Re: Copping A Teal, was Re: Permission Slips was Re: Rhetorical Questions was RE: Removing Dictators was Re: Peaceful change L3 (the latter refers to the subject line)

[Julia Thompson]

Doug Pensinger wrote:
On Thu, 12 May 2005 21:06:39 -0500, Julia Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
You'll See Green Alligators And Long-Necked Geese Maru

Humpy back camels and some chimpanzees
Julia
Ask Me About Thanksgiving '75 Maru

What about Thanksgiving '75?
A fond memory of hearing that song.
It might have been the first time I heard the song.  My grandfather put 
the record on for me in the basement and then went back upstairs to the 
kitchen where he had more work to do on Thanksgiving dinner.  I was 
already all dressed up for dinner, in a dress, and dancing around to the 
music.

Funny what sticks in your mind from childhood
(Of course, in high school, I got a cassette tape with it, and played 
that a lot.  Not as much as I played, say, Beethoven's 6th Symphony, but 
still fairly frequently.)

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

Re: Copping A Teal, was Re: Permission Slips was Re: Rhetorical Questions was RE: Removing Dictators was Re: Peaceful change L3 (the latter refers to the subject line)

[Doug Pensinger]

On Thu, 12 May 2005 21:06:39 -0500, Julia Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
You'll See Green Alligators And Long-Necked Geese Maru
Humpy back camels and some chimpanzees
Julia
Ask Me About Thanksgiving '75 Maru
What about Thanksgiving '75?
--
Doug
hmmm, where was I - benieth the sea? maru
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Copping A Teal, was Re: Permission Slips was Re: Rhetorical Questions was RE: Removing Dictators was Re: Peaceful change L3 (the latter refers to the subject line)

[Julia Thompson]

Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
You'll See Green Alligators And Long-Necked Geese Maru
Humpy back camels and some chimpanzees
Julia
Ask Me About Thanksgiving '75 Maru

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

Re: Copping A Teal, was Re: Permission Slips was Re: Rhetorical Questions was RE: Removing Dictators was Re: Peaceful change L3 (the latter refers to the subject line)

[Doug Pensinger]

Ronn! wrote:
I wrote:
Well, anyway, mine are _pink_ when they are visible, which they _are 
not_!!!

--
Doug
So there maru

Can't argue with logic like that . . .
What's logic got to do with it? 8^)
You'll See Green Alligators And Long-Necked Geese Maru
Humpty back camels and a brace o' fleas?
--
Doug
Dating ourselves maru.
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Copping A Teal, was Re: Permission Slips was Re: Rhetorical Questions was RE: Removing Dictators was Re: Peaceful change L3 (the latter refers to the subject line)

[Ronn!Blankenship]

At 05:55 PM Thursday 5/12/2005, Doug Pensinger wrote:
Debbi wrote:
Julia Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

And what sort of a teal, anyway?
Oh...oh, *dearie* me.

Debbi
Cinnamon Teal Flight Path Maru`:}
Well, anyway, mine are _pink_ when they are visible, which they _are not_!!!
--
Doug
So there maru

Can't argue with logic like that . . .
You'll See Green Alligators And Long-Necked Geese Maru
-- Ronn!  :)
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

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

[Warren Ockrassa]

Look, this flame bait is really kind of over the top now, isn't it? 
Obviously there's a history here, but frankly what that history is 
applies only because those involved are choosing to make it do so.

I don't think goading or coy allusions to prior misdeeds by 
(apparently) now-banned posters is particularly edifying.

While it's arguable that those who do not remember history are doomed 
to repeat it, I think it's as valid to suggest that those who do not 
*let go* of history are equally stuck.

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

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

[Maru Dubshinki]

On 5/4/05, Dave Land <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On May 3, 2005, at 8:17 PM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
> 
> > At 09:25 PM Tuesday 5/3/2005, Dave Land wrote:
> >> On May 3, 2005, at 6:32 PM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
> >>
> >>> At 03:30 PM Tuesday 5/3/2005, Dave Land wrote:
>  On May 3, 2005, at 10:45 AM, Horn, John wrote:
...
> >>> Oh . . . did you mean "Who do I think is calling him- or herself
> >>> 'God' when posting to the list?"
> >>
> >> Um, yeah. I guess I could have been more specific.
> >>
> >> But I really enjoyed your thorough answer.
> >
> > "Would you like to know more?"
> 
> The text of your answer was already very familiar -- in fact, I think I
> had parts of it memorized at one point. For a year or so back in the
> '80s, I dated a Mormon woman who worked with me at HP, which is how I
> recognized your answer as LDS catechism. I believe I had a substantial
> portion of it memorized at one point or another.
> 
> I credit our relationship with helping me find my way back to God.
> That, and my roommate at the time, the son of the Lutheran Bishop of
> Northern Minnesota. It was quite a time in my life, with my girlfriend
> and her bishop father speaking their faith in one ear and my roommate
> and his bishop father speaking theirs in the other. I appreciated  the
> opportunity to approach Christianity again from such diverse
> viewpoints.
> 
> So thank you, but I am already quite happy with the relationship I have
> with God. Save a seat in the terrestrial kingdom for me, I guess. I'll
> be there with all the other religion-addled brains :-).
> 
> I repeat my question... You apparently have a theory about the identity
> of the poster who called "God." I am interested to hear your theory.
> 
> Peace,
> 
> Dave

Perhaps he has no theory, yet I do: from the fact that his posts are
moderated and  occasionally blocked, he is clearly not omnipotent.
Yet, he claims to be God!
We know already from our illustrious Gnostic forebears who the false
God is: he is Samael the Blind God! Do not the Nag Hammadi codices
mark him as the 'occluded one', irrational and angry, ever fighting
the true Heavenly Father?
He attempts to divide the readers from the
adminstrators^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H to divide the earthly humans from the
true supreme deity who created all; need we more evidence?  Let those
who have eyes, see; ears, hear.


