Re: Brin: The Future of the World Re: brin: war
Ray Ludenia wrote: Last poll* I heard here in Aus had 53% against and 39% for. Surprisingly little change in numbers after the Bali massacre. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/10/06/opinion/polls/main524496.shtml CBS News poll: More people now than just two weeks ago favor giving the United Nations more time to get weapons inspectors back into Iraq. U.S. SHOULD: Now Take military action soon 30% Give U.N. weapons inspectors time 63% 2 Weeks Ago Take military action soon 36% Give U.N. weapons inspectors time 57% Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: brin: war
From: His Brinness [EMAIL PROTECTED] John, you are too close to the problem. Step back. Again I ask, do you envision Planet Earth still being divided into completely separate sovereign nations with capricious right-of-war and subject to no overall legal authority, say, 1,000 years from now? When you squint at our future, sending starships across the cosmos and dealing with aliens, do you honestly envision that? Given the frequency of irrational tyrants andzealots and the proliferation of WMD, do you envision such a situation holding even 50 years? It's worse than that. Right now well funded corporations, governments, and some universities can make bio-engineered weapons without much difficulty. As technology progresses individual people will gradually be able to things that are being done now. They just synthesized polio virus from scratch, a few months ago. As technology advances any nut, fanatic, zealot, and villain will be able to do increasingly dastardly things. If some religious fanatic thinks it is 'god`s will' to create some kind of doomsday pathogen, what is to stop them? It's only a matter of time. The Anthrax attacks plainly show this. Aside from that issue, in thirty to forty years the geometric growth of technology will lead to a 'singularity'. As technology gets more and more advanced, more jobs will be replaced with technological solutions, especially white collar office jobs. More and more people will be unemployed. The gap between the haves and the have-nots will widen similarly. If so, HOW can you manage such a mental feat? A primary factor in most people is religion. How many religious sects support the UN? Not many. Most religions distrust the UN for a variety of reasons. Some see it as one of the beasts of revelation. Some see it as moving toward a one world government, with a one world religion, with it's false prophet of revelation to mislead the world. Most of these religions and sects have this special esoteric 'Trvth', special understandings of scriptures, etc. Mr. JDG is perfectly happy to have his special brand of trvth forced on people by the government, irrespective of whether abortion etc. is right or wrong, he would have the government force his particular views on everyone. He, being a good catholic, would probably prefer a return to the absolute power of the popes. Religion and freedom are enemies. Religionists want their thought-control, freedom control spread to everyone. Like any parasite religion wants to spread, is based around spreading itself. Some religious fundamentalists home school their children so they are not taught about religion destroying concepts like evolution, the big bang, etc. To religionists the UN is an authoritarian control (because that is their worldview, the primary meme behind religion is slavery), but is the wrong kind of authority, not from their perception of god, but some false religious system or some satanic system, or some secular system, all of them equally bad. Here is an example of how a lot of bible belt protestants view the UN: http://www.crossroad.to/text/articles/MentalHealth2-99.html http://www.crossroad.to/text/articles/starwar6-99.html If not, then how do you envision a world of law coming about? If not via the UN, then in what way? You are forgetting a major actor: multi-national corporations. The new feudal lords. Microsoft alone has more money in the bank than many countries GDP. The majority of the wealth and power is increasingly being concentrated into fewer and few corporate hands. Money buys the politicians, and the politicians act on behalf of the corporations. Yes, Americans feel a reflexive fear of such a coalescence... and for dozens of very good reasons! I share those reservations. Indeed, out of all the types of WorldGov we might get, only a very narrow set would seem acceptable to me. And none of those few that are particularly acceptable, or good, would be acceptable to the major religions or the big corporations. Which is the point! Right now, Pax Americana has tremendous influence and good will. We behaved far better, following George Marshall (my Man of the Century) and his gentle -but-firm prescription, than any other 'pax'. We used it top make the EU - our handiwork! - and (under Clinton) put Europe at peace for the first time since Neanderthals saw guys with chins coming over the hill. We have an opportunity to mold WorldGov in an image WE can accept. This page has some interesting things to say about chins (among other things): http://employees.csbsju.edu/lmealey/hotspots/Chapter13.htm But only if we see the goal and grasp it. Something this administration is incapable of doing. Again, many parts of WorldGov are forming before our eyes., The EU's march eastward is setting a model for the process of accession. (I hope not for bureaucracy, though!) Global institutions are forming at the periphery. The
Re: Brin: The Future of the World Re: brin: war
Kevin Street wrote: John D. Giorgis reponded: ALL those allies?The UK, Australia, Spain, and Italy are all behind the US attack on Iraq - and those are just the ones that I have heard of. This is just my opinion, but I suspect that the majority of the people in those countries don't support an invasion of Iraq, even if their governments are supporting the US for diplomatic reasons. Last poll* I heard here in Aus had 53% against and 39% for. Surprisingly little change in numbers after the Bali massacre. Regards, Ray. * Conducted by SBS sample size 1000. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
What's Wrong Here? Re: The Future of the World Re: brin: war
O.k. folks, what is going on here? In the past few days, we have heard Dr. Brin argue: 1) The no-brainer solution to Iraq, is to divide up Iraq and Iraq's oil resources between the non-Arab Kurds and the non-Sunni Shiites, without any regard for how this might inflame the Sunni-Arab street. 2) The only ally we need against Iraq is Iran. Yes, the same Iran that still calls us The Great Satan of the West, the same Iran that is still developing WMD's of its own (no hypocrisy by the US here!), and the same Iran that wouldn't even ally with us against its enemies, the (Sunni) Taliban-controlled Afghanistan! 3) And now. You want NATO to be the world gov? You cannot see how self-satisfying that model is? MY SIDE GETS TO RULE! John, you really need to step back. You mean it is completely amazing to hope that Democracy and Free Markets might triumph over Totalitarianism, Autoritarianism, Repression, and Fanatacism?? This is an opinion that I am to be ridiculed for? What's going on here? And will whoever took the real David Brin please put him back when you're done? JDG ___ John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] People everywhere want to say what they think; choose who will govern them; worship as they please; educate their children -- male and female; own property; and enjoy the benefits of their labor. These values of freedom are right and true for every person, in every society -- and the duty of protecting these values against their enemies is the common calling of freedom-loving people across the globe and across the ages. -US National Security Policy, 2002 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Getting silly Re: brin: war
Deborah Harrell wrote: I find eating hot salsa and drinking plenty of hot tea, along with 'steaming,' effective treatment for many a stuffy nose. (And with allergies ~ 9 months of the year, I have plenty of practice! :P ) I only have a good cure for a really bad cold. It involves a hot tub or a hot shower followed by two or three mugs of strong steaming hot black tea mixed with honey, lemon and a dash of rum (trust me this sounds better then it tastes) just before going to bed. Because of the hot you'll sweat out the bugs and your sinuses stay free. The rum will help you sleep. You have to stay well covered with several blankets though otherwise the recipe won't work. Sonja GCU Pferde kur [german] ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Brin: The Future of the World Re: brin: war
J. van Baardwijk wrote: Through cooperation with other freedom-loving democratic countries, or by unilaterally deciding to ignore all those potential allies, storming into country after country with all guns blazing, and alienating all those other freedom-loving countries from you in the process? John D. Giorgis reponded: ALL those allies?The UK, Australia, Spain, and Italy are all behind the US attack on Iraq - and those are just the ones that I have heard of. This is just my opinion, but I suspect that the majority of the people in those countries don't support an invasion of Iraq, even if their governments are supporting the US for diplomatic reasons. World opinion is pretty solidly against an invasion, I suspect. (An invasion without UN backing, that is.) It's only in the United States that the idea is credible - and even there, many people are undecided or skeptical. If America does this thing, it will be going down a road with fewer and fewer companions. And if Bush wants to continue making preemptive strikes on other dangerous nations, even loyal governments like England may have to reconsider their support. Kevin Street ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: brin: war
