Posted 08 February 2003 - 08:43 PM
[quote] "The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy."
-- Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
[/quote]
Dr. King, like one of my personal heroes Mr. Thoreau, was referring to the responsibility we all must face to decide for ourselves the best course of action to be in accord with our individual principles and personal responsibilities (the true meaning of self-interest) rather than necessarily the common will. Isn't it ironic how the common will and an individual's can become one, and how when they divide significantly, the consequences are most dire?
It is also fascinating to me to examine the process of duality and the polarity of self-interest and little demonstrates this more than a personal duel. Dueling for life and death is illegal in most parts of the "civilized" world, yet of course it is still a common practice.
We are so civilized now. I won't become the predator hunter killer to assassinate your ideas by killing you, instead we play out an endgame strategy of arcane argument and I only have to kill your ideas to save thousands, perhaps millions of lives.
Is this not ironic?
It lends a certain conceptual risk to the abstract wager on our parts. But of course, you and I gamble like bankers for we are playing with other people's lives the way Lenders and Treasurers play with their money. It would be more a honorable should that risk be just yours and mine but I am afraid as in the game of "Risk", what we are actually referring to are simply symbolic strengths or weaknesses and not reality.
Oh, it is reality you say?
I am glad you are beginning to take notice.
You are so brave when you feel secure and larger than your opponent. Yet it seems that you feel very threatened by the loss of your dominance that you would obliterate the competition rather than compete. That just isn't any fun at all.
It is you who openly expresses confidence in Mutually Assured Destruction. I say that together this means we assure a destructive outcome. I insist that the longer we attempt to make this the "Prime Directive of Foreign Policy", the more likely is its ultimate application. But you can't believe that because then you might be afraid to rely upon the seeming comfort such maintenance of might provides you. In the real world we call such folks bullies, insecure, and cowards but of course the relationships of individuals have no bearing here because we aren't talking about you and me standing up to joust to the death over belief...
Are we?
Well the "principle protagonists" in global strategic thinking and competition are. Oh aren't we still so civilized now, we can even vaporize the victims of a "First Strike" and this means that we don't even have to bury so many dead. How efficient, even the German Nazi's would be envious, a proverbial killing of two birds with one stone.
If we use Neutron bombs we kill, sterilize, and do it with radiation weapons designed to not actually damage the buildings and riches of a nation, so we can enjoy the spoils of war and not just obliterate the opposition. Once the second-generation tactical nuclear option was begun, (BTW it began like Star Wars research and Stealth weaponry under the CARTER Administration) I decided to burn my work and abandon my designs for advanced fusion power generating devices. Humans couldn't yet be trusted not to play with dangerous toys and not hurt themselves, or even more likely, not to hurt others even more innocent than themselves.
It is considered a form of cowardice from our common enemy's eyes to act as we do, and in a certain sense they are correct.
The Romans didn't invent the "Scorched Earth Tactic of Warfare". They are however recognized as the paradigm example of this ancient approach for eliminating the opposition. It was they that perfected this diabolic approach and we still apply the "Tactical Nuclear Option" with the same cold logic they did and for many of the same reasons and purpose.
Romans weren't seen as cowards, or simple berserkers. They were however perceived as the first true "Killing Machines". Ruthless mindless automatons whose single-minded purpose became unstoppable destruction once engaged. It was by this very fanatic purpose that they were able to garner many converts and allies to their cause precisely because few would even consider trying to oppose them. But they also through this single-mindedness created enemies that would unite in common purpose to overcome ancient rivalries and oppose the Romans unto their annihilation.
It was the Romans that "coined the phrase" that "there are only two certainties in Life, Death and Taxes". Ironic huh it seems that we are here gathered in common rebellion against both of these assumptions.
[quote]
Mr. Kissinger announced:
I think we should change the thread to not whether there should be a war in Iraq, but what will happen in the aftermath. Come on guys, isn't it obvious that this is going down? Why not start looking at the possibilities instead of living in a fantasy world thinking that this isn't going to happen?
[/quote]
As Bob, many others, and myself are suggesting to you Don, it hasn't happened yet. You aren't perchance a large singing lady in drag are you?
You are playing into a very dangerous win/win, lose/lose competition that in its own way dwarfs the conceptually simplistic MAD use of WMD. Basically as we debate, understand this: If I am right and the worst possible outcome is realized then we are all losers. If you are correct in that I am wrong about the future, you get to say that it didn't turn out so bad after all and I am content with preventing the worst case scenarios.
Those who stop global riots aren't doing it for glory and recognition though many of the combatants are so motivated.
[quote]
QUOTE (Lazarus Long @ Feb 3, 2003)
Please select the weapon{s} of your choice, feel free, take your time and feel the balance, the way cold steel transforms hot flesh, practice and understand that you must become one with your weapon.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
and you retort:
My father gave me a blackjack a few years ago. I carry it with me when I do appraisals in Newark. My weapon is one of practicality and convenience. One which is easily concealed and gets the job done. I do not look at weapons as beautiful pieces of art. I view them as objects that can maim and kill. That is their purpose. [/quote]
I take dueling very seriously and certainly not as simple gaming. I take no comfort from being a witness to or participant in bloodsport and prefer the dogs of war stay leashed. I am a rational survivor and I take this contest of Natural Selection as one that has no moral basis, just the simple Human resolve to meet what ever challenge comes.
Do you like dogs, Mr. Kissinger? Bob? Saille? Mangala? William? Mind? Anyone?
Big dogs, Really, REALLY BIG DOGS?
Have you ever attempted to manage the passions and aggressive competitive behaviors of big male animals in robust health, aggressive prime, and rutting passions? Possibly even ones much more physically powerful than yourself?
