide sanctuary? Because each
> citizen is planning similar attacks? Because they support and fund anti-US
> agression? Because they don't happen to sympathise with the US? Or because
> they feel they'll be damned[1] if they're going to hand anyone over to the US?
I'm sorry, I am struggling a bit with your inability to understand what
providing sanctuary means. If the Taliban is giving bin Laden facilities,
materiel, and allowing him to come and go as he pleases, how exactly is that
not "providing sanctuary"? They say they are the government of Afghanistan.
Are you saying that they are not? Great. Let's get with the real government
and round them up too. (perhaps we can put them on trial for the crime of
destroying priceless works of art if we can't think of anything else).
But if they ARE the government they are in fact giving sanctuary. Their
little government needs to be disassembled and the afghan people given a
chance to determine their own fate, free from religious shackles.
Dealing with nests of snakes sometimes requires cutting a bit of underbrush
away to get at the snakes...
++Lar
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> I'll admit I am knee jerking myself right now but I am massively pissed. It
> took a while to sink in, on Tuesday I was just numb... Tuesday night I
> started to grieve... all day Wednesday just about anything could make me
> cry, but now I am just pissed.
>
> I suspect I am not going to change my views much though, we have a disease
> on our hands and it's time to do something about it. Terrorists (once
> identified as such with certainty) must be destroyed and those who applaud
> terrorism must be punished.
I rarely agree with Larry a whole lot, but my reactions are almost 100% the
same. The first response to terrorists is to refuse to be terrified. The
second response is to destroy their ability to terrorize.
If someone is pointing a gun at me, I don't ask them if they had a rough
childhood.
James
(Not an american, but that doesn't matter)
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > Now, here's the issue. Why would they provide sanctuary? Because each
> > citizen is planning similar attacks? Because they support and fund anti-US
> > agression? Because they don't happen to sympathise with the US? Or because
> > they feel they'll be damned[1] if they're going to hand anyone over to the
> > US?
> I'm sorry, I am struggling a bit with your inability to understand what
> providing sanctuary means. If the Taliban is giving bin Laden facilities,
> materiel, and allowing him to come and go as he pleases, how exactly is that
> not "providing sanctuary"? They say they are the government of Afghanistan.
"SANCTUARY: place of safety for a fugitive". Yes, they are providing
sanctuary. My point is that that in itself does not make them a legitimate
target.
The Afghan government do not need to provide anything material for bin
Laden; he has enough funds and contacts of his own. All they need to
provide as "sanctuary" is to refuse to open their borders or otherwise
co-operate with the US. If this in itself makes a nation as evil as the
terrorist and a legitimate target of US agression then you have a lot more
enemies than you think.
> Are you saying that they are not? Great. Let's get with the real government
> and round them up too. (perhaps we can put them on trial for the crime of
> destroying priceless works of art if we can't think of anything else).
>
> But if they ARE the government they are in fact giving sanctuary. Their
> little government needs to be disassembled and the afghan people given a
> chance to determine their own fate, free from religious shackles.
And what if what they want is for you to leave them alone - to not actually
depose their government and plunge them into civil war? To not ride
rough-shod over what they truly believe in?
> Dealing with nests of snakes sometimes requires cutting a bit of underbrush
> away to get at the snakes...
>
> ++Lar
I was always taught that if you don't bother them, they won't bother you...
Jason J Railton
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Jason J. Railton writes:
> "SANCTUARY: place of safety for a fugitive". Yes, they are providing
> sanctuary. My point is that that in itself does not make them a legitimate
> target.
In fact, it does. State-provided sanctuary for a terrorist, conspirator, and
murderer, is de facto identical to committing terrorism, conspiracy, and
murder. Is it acceptable to you that bin Laden and his followers commit
whatever acts they please and then "tag home" by running to the protective
apron of Afghanistan? What if Afghanistan should refuse to extradite him? Do
we just say, "oh well, thanks anyway"?
> > (perhaps we can put them on trial for the crime of
> > destroying priceless works of art if we can't think of anything else).
As a minor side note--I'm no Buddhist scholar (believe it or not), but I have
the sense that the Buddha himself wouldn't have cared if transient, material
things like statues were destroyed, though I agree that as works of art they
were priceless and irreplaceable.
> And what if what they want is for you to leave them alone - to not actually
> depose their government and plunge them into civil war? To not ride
> rough-shod over what they truly believe in?
They're undergoing civil war already, and if what they believe in is the
wholesale slaughter of innocent civilians by a cowardly aggressor, then I say
that they should be dealt with as severely and thoroughly as possible. If they
want to be left alone while simultaneously harboring a mass murderer, too bad
for them. They've made their alliances--let them enjoy the consequences.
> > Dealing with nests of snakes sometimes requires cutting a bit of underbrush
> > away to get at the snakes...
> I was always taught that if you don't bother them, they won't bother you...
You were taught incorrectly. Plenty of animals will attack helpless people,
as we've seen in the past few days.
Dave!
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> As a minor side note--I'm no Buddhist scholar (believe it or not)
I do not believe that, Dave!
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Jason J. Railton writes:
>
> > "SANCTUARY: place of safety for a fugitive". Yes, they are providing
> > sanctuary. My point is that that in itself does not make them a legitimate
> > target.
>
> In fact, it does. State-provided sanctuary for a terrorist, conspirator, • and
> murderer, is de facto identical to committing terrorism, conspiracy, and
> murder.
According to whom?
> Is it acceptable to you that bin Laden and his followers commit
> whatever acts they please and then "tag home" by running to the protective
> apron of Afghanistan? What if Afghanistan should refuse to extradite him? Do
> we just say, "oh well, thanks anyway"?
In fact it's unlikely bin Laden actually leaves his "protective apron" - he
probably delegates any international tasks to others.
And how is applying military force to the people of Afghanistan, many of whom
don't follow the Taliban regime, gonna provide any result. It's likely to kill
a lot of innocent people, and unlikely to cause any major harm to bin Laden.
And what if you later find out that bin Laden *wasn't* the perpetrator?
> > And what if what they want is for you to leave them alone - to not actually
> > depose their government and plunge them into civil war? To not ride
> > rough-shod over what they truly believe in?
>
> They're undergoing civil war already, and if what they believe in is the
> wholesale slaughter of innocent civilians by a cowardly aggressor, then I say
> that they should be dealt with as severely and thoroughly as possible. If • they
> want to be left alone while simultaneously harboring a mass murderer, too bad
> for them. They've made their alliances--let them enjoy the consequences.
Again, you're lumping the whole Afghan population together here, and I very
much doubt that they all support bin Laden, in fact I'd be surprised if more
than a small minority even knows he's there. If it's OK to let these innocent
people "enjoy the consequences", then why are you so angry that innocent
Americans just "enjoyed the consequences" of America's alliances?
I realise some people will think I'm heartless making such comments, but that's
just how I feel about Dave's comments.
ROSCO
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ross Crawford writes:
> > In fact, State-provided sanctuary for a terrorist, conspirator, and
> > murderer, is de facto identical to committing terrorism, conspiracy, and
> > murder.
>
> According to whom?
I would call it self-evident, though I will attempt to construct a syllogism
for you. In the meantime, I likewise would ask you for your refutation of my
assertion.
> > Is it acceptable to you that bin Laden and his followers commit
> > whatever acts they please and then "tag home" by running to the protective
> > apron of Afghanistan? What if Afghanistan should refuse to extradite him? • Do
> > we just say, "oh well, thanks anyway"?
>
> In fact it's unlikely bin Laden actually leaves his "protective apron" - he
> probably delegates any international tasks to others.
Well, now you're quibbling. Whether he actually leaves the country or sits
on his butt while instructing his followers to commit murder (by the way--I
find "international tasks" to be a disgusting euphemism for the murder of
innocents), the point is the same. He is a murderer protected by the
Taliban and you and Jason seem to be suggesting that all we can do is hope that
the Taliban will somehow be shamed into correct action by our passive
resistance.
> And how is applying military force to the people of Afghanistan, many of whom
> don't follow the Taliban regime, gonna provide any result. It's likely to kill
> a lot of innocent people, and unlikely to cause any major harm to bin Laden.
You're making two assumptions there, neither of which you can really support,
since to date no full-scale coordinated action has been undertaken against him.
In addition, several in this debate have asserted that bin Laden et al are
responding to X number of years of bullying US foreign policy in the only way
they know how. Obviously, then, if it is sufficient in their view to apply
whatever force is necessary to whomoever they can reach, even if they know that
their objective (ie. fundamental change to US policy) cannot be achieved. Our
objective would be to stop bin Laden, which is an attainable goal.
Before you ask me "how would we stop him," I expect that people of higher
military rank than I are better equipped to answer you, so I suggest you ask
them.
> And what if you later find out that bin Laden *wasn't* the perpetrator?
Obviously we are, for the sake of this argument, assuming bin Laden was the
perpetrator. If he was not, and if the real perpetrator is harbored by some
goverment, then the point is the same even if the names are different.
> > They're undergoing civil war already, and if what they believe in is the
> > wholesale slaughter of innocent civilians by a cowardly aggressor, then I say
> > that they should be dealt with as severely and thoroughly as possible. If • they
> > want to be left alone while simultaneously harboring a mass murderer, too bad
> > for them. They've made their alliances--let them enjoy the consequences.
>
> Again, you're lumping the whole Afghan population together here,
Only if you're equivocating on my admittedly vague use of "they." "They"
who are undergoing civil war are indeed the general Afghan population, even
those not directly involved in the conflict. "They" who believe in the
wholesale slaughter of innocent civilians are the Taliban and whoever else
might give haven to bin Laden.
> and I very
> much doubt that they all support bin Laden, in fact I'd be surprised if more
> than a small minority even knows he's there.
That's irrelevant--the "small minority" (which, by the way, is small only in
numbers, not in power) are the ones responsible and the ones who to be held
accountable.
> If it's OK to let these innocent
> people "enjoy the consequences", then why are you so angry that innocent
> Americans just "enjoyed the consequences" of America's alliances?
Equivocation, once again. Do you identify no difference between the
deliberate murder of innocent civilians in civilian aircraft and buildings with
the accidental deaths of those near military targets?
> I realise some people will think I'm heartless making such comments, but
> that's just how I feel about Dave's comments.
I don't think you're heartless; I just think you're engaged in deliberate and
selective misreading--a well-established form of literary analysis but not
really useful in the current debate.
Dave!
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ross Crawford writes:
>
> > If it's OK to let these innocent
> > people "enjoy the consequences", then why are you so angry that innocent
> > Americans just "enjoyed the consequences" of America's alliances?
>
> Equivocation, once again. Do you identify no difference between the
> deliberate murder of innocent civilians in civilian aircraft and buildings • with
> the accidental deaths of those near military targets?
I realise I've snipped a lot of stuff and I will get back to it later, but I
think here lies the fundamental difference in our opinions.
The answer is no, I identify no difference between the deliberate murder of
innocent civilians in civilian aircraft and buildings with the "accidental"
deaths of those near military targets, because it's not accidental. The warring
parties *know* they're going to kill a number of innocent civilians (in both
examples), but are prepared to put up with that in order to acheive their goal.
> > I realise some people will think I'm heartless making such comments, but
> > that's just how I feel about Dave's comments.
>
> I don't think you're heartless; I just think you're engaged in deliberate • and
> selective misreading--a well-established form of literary analysis but not
> really useful in the current debate.
In fact, it's not literary analysis at all - it's emotional response to ideas
which I find unpalatable.
ROSCO
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Daniel Jassim writes:
> Let me just say that we, as Americans, should not be so sheepish to jump on
> the war bandwagon. War against whom?
War is a terrible thing and no one should jump on the war bandwagon without a
very good reason and only after he has considered all the possible
alternatives.
> How in Heaven's name will killing other
> civilians ever make things better in the world?
Pick a war in history in which you think the winning side was right to go to
war. Do you think the world would be a worse place if Germany won WW2? Do you
think the world would be a worse place if Saddam was still controlling
Kuwait? None of these wars could have been won without killing civilians. (In
the gulf war the US went to great lengths to minimize the risk to the civil
population but still some civilians got hurt)
> That is not justice, that is
> revenge and no one has the right to condemn the citizenry for the sins of
> it's government or leadership. The attack yesterday is proof of that, we
> shouldn't make the same mistake and become "indiscriminate" murderers.
In WW2 the civilians were part of the war effort. It seems like there was no
way of winning without crippling the industry and making everyday life
difficult. Bombing citizens is a horrible thing but if the alternative is
annihilation someone should make a very difficult decision.
Even if the power you are against is not as strong as you are it is impossible
to ensure that only the "right" target is hit. In most wars some of your own
casualties come from friendly fire, so it's really not surprising that some
civilians may also be accidentally hurt.
That does not make you "indiscriminate murderer", it makes you a nation in
war.
It is impossible to catch and trial every person in the world.
You have certain expectations from every country in the world. One of these
expectations is that it will see to it that none of it's civilians performs
any hostile act against you.
Obviously, reasonable judgment should be used. You can't go to war every time
someone throws a stone across the border. But if a citizen of a certain
country gets ten thousand people killed the very minimum you can expect is
that this country will help you in every way it can to bring this person to
justice. If it doesn't you have to make it do so. This can be done by
diplomatic pressure, by economic pressure or by violence. I would prefer to
use the first two options, but if I have to I'll be forced to use the last
option.
> Yesterday morning I went to get my hair cut and the hairstylist was
> commenting on the attack. I only said that I hope the people responsible
> will be brought to justice. She said "They're all Iranian." Hopefully such
> ignorant comments are few and far between. If we resort to such thinking we
> are no better than those who carried out this attack, Arab or otherwise. It
> is yet to be determined who carried out this attack (usually a group will
> step forward and claim responsibility).
I read some of your other posts and I understand that you are an Arab living
in the US and that you were subject to harassment just because of your looks
and race. This is a terrible thing and I think the people doing these kind of
things should be punished. But, however you think your hairstylist thinks, she
did not murder thousands of innocent people, so I think that she _is_ much
better than those who carried out this attack, Arab or otherwise. At least
until she proves me wrong.
I resent the comparison, but agree with what I think you are trying to say.
> We should avoid stirring up hatred against Arabs. I recall the hours after
> the Oklahoma City bombing and the immediate call to arms against certain
> Arab nations, not considering that it may have been one of our own citizens.
> At this point, we still don't know who is behind this. And if it turns out
> the ethnicity of the attackers is Arab, it does not justify blanket hatred
> of Arabs. We'd be no better than the Nazi's with regard to the Jews of Europe
Until the US starts transporting millions of Arabs from all over the world
into concentration camps in the purpose of wiping the Arab race off the planet
I wouldn't say that it is as bad as the Nazi's with regard to the Jews of
Europe.
Again, I do agree with the general idea of this paragraph but not to the very
bad comparison.
> Regarding the scenes of Palestinians cheering after the attack, I have
> learned that the footage shown (or several portions of the footage) was
> possibly before the attack, and was the Palestinian reaction to Israeli
> troops withdrawing from that town.
Where did you hear that?
Perhaps from the sources who said Israel is poisoning the water of the
Palestinian Authority?(!) Or are those the sources that reported that Israel
has special unit of female soldiers that strip in front of the Palestinian
soldiers in order to attract them and then shoot them?(!!)
Maybe it's the sources that reported Israel is bombing Palestinian schools
with poisoned candy?(!!!) Or the latest news: The attack on the WTC is a
Zionist plot.(!!!!)
You live in a country that has one of the best journalism on the planet and
yet you choose to get your information from sources that operate in dark
totalitarian countries in which any journalist that reports something that the
government doesn't like will see the end of his career immediately (If not
worse).
When someone is trying to convince me that something I know happened [1]
didn't actually happen I have a hard time trusting him about anything.
I saw a female reporter on the BBC reporting that the cheering Palestinians
are just a handful and that most of the Palestinians are shocked and glued to
the TV. Anyone living in the Middle East (well, at least between the
Mediterranean sea and Jordan) knows that isn't true so what makes her say
that?
The Associated Press now reports that the Palestinian Authority arrested a
palestinian that works for a foreign news crew who shot pictures of the
celebrations and told the news agency that this man works for that if those
pictures are broadcasted the man will be harmed. (killed?)
All the Israeli news agencies report that that is not an isolated case [2].
Many reporters where threatened that the Palestinian Authority will "not be
able to ensure their safety" if they report about the celebrations. Several
news agencies instructed their reporters to keep away from the celebrations in
order to avoid the embarrassing situation in which they have pictures they
don't publish.
This is not a new phenomena - the Italian reporter who filmed the lynch of the
two Israelis sent an apology letter to the Palestinian Authority(!) but still
had to flee the area and abandon the covering of the conflict. Perhaps if it
wasn't such a great scoop he would think twice if it is worth sacrificing the
time and effort he had put into the matter (establishing connections etc.).
Not to mention if it is worth risking his life over it.
> Around the Arab world, the feeling is
> mostly one of shock and outrage. If the Palestinian footage is indeed in
> celebration of the attack, then such behavior is very disappointing.
I've come to expect such a behavior - those are the same people who celebrate
when suicide bombers kill dozens of Israeli children. Obviously these people
would not agree with your opinion that "no one has the right to condemn the
citizenry for the sins of it's government or leadership."
> But I
> want to remind everyone that the Palestinians are a people who have suffered
> under brutal military occupation for nearly 50 years.
2001 - 1967 = 34 years. (and not 50 years!)
I wish proving your other claim (that this occupation is brutal) wrong was
that easy [3]. Although I'm against the occupation I totally disagree with
your opinion that this occupation is brutal [4]. The fact is that Palestinians
that are under different occupations (in Jordan or in Lebanon) are in much
worse conditions.
Even though Israel was faced with violence from the Palestinians many times
the Palestinians were never faced with truly brutal force like they faced in
Jordan during "Black September".
The Palestinians are the best educated people amongst the Arab nations and up
until the recent surge of violence enjoyed an economic growth unparalleled in
any of the neighboring Arab countries (excluding the oil producing ones).
I truly think that if the Palestinians were willing to compromise a solution
could have been found. Part of the unwillingness to compromise comes from a
religious point of view in which thing are absolute and human lives are
relatively unimportant.
Many of them actually believe that if they kill themselves along with dozens
of Israeli children they'll go to heaven and have 72 virgin women at their
service. How are you supposed to negotiate with that?
> Their cheers are
> perhaps no different than our own when the bombs rained on Baghdad, even
> though innocent civilians were being killed in both cases.
>
> What happened yesterday was a murderous and destructive act of hatred
> against our nation. But it should also be considered a wake up call to our
> government for it's unarguable role in fostering aggression and hatred
> around the world, and within our own borders as with Oklahoma City. The
> innocent shouldn't be condemned and suffer and die for the sins of the
> leadership. We should seriously examine why someone, or some group, would
> feel compelled to carry out such a horrible act. There are several lessons
> to be learned here, the main one is that killing innocent men, women and
> children is wrong. Most important, let our comments rest on peace and
> justice, not war and revenge.
>
> Dan
I don't understand what you mean by "a wake up call". It's not like Bin Laden
had a shortage of publicity. It's not like he says "Well, sorry about that,
but now that we got your attention...".
If you think what the US does is wrong then there is no need for a "wake up
call" to try to change it. Otherwise the only way this attack can change your
behavior is exactly the way the terrorist intended it : To threat the US that
this sort of thing would happen every time the US won't behave as he thinks it
should behave.
It seems to me that the ones who didn't learn the lesson about killing
innocent men, women and children are the ones who initiated this attack.
Since they don't believe, like you and me, in those values there must be
another way of teaching them that lesson.
- David
[1] Friends of mine saw hundreds of cheering Palestinians after the attack.
[2] Channel 1, Channel 2, Reshet Bet and GLZ - and those are agencies in which
if you report something with no foundation you are likely to lose your job and
if you report something (true) that the government is embarrassed about (a
"scoop") you are likely to get promoted. And I have many examples if you are
interested.
[3] I'm against the occupation and against many actions of my government.
Israel has made many mistakes over the last 53 years but still, we occupied
the west bank when we were defending our lives and the existence of our
country.
This is a very problematic existence because we came to a region that already
had some local population. Although we tried to live along side this
population they didn't accept our presence [5]. They attacked Israel time
after time bringing death and misery to both sides.
We feel that "they started" the cycle of violence because they attacked first
and they feel we started because we arrived from nowhere and made a claim for
the land.
I totally understand their point of view but we really had no choice - as
history has proven the Jewish people has to be able to defend itself in it's
own country if it wants to survive [6]. The only (culturally) reasonable
place was the plot of land our people were driven out of 2000 years ago.
What happened 2000 years ago is hardly enough to convince a Palestinian today
but we really had no choice - we had to go somewhere.
Somehow this cycle of violence must end. Israel has made several major efforts
in the last ten years to find a way of ending this conflict. We ended most of
the occupation and Ehud Barak went to unbelievable lengths in what he offered
Yasser Arafat in Camp David. Still, we were refused and faced with a new
attack.
Many Israelis believe that the Palestinians are not ready for any compromise.
They feel that the Palestinians don't accept the fact that the Israelis might
also have a point and that the Palestinians will be content only once we are
all out of here.
Those Israelis feel their position is reinforced by what happened in Lebanon.
The Hizballa declared that they are fighting to get us out of Lebanon ("To
comply with the UN resolution"). Once we pulled out of there and the UN
declared that we complied with it's resolution they changed their tune and now
they are "helping the Palestinian struggle" and once again we are faced with a
hostile north border with soldiers kidnapped into Lebanon and rockets fired
into Israel (The reason we went into Lebanon in the first place).
[4] As much as a bad thing like a military occipation can be.
There are always individuals that will do bad things (to the extreme of the
horrible act commited by Baruch Goldstein). And even without them the local
population can suffer from the situation even if it's not "brutal" compared
with other military occupations.
[5] Who could blame them? "Who are those foreigners that come from Europe by
hundreds of thousands and think they run the place?"
[6] How would you feel if your survival depended on your ability to convince
the men that are harassing you because you are Arab that it's a wrong thing to
do?
|
|
| |
Well, if anyone had any doubts that our anonymous foe
is prepared for a long, drawn-out struggle, those should
be laid to rest by now. Details aren't all in, but it
appears those who didn't get a chance to carry out their
"missions" on Tuesday tried to get through yesterday instead!
(What a bunch of idiots--but hey, now we have some *alive*...)
Apparently the Feds have 10 or 11 individuals in custody,
people who had knives and in a couple of cases pilot's
licenses and were wearing stolen uniforms (Delta, I think).
They had Tuesday tickets to LAX originally.
From the looks of it, the Feds may have dropped the ball on
the initial attacks, but it looks like things are falling
into place now. This little band of demons is on borrowed
time, and so are their brothers in terror "back home" and all
over the world, from Manila and Hamburg to Baghdad and Kabul. I
have a strange feeling that our people already know the
first couple of targets on our list, and may even be on their
way. May their aim be true (I have few doubts it will be).
LFB (Who appreciates Queen Elizabeth II's gesture yesterday
beyond words.)
|
|
| |
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Arnon writes:
<snipped>
It would take too long to respond to every item in your post so let me just
say that we agree killing innocent people is wrong. Also, we can agree that
demonizing and making generic assumptions about another culture is wrong.
However, there is no way you can convince me that Israel wants, or has ever
wanted, peace and justice. It has always seemed to me that Israel wants
peace for itself without embracing justice for all. Symbolically, Justice
offers us a scale to weigh each side. Israel tips the scale in it's favor
and then expects the Arab's to accept scraps from the what Israel stole from
them. The bulldozing continues, the occupation continues, thus the
resistance of the Arabs will continue. Americans would offer the same
resistance if some foreign entity came en mass to America's shores and
started acting like they own the place. Why think the Arabs shouldn't?
It's no secret that Israel is a Zionist state and that Zionism rests on the
notion that Jews are God's true people and that the Holy Land is exclusively
theirs, a thought that would sicken great Moses himself. If that's not
religious fanaticism... There once was a brotherhood between Jew and Moslem
but the Zionists ruined it.
We cannot paint the picture that Israel had no choice, is not the aggressor
and occupier, nor can we vilify only the Arabs for resisting. We should
condemn all horrid acts of violence and seek to understand. You talked about
war and the inevitability of civilians being killed. We can agree that in
war, the rules of engagement dictate that combat be restricted to soldier
against soldier. However, if soldier attacks civilian, should we not expect
the other side to do the same? In the end, we are left with only more
spilled blood so I'd rather there be no war and no killing and no more
indifference.
With respect,
Dan
|
|
| |
"Larry Pieniazek" <lpieniazek@mercator.com> wrote in message news:GJMFCE.LKt@lugnet.com...
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Lawrence Wilkes writes:
> > Larry, where do you fundamentally disagree with me on many levels?
> > When have we had disagreements?
> > I hope you were not reading my earlier reply as my views on what should be done.
> > You asked for suggestions, I made some.
> > I said I didnt necessarily support them.
>
> LW it's with regard to some old threads, some things were said by you there
> that I did fundamentally disagree with. If I get time I will go back and
> respond in a bit more detail.
>
> Also you do have a tendency to view Britain as above reproach and the US as
> fundamentally flawed... witness your lashing out about the war of 1812. The
> historical facts are what they are, Britain tried to reimpose tyranny and
> failed. That was then. This is now. Most Americans view Britain as a fast
> and true friend... we help each other out all the time.
>
> I think your suggestions in this thread have merit as thought starter
> questions because they imply that a knee jerk reaction, taken to its logical
> extreme, can often have very grave and unintended consequences. I didn't
> take them all seriously, I don't think you intended them that way at all.
> More like Johnathan Swift on the Irish Question... suggestions to make
> people think.
>
> I'll admit I am knee jerking myself right now but I am massively pissed. It
> took a while to sink in, on Tuesday I was just numb... Tuesday night I
> started to grieve... all day Wednesday just about anything could make me
> cry, but now I am just pissed.
>
> I suspect I am not going to change my views much though, we have a disease
> on our hands and it's time to do something about it. Terrorists (once
> identified as such with certainty) must be destroyed and those who applaud
> terrorism must be punished.
Larry. Peace.
We are on the same side.
I admitted I was wrong to flame Greg, he has admitted he might have worded his post better.
It is all to easy, as we all know, to 'post from the hip', and think afterwards.
I doubt we fundamentally disagree about much.
I bet we fundamentally AGREE about a zillion things.
But, eh, I am British.
So, just like the understandable US patriocism being shown at the moment, I am patriotic too.
I guess if someone bought up an unsavoury moment in US history from a century or more ago, it would be shot down in
flames too.
I certainly dont see Britain above reproach, and the US as fundamentaly flawed.
You probably perceived this based on a couple of sarcastic remarks I have made.
I am naturally sarcastic. I know its the lowest form of wit. But I guess from your experience of the UK you will know it
is pervasive.
Some of my remarks must be seen as such. I also know from experience that our sarcasm (and sometimes our humour in the
face of adversity) is often lost on Americans.
Unfortunately, I worry that it is humanity that is fundamentaly flawed.
We talk about the need to defend the civilised world, but what has a millenium of this in Europe delivered? Two world
wars.
What has decades, no centuries, of trying to deal with the 'Irish problem' delivered. Schoolkids as the victims of hate.
This has been a very sad week.
Lets not make it worse by all falling out.
regards
lawrence
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ross Crawford writes:
> I identify no difference between the deliberate murder of
> innocent civilians in civilian aircraft and buildings with the "accidental"
> deaths of those near military targets, because it's not accidental. The
> warring parties *know* they're going to kill a number of innocent civilians
> (in both examples), but are prepared to put up with that in order to acheive
> their goal.
Then let me clarify the question: Do you identify no difference between
1) Murdering innocent civilians aboard a civilian jet and in
civilian buildings
and
2) The death of civilians resulting from their proximity to known
military targets
If so, then you are clearly stating that intention is irrelevant, and you
invalidate your own "pile of baseballs" analogy.
Civilian deaths during military action, unless those civilians are
deliberately targeted, are indeed accidents. Unfortunate, yes, but
accidents nonetheless. If, however, those civilians are deliberately
targeted, then it is murder, as was the case on Tuesday.
Dave!
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ross Crawford writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ross Crawford writes:
> >
> > > If it's OK to let these innocent
> > > people "enjoy the consequences", then why are you so angry that innocent
> > > Americans just "enjoyed the consequences" of America's alliances?
> >
> > Equivocation, once again. Do you identify no difference between the
> > deliberate murder of innocent civilians in civilian aircraft and buildings • with
> > the accidental deaths of those near military targets?
>
> I realise I've snipped a lot of stuff and I will get back to it later, but I
> think here lies the fundamental difference in our opinions.
>
> The answer is no, I identify no difference between the deliberate murder of
> innocent civilians in civilian aircraft and buildings with the "accidental"
> deaths of those near military targets, because it's not accidental. The warring
> parties *know* they're going to kill a number of innocent civilians (in both
> examples), but are prepared to put up with that in order to acheive their goal.
>
> > > I realise some people will think I'm heartless making such comments, but
> > > that's just how I feel about Dave's comments.
> >
> > I don't think you're heartless; I just think you're engaged in deliberate • and
> > selective misreading--a well-established form of literary analysis but not
> > really useful in the current debate.
>
> In fact, it's not literary analysis at all - it's emotional response to ideas
> which I find unpalatable.
>
> ROSCO
I have not read all of the things said, in all of the hundreds of posts
here, so forgive me there... I think though that these people who fear they
are about to be attacked will try and evacuate themselves to what they may
think could be a safer place for them.
What the outcome will be is something that we have to wait and see. Please
don't forget that if troops etc are sent, that there is more than just the
innocent people of that targeted country but also the troops who will be
sent there and are risking their own lives.
Sure they know they have to some degree a choice and those of the country
don't, but an innocent life, is an innocent life and that must not be forgotten.
Many of these people in these country's also do things for their own country
too such as things in the past like the mass suicides where they could be
closer to their beliefs and rewarded once they arrive to their destination.
Many Westerners don't think quite in the same way. But at the same time I
am not saying that they should be all destroyed anyway. They too have
people that are scared and fear the worse. Such mixed feelings towards
these matters are at a high rate right now, so what do you really say?
I feel sorry for the children more than anything when it comes to these
troubled nations. They are the ones who suffer the most out of all their
people. They grow up only knowing what they have been taught, and that is
so hard to change once they are an adult, to convert them into a Western
(etc) way of thinking is sometimes impossible.
I was watching some of the news over here with Australian's interviewing
some of these nations, you could tell the host was having a hard time trying
to get the interviewed people to understand the Western way of thinking and
visa-versa.
We all see so differently due to our own up bringing and experiences, so our
views will always be different, no matter who we are and where we are from.
It's going to be tough... we all have to stick together somehow.
Mel
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Jason J. Railton writes:
> Declarations of war come from nations, not from individuals.
Why? Power units are the concern, not nations. These are new times and
governments will become less important as other power structures evolve. I
think you're operating in the old paradigm.
Chris
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Jason J. Railton writes:
> "SANCTUARY: place of safety for a fugitive". Yes, they are providing
> sanctuary. My point is that that in itself does not make them a legitimate
> target.
>
> The Afghan government do not need to provide anything material for bin
> Laden; he has enough funds and contacts of his own. All they need to
> provide as "sanctuary" is to refuse to open their borders or otherwise
> co-operate with the US. If this in itself makes a nation as evil as the
> terrorist and a legitimate target of US agression then you have a lot more
> enemies than you think.
Well, maybe it's time to correct that.
Chris
|
|
| |
Ross, your stance here completely baffles me. You're nitpicking against
taking action but you (and Jason) haven't proposed any concrete plan of your
own other than (paraphrasing and guessing) "right all the injustice in the
world everywhere and the murderers will stop murdering". Please explain how
that would work. I don't see it.
We do need to right injustice. We do need to examine our policies, internal
and external. But now is not the time.
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ross Crawford writes:
> And how is applying military force to the people of Afghanistan, many of whom
> don't follow the Taliban regime, gonna provide any result. It's likely to kill
> a lot of innocent people, and unlikely to cause any major harm to bin Laden.
> And what if you later find out that bin Laden *wasn't* the perpetrator?
Osama bin Laden is a terrorist. His gang are terrorists. The Taliban are
accomplices who need to be brought down. So do all the rogue states, for
that matter. What is being proposed here, though, is something far broader
than just "going after" the particular perpetrators. It is a "war on terrorism".
That makes bin Laden a target, a very important target, whether he's the
perpetrator or not. So your question is irrelevant. He has enough blood on
his hands to be a target regardless. If he didn't do this particular crime,
he's still a (previously indicted) criminal worthy of punishment and after
we find him, we'll find proof it wasn't him with his stuff.
It will take years and trillions of dollars to do this war. It may cost in
real dollars as much as WW II did. I think the people of America are ready
to spend that though. We are slow to anger as a nation but our anger is a
mighty thing once aroused.
There is an editorial circulating that I think sums this feeling up pretty well.
http://www.miami.com/herald/content/features/columnists/pitts/digdocs/000565.htm
(that may not be the only place to find it, I have seen it elsewhere)
>Again, you're lumping the whole Afghan population together here, and I very
> much doubt that they all support bin Laden, in fact I'd be surprised if more
> than a small minority even knows he's there. If it's OK to let these innocent
> people "enjoy the consequences", then why are you so angry that innocent
> Americans just "enjoyed the consequences" of America's alliances?
The first bombing of Afghanistan needs to be with leaflets. It needs to
explain what happened and what is about to be done and offer a choice. Rise
up, aid the cleansing force, overthrow the Taliban, or be part of the
infection, and be cleansed. Ditto for the first bombing of Iraq and the
first bombing of N. Korea, and the first bombing of Libya, because this is
not about Afghanistan and Afghanistan alone.
> I realise some people will think I'm heartless making such comments,
> but that's just how I feel about Dave's comments.
I think there is merit in questioning, up to a point. We need to make sure
we do things in as safe and effective manner as possible. But once the
questions have been satisfactorily answered, the perception of the
questioner isn't that they are heartless, but that they are clueless. You
aren't over that line quite yet. Quite. But you're close.
