Political Correlation?

the neocon approach is to sellout the controls on polluting the lakes and rivers so that the fish are inedible and the water undrinkable.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

quote:

---

It isn't clear how firmly you have supported your assertions Contra. A simple reading of your post suggests that these are simply more assertions of your own.

---

Once again, I will not be held to an artgument ad ignorantum.Paisano has preumably studiously avoided all the studies by UN groups, by Amnesty international, by non-governmental organisations, demonstarting the manipulation of trade practiced by the US. This must take some effort, because thousands upon thousands of people came all the way to Seattle a few years ago to register their dissent.So Paisano's argument that the US cannot possibly be coercive, merely because he chooses to be ignorant of issues in world trade, is simply untenable. Those lysircs are from the 80's, and the criticism has been in circulation since the 60's.That, however, is characteristic of the Utopian nature of Conservative politics. I note that Paisano has not been called on to support his baseless ssertion - why is that? Conservatiove politics necessarily contemplates the perfect form which the economic dystem would take if only it were divorced from the messy realities of the material world.Paisano may be ignorant, or may choose to be ignorant, of the degree to which foreign aid is tyied to arms exports, but that is not my problem. Paisano may be ignorant of the abuses prtacticed in alleged "free trade zones", or of rht debt-farming industry that constitutes western aid, but that also is not my problem.Paisano may be ignorant, or choose to be ignorant, of the correlation between oppressive regimes that use violence their populations to keep wages low to attract capitalist forms, and the correlation this has with American inward investment, but seeing as this justified a massive proportion of the horror and brutality of Apartheid, and is known to me well, his ignorance - voluntary or otherwise - does not challenge my claim at all and in fact rather lends credence to my charge: Conservatism is Utopian, and Idealistic, and remains so by carefully avoiding examining reality, and carefully avoiding responsibility for its actions.This message has been edited by contracycle, 09-06-2004 06:28 AM

Indeed, contracycle has neatly transcended this limit, with an argumentum ad verecundiam, an argumentum ad populum, and possibly an argumentum ad baculum in the first paragraph alone.I concede the debate, with my compliments.

I don't take it as acceptable to tell someone to run off and find things to read that refute their position.You should find enough references and comment on how they support a refutation of the others position.This message has been edited by AdminNosy, 09-06-2004 08:54 PM

It is normal practice that someone who makes an assertion is responsible for backing up that assertion with evidence or to recant or add conditions to their assertion.I would like to see the assertion about a link between foreign aid and required arms exports to be verified as well. Making an appeal "common knowledge" is a logical fallacy, not evidence.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

