From: Jonathan Davis (jonathan.davis@lineone.net)
Date: Tue Sep 16 2003 - 04:09:31 MDT
Dear Brother B,
Here is my reply.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-virus@lucifer.com [mailto:owner-virus@lucifer.com] On Behalf Of
Blunderov
Sent: 15 September 2003 19:06
To: virus@lucifer.com
Subject: RE: virus: The Ideohazard 1.1
[Blunderlov 2] Is it really necessary to remind you of recent events? The
war against Iraq was undertaken in spite of the fact that it was/is against
international law as embodied in the UN Charter to which the USA is a
signatory. The USA, at the time, went so far as to say that the UN was
irrelevant.
[Jonathan 2] The war was not and in a way the UN is.
[Blunderlov 2] The fact that no WOMD have been, or ever will be, found, has
done nothing to ameliorate this massively contemptuous behavior and has in
fact served only to emphasise it's arrogance.
[Jonathan 2] The fact that no WMD have yet been found is neither here nor
there. There was sufficient good reason to suspect their existence (and in
my opinion the war was justified for overthrowing Saddam alone). Saddam
certainly had them and used them, that he destroyed them prior to the
invasion (or more likely smuggled them to Jordan) does not have any bearing
on the fact that the reasons for war were (need I insert this, in my opinion
and the US President's) sound.
[Blunderlov 2] The fact that the USA has seen fit to create and implement a
doctrine of pre-emptive self defence, which is not only against reason (the
tu quoque fallacy) but also a complete repudiation of the most fundamental
tenets international law, is, I would say, contemptuous of the community of
nations.
[Jonathan 2] Of course USA reserves the right to act pre-emptively in
self-defence. All self-defence necessarily contains pre-emption. Does one
defend oneself before or after the robber has shot one? pre-emptive actions
are designed (or have the power) to deter or prevent an anticipated
situation or occurrence. In the age of international terrorism this is
simple self-preservation. Over time this will become a staple of
international law and in 50 years our grandchildren will depose governments
who violate international law and the law of self-preservation by not
defending their citizens by acting against clear threats that mature into
harm.
[Blunderlov 2] The (continuing) incarceration of prisoners at Guantanemo Bay
is a violation of so many articles of the Geneva Convention, to which the
USA is signatory, that it is difficult to count them all.
[Jonathan 2] Guantanemo works beautifully. The legalities of it are still
being worked out, but in the meantime it is a valuable tool in the
psychological war against Islamic terror.
[Blunderlov 2] This goes beyond contemptuous and is simply evil.
[Jonathan 2] My chief problem with Hermit - who like you I consider a fellow
and friend - and now you, is that you limn the United States with terms like
"Evil" or "Uncivilized" or "Contemptuous". I reject this characterization
Compared against a proper benchmark (not an ideal) the USA is greatest,
fairest, most free, and just countries on earth. Its people are enormously
generous, it has protected Europe for a generation and utterly defeated two
of the most murderous ideologies in all humanity (Communism and Nazism). All
great nations do some harm, but it most be seen in the context of history
and circumstances.
[Blunderlov 2] I hope I live to see the day when Rumsfeld et al pay the
penalty applicable to these despicable war crimes. (Under the circumstances,
it is hardly surprising that the USA prefers not to support the
establishment of a permanent International War Crimes Court. There is, as
they say, nothing like the threat of execution to enhance the
concentration.) Then of course, there is depleted uranium munitions etc,
etc.
[Jonathan 2] "Despicable war crimes" LOL! Easy on the purple prose. What
superlative do you use to describe those other war crimes, you know, the
real ones where SS machine gun villagers into pits and stuff?
[Blunderlov 2] That it signs free trade agreements and then doesn't hesitate
to repudiate them when expediency serves also seems to me to be massively
contemptuous. This is nothing short of saying 'Our interests are far more
important than your piffling little concerns".
[Jonathan 2] Dead right! Are you seriously asking that the USA, in a
hostile world jockeying to hurt it, grab advantage and support
self-interest, must act against its self-interest? Agreements can be called
off at any time. By doing so I simply say "I no longer agree about this
issue, the agreement does not suite me so it is void". There is nothing
contemptuous about this, it is as simple expression of fact or opinion
weighted with action. When compatibility of observations is no longer a
reality, or the conditions of a promise no longer supported, one is entitled
to call it off.
[Blunderlov 2] I seem to recall some business just recently where the US
Steel industry was afforded a subsidy by the US government in direct
contravention of an agreement with the EEU. I also recall some business
where Mexican milk was consistently turned back at the border because it
failed to come up to scratch in terms of quality. Oddly, the same fate
befell American milk when it was exported to Mexico and then re-imported to
America.