~Maru
Come, let us drink this delicious Kool-Aid and cast off the shackles
of our gross material bodies! ; )
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

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

[Dave Land]

On May 3, 2005, at 8:17 PM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
At 09:25 PM Tuesday 5/3/2005, Dave Land wrote:
On May 3, 2005, at 6:32 PM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
At 03:30 PM Tuesday 5/3/2005, Dave Land wrote:
On May 3, 2005, at 10:45 AM, Horn, John wrote:
Behalf Of God
Try this: ask people like Nick, Erik and JDG some questions that 
would
force them to seriously rethink their attitudes and opinions; 
hold them
accountable for what they say and do on this list. Then see how 
many (or
rather: how few) of those questions will actually get answered.
Oooo...!  It looks like God has just tipped his hand.
I mean if it gets through my dense skull, it must be obvious to
everyone else...
I've had brain surgery, and had a pretty solid cranium to begin 
with, so
please enlighten me... Who do you think God is?

Thank you, Brother Blankenship. And you didn't even have to put on 
your Missionary Uniform!
Or visit a barber for an appropriate haircut & shave (no longer 
available for two bits) . . .

Oh . . . did you mean "Who do I think is calling him- or herself 
'God' when posting to the list?"
Um, yeah. I guess I could have been more specific.
But I really enjoyed your thorough answer.
"Would you like to know more?"
The text of your answer was already very familiar -- in fact, I think I 
had parts of it memorized at one point. For a year or so back in the 
'80s, I dated a Mormon woman who worked with me at HP, which is how I 
recognized your answer as LDS catechism. I believe I had a substantial 
portion of it memorized at one point or another.

I credit our relationship with helping me find my way back to God. 
That, and my roommate at the time, the son of the Lutheran Bishop of 
Northern Minnesota. It was quite a time in my life, with my girlfriend 
and her bishop father speaking their faith in one ear and my roommate 
and his bishop father speaking theirs in the other. I appreciated  the 
opportunity to approach Christianity again from such diverse 
viewpoints.

So thank you, but I am already quite happy with the relationship I have 
with God. Save a seat in the terrestrial kingdom for me, I guess. I'll 
be there with all the other religion-addled brains :-).

I repeat my question... You apparently have a theory about the identity 
of the poster who called "God." I am interested to hear your theory.

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

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

[Ronn!Blankenship]

At 09:25 PM Tuesday 5/3/2005, Dave Land wrote:
On May 3, 2005, at 6:32 PM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
At 03:30 PM Tuesday 5/3/2005, Dave Land wrote:
On May 3, 2005, at 10:45 AM, Horn, John wrote:
Behalf Of God
Try this: ask people like Nick, Erik and JDG some questions that would
force them to seriously rethink their attitudes and opinions; hold them
accountable for what they say and do on this list. Then see how many (or
rather: how few) of those questions will actually get answered.
Oooo...!  It looks like God has just tipped his hand.
I mean if it gets through my dense skull, it must be obvious to
everyone else...
I've had brain surgery, and had a pretty solid cranium to begin with, so
please enlighten me... Who do you think God is?

Thank you, Brother Blankenship. And you didn't even have to put on your 
Missionary Uniform!

Or visit a barber for an appropriate haircut & shave (no longer available 
for two bits) . . .


Oh . . . did you mean "Who do I think is calling him- or herself 'God' 
when posting to the list?"
Um, yeah. I guess I could have been more specific.
But I really enjoyed your thorough answer.

"Would you like to know more?"
The Above Question Is Written In Black Instead Of Golden To Avoid Annoying 
The List Administrators Maru

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

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

[Dave Land]

On May 3, 2005, at 6:32 PM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
At 03:30 PM Tuesday 5/3/2005, Dave Land wrote:
On May 3, 2005, at 10:45 AM, Horn, John wrote:
Behalf Of God
Try this: ask people like Nick, Erik and JDG some questions that 
would
force them to seriously rethink their attitudes and opinions; hold 
them
accountable for what they say and do on this list. Then see how 
many (or
rather: how few) of those questions will actually get answered.
Oooo...!  It looks like God has just tipped his hand.
I mean if it gets through my dense skull, it must be obvious to
everyone else...
I've had brain surgery, and had a pretty solid cranium to begin with, 
so
please enlighten me... Who do you think God is?

Thank you, Brother Blankenship. And you didn't even have to put on your 
Missionary Uniform!

Oh . . . did you mean "Who do I think is calling him- or herself ‘God’ 
when posting to the list?"
Um, yeah. I guess I could have been more specific.
But I really enjoyed your thorough answer.
Dave
Insofar as it is Correctly Translated Maru
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

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

[Ronn!Blankenship]

At 03:30 PM Tuesday 5/3/2005, Dave Land wrote:
On May 3, 2005, at 10:45 AM, Horn, John wrote:
Behalf Of God
Try this: ask people like Nick, Erik and JDG some questions that would
force them to seriously rethink their attitudes and opinions; hold them
accountable for what they say and do on this list. Then see how many (or
rather: how few) of those questions will actually get answered.
Oooo...!  It looks like God has just tipped his hand.
I mean if it gets through my dense skull, it must be obvious to
everyone else...
I've had brain surgery, and had a pretty solid cranium to begin with, so
please enlighten me... Who do you think God is?


