RE: Unilateralism (was: RE: virus: The Ideohazard 1.1)

From: Jake Sapiens (every1hz@earthlink.net)
Date: Thu Sep 25 2003 - 14:59:34 MDT

  • Next message: Hermit: "Re:Unilateralism (was: RE: virus: The Ideohazard 1.1)"

    > [Original Message]
    > From: Jonathan Davis <jonathan.davis@lineone.net>
    > To: <virus@lucifer.com>
    > Date: 09/25/2003 8:37:12 AM
    > Subject: RE: Unilateralism (was: RE: virus: The Ideohazard 1.1)
    >
    > Dear Jake,
    >
    > No I don't remember Bush and Rumsfeld repeatedly threatening to "go it
    > alone". Pundits speculated the UN would be rendered irrelevant, but the US
    > government did not say that.
    >
    > You claimed that "the current administration has shown a very clear
    > preference for unilateral action over diplomacy and consensus. Indeed
    > often not just a preference, but the sole "strategy"". I have simply shown
    > this to be factually incorrect. In both Afghanistan and Iraq the US acted
    > as part of a coalition. In Afghanistan it had several major military
    powers.
    > In Iraq it has the allies like the UK and Turkey, both massively powerful
    > countries in their own right.

    [Jake] You got you facts wrong here. Turkey has committed zero troops and
    in addition denied the US/UK a northern front in Iraq. Turkey's actions
    certainly haven't been helpful.
     
    >
    > That three of the five members of the permanent security council were not
    in
    > favour of the Iraq liberation does not justify your exaggerations. When
    > aggressor states like China (Tibet), Russia (Chechnya) and France (Nuclear
    > testing) oppose sensible action for the sake of political gain or simple
    > obtrusiveness, I applaud when they are ignored.
    >
    > Bye the way, did you not read Bush's speech in the UN yet? It is well
    worth
    > reading:

    Obviously it has impressed no one in his target audience. I see no
    outpouring of foreign help as a result of speech. I don't see any more UN
    resolutions on Iraq on the horizon. Do you? You and I must be living in
    different universes. I think that about sums it up.

