It's EASIER to just paint someone as a shitbag and marginalize them into your bullshit stereotype than it is to actually discuss something isn't it? Pathetic.
Homework for Hype "The reason that typical ethics are thrown out is because they diverge logically [from each other] given, or when _______. " It looks like I won't get a complete statement, so I'll see what I can make of it. A quick review of the terms used in the expression seems a good place to start. Ethics: what's right and what's wrong in human relationships. Divergence: heading apart, differing one from another. That didn't get me far. Let's look at the context of the statement from the surrounding wesmorris prose: "That's because your'e stupid shallow little bitch ass can't see through the shit helmet you've stuck on your head. IF YOU WEREN'T brain dead fool, you'd see that "appearances" suffice for ethics in this realm. The reason that typical ethics... " Appearances suffice for ethics. There's an old Machiavellian premise that effective politicians must be dishonest, because their duty to their own national interest supercedes that of foreigners whose cooperation must be secured. Are you stuck in a 16th-century perspective on politics, wes? If so, maybe you're trying to say that US foreign policy does not need to concern itself with the needs and desires of foreigners. "Appearances suffice for ethics, and the reason that typical ethics are thrown out is because they diverge logically [from each other] given, or when _________." There's an apparent break in thought where I inserted "from each other", to be clear you are not having me guess what secret thing diverges from ethics. I think he's trying to say ethics divege from each other. Let's try it straight: "Appearances suffice for ethics, and the reason that typical ethics are thrown out is because they diverge logically when _________. This seems to be a clumsy or veiled expression of utilitarianism in ethics, whereby the outcome, so long as it serves the greater good, matters less than the means and popular understanding of what is going on along the way. Utilitarianism doesn't hold up in an interdependent and cooperative system like modern international relations. (Read carefully, wes: This is where I follow a statement with substantiation). Even the mighty USA can't exercise it's boldest and most closely-guarded objectives without at least a fig-leaf of consensus. In the War on Terror, the fig leaf is failing to conceal something the rest of the world is increasingly finding noticeably vulgar: A soiled American shaft of unilateralism, and two scabby orbs of arbitrariness and exceptionalism. (I'm attempting to refresh your interest with a sexual reference, the ends justify the means, y'know) In order to notice someone substantiating a statement, you must keep reading (Jedi handsweep): The reaction to this vulgarity is international condemnation. International condemnation is, in its more civilized expression, resulting in isolation and increasingly limited freedom of movement for the US- being in charge means having others do what you tell them to do. Civilized reaction to America's vulgarity is damaging her international economic underpinnings, at a point in history when the US economy is far from self-contained. Additional foreign condemnation in its less civilized expression is resulting in Americans and their associates being murdered in considerable numbers. So civilized and uncivilized reactions are becoming enormously costly, while the economy is damaged. No, times have changed since Machiavelli was trying to slyly get Italy together. Now, the most prominent player on the international scene must be more forthright, because it is becoming extremely that nobody's invulnerable. The US can fool and piss off some of the people some of the time, but- well, you know the rest. "Appearances suffice for ethics, and the reason that typical ethics are thrown out is because they diverge logically when ... ...monkeys fly out of my ass.
Because you asked Um, Wes? I wanted to redirect your attention to something you wrote to me earlier: A nod's as good as a wink to a blind bat.
Now that I've chewed on it, this is the only sense I can make of it from my understanding: Appearances suffice for ethics until the jig is up. Ethics can't be discarded if someone is capable of holding you accountable. Please explain if your position is that the United States is accountable only unto itself, and how the US can escape the reproach of the rest of the world for being, let's say, "cheeky" with thousands of human lives for shifting, or secret, or self-serving ends. Tiassa: You want an argument!? This is Abuse. You'll have to go down the hall, stupid sodPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Wesmorris... I am actually kind of scared to post...I would expect angry, generally non-political attacks on me. Wes your obviously a intelligent individual but I am not wiling to par take in a man who LOL's at virtually everything one is written, and discards arguments on the basis that they are subjective. Wes, politics is subjective, and objectivity on this is completely impossible. I could only wish that I was objective so I could have a decent conversation, what you have to understand is that politics is illogical at heart. Nothing I have read in this entire post, nothing is objective. I wish i could respond to your post, but sadly i won't until the attitude changes. All really I have to do is point to Nietzsche rejection of perceptiveless, perspective. We all have our bias, and to expect none is laughable or foolish at best. Instead of asking for us for, proof all the time, think about what we write. I mean actually think...
