From: Blunderov (squooker@mweb.co.za)
Date: Thu Sep 18 2003 - 05:28:31 MDT
> From: Jonathan Davis
> Sent: 16 September 2003 1210
> To: virus@lucifer.com
> Subject: RE: virus: The Ideohazard 1.1
>
> Dear Brother B,
>
> Here is my reply.
>
> [Blunderlov 2] 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.
>
> [Jonathan 2] The war was not and in a way the UN is.
[Blunderov3] So you concur that the US has ('in a way') a 'lack of
respect or reverence for' the UN? This definition, as I am sure you have
guessed, is a very serviceable one for the word 'contempt' if
Merriam-Webster is to be believed. I feel, under the circumstances,
quite justified in characterizing the US, as 'manifestly contemptuous'.
Apparently you do too, 'in a way'.
Also to be considered is
http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/
Without, I confess, having read the whole document, I feel compelled to
recommend to you the preamble which states, amongst other things that:
<q>
WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED
to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in
our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and
to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth
of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations
large and small, and...
AND FOR THESE ENDS...
to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, and
to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of
methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common
interest,
</q>
[Bl.]
It is clear (to me at any rate) that the US trampled rough shod over
these ideals. The US made it plain that it considered its own interests
to take precedence to the common interest. 'You are with us or against
us' is the vapid jingle that bleated from the White House. Quite apart
from the extremely dubious logic of the slogan, it seems to me to run
directly counter to the grain of the UN Charter which is, as far as I
can tell, that of consultation, consensus and compromise. There was NO
Security Council resolution empowering the US (or anyone else) to attack
Iraq. Therefore any such attack was and is, by definition, illegal
according to international law. The fact that the US actively sought,
and obtained such a resolution in 1991 and did not seek, or obtain, such
a resolution in 2003 speaks not only for itself, but also for the
justification of assertion. Clearly the US is a rather fair-weather
friend to the community of nations that the UN represents.
> [Blunderlov 2] 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.
>
> [Jonathan 2] The fact that no WMD have yet been found is neither here
nor
> there. There was sufficient good reason to suspect their existence
(and in
> my opinion the war was justified for overthrowing Saddam alone).
Saddam
> certainly had them and used them, that he destroyed them prior to the
> invasion (or more likely smuggled them to Jordan) does not have any
> bearing on the fact that the reasons for war were (need I insert this,
in >my opinion and the US President's) sound.
[[Blunderov 3] I dispute that there was good, or even any, reason to
suspect their existence. (Had there been I have little doubt that the
Security Council, including even the French, would have been able to
recognize it.)There was, in fact, overwhelming evidence to the contrary,
Powell's Krushevian theatrics in the Security Council notwithstanding.
On the other hand there is clear evidence, which is now a matter of
public record, that both Bush and Blair, as and when expediency served,
either fabricated or distorted intelligence to support this lie, and/or
ignored any intelligence that tended to militate against their
predetermined agenda of attacking Iraq. (I recall that is a matter of
public record that Rumsfeld said to Bush, at a meeting about Afghanistan
that 'They might as well get Iraq as well'. Everything that followed was
pure 'wag the dog'. The fact that NO weapons of mass destruction, nor
even any traces thereof, have been or will be found proves that not only
was the US wrong in law, it was also wrong in fact.
It also goes along way towards showing that there are very good reasons
for the international law to be maintained exactly as it is, uninfected
by the toxic 'pre-emptive self-defence' oxymoron. All of which suggests
that your confidence in the US Presidents judgment seems to have been
sorely misplaced.
When you say that 'the war was justified for overthrowing Saddam alone',
what you mean by 'justified' is not quite clear to me. Possibly you
could direct me to section of the United Nations Charter that would
clarify this?
Unless, of course, what you have in mind is some sort of moral
imperative? In which case I would be interested to know how just how far
you think this should be taken - is, would you say, the US morally bound
to forcibly eliminate every single leader of any country that is, or
might become, objectionable to either the US or to it's own citizens?
I think the speculation that WOMD were smuggled to Jordan is about as
likely as someone saying 'Quick let me hold that reeking joint for you,
the police are here!'
> [Blunderlov 2] 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.
