Great question, John, go to the head of the class! ;-> I bet if YOU were in GWB's shoes on 9/12, you'd have followed them wherever they were led - I know he did. Thank you, Mr Byrne, for your thoughtful and eloquent discourse; you make some very good points, but as you see you can count on most people to be too damned ignorant (well, maybe just too bullet-headed?) to listen. The Other Tracy "I approved this message". > -----Original Message----- > From: John Lee [mailto:[log in to unmask]] > Sent: Friday, October 29, 2004 9:55 AM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: OT: Non-conservative comments > > > So James, what would you have done on 9/12, the day after 9/11? After > watching your brothers and sisters jumping from 100 story buildings > engulfed in flames, as these leaders of rogue nations watched > and laughed > and applauded. Put yourself in GWB's shoes and tell us > all...what would > you have done? > > John Lee > > At 12:37 PM 10/29/04 -0400, James B. Byrne wrote: > >On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 20:50:47 -0500 Denys Beauchemin > ><[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > > >> Pure sophistry=2E > > > >> Whilst you fiddle around with the meaning of =93war=94=2C > the enemy has > >> a= lready declared war on the US=2C Canada and the rest of > the Western > >> World= and has attacked multiple times=2E In fact the > declaration of > >> war from = the Islamo-Fascists is constantly expanding=2C > to the point > >> where anyone = who does not immediately subordinate > themselves to their > >> will is condemne= d to die=2C by the most disgusting means > possible=2E > > > >THE enemy? And who is THE enemy? How will you know when THE enemy is > >met? How will you defeat THE enemy? Where will you find THE enemy? > >How many more "enemies" has this pointless, aimless, futile exercise > >in primitive violence begat? How many more people must die before > >the sheer impossibility of the task sinks in? THE enemy, as if there > >is ever one true source of anything. > > > >The United States is NOT the western world. Canada does not feel > >itself under attack. Your hyperbole reveals a naive and childlike > >view of existence where all imagined groups are homogeneous, readily > >identified, and easily categorized. The world is neither so neat nor > >so superficial. It may surprise you to learn that the United States > >itself is not as homogeneous as you seem to assume. Many within > >consider that present attempts to force it to become more so pose a > >far greater threat to the well-being of each of its citizens than any > >imagined external enemy. THE enemy is met, and it is ourselves. > > > >You mock the law because you lack both the imagination to see how it > >can work and the desire to try. Yes, the law is a oft-times > >lethargic, always blunt, and frequently unsatisfactory instrument, > >particularly when the fundamental desire is to promote a narrow self- > >interest. Funnily enough, that is its strength. Instead of yielding > >to red-hot emotion or private gain it forces cool public > >contemplation of all the issues that can be discerned and > >consideration of all of the consequences that can be estimated. Then > >it applies rules, standards, and precedence to establish a "just" > >response. > > > >A "just" response is often unsatisfactory for those that have been > >injured. That is because the law does not exist to protect the > >individual but rather the society to the which every individual, > >victim and criminal alike, belongs. Justice, to have effect, must be > >acceptable to all, or at least a preponderant majority, or it is > >retribution only. Justice may have an element of retribution in it, > >indeed it often must or else it is no justice at all, but justice is > >primarily a process of establishing the rightness of public action in > >the face of an offence to the common order. > > > >To be just, all of the acts leading to judgement must themselves be > >free of the taint of personal revenge and private interest. Claims > >about how present circumstances are somehow different than the past > >and thus justify departure from hard won advances in civil behaviour > >are the cry of the barbarian. An appeal to base fear. An atavistic > >response to horribly complex issues that are simply not susceptible > >to simple answers and are only confused and worsened by recourse to > >mindless violence. > > > >Islamo-Fascists indeed! Your paranoia would be humorous in other > >circumstances but I find it hard to smile when I consider the tens of > >thousands of women and children dead because similar thoughts have > >blinded people who ought, and have a duty, to think things through to > >their likely outcomes before precipitating irretrievable acts of > >violence. > > > >I will put it very clearly. The present course of action pursued by > >the United States cannot succeed in reducing terrorism as a political > >tool because it creates more foes than it kills. The process is > >geometric and it can only be halted if one of the instigators > >restrains itself. Since the role of barbarian has been cast for the > >other side then this necessitates that those who see themselves as > >civilized must act with restraint. The process by which public > >violence is both restrained and legitimized is called law. > > > >Law is a process that develops to suit evolving social needs. The > >requirement to reduce international political violence is a pressing > >social need. Two world wars made that case very clear. Responses > >that employ raw violence without social consent fail in their social > >object and often create internal social stresses of separate and > >novel natures in themselves. This in turn promotes internal > >instability and may cause cherished social institutions to weaken or > >fail under the trial. The longer violence whose legitimacy is > >contested is continued the greater the possibility of some > >catastrophic internal failure. > > > >The situation in Iraq is not tractable to a military solution. The > >deep unhappiness of many non-western people who see important > >cultural values being swept away by a tide of capitalist inspired > >consumerism cannot be satisfied by superficial calls for greater > >education and more equitable wealth distribution. These are > >important issues but they are not central to this situation. This > >problem most certainly cannot be answered by killing people > >indiscriminately. A space must be made for these people or they will > >continue to strike out at those whom they perceive promote this > >social upheaval for private profit and against the