Re: J F on why USA is a regime

From: Bill Todd (billtodd_at_metrocast.net)
Date: 10/20/04 

Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 18:56:05 -0400

"David Froble" <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote in message
news:417532FE.9060106@tsoft-inc.com...
> Bill Todd wrote:
>
> > "David Froble" <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote in message
> > news:4172160D.503@tsoft-inc.com...
> >
> >>Bill Todd wrote:
> >>
> >>It's always nice to hear fromt he far left...
> >>
> >
> > Not that one ever does around here. I'm strictly a centrist, myself:
it's
> > just that a lot of people have been listening to rabid ideologues so
long
> > that they have forgotten where the center is.
>
>
> Location can be based upon perspective. So even while you are far 'left',
you
> look around and determine that you are at the center of things.

Or perhaps it's people like you whose perspective is severely skewed.

I was a centrist several decades ago, and haven't changed my orientation
since (though my *approach* to that orientation has become somewhat more
radical as the country's political center has moved to the right). Since by
the standards of the rest of the world the U.S. has become downright fascist
in its behavior and attitudes, I have no problem at all still considering
myself to be a centrist, though possibly no longer in U.S.-centric terms
(I'd *hope* that the general population isn't nearly as fascist as the
behavior they're supporting is, just as the general population of Germany in
the 1930s may not have been nearly as fascist as the regime *they* supported
was, but that is, unfortunately, yet to be determined).

>
>
> >>>"David Froble" <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote in message
> >>>news:4170088A.6070901@tsoft-inc.com...
> >>>
> >>>...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>>The day the USA began its illegal invasion of Iraq, it became a
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>"regime".
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>It's even more illegal and a crime against humanity to allow something
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>like
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Saddam to remain in power and impose harm on those within and outside
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>Iraq.
> >>>
> >>>Actually, the latter is not technically illegal at all, whereas the
> >>>
> > invasion
> >
> >>>most assuredly was.
> >>>
> >>
> >>I guess it depends who is defining 'illegal'. In "Dave's World",
someone
> >>
> > like
> >
> >>Saddam is definitely 'illegal'. Possible not in "Bill's World".
> >>
> >
> > I hadn't realized that you had your own private fiefdom wherein you got
to
> > define legality. In the world that most of the rest of us inhabit,
legality
> > is defined by governmental entities, and that's the definition I was
using.
>
>
> Strange. I thought that the people, as a group, defined the government.

You're seriously confused, David - or perhaps just reluctant to accept the
fact that you misspoke.

We may (at least nominally) define the government, but the government
defines the laws, and the laws (with the assistance of the courts) define
what's 'legal', without any recourse to a popular referendum on the subject
(the most effect that popular sentiment.can have on what's legal is to
pressure its representatives to change it, and only after that change has
occurred does what is legal change).

If you apply the same level of analytical thinking to such questions that
you presumably apply to technical issues, you'll probably start to
understand them much better.

...

> > But in matters like this one you don't seem particularly concerned with
much
> > beyond your own prejudices, so I doubt that factual issues matter much
to
> > you. Which is why people like you should be prevented (by 'whatever
means
> > necessary') from imposing their uninformed will on others.
>
>
> Now that's really humorous. When I propose "whatever means necessary" you
get
> bent out of shape. But it seems that "whatever means necessary" is quite
Ok for
> you, and youe 'Elk'. :-)

It has to do with the difference between aggression and self-defense. While
I abhor the *need* for violence of any form, there's no reasonable argument
for denying people who are oppressed the right to oppose that oppression 'by
whatever means necessary' - the inclusion of the word 'necessary' clearly
requiring that they have exhausted other reasonable avenues for redress
first (and if you're not aware of the history of attempts to do so, that is
merely a reflection of your own ignorance; by contrast, our own actions have
very definitely jumped the gun to a 'shoot first and ask questions later'
stance).

There's a great deal of truth to the adage "One man's terrorist is another
man's freedom fighter." The behavior that you don't seem to approve of is
hardly distinguishable from that which we grimly applauded 6 decades ago
from the French Resistance - another fine example of the influence of
perspective.

...

> Some have maintained that 'legality comes from the barrel of a gun'. In
the
> end, sadly it's true.

Not in this country, at least not according to its existing Constitution.
Again, you seem to be confusing the law with what backs it up.

...

> >>>Attitudes like yours are a significant part of the reason that a large
> >>>portion of the world would stand up and cheer if Washington, D.C., were
> >>>wiped off the face of the earth - not as vengeance so much as to knock
> >>>
> > us
> >
> >>>down enough pegs to make us cease being a threat to the rest of the
> >>>
> > planet.
> >
> >>>Until we change our attitude significantly, you can count me in that
> >>>
> > number.
> >
> >>>- bill
> >>>
> >>
> >>So you would actually cheer if hundreds of thousands of people in
> >>
> > Washington
> >
> >>D.C. were to die?
> >>
> >
> > Yes: the currently-popular phrase for that is 'collateral damage', and
if
> > that's what it takes to stop our insanity (the condition I specified
above),
> > so be it. My guess is that it might well actually minimize the total
loss
> > of life compared to the situation if we are *not* stopped.
>
>
> In 'Dave's World', there is no such thing as 'collateral damage'.

Too bad your world doesn't happen to include Iraq. But then it seems rather
isolated from reality in multiple respects: it may make *you* happy to
escape there, but it really doesn't seem to have much relevance to the
*real* world as it exists.

  If 'Bill's
> World' supports the idea of 'collateral damage',

My world, like the real one, accepts the *reality* of collateral damage. My
world expects such damage to be minimized, according to the abilities of
those prosecuting a war to do so. We're barely making even superficial
attempts to do so in Iraq, despite our overwhelming military superiority and
hence *ability* to minimize it if we were truly interested, whereas any
'terrorist' organization mounting a retaliatory attack on Washington would
hardly have the resources to be finicky about its scope.

 then I suggest that you
> practice what you preach, and be the first to experience first hand
'collateral
> damage'. No? I didn't think so.

You appear to have started holding a discussion with yourself above, which
is often not a good sign of stability.

  People who think thus, always deem it proper
> for others, but not themselves.

And now you're drawing conclusions based on that discussion that you and
yourself just conducted. Allow me to observe that the only possibly valid
conclusions one could draw from such a discussion would apply to oneself.

I accept my portion of responsibility for not having prevented (not that I
didn't try) our country from engaging in activities that justify the kind of
retaliation we're likely to see. If I lived in a likely target area, I'd
seriously consider moving - and in no way blame 'the terrorists' for needing
to do so. If I or anyone I seriously cared about actually became a target
anyway (not that I feel any inclination to become one: once again, your
implied logic above is rather strange), I hope I'd understand.

When I selected a location for our house, I avoided areas subject to
flooding (the main natural disaster one needs to worry about in this area)
and gave some consideration to avoiding major population centers and
military targets (this was back before the end of the Cold War). It just
seemed prudent, and I didn't spend any time berating Mother Nature or the
Soviet Union for having to make such choices.

Not that I wasn't happy to see the Cold War end, of course. And I'd be at
least as happy to see the current global stand-off end, but until *we* take
the steps we need to to accomplish that goal I'm ready to accept the
consequences of my failure to keep the country for which I'm partially
personally responsible from being a legitimate target, while not going out
of my way to be a target myself (save perhaps of the more fascist
contingents right here at home, because I *do* feel an obligation to stand
up and be counted against them).

  A bit like the hyprocrisy of the terrorist
> leaders. Those cowards will recruit others for suicide attacks, but
strangly,
> they themselves never seem to make such attacks.

Very much like the military: it's been a very, very long time since the
general staff led the charges - but I guess that thought wouldn't slow down
for a second someone with the prejudices you so clearly hold.

It is yet another sad fact of the reality which you seem so intent on
ignoring that individuals vary in their ability to contribute to most
endeavors, including violent struggles. Any sane organization recognizes
these differences and attempts to use its resources optimally.

Of course, that doesn't necessarily imply cowardice or lack of commitment.
Osama bin Laden, for example, (remember him? he's supposedly the reason
we're in Iraq, sort of...) had every incentive to live a life of luxury and
personal security, but instead exposed himself to decades of severe personal
danger and hardship (including, we're told, life-threatening medical
problems) to support the cause he believes in.