>
> [Jonathan 2] Of course USA reserves the right to act pre-emptively in
> self-defence. All self-defence necessarily contains pre-emption. Does
one
> defend oneself before or after the robber has shot one? pre-emptive
> actions
> are designed (or have the power) to deter or prevent an anticipated
> situation or occurrence. In the age of international terrorism this is
> simple self-preservation. Over time this will become a staple of
> international law and in 50 years our grandchildren will depose
> governments
> who violate international law and the law of self-preservation by not
> defending their citizens by acting against clear threats that mature
into
> harm.
[[Blunderov 3] In order to' act pre-emptively in self-defence' it is
necessary that there be at least a threat of attack. There was none. The
only threat that existed was a wag-the-dog lie designed to stampede the
electorate. Now Bush now tries to pretend that the Iraq war was really
about 'The War on Terror' hoping that everyone will forget that it's
original urgent necessity was justified in terms of the existence of
WOMD, which, (did I mention?) have not and never will be found. The
threat was faked. Spurious. Not-genuine. A counterfeit. Of no value.
And Bush knew it. How long will you go on believing this liar?
Furthermore, this argument is, in any case, nothing more than a sly
variation of the fallacy 'argumentum ad baculum' aka Appeal to Force: (
A sub-variation of the Appeal to Emotion)
Explanation: (Courtesy About.com)
<q>
The Latin term "argumentum ad baculum" literally means "argument to the
stick" - this fallacy makes an implict or explicit threat of physical or
psychological violence against others if they refuse to accept the
conclusions offered. You can think of it as having this form:
1. Some threat of violence is made or implied. Therefore, conclusion C
should be accepted.
It would be highly unusual for such a threat to be logically relevant to
the conclusion, or for the truth-value of a conclusion to be made any
more likely by such threats...</q>
>
> [Blunderlov 2] 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.
>
> [Jonathan 2] Guantanemo works beautifully. The legalities of it are
still
> being worked out, but in the meantime it is a valuable tool in the
> psychological war against Islamic terror.
[Blunderov 3] I don't know that I would personally have chosen the
adjective 'beautifully' - I am not amongst those who find systematic
torture an aesthetically appealing concept but then I am rather a
sensitive blossom. Be that as it may, and notwithstanding how effective
Guantanemo Bay may or may not be, it is completely illegal according to
the Geneva convention which states quite explicitly that when there is
any doubt about the precise status of any combatants, or indeed, anyone
at all, these persons are to be treated exactly according to the
provisions set down for ordinary prisoners-of-war until such time as an
appropriate tribunal can be convened to make a further determination.
The United States military, or its agents, is NOT an appropriate
tribunal; the US is a combatant. The Geneva Convention makes no
exceptions with regard to 'valuable tools'. The Convention makes no
mention of the end justifying the means, nor does it state that two
wrongs will now be reckoned equal to a right.
There are no 'legalities to be worked out' - they have already been
concluded and the US signed on the dotted line. I am not aware that the
Geneva Convention contains any retroactively applicable unilateral
variance clauses to be decided and implemented at the discretion of the
USA at any time and place of its choosing. Guantanemo Bay is a blatant
war crime. This is a 24 karat fact. I defy you, or anyone, to
demonstrate otherwise. In furtherance of my assertion I offer the
following:
http://www.multimedia-star-one.co.uk/peaceactions/guantanemo.asp
> [Blunderlov 2] This goes beyond contemptuous and is simply evil.
>
> [Jonathan 2] My chief problem with Hermit - who like you I consider a
> fellow and friend - and now you, is that you limn the United States
with > >terms like "Evil" or "Uncivilized" or "Contemptuous". I reject
this >characterization.
> Compared against a proper benchmark (not an ideal) the USA is
greatest,
> fairest, most free, and just countries on earth. Its people are
> enormously generous, it has protected Europe for a generation and
utterly >defeated two of the most murderous ideologies in all humanity
(Communism >and Nazism).All great nations do some harm, but it most be
seen in the >context of history and circumstances.
[Blunderov 3] Limn. Nice word but why limn me with limning? I said
Guantanemo bay is evil, not that the USA is generally evil. I have shown
that the US is, as represented by its current officials, contemptuous of
the community of nations. ('Uncivilised' is not one of mine is it? I
don't recall saying this anyway.)
Without wishing to quibble, I think it is worth pointing out that
communism, as an ideology, is, although not as vigorous as it once was,
very far from dead. Thankfully the same cannot be said of Nazism. And
yes, the people of the USA are, for the most part, a generous and
vibrant nation. And yes, the USA has done much that is good in the
world. There is much to be admired in and about the United States. But
in recent times, it seems to me, she is doing far more harm that good in
the world. I will return to your point about the context and
circumstances of history at a later point if you will bear with me.
>
> [Blunderlov 2] 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.
>
> [Jonathan 2] "Despicable war crimes" LOL! Easy on the purple prose.
What
> superlative do you use to describe those other war crimes, you know,
the
> real ones where SS machine gun villagers into pits and stuff?
[Blunderov 3] The phrase 'Torture Lite' makes for an interesting google.
I suggest to you that torture is indeed a 'real' war crime. So is
murder.
<q>
Independent [b](via Agonist): Terror suspects at Bagram airbase in
Afghanistan and elsewhere subjected to "duress" that has resulted in the
death of two prisoners so far.
</q>
Strange that you should mention machine guns and pits; may I bring the
following to your attention?
http://www.multimedia-star-one.co.uk/peaceactions/guantanemo.asp
<q>
As Jamie Doran's film Afghan Massacre: Convoy of Death records, some
hundreds, possibly thousands, of them were loaded into container lorries
at Qala-i-Zeini, near the town of Mazar-i-Sharif, on November 26 and 27.
The doors were sealed and the lorries were left to stand in the sun for
several days. At length, they departed for Sheberghan prison, 80 miles
away. The prisoners, many of whom were dying of thirst and asphyxiation,
started banging on the sides of the trucks. Dostum's men stopped the
convoy and machine-gunned the containers. When they arrived at
Sheberghan, most of the captives were dead.
The US special forces running the prison watched the bodies being
unloaded. They instructed Dostum's men to "get rid of them before
satellite pictures can be taken". Doran interviewed a Northern Alliance
soldier guarding the prison. "I was a witness when an American soldier
broke one prisoner's neck. The Americans did whatever they wanted. We
had no power to stop them." Another soldier alleged: "They took the
prisoners outside and beat them up, and then returned them to the
prison. But sometimes they were never returned, and they disappeared."
Many of the survivors were loaded back in the containers with the
corpses, then driven to a place in the desert called Dasht-i-Leili. In
the presence of up to 40 US special forces, the living and the dead were
dumped into ditches. Anyone who moved was shot. The German newspaper Die
Zeit investigated the claims and concluded that: "No one doubted that
the Americans had taken part. Even at higher levels there are no doubts
on this issue." The US group Physicians for Human Rights visited the
places identified by Doran's witnesses and found they "all... contained
human remains consistent with their designation as possible grave
sites".
</q>
>
> [Blunderlov 2] 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".
> [Jonathan 2] Dead right! Are you seriously asking that the USA, in a
> hostile world jockeying to hurt it, grab advantage and support
> self-interest, must act against its self-interest? Agreements can be
> called off at any time. By doing so I simply say "I no longer agree
about >this issue, the agreement does not suite me so it is void". There
is >nothing contemptuous about this, it is as simple expression of fact
or >opinion> weighted with action. When compatibility of observations
is no >longer a reality, or the conditions of a promise no longer
supported, one >is entitled to call it off.
[Blunderov 3] Are you saying that if, for instance, you and I were to
make an arrangement to meet for coffee somewhere and I failed to turn up
because I decided that I would prefer to spend the time doing something
else more interesting, that would be just fine by you?
Sadly, you attitude is shared by many. I don't know how it is in the US,
but here hardly any businesses are willing to accept cheques any more
because so many are not met. Call me old fashioned, but to me a promise
is a lot like a cheque; not lightly bounced. If doing so in the
commercial world is called fraud, why should it be called anything else
in the business of nations?
> [Blunderlov 2] 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.
>
> [Jonathan 2] Yes, people experience this problem with the Chinese,
> Japanese and EU too. Even within trading block, there is cheating and
>stretching the rules to accommodate unfair advantage (see EU rows over
>fishing, farm subsidies and chocolates). I say let it play out, balance
>comes eventually.
[Blunderov 3] OK. So you don't really mind that the Chinese steal your
technology and counterfeit your software. Gotcha.
> [Blunderlov 2] 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.
>
> [Jonathan 2] Dispute it if you like, but it is axiomatically true. I
can
> honestly and openly announce that circumstances in which I made an
> agreement have changed so I no longer wish to participate in the
>agreement.
[Blunderov 3] If it is part of the agreement that you may withdraw at
any time that it suits you, then fine. If not, then it's dishonest.
>
> [Blunderlov 2] 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.
>
> [Jonathan 2] I am surprised to see you Brother B furiously attacking a
> straw man. Please explain how you arrived at "you are entitled to take
it > if it is to your disadvantage not to have it" from "If an agreement
> disadvantages you, you are entitled to void the agreement". The right
to > > void underlies every contact and agreement.
[Blunderov 3] In chess there is an expression ' A man that would take
back a move would pick a pocket'. But OK. Conceded. Possibly this is
this is a straw man. I offer you, as a replacement, the following one
instead:
<q>
'Strawman' by Lou Reed from the Album 'New York'
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/LeftBank/2800/lou.html
(Lou Reed, according to Bob Ezrin, is "the most underrated contemporary
poet in America ". From " Heroin " in 1965 to today's " Perfect Night ",
thirty years passed, but Lou is still the avant-garde before the times,
and still in his black suit .)
[Bl.] (Not too sure that I entirely agree with either the grammar or the
hyperbole of the above glowing assessment; but Lou Reed does write some
interesting lyrics and also plays some kickass rock guitar.)
<q>
Strawman Lyrics:
We who have so much to you who have so little
To you who don't have anything at all
We who have so much more than any one man does need
And you who don't have anything at all, ah
Does anybody need another million dollar movie
Does anybody need another million dollar star
Does anybody need to be told over and over
Spitting in the wind comes back at you twice as hard
Strawman, going straight to the devil
Strawman, going straight to hell
Strawman, going straight to the devil
Strawman
Strawman
Strawman
Strawman, yes
Does anyone really need a billion dollar rocket
Does anyone need a 60,000 dollars car
Does anyone need another president
Or the sins of Swaggart parts 6, 7, 8 and 9, ah
Does anyone need yet another politician
Caught with his pants down and money sticking in his hole
Does anyone need another racist preacher
Spittin' in the wind can only do you harm, ooohhh
Strawman, going straight to the devil
Strawman, going straight to hell
Strawman, going straight to the devil
Strawman
Strawman
Strawman
Strawman
Does anyone need another faulty shuttle
Blasting off to the moon, venus or mars
Does anybody need another self-righteous rock singer
Whose nose he says has led him straight to god
Does anyone need yet another blank skyscraper
If you're like me I'm sure a minor miracle will do
A flaming sword or maybe a gold ark floating up the hudson
When you spit in the wind it comes right back at you
Strawman, going straight to the devil
Strawman, going straight to hell
Strawman, going to the devil
Strawman, strawman
Strawman, ...., ah
Strawman
Strawman
</q>
Whilst we're on the subject of straw men, it strikes me that Saddam
Hussein is an outstanding example of the species. I have read that
something like 53% of Americans believe that he had something to do with
9/11. This in spite of the fact that, like WOMD, (Did I mention this
before?) no evidence to this effect has been, or ever will be, found.
This was made abundantly clear to both Bush and Blair by both their
intelligence services. Of course they chose to ignore it.
> [Blunderlov 2] Is this the same Jonathan Davis that was plainting
about
> the Chinese proclivity for stealing technology and disregarding
[[Bl.]] > >intellectual property rights?
>
> [Jonathan 2] I am Jonathan Davis and I have recently broached the
Chinese
> proclivity for stealing technology and intellectual property.
[Blunderov 3] Just checking. The Rhinoceros' post about multiple
personality disorder must have wandered unbidden into periphery of my
thoughts during an unguarded moment.
> [Blunderlov 2] 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.
>
> [Jonathan 2] What commitment? Voiding an agreement is not dismissing a
> commitment to say fair dealing or respect. It simply means that a
party
> chooses to no longer participate in an agreement. Thus I or a nation
might
> say that it no longer agrees with a decision or arrangement. Its
reasons
> may be sound or faulty, but it is fully entitled to do so and it does
not
> necessarily imply contempt. There are many vestigial agreements,
treaties,
> pacts and truces that range from useless to downright damaging for all
> participating parties. If America chose to withdraw from NATO
tomorrow
> would you be outraged by the contempt of it? If it chose to stop
making
> aid payments to Israel, would you rage at the unilateralist bastards?
