Part 2:
> ii) the sanctions
> campaign against Iraq;
Drop food and consumer products on "enemies" of the USA. Seriously. What
kind of opponents does the US have? If you drew a comparison graph, I'll bet
big money that the level of hostility of a regime, and the level of poverty
and starvation of the poor b@stards who have to live under that regime, are
almost directly proportional. Think: North Korea.
Figure out how much a typical war costs. In money... in lives.
Then figure out how much it would cost to do the following:
What are the objectives of war? To make your opponents go away. US
opponent-regimes generally control what their captive populations hear, see,
eat, do. They welcome every punishment doled out by the great Satan as a way
to consolidate their own power - nothing so unites a people as a common
enemy remember.
So just completely subvert their control mechanisms. Drop food on them.
Wind-up radios, TVs and DVD players. No military force in the world can
seperate teenagers from their MTV. Park satellites overhead broadcasting all
the decadence of the West into their living rooms. Do you think well-fed
people who can watch BayWatch and listen to Britney Spears will give a damn
about their Generalissimos Great Glorious Patriotic Revolutionary War
against the Western Imperialist Infidel? Your opponents will go away. They
will want to be able buy the things you have, and will eventually become fat
and obese and suffer from anomie and take Prozac like us too (and their
women will deliberately starve themselves to try and live up to totally
unrealistic images in magazines.)
Foreign policy seems to be the only pursuit where killing the hostages is
considered a way of punishing the Kidnappers.
>iii) the contempt for international norms (eg Kyoto;
> international court of criminal justice);
But NATO and Britney Spears could be argued to be international norms of a
sort too. I'm not sure that every country should be herded into accepting
them either.
I'm a former member of GreenPeace, and really appreciate the concrete
work they have done, epecially when environmentalism wasn't 'mainstream'.
I'm starting to have serious doubts concerning global warming though. For
every pronouncement insisting it exists, there seems to be a piece of
science or evidence that suggests to the contrary. I'm quite willing to
consider that there may be a bias in favour of industry when I consider the
sources - but this is not something that greens seem willing to ponder
regarding their own evidence. We should use the same intellectual framework
and stantards of quality for both. A lot of Greens seem to be anti-tech
first, and use some environmental concerns as a way to rationalise/justify
imposing their own view of society (or social values). Nowadays, we're all
supposed to cook to death, 30 years ago it was supposed to be a new ice age
- the only thing in common is a rejection of industrial society.
And from another mailing list:
"Decisions of the International Court of Justice are non-binding.
This situation is changing dramatically with the
creation of the International Criminal Court, adopted
in Rome, in 1998 - over the objection of the United
States. The purpose of this new court is to prosecute
violations of "human rights," which are presently
defined in the Court's Charter to be limited to war
crimes, genocide, international terrorism, and the
like. The Court, though, has the authority to redefine
its jurisdiction at will, well beyond the reach of
U.N. Security Council veto."
>iv) third world debt;
Cripples countries alright. But a bankers' relation to someone who borrows
money, is similar to that of a farmer and his chicken. The farmer is not the
chickens friend, he is not the animal welfare custodian. He keeps the
chicken for one purpose: it is a source of wealth for him. If the chicken
defaults with its eggs, off goes its head, and into the pot it goes. If
farmers weren't allowed to do this, what would be productive use of having
chickens?
It is a mistake for anyone to think that a banker has his customers' best
interests at heart - this is a load of marketing hooey.
Also, many third world countries are little more than the gang-turfs of
various Kleptocracies. They use their countries' wealth as a personal
expense/retirement/mortgage account (in Switzerland). Stop giving them
money! You are enabling a destructive addiction and dependency.
> v) the
> sponsorship of state terrorism (Chile, Nicaragua, Israel etc). I could go
> on, and doubtless this argument is raging in various places, and it doesn't
> need to be rubbed in.
No, I think it needs to be rubbed in, even if it hurts like hell.
http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO109C.html
WHO IS OUSMANE BIN LADEN?
by Michel Chossudovsky
Professor of Economics,
University of Ottawa
Centre for Research on Globalisation
"Prime suspect in the New York and Washington terrorists attacks,
branded by the FBI as an "international terrorist" for his role in
the African US embassy bombings, Saudi born Ousmane bin Laden was
recruited during the Soviet-Afghan war "ironically under the auspices
of the CIA, to fight Soviet invaders"."
http://www.lewrockwell.com/sobran/sobran196.html
The Blasts
by Joseph Sobran
"Ah yes, we and the Israelis are hated for our good qualities. Our
governments have done nothing to provoke hostility. US and Israeli bombings
of civilians don't count as "terrorism," of course; nor should Iraqis resent
sanctions that cause them and their children to die of disease and
malnutrition; nor should reasonable Palestinians mind being shot and
tyrannized with American-supplied weapons."
