Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   "Only have ourselves to blame" NO!
zephyr
Member (Idle past 4540 days)
Posts: 821
From: FOB Taji, Iraq
Joined: 04-22-2003


Message 31 of 112 (162943)
11-24-2004 12:50 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by contracycle
11-24-2004 10:54 AM


quote:
Yes I am - you people are in serious shit and need to start paying attention to the rest of the worlds perception of you, and further, taking ownership of your own place in the world.
I have been paying attention to the world's perception of America ever since 9/11. My willingness to ask "why" has already had some pretty drastic effects in my life. It was not a major cause but a definite catalyst in the breakup of my marriage.
I wish you wouldn't condescend to me, because we may have more common ground than you realize. I simply take issue with the way you present your concerns as a condemnation of one and all who took part in this process. Why bash people who care enough to try do so something, when so many are sleepwalking through life and don't care enough to even participate? Polarizing and alienating those who might understand your points is kinda wasteful, don't you think?
quote:
First we see a very complacent democrat campaign that simply assumed that all it had to do was actually get voters out to win because the country was "naturally" liberal, and then after losing we see the democrats throwing their hands up and saying "nothing to do with me".
I see it more as Democrats throwing up their hands and saying "this isn't the America I believe in." People are still committed to pursuing positive change through the legal process. But they are shocked beyond belief and saying all kinds of odd things. The left has been given a reality check by a strong turnout in favor of backward-thinking, theocratic, blindly nationalistic values. It is indeed a disturbing turn of events, but it is not enough to convince me that the process or my country is beyond repair.
quote:
If you want to live in a better country, you have to make it a better country yourselves. The first required step is penetrating denial: you have to acknowledge the real, not the nominal, political identity of your state, otherwise you will not be able to fix it.
This ought to be interesting, and I mean that in the most sincere sense. What do you see as the real political identity of the USA? I seem to recall you having lived in S. Africa; correct me if I'm wrong. Where do you live now? And how do you feel we are perceived there and elsewhere?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by contracycle, posted 11-24-2004 10:54 AM contracycle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by contracycle, posted 11-25-2004 7:10 AM zephyr has replied

  
zephyr
Member (Idle past 4540 days)
Posts: 821
From: FOB Taji, Iraq
Joined: 04-22-2003


Message 32 of 112 (162957)
11-24-2004 1:41 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Silent H
11-24-2004 10:15 AM


Hehe... all tangents aside, I think you know the answer. I was thrilled, in a stupid but justifiably patriotic sort of way, when we went into Afghanistan. Not rejoicing over conflict and killing but excited that we had something to focus on, a real struggle to protect our freedoms. Just cause, known enemy, no reason to distrust leaders, need to remove a threat from some crazies, etc. - everything about it inspires people with patriotic instincts, and despite the fact that we have done some things wrong there, it is all arguably aimed at improving the state of affairs for us and the Afghanis.
Iraq, on the other hand, ever since the administration started spinning up the PR machine in preparation for the invasion, has completely destroyed my faith in the pres and his advisers. Being here has been an exercise in mental discipline - focusing on the job and how much I can learn and gain from it, rather than attempting to believe that this war was/is necessary or justified, or that I am making the world safer for Americans(and Iraqis); focusing on the other people here, who depend on me as I depend on them for very basic needs. If I were in A-land, there would be no such struggle and things would be much simpler: "it's us vs. them, they fucked with us, let's get 'em!"
Ahhh, for the days when things were that easy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Silent H, posted 11-24-2004 10:15 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Silent H, posted 11-24-2004 6:58 PM zephyr has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5810 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 33 of 112 (162970)
11-24-2004 2:42 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by contracycle
11-24-2004 10:43 AM