institutions that > >they believe support the process. > > > >They will fail, because blunt violence only creates problems, it > >cannot solve any. The mistake is to copy them and respond in kind. > >By doing so you play into their hands and accept the rules of the > >game as they have written them. For killing spreads unhappiness to > >the relatives and friends of those killed, it does not cower them. > >If you try this then you end up having everyone for an enemy and you > >cannot watch everyone all of the time. Eventually, either you must > >enlist the world's co-operation to eliminate this source of violence > >or you are condemned to retreating within a prison. > > > >The law that you mock, the legitimacy that you deny, is in the end > >the only thing that stands between the individual and brute force. > >If you do not grant its protection to others then you will not > >preserve its shield for yourself. > > > >There is nothing utopian or idealistic about this, it is simple > >politics. Piss enough people off long enough and eventually they will > >combine to kill you. The only realistic alternative is to convince > >most people that the law needs to be changed to eliminate that which > >you find intolerable and to see that it is equitably enforced for > >all, including yourself. And that often necessitates giving up a few > >valuable considerations in exchange. Sometimes it takes the powerful > >and wealthy a long time to see where their interests truly lie. > >Sometimes they never see it. Sometimes their hands are forced and > >they loose the ability to choose. > > > >As for your opinion on the credibility of the United Nations, you are > >in a minority position even within the United States. Many who > >express similar sentiments wish it were otherwise but one opinion > >poll after another show that a constant 60%+ of U.S. citizens approve > >of the UN and the same number indicate reliably that the United > >States should only take action abroad with UN approval. > > > >Now, once the United States is actually committed to some foreign > >adventure approximately 50-55% will support their country (right or > >wrong) but that is an artifact of contested loyalties overwhelming > >personal belief under circumstances of actual conflict. It is not an > >expression of what these people desired as preferable prior to open > >hostilities. > > > >There is a body of international law that permitted removing Saddam > >Hussein from power though the UN and trying him under the authority > >of the ICC. However, that idea does not sit well with the > >chauvinists presently running the United States (and to be fair, most > >of the other governments of the world), who perceive one set of > >standards for themselves and another, quite different, for the rest. > >No, the idea that ruling sovereigns, even from forth rate countries > >like Iraq, might be taken to the dock for mistreating their own > >citizens and threatening their neighbours must have caused blood to > >run cold in many that hold high office, both in the United States and > >abroad. So it is not surprising that the UN presently can do little. > > It is a case of the powerful having to choose between what they have > >and what they want. > > > >Naturally they want to get what they desire and also to keep what > >they have. However, past experience shows that in great events this > >is an unlikely outcome. So the present unsatisfactory state of > >affairs will continue, until the growing cost in blood and gold > >impresses itself upon the public consciousness and popular political > >pressure to end it becomes too dangerous to resist. > > > >And what will be the result do you think? Do you believe that the > >rest of the world thinks higher of, or is more fearful of, a super- > >power with 300 million citizens that cannot impose its will on a > >single impoverished state with fewer than 30 million? Do you believe > >that the rest of the world is now more inclined to follow > >Washington's lead on anything? Do you believe that the public > >opinion of the rest of the world's population is of such > >inconsequence that it may safely be ignored or mocked? Do you think > >that this type of behaviour actually furthers the interests of the > >United States? Do you think that the United States can afford the > >bill? For someone who hates taxes as much as you have evidenced in > >the past you are not really thinking this through. > > > >No, the law, for all its faults, is the only way to go for it is the > >only thing that proves socially durable, or affordable. The problem > >is that for now the United States is unwilling, and perhaps unable, > >to pay the political price that consent to the law necessitates. > >However, the present mess in Iraq is representative of the > >alternative and the next one will be worse. Eventually, the value of > >the freedoms lost to submission to the rule of law will come to be > >viewed as less than the costs of resisting. At that time, change > >will occur. > > > >One last point on semantics, it is impossible by definition for > >sophistry to be pure since the art hinges on substituting variable > >meanings for words that are used throughout the argument. If rather > >you intended its meaning in the modern sense of false argument then > >again your statement fails, since no postulate can ever be formulated > >free of imprecision. Thus all true assertions must contain elements > >of falsehood and all false ones, elements of truth. Purity therefore > >is an unachievable ideal. In any case, asserting that ones > >opponents' arguments are nought but sophistry requires recourse to > >logic in either displaying the fundamental falsehoods expressed or > >the changes of meaning employed. This is notably lacking in your > >response. Indeed, consider the impossibility of rationally > >establishing the truth or falsehood of many of your own opinions > >given as evidence but falling outside the realm of objectively > >determinable fact. > > > > > >-- > > > >*** e-mail is NOT a secure channel *** > >James B. Byrne mailto:ByrneJB.<token>@Harte-Lyne.ca > >Harte & Lyne Limited http://www.harte-lyne.ca > >9 Brockley Drive vox: +1 905 561 1241 > >Hamilton, Ontario fax: +1 905 561 0757 > >Canada L8E 3CE delivery <token> = hal > > > >* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, * > >* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html * > > > > * To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, * > * etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html * > * To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, * * etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *