| JuryFury.com
A New Issue Every Monday ! Online School of Politics |
||
| Areas of Interest THE USA American Foreign Policy US House and Senate US Presidents State & Local Politics Regional Politics Politics of China The British Commonwealth Indian Subcontinent Middle East The European Union Africa Latin America ASEAN NATO United Nations The Non-aligned Movement Eastern Europe New Nations of the 20th Century General Topics Constitutional Law Human Rights Nuclear Disarmament & Treaties International Warfare Environmental Law Peace Treaties Economic & Social Alliances International Organizations Journalism & Media Racism and Democracy Women in the Workplace Family Law Courts and Practices The Judicial System Higher Education Education and Government Health Care & Insurance Rights of the Disabled Copyright & Working Online Legal Representation Legal Insurance Pornography Domestic Violence Religion & Law Workers Rights Employers Rights Prison & Life after Social Organizations Welfare & Poverty Taxation and Democracy Third World Aid Programs Space Exploration Alternative Energy Petroleum Industry & Cars Nuclear Power Programs for the Arts Sports Education Policing the Internet Privacy and freedom Immigration Food and Regulation War on Drugs War on Pharmaceuticals Public Housing Pollution and Control Sexual Harrassment Discrimination Electoral Process Consumers Rights Investors Rights Abortion Death Penalty Social Security Gender & Sexuality Grassroots Organization ACLU World Watch Oxfam UNICEF United Negro Fund Ford Foundation (suggestions welcome at our chatsite) Law of the Economy Join I-Traderschool, our sister magazine, for debates and news. |
Logic of War Some POWs Executed by Iraq by Craig Johnson SOME of the US army soldiers captured over the weekend near the southern town of Nasiriya may have been executed by their Iraqi captors, possibly in front of townspeople, the New York Times reported. http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,6191834%5E1702,00. News Flash Provided by IntellNet [ http://www.intellnet.org ] by Trevor Batten Re: Craig's post Apparently, although Britain and America don't seem to mind actually using high explosives against soldiers and civilians -they do seem to be exceedingly sensitive about seeing images of the consequences of these actions. Above all, the myth of a clean war must be preserved. Luckily, most people are so mathematically inept that hearing reports of casualty ratios of more than 10 enemy to every 1 home soldier killed are encouraging -as long as one is not reminded of the phyysical consequences of these figures. Clearly, al Jazeera and the Arab media are not playing the game fairly! It also seems that the Iraqi possession of suits to protect against biological-chemical weapons proves that these weapons are available to the Iraqis (and are about to be used). At the beginning of the war (when the first rockets flew in the direction of Kuwait) we were treated to images of "allied" troops wearing protective gear. Using the allies own logic -we must therefore assume that this provees that chemical and biological weapons have been used by the invading army against the Iraqis! We have recently been told that "Republican Guards" have resisted the allied advance because they know that they have nowhere to go when the regime collapses -and yet we have also been told that the "aallied" forces have had intensive contact with Iraqi forces in order to negotiate their surrender. Even Saddam has been offered exile if he choose to resign. So why do the Republican Guard" continue to fight? One begins to wonder if the Iraqis are not resisting the invasion because they object to the forced imposition of the bizarre logic of the so-called "coalition of the willing". When one hears that the Americans are now using trained dolphins to clear minefields -one must seriously question the supposed intelligence of dolphins. Presumably, the Americans are also running out of humans that are prepared to trust their beliefs -which increasingly appear to be based on a primitive and irrational faith (in themselves) more than practical facts and reasoned thought. Thoughts on the Act of War by cherrie lynn lipsett" <cherrie9@intercorp.com> I find it ludicrous that we have rules for fighting wars. First by making rules for something you legitimize that act-make it legal. You in effect condone the act. To legalize war (an aggressive action taken by one nation against another nations for the purpose of killing that nation’s people.) is like saying because there will always be people who commit robbery, thief, rape and other so defined crimes we will legalize these defined crimes and set up rules for committing them. To legitimize crime or war is to give in to the more base qualities of human nature. To say because some humans just have these natural instincts we have to have laws to let people know how to legally commit theses more undesirable instincts is absolutely insane. Human beings are the only animal on this planet who have