RE: US out of UN?
At 10:03 PM 3/11/2003 -0800 Nick Arnett wrote: You are not just taking a stand for what you believe in, you are also taking a contemptuous stand against anyone who disagrees. And make no mistake, I see this just as plainly in many of those who are against this war. That is the behavior of fear and foolishness, not strength and wisdom. Nick, All that high-falutin' talk of your message is all well and good - but the essential point of Gautam and myself is that the anti-war, or more appropriately, the anti-Bush, crowd has not: 1) Presented a coherent *positive* case for their position, based in the facts of the day nor 2) Presented a coherent alternative to war, describing policies to be advocated from the present day. All that stuff you wrote about earlier in your message is predicated upon the opposition fulfilling those two basic requirements. Thus far, they, and in particular, you, have not. As such, until the anti-war movement fulfills those two basic requirements of intellectual discount, they are in fact quite worthy of the reaction they are getting. JDG ___ John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity. - George W. Bush 1/29/03 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: US out of UN?
On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 , Nick Arnett wrote: Can we please, here at least, acknowledge that there is a range of positions one can take? Can we please, here at least, talk about reality instead of an ivory tower fantasy land? Well, the pragmatic reality of every nation on earth, including ours, is that sometimes we support bad guys because they're the best of a bunch of bad choices... and sometimes we kid ourselves into thinking that's what we're doing when when we're really just lining our own pockets, or we're just plain afraid. Yes, the US has made mistakes in the past, and the past is useful for learning what works and what does not, but the US has also had great successes in the past with freedom and democracy and defeating tyrants and protecting the weak. Do you claim regime change in Iraq is a mistake? (we're really just lining our own pockets, or we're just plain afraid?) I don't think you do, but when you make comments like this, it just sounds like you are living in wishy-washy wring-my-hands-and-cry-can't-we-all-just-get-along fantasy land. I'm in favor of doing away with the polarizing rhetoric that divides us, to take us back to the subject you were responding to. Or you could accept that there are other things that divide us than polarizing rhetoric, and instead concentrate on accomplishing something practical and good. When we allow winning the disputes to become more important than making the best choices, we've abandoned a foundation of our freedom. False dichotomy. When the debate is about practical choices and reality and responsibility, then truly winning the debate will point out the best choice. That's what I hear in the Everybody who disagrees with me is wrong talk from far too many advocates of war and peace. They've left advocacy in the dust. Interesting. I hear exactly that from you, and not from Gautam. Gautam is talking about reality and choices and how to achieve them, and pointing out what he thinks will come of your choices (or lack thereof). That's advocacy in the real world. You are criticizing Gautam's (and my) approach of debating the issue, implying that we should NOT point out the reality of choices and the responsibility of people who make the choices. You are the one who has left advocacy in the dust. No, we won't. Only in fiction do we know how things would have turned out if we acted differently; we will only see the consequences of what we choose. Any evaluation of the alternatives will be pure speculation. History will prove me right and you wrong is a refuge of the insecure partisan. And your statement is the refuge of a paranoid delusional. Of course we can never have complete certainty, but we can have high probability of being right, which is what is important. Was World War II wrong? Well, maybe Hitler could have been defeated at less cost using some other (unspecified) method, but it is unlikely, and the direct approach DID work. When there is a clear and direct approach to solving a problem, and someone claims there is a better but subtle solution, the onus is on the person with the subtle and complex solution to make the case for it. Historically, the direct approach often succeeds (which is one reason why it is thought of as the direct approach) whereas the complex, subtle approach rarely does. The conclusion is that, with high probability, those who opposed going to war against the Nazis were wrong. I believe it is immoral to rend the unity of our national values and purpose by insisting that you are right and everyone else is wrong, whether you do so in the name of war, peace or fashion design. So we are immoral for advocating a cause we think is best and pointing out the consequences of choices that people make? It sounds like you, too, are a hyprocrite, labeling people immoral and creating disunity of our national values. I fear that the vast majority of people don't even realize there is a better way to engage in national and international debate. And what is this better way to debate than rationally discussing choices and consequences that are likely to result? It is certainly not this I say I don't like it but I don't propose any viable solution and I oppose your viable solution and I criticize you for discussing likely consequences of choices position that you seem to support. That's exactly the kind of behavior and language that I referred to above. Or even more damaging, since it is based on nothing I've said or implied, It is based on reality. The way to debate it is to come up with an alternate approach also based on reality, or to explain why your choice doesn't have the consequences implied. NOT to criticize the person who points out the consequences of your position. I tend to advocate liberal positions (though I don't like being labeled), but that doesn't mean I want to live in a community of liberals. We'd never decide anything! I can see that. I consider it a failing. I take some
RE: US out of UN?