>
>
> > I guess I just have to ask, did you cheer as the WTC
> >
> >>buildings fell?
> >>
> >
> > No: it only became clear to me in retrospect just how justified the
attack
> > had been, primarily due to the nature of our response to it.
>
>
> So, if I punch you in the mouth, you're going to just accept the damage?
You're
> not going to attempt to stop me from doing so again? Forgive me if I
don't
> believe that.

This talking with yourself is getting a bit out of hand, David.

If you punched me in the mouth, unless you already had your fist visibly
cocked to do so again *instantly* my first thought *should* be to ask myself
why, and what appropriate action I might take to avoid a recurrence
(retaliation being only one of many possible options that might, or might
not, be appropriate). Because the alternative to such introspection is for
every such encounter to become a fight to the death.

Think about that one for a bit, if you haven't completely switched off your
faculties for higher reasoning.

...

> Well, there we seem to be in agreement. Actually, anyone who cares about
> freedom should be very afraid. Very very afraid. I have to wonder
whether any
> of the world's tyrants throughout history were ever deemed to be a tyrant
when
> they were just getting started.

Actually, people like you are kind of late in getting the word. The rest of
the world has been becoming increasingly uneasy with us for at least a
decade (I'd say longer, but the Cold War stand-off complicated such emotions
before then).

Bush is just another (mis)step along a road we've been traveling for a long
time now. While Clinton was far smoother and less actively intent on
careering down that road, there are serious questions about the propriety of
our intervention in Kosovo (and especially some of our military actions in
Serbia) - in particular, about whether the situation on the ground prior to
that intervention was as it was presented to us (funny how much that brings
the more recent incursion into Iraq to mind) - which make me ashamed of not
having questioned it at the time (I was a gung-ho supporter of our
willingness to step in to prevent a 'genocide' which may, it turns out,
largely have been the creation of Albanian nationalists trying to stir up
exactly such an intervention, though Milosevic's heavy-handed mismanagement
of the situation certainly helped foster that impression - again, quite
reminiscent of the more recent situation in Iraq). Was this really a 'wag
the dog' response to Monicagate after all, as some people said at the time,
or just another periodic flexing of America's imperialist muscles, since
Iraq had gotten somewhat stale by then?

Gulf War I may have been the right thing to do, though questions remain
about the signals we were giving to Saddam right before he invaded Kuwait.
But we've done plenty of global meddling (since Vietnam, which apparently
only convinced us to set aside *direct* military intervention for a while)
without having to include that one, from the Iran-Contra fiasco back to the
covert undermining of Allende (and, oh yes, giving Osama a great jump-start
in Afghanistan to fight the Soviets there, and then abandoning our
commitments to that country as soon as the Soviets left it).

Lest you have missed it, Kerry stands shoulder-to-shoulder with Bush not
only on Iraq (well, in the past few weeks he's been getting worried by the
polls and has *finally* started to criticize the *decision* to invade,
rather than just nit-pick about the invasion's management: too bad he
didn't do so beforehand, when it might have made a difference) but on the
abandonment of the agreed-upon peace process by Ariel Sharon, the active
undermining of the democratic government of Huge Chavez in Venezuela, the
continued hostile attitude toward a Cuba which has been actively interested
in improved relations for many, many years - and that's just off the top of
my head. While one might debate about just how different they are on
domestic issues, I'll leave that for another time: internationally, most
informed observers agree that they're two peas in a pod, just that Kerry's
pea has a softer glove on it (much as the Democratic 'Progressive Policy
Institute' is merely a slightly kinder, gentler version of the
neo-conservative Project for a New American Century think-tank which took
the second Iraq war proposals public back in 1998, though some of its
members had been promoting them since the end of Gulf War I).

...

> So summing up:
>
>
> 1) Bill seems to believe in collateral damage, but possibly only for
others.

I tend to believe in reality, rather than fantasies that might seem to serve
my argument. When a war is being fought, collateral damage is a fact,
David.

And, once again, your last phrase seems to say rather more about you than it
does about me.

>
> 2) Bill seems to think that if it's 'legal', then it's Ok.

No: Bill thinks that if it's 'legal', then it's, well, legal, and
conversely. Legality was the concept you chose to misrepresent, but I hope
you're now less confused about it.

>
> 3) Bill seems to think that the US has earned the 'right' to be attacked.

Yup. That one you got right.

>
> Please correct me if any of the above conclusions are incorrect.

Always happy to help.

- bill