It seems to me that all this hoopla is a good thing, in a sense, as it will encourage greater creativity. There are lots of combinations of letters that we don't use, and lots of interesting word combinations not commonly used in commerce. The only possible outcome of all this is to expand our available namespace to include lots of new words and word combinations, so as to accomodate everyone. This expands the language and the general memespace, and leads to positive development of our culture.
So it may seem silly now, but I think in the long run it will just make our language more interesting.
I was going to let freejung (big fan of what you've said man) respond to this, but it doesn't seem he is around right now
Thank you for watching my back, I was indeed occupied elsewhere.:-)
I see no reason for me to refute the grandparent post, as the parent has done a very good job of it and besides, all the arguments of the grandparent amount to "the intended end justifies the means", which is clearly incorrect and I have refuted it elsewhere.
Nobody knows what is going to come of this war, and saying that it is right just because the actors claim to have good intentions is silly. The intentions of the actors are also highly suspect. Never believe anyone when they tell you they are going to do something wrong because of their supposedly good intentions. Actions speak louder than words.
I think the parent's quote from Matthew (which is Jesus Himself speaking in the Sermon on the Mount) is a clear representation of God's views on the subject, and is probably the most important quote in the whole Bible, as the quote itself clearly states is the case. You can argue with it if you like, but it is still Right.
I am done with this debate. I have taken a firm position on what is known as the Moral High Ground and defended it. The opposition claims the moral high ground in its propaganda and rhetoric, but they clearly have no legitimate claim to it. Pacifism is firmly positioned on the moral high ground and will continue to be so. Others can lay claim to it, but they cannot take it, as one person of conscience can defend the moral high ground against billions.
For a much more detailed defense of this position, and a great perspective on the situation surrounding this war, please see the text of this talk by Prof. Noam Chomsky, professor of linguistics at MIT, and also the Bad News Noam Chomsky Archive which has many of his recent articles. Prof. Chomsky knows way more about all this than I do, and is a brilliant speaker and essayist. If you are interested in this debate, no matter what your political or philosophical beliefs, you might find what he has to say interesting as well.
I want to thank everyone involved for a great debate, it has been enjoyable and highly instructive. I have nothing but the highest respect and love for all of you (on all sides of the debate), and consider you heroes for standing up for your beliefs.
I call upon all parties in this conflict to listen to reason, and to stop all killing and atrocities at once, and to try to settle your disputes like decent human beings. I have little reason to hope for this, but hope and pray for it I shall.
Wow, Jimithing, that is one Hell of a post! Very nice, and well written and well argued. I admit I am exhausted by the sheer volume of your argument, and can only refer you to this article, which I really think you would find interesting, if nothing else as a useful counterpoint. I really think you should read it, not because I think it will cow you into agreement, but merely because I think you will find it an interesting read.
I am a little confused about this statement:
Which is why I cannot support pacifism as a means to world peace
Otherwise I find your argument quite cogent and reasonable, and I enjoyed reading it. I am still a pacifist, and will probably remain so, but I definitely respect your opinion, and feel that you have represented it well, and I am glad that you are so determined to do the right thing in this conflict. Your principles will serve you will in the troubled times ahead.
We seem to have more common ground than we at first realized, which I find very encouraging. Maybe when I've had some time to think about it, I will want talk about it some more. This has been a very useful discussion, and I thank you for it.
Well fought, my lord, and may we meet again upon the field of honor.;-)
Peace out...
Re:A short history of how the U.S. got into this m
on
4l-j4z333ra 0wn3d
·
· Score: 1
oderint dum metuant: Let them hate so long as they fear. (A favorite saying of Caligula.)
Do you really think that Caligula is a good model to be following?
If they hate and fear, will they not strike back, in any way they can, whenever they get the chance? This sounds like a poor excuse for a policy to me.
What you just mentioned is a major problem with this country and really the whole rest of the world as well: apathy. Nobody is willing to take a stand except to complain.
I never said I was an American, though I was willing to let you assume I am from my grasp of English. I wanted you to listen to what I had to say.
And what exactly are the rest of us in the world supposed to do, other than complain? Many entire countries have raised their voices against this war, only to be totally ignored and subsequently lambasted in the American press. The US has made it clear that it will tolerate no international opposition, that the governments of other nations are supposed to go along with its policies regardless of the opinions of their populations (and many of the "Coalition" nations' populations are overwhelmingly opposed to the war, for instance Italy and Spain). If my elected officials are unable to oppose the US for fear of retaliation, and the US will not listen to the leaders of the great nations with the courage to oppose them, what exactly, in your opinion, are we supposed to do, other than complain?
So I am doing the only thing I can do, which is trying to talk you out of it. And many others are trying with me. But it is clear that we will fail, and that you will continue your policy of rampant agression which has caused the US to be widely percieved as the greatest threat to peace and security in the world. What are we supposed to do? You have told us, in no uncertain terms, that we are to submit to you or face severe consequences. The people where I live are almost universally opposed to this war, but they say, "what can we do, the US is the Superpower of the World, how can we oppose them"?
The people of the world have called upon you, in no uncertain terms, to turn away from this path of unchecked violence, agression, and rule by force. You have laughed in their face, and threatened them with destruction if they dare to oppose your will. What then are we to do? Die? Lie down and submit? Clearly, you expect many of us to do these things.