The idea that we are the biggest dog, the alpha pack leader is the basic logic of our aggressive posture, not all the arcane political rhetoric and spinning meant to justify the aggressive stance. Our hackles are up and to hell with anyone who gets in the way.
The concept of having a strong offensive posture as a Legitimate Defense is predicated upon ONLY being willing to use it in a SELF DEFENSIVE CAPACITY .
Does this impose an arbitrary distinction ethically upon the preservation and maintenance of a standing military?
Yes.
The very concept of using fire to fight fire and keeping a large military to protect against war is to prevent its use, not indulge in First-Strike Fantasies. That was the principle behind Washington's admonishment to future generations for staying OUT of other people's affairs.
Was this idealistic?
Of course it was but ask instead: Was this a concerned citizen of significant responsibility for establishing the principles that guard the purpose of our State?
Again YES! A thousand times yes, and we should carefully weigh his words for they are still of valid import and address many of the fundamental ideals for which this Union is established.
The argument about dogs that most machos believe is that it takes the bigger dog to rule. The alpha wolf knows it takes more, it also takes love. There will yet come time to drive the current alpha male from the pack and only some think that it isn't yet the time. Other's look on and plan.
The Alpha female rules differently and more gracefully gives ground when her fecund time has past. What we determine to be the core of motive for this conflict is why we unleash the Dogs of War, and the parallels to Rome are not by chance young Romulus, but we have both suckled upon the alpha bitch.
It is just that Remus cared for the witch.
Black, white, good/evil, political polemic, dying tribes and polarity, this is very much about dualism, its multiple facets and the many shades of different color generated by perspective.
Hegel is wrong that there are always JUST two sides, it is like seeing the world monochromatically, just light and dark. Socrates is more astute and Science and Sigma Six are more advanced then Hegel appreciated yet Hegel's inquiry into the "Phenomenology of Mind', and Spirit" are still very good places to start when asking questions about the more mechanical aspects of mentation. They are however not good places to finish.
Well the Bitch is back and the Matriarchy in a Democracy is a major part of the decision making. In this round of battle, women will be called upon to fight and their voices are going to be heard in this debate too. Macho mindsets may be calling the shots for this moment right now, but there will be many types of reckoning that are going to be placed into the cauldron we are brewing.
Or does the classic Patriarchy think it can treat the women of our population exactly as we claim our opponents do?
I find it fascinating that J.S. Mills' quote about "Happiness and Right" is being used so often of late and in particular with our discussion. It was J.S. Mill who was also the author of Utilitarianism. So what perchance did he see in the utility of happiness?
Was this possibly an Aristotelian measure?
Let me take a different approach, let's discuss the utility of weapons.
All weapons are tools. To begin with and end with, they all fall into the larger category of Tools and they are a particular range of killing, maiming, and trapping devices specifically designed for this purpose and since the dawn of human understanding this has been so.
Not all tools are weapons however and in fact contrary to popular belief the first tools were probably NOT weapons. Though the first weapons were undoubtedly Tools converted to that purpose, digging sticks into clubs and spears, hammer rocks into weighted ballast stone and mace, rope into slings and bows. But all of these probably began in the hearth technology of women and the sedentary hunter/gatherer's farming village as devices for more mundane work. We can see the evolution of just such an event in the conversion of Okinawan Rice Threshing sticks into numchucks. Necessity is after all the Great Mother of All Creation.
The essence of engineering is a thing of beauty in itself and this transcends the brutal use of weapons and even reflects the science behind the application of fusion and fission physics. Many see in all machines just the human mockery of Natural Design but I instead see this mimicry as the highest form of flattery. Even the elegant watchwork of the stars and the micro-bio-engineered flesh upon which our spirits depend are little more than machines. Yes weapons can be beautiful and even in that deadly purpose to which they are most commonly put, killing. Never forget however that the sharpest tool and most powerful weapon we possess is the mind.
In the body of the peacemakers it has built civilization and when ruled by the heart of killer, it has brought mayhem, genocide, and personal murder.
You "civilized folk" have forgotten why you sacrifice your fellow man, but clearly you haven't stopped doing it. You have made it only ugly. A simple-minded obsession with no subtlety, no grace, or true design. A pathetic example of an obsessive-compulsive disorder on a massive social scale because the memetic structures for behavioral determinations are still in place, and not rationally confronted by us all.
I say "you" civilized folk for I don't claim to be civilized, I am a feral human.
Truly "Civilized Folk" are domestic humans. Freedom is only for fearless feral thinkers that have thrown off the yoke of domesticity and returned to the wild. This is why freedom is inherently dangerous and democracies cause people to question authority.
Oh but that makes me unpredictable and possible dangerous.
Yes.
But like a cat I can decide when to pull in my claws, as well as when to show them. And even a Big Cat will prefer a Pride to necessarily being unsociable. So civilization is also a work of the Hive Mind of Man. There is a great dichotomy between being feral and being a free worker in Hive economy.
For example unlike commercial art, art as human expression is actually a product of the feral mind. Ironically it is in recognition of the strength of expression that art is elevated to its most powerful memetic character by use as the definitive paradigm expression for the most unifying aspects of Hive Mind. Coincidence? Co-opted?
Weapons are an art, a martial art. Weapons are also works of beauty. Creative artisans that thought about how to equalize their weaker selves to match more powerful threatening opponents invented them. Even your basic-black-jack is only a simple machine, and in its own way as elegant as a stone.
Check.
I collect various weapons and I also train in their use. I am no expert at any but I am reasonably proficient with many.
I prefer the beauty of their design and the grace of their use to simple practicality and I also see them as more beautiful when they function as mere adornment and defensive shield then when they become a daily ritual of human sacrifice. But I also respect the Second Amendment and demand the Right to Bear Arms, openly. Actually that is one of the best ways to determine that I am not a target of opportunity.