the ability to think in a logical-rational manner. Human beings have the ability to speak-to communicate with each other. Human beings have a much larger range of emotions than other animals. They are the only animal on this planet which has the emotional quality of empathy. If we don’t use these qualities only given to human beings to settle our problems we are saying we are no better than the lower animals. We are giving into our animal instincts instead of rising to our instincts that are only human in nature. We call ourselves civilized because we have laws against robbery theft, rape, etc which are called crimes. These crimes are perpetuated by a relatively small number of people of a society but I believe that until we outlaw war we are not civilized. Until we outlaw the ability of all the people of a nation to legally invade and kill the people of another nation we are not civilized. We are allowing our nations to do what we do not allow people within a nation to do. Now what kind of logic is this? As long as we allow war to be legal we are back in our Stone Age ancestors stage where tribes invaded other tribes EXCEPT NOW we have such powerful weapons that we can with our weapons (especially nuclear) wipe out most life on our planet including human beings. War, the only act of killing others on a large scale which is condoned on this planet, is an animal instinct. All animals have a natural instinct to defend themselves (kill) when attacked. Only a few predatory types of animals kill when not provoked. Some humans fall into this category of predatory animal. It is found in criminals who have been given personality tests that the ones who have committed the worst crimes (the Jeffery Domers) have very low levels of the emotion empathy. The only emotion just found in humans on this planet. I personally feel we should make a lack of a certain amount of the emotion empathy a mental illness if we are going to call ourselves civilized and above lower animals. I feel to give in to our predatory animal instincts to hunt down (invade) and kill others as a nation while outlawing such acts on an individual basis within a nation is illogical and irrational. There should be an international court (just as most nations have courts within their nations) where nations (those who give the orders for that nation) are tried for crimes among nations which are outlawed within nations. Such a court should also try leaders of nations who commit acts upon their people which are crimes in most nations of earth. There should be a police force for the planet to insure that those who commit crimes as leaders of nations are punished. As it stands now leaders of nations can commit crimes which individuals within a nation can’t commit and met no consequence of such crimes. It is totally illogical and irrational to allow a person to commit a crime that others can not commit just because he is a leader of a nation. If we have laws against invading another person’s property, stealing another person’s property or killing others who have not tried to kill us on an individual status within nations then it logically follows to reach the highest level of civilization we have to have such laws to govern the same acts among nations. It is utterly illogical and irrational to say such things are wrong when committed within a nation on a limited basis by very few people but is when committed by all the peoples of a nation on all the peoples of another nation legal. If we do not reach the highest level of civilization on this planet we will no longer exist as a race of people. We will wipe ourselves out with our very powerful weapons of mass destruction. by Trevor Batten Re: Cherrie's post Rules of engagement? Like most other questions, the function of rules in times of war can be answered on many different levels. BBC reporter Elizabeth Blunt, when discussing the morality of "fair fighting" recently placed the issue firmly within the range of gender issues. Simply put: Men are powerful and therefore expect the enemy to fight (fairly) "as gentlemen" -while women, who are less powerful, must fight with all the means available. If this is true, then I believe it also offers a deeper insight into possible contradictions concerning the perception of gender. Traditionally, women are seen as being "social" beings -while men are seen as "technological" beings. In my view, this is completely incorrect. In practice (certainly within a hunter-gatherer community) it is the women who are primarily concerned with the practical technologies involved in feeding, clothing and bringing up the children. This is not the place to develop the argument further, but there are indications that suggest that much of modern technology can be traced back to basic discoveries centered on domestic processes (cooking, weaving, basketry and pottery, etc.). Presumably, men who are out all day involved in hunting will not be in a position to develop domestic technology -however, they will be required to develop social