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Erik Reuter ... Can we please, here at least, talk about reality instead of an ivory tower fantasy land? I don't see anything there but an ad hominem. Do you claim regime change in Iraq is a mistake? I'm not sure how you missed it, but I have said otherwise. (we're really just lining our own pockets, or we're just plain afraid?) I don't think you do, but when you make comments like this, it just sounds like you are living in wishy-washy wring-my-hands-and-cry-can't-we-all-just-get-along fantasy land. That's the opposite of my intention. Or you could accept that there are other things that divide us than polarizing rhetoric, and instead concentrate on accomplishing something practical and good. Of course there are other things. I'm focused on what I understand best, what I care about. Please don't assume that I think it is the most important thing in the world. It will hardly matter if we're all dead from anthrax, or whatever. When we allow winning the disputes to become more important than making the best choices, we've abandoned a foundation of our freedom. False dichotomy. When the debate is about practical choices and reality and responsibility, then truly winning the debate will point out the best choice. So it doesn't matter how the debate is carried out? I woudl hazard that most of us think it that the more unity behind the U.S. decision on war is better than less unity. Doesn't the manner in which we talk about the issue have everything to do with that? That's what I hear in the Everybody who disagrees with me is wrong talk from far too many advocates of war and peace. They've left advocacy in the dust. Interesting. I hear exactly that from you, and not from Gautam. I don't think I've called people jackasses and anti-American for their positions on this war. I hope I've refrained entirely from name-calling. I'm trying to hang onto respect when people who are pro and anti war seem to demand that each of us disrepect their opponents. No, we won't. Only in fiction do we know how things would have turned out if we acted differently; we will only see the consequences of what we choose. Any evaluation of the alternatives will be pure speculation. History will prove me right and you wrong is a refuge of the insecure partisan. And your statement is the refuge of a paranoid delusional. I'd appreciate if you'd try harder to refrain from name-calling. Of course we can never have complete certainty, but we can have high probability of being right, which is what is important. Was World War II wrong? That's not the issue at hand. The parallel question is, did we intervene at the right time? Did we hold back our troops too long; did we go to war too soon? It certainly seems like it would have been better to have attacked the Nazis sooner, but we don't know what would have happened. If that's true, that we should have, then we failed to make the best decision. And I'm sure there are plenty of examples in which it seems fairly clear that waiting would have been better. And many where it is impossible to know. Putting this into terms of right and wrong, rather than what is best, is what polarizes the debate. So we are immoral for advocating a cause we think is best Of course not. and pointing out the consequences of choices that people make? Failing to respect those who disagree is not pointing out consequences. I say I don't like it but I don't propose any viable solution Solution to what? Are you saying that the only thing that matters is a solution to the Iraqis, and how we arrive at that solution matters not? That's the end justifying the means, which I reject. I am proposing what I believe is a far more viable way to make decisions about how to deal with the threat posed by Iraq. I can see that. I consider it a failing. I take some liberal positions sometimes, but I also try to be goal-oriented and realistic. It is hard to do, and I don't always succeed, but I haven't given up on decisions and accomplishing goals. Neither have I. I'm simply aware we're all somewhat narrow-minded, but together, we can do far more than we can as a house divided. Leave me to myself and I'll brainstorm all day, but I might not ever ship a product or close a sale. Leave my typical partner alone and he'll never come up with an innovative product or strategy. And some people can be creative AND accomplish goals. Perhaps you should brainstorm a little on how to do that? That's exactly what I'm talking about. And take a look at my bio if you imagine that I haven't accomplished quite a few goals. But I never accomplished much of anything lasting by being divisive. Somewhere in the compromise between us arises the creativity that drives success. We need each other to succeed. I don't see you brainstorming creative ideas on how to deal
RE: US out of UN?
--- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't think I've called people jackasses and anti-American for their positions on this war. I hope I've refrained entirely from name-calling. I'm trying to hang onto respect when people who are pro and anti war seem to demand that each of us disrepect their opponents. Actually, you've been the worst of anyone here, because you are a good enough writer that you can subtly imply what you're not willing to say outright - that the people who disagree with you are trying to stifle debate. That's a fantasy on your part, but it's an effective debating tactic, and I'm going to call you on it, and keep calling you on it, because it's wrong, and it's immoral. Shame on you. You can't or won't get involved in the real debate, that's fine. But shame on you for implying that I'm a fascist for examining the motives of people whose arguments are so nonsensical that their motives need to be examined. That's _really_ trying to stifle debate - so, Nick, as far as I can tell, I believe in free debate a lot more than you do, because you _actually are_ trying to stifle it, while you're simply claiming that I am as a rather inelegant way of demonizing those you disagree with, but aren't willing to actually discuss. So who is polarizing things here? I will call you on it. Gautam __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Web Hosting - establish your business online http://webhosting.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: US out of UN?
On 12 Mar 2003 at 6:22, Gautam Mukunda wrote: to actually discuss. So who is polarizing things here? I will call you on it. Frankly, YOU seem to be offering a blunt and un-thoughtthrough viewpoint from my POV. Andy Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: US out of UN?
On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 03:31:46PM -, Andrew Crystall wrote: On 12 Mar 2003 at 6:22, Gautam Mukunda wrote: to actually discuss. So who is polarizing things here? I will call you on it. Frankly, YOU seem to be offering a blunt and un-thoughtthrough viewpoint from my POV. Coming from you, that is a complement. You are the king of emotional, unthoughtthrough viewpoints. -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: US out of UN?