Re: Because you asked Hey hype already knows I'm an asshole. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Hehe.
/YOu get an F. Mostly because I have a grudge against you (only in WE/P), this is because you drive me insane. /Now that I've chewed on it, this is the only sense I can make of it from my understanding: You couldn't just answer the last questoin I posed? Argh. You do this on purpose eh? /Appearances suffice for ethics until the jig is up. Ethics can't be discarded if someone is capable of holding you accountable. YOu see Hype, ethics is simply different when you have a whole shitload of different interests you have to attempt to satisfy. The typical notion basically flies out the window, in favor of laws, regulations, mandates, blah blah so much different junk. I don't expect you'll understand how it applies in teh sense I previously stated it, though I'll give you now that I'm not sure I stated it perfectly clearly. I'm sure you'll pimp me into explaining if the whimsy strikes you. /Please explain if your position is that the United States is accountable only unto itself, and how the US can escape the reproach of the rest of the world for being, let's say, "cheeky" with thousands of human lives for shifting, or secret, or self-serving ends. What you seem to fail to understand is that everyoene is always doing the best thing for themselves. Mother Theresa spent her entire life doing for others... why? Because she thought it the best thing for herself to do. Can you wrap your mind around that? Let's debate it if you'd like. Do you understand we're all doing it right now? All governments do it, blah blah blah. It's about how you percieve your "profit function". You are probably conditioned to think of profit in a purely monitary, shallow sense. This is a mistake in my opinion because often my profit is someone else's joy. I can't wait to see how you twist this. /Tiassa: You want an argument!? This is Abuse. You'll have to go down the hall, stupid sodPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image! LOL. For a guy who drives me entirely insane, you're alright hype.
"You couldn't just answer the last questoin I posed?" Sorry- I'll do that now "Under what circumstances does the typical notion of ethics logically diverge?" Having taken the time to understand you better, I'll rephrase: "Under what circumstances is the typical notion of ethics logically disposable?" Ethics are not dispensible in the circumstances of the conduct of US foreign policy, because we are held ethically accountable by the rest of the world. "...every[one] is always doing the best thing for themselves" - is a valid statement. In many situations, we must please others to get what we want. This is commonly learned as an individual matures and adjusts to society. On the geopolitical scale, we live in an integrated society of nations now. It's not an ethical or just totality by any stretch, but global players have relatively new and swifter restraints on their behavior, global players have modern vulnerabilities that did not factor in as much, for example, in Constantine's day. It has been a very long time since the days when empires, and nascient empires, could get away with callous unilateralism without having the rug ripped out from under their feet in short order. "You are probably conditioned to think of profit in a purely monitary, shallow sense. This is a mistake in my opinion because often my profit is someone else's joy. I can't wait to see how you twist this." We are in agreement that our profit, yours, or mine, can involve someone else's benefit. No twisting necessary, but it contradicts the your machiavellian position I have had to patiently draw out of you, while you play unrelated games of semantic hide-and-seek. In light of the misdirection and blowback we are witnessing in current events that I have made clear and direct references to, I challenge you: Explain how the War on Terror is furthering the interests and security of the USA.
