From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Mon Dec 20 2004 - 00:08:21 GMT
Sam, msh and all MOQers:
msh said to sam last thursday:
Well, far be it from me to take the fun out of life for people who
get a kick outta war. The question is whether or not there are
legitimate military goals. In a world governed by law, not ruled by
force, it's up to the aggressor-nation to prove that it's proposed
action is legitimate. If we are truly concerned with International
Law, the only way to prove the legitimacy of aggression is to go
through the UN, not pretend to be following UN protocol while you
move your forces into position, only to blow off the UN at the last
minute because the foreseen results are not to our liking. This is
no different that lynching a man acquitted of murder because you
disagree with the verdict.
dmb says:
I think your analogy fits. Supporters of the war would like to discredit the
motives of those on the jury or otherwise find "reasons" for defying their
verdict on this matter. But the facts on the table are there for everyone to
see. The USA was not granted UN authority to invade and the central reason
for that invasion has collasped into a pile of rubble, not unlike the WTC,
which was linked to that same invasion with an equally big pile of lies. As
you may have noticed, I have much less patience with the supporters of this
war. I think its illeagal, morally outrageous, and we were led into it by
way of deception. The whole enterprize mocks democracy and the rule of law
even while lip service is paid to the same. It makes me crazy. Sorry.
msh said to sam last thursday:
Great. I agree that this is a huge rift between progressive and
conservative thinkers. Progressives tend to recognize and work to
expand the family of man concept; in my experience, conservatives
tend to pay it lip-service, but deny it completely if it gets in the
way of personal or immediate group (family, religion, race, culture,
nation) benefit.
dmb says:
I agree and I think that Pirsig's social/intellectual distinction is very
useful in looking at this difference. Its easy to see why a conservative
would resent the suggestion but that's mostly about ego and not about the
value of drawing that line. In other words, I fully expect to take some
heat. Anyway, things like familes, religions and nations are social level
constructions and to the extent that people remain attached to them they are
conservative. One can see these in people's attitudes every day. And of
course it is NOT as the conservative pundits would have you believe; its NOT
that progressive hate their own nations, religions or families. Its just
that they are not so narrow in their love and can see that one of the
biggest problems in the world today is that everybody loves their own and
some of them love their own way too much and some of them would like to get
their hands on a hydrogen bomb with which to express that love.
Such prejudice and provincialism has simply become too dangerous. The world
is too small. I don't think the rule of international law is some utopian
dream, its the key to survival. Its in our national security interests to
co-operate with the world rather than bully it around. In fact, I'm fairly
well convinced that it is much more dangerous to be an American because of
Bush's belligerent nationalism.
on friday msh said to sam:
If your position is that the UN is so hopelessly corrupted that
International Law is meaningless, and therefore the most powerful
countries should go ahead and do whatever they like, then you are
simply reverting to a system of might-makes-right.
dmb says:
I've never met anyone who would admit to being in favor of corruption, nor
do I know of any human endevour that is immune to corruption so this kind of
argument never made any sense to me. I mean, being against corruption at the
UN is not the same as being against the UN. Quite the oppostie. We want to
rid such things of corruption because we want to save them, because we're in
favor of them, right? We want all our institutions of justice to function
properly. What sane person could oppose that hope? No, this is just a case
of discrediting the jury in order to defy their verdict. And you know what?
At a certain point, just when the war had started or was about to begin,
when concerns were raised about defying the UN and the international
community, the administration responded to the effect of, "Well, once
victory is achieved and the facts on the ground change, then our position
will be vindicated." I believe that, roughly translated into English from
neoConese, it means "might makes right".
on friday msh said to sam:
If this is your position, then our argument is over. I mean, what am
I going to the say, it's not nice to rule by force? I would say,
however, that people who think it's OK to rule by force always
believe they hold the winning hand when it comes to the use of
violence.
dmb says:
It could be that the gap is too great and there is nothing that can be said,
but I would have hoped that Pirsig's line between the third and fourth level
would at least help. It seems that he picks the end of Worl War I as the
point when of the intellectual level began its ascent in society. It was
specifically in reaction to the horrors of war that prompted Wilson,
America's first college professor as President, to form the league of
nations, which was the first attempt at an international body and led
directly to the formation of the UN. I mean, if we are to bridge the gap, we
have to convince conservatives that we don't hate America, but are trying to
offer a better way to serve her interests, a way that, I dare say, is based
on a broader and more inclusive set of values and morals and loves.
Here's a not so random observation: I was watch THE SOPRANOS, a TV drama
about a contemporary gang of mobsters. One of the young mafia thugs,
responding to her concerns about terrorism, told his girlfriend not to worry
cause "the President is gonna mop up the whole f**king world and kill all
them towelheads" or some such macho bullshit. Of course we're only talking
about a fictional character here, but I thought to myself, wow, what great
writing. That's exactly what a mafia dude would say. I'm not sure what the
exact connection is, but there is some weird sympathy between mobsters and
fascists and other thugish ideologies. Moments later I was watching some
pundit on TV who looked like he was dressed to star in the remake of the
GODFATHER trilogy, complete with the working-class New York accent and
Italian features. There he was talking all macho-like about what a great
leader our President is. The similarity between the fictional re-run and the
live news pundit made me laugh out loud. (Channel surfing can be a mystical
experience if you do it right?)
What's my point? I don't know. Maybe just that narrow horizons and violence
seem to go together because it makes it easier to devalue those who are out
of sight. I guess I want to persuade conservatives that patriotism and love
of country is not a virtue if its used to justify defiance of international
law, continued support of an unnecessary war or torture of the enemy, which
is exactly what it seems to be used for these days. In that case patriotism
becomes nationalism or even fascism and is a dangerous and self-defeating
vice. This is why "American exceptionalism" is the lesser postion in
relation to "moral equivalence", which is another case of these same social
and intellectual values in conflict.
The proper administration of international law requires a broad and global
perspective and that's all there is to it. I'm not talking about an
ideological litmus test, I just mean as a practical matter. Such an
institution just can't function properly unless there is a perspective of
sufficent scope among its key players. The delegates may very well vote
according to more narrow national or regional interests, but the leaders
need to have a broader view, an intellectual view that can take in several
different perspectives at the same time and weigh them without too much
bias, etc. Again, despite the fact that such talk is often mocked by
conservatives, who will sometimes ridicule the sentiments by singing a few
lines of Kume-Bye-Ya (Whatever that is), despite the fact that this talk is
dismissed as impossible idealism, I think the chances of very serious
violence are vastly increased if we don't sing.
But because we have a bible-thumping macho-man nationalist for a President,
my 4-year old boy will still be at risk in the war on terror as he enter
draftable age, when he might want go off to college. I mean, I think George
has effectively started WW4 and has unnecessarily angered a billion people.
I hope its over in my lifetime, but I sure wouldn't bet on it.
As usual, I've gone on too long. Thanks.
dmb
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
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 2.1.5 : Mon Dec 20 2004 - 00:33:32 GMT