Discussion:
War is Hell
(too old to reply)
jhayati
2003-10-15 16:17:22 UTC
Permalink
Once again you demonstrate the utter poverty of your imagination. You
ask me to solve the problem of Hitler and set the date arbitrarily at
1941. Every time you or your partner in armchair strategy, Krugar,
brings this up I reply the same way - the best time to stop Hitler
would have been 1919 with generous peace.
Some wars are more defensible than others, but they are all hellish.
Pierre, you at least grok that this is not a black and white issue.
Were Punnadhammo to utter the very sentence you just did, our
conversation would be over, for that would mark a radical shift from
his extremist fundamentalism, and more than one could hope to expect
from our frisky fanatical friar. What Punnadhammo wants to do is here
on top of all else is to blame even Hitler on us, as if the mistake in
1919 (which is part of how Hitler got supported, but secondary to the
fear of the Soviet empire) means that we are responsible for what
Hitler did, and that he and his peers had no choices, yet we did, as
he claims with Saddam.

Secondly, Punnadhammo always opts for ideal hypothetical cases (ironic
that he rejects one when I give him one that has a built-in paradox)
and ignores reality, where we are born into a world where mistakes
were made before we were born, but now we have to choose responsibly.
Asked what to do when in a real situation, thrown in the already
corrupted samsara where the apple has been bitten and we have been
cast out of the garden of nirvana, he won't reply, and only says that
we should never have bitten the apple. Yet what we face are the
Hitlers who are preparing nukes and rockets, and the Osamas and
Saddams who prepare to wreak chaos on their neighbors and the world.

Sooner or later Punnadhammo will crack and come out and say that he
would prefer an inaction that allows him to personally have good karma
but billions of others to be brutally massacred, and at that point he
will have to overhaul his hopelessly flawed ethics or lack of thereof.
In the meantime, watching Punnadhammo eel-wriggle is a lesson in
rationalization and how the monk mind uses the intellect to find ways
to cling to its ball of blind faith.
The true impulse - America's obsessive hatred of Cuba's independence and
its desire to stop other countries in the region from following suit -
Referring to communist totalitarian dictatorship as "independence" is
quite typical of the Guardian. That's just what I meant by an
ultra-left stance. Anti-war activist and actor Ed Asner would agree.
In another interview this week Asner said he believes that Communism
has not really been tried because the U.S., primarily, interfered with
Communist countries' functioning and integration into the world. He
explained that the U.S., U. K., and other countries undermined the
former Soviet Union's formation back in 1917. That the free countries
isolated the U.S.S.R., Cuba, etc. economically and diplomatically,
thereby preventing the full flowering of Marxism. That might explain
why Asner and The Guardian and The Nation and a lot of folks in
Berkeley still idolize Fidel Castro and Cuba.

- j
William Tucker
2003-10-15 16:39:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by jhayati
Once again you demonstrate the utter poverty of your imagination. You
ask me to solve the problem of Hitler and set the date arbitrarily at
1941. Every time you or your partner in armchair strategy, Krugar,
brings this up I reply the same way - the best time to stop Hitler
would have been 1919 with generous peace.
Some wars are more defensible than others, but they are all hellish.
Pierre, you at least grok that this is not a black and white issue.
Were Punnadhammo to utter the very sentence you just did, our
conversation would be over, for that would mark a radical shift from
his extremist fundamentalism, and more than one could hope to expect
from our frisky fanatical friar. What Punnadhammo wants to do is here
on top of all else is to blame even Hitler on us, as if the mistake in
1919 (which is part of how Hitler got supported, but secondary to the
fear of the Soviet empire) means that we are responsible for what
Hitler did, and that he and his peers had no choices, yet we did, as
he claims with Saddam.
Secondly, Punnadhammo always opts for ideal hypothetical cases (ironic
that he rejects one when I give him one that has a built-in paradox)
and ignores reality, where we are born into a world where mistakes
were made before we were born,
that's a point of clarification that you haven't included, that
I've noticed anyway...I don't read everything you write


most don't settle the semantic context in a debate before starting
anyway...as their baby is the only one that matters/cutest/self linked

however,
it's invalid in this case since we did have the opportunity
for acting differently so recently

and we will see the results


given the media feast, somewhat unpredictable

but now we have to choose responsibly.
Post by jhayati
Asked what to do when in a real situation, thrown in the already
corrupted samsara where the apple has been bitten and we have been
cast out of the garden of nirvana, he won't reply, and only says that
we should never have bitten the apple. Yet what we face are the
Hitlers who are preparing nukes and rockets, and the Osamas and
Saddams who prepare to wreak chaos on their neighbors and the world.
Sooner or later Punnadhammo will crack and come out and say that he
would prefer an inaction that allows him to personally have good karma
but billions of others to be brutally massacred, and at that point he
will have to overhaul his hopelessly flawed ethics or lack of thereof.
In the meantime, watching Punnadhammo eel-wriggle is a lesson in
rationalization and how the monk mind uses the intellect to find ways
to cling to its ball of blind faith.
The true impulse - America's obsessive hatred of Cuba's independence and
its desire to stop other countries in the region from following suit -
Referring to communist totalitarian dictatorship as "independence" is
quite typical of the Guardian. That's just what I meant by an
ultra-left stance. Anti-war activist and actor Ed Asner would agree.
In another interview this week Asner said he believes that Communism
has not really been tried because the U.S., primarily, interfered with
Communist countries' functioning and integration into the world. He
explained that the U.S., U. K., and other countries undermined the
former Soviet Union's formation back in 1917. That the free countries
isolated the U.S.S.R., Cuba, etc. economically and diplomatically,
thereby preventing the full flowering of Marxism. That might explain
why Asner and The Guardian and The Nation and a lot of folks in
Berkeley still idolize Fidel Castro and Cuba.
- j
William Tucker
2003-10-15 16:40:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by jhayati
Once again you demonstrate the utter poverty of your imagination. You
ask me to solve the problem of Hitler and set the date arbitrarily at
1941. Every time you or your partner in armchair strategy, Krugar,
brings this up I reply the same way - the best time to stop Hitler
would have been 1919 with generous peace.
Some wars are more defensible than others, but they are all hellish.
Pierre, you at least grok that this is not a black and white issue.
Were Punnadhammo to utter the very sentence you just did, our
conversation would be over, for that would mark a radical shift from
his extremist fundamentalism, and more than one could hope to expect
from our frisky fanatical friar. What Punnadhammo wants to do is here
on top of all else is to blame even Hitler on us, as if the mistake in
1919 (which is part of how Hitler got supported, but secondary to the
fear of the Soviet empire) means that we are responsible for what
Hitler did, and that he and his peers had no choices, yet we did, as
he claims with Saddam.
Secondly, Punnadhammo always opts for ideal hypothetical cases (ironic
that he rejects one when I give him one that has a built-in paradox)
and ignores reality, where we are born into a world where mistakes
were made before we were born, but now we have to choose responsibly.
Asked what to do when in a real situation, thrown in the already
corrupted samsara where the apple has been bitten and we have been
cast out of the garden of nirvana, he won't reply, and only says that
we should never have bitten the apple. Yet what we face are the
Hitlers who are preparing nukes and rockets, and the Osamas and
Saddams who prepare to wreak chaos on their neighbors and the world.
Sooner or later Punnadhammo will crack and come out and say that he
would prefer an inaction that allows him to personally have good karma
but billions of others to be brutally massacred, and at that point he
will have to overhaul his hopelessly flawed ethics or lack of thereof.
In the meantime, watching Punnadhammo eel-wriggle is a lesson in
rationalization and how the monk mind uses the intellect to find ways
to cling to its ball of blind faith.
including this here would be called leading the debate
in polite circles

or guile er guilt by association
Post by jhayati
The true impulse - America's obsessive hatred of Cuba's independence and
its desire to stop other countries in the region from following suit -
Referring to communist totalitarian dictatorship as "independence" is
quite typical of the Guardian. That's just what I meant by an
ultra-left stance. Anti-war activist and actor Ed Asner would agree.
In another interview this week Asner said he believes that Communism
has not really been tried because the U.S., primarily, interfered with
Communist countries' functioning and integration into the world. He
explained that the U.S., U. K., and other countries undermined the
former Soviet Union's formation back in 1917. That the free countries
isolated the U.S.S.R., Cuba, etc. economically and diplomatically,
thereby preventing the full flowering of Marxism. That might explain
why Asner and The Guardian and The Nation and a lot of folks in
Berkeley still idolize Fidel Castro and Cuba.
- j
jhayati
2003-10-15 19:42:12 UTC
Permalink
I feel that in a case such as this the most compassionate thing to do
would be to engage in war. Even if the karmic retribution that you
bring upon yourself gains you a couple of kelpas in the hell realms.
The amount of people that you will be saving will be well worth more
than the amount of people who would've suffered, had you not
interfered.
Thank you Beanie. This is something that, along with the fictional
case of "The Cold Equations", we can see is an example where the use
of violence and force is compassionate when we can look beyond our own
narrow experience of how it feels to commit the act.
... in one such story,
the Buddha read the mind of a murderer and saw that he was going to
kill 6 or 7 people (or something like that) and therefor interfered
and killed the man himself. For this the Buddha (obviously not the
Buddha at that stage) spent his time in the hell realms.
I'm sure you can draw your own conclusions.
First, Punnadhammo also quoted this story yet rejected it because it
is found in a different sect of Buddhism than his, and his particular
holy books (abhidhamma) supposedly demand knee-jerk extreme pacifism.

Secondly, the karmic rebirth in hell realms is just too materialistic
for my tastes. Really it makes karma into a mechanical physicalist
process, when the whole idea of karma is to explain injustice.
Christianity has the edge here, as a compassionate God or Spirit would
of course forgive and pardon such an act because of its benefit on so
many other countless lives, whereas karma here comes across as a cold
mechanism. The hell realms one experiences are the nightmares and
trauma after being in combat, as well as the hatred projected on you
by the folks at home when you have returned from putting your life on
the line to allow them to continue to have the luxury of protesting
and ranting without fear.
But World War 2 is past us. Hitler is dead. There is no use still
hovering on the subject, other than to learn from it
Which is my whole point. We nipped a Hitler in the bud this time.
After all that said, I do not believe however that collateral damage
is at all acceptable. You cannot just say that there will be civilian
casualties, so what? What kind of human being would you be. Cupcake
seems to be someone who reasons such.
And cupcake is just about the lowest lifeform on the internet.

I agree that you can't say that any amount of civilian casualties is
acceptable. The question is how much and minimizing them. The
hellish "scorched earth" policy of Stalin in WWII is the worst
example, where the civilian casualties of his advance on Germany were
dozens of times the casualties even inflicted together by both of our
horrible nukes dropped on Japan. There are casualties, and then there
are casualties. Vietnam and Korea were nightmares. Here, the
campaign was precise and swift; amazingly precise new tech was used to
the extent that 90% of the bombs were precise smart-bombs and 100% of
the bombs in civilian areas like Baghdad. The lack of civilian
casualties given the enourmous firepower used is staggering. To take
those minimized casualties out of context, and to not take into
account how amazingly few there were and how much the administration
did to minimize them, is simply gross intellectual dishonesty.
Now I'm not one of those paranoid conspiracy theorists,
Good. You're a rarity around here then.
but I can say that the US seems to have violated some rules of engagement
Yes, and it's worth discussing and there are good arguments on both
sides on why this was reasonable and justified and why it was not,
though such a discussion can't get going on this newsgroup so far
without dissolving into conspiracy theories and emotional ranting.
And they did go to war with Iraq with insuffecient evidence of
weapons of mass destruction. They were fishing for an excuse
Of course. WMD had nothing to do with it but was the best sell to the
public. There were much better strategic reasons, which all boil down
to the "a stitch in time saves nine" proverb, but that is a gross
simplification. Bringing democracy to the region is the long-term
plan, and WMD was an excuse, yes, because we could take out the worse
cesspool in the region and planting the seeds of democracy as well as
pressure the three surrounding problematic states of Saudi Arabia,
Iran, and Syria, which will be under short-term pressure from us now,
and in the long terms will all crumble and become democratic if Iraq
makes it as a prospering democracy.
This affectively making them as bad as when Iraq invaded Kuwait,
or Germany invaded Poland,
No it did not! Nothing of the sort. Comparing a police action to rid
a dictator who had killed over a million, had invaded neighbors, and
was trying to build militarily, and then pouring $87 billion dollars
into them to help them rebuild is not like attacking a country to
annex it in order to feed the fuel for world conquest. It's more like
our conquering and rebuilding Japan. You weren't honest above. Such
a comparison renders you the most extreme of conspiracy theorists, as
this is just the kind of statement that we get from Ed Asner and
Michael Moore.

Other comparisons worth looking at instead that aren't ridiculous are
the annexing of Hawaii I've already mentioned, and even better, the
attack on Waco, Texas by Janet Reno, which is probably the best and
closest analogy, because there are similar strong arguments both why
it was justified and why it was not and that too many innocent people
died. However, since I already mentioned Hawaii, I will paste that in
again.

We've conquered other countries before. A good example to put Iraq in
perspective is our admittedly imperialistic conquering of Hawaii,
where we overthrew the queen and then took over the country and
annexed it. In his last month in office, Benjamin Harrison sent an
annexation treaty to the Senate for confirmation, which the new
president Grover Clevland rejected. Grover concluded, expousing the
most noble of American values, that the American minister to Hawaii
had conspired with businessmen to overthrow the queen and that the
coup would have failed "but for the landing of the United States
forces upon false pretexts respecting the dangers to life and
property." Looking back on the Hawaii takeover, Grover later wrote
that "the provisional government owes its existence to an armed
invasion by the United States. By an act of war...a substantial wrong
has been done." And to some extent, as with Iraq, he was right. You
and Punnadhammo would have whined endlessly about that one, pointed
the finger at businessmen and wrongly attributed our annexing Hawaii
to pure "greed" which is nonsense. Yes we're basically just another
imperial European power, I keep saying, except that we are a little
better, as this example shows, because if it were only 'greed' and not
strategic significance, we would have stuck with Grover and never have
scarfed up Hawaii due to ethical considerations.

However, Hawaii turned out to have such important strategical
significance, which was revealed during the bloody Spanish-American
War. Now there were other considerations. Hawaii had to be annexed
if America were to have naval superiority as a world power and be able
to pacify the Pacific. Fearing that he lacked two-thirds support for
annexation in the Senate, the new Republican president William
McKinley (one of those Republican cowboys like Dubya who are lacking
in social issues but deal with geopolitical realities dispassionately)
called for a joint resolution of Congress (the same way that the USA
had also stolen Texas, but that's yet another story).

With the country aroused by the Spanish American War and political
leaders fearful that the islands might be annexed by Japan, the joint
resolution easily passed Congress. Hawaii officially became a U.S.
territory in 1900. Imagine if Hawaii 40 years later had instead been
a Japanese stronghold and naval outpost, instead of our outpost that
Japan tried to cripple. McKinley was a smart cookie after all. Was
taking Hawaii problematic? You bet it was, but I only wish we'd
annexed Cuba as well. Like Hawaii, in 40 years, you'll be thankful we
removed the dictator in Iraq and put the sqeeze on its neighbors. No,
come to think of it, you'll be whining about whatever we're doing
then, and you'll have forgotten all about Iraq if it becomes a
thriving democracy, claiming that it would have happened anyway under
Saddam.
I have no doubt that the US instituted goverment would be a major
improvement on the dictatorship that was current at the time,
however at what price?
So far, $87 billion dollars. And if Iraq doesn't work, much more.
And what substantially truthfull reason? Bush Jnr. is
as war hungry as his father was, and it's a shame.
That is completely false in both cases. Saddam attacked Kuwait, and
conspiracy theories that Bush told him to are nonsense, and he was
given months to make a deal and retreat. Dubya was attacked on 9/11,
and none of the war on terrorism would have taken place without it,
and Saddam would still be under sanctions letting his people starve by
the thousands while he tried to rebuild his military.

There is no war hunger here. There is rational strategic action, and
it's a decision just like preventive surgery, which you can argue is
reasonable and a necessary precaution, or is unreasonable and
unnecessary and makes the doctor and hospitals richer, when some form
of alternative medicine and rest and new-age music might have led to
recovery. There is no reason to add the "war-hungry" rhetoric. Had
Saddam not attacked Kuwait and al Qa'eda not murdered 3000 civilians
on 9/11, there would not have been any golf wars, and you know it.
I must say though, that were I an American citizen, likely I would've
voted for him as well.
Then you probably haven't studied his ridiculous domestic policies,
which widen the gap between the rich and the poor, and his attack on
gay marriage and his attempts to block decriminalization of marijuana
and so forth. But those are other issues.
No one could've forseen the events of 9/11
Well, if we had better intelligence, but that's also another story.
I guess that's all I have to say. punnadhammo, however noble your
reasoning may be, it's not always the best thing to do.
cupcake, I dislike your idea of war as fun.
jhayati, I can see your point completely, however, if you elliminated
the major threat, why go to war again and again?
We haven't eliminated the major threat, which is militant Islamism.
When we do, and the Middle East is democratized and not run by oil
princes and thugs, and is prospering, then we will embrace them as
brothers, or in the worst case, will wrestle with them economically
and politically like France, but there will be no wars.
Why massacre so many innocent civilians
Ask Saddam and Osama. We are preventing massacres. The problem in
Iraq was that Saddam got a vote. He got a choice. (Punnadhammo likes
to deny this, and treat Saddam as a pure stimulus-response mechanism.)
Saddam could see that he was outnumbered so ridiculously that his
armies and his entire infrastructure would fall in a matter of weeks
(the prediction was a month, but we did it in 3 weeks), and he could
have split town with a billion dollars and his harem and negotiated
for the U.N. to set up a government and elections. He could have made
a deal for Chirac to negotiate the regime change and look like a hero
in return for assuring Saddam the best deal possible. Chirac wanted
that more than anything, as he would get to snub the Americans as
well. But Saddam chose to say no, just as the Waco cult chose to say
no when surrounded by overwhelming force in Texas. Janet Reno has
been called a monster, as is Dubya, but the Waco cult leaders, like
Saddam, got to vote and choose, and you want to ignore this.

In any case, the war on terror isn't over at all, and only has
consisted so far of two very brief campaigns. The hard part now is
the political pressure and squeeze on Syria, Iran, and Saudi Arabia,
which can be done now without military intervention if the military
option remains a viable threat. If you look at the Middle East today,
as opposed to last year, we are in an amazingly better position now.
Stabilizing Iraq will be the hard part. Three weeks of taking out the
dictator was easy; avoiding civil war in Iraq, getting the Turks to
help without alienating the Kurds, making deals with Iran to help
stabilize the region -- all this is yet to come and is the tough part.
And look within yourself (at your own country), to have caused 9/11
you have had to provoke them somehow...
No. That is the guilt-culture self-hate myth, which says "look at the
girl that was raped, how she dresses and smiles: she must act like a
slut to provoke the rape." This is how the reasoning goes a lot of
the time. See Punnadhammo's psycho-history tabloid site for unending
rants of that type.

In terms of politics, Osama hated Saudi Arabian rulers more than he
hated us, and we are seen as simply aiding his strongest enemy.
Exiled Osama bin Laden's primary goal was the establishment of an
Islamic caliphate in the Arabian Peninsula. He denied the legitimacy
of the House of Saud and encouraged its downfall. The al Qa'eda
presence in the kingdom and the denouncements of the kingdom's leaders
and its ties with the U.S. military all are intended to lead to the
House of Saud being overthrown -- to be replaced by a radical Wahabbi
Islamist government that is friendly to bin Laden.
who's fault is it then? Surely the entire blame cannot go just to the
people behind such an atrocity, but some of it may just be at home.
Well, more in Osama bin Laden's home of Saudi Arabia than ours, if you
really look carefully. Yes, we are the Saudi's richest clients, and
so we were targeted. That is the reason we are targeted, but that
does not mean we are to blame. If you want to project whatever your
pet peeve against America is, from consumerism or materialism to being
just plain prosperous and strong, do it somewhere else. Adding our
own stuff to the mix like that is what leads to extremism and
emotionalism. The "she deserved to be raped and had it coming"
response to 9/11 is as sadistic and irresponsible as it is in response
to women being sexually assaulted. Rather, if you look at the
historical roots of Islamic militancy, which can be traced back to the
dividing of the Ottoman Empire after WWI and the rise of the Soviet
Union and the subsequent polarization of the world, you find all sorts
of interesting factors, which we can discuss if you so desire.
I'm not a supporter of war at all, unless it's absolutely unavoidable
and the only thing that can bring about peace.
And I'm 100% with you on that one, Beanie. However, when it is
unavoidable and when it can best bring about peace are the interesting
topics to debate, as none of us know the future, though we what we can
do is learn from the past and live fully in the present.

- jay
Ch'an Fu
2003-10-15 23:35:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by jhayati
I feel that in a case such as this the most compassionate thing to do
would be to engage in war. Even if the karmic retribution that you
bring upon yourself gains you a couple of kelpas in the hell realms.
The amount of people that you will be saving will be well worth more
than the amount of people who would've suffered, had you not
interfered.
Thank you Beanie
nice to talk down to them, isn't it? feels good
to "cutie-up" the almost-name.
Post by jhayati
This is something that, along with the fictional
case of "The Cold Equations", we can see is an example where the use
of violence and force is compassionate when we can look beyond our own
narrow experience of how it feels to commit the act.
more fiction. "it feels wrong, but I'll do it anyway,
for God and Country, the American Way "
Post by jhayati
Which is my whole point. We nipped a Hitler in the bud this time.
LOL! yes, Saddam was about to invade...er...Afghanistan?
and kill off a few million...er...ahem...
Post by jhayati
After all that said, I do not believe however that collateral damage
is at all acceptable. You cannot just say that there will be civilian
casualties, so what? What kind of human being would you be. Cupcake
seems to be someone who reasons such.
And cupcake is just about the lowest lifeform on the internet.
no lower than you, sweetie, just different.
Post by jhayati
I agree that you can't say that any amount of civilian casualties is
acceptable. The question is how much and minimizing them.
woah! there's more than four contradictions
in just two sentences!
Post by jhayati
The hellish "scorched earth" policy of Stalin in WWII is the worst
example, where the civilian casualties of his advance on Germany were
dozens of times the casualties even inflicted together by both of our
horrible nukes dropped on Japan.
jesus H. buddha! you're not only rewriting history,
you're reinventing it! Stalin's retreat from the Ukraine,
before Hitler's advance "killed" very few. Hitler's
subsequent retreat from Stalin killed thousands, but not nearly
"dozens of times the casualties even inflicted together
by both of our horrible nukes dropped on Japan."
provide statistics and references to be believed.

<blown out in complete disgust>

jay, post your address in maryland.
i promise i'll only do my duty to save
the world from intellectual terrorism -
on my word as an "ist". you won't
feel a thing and none of your stuffed
animals will be damaged.,
Pema
2003-10-16 16:24:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ch'an Fu
Post by jhayati
I feel that in a case such as this the most compassionate thing to do
would be to engage in war. Even if the karmic retribution that you
bring upon yourself gains you a couple of kelpas in the hell realms.
The amount of people that you will be saving will be well worth more
than the amount of people who would've suffered, had you not
interfered.
Thank you Beanie
nice to talk down to them, isn't it? feels good
to "cutie-up" the almost-name.
Post by jhayati
This is something that, along with the fictional
case of "The Cold Equations", we can see is an example where the use
of violence and force is compassionate when we can look beyond our own
narrow experience of how it feels to commit the act.
more fiction. "it feels wrong, but I'll do it anyway,
for God and Country, the American Way "
Post by jhayati
Which is my whole point. We nipped a Hitler in the bud this time.
LOL! yes, Saddam was about to invade...er...Afghanistan?
and kill off a few million...er...ahem...
Post by jhayati
After all that said, I do not believe however that collateral damage
is at all acceptable. You cannot just say that there will be civilian
casualties, so what? What kind of human being would you be. Cupcake
seems to be someone who reasons such.
And cupcake is just about the lowest lifeform on the internet.
no lower than you, sweetie, just different.
Post by jhayati
I agree that you can't say that any amount of civilian casualties is
acceptable. The question is how much and minimizing them.
woah! there's more than four contradictions
in just two sentences!
Post by jhayati
The hellish "scorched earth" policy of Stalin in WWII is the worst
example, where the civilian casualties of his advance on Germany were
dozens of times the casualties even inflicted together by both of our
horrible nukes dropped on Japan.
jesus H. buddha! you're not only rewriting history,
you're reinventing it! Stalin's retreat from the Ukraine,
before Hitler's advance "killed" very few. Hitler's
subsequent retreat from Stalin killed thousands, but not nearly
"dozens of times the casualties even inflicted together
by both of our horrible nukes dropped on Japan."
provide statistics and references to be believed.
<blown out in complete disgust>
jay, post your address in maryland.
i promise i'll only do my duty to save
the world from intellectual terrorism -
on my word as an "ist". you won't
feel a thing and none of your stuffed
animals will be damaged.,
god, your gonna do j in, put evvie in your ambulance, I haven't
gotten so much as a spanking threat from you! I thought i pissed you
off most! boy, make a girl feel all left out why don't you...
Pema
no, no,no...it's ok, don't worry about me, i'll be fine...
heh
2003-10-16 16:36:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pema
Post by Ch'an Fu
Post by jhayati
I feel that in a case such as this the most compassionate thing to do
would be to engage in war. Even if the karmic retribution that you
bring upon yourself gains you a couple of kelpas in the hell realms.
The amount of people that you will be saving will be well worth more
than the amount of people who would've suffered, had you not
interfered.
Thank you Beanie
nice to talk down to them, isn't it? feels good
to "cutie-up" the almost-name.
Post by jhayati
This is something that, along with the fictional
case of "The Cold Equations", we can see is an example where the use
of violence and force is compassionate when we can look beyond our own
narrow experience of how it feels to commit the act.
more fiction. "it feels wrong, but I'll do it anyway,
for God and Country, the American Way "
Post by jhayati
Which is my whole point. We nipped a Hitler in the bud this time.
LOL! yes, Saddam was about to invade...er...Afghanistan?
and kill off a few million...er...ahem...
Post by jhayati
After all that said, I do not believe however that collateral damage
is at all acceptable. You cannot just say that there will be civilian
casualties, so what? What kind of human being would you be. Cupcake
seems to be someone who reasons such.
And cupcake is just about the lowest lifeform on the internet.
no lower than you, sweetie, just different.
Post by jhayati
I agree that you can't say that any amount of civilian casualties is
acceptable. The question is how much and minimizing them.
woah! there's more than four contradictions
in just two sentences!
Post by jhayati
The hellish "scorched earth" policy of Stalin in WWII is the worst
example, where the civilian casualties of his advance on Germany were
dozens of times the casualties even inflicted together by both of our
horrible nukes dropped on Japan.
jesus H. buddha! you're not only rewriting history,
you're reinventing it! Stalin's retreat from the Ukraine,
before Hitler's advance "killed" very few. Hitler's
subsequent retreat from Stalin killed thousands, but not nearly
"dozens of times the casualties even inflicted together
by both of our horrible nukes dropped on Japan."
provide statistics and references to be believed.
<blown out in complete disgust>
jay, post your address in maryland.
i promise i'll only do my duty to save
the world from intellectual terrorism -
on my word as an "ist". you won't
feel a thing and none of your stuffed
animals will be damaged.,
god, your gonna do j in, put evvie in your ambulance, I haven't
gotten so much as a spanking threat from you! I thought i pissed you
off most! boy, make a girl feel all left out why don't you...
Pema
no, no,no...it's ok, don't worry about me, i'll be fine...
If it's spanking you want
I can squeeze that in
right after the massage

heh
Ch'an Fu
2003-10-16 16:49:00 UTC
Permalink
<thenthored>
Post by heh
Post by Pema
god, your gonna do j in, put evvie in your ambulance, I haven't
gotten so much as a spanking threat from you! I thought i pissed you
off most! boy, make a girl feel all left out why don't you...
Pema
no, no,no...it's ok, don't worry about me, i'll be fine...
If it's spanking you want
I can squeeze that in
right after the massage
don't squeeze too hard.
Ch'an Fu
2003-10-16 16:47:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pema
god, your gonna do j in, put evvie in your ambulance, I haven't
gotten so much as a spanking threat from you! I thought i pissed you
off most! boy, make a girl feel all left out why don't you...
Pema
no, no,no...it's ok, don't worry about me, i'll be fine...
"do him in"? no no no...just save innocent
victims of media dictatorship! "weapons
of mass mentation", y'know!

...spanking, eh?...hmmmm....
cupcake
2003-10-16 16:50:44 UTC
Permalink
Re: War is Hell
Reply to: [1]Ch'an Fu
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 12:47:26 -0400
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
[2]talk.religion.buddhism,
[3]alt.zen,
[4]alt.religion.buddhism.tibetan
Followup to: [5]newsgroups
Post by Pema
god, your gonna do j in, put evvie in your ambulance, I haven't
gotten so much as a spanking threat from you! I thought i pissed you
off most! boy, make a girl feel all left out why don't you...
Pema
no, no,no...it's ok, don't worry about me, i'll be fine...
"do him in"? no no no...just save innocent
victims of media dictatorship! "weapons
of mass mentation", y'know!
...spanking, eh?...hmmmm....
i'ld rather get fuck up the butt...
Original face 12
2003-10-16 18:48:38 UTC
Permalink
Date: 10/16/03 9:47 AM Pacific Daylight Time
Post by Pema
god, your gonna do j in, put evvie in your ambulance, I haven't
gotten so much as a spanking threat from you! I thought i pissed you
off most! boy, make a girl feel all left out why don't you...
Pema
no, no,no...it's ok, don't worry about me, i'll be fine...
"do him in"? no no no...just save innocent
victims of media dictatorship! "weapons
of mass mentation", y'know!
...spanking, eh?...hmmmm....
its J's destiny
the cat and its canaries
will do him in
sure enough
B
Pema
2003-10-17 15:51:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Original face 12
Date: 10/16/03 9:47 AM Pacific Daylight Time
Post by Pema
god, your gonna do j in, put evvie in your ambulance, I haven't
gotten so much as a spanking threat from you! I thought i pissed you
off most! boy, make a girl feel all left out why don't you...
Pema
no, no,no...it's ok, don't worry about me, i'll be fine...
"do him in"? no no no...just save innocent
victims of media dictatorship! "weapons
of mass mentation", y'know!
...spanking, eh?...hmmmm....
its J's destiny
the cat and its canaries
will do him in
sure enough
B
so your outta here for thailand eh? have a wonderful trip and safe
journey all the way ben.
Original face 12
2003-10-17 16:03:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pema
so your outta here for thailand eh? have a wonderful trip and safe
journey all the way ben.
momentarily, and thanks for the warm thoughts. waiting for mother to get here
and then we will be off to the land of huge buddhas
love
Ben
Evelyn Ruut
2003-10-17 19:09:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Original face 12
Post by Pema
so your outta here for thailand eh? have a wonderful trip and safe
journey all the way ben.
momentarily, and thanks for the warm thoughts. waiting for mother to get here
and then we will be off to the land of huge buddhas
love
Ben
Safe trip and safe return Ben.... hope you have a great time!
--
Evelyn

(To reply to me personally, remove sox)
ziggy
2003-10-18 08:19:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Evelyn Ruut
Post by Original face 12
Post by Pema
so your outta here for thailand eh? have a wonderful trip and
safe journey all the way ben.
momentarily, and thanks for the warm thoughts. waiting for mother
to get
here
Post by Original face 12
and then we will be off to the land of huge buddhas
love
Ben
Safe trip and safe return Ben.... hope you have a great time!
Yeah, fill your boots! Come back all refreshed too.......

ziggy
Original face 12
2003-10-18 15:38:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by ziggy
Post by Evelyn Ruut
Post by Original face 12
Post by Pema
so your outta here for thailand eh? have a wonderful trip and
safe journey all the way ben.
momentarily, and thanks for the warm thoughts. waiting for mother
to get
here
Post by Original face 12
and then we will be off to the land of huge buddhas
love
Ben
Safe trip and safe return Ben.... hope you have a great time!
Yeah, fill your boots! Come back all refreshed too.......
ziggy
thanks ev and ziggy.
well getting a new insulin pump and having two teeth implants and getting poked
and proded isnt exactly fun, but it will probably be a little funny.
to see an old Dr squirm
be well
Love
Ben
Evelyn Ruut
2003-10-18 16:23:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Original face 12
Post by ziggy
Post by Evelyn Ruut
Post by Original face 12
Post by Pema
so your outta here for thailand eh? have a wonderful trip and
safe journey all the way ben.
momentarily, and thanks for the warm thoughts. waiting for mother
to get
here
Post by Original face 12
and then we will be off to the land of huge buddhas
love
Ben
Safe trip and safe return Ben.... hope you have a great time!
Yeah, fill your boots! Come back all refreshed too.......
ziggy
thanks ev and ziggy.
well getting a new insulin pump and having two teeth implants and getting poked
and proded isnt exactly fun, but it will probably be a little funny.
to see an old Dr squirm
be well
Love
Ben
I hear you, Ben.... May all go well and your health be improved by it.
--
Evelyn

(To reply to me personally, remove sox)
ziggy
2003-10-19 09:34:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Evelyn Ruut
Post by Original face 12
Post by ziggy
Post by Evelyn Ruut
Post by Original face 12
Post by Pema
so your outta here for thailand eh? have a wonderful trip
and safe journey all the way ben.
momentarily, and thanks for the warm thoughts. waiting for
mother to get
here
Post by Original face 12
and then we will be off to the land of huge buddhas
love
Ben
Safe trip and safe return Ben.... hope you have a great time!
Yeah, fill your boots! Come back all refreshed too.......
ziggy
thanks ev and ziggy.
well getting a new insulin pump and having two teeth implants and
getting
poked
Post by Original face 12
and proded isnt exactly fun, but it will probably be a little
funny. to see an old Dr squirm
be well
Love
Ben
I hear you, Ben.... May all go well and your health be improved by it.
Ditto

ziggy
Pema
2003-10-17 15:30:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ch'an Fu
Post by Pema
god, your gonna do j in, put evvie in your ambulance, I haven't
gotten so much as a spanking threat from you! I thought i pissed you
off most! boy, make a girl feel all left out why don't you...
Pema
no, no,no...it's ok, don't worry about me, i'll be fine...
"do him in"? no no no...just save innocent
victims of media dictatorship! "weapons
of mass mentation", y'know!
WMM? sounds like a potentially dangerous situation...well, danger
is your middle name...
Post by Ch'an Fu
...spanking, eh?...hmmmm....
i can never stay mad at you fu...lets spank and make up.
William Tucker
2003-10-18 04:41:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pema
Post by Ch'an Fu
Post by Pema
god, your gonna do j in, put evvie in your ambulance, I haven't
gotten so much as a spanking threat from you! I thought i pissed you
off most! boy, make a girl feel all left out why don't you...
Pema
no, no,no...it's ok, don't worry about me, i'll be fine...
"do him in"? no no no...just save innocent
victims of media dictatorship! "weapons
of mass mentation", y'know!
WMM? sounds like a potentially dangerous situation...well, danger
is your middle name...
Post by Ch'an Fu
...spanking, eh?...hmmmm....
i can never stay mad at you fu...lets spank and make up.
oooo la la

pictures pleez
Pema
2003-10-18 16:44:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by William Tucker
Post by Pema
Post by Ch'an Fu
Post by Pema
god, your gonna do j in, put evvie in your ambulance, I haven't
gotten so much as a spanking threat from you! I thought i pissed you
off most! boy, make a girl feel all left out why don't you...
Pema
no, no,no...it's ok, don't worry about me, i'll be fine...
"do him in"? no no no...just save innocent
victims of media dictatorship! "weapons
of mass mentation", y'know!
WMM? sounds like a potentially dangerous situation...well, danger
is your middle name...
Post by Ch'an Fu
...spanking, eh?...hmmmm....
i can never stay mad at you fu...lets spank and make up.
oooo la la
pictures pleez
sure! just let me get my naughties on...
I think i created a real stir with this post, but wasn't that my
intention all along? I'm a baaaaaad girl...
Evelyn Ruut
2003-10-18 22:16:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pema
Post by William Tucker
Post by Pema
Post by Ch'an Fu
Post by Pema
god, your gonna do j in, put evvie in your ambulance, I haven't
gotten so much as a spanking threat from you! I thought i pissed you
off most! boy, make a girl feel all left out why don't you...
Pema
no, no,no...it's ok, don't worry about me, i'll be fine...
"do him in"? no no no...just save innocent
victims of media dictatorship! "weapons
of mass mentation", y'know!
WMM? sounds like a potentially dangerous situation...well, danger
is your middle name...
Post by Ch'an Fu
...spanking, eh?...hmmmm....
i can never stay mad at you fu...lets spank and make up.
oooo la la
pictures pleez
sure! just let me get my naughties on...
I think i created a real stir with this post, but wasn't that my
intention all along? I'm a baaaaaad girl...
Pemala you are such a naughty girl - LOL!

:-)
--
Evelyn

(To reply to me personally, remove sox)
Tang Huyen
2003-10-18 14:08:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pema
i can never stay mad at you fu...lets spank and make up.
"We use all methods".

"All paths lead to the mountaintop".