++Lar
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Lawrence Wilkes writes:
> Larry. Peace.
Yes. Peace.
++Lar
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Lindsay Frederick Braun writes:
> Well, if anyone had any doubts that our anonymous foe
> is prepared for a long, drawn-out struggle, those should
> be laid to rest by now. Details aren't all in, but it
> appears those who didn't get a chance to carry out their
> "missions" on Tuesday tried to get through yesterday instead!
> (What a bunch of idiots--but hey, now we have some *alive*...)
> Apparently the Feds have 10 or 11 individuals in custody,
> people who had knives and in a couple of cases pilot's
> licenses and were wearing stolen uniforms (Delta, I think).
> They had Tuesday tickets to LAX originally.
A report on NPR this morning indicates that the FBI is now denying that there
was any such group. The report of a single individual attempting to board a
plane with a fake pilot's ID in New York has not yet been contradicted, but
I'll wait for the FBI to say so before I believe it.
Also this morning, CNN apologized on its web site for naming one Adnan Bukhari
of Vero Beach, Florida as one of the pilots who crashed an airplane on Tuesday.
Mr. Buhkari is alive and is cooperating with the FBI in its investigation.
Rumor, desperation, and intense media coverage are contributing to numerous
premature and erroneous reports. And, just under the surface, racism simmers.
Prominent public officials may make somewhat restrained statements -- however,
sometimes not. Yesterday's description of the scope of the war to come,
delivered by Colin Powell, left me pretty breathless. It appears that the U.S.
is making certain requests of Pakistan and Afghanistan -- but once they're
done with whatever they feel they need to do there, they plan to "destroy
terrorism wherever it may hide." Really? That's a LOT of countries...
President Bush and others have said that "they attack us because they hate our
freedom and democracy." Really? What rational person hates freedom, or
democracy? While it's clear that "they" hate America, I can't say that the
reason WHY they hate America is so self-evident. Might there be other reasons,
reasons that don't sound quite so ridiculous? Would the contemplation of those
other reasons give us pause? How would our LONG-term strategy change if we
allowed time for a little contemplation?
On the Internet, people's true colors are not so hidden. You don't have to
wade very far into the discussion groups to find people making statements like
this one: "Kill them all. Let Allah sort them out."
While I'm all for punishing those responsible for the terrorism, and their
friends who have harbored them, I hope that this intense, emotional atmosphere
does not result in the United States acting rashly. We can afford to take some
time investigating the attacks. Let us do so. Let us prove to the world, to
their satifaction, that we know who the culprits are. Reckless acts will cost
us the good will of the nations around the world who have offered us their
condolences and support.
Lindsay, you're a cosmopolitan guy. I know that you personally need no
convincing that the U.S., no matter how deep its grievances, must never forget
its need to maintain good foreign relations -- and not just with the U.K. and
Israel. However, I am not very sure that our fellow Americans are as
level-headed about the matter. Sick with rage and intoxicated by American
military power, they are tempted to "go it alone." If we follow their path,
the curse of the Ugly American will follow us all for decades to come.
> From the looks of it, the Feds may have dropped the ball on
> the initial attacks, but it looks like things are falling
> into place now. This little band of demons is on borrowed
> time, and so are their brothers in terror "back home" and all
> over the world, from Manila and Hamburg to Baghdad and Kabul. I
> have a strange feeling that our people already know the
> first couple of targets on our list, and may even be on their
> way. May their aim be true (I have few doubts it will be).
May their aim not ALSO be false.
> LFB (Who appreciates Queen Elizabeth II's gesture yesterday
> beyond words.)
I offer the world my condolences, and my fervent hope that clear thinking will
carry us forward in the days to come.
--
John J. Ladasky Jr., Ph.D.
Department of Biology
Johns Hopkins University
Baltimore, MD 21218
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John J. Ladasky, Jr. writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Lindsay Frederick Braun writes:
>
> > Well, if anyone had any doubts that our anonymous foe
> > is prepared for a long, drawn-out struggle, those should
> > be laid to rest by now. Details aren't all in, but it
> > appears those who didn't get a chance to carry out their
> > "missions" on Tuesday tried to get through yesterday instead!
> > (What a bunch of idiots--but hey, now we have some *alive*...)
> > Apparently the Feds have 10 or 11 individuals in custody,
> > people who had knives and in a couple of cases pilot's
> > licenses and were wearing stolen uniforms (Delta, I think).
> > They had Tuesday tickets to LAX originally.
>
> A report on NPR this morning indicates that the FBI is now denying that there
> was any such group. The report of a single individual attempting to board a
> plane with a fake pilot's ID in New York has not yet been contradicted, but
> I'll wait for the FBI to say so before I believe it.
Apparently (at least as CNN relates) they're still holding one,
the guy with the pilot ID.
> Also this morning, CNN apologized on its web site for naming one Adnan Bukhari
> of Vero Beach, Florida as one of the pilots who crashed an airplane on Tuesday.
> Mr. Buhkari is alive and is cooperating with the FBI in its investigation.
Isn't there another person, a brother, who is stating that the
person suspected by the FBI of flying one of the planes in fact
died in an air crash a year ago? The most insidious and unfounded
rumor I've heard is that Muslims in Patterson, NJ were dancing
in the streets to the news. There's NO support for such a rumor
whatsoever--but hatemongers have siezed on it as "proof" that
we should destroy all Arabs.
> Rumor, desperation, and intense media coverage are contributing to numerous
> premature and erroneous reports. And, just under the surface, racism simmers.
> Prominent public officials may make somewhat restrained statements -- however,
> sometimes not. Yesterday's description of the scope of the war to come,
> delivered by Colin Powell, left me pretty breathless. It appears that the U.S.
> is making certain requests of Pakistan and Afghanistan -- but once they're
> done with whatever they feel they need to do there, they plan to "destroy
> terrorism wherever it may hide." Really? That's a LOT of countries...
Yes--the statements last night were a bit disturbing. The
DoD broadened the scope in a worrying manner. I don't think
I'm exaggerating by saying this is the most worrying moment
in US history since the Cuban Missile Crisis.
> On the Internet, people's true colors are not so hidden. You don't have to
> wade very far into the discussion groups to find people making statements like
> this one: "Kill them all. Let Allah sort them out."
I've been hearing this out of some of my *colleagues*. Thank
goodness, nobody on the faculty itself, but still these are
people with advanced college degrees, who are suggesting that
we invade, conquer, and forcibly convert the entire region.
That's so out of touch with reality that I don't even know
where to start.
> While I'm all for punishing those responsible for the terrorism, and their
> friends who have harbored them, I hope that this intense, emotional atmosphere
> does not result in the United States acting rashly. We can afford to take some
> time investigating the attacks. Let us do so. Let us prove to the world, to
> their satifaction, that we know who the culprits are. Reckless acts will cost
> us the good will of the nations around the world who have offered us their
> condolences and support.
Well said.
> Lindsay, you're a cosmopolitan guy. I know that you personally need no
> convincing that the U.S., no matter how deep its grievances, must never forget
> its need to maintain good foreign relations -- and not just with the U.K. and
> Israel. However, I am not very sure that our fellow Americans are as
> level-headed about the matter. Sick with rage and intoxicated by American
> military power, they are tempted to "go it alone." If we follow their path,
> the curse of the Ugly American will follow us all for decades to come.
Again, well said. I didn't make it clear in my message,
but this is my tack as well--and it's part of the duty of
those who *are* contemplating and thinking to serve as a
brake on those who would hold the whole Arab--or the whole
Muslim--world responsible.
> > From the looks of it, the Feds may have dropped the ball on
> > the initial attacks, but it looks like things are falling
> > into place now. This little band of demons is on borrowed
> > time, and so are their brothers in terror "back home" and all
> > over the world, from Manila and Hamburg to Baghdad and Kabul. I
> > have a strange feeling that our people already know the
> > first couple of targets on our list, and may even be on their
> > way. May their aim be true (I have few doubts it will be).
>
> May their aim not ALSO be false.
That's implicit, I hope.
best
LFB
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> Ross, your stance here completely baffles me. You're nitpicking against
> taking action
On the contrary, I summarised what I think is appropriate action here
http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=12670
> but you (and Jason) haven't proposed any concrete plan of your
> own other than (paraphrasing and guessing) "right all the injustice in the
> world everywhere and the murderers will stop murdering". Please explain how
> that would work. I don't see it.
Does "concrete plan" == "the right response"?
> We do need to right injustice. We do need to examine our policies, internal
> and external. But now is not the time.
On the contrary, I think we've just been shown it *is* the time.
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ross Crawford writes:
>
> > And how is applying military force to the people of Afghanistan, many of whom
> > don't follow the Taliban regime, gonna provide any result. It's likely to • kill
> > a lot of innocent people, and unlikely to cause any major harm to bin Laden.
> > And what if you later find out that bin Laden *wasn't* the perpetrator?
>
> Osama bin Laden is a terrorist. His gang are terrorists. The Taliban are
> accomplices who need to be brought down. So do all the rogue states, for
> that matter. What is being proposed here, though, is something far broader
> than just "going after" the particular perpetrators. It is a "war on • terrorism".
>
> That makes bin Laden a target, a very important target, whether he's the
> perpetrator or not. So your question is irrelevant. He has enough blood on
> his hands to be a target regardless. If he didn't do this particular crime,
> he's still a (previously indicted) criminal worthy of punishment and after
> we find him, we'll find proof it wasn't him with his stuff.
>
> It will take years and trillions of dollars to do this war. It may cost in
> real dollars as much as WW II did. I think the people of America are ready
> to spend that though. We are slow to anger as a nation but our anger is a
> mighty thing once aroused.
It will probably also cost a comparable number of innocent lives, many of them
American. Are you ready to spend that much? I'm not. And I'm not ready to deny
these people the right to a fair trial, just because they deny me that right.
> There is an editorial circulating that I think sums this feeling up pretty • well.
>
> http://www.miami.com/herald/content/features/columnists/pitts/digdocs/000565.htm
> (that may not be the only place to find it, I have seen it elsewhere)
>
> > Again, you're lumping the whole Afghan population together here, and I very
> > much doubt that they all support bin Laden, in fact I'd be surprised if more
> > than a small minority even knows he's there. If it's OK to let these innocent
> > people "enjoy the consequences", then why are you so angry that innocent
> > Americans just "enjoyed the consequences" of America's alliances?
>
> The first bombing of Afghanistan needs to be with leaflets. It needs to
> explain what happened and what is about to be done and offer a choice. Rise
> up, aid the cleansing force, overthrow the Taliban, or be part of the
> infection, and be cleansed.
And what if they really want to, and give it their best shot (presumably with
help from NATO, etc), but fail? And do you think bin Laden and his precious
Taliban will sit idly by while they're trying? I don't think this is a fair
ultimatum at all, and will just end up with more innocent deaths on both sides.
> Ditto for the first bombing of Iraq and the
> first bombing of N. Korea, and the first bombing of Libya, because this is
> not about Afghanistan and Afghanistan alone.
>
> > I realise some people will think I'm heartless making such comments,
> > but that's just how I feel about Dave's comments.
>
> I think there is merit in questioning, up to a point. We need to make sure
> we do things in as safe and effective manner as possible. But once the
> questions have been satisfactorily answered, the perception of the
> questioner isn't that they are heartless, but that they are clueless. You
> aren't over that line quite yet. Quite. But you're close.
With respect, Lar, you have *no idea* how close I am to *anything*. That's a
very arrogant statement, and I realise that's your way, but I have yet to see
anything that provides satisfactory answers to my fears.
ROSCO
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ross Crawford writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > Ross, your stance here completely baffles me. You're nitpicking against
> > taking action
>
> On the contrary, I summarised what I think is appropriate action here
> http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=12670
There's no plan there. You say that you support trying them but you haven't
addressed what to do if the Taliban, even after being presented with clear
and credible evidence (assuming it can be developed) that anyone else would
accept, thumbs their nose and says you can't have him.
So you're nitpicking against taking action.
> > but you (and Jason) haven't proposed any concrete plan of your
> > own other than (paraphrasing and guessing) "right all the injustice in the
> > world everywhere and the murderers will stop murdering". Please explain how
> > that would work. I don't see it.
>
> Does "concrete plan" == "the right response"?
>
> > We do need to right injustice. We do need to examine our policies, internal
> > and external. But now is not the time.
>
> On the contrary, I think we've just been shown it *is* the time.
Please elaborate. Why now rather than after bringing the fever down?
> > It will take years and trillions of dollars to do this war. It may cost in
> > real dollars as much as WW II did. I think the people of America are ready
> > to spend that though. We are slow to anger as a nation but our anger is a
> > mighty thing once aroused.
>
> It will probably also cost a comparable number of innocent lives, many of them
> American. Are you ready to spend that much? I'm not.
No one is, at this juncture, asking you to. Take it up with your government
if and when they decide to support the US and you don't agree. America will
no doubt have to bear the brunt of this expense just like we always do. So
be it. It is the burden of Empire. Ask Kipling.
I'd prefer that we be an inward looking Republic but the world may not allow
us to do so and if we have to save the rest of the world (again) at our own
expense to make things safe, why then I guess we will just have to do so.
> And I'm not ready to deny
> these people the right to a fair trial, just because they deny me that right.
Nor am I.
> > The first bombing of Afghanistan needs to be with leaflets. It needs to
> > explain what happened and what is about to be done and offer a choice. Rise
> > up, aid the cleansing force, overthrow the Taliban, or be part of the
> > infection, and be cleansed.
>
> And what if they really want to, and give it their best shot (presumably with
> help from NATO, etc), but fail? And do you think bin Laden and his precious
> Taliban will sit idly by while they're trying? I don't think this is a fair
> ultimatum at all, and will just end up with more innocent deaths on both >sides.
OK, what do you suggest then if you support trying them but aren't willing
to actually go arrest them? Let's hear something concrete. That post you
referred to above wasn't it. Posit for the sake of the discussion that bin
Laden is guilty, and that the Taliban says "screw you". (neither of those is
established yet) Now what?
> > I think there is merit in questioning, up to a point. We need to make sure
> > we do things in as safe and effective manner as possible. But once the
> > questions have been satisfactorily answered, the perception of the
> > questioner isn't that they are heartless, but that they are clueless. You
> > aren't over that line quite yet. Quite. But you're close.
>
> With respect, Lar, you have *no idea* how close I am to *anything*.
I know cluelessness when I see it. I know asking questions that have been
answered just for the sake of asking when I see it as well. You are not
there yet, you are no Scott Arthur, yet. But you're close.
++Lar
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ross Crawford writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > > Ross, your stance here completely baffles me. You're nitpicking against
> > > taking action
> >
> > On the contrary, I summarised what I think is appropriate action here
> > http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=12670
>
> There's no plan there. You say that you support trying them but you haven't
> addressed what to do if the Taliban, even after being presented with clear
> and credible evidence (assuming it can be developed) that anyone else would
> accept, thumbs their nose and says you can't have him.
>
> So you're nitpicking against taking action.
Huh??? Yes, I'm against military action. That doesn't mean I'm against action.
> > > but you (and Jason) haven't proposed any concrete plan of your
> > > own other than (paraphrasing and guessing) "right all the injustice in the
> > > world everywhere and the murderers will stop murdering". Please explain how
> > > that would work. I don't see it.
> >
> > Does "concrete plan" == "the right response"?
> >
> > > We do need to right injustice. We do need to examine our policies, internal
> > > and external. But now is not the time.
> >
> > On the contrary, I think we've just been shown it *is* the time.
>
> Please elaborate. Why now rather than after bringing the fever down?
Because thinking about it now will reduce the needless deaths which will
just mount up the longer we leave it.
> > > It will take years and trillions of dollars to do this war. It may cost in
> > > real dollars as much as WW II did. I think the people of America are ready
> > > to spend that though. We are slow to anger as a nation but our anger is a
> > > mighty thing once aroused.
> >
> > It will probably also cost a comparable number of innocent lives, many of them
> > American. Are you ready to spend that much? I'm not.
>
> No one is, at this juncture, asking you to. Take it up with your government
> if and when they decide to support the US and you don't agree. America will
> no doubt have to bear the brunt of this expense just like we always do. So
> be it. It is the burden of Empire. Ask Kipling.
1. List all the wars in history.
2. Put a tick against those for which America bore the brunt of the human
expense.
3. Have another look at your last paragraph.
> I'd prefer that we be an inward looking Republic but the world may not allow
> us to do so and if we have to save the rest of the world (again) at our own
> expense to make things safe, why then I guess we will just have to do so.
>
> > And I'm not ready to deny
> > these people the right to a fair trial, just because they deny me that right.
>
> Nor am I.
And yet you're happy for America (and whoever wants to help) to launch bombs
in many countries, and likely kill hundreds of thousands of people without a
trial, justifying it with words like "it was war" and "they started it"?
> > > The first bombing of Afghanistan needs to be with leaflets. It needs to
> > > explain what happened and what is about to be done and offer a choice. Rise
> > > up, aid the cleansing force, overthrow the Taliban, or be part of the
> > > infection, and be cleansed.
> >
> > And what if they really want to, and give it their best shot (presumably with
> > help from NATO, etc), but fail? And do you think bin Laden and his precious
> > Taliban will sit idly by while they're trying? I don't think this is a fair
> > ultimatum at all, and will just end up with more innocent deaths on both >sides.
>
> OK, what do you suggest then if you support trying them but aren't willing
> to actually go arrest them? Let's hear something concrete. That post you
> referred to above wasn't it. Posit for the sake of the discussion that bin
> Laden is guilty, and that the Taliban says "screw you". (neither of those is
> established yet) Now what?
I ask "what if"s and you call me a nit-picker. All I've heard from anyone
hear is "lets go and launch an attack on all rogue states and those known to
harbour terrorists". I think that's no more concrete than "attempt to arrest
the and try the known terrorists, and look at where foreign policy can be
changed for the better". What do you advocate doing when they retaliate
again? Another round of missiles? You really think they can be totally
eliminated?
Let me try another way to describe where I'm coming from.
Lets say Taya (sp?) and Julia have a disagreement. It starts getting a bit
heated, and Nick walks in. He sides with Julia, and Taya asks him to butt
out. But he keeps on, and he & Julia start saying some really nasty stuff,
Taya's getting really upset now, and lashes out, kicking Nick. Hard.
Nick runs inside to dad, crying and obviously hurting pretty bad, what do
you do? Do you recommend going in & beating the living daylights out of
Taya? Obviously not, because it doesn't solve any problems, and you end up
with two badly hurt kids, who think violence is the answer to such situations.
Maybe you explain to Nick that he's just experienced the consequences of not
stopping when he was asked, and leave it at that, but that's probably not
appropriate either, as it hasn't addressed what Taya's done wrong, or the
original problem between Taya & Julia.
You've got to come up with some way to show all of them they've done the
wrong thing. You've got to show Taya that it was wrong to kick Nick, but
you've also gotta try & sort out why Julia & Taya were arguing in the first
place, and why it was wrong for Nick to jump in when it wasn't anything to
do with him.
It's a difficult problem, with no simple step-by-step solution. They're all
individuals, and will react differently to different solutions.
ROSCO
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
>
> > > > But it should also be considered a wake up call to our
> > > > government
> > >
> > > Correct. It is indeed a wake up call.
> > >
> > > > for it's unarguable role in fostering aggression and hatred
> > > > around the world, and within our own borders as with Oklahoma City.
> > >
> > > You're full of it here, though. It's extremely arguable.
> > >
> > > I'm dismayed, and even a little sickened, but not surprised, that you'd use
> > > any opportunity to parrot your usual tripe. The US, flaws and all, is more
> > > of a world saviour than a world oppressor. It is time you realised that.
> >
> >
> > This really is rich coming from you, the USA may well be viewed as a world
> > saviour by many - but my understanding is that "world saviour" is not a roll
> > you are happy with. Or have events this week changed that?
>
> I am comfortable with being a world saviour in the sense that we set a good
> example to the rest of the world on how to do things and how be free
> (imperfect, but better than, say, Syria), but not in the sense of being the
> world's policeman. We did not take on the duty of fixing everything. But now
> that we have been attacked by snakes we must go and root out the nest for
> our own safety's sake. If it makes the rest of the world a better place as a
> by product, I'm OK with that as well.
>
> I have never supported foreign intervention for any reason other than a
> selfish one, to wit, that it was the only way to defend our own citizens at
> home. Not because it was our duty to defend the rest of the world, or even
> our citizens abroad.
Rather than saviour perhaps you should use “role model”. The problem with
that is that everyone version of “civilisation” is not necessarily the same.
>
> But defeating the USSR, for example, although done for selfish reasons, had
> a great by product, it made the rest of the world safer.
>
> The aggressor has made the mistake of attacking the homeland. They will pay.
They problem is that they view the USA as the aggressor. For them, the USA
went to war with them a long time ago.
>
> If I were Saddam Hussein, who has made the foolish mistake of exulting, I'd
> be enjoying the running water while I could. That country needs to be
> disassembled too, their citizens freed, and the oil pumped out and sold to
> pay war reparations.
Hmm stopping running water in Iraq... the women and children will pay the
price again.
>
> Latest news is that the "Afghan government is in hiding". They can run and
> hide but they cannot escape. Secretary Powell declined to specify what would
> be done but said a week deadline for all of bin Laden's organization to be
> turned over to the west was not unreasonable. He's being too generous.
In your view. But it clear to me why Powell runs your country (who is the
other guy?) and you do what ever you do. Perhaps you want him to bomb more
pharmaceutical factories in the developing world? That is what happens when
one reacts without thinking:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/monitoring/newsid_426000/426006.stm
>
> I note that you did not respond to my call for concrete suggestions with
> concrete suggestions. Rather you sniped. Predictable.
I made my suggestions before your "call". You want to bomb bomb bomb, I
prefer to educate.
>
> L. Wilkes, who I fundamentally disagree with on many levels, at least took
> the time to think through some of the ramifications and raised some very
> good points, making the key point that there is no way to win a permanent
> and absolute victory "forever" without fundamentally changing who we are.
>
> You might take a lesson from your countryman and try more thinking and less
> sniping.
Larry I have thought about this. I am thinking - you are reacting.
It is that simple.
Scott A
>
> ++Lar
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Daniel Jassim writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Arnon writes:
> <snipped>
>
> It would take too long to respond to every item in your post so let me just
> say that we agree killing innocent people is wrong. Also, we can agree that
> demonizing and making generic assumptions about another culture is wrong.
Agreed.
However, when at war you can not check the beliefs and thoughts of every
soldier you bomb. The same is true for the citizens of the enemy country that
can be harmed by your actions.
There are times in which killing a few innocent people is the lesser evil.
Would you say the passengers aboard the plane in Pennsylvania that
resisted and as a consequence finally crashed the plain were wrong? All
evidence show that they probably saved hundreds if not thousands of lives.
> However, there is no way you can convince me that Israel wants, or has ever
> wanted, peace and justice.
That's a pity. Oh well, I guess I can carry on the debate in case someone else
is reading (which is unlikely after my last very long post...)
> It has always seemed to me that Israel wants
> peace for itself without embracing justice for all. Symbolically, Justice
> offers us a scale to weigh each side. Israel tips the scale in it's favor
> and then expects the Arab's to accept scraps from the what Israel stole from
> them.
Well, obviously I have a different view of the scale.
If by "scraps from the what Israel stole" you mean parts of the land of Israel
then I have to agree. Many Arabs feel that Israel has stolen the land of
Israel from the Palestinians. I don't agree with that but I do agree that
indeed, We have absolutely no intention of giving the Palestinians the whole
land and going somewhere else (to the sea, I guess).
In fact we will fight until our death before we'll do that. That's not because
we're fanatics, it's just because we have no other choice.
As I wrote in my previous letter, I do understand the Palestinian point of
view.
Can you say the same? (i.e. Do you understand why we are here and why we feel
we have no other choice?)
> The bulldozing continues, the occupation continues, thus the
> resistance of the Arabs will continue. Americans would offer the same
> resistance if some foreign entity came en mass to America's shores and
> started acting like they own the place. Why think the Arabs shouldn't?
>
> It's no secret that Israel is a Zionist state and that Zionism rests on the
> notion that Jews are God's true people and that the Holy Land is exclusively
> theirs, a thought that would sicken great Moses himself. If that's not
> religious fanaticism...
Actually, I think Moses was quite a fanatic at his time [1] and would have no
problem with that thought, but that's not your worst mistake.
Zionism rests on the notion that Jews should have their own state and that
this state should be in the land of Israel. That's it. No mention of any
superiority over other people and no problem with other minorities in this
state. In fact, there are about a million Arab Israeli citizens and other
minorities in Israel.
Zionism did not start because of anything written in the bible. It started
because life in Europe became impossible for jews, and got it's major boost
after the Holocaust that proved beyond any doubt that the hatred against jews
is so great that they really must defend themselves if they want to avoid
annihilation.
> There once was a brotherhood between Jew and Moslem
> but the Zionists ruined it.
I'm not saying that the jews were always perfect and only the Moslems are to
blame, but I do believe that the Moslems are the (much) bigger aggressor in
this case.
> We cannot paint the picture that Israel had no choice, is not the aggressor
> and occupier, nor can we vilify only the Arabs for resisting. We should
> condemn all horrid acts of violence and seek to understand. You talked about
> war and the inevitability of civilians being killed. We can agree that in
> war, the rules of engagement dictate that combat be restricted to soldier
> against soldier. However, if soldier attacks civilian, should we not expect
> the other side to do the same? In the end, we are left with only more
> spilled blood so I'd rather there be no war and no killing and no more
> indifference.
You seem to have a double standard here. A Palestinian reacting to the death
of a civilian is "resisting" and could be expected to do nothing else. But the
US reacting to the senseless death of thousands of people is jumping "the war
bandwagon" and doing a terrible mistake.
When Israel goes after the people who plan the bombing of Israeli civilians it
is a brutal aggressor, while when Arab terrorists kill thousands of people in
the US the "blame is two-fold and things don't just happen out of the blue".
I also rather there would "be no war and no killing and no more
indifference".
It's easier said then done. Especially when you are dealing with religious
fanatics.
Time after time we were proven that in the middle east the reaction to
understanding and avoiding a violent response to violence is just more
violence (see what happened when Israel drew out of Lebanon or when Ehud Barak
went to unbelievable lengths towards the Palestinians in Camp David a year
ago).
> With respect,
>
> Dan
I hope you can see that while we disagree on many points, I respect you very
much. I truly believe that if all the Palestinians [2] shared your values this
conflict would have ended years ago.
- David
[1] The Golden Calf, the Ten Plagues of Egypt, the war against Amalek, the
spies to Isreael etc.
[2] Only to be fair I should add here: and all Israelis.
I do however believe that the great majority of Israelis do share those
values.
|
|
| |
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Arnon writes:
> However, when at war you can not check the beliefs and thoughts of every
> soldier you bomb. The same is true for the citizens of the enemy country that
> can be harmed by your actions.
One innocent Palestinian killed + their enraged family and friends + decades
of occupation = indefinite hatred and revenge. The same equation may apply
for any victim in an unjust situation. The keyword is innocent.
> There are times in which killing a few innocent people is the lesser evil.
See equation above. Can a lesser evil perpetuate a greater evil?
> Would you say the passengers aboard the plane in Pennsylvania that
> resisted and as a consequence finally crashed the plain were wrong?
Of course not, they were fighting for their lives.
> Well, obviously I have a different view of the scale.
> If by "scraps from the what Israel stole" you mean parts of the land of Israel
> then I have to agree. Many Arabs feel that Israel has stolen the land of
> Israel from the Palestinians. I don't agree with that but I do agree that
> indeed, We have absolutely no intention of giving the Palestinians the whole
> land and going somewhere else (to the sea, I guess).
> In fact we will fight until our death before we'll do that. That's not because
> we're fanatics, it's just because we have no other choice.
Forgive my bluntness, but is there justice in a bunch of European Jews,
largely converts, invading and occupying another people *especially on the
trumped up excuse that it was their God-given homeland thousands of years
ago and they've finally "returned?" As if God is a landlord! And how can a
people return when they never really left? The Semetic people of the Holy
Land have remained despite the Romans, Persians, Mongols, Turks and so on.
Despite the clear recognition of being Semetic people, the Arabs have
conveniently been labeled as "transients" by the Zionists. Well, Judaism is
replete with transients, especially a great man named Abraham who came from
the town of Ur in Mesopotamia, now called Iraq.
> As I wrote in my previous letter, I do understand the Palestinian point of
> view.
> Can you say the same? (i.e. Do you understand why we are here and why we feel
> we have no other choice?)
If the point of view is that you ripped out my kidney and transplanted it to
yourself and now cannot give it back or you'll die, then I guess I
understand. Still, it still wasn't your kidney to take.
> Zionism rests on the notion that Jews should have their own state and that
> this state should be in the land of Israel. That's it. No mention of any
> superiority over other people and no problem with other minorities in this
> state. In fact, there are about a million Arab Israeli citizens and other
> minorities in Israel.
Well, Zionists are from the same fundemental branch as the Nazis--National
Socialists. Israel for Jews. Things have changed since, mainly because of
the need for Arab labor.
> Zionism did not start because of anything written in the bible. It started
> because life in Europe became impossible for jews and got it's major boost
> after the Holocaust that proved beyond any doubt that the hatred against jews
> is so great that they really must defend themselves if they want to avoid
> annihilation.
I would never, ever attempt to justify the evil Nazi attrocities but what
previously spawned such resentment for the Jews of Europe? I refuse to
believe that the Jews were just minding their own business, not willfully
doing anything that pissed anyone off. Once again, not a justification for
the Nazis.
> I'm not saying that the jews were always perfect and only the Moslems are to
> blame, but I do believe that the Moslems are the (much) bigger aggressor in
> this case.
But let's be honest: Who invaded who? Who's Semetic and who's European?
> You seem to have a double standard here.
I really don't think so and I hope my previous comments on the rules of
engagement best describe how I view the picture, though I deplore injustice
and violence. I encourage seeking out, recognizing and understanding what
fosters such hatred and not contributing to it.
Thanks,
Dan
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Daniel Jassim writes:
> One innocent Palestinian killed + their enraged family and friends + decades
> of occupation = indefinite hatred and revenge. The same equation may apply
> for any victim in an unjust situation. The keyword is innocent.
Replace the word "Palestinian" with the word "Israeli" and you have the recipe
for an eternal conflict. The cycle must be broken. Right now it seems that the
Palestinian answer is to kill also those enraged family and friends.
> Of course not, they were fighting for their lives.
So is Israel.
> Forgive my bluntness, but is there justice in a bunch of European Jews,
> largely converts,
What? Judaism is the hardest religion to convert to - you have to work for
years to become a Jew, plus, a Jew was the worst thing to be during the last
2000 years - why would anyone want to become one?
> invading and occupying another people *especially on the
> trumped up excuse that it was their God-given homeland thousands of years
> ago and they've finally "returned?" As if God is a landlord! And how can a
> people return when they never really left? The Semetic people of the Holy
> Land have remained despite the Romans, Persians, Mongols, Turks and so on.
> Despite the clear recognition of being Semetic people, the Arabs have
> conveniently been labeled as "transients" by the Zionists. Well, Judaism is
> replete with transients, especially a great man named Abraham who came from
> the town of Ur in Mesopotamia, now called Iraq.
What are you saying?
That the Jews that lived in Israel stayed there and somehow became the moslems
that are known today as "Palestinians"?
And while that was happening a bunch of europeans decided to convert to judaism
and reclaim the land of Israel?
That's very convenient, but unfortunately it has absolutely nothing to do with
reality.
Jews are Semites. You just have to walk the streets of Israel and look at them
to determine that. Sure, during the generations Jews lived in other countries
some cross marriages occurred (much less than what you would expect) but still,
there are obvious cultural and genetic links even between Jews in Yemen and
Jews in Sweden.
> If the point of view is that you ripped out my kidney and transplanted it to
> yourself and now cannot give it back or you'll die, then I guess I
> understand. Still, it still wasn't your kidney to take.
The Jews that came to Israel never stole anything.
Every Jew that came to Israel up to 1948 _bought_ his land. And the price was
hard cash, not beads or mirrors.
In 1948 the UN, aware of the fact that the Jews needed some place to live in
declared that part of the territory controlled by the UK would be the state of
Israel.
At that time the "Palestinian" people had no characteristics of a nation. They
were groups of people that came from neighboring countries over the last
centuries. They never governed themselves [1] and had little to unite them [2].
It's hard to claim theft of land when the land was bought and there was no
nation to steal from.
In 1948 the Arabs of the region decided that they would not tolerate a Jewish
state and went on the offensive in order to wipe out the Jews from the area.
The common battle cry was (and still is until this day) "Itbah El Yahud" =
"Kill the Jews".
The aftermath of this war was thousands of casualties from both sides and
thousands of refugees that fled Israel once the aggressor was turned away.
I'm sure that if the Arab armies involved (Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon &
Iraq) won they would have no mercy for the Jews that were in Israel.
And besides, what would you suggest as a just and feasible solution?
That the Jewish people returns each to his origin country? [3]
I guess that that "perfect" justice would also involve the relocation of all
the non Indian Americans (including yourself).
> Well, Zionists are from the same fundemental branch as the Nazis--National
> Socialists. Israel for Jews. Things have changed since, mainly because of
> the need for Arab labor.
What? What is the connection?
This is at least the third time you've brought up Nazi Germany in this debate.
Are you one of those people who try compare Zionism to Nazism on every
occasion?
The ones that say that Israel is engaged in genocide? This is the worst kind of
anti-Semitic propaganda and obviously has no connection to reality.
> > Zionism did not start because of anything written in the bible. It started
> > because life in Europe became impossible for Jews and got it's major boost
> > after the Holocaust that proved beyond any doubt that the hatred against Jews
> > is so great that they really must defend themselves if they want to avoid
> > annihilation.
>
> I would never, ever attempt to justify the evil Nazi attrocities but what
> previously spawned such resentment for the Jews of Europe? I refuse to
> believe that the Jews were just minding their own business, not willfully
> doing anything that pissed anyone off. Once again, not a justification for
> the Nazis.