skills which will enable potential rivals to cooperate in (sometimes) life-threatening conditions. It may well be that women are the natural technologists -while men are more involved with the rituals that preserve the social structure. This seems to be confirmed by comparisons between male and female managers -it seems that women concentrate more on the activities required to do the job properly, while men are more involved in the social in-fighting which preserves or increases their status. Presumably, our attitudes are strongly determined by our view of the subject. Studying the history of war might provide another view. To be honest, I haven't done so -but it does seem apparent that warfare is a pretty universal activity -the origins of which may be pretty obscuree. It is often said that warfare is uniquely human -which if true, is presumably rather disturbing for those who believe that humans are better than animals (unless of course one views war as a superior activity). However, the non-human world is not completely free of violence (although it is probably not so central as many right-wingers would have us believe). Violence in the animal world is generally related to the predatory search for food -or the sexual urge to mate and the need to defend the territory required to bring up a family. It is said that foxes (for example) will kill an entire hen house if in a position to do so. However, in general, animals only kill to eat (or to store for consumption later) and disputes over mates and territories are usually ended when one of the combatants submit. Presumably, the ability to defend the territory and the nest and to provide food also play an important role regarding sexual attraction. Perhaps warfare derived naturally out of the process of hunting -a simple shift to human prey instead of animal (and perhaps from killing to stealing). If this is true, then the use of ritual would probably be a natural part of the process. For most hunters, ritual is an important part of process of discovery and conquest (including respect for the victim that has died so the hunter and his family can live). Eating the prey (human or animal) also (psychologically or spiritually) binds the hunter to his prey. Relating war to the hunting process brings us to consider war as an economic activity. This is a relationship which I believe is often overlooked by peace loving "liberals". Quite possibly, warfare was the first form of economic activity invented by mankind. Even as late as the Napoleonic wars (ending in the battle of Waterloo 18 JUNE 1815) the crews of British Royal Navy ships were paid a fixed share of the spoils of war (according to rank) every time they captured enemy ships. This was an important source of income for officers. Rape and pillage were probably not incidental accidents involving badly behaved troops -but were often the way the troops were paid for their efforts. Rape was a part of psychological warfare -in which the women, if they became pregnant, were faced with the horrible choice of nurturing the enemy or killing their own child. The capture and sale of slaves was also an important economic aspect of war. Presumably, sport and diplomacy were derived from warfare as a way of practicing for it and for dealing with the preparations and consequences. Trade is a tricky one -some people seem to consider that trade is simply warfare in a more peaceful form -but I personally wonder if it did not develop as an alternative in areas which were pretty low in natural resources. Paradoxically, trade seems to have played an early and crucial role in the rise of urban development around the twin rivers (in what is now Iraq). Certainly, specialization, trade (and money) play an important role in the development of life in cities (literally "civilization") where urban densities make self-sustained farming impossible. living in close proximity probably also requires the development of rules which prevent (or at least limit) uncontrolled violence, which would threaten the existence of the community. Perhaps by definition, sport and diplomacy require rules -which might extend naturally into war (and vice-versa) considering the close links between them. However, there are even different viewpoints possible regarding the aim and nature of warfare. America now has a doctrine of massive force -apparently not being prepared to fight uuunless it can kill its enemy with little risk to itself (apparently the need to put protection of the home forces first is a legal requirement of the US armed forces). This may sound like a very pragmatic, modern and technological approach -but it could also be seen as being very old (and even slightly cowardly). However, in the natural world, much actual fighting is avoided through the use of display techniques -only creatures that are evenly balanced, for whom the outcome is not obvious will actually risk wasting energy on fighting. As a point of historical fact, it seems that in some cases "wars" were never actually fought