Butchery is also a purpose for weapons, and juxtaposed with that there is one more cold steel fact that one can train to bring to battle and that is the surgeon's scalpel. It is small, delicate, and perhaps in many ways one the most powerful weapons of humanity. It cheats death and is most often used to save life.
Surgeons have been to battle since before we can remember and they too have their view of what transpires.
Beauty is not only in the "eye of the beholder" it is in the nature and purpose of our deeds, and cold steel has always born a dual purpose.
[quote]
QUOTE
As a point of reference the "Hegelian Dialectic" that you are so openly critical of is also called the "Socratic Method" for good reason and is considered the "logic" behind the "Scientific Method".
Bob says:
Lazarus Long:
Actually, I see these as two different methodologies.
I am very much in favor of the "Socratic Method" which uses questions to develop a latent idea in the mind of the student.
I am very much against the "Hegelian Dialectic" which is an interpretive method in which some assertible proposition (thesis) is necessarily opposed by an equally acerbity and apparently contradictory proposition (anti-thesis), the contradiction being reconciled on a higher level of truth by a third proposition (synthesis). One reason for my being against this methodology is that many times there are far more than just two or three options. Secondly, this method appears to ignore data collection and testing the interpretation of that data which is so vital to scientific approaches such as those used in Six Sigma.
[/quote]
Apply your own standard to this Bob, You are against the Hegelian Dialectic, I see the Dialectic as a valid aspect of question not limited to how Hegel would define it but more importantly I don't see those who claim to be adherents of the Hegelian dialectic applying it consistently.
The logic I am applying is in itself both an application of the dialectic and an example of what you propose. I suggest that what you might object to in the general application of Hegelian Dialectics is hypocrisy. This is not the same as a synthetic alternative, just an application of the alternative of inconsistency. But as Hume and Wittgenstein have proposed there are at least six categories of Knowledge, or as it is more concretely understood, "certainty".
I am "uncertain" about numerous aspects of the proposed strategy and TACTICS that are being established for my country and I object to this. More importantly I object to being told to have faith in the "Experts" particularly the same experts that can be historically and demonstrably linked to how we got into this mess in the first place.
Applying the dialectic, I am being asked to pose an antithetical explanation and an antithetical alternative to the established strategy and I will try and do this over the course of these essays. But the admonition that you give is a wise one.
Besides simply being two ways of looking at this problem there are in reality many alternatives that need to be addressed and in part I have been trying to lay the ground work for just that over the course of the history lessons and analysis. But I warn all that read this that there seems to be a gross disregard of the "propagandistic" character of the information that we are being granted and this makes some levels of theoretical analysis merely a crapshoot.
We cannot ignore the questions surrounding motive, is the motive to do good a reasonable justification to do wrong?
Taking the easy road in the policy being established serves much more than simply the stated objective. This cannot be glossed over. It is a dual aspect to the image we are subject to. The tactics are likely to have blow-back that is anticipated and almost desired. If in the manner that Mr. Kissinger suspects, this may in turn flush out the "enemy" but what he seems to underestimate is how many recruits to the enemy camp this will incur. In Vietnam we previously made this same gross miscalculation and made the dominoes fall back on us instead.
I do not agree that even an easy victory in Iraq will make a difference in the kind of war that is being waged against us, in fact much the opposite. We are destabilizing the region and I think that we haven't even secured our backs in Afghanistan. Everybody remembers the "Tet" offensive but do these children remember Diem? Or Diem-Bien-Phu? What about how the progressive shift in the nature of our presence that occurred as an incremental commitment, which began to have gross impact on our economy and those of our allies?
They are students of banner headlines and sound bites today, not substantive analysts of historical motive and legitimacy. Frankly the underlying argument behind everything that I have read Mr. Kissinger propose is distilled down to "the ends justify the means".
I am uncertain the ends are even in accord with the means.
I am unconvinced that we are not doing this more out of obsessive fear and desire for revenge then we are from valid strategic objectives. And I will return to what I do consider valid strategic objectives and thus more directly address these points as I proceed with these essays. More importantly I refuse to be trapped in a false dichotomy and in that regard I will also return to answer your more important questions Bob, which I would paraphrase as:
"What do I think is wrong and how do I think we might fix it?
I suggest also Bob, to that to that list of mishandled subjects we fail to teach at school "History" is as important as the two you mention along with Geopolitical Current Events more commonly known as "Social Studies." (Take note I separate them unlike how they are treated at school.) Oh and Languages and Logic deserve a better place too.
But how can any of this be done in an atmosphere with little discipline, too much distraction, and all too little interest?
[quote]
QUOTE (Lazarus Long @ Feb 3, 2003)
So you think we should just heft a little weight around and everyone will take notice huh? Yes they certainly do. Have you bothered to ask them what it is they think about what they notice?
Many think we're definitely dangerous, and possibly incompetent, if not a little demented.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
the same strategists that took up the policy of arming and fomenting "Religious Extremism" in the region of Southern Asia against the Soviets that have now come full circle to manage a crisis, they in fact set in motion back then. They did it to exploit traditional rivalries and divisions within the Soviet Block. In particular they funded the Taliban, Mujahadeen, and a specific group that came to be known as al Qaeda and its leader, Usamma bin Laden.
Now these are the same guys that are going after their own runaway puppet the way Noriega had to hide from Big Daddy. The easiest way they could justify attacking Iraq is if someone could claim bin Laden was hold up there. The only problem with this is that bin Laden originally tried to kill Saddam.
But what's a little blood between rivals?
Could he be there now?
Who?