Re: Wesmorris... /I am actually kind of scared to post... OH don't be a wuss! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I'm all bark. I have a lot to say. It's bad though if I'd had to try to explain things to hype, as I'm about to explain them to you. Eventually, maybe you'll drive me insane too, but for now, I'm really just telling you what I think about what you've said so far. I'm wondering if you really read what I said, or just wussed becaue you percieved harsh language. Either way you obviously significantly whiffed the point. I'll try to explain. /I would expect angry, generally non-political attacks on me. It's called basic logic. If you want to make a point, I have the right to question any of them. If you want to draw baseless conclusions, I will ask you to base them on SOMETHING if we don't just outright agree. What good is your position if you cannot apply basic logic to defend it? I attacked your total lack of a real argument. You just spouted assumptoin after assumption all hype style. I tried to somewhat calmly explain the flaws in your reasoning. You have yet to show where I erred, but again not brought a real argument and just said "politics is subjective". Dude, duh? Gawd, you say you think I'm prolly smart or something and they tell me that politics is subjective? LOL. Dude I caught that okay? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! /Wes your obviously a intelligent individual but I am not wiling to par take in a man who LOL's at virtually everything one is written, and discards arguments on the basis that they are subjective. then don't. i took on your argument, you debate my style. why? where's the beef damnit? let's learn from each other. your argument so far has been IMO, wholly shallow. Perhaps that's an incorrect assessment. Please explain to me why. Show the respect I showed you with detailed respose to my prior post. I took the time out of my day to try to show you your problems, do me the same favor please. I'm not sure if I can see them from here. /Wes, politics is subjective, and objectivity on this is completely impossible. Stating the obvious only wastes finger strength. Objectivity is a myth. Reason is not. Show me you know how to employ the latter. Show me you can do more than spout dogma and I'll dig it. /I could only wish that I was objective so I could have a decent conversation, what you have to understand is that politics is illogical at heart. I disagree and find your claim baseless! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! No seriously though, politics is perfectly logical. It's very hard to explain though. Take the meat from my last post to hype about the mother theresa and the whatnot and the bizness. Apply that across a number of personality types, all the constraints, etc etc. The fundamentals aren't that complicated, it's the implementation and the details that get real real messy. /Nothing I have read in this entire post, nothing is objective. Did you notice that it wasn't claimed to be? I have a perspective. From it, I try to apply reason to understand things. The way to start this process is to well, I'm not gonna bother telling you how to think, I just would appreciate it if you would actually think. /I wish i could respond to your post, but sadly i won't until the attitude changes. LOL. yeah brother, excuses already? As you wish. /All really I have to do is point to Nietzsche rejection of perceptiveless, perspective. Why? You can't argue on your own? What if Nietzsche was an idiot? Appeal to authority? Please note that any tone you are sensing is your own as I swear I don't mean to offend, these are reasonable, earnest questions as far as I can tell. /We all have our bias, and to expect none is laughable or foolish at best. Yes, but to be wise we find our bias, we search it out and minimize it... we try to understand it (at least I do). I ask you to question why you say what you say as to me it is GARBAGE. I don't mean "you are worthless" I mean "your words are nonsensical to me and indicative of a lack of depth and insight". I don't hold that to be true, but I do hold YOU to convince me otherwise. You had the benefit of the doubt, squandered it and now I'm accusing you of not knowing what you are talking about. You see, I'd imagine if you could, you would easily show me that I'm wrong and this would be done already. It's just efficient for things to work that way. Otherwise, you should say "oh yeah, maybe that's a good point" or "goodbye" I guess? Hell you can take hypes strategy and just jack with me if you want I guess. Who am I to stop you!?!? Hehe. Please dude, this is not to offend you I swear. I'm a "straight talker" so to speak. If you don't like that, you won't like me - pretty simple. Instead of asking for us for, proof all the time, think about what we write. I mean actually think... already at it eh? nice job hype, looks like you've adopted yet another protege! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Just giving you hell dude, don't let it hurt you. It's not a stick, nor a stone PLUS I've explained that it isn't a stick or a stone. You got the bonus plan, sweet eh? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
