|
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,467
Carpal Tunnel
|
OP
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,467 |
It's not often I start a new thread hee. In fact, I think I have done so less than a dozen times, perhaps only five or six. But the following is so good and so inspiring that I think it needs to be read by everyone and thought about by everyone. I ordinarily would pass over something like this since I think most graduation speeches, particularly those at the HS level, are pure pap. This is VERY different:
Defend Civilization Itself
Mark Helprin
Mark Helprin, a novelist and a contributing editor of the Wall Street Journal, was raised on the Hudson and in the British West Indies. After receiving degrees from Harvard College and Harvard's Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, he did postgraduate work at the University of Oxford, and he has served in the British Merchant Navy, the Israeli infantry, and the Israeli Air Force. He was published in The New Yorker for almost a quarter of a century, and his stories and essays appear in the New York Times, Commentary, American Heritage, Forbes ASAP, and many other publications here and abroad. Translated into more than a dozen languages, his books include Refiner's Fire, Winter's Tale, A Soldier of the Great War and Memoir from Antproof Case.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following speech was delivered to the graduating class of Hillsdale Academy, Hillsdale College's K-12 model school, on May 24, 2002.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I had wanted to speak to you tonight about defense, about the campaign in Afghanistan, and the war against terrorism -- to shower you with facts and figures, which would support my contention that, in regard to the defense of this country, three administrations in a row have not done, and are not doing, enough. Three administrations in a row have not appreciated, and still do not appreciate, the gathering storm. I had wanted to do that, but the president of a surrounding college said, wisely, "Remember the occasion." And I shall, for it is a most worthy occasion, and he is right, it must take precedence over policy, which not only blows with the wind, but disappears with it.
The graduates tonight cannot know what is in their parents' hearts. You have been spared that, until you have children of your own, who are about to take the first step in leaving you . . . forever. Among those of false and mechanistic emotion, the expectation is that your parents will be overjoyed. But in a world where things matter, where love is understood in its relation to mortality, and where there is the courage of commitment -- which is to say, in this world -- they cannot be overjoyed. And this I know not only because I once left my own parents, and then they left, me, forever, but because I have two daughters of your age, and although they must, it breaks my heart to see them go.
My heart will have to wait, however, because by tradition in this the very last act of your extraordinary secondary education I am obliged to impart to you some sort of resolution for which, given the nature of that education, you are particularly suited. It is also my hope that, in regard to resolution, I can outdo the deservedly most famous high school commencement address in all of history, Clarence Darrow's command to a 1918 graduating class: Get out of here, and go swimming. That's admirable, but I would like to add just a little more, and to lengthen it by only a third. My charge to you, then, taking into account who you are and the nature of this institution, is: Get out of here, go swimming, and defend Western Civilization. Admittedly that is a bit more than Darrow asked, but then again he was a Progressive, and Progressives are notoriously permissive with their young. I know that such a charge is most ambitious, but it comes at the right time, both in history and in your lives.
There is a time to lay down arms, and there is a time to take them up, and that we are now in a time to take them up is self-evident. Those for whom it is not self-evident, who would challenge the right to defend against and preempt barbarous attacks upon our persons and our country, and who would instead substitute a distorted inquiry that would end in the condemnation not of the terrorists but of the terrorized, do not find the need to defend their civilization -- Western Civilization -- self-evident. Nor do they find the action of doing so congenial, in that it is something from which they habitually abstain. This is a serious charge, and I have drawn a clear line, but I mean to, so let me give you an example.
Several years ago, I was speaking in a university town in Massachusetts. By some quirk which I hope never to see reproduced, and before I knew what was happening, I found myself debating my entire audience on the subjects of human sacrifice and cannibalism. These well-educated and polite people -- only a few of whom would actually have murdered or eaten one another -- who had sons and daughters, Ph.D.s, and BMWs, were defending the Mayan and Aztec practice of human sacrifice -- that is, in the main, of children -- and the South Sea custom of cannibalism. It wasn't that they were for such things: they weren't. It wasn't that they were not against them: they were. It was that to take the position that human sacrifice and cannibalism are wrong is not only to reject relativism but to place oneself decisively in the ranks of Western Civilization, such a position being one of its characteristic distinctions, and this they would not do. They were ashamed to do so, and they were afraid to do so. My charge to you is that in this, you never be either ashamed or afraid.
Civilization is vulnerable not only to munitions, it is vulnerable to cowardice and betrayal. It is a great and massive thing of many dimensions that can be attacked from many angles. When professors of ethics at leading universities advocate infanticide, you know that civilization is under attack. When governments and churches advocate racial discrimination, you know that civilization is under attack. When a popular "art" exhibit consists of human cadavers in various states of mutilation, including a bisected pregnant woman and her unborn child, you know that civilization is under attack. The list is endless. The daily assault could fill an encyclopedia of decadence and degradation.
You must never fail to stand against such things, to use your education to break the sophistry that surrounds them, and to draw upon it to summon the memory of a thousand struggles, of ten thousand battles, and of the countless millions who fell to establish and defend those principles that not long ago were called self-evident, and that, now and forever, absent moral cowardice, are self-evident.
If civilization can be attacked on many fronts, it can also be defended on many fronts, and to do so you need not necessarily drop into Afghanistan by parachute or found a political party. Last summer, in Venice, I was walking from room to room in the Accademia, which, unlike timid American museums, throws its windows wide open to the light and air of day. As if to bring even further alive the greatness and truth of the Bellinis and the Giorgiones on the walls, the galleries were flooded with music. As is most everything in Italy, it was unofficial. It came from a guitarist and a soprano on a side street. He played while she sang -- gloriously -- Bach, Handel, Mozart, and anonymous folk songs of the 18th Century. Because it was music, I cannot properly convey to you how beautiful it was, but it was accomplished, precise, and infused with the ineffable quality that lifts great art above that which merely aspires to or pretends to be great art. I could not see them from the windows, but when, several hours later, I went outside, they had neither ceased, nor skipped a beat, nor produced a single false note.
They were impoverished Poles, who appeared to be in their late twenties. She was thin, sharp-featured, and hauntingly beautiful. Most people simply passed them by, some dropped a few coins in a basket at her feet, and the visitors to the Accademia had no idea who they were, but she sang as if she were bathed in the footlights of La Scala, where she should have been, and where someday she may be. It did not matter that they were unrecognized, that they sang on the street, or that they were desperately poor, because that day in Venice they rose above everyone else, except perhaps the saints. In this they shared a brotherhood with the American soldier who made the first parachute jump, in the dark, into Afghanistan. For they and he were defending the civilization of the West, and they and he are inextricably linked. Without the soldier, they could not exist except in subjugation, and without them, he would not have enough to fight for.
I ask you to join this brotherhood, and, in your own way, whatever that may be, to defend and champion the sanctity of the individual, free and objective inquiry, government by consent of the governed, freedom of conscience, and the pursuit -- rather than the degradation and denial -- of truth and of beauty. I ask you to defend a civilization so buoyant with the presence of God that it need never compel others in His name. I ask you to defend a civilization that rather than deliberately obscuring the difference between combatants and non-combatants, struggles to maintain and respect it. I ask you to defend a civilization of immeasurable achievement, brilliance, and freedom. I ask you to defend civilization itself.
It is not without risk, and to request this of you in the presence of your parents is something I can do only because I ask the same of my own children. Because of the temper of the times (and, some would say, the temper of all times), what may be exacted from you is sacrifice -- of income, position, title, acceptance, respect, perhaps even of life. But what may be provided, or, rather, earned, is a kind of battlefield commission that will give you neither rank nor insignia nor anything but honor. And therein lies the justifying balance, for honor is usually worth at least what you must give up to obtain it. We have heard of late how we are at a disadvantage in the war that has just begun, because in the West we cling to life and comfort at the expense of honor. Our enemies tell us that, and in the telling they barely conceal their enjoyment. Do they really believe this? Because if they do, I have a message for them: The sense of honor in the West may be slow to awaken, but it exists in measures and quantities, when it does awaken, enough to fill the world, as it shall, as it must. How do they think we have come to where we are? How do they think we survived the battles that led to the great revisions in this civilization, its unprecedented turnings, redirections, and rededications -- of which, being entirely unself-critical and subjective, they have not yet had the courage to make even one? They say we have no history. Did we spring from a leaf? How do they think we have come through our five thousand years? Honor. From long familiarity, we know what honor is.
It is what enables the individual to do right in the face of complacency and cowardice. It is what enables the soldier to die alone, the political prisoner to resist, the singer to sing her song, hardly appreciated, on a side street. It is God's valuation and resplendent touch, His gift of strength to those who need it most, when they need it most.
I ask you to defend and protect what is great and good, to choose your battles, but to stand your ground. For little things cascade into big things, and even should the larger battle not go well, hold your position. Even if, in the end, you do not prevail -- though you must -- you will have done right, and the ghosts of those who came before you over many thousands of years, of those who fell unknown and unremembered while doing right, of those who upheld against all pressures and in the face of wounding opposition, will be justly honored, as you will be justly honored, by those who come after you.
Congratulations, and God bless.
TEd
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 107
member
|
|
member
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 107 |
Thanks Ted, for sharing that with us. I want my son to read it. He is leaving for college in 4 weeks. I hope he will be an honorable man too.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 1,346
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 1,346 |
I'm sorry if I'm being obtuse here, TEd, but why's it only Western Civilization we should be defending? I'm all for fighting and making sacrifices for Civilization (or at least what I see as the essential values of civilized life) but see no reason to be exclusive about that. Surely we need all the allies we can get in such a hugely important task? Eastern Civilization - I take this to include everything from the Middle East round through India to China, Japan, Taiwan etc - has produced many of the greatest achievements of mankind*. I don't feel inclined to even undervalue that contribution, let alone to put "Eastern" folk in the same category as "the Enemy", which is achieved by implication. This is at the very least an incredibly careless choice of words. At worst it's divisive, to put it very mildly indeed. I'm afraid that one term disables my appreciation of the rest of Helprin's words. Shona* Do I really need to list what Eastern Civilization has given us? The list would probably start with Civilization 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,757
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,757 |
it's divisive, to put it very mildly indeed
Being not so mild, I found the whole lot to be a poorly argued and tendentious pile of crap.
To cut through all the verbiage and assumed value statements buried like icebergs beneath the words chosen, just ask yourself the following question:
What would the reaction be if the electorates of such bastions of ‘Western Civilisation’ as say the USA, the UK, and Israel were asked to take a 10% cut in our living standards in order to foster the promulgation of civilised values in areas of the world not so currently blessed?
If this choice is presented to ‘western Civilisation’ without being wrapped in the pernicious glitter of hono(u)r, flag, and religion, I am fairly certain the answer would be as dusty as it has always been.
“How do they think we have come through our five thousand years? Honor.” get real – it has had (and continues to have) much more to do with the naked expression of raw power. IMHO only a fool could read history and think otherwise.
But thanks for posting it, TEd, it’s illuminating to see other values being expressed with such rabid certainty…
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 742
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 742 |
>the pernicious glitter of hono(u)r, flag, and religion,
Nice phrase, a real keeper. Thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,467
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
OP
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,467 |
Shona:
Let them defend their OWN damned civilization! Just kidding, except as noted below.
Of course I agree wholeheratedly with you that the East has given us much. I too have read Durant.
I think what the author is really saying is to fend off barbarism AT HOME! To resist mightily those who would destroy our civilization from within. Yes, he talks about those who would destroy us from without and refers to them as the enemy. But I went back over what he wrote and I do not see where you can infer that he's trying to create a conflict between East and West. Rather he is pointing out to those who have announced themselves our enemies through repeated attacks at home and abroad that we are not gonna put up with that shit any more. Parenthetically, neither "east" nor "eastern," capitilaized or not, appear in the speech. I think the crux of his speech is that he expects US citizens to be doing things to help our country, not to hurt it.
This is not in his speech, but the following reflects my feelings and viewpoints.
Those who side with us are our friends. Those who side with our enemies are our enemies. That's the bottom line. That's the new reality. And if you harbor our enemies you will bear the brunt of your decision. In spades.
As to the nationalistic aspects of it, yes of course that sounds nationalistic, but we do happen to consider ourselves a nation.
And as to giving up ten percent of our standard of living for the good of others, pardon my language, but what the fuck do you think we've been doing for fifty years? No, we haven't bled ourselves dry, but I'd bet we're a lot closer to that than any other nation in the world. We export aid as if it were a common commodity.
No, we aren't perfect; but in the main the United States and the individuals who make up our society do the best they can to increase the living conditions of those in lesser-developed nations.
Hell, I'll put our Peace Corps up against Australia's any time.
I'm very sorry that you reacted negatively to what Halprin said. Perhaps I am becoming jingoistic in my old age, but I do believe that the United States is in the forefront in a bitter battle against tyranny, lawlessness, anarchy, and barbarianism. And if we have to fight that battle alone, we will do so.
I will not apologize for my viewpoint, nor will I become less nationalistic. If others want to wait until a radical Muslim comes along and says, "Bow to Mecca or I'm gong to kill you and all your family" that's their privilege.
And make no mistake about it, radical Muslims are the enemy of every human being in the world who does not agree with them. In the end they will kill everyone who does not knuckle under to them unless they are themselves killed first. The destruction of the West is their published goal. Disbelieve that to your peril, world.
I'm tired of all the cowardice about this issue. They are the enemy of the United States. By word and deed they have declared war against us.
I and all Americans will die in battle before we will bow down to a deity in whose name its believers commit the atrocities we have seen.
Ted
TEd
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,467
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
OP
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,467 |
It just occurred to me I have stirred a pot on the eve of my departing for a week on Ocracoke Island in NC, lately visited by our own Jackie.
I'm not cutting and running. This was previously scheduled.
It'll be interesting to see what develops in the next week here.
TEd
TEd
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 3,146
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 3,146 |
Interesting, TEd. It has a certain Falwell-esque ring to it. "My country, right, wrong or indifferently. Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition."
The idiot also known as Capfka ...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 161
member
|
|
member
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 161 |
>Being not so mild, I found the whole lot to be a poorly >argued and tendentious pile of crap
thank you for telling this I was afraid to do so as an outsider. although I am not so cathegoric about the speech - I appreciate this fine example of English language - but I do not like throwing together poor Polish singers and American soldiers that are paid to do their job. I wonder how much money the author gave to those who were defending the precious civilization.
I remember signing a petition about the situation of women in Afganistan ruled by Taliban: they were publicly stoned to death, schools for girls were closed, women - doctors and University lecturers were forced to leave their jobs.
This was happening two years ago and nobody in US Government ever reacted to this although equal rights for women is one of the latest achievements of the Western Civilization.
if US fights with something this "something" is immediately an enemy of Western Civilization, although yesterday the same "something" could have been "fighters for freedom of their country" against "the Evil".
The Muslim terrorists were grown up by US against USSR and they were "good guys" while invading Tadzhikistan and helping the rebels in Chechnya. The attitude had been changed in one day.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 273
enthusiast
|
|
enthusiast
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 273 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 833
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 833 |
I have to confess, I'm with those who are against the speech....I found it just left me with an icky feeling.
I understand what TEd is saying he thinks the speaker is saying about fighting for Western "civilization" at home - however, I don't think the speaker himself made that point terribly clearly. I'm with shona, mav, vika and t'others: 'tis divisive, and a tendentious (had to look that up!) pile o' doo-doo.
IMHO, radical Muslims aren't any worse than radical Christians or radical Jews or radical anything/anyone. If you know anything about Islam - and I must confess I know very little, but enough! - you know that, as with the other two "book" religions (Judaism and Christianity), peace and peaceful actions are basic tenets of the Word of Allah, the Lord, Yaweh - whatever you want to call Him. (Her. It.) To pick on Islam because of Osama bin Laden is to tar all Muslims with the same brush - and the vast majority of them don't deserve that.
As for defending Western "civilization" - well, some of it is okay, but a lot of it ain't that great. Do we really want to pat ourselves on the back for things like the space programme (come on, how has it bettered life on Earth? if each nation with a space programme cancelled one project/mission per year and diverted the money to more appropriate causes, I bet we wouldn't have any starving people on the planet any more); pharmaceuticals (doctors get their info on drugs from drug companies - and drug companies just want to make money - look at the recent horrifying revelations about female hormone replacement therapy - go natural as much as possible, that's my motto!); finance (Enron, etc.); pop culture (Britney Spears, boy bands, what so often passes for "art" or "performance art," rap "music," what so often passes for "literature," etc); environmental practices (tearing down forests at a rate of knots, polluting lakes and other waterways, culling animal populations that would do fine if left to their natural cycles, introducing species where they don't belong, destroying habitat, etc); and much, much more? Where do we get off, holding ourselves up as examples to the world?
No, really?
Let us go in peace to love and serve the board.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 2,204
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 2,204 |
Thank you, modgod, for that contribution that so obviously comes straight from then heasrt.
I have wanted to put something in, ever since this thread started, and have held back because I couldn't find the right words to say what I feel without going "over the top."
You have said so much of what I feel (and the rest has been said by the others that you named!) that I don;t need to add. Just to endorse.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 771
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 771 |
I hear you, Rhuby, and thanks ModGod for expressing what I too feel. This brings up a slightly tangential thought for me - I recognized an amazing contrast as a child, learning about the WWII military experiences of my father and my uncle. My dad was Chief Quartermaster on a Navy fueling ship in Alaska, and I don't think he ever saw battle (i.e. Attu) - he froze off half of one lung guiding the ship through a storm, and spent the last couple of years of the war in a Naval hospital with TB.  My uncle was on the front lines - Army infantry, I imagine - and took a bullet that he carried with him for the rest of his life. My uncle (and probably to an even greater degree, my aunt) harbored the bitterness of the ages toward the Japanese because of a bullet from some guy who was just doing his job, same as my uncle. Maybe it's the glaring disparity of their respective service records - but when my dad spoke of the Japanese, it was always with the greatest respect. See, Dad had been a Merchant Marine in the 1920s, long before travel to Asia was an everyday occurrence. His experience in Japan was so profound that *that's* what he carried with him all his life, not the memories of the war. He could have easily succumbed to the same bitterness that my uncle did - after all, if it wasn't for the Japanese, there would have been no reason for him to be in Alaska on that boat during that storm and he would've had full lung function, blah, blah, blah. But he didn't. He had an awareness of the cultural differences borne of peacetime experience, and yet he understood the underlying similarities among humankind. It makes me glad to be my father's daughter.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,757
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,757 |
I feared I might be wading in with my normal size 9 boots, but it was heartening to hear such perspectives as Vika's and MG's and CKs and Rhuby and others, and I think you are dead right to reflect with pride on your dad's transmitted values FB! Thansk for the link to that article Vernon - funnily enough I had been comparing notes with other board members about McCarthyism so this struck a real chord with me:
Robert Jensen, associate professor of journalism at the University of Texas at Austin […] and many others are concerned about Lynne Cheney's group, the American Council of Trustees and Alumni, which she co-founded in 1995 with Senator Joseph Lieberman, Democrat of Connecticut.
That group issued a report after September 11 called "Defending Civilization: How Our Universities Are Failing America, and What Can Be Done About It." It said, "When a nation's intellectuals are unwilling to defend its civilization, they give comfort to its adversaries." And it cited more than 100 examples of what it considers unpatriotic acts by specific academics.
"What's analogous to McCarthyism is the self-appointed guardians who are engaging in private blacklisting," says Eric Foner, professor of history at Columbia University. "That's why the Lynne Cheney thing is so disturbing: Her group is trying to intimidate individuals who hold different points of view. There aren't loyalty oaths being demanded of teachers yet, but we seem to be at the beginning of a process that could get a lot worse and is already cause for considerable alarm."
This, for me, is what lies at the heart of this debate: do we abnegate our responsibility to use our intellect in the face of terrifying crimes? I submit that if we do, we truly lose connection with all that is best in the slow and fequently oscillating development of human civilisation - whether the contributions to that civilisation have come from the West, or from the East.
That is why, for me at least, no cosy pattern of pre-digested dogma (whether based on flag or other faith-symbols) will ever cut it: we can never evade our individual and personal commitment to try and think carefully and act judiciously and show love before anger.
As, TEd, for your intemperate personal response to my simple attack on the message you were holding up for glorification ~ well, I think your response speaks for itself. But the facts if you wish to gather them are plainly published - America, for its many sterling qualities, is a net consumer of the world's assets in every territory of the globe. For every $ spent in 'aid' many dollars are grabbed in crippling debt payments in the less developed areas of the globe. I know you to be a very intelligent and good hearted man; I suspect in other times and places you may recognise that your current posts in this thread do not do you justice. I shall not post in this thread again, lest this degenerate into another ugly contest of irreconcilable politics - the intention of my original post was not to belittle your current beliefs, but rather to give you fair warning that other equally intelligent and passionately committed democrats may profoundly and completely differ to your views.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 9
stranger
|
|
stranger
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 9 |
>>> "to give you fair warning that other equally intelligent and passionately committed democrats may profoundly and completely differ to your views."
Amen. (and that said without having been patient enough to have read the long posts on each side, so I have no idea who I'd agree with)
"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation."
--- Herbert Spencer
(PS: Why retitled "something perspiring"? Perhaps bemiring?)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 1,055
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 1,055 |
Ted writes: They are the enemy
Sometimes the enemy is not nearly as clear as it appears to be.
The problem here lies as much in you as it does in your proclaimed foe, Ted.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 833
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 833 |
It makes me glad to be my father's daughter.
Thank you for that story, Fiberbabe. I'm glad you're glad! you should be - he sounds like a wonderful man. It is very difficult for people of our (ie yours and mine - sorry everyone else!) parents' generation to forgive the Japanese, as an entire race, for their atrocities during WWII. So good to hear of someone who held an untainted view. It was nice to learn of some of the good pre-WWII things.
On another tangent: I visited Pearl Harbour when I was in Hawaii in 1998, en route to Australia for a year. I was well impressed with the exhibit there (Pearl Harbour, not Oz! though Oz also has plenty of impressive exhibits!). One thing that struck me most forcibly, was that at this US monument, there was acknowledgement that the attack on Pearl Harbour was an almost-perfect military maneuver. I thought that a very generous admission on the part of the US'ns.
And so, putting myself at great risk for some serious strafing on a similar topic: 9/11 was truly horrifying. It will echo around the planet for some time to come. It devastated the lives of many and is still doing so, and I feel great sorrow for those who lost their lives, and those who lost family, in those attacks. But as terrorist attacks, you have to admit they were damn' near perfect. The planning, the thought, the effort that went into to bringing that off.....would have been so much better spent on world aid programmes and initiatives for peace.
So here's to those who have, truly, given their lives to such programmes and been initiators of good: Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Mother Theresa, and many others less-recognized (such as Fiberbabe!), who seek for the good in others and hold that up as a heartening example to us all.
Blessed are the peacemakers. They have so much more to teach us than the warmongers do.
Let us go in peace to love and serve the board.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,400
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,400 |
Its been interesting reading this.. the opening peice is a ggod example of why patriotism has such a bad name.. but its not so much patriotic, as it is propoganda. and like the best propoganda, stirring.
but MG, your comments..to forgive the Japanese, as an entire race, for their atrocities during WWII. also struck a chord--or i should say sour note.
During WWII there were major cities on both sides destroyed, Coventry comes to mind, and the fire bombing of Dresden.. but almost never mentioned is the firebombing of Tokyo, a city, over 90% made (at WWII) of wooden building.
Most north American and europeans are aware, and distressed by the fire bombing and fire storm at Dresden.. and but are unaware the same was done to Tokyo.. atrocities occured on both sides. and there is still a dispartity of attitudes about what happened in europe, and what happened in far east.
the Japanese have a very different set of values that those that most of western europe, and the their offshoots share.
and values, are neither good or bad, but rather shared or not.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 475
addict
|
|
addict
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 475 |
thanks mod god, you eloquently expressed my feelings in your first post and in most of your second. i couldn't say it better
an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,467
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
OP
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,467 |
Huh?
I'm having a hard time with this one. That phrase inplies you believe I attacked you personally. I went back and looked at what I wrote, and I don't see that.
Am I misinterpreting what you said or are you misinterpreting what I said?
You said:
America, for its many sterling qualities, is a net consumer of the world's assets in every territory of the globe.
OK. I don't have a problem with that so long as you aren't saying that we're taking things without paying for them. But the last time I looked we bought stuff from around the world from people who were willing to sell stuff. We run a trade deficit. We buy more than we sell. So what we are exporting is dollars. And the people who get those dollars overseas then use them to buy stuff from other places in the world. I don't think we hold a gun to anyone's head to make them sell their stuff to us. So I'm at a loss on what you said. For some reason you made it sound sort of accusatory that we bought stuff overseas for use in the US.
You said:
For every $ spent in 'aid' many dollars are grabbed in crippling debt payments in the less developed areas of the globe.
WHOA!!! Are you saying that we forced loans on people against their will and then charged them interest on the loans against their will? I must have missed that one. In my experience what we have done is lent massive amounts of money to countries all over the world and then we wrote off most of the loans as good will. I challenge you to support your statement that we have "grabbed crippling debt payments in the lesser developed areas of the globe.
I believe you will find on closer inspection of the books that this is not the case.
And, Mav, I certainly do agree that others may legitimately differ with my views, but I also believe that those who do differ have an obligation to support statements such as those you made above.
TEd
PS
I hope you retract what you said about not posting again. I would feel very badly if I thought that what I said discouraged debate and discussion.
TR
TEd
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 1,055
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 1,055 |
"A society of sheep must in time beget a government of wolves." - Bertrand de Jouvenal
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 163
member
|
|
member
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 163 |
This has been quite an interesting thread to follow.
"...and values, are neither good or bad, but rather shared or not..."
I think this expresses one of the great problems we are facing today, relativism. The Taliban's values included such things as:
1. Women should not go to school.
2. Women should not work.
3. Women can only go to female doctors (see points 1 and 2.)
The Ku Klax Klan have interesting values concerning non-whites.
The Nazi's had some values concerning how Jews should be treated.
How about genital mutilation, is that value neither good nor bad, just a society's values that must be respected.
The list could go on and on (and unfortunately does).
"North American and Europeans are aware, and distressed by the fire bombing and fire storm at Dresden.. and but are unaware the same was done to Tokyo.. atrocities occured on both sides. "
True. However, sometimes the means do justify the ends. Sometimes when people are fighting to survive, they lose interest in the rules. When you are watching 10's of thousands of your people being killed you are more concerned with saving them than saving the enemy.
A moral question: What if the Allies had an atomic bomb in 1939. Would incinerating Berlin in order to stop Hitler have been justified. Would saving 30 or 40 million lives have been worth a few hundred thousand Berliners? As a guess I would say the answer of Yugoslavian who had most of his relatives slaughtered, or a Polish Jew, would be, for the most part, quite different from that of a Canadian or American.
A somewhat tangential rant about values: There seems to be a fear of judging anyone today. I get sick of hearing, "he (or she) is really a good person, they just did something bad." Imagine how much less crime there would if "good people" stopped committing them.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 1,346
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 1,346 |
Greetings Rouspeteur,
The following is a good thought -
A moral question: What if the Allies had an atomic bomb in 1939. Would incinerating Berlin in order to stop Hitler have been justified. Would saving 30 or 40 million lives have been worth a few hundred thousand Berliners? As a guess I would say the answer of Yugoslavian who had most of his relatives slaughtered, or a Polish Jew, would be, for the most part, quite different from that of a Canadian or American.
Now, I'm not Canadian or American - I'm English by birth and Polish by blood. I'd say that in 1939 the UK would have had to have done what it did anyway. The USA wasn't yet involved, and there wasn't much awareness of the Holocaust - we didn't know how far Hitler would go. Unless you're talking about a time-machine scenario, the nuclear option would be far better used (and probably would be successful) as a threat at that stage.
But I'd quite like to present you with a moral question:
Should Stalin have been an essential ally during World War II? Should he have been allowed to get away with his own reign of terror, mass murder, deportation and annexation of land?
This is newly meaningful to me, as - amazingly - I only recently realised that after the war Stalin was given no less than 48% of Poland, which included the towns in which my parents and grandparents lived until 1939. They could never go home. At the start of the war, Stalin invaded Poland from the East (under the pretext of helping the Poles), at the same time as Germany invaded from the West. And after the war Stalin retained that land won by invasion, in complicity with Churchill and Roosevelt; and that land remains Russian.
So - was this justified? Half of a land you are supposedly "saving", land that belongs to a people who were staunch allies in the War, is taken away from those people. Was this the "greater good", as the Nazis may not have been defeated if not for the USSR?
I think that overall it may - just barely - have been the greater good, and that's a very painful realisation. But it's a very close-run thing. In his time Stalin killed tens of millions of innocent people. An Alliance with Stalin was dealing with the Devil, and was turning a blind eye to a great deal of suffering.
But I'm afraid that there really are no simple answers and there never have been. It is very important to realise that fact.
So relativism appears to remove black-and-white certainties?
Good.
Think about it some more before you act.
Consider your enemy's reasons.
Consider the long-term consequences of your intended actions.
Because you can't turn the clock back once you have acted, and the world is a very small place these days.
There are still near-certainties to be found, but you have to work them out for yourself, and they may not be what you expect.
The truth is often uncomfortable.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 163
member
|
|
member
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 163 |
" So relativism appears to remove black-and-white certainties? Good."
That right, "appears". Look at how successful Stalin was at killing his own people, or Mao in China, or Kim Il Jong (sp?) in North Korea. Communists have killed many times more people than the Nazi's ever did, but no one bans communist parties. Is it important to understand Stalin's reasons for killing 10's of millions of Ukrainians? Would it have made a difference? (Oh, now I see, that's why he slaughtered millions of people, he had a difficult childhood. I feel so much better now.)
The dealing with Stalin was a very straightforward deal with the Devil. Hitler was, at the time, the bigger threat. I doubt the allies had any illusions about Stalin, they just needed him to keep chewing up German units.
" So - was this justified? Half of a land you are supposedly "saving", land that belongs to a people who were staunch allies in the War, is taken away from those people. Was this the "greater good", as the Nazis may not have been defeated if not for the USSR? "
Justified? No. Never. What was, however, the alternative? Declaring war on Russia and forcing them out? England had been fighting for 6 years and the public wouldn't countenance any more death. Unfortunately, the European's defence plans are the same now as they were then. Don't spend money on defence. Retreat when attacked. Ask for someone to help. Bitch and whine about the person giving the help after you are safe.
"But I'm afraid that there really are no simple answers and there never have been."
I disagree, sometimes there are simple answers, but people are too blind to see them. Ignoring a grave threat to your existance is not a rational choice. Now, there aren't always simple answers, but you can't say there are never simple answers.
"Think about it some more before you act. "
Saying there is a simple answer doesn't imply that no thinking is required.
"Consider your enemy's reasons. "
No thanks. Someone saying they want to kill me because I am a citizen of one of the "Little Satans" that support the "Great Satan" is enough for me. It is enough for me to know that they are backward, misogynist, lunatics who must be stopped.
Would knowing Hitler's reasons for wanting to exterminate Jew and Gypsys change anything?
"Consider the long-term consequences of your intended actions. "
No argument here but sometimes the short-term consequences of inaction will eliminate the existance of a long-term. Case in point. Last year there was a conference in Toronto concerning people who had survived cancer as children. Radiation treatment and chemotherapy have had long-term consequences for them. Not treating the cancer has short-term consequence because the person is not around in the long term.
"Because you can't turn the clock back once you have acted, and the world is a very small place these days. "
Agreed. Just because I think that there are cases where there is a clear line between right and wrong doesn't mean I advocate mindless action. But I don't advocate sitting around analysing things until someone actually does something and then criticising them because you would have done something different (an artform in some parts of the world.) The world is also a pretty small place when you don't take action.
"There are still near-certainties to be found, but you have to work them out for yourself, and they may not be what you expect. The truth is often uncomfortable."
Exactly. That's why many people don't want to recognise right and wrong. It makes them feel uncomfortable.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 1,055
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 1,055 |
> It is enough for me to know that they are backward, misogynist, lunatics who must be stopped.
So, he thought big and they called him a phallic.
Perhaps this makes some sense....
"He who joyfully marches to music rank and file,has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake,since for him the spinal cord would surely suffice.This disgrace to civilization should be done away with at once. Heroism at command, how violently I hate all this, how despicable and ignoble war is; I would rather be torn to shreds than be a part of so base an action. It is my conviction that killing under the cloak of war is no different than murder." Albert Einstein
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 163
member
|
|
member
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 163 |
"So, he thought big and they called him a phallic. "
Very nice quote but typical. Don't respond to the nature of the evil, just insult people who will do not use weasel-words. If you think someone is small-minded to recognise a threat when it is presented to them, fine. You imply from your choice of quote that if a group of people recognise evil and try to do something about it then they are mindless robots.
Did I say anywhere that I was in favour of war and death? No. If you don't think that people blowing up synagogues and flying airplanes into buildings pose a threat that should be responded to, that is your opinion. I view fighting a war to defend yourself from attack as being much different than attacking in the first place.
Is there any case where you would say: "This must stop. These people must be stopped."
"> It is enough for me to know that they are backward, misogynist, lunatics who must be stopped."
Which part of the above quote is it that offends you so? Which part is untrue? How were women treated? Are they not lunatics? "I must kill in the name of my merciful god." sounded as crazy coming from people fighting in Northern Ireland as from these terrorists. Sort of like the old Monty Python bit (done from memory so I might have a few of the words wrong): "Bless this oh Lord, our holy hand grenade that we might blow our enemies to little bits in thine divine mercy."
As to Einstein's quote, what a load of crap. This comes from a man who knew the power an atomic bomb would have and yet worked diligently helped develop it. A man who escaped the Nazis and then says, "killing under the cloak of war is no different than murder" about the people who fought evil. It's very easy to be a pacifist when you can rely on someone else to save your ass.
Finally, why is it hate-mongering to call an enemy an enemy? Not just an enemy, but an enemy that has clearly said he wants to kill you.
P.S.
If you want to issue more petty insults because my views differ from yours, go ahead. I will attack someone's opinions but not insult them and imply that they aren't too bright for having them.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,757
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,757 |
Well actually Rous, you've already done something remarkably similar:
Unfortunately, the European's defence plans are the same now as they were then. Don't spend money on defence. Retreat when attacked. Ask for someone to help. Bitch and whine about the person giving the help after you are safe.
That sweeping generalisation emphatically does not hold true of the teeming millions within the UK's borders , let alone the wider diversity to be found amongst the whole of Europe's citizens. It doesn't stand up to a moment's scrutiny.
This level of generalisation and insult of those who hold a contrary view is why, I am afraid TEd, that I cannot take up your suggestion here. If we have learned a few things on this site perhaps one is that international politics seems hard to confine within the bounds of reasonable language.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 11,613
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 11,613 |
I would like to thank all of you for remaining civil. I can sense the underlying depths of feelings. I was so afraid, when I saw the beginning of this thread, that we would have a reprise of the post 9/11 ugliness. I very much appreciate your-all's restraint.
(I realize that "your-all's" probably sounds VERY strange to just about all of you {'cept maybe Keith and Alex}. But mercy, it sure can be a time-saver: the only other way I can think of to express that last sentence would be "...the restraint that all of you are using". Ah, colloquialisms!)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,400
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,400 |
RE:from Rouspeteur comment "The truth is often uncomfortable. "THE WAYFARER,
Perceiving the pathway to truth,
Was struck with astonishment.
It was thickly grown with weeds.
“Ha,” he said, 5
“I see that none has passed here
In a long time.”
Later he saw that each weed
Was a singular knife.
“Well,” he mumbled at last, 10
“Doubtless there are other roads.”
Steven Crane--
one of my favorites..
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 7,210
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 7,210 |
it is incredibly difficult to have a discussion about topics such as these when you can't look into each other's eyes, and offer to get them a cup of coffee, and hold hands and cry together. we all want the best for each other, and there are really very few people that will kill; we can't really know how we will react in any given situation, we can only rely on our best hopes and beliefs, and hope they are strong enough.
formerly known as etaoin...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 1,055
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 1,055 |
Rouspeteur writes:
You imply from your choice of quote that if a group of people recognise evil and try to do something about it then they are mindless robots.
Evil dwells in the hearts and minds of all of us. How can any one group 'recognize' this in certain others? Don't kid yourself that the 'War on Terrorism' is anything other than a clash of two simplistic fundementalisms, each beating the war drum in the name of God on both sides. It might be worth considering whether the basic distrust, fear, and distance you feel towards a seemingly large number of our fellow men and women isn't either the result of spoon-fed propaganda or just a negative and confined Weltanschauung. Either way, these feelings do, of course, haunt us all. Perhaps we can use this 'space' for breaking down those feelings of otherness, rather than trying to strengthen them. We may all have very different histories and cultural influences, but we all infinitely more simliar than most will admit - every atom in every person.
> If you don't think that people blowing up synagogues and flying airplanes into buildings pose a threat that should be responded to, that is your opinion.
You seem to have very strong ideas on regarding this - am I right? You would go to war for it?
I suggest that what you say points to a perpetual tension in society: a significant proportion of people who care enough about single issues, have a more or less unhealthy relationship to them. Change tends to happen initially as reaction, but only if we accept the inevitability of this with its attendant distortions, and strive to keep a longer view, can we discover worthwhile pro-activity. Only in this way will we not be defined by a negative perception of what is at stake.
> Is there any case where you would say: "This must stop. These people must be stopped."
Conflict will always occur, physical or not, and the most profound change will always occur where the two most different forms of mankind clash. The following quote reflects my views. We must always remember that no country or person that participates in any war is ever free of guilt, regardless of how provoked they are. Certainly Western countries like Britain and the U.S. who produce the diabolical weapons used by both sides in the conflicts have bloodied their hands in more conflicts than I'd care to mention. To view these wars as 'just' is to admit yourself a conditioned animal.
All advanced thinkers, all men who realize the divine plan, desire and intend the solidarity of humanity. And the patriot, in the narrow and infuriated sense of that word, is a traitor to the true interest of man. It may be neccessary, now and then, to defend one's own section of mankind from aggression; but even this should always be done with the mental reservation: "May this war be the nurse of a more solid peace; may this argument lead to a better understanding; may this division lead to a higher union."... The deliberate antagonizing of nations is the foulest of crimes. It is the Press of the warring nations that, by inflaming the passions of the ignorant, has set Europe by the ears. Had all men been educated and travelled, they would not have listened to those harpy-shreiks. Now the mischief is done, and it is for us to repair it as best we may. This must be our motto: Humanity First.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 11,613
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 11,613 |
by, I couldn't help but think of Shona's Gandhi ref. as I read your post. Gandhi found the press a major factor in furthering his cause as he promoted non-violence. I think I'll put the link here, too: http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/8522/gand_eng.html
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 163
member
|
|
member
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 163 |
Can you ever answer a straight question with a yes or no?
Is it wrong to fly airplanes into buildings?
Is it wrong to blow up synagogues?
Apparently not. According to you we all have evil in our hearts to some degree or another and therefore nothing is ever really wrong.
Yes a lot of people do bad things but there is an expression: Two wrongs don't make a right.
Regardless of what other do, is it wrong to fly planes into buildings in order to kill as many people as possible?
"It might be worth considering whether the basic distrust, fear, and distance you feel towards a seemingly large number of our fellow men and women isn't either the result of spoon-fed propaganda
I never indicated that I say I have a, "basic distrust, fear, and distance you feel towards a seemingly large number of our fellow men and women?" I was referring to a small group of terrorists not an entire culture. I suppose since you revert again to insults that you don't have any better argument.
As to the rest of it. You say don't judge, no one is free of guilt, and yet so far you have insulted me personally several times. What does that say about tolerance, understanding other peoples and other cultures?
I will not respond further to someone who has a need to be insulting.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 163
member
|
|
member
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 163 |
"That sweeping generalisation emphatically does not hold true of the teeming millions within the UK's borders , let alone the wider diversity to be found amongst the whole of Europe's citizens. It doesn't stand up to a moment's scrutiny."
Actually, I wasn't considering great Britain as part of Europe when I wrote that. My sweeping generalisation was regarding the governments, not the people. I included the words "defence plans" for a reason. These are the purview of governments as an entity not an expression of the desires of 100% of the population. Obviously, every individual in Europe does not hold the same view. I would also not call my statement hate-mongering any more than saying, for instance, "the US should not invade Iraq" or "the US policy towards Cuba is criminal" would be hate-mongering against the US. Hate is a very strong word and bandied about much too much.
When talking about government actions you must almost always generalise because no matter what a government does, it never has 100% support.
"...generalisation and insult of those who hold a contrary view "
I agree. You must have been reading some of the responses to me. I don't think generalisation is a crime of just one side and I have not had the intention of deliberately insulting anyone. If that has been the case, I would apologise.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,400
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,400 |
This is interesting..
one of the problems that arises, it how do you deal with violence directed towards your self?
If i chose nonviolence (negotiations, talks, the UN or other routes on a national scale)- and my counterpart chooses violence..what do i do?
the natural reaction is to respond to violence with violence.. but then, I , (Personally, or as a nation) am behaving in a way that i have defined as morally reprehensible.... i am lowering my standards, i am allowing others to dictate my responses.. and once others know how to provoke a response in my by doing X, you can bet your bottom dollar, that is exactly what they will do, time after time!
the alternates are not good, and not fast.. but the Dali Lama has not called for violence in response to China's invasion of Tibet.... he has responded with non violence, because he is not going to let China's behavior govern his.. This is a very difficult thing to do..on a personal level, and harder to do on a governmental or political level, allit takes is one person, to miss behave and ruin it for all.. all it take is one Tibetan national to shoot one Chinese soldier, to have China say, Tibet is waging war, and we must kill all the Tibetans left in this city, this province, this country.
When it comes to a response to the WTC and Pentagon attacks, we, the people of the US do have a choice.. we can chose violence or we can chose other options.. There are other choices.. the "natural one" might be to return the attack.. but is that the right one?
Some think that other choices are not as effective.. but actually, since violence really only results in a short term solution, and not in a long term one.. violence (ie, war) is just a quick and dirty fix.. Nonviolence is slower, much slower, but the long term outcome is better (short term, violence, the outcome is much worse..)
being able to reach a political maturity to be able to chose a reactions is difficult.. and sometimes, violence might be the best choice you make.. there might be times when countering violence with violence is the choice that you make.. but all to often, i think, the reactions is visceral, and not thought out... and we leave ourselves at the mercy of others...we let their behavior, their violence, provoke a violent response in us.. we let them control our behavior...
i wish i could say, that i always am able to control my own reactions, and that i don't fall into the trap of being provoked.. but i get better each day, and i stive to be better.
Is it wrong to fly airplanes into buildings?
Is it wrong to blow up synagogues?
Yes.. but is it also not wrong for me to respond by blowing up town, airports and military bases? If my responce to a wrong is to commit my own wrong, what difference is there between me and my enemy? and if there is no difference, then why is he my enemy?
how can i change my enemy into my friend? can i do that by behaving violently towards him? or should i respond differently?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 163
member
|
|
member
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 163 |
of troy,
I do not think that violence should ever be the first reaction but there are times when violence becomes an unfortunate necessity.
Choosing non-violence is the best route in most cases, but not all. The real trick is defining for yourself those cases. It would be nice if these things were always clear and you could just tick off the right answer.
1. Someone trying to drag my child into a car. -- Automatic, do whatever it takes to stop him.
2. Someone assualting your neighbour. -- Intervene or just phone the police?
3. Someone assaulting that neighbour you really detest. --Well....
The idea of negotiation only works if the other person wants to negotiate.
"Yes.. but is it also not wrong for me to respond by blowing up town, airports and military bases? If my responce to a wrong is to commit my own wrong, what difference is there between me and my enemy? and if there is no difference, then why is he my enemy? "
I do not think that it is the same. Especially the military base. Airports are military targets and fair (as much as anything in war is ever fair) game. Random bombing of civilians or deliberately targeting them is a crime. The Geneva Convention also holds that combattants that deliberately set-up in civilian areas in an attempt to avoid an attack are the one who are responsible if any civilians are killed.
Again a really simple example: If a policeman comes upon a man shooting children in a school and kills him. Is the policeman no different than the shooter? Is this a wrong in response in response to a wrong?
I use what I feel to be such a clear example to point that sometimes I feel there are cases where violence is the only choice. There are only a few such cases but they do exist. Violence is, however, too often the first response.
Murder is wrong. Killing not necessarily so. To me, killing in a heated situation such as the school example above might be a necessity. However, I do not feel capital punishemnt is ever right, regardless of the crime.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,400
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,400 |
did any one see this op ed article earlier this week in the NYtimes? http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/29/opinion/29THAR.htmlhere is the beginning..
Words, words, words," Hamlet famously moaned when Polonius asked him what he was reading. Such dismissiveness is often echoed by observers of the international diplomatic scene. "More empty talk," a journalist said to me the other day. "What difference will it make?"
He was referring to the meeting I was attending, a United Nations-organized seminar in Copenhagen on peace in the Middle East. But he could as well have been talking about the confabulations of the food summit in Rome earlier this year or the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg next month. I have no doubt critics are dusting off the cliches for that one, preparing to denounce one more gabfest.
But why has talking become so unpopular? Talk, we are told, is a poor substitute for action; all too often talk becomes an end in itself, masking the absence of real progress. The remedy is simple: abolish the talking-shops.
Yet talk is the necessary precursor for action. Nothing can change unless the world agrees, through talk, upon change. The series of United Nations conferences in the 1990's — on subjects ranging from population and women's issues to human rights and development — established new global norms in all these fields and defined standards now accepted by most countries. Talking got them there.
It is true that many international meetings are consumed by what T.S. Eliot called "the intolerable wrestle with words and meanings." But that process ends up producing a form of words that is full of meaning to those who did the wrestling (even when those who didn't may have trouble finding the meaning). Such talk lays down markers, articulates aspirations, identifies common approaches, reveals gaps and helps bridge them. Without talk, there would never be agreement; without agreement, there would be no action.
Even when talk does not lead to agreement — even when it degenerates into received wisdom, time-honored conventions, tired formulas and, perhaps worst of all, insider jargon — it still helps change perceptions and establish new levels of acceptability for both familiar and unfamiliar ideas. Repeated talk alters the substantive threshold in the talkers' minds: as you listen, positions you would never think of adopting become comprehensible to you; the process of reacting to what is said reveals your own assumptions to you. i almost want to invite her to join us in this discussion.. we don't all agree.. but we are learning to use words, words, words effectively!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 1,055
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 1,055 |
I don't know how I was so insulting to you, Rouspeteur; that really was not my intention. My intention was to cast things in a light other than that of the 'them vs. us' blaming game, not malign your character. I do think war proponents use schoolyard logic though, and it's about time we all grow up. By resorting to, or sanctioning violence we all admit defeat.
> Can you ever answer a straight question with a yes or no?
Some questions need no answer. Why would I think the acts you describe to be anything but horrific? Are you not just looking for affirmation of someone else's wrong-doing in order to sanction more killing? There's little point in indirectly indicting me based on a question that gets us nowhere. If you can't or won't extrapolate out of my above posts that I think all wars (including the attacks you mention) are stupid and animalistic (read 'wrong'), then I suggest you are just dodging the real debate. Why? Because no one, not you or anyone, can give any reasons in favour of violence other than 'Look what they've done!'.
Anyway, it's kinda handy that you're insulted by me, because now you don't have to think up a riposte.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 131
member
|
|
member
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 131 |
Choosing non-violence is the best route in most cases, but not all. The real trick is defining for yourself those cases. It would be nice if these things were always clear and you could just tick off the right answer.
1. Someone trying to drag my child into a car. -- Automatic, do whatever it takes to stop him.
2. Someone assualting your neighbour. -- Intervene or just phone the police?
3. Someone assaulting that neighbour you really detest. --Well....
The idea of negotiation only works if the other person wants to negotiate.
I'm with you rous. We'd all like to live in a rosy little place with our rosy little glasses never having to deal with strife, contempt, threat, etc. Even the good Lord sanctioned a little destruction in his earlier works, didn't He?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,467
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
OP
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,467 |
BY:
Here's a direct question for you.
Assume that the country of Germany is sitting there minding its own business when a group of Muslim terrorists invades your territory and kills 3000 of your citizens in a sneak attack. The terrorists say they are declaring war on Germany and will pursue the war until every German in the world is either dead or is bowing to Mecca five times a day.
Can you seriously tell us that since war is wrong you will not defend yourself and your country to prevent the annihilation of all Germans and all things German?
As I have said before, they ARE coming for you if you let them. Not today, not tomorrow, not next week, but if civilization does not stop them these subhuman barbarians will destroy civilization as we know it. You can look away and say that the majority of Muslims are peaceful, friendly folk, and that they obviously do not pose a threat to you. In the long run you will be annihilated by these radicals if you do not resist them. There is no middle ground on this. None.
I sense that you don't believe that such a thing can actually happen. Not too far back in history far too many Jews, Roms, homosexuals, et alia, all believed that the Nazis couldn't REALLY be so inhumane as to murder them and use their bodies for diabolical medical experiments. Unfortunately, since they didn't believe, the great majority of them died violent, ugly deaths. I don't know it to be the case, but I suspect strongly there were similar levels of disbelief in the Ukraine, Cambodia, China, etc.
I hope and I pray that these radicals never visit upon you the horror and the inhumanity they have visited upon us and the Israelis, not to mention the people of Afghanistan, the Sudan, etc. But if they do, I know in my heart that the United States will be at your side, whether you want them there or not. We are not going to shirk our duty to destroy them utterly before they destroy us.
I urge you to read the recently published book on the Taliban, authored by a Pakistani journalist named Ahmed Rashid, where you will find adequate support for the position that nothing will stop these people until they are all dead, dead, dead. Or until everyone in the West is dead.
TEd
TEd
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 131
member
|
|
member
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 131 |
<no one, not you or anyone, can give any reasons in favour of violence other than 'Look what they've done!>
youth - I doubt you'll find that any that have posted on this thread are 'in favor' of violence. No one jumps up and down with glee thankful that there is bloodshed.
However, unless you are a person who would let someone bang down your door, hold a gun to your head, tell you that he is going to kill you, and you would do nothing to stop him but say 'gee, please don't', then you too would at some point choose violence as a means to save your life. That's what the argument here is - that violence is sometimes necessary.
<By resorting to, or sanctioning violence we all admit defeat.>
I'll admit defeat all day long before I let my family be hurt.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 4,189
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 4,189 |
THE LAST FLOWER
by James Thurber
World War XII, as everybody knows,
Brought about the collapse of civilization
Towns, cities, and villages disappeared from the earth
All the groves and forests were destroyed
And all the gardens
And all the works of art
Men, women, and children became lower than the lower animals
Discouraged and disillusioned, dogs deserted their
fallen masters
Emboldened by the pitiful condition of the former lords
of the earth, rabbits descended upon them
Books, paintings, and music disappeared from the earth,
and human beings just sat around, doing nothing
Years and years went by
Even the few generals who were left forgot what the
last war had decided
Boys and girls grew up to stare at each other blankly,
for love had passed from the earth
One day a young girl who had never seen a flower
chanced to come upon the last one in the world
She told the other human beings that the last flower
was dying
The only one who paid any attention to her was a young
man she found wandering about
Together the young man and the girl nurtured the flower
and it began to live again
One day a bee visited the flower, and a hummingbird,
Before long there were two flowers, and then four, and then
a great many
Groves and forests flourished again
The young girl began to take an interest in how she
looked
The young man discovered that touching the girl was
pleasurable
Love was reborn into the world
Their children grew up strong and healthy and learned
to laugh and run
Dogs came out of their exile
The young man discovered, by putting one stone upon
another, how to build a shelter
Pretty soon everybody was building shelters
Towns, cities, and villages sprang up
Song came back ino the world
And troubadours and jugglers
And tailors and cobblers
And painters and poets
And sculptors and wheelwrights
And soldiers
And lieutenants and captains
And generals and major generals
And liberators
Some people went one place to live, and some another,
Before long, those who went to live in the valleys
wished they had gone to live in the hills
And those who went to live in the hills wished they had
gone to live in the valleys
The liberators, under the guidance of God, set fire
to the discontent
So presently the world was at war again
This time the destruction was so complete...
That nothing at all was left in the world
Except one man
And one woman
And one flower
(c) 1939 by James Thurber, The Last Flower, A Parable in Pictures; also A Thurber Carnival, book and play
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 1,346
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 1,346 |
Repeated talk alters the substantive threshold in the talkers' minds: as you listen, positions you would never think of adopting become comprehensible to you; the process of reacting to what is said reveals your own assumptions to you
Excellent and timely article, Helen.
Nice one.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 1,346
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 1,346 |
sometimes, violence might be the best choice you make.. there might be times when countering violence with violence is the choice that you make.. but all to often, i think, the reactions is visceral, and not thought out... and we leave ourselves at the mercy of others...we let their behavior, their violence, provoke a violent response in us.. we let them control our behavior.
Hear, hear.
I'd like to point out to the hawks that our favourite Trojan is not saying violence should always be rejected regardless of context. She's just pointing out that it's a dangerous game that plays right into the hands of an intelligent enemy, and that often owes more to strength of feeling than depth of consideration.
I agree with her strongly on all counts.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 3,146
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 3,146 |
Some of you will know my interest in political economy. The discussion here is of two opposing political doctrines – vengeance (in the guise of “punishment”, i.e. the war on terror, in itself an oxymoron of the first water), and laissez-faire (this too shall pass, just keep yer hair on and yer head down).
The fact is that the world will not side with America’s “next step” in its plan to “crush” terrorism. Tony Blair has made it plain through King Abdullah of Jordan that he completely disagrees with any attack on Iraq.
Most people in the West felt that Afghanistan was fair enough – al-Qaeda was based there, after all – but a protracted series of attacks on countries which have not actually done anything TO America is being seen as simple cultural imperialism. Or perhaps, more sinisterly, it is merely an attempt to exert direct control over a large percentage of the world’s petroleum reserves. Given the tenor of the current US administration, it is hardly beyond belief that this may be a motive.
And why, even not particularly well-educated people are asking, is the US picking on Iraq in particular, anyway? Iraq may be wiping out its citizens using mustard gas and firing squads, but it hardly has that kind of social policy on its own. Whatever, Iraq is no better nor any worse than, say, Iran, Libya, Turkey, Syria or even Saudi Arabia when it comes to human rights. Consider Chop-Chop Square in Riyadh. That HAS to be unique in the 21st century, don’t you think? To use, then, a human rights issue as a casus belli against Iraq is coming it just a bit too strong, don’t you think?
Iraq has not, if you consider it, ever directly attacked the US, and neither had Iraq ever directly threatened the US or even what it understood to be US interests. It may be convenient to forget it now, but the US did actually signal to Saddam Hussein – intentionally or not – that it considered Kuwait to be none of its concern. I sincerely doubt if Saddam would have attacked Kuwait if the US had stated unequivocally that it was off-limits. He may be a tyrant, but he’s not a fool, something he’s proved again and again. He would not pick a fight he knew he couldn’t win.
Neither is there any solid evidence to back the US’ assertions that Iraq was “poised” to attack Saudi Arabia, although I wouldn’t have put a little foreign adventure down through the Gulf States past the laddy in Baghdad if he believed the circumstances were right.
If stamping out terrorism is the name of the game, why then, there are plenty of targets much closer to home. Consider Russia, for instance. While the government there may not directly support terrorism, it hardly has a clean bill of health when it comes to enforcement of its own laws. The Russian mafia is in a class of its own and operates virtually unmolested, and that organisation (inasmuch as it can be considered to be one) DOES export terror. Ask the citizens of Budapest who really runs their city. The Chechnya affair is a pretty good example of latterday state terrorism, on a par with the Soviet attack on Afghanistan.
The Sudan will, for a very small fee, provide a base for terror groups. It’s not particularly favoured because even terrorists like to live in a certain amount of safety and comfort, amenities that you have admit that Khartoum is rather sadly lacking. Besides, the government there blows hot and cold on religious extremism and when it blows cold, it ain’t very subtle.
And while you’re at it, why not sort out Muammar Ghaddafi? I mean, he’s been sitting on that Libyan sandpile of his for, what, twenty-five years, providing ready homes for wandering waifs and strays from virtually all of the terrorist groups, money, training bases, arms and ammunition and lots of ideological hatred of the West. Yet these days, he gets the wet bus ticket over the wrist approach. A rollicking good US invasion is probably just what Libya needs today.
Oh, and I keep forgetting: “The Great Satan” has Iran to thank for that lovely soubriquet. Has Iran come back into the fold of just ordinarily deranged countries in the Middle East, or is it still bankrolling terror outside its borders? Hammas and Hizbollah are getting their stash from somewhere.
I guess what I’m trying to say here is that the moment has been lost. The “war on terror” has already run its course. If the US lashes out now, no one will believe that its motives are what the US says they are. I’m not saying that the US won't attack Iraq, but I am suggesting that if it does then (a) it will have precious little support from its western allies and (b) it will make steadfast enemies of even its friend(s) in the Arab world. Not thinking about Saudi Arabia and Jordan or anything, of course.
I also note with interest the about face that the US government has taken on the Israeli/Palestinian situation. Rumsfeld announced tonight (our time) that the occupied territories on the West Bank and Gaza are now “so-called”. I guess that’s true, because the Jews displaced the Palestinians from nearly ALL of Palestine by waging a guerrilla war against them in 1948. Or are we all conveniently forgetting THAT fact as well?
What is terror? What the victor says it is!
The idiot also known as Capfka ...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 131
member
|
|
member
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 131 |
CK - what you've posted makes a lot of sense. I am a Republican and a supporter of George Bush and the war on terrorism, but I CANNOT understand what the administration is thinking talking outright of an Iraq attack for a month now. Perhaps Jr. is a bit of a loose cowboy after all. Too much time in Texas....
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 544
addict
|
|
addict
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 544 |
I'm with ya, CapK - if the US does go ahead with this fool plan, we're going it alone and it's going to cost us the friendship of many countries allied with us and make enemies of many who are currently willing to tolerate us.
I'd be careful where you post such a list of other good countries for our noble, oil-fattened leaders to target - it'll end up on Bush's desk and one day soon we'll all hear him saying "Captain Kiwi, who is probably on the Joint Chiefs of Staff, says we should attack 'Iran, Libya, Turkey, Syria or even Saudi Arabia' and we intend to do so, in that order."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 872
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 872 |
This thread illustrates what crucial ends can be effected by the contributors of this board towards finding truth. Semantical examination and dissection as keys to understanding, will, I think, determine our fate in the 21st century. Even so...
In this regard allow me to start with Fishonabike's challenge to the exclusive nature of Western Civilization.
The word-construction "Civilization" denotes a social structure that contributes towards the continuation of mankind as a species. "Civilization" is a good thing if you think that mankind is a good thing.
On the other hand, "Western" Civilization is misnamed, it should be called "Earthen" Civilization, because it is the only game in town.
Today there is no "Eastern" Civilization, as such. There hardly is an "Eastern" Culture, the similarities between the cultures of eastern countries being miniscule today because of the varying amounts of western influence.
But make no mistake, the irrepressible thrust of Western Civilization owes a lions share of its enabling nature to the East, in particular, the middle-eastern gift of Christianity. Without the egalitarian precepts introduced by Christianity, self-government as we know it, could not exist.
Cases in point: If you were a south american indian running butt naked through the jungle, would you be happy being ignorant and quaint, and then die at thirty-five, or would you like the opportunity to be not-so-quaint and live to be a hundred?
Or...would you like to live at the capricious mercy of an government authority without any regress to fairness or justice?
Western Civilization is the only game in town.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 1,346
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 1,346 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,400
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,400 |
Re:-If you were a south american indian running butt naked through the jungle, would you be happy being ignorant and quaint, and then die at thirty-five, or would you like the opportunity to be not-so-quaint and live to be a hundred?
Or...would you like to live at the capricious mercy of an government authority without any regress to fairness or justice?
Well Milo, dearest, lets compare apples to apples..
300-400 years ago, when European civilization met the civilization of south america, they had--an elaborate calendar (inca, aztec and mayan) writing, (mayan) well developed cities with central governments, and monumental architecture. The many system had all land owned by central government..(which was a religious ruler, but since all european kings/queens were "anointed by god" it wasn't all that different.
everybody had to work the land (in reality, "lord" and "bishops" only did a small amount of ritualized work) 1/3 of the crop went to worker, one third to local lord, and 1/3 to "god king" (church) -- doesn't sound great, but lets compare that to serf or indentured workers in europe... fact is, most of the european explorers commented on how healthy and well fed the local populace was..
The biggest gains in life expectantly come from not drugs, or labor saving devises, but from access to clean water. in this respect, western europe really didn't make great strides till mid 1800... Remember Prince Albert died of typhoid, a disease caused by drinking water contaminated by faeces. and there have been out breaks of typhoid is the past 25 years in europe, (ireland, scotland, italy all come to mind) (yes, in south america too, but typhus was an introduced disease, not known before european settlement)
and as for running butt naked, while american native (both north and south american) lacked most domestic animals, they had domesticated some.. in south america the llama, alpaca and relatives provided a ready source of wool, (and meat) and in north america, the hopi's had semi domesticated sheep, (and were weaving before europeans arrived, with looms almost identical to looms used in classical roman times.) and the pacific northwest Indians had developed a breed of dog that was keep for the soft hairs on its underbelly, that were woven. Cotton was domesticate in both China and in the americas and hemp was also used for fiber, and pineaple fronds.
The america were settled later in time than europe, and lacked many of the nature resources that make europe so successful (there are almost no domesticated animals today that originate here in americas,(turkey, guinea pig, llama) but many, many more domesticated and cultivated plants. Maize, (corn) peanuts, potatoes, cocoa (chocolate), tomatoes, chilies (peppers) many hardy varieties of squash, many varieties of beans, pineapples, banana's, all come to mind.
many of these, are extremely nutritious. Potatoes, with just a small amount of milk and greens make a complete diet-- corn and beans also often complete nutritional package.. a diet of peanuts, corn, beans, potatoes, tomatoes, chilies, cocoa, and squash was available year round(ie, the food either keep well, or could be harvested in different seasons), cheap, and offered more variety and nutritious than the common fare of the poor farmers in europe; (grains,{wheat, barley, oats} and vegetables, dairy. (both cultures used fish too, as cheap source of animal protein.)
Corn brews up a nice beer, too, as do other plants, so liquid refreshment was not lacking.
many "staple" diets of europeans today are dependant on american imports. Hungarian paprika is "american" and offers a huge amount of vitamin C year round. "irish" potatoes" are american and saved (and starved) the irish.
as for governments.. again.. most of the gains have been made in the past 100 years -- past 50 in US for many minorities. i don't think the spanish inquisition was a big improvement in the live of most south american natives..
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 4,189
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 4,189 |
Or perhaps, more sinisterly, it is merely an attempt to exert direct control over a large percentage of the world’s petroleum reserves.
Yup...unfortunately, just "follow the oil"...that's what it's been about for decades, and has now reached critical crescendo with this current administration. And whether you support Bush or not, you have to admit that broadcasting your war plans for months in advance isn't the stuff that "hands-on" leadership is made of...I thought, at the beginning, that, at least, Dubya had assembled some knowledgeable, savvy, experienced people behind him...but now, like Chemeng, I'm seriously doubting the competence of this administration, and in the face of the current world situation, that's doubly scary. Interior squabbling may be a big part of that (I don't think they planned on Colin Powell exerting his more moderate positions to the degree he is), but it's still no excuse. Cheney is now effectively muted because of his ties to Big Oil and the corporate scandals (and his own shady business dealings). Condoleeza Rice, who weighs-in heavily on foreign policy, is an expert on the old Soviet Union...what's the relevance to what we're facing now?...(and she was also once an oil executive, BTW). And why isn't Bin Laden dead or behind bars, huh? I figured 3 months, tops, once the shooting started over in Afghanistan. But, now, I really believe they're just exploiting this whole horrible situation for the oil interests...how utterly wretched and abysmal. Even Afghanistan ...ENRON and others wanted a pipeline across the east of that country to rich new oil rich fields in the mountains above it, and in order to achieve that deal they needed a stable government in Afghanistan, ANY stable government. And the Taliban decided to stop playing ball, so it was very convenient to install another (and where is Bin Laden?)...Oil Domino #1. And, of course, Saddam's embargo on oil exports from Irag, one of the largest oil reservoirs in the world...Oil Domino #2. And I suspect that Somalia, with their newly discovered oil fields, will be #3. Oil Wars under the mask of September 11th?...it's revolting. Covert special forces can take out Saddam, if it's so crucial...what's the hesitation?...so why is a major war necessary?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 1,094
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 1,094 |
But make no mistake, the irrepressible thrust of Western Civilization owes a lions share of its enabling nature to the East, in particular, the middle-eastern gift of Christianity. Without the egalitarian precepts introduced by Christianity, self-government as we know it, could not exist.
Ok, two things:
One, the area where Christianity developed is basically in the realm of the western world. Mesopotamia (Iraq, Iran, Israel) is where western "civilization" began way back with the Sumerians. And the whole area was part of the Roman Empire at the time Paul started his merry religion. Eastern civilization refers to the area of China and Japan, not Persia etc.
Two, Christianity as an institution had virtually nothing to do with the development of egalitarian and self-governing principles. Greece, though obviously not a perfect society, was the first attempt at universal input in government. Christianity didn't exactly influence them. Plus, how do Papal bureaucracy and the divine right of kings aid in furthuring egalitarian principles?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 4,189
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 4,189 |
One, the area where Christianity developed is basically in the realm of the western world. Mesopotamia (Iraq, Iran, Israel) is where western "civilization" began way back with the Sumerians. And the whole area was part of the Roman Empire at the time Paul started his merry religion. Eastern civilization refers to the area of China and Japan, not Persia etc.
Good point, Jazzo. "The Fertile Crescent" has always been regarded as the "Birthplace of Western Civilization," that's Western Civ 101. And it was the Far East that was shut out of our texts and studies so many years...India, China, Japan, Indonesia. Not to say that there doesn't exist a gulf and alienation of culture between the societies of the Middle East and European/American (continental sense) societies (and what about tropical Africa, where do they rate in all of this?). But, yes, the Middle East was always regarded as the Cradle of Civilization, Western Civilization. But, something to consider, is that back when these nomenclatures were developed most folks from a religiously Christian eye regarded the world split into two parts...the Christianized civilization of the West, and the heathens and savages of the "uncivilized" world. So perhaps any vestige of historically known civilization, even BC, was lumped into the category of "Western" by the earliest chroniclers, to discredit the presumption that any non-Christian heathens could be civilized. Was Nebuchadnezzar really Western in his thought and action? I dunno...I just know that's what the books say and support. And what's more, the ancient Sumerians were literate. To accrue other than Western creedence to heathens capable of a written language may have been deemed too drastic a violation of the unfortunate tunnel vision of the time. You should see some of the passages in an 1849 geography textbook that came to me in my one-room schoolhouse...the arrogant and dismissive views of other cultures in Africa, in Asia, and the native peoples of all the Americas from one of the most educated and intellectual minds of that time is nothing short of appalling...it's actually so ridiculous that all you can do is react with a smirk of incredulity at some of the remarks. And this was the 19th century. Imagine the viewpoints at the beginning of the first millennium when the first historical texts were being transcribed during the initial rise of Christianity. Relativism?
BTW, Westerners didn't really know that the distant east had a real history until they began to trade regularly in the Middle Ages (the story, or myth, of Marco Polo). So, while ancient historians knew that India, China, Japan, and Indonesia were there from the tales of infrequent trading forays (and lost sailing ships that occasionally returned, no doubt), the "Mysterious East" was simply dismissed as one big heathen culture with an abundance of riches (spice, gems, carpets) to be exploited...by then an earnest research into the ancient dynasties of China would have seriously sidetracked from the already-imbedded Biblical vision of the world.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 3,146
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 3,146 |
My response to TEd or whoever above inspired me to try to emulate SatireWire, one of my favouritest sites in the whole wide world ... but it's not for public consumption, really, and if you're easily offended in the political sense, don't bother.
But if you're interested, drop me a PM and I'll send you the link.
I'd also be interested in hosting other people's efforts along the same lines!
The idiot also known as Capfka ...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 872
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 872 |
OK Jazzoctopus, Thing One:
Yes I agree, through Sumer, through the Greeks, through the Romans, through China, through India, and through every other culture that had a horse to ride, came Western Civilization. And after Good King George and the bloody British passed the baton to the Rebels in the States, Western Civilization became essentially "American" Civilization, and that particular brand of civilization is the system of social and economic behavior that will save the world from ruin and squalor in the world of tomorrow.
Today is today, and ancient Sumer is gone and Iran and Iraq are hardly hotbeds of Western Civilization anymore. Get with the program.
Thing Two:
Like Western Civilization, Christianity is a mindset and not the Pope or the Inquisition. In Christianity is found the embodiment of a unique frame of reference toward conduct conducive to civility, i.e. Christian Love. A Love of life and of all mankind, forgiving Love, Love extending even to all enemies. This is the base, and the only, message of Christianity.
Argue and rail against Love if you will, but this message is interwoven into the fabric of advancing Western Civilization. Get on board.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 131
member
|
|
member
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 131 |
<This is the base, and the only, message of Christianity>
Civility and loving of everyone is hardly the ONLY message of Christianity. C'mon milum. Jeez Louise!
How about 'God sent His son to die on the cross for our sins and only through acceptance of the Lord Jesus Christ can one obtain eternal life'. I'd say that this is a pretty strong base and message of Christianity.
I don't want to get into a religious discussion, but you WAY undercut Christianity with that statement.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 9
stranger
|
|
stranger
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 9 |
of troy says In reply to:
This is interesting..
one of the problems that arises, it how do you deal with violence directed towards your self?
If i chose nonviolence (negotiations, talks, the UN or other routes on a national scale)- and my counterpart chooses violence..what do i do?
Let's take this out of the realm of glittering generalities and get down to specific cases.
There was a recent flame war here. I can't comment on the merits, since I wasn't here. But flame wars usually involve verbal violence.
And it doesn't take much searching to find verbal violence from YOUR mouth, of troy. Yet NOW you say, "the natural reaction is to respond to violence with violence.. but then, I am behaving in a way that i have defined as morally reprehensible.... i am lowering my standards".
Perhaps I'm missing something, so until you have a chance to respond (without violence!) I'll suspend my initial reaction. Which is that for YOU to claim such suppposed "standards" is pious hypocrisy and unmitigated gall.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,467
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
OP
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,467 |
CK:
First: while there are admittedly aspects of vengeance to the current actions of the USA in taking on world terrorism, by far the greatest reason we are going after terrorism is prevention. This worldwide affiliation of terrorists has stated repeatedly that its intentions are to destroy the West. I think it's safe to say that we learned from history that the only way to be safe from bullies like this is to go after them.
And the history I am talking about here might start with the appeasement of Hitler during the 1930s. It's my view that Hitler would have backed down had the UK and France stood up to him. I will grant that the USA bears its share of that onus, since we were at best ambivalent towards the threat he posed. On the other hand, that threat was 3000 miles away and we were in the throes of the Depression. Perhaps understandably, our thoughts were on things closer to home. My view is that the cowardice of Chamberlain (and the ambivalence of the British people, not to put too fine a point on it) and the smug reliance of the French on the Maginot Line in the face of an almost certainty that Hitler would not respect the neutrality of Belgium resulted in the world's reaping the whirlwind of WW II.
Let's try to imagine what would happen if the USA pulled back its troops from around the world and said, "You guys are on your own again" which is what we did after WW I. That single decision of the United States was one of the most disastrous ever taken by a world power, in my opinion. Failing to insist on a just peace with Germany was another, a mistake you will note we did not repeat at the end of the rematch.
First off, Europe's needs for energy would drive a rapprochement with Iraq. Iraq’s main purchasers of oil already include France and Russia, and if the price is right they can sell throughout Europe if given the chance.
Right now Saddam's sales of energy amount to about 3/4s of iraw's capacity, but under the embargoes in place the money for the oil comes in the form of people-related stuff 9butter not guns.) Without these restrictions Saddam would solidify his power base and would have the money to continue his weapons research. Sooner or later (probably sooner) he would have weapons of mass destruction that he not only could but would use against a neighbor. Most likely Israel, but quite possibly Turkey. He would also be tempted to use it against Iran and Saudi Arabia because of continuing ideological differences, Sunni vs. Shia vs. the Wahabbism of Saudi Arabia, etc. And the age-old conflict of Arab vs Persian.
While it's certainly possible he'll have nuclear capability, in all likelihood he will rely on biological warfare. How long would it take bioweapons to spread across the face of Europe if they are unleashed in the Middle East? Days? Weeks? And what defense is there short of totally sealing your borders? Were I Saddam I would unleash my bioweapons through a series of coordinated releases by terrorists whom I have infiltrated into all the countries of the West. On top of causing widespread death and panic, it would be damned difficult to prove Saddam was behind the pandemic.
I submit to you that dealing with Saddam now is far preferable to dealing with him later. And if Tony Chamberlain Blair doesn't have the stones for it, then we will have to go it alone.
God knows I am not a supporter of Shrub, but I do believe that overall the world-view of the USA is preferable to the European (and Arabic) model that is little more than the appeasement of a madman such as Saddam, who is nothing more nor less than a modern-day Hitler.
And certainly there are other states that promote and export terrorism. Terrorists are in general cowards and bullies. If you swat them down while they're relatively weak you can control them. And we have to consider what is the greatest threat. Ghaddafi may be able to blow up the occasional plane or two, but he doesn't have the population resources needed to sustain high levels of threat against the West. On top of that he’s having enough trouble remaining in power that he doesn’t have a lot of personal energy or the resources to take on the west. Also, remember, Libya has only somewhere around 1/5th of the workforce of Iraq according to www.geographic.org.
I was a bit surprised to see your inclusion of Turkey in your list of what I would consider rogue states for lack of a better term. Unlike, Iran, Libya, Syria, and Saudi Arabia, Turkey has a non-sectarian government based on universal suffrage. (Iran's Baath Party is technically not sectarian, but it is predominated by Sunnis, which represent only a minority of Iraq's population.) And the Turks have real elections! Its legal systems are based on a European model as opposed to the sharia that predominate in most of the other countries you mentioned. And while no country (including the USA) is anywhere near close to perfect, I’d rather live in Turkey than any other country on your list.
As you indicated in the preface to your remarks, the choices for the USA are to fight or pull back. If we don’t fight now, we are going to be fighting later. Sort of like what happened in the 1940s, doncha know? Back then, though, as everyone will or should admit, the USA did not bear the brunt of the fighting, at least not in Europe, though the final defeat of Japan in the other hemisphere was pretty much a US operation (not totally, but pretty much.) I think most historians and military types will say that if the USA had stayed out of the Western part of WW II Europe would be a wasteland, possibly a nuclear wasteland, in the aftermath of a final cataclysmic struggle between the monoliths of Nazism and the Russian brand of totalitarianism.
I don’t think even an avowedly neutral USA would let things get so out of hand as that, but as it is we certainly would rather confront evil while it’s local or regional rather than continental. Our actions after WW I were cowardly in my opinion and in retrospect contributed greatly to the conditions that engendered WW II, though of course the overall actions of the Allies in pursuing the unbelievably harsh provisions of the Treaty of Versailles are rather more contributory.
Though not much attention has been paid to it, I believe that Pakistan represents the greatest long-range threat to world peace. The leadership there was so supportive of the Taliban it’s not impossible to think of that “organization” as a de facto part of the Government of Pakistan. Believe it or not, for a considerable period of time in the 1990s, you could place a local call from anywhere in Pakistan to the city of Kandahar, which was the de facto capital of the Taliban movement, and was the home base of Mulla Mohammed Omar. Both Quetta, Pakistan, and Kandahar had the same “area code” 081.
Certainly the Taliban would not have risen to power in Afghanistan without overt and covert support from Pakistan. Probably the majority of the Taliban at least at the cannon fodder level were Pakistani, and definitely most of them had been trained in the conservative madrassas that are ubiquitous in western Pakistan. Western Pakistan is actually ruled at the local level by a series of small emirates who are in cahoots with the transportation mafia that controls almost all of the commerce within Afghanistan. There’s little if any central control from Islamabad. Of course, to make matters even worse, Pakistan possesses atomic weaponry, and they are working valiantly to develop delivery systems that would allow them to flex their muscles in a sphere from Tehran on the west to Bangladesh on the east. That encompasses a big chunk of land and a whole bunch of people. Parenthetically, Osama Bin Laden sent more than a million US dollars during calendar year 1999 to Bangladesh to support the Harkat-ul-Jihad party, which has stated publicly its desire to turn Bangladesh into a Taliban-type Islamic republic.
I’m pretty certain in my mind that the US Government not only recognizes the threat of Pakistan but intends fully to use its bases in Afghanistan to provide support for a movement to gut terrorism from Pakistani territory, which would require the removal of the Army from control of that country. I would expect India to fully support this, of course, and I suspect that China would also, since Pakistan funds the dissenters in China’s only Muslim province, the name of which temporarily escapes me. Zhiou Whuang? Something like that?
I guess what I'm trying to say is that the US is trying to export world stability. Certainly, we are doing so because we want trading partners, people to buy the technology and information that we produce, but I firmly believe there's on overarching altruism that much of the world doesn't appreciate. We want all people to have the same rights (and responsibilities) that we enjoy here in the USA. Radical Islam is against stability since such stability prevents them from fulfilling their dreams of a world-wide Islamic state. And that's why they are our enemies. And why they should be your enemies also.
TEd
TEd
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 872
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 872 |
Civility and loving of everyone is hardly the ONLY message of Christianity.
C'mon milum. Jeez Louise!
And a very good "Jeez Louise", to you Chemengee,
you good sweet flower of the north, who saw fit to transplant in the rich black earth of the deep deep south and who, therefore, must be very smart, hello.
Now Chemengee as they say, I 'druther drink muddy water and sleep in a hollow log, than buckdance on a neighbor's religion, but this time I didn't buckdance.
O'Blessed Giver of two worthy sons of the worthy south, I was not talking about religion. Religion is another story. I was talking about the simple but powerful message of Jesus Christ as it is incorporated into the dynamic mechanism of what we call Western Civilization.
Now civility, that is something else, Jesus wasn't acting exactly civil when he turned over all the gaming tables and threw the money changers out and such, was he?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 1,094
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 1,094 |
Now civility, that is something else, Jesus wasn't acting exactly civil when he turned over all the gaming tables and threw the money changers out and such, was he?
Nor here either, really:
(Matthew 10:34) - "Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household."
"prince of peace" my . . .
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 872
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 872 |
"prince of peace" my . . .
Thank you Jazzo for the three dots. They indicate that you are considerate, and recognize that some folk would be offended if you said "ass".
And what that Matthew wrote about what Jesus said about turning a "daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law" is certainly strange. It's sorta like reading the funny papers, sometimes you have to think real hard before you find the meaning.
Peace, fellow Awader.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 4,189
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 4,189 |
TEd, I'm not denying that there is a real and specific threat out there that needs to be confronted. (namely the disempowering of Al Quada and the apprehension or demise of their leaders, and then some other like groups). But I fear by diluting the specific quest by selfishly and cynically attaching the agenda of the Oil Cartel to it, and making that the secret priority instead of the original goal, the Bushes are igniting a catastrophe beyond the scope of reason. Big Oil and its power has always been what the Bushes were about, and it's their own greedy and foremost agenda beyond any party or national interest. Why do you think Bush, Sr., so cynically left us enmeshed in Somalia when he turned the reins over to Clinton?...because of the new oil reserves discovered in that country. Have we ever gone in to "stabilize" any other African nation when they were hell-bent on slaughtering each other in civil conflict?...no. And I think the new ambivalence by the administration to the capture or death of Bin Laden is a symptom of that. (Unless, knowing the ENRON scandal was about to erupt they let Bin Laden slip away so they had an excuse to keep the war going and cover their butts). But by not focusing all resources on the real threat...the detection, disempowering, and dissolution of the Al Quada terrorist network (with the Bushes so opportunistically finagling the scenario of "response" to fit their self-serving Big Oil agenda), not only do we dilute our focus and render ourselves more vulnerable to future terrorists attacks, but we also spawn a deeper alienation among moderate Arabs and Muslims, and forge a widening gap of hatred instead of working to close it. ("collateral damage" works wonders for spawning new hatred). And you best believe there are already, and have been since before the Gulf War in '92, covert US special forces and agents on the ground in Iraq (many of them US soldiers/agents of Arab-descent who fit right in) with new weapons with accuracies of phenomenal range, just waiting for the "go" to take Saddam out...but they're not going to get that "go" because those in power want this war...just like they wanted it in '92. Why? Who knows? (aside from the obvious, the filling of the coffers of the weapons manufacturers, of course) A friend whose brother who was a Navy Seal knows some folks in the intelligence community, and he was told that before the Gulf War one of these operatives had Saddam in his sights and called in with a plea to take him out...the request was emphatically denied, and what's more...he was told there was a gun trained on him and if he pulled the trigger he was a dead man. They don't want Saddam gone...they want war...it's crazy. And, once more, I ask where is Bin Laden? Diluting our focus from the specific threat is going to cost us, and the world, dearly in the long run.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 1,346
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 1,346 |
if Tony Chamberlain Blair doesn't have the stones for it, then we will have to go it alone.
....I do believe that overall the world-view of the USA is preferable to the European (and Arabic) model that is little more than the appeasement of a madman such as Saddam
...the US is trying to export world stability....I firmly believe there's on overarching altruism that much of the world doesn't appreciate
If you truly value "Western" democracy, TEd, then you have to accept that the people of Europe - including the UK in this instance - are making their own decision, which their leaders are (more or less) obliged to follow. That decision is quite clearly against war on Saddam at present, and it is very strongly against the US stepping in to "defend our interests" (meaning to defend what it sees as our interests, meaning its interests). This is very straightforward and understandable if you put the boot on the other foot. Would you accept the UK dictating US interests, who your enemies and friends are, what is civilized behaviour, what is fair resistance to oppression and what is terrorism? Would you accept the UK taking its troops into parts of the US, assassinating supposed terrorists and destroying towns it assured you supported terrorist activities? I would hope you would have "the stones" to soundly resist such cultural imperialism [I can't think of a better way of phrasing it] and would make up your own mind about what to do next. True global security is never going to be achieved by anybody pushing their viewpoint whilst dismissing those of other people or countries as irrelevant or somehow unrepresentative. And I say again, the US needs all the friends it can get. And incidentally, I think it's very questionable for you to compare the current situation with the onset of WWII. Saddam isn't poised to invade anywhere - quite the opposite. Comparisons with the Cold War would be more apt, as there was a situation where a dictatorial government, hostile to the West, had definite control over weapons of mass destruction. And wasn't the USSR thought of as the "Eastern Bloc" in those days? Tout ca change again: http://www.sting.com/discography/lyrics/lyrussia.html
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,692
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,692 |
This has been an interesting discussion to follow, but it has become repetitive. People still occupy their original positions and are just enlarging, very ably, on their arguments. I can’t help reflecting that just because there is a problem that doesn’t mean there is a solution. There are far too many variables in this situation to be able to truly predict the outcome of selecting any of the choices that exist. Just because we hold an opinion strongly doesn’t make it right, it is still only an opinion. However well informed we may think it, it is not fact. Public discussion (not just on AWAD!) can be a very useful way of discovering what the general consensus of the population is, but there is no magic in democracy that makes that consensus correct, although it may become the only choice that will be supported. I am grateful that I don’t have to make a choice – that’s what we elect able politicians for after all. Now that is a worrying thought  .
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 3,146
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 3,146 |
that’s what we elect able politicians for after all
Huh?
The idiot also known as Capfka ...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 2,891
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 2,891 |
>>I am grateful that I don’t have to make a choice – that’s what we elect able politicians for after all. Now that is a worrying thought.
Ah but you do have to make a choice dxb. When you choose your member of parliament or your prime minister (or those Amirican equivalents) you choose the one that more closely reflects your views.
You cannot complain about the way the politicians run things if you do not participate in the procedure. I'm not saying you don't dxb, I'm just making the point that if we don't like what a politician does it is up to us to get him out of there - to make our views heard.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 4,189
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 4,189 |
Well, it's come to this. From an Associated Press article in my local paper today, The Press of Atlantic City, headlined, Bush: I'll attack Iraq in my own good time:
>Bush's comments came as U.S. officials met with Iraqi opposition groups intent on overthrowing Saddam Hussein and amid growing unease from members of Congress about the wisdom of taking military action against Iraq without just cause.
On Thursday, House Majority Leader Dick Armey, R-Texas, cautioned against an unprovoked U.S. attack against Saddam. Sens. Dick Lugar, R-Ind., and Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., have been among Republicans who have expressed concern.
"My own view would be to let him bluster, let him rant and rave all he wants," Armey said of the Iraqi president in a speech in Des Moines, Iowa, indicating a crack in Republican support for Bush's push to topple Saddam. "As long as he behaves himself within his own borders, we should not be addressing any attack or resources against him."<
Well, I'd say that with the House Republican leadership, the president's own party, now dissenting on this, it would be, at least, political lunacy, (if not bordering on the dictatorial) to launch an attack. And with such a lack of support at home, any military foray against Iraq would not seem very viable or resolute in the eyes of the world, and much more vulnerable to resistence in the eyes of those who view us as an enemy. And, then, of course, as mentioned before, there is a little matter called the U.S. Constitution. But, then, when did any of this ever stop the Bushes before? You can't stop a clan who has an estimated $400 billion dollars laundered away from the Silverado S&L banking scandal and Iran/Contra dealings, and whose Patriarch once ran the CIA. If they can't buy you then Daddy picks up the phone and makes you "disappear"...like Cliff Baxter, the would-be "John Dean" of ENRON. Anybody getting the picture here, yet?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 3,146
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 3,146 |
Actually, the problem may sort itself out. If I have it right, the US is unable to project anything like the same amount of force in 2002 that it could in 1991. If that is the case, well, all he can do is drum his heels on the floor and call for his daddy!
The idiot also known as Capfka ...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 6,296
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 6,296 |
If that is the case, well, all he can do is drum his heels on the floor and call for his daddy!
Thank goodness 'tis so!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 872
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 872 |
You can't stop a clan who has an estimated $400 billion dollars laundered away from the Silverado S&L banking scandal and Iran/Contra dealings, ~ WhitmanOneil the US is unable to project anything like the same amount of force in 2002 that it could in 1991. If that is the case, well, all he can do is drum his heels on the floor and call for his daddy! ~ Captial Kiwi Thank goodness 'tis so. ~ Wordwind *********** -  - Rhetoric, ain't it Grand. - - ************
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 742
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 742 |
> If that is the case, well, all he can do is drum his heels on the floor and call for his daddy!
And of course, it stops people uttering nasty words like Haliburton. Maybe the near certainty of a truly assinine House after November (for the first time in how long?) is unsettling one or the other of Junior's neurons.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,467
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
OP
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,467 |
>But, then, when did any of this ever stop the Bushes before? You can't stop a clan who has an estimated $400 billion dollars laundered away from the Silverado S&L banking scandal and Iran/Contra dealings, and whose Patriarch once ran the CIA. If they can't buy you then Daddy picks up the phone and makes you "disappear"...like Cliff Baxter, the would-be "John Dean" of ENRON. Anybody getting the picture here, yet?
WO'N:
Aw, come on, you don't really believe any of that, do you? if you had said $40 million I might have given some credence to it. But $400 billion? That's a bit too outrageous even for the right wing conspiracy theorists.
And as to the Big Shrub's tenure as head of the CIA -- yep, he was there. And if you go back and look you will see that every prior head of the CIA was a political appointee. DCI's a figurehead who sets overall policy. The real work of the CIA is done by people like me and you. Actually I worked for the CIA for a short time back in the 60s, moving mail from one part of the building to another for a summer. I admit to not knowing a thing about covert ops, but I can tell you that the rank and file employees are nothing more or less than dedicated civil service types doing their jobs. Over 90 precent of the work is analysis, taking this little fact here, putting it with that little newspaper item there, and factoring it in with a little tidbit from a covert operation to arrive at something that might be useful to the policy makers in Congress and the executive branch.
And as to Baxter, why does every suicide in the government attract moths like conspiracy theorists flocking around a pool of blood?
TEd
TEd
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 872
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 872 |
Thanks sjm for your concern for our well-being here in the states. We love our President. He got 50.01% of the vote. How did your elections go over in Akina? - -
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,400
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,400 |
And as to Baxter, why does every suicide in the government attract moths like conspiracy theorists flocking around a pool of blood?here is something about that... the Sunday NYTimes mag.. The NY times does demand cookies,and registration, and its an 8 page article so i am not going to copy, but it is an interesting artile on conspiracy theory. http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/11/magazine/11COINCIDENCE.html
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 742
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 742 |
He got 50.01% of the vote.In an alternate universe perhaps, but not on this planet, according to http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/fe2000/prespop.htm, which lists the following: Candidate(Party Label) Popular Vote Total % of Popular Vote
Al Gore (Democrat) 50,999,897 48.38
G. W. Bush (Republican) 50,456,002 47.87 The Electoral college result gave Dubya 50.4655493482309% of the EC votes, so you're 0 for 2 in the matter of factual accuracy.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 3,146
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 3,146 |
We don't think of US politics as an abstraction, something that we can point fingers at, laugh about and then just move on and forget about. Whatever the US does, right or wrong, tends to get reflected in what happens to us, later if not sooner.
sjm, myself and other thinking people are very much aware that we are stuck with the fact that we have absolutely no say in who gets to be president of the US and yet we, and the rest of the world, are stuck with the consequences of the outcome of the US presidential elections. When that outcome is a Republican president, the rest of us have more to fear than when he's a Democrat, since Democrats typically restrain themselves from foreign adventurism.
If America didn't project its power - both political and military - as if it were the only country in the world, our concern about US presidential elections and about those for the House and the Senate, too, would only be theoretical. Unfortunately, that's not the way the world works.
The idiot also known as Capfka ...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 273
enthusiast
|
|
enthusiast
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 273 |
In reply to:
We don't think of US politics as an abstraction, something that we can point fingers at, laugh about and then just move on and forget about. Whatever the US does, right or wrong, tends to get reflected in what happens to us, later if not sooner.
sjm, myself and other thinking people are very much aware that we are stuck with the fact that we have absolutely no say in who gets to be president of the US and yet we, and the rest of the world, are stuck with the consequences of the outcome of the US presidential elections.
Well said. Thank you.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 7,210
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 7,210 |
In reply to:
we are stuck with the fact that we have absolutely no say in who gets to be president of the US and yet we, and the rest of the world, are stuck with the consequences of the outcome of the US presidential elections.
sometimes we USns feel the same way.
formerly known as etaoin...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 872
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 872 |
He (meaning President Bush) got 50.01% of the vote. ~ milo The Electoral college result gave Dubya (meaning President Bush) 50.4655493482309% of the EC votes, so you're 0 for 2 in the matter of factual accuracy ~ sjm In our Republic ,sjm, territory has rights, and popular vote counts are for quiz shows and crossword puzzles. And for the good of the Republic for which I stand, sjm, I underestimated President Bush's victory margin intentionally, because I did not wish for those loyal Gore supporters, who at heart are really not a bad lot, not to think that it wasn't close. -
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 742
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 742 |
I underestimated President Bush's victory margin intentionally
--------------------
Main Entry:lie
Function:noun
Etymology:Middle English lige, lie, from Old English lyge; akin to Old High German lug*, Old English l*ogan to lie
Date:before 12th century
1 a : an assertion of something known or believed by the speaker to be untrue with intent to deceive.
--------------------
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 4,189
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 4,189 |
40 to 400 million? billion?...don't be surprised...if the figure seems too flamboyant, then reduce it, by all means...but no creedence need be given...it's a documented fact.http://kings.edu/~twsawyer/frankly/SS1.htmlhttp://www.charm.net/~marc/chronicle/media_dec98.htmlhttp://www.motherjones.com/news_wire/bushboys.htmlhttp://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO202C.htmlOh, and ENRON's Cliff Baxter didn't work within the government, TEd, he was a private businessman...but, then again, if what you're saying is that ENRON is the government, well, then, maybe you've got something there.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 1,055
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 1,055 |
During my absence Ted wrote:
You can look away and say that the majority of Muslims are peaceful, friendly folk, and that they obviously do not pose a threat to you. In the long run you will be annihilated by these radicals if you do not resist them. There is no middle ground on this. None.
I sense that you don't believe that such a thing can actually happen. Not too far back in history far too many Jews, Roms, homosexuals, et alia, all believed that the Nazis couldn't REALLY be so inhumane as to murder them and use their bodies for diabolical medical experiments.
Ted, I think the great threat to positive developments in the current world predicament comes from *both sides of this fundamentalist clash. And the side that worries me the most isn't that of the extremists Muslims - it's that of the U.S. industro-military government. For they have the most power. They have all the balls [sic] in their court. Sure, I could look away and say that the majority of Americans are peaceful, friendly folk, and that they obviously do not pose a threat to me. In the long run though, they might threaten to play a key role in annihilating mankind's chance at positive development by allowing these few radicals bearing a handful of vested interests to rule. Ignore this at your own peril, world.[g]
I jest slightly, but seen in this light, one must assume that if Ted and Rous. were Muslims, say in Palestine, they would fully approve of, if not applaud the WTC terrorist attacks of last year and others like them. Odd to think of it that way, isn’t it?
As to your question of what I would do if extremists Muslims attacked 'my' country.
I’m not much for hypotheticals really, especially when sitting in a country with a decent size Muslim population. I certainly wouldn’t be fighting along side other Muslim Germans against the ‘great evil’ that is Islam. Nobody is going to talk me into war! ‘Oh, but what if’….? – What if what! This is not 1939, ‘my’ country is not being attacked, nor ‘my’ ‘civilisation’. Mindless military exponents should fly their flags and die for their flags – but I’ll live without one, thanks, I don't have a country and I think little of 'countries', per se. Let's be honest, the whole concept is dreadfully outdated. Hang on to it if you must, like biologists cling to that fouling Darwinist dogma as if sent from heaven, but it's getting us nowhere.
The truth is that my continual displacement in life has made me more conscious of that which I'm not, than that which I am. I see any violence as an attack on us all, because I can’t pretend to be a certain something I’m not. I couldn’t honestly describe myself as German or Australian, or British or European, even if I wanted to. My positive feeling of personal identity comes from the diversity I've experienced not the habitual traditions, rituals, and conventions. I have, as such, been forced to relearn things over and over again; customs, conversation and social conventions. I've been forced to realise how completely arbitrary these things are. Class, race, religion and the like are all just a thin facade behind which we are all exceedingly similar. Clearly you and those extremist Muslims are too, Ted! Both factions here are underpinned by the same types of misconceptions, misunderstandings and prejudice.
Constantly underlining our differences in order to feel special and build our egos is temps perdi. After playing so many parts - trying to mimic that which is expected of me, I have, like many, had the chance to be able, to some extent, collapse all that shite in on itself. The more each of us strives for this the better off we’ll be, I’m sure. We are all no doubt indelibly marked by that which we've seen, the 'culture' that defines us, but surely we should have, or rather want desperately to have a certain anticipation of that which we'll never see – and feel all sides – sense our wholeness.
I'm a bit loopy though, so don't mind me. I mean, I want to radically revalue the normative value of race and division in writing, and history, for myself. I want to wend my way back down the ladder of genetic memory and sense the unbroken chain of life that has led us here. I want to return to the source; centre myself; find divinity and hope; and raise the dead – not create them.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,467
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
OP
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,467 |
WON:
As soon as I saw the Mother Jones link I knew where this was going. Not a bit of this is documentation. It's innuendo, supposition, saying since A is B and B is C, then A is D, outright lies, etc., etc.
It's stuff like this that brings grave discredit upon the good data that's out there on the internet for all to use for constructive purposes.
When I said what I said about Bush as the former head of the CIA, it was to imply that such things as the disappearance or murder of people like Baxter would not and could not happen via the CIA. People who believe otherwise don't understand the CIA. It's made up of ordinary people doing some perhaps not-so-ordinary jobs; trying to get them to take out a fellow American just because the DCI orders them to do so will not work. If you believe otherwise I suggest that it may be because you've been reading too many spy novels and too many of the sort of web sites as those you cited above as "documented fact."
Baxter's death was a suicide. You can find his suicide note out on the web if you search for it. His family has accepted his death as a suicide, so why shouldn't we?
I read the article Helen cites above from the NYT, and recommend it very highly to you. And one last thought: can you name one, just ONE, theory put forth by one of these people that has been proven to be in fact true?
Let's see, examples of conspiracies that float around pretty freely:
Marilyn Monroe was killed by the CIA. Or was it the FBI? Or did Bobby Kennedy do her in personally? There are so many theories.
JFK was killed by Castro. Or the Mafia. Or the FBI. Or the CIA. Ditto for his brother Robert.
Vince Foster was murdered by the Clintons.
Aliens landed at Roswell, NM and their bodies are preserved in alcohol at Area 39 or whatever the heck the number was.
Cliff Baxter was murdered by someone. That someone dictated a suicide note and got him to sign it before killing him.
John Paul I was murdered in his bed by some cardinals who thought he would take the Roman Church in the wrong direction.
Princess Diana was killed on the orders of someone or other because QE II did not want her half-breed baby (she WAS pregnant, wasn't she?) to be half-brother to the eventual King of England.
This is all TRIPE. Utter tripe. As are all of these conspiracy theories. Wouldn't you think that with all of the people trying to prove one of these conspiracies that they could find one they could prove?
TEd
TEd
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 131
member
|
|
member
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 131 |
<<The Electoral college result gave Dubya 50.4655493482309% of the EC votes, so you're 0 for 2 in the matter of factual accuracy.>> Details, details. Wonder what the outcome would've been if you took out all the dead democrats that voted??
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803 |
dead democrats
What amused me was the report that if the Republican recount scheme had been followed Gore would have won and if the Democratic one had been used it would have still gone to Bush.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,467
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
OP
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,467 |
It would certainly prove that you were pretty damned hard up for a date!
TEd
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 4,189
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 4,189 |
I'm sorry, TEd, but these Bush business "dealings" are all factual events, including the Silverado S & L scandal and the Harken Energy "question"...here's a site with no less than 19 links to articles in solid journalistic sources including The LA Times, The Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, US News & World Report, Time, Newsweek, The Boston Globe, and other such "trite" publications, that cover and confirm these events: http://www.campaignwatch.org/details.htmAnd I don't know why you insist on linking the assasination of President Kennedy with all these other leaps of sensationalistic speculation, as if it has anything to do with all the others. I think that anyone at this point who really believed Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone is either very naive, very foolish, or very gullible...the impact and gravity of JFK's murder had, of course, a far graver impact and affect on our country, our lives, and the world, than any of the other episodes on your list (with Bobby's death placing a close, but much less intense, second). The murder of a sitting President makes the others look incidental in comparison. Even Gov. Connolly's wife, in a recent interview, insisted that the same bullet that hit her husband could not possibly have also hit JFK and she was in the car. Anyone who views the Zapruder film and and still thinks that headshot came from behind has to be, well, an idiot, IMHO. And, Baxter, yes...the extreme "coincidence" of his untimely demise is worthy of further investigation. There were credible media (print and broadcast) follow-up reports about lapses and discrepancies in the way the case was handled by the police, the medical examiner, and others. He was about to turn government witness in the ENRON investigation, and was too important a figure to dismiss his death out of hand as simple suicide when our government is currently peopled by ENRON cronies and associates. Far too convenient, and there's far too much at stake.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 3,146
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 3,146 |
If anyone remains in any doubt about JFK's assassination, I strongly suggest you spend an hour in the Sixth Floor Museum in Dallas. You will leave in no doubt about what didn't happen ...
The idiot also known as Capfka ...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,467
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
OP
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,467 |
WON:
Why is it that people run to ad hominem statements like "Why don't you come to your senses?" rather than merely talking about the issues? Just because we may disagree is no reason to attempt to belittle me.
I DO know about the Bush "business dealings" over the years. I knew about each of the 19 items that was in the article you posted the URL for. I spend a whole lot of time studying current events, particularly politics. Lord knows I do not defend Bush and the little Shrub, but if you are going to post things about them please stick to the facts. Accusing the Bushes of robbing almost half a trillion dollars is reckless at best. Quoting Mother Jones as a source isn't too far off from being reckless either. Definitely the Bush family has played funny games and has played fast and loose with the truth, but the numbers certainly don’t total up to anywhere near the $400 billion you blithely threw out as truth. If I had my way they would all be run out of town on a rail, but that’s not gonna happen. The best we can do is try to make certain that the two Bushes have similar reelection failures. A rejection of Jr in 2004 would be as effective as a criminal indictment, at least from a historical perspective.
You seem to be reading some things into my statement that weren't there. I listed a bunch of conspiracy theories and asked why no one had ever been able to prove one, just one of them. I mentioned JFK's assassination and you inferred solely from my having raised that it that I was “very naive, very foolish, or very gullible.” Did I say that Oswald acted alone? Did I imply that I disbelieved the conspiracy theories? Nope. All I did was ask a question. And I didn’t get an answer.
I've stated here repeatedly that it's my firm belief that our Government does not do things like offing Cliff Baxter. Why? Because we can't do it and then cover it up successfully. How many people do you think would have to be involved to cover up the alleged murder of an Enron executive on behalf of the President of the Unites States? How long would it be before one, just one of those people, decided that he needed more money or had a falling out with one of the other principles and turned on him? No President is going to take that kind of risk. They want a positive place in history and are not about to go around ordering (or even condoning) murders for any reason, let alone for political reasons. And the people who work for the President won’t act either, because they can never be certain who’s going to turn on them.
Frankly, it's probably pretty much the same thing with JFK's murder. If Oswald was acting at the behest of an agency of the US Government, do you seriously believe that someone, somewhere, in the conspiracy would not have breathed a word of it some time in the last 39 years? And it would take at a minimum a dozen people to bring off something like that in my opinion. It’s much more likely that the conspiracy involved people in places we can’t reach to get answers: Cuba comes immediately to mind.
I renew my challenge: show me the money. Find me one incident perpetrated by our Government in secrecy the truth of which was revealed by independent investigation.
TEd
Look at Watergate. It took about five minutes after those idiots put the tape on the door latch for the whole thing to start unraveling. Too many people involved. Too many people interested in revealing the truth. And even the awesome power of the presidency could do nothing more than delaying the day of reckoning.
The very fact that no one has proved a US Government conspiracy in any of the myriad other "mysteries" is to me a pretty good indication that there are no conspiracies.
TEd
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803 |
there are no conspiracies
There are no conspiracies? There are no conspiracies?? What fun is that, if there are no conspiracies?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,467
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
OP
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,467 |
BY:
You said:
I'm a bit loopy though, so don't mind me. I mean, I want to radically revalue the normative value of race and division in writing, and history, for myself. I want to wend my way back down the ladder of genetic memory and sense the unbroken chain of life that has led us here. I want to return to the source; centre myself; find divinity and hope; and raise the dead – not create them.
As to the first sentence, I guess I have to agree with you. As to the rest of this paragraph, frankly, it's in English but I am unable to make any sense out of it.
One last word, BY, and then I am going to stop this senseless undialogue in which I speak English and you speak some unintelligible language that masquerades as
English:
I resent bitterly your statement that I would under any circumstances applaud the attacks on the World Trade Center. Your statement goes far beyond decency. And if you had any of it I would expect you to withdraw what you said and apologize to me. But I doubt that you have any decency.
TEd
TEd
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 4,189
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 4,189 |
TEd, firstly, "Silverado/Why don't you come to your senses?" was a whimsical parody of the Eagles' song "Desperado," alluding to Silverado having been swept under the carpet and forgotten, and that folks, in general, should open their eyes to the "business" doings of the Bushes. It was in no way an attempt of any kind at personal belittlement, and I apologize if it sounded that way.
Ditto the "naive, foolish, and gullible" comment referring to the Zapruder film clip...I still stand by that statement, that anyone, in the generic sense, who views the Zapruder film and still believes the head shot came from the rear as per the Warren Commission, and that Oswald acted alone, has to possess one, or all, of the three named qualities. That was not, however, a comment directed to you, personally, TEd, or about your beliefs or theories about JFK's assassination. That's why I added the "IMHO" at the end. I still remember, as clear as day, the first time they aired the film. I was viewing it with people of mixed political backgrounds, and the moment we saw that shot hit his head there was a joint sigh of relief and immediate consensus that "well, there it is...now we know there was another shot from the front and more than one shooter. Maybe now we'll find out what really happened." But, then, the "powers that be" announced they had to do a "thorough" investigation of the film, eventually offering the absurd physics-defying "conclusion" that the obvious shot-in-question also came from the rear, and that the impact made it look like he was hit from the front...please. (not a personally directed please). But I was personally insulted and infuriated, even at that young age, that I was being played for such a fool. If the government wasn't involved in the shooting, they were certainly involved in the cover-up.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 7,210
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 7,210 |
In reply to:
I'm a bit loopy though, so don't mind me. I mean, I want to radically revalue the normative value of race and division in writing, and history, for myself. I want to wend my way back down the ladder of genetic memory and sense the unbroken chain of life that has led us here. I want to return to the source; centre myself; find divinity and hope; and raise the dead – not create them.
I think what BY is saying, rather poetically, I think, is that we are all one, and he wishes for us to remember that and return to that as a way of life. we need to work at erasing all the barriers that time has erected...
formerly known as etaoin...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 3,146
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 3,146 |
Oh, I doubt you are correct about government conspiracies, Ted. I'm not pointing at the US government in particular here, just governments in general. They all conspire. Maybe not very competently, but they conspire.
And then a really good conspiracy can be hidden within a less well hidden one. Not everyone in government is a dumb flunky. Some of them can think and plot. I'm sure that some of them are capable of constructing a conspiracy that would work. Often, I would imagine, the trick is to know what the desired outcome is - it may not be the obvious one.
FWIW
The idiot also known as Capfka ...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 11,613
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 11,613 |
And then a really good conspiracy can be hidden within a less well hidden one.
You are right, CK. [shiver]
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803 |
a really good conspiracy can be hidden within a less well hidden one
A successful conspiracy disguised as an unsuccessful conspiracy. Brilliant.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 742
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 742 |
>And then a really good conspiracy can be hidden within a less well hidden one.
Spooky, Mulder.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 11,613
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 11,613 |
A successful conspiracy disguised as an unsuccessful conspiracy
No, not disguised as. Hidden within. Not the same thing at all. Signed, Scully.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803 |
Hidden within/disguised as
And y'all accuse *me of being a pedantic nit picker.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 4,189
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 4,189 |
Hidden within/disguised as
And y'all accuse *me of being a pedantic nit picker.Or would that be The Cigarette Smoking Man...hmmm? Or, perhaps, you're a nit-picking hybrid? 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,692
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,692 |
Conspiracy theories are all good fun, but any one who has worked for a large organisation will know how difficult they must be to implement. The guy(s) at the top may, just possibly, have a clear idea of what they want to achieve, but by the time the message reaches the execution layer in the business it has been warped by private agendas and the Chinese Whispers effect so that the result is usually some way away from what was intended. When I hear “The oil companies are running things” my reaction is “They wish!”. I'm sure they try, just like governments do, but I doubt if either one is often successful! A plan can only be kept on track by constant nurturing and attention and that tends to destroy the conspiratorial nature of it and bring things out into the open.
dxb
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 161
member
|
|
member
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 161 |
I wonder weather this thread will ever die out or it’ll go forever. I can imagine our descendants discussing - was there an attack on the World Trade Centre or it’s just a legend like Icarus’ fall from the skies?
The bad thing about it that the more I read this the less I like what people like belligerentyouth say although I supported his (?) posts in the beginning because it became propaganda plus occasional personal insults.
I still disagree with TEd but I’d like to applaud to his valiant struggle against the majority.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 1,055
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 1,055 |
> the less I like what people like belligerentyouth say
Right! I don't like what I've said either in fact. It's all crap really - it isn't even real English I'm told, and it's completely unrepresentative of my true thoughts to boot. It's a bunch of bollocks really, because it is all just infantile symbols, conceived by neanderthal males, and thrown out onto a virtual page. And this war I've waged against myself here in the stuff I wrote above gets me and others nowhere - I'm just dreaming, you see. I actually loathe myself and humanity, and threads like this just fed the contept I really harbour against myself and all others. Besides, I actually support conflict, and why should conflict of a violent and physical nature not be helpful in propelling humanity forward towards something better? Surely every event has a positive outcome regardless of whether it is a negative act or not. And a passion for destruction is also a creative passion. So let's go to war - as soon as I find a suitable foe I'm loading up. I'm getting a warm tingly feeling already - what a way to go out: in a blaze of glory. It's all the natural way anyway; it's the way of the world; we are all just selfish beings, constantly enslaving ourselves and others. And as for terrorism, well, it's nothing other than the surgical strike capability of the oppressed.
[off to a training camp]
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 6,511
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 6,511 |
I don't think this is an appropriate thread for linguaphiles; which I why I don't read it (just scrolled down to the bottom, on page 2, and made a coffee while waiting). It might be polite, however, to re-start it, as tsuwm has indicated, for those who still wish to follow it.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 3,146
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 3,146 |
J'accuse!
Now, where did I see that before?
The idiot also known as Capfka ...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 6,296
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 6,296 |
Destruction is the easy route. It really is. Turn genius toward destruction: that's the easy way.
Now: Try to love...try to bring out peace...try to encourage...try to make people believe in their capacity to love, to bring out peace, to encourage...those are harder things. Try to teach tolerance...try to understand...try to be a slave to peace...well, that's a harder route, but a truer one, because it means you have to sacrifice your time so that others might have a chance to enjoy more breaths they take. There are times for belligerence--for fighting the fight--but how best to bring about peace? That's the hard thing, but, in my view, the necessary one. Some people just don't want peace. They need a foe. They need a bad guy. They need destruction. But what about love and caring and hoping that people will have more opportunities to embrace the brief lives they've been given? I don't see any good in bombing people--in hurting them--in causing pain. I'm embarrassed that I even voted for Bush (I felt I had no choice) because he has now wanted to destroy without just cause. No, I don't believe bombing belligerence is what will work for the good of the whole. Take a look at that old classic "Wild Stawberries"--and be drawn in again to a vision of what we could have had...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 3,146
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 3,146 |
>>Some people just don't want peace. They need a foe. They need a bad guy. They need destruction.
Too bad when it's the guy who calls the shots. Literally, in this case ...
The idiot also known as Capfka ...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 3,439
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 3,439 |
BY, fess up now, you're a "Shadow", aincha? Or perhaps a Vorlon counter-spy?
(See Babylon 5 on your local television outlets)
Everytime someone talks about going out and opening a can of whoop ass on "them" I cannot help but wonder which "Them" the combatant-one is planning to whup.
And who will take the place of them.
We already know who.
And who gave anyone the right to decide what's best for us?
It's us against Them , or is it a Pogo?
"We have met the enemy and he is us." "Pogo"© by Walt Kelly.
The phrase New Order sends icy shivers down my back.
I think I'll start another place for this.
|
|
|
|
Forums16
Topics13,913
Posts229,315
Members9,182
| |
Most Online3,341
Dec 9th, 2011
|
|
|
0 members (),
247
guests, and
2
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
|