You seem to have too much understanding for all the wrong people.
I'm not sure I should even dignify that with an answer, but here goes:
Ever since the Roman empire turned to Christianity and needed to explain why
they crucified Christ the Jewish people were the easiest and most popular
scapegoat in europe (and across the world).
I guess the Gypsies, crippled, retarded and homosexuals also pissed everyone
off.
For that matter, so did Poland, Frace, England, Russia etc... ("why else were
they invaded?...")
> But let's be honest: Who invaded who? Who's Semetic and who's European?
Both the Jews and the Palestinians are Semites.
The Arab nations surrounding Israel invaded Israel in 1948.
> > You seem to have a double standard here.
>
> I really don't think so and I hope my previous comments on the rules of
> engagement best describe how I view the picture,
I still think there is an obvious double standard on your part.
> though I deplore injustice
> and violence. I encourage seeking out, recognizing and understanding what
> fosters such hatred and not contributing to it.
The most obvious contributor to the hatred is the Palestinian media and
leadership that educate a new generation of "Shaheeds" (martyrs) by
continuously portraying Israel and Israelis as monsters and by consistently
spreading false accusations like the ones you've been exposed to. (see my
original post for some ridiculous examples).
> Thanks,
>
> Dan
- David
[1] Up until Israel withdrew from the parts the Palestinian Authority now
governs. Note that the Palestinians in neighboring countries still do not
govern
themselves.
[2] That changed over the last 53 years. The battle against Israel (and against
other ruling governments, like Jordan's) would create a common history to unite
them.
[3] I can trace my family 9 generations back in Israel on my mother's side and
11 generation back on my father's side. Were should I return to?
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ross Crawford writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ross Crawford writes:
> > > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > > > Ross, your stance here completely baffles me. You're nitpicking against
> > > > taking action
> > >
> > > On the contrary, I summarised what I think is appropriate action here
> > > http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=12670
> >
> > There's no plan there. You say that you support trying them but you haven't
> > addressed what to do if the Taliban, even after being presented with clear
> > and credible evidence (assuming it can be developed) that anyone else would
> > accept, thumbs their nose and says you can't have him.
> >
> > So you're nitpicking against taking action.
>
> Huh??? Yes, I'm against military action. That doesn't mean I'm against action.
So what is your plan then? Ask nicely? What if asking causes Pakistan to
topple and the Taliban to launch a war?
>
> > > > but you (and Jason) haven't proposed any concrete plan of your
> > > > own other than (paraphrasing and guessing) "right all the injustice in the
> > > > world everywhere and the murderers will stop murdering". Please explain how
> > > > that would work. I don't see it.
> > >
> > > Does "concrete plan" == "the right response"?
> > >
> > > > We do need to right injustice. We do need to examine our policies, internal
> > > > and external. But now is not the time.
> > >
> > > On the contrary, I think we've just been shown it *is* the time.
> >
> > Please elaborate. Why now rather than after bringing the fever down?
>
> Because thinking about it now will reduce the needless deaths which will
> just mount up the longer we leave it.
So you are so sure that you know what to fix that you see debate as
"needless"? My, I wish I was that certain. I see debate as very needful, and
ultimately, distracting. But righting all the worlds ills cannot come first.
We need to clean up the messes we made and that's about it.
> > > > It will take years and trillions of dollars to do this war. It may cost in
> > > > real dollars as much as WW II did. I think the people of America are ready
> > > > to spend that though. We are slow to anger as a nation but our anger is a
> > > > mighty thing once aroused.
> > >
> > > It will probably also cost a comparable number of innocent lives, many of >>>them American. Are you ready to spend that much? I'm not.
> >
> > No one is, at this juncture, asking you to. Take it up with your government
> > if and when they decide to support the US and you don't agree. America will
> > no doubt have to bear the brunt of this expense just like we always do. So
> > be it. It is the burden of Empire. Ask Kipling.
The following list is a false question... let's examine it point by point.
> 1. List all the wars in history.
Was America a power during the Hundred Years War? No. Your list needs to be
confined to those wars that have occured since we have been the largest
power. Certainly post 1900, arguably, post WW I. (I was incorrect to say
"always" when I should have said "ever since we have been a world power")
> 2. Put a tick against those for which America bore the brunt of the human
> expense.
Define "human" expense. Dying for your country is not how you win wars, it's
making the other fellow die for his. Human expense in my definition is
broader than casualties. It includes economic expense. By that metric, all
major wars on the post WW I list get a tick.
> 3. Have another look at your last paragraph.
Still there, still valid.
The US has saved the world many times since it appeared as a major player on
the world stage. That sticks in the craw of some people who don't like the
idea that the US is fundamentally a force for good (flawed yes, but
fundamentally a good guy, just as the USSR was fundamentally evil)... too bad.
The US will bear the brunt this time too, we were the ones attacked. If
securing our borders makes the world a safer place for everyone else I'm OK
with that.
> > I'd prefer that we be an inward looking Republic but the world may not allow
> > us to do so and if we have to save the rest of the world (again) at our own
> > expense to make things safe, why then I guess we will just have to do so.
> >
> > > And I'm not ready to deny
> > > these people the right to a fair trial, just because they deny me that right.
> >
> > Nor am I.
>
> And yet you're happy for America (and whoever wants to help) to launch bombs
> in many countries, and likely kill hundreds of thousands of people without a
> trial, justifying it with words like "it was war" and "they started it"?
No, I am not "happy" for bombing. That's a monstrous distortion. Shame on you.
I have said already that I am concerned by this notion that we need to start
by bombing. To say otherwise is to put words in my mouth or to erect a straw
man that has nothing to do with what I am saying. Perhaps you should read
more carefully?
We need to start by delivering ultimatums and delivering propaganda. Only if
those fail do we do something... above I asked you (again), what if the
Taliban refuses to turn bin Laden over? You have not provided an answer. I
am thinking farther ahead than you are.
The course of not willing to go the next step if required to do so has failed.
++Lar
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> Ross, your stance here completely baffles me. You're nitpicking against
> taking action but you (and Jason) haven't proposed any concrete plan of your
> own other than (paraphrasing and guessing) "right all the injustice in the
> world everywhere and the murderers will stop murdering". Please explain how
> that would work. I don't see it.
That's childish. I could summarise your position as "lets kill lots of
people somewhere far away - that'll make everything better", but that would
be equally insulting. I certainly don't recommend the US try to march in
everywhere to 'right injustice'. I'm glad that some others are urging
restraint now, as are various world leaders, as this is a painful argument.
I've already offered what I can as a solution, and I'm sorry if it doesn't
provide the quick-fix that some people are crying out for. But, to me the
actions of these terrorists are the result of long-term frustration, and I
don't see a short-term answer bringing anything but more instability.
> We do need to right injustice. We do need to examine our policies, internal
> and external. But now is not the time.
No, now is exactly the time - otherwise the US will make the same mistakes
it always has by making unwelcome military interventions.
> ...
> That makes bin Laden a target, a very important target, whether he's the
> perpetrator or not. So your question is irrelevant. He has enough blood on
> his hands to be a target regardless. If he didn't do this particular crime,
> he's still a (previously indicted) criminal worthy of punishment and after
> we find him, we'll find proof it wasn't him with his stuff.
But you have no more reason to go after him than you did a month ago. The
only difference is a wave of public fervour that can justify a jump in the
'defense' budget. The US will lose the support of the rest of the world if
it attacks Afghanistan without proof that bin Laden was responsible for
these specific attacks. It will also upset an enormous amount of people who
in turn might want to retaliate against the US, probably with more terrorist
attacks, since they don't have the resources to strike back at the US any
other way.
> It will take years and trillions of dollars to do this war. It may cost in
> real dollars as much as WW II did. I think the people of America are ready
> to spend that though. We are slow to anger as a nation but our anger is a
> mighty thing once aroused.
Yes, it costs the US money. On the other side of the world, however, people
will be paying in lives, poverty and political instability for years afterwards.
> > I realise some people will think I'm heartless making such comments,
> > but that's just how I feel about Dave's comments.
>
> I think there is merit in questioning, up to a point. We need to make sure
> we do things in as safe and effective manner as possible. But once the
> questions have been satisfactorily answered, the perception of the
> questioner isn't that they are heartless, but that they are clueless. You
> aren't over that line quite yet. Quite. But you're close.
Now you're insulting anyone who wants to see restraint. I know you're a
resonable bloke, and I know that subjects like this bring out extreme
opinions where people are bound to disagree; please don't dismiss other
peoples' with insults.
Jason J Railton
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Jason J. Railton writes:
<snip lots of mischaracterisation by Jason and myself>
Let's try to see if we can find the common ground here.
You and Ross agree with me and others that the terrorists who perpretrated
this attack ought to be identified and brought to justice. We just differ on
what that implies and how one would go about it.
I agree with you and Ross that we need to reexamine US policy and reevaluate
who we give support to and who we don't. We just differ on when this ought
to occur timewise (and in some cases, in what direction it ought to move, I
suspect).
Are those fair statements?
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Jason J. Railton writes:
> <snip lots of mischaracterisation by Jason and myself>
>
> Let's try to see if we can find the common ground here.
>
> You and Ross agree with me and others that the terrorists who perpretrated
> this attack ought to be identified and brought to justice. We just differ on
> what that implies and how one would go about it.
Seems a good summation from my POV.
> I agree with you and Ross that we need to reexamine US policy and reevaluate
> who we give support to and who we don't. We just differ on when this ought
> to occur timewise (and in some cases, in what direction it ought to move, I
> suspect).
No probs there either. I'd prefer not to discuss directions, as I have fairly
limited knowledge of America's foreign policy. But I think it's fair to assume
that someone's pretty annoyed with it right now, so I say the sooner it can be
examined, the better.
ROSCO
|
|
| |
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > Let's try to see if we can find the common ground here.
> >
> > You and Ross agree with me and others that the terrorists who perpretrated
> > this attack ought to be identified and brought to justice. We just differ on
> > what that implies and how one would go about it.
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ross Crawford writes:
> Seems a good summation from my POV.
Yup, me too.
> > I agree with you and Ross that we need to reexamine US policy and reevaluate
> > who we give support to and who we don't. We just differ on when this ought
> > to occur timewise (and in some cases, in what direction it ought to move, I
> > suspect).
>
> No probs there either. I'd prefer not to discuss directions, as I have fairly
> limited knowledge of America's foreign policy. But I think it's fair to assume
> that someone's pretty annoyed with it right now, so I say the sooner it can be
> examined, the better.
Yes, this is the difference. The US seems to want military action against
known terrorists, even if bin Laden is just a suspect in this one case. I
would suggest that the only immediate action that should be taken is to
prove then apprehend the organisers of this paticular act of terrorism.
I don't think you can tackle terrorism as a whole until the question of why
the US was the target is examined, because without this knowledge, military
action is not going to be effective, and will just cause more chaos and
unrest. There's already a face-off along the Afghan/Pakistani border from
the suggstion that the US could mass there.
Jason J Railton
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> I hope it is a gross exaggeration, but I heard last night that the sanctions
> in Iraq had killed 500,000 in total.
Both you and Dan have bandied this number about before. Here's a piece that
tries to debunk it. It is a good piece for several other reasons, IMHO.
Is the author correct that this statistic is a sham?
http://www.dailytelegraph.co.uk/dt?ac=006068940062214&rtmo=qKxJMMX9&atmo=gggggggK&pg=/01/9/23/dl01.html
(the part about Iraqi children is several paragraphs in)
|
|
| |
"Larry Pieniazek" <lpieniazek@mercator.com> wrote in message
news:GK3Mz9.90A@lugnet.com...
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> > I hope it is a gross exaggeration, but I heard last night that the • sanctions
> > in Iraq had killed 500,000 in total.
>
> Both you and Dan have bandied this number about before. Here's a piece • that
> tries to debunk it. It is a good piece for several other reasons, IMHO.
>
> Is the author correct that this statistic is a sham?
>
>
http://www.dailytelegraph.co.uk/dt?ac=006068940062214&rtmo=qKxJMMX9&atmo=ggg
ggggK&pg=/01/9/23/dl01.html
Daily Telegraph = Right Wing Rag. I prefer independent news:
http://news6.thdo.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/newsid_35000/35065.stm
Scott A
>
> (the part about Iraqi children is several paragraphs in)
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
>
> "Larry Pieniazek" <lpieniazek@mercator.com> wrote in message
> news:GK3Mz9.90A@lugnet.com...
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> > > I hope it is a gross exaggeration, but I heard last night that the • sanctions
> > > in Iraq had killed 500,000 in total.
> >
> > Both you and Dan have bandied this number about before. Here's a piece • that
> > tries to debunk it. It is a good piece for several other reasons, IMHO.
> >
> > Is the author correct that this statistic is a sham?
> >
> >
> http://www.dailytelegraph.co.uk/dt?ac=006068940062214&rtmo=qKxJMMX9&atmo=ggg
> ggggK&pg=/01/9/23/dl01.html
>
> Daily Telegraph = Right Wing Rag. I prefer independent news:
> http://news6.thdo.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/newsid_35000/35065.stm
Great. Thanks for sharing your preferences. I prefer you not post here at
all, since you have nothing to contribute. Doubt I'll get my wish though.
Do you have any fact based debunking or is your entire critique a slur of
the source with nothing else behind it?
|
|
| |
"Scott A" <eh105jb@mx1.pair.com> wrote in message news:GKBx4v.AL2@lugnet.com...
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Lawrence Wilkes writes:
> >
> > "Scott A" <eh105jb@mx1.pair.com> wrote in message news:GKB7Hq.1wt@lugnet.com...
> >
> >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > http://www.dailytelegraph.co.uk/dt?ac=006068940062214&rtmo=qKxJMMX9&atmo=ggg
> > > ggggK&pg=/01/9/23/dl01.html
> > >
> > > Daily Telegraph = Right Wing Rag. I prefer independent news:
> > > http://news6.thdo.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/newsid_35000/35065.stm
> >
> >
> > LOL
> > Surely BBC=Left Wing Rag?
>
> Ah ha! I have smoked out a daily Telegraph reader (most things are left wing
> to them)! ;-)
Is it possible to find an 'independent' source of news?
I guess independent could imply unbiased, as opposed to indepenent of anything else.
But doesn't unbiased just mean unopinionated, middle of the road.
The Independent seems relatively independent though. Not a bad read.
Having said that the ONLY paper we ever buy is the Daily Mail on Saturday, purely because my wife prefers their weekly
TV pullout to the rest. However, the newspaper itself is a good laugh. Definitely unbiased - not.
And actually, the BBC is not that bad for news (I did watch Question Time the week of the attack)
regards
lawrence
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ross Crawford writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ross Crawford writes:
> > > > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> >
> > > > > but you (and Jason) haven't proposed any concrete plan of your
> > > > > own other than (paraphrasing and guessing) "right all the injustice in the
> > > > > world everywhere and the murderers will stop murdering". Please explain • how
> > > > > that would work. I don't see it.
> > > >
> > > > Does "concrete plan" == "the right response"?
> > > >
> > > > > We do need to right injustice. We do need to examine our policies, • internal
> > > > > and external. But now is not the time.
> > > >
> > > > On the contrary, I think we've just been shown it *is* the time.
> > >
> > > Please elaborate. Why now rather than after bringing the fever down?
> >
> > Because thinking about it now will reduce the needless deaths which will
> > just mount up the longer we leave it.
>
> So you are so sure that you know what to fix that you see debate as
> "needless"? My, I wish I was that certain. I see debate as very needful, and
> ultimately, distracting.
I never said I know what to fix, or that the debate was needless. You said now
is not the time for examining policies, I think it is, whether or not other
action is taken concurrently.
> But righting all the worlds ills cannot come first.
> We need to clean up the messes we made and that's about it.
Sure. I just disagree with the notion of bombing Afghanistan (with bombs, not
propaganda).
> > > > And I'm not ready to deny
> > > > these people the right to a fair trial, just because they deny me that • right.
> > >
> > > Nor am I.
> >
> > And yet you're happy for America (and whoever wants to help) to launch bombs
> > in many countries, and likely kill hundreds of thousands of people without a
> > trial, justifying it with words like "it was war" and "they started it"?
>
> No, I am not "happy" for bombing. That's a monstrous distortion. Shame on you.
That's why there's a question mark at the end. However, you do seem ready to
bomb these countries if propaganda doesn't work. How far should the pressure
option be pushed? When do we decide "OK thats enough talk, we're gonna blow up
those ruins of yours a bit more"?
> I have said already that I am concerned by this notion that we need to start
> by bombing. To say otherwise is to put words in my mouth or to erect a straw
> man that has nothing to do with what I am saying. Perhaps you should read
> more carefully?
Perhaps we all should.
> We need to start by delivering ultimatums and delivering propaganda. Only if
> those fail do we do something... above I asked you (again), what if the
> Taliban refuses to turn bin Laden over? You have not provided an answer. I
> am thinking farther ahead than you are.
No, you're just voicing an opinion I don't agree with. You think I haven't
thought about what options are available? Just because I don't have an answer
doesn't make the answer you (and others) are proposing the correct action, as
I've said before.
> The course of not willing to go the next step if required to do so has failed.
Just gotta find that next next step. Damn, these torch batteries die at the
most in-opportune moments...
ROSCO
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Lawrence Wilkes writes:
>
> "Scott A" <eh105jb@mx1.pair.com> wrote in message news:GKBx4v.AL2@lugnet.com...
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Lawrence Wilkes writes:
> > >
> > > "Scott A" <eh105jb@mx1.pair.com> wrote in message news:GKB7Hq.1wt@lugnet.com...
> > >
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > http://www.dailytelegraph.co.uk/dt?ac=006068940062214&rtmo=qKxJMMX9&atmo=ggg
> > > > ggggK&pg=/01/9/23/dl01.html
> > > >
> > > > Daily Telegraph = Right Wing Rag. I prefer independent news:
> > > > http://news6.thdo.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/newsid_35000/35065.stm
> > >
> > >
> > > LOL
> > > Surely BBC=Left Wing Rag?
> >
> > Ah ha! I have smoked out a daily Telegraph reader (most things are left wing
> > to them)! ;-)
>
>
> Is it possible to find an 'independent' source of news?
> I guess independent could imply unbiased, as opposed to indepenent of anything else.
> But doesn't unbiased just mean unopinionated, middle of the road.
>
> The Independent seems relatively independent though. Not a bad read.
> Having said that the ONLY paper we ever buy is the Daily Mail on Saturday, purely because my wife prefers their weekly
> TV pullout to the rest. However, the newspaper itself is a good laugh. Definitely unbiased - not.
>
> And actually, the BBC is not that bad for news (I did watch Question Time the week of the attack)
I was a little bemused at the response to that. QT audiences are usually
selected to represent UK political opinion. If the BBC did do that, they can
hardly complain at the outcome! I agreed with a good deal of what was said –
I just did not like the tone 100% of the time.
As for news independence, I think it is easy for any one report to be
ill-informed are appear biased. But over time independence of any source
should be possible. The great thing about the BBC News is that they only
have a remit to report news – not maintain commercial income.
Scott A
>
> regards
> lawrence
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> >
> > "Larry Pieniazek" <lpieniazek@mercator.com> wrote in message
> > news:GK3Mz9.90A@lugnet.com...
> > > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> > > > I hope it is a gross exaggeration, but I heard last night that the • sanctions
> > > > in Iraq had killed 500,000 in total.
> > >
> > > Both you and Dan have bandied this number about before. Here's a piece • that
> > > tries to debunk it. It is a good piece for several other reasons, IMHO.
> > >
> > > Is the author correct that this statistic is a sham?
> > >
> > >
> > http://www.dailytelegraph.co.uk/dt?ac=006068940062214&rtmo=qKxJMMX9&atmo=ggg
> > ggggK&pg=/01/9/23/dl01.html
> >
> > Daily Telegraph = Right Wing Rag. I prefer independent news:
> > http://news6.thdo.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/newsid_35000/35065.stm
>
> Great. Thanks for sharing your preferences. I prefer you not post here at
> all, since you have nothing to contribute.
...and you have so much opinion to contribute. I note you have started *16*
threads in this group over the last two weeks or so.
> Doubt I'll get my wish though.
>
> Do you have any fact based debunking or is your entire critique a slur of
> the source with nothing else behind it?
Read the page. Follow the link to UNICEF. Find this:
==+==
According to a report in 1999 by the United Nations Children's Fund
(UNICEF), children under five in the centre and south of the country were
dying at more than twice the rate a decade ago. The UN estimated that as
many as 1.1m Iraqis were in need of humanitarian assistance, including basic
food rations, vaccines and other medicines.
==+==
Is that enough? Or do you want to see pictures of the bodies?
Scott A
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> >
> > "Larry Pieniazek" <lpieniazek@mercator.com> wrote in message
> > news:GK3Mz9.90A@lugnet.com...
> > > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> > > > I hope it is a gross exaggeration, but I heard last night that the • sanctions
> > > > in Iraq had killed 500,000 in total.
> > >
> > > Both you and Dan have bandied this number about before. Here's a piece • that
> > > tries to debunk it. It is a good piece for several other reasons, IMHO.
> > >
> > > Is the author correct that this statistic is a sham?
> > >
> > >
> > http://www.dailytelegraph.co.uk/dt?ac=006068940062214&rtmo=qKxJMMX9&atmo=ggg
> > ggggK&pg=/01/9/23/dl01.html
> >
> > Daily Telegraph = Right Wing Rag. I prefer independent news:
> > http://news6.thdo.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/newsid_35000/35065.stm
>
> Great. Thanks for sharing your preferences. I prefer you not post here at
> all, since you have nothing to contribute. Doubt I'll get my wish though.
>
> Do you have any fact based debunking or is your entire critique a slur of
> the source with nothing else behind it?
...and from Saturday's Guardian:
==+==
In 1996, Madeleine Albright, then the US secretary of state, was asked on
national television what she felt about the fact that 500,000 Iraqi children
had died as a result of US economic sanctions. She replied that it was "a
very hard choice", but that, all things considered, "we think the price is
worth it".
==+==
Do you agree with her?
Scott A
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> >
> > Great. Thanks for sharing your preferences. I prefer you not post here at
> > all, since you have nothing to contribute.
>
> ...and you have so much opinion to contribute. I note you have started *16*
> threads in this group over the last two weeks or so.
And I for one have got a lot out of these (and other) threads. Debate isn't
about stating your opinion & defending it to the death. It's about working out
what your opinion is, based on as much information as you can get from
*anywhere*. You'll note Lar & I have disagreed a fair bit over the last few
weeks, but I see that as a positive thing.
And someone's gotta start the threads...
ROSCO
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> ==+==
> In 1996, Madeleine Albright, then the US secretary of state, was asked on
> national television what she felt about the fact that 500,000 Iraqi children
> had died as a result of US economic sanctions. She replied that it was "a
> very hard choice", but that, all things considered, "we think the price is
> worth it".
> ==+==
>
> Do you agree with her?
This is a "have you stopped beating your dog" question. Shame on you.
Madeline Albright is not my nominee for best Secretary of State for the 20th
century, and her answer to this question is part of the reason why.
I reject that 500K children in Iraq have died since sanctions were imposed.
That statistic itself is questionable. I note you haven't debunked it,
merely cited it again.
I reject that the sanctions are the REASON that children (however many)
died. The sanctions do not prevent the flow of food into the country.
I reject that even if the sanctions actually *caused* the death of even 1
child that it's the fault of the imposers of the sanctions for the deaths.
The *fault* lies with the lawless dictator Hussein, not the US.
Despite all that, I do not support sanctions in general and not in this
particular case either.
++Lar
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
>
> > ==+==
> > In 1996, Madeleine Albright, then the US secretary of state, was asked on
> > national television what she felt about the fact that 500,000 Iraqi children
> > had died as a result of US economic sanctions. She replied that it was "a
> > very hard choice", but that, all things considered, "we think the price is
> > worth it".
> > ==+==
> >
> > Do you agree with her?
>
> This is a "have you stopped beating your dog" question. Shame on you.
>
> Madeline Albright is not my nominee for best Secretary of State for the 20th
> century, and her answer to this question is part of the reason why.
>
> I reject that 500K children in Iraq have died since sanctions were imposed.
> That statistic itself is questionable. I note you haven't debunked it,
> merely cited it again.
>
> I reject that the sanctions are the REASON that children (however many)
> died. The sanctions do not prevent the flow of food into the country.
Agree with all that.
> I reject that even if the sanctions actually *caused* the death of even 1
> child that it's the fault of the imposers of the sanctions for the deaths.
> The *fault* lies with the lawless dictator Hussein, not the US.
Don't really agree with this, however I think it's pointless debating who's at
fault in such a case. Probably more important is the fact that the US let
Saddam's propaganda machine continue, so there's probably a few million Iraqis
who believe the US *is* the cause of their problems. I think a huge propaganda
campaign (in Iraq) by the US following the gulf war may've been a good idea,
though whether or not it would've been effective (or possible) without storming
Bagdad and ousting Hussein is debatable.
ROSCO
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
>
> > ==+==
> > In 1996, Madeleine Albright, then the US secretary of state, was asked on
> > national television what she felt about the fact that 500,000 Iraqi children
> > had died as a result of US economic sanctions. She replied that it was "a
> > very hard choice", but that, all things considered, "we think the price is
> > worth it".
> > ==+==
> >
> > Do you agree with her?
>
> This is a "have you stopped beating your dog" question. Shame on you.
Shame on her. Shame on you for not answering the question.
>
> Madeline Albright is not my nominee for best Secretary of State for the 20th
> century, and her answer to this question is part of the reason why.
>
> I reject that 500K children in Iraq have died since sanctions were imposed.
> That statistic itself is questionable. I note you haven't debunked it,
> merely cited it again.
I have never stated that I thought it was true. The fact that your govermnet
agrees with though does give it some credance.
>
> I reject that the sanctions are the REASON that children (however many)
> died. The sanctions do not prevent the flow of food into the country.
Really?
From: http://www.unicef.org/emerg/Sanctions.htm
==+==
In both Iraq and Haiti, sanctions resulted in dramatic increases in the
price of staple foods. In Iraq, 1995 market prices had increased to more
than 1,000 times their pre-sanctions levels. More costly food directly
contributed to rising rates of malnutrition. In Iraq, from 1991 to 1995,
wasting among under-5's quadrupled to 12 percent, while stunting doubled to
28 percent Meanwhile, in Haiti, one study demonstrated a rise in child
malnutrition from 7 to 35 percent in the two years following the
introduction of sanctions.
Sanctions also affect food production and agriculture. In both Haiti and
Iraq, agricultural inputs - including spare parts, seeds, fertilizers and
pesticides - were either restricted or in short supply. The high cost of
scarcely available cooking fuel led to increased use of charcoal and
firewood, contributing to deforestation and environmental degradation. In
Haiti, charcoal consumption increased by 19 percent during the first year of
the embargo, equivalent to cutting an additional 220,000 tons of wood.
==+==
and from: http://www.unicef.org/emerg/ImpactSanctions.htm
==+==
EFFECTS OF SANCTIONS
DIRECT EFFECTS
(immediate)
1. Decreased Imports
Medicines
Food Imports
Agricultural Inputs - fertilizer, pesticides, spare parts
Industrial/Commercial inputs/parts
Other spare parts
Fuel
Educational materials
Water Purification/supply inputs
==+==
later on the same page:
==+==
Take for example a country such as Iraq which, prior to the implementation
of sanctions, imported 70 percent of its foodstuffs. Sanctions, by impeding
the availability of food, directly contributed to the enormous rise in
market prices resulting in measurably higher levels of malnutrition across
the country. In this instance, a possible sanctions indicator (malnutrition)
is interpreted in view of an important contextual variable (high food
imports, lack of self-sufficiency regarding food production) that made
civilians more vulnerable to the effects of sanctions.
==+==
>
> I reject that even if the sanctions actually *caused* the death of even 1
> child that it's the fault of the imposers of the sanctions for the deaths.
> The *fault* lies with the lawless dictator Hussein, not the US.
So Madeleine Albright was wrong then? So less food, higher food prices and
starvation are not linked? Do you really believe that?
From: http://www.unicef.org/newsline/99pr29.htm
==+==
The surveys reveal that in the south and center of Iraq -- home to 85 per
cent of the country's population -- under-5 mortality more than doubled from
56 deaths per 1000 live births (1984-1989) to 131 deaths per 1000 live
births (1994-1999). Likewise infant mortality -- defined as the death of
children in their first year -- increased from 47 per 1000 live births to
108 per 1000 live births within the same time frame. The surveys indicate a
maternal mortality ratio in the south and center of 294 deaths per 100,000
live births over the ten-year period 1989 to 1999.
Ms. Bellamy noted that if the substantial reduction in child mortality
throughout Iraq during the 1980s had continued through the 1990s, there
would have been half a million fewer deaths of children under-five in the
country as a whole during the eight year period 1991 to 1998. As a partial
explanation, she pointed to a March statement of the Security Council Panel
on Humanitarian Issues which states: "Even if not all suffering in Iraq can
be imputed to external factors, especially sanctions, the Iraqi people would
not be undergoing such deprivations in the absence of the prolonged measures
imposed by the Security Council and the effects of war."
==+==
I accept that SH is not trying to make things better for his countrymen, and
may well actually be making it worse for them. But who is the fool, him for
playing that game, or us for going along with it?
>
> Despite all that, I do not support sanctions in general and not in this
> particular case either.
Indeed I understand you want to destroy what it left of the infrastructure
in Iraq as SH dared to voice his opinion:
From: http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=12631
==+==
If I were Saddam Hussein, who has made the foolish mistake of exulting, I'd
be enjoying the running water while I could. That country needs to be
disassembled too, their citizens freed, and the oil pumped out and sold to
pay war reparations.
==+==
Scott A
>
> ++Lar
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ross Crawford writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> >
> > > ==+==
> > > In 1996, Madeleine Albright, then the US secretary of state, was asked on
> > > national television what she felt about the fact that 500,000 Iraqi children
> > > had died as a result of US economic sanctions. She replied that it was "a
> > > very hard choice", but that, all things considered, "we think the price is
> > > worth it".
> > > ==+==
> > >
> > > Do you agree with her?
> >
> > This is a "have you stopped beating your dog" question. Shame on you.
> >
> > Madeline Albright is not my nominee for best Secretary of State for the 20th
> > century, and her answer to this question is part of the reason why.
> >
> > I reject that 500K children in Iraq have died since sanctions were imposed.
> > That statistic itself is questionable. I note you haven't debunked it,
> > merely cited it again.
> >
> > I reject that the sanctions are the REASON that children (however many)
> > died. The sanctions do not prevent the flow of food into the country.
>
> Agree with all that.
You don't agree with this then:
from: http://www.unicef.org/emerg/ImpactSanctions.htm
==+==
EFFECTS OF SANCTIONS
DIRECT EFFECTS
(immediate)
1. Decreased Imports
Medicines
Food Imports
Agricultural Inputs - fertilizer, pesticides, spare parts
Industrial/Commercial inputs/parts
Other spare parts
Fuel
Educational materials
Water Purification/supply inputs
==+==
Scott A
>
> > I reject that even if the sanctions actually *caused* the death of even 1
> > child that it's the fault of the imposers of the sanctions for the deaths.
> > The *fault* lies with the lawless dictator Hussein, not the US.
>
> Don't really agree with this, however I think it's pointless debating who's at
> fault in such a case. Probably more important is the fact that the US let
> Saddam's propaganda machine continue, so there's probably a few million Iraqis
> who believe the US *is* the cause of their problems. I think a huge propaganda
> campaign (in Iraq) by the US following the gulf war may've been a good idea,
> though whether or not it would've been effective (or possible) without storming
> Bagdad and ousting Hussein is debatable.
>
> ROSCO
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ross Crawford writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
<snip first two parts of rebuttal>
> > I reject that even if the sanctions actually *caused* the death of even 1
> > child that it's the fault of the imposers of the sanctions for the deaths.
> > The *fault* lies with the lawless dictator Hussein, not the US.
>
> Don't really agree with this, however I think it's pointless debating who's at
> fault in such a case.
No, it is in fact quite important, else you leave things hanging and you
leave things open to the chattering classes claiming that 911 was our fault,
for example.
Let's try an analogy. Suppose Fred Bloggs Sr. is a justly convicted murderer
and is put in prison. Naturally, that means he isn't working any more.
Suppose further that Fred Bloggs Jr. now has to go without a new Xbox,
because there is no money to pay for one in his family. Is it the *fault* of
the state because they put Fred Sr. in jail?
That's, in this case, the proximate cause (something not shown to my
satisfaction in the sanctions/children case) of the family's poverty.
Yet even though prison clearly is the proximate cause in this case, the
fault lies with Fred Sr. HIS actions initiated the restraint of his further
actions that are causing no Xbox for Fred Jr.
The sanctions were imposed with the intent of restraining Hussein from
committing more crimes. (that they are an ineffective remedy is a different
issue). Therefore they are not the fault, even IF they are the cause, which
no amount of folderol from the UN is going to convince me of.
Making this point clear is *important*.
A failing of the "I feel your pain" gang we had in DC from 92 to 00 is that
they don't actually grasp right and wrong well enough to explain this, and
thuse we have Madeline Albright getting booby trapped and falsely admitting
to fault when she should have been turning the tables on the questioner and
asking him if he's stopped beating his dog.
She's a twit and wasn't qualified to be UN ambassador, much less Secretary
of State. Her answer should have been the same as mine. People who quote her
answer in this case in support of their arguments are twits too.
> Probably more important is the fact that the US let
> Saddam's propaganda machine continue, so there's probably a few million Iraqis
> who believe the US *is* the cause of their problems. I think a huge propaganda
> campaign (in Iraq) by the US following the gulf war may've been a good idea,
> though whether or not it would've been effective (or possible) without >storming
> Bagdad and ousting Hussein is debatable.
Agreed. As I said before, Iraq as a country ought to have been disassembled.
Note carefully what that means. It does not mean destruction of physical
things, it means dismantling of the government, and replacement of dictators
with democracy. They were a conquered country that attacked neighbors.
