|
Contributor: banquosghost
Date: 2003-02-09 18:07:23
So, Vox, if I read you right, we ought to simply say "yessir" and fall eagerly into line behind/beside the US. Is that what you're saying?
Is that just for right now, just this particular issue?
Lots and lots of clear minded people in the USA including many at the CIA and FBI and a former Commander of the US Forces in the Middle East, General Anthony Zinni by name, think it's a very bad idea to attack Iraq. If we join the USA and do this and the whole thing backfires into increased terrorism on North American soil (as the CIA believes it will) what will be your explanation then? That we were just being a good neighbour?
What would you do if your closest friend got assaulted by someone he knew but couldn't ever catch that guy at home and so decided to beat the crap out of that guys next door neighbour because he *was* home and just as ugly anyway? Would you go with your friend and help beat up the guy next door?
Osama binLaden and Saddam Hussein are *not* the same person. Though apparently according to a recent poll many Americans have come to believe they are.
Canada will never be a member of the EU. We're not in Europe.
Reply to this message
|
Show in topic
|
|
Contributor: Vox
Date: 2003-02-10 15:58:52
To give you a straight answer to your 1st question - No, you read me incorrectly. But before I proceed further, I would first like to address a concept that seems to elude many politicians and something that might have prevented endless grief suffered by many peoples throughout history.
A recent name given to the concept is "doublethink".
I believe it was coined by the British author George Orwell. It describes a person's ability to hold two contradictory beliefs in his mind and accept them both at the same time. Similarly, another author, an American by the name of F. Scott Fitzgerald stated that "the test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function".
Personally, I find the latter description to be slightly more interesting.
From the emotional and reactionary tone of your message, you would seem to immediately tie the question of Canada's support of the US to perhaps a number of pre-existing gripes that you and perhaps Canada has with them. IMO, this is the same unfortunately mentality that Schroeder fell victim to when he