Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,581 Year: 2,838/9,624 Month: 683/1,588 Week: 89/229 Day: 61/28 Hour: 3/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   "Only have ourselves to blame" NO!
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5809 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 16 of 112 (162836)
11-24-2004 4:40 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by zephyr
11-24-2004 1:40 AM


I think it's funny that so many people confuse the war in Iraq with the "War on Terror".
As a question to a person in the military... and unfortunately in Iraq... did you at all have a choice in where you were stationed? Could you have said that you were more interested in Afghanistan and so volunteer to go there instead of Iraq?
I understand where an army wouldn't allow a soldier to choose stateside duty over a warzone, but it would seem like volunteering for one warzone over another might get you a little slack.

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 14 by zephyr, posted 11-24-2004 1:40 AM zephyr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by zephyr, posted 11-24-2004 9:40 AM Silent H has replied

  
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 112 (162837)
11-24-2004 4:40 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Loudmouth
11-23-2004 11:34 AM


quote:
Were the people who voted against Hitler in the Parliment to blame for his rise to power? No.
Well yes, they were. Because without their acceptance of him a s legitimate candidate, he would not have had a legitimate chancellorship.
Lets not lose sight of the alternative - the withdrawal of consent and refusal to particpate in the process. Nobody held them down or put a gun to their head and made them vote - they voted becuase they DID regard the process that broght Hitler in as a candidate as legitimate.
quote:
Were they responsible for WWII, the Holocaust, etc.? No. I am not comparing Hitler to Bush, just trying to illustrate that throughout history those who stood against a candidate were not held responsible for the actions of that candidate afterwards.
Hang on a second, I didn't say anything about culpability for actions. I don't dispute at all that the head of state retains responsiblity for the actions they take in their official capacity. But the political process that brings these candidates to office cannot disclaim responsibility for so doing - EITHER you accept that the process was valid, that your opinion was polled, and that the majority opinion won the day, OR you deny the validity of the process in order to dispute the outcome.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Loudmouth, posted 11-23-2004 11:34 AM Loudmouth has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5809 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 18 of 112 (162841)
11-24-2004 5:14 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by contracycle
11-24-2004 4:17 AM


Zephyr this is illogical:
Actually Zephyr is being quite logical. While you are being a bit illogical on your attacks of his position, it is true that your general position is also logical.
This is a case when both positions are basically sound. There is a third element, however which is not being discussed and I think that is where you are losing perspective.
Zephyr is wholly right that we took part in a process and took action through that process to remove the current lame-ass figure in the executive office. Thus those voting against Bush and lost did do their part and are not to blame for Bush being re-elected, or put into office.
You are right that if an electoral process chooses someone you don't like, yet you do not challenge the decision and allow that someone to attain (or keep) power, you have de facto given your support for that someone... even if it is a silent approval.
The problem with your position is that you miss the connecting factor: the process. The reason for the silent approval of the chosen official, is because there is support for the process. If one supports the process one must lay down ones guns when it does not turn out your way.
And I mean this almost literally. What else does a "losing" side in an election have as a choice, except to challenge the election by force? While you might find this a valid solution it really just puts an end to democracy altogether. The precedent will be set that elections are not about ending wars to decide the position of power, but to start them.
That is the nice thing about democracy, it is like a civil war, but without the bloodshed. Do we want to go back to the old forms of government and bloodshed? As much as I do not like Bush I do not think that is the best solution. It is better for us "losers" to keep our guns shelved and fight the man politically as best we can, on the local level if forced to, until we have our next "revolution".
You'd think a guy who likes revolutions would enjoy a democracy like that.
If for some reason Bush vastly oversteps then he will meet violent opposition. You can see this in the fact that during his first term some of his decisions brought out massive demonstrations, some shutting down whole sections of cities. Eventually there is a breaking point, even for a democratic society.
In the end, the founding fathers of the US had a pretty good point in the Declaration of Independence, in that one does not and should not approach the decision to overthrow one's gov't lightly. It becomes a duty when the gov't becomes too oppressive, but we have not reached that stage yet. What we have is a lame-ass elected to an office.
You can say that by not going to war over the 2004 election, the losers have supported the results of the process, and so the man. But the reasons are pretty clear and understandable. Would another war make anything better? Really?
Thus us "losers" are certainly not to blame for his having been elected, and while we may give our silent assent to his position in the office based on our loss in the election, given the alternatives to this can we really be blamed?
And in any case, if you feel that is the solution, then you yourself are also complicit. If it comes down to violent opposition, you yourself may take up your guns and try to stop our President, here or around the world. But as usual, I am sure you will have a reason others should fulfill your moral obligations?

