[PLUG-TALK] Chirac's shocker... Iraq.

Jeme A Brelin jeme at brelin.net
Tue Dec 23 10:45:53 UTC 2003


On Mon, 22 Dec 2003, alex wrote:
> On Mon, 2003-12-22 at 06:36, Jeme A Brelin wrote:
> > It is horribly inhumane to make those children suffer for their
> > parents' sins.
>
> Maybe they shouldn't have children then? Ever heard of a condom? It's a
> lot cheaper than a child in the long term.

Again, damage done... shall the children suffer for their parents'
choices?

If so, you implement a cycle of poverty and violence.

> > Also, consider this argument: Unemployment is required to maintain the
> > economic system.  The business press refers to this as "labor market
> > flexibility" and it's a very desirable thing.  It's a decrease in job
> > security that drives down demand for higher wages, better benefits,
> > and shorter hours and drives up worker productivity.  If the system
> > requires some people to not hold jobs, then those people are necessary
> > to the system and should be paid for doing their part.
>
> Why should anyone be paid for sitting on they behind?

Um, the "why" is right there above.  It's just one argument couched in
economic terms.  Read it again, if you didn't see the answer to your
question.

> If we did that the next thing you know we'd have unemployment rates like
> that of many European countries, +10% in many of them.

If so, then wages would be able to put even further down and profits would
increase.

> I have always worked for what I have. I have pride in the fact that I
> don't need to have a hand out and, that no matter how bad it's been,
> I've never asked for one.

And I believe nearly everyone has the same idea of what it means to be a
productive person.  People don't want to sit on their asses.  People like
to be productive.

> > It's neither hurting a person's feelings nor political correctness
> > that informs my views.  It is a fundamental belief in the rights of
> > all people to self-determination and a respect for varied modes of
> > thought and action.
>
> Ok then. I want you to put those words into action and vote for people
> that will allow me the opportunity to practice self-determination
> because right now I see the state and local govt's taking more and more
> of my self-determination rights away from me as the federal tries to
> give them back. When you vote for elected officials that will get the
> heck out of my way so that I can follow my dreams and aspirations then I
> will believe that you want everyone to have self-determination.

First, I was using self-determination in the democratic sense.  That is to
say, self-determination as a political doctrine is not a right of
individuals, but a right of populations to determine their own political
destiny.  That isn't to say that I do not believe in individual
self-determination in a sense as well, just making the meaning of my
original statement clear.

Second, self-determination is not so much a right of individuals as a
simple description of individual consciousness as a natural phenomenon.
As we have not yet developed the technology to control brain states and
interfere with motor function to the point of controlling one person
remotely (a la Futurama Brain Slugs), the idea that you might NOT be
self-determining is pretty absurd.  However, of course, your actions are
influenced in obvious and subtle ways by your environment and that
environment includes other human beings.  Therefore, the influence of
other people on your life is as natural and inevitable as the influence of
the weather, your own biology, and the various other results of quantum
probability.  That is fundamental and undeniable.

Every eight-year-old has had this thought:  How do I know that other
people are just like me and not just robots or actors that disappear when
out of my sight or that I'm not just a simulation on a computer somewhere
or hallucinating or something?  The answer is, of course, that you can't.
You're trapped in your own head and there's nothing you can do about it.
If you are a solipsist, I don't have strong arguments for you.  I think
it's a pointless, rejectionist delusion.  Philosophers greater than me
have grappled with this problem and filled volumes.  Turn to them.

However, if you are one of us folks who believe substantively in the
findings and methods of science (regardless of whether or not you believe
it is the Whole Truth), then you must accept that the mind is a result of
certain actions within the brain all humans have one and they all work
essentially the same way.  Since it's a fairly mysterious organ and we
don't know the details of its function, we cannot, by mere brain analysis,
tell much about a person from the examinable qualities of the brain.  So
the best conclusion we can draw is that IF it has a human brain like I
have, then it is like me in some sense of its mental life.

Now, people vary almost arbitrarily in the mental aspects (and quite a bit
in the physical aspects as well).  You are one person and can only know
your own mind and your own assessment of things.  Your personality and
beliefs, it seems, are comprised entirely of your perceived environment
filtered through your unique, complex information processing system.  Two
people in identical environments can perceive very different things and
draw completely different conclusions about the nature of that environment
and -- even if they agree on the nature of the environment -- have
radically different opinions and attitudes toward the elements of that
environment and/or the environment as a whole.  People vary and you can't
assume much, if anything, about what other people are thinking, what they
believe, or what they want.

But you do have some understanding of what you believe would make your
life good and right.  And since you believe all people are essentially
like you, you must believe that providing anything other than those things
that would make your life good and right to other people would be
malicious and hurtful.  (I presuppose that you do not want to be malicious
and hurtful.  If you do, I think it's a sign of self-hatred and you should
probably see a psychologist and maybe work on getting some friends and
things that could support you socially and bring you to a mental state
that is capable of happiness.)

With the acceptance of these two fundamental ideas (that human beings are
simply a natural part of the environment and that human beings all have
the same value of life and happiness that you have), a single, consistent
guiding philosophy can be derived.  We call it The Golden Rule and state
it as follows:  Do unto others as you would have others do unto you.

I believe in liberty, equality, and fraternity among human beings (as a
start) and applying the Golden Rule as a means to achieving my ideals in
reality.

Now, as for your problem with cutting down trees and such, I would say
that such action is not within the scope of your rights because it
violates the Golden Rule.  I believe that the "others" to which the rule
applies (non-specifically) to people that may yet walk the the land on
which I walk today.  And those people would understand changes made to
their land in the past out of necessity and to provide for survival, but
beyond that, I don't think I could expect them to understand why the
changes were made or agree that they should be made.  I don't want others
messing with my places before I get there and so I do not mess with
others' places before they get there.

It's a shame that we live under the brutal dictates of repressive
authority.  I agree with you whole-heartedly, there.  I would rather see a
world in which people could simply understand the nature of what they are
doing and we could trust each other to do the right thing.  I, personally,
am willing to accept this responsibility TODAY and do the work necessary
to provide for the health and well-being of this world and all that we can
effect.  I see many people around me that do not act by the Golden Rule
and do not consider the future when they take their actions and I want to
sit down and talk with them and come to some common ground where we both
understand better our role in the world and why we do what we do.  I
think, to some extent, the authoritarian state prevents this by
proscribing behavior while attempting to maintain moral agnosticism.

> Until then, all I see from you and those that think like you is
> oppression and the stripping of personal rights.

I don't think you have any idea who "those that think like [me]" are or
what they think or do.  I think you're doing some unqualified and
unjustified pigeon-holing.

> > You'll find that the Bill of Rights does a pretty good job of
> > describing a person's political rights (though it totally ignores
> > economic rights -- one of the negative effects of having a
> > pre-Capitalist constitution, I don't think Jefferson would have left
> > those out today).
>
> I think that there were many people living during Jefferson's time that
> would say it was a very capitalistic time in the country's history.

Uh... no.  Capitalism was only barely understood as a theory in that day.
Adam Smith didn't write The Wealth of Nations until 1790 and even then he
described the very different and dangerous system that could evolve should
shared-stock ventures were granted legal status as immortal entities.

Don't confuse mercantilism with capitalism.  Capitalism is a
post-Enlightenment economic theory.

> > Imposing punishment without due process of law is a violation of
> > rights.
>
> AH! I agree totally with you on this point.

Then you should oppose war without Security Council authorization and
reject "humanitarian intervention" as justification for invasion of a
nation's sovereignty.

> I would never want someone to be convicted of a crime just because of
> skin color or financial means.

Woah... that's very different than punishment without due process of law.

The killing of the Hussein brothers was punishment without due process of
law.

> Mistakes do happen though, as unfortunate as that is, but our system of
> justice does work very well. I would agree with you, however, if you
> were to say that some laws needed to be changed and/or updated. I doubt
> just that we would agree on which ones.

Well, I'm all for getting rid of all of them.  But I don't think enough
people understand the principles of Anarchism well enough to prevent more
warlords from rising up and putting the people down.  That is to say, I
think the lawless world would be very much like the state capitalist
world unless we do some good teaching right away.

> > I do believe that the one who claims to fight for what's right is the
> > elitist.  You're pushing other people around under the pretext that
> > you know better than they do.
>
> I am pushing around no-one here Jeme. I was giving my opinion of what I
> would rather do.

No, you're not directly pushing... you're pushing by proxy through the
United States military.

> It's just that your idea of right appears to be letting people like
> Saddam have the run of the place.

And your idea of right appears to be letting people like Cheney have the
run of the place.

But you're wrong about me.  I don't think people like Saddam should exist
at all.  But they do BECAUSE OF the accepted authority of violence and the
disparity between what is right and what is law.

For hundreds of years people have been trying to kill in the name of a
better world and it hasn't worked.  If anything, it has only served the
goals of oppression and create new ways to make a subjugated people more
thoroughly controlled.