Julia Thompson wrote: Getting ridiculous, how about we start by dissolving the composition of the Security Council and let Canada decide who sits on the new one? It can't be any worse than it is now for democracies, to let Canada run a few things for a bit. And nobody is suspicious of Canada, are they? Certainly not like they are towards the US, or China, or Russia, which are probably the biggest gorillas in the room. Alberto Monteiro replied: Brazil would object: Canada has done some very evil things against brazilian companies... We have? ... specially Embraer [who competes with a canadian company that is half state-owned and half-owned by relatives of the Prime Minister evil grin] Oh. Well then, that tracks. :-) Our PM would walk through fire to give unfair assistance to his relatives. He's definitely one of those old-fashioned, porkbarrel patronage kind of politicians. I'd vote for the other guy, except there is no other guy. If only the communist party ran candidates in more districts... Incidently, Julia's idea sounds great! Just let us make all the big decisions... Yes... You are getting very sleepy... Look at the flashing Loonie as it goes round and round... Relax... Give us all your aircraft carriers and a hundred billion dollars... Kevin Street Very sleepy... ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Getting silly Re: brin: war
d.brin wrote: Pleese! Only put Brin: in the subject line if it seriously needs my attention. Interesting. Topical. Urgent or about real SF. I gotta hide for a couple of weeks. See you all after the election ... about which you already know how I feel. Thrive. All of you! With cordial regards, David Brin www.davidbrin.com Doctor Brin is back on the list?! Except now he's gone on break??! Argh! What a time to be in lurk mode. Kevin Street ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Getting silly Re: brin: war
Deborah Harrell wrote: Sinus washing with saline salution is a useful (but admittedly disgusting! :P) technique for removing infected mucus (aka green gunk), but I recommend it only to those who are truly _miserable_ with severe sinusitis. The key is to 'snork' not sniff the solution; salt water plus gg into the windpipe is _most_ unpleasant! :( g Well the idea is to incline your head ever so lsightly, let the water spout touch the tip of one nostril, let the water flow. Soft pranayam is the favoured breathing pattern. I'm not familiar with the use of mustard oil, but I wonder if the effect might be similar to taking too large a dollop of wasabi... ;) :) It does sting, that's true. But just a little. And mustard oil is anti-fungal, anti-viral and a good disinfectant. Plus, it leaves a slight coating of oil on the nasal passages and counters the dryness caused by the saline sloution. Ritu ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Getting silly Re: brin: war
On Tue, Oct 22, 2002 at 07:02:27AM -0500, Ronn Blankenship wrote: I note that we still have not received any account of the circumstances and the decision process which led Julia to snort salt . . . Okay, Jero..., uhhh, I mean Ronn. One query is enough! :-) -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Getting silly Re: brin: war
Ronn Blankenship wrote: I note that we still have not received any account of the circumstances and the decision process which led Julia to snort salt . . . Let's say I was in college, hadn't necessarily had enough sleep, and other people had been snorting less painful substances (e.g., powdered sugar), and my curiosity was way ahead of my real-world critical thinking skills. Oh, and dumping salt all over the place was a habit with some folks, so it was right there in front of me. Call it one of the worst momentary lapses in judgement of my life. (Another I can think of involved needing car repairs. I will *not* go into any more detail on that one.) Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Getting silly Re: brin: war
Pleese! Only put Brin: in the subject line if it seriously needs my attention. Interesting. Topical. Urgent or about real SF. I gotta hide for a couple of weeks. See you all after the election ... about which you already know how I feel. Thrive. All of you! With cordial regards, David Brin www.davidbrin.com Deborah Harrell wrote: Sinus washing with saline salution is a useful (but admittedly disgusting! :P) technique for removing infected mucus (aka green gunk), but I recommend it only to those who are truly _miserable_ with severe sinusitis. The key is to 'snork' not sniff the solution; salt water plus gg into the windpipe is _most_ unpleasant! :( g Well the idea is to incline your head ever so lsightly, let the water spout touch the tip of one nostril, let the water flow. Soft pranayam is the favoured breathing pattern. I'm not familiar with the use of mustard oil, but I wonder if the effect might be similar to taking too large a dollop of wasabi... ;) :) It does sting, that's true. But just a little. And mustard oil is anti-fungal, anti-viral and a good disinfectant. Plus, it leaves a slight coating of oil on the nasal passages and counters the dryness caused by the saline sloution. Ritu ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin: The Future of the World Re: brin: war
At 11:48 PM 10/22/2002 +0200 J. van Baardwijk wrote: Through cooperation with other freedom-loving democratic countries, or by unilaterally deciding to ignore all those potential allies, storming into country after country with all guns blazing, and alienating all those other freedom-loving countries from you in the process? ALL those allies?The UK, Australia, Spain, and Italy are all behind the US attack on Iraq - and those are just the ones that I have heard of. JDG ___ John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] People everywhere want to say what they think; choose who will govern them; worship as they please; educate their children -- male and female; own property; and enjoy the benefits of their labor. These values of freedom are right and true for every person, in every society -- and the duty of protecting these values against their enemies is the common calling of freedom-loving people across the globe and across the ages. -US National Security Policy, 2002 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Getting silly Re: brin: war
--- Ritu Ko wrote: Ronn Blankenship wrote: Snorting Coke, or Pepsi, or Sprite (which is the one I have the most experience with) is much more pleasant in comparison. Done voluntarily, I suppose it would clean out your sinuses . . . Well, warm water is better for that - in one nostril and out the other. And if the cold has lasted for a long while, a few drops of mustard oil should be added. Ritu GCU Jalnetri GSV It's A Disgusting Experience! Sinus washing with saline salution is a useful (but admittedly disgusting! :P) technique for removing infected mucus (aka green gunk), but I recommend it only to those who are truly _miserable_ with severe sinusitis. The key is to 'snork' not sniff the solution; salt water plus gg into the windpipe is _most_ unpleasant! :( I'm not familiar with the use of mustard oil, but I wonder if the effect might be similar to taking too large a dollop of wasabi... ;) I find eating hot salsa and drinking plenty of hot tea, along with 'steaming,' effective treatment for many a stuffy nose. (And with allergies ~ 9 months of the year, I have plenty of practice! :P ) Snorky Was My Favorite Banana Split Maru __ Do you Yahoo!? Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Labels (Was Re: brin: war)
--- Adam C. Lipscomb wrote: snip I always thought a merkin was a pubic wig, which is why I resent the term. http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=merkin mer·kin Pronunciation Key (mûrkn) n. A pubic wig for women. So maybe we could find another slang term for Americans? Please? I remember reading (years ago, but where?) the term Umerkin. Or we could go with 'Yangs,' and learn to mangle the pledge like Cloud Williams, chief-of-chiefs. I Pledge A Legion Toothaf Lag Maru __ Do you Yahoo!? Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: brin: war
At 17:06 20-10-2002 -0400, John Giorgis wrote: You asked me to answer, Why do European conutries continue to insist on UN support if they consider the UN to be a discredited organization? If I respond to that question, with the statement: The Europeans don't believe that the UN is discredited - then I have not answered your question, now have I?That is because you asked me a conditional question, and one cannot answer a conditional question by rejecting the conditional. That is, as you say, evading the question. And as we all know, that is a skill you excel at... Since you are lack either the will or the intelligence (or both) to answer my question, I will answer it for you. THE QUESTION: Why would countries (European and other) insist on UN support if they would consider the UN to be a discredited body? THE ANSWER (as it should have come from JDG): Indeed, Jeroen, it would not make sense for those countries to insist on UN support if they would consider the UN to be a discredited body. However, as you have correctly pointed out, they *are* insisting on UN support. It therefore logically follows that those countries do not consider the UN to be a discredited body. As it his extremely unlikely that at the same time I am right and hundreds of thousands of politicians and diplomats worldwide are wrong, I concede that my statement the UN is a discredited body can no longer be maintained as a statement of fact. Therefore, I hereby retract that statement. Jeroen. This is exactly the WRONG kind of paraphrasing, proving that you can be just as immature at debating as John can be. Paraphrasing is an art of actually coming to grips with what your opponent means, not a caricature straw-man that you want to see and argue against, because it makes you feel good. Your answer is the one you want -- total and abject surrender. You'll not get it. So why push such an offensive 'answer' at all? John, you are just as bad. You should have conceded Jeroen's contradiction long ago, a minor matter, and moved on, instead of evading it and giving him an excuse to focus on a semantic point. NOW... may I ask that people please remove Brin: from the current set of subject lines? I will not be able to answer for a couple of weeks anyway. Let's start fresh when we see whether the blatant (there can be no other logical reason) attempted DogWag works or not. If divided government was wise under Clinton (GWB said so then) it's just as wise now. Let's give it to him. Or I shudder over what he'll try in 2004. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Brin: The Future of the World Re: brin: war
