Re: Hope for the US - 2004

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

On Saturday 19 April 2003 02:28, dep wrote:
> there is much accepted as fact that is not fact, not the least of it
> being the idea of a "unilateral attack," the "unilateral" coming
> almost solely out of kyoto, which was nothing more or less than an
> attempt by much of the rest of the world (which, interestingly, also
> has not approved it) to attempt to do economic damage to the u.s.

what is your damage, little boy? (to steal a hollywood buzzphrase) let's see 
if we can sort out this rat's nest's reflection of your thought processes..

the attack the USA made on Iraq was Unilateral. within the USA there may have 
been support from all over the government, and there may have been voices 
against it from all over the government. same is true regarding the currently 
politically divided nature of the American public.

but the bottom line is that the USA, by whatever internal means, took a stand 
by itself in this war. "oh," you say, "but there was Britain! and a gaggle of 
other countries!" fine. then why is Britain getting bupkiss when it comes to 
the rebuilding contracts? oh, right. because the USA in charge and making the 
decisions. and who had the most forces in the region? the USA. and who is 
running things "post-Saddam" if the UN doesn't get in there? the USA.

as for the handful of supporting nations, have you ever seen a map that is 
colour coded as to who uses the metric system and who doesn't? there's this 
big splotch of non-metric known as the USA and then a smattering of tiny 3rd 
world country splotches. this is similar: the countries who were on the USA's 
support list are the nations that most need and want American support 
domestically. one nation on that list weren't even supposed to be, and they 
got the record set straight. they lost out on their share of the booty (some 
millions of dollars), but they stuck to their morals. so the list of 
supporting countries is not credible, and nobody has continued to even make 
that stand. it was a lost cause argument when they trotted it out, and it's a 
lost cause argument now.

so say it with me Dennis: unilateral.

then you blather on about Kyoto being a unilateral decision. perhaps you don't 
understand what "unilateral" means, but Kyoto was the work of dozens of large 
and economically important nations. and when the American government didn't 
ratify it (being the global environmental traitors that they are, along with 
my local Albertan government in that regard) it wasn't pushed upon the USA at 
all. 

so comparing a multinational accord that the USA was allowed to back away from 
to a nation that was spearheaded and run by the USA is so amazingly dim... 
c'mon Dennis, do you think i'm stupid enough to buy your crap or are you so 
deluded that you actually believe it?

> (and lest this be thought to be a bush creation, it should be noted
> that clinton, under whose presidency it was negotiated, did not even
> put it before the senate for ratification; in a sense of the senate
> resolution, the vote was unanimously against kyoto).

that's absolutely correct. evidently the disease is not something unique to 
Bush and his administration, but the modern American government as a whole. 
of course, Bush is right now "at the helm" figuratively speaking, and has 
taken it to new heights of insanity ...... but you're right that it didn't 
start with him.

when will it end?

> now, let's deal with the matter of pre-emption. the unthinkable events
> of september 11, 2001, rendered defenses, that would earlier not have
> been considered, not only possible but sensible.

except that Iraq had nothing to do with Sept 11. or can one now use any 
infringement to attack anyone else?

>  surely if by some
> act of pre-emption the events of thast sad day could have been
> prevented, it would have been a good thing.

the appropriate act of pre-emption could've included:

 o taking down the airplanes before they crashed into buildings
 o not having supported and help build the organizations that ended up being 
responsible for it
 o combatted terrorist organizations with a concerted and directed effort

valid pre-emption is not war upon a nation that we don't like because another 
nation nearby harboured people that did something terrible. oh, and BTW, 
human rights activists had been speaking out against the Taliban loudly and 
clearly for YEARS before this happened. nothing was done. there was even a 
slashdot story, of all things, on the topic!

you see, you're asking for an unlimited license for one nation (the USA) to 
wage war on whomever it wishes based upon events that have not happened nor 
may ever happen. for someone who hates the Nazi Germany of the 1930s so much 
(something we have in common), why are your military politics so close to 
theirs?

> though then there would
> be many, including many on this list, who would argue that those
> events would not have taken place and the pre-emption would have
> taken place for some other reason. this flawed reasoning has been
> employed by thoughtless people

that's not what i'd say at all. i'd say you lack the ability to fortell where 
unknown danger lies and therefore lack the ability to strike first in an 
accurate manner. in fact, i'd say the concept of pre-emption is a complete 
sham that is instead intended to allow the USA the necessary power to dictate 
to the rest of the world at its will. if the American will was Holy and Pure, 
it might not be so much of an issue (though still concerning). but alas, it 
is run not by God Himself but by human beings like you and I. well, right now 
more like you than I.

> and members of the rabble for centuries

is this your true colour, Dennis? that the people are rabble, specifically the 
ones who disagree with you? does that strike you, or anyone else, as 
dangerously close to conceited elitist fascism?

> it comes down, always, to one thing, which is indeed the basis of much
> of our law: motivation. to do something to bring about an evil end is
> always evil, and to do something to bring about good is at least
> mitigated by that motive.

those that were on those airplanes on 9-11 were deluded into thinking that 
what they were doing is right. they thought they were doing something to 
bring about good. they though they were fighting evil with holy goodness. so 
were their actions right? of course not!

this is true of virtually every despotic force this world has known.

your concept of "evil is evil, good is good" depends on the concept that your 
measure of evil and good is accurate. unfortunately, most everyone thinks 
that of their own alignment, which is why they choose it! therefore, you can 
rationalize ALL your own actions as being "legal" and "upright" by applying 
your own moral code to them.

this is WHY we have law. law is not moralistic, and there is a reason for 
that. you may end up punished for something even if you did it with the best 
intentions.

so take your "morals trumps law" and put it where it belongs: in the trash.

> and all the rest is talk, and not very good talk at that.

i will not allow you to dismiss out of hand the arguments of others. your 
pushing aside of valid reasoning of others through your own conceit is 
despicable. comment with reason, or slither back to your masters in silence.

- -- 
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+og4j1rcusafx20MRAs1uAKCq6Kv9F2AHIH0Nc2qVMK/U/VlJzwCfQKZN
qffpWZ5YmdfcoCkdo1ifzbQ=
=RRC5
-----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 OfB.biz: Open for Business, KDE or the author's employer.