Please, I call upon you, in the name of conscience and humanity, turn away from the path of killing and destruction and force. It is not the answer. It will not make the world a better place. You are really scaring people, and this is not a good thing. We do not know what to do. We are frightened. We do not want this war, we do not want to be dominated by a superpower with no accountability or restraint, we do not want to lie down and submit and die, but you seem to be offering us no choice.
I disagree with that. I think we need more level headed (but fierce is okay) debate like we have been having.
You are right of course. I am tired, and somewhat emotional. I don't think I can handle another long post like that, so I think I'll just let my argument rest where it is. But I want to hear what you have to say.
Re:A short history of how the U.S. got into this m
on
4l-j4z333ra 0wn3d
·
· Score: 1
Oh, don't worry about it, ainsoph, it's getting to me too, I was up all night last night and I just can't seem to stop arguing about this. I had to be gently rebuked in much the same manner for the divisive nature of my last journal entry, and I have to agree that it was a bit overzealous. Tension is running high, and people probably deserve some slack. Don't worry about it.
Now, if you are referring to the election back in 2000
Yeah, I was. I had, as the other poster rather rudely pointed out, foolishly forgotten the congressional election that happened in the mean time, I should have said "last presidential election" of course, I don't know what I was thinking.
Really, the only thing that can be said about that election is that nobody really gave a shit whether Gore or Bush was elected as they were both good candidates
Well, this is one way of putting it. Another would be to say that nobody gave a shit because they were both hideously bad candidates, whom noone in their right mind would ever be caught publicly supporting. I think this is actually a much more common reason why people didn't go to the polls, and why the popular vote was so close. I don't actually remember hearing anybody at the time say, "gee, I don't know who to vote for, they're both so good!" Maybe you did. I sure didn't feel that way.
I really wish this "Bush is illegitimate" crap would stop.
Why? I think questioning his legitimacy is perfectly legitimate. When the leader of the most powerful country in the world comes to power in a way which is highly suspect, and calls into serious question the legitimacy of the entire political process which brought him to power, I think it is reasonable to question his legitimacy, and whether he really represents the people he claims have elected him.
(You almost drew me into another violation of this Godwin's law, but since this is apparently considered hitting below the belt by some, I will refrain from trying to make a case for the obvious analogy which many have made before.)
I do think, in all seriousness, that taking your case to a forum such as this is likely to be far more effective than anything you can do in November. It also gives an opportunity for non-Americans (remember, there are some other countries out there, guys!) to express their opinions, which I think are important. So I'll take my case to slashdot, thanks, and you can take yours to the voting booth if you like, for all the good it's going to do you.
Ah, thanks, I get it, and this makes sense. And thanks for backing me up on that, that was very honorable of you. I'm not calling you a Nazi, I don't think you are, I was just questioning your word choice. I know that you didn't mean that you advocate ethnic cleansing. But I do think you are skating on very thin ice when you start talking about solving problems by killing people.
As for degenerating into a flame-fest, this entire debate hasn't been much else since it started several days ago! Even the most sober and mature of slashdotters have found themselves calling each other names and getting visibly angry. This is a volatile issue. This is why my last journal entry actually encourages this sort of flame war. We need a free and unrestricted exchange of ideas about this, and if that involves name-calling and recriminations, then so be it.
You are right, though, the Nazi party and their rise to power in Germany definitely pertains to the current situation. It is a common form of reductio ad absurdum argument, when discussing these kinds of ethical issues, that if you can show (logically, of course, not just with name-calling) that your opponent's argument justifies the Nazis, then you actually win, because of course the Nazis cannot be justified by any argument whatsoever, and if your argument does justify them, you must be wrong.
I don't think you are a Nazi. In fact, I don't think that you believe half of the things you are saying, not in your heart. I don't see how you could.
I am looking forward to your reply. I want to apologize for calling you disrespectful before, your handling of this post shows the greatest respect and maturity, and I admire you for that.
Re:No Post is Too Late: Send the Iraqis to Allah
on
4l-j4z333ra 0wn3d
·
· Score: 1
Just because your enemy is evil, does not mean that you are good. Evil can fight evil too.
The vast majority of Americans feel that, at least in some cases, killing is not wrong. What's that you say, the beliefs of Americans don't determine morality?
This is typical of American arrogance, to think that I would even consider the possibility that the beliefs of Americans might determine morality. Morality is not subject to majority vote! God's Divine Order is not a democracy! What kind of pernicious nonsense is this?
I can refute this by reductio ad absurdum. There was a point in history at which the majority of Germans thought it was right to kill all the Jews and take over the world. 'Nuff said.
And no, I don't think that ethicists (if you want to be pedantic about it) or religious authorities should determine your moral beliefs. I think you should think for yourself, schmuck! I only mention this to point out that there are others who have thought deeply about these matters and come to the same conclusions.
If man was wrong then, who's to say he's right now?
I'm not saying that he is, in fact, I'm saying that he isn't! Killing was wrong when God said "thou shalt not kill". It was wrong when Jesus said "turn the other cheek" It was wrong when Einstein said that "you cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war." It's still wrong now. And if the majority of Americans disagree on this, then the world is in pretty deep shit, which it clearly is, so maybe you're right. But I suspect that if you asked them the direct question, is killing people morally wrong, you would get very different results. The death penalty issue has been confused extensively by the obfuscations of tyrants. But I think people are still pretty clear on the immorality of killing.
These people probably support the death penalty because they have been hoodwinked by some sort of ends-justify-the-means argument, which I have refuted separately, and if you still disagree on that I will be happy to engage you in further debate about it, as I said it's pretty uncontroversial once you understand the issue.
In conclusion, bite me you hippy.
I accept your epithet with pride. I'd way rather be associated with hippies, than with the sort of radical right-wing extremism and murderous hatred that we are seeing from the jingoist side of this debate. You're right, I am a hippy, but I will not bite you, because that would be morally wrong.
Please elaborate on this, Coward, you have piqued my curiosity. What is Godwin's law, and how does it refute my point, which is that the words used by Jimithing have negative connotations and probably do his case more harm than good?
Re:A short history of how the U.S. got into this m
on
4l-j4z333ra 0wn3d
·
· Score: 1
Are you a fuckin moron?
Ainsoph, relax. Of course this guy is a fuckin moron. But calling him names will not help the credibility of our case, the one you and I and many other pacifists and reasonable people of conscience are trying so hard to make in this debate. I think it is incumbent upon us to make our case as maturely and intelligently as possible. These discussions are important. Slashdot is arguably the most imporant forum on the net, and 500 years from now historians (assuming there are still historians 500 years from now) will analyze these discussions to see what the digerati thought. I want it to go down in history that when the shit hit the fan, I stood up on slashdot and made a strong case for pacifism, with intelligence, maturity, and respect for all parties, and that I made it well and in no uncertain terms.
How do you want history to remember you?
Having said that, it's understandable that you are upset, this guy is clearly a fuckin moron.
Re:A short history of how the U.S. got into this m
on
4l-j4z333ra 0wn3d
·
· Score: 1
I hate to be the one that tells you this.. But none of your two links provides any logic or proof.
I must therefore assume that you are either brain dead or illogical.
You are clearly resorting to silliness and namecalling to protect your preconceptions from the onslaught of the truth. Ainsoph is exactly right. This utterly horrifying document has actually become national security policy.
It cannot be coincidence that since Coup2K the admin has implemented something like 90% of the policy recommendations of PNAC. The goals of the current admin are clearly in line with their vision of global strategy, which is simply to extend US global military and economic dominance as far into the future as possible.
It is to be noted that these guys don't apologize for this, they see it as a reasonable goal, and they feel that it justifies fighting "multiple theater wars, small wars, and constabulary actions", in other words, killing a lot of people.
Even if there is no direct connection between PNAC and the current admin, there is clearly an ideological connection, in that they share the same goals, and that they agree on the best means to achieve those goals.
GWB clearly states his response to 9/11. Do you live in a terrorist Nation? Then fear us. If you don't, then why are you jealous?
But the question is, who gets to decide what is a terrorist nation? Why, GWB does, of course. So what this statement amounts to is, "if I decide that I don't like you, fear my wrath!" This sounds like an extremely unreasonable message to be broadcasting to the rest of the world, and I think the world has reacted to it as such.
It seems obvious that only America and its closest allies could possibly support the vision of a world in which only the US wields military and economic power. Other nations are reacting with quite justified alarm at the rapid flare-up of blatant jingoism, imperialism, and xenophobia which has broken out in the US in response to Sept. 11.
Put it this way. During the rise of the Nazis to power, do you think the rest of the world were encouraged and comforted by Hitler's vision of a world in which Germany was the sole military and economic power? No way!
You can see how the current situation of overwhelming military advantage would present a temptation far too strong to resist to those already deeply corrupted by the exercise of near-absolute power.
When right-wing extremists start spouting this sort of extremely dangerous bullshit, that's one thing, but when 90% of it is implemented as national security policy, then it's time to start stocking up on imperishable food supplies. This is no joke. They're really going to do it this time. One world, one reich, one Fuhrer. And who's to stop them?
Re:No Post is Too Late: Send the Iraqis to Allah
on
4l-j4z333ra 0wn3d
·
· Score: 1
The Muslims beat, rape, and mutilate (to death) their victims.
When we hear the 3 Iraqi almost weep in tears about the torture, we know that we must send the Iraqis to Allah. God damn Saddam Hussein.
My God, this is some scary shit. This is why I have elsewhere accused Americans (only some of them, of course) of reverting to the basest barbarism and xenophobia.
Just because some Muslims commit atrocities, does not mean that all Muslims commit atrocities.
Does the fact that Saddam has committed atrocities justify the commission of further atrocities against the Iraqi people? I don't think so.
Re:ABC cuts gore from injured child's Iraq war pho
on
4l-j4z333ra 0wn3d
·
· Score: 1
This 27 March program included British photo-
journalist Tim Page talking about this kind
of selective reporting & sanitizing of war
images, eg, from Vietnam to Iraq.
This is true, but it didn't work in the Vietnam war, and it will work even less well in this one. Dispite official attempts to control the images coming out of Vietnam, it was the first time that images from war were shown on national media, and this is cited as a major factor in swinging public opinion against the war. In this case, any attempt at censorship will just backfire, as the truth (or at least, an number of divergant views) is much more likely to come out via the internet, and the censorship will just be revealed for what it is.
They think they can control this situation, but they are wrong, and it will all backfire. They are fucking up big time.