- Original Message - From: Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 12:03 AM Subject: RE: US out of UN? I'm in favor of doing away with the polarizing rhetoric that divides us, to take us back to the subject you were responding to. This is a nation that has, from its beginning, honored diversity and criticism. Inspired largely by Milton's argument that truth emerges from vigorous, open debate, Jefferson and his pals created a kind of freedom never before seen. When we allow winning the disputes to become more important than making the best choices, we've abandoned a foundation of our freedom. That's what I hear in the Everybody who disagrees with me is wrong talk from far too many advocates of war and peace. They've left advocacy in the dust. I went back and reread your origional post on the anti anti-war criticism and I think it was written in a way that works against what you are advocating here. In short, it contributed to the very incivility you are opposing. I live in a very conservative neighborhood, and I don't see any stifling of the debate on the advisability of going to war in Iraq. Indeed, I see a lot of thoughtful discussion on the matter. I also see high profile folks on both sides of the issue demonizing their opponents. Yet, your post didn't discuss this, but wrote about a condition that I just haven't seen. We have one instance in a mall over the whole US that has become a high profile issue. It turns out that this was not a simple case, it was a stupid attempt by a security guard to stop ongoing commotion in the mall. There are also cases in which professors gave assignments to write anti-war letters. That, too, was rare. There were cases where school officials who were anti-war treated military families poorly, that was also rare but true. In short, there are indeed idiots who are treating people who are on one side of the issue or another poorly; but these idiots are in the low minority. The other question is the nature of the debate. Even though I advocated containment over invasion, I have to agree that the administration has put forth much more reasonable arguements than the anti-war demonstrators. The latter have made ad honimin attacks and have made ridiculous arguements about the war being fought to enrich Bush's oil patch buddies. In talking with anti-war people I am very frustrated by the lack of appreciation of the other side of the issue: it is simply a matter of the US being a bully for no good reason. So, my critique of your post is that it had nothing to do with civility, but was an attack on those who think that invading Iraq is the best option available. If you wanted to write a post on civility, it would have been far better to first criticize the lack of civility of those people who advocated positions closer to your own prejudices, and then go and criticize those who advocate positions further from your viewpoint. If you actually support Bush, then it should have been stated up front. But criticizing one side in a debate for stifling the debate while offering no real evidence that they are doing so sounds more like an attempt to stir things up than promote civil disagreement. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: US out of UN?
On 12 Mar 2003 at 10:56, Erik Reuter wrote: On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 03:31:46PM -, Andrew Crystall wrote: On 12 Mar 2003 at 6:22, Gautam Mukunda wrote: to actually discuss. So who is polarizing things here? I will call you on it. Frankly, YOU seem to be offering a blunt and un-thoughtthrough viewpoint from my POV. Coming from you, that is a complement. You are the king of emotional, unthoughtthrough viewpoints. *snorts* Examples? Not ones from 2+ years ago either. (i.e. the last time I was really an active participant before this) I know *precisely* what my viewpoint is..although admitedly I'm not the best at communicating it and I can't allways share my sources. Andy Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: US out of UN?
[U.N. Chapter VII Resolution 1441]
However, it appears as I write this that the major states are not
going to agree to follow-up action -- they will not agree to the
`serious consequences' of the resolution.
Did the resolution set a deadline? Is it possible that the
disagreement is over *when* the serious consequences are due?
The resolution set a deadline of 8 December 2002 for Iraq to provide
... a currently accurate, full, and complete declaration of all
aspects of its programmes to develop chemical, biological, and
nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, and other delivery systems
[This and all following quotations from U.N. Chapter VII Resolution 1441]
In his next report (I cannot remember the date, although I read the
report; I think it was in January 2003), Blix, the head of the UN
disarmament organization for Iraq, said that the Iraqi government had
not provided such a declaration. It was neither full nor complete.
At this point, Iraq had failed its
final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations
under relevant resolutions of the Council
You can argue that since no time was set for when Iraq would
... face serious consequences as a result of its continued
violations of its obligations
so that disagreement is justified. However, since Blix reported that
Iraq was not in compliance, the delay cannot be for other reasons than
practical military issues (such as whether there are troops in the
vicinity).
The United States has gone to war a number of times without UN
support. Why should this time be any different, if we do so?
Because President Bush and other Republicans have spoken frequently
about the need for an `effective' international organization. They
will claim that the UN has showed it is a `paper tiger'. This is in
contrast with those who say that to solve issues of global wa global
warming, human rights, and so on, all you need is a pretense of
effectiveness.
For example, the Bush administration claimed that the Kyoto treaty for
reducing green house gases would be ineffective because countries like
China and India would not have to make restrictions, and that those
countries' outputs would swamp restrictions by Europe and the US.
Moreover, they claimed that the International Criminal court would
gain prosecutors who would go after US soldiers trying to protect the
US from suicide attackers, rather than go after those who fund and
organize suicide attackers.
The Clinton administration, by the way, said the same, but that a
pretense is all that the US could get now, so they were aiming for the
pretense. I have heard it said that as a practical matter, the Bush
administration actions have led to the same consequences for global
warming and for the International Criminal Court as the Clinton
administration actions, but that in the process, the Bush
administration has offended officials in many foreign governments, so
over all, it and we are worse off.
The US government will decide to act as the `sheriff' on its own,
will invade Iraq, and, after what may well be a dreadful war, produce
evidence that the Iraqi government has been as cruel as depicted.
It will? I thought it already says it has produced such evidence?
I am sure that the Bush administration will provide photo ops and
people to tell terrible stories. Some will claim that the new photos
and stories were generated by the Bush administration; others will say
that they fit it with reports from Iraq over the past 30 years.
US President Bush will point out that pacifists world-wide, Democratic
Senators and others in the US, and people in France prefer to support
rather than oppose a cruel dictatorship.
Man, I'm getting tired of seeing people who oppose this decision being
labeled supporters of the current regime in Iraq.
I think you are going to get more tired. You do not have to support
Bush to expect him to say this. I bet he believes that the key to a
successful ad campaign is repetition, with enough differences in the
repeats so that people continue to pay attention.
I am confident Bush's goal is victory, which is to say, his goal is
his re-election in 2004, which involves keeping a swing vote of the US
population voting form him rather than for a Democratic challenger.
Can we please, here at least, acknowledge that there is a range of
positions one can take?
Of course, there is a range of positions, but I don't think Bush is
going to accept that, except where it suits his goal.
I think you are confusing what I think about the issue with what I
think Bush thinks. They are different.
Part of my concernt has to do with how different people view reality.
For example, in a recent essay, Thomas Friedman asked whether Iraq a
clear and present danger in itself to the United States? This is how
Friedman frames the question.