Intervention in their internal affairs was justified.
The Taliban, if it is shown to be a harborer of terrorists that interfere in
the internal affairs of other countries, ought to suffer the same fate.
So when I say Saddam should enjoy the running water while he can it means
that he should enjoy being in Baghdad and in power while he can, not that we
ought to deliberately bomb the running water out of commission.
> ROSCO
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ross Crawford writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
>
> <snip first two parts of rebuttal>
>
> > > I reject that even if the sanctions actually *caused* the death of even 1
> > > child that it's the fault of the imposers of the sanctions for the deaths.
> > > The *fault* lies with the lawless dictator Hussein, not the US.
> >
> > Don't really agree with this, however I think it's pointless debating who's at
> > fault in such a case.
>
> No, it is in fact quite important, else you leave things hanging and you
> leave things open to the chattering classes claiming that 911 was our fault,
> for example.
>
> Let's try an analogy. Suppose Fred Bloggs Sr. is a justly convicted murderer
> and is put in prison. Naturally, that means he isn't working any more.
> Suppose further that Fred Bloggs Jr. now has to go without a new Xbox,
> because there is no money to pay for one in his family. Is it the *fault* of
> the state because they put Fred Sr. in jail?
>
> That's, in this case, the proximate cause (something not shown to my
> satisfaction in the sanctions/children case) of the family's poverty.
>
> Yet even though prison clearly is the proximate cause in this case, the
> fault lies with Fred Sr. HIS actions initiated the restraint of his further
> actions that are causing no Xbox for Fred Jr.
>
> The sanctions were imposed with the intent of restraining Hussein from
> committing more crimes. (that they are an ineffective remedy is a different
> issue). Therefore they are not the fault, even IF they are the cause, which
> no amount of folderol from the UN is going to convince me of.
This is cazy logic. You talk like sanctions are good & proven weapon which
always work. They are not.
>
> Making this point clear is *important*.
I agree.
>
> A failing of the "I feel your pain" gang we had in DC from 92 to 00 is that
> they don't actually grasp right and wrong well enough to explain this,
You mean they did not agree with your "grasp right and wrong".
> and
> thuse we have Madeline Albright getting booby trapped and falsely admitting
> to fault when she should have been turning the tables on the questioner and
> asking him if he's stopped beating his dog.
Can you prove she was "booby trapped and falsely admitting to fault". I
would be interested if you could.
>
> She's a twit and wasn't qualified to be UN ambassador, much less Secretary
> of State. Her answer should have been the same as mine. People who quote her
> answer in this case in support of their arguments are twits too.
Hmm. I must be a twit too. I must be a twit for supporting my argument with
independent data. I must be a twit for justifying my argument. Ho hum.
>
> > Probably more important is the fact that the US let
> > Saddam's propaganda machine continue, so there's probably a few million Iraqis
> > who believe the US *is* the cause of their problems. I think a huge propaganda
> > campaign (in Iraq) by the US following the gulf war may've been a good idea,
> > though whether or not it would've been effective (or possible) without >storming
> > Bagdad and ousting Hussein is debatable.
>
> Agreed. As I said before, Iraq as a country ought to have been disassembled.
Nope you said “needs to be disassembled” – present tense. You also supported
cutting of fresh water supply in Iraq because some guy expressed an opinion
– very libertarian (not).
> Note carefully what that means. It does not mean destruction of physical
> things, it means dismantling of the government, and replacement of dictators
> with democracy. They were a conquered country that attacked neighbors.
Would that not be ever so slightly hypocritical given that the US (and the
rest of the west) has a record of supporting dictators?
> Intervention in their internal affairs was justified.
>
> The Taliban, if it is shown to be a harborer of terrorists that interfere in
> the internal affairs of other countries, ought to suffer the same fate.
>
> So when I say Saddam should enjoy the running water while he can it means
> that he should enjoy being in Baghdad and in power while he can,
S Q I R M. After so long, is this really the best you can do?
> not that we
> ought to deliberately bomb the running water out of commission.
We did that the last time.
Scott A
>
> > ROSCO
|
|
| |
"Larry Pieniazek" <lpieniazek@mercator.com> wrote in message news:GKKrsr.651@lugnet.com...
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ross Crawford writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
>
> <snip first two parts of rebuttal>
>
> > > I reject that even if the sanctions actually *caused* the death of even 1
> > > child that it's the fault of the imposers of the sanctions for the deaths.
> > > The *fault* lies with the lawless dictator Hussein, not the US.
> >
> > Don't really agree with this, however I think it's pointless debating who's at
> > fault in such a case.
>
> No, it is in fact quite important, else you leave things hanging and you
> leave things open to the chattering classes claiming that 911 was our fault,
> for example.
>
> Let's try an analogy. Suppose Fred Bloggs Sr. is a justly convicted murderer
> and is put in prison. Naturally, that means he isn't working any more.
> Suppose further that Fred Bloggs Jr. now has to go without a new Xbox,
> because there is no money to pay for one in his family. Is it the *fault* of
> the state because they put Fred Sr. in jail?
>
> That's, in this case, the proximate cause (something not shown to my
> satisfaction in the sanctions/children case) of the family's poverty.
>
> Yet even though prison clearly is the proximate cause in this case, the
> fault lies with Fred Sr. HIS actions initiated the restraint of his further
> actions that are causing no Xbox for Fred Jr.
>
> The sanctions were imposed with the intent of restraining Hussein from
> committing more crimes. (that they are an ineffective remedy is a different
> issue). Therefore they are not the fault, even IF they are the cause, which
> no amount of folderol from the UN is going to convince me of.
>
> Making this point clear is *important*.
Except no one is talking about x-box'es
and no one expects the state to provide x-boxes on welfare.
But had Fred Bloggs Jr been hungry because of the lack of income to buy food, he most certainly would have been cared
for by the state.
Whilst the state might have locked away their source of income, it would have not have denied them state welfare.
lawrence
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > This is a "have you stopped beating your dog" question. Shame on you.
>
> Shame on her. Shame on you for not answering the question.
I answered it. Not my fault if you weren't paying attention.
Let's try an example.
Suppose Dave! asks you, Scott Arthur, the following question: "Have you
always been the complete and utterly clueless twit you are today?" and
demands a "Yes" or "No" answer. Whether you answer yes or no, you've agreed
to the premise.
But the correct answer is neither yes nor no. The correct answer is "I
reject the premise of the question", because the question presupposes that
you *are* currently a complete and utterly clueless twit. (For the purposes
of this example it doesn't matter whether you actually are or not)
Now if the media (newsgroup) reports that you answered "No, my twitness is
justified by the way the rest of the newsgroup acts" and ROSCO asks ME if I
agree with your answer, demanding a yes or no answer, I should not answer
yes or no to that question *either*. Instead I should point out the
falsehood of the assumed premise of the original question even if you didn't.
The fact that I did your work for you by pointing out the falsehood of the
premise doesn't mean I didn't answer ROSCO's question about your statement
just as the fact that I did Madeline Albright's work for her doesn't mean
that I didn't answer *your* question about *her* statement.
So your assertion that I didn't answer your question is false.
Hope that helps.
Please note that whether you actually are a complete and utterly clueless
twit or not has no bearing on this example.
However, if it will help you work through the example, I'll ask you the
question if you want. Let me know if it will help.
++Lar
|
|
| |
Larry you pre-suppose the question I asked required yes/no answer. I do not
concede it did. I don't like yes/no questions as the respondent does not
have to justify their answer. I suspect you like them for that very reason.
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
>
> > > This is a "have you stopped beating your dog" question. Shame on you.
> >
> > Shame on her. Shame on you for not answering the question.
>
> I answered it. Not my fault if you weren't paying attention.
>
> Let's try an example.
>
> Suppose Dave! asks you, Scott Arthur, the following question: "Have you
> always been the complete and utterly clueless twit you are today?" and
> demands a "Yes" or "No" answer. Whether you answer yes or no, you've agreed
> to the premise.
>
> But the correct answer is neither yes nor no. The correct answer is "I
> reject the premise of the question", because the question presupposes that
> you *are* currently a complete and utterly clueless twit. (For the purposes
> of this example it doesn't matter whether you actually are or not)
That is perhaps the way *you* would answer the question. I would say "I
reject the premise of the question because..."
You see I feel the need to justify myself, not spout opinion.
That is the difference between you and I.
>
> Now if the media (newsgroup) reports that you answered "No, my twitness is
> justified by the way the rest of the newsgroup acts" and ROSCO asks ME if I
> agree with your answer, demanding a yes or no answer, I should not answer
> yes or no to that question *either*. Instead I should point out the
> falsehood of the assumed premise of the original question even if you didn't.
>
> The fact that I did your work for you by pointing out the falsehood of the
> premise doesn't mean I didn't answer ROSCO's question about your statement
> just as the fact that I did Madeline Albright's work for her doesn't mean
> that I didn't answer *your* question about *her* statement.
I don't agree that you "did Madeline Albright's work for her". Madeline
Albright had three ways of answering that question:
1) Agree with the argument, but justify the position of the USA.
2) Discout the argument.
3) Defer answering due to lack of details.
You have done none of these.
>
> So your assertion that I didn't answer your question is false.
>
> Hope that helps.
>
> Please note that whether you actually are a complete and utterly clueless
> twit or not has no bearing on this example.
>
> However, if it will help you work through the example, I'll ask you the
> question if you want. Let me know if it will help.
What a fuss. What fun for you to call names rather than justify yourself. I
do note that you failed to respond to anything other than the 1st line of my
reply. Is that because it does not suit your argument? Here is the rest of
that post, I shall allow you a 2nd chance to debunk my evidence:
>
> Madeline Albright is not my nominee for best Secretary of State for the 20th
> century, and her answer to this question is part of the reason why.
>
> I reject that 500K children in Iraq have died since sanctions were imposed.
> That statistic itself is questionable. I note you haven't debunked it,
> merely cited it again.
I have never stated that I thought it was true. The fact that your govermnet
agrees with though does give it some credance.
>
> I reject that the sanctions are the REASON that children (however many)
> died. The sanctions do not prevent the flow of food into the country.
Really?
From: http://www.unicef.org/emerg/Sanctions.htm
==+==
In both Iraq and Haiti, sanctions resulted in dramatic increases in the
price of staple foods. In Iraq, 1995 market prices had increased to more
than 1,000 times their pre-sanctions levels. More costly food directly
contributed to rising rates of malnutrition. In Iraq, from 1991 to 1995,
wasting among under-5's quadrupled to 12 percent, while stunting doubled to
28 percent Meanwhile, in Haiti, one study demonstrated a rise in child
malnutrition from 7 to 35 percent in the two years following the
introduction of sanctions.
Sanctions also affect food production and agriculture. In both Haiti and
Iraq, agricultural inputs - including spare parts, seeds, fertilizers and
pesticides - were either restricted or in short supply. The high cost of
scarcely available cooking fuel led to increased use of charcoal and
firewood, contributing to deforestation and environmental degradation. In
Haiti, charcoal consumption increased by 19 percent during the first year of
the embargo, equivalent to cutting an additional 220,000 tons of wood.
==+==
and from: http://www.unicef.org/emerg/ImpactSanctions.htm
==+==
EFFECTS OF SANCTIONS
DIRECT EFFECTS
(immediate)
1. Decreased Imports
Medicines
Food Imports
Agricultural Inputs - fertilizer, pesticides, spare parts
Industrial/Commercial inputs/parts
Other spare parts
Fuel
Educational materials
Water Purification/supply inputs
==+==
later on the same page:
==+==
Take for example a country such as Iraq which, prior to the implementation
of sanctions, imported 70 percent of its foodstuffs. Sanctions, by impeding
the availability of food, directly contributed to the enormous rise in
market prices resulting in measurably higher levels of malnutrition across
the country. In this instance, a possible sanctions indicator (malnutrition)
is interpreted in view of an important contextual variable (high food
imports, lack of self-sufficiency regarding food production) that made
civilians more vulnerable to the effects of sanctions.
==+==
>
> I reject that even if the sanctions actually *caused* the death of even 1
> child that it's the fault of the imposers of the sanctions for the deaths.
> The *fault* lies with the lawless dictator Hussein, not the US.
So Madeleine Albright was wrong then? So less food, higher food prices and
starvation are not linked? Do you really believe that?
From: http://www.unicef.org/newsline/99pr29.htm
==+==
The surveys reveal that in the south and center of Iraq -- home to 85 per
cent of the country's population -- under-5 mortality more than doubled from
56 deaths per 1000 live births (1984-1989) to 131 deaths per 1000 live
births (1994-1999). Likewise infant mortality -- defined as the death of
children in their first year -- increased from 47 per 1000 live births to
108 per 1000 live births within the same time frame. The surveys indicate a
maternal mortality ratio in the south and center of 294 deaths per 100,000
live births over the ten-year period 1989 to 1999.
Ms. Bellamy noted that if the substantial reduction in child mortality
throughout Iraq during the 1980s had continued through the 1990s, there
would have been half a million fewer deaths of children under-five in the
country as a whole during the eight year period 1991 to 1998. As a partial
explanation, she pointed to a March statement of the Security Council Panel
on Humanitarian Issues which states: "Even if not all suffering in Iraq can
be imputed to external factors, especially sanctions, the Iraqi people would
not be undergoing such deprivations in the absence of the prolonged measures
imposed by the Security Council and the effects of war."
==+==
I accept that SH is not trying to make things better for his countrymen, and
may well actually be making it worse for them. But who is the fool, him for
playing that game, or us for going along with it?
>
> Despite all that, I do not support sanctions in general and not in this
> particular case either.
Indeed I understand you want to destroy what it left of the infrastructure
in Iraq as SH dared to voice his opinion:
From: http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=12631
==+==
If I were Saddam Hussein, who has made the foolish mistake of exulting, I'd
be enjoying the running water while I could. That country needs to be
disassembled too, their citizens freed, and the oil pumped out and sold to
pay war reparations.
==+==
Scott A
> ++Lar
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> > The sanctions were imposed with the intent of restraining Hussein from
> > committing more crimes. (that they are an ineffective remedy is a different
> > issue). Therefore they are not the fault, even IF they are the cause, which
> > no amount of folderol from the UN is going to convince me of.
>
> This is cazy logic. You talk like sanctions are good & proven weapon which
> always work. They are not.
Scott, do you mean when he says "they are an ineffective remedy?" Is that the
part that makes you think they are a good and proven weapon? I sometimes
wonder if we're speaking the same language. I don't agree with Larry on lots
of things, but it seems like at the least we're capable of communicating. The
crazy logic (but I don't think this is what you mean) was in the heads of those
who imposed the sanctions.
Larry, which part of Scott's cites from UNICEF are you calling folderol? Do
you disagree that the sanctions prevented Iraq from fully realizing their own
agricultural output? It seems pretty clear that what we were allowing them was
to struggle along on their own and trade oil for food. You gotta admit that
they had fairly few options. If the rate of child mortality increased
substantially during the sanction years, what do you suppose is the cause?
I kind of like Albright's quoted answer. Sometimes the stuff that we decide is
best has substantial costs, to ourselves and to others, but we are prepared to
ride it out. At least it's taking responsibility for the decisions made by the
administration...better than Reno ever really did.
> > thuse we have Madeline Albright getting booby trapped and falsely admitting
> > to fault when she should have been turning the tables on the questioner and
> > asking him if he's stopped beating his dog.
What if he had been beating his dog? Some people do.
> > Note carefully what that means. It does not mean destruction of physical
> > things, it means dismantling of the government, and replacement of dictators
> > with democracy. They were a conquered country that attacked neighbors.
>
> Would that not be ever so slightly hypocritical given that the US (and the
> rest of the west) has a record of supporting dictators?
Not at all. If one makes mistakes (and we all have), must one feel bound to
continue making those same mistakes just because they once did? For some sense
of internal consistency? Just to avoid others calling you "slightly
hypocritical?" Now that's crazy!
Chris
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
>
> Larry you pre-suppose the question I asked required yes/no answer. I do not
> concede it did. I don't like yes/no questions as the respondent does not
> have to justify their answer. I suspect you like them for that very reason.
Scott, what do you want? You posed a quote from Albright and asked if Larry
agreed with her. He answered with, as I see it, a three paragraph answer. You
claimed (foolishly or disingenously?) that he didn't answer. So he
reasonably assumed (given your verbiage) that you were pressing him for a "yes
or no" type answer. And now you're complaining that he made that guess about
your completely unclear motives and desires. I ask again, what do you want?
Which part of the following doesn't seem like Larry's answer?
====================
I reject that 500K children in Iraq have died since sanctions were imposed.
That statistic itself is questionable. I note you haven't debunked it,
merely cited it again.
I reject that the sanctions are the REASON that children (however many)
died. The sanctions do not prevent the flow of food into the country.
I reject that even if the sanctions actually *caused* the death of even 1
child that it's the fault of the imposers of the sanctions for the deaths.
The *fault* lies with the lawless dictator Hussein, not the US.
====================
Jeez!
Chris
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
>
> > > The sanctions were imposed with the intent of restraining Hussein from
> > > committing more crimes. (that they are an ineffective remedy is a different
> > > issue). Therefore they are not the fault, even IF they are the cause, which
> > > no amount of folderol from the UN is going to convince me of.
> >
> > This is cazy logic. You talk like sanctions are good & proven weapon which
> > always work. They are not.
>
> Scott, do you mean when he says "they are an ineffective remedy?" Is that the
> part that makes you think they are a good and proven weapon?
I take your point. I think that the fact that they are "ineffective" is
fundamental to understanding the situation - not an incidental fact. I
should spend more time on my messages.
> I sometimes
> wonder if we're speaking the same language. I don't agree with Larry on lots
> of things, but it seems like at the least we're capable of communicating. The
> crazy logic (but I don't think this is what you mean) was in the heads of those
> who imposed the sanctions.
>
> Larry, which part of Scott's cites from UNICEF are you calling folderol? Do
> you disagree that the sanctions prevented Iraq from fully realizing their own
> agricultural output? It seems pretty clear that what we were allowing them was
> to struggle along on their own and trade oil for food. You gotta admit that
> they had fairly few options. If the rate of child mortality increased
> substantially during the sanction years, what do you suppose is the cause?
>
> I kind of like Albright's quoted answer. Sometimes the stuff that we decide is
> best has substantial costs, to ourselves and to others, but we are prepared to
> ride it out. At least it's taking responsibility for the decisions made by the
> administration...better than Reno ever really did.
>
> > > thuse we have Madeline Albright getting booby trapped and falsely admitting
> > > to fault when she should have been turning the tables on the questioner and
> > > asking him if he's stopped beating his dog.
>
> What if he had been beating his dog? Some people do.
>
> > > Note carefully what that means. It does not mean destruction of physical
> > > things, it means dismantling of the government, and replacement of dictators
> > > with democracy. They were a conquered country that attacked neighbors.
> >
> > Would that not be ever so slightly hypocritical given that the US (and the
> > rest of the west) has a record of supporting dictators?
>
> Not at all. If one makes mistakes (and we all have), must one feel bound to
> continue making those same mistakes just because they once did?
Why not fix the mistakes 1st, before starting a new mess?
Scott A
> For some sense
> of internal consistency? Just to avoid others calling you "slightly
> hypocritical?" Now that's crazy!
>
> Chris
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> >
> > Larry you pre-suppose the question I asked required yes/no answer. I do not
> > concede it did. I don't like yes/no questions as the respondent does not
> > have to justify their answer. I suspect you like them for that very reason.
>
> Scott, what do you want? You posed a quote from Albright and asked if Larry
> agreed with her. He answered with, as I see it, a three paragraph answer. You
> claimed (foolishly or disingenously?) that he didn't answer. So he
> reasonably assumed (given your verbiage) that you were pressing him for a "yes
> or no" type answer. And now you're complaining that he made that guess about
> your completely unclear motives and desires. I ask again, what do you want?
>
> Which part of the following doesn't seem like Larry's answer?
>
> ====================
>
> I reject that 500K children in Iraq have died since sanctions were imposed.
> That statistic itself is questionable. I note you haven't debunked it,
> merely cited it again.
>
> I reject that the sanctions are the REASON that children (however many)
> died. The sanctions do not prevent the flow of food into the country.
>
> I reject that even if the sanctions actually *caused* the death of even 1
> child that it's the fault of the imposers of the sanctions for the deaths.
> The *fault* lies with the lawless dictator Hussein, not the US.
>
> ====================
>
> Jeez!
That is 100% opinion on his part. I offer facts/independent 3rd party
opinion. Larry offers his opinion. I see a difference between the two. If
it turns out that Larry has expert experience of this field, he should be
able to substantiate his opinion. If he has some understanding of this
field, he should be able to substantiate his opinion. If he is just being
obtuse, he may not be able to.
… but that’s just my opinion.
Scott A
>
> Chris
|
|
| |
Scott A wrote:
> > Not at all. If one makes mistakes (and we all have), must one feel bound to
> > continue making those same mistakes just because they once did?
>
> Why not fix the mistakes 1st, before starting a new mess?
Because one can't afford to fix every mistake one has ever made. Do you
think the UK should fix all of the mistakes it made with it's
colonialism? Who is going to fix the mistakes the Romans made with their
colonialism (after all, some of our modern troubles do derive from those
mistakes)? Who's going to fix the mistakes that prehistoric man almost
certainly made that we have very little idea about, but which certainly
had ramifications still being felt today?
--
Frank Filz
-----------------------------
Work: mailto:ffilz@us.ibm.com (business only please)
Home: mailto:ffilz@mindspring.com
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> > Which part of the following doesn't seem like Larry's answer?
> > I reject that 500K children in Iraq have died since sanctions were imposed.
> > That statistic itself is questionable. I note you haven't debunked it,
> > merely cited it again.
> >
> > I reject that the sanctions are the REASON that children (however many)
> > died. The sanctions do not prevent the flow of food into the country.
> >
> > I reject that even if the sanctions actually *caused* the death of even 1
> > child that it's the fault of the imposers of the sanctions for the deaths.
> > The *fault* lies with the lawless dictator Hussein, not the US.
> That is 100% opinion on his part. I offer facts/independent 3rd party
> opinion. Larry offers his opinion. I see a difference between the two. If
> it turns out that Larry has expert experience of this field, he should be
> able to substantiate his opinion. If he has some understanding of this
> field, he should be able to substantiate his opinion. If he is just being
> obtuse, he may not be able to.
It isn't necessary to have specific and detailed knowledge of
international policy, nor of the workings of foreign governments and the
dynamics of sanctions. All that is necessary is a critical examination
(which Larry has given) of the relevant data.
First: On what basis do we determine that 500K children have died? Are
there organized census programs in Iraq to account for these children? Are
the bereaved parents filing reports with local officials for each lost
child? Is some agency performing a body count? In short, it's not
sufficient to claim that 500K children have died without supporting the
claim with information about how the number was determined; we cannot be
expected to accept that number (horrific if true, I grant you) on faith
alone, which is what we are being asked to do.
Second: IF we accept that 500K children have died, it is imperative to
identify why these children have died. Do factors internal to Iraq prevent
food from being distributed to the populace? Is disease, due to poor
sanitation or environmental elements, a possible factor? As Larry has
pointed out, the sanctions do not stop food from entering the country, so if
that food is not being distributed to the masses, that's hardly the fault of
the US.
Third: IF we accept that 500K children have died, and IF we accept that
they have died as a result of the sanctions, we still cannot assign the
blame for the children's death to the US. It is readily apparent that
Hussein lives in luxury while the citizens of Iraq suffer in abject squalor.
It is entirely within his power to have the sanctions lifted, and even if he
chooses not to do so, it is entirely within his power to establish domestic
programs to aid Iraqi citizens, rather than continuing a military buildup at
the expense of those citizens. As such, the "fault" for the continued
deaths of children lies with the person most readily able to prevent them;
ie: Hussein.
Therefore, Larry's assertion is absolutely not "100% opinion on his part"
but is instead a conclusion reached by appropriate examination of the data.
Inconsistencies within those data (or how they are presented) are
self-evident, so one can hardly be faulted for pointing out such
shortcomings. Even if further evidence proves the data to be correct, it is
premature to accept them in the absence of such evidence. In addition,
conclusions based solely upon faulty data will themselves naturally be
faulty, so I fail to understand why the identification of such faults is a
problem.
Dave!
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> > I reject that 500K children in Iraq have died since sanctions were • imposed.
> > That statistic itself is questionable. I note you haven't debunked it,
> > merely cited it again.
> >
> > I reject that the sanctions are the REASON that children (however many)
> > died. The sanctions do not prevent the flow of food into the country.
> >
> > I reject that even if the sanctions actually *caused* the death of even 1
> > child that it's the fault of the imposers of the sanctions for the deaths.
> > The *fault* lies with the lawless dictator Hussein, not the US.
> That is 100% opinion on his part.
I agree. And _that_ is what you should complain about. You claimed that he
didn't answer. He did answer. If you think his answer is made up, or simply
opinion, or based on incorrect facts, or based on an incomplete understanding
of the Iraqi economoy, or whatever, then complain about what you think is
wrong. Don't assert that an answer wasn't given. Assert that the answer was
pathetic.
Because of your special relationship with Larry, he might just say that he
explained the root of why he believes that before and that you're too stupid
or obstinant to grasp his reasoning. But at least the argument would break
down at that point because of his poor discussion skills instead of yours (in
claiming that he didn't answer). And maybe someone can step in and ask him to
clarify and we can actually get down to what people believe and why.
In this case, I don't particularly recall any valid explanation of how and why
UNICEF is lying. It kind of sounds like Larry is saying it's that way
because he wants it to be. So I'd be interested to hear it too.
> I offer facts
Sometimes I'd agree.
> /independent 3rd party opinion.
How independent?
> Larry offers his opinion. I see a difference between the two.
I do too. And you sometimes opine as well. And Larry sometimes posts 'facts.'
But that doesn't mostly matter. I don't think that you two actually argue to
resolve anything or find truths. It seems that you snipe at Larry's arguments
somewhat differently than you do with others. Sometimes picking on minutae,
sometimes not getting what he means -- but seems clear to me, etc. And Larry
has been downright rude in response (and never gives your arguments a fair
shake). I think this place is somewhat less pleasant because (proximately) of
his and (less directly, but equally weighted) your behavior. Even if I do tend
to side with him over you on the issues. :-)
But that's just _my_ opinion.
Chris
|
|
| |
"Frank Filz" <ffilz@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:3BB9D390.345B@mindspring.com...
> Scott A wrote:
> > > Not at all. If one makes mistakes (and we all have), must one feel bound to
> > > continue making those same mistakes just because they once did?
> >
> > Why not fix the mistakes 1st, before starting a new mess?
>
> Because one can't afford to fix every mistake one has ever made. Do you
> think the UK should fix all of the mistakes it made with it's
> colonialism? Who is going to fix the mistakes the Romans made with their
> colonialism (after all, some of our modern troubles do derive from those
> mistakes)? Who's going to fix the mistakes that prehistoric man almost
> certainly made that we have very little idea about, but which certainly
> had ramifications still being felt today?
Perhaps not.
But this doesn't stop folk in Ireland, and the world over, believing that the British should return land that was taken
a long time ago. Nor people the world over still harboring grudges against the UK's collonial past.
Or Aboriginies in Australia demanding their land back centuries after it was taken, and the Australians facing up to the
fact they will likely have to do something about it.
These and many issues the world over are the results of actions taken centuries ago, but which are kept very much alive
by the current generation, and will continue to for generations more.
Lets face it, the whole Jewish/Palistinian things goes back millennia, yet folks are still keeping that debate very much
alive and looking for resolution.
And the 'mistake' in question in this thread is only a decade ago.
Perhaps you can't affort to fix every mistake one has ever made. But you start by acknowledging them and recognising
that they are the source of continuing grievances. Just ignoring them because they are too hard to fix (or just to save
face), doesn't make them go away
lawrence
|
|
| |
It sounds like we are functioning under the assumption that blame can only be
assigned to one entity. I don't think that's so. And I think that we share
the blame with Hussein. But how much?
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> Third: IF we accept that 500K children have died, and IF we accept that
> they have died as a result of the sanctions, we still cannot assign the
> blame for the children's death to the US. It is readily apparent that
> Hussein lives in luxury while the citizens of Iraq suffer in abject squalor.
It sounds like you are asserting that if Hussein didn't live in luxury, the
savings could bring his people out of squalor. It isn't so. Let's imagine
that his lifestyle costs $1,000,000 per year more than the normal Iraqi's
lifestyle. Do the math.
Further, what about our president's lifestyle compared to that of Martha the
bag lady? I don't see Bush (or any president) going without to feed the
homeless of DC. Not in any real sense.
> It is entirely within his power to have the sanctions lifted, and even if he
> chooses not to do so, it is entirely within his power to establish domestic
> programs to aid Iraqi citizens, rather than continuing a military buildup at
> the expense of those citizens.
To the extent that this is true, blame can be assigned to Hussein too. But I
don't think it's as simple as all that. I don't think that he can just "have
the sanctions lifed" without selling his people out. I think that he (they?)
believe that they have a right to sovreignty and that the best way to assure
that is to defend themselves. It seems akin to someone who can avoid being
whacked by the mob by perjuring themselves...it is entirely within their power.
> As such, the "fault" for the continued
> deaths of children lies with the person most readily able to prevent them;
> ie: Hussein.
I think the test works like this: If Sadam hadn't done what he did, would the
kids of Iraq be dying in record numbers? Since the answer (I assume) is no,
then we can blame him. But, what about the question "If the US hadn't imposed
those sanctions, would the kids of Iraq be dying in record numbers?" Well,
since the answer is again, no, we share the blame.
Further, what responsibility do warring nations have to one another and their
citizenry? We had the ability to act in a manner consistant with our military
objectives, but different than what we did, that would have resulted in less
dead Iraqi kids. Should we have? Since we did not, do we bear any blame for
the current situation? I think so.
We should have apprehended Hussein for trial and incarceration. We should have
instituted democracy. And we should have rebuilt their economy based on
freedom. Those folks would never go back after they had a taste of our wealth.
(And this is what we should do in Afghanistan too, IMHO.)
But we dropped the ball and now we are partially culpable for whatever has
happened as a result.
Chris
|
|
| |
"Lawrence Wilkes" <lawrence@thewilkesfamily.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message news:GKL3y3.Ay9@lugnet.com...
>
> "Frank Filz" <ffilz@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:3BB9D390.345B@mindspring.com...
> > Scott A wrote:
> > > > Not at all. If one makes mistakes (and we all have), must one feel bound to
> > > > continue making those same mistakes just because they once did?
> > >
> > > Why not fix the mistakes 1st, before starting a new mess?
> >
> > Because one can't afford to fix every mistake one has ever made. Do you
> > think the UK should fix all of the mistakes it made with it's
> > colonialism? Who is going to fix the mistakes the Romans made with their
> > colonialism (after all, some of our modern troubles do derive from those
> > mistakes)? Who's going to fix the mistakes that prehistoric man almost
> > certainly made that we have very little idea about, but which certainly
> > had ramifications still being felt today?
>
>
> Perhaps not.
>
> But this doesn't stop folk in Ireland, and the world over, believing that the British should return land that was • taken
> a long time ago. Nor people the world over still harboring grudges against the UK's collonial past.
And for Scott's benefit, I should have included the independance of Scotland of course
Mel Gibson is not going to let us forget that one is he?
lawrence
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Frank Filz writes:
> Scott A wrote:
> > > Not at all. If one makes mistakes (and we all have), must one feel bound to
> > > continue making those same mistakes just because they once did?
> >
> > Why not fix the mistakes 1st, before starting a new mess?
>
> Because one can't afford to fix every mistake one has ever made. Do you
> think the UK should fix all of the mistakes it made with it's
> colonialism? Who is going to fix the mistakes the Romans made with their
> colonialism (after all, some of our modern troubles do derive from those
> mistakes)? Who's going to fix the mistakes that prehistoric man almost
> certainly made that we have very little idea about, but which certainly
> had ramifications still being felt today?
Heck no - I'm talking about the current messes.
Why build bases in places like Saudi-Arabia? Because of their love for
democracy. Why support Israel? Why continue the current mess in Iraq. Why
seek the extradition of an individuals without showing any evidence to
support it. Why are the northern alliance our new friend - because they are
enemy's enemy... we made the same mistake with SH!
It is hypocritical to treat people in this way, and then complain about
civil liberties at home or claim to be fighting for freedom or democracy.
I’m not saying the US is the sole culprit here, others are also to blame.
Scott A
|
|
| |
Dave I have provided support for my argument. I have never said that I think
500,000 have died due to sanctions. Never. I disagree with Larry when he
says none have died. I think a great deal have, but I have no idea how many.
That is my argument. I have supported it with references (see bottom half of
text):
http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=13329
Are you disagreeing with my argument. Or do you agree with Larry:
"I reject that even if the sanctions actually *caused* the death of even 1
child that it's the fault of the imposers of the sanctions for the deaths.
The *fault* lies with the lawless dictator Hussein, not the US."
Scott A
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
>
> > > Which part of the following doesn't seem like Larry's answer?
> > > I reject that 500K children in Iraq have died since sanctions were imposed.
> > > That statistic itself is questionable. I note you haven't debunked it,
> > > merely cited it again.
> > >
> > > I reject that the sanctions are the REASON that children (however many)
> > > died. The sanctions do not prevent the flow of food into the country.
> > >
> > > I reject that even if the sanctions actually *caused* the death of even 1
> > > child that it's the fault of the imposers of the sanctions for the deaths.
> > > The *fault* lies with the lawless dictator Hussein, not the US.
>
> > That is 100% opinion on his part. I offer facts/independent 3rd party
> > opinion. Larry offers his opinion. I see a difference between the two. If
> > it turns out that Larry has expert experience of this field, he should be
> > able to substantiate his opinion. If he has some understanding of this
> > field, he should be able to substantiate his opinion. If he is just being
> > obtuse, he may not be able to.