God Is the Ruler of Heaven and Earth
The prophets have taught us that God is the almighty ruler of the universe. 
God dwells in heaven (see D&C 20:17). Through his Son, Jesus Christ, he 
created heaven and earth and all things that are in them (see Moses 2:1). 
He made the moon, the stars, and the sun. He organized this world and gave 
it form, motion, and life. He filled the air and the water with living 
things. He covered the hills and plains with all kinds of animal life. He 
gave us day and night, summer and winter, seedtime and harvest. He made man 
in his own image to be a ruler over his other creations (see Genesis 1:26–27).

God is the one supreme and absolute being in whom we believe and whom we 
worship. He is the Creator, Ruler, and Preserver of all things (see 
Discourses of Brigham Young, pp. 18–23).

What Kind of Being Is God?
Because we are made in his image (see Moses 6:9), we know that God has a 
body that looks like ours. His eternal spirit is housed in a tangible body 
of flesh and bones (see D&C 130:22). God’s body, however, is perfected and 
glorified, with a glory beyond all description.

God is perfect. He is a God of love, mercy, charity, truth, power, faith, 
knowledge, and judgment. He has all power. He knows all things. He is full 
of goodness.

All good things come from God. Everything that he does is to help his 
children become like him­a god. He has said, “Behold, this is my work and 
my glory­to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man” (Moses 
1:39).

<>
God is not only our ruler and creator; he is also our Heavenly Father. “All 
men and women are … literally the sons and daughters of Deity. … Man, as a 
spirit, was begotten and born of heavenly parents, and reared to maturity 
in the eternal mansions of the Father, prior to coming upon the earth in a 
temporal [physical] body” (Joseph F. Smith, “The Origin of Man,” 
Improvement Era, Nov. 1909, pp. 78, 80).

Every person who was ever born on earth was our spirit brother or sister in 
heaven. The first spirit born to our heavenly parents was Jesus Christ (see 
D&C 93:21), so he is literally our elder brother (see Discourses of Brigham 
Young, p. 26). Because we are the spiritual children of our heavenly 
parents, we have inherited the potential to develop their divine qualities. 
If we choose to do so, we can become perfect, just as they are.

<>

Hope This Helps Maru
-- Ronn!  :)
Oh . . . did you mean "Who do I think is calling him- or herself ‘God’ when 
posting to the list?"

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

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

[Frank Schmidt]

Dan:
>Frank:
> > The US does not rule the world, the US is not a pappa,
> > and the US is not a police force. The US is just the
> > strongest nation today. An alliance of other nations
> > can be stronger than the US, but at present these
> > nations have different goals. If the US pushes harder,
> > this alliance might form, which might start another
> > cold war.
> 
> You seriously think, that if push came to shove, Germany
> would prefer a world in which China were the major power?
> Europe decided after the Cold War to continue to expect
> the US to look after its security interests. There is a
> lot of difference between apeasing China while knowing
> that the US can be counted on to ensure that the
> government of China does not conquer others (such as the
> people of Tawain) and living in a world where China calls
> the tune.

Germany would not prefer such a world, nor would France.
But China would. Can you imagine an alliance between China,
Russia and several islamic states? Mutual disgust drives
them apart, even inside the islamic world, but if push
comes to shove...

> 
> >Which would mean a higher risk of nuclear annihilation.
> 
> There would be so many ways to challange the US short of
> that type of war, that I can't see this.

These 'so many ways' existed in the cold war, too, but we
still lived in fear of the mushroom cloud.


> > I have hoped for such altruistic interventions
> > several times in recent years, but most of the time
> > they either weren't altruistic or there was no
> > intervention...
> 
> Let me ask you a question about the Balkans, then. Why
> didn't Europe willing to do what it took to stop the
> genocide? Why did the US have to twist arms in Europe,
> when the US's interest in a stable Europe could be no
> greater than Europe's interest in a stable Europe? Why
> did Europe have to have the US take care of it's house?
> If you want a less imperial US, wouldn't it make sense
> to take responsibility for those areas where the US was
> glad to just help out, as in the Balkans?
> 
> Dan M.

Because Europe was deeply split over the Balkans. Germany
on one side, Britain and France on the other, the smaller
nations on the third. When the civil war in Yugoslavia
began, unified Germany had just turned from officially
being occupied by the Four Powers to being a sovereign
state. German chancellor Kohl had apparently decided to
change the foreign policy from humble negotiations in
which everyone gained to openly show Europe that Germany
was powerful now, and assert support for Slovenia and
Croatia.

These states were part of Germany's ally Austria-Hungary
in WW1 and firmly under German control in WW2 when Hitler
encouraged Croatian massacres on Serbs. So Germany's step
raised fear in Britain and France whose last memories of
a powerful Germany were also extremely bad, and allowed
Milosevic to present himself as an old brother in arms.
So whenever Germans pointed out Serb atrocities, this was
dismissed as German propaganda. It would probably been
wise if Germany had let the smaller nations step forward
and let them explain to France and Britain what was really
happening, but the mood was too confrontational for that.