But I don't think Bush
Re: US out of UN?
On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 06:14:53AM -0800, Nick Arnett wrote: Erik Reuter wrote Can we please, here at least, talk about reality instead of an ivory tower fantasy land? I don't see anything there but an ad hominem. Interesting that you see it in others writing, but not in yours. Do you claim regime change in Iraq is a mistake? I'm not sure how you missed it, but I have said otherwise. I didn't miss it, as you'll notice I wrote in my message (I don't think you do). But you are making ambiguous statements so I asked for clarification. (we're really just lining our own pockets, or we're just plain afraid?) I don't think you do, but when you make comments like this, it just sounds like you are living in wishy-washy wring-my-hands-and-cry-can't-we-all-just-get-along fantasy land. That's the opposite of my intention. Then you are expressing your intention poorly. When we allow winning the disputes to become more important than making the best choices, we've abandoned a foundation of our freedom. False dichotomy. When the debate is about practical choices and reality and responsibility, then truly winning the debate will point out the best choice. So it doesn't matter how the debate is carried out? Of course it matters. It is better if the debate is about realistic choices and consequences, then a real conclusion can come out of it. Okay, I'll concede that with your fantasy-land version of debating, it is not a false dichotomy. But with a rational debate, it IS a false dichotomy. I woudl hazard that most of us think it that the more unity behind the U.S. decision on war is better than less unity. Doesn't the manner in which we talk about the issue have everything to do with that? No, of course not. There are a number of factors affecting unity, of which whether we refrain from pointing out the likely consequences of someone's position is only a small part. Besides, better to have less unity and accomplish something worthwhile than to have complete unity and accomplish nothing. You will deny it, but you have advocated a discussion where people do not point out the consequences of the other people's positions because it might hurt their feelings. While such white lies of ommission may have their place, their place is NOT in a rational, honest debate. Perhaps if the goal was to win at all costs, then one might lie in that manner in an attempt to charm the apparently irrational debater into being persuaded to your side, but personally I'd rather call a spade a spade and have a rational discussion rather than trying to trick someone. But then, I'm not a politician or former journalist. I don't think I've called people jackasses and anti-American for their positions on this war. No, just immoral hypocritical fascists, so that's all right then. I hope I've refrained entirely from name-calling. Doh! I'm trying to hang onto respect when people who are pro and anti war seem to demand that each of us disrepect their opponents. Well, you're starting to lose my respect. No, we won't. Only in fiction do we know how things would have turned out if we acted differently; we will only see the consequences of what we choose. Any evaluation of the alternatives will be pure speculation. History will prove me right and you wrong is a refuge of the insecure partisan. And your statement is the refuge of a paranoid delusional. I'd appreciate if you'd try harder to refrain from name-calling. I'd appreciate it if you would try harder to refrain from retreating into a fantasy land and insulting others while pretending to be holier than thou. So we are immoral for advocating a cause we think is best Of course not. You said it. Failing to respect those who disagree is not pointing out consequences. I'd appreciate it if you'd try harder to refrain from calling people who point out consequences of decisions disrespectful. Solution to what? Are you saying that the only thing that matters is a solution to the Iraqis, and how we arrive at that solution matters not? No. That's the end justifying the means, which I reject. I am proposing what I believe is a far more viable way to make decisions about how to deal with the threat posed by Iraq. But you aren't making any decisions nor providing support for why your choices are best. So, your way has NOT been shown to be viable. In fact, it sounds a lot like can't we all just get along and everything will magically be okay stuff. Neither have I. I'm simply aware we're all somewhat narrow-minded, but together, we can do far more than we can as a house divided. I'd appreciate it if you'd try harder to refrain from calling people narrow-minded. That's exactly what I'm talking about. And take a look at my bio if you imagine that I haven't accomplished quite a few goals. You were the one who said it, not me. I'd appreciate it if you'd try harder to refrain from getting all
RE: US out of UN?
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Gautam Mukunda ... Actually, you've been the worst of anyone here, because you are a good enough writer that you can subtly imply what you're not willing to say outright - that the people who disagree with you are trying to stifle debate. Disagree with the stand that you say I'm not taking? That's a fantasy on your part, but it's an effective debating tactic, and I'm going to call you on it, and keep calling you on it, because it's wrong, and it's immoral. Shame on you. You can't or won't get involved in the real debate, that's fine. It's hard to have an actual debate with people who are already decided they are right. Where, in all that you're written about the decision about the war, have you expressed any suggestion that your mind isn't already made up? If it is, then there's nothing to debate. But shame on you for implying that I'm a fascist for examining the motives of people whose arguments are so nonsensical that their motives need to be examined. I still don't even know what motives you are inferring. And if I've implied that you are a fascist, then I must have implied that the similarly behaving anti-war folks are also fascists. Interest concept, the fascist peacemonger. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: US out of UN?
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Erik Reuter ... No, of course not. There are a number of factors affecting unity, of which whether we refrain from pointing out the likely consequences of someone's position is only a small part. Besides, better to have less unity and accomplish something worthwhile than to have complete unity and accomplish nothing. Reductio ad absurdum. I don't imagine complete unity. You will deny it, but you have advocated a discussion where people do not point out the consequences of the other people's positions because it might hurt their feelings. Nonsense. I have advocated a discussion without name-calling and with genuine open-mindedness, rather than polemics from people who have already made up their minds, who choose to marginalize those who are open-minded or disagree. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: US out of UN?
--- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Disagree with the stand that you say I'm not taking? Your side of the political spectrum, perhaps. I'm sure you have _some_ sort of an opinion. It's hard to have an actual debate with people who are already decided they are right. Where, in all that you're written about the decision about the war, have you expressed any suggestion that your mind isn't already made up? If it is, then there's nothing to debate. Plenty, if you were paying attention. But, oddly enough, most debates are, in fact, conducted between people who think that they are right. It's hard to imagine one conducted by two people who think they are _wrong_. But shame on you for implying that I'm a fascist for examining the motives of people whose arguments are so nonsensical that their motives need to be examined. I still don't even know what motives you are inferring. And if I've implied that you are a fascist, then I must have implied that the similarly behaving anti-war folks are also fascists. Interest concept, the fascist peacemonger. Nick Fascist appeaser, actually. It's not hard to imagine, if you aren't fixed on the idea that the protesters are righteous. If I could only see the negative actions on one side of the debate I'd be, well, you. There are bad people on the pro-liberation front - but the most prominent people on that side are, in my opinion, of good intent. I don't feel the same way about the war's opponents, but I have made arguments as to why they are insincere, arguments which you have not challeneged. Instead you've resorted to vague, specious, and mendacious ad hominem attacks - and you don't even have the forthrightness to be _explicit_ about it, you just imply it so you can maintain your holier than thou pose above the fray. I'm not buying it, and I _will_ call you on it. Your argument would be more credible if you, you know, actually _did_ imply anything negative about the similarly behaving anti-war folks. What you did do was, quite explicitly, argue that people who criticize the anti-war folks - myself in particular - want to eliminate those anti-war people from the discussion. Someone who does that is in a poor position to preach sanctimoniously about ad hominem attacks, and a poorer one to proclaim his devotion to debate. There's only one person in this discussion, so far as I can see, who does think that some of the people in the discussion should be silent - and that's you. Gautam __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Web Hosting - establish your business online http://webhosting.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: US out of UN?
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Gautam Mukunda ... Your argument would be more credible if you, you know, actually _did_ imply anything negative about the similarly behaving anti-war folks. Let me know if you find it in what I've already written. It's there, repeatedly. Then we'll be able to discuss further. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: US out of UN?
Robert J. Chassell wrote: Part of my concernt has to do with how different people view reality. For example, in a recent essay, Thomas Friedman asked whether Iraq a clear and present danger in itself to the United States? This is how Friedman frames the question. But I don't think Bush frames it that way. I think Bush thinks of this as part of a long and big `war on terrorism'. There was an editorial in the NY Times (and also in the Austin American-Statesman, which is where I read it today) which argued that in the long term, the US is right in trying to oust Saddam Hussein right now. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/10/opinion/10BOBB.html I do not want the US to go to war, with or without UN approval. But arguments such as the one above (and the one made by Kathleen Parker, found at http://makeashorterlink.com/?U1E9228C3 ) don't give me much hope for an alternative. I've been wanting a reasonable, reality-based analysis that says we *don't* have to be doing this, and I haven't found one so far. If anyone could point me to one, I'd be most grateful. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: US out of UN?
At 06:06 PM 3/11/03 -0800, Nick Arnett wrote: Okay, now I have *that* off my chest. I think I'm more grumpy than usual, after having my intestines cleaned out over the last 24 hours and inspected today. Just keep telling yourself, This, too, shall pass. Bright Side Maru --Ronn! :) Bathroom humor is an American-Standard. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: US out of UN?
At 18:06 11-03-03 -0800, Nick Arnett wrote: The United States has gone to war a number of times without UN support. Why should this time be any different, if we do so? Aren't we taking the UN *more* seriously this time around, by working so hard to gain its consent? We're hardly acting as though it is irrelevant. If the US would agree to abide by whatever the UNSC decides, then it would be taking the UN seriously. However, the statement that the US will go to war even if it doesn't get UN backing sends the message that the US is not really taking the UN seriously. Jeroen Make love, not war van Baardwijk _ Wonderful-World-of-Brin-L Website: http://www.Brin-L.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: US out of UN?
At 08:20 AM 3/12/03 -0500, Erik Reuter wrote: Where is yours? You keep changing the subject away from how to deal with Saddam and instead attacking those who are discussing how to deal with him. How do you think Saddam should be dealt with? -- Ronn! :) Your message here! (Call for rates.) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: US out of UN?
On Wednesday, March 12, 2003, at 04:32 PM, J. van Baardwijk wrote: At 18:06 11-03-03 -0800, Nick Arnett wrote: The United States has gone to war a number of times without UN support. Why should this time be any different, if we do so? Aren't we taking the UN *more* seriously this time around, by working so hard to gain its consent? We're hardly acting as though it is irrelevant. If the US would agree to abide by whatever the UNSC decides, then it would be taking the UN seriously. However, the statement that the US will go to war even if it doesn't get UN backing sends the message that the US is not really taking the UN seriously. Jeroen Make love, not war van Baardwijk ___ __ The US is taking the UN as seriously as the UN is taking itself. Iraq has continually violated UN resolutions dating back to the first Gulf War. Funny how Hussein wasn't worried about complying with UN resolutions until the US Army, Navy, Marines and Air Force along with the Royal Army and Air Force showed up on his front door. Suppose the UN's consensus (sans the US obviously) should be against war, and in favor of aggressive inspections. Suppose also that the US bows to international opinion and retreats from the region. Then Hussein declares that the inspectors must go (as he had done in the past.) What would a UN resolution be worth then? We already know what can happen when the UN fails to act. Kosovo and Rwanda. Let us see how a similar international body acted once upon a time: In September 1931 Japan invades Manchuria. This is the first important challenge to the League of Nations and the concept of collective security. The only two powers situated to resist Japan, the US and Russia are not members of the League. Virtually no other nation, including Great Britain had no intention of taking military action. The League appoints a commission to study the situation, taking nearly a year to produce its report, condemning the use of force and recommending the withdrawal of the Japanese army. Not one nation called for Japan to be branded an aggressor nation, which would among other things, call for economic sanctions against Japan. The British Foreign Secretary stated to the cabinet that complaining about Japan's behavior might provoke Japanese resentment. When the League accepted the report of its own commission, in February 1933 (!), Japan resigned in protest. And stayed in Manchuria, eventually invading China, proper. (This can't have made the small and militarily weak nations of the world feel any safer.) The failure of the League of Nations to respond to such naked aggression makes it impotent in the following crises leading up to the Second World War. QED john ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
US out of UN?