>
> It isn't necessary to have specific and detailed knowledge of
> international policy, nor of the workings of foreign governments and the
> dynamics of sanctions. All that is necessary is a critical examination
> (which Larry has given) of the relevant data.
> First: On what basis do we determine that 500K children have died? Are
> there organized census programs in Iraq to account for these children? Are
> the bereaved parents filing reports with local officials for each lost
> child? Is some agency performing a body count? In short, it's not
> sufficient to claim that 500K children have died without supporting the
> claim with information about how the number was determined; we cannot be
> expected to accept that number (horrific if true, I grant you) on faith
> alone, which is what we are being asked to do.
> Second: IF we accept that 500K children have died, it is imperative to
> identify why these children have died. Do factors internal to Iraq prevent
> food from being distributed to the populace? Is disease, due to poor
> sanitation or environmental elements, a possible factor? As Larry has
> pointed out, the sanctions do not stop food from entering the country, so if
> that food is not being distributed to the masses, that's hardly the fault of
> the US.
> Third: IF we accept that 500K children have died, and IF we accept that
> they have died as a result of the sanctions, we still cannot assign the
> blame for the children's death to the US. It is readily apparent that
> Hussein lives in luxury while the citizens of Iraq suffer in abject squalor.
> It is entirely within his power to have the sanctions lifted, and even if he
> chooses not to do so, it is entirely within his power to establish domestic
> programs to aid Iraqi citizens, rather than continuing a military buildup at
> the expense of those citizens. As such, the "fault" for the continued
> deaths of children lies with the person most readily able to prevent them;
> ie: Hussein.
>
> Therefore, Larry's assertion is absolutely not "100% opinion on his part"
> but is instead a conclusion reached by appropriate examination of the data.
> Inconsistencies within those data (or how they are presented) are
> self-evident, so one can hardly be faulted for pointing out such
> shortcomings. Even if further evidence proves the data to be correct, it is
> premature to accept them in the absence of such evidence. In addition,
> conclusions based solely upon faulty data will themselves naturally be
> faulty, so I fail to understand why the identification of such faults is a
> problem.
>
> Dave!
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
>
> > > I reject that 500K children in Iraq have died since sanctions were • imposed.
> > > That statistic itself is questionable. I note you haven't debunked it,
> > > merely cited it again.
> > >
> > > I reject that the sanctions are the REASON that children (however many)
> > > died. The sanctions do not prevent the flow of food into the country.
> > >
> > > I reject that even if the sanctions actually *caused* the death of even 1
> > > child that it's the fault of the imposers of the sanctions for the deaths.
> > > The *fault* lies with the lawless dictator Hussein, not the US.
>
> > That is 100% opinion on his part.
>
> I agree. And _that_ is what you should complain about. You claimed that he
> didn't answer. He did answer. If you think his answer is made up, or simply
> opinion, or based on incorrect facts, or based on an incomplete understanding
> of the Iraqi economoy, or whatever, then complain about what you think is
> wrong. Don't assert that an answer wasn't given. Assert that the answer was
> pathetic.
His answer was not a valid answer. Therefore it is not an answer... and
that's the best I can do to get out of that one! :)
>
> Because of your special relationship with Larry, he might just say that he
> explained the root of why he believes that before and that you're too stupid
> or obstinant to grasp his reasoning. But at least the argument would break
> down at that point because of his poor discussion skills instead of yours (in
> claiming that he didn't answer). And maybe someone can step in and ask him to
> clarify and we can actually get down to what people believe and why.
>
> In this case, I don't particularly recall any valid explanation of how and why
> UNICEF is lying. It kind of sounds like Larry is saying it's that way
> because he wants it to be. So I'd be interested to hear it too.
>
> > I offer facts
>
> Sometimes I'd agree.
>
> > /independent 3rd party opinion.
>
> How independent?
Independent of me! Seriously, I tend to get news which does not follow
political dogma. The BBC is independent as I can get. The Guardian (a
newspaper I often quote) is a liberal/republican paper which believes in
many of the ideals we share - freedom of speech, information etc.
>
> > Larry offers his opinion. I see a difference between the two.
>
> I do too. And you sometimes opine as well. And Larry sometimes posts 'facts.'
>
> But that doesn't mostly matter. I don't think that you two actually argue to
> resolve anything or find truths. It seems that you snipe at Larry's arguments
> somewhat differently than you do with others. Sometimes picking on minutae,
> sometimes not getting what he means -- but seems clear to me, etc. And Larry
> has been downright rude in response (and never gives your arguments a fair
> shake).
I think we both enjoy that. Larry likes it as he gets his kick out of being
rude to me. I like it as it makes him look weak.
> I think this place is somewhat less pleasant because (proximately) of
> his and (less directly, but equally weighted) your behavior. Even if I do tend
> to side with him over you on the issues. :-)
>
> But that's just _my_ opinion.
Thanks for it ;)
Scott A
>
> Chris
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Lawrence Wilkes writes:
>
> "Frank Filz" <ffilz@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:3BB9D390.345B@mindspring.com...
> > Scott A wrote:
> > > > Not at all. If one makes mistakes (and we all have), must one feel bound to
> > > > continue making those same mistakes just because they once did?
> > >
> > > Why not fix the mistakes 1st, before starting a new mess?
> >
> > Because one can't afford to fix every mistake one has ever made. Do you
> > think the UK should fix all of the mistakes it made with it's
> > colonialism? Who is going to fix the mistakes the Romans made with their
> > colonialism (after all, some of our modern troubles do derive from those
> > mistakes)? Who's going to fix the mistakes that prehistoric man almost
> > certainly made that we have very little idea about, but which certainly
> > had ramifications still being felt today?
>
>
> Perhaps not.
>
> But this doesn't stop folk in Ireland, and the world over, believing that the British should return land that was taken
> a long time ago. Nor people the world over still harboring grudges against the UK's collonial past.
This is a *very* interesting point. The UK, France & Holland have very
suspect colonial pasts. Why is it that the people we oppressed don't hate us
like so much of the world appears to hate the USA? Is the collective memory
short or does the USA represent a modern form of “empire”?. Or is it
something else?
Scott A
>
> Or Aboriginies in Australia demanding their land back centuries after it was taken, and the Australians facing up to the
> fact they will likely have to do something about it.
>
> These and many issues the world over are the results of actions taken centuries ago, but which are kept very much alive
> by the current generation, and will continue to for generations more.
>
> Lets face it, the whole Jewish/Palistinian things goes back millennia, yet folks are still keeping that debate very much
> alive and looking for resolution.
>
> And the 'mistake' in question in this thread is only a decade ago.
>
> Perhaps you can't affort to fix every mistake one has ever made. But you start by acknowledging them and recognising
> that they are the source of continuing grievances. Just ignoring them because they are too hard to fix (or just to save
> face), doesn't make them go away
>
> lawrence
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Lawrence Wilkes writes:
>
> "Lawrence Wilkes" <lawrence@thewilkesfamily.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message news:GKL3y3.Ay9@lugnet.com...
> >
> > "Frank Filz" <ffilz@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:3BB9D390.345B@mindspring.com...
> > > Scott A wrote:
> > > > > Not at all. If one makes mistakes (and we all have), must one feel bound to
> > > > > continue making those same mistakes just because they once did?
> > > >
> > > > Why not fix the mistakes 1st, before starting a new mess?
> > >
> > > Because one can't afford to fix every mistake one has ever made. Do you
> > > think the UK should fix all of the mistakes it made with it's
> > > colonialism? Who is going to fix the mistakes the Romans made with their
> > > colonialism (after all, some of our modern troubles do derive from those
> > > mistakes)? Who's going to fix the mistakes that prehistoric man almost
> > > certainly made that we have very little idea about, but which certainly
> > > had ramifications still being felt today?
> >
> >
> > Perhaps not.
> >
> > But this doesn't stop folk in Ireland, and the world over, believing that the British should return land that was • taken
> > a long time ago. Nor people the world over still harboring grudges against the UK's collonial past.
>
>
> And for Scott's benefit, I should have included the independance of Scotland of course
> Mel Gibson is not going to let us forget that one is he?
>
> lawrence
Don't worry. I'm very happy to be part of the UK *and* Europe.
Scotland has 10% of the UK population, but 90% of the culture (and 95% of
the tooth decay and heart disease!) :0
Scott A
|
|
| |
These are some cold statistics regarding the sanctions against Iraq, which
do have a profound impact on the Iraqi people regardless of what anyone says
or thinks who is to blame. The sanctions only further strengthen, not
weaken, Saddam Hussein's dictatorship:
Seven years after the imposition of the blockade on the people of Iraq, more
than 1.2 million people, including 750,000 children below the age of 5, have
died from starvation, malnutrition, and disease. - Verified by U.N. 1997
Over 3,500 schools and educational offices in Iraq were damaged during the
Gulf War. Most of these buildings cannot be repaired due to the sanctions -
UNESCO 1993
"Alarming food shortages are causing irreparable damage to an entire
generation of Iraqi children." - U.N. FAO & WFP 1995
Water treatment plants lack spare parts, equipment, treatment chemicals,
proper maintenance, and adequate qualified staff. Plants often act solely as
pumping stations without any treatment. - UNICEF 1998
At least 80% of a family's income is spent on food. - U.N. FAO & WFP 1995
As many as 70% of Iraqi women are suffering from anemia - U.N. 1999
Due to depleted uranium incorporated into weapons used by Britain and the
U.S. in the Gulf War the Iraqi population is experiencing a six-fold
increase in cancer, especially leukemia. - U.N. 1999
The World Food Program (WFP) estimates that access to potable water is
currently 50% of the 1990 level in urban areas and only 33% in rural areas.
- U.N. 1999
Substantive progress in reducing female illiteracy has ceased and regressed
to mid-1980 level. - UNICEF 1999
Approximately 250 people die every day in Iraq due to the effect of the
sanctions. - U.N. 1999
----------
The sanctions are a weapon of mass destruction that make a terrible
difference in the daily lives (and deaths) of ordinary Iraqi people and do
little or nothing to affect Saddam Hussein. In terms of the scale of this
human tragedy, the death toll is over 200 times that of the World Trade
Center. So I think all Americans need to get together on this and tell our
government to drop the sanctions.
Dan
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> It sounds like we are functioning under the assumption that blame can only be
> assigned to one entity. I don't think that's so. And I think that we share
> the blame with Hussein. But how much?
As I recall, you're willing to go to great lengths to assign a measure of
blame to those who do not cause the events that befall them:
http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=5788 and elsewhere
so I suppose you're willing to extend the concept of blame beyond what I
would consider appropriate. Agreeing to disagree, but let's not rekindle
that debate; it would lead us to the ridiculous assertion that the Iraqi
families are responsible for the children's deaths, since the families have
not moved out of Iraq.
> > Third: IF we accept that 500K children have died, and IF we accept that
> > they have died as a result of the sanctions, we still cannot assign the
> > blame for the children's death to the US. It is readily apparent that
> > Hussein lives in luxury while the citizens of Iraq suffer in abject squalor.
>
> It sounds like you are asserting that if Hussein didn't live in luxury, the
> savings could bring his people out of squalor. It isn't so. Let's imagine
> that his lifestyle costs $1,000,000 per year more than the normal Iraqi's
> lifestyle. Do the math.
Please. I am asserting that it is conspicuous that Hussein still lives
high on the hog while his citizens suffer. If the US were under similarly
extreme duress, it would indeed be inappropriate for the President to live
in a huge palace with an elite personal retinue while citizens suffered, but
the US is not experiencing that sort of crisis. The US has mechanisms in
place, both public and private, to assist the impoverished and
disadvantaged; why can Iraq not have similar programs, and why is it
necessary for Hussein to continue to rebuild his military while more
pressing domestic matters are in effect? I imagine it could be argued that
he perceives military matters to be more vital than supporting the populace,
but that hardly puts him in a position to demand that the sanctions
therefore be lifted.
> Further, what about our president's lifestyle compared to that of Martha the
> bag lady? I don't see Bush (or any president) going without to feed the
> homeless of DC. Not in any real sense.
But that's irrelevant, as you're aware. The issue isn't whether Iraqi
sanctions against the US have led to poverty (and child death) in the US,
and if therefore it is appropriate for Bush to live in the White House; the
issue is whether US sanctions of Iraq have caused 500K children to die in
poverty, and if therefore it is appropriate to live in luxury. If, for
instance, the US had invaded a sovereign nation without provocation and were
subsequently decimated because of it, then it would be appropriate to
compare Martha the bag lady and the President to Hussein and the 500K children.
> > It is entirely within his power to have the sanctions lifted, and even if he
> > chooses not to do so, it is entirely within his power to establish domestic
> > programs to aid Iraqi citizens, rather than continuing a military buildup at
> > the expense of those citizens.
>
> To the extent that this is true, blame can be assigned to Hussein too. But I
> don't think it's as simple as all that. I don't think that he can just "have
> the sanctions lifed" without selling his people out. I think that he (they?)
> believe that they have a right to sovreignty and that the best way to assure
> that is to defend themselves.
You seem to be indicating that you do not believe that Iraq has a right to
sovereignty--am I correct?
Regardless, it becomes a fairly straightforward matter of honoring Iraq's
perceptions of its sovereignty; if Hussein (they) choose(s) to maintain a
posture in defiance of the conditions that maintain the sanctions, then it
is right and proper to allow him to maintain that posture, and, in so doing,
to maintain the sanctions. Hussein very nicely washes our hands of all
responsibility for the deaths of children.
> I think the test works like this: If Sadam hadn't done what he did, would the
> kids of Iraq be dying in record numbers? Since the answer (I assume) is no,
> then we can blame him. But, what about the question "If the US hadn't imposed
> those sanctions, would the kids of Iraq be dying in record numbers?" Well,
> since the answer is again, no, we share the blame.
Since the second question is predicated on the first, then the primary and
overwhelming blame remains with Hussein (and the rain in Spain stays mainly
on the plane). Further, and in all seriousness, do we have any reason to
believe that the lifting of those sanctions would improve conditions for
those children?
> Further, what responsibility do warring nations have to one another and their
> citizenry? We had the ability to act in a manner consistant with our military
> objectives, but different than what we did, that would have resulted in less
> dead Iraqi kids. Should we have? Since we did not, do we bear any blame for
> the current situation? I think so.
>
> We should have apprehended Hussein for trial and incarceration. We should have
> instituted democracy. And we should have rebuilt their economy based on
> freedom. Those folks would never go back after they had a taste of our wealth.
> (And this is what we should do in Afghanistan too, IMHO.)
So the answer is to force American Capitalism down the throat of a nation
that might not want it? That's pretty much the definition of cultural
imperialism and is a thinly veiled form of colonialism. To assume that our
Western ideals will be readily embraced by a culture markedly different from
our own is to assume that that culture would be Western if only it weren't
so backward. In addition, this seems directly in conflict with any
assertions of Iraqi sovereignty, or their belief in their sovereignty. How
can the two be reconciled?
> But we dropped the ball and now we are partially culpable for whatever has
> happened as a result.
So what is your suggestion, exactly? Do we lift the sanctions, thereby
enabling Hussein to build up his military once again? Do we violate Iraqi
sovereignty by forcing democracy upon them? I agree that democracy is
vastly superior to totalitarian dictatorship, but if Iraq has a right to its
own sovereignty, then to usurp that sovereignty under the aegis of "For
Their Own Good" is no better than Hussein's invasion of Kuwait.
Dave!
|
|
| |
"Scott A" <eh105jb@mx1.pair.com> wrote in message news:GKL6Lv.H9n@lugnet.com...
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Lawrence Wilkes writes:
> > But this doesn't stop folk in Ireland, and the world over, believing that the British should return land that was • taken
> > a long time ago. Nor people the world over still harboring grudges against the UK's collonial past.
>
> This is a *very* interesting point. The UK, France & Holland have very
> suspect colonial pasts. Why is it that the people we oppressed don't hate us
> like so much of the world appears to hate the USA? Is the collective memory
> short or does the USA represent a modern form of "empire"?. Or is it
> something else?
I doubt it is very different.
Extremists in some countries hate the UK.
Extremists in some countries hate the USA.
Majority of people in the same countries neither hate or love the USA or UK, are mostly indifferent, and happy to go
their own little way.
Perhaps the UK faired better by introducing sport into the collonies as a way of allowing them to give us a good beating
and get their own back. Those collonialists were pretty smart. Let them beat us at cricket and they will forget we are
subjugating them. Doesn't seem to have worked for Scotland yet though :-)
lawrence
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Lawrence Wilkes writes:
>
> "Scott A" <eh105jb@mx1.pair.com> wrote in message news:GKL6Lv.H9n@lugnet.com...
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Lawrence Wilkes writes:
> > > But this doesn't stop folk in Ireland, and the world over, believing that the British should return land that was • taken
> > > a long time ago. Nor people the world over still harboring grudges against the UK's collonial past.
> >
> > This is a *very* interesting point. The UK, France & Holland have very
> > suspect colonial pasts. Why is it that the people we oppressed don't hate us
> > like so much of the world appears to hate the USA? Is the collective memory
> > short or does the USA represent a modern form of "empire"?. Or is it
> > something else?
>
> I doubt it is very different.
>
> Extremists in some countries hate the UK.
> Extremists in some countries hate the USA.
> Majority of people in the same countries neither hate or love the USA or UK, are mostly indifferent, and happy to go
> their own little way.
>
> Perhaps the UK faired better by introducing sport into the collonies as a way of allowing them to give us a good beating
> and get their own back. Those collonialists were pretty smart. Let them beat us at cricket and they will forget we are
> subjugating them. Doesn't seem to have worked for Scotland yet though :-)
>
> lawrence
Scotland's forte is Snooker(1) and Darts (pub games)(2).
Scott A
(1. S. Hendry used to play in my home town – he lived about 5 miles away)
(2. I went to the same school Jockie Wilson's kids!)
Overseas readers : If you have never heard of these guys - *don't* be impressed.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> Why
> seek the extradition of an individual without showing any evidence to
> support it?
Who are you referring to here? bin Laden as has been suggested here by some
before? If bin Laden...
From AP (http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ap/20011002/ts/attacks_bush_13.html)
At NATO (news - web sites) headquarters in Brussels, Belgium, the alliance's
secretary general, Lord Robertson, said the United States presented ``clear
and compelling evidence'' tying bin Laden and his al-Qaida organization to
the terror attacks.
``It is clear that all roads lead to al-Qaida and pinpoint Osama bin Laden
as having been involved in it,'' Robertson said Tuesday after a classified
briefing given to NATO's ruling council by U.S. Ambassador at Large Francis
X. Taylor.
- end -
So either Lord Robertson was fooled by rigged evidence, or he is in on the
rigging, or your assertion (if it was about bin Laden) is no longer valid.
Did I omit any possibilities?
Aside:
I note that evidence can be faked, of course, and I'd prefer to see it for
myself, but I do understand the argument that it may be operationally
necessary to keep it classified. For a while, anyway. It better be revealed
pretty soon, though.
++Lar
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> > It sounds like we are functioning under the assumption that blame can only be
> > assigned to one entity. I don't think that's so. And I think that we share
> > the blame with Hussein. But how much?
>
> As I recall, you're willing to go to great lengths to assign a measure of
> blame to those who do not cause the events that befall them:
Well, I wouldn't call them great lengths...
> http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=5788 and elsewhere
...but I do still think that blame is virtually always shared by manny.
> so I suppose you're willing to extend the concept of blame beyond what I
> would consider appropriate. Agreeing to disagree, but let's not rekindle
> that debate;
I'm not sure it's possible unless I'm just to drop it. It seems like the meat
of the point.
> > Further, what about our president's lifestyle compared to that of Martha the
> > bag lady? I don't see Bush (or any president) going without to feed the
> > homeless of DC. Not in any real sense.
>
> But that's irrelevant, as you're aware. The issue isn't whether Iraqi
> sanctions against the US have led to poverty (and child death) in the US,
But your implication, I thought, was that Hussein somehow bore culpability for
the Iraqi impoverished because he spent conspicuously. I don't see the link.
If you didn't intend one, then I was just wrong and my comments about Bush were
not needed. But I don't think they were wrong.
> > To the extent that this is true, blame can be assigned to Hussein too. But I
> > don't think it's as simple as all that. I don't think that he can just "have
> > the sanctions lifed" without selling his people out. I think that he (they?)
> > believe that they have a right to sovreignty and that the best way to assure
> > that is to defend themselves.
>
> You seem to be indicating that you do not believe that Iraq has a right to
> sovereignty--am I correct?
No, that's not what I meant. But it happens to be sort of true...I just don't
see how it matters to the topic at hand. Actually I kind of think national
sovereignty is a scam to cover some kind of individual sovereignty which is
what we ought to be experiencing.
> Regardless, it becomes a fairly straightforward matter of honoring Iraq's
> perceptions of its sovereignty; if Hussein (they) choose(s) to maintain a
> posture in defiance of the conditions that maintain the sanctions, then it
> is right and proper to allow him to maintain that posture, and, in so doing,
> to maintain the sanctions. Hussein very nicely washes our hands of all
> responsibility for the deaths of children.
Unless we put Hussein into a position where his only two options are bad and
worse (from his POV, of course, not mine).
> > I think the test works like this: If Sadam hadn't done what he did, would • the
> > kids of Iraq be dying in record numbers? Since the answer (I assume) is no,
> > then we can blame him. But, what about the question "If the US hadn't • imposed
> > those sanctions, would the kids of Iraq be dying in record numbers?" Well,
> > since the answer is again, no, we share the blame.
>
> Since the second question is predicated on the first, then the primary and
> overwhelming blame remains with Hussein.
Primary, I'd agree to. If nothing else his action did spawn our reaction. And
he "had the last move" so the recent cause-effect was up to him. But I'm not
sure on overwhelming. How do you measure it?
> (and the rain in Spain stays mainly on the plane).
If you think I'm just the annoying village idiot, why respond?
> Further, and in all seriousness, do we have any reason to
> believe that the lifting of those sanctions would improve conditions for
> those children?
Actually, maybe that's the real test rather than the way I wrote it above. And
I don't know the answer to it. But it still leaves many parties at fault.
If we lift the sanctions would they stop dying?
If we had never imposed sanctions would they have started dying?
If Hussein had never invaded Kuwait would they have started dying?
And on and on. Do you not see it as the case that when you do something you
are responsible for the results? I think I'm only extending that notion
multidimensionally so that we see that every event has many causes. (I suppose
an infinite number, really, but at some point we can say that some don't bear
scrutiny since their participation is so little.) Each person behind a cause
shares responsibility for the event to some degree. I'm not sure why this
seems bizarre to you.
> > Further, what responsibility do warring nations have to one another and their
> > citizenry? We had the ability to act in a manner consistant with our • military
> > objectives, but different than what we did, that would have resulted in less
> > dead Iraqi kids. Should we have? Since we did not, do we bear any blame for
> > the current situation? I think so.
> >
> > We should have apprehended Hussein for trial and incarceration. We should • have
> > instituted democracy. And we should have rebuilt their economy based on
> > freedom. Those folks would never go back after they had a taste of our • wealth.
> > (And this is what we should do in Afghanistan too, IMHO.)
>
> So the answer is to force American Capitalism down the throat of a nation
> that might not want it?
Once we have beaten our foe, I thought it was commonly understood that we had
some right to see to it that their kind of crimes were not likely to just
recurr. I'd rather think of it as exposing them to it...not forcing it down
their throat.
> That's pretty much the definition of cultural
> imperialism and is a thinly veiled form of colonialism. To assume that our
> Western ideals will be readily embraced by a culture markedly different from
> our own is to assume that that culture would be Western if only it weren't
> so backward.
There are some pretty 'western' places in the middle east. They can't be
_that_ alien for places like the UAE to thrive.
> In addition, this seems directly in conflict with any
> assertions of Iraqi sovereignty, or their belief in their sovereignty. How
> can the two be reconciled?
I was talking about the actions that should have immediately followed our war
with them. Leaving Hussein there was bad. And rebuilding for them would have
been good. But if they wanted us to leave instead of help tidy the place up, I
suppose we could have done that once we got what we went in for.
> > But we dropped the ball and now we are partially culpable for whatever has
> > happened as a result.
>
> So what is your suggestion, exactly?
Uh oh. Um...I don't really have one. I was just talking about shared blame.
What I think we should have done and what we should do are different. I
definitely don't think they merit re-invasion just to set things straight. I
guess we should initiate a black-op to whack Hussein and his top thugs and
offer the nation some help.
Chris
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> Well, I wouldn't call them great lengths...
> ...but I do still think that blame is virtually always shared by many.
> I'm not sure it's possible [to agree to disagree] unless I'm just to drop
> it. It seems like the meat of the point.
Well, my point has always been that even if no one is "free" of blame (or
fault or responsibility, to use the language of that prior debate), someone
is almost invariably demonstrably and culpably more responsible for the
event. If, unprovoked, I hit my cube-mate with a baseball bat, it's
entirely my fault, even if she could conceivably have worn a football helmet
this morning to prevent injury. In this case, the US is maintaining
sanctions, but they are manifestly being maintained because Hussein
continues to defy the (readily met) conditions that would end them.
> But your implication, I thought, was that Hussein somehow bore culpability for
> the Iraqi impoverished because he spent conspicuously.
I see how I came off that way, but that's not what I meant.
> Actually I kind of think national sovereignty is a scam to cover some kind of
> individual sovereignty which is what we ought to be experiencing.
Interesting--do you mean this in general or specifically in regard to the
US/Iraq situation? If you mean it in general, then I concur that it would
indeed be the ideal, but I don't know how feasible it is within the real world.
> > Since the second question is predicated on the first, then the primary and
> > overwhelming blame remains with Hussein.
>
> Primary, I'd agree to. If nothing else his action did spawn our reaction. And
> he "had the last move" so the recent cause-effect was up to him. But I'm not
> sure on overwhelming. How do you measure it?
>
> > (and the rain in Spain stays mainly on the plane).
>
> If you think I'm just the annoying village idiot, why respond?
Eep! Not my intent at all! I was making fun of myself and the phonetic
repetition I'd used: blame remains with Hussein (the rain in Spain...) Not
meant in any way as an insult to you. Sorry if it came across that way.
> > Further, and in all seriousness, do we have any reason to believe that the
> > lifting of those sanctions would improve conditions for those children?
>
> Actually, maybe that's the real test rather than the way I wrote it above.
> And I don't know the answer to it. But it still leaves many parties at fault.
>
> If we lift the sanctions would they stop dying?
> If we had never imposed sanctions would they have started dying?
> If Hussein had never invaded Kuwait would they have started dying?
Aye, there's the rub. Dan has cited some horrific statistics, and they
underscore the actual problem. Accepting that conditions are terrible in
Iraq, what is the best way to handle them? Hussein flatly cannot be trusted
not to plan military strikes against his international enemies, nor can he
be trusted not to attempt extermination of Iraqis he doesn't care for,
either. With all this in mind, it's difficult to imagine (now *there's* a
profound understatement) what the solution might be, especially given the
longterm problems resulting directly and indirectly from Hussein's actions
so far.
> > So the answer is to force American Capitalism down the throat of a nation
> > that might not want it?
>
> Once we have beaten our foe, I thought it was commonly understood that we had
> some right to see to it that their kind of crimes were not likely to just
> recurr. I'd rather think of it as exposing them to it...not forcing it down
> their throat.
Admittedly, my language was inflammatory. But what if we present our way
of life to them and they reject it?
> There are some pretty 'western' places in the middle east. They can't be
> _that_ alien for places like the UAE to thrive.
Agreed, but apparently part of the current resentment by certain ME groups
is based on the encroachment of Western culture into their society. A few
do not speak for all, of course, but I wonder how widespread that sentiment
might be. I do grant you, however, that it seems likely that women, at
least, would identify the benefit in being allowed such "luxuries" as
education and employment and the measure of personal freedom afforded by
them. It would indeed be interesting to see.
> > So what is your suggestion, exactly?
>
> Uh oh. Um...I don't really have one.
Fair enough.
Dave!
|
|
| |
For sake of clarity in this discussion, I think that Saddam Hussein is a sick
and twisted individual who has perpetrated much evil in this world and I would
walk with a lighter step if I found out that he were killed. That said, I can
go on and say things that might sound like I'm defending him.
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> Well, my point has always been that even if no one is "free" of blame (or
> fault or responsibility, to use the language of that prior debate), someone
> is almost invariably demonstrably and culpably more responsible for the
> event.
How are we disagreeing then? I agree with that. But "more responsible" is
different than "primary and overwhelming blame" and has a substantially
different implied quantification. I'd say one suggests 60-85% guilt and the
other more like 99.9%. And I don't think that in the case of our role in Iraqi
suffering, it is as low as one tenth of one percent. Of course assigning a
number would be impossible, but I think it's higher than that.
> If, unprovoked, I hit my cube-mate with a baseball bat, it's
> entirely my fault, even if she could conceivably have worn a football helmet
> this morning to prevent injury.
Don't forget the bat manufacturer. ;-)
> In this case, the US is maintaining
> sanctions, but they are manifestly being maintained because Hussein
> continues to defy the (readily met) conditions that would end them.
Just like I could (but would never) cut your phone lines, and keep your home
surrounded with armed henchmen, and your family as prisoners/hostages, until
you gave your kids the freedom that I think you should? So it would be your
fault that I your kids couldn't go to school?
> > Actually I kind of think national sovereignty is a scam to cover some kind of
> > individual sovereignty which is what we ought to be experiencing.
>
> Interesting--do you mean this in general or specifically in regard to the
> US/Iraq situation? If you mean it in general, then I concur that it would
> indeed be the ideal, but I don't know how feasible it is within the real
world.
In general. It certainly hasn't been done yet. I hope that we are moving that
way. Why is it that we allow nations to figure out how to get along without
over-governing boards, but we assume that we couldn't do it?
> > > (and the rain in Spain stays mainly on the plane).
> >
> > If you think I'm just the annoying village idiot, why respond?
>
> Eep! Not my intent at all! I was making fun of myself and the phonetic
> repetition I'd used: blame remains with Hussein (the rain in Spain...) Not
> meant in any way as an insult to you. Sorry if it came across that way.
Oops. Now I look like I'm being oversensitive. Oh well. My fault and no
biggie. It's obvious that's what you meant, now that I'm not being
oversensitive. :-)
> > > Further, and in all seriousness, do we have any reason to believe that the
> > > lifting of those sanctions would improve conditions for those children?
> >
> > Actually, maybe that's the real test rather than the way I wrote it above.
> > And I don't know the answer to it. But it still leaves many parties at • fault.
> >
> > If we lift the sanctions would they stop dying?
> > If we had never imposed sanctions would they have started dying?
> > If Hussein had never invaded Kuwait would they have started dying?
>
> Aye, there's the rub. Dan has cited some horrific statistics, and they
> underscore the actual problem. Accepting that conditions are terrible in
> Iraq, what is the best way to handle them? Hussein flatly cannot be trusted
> not to plan military strikes against his international enemies, nor can he
> be trusted not to attempt extermination of Iraqis he doesn't care for,
> either. With all this in mind, it's difficult to imagine (now *there's* a
> profound understatement) what the solution might be, especially given the
> longterm problems resulting directly and indirectly from Hussein's actions
> so far.
It has been portrayed in our media that Hussein is kind of a single bad guy
with a smallish loyal crew. If that is the reality, then we (the world
united?) should at least sweep them out of the way so that peace can be known
in Iraq. How long has it been since they had a good peace?
> > > So the answer is to force American Capitalism down the throat of a nation
> > > that might not want it?
> >
> > Once we have beaten our foe, I thought it was commonly understood that we had
> > some right to see to it that their kind of crimes were not likely to just
> > recurr. I'd rather think of it as exposing them to it...not forcing it down
> > their throat.
>
> Admittedly, my language was inflammatory. But what if we present our way
> of life to them and they reject it?
Well, if they reject capitalism, that's fine. If they reject peace and
continue to attack us and our allies, then I suppose we have to exterminate
them live a nest of ants. If they just refuse to get along, what else could we
do? But I don't think that would happen. People don't naturally like war and
death.
> > There are some pretty 'western' places in the middle east. They can't be
> > _that_ alien for places like the UAE to thrive.
>
> Agreed, but apparently part of the current resentment by certain ME groups
> is based on the encroachment of Western culture into their society. A few
> do not speak for all, of course, but I wonder how widespread that sentiment
> might be. I do grant you, however, that it seems likely that women, at
> least, would identify the benefit in being allowed such "luxuries" as
> education and employment and the measure of personal freedom afforded by
> them. It would indeed be interesting to see.
We might shortly.
Chris
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Lawrence Wilkes writes:
>
> Perhaps the UK faired better by introducing sport into the collonies as a way • of allowing them to give us a good beating
> and get their own back. Those collonialists were pretty smart. Let them beat • us at cricket and they will forget we are
> subjugating them. Doesn't seem to have worked for Scotland yet though :-)
P'haps 'cos it's too hard to play cricket in a kilt...
ROSCO
FUT: .o-t.fun
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
>
> > Why
> > seek the extradition of an individual without showing any evidence to
> > support it?
>
> Who are you referring to here? bin Laden as has been suggested here by some
> before? If bin Laden...
>
> From AP (http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ap/20011002/ts/attacks_bush_13.html)
>
> At NATO (news - web sites) headquarters in Brussels, Belgium, the alliance's
> secretary general, Lord Robertson, said the United States presented ``clear
> and compelling evidence'' tying bin Laden and his al-Qaida organization to
> the terror attacks.
>
> ``It is clear that all roads lead to al-Qaida and pinpoint Osama bin Laden
> as having been involved in it,'' Robertson said Tuesday after a classified
> briefing given to NATO's ruling council by U.S. Ambassador at Large Francis
> X. Taylor.
>
> - end -
>
> So either Lord Robertson was fooled by rigged evidence, or he is in on the
> rigging, or your assertion (if it was about bin Laden) is no longer valid.
> Did I omit any possibilities?
I know little about courts in the USA, but in the UK George Robertson's
(arguably a failed politician) say so is not good enough for a conviction.
Would that wash in the USA?
NB : I want justice not revenge.