So when as one of the last people Mitterrand realized that
the Serbs were *really* the bad guys (when they tried to
shoot down his plane), the civil war had become so intense
that everyone feared if they stepped in *now*, a lot of
soldiers would return in body bags. So in the end, the US
was called in, and the Bosnians and Croats got better
weapons, until they were strong enough to strike back.
If you wonder why I haven't mentioned Russia: at the
beginning, Russia was rather trying to reach a peaceful
solution, only over the years, ties to Serbia formed and
became stronger.

If you ask when I would have wanted an intervention: when
the fighting in Croatia was over, and an agreement between
Croatians and Croatian Serbs was made, Bosnian Serbs began
their actions. The Bosnian government asked the EU for
help, but the answer was the EU could only help if Bosnia
split off Yugoslavia like Croatia did before. After that
step of declaring independence, the intervention never
came. And back then, many Bosnian Serbs were still
demonstrating together with Croats and Muslims that they
were all one nation (late in the civil war there were at
least three).

What's your perspective on this?

(for the above I relied on my memory, which may be faulty,
not on research. I might accidentally misrepresent facts)

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

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

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

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

[Warren Ockrassa]

On Apr 25, 2005, at 10:15 PM, Dan Minette wrote:
- Original Message -
From: "Frank Schmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

The US does not rule the world, the US is not a pappa,
and the US is not a police force. The US is just the
strongest nation today. An alliance of other nations
can be stronger than the US, but at present these
nations have different goals. If the US pushes harder,
this alliance might form, which might start another
cold war.
You seriously think, that if push came to shove, Germany would prefer a
world in which China were the major power?
Naturally not. Germany would prefer a world in which Germany was the 
major power. China would prefer a world in which Chinese rule is 
unquestioned. And Kim Jong Il would just love a world wherein everyone 
wore perfect haircuts.

And was from North Korea.
Wasn't it Teddy Roosevelt who suggested speaking softly and carrying a 
big stick? What ever happened to that philosophy? It really does seem 
that we've been all stick lately. We've been, as it were, sticking it 
to anyone we care to. Not literally, but it sure can seem that way some 
days.

Gautam has listed
4 criteria for a war of choicewhich have been ignored by anyone 
but me.
I think they are a good way to frame the debate, and am not sure why 
others
would not wish to consider them.  A war of choice must

1) Be in the best interest of the nation fighting the war
2) The goals of the war should have a reasonable chance of being 
reached.

3) Other reasonable means have been tried.
4) The war will, at least, do no net harm to the people in the region.
These are interesting points. By their criteria, I find Iraq (example) 
even less justifiable than before! ;)

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

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

[Dan Minette]

- Original Message - 
From: "Frank Schmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" 
Sent: Monday, April 25, 2005 4:36 PM
Subject: Re: Rhetorical Questions RE: Removing Dictators Re: Peaceful
change L3


> Dan:
> >dland:
> 
> > > Dan Wrote:
> > >
> > > >> On Apr 24, 2005, at 4:03 PM, JDG wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> > Now that we've let the DPRK gain nuclear weapons,
> > > >>
> > > >> Assuming, that is, that the US rules the world, and
> > > >> therefore is in a position to "let" or "not let"
> > > >> nations like the DPRK gain nuclear weapons. Perhaps
> > > >> we might consider other nations as adults, instead
> > > >> of recalcitrant children that pappa America needs
> > > >> to discipline.
> > > >
> > > > That's an easy rhetorical point which I've never
> > > > found useful. The mob is filled with adults. A
> > > > police force that looks the other way lets them
> > > > run a city.
>
> The US does not rule the world, the US is not a pappa,
> and the US is not a police force. The US is just the
> strongest nation today. An alliance of other nations
> can be stronger than the US, but at present these
> nations have different goals. If the US pushes harder,
> this alliance might form, which might start another
> cold war.

You seriously think, that if push came to shove, Germany would prefer a
world in which China were the major power?  Europe decided after the Cold
War to continue to expect the US to look after its security interests.
There is a lot of difference between apeasing China while knowing that the
US can be counted on to ensure that the government of China does not
conquer others (such as the people of Tawain) and living in a world where
China calls the tune.

>Which would mean a higher risk of nuclear annihilation.

There would be so many ways to challange the US short of that type of war,
that I can't see this.  For all of it's displeasure, Europe is making no
moves to stop its reliance on the US's defence of it's interests.  Japan
and South Korea are working to lessen theirs, but that has been with the
encouragement and cooperation of the US.



> > 1) Is the African violation of international law by
> > temporarily stopping the genocide in the Sudan wrong?
> > 2) Would it be wrong for NATO to help them if called
> > upon?
>
> If the US against the international legal system, they
> should think about the reactions. Other nations might
> not trust the US to keep their treaties with them any
> more. And then the US people will wonder once again
> why the world hates them so much...
>
> If, on the other hand, the US could prove that they
> didn't do it for themselves but to stop a horrible
> genocide, and accidents with US troops killing
> civilans are rare, the US might even get a better
> reputation.



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

No, but it was a factor in the discussion going into it.  Gautam has listed
4 criteria for a war of choicewhich have been ignored by anyone but me.
I think they are a good way to frame the debate, and am not sure why others
would not wish to consider them.  A war of choice must

1) Be in the best interest of the nation fighting the war

2) The goals of the war should have a reasonable chance of being reached.

3) Other reasonable means have been tried.

4) The war will, at least, do no net harm to the people in the region.