Tang Huyen
MasterChef
2003-10-18 14:22:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tang Huyen
Post by Pema
i can never stay mad at you fu...lets spank and make up.
"We use all methods".
"All paths lead to the mountaintop".
if thats where yer goin
Post by Tang Huyen
Tang Huyen
ziggy
2003-10-18 14:40:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by MasterChef
Post by Tang Huyen
Post by Pema
i can never stay mad at you fu...lets spank and make up.
"We use all methods".
"All paths lead to the mountaintop".
if thats where yer goin
Post by Tang Huyen
Tang Huyen
...and with a sore arse too?

ziggy
Sorry couldn't resist!
Tang Huyen
2003-10-18 14:45:11 UTC
Permalink
"MasterChef"
Post by Tang Huyen
Tang Huyen
Post by Tang Huyen
Post by Pema
i can never stay mad at you fu...lets spank and make up.
"We use all methods".
"All paths lead to the mountaintop".
if thats where yer goin
...and with a sore arse too?
ziggy
Sorry couldn't resist!
Good way to save your ass.

Tang Huyen
ziggy
2003-10-19 09:39:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tang Huyen
"MasterChef"
Post by Tang Huyen
Tang Huyen
Post by Tang Huyen
Post by Pema
i can never stay mad at you fu...lets spank and make up.
"We use all methods".
"All paths lead to the mountaintop".
if thats where yer goin
...and with a sore arse too?
ziggy
Sorry couldn't resist!
Good way to save your ass.
Tang Huyen
Can I stop now? All this eyelash fluttering has given me a headache!
~;0D
Shiva
2003-10-19 13:28:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tang Huyen
Post by Pema
i can never stay mad at you fu...lets spank and make up.
"We use all methods".
"All paths lead to the mountaintop".
Tang Huyen
Nothing like a good spank after a good Tong-len session, eh?
Tang Huyen
2003-10-20 22:20:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Shiva
Post by Tang Huyen
Post by Pema
i can never stay mad at you fu...lets
spank and make up.
"We use all methods".
"All paths lead to the mountaintop".
Nothing like a good spank after a good
Tong-len session, eh?
A good spank and a good Tong-len count
equally as paths to the mountaintop, don't
they?

For that matter, a bad spank and a bad
Tong-len count also equally with them as
paths to the mountaintop, don't they?

But, going by the two Tibetan slogans,
"We use all methods" and "All paths lead
to the mountaintop", what need is there
for Tong-len? The spank should work just
fine all alone, shouldn't it?

Tang Huyen
Evelyn Ruut
2003-10-20 22:26:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tang Huyen
Post by Shiva
Post by Tang Huyen
Post by Pema
i can never stay mad at you fu...lets
spank and make up.
"We use all methods".
"All paths lead to the mountaintop".
Nothing like a good spank after a good
Tong-len session, eh?
A good spank and a good Tong-len count
equally as paths to the mountaintop, don't
they?
For that matter, a bad spank and a bad
Tong-len count also equally with them as
paths to the mountaintop, don't they?
But, going by the two Tibetan slogans,
"We use all methods" and "All paths lead
to the mountaintop", what need is there
for Tong-len? The spank should work just
fine all alone, shouldn't it?
Tang Huyen
You volunteering?

(rolling up sleeves and getting ready to administer a few whacks)
--
Evelyn

(To reply to me personally, remove sox)
Tang Huyen
2003-10-20 22:41:59 UTC
Permalink
"Tang Huyen"
Post by Tang Huyen
Post by Shiva
Post by Tang Huyen
Post by Pema
i can never stay mad at you fu...lets
spank and make up.
"We use all methods".
"All paths lead to the mountaintop".
Nothing like a good spank after a good
Tong-len session, eh?
A good spank and a good Tong-len count
equally as paths to the mountaintop, don't
they?
For that matter, a bad spank and a bad
Tong-len count also equally with them as
paths to the mountaintop, don't they?
But, going by the two Tibetan slogans,
"We use all methods" and "All paths lead
to the mountaintop", what need is there
for Tong-len? The spank should work just
fine all alone, shouldn't it?
You volunteering?
(rolling up sleeves and getting ready to
administer a few whacks)
--
Evelyn
I know you're a pro, but let's not get too
personal, eh?

Tang Huyen
crux
2003-10-19 15:58:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tang Huyen
Post by Pema
i can never stay mad at you fu...lets spank and make up.
"We use all methods".
"All paths lead to the mountaintop".
How do you do, Tang? I'm crux.. Nice to meet you.

I also think every path lead to the top of mountain.
And if we are not take care, every path lead us to the dark hall, too.

I believe Buddha, Jesus, and many saints in Chinese Buddhists and in
Christians in Europe, too.

Now in my country, Real Buddha's reason is being taught by great Master.
It's wonderful!
I'll introduce it, later.
Thanks.

See you.
crx
Post by Tang Huyen
Tang Huyen
William Tucker
2003-10-19 19:43:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by crux
Post by Tang Huyen
Post by Pema
i can never stay mad at you fu...lets spank and make up.
"We use all methods".
"All paths lead to the mountaintop".
How do you do, Tang? I'm crux.. Nice to meet you.
I also think every path lead to the top of mountain.
And if we are not take care, every path lead us to the dark hall, too.
I believe Buddha, Jesus, and many saints in Chinese Buddhists and in
Christians in Europe, too.
Now in my country, Real Buddha's reason is being taught by great Master.
It's wonderful!
I'll introduce it, later.
Thanks.
See you.
crx
Post by Tang Huyen
Tang Huyen
I am the great master kimi

so do not talk to this one he is too smart for me and may teach you
something


you may then begin to percieve reality directly instead of through you
master
and then you may start to do things that you want to

and that wouldn't do

so don't listen to me

or him


run run run

Wm
crux
2003-10-20 12:39:47 UTC
Permalink
William Tucker wrote in message ...

To William

I'll present you these words of God's love in Bible.

ISAIAH 1~4

Woe to those who enact unjust laws
and issue oppressive decrees!
Woe to those who rob the poor of their rights
and deprive the helpless of justice!
They prey on widows and plunder the orphans.
What will you do on the day of punishment?
Where will you flee for help
when disaster suddenly comes?
Where will you save your wealth?
You can do nothing but cringe
among the captives and exiles
or fall down among the slain.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

But God does love all of you that is known completely by God.

crx
William Tucker
2003-10-22 04:09:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by crux
William Tucker wrote in message ...
To William
I'll present you these words of God's love in Bible.
ISAIAH 1~4
Woe to those who enact unjust laws
and issue oppressive decrees!
Woe to those who rob the poor of their rights
and deprive the helpless of justice!
They prey on widows and plunder the orphans.
What will you do on the day of punishment?
Where will you flee for help
when disaster suddenly comes?
Where will you save your wealth?
You can do nothing but cringe
among the captives and exiles
or fall down among the slain.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
But God does love all of you that is known completely by God.
crx
sorry I didn't recognize Jewels song...

thanks.

Wm ..the just


ps....your god is not one of mine...I eat guys like that for breakfast


with honey
crux
2003-10-22 13:05:57 UTC
Permalink
William Tucker wrote in message ...
Post by William Tucker
sorry I didn't recognize Jewels song...
I forgot to write that it was "ISAIAH 10-1~4"
Post by William Tucker
thanks.
Not at all!!
Post by William Tucker
Wm ..the just
Take care of yourself with some sick!
Post by William Tucker
ps....your god is not one of mine...I eat guys like that for breakfast
God is one. God include you and your world, too.
Have a delicious God for your breakfast, please.
Post by William Tucker
with honey
More Salt, please!
William Tucker
2003-10-23 03:46:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by crux
William Tucker wrote in message ...
Post by William Tucker
sorry I didn't recognize Jewels song...
I forgot to write that it was "ISAIAH 10-1~4"
Post by William Tucker
thanks.
Not at all!!
Post by William Tucker
Wm ..the just
Take care of yourself with some sick!
Post by William Tucker
ps....your god is not one of mine...I eat guys like that for breakfast
God is one. God include you and your world, too.
Have a delicious God for your breakfast, please.
Post by William Tucker
with honey
More Salt, please!
the tin drum and some eels ...

Wm


orkney scotch

bee peep
jhayati
2003-10-16 23:58:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ch'an Fu
Post by jhayati
I feel that in a case such as this the most compassionate thing to do
would be to engage in war. Even if the karmic retribution that you
bring upon yourself gains you a couple of kelpas in the hell realms.
The amount of people that you will be saving will be well worth more
than the amount of people who would've suffered, had you not
interfered.
Thank you Beanie
nice to talk down to them, isn't it?
You're the one that talks down to people, not I.
Post by Ch'an Fu
Post by jhayati
Which is my whole point. We nipped a Hitler in the bud this time.
LOL! yes, Saddam was about to invade...er...Afghanistan?
No, Saudi Arabia after he had taken Kuwait.
Post by Ch'an Fu
jesus H. buddha! you're not only rewriting history,
you're reinventing it! Stalin's retreat from the Ukraine,
before Hitler's advance "killed" very few.
Between the two of them going at it, over a million died.
Post by Ch'an Fu
jay, post your address in maryland.
You can snail mail me at the physics department at the University of
MD, and I'll get it. Send me lots of money please.
Post by Ch'an Fu
i promise i'll only do my duty to save
the world from intellectual terrorism -
on my word as an "ist". you won't
feel a thing and none of your stuffed
animals will be damaged.,
You mean my minions? No, they'll dispense with you easily.

- j
Ch'an Fu
2003-10-17 00:20:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by jhayati
Post by Ch'an Fu
Post by jhayati
I feel that in a case such as this the most compassionate thing to do
would be to engage in war. Even if the karmic retribution that you
bring upon yourself gains you a couple of kelpas in the hell realms.
The amount of people that you will be saving will be well worth more
than the amount of people who would've suffered, had you not
interfered.
Thank you Beanie
nice to talk down to them, isn't it?
You're the one that talks down to people, not I.
Post by Ch'an Fu
Post by jhayati
Which is my whole point. We nipped a Hitler in the bud this time.
LOL! yes, Saddam was about to invade...er...Afghanistan?
No, Saudi Arabia after he had taken Kuwait.
hahahaaa!! sure.
i meant this time, dumpling-head
Post by jhayati
Post by Ch'an Fu
jesus H. buddha! you're not only rewriting history,
you're reinventing it! Stalin's retreat from the Ukraine,
before Hitler's advance "killed" very few.
Between the two of them going at it, over a million died.
ah ah ah... no more fish! just admit you did it again
and god will forgive you.
Post by jhayati
Post by Ch'an Fu
jay, post your address in maryland.
You can snail mail me at the physics department at the University of
MD, and I'll get it. Send me lots of money please.
you're a physics grad of UMd? yes or no?
straight up now, and prove it, please.
Post by jhayati
Post by Ch'an Fu
i promise i'll only do my duty to save
the world from intellectual terrorism -
on my word as an "ist". you won't
feel a thing and none of your stuffed
animals will be damaged.,
You mean my minions? No, they'll dispense with you easily.
of course not (in both cases)
just wath out for that pink cat.
Shiva
2003-10-17 12:33:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by jhayati
<Snipped without mercy>
jesus H. buddha! you're not only rewriting history,
you're reinventing it! Stalin's retreat from the Ukraine,
before Hitler's advance "killed" very few.
Between the two of them going at it, over a million died.
And between Hitler and Gandhi, some 45 million died. Where is the evidence
for your claim about Stalin?

Shiva
jhayati
2003-10-17 04:47:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by jhayati
What Punnadhammo wants to do is here
on top of all else is to blame even Hitler on us, as if the mistake in
1919 (which is part of how Hitler got supported, but secondary to the
fear of the Soviet empire) means that we are responsible for what
Hitler did, and that he and his peers had no choices, yet we did, as
he claims with Saddam.
Actually I mostly blame the French for 1919.
Some bash the U.S., some the French; Punnadhammo bashes everyone.

But yes, the French screwed that up.
They also cut up the Middle East right after that, don't forget.
This was one incident where the US was playing a constructive role.
Though the U.S. had no business ever geting involved in WWI.
But I do blame them for Saddam.
We meddled in all sorts of things, as did the Soviets, which were both
the reason Europe built up Hitler and we built up Saddam. None of
these things are the fault of one country and they aren't about
"greed" or "oil". If you have to have one word to sum up the
motivations, it is "fear".
Post by jhayati
Secondly, Punnadhammo always opts for ideal hypothetical cases (ironic
that he rejects one when I give him one that has a built-in paradox)
and ignores reality, where we are born into a world where mistakes
were made before we were born, but now we have to choose responsibly.
Then how come you don't want to talk about achieving a peaceful and
just world starting from now?
I do. And a show of force and a willingness to back up peace with
force makes the best conditions for achieving a peaceful and just
world starting now. Start talking. But you can't use this to not
come clean about your fundamentalist dogma leading you to to allow
billions to die in a case where Hitler is attacking and the only way
to stop him is with force.
Could it be that it would require the US to start behaving like a good
international citizen for a change?
You mean allow terrorists to murder thousands of our citizens at will
and reward them for it, and allow dictators to wreak havoc on the
world's economy? No, that wouldn't be "behaving like a good
international citizen".

We can't discuss this seriously when you make such remarks. I'll
admit we only get a B+ as a good international citizen, but we are
still doing a very good job, and your bashing is extremist and
uncalled for.

We now are in a position to be a "good citizen" now that we have
accomplished our two goals in the Iraqi campaign, which were: (1)
seizing the most strategic country in the region as a base of
operations from which to mount follow-on operations against countries
that collaborate or permit collaboration with al Qaeda; and (2)
transforming the psychological perception of the United States in the
Islamic world from a hated and impotent power to a hated but feared
power. Now we are in a position to make the world more peaceful and
just.
Post by jhayati
Referring to communist totalitarian dictatorship as "independence" is
quite typical of the Guardian. That's just what I meant by an
ultra-left stance.
Why is not independence?
The citizens are dependent of the government, they can't leave, and
they get imprisoned if they even made a fraction of the kind of
remarks you do.
They aren't taking orders from anyone outside Cuba.
Only because the U.S. won the cold war and forced the Soviet Union to
dissolve, or didn't you know that Cuba was a stooge for Russia for
decades, such as when the Russians smuggled nuclear warheads into Cuba
in 1961.
Or is your definition of 'Independence' occupation by US troops,
like in Iraq?
Well it is true that when countries get occupied by the U.S. they end
up a lot more independent and prosperous afterwards. Ever seen the
Peter Sellers' film "The Mouse That Roared"?

So let's talk about how peaceful moves are being played even today.
The U.S.-sponsored resolution passed the UN yesterday, and
surprisingly, it passed unanimously. Not only did the U.S.'s
strongest rivals, France and Germany come on board with coaxing from
our new best friend Russia, but so did Syria. In many ways, Syria's
move is the most significant here, Punnadhammo. Without any civilians
killed, Syria clearly feels the tremendous pressure and understood
that without the cover of a major power, it cannot afford to stand
alone, even though Syria also understood that the resolution is almost
entirely symbolic.

Politically, the administration has some cover, and can argue that, in
the end, the UN came around to supporting its view, voting the U.S to
be a "good international citizen" with this resolution and compliance
with the U.S. proposal. The fact that the vote turned out to be
unanimous reflects the Europeans' serious political calculations.
Essentially, they have a deep-seated worry that remaining at odds with
the United States will place them in serious jeopardy.

The point here, Punnadhammo, is that we can now apply pressure without
having to exert military force, and with the U.N.'s blessings. The
U.S. is becoming more assertive of its power again. Syrian behavior,
Iranian treatment of the International Atomic Energy Agency -- and,
now, the European U.N. vote -- all point to a recalculation by other
nations on the probable trajectory of U.S. power in the region. The
U.N. has basically given us its blessing finally and is going to help
the U.S. make the world more peaceful and just.

- jay
punnadhammo
2003-10-17 13:51:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by jhayati
Though the U.S. had no business ever geting involved in WWI.
Nobody did actually.
Post by jhayati
We meddled in all sorts of things, as did the Soviets, which were both
the reason Europe built up Hitler and we built up Saddam. None of
these things are the fault of one country and they aren't about
"greed" or "oil". If you have to have one word to sum up the
motivations, it is "fear".
That's a sound point. All violence comes from greed, hatred, delusion
and fear.
Post by jhayati
I do. And a show of force and a willingness to back up peace with
force makes the best conditions for achieving a peaceful and just
world starting now.
No, that's where you are way off track. A show of force just leads to
resentment and counter-violence and the cycle of killing goes on and on
without end.

The best conditions for achieving a peaceful and just world is to work
towards effective international co-operation. Starting with present
conditions, our best hope is to strengthen and reform the UN.

We also need to totally reject all unilaterism. Furthermore, we should
be working toward universal and balanced disarmament, especially of
nuclear weapons. The strong nuclear powers like the US and Russia could
set a good example by announcing a total freeze on new production and
even limited stockpile reductions.
Post by jhayati
You mean allow terrorists to murder thousands of our citizens at will
and reward them for it, and allow dictators to wreak havoc on the
world's economy? No, that wouldn't be "behaving like a good
international citizen".
Why do you talk such silliness? I mean eliminate the grievances that
breed terrorists. Make sure everyone is fed, has dignity and respect.
Contented people do not become terrorists.
Post by jhayati
We can't discuss this seriously when you make such remarks. I'll
admit we only get a B+ as a good international citizen, but we are
still doing a very good job, and your bashing is extremist and
uncalled for.
Jhayati, the US is a terrible international citizen, blocking virtually
every attempt at international cooperation. In recent years the US has
blocked

- the Kyoto treaty
- the landmines treaty
- the child-soldier treaty (!)
- the international war-crimes court

And on and on. They won't even pay their back dues to the UN!

How on earth can you give that kind of obstuctionism a B+?
Post by jhayati
We now are in a position to be a "good citizen" now that we have
accomplished our two goals in the Iraqi campaign, which were: (1)
seizing the most strategic country in the region as a base of
operations from which to mount follow-on operations against countries
that collaborate or permit collaboration with al Qaeda;
Unilateral attacks to provide a strategic base for more unilateral
attacks is your definition of "good international citizenship?"


and (2)
Post by jhayati
transforming the psychological perception of the United States in the
Islamic world from a hated and impotent power to a hated but feared
power. Now we are in a position to make the world more peaceful and
just.
Ha Ha! That's good? Hated and feared? How about respected and loved?
Wouldn't that make everyone feel safer?
Post by jhayati
The citizens are dependent of the government, they can't leave, and
they get imprisoned if they even made a fraction of the kind of
remarks you do.
"independence" really refers to international relations. You can't just
keep redefining words. Like your calling a "clean up Dodge City" ethos
compassion.
Post by jhayati
Only because the U.S. won the cold war and forced the Soviet Union to
dissolve, or didn't you know that Cuba was a stooge for Russia for
decades, such as when the Russians smuggled nuclear warheads into Cuba
in 1961.
I thought we were talking about now.
Post by jhayati
Well it is true that when countries get occupied by the U.S. they end
up a lot more independent and prosperous afterwards.
There are very few examples of that. Japan only really. (Germany was a
multi-lateral occupation)
Post by jhayati
So let's talk about how peaceful moves are being played even today.
The U.S.-sponsored resolution passed the UN yesterday, and
surprisingly, it passed unanimously. Not only did the U.S.'s
strongest rivals, France and Germany come on board with coaxing from
our new best friend Russia, but so did Syria. In many ways, Syria's
move is the most significant here, Punnadhammo. Without any civilians
killed, Syria clearly feels the tremendous pressure and understood
that without the cover of a major power, it cannot afford to stand
alone, even though Syria also understood that the resolution is almost
entirely symbolic.
It was a purely symbolic motion. No-one promised anything concrete, and
the US made no concrete concessions. It is a baby-step in the right
direction.

The only way for the US to get real help is to make real concessions
toward multi-lateral control leading to an early transfer to Iraqi
sovreignity.

(Why does the shameless bullying of Syria strike you as positive?)
Post by jhayati
The point here, Punnadhammo, is that we can now apply pressure without
having to exert military force, and with the U.N.'s blessings. The
U.S. is becoming more assertive of its power again. Syrian behavior,
Iranian treatment of the International Atomic Energy Agency -- and,
now, the European U.N. vote -- all point to a recalculation by other
nations on the probable trajectory of U.S. power in the region. The
U.N. has basically given us its blessing finally and is going to help
the U.S. make the world more peaceful and just.
Strange way you phrase that last bit. The UN is supposed to help the US
make the world safe and just? I would put it the other way around. I
see the US unilateral policies as the biggest obstacle to a safer world
right now.
Lee Dillion
2003-10-17 14:41:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by punnadhammo
Post by jhayati
Though the U.S. had no business ever geting involved in WWI.
Nobody did actually.
Post by jhayati
We meddled in all sorts of things, as did the Soviets, which were both
the reason Europe built up Hitler and we built up Saddam. None of
these things are the fault of one country and they aren't about
"greed" or "oil". If you have to have one word to sum up the
motivations, it is "fear".
That's a sound point. All violence comes from greed, hatred, delusion
and fear.
Post by jhayati
I do. And a show of force and a willingness to back up peace with
force makes the best conditions for achieving a peaceful and just
world starting now.
No, that's where you are way off track. A show of force just leads to
resentment and counter-violence and the cycle of killing goes on and on
without end.
Do you have any sense that your last line might well describe this thread?
From prior comments, I take it you see it as your mission to convince Jay of
the errors of his way or to at least make a lonely stand for Buddhism and
non-violence even if Jay is immune to your arguments. Good luck, but I see
little likelihood of success using your current approach.

But just as you have always had an easy out in your arguments with me
regarding the centrality of literal rebirth, you have an even easier out in
your argument with Jay but you seem unable to see it.

I feel I have failed. :)
William Tucker
2003-10-17 17:44:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lee Dillion
Post by punnadhammo
Post by jhayati
Though the U.S. had no business ever geting involved in WWI.
Nobody did actually.
Post by jhayati
We meddled in all sorts of things, as did the Soviets, which were both
the reason Europe built up Hitler and we built up Saddam. None of
these things are the fault of one country and they aren't about
"greed" or "oil". If you have to have one word to sum up the
motivations, it is "fear".
That's a sound point. All violence comes from greed, hatred, delusion
and fear.
Post by jhayati
I do. And a show of force and a willingness to back up peace with
force makes the best conditions for achieving a peaceful and just
world starting now.
No, that's where you are way off track. A show of force just leads to
resentment and counter-violence and the cycle of killing goes on and on
without end.
you're quite wrong here


witha bully

a show of force that says I can destroy you with out even working up a sweat


is most effective

I know


to transform the situation into a winwin
then

the only thing that is needed is it's quickly followed, once fear opens
them, with

"but I don't want to"


the relief that follows


moves them out of defenseand

allows diaglogue


we incorrectly applied this formulae

we're working from the head not the heart


there has been a gross misinterpreation of the message

there is a missed opportunity that is occuring daily


but we can not capitulate

there is a controlled chaos that is occuring

if we left uncontrolled

chaos would follow...quelling and order must occur


there is a _must learn_ state in activity/action
with both sides...polarization must cease, once insight occurs

and understand as well that the "old way of winning"
in this area consists of genocide



heart understanding of the situation would help IMO



you must quit defending

if you want to understand


allow yourself to enter the burial ground of your fears and
spend several nights there in meditation

undergo the chod ritual

have a sky burial.....understand the beauty of drinking from your
own skull cup


ask for forgiveness for all of us

and sit with the ugliness and let it cleanse you

scarab

rebirth
Post by Lee Dillion
Do you have any sense that your last line might well describe this thread?
From prior comments, I take it you see it as your mission to convince Jay of
the errors of his way or to at least make a lonely stand for Buddhism and
non-violence even if Jay is immune to your arguments. Good luck, but I see
little likelihood of success using your current approach.
But just as you have always had an easy out in your arguments with me
regarding the centrality of literal rebirth, you have an even easier out in
your argument with Jay but you seem unable to see it.
I feel I have failed. :)
punnadhammo
2003-10-18 16:55:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lee Dillion
Do you have any sense that your last line might well describe this thread?
From prior comments, I take it you see it as your mission to convince Jay of
the errors of his way or to at least make a lonely stand for Buddhism and
non-violence even if Jay is immune to your arguments. Good luck, but I see
little likelihood of success using your current approach.
But just as you have always had an easy out in your arguments with me
regarding the centrality of literal rebirth, you have an even easier out in
your argument with Jay but you seem unable to see it.
I feel I have failed. :)
You have gotten my curiousity piqued, Lee. What is this "out" that you
see?
jhayati
2003-10-17 21:24:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by punnadhammo
Post by jhayati
We meddled in all sorts of things, as did the Soviets, which were both
the reason Europe built up Hitler and we built up Saddam. None of
these things are the fault of one country and they aren't about
"greed" or "oil". If you have to have one word to sum up the
motivations, it is "fear".
That's a sound point. All violence comes from greed, hatred, delusion
and fear.
Precisely. That doesn't mean we shouldn't stop Hitler because we are
afraaid though.
Post by punnadhammo
Post by jhayati
I do. And a show of force and a willingness to back up peace with
force makes the best conditions for achieving a peaceful and just
world starting now.
No, that's where you are way off track. A show of force just leads to
resentment and counter-violence and the cycle of killing goes on and on
without end.
This is precicely the extremist claim is mistaken, just as Lee foamed
at the mouth with insults and kept promoting this extremism.

Your reasoning is as follows:

-1- Violence sometimes leads only to more violence.

-2- Therefore, violence always leads to more violence.

-3- Therefore, non-violence is always better.

While 2 follows from 3, the step from 1 to 2 is ridiculous, and the
venim with which you and Lee have fought for this dogma is ridiculous.

By examining real cases (since you and your stooge both screamed
bloody murder when I used a story which you came up with to begin
with), you can find strong examples where violence only leads to more
violence. We agree on that. But you ignore cases, such as with
stopping Hitler, where non-violence only leads to more violence and
violence leads to less future violence than does non-violence which
leads to billions dead.

Now you are welcome to only selectively lood at cases where violence
leads to more violence, but you might want to look at how you don't
like to look at cases where your fundamentalist dogma doesn't work.
Iraq is a middle-ground case we can argue, but we can't argue this
until you can admit that often violence is the best course of action
to achieve non-violence. Note the assymetry here, as I will be the
first to admit that violence often does lead to more violence and
non-violence is often the best policy. However, as long as you want
to apply fundamentalist dogma to every situation, and when I bring a
real counter-example such as Hitler in 1941, you evade the example and
say "let's just look at cases where my dogma works", then we simply
can't have a conversation.
Post by punnadhammo
We also need to totally reject all unilaterism. Furthermore, we should
be working toward universal and balanced disarmament, especially of
nuclear weapons.
Now you've gone idealistic. You're suggesting that we get rid of our
weapons while others lie and build an arsenal, and then nuke us or
blackmail us. While I share your sentiments, you don't understand
practical real world life. This is understandable, as you've been
living in a sheltered monastary, but creating world peace is actually
a lot more difficult than you suppose.
Post by punnadhammo
Jhayati, the US is a terrible international citizen, blocking virtually
every attempt at international cooperation.
Actually, France was the one blocking international cooperation. But
France this week has gone along with the US and UN, and is doing
better, because for now, it is in the best interest to France to do
so. That is also how the game is played.

In recent years the US has
Post by punnadhammo
blocked
- the Kyoto treaty
- the landmines treaty
- the child-soldier treaty (!)
- the international war-crimes court
There are reasons for most of those. The Kyoto treaty can't possibly
work in the U.S. for reasons of energy production and child-birth
rates, and never was modified to possibly work the same in the U.S. as
in other countries.

You are right about the landmines treaty, and we should go for that,
and it's ridiculous that the US doesn't push for a treaty. There is
no reason for landmines and they are an abomination. However, other
big powers also rejected that treaty, and the US was not a sole
dissenter by any means.

The other two I'd have to look up. However, creating a list like that
doesn't work, because a huge hyperpower does so many things, that
picking the worst ones out of context and ignoring all the wonderful
contributions we have made is simply a form of extreme bias. I can
take every single friend I've known for several years and write down a
collections of the most selfish and cruel things they have done.
Every one of them. Does that mean my friends are all sadistic, mean
people? No. It means that with a wealth of information I can make
anyone, even my most saintly and trusted friends, look like a jerk.
So don't try this kind of petty trick.
Post by punnadhammo
And on and on.
How on earth can you give that kind of obstuctionism a B+?
For the same reasons so many of my close friends have done many things
I don't approve of and yet still rate a B+ or even A.
Post by punnadhammo
Post by jhayati
We now are in a position to be a "good citizen" now that we have
accomplished our two goals in the Iraqi campaign, which were: (1)
seizing the most strategic country in the region as a base of
operations from which to mount follow-on operations against countries
that collaborate or permit collaboration with al Qaeda;
Unilateral attacks to provide a strategic base for more unilateral
attacks is your definition of "good international citizenship?"
It depends upon the intention, which in this case is to stop terrorism
and Militant Islamism from causing more suffering. Attacking Hitler
unilaterally before he had killed millions of Jews would be justified
as well. As you point out, not letting him get into power would be
better, but as in the late 1930s, we have already been attacked and
the Middle East is already a mess, and given the situation in the
present moment, this decision was the most rational and strategic one,
and better than waiting a decade until Saddam finally did get and use
what we're so disappointed we can't find.
Post by punnadhammo
and (2)
Post by jhayati
transforming the psychological perception of the United States in the
Islamic world from a hated and impotent power to a hated but feared
power. Now we are in a position to make the world more peaceful and
just.
Ha Ha! That's good? Hated and feared? How about respected and loved?
Wouldn't that make everyone feel safer?
Yes, it would, but it isn't an option. Your idealism doesn't work
here. I worded that this way exactly so you would respond with
emotionalism and suggest love and flowers as an alternative. However,
given the hatred that exists, hated and impotent is much worst than
hated and feared (respected to enforce consequences). This simply is
the best move on the chessboard right now. It it the best move to
enable the possibility of respected and loved down the line. I can
even give you real examples, such as Japan, where utter enemies became
lasting friends with goodwill toward each other.
Post by punnadhammo
(Why does the shameless bullying of Syria strike you as positive?)
Both the words "shameless" and "bullying" are emotional hype that
distort and spin what is going on today, Punnadhammo. Lol! However,
there are very good rational reasons for maintaining pressue on Syria
which I will explain to you.

Ok, first let's look at what this shameless bullying consisted of, and
then why it was not shameless but instead reasonable and rational
strategy consistent with the goals of the war on terror. The U.S.
opened a psychological campaign against Syria last weekend by pointing
out that the Israelis have submarine-, air- and land-based nuclear
weapons. Two U.S. officials made the point in such a way that the
Syrians couldn't miss it. This came just days after Turkish lawmakers
voted to send troops into Iraq. Though those troops are important,
the real importance of the vote was its declaration of belligerency by
Turkey, which has moved from a neutral stance established in March
back into active collaboration with the United States.

The U.S. used the Turkish shift to create a massive coalition against
Syria along most of its borders. With the Israelis, Turks and
Americans all arrayed along its frontiers, Damascus has no choice but
to reconsider its strategy. The alternative which you don't take into
account, Punnadhammo, is to assume that the U.S. will be unwilling to
use its forces -- and those of Israel -- to compel regime change in
Syria. The Syrians might even believe that to be the case, but the
risk of error is too great to test it.

Also, it's really useful here to examine Syrian behavior more closely.
The Iraq campaign ended with U.S. forces dueling Syrian forces along
the Syria-Iraq border. Damascus, clearly surprised by the U.S.
victory, seemed to shift their policies in April and May, suppressing
some Palestinian and Islamist activity within the country's borders.
Then, as the guerrilla war intensified over the summer, Syria seemed
to reconsider. Officials clearly perceived American weakness in Iraq
and concluded that so long as the guerrilla war continued, the United
States would be exceedingly cautious in expanding the conflict.
Indeed, during the six months of U.S. absorption with the guerrilla
war, the Syrian perception solidified into the view that the United
States was trapped in Iraq in a war it could neither win nor exit.
Syria permitted Palestinian and Islamist activity to resume,
discounting the U.S. threat.

Thus, the United States' failure to achieve its second strategic goal
that I stated in the last post created a situation in which Syria drew
judgments that were not warranted, since the United States had
achieved the first goal. The United States was the dominant military
power in the region; it simply wasn't perceived as militarily
powerful. That perception was driven by the inability to stop the
guerrillas. Therefore, the United States had to demonstrate that the
guerrilla war did not weaken its ability to coerce its neighbors in
the region.

The United States appears to have decided to treat the guerrilla war
as a military side show -- not insignificant, but certainly not
militarily decisive. Given this, there is no reason for Washington to
halt aggressive actions in the region to force change in behavior
toward al Qaeda and associated groups. By doing this, the United
States not only exploits the military advantage it has won, but also
shifts back the psychological perception to something that more
reasonably matches U.S. capabilities.

Therefore, and you aren't going to like this Punnadhammo, you should
expect to see more aggressive U.S. moves in the coming months. The
situation facing the Syrians is a paradigm created by the U.S.
strategy at this point: Washington is using a coalition of regional
powers to put Syria in an untenable position. Dubya's administration
accepts the fact that the U.S. will be seen as collaborating with
Israel -- under the valid theory that whatever the United States does,
it will be seen as Israel's collaborator and therefore might as well
enjoy the benefits of collaboration. Finally, Washington is using the
real threat of action to create a situation in which Damascus either
must comply with Washington's wishes or place a life-or-death bet that
the United States will refrain from action. All spin and hype aside,
that's the bottom line on why the pressure on Syria right now.