I am talking about all the knee-jerk denunciations of those protestors in the media and sundry boards like the IIDB. The fact of the matter is, there is no tolerance of dissent in the USA - as anti-Bush protestors have also discovered of late.
I meant the battle of seattle, what is that? Or were you refering to the wto protests?
Hey I have some great footage from two humongous demonstrations in Chicago, including the one that shut down the northern part of the city. There was a tiny contingent of counterdemonstrators and only a few arrests.
The US media is terrible on the left and right, but this is a result of an interest in sensationalism. I don't know what the IIDB is. But wherever there are demonstrations there are counterdemonstrations (and other negative reactions).
The election likely did not change the position of the protesters and their supporters. And there will still be more demonstrations.
So... they will call out the national guard if the protests appear threatening.
That would happen anywhere and everywhere, what is your point? I will point out that the demonstration in Chicago did not result in the national guard getting called out, despite a large section of its most important highway being shut down.
You either accept the result and work with the new context, or you rise up and overthrow what you see as an injustice. There is no middle way in which you can simultaneously deny responsibility for the result and sit back. You either accept it, de facto, or you do not. Pick one.
Oh I see, you just do not understand how democracy works. See every few years we get to vote again. On top of that we have many different layers of government. Your concept that "work with" means "work for", and we can either do that or rise up in revolution against democracy is simply a stock dilemma
In a democracy you actually have a third option. You can use what powers you do have to continue creating the environment you want. You work with the leading factions when they support your goals, you work against them on opposing issues, all the while trying to build support for your position for the next election.
It is not one election and the course of your nation is set forever. Only in that case would one be forced to rise against the opposition when one loses.
it would make me much happier if Americans killed each other instead of Vietnamese or Iraqis or Sudanese or any of the other nationalities America chooses to bomb from time to time.
That about says it all for your philosophy. Whatta bigot.
I cannot see how an anti-war movement that leaves troops in a foreign country for a decade can remotely be considered a success
You mean as successful as it could or should have been. That is true, but it was still a success. The vietnamese would not have driven us out of there all by themselves, it took a decision on our part to leave.
it's quit laughable that you can defend Western imperialism after the US is estimated to have killed 100,000 civilians in Iraq alone, and has been denounced by aid organisations as showing utter contempt for the value of human life, while fighting an illegal war in a forign country you invaded. Yes, your moral purity stands as a beacon to the world.
I didn't defend imperialism in general, nor the invasion of Iraq in specific. I share the views and the condemnations of those aid organizations.
I don't know what moral purity is, but I am consistent and feel pretty good about my position on issues. I wish I had more power to get them achieved but I am not ready to kill someone to attain such power.
And during those four years, you and every other American who legtimised the process which brought him to power will have to take responsibility for his actions as your head of state.
Uhhh, take responsibility for? Don't you mean challenge his bad decisions and help move his policies toward good ones?
Of course you, and all americans, are responsible for this state of affairs and its consequences. Nobody forced you to vote and provide legitimacy to his process.
Not voting is just as much a legitimation of the result as voting. Holding back a vote one can make and pretending that means you are less responsible for the system being in place (or its results) is just being immature. The system exists not just by the voters but everyone that continues to live under the rules that follow.
Am I to understand that you believe that the 40% of all americans who did not vote at all did not legitimate, nor are "to blame" for Bush being elected?
I would have withheld my bote in the last election in order to avoid endorsing one of two capitalist candidates. Don't blame me for the fact that you acted irresponsibly.
There were more than two guys on the ballot. And again, I would like to ask, so if I had not voted I would have not legitimated the system, and so actually acted against Bush?
I've never done that anywhere, have I holmes? how many times have you tried this lie out now, 4 or 5?
Contra, you continually suggest that the only way out of a situation, or reasonable reaction, is violence. Yes, yes you have. And this doesn't change in this situation either. We are to blame unless we rise up against Bush and the system that spawned him into the white house. Does this mean violence? You already have suggested that it does.
So yes yes yes Contra you preach violence as a means for others, yet when shown to be equally culpable in a situation and so maybe you should lift a finger, you lift just one. Then comes the backpedaling and statements that you don't mean violence and yet where are the nonviolent solutions?