Starting a war will kill civilians, there is no way around it.  If the
number of civilians killed by the government in a year is greater than the
range of civilians expected to be killed during the war and the rest of the
year after the war, then the civilians are better off with the war than
without.  It is a considerationthe other considerations of US national
interest were very complicated.



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



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

Let me ask you a question about the Balkans, then.  Why didn't Europe
willing to do what it took to stop the genocide?  Why did the US have to
twist arms in Europe, when the US's interest in a stable Europe could be no
greater than Europe's interest in a stable Europe?  Why did Europe have to
have the US take care of it's house?  If you want a less imperial US,
wouldn't it make sense to take responsibility for those areas where the US
was glad to just help out, as in the Balkans?

Dan M.


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

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

[Dan Minette]

- Original Message - 
From: "Dave Land" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" 
Sent: Monday, April 25, 2005 8:53 PM
Subject: Re: Rhetorical Questions RE: Removing Dictators Re: Peaceful
change L3



> In the final analysis, we're not that far apart. At the risk of being
> considered an America-hater, Bush is a kind of ur-American: we tend to
> be pigheaded and plow ahead without regard to other views when we are
> certain.

Weaker countries have to consider other countries' viewpoints.  I'm trying
to think of times in history when the most powerful country in the world
sought considerable more consensus than the US has in the last 20-30 years.
Do you have examples?

> The other question -- to what extent "a decent respect to the opinions
> of mankind" requires that the US should give a measure of veto power to
> those opinions -- is the business of diplomacy, so I will continue to
> "just hope" that our diplomats will make that call wisely.

Veto power quite a bit to give up.  Countries reactions to the actions of
the US must be considered of course, but I don't think that means we give
up the right to stop us from doing things that we are convinced are both in
our own interest and does not significantly harm others.  The founding
fathers thought such a decent respect required us to explain our motives,
not check for approval.

Are you saying that there are circumstances under which the opinions of the
governments of Germany, France, Russia, and China would be enough to stop
us acting in a manner we have determined to be in our best interests as
well as morally acceptable?

Dan M.

Dan M.


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

The US and the DPRK Re: Rhetorical Questions RE: Removing Dictators Re: Peaceful change L3

[JDG]

At 09:01 PM 4/24/2005 -0700, Dave Land wrote:
>> Now that we've let the DPRK gain nuclear weapons,
>
>Assuming, that is, that the US rules the world, and therefore is in a
>position to "let" or "not let" nations like the DPRK gain nuclear weapons.

The US is the most powerful country in the world.   Given how incredibly
bad it is for us that the DPRK has nuclear weapons, if we had any ability
to prevent the DPRK from acquiring those weapons, shouldn't we do so?

>Perhaps we might consider other nations as adults, instead
>of recalcitrant children that pappa America needs to discipline.

Do children ordinarily invade their neighbors, starve millions of people,
torture thousands of others, and engage in terrorism?If not, what's the
point of the analogy here?   Not to let our children play with nuclear
weapons?   

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

I'm all ears.In fact, I am sure that Condi would be very, very,
interested as well.

At 10:57 PM 4/24/2005 -0700, Dave Land wrote:
>OK, I wrote the whole message below, then realized that I'm getting way
>too much into argumentation and not nearly enough into being simple and
>clear.
>
>So go ahead and read and tear apart the message that begins with "Dan
>Wrote:", but consider this my reply:

Well, I responded anyways, because your message did raise some questions
for me that might help clarify our difference in positions. 

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

I think you missed my point about "there are simply no good options."   It
was meant to imply the same conclusion as you do - we should try and find
"the least bad options that are left."   My dismal attitude was intended to
reflect the fact that even the "least bad option that is left" is still
incredibly, incredibly, bad for us not "let God sort it out." 

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

I would counter: does the DPRK need to be violating a law for the US to try
to stop the DPRK from getting nuclear weapons in your view?  

>> You obviously were not in favor of stopping the weapons development by
>> force.  200k dead S. Koreans was certainly an overwhelming price.  But, to
>> let North Korea get to the point where they could flatten both South Korea
>> and Japan (say 90% dead) would be inexcusable.
>
>Inexcusable by whom? The UN? Like we care. International courts? Don't
>make me laugh. This gets back to the point I made earlier about global
>entities to whom the US would subject itself.

Since the US has formall commitments to defend both the ROK and Japan, and
as the US considers the ROK and Japan to be close friends, the US certainly
does care, and this would put us in quite a pickle.   

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

For the record, the US has only nominal trade embargos on the DPRK, and is
one of the larger donators of humanitarian aid to the DPRK. Starvation
in the DPRK is largely a function of how much humanitarian aid the
government of the DPRK refuses in a given year.

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

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

[Dave Land]

On Apr 25, 2005, at 5:50 PM, Dan Minette wrote:
So, if your argument is that Bush tends to be pigheaded and plow ahead
without regard to other views when he is certain, then I will agree.
But, if it that, for the US to properly consider the views of other
nations, that it must give veto rights over certain foreign policy
actions to other nations, then I would tend to differ with that.
In the final analysis, we're not that far apart. At the risk of being
considered an America-hater, Bush is a kind of ur-American: we tend to
be pigheaded and plow ahead without regard to other views when we are
certain.
The other question -- to what extent "a decent respect to the opinions
of mankind" requires that the US should give a measure of veto power to
those opinions -- is the business of diplomacy, so I will continue to
"just hope" that our diplomats will make that call wisely.
Dave
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

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

[Dan Minette]

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dan M.
Dan M.