> Thesis three: Military force cannot defeat an intellectual pattern.
Unless by total (holy?) war you "liquidate" all potential biological
carriers of it... hands up for "Operation Infinite Bloodshed", anyone?
Anyone?
> This seems axiomatic to me, but lets spell out what it would mean in
> practice....
Let me add some more shpiel:
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2001/09/14/afghanistan/
An Afghan-American speaks
By Tamim Ansary
Sept. 14, 2001
"You can't bomb us back into the Stone Age. We're already there. But you can
start a new world war, and that's exactly what Osama bin Laden wants
... he figures [that] if he can polarize the world into Islam and the West,
he's got a billion soldiers. If the West wreaks a holocaust in those lands,
that's a billion people with nothing left to lose; that's even better from
Bin Laden's point of view.
... the war would last for years and millions would die, not just theirs but
ours.
Who has the belly for that? Bin Laden does. Anyone else?"
http://www.independent.co.uk/story.jsp?story=94254
Robert Fisk: Bush is walking into a trap
16 September 2001
"Retaliation is a trap. In a world that was supposed to have learnt that the
rule of law comes above revenge, President Bush appears to be heading for
the very disaster that Osama bin Laden has laid down for him. Let us have no
doubts about what happened in New York and Washington last week. It was a
crime against humanity. We cannot understand America's need to retaliate
unless we accept this bleak, awesome fact. But this crime was perpetrated -
it becomes ever clearer - to provoke the United States into just the blind,
arrogant punch that the US military is preparing."
http://www.thepost.ie/story.jsp?story=WCContent;id-26961
The Sunday Business Post, Ireland
"If America is now to embark upon a huge war against Islam, can any adviser
argue with credibility that this war can be brought to a successful
conclusion? There will be no end to such a conflict. The overwhelming
military superiority of the west will be no more than an irrelevance in
tackling such an ill-defined and highly motivated enemy. The strategy that
Bush seeks to impose upon his European allies is one without any exit
mechanism."
> Thesis four: An intellectual pattern succeeds and flourishes in so far as it
> shows itself of higher value than the alternatives (ie closer to the truth,
> and more profitable for individual believers)
Which is why International students have such great parties in US
universities (compared to those Frat/Sorority cultists): They've already
seen and experienced the alternative social/intellectual patterns...
The thing is though, people from around the world who go to university
parties, or who debate in forums such as this, generally belong to a very
priveleged elite globally. Most people on this planet will never even use a
phone in the course of their lives.
Actually, maybe the best thing the US could do for the rest of the world is
to encourage/aid more students from abroad to study there, and to continue a
liberal immigration policy. Every grateful immigrant or returned student is
a potential international peace ambassador, epicenters of good ol'
american-style quality.
Random thought: Have you noticed how the more of a basket-case a country is,
the more hoops you have to jump through to just ENTER it...?
> If the West is to succeed in this war, then it must win the battle for the
> hearts and minds of people in the Muslim world, removing the wells of hatred
> from which the fundamentalists drink. A military victory is a necessary part
> of that, but it is not sufficient. I would suggest that the strategic
> victory can only be accomplished by: a change in US foreign policy towards
> the Muslim world - indeed towards all of the third world, demonstrating the
> generosity which I know is a real part of the American nature.
But we should distinguish between aiding the People of a country, and giving
more money to the Vampires who may be running it (into the ground). Also be
aware that money-aid that comes with conditions placed on the receiving
state, is often portrayed (for political gain) as American interference and
meddling
>It also
> requires a multilateral approach,
I'm not sure I get this though. Switzerland isn't even a member of the UN,
it's a neutral country too. It hasn't been bombed by states or terrorists.
Couldn't the USA pursue armed, active Neutrality?
> and a submission to a higher form of law
> than the individual state
eh... but this often just translates into being nothing more than the
creation of *another*, higher form of uber-state that can screw things up
with even less accountability.
> - a truly dynamic development, on the lines of the
> European Union.
>>gichhh!<<
:@ The EU wants to be a superstate though. It subverts/bypasses national
(i.e. LOCAL) democracy and accountability, centralising power over all
aspects of its citizens' lives in a largely unaccountable and
non-transparent bureaucracy which produces 10 new laws a day, with little or
no local/national variation or veto or input. Is that progress...?
>Although the US is in the lead, it cannot win this on its
> own.
One last smarty-pants comment: I don't think the US has to win anything, or
lead anyone. I notice with the influence of American culture how so much
emphasis is placed on leadership as an inherent virtue, but I think the
world has greatly suffered from an excess of Great Leaders...
How about an international cooperative of peoples? (I think that's what
you're getting at anyway)
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:01:31 BST