at all -the two armies would march, parade and manneuver until one of them became convinced that the other was superior and the fight would be over. It seems the Italian city-states (which were constantly at war) were horrified when French mercenaries actually started killing people. In other case, disputes were settled by the use of champions. Rumour has it that, with reference to the duel between Hamilton and Burr, Saddam has challenged Bush to a duel -but he declined. Presumably, the rise of professional armies will stimulate a natural tendency towards the development of rules which protect those professionally engaged. In many ways, "professionalism" itself can be considered to be concerned with the development of rules which protect the practitioners (generally against legal claims for damages as a result of "unprofessional" behavior -but in the case of war the rules of engageeement also assist professionals to continue working after a defeat). There may also be social values involved -it seems that the defeat of French knightssss by British foot soldiers at the battle of Agincourt was pretty shocking to contemporary aristocrats (who were essentially professional war leaders). Given all these reasons why rules are a natural and integral part of warfare, we might feel forced to ask how anybody could believe that rules should (or even could) play no part. Presumably, for an outsider, who has no overview of the situation, the image of war appears to be primarily one of random violence. However, this is true of the human mind in general -either we are able to perceive some kind of structure -or we see "chaos". Although we may not always agree with the "logic" used by some people -in general, the human mind seems to operate by the application of rules. In fact, despite the current social disinterest in (or even aversion to) rules, it seems difficult to understand how it could be otherwise. Our thoughts seem based on our perceptions and our perceptions seem to be based on our thoughts. However, our perceptions also seem to be limited by our physical sensory system and our thoughts seem to be limited by the conceptual processing apparently done in our brain (although the connection between the two is still not clear). The rules that define how our sensory organs work may be difficult to describe -but in practice they are built in to the physical constructions. It also seems that, in general, humans are generally intolerant of ideas that are derived from rules other than those which are accepted within the normal group structure. Those that deviate are considered to be either a genius or a lunatic and often (in both cases) treated with suspicious caution. In short, although we may not be aware of it -and may even wish to deny it -we cannot operate without rules. In case of war -the soldier must be trained, the general must plan, the material prepared and in place. This is impossible without hundreds of subconscious but rule-based assumptions. To a certain extent, war is the ultimate (practical) dialogue between the different sets of assumptions. "male display" + mating + ritual: http://www.alltheweb.com/search?cat=web&cs=iso-8859-1&q=%22male+display%22+%2B+\mating+%2B+ ritual&_sb_lang=nl+en Hunter-gatherer Communities: http://www.alltheweb.com/search?cat=web&cs=iso-8859-1&q=%22hunter-gatherer+communities%22&_sb_lang=nl+en Economy of war: http://www.alltheweb.com/search?cat=web&cs=iso-8859-1&q=%22economy+of+war%22&_s\b_lang=en Battle of Agincourt: http://www.aginc.net/battle/ http://www.alltheweb.com/search?cat=web&cs=iso-8859-1&q=%22Battle+of+Agincourt%\22&_sb_lang=nl+en Battle of Waterloo: http://www.alltheweb.com/search?cat=web&cs=iso-8859-1&q=22battle+of+Waterloo%2\2&_sb_lang=nl+en Bush + duel + Saddam: http://www.alltheweb.com/search?cat=web&cs=iso-8859-1&q=Bush+%2B+duel+%2B+Sadda\m&_sb_lang=nl+en Duel : Alexander Hamilton, Aaron Burr, and the Future of America http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/duel/peopleevents/pande01.html http://hallamericanhistory.com/united_states/276.shtml http://www.alltheweb.com/search?cat=web&cs=iso-8859-1&q=+America+%2B+President+\%2B+duel&_sb_lang=nl+en Army war games: http://www.alltheweb.com/search?cat=web&cs=iso-8859-1&q=%22army+war+games%22&_s\b_lang=nl+en Pattern + thinking: http://www.alltheweb.com/search?cat=web&cs=iso-8859-1&q=Pattern+%2B+thinking&_s\b_lang=nl+en What is the War about? by Sophia Barkat Previously I thought this was about America's need for oil. The argument the Pro-War realists have is that American dominance must be maintained. I don't mind American dominance of world markets as long as they elect a smart President. For e.g., a smart President, knowing that Japan and Europe have a huge dependence on Middle East could, instead of trying to steal Middle East oil, try to create a market for electric-cars or high-speed public transportation and export that to the Europeans and Japanese who use these in growing numbers. There are more ways to stay on top without destroying