At 12:55 PM 10/20/2002 -0700 d.brin wrote: Again I ask, do you envision Planet Earth still being divided into completely separate sovereign nations with capricious right-of-war and subject to no overall legal authority, say, 1,000 years from now? When you squint at our future, sending starships across the cosmos and dealing with aliens, do you honestly envision that? Actually, I find a future similar to this more likely than you might think. Throughout human history, it is competition that has driven us to our greatest heights. I would expect any world government, like monopolies, like yea, the Roman Empire, to become weak and stagnant. Thus, if and until humanity makes contact with alien races, if we truly do send startships out into the cosmos, I think that it will likely be the result of competition. After all, the Cold War brought us the landing on the moon, and the Pax Americana brought us Space Station Alpha. Given the frequency of irrational tyrants andzealots and the proliferation of WMD, do you envision such a situation holding even 50 years? Indeed, I believe that unless the US acts now to make the world safe for democracy, I envision the proliferation of WMD over the next 50 years to create a truly unstable and dangerous situation. If not, then how do you envision a world of law coming about? If not via the UN, then in what way? Yes, Americans feel a reflexive fear of such a coalescence... and for dozens of very good reasons! I share those reservations. Indeed, out of all the types of WorldGov we might get, only a very narrow set would seem acceptable to me. I've taken more time than I should. Reductio: If you don't like the UN, what would you suggest instead? First of all, just because the world needs a multilateral rule of law in the long term, I do not agree that the United States needs to work directly towards this goal in the short term. Indeed, I would say that the world, in its current state, is completely incapable of assembling such a mulitlateral rule of law.This is because the world, right now, is principally composed of elements that do not have the rules of law, do not have free markets, and are burdened by high levels of corruption. Without the rule of law, free markets, and relatively modest levels of corruption, such a multilateral rule of law is impossible.Thus, the most important thing for the United States to do in the current situation, is to create a push for the expansion of democracy around the world, so as to create a world situation whereby the risks you cite might be minimized, as quickly as possible. Additionally, I believe that the United Nations is singularly ill-suited for forming the multilateral rule of law in the long long term. I would assign a greater probability to the rest of the world apply to join the United States in gradual accession than the United Nations producing such a result.This is because the United Nations was designed as a talking-shop among all nations, not as the foundation for world government. After all, this organization was founded in the aftermath of WWII, in the opening stanzas of the Cold War. The goal was hardly eventual world governance - the goal was to prevent us from annihiliating ourselves. Thus, the UN was founded upon a fiction that is well-suited for the prevention of self-annihilation, but compeltely imappropriate as the foundation of world governance - that of all States being equal. If there is one lesson of his brave new world of pravalent WMD's that we are just now entering, it is that not all States are equal.Some States act responsibly and with a predominant tendency towards the general good. Other States starve their citizens of food and medicine in order to pursue weapons of ever greater destructive power with which to threaten their neighbors. They are not equals. So, what alternative is there? Well, if I had to choose an extant-organization, I would pick NATO. Even moreso than the EU, NATO has been the true leader in integrating the former Warsaw Pact States into Western Civilization. Moreover, as you have often noted, NATO was the architecht behind one of the greatest human achievements of the 20th Century - the interventions in the breakup of Yugoslavia. In Bosnia-Herzegovina, Kosovo, and FYR of Macedonia, NATO repeatedly demonstrated the ability of Western Civilization to affirm that some States are rogues, and their actions - even within their own borders - will not be tolerated as affronts to all of humanity. Meanwhile, the United Nations was utterly paralyzed by inaction. More broadly speaking, Madeline Albright has previously proposed a Democracy Club of nations. Once that idea's time has come, it would no doubt be a very good one. However, that idea will *never* come, so long as everyone keeps playing the United Nations' game. Thus, the US would do the world a tremendous favor by calling a spade a spade, pointing out the UN's
Re: Labels (Was Re: brin: war)
At 04:58 PM 10/21/02, Deborah Harrell wrote: --- Adam C. Lipscomb wrote: snip I always thought a merkin was a pubic wig, which is why I resent the term. http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=merkin mer·kin Pronunciation Key (mûrkn) n. A pubic wig for women. So maybe we could find another slang term for Americans? Please? I remember reading (years ago, but where?) the term Umerkin. Or we could go with 'Yangs,' and learn to mangle the pledge like Cloud Williams, chief-of-chiefs. I Pledge A Legion Toothaf Lag Maru Those are worship words! _Yang_ worship. You will not speak them! --Ronn! :) I always knew that I would see the first man on the Moon. I never dreamed that I would see the last. --Dr. Jerry Pournelle ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin: The Future of the World Re: brin: war
This below is truly amazing, John. You cling to the notion of a future situation as absolutely similar to our present situation as you can possibly craft. You want the future to be 2002 but a little nicer, a little more americanized. You need, desperately need to recognize how your own desires color your ideology. Like many americans you fear what a worldgov might be like, so you deny the inevitability. Using the excuse that it would eliminate 'competition'. heh. Has Federal and state law eliminated useful competition WITHIN the USA? Or moderated and channeled that competition to maximize benefits and minimize harm? By your logic the federal US govt interferes with Darwinian competition so it should be eliminated too. Fact, technologies like WMD will continue proliferating down to the city and individual level. Only law can deal with such problems, and give common people in Burma etc a permanent way to eliminate mad tyrants. We NOW have an opportunity to be the leading shaper of that law. Instead we are acting like cowboys. You want NATO to be the world gov? You cannot see how self-satisfying that model is? MY SIDE GETS TO RULE! John, you really need to step back. But what you REALLY need to do, please, now, is remove Brin: from the subject lines. I must hide for 2 weeks. I want no input. Please. Let's all just hope for the best. db At 12:55 PM 10/20/2002 -0700 d.brin wrote: Again I ask, do you envision Planet Earth still being divided into completely separate sovereign nations with capricious right-of-war and subject to no overall legal authority, say, 1,000 years from now? When you squint at our future, sending starships across the cosmos and dealing with aliens, do you honestly envision that? Actually, I find a future similar to this more likely than you might think. Throughout human history, it is competition that has driven us to our greatest heights. I would expect any world government, like monopolies, like yea, the Roman Empire, to become weak and stagnant. Thus, if and until humanity makes contact with alien races, if we truly do send startships out into the cosmos, I think that it will likely be the result of competition. After all, the Cold War brought us the landing on the moon, and the Pax Americana brought us Space Station Alpha. Given the frequency of irrational tyrants andzealots and the proliferation of WMD, do you envision such a situation holding even 50 years? Indeed, I believe that unless the US acts now to make the world safe for democracy, I envision the proliferation of WMD over the next 50 years to create a truly unstable and dangerous situation. If not, then how do you envision a world of law coming about? If not via the UN, then in what way? Yes, Americans feel a reflexive fear of such a coalescence... and for dozens of very good reasons! I share those reservations. Indeed, out of all the types of WorldGov we might get, only a very narrow set would seem acceptable to me. I've taken more time than I should. Reductio: If you don't like the UN, what would you suggest instead? First of all, just because the world needs a multilateral rule of law in the long term, I do not agree that the United States needs to work directly towards this goal in the short term. Indeed, I would say that the world, in its current state, is completely incapable of assembling such a mulitlateral rule of law.This is because the world, right now, is principally composed of elements that do not have the rules of law, do not have free markets, and are burdened by high levels of corruption. Without the rule of law, free markets, and relatively modest levels of corruption, such a multilateral rule of law is impossible.Thus, the most important thing for the United States to do in the current situation, is to create a push for the expansion of democracy around the world, so as to create a world situation whereby the risks you cite might be minimized, as quickly as possible. Additionally, I believe that the United Nations is singularly ill-suited for forming the multilateral rule of law in the long long term. I would assign a greater probability to the rest of the world apply to join the United States in gradual accession than the United Nations producing such a result.This is because the United Nations was designed as a talking-shop among all nations, not as the foundation for world government. After all, this organization was founded in the aftermath of WWII, in the opening stanzas of the Cold War. The goal was hardly eventual world governance - the goal was to prevent us from annihiliating ourselves. Thus, the UN was founded upon a fiction that is well-suited for the prevention of self-annihilation, but compeltely imappropriate as the foundation of world governance - that of all States being equal. If there is one lesson of his brave new world of pravalent WMD's that we are just now entering, it is that not all States are equal.