>
> Aside:
>
> I note that evidence can be faked, of course, and I'd prefer to see it for
> myself, but I do understand the argument that it may be operationally
> necessary to keep it classified. For a while, anyway. It better be revealed
> pretty soon, though.
OK. So we have a dispute between the coalition and the Afghans. Perhaps an
independent 3rd party should get involved. Say, the UN?
Now answer the rest of my post rather than the one line you thought you
could win a cheap point on.
Scott A
>
> ++Lar
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> Dave I have provided support for my argument. I have never said that I think
> 500,000 have died due to sanctions. Never. I disagree with Larry when he
> says none have died. I think a great deal have, but I have no idea how many.
> That is my argument. I have supported it with references (see bottom half of
> text):
> http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=13329
>
> Are you disagreeing with my argument. Or do you agree with Larry:
>
> "I reject that even if the sanctions actually *caused* the death of even 1
> child that it's the fault of the imposers of the sanctions for the deaths.
> The *fault* lies with the lawless dictator Hussein, not the US."
Dave,
Have you thought this over yet?
Scott A
|
|
| |
> In this case, I don't particularly recall any valid explanation of how and why
> UNICEF is lying. It kind of sounds like Larry is saying it's that way
> because he wants it to be. So I'd be interested to hear it too.
Come on Larry! Can you clear this one up?
Scott A
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Frank Filz writes:
> > Scott A wrote:
> > > > Not at all. If one makes mistakes (and we all have), must one feel bound to
> > > > continue making those same mistakes just because they once did?
> > >
> > > Why not fix the mistakes 1st, before starting a new mess?
> >
> > Because one can't afford to fix every mistake one has ever made. Do you
> > think the UK should fix all of the mistakes it made with it's
> > colonialism? Who is going to fix the mistakes the Romans made with their
> > colonialism (after all, some of our modern troubles do derive from those
> > mistakes)? Who's going to fix the mistakes that prehistoric man almost
> > certainly made that we have very little idea about, but which certainly
> > had ramifications still being felt today?
>
> Heck no - I'm talking about the current messes.
Frank,
Here is an easy one to fix. Try to read the whole text, look at the claimed
impact that "mess" has had on the whole country:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4268146,00.html
Scott A
>
> Why build bases in places like Saudi-Arabia? Because of their love for
> democracy. Why support Israel? Why continue the current mess in Iraq. Why
> seek the extradition of an individuals without showing any evidence to
> support it. Why are the northern alliance our new friend - because they are
> enemy's enemy... we made the same mistake with SH!
>
> It is hypocritical to treat people in this way, and then complain about
> civil liberties at home or claim to be fighting for freedom or democracy.
> I’m not saying the US is the sole culprit here, others are also to blame.
>
> Scott A
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> > Dave I have provided support for my argument. I have never said that I think
> > 500,000 have died due to sanctions. Never. I disagree with Larry when he
> > says none have died. I think a great deal have, but I have no idea how many.
> > That is my argument. I have supported it with references (see bottom half of
> > text):
> > http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=13329
> >
> > Are you disagreeing with my argument. Or do you agree with Larry:
> >
> > "I reject that even if the sanctions actually *caused* the death of even 1
> > child that it's the fault of the imposers of the sanctions for the deaths.
> > The *fault* lies with the lawless dictator Hussein, not the US."
>
>
>
> Dave,
>
> Have you thought this over yet?
Still pondering--Dan's statistics threw me for a loop, and I was
ruminating with Chris on a connected matter.
Dave!
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> > > > > Not at all. If one makes mistakes (and we all have), must one feel bound • to
> > > > > continue making those same mistakes just because they once did?
> > > >
> > > > Why not fix the mistakes 1st, before starting a new mess?
> > >
> > > Because one can't afford to fix every mistake one has ever made. Do you
> Here is an easy one to fix. Try to read the whole text, look at the claimed
> impact that "mess" has had on the whole country:
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4268146,00.html
If our bombing was really a complete error, then we should have jumped to make
things right rather than dragging our feet. We should have supplied the lost
meds at the cost that that factory would have while we rebuilt the factory.
And we should have paid for the medical expenses and of everyone who has a
valid claim to injury based on the attack and reparations. And we should have
apologized to the individuals and to their nation. If there were actually some
kind of connection to bin Laden, then not.
Chris
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Lawrence Wilkes writes:
> Except no one is talking about x-box'es
> and no one expects the state to provide x-boxes on welfare.
> But had Fred Bloggs Jr been hungry because of the lack of income to buy
> food, he most certainly would have been cared for by the state.
Not necessarily "would have" in all cases, and most assuredly not "should have".
It is *not* the duty of the state to ensure that everyone is cared for. That
your state has chosen to do that (the will of the majority imposed on all
funds it) doesn't mean that it is correct. Merely defacto.
Therefore my argument stands whether the example is using x-boxes or food.
|
|
| |
"Larry Pieniazek" <lpieniazek@mercator.com> wrote in message news:GKou8D.K9v@lugnet.com...
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Lawrence Wilkes writes:
>
> > Except no one is talking about x-box'es
> > and no one expects the state to provide x-boxes on welfare.
> > But had Fred Bloggs Jr been hungry because of the lack of income to buy
> > food, he most certainly would have been cared for by the state.
>
> Not necessarily "would have" in all cases, and most assuredly not "should have".
>
> It is *not* the duty of the state to ensure that everyone is cared for. That
> your state has chosen to do that (the will of the majority imposed on all
> funds it) doesn't mean that it is correct. Merely defacto.
>
> Therefore my argument stands whether the example is using x-boxes or food.
I don't think your argument stands one bit.
You were trying to use this as justification as to why Iraqi children should suffer, because of the crimes of their
leader.
But your analogy was incorrect.
We are supposed to live in a civilised society aren't we?
Isn't it the 'civilised world' that is under attack.
And the civilised society does differentiate between x-boxes and food.
And any family in the UK who's bread winner goes to jail most certainly would get aid if they needed it, irrespective of
their partners crime.
lawrence
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Lawrence Wilkes writes:
>
> "Larry Pieniazek" <lpieniazek@mercator.com> wrote in message news:GKou8D.K9v@lugnet.com...
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Lawrence Wilkes writes:
> >
> > > Except no one is talking about x-box'es
> > > and no one expects the state to provide x-boxes on welfare.
> > > But had Fred Bloggs Jr been hungry because of the lack of income to buy
> > > food, he most certainly would have been cared for by the state.
> >
> > Not necessarily "would have" in all cases, and most assuredly not "should have".
> >
> > It is *not* the duty of the state to ensure that everyone is cared for. That
> > your state has chosen to do that (the will of the majority imposed on all
> > funds it) doesn't mean that it is correct. Merely defacto.
> >
> > Therefore my argument stands whether the example is using x-boxes or food.
> I don't think your argument stands one bit.
> You were trying to use this as justification as to why Iraqi children should > suffer, because of the crimes of their leader.
Incorrect. Suffering of children is never "justified". My argument merely
demonstrates that their suffering is not the *fault* of the US, just as the
suffering of FB Jr (while not "justified") in not having his wants satisfied
is not the *fault* of the incarcerating authority. Rather it is the *fault*
of his father. And the suffering of the Iraqi children (and the destruction
of the country) is the *fault* of Hussein more than it is the sanctions,
which are easily lifted if Hussein changes his ways or abdicates. There was
an excellent analysis of this posted by Dave!
> But your analogy was incorrect.
You have not shown this yet.
> We are supposed to live in a civilised society aren't we?
Supposedly, yes.
> Isn't it the 'civilised world' that is under attack.
No, the 'free' world...
> And the civilised society does differentiate between x-boxes and food.
Yes, a civilized society assigns them different values in the marketplace.
> And any family in the UK who's bread winner goes to jail most certainly would >get aid if they needed it, irrespective of their partners crime.
Which does not make the UK civilised, unless you accept the definition of
civilized as "society uses force to take from those that have to give to
those that need". That's not my definition. (plowed ground alert, though)
Rather, my definition of civilized is: "society is set up to allow people to
reap the fruits of their labors *and& the thorns of their mistakes, rather
than attempting to shield them from the consequences of their actions"
++Lar
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> Why not fix the mistakes 1st, before starting a new mess?
So you are comfortable with fixing the past mistakes we made in supporting
the thugs in Iraq and then in leaving the job undone the first time we had a
chance to clean up the mess, then?
The implication of that, of course, is that you support disassembly of Iraq.
Not destruction of infrastructure, but disassembly of the government.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
>
> > > I reject that 500K children in Iraq have died since sanctions were • imposed.
> > > That statistic itself is questionable. I note you haven't debunked it,
> > > merely cited it again.
> > >
> > > I reject that the sanctions are the REASON that children (however many)
> > > died. The sanctions do not prevent the flow of food into the country.
> > >
> > > I reject that even if the sanctions actually *caused* the death of even 1
> > > child that it's the fault of the imposers of the sanctions for the deaths.
> > > The *fault* lies with the lawless dictator Hussein, not the US.
>
> > That is 100% opinion on his part.
>
> I agree.
A great explanation of this was given by Dave!
> In this case, I don't particularly recall any valid explanation of how and why
> UNICEF is lying.
The original cite of "debunk this" deconstructs the UN statistics.
Statistics have a way of getting cited and re-cited, and those cites get
recited by those that want the statistics to be what they are because they
are conveniently in support of their arguments.
Reciting UN statistics does not debunk the deconstruction, you would have to
attack the logic of the deconstruction to refute it. Not just recite the
re-cites, which is what some do.
More generally...
I have no faith in statistics that are originated by the UN unless
independently corroborated, and that's a blanket statement. The UN apparatus
is highly politicised and tends to produce answers that are politically
correct rather than actually correct.
Please note that Scott said (effectively) "I don't believe the 500K number"
and also quoted statistics that supported or cited the 500K number as a
mechanism for debunking the deconstruction, claiming they were correct. That
seems dubious at best.
++Lar
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> Incorrect. Suffering of children is never "justified". My argument merely
> demonstrates that their suffering is not the *fault* of the US, just as the
> suffering of FB Jr (while not "justified") in not having his wants satisfied
> is not the *fault* of the incarcerating authority. Rather it is the *fault*
> of his father. And the suffering of the Iraqi children (and the destruction
> of the country) is the *fault* of Hussein more than it is the sanctions,
> which are easily lifted if Hussein changes his ways or abdicates. There was
> an excellent analysis of this posted by Dave!
Such sweeping assumptions on causality. Tsk tsk. By pulling back the causal
loop one step further to point the finger at FB Sr. instead of the
government that imprisoned him is no better than to step back one step
further and point the finger at, say, mass media for teaching FB Sr. that
murder was acceptable, or some other cause-- his parents, or the person he
murdered being such a jerk to FB Sr., etc, etc.
Let's say instead that the state did something *else* other than imprison FB
Sr. Let's say they gave him a good talking to and sent him back. Now FB Jr.
has his little Xbox. Why? Because FB Sr. did or didn't murder someone? No,
but based on what the state's reaction was. But of course if FBS didn't
murder at ALL, then sure, the state's reaction wouldn't come into the
picture at all, right? So FBS's actions are also consequential, aren't they?
Basically, I don't think you can make such distinctive interpretations as
"the US is not at fault". Of *COURSE* it's at fault. But not 100% by any
means. I would instead have you say that the US is *less* at fault than
Hussein, or however you spell his name. Passing off blame as though the US
had no part in it is horribly misleading, IMHO.
DaveE
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:
>
> > Such sweeping assumptions on causality. Tsk tsk.
>
> Tsk tsk yourself. I'm comfortable I've got the causes pegged correctly.
>
> http://www.nationalreview.com/15oct01/jos101501.shtml
?
That doesn't touch the basic premise of my point. Perhaps I should point out
that fault != bad. Saying that the US isn't at fault is erroneous. Saying
that you stand behind our actions insofar as you think things would have
been *WORSE* had we acted differently or not at all is what I expect you to
mean. Per your example, I expect that you think that the one who could have
acted *BETTER* was FB Sr.-- NOT the state that imprisons him. But I would
not expect one to say "the state is not at fault".
Perhaps I would be so persnickity as to point out at such an admission that
it might be possible for the state to act *slightly* better, but not so much
better as to allow a situation in which little FB gets his Xbox. I.E. the
"bad" part of the fault lies even MORESO on FB Sr. percentagewise than the
whole part of the fault.
DaveE
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:
> >
> > > Such sweeping assumptions on causality. Tsk tsk.
> >
> > Tsk tsk yourself. I'm comfortable I've got the causes pegged correctly.
> >
> > http://www.nationalreview.com/15oct01/jos101501.shtml
>
> ?
> That doesn't touch the basic premise of my point. Perhaps I should point out
> that fault != bad. Saying that the US isn't at fault is erroneous. Saying
> that you stand behind our actions insofar as you think things would have
> been *WORSE* had we acted differently or not at all is what I expect you to
> mean. Per your example, I expect that you think that the one who could have
> acted *BETTER* was FB Sr.-- NOT the state that imprisons him. But I would
> not expect one to say "the state is not at fault".
>
> Perhaps I would be so persnickity as to point out at such an admission that
> it might be possible for the state to act *slightly* better, but not so much
> better as to allow a situation in which little FB gets his Xbox. I.E. the
> "bad" part of the fault lies even MORESO on FB Sr. percentagewise than the
> whole part of the fault.
>
> DaveE
Nope. That cite in fact does get to the root of the assertion you make.
Saying that FB Sr. has an out because he had a bad childhood is egregious
bogosity.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> Nope. That cite in fact does get to the root of the assertion you make.
> Saying that FB Sr. has an out because he had a bad childhood is egregious
> bogosity.
An "out"? I never said he had an "out". An "out" implies removal of
responsibility perhaps, but not of fault. Perhaps a re-reading of my two
posts is in order. I feel a little like I'm entering the "Scott-and-Larry
show" on this one...
DaveE
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > Nope. That cite in fact does get to the root of the assertion you make.
> > Saying that FB Sr. has an out because he had a bad childhood is egregious
> > bogosity.
>
> An "out"? I never said he had an "out". An "out" implies removal of
> responsibility perhaps, but not of fault.
Can you elaborate on what you mean by "fault !=bad" then? Maybe there's some
fundamental misunderstanding here...
However:
I'll reiterate, FB Jr.s pain is FB Srs fault more than anyone else's. Reread
the cite I gave... you're going down the same complex causality road that
they were.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> I'll reiterate, FB Jr.s pain is FB Srs fault more than anyone else's.
Acha! That's the crucial bit. "More FBS's fault than the government's". I.E.
not to say that the government isn't at fault-- that would be (I think it
is)misleading. But more to say that it is FBS's actions which, "should" have
changed-- or "should" have changed *more* than the government's actions
"should" have changed.
> Reread the cite I gave... you're going down the same complex causality road
> that they were.
And more so! By Chaos theory *I'm* actually at fault! But so much less so
than others that bringing me into the picture would be nearly useless.
However, to state that the US is not at fault at *all* is misleading and
incorrect, would say I.
I think your point is not that the US isn't at fault, but that it is not the
US's actions that should change-- I.E. you think we're just fine in our
actions past and present (or at least moreso than others), and that others
are more in need of change than our foreign policy. Which is a perfectly
fine point to make. I don't think I'm informed personally enough to make
such a judgement call, but that's beside my point. (Not beside yours however)
DaveE
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
>
> Rather, my definition of civilized is: "society is set up to allow people to
> reap the fruits of their labors *and& the thorns of their mistakes, rather
> than attempting to shield them from the consequences of their actions"
So to clarify, are you saying that FB jr should pay for FB sr's mistake? In
that case, shouldn't you extend your definition to be something like "society
is set up to allow people (and their families) to reap ..."?
ROSCO
|
|
| |
Hello Dave, hello everybody,
I have followed the discussion about responsibility for Iraqi people a
while, and what it boils down to is: Different people have different
definitions of responsibility.
First, there is the humanistic definition: People share this one planet, and
when someone suffers, everyone who is aware and can reasonably expect to be
able to change that is responsible for actually doing so. Applied to a
complex world, this usually means there is more than one person or
organization responsible. And even if some of them fail to live up to their
responsibility, the others are still obliged to do so.
In this sense, the US, as the leader in a unipolar world, have every
responsibility to lift the sanctions, because in a cost/benefit analysis
it turns out that they are ineffective with respect to their original goal,
but cause the suffering of many innocent people. They cannot hide behind the
fact that the Iraqi leadership obviously does not adhere to its
responsibility, either.
Then, there is the capitalist definition: People are responsible for
themselves, and have to adequately adapt any circumstances they find. If
they are unable to do so -- tough luck for them. Nobody will be held
responsible for anything, unless it can be directly tracked down to the
suffering of innocent people caused solely by his actions. Regardless to say
that, in a complex world, this will never be taken to the extreme, because
there is almost always more than one cause for something. So, in practice,
responsibility according to this paradigm is assumed when there is one main
reason for something.
In this sense, the US are not responsible for the effect of their sanctions,
because they are a rightful reaction to what the Iraqi leadership does. If
the people of Iraq want to get rid of the sanctions, they may have to change
their leadership, but that's entirely their own responsibility. The fact
that the sanctions against Iraq are ineffective has no significance with
this definition.
Finally, there is the calvinist definition: People, as predetermined
creatures, cannot be held responsible for anything. I haven't seen this
cited before in the discussion, so I list it just for completeness.
Obviously, in this notion, any kind of sovereignty is an illusion ...
> Regardless, it becomes a fairly straightforward matter of honoring Iraq's
> perceptions of its sovereignty; if Hussein (they) choose(s) to maintain a
> posture in defiance of the conditions that maintain the sanctions, then it
> is right and proper to allow him to maintain that posture, and, in so doing,
> to maintain the sanctions. Hussein very nicely washes our hands of all
> responsibility for the deaths of children.
I count this as an instance of the "capitalist" notion of responsibility. I
am just suspecting you (and others following the same paradigm) are a good
example for a psychological concept called "cognitive dissonance". In this
concept, it is assumed that people want their beliefs and actions to be
synchronized. If their actions cannot follow their beliefs, usually due to
external pressure, they tend to change their beliefs rather than their
actions. After all, it seems a lot easier to admit that we THOUGHT something
wrong than to admit that we DID something wrong.
In this example, whoever believes that the sanctions on Iraq should be
lifted, has to live with the fact that he is not in a position to easily
make that happen. Isn't it, then, a lot easier to filter information in a
way that lets those sanctions look OK? And then agree to them? And finally
define responsibility accordingly?
Look back in history and you can find a lot more (usually bad) things that
can be explained by this concept.
Regardless to say, after this post, I am following the humanistic definition
of responsibility rather than any of the other two ...
Greetings
Horst
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
>
> > Why not fix the mistakes 1st, before starting a new mess?
>
> So you are comfortable with fixing the past mistakes we made in supporting
> the thugs in Iraq and then in leaving the job undone the first time we had a
> chance to clean up the mess, then?
>
> The implication of that, of course, is that you support disassembly of Iraq.
> Not destruction of infrastructure, but disassembly of the government.
Have you even read my replies to Frank?
Scott A
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> >
> > > > I reject that 500K children in Iraq have died since sanctions were • imposed.
> > > > That statistic itself is questionable. I note you haven't debunked it,
> > > > merely cited it again.
> > > >
> > > > I reject that the sanctions are the REASON that children (however many)
> > > > died. The sanctions do not prevent the flow of food into the country.
> > > >
> > > > I reject that even if the sanctions actually *caused* the death of even 1
> > > > child that it's the fault of the imposers of the sanctions for the deaths.
> > > > The *fault* lies with the lawless dictator Hussein, not the US.
> >
> > > That is 100% opinion on his part.
> >
> > I agree.
>
> A great explanation of this was given by Dave!
>
> > In this case, I don't particularly recall any valid explanation of how and why
> > UNICEF is lying.
>
> The original cite of "debunk this" deconstructs the UN statistics.
> Statistics have a way of getting cited and re-cited, and those cites get
> recited by those that want the statistics to be what they are because they
> are conveniently in support of their arguments.
Not valid. I cited UNICEF statistics *&* opinion. Free free to debunk it.
>
> Reciting UN statistics does not debunk the deconstruction, you would have to
> attack the logic of the deconstruction to refute it. Not just recite the
> re-cites, which is what some do.
>
> More generally...
>
> I have no faith in statistics that are originated by the UN unless
> independently corroborated, and that's a blanket statement. The UN apparatus
> is highly politicised and tends to produce answers that are politically
> correct rather than actually correct.
You are deluded. An argument has been presented by more than just me and
this is the best you can do to counter it? I would have had more respect for
you if you had just failed to answer the point.
>
> Please note that Scott said (effectively) "I don't believe the 500K number"
Not quite. I would phrase my stament as "500K is and unbelievable number".
When I wrote that text I was aware the the death rate right now is ~500 per
month, so I had an idea that the total dead would be very high.
> and also quoted statistics that supported or cited the 500K number as a
> mechanism for debunking the deconstruction, claiming they were correct. That
> seems dubious at best.
Larry. Wake up and smell the coffee.
Lets look at your words:
==+==
I reject that even if the sanctions actually *caused* the death of even 1
child that it's the fault of the imposers of the sanctions for the deaths.
The *fault* lies with the lawless dictator Hussein, not the US.
==+==
Do you still stand by that?
Scott A
>
> ++Lar
|
|
| |
>
> > We are supposed to live in a civilised society aren't we?
>
> Supposedly, yes.
>
> > Isn't it the 'civilised world' that is under attack.
>
> No, the 'free' world...
This is a joke coming from you, in the last weeks you have shown me that you
don't understand (amongst other this):
Freedom
Liberty
Freedom of Speech
Freedom & liberty
From http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=13318
==+==
SA
> > As for "first principles", I have become convinced that you do not even
> > understand what "freedom" really means. What tipped the balance was this post:
> > http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=13204
LP
> I'm totally comfortable with what I said there and see no contradiction.
> Feel free to explain how it shows that I don't understand what freedom
> means. Freedom does NOT mean letting those that violate your rights get away
> with it if you can help it.
SA:
Your comfort is irrelvant. You said what happened on the 11th was an attack
on "freedom and liberty", I'm just asking you to justify that (if you can).
This text questions the premis that it was an attack on freedom and liberty:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4266289,00.html
The author takes it apart. It is a long text, but well worth the read. Read
it, and then tell me what you mean by "freedom and liberty".
==+==
Freedom of Speech
From: http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=12631
==+==
If I were Saddam Hussein, who has made the foolish mistake of exulting, I'd
be enjoying the running water while I could. That country needs to be
disassembled too, their citizens freed, and the oil pumped out and sold to
pay war reparations.
==+==
> > And the civilised society does differentiate between x-boxes and food.
>
> Yes, a civilized society assigns them different values in the marketplace.
>
> > And any family in the UK who's bread winner goes to jail most certainly would >get aid if they needed it, irrespective of their partners crime.
>
> Which does not make the UK civilised, unless you accept the definition of
> civilized as "society uses force to take from those that have to give to
> those that need".
Nope. In a civilised society, we don't view it as being "forced" to pay our
fair share. For many a "fair share" is not enough, and they are free to give
more.
I would rather that than return to child labour and the workhouse.
Scott A
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ross Crawford writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> >
> > Rather, my definition of civilized is: "society is set up to allow people to
> > reap the fruits of their labors *and& the thorns of their mistakes, rather
> > than attempting to shield them from the consequences of their actions"
>
> So to clarify, are you saying that FB jr should pay for FB sr's mistake?
No, I'm not.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> ==+==
> I reject that even if the sanctions actually *caused* the death of even 1
> child that it's the fault of the imposers of the sanctions for the deaths.
> The *fault* lies with the lawless dictator Hussein, not the US.
> ==+==
>
> Do you still stand by that?
Yes. This leg has nothing to do with whether the stat is right or whether
the causality link is there.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
That's right, answer just one issue in the *hope* you score a cheap point.
> > ==+==
> > I reject that even if the sanctions actually *caused* the death of even 1
> > child that it's the fault of the imposers of the sanctions for the deaths.
> > The *fault* lies with the lawless dictator Hussein, not the US.
> > ==+==
> >
> > Do you still stand by that?
>
> Yes.
Can you support this, or is it mere opinion. Do you think the UNICEF data
and opinion I quoted was wrong?
Do you still stand by this:
==+==
I reject that the sanctions are the REASON that children (however many)
died. The sanctions do not prevent the flow of food into the country.
==+==
Do you think sanctaions have not caused their to be less food in Iraq?
> This leg has nothing to do with whether the stat is right or whether
> the causality link is there.
In your opionion. But I think it shows how little you understand the
issue... in my opinion.
Scott A
|
|
| |
> > ==+==
> > I reject that even if the sanctions actually *caused* the death of even 1
> > child that it's the fault of the imposers of the sanctions for the deaths.
> > The *fault* lies with the lawless dictator Hussein, not the US.
> > ==+==
> >
> > Do you still stand by that?
>
> Yes.
Do you disagree with this comment:
"Just because Saddam Hussein doesn’t care about the children doesn’t mean
that it is acceptable for us to punish the innocent and helpless when he
hides behind them. We should confront dictators face-to-face rather than
adopting policies that are harmful to children and the people of Iraq."
It was made by a Libertarian Congressional Candidate 2000. He was apparently
against the "violence and economic sanctions perpetrated by our government’s
policies towards Iraq".
Justin Raimondo (a fellow of the Center for Libertarian Studies, CA)
described the sanctions thus:
"...mass murder, comparable in scope to the famine unleashed by Stalin
against several million kulaks. After six years of a near-total economic
embargo, the once thriving Iraqi middle class has ceased to exist, and a
country once proud of its modernity is being dragged down into the lowest
rungs of the Third World."
Does anyone actually agree with you on this?
Scott A
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
>
> > > ==+==
> > > I reject that even if the sanctions actually *caused* the death of even 1
> > > child that it's the fault of the imposers of the sanctions for the deaths.
> > > The *fault* lies with the lawless dictator Hussein, not the US.
> > > ==+==
> > >
> > > Do you still stand by that?
> >
> > Yes.
>
> Do you disagree with this comment:
>
> "Just because Saddam Hussein doesn’t care about the children doesn’t mean
> that it is acceptable for us to punish the innocent and helpless when he
> hides behind them. We should confront dictators face-to-face rather than
> adopting policies that are harmful to children and the people of Iraq."
No, I do not disagree with this comment. There is no inconsistency with what
I am saying, either. The sanctions are ineffective, but are not a
"punishment" any more than a fence is a punishment to a cow.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> in the last weeks you have shown me that you
> don't understand (amongst other this):
> Freedom
> Liberty
> Freedom of Speech
Let's be clear here. I am just NOT going to get into an open ended debate
with you on whether I understand freedom or not. That is so laughable an
allegation that it's not worth responding to.
Further you don't get to dictate where the conversation goes despite your
repeated posting of the same questions and quotes, no matter how hard you try.
You haven't answered my simple yes/no questions lately, so why should I
explain why the sky is blue till you get it?
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> >
> > > > ==+==
> > > > I reject that even if the sanctions actually *caused* the death of even 1
> > > > child that it's the fault of the imposers of the sanctions for the deaths.
> > > > The *fault* lies with the lawless dictator Hussein, not the US.
> > > > ==+==
> > > >
> > > > Do you still stand by that?
> > >
> > > Yes.
> >
> > Do you disagree with this comment:
> >
> > "Just because Saddam Hussein doesn’t care about the children doesn’t mean
> > that it is acceptable for us to punish the innocent and helpless when he
> > hides behind them. We should confront dictators face-to-face rather than
> > adopting policies that are harmful to children and the people of Iraq."
>
> No, I do not disagree with this comment. There is no inconsistency with what
> I am saying, either.
Even when it is put in context (which you deleted):
==+==
It was made by a Libertarian Congressional Candidate 2000. He was apparently
against the "violence and economic sanctions perpetrated by our government’s
policies towards Iraq".
==+==
> The sanctions are ineffective, but are not a
> "punishment" any more than a fence is a punishment to a cow.
It depends on how big the space within the fence is. Do you agree?
Now, lets return to the rest of my message which you deleted:
==+==
Justin Raimondo (a fellow of the Center for Libertarian Studies, CA)
described the sanctions thus:
"...mass murder, comparable in scope to the famine unleashed by Stalin
against several million kulaks. After six years of a near-total economic
embargo, the once thriving Iraqi middle class has ceased to exist, and a
country once proud of its modernity is being dragged down into the lowest
rungs of the Third World."
Does anyone actually agree with you on this?
==+==
Do you agree with Mr Raimondo?
Scott A
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
>
> > in the last weeks you have shown me that you
> > don't understand (amongst other this):
> > Freedom
> > Liberty
> > Freedom of Speech
>
> Let's be clear here.
Yes, let's.
> I am just NOT going to get into an open ended debate
> with you on whether I understand freedom or not.
I'm not asking for a debate, just that you justify your comments. It is that
simple.
> That is so laughable an
> allegation that it's not worth responding to.
Or one you can't respond to?
>
> Further you don't get to dictate where the conversation goes despite your
> repeated posting of the same questions and quotes, no matter how hard you try.
Larry. I don't try to dictate the "conversation" here. Go check how many
threads I have started in the groups over the last month. Check the last 6
months if you wish. I'm sure its less than 1/10 that you have started. Are
you trying to "dictate where the conversation goes"? If I were to express my
opinion of who is the most dictatorial person who posts on this site, I do
not think I'd choose myself. Who would you choose Larry?
>
> You haven't answered my simple yes/no questions lately, so why should I
> explain why the sky is blue till you get it?
Ask me a question which only requires a yes/no question, and I'll give it one.
Scott A
PS You still have not answered my questions.
|
|
| |
Scott,
How bullheadedly DENSE are you going to be? You only seem to be this stupid when
answering Larry's posts, I think it's time you at least try to engage your brain
before answering any posts from him...
Scott A wrote:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> > >
> > > > > ==+==
> > > > > I reject that even if the sanctions actually *caused* the death of even 1
> > > > > child that it's the fault of the imposers of the sanctions for the deaths.
> > > > > The *fault* lies with the lawless dictator Hussein, not the US.
> > > > > ==+==
> > > > >
> > > > > Do you still stand by that?
> > > >
> > > > Yes.
> > >
> > > Do you disagree with this comment:
> > >
> > > "Just because Saddam Hussein doesn’t care about the children doesn’t mean
> > > that it is acceptable for us to punish the innocent and helpless when he
> > > hides behind them. We should confront dictators face-to-face rather than
> > > adopting policies that are harmful to children and the people of Iraq."
> >
> > No, I do not disagree with this comment. There is no inconsistency with what
> > I am saying, either.
>
> Even when it is put in context (which you deleted):
>
> ==+==
> It was made by a Libertarian Congressional Candidate 2000. He was apparently
> against the "violence and economic sanctions perpetrated by our government’s
> policies towards Iraq".
> ==+==
SO WHAT?!?
Larry has repeatedly stated that while he is a Libertarian, he doesn't agree with
the LP on many things.
How many times does he have to say that he doesn't toe the line 100% with the LP
before it sinks into your thick skull?
And why does this context do anything to affect the fact that there is no
inconsistency with what Larry was saying? It does not, it's just you wasting
everyone's time again, digging at something that has absolutely nothing to do with
the issue.
> Now, lets return to the rest of my message which you deleted:
>
> ==+==
> Justin Raimondo (a fellow of the Center for Libertarian Studies, CA)
> described the sanctions thus:
>
> "...mass murder, comparable in scope to the famine unleashed by Stalin
> against several million kulaks. After six years of a near-total economic
> embargo, the once thriving Iraqi middle class has ceased to exist, and a
> country once proud of its modernity is being dragged down into the lowest
> rungs of the Third World."
>
> Does anyone actually agree with you on this?
>
> ==+==
>
> Do you agree with Mr Raimondo?
What, exactly, is your point?
Larry has repeatedly mentioned that he doesn't agree with the sanctions, but he
doesn't think the US should take the blame for them, SH should. Is this really so
hard for you to grasp? Are you that dense?
WHO CARES whether he agrees with Mr Raimondo or not? He's already said he doesn't
agree with sanctions, so the results of the sanctions don't really matter (as far
as Larry's feelings), do they?
I won't apologize for being blunt or rude to you. You have proven over and over
again that, while you may be well educated, you can be blindingly stupid about the
simplest statements. I'm so tired of you beating deceased equines on Larry's
posts, especially when his opinions/stands on many points are so abundantly clear
to anyone else that can read.
I sure hope this kill filter in Messenger works...
--
Tom Stangl
***http://www.vfaq.com/
***DSM Visual FAQ home
***http://ba.dsm.org/
***SF Bay Area DSMs
|
|
| |
Scott A wrote:
> > You haven't answered my simple yes/no questions lately, so why should I
> > explain why the sky is blue till you get it?
>
> Ask me a question which only requires a yes/no question, and I'll give it one.
Riiiiight. I think you need to read the last day or two in here - he asked a
simple yes/no question, and you dodged it with "is this a question?".
--
Tom Stangl
***http://www.vfaq.com/
***DSM Visual FAQ home
***http://ba.dsm.org/
***SF Bay Area DSMs
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > I'll reiterate, FB Jr.s pain is FB Srs fault more than anyone else's.
>
> Acha! That's the crucial bit. "More FBS's fault than the government's". I.E.
> not to say that the government isn't at fault-- that would be (I think it
> is)misleading. But more to say that it is FBS's actions which, "should" have
> changed-- or "should" have changed *more* than the government's actions
> "should" have changed.
>
> > Reread the cite I gave... you're going down the same complex causality road
> > that they were.
>
> And more so! By Chaos theory *I'm* actually at fault! But so much less so
> than others that bringing me into the picture would be nearly useless.
> However, to state that the US is not at fault at *all* is misleading and
> incorrect, would say I.
What I want to do is divorce causality from fault to a certain extent here.
Factors in FB Sr.s environment may well have contributed to his being a bad
person, ("caused it") but remember the scenario, we assume a just finding of
homicide as a basis. (not manslaughter, not "not guilty by reason of
insanity") That means he DECIDED to murder.
This means *by definition* that the fault here lies with the person who
voluntarily committed the crime. Not the state for restricting his further
ability to commit crimes (and punish him at the same time), not the nebulous
factors that made him be a bad person. He CHOSE to be bad in this particular
instance so it's *all* his fault. Regardless of secondary causality.
> I think your point is not that the US isn't at fault, but that it is not the
> US's actions that should change
Wow I must have really explained this badly. (I don't actually think so of
course)... that's wrong twice.
My point rather is totally opposite. The US OUGHT to drop the sanctions. The
US OUGHT to change how it meddles so as not to create further Husseins. The
US OUGHT to clean up the mess it made here, which means getting rid of this
particular tinpot and doing some nation building, distasteful as that is to
me in the general case.
But the US ought to do these things for reasons OTHER than that the US is at
any way at fault for what (if anything) the sanctions did or did not do.
(note carefully we are talking about fault as far as sanction effects and
sanction effects only. That Hussein is able to do what he has done in the
last 10 years IS our fault, but it's not the sanctions, it is fault due to
actions we took (propping him up for meddlesome reasons) or didn't take (not
removing him when it would have been easier to do so than now) farther back
in time that clearly have culpability)
The fence builder is not at fault for building fences if bandits cut
themselves on the barbs.
The punisher is not at fault for punishing criminals if the criminals suffer.
Cause != fault
++Lar
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Tom Stangl writes:
> Scott,
>
> How bullheadedly DENSE are you going to be? You only seem to be this stupid when
> answering Larry's posts, I think it's time you at least try to engage your brain
> before answering any posts from him...
>
> Scott A wrote:
>
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> > > >
> > > > > > ==+==
> > > > > > I reject that even if the sanctions actually *caused* the death of even 1
> > > > > > child that it's the fault of the imposers of the sanctions for the deaths.
> > > > > > The *fault* lies with the lawless dictator Hussein, not the US.
> > > > > > ==+==
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Do you still stand by that?
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes.
> > > >
> > > > Do you disagree with this comment:
> > > >
> > > > "Just because Saddam Hussein doesn’t care about the children doesn’t mean
> > > > that it is acceptable for us to punish the innocent and helpless when he
> > > > hides behind them. We should confront dictators face-to-face rather than
> > > > adopting policies that are harmful to children and the people of Iraq."
> > >
> > > No, I do not disagree with this comment. There is no inconsistency with what
> > > I am saying, either.
> >
> > Even when it is put in context (which you deleted):
> >
> > ==+==
> > It was made by a Libertarian Congressional Candidate 2000. He was apparently
> > against the "violence and economic sanctions perpetrated by our government’s
> > policies towards Iraq".
> > ==+==
>
> SO WHAT?!?
>
> Larry has repeatedly stated that while he is a Libertarian, he doesn't agree with
> the LP on many things.
I doubt that is LP policy... I may be wrong. Did I say Larry should agree
with it just because it is related to the LP?
>
> How many times does he have to say that he doesn't toe the line 100% with the LP
> before it sinks into your thick skull?
My skull is the normall thickness thak you!
>
> And why does this context do anything to affect the fact that there is no
> inconsistency with what Larry was saying?
I think there is.
> It does not, it's just you wasting
> everyone's time again, digging at something that has absolutely nothing to do with
> the issue.
Perhaps if Larry answered my point this would be clear to me?
Scott A
>
>
>
> > Now, lets return to the rest of my message which you deleted:
> >
> > ==+==
> > Justin Raimondo (a fellow of the Center for Libertarian Studies, CA)
> > described the sanctions thus:
> >
> > "...mass murder, comparable in scope to the famine unleashed by Stalin
> > against several million kulaks. After six years of a near-total economic
> > embargo, the once thriving Iraqi middle class has ceased to exist, and a
> > country once proud of its modernity is being dragged down into the lowest
> > rungs of the Third World."
> >
> > Does anyone actually agree with you on this?
> >
> > ==+==
> >
> > Do you agree with Mr Raimondo?
>
> What, exactly, is your point?
>
> Larry has repeatedly mentioned that he doesn't agree with the sanctions, but he
> doesn't think the US should take the blame for them, SH should. Is this really so
> hard for you to grasp? Are you that dense?
We are taliking about the *effect* of the sanctions.
>
> WHO CARES whether he agrees with Mr Raimondo or not?
Perhaps me?
> He's already said he doesn't
> agree with sanctions, so the results of the sanctions don't really matter (as far
> as Larry's feelings), do they?
We are talking about *effect*.
>
>
> I won't apologize for being blunt or rude to you.
Tom, I don't expect you to.
> You have proven over and over
> again that, while you may be well educated, you can be blindingly stupid about the
> simplest statements.
As we all can be Tom.
> I'm so tired of you beating deceased equines on Larry's posts, especially when his opinions/stands on many points are so abundantly clear
> to anyone else that can read.
I think these horses are still alive. I'm not the only one who has asked
Larry these questions. His opinions are indeed clear - I do not dispute
that. It is the basis of these opinions that I am interested in. He makes
statements like this, but can not justify it in any real way:
==+==
I reject that the sanctions are the REASON that children (however many)
died. The sanctions do not prevent the flow of food into the country.
I reject that even if the sanctions actually *caused* the death of even 1
child that it's the fault of the imposers of the sanctions for the deaths.
The *fault* lies with the lawless dictator Hussein, not the US.
==+==
I accept that is his opinion 100%. I am just interested in how he reached
that opinion. Was it another of his "hunches"? Do you agree with it?
Scott A
>
>
> I sure hope this kill filter in Messenger works...
>
> --
> Tom Stangl
> ***http://www.vfaq.com/
> ***DSM Visual FAQ home
> ***http://ba.dsm.org/
> ***SF Bay Area DSMs
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
Oh, and further, in the general case, it is the parent that is at fault when
the parent does not adequately provide for the minor child. Not external
factors or causes that the parent could have avoided by acting honestly. FB
sr is at fault for the privations of his child and is an unfit parent (and
his child arguably ought to be up for adoption if the privation is too bad,
as it is not JUST that the child suffer for the fault of the father).
Similarly, it is the government at fault if the government does not enable
individuals to seek and obtain an honest living. Not external factors or
causes that the government could have avoided by acting honestly (for
example not attacking defenseless neighbors or violently suppressing
internal dissent). The Iraqi government is at fault for the privations of
its people and is an unfit government (and the people arguably ought to be
seeking a new government, with or without external aid, as it is not JUST
that the people suffer for the fault of the government).
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Tom Stangl writes:
> Scott A wrote:
>
> > > You haven't answered my simple yes/no questions lately, so why should I
> > > explain why the sky is blue till you get it?
> >
> > Ask me a question which only requires a yes/no question, and I'll give it one.
>
>
> Riiiiight. I think you need to read the last day or two in here - he asked a
> simple yes/no question, and you dodged it with "is this a question?".
Riiiiight.
Scott A
>
> --
> Tom Stangl
> ***http://www.vfaq.com/
> ***DSM Visual FAQ home
> ***http://ba.dsm.org/
> ***SF Bay Area DSMs
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Tom Stangl writes:
> Scott,
>
> How bullheadedly DENSE are you going to be? You only seem to be this stupid when
> answering Larry's posts, I think it's time you at least try to engage your brain
> before answering any posts from him...
Just a second. Larry states an opinion - but cannot justify it to me or
others. I debunk it anyway. He still holds the same opinion - but still does
not justify it. And you are calling *me* bull-headed?
Scott A
>
> Scott A wrote:
>
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> > > >
> > > > > > ==+==
> > > > > > I reject that even if the sanctions actually *caused* the death of even 1
> > > > > > child that it's the fault of the imposers of the sanctions for the deaths.
> > > > > > The *fault* lies with the lawless dictator Hussein, not the US.
> > > > > > ==+==
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Do you still stand by that?
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes.
> > > >
> > > > Do you disagree with this comment:
> > > >
> > > > "Just because Saddam Hussein doesn’t care about the children doesn’t mean
> > > > that it is acceptable for us to punish the innocent and helpless when he
> > > > hides behind them. We should confront dictators face-to-face rather than
> > > > adopting policies that are harmful to children and the people of Iraq."
> > >
> > > No, I do not disagree with this comment. There is no inconsistency with what
> > > I am saying, either.
> >
> > Even when it is put in context (which you deleted):
> >
> > ==+==
> > It was made by a Libertarian Congressional Candidate 2000. He was apparently
> > against the "violence and economic sanctions perpetrated by our government’s
> > policies towards Iraq".
> > ==+==
>
> SO WHAT?!?
>
> Larry has repeatedly stated that while he is a Libertarian, he doesn't agree with
> the LP on many things.
>
> How many times does he have to say that he doesn't toe the line 100% with the LP
> before it sinks into your thick skull?
>
> And why does this context do anything to affect the fact that there is no
> inconsistency with what Larry was saying? It does not, it's just you wasting
> everyone's time again, digging at something that has absolutely nothing to do with
> the issue.
>
>
>
> > Now, lets return to the rest of my message which you deleted:
> >
> > ==+==
> > Justin Raimondo (a fellow of the Center for Libertarian Studies, CA)
> > described the sanctions thus:
> >
> > "...mass murder, comparable in scope to the famine unleashed by Stalin
> > against several million kulaks. After six years of a near-total economic
> > embargo, the once thriving Iraqi middle class has ceased to exist, and a
> > country once proud of its modernity is being dragged down into the lowest
> > rungs of the Third World."
> >
> > Does anyone actually agree with you on this?
> >
> > ==+==
> >
> > Do you agree with Mr Raimondo?
>
> What, exactly, is your point?
>
> Larry has repeatedly mentioned that he doesn't agree with the sanctions, but he
> doesn't think the US should take the blame for them, SH should. Is this really so
> hard for you to grasp? Are you that dense?
>
> WHO CARES whether he agrees with Mr Raimondo or not? He's already said he doesn't
> agree with sanctions, so the results of the sanctions don't really matter (as far
> as Larry's feelings), do they?
>
>
> I won't apologize for being blunt or rude to you. You have proven over and over
> again that, while you may be well educated, you can be blindingly stupid about the
> simplest statements. I'm so tired of you beating deceased equines on Larry's
> posts, especially when his opinions/stands on many points are so abundantly clear
> to anyone else that can read.
>
> I sure hope this kill filter in Messenger works...
>
> --
> Tom Stangl
> ***http://www.vfaq.com/
> ***DSM Visual FAQ home
> ***http://ba.dsm.org/
> ***SF Bay Area DSMs
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > > I'll reiterate, FB Jr.s pain is FB Srs fault more than anyone else's.
> >
> > Acha! That's the crucial bit. "More FBS's fault than the government's". I.E.
> > not to say that the government isn't at fault-- that would be (I think it
> > is)misleading. But more to say that it is FBS's actions which, "should" have
> > changed-- or "should" have changed *more* than the government's actions
> > "should" have changed.
> >
> > > Reread the cite I gave... you're going down the same complex causality road
> > > that they were.
> >
> > And more so! By Chaos theory *I'm* actually at fault! But so much less so
> > than others that bringing me into the picture would be nearly useless.
> > However, to state that the US is not at fault at *all* is misleading and
> > incorrect, would say I.
>
> What I want to do is divorce causality from fault to a certain extent here.
> Factors in FB Sr.s environment may well have contributed to his being a bad
> person, ("caused it") but remember the scenario, we assume a just finding of
> homicide as a basis. (not manslaughter, not "not guilty by reason of
> insanity") That means he DECIDED to murder.
>
> This means *by definition* that the fault here lies with the person who
> voluntarily committed the crime. Not the state for restricting his further
> ability to commit crimes (and punish him at the same time), not the nebulous
> factors that made him be a bad person. He CHOSE to be bad in this particular
> instance so it's *all* his fault. Regardless of secondary causality.
>
> > I think your point is not that the US isn't at fault, but that it is not the
> > US's actions that should change
>
> Wow I must have really explained this badly. (I don't actually think so of
> course)... that's wrong twice.
>
> My point rather is totally opposite. The US OUGHT to drop the sanctions. The
> US OUGHT to change how it meddles so as not to create further Husseins. The
> US OUGHT to clean up the mess it made here, which means getting rid of this
> particular tinpot and doing some nation building, distasteful as that is to
> me in the general case.
>
> But the US ought to do these things for reasons OTHER than that the US is at
> any way at fault for what (if anything) the sanctions did or did not do.
>
> (note carefully we are talking about fault as far as sanction effects and
> sanction effects only. That Hussein is able to do what he has done in the
> last 10 years IS our fault, but it's not the sanctions, it is fault due to
> actions we took (propping him up for meddlesome reasons) or didn't take (not
> removing him when it would have been easier to do so than now) farther back
> in time that clearly have culpability)
>
> The fence builder is not at fault for building fences if bandits cut
> themselves on the barbs.
What if passers by cut themselves on the barbs?
>
> The punisher is not at fault for punishing criminals if the criminals suffer.
...only if the punishment is just.
Scott A
>
> Cause != fault
>
> ++Lar
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> > The fence builder is not at fault for building fences if bandits cut
> > themselves on the barbs.
>
> What if passers by cut themselves on the barbs?
That's easy. Either the fence builder built a hazardous obstruction on land
not his own, or the passer by was trespassing.
> > The punisher is not at fault for punishing criminals if the criminals suffer.
>
> ...only if the punishment is just.
There's no such thing. The punisher is at fault, in my opinon (but it can only
_be_ opinion...there is no right answer here) for inflicting suffering only if
the suffering could be avoided and the rights of the protected citizenry still
maintained. Suffering above the minimum needed to keep The People safe is
evil.
Chris
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> Ask me a question which only requires a yes/no question, and I'll give it one.
Have you stopped beating your wife?
Chris
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
>
> > > The fence builder is not at fault for building fences if bandits cut
> > > themselves on the barbs.
> >
> > What if passers by cut themselves on the barbs?
>
> That's easy. Either the fence builder built a hazardous obstruction on land
> not his own, or the passer by was trespassing.
>
> > > The punisher is not at fault for punishing criminals if the criminals suffer.
> >
> > ...only if the punishment is just.
>
> There's no such thing. The punisher is at fault, in my opinon (but it can only
> _be_ opinion...there is no right answer here) for inflicting suffering only if
> the suffering could be avoided and the rights of the protected citizenry still
> maintained. Suffering above the minimum needed to keep The People safe is
> evil.
I agree with you to very large extent. But when one is faced with grieving
relatives it is very difficult to argue against the retribution argument. On
a macro scale this was what was happening in the US in the days after the
11th; a lot of people wanting revenge and those shouting them down were
viewed as “unpatriotic”. Some folk don’t understand the difference between
patriotism and jingoism… and that is just my opinion.
Scott A
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
>
> > Ask me a question which only requires a yes/no question, and I'll give it one.
>
> Have you stopped beating your wife?
I would not dare hit her.. You've never seen my wife's mother.
How about you?
Scott A
>
> Chris
|
|
| |
Hello Larry,
> I have no faith in statistics that are originated by the UN unless
> independently corroborated, and that's a blanket statement. The UN apparatus
> is highly politicised and tends to produce answers that are politically
> correct rather than actually correct.
>
> Please note that Scott said (effectively) "I don't believe the 500K number"
> and also quoted statistics that supported or cited the 500K number as a
> mechanism for debunking the deconstruction, claiming they were correct. That
> seems dubious at best.
I think the question here should not be so much "is the actual number 500k
or maybe 80% less or more", but instead: "What can we do to fix the
problem." One possibility would be to lift the sanctions. In terms of
military buildup in Iraq, that would barely make a difference. The other
possibility is to finish what Desert Storm left unfinished. And then of
course not only lift sanctions, but send Care packets ...
Greetings
Horst
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> > > > The punisher is not at fault for punishing criminals if the criminals • suffer.
> > >
> > > ...only if the punishment is just.
> >
> > There's no such thing. The punisher is at fault, in my opinon (but it can • only
> > _be_ opinion...there is no right answer here) for inflicting suffering only • if
> > the suffering could be avoided and the rights of the protected citizenry • still
> > maintained. Suffering above the minimum needed to keep The People safe is
> > evil.
>
> I agree with you to very large extent. But when one is faced with grieving
> relatives it is very difficult to argue against the retribution argument.
Tough. I'd do it. We must be better than that.
> On
> a macro scale this was what was happening in the US in the days after the
> 11th; a lot of people wanting revenge and those shouting them down were
> viewed as “unpatriotic”.
I agree. I think I was nearly assaulted at work when an argument became heated
and when I was called unamerican, I responded that they (the people who think
we should kill them all (and give up our rights in the process)) were the ones
who were anti-american and didn't even understand that which makes the US
great.
> Some folk don’t understand the difference between
> patriotism and jingoism… and that is just my opinion.
I find myself in the queer position of agreeing with you completely.
It is a shame that anger clouds judgement.
Chris
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> >
> > > Ask me a question which only requires a yes/no question, and I'll give it • one.
> >
> > Have you stopped beating your wife?
>
> I would not dare hit her.. You've never seen my wife's mother.
I presumed that the second 'question' above was supposed to be 'answer.' And
so I assumed that you meant you would answer with a 'yes' or a 'no.' Is that
not what you meant, or did you fail to do so?
> How about you?
I have not stopped beating your wife.
Chris
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> I have not stopped beating your wife.
Then you're going to have to deal with Scott's mother-in-law.
Dave!
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
>
> > I have not stopped beating your wife.
>
> Then you're going to have to deal with Scott's mother-in-law.
I could sell her some LEGO, but I'd expect that were she in the market, she
would buy from Scott.
Chris
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Horst Lehner writes:
> Hello Larry,
>
> > I have no faith in statistics that are originated by the UN unless
> > independently corroborated, and that's a blanket statement. The UN apparatus
> > is highly politicised and tends to produce answers that are politically
> > correct rather than actually correct.
> >
> > Please note that Scott said (effectively) "I don't believe the 500K number"
> > and also quoted statistics that supported or cited the 500K number as a
> > mechanism for debunking the deconstruction, claiming they were correct. That
> > seems dubious at best.
>
> I think the question here should not be so much "is the actual number 500k
> or maybe 80% less or more", but instead: "What can we do to fix the
> problem." One possibility would be to lift the sanctions. In terms of
> military buildup in Iraq, that would barely make a difference. The other
> possibility is to finish what Desert Storm left unfinished. And then of
> course not only lift sanctions, but send Care packets ...
Right!
This is exactly what I am advocating. Disassemble the country and reassemble
it correctly.
|
|
| |
> FB sr is at fault for the privations of his child and is an unfit
> parent (and his child arguably ought to be up for adoption if the
> privation is too bad, as it is not JUST that the child suffer for
> the fault of the father).
I agree with most of that, including that it is not just that the child
suffer for the fault of the father. But I could imagine some other ways of
ensuring that he doesn't, besides allowing adoption. Isn't there quite
possibly a mother who loves her child, and vice versa? Would it be just to
divorce these two? Wouldn't it be a lot more just to offer some money if
that is what is required for a decent (not luxury!) life without the money
the father has earned before? Do you really think it cuts your freedom so
badly if you have to pay your share of that?
I know, this gets into the freedom debate again, but I sure hope this is
acceptable to you, because my questions certainly are NOT open ended ... ;-)
Greetings
Horst
|
|
| |
Hello Larry,
> > in the last weeks you have shown me that you
> > don't understand (amongst other this):
> > Freedom
> > Liberty
> > Freedom of Speech
>
> Let's be clear here. I am just NOT going to get into an open ended debate
> with you on whether I understand freedom or not. That is so laughable an
> allegation that it's not worth responding to.
It seems to me that this discussion is getting too confrontational. Also,
for me the question should be WHAT EXACTLY you understand to be freedom
rather than WHETHER OR NOT you understand what freedom is. In the light of
some recent discussion, I built some assumptions for your as well as Scott's
understanding. And, yes, they seem to diverge ...
> Further you don't get to dictate where the conversation goes despite your
> repeated posting of the same questions and quotes, no matter how hard you try.
As far as I am concerned, answering questions does not necessarily mean to
follow a certain path in conversation.
Greetings
Horst
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Horst Lehner writes:
>
>
> > FB sr is at fault for the privations of his child and is an unfit
> > parent (and his child arguably ought to be up for adoption if the
> > privation is too bad, as it is not JUST that the child suffer for
> > the fault of the father).
>
> I agree with most of that, including that it is not just that the child
> suffer for the fault of the father. But I could imagine some other ways of
> ensuring that he doesn't, besides allowing adoption. Isn't there quite
> possibly a mother who loves her child, and vice versa? Would it be just to
> divorce these two?
Potentially, if that's what the mother wants to do.
> Wouldn't it be a lot more just to offer some money if
> that is what is required for a decent (not luxury!) life without the money
> the father has earned before?
Where does this money come from? Taxpayers, or voluntary contributions? If
the former, it is *less* just to extort funds from yet more victims (the
taxpayers) to allow the father to avoid the consequences of his actions than
it is to do nothing.
> Do you really think it cuts your freedom so
> badly if you have to pay your share of that?
Yes. This gets into the larger question around whether it is appropriate to
do "charity by force", which has been discussed in depth here in the past. I
hold that it is not.
I'm happy to discuss this with you or other critical thinkers as long as
we're not covering TOO much plowed ground.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> >
> > > I have not stopped beating your wife.
> >
> > Then you're going to have to deal with Scott's mother-in-law.
>
> I could sell her some LEGO, but I'd expect that were she in the market, she
> would buy from Scott.
Whoa! You're starting to get a bit on-topic (Lugnet)! Maybe you should've set
follow-ups to .market.b-s-t????
ROSCO
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> > > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> > >
> > > > Ask me a question which only requires a yes/no question, and I'll give it • one.
> > >
> > > Have you stopped beating your wife?
> >
> > I would not dare hit her.. You've never seen my wife's mother.
>
> I presumed that the second 'question' above was supposed to be 'answer.'
Well spotted.
> And
> so I assumed that you meant you would answer with a 'yes' or a 'no.' Is that
> not what you meant, or did you fail to do so?
I shall be clearer : Ask me a question to which I can qive a yes/no answer,
and I'll give it one.
>
> > How about you?
>
> I have not stopped beating your wife.
Because you never started?
Scott A
>
> Chris
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Horst Lehner writes:
> Hello Larry,
>
> > > in the last weeks you have shown me that you
> > > don't understand (amongst other this):
> > > Freedom
> > > Liberty
> > > Freedom of Speech
> >
> > Let's be clear here. I am just NOT going to get into an open ended debate
> > with you on whether I understand freedom or not. That is so laughable an
> > allegation that it's not worth responding to.
>
> It seems to me that this discussion is getting too confrontational. Also,
> for me the question should be WHAT EXACTLY you understand to be freedom
> rather than WHETHER OR NOT you understand what freedom is. In the light of
> some recent discussion, I built some assumptions for your as well as Scott's
> understanding. And, yes, they seem to diverge ...
I think they do to, and that is my point. As I have said before, I think
Larry has a rather selfish view of what freedom means and that is why he is
unwilling to justify his comments in the context of the text I have referred
him to (although he is still welcome to at least try). That text argues that
while those in the west (specifically the USA in the text) do enjoy many
freedoms, those freedoms are based on rather darker activities elsewhere. So
while I agree that the attacks where an indirect attack on freedom as
enjoyed within the USA (and by extension elsewhere in the world), they were
not (as Larry states) an attack on Freedom and Liberty... they were the
exact opposite. They were a reprehensibly selfish and perverse attack for a
little more freedom and liberty in places like "Palestine", Iraq and
Saudi-Arabia. If Larry really did understand freedom he would understand
that, rather living in some sort of state of deluded denial (see his
baseless views on starvation in Iraq or the attack on Sudan). How can these
people be stopped without understanding their motivation? Waving flags at
them will do little. As I said soon after the attack, we need to educate
ourselves and those who show support for our enemy.
Scott A
>
> > Further you don't get to dictate where the conversation goes despite your
> > repeated posting of the same questions and quotes, no matter how hard you try.
>
> As far as I am concerned, answering questions does not necessarily mean to
> follow a certain path in conversation.
>
> Greetings
>
> Horst
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> > And
> > so I assumed that you meant you would answer with a 'yes' or a 'no.' Is that
> > not what you meant, or did you fail to do so?
>
> I shall be clearer : Ask me a question to which I can qive a yes/no answer,
> and I'll give it one.
You could have. You simply did not like the connotations that doing so
implied. It's not like I asked what the value of pi is. (That would have been
unfair.)
> > > How about you?
> >
> > I have not stopped beating your wife.
>
> Because you never started?
Of course. And presumably that's your answer too. So you could have just
answered "no."
But of course, this threadlette was just me being a smart alec and didn't
really merit this much attention.
Chris
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> That text argues that
> while those in the west (specifically the USA in the text) do enjoy many
> freedoms, those freedoms are based on rather darker activities elsewhere.
What do you mean 'based on.' I would agree with the assertion that the
freedoms we commonly claim to be self-evident and inalienable are freedoms that
we are unwilling to let some others in the world live with. And that's wrong.
But I don't believe for even a smidge of a second that our freedoms are based
on denying those to others. We could (and must) have both. Everyone deserves
the freedoms that we consider self-evident.
> So
> while I agree that the attacks where an indirect attack on freedom as
> enjoyed within the USA (and by extension elsewhere in the world), they were
> not (as Larry states) an attack on Freedom and Liberty... they were the
> exact opposite.
I don't think either of those characterizations are correct. I think the
attacks were attacks against actions of the US that were perceived as meddlesom
and inappropriate. I doubt that they much care about what we do over here if
we'd just stay the hell out of their affairs. Now I'm not convinced that we
should do that, but the attacks weren't against freedom in any way.
> They were a reprehensibly selfish and perverse attack for a
> little more freedom and liberty in places like "Palestine", Iraq and
> Saudi-Arabia.
They were impotent discipline. A two year old gets mad when it's time to leave
the park because the larger human has decided that enough of their time has
been sucked up that way and the little human doesn't understand how the large
one feels. So the little one does little annoying things (crying, hitting,
pouting, claiming hatred, etc). That's what was done to us. They did the best
they could and they might do something again. But in the end it's not going to
change us. Only when and if we decide they have a valid point will we change.
And just like the petulant two year old, big people sometimes swat them for
their behavior.
Chris
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
>
> > That text argues that
> > while those in the west (specifically the USA in the text) do enjoy many
> > freedoms, those freedoms are based on rather darker activities elsewhere.
>
> What do you mean 'based on.' I would agree with the assertion that the
> freedoms we commonly claim to be self-evident and inalienable are freedoms that
> we are unwilling to let some others in the world live with. And that's wrong.
> But I don't believe for even a smidge of a second that our freedoms are based
> on denying those to others. We could (and must) have both. Everyone deserves
> the freedoms that we consider self-evident.
Right now by typing this text in my humble little office I am enjoying my
freedom of speech. My ability to do this is based on the past actions of HM
Gov and UK industry. Denying the rights to others have given us the $$ to
pay for the infrastructure to enjoy our freedoms. Do you disagree with that?
Did you read the text I quoted?
>
> > So
> > while I agree that the attacks where an indirect attack on freedom as
> > enjoyed within the USA (and by extension elsewhere in the world), they were
> > not (as Larry states) an attack on Freedom and Liberty... they were the
> > exact opposite.
>
> I don't think either of those characterizations are correct. I think the
> attacks were attacks against actions of the US that were perceived as meddlesom
> and inappropriate.
Inappropriate, in that they help restrict freedom?
> I doubt that they much care about what we do over here if
> we'd just stay the hell out of their affairs.
Yep, give them the freedom to choose their on path in "Palestine", Iraq and
Saudi-Arabia.
> Now I'm not convinced that we
> should do that, but the attacks weren't against freedom in any way.
My point. They have had an indirect impact on it, but I dout that was the
real aim.
>
> > They were a reprehensibly selfish and perverse attack for a
> > little more freedom and liberty in places like "Palestine", Iraq and
> > Saudi-Arabia.
>
> They were impotent discipline. A two year old gets mad when it's time to leave
> the park because the larger human has decided that enough of their time has
> been sucked up that way and the little human doesn't understand how the large
> one feels. So the little one does little annoying things (crying, hitting,
> pouting, claiming hatred, etc). That's what was done to us. They did the best
> they could and they might do something again. But in the end it's not going to
> change us. Only when and if we decide they have a valid point will we change.
I agree. But this attack, reprehensible as it is, may highlight a few points
which are worth considering. There will be those of refuse to listen to the
truth, who deny it exists - but the truth is still out there.
> And just like the petulant two year old, big people sometimes swat them for
> their behavior.
Not in Scotland:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk/scotland/newsid_1541000/1541631.stm
Scott A
>
> Chris
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> Right now by typing this text in my humble little office I am enjoying my
> freedom of speech. My ability to do this is based on the past actions of HM
> Gov and UK industry.
Disagree. You could be typing from an office in any nation in the world. I
would assert (with no intent of proving it) that there are net connections into
virtually every nation at this point.
> Denying the rights to others have given us the $$ to
> pay for the infrastructure to enjoy our freedoms. Do you disagree with that?
We have exploited others wrongly and have profitted from it. So obviously some
of our wealth is tainted. It is not the only source. The US is wealthy
because of much more than some evil acts.
> Did you read the text I quoted?
Not all of it.
> > I don't think either of those characterizations are correct. I think the
> > attacks were attacks against actions of the US that were perceived as
> > meddlesom and inappropriate.
>
> Inappropriate, in that they help restrict freedom?
Inappropriate in that they don't let whomever to whatever they want. Since I'm
only asserting that that is their impression (or side of things) and not that
it is objective truth, it doesn't matter.
> > I doubt that they much care about what we do over here if
> > we'd just stay the hell out of their affairs.
>
> Yep, give them the freedom to choose their on path in "Palestine", Iraq and
> Saudi-Arabia.
But what if they choose to be bad?
> > And just like the petulant two year old, big people sometimes swat them for
> > their behavior.
>
> Not in Scotland:
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk/scotland/newsid_1541000/1541631.stm
Then why the need for the legislation?
Seriously, I'm entirely glad for this Scottish move...weak as it may be. North
America is moving that way too, but more slowly. And it is high time.
What's funny though, is that they say this:
"Children need to learn from their role models
that violence is not the right way to get other
people to do what you want."
And yet it seems to be limited to only certain ages. They would be sticking to
their stated principle better by just adding minor children to the ranks of
humanity who are normally protected by the law from assault. That too is long
overdue.
Chris
|
|
| |
Hello Larry,
> > Wouldn't it be a lot more just to offer some money if
> > that is what is required for a decent (not luxury!) life without the money
> > the father has earned before?
>
> Where does this money come from? Taxpayers, or voluntary contributions? If
> the former, it is *less* just to extort funds from yet more victims (the
> taxpayers) to allow the father to avoid the consequences of his actions than
> it is to do nothing.
Now, this is exactly where we differ. While you seem to always look at the
situation from the imprisoned father's perspective, I see the child to be an
innocent victim of the father. And if you feel as a victim just because you
are forced to help an innocent child with your tax dollar, then there is
probably not much I can do about that feeling. Except maybe ask some
critical questions:
- Why would you want to pay for the imprisonment of the father,
and not let him go?
- What are the consequences if no one feels like paying for the
child's basic needs?
- Should the fulfillment of basic rights really be left to
voluntariness?
> > Do you really think it cuts your freedom so
> > badly if you have to pay your share of that?
>
> Yes. This gets into the larger question around whether it is appropriate to
> do "charity by force", which has been discussed in depth here in the past. I
> hold that it is not.
>
> I'm happy to discuss this with you or other critical thinkers as long as
> we're not covering TOO much plowed ground.
Well, not having followed the discussion you mention, it is probably hard
for me to draw the line. Anyway, my strongest argument FOR what you call
"charity by force" are these:
- We are not actually talking charity. The issue is civil rights.
- In my understanding, there is a right to live decently, but none
that guarantees unlimited earning of money
Can you enumerate the most important three to five civil rights you have, in
the order of importance? My list would read:
- Be alive
- Live in decency
- Decide, where I (and my data) go
- Influence political decisions that affect my life
- Build reasonable (as opposed to unlimited) wealth
As you can see from it, my fortune depends less on wealth than on some other
aspects of my life. Therefore, I happily pay my taxes to enable a decent
life for ALL (OK, as many as possible ...) people. You could also call this
my humanistic attitude, I guess.
Greetings
Horst
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
>
> > Right now by typing this text in my humble little office I am enjoying my
> > freedom of speech. My ability to do this is based on the past actions of HM
> > Gov and UK industry.
>
> Disagree. You could be typing from an office in any nation in the world. I
> would assert (with no intent of proving it) that there are net connections into
> virtually every nation at this point.
I expect there are Rolls Royce’s too.
>
> > Denying the rights to others have given us the $$ to
> > pay for the infrastructure to enjoy our freedoms. Do you disagree with that?
>
> We have exploited others wrongly and have profitted from it. So obviously some
> of our wealth is tainted. It is not the only source. The US is wealthy
> because of much more than some evil acts.
What is your wealth based on then? The 'wealth' of native Americans? The
slave trade?
> > Did you read the text I quoted?
>
> Not all of it.
>
> > > I don't think either of those characterizations are correct. I think the
> > > attacks were attacks against actions of the US that were perceived as
> > > meddlesom and inappropriate.
> >
> > Inappropriate, in that they help restrict freedom?
>
> Inappropriate in that they don't let whomever to whatever they want. Since I'm
> only asserting that that is their impression (or side of things) and not that
> it is objective truth, it doesn't matter.
>
> > > I doubt that they much care about what we do over here if
> > > we'd just stay the hell out of their affairs.
> >
> > Yep, give them the freedom to choose their on path in "Palestine", Iraq and
> > Saudi-Arabia.
>
> But what if they choose to be bad?
If Saudi-Arabia were to democratically vote for a Government which is "bad"
(as Israel already has) then they will have to find their own path. We
should not prop them up.
>
> > > And just like the petulant two year old, big people sometimes swat them for
> > > their behavior.