O. bin Laden, dats who...
Only one problem, he's smarter than that. bin Laden's ecstatic we are taking out his former foe and creating a possible vacuum for messianic monarchs to manipulate and maneuver in. It is exactly the scenario he has been preparing for and training towards all along. He is getting us to do his dirty work and effectively destabilize the region allowing for power vacuums that his cadre can fill.
And Mr. Kissinger came back with:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, throwing some weight around isn't always a bad thing. We conduct our foreign policy with a certain measure of restraint, which can't be said for the Russians--just ask the citizens of Grozny. Oh I forgot, its not there anymore...
[/quote]
I would humbly remind you Mr. Kissinger that it was a reliance on exactly this kind of "Domestic" policy that not only cost the Soviets the Cold War but also lead to their "Balkanization".
Fundamentally this is an attempt on your part to say two wrongs make right, which is just bastardized math applied to ethics, or perhaps you are trying to make the "lesser of evil " argument but in that case you seem comfortable with us being a little evil.
[quote]
Dangerous? No, we are not dangerous to the major players. They realize that our liberalized democracy has a moderating effect on our foreign policy. Some of them even take advantage of this fact by playing our public against our government. The North Vietnamese had this game down to an art form. [/quote]
We most certainly are dangerous to our allies and that is why they are looking at us askance. We are causing civil unrest and disrupting their economies too. Many of the current administrations may find their parties trounced in the up coming elections and this would find us way out on a limb wondering just how we got there.
[quote]
Incompetent? You can't have it both ways Lazarus. Either we are devious and clever or we are incompetent. Which is it?
Demented? And whose opinion would this be? Russia, China, France, Germany...
These are our competitors. I do not worry about their opinions. No matter how restrained our actions, they would still view us with suspicion. That is because of our size and strength. I think you worry about the competition's opinion too much. [/quote]
We are trying to play Rambo and Dirty Harry combined, and I think our enemy anticipated that we would. After all these are old stereotypes. So instead ask yourself why the enemy thinks that getting us to behave this way is a good thing?
I would also point out that the REAL enemy doesn't care if they are killing Democrats or Republicans, Left Wing Industrial Economists or the Religious Right and Neo-Hawks.
In fact how well do you think you know your enemy past the stereotypes?
How confident are you that you know their location?
These assumptions are just that, and I don't think the CIA, FBI, or any combination there of, knows where the real concentration of al Qaeda is or they would be taking out more.
Luckily some of the investigators are professionals and they tend to wait till they have validated their targets of opportunity. I think we need to avoid blithely accepting collateral damage. We need to behave in accord with higher standards not just talk about them. Our actions speak much louder than our words around the world.
[quote]
Kissinger admonishes:
Yes, yes, yes We have created bin Laden, he is our Frankenstein. I have heard this before.
We have been through this already. I know what you are saying. It does not bother me. Being a quasi empire requires playing these games. Sometimes what is done in secrecy is inappropriate, but necessary. You must always ask yourself what is possible, what is realistic? Then frame those calculations in an historical perspective. This is the only way you can do our foreign policy justice. Geo-politics is always so difficult to justify, but what are the alternatives? Should we just retreat home and sit on our hands? You know that that is not an option.
[/quote]
Well the reason I keep telling you to study Rome is that the economic and social pressures created by becoming an Empire destroyed the Republic and almost destroyed Rome itself in major Civil War. I think we run the risk this can happen to us and I believe the enemy is counting on it. In fact in ten years they probably think they couldn't have done anything at all because the world is much smaller today then it was even ten years ago, so they are desperate to act now and get us to do so too. But it isn't no small coincidence that flushing bin Laden and his organization out hasn't been easy, in fact quite the opposite, our actions have been encouraging the breeding of more rats.
Now understand this clearly, when I refer to Rats I mean those who seek our destruction, not a people, not one country and most certainly, not Islam. To return to a point you take all too much for granted, we are not more enlightened than "them." To the perspective of almost a third of the human race Islam WAS the "Enlightenment," and they have good reason to argue that we got the message of the "Enlightenment" from them. After all it was the TEXT BOOKS coming out of the Crusades taken as spoils that fed the Renaissance. The works of Plato, Aristotle, Euclid, Ptolomey, etc.
Why do you insist on simplistic either/or scenarios? I can see numerous reasons to act in a variety of fashions but the first thing I would establish as a rule is NEVER DO WHAT THE ENEMY EXPECTS!
We look like a giant with a hot foot.
[quote]
"He (OBL) is getting us to do his dirty work for him." LL
But what is OBL's goal? To topple all of the regimes of the Middle East and replace them with radical Islamic ones? That wouldn't make any sense. Al Qaeda is a shadowy terrorist organization. By giving itself physical form in nation-states it would be giving up its greatest advantage. It would also give us hard targets and an excuse to do our own toppling. Or is that the whole point... To topple all of the regimes propped up by us in favor of radical Islam or even---a radical ungovernable Arab street (created by us after we topple the fundamental Islamic states) which is in need of our constant occupation. Sort of like one a giant Israeli/Palestinian conflict?
[/quote]
Yes to topple all the regimes in the Mid-East, Starting with the home of Mecca. But you fail to realize that he is interested in a PAN Islamic movement. First destroy these States in succession and then subject them to us. Afterward as the level of pandemonium continues he can be martyred and his vision of Pan Islam realized through the proxies that he has been training and keeping TOTALLY hidden from public view. Like his children.
He is trying to light the fire not put out the fire. He is playing a personal endgame to force a new game and rules on the entire world and the way things have been going we are playing along under his rules. Our allies suspect this. It is more likely that al Qaeda is holed up in Europe, North America, Asia, and Africa then it is that they are in Iraq.
Did some go there and try and make a liaison?