The reason the quote is valid is because everyone quickly chooses sides once the war begins.
Oh, yes, that's true, and I don't mean to say that Al-Jazeera is not biased, they clearly are, just like all the other media outlets are biased, just like I am biased and so are you. What I mean is that, in order for the truth to survive, all viewpoints must be given proper consideration, and that consideration should include the fact that they are biased. But we cannot give them proper consideration if we are not allowed access to them. So this is the way in which the suppression of viewpoints which are biased against your own results in the assasination of truth.
Now why on Earth would you do a thing like that? What reason have they given you to trust them, except that they say "trust us"?
I understand what you are saying with your quotes, but you and I knbow that the first two cxan be interpreted a million ways (in different contexts).
Well, this is true, these statements can and have been interpreted in many ways. However, they are, in and of themselves, fairly unambiguous. The fact that warmongers, politicians, and tyrants have confused the issues so much through convoluted arguments and obfuscation that we don't even know how to interpret a statement as simple as "thou shalt not kill" is simply an indication of the sad state of affairs that we face. Furthermore, if you interpret Jesus' statement in light of his other statements and also in light of his actual actions, it is pretty clear what he meant, which is that we are not to respond to acts of violence with further acts of violence.
The quote from Einstein shows much wisdom (duh!):-) However, I have to say that sometimes war is necessary. Further, sometimes preemptive actions can be the best choice. WWII tells us that, but then again hindsight is always 20/20.
:-) I figured one or the other of these would get through to you, it's hard to argue with God, Jesus, and Einstein all in the same post!
But if your hindsight about WWII is so clear, then why did Einstein, in his great wisdom, continue to disagree with you well after WWII, and indeed up until his death? I'm not sure that it is at all clear what should have been done about the rise of the Nazis, it's a complicated issue, and there's no way to know what would have resulted from preemptively striking Hitler or indeed from any other hypothetical actions that other nations could have taken.
Wow, what a strong post! Though your tone is disrespectful, I will choose to take it as complimentary that you have troubled to address my argument so extensively. I am impressed, though I must say that you have succeded in refuting several of your own points for me. Nonetheless, I will be happy to address them.
"Might-makes-right?" Oh please. Is that what you think this is all about?
Well, now, let's see... the US goes to the UN and asks for legal justification for doing something it plainly intends to do anyway no matter what anyone else says or thinks. They are denied that justification for any number of good reasons. Bush subsequently claims that the US has the authority to act unilaterally and without UN support (even though the UN clearly has legal authority in disputes between member states). The US then goes ahead and invades a sovereign nation, acting as a direct agressor over the explicit protests of other national leaders, populations, and a significant number of its own people. Yeah, that sounds like a might-makes-right mentality to me.
I have the highest opinion of the American spirit of freedom, independence, and creative idealism. However, my negative opinion of US foreign policy has been formed based upon a fairly extensive knowledge of the history of US intervention in foreign affairs, which has resulted in more SNAFUs than I can possibly list here, including for instance the war in Vietnam and the entire situation in Latin America.
Oh, you mean that "same old shit" that is historically proven to work not just in the last century, but long before that?
No, I mean the same old shit which you yourself later admit has got us into this mess in the first place. If you think the history of the last couple of centuries can even remotely be called "working" in any positive sense, please go back and read it again, it has been an absolute bloody horrible nightmare.
If these ideas are so great, then why don't I hear people talking about these ideas.
Well, this is a very good question. It might have something to do with the stranglehold that US propagandists have on the mainstream press. I'm not sure. But I am talking about them now, and I encourage other people to talk about them too, and please read Prof. Chomsky's work, he makes this whole case far better than I ever could.
This action is merely the beginning of the end to the violence.
This claim sounds highly specious to me. Firstly, you cannot possibly know that this war will put an end to the violence in Iraq, that is pure speculation. Secondly, invading another country, thereby starting a war, is much more likely to be a beginning of violence than an end to it. Thirdly, I am totally unconvinced that the US intends to stop this rampant agression here. Rather, it clearly plans to fight a whole series of "major theater wars, small wars, and constabulary actions" in order to secure its position of global dominance, as clearly outlined by the aforementioned Project for a New American Century. So I am far more inclined to believe that this is in fact the beginning of a wave of violence the likes of which we have not seen since WWII.
You are also clearly incorrect in your implied statement that violence and killing will not stop atrocities.
Well, for one thing, violence and killing are atrocities. For another thing, any detailed reading of history, such as you are implying that you have done, should show you that historically violence and killing have tended to lead to violence and killing. This is hardly surprising. In WWII, the US was intervening in a war which had already been going on for some time, whereas in this case they are deliberately starting a war, and there is a world of difference. And even if you believe that violence will somehow put an end to violence, the end still doesn't justify the means. Find some other way.
LOL! Like the last election had anything to do with voting booths! That's a good one, oh jeeze, it's nice to see some humor in this debate! Ha ha ha ha!
Where I come from, there is a strong tradition of pacifism (the Quakers).
You should listen to those Quakers more carefully, they're some of the most sober-headed and enlightened people around.
They that can give up **essential** liberty to purchase a little **temporary** safety deserve neither liberty or safety.
Benjamin Franklin
(Emphasis is, obviously, mine)
Ah, sorry for the misquote, and thanks for correcting me. I think you can still see what I am trying to say. And, as I said before, I do not remotely buy that this is being done for actual reasons of national security, and I am furthermore highly suspicious of anything done in the name of national security anyway.
It has come to my attention that many people in this debate are using arguments from authority, such as the quotes you have given. I have also noticed that most Americans at least claim to believe in either Science or Christianity or both. So, while we are exchanging quotes, allow me to make some official Arguments from Authority:
"Thou shalt not kill." --GOD
"If they slap you upon one cheek, turn to them the other also." -- Jesus Christ, the Messiah (who died on the cross rather than call down a legion of angels to smite his enemy, as he clearly claimed he could do)
"You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war." --Albert Einstein (an ardent pacifist who spoke out against war on many occasions)
Now, would anyone like to try to be more authoratative than that?
What liberty is being sacrificed? I SUPPOSE your liberty to read documents, but then why aren't you/we/people campaigning for the release of these documents years ago?
Exactly that. And I expect that people were, and you are right, I should have been one of those people, and so should you.
And sorry for not having a sense of humor about your sig, but these are very serious times, and it's hard not to be a little hard-nosed about things. I think that when people are wrong, especially at a time like this, we all have an obligation to say so in no uncertain terms.
And the American people cannot afford to not know what mistakes and poor courses of actions made in the past if they are supposed to elect worthy leaders.
Oh, I totally agree with you, voiceofthewhirlwind (cool handle, BTW). I guess I wasn't being clear on how I feel about this. This sort of secrecy and censorship is totally wrong, the people have a right to know what the government is doing. Indeed, the government is supposed to be of, by, and for the people, though it clearly is not.
Thanks for backing me up! Come on over to the article about Al-Jazeera, and help us out in the debate against rampant Jingoism which is going on there!
no one should pretend that the embedded journalists are going to be the objective face of this story.
You tell 'em, elmagil!
It is clear that the embedded journalists are there to ensure that we get the best quality, most up-to-date propaganda ever seen in the history of the world.
Slashdot Mirror
So it may seem silly now, but I think in the long run it will just make our language more interesting.
Thank you for watching my back, I was indeed occupied elsewhere. :-)
I see no reason for me to refute the grandparent post, as the parent has done a very good job of it and besides, all the arguments of the grandparent amount to "the intended end justifies the means", which is clearly incorrect and I have refuted it elsewhere.
Nobody knows what is going to come of this war, and saying that it is right just because the actors claim to have good intentions is silly. The intentions of the actors are also highly suspect. Never believe anyone when they tell you they are going to do something wrong because of their supposedly good intentions. Actions speak louder than words.
I think the parent's quote from Matthew (which is Jesus Himself speaking in the Sermon on the Mount) is a clear representation of God's views on the subject, and is probably the most important quote in the whole Bible, as the quote itself clearly states is the case. You can argue with it if you like, but it is still Right.
I am done with this debate. I have taken a firm position on what is known as the Moral High Ground and defended it. The opposition claims the moral high ground in its propaganda and rhetoric, but they clearly have no legitimate claim to it. Pacifism is firmly positioned on the moral high ground and will continue to be so. Others can lay claim to it, but they cannot take it, as one person of conscience can defend the moral high ground against billions.
For a much more detailed defense of this position, and a great perspective on the situation surrounding this war, please see the text of this talk by Prof. Noam Chomsky, professor of linguistics at MIT, and also the Bad News Noam Chomsky Archive which has many of his recent articles. Prof. Chomsky knows way more about all this than I do, and is a brilliant speaker and essayist. If you are interested in this debate, no matter what your political or philosophical beliefs, you might find what he has to say interesting as well.
I want to thank everyone involved for a great debate, it has been enjoyable and highly instructive. I have nothing but the highest respect and love for all of you (on all sides of the debate), and consider you heroes for standing up for your beliefs.
I call upon all parties in this conflict to listen to reason, and to stop all killing and atrocities at once, and to try to settle your disputes like decent human beings. I have little reason to hope for this, but hope and pray for it I shall.
Peace out...
I am a little confused about this statement: Which is why I cannot support pacifism as a means to world peace
Otherwise I find your argument quite cogent and reasonable, and I enjoyed reading it. I am still a pacifist, and will probably remain so, but I definitely respect your opinion, and feel that you have represented it well, and I am glad that you are so determined to do the right thing in this conflict. Your principles will serve you will in the troubled times ahead.
We seem to have more common ground than we at first realized, which I find very encouraging. Maybe when I've had some time to think about it, I will want talk about it some more. This has been a very useful discussion, and I thank you for it.
Well fought, my lord, and may we meet again upon the field of honor. ;-)
Peace out...
Do you really think that Caligula is a good model to be following?
If they hate and fear, will they not strike back, in any way they can, whenever they get the chance? This sounds like a poor excuse for a policy to me.
I never said I was an American, though I was willing to let you assume I am from my grasp of English. I wanted you to listen to what I had to say.
And what exactly are the rest of us in the world supposed to do, other than complain? Many entire countries have raised their voices against this war, only to be totally ignored and subsequently lambasted in the American press. The US has made it clear that it will tolerate no international opposition, that the governments of other nations are supposed to go along with its policies regardless of the opinions of their populations (and many of the "Coalition" nations' populations are overwhelmingly opposed to the war, for instance Italy and Spain). If my elected officials are unable to oppose the US for fear of retaliation, and the US will not listen to the leaders of the great nations with the courage to oppose them, what exactly, in your opinion, are we supposed to do, other than complain?
So I am doing the only thing I can do, which is trying to talk you out of it. And many others are trying with me. But it is clear that we will fail, and that you will continue your policy of rampant agression which has caused the US to be widely percieved as the greatest threat to peace and security in the world. What are we supposed to do? You have told us, in no uncertain terms, that we are to submit to you or face severe consequences. The people where I live are almost universally opposed to this war, but they say, "what can we do, the US is the Superpower of the World, how can we oppose them"?
The people of the world have called upon you, in no uncertain terms, to turn away from this path of unchecked violence, agression, and rule by force. You have laughed in their face, and threatened them with destruction if they dare to oppose your will. What then are we to do? Die? Lie down and submit? Clearly, you expect many of us to do these things.
Please, I call upon you, in the name of conscience and humanity, turn away from the path of killing and destruction and force. It is not the answer. It will not make the world a better place. You are really scaring people, and this is not a good thing. We do not know what to do. We are frightened. We do not want this war, we do not want to be dominated by a superpower with no accountability or restraint, we do not want to lie down and submit and die, but you seem to be offering us no choice.
What do you expect us to do?
You are right of course. I am tired, and somewhat emotional. I don't think I can handle another long post like that, so I think I'll just let my argument rest where it is. But I want to hear what you have to say.
Oh, don't worry about it, ainsoph, it's getting to me too, I was up all night last night and I just can't seem to stop arguing about this. I had to be gently rebuked in much the same manner for the divisive nature of my last journal entry, and I have to agree that it was a bit overzealous. Tension is running high, and people probably deserve some slack. Don't worry about it.
Yeah, I was. I had, as the other poster rather rudely pointed out, foolishly forgotten the congressional election that happened in the mean time, I should have said "last presidential election" of course, I don't know what I was thinking.
Really, the only thing that can be said about that election is that nobody really gave a shit whether Gore or Bush was elected as they were both good candidates
Well, this is one way of putting it. Another would be to say that nobody gave a shit because they were both hideously bad candidates, whom noone in their right mind would ever be caught publicly supporting. I think this is actually a much more common reason why people didn't go to the polls, and why the popular vote was so close. I don't actually remember hearing anybody at the time say, "gee, I don't know who to vote for, they're both so good!" Maybe you did. I sure didn't feel that way.
I really wish this "Bush is illegitimate" crap would stop.
Why? I think questioning his legitimacy is perfectly legitimate. When the leader of the most powerful country in the world comes to power in a way which is highly suspect, and calls into serious question the legitimacy of the entire political process which brought him to power, I think it is reasonable to question his legitimacy, and whether he really represents the people he claims have elected him.
(You almost drew me into another violation of this Godwin's law, but since this is apparently considered hitting below the belt by some, I will refrain from trying to make a case for the obvious analogy which many have made before.)
I do think, in all seriousness, that taking your case to a forum such as this is likely to be far more effective than anything you can do in November. It also gives an opportunity for non-Americans (remember, there are some other countries out there, guys!) to express their opinions, which I think are important. So I'll take my case to slashdot, thanks, and you can take yours to the voting booth if you like, for all the good it's going to do you.
As for degenerating into a flame-fest, this entire debate hasn't been much else since it started several days ago! Even the most sober and mature of slashdotters have found themselves calling each other names and getting visibly angry. This is a volatile issue. This is why my last journal entry actually encourages this sort of flame war. We need a free and unrestricted exchange of ideas about this, and if that involves name-calling and recriminations, then so be it.
You are right, though, the Nazi party and their rise to power in Germany definitely pertains to the current situation. It is a common form of reductio ad absurdum argument, when discussing these kinds of ethical issues, that if you can show (logically, of course, not just with name-calling) that your opponent's argument justifies the Nazis, then you actually win, because of course the Nazis cannot be justified by any argument whatsoever, and if your argument does justify them, you must be wrong.
I don't think you are a Nazi. In fact, I don't think that you believe half of the things you are saying, not in your heart. I don't see how you could.
I am looking forward to your reply. I want to apologize for calling you disrespectful before, your handling of this post shows the greatest respect and maturity, and I admire you for that.
Just because your enemy is evil, does not mean that you are good. Evil can fight evil too.
The vast majority of Americans feel that, at least in some cases, killing is not wrong. What's that you say, the beliefs of Americans don't determine morality?
This is typical of American arrogance, to think that I would even consider the possibility that the beliefs of Americans might determine morality. Morality is not subject to majority vote! God's Divine Order is not a democracy! What kind of pernicious nonsense is this?
I can refute this by reductio ad absurdum. There was a point in history at which the majority of Germans thought it was right to kill all the Jews and take over the world. 'Nuff said.
And no, I don't think that ethicists (if you want to be pedantic about it) or religious authorities should determine your moral beliefs. I think you should think for yourself, schmuck! I only mention this to point out that there are others who have thought deeply about these matters and come to the same conclusions.
If man was wrong then, who's to say he's right now?