- j
cupcake
2003-10-17 21:44:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by jhayati
Post by punnadhammo
Post by jhayati
We meddled in all sorts of things, as did the Soviets, which were both
the reason Europe built up Hitler and we built up Saddam. None of
these things are the fault of one country and they aren't about
"greed" or "oil". If you have to have one word to sum up the
motivations, it is "fear".
That's a sound point. All violence comes from greed, hatred, delusion
and fear.
Precisely. That doesn't mean we shouldn't stop Hitler because we are
afraaid though.
Post by punnadhammo
Post by jhayati
I do. And a show of force and a willingness to back up peace with
force makes the best conditions for achieving a peaceful and just
world starting now.
No, that's where you are way off track. A show of force just leads to
resentment and counter-violence and the cycle of killing goes on and on
without end.
This is precicely the extremist claim is mistaken, just as Lee foamed
at the mouth with insults and kept promoting this extremism.
-1- Violence sometimes leads only to more violence.
-2- Therefore, violence always leads to more violence.
-3- Therefore, non-violence is always better.
While 2 follows from 3, the step from 1 to 2 is ridiculous, and the
venim with which you and Lee have fought for this dogma is ridiculous.
By examining real cases (since you and your stooge both screamed
bloody murder when I used a story which you came up with to begin
with), you can find strong examples where violence only leads to more
violence. We agree on that. But you ignore cases, such as with
stopping Hitler, where non-violence only leads to more violence and
violence leads to less future violence than does non-violence which
leads to billions dead.
Now you are welcome to only selectively lood at cases where violence
leads to more violence, but you might want to look at how you don't
like to look at cases where your fundamentalist dogma doesn't work.
Iraq is a middle-ground case we can argue, but we can't argue this
until you can admit that often violence is the best course of action
to achieve non-violence. Note the assymetry here, as I will be the
first to admit that violence often does lead to more violence and
non-violence is often the best policy. However, as long as you want
to apply fundamentalist dogma to every situation, and when I bring a
real counter-example such as Hitler in 1941, you evade the example and
say "let's just look at cases where my dogma works", then we simply
can't have a conversation.
Post by punnadhammo
We also need to totally reject all unilaterism. Furthermore, we should
be working toward universal and balanced disarmament, especially of
nuclear weapons.
Now you've gone idealistic. You're suggesting that we get rid of our
weapons while others lie and build an arsenal, and then nuke us or
blackmail us. While I share your sentiments, you don't understand
practical real world life. This is understandable, as you've been
living in a sheltered monastary, but creating world peace is actually
a lot more difficult than you suppose.
Post by punnadhammo
Jhayati, the US is a terrible international citizen, blocking virtually
every attempt at international cooperation.
Actually, France was the one blocking international cooperation. But
France this week has gone along with the US and UN, and is doing
better, because for now, it is in the best interest to France to do
so. That is also how the game is played.
In recent years the US has
Post by punnadhammo
blocked
- the Kyoto treaty
- the landmines treaty
- the child-soldier treaty (!)
- the international war-crimes court
There are reasons for most of those. The Kyoto treaty can't possibly
work in the U.S. for reasons of energy production and child-birth
rates, and never was modified to possibly work the same in the U.S. as
in other countries.
You are right about the landmines treaty, and we should go for that,
and it's ridiculous that the US doesn't push for a treaty. There is
no reason for landmines and they are an abomination. However, other
big powers also rejected that treaty, and the US was not a sole
dissenter by any means.
The other two I'd have to look up. However, creating a list like that
doesn't work, because a huge hyperpower does so many things, that
picking the worst ones out of context and ignoring all the wonderful
contributions we have made is simply a form of extreme bias. I can
take every single friend I've known for several years and write down a
collections of the most selfish and cruel things they have done.
Every one of them. Does that mean my friends are all sadistic, mean
people? No. It means that with a wealth of information I can make
anyone, even my most saintly and trusted friends, look like a jerk.
So don't try this kind of petty trick.
Post by punnadhammo
And on and on.
How on earth can you give that kind of obstuctionism a B+?
For the same reasons so many of my close friends have done many things
I don't approve of and yet still rate a B+ or even A.
Post by punnadhammo
Post by jhayati
We now are in a position to be a "good citizen" now that we have
accomplished our two goals in the Iraqi campaign, which were: (1)
seizing the most strategic country in the region as a base of
operations from which to mount follow-on operations against countries
that collaborate or permit collaboration with al Qaeda;
Unilateral attacks to provide a strategic base for more unilateral
attacks is your definition of "good international citizenship?"
It depends upon the intention, which in this case is to stop terrorism
and Militant Islamism from causing more suffering. Attacking Hitler
unilaterally before he had killed millions of Jews would be justified
as well. As you point out, not letting him get into power would be
better, but as in the late 1930s, we have already been attacked and
the Middle East is already a mess, and given the situation in the
present moment, this decision was the most rational and strategic one,
and better than waiting a decade until Saddam finally did get and use
what we're so disappointed we can't find.
Post by punnadhammo
and (2)
Post by jhayati
transforming the psychological perception of the United States in the
Islamic world from a hated and impotent power to a hated but feared
power. Now we are in a position to make the world more peaceful and
just.
Ha Ha! That's good? Hated and feared? How about respected and loved?
Wouldn't that make everyone feel safer?
Yes, it would, but it isn't an option. Your idealism doesn't work
here. I worded that this way exactly so you would respond with
emotionalism and suggest love and flowers as an alternative. However,
given the hatred that exists, hated and impotent is much worst than
hated and feared (respected to enforce consequences). This simply is
the best move on the chessboard right now. It it the best move to
enable the possibility of respected and loved down the line. I can
even give you real examples, such as Japan, where utter enemies became
lasting friends with goodwill toward each other.
Post by punnadhammo
(Why does the shameless bullying of Syria strike you as positive?)
Both the words "shameless" and "bullying" are emotional hype that
distort and spin what is going on today, Punnadhammo. Lol! However,
there are very good rational reasons for maintaining pressue on Syria
which I will explain to you.
Ok, first let's look at what this shameless bullying consisted of, and
then why it was not shameless but instead reasonable and rational
strategy consistent with the goals of the war on terror. The U.S.
opened a psychological campaign against Syria last weekend by pointing
out that the Israelis have submarine-, air- and land-based nuclear
weapons. Two U.S. officials made the point in such a way that the
Syrians couldn't miss it. This came just days after Turkish lawmakers
voted to send troops into Iraq. Though those troops are important,
the real importance of the vote was its declaration of belligerency by
Turkey, which has moved from a neutral stance established in March
back into active collaboration with the United States.
The U.S. used the Turkish shift to create a massive coalition against
Syria along most of its borders. With the Israelis, Turks and
Americans all arrayed along its frontiers, Damascus has no choice but
to reconsider its strategy. The alternative which you don't take into
account, Punnadhammo, is to assume that the U.S. will be unwilling to
use its forces -- and those of Israel -- to compel regime change in
Syria. The Syrians might even believe that to be the case, but the
risk of error is too great to test it.
Also, it's really useful here to examine Syrian behavior more closely.
The Iraq campaign ended with U.S. forces dueling Syrian forces along
the Syria-Iraq border. Damascus, clearly surprised by the U.S.
victory, seemed to shift their policies in April and May, suppressing
some Palestinian and Islamist activity within the country's borders.
Then, as the guerrilla war intensified over the summer, Syria seemed
to reconsider. Officials clearly perceived American weakness in Iraq
and concluded that so long as the guerrilla war continued, the United
States would be exceedingly cautious in expanding the conflict.
Indeed, during the six months of U.S. absorption with the guerrilla
war, the Syrian perception solidified into the view that the United
States was trapped in Iraq in a war it could neither win nor exit.
Syria permitted Palestinian and Islamist activity to resume,
discounting the U.S. threat.
Thus, the United States' failure to achieve its second strategic goal
that I stated in the last post created a situation in which Syria drew
judgments that were not warranted, since the United States had
achieved the first goal. The United States was the dominant military
power in the region; it simply wasn't perceived as militarily
powerful. That perception was driven by the inability to stop the
guerrillas. Therefore, the United States had to demonstrate that the
guerrilla war did not weaken its ability to coerce its neighbors in
the region.
The United States appears to have decided to treat the guerrilla war
as a military side show -- not insignificant, but certainly not
militarily decisive. Given this, there is no reason for Washington to
halt aggressive actions in the region to force change in behavior
toward al Qaeda and associated groups. By doing this, the United
States not only exploits the military advantage it has won, but also
shifts back the psychological perception to something that more
reasonably matches U.S. capabilities.
Therefore, and you aren't going to like this Punnadhammo, you should
expect to see more aggressive U.S. moves in the coming months. The
situation facing the Syrians is a paradigm created by the U.S.
strategy at this point: Washington is using a coalition of regional
powers to put Syria in an untenable position. Dubya's administration
accepts the fact that the U.S. will be seen as collaborating with
Israel -- under the valid theory that whatever the United States does,
it will be seen as Israel's collaborator and therefore might as well
enjoy the benefits of collaboration. Finally, Washington is using the
real threat of action to create a situation in which Damascus either
must comply with Washington's wishes or place a life-or-death bet that
the United States will refrain from action. All spin and hype aside,
that's the bottom line on why the pressure on Syria right now.
and the WAR continues -- and, the U.S. will re-institute
the Draft, very soon, in order to get enough troops to
sustain the fight
Post by jhayati
- j
Evelyn Ruut
2003-10-17 22:32:42 UTC
Permalink
[14]news:<1710200309513
Post by cupcake
Post by jhayati
Post by punnadhammo
Post by jhayati
We meddled in all sorts of things, as did the Soviets, which were both
the reason Europe built up Hitler and we built up Saddam. None of
these things are the fault of one country and they aren't about
"greed" or "oil". If you have to have one word to sum up the
motivations, it is "fear".
That's a sound point. All violence comes from greed, hatred, delusion
and fear.
Precisely. That doesn't mean we shouldn't stop Hitler because we are
afraaid though.
Post by punnadhammo
Post by jhayati
I do. And a show of force and a willingness to back up peace with
force makes the best conditions for achieving a peaceful and just
world starting now.
No, that's where you are way off track. A show of force just leads to
resentment and counter-violence and the cycle of killing goes on and on
without end.
This is precicely the extremist claim is mistaken, just as Lee foamed
at the mouth with insults and kept promoting this extremism.
-1- Violence sometimes leads only to more violence.
-2- Therefore, violence always leads to more violence.
-3- Therefore, non-violence is always better.
While 2 follows from 3, the step from 1 to 2 is ridiculous, and the
venim with which you and Lee have fought for this dogma is ridiculous.
By examining real cases (since you and your stooge both screamed
bloody murder when I used a story which you came up with to begin
with), you can find strong examples where violence only leads to more
violence. We agree on that. But you ignore cases, such as with
stopping Hitler, where non-violence only leads to more violence and
violence leads to less future violence than does non-violence which
leads to billions dead.
Now you are welcome to only selectively lood at cases where violence
leads to more violence, but you might want to look at how you don't
like to look at cases where your fundamentalist dogma doesn't work.
Iraq is a middle-ground case we can argue, but we can't argue this
until you can admit that often violence is the best course of action
to achieve non-violence. Note the assymetry here, as I will be the
first to admit that violence often does lead to more violence and
non-violence is often the best policy. However, as long as you want
to apply fundamentalist dogma to every situation, and when I bring a
real counter-example such as Hitler in 1941, you evade the example and
say "let's just look at cases where my dogma works", then we simply
can't have a conversation.
Post by punnadhammo
We also need to totally reject all unilaterism. Furthermore, we should
be working toward universal and balanced disarmament, especially of
nuclear weapons.
Now you've gone idealistic. You're suggesting that we get rid of our
weapons while others lie and build an arsenal, and then nuke us or
blackmail us. While I share your sentiments, you don't understand
practical real world life. This is understandable, as you've been
living in a sheltered monastary, but creating world peace is actually
a lot more difficult than you suppose.
Post by punnadhammo
Jhayati, the US is a terrible international citizen, blocking virtually
every attempt at international cooperation.
Actually, France was the one blocking international cooperation. But
France this week has gone along with the US and UN, and is doing
better, because for now, it is in the best interest to France to do
so. That is also how the game is played.
In recent years the US has
Post by punnadhammo
blocked
- the Kyoto treaty
- the landmines treaty
- the child-soldier treaty (!)
- the international war-crimes court
There are reasons for most of those. The Kyoto treaty can't possibly
work in the U.S. for reasons of energy production and child-birth
rates, and never was modified to possibly work the same in the U.S. as
in other countries.
You are right about the landmines treaty, and we should go for that,
and it's ridiculous that the US doesn't push for a treaty. There is
no reason for landmines and they are an abomination. However, other
big powers also rejected that treaty, and the US was not a sole
dissenter by any means.
The other two I'd have to look up. However, creating a list like that
doesn't work, because a huge hyperpower does so many things, that
picking the worst ones out of context and ignoring all the wonderful
contributions we have made is simply a form of extreme bias. I can
take every single friend I've known for several years and write down a
collections of the most selfish and cruel things they have done.
Every one of them. Does that mean my friends are all sadistic, mean
people? No. It means that with a wealth of information I can make
anyone, even my most saintly and trusted friends, look like a jerk.
So don't try this kind of petty trick.
Post by punnadhammo
And on and on.
How on earth can you give that kind of obstuctionism a B+?
For the same reasons so many of my close friends have done many things
I don't approve of and yet still rate a B+ or even A.
Post by punnadhammo
Post by jhayati
We now are in a position to be a "good citizen" now that we have
accomplished our two goals in the Iraqi campaign, which were: (1)
seizing the most strategic country in the region as a base of
operations from which to mount follow-on operations against countries
that collaborate or permit collaboration with al Qaeda;
Unilateral attacks to provide a strategic base for more unilateral
attacks is your definition of "good international citizenship?"
It depends upon the intention, which in this case is to stop terrorism
and Militant Islamism from causing more suffering. Attacking Hitler
unilaterally before he had killed millions of Jews would be justified
as well. As you point out, not letting him get into power would be
better, but as in the late 1930s, we have already been attacked and
the Middle East is already a mess, and given the situation in the
present moment, this decision was the most rational and strategic one,
and better than waiting a decade until Saddam finally did get and use
what we're so disappointed we can't find.
Post by punnadhammo
and (2)
Post by jhayati
transforming the psychological perception of the United States in the
Islamic world from a hated and impotent power to a hated but feared
power. Now we are in a position to make the world more peaceful and
just.
Ha Ha! That's good? Hated and feared? How about respected and loved?
Wouldn't that make everyone feel safer?
Yes, it would, but it isn't an option. Your idealism doesn't work
here. I worded that this way exactly so you would respond with
emotionalism and suggest love and flowers as an alternative. However,
given the hatred that exists, hated and impotent is much worst than
hated and feared (respected to enforce consequences). This simply is
the best move on the chessboard right now. It it the best move to
enable the possibility of respected and loved down the line. I can
even give you real examples, such as Japan, where utter enemies became
lasting friends with goodwill toward each other.
Post by punnadhammo
(Why does the shameless bullying of Syria strike you as positive?)
Both the words "shameless" and "bullying" are emotional hype that
distort and spin what is going on today, Punnadhammo. Lol! However,
there are very good rational reasons for maintaining pressue on Syria
which I will explain to you.
Ok, first let's look at what this shameless bullying consisted of, and
then why it was not shameless but instead reasonable and rational
strategy consistent with the goals of the war on terror. The U.S.
opened a psychological campaign against Syria last weekend by pointing
out that the Israelis have submarine-, air- and land-based nuclear
weapons. Two U.S. officials made the point in such a way that the
Syrians couldn't miss it. This came just days after Turkish lawmakers
voted to send troops into Iraq. Though those troops are important,
the real importance of the vote was its declaration of belligerency by
Turkey, which has moved from a neutral stance established in March
back into active collaboration with the United States.
The U.S. used the Turkish shift to create a massive coalition against
Syria along most of its borders. With the Israelis, Turks and
Americans all arrayed along its frontiers, Damascus has no choice but
to reconsider its strategy. The alternative which you don't take into
account, Punnadhammo, is to assume that the U.S. will be unwilling to
use its forces -- and those of Israel -- to compel regime change in
Syria. The Syrians might even believe that to be the case, but the
risk of error is too great to test it.
Also, it's really useful here to examine Syrian behavior more closely.
The Iraq campaign ended with U.S. forces dueling Syrian forces along
the Syria-Iraq border. Damascus, clearly surprised by the U.S.
victory, seemed to shift their policies in April and May, suppressing
some Palestinian and Islamist activity within the country's borders.
Then, as the guerrilla war intensified over the summer, Syria seemed
to reconsider. Officials clearly perceived American weakness in Iraq
and concluded that so long as the guerrilla war continued, the United
States would be exceedingly cautious in expanding the conflict.
Indeed, during the six months of U.S. absorption with the guerrilla
war, the Syrian perception solidified into the view that the United
States was trapped in Iraq in a war it could neither win nor exit.
Syria permitted Palestinian and Islamist activity to resume,
discounting the U.S. threat.
Thus, the United States' failure to achieve its second strategic goal
that I stated in the last post created a situation in which Syria drew
judgments that were not warranted, since the United States had
achieved the first goal. The United States was the dominant military
power in the region; it simply wasn't perceived as militarily
powerful. That perception was driven by the inability to stop the
guerrillas. Therefore, the United States had to demonstrate that the
guerrilla war did not weaken its ability to coerce its neighbors in
the region.
The United States appears to have decided to treat the guerrilla war
as a military side show -- not insignificant, but certainly not
militarily decisive. Given this, there is no reason for Washington to
halt aggressive actions in the region to force change in behavior
toward al Qaeda and associated groups. By doing this, the United
States not only exploits the military advantage it has won, but also
shifts back the psychological perception to something that more
reasonably matches U.S. capabilities.
Therefore, and you aren't going to like this Punnadhammo, you should
expect to see more aggressive U.S. moves in the coming months. The
situation facing the Syrians is a paradigm created by the U.S.
strategy at this point: Washington is using a coalition of regional
powers to put Syria in an untenable position. Dubya's administration
accepts the fact that the U.S. will be seen as collaborating with
Israel -- under the valid theory that whatever the United States does,
it will be seen as Israel's collaborator and therefore might as well
enjoy the benefits of collaboration. Finally, Washington is using the
real threat of action to create a situation in which Damascus either
must comply with Washington's wishes or place a life-or-death bet that
the United States will refrain from action. All spin and hype aside,
that's the bottom line on why the pressure on Syria right now.
and the WAR continues -- and, the U.S. will re-institute
the Draft, very soon, in order to get enough troops to
sustain the fight
I certainly hope not.
--
Evelyn

(To reply to me personally, remove sox)
William Tucker
2003-10-18 04:51:35 UTC
Permalink
[14]news:<1710200309513
Post by cupcake
Post by jhayati
Post by punnadhammo
Post by jhayati
We meddled in all sorts of things, as did the Soviets, which were both
the reason Europe built up Hitler and we built up Saddam. None of
these things are the fault of one country and they aren't about
"greed" or "oil". If you have to have one word to sum up the
motivations, it is "fear".
That's a sound point. All violence comes from greed, hatred, delusion
and fear.
Precisely. That doesn't mean we shouldn't stop Hitler because we are
afraaid though.
Post by punnadhammo
Post by jhayati
I do. And a show of force and a willingness to back up peace with
force makes the best conditions for achieving a peaceful and just
world starting now.
No, that's where you are way off track. A show of force just leads to
resentment and counter-violence and the cycle of killing goes on and on
without end.
This is precicely the extremist claim is mistaken, just as Lee foamed
at the mouth with insults and kept promoting this extremism.
-1- Violence sometimes leads only to more violence.
-2- Therefore, violence always leads to more violence.
-3- Therefore, non-violence is always better.
While 2 follows from 3, the step from 1 to 2 is ridiculous, and the
venim with which you and Lee have fought for this dogma is ridiculous.
By examining real cases (since you and your stooge both screamed
bloody murder when I used a story which you came up with to begin
with), you can find strong examples where violence only leads to more
violence. We agree on that. But you ignore cases, such as with
stopping Hitler, where non-violence only leads to more violence and
violence leads to less future violence than does non-violence which
leads to billions dead.
Now you are welcome to only selectively lood at cases where violence
leads to more violence, but you might want to look at how you don't
like to look at cases where your fundamentalist dogma doesn't work.
Iraq is a middle-ground case we can argue, but we can't argue this
until you can admit that often violence is the best course of action
to achieve non-violence. Note the assymetry here, as I will be the
first to admit that violence often does lead to more violence and
non-violence is often the best policy. However, as long as you want
to apply fundamentalist dogma to every situation, and when I bring a
real counter-example such as Hitler in 1941, you evade the example and
say "let's just look at cases where my dogma works", then we simply
can't have a conversation.
Post by punnadhammo
We also need to totally reject all unilaterism. Furthermore, we should
be working toward universal and balanced disarmament, especially of
nuclear weapons.
Now you've gone idealistic. You're suggesting that we get rid of our
weapons while others lie and build an arsenal, and then nuke us or
blackmail us. While I share your sentiments, you don't understand
practical real world life. This is understandable, as you've been
living in a sheltered monastary, but creating world peace is actually
a lot more difficult than you suppose.
Post by punnadhammo
Jhayati, the US is a terrible international citizen, blocking virtually
every attempt at international cooperation.
Actually, France was the one blocking international cooperation. But
France this week has gone along with the US and UN, and is doing
better, because for now, it is in the best interest to France to do
so. That is also how the game is played.
In recent years the US has
Post by punnadhammo
blocked
- the Kyoto treaty
- the landmines treaty
- the child-soldier treaty (!)
- the international war-crimes court
There are reasons for most of those. The Kyoto treaty can't possibly
work in the U.S. for reasons of energy production and child-birth
rates, and never was modified to possibly work the same in the U.S. as
in other countries.
You are right about the landmines treaty, and we should go for that,
and it's ridiculous that the US doesn't push for a treaty. There is
no reason for landmines and they are an abomination. However, other
big powers also rejected that treaty, and the US was not a sole
dissenter by any means.
The other two I'd have to look up. However, creating a list like that
doesn't work, because a huge hyperpower does so many things, that
picking the worst ones out of context and ignoring all the wonderful
contributions we have made is simply a form of extreme bias. I can
take every single friend I've known for several years and write down a
collections of the most selfish and cruel things they have done.
Every one of them. Does that mean my friends are all sadistic, mean
people? No. It means that with a wealth of information I can make
anyone, even my most saintly and trusted friends, look like a jerk.
So don't try this kind of petty trick.
Post by punnadhammo
And on and on.
How on earth can you give that kind of obstuctionism a B+?
For the same reasons so many of my close friends have done many things
I don't approve of and yet still rate a B+ or even A.
Post by punnadhammo
Post by jhayati
We now are in a position to be a "good citizen" now that we have
accomplished our two goals in the Iraqi campaign, which were: (1)
seizing the most strategic country in the region as a base of
operations from which to mount follow-on operations against countries
that collaborate or permit collaboration with al Qaeda;
Unilateral attacks to provide a strategic base for more unilateral
attacks is your definition of "good international citizenship?"
It depends upon the intention, which in this case is to stop terrorism
and Militant Islamism from causing more suffering. Attacking Hitler
unilaterally before he had killed millions of Jews would be justified
as well. As you point out, not letting him get into power would be
better, but as in the late 1930s, we have already been attacked and
the Middle East is already a mess, and given the situation in the
present moment, this decision was the most rational and strategic one,
and better than waiting a decade until Saddam finally did get and use
what we're so disappointed we can't find.
Post by punnadhammo
and (2)
Post by jhayati
transforming the psychological perception of the United States in the
Islamic world from a hated and impotent power to a hated but feared
power. Now we are in a position to make the world more peaceful and
just.
Ha Ha! That's good? Hated and feared? How about respected and loved?
Wouldn't that make everyone feel safer?
Yes, it would, but it isn't an option. Your idealism doesn't work
here. I worded that this way exactly so you would respond with
emotionalism and suggest love and flowers as an alternative. However,
given the hatred that exists, hated and impotent is much worst than
hated and feared (respected to enforce consequences). This simply is
the best move on the chessboard right now. It it the best move to
enable the possibility of respected and loved down the line. I can
even give you real examples, such as Japan, where utter enemies became
lasting friends with goodwill toward each other.
Post by punnadhammo
(Why does the shameless bullying of Syria strike you as positive?)
Both the words "shameless" and "bullying" are emotional hype that
distort and spin what is going on today, Punnadhammo. Lol! However,
there are very good rational reasons for maintaining pressue on Syria
which I will explain to you.
Ok, first let's look at what this shameless bullying consisted of, and
then why it was not shameless but instead reasonable and rational
strategy consistent with the goals of the war on terror. The U.S.
opened a psychological campaign against Syria last weekend by pointing
out that the Israelis have submarine-, air- and land-based nuclear
weapons. Two U.S. officials made the point in such a way that the
Syrians couldn't miss it. This came just days after Turkish lawmakers
voted to send troops into Iraq. Though those troops are important,
the real importance of the vote was its declaration of belligerency by
Turkey, which has moved from a neutral stance established in March
back into active collaboration with the United States.
The U.S. used the Turkish shift to create a massive coalition against
Syria along most of its borders. With the Israelis, Turks and
Americans all arrayed along its frontiers, Damascus has no choice but
to reconsider its strategy. The alternative which you don't take into
account, Punnadhammo, is to assume that the U.S. will be unwilling to
use its forces -- and those of Israel -- to compel regime change in
Syria. The Syrians might even believe that to be the case, but the
risk of error is too great to test it.
Also, it's really useful here to examine Syrian behavior more closely.
The Iraq campaign ended with U.S. forces dueling Syrian forces along
the Syria-Iraq border. Damascus, clearly surprised by the U.S.
victory, seemed to shift their policies in April and May, suppressing
some Palestinian and Islamist activity within the country's borders.
Then, as the guerrilla war intensified over the summer, Syria seemed
to reconsider. Officials clearly perceived American weakness in Iraq
and concluded that so long as the guerrilla war continued, the United
States would be exceedingly cautious in expanding the conflict.
Indeed, during the six months of U.S. absorption with the guerrilla
war, the Syrian perception solidified into the view that the United
States was trapped in Iraq in a war it could neither win nor exit.
Syria permitted Palestinian and Islamist activity to resume,
discounting the U.S. threat.
Thus, the United States' failure to achieve its second strategic goal
that I stated in the last post created a situation in which Syria drew
judgments that were not warranted, since the United States had
achieved the first goal. The United States was the dominant military
power in the region; it simply wasn't perceived as militarily
powerful. That perception was driven by the inability to stop the
guerrillas. Therefore, the United States had to demonstrate that the
guerrilla war did not weaken its ability to coerce its neighbors in
the region.
The United States appears to have decided to treat the guerrilla war
as a military side show -- not insignificant, but certainly not
militarily decisive. Given this, there is no reason for Washington to
halt aggressive actions in the region to force change in behavior
toward al Qaeda and associated groups. By doing this, the United
States not only exploits the military advantage it has won, but also
shifts back the psychological perception to something that more
reasonably matches U.S. capabilities.
Therefore, and you aren't going to like this Punnadhammo, you should
expect to see more aggressive U.S. moves in the coming months. The
situation facing the Syrians is a paradigm created by the U.S.
strategy at this point: Washington is using a coalition of regional
powers to put Syria in an untenable position. Dubya's administration
accepts the fact that the U.S. will be seen as collaborating with
Israel -- under the valid theory that whatever the United States does,
it will be seen as Israel's collaborator and therefore might as well
enjoy the benefits of collaboration. Finally, Washington is using the
real threat of action to create a situation in which Damascus either
must comply with Washington's wishes or place a life-or-death bet that
the United States will refrain from action. All spin and hype aside,
that's the bottom line on why the pressure on Syria right now.
and the WAR continues -- and, the U.S. will re-institute
the Draft, very soon, in order to get enough troops to
sustain the fight
well at least college would be paid for

too bad there won't be any jobs when the y get out


lot of upset kids graduating now...can't find professional level work
Post by cupcake
Post by jhayati
- j
cupcake
2003-10-18 06:26:48 UTC
Permalink
Re: War is Hell
Reply to: [1]"William Tucker"
Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2003 04:51:35 GMT
Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net
[2]talk.religion.buddhism,
[3]alt.zen,
[4]alt.religion.buddhism.tibetan
Followup to: [5]newsgroups
[14][9]news:<1710200309513
jhayati
Post by cupcake
Post by jhayati
Post by punnadhammo
Post by jhayati
We meddled in all sorts of things, as did the Soviets, which were
both
Post by cupcake
Post by jhayati
Post by punnadhammo
Post by jhayati
the reason Europe built up Hitler and we built up Saddam. None of
these things are the fault of one country and they aren't about
"greed" or "oil". If you have to have one word to sum up the
motivations, it is "fear".
That's a sound point. All violence comes from greed, hatred, delusion
and fear.
Precisely. That doesn't mean we shouldn't stop Hitler because we are
afraaid though.
Post by punnadhammo
Post by jhayati
I do. And a show of force and a willingness to back up peace with
force makes the best conditions for achieving a peaceful and just
world starting now.
No, that's where you are way off track. A show of force just leads to
resentment and counter-violence and the cycle of killing goes on and on
without end.
This is precicely the extremist claim is mistaken, just as Lee foamed
at the mouth with insults and kept promoting this extremism.
-1- Violence sometimes leads only to more violence.
-2- Therefore, violence always leads to more violence.
-3- Therefore, non-violence is always better.
While 2 follows from 3, the step from 1 to 2 is ridiculous, and the
venim with which you and Lee have fought for this dogma is ridiculous.
By examining real cases (since you and your stooge both screamed
bloody murder when I used a story which you came up with to begin
with), you can find strong examples where violence only leads to more
violence. We agree on that. But you ignore cases, such as with
stopping Hitler, where non-violence only leads to more violence and
violence leads to less future violence than does non-violence which
leads to billions dead.
Now you are welcome to only selectively lood at cases where violence
leads to more violence, but you might want to look at how you don't
like to look at cases where your fundamentalist dogma doesn't work.
Iraq is a middle-ground case we can argue, but we can't argue this
until you can admit that often violence is the best course of action
to achieve non-violence. Note the assymetry here, as I will be the
first to admit that violence often does lead to more violence and
non-violence is often the best policy. However, as long as you want
to apply fundamentalist dogma to every situation, and when I bring a
real counter-example such as Hitler in 1941, you evade the example and
say "let's just look at cases where my dogma works", then we simply
can't have a conversation.
Post by punnadhammo
We also need to totally reject all unilaterism. Furthermore, we should
be working toward universal and balanced disarmament, especially of
nuclear weapons.
Now you've gone idealistic. You're suggesting that we get rid of our
weapons while others lie and build an arsenal, and then nuke us or
blackmail us. While I share your sentiments, you don't understand
practical real world life. This is understandable, as you've been
living in a sheltered monastary, but creating world peace is actually
a lot more difficult than you suppose.
Post by punnadhammo
Jhayati, the US is a terrible international citizen, blocking virtually
every attempt at international cooperation.
Actually, France was the one blocking international cooperation. But
France this week has gone along with the US and UN, and is doing
better, because for now, it is in the best interest to France to do
so. That is also how the game is played.
In recent years the US has
Post by punnadhammo
blocked
- the Kyoto treaty
- the landmines treaty
- the child-soldier treaty (!)
- the international war-crimes court
There are reasons for most of those. The Kyoto treaty can't possibly
work in the U.S. for reasons of energy production and child-birth
rates, and never was modified to possibly work the same in the U.S. as
in other countries.
You are right about the landmines treaty, and we should go for that,
and it's ridiculous that the US doesn't push for a treaty. There is
no reason for landmines and they are an abomination. However, other
big powers also rejected that treaty, and the US was not a sole
dissenter by any means.
The other two I'd have to look up. However, creating a list like that
doesn't work, because a huge hyperpower does so many things, that
picking the worst ones out of context and ignoring all the wonderful
contributions we have made is simply a form of extreme bias. I can
take every single friend I've known for several years and write down a
collections of the most selfish and cruel things they have done.
Every one of them. Does that mean my friends are all sadistic, mean
people? No. It means that with a wealth of information I can make
anyone, even my most saintly and trusted friends, look like a jerk.
So don't try this kind of petty trick.
Post by punnadhammo
And on and on.
How on earth can you give that kind of obstuctionism a B+?
For the same reasons so many of my close friends have done many things
I don't approve of and yet still rate a B+ or even A.
Post by punnadhammo
Post by jhayati
We now are in a position to be a "good citizen" now that we have
accomplished our two goals in the Iraqi campaign, which were: (1)
seizing the most strategic country in the region as a base of
operations from which to mount follow-on operations against countries
that collaborate or permit collaboration with al Qaeda;
Unilateral attacks to provide a strategic base for more unilateral
attacks is your definition of "good international citizenship?"
It depends upon the intention, which in this case is to stop terrorism
and Militant Islamism from causing more suffering. Attacking Hitler
unilaterally before he had killed millions of Jews would be justified
as well. As you point out, not letting him get into power would be
better, but as in the late 1930s, we have already been attacked and
the Middle East is already a mess, and given the situation in the
present moment, this decision was the most rational and strategic one,
and better than waiting a decade until Saddam finally did get and use
what we're so disappointed we can't find.
Post by punnadhammo
and (2)
Post by jhayati
transforming the psychological perception of the United States in the
Islamic world from a hated and impotent power to a hated but feared
power. Now we are in a position to make the world more peaceful and
just.
Ha Ha! That's good? Hated and feared? How about respected and loved?
Wouldn't that make everyone feel safer?
Yes, it would, but it isn't an option. Your idealism doesn't work
here. I worded that this way exactly so you would respond with
emotionalism and suggest love and flowers as an alternative. However,
given the hatred that exists, hated and impotent is much worst than
hated and feared (respected to enforce consequences). This simply is
the best move on the chessboard right now. It it the best move to
enable the possibility of respected and loved down the line. I can
even give you real examples, such as Japan, where utter enemies became
lasting friends with goodwill toward each other.
Post by punnadhammo
(Why does the shameless bullying of Syria strike you as positive?)
Both the words "shameless" and "bullying" are emotional hype that
distort and spin what is going on today, Punnadhammo. Lol! However,
there are very good rational reasons for maintaining pressue on Syria
which I will explain to you.
Ok, first let's look at what this shameless bullying consisted of, and
then why it was not shameless but instead reasonable and rational
strategy consistent with the goals of the war on terror. The U.S.
opened a psychological campaign against Syria last weekend by pointing
out that the Israelis have submarine-, air- and land-based nuclear
weapons. Two U.S. officials made the point in such a way that the
Syrians couldn't miss it. This came just days after Turkish lawmakers
voted to send troops into Iraq. Though those troops are important,
the real importance of the vote was its declaration of belligerency by
Turkey, which has moved from a neutral stance established in March
back into active collaboration with the United States.
The U.S. used the Turkish shift to create a massive coalition against
Syria along most of its borders. With the Israelis, Turks and
Americans all arrayed along its frontiers, Damascus has no choice but
to reconsider its strategy. The alternative which you don't take into
account, Punnadhammo, is to assume that the U.S. will be unwilling to
use its forces -- and those of Israel -- to compel regime change in
Syria. The Syrians might even believe that to be the case, but the
risk of error is too great to test it.
Also, it's really useful here to examine Syrian behavior more closely.
The Iraq campaign ended with U.S. forces dueling Syrian forces along
the Syria-Iraq border. Damascus, clearly surprised by the U.S.
victory, seemed to shift their policies in April and May, suppressing
some Palestinian and Islamist activity within the country's borders.
Then, as the guerrilla war intensified over the summer, Syria seemed
to reconsider. Officials clearly perceived American weakness in Iraq
and concluded that so long as the guerrilla war continued, the United
States would be exceedingly cautious in expanding the conflict.
Indeed, during the six months of U.S. absorption with the guerrilla
war, the Syrian perception solidified into the view that the United
States was trapped in Iraq in a war it could neither win nor exit.
Syria permitted Palestinian and Islamist activity to resume,
discounting the U.S. threat.
Thus, the United States' failure to achieve its second strategic goal
that I stated in the last post created a situation in which Syria drew
judgments that were not warranted, since the United States had
achieved the first goal. The United States was the dominant military
power in the region; it simply wasn't perceived as militarily
powerful. That perception was driven by the inability to stop the
guerrillas. Therefore, the United States had to demonstrate that the
guerrilla war did not weaken its ability to coerce its neighbors in
the region.
The United States appears to have decided to treat the guerrilla war
as a military side show -- not insignificant, but certainly not
militarily decisive. Given this, there is no reason for Washington to
halt aggressive actions in the region to force change in behavior
toward al Qaeda and associated groups. By doing this, the United
States not only exploits the military advantage it has won, but also
shifts back the psychological perception to something that more
reasonably matches U.S. capabilities.
Therefore, and you aren't going to like this Punnadhammo, you should
expect to see more aggressive U.S. moves in the coming months. The
situation facing the Syrians is a paradigm created by the U.S.
strategy at this point: Washington is using a coalition of regional
powers to put Syria in an untenable position. Dubya's administration
accepts the fact that the U.S. will be seen as collaborating with
Israel -- under the valid theory that whatever the United States does,
it will be seen as Israel's collaborator and therefore might as well
enjoy the benefits of collaboration. Finally, Washington is using the
real threat of action to create a situation in which Damascus either
must comply with Washington's wishes or place a life-or-death bet that
the United States will refrain from action. All spin and hype aside,
that's the bottom line on why the pressure on Syria right now.
and the WAR continues -- and, the U.S. will re-institute
the Draft, very soon, in order to get enough troops to
sustain the fight
well at least college would be paid for
too bad there won't be any jobs when the y get out
lot of upset kids graduating now...can't find professional level work
good! -- we'll put'em ta work fighting Islamic extremists!

(war is good for the economy, ya know :)
Post by cupcake
Post by jhayati
- j
jhayati
2003-10-18 15:33:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by cupcake
Post by punnadhammo
Post by William Tucker
Post by cupcake
and the WAR continues -- and, the U.S. will re-institute
the Draft, very soon, in order to get enough troops to
sustain the fight
well at least college would be paid for
good! -- we'll put'em ta work fighting Islamic extremists!
(war is good for the economy, ya know :)
This nonsense from cupcake and Tucker is as pathetic and ignorant as
the opposite nonsense from Punnadhammo and Lee. All these spinners
add their emotionalism and make nonsense claims, such as "it's about
oil" or "war is good for the economy" which are unsupported dishonest
ways to ignore the real issues at hand. Shame on all of you, ignorant
spinners and eel-wrigglers. Here in a free-market liberal democracy,
where you actually are free to read multiple reliable sources and
where everyone who lives in the city has free libraries within walking
distance and can find out what's going on in the world, you choose
instead to spout ignorance and spin and focus on extremist tabloids
and slogans. This blanket glorifying or condemning are really the
same act, and they reflect the petty judgements we make in everyday
lives. The ignorance displayed by the lot of you is very
disappointing. While the lot of you desperately need a psychological
regime change, at least in the one case of Punnadhammo, his "Baghdad
Bob" clownishness is hilarious.

