RE: Injustice

From: phil osborn (
Date: Fri Apr 07 2000 - 23:26:47 MDT

>From: Alejandro Dubrovsky <>>Subject: RE:
>Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2000 12:10:04 +1000> >
> > The debate over Elian is disgusting. While I typed this
> > message, around
> > forty children died, thirty of them from starvation. Militarily, at
> > least, we have more than enough strength to go into those
> > countries and
> > knock over the tinpot dictators. We don't. Why? Because it would
> > upset the international teapot, give the US a big honkin'
> > black mark in
> > the UN's book, make *big* dictatorships like China extremely nervous,
> > and up the probability of nuclear war by a few points.
> >
>Considering that the US setup and feeds half of those tinpot dictatorships,
>it would also be rather self-defeating. The US has proven many times that
>it doesn't care what the UN thinks of its actions (i'm not saying this is a
>bad thing).
>The thing that bothers me is that while you are in
>Singularity-creation-mode, your moral objectivism is subdued by the fact
>that you admit that you have no smidgin of an idea of what this objective
>moral code would be, but when you switch to analysis of everyday affairs,
>you forget about your ignorant condition and transform yourself into the
>classical american asshole who thinks he knows what's best for the world
>how the US should go about making it so. but of course, you weren't
>advocating a decision one way or the other.
>Alejandro Dubrovsky
>(Child of a tinpot dictatorship country partly setup, partly fed, and
>fucked by the US. Of course, the natives did the rest)

Not to defend the U.S. - being an anarchist, that would be quite a trick(!)
- but in comparison to China??? Consider the recent deliberately-leaked
scenario that one Chinese newspaper was reported to have published.
Allegedly, top military planners in China had worked out a strategy of using
neutron bombs to annihilate the population of Taiwan, then move in and take
over the hardware, etc.

They included their analysis of the U.S. response, which was that the U.S.
would never risk 100M dead in a nuclear exchange with China, so it could
safely be written off. The implication, of course, is that they are
perfectly willing to gamble with 1.5 billion Chinese dead, and the utter
destruction for all time of 3,000 years of cultural heritage. Something of
a moral distinction, that. I don't think that even Hitler was quite as
psychopathic as the Chinese leadership.

Get Your Private, Free Email at

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:09:08 MDT