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by contracycle, posted 11-24-2004 10:43 AM contracycle has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by crashfrog, posted 11-24-2004 4:02 PM Silent H has replied
 Message 37 by zephyr, posted 11-24-2004 8:18 PM Silent H has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1457 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 34 of 112 (162993)
11-24-2004 4:02 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Silent H
11-24-2004 2:42 PM


Heh, this is funny. We have that saying "if you don't vote, you can't complain." Apparently Contracycle takes the exact opposite view: the only people allowed to complain are those who didn't vote.
Yeah! Not even showing up! That'll show em!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Silent H, posted 11-24-2004 2:42 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Silent H, posted 11-24-2004 6:56 PM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 38 by zephyr, posted 11-24-2004 8:21 PM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 41 by contracycle, posted 11-25-2004 7:31 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5810 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 35 of 112 (163025)
11-24-2004 6:56 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by crashfrog
11-24-2004 4:02 PM


Your nonvote counts! Don't vote early and don't vote often, that will change the system for sure!
Man you're damned if you do and damned if you don't these days.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by crashfrog, posted 11-24-2004 4:02 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5810 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 36 of 112 (163026)
11-24-2004 6:58 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by zephyr
11-24-2004 1:41 PM


Yeah that's kind of what I figured. Thanks for the info, and success with getting home and out of the service.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by zephyr, posted 11-24-2004 1:41 PM zephyr has not replied

  
zephyr
Member (Idle past 4540 days)
Posts: 821
From: FOB Taji, Iraq
Joined: 04-22-2003


Message 37 of 112 (163037)
11-24-2004 8:18 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Silent H
11-24-2004 2:42 PM


quote:
I meant the battle of seattle, what is that? Or were you refering to the wto protests?
That would be the one. I was a student up there at the time. Possibly an overly dramatic label, but I have heard it used often. It was a tense week all over the city. I stayed the hell away from the mess downtown, but one of my neighbors was all proud that she got tear-gassed down there.
Ever see the footage of that cop booting a defenseless guy in the nuts? What a piece of shit. Never did find out what happened to him.
quote:
Hey I have some great footage from two humongous demonstrations in Chicago, including the one that shut down the northern part of the city. There was a tiny contingent of counterdemonstrators and only a few arrests.
Hey, I know a guy who got arrested in one of those. He was held for over a day, no charges... there was talk of a lawsuit because the same thing happened to a lot of people who weren't doing anything wrong.
quote:
I don't know what the IIDB is.
Internet Infidels Discussion Board. Good times. I hit it every now and then, and have seen a handful of names also found here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Silent H, posted 11-24-2004 2:42 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Silent H, posted 11-25-2004 5:15 AM zephyr has replied

  
zephyr
Member (Idle past 4540 days)
Posts: 821
From: FOB Taji, Iraq
Joined: 04-22-2003


Message 38 of 112 (163038)
11-24-2004 8:21 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by crashfrog
11-24-2004 4:02 PM


quote:
Heh, this is funny. We have that saying "if you don't vote, you can't complain." Apparently Contracycle takes the exact opposite view: the only people allowed to complain are those who didn't vote.
Yeah! Not even showing up! That'll show em!
quote:
Your nonvote counts! Don't vote early and don't vote often, that will change the system for sure!
Man you're damned if you do and damned if you don't these days.
You guys are cracking my shit up. I really needed a good laugh.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by crashfrog, posted 11-24-2004 4:02 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5810 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 39 of 112 (163139)
11-25-2004 5:15 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by zephyr
11-24-2004 8:18 PM


Possibly an overly dramatic label, but I have heard it used often.
Yeah, that was the only thing I could think of it being. For some reason I never heard that label. I did see some of the action there, and am pissed I missed the documentary on it they showed in Chicago.
Hey, I know a guy who got arrested in one of those. He was held for over a day, no charges... there was talk of a lawsuit because the same thing happened to a lot of people who weren't doing anything wrong.
That would likely have been the one that shut down LSD. There were two others where the only ones who were arrested were people just trying to make trouble with no real point. At the LSD one, I was amazed at the flexibility the city was showing.
They only arrested people toward the end of the demonstration (ironically right after I left with my cameras) and then not very many compared to the massive turnout it had. I know there was some grabbing of people who had nothing to do with the rally (they had just walked outside their hotel) and then no held with no charges... just to kind of stick it to the people. But that hardly compares to the violence against demonstrations seen elsewhere in the US and around the world.
I thought it was funny that when I got to the front of the march and discovered my lawyer was helping lead it. I realized that would make an interesting scene if we got arrested. I wanna talk to my lawyer! Who is he? The guy over there in cuffs.
I guess that was the other odd thing about the arrests, they weren't really from the front of the demonstration. Near but not exact. Did your friend say why he felt he was arrested? Was it just a random thing?

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by zephyr, posted 11-24-2004 8:18 PM zephyr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by contracycle, posted 11-25-2004 7:54 AM Silent H has replied
 Message 50 by zephyr, posted 11-25-2004 10:11 AM Silent H has replied

  
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 40 of 112 (163147)
11-25-2004 7:10 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by zephyr
11-24-2004 12:50 PM


quote:
I wish you wouldn't condescend to me, because we may have more common ground than you realize. I simply take issue with the way you present your concerns as a condemnation of one and all who took part in this process. Why bash people who care enough to try do so something, when so many are sleepwalking through life and don't care enough to even participate? Polarizing and alienating those who might understand your points is kinda wasteful, don't you think?
But I didn't set out to bash anyone; all I claimed is that you cannot say you live in a representative republic and then disclaim responsibility for the politicians your public elects or the policies they implement. They are acting in your name, with your consent, granted by your participation in their legitimate election.
In the present climate, I think it would be disastrous if the liberal elements in the US retreated into mutual self-pity and assumptions that their ideological opponents are sterotypical rednecks living in the sticks. Much of the democratic criticism of republicans is rather too personal and apolitical for my tastes. If democrats throw up their hands and deny that the present state of American politics is as much the result of their actions as it is that of republican voters, then it is unlikely that democrats will be able to engage with the body politic in any persausive way. In which case, it's just going to go from bad to worse.
For the record, I asked RhRain what he meant by oppostion, and found his respnse fully acceptable although I had yet to comment on it. Positive, constructive engagement is good. But you can only carry out that kind of action by accepting that this is your country, its will has been declared, and if you want it to be a different place you are going to have to change it.
quote:
This ought to be interesting, and I mean that in the most sincere sense. What do you see as the real political identity of the USA? I seem to recall you having lived in S. Africa; correct me if I'm wrong. Where do you live now? And how do you feel we are perceived there and elsewhere?
Well the short version is, "as the direct heir of the British Empire, only less honest". That is, the US is set on an Imperialistic path but denies its own Imperialism. As a result, it refuses to learn the 'best practice' of past empires. For most of the world, the periphery of the US's direct influence accords almost exactly with that of the British Empire; it's also an English speaking Christian power with an ideology of bringing civilisation (old version) or democracy (new version) to what it sees as lesser states. Roughly speaking, America is seen as the 800lb gorilla that can sit anywhere it wants, utterly deaf to the screams of those crushed beneath its bulk.
I live in London these days. Britains's relationship with America is quite strange and complex and hard to summarise. At one level there's the open envy exemplified by the description of US forces in WW2 as "over-paid, over-sexed, and over here" and admiration for its economic success. On the other side, America is also seen as overly religious, (I quote "colonised by a bunch of religious fanatics so extreme they were booted out of their own country"), very reactionary, and certainly overtly imperialistic in the modern context. Hence Blairs stated objective for sticking by the US over Iraq is that the world would be a much more dangerous place if the US faced so much criticism that it was driven into outright unilateralism like Germany in 1936. The idea that America is the "land of the free" and that its president is the "leader of the free world" is mostly seen as bombastic hubris, but generally forgiven because people hyping their own state is normal. After all, everyone knows that Britain is the Land of the Free, having introduced the first charter of rights and the first parliament, and having abolished slavery earlier. Sometimes Britain kinda thinks of the US as a rambunctious but inexperienced nephew.
On the other hand, there is a lot of resentment against Britina being dragged into American military adventures, such as the fact that the planes that took off to bomb Libya's nuclear plant in the 80's were stationed here, and we have big detection systems slaved to America's warning systems. Thus, some refer to the UK as "Airbase One" or "The Fifty First State", and there is resentment that Britain's unqualified support is exploited by the US. Hence allegations that Blair is Bush's impotent poodle didn't just spring up suddenly but are part of an established critical tradition.
The US is seen as largely militarily incompetent, very effective at warfighting and utterly hopeless at the use of violence for political ends. It places force protection above the political objectives of the campaign which means it is routinely unable to achieve its stated objectives, Vietnam being an excellent case in point. When hearts and minds came into conflict with force protection, force protection won and hearts and minds was abandoned in practice.
America's "winner take all" ideology and lack of social services is considered pretty barbaric and backwards by most, but not all (right wing politicians disagree). Sort of a throwback to the Victorian industrial era, with all its inhumanities. America's refusal to sign the Kyoto protocol is a serious problem as this is seen as simply gross selfishness, and this is most definitely not only a local British perception.
Help Save The Youth Of America
Help save the youth of America
Help save them from themselves
Help save the sun-tanned surfer boys
And the Californian girls
When the lights go out in the rest of the World
What do our cousins say
They're playing in the sun and having fun, fun, fun
Till Daddy takes the gun away
From the Big Church to the Big River
And out to the Shining Sea
This is the Land of Opportunity
And there's a Monkey Trial on TV
A nation with their freezers full
Are dancing in their seats
While outside another nation
Is sleeping in the streets
Don't tell me the old, old story
Tell me the truth this time
Is the Man in the Mask or the Indian
An enemy or a friend of mine
Help save the youth of America
Help save the youth of the world
Help save the boys in uniform
Their mothers and their faithful girls
Listen to the voice of the soldier
Down in the killing zone
Talking about the cost of living
And the price of bringing him home
They're already shipping the body bags
Down by the Rio Grande
But you can fight for democracy at home
And not in some foreign land
And the fate of the great United States
Is entwined in the fate of us all
And the incident at Tschernobyl proves
The world we live in is very small
And the cities of Europe have burned before
And they may yet burn again
And if they do I hope you understand
That Washington will burn with them
Omaha will burn with them
Los Alamos will burn with them
- Billy Bragg

