Re: How many do support the war?

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Wednesday 09 April 2003 05:27, dep wrote:
> this suggests among other things the wisdom of a representative rather
> than direct democracy -- a republic. running things on constant
> polling would result in a tremendous jumble of fits and starts, worse
> even than expecting much of use from the united nations. we cannot
> take a vote at the firehouse to see which fires the firemen feel like
> extinguishing.

for certain things this is definitely true. if i remember my history correctly 
(which i'm apt not to ;), there was a time when French legions each voted 
independently on which battles to engage in. this was, of course, disastrous 
in large scale war since it made strategic maneuvers practically impossible 
("hmmm... seems like have the forces voted not to show up for today's 
battle.")

there are other sorts of decisions that are probably best left to alternatives 
to a republic, though. direct democracy by polling and then enacting the 
results of those polls probably rarely works, but direct democracy as a 
result of self-emergent decisions can for certain types of situations. war is 
not one of them =) but then again i must question the worthwhile nature of 
war in general.

there are also times when a republic is perhaps the worst possible means for 
addressing a set of issues since it is, by its nature, politically driven and 
therefore more easily influenced by those with great power.

i have discarded the concept of a single mode of governance being "the 
solution" (republican, democratic, communist, socialist, anarchist, etc). 
hybrid structures that incorporate a variety of modes based on the given 
situation are, IMO, more useful.

> (looking more broadly, the whole proceedings began three weeks ago
> today. hell, the falkland islands war took longer. yet there is talk
> that there must be something wrong because it is not over yet.

perhaps this is in part because few actually _want_ this war? many of those 
who do support it seem to do so out of a sense that it's a thing that has to 
be done rather than out of a sense of it being a "good" war. it's probably 
also  due in part to the media (and the media watchers' of the world) 
obsession with the minutia of the war.

> i fear
> that our thirst for instant everything could lead us down a very
> dangerous path -- if disputes must, based on public opinion, be
> solved immediately, the likelihood of the use of things like atomic
> bombs is bound to rise.)

and if a government forces a conflict upon its own people, we end up going 
down the very dangerous and tragic path of warfare. starting a war that due 
to the nature of it leads to the public wanting it over so quickly they are 
willing to advocate the use of WMDs would be, quite honestly, stupid.

one of the theoretical reasons for WMDs such as nuclear bombs was to make war 
so terrible that we wouldn't do it ... very shortsighted ... but of course, 
did the military/governments listen to the people back then, either? nope. 
and now we have nuclear bombs everywhere. huzzah!

> there are, too, the subtleties. the last day has been filled with
> stories of american tanks attacking reporters. which, with no more
> information than this, properly inspires outrage. but when you look
> at the al jazeera video of the seconds before the camera toppled
> over, you see at bottom center a stream of ejected, empty cartridges:
> the camera was located in or just above and behind a machine gun
> nest, which weapon was firing on the tank.

the media is little more than propaganda in this war, and propaganda can often 
be quite dangerous in a number of ways. but propaganda is a "necessary" part 
of war, especially given our communications technologies these days. one more 
reason to avoid war altogether.

> additionally, the u.s. is being scrutinized in ways and held to
> standards other than those applied to other countries. france has
> been shooting up the ivory coast for some months now, without benefit
> of u.n. resolution or focus on public opinion polls, for instance.
> bush is denounced in the harshest of terms, while the tyrant robert
> mugabe destroys zimbabwe with no thought toward public opinion.

i disagree... people take American infractions and movements more seriously 
because the USA is more powerful and can do both greater harm and greater 
good than probably any other single nation today. so when the US does 
something atrocious, it has much larger impacts than one horrible dictator in 
a small oppressed third world country such as Zimbabwe, as horrible and 
regretable as that dictator and the conditions within that country may be.

if the US would be a better world citizen, we'd have a very strong and potent 
role model for places like Zimbabwe and a motivator for them (and others) to 
be better world citizens as well (political and economic alignment). if 
Zimbabwe pulls up its socks, the world probably doesn't change much outside 
of the borders of Zimbabwe. if the USA pulls up its socks in the same manner, 
the world will surely start to change. therefore more attention is paid to 
the actions of the States. it's a compliment, in many ways... "with great 
power........."

also, people in many of the same communities as those railing against the 
American actions in the Middle East, against Israeli and Palestinian terror, 
against corrupt European and American multinationals, against <insert big 
large obvious target>.... are also railing against human rights violations 
and problems elsewhere in the world. places most of us probably have never 
even heard about. unfortunately, the media and larger governments tend to 
ignore those voices simply because they can.

as one example, when people are being slaughtered in southern Mexico or in the 
cities of South America, who is there documenting and aiding? almost always 
it's the politically active grass roots groups and often the international 
humanitarian organizations. rarely is it mainstream media or foreign national 
interests (unless it is to their own power-grabbing benefit). it's very 
rarely the Republics of the world.

the combination of the USA being a more important world citizen than most and 
a media that is largely useless when it comes to accurately communicating 
real crisis around the world creates the appearance that the USA is being 
held to a different level of responsibility. which it both is, and isn't.

then again, people that have/do serve in the American government were 
convicted of war crimes yet we don't see them next to Milosevic in an 
international jail cell, do we?

- --
Aaron J. Seigo
GPG Fingerprint: 8B8B 2209 0C6F 7C47 B1EA  EE75 D6B7 2EB1 A7F1 DB43

KDE: The 'K' is for 'kick ass'
http://www.kde.org       http://promo.kde.org/3.1/feature_guide.php
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE+lLiv1rcusafx20MRAtVbAJ43eHPiw3StUC83pIJsAUaPcQKmswCfXDet
xBbf+fp8Mhy6DPisvUthGIc=
=Fq8r
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


Kde-cafe mailing list - [email protected]
http://ofb.biz/lists/listinfo.cgi/kde-cafe

DISCLAIMER: The views expressed on this mailinglist are the personal
opinions of the author and do not represent KDE or the author's employer.