From: Jonathan Davis (jonathan.davis@lineone.net)
Date: Thu Sep 25 2003 - 09:37:12 MDT
Dear Jake,
No I don't remember Bush and Rumsfeld repeatedly threatening to "go it
alone". Pundits speculated the UN would be rendered irrelevant, but the US
government did not say that.
You claimed that "the current administration has shown a very clear
preference for unilateral action over diplomacy and consensus. Indeed
often not just a preference, but the sole "strategy"". I have simply shown
this to be factually incorrect. In both Afghanistan and Iraq the US acted
as part of a coalition. In Afghanistan it had several major military powers.
In Iraq it has the allies like the UK and Turkey, both massively powerful
countries in their own right.
That three of the five members of the permanent security council were not in
favour of the Iraq liberation does not justify your exaggerations. When
aggressor states like China (Tibet), Russia (Chechnya) and France (Nuclear
testing) oppose sensible action for the sake of political gain or simple
obtrusiveness, I applaud when they are ignored.
Bye the way, did you not read Bush's speech in the UN yet? It is well worth
reading:
"As an original signer of the UN Charter, the United States of America is
committed to the United Nations. And we show that commitment by working to
fulfil the UN's stated purposes, and giving meaning to its ideals.
The founding documents of the United Nations and the founding documents of
America stand in the same tradition.
Both assert that human beings should never be reduced to objects of power or
commerce, because their dignity is inherent. Both recognise a moral law that
stands above men and nations, which must be defended and enforced by men and
nations. And both point the way to peace, the peace that comes when all are
free.
We secure that peace with our courage, and we must show that courage
together."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3132984.stm
Regards
Jonathan
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-virus@lucifer.com [mailto:owner-virus@lucifer.com] On Behalf Of
Jake Sapiens
Sent: 25 September 2003 18:17
To: virus
Subject: RE: Unilateralism (was: RE: virus: The Ideohazard 1.1)
Hello Jonathan,
Gee, don't you remember Bush and Rumsfeld repeatedly threatening to "go it
alone", and threatening the UN with irrelevancy if they didn't rubberstamp
Bush's war? How have you failed to notice these and other "my way or the
highway" bullying postures that this administration used as its so-called
diplomacy? Other than the UK which was on our side from the begriming (and
hence doesn't really count as a diplomatic victory), this administration
completely failed to get any other major military power involved in its Iraq
expedition. The fact that a short list of relatively minor and weak
international powers joined the militarily strongest nation in the world in
order to provide some international window-dressing does not count as any.
These other countries aren't remotely our equals in terms of power, so I
don't think that this qualifies as bi-lateral in any sense of the word. A
unilateralist doesn't negotiate with equals. When the unilateralist says
"my way or the highway", it doesn't suddenly get turned into bilateral
diplomacy just because some weaker parties knuckle under and say "okay I
will take your way." The actual military contribution by these other
countries is negligible compared to US and UK. They are effectively window
dressing. This is a primarily US/UK action. I know you and Donald Rumsfeld
keep claiming it has some significantly international character, but any
reasonable observer can recognize the disingenuous nature of this propaganda
used to gloss over the diplomatic failures of this administration. Their
consistent childish bullying unilateralist attitude remains obvious to
reasonable people not committed to their extreme
religious-wrong/Christian-crusader ideology.
-Jake
> [Original Message]
> From: Jonathan Davis <jonathan.davis@lineone.net>
> To: <virus@lucifer.com>
> Date: 09/25/2003 2:14:04 AM
> Subject: RE: Unilateralism (was: RE: virus: The Ideohazard 1.1)
>
> Hi Jake,
>
> You say "I would agree that the USA has had a tradition of choosing
> diplomacy and consensus, but the current administration has shown a
> very clear preference for unilateral action over diplomacy and consensus.
Indeed
> often not just a preference, but the sole "strategy""
>
> This is simply false. This administration has always acted with a
coalition
> of partners and allies including the United Kingdom. Can you cite an
> examples of this administration acting unilaterally? Also, can you
> explain why this Cold War concept of bi- and unilateralism is being
> used where it
is
> nearly meaningless in this context?