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

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

[Dave Land]

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

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

[Dan Minette]

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


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

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

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

Dan M.


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

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

[Dave Land]

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

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

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

[Frank Schmidt]

Dan:
>dland: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Nick Arnett]

On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 13:32:37 -0500, Dan Minette wrote

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nick

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

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

[Frank Schmidt]

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

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

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

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

[Dan Minette]

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


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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

[dland]

Dan, et al,

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

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

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

Dave

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

Dan Wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Without getting too tautologica

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

[Dan Minette]

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Dan M.


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

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

[dland]

On Apr 24, 2005, at 4:03 PM, JDG wrote:

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

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

> there are simply no good options.

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

Dave


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

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

[Dan Minette]

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



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

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

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

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

Dan M.


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

Rhetorical Questions RE: Removing Dictators Re: Peaceful change L3

[JDG]

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

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

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

Pray.

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

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

Re: Peaceful Change L3

[Matt Grimaldi]

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


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

-- Matt


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

Re: Removing Dictators Re: Peaceful change L3

[Dan Minette]

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




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


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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

Re: Peaceful change

[Maru Dubshinki]

On 4/22/05, Robert J. Chassell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Maru Dubshinki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote

> (Why would a non-antiquarian superintelligence bother to reincarnate
> us?  In this reading, any superintelligence doing research that
> involves reincarnating anyone from the past is an antiquarian.  Would
> an artificially bred or manufactured superintelligence be more likely
> to survive conditions near the Big Crunch than others?)

Well, why not? Remember, in this scenario, available computational
resources are shooting to infinity- it costs almost the same to not
recreate all histories as to recreate them.

>And from the inside, if you could get good reason to believe that
>you are in one (aside from any anthropic reasoning), then that is
>not a very good reincarnation/simulation. Which makes them so hard
>to usefully think about.
> 
> Yes, that is what I think.  So the notion is unfalsifiable.

No- remember also that reincarnations are largely dependant on the
Strong AI postulate, i e sentients can be copied and remade. Falsify
the postulate...

>> From inside a re-incarnation, how would you distinguish between
>> one that is not caused by some entity and one that is?
> 
> What I meant was, what if a re-incarnation occurs `naturally' and is
> not a simulation?  As far as I can see, that notion is unfalsifiable,
> too.

Ah- you are thinking of religious scenarios, or perhaps Big Universe
scenarios where the infinity guarantees by sheer chance a duplicate. 
Well, you can still reason probablistically. Ex: I can be fairly sure
that I am on a real Earth, and am not a freak intelligence spawned by
a black hole and staggering improbability, because there are so many
more 'me's which are on an Earth than are offspring of black holes and
chance, that the odds overwhelmingly favor the Earth 'me's. etc.

> --
>Robert J. Chassell

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

Re: Peaceful Change L3

[Nick Arnett]

On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 07:58:58 -0400, JDG wrote

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

Really?  Here's what Gautam wrote:

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

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

The problems that I see in the statement are:

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

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

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

Re: Peaceful change

[Robert J. Chassell]

Maru Dubshinki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote

... assuming that the Universe was closed and would collapse to a
point in a Big Crunch ... a suitably set up superintelligence
would be able to ... recreate the past ...  thusly reincarnating
us.

Yes.  That is how I understood Tipler, too.

If that superintelligence were created artificially, he would be an AI
and if he were for some reason interested in the past, he would be an
antiquarian.  Tipler never referred to his superintelligence as an
antiquarian; that is my addition.

I cannot remember whether Tipler ever suggested that someone might
create, perhaps through the equivalent of genetic engineering, a
superintelligence that could survive in the conditions near a Big
Crunch.  Perhaps he did not.

In any event, as far as I can remember (it was a long time ago),
Tipler said what you say.  My two additions are not necessary, that
the superintelligence be an `antiquarian' and be an `AI'.  I added
those additions years ago both to be funny and because I do think they
make the concept more believable.  

(Why would a non-antiquarian superintelligence bother to reincarnate
us?  In this reading, any superintelligence doing research that
involves reincarnating anyone from the past is an antiquarian.  Would
an artificially bred or manufactured superintelligence be more likely
to survive conditions near the Big Crunch than others?)

And from the inside, if you could get good reason to believe that
you are in one (aside from any anthropic reasoning), then that is
not a very good reincarnation/simulation. Which makes them so hard
to usefully think about.

Yes, that is what I think.  So the notion is unfalsifiable.

> From inside a re-incarnation, how would you distinguish between
> one that is not caused by some entity and one that is?

What I meant was, what if a re-incarnation occurs `naturally' and is
not a simulation?  As far as I can see, that notion is unfalsifiable,
too.

-- 
Robert J. Chassell 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8
http://www.rattlesnake.com  http://www.teak.cc
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

RE: Removing Dictators Re: Peaceful change L3

[Andrew Paul]

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

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

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

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

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

Andrew



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

RE: Peaceful Change L3

[Andrew Paul]

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

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

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

So have a good weekend.

Andrew



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

Re: Peaceful Change L3

[JDG]

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

Nick,

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

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

RE: Removing Dictators Re: Peaceful change L3

[JDG]

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

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

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

Re: Peaceful Change L3

[Gautam Mukunda]

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

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

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

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

RE: Removing Dictators Re: Peaceful change L3

[Andrew Paul]

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Andrew


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

Re: Peaceful Change L3

[Nick Arnett]

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

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

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

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

RE: Peaceful Change L3

[Nick Arnett]

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

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

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

Innuendo and guilt by association stink.