and stealing. by Trevor Batten - What is War About? Sophia Barkat wrote: "There are more ways to stay on top without destroying and stealing." Indeed! It seems that he key question facing America and the world today is: Does one gain more by simple cut throat competition -or through complex patterns of cooperation? Interestingly, early (Christian) economists -including Adam Smith (the father of the idea of the "Free Market") all believed that economic success should benefit the whole of society. This fitted in with a church doctrine that believed that humans had perverted the perfect world of god and so bore a responsibility to repair the damage they had done. The "free market" was supposed to bring wealth to all the community and not poverty to those who could not successfully compete within an aggressive environment. Adam Smith: http://www.alltheweb.com/search?cat=web&cs=iso-8859-1&q=%22Adam+Smith%22&_sb_la\ng=nl+en Many people blame "Capitalism" as the source of all evil. However, in principle, the term does not even specifically refer to money: A windmill, a field or a cow are "capital" just as much as a big pile of money, shares or government bonds. Bizarrely enough, stripped of all the accumulated and distracting ideological baggage "capitalism" is nothing more than the antithesis to "consumerism". Basically, capitalism means the use of ones assets in such a way as is intended to increase them rather than deplete them. Ironically, a truly "capitalistic" approach to global resources appears to be increasingly essential -provided we really understand what we aree doing and stop beating each other over the head with a corrupted terminology that is only intended to intimidate and confuse. Dictionary Definition of Capitalism: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=capitalism Web "Definition of Capitalism": http://www.alltheweb.com/search?cat=web&cs=iso-8859-1&q=%22definition+of+capitalism%22&_sb_lang=nl+en Dictionary Definition of Consumerism: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=consumerism "Consumerism" on the web: http://www.alltheweb.com/search?cat=web&cs=iso-8859-1&q=%22consumerism%22&_sb_l\ang=nl+en The "father of rapacious capitalism" turns out to be Thomas Malthus. Ironically, he was worried by "environmentalist" problems concerning over-population. He concluded that if resources were limited and poor people continued to breed then poverty would spread. Helping poor people to survive only encouraged poverty. One can imagine the attractions of such a policy -because it enabled the rich to get shamelessly rich. It also offered a way to actually blame the poor for their poverty -in ways which made the poor essentially guilty of anti-social behavior by spreading poverty. Malthus: http://www.alltheweb.com/search?cat=web&cs=iso-8859-1&q=%22Thomas+Malthus%22&_s\ b_lang=nl+en Looking back one might logically conclude that Malthus was a follower of Darwin -however, it transpires that it was the opposite. Darwin was inspired by Malthus. Perhaps it is no chance that "Survival of the fittest" is usually interpreted to mean "Survival of the strongest" when in fact it should be interpreted as "Survival of those most suited to the environment". Clearly, the latter statement implies that as the environment changes -so will the interpretation of "most suitaaable" change too. This has two "political" implications: One can probably change behavior by manipulating the environment, without those involved being consciously aware of the way they are adapting -and it is probably difficult to change thee environment without triggering changes that undermine the status quo and the ability of the dominating organism to dominate. Darwin: http://www.alltheweb.com/search?cat=web&cs=iso-8859-1&q=%22Charles+Darwin%22&_s\b_lang=nl+en Malthus and Darwin: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/02/5/l_025_01.html http://www.alltheweb.com/search?cat=web&cs=iso-8859-1&q=Darwin+%2B+Malthus&_sb_\lang=nl+en The concept of "Evolution" presents a fundamental problem for "western" culture -which is basically derived from the ontoloogy of a flat, homogenous, and static world. Western tradition is based on universal and eternal concepts -such immutable things as "truth", "justiceee", "dominance" and "reality" -each of which has its own mutually exclusiive antithesis. The idea of evolutionary growth, which implies constant change, is rather difficult to fit in with a traditionally static view of the world. It is perhaps therefore not so surprising that ideas that undermine the logic of a flat world have not really been integrated into western culture even after more than a hundred years after their invention. Einstein was inventing "Relativity Theory" around the beginning of the last century -and non-Euclidean geometry was discovered in the middle of the century before last. Nevertheless, one suspects that Euclid remains the basis for school mathematics -and non-Euclidean geometry remains a mystery to most people. Einstein is of course entirely beyond the limits of human comprehension! Space-time: http://www.alltheweb.com/search?cat=web&cs=iso-8859-1&q=%22space-time%22&_sb_la\ng=nl+en Non-Euclidean geometry: http://www.alltheweb.com/search?cat=web&cs=iso-8859-1&q=%22non-Euclidean+geomet\ry%22&_sb_lang=nl+en Euclid: http://www.alltheweb.com/search?cat=web&cs=iso-8859-1&q=Euclid&_sb_lang=nl+en Significantly, one of the things that really upsets most people when confronted with non-Euclidean mathematics is the idea that "parallel lines meet in finite space". Ask your friends -most of them will look at you blankly -or even insist that you are insane. We all know that parallel lines cannot meet (except in a theoretical infinity). However, if we look at a globe (and not a map) we see the equator is crossed by lines of longitude at right angles to the equator (like the slices of an orange). Perhaps not too surprisingly, these lines of longitude all meet at the north and south poles -but are they "parallel"? One definition of parallel lines is that all of the "parallel" lines must bisect another line at the same angle. The lines of longitude clearly do this. However, another definition claims that parallel lines must be "equidistant" from each other -and this does not seem to hold true for longitude. I don't have a globe in the house -but looking at a map -we see that longitude connects Greenwich (London) with western France and eastern Spain -while 10 (east) bisects Norway, Denmark, Germany and Italy. Apparently, the angular distance between the 0 and 10 segments remains the same (10 degrees) - but the physical distance between the two grows larger as one proceeds towards the equator. So, we are now faced by the fascinating paradox of a set of lines that remain a constant (angular) distance apart irrespective of ones position -while the (physical) distance between the two lines varies according to ones north/south position. Horrifically, mind-boggling astonishingly, unbelievable is how difficult it is for the average educated person to understand that the world is not flat! Longitude: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=longitude Ethno-mathematics: http://www.alltheweb.com/search?cat=web&cs=iso-8859-1&q=%22ethno-mathematics%22\&_sb_lang=nl+en One of the most truly boring bits of mathematics we are all forced to learn at school must be the "theorem of Pythagorus". However, what is often downplayed by the education system is the simple fact that Pythagourus was not a cool, rational, "objective" type of person who personified all the boring things that mathematics is supposed to represent. In fact, Pythagorus was a Mystic -as was Newton and probably Einstein! Mysticism and Pythagorus: http://www.alltheweb.com/search?cat=web&cs=iso-8859-&q=Pythagorous+%2B+mystici\sm&_sb_lang=nl+en Mysticism and Pythagorus: (sic) http://www.alltheweb.com/search?cat=web&cs=iso-8859-1&q=Pythagorus+%2B+mysticis\m&_sb_lang=nl+en Newton and Mysticism: http://www.alltheweb.com/search?cat=web&cs=iso-8859-1&q=Newton+%2B+mysticism&_s\b_lang=nl+en Einstein and Mysticism: http://www.alltheweb.com/search?cat=web&cs=iso-8859-1&q=Einstein+%2B+mysticism&\_sb_lang=nl+en Once one accepts the connection between mathematics and mysticism then suddenly one is introduced to a whole new ball game! Mathematics Elsewhere: An Exploration of Ideas Across Cultures http://pup.princeton.edu/titles/7348.html Ethno-mathematical resources: http://www.ecsu.ctstateu.edu/depts/edu/projects/ethnomath.html It seems that many of our current (economic, philosophical, cultural and social) problems are part of our inheritance from the "Victorian" period. Perhaps the most worrying aspect of this period was the great divide (promoted by Ruskin) between the romantic agrarian dreams of the Victorian cultural elite and the harsh realities (and skill) of the Victorian giants of engineering, manufacturing and trade. For a fascinating overview of this period I suggest the following link. Victorian Web: http://65.107.211.206/victov.html So what has this to do with the original problem of finding an alternative to rapacious capitalism? As far as I can see -in theory, our knowledge and understanding of the world has rapidly increased over recent years -however, in practice, various social (and cultural) divisions have prevented us from integrating much of this knowledge into our (social) consciousness and the way we behave. We believe we live in a sophisticated high-tech super-society but in fact we are (collectively) possibly even more stupid than we were in the 19th century! This is reflected in our image of economics: We still seem to believe that wealth is like a "cake" that must be divided up amongst the "hungry". We suspect that the more hungry people are the more of the cake they will want -one cannot have ones cake and eat it too --so the cake can be most "economically" distributed amongst those who need it least! A cake is dead -it cannot reproduce itself and so indeed we must be careful how it is divided. However, cakes are made from