American/British Assassination of the Leader of Iraq by Ghoulman

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

American/British Assassination of the Leader of Iraq

POSTED BY: GHOULMAN
UPDATED: Thursday, June 24, 2004 16:25
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 9355
PAGE 3 of 3

Thursday, June 17, 2004 3:18 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

SignyM

I was waiting for Finn to post - but not seeing one, here's my answer: Finn wouldn't say anything as crude as capitalism, it's too loaded and political a word.

So my answer is 'market-based economy', 'free economy', or some other similar code-words.

That follows from the equation tyranny = communism. (The idea that people might freely elect a socialist or communist government to pursue socialist or communist economies is unthinkable.) And people who have a capitalist economic system are therefore free. And isn't freedom worth any price?

JCobb

I guess it depends on one's definition of a 'problem'. If, for example, some small inoffensive country that can't do squat to anyone happens to elect a socialist President, does that constitute a problem requiring action?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 18, 2004 6:48 PM

DBELL46

To H.K.Cavalier, Signym, Rue, and to you too Ghoulman:

I found this thread two days ago, and while I haven't read it word for word, I've read enough
of it to grasp the issues and get a scense(sp?) of the character of the people posting to it.

I'd like to say that while reading your responses to Finn, I've felt a weight lift from my shoulders I didn't know was there. I applaud your clarity, consiseness, and scholarship.

When I'm confronted with someone like Finn, I begin to sputter. I find it difficult to defend ideas that are, to me, intuitivly apparent. ACTIONS HAVE CONSIQUENCES. You can't treat people any way you want and expect them to just "suck it up". Someone dosen't fly a plane into a buildingor strap a bomb to their chest because "they hate
freedom". These people feel they have been wronged and the U.S. has a history of justifying these feelings.

Sirs, after the lionization of Reagen, Bush's theft of the whitehouse, the probable treason of
his father, the suspicious deaths of two U.S. senators (the list goes on), I was feeling outnumbered and surrounded. I was sure the inmates had taken over the asylum. I'm glad to know that people such as yourselves are out there too.
I feel less alone.

Thank you

****************************************************
If history is remarkably clear on one point,
it's that people don't learn from history.
****************************************************

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 19, 2004 7:47 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

DBELL46- What city do you live in that you feel so alone?

Rue- I'm not sure even Finn knows why he (she?) adheres to certain arguments. I wish Finn would respond directly because I'd like to parse this through with him.

I have so many thoughts on the rest of this discussion, I don't even know where to begin. So, I guess starting with the most fundamental-

Reality is as reality is, we only have limited views of it. The merit of a viewpoint is measured by how well it can manipulate, predict, or at least explain circumstances. If Bush has a certain world view (we will be showered with rose petals) but circumstances then come an kick him in the butt in a major way, then I assume that he would want to rethink his postion. Since he doesn't, he's a idealogue - a believer- which makes him dangerous.

I don't think we have the solution to human social behavior YET. We can't manipulate human society in anything except the crudest ways possible, and our theories are incapable of predicting anything except the most limited behaviors. But if we're going to find a panacea, we have to free ourselves from the notion that humans are only capable of fierce intraspecies competition. Given the extended vulnerability of human babies and their moms, if social cooperation were NOT part of our genetic heritage we simply wouldn't be here. Societies have taken so many forms that we can say that human organization- while not infinite- is certainly broader that the current propaganda would have you believe.

There are a few themes that seem to recur, and some hints on our biology:

Humans are SOCIAL species. Vast numbers live together in (mostly) peaceful existance. Opiate centers in the brain light up during cooperative encounters with other people. War is not just an indication of aggression, it is also an indication of our COOPERATION. After all, during war people have to sacrifice for the 'greater good'.

Like most social species, human societies have some sort of hierarchy. Hierarchies tend to become more vertical with time (as the economy, religion, politics and ethos are manipuated by the hierarchy to its betterment) until some sort of critical mass is reached and the hierarchy is torn down from below. The driving force behind this is that power concentrates... in electronic terms it has an inherent positive feedback.

