Author
|
Topic: Unilateralism (was: RE: virus: The Ideohazard 1.1) (Read 837 times) |
|
MoEnzyme
Anarch
Gender: 
Posts: 2256
Reputation: 3.73
Rate MoEnzyme
infidel lab animal
 
|
 |
Unilateralism (was: RE: virus: The Ideohazard 1.1)
« on: 2003-09-24 15:29:33 » |
 |
Okay, I am still in the process of digesting the E-Zine, so I haven't read
Hermit's piece yet, (but I will soon), but I can't let Jonathan's assertion
below just slide by. I would agree that the USA has had a tradition of
choosing diplomacy and consensus, but the current administration has shown
a very clear preference for unilateral action over diplomacy and consensus.
Indeed often not just a preference, but the sole "strategy". Indeed other
modes of conducting foreign policy seem almost missing from this
administrations repertoire. (Colin Powell not withstanding since they seem
to more or less ignore him making his diplomacy ineffective before he
starts). I can't imagine what (other than perhaps an ideological/memetic
infection) would lead Jonathan to not notice these rather obvious public
facts.
-Jake
> [Original Message]
> From: Jonathan Davis <jonathan.davis@lineone.net>
> To: <virus@lucifer.com>
> Date: 09/15/2003 2:02:23 AM
> Subject: RE: virus: The Ideohazard 1.1
>
> You say the USA holds the community of nations in manifest contempt, yet
I
> see no such contempt. I see the USA, despite its overwhelming power,
> choosing diplomacy and consensus. The USA has withdrawn from some
treaties,
> but it was perfectly fair for them to do so. If an agreement disadvantages
> you, you are entitled to void the agreement and renegotiate.
>
> Regards
>
> Jonathan
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-virus@lucifer.com [mailto:owner-virus@lucifer.com] On Behalf
Of
> Blunderov
> Sent: 15 September 2003 08:45
> To: virus@lucifer.com
> Subject: RE: virus: The Ideohazard 1.1
>
>
>
> Jonathan Davis
> > Sent: 14 September 2003 1840
> > To: virus@lucifer.com
> > Subject: RE: virus: The Ideohazard 1.1
> >
> > I was spooked by Hermit's Chinese-commit-genocide piece but for me it
> was
> > ruined by its overt anti-Americanism (if that term can be applied to
> what
> > appears *in my opinion* to be Hermit's pathological hatred of
> America).
>
>
> [Bl.] Whether Hermit has a hatred of America, and whether, if so, this
> hatred is pathological or not, I cannot say. What I can say is that it is
> equally possible, based on the evidence before us, that he is a fervent
> patriot. It depends on your point of view.
>
> When the British invaded China in the 18th Century they found maps in
which
> China occupied the almost whole of the document; peeping in at the corners
> of these maps were tiny representations of what were characterized as
> 'Barbarian' nations - Britain, France and the USA. It was clear that the
> Chinese world view allocated no importance to anything other than China.
>
> Ironically, if one reads the Hermits list of broken American promises and
> treaties, it is difficult to conclude that the American world-view is any
> less solipsistic than the Chinese maps of yore.
>
> It is almost risible that such a self-avowedly 'democratic' nation should
> hold the community of nations in such manifest contempt. Almost.
>
>
> Best Regards
> Blunderov
>
>
>
>
> ---
> To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to
> <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
>
> ---
> To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to
<http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
--- Jake Sapiens
--- every1hz@earthlink.net
--- EarthLink: The #1 provider of the Real Internet.
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
I will fight your gods for food,
Mo Enzyme
(consolidation of handles: Jake Sapiens; memelab; logicnazi; Loki; Every1Hz; and Shadow)
|
|
|
JD
Adept
Gender:
Posts: 542
Reputation: 7.01
Rate JD
|
|
RE: Unilateralism (was: RE: virus: The Ideohazard 1.1)
« Reply #1 on: 2003-09-25 05:14:04 » |
|
Hi Jake,
You say "I would agree that the USA has had a tradition of choosing
diplomacy and consensus, but the current administration has shown a very
clear preference for unilateral action over diplomacy and consensus. Indeed
often not just a preference, but the sole "strategy""
This is simply false. This administration has always acted with a coalition
of partners and allies including the United Kingdom. Can you cite an
examples of this administration acting unilaterally? Also, can you explain
why this Cold War concept of bi- and unilateralism is being used where it is
nearly meaningless in this context?
You see unilateralism, I see a coalition of 49 countries. Perhaps it is you
who needs to have his ideo-memetic health checked as "rather obvious public
facts" appear to directly contradict your counterclaims.