Getting silly Re: brin: war
Ray Ludenia wrote: d.brin wrote: You are taking the word of a man who admits to have snorted coke, and who has every political reason to say whatever it takes to win an election. Hey, bit strong! I think it is a bit rash to to criticise someone for snorting coke. Haven't you ever had a nose spurtage when someone cracks a joke while you have a drink? Would you say the same if he snorted pepsi? I do *not* recommend snorting milk rice. (A very unpleasant accident.) I also do not recommend snorting salt. (That one was an extremely stupid decision on my part.) Snorting Coke, or Pepsi, or Sprite (which is the one I have the most experience with) is much more pleasant in comparison. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: brin: war
At 09:14 PM 10/19/2002 -0700 d.brin wrote: At 11:16 PM 10/19/2002 +0200 J. van Baardwijk wrote: Why is it seemingly impossible for you to answer the question of why countries would insist on UN support if they consider the UN to be a discredited body? (And yes, you may consider that the *fourth* time of asking the question.) I give up. If anyone else would like to try explaining my answer to Jeroen, please feel more than welcome to try. This is a great example of the 'paraphrase challenge. If you are arguing fairly with another person, you should be able to paraphrase what they believe they mean, not the caricature of their meaning that makes you feel good. John, before you contemptuously assume that you have answered Jeroen's question, how about paraphrasing it in your own words to verify, for us all, that you actually understand what he's asking? It does not seem to me you have. O.k., I must admit that I am honestly shocked that even you, Dr. Brin, did not understand my answer. Thus, I can only conclude that the polite approach to answering this question has not worked, and so I must move to the non-polite approach. Please note, this will not be a flame-ridden tirade, it will simply be impolite. And I am only answering in this way because a non-EMU resident Brin-L'er asked me to. Jeroen's question carries two premises: 1) The UN is discredited 2) The Europeans (and many liberal Americans, et al) are insisting upon UN authorization for a US strike on Iraq. Thus, there are two answers to the question of why? 1) The Europeans are ignorant, and don't realize that the UN is discredited. (But, this answer is rejected because of Jeroen's premise #1, which specificallty states that, quote, they believe that the UN is discredited.) 2) The Europeans are stupid. Like I said, Jeroen, who's insulting Europeans? JDG ___ John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] People everywhere want to say what they think; choose who will govern them; worship as they please; educate their children -- male and female; own property; and enjoy the benefits of their labor. These values of freedom are right and true for every person, in every society -- and the duty of protecting these values against their enemies is the common calling of freedom-loving people across the globe and across the ages. -US National Security Policy, 2002 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: brin: war
At 09:38 PM 10/20/2002 +0200 J. van Baardwijk wrote: This is false; you really need to work on your quoting skills. The question is why countries (European and other) would insist on UN support *IF* they consider the UN to be a discredited organisation. Given the fact that all those countries insist on UN support, it should be obvious that they do not share your opinion that the UN is a discredited organisation. Whoa! You didn't ask me to answer the question Why do Europeans continue to insist on UN support? You asked me to answer, Why do European conutries continue to insist on UN support if they consider the UN to be a discredited organization? If I respond to that question, with the statement: The Europeans don't believe that the UN is discredited - then I have not answered your question, now have I?That is because you asked me a conditional question, and one cannot answer a conditional question by rejecting the conditional. That is, as you say, evading the question. Finally! John, do you notice the difference? You actually tried to paraphrase and get to the kernel of disagreement. So... was Jeroen mistaken to believe the conditional? That you were claiming the EU members have discredited the UN? If you never claimed this, then his question is based on a mistaken impression of your beliefs. Now please take this offline ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: brin: war
Once again, taking things back on-line, where it belongs. At 14:59 18-10-2002 -0700, John Giorgis wrote: This looks like a prime example of deliberately providing misinformation in an attempt to validate your point. First, it is for the *entire* EU, not the EMU (Economic and Monetary Union) to decide on whether or not to adopt federalism (the EU has 15 member states, the EMU has 12 -- Denmark and the UK exercised their right to not join the EMU yet, Sweden does not yet meet all the criteria for joining the EMU). One would presume that support for a Federal Europe would be higher among EMU members. Why? (That is NOT a rhetorical question.) We can have a single currency for a single internal market without creating a federal Europe. And I will ask you again to provide facts to back your claim that the EU is completely mistrusted by the European citizenry. Or, alternatively, if you cannot do that: there is no shame in admitting that your statement has no factual basis. At any rate, I only said it because I did not remember the opinions of the non-EMU member Brinellers. Yeah, sure. Below you imply that you remember what was said during the debate about the electoral college, but at the same time you only remember what Sonja and I (the only active members from EMU-countries) said in that debate, not what others said. Credibility rating of your statement: Credibility? What credibility?. And fourth, a search of the Great Brin-L Archive revealed only *one* message from a EU Brineller in which a comment was made on federalism and the EU, and he showed no sign of being shocked. That poster was me, responding to you: Either your archive or your search is inadequate. Both the archive and the search are quite adequate, thank you very much. The archive contains most of the posts from Brin-L's history, and contains all the posts from the day I joined (mid-1998) -- which is why I have already managed on a few occassions to prove people wrong when a poster said poster said statement. The search is also adequate enough. Your exact words were: and the only two active EMU Brin-L'ers seem shocked everytime EU and federalism are used in the same sentence. I searched on federalis (without the m, so as to include both federalist and federalism in the search), and then looked at the results to see how many posts came from Brinellers from EMU-countries. There was only one such post in the results; the relevant part of that message was quoted in my post. But again, feel free to quote messages from several shocked E(M)U Brinellers that prove me wrong and prove you right on this. Reread the discussion on the electoral college if you really want to convince yourself. That will be up to you. You are the one claiming that the only two active EMU Brin-L'ers seem shocked everytime EU and federalism are used in the same sentence, so it is up to you to back your claim with quotes from relevant posts (at least one per EMU Brineller). It is not up to me to disprove it. So, let's see some proof, or be a man about it and admit that your statement is false. Unless I get really bored some day, I certainly won't consider convincing you worth the effort to search for it myself. Translation: I (John Giorgis) reserve the right to make all the ridiculous claims I want about other Brinellers. I will not bother to actually back them with claims, because I do not have such proof, and I do not want to admit that I put words in people's mouths and make false statements. If I make a statement about an other Brineller, it is up to that other Brineller to disprove my claims. Yet, oddly, the fact that the price of UN support is basically an unethical bribery has not dampened anyone's enthusiasm to consult this completely discredited body. The UN has not been a completely discredited body. I know that *you* have a dislike for the UN, but apparently most countries do not. If they did, why would they insist on UN support for actions against Iraq? It makes no sense for them to want approval from an organisation they consider discredited. You mean that the Europeans don't realize that some of the Security Council permanent members demand countries with matters before the Council to pay bribes from other countries resources, and the fact that the UNSC includes one state-sponsor of terrorism and a permanent member that is one of the world's foremost violators of human rights? SIGH John, would it be possible for you to actually *answer* a question for a change, instead of evading it? Hm, guess I should not even complain about that; at least this time you gave *something* of a response, which is already a great improvement over your habit of completely ignoring critical questions about your statements (check my messages from the last few months; several questions there that you still have not answered). As for your criticism of certain members of the UNSC: the United States
Re: brin: war
At 04:51 PM 10/19/2002 +0200 J. van Baardwijk wrote: Or is it just that the Europeans realize all these things and still don't consider the UN to be discredited? You should get more familiarised with the structure of the UN. You complain about the credibility (or lack thereof) of the Security Council, but the UNSC is only a small part of the UN (the UN has 191 members, the UNSC has 15). So, what will it be: is only the UNSC a discredited organisation in your opinion, or is the entire UN a discredited organisation in your opinion? ROFLMFAO!! Jeroen, I've spent the past 12 years of my life studying the United Nations. Anyhow, if you knew the first thing about the United Nations, you would know that the UN Charter assigns responsibility for peace and security matters to the UN Security Council.Thus, since the Security Council is a completely discredited body (cf. Rwanda, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Kosovo, the past 10 years of letting Iraq walk all over their resolutions, etc.), when the Europeans refer a peace and security matter to the Untied Nations, they are referring it to a discredited body. The UN has not been a completely discredited body. I know that *you* have a dislike for the UN, but apparently most countries do not. If they did, why would they insist on UN support for actions against Iraq? It makes no sense for them to want approval from an organisation they consider discredited. Apparently, the Europeans haven't figured out yet that it is discredited. Or maybe the Europeans are more comfortable than Americans with referring matters of National Security to the Chinese who are arming one's enemies, a state-sponsor of terrorism, and the French who are willing to sell WMD technology to one's enemies. JDG ___ John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] People everywhere want to say what they think; choose who will govern them; worship as they please; educate their children -- male and female; own property; and enjoy the benefits of their labor. These values of freedom are right and true for every person, in every society -- and the duty of protecting these values against their enemies is the common calling of freedom-loving people across the globe and across the ages. -US National Security Policy, 2002 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: brin: war
At 11:46 19-10-2002 -0400, John Giorgis wrote: So, let's see some proof, or be a man about it and admit that your statement is false. So Jeroen, does insulting the manhood of someone you are asking questions to make that person more likely or less likely to answer your questions? Well, refusal to answer questions and refusal to back your claims is already your default approach to questions, so any change in that behaviour is by definition an improvement. Jeroen Get your facts straight van Baardwijk __ Wonderful-World-of-Brin-L Website: http://www.Brin-L.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: brin: war
At 11:37 19-10-2002 -0400, John Giorgis wrote: Anyhow, if you knew the first thing about the United Nations, you would know that the UN Charter assigns responsibility for peace and security matters to the UN Security Council.Thus, since the Security Council is a completely discredited body (cf. Rwanda, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Kosovo, the past 10 years of letting Iraq walk all over their resolutions, etc.), when the Europeans refer a peace and security matter to the Untied Nations, they are referring it to a discredited body. The UN has not been a completely discredited body. I know that *you* have a dislike for the UN, but apparently most countries do not. If they did, why would they insist on UN support for actions against Iraq? It makes no sense for them to want approval from an organisation they consider discredited. Apparently, the Europeans haven't figured out yet that it is discredited. Incredible. I ask the same question *twice*, and both times you evade it. So, third attempt, why would countries insist on UN support if they consider the UN to be a discredited body? BTW, may I ask why you keep insulting Europeans by implying that they are somehow intellectually inferior to Americans? Or maybe the Europeans are more comfortable than Americans with referring matters of National Security to the Chinese who are arming one's enemies, a state-sponsor of terrorism, and the French who are willing to sell WMD technology to one's enemies. First, the UNSC deals with matters of *international* security, not a country's national security. A country's national security is its own responsibility; other countries have no say in it. Second, even in matters of international security, neither the Chinese nor the French have the power to make decisions about that, contrary to what you are implying. They are *members* of the UNSC, but one country's will is not law -- decisions are made by *all* members of the UNSC. For someone who has been studying the UN for the last twelve years, you appear to be poorly informed. Jeroen Get your facts straight van Baardwijk __ Wonderful-World-of-Brin-L Website: http://www.Brin-L.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: brin: war
At 06:20 PM 10/19/2002 +0200 J. van Baardwijk wrote: Incredible. I ask the same question *twice*, and both times you evade it. So, third attempt, why would countries insist on UN support if they consider the UN to be a discredited body? BTW, may I ask why you keep insulting Europeans by implying that they are somehow intellectually inferior to Americans? You are the one who keeps arguing that Europeans continue to insist upon the support of a discredited body. I, however, argue that the Europeans simply do not know that it is discredited. Who, then, is insulting Europeans? First, the UNSC deals with matters of *international* security, not a country's national security. The dispute between Iraq and the US seems to meet the definition of international security dispute. A country's national security is its own responsibility; other countries have no say in it. So, do you agree, then, that if the US determines that Iraq is adversely affecting its national security, then, quote other countries have no say in it? Second, even in matters of international security, neither the Chinese nor the French have the power to make decisions about that, contrary to what you are implying. They are *members* of the UNSC, but one country's will is not law -- decisions are made by *all* members of the UNSC. Jeroen, are you aware that some conutries have a veto power in the UN Security Council? Also, are you aware that the UNSC makes decisions on the basis of the agreement of 9 out of 15 members, provided that all 5 permanent members assent to the decision? Finally, on the basis of this information, would you like to revise the above quotes? JDG ___ John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] People everywhere want to say what they think; choose who will govern them; worship as they please; educate their children -- male and female; own property; and enjoy the benefits of their labor. These values of freedom are right and true for every person, in every society -- and the duty of protecting these values against their enemies is the common calling of freedom-loving people across the globe and across the ages. -US National Security Policy, 2002 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: brin: war
Concerning the EU and federalism, there is actually an argument that has immediate relevance to what has been discussed here. In brief, the point is that power and responsibility should go hand in hand. The idea of strengthening the European Union is precisely aimed at improving both (1) accountability and (2) efficiency. Foreign policy decisions, at the moment, require unanimity. This means that all EU countries must agree in order to take significant collective action. In other words, as far as foreign policy is concerned, the EU does not really exist, but it is simply an administrative umbrella (little more than a collective name tag) under which politicians can conveniently hide their faces from the voting public. As several commentators have said already, when a European politician has to take an unpopular decision that may compromise his chances of reelection, he only has to take on the magic hat of the EU, and the public instantly begins blaming somebody else. This is a politician's dream come true (so it is not surprising that the Eurosceptic camp keeps on growing), and it obviously does not encourage responsible behaviour. Those same politicians, of course, would say that they are defending the national interests. In fact, those interests are often convenient excuses for taking no decisions at all, and for relying on US intervention. The irony of it all is, that there is no logical argument whereby German national interests, say, should be as a rule more foreign to French interests than American national interests. It is often a question of avoiding responsibility and difficult decisions. European Monetary Union was launched with these considerations in mind. A currency area without a foreign policy, though, is a strange creature indeed. Historically, the purse and the sword tend to go together. Who will make EU policy and take responsibility for it? Unelected bankers in Frankfurt? Fifteen diplomats meeting in secret? A high representative of some alchemic assembly? The White House? The application of democratic principles to supernational institutions is in its infancy, but nobody knows of a better method to achieve both efficiency and accountability simultaneously. So the federalist model is at least aesthetically appealing. Carlo _ ÓëÁª»úµÄÅóÓѽøÐн»Á÷£¬ÇëʹÓà MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com/lccn/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: brin: war
At 22:28 17-10-2002 -0400, John Giorgis wrote: Meanwhile, the EU is completely mistrusted by the European citizenry, As a citizen of the European Union, I can say that this claim is an exaggeration. It is not the EU we distrust, it is only the *politicians* we distrust, especially since we learned that several of them were committing fraud (FREX, receiving money for attending meetings, but not actually appearing at those meetings). Please provide facts to back your claim that the EU is completely mistrusted by the European citizenry. and the only two active EMU Brin-L'ers seem shocked everytime EU and federalism are used in the same sentence. This looks like a prime example of deliberately providing misinformation in an attempt to validate your point. First, it is for the *entire* EU, not the EMU (Economic and Monetary Union) to decide on whether or not to adopt federalism (the EU has 15 member states, the EMU has 12 -- Denmark and the UK exercised their right to not join the EMU yet, Sweden does not yet meet all the criteria for joining the EMU). Second, the move to *one* currency for the EU has nothing to do with whether or not to adopt federalism; it was introduced as part of the move to a common European internal market. Third, there are active Brinellers who are citizens of a non-EMU country but are citizens of the EU. And fourth, a search of the Great Brin-L Archive revealed only *one* message from a EU Brineller in which a comment was made on federalism and the EU, and he showed no sign of being shocked. That poster was me, responding to you: At 21:18 17-12-2000 +0100, I wrote: So yes, Jeroen, America *may* have antiquated system. But at least it is the antiquated system that the rest of the world is copying for their own experiments in federalism. First, the EU is not the rest of the world. Second, your current system was introduced long ago by the British -- and even they have by now abandonded that system because it was outdated and undemocratic. So, obviously your statement that the only two active EMU Brin-L'ers seem shocked everytime EU and federalism are used in the same sentence is a gross exaggeration. But feel free to quote messages from several shocked EU Brinellers that prove me wrong and prove you right on this. Yet, oddly, the fact that the price of UN support is basically an unethical bribery has not dampened anyone's enthusiasm to consult this completely discredited body. The UN has not been a completely discredited body. I know that *you* have a dislike for the UN, but apparently most countries do not. If they did, why would they insist on UN support for actions against Iraq? It makes no sense for them to want approval from an organisation they consider discredited. And I haven't even mentioned yet that China holds a veto power in the UN The US has no right to complain if China, France, Russia or any other Security Council member uses its veto power to block actions against Iraq. The US itself has several times used its veto power to stop the UN from acting. and has spent the past 10 years selling Iraq missiles designed to shoot down the US aircraft patrolling the no-fly-zone yet. Nitpick: anti-aircraft missiles are designed to shoot down aircraft -- period. They only happen to be used specifically against US aircraft in this case. Jeroen Get your facts straight van Baardwijk __ Wonderful-World-of-Brin-L Website: http://www.Brin-L.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: brin: war
At 22:44 17-10-2002 -0400, John Giorgis wrote: The question Dr. Brin, is not how sure are we that Hussein has a nuclear weapons program, the question is How sure are you that he does not? You can not justify an attack against any country with that kind of reasoning, which is why this kind of reasoning is utterly wrong. Can you be 100% sure that Canada will never ever invade the US? No you cannot. Therefore, the US would be justified in preemptively attacking Canada. Can Europe be 100% sure that the US will not invade The Netherlands if an American is tried by the International Criminal Court? No it cannot. Therefore, Europe would be justified in preemptively attacking the US as soon as an American gets arrested for war crimes. Can NATO be 100% sure that Germany will not invade its neighbours for a third time? No it cannot. Therefore, NATO would be justified in preemptively attacking Germany. Do you now see why your reasoning how sure are you that he does not is an utterly wrong one? If every country would adopt your kind of reasoning, everyone would be attacking everyone in no time. Jeroen Make love, not war van Baardwijk __ Wonderful-World-of-Brin-L Website: http://www.Brin-L.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: brin: war
John D. Giorgis wrote: At 07:00 PM 10/13/2002 -0700 d.brin wrote: Do you have ANY british friends? have you bothered even remotely to find out what other people in other lands think? Under Clinton we were admired. Nearly all foreigners were puzzled/amazed by Monicagate. They nearly now all think we are crazed cowboys. Europeans tend to be much more left-wing than Americans, and have always had greater affinity for our Democratic, rather than our Republican Presidents. So does that mean that european opinions should be ignored because they are so left-wing? They still have some good ideas. 2. We have NO solid evidence for major transportable deliverable WMDs in Iraq. This dogwag is based on the principle that we can charge into any country, any time, based on rumors! Any wonder the rest of the world hates it? So why are we squandering all our good will dragging them in? Rumours?How are we supposed to take you seriously, when you make statements like this?: How are we supposed to take the administration seriously, when they haven't provided a shred of evidence, not even a satellite picture of something that *could* be a weapons lab? The only facts they give are ones such as Saddam's a really bad guy who opresses and kills his people, oh, and he supports terrorism. The response to such evidence is duh! We all knew that for years. Now why is it so important to you that you have to take him out RIGHT NOW? You talk about having the moral right to invade a foreign country, destroy its government, and install what in all appearances would be a puppet regime. There are a very, very limited set of circumstances which could warrant such reprehensible actions, and those conditions have not been met. If we had proof and solid evidence and SHARED IT WITH THE WORLD that Hussein is trying to make N/B/C WMDs and planning on using them on people once they're ready, then we would have the moral right to do what GWB describes. The only moral right we have, IMHO to stop human rights abuses in Iraq is to offer assylum, a safe and comfortable place to live, and an easy escape to those people who suffer at the hands of Saddam's regime. At this time, Bush has a stronger case for attacking North Korea than he does Iraq. -- Matt ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: brin: war
J. van Baardwijk wrote: If an American would be put on trial at the ICC on charges of war crimes, would you also find it acceptable if Europe would attack the US to prevent the US from invading The Netherlands? I know that America's refusal to participate in the ICC bothers you, Jeroen. You've brought it up a number of times since the issues over it first started some time ago. If you're wondering *why* some Americans don't want trust it, I have two words for you: Ira Einhorn. He murdered his girlfriend, mummified her, and stuffed her in a trunk. He fled the country, and was living quite well in Europe. He was tried in absentia in Pennsylvania, and given the death penalty. When he was discovered in France, the French would not give him up to PA authorities until they voided the trial and agreed not to seek the death penalty. They were quite happy to infringe on American sovereignty to get their way and impose their morality on the state of Pennsylvania. While I'm not saying ti would happen in the ICC, if you are wondering why some people think that Europeans on the court would use it to impose their values on Americans, you need look no further than this. Jim ___ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: brin: war
on 18/10/02 7:04 pm, Jim Sharkey at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have two words for you: Ira Einhorn. He murdered his girlfriend, mummified her, and stuffed her in a trunk. He fled the country, and was living quite well in Europe. He was tried in absentia in Pennsylvania, and given the death penalty. When he was discovered in France, the French would not give him up to PA authorities until they voided the trial and agreed not to seek the death penalty. They were quite happy to infringe on American sovereignty to get their way and impose their morality on the state of Pennsylvania. While I'm not saying ti would happen in the ICC, if you are wondering why some people think that Europeans on the court would use it to impose their values on Americans, you need look no further than this. The small amount I have read about the Einhorn case indicates to me that it is very likely that he did commit the murder, and is a general scumbag to boot. Nevertheless trial in absentia has various civil liberties problems, and extraditing someone from a place where the death penalty would not be required to somewhere it is demanded has others. Doesn't this kind of objection arise even inside the US? And it isn't just a matter of Europeans trying to impose values on the US either - there was that case of the Japanese chap who killed and ate his (French) girlfriend in France. The Japanese got him sent back to Japan to serve his sentence, and after a couple of years of 'therapy' he was released to become a minor celebrity. (Chat shows etc. What do French women taste like?, Chicken, laugh track...) -- William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: brin: war L3
Dan Minette wrote: a lot of stuff which I wish I had more tome to reply to... Unfortunately, from my vantage point, the support was a mile wide and an inch thick. But it was something decent leadership could have worked with rather than treating it with veiled contempt. Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: brin: war L3
From: Dan Minette [mailto:dsummersminet;houston.rr.com] In short, the practical way to stop a unipolar world is not for the US to promise to get permission before it acts at all. Rather, it is for other countries to be able to actually act, instead of just telling the US how to act. Very well written and though out! - jmh ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: brin: war L3
From: Dan Minette [mailto:dsummersminet;houston.rr.com] In short, the practical way to stop a unipolar world is not for the US to promise to get permission before it acts at all. Rather, it is for other countries to be able to actually act, instead of just telling the US how to act. I can agree with this without agreeing with our present dogwag frenzy, wasting our leadership capital on something both meaningless and stupid. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: brin: war L3
Dr. Brin wrote: From: Dan Minette [mailto:dsummersminet;houston.rr.com] In short, the practical way to stop a unipolar world is not for the US to promise to get permission before it acts at all. Rather, it is for other countries to be able to actually act, instead of just telling the US how to act. I can agree with this without agreeing with our present dogwag frenzy, wasting our leadership capital on something both meaningless and stupid. And, in light of our recent discussions, this fascinating and thought-provoking interview with retired general Anthony Zinni in Salon: http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2002/10/17/zinni/index.html Zinni... 'also took issue with hawks in and around the administration who downplay the importance of Arab sentiment in the region. I'm not sure which planet they live on, Zinni said, because it isn't the one that I travel. And he challenged their suggestion that installing a new Iraqi government will not be especially difficult. God help us, he said, if we think this transition will occur easily. ' This is my concern, and why I *don't* support the war is a go-go fever. I'd love for Hussein to be gone, but I want to see the evidence, not speculation on whatever hypothetical doomsday devices he's possibly building. I also noticed that Gen. Zinni shares Dr. Brin's admiration for George Marshall. Heh. Adam C. Lipscomb [EMAIL PROTECTED] Silence. I am watching television. - Spider Jerusalem ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: brin: war L3
Doug wrote: Dan Minette wrote: a lot of stuff which I wish I had more tome to reply to... Was that a Freudian slip? ;-) __ Steve Sloan . Huntsville, Alabama = [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brin-L list pages ... http://www.sloan3d.com/brinl Chmeee's 3D Objects http://www.sloan3d.com/chmeee 3D and Drawing Galleries .. http://www.sloansteady.com Software Science Fiction, Science, and Computer Links Science fiction scans . http://www.sloan3d.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: brin: war
At 04:23 PM 10/15/2002 -0500 Dan Minette wrote: Dig it again, folks. The Brits have come aboard, but read their press. Even THEY don't want this dogwag spasm. And when the brits don't want a war, something is very very bad about the plan. So, we have a fairly contemporary example of England not being interested in fighting, when hindsight would indicate that a little early fighting would have saved a lot of later troubles. That doesn't prove Bush right now, but it does indicate that Britain not wanting a war does not mean that war is unnecessary and unavoidable. Exactly. Dr. Brin also cites their press - perhaps he is reading the Guardian? In addition, Britain's government seems fully behind the war.Given that Dr. Brin has already established that he believes that the decision on war with Iraq should be made *outside* of elections, it seems that by Dr. Brin's own standards, the Brits should be counted as supporting this war. Personally, I found the steretype of the Brits being more eager for war than most other peoples to be borderline insulting. Perhaps there is a more tactful way of phrasing whatever point is being driven at with that statement. I certainly have never noticed an increased affinity for war among Brits as opposed to other peoples. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: brin: war
At 09:30 PM 10/16/2002 -0700 d.brin wrote: d.brin wrote: I totally agree with this. Indeed, anyone who peers forward 100 years and foresees this as stable is crazy. Pax Americana can only be a transition state... like all other Paxii. Well actually, aren't all states transitional in the long term? In the short term, however, it may be possible for some states to be stable. The world seems willing to make this transition slowly. (The Eu is setting precedents on how to federalize.) Actually, the way things are going, the EU seems to be setting the precedent on how not to federalize. The reports from the EU Constitutional Convention underway right now seem to hint that the idea of a federal Europe is *not* going to emerge from this process. Meanwhile, the EU is completely mistrusted by the European citizenry, and the only two active EMU Brin-L'ers seem shocked everytime EU and federalism are used in the same sentence. There was so much goodwill towards the US after 9/11, but somehow it has been squandered. It's tragic. Just tragic. How can we ask others to follow us in some coming emergency if we piss away their esteem without even listening to their complaints? Yes, Euros bitch and whine - as they did in Yugoslavia. But they WILL follow decent leadership when it is patient and strong and - above all - mature. I don't get this. The US has been practicing shuttle diplomacy from the very beginning on this. Moreover, many European countries, like Spain and Italy already support us on Iraq. Most of the others told us that they wanted to see UN support first. So, we took the case to the UN Security Council. There, France, which has always been content to buy oil from Hussein and sell him nuclear components is obstructing the deal. Meanwhile, Russia has insisted that we bribe them for support using the oil of the Iraqi people. Sorry, but the oil of the Iraqi people is not the US's to give away. Yet, oddly, the fact that the price of UN support is basically an unethical bribery has not dampened anyone's enthusiasm to consult this completely discredited body.And I haven't even mentioned yet that China holds a veto power in the UN, and has spent the past 10 years selling Iraq missiles designed to shoot down the US aircraft patrolling the no-fly-zone yet. Thus, the US is presented with a fait acompli. Choice 1) Listen to our allies' demands to get UN support first, and pay off the Chinese, the French, and the Russians - in large part with the resources of the Iraqi people. Choice 2) Tell our allies that the moral case against Iraq is even stronger than the moral case against Yugoslavia, with the exception that the Iraqis are not white Europeans and the Yugoslavians never pursued and used weapons of mass destruction. As such, we tell our allies that we aren't willing to horse-trade with the Chinese who are trying to shoot down our plans, horse-trade with the Russians who just want the loot from Iraq, and horse-trade with the French who have never been too concerned about Iraq's nuclear program in the first place as long as they could make a buck. As such, we tell our allies that we'll try for UN support, but if we have to compromise ourselves to get it, then the moral imperative is for us to act alone. Personally, I am shocked that you support Choice 1 over Choice 2. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: brin: war L3
At 12:16 AM 10/17/2002 -0700 Doug wrote: Unfortunately, from my vantage point, the support was a mile wide and an inch thick. But it was something decent leadership could have worked with rather than treating it with veiled contempt. Now that's uncalled for. the Bush Administration didn't have to go to NATO to invoke Article 5 - we did it because we wanted our allies involved. The same thing is true about going to our Latin American aliles and invoking the Rio Treaty. The same thing is true about finding ways to invite many of our allies to send specal forces to the War in Afghanistan. BTW - You should read the National Security Policy document that was recently released. It actually is notable for the praise it heaps on some of our allies - in particular, Australia seems to get a very sizable amount of notice and respect. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: brin: war L3
Steve Sloan II wrote: Doug wrote: Dan Minette wrote: a lot of stuff which I wish I had more tome to reply to... Was that a Freudian slip? ;-) ROTFL! I wish it had been intentional. 8^) Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: brin: war
--- Adam C. Lipscomb wrote: snip And, in light of our recent discussions, this fascinating and thought-provoking interview with retired general Anthony Zinni in Salon: http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2002/10/17/zinni/index.html Zinni... challenged their suggestion that installing a new Iraqi government will not be especially difficult. God help us, he said, if we think this transition will occur easily. ' snip I also noticed that Gen. Zinni shares Dr. Brin's admiration for George Marshall. Heh. From Gen. Zinni's speech to the Middle East Institute: The next point I made was that the street had to remain quiet. A short war helps that, but the mood is not good. Anti-Americanism, doubt about this war, concern about the damage that may happen, political issues, economic issues, social issues have all caused the street to become extremely volatile. I'm amazed at people that say that there is no street and that it won't react. I'm not sure which planet they live on, because it isn't the one that I travel. I've been out in the Middle East, and it is explosive; it is the worst I've ever seen it in over a dozen years of working in this area in some concentrated way. Almost anything could touch it off... It's the onset of winter in Afghanistan. President Karzai faces a situation with massive refugee problems, major reconstruction problems, and tremendous political fragility in his ability to govern from Kabul. You'd better fix that one. The last time we went to help them, we left. We ended up with Mullah Omar and the Taliban. That is burned into the memories of the people in the region; they're going to be looking to us to see if we will stick this one out and stay with them until they get there. How many of these can you put on your plate? You can't have those fail where you want to see a turnaround... Do you best work through those issues in confrontation or cooperation? I think you best work through them with cooperation. Our other commitments require that as the leader of the world now and the last empire standing, not one of conquest but one of influence that has attempted to be the beacon for the world and not to conquer the world, how do we best exert that influence? How do we reach that hand out? How do we muster the resources of the world, of others who look to us for leadership, to help in this region now? How do we cooperate with those in the region that want to see change and that want stability and reform? How do we do it in a way that minimizes friction instead of always resorting to what I spent thirty-nine years doing, which is resorting to the gun? (This was a link from the Salon article Adam posted:) http://www.mideasti.org/html/zinnispeech.htm Regarding the mention of continuing unrest in Afghanistan (from an Oct. 7 article): http://www.irinnews.org/report.asp?ReportID=30264SelectRegion=Central_AsiaSelectCountry=AFGHANISTAN The clashes follow Friday's attack on a US Special Forces helicopter northwest of the southern city of Kandahar. The attack caused slight damage to the helicopter and injured a crewman, who has been listed as stable at the US military hospital at Kandahar airport. About 40 US soldiers have been killed and over 300 wounded since the US military operations began late last year. Such incidents are disturbing, and security experts believe that the warlords and their often-hostile militias remain a major hurdle in stabilising Afghanistan - despite having forced Al-Qaeda out of the country and dispersing their Taliban hosts. Sporadic clashes between various warring factions also block much-needed recovery and reconstruction work in the war-ravaged country. Debbi The Fat Lady Hasn't Sung Yet Maru __ Do you Yahoo!? Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos More http://faith.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: brin: war
d.brin wrote: Moreover, I am all in favor of Pax Americana, which has led to vastly more human opportunity and happiness than any other 'pax', and which may lead to a world of Justice and Law. This may indeed be the case. However, I cannot for the life of me understand how so many Merkins expect the rest of the world to be happy with this state of affairs. It goes against what seems to be one of their own most cherished beliefs that there needs to be a system of checks and balances. I keep hearing about the need to protect people from oppression by their own government, yet these very same people think that the rest of the world should blithely accept whatever the US decides is right. There was so much goodwill towards the US after 9/11, but somehow it has been squandered. Part of the reason is the view (strongly expressed by some Merkins on this list) that because the US is militarily so far ahead of the rest of the world, that no attention needed to be given to any opposition to any policy by friends and allies. Instead of harnessing the international support the US had, anyone who dares voice any concerns is not with us, but against us. That's why we need to be careful and stand on high moral ground. Paradoxically, it is the only way to maintain our authority as the world's de facto police force. You said it! Regards, Ray. PS: From the above rant, don't assume you can work out what my position on TWAT and Iraq is. :-) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: brin: war
I wrote: d.brin wrote: Moreover, I am all in favor of Pax Americana, which has led to vastly more human opportunity and happiness than any other 'pax', and which may lead to a world of Justice and Law. This may indeed be the case. However, I cannot for the life of me understand how so many Merkins expect the rest of the world to be happy with this state of affairs. It goes against what seems to be one of their own most cherished beliefs that there needs to be a system of checks and balances. I keep hearing about the need to protect people from oppression by their own government, yet these very same people think that the rest of the world should blithely accept whatever the US decides is right. There was so much goodwill towards the US after 9/11, but somehow it has been squandered. Part of the reason is the view (strongly expressed by some Merkins on this list) that because the US is militarily so far ahead of the rest of the world, that no attention needed to be given to any opposition to any policy by friends and allies. Instead of harnessing the international support the US had, anyone who dares voice any concerns is not with us, but against us. That's why we need to be careful and stand on high moral ground. Paradoxically, it is the only way to maintain our authority as the world's de facto police force. You said it! Regards, Ray. PS: From the above rant, don't assume you can work out what my position on TWAT and Iraq is. :-) Iseem to be echoing DB here! After snding the post and cleaning up my inbox, I found in a previous message from DB: Plus who else does the world turn to when there is real trouble? Kevin T. I agree completely, which is why our Pax Americana authority is valuable, PRECIOUS! Not to be squandered. When we use it right, our position rises and allies gain willingness to follow us. When we squander this authority, pushing allies around, browbeating them and ignoring their concerns, ignoring the fact that they are telling us we sound trigger happy and loopy, that is HARMFUL to America and harmful to our ability to lead. Cannot agree more! Note the use of the word lead, not coerce. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: brin: war L3