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 15 by contracycle, posted 11-24-2004 4:17 AM contracycle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by contracycle, posted 11-24-2004 5:37 AM Silent H has replied

  
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 112 (162847)
11-24-2004 5:37 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Silent H
11-24-2004 5:14 AM


first point:
quote:
You'd think a guy who likes revolutions would enjoy a democracy like that.
Well thats fucking offensive. At least do me the favour of responding to what my actual argument IS, rather than relentlessly producing this slanderous garbage.
quote:
The problem with your position is that you miss the connecting factor: the process. The reason for the silent approval of the chosen official, is because there is support for the process. If one supports the process one must lay down ones guns when it does not turn out your way.
No, I didn't miss that, that was in fact the crux of my argument. That is why I referred to the social contract explicitly.
quote:
If for some reason Bush vastly oversteps then he will meet violent opposition. You can see this in the fact that during his first term some of his decisions brought out massive demonstrations, some shutting down whole sections of cities. Eventually there is a breaking point, even for a democratic society.
Whereupon the good people of America will join in denouncing those protestors as terrorists and anti-Americans. Remember you no longer have Habeus Corpus, so the state will be able to keep a tight lid on small scale resistance, and there is no organisation in place to implement large scale resistance. Furthermore, you will recall that during Vietnam such conflict did go to the point of shooting deaths, but the resistance movement ultimately backed down as a result.
quote:
You can say that by not going to war over the 2004 election, the losers have supported the results of the process, and so the man. But the reasons are pretty clear and understandable. Would another war make anything better? Really?
The point is, that is your choice. I didn't advocate any form of resistance to Bush, violent or otherwise, in this thread. What I said was, IF you are not prepared tho challenge the process en bloc, you must TAKE RESOPNSIBILITY for the result of that process. If you don't like the result, then you have an awful lot of persuading to do for the next time.
quote:
And in any case, if you feel that is the solution, then you yourself are also complicit. If it comes down to violent opposition, you yourself may take up your guns and try to stop our President, here or around the world. But as usual, I am sure you will have a reason others should fulfill your moral obligations?
Why - I've been in skirmishes with the law already. In the broader sense, yes I do take responsibility for the Western culture that produced both Bush and I - that is why I am its critic, and why I am already coimmitted to the use of force if necessary to overthrow it. What are you doing about it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Silent H, posted 11-24-2004 5:14 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Silent H, posted 11-24-2004 8:41 AM contracycle has replied

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


Message 20 of 112 (162856)
11-24-2004 7:01 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by contracycle
11-24-2004 4:17 AM


quote:
Yes I already agreed you didn;t get the SPECIFIC outcome you wanted. But, if I go into a store intending to haggle for a product becuase I only want to pay X rather than Y, that is merely my desire. If I don't get my way and have to pay Y I cannot then claim that it is the other persons fault, or that there was some culpability, or that the transaction was unfair, or dishonest, or innapripriate in any way. And the person who sold me the good, and everyone else in the community, can hold me to the contract I signed or whatever.
That is a terrible analogy. You would have to rewrite the entire scenario for it to match up to a US election. An appropriate analogy is a situation in which:
- the price is already fixed;
- the purchase MUST be made;
- there is limited time to make a decision;
- the choice is not given to just one consumer, and;
- everybody is required to buy the same product based on consensus, regardless of their individual preference.
quote:
Its your democratic process - you perhaps didn't get the candidate you wanted, but it is on YOUR authority that there is a head of state at all and that he has the powers that he does.
No, the existence of a head of state is absolutely and completely beyond my control. The choice thereof is affected marginally by my participation in the election process. I was born into this country 200 years after the system was created and am given limited options to act within the confines of that structure.
quote:
No, thats precisely the point I'm making - you CAN say you are not happy, you cannot say you are not RESPONSIBLE. Of course you are responsible, who else put him in the whitehouse, Martians? If you say that ONLY his supporters were 'responsible', then you are essentially withdrawing support for the legitimacy of the office.
Part of the democratic social contract is that you are held to decisions you don't like. Your were a dsirect perciticpant in a formal process, you are REPOSNSIBLE for that outcome even if you did not favour the outcome.
I'm going to try a little reductio ad absurdum. The point is to show you how the principles behind your argument would apply if logically extended to other situation.
The other day I was walking down the street, and I saw a big guy kicking an old lady's ass. I tried to intervene, but he knocked me out and then stole her purse and underwear. It is my fault because I took part in a contest to determine the outcome of the situation.
This conclusion makes no sense unless you consider one last premise that underlies your argument and is the source of your error. You consider me and the mugger to be morally equivalent as collective participants in the process. That is, responsibility is laid equally on all contestants regardless of their intents and actions.
It's not only illogical, it's completely ludicrous.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by contracycle, posted 11-24-2004 4:17 AM contracycle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by contracycle, posted 11-24-2004 8:48 AM zephyr has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5809 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 21 of 112 (162873)
11-24-2004 8:41 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by contracycle
11-24-2004 5:37 AM


Whereupon the good people of America will join in denouncing those protestors as terrorists and anti-Americans.
Huh? I'm a good people and I'm not denouncing them. My guess is that 49% of the voting population will not begin denouncing them and their good people too.
You make no sense. There was an election and about half the electorate was disappointed. Just because they don't take up arms to reverse the results, does not equate to them turning and hating their own side.
Furthermore, you will recall that during Vietnam such conflict did go to the point of shooting deaths, but the resistance movement ultimately backed down as a result.
First of all Vietnam was not enough to go into civil war over. And second, it was the government that eventually backed down... the protesters won.
What I said was, IF you are not prepared tho challenge the process en bloc, you must TAKE RESOPNSIBILITY for the result of that process. If you don't like the result, then you have an awful lot of persuading to do for the next time.
Does it look like I've somehow let up on my trying to persuade people that Bush is a moron who has done great harm to our country, and that the Republicans were a sell out party?
Taking responsibility for the election does not mean taking blame for having elected the winner of an election. I fought, I lost, I will continue to fight. Yes I will not destroy the process, though I am fighting to change its methodology.
I do take responsibility for the Western culture that produced both Bush and I - that is why I am its critic, and why I am already coimmitted to the use of force if necessary to overthrow it. What are you doing about it?
But the use of force isn't necessary is it? It isn't even useful at this point in time is it? So what am I doing about it? The same thing you are. I'm standing my ground and hoping to change the face of the electorate so that it does not make similar mistakes in the future.
The end result is that no one who voted for someone other than Bush is responsible for Bush being elected, and they do not have themselves to blame. It just doesn't make sense... unless you are advocating an overthrow of the US government and getting active in it. But again, I doubt you are doing so, as no rational person would be.

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 19 by contracycle, posted 11-24-2004 5:37 AM contracycle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by contracycle, posted 11-24-2004 9:28 AM Silent H has replied

  
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 112 (162876)
11-24-2004 8:48 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by zephyr
11-24-2004 7:01 AM


quote:
This conclusion makes no sense unless you consider one last premise that underlies your argument and is the source of your error. You consider me and the mugger to be morally equivalent as collective participants in the process. That is, responsibility is laid equally on all contestants regardless of their intents and actions.
No thats silly. you and the mugger have no social contract, have not agreed to binding arbitration, and have not agreed a process by which that is carried out. There are no equivalents here; it is not merely that you are enagegd in the same activity, but that you are engaged in a formal, agreed, regulated, authorised, process.
I agree that de facto you don't get to consent to the social contract personally, but that doesn't change anything: your participation in the process made you responsible. You didn't NEED to vote either, you CHOSE to vote, and Bush can and will rightly claim that his position has been so legitimised. And further, you all remain collectively responsible for the actions of your state, too.
This message has been edited by contracycle, 11-24-2004 08:50 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by zephyr, posted 11-24-2004 7:01 AM zephyr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by zephyr, posted 11-24-2004 10:44 AM contracycle has replied

  
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 112 (162884)
11-24-2004 9:28 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by Silent H
11-24-2004 8:41 AM


quote:
Huh? I'm a good people and I'm not denouncing them. My guess is that 49% of the voting population will not begin denouncing them and their good people too.
You forget the baying mob that slander of the protestors at the Battle of Seattle. Americas track record for welcoming dissent is dismal.
quote:
You make no sense. There was an election and about half the electorate was disappointed. Just because they don't take up arms to reverse the results, does not equate to them turning and hating their own side.
The same argument would be deployed as is being deployed in the Ukraine - there is no excuse for refusing to accept a democratic election, and anyone who does not is beyond the law and, likely, a terrorist. After all, those very people turned their backs on their own side at Seattle.
quote:
First of all Vietnam was not enough to go into civil war over.
No of course not. Only foreign people were being slaughtered in large numbers - nothing serious at all. Jesus.
quote:
And second, it was the government that eventually backed down... the protesters won.
No it didn't - the troops stayed in until the US was pushed out. In all respects that anti-war movement lost.
quote:
Taking responsibility for the election does not mean taking blame for having elected the winner of an election. I fought, I lost, I will continue to fight. Yes I will not destroy the process, though I am fighting to change its methodology.
Correct. Thus the thread header "only ourselves to blame" should be answered "yes". You cannot deny responsibility for a corporate process.
quote:
But the use of force isn't necessary is it?
To overthrow Western culture? I'm afraid I think the answer is yes. There are no precedents for the wholesale changes of existing cultures without violence.
quote:
It isn't even useful at this point in time is it? So what am I doing about it? The same thing you are. I'm standing my ground and hoping to change the face of the electorate so that it does not make similar mistakes in the future.
Well, thats fine as far as it goes - that is exactly what I meant by taking responsibility for the result, rather than denying responsibility for it and its consequences.
As for violence, my view is Western society should have been thrown into the trashcan of history ages ago, and has continued to kill and maim wherever it goes. Certainly, in terms of the political consciosness of the American state, there is no mood for uprising, but IMO its badly, badly overdue.
quote:
The end result is that no one who voted for someone other than Bush is responsible for Bush being elected, and they do not have themselves to blame.
Only if they denounce the process. You consented to the process - you cannot then derrogate from the outcome of the process. That is just wanting to have your cake and eat it too.
quote:
It just doesn't make sense... unless you are advocating an overthrow of the US government and getting active in it. But again, I doubt you are doing so, as no rational person would be.
How absurd. Of course I advocate that; it's a brutal imperialistic kleptocracy, how can rational people NOT want it destroyed?
This message has been edited by contracycle, 11-24-2004 09:38 AM
This message has been edited by contracycle, 11-24-2004 09:38 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Silent H, posted 11-24-2004 8:41 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Silent H, posted 11-24-2004 10:09 AM contracycle has replied

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


Message 24 of 112 (162891)
11-24-2004 9:40 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Silent H
11-24-2004 4:40 AM


quote:
As a question to a person in the military... and unfortunately in Iraq... did you at all have a choice in where you were stationed? Could you have said that you were more interested in Afghanistan and so volunteer to go there instead of Iraq?
I understand where an army wouldn't allow a soldier to choose stateside duty over a warzone, but it would seem like volunteering for one warzone over another might get you a little slack.
Those situations are few and far between. At my home station, we get requests one slot at a time (at least for engineering types like me) and fill them as they come. If nobody volunteers, the boss picks someone. Sometimes that means you can volunteer for a place like Qatar or elsewhere, that's fairly safe but gets you the same AEF credit. The catch is that we don't always know the location when we have to decide whether we can support a tasking, and that often means we assign somebody before we find out.
After an AEF rotation, be it Baghdad or Tampa (yeah, they use the same system to man CENTCOM and CENTAF positions in the states), you get a break before you can be tapped again.
Anyway... the bottom line is that, for me and mine, it's generally not a question of where you go. It's a question of gauging your likelihood of getting stuck with a deployment at a bad time. When my tasking came in, I was temporarily in charge of the section where I and all the eligible folks work, so I had to give a yea/nay to my boss on supporting the tasking. The location: *******.
I had some nagging doubts but I didn't think we could prove a shortfall, so I accepted it. Knowing full well that I was the #1 target at that point, I had effectively volunteered for the assignment without knowing where it was. I reasoned that it was bound to happen and September was a good time to go, and now I at least knew when my time would come. Of course, I should have known that "******" meant the Sunni fucking Triangle. Days after I accepted the tasking, it was moved up by 3 months (which is just one example of the shit the AEF center pulls in order to fill holes in manning). The day before I left, my already-abnormal 135-day rotation (the standard had just gone from 120 to 90 and is now back to 120) was extended to 165... which is mostly extraneous shit, but hopefully interesting (somehow).
It's been a good experience overall, but I am damn ready to be getting home. I'm not going to work for a month after inprocessing....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Silent H, posted 11-24-2004 4:40 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Silent H, posted 11-24-2004 10:15 AM zephyr has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5809 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 25 of 112 (162898)
11-24-2004 10:09 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by contracycle
11-24-2004 9:28 AM


You forget the baying mob that slanderddf the protestors at the Battle of Seattle
What the hell are you talking about? And how does that have any relevance to my point that pre-election protesters and their supporters are not suddenly going to look back and think they were wrong.
If your point is that a lot of people that didn't agree with the protests will continue to not agree with the protests, you may very well be right. So?
The same argument would be deployed as is being deployed in the Ukraine - there is no excuse for refusing to accept a democratic election, and anyone who does not is beyond the law and, likely, a terrorist. After all, those very people turned their backs on their own side at Seattle.
There is a pretty big difference between what is going on in the US and what is going on in the Ukraine. But let's say there isn't and the minority of Ukrainian voters decided to protest the election by enacting a civil war... you really think that's the best option?
Only foreign people were being slaughtered in large numbers - nothing serious at all. Jesus.
Yes, Vietnam was not serious enough reason for the US to begin slaughtering even greater numbers of its own people. Would all of that bloodshed have made you happy? And do you really believe that would have lessened the bloodshed in Vietnam?
Your criticisms certainly are carefree of solutions. How easy it must be.
the troops stayed in until the US was pushed out. In all respects that anti-war movement lost.
It is without question that the US was not succeeding in Vietnam. But your assertion that we were pushed out by the N Vietnamese is ridiculous. While I don't think we ever would have "won", we could certainly have kept status quo or made things even more bloody if the US had decided to stay in the conflict.
The Vietnam war had lost favor with the american government as it lost favor with the american people. The protestors did win. Lives were saved, even if many had already been lost.
Correct. Thus the thread header "only ourselves to blame" should be answered "yes". You cannot deny responsibility for a corporate process.
It should be answered no. You have yet to respond with any credible arguments against my arguments, so you are currently losing. Reasserting your claim does not make it anymore convincing.
To overthrow Western culture? I'm afraid I think the answer is yes.
So for the record you believe that starting a war against the US is needed. Well hop to it my friend, looks like you have some work ahead of you... Oh yeah, but you gotta keep things going on the theoretical side, right? From behind your computer?
Your phony heroism and exhortations for others to die violently so that the world will be better for your ideology, while claiming the proof other ideologies are so bad is they have so much bloodshed, is quite amusing.
As for violence, my view is Western society should have been thrown into the trashcan of history ages ago...
While I am no fan of many facets of western culture, and many western governments, and do agree there have been a lot of horrific acts conducted by them, I have yet to see you explain how a massive civil war would change this. Even if we take over and throw out Bush, how will the necessary deaths have made the world any better? And why would that mean we don't make more mistakes in dealing with other crises in the future?
You consented to the process - you cannot then derrogate from the outcome of the process. That is just wanting to have your cake and eat it too.
Heheheh... in a way. You ever see the South Park episode on democracy? That is exactly what they say it is all about.
But that is to miss the point I first talked about. We have a choice to go back to the old way of determining power at any time. The question is sticking with the process, or not. Sticking with the result of a process, because it will minimize needless bloodshed, even if the process picks an idiot once in a while, is not the same as being complicit in choosing that idiot.
Bush is an idiot, but his actions have not risen to a level that would realistically make bloodshed to depose him... and scrap our nation as well as democracy as an institution for our people... an option.
That is our choice. I hate the guy and want him out asap, but killing more people is not going to fix things. I can wait 4 years and the guy will be gone.
I can work to influence outcomes of future choices so that they will be better. In this process I'll be fighting Bush's efforts all the way I can. Thankfully my state is solidly against him... even voting out republicans from rep positions.
That seems like the best alternative to a revolution doesn't it?
That means I am taking responsibility doesn't it? That doesn't mean I am to "blame" for him being where he is.
Of course I advocate that; it's a brutal imperialistic kleptocracy, how can rational people NOT want it destroyed?
Again, quite humorous. This means you are to blame for Bush still being around just as much as the rest of us then. What are you gonna do? Yell at people. Yawn. If there's one thing more pathetic than a paper tiger, its an electron-tiger.

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 23 by contracycle, posted 11-24-2004 9:28 AM contracycle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by contracycle, posted 11-24-2004 10:43 AM Silent H has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5809 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 26 of 112 (162901)
11-24-2004 10:15 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by zephyr
11-24-2004 9:40 AM


I guess as an aside, would you have felt better if you had been sent to Afghanistan instead of Iraq, or would it have made no real difference?
Or maybe I should add another question. What if we had never gone to Iraq and all the forces now there had been deployed to Afghanistan and so you were sent there instead. Would that have altered your perspective at all? Would it have made you more willing to serve longer?

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 24 by zephyr, posted 11-24-2004 9:40 AM zephyr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by zephyr, posted 11-24-2004 1:41 PM Silent H has replied

  
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 112 (162911)
11-24-2004 10:43 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Silent H
11-24-2004 10:09 AM


quote:
What the hell are you talking about?
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.
quote:
If your point is that a lot of people that didn't agree with the protests will continue to not agree with the protests, you may very well be right. So?
So... they will call out the national guard if the protests appear threatening.
The point is, you cannot simply protest the result of the election peacefully, if you want to have an impact. 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.
quote:
There is a pretty big difference between what is going on in the US and what is going on in the Ukraine. But let's say there isn't and the minority of Ukrainian voters decided to protest the election by enacting a civil war... you really think that's the best option?
My opinion of what is best is irrelevant; the fact of the matter is that the protestors cannot stay where they are - they have to either seize state or or go home. Thats it.
quote:
Yes, Vietnam was not serious enough reason for the US to begin slaughtering even greater numbers of its own people. Would all of that bloodshed have made you happy? And do you really believe that would have lessened the bloodshed in Vietnam?
It would have stopped the slaughter in Vietnam because US troops would have had to have been recalled to deal with domestic unrest - indeed, large chunks of the army might have deserted. and yes, 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.
quote:
The Vietnam war had lost favor with the american government as it lost favor with the american people. The protestors did win. Lives were saved, even if many had already been lost.
Theres the reflex orthodox history again. Americas self-image of enlightenment. But if that were true, how come John Kerry could be attacked, succesfully, for being opening about American atrocities in Vietnam? The protestors did not win - US troops were there till 1975, when the bulk of domestic resistance was over. I cannot see how an anti-war movement that leaves troops in a foreign country for a decade can remotely be considered a success; nor is there any indiaction that the lessons of Vietnam have been learned when the emdia are once again asked to be on side, and pilloried for reporting American atrocities, just like Kerry was. The public discrouse places loyalty to the American state over human rights, or justice.
quote:
It should be answered no. You have yet to respond with any credible arguments against my arguments, so you are currently losing.
Pah. Such arrogance.
quote:
So for the record you believe that starting a war against the US is needed.
No I specifically don't. As you well know, but then you often seem to need resort to lies. As you well know, my proposed solution is a domestic revolution, and I have previously explained to you why this is the case - to minimise the loss of life.
quote:
Well hop to it my friend, looks like you have some work ahead of you... Oh yeah, but you gotta keep things going on the theoretical side, right? From behind your computer?
So boring holmes, you've tried that canard before.
quote:
Your phony heroism and exhortations for others to die violently so that the world will be better for your ideology, while claiming the proof other ideologies are so bad is they have so much bloodshed, is quite amusing.
Except I've never done that anywhere, have I holmes? how many times have you tried this lie out now, 4 or 5? Do you not even have any self-consciosness? I mean its simply boring. And, 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.
quote:
While I am no fan of many facets of western culture, and many western governments, and do agree there have been a lot of horrific acts conducted by them, I have yet to see you explain how a massive civil war would change this.
"a massive civil war" would not change it. Only ther destruction of capitalism would change it. Please stop changing the subject - all I pointed out was that you either accept the result of the vote as legitimate or revolt, those are the only options you have.
quote:
Even if we take over and throw out Bush, how will the necessary deaths have made the world any better? And why would that mean we don't make more mistakes in dealing with other crises in the future?
You are conflating issues - Bush is not personally responsible for all the atrocities committed by the west, these are two different issues. Please pay attention.
quote:
Heheheh... in a way. You ever see the South Park episode on democracy? That is exactly what they say it is all about.
I'm not surprised.
quote:
Sticking with the result of a process, because it will minimize needless bloodshed, even if the process picks an idiot once in a while, is not the same as being complicit in choosing that idiot.
Thats exactly what I have been saying, holmes.
quote:
That is our choice. I hate the guy and want him out asap, but killing more people is not going to fix things. I can wait 4 years and the guy will be gone.
Correct. 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.
quote:
That seems like the best alternative to a revolution doesn't it?
Depends what your goals are. Its perfectly suited for your goals.
quote:
That means I am taking responsibility doesn't it? That doesn't mean I am to "blame" for him being where he is.
Yes, you are. You voted, you legitimised his election, and you provide tacit consent to his presiding over the state. 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.
quote:
This means you are to blame for Bush still being around just as much as the rest of us then.
Ha ha - not only do I not have the vote in the US, but even if I did, 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.
quote:
What are you gonna do? Yell at people. Yawn. If there's one thing more pathetic than a paper tiger, its an electron-tiger.
LOOOOOOOOOL.
This message has been edited by contracycle, 11-24-2004 11:04 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Silent H, posted 11-24-2004 10:09 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Silent H, posted 11-24-2004 2:42 PM contracycle has not replied

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


Message 28 of 112 (162912)
11-24-2004 10:44 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by contracycle
11-24-2004 8:48 AM


quote:
No thats silly. you and the mugger have no social contract, have not agreed to binding arbitration, and have not agreed a process by which that is carried out. There are no equivalents here; it is not merely that you are enagegd in the same activity, but that you are engaged in a formal, agreed, regulated, authorised, process.
I agree that de facto you don't get to consent to the social contract personally, but that doesn't change anything: your participation in the process made you responsible. You didn't NEED to vote either, you CHOSE to vote, and Bush can and will rightly claim that his position has been so legitimised. And further, you all remain collectively responsible for the actions of your state, too.
Responsible for what? What the hell did I do? I have been given one and only one means by which I may attempt to sway the course of events. My action did not change anything. And for this I am culpable?
Had I simply done nothing, I would indeed be blameworthy. At least then you could show that I had failed to take action when given the chance. As is, since you choose to collectively cast blame on all parties - opposing sides in a combat! - it is a no-win situation. Are you trying to make a point in all of this?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by contracycle, posted 11-24-2004 8:48 AM contracycle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by contracycle, posted 11-24-2004 10:54 AM zephyr has replied

  
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 29 of 112 (162920)
11-24-2004 10:54 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by zephyr
11-24-2004 10:44 AM


quote:
As is, since you choose to collectively cast blame on all parties - opposing sides in a combat! - it is a no-win situation. Are you trying to make a point in all of this?
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.
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".
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 message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by zephyr, posted 11-24-2004 10:44 AM zephyr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by crashfrog, posted 11-24-2004 11:34 AM contracycle has not replied
 Message 31 by zephyr, posted 11-24-2004 12:50 PM contracycle has replied

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


Message 30 of 112 (162936)
11-24-2004 11:34 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by contracycle
11-24-2004 10:54 AM


you have to acknowledge the real, not the nominal, political identity of your state, otherwise you will not be able to fix it.
That's what has people throwing up their hands. The real political identity turned out to be that a slight majority of Americans allowed their religion and fear to make them too stupid to choose wisely.

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