We get rid of people like Saddam Hussein not by killing them one by one in
a self-righteous game of Whack-A-Mole but by teaching and learning and
working toward real understanding of each others' needs and desires.

You don't fight fire with fire, you fight fire with water.  And sometimes
you fight fire by just letting it burn itself out.

> > Since when does the U.S. Congress have the right to allow ANYTHING on
> > somebody else's soil?
>
> We were attacked. More people died than at Pearl harbor. Maybe that was
> a reason.

Um, that attack didn't broaden the power of the United States Congress...
it only made them feel like they wanted more power.

The World Trade Center attack happened because of US aggression overseas.
Increasing aggression is only going to increase attacks on the US and its
clients.

> Why? Because you have a hard time defending people who will fly planes
> into buildings and kill thousands of civilians?

I have some very unpopular opinions about that attack, that's all.  We'll
see what history teaches us about Bush's Reichstag.

> > I will write, however, that any ill will toward the United States is a
> > direct result of U.S. imperialism.
>
> Billions of dollars in foreign aid every year and they hate us for it?

Um, I think you should double-check your sources.  Actual foreign aid
dried up years ago.  That which is called "foreign aid" today is usually
loans of the type described in my other email that are designed to create
colonies.

> Fine! I say we stop giving everyone, and I mean everyone, money. That
> should really help to stem the tide of hate against us.

If we also withdrew our troops to within our borders and stopped actively
supporting terrorism, I think it would.  Immediately.

> > Well, you're the one "fighting for what is right" out there... using
> > your sway on the military machine to kill foreigners in the name of
> > your opinions.
>
> I think you and I were raised on totally different moral systems. I was
> raised to believe that killing people for the fun of it is wrong and
> should be punished. Somehow I feel that you think as long as it's not
> hurting you directly that it's ok for people to do what they want to do.
> That bothers me.

The "way I was raised" (assuming you mean the values that my parents
attempted to instill in me) and the way I am are very different things.
See, I'm a thinking person and therefore have have been able to form my
own ideas about things based on my own experience and the teachings of
others.  You should look into it.  You might find that father doesn't
always know best.  There are lots of ideas out there.

That said, I don't believe in punishment.  I don't think it does one lick
of good for anybody but the blood-thirsty and vengeful and I don't believe
those people should be appeased.

Essentially, the greatest wrongs a person can do are to another person or
group of people.  I find that, for the most part, it is enough to simply
teach the people being harmed how to avoid the harm.  In most cases, that
involves sharing with and teaching those who would do harm.

Power corrupts.  Nobody should wield power over another person.
Punishment requires ruling authority and that is the definition of power.

Not to sound extremely nerdy, but you should read The Lord Of The Rings
with the understanding that the ring is (as is often stated) "the ring of
power" and it contains the power to rule.  There is a difference between
leadership and ruling.

> > > Hm.... maybe pre-Iraq-Iran war. Saddam spent every dime he could get
> > > his hands on to fight that war. Thats when the standard of living
> > > went down. By 1991, the standard of living in Iraq had already sunk
> > > to levels lower than what you would see there today(if you'd open
> > > your eyes and read papers other than the New York Times and their
> > > clones).
> >
> > You made this up entirely.  Just because it's inconsistent with your
> > worldview doesn't mean it isn't true.
>
> Prior to the Iraq-Iran war Iraq's standard of living was equal to and
> even better than many of the other countries in the Middle East. Pardon
> me for not clarifying better.

Iraq had the highest standard of living in the region in 1990.  Largely
this was due to the secular government allowing a higher level of general
education and better lifestyles for women and people of various religious
beliefs.

Your comments about the Iraq prior to the Iraq-Iran war are irrelevant.

(By the way, if the nation was so devastated by the Iraq-Iran war, which
it LOST even though it was supported by the US, Russia, Europe and most of
the rest of the Middle East, how on Earth could that nation be a plausible
threat to the United States?)

> > And, for your information, I read mostly foreign newspapers regarding
> > foreign affairs.  I find I get a more impartial view that way.  My
> > information on the state of Iraq's standard of living in 1990 was from
> > the Financial Times a very conservative business publication from the
> > UK.
>
> Great! Glad to see you are well read. Your views do seem inconsistent
> with your reading though.

How so?

> > Oh, right.  That's like saying a kid has a black eye because he
> > refused to do what his daddy told him... not because his daddy is an
> > abusive motherfucker.  Blame the victim.
>
> Language please. Let's keep this a polite conversation.

There's nothing impolite about calling a child abuser a motherfucker.
Impolite would be shoving his face against a stove.

> Now, to answer your charge. If Saddam would have done as the World
> Community had asked then Iraq could have once again become a prosperous
> nation.

If I am to assume that you meant the weapons inspections, he did.

> Of course, Saddam could have used the money from the oil for food
> program to do what he was supposed to do with it instead of build
> palaces.

Q: How many palaces were built in Iraq since 1991?
A: 0

> > If you assume guilt, you can come up with all kinds of justification.
> > That's why we civilized people follow the rule of law and not
> > vigilantism.
>
> If I were an innocent man I don't think I would die fighting capture.
> But hey, thats just me!

You wouldn't fight to the death to avoid someone who wants to kill you?

Whether I was innocent of crimes accused or not, I would CERTAINLY fight
to the death for my freedom from a captor that has consistently shown no
respect for the rule of law.

> The principal participants is the U.N. coalition. >U.N.< Highlight that
> and study it. The U.N. is very arguably THE most corrupt governmental
> body the world has ever know. It is driven by greed and led by thugs.
> Sorry if you can't see that.

I think that's a fair description of all concentrations of power.

But the UN has no power and, therefore, is not covered here.

I'd love to hear your justification for the idea that the "UN is driven by
greed and led by thugs".  If you mean that the U.S. has supreme veto
power, then yeah, I'd probably agree since the U.S.A. is a rogue state
with no respect for the rights of others.  But I don't know who you would
mean otherwise.

Now, the World Bank and IMF, THAT is run by greedy thugs.  No question
there.

> > I think this is the absolutely best evidence we have that the Iraq
> > occupation is all about money.  There's no money to be made in
> > Afghanistan, so it was abandoned as soon as some money was spent and
> > some people were killed for the blood-thirsty, vengeance-filled media
> > and public.
>
> Wow and I figured that getting that pipeline we all heard about ran
> across Afghanistan was a high priority.

I don't know anything about that.  I do remember reading something about a
pipeline, but it was all speculation and I didn't see any reason to trust
it.

> But hey, the bottom MUST have fell out of that one so that's why
> everyone left. There was just no money to be made by the U.N. The rotten
> skunks!

The U.N. doesn't make money and doesn't have property interests to
protect.  The United States government is an extension of U.S. business
interests and does have those motivators.

I don't see how you can think that the U.N. has monied interests at the
helm.  By what mechanism do they maintain control?

> > > > The people should be rebuilding it themselves so they don't come
> > > > to praise their oppressors out of misguided gratitude.
> > >
> > > And give the chance for another highly oppressive regime to take
> > > control?
> >
> > And how is it that the United States CANNOT install an oppressive
> > regime?
>
> Hey I think your right! Man, too bad Idi Amin wasn't still alive. Just
> think what he could have done with a country like Iraq. Come on
> everyone. We need to find someone who can be oppressive to run Iraq. I
> think an ad in the newspaper might do it! I just can't..I just
> can't.............even start......no.......

You're not making any sense.  I was just responding to your appearant
assumption that by letting the U.S. lead the rebuilding of Iraq, it is
impossible for an oppressive regime to be the result.

I'd like to know why you seem to believe that.

> > A leadership council was chosen with no public elections.
>
> And elections will be held and those that are unfavorable will be voted
> out by the general populus.

But the candidates will not be of the people and the method of election
will be decided by this council under the terms of a constitution written
by the council.

> > Work is being done to create that government as we type, but the
> > people are still fighting in the streets.
>
> Foreign fighters that have entered Iraq to kill anyone not Iraqi are
> still the majority fighting.

That's absurd.  If they were killing anyone not Iraqi and they are
foreigners, they'd kill themselves, right?

> > There are no town hall meetings and no introduction of democratic
> > fora.
>
> This is not what I've been reading.

References?

> They have been happening in those areas not in the Sunni triangle.

So it's more like the Reconstruction after the Civil War, then?  Where a
whole segment of the population will just be ignored by the democratic
process and, as a result, devastated by the resulting regime?

> > They are in the process of installing a government that is not BY or
> > OF the people and that means there is no guarantee it is FOR the
> > people.
>
> The election is coming. At least give them the chance to start
> controlling their own destiny before you begin to decry the manner in
> which they are getting there.

Uh... there's no reason to decry the manner they're getting there after
they're already there.  Think about it.

The methods they are using cannot result in a democratic government that
supports the will of the Iraqi people.

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




More information about the PLUG-talk mailing list