I charge 10 hour when serving as a teacher. Pleasre contact me by PM for a an address to which to send funds. Personal cheques accepted.This stuff is easy to find. Heres the World Development Movement's section on the Arms Trade and Export Credits. This is mostly form the UK perspective but of course is harldy a unique UK problem. As mentioned in one of the links: "The proportion of export credit coverage for defence equipment fell in the last year from over 50% to 30%."Arms TradeThroughout the 1990s WDM worked on a number of arms trade issues:Export Credits and Arms
In November 1994, we launched a campaign to stop the use of export credits to support arms sales. This campaign alerted many other organisations to the issue. The Chancellor of the Exchequer announced a ban on the use of export credits for ‘unproductive’ expenditure (which includes arms sales) for Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) in 1997. This ban was extended to over 50 low income countries in January 2000.WDM Press releases:
ECGD review is a "cave in to corporate interests" (25/7/00)
Campaigners and MPs demand reform of Export Credit Department (17/7/00)
Ilisu Dam Report reveals need for deep reform of Export Credits (12/7/00)Further information:
Role of Export Credit Agencies and the UK ECGD (13/10/2000)For further current information on this issue contact:
Campaign Against the Arms Trade (CAAT) CAAT - Homepage
Join CAAT's latest action, protesting against BAE Systems - Europe's largest arms company - on Wednesday 5 May 2004 in London.For information on the current Ilisu Dam Campaign contact:
ilisu.org.ukEU Code of Conduct on Arms Sales
Together with Saferworld and the British and American Security Council (BASIC), WDM helped promote an EU Code which drew on all the voluntary agreements EU countries had signed up to. The EU Code agreed by EU Foreign Ministers in May 1998 is not seen as being tough enough on situations of internal conflict or human rights, and there is no transparency.For further information on this issue contact:
Saferworld Home - Saferworld
Basic Home - BASIC.During the 1990s, WDM’s research and campaigns also exposed the investment of Britain’s high street banks in financing the arms trade; the link between aid and arms in Indonesia (mirroring the Pergau Dam case) and the scale of ECGD support for arms sales to Nigeria. WDM also highlighted the need for greater transparency and accountability of arms sales.Organisations working on arms trade issues include:
International Action Network on Small Arms (IANSA) IANSA - International Action Network on Small Arms
Amnesty International (AI) Home | Amnesty International UK
Oxfam Oxfam GB | leading UK charity fighting global povertyWDM continues to do work on export credits - see current campaignsWhy is public policy supporting arms exports?The proportion of export credit coverage for defence equipment fell in the last year from over 50% to 30%. But this compares to defence exports of around 3% of total UK exports. When export credit guarantees are added to other subsidies, such as marketing support, it is clear that defence exports are heavily subsidised. Yet the industry exports products that kill people, an uncomfortable fit with of an ethical foreign policy, weapons production is capital intensive and the defence industry that has been in serious decline. It is not a strong contender for subsidies to maintain employment. Export guarantees have been provided to repressive regimes, exposed in cases such as the arms to Iraq scandal and the export of Hawk jets to the Suharto government in Indonesia. The ECGD review failed to ensure that export credit guarantees are provided only for productive expenditure. Currently this applies only to the 41 countries in the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) initiative.Control Arms
http://www.controlarms.org/..._news/guns_growth_pr220604.htmGovernments are sacrificing development goals for arms exports
Embargoed until 00:01 GMT Tuesday 22nd June 2004Major arms exporting governments are breaking their promises on arms sales by failing to assess the impact such exports are having on poverty, according to new research published today. As a result, arms sales are being authorised which are diverting much needed resources away from areas such as health and education, as well as undermining the security and human rights of the population.The report shows how governments can assess the impact of arms sales on poverty. It argues that ultimately governments must agree to an international Arms Trade Treaty to control the arms trade and safeguard sustainable development and human rights."Government failure to stick to their own promises on arms exports means that children are denied an education, AIDS sufferers are not getting treatment and thousands are dying needlessly." said Barbara Stocking, Director of Oxfam.The report is written by Oxfam for the Control Arms campaign with research by Project Ploughshares and Saferworld. It is one of a series of reports produced by Oxfam, Amnesty International and the International Action Network on Small Arms (IANSA) during the campaign.The report, Guns or Growth?, surveyed seventeen of the world's main arms exporting countries.* All of these countries had previously signed agreements promising to take account of the impact on poverty of arms dealsbefore agreeing to export arms.Despite their promises:Nearly 90% of governments have no policy of consulting the government department of development in the export decision-making process (only the Netherlands and the UK do).Only four countries had ever denied a sale on the grounds of
sustainable development.**Only 10 countries would even consider doing so - despite all 17 being signatories to agreements obliging them to do so.***"Governments should be ashamed at their broken promises. Inappropriate arms sales are responsible for entrenching and exacerbating poverty. Despite assurances, most governments are still only playing lip service to assessing arms sales against their impact on poverty. To ensure we have strict international controls we need an Arms Trade Treaty." said Paul Eavis, Director of Saferworld.The report reveals the impact that arms sales can have on poverty:Six developing countries (Oman, Syria, Burma, Pakistan, Eritrea, Burundi) spend more on arms than they do on health and education combined.
In 2002, arms delivered to Asia, the Middle East, Latin America and Africa constituted over two thirds of the value of all arms deliveries worldwide.
An average $22 billion is spent on arms by countries in Asia, the Middle East, Latin America and Africa every year. This sum would have enabled those countries to put every child in school and to reduce child mortality by two thirds by 2015 (fulfilling two of the Millennium Development Goals).
In 2002, 90% of all arms deliveries to Asia, the Middle East, Latin America and Africa came from the five permanent members of the UN Security Council.
In sub-Saharan Africa, military expenditure rose by 47% during the late 1990's while life expectancy has fallen to just 46 years.
In 2002, Pakistan's total defence expenditure consumed half of its GDP (this includes the amount spent on servicing the interest on loans for previous arms deals).
The world currently spends between $50 and $60 billion on aid and $900 billion on defence.
In 1999, South Africa agreed to purchase armaments ? including frigates, submarines, aircraft and helicopters. The six billion dollars spent could have purchased treatment with combination therapy for all five million South African AIDS sufferers for two years.
In 2001, Tanzania spent US$40 million on the military Watchman radar system - according to experts, including the World Bank and IMF, this was vastly too expensive and inappropriate for its use. US$40 million could have provided healthcare for 3.5 million people in Tanzania.
In 2004, India signed a contract to buy the Admiral Gorshkov aircraft carrier from Russia at a cost of US$1.5bn. This money could have provided basic survival income for one year for 1.1 million families.
"The countries of Latin America, Asia, Africa and the Middle East account for two thirds of all arms imports. This is a massive sum of money that could be used to make real progress in the fight against poverty." said Ernie Regehr, Director, Project Ploughshares.-- ENDS --NOTESThe full report can be downloaded here as a PDF and a Summary of the Report is available hereThe Arms Trade Treaty would create legally binding arms controls and ensure that all governments control arms to the same basic international standards. Article 4c of the ATT states that, excepting legitimate security needs, an arms transfer must not go ahead if it is likely to adversely affect sustainable development.* The 17 countries contained in the survey were signatories to OSCE or EU agreements containing commitments to assess arms exports against their impact on sustainable development. These were Argentina, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Russia, Slovakia, Sweden, Turkey, UK, Ukraine, US.
** These were Bulgaria, Netherlands, Sweden, UK.
*** The 10 countries which clearly said that they might conceivably deny an export on sustainable development grounds alone were Bulgaria, Canada, Czech Republic, Germany, Netherlands, Romania, Sweden, Turkey, UK, US. The other seven were Argentina, Belgium, France, Poland, Russia, Slovakia, Ukraine.Then of course theirs the infamous Tanzania military radar system:
Oxfam GB Press Release - 21 July 2002Government Removes Tanzania Military Radar Clause from Arms BillThe Government on Monday will seek to reinstate a damaging loophole in the Arms Export Control Bill that could mean concerns about sustainable development, human rights and regional stability would be disregarded in decisions on arms exports.Patricia Hewitt, Secretary of State for the Department of Trade and Industry has rejected amendments tabled by the House of Lords which would have ensured that all arms sales to developing countries are judged against the impact they would have on poverty.Oxfam and Saferworld are urging MPs to support the important changes introduced in the Lords and resist the Governments attempts to water down the legislation.The decision to dilute the Bill currently making its way through parliament follows last year’s sale of a BAE military radar system to Tanzania for 28 million. Two World Bank reports have slammed the sale, with investigators reporting that this system was completely inappropriate for their needs and could be bought for a tenth of the price. The Government has refused to publish the reports.Adrian Lovett, Oxfam Campaigns Director said:
We’d hoped that the one good thing to come out of theTanzania debacle would be tighter arms laws, we’re stunned to find the opposite. The government want to lead the fight against world poverty, but this decision to dilute the arms export Bill is completely inconsistent with this claim.Paul Eavis, Director of Saferworld said:
"It is alarming that the Government is now seeking to reinstate a loophole into the arms export Bill. Under its proposals, concerns for sustainable development, human rights and regional stability could be disregarded in decisions on arms exports. We urge MPs to take a stand on this vital issue."Mary Mwingira, Executive Director of TANGO (Tanzania Association of NGOs) in Dar es Salaam said:
"I am very concerned as to how we can afford a 28 million military system when we have so many other competing needs. This is an ethical and moral question for the government of the UK - I'm not saying that we shouldn't defend ourselves but being protected from air attacks is a very distant need for poor people in Tanzania. It seems to me the main beneficiary of this sale is Britian."Rt Rev. David Stancliffe, the Bishop of Salisbury who has written to all the MPs in his region asking them to vote against the Governments proposal, said:
Earlier this year, Bishops and Lords from all sides of the House took a stand and rejected the governments attempts to push through a weak clause on sustainable development. It’s deeply disappointing that the Government have ignored us and are now attempting to water down the (Arms) Export Control Bill. Next week MPs have the chance to make a massive difference to the lives of poor people in the developing world. I urge them to vote against the governments amendment and stop irresponsible arms sales like the Tanzania military radar system from happening again.

quote:

---

It is normal practice that someone who makes an assertion is responsible for backing up that assertion with evidence or to recant or add conditions to their assertion.

---

No its not. People say leftists are irrational, without support. People say leftists want a big state, without support. People say LOTS of things without support - please start applying your "principles" evenhandedly. Remember, I am responding to Paisano's claim that: "The US may be run by people who think like MBAs, and this bothers many academics. But many other countries are run by people who think like the bullies who beat up the academics in junior high gym class. It takes equally tough, but principled, people to face these types down." Why is Paisano not asked to support his claims?Why must the basis for my disagreement be proved to academic standards, but Paisano's unsupported assertion is accepted uncritically? Thats a question to you, AdminNosy.This message has been edited by contracycle, 09-07-2004 05:13 AM

ahhh we are operating at the schoolyard level? "he did it too" is not an argument, it is just an emotive appeal, and a logical fallacy.If you let others get away without substantiating their claims then you are to blame, arent' you? To make claims of your own without substantiation is to step down to that level of debate, and it is just a shouting match of opinions. Not good form, not a good example.If you substantiate your claims and then ask them to do likewise it puts them in the hard spot.Certainly some outrageous claims are easy to refute with counter evidence but some cannot be proved in the negative: the existence or non-existence of god cannot be proved, and for someone to claim they have proof it is up to them to provide it.The claims you list below (strawmen all) are refutable:"leftists are irrational" - there are plenty of people who are not leftists that are irrational (a clinical condition) and so there is no correlation between the two."leftists want a big state" - Bush has grown the government more than any previous leftist president, therefore size of state is not related to leftist leanings.AND I kind of agree with the assertion that paisano made here -- certainly the bush administration acts like a bully, so there is some corroborating evidence.But your claim about a link between foreign aid and required arms exports seems rather far fetched to me, even though I have heard a lot of leftist conspiracy theories and lived through the 60's with long hair, civil rights protests, tear gas and "questionable" companions .If you expect a higher standard of debate from yourself, you can expect a higher standard of debate from your opponents, but if you expect a lower standard of debate from your opponents and play with them on that level then you have reduced your debate.Enjoy

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

quote:

---

ahhh we are operating at the schoolyard level? "he did it too" is not an argument, it is just an emotive appeal, and a logical fallacy.

---

Baloney, its a consistent bias. Remember I have not claimed justification on the basis that Paisano and others "do it too", I have only claimed the right to respond in kind. Are you willing to grant that, or not? Pick a standard, any standard, and stick to it.

quote:

---

If you let others get away without substantiating their claims then you are to blame, arent' you? To make claims of your own without substantiation is to step down to that level of debate, and it is just a shouting match of opinions. Not good form, not a good example.

---

Thats nonsense; I am not in any way to blame for Paisano's postings. Nor have I specifically objected to Paisano or you expressing OPINIONS, I ask only to be allowed to respond with OPINIONS. Adults engaged in conversation can do that - refusing to accept any opinion withpout cast-iron proof, however, is indeed the behaviour of the kiddies playground.

quote:

---

But your claim about a link between foreign aid and required arms exports seems rather far fetched to me, even though I have heard a lot of leftist conspiracy theories and lived through the 60's with long hair, civil rights protests, tear gas and "questionable" companions

---

OK, it seems implausible to you. But as far as I am concerned, that only indicates the narrow basis of your information. I mean for gods sake, a guy came to Cancun and committed public suicide in protest against the pushing of GM crops and unfair trade practices. If you are ignorant of the fact that there is a huge degree of concern across the world about these issues, then you are ignorant of much that drives the critical debate. Your ignorance does not suggest there is no debate, and certainly does not present a defence against the allegations.

quote:

---

If you expect a higher standard of debate from yourself, you can expect a higher standard of debate from your opponents, but if you expect a lower standard of debate from your opponents and play with them on that level then you have reduced your debate.

---

Actually what I expect is that adults relaise that this is a discussion forum, not an academic studies forum, and that OPINIONS can and should be freely discussed - yes indeed, calling on evidence - without requiring absolute and incontrovertible proof as a starting point.HOWEVER, this disengenuous, ignorance-based argumentation is the stock in trade of the right, and is for example also used in the defence of racism, as we saw on this board not long ago. It certainly circumstantially supports my contention that Conservative politics are based on ignorance and assumption, and have no rigorous or methedological basis.You owe me a tenner.This message has been edited by contracycle, 09-07-2004 09:46 AM

For what? Being another target of your venting? I thought the councelors were the ones that got paid, not the patients.All you have shown for "evidence" is just anecdotal -- show the actual line item in the actual contract and you will have a case.Just because you are paranoid doesn't mean you are not being followed, but claiming to be followed in spite of evidence to the contrary is being paranoid.Enjoy.ps -- your responses to the first two quotes are just more of the same bluster and bravado with no content worth keeping.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

quote:

---

For what? Being another target of your venting? I thought the councelors were the ones that got paid, not the patients.

---

for doing your basic reserach for you, and enlightening you as to the realities of life.

quote:

---

All you have shown for "evidence" is just anecdotal -- show the actual line item in the actual contract and you will have a case.

---

I will provide evidence of that quality as soon as Paisano does for his own argument. I will not do so asymetrically.

quote:

---

ps -- your responses to the first two quotes are just more of the same bluster and bravado with no content worth keeping.

---

Bullshit and you know it.Another poseur dealt with.

That sounds a bit like my kids. I don't always have time to pick on everyone equally. So I pot shot as best as I can. I just hope that it balences out over time and each one is an example for everyone else.You list of references and commentary was good. At this point it would be nice to see the current discussion summarized though.

quote:

---

That sounds a bit like my kids. I don't always have time to pick on everyone equally. So I pot shot as best as I can.

---

Fair point but: why do so to the response, rather than the claim?And I don't think the similarity you see is accidental; your intervention came off as a bit parental.It's a bit difficult to summarise the current discussion, however. Paisona says the left is irrational and Utopian, although he can't explain why. He also seems to assume virtues in the American stance that are most certainly not in evidence, and makes unfounded allegations against the historical record. Apart from that, Paisano's argument is content-less. All we have is his opinion.My position is that the Left is much more analytically sound and evidence based than the right, seeing as conservative analysis is dependant in theistic asusmptions (to which point Paisano has not responded) and patriotic delusions (evidenced by Paisano's apparent exaltation of US foreign policy). Paisano declines to accept any criticism of such policy because he personally chooses not to be aware of them, and thats all that counts.

resorting to profanity now. you have taught me nothing except what your character is like when your back is to the wall.go ahead, call it victory and assuage your ego if you must. no skin off my back. throw in a couple of ad hominems while you are at it.enjoy.ps - I don't expect a response, but if you do, I will be amused by your inability to let go.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

These discussion boards are for entertainment, for those of us who are entertained by vigorous debate. Contracycle is taking them much too seriously. Perhaps a brief break is in order if the enjoyment factor is presently absent. There is little to no evidence of structual dependence on theistic assumptions in the arguments of John Stuart Mill, Ayn Rand, John Locke, Milton Friedman, or Ludwig von Mises. Please provide evidence (not mere assertions) that conservative arguments are necessarily dependent on theism (and which brand of theism?) . US foreign policy includes a willingness to resort to military force when it is warranted by US interests. No evidence has been presented that this is in any way "delusional". Personal dislike of a position does not constitute refutation of it. An unwarranted assumption, for which no evidence has been presented. Apparently contracycle has difficulty accepting that individuals may have examined views espoused by contracycle and found them unsupported by sufficient independent evidence.