Humans in aggregate are not the average of the individuals.

Game theory says that "tit for tat" is the most successful individual strategm. Computerized "life forms" show that symbiots eventually dominate. Both of these theoretical appraoaches my allow us to develop a language and logic that adequately describes human structures.

JCOBB- I know that doesn't answer your question.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 22, 2004 11:08 AM

JASONZZZ

Thanks to God that the inmates haven't taken over the asylum, the bunch of freakin' loonytoons conspiracy theorists ought to be stuck in the holding cells permanently.

Thanks for voicing out your thoughts.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 22, 2004 3:39 PM

HKCAVALIER

Quote:
Originally posted by JCobb:
I don't think there is always (or ever)the obvious panacea for social problems, and if, perchance, you are aware of it, then please, (in all seriousness, I don't claim to know everything) inform us.

Sorry to take so long to get back to you, JCobb, but I sometimes have a pretty strong reaction to the posts in these threads and I have to keep away for several days at a time. It's a little like trying to carry on a sane conversation while the couple next to you scream and throw kitchen utencils at each other...

I'd like to take a crack at your panacea idea at least as it pertains to terrorism. This may seem like a grandiose enterprise for just some jerk on the internet like me, but you asked and I'm game.

First of all, a "War on Terror" is never gonna work. Wars stop individuals (thousands and millions of individuals in their tracks), not isms. Marxism is (largely) dead, not because of the millions who have died in wars against marxist regimes, but because marxism is ultimately not as attractive to people as modern, "enlightened" capitalism is.

Marxism arose out of the absolutely appalling conditions in the factories of the early industrial revolution. Marx believed that capitalism was to blame for the inhuman conditions of the workers, but history has shown us (at least, so far) that it was really the inhumanity itself that was the problem. So capitalism cleaned up its act a little (just enough), put on a happy face (sent the workhouses overseas and out of sight), gave the workers cable tv and conquered marxism at its source.

So, what about terrorism? I'd say that the source of terrorism is hatred brought about by marginalization and political hopelessness. Fundamentalist Muslims see their world being marginalized by westernization. They feel helpless to do anything about it.

So, I suggest that we take the wind out of their sails at it's source. The west needs to embrace (or as the marxists might have it, "co-opt") Islam. We need to mainstream it. For the tiniest sliver of the budget we spend on the "War on Terror" we could put Islamic Studies courses in all the high schools. For the time being, as a part of the "war effort," we make farcee or arabic or (for the truly studious) sanskrit required languages. Establish robust student exchange programs with willing Islamic Nations. The government could fund Islamic movies and Hollywood could promote Islamic movie stars "for the good of the country." MacDonalds could start selling " happy middle-eastern meals."

I'm trying to be funny here, but I hope you get the point.

Just think of the language issue alone. America is the most monolingual country on the planet. We won't even learn spanish! When you learn a person's language you share a part of their culture, part of their heritage. And people tend to feel respected when you know what they're saying, you know? Teaching americans to communicate with Iranians and Iraqis and Saudis is real action, real change, it crosses boundaries and builds relationships.

Anyways, that's my panacea: a shared language, real cultural exchange and happy meals.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 22, 2004 5:28 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Some thoughts into the fray:

When Jane Goodall originally went into the jungle to study common chimps she spent months hearing them, but not seeing them, no matter how much she beat the bushes. Getting tired of waiting and running low on funds, she decided to lure them to her camp with a big mound of fruit (they are primarily frugivores). And they came. And they postured, threatened each other, chased each other off, bit, fought and in general acted like nasty, ill-tempered baboons (though even baboons don't act like baboons ... but that's another story).
She spent MONTHS gathering what to her was fascinating data on chimp hierarchy. Then one day it occurred to her she hadn't seen ANY of the things that other people observed - things like mutual grooming; or ANY of the things she knew had to happen for chimps to survive - like extended caregiving.

She hypothesized that the problem was that the fruit was in a single large mound, unlike in the tropical wild where fruit is spread out over many trees that fruit sporadically throughout the year. (There is no feast/famine cycle in the true tropics like there is in subtropical and temperate areas.) So she spread the fruit out, and, to her amazement, all the nasty behavior disappeared. (She ended up throwing out all of her observations as pathological.)

I sometimes wonder if, originally, the human version of a mound of fruit was agriculture. Basically, it was the necessities of survival concentrated into small locales. And now it may be capitalism.

Wouldn't it be funny if our current 'human nature' was about as natural and normal as the nature of an animal that chews its fur off in a zoo?

In a different study (alcoholism in elephants), researchers put water, 5% alcohol-spiked water and food out in single tubs and one pile, respectively. There was more than enough to go around. But the social stress of having to wait, get out of the way, sneak whatever you could with one eye over your shoulder, make the lower-class elephants into boozers. They consistently chose the alcohol drink over plain water. Again, considerable social pathology was caused by concentrating life's necessities into one area.

And there was the more recent study where the big, nasty bruiser baboons in a particular troop ate tainted meat and died (of TB). And suddenly, things got - - - peaceful. And male baboons, even those who had been dominant SOBs, who later moved into the troop got educated into its pacific ways. And to this day, they all lived happily ever after.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 22, 2004 6:00 PM

JCOBB

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Quote:
Originally posted by JCobb:
I don't think there is always (or ever)the obvious panacea for social problems, and if, perchance, you are aware of it, then please, (in all seriousness, I don't claim to know everything) inform us.

Sorry to take so long to get back to you, JCobb, but I sometimes have a pretty strong reaction to the posts in these threads and I have to keep away for several days at a time. It's a little like trying to carry on a sane conversation while the couple next to you scream and throw kitchen utencils at each other...

I'd like to take a crack at your panacea idea at least as it pertains to terrorism. This may seem like a grandiose enterprise for just some jerk on the internet like me, but you asked and I'm game.

First of all, a "War on Terror" is never gonna work. Wars stop individuals (thousands and millions of individuals in their tracks), not isms. Marxism is (largely) dead, not because of the millions who have died in wars against marxist regimes, but because marxism is ultimately not as attractive to people as modern, "enlightened" capitalism is.

Marxism arose out of the absolutely appalling conditions in the factories of the early industrial revolution. Marx believed that capitalism was to blame for the inhuman conditions of the workers, but history has shown us (at least, so far) that it was really the inhumanity itself that was the problem. So capitalism cleaned up its act a little (just enough), put on a happy face (sent the workhouses overseas and out of sight), gave the workers cable tv and conquered marxism at its source.

So, what about terrorism? I'd say that the source of terrorism is hatred brought about by marginalization and political hopelessness. Fundamentalist Muslims see their world being marginalized by westernization. They feel helpless to do anything about it.

So, I suggest that we take the wind out of their sails at it's source. The west needs to embrace (or as the marxists might have it, "co-opt") Islam. We need to mainstream it. For the tiniest sliver of the budget we spend on the "War on Terror" we could put Islamic Studies courses in all the high schools. For the time being, as a part of the "war effort," we make farcee or arabic or (for the truly studious) sanskrit required languages. Establish robust student exchange programs with willing Islamic Nations. The government could fund Islamic movies and Hollywood could promote Islamic movie stars "for the good of the country." MacDonalds could start selling " happy middle-eastern meals."

I'm trying to be funny here, but I hope you get the point.

Just think of the language issue alone. America is the most monolingual country on the planet. We won't even learn spanish! When you learn a person's language you share a part of their culture, part of their heritage. And people tend to feel respected when you know what they're saying, you know? Teaching americans to communicate with Iranians and Iraqis and Saudis is real action, real change, it crosses boundaries and builds relationships.

Anyways, that's my panacea: a shared language, real cultural exchange and happy meals.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

I think you are mistaken, and here's why.

(Please forgive the extreme number of quotation marks in this response, in this case I am going to use them when I make generalizations, or I don't have time to properly elaborate, so take them for a common understanding if nothing else.)

For your panacea to realilistically work it takes totally agreement on both sides. Hell, we speak the same language in this country and yet there is obviously very little middle ground between the two major political parties. So, even if everyone in this country thought that "understanding" and "adopting" them into our culture is the way, (and I am not quite sure it is) you still have to deal with the extremists on the "other," (I use the term loosely) side to agree to try to be cuddly and lovable. Don't think ideology is the only reason "they" hate us. Many hate the more liberal aspects of "our" country, (the acceptance that you toted as the panacea) many hate "us" for what they see as our extreme wealth, (and we are blessed beyond belief in comparison to many) or they have been brought up to hate us just because.

If we could all sit around and sing kumbayah all day, play the guitar, and willingly share the wealth, I might be up for it, I just don't see this as a realistic possability. I do think that eliminating a terrorist facility, (instead of wishing it away) or going after the terrorists themselves is a good way of working. Getting rid of the capability, if nothing else, staunches the flow of attacks, ideally anyways, and without the hope of a realistic alternative I support action, in this case, as opposed to inaction.

I am just not convinced you can get everyone to like you, all the time. At least I can't.

I don't care, I'm still free.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 22, 2004 6:51 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

I don't like kumbayah. How about something else?

Anyway, it's not about getting everyone to like you. People cooperate to get things they couldn't get otherwise. Do you hunt game and dress the hides, grow and harvest cotton, weave the cloth and sew the clothes? Kill or grow and preserve all your own food? Not having to do all that is one of the benefits of living socially, with a minimum of cooperation. You get more out of peaceably living with people for its ongoing benefit, than treating them like prey which gets you something only once.

I think that one of the mistakes about trying to co-opt people to achieve peace is that capitalism is a giant ponzi scheme. Sooner or later you end up with a group of people who feel royally hosed.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 22, 2004 7:14 PM

JCOBB

Actually I do hunt and grow a rather substantial percentage of my food. (Would do more if there weren't so many gorram laws about hunting.)

Personally, I think the ideal system would be one where nobody messed with anybody else, complete Laissez-faire society, with a nearly non-existant government, (at least on a federal level) and where everyone just followed the golden rule.

Now, this is of course a fantasy of mine, but I hope that maybe someday we can reach it.

I don't care, I'm still free.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 23, 2004 4:11 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

I actually know a lot of people who fancy themselves self-sufficient on the edges of the rez ... as they hunt with their German-designed, Korean-manufactured gun, shipped overseas by a Singapore-based shipping-line, purchased at the local outlet of a national merchandise chain, having been transported on a government-built infrastructure paid for by taxes, by companies bankrolled with commercial paper. They write about their self-sufficiency using the skills taught them by others in a language of mutual communication, with resources contributed by society, and a vast past of human social development.

This actually isn't about you, it's about people I know.

But even people who think they are self-sufficient depend on good will during the age of dependency, and society's vast structures.

Getting rid of gummints does not make one self-sufficient.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 23, 2004 5:29 PM

JCOBB

I don't recall claiming self-sufficiency, nor do I think that the government = collapse of society as we know it. People can and will survive and thrive without government intervention one way or the other.

As far as how helpless people are, I think people, in general, can be suprisingly adaptable. Granted, if there was a sudden collapse of society as we know it, there would be an adjustment phase, but there would be survivors. Not everyone relies entirely on somebody else. I think I can testify to that with quite a bit of assurance.

And maybe I am missing the point of your post? I dunno.

I don't care, I'm still free.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 24, 2004 4:25 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Not everyone relies on someone else?

WHOA there!

Babies die right quick w/out constant care.

Even a person who can: make their tools and weapons from stone/bone/wood/sinew, hunt their own game, dress their own skins, make their own clothes, find water, build/find shelter - learned it from somewhere.

Imagine (as a sort of science fiction) an adult having their mind completely erased. They don't remember language, they don't even remember how to walk. Then they get released naked into the wild. How long would they last? Imagine them being released naked into a group with NO laws? How long would they last?

EVERYONE depends on the specific things society gave them, gives them, and in general, allows them.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE