RE: virus: The Ideohazard 1.1

From: Blunderov (squooker@mweb.co.za)
Date: Mon Sep 15 2003 - 12:06:03 MDT

  • Next message: Blunderov: "RE: virus: Virian Fitness Boot Camp"

    Is it really necessary to remind you of recent events? The war against
    Iraq was undertaken in spite of the fact that it was/is against
    international law as embodied in the UN Charter to which the USA is a
    signatory. The USA, at the time, went so far as to say that the UN was
    irrelevant. The fact that no WOMD have been, or ever will be, found, has
    done nothing to ameliorate this massively contemptuous behavior and has
    in fact served only to emphasise it's arrogance.

    The fact that the USA has seen fit to create and implement a doctrine of
    pre-emptive self defence, which is not only against reason (the tu
    quoque fallacy) but also a complete repudiation of the most fundamental
    tenets international law, is, I would say, contemptuous of the community
    of nations.

    The (continuing) incarceration of prisoners at Guantanemo Bay is a
    violation of so many articles of the Geneva Convention, to which the USA
    is signatory, that it is difficult to count them all. This goes beyond
    contemptuous and is simply evil. I hope I live to see the day when
    Rumsfeld et al pay the penalty applicable to these despicable war
    crimes. (Under the circumstances, it is hardly surprising that the USA
    prefers not to support the establishment of a permanent International
    War Crimes Court. There is, as they say, nothing like the threat of
    execution to enhance the concentration.) Then of course, there is
    depleted uranium munitions etc, etc.

    That it signs free trade agreements and then doesn't hesitate to
    repudiate them when expediency serves also seems to me to be massively
    contemptuous. This is nothing short of saying 'Our interests are far
    more important than your piffling little concerns". I seem to recall
    some business just recently where the US Steel industry was afforded a
    subsidy by the US government in direct contravention of an agreement
    with the EEU. I also recall some business where Mexican milk was
    consistently turned back at the border because it failed to come up to
    scratch in terms of quality. Oddly, the same fate befell American milk
    when it was exported to Mexico and then re-imported to America.

    I dispute your statement "If an agreement disadvantages you, you are
    entitled to void the agreement..." This is quite simply dishonest and is
    no different from stealing. You might as well say if somebody has
    something that you want, you are entitled to take it if it is to your
    disadvantage not to have it. Is this the same Jonathan Davis that was
    plainting about the Chinese proclivity for stealing technology and
    disregarding intellectual property rights? It is my view that commitment
    is the heart of any relationship. To dismiss a commitment is to dismiss
    the relationship as unimportant. This is contemptuous.

    I do not dispute the right to renegotiate if the other party is willing
    to do so, but if the other party is not willing to do so then, I am
    sorry to say, it is just tough titty.

    I think I have provided enough examples, just from my own immediate
    knowledge, to demonstrate that my assertion is reasonably true - the USA
    holds the community of nations in manifest contempt. I have no doubt
    that if I was to engage in a little research I could provide a myriad
    more.

    As far as I can tell, the US chooses 'diplomacy and consensus' as a
    preliminary and then only when these routes offer some reasonable
    prospect of success. If and when this is not the case she just does
    whatever she wants anyway. I would be most interested in any recent
    examples you could provide where this was not the case. I cannot, at the
    moment, think of any myself.

    Brotherly* Regards
    Blunderov

    *Disagreements between brothers are by no means uncommon. At least no
    women are involved in this one.

    PS It is my view that the second biggest curse of mankind is
    nationalism. The first is, of course, the theistic religions. (Buddhists
    will be spared the ire of Blunderov you will all doubtless be relieved
    to know) Often they are the same thing. But not always. Possibilities
    for future discussion?

    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: owner-virus@lucifer.com [mailto:owner-virus@lucifer.com] On
    Behalf
    > Of Jonathan Davis
    > Sent: 15 September 2003 1102
    > To: virus@lucifer.com
    > Subject: RE: virus: The Ideohazard 1.1
    >
    > You say the USA holds the community of nations in manifest contempt,
    yet
    > I
    > see no such contempt. I see the USA, despite its overwhelming power,
    > choosing diplomacy and consensus. The USA has withdrawn from some
    > treaties,
    > but it was perfectly fair for them to do so. If an agreement
    disadvantages
    > you, you are entitled to void the agreement and renegotiate.
    >
    > Regards
    >
    > Jonathan
    >
    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: owner-virus@lucifer.com [mailto:owner-virus@lucifer.com] On
    Behalf
    > Of
    > Blunderov
    > Sent: 15 September 2003 08:45
    > To: virus@lucifer.com
    > Subject: RE: virus: The Ideohazard 1.1
    >
    >
    >
    > Jonathan Davis
    > > Sent: 14 September 2003 1840
    > > To: virus@lucifer.com
    > > Subject: RE: virus: The Ideohazard 1.1
    > >
    > > I was spooked by Hermit's Chinese-commit-genocide piece but for me
    it
    > was
    > > ruined by its overt anti-Americanism (if that term can be applied to
    > what
    > > appears *in my opinion* to be Hermit's pathological hatred of
    > America).
    >
    >
    > [Bl.] Whether Hermit has a hatred of America, and whether, if so, this
    > hatred is pathological or not, I cannot say. What I can say is that it
    is
    > equally possible, based on the evidence before us, that he is a
    fervent
    > patriot. It depends on your point of view.
    >
    > When the British invaded China in the 18th Century they found maps in
    > which
    > China occupied the almost whole of the document; peeping in at the
    corners
    > of these maps were tiny representations of what were characterized as
    > 'Barbarian' nations - Britain, France and the USA. It was clear that
    the
    > Chinese world view allocated no importance to anything other than
    China.
    >
    > Ironically, if one reads the Hermits list of broken American promises
    and
    > treaties, it is difficult to conclude that the American world-view is
    any
    > less solipsistic than the Chinese maps of yore.
    >
    > It is almost risible that such a self-avowedly 'democratic' nation
    should
    > hold the community of nations in such manifest contempt. Almost.
    >
    >
    > Best Regards
    > Blunderov
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > ---
    > To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to
    > <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
    >
    > ---
    > To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-
    > bin/virus-l>

    ---
    To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
    


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Sep 15 2003 - 12:06:51 MDT