>
> You see unilateralism, I see a coalition of 49 countries. Perhaps it
> is
you
> who needs to have his ideo-memetic health checked as "rather obvious
public
> facts" appear to directly contradict your counterclaims.
>
> Kind regards
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-virus@lucifer.com [mailto:owner-virus@lucifer.com] On
> Behalf
Of
> Jake Sapiens
> Sent: 24 September 2003 20:30
> To: virus
> Subject: Unilateralism (was: RE: virus: The Ideohazard 1.1)
>
> Okay, I am still in the process of digesting the E-Zine, so I haven't
> read Hermit's piece yet, (but I will soon), but I can't let Jonathan's
assertion
> below just slide by. I would agree that the USA has had a tradition
> of choosing diplomacy and consensus, but the current administration
> has
shown a
> very clear preference for unilateral action over diplomacy and consensus.
> . Indeed other modes of conducting foreign policy seem almost missing
from
> this administrations repertoire. (Colin Powell not withstanding since
> they seem to more or less ignore him making his diplomacy ineffective
> before he starts). I can't imagine what (other than perhaps an
> ideological/memetic
> infection) would lead Jonathan to not notice these rather obvious
> public facts.
>
> -Jake
>
>
> > [Original Message]
> > From: Jonathan Davis <jonathan.davis@lineone.net>
> > To: <virus@lucifer.com>
> > Date: 09/15/2003 2:02:23 AM
> > Subject: RE: virus: The Ideohazard 1.1
> >
> > You say the USA holds the community of nations in manifest
> > contempt, yet
> I
> > see no such contempt. I see the USA, despite its overwhelming power,
> > choosing diplomacy and consensus. The USA has withdrawn from some
> treaties,
> > but it was perfectly fair for them to do so. If an agreement
> > disadvantages you, you are entitled to void the agreement and
renegotiate.
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Jonathan
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-virus@lucifer.com [mailto:owner-virus@lucifer.com] On
> > Behalf
> Of
> > Blunderov
> > Sent: 15 September 2003 08:45
> > To: virus@lucifer.com
> > Subject: RE: virus: The Ideohazard 1.1
> >
> >
> >
> > Jonathan Davis
> > > Sent: 14 September 2003 1840
> > > To: virus@lucifer.com
> > > Subject: RE: virus: The Ideohazard 1.1
> > >
> > > I was spooked by Hermit's Chinese-commit-genocide piece but for me
> > > it
> > was
> > > ruined by its overt anti-Americanism (if that term can be applied
> > > to
> > what
> > > appears *in my opinion* to be Hermit's pathological hatred of
> > America).
> >
> >
> > [Bl.] Whether Hermit has a hatred of America, and whether, if so,
> > this hatred is pathological or not, I cannot say. What I can say is
> > that it is equally possible, based on the evidence before us, that
> > he is a fervent patriot. It depends on your point of view.
> >
> > When the British invaded China in the 18th Century they found maps
> > in
> which
> > China occupied the almost whole of the document; peeping in at the
> > corners of these maps were tiny representations of what were
> > characterized as 'Barbarian' nations - Britain, France and the USA.
> > It was clear that the Chinese world view allocated no importance to
anything
> other than China.
> >
> > Ironically, if one reads the Hermits list of broken American
> > promises and treaties, it is difficult to conclude that the American
> > world-view is any less solipsistic than the Chinese maps of yore.
> >
> > It is almost risible that such a self-avowedly 'democratic' nation
> > should hold the community of nations in such manifest contempt. Almost.
> >
> >
> > Best Regards
> > Blunderov
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ---
> > To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to
> > <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
> >
> > ---
> > To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to
> <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
>
>
> --- Jake Sapiens
> --- every1hz@earthlink.net
> --- EarthLink: The #1 provider of the Real Internet.
>
>
> ---
> To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to
> <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
>
> ---
> To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to
<http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
--- Jake Sapiens
--- every1hz@earthlink.net
--- EarthLink: The #1 provider of the Real Internet.
--- To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l> --- To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Sep 25 2003 - 09:37:23 MDT