grain -and grain is part of a living (organic) system. Organic systems are "anti-entropic". They are not static and they are not in a constant state of decay as inorganic systems are (if we don't eat our cake it will become inedible). Organic systems expand, they grow and they adapt and mutate. Unfortunately, despite our pretence to wisdom, the proliferation of academic systems and the power of specialized think-tanks -not only do the western cultural and political elite apparently have difficulty understanding that the world is not flat -it seems that they also have great difficulty in understanding that the world is alive! The modern science of "Ecology" suggests that the primitive "law of the jungle" does not actually operate in the jungle. In practice, prey, predator and competitor are locked together in complex patterns of mutually beneficial synergy. Perhaps it is time for us to re-evaluate the concept of "capitalism" within the context of a truly "ecological" free market! Ecology: http://www.alltheweb.com/search?cat=web&cs=iso-8859-1&q=%22ecology%22&_sb_lang=\nl+en Post-Autistic economic network: http://www.paecon.net/ by Trevor Batten Re: Cherrie's post - Thoughts on War Cherrie Lynn Lipsett wrote: "If we do not reach the highest level of civilization on this planet we will no longer exist as a race of people. We will wipe ourselves out with our very powerful weapons of mass destruction." I agree! Civilization means living together. Fred Reed wrote: "When you notice that all teenagers do the same things at the same time, you suspect that what is involved is hormones. So with wars. Military adventures only seem to be about things. Really they are just military adventures. We fight for the same reasons fish school and peacocks strut - because it's how we are." If one accepts this then indeed there is no way forward. Bin Laden, Saddam and Bush are simply "doing their thing" and are all equally incapable of changing. There is no legal or moral justification required -because we are all helpless particles buffeted by our hormones. Indeed, one might just as well scrap all national laws too -because those who commit offences are also simply doing what they can't help doing. For some obscure reason, Americans seem to believe that they are superior creatures. However, outsiders are increasingly coming to the opposite view. Animals have hormones -humans have brains! by Cherrie Lynn Lipsett Re: Trevor's post - Thoughts on War I read through your thought provoking answer to my thoughts on war just now. I will read it again later more thoroughly as you said a lot that needs time to be absorbed. I don't really look at it like you or most humans I guess but then I have always heard a different drum beat then most but do love to share ideas and thoughts with intelligent people, which I do definitely consider you to be. And I unlike some people do read and listen with an open mind and do and have changed my mind. If you aren't open to changing your mind why even listen or read someone with a different viewpoint than you have. It is to me a waste of time. I will I know counter some of your views but it is just for the sake of pointing out why I believe how I do. I thank you for your input. by Trevor Batten Re: Cherries post - Thoughts on War Cherrie wrote: "I don't really look at it like you or most humans" To the contrary -you approach things as a human. I try not too. In my view, "humanism" is a dangerous starting point because (despite Galileo) it puts humans at the center of the universe -and that is a rather stupid and arrogant attitude. In that respect, it is interesting to note that the American army keeps justifying the deaths of innocent civilians by claiming that it "has an absolute right to defend itself" -apparently forgetting that the same is presumably true of others. One might also notice that generally, displays of force are used to discourage conflict -with combatants only engaging when the forces are matched and the outcome uncertain (in a reasonably "fair" fight). However, the American government seems to have adopted the policy of "overwhelming force" -i.e. it will only fight when victory seems certain. Cherrie wrote: "I will I know counter some of your views but it is just for the sake of pointing out why I believe how I do." Yes, I think that is the most important point of having a discussion. The problem with "democracy" as we know it is that it focuses on "winning" the argument and not on exploring the issue. I have heard the argument (from a retired US Air Force officer) that dictatorships loose because subordinates are afraid to tell the truth to their superiors, so the wrong actions are taken. If this is true, then the political propaganda and spin enjoyed so much by Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair is extremely dangerous because it misleads the public (and the politicians, it seems) eventually leading to disastrous decisions. Only a fool could believe that current American activities in Iraq will win "hearts and minds" -every day the American forces are getting more bogged down in incidents that are only increasing local hatred for the invader. The whole business has been handled in such a way as to promote conflict around the world. The outcome of the war can only be a second Vietnam -or, the military suppression of almost the entire world by US occupation forces. The Iraq war is increasingly becoming a loose/loose situation for the American government. The situation in Palestine has clearly shown that confrontational politics do not work in the long run -and yet Bush is copying Sharon in the way he operates his foreign policy. Syria has been forced to come out in support of Iraq against the American lead invasion. Presumably, the list can only grow if current polices continue. If it won't stop, then America will gradually be forced to bomb the whole world back to a submissive Stone Age. At that point, one might find that life gets kind of lonely with no friends. If Americans believe so strongly in the right to self-defense and the right to bear arms against unjust government -then perhaps they should try looking at 09-11 as an action of self-defense by oppressed people. Perhaps they should also try and remember that the country that they fought against to gain their independence is now (against all logic) their most loyal ally. Instead of trying to use bullets and bombs to win hearts and minds -it might be worth remembering that it takes two to tango! As the Dutch say -one wins more friends with honey than with vinegar..... Treatment of Iraqi POWs by Sophia Barkat I believe we have gone over this before extensively. How should prisoners be treated? Should torture be used? Why Americans don't sign treatise that protect prisoners but site them when they find it convenient. Well, here's some news. Nothing different: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20030516/wl_mideast_afp/iraq_\ britain_amnesty_torture_030516124517 Iraqi POW's claim US used torture. by Cherrie Lynn Lipsett re: Sophia's post I agree that the US uses laws when it suits them and disregards them when they want. This is not what is meant by the rule of law. I also think we should discuss the Patriot Act II now being considered by congress, I believe. It is my understanding that one of the parts of this act states that a US citizen can be detained if thought to know a terrorist, whether the citizen knew this person was a terrorist or not. That this citizen without a trial can be stripped of his citizenship and sent to another place WHETHER THIS PLACE HAS A GOVERMENT OR NOT. Now the only place on earth that I can think of that does not have a government is the concentration camps that are now permanent, in Cuba presently being used for Arabs. CERTAINLY BODES OF HITLER GERMANY IN THE 1930'S TO ME! I know if this law passes I am trying like hell to leave this country. Although I have a valid passport which I carry in my purse (gotten under the last administration) I am told I will not be able to leave the country as I am a security risk due to classified information I know. I think the Texas Democratic State Legislators that left the state last week and came to Oklahoma to kept the Republicans from putting in a new redistricting act (which is illegal as redistricting was just done in 2002 as per the census and can be done only every ten years, as per the constitution) is a sign of where the country is headed and bodes of Nazi Germany also. The state of Texas sent the Texas highway patrol after the Democratic congressmen. WHICH IN MY OPINION IS ILLEGAL! Then Tom Delay, whose plan all of this was, tried to send FBI agents after the Democratic congressmen of Texas. Tom Delay is one of the most evil people on earth . Far worst than Saddam Hussein. Right after bush got selected King by the Supreme Court Tom Delay almost got me killed! I think it was just a threat but he has found out I don't scare to easily. I was driving under an underpass in my town and a car tire on a rim was thrown off the over pass over head as I came out from under the underpass and bounced right in front of my car. Just barely missed me. I had to screech to a stop as I didn't know where the tire was going to bounce. I did find out that Tom Delay was the one behind this. If he would all of a sudden die I would throw a happy party. You all do know he was originally a bug exterminator don't you? He is the Republican Party's hit man! |
Encourage Political Discussion Join Juryfury Chat Promote Juryfury.com Join online discussion Groups Archives Writers Needed Be a Columnist Be an Editor Become an Owner Writing Training Program Internship Program for Students Advertise with Us Our Staff & Contributors Our Magazines Quietpoly.com I-Traderschool Juryfury.com The Company Our Address: QuietPoly Inc. 240 W. Saunders. Dr. (#146) Flagstaff, AZ 86001 Tel (928) 214-7365 quietpoly@yahoo.com Our Affiliations (pending member) MediaChannel.org IndyMedia.org We Support: Blue Ribbon Online Free Speech Campaign & The EFF.org |