Hi Platt
I forgive you for calling me Rog - as long as Rog forgives you too :-)
On 25 Sep 2001 at 10:56, Platt Holden wrote:
> > > P: I’m glad you concede the point that war is sometimes necessary.
> >
> > Wouldn't deny it. I can't see any reason to justify it in these current
circumstances
> > though.
>
> Would it be justified if a London was hit by a gas attack that killed 6,000
> or more?
It would depend entirely on who/what had attacked us. There are internationally
valid laws which govern the rules of conduct which _civilised_ societies adhere to.
This is the RULE OF LAW and when rogue states break these laws and declare
war on others they are subject to the retribution of those states and/or members of
coalitions of states they have attacked.
If, for example, the government of Germany attacked the UK and gassed 6000 in
London, this would be an overt declaration of war - whether stated or not - and the
UK, under international law would be entirely justified in retaliating. However, if a
terrorist cell of the IRA attacked the UK and gassed 6000 people, then even if it
was common knowledge that they were armed, supplied and encouraged by both
Eire and the USA we would not be justified in retaliating in kind against Eire or the
USA.
The US and a coalition of other countries are about to do exactly this against
Afghanistan and probably Iraq when they get a chance. This is illegal, according
to international law and immoral according to MoQ.
> > > P: Outrageous. I'm in favor of disbanding the UN. It’s incredibly
> > > bureaucratic, totally ineffective and anti-British/American.
> >
> > You missed out anti-Israeli. But this isn't surprising seeing as how the US, UK
and
> > Israel (to name but 3) all ignore UN resolutions when it suits them or block
> > inquiries where the outcome may be embarassing - as is the case with Sudan.
> > The intriguing thing is though that all of the above get very stroppy when
someone
> > like Saddam Hussein does the same. I think the term for this is hypocrisy. And
far
> > from disbanding it I'd love to see it have much sharper teeth.
>
> Ok, but put the headquarters in London. The U.S. should withdraw its
> funding. It is immoral for a nation to support those who wish to see it
> destroyed.
Happily. The main reason that the UN headquarters were in the US is becasue
the US wished for them to be there during the formation of the UN after WWII. It
believed it could dominate the proceedings but when it found that opinion was
against it in a number of areas it went off in a sulk and refused to play. For years,
whilst the US couldn't dominate the UN it failed to pay its bills even though it
retained it's power of veto - which it used on a number of occasions. As for being
immoral for a nation to support those who wish to destroy it, this is arrant
nonsense. According to the MoQ it is more moral for an idea to destroy a nation
than for a nation to destroy an idea. Intellect is more dynamic than Society and
your equating a terrorist to a germ is entirely wrong. A germ has no Social or
Intellectual content - a terrorist does. It is moral to destroy the Biological patterns of
Value that cause terrorism but not necessarily the Social patterns or the
Intellectual patterns and certainly not the Dynamic Quality of the situation. I
suppose this is similar to the scene in the Merchant of Venice when Shylock
demands his pound of flesh. We could do well to remember the ensuing plea
starting with 'The Quality of Mercy is not strained......' It would appear to be very
relevant in this
situation.
>
> > > H: And while we’re on the subject of that scumbag Saddam, would
> > > anyone care to enlighten me as to why the liberating of the West
> > > stopped short of moving into Baghdad and capturing Saddam
> > > Hussein?
> > >
> > > P: Many Americans, including me, have asked the same question. This
> > > time, let's get him.
> >
> > Right! Like we've been bombing Iraq for the last several years for fun. But I'm
sure
> > you know as well as I do that to have gone into Baghdad and taken him
would've
> > ended up raising some very embarassing questions and answers -
embarassing
> > for the West anyway. And there were too many camera's around to risk
> > assassinating him.
>
> Embarassing on what grounds? Since when are war goals and
> strategies guided by embarassment?
On the grounds that Saddam was the West's Golden boy for years and that in
attempting to annexe the whole of Kuwait instead of the noethern region he had
overstepped his initial remit. There was also an embarassing moment for Pres. G.
Bush (Snr) when asked about a certain document in the possession of one
Madeline Albright relating to the approval of the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq. This
turned up in one of the 1992 (?) Presidential debates (televised) between Bush
(Snr), Clinton and Ross Perot. It was very interesting and I watched the whole
thing with great interest. Bush evaded the question but looked like a naughty boy
caught with his trousers around his ankles.
>
> > > H: So let me get this straight. When an elected government of a
> > > constitutional democracy supports terrorism and provides training and
> > > weapons and finance to terrorist groups this is OK.
> > >
> > > P: You got it right. Defenders of liberty should never be asked to tie their
> > > hands behind their backs.
> >
> > OK let's start from your initial premiss:
> >
> > PLATT:
> > "I interpret the MOQ view to be that those who are terrorists and those
countries
> > who support and/or tolerate terrorists have the moral standing of germs and
like
> > germs must be deliberately and ruthlessly annihilated by all means at our
> > disposal."
> >
> > I was born and brought up in London, England and remember well the
bombing
> > campaigns carried out by the IRA. I was within 5 minutes of being killed or
injured
> > myself in 1973 when I was working in Oxford Street and a bomb went off
causing
> > death and destruction. There were various other occurences such as this, like
the
> > Harrods bomb and the Hyde Park bombing. Additionally there were pub
bombings
> > which resulted in a number of persons being killed and maimed. In Northern
> > Ireland there have been, I believe, in excess of 3000 people killed by terrorist
> > violence.
> > The U.S. has supported the IRA and tolerated members of the IRA. It has
blocked
> > extradition of self-confessed terrorists and allowed financial aid to be gathered
and
> > passed on to this organisation. The US has also supplied numerous weapons
to
> > the IRA. All of the attacks by the IRA on the British have been against a
> > democratically elected government.
> > By your reasoning the U.S. has the moral standing of a germ.
>
> Yes, if you have given an accurate description of American policy, which
> you haven't. Otherwise, I don't think Great Britain would have played
> America's national anthem at Buckingham Palace shortly after the
> terrorist attack on the Trade Center.
Now you're splitting hairs. Are you denying the existence of Noraid and its various
chapters around the USA. Or are you denying the existence of the documented
legal proceedings that prevented the return of a number of escaped IRA prisoners
on the grounds that they were imprisoned for political crimes. These crimes were
no different (except in degree and the persons against whom they were
perpetrated) to the attack on the USA by Osama Bin Busy and his organisation. It
is not official Afghan policy to support and supply Bin Laden either. The Taliban
possibly, although this is denied officially, but because the USA and most other
western countries have failed to recognise the Taliban as the government of
Afghanistan this is not the official policy of Afghanistan but it seems to have
become convenient once again to ignore the rules and laws which we impose on
others when it suits our own revengeful bloodthirsty purpose. There's also an
amount of duplicity involved here as well. The US gave the Taliban millions of
dollars just a few months ago for managing to provide an interpretation of the
Q'ran which banned the cultivation of Opium. Where do you think this money
went? Jewellery and flashy cars for the Mullah's - I think not.
>
> > PLATT:
> > "You got it right. Defenders of liberty should never be asked to tie their hands
> > behind their backs."
> >
> > To continue to use the U.S. as an example, much of the reasoning behind the
> > threats against Iraq, Pakistan etc. are of the "My enemy's friend is my enemy"
> > variety which also must include "My enemy's enemy is my friend ".
> > To take this reasoning to it's logical conclusion, the attack on the WTC was by
> > friends of the UK and other democratic countries and were part of the defense
of
> > liberty in association with these other countries. Why should WE have our
hands
> > tied when it comes to the tools we use?
> >
> > I imagine the lesson here is that before you go condemning others for their
crimes
> > it's probably useful to examine your [coutry's] own shortcomings.
>
> Huh? Would you run me by that again. I know Britons believe
> Americans are dumb Yanks, so let me bolster that belief by admitting I
> don't follow your argument.
Some Britons maybe but not this one. I was using the above as an illustration to
show that by using your reasoning (not having our hands tied by silly old other
peoples rules and laws etc.) it would be acceptable for the UK (or any other
aggrieved democratic country with a democratically elected government) to use
someone such as Bin Laden to attack the US. It would, by your reasoning but not
mine, be justified!
>
> > > H: America, England, Australia, India, Israel, Iraq, Iran, Palestine,
> > > Afghanistan, etc. are all SOCIAL patterns of value. None of them were
> > > created by intellectual values.
> > >
> > > P: Disagree. England and the U.S were created by the intellectual
> > > values of trial by jury, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, etc.
> > > Surely you are thankful for the Magna Carter. I am, and I'm not British.
> >
> > I have a copy of the Magna Carta somewhere nearby but as I'm not one of the
> > aristocracy whose rights are being defended I can't see that it does me much
> > good. Surely you don't think John Lackland gave a stuff about the peasants
and
> > slaves in England when he drafted that. Or are you confusing this with some
form
> > of written constitution or rights or whatever.
>
> The Magna Carta limited the power of the king, the first step toward
> limited government. That's why we hold it in such high regard, even if
> you don't.
It had nothing to do with limited government as far as I remember but gave the
aristocracy rights to crap all over the peasants whenever they felt like it without
having to check with the King first. They could organise and develop feudal
systems already in place but still had to defer to the King in a majority of
instances. At this point in English history there was no government as we would
see it today only social level alliances. Intellect would have been treated with total
contempt as it would have involved tricky things like reason which the inbred
morons of the aristocracy of the time wouldn't have recognised if it danced naked
in front of them. From my dealings with the descendants of those same people
this is pretty much the case today.
>
> > > H: The forms of government that emerge from these social patterns
> > > are indistinguishable if they perform the same low value actions. . . . I
> > > do try to apply any standards evenly and that includes looking at the
> > > actions governments take.
> > >
> > > P: If there is moral equivalency between nations, we may as well hand
> > > over our weapons to Hussein right now.
> >
> > Well by your reasoning (see above) this is probably the case. I don't think
> > Saddam has been caught red-handed organising and supporting terrorist
groups,
> > lots of rumours though.
>
> So I gather you put terror to defend freedom on the same moral level
> as terror to defend totalitarism? Or have I misunderstood you again
> since you didn't say it?
Yes I put terror to defend freedom on the same moral level as terror to defend
totalitarism. Terrorism is terrorism. Murder is murder and psychopaths are the
same by whichever standards you care to apply. I do not and could not ever justify
murder and terror in the pursuit of democracy. Once this happens democracy is
hollow and worthless and is no better than the law of the jungle. Might does not
make right.
>
> > > H: Brains not muscle is the only way to sort out this mess.
> > >
> > > P: So we call in a bunch of psychologists and invite Bin Laden to a
> > > seminar on conflict resolution? I don’t think so.
> >
> > I was thinking more in the way of diplomats and peace talks but if you don't
think
> > the U.S. is up to it....
>
> Sure, the way Neville Chamberlain was up to it when he said, " We can
> do business with Hitler."
Which was perfectly true at the time. The UK government knew exactly what was
going on in Germany and our political system was well geared to integrating Nazi
beliefs with what was good for the UK government of the time. Additionally, once
again the aristocracy and the monarchy were up to their armpits in collusion with
the Nazis - anything to continue power. The main reason that the UK became
involved in a war with Germany (its monarchic sibling) was to ensure that Europe
remained divided. We have always existed with the knowledge that a united
Europe is bad for the UK and, unfortunately, have always behaved accordingly.
I was actually thinking more in line with the way the UK and the Irish Republic etc.
are currently involved in trying to formulate some form of peaceful solution -
helped along in part by Clinton but apparently tossed out the window by dubya.
We realised some time ago that trying to kill terrorists is like trying to command
the sea to go back. Great idea but a complete waste of time. Negotiation is the
only way in the long run.
>
> Obviously we have widely different worldview. But, I'm sure we can
> agree on one thing--the hope that those who would do our countries
> harm are eradicated before they kill again.
Better to treat the disease rather than the symptoms - but initially the symptoms
need to be arrested. So the arrest and trial (preferably in a neutral country) and, if
convicted, the imprisonment of Bin Laden and others involved in this atrocity
would certainly be welcome. I would also apply this rule equally to ANY others
who involve themselves in terrorist activities be they the CIA, MI5, Mosad, KGB
etc. Terrorism is the symptom of the disease that needs to be destroyed.
>
> Platt
>
> P.S. While I disagree with you, Horse, I am constantly appreciative of
> the work you do to keep this forum going. All participants owe you a
> debt of gratitude for defending the right of free speech by making this
> platform available to us. Please accept my heartfelt thanks.
No problem - I'm happy to provide facilities for our members (gratis and without
obligation - except for a few minor rules), but don't forget the rest of the Steering
committee of Keith, Magnus and Marco and our bandwidth and web-space
provider VENUS Internet.
For the most part the arguments on this list thankfully do not descend into
pointless insult, although at times they can become heated. Most of us share a
common cause - MOQ - and constructive argument through disagreement is
healthy.
One thing that I have noticed, being a member of several MoQ/Pirsig related
mailing lists, is that this one and our sister list moq_focus, are THE lists for
discussion of the MoQ. No other lists even come close. If you want to talk about
the MoQ this is the place to be. Great innit?
VIVA MOQ.ORG
VIVA LA REVOLUCION
... er! or something like that :-)
Horse
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 - 16:01:32 BST