From: Jonathan Davis (jonathan.davis@lineone.net)
Date: Thu Sep 18 2003 - 06:49:47 MDT
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-virus@lucifer.com [mailto:owner-virus@lucifer.com] On Behalf Of
Blunderov
Sent: 18 September 2003 12:29
To: virus@lucifer.com
Subject: RE: virus: The Ideohazard 1.1
> [Jonathan 2] The war was not and in a way the UN is.
[Blunderov3] So you concur that the US has ('in a way') a 'lack of respect
or reverence for' the UN? This definition, as I am sure you have guessed, is
a very serviceable one for the word 'contempt' if Merriam-Webster is to be
believed. I feel, under the circumstances, quite justified in characterizing
the US, as 'manifestly contemptuous'. Apparently you do too, 'in a way'.
[Jonathan 3] No, I was saying the war was not and the UN is "in a way"
useless.
SNIP UN CHARTER
[Blunderlov 3] It is clear (to me at any rate) that the US trampled rough
shod over these ideals.
[Jonathan 3] I disagree completely. It has merely protected itself from
those who have are not even party to this agreement and never could be. A
rational corporate actor (USA) versus a non-state player with no regard for
any convention, accord treaty or agreement. Necessarily it may need to step
outside the confines of ideal and into the muck of pragmatic defence.
[Blundelov 3] The US made it plain that it considered its own interests to
take precedence to the common interest. 'You are with us or against us' is
the vapid jingle that bleated from the White House.
[Jonathan 3] Where did it make it so plain? It simply said you either have
common interest with us or you do not (ie.. leave us alone in peace). If you
don't then we are at war. Simple, honest and right.
[Blunderlov 3] Quite apart from the extremely dubious logic of the slogan,
it seems to me to run directly counter to the grain of the UN Charter which
is, as far as I can tell, that of consultation, consensus and compromise.
There was NO Security Council resolution empowering the US (or anyone else)
to attack Iraq. Therefore any such attack was and is, by definition, illegal
according to international law.
[Jonathan 4] Incorrect. Which law says the USA could NOT attack Iraq?
[Blundelov 3] The fact that the US actively sought, and obtained such a
resolution in 1991 and did not seek, or obtain, such a resolution in 2003
speaks not only for itself, but also for the justification of assertion.
Clearly the US is a rather fair-weather friend to the community of nations
that the UN represents.
[Jonathan 3] The community of nations gets what it deserves from the USA. US
allies proper, its enemies suffer. Sound operant conditioning and absolutely
fair.
> [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.
[[Blunderov 3] I dispute that there was good, or even any, reason to suspect
their existence. (Had there been I have little doubt that the Security
Council, including even the French, would have been able to recognize
it.)There was, in fact, overwhelming evidence to the contrary, Powell's
Krushevian theatrics in the Security Council notwithstanding.
[Jonathan 3] The evidence was sufficient for me. The very fact he had them
and refused to account for them made him guilty in my view. The onus was on
Saddam to prove his innocence because of his established guilt. As fore the
French, their opinion counts for ought in my vie. They are the worst
self-selling thugs in Europe. Need I remind you of the Rainbow Warrior and
the Nuclear Tests?
[Blunderlov 3] On the other hand there is clear evidence, which is now a
matter of public record, that both Bush and Blair, as and when expediency
served, either fabricated or distorted intelligence to support this lie,
and/or ignored any intelligence that tended to militate against their
predetermined agenda of attacking Iraq.
[Jonathan 3] There is no such "clear evidence"!
[At this point I realized I still had well over 3,000 words to pour through
and I realized I simply did not have the time to answer properly. Even what
is written above is rushed. This debate, whilst interesting, is not
subservient to your interests or mine. We will either have to finish this
some other time or simply agree to disagree.]
Massive snip...
[Blunderlov 3]
...it is understandable that the US, so to speak, lost its temper after
9/11. But as Virians do we not prefer reason to rage? And, because rage
begets violence, should we not argue for a return to reason as soon as may
be? And is dressing rage in the robes of reason helpful to this end?
Respectfully, Brother Jonathan, I suggest that it is not.
[Jonathan 3] The USA did not lose into temper after 9/11. Quite the
opposite, it has been a model of restraint and tempered focus. If he USA
were to exhibit the characteristics of other great nations of the past,
billions would be dead now. Whole cabinets of the Smithsonian would be
filled with kerosene filled jars containing heads of Arab leaders. Instead
we have two liberated nations and a disrupted Islamic terror system fighting
a rearguard retreat.
Half of me wished the USA did behave like a vengeful Kitchener and mete out
utter brutality after 911. Its measured responses have earned it no thanks.
History will show just how calm and restrained the Americans have been so
far, but perhaps only if they are forced to get really nasty in future.
I am with them.
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 : Thu Sep 18 2003 - 06:54:19 MDT