Sure why not, Churchill made peace with Stalin, politics makes strange bedfellows but al Qaeda is not dependent on Saddam and maybe it is the other way around. Saddam got interested in al Qaeda because they demonstrated that they COULD hit us. Saddam only wants to and hasn't been able to. Al Qaeda could be his doomsday option, if he goes down he releases what he has to them and sets them loose.
In the evolution of Statehood the party that does the fighting rarely needs to actually take power overtly. He is more concerned about legitimizing his "Dynasty" and his Messianic Wahaddi Visions that require turning the entire region into chaos, fulfills prophecy, and brings us all closer to his grand unification scheme, one that European and American Colonialists will not be totally in control of this time.
We can only defend the Persian Gulf from established bases. If we see the various Gulf states collapse simultaneously due to civil unrest we won't be able to easily defend our supply line into the region and a long term guerrilla war of attrition could turn against us and our economy even with the oil flowing, which he can disrupt routinely anyway.
Have you ever bothered to notice that an Aircraft carrier INSIDE the Persian Gulf is a sitting duck and almost unable to maneuver?
[quote]
"He (OBL) is getting us to do his dirty work for him." LL
and Kissinger replies:
This is a point that has not been lost on me. When you play a game of chess you always try to put yourself in your opponent's shoes. You always try to figure out the objectives he is working towards. This is how you project moves ahead. It is also the only way you can ever become a decent chess player.
So let me ask my favorite question. What's your end game champ? Project OBL's plan of action. It is not lost on me that 15 of the 18 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia. That is not a coincidence. It was meant to separate us from the Saudis, effectively isolating them. Mission accomplished. [/quote]
It is doing more than that and as I suggest he doesn't just want to separate us he is in a blood feud with the family of Saud. You need to take the arcane politics, culture and history of this region more seriously. They take prophecy and theology very seriously and the fact that you don't makes your actions more predictable to your opponent then his actions are to you. You don't credit his integrity of belief so you are like those that thought Hitler was a clownish joke. Beware of taking our own propaganda too seriously. Al Qaeda is many times the threat that Iraq is, al Qaeda wants the Iraq regime to fall and THEN he can turn Iraq into a safe haven as a legitimized guerrilla movement.
[quote]
QUOTE (Lazarus Long @ Jan 30, 2003)
It is just that politics makes me satyrical and ascerbic. Sorry, I am afraid the jokes went over your head.
I am somewhat sarcastic about us (and that is the royal we, since it is your claim) claiming to want to promote democracy in the world yet we are much happier doing business with an apparantly helpless draconian tyranny then we are in competing against a serious socioecomomic engine that is capitalistic and becoming democratized through the market place EXACTLY like we claim that we want them to.
No way! Not us, we don't want to appear to be giving mixed signals now do we?
and Mr. Kissinger says in turn:
I am the same way with politics. As far as stuff going over my head; wasn't the first, won't be the last. I am a student of geopolitics, not a master. I'm honest when I come across something I don't know. If I wanted to toot my own horn I could find a bunch of morons in the real world who find me a genius. That's not how you get stronger.
I do, however, have a philosophy that I believe in strongly. Just as you do.
My main problem with your arguments is that you are overly critical. Why don't you ever mention the positives? The US is a lot of good and a lot of bad. The US is not perfect. No one is perfect. In the real world concessions are necessary. [/quote]
You are assuming I believe in a Philosophical Basis for my opinions, I might also be just coldly pragmatic. You are also assuming that if I have a Philosophical Bias that
A: You know what it is
and
B: that I have clearly stated it.
I have been nothing if not ambiguous philosophically, almost nihilistic, I have however demanded realism and rational behavior as the best course but this as a Philosophy should be seen as old-fashioned American Pragmatism.
One way that Carter quietly got Begin and Arafat to Camp David was that he gained the cooperation of Brezniev (sp?) . We were tired of being the dog wagged by our tails on both sides and the parties in the Israel had just gotten the A bomb, and they by the way also just attacked Iraq to prevent them from getting it. We were getting closer and closer and closer to Armageddon on a daily basis.
Quietly the leadership of BOTH sides suggested to the parties involved that it was in their mutual Self-Interest's to come to the table and discuss possibilities, because if by chance they tried anymore stunts that would force the Super Powers into a direct nuclear confrontation then perhaps ALL the bombs would fall on the Mideast.
End of problem, they get an apocalypse they apparently desire and everybody dies happily ever after. But this wasn't a media ploy, it was a quiet and earnest concerted back room threat. Too bad but this approach won't work today and it is TOTALLY inappropriate for us to even be CONTEMPLATING tactical nuclear strategies.
We aren't facing a legitimate target.
[quote]
Wouldn't you agree that domestically we are one of the freest societies in the world? Isn't there more opportunity in the US than almost anywhere else? [/quote]
No.
In most places around the world they have the freedom of the frontier or protection from the state accorded by an incompetent and corrupt bureaucracy. Yes this a rich country, and if you possess enough wealth you can buy a certain amount of freedom, but we have the distinction of being the "Capitol of Capital Punishment". We are only surpassed in raw numbers by China in executions and share this distinction with such notable examples of human rights as Iran, Iraq, and North Korea.
Our justice system bargains only with serious investors, like Kenneth Lay. If you are poor you don't get to plea bargain for much at all.
I have lived abroad and I was very content. I came home because I love my country and my family, but I also saw that people around the world are holding us responsible for THEIR escalating levels of perceivable localized violence and they have some powerful and compelling reasons for arguing so.
[quote]
What other "empire" in the history of the world has had such a large constituency of self doubters? You love to bring up Rome. Was there a liberal left in Rome saying how hypocritical the Roman Empire was? I don't think so.
[/quote]
In Rome they called them "Christians," not "Commies" and yes they were the left of center rebel guerrillas whose cause was the betterment of the plight of slave and citizen-worker alike.