Kind regards
Jonathan
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-virus@lucifer.com [mailto:owner-virus@lucifer.com] On Behalf Of
Jake Sapiens
Sent: 24 September 2003 20:30
To: virus
Subject: Unilateralism (was: RE: virus: The Ideohazard 1.1)
Okay, I am still in the process of digesting the E-Zine, so I haven't read
Hermit's piece yet, (but I will soon), but I can't let Jonathan's assertion
below just slide by. I would agree that the USA has had a tradition of
choosing diplomacy and consensus, but the current administration has shown a
very clear preference for unilateral action over diplomacy and consensus.
. Indeed other modes of conducting foreign policy seem almost missing from
this administrations repertoire. (Colin Powell not withstanding since they
seem to more or less ignore him making his diplomacy ineffective before he
starts). I can't imagine what (other than perhaps an ideological/memetic
infection) would lead Jonathan to not notice these rather obvious public
facts.
-Jake
> [Original Message]
> From: Jonathan Davis <jonathan.davis@lineone.net>
> To: <virus@lucifer.com>
> Date: 09/15/2003 2:02:23 AM
> Subject: RE: virus: The Ideohazard 1.1
>
> You say the USA holds the community of nations in manifest contempt,
> yet
I
> see no such contempt. I see the USA, despite its overwhelming power,
> choosing diplomacy and consensus. The USA has withdrawn from some
treaties,
> but it was perfectly fair for them to do so. If an agreement
> disadvantages you, you are entitled to void the agreement and renegotiate.
>
> Regards
>
> Jonathan
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-virus@lucifer.com [mailto:owner-virus@lucifer.com] On
> Behalf
Of
> Blunderov
> Sent: 15 September 2003 08:45
> To: virus@lucifer.com
> Subject: RE: virus: The Ideohazard 1.1
>
>
>
> Jonathan Davis
> > Sent: 14 September 2003 1840
> > To: virus@lucifer.com
> > Subject: RE: virus: The Ideohazard 1.1
> >
> > I was spooked by Hermit's Chinese-commit-genocide piece but for me
> > it
> was
> > ruined by its overt anti-Americanism (if that term can be applied to
> what
> > appears *in my opinion* to be Hermit's pathological hatred of
> America).
>
>
> [Bl.] Whether Hermit has a hatred of America, and whether, if so, this
> hatred is pathological or not, I cannot say. What I can say is that it
> is equally possible, based on the evidence before us, that he is a
> fervent patriot. It depends on your point of view.
>
> When the British invaded China in the 18th Century they found maps in
which
> China occupied the almost whole of the document; peeping in at the
> corners of these maps were tiny representations of what were
> characterized as 'Barbarian' nations - Britain, France and the USA. It
> was clear that the Chinese world view allocated no importance to anything
other than China.
>
> Ironically, if one reads the Hermits list of broken American promises
> and treaties, it is difficult to conclude that the American world-view
> is any less solipsistic than the Chinese maps of yore.
>
> It is almost risible that such a self-avowedly 'democratic' nation
> should hold the community of nations in such manifest contempt. Almost.
>
>
> Best Regards
> Blunderov
>
>
>
>
> ---
> To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to
> <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
>
> ---
> To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to
<http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
--- Jake Sapiens
--- every1hz@earthlink.net
--- EarthLink: The #1 provider of the Real Internet.
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to
<http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
|
|
|
|
MoEnzyme
Anarch
Gender:
Posts: 2256
Reputation: 3.73
Rate MoEnzyme
infidel lab animal
|
|
RE: Unilateralism (was: RE: virus: The Ideohazard 1.1)
« Reply #2 on: 2003-09-25 13:17:11 » |
|
Hello Jonathan,
Gee, don't you remember Bush and Rumsfeld repeatedly threatening to "go it
alone", and threatening the UN with irrelevancy if they didn't rubberstamp
Bush's war? How have you failed to notice these and other "my way or the
highway" bullying postures that this administration used as its so-called
diplomacy? Other than the UK which was on our side from the begriming (and
hence doesn't really count as a diplomatic victory), this administration
completely failed to get any other major military power involved in its
Iraq expedition. The fact that a short list of relatively minor and weak
international powers joined the militarily strongest nation in the world in
order to provide some international window-dressing does not count as any.
These other countries aren't remotely our equals in terms of power, so I
don't think that this qualifies as bi-lateral in any sense of the word. A
unilateralist doesn't negotiate with equals. When the unilateralist says
"my way or the highway", it doesn't suddenly get turned into bilateral
diplomacy just because some weaker parties knuckle under and say "okay I
will take your way." The actual military contribution by these other
countries is negligible compared to US and UK. They are effectively window
dressing. This is a primarily US/UK action. I know you and Donald
Rumsfeld keep claiming it has some significantly international character,
but any reasonable observer can recognize the disingenuous nature of this
propaganda used to gloss over the diplomatic failures of this
administration. Their consistent childish bullying unilateralist attitude
remains obvious to reasonable people not committed to their extreme
religious-wrong/Christian-crusader ideology.
-Jake
> [Original Message]
> From: Jonathan Davis <jonathan.davis@lineone.net>
> To: <virus@lucifer.com>
> Date: 09/25/2003 2:14:04 AM
> Subject: RE: Unilateralism (was: RE: virus: The Ideohazard 1.1)
>
> Hi Jake,
>
> You say "I would agree that the USA has had a tradition of choosing
> diplomacy and consensus, but the current administration has shown a very
> clear preference for unilateral action over diplomacy and consensus.
Indeed
> often not just a preference, but the sole "strategy""
>
> This is simply false. This administration has always acted with a
coalition
> of partners and allies including the United Kingdom. Can you cite an
> examples of this administration acting unilaterally? Also, can you explain
> why this Cold War concept of bi- and unilateralism is being used where it
is
> nearly meaningless in this context?
>
> You see unilateralism, I see a coalition of 49 countries. Perhaps it is
you
> who needs to have his ideo-memetic health checked as "rather obvious
public
> facts" appear to directly contradict your counterclaims.
>
> Kind regards
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-virus@lucifer.com [mailto:owner-virus@lucifer.com] On Behalf
Of
> Jake Sapiens
> Sent: 24 September 2003 20:30
> To: virus
> Subject: Unilateralism (was: RE: virus: The Ideohazard 1.1)
>
> Okay, I am still in the process of digesting the E-Zine, so I haven't read
> Hermit's piece yet, (but I will soon), but I can't let Jonathan's
assertion
> below just slide by. I would agree that the USA has had a tradition of
> choosing diplomacy and consensus, but the current administration has
shown a
> very clear preference for unilateral action over diplomacy and consensus.
> . Indeed other modes of conducting foreign policy seem almost missing
from
> this administrations repertoire. (Colin Powell not withstanding since they
> seem to more or less ignore him making his diplomacy ineffective before he
> starts). I can't imagine what (other than perhaps an ideological/memetic
> infection) would lead Jonathan to not notice these rather obvious public
> facts.
>
> -Jake
>
>
> > [Original Message]
> > From: Jonathan Davis <jonathan.davis@lineone.net>
> > To: <virus@lucifer.com>
> > Date: 09/15/2003 2:02:23 AM
> > Subject: RE: virus: The Ideohazard 1.1
> >
> > You say the USA holds the community of nations in manifest contempt,
> > yet
> I
> > see no such contempt. I see the USA, despite its overwhelming power,
> > choosing diplomacy and consensus. The USA has withdrawn from some
> treaties,
> > but it was perfectly fair for them to do so. If an agreement
> > disadvantages you, you are entitled to void the agreement and
renegotiate.
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Jonathan
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-virus@lucifer.com [mailto:owner-virus@lucifer.com] On
> > Behalf
> Of
> > Blunderov
> > Sent: 15 September 2003 08:45
> > To: virus@lucifer.com
> > Subject: RE: virus: The Ideohazard 1.1
> >
> >
> >
> > Jonathan Davis
> > > Sent: 14 September 2003 1840
> > > To: virus@lucifer.com
> > > Subject: RE: virus: The Ideohazard 1.1
> > >
> > > I was spooked by Hermit's Chinese-commit-genocide piece but for me
> > > it
> > was
> > > ruined by its overt anti-Americanism (if that term can be applied to
> > what
> > > appears *in my opinion* to be Hermit's pathological hatred of
> > America).
> >
> >
> > [Bl.] Whether Hermit has a hatred of America, and whether, if so, this
> > hatred is pathological or not, I cannot say. What I can say is that it
> > is equally possible, based on the evidence before us, that he is a
> > fervent patriot. It depends on your point of view.
> >
> > When the British invaded China in the 18th Century they found maps in
> which
> > China occupied the almost whole of the document; peeping in at the
> > corners of these maps were tiny representations of what were
> > characterized as 'Barbarian' nations - Britain, France and the USA. It
> > was clear that the Chinese world view allocated no importance to
anything
> other than China.
> >
> > Ironically, if one reads the Hermits list of broken American promises
> > and treaties, it is difficult to conclude that the American world-view
> > is any less solipsistic than the Chinese maps of yore.
> >
> > It is almost risible that such a self-avowedly 'democratic' nation
> > should hold the community of nations in such manifest contempt. Almost.
> >
> >
> > Best Regards
> > Blunderov
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ---
> > To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to
> > <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
> >
> > ---
> > To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to
> <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
>
>
> --- Jake Sapiens
> --- every1hz@earthlink.net
> --- EarthLink: The #1 provider of the Real Internet.
>
>
> ---
> To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to
> <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
>
> ---
> To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to
<http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
--- Jake Sapiens
--- every1hz@earthlink.net
--- EarthLink: The #1 provider of the Real Internet.
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
I will fight your gods for food,
Mo Enzyme
(consolidation of handles: Jake Sapiens; memelab; logicnazi; Loki; Every1Hz; and Shadow)
|
|
|
JD
Adept
Gender:
Posts: 542
Reputation: 7.01
Rate JD
|
|
RE: Unilateralism (was: RE: virus: The Ideohazard 1.1)
« Reply #3 on: 2003-09-25 11:37:12 » |
|
Dear Jake,
No I don't remember Bush and Rumsfeld repeatedly threatening to "go it
alone". Pundits speculated the UN would be rendered irrelevant, but the US
government did not say that.
You claimed that "the current administration has shown a very clear
preference for unilateral action over diplomacy and consensus. Indeed
often not just a preference, but the sole "strategy"". I have simply shown
this to be factually incorrect. In both Afghanistan and Iraq the US acted
as part of a coalition. In Afghanistan it had several major military powers.
In Iraq it has the allies like the UK and Turkey, both massively powerful
countries in their own right.
That three of the five members of the permanent security council were not in
favour of the Iraq liberation does not justify your exaggerations. When
aggressor states like China (Tibet), Russia (Chechnya) and France (Nuclear
testing) oppose sensible action for the sake of political gain or simple
obtrusiveness, I applaud when they are ignored.
Bye the way, did you not read Bush's speech in the UN yet? It is well worth
reading:
"As an original signer of the UN Charter, the United States of America is
committed to the United Nations. And we show that commitment by working to
fulfil the UN's stated purposes, and giving meaning to its ideals.
The founding documents of the United Nations and the founding documents of
America stand in the same tradition.
Both assert that human beings should never be reduced to objects of power or
commerce, because their dignity is inherent. Both recognise a moral law that
stands above men and nations, which must be defended and enforced by men and
nations. And both point the way to peace, the peace that comes when all are
free.
We secure that peace with our courage, and we must show that courage
together."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3132984.stm
Regards
Jonathan
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-virus@lucifer.com [mailto:owner-virus@lucifer.com] On Behalf Of
Jake Sapiens
Sent: 25 September 2003 18:17
To: virus
Subject: RE: Unilateralism (was: RE: virus: The Ideohazard 1.1)
Hello Jonathan,
Gee, don't you remember Bush and Rumsfeld repeatedly threatening to "go it
alone", and threatening the UN with irrelevancy if they didn't rubberstamp
Bush's war? How have you failed to notice these and other "my way or the
highway" bullying postures that this administration used as its so-called
diplomacy? Other than the UK which was on our side from the begriming (and
hence doesn't really count as a diplomatic victory), this administration
completely failed to get any other major military power involved in its Iraq
expedition. The fact that a short list of relatively minor and weak
international powers joined the militarily strongest nation in the world in
order to provide some international window-dressing does not count as any.
These other countries aren't remotely our equals in terms of power, so I
don't think that this qualifies as bi-lateral in any sense of the word. A
unilateralist doesn't negotiate with equals. When the unilateralist says
"my way or the highway", it doesn't suddenly get turned into bilateral
diplomacy just because some weaker parties knuckle under and say "okay I
will take your way." The actual military contribution by these other
countries is negligible compared to US and UK. They are effectively window
dressing. This is a primarily US/UK action. I know you and Donald Rumsfeld
keep claiming it has some significantly international character, but any
reasonable observer can recognize the disingenuous nature of this propaganda
used to gloss over the diplomatic failures of this administration. Their
consistent childish bullying unilateralist attitude remains obvious to
reasonable people not committed to their extreme
religious-wrong/Christian-crusader ideology.
-Jake
> [Original Message]
> From: Jonathan Davis <jonathan.davis@lineone.net>
> To: <virus@lucifer.com>
> Date: 09/25/2003 2:14:04 AM
> Subject: RE: Unilateralism (was: RE: virus: The Ideohazard 1.1)
>
> Hi Jake,
>
> You say "I would agree that the USA has had a tradition of choosing
> diplomacy and consensus, but the current administration has shown a
> very clear preference for unilateral action over diplomacy and consensus.
Indeed
> often not just a preference, but the sole "strategy""
>
> This is simply false. This administration has always acted with a
coalition
> of partners and allies including the United Kingdom. Can you cite an
> examples of this administration acting unilaterally? Also, can you
> explain why this Cold War concept of bi- and unilateralism is being
> used where it
is
> nearly meaningless in this context?
>
> You see unilateralism, I see a coalition of 49 countries. Perhaps it
> is
you
> who needs to have his ideo-memetic health checked as "rather obvious
public
> facts" appear to directly contradict your counterclaims.
>
> Kind regards
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-virus@lucifer.com [mailto:owner-virus@lucifer.com] On
> Behalf
Of
> Jake Sapiens
> Sent: 24 September 2003 20:30
> To: virus
> Subject: Unilateralism (was: RE: virus: The Ideohazard 1.1)
>
> Okay, I am still in the process of digesting the E-Zine, so I haven't
> read Hermit's piece yet, (but I will soon), but I can't let Jonathan's
assertion
> below just slide by. I would agree that the USA has had a tradition
> of choosing diplomacy and consensus, but the current administration
> has
shown a
> very clear preference for unilateral action over diplomacy and consensus.
> . Indeed other modes of conducting foreign policy seem almost missing
from
> this administrations repertoire. (Colin Powell not withstanding since
> they seem to more or less ignore him making his diplomacy ineffective
> before he starts). I can't imagine what (other than perhaps an
> ideological/memetic
> infection) would lead Jonathan to not notice these rather obvious
> public facts.
>
> -Jake
>
>
> > [Original Message]
> > From: Jonathan Davis <jonathan.davis@lineone.net>
> > To: <virus@lucifer.com>
> > Date: 09/15/2003 2:02:23 AM
> > Subject: RE: virus: The Ideohazard 1.1
> >
> > You say the USA holds the community of nations in manifest
> > contempt, yet
> I
> > see no such contempt. I see the USA, despite its overwhelming power,
> > choosing diplomacy and consensus. The USA has withdrawn from some
> treaties,
> > but it was perfectly fair for them to do so. If an agreement
> > disadvantages you, you are entitled to void the agreement and
renegotiate.
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Jonathan
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-virus@lucifer.com [mailto:owner-virus@lucifer.com] On
> > Behalf
> Of
> > Blunderov
> > Sent: 15 September 2003 08:45
> > To: virus@lucifer.com
> > Subject: RE: virus: The Ideohazard 1.1
> >
> >
> >
> > Jonathan Davis
> > > Sent: 14 September 2003 1840
> > > To: virus@lucifer.com
> > > Subject: RE: virus: The Ideohazard 1.1
> > >
> > > I was spooked by Hermit's Chinese-commit-genocide piece but for me
> > > it
> > was
> > > ruined by its overt anti-Americanism (if that term can be applied
> > > to
> > what
> > > appears *in my opinion* to be Hermit's pathological hatred of
> > America).
> >
> >
> > [Bl.] Whether Hermit has a hatred of America, and whether, if so,
> > this hatred is pathological or not, I cannot say. What I can say is
> > that it is equally possible, based on the evidence before us, that
> > he is a fervent patriot. It depends on your point of view.
> >
> > When the British invaded China in the 18th Century they found maps
> > in
> which
> > China occupied the almost whole of the document; peeping in at the
> > corners of these maps were tiny representations of what were
> > characterized as 'Barbarian' nations - Britain, France and the USA.
> > It was clear that the Chinese world view allocated no importance to
anything
> other than China.
> >
> > Ironically, if one reads the Hermits list of broken American
> > promises and treaties, it is difficult to conclude that the American
> > world-view is any less solipsistic than the Chinese maps of yore.
> >
> > It is almost risible that such a self-avowedly 'democratic' nation
> > should hold the community of nations in such manifest contempt. Almost.
> >
> >
> > Best Regards
> > Blunderov
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ---
> > To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to
> > <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
> >
> > ---
> > To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to
> <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
>
>
> --- Jake Sapiens
> --- every1hz@earthlink.net
> --- EarthLink: The #1 provider of the Real Internet.
>
>
> ---
> To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to
> <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
>
> ---
> To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to
<http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
--- Jake Sapiens
--- every1hz@earthlink.net
--- EarthLink: The #1 provider of the Real Internet.
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to
<http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
|
|
|
|
JD
Adept
Gender:
Posts: 542
Reputation: 7.01
Rate JD
|
|
RE: Unilateralism (was: RE: virus: The Ideohazard 1.1)
« Reply #4 on: 2003-09-25 11:37:51 » |
|
Welcome back by the way :-)
JD
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
|
|
|
|
MoEnzyme
Anarch
Gender:
Posts: 2256
Reputation: 3.73
Rate MoEnzyme
infidel lab animal
|
|
RE: Unilateralism (was: RE: virus: The Ideohazard 1.1)
« Reply #5 on: 2003-09-25 16:59:34 » |
|
> [Original Message]
> From: Jonathan Davis <jonathan.davis@lineone.net>
> To: <virus@lucifer.com>
> Date: 09/25/2003 8:37:12 AM
> Subject: RE: Unilateralism (was: RE: virus: The Ideohazard 1.1)
>
> Dear Jake,
>
> No I don't remember Bush and Rumsfeld repeatedly threatening to "go it
> alone". Pundits speculated the UN would be rendered irrelevant, but the US
> government did not say that.
>
> You claimed that "the current administration has shown a very clear
> preference for unilateral action over diplomacy and consensus. Indeed
> often not just a preference, but the sole "strategy"". I have simply shown
> this to be factually incorrect. In both Afghanistan and Iraq the US acted
> as part of a coalition. In Afghanistan it had several major military
powers.
> In Iraq it has the allies like the UK and Turkey, both massively powerful
> countries in their own right.
[Jake] You got you facts wrong here. Turkey has committed zero troops and
in addition denied the US/UK a northern front in Iraq. Turkey's actions
certainly haven't been helpful.
>
> That three of the five members of the permanent security council were not
in
> favour of the Iraq liberation does not justify your exaggerations. When
> aggressor states like China (Tibet), Russia (Chechnya) and France (Nuclear
> testing) oppose sensible action for the sake of political gain or simple
> obtrusiveness, I applaud when they are ignored.
>
> Bye the way, did you not read Bush's speech in the UN yet? It is well
worth
> reading:
Obviously it has impressed no one in his target audience. I see no
outpouring of foreign help as a result of speech. I don't see any more UN
resolutions on Iraq on the horizon. Do you? You and I must be living in
different universes. I think that about sums it up.
-Jake
>
> "As an original signer of the UN Charter, the United States of America is
> committed to the United Nations. And we show that commitment by working to
> fulfil the UN's stated purposes, and giving meaning to its ideals.
>
> The founding documents of the United Nations and the founding documents of
> America stand in the same tradition.
>
> Both assert that human beings should never be reduced to objects of power
or
> commerce, because their dignity is inherent. Both recognise a moral law
that
> stands above men and nations, which must be defended and enforced by men
and
> nations. And both point the way to peace, the peace that comes when all
are
> free.
>
> We secure that peace with our courage, and we must show that courage
> together."
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3132984.stm
>
>
> Regards
>
> Jonathan
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-virus@lucifer.com [mailto:owner-virus@lucifer.com] On Behalf
Of
> Jake Sapiens
> Sent: 25 September 2003 18:17
> To: virus
> Subject: RE: Unilateralism (was: RE: virus: The Ideohazard 1.1)
>
> Hello Jonathan,
>
> Gee, don't you remember Bush and Rumsfeld repeatedly threatening to "go it
> alone", and threatening the UN with irrelevancy if they didn't rubberstamp
> Bush's war? How have you failed to notice these and other "my way or the
> highway" bullying postures that this administration used as its so-called
> diplomacy? Other than the UK which was on our side from the begriming
(and
> hence doesn't really count as a diplomatic victory), this administration
> completely failed to get any other major military power involved in its
Iraq
> expedition. The fact that a short list of relatively minor and weak
> international powers joined the militarily strongest nation in the world
in
> order to provide some international window-dressing does not count as
any.
> These other countries aren't remotely our equals in terms of power, so I
> don't think that this qualifies as bi-lateral in any sense of the word. A
> unilateralist doesn't negotiate with equals. When the unilateralist says
> "my way or the highway", it doesn't suddenly get turned into bilateral
> diplomacy just because some weaker parties knuckle under and say "okay I
> will take your way." The actual military contribution by these other
> countries is negligible compared to US and UK. They are effectively
window
> dressing. This is a primarily US/UK action. I know you and Donald
Rumsfeld
> keep claiming it has some significantly international character, but any
> reasonable observer can recognize the disingenuous nature of this
propaganda
> used to gloss over the diplomatic failures of this administration. Their
> consistent childish bullying unilateralist attitude remains obvious to
> reasonable people not committed to their extreme
> religious-wrong/Christian-crusader ideology.
>
> -Jake
>
> > [Original Message]
> > From: Jonathan Davis <jonathan.davis@lineone.net>
> > To: <virus@lucifer.com>
> > Date: 09/25/2003 2:14:04 AM
> > Subject: RE: Unilateralism (was: RE: virus: The Ideohazard 1.1)
> >
> > Hi Jake,
> >
> > You say "I would agree that the USA has had a tradition of choosing
> > diplomacy and consensus, but the current administration has shown a
> > very clear preference for unilateral action over diplomacy and
consensus.
> Indeed
> > often not just a preference, but the sole "strategy""
> >
> > This is simply false. This administration has always acted with a
> coalition
> > of partners and allies including the United Kingdom. Can you cite an
> > examples of this administration acting unilaterally? Also, can you
> > explain why this Cold War concept of bi- and unilateralism is being
> > used where it
> is
> > nearly meaningless in this context?
> >
> > You see unilateralism, I see a coalition of 49 countries. Perhaps it
> > is
> you
> > who needs to have his ideo-memetic health checked as "rather obvious
> public
> > facts" appear to directly contradict your counterclaims.
> >
> > Kind regards
> >
> > Jonathan
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-virus@lucifer.com [mailto:owner-virus@lucifer.com] On
> > Behalf
> Of
> > Jake Sapiens
> > Sent: 24 September 2003 20:30
> > To: virus
> > Subject: Unilateralism (was: RE: virus: The Ideohazard 1.1)
> >
> > Okay, I am still in the process of digesting the E-Zine, so I haven't
> > read Hermit's piece yet, (but I will soon), but I can't let Jonathan's
> assertion
> > below just slide by. I would agree that the USA has had a tradition
> > of choosing diplomacy and consensus, but the current administration
> > has
> shown a
> > very clear preference for unilateral action over diplomacy and
consensus.
> > . Indeed other modes of conducting foreign policy seem almost missing
> from
> > this administrations repertoire. (Colin Powell not withstanding since
> > they seem to more or less ignore him making his diplomacy ineffective
> > before he starts). I can't imagine what (other than perhaps an
> > ideological/memetic
> > infection) would lead Jonathan to not notice these rather obvious
> > public facts.
> >
> > -Jake
> >
> >
> > > [Original Message]
> > > From: Jonathan Davis <jonathan.davis@lineone.net>
> > > To: <virus@lucifer.com>
> > > Date: 09/15/2003 2:02:23 AM
> > > Subject: RE: virus: The Ideohazard 1.1
> > >
> > > You say the USA holds the community of nations in manifest
> > > contempt, yet
> > I
> > > see no such contempt. I see the USA, despite its overwhelming power,
> > > choosing diplomacy and consensus. The USA has withdrawn from some
> > treaties,
> > > but it was perfectly fair for them to do so. If an agreement
> > > disadvantages you, you are entitled to void the agreement and
> renegotiate.
> > >
> > > Regards
> > >
> > > Jonathan
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: owner-virus@lucifer.com [mailto:owner-virus@lucifer.com] On
> > > Behalf
> > Of
> > > Blunderov
> > > Sent: 15 September 2003 08:45
> > > To: virus@lucifer.com
> > > Subject: RE: virus: The Ideohazard 1.1
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Jonathan Davis
> > > > Sent: 14 September 2003 1840
> > > > To: virus@lucifer.com
> > > > Subject: RE: virus: The Ideohazard 1.1
> > > >
> > > > I was spooked by Hermit's Chinese-commit-genocide piece but for me
> > > > it
> > > was
> > > > ruined by its overt anti-Americanism (if that term can be applied
> > > > to
> > > what
> > > > appears *in my opinion* to be Hermit's pathological hatred of
> > > America).
> > >
> > >
> > > [Bl.] Whether Hermit has a hatred of America, and whether, if so,
> > > this hatred is pathological or not, I cannot say. What I can say is
> > > that it is equally possible, based on the evidence before us, that
> > > he is a fervent patriot. It depends on your point of view.
> > >
> > > When the British invaded China in the 18th Century they found maps
> > > in
> > which
> > > China occupied the almost whole of the document; peeping in at the
> > > corners of these maps were tiny representations of what were
> > > characterized as 'Barbarian' nations - Britain, France and the USA.
> > > It was clear that the Chinese world view allocated no importance to
> anything
> > other than China.
> > >
> > > Ironically, if one reads the Hermits list of broken American
> > > promises and treaties, it is difficult to conclude that the American
> > > world-view is any less solipsistic than the Chinese maps of yore.
> > >
> > > It is almost risible that such a self-avowedly 'democratic' nation
> > > should hold the community of nations in such manifest contempt.
Almost.
> > >
> > >
> > > Best Regards
> > > Blunderov
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ---
> > > To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to
> > > <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
> > >
> > > ---
> > > To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to
> > <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
> >
> >
> > --- Jake Sapiens
> > --- every1hz@earthlink.net
> > --- EarthLink: The #1 provider of the Real Internet.
> >
> >
> > ---
> > To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to
> > <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
> >
> > ---
> > To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to
> <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
>
>
> --- Jake Sapiens
> --- every1hz@earthlink.net
> --- EarthLink: The #1 provider of the Real Internet.
>
>
> ---
> To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to
> <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
>
> ---
> To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to
<http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
--- Jake Sapiens
--- every1hz@earthlink.net
--- EarthLink: The #1 provider of the Real Internet.
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
I will fight your gods for food,
Mo Enzyme
(consolidation of handles: Jake Sapiens; memelab; logicnazi; Loki; Every1Hz; and Shadow)
|
|
|
Hermit
Archon
Posts: 4289
Reputation: 8.78
Rate Hermit
Prime example of a practically perfect person
|
|
Re:Unilateralism (was: RE: virus: The Ideohazard 1.1)
« Reply #6 on: 2003-09-25 15:02:37 » |
|
Jonathan Davis spluttered:
Hermit
Quote:He [dubya] asked member states to authorize the use of force against Iraq, saying the U.N. faced a defining moment. "Are Security Council resolutions to be honored and enforced, or cast aside without consequence," he asked. "Will the United Nations serve the purpose of its founding, or will it be irrelevant?"
In his speech one year ago, Mr. Bush made clear he would move against Iraq with or without U.N. permission because, he said, the United States would not stand by while dangers gather. "The Security Council resolutions will be enforced, the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable," he said. |
"Unilateralism - Bush and the UN" A carefully chosen, well-known, "anti-American" source to be sure.
The US made a number of allegations about Iraq. These allegations were, as observed by many at the time, unfounded, specious, malicious and precipitous. As we have seen, the criticisms were valid. Despite this, the US followed this with a number of threats to the UN, not least "Will the United Nations serve the purpose of its founding, or will it be irrelevant?" Why, you may ask do I call this a threat? The answer is that the only way for the UN to become irrelevant was for the US to make it so. Which we proceded to do with alacrity. Despite it being against International* and US law - as well as unnecessary and, as we are seeing played out in the sands, expensive, destabilizing and stupid.
Having acted to make the UN irrelevant, the US and UK are now looking for ways to save themselves from the worst of the consequences of their stupidity. Unfortunately for all of us, stupidity always has consequences, and no matter how the tragedy plays to an end, the peoples of the world, their children and their grand-children are, in one way or another, going to have to pay the price for the actions taken by "The Global Village Idiottm" and his adoring poodle.
Hermit
*The Grand Carter may be seen here: The Charter of the United Nations
The Preamble, Chapter I, VI, VII and VIII are not long and very relevant.
|
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
|
|
|
JD
Adept
Gender:
Posts: 542
Reputation: 7.01
Rate JD
|
|
RE: Unilateralism (was: RE: virus: The Ideohazard 1.1)
« Reply #7 on: 2003-09-26 06:24:00 » |
|
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-virus@lucifer.com [mailto:owner-virus@lucifer.com] On Behalf Of
Jake Sapiens
Sent: 25 September 2003 22:00
To: virus
Subject: RE: Unilateralism (was: RE: virus: The Ideohazard 1.1)
[Jake] You and I must be living in different universes. I think that about
sums it up.
[Jonathan] Greetings from the rational universe :-)
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
|
|
|
|
JD
Adept
Gender:
Posts: 542
Reputation: 7.01
Rate JD
|
|
RE: Unilateralism (was: RE: virus: The Ideohazard 1.1)
« Reply #8 on: 2003-09-26 06:39:00 » |
|
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-virus@lucifer.com [mailto:owner-virus@lucifer.com] On Behalf Of
Hermit
Sent: 25 September 2003 20:03
To: virus@lucifer.com
Subject: Re:Unilateralism (was: RE: virus: The Ideohazard 1.1)
[Hermit] Jonathan Davis spluttered:
Jonathan Davis stopped reading here. We either play nice or not at all.
Regards
Jonathan
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
|
|
|
|
MoEnzyme
Anarch
Gender:
Posts: 2256
Reputation: 3.73
Rate MoEnzyme
infidel lab animal
|
|
RE: Unilateralism (was: RE: virus: The Ideohazard 1.1)
« Reply #9 on: 2003-09-26 16:48:12 » |
|
Thanks. I was never really far away.
:-)
Love,
-Jake
> [Original Message]
> From: Jonathan Davis
> To: <virus@lucifer.com>
> Date: 09/25/2003 8:37:51 AM
> Subject: RE: Unilateralism (was: RE: virus: The Ideohazard 1.1)
>
> Welcome back by the way :-)
>
> JD
>
> ---
> To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to
<http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
--- Jake Sapiens
--- every1hz@earthlink.net
--- EarthLink: The #1 provider of the Real Internet.
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
I will fight your gods for food,
Mo Enzyme
(consolidation of handles: Jake Sapiens; memelab; logicnazi; Loki; Every1Hz; and Shadow)
|
|
|
|
Logged
