[PLUG-TALK] Anti-war vs war mongers. (ick)

[Jeme A Brelin]

On 16 Jan 2003, alex wrote:
> Jeme A Brelin  plug-talk at lists.pdxlinux.org
> Wed, 15 Jan 2003 02:51:00 -0800 (PST) wrote:
> This is why we have the right to keep and bear arms. The Founding
> Fauthers were afraid that in the future someone would try to become a
> dictator and therefore made sure that, by the Second Amendment, we
> would be able to repel any such attempt with force of our own. With
> out that right we are nothing more than sheep waiting to be led to
> slaughter.

As I wrote before, if you attempt revolution by violence you only ensure
that the most violent, ruthless, destructive side wins.

But beside that point, even without the massive restrictions on private
weapon accumulation (for right or wrong), this nation has developed the
largest, most advanced standing army the world has ever known.

A violent revolution is simply not an option.

> >I've got a sign that I made January 2001 that I bring out whenever an
> >appropriate gathering is assembled.  It reads:
> 
> >INTERNATIONAL ELECTION MONITORING IN 2004
> 
> >We don't have it here and our elections are a shambles.
> 
> INTERNATIONAL ELECTION MONITORS IN FLORIDA DURING 2002 ELECTIONS!

It's not just Florida.  The entire system needs to be monitored by an
impartial panel of delegates from around the world.

> >"Our economy" is a fiction.  What is REAL is our wealth in natural
> >resources (great farm land, etc.), technology, and man-power. 
> >Producing food and shelter and health-care does not have to be done at
> >a profit to be done successfully.
> 
> So, we should be like Britain and Canada and all the other countries
> that have socialist type governments?

I didn't make any comment about what we should have.  I just wrote that we
could, as a nation, pull together and get past the rough patch that a
divestiture of oil reliance would bring to the economy.

> I'd love to pay the high taxes, get the crappy health care, or live on
> the dole all my life because there's such high unemployment.

First, I'd say that the health care in those nations is far superior to
what the vast majority of U.S. citizens get these days.

But I don't mean to argue _for_ mixed economies.  Relying on "employment"
and profit-driven organizations for maintenance and management of a
society's productivity is going to cause deep problems no matter how much
public involvement you can enforce via the state.

As I see it, the state as a monolithic organization and private
corporations have the same essential flaw of top-down "management".

> >First, consider the source.  The DoD logo in the upper left of that
> >document shouldn't fool anybody.  That's not a DoD document (though
> >likely the blurbs were taken from DoD documents).  This document is
> >being propagated by the Pro-Israeli lobby (the American Israel Public
> >Affairs Committee).
> 
> And where in this whole document 
> http://www.aipac.org/saddamhusseindod.pdf 
> does it specify that the Pro-Israeli lobby is responsible for it's
> production?

Where in my whole document did I write that they were?

I just wrote that it's clearly NOT DoD (it's not addressed to anybody, has
no marks of authorship, and makes no attempt at analysis) and it is being
PROPAGATED by the Pro-Israli lobby.

> >I don't read anything in that document that is shocking or surprising,
> >given the position into which the United States has pushed Iraq with
> >constant bombing, threat, and embargo.  Those are the words of a leader
> >trying to rally his people against an agressor that has beaten them to
> >the ground.
> 
> These are the words of a man who has repeatedly ignoured requests by
> the almighty U.N. to disarm. All the U.S. and Britain have done is
> attempt to enforce those requests.

Have they enforced the same requests by the same UN for Israel to
disarm?  Or Saudi Arabia?

And when exactly did Hussein ignore those requests?  The nation has been
disarmed for over a decade (during the perpetual bombing) and has openned
every door for the weapons inspectors since they were allowed (by the UN)
to return to the nation.

I recommend you read the reports and articles written by former UN weapons
inspector Scott Ritter regarding Iraq's past, current, and future capacity
for weapon production.

> >I don't think he's a fair, just, and democratically appointed leader of 
> >the Iraqi people, but I don't think George W. Bush is a fair, just, or 
> >democratically elected leader of the United States, either.
> 
> Hmmmmmmmmmmm........ I seem to remember that Algore was the one who
> took it to the Supreme Court, not George Bush.

Actually, Bush went to the Supreme Court to get an injunction (granted by
Justice Scalia) to stop any recount in Florida based in the potential
damage to "the Bush presidency".  (This is, of course, absurd because, had
the results of the recount gone one way, there wouldn't be a Bush
presidency to damage.)

You'll also find that the Supreme Court didn't even really judge the case
on merit.  They set a deadline by which they must decide then stalled and
dismissed the case for passing the deadline.

There are several good books on the subject by eminent law scholars from
various schools and practices.

But regardless of what happened in Flordia and the ensuing courtroom
battle, I don't think any of the Presidential elections in the nation are
democratic.  Madison absolutely intended to remove the threat of
democratic control of the nation when he created the electoral process and
its rules.  (I think there's also a very good argument that democracy
isn't possible when campaigns are funded and the public informed through
the resources of private power.)

> > And if you're an enlisted man, you're likely poor, socially 
> > dysfunctional, of low intelligence, or all three.  Military service is 
> > pitched to young men and women as a last-chance if you can't get
> > into or afford college. It's a half-way house for the lost youth of 
> > this country.
> 
> And I may not be rich, any saner than any-one else, nor have an I.Q.
> of more than 130, but, I do believe in serving my country by my life
> or by my death, in whatever manner necessary.

I believe in serving mankind as a whole.  I don't think killing people
makes the world a better place for anyone.

> And see Prime Minister Chamberlain for what happens when you don't
> take a stand for what is right and what is wrong. True peace only
> comes when one side utterly defeats the opposition.

Wow.

If the dissenting minority in a population has to face the prospect of
total annihilation in order to propose change, only the most brutal,
vicious, suicidal, and foolish will be able to propose change.

You're proposing a savage world order with no respect for human diversity
and shared understanding.

> Also see North and South Korea. Do you think we would be looking at
> that situation now if we had utterly defeated them? I think not. I've
> been to Korea and the DMZ and it is nothing but a cease-fire, not a
> true and lasting peace.

Do you think we'd be looking at that sitution now if we had sat out and
let a sovereign nation fight its own civil war?  Or perhaps if the United
States had backed peaceful resolutions to the conflict and enabled a
democratic government to take control instead of fighting against the
people of the north because their idea of proper rule did not align with
that of the people in power in the United States?

The United States has a committed anti-democratic foreign policy for most
of the past century.  The people of most foreign nations hold to something
that the United States State Department calls "radical nationalism".  
Radical nationalism is the belief that the people of a nation should be
the ones who benefit from the resources of that nation.  The United States
policy is one that ensures the resources of foreign nations benefit
existing seats of power and wealth.

For information on how this works, read the memoirs and articles by a man
named Thomas Caruthers.  He headed the "Democracy Enhancement Programs" at
the State Department during the Reagan administration.  He thinks those
programs failed because the administration wouldn't support any changes in
foreign nations that might impact traditional economic relationships.  Of
course, the traditions that supported the U.S. economy in Latin and South
America (the particular area where Caruthers focussed his attention) was
that despotic oppression and the rape of the land and people for the
benefit of rich foreign "investors".  You simply can't allow democracy and
maintain those relationships.

> True, the winners often write the history, but, would you rather we
> step up to the plate now or do as Bill Clinton did and just lob a few
> Cruise Missiles and hope that that will distract them?

I think both approaches are totally wrong.  I think the United States
should support democratic reform in those nations without the use of force
and help the UN bring the appropriate infrastructure to those nations that
will let the people direct themselves without threat of violence.

As the man said, "Fighting for peace is like fucking for virginity".

J.
-- 
   -----------------
     Jeme A Brelin
    jeme at brelin.net
   -----------------
 [cc] counter-copyright
 http://www.openlaw.org