From: Michael M. Butler (mmb@spies.com)
Date: Sat Mar 15 2003 - 15:46:13 MST
On Sat, 15 Mar 2003 12:48:38 -0800, Samantha Atkins
<samantha@objectent.com> wrote:
>
> It has always been truth that big smoking holes could be created without
> leaving a contrail back to the guilty party.
False in fact, except for a very local meaning of "always". By my
reckoning, big smoking holes only became possible around the time of Alfred
Nobel. 120 years does not equal "always". I'd say the threshold for
"borrowed time" was somewhere in the 1960s-1970s, considering the curve of
weapons-grade nuclear materials unaccounted for.
> terrorism. But it is pointing out that the way to reasonably peaceful
> and free future is not through eliminating all possible threats
> regardless of how we ourselves act.
I agree, but.
Exaggeration. "Eliminating all possible threats" is the kind of handwaving
I use myself when I'm in florid upset over some matter--absolutism for
rhetorical effect, equivocation. I agree absolutely with what you say, in
the abstract. I do not think, however, that "regardless of how we ourselves
act" is a fair assessment of the situation. There are a lot of things that
suck about past actions, and there are some things that suck about present
actions. Glittering generalizations shed heat, but not light.
> So, we can march into and take over any country we consider to be run by
> creeps and other wise leaders and peoples should do the same heh?
The absolute categorical-imperative relativism of your rhetoric makes
actual communication about this very difficult for me. I am not sure there
is a good choice; you are sure that the US is just as bad as everybody
else, if not worse. I don't know.
> Wonderful. The utter rule of might and the prejudicies and fears of the
> governments.
No, the utter rule of "play nice or get spanked". I don't like it, but it's
not hegemony of the level exerted by Stalin or even any of the Caesars.
> Doesn't these seem like a buge step toward oblivion to you?
I am, as I have said repeatedly, not sure. I think the risk of oblivion is
high either way.
> When it comes to creeps we have empowered and supported some of the worst
> on earth, including Saddam.
We have supported some baddies, and that is not good; and I am not sure
they were "some of the worst on earth". I think this is more exaggeration,
but I can't prove you wrong. Was Diem really exactly as bad as Ho Chi Minh?
Maybe. I don't think the guy we propped up in Cambodia was anywhere near as
bad as Pol Pot. I understand the sentiment here, and I share it to a
greater degree than you probably believe I do.
> So sovereignity is absolute for those with the most guns and lite for
> everyone else heh?
No, the notion is that if you, as a strongman leader of some non-
established player on the world stage, haven't built a web of trust, and
you present a high profile risk, you take a serious risk of being
neutralized.
> Or in terms of rights and equality, "some are more equal than others".
Strawman. You're hashing individual rights with the metaphor of
leaders==countries==individual citizens of countries. The notion that all
national governments are of equal standing is a fictive construct only 56
years old in the context of the UN. As you probably know, it has its oldest
embodiment in a document created by a Pope to formally end a century of
religious wars in Europe. It has great value (convenience) as long as
everyone plays nice. But WWI was supposed to be the war to end all wars,
and it wasn't. The UN was a lash-up raft floated at the end of a grinding
war. We've been lucky it lasted this long. I hope that a rapprochement
remains possible. Rejecting options other than the raft is ignoring the
ocean because of the sharks.
> This is a formula for global insecurity and war. All of our >human goals
> are likely to be toast for at least a generation if we go down this road.
> Consider very deeply the consequences of what you propose.
I do not propose it. I relate it and explore my thinking about it. I don't
see a formula for global security and peace popping its head up and asking
to be introduced. I don't like either of the realistic outcomes I see as
the high likelihood ones. I wish I could wave a wand or distribute some
sort of Matrix pill to everyone in the world, including me. But I don't see
that happening. All of our human goals mght be toast if people freak out
after the first big smoking hole, too.
I hope that we'll do a better job of rewarding the play-nicers, too. That
would involve somehow taming the rapacious go-go nature of successful
corporate culture. Maybe we *do* need a time-out. I know that's heresy for
the Extro list, but look at how we're handling what we have. I'm in a
pretty pessimistic mood today.
> Whether there is a paradigm shift is up to us in a country supposedly
> representing the will of its people. We cannot simply sit back and allow
> a dangerous shift. Not if we care about our lives and future.
Agreed.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Mar 15 2003 - 15:53:05 MST