- Original Message - From: Ray Ludenia [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2002 9:05 AM Subject: Re: brin: war d.brin wrote: Moreover, I am all in favor of Pax Americana, which has led to vastly more human opportunity and happiness than any other 'pax', and which may lead to a world of Justice and Law. This may indeed be the case. However, I cannot for the life of me understand how so many Merkins expect the rest of the world to be happy with this state of affairs. I can understand why others wouldn't be happy in a unipolar world. If we had Pax Britannica, and the US was an ally with minimal influence, then I'd probably be less than sanguine about that situation. But, this raises the question: what is a reasonable way to get out of that situation? I have strong personal prejudices about that. These prejudices are from my work and volunteer experience; not inherently political. But, I'll get to them in a bit. In reality, the US has done all the heavy lifting for developed non-Communist world for the last 60 years. The US and USSR, to first order, won WWII between them. Other countries were involved; it would have been much harder to invade France without a staging area in GB, but a good first order approximation to the effort is the US and USSR. (Actually, a good zerorth order approximation is that the USSR beat Germany.) The pattern continued when the US and USSR became adversaries instead of allies of convenience. The general agreement in Europe was that the European countries would focus on being much more appealing than the East European countries by having a better economy and a strong social welfare state. They would spend relatively little on defense. Part of this plan included the US defense of Europe as if it were US soil. The US stated its willingness to escalate any war of aggression against Europe into WWIII. That is why the USSR pledged no first use of nuclear weapons, but the US didn't. This, along with the policy of containment, worked well enough to win the Cold War. Then, the whole thing needed to be rethought. There were two key tests of this: the Gulf War and Bosnia. The first was a full fledged tanks across the border driving to the other border invasion. Further, it was an invasion that begged the question of what might be the next invasion: Saudi Arabia and the UAE? Those countries could not stand up to what was then, IIRC, the 5th largest and 5th best equipped army in the world. If that were to happen, then Iraq would have enough control of oil production to threaten the economy of the western world. As Hussein has shown by his actions over the last 10 years, he would have been more than willing to trade the loss of income for the political power that would give him. The possibility that he would take over the Arab world; would bring Europe and Japan to their knees was enough for a broad coalition to form to oppose him. But, to first order, the US did all the work. British planes helped some, and there were some other forces that were enough involved to say they were there. But, except for the staging advantages of protected Saudi Arabia from within Saudi Arabia, the practical military value of those forces were minimal. Also, for the initial step, protecting Saudi Arabia; there was no other country who could possibly have rapidly sent troops. Now, lets turn to Bosnia. I remember reading about it as it developed during the '90s. At the start, it was a matter of European pride that they would handle the situation in their own back yard. On paper, they easily had the forces to handle it. I definitely remember thinking that this was a good development; it represented a sound way to handle the new situation. The NATO partnership would become more equal. However, that did not happen. The Europeans frankly, did little with the mess in their own back yard. One of the worst parts of this was when the Dutch stood aside to let the Serbs massacre the Bosnians. I have an explanation for why it happened; but it is not flattering. Europe was so use to depending on the US being the one that gets its hands dirty; it was unwilling or unable to use force to stop the Serbs. This does not reflect well on Europe's ability to project power. Indeed, when push came to shove, Europe relied on the old familiar pattern: call on the US, and then sit back an critique the actions of the US. This is not a stable situation. Before 9-11; it was fairly well tolerated/ignored in the US. However, one should note, that there was a growing reluctance in the US for being the one who was always called upon. After 9-11, the safety of Americans was seen to be at risk, and things changed. How they changed is still in progress; but I think one thing is clear: Americans will look to the safety of the US as a prime policy goal. It may very well result in a strain between the US and other Western Countries. Further, as the US becomes
Re: brin: war
d.brin wrote: Moreover, I am all in favor of Pax Americana, which has led to vastly more human opportunity and happiness than any other 'pax', and which may lead to a world of Justice and Law. This may indeed be the case. However, I cannot for the life of me understand how so many Merkins expect the rest of the world to be happy with this state of affairs. It goes against what seems to be one of their own most cherished beliefs that there needs to be a system of checks and balances. I keep hearing about the need to protect people from oppression by their own government, yet these very same people think that the rest of the world should blithely accept whatever the US decides is right. I totally agree with this. Indeed, anyone who peers forward 100 years and foresees this as stable is crazy. Pax Americana can only be a transition state... like all other Paxii. Transition either to an acceptable world government, one that's loose and accountable and conducive to freedom, or an oppressive worldgov, or death. The world seems willing to make this transition slowly. (The Eu is setting precedents on how to federalize.) Meanwhile, somebody has to be the policeman and firefighter. Merkins have walked away from pwoer several times. I doubt anyone else would be trusted with those jobs. There was so much goodwill towards the US after 9/11, but somehow it has been squandered. It's tragic. Just tragic. How can we ask others to follow us in some coming emergency if we piss away their esteem without even listening to their complaints? Yes, Euros bitch and whine - as they did in Yugoslavia. But they WILL follow decent leadership when it is patient and strong and - above all - mature. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: brin: war
I'd rather be known as a Hern instead of a Merkin, but that would make me a very small minority in this list. **sigh** William Taylor ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: brin: war
- Original Message - From: d.brin [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, October 13, 2002 6:16 PM Subject: RE: brin: war Dig it again, folks. The Brits have come aboard, but read their press. Even THEY don't want this dogwag spasm. And when the brits don't want a war, something is very very bad about the plan. I have a hard time accepting that last statement. The Brit's didn't want a war in the early to mid '30s. It had a chance to stop, or at least slow, Hitler for a fairly low price early on. The appeasement of Hitler is the paradigm example of how not to conduct foreign policy in the '50s and '60s. Indeed, JFK wrote (or had written for him) Why England Slept on this very subject. So, we have a fairly contemporary example of England not being interested in fighting, when hindsight would indicate that a little early fighting would have saved a lot of later troubles. That doesn't prove Bush right now, but it does indicate that Britain not wanting a war does not mean that war is unnecessary and unavoidable. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: brin: war
Trent Shipley wrote: (...) Second, realigning the borders of sovereign states to correspond to areas of national presence invariably results in bloody destabilazation of entire regions. Witness sorting out the Balkans. Liberation from Austria Hungary and Ottoman colonial rule *caused* the First World war. (...) Not exactly. The Ottoman empire was collapsing, but Austria was expanding into the abandoned areas. Remember that one of the motives of WWI was the anexation of Bosnia-Herzegovina by A-H... [BTW, when I studied this historical datum back in the 70s I could never imagine how famous this weird region would become 20 years later :-)] Alberto Monteiro the nit-picker ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: brin: war
Reductio ad absurdum Despite all the blather, there is one essential fact. Saddam Hussein cares only about himself. One defector said that the one thing that is in every one of his residences is a biography of Stalin. His absolute priority is his own power and survival. ALL outside observers agree on this paranoic situation. This makes the fundamental premise of the Bush administration completely absurd. Saddam will not strike at us, even if he has WMD. He knows that to do so will mean his death, as a direct cause and effect relationship, within days to weeks of giving the order. This is true no matter how you cut it, even bending and twisting yourself into a pretzel to posit some magical delivery system that's untraceable. SH knows damned well that (1) we are better at tracing things than his guys may know. (2) he cannot rely upon agents that he sends out, since most of the agents that he dispatches DEFECT! (look it up.) (3) Any truly 'untraceable WMD attack on American soil will be presumptively blamed on him anyway. For these three reasons, the whole notion that we must do a fast NOW! preemptive strike is patently absurd. If SH has WMD, he has one use for them, as punishment deterrence to stave off his own death. In other words, he is saving them to use in response to the very thing we're talking about doing. He will not squander this capability lashing out, provoking the one thing in all the world that he does not want to see happen. In fact, I am willing to take that chance. I do want to excise this canker of human evil. When we do excise it, there will be a period of heightened danger from his death-spasm. We need to do it carefully. Not in a spasm of our own, bullying our allies, bribing them with billions$ to reluctantly go along with something that they ALL see as dismally stupid. This whole mania is about people painting enemy caricatures instead of actually trying to look at the motives of the enemy. Again, SH has absolutely no reason to behave in the way that GWB portrays him doing. He has every reason to try to harm us if he sees his ship going down. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: brin: war
Plus who else does the world turn to when there is real trouble? Kevin T. I agree completely, which is why our Pax Americana authority is valuable, PRECIOUS! Not to be squandered. When we use it right, our position rises and allies gain willingness to follow us. When we squander this authority, pushing allies around, browbeating them and ignoring their concerns, ignoring the fact that they are telling us we sound trigger happy and loopy, that is HARMFUL to America and harmful to our ability to lead. You cite Kosovo and the Balkans. A vastly harder problem than Afghanistan and Iraq combined, and far more important. Yet does anybody give Clinton credit for the long slow hard process of pushing pushing pushing the Europeans and slavs and albanians etc till they made peace? Our actions there were true leadership and the result is a Europe at peace for the 1st time since Neanderthals saw strange guys coming over the horizon with great big chins under their mouths. Dig it again, folks. The Brits have come aboard, but read their press. Even THEY don't want this dogwag spasm. And when the brits don't want a war, something is very very bad about the plan. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: brin: war
John Horn wrote: From: Kevin Tarr [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] I guess there weren't enough deaths in Iraq for Clinton to worry about that country. Let's have another 11 years of stern warnings while people die. The first tower bombings, the embassies, the Cole. Let's warn them some more, 'You do it again and we'll be really mad. Honest.' with stern looks and finger waving. Have I missed the evidence that Iraq was responsible for these things? Last time I heard that was Al Qaeda... Silly John! Al Quaeda is so last year! Get with the hip new styles, G! Osama? Osama who? It's ALL about Saddam, baby! Adam C. Lipscomb [EMAIL PROTECTED] Silence. I am watching television. - Spider Jerusalem ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
