From: MaxPlumm@aol.com
Date: Tue Mar 11 2003 - 18:53:14 MST
Ron responded to Artillo:
Arti,
None of that matters. What counts is that the US is the one that has
been shot at, hit, lost citizenry/visitors, and is being aimed at again.
That you wish to knock off the US, aren't concerned with American loss of
life and don't like us anyway means nothing.
Have a good day,
Ron h.
>>
To which Artillo responded:
"Ron,
Up until now I have refrained from responding on any of your commentary thus
far, but I think this one takes the cake and is deserving of a reply.Your
obvious lack of reading comprehension skills and penchant for putting words
in people's mouths makes you sound like more of a buffoon than ever before."
"Point #1: I think that the opinion of the world's human beings matters very
much. Unfortunately, there will never be a completely honest representation
of people's opinions in any poll for obvious reasons."
Yes, because the majority of the people on Earth continue to be ruled by
heartless and self-interested tyrants, unlike those people living in the
United States.
"Point #2: Nowhere in my post did I EVER state that I "wish[ed] to knock off
the US" as you seem to think I did. I think I stated my intentions rather
plainly in the original post. Read more carefully next time."
Please correct me if I'm wrong, Artillo, but in your original post (which I
have included at the bottom) you want a poll taken in the "world community"
to determine if everyone feels it is appropriate to stand firm against the
UNITED STATES. Now, whether or not you are suggesting a loss of life of
American citizens, you are obviously advocating a diminished influence, or
outright humbling of, the United States. A diminished US would simply lead to
another nation filling the vacuum of power and influence.
Now, "Old Europe" (to use Donald Rumsfeld's phrase) is not even willing to
honor its own resolutions in the United Nations regarding disarming Saddam
Hussein. The only reason Mr. Hussein is cooperating AT ALL with the weapons
inspectors is because there are 250,000 American troops in his backyard. And
the cooperation he has shown has been at best half-hearted, and certainly
nowhere near serious enough for anyone to believe, including Hans Blix, that
Mr. Hussein has any intention of fully disarming at any point in the near
future. I have not heard Misters Chirac and Schroeder offer the use of
250,000 French and German troops in place of US forces to insure that Hussein
disarms. So, one can only draw the conclusion that these nations are simply
interested in increasing their own influence at the expense of the US, rather
than putting any legitimacy into UN resolutions. That does not even address
the merits of the UN as currently organized, where a nation such as Libya
chairs the human rights committee and the French have a say nowhere near
their actual geopolitical power and influence. The Chinese, at least
publicly, are doing nowhere near enough in regard to Kim Jong Il's activities
in North Korea. So, I would be curious to know which country in your view has
handled the mantle of world leadership more responsibly than the US. More to
the point, which nation(s) would be able to wield this power more
"responsibly" and not in their own self-interest that would be more
beneficial to the world than the United States?
"Point #3: I am not only concerned with the loss of American lives, but the
lives of EVERY SINGLE HUMAN BEING ON THE PLANET. If war can be averted at any
cost then THAT is the road we need to take for HUMANITY'S sake. We need to
stop slaughtering eachother over bullshit ideological, religious, or
otherwise dogmatic reasons."
Your implication here appears to be that war is always bad, regardless of
circumstances, and that is obviously historically false. I, for one, am
concerned with the well being of my fellow American citizens, but I am
equally concerned with the well-being of those people currently living under
the boot heel of Saddam Hussein's Iraq. There is no question that the people
of Iraq, just as in the case of Afghanistan, would see their quality of life
bettered if Hussein's regime is removed. Conservative estimates put the
number of those who have died due to Hussein's regime at 200,000 since 1979.
War to remove Saddam Hussein is the best thing that could happen to those
embattled people in the long term. The United States acting in its own
defensive interests, with the people of Iraq benefiting from this action
through the removal of a tyrannical regime, are hardly "bullshit ideological
reasons".
"Point #4: I think you have the misconception that I am not an American
Citizen. The only kinds of people I dislike are ignorant, close-minded, and
blindly patriotic, but... this is America and everyone is entitled to their
opinion as long as it's not forced down our throats. Would I be better off as
a citizen of another country? I surely don't know."
Let me make clear that I do not believe that anyone on either side of the war
debate has a monopoly on patriotism, nor do I believe one side has a monopoly
on "forcing opinions down our throats." In terms of your question regarding
whether or not you would be better off as a citizen of another country, there
is not one pat answer. If you are fortunate enough to be in one of the
European democracies, then the question is up for debate. But if you were a
citizen of Iraq and not in the ruling elite, then the answer is obviously no.
"Ron, why exactly are you still on this list? It seems to me that much of the
rhetoric I have seen you spouting off recently seems to have very little with
core Extropian values and a lot to do with you being pissed off at the way
the world is today. YES I agree with you, the world is a pretty messed up
place, YES there are lots and lots of bad people out there, and YES there are
many forms of injustice out there, however, I do NOT agree with ANY
government who decides to KILL to support their own brand of dogma, INCLUDING
the United States."
Again, I hope you're not suggesting that one side of this argument alone has
resorted to any sort of rhetoric during this debate. Too many times those
opposed to the war have used unfortunate phrases such as "war horny" to
dismiss people's deeply held and thought out convictions regarding support
for war with Hussein. In regard to your second point, regarding "brands of
dogma" are you suggesting that the political systems employed by the United
States and Iraq are somehow of equal value?
"I also am very disconcerted about the direction the
current US administration and it's agents are taking this country are taking
in regards to our civil liberties. I don't think I have to lecture you on the
importance of rational arguments on these issues and the rights of the people
to petition the government for a redress of grievances if they have a problem
with the way things are going. I hope that those of us who truly care about
these and other rights make their voices heard loud and clear before those
same rights are taken away from us by policies that are bordering on
Fascism."
The people of the United States do have a redress for their grievances, and
Bush will stand before the people in 2004. This is certanly NOT the case in
Saddam Hussein's Iraq. You on one hand criticize the current US
administration using unhelpful rhetoric like "policies that are bordering on
fascism", while on the other advocate a policy that would leave in power a
dictator that has murdered at least 200,000 of his own people.
"If you don't like it when someone like me wants to try to get a balanced
view
of the issues by attmpting to obtain information from sources outside of
their general sphere of resources, then I suggest you stop reading any more
emails and simply rely on CBS news or wherever you go to shop for your daily
dose of yellow journalism. Of course, you are more than welcome to
participate in a Flame War with me, but it will be a rather futile exercise
(you can't have a war with only one side fighting!), so I would encourage you
to maintain your dignity and stop before you start."
Again, someone could simply suggest that you stop reading the editorials in
Playboy magazine, "or wherever you go to stop for your daily dose of yellow
journalism". I know Ron's convictions are deeply held and thought out, and I
believe the same is true with you. You have made strong statements regarding
the US and your opinions of their current policy, and I believe that those
points can be respectfully discussed and debated without either side
resorting to cheap shots. Your initial post said:
"What *I* want to see is an international poll to see what percentage of
people in the world think that if the international community fails to act
firmly now against the UNITED STATES, then the world will become a more
dangerous place in years to come?"
So again, regardless of whether or not as Ron suggests you are advocating
loss of life for American citizens, you ARE suggesting that the United States
is somehow the most dangerous force in the world. I find this contention hard
to swallow, given that NO COUNTRY has done more to spread the causes of
democracy and prosperity in the world than the United States.
"But then again, what does public opinion REALLY have to do with what's going
on in the world today.... seems to me like the ones in power don't care to
listen to reason, care for peace, or care to stop or lessen the REAL
suffering in the world. $#^@% all this stuff about 'perceived threats',
sheesh!"
In regard to this statement, it seems obvious (and again, correct me if I'm
wrong) that you are referring specifically to the current Bush
administration. Now, every charge you make is certainly more applicable to
Saddam Hussein's regime than that of the democratic United States. Yet, you
seem fully comfortable in allowing Mr. Hussein to retain power. So, you will
have to forgive myself, Ron, and others if we feel the need to question your
arguments.
Regards,
Max Plumm
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Mar 11 2003 - 19:03:49 MST