- j
Post by cupcake
Post by punnadhammo
Post by William Tucker
We meddled in all sorts of things, as did the Soviets, which were both
the reason Europe built up Hitler and we built up Saddam. None of
these things are the fault of one country and they aren't about
"greed" or "oil". If you have to have one word to sum up the
motivations, it is "fear".
That's a sound point. All violence comes from greed, hatred,
delusion
Post by cupcake
Post by punnadhammo
and fear.
Precisely. That doesn't mean we shouldn't stop Hitler because we are
afraid though.
Post by punnadhammo
Post by William Tucker
I do. And a show of force and a willingness to back up peace with
force makes the best conditions for achieving a peaceful and just
world starting now.
No, that's where you are way off track. A show of force just leads to
resentment and counter-violence and the cycle of killing goes on and on
without end.
This is precicely the extremist claim is mistaken, just as Lee foamed
at the mouth with insults and kept promoting this extremism.
-1- Violence sometimes leads only to more violence.
-2- Therefore, violence always leads to more violence.
-3- Therefore, non-violence is always better.
While 3 follows from 2, the step from 1 to 2 is ridiculous, and the
venim with which you and Lee have fought for this dogma is
ridiculous.
Post by cupcake
By examining real cases (since you and your stooge both screamed
bloody murder when I used a story which you came up with to begin
with), you can find strong examples where violence only leads to more
violence. We agree on that. But you ignore cases, such as with
stopping Hitler, where non-violence only leads to more violence and
violence leads to less future violence than does non-violence, which
leads to billions dead.
Now you are welcome to only selectively look at cases where violence
leads to more violence, but you might want to look at how you don't
like to look at cases where your fundamentalist dogma doesn't work!
Iraq is a middle-ground case we can argue, but we can't argue this
until you can admit that often violence is the best course of action
to achieve non-violence. Note the assymetry here, as I will be the
first to admit that violence often does lead to more violence and
non-violence is often the best policy. However, as long as you want
to apply fundamentalist dogma to every situation, and when I bring a
real counter-example such as Hitler in 1941, evade the example and
say "let's just look at cases where my dogma works", then we simply
can't have a conversation.
Post by punnadhammo
We also need to totally reject all unilaterism. Furthermore, we should
be working toward universal and balanced disarmament, especially of
nuclear weapons.
Now you've gone idealistic. You're suggesting that we get rid of our
weapons while others lie and build an arsenal, and then nuke us or
blackmail us. While I share your sentiments, you don't understand
practical real world life. This is understandable, as you've been
living in a sheltered monastary, but creating world peace is actually
a lot more difficult than you suppose.
Post by punnadhammo
Jhayati, the US is a terrible international citizen, blocking
virtually
Post by cupcake
Post by punnadhammo
every attempt at international cooperation.
Actually, France was the one blocking international cooperation.
But France this week has gone along with the US and UN, and is doing
better, because for now, it' s in the best interest to France to do
so.
Post by cupcake
That is also how the game is played.
Post by punnadhammo
In recent years the US has blocked
- the Kyoto treaty
- the landmines treaty
- the child-soldier treaty (!)
- the international war-crimes court
There are reasons for most of those. The Kyoto treaty can't possibly
work in the U.S. for reasons of energy production and child-birth
rates, and never was modified to possibly work the same in the U.S. as
in other countries.
You are right about the landmines treaty, and we should go for that,
as it's ridiculous that the US doesn't push for a treaty. There is
no reason for landmines and they are an abomination. However, other
big powers also rejected that treaty, and the US was not a sole
dissenter by any means.
The other two I'd have to look up. However, creating a list like that
doesn't work, because a huge hyperpower does so many things, that
picking the worst ones out of context, and ignoring all the wonderful
contributions we have made, is simply a form of extreme bias. I can
take every single friend I've known for several years and write down
collections of the most selfish and cruel things they each have done.
Every one of them. Does that mean my friends are all sadistic, mean
people? No. It means that with a wealth of information I can make
anyone, even my most saintly and trusted friends, look like a jerk.
So don't try this kind of petty trick.
Post by punnadhammo
And on and on.
How on earth can you give that kind of obstuctionism a B+?
For the same reasons so many of my close friends have done many
things
Post by cupcake
I don't approve of and yet still rate a B+ or even A.
Post by punnadhammo
Post by William Tucker
We now are in a position to be a "good citizen" now that we have
accomplished our two goals in the Iraqi campaign, which were: (1)
seizing the most strategic country in the region as a base of
operations from which to mount follow-on operations against
countries
Post by cupcake
Post by punnadhammo
Post by William Tucker
that collaborate or permit collaboration with al Qaeda;
Unilateral attacks to provide a strategic base for more unilateral
attacks is your definition of "good international citizenship?"
It depends upon the intention, which in this case is to stop
terrorism
Post by cupcake
and Militant Islamism from causing more suffering. Attacking Hitler
unilaterally before he had killed millions of Jews would be justified
as well. As you point out, not letting him get into power would be
better, but as in the late 1930s, we have already been attacked and
the Middle East is already a mess, and given the situation in the
present moment, this decision was the most rational and strategic one,
and better than waiting a decade until Saddam finally did get and use
what we're so disappointed we can't find.
Post by punnadhammo
and (2)
Post by William Tucker
transforming the psychological perception of the United States in the
Islamic world from a hated and impotent power to a hated but feared
power. Now we are in a position to make the world more peaceful and
just.
Ha Ha! That's good? Hated and feared? How about respected and
loved?
Post by cupcake
Post by punnadhammo
Wouldn't that make everyone feel safer?
Yes, it would, but it isn't an option. Your idealism doesn't work
here. I worded that in this way exactly so you would respond with
emotionalism and suggest love and flowers as an alternative.
However,
Post by cupcake
given the hatred that exists, hated and impotent is much worse than
hated and feared (respected to enforce consequences). This simply is
the best move on the chessboard right now. It it the best move to
enable the possibility of respected and loved down the line. I can
even give you real examples, such as Japan, where our utter enemies
became lasting friends with goodwill toward each other.
Post by punnadhammo
(Why does the shameless bullying of Syria strike you as positive?)
Both the words "shameless" and "bullying" are emotional hype that
distort and spin what is going on today, Punnadhammo. Lol! However,
there are very good rational reasons for maintaining pressue on Syria
which I will explain to you.
Ok, first let's look at what this shameless bullying consisted of,
and then why it was not shameless but instead reasonable and rational
strategy consistent with the goals of the war on terror. The U.S.
opened a psychological campaign against Syria last weekend by
pointing
Post by cupcake
out that the Israelis have submarine-, air- and land-based nuclear
weapons. Two U.S. officials made the point in such a way that the
Syrians couldn't miss it. This came just days after Turkish
lawmakers
Post by cupcake
voted to send troops into Iraq. Though those troops are important,
the real importance of the vote was its declaration of belligerency by
Turkey, which has moved from a neutral stance established in March
back into active collaboration with the United States.
The U.S. used the Turkish shift to create a massive coalition against
Syria along most of its borders. With the Israelis, Turks and
Americans all arrayed along its frontiers, Damascus has no choice but
to reconsider its strategy. The alternative which you don't take into
account, Punnadhammo, is to assume that the U.S. will be unwilling to
use its forces -- and those of Israel -- to compel regime change in
Syria. The Syrians might even believe that to be the case, but the
risk of error is too great to test it.
Also, it's really useful here to examine Syrian behavior more
closely.
Post by cupcake
The Iraq campaign ended with U.S. forces dueling Syrian forces along
the Syria-Iraq border. Damascus, clearly surprised by the U.S.
victory, seemed to shift their policies in April and May, suppressing
some Palestinian and Islamist activity within the country's borders.
Then, as the guerrilla war intensified over the summer, Syria seemed
to reconsider. Officials clearly perceived American weakness in Iraq
and concluded that so long as the guerrilla war continued, the United
States would be exceedingly cautious in expanding the conflict.
Indeed, during the six months of U.S. absorption with the guerrilla
war, the Syrian perception solidified into the view that the United
States was trapped in Iraq in a war it could neither win nor exit.
Syria permitted Palestinian and Islamist activity to resume,
discounting the U.S. threat.
Thus, the United States' failure to achieve its second strategic goal
that I stated in the last post created a situation in which Syria drew
judgments that were not warranted, since the United States had
achieved the first goal. The United States was the dominant military
power in the region; it simply wasn't perceived as militarily
powerful. That perception was driven by the inability to stop the
guerrillas. Therefore, the United States had to demonstrate that the
guerrilla war did not weaken its ability to coerce its neighbors in
the region.
The United States appears to have decided to treat the guerrilla war
as a military side show -- not insignificant, but certainly not
militarily decisive. Given this, there is no reason for Washington to
halt aggressive actions in the region to force change in behavior
toward al Qaeda and associated groups. By doing this, the United
States not only exploits the military advantage it has won, but also
shifts back the psychological perception to something that more
reasonably matches U.S. capabilities.
Therefore, and you aren't going to like this Punnadhammo, you should
expect to see more aggressive U.S. moves in the coming months. The
situation facing the Syrians is a paradigm created by the U.S.
strategy at this point: Washington is using a coalition of regional
powers to put Syria in an untenable position. Dubya's administration
accepts the fact that the U.S. will be seen as collaborating with
Israel -- under the valid theory that whatever the United States does,
it will be seen as Israel's collaborator and therefore might as well
enjoy the benefits of collaboration. Finally, Washington is using the
real threat of action to create a situation in which Damascus either
must comply with Washington's wishes or place a life-or-death bet that
the United States will refrain from action. All spin and hype aside,
that's the bottom line on why the pressure on Syria right now.
- j
Original face 12
2003-10-18 16:07:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by jhayati
All these spinners
add their emotionalism and make nonsense claims,
bwahahahahahahahaha
the mirror is not your friend.
B
punnadhammo
2003-10-18 18:32:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by jhayati
This nonsense from cupcake and Tucker is as pathetic and ignorant as
the opposite nonsense from Punnadhammo and Lee. All these spinners
add their emotionalism and make nonsense claims, such as "it's about
oil" or "war is good for the economy" which are unsupported dishonest
ways to ignore the real issues at hand. Shame on all of you, ignorant
spinners and eel-wrigglers. Here in a free-market liberal democracy,
where you actually are free to read multiple reliable sources and
where everyone who lives in the city has free libraries within walking
distance and can find out what's going on in the world, you choose
instead to spout ignorance and spin and focus on extremist tabloids
and slogans. This blanket glorifying or condemning are really the
same act, and they reflect the petty judgements we make in everyday
lives. The ignorance displayed by the lot of you is very
disappointing. While the lot of you desperately need a psychological
regime change, at least in the one case of Punnadhammo, his "Baghdad
Bob" clownishness is hilarious.
OK, but what's your excuse?
Messer Xin
2003-10-20 06:29:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by punnadhammo
Post by jhayati
While the lot of you desperately need a psychological
regime change, at least in the one case of Punnadhammo, his "Baghdad
Bob" clownishness is hilarious.
OK, but what's your excuse?
Humor deficiency?
--
"Cretans always lie." Epimenides the Cretan
William Tucker
2003-10-19 04:08:00 UTC
Permalink
start telling the truth and you'll be able to tell it when you see it


or discern when someone is joking or tongue in cheek



you're so busy watching your spin that you can't tell when


you 're not on the boat any longer and you think the ground is moving


you're moving....your distorted by your

need to distort _his_ story...your story


forget it

quit spinning

and don't be so sensitive



we both live in the same world
punnadhammo
2003-10-18 18:25:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by cupcake
and the WAR continues -- and, the U.S. will re-institute
the Draft, very soon, in order to get enough troops to
sustain the fight
What are you going to use as a deferment?
cupcake
2003-10-19 00:16:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by punnadhammo
Post by cupcake
and the WAR continues -- and, the U.S. will re-institute
the Draft, very soon, in order to get enough troops to
sustain the fight
What are you going to use as a deferment?
i am "an officer and a gentleman by act of Congress",
what'z yer question
Lee Dillion
2003-10-17 23:15:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by jhayati
Post by punnadhammo
No, that's where you are way off track. A show of force just leads to
resentment and counter-violence and the cycle of killing goes on and on
without end.
This is precicely the extremist claim is mistaken, just as Lee foamed
at the mouth with insults and kept promoting this extremism.
From the preceding, it is apparent that you have no clue as to what my
position is regarding violence. But, then, I had thought you had
plonked me. If not, and you would like to pick up with the discussion,
let me know as you have some questions you left unanswered. If you do
not wish to pick it up, then you might consider not talking about things
that you have not taken the time to get right.
--
Lee Dillion
punnadhammo
2003-10-18 18:28:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lee Dillion
From the preceding, it is apparent that you have no clue as to what my
position is regarding violence. But, then, I had thought you had
plonked me. If not, and you would like to pick up with the discussion,
let me know as you have some questions you left unanswered. If you do
not wish to pick it up, then you might consider not talking about things
that you have not taken the time to get right.
Hey Lee, did you catch in another thread where Jhayati refered to you
as my stooge?

Ha, ha. I've never had a stooge before! I promise to be strict but fair.
Lee Dillion
2003-10-18 19:12:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by punnadhammo
Post by Lee Dillion
From the preceding, it is apparent that you have no clue as to what
my position is regarding violence. But, then, I had thought you
had plonked me. If not, and you would like to pick up with the
discussion, let me know as you have some questions you left
unanswered. If you do not wish to pick it up, then you might
consider not talking about things that you have not taken the time
to get right.
Hey Lee, did you catch in another thread where Jhayati refered to
you as my stooge?
Jay made quite a production of plonking me, but it seems he cannot help
but summon up my ghost for his posts even while avoiding a direct
engagement. Quite funny.
Post by punnadhammo
Ha, ha. I've never had a stooge before! I promise to be strict but fair.
Hehe. Not just your stooge, but an unprincipled Buddh-lite
eel-wriggling skeptical stooge to boot. I am yours to command oh master
as I already have your picture on my dashboard.

Anyway, before my servitude to you is complete, I am off to help my dad
by roto-tilling his garden. I will e-mail you privately regarding the
other matter. Can't let the secret out just yet.
--
Lee Dillion
punnadhammo
2003-10-19 13:18:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lee Dillion
Hehe. Not just your stooge, but an unprincipled Buddh-lite
eel-wriggling skeptical stooge to boot. I am yours to command oh master
as I already have your picture on my dashboard.
That's the ticket, Lee! We'll have both ends covered and they'll be
putty in our hands.
MasterChef
2003-10-19 16:53:08 UTC
Permalink
punnadhammo wrote in message
Post by punnadhammo
Post by Lee Dillion
Hehe. Not just your stooge, but an unprincipled Buddh-lite
eel-wriggling skeptical stooge to boot. I am yours to command oh master
as I already have your picture on my dashboard.
That's the ticket, Lee! We'll have both ends covered and they'll be
putty in our hands.
taht aint putty in yer hands wanker
you played with yer self to long
Messer Xin
2003-10-20 06:33:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lee Dillion
Post by punnadhammo
Post by Lee Dillion
From the preceding, it is apparent that you have no clue as to what
my position is regarding violence. But, then, I had thought you
had plonked me. If not, and you would like to pick up with the
discussion, let me know as you have some questions you left
unanswered. If you do not wish to pick it up, then you might
consider not talking about things that you have not taken the time
to get right.
Hey Lee, did you catch in another thread where Jhayati refered to
you as my stooge?
Jay made quite a production of plonking me, but it seems he cannot help
but summon up my ghost for his posts even while avoiding a direct
engagement. Quite funny.
Post by punnadhammo
Ha, ha. I've never had a stooge before! I promise to be strict but fair.
Hehe. Not just your stooge, but an unprincipled Buddh-lite
eel-wriggling skeptical stooge to boot. I am yours to command oh master
as I already have your picture on my dashboard.
Anyway, before my servitude to you is complete, I am off to help my dad
by roto-tilling his garden. I will e-mail you privately regarding the
other matter. Can't let the secret out just yet.
The main point of Vonnegut's *Sirens of Titan* was that an external adversary
would unify Earth. Here we have Lee Dillion, Ch'an Fu, and Venerable
Punnadhammo on one team for a few milliseconds.

All I can say is.





GO TEAM!
--
"We really need to get Tinky Winky on here (and, you know,
all drunk and giggly). Then we'd find out the truth. The truth, and more."
                ---Kirsten Bayes, True Queen of
England
and Empress of the Known Universe
punnadhammo
2003-10-18 18:24:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by jhayati
Post by punnadhammo
That's a sound point. All violence comes from greed, hatred, delusion
and fear.
Precisely. That doesn't mean we shouldn't stop Hitler because we are
afraaid though.
That wasn't the point and you know it. The point was violence does not,
cannot, never comes from compassion.
Post by jhayati
By examining real cases (since you and your stooge both screamed
bloody murder when I used a story which you came up with to begin
with), you can find strong examples where violence only leads to more
violence. We agree on that. But you ignore cases, such as with
stopping Hitler, where non-violence only leads to more violence and
violence leads to less future violence than does non-violence which
leads to billions dead.
Ok, let's agree that 1941 was not exactly the best time to start to
break the cycle of violence. It was already too late at that point.
That's why I tried to turn the attention to 1919, which was a great
historical opportunity missed.

Note also that the outcome of WW2 was far from an end to violence. It
left half of Europe under a totalitarian regime not much better than
Hitler. It left all kinds of simmering trouble spots behind in the
Balkans, in SE Asia, in the Middle-East.
Post by jhayati
Now you've gone idealistic. You're suggesting that we get rid of our
weapons while others lie and build an arsenal, and then nuke us or
blackmail us.
No, I made a very practical suggestion. The US is way, way ahead of
everyone else combined in military strength and could well afford to
step down a bit as a first good-will gesture. I would agree it would be
madness to disarm completely until others do so as well.
Post by jhayati
While I share your sentiments, you don't understand
practical real world life. This is understandable, as you've been
living in a sheltered monastary, but creating world peace is actually
a lot more difficult than you suppose.
My university degree was in European History. I know a little about
this stuff.
Post by jhayati
Actually, France was the one blocking international cooperation. But
France this week has gone along with the US and UN, and is doing
better, because for now, it is in the best interest to France to do
so. That is also how the game is played.
That is a curious spin. France blocked UN backing for a unilateral US
invasion. France, and others, wanted a continuation of the inspection
regime. Since it now turns out there were no wmds at all, this looks in
retrospect far the soundest policy.
Post by jhayati
In recent years the US has
Post by punnadhammo
blocked
- the Kyoto treaty
- the landmines treaty
- the child-soldier treaty (!)
- the international war-crimes court
There are reasons for most of those. The Kyoto treaty can't possibly
work in the U.S. for reasons of energy production and child-birth
rates, and never was modified to possibly work the same in the U.S. as
in other countries.
The point is that all countries, the US included, must be willing to
make some sacrifices for the global community to work. In my opinion
the Kyoto treaty was actually far too weak, and it is outrageous that
we can't get even this level of cooperation on real global problems.
Post by jhayati
You are right about the landmines treaty, and we should go for that,
and it's ridiculous that the US doesn't push for a treaty. There is
no reason for landmines and they are an abomination. However, other
big powers also rejected that treaty, and the US was not a sole
dissenter by any means.
No, that's true, she wasn't. China and Russia were also opposed as I
recall.
Post by jhayati
The other two I'd have to look up. However, creating a list like that
doesn't work, because a huge hyperpower does so many things, that
picking the worst ones out of context and ignoring all the wonderful
contributions we have made is simply a form of extreme bias.
The general feeling in Europe and the UN is that the US is blocking all
the recent attempts at cooperation. There seems to be a mood in the US
of "my way or the highway." There seems to be very little sympathy for
give-and-take.
Post by jhayati
It depends upon the intention, which in this case is to stop terrorism
and Militant Islamism from causing more suffering.
You know I dispute the validity of that motivation. One thing I know
very well from history is that declared casus belli are almost always
bogus and propagandistic. Hitler invaded Poland, if you recall, because
of Polish atrocities against Germans and unprovoked Polish aggression
against German border posts.

What? You doubt that? But it was in all the *mainstream* papers like
the Volkische Beobachter for weeks before the outbreak of war! The
German gov't and media wouldn't lie about something like that, would
they?
Post by jhayati
Attacking Hitler
unilaterally before he had killed millions of Jews would be justified
as well. As you point out, not letting him get into power would be
better, but as in the late 1930s, we have already been attacked and
the Middle East is already a mess, and given the situation in the
present moment, this decision was the most rational and strategic one,
and better than waiting a decade until Saddam finally did get and use
what we're so disappointed we can't find.
The situation is still a mess. More recruits for terrorism are being
made by the invasion than anything else. The Iraq war is a very bad
example for you to use, as it is almost a text-book case for the idea
of a violence-counterviolence cycle.

Only time will definitively settle this argument here. If in five or
ten years the Middle East is full of peace-loving prosperous liberal
democracies, you will be able to justifiably say "I told you so." I
don't think that is going to happen given the current course of events.
Post by jhayati
Post by punnadhammo
Ha Ha! That's good? Hated and feared? How about respected and loved?
Wouldn't that make everyone feel safer?
Yes, it would, but it isn't an option.
Why isn't it an option? There is a lot to love and admire about
America. But nobody likes a bully, which is how three-quarters of the
world perceives you right now. Stop bombing people and start helping
them with technical and material aid and you will be surprised how fast
perceptions change.

Do you remember the world-wide outpouring of sympathy for America after
9/11? That started to dissipate as soon as your president started in
with the cowboy bluster, i.e. "You're either with us, or you're with
the terrorists!"

The fact is American culture, industry and lifestyle is immensely
seductive to populations world-wide. They really want to like you, and
you really have to act like belligerent jerks to destroy that.

Your idealism doesn't work
Post by jhayati
here. I worded that this way exactly so you would respond with
emotionalism and suggest love and flowers as an alternative. However,
given the hatred that exists,
Where do you think this hatred comes from?
Post by jhayati
hated and impotent is much worst than
hated and feared (respected to enforce consequences). This simply is
the best move on the chessboard right now. It it the best move to
enable the possibility of respected and loved down the line. I can
even give you real examples, such as Japan, where utter enemies became
lasting friends with goodwill toward each other.
Japan-US relations are not always so peachy. They are serious economic
rivals for one thing. There's also a lot of resentment in Okinawa over
the continued occupation and the occassional boorish behaviour of the
US troops.
Post by jhayati
Therefore, and you aren't going to like this Punnadhammo, you should
expect to see more aggressive U.S. moves in the coming months.
You're right, I don't like it. But I am beginning to think it won't
happen. The US is stretched way too thin on the ground, and troop
morale is bad and getting worse. Which is why they are desperately
looking for allies to come in to take over as walking targets in Iraq.
They are also broke, Bush's dismal mismanagement having gutted the
treasury and ruined the economy.

Iraq is not working for the occupiers. The expected oil revenue is not
flowing, which was supposed to pay Haliburton for the reconstruction.
There are increasing signs of desperation as the policy of the neo-con
hawks falls apart.
Post by jhayati
The
situation facing the Syrians is a paradigm created by the U.S.
strategy at this point: Washington is using a coalition of regional
powers to put Syria in an untenable position. Dubya's administration
accepts the fact that the U.S. will be seen as collaborating with
Israel -- under the valid theory that whatever the United States does,
it will be seen as Israel's collaborator and therefore might as well
enjoy the benefits of collaboration.
Here is a case where the US is in a perfect position to do some real
good for world peace. The Israel economy is totally dependent on US aid
and if the US seriously threatened to cut them off, they would have to
back down and settle generously with the Palestinians. Not likely to
happen with this current crew, though.
jhayati
2003-10-18 23:01:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by punnadhammo
Post by jhayati
Post by punnadhammo
That's a sound point. All violence comes from greed, hatred, delusion
and fear.
Precisely. That doesn't mean we shouldn't stop Hitler because we are
afraaid though.
That wasn't the point and you know it.
The point wa that with inaction you support Hitler and the slaughter
of billions of people when you wrongly claim that compassion cannot
sometimes come from violence, as the lotus blooms from the mud.
Post by punnadhammo
The point was violence does not, cannot, never comes from compassion.
Which is false, and a core fundamentalist axiom you are afraid to
quesiton. Sometimes naive compassion and non-violence leads to more
violence, and sometimes compassion leads to temporary violence and
force which leads to less violence. The surgeon using violence to cut
a patient with a knive is an example of compassion leading to
violence, with a positive result. The invasion of Normandy France is
an example of compassion leading to violence in order to rid the world
of Hitler.

Are you really going to claim that WWII after Hitler gone was worse
than if Hitler had been allowed to conquer the world and slaughter
billions of people, as he tried with the Jews?
Post by punnadhammo
Ok, let's agree that 1941 was not exactly the best time to start to
break the cycle of violence. It was already too late at that point.
That's not enough. That's given. And the most compassionate action
at that point was to forcibly remove Hitler. That is, your
fundamentalism is wrong here. Would you really have preferred Hitler
to murder billions of people Punnadhammo?
Post by punnadhammo
Note also that the outcome of WW2 was far from an end to violence.
Of course not. Nor will be the outcome of the war on terror. I
stated that the world was better off, and better off in a big way,
with Hitler dead than with Hitler conquering the world and
slaughtering billions. Do you actually deny this?
Post by punnadhammo
It left half of Europe under a totalitarian regime not much better than
Hitler. It left all kinds of simmering trouble spots behind
So what? Are you saying: "Because there were trouble spots and the
Soviet Union was still a problem, we should have instead let Hitler
conquer the world and slaughter billions of people?"

Is that what you really want to claim here, Punnadhammo?
Post by punnadhammo
Post by jhayati
I can even give you real examples, such as Japan, where utter enemies
became our lasting friends with goodwill toward each other.
Japan-US relations are not always so peachy. They are serious economic
rivals for one thing. There's also a lot of resentment in Okinawa
So what? Are you saying that it would be better to have remained
bitter enemies and have let Japan along with Hitler take over the
world? There are few allies as strong as Japan that we have, Britain
maybe being the only stronger one. And they also used to be bitter
enemies.
Post by punnadhammo
Post by jhayati
Now you've gone idealistic. You're suggesting that we get rid of our
weapons while others lie and build an arsenal, and then nuke us or
blackmail us.
No, I made a very practical suggestion. The US is way, way ahead of
everyone else combined in military strength and could well afford to
step down a bit as a first good-will gesture.
Well, it isn't practical at all. And yet that is exactly what we did
in 1956. We went against France and Britain and as a gesture of
goodwill, forced them to withdraw as they were about to remove Nasser
and conquer Egypt. The effect of this good will and pacifism and
peace propagated by the U.S. was that Nasser immediately made deals
with the Soviets, built up militarily, and then savagely attacked
Israel a decade later, which in turn occupied Palestine. It's a
paradigm case of how peaceful and goodwill gestures will lead to more
violence in the long run than a smaller well-directed and careful use
of force. This is history. You would know this if you paid attention
to European History.

What you are suggesting now is to have Syria go full steam ahead
supporting and funding murderers who kill busloads full of children.
As a goodwill gesture, lets release all the murderers and rapists from
all our prisons as well. As for our military strength, Syria doesn't
see us as so strong, as they figured we were so bogged down in Iraq
that they should stop being cooperative and instead start funding
terrorism again. Your suggesting we run away only would give al Qaeda
and other terrorist groups and regimes the green light to go full
steam ahead.
Post by punnadhammo
I would agree it would be
madness to disarm completely until others do so as well.
It would always be madness to disarm, because again, all the rogue
states would lie, then you would disarm to whatever extent, and then
they would nuke you.
Post by punnadhammo
Post by jhayati
While I share your sentiments, you don't understand
practical real world life. This is understandable, as you've been
living in a sheltered monastary, but creating world peace is actually
a lot more difficult than you suppose.
My university degree was in European History.
Lol! I'm sure you know about sexual repression in Victorian England.
Ok, that's the funniest one yet. Not surprizing, as you also claim to
be a monk, yet you would have preferred Hitler killing billions of
people to stopping him with force.
Post by punnadhammo
Post by jhayati
Actually, France was the one blocking international cooperation.
But France this week has gone along with the US and UN, and is doing
better, because for now, it is in the best interest to France to do
so. That is also how the game is played.
That is a curious spin.
I was baiting you. However, that spin makes just as much sense.
Post by punnadhammo
France blocked UN backing for a unilateral US invasion.
That's question-begging. "Unilateral" is defined as "French-rejected"
and "multilateral" is defined as "French-controlled". France rendered
the UN useless. France could care less about al Qaeda, but France did
care about competing with the U.S. economically, and therefore voted
to advance its own agenda in the most unilateral way possible. France
knew that the U.S. had to invade Iraq soon, due to 9/11 while they had
momentum, and they knew that it would be in France's advantage to
weaken the U.S. and force them to go alone instead of negotiating a
U.N. intervention. The U.S.'s intentions were "multilateral" in the
ideal sense, in terms of wanting peace and stability for the global
economy, whereas France's were "unilateral" in the ideal sense of
putting France's economic rivalry ahead of any effort to make the
Middle East safer for all parties concerned. That's talk of U.S.
"unilateralism" is utterly ironic.
Post by punnadhammo
The point is that all countries, the US included, must be willing to
make some sacrifices for the global community to work. In my opinion
the Kyoto treaty was actually far too weak, and it is outrageous that
we can't get even this level of cooperation on real global problems.
Post by jhayati
You are right about the landmines treaty, and we should go for that,
and it's ridiculous that the US doesn't push for a treaty. There is
no reason for landmines and they are an abomination. However, other
big powers also rejected that treaty, and the US was not a sole
dissenter by any means.
No, that's true, she wasn't. China and Russia were also opposed as I recall.
No they weren't; they both strongly opposed it. Don't make things up,
as you consistently "recall" falsehoods. It takes 30 seconds to look
it up. I'll double-check.

Ok, you are dead wrong. China and Russia both opposed the treaty.
Furthermore, the U.S. considered a modified treaty but both China and
Russia rejected it.

So you are dead wrong on that one. I think you knew this and were
trying to get another one past me, weren't you? Come on, I can
forgive your fanaticism, but don't make up things that can be refuted
in 30 seconds by looking up the records please.
Post by punnadhammo
Post by jhayati
The other two I'd have to look up. However, creating a list like that
doesn't work, because a huge hyperpower does so many things, that
picking the worst ones out of context and ignoring all the wonderful
contributions we have made is simply a form of extreme bias.
The general feeling in Europe and the UN is that the US is blocking
That's the general feeling in France, because France is at war
economically with the U.S., and the Franco-German block is trying to
inhibit and constrain the U.S. economically and politically whenever
posssible. You either pretend to be clueless of this larger context
or else you deliberately spin here to call the U.S. resistance to
French attempts to weaken the U.S. as "blocking". While you would be
hailed were you writing for a French tabloid, your rhetoric here
doesn't take into account the larger picture, which I described in
several informative posts which you haven't read or have ignored.
Post by punnadhammo
There seems to be a mood in the US of "my way or the highway."
As there is in France, which is why many European countries side with
the U.S., as they'd rather align themselves with the U.S than be
dominated by a French controlled EU and UN.

Again, Mr. "I got a degree in European History", this attitude can be
traced to several significant points where France and, say, Britain,
diverged in terms of how they dealt with the U.S. Let's just take
again the same example of the Suez crisis in 1956. As I wrote before
(and this time read it):

The echoes and ironies of the Suez crisis are hard to avoid.
Then, it was Britain and France that launched a military action aimed
at toppling a Middle Eastern dictator, Nasser of Egypt — and it was
the U.S. which worried about legality and the international impact of
intervention without a wider mandate. In the run-up to war, John
Foster Dulles, the American secretary of state, argued, much in the
style of George Cherry, that the use of force against Nasser "would
make bitter enemies of the entire population of the Middle East". The
British and the French, however, were cast in the role of today's
impatient Americans. They were, as historian Peter Clarke puts it,
"bent on intervention and increasingly impatient of the time-wasting
pantomime at the United Nations, ostensibly aimed at a diplomatic
settlement." Eventually they abandoned the UN process and went to
war.

Reminded of these parallels, a British Foreign Office minister
recently remarked: "Very neat, but remember this time the French,
unlike the Americans, aren't in any position to pull the plug on us."
The Franco-British intervention in Suez failed because, faced with a
run on the pound, the British were unable to resist American economic
pressure to pull back. Once Britain had got over its shock and anger
at American "betrayal", it drew a simple conclusion: in future,
British foreign policy should always be carefully aligned with
America's global objectives.

France drew the opposite lesson. When Anthony Eden, the British prime
minister, called Guy Mollet, his French counterpart, to tell him that
Britain had agreed to an immediate ceasefire in Egypt, Mollet was in
the middle of a meeting with Konrad Adenauer, the German chancellor.
As the historian William Hitchcock records: "When Mollet, totally
deflated by Eden's call, returned to the room, the German chancellor
bucked him up by denouncing the Americans and British as unreliable.
Instead, he declared, 'Now is the time to build Europe.'"

Ever since, France and Britain have lived by the different lessons
they drew from Suez. In recent months Tony Blair has given warning
again and again and again of the dangers of dividing Europe from the
United States. Jacques Chirac, France's president, has insisted by
contrast on the need for a "multipolar world", code for an EU that can
face down the United States. And that is the real underlying struggle
that was being debated and tested, not the morality of taking out a
cruel dictator. That is what is on the minds of Chirac, Blair, and
Dubya, and not the petty motivations we like to project onto them and
then ignorantly repeat. I hope if nothing else I've made a case that
plattitudes, no matter how well-intentioned, just won't do here when
looking deeply at current geopolitical situations in the Middle East.
Post by punnadhammo
Post by jhayati
It depends upon the intention, which in this case is to stop
terrorism and Militant Islamism from causing more suffering.
You know I dispute the validity of that motivation.
Fair enough. I will argue strongly that you are wrong. However, we
haven't gotten even to the point where you say "there are times when
violence is both compassionate and justified". If you can't even say
that there are times when violence is both compassionate and
justified, then we are going to have a hard time discussion whether or
not this is one of them, aren't we?
Post by punnadhammo
One thing I know very well from history is that declared casus belli are
almost always bogus and propagandistic. Hitler invaded Poland, if you recall,
because of Polish atrocities against Germans and unprovoked Polish aggression
against German border posts.
Yes, the invader always postures themselves as a victim.
Post by punnadhammo
What? You doubt that?
Not at all. Just as every criminal will claim why they were justified
in commiting a crime. What's important here is that the U.S. actually
has differing motivations, even though just like Hitler and Stalin and
others, it claims to be justified. And I've offerred very good
reasons, including a pre-emptive strike on 3000 civilians in New York.
Now please don't bother me with more nonsense about the WTC being a
CIA plot, or Afghanistan being about pipelines, or more tabloid
nonsense. Osama and al Qaeda, along with most of radical Islamic
militants and dictators, have caused a lot of trouble. And the U.S.
spins and always will be duplicitous in terms of it's true strategic
reasons and the spin it gives the public and its allies. I've
mentioned that in several posts as well, and to great length.
Post by punnadhammo
But it was in all the *mainstream* papers like the Volkische Beobachter
for weeks before the outbreak of war! The German gov't and media wouldn't
lie about something like that, would they?
Your tabloids and radical fanaticism lead you to equate the U.S. with
Nazi Germany, and Ludwig has done the same, but as it turns out, our
liberal democracy is a lot different from Nazi Germany. What Hitler
claimed has no bearing on the police action in the Middle East. While
Hitler murdered millions in concentration camps, you whine about a
hundred Islamic jihadists treated decently in Cuba but being held
because of legal loopholes. In other words, this is another one of
your red herrings. In any case, you have demonstrated that you don't
even want to understand and look at the motivations for getting rid of
al Qaeda and Islamic militants, and instead you've come up with one
phony conspiracy after another.
Post by punnadhammo
Post by jhayati
As you point out, not letting Hitler get into power would be
better, but as in the late 1930s, we have already been attacked and
the Middle East is already a mess, and given the situation in the
present moment, this decision was the most rational and strategic one,
and better than waiting a decade until Saddam finally did get and use
what we're so disappointed we can't find.
The situation is still a mess. More recruits for terrorism are being
made by the invasion than anything else.
That is completely false. I'll even say that you have to know this
and are being outright dishonest. First, the level of hatred is high,
and no goodwill action will lower it, as the Suez crisis demonstrates,
for example, so little is lost by removing training camps whereas a
lot is gained. Second, Iraqis after the war now like us much better
than they did before the war, which again contradicts your claim.
Third, it's having bombs and opportunity that makes the terrorists,
and one hateful jihadist with a bomb is worse than a million unarmed
ones. They are funded and trained. We have hundreds of examples of
training camps taken down.

Your argument is like saying "there will be more educated people than
ever if we close all the colleges and universities and libraries". In
several long posts I documented how much we have injured al Qaeda and
destroyed their propaganda machines and training camps. Right now we
pressuring Syria to stop funding and supporting training and bombs to
murder busloads of school children. The war on terror has made
tremendous progress and recruits for terror are at an alltime low.
You may say that "even though we have done an amazing job at shutting
down new recruits and collapsing the infrustructure, I still say it is
wrong." That's fine, but don't make up facts that are blatantly
false.
Post by punnadhammo
The Israel economy is totally dependent on US aid
and if the US seriously threatened to cut them off, they would have to
back down and settle generously with the Palestinians.
Let's get this straight: while you support (with inaction) funding
murderers who kill busloads of schoolchildren, you wish to allow them
to drive the Jews into the sea? Wow, you and Fisk and Hitler sure
think alike, don't you? Of course, the fact that Palestineans won't
negotiate and reject deals and instead target and murder busloads of
innocent students pleases you, doesn't it? After all, they are Jews
and American allies, so if they die they must deserve it, but of
course any action by Israel to stop such murders warrants the worst
criticisms and insults from you. I can see you've been reading your
Fisk!
Post by punnadhammo
Only time will definitively settle this argument here.
Well, I said that several times in several posts. I'm simply trying
to provide the best evidence for the best prediction possible, as
that's all we have to go on.
Post by punnadhammo
If in five or ten years the Middle East is full of peace-loving prosperous
Who said that? I said 40 years. The fundamentalist old farts (like
you) in these regimes have to get old and die, and the next generation
growing up in a free liberal democracy will know peace and prosperity.
Look, for example, what happened in Japan.
Post by punnadhammo
Post by jhayati
Post by punnadhammo
Ha Ha! That's good? Hated and feared? How about respected and loved?
Wouldn't that make everyone feel safer?
Yes, it would, but it isn't an option.
Why isn't it an option? There is a lot to love and admire
It isn't an option because there are hateful people right now. People
are conditioned psychologially to hate, and giving them money or
flowers will not change that. Hardened criminals will not respond to
all the love and flowers in the world. We can feel compassion for
them as well as realistically understand the extent of their
conditioning, which is like the roots of a tree that go far beneath
the surface. I'm really amazed that someone claiming to be a monk (as
well as to have studied history) would actually not understand social
conditioning enough to understand the nature of hatred. Look at
yourself and how you can't break out of your fundamentalism, your
arbitrary clinging to dogma, and your irrational anti-American
paranoia. Were you an Islamic militant with an equal amount of
clinging, no amount of money and flowers I could give you would change
your mind from wanting to kill me, and you would simply buy guns at
the first opportunity and harm others. Luckily, Punnadhammo, your
particular attachment and fundamentalism is harmless and clownish.
Others are as rigid and fixated as are you, except they are fixated on
killing other people. This is a fact of life, and no amount of
wishful thinking will change them.
Post by punnadhammo
Do you remember the world-wide outpouring of sympathy for America after 9/11?
Within a week, there were countless cries that "we deserved it" and
hateful nonsense.
Post by punnadhammo
that started to dissipate as soon as your president started in
More nonsense. Another lie, and a clever way to again hate the U.S.
and its President. A beatiful example of how you spin anything to fit
your hatred and biased propaganda, Punnadhammo. And the Islamic
militants again spin just as you do and find any excuse to hate and
make things up. Your lies lead you to prefer Hitler to have ruled and
Osama to be killing thousands more, and Saddam to be getting nukes.
That's why your idealism is wrong, and why we are doing the right
thing by stopping Islamic militism now, while it is still not too out
of control.
Post by punnadhammo
The fact is American culture, industry and lifestyle is immensely
seductive to populations world-wide. They really want to like you,
No, they don't. There is a love-hate relationship. Islamics want
some of what we have, yet at the same time the despise our culture and
loathe our political and religious freedom. Also your generalization
to "populations" doesn't work. Different populations have different
attitudes.
Post by punnadhammo
Iraq is not working for the occupiers. The expected oil revenue is not
flowing, which was supposed to pay Haliburton for the reconstruction.
Another blatant lie! If you'd read the news in the last month, Iraq
is amazingly producing much more oil than expected, even though only
the southern part is flowing. Punnadhammo, you have blatantly lied a
dozen times in this post alone. Why do you do that? It isn't funny.