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by zephyr, posted 11-24-2004 12:50 PM zephyr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by zephyr, posted 11-25-2004 9:43 AM contracycle has not replied

  
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 41 of 112 (163149)
11-25-2004 7:31 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by crashfrog
11-24-2004 4:02 PM


quote:
Heh, this is funny. We have that saying "if you don't vote, you can't complain." Apparently Contracycle takes the exact opposite view: the only people allowed to complain are those who didn't vote. Yeah! Not even showing up! That'll show em!
Yes, exactly. Showing up and voting most certainly implies direct consent with the process in which you are engaged.
quote:
If then we discard from the social compact what is not of its essence, we shall find that it reduces itself to the following terms:
"Each of us puts his person and all his power in common under the supreme direction of the general will, and, in our corporate capacity, we receive each member as an indivisible part of the whole."
At once, in place of the individual personality of each contracting party, this act of association creates a moral and collective body, composed of as many members as the assembly contains votes, and receiving from this act its unity, its common identity, its life and its will. This public person, so formed by the union of all other persons formerly took the name of city,[4] and now takes that of Republic or body politic; it is called by its members State when passive. Sovereign when active, and Power when compared with others like itself. Those who are associated in it take collectively the name of people, and severally are called citizens, as sharing in the sovereign power, and subjects, as being under the laws of the State.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau, The Social Contract
Seeing as I do NOT contract with bourgois politics, and do NOT exercise my will over other members of that compact, I am NOT in any sense obliged to adhere to, endorse, or support the decisions this body takes as legitimate.
The claim that you only have the right to complain if you have voted is blatant political blackmail, anti-democratic and socially backward.
If you voted, you cast your lot in with this system, and you are fully responsible for the outcome legitimised by your entry into the compact.
This message has been edited by contracycle, 11-25-2004 07:37 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by crashfrog, posted 11-24-2004 4:02 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 42 of 112 (163152)
11-25-2004 7:54 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by Silent H
11-25-2004 5:15 AM


quote:
I guess that was the other odd thing about the arrests, they weren't really from the front of the demonstration. Near but not exact. Did your friend say why he felt he was arrested? Was it just a random thing?
Since when do riot cops need a reason? Their role is to intimdate, brutalise, and drive citizens off the streets and into their homes. The police are the only body in the modern state that is specifically geared and ideologically equipped to exercise violence against the citizenry.
What the Battle of Seattle showed - as if Kent State had not shown this already - is that the US's alleged "civili rights" exist in name only. Protesters are violently dispersed in exactly the samer manner as employed in any autocratic regime, and with the official media providing exactly the same rationalised approvoal. Fortunately in the modern era, high technology is ubiquitous and the Inde-pendant Media Centres were able to record and broadcast these events to the whole world, so that America's hypocrisy regarding the freedom to demonstrate was not merely local knowledge.
Now lets take this further; if the US is able and willing to exercise this degree of tyrranny against its public, in the full compliance of a fawning media, there is no prospect whatsoever than any demonstration or rising by Iraqi's against American Imperialism will ever be treated with apporpriate respect or accurately broadcast. The US's pretensions to democracy, let alone the idea that US is any position whatsoever to export democracy to the world, are patently ridiculous.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Silent H, posted 11-25-2004 5:15 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Silent H, posted 11-25-2004 8:46 AM contracycle has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5810 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 43 of 112 (163160)
11-25-2004 8:46 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by contracycle
11-25-2004 7:54 AM