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

Re: Peaceful Change L3

[Nick Arnett]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re: Peaceful Change L3

[Doug Pensinger]

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


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

Re: Removing Dictators Re: Peaceful change L3

[Dan Minette]

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Dan M.



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

RE: Removing Dictators Re: Peaceful change L3

[Andrew Paul]

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

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

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

Andrew


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

Re: Peaceful Change L3

[Robert Seeberger]

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

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

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

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

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

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

xponent
Syllogisms? Maru
rob 


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

Re: Peaceful Change L3

[Warren Ockrassa]

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

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

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

RE: Peaceful Change L3

[Andrew Paul]

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

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



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

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


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

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


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

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

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

Re: Peaceful Change L3

[Robert Seeberger]

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



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

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

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

xponent
Sharing The High Ground Maru
rob 


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

Re: Peaceful Change L3

[Gautam Mukunda]

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

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

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

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

Re: Peaceful Change L3

[Robert Seeberger]

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

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

I think that deserves some explaination.

xponent
Just Teasing You Dude! Maru
rob 


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

Re: Peaceful Change L3

[Robert Seeberger]

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

David Duke


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

Maybe a Klan member



xponent
The Argument Works Both Ways Maru
rob 


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

RE: Peaceful Change L3

[Gautam Mukunda]

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

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

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

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

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

Re: Peaceful Change L3

[Gautam Mukunda]

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

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

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

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

Re: Peaceful Change L3

[Robert Seeberger]

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

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


TIA


xponent
Concrete Maru
rob 


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

Re: Peaceful Change L3

[Gautam Mukunda]

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

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

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

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

Re: Peaceful Change L3

[Robert Seeberger]

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

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

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

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


xponent
A Compendium Of Whackos Maru
rob 


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

Re: Peaceful Change L3

[Nick Arnett]

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 18:56:59 -0500, Dan Minette wrote

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

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

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

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

Re: Peaceful Change L3

[Dan Minette]

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


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


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

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


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

Nick, are you reading different posts than I am?

Dan M.




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


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

RE: Peaceful Change L3

[Nick Arnett]

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

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

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

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

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

RE: Peaceful Change L3

[Gautam Mukunda]

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

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

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

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


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

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

Re: Peaceful change

[Maru Dubshinki]

On 4/21/05, Robert J. Chassell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Maru wrote:
> Wait, wasn't Tipler's argument basically given certain physical
> constraints, we would surely be re-incarnated at the end of the
> Universe? ...
> 
> How would we be re-incarnated?  And if you think we will be, how do
> you know we are not already in a re-incarnation, presuming there could
> be more than one?
> 
> As far as I can see a good re-incarnation is indistinguishable from
> the original; and if there are more than one, then probabilistically
> speaking, we are in a re-incarnation, not the original.
> 
> >From inside, how would you distinguish between the original and a
> re-incarnation?
> 
> >From inside a re-incarnation, how would you distinguish between one
> that is not caused by some entity and one that is?
> 
> --
> Robert J. Chassell

Well, according to Tipler, assuming that the Universe was closed and
would collapse to a point in a Big Crunch, that would drive
energy/mass densities asymtoptically to infinity, as all the
Universe's mass collapsed to that point, and a suitably set up
superintelligence would be able to use that collapse to get
essentially infinite computing power, with which it would be trivial
to recreate the past, (or all possible pasts) thusly reincarnating us.
 That being a true incarnation is dependent on the Strong AI
postulate, and on perfect emulations being the same as the thing being
emulated.

I think,  I am not a physicist, and having never read Tipler's books,
I probably got something wrong there. Well, that's the How. As to the
whether, If any of Tipler's axioms are experimentally disproven, well,
there you go, that's how I know that is not our current situation.
(IMHO the universe is definitely looking open to me, which of course
falsifies the whole chain of reasoning.)

And from the inside, if you could get good reason to believe that you
are in one (aside from any anthropic reasoning), then that is not a
very good reincarnation/simulation. Which makes them so hard to
usefully think about.

>From inside a re-incarnation, how would you distinguish between one
> that is not caused by some entity and one that is?

What do you mean by this?

~Maru
http://www.simulation-argument.com/
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Peaceful Change L3

[Ronn!Blankenship]

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

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

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

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

Re: Peaceful Change L3

[Warren Ockrassa]

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

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

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

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

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

Re: Peaceful Change L3

[Gautam Mukunda]

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

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

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

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

Re: Peaceful Change L3

[Warren Ockrassa]

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

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

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

Re: Peaceful Change L3

[Dan M.]

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


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

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

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

Re: Peaceful Change L3

[Warren Ockrassa]

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

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

Re: Peaceful Change L3

[Nick Arnett]

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 13:53:22 -0500, Dan Minette wrote

...

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

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

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

Re: Peaceful Change L3

[Warren Ockrassa]

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

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

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

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

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

Re: Peaceful Change L3

[Dan Minette]

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


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

Gautam's statement involves much more than that:

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

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

Dan M.


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

Re: Peaceful change

[Warren Ockrassa]

On Apr 21, 2005, at 8:42 AM, Robert J. Chassell wrote:
I keep being reminded of the anthropologist Roy Rappaport writing,
The unfalsifiable supported by the undeniable yields the
unquestionable.  This transforms the dubious, the arbitrary, and
the conventional into the correct, the necessary, and the natural.
Indubitably.
--
Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books
http://books.nightwares.com/
Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror"
http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

RE: Peaceful Change L3

[Nick Arnett]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nick

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

Re: Peaceful Change L3

[Dan Minette]

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


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

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

Dan M.


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

Re: Peaceful Change L3

[Nick Arnett]

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 11:43:21 -0500, Dan Minette wrote

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

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

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

RE: Peaceful Change L3

[Gautam Mukunda]

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

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

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


Not a good bunch of people.


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

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

Re: Peaceful Change L3

[Dan Minette]

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



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

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

Dan M.


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

RE: Peaceful Change L3

[Nick Arnett]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Life is full of conflicts.

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

Re: Peaceful Change L3

[Dan Minette]

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



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

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

You really think I'm facist for believing that?


Dan M.


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

RE: Peaceful Change L3

[Gautam Mukunda]

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

RE: Peaceful Change L3

[Nick Arnett]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re: Peaceful Change L3

[Dan Minette]

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


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

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

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

Dan M.



Dan M.


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

Re: Peaceful change L3

[Nick Arnett]

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

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

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

Our spending reveals our priorities.

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

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

Nick

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

Re: Peaceful change

[Robert J. Chassell]

On 20 Apr 2005, Warren Ockrassa wrote

... the simulator is bored, bored, bored, and so is now playing
with the runtime parameters while the program is in operation.

Or maybe our universe is now on display in some hyperdimensional
children's museum, in the hands-on (or pseudopods-on) exhibit
wing, and it's up to the young (brood, hatchlings) to determine
which prayers are answered and which are not.

Yes, could be!  Can't prove it's not ... it's not falsifiable.
Moreover, it is undeniable that unexpected things happens.

I keep being reminded of the anthropologist Roy Rappaport writing,

The unfalsifiable supported by the undeniable yields the
unquestionable.  This transforms the dubious, the arbitrary, and
the conventional into the correct, the necessary, and the natural.

"Ecology, Meaning and Religion"
by Roy Rappaport,
1979, North Atlantic Books,
ISBN 0-913028-54-1 paperback,
page 217

-- 
Robert J. Chassell 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8
http://www.rattlesnake.com  http://www.teak.cc
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Peaceful change

[Robert J. Chassell]

Wait, wasn't Tipler's argument basically given certain physical
constraints, we would surely be re-incarnated at the end of the
Universe? ...

How would we be re-incarnated?  And if you think we will be, how do
you know we are not already in a re-incarnation, presuming there could
be more than one?

As far as I can see a good re-incarnation is indistinguishable from
the original; and if there are more than one, then probabilistically
speaking, we are in a re-incarnation, not the original.

>From inside, how would you distinguish between the original and a
re-incarnation?

>From inside a re-incarnation, how would you distinguish between one
that is not caused by some entity and one that is?

--
Robert J. Chassell
[EMAIL PROTECTED] GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8
http://www.rattlesnake.com  http://www.teak.cc
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Peaceful Change L3

[Nick Arnett]

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

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

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

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

Re: Removing Dictators Re: Peaceful change L3

[Dan Minette]

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



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

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

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

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


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

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

Dan M.


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

RE: Peaceful Change L3

[Gautam Mukunda]

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

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

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

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

RE: Peaceful Change L3

[Nick Arnett]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nick

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

Re: Peaceful change L3

[Gautam Mukunda]

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

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

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

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

Re: Peaceful Change L3

[Gautam Mukunda]

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

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

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

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

RE: Peaceful Change L3

[Gautam Mukunda]

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

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

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

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

Re: Peaceful change L3

[Nick Arnett]

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 22:39:11 -0400, JDG wrote

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re: Christian Majority Re: Peaceful change

[Nick Arnett]

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 22:31:30 -0400, JDG wrote

> I think the word "nothing" is being used as to describe polices that 
> would have the practical effect of contiuing the "status quo" 
> policies in Iraq of the previous 12 years.   Given what those 
> policies had managed to accomplish in 12 years, I think that it is 
> appropriate to describe them as the "status quo", or essentially,
>  "doing nothing."

Is that anything more than an argument from your conclusion?

> On the other hand, there have been times in history when a majority 
> of Christians were following heresy, so a majority vote is by no 
> means definitive.

Nobody suggested that such a consensus is definitive -- that's taking what I 
said to an illogical extreme.  All I said was that when this happens, it is 
appropriate to at least *consider* what they are saying, to meet with them and 
explore the proposal.  Tony Blair and Clare Short did so.  Our leaders 
refused. 

> I am also quite sure that Bush did consider what they were saying. 

Is that what he was doing when we refused to meet with them?  Are you sure 
because there is evidence, or because you're just sure that's the kind of 
person he is?
  
Nick
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Removing Dictators Re: Peaceful change L3

[Nick Arnett]

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 22:23:43 -0400, JDG wrote

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

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

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

Reasonable people have reached other conclusions as well.  

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

Re: Peaceful Change L3

[Erik Reuter]

* Nick Arnett ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:

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

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

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

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

Re: Peaceful Change L3

[Nick Arnett]

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 19:08:23 -0700 (PDT), Gautam Mukunda wrote

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

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

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

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

RE: Peaceful Change L3

[Gautam Mukunda]

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

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

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

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

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

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



Nope.  No luck.

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

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

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

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

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

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