They burned too for such heretic belief until they captured the heart of Constantine. Fundamentally early Christianity was a Slave's Religion that preached Communism. The Wealthy Patrician Class suppressed it until the Proletariat found it so popular that the Patricians were compelled to usurp it.
[quote]
Liberals (what other classification would be better for me to use?) aren't patriotic. Patriotism requires loving ones nation. Liberals don't love their nation. They love some ideal in their head of what their country should be.
[/quote]
So the only good liberal is a dead liberal huh? You don't think that rhetoric like yours is WHY I see a risk of civil unrest?
The further this goes the more guaranteed the escalation of hatreds and you make a false assumption if you think liberals are cowards, they would rather attack openly and tear down the Bush administration than fight in Iraq.
I am a Patriot and I think it is the ethical obligation of ALL patriots to question, not follow. It takes a true Patriot to love his country despite all that has been done wrong and to strive to stay true to the path of making it right. This is the clear wellspring of what has brought greatness to our people.
To idealistically love our potential as a people isn't wrong, it is a part of our great purpose. History is full of the right things being done for the wrong reasons, and great harm done for what the faithful thought of as "acceptable reasons". We teach as the basis of universal ethics, first the Golden Rule, and second that "two wrongs don't make a right." Good intentions are not enough to justify all deeds.
[quote]
QUOTE (Lazarus Long @ Jan 30, 2003)
Oh and just two other minor questions,
If Henry Kissinger was such a genius how come he failed to see the potential threat in the early seventies that China would become in such a relatively short time?
Or did he see it clearly and simply not care as the expedient of manipulating China into being the hard place juxtaposed with our rock was too important to his real politick?
If you expect serious students of Global Politics to take American analysis seriously then it had better become, how should I say this...
less provincial.
We tend to look like dangerously powerful amateurs because too many of our own analysts believe the propagandistic pabulum fed to masses as excuses. We are also not very subtle in our policies and look openly duplicitous to even a casual inspection by objective observers.
and Mr. Kissinger responded:
First, we tend to look like amateurs because the nature of democracy makes our foreign policy approach inconsistent.
As far as your knock on Kissinger:
Strategic analysis is not fortune telling. In many ways it is like a game of chess. There are tactics and strategy. If you are a really good chess player you may be able to calculate six or seven moves ahead. However, at some point the possibilities, and the calculations necessary to assess these possibilities, become to great. That is when you move into the realm of strategy.
Breaking up the Sino-Soviet Bloc was a tactic aimed at advancing the strategy of weakening the Soviet Union/communism (the same or different? that's another debate). Weakening the USSR advanced our "grand strategy" of winning the Cold War and elevating the US to hegemonic status.
Once again, your critique lacks historical perspective. The biggest threat to US security in the 70's was not China, but the USSR. So simply on that basis Nixon's decision to open of China was the correct one. Thirty years into the future is not the "near" future, especially in modern times. A lot of things change in thirty years. Further, Kissinger was aware that opening up China was a calculated risk. He goes into it a little in The Necessity For Choice: Prospects of American Foreign Policy. Saying that he should have known that China's economy would grow at unprecedented rates in unfair.
Finally, let's not be arrogant Americans . China's economic boom was not just because America opened up trade relations with them. China made the strategic decision that moving towards the principles of free market economics was the best way to make their nation a competitive global player.
[/quote]
Just like it is unfair to say that giving WMD weapons to Saddam was a strategy that would come back to haunt the planners of that strategy?
Or perhaps investing in fanatical religious terrorist organizations is OK as long as they are "our" terrorists groups, not "theirs"?
Of course he was blindsided to the possible growth of China, he was looking at failed five-year planning and forgot their history. It never occurred to him that the minute they stopped doing what they were doing wrong, they would return to the five thousand years of Market based capitalism that they were already accustomed to. The Chinese have plenty of experience with Capitalism. It is free markets are a little trickier for them.
The Chinese are a major global player and for exactly the reasons you mention, they are watching our actions with an eye to see if we are attempting to "contain" them too. And from the subtext of your arguments they might have good reason to be concerned. The problem is that the USSR was not as much of a threat by the 70's as you imagine.
They were already imploding economically and they were looking for ways of preserving their Superstructure State while trying to get past the demagogues and ideologues. It is a pain when Old folks won't accept change and the military over there just didn't trust us. As we began becoming "Honorable Enemies" their system began unraveling. We played the China card to our advantage but we had to play it no matter what. How could we rationally just go on denying the presence of at the time almost a fifth of the worlds population? It was us that couldn't keep up a multiple front and our war in Vietnam was beginning to unravel, it got worse before better and we were routed.
If Daddy Bush had had his way he would have preferred that the Soviet Union were given a chance to evolve rather than getting fractured. Loose nukes aren't the only problem the collapse generated. IN all of this there is a flagrant disregard of an old adage, "Be careful what you wish for it may come true".
Neo hawks and Toothless Hawks (like Strom Thurman) need to realize that this isn't about dominance it is also about the Rule of Law and establishing a just and true Global System of Jurisprudence. The Neo Interventionists have been getting their wishes and things have been getting steadily worse, not better around the world. Now they are risking going too far and turning the vast majority of the global community into a common cause AGAINST the US.
Also the Hard Core Conservative Movement has not demonstrated a change of heart WHATSOEVER with regard to Nation Building that is the POINT about returning to Afghanistan. They aren't building a Nation they are running raids and occupying Hill Forts. The Extreme Rightwing has had an "openly" covert agenda to eviscerate the UN since they did so to the League of Nations before that. Destroying the League of Nations helped create the Second World War and now instead of strengthening the UN we are systematically attempting to take it over by fiat, or back it down into oblivion.