    -Jake

    >
    > "As an original signer of the UN Charter, the United States of America is
    > committed to the United Nations. And we show that commitment by working to
    > fulfil the UN's stated purposes, and giving meaning to its ideals.
    >
    > The founding documents of the United Nations and the founding documents of
    > America stand in the same tradition.
    >
    > Both assert that human beings should never be reduced to objects of power
    or
    > commerce, because their dignity is inherent. Both recognise a moral law
    that
    > stands above men and nations, which must be defended and enforced by men
    and
    > nations. And both point the way to peace, the peace that comes when all
    are
    > free.
    >
    > We secure that peace with our courage, and we must show that courage
    > together."
    >
    > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3132984.stm
    >
    >
    > Regards
    >
    > Jonathan
    >
    >
    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: owner-virus@lucifer.com [mailto:owner-virus@lucifer.com] On Behalf
    Of
    > Jake Sapiens
    > Sent: 25 September 2003 18:17
    > To: virus
    > Subject: RE: Unilateralism (was: RE: virus: The Ideohazard 1.1)
    >
    > Hello Jonathan,
    >
    > Gee, don't you remember Bush and Rumsfeld repeatedly threatening to "go it
    > alone", and threatening the UN with irrelevancy if they didn't rubberstamp
    > Bush's war? How have you failed to notice these and other "my way or the
    > highway" bullying postures that this administration used as its so-called
    > diplomacy? Other than the UK which was on our side from the begriming
    (and
    > hence doesn't really count as a diplomatic victory), this administration
    > completely failed to get any other major military power involved in its
    Iraq
    > expedition. The fact that a short list of relatively minor and weak
    > international powers joined the militarily strongest nation in the world
    in
    > order to provide some international window-dressing does not count as
    any.
    > These other countries aren't remotely our equals in terms of power, so I
    > don't think that this qualifies as bi-lateral in any sense of the word. A
    > unilateralist doesn't negotiate with equals. When the unilateralist says
    > "my way or the highway", it doesn't suddenly get turned into bilateral
    > diplomacy just because some weaker parties knuckle under and say "okay I
    > will take your way." The actual military contribution by these other
    > countries is negligible compared to US and UK. They are effectively
    window
    > dressing. This is a primarily US/UK action. I know you and Donald
    Rumsfeld
    > keep claiming it has some significantly international character, but any
    > reasonable observer can recognize the disingenuous nature of this
    propaganda
    > used to gloss over the diplomatic failures of this administration. Their
    > consistent childish bullying unilateralist attitude remains obvious to
    > reasonable people not committed to their extreme
    > religious-wrong/Christian-crusader ideology.
    >
    > -Jake
    >
    > > [Original Message]
    > > From: Jonathan Davis <jonathan.davis@lineone.net>
    > > To: <virus@lucifer.com>
    > > Date: 09/25/2003 2:14:04 AM
    > > Subject: RE: Unilateralism (was: RE: virus: The Ideohazard 1.1)
    > >
    > > Hi Jake,
    > >
    > > You say "I would agree that the USA has had a tradition of choosing
    > > diplomacy and consensus, but the current administration has shown a
    > > very clear preference for unilateral action over diplomacy and
    consensus.
    > Indeed
    > > often not just a preference, but the sole "strategy""
    > >
    > > This is simply false. This administration has always acted with a
    > coalition
    > > of partners and allies including the United Kingdom. Can you cite an
    > > examples of this administration acting unilaterally? Also, can you
    > > explain why this Cold War concept of bi- and unilateralism is being
    > > used where it
    > is
    > > nearly meaningless in this context?
    > >
    > > You see unilateralism, I see a coalition of 49 countries. Perhaps it
    > > is
    > you
    > > who needs to have his ideo-memetic health checked as "rather obvious
    > public
    > > facts" appear to directly contradict your counterclaims.
    > >
    > > Kind regards
    > >
    > > Jonathan
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > -----Original Message-----
    > > From: owner-virus@lucifer.com [mailto:owner-virus@lucifer.com] On
    > > Behalf
    > Of
    > > Jake Sapiens
    > > Sent: 24 September 2003 20:30
    > > To: virus
    > > Subject: Unilateralism (was: RE: virus: The Ideohazard 1.1)
    > >
    > > Okay, I am still in the process of digesting the E-Zine, so I haven't
    > > read Hermit's piece yet, (but I will soon), but I can't let Jonathan's
    > assertion
    > > below just slide by. I would agree that the USA has had a tradition
    > > of choosing diplomacy and consensus, but the current administration
    > > has
    > shown a
    > > very clear preference for unilateral action over diplomacy and
    consensus.
    > > . Indeed other modes of conducting foreign policy seem almost missing
    > from
    > > this administrations repertoire. (Colin Powell not withstanding since
    > > they seem to more or less ignore him making his diplomacy ineffective
    > > before he starts). I can't imagine what (other than perhaps an
    > > ideological/memetic
    > > infection) would lead Jonathan to not notice these rather obvious
    > > public facts.
    > >
    > > -Jake
    > >
    > >
    > > > [Original Message]
    > > > From: Jonathan Davis <jonathan.davis@lineone.net>
    > > > To: <virus@lucifer.com>
    > > > Date: 09/15/2003 2:02:23 AM
    > > > 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>
    > >
    > >
    > > --- Jake Sapiens
    > > --- every1hz@earthlink.net
    > > --- EarthLink: The #1 provider of the Real Internet.
    > >
    > >
    > > ---
    > > 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>
    >
    >
    > --- Jake Sapiens
    > --- every1hz@earthlink.net
    > --- EarthLink: The #1 provider of the Real Internet.
    >
    >
    > ---
    > 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>

    --- Jake Sapiens
    --- every1hz@earthlink.net
    --- EarthLink: The #1 provider of the Real Internet.

    ---
    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 25 2003 - 12:47:13 MDT