/Having taken the time to understand you better, I'll rephrase: "Under what circumstances is the typical notion of ethics logically disposable?" Are you asking me? /Ethics are not dispensible in the circumstances of the conduct of US foreign policy, because we are held ethically accountable by the rest of the world. Hence, appearances hype. Ethics in the typical sense simply don't apply but we are required by circumstance to maintain the maximum amount of ethical appearance while gaining the most political/econmic advantage that simultaneously allows economies external to the US to flourish enough to support us. Each country is reponsible for its own variation on this imperative. /In many situations, we must please others to get what we want. Which is still just pleasing yourself. /This is commonly learned as an individual matures and adjusts to society. And it's really fundamentally mistaken in my opinion but yeah I'll just stop about that. /On the geopolitical scale, we live in an integrated society of nations now. It's not an ethical or just totality by any stretch, but global players have relatively new and swifter restraints on their behavior, global players have modern vulnerabilities that did not factor in as much, for example, in Constantine's day. It has been a very long time since the days when empires, and nascient empires, could get away with callous unilateralism without having the rug ripped out from under their feet in short order. Wow, something that you said that I can agree with. Weird. Hype, I'm with you on that. You're right for the most part, but there is a lot of give and take. There's a lot of leverage. /We are in agreement that our profit, yours, or mine, can involve someone else's benefit. No twisting necessary, but it contradicts the your machiavellian position You accuse me of dishonesty? I thought we were keeping this friendly hype. I haven't questioned your character, I'd suggest you don't question mine as I'd like to at least continue to think of you as a good guy - albeit a retarded good guy. /I have had to patiently draw out of you, while you play unrelated games of semantic hide-and-seek. Oh I see, you have some sort of plot kind of think you think is happening here? Man what's with paranoids on the internet? Sheez. Oh, and you imply that you have drawn it out now? If so why then do you fail to show it? I guess I missed it? /Explain how the War on Terror is furthering the interests and security of the USA. READ THE GODDAMN OPENING POST HYPE. What the hell is wrong with you? I said "I think this is a good strategy to promote long term security blah blah blah". You're 'hard of reading right'? Eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeediot. Grow a brain bitch! LOL.
I've revisited the points in your opening post often and with specificity, and they did not hold up as a defense of the War on Terror in furthering the interests and security of the USA. Moles in holes, war of attrition, taking down states who harbor terrorists, Iraq as pivotal mideast foothold: This is a reasonable summary of that first post, and it barely scratched the surface. My responses went deeper. Throughout the thread, I have comparitively provided greater detail and diluted my message with less histrionics. I have explained how terrorists thrive best in failed states like the present corpse of Iraq. I have explained why we are not gaining an effective military or political foothold in Iraq. I have explained why the strategy and tactics are inappropriate for a preexisting assymetrical mode of conflict little understood by neoconservatives and the public they have misled since 9-11. I have explained in this thread specific and visible trends our new strategy is setting in motion that are visibly damaging US interests and security. Recent and current events bear these assertions out. We are not reducing the numbers of terrorists pitted against us, and the trend continues. We are not gaining political support and cooperation in the mideast, nor are we elsewhere- with unchanging trend. We are not furthering democracy, now and into the near future. We are not profiting from Iraqi oil, now nor next year, nor the next. It's not working. I have provided you with multiple specific examples of neoconservative policies is in clear contradiction with reality. You can continue your trend of ignoring current events (as our President advocates) clinging to the demagoguery of a small group whose radical plans and justifications are being resoundingly repudiated by the world. You can disregard what is transpiring beyond your geographical and intellectual comfort zone- But while doing so, you cannot claim to be meaningfully discussing the implications of the War on Terror. I'm willing to take you seriously, but if you would please read the entire thread again, and consider the relative effort displayed there comparing your words and mine, there is a disparity requiring your attention if you are sincere in this discussion. I don't claim to have unassailably made my case, but you have done far less than I to make yours. I challenge you to explain how the War on Terror is furthering the interests and security of the USA, without running in superficial circles.