Since when do riot cops need a reason? Their role is to intimdate, brutalise, and drive citizens off the streets and into their homes. The police are the only body in the modern state that is specifically geared and ideologically equipped to exercise violence against the citizenry.
Perhaps you missed the part where I said I had tape of the demonstrations and it shows something different.
Frankly I was not cool with the amount of force present on the streets for one of the demonstrations, but the actions of the police were generally not that bad.
I got slightly rough handling when I tried to enter an area to get a better shot of the march, but it wasn't anything I'd call brutal. Rude maybe.
In another case police actually were very polite and helpful, including helping me find how to connect with some other areas of the demonstration... the cads!
I guess the worst I would say is that many came off as rude and arrogant. That's not too bad when the level of tension was as high as it was... and they certainly took a lot of unnecessary rudeness from some of the demonstrators as well.
Let me ask you a hypothetical. If you were in charge of a powerful nation, at this point in time would you feel it would be justified to invade the US in order to overthrow Bush and prevent the possibility of future American aggression? Would you do this, or feel it is justified, even if it cost the lives of many many Americans?

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by contracycle, posted 11-25-2004 7:54 AM contracycle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by contracycle, posted 11-25-2004 9:40 AM Silent H has not replied
 Message 46 by contracycle, posted 11-25-2004 9:44 AM Silent H has replied

  
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 44 of 112 (163170)
11-25-2004 9:40 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by Silent H
11-25-2004 8:46 AM


quote:
Let me ask you a hypothetical. If you were in charge of a powerful nation, at this point in time would you feel it would be justified to invade the US in order to overthrow Bush and prevent the possibility of future American aggression? Would you do this, or feel it is justified, even if it cost the lives of many many Americans?
Under no circumstances whatsoever could I initiate any such action as an outsider.
And important part of Communist political analysis is not to dupe yourself into thinking you act on peoples behalf when you do not have their consent. This is known as "substitution", in which the party substitutes its own militancy for that of the actual indigenous populace.
Furthermore, I am fully committed to change coming from below. All such an external action could achieve is the replacement of one ruling clique with another, its rule maintained by force. It would not command local consent and would require increadsngly sever repression to keep in place. In all respects I would consider such an action counter-productive; my strategy is therefore to encourage indigenous domestic resistance within the US.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Silent H, posted 11-25-2004 8:46 AM Silent H has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by zephyr, posted 11-25-2004 9:46 AM contracycle has replied

  
zephyr
Member (Idle past 4540 days)
Posts: 821
From: FOB Taji, Iraq
Joined: 04-22-2003


Message 45 of 112 (163171)
11-25-2004 9:43 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by contracycle
11-25-2004 7:10 AM


Contracycle,
It's interesting to hear your take on how "we" are perceived. I can't say I find any of it surprising or difficult to believe, though some of the details were rather novel to me.
I guess my only question is, what would you suggest in terms of positive action? Though you say you're not bashing, you're still defining your whole line of reasoning in terms of blame, and casting it on people who are strongly opposed to the imperialistic, quasi-fascist version of the US that the neo-cons favor. While I still find the logic behind this untenable, I don't think we're going to make any progress on that question and we may as well suspend it for now. Regardless of blame, I don't see any actionable conclusion in your posts yet.
Now, if we are so misguided, and peaceful participation in the election process as provided by law is a waste of our time, what do you propose as an alternative? I was following your exchange with Holmes on this, and it often seems your reasoning would lead one toward violent revolt, but you claim not to be advocating that. What's the story?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by contracycle, posted 11-25-2004 7:10 AM contracycle has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024