The Coalition Provisional Authority released Iraq's 2004 budget Oct.
14, and the crude oil export level the budget expected Iraq to average
in 2004, 1.6 million bpd, is the level the Oil Ministry already will
reach in November, next month. More importantly, the budget largely
ignores the $35 billion in cash in Iraq's oil-for-food account, which
is enough to pay for two-thirds of the total reconstruction bill. By
the end of the month, the Oil Ministry already expects exports from
southern Iraq to reach 1.5 million bpd, up from 1.2 million bpd at the
beginning of the month. This is in addition to some 100,000 bpd to
200,000 bpd of partially refined crude being shipped via truck from a
refinery in the northern city of Baiji to Jordan.

Even if coalition and Iraqi efforts to rehabilitate the country's oil
infrastructure nearly collapsed -- efforts that should actually gain
remarkable momentum in November, when two new Army Corps of Engineers
contracts kick in -- Iraq will begin 2004 with proven export capacity.
At the very least, the export capacity is equal to the average daily
production levels the new budget projects for the year, and most
likely quite a bit higher.

Iraqi oil production increased by an additional 350,000 barrels per
day (bpd) in September from 1,050,000 bpd produced in August, the
Middle East Economic Survey reports in its Oct. 20-27 edition. The
Cyprus-based weekly states, "Iraqi production in August consisted
mainly of Basra Light crude, as political and security problems have
continued to plague Kirkuk exports since the fall of the Saddam regime
last April." Iraq's production increases total OPEC output to 27.44
million bpd.

So, in light of how Iraq is doing very well, and oil is being produced
above the highest expectations, what do you have to say?
Post by punnadhammo
There are increasing signs of desperation as the policy of the neo-con hawks falls apart.
Lol! Of course you would be dishonest and claim just the opposite.

Well, at least our pompous pontificating pundit Punnadhammo is in good
form today!

I can't wait for your next conspiracy theory tomorrow!

- j
punnadhammo
2003-10-19 13:55:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by jhayati
The invasion of Normandy France is
an example of compassion leading to violence in order to rid the world
of Hitler.
Good grief! By what twisted definition was the invasion of Normandy
motivated by "compassion"! Grim necessity, I'd say.

I really am convinced you have absolutely no idea of compassion, either
the textbook Buddhist defintion or the Oxford English dictionary
version.
Post by jhayati
Of course not. Nor will be the outcome of the war on terror. I
stated that the world was better off, and better off in a big way,
with Hitler dead than with Hitler conquering the world and
slaughtering billions. Do you actually deny this?
I'm only putting a dash of realism into your comic-book version of
reality. I'd be tempted to call it "manichean" but it isn't
sophisticated enough.
Post by jhayati
So what? Are you saying that it would be better to have remained
bitter enemies and have let Japan along with Hitler take over the
world?
Of course not, get a grip.
Post by jhayati
Well, it isn't practical at all. And yet that is exactly what we did
in 1956. We went against France and Britain and as a gesture of
goodwill, forced them to withdraw as they were about to remove Nasser
and conquer Egypt. The effect of this good will and pacifism and
peace propagated by the U.S. was that Nasser immediately made deals
with the Soviets, built up militarily, and then savagely attacked
Israel a decade later, which in turn occupied Palestine. It's a
paradigm case of how peaceful and goodwill gestures will lead to more
violence in the long run than a smaller well-directed and careful use
of force. This is history. You would know this if you paid attention
to European History.
That's a ridiculous analysis depending on a bogus what-if. Had the
UK/France/Israel aggression went forward we cannot now know the
results. I tend to think they would have been a lot worse.

Nor did Nasser "savagely attack" Israel. The actual details of the
outbreak of the 1967 war are disputed, but it is known that Israel
struck the first blow. (They claim pre-emptively) Stop spinning so
hard, you'll get dizzy and fall over.
Post by jhayati
What you are suggesting now is to have Syria go full steam ahead
supporting and funding murderers who kill busloads full of children.
It is only Israel's claim that the terrorists were backed by Syria,
Syria denies this. Since the case is in dispute and the fact unknown to
you, why do you state one side's version as a fact?
Post by jhayati
It would always be madness to disarm, because again, all the rogue
states would lie, then you would disarm to whatever extent, and then
they would nuke you.
You disarm to the level needed for home defence, obviously. In the US
case they could probably eliminate 75% of their military and still have
nothing to fear. I'm not suggesting that though, as it is politically
unrealistic. I would suggest an immediate freeze, a reduction of
nuclear weaponry by ten or twenty percent and a pullback from most
overseas deployments.

Have a good healthy rant about that one.
Post by jhayati
Lol! I'm sure you know about sexual repression in Victorian England.
What's that relevant to?
Post by jhayati
Ok, that's the funniest one yet. Not surprizing, as you also claim to
be a monk, yet you would have preferred Hitler killing billions of
people to stopping him with force.
You keep saying "billions" of people. Why are you making Hitler worse
than he actually was? Isn't "tens of millions" more than enough? Why do
you seem to have this absurd, almost pathological urge to exagerrate
everything into the realm of the ludicrous? What was the pop. of the
world in 1941? Wasn't it around 2 billion?

Try and stick with real history. Leave the comic books aside.
Post by jhayati
That's question-begging. "Unilateral" is defined as "French-rejected"
and "multilateral" is defined as "French-controlled". France rendered
the UN useless.
I think you are completely potty about the French. They were not the
only country opposed to US aggression. The UN was not rendered useless
by France. Refusing to go along with every unilateral aggression of the
UN is not being useless. The US weakened the UN by going ahead anyway.
Post by jhayati
Post by punnadhammo
No, that's true, she wasn't. China and Russia were also opposed as I recall.
No they weren't; they both strongly opposed it. Don't make things up,
as you consistently "recall" falsehoods. It takes 30 seconds to look
it up. I'll double-check.
Jhayati, re-read what I said above. Take your time, cool down about
France and Hitler killing billions yet unborn, and read the sentence -
"China and Russia were opposed as well."

I was *agreeing* with you, you doofus!
Post by jhayati
Ok, you are dead wrong. China and Russia both opposed the treaty.
Furthermore, the U.S. considered a modified treaty but both China and
Russia rejected it.
No, I'm dead right because THATS WHAT I SAID.
Post by jhayati
So you are dead wrong on that one. I think you knew this and were
trying to get another one past me, weren't you? Come on, I can
forgive your fanaticism, but don't make up things that can be refuted
in 30 seconds by looking up the records please.
You not only jump the gun in the totally wrong direction, but you use
it as a springboard for another insulting rant. I am waiting for a
suitably abject apology.
Post by jhayati
Fair enough. I will argue strongly that you are wrong. However, we
haven't gotten even to the point where you say "there are times when
violence is both compassionate and justified". If you can't even say
that there are times when violence is both compassionate and
justified, then we are going to have a hard time discussion whether or
not this is one of them, aren't we?
Why should I say something so stupid and ignorant?
Post by jhayati
Not at all. Just as every criminal will claim why they were justified
in commiting a crime.
Ha ha. Great, just my point about Bush & Blair.
Post by jhayati
What's important here is that the U.S. actually
has differing motivations, even though just like Hitler and Stalin and
others, it claims to be justified. And I've offerred very good
reasons, including a pre-emptive strike on 3000 civilians in New York.
Now please don't bother me with more nonsense about the WTC being a
CIA plot,
I don't recall saying that. What I said is that there is no clear
public evidence definitively linking the WTC attack with anybody. All
the prevailing theories are conspiracy theories, including the
officially sanctioned one that it was Al Quaeda. We just don't know.
All your self-righteous huffing and puffing doesn't change that fact.
Post by jhayati
Your tabloids and radical fanaticism lead you to equate the U.S. with
Nazi Germany, and Ludwig has done the same, but as it turns out, our
liberal democracy is a lot different from Nazi Germany.
For one thing, Hitler was properly elected, but do go on...
Post by jhayati
What Hitler
claimed has no bearing on the police action in the Middle East. While
Hitler murdered millions in concentration camps, you whine about a
hundred Islamic jihadists treated decently in Cuba but being held
because of legal loopholes.
How do you know they are being treated decently?
Post by jhayati
Your argument is like saying "there will be more educated people than
ever if we close all the colleges and universities and libraries".
What??? You are the master of the totally irrelevant non-sequitur.
Post by jhayati
several long posts I documented how much we have injured al Qaeda and
destroyed their propaganda machines and training camps. Right now we
pressuring Syria to stop funding and supporting training and bombs to
murder busloads of school children. The war on terror has made
tremendous progress and recruits for terror are at an alltime low.
You have reliable figures? You are privy to AL Quaeda's inner workings?
Or is this just more totally off-the-wall made up nonsense?
Post by jhayati
Let's get this straight: while you support (with inaction) funding
murderers who kill busloads of schoolchildren, you wish to allow them
to drive the Jews into the sea?
Again, I didn't say that. You really like the tactic of making up
stupid bogus arguments and shooting them down, don't you?
Post by jhayati
Wow, you and Fisk and Hitler sure
think alike, don't you?
See what I mean?
Post by jhayati
Of course, the fact that Palestineans won't
negotiate and reject deals and instead target and murder busloads of
innocent students pleases you, doesn't it?
Won't negotiate? Excuse me? Oslo, remember.
Post by jhayati
Who said that? I said 40 years. The fundamentalist old farts (like
you) in these regimes have to get old and die, and the next generation
growing up in a free liberal democracy will know peace and prosperity.
Look, for example, what happened in Japan.
So the US will be in occupation for 40 years? And you say this isn't
colonialism?
Post by jhayati
It isn't an option because there are hateful people right now. People
are conditioned psychologially to hate, and giving them money or
flowers will not change that.
You are psychologically conditioned to believe prejudiced nonsense like
that.
jhayati
2003-10-19 19:21:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by punnadhammo
Post by jhayati
The invasion of Normandy France is
an example of compassion leading to violence in order to rid the world
of Hitler.
Good grief! By what twisted definition was the invasion of Normandy
motivated by "compassion"! Grim necessity, I'd say.
I agree. It was both. But this is the first time you actually have
admitted that it was a "necessity".
Post by punnadhammo
I really am convinced you have absolutely no idea of compassion,
I know: anyone that doesn't share your fundamentalism is clueless.
I've heard that one before.
Post by punnadhammo
Post by jhayati
Of course not. Nor will be the outcome of the war on terror. I
stated that the world was better off, and better off in a big way,
with Hitler dead than with Hitler conquering the world and
slaughtering billions. Do you actually deny this?
I'm only putting a dash of realism into your comic-book version
It's just the opposite. I'm the realist here, and you're the one
peddling fundamentalism from your comic-book abhidhamma, if you
recall.
Post by punnadhammo
Post by jhayati
So what? Are you saying that it would be better to have remained
bitter enemies and have let Japan along with Hitler take over the
world?
Of course not, get a grip.
This is the first time you've admitted that after I've asked you in
over ten posts. So don't act so shocked with the "of course not" when
you only for the first time have reversed your position, and after a
lot of coaxing.
Post by punnadhammo
Post by jhayati
Well, it isn't practical at all. And yet that is exactly what we did
in 1956. We went against France and Britain and as a gesture of
goodwill, forced them to withdraw as they were about to remove Nasser
and conquer Egypt. The effect of this good will and pacifism and
peace propagated by the U.S. was that Nasser immediately made deals
with the Soviets, built up militarily, and then savagely attacked
Israel a decade later, which in turn occupied Palestine.
That's a ridiculous analysis depending on a bogus what-if. Had the
UK/France/Israel aggression went forward we cannot now know the
results. I tend to think they would have been a lot worse.
Let's see: we stopped Nasser from being taken out of power, and he
immediately builds up with Soviet help and then attacks his neighbor.
Ok, the odds then are only about a million to one that if the U.S.
occupied Egypt, they would not have been attacking their neighbor
brutally soon afterwards. That's not ridiculous, it's very clear
reasoning.
Post by punnadhammo
Nor did Nasser "savagely attack" Israel. The actual details of the
outbreak of the 1967 war are disputed, but it is known that Israel
struck the first blow. (They claim pre-emptively)
Not exactly. Egypt kicked out the U.N. troops that were in the buffer
zone and massed on the border and Israel responded. Kicking out the
U.N. buffer troops and massing on the border was more than enough.
You're trying to use a technicality here. Again, every single
sentence of yours has an anti-American or Anti-Israel spin,
Punnadhammo. You're like a hate-tabloid headline spewer.
Post by punnadhammo
Post by jhayati
What you are suggesting now is to have Syria go full steam ahead
supporting and funding murderers who kill busloads full of children.
It is only Israel's claim that the terrorists were backed by Syria,
No, our U.S. intelligence has confirmed that Syria has been backing
terrorists for the last months. I'm not talking about Sharon's
political spin.
Post by punnadhammo
Post by jhayati
It would always be madness to disarm, because again, all the rogue
states would lie, then you would disarm to whatever extent, and then
they would nuke you.
You disarm to the level needed for home defence, obviously.
Look at that! A second non-extreme comment. Again, the "obviously"
is not obvious to you, as it is shocking, Punnadhammo, absolutely
shocking, that you would make a reasonable concession like this and
admit this.
Post by punnadhammo
In the US case they could probably eliminate 75% of their military
and still have nothing to fear.
Of course, but an isolationist policy wouldn't be in our best
interests or the rest of the world's. For example, we have and
continue to maintain complete domination of all the seas.
Post by punnadhammo
Have a good healthy rant about that one.
Post by jhayati
Lol! I'm sure you know about sexual repression in Victorian England.
What's that relevant to?
Your claiming to have a degree in history, you're claiming to be a
monk, and your cynicism about love and intimacy. Lol! You're a real
hoot.
Post by punnadhammo
Post by jhayati
Ok, that's the funniest one yet. Not surprizing, as you also claim to
be a monk, yet you would have preferred Hitler killing billions of
people to stopping him with force.
You keep saying "billions" of people. Why are you making Hitler worse
than he actually was?
Well, my point is that if we followed your abhidhamma, he would have
killed billions instead of 20 million.
Post by punnadhammo
Isn't "tens of millions" more than enough?
Yes, that's why it was compassionate to kill him, to save billions.
Post by punnadhammo
Why do you seem to have this absurd, almost pathological urge to
exagerrate everything into the realm of the ludicrous?
You usually wait until the end before you ask the question that
actually applies to you and not me. You're jumping the gun today.
Lol!
Post by punnadhammo
Try and stick with real history. Leave the comic books aside.
Again, that's just what I've been telling you. However, the cost of
compassionately killing Hitler is only justified if you consider the
billions that would have died with abhidhammic inaction and
submission.
Post by punnadhammo
Post by jhayati
That's question-begging. "Unilateral" is defined as "French-rejected"
and "multilateral" is defined as "French-controlled". France rendered
the UN useless.
I think you are completely potty about the French.
I'm sorry that you don't understand the geopolitical situation.
France is our most ruthless economic and political competitor and all
of its moves with the U.N. and E.U. tend to focus on competing with
and weakening the U.S. This is as it should be, but I'm just
suggesting you look and acknowledge it, instead of taking French
self-interested moves to be "moral" and U.S. self-interested moves as
"immoral" to fit your anti-Americanism. Or the reverse with those who
bash the French and call them names.
Post by punnadhammo
Post by jhayati
Post by punnadhammo
No, that's true, she wasn't. China and Russia were also opposed
No they weren't; they both strongly opposed it. Don't make things up,
as you consistently "recall" falsehoods. It takes 30 seconds to look
it up. I'll double-check.
Jhayati, re-read what I said above. Take your time,
Lol! Ok, I read you wrongly. My mistake and I apoligize.
I was wrong about something. (Words you would never utter!)

You know very well that you throw in a dozen blatantly false claims
almost every single post, so I expect you to say the opposite of every
fact, which I can count on almost like clockwork. So you didn't say
something blatantly false this time, oh fatuous friar. You tricked
me!
Post by punnadhammo
I was *agreeing* with you, you doofus!
Again, you "cry wolf" so often, and I write these posts as fast as I
can type, as I don't have the time and have spent more on yours, that
I missed that you actually weren't throwing yet another lie and
fabrication. Throwing in an actual fact threw me off guard, ok, you
double-doofus?
Post by punnadhammo
Post by jhayati
Fair enough. I will argue strongly that you are wrong. However, we
haven't gotten even to the point where you say "there are times when
violence is both compassionate and justified". If you can't even say
that there are times when violence is both compassionate and
justified, then we are going to have a hard time discussion whether or
not this is one of them, aren't we?
Why should I say something so stupid and ignorant?
Because even though your dogma says it is stupid and ignorant it still
is true in the real world and it's better to accept what is true, even
when your ideology disagrees.
Post by punnadhammo
Post by jhayati
Your argument is like saying "there will be more educated people than
ever if we close all the colleges and universities and libraries".
What??? You are the master of the totally irrelevant non-sequitur.
No, you said that taking down infrastructure, camps, and funding for
terrorists creates more terrorists, and I say this is nonsensical.
You might argue that people reading about Saddam going down makes them
feel more angry and helpless, and you are right. However, my claim is
that this factor is outweighed considerably by the removal of
infrastructure, camps, and funding. That is, I'm claiming that the
organization and structure being eliminated is more important right
now than the individual anger. When Iraq becomes a thriving
democracy, the individual anger will slowly start to transform.

Were I having a serious conversation with someone like Warren, instead
of poking fun, I would point out that infrastructure can be removed by
force immediately and therefore is often the best short-term option,
whereas transforming the consciousness and conditioning of individuals
is a very long process (which a monk should well know) and should be a
long-term goal. Therefore, attempts at the long-term goal in a
short-term context (amounting to allowing the infrastructure to exist
while giving them money, flowers, and fluffy toys) will not solve any
problems but will only lead to further terrorism.
Post by punnadhammo
Post by jhayati
several long posts I documented how much we have injured al Qaeda and
destroyed their propaganda machines and training camps. Right now we
pressuring Syria to stop funding and supporting training and bombs to
murder busloads of school children. The war on terror has made
tremendous progress and recruits for terror are at an alltime low.
You have reliable figures? You are privy to AL Quaeda's inner workings?
Or is this just more totally off-the-wall made up nonsense?
Yes, and I posted them three times already.
Post by punnadhammo
Post by jhayati
Let's get this straight: while you support (with inaction) funding
murderers who kill busloads of schoolchildren, you wish to allow them
to drive the Jews into the sea?
Again, I didn't say that.
However, it followed as a consequence from what you did say, which was
to make Israelis helpless against murderers who want to not compromise
but kill every single Jew. I'm only talking about 1% of the
Palestinians at most, funded by Syrians, and Saudi Arabians. Both
sides are at fault, but even though I find Sharon to be immoral and
over the top, that's nothing compared to the horrendous acts of
targeting school children in busses, which your comments indirectly do
support.
Post by punnadhammo
Post by jhayati
Of course, the fact that Palestineans won't
negotiate and reject deals and instead target and murder busloads of
innocent students pleases you, doesn't it?
Won't negotiate? Excuse me? Oslo, remember.
It was Arafat that turned down every reasonable deal. But I don't
want to discuss this crap. I want to focus on war and actions and
compassion. I could care less about your Fiskian anti-Israel stuff.
I want to discuss the principles here.
Post by punnadhammo
Post by jhayati
Who said that? I said 40 years. The fundamentalist old farts (like
you) in these regimes have to get old and die, and the next generation
growing up in a free liberal democracy will know peace and prosperity.
Look, for example, what happened in Japan.
So the US will be in occupation for 40 years?
We occupied Japan for 40 years? No. I don't think we'll be in Iraq
more than five years or so. The 40 years is how long we'll have to
wait before we can see whether we did something really helpful in Iraq
or if we meddled and made another mistake, that's all I'm saying.
Post by punnadhammo
And you say this isn't colonialism?
It is not. We aren't colonizing Iraq.
Post by punnadhammo
Post by jhayati
It isn't an option because there are hateful people right now. People
are conditioned psychologially to hate, and giving them money or
flowers will not change that.
You are psychologically conditioned to believe prejudiced nonsense like
that.
No, I'm aware of the history and geopolitics of the Middle East, and I
have examples that back me up, such as the one I just mentioned of the
Suez crisis, where our actually forcing France and Britain to withdraw
and not take out a dictator was followed by thd dictator massively
building militarily with Soviet help and then ruthlessly attacking
it's neighbor. That's as clear-cut as it is, yet you deny the most
hard evidence possible, that following your ideal of goodwill, peace,
and withdrawl led directly to massive violence and brutality. This is
the point where you have to say "wow, boy was I wrong about my dogma
and beliefs there" or you can bury yourself deeper in more lies and
conspiracy theories and denial and come out insulting me. Your
choice, Punnadhammo. Either way will be fun!

- jay
punnadhammo
2003-10-21 20:39:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by jhayati
Post by punnadhammo
Post by jhayati
The invasion of Normandy France is
an example of compassion leading to violence in order to rid the world
of Hitler.
It's just the opposite. I'm the realist here, and you're the one
peddling fundamentalism from your comic-book abhidhamma, if you
recall.
You have never once taken the trouble to address my actual position
instead of setting up "fundamentalist" straw men arguments to shoot
down.
Post by jhayati
This is the first time you've admitted that after I've asked you in
over ten posts. So don't act so shocked with the "of course not" when
you only for the first time have reversed your position, and after a
lot of coaxing.
I have not reversed my position at all. I never said otherwise.
Post by jhayati
Not exactly. Egypt kicked out the U.N. troops that were in the buffer
zone and massed on the border and Israel responded. Kicking out the
U.N. buffer troops and massing on the border was more than enough.
You're trying to use a technicality here. Again, every single
sentence of yours has an anti-American or Anti-Israel spin,
Punnadhammo. You're like a hate-tabloid headline spewer.
I don't want to get so off-topic for this group as to argue Middle-East
history. Suffice it to say there is more than one interpretation of
events. (I also don't necessarilly want to defend Gamel abdul Nasser's
policy)
Post by jhayati
No, our U.S. intelligence has confirmed that Syria has been backing
terrorists for the last months. I'm not talking about Sharon's
political spin.
OK, the US and Israel's claim vs. Syria's. Both sides are interested
parties, both are capable of lying for political reasons. So we don't
know the real story.
Post by jhayati
Post by punnadhammo
You disarm to the level needed for home defence, obviously.
Look at that! A second non-extreme comment. Again, the "obviously"
is not obvious to you, as it is shocking, Punnadhammo, absolutely
shocking, that you would make a reasonable concession like this and
admit this.
Don't choke on your freedom fries.
Post by jhayati
Of course, but an isolationist policy wouldn't be in our best
interests or the rest of the world's. For example, we have and
continue to maintain complete domination of all the seas.
And I'm saying to forget about "dominating" others.
Post by jhayati
Again, that's just what I've been telling you. However, the cost of
compassionately killing Hitler is only justified if you consider the
billions that would have died with abhidhammic inaction and
submission.
Again, it is impossible to kill compassionately. You only get away with
such ridiculous oxymorons because you refuse both the Buddhist and the
dictionary meaning of the word "compassion" and make up your own.

Which I am still waiting for.
Post by jhayati
I'm sorry that you don't understand the geopolitical situation.
France is our most ruthless economic and political competitor and all
of its moves with the U.N. and E.U. tend to focus on competing with
and weakening the U.S. This is as it should be, but I'm just
suggesting you look and acknowledge it, instead of taking French
self-interested moves to be "moral" and U.S. self-interested moves as
"immoral" to fit your anti-Americanism. Or the reverse with those who
bash the French and call them names.
I am not so naive as to imagine that Chirac opposed the war for purely
ethical reasons. Of course France Russia Germany China and others have
a vested real-politik interest in preventing one single power from
dominating the key energy producing regions of the Middle East and the
Caspian Sea. That is why G. Bush's neo-colonial energy wars are so
destabilizing.

It's funny how you can spin US colonial aggression as "compassionate"
while trying to be so "realistic" about the French.

It's all about greed, fear, hatred and delusion. The US is no worse and
no better than anyone else in the game. They're on top at the moment,
so they look bad, but they're just doing the same as Spain, France,
Britain, Russia and the rest before them.

The only difference is I don't think previous imperial aggressors got
so whiney about why nobody appreciates them. Lack of self-confidence
maybe?
Post by jhayati
You know very well that you throw in a dozen blatantly false claims
almost every single post, so I expect you to say the opposite of every
fact, which I can count on almost like clockwork. So you didn't say
something blatantly false this time, oh fatuous friar. You tricked
me!
Yeah, I know from experience that you froth at the mouth before
thinking.
Post by jhayati
No, you said that taking down infrastructure, camps, and funding for
terrorists creates more terrorists, and I say this is nonsensical.
You might argue that people reading about Saddam going down makes them
feel more angry and helpless, and you are right.
It's not "Saddam going down" that's making a new generation of
resentful anti-american potential terrorists. It's the bombing, the
checkpoints, the continued shooting of civilians, the looting of Iraq's
economy, the lack of dignity inherent in alien rule.

Part of your trouble, which is endemic to the american right, is the
inability to see issues beyond single demonized personalities like
"Saddam".
Post by jhayati
However, it followed as a consequence from what you did say, which was
to make Israelis helpless against murderers who want to not compromise
but kill every single Jew. I'm only talking about 1% of the
Palestinians at most, funded by Syrians, and Saudi Arabians. Both
sides are at fault, but even though I find Sharon to be immoral and
over the top, that's nothing compared to the horrendous acts of
targeting school children in busses, which your comments indirectly do
support.
It's not "nothing". The death toll since the infitada started is many
many times more Palestinians killed than Israelis. That's just a fact.
Post by jhayati
It was Arafat that turned down every reasonable deal. But I don't
want to discuss this crap. I want to focus on war and actions and
compassion. I could care less about your Fiskian anti-Israel stuff.
I want to discuss the principles here.
Yes, let's not discuss that. It would be pointless to get into that
long debate with you since you only read sources that agree with the US
and Israel. But that's not the universally agreed version of what
happened. There is another version.
Post by jhayati
We occupied Japan for 40 years? No.
You're still there, in Okinawa. The Okinawans are getting a little bit
upset too.
jhayati
2003-10-22 05:51:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by punnadhammo
Post by jhayati
Post by punnadhammo
Post by jhayati
The invasion of Normandy France is
an example of compassion leading to violence in order to rid the world
of Hitler.
It's just the opposite. I'm the realist here, and you're the one
peddling fundamentalism from your comic-book abhidhamma, if you
recall.
You have never once taken the trouble to address my actual position
instead of setting up "fundamentalist" straw men arguments
Lol! It's hardly fair for you to dodge a question, when I ask your
views directly, and you eel-wriggle and evade for ten posts, and then
accuse me of knocking down a straw man.

Furthermore you have said that any action of killing any sentient
being was unlawful and bad karma. Was this not your position?
Post by punnadhammo
Post by jhayati
This is the first time you've admitted that after I've asked you in
over ten posts. So don't act so shocked with the "of course not" when
you only for the first time have reversed your position, and after a
lot of coaxing.
I have not reversed my position at all. I never said otherwise.
Sure you did. You said a Buddha was not capable of saving billions of
lives and would murder them with his inaction. Are you saying that
you would not do the same, then?
Post by punnadhammo
Post by jhayati
Not exactly. Egypt kicked out the U.N. troops that were in the buffer
zone and massed on the border and Israel responded. Kicking out the
U.N. buffer troops and massing on the border was more than enough.
You're trying to use a technicality here. Again, every single
sentence of yours has an anti-American or Anti-Israel spin,
Punnadhammo. You're like a hate-tabloid headline spewer.
I don't want to get so off-topic for this group as to argue Middle-East
history.
Ok, but this is simply a counter-example to what you claimed to be a
law of sorts. That is, this, and any number of examples, contradicts
the law that short-term immediate violence leads to more violence than
does short-term non-violence. That's the point, and I presented a
very strong counter-example. There are many others as well. Are you
saying "I don't care what happens in real life, but in my abhidhamma
it says the opposite?" That seems to be what you are saying. That's
fine, as I'm interested in the patterns in the real world.
Post by punnadhammo
Suffice it to say there is more than one interpretation of events.
No, that isn't sufficient. Would you like even stronger
counter-examples to the claim that short-term nonviolence always leads
to less long-term violence? Because that is the claim you made that
is contradicted here. While you may try to find a loophole with this
example, there are so many counter-examples where you can't
eel-wriggle, that we need to be clear about this point. I suspect
that you will reject an infinite number of very compelling examples,
simply because it doesn't agree with the dogma in your book. Is this
not so?
Post by punnadhammo
Post by jhayati
No, our U.S. intelligence has confirmed that Syria has been backing
terrorists for the last months. I'm not talking about Sharon's
political spin.
OK, the US and Israel's claim vs. Syria's. Both sides are interested
parties, both are capable of lying for political reasons.
Being capable isn't enough. We have evidence. Are you going to go
for a major conspiracy spin again? We would have no need to pressure
Syria had they not changed policy do our our being bogged down in
Iraq. What you are now claiming is that they didn't change policy,
and didn't stop cooperating, and you are claiming that all our
intelligence is completely fabricated, and that we for what, some
emotional hurt inner child reason or something, decided to bully them?
This is where these conversations with you go.

I'll grant that we only have 99% chance or so of knowing that Syria
saw we are getting bogged down and changed their policy and now we
have responded with pressure, but 99% is good enough for me. Your
going to have to give me a lot of evidence for this new conspiracy
that all we know from every source about Syria's behavior is a lie and
fabrication. You'll have to present evidence, very strong evidence
for this. So present it. Don't try to pass the burden to me to
disprove your latest conspiracy. Nor does "capable of lying" in any
way devalue all the information we have.
Post by punnadhammo
So we don't know the real story.
Again, given the evidence we have, we know a lot. We've gone back to
the "gee, I don't know who was behind 9/11" again. Why is it that you
play dumb even when we know a lot, yet you claim certainty about
principles for which there are strong counter-examples? You seem to
have everything backwards: ignoring that for which there is a lot of
evidence; and affirming that for which there is strong
counter-evidence.
Post by punnadhammo
Post by jhayati
Post by punnadhammo
You disarm to the level needed for home defence, obviously.
Look at that! A second non-extreme comment. Again, the "obviously"
is not obvious to you, as it is shocking, Punnadhammo, absolutely
shocking, that you would make a reasonable concession like this and
admit this.
Don't choke on your freedom fries.
Lol! I'm still amazed you made this concession at all.
Post by punnadhammo
Post by jhayati
Of course, but an isolationist policy wouldn't be in our best
interests or the rest of the world's. For example, we have and
continue to maintain complete domination of all the seas.
And I'm saying to forget about "dominating" others.
If you have cancer, it makes sense to treat it early, instead of
letting it spread to the point that it gets out of control. As for
dominating, look at what we have done compared to all previous
empires, none of which had the strength we have.
Post by punnadhammo
Post by jhayati
Again, that's just what I've been telling you. However, the cost of
compassionately killing Hitler is only justified if you consider the
billions that would have died with abhidhammic inaction and
submission.
Again, it is impossible to kill compassionately.
No, it would not. Suppose my brother was a pilot, and received orders
to bomb a target, which would kill thousands of people. The order
could not be rescinded because communication was down, and he had to
follow orders. I would shoot him down to save the people, and I would
do it with compassion, even though I would be murdering my own
brother. There would be no hatred, no anger, only deep compassion and
grief. Really, this is just another version of the Cold Equations
story, but it would be an act of compassion.
Post by punnadhammo
You only get away with such ridiculous oxymorons because you refuse
both the Buddhist and the dictionary meaning of the word "compassion"
No, I don't. I could kill my brother and fire a missile to shoot his
plane down if I couldn't contact him any other way and I could prevent
him from bombing a target by mistake and killing countless people, and
I could kill him out of compassion and with no anger or hatred
whatsoever. I can do this. Perhaps you can't, but I can.
Post by punnadhammo
Post by jhayati
I'm sorry that you don't understand the geopolitical situation.
France is our most ruthless economic and political competitor and all
of its moves with the U.N. and E.U. tend to focus on competing with
and weakening the U.S. This is as it should be, but I'm just
suggesting you look and acknowledge it, instead of taking French
self-interested moves to be "moral" and U.S. self-interested moves as
"immoral" to fit your anti-Americanism. Or the reverse with those who
bash the French and call them names.
I am not so naive as to imagine that Chirac opposed the war for purely
ethical reasons.
Good. That is a start. Nor is Chirac a bad guy in any way.
Post by punnadhammo
Of course France Russia Germany China and others have
a vested real-politik interest in preventing one single power from
dominating the key energy producing regions of the Middle East
More than that. Chirac wants to dominate the EU and limit the U.S. as
much as possible. He would prefer France to be the single power
dominated the Middle East, but since that isn't possible, he wants to
be as close in second place as he can.
Post by punnadhammo
That is why G. Bush's neo-colonial energy wars are so destabilizing.
No, they are not neo-colonial wars, nor are they destabalizing, except
to France. Note that Britain would prefer the EU to join with the
U.S. to be a combined stabilizing power, as does Poland and Spain and
others, whereas France and Germany do not. The question for each is
not about any objective destabilizing, but rather for each country,
whether it would be in their interest to have a stronger
French-dominated EU, or a weaker France and a stronger U.S. Many
prefer a stronger France. Many are wary of French domination, and
feel that the long-distance relationship of more dependence on the
U.S. than France would give them more independence. That's how it
gets weighed, and none of them, France included, really give a hoot
about how stable the Middle East is. We care more because it affects
us more.

This, by the way, would be interesting to discuss more, and it's
something that's very important. But it takes discipline, in terms of
restraining oneself from emotional U.S.-bashing, as you have done, or
emotional France-bashing, as Warren has done. Rather, you have to see
why each country chooses the position it choosess. Russia is in a
really interesting position, for example, and it has a very complex
situation.
Post by punnadhammo
It's funny how you can spin US colonial aggression as "compassionate"
while trying to be so "realistic" about the French.
I'm baiting you there. I see them both as completely realistic. It
is neither "colonial aggression" as you spin, nor is it an act of
compassion. What I meant is that given that it is in our best
interest to remove a horrible dictator, we did it with the most
compassion in the sense of taking into account the civilians and
limiting hurting them and rebuilding their country. I was baiting
you, because I know you will point to every tear-jerker story of an
Iraqi that got mutilated with submunitions from a cluster bomb.
Nonetheless, in the context of every previous war in history, used the
most firepower with the least civilians hurt, which was a tremendous
accomplishment.
Post by punnadhammo
It's all about greed, fear, hatred and delusion.
No, it's not. That's you're basic line. It's not about greed, as we
don't want to steal anybody's oil. That's the power of a free-markey
liberal democracy. The advantage over socialist/communist and
totalitarian countries is that our system works so well that instead
of stealing, we can buy what we want. The point is that we prefer to
buy than to steal or conquer. That's why free-market liberal
democracy is such a winning strategy. Our aggression is minimal.

And it is not about hatred, as we want to democratize the Middle East
and welcome them as brothers. As the synopsis in the review of the
book you like stated, Osama anticipated we would react out of revenge
and hatred, and we did not, instead planning careful campaigns in
Afghanistan and Iraq that were not emotionally based or the whims of a
dictator, even though you wrongly make such claims. Our aggression
has been careful and not hatred based at all, and we are using the
minimum force needed, so that we can then proceed with diplomacy.

Nor is it delusion, as we've made the best choices we could based on
the data we have available, and we are carefully doing our best to
bring stability and peace into the region, and while there are all
sorts of complications, we're doing the best job we can.

As for fear, as I said, fear is behind everything. However, fear is
often good and rational, and leads to action. The fear we have when
we feel a toothache leads us to go to the dentist and have the cavity
fixed before it gets bigger. The fear have of terrorists has led us
to act rationally and stop the problem now before it gets worse.
Post by punnadhammo
The US is no worse and no better than anyone else in the game.
Yes and no. We are no better than Britain and France, sure.

If you say we are no better than Saddam was, or if you say we are no
better than North Korea or Libya, then you could not be more mistaken.
I'll let you respond before I accuse you of such extremism. We are
also much better than China in many ways, which we can discuss. The
same is true for Russia, which has become a very strong friend and
partner these days. If you deny this, then we'd better discuss it.
And if it will make you feel better, I don't think we are as good as
Canada at the moment.
Post by punnadhammo
They're on top at the moment, so they look bad, but they're just doing
the same as Spain, France, Britain, Russia and the rest before them.
Ok you mean past empires. Yes we do some of the same, but considering
what restraint we use with our power, we come out way ahead of any of
these past empires. We can discuss that comparison too, if you wish.
If the current war on terror is successful in democratizing the Middle
East, we may be in for a very long and peaceful Pax Americana.
Post by punnadhammo
The only difference is I don't think previous imperial aggressors got
so whiney about why nobody appreciates them. Lack of self-confidence
maybe?
Lol! Maybe previous imperial aggressors didn't care, whereas we
aren't as motivated by greed, hatred, and delusion, but care more
about creating a peaceful interconnectd world, and helping everyone.
But instead of considering that, you spin to an insult of "lack of
self-confidence"? Lol!!! Punnadhammo, you really lay it on thick,
don't you? Yet another Punnadhammit argument, where you re-interpret
our moral superiority to be low self-esteem. Now I've heard
everything!
Post by punnadhammo
Post by jhayati
No, you said that taking down infrastructure, camps, and funding for
terrorists creates more terrorists, and I say this is nonsensical.
You might argue that people reading about Saddam going down makes them
feel more angry and helpless, and you are right.
It's not "Saddam going down" that's making a new generation of
resentful anti-american potential terrorists. It's the bombing, the
checkpoints, the continued shooting of civilians, the looting of Iraq's
economy, the lack of dignity inherent in alien rule.
The bombing was minimal and amazingly clean, compared to our invasion
of France; there is little looting by our trooops (much less than we
looted France, too); civilians are not shot continuously, only armed
militants; and we just passed an $87 billion dollar package to rebuilt
Iraq and make it better than it has ever been, which is an amazing
about of help; and we are helping them self-rule, and no longer suffer
the humiliation of decades of rule under a ruthless warring dictator.
That is, every one of your points is not only questionable, but the
opposite is more likely the case.
Post by punnadhammo
Part of your trouble, which is endemic to the american right,
I'm pretty much a socialist in social issues, but as I'm a realist in
foreign policy, much of the right and a lot of the left is behind me.
I don't like the way this plays as a left-right issue, as were Gore
president, it would be the whining rebublicans not the Pelosi and
whining democrats, complaining about the money to rebuild Iraq, and
the conservatives would be pouncing on Gore and claiming he had
bungled the war, and how Bush would have had the Middle East eating
out of our hands by this point. That's how politics gets played in
the U.S.
Post by punnadhammo
is the inability to see issues beyond single demonized personalities
like "Saddam".
What does it feel like to meet me, who doesn't take such a
mirror-image of your extreme view, but who studies the picture deeply?
While you might be describing the local drunk at the bar (i.e.
cupcake), I assure you that a lot more Americans are more informed
than you are and see issues for the complexities they are. Now how
about you relaxing those blinders of yours and seeing beyond your
single demonized personalities of Dubya and the stereotypes you
present, and the ridiculous tabloid emotionalism, and try to look at
the situation a little deeper yourself, instead of the ignorant,
superficial, and deluded "it's about oil" nonsense that no informed
analyst, left, right, or center, takes seriously? Or are you going to
stay in that tabloid-covered armchair and make sure your simplified
black-and-white approach doesn't get threatened? Are you going to
ignore or find excuses about counter-examples that disprove your
over-simplified dogma?
Post by punnadhammo
Post by jhayati
However, it followed as a consequence from what you did say, which was
to make Israelis helpless against murderers who want to not compromise
but kill every single Jew. I'm only talking about 1% of the
Palestinians at most, funded by Syrians, and Saudi Arabians. Both
sides are at fault, but even though I find Sharon to be immoral and
over the top, that's nothing compared to the horrendous acts of
targeting school children in busses, which your comments indirectly do
support.
It's not "nothing". The death toll since the infitada started is many
many times more Palestinians killed than Israelis. That's just a fact.
It's spin. Your "fact" compares Palestinian militants to Israeli
children. How many Israeli attacks are aimed at specifically killing
innocent civilians? None of them. You can also cite that more
criminals have been shot by policemen in America than policemen have
been shot. This is not evidence that policemen are brutal in any way.
While Israelis are a lot more brutal than Americans, your comparing
unarmed students bombed in busses to strikes on militants is
ridiculous. Do you condone the attacks on busses of students with
exploding nail bombs and really see that as the same as finding and
targeting armed militants who wish to kill busloads of students?
Post by punnadhammo
Post by jhayati
It was Arafat that turned down every reasonable deal. But I don't
want to discuss this crap. I want to focus on war and actions and
compassion. I could care less about your Fiskian anti-Israel stuff.
I want to discuss the principles here.
Yes, let's not discuss that.
Lol! Just like the Suez crisis of 1956, where our peaceful
intervention and pacifism led to military build-up and the brutal
attack on Israel: you ran away from that one as well. Just as you
ran away from the question of invading France and stopping Hitler with
force instead of pacifism and surrender. What good are your beliefs
if you simply avoid every issue where they don't work?
Post by punnadhammo
since you only read sources that agree with the US and Israel.
Actually, that's an outright lie. I do the opposite, and I read the
very best non-US sources I can find. What I do is elminate both the
tabloid pro-US and the tabloid anti-US sensationalism.

So you evade every issue, and then insult me and make a dishonest
claim about me, which applies to your extremism and not to me. Hey,
with a comment like that, this must be the end of your post. Lol!!!
At least you are predictable, and always good for a laugh.
Post by punnadhammo
Post by jhayati
We occupied Japan for 40 years? No.
You're still there, in Okinawa.
The Okinawans are getting a little bit upset too.
How terrible for them. Maybe they should complain to the French.

- jay
punnadhammo
2003-10-22 14:03:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by jhayati
Furthermore you have said that any action of killing any sentient
being was unlawful and bad karma. Was this not your position?
Unlawful according to Dhamma, yes. Also akusala, unprofitable or
unskilful karma, it's best to avoid manichean terms like "good" and
"bad" if one wants to talk precisely about karma.

Your problem (or one of them) is that you are fixated on these
manichean polar opposites. Because I say it is always unskilful karma
to kill, and that it is always incompatible with compassion, you jump
up and down and yell about letting Hitler conquer the world.

Pure silliness, and a refusal to think about the subtleties of the
issues involved.

Most karmically effective acts we perform as humans are mixed, they
have "good" and "bad" effects (to us the kindergarten language you
prefer.) In a single mind-moment, however, compassion and its opposite,
cruelty, cannot occur together.

If you want a more clear-cut example one that is sometimes used in
discussions of karma is draining a swamp to kill malaria mosquitoes.
The intention of saving the local village from malaria is kusala, the
act of killing the mosquitoes remains akusala however. It is impossible
to kill without a wish for destruction, no matter how fleeting, and
that is always akusala.

When human lives are concerned, as in your warlike examples, the
akusala factor is much stronger. This is regardless of whether the end
result (getting rid of Hitler's regime etc) is desirable or not.
Post by jhayati
Sure you did. You said a Buddha was not capable of saving billions of
lives and would murder them with his inaction. Are you saying that
you would not do the same, then?
There you go again with your childish comic book reductionist questions.
Post by jhayati
Ok, but this [Suez crisis of '56] is simply a counter-example to what you claimed to be a
law of sorts. That is, this, and any number of examples, contradicts
the law that short-term immediate violence leads to more violence than
does short-term non-violence. That's the point, and I presented a
very strong counter-example.
You would do better to pick examples that are not controversial and
waste our time arguing history instead of Dhamma.
Post by jhayati
No, that isn't sufficient. Would you like even stronger
counter-examples to the claim that short-term nonviolence always leads
to less long-term violence? Because that is the claim you made that
is contradicted here. While you may try to find a loophole with this
example, there are so many counter-examples where you can't
eel-wriggle, that we need to be clear about this point. I suspect
that you will reject an infinite number of very compelling examples,
simply because it doesn't agree with the dogma in your book. Is this
not so?
I doubt you could come up with a real world example that isn't
controversial. History is messy that way. It's only simple in comic
books.
Post by jhayati
Being capable isn't enough. We have evidence. Are you going to go
for a major conspiracy spin again?
Why is it a conspiracy spin to question the veracity of both sides?
Post by jhayati
Nor does "capable of lying" in any
way devalue all the information we have.
Of course it does. The only "evidence" is what your intelligence people
provide to the public. If they are lying, you have NO evidence. Since
the other side has opposite claims, and equally dodgy "evidence", I
don't think we can decide at all who is telling the truth.
Post by jhayati
Again, given the evidence we have, we know a lot. We've gone back to
the "gee, I don't know who was behind 9/11" again. Why is it that you
play dumb even when we know a lot, yet you claim certainty about
principles for which there are strong counter-examples? You seem to
have everything backwards: ignoring that for which there is a lot of
evidence; and affirming that for which there is strong
counter-evidence.
I don't want to get side-tracked arguing this either. Suffice it to say
that when challenged the only evidence you came up with was the
obviously faked tape "found" in Kabul.
Post by jhayati
If you have cancer, it makes sense to treat it early, instead of
letting it spread to the point that it gets out of control. As for
dominating, look at what we have done compared to all previous
empires, none of which had the strength we have.
The American Empire compares rather poorly with some, like the British
or even the Roman. These judgements are partly subjective, but for
every case of US power leaving the place better off you come up with, I
could probably find two or three where it left the place worse.
Post by jhayati
No, it would not. Suppose my brother was a pilot, and received orders
to bomb a target, which would kill thousands of people. The order
could not be rescinded because communication was down, and he had to
follow orders. I would shoot him down to save the people, and I would
do it with compassion, even though I would be murdering my own
brother. There would be no hatred, no anger, only deep compassion and
grief. Really, this is just another version of the Cold Equations
story, but it would be an act of compassion.
Again, you are using your own definition of compassion. At the moment
you pulled the switch to launch the missile, your mind must have an
urge to destroy. If you were extraordinarily mindful, you could keep it
to just the few moments needed for the act, but without that akusala
mind-state, you could not pull the switch.
Post by jhayati
No, I don't. I could kill my brother and fire a missile to shoot his
plane down if I couldn't contact him any other way and I could prevent
him from bombing a target by mistake and killing countless people, and
I could kill him out of compassion and with no anger or hatred
whatsoever. I can do this. Perhaps you can't, but I can.
How do you know if you haven't done it? But more to the point, you are
still avoiding the issue of defining "compassion."
Post by jhayati
Good. That is a start. Nor is Chirac a bad guy in any way.
Not any worse than the average politician anyway.
Post by jhayati
More than that. Chirac wants to dominate the EU and limit the U.S. as
much as possible. He would prefer France to be the single power
dominated the Middle East, but since that isn't possible, he wants to
be as close in second place as he can.
He is playing the game of all middle-powers historically, seeking to
maintain a "balance." One power hegemony is only desired by the hegemon
itself.
Post by jhayati
I'm baiting you there. I see them both as completely realistic. It
is neither "colonial aggression" as you spin, nor is it an act of
compassion.
You admit that it is not compassion to invade other countries? That's a
start towards some realism on your part anyway.
Post by jhayati
What I meant is that given that it is in our best
interest to remove a horrible dictator, we did it with the most
compassion in the sense of taking into account the civilians and
limiting hurting them and rebuilding their country. I was baiting
you, because I know you will point to every tear-jerker story of an
Iraqi that got mutilated with submunitions from a cluster bomb.
Nonetheless, in the context of every previous war in history, used the
most firepower with the least civilians hurt, which was a tremendous
accomplishment.
You keep repeating that crap, and refuse to consider the pain and
suffering involved. Is that your missing definition of "compassion"? To
kill and mutilate only a few thousand?
Post by jhayati
Post by punnadhammo
It's all about greed, fear, hatred and delusion.
No, it's not. That's you're basic line. It's not about greed, as we
don't want to steal anybody's oil.
The US wants to control the supply to undercut OPEC and to have
leverage against their industrial rivals in Europe and East Asia.
Post by jhayati
That's the power of a free-markey
liberal democracy.
I assume that's a typo and you meant to say "malarkey" or was that
"monkey?"
Post by jhayati
The advantage over socialist/communist and
totalitarian countries is that our system works so well that instead
of stealing, we can buy what we want. The point is that we prefer to
buy than to steal or conquer. That's why free-market liberal
democracy is such a winning strategy. Our aggression is minimal.
That's why Haliburton got a no-bid contract. That's why Bremer is
privatizing the Iraq economy against the wishes (and interests) of the
people. That's why the US is refusing to hand over control to the UN or
the Iraqis themselves. Free-market liberalism with a gun at your head.
Post by jhayati
And it is not about hatred, as we want to democratize the Middle East
and welcome them as brothers.
I will grant that the official propaganda was mostly directed against
Saddam Hussein personally, including ridiculous comic book stories like
the giant paper shredder one you quoted as gospel. This is an
improvement over the useage of previous wars where the hatred was
whipped up against the opposing people as a nation ("krauts and japs").

However, it is still hatred, even directed against Saddam, and is still
akusala. Also, the unofficial propaganda is full of tirades against
"ragheads" and worse.
Post by jhayati
Nor is it delusion, as we've made the best choices we could based on
the data we have available, and we are carefully doing our best to
bring stability and peace into the region, and while there are all
sorts of complications, we're doing the best job we can.
This is laughable. The amount of lies, spin and pure baloney that
spewed out of Bush, Rumsfeld et al before the war was incredible. Need
I remind you of the tons of anthrax, VX etc that they claimed were
there? Need I remind you that Saddam was supposed to be forty-five
minutes away from a stike?

I know you have never looked up that incubator baby story from the
first Gulf War, but you really, really should.
Post by jhayati
As for fear, as I said, fear is behind everything. However, fear is
often good and rational, and leads to action. The fear we have when
we feel a toothache leads us to go to the dentist and have the cavity
fixed before it gets bigger. The fear have of terrorists has led us
to act rationally and stop the problem now before it gets worse.
You cannot react rationally out of fear. Fear causes you to lash out.

Even in cases where controlled force is used, fear and anger make the
actor less effective. Ask anyone who studies martial arts.

by the way, your example doesn't work. Fear might keep a person from
going to the dentist, but a rational consideration of the options and a
knowledge that the tooth will get worse is not in any way "fear."
Post by jhayati
If you deny this, then we'd better discuss it.
And if it will make you feel better, I don't think we are as good as
Canada at the moment.
Ha ha! Krugar might dispute that, but I won't. :)
Post by jhayati
Ok you mean past empires. Yes we do some of the same, but considering
what restraint we use with our power, we come out way ahead of any of
these past empires. We can discuss that comparison too, if you wish.
If the current war on terror is successful in democratizing the Middle
East, we may be in for a very long and peaceful Pax Americana.
I doubt that very much. The counter-forces are mobilizing, as they
always do. Violence and counter-violence, remember?
Post by jhayati
Post by punnadhammo
is the inability to see issues beyond single demonized personalities
like "Saddam".
What does it feel like to meet me, who doesn't take such a
mirror-image of your extreme view, but who studies the picture deeply?
But you have many times said "Saddam" when you should have really said
"Iraq". On at least one occassion you even spoke about "bombing Saddam"
which is ridiculous.
Post by jhayati
Now how
about you relaxing those blinders of yours and seeing beyond your
single demonized personalities of Dubya and the stereotypes you
present,
Nah, I see Dubya as just the pretty guy in the suit they put up front.
He only plays the president on TV.
Post by jhayati
Post by punnadhammo
It's not "nothing". The death toll since the infitada started is many
many times more Palestinians killed than Israelis. That's just a fact.
It's spin. Your "fact" compares Palestinian militants to Israeli
children. How many Israeli attacks are aimed at specifically killing
innocent civilians? None of them.
That's very very disputable. Certainly hundreds of civilians have been
killed.
Post by jhayati
Lol! Just like the Suez crisis of 1956, where our peaceful
intervention and pacifism led to military build-up and the brutal
attack on Israel: you ran away from that one as well. Just as you
ran away from the question of invading France and stopping Hitler with
force instead of pacifism and surrender. What good are your beliefs
if you simply avoid every issue where they don't work?
You are the one who first suggested we not get mired in those
specifics. It really is off-topic for this group.
Post by jhayati
Actually, that's an outright lie. I do the opposite, and I read the
very best non-US sources I can find. What I do is elminate both the
tabloid pro-US and the tabloid anti-US sensationalism.
When you define even the Guardian as extremist, it leaves me wondering
what range of sources you do read.
jhayati
2003-10-22 21:04:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by punnadhammo
Post by jhayati
Furthermore you have said that any action of killing any sentient
being was unlawful and bad karma. Was this not your position?
Unlawful according to Dhamma, yes.
Well, I've already shown you counterexamples in sutras.
Post by punnadhammo
Also akusala, unprofitable or unskilful karma, it's best to avoid
manichean terms like "good" and "bad"
if one wants to talk precisely about karma.
LOL! You're the one using black and white terms, and avoiding the
complex situations where violence is compassionate!
Post by punnadhammo
Your problem (or one of them) is that you are fixated on these
manichean polar opposites.
LOL! No, that's your problem. I'm the one rejecting that, and so I
don't make fundamentalist denials that violence is bad, as I know that
situationally violence can be compassion.
Post by punnadhammo
Beause I say it is always unskilful karma
to kill, and that it is always incompatible with compassion, you jump
up and down and yell about letting Hitler conquer the world.
LOL! You made a ridiculous black-and-white claim, and I pointed out a
good counter example. The Cold Equations story is even better, but
you and your stooges insulted me and attacked it for being fictional,
so I brought up the case of Hitler, where even you have admitted that
forceful violence was preferable (and thus more compassionate, which
you still won't say) than allowing Hitler to slaughter billions.

And I quoted a Buddhist example where the Buddha-to-be did what you
call unkilful (i.e. bad) karma to kill, yet did it out of compassion,
and not with any anger or hateful urge. Your own religion refutes
you, as well as comon sense.

Your denial and not dealing with counterexamples and then insulting me
is pure silliness, adn a refusal to think about the subtleties of the
issues involved.
Post by punnadhammo
Pure silliness, and a refusal to think about the subtleties of the
issues involved.
Exactly my point! So stop the silliness and insult please.
Post by punnadhammo
If you want a more clear-cut example one that is sometimes used in
discussions of karma is draining a swamp to kill malaria mosquitoes.
The intention of saving the local village from malaria is kusala, the
act of killing the mosquitoes remains akusala however. It is impossible
to kill without a wish for destruction, no matter how fleeting, and
that is always akusala.
Again a black-and-white claim. You can wish for the destruction of the
animal as well as for compassion for those who you are saving. As
humans we always feel both. And this is the reality of life
Punnadhammo, which you can experinece by the simple act of eating.
Post by punnadhammo
Post by jhayati
Sure you did. You said a Buddha was not capable of saving billions of
lives and would murder them with his inaction. Are you saying that
you would not do the same, then?
There you go again with your childish comic book reductionist questions.
LOL! Evading the question with an insult.

Ok I accept that you concede the point to me, but I'd prefer you to
admit it.
Post by punnadhammo
You would do better to pick examples that are not controversial and
waste our time arguing history instead of Dhamma.
...
The American Empire compares rather poorly with some, like the British
or even the Roman.
Back that up with evidence. I think the evidence is just the reverse.
Post by punnadhammo
Post by jhayati
Suppose my brother was a pilot, and received orders
to bomb a target, which would kill thousands of people. The order
could not be rescinded because communication was down, and he had to
follow orders. I would shoot him down to save the people, and I would
do it with compassion, even though I would be murdering my own
brother. There would be no hatred, no anger, only deep compassion and
grief. Really, this is just another version of the Cold Equations
story, but it would be an act of compassion.
Again, you are using your own definition of compassion.
No, I'm using a Buddhist definition.
Post by punnadhammo
At the moment
you pulled the switch to launch the missile, your mind must have an
urge to destroy.
No, it would not. I would realize that my brother would die, and so
at that moment there would be a strong feeling of grief and sadness.

So you are dead wrong about this.
Post by punnadhammo
If you were extraordinarily mindful, you could keep it to just the few moments
No, I would not have the urge to destroy. I would feel grief but
would make the best move to save the most people. There would be no
urge to destroy, no hatred, and no anger.
Post by punnadhammo
but without that akusala mind-state, you could not pull the switch.
Yes, I could. I could pull the switch without tht mindstate, in the
same way I could play a game of chess and make a good move without
that mindstate. It isn't emotional at all, but as I said, I would
feel grief and sadness.
Post by punnadhammo
Post by jhayati
No, I don't. I could kill my brother and fire a missile to shoot his
plane down if I couldn't contact him any other way and I could prevent
him from bombing a target by mistake and killing countless people, and
I could kill him out of compassion and with no anger or hatred
whatsoever. I can do this. Perhaps you can't, but I can.
How do you know if you haven't done it?
LOL!!! YOu're the one who claims what urges I would have to have,
which is the most stupid silly thing I've ever heard, especially
because you don't know me.

This is hilarious. You insist on knowing exactly how I feel, when you
are clueless about me, yet you ask me how I would know? There is no
end to your fundamentalist double-standard! LOLOLOL!!! This is the
extremist claim of the week from you, Punnadhammo.

I do know my mind pretty well from the inside and I am pretty accurate
about knowing how I'd feel and I can tell you I would not feel
cruelty, anger, hatred, or any "urge to destroy" if I were to choose
to save a large number of people by killing my brother.

Btw, you then do a double-Punnadhammit by using my very point later
Post by punnadhammo
by the way, your example doesn't work. Fear might keep a person from
going to the dentist, but a rational consideration of the options and a
knowledge that the tooth will get worse is not in any way "fear."
If that is true, then considerations of the options and knowledge that
so many will die if my brother lives will lead to a rational decision,
in this case without your "urges" instead of without the fear. Except
in the dental case I am terrified every check-up, and I've never yet
had a cavity either. But fear makes me keep having the check-ups. So
you're wrong in both cases. LOL!!!!

Finally, I even quoted you a Buddhist sutra where the Buddha-to-be
kills not with any urge, but out of compassion, according to a
Mahayanist teacher: The Buddha-to-be calculates (as the U.S. does)
"He (the Buddha) thought to himself, 'If he follows out his plan it
will not only cause 499 people to lose their lives but will also
create the cause for being reborn in the lower realms.' The oarsmen
realized that if he killed the would-be assassin he could prevent all
500 people from being harmed. Therefore, with the motivation of great
compassion, he killed the merchant."

Do you finally admit that killing can be done out of compassion and
without hatred?
Post by punnadhammo
You admit that it is not compassion to invade other countries?
That's a start towards some realism on your part anyway.
I've already said that we have two strategic reasons. It is also
compassionate, and the fact that we had good strategic reasons plus
there would be a compassionate bonus led to the decision. I'm the
same way with volunteer work. I volunteer for work that is fun and
where I'm surrounded by pretty girls, yet I also can help other
people.
Post by punnadhammo
Post by jhayati
What I meant is that given that it is in our best
interest to remove a horrible dictator, we did it with the most
compassion in the sense of taking into account the civilians and
limiting hurting them and rebuilding their country. I was baiting
you, because I know you will point to every tear-jerker story of an
Iraqi that got mutilated with submunitions from a cluster bomb.
Nonetheless, in the context of every previous war in history, used the
most firepower with the least civilians hurt, which was a tremendous
accomplishment.
You keep repeating that crap,
Because it's factual and you keep denying it. Calling what you don't
like crap doesn't make it any less true. From your posts, maybe you
believe that it does.
Post by punnadhammo
Is that your missing definition of "compassion"?
To kill and mutilate only a few thousand?
If killing a few thousand saves a million, then it was a compassionate
act that saved hundreds of thousands, yes. As with the example with
my brother, you subtract the number lost from the number saved, and if
the result is positive, so more are saved than lost, then of course it
is compassionate.
Post by punnadhammo
Post by jhayati
Post by punnadhammo
It's all about greed, fear, hatred and delusion.
No, it's not. That's you're basic line. It's not about greed, as we
don't want to steal anybody's oil.
The US wants to control the supply to undercut OPEC
OPEC wants to control the supply to the US. This has nothing to do
with the war, as we are a capitalist liberal democracy, and we control
by buying and investing, as I've explained.

Again, this has nothing to do with the war. OPEC did not bomb the
World Trade Towers. Some members of OPEC are run by militant
islamists, but OPEC did not bomb us, and oil is not about terrorism,
though terrorists would like to have oil to use to get weapons to bomb
people, as Saddam did. So the connection with oil was that Saddam
used oil to fund his military which he used to kill people.

You ignore that we are trying to stop militant islamics from killing
others, and you take the fact that they use oil to get weapons and
power to kill, and then say "oh we just want to steal their oil and
control OPEC". The reasoning is invalid and nonsensical. The
connection is that oil buys bombs, and bombs are the issue here. Even
left-wing anti-American analysts all say this, Punnadhammo. Now don't
insult me with such stupidity again please.
Post by punnadhammo
That's why Haliburton got a no-bid contract. That's why Bremer is
privatizing the Iraq economy against the wishes (and interests) of the
people. That's why the US is refusing to hand over control to the UN or
the Iraqis themselves. Free-market liberalism with a gun at your head.
All those are wrong. We are returnding control. The UN should send
money and troops, but they didn't help remove the dicatator and as a
result hundreds of American lives were lost: the French didn't want to
bake the bread but now you insist they should get to eat it?

And the Iraqis do want the privatizing of the economy, which will make
them prosperous instead of the way they were screwed by a Leninist
dictator. I can go into the Iraqi plan and show you how and why Iraq
is benefitting from this.
Post by punnadhammo
I will grant that the official propaganda was mostly directed against
Saddam Hussein personally, including ridiculous comic book stories like
the giant paper shredder one you quoted as gospel.
I didn't quote is as 'gospel'. Read my post. I mocked you, and
pasted in a tabloid story from a source just like the ones you read.
I found it on the internet. I also said it wasn't from a good
reliable source, none of which made that claim. You also quote
similar nonsense conspiracies. Yet I admit that it isn't in all the
other media because it's nonsense. You claim that the nonsense and
conspiracies you spit out must be true and that all the other media
are "owned by four of five companies" (Fisk's version is "by the
Jews") and therefore they are all conspiring against you.
Post by punnadhammo
However, it is still hatred, even directed against Saddam, and is
still akusala
That is, tabloids are full of hatred. Yes. As are lies about the
"Highway of Death" which are equally dishonest and hateful, except
that the other extremest tabloids carry them. So you are guilty of
severe akusala, yes. You are a bad monk and would suffer many
rebirths in hell for the propaganda and hatred you spread, were you to
actually say the things you post here.
Post by punnadhammo
This is laughable. The amount of lies, spin and pure baloney that
spewed out of Bush, Rumsfeld et al before the war was incredible.
Rumsfeld was pretty honest. Bush spun just as Kennedy and others have
spun during a crisis, and it is normal not to disclose strategy to the
public and to your enemies. I've discussed this in several posts, and
you ignored my very thorough response about such dublicity and the
reasons and historical examples, and again you repeat your
simple-minded ignorance. Ok, then don't listen and just repeat the
hatred without understanding the sitution if you want.
Post by punnadhammo
Post by jhayati
If you deny this, then we'd better discuss it.
And if it will make you feel better, I don't think we are as good as
Canada at the moment.
Ha ha! Krugar might dispute that, but I won't. :)
I thought you'd like that, but I mean about their social programs.
Post by punnadhammo
Post by jhayati
If the current war on terror is successful in democratizing the Middle
East, we may be in for a very long and peaceful Pax Americana.
I doubt that very much. The counter-forces are mobilizing, as they
always do. Violence and counter-violence, remember?
Again, you forget that we have destroyed terrorist camps, and are
eliminating dictators, so that each of our actions lessens future
counter-violence, as this is one of those cases where violence leads
to less future violence and is compassionate.
Post by punnadhammo
But you have many times said "Saddam" when you should have really said
"Iraq". On at least one occassion you even spoke about "bombing Saddam"
Yes, we bombed Saddam and his minions. We were not at war with the
Iraqi people, who are on our side. We were on the side of Iraq,
against their dictator. So I spoke correctly.
Post by punnadhammo
Post by jhayati
Post by punnadhammo
It's not "nothing". The death toll since the infitada started is many
many times more Palestinians killed than Israelis. That's just a fact.
It's spin. Your "fact" compares Palestinian militants to Israeli
children. How many Israeli attacks are aimed at specifically killing
innocent civilians? None of them.
That's very very disputable.
By whom? Go ahead and check it out, and compare the number of
Palestinian civilians who died but had nothing to do with any
militancy or suicide merderers versus the number of Israeli civilians
who died (and who unlike the Palestinian civilians who died from
random acts of terror in busses and shopping malls). You check it out
and I'll tell you if you get it right or not.

- jay
Messer Xin
2003-10-23 01:21:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by punnadhammo
This is laughable. The amount of lies, spin and pure baloney that
spewed out of Bush, Rumsfeld et al before the war was incredible. Need
I remind you of the tons of anthrax, VX etc that they claimed were
there? Need I remind you that Saddam was supposed to be forty-five
minutes away from a stike?
I know you have never looked up that incubator baby story from the
first Gulf War, but you really, really should.
Make it easy on the guy and give him an url. Here's one, for instance, from
one of your more notorious tabloids, the Chirstian Science Monitor:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0906/p25s02-cogn.html

---Messer Xin
--
Life is eternal while it lasts. .. Ape;)
jhayati
2003-10-21 13:44:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by punnadhammo
Post by jhayati
Your tabloids and radical fanaticism lead you to equate the U.S. with
Nazi Germany, and Ludwig has done the same, but as it turns out, our
liberal democracy is a lot different from Nazi Germany.
For one thing, Hitler was properly elected, but do go on...
Lol! Punnadhammo your perverse sense of humor sometimes goes too far.
It's as if you wish we were in Nazi Germany or that this were the
Vietnam war, and in your disappointment, you simply pretend that it is
anyway. But that comment sums up your entire attitude and emotional
zeal. Did you get that one from the Guardian too?
Post by punnadhammo
Post by jhayati
While Hitler murdered millions in concentration camps, you whine
about a hundred Islamic jihadists treated decently in Cuba but
being held because of legal loopholes.
How do you know they are being treated decently?
Actually I admit I read something chilling in the Baltimore Sun
reports on America's harshest treatment of al Qa'eda prisoners at
Guantanamo Bay:

"American interrogators here have come up with a few new weapons as
they try to pry loose the secrets of prisoners captured on the
battlefields of Afghanistan. 'It could be cupcakes, it could be
Twinkies, it could even be a McDonald's hamburger,' says Warrant
Officer James Kluck, who, as the ranking food service officer, helps
supply some of the unlikely ammunition. 'Sometimes, they go up on the
base and get the prisoner a Happy Meal. It's got a toy and
everything."

McDonald's Happy Meals. Twinkies. Yuck. I do admit that this
certainly does constitute cruel and unusual punsishment in my book,
though its not quite as harsh as the way Nazis treated Jews in
concentration camps.

Meanwhile, says the Washington Post, we've opened up our version of
Auschwitz in Baghdad, which is really a scary thought:

"The former Saddam International Airport now houses Iraq's first
Burger King. Part creature comfort, part therapy for homesick troops,
its sales have reached the top 10 among all Burger King franchises on
Earth in the five months since it opened. The shiny metal broiler
spits out 5,000 patties a day. The takeout stand is open from 8 a.m.
to 8 p.m. and offers six sandwiches; a normal menu has 16. There are
no milkshakes. But even with the limited menu, and with competition
from the Bob Hope dining facility at the airport -- which is free and
serves 8,000 meals a day -- Burger King's daily sales are between
$15,000 and $18,000, military officials say. The restaurant probably
owes much of its success to its location."

Now that's frightening.

- jay
Ludwig
2003-10-18 23:44:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by punnadhammo
Post by jhayati
You are right about the landmines treaty, and we should go for that,
and it's ridiculous that the US doesn't push for a treaty. There is
no reason for landmines and they are an abomination. However, other
big powers also rejected that treaty, and the US was not a sole
dissenter by any means.
No, that's true, she wasn't. China and Russia were also opposed as I
recall.
That's right. And that's the company that the US is often described as
keeping, at least on human rights issues, by countries like France; China
and Russia.
I know it's not entirely a fair picture, but it's a picture that the US will
have to address if it is to re-build some bridges with the EU.

While we're on the subject of landmines, what the hell is it with these
cluster bombs? I don't normally get into the details of what bombs were used
when, but those things are particularly ghoulish; designed not to damage
property or vehicles but just to maim and kill.

People are still getting killed and maimed on the plain of Jars in Laos by
bomblets deployed 30 years ago, and so far as I know the clean-up operation
is seriously strapped for funds. It's ok though, Denmark and Norway (!) are
doing what they can.

But this doesn't get much publicity in the US. I wonder why? Maybe it's
because criminals don't like to have to face the consequences of their
actions? This is speculation, but maybe not unreasonable speculation:

"During the air war carried out between 1964 and 1973, the U.S. executed
more than 580,000 bombing missions over Laos. Some 2.3 million tons of
bombs, a large percentage of them cluster bombs, were dropped, making Laos
the most heavily bombed country in the world. On average, a plane load of
bombs was dropped every eight minutes, around the clock, for nine years."

From a recent report on the cluster bomb situation in Laos:

"The US has, however, provided some help by opening up the records of all
its bombing runs over Laos in the seventies. "It has helped us map the most
sensitive areas," says Kathryn Sweet, Uxo Lao's programme office advisor."

How helpful.

The US has used cluster bombs extensively in Iraq and Afghanistan, I hardly
need to add.

Ludwig
Ch'an Fu
2003-10-19 00:09:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ludwig
Post by punnadhammo
Post by jhayati
You are right about the landmines treaty, and we should go for that,
and it's ridiculous that the US doesn't push for a treaty. There is
no reason for landmines and they are an abomination. However, other
big powers also rejected that treaty, and the US was not a sole
dissenter by any means.
No, that's true, she wasn't. China and Russia were also opposed as I
recall.
That's right. And that's the company that the US is often described as
keeping, at least on human rights issues, by countries like France; China
and Russia.
I know it's not entirely a fair picture, but it's a picture that the US will
have to address if it is to re-build some bridges with the EU.
While we're on the subject of landmines, what the hell is it with these
cluster bombs? I don't normally get into the details of what bombs were used
when, but those things are particularly ghoulish; designed not to damage
property or vehicles but just to maim and kill.
People are still getting killed and maimed on the plain of Jars in Laos by
bomblets deployed 30 years ago, and so far as I know the clean-up operation
is seriously strapped for funds. It's ok though, Denmark and Norway (!) are
doing what they can.
But this doesn't get much publicity in the US. I wonder why? Maybe it's
because criminals don't like to have to face the consequences of their
"During the air war carried out between 1964 and 1973, the U.S. executed
more than 580,000 bombing missions over Laos. Some 2.3 million tons of
bombs, a large percentage of them cluster bombs, were dropped, making Laos
the most heavily bombed country in the world. On average, a plane load of
bombs was dropped every eight minutes, around the clock, for nine years."
"The US has, however, provided some help by opening up the records of all
its bombing runs over Laos in the seventies. "It has helped us map the most
sensitive areas," says Kathryn Sweet, Uxo Lao's programme office advisor."
How helpful.
The US has used cluster bombs extensively in Iraq and Afghanistan, I hardly
need to add.
Ludwig
But look at all the people who were liberated
to the free world of democracy! Err...right?
And we did give them each 87billion to, like,
get rid of that shit and not have their kids
blowing up and get new washers and dryers
and voting machines and all, right? new schools...?
Well, we buy rice from 'em, don't we?
errrr... well.... turnips?
jhayati
2003-10-20 04:59:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ludwig
Post by punnadhammo
Post by jhayati
You are right about the landmines treaty, and we should go for that,
and it's ridiculous that the US doesn't push for a treaty. There is
no reason for landmines and they are an abomination. However, other
big powers also rejected that treaty, and the US was not a sole
dissenter by any means.
No, that's true, she wasn't. China and Russia were also opposed as I
recall.
That's right. And that's the company that the US is often described as
keeping, at least on human rights issues, by countries like France;
China and Russia.
China and Russia claim we are like they are? Or are you just citing
the normal French rhetoric, forgetting that for centuries France has
desperately wanted to dominate Europe and they trash their biggest
adversary, America, which has replaced Britain's old role.
Post by Ludwig
While we're on the subject of landmines, what the hell is it with these
cluster bombs? I don't normally get into the details of what bombs were used
when, but those things are particularly ghoulish; designed not to damage
property or vehicles but just to maim and kill.
No, it's just the opposite. While they are controversial, Pierre, you
might not want to start out with a sensationalist lie, and state the
truth that cluster bombs are used to destroy enemy vehicles and that
they are especially effective for saturation coverage.

Today, almost all submunitions are used to destroy an enemy/vehicle in
place (impact submunitions). They are designed to go off when they
hit the ground. The submunitions are designed to destroy hard targets
such as vehicles and equipment. They are dispersed from an
aircraft-dropped dispenser and function when they hit a target or the
ground.

They are still an ethical problem, mostly with unexploded
submunitions, which is what we here about the most. They are
ridiculously dangerous. Submunition function reliability requirement
is about 90 percent (in Vietnam it was only around 70%). This still
means that in about 10 percent of the time, they lay hidden,
unexploded, waiting to be found. With a 90 percent submunition
function reliability, one CBU-87 (with 650 submunitions) could produce
up to 50 unexploded submunitions. A typical B-52 dropping a full load
of 45 CBU-87 each containing 650 submunitions, could produce an
average of some 2500 unexploded sub-munitions.

Studies show that 40 percent of the bombies on the ground are
hazardous and for each encounter with them, there is a 15 percent
probability of detonation. Thus, even though an unexploded
submunition is run over, kicked, stepped on, or otherwise disturbed,
and did not detonate, it is very unsafe. Handling the unexploded
submunition may eventually result in arming and consequently
detonating the device. Which is pretty scary.
Post by Ludwig
But this doesn't get much publicity in the US. I wonder why?
Boy I've read about them everywhere. Maybe because it does get lots
of publicity and you are being dishonest? While I agree that cluster
bombs are problematic, why do you have to use the "Punnadhammit" stlye
and lie, claiming that they are intended to use against people, and
then claiming that they don't get coverage? Every TV network and
paper in America covered the stupid mistake we made in Afghanistan
when the color of the CBU-87 submunitions were the very same bright
yellow color as the food packages dropped by the US. This color was
to make the bomb visible to stay away from it; whereas the food
packages we wanted people to find. This mistake was ridiculous. As
soon as the error was recognized we no longer dropped food packages
near where there were any cluster bombs dropped.

The ethics of cluster bombs, especially when they could be mistaken
for food rations for the civilians, was plastered on every station.
Cluster bombs are a serious problem, but why blatanly lie about the
coverage they got? You're trying to take a real issue and then mix in
all the lies and spin you can muster, which only ruins your post. Try
for once playing it straight the way I do and examine the real issue
and facts without trying to use them to sneak in lies and try to
validate them.
Post by Ludwig
"The US has, however, provided some help by opening up the records of all
its bombing runs over Laos in the seventies. "It has helped us map the most
sensitive areas," says Kathryn Sweet, Uxo Lao's programme office advisor."
How helpful.
Yes, it was. Needless to say, those were very different from the ones
dropped today, which again, are almost entirely used to penetrate the
armor of vehicles and take them out.

- jay
Ludwig
2003-10-20 10:46:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by jhayati
Post by Ludwig
While we're on the subject of landmines, what the hell is it with these
cluster bombs? I don't normally get into the details of what bombs were used
when, but those things are particularly ghoulish; designed not to damage
property or vehicles but just to maim and kill.
No, it's just the opposite. While they are controversial, Pierre, you
might not want to start out with a sensationalist lie, and state the
truth that cluster bombs are used to destroy enemy vehicles and that
they are especially effective for saturation coverage.
The ones used in Laos - which are the ones I was talking about - were
different.

"The CBU (cluster bomb unit) 26, which was widely used in Laos, is an
anti-personnel fragmentation bomb that consists of a large bombshell holding
670 tennis ball-sized bomblets, each of which contain 300 metal fragments.
If all the bomblets detonate, some 200,000 steel fragments will be propelled
over an area the size of several football fields, creating a deadly killing
zone."

An anti-personnel weapon, ok?
Post by jhayati
Today, almost all submunitions are used to destroy an enemy/vehicle in
place (impact submunitions). They are designed to go off when they
hit the ground. The submunitions are designed to destroy hard targets
such as vehicles and equipment. They are dispersed from an
aircraft-dropped dispenser and function when they hit a target or the
ground.
They are still an ethical problem, mostly with unexploded
Post by jhayati
submunitions, which is what we here about the most. They are
ridiculously dangerous. Submunition function reliability requirement
is about 90 percent (in Vietnam it was only around 70%). This still
means that in about 10 percent of the time, they lay hidden,
unexploded, waiting to be found. With a 90 percent submunition
function reliability, one CBU-87 (with 650 submunitions) could produce
up to 50 unexploded submunitions. A typical B-52 dropping a full load
of 45 CBU-87 each containing 650 submunitions, could produce an
average of some 2500 unexploded sub-munitions.
Studies show that 40 percent of the bombies on the ground are
hazardous and for each encounter with them, there is a 15 percent
probability of detonation. Thus, even though an unexploded
submunition is run over, kicked, stepped on, or otherwise disturbed,
and did not detonate, it is very unsafe. Handling the unexploded
submunition may eventually result in arming and consequently
detonating the device. Which is pretty scary.
In the UK the government admitted it had used them illegally in Iraq to bomb
built up areas:
"... Mr Ingram responded on behalf of Tony Blair to the Diana, Princess of
Wales Memorial Fund to set out the Government's position on the weapons. Mr.
Ingram stressed that the British armed forces strove to act in accordance
with the Geneva Conventions. "It is clear that when we apply these
principles there will be occasions when the use of cluster bombs against
certain targets would not be legal," he wrote. "There will be occasions when
the use of other munitions would be legal but the use of cluster bombs would
not.""
Post by jhayati
Post by Ludwig
But this doesn't get much publicity in the US. I wonder why?
Boy I've read about them everywhere. Maybe because it does get lots
of publicity and you are being dishonest?
I never said that the use of cluster bombs in Afghanistan and Iraq wasn't
publicised.

Maybe you should read my posts more carefully before replying? Read this bit
carefully at least: the situation in Laos still constitutes a humanitarian
crisis, even after 30 years. More funds are needed to help the clean-up
operation, and it is THIS that doesn't get much publicity either here or in
the US. And the US has not been forthcoming in acknowledging the problem, or
in providing funds. It took a long time even to admit that the bombing,
which killed hundreds of thousands of civilians and still claims lives
today, actually took place.

If you doubt the extent of the ongoing problem, try an internet search on
Laos cluster bombs. Some sources have annual casualties in the hundreds
though accurate figures are hard to come by. We can argue about the figures,
but you're quite right that a failure rate of 30 per cent is recognised to
be correct. That means a hell of a lot of bombies are still left.

But their use in Iraq certainly gives the lie to any claims of trying to
minimise civilian casualties - everyone knows that there will be a toll of
civilian lives with these weapons, even years after the conflict has ended.

The UN children's fund, Unicef, says more than 1,000 children have been
injured by cluster bomblets and other unexploded munitions since the
official end of the war in Iraq.

While I agree that cluster
Post by jhayati
bombs are problematic, why do you have to use the "Punnadhammit" stlye
and lie, claiming that they are intended to use against people, and
then claiming that they don't get coverage? Every TV network and
paper in America covered the stupid mistake we made in Afghanistan
when the color of the CBU-87 submunitions were the very same bright
yellow color as the food packages dropped by the US. This color was
to make the bomb visible to stay away from it; whereas the food
packages we wanted people to find. This mistake was ridiculous. As
soon as the error was recognized we no longer dropped food packages
near where there were any cluster bombs dropped.
Did anyone get into trouble for that do you think? It doubtless cost lives,
do you think that the response would have been different if it had been
American rather than Afghan children who had been killed? What was the
follow-up to that story?



Ludwig
Post by jhayati
The ethics of cluster bombs, especially when they could be mistaken
for food rations for the civilians, was plastered on every station.
Cluster bombs are a serious problem, but why blatanly lie about the
coverage they got? You're trying to take a real issue and then mix in
all the lies and spin you can muster, which only ruins your post. Try
for once playing it straight the way I do and examine the real issue
and facts without trying to use them to sneak in lies and try to
validate them.
Post by Ludwig
"The US has, however, provided some help by opening up the records of all
its bombing runs over Laos in the seventies. "It has helped us map the most
sensitive areas," says Kathryn Sweet, Uxo Lao's programme office advisor."
How helpful.
Yes, it was. Needless to say, those were very different from the ones
dropped today, which again, are almost entirely used to penetrate the
armor of vehicles and take them out.
- jay
jhayati
2003-10-20 14:49:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ludwig
Post by jhayati
Post by Ludwig
While we're on the subject of landmines, what the hell is it with these
cluster bombs? I don't normally get into the details of what bombs were
used
Post by jhayati
Post by Ludwig
when, but those things are particularly ghoulish; designed not to damage
property or vehicles but just to maim and kill.
No, it's just the opposite. While they are controversial, Pierre, you
might not want to start out with a sensationalist lie, and state the
truth that cluster bombs are used to destroy enemy vehicles and that
they are especially effective for saturation coverage.
The ones used in Laos - which are the ones I was talking about - were
different.
I didn't dispute that. Again, given the amazing difference from the
way war was fought generations ago, the ethical issue has to do with
bombs that are designed for destroying enemy vehicles which don't all
get detonated and can kill innocent civilians.
Post by Ludwig
If you doubt the extent of the ongoing problem, try an internet search on
Laos cluster bombs.
I know all about Laos cluster bombs. We aren't dropping them on Laos
today, Pierre. We've also used nukes in the past. I'm glad you have
Post by Ludwig
But their use in Iraq certainly gives the lie to any claims of trying to
minimise civilian casualties -
Again, Pierre, the ones used in Laos weren't used in Iraq, which were
used to destroy Iraqi vehicles. While it's controversial, certainly
there is no intent to hurt civilians, and we try to clean these up
whenever possible. Of course it is a problem, but if we destroyed
Iraqi armies instantly with them, of course they mimimized casualties,
just as precise surgery can remove a cancerous tumor before it spreads
and more healthy tissue than necessary was damaged.

I understand that you want to hate, Ludwig, and to promote hype to
help you hate more. That's what this is all about. It's rather
interesting to me that the most hatred and dishonesty comes from
so-called "pacifists".
Post by Ludwig
do you think that the response would have been different if it had been
American rather than Afghan children who had been killed?
In Afghanistan, and moreso in Iraq, murder by the government was an
everyday way of life. Most Iraqis, most of them, have family and
friends murdered by the government. This did happen to American
children and civilians, on 9/11, when the murderous way of life in
Afghanistan and Iraq were brought upon our soil. As a result of our
actions, Afghanis and Iraqis are now having a chance to grow up
without such tyranny. Our civilians were targeted and sadistically
murdered, and in response we freed their civilians and tried never to
harm them but only to relentlessly remove their oppressors. Yes,
civilians get hurt, and yes, using CBU-87's is contraversial. They
both eliminate armed oppressors who would take civilians with them and
fight in populated areas if we didn't target them when isolated, and
they cause damage from unexploded submunitions. It's a tough call and
something worth a lot of study for educated people. It's a way to
spread hatred and propaganda for you. The former interests me; the
latter does not.

- jay
Ludwig
2003-10-20 21:22:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by jhayati
Post by Ludwig
Post by jhayati
Post by Ludwig
While we're on the subject of landmines, what the hell is it with these
cluster bombs? I don't normally get into the details of what bombs were
used
Post by jhayati
Post by Ludwig
when, but those things are particularly ghoulish; designed not to damage
property or vehicles but just to maim and kill.
No, it's just the opposite. While they are controversial, Pierre, you
might not want to start out with a sensationalist lie, and state the
truth that cluster bombs are used to destroy enemy vehicles and that
they are especially effective for saturation coverage.
The ones used in Laos - which are the ones I was talking about - were
different.
I didn't dispute that. Again, given the amazing difference from the
way war was fought generations ago, the ethical issue has to do with
bombs that are designed for destroying enemy vehicles which don't all
get detonated and can kill innocent civilians.
They are designed for killing people and destroying vehicles. They also
carry an icendiary device these days.
They were used in built up areas inhabited by civilians, in the knowledge
that civilians would die.

People talk about smart weapons. Cluster bombs are about the dumbest weapons
there are.
Post by jhayati
Post by Ludwig
If you doubt the extent of the ongoing problem, try an internet search on
Laos cluster bombs.
I know all about Laos cluster bombs. We aren't dropping them on Laos
today, Pierre.
But people are still dying in Laos today, Jay.
Post by jhayati
We've also used nukes in the past. I'm glad you have
It really isn't a question of hatred. Its a practical problem: what does the
rest of the world do when the most powerful nation on earth refuses to take
responsibility for its actions? Its a question of accountability. Scarcely a
day goes by without people being killed and/or injured by those bombies in
Laos as you must know. Do you agree that its an outrage that more hasn't
been done by the US government?

What does this tell us about the US and its attitude
Post by jhayati
Post by Ludwig
But their use in Iraq certainly gives the lie to any claims of trying to
minimise civilian casualties -
Again, Pierre, the ones used in Laos weren't used in Iraq, which were
used to destroy Iraqi vehicles.
Don't call me Pierre.

The same problem exists, as you said yourself, a high percentage don't
explode on impact.
Whatever the intention, they kill civilians. Actually they're designed with
3 kill mechanisms as it turns out, an anti-personnel, an anti-vehicle and an
incendiary device.

You accused me of lying when I said that the Laos cluster bombs
were anti-personnel weapons rather than designed to destroy armed vehicles
and property. Maybe I should do the same now?
Post by jhayati
While it's controversial, certainly
there is no intent to hurt civilians, and we try to clean these up
whenever possible. Of course it is a problem, but if we destroyed
Iraqi armies instantly with them, of course they mimimized casualties,
just as precise surgery can remove a cancerous tumor before it spreads
and more healthy tissue than necessary was damaged.
A truly revolting analogy.
You are comparing the Iraqi armed forces to a cancerous tumour? Horrible.
Post by jhayati
I understand that you want to hate, Ludwig, and to promote hype to
help you hate more.
Hate is the wrong word. Moral indignation and outrage is closer to the mark.
There is no need for hype by the way, the facts are perfectly outrageous
with no need for further embellishment.
Post by jhayati
That's what this is all about. It's rather
interesting to me that the most hatred and dishonesty comes from
so-called "pacifists".
Post by Ludwig
do you think that the response would have been different if it had been
American rather than Afghan children who had been killed?
In Afghanistan, and moreso in Iraq, murder by the government was an
everyday way of life. Most Iraqis, most of them, have family and
friends murdered by the government. This did happen to American
children and civilians, on 9/11, when the murderous way of life in
Afghanistan and Iraq were brought upon our soil.
The men who carried out the 9/11 attacks were neither Afghan nor Iraqi,
remember.

The point is that when Americans die its as though its the end of the world.
But when America bombs Iraq, Afghanistan, Kosovo or where ever, its business
as usual. No matter how awful the weapons used.

People are dying, but they're barbarians who live in horrible,
poverty-stricken,
undemocratic, faraway countries, so its not a tragedy on the same scale.

It's "a price worth paying."
Post by jhayati
As a result of our
actions, Afghanis and Iraqis are now having a chance to grow up
without such tyranny.
You seem to swallow the propaganda whole, Jay. The only reason that
Afghanistan was attacked was to remove
terrorist training bases, and to dislodge the regime that had allowed them
to exist.

I hold no hopes of any long term recovery for Afghanistan; it has no real
resources so will doubtless be left
to rot once the publicity dies down.

Iraq will probably - hopefully - stabilise
eventually, with a tiny elite able to profit from oil sales.
Post by jhayati
Our civilians were targeted and sadistically
murdered, and in response we freed their civilians and tried never to
harm them but only to relentlessly remove their oppressors. Yes,
civilians get hurt, and yes, using CBU-87's is contraversial. They
both eliminate armed oppressors who would take civilians with them and
fight in populated areas if we didn't target them when isolated, and
they cause damage from unexploded submunitions. It's a tough call and
something worth a lot of study for educated people.
I think you have too much respect for people in power. Maybe it seems to you
that
there must be a good reason for the use of those bombs or they wouldn't be
used at all?

I suggest that they are used simply because the US knows it can get away
with it.
As well as being terrifyingly destructive they are cheap weapons too, so
there is an economic angle.


It's a way to
Post by jhayati
spread hatred and propaganda for you. The former interests me; the
latter does not.
Well no hate, just outrage. And getting the facts out there is enough.

L
Post by jhayati
- jay
jhayati
2003-10-21 02:12:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ludwig
Post by jhayati
Post by Ludwig
Post by jhayati
No, it's just the opposite. While they are controversial, Pierre, you
might not want to start out with a sensationalist lie, and state the
truth that cluster bombs are used to destroy enemy vehicles and that
they are especially effective for saturation coverage.
The ones used in Laos - which are the ones I was talking about - were
different.
I didn't dispute that. Again, given the amazing difference from the
way war was fought generations ago, the ethical issue has to do with
bombs that are designed for destroying enemy vehicles which don't all
get detonated and can kill innocent civilians.
They are designed for killing people and destroying vehicles.
We used them where there weren't civilians, and used smart bombs in
cities and where civilians might get hurt.
Post by Ludwig
People talk about smart weapons. Cluster bombs are about the dumbest
Misusing words is dumb. Where cluster bombs are appropriate, if at
all, is an interesting issue. However, the hype and spin you add is
about you.
Post by Ludwig
what does the rest of the world do when the most powerful nation
on earth refuses to take responsibility for its actions?
We do take responsibility for our actions. No matter what we do, you
will continue to hate and spin. We can always do better. Your hatred
and anti-American obsession only makes these issues sound nonsensical,
Pierre.
Post by Ludwig
What does this tell us about the US and its attitude
It tells us more about you and your attitude, when you only pick out
things you don't like and ignore everything else. Tommorrow you and
Punnadhammo will have more conspiracy theories and grievences taken
out of context.
Post by Ludwig
You accused me of lying when I said that the Laos
No, my only comments were claims about Iraq. We were not and are not
discussing Laos. Claiming now that you'r talking about stuff that
took place before I was born just doesn't interest me. Look what we
did in the American Civil War. That was much more disgusting.
Post by Ludwig
You seem to swallow the propaganda whole, Jay.
No, rejecting your fanatacism is not swallowing propaganda.
Post by Ludwig
The only reason that Afghanistan was attacked was to remove
terrorist training bases, and to dislodge the regime that had
allowed them to exist.
That's the first honest remark you've made in over 10 posts.
Post by Ludwig
Post by jhayati
It's a way to spread hatred and propaganda for you.
The former interests me; the latter does not.
Well no hate, just outrage.
Which is what deluded hate feels like from the inside.
Post by Ludwig
And getting the facts out there is enough.
Well, that's what I've been doing, in response to your spin and
slander.
Post by Ludwig
I think you have too much respect for people in power.
I have deep respect for liberal democracies and I have respect for the
way we acted so sanely and carefully, and with mimimum lives lost, in
both Afghanistan and Iraq, and how we took out terrorists and Saddam.
I do not like the way the ongoing situation is being handled as much,
but I don't have any amazing answers that will solve everything, and I
will laugh at you when you claim to have them.

If you'd like, I can compare in detail the Dubya administration with
the Kennedy adminstration of 40 years ago, and the Cuban missile
crisis we faced. The comparison is rather interesting, and reveals
patterns about how a superpower acts in terms of crisis. The kind of
rhetoric you and other anti-Americans spin today is very similar to
that of the past, and a comparison is what allows me to understand
deeper patterns and not make silly, knee-jerk conclusions the way you
and Punnadhammo have done repeatedly.

For example, here are some basic factors that were present 42 years
ago in another crisis that shook up the country:

-1- Both Kennedy and Dubya were widely perceived as inexperienced in
foreign affairs. Their foes perceived them both as bunglers.

-2- Both focused intensely on anything that physically threatened the
United States.

-3- The rest of the world regarded both presidents as overreacting and
as cowboys, risking world security on minor provocation.

-4- Both were casual with the truth when it suited the national -- or
their political -- interests.

Without understanding the historical context of how these geopolitical
events play themselves out, and not understanding the patterns, you
wrongly insult me, when I am seeing what you can't see and wrongly
misinterpret instead. You're welcome to keep the blinders on and
insult me more, if you'd like.

- jay
Ludwig
2003-10-21 14:33:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by jhayati
Post by Ludwig
They are designed for killing people and destroying vehicles.
We used them where there weren't civilians, and used smart bombs in
cities and where civilians might get hurt.
That's actually untrue, Jay. I won't call you a liar, as you have called me
a liar, but you obviously aren't in full possession of the facts.

Allied forces did indeed use cluster bombs in built up areas where there
were
civilians. This article is from The Independent - your favourite - but the
information is
correct and on the public record as you can check for yourself:

Allied Use of Cluster Bombs Illegal, Minister Admits
By Paul Waugh
Independent
May 29, 2003

The Government admitted during the war on Iraq that the use of cluster
bombs against civilian targets would "not be legal", a letter obtained by
The Independent has revealed. Anti-landmine charities claimed last night
that the letter by Adam Ingram, the Armed Forces minister, proved that the
Ministry of Defence had broken international law by using the munitions in
towns and cities.

Mr Ingram admitted for the first time yesterday that cluster bombs were
dropped on "built-up areas" in Iraq in an attempt to protect British
servicemen. After initially denying the charge in an interview with the BBC,
the minister said the unguided weapons, which release hundreds of bomblets,
were used "in specific circumstances where there is a threat to our troops".

But on 25 March, five days after the conflict began, Mr Ingram responded
on behalf of Tony Blair to the Diana, Princess of Wales Memorial Fund to set
out the Government's position on the weapons. Mr. Ingram stressed that the
British armed forces strove to act in accordance with the Geneva
Conventions. "It is clear that when we apply these principles there will be
occasions when the use of cluster bombs against certain targets would not be
legal," he wrote. "There will be occasions when the use of other munitions
would be legal but the use of cluster bombs would not."

Richard Lloyd, director of the charity Landmine Action, said the letter,
with yesterday's admission, proved the Geneva Conventions were knowingly
breached. "Mr Ingram has admitted the Government acted outside the law," he
said.
Post by jhayati
Post by Ludwig
People talk about smart weapons. Cluster bombs are about the dumbest
Misusing words is dumb. Where cluster bombs are appropriate, if at
all, is an interesting issue. However, the hype and spin you add is
about you.
Post by Ludwig
what does the rest of the world do when the most powerful nation
on earth refuses to take responsibility for its actions?
We do take responsibility for our actions.
Then why is so much unexploded ordnance left in Laos? That doesn't look like
taking responsibility to me.

It isn't only the US, it's any powerful country that can get away with it.
If they can avoid responsibility, they will.

Who wants to have to pay reparations to hundreds of thousands of families,
and pay millions of dollars for UXO programmes?
Post by jhayati
No matter what we do, you
will continue to hate and spin. We can always do better. Your hatred
and anti-American obsession only makes these issues sound nonsensical,
Pierre.
Post by Ludwig
What does this tell us about the US and its attitude
It tells us more about you and your attitude, when you only pick out
things you don't like and ignore everything else. Tommorrow you and
Punnadhammo will have more conspiracy theories and grievences taken
out of context.
Post by Ludwig
You accused me of lying when I said that the Laos
No, my only comments were claims about Iraq. We were not and are not
discussing Laos.
Acually we have been discussing both.
Post by jhayati
Claiming now that you'r talking about stuff that
took place before I was born just doesn't interest me.
Look what we
did in the American Civil War. That was much more disgusting.
I think that the bombing of civilians in a country that you're not even at
war with is as bad as it gets.
Post by jhayati
Post by Ludwig
You seem to swallow the propaganda whole, Jay.
No, rejecting your fanatacism is not swallowing propaganda.
Post by Ludwig
The only reason that Afghanistan was attacked was to remove
terrorist training bases, and to dislodge the regime that had
allowed them to exist.
That's the first honest remark you've made in over 10 posts.
I haven't made a dishonest remark, to my knowledge. You've called me a liar
a lot, though.

The point is that all the talk of "bringing democracy" is
propaganda to justify removing terrorist bases.

You don't show any sign of even questioning that stuff, and just repeat it.
Post by jhayati
Post by Ludwig
Post by jhayati
It's a way to spread hatred and propaganda for you.
The former interests me; the latter does not.
Well no hate, just outrage.
Which is what deluded hate feels like from the inside.
Post by Ludwig
And getting the facts out there is enough.
Well, that's what I've been doing, in response to your spin and
slander.
Post by Ludwig
I think you have too much respect for people in power.
I have deep respect for liberal democracies and I have respect for the
way we acted so sanely and carefully, and with mimimum lives lost, in
both Afghanistan and Iraq, and how we took out terrorists and Saddam.
I do not like the way the ongoing situation is being handled as much,
but I don't have any amazing answers that will solve everything,
No. Nor does anyone else.

The problem is - of course - that resentment is building like crazy. Across
the middle east. This will certainly please militant fundamentalists.

Ludwig
Ulrich Topf
2003-10-21 14:48:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ludwig
Post by jhayati
We do take responsibility for our actions.
Then why is so much unexploded ordnance left in Laos? That doesn't look like
taking responsibility to me.
It isn't only the US, it's any powerful country that can get away with it.
If they can avoid responsibility, they will.
Who wants to have to pay reparations to hundreds of thousands of families,
and pay millions of dollars for UXO programmes?
Another example of "war is hell" and of not taking responsibility for ones
actions (until now hopefully) can be found at the following link.

http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20031021/SRTIGERFORCE/110190169
Lee Dillion
2003-10-21 15:31:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ulrich Topf
Another example of "war is hell" and of not taking responsibility for ones
actions (until now hopefully) can be found at the following link.
http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20031021/SRTIGERFORCE/110190169
It appears that charges against anyone are unlikely. Some have
suggested that the telling of the story is enough. I don't know.

---

"In June, an elderly man in black robes and believed to be a Buddhist
monk was shot to death after he complained to soldiers about the
treatment of villagers. A grenade was placed on his body to disguise him
as an enemy soldier, platoon members told investigators.

That same month, Ybarra shot and killed a 15-year-old boy near the
village of Duc Pho, reports state. He later told soldiers he shot the
youth because he wanted the teenager's tennis shoes.

The shoes didn't fit, but Ybarra ended up carrying out what became a
ritual among platoon members: He cut off the teenager's ears and placed
them in a ration bag, Specialist Carpenter told investigators.

During the Army's investigation of Tiger Force, 27 soldiers said the
severing of ears from dead Vietnamese became an accepted practice. One
reason: to scare the Vietnamese.

Platoon members strung the ears on shoe laces to wear around their
necks, reports state.

Former platoon medic Larry Cottingham told investigators: "There was a
period when just about everyone had a necklace of ears."

Records show soldiers began another gruesome practice: Kicking out the
teeth of dead civilians for their gold fillings."

"The only thing I regret is that I didn't kill more. If I had known that
it was going to end as quick as it did, the way it did, I would have
killed a lot more." - William Doyle
--
Lee Dillion
Ludwig
2003-10-21 21:02:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lee Dillion
Post by Ulrich Topf
Another example of "war is hell" and of not taking responsibility for ones
actions (until now hopefully) can be found at the following link.
http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20031021/SRTIGERFORCE/110190169
Post by Lee Dillion
It appears that charges against anyone are unlikely. Some have
suggested that the telling of the story is enough. I don't know.
Telling the story is certainly better than nothing.

It's that old idea about measuring your own actions by the same standards
that you measure others.

Ludwig
Post by Lee Dillion
---
"In June, an elderly man in black robes and believed to be a Buddhist
monk was shot to death after he complained to soldiers about the
treatment of villagers. A grenade was placed on his body to disguise him
as an enemy soldier, platoon members told investigators.
That same month, Ybarra shot and killed a 15-year-old boy near the
village of Duc Pho, reports state. He later told soldiers he shot the
youth because he wanted the teenager's tennis shoes.
The shoes didn't fit, but Ybarra ended up carrying out what became a
ritual among platoon members: He cut off the teenager's ears and placed
them in a ration bag, Specialist Carpenter told investigators.
During the Army's investigation of Tiger Force, 27 soldiers said the
severing of ears from dead Vietnamese became an accepted practice. One
reason: to scare the Vietnamese.
Platoon members strung the ears on shoe laces to wear around their
necks, reports state.
Former platoon medic Larry Cottingham told investigators: "There was a
period when just about everyone had a necklace of ears."
Records show soldiers began another gruesome practice: Kicking out the
teeth of dead civilians for their gold fillings."
"The only thing I regret is that I didn't kill more. If I had known that
it was going to end as quick as it did, the way it did, I would have
killed a lot more." - William Doyle
--
Lee Dillion
Ulrich Topf
2003-10-22 06:08:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lee Dillion
Post by Ulrich Topf
Another example of "war is hell" and of not taking responsibility for ones
actions (until now hopefully) can be found at the following link.
http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20031021/SRTIGERFORCE/110190169
Post by Lee Dillion
It appears that charges against anyone are unlikely. Some have
suggested that the telling of the story is enough. I don't know.
It is obvious to me that this sort of behaviour is not because those
perpetrating them were evil. It is because of creating situations that
shouldn't be created. And the non-prosecution of these war
crimes will help sustaining situations in which the same is possible.

Anyway in this case the line has been crossed because of clear signs of
disrespect and by not treating them as humans, which makes it into a war
crime, but in other cases when civilians are killed in cold blood as in the
embedded reporter Michel Guerrin's report, it is considered to be part of
the job.

http://www.counterpunch.org/guerrin04162003.html
Post by Lee Dillion
---
"In June, an elderly man in black robes and believed to be a Buddhist
monk was shot to death after he complained to soldiers about the
treatment of villagers. A grenade was placed on his body to disguise him
as an enemy soldier, platoon members told investigators.
That same month, Ybarra shot and killed a 15-year-old boy near the
village of Duc Pho, reports state. He later told soldiers he shot the
youth because he wanted the teenager's tennis shoes.
The shoes didn't fit, but Ybarra ended up carrying out what became a
ritual among platoon members: He cut off the teenager's ears and placed
them in a ration bag, Specialist Carpenter told investigators.
During the Army's investigation of Tiger Force, 27 soldiers said the
severing of ears from dead Vietnamese became an accepted practice. One
reason: to scare the Vietnamese.
Platoon members strung the ears on shoe laces to wear around their
necks, reports state.
Former platoon medic Larry Cottingham told investigators: "There was a
period when just about everyone had a necklace of ears."
Records show soldiers began another gruesome practice: Kicking out the
teeth of dead civilians for their gold fillings."
"The only thing I regret is that I didn't kill more. If I had known that
it was going to end as quick as it did, the way it did, I would have
killed a lot more." - William Doyle
--
Lee Dillion
Lee Dillion
2003-10-22 12:50:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ulrich Topf
Post by Lee Dillion
Post by Ulrich Topf
Another example of "war is hell" and of not taking responsibility for
ones
Post by Lee Dillion
Post by Ulrich Topf
actions (until now hopefully) can be found at the following link.
http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20031021/SRTIGERFORCE/110190169
Post by Lee Dillion
It appears that charges against anyone are unlikely. Some have
suggested that the telling of the story is enough. I don't know.
It is obvious to me that this sort of behaviour is not because those
perpetrating them were evil. It is because of creating situations that
shouldn't be created. And the non-prosecution of these war
crimes will help sustaining situations in which the same is possible.
Anyway in this case the line has been crossed because of clear signs of
disrespect and by not treating them as humans, which makes it into a war
crime, but in other cases when civilians are killed in cold blood as in the
embedded reporter Michel Guerrin's report, it is considered to be part of
the job.
http://www.counterpunch.org/guerrin04162003.html
The draft, for all practical purposes, had ended right before my 18th
birthday, but like most young americans of that time, I had grown up
with TV images of the Vietnam War. Even today, it is hard for me to
imagine what I would have done in the situations described in the Toledo
Blade articles on the Tiger Force atrocities. Would I have stood up to
a Hawkins? Would I have fired on civilians, fearful for my own life?

I don't know even now how I would respond to these questions, let alone
how my 18-year old self would have reacted. But I don't think it is any
surprise that "collateral" damage occurs when young men, trained to
kill, kill innocents in the heat and confusion of battle. Doesn't make
it right, but it does explain why the military is often not interested
in prosecuting behavior that is one of the predictable, even if not
sanctioned, parts of the job.

What would be interesting is to understand why some did succumb to the
violence, even embraced it, while others tried to stop it.
--
Lee Dillion
Ulrich Topf
2003-10-22 14:09:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lee Dillion
Post by Ulrich Topf
Post by Lee Dillion
Post by Ulrich Topf
Another example of "war is hell" and of not taking responsibility for
ones
Post by Lee Dillion
Post by Ulrich Topf
actions (until now hopefully) can be found at the following link.
http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20031021/SRTIGERFORCE/110190169
Post by Lee Dillion
Post by Ulrich Topf
Post by Lee Dillion
It appears that charges against anyone are unlikely. Some have
suggested that the telling of the story is enough. I don't know.
It is obvious to me that this sort of behaviour is not because those
perpetrating them were evil. It is because of creating situations that
shouldn't be created. And the non-prosecution of these war
crimes will help sustaining situations in which the same is possible.
Anyway in this case the line has been crossed because of clear signs of
disrespect and by not treating them as humans, which makes it into a war
crime, but in other cases when civilians are killed in cold blood as in the
embedded reporter Michel Guerrin's report, it is considered to be part of
the job.
http://www.counterpunch.org/guerrin04162003.html
The draft, for all practical purposes, had ended right before my 18th
birthday, but like most young americans of that time, I had grown up
with TV images of the Vietnam War. Even today, it is hard for me to
imagine what I would have done in the situations described in the Toledo
Blade articles on the Tiger Force atrocities. Would I have stood up to
a Hawkins? Would I have fired on civilians, fearful for my own life?
Impossible to say if you are not yourself in that situation or part of it.
Post by Lee Dillion
I don't know even now how I would respond to these questions, let alone
how my 18-year old self would have reacted. But I don't think it is any
surprise that "collateral" damage occurs when young men, trained to
kill, kill innocents in the heat and confusion of battle. Doesn't make
it right, but it does explain why the military is often not interested
in prosecuting behavior that is one of the predictable, even if not
sanctioned, parts of the job.
The problem with this attitude is that if you don't condemn it in your own
side, you can't condemn it in the other side, or you make the whole thing
into a farce, which is amongst many other things also lacking respect to the
victims. Even while I think that military action is sometimes necessary,
another way of warfare and a more modern attitude towards war and everything
it implies is vital. Transparency not secrecy is even more necessary here
than in other matters. If whatever is done is acceptable and right then at
least let's look it in the face. There is much more to say, but I will leave
it at this.
Post by Lee Dillion
What would be interesting is to understand why some did succumb to the
violence, even embraced it, while others tried to stop it.
It probably has a lot to do with people's make-up and past. In something
like war those personal qualities shouldn't be take into account in setting
up the modus operandi. It should be made impossible for this sort of
behaviour to happen, especially over a lapse of time as important as in the
case of the Tiger Force..
Lee Dillion
2003-10-22 14:45:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ulrich Topf
Post by Lee Dillion
Post by Ulrich Topf
Post by Lee Dillion
Post by Ulrich Topf
Another example of "war is hell" and of not taking
responsibility for
ones
Post by Lee Dillion
Post by Ulrich Topf
actions (until now hopefully) can be found at the following link.
http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20031021/SRTIGERFORCE/110190169
Post by Lee Dillion
Post by Ulrich Topf
Post by Lee Dillion
It appears that charges against anyone are unlikely. Some have
suggested that the telling of the story is enough. I don't know.
It is obvious to me that this sort of behaviour is not because
those perpetrating them were evil. It is because of creating
situations that shouldn't be created. And the non-prosecution of
these war crimes will help sustaining situations in which the
same is possible.
Anyway in this case the line has been crossed because of clear
signs of disrespect and by not treating them as humans, which
makes it into a war crime, but in other cases when civilians are
killed in cold blood as in
the
Post by Lee Dillion
Post by Ulrich Topf
embedded reporter Michel Guerrin's report, it is considered to be
part
of
Post by Lee Dillion
Post by Ulrich Topf
the job.
http://www.counterpunch.org/guerrin04162003.html
The draft, for all practical purposes, had ended right before my
18th birthday, but like most young americans of that time, I had
grown up with TV images of the Vietnam War. Even today, it is hard
for me to imagine what I would have done in the situations
described in the Toledo Blade articles on the Tiger Force
atrocities. Would I have stood up to a Hawkins? Would I have
fired on civilians, fearful for my own life?
Impossible to say if you are not yourself in that situation or part of it.
I agree. That is why asking these questions, however interesting at
some level, has very little predictive value in my opinion.
Post by Ulrich Topf
Post by Lee Dillion
I don't know even now how I would respond to these questions, let
alone how my 18-year old self would have reacted. But I don't
think it is any surprise that "collateral" damage occurs when young
men, trained to kill, kill innocents in the heat and confusion of
battle. Doesn't make it right, but it does explain why the
military is often not interested in prosecuting behavior that is
one of the predictable, even if not sanctioned, parts of the job.
The problem with this attitude is that if you don't condemn it in
your own side, you can't condemn it in the other side, or you make
the whole thing into a farce, which is amongst many other things also
lacking respect to the victims.
Sure, but the reason I avoid wholesale condemnation of the slaughter and
cover-up isn't because I don't think the event was horrific for all
involved (especially those killed), but because such condemnation seems
to play into the hands of those who wish to make the argument about
"just wars" and other world changing attitudes when I have other, more
localized concerns.

As I see it, we can take our Buddhist training/ideas and look at
violence in the world or at the violence in our hearts. I prefer
dealing with the violence in our hearts, and once that is understood,
moving outward if that is my choice. I think the approach of dealing
first with the violence in the world, however noble sounding or
pragmatic sounding that is, is questionable if the discussion is among
people who cannot recognize how cravings, conceits, and views inform
their thinking.

That isn't to say that the world won't intrude on our peaceful reverie
and force us to choose and force us to act at times, but we do have
choices as to whether we sit around arguing endlessly about world events
that we have no practical control over or whether we choose some other
course of action to back up our stated intentions.
Post by Ulrich Topf
Even while I think that military action is sometimes necessary,
another way of warfare and a more modern attitude towards war and
everything it implies is vital. Transparency not secrecy is even more
necessary here than in other matters. If whatever is done is
acceptable and right then at least let's look it in the face. There
is much more to say, but I will leave it at this.
Good luck. When you figure out how to make just wars more just, let me
know.
Post by Ulrich Topf
Post by Lee Dillion
What would be interesting is to understand why some did succumb to
the violence, even embraced it, while others tried to stop it.
It probably has a lot to do with people's make-up and past. In
something like war those personal qualities shouldn't be take into
account in setting up the modus operandi. It should be made
impossible for this sort of behaviour to happen, especially over a
lapse of time as important as in the case of the Tiger Force.
Yes, if only we could bend the world to our morality, all would be right
and good. Ah, for the powers of a demiurge.
--
Lee Dillion
Ulrich Topf
2003-10-23 07:11:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lee Dillion
Post by Ulrich Topf
Post by Lee Dillion
I don't know even now how I would respond to these questions, let
alone how my 18-year old self would have reacted. But I don't
think it is any surprise that "collateral" damage occurs when young
men, trained to kill, kill innocents in the heat and confusion of
battle. Doesn't make it right, but it does explain why the
military is often not interested in prosecuting behavior that is
one of the predictable, even if not sanctioned, parts of the job.
The problem with this attitude is that if you don't condemn it in
your own side, you can't condemn it in the other side, or you make
the whole thing into a farce, which is amongst many other things also
lacking respect to the victims.
Sure, but the reason I avoid wholesale condemnation of the slaughter and
cover-up isn't because I don't think the event was horrific for all
involved (especially those killed), but because such condemnation seems
to play into the hands of those who wish to make the argument about
"just wars" and other world changing attitudes when I have other, more
localized concerns.
Yes, although they don't even need you tp play into their hands and
therefore, as you suggest, it's better to deal with more local concerns.
Post by Lee Dillion
As I see it, we can take our Buddhist training/ideas and look at
violence in the world or at the violence in our hearts. I prefer
dealing with the violence in our hearts, and once that is understood,
moving outward if that is my choice.
The problem with this is that their are places that lack basic peace and
stability for people to be able to concentrate at the violence in their
hearts if they would be so inclined. I don't think that it is surrounded by
violence that people will have the idea to look at the violence in their
hearts. I guess this is a bit of an exaggeratedly negative portraying and
that there always are moments where such introspection is possible, but I
simply don't know not having been in situations like that. Even then it is
always good that oases exist.
Post by Lee Dillion
I think the approach of dealing
first with the violence in the world, however noble sounding or
pragmatic sounding that is, is questionable if the discussion is among
people who cannot recognize how cravings, conceits, and views inform
their thinking.
Sure. But perhaps then we want to go too far to fast. Perhaps we have to go
for intermediate stages first. The way I have been taught samatha and
vipassana is that samtha comes fisrt and when the mind is calm, then
insights will come (almost) automatically. And in order to get to samatha
some external conditions are necessary, one of them is being in a quiet
place. It's all very schematic and no no doubt those insights can also arise
spontaneously, but we shouldn't underestimate the importance of the
situation we are in.
Post by Lee Dillion
That isn't to say that the world won't intrude on our peaceful reverie
and force us to choose and force us to act at times, but we do have
choices as to whether we sit around arguing endlessly about world events
that we have no practical control over or whether we choose some other
course of action to back up our stated intentions.
I agree that the discussions on this list won't change anything. Every side
has made its position clear and it won't go any further than that.
Post by Lee Dillion
Post by Ulrich Topf
Even while I think that military action is sometimes necessary,
another way of warfare and a more modern attitude towards war and
everything it implies is vital. Transparency not secrecy is even more
necessary here than in other matters. If whatever is done is
acceptable and right then at least let's look it in the face. There
is much more to say, but I will leave it at this.
Good luck. When you figure out how to make just wars more just, let me
know.
I wasn't thinking in terms of "just" wars, but of military intervention in
which the military would act more like policemen (e.g. like the UNO
intervention forces). Why can't problems be treated in similar ways on a
national and international level as far as concerns for their citizens are
concerned? Police wouldn't bomb whole neighboorhoods with clusterbombs in LA
if terrorist training camps were to be discovered there.
Post by Lee Dillion
Post by Ulrich Topf
Post by Lee Dillion
What would be interesting is to understand why some did succumb to
the violence, even embraced it, while others tried to stop it.
It probably has a lot to do with people's make-up and past. In
something like war those personal qualities shouldn't be take into
account in setting up the modus operandi. It should be made
impossible for this sort of behaviour to happen, especially over a
lapse of time as important as in the case of the Tiger Force.
Yes, if only we could bend the world to our morality, all would be right
and good. Ah, for the powers of a demiurge.
Even demiurges have to start small... I will start with spoons and will
gradually work my way up til I can bend the world, but I need the audience
to think positively.
Jeanette, my hat please...
Lee Dillion
2003-10-23 12:29:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ulrich Topf
Post by Lee Dillion
As I see it, we can take our Buddhist training/ideas and look at
violence in the world or at the violence in our hearts. I prefer
dealing with the violence in our hearts, and once that is understood,
moving outward if that is my choice.
The problem with this is that their are places that lack basic peace and
stability for people to be able to concentrate at the violence in their
hearts if they would be so inclined. I don't think that it is surrounded by
violence that people will have the idea to look at the violence in their
hearts. I guess this is a bit of an exaggeratedly negative portraying and
that there always are moments where such introspection is possible, but I
simply don't know not having been in situations like that. Even then it is
always good that oases exist.
Yes, I agree with your concerns for external peace as a support for the
internal calm that leads to insight. My only point is that endless
arguing about external peace without doing anything constructive within
your own reach seems rather useless. On this, I think we agree.
Post by Ulrich Topf
Post by Lee Dillion
Yes, if only we could bend the world to our morality, all would be right
and good. Ah, for the powers of a demiurge.
Even demiurges have to start small... I will start with spoons and will
gradually work my way up til I can bend the world, but I need the audience
to think positively.
Jeanette, my hat please...
:) OK. I'm thinking positively and hoping for the rabbit.
--
Lee Dillion
Ulrich Topf
2003-10-23 13:25:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lee Dillion
Yes, I agree with your concerns for external peace as a support for the
internal calm that leads to insight. My only point is that endless
arguing about external peace without doing anything constructive within
your own reach seems rather useless. On this, I think we agree.
It is indeed rather useless. But I have to admit that sensitive political
issues tend to catch me off guard more easily than Buddhist issues. In that
they could be constructive if I were ready to deal with that sensitivity.
But I see that even dyed-in-the-wool bikkhus can have that problem. :-)
Lee Dillion
2003-10-23 13:28:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ulrich Topf
Post by Lee Dillion
Yes, I agree with your concerns for external peace as a support for the
internal calm that leads to insight. My only point is that endless
arguing about external peace without doing anything constructive within
your own reach seems rather useless. On this, I think we agree.
It is indeed rather useless. But I have to admit that sensitive political
issues tend to catch me off guard more easily than Buddhist issues. In that
they could be constructive if I were ready to deal with that sensitivity.
But I see that even dyed-in-the-wool bikkhus can have that problem. :-)
I had hoped our good Bhikkhu would drop this nonsense and return to the
valuable activities that I know he does perform, even if they are rather
quiet. But you know what they say - wish in one hand and shit in the
other and see what you get more of. :)
--
Lee Dillion
Ulrich Topf
2003-10-23 13:33:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lee Dillion
But you know what they say - wish in one hand and shit in the
other and see what you get more of. :)
:-)
I didn't know that wonderful expression. I don't think I will ever forget it
now I know it. Thanks.
Ludwig
2003-10-23 13:40:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ulrich Topf
I agree that the discussions on this list won't change anything. Every side
has made its position clear and it won't go any further than that.
Post by Lee Dillion
Post by Ulrich Topf
Even while I think that military action is sometimes necessary,
another way of warfare and a more modern attitude towards war and
everything it implies is vital. Transparency not secrecy is even more
necessary here than in other matters. If whatever is done is
acceptable and right then at least let's look it in the face. There
is much more to say, but I will leave it at this.
Good luck. When you figure out how to make just wars more just, let me
know.
I wasn't thinking in terms of "just" wars, but of military intervention in
which the military would act more like policemen (e.g. like the UNO
intervention forces). Why can't problems be treated in similar ways on a
national and international level as far as concerns for their citizens are
concerned? Police wouldn't bomb whole neighboorhoods with clusterbombs in LA
if terrorist training camps were to be discovered there.
That's true. But if you point out glaring facts like that you risk being
labelled an extremist, at least in some quarters.

If you reverse the thing completely, and imagine that a foreign power had
discovered terrorist bases in LA and decided to remove them by bombing it
sounds even more extreme.

Ludwig
Post by Ulrich Topf
Post by Lee Dillion
Post by Ulrich Topf
Post by Lee Dillion
What would be interesting is to understand why some did succumb to
the violence, even embraced it, while others tried to stop it.
It probably has a lot to do with people's make-up and past. In
something like war those personal qualities shouldn't be take into
account in setting up the modus operandi. It should be made
impossible for this sort of behaviour to happen, especially over a
lapse of time as important as in the case of the Tiger Force.
Yes, if only we could bend the world to our morality, all would be right
and good. Ah, for the powers of a demiurge.
Even demiurges have to start small... I will start with spoons and will
gradually work my way up til I can bend the world, but I need the audience
to think positively.
Jeanette, my hat please...
jhayati
2003-10-21 21:44:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ludwig
Post by jhayati
Post by Ludwig
They are designed for killing people and destroying vehicles.
We used them where there weren't civilians, and used smart bombs in
cities and where civilians might get hurt.
That's actually untrue, Jay.
No, it's not.
Post by Ludwig
I won't call you a liar, as you have called me
a liar, but you obviously aren't in full possession of the facts.
Yes, I am in possession of the facts. You may find exceptions and
mistakes, and spin, but nonetheless, in Iraq we tried not to use
cluster bombs where we thought civilians would get hurt.
Post by Ludwig
Allied forces did indeed use cluster bombs in built up areas where there
were civilians.
Not when they could avoid it. What you're talking about is the
specific case of Basra, where there was danger of a seige and of a
really bloody conflict where lots of British troops would get killed.
Post by Ludwig
This article is from The Independent - your favourite -
Ok, then let's start by deleting the tabloid crap.

<snip>

Now let's even take the anit-American anti-war left-biased BBC. Even
the BBC's coverage (below) explains this well from all sides of the
issue. There was nothing haphazard and the quote in the BBC story is
that "Now, clearly there were circumstances where there were
concentrations of military equipment and Iraqi troops in and around
built-up areas. Now, how were we to tackle those people. Were we to
have close combat with them with more casualties on our side?"

Even in this case, which was an exceptional one, they did their best
to avoid civilian casualties, and Saddam's troops would have tried to
hold the city hostage indefinitely. I'm not even saying that this was
right, but that it was a special case, and again my claim is that we
don't, without some really good reason as in this case, use cluster
bombs on civilian targets. You can find exceptions and mistakes, but
it is not our (U.S. and U.K) policy to ever arbitarily bomb civilians.
Post by Ludwig
Post by jhayati
We do take responsibility for our actions.
Then why is so much unexploded ordnance left in Laos?
Because a lot of it was dropped, and is hard to find. Many American
efforts have been made. But this is moot. We aren't discussing Laos,
or WWII. Are you now so out of ammunitions that you're again
resorting to things that happened before I was born? Next you're
going to talk about slavery in the American South. I've never claimed
Post by Ludwig
Post by jhayati
It tells us more about you and your attitude, when you only pick out
things you don't like and ignore everything else. Tommorrow you and
Punnadhammo will have more conspiracy theories and grievences taken
out of context.
Post by Ludwig
You accused me of lying when I said that the Laos
No, my only comments were claims about Iraq. We were not and are not
discussing Laos.
Acually we have been discussing both.
No. We have not. We are talking about Iraq. You think I'm
justifying all the things we did in the Vietnam War? Don't be absurd.
We're not talking about Laos. Stick to the use of cluster bombs in
the vicinity of Basra to stop a bloody fight where the British may
have had huge numbers of casualties, which actually is an interesting
case.
Post by Ludwig
Post by jhayati
Claiming now that you'r talking about stuff that
took place before I was born just doesn't interest me.
Look what we
did in the American Civil War. That was much more disgusting.
I think that the bombing of civilians in a country that you're not
even at war with is as bad as it gets.
That statement is still dishonest, as Laos and Cambodia were used by
the Vietnamese and were so involved in the war and were not random
targets, but we're not talking about that, any more than we are
talking about the French and Indian War, which was even worse.
Post by Ludwig
Post by jhayati
Post by Ludwig
The only reason that Afghanistan was attacked was to remove
terrorist training bases, and to dislodge the regime that had
allowed them to exist.
That's the first honest remark you've made in over 10 posts.
I haven't made a dishonest remark, to my knowledge.
Sure you have, in the sense that you are willingly ignorant, and try
to present the most biased and hateful spin and try to take exceptions
and claim they are the rule of thumb. That's dishonest. Here, you
make a false claim about the Iraq war, and then say "oh I meant in
some war years ago before you were born." That's disingenuous.
Post by Ludwig
The point is that all the talk of "bringing democracy" is
propaganda to justify removing terrorist bases.
You don't show any sign of even questioning that stuff,
That is a function of your extremism. I question everything, and read
multiple versions and sources of all this stuff. In your extremism,
any liberal socialist like myself will come across as a fascist
war-monger, as that's just a function of your view. Why not ask
yourself why you don't question, instead of insulting someone who is
actually informed and doesn't have a biblical relationship to
tabloids? Really, Pierre, not only don't you question your extreme
Post by Ludwig
The problem is - of course - that resentment is building like crazy.
Again, a blatantly false claim.

This is a lie that the anti-American crowd repeats, but it's not
backed up by actual evends and facts, and there is every reason to
believe that the hatred in the Middle East is already maxed-out and
has been for a long time. Actually, relations with Middle-Eastern
countries are improving dramatically because of the Iraq campaign.
The myth that allowing terrorists and dictators to prosper and get
stronger will lower resentment is being proved wrong, as well as the
myth that getting rid of their infrastructure will build resentment.
Neither of these myths have empirical support; quite the opposite.
Post by Ludwig
This will certainly please militant fundamentalists.
Ludwig
But they are displeased at how well we are doing in Iraq. And how
Iran today, under U.S. pressure, agreed to put their nulear program on
hold and allow random inspections, which was a breakthrough. This is
what I mean by you lying. Why not say "I think it was wrong, even
though it has lowered the amount of resentfulness in terms of numbers
of terrorists being trained, in terms of increasing numbers of Iraqis
that want our support and are glad to be rid of their dictator, and in
the way Middle Eastern governments are cooperating with us."

- j




BBC News

Cluster bombs 'used in Iraq cities'

Cluster bombs are again provoking controversy

Coalition forces did use cluster bombs in built-up areas during the
Iraq war, but a concerted clean-up operation is under way, the
government has said.
Defence Minister Adam Ingram was responding to increasing concern over
the use of the bombs.

Seventy-five Labour MPs are calling for cluster bombs, which can leave
unexploded "bomblets", to be banned because of the threat they pose to
civilians.

Mr Ingram insisted they had been used in a targeted way against
specific military targets.

That did include built-up areas where coalition troops had come under
threat, Mr Ingram told BBC Radio 4's Today programme.

Basra targets?

Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon on 3 April told MPs that cluster bombs
were used only when it was "absolutely justified" because it would
"make the battlefield safer for our armed forces".

With about a week of the war to go, Mr Hoon said it had "so far" not
been necessary to use cluster bombs in Basra.

He said cluster bombs would injure civilians on occasions but such
incidents would be kept to a minimum.

On Thursday, Mr Ingram appeared to suggest the weapons had been used
in the southern Iraqi city.

He said: "We have a massive programme of education in Basra and those
other areas where we have used such weapons."

The armed forces minister argued the use of cluster bombs had helped
to prevent more coalition casualties.

Troop threat

He insisted the government had been consistent in its statements about
when and where the weapons would be used.

"These are not illegal weapons. They are used in specific
circumstances where there is a threat to our troops," he said.

"Now, clearly there were circumstances where there were concentrations
of military equipment and Iraqi troops in and around built-up areas.

"Now, how were we to tackle those people. Were we to have close combat
with them with more casualties on our side?"

Clean-up efforts

Mr Ingram said it took time to identify unexploded bombs but there
were 200 people working on the task.

Maps showing where the bombs were dropped had been issued, he said.

And 100,000 unexploded pieces of ordnance - not necessarily cluster
bombs - had been destroyed in the region.

On 6 February, government spokeswoman Baroness Crawley told the House
of Lords that the UK would "not countenance" the use of cluster bombs.

Mr Ingram stressed that Baroness Crawley was not a defence minister
and argued it was Mr Hoon's statements which were important.

Labour MP Austin Mitchell is one of those backbenchers pressing for
more action in clearing unexploded bombs.

He told Today: "Now that the search for weapons of mass destruction
produced by Iraq is on and failing, nothing much is being done about
the weapons of mass destruction used by our side, which are basically
cluster bombs.

"Unless we clean up our own mess then our position is dishonest and
contemptible. We should not use these weapons."

Civilian casualties

Each cluster bomb contains 147 bomblets - useful when tackling
armaments spread over a reasonably large area.

With cluster bombs dropped from the air, 16% of those do not explode
immediately, compared to a 2% failure rate for bombs launched from the
ground.

Jo Nicholls, from charity Oxfam, said she had seen civilians hurt by
cluster bombs in her visits of hospitals in Baghdad.

One man had told her how a bomb had exploded right in front of him as
he stepped out of his house, "splitting him open" from neck to crotch,
although he survived the blast.
Ludwig
2003-10-22 11:02:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by jhayati
Post by Ludwig
Post by jhayati
Post by Ludwig
They are designed for killing people and destroying vehicles.
We used them where there weren't civilians, and used smart bombs in
cities and where civilians might get hurt.
That's actually untrue, Jay.
No, it's not.
Post by Ludwig
I won't call you a liar, as you have called me
a liar, but you obviously aren't in full possession of the facts.
Yes, I am in possession of the facts. You may find exceptions and
mistakes, and spin, but nonetheless, in Iraq we tried not to use
cluster bombs where we thought civilians would get hurt.
Well thats a change of positon, Jay.

You said that cluster bombs were used "where there weren't civilians" and
that allied forces relied on"smart bombs in
cities and where civilians might get hurt." Now you're changing that to
"we tried not to use cluster bombs where we thought civilians would get
hurt."

Why not just admit you were wrong? Cluster bombs were used in built up areas
after all.
Post by jhayati
Post by Ludwig
Allied forces did indeed use cluster bombs in built up areas where there
were civilians.
Not when they could avoid it. What you're talking about is the
specific case of Basra, where there was danger of a seige and of a
really bloody conflict where lots of British troops would get killed.
Post by Ludwig
This article is from The Independent - your favourite -
Ok, then let's start by deleting the tabloid crap.
It said basically the same thing as the BBC piece you posted.

By the way, you recently claimed that the BBC was in the government's
pocket, so one would expect it to be doing its level best to
be pro-war. Now you're claiming it's anti-war ...

You posted a piece concerning Defence Minister Adrian Ingram. The government
here did its best to evade questions about cluster bombs, but here is a
transcript of an interview with Ingram by BBC journalist John Humphreys.

Note how Ingram does his best to avoid answering difficult questions, and it
is only because of Humphrey's skillful questioning that the facts are
brought into the open:


A transcript of John Humphrys' interview with the Armed Forces Minister,
Adam Ingram, on Thursday 29 May 2003:

Humphrys: Why were we using cluster bombs in built-up areas, when we
specifically said we would not?

Ingram: Well, I don't think that is an allegation that stands up to full
examination. What we've said from the outset has been consistent - that
cluster bombs are not illegal. They are effective weapons against defined
targets.

Humphrys: It's not the question I asked you.

Ingram: No, well I'm giving the answer and then you maybe want to ask me
another question. But they're not illegal weapons. They are used in specific
circumstances where there is a threat to our troops. Now clearly there were
circumstances where there were concentrations of military equipment and
Iraqi troops in and around built-up areas. How were we to tackle those
people? Were we to have close combat with them with more casualties on our
side? Is that what people wanted to see? I would hope not.

Humphrys: Right, well let me ask you the question again in precisely the way
I asked it to you before. You had told us we would not use cluster bombs in
built-up areas. Why did we do so?

Ingram: Well I don't think if you examine what was said by Geoff Hoon or
indeed by the earlier statement by Baroness Crawley.

Humphrys: Baroness Crawley?

Ingram: Well Baroness Crawley is not a defence spokesperson. She was
answering a question on behalf of the Ministry of Defence.

Humphrys: Of the Government?

Ingram: On behalf of the Government and the Ministry of Defence.

Humphrys: Quite so.

Ingram: ..in the House. But she's not a defence spokesperson, as you say.

Humphrys: Precisely.

Ingram: She's not a Defence Minister.

Humphrys: She was speaking for the Government but she wasn't speaking for
the Defence Ministry?

Ingram: No, that's not the point I'm making John.

Humphrys: Well I've lost you in that case.

Ingram: No, you've not lost me - you presented her as a defence
spokesperson. Now the point I'm making is that that was said in February -
in April you then said, you then recounted what Geoff Hoon had told your
programme.

Humphrys: ..told me in a long interview and I asked him about using these
weapons and he said they would be used in battlefield areas where there
would be a minimum of casualties.

Ingram: And that's exactly what I have said. That they were used in the
battlefield.

Humphrys: Built-up areas?

Ingram: Well, there were troops and equipment in those areas. Now I make the
point to you...

Humphrys: Well yes they were all over Iraq - of course they were - clearly
they were everywhere.

Ingram: Yes and therefore were posing a threat to our troops and therefore
we had to take the appropriate action.

Humphrys: With cluster bombs?

Ingram: Well, with a whole range of ammunition.

Humphrys: Including cluster bombs?

Ingram: Yes of course cluster bombs and we've actually said...

Humphrys: Right. Well, so the allegations wasn't such a strange one was it?
The one that you denied right at the beginning of the interview turns out to
have been precisely accurate.

Ingram: John, if you let me answer the question rather than trying to hector
and prove your case by shouting...

Humphrys: No, I'm trying to be very clear about it because you told me right
at the beginning of the interview that it was the wrong allegation that I
had made. It turns out - and that was made in that report - it turns out to
have been precisely accurate doesn't it?

Ingram: No it's not - not in the way in which I interpreted your earlier
statements. What I'm saying is that the way in which we presented this
argument, that they are used in a targeted way against specific military
targets and the use of them is to minimise casualties on our side. Now all
ammunitions - all weapons - can create tragedies and it's not just cluster
bombs, it's a tragedy of war that there are casualties. Fortunately we had
very few casualties on our side, and I would put it down to the very careful
use of the powerful weapons we had to take out the Iraqis.

Humphrys: And you have no idea how many children will be blown to bits by
the cluster bombs that did not explode and now are abandoned and left around
the built up areas?

Ingram: Well that's a ridiculous allegation.

Humphrys: Oh you can tell me can you?

Ingram: That's a ridiculous allegation - 'they have been abandoned' and..

Humphrys: Ah you've found them all then have you?

Ingram: No of course we haven't found them all because it takes time to
identify them. We have 200 personnel working in this particular area. We
have weekly meetings with the NGOs who have the prime responsibility of the
clearance. We provide maps. There was an allegation in your programme there
that we weren't providing maps - we do provide maps. We have a massive
programme of education in Basra and those other areas where we have used
such weapons. And let me tell you...

Humphrys: Ah so children are very good at following those education
programmes aren't they?

Ingram: ..but just let me tell you one salient fact. Our teams have already
destroyed 100,000 - in the region of 100,000 unexploded ordnance. Now
they're not necessarily cluster bombs.

Humphrys: Indeed.

Ingram: But unexploded ordnance poses a threat to all of the citizens of
Iraq and to our forces who remain there. So to say that we've doing nothing
is absolute nonsense.

Humphrys: I didn't say you were doing nothing...

Ingram: You've said we've abandoned the people of Iraq - that was your
allegation.

Humphrys: I did not say you had abandoned the people of Iraq, I said that
these bomblets had been abandoned where they lay which is precisely the
case.

Ingram: They have not been, they have not been.

Humphrys: Can I just give you a ...

Ingram: No, they have not been John - they have not been and I am saying to
you..

Humphrys: But they have been - we have just heard from three charities -
three NGOs - each of them involved in this exercise, each of them giving us
graphic detail about the way these things are lying around the country and
how children and other people are being blown to bits by them.

Ingram: John, John, that could happen in terms of any unexploded ordnance.

Humphrys: Well not if you hadn't dropped cluster bombs it couldn't.

Ingram: No and if we hadn't used them then we'd probably have had more
casualties on our side and then what you'd have probably been saying to
me...

Humphrys: Do you know that? Can you be sure about that?

Ingram: Well that is what we have take into consideration - that we have
ammunition and weapons on our side to try and minimise casualties to our own
troops.

Humphrys: That were not going to be used in built up areas, but were used in
built-up areas.

Ingram: Well what we said was they would be targeted on specific military
targets. There were troops - there was equipment in and around the built-up
areas. Therefore the bombs were used accordingly to take out that threat to
our troops. Now do you accept that is a useful and effective way of
protecting the lives of our service personnel?

Humphrys: It's not for me to accept or reject anything - it's for the
audience to do that and I'll leave it to them Mr Ingram ...

And on it goes.


Ludwig


T
Post by jhayati
<snip>
Now let's even take the anit-American anti-war left-biased BBC. Even
the BBC's coverage (below) explains this well from all sides of the
issue. There was nothing haphazard and the quote in the BBC story is
that "Now, clearly there were circumstances where there were
concentrations of military equipment and Iraqi troops in and around
built-up areas. Now, how were we to tackle those people. Were we to
have close combat with them with more casualties on our side?"
Even in this case, which was an exceptional one, they did their best
to avoid civilian casualties, and Saddam's troops would have tried to
hold the city hostage indefinitely. I'm not even saying that this was
right, but that it was a special case, and again my claim is that we
don't, without some really good reason as in this case, use cluster
bombs on civilian targets. You can find exceptions and mistakes, but
it is not our (U.S. and U.K) policy to ever arbitarily bomb civilians.
Post by Ludwig
Post by jhayati
We do take responsibility for our actions.
Then why is so much unexploded ordnance left in Laos?
Because a lot of it was dropped, and is hard to find. Many American
efforts have been made. But this is moot. We aren't discussing Laos,
or WWII. Are you now so out of ammunitions that you're again
resorting to things that happened before I was born? Next you're
going to talk about slavery in the American South. I've never claimed
Post by Ludwig
Post by jhayati
It tells us more about you and your attitude, when you only pick out
things you don't like and ignore everything else. Tommorrow you and
Punnadhammo will have more conspiracy theories and grievences taken
out of context.
Post by Ludwig
You accused me of lying when I said that the Laos
No, my only comments were claims about Iraq. We were not and are not
discussing Laos.
Acually we have been discussing both.
No. We have not. We are talking about Iraq. You think I'm
justifying all the things we did in the Vietnam War? Don't be absurd.
We're not talking about Laos. Stick to the use of cluster bombs in
the vicinity of Basra to stop a bloody fight where the British may
have had huge numbers of casualties, which actually is an interesting
case.
Post by Ludwig
Post by jhayati
Claiming now that you'r talking about stuff that
took place before I was born just doesn't interest me.
Look what we
did in the American Civil War. That was much more disgusting.
I think that the bombing of civilians in a country that you're not
even at war with is as bad as it gets.
That statement is still dishonest, as Laos and Cambodia were used by
the Vietnamese and were so involved in the war and were not random
targets, but we're not talking about that, any more than we are
talking about the French and Indian War, which was even worse.
Post by Ludwig
Post by jhayati
Post by Ludwig
The only reason that Afghanistan was attacked was to remove
terrorist training bases, and to dislodge the regime that had
allowed them to exist.
That's the first honest remark you've made in over 10 posts.
I haven't made a dishonest remark, to my knowledge.
Sure you have, in the sense that you are willingly ignorant, and try
to present the most biased and hateful spin and try to take exceptions
and claim they are the rule of thumb. That's dishonest. Here, you
make a false claim about the Iraq war, and then say "oh I meant in
some war years ago before you were born." That's disingenuous.
Post by Ludwig
The point is that all the talk of "bringing democracy" is
propaganda to justify removing terrorist bases.
You don't show any sign of even questioning that stuff,
That is a function of your extremism. I question everything, and read
multiple versions and sources of all this stuff. In your extremism,
any liberal socialist like myself will come across as a fascist
war-monger, as that's just a function of your view. Why not ask
yourself why you don't question, instead of insulting someone who is
actually informed and doesn't have a biblical relationship to
tabloids? Really, Pierre, not only don't you question your extreme
Post by Ludwig
The problem is - of course - that resentment is building like crazy.
Again, a blatantly false claim.
This is a lie that the anti-American crowd repeats, but it's not
backed up by actual evends and facts, and there is every reason to
believe that the hatred in the Middle East is already maxed-out and
has been for a long time. Actually, relations with Middle-Eastern
countries are improving dramatically because of the Iraq campaign.
The myth that allowing terrorists and dictators to prosper and get
stronger will lower resentment is being proved wrong, as well as the
myth that getting rid of their infrastructure will build resentment.
Neither of these myths have empirical support; quite the opposite.
Post by Ludwig
This will certainly please militant fundamentalists.
Ludwig
But they are displeased at how well we are doing in Iraq. And how
Iran today, under U.S. pressure, agreed to put their nulear program on
hold and allow random inspections, which was a breakthrough. This is
what I mean by you lying. Why not say "I think it was wrong, even
though it has lowered the amount of resentfulness in terms of numbers
of terrorists being trained, in terms of increasing numbers of Iraqis
that want our support and are glad to be rid of their dictator, and in
the way Middle Eastern governments are cooperating with us."
- j
BBC News
Cluster bombs 'used in Iraq cities'
Cluster bombs are again provoking controversy
Coalition forces did use cluster bombs in built-up areas during the
Iraq war, but a concerted clean-up operation is under way, the
government has said.
Defence Minister Adam Ingram was responding to increasing concern over
the use of the bombs.
Seventy-five Labour MPs are calling for cluster bombs, which can leave
unexploded "bomblets", to be banned because of the threat they pose to
civilians.
Mr Ingram insisted they had been used in a targeted way against
specific military targets.
That did include built-up areas where coalition troops had come under
threat, Mr Ingram told BBC Radio 4's Today programme.
Basra targets?
Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon on 3 April told MPs that cluster bombs
were used only when it was "absolutely justified" because it would
"make the battlefield safer for our armed forces".
With about a week of the war to go, Mr Hoon said it had "so far" not
been necessary to use cluster bombs in Basra.
He said cluster bombs would injure civilians on occasions but such
incidents would be kept to a minimum.
On Thursday, Mr Ingram appeared to suggest the weapons had been used
in the southern Iraqi city.
He said: "We have a massive programme of education in Basra and those
other areas where we have used such weapons."
The armed forces minister argued the use of cluster bombs had helped
to prevent more coalition casualties.
Troop threat
He insisted the government had been consistent in its statements about
when and where the weapons would be used.
"These are not illegal weapons. They are used in specific
circumstances where there is a threat to our troops," he said.
"Now, clearly there were circumstances where there were concentrations
of military equipment and Iraqi troops in and around built-up areas.
"Now, how were we to tackle those people. Were we to have close combat
with them with more casualties on our side?"
Clean-up efforts
Mr Ingram said it took time to identify unexploded bombs but there
were 200 people working on the task.
Maps showing where the bombs were dropped had been issued, he said.
And 100,000 unexploded pieces of ordnance - not necessarily cluster
bombs - had been destroyed in the region.
On 6 February, government spokeswoman Baroness Crawley told the House
of Lords that the UK would "not countenance" the use of cluster bombs.
Mr Ingram stressed that Baroness Crawley was not a defence minister
and argued it was Mr Hoon's statements which were important.
Labour MP Austin Mitchell is one of those backbenchers pressing for
more action in clearing unexploded bombs.
He told Today: "Now that the search for weapons of mass destruction
produced by Iraq is on and failing, nothing much is being done about
the weapons of mass destruction used by our side, which are basically
cluster bombs.
"Unless we clean up our own mess then our position is dishonest and
contemptible. We should not use these weapons."
Civilian casualties
Each cluster bomb contains 147 bomblets - useful when tackling
armaments spread over a reasonably large area.
With cluster bombs dropped from the air, 16% of those do not explode
immediately, compared to a 2% failure rate for bombs launched from the
ground.
Jo Nicholls, from charity Oxfam, said she had seen civilians hurt by
cluster bombs in her visits of hospitals in Baghdad.
One man had told her how a bomb had exploded right in front of him as
he stepped out of his house, "splitting him open" from neck to crotch,
although he survived the blast.
jhayati
2003-10-22 19:57:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ludwig
Post by jhayati
Post by Ludwig
Post by jhayati
Post by Ludwig
They are designed for killing people and destroying vehicles.
We used them where there weren't civilians, and used smart bombs in
cities and where civilians might get hurt.
That's actually untrue, Jay.
No, it's not.
Post by Ludwig
I won't call you a liar, as you have called me
a liar, but you obviously aren't in full possession of the facts.
Yes, I am in possession of the facts. You may find exceptions and
mistakes, and spin, but nonetheless, in Iraq we tried not to use
cluster bombs where we thought civilians would get hurt.
Well thats a change of positon, Jay.
It certainly is not.
Post by Ludwig
You said that cluster bombs were used "where there weren't civilians"
and no exceptional circumstances. I said there are exceptions and
mistakes in all these things,
Post by Ludwig
Why not just admit you were wrong? Cluster bombs were used in built up
I admit your stereotype of me is wrong, but I reapeat again that there
are exceptions to every principle. Again, there was no arbitrary use
or intentional use of cluster bombs or any killing of civilians when
there isn't any exception or mistake. And every principle can be
violated if there are situational circumstances, such as avoiding
needless deaths. I'm not a fundamentalist, so trying to refute a
fundamentalism won't work.

In a case where lots of civilian lives and lots of British troops will
be lost in a bloody firefight, but cluster bombs or anything else will
lead to less to less deaths. So this only proves my point: when you
do find cluster bombs being used in very controversial locations, you
find that lots of lives were saved by their use, just as lives were
saved by the entire Iraqi campaign, which was amazingly clean and
lacking in civilian casualties, given the force used and the size of
the area pacified. Basra survived without tens of thousands of deaths
as had been predicted. The Brits did a great job.
Post by Ludwig
By the way, you recently claimed that the BBC was in the government's
pocket, so one would expect it to be doing its level best to be pro-war.
LOL!!!! No, the BBC is horribly anti-Blair. You live in Britain, and
yet you assume here that your government is 100% behind Blair? This
is a complete lack of honesty on your part. How pleasantly sadistic
and underhanded of you. I'm simply not going to waste time explaining
to you how the BBC (known in the U.S. as the Baghdad Broadcasting
Company) is run and how it tries to undermine Blair. Our own NPR
(which I like and listen to) is the same way and undermines Dubya
constantly yet is government funded. Look it up yourself.

Ok, you've been caught claiming what you know to be false in order to
make a character attack or insult. When you want to be honest and
discuss the issue, then do so. Enough spin from you this week

- jay
Ludwig
2003-10-22 21:57:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by jhayati
Post by Ludwig
Post by jhayati
Post by Ludwig
Post by jhayati
Post by Ludwig
They are designed for killing people and destroying vehicles.
We used them where there weren't civilians, and used smart bombs in
cities and where civilians might get hurt.
That's actually untrue, Jay.
No, it's not.
Post by Ludwig
I won't call you a liar, as you have called me
a liar, but you obviously aren't in full possession of the facts.
Yes, I am in possession of the facts. You may find exceptions and
mistakes, and spin, but nonetheless, in Iraq we tried not to use
cluster bombs where we thought civilians would get hurt.
Well thats a change of positon, Jay.
It certainly is not.
Post by Ludwig
You said that cluster bombs were used "where there weren't civilians"
and no exceptional circumstances. I said there are exceptions and
mistakes in all these things,
Thats not true. You added the bit about exceptions later. After you'd been
proved wrong.

Here in the UK we were lied to by our government on this issue. Before the
war started we were told that cluster bombs would not be used in built up
areas where there were civilians. And then cluster bombs were used in built
up areas where there were civilians.



Ludwig
jhayati
2003-10-23 02:29:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ludwig
Post by jhayati
Post by Ludwig
Post by jhayati
Post by Ludwig
Post by jhayati
Post by Ludwig
They are designed for killing people and destroying vehicles.
We used them where there weren't civilians, and used smart bombs
in
Post by jhayati
Post by Ludwig
Post by jhayati
Post by Ludwig
Post by jhayati
cities and where civilians might get hurt.
That's actually untrue, Jay.
No, it's not.
Post by Ludwig
I won't call you a liar, as you have called me
a liar, but you obviously aren't in full possession of the facts.
Yes, I am in possession of the facts. You may find exceptions and
mistakes, and spin, but nonetheless, in Iraq we tried not to use
cluster bombs where we thought civilians would get hurt.
Well thats a change of positon, Jay.
It certainly is not.
Post by Ludwig
You said that cluster bombs were used "where there weren't civilians"
and no exceptional circumstances. I said there are exceptions and
mistakes in all these things,
Thats not true. You added the bit about exceptions later.
After you'd been proved wrong.
I've never claimed there aren't mistakes and exceptions. Again, I'm
not claiming fundamentalism or extremism, only principle. The "all
things being equal" clause was perfectly understood. The claim is
that we don't ever arbitrarily bomb civilians, and when civilians get
hurt, the action saved more civilian lives than it lost.
Post by Ludwig
Here in the UK we were lied to by our government on this issue. Before the
war started we were told that cluster bombs would not be used in built up
areas where there were civilians. And then cluster bombs were used in built
up areas where there were civilians.
You weren't lied to, because that was an inaccurate prediction, or a
principle, rather than a statement of fact about the past. There was
never any intention to use them, which was perfectly true. A lie is
only about the past or present, never about the future. The intention
was quite true, so you were never lied to. As with me, the "in normal
circumstances" clause is always implied. The government did not lie
to you; rather, you took a fundamentalist approach to the claim that
there is no intention to use such weapons near civilians in normal
circumstances.

Only in a desperate, unexpected situation where the city of millions
was going to be held under siege, was there a flexible change in
gameplan. Hundreds of British troops could have died, and many more
civilians in a house-to-house bloodbath. Isolating and bombing
Saddam's thugs was a decision I might have made as well. The
situation demanded it.

If I'm wrong, and the situation didn't demand it, and less lives would
have been lost and British troops weren't in any danger, then the
general giving the order should be court-martialed, sure. But that
didn't happen, as far as I know, though I could be wrong, and no
tabloid stories have been verified about that.

However, if you are saying that you wish that hundreds of British
troops would have been killed instead to conform with the prediction,
then I think your claim is as irrational and sadistic as is
Punnadhammo's calling a military victory a "massacre" because we made
sure American sons and husbands didn't get shot by Saddam's minions.
But again, if they weren't necessary to save lives of British troops,
and less civilians died than a prolonged siege and street-to-street
firefight, then it was an intelligent move, and a good call.

- jay
MasterChef
2003-10-18 13:55:00 UTC
Permalink
jhayati wrote in message
Post by jhayati
Sooner or later Punnadhammo will crack and come out and say that he
would prefer an inaction that allows him to personally have good karma
but billions of others to be brutally massacred, and at that
point he
Post by jhayati
will have to overhaul his hopelessly flawed ethics or lack of
thereof.
Post by jhayati
In the meantime, watching Punnadhammo eel-wriggle is a lesson in
rationalization and how the monk mind uses the intellect to find ways
to cling to its ball of blind faith.
just wait till al queda attacks his precious french poodle
Loading...