LOL. Are you looking for someone to relate to? To spite you, I ignore your challenge except for jeers. *jeers* LOL. Hey hype, you really expect after all of you nonsense I'm gonna just cater to you? LOL. As if you'd comprehend what I'd say anyway? As if you wouldn't use it as a springboard to mindlessly tout your fantasy based ideology? No thanks hype. I've had enough fun with you for now. *jeers*
In thanks for starting this thread on an important topic, I'll leave you with the last word. I accidentally glided right over a short post of yours about a dozen back. In review of this entire exchange, and in light of where you have gravitated in discussion, it's a good place to say so long, & have a great holiday: wesmorris: "It's EASIER to just paint someone as a shitbag and marginalize them into your bullshit stereotype than it is to actually discuss something isn't it? Pathetic."
Happy holidays! and merry christmas. I hope you all have a wonderful holiday! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
A fresh start? If the experience of ANY other occupying power in history is a guide, it would appear that anti-insurgency campaigns only breed further insurgency. I can't think of a historically successful occupation that faced a popular insurgency, unless the occupier took the measure of totally annihilating the opposition (U.S. vs. Indians, Nazis vs. Warsaw ghetto, China vs. Tibet, Japan vs. everybody in east Asia, Soviets vs. Czech-Slovaks, Vietnam vs. Cambodia). The only other way is for the occupier to essentially merge with the occupied (U.S. vs. Mexican-owned TX, NM, AZ and CA, Normans vs. Saxons, Romans vs. anybody they came in contact with). Now, I'm not suggesting that we shouldn't have done something about Saddam or terrorists, but a full-scale occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan simply isn't going to stop terror. Yes, we got Saddam. Yes, we might get Osama. There are plenty of other guys willing, ready and eager to step into their shoes, though. Since they have been fighting each other and various occupiers for at least a thousand years, I suspect that their patience is somewhat lengthier than ours. They also have less, really virtually nothing, to lose. I agree that bringing democratic principles and human rights to these countries would be a great idea. After all, if you can give people something to lose, they may be less inclined to act as though they had nothing to lose. If it is our motivation, then, to bring enlightened democracy and human rights to the rest of the planet, then we are going to be fooling ourselves and setting ourselves up for massive failure unless we own up to the following hard truths: 1. It is going to take a long, long time. It took Europeans a thousand years to struggle out of feudalism and into modern democracy. It is foolish to expect any culture to make that kind of leap in a single generation. I would expect it to take at least a century under the best of conditions. 2. It will be horrendously expensive. To take, hold and guide strategic nations from anarchy and chaos to virtuous statehood requires a massive amount of manpower and resources. 3. It will require total unity among the powers of the earth to accomplish. One rogue state willing to undermine the project for a short-term gain will prolong the agony indefinitely. 4. It will require a statement of principle that may be VERY unpalatable to a significant portion of the U.S. population, to wit: "Religious extremism of every stripe is exacerbating most of the intractable problems facing the planet today. While preserving the basic human right to adhere to a religious denomination, we repudiate the use of religion in the making of political decisions anywhere in the world. The U.N. Declaration of Human Rights and the U.N. International Law Commision should be the sole standard for legal and ethical decision-making among the nations of earth." 5. It will require that we remake the U.N. as a truly democratic body with its own teeth. This means that like it or not, we need to learn to play well with others. There are probably a dozen other difficult hurdles we will need to clear - these are just the ones I thought of before dinner. I think that enforcing basic human rights and increasing the fundamental security of all people is a laudable goal, a worthwhile project and something actually worth dying for. But I don't think that this is on the White House to-do list right now.
Re: A fresh start? I'm with it. /If the experience of ANY other occupying power in history is a guide, it would appear that anti-insurgency campaigns only breed further insurgency. I sort of agree, but I'm not sure that history is a good guide at this point. Times they are a changin and IMO, globalization and tech are factors in the equation that haven't been there before. Further, I don't think this is necessarily the typical "anti-insurgency campaign", as these are not your typical dissodents (sp?). No one can say for sure, but i do think this situation is somewhat historically unique. I think that modern weapons tech makes a single man (or insurgent) a much more dangerous creature than ever before - so much so that it's a new game we're stuck playing. In light of that fact and regardless of the lessons of history, a way MUST be found to control these non-typical insurgents. /I can't think of a historically successful occupation that faced a popular insurgency, unless the occupier took the measure of totally annihilating the opposition (U.S. vs. Indians, Nazis vs. Warsaw ghetto, China vs. Tibet, Japan vs. everybody in east Asia, Soviets vs. Czech-Slovaks, Vietnam vs. Cambodia). The only other way is for the occupier to essentially merge with the occupied (U.S. vs. Mexican-owned TX, NM, AZ and CA, Normans vs. Saxons, Romans vs. anybody they came in contact with). Indeed, I believe the current strategy entails aspects of both. Can you see evidence supporting that without me having to point it out? It might not for sure be correct, but I think you have to admit that either can be construed from current circumstance. /Now, I'm not suggesting that we shouldn't have done something about Saddam or terrorists, but a full-scale occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan simply isn't going to stop terror. Of course, that is just the setup. Don't you remember the part where Bush states explicitely over and over again: this is not over? He's not talking about just Iraq. /Yes, we got Saddam. Yes, we might get Osama. We'll get Osama now that the resources are freed up to do so. I'd bet he's down inside of six months. /There are plenty of other guys willing, ready and eager to step into their shoes, though. But do the shoes fit? There is a reason these guys are successful in their positions: they are good at it. OBL has huge resources. What about others? I'm not saying you're wrong, just that it could go either way, it's a gamble... but the important part to remember is that it doesn't go away. If the bastard is there to replace them, we make it so that he is not able to really become powerful, or we put puppets in place.. ensure that idiots are in charge. Then monitor the idiots. I'm just saying, it might not be as bleak as you paint it. /Since they have been fighting each other and various occupiers for at least a thousand years, I suspect that their patience is somewhat lengthier than ours. It's not about patience I don't think. It's about resolve. Maybe you can convince me why patience is relevant and for sure that we won't match whatever they got. I do not underestimate the US, nor those who would do it harm. /They also have less, really virtually nothing, to lose. I agree that bringing democratic principles and human rights to these countries would be a great idea. After all, if you can give people something to lose, they may be less inclined to act as though they had nothing to lose. Good point. /If it is our motivation, then, to bring enlightened democracy and human rights to the rest of the planet, then we are going to be fooling ourselves and setting ourselves up for massive failure unless we own up to the following hard truths: /1. It is going to take a long, long time. It took Europeans a thousand years to struggle out of feudalism and into modern democracy. It is foolish to expect any culture to make that kind of leap in a single generation. I would expect it to take at least a century under the best of conditions. Great point, the only thing I'm really worried about is american resolve given the huge weight of the current apparenty leftist populous. It doesn't seem that people understand your point about time, and if they don't, they'll elect people who are "peacenicks" who think we don't belong there and then we are through. /2. It will be horrendously expensive. To take, hold and guide strategic nations from anarchy and chaos to virtuous statehood requires a massive amount of manpower and resources. Another good point. That is horrifically tough and it's politically tough to acquire some of their resources to offset the cost. I mean, look at the political scene now. Icky. /3. It will require total unity among the powers of the earth to accomplish. One rogue state willing to undermine the project for a short-term gain will prolong the agony indefinitely. Hmmm.. I don't think you're really right about that. I see what you mean but I disagree, it just takes leverage or savvy in the right places. Everyone does't have to be on board, they just have to stay the hell out of the way I think. We can keep rogues states from jacking in the short-term, but if the right situation comes up they could get all the leverage (because of our investment in the plan) and really jack it up, yeah. /4. It will require a statement of principle that may be VERY unpalatable to a significant portion of the