Another irony is that ALL the statistics you have brought up about the so called popularity of this war are predicated upon the reality that the MAJORITY of Americans trust the UN and want that body to sanction what we do, OR WE SHOULDN'T DO IT! The majority of Americans, not just the ENTIRE "CIVILIZED WORLD" respects and recognizes the legitimacy of the United Nations, it is Government's Policies that are becoming openly suspect.
[quote]
QUOTE (bobdrake12 @ Feb 7, 2003)
"Is the evidence sufficent for an all out invasion or are there any other options?"
To you there is. Not all agree.
Kissinger responded:
Ah, but most do agree Bob. Polls consistently show public support for action against Iraq at 62 to 68%. That is very strong support and about as good as it get in our day and age. You have to figure that at least 20% of the public is dead set against war no matter what. That means that 85% of the public that is "fair minded" has been convinced. Based on that I would say that sufficient evidence has been provided.
[/quote]
No they don't all agree Mr. Kissinger, not at home and not around the world either. Here you are spinning statistics and not looking for the truth of their message. Not domestically, or international does the majority populace approve, THEY MOST CERTAINLY DO NOT CONCUR WITH UNILATERISM. The numbers that reflect taking an action have an inverse relationship when posed as whether we should act unilaterally, and then public sentiment turns against the Bush administration.
The dual purpose of current unity will not just collapse it will turn us against ourselves if we give into our passions and lusts for power. It won't be simply demonstrations at home that occur if this course is taken, it will be a global riot. It will deteriorate and the government will get locked into evermore deadly inaction due to being unable to achieve consensus on ANY issue as the polemic of polarity overwhelms sanity in governance.
This is a significant part of our common enemy's strategy and single-mindedness on our part will accomplish his purpose. This course makes a military junta more likely in order to survive against the external peril and that will bring the war home with a vengeance.
By the way it isn't 20% against, it is close to a seriously determined 40%, and they aren't "flower children" you should be dismissing they are OUR children, they are OUR spouses, they are OUR partners in enterprise and social intercourse, neighbors, friends, and community leaders.
You are not looking past the numbers you are spinning to WHO is in discord here. You are assuming they are cowards because of YOUR prejudice and stereotype. You won't believe me that they will fight here rather than our common enemy until it is too late and any chance at true reconciliation is lost. By then the nature of the conflict we face in the "Middle Kingdoms" will be irrevocably metamorphosed and the game rules altered to a standard that we are unprepared for.
Dialectic, dualism, dual-purpose, and duplicity, all come from the idea that Hegel addresses that for every thesis there exists its inherent antithesis, but synthesis is more than the merging of simplistic extremes. We are also talking about the Honor of our Nation and the Nobility of our Purpose. I hold you to the letter of your words are you really prepared to meet these terms?
[quote]
Let me spell out reform
Representative government, civil rights, economic prosperity. These are my terms. Are these fair terms?
[/quote]
Before you give the party line I suggest you think. I hold you to these terms and promise that if we waiver from that course we WILL fail. You say we are in no danger internally, just externally? I say our enemy knows our true character better than you appear to and definitely more than those who live in self-denial in order to simply live their lives for self-gratification.
We are a dual-purpose people. A commoner phrase of late, these many uses of duality. But in this respect they are correct, the dual use of a box cutter turned it into a knife, and the dual character of reason allowed these weapons to be used to turn the purpose of peaceful transport into a Weapon of Mass Destruction. We, the Americans are like those aircraft flying our fellow humanity into the future, shall we let the blind ambitions and avarice of a powerful few that don't in fact care about their fellow humans, hijack that noble purpose?
More of our history.
When Washington left office he also formed a group of leaders and Commanders into a fellowship of purpose and he called this group the "Society of Cincinnati" and it is still of dual purpose too. Its cadre forms the protagonists of a shadow plan, contestants that have vied for power since the dawn of our country. As dual in their common purpose as Generals Lee and Grant, both were members of that elite club by the way.
Imperialists versus Idealists and they all have MASTER PLANS.
What is happening right now will determine the fate of many past plans. What we do collectively and individually is of no little import or effect upon the pieces and strategy of that game. How this plays out is not chess but living pawns at play and children who are misguided, handling weapons that turn the dual purpose these killing tools (offense and defense) into play of tragic consequence.
Quakers and king makers have been at odds in this land since the colony was planned. Hippies you say?
The hell you will pay. You have no idea of what is transpiring around this world as we speak. People are getting ready to be heard and their message will not keep, they will meet and some will say "traitors" are those who won't go along, heretics who play and pray in not only the way one side or another wants. Start to hurt them and watch what happens, the last civil war will look far more "Civil" and both poles can only lose this one. I am confident that the forces of Manifest Destiny want empire and this will bring civil war, it certainly has before.
Vice President Arron Burr fomented sedition and secession in the South and while he was stopped his party's plans were not. The Jacksonians took over after the Federalists were disoriented by the murder of their leader (Alexander Hamilton) and thus unfolded a Master Plan for Military Industrialism and Westward expansion: Empire building my boy.
The Romans called them "barbarians" we claim them still as captured peoples and label them Native Americans. This was the start of the Neo Greco/Roman period in our past.
Have you ever looked to the art and history of our middle period and asked why? And thus question the messages found there?
In blending diverse captured and consolidated cultures the Roman Army was forced to move past conscription (an old Latin term they invented and we still use) and develop a dual purpose Army. This became necessary after economically the maintenance of the Enormous Standing Armies threatened domestic stability. They created the "Auxiliaries" and these sanctioned mercenaries stood along side the "Legionnaires" and were granted equal citizenship as reward for their service and to insure their fealty. This infusion of foreign influence both saved and threatened the Roman State as large scale immigration is want to do and it is what happens when you conquer a people and make them one with you. They had to go from conquerors to peacekeepers and it was this purpose that dominated the entire period of Empire, that is until it became a steady strategic retreat into oblivion. The Rise and Fall of Pax Romana.