On 8 November 2002, states in the United Nations with veto power, that is, with rights as individual states to prevent super-state action, agreed ... that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), ... [U.N. Chapter VII Resolution 1441] and also agreed to remind the Government of Iraq ... that the [UN Security] Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations [U.N. Chapter VII Resolution 1441] However, it appears as I write this that the major states are not going to agree to follow-up action -- they will not agree to the `serious consequences' of the resolution. Moreover, it appears that the US government will decide that without a follow-up the other major countries in the UN will have made the UN irrelevant, and will withdraw (or `suspend' itself) from it. The US government will decide to act as the `sheriff' on its own, will invade Iraq, and, after what may well be a dreadful war, produce evidence that the Iraqi government has been as cruel as depicted. US President Bush will point out that pacifists world-wide, Democratic Senators and others in the US, and people in France prefer to support rather than oppose a cruel dictatorship. -- Robert J. Chassell Rattlesnake Enterprises http://www.rattlesnake.com GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8 http://www.teak.cc [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: US out of UN?
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Robert J. Chassell Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2003 9:01 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: US out of UN? On 8 November 2002, states in the United Nations with veto power, that is, with rights as individual states to prevent super-state action, agreed ... that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), ... [U.N. Chapter VII Resolution 1441] and also agreed to remind the Government of Iraq ... that the [UN Security] Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations [U.N. Chapter VII Resolution 1441] However, it appears as I write this that the major states are not going to agree to follow-up action -- they will not agree to the `serious consequences' of the resolution. Did the resolution set a deadline? Is it possible that the disagreement is over *when* the serious consequences are due? Moreover, it appears that the US government will decide that without a follow-up the other major countries in the UN will have made the UN irrelevant, and will withdraw (or `suspend' itself) from it. The United States has gone to war a number of times without UN support. Why should this time be any different, if we do so? Aren't we taking the UN *more* seriously this time around, by working so hard to gain its consent? We're hardly acting as though it is irrelevant. The US government will decide to act as the `sheriff' on its own, will invade Iraq, and, after what may well be a dreadful war, produce evidence that the Iraqi government has been as cruel as depicted. It will? I thought it already says it has produced such evidence? US President Bush will point out that pacifists world-wide, Democratic Senators and others in the US, and people in France prefer to support rather than oppose a cruel dictatorship. Man, I'm getting tired of seeing people who oppose this decision being labeled supporters of the current regime in Iraq. I'm not going to shoot Jerry Falwell, but that doesn't mean I support him. Can we please, here at least, acknowledge that there is a range of positions one can take? I'm not ready to rush into war, but I am resigned to the reality that it may be the best thing to do right now. And to the fact that we simply cannot know for certain what will happen if we don't -- or if we do. I certainly don't want to see another 9/11, but there is a limit to what freedoms I'd support sacrificing to try to prevent terrorism. I sure as hell don't support the Iraqi government and absolutely support its downfall. Nobody, absolutely nobody on this planet is certain what the best way to bring that about is. Whatever we do, we'll be stuck with that decision and won't ever know how things would have gone otherwise. Either way, war now or international pressure now (with the ongoing possibility of war later) is a judgement call, not an objective decision. I don't think we'll make our best judgement when we're using language that paints our countrymen into a corner. Calling me a supporter of a cruel dictatorship is akin to me calling you and Bush bloodthirsty warmongers. It is ridiculous, divisive hyperbole that divides us at a time when we should be striving to find a workable compromise that delivers our best strategy for bringing about change in Iraq. Okay, now I have *that* off my chest. I think I'm more grumpy than usual, after having my intestines cleaned out over the last 24 hours and inspected today. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: US out of UN?
--- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Man, I'm getting tired of seeing people who oppose this decision being labeled supporters of the current regime in Iraq. I'm not going to shoot Jerry Falwell, but that doesn't mean I support him. Can we please, here at least, acknowledge that there is a range of positions one can take? I'm not ready to rush into war, but I am resigned to the reality that it may be the best thing to do right now. And to the fact that we simply cannot know for certain what will happen if we don't -- or if we do. I certainly don't want to see another 9/11, but there is a limit to what freedoms I'd support sacrificing to try to prevent terrorism. I sure as hell don't support the Iraqi government and absolutely support its downfall. Nobody, absolutely nobody on this planet is certain what the best way to bring that about is. Whatever we do, we'll be stuck with that decision and won't ever know how things would have gone otherwise. Either way, war now or international pressure now (with the ongoing possibility of war later) is a judgement call, not an objective decision. I don't think we'll make our best judgement when we're using language that paints our countrymen into a corner. Calling me a supporter of a cruel dictatorship is akin to me calling you and Bush bloodthirsty warmongers. It is ridiculous, divisive hyperbole that divides us at a time when we should be striving to find a workable compromise that delivers our best strategy for bringing about change in Iraq. Nick There are three problems with this: 1. The single most prominent opponent of the war effort - the French government - has, over the past 12 years, provided immense evidence that they are, in fact, supporters of Saddam Hussein. Not neutral, not ambivalent, not unwilling to fight to oppose him but opposed otherwise, but just, straight out, his supporters. There is no other way to interpret an unvarying record of assistance to his regime. 2. Many of the most prominent other opponents of the war seem to be very newly come to their (usually very perfunctorily mentioned) opposition to the Hussein regime, and seem chiefly to be animated by opposition to efforts to remove him. 3. The position of I'm not in favor of this but I'm not saying what I _am_ in favor of seems to be most useful as a way of criticizing people without, you know, having any responsibility for your own positions. I'm willing to come out and say - this is what I think we should do. We should go to war to topple him. I think it'll be a mess, but it's worth it. Erik seems to have a similar position. Jeroen thinks that overthrowing Sharon is much more important than overthrowing Saddam Hussein. That is also a position, whatever I might think of it. When things are over we can all evaluate various positions and see how they turned out. Other than that you don't seem to like people who support the war and try to paint them as crypto-fascists who want to eliminate dissent - and, to be blunt, that is _exactly_ what you did with your tendentious post about anti-anti war opponents, which I'm still pissed about - what do you believe, Nick? What do you want to do? If your only contribution to the debate is that you don't like people who want to get rid of Hussein, then whatever it is that you actually believe, objectively, you are working in favor of his regime. You don't want to do that. I certainly understand that. But what _do_ you want to do? Gautam __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Web Hosting - establish your business online http://webhosting.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: US out of UN?
Nick Arnett wrote: -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Robert J. Chassell Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2003 9:01 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: US out of UN? On 8 November 2002, states in the United Nations with veto power, that is, with rights as individual states to prevent super-state action, agreed ... that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), ... [U.N. Chapter VII Resolution 1441] and also agreed to remind the Government of Iraq ... that the [UN Security] Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations [U.N. Chapter VII Resolution 1441] However, it appears as I write this that the major states are not going to agree to follow-up action -- they will not agree to the `serious consequences' of the resolution. Did the resolution set a deadline? Is it possible that the disagreement is over *when* the serious consequences are due? Quoting from part of the resolution (and sorry about the formatting, but I can either fix it or post tonight, and I'm posting tonight!): Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations, 1. Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraqs failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991); 2. Decides, while acknowledging paragraph 1 above, to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council; and accordingly decides to set up an enhanced inspection regime with the aim of bringing to full and verified completion the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991) and subsequent resolutions of the Council; 3. Decides that, in order to begin to comply with its disarmament obligations, in addition to submitting the required biannual declarations, the Government of Iraq shall provide to UNMOVIC, the IAEA, and the Council, not later than 30 days from the date of this resolution, a currently accurate, full, and complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, and other delivery systems such as unmanned aerial vehicles and dispersal systems designed for use on aircraft, including any holdings and precise locations of such weapons, components, sub-components, stocks of agents, and related material and equipment, the locations and work of its research, development and production facilities, as well as all other chemical, biological, and nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to weapon production or material; The resolution requires a full declaration within 30 days. It's been a lot longer than that, and at the *very* least, there was buried in Blix's report something about an unmanned plane, wingspan 7.45 meters (for some reason, that detail just stuck with me), that was *not* in the declaration produced by Iraq, and on that detail alone, you could argue that the deadline for full disclosure was not met. (There are probably other things, as well; I just remember the plane.) Full text of the resolution at http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/15016.htm Does this help answer your question? (I hope so. It's all I can really do before I head for bed) Julia a little grumpy herself, actually ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: US out of UN?
Gautam Mukunda wrote: Other than that you don't seem to like people who support the war and try to paint them as crypto-fascists who want to eliminate dissent Personally, I prefer crypto-anarchists to crypto-fascists, at least if I get to choose who I'm going to hang around with. (The crypto-anarchists don't seem to give a damn about anything except preventing centralized control of information. If you want to behave like an idiot all over cyberspace, they'll be happy to let you, even while pointing out that you're being an idiot.) Julia user-surly ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: US out of UN?
At 06:06 PM 3/11/2003 -0800 Nick Arnett wrote: Moreover, it appears that the US government will decide that without a follow-up the other major countries in the UN will have made the UN irrelevant, and will withdraw (or `suspend' itself) from it. The United States has gone to war a number of times without UN support. Why should this time be any different, if we do so? Aren't we taking the UN *more* seriously this time around, by working so hard to gain its consent? We're hardly acting as though it is irrelevant. I think that Bob is referring to the fact that when it comes time for the US to take on the next enemy, the US has already become greatly disillusioned of the merits of using the UN to maintain international peace and security.Quite simply, many Americans, and particularly our current governing leaders, are definitely starting to view going to the UN in the first place as a big mistake. All it has produced as the coalescence of international opinion against us, despite all the evidence against Iraq, and given Iraq ample time to prefer for the ultimate consequences. It will? I thought it already says it has produced such evidence? Oh. but there will be so much more Obviously, by definition, this can't be proven now but it is a virtual metaphysical certitude in my mind. Man, I'm getting tired of seeing people who oppose this decision being labeled supporters of the current regime in Iraq. I'm not going to shoot Jerry Falwell, but that doesn't mean I support him. Can we please, here at least, acknowledge that there is a range of positions one can take? In a word: No. Unfortunately, there are now two possibilities - immediate war and regime change without UN support, or another victory for Saddam Hussein. The US must go to war now. Summer is just around the corner, along with the heat wave that will make defending our troops from chemical weapons attacks exceedingly difficult.The US cannot afford the direct economic bill of leaving our troops in the Persian Gulf until September, nor can it handle the indirect economic costs of letting war fears stifle our economy for six months, nor can it handle the political cost o leaving 1 out of every 1,000 Americans overseas until then. The window of opportunity is thus almost closed. Moreover it is now clear that UN support is impossible. Despite Bush vowing last Thursday that he will call a vote whether I have the votes or not, France and Russia have since then both vowed, in the clearest possible terms, to veto. Pakistan announced today that it would abstain. The President of *Cameroon* *cancelled* a State Visit to the White House today. There is no sign of a yes vote from Chile, Mexico,Guinea, or Angola. Rumsfeld today suggested that even the UK may sit out the actual fighting.Quite simply, the game is over, and the US has lost. It will not have a second resolution from the UN Security Council (although it can claim that Resolution 1441 provided all the authorization it needed for military action.) Lastly, if a war does not happen now, war will never happen.The US cannot keep its forces there until September, and if it withdraws, it will not send them back. Saddam Hussein will claim complete vindication. He will then , no doubt, kick out the inspectors as soon as the US troops have gone home. He will continue to refuse to sell oil under the Oil for Food Programme and thus deny his people basic food and medicine.His pursuit of weapons of mass destruction will no doubt resume, and those scientists who gave interviews with UN inspectors and said something indiscreet can no doubt expect swift retribution. The above is the only alternative to immediate war without UN approval. Quite simply Nick, and Deborah, and anyone else participating in this discussion: you must choose.As distasteful as it seems, those are the only two possible outcomes at this point. JDG ___ John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity. - George W. Bush 1/29/03 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: US out of UN?
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Gautam Mukunda ... There are three problems with this: 1. The single most prominent opponent of the war effort - the French government - has, over the past 12 years, provided immense evidence that they are, in fact, supporters of Saddam Hussein. Not neutral, not ambivalent, not unwilling to fight to oppose him but opposed otherwise, but just, straight out, his supporters. There is no other way to interpret an unvarying record of assistance to his regime. Where is this unvarying record documented? I've had a bit of a hard time coming up with any sort of summary. There's no shortage of glib criticism of France, but is there a factual accounting somewhere on-line? More to the point, you've changed the subject, as well as your premise. Earlier, the French were supports of Hussein because they are against war, like the jackasses in the mall and the other anti-American war protestors you have described. Are we talking about what it means to be a supporter of Iraq's regime or are we talking about whether we should go to war? One thing at a time, if you please. I'm sticking to what I was writing about. 2. Many of the most prominent other opponents of the war seem to be very newly come to their (usually very perfunctorily mentioned) opposition to the Hussein regime, and seem chiefly to be animated by opposition to efforts to remove him. Throw a party for them if they've come back to embrace the truth as we see it, don't punish them for past foolishness. Otherwise, we are hypocrites, considering the oppressive regimes we have supported, funded, supplied with arms and even put into place in some nations. Seems to me that one of your common cries is for us to be pragmatic about these matters. Well, the pragmatic reality of every nation on earth, including ours, is that sometimes we support bad guys because they're the best of a bunch of bad choices... and sometimes we kid ourselves into thinking that's what we're doing when when we're really just lining our own pockets, or we're just plain afraid. 3. The position of I'm not in favor of this but I'm not saying what I _am_ in favor of seems to be most useful as a way of criticizing people without, you know, having any responsibility for your own positions. I'm in favor of doing away with the polarizing rhetoric that divides us, to take us back to the subject you were responding to. This is a nation that has, from its beginning, honored diversity and criticism. Inspired largely by Milton's argument that truth emerges from vigorous, open debate, Jefferson and his pals created a kind of freedom never before seen. When we allow winning the disputes to become more important than making the best choices, we've abandoned a foundation of our freedom. That's what I hear in the Everybody who disagrees with me is wrong talk from far too many advocates of war and peace. They've left advocacy in the dust. I'm willing to come out and say - this is what I think we should do. Are you willing to take a position on *how* we make these decisions, in addition to the issue? That's what I was talking about. If you want to debate the decision itself, that's another discussion. I'm very opposed to the way you paint those who disagree. Is that what you think taking a stand requires? When things are over we can all evaluate various positions and see how they turned out. No, we won't. Only in fiction do we know how things would have turned out if we acted differently; we will only see the consequences of what we choose. Any evaluation of the alternatives will be pure speculation. History will prove me right and you wrong is a refuge of the insecure partisan. Other than that you don't seem to like people who support the war and try to paint them as crypto-fascists who want to eliminate dissent - and, to be blunt, that is _exactly_ what you did with your tendentious post about anti-anti war opponents, which I'm still pissed about - what do you believe, Nick? I believe it is immoral to rend the unity of our national values and purpose by insisting that you are right and everyone else is wrong, whether you do so in the name of war, peace or fashion design. That is the behavior of people who have lost sight of the values that stand above political differences, binding us nationally and culturally with the people across the street and across the oceans. It is modeled by the mass media these days, to such an extent that I fear that the vast majority of people don't even realize there is a better way to engage in national and international debate. What do you want to do? If your only contribution to the debate is that you don't like people who want to get rid of Hussein, then whatever it is that you actually believe, objectively, you are working in favor of his regime. That's exactly the kind of behavior and language that I referred to
Re: US out of UN?
Nick Arnett wrote: Where is *your* true, strong voice, the one that says, Here is what I believe in, with the courage to let your words stand on their own, the man know knows that contempt for those who disagree weakens you? I know that all of us have that voice, but it is far too rare nowadays. Wow, well spoken, Nick. I wonder which should be considered more anti-American; the ill informed moron who destroys a symbol of our great country or the highly intelligent citizen who would cripple its essence. Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