U.S. population, to wit: "Religious extremism of every stripe is exacerbating most of the intractable problems facing the planet today. While preserving the basic human right to adhere to a religious denomination, we repudiate the use of religion in the making of political decisions anywhere in the world. The U.N. Declaration of Human Rights and the U.N. International Law Commision should be the sole standard for legal and ethical decision-making among the nations of earth." Good point. Hmmm. I'll have to think about that. I'm not sure you can't do that on the low down, though it causes a lot of strife. It's a tough scene to balance that's for sure. /5. It will require that we remake the U.N. as a truly democratic body with its own teeth. This means that like it or not, we need to learn to play well with others. Well, if they weren't a completely inneffectual bag of shit I think it wouldn't have come to this. I mean, come on, 12 years, 12938120938 resolutions? More inspections? Holy cow. If you fail to communicate that there are serious consequences for your actions, what kind of authority are you? /There are probably a dozen other difficult hurdles we will need to clear - these are just the ones I thought of before dinner. man you got that right. no argument here, it's a crazy time we live in. I'm not a religious man, but I pray we survive the events to come with the minimal suffering and loss of life. /I think that enforcing basic human rights and increasing the fundamental security of all people is a laudable goal, a worthwhile project and something actually worth dying for. I'm with that. Would you agree though, that sometimes to take a step forward you have to take a step or two back? /But I don't think that this is on the White House to-do list right now. I disagree. I sincerely think that they are on the road to doing this, but that the first steps are not pretty. Gain a foothold in the region, taking down notorious H, blah blah. Not pretty, but IMO, a reasonable strategy.
Wes & Hype, it wasnt that bad (mambo-jambo) ; ) and I like the tone of this new start, so maybe I come back since I can see intresting points on both behalf... ...and ofcourse, happy x-mas to all Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Terms Wes: For the sake of the discussion I will temporarily concede that history may no longer be a guide for the consequences of our actions. Times are indeed a-changing in so many human affairs like technology, sociology and biology, that this may indeed be the "End of History" (http://www.newcriterion.com/archive/10/feb92/fukuyama.htm). Fukuyama and others suggest that the project before us is global penetration of liberal democracy. (A digression here - to avoid becoming tangled in the L-word I would like to submit a definition of liberal democracy that I found at http://www.thinkcentre.org/article.cfm?ArticleID=375. Look at the eleven points about halfway down an otherwise dull article. Also see http://www.policyreview.org/jun03/diamond_print.html for a fuller explication. Can we agree on this definition? Are these the kind of rules that we all want to live by?) It seems possible that accelerating rates and radically new kinds of global change makes history irrelevant in choosing among possible futures. We are clearly riding a wave of democracy (leaving out that other word for the moment) that began in the early eighteenth century and which has gradually eroded all the old ways of governance. By governance, of course, I don't just mean electoral politics. I also mean religion, bigotry, sexism, caste, and every other kind of coercive control by one person over another. The problem as I see it is that there are forces on the edges of this global movement that seek to stop the motion or else hijack it for their own ends. Stoppers include fundementalists (Islamic, Christian, Jewish, Nationalistic, Capitalist) who harken back to a earlier golden age, and who would like to see their particular brand become preeminent. Fundamentalists are countered by the hijackers - those who choose to strike out on a new path of preeminence through the use of power in ways that abandon all precendent. This would include the PNAC crowd as well as the WTO and the new barons carving out empire in global markets. Neither group is interested in democracy, but are nonetheless waging a war for dominance. We hear about it in terms like "The Culture Wars", "Globalization of Free Markets", "Jihad" and "The War on Terror". The vast majority, of course, are caught in the middle; billions of people who simply want to live their lives in freedom and justice but who keep getting tripped up by these ideological fuckers. Where am I going with this? Well, the question I would like to debate without getting sidetracked by Hype's pronouncements or your allergic reaction to them is: Assuming that a person can successfully discard his nationality, religion, ethnicity and his history, take a clear look at the choices being offered him, and make decisions that are not only in his best self-interest but also in the best interests of the rest of the world, and; Assuming that those choices jibe closely with the principles of liberal democracy that I have offered for consideration; Then what does that imply for the topic under consideration - the prosecution of this war, the war that Richard Perle aptly described as 'World War IV'?