> >
> > Not in Scotland:
> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk/scotland/newsid_1541000/1541631.stm
>
> Then why the need for the legislation?
>
> Seriously, I'm entirely glad for this Scottish move...weak as it may be. North
> America is moving that way too, but more slowly. And it is high time.
>
> What's funny though, is that they say this:
>
> "Children need to learn from their role models
> that violence is not the right way to get other
> people to do what you want."
Well timed.
>
> And yet it seems to be limited to only certain ages. They would be sticking to
> their stated principle better by just adding minor children to the ranks of
> humanity who are normally protected by the law from assault. That too is long
> overdue.
It will not work unless it is backed up with education for some parents. Too
many take the view of "I was smacked as a kid and it did me no harm". How
can they know that?
Scott A
>
> Chris
|
|
| |
Hello Chris,
> But I don't believe for even a smidge of a second that our freedoms are
> based on denying those to others.
Making money is not one of your freedoms? Or you don't make money a the
expense of the one worldwide environment we have? You pay fair prices for
the goods you import from the third world? There are no people starving in
Somalia, because you want the freedom to eat imported meat at Burger King?
Man, Europe has to learn a lot from you, if the answer is yes to all of
these questions ...
> Only when and if we decide they have a valid point will we change.
You don't think they have one?
> And just like the petulant two year old, big people sometimes swat them
> for their behavior.
You think that is OK? And it is the same as killing people at war?
Greetings
Horst
|
|
| |
Hello Scott,
while I agree to some thoughts of your analysis, I have to oppose this one:
> They were a reprehensibly selfish and perverse attack for a
> little more freedom and liberty in places like "Palestine", Iraq and
> Saudi-Arabia.
In no way does bin Laden or the Taliban stand for more freedom. Look at Iran
and, even worse, Afghanistan. Only the leaders are enjoying freedom there.
Yes, we need to understand WHY they do things like 911, and Larry seems not
to be the type of guy to be ultimately helpful with that. (After all, each
of us has his strengthes and weaknesses ...). Yes, I feel that some of the
freedom we in the west enjoy goes too far, because it limits freedom
elsewhere in the world. BUT we will not want to give up the idea of freedom
as a whole, and that's OK.
Greetings
Horst
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Horst Lehner writes:
> Hello Larry,
>
> > > Wouldn't it be a lot more just to offer some money if
> > > that is what is required for a decent (not luxury!) life without the money
> > > the father has earned before?
> >
> > Where does this money come from? Taxpayers, or voluntary contributions? If
> > the former, it is *less* just to extort funds from yet more victims (the
> > taxpayers) to allow the father to avoid the consequences of his actions than
> > it is to do nothing.
>
> Now, this is exactly where we differ. While you seem to always look at the
> situation from the imprisoned father's perspective, I see the child to be an
> innocent victim of the father. And if you feel as a victim just because you
> are forced to help an innocent child with your tax dollar, then there is
> probably not much I can do about that feeling. Except maybe ask some
> critical questions:
> - Why would you want to pay for the imprisonment of the father,
> and not let him go?
I would *not* want to pay. He should pay for his own incarceration to the
maximum extent possible, but when he cannot we must pay to keep him there in
order to protect ourselves.
> - What are the consequences if no one feels like paying for the
> child's basic needs?
The child starves to death.
> - Should the fulfillment of basic rights really be left to
> voluntariness?
No they should not. But needs are not rights. You haven't yet demonstrated
that there are rights to free goods of any sort.
> > > Do you really think it cuts your freedom so
> > > badly if you have to pay your share of that?
> >
> > Yes. This gets into the larger question around whether it is appropriate to
> > do "charity by force", which has been discussed in depth here in the past. I
> > hold that it is not.
> >
> > I'm happy to discuss this with you or other critical thinkers as long as
> > we're not covering TOO much plowed ground.
>
> Well, not having followed the discussion you mention, it is probably hard
> for me to draw the line. Anyway, my strongest argument FOR what you call
> "charity by force" are these:
> - We are not actually talking charity. The issue is civil rights.
No, actually we *are* talking charity.
> - In my understanding, there is a right to live decently
But not in mine. There is no right to unearned goods, the world does not owe
anyone a living.
> Can you enumerate the most important three to five civil rights you have, in
> the order of importance?
Life, liberty and the *pursuit* of happiness. (note emphasis, it's a right
to try to be happy, not a right to BE happy)
These are all freedom of action rights and freedom from oppression rights.
They are not rights to goods earned and paid for by others and forcibly
transferred to me.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Horst Lehner writes:
> Hello Scott,
>
> while I agree to some thoughts of your analysis, I have to oppose this one:
>
> > They were a reprehensibly selfish and perverse attack for a
> > little more freedom and liberty in places like "Palestine", Iraq and
> > Saudi-Arabia.
Look at what he wants for these places, you will see it is what the public
there wants.
> In no way does bin Laden or the Taliban stand for more freedom.
That is why I said "more fredom" not "freedom".
> Look at Iran
> and, even worse, Afghanistan. Only the leaders are enjoying freedom there.
>
> Yes, we need to understand WHY they do things like 911, and Larry seems not
> to be the type of guy to be ultimately helpful with that. (After all, each
> of us has his strengthes and weaknesses ...). Yes, I feel that some of the
> freedom we in the west enjoy goes too far, because it limits freedom
> elsewhere in the world.
I agree.
> BUT we will not want to give up the idea of freedom
> as a whole, and that's OK.
It depends on what you mean by freedom. The west has a lot of wealth. More
than enough to share.
Scott A
>
> Greetings
>
> Horst
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
>
>
> That's right, answer just one issue in the *hope* you score a cheap point.
>
>
> > > ==+==
> > > I reject that even if the sanctions actually *caused* the death of even 1
> > > child that it's the fault of the imposers of the sanctions for the deaths.
> > > The *fault* lies with the lawless dictator Hussein, not the US.
> > > ==+==
> > >
> > > Do you still stand by that?
> >
> > Yes.
>
> Can you support this, or is it mere opinion. Do you think the UNICEF data
> and opinion I quoted was wrong?
>
>
> Do you still stand by this:
> ==+==
> I reject that the sanctions are the REASON that children (however many)
> died. The sanctions do not prevent the flow of food into the country.
> ==+==
>
> Do you think sanctaions have not caused their to be less food in Iraq?
>
>
> > This leg has nothing to do with whether the stat is right or whether
> > the causality link is there.
>
> In your opionion. But I think it shows how little you understand the
> issue... in my opinion.
>
> Scott A
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> >
> >
> > That's right, answer just one issue in the *hope* you score a cheap point.
> >
> >
> > > > ==+==
> > > > I reject that even if the sanctions actually *caused* the death of even 1
> > > > child that it's the fault of the imposers of the sanctions for the deaths.
> > > > The *fault* lies with the lawless dictator Hussein, not the US.
> > > > ==+==
> > > >
> > > > Do you still stand by that?
> > >
> > > Yes.
> >
> > Can you support this, or is it mere opinion. Do you think the UNICEF data
> > and opinion I quoted was wrong?
> >
> >
> > Do you still stand by this:
> > ==+==
> > I reject that the sanctions are the REASON that children (however many)
> > died. The sanctions do not prevent the flow of food into the country.
> > ==+==
> >
> > Do you think sanctaions have not caused their to be less food in Iraq?
> >
> >
> > > This leg has nothing to do with whether the stat is right or whether
> > > the causality link is there.
> >
> > In your opionion. But I think it shows how little you understand the
> > issue... in my opinion.
> >
> > Scott A
You can post and repost this as many times as you like, I've said what I
wanted to say. I doubt the veracity of UN statistics but more importantly,
the other two legs stand.
Fault lies with the perpetrator, not the victim and not the corraller.
You've done nothing to refute that basic moral tenet so my argument stands.
No matter how much of a blowhard you are about it.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> > > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > > > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> > >
> > >
> > > That's right, answer just one issue in the *hope* you score a cheap point.
> > >
> > >
> > > > > ==+==
> > > > > I reject that even if the sanctions actually *caused* the death of even 1
> > > > > child that it's the fault of the imposers of the sanctions for the deaths.
> > > > > The *fault* lies with the lawless dictator Hussein, not the US.
> > > > > ==+==
> > > > >
> > > > > Do you still stand by that?
> > > >
> > > > Yes.
> > >
> > > Can you support this, or is it mere opinion. Do you think the UNICEF data
> > > and opinion I quoted was wrong?
> > >
> > >
> > > Do you still stand by this:
> > > ==+==
> > > I reject that the sanctions are the REASON that children (however many)
> > > died. The sanctions do not prevent the flow of food into the country.
> > > ==+==
> > >
> > > Do you think sanctaions have not caused their to be less food in Iraq?
> > >
> > >
> > > > This leg has nothing to do with whether the stat is right or whether
> > > > the causality link is there.
> > >
> > > In your opionion. But I think it shows how little you understand the
> > > issue... in my opinion.
> > >
> > > Scott A
>
> You can post and repost this as many times as you like, I've said what I
> wanted to say. I doubt the veracity of UN statistics but more importantly,
> the other two legs stand.
>
> Fault lies with the perpetrator, not the victim and not the corraller.
Justification please.
>
> You've done nothing to refute that basic moral tenet so my argument stands.
> No matter how much of a blowhard you are about it.
Larry your argument is hollow. It is empty.
Can you justify it. Come on Larry, I am almost interested.
Scott A
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> > > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> > > > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > > > > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > That's right, answer just one issue in the *hope* you score a cheap point.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > ==+==
> > > > > > I reject that even if the sanctions actually *caused* the death of even 1
> > > > > > child that it's the fault of the imposers of the sanctions for the deaths.
> > > > > > The *fault* lies with the lawless dictator Hussein, not the US.
> > > > > > ==+==
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Do you still stand by that?
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes.
> > > >
> > > > Can you support this, or is it mere opinion. Do you think the UNICEF data
> > > > and opinion I quoted was wrong?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Do you still stand by this:
> > > > ==+==
> > > > I reject that the sanctions are the REASON that children (however many)
> > > > died. The sanctions do not prevent the flow of food into the country.
> > > > ==+==
> > > >
> > > > Do you think sanctaions have not caused their to be less food in Iraq?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > This leg has nothing to do with whether the stat is right or whether
> > > > > the causality link is there.
> > > >
> > > > In your opionion. But I think it shows how little you understand the
> > > > issue... in my opinion.
> > > >
> > > > Scott A
> >
> > You can post and repost this as many times as you like, I've said what I
> > wanted to say. I doubt the veracity of UN statistics but more importantly,
> > the other two legs stand.
> >
> > Fault lies with the perpetrator, not the victim and not the corraller.
>
> Justification please.
>
> >
> > You've done nothing to refute that basic moral tenet so my argument stands.
> > No matter how much of a blowhard you are about it.
>
> Larry your argument is hollow. It is empty.
>
> Can you justify it. Come on Larry, I am almost interested.
Well, can you?
>
> Scott A
|
|
| |
Hello Larry, hello everybody,
> > - Should the fulfillment of basic rights really be left to
> > voluntariness?
>
> No they should not. But needs are not rights. You haven't yet demonstrated
> that there are rights to free goods of any sort.
So the goods you need to be kept alive (in a decent way, I would add) are
not rights? What value does the right to live have, then, if it is OK for
others to just let me starve, without any fault on my side (taking the
position of the kid, again)? I fear I cannot DEMONSTRATE that to you, if you
don't feel it yourself. After all, a humanistic attitude isn't something
that can be scientifically proven.
> > - We are not actually talking charity. The issue is civil rights.
>
> No, actually we *are* talking charity.
This seems to be the main point where we differ. See above.
> > - In my understanding, there is a right to live decently
>
> But not in mine. There is no right to unearned goods, the world does not owe
> anyone a living.
>
> > Can you enumerate the most important three to five civil rights you have, in
> > the order of importance?
>
> Life, liberty and the *pursuit* of happiness.
Don't you think there is a contradiction? If any human being has a right to
live, isn't it just logical then, in case it cannot earn his own living
(without any fault on his side, easiest to be shown with children, again),
that a responsible society would jump in and at least temporarily help out?
Asked in other words: Does the right to live not sometimes require material
solidarity?
> (note emphasis, it's a right to try to be happy, not a right to BE happy)
I understand that. This right in the US is actually very unique, which is
why we in Europe learn at school about it.
> These are all freedom of action rights and freedom from oppression rights.
> They are not rights to goods earned and paid for by others and forcibly
> transferred to me.
How can an abandoned kid live and pursue its happiness, when this is all
that is to freedom, liberty and civil rights? And how exactly does it hurt
your liberty, or pursuit of happiness, when some of your tax dollars are
used for that purpose? I have actually seen tax dollars spent for less
useful and less just purposes.
Also, since you value your freedom to earn money, and use it the way you
decide, so highly, isn't it also true that you earn it from an environment
that does not grant everybody the same chance to do the same? And if so, are
you advocating the survival of only those people who happen to be more
intelligent and more lucky than others? In the light of these arguments, do
you really believe that a 100% free market society will be just to everyone?
I hope you don't find those questions annoying. I am learning a lot about
you as my friend, and the US in general by reading the answers. Of course, I
also welcome comments from others on the issue. If this turns out to be
something exclusively between Larry and me, we should probably move it to
email ...
Greetings
Horst
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Horst Lehner writes:
>
> Also, since you value your freedom to earn money, and use it the way you
> decide, so highly, isn't it also true that you earn it from an environment
> that does not grant everybody the same chance to do the same? And if so, are
> you advocating the survival of only those people who happen to be more
> intelligent and more lucky than others? In the light of these arguments, do
> you really believe that a 100% free market society will be just to everyone?
>
> I hope you don't find those questions annoying. I am learning a lot about
> you as my friend, and the US in general by reading the answers. Of course, I
> also welcome comments from others on the issue. If this turns out to be
> something exclusively between Larry and me, we should probably move it to
> email ...
>
> Greetings
>
> Horst
Please don't move it to email, Horst. Your contributions have been
extremely well thought out and useful and you are now getting to a point
that I have been looking for a reasonable way to raise to hear Larry's
'total free market' view on. That is the issue of how wealth is created
from the environment, be it the favourable climatic conditions or the
presence of natural resources, which are not available to all equally.
There is no market mechanism by which these 'goods' are paid for and I do
not believe there can be (How can you value the use of a resource now when
you do not know what uses we may find for it in future or how long human
civilization will last). This is where the 'total free market' falls down
in my opinion and it is necessary to realise that any solution is
sub-optimal, from that realization should come a policy of maximising human
happiness for all humans including those who are yet to be born and from
this cascades all the non-free market thinking that Larry opposes. Do you
agree?
I couldn't think of a good re-name for this, if it takes off I think it
needs one though.
Psi
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Horst Lehner writes:
> Hello Larry, hello everybody,
>
> > These are all freedom of action rights and freedom from oppression rights.
> > They are not rights to goods earned and paid for by others and forcibly
> > transferred to me.
>
> How can an abandoned kid live and pursue its happiness, when this is all
> that is to freedom, liberty and civil rights? And how exactly does it hurt
> your liberty, or pursuit of happiness, when some of your tax dollars are
> used for that purpose? I have actually seen tax dollars spent for less
> useful and less just purposes.
I think the issue here is the fact that the state collects taxes, and uses them
as *it* sees fit. In a free market, everyone would still have the right to help
the abandoned child as they see fit, without the state "forcing" them to. Where
this breaks down is if noone chooses to help. Of course, this problem also
arrises with state help - the governmeny often chooses to spend the money
elsewhere, usually because of "red tape" or to attract votes. I think a
(totally) free market is great in theory, but impossible in practice (for any
significant period, anyway) - the human factors (power, greed) will always
cause it to break down.
> Also, since you value your freedom to earn money, and use it the way you
> decide, so highly, isn't it also true that you earn it from an environment
> that does not grant everybody the same chance to do the same? And if so, are
> you advocating the survival of only those people who happen to be more
> intelligent and more lucky than others? In the light of these arguments, do
> you really believe that a 100% free market society will be just to everyone?
I think a free market society *would* be just to everyone who participated
willingly & fairly. It would break down because of those who don't, those who
can't, and those who abuse it, and there will *always* be such people, no
matter how much you try to educate them.
> I hope you don't find those questions annoying. I am learning a lot about
> you as my friend, and the US in general by reading the answers. Of course, I
> also welcome comments from others on the issue. If this turns out to be
> something exclusively between Larry and me, we should probably move it to
> email ...
On the contrary, I find these questions very thought-provoking, and would also
be disappointed if you were to go to email.
ROSCO
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Horst Lehner writes:
> Hello Larry, hello everybody,
>
> > > - Should the fulfillment of basic rights really be left to
> > > voluntariness?
> >
> > No they should not. But needs are not rights. You haven't yet demonstrated
> > that there are rights to free goods of any sort.
>
> So the goods you need to be kept alive (in a decent way, I would add) are
> not rights?
That is a correct restatement of what I said, yes. There are no rights to
free goods.
This is a fundamental tenet of my belief system. It is not held by all
americans (witness those who feel a tithe to their church is a mandatory
moral obligation on themselves), only objectivists and libertarians.
> What value does the right to live have, then, if it is OK for
> others to just let me starve, without any fault on my side (taking the
> position of the kid, again)?
The right to live is an assertion of the right not to have force initiated
against you, not an assertion of the "right" to free goods to support life.
> I fear I cannot DEMONSTRATE that to you, if you
> don't feel it yourself.
Correct.
> After all, a humanistic attitude isn't something
> that can be scientifically proven.
Well, I *have* one, nonetheless.
I have argued in the past that acknowledging a right that others have to
take away what is yours makes you less human, not more. I have no problem
going through this yet again but I'd rather refer you to external material
instead. Read Rand, Friedman fils & pere, Hayek, Von Mises, etc. They
explain it far better than I can. They justify it from a number of angles. I
currently like Freidman fils best as he comes at it from a utilitarian
perspective that does not require proving the existence of a certain set of
natural rights, which has proven to be an intractable problem, and which has
boundary condition problems even if you do it.
> > > - We are not actually talking charity. The issue is civil rights.
> >
> > No, actually we *are* talking charity.
>
> This seems to be the main point where we differ. See above.
Indeed.
> Don't you think there is a contradiction? If any human being has a right to
> live, isn't it just logical then, in case it cannot earn his own living
> (without any fault on his side, easiest to be shown with children, again),
> that a responsible society would jump in and at least temporarily help out?
No, see above. Right to live is not a free goods right, but rather a right
not to have force initiated against oneself in an life extinguishment attempt.
> Asked in other words: Does the right to live not sometimes require material
> solidarity?
No.
> > (note emphasis, it's a right to try to be happy, not a right to BE happy)
>
> I understand that. This right in the US is actually very unique, which is
> why we in Europe learn at school about it.
And so you should, as it is part of why we are more successful than other
countries.
> > These are all freedom of action rights and freedom from oppression rights.
> > They are not rights to goods earned and paid for by others and forcibly
> > transferred to me.
>
> How can an abandoned kid live and pursue its happiness, when this is all
> that is to freedom, liberty and civil rights? And how exactly does it hurt
> your liberty, or pursuit of happiness, when some of your tax dollars are
> used for that purpose?
One dollar, taken forcefully, is more of an assault on my liberty than 1
million dollars donated voluntarily. Which has more positive effect on the
recepient? the 1 dollar? Hardly.
> I have actually seen tax dollars spent for less
> useful and less just purposes.
And that should be stopped too. But it doesn't help your argument. Who are
you to say, more than me, what the appropriate use of my funds is? Who are
you to say that you are a better judge of need and morality than I am? Who
are you to say that might makes right? Your might, to take away what is
mine, is right?
Hardly.
> Also, since you value your freedom to earn money, and use it the way you
> decide, so highly, isn't it also true that you earn it from an environment
> that does not grant everybody the same chance to do the same?
Where that is true it should be fixed. But it is less true in countries that
are more free market, and more true in countries that are more welfare
state. Welfare is denigrating and self perpetuating and generates
underclasses, and makes an unlevel playing field. But that's a utilitarian
argument against it.
> And if so, are
> you advocating the survival of only those people who happen to be more
> intelligent and more lucky than others?
Intelligent, Yes. Luck, no. But luck cancels itself out quickly. consider
the generally foolish and dissipative behaviour of lottery winners. No
longterm benefit from their luck to their heirs, typically, so not an issue.
> In the light of these arguments, do
> you really believe that a 100% free market society will be just to everyone?
Yes. What is more just than that the competent succeed and the incompetent fail?
> I hope you don't find those questions annoying.
Nope. Repetitive yes but not annoying. But you may want to consider doing
some background reading if you're that interested.
> I am learning a lot about
> you as my friend, and the US in general by reading the answers.
Don't draw conclusions about the US in general, except perhaps historical,
from my answers, I'm atypical, although less so than in recent past, but
more atypical than at the time of the Founding Fathers.
> Of course, I
> also welcome comments from others on the issue. If this turns out to be
> something exclusively between Larry and me, we should probably move it to
> email ...
Rather not. Email is useless for these sorts of discussions and useless as
something that you can refer to in the future. Speaking of which perhaps
someone can give a few URLs of previous thread starts?
++lar
|
|
| |
Hmm... not sure if you are referring to whence resource property rights, or
is it the luck factor that you are wondering about.
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Simon Bennett writes:
> That is the issue of how wealth is created
> from the environment, be it the favourable climatic conditions or the
> presence of natural resources, which are not available to all equally.
Chris has alluded to this problem in the past. Asserting labor mixin as a
mechanism to getting title to previously unowned land isn't the cleanest
way. The question boils down to is it first come first served. Think forward
a bit. Who or what will "hand out" titles to various pieces of Lunar or
Martian real estate? Is it who gets there first? How much land would the
first mars mission get to claim? All of mars? so many feet from where they
explored?
Or are you asking about the luck of the draw, the fact that some people own
land that has oil on it and some don't, through no particular fault or skill
of their own?
Well I tend to hold (and acknowledge this isn't too satisfactory an answer
up front) that these are both kinds of luck. In free market systems, luck
doesn't matter for long, because luck without skill dissipates and luck with
skill just turbo boosts what outcome would have happened anyway.
> There is no market mechanism by which these 'goods' are paid for and I do
> not believe there can be (How can you value the use of a resource now when
> you do not know what uses we may find for it in future or how long human
> civilization will last). This is where the 'total free market' falls down
> in my opinion and it is necessary to realise that any solution is
> sub-optimal,
The free market system may not be perfect in every way but there is no
utopia possible and there is no better system possible. No other system can
maximise happiness and freedom.
> from that realization should come a policy of maximising human
> happiness for all humans including those who are yet to be born and from
> this cascades all the non-free market thinking that Larry opposes. Do you
> agree?
No. Except for the part about my opposing it.
> I couldn't think of a good re-name for this, if it takes off I think it
> needs one though.
Me either
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> Hmm... not sure if you are referring to whence resource property rights, or
> is it the luck factor that you are wondering about.
I think it's both actually:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Simon Bennett writes:
>
> > That is the issue of how wealth is created
> > from the environment, be it the favourable climatic conditions or the
> > presence of natural resources, which are not available to all equally.
>
> Chris has alluded to this problem in the past. Asserting labor mixin as a
> mechanism to getting title to previously unowned land isn't the cleanest
> way. The question boils down to is it first come first served. Think forward
> a bit. Who or what will "hand out" titles to various pieces of Lunar or
> Martian real estate? Is it who gets there first? How much land would the
> first mars mission get to claim? All of mars? so many feet from where they
> explored?
Yes, this is exactly the problem. It was solved in Antarctica by dividing
up among nations that were close or had 'discovered' it and this has worked
mainly because they also all agreed to leave the natural resources alone. I
imagine if any holder of Antarctic territory began to drill for oil then the
issue of how fair the division was would be raised by other nations. My
opinions on this are not fully formed, which is why I wanted to raise it,
but to start with I suggest that no-one deserves title to Mars or any other
unclaimed real estate whether they made the effort to go there or not until
we have established that there is absolutely no life there. Any unclaimed
part of the Earth and the resources therein (a moot point I know) should
belong equally proportionally to all life that has ever or will ever arise
on the planet. This is plainly totally impractical and I'll get to the
question it suggests below...
>
> Or are you asking about the luck of the draw, the fact that some people own
> land that has oil on it and some don't, through no particular fault or skill
> of their own?
That's part of it too.
>
> Well I tend to hold (and acknowledge this isn't too satisfactory an answer
> up front) that these are both kinds of luck. In free market systems, luck
> doesn't matter for long, because luck without skill dissipates and luck with
> skill just turbo boosts what outcome would have happened anyway.
I don't agree. I have just read an excellent book by Jared Diamond called
'Guns, Germs and Steel' which explains how the initial climatic conditions
plus the 'food package' of domesticable crops and animals meant that
civilization (by which I mean humans producing a surplus which is used to
feed an elite of politicians, inventors and scribes which begins a virtuous
circle of efficiency gains) began in the Fertile Crescent. However look at
that area today, it is mostly desert, as it has been over utilised and the
peoples whose 'skill' made use of it 10,000 odd years ago are now holding
the short straw. Diamond argues that average intelligence (skill) does not
vary between human cultures. If you had placed Aboriginal Australians in
the Fertile Crescent then they would have kicked off civilization.
Unfortunately they got Australia which did not have the right resources,
only when technology developed elsewhere was introduced was it possible to
'civilize' it. However, rather than give the Aborigines the technology the
advanced society stole the resources from them.
>
> > There is no market mechanism by which these 'goods' are paid for and I do
> > not believe there can be (How can you value the use of a resource now when
> > you do not know what uses we may find for it in future or how long human
> > civilization will last). This is where the 'total free market' falls down
> > in my opinion and it is necessary to realise that any solution is
> > sub-optimal,
>
> The free market system may not be perfect in every way but there is no
> utopia possible and there is no better system possible. No other system can
> maximise happiness and freedom.
>
> > from that realization should come a policy of maximising human
> > happiness for all humans including those who are yet to be born and from
> > this cascades all the non-free market thinking that Larry opposes. Do you
> > agree?
>
> No. Except for the part about my opposing it.
Aha, it was a badly worded question, bad day at work after the events of
Railtrack's collapse (a discussion I would like to return to when
appropriate as I doubt the news has reached the U.S.).
Another try (the question I mentioned earlier) I'll frame it as a statement:
The free market system is fundamentally flawed as the appropriator of an
environmental resource does not recompense the owner (the human race) for it.
>
> > I couldn't think of a good re-name for this, if it takes off I think it
> > needs one though.
>
> Me either
Got it now I think.
Psi
(May I just say that I'm really enjoying .debate, it's blowing out a lot of
cobwebs in this bonce of mine and I hope you'll forgive my laspes in form
until I'm fully up to speed)
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> Hmm... not sure if you are referring to whence resource property rights, or
> is it the luck factor that you are wondering about.
I think it's both actually:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Simon Bennett writes:
>
> > That is the issue of how wealth is created
> > from the environment, be it the favourable climatic conditions or the
> > presence of natural resources, which are not available to all equally.
>
> Chris has alluded to this problem in the past. Asserting labor mixin as a
> mechanism to getting title to previously unowned land isn't the cleanest
> way. The question boils down to is it first come first served. Think forward
> a bit. Who or what will "hand out" titles to various pieces of Lunar or
> Martian real estate? Is it who gets there first? How much land would the
> first mars mission get to claim? All of mars? so many feet from where they
> explored?
Yes, this is exactly the problem. It was solved in Antarctica by dividing
up among nations that were close or had 'discovered' it and this has worked
mainly because they also all agreed to leave the natural resources alone. I
imagine if any holder of Antarctic territory began to drill for oil then the
issue of how fair the division was would be raised by other nations. My
opinions on this are not fully formed, which is why I wanted to raise it,
but to start with I suggest that no-one deserves title to Mars or any other
unclaimed real estate whether they made the effort to go there or not until
we have established that there is absolutely no life there. Any unclaimed
part of the Earth and the resources therein (a moot point I know) should
belong equally proportionally to all life that has ever or will ever arise
on the planet. This is plainly totally impractical and I'll get to the
question it suggests below...
>
> Or are you asking about the luck of the draw, the fact that some people own
> land that has oil on it and some don't, through no particular fault or skill
> of their own?
That's part of it too.
>
> Well I tend to hold (and acknowledge this isn't too satisfactory an answer
> up front) that these are both kinds of luck. In free market systems, luck
> doesn't matter for long, because luck without skill dissipates and luck with
> skill just turbo boosts what outcome would have happened anyway.
I don't agree. I have just read an excellent book by Jared Diamond called
'Guns, Germs and Steel' which explains how the initial climatic conditions
plus the 'food package' of domesticable crops and animals meant that
civilization (by which I mean humans producing a surplus which is used to
feed an elite of politicians, inventors and scribes which begins a virtuous
circle of efficiency gains) began in the Fertile Crescent. However look at
that area today, it is mostly desert, as it has been over utilised and the
peoples whose 'skill' made use of it 10,000 odd years ago are now holding
the short straw. Diamond argues that average intelligence (skill) does not
vary between human cultures. If you had placed Aboriginal Australians in
the Fertile Crescent then they would have kicked off civilization.
Unfortunately they got Australia which did not have the right resources,
only when technology developed elsewhere was introduced was it possible to
'civilize' it. However, rather than give the Aborigines the technology the
advanced society stole the resources from them.
>
> > There is no market mechanism by which these 'goods' are paid for and I do
> > not believe there can be (How can you value the use of a resource now when
> > you do not know what uses we may find for it in future or how long human
> > civilization will last). This is where the 'total free market' falls down
> > in my opinion and it is necessary to realise that any solution is
> > sub-optimal,
>
> The free market system may not be perfect in every way but there is no
> utopia possible and there is no better system possible. No other system can
> maximise happiness and freedom.
>
> > from that realization should come a policy of maximising human
> > happiness for all humans including those who are yet to be born and from
> > this cascades all the non-free market thinking that Larry opposes. Do you
> > agree?
>
> No. Except for the part about my opposing it.
Aha, it was a badly worded question, bad day at work after the events of
Railtrack's collapse (a discussion I would like to return to when
appropriate as I doubt the news has reached the U.S.).
Another try (the question I mentioned earlier) I'll frame it as a statement:
The free market system is fundamentally flawed as the appropriator of an
environmental resource does not recompense the owner (the human race) for it.
>
> > I couldn't think of a good re-name for this, if it takes off I think it
> > needs one though.
>
> Me either
Got it now I think.
Psi
(May I just say that I'm really enjoying .debate, it's blowing out a lot of
cobwebs in this bonce of mine and I hope you'll forgive my laspes in form
until I'm fully up to speed)
|
|
| |
> The free market system may not be perfect in every way
I agree.
> but there is no utopia possible
I agree.
> there is no better system possible.
I don't agree. Not that I have to offer a better system, but how can you
prove it's impossible?
> No other system can maximise happiness and freedom.
I agree on freedom, but then, isn't there also a price others in the world
have to pay for our freedom? If so, wouldn't it be fair to seek a way where
maybe not everybody enjoys every thinkable form of freedom, if that helps to
be fair to all people on earth? Again, I cannot offer a solution, I just
think if we rule out any such solution, then we might eventually find
ourselves in a war of cultures that emerged from today's terrorism.
As for the happiness part, I can only think that you are talking "pursuit of
happiness". Otherwise, how can you explain the suicide rates and drug
consumption all over the western world? I can hardly see those as
expressions of actual happiness, rather they are the opposite. So, even
though everybody has the right to TRY and be happy, our system seems
inappropriate for certain people's success in that area. I refuse to see
this as only their fault all the time. Again, I cannot offer a solution, I
just think if we rule out any such solution, then we might eventually find
ourselves in a war of social classes that emerged from today's lower class
district criminality.
:wq
Horst
|
|
| |
> I think a free market society *would* be just to everyone who participated
> willingly & fairly. It would break down because of those who don't, those who
> can't, and those who abuse it, and there will *always* be such people, no
> matter how much you try to educate them.
This is probably the best statement I have read here on the topic ...
Thanks for it, Ross, and greetings
Horst (who is a bit behind in reading news ...)
|
|
| |
> I have argued in the past that acknowledging a right that others have to
> take away what is yours makes you less human, not more.
And you would hold that even if what they take away from you is pure luxury,
whereas they need it to survive? Well, a humanistic attitude IMO goes a bit
more towards enabling a decent life for everybody. It also does not contain
a right to make as much money as possible jut because I am lucky enough to
find circumstances that allow me to do so.
> Read Rand, Friedman fils & pere,
I will, when I find time. I hope their language is not too hard for me to
understand ...
> > I understand that. This right in the US is actually very unique, which is
> > why we in Europe learn at school about it.
>
> And so you should, as it is part of why we are more successful than other
> countries.
At least it is part of why you feel better than the rest of the world. Which
may in turn also make you more successful, but there could be more reasons
for that. Being so successful that one is the only remaining superpower also
comes with an obligation, given the moral claim the US hold. And with a
risk, as we have sadly seen.
> One dollar, taken forcefully, is more of an assault on my liberty than 1
> million dollars donated voluntarily.
Sure.
> Which has more positive effect on the recepient? the 1 dollar? Hardly.
But will there be enough more money donated? My guess is no.
:wq
Horst (who is a bit behind in reading news ...)
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Simon Bennett writes:
If you had placed Aboriginal Australians in
> the Fertile Crescent then they would have kicked off civilization.
> Unfortunately they got Australia which did not have the right resources,
> only when technology developed elsewhere was introduced was it possible to
> 'civilize' it. However, rather than give the Aborigines the technology the
> advanced society stole the resources from them.
Although this is wrong from a human point of view, genetically it is of
course correct. The genes of the conqueror's thrive more than those of the
aborignes.
> > The free market system may not be perfect in every way but there is no
> > utopia possible and there is no better system possible. No other system can
> > maximise happiness and freedom.
You could have a system administered by intelligent omnipotent robots tht
divide the spoils and tasks equally, with adjustments to compensate for
individual human frailty.
I was just thinking the other day. I don't think you could have a robot that
was equal or better than a human without it being sentinent.
Steve
|
|
|
