Mike Lorrey wrote:
>
> Miriam English wrote:
> >
> > At 11:33 AM 14/09/2001 +0200, Anders Sandberg wrote:
> > >On Fri, Sep 14, 2001 at 03:12:55PM +1000, Damien Broderick wrote:
> > > > At 09:20 PM 12/09/2001 -0400, Jerry Mitchell wrote:
> > > > >and a culture based on
> > > > >reason.
> > > >
> > > > If only. Nobody I saw held high a copy of Karl Popper or John Stuart Mill.
> > > > What I've watched sprayed across the media has been ceaseless, inanely
> > > > desperate, desperately inane god-invoking, my true God can beat up your
> > > > false God, all the old medieval bullshit. So sad.
> > >
> > >Indeed. Much is of course simply due to the emotional distress, which
> > >causes a high level of arousal and hence inhibits creative thinking in
> > >favor of well-rehearsed quick actions - i.e. blasting somebody rather
> > >than taking the time to do a serious, scrupulously fair trial.
> > >
> > >Personally I see my role right now as scurrying around trying to protect
> > >the open society from its members: they can do far more damage than the
> > >terrorists ever did in the current culture of hate/fear. Right now a lot
> > >of very dangerous decisions that will have long term effects will be
> > >made, for example in encryption law.
> > >
> > >More people really should read Popper and Machiavelli. And we really
> > >need to debug the fight or flight response.
> >
> > Ain't that the truth!
>
> No, it's not. You need to really understand that a switch has been
> flipped here, but its not permanent. Our country, at least, is
> structured to function this way in event of war, and it is structured to
> be flipped back once war has been won. When attacked, our congress is
> supposed to empower the president to act as a temporary limited dictator
> for the duration of conflict, whose authority devolves back to congress
> and the people at the conclusion of that conflict.
>
And don't think it is at all as binary as that. The president
can't simply do anything and everything he likes even in a time
of war. Otherwise, the first good war that came along, some
power-grabbing president would dissolve Congress, rip up the
Constitution, implement full martial law and we would never be a
free people again.
> It is true that this has been strained by WWII and the 50 years of Cold
> War following it (and the past decade of terrorism following the Cold
> War), but it can be said that this is the result when a nation refuses
> to proceed to a fully conclusive victory. This is generally because we
> dislike conflict, we dislike dictating to others, and our Presidents,
> contrary to opposition propaganda, generally dislike weilding such
> excessive executive power as much as Cincinnatus did 2300+ years ago.
>
Cincinnatus was not a US president of course and no US president
is ever given that much power for any reason.
> We have repeatedly, throughout the 20th century, refused to take
> complete victory in War in so many ways. We've permitted tyrants,
> totalitarian regiemes, and piratical organizations to continue to exist,
> refusing to call up the intestinal fortitude to see things to their
> proper conclusion, to demand the establishment of proper peaceful
> societies in so many places. I shall note that nations like Germany and
> Japan, who we committed to defeat utterly, are now among the most
> peaceful and democratic nations on earth. This is the goal we should
> pursue in every conflict.
>
> It is our refusal to commit totally to make the world truly 'safe for
> democracy' that has resulted in the present state of things.
>
So what are you saying? That we should go to war with each and
every nation on the face of the earth that is not a democracy,
beat the shit out of it until it surrenders and then spend a lot
of wealth and energy rebuilding it as a democracy? Do you
actually thing that is our duty or something? Or simply
something we have every right to do or what?
> After defeat of Germany and Japan, we refused Patton's recommendation to
> go on against Stalin, and later we held back against MacArthur's wish to
> strike Communist China in the Korean War. In the Gulf War, we held back
> against continuing on to Bagdad to depose Hussein's government and clean
> Iraq out of all WOMD technologies. Just last year, Clinton held back
> against nailing bin Laden when provided with concrete information as to
> the whereabouts of him and his associates.
>
> We must demand that nations end their support of such covert activities,
> disregarding the laws of war that prohibit actions against civilians,
> that combatants must wear distinguishing uniforms and belong to
> recognisable command structures. Societies which refuse to act according
> to the laws of war must be pounded until they cry uncle and acquiesce to
> our just demands, must accept restructuring of their societies into open
> democratic nations, where educational systems cannot program their
> students with hate, with glory for martyrdom. Everyone must be taught
> true history, not propaganda.
>
But we ourselves have at times acted contrary to these "rules".
Our own militia during the Revolutionary war did not always
exactly run big on distinquishing uniforms and recognisable
command structures.
Who says it is our right to beat up every state and people that
do not act in this manner toward one another? Much less our
duty?
The first law of war is to avoid it if possible.
Failing that, the second law of war is to win it.
> Just as the Holocaust cannot be denied, the criminal acts of terrorists
> can no longer be glorified, rationalized, excused, worshipped,
> respected, or condoned. Societies which refuse to do so must be shut off
> from the world, and if need be, pounded to dust.
Blockage and sanctions work to some degree. Pounding to dust is
at best a figure of speech. Full pounding to dust is pointless
and wasteful of much life and resources. It is inhumane even
beyond the inhumanity of war itself. Pound enough to cause a
surrender or a takeover where necessary but not to dust.
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:40:46 MDT