Duality is also irony.
Obviously by now you have taken heed of my avatar?
Neither black nor white is a true color and both left and right are needed to balance a society. We must go beyond Good and Evil and this makes "morality" into a memetic purpose and little ethical purpose. This isn't a synthesis, this is about the clarity of perception and seeing the vastness of the gulf between opportunity and deception.
[quote]
QUOTE (bobdrake12 @ Feb 7, 2003)
The question is whether the proof is beyond a reasonable doubt and how extensive the threat is compared to other threats around the world.
and Kissinger answers:
Here we go. Here is your problem. You ask for the moral argument and then you try to bring up the comparative argument. These are two different animals. [/quote]
Are they two? Are they even only two? If they are in competition then what does this mean for you, and me?
Competing interests?
The global threat is getting worse and the measures we are taking are FORCING them to.
Coincidence?
Please, don't test my credulity. The strategists are playing an openly hostile card because they are just LIKE the opposition and are trying to fight fire with fire. The tacticians are following the idea out that we can flush the enemy into the field by burning the forests around them, killing their buffalo, building walls high enough and far enough that they won't be able to go around or over. We hold their families' hostage to ultra violence and then sit complacent in our power behind the armor of our technology and call the victims collateral damage.
Our enemy knows all this too.
So why are we playing by the enemy's rules? Because this is our modus operandi and they are making us act reflexively, think again why?
[quote]
Of course there are other threats around the world, does this change the fact that Iraq is a threat? Does it change the morality or justification for war in Iraq? No on both counts.
[/quote]
Patience child, apparently the stress of living under threat has upset you. Don't feint.
Apparently you think ducking the blow is unmanly, how macho.
Double think and think again.
Iraq is a "contained" threat for the moment; turn quick.
Can you?
The original (and proven) threat has turned into shadows and the knife is at your back. Morality is irrelevant if your plans are doomed to failure, face facts, and stop spouting the party line.
Is it a Social Darwin determining our fate or is it Orwell that is writing the lyrics to this Anthem of State?
Double-Speak you say and I am clear, this is totally unacceptable to those that claim Liberty, Fraternity, and Equality are here...
to stay
or
I am glad to say I am
"Only sorry I have but one life to give"
to make this noble purpose,
sane reality.
How shall we find the Truthsayers?
Where are those ancient bards who sang so wonderfully that they were heard above the clash of warring clans?
"Looking-Glass" politics got us into the very crisis we face and it won't get us out of this double imaged place.
So you are comfortable with Empire and are prepared to fight?
Then back into the dojo and let us test your mettle again, and then again. Come little one, make a plausibly deniable statement and let us all examine it for what it really means.
I think gunboat diplomacy is outdated and MTV sings a more dangerous song, one whose universal appeal is more generally heard and the greatest threat of all to our enemies. And mind you well child, the enemy believes this too.
[quote]
Who are we to question what the government decides is the most serious threat to our security? Do we have classified intel that would give us the full picture? Can a debate made within this frame work ever be truly won, when it is, by its very nature, subjective?
[/quote]
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish the Constitution for the United States of America."
Subjective?
That's who we are, We are the People .
It is more than our right, it is our RESPONSIBILITY to, under the very basic structure of our democracy and purpose of our Constitutional Republic. It is more than a Right in Common, it is our duty to question.
I in turn question YOUR patriotism for even trying to tell me to blindly obey. There is a big difference between patriotism and nationalism and one doesn't necessarily justify the other.
By the way Sophaniac, the uppercase words in that complex sentence are in the original document and their dual meaning should not be overlooked. You are either part of the problem or part of the solution; it simply isn't about "lead, follow, or get out of the way." Just in case some of you have never read those specific words before and their meaning is unclear to you, it is the preamble to the United States Constitution and I suggest further reading and study are due.
Oh and Mr. Neo Hawk now try telling me that the Constitution was also the product of naive idealists from a former age that has little bearing in today's world. If you even try, I will get you a luncheon date with Hillary.
[quote]
This is where you are getting into problems. It is ok to want moral justification from your government. It is not ok to question your governments decisions on which threats take precedent over others. By doing this you are going from being a concerned citizen to an unqualified analyst. [/quote]
Like I said, blind ambition and blind faith combine to do more to undermine the legitimacy of our State then any effort our enemies make. It is the responsibility of every citizen to assess the goals and merits of our leader's visions and plans. That is why they claim legitimate elected representational office. Before they have the "Right" to lead, "We the People" have the responsibility to seek understanding in order to build rational consensus and have our concerns heard, OR OUR CHOSEN LEADERS HAVE FAILED TO REPRESENT THE CONSTITUENCY THEY CLAIM SOVEREIGNTY OVER.
In fact this is the very validation of the concept of "Free Speech" and the concurrent guarantee of Freedom of Access to Information of State. This is why we have the First Amendment to the Constitution in the First Place, in our Bill of Rights.
If this worst case scenario comes to pass then the leadership is in violation of their "Oaths of Office" and they are guilty of conspiracy to undermine and subvert the very Constitution they are sworn to protect.
Duality is like a solid left jab with a good right hook, by the time you see it coming it is usually too late.
You may be happy keeping the masses ignorant and malleable but I see this as a severe and grave threat to the future of all mankind.
Come along grasshopper, let's get back into the ring and dance.
Let us talk of duality, duplicity, and diplomacy.
Do you love to hate or do you hate to love?
Again, check...
Just remember my budding immortals, that it is only the living that get to dance to Death.
This topic is locked