If >the USA chose to void all agreements developing world countries had
with it >in terms of paying back their debts, would you declare such
breach of >agreement utter contemptuous, nay EVIL Yankee lone wolfer.
>
> Well?
[Blunderov 3] Speaking for myself, I would have no problems with it
although I still think that such actions would be contemptuous. I think
it entirely possible that both NATO and Israel would squeak about it
quite a lot though. With regard to the developing-world debt, I cannot
imagine that such a step would be anything other than welcome to it.
Here, for once, I can say that I thoroughly approve of the USA reducing
the amount of its loan guarantee ($9 bl) to Israel by the exact amount
that Israel spends on illegal construction in Palestinian areas. An
admirable step in the right direction. I hope there are more to follow.
> [Blunderlov 2] 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.
>
> [Jonathan 2] This is incorrect. In a binding agreement you may have
> duties, but not in elective treaty participation. That is why
countries > >can and do withdraw. They simply say, "We do not to agree
with you on >this", hence no agreement. Similarly, "We no longer agree
with you, whereas >one we did, so we withdraw".
[Blunderov 3]Cash only from now on please.
> [Blunderlov 2] 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.
>
> [Jonathan 2] I am sorry to report that I disagree with your
conclusions.
> I think the opposite is true, that the United States - given its
> overwhelming superiority - is a marvel of consideration, and
diplomatic >restraint. Here is nation that could, if it chose, really
brush aside >anyone. It chooses to remain within the system, largely
agreeing to >restraints it could easily break and destroy, rules that do
not serve it >well and obeying the authority of hostile an corrupt
institutions for the >sake of international order. Its transgressions
are minor, it acts no more >selfishly than any other nation and
considering its de facto power we ought >to be careful it grateful it
chooses to comply at all.
[Blunderov 3] We should all be grateful that the US doesn't (always)
behave like the Nazis and Communists it so morally overthrew? For this
reason we should consider it a marvel of restraint? Seems to me this is
'damning with faint praise' indeed!
>
> [Blunderlov 2] 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.
>
> [Jonathan 2] Kosovo and Liberia.
[Blunderov 3]OK. The US does sometimes act altruistically and for the
greater good of the community of nations. But, IMO, it is, at the
moment, doing far more harm than good in the world.
>
> [Blunderlov 2] 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?
>
> [Jonathan 2] Brother Blunderlov this was an excellent post of yours.
> Thanks.
> I am particularly gratified to see us come back to what we agree on
> forcefully. Can I recommend you look into a book called "The New
> Barbarians"
> by Ian Angel
>
(http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0749435054/202-6883905-2633466
).
[Blunderov 3]I will be sure to do so at the first opportunity. Thank you
for the recommendation.
>
> He argues persuasively that people like us (the CoV) are the new
> barbarians
> primed to benefit and feed on the benighted who will cling to
ethnicity,
> nationalism, religion and socialism.
>
> Finally, did you know the Buddhists were a violent oppressor religion
who
> displaced and nearly wiped out their nearest competitor faith - the
Bon of
> Tibet? File them with the rest. That said, I have recently taken up
yoga
> and despite myself I am thoroughly loving it.
>
> Kind regards
>
> Jonathan
Thank you too, brother Jonathan, for you courteous reply. I was once
aware of the warlike nature of early Buddhism in Tibet but thank you for
drawing it to my attention again; I had forgotten it. I suppose I am
inclined to be more in favour of Buddhism than not because they consider
it a duty to sincerely try to understand the nature of the universe. As
for yoga, I discovered quite early in life that I was not sufficiently
supple to attempt it. Pity, but there it is.
Finally, to address your point about judging a nation within its
historical context, I think I can agree. A political analyst that I
spoke to told me that, in his view, the USA felt that it had to be seen
to be kicking butt after 9/11 and it didn't very much matter whose butt
it was.
To me, it is understandable that the US, so to speak, lost its temper
after 9/11. But as Virians do we not prefer reason to rage? And, because
rage begets violence, should we not argue for a return to reason as soon
as may be? And is dressing rage in the robes of reason helpful to this
end?
Respectfully, Brother Jonathan, I suggest that it is not.
Best Regards
Blunderov
--- 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 : Thu Sep 18 2003 - 05:32:58 MDT