[Jonathan 2] Yes, people experience this problem with the Chinese, Japanese
and EU too. Even within trading block, there is cheating and stretching the
rules to accommodate unfair advantage (see EU rows over fishing, farm
subsidies and chocolates). I say let it play out, balance comes eventually.
[Blunderlov 2] I dispute your statement "If an agreement disadvantages you,
you are entitled to void the agreement..." This is quite simply dishonest
and is no different from stealing.
[Jonathan 2] Dispute it if you like, but it is axiomatically true. I can
honestly and openly announce that circumstances in which I made an agreement
have changed so I no longer wish to participate in the agreement.
[Blunderlov 2] You might as well say if somebody has something that you
want, you are entitled to take it if it is to your disadvantage not to have
it.
[Jonathan 2] I am surprised to see you Brother B furiously attacking a straw
man. Please explain how you arrived at "you are entitled to take it if it is
to your disadvantage not to have it" from "If an agreement disadvantages
you, you are entitled to void the agreement". The right to void underlies
every contact and agreement.
[Blunderlov 2] Is this the same Jonathan Davis that was plainting about the
Chinese proclivity for stealing technology and disregarding intellectual
property rights?
[Jonathan 2] I am Jonathan Davis and I have recently broached the Chinese
proclivity for stealing technology and intellectual property.
[Blunderlov 2] It is my view that commitment is the heart of any
relationship. To dismiss a commitment is to dismiss the relationship as
unimportant. This is contemptuous.
[Jonathan 2] What commitment? Voiding an agreement is not dismissing a
commitment to say fair dealing or respect. It simply means that a party
chooses to no longer participate in an agreement. Thus I or a nation might
say that it no longer agrees with a decision or arrangement. Its reasons may
be sound or faulty, but it is fully entitled to do so and it does not
necessarily imply contempt. There are many vestigial agreements, treaties,
pacts and truces that range from useless to downright damaging for all
participating parties. If America chose to withdraw from NATO tomorrow
would you be outraged by the contempt of it? If it chose to stop making aid
payments to Israel, would you rage at the unilateralist bastards? If the USA
chose to void all agreements developing world countries had with it in term
of paying back their debts, would you declare such breach of agreement utter
contemptuous, nay EVIL Yankee lone wolfer.
Well?
[Blunderlov 2] I do not dispute the right to renegotiate if the other party
is willing to do so, but if the other party is not willing to do so then, I
am sorry to say, it is just tough titty.
[Jonathan 2] This is incorrect. In a binding agreement you may have duties,
but not in elective treaty participation. That is why countries can and do
withdraw. They simply say, "We do not to agree with you on this", hence no
agreement. Similarly, "We no longer agree with you, whereas one we did, so
we withdraw".
[Blunderlov 2] I think I have provided enough examples, just from my own
immediate knowledge, to demonstrate that my assertion is reasonably true -
the USA holds the community of nations in manifest contempt. I have no doubt
that if I was to engage in a little research I could provide a myriad more.
[Jonathan 2] I am sorry to report that I disagree with your conclusions. I
think the opposite is true, that the United States - given its overwhelming
superiority - is a marvel of consideration, and diplomatic restraint. Here
is nation that could, if it chose, really brush aside anyone. It chooses to
remain within the system, largely agreeing to restraints it could easily
break and destroy, rules that do not serve it well and obeying the authority
of hostile an corrupt institutions for the sake of international order. Its
transgressions are minor, it acts no more selfishly than any other nation
and considering its we facto power we ought to be careful it grateful it
chooses to comply at all.
[Blunderlov 2] As far as I can tell, the US chooses 'diplomacy and
consensus' as a preliminary and then only when these routes offer some
reasonable prospect of success. If and when this is not the case she just
does whatever she wants anyway. I would be most interested in any recent
examples you could provide where this was not the case. I cannot, at the
moment, think of any myself.
[Jonathan 2] Kosovo and Liberia.
[Blunderlov 2] It is my view that the second biggest curse of mankind is
nationalism. The first is, of course, the theistic religions. (Buddhists
will be spared the ire of Blunderov you will all doubtless be relieved to
know) Often they are the same thing. But not always. Possibilities for
future discussion?
[Jonathan 2] Brother Blunderlov this was an excellent post of yours. Thanks.
I am particularly gratified to see us come back to what we agree on
forcefully. Can I recommend you look into a book called "The New Barbarians"
by Ian Angel
(http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0749435054/202-6883905-2633466).
He argues persuasively that people like us (the CoV) are the new barbarians
primed to benefit and feed on the benighted who will cling to ethnicity,
nationalism, religion and socialism.
Finally, did you know the Buddhists were a violent oppressor religion who
displaced and nearly wiped out their nearest competitor faith - the Bon of
Tibet? File them with the rest. That said, I have recently taken up yoga and
despite myself I am thoroughly loving it.
Kind regards
Jonathan
--- To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Sep 16 2003 - 04:12:25 MDT