I'm not saying that he is, in fact, I'm saying that he isn't! Killing was wrong when God said "thou shalt not kill". It was wrong when Jesus said "turn the other cheek" It was wrong when Einstein said that "you cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war." It's still wrong now. And if the majority of Americans disagree on this, then the world is in pretty deep shit, which it clearly is, so maybe you're right. But I suspect that if you asked them the direct question, is killing people morally wrong, you would get very different results. The death penalty issue has been confused extensively by the obfuscations of tyrants. But I think people are still pretty clear on the immorality of killing.
These people probably support the death penalty because they have been hoodwinked by some sort of ends-justify-the-means argument, which I have refuted separately, and if you still disagree on that I will be happy to engage you in further debate about it, as I said it's pretty uncontroversial once you understand the issue.
In conclusion, bite me you hippy.
I accept your epithet with pride. I'd way rather be associated with hippies, than with the sort of radical right-wing extremism and murderous hatred that we are seeing from the jingoist side of this debate. You're right, I am a hippy, but I will not bite you, because that would be morally wrong.
Please elaborate on this, Coward, you have piqued my curiosity. What is Godwin's law, and how does it refute my point, which is that the words used by Jimithing have negative connotations and probably do his case more harm than good?
Ainsoph, relax. Of course this guy is a fuckin moron. But calling him names will not help the credibility of our case, the one you and I and many other pacifists and reasonable people of conscience are trying so hard to make in this debate. I think it is incumbent upon us to make our case as maturely and intelligently as possible. These discussions are important. Slashdot is arguably the most imporant forum on the net, and 500 years from now historians (assuming there are still historians 500 years from now) will analyze these discussions to see what the digerati thought. I want it to go down in history that when the shit hit the fan, I stood up on slashdot and made a strong case for pacifism, with intelligence, maturity, and respect for all parties, and that I made it well and in no uncertain terms.
How do you want history to remember you?
Having said that, it's understandable that you are upset, this guy is clearly a fuckin moron.
You are clearly resorting to silliness and namecalling to protect your preconceptions from the onslaught of the truth. Ainsoph is exactly right. This utterly horrifying document has actually become national security policy.
It cannot be coincidence that since Coup2K the admin has implemented something like 90% of the policy recommendations of PNAC. The goals of the current admin are clearly in line with their vision of global strategy, which is simply to extend US global military and economic dominance as far into the future as possible.
It is to be noted that these guys don't apologize for this, they see it as a reasonable goal, and they feel that it justifies fighting "multiple theater wars, small wars, and constabulary actions", in other words, killing a lot of people.
Even if there is no direct connection between PNAC and the current admin, there is clearly an ideological connection, in that they share the same goals, and that they agree on the best means to achieve those goals.
GWB clearly states his response to 9/11. Do you live in a terrorist Nation? Then fear us. If you don't, then why are you jealous?
But the question is, who gets to decide what is a terrorist nation? Why, GWB does, of course. So what this statement amounts to is, "if I decide that I don't like you, fear my wrath!" This sounds like an extremely unreasonable message to be broadcasting to the rest of the world, and I think the world has reacted to it as such.
It seems obvious that only America and its closest allies could possibly support the vision of a world in which only the US wields military and economic power. Other nations are reacting with quite justified alarm at the rapid flare-up of blatant jingoism, imperialism, and xenophobia which has broken out in the US in response to Sept. 11.
Put it this way. During the rise of the Nazis to power, do you think the rest of the world were encouraged and comforted by Hitler's vision of a world in which Germany was the sole military and economic power? No way!
You can see how the current situation of overwhelming military advantage would present a temptation far too strong to resist to those already deeply corrupted by the exercise of near-absolute power.
When right-wing extremists start spouting this sort of extremely dangerous bullshit, that's one thing, but when 90% of it is implemented as national security policy, then it's time to start stocking up on imperishable food supplies. This is no joke. They're really going to do it this time. One world, one reich, one Fuhrer. And who's to stop them?
My God, this is some scary shit. This is why I have elsewhere accused Americans (only some of them, of course) of reverting to the basest barbarism and xenophobia.
Just because some Muslims commit atrocities, does not mean that all Muslims commit atrocities.
Does the fact that Saddam has committed atrocities justify the commission of further atrocities against the Iraqi people? I don't think so.
This is true, but it didn't work in the Vietnam war, and it will work even less well in this one. Dispite official attempts to control the images coming out of Vietnam, it was the first time that images from war were shown on national media, and this is cited as a major factor in swinging public opinion against the war. In this case, any attempt at censorship will just backfire, as the truth (or at least, an number of divergant views) is much more likely to come out via the internet, and the censorship will just be revealed for what it is.
They think they can control this situation, but they are wrong, and it will all backfire. They are fucking up big time.
Oh, yes, that's true, and I don't mean to say that Al-Jazeera is not biased, they clearly are, just like all the other media outlets are biased, just like I am biased and so are you. What I mean is that, in order for the truth to survive, all viewpoints must be given proper consideration, and that consideration should include the fact that they are biased. But we cannot give them proper consideration if we are not allowed access to them. So this is the way in which the suppression of viewpoints which are biased against your own results in the assasination of truth.
Now why on Earth would you do a thing like that? What reason have they given you to trust them, except that they say "trust us"?
I understand what you are saying with your quotes, but you and I knbow that the first two cxan be interpreted a million ways (in different contexts).
Well, this is true, these statements can and have been interpreted in many ways. However, they are, in and of themselves, fairly unambiguous. The fact that warmongers, politicians, and tyrants have confused the issues so much through convoluted arguments and obfuscation that we don't even know how to interpret a statement as simple as "thou shalt not kill" is simply an indication of the sad state of affairs that we face. Furthermore, if you interpret Jesus' statement in light of his other statements and also in light of his actual actions, it is pretty clear what he meant, which is that we are not to respond to acts of violence with further acts of violence.
The quote from Einstein shows much wisdom (duh!) :-) However, I have to say that sometimes war is necessary. Further, sometimes preemptive actions can be the best choice. WWII tells us that, but then again hindsight is always 20/20.
"Might-makes-right?" Oh please. Is that what you think this is all about?
Well, now, let's see... the US goes to the UN and asks for legal justification for doing something it plainly intends to do anyway no matter what anyone else says or thinks. They are denied that justification for any number of good reasons. Bush subsequently claims that the US has the authority to act unilaterally and without UN support (even though the UN clearly has legal authority in disputes between member states). The US then goes ahead and invades a sovereign nation, acting as a direct agressor over the explicit protests of other national leaders, populations, and a significant number of its own people. Yeah, that sounds like a might-makes-right mentality to me.
I have the highest opinion of the American spirit of freedom, independence, and creative idealism. However, my negative opinion of US foreign policy has been formed based upon a fairly extensive knowledge of the history of US intervention in foreign affairs, which has resulted in more SNAFUs than I can possibly list here, including for instance the war in Vietnam and the entire situation in Latin America.
Oh, you mean that "same old shit" that is historically proven to work not just in the last century, but long before that?
No, I mean the same old shit which you yourself later admit has got us into this mess in the first place. If you think the history of the last couple of centuries can even remotely be called "working" in any positive sense, please go back and read it again, it has been an absolute bloody horrible nightmare.
If these ideas are so great, then why don't I hear people talking about these ideas.
Well, this is a very good question. It might have something to do with the stranglehold that US propagandists have on the mainstream press. I'm not sure. But I am talking about them now, and I encourage other people to talk about them too, and please read Prof. Chomsky's work, he makes this whole case far better than I ever could.
This action is merely the beginning of the end to the violence.
This claim sounds highly specious to me. Firstly, you cannot possibly know that this war will put an end to the violence in Iraq, that is pure speculation. Secondly, invading another country, thereby starting a war, is much more likely to be a beginning of violence than an end to it. Thirdly, I am totally unconvinced that the US intends to stop this rampant agression here. Rather, it clearly plans to fight a whole series of "major theater wars, small wars, and constabulary actions" in order to secure its position of global dominance, as clearly outlined by the aforementioned Project for a New American Century. So I am far more inclined to believe that this is in fact the beginning of a wave of violence the likes of which we have not seen since WWII.
You are also clearly incorrect in your implied statement that violence and killing will not stop atrocities.
Well, for one thing, violence and killing are atrocities. For another thing, any detailed reading of history, such as you are implying that you have done, should show you that historically violence and killing have tended to lead to violence and killing. This is hardly surprising. In WWII, the US was intervening in a war which had already been going on for some time, whereas in this case they are deliberately starting a war, and there is a world of difference. And even if you believe that violence will somehow put an end to violence, the end still doesn't justify the means. Find some other way.
I really fail to see how taking out
LOL! Like the last election had anything to do with voting booths! That's a good one, oh jeeze, it's nice to see some humor in this debate! Ha ha ha ha!
Where I come from, there is a strong tradition of pacifism (the Quakers).
You should listen to those Quakers more carefully, they're some of the most sober-headed and enlightened people around.
Ah, sorry for the misquote, and thanks for correcting me. I think you can still see what I am trying to say. And, as I said before, I do not remotely buy that this is being done for actual reasons of national security, and I am furthermore highly suspicious of anything done in the name of national security anyway.
It has come to my attention that many people in this debate are using arguments from authority, such as the quotes you have given. I have also noticed that most Americans at least claim to believe in either Science or Christianity or both. So, while we are exchanging quotes, allow me to make some official Arguments from Authority:
"Thou shalt not kill." --GOD
"If they slap you upon one cheek, turn to them the other also." -- Jesus Christ, the Messiah (who died on the cross rather than call down a legion of angels to smite his enemy, as he clearly claimed he could do)
"You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war." --Albert Einstein (an ardent pacifist who spoke out against war on many occasions)
Now, would anyone like to try to be more authoratative than that?
Exactly that. And I expect that people were, and you are right, I should have been one of those people, and so should you.
And sorry for not having a sense of humor about your sig, but these are very serious times, and it's hard not to be a little hard-nosed about things. I think that when people are wrong, especially at a time like this, we all have an obligation to say so in no uncertain terms.
Oh, I totally agree with you, voiceofthewhirlwind (cool handle, BTW). I guess I wasn't being clear on how I feel about this. This sort of secrecy and censorship is totally wrong, the people have a right to know what the government is doing. Indeed, the government is supposed to be of, by, and for the people, though it clearly is not.
Thanks for backing me up! Come on over to the article about Al-Jazeera, and help us out in the debate against rampant Jingoism which is going on there!
You tell 'em, ewe2! I find it disturbing too. "The first casualty of war is the truth."
You tell 'em, elmagil!
It is clear that the embedded journalists are there to ensure that we get the best quality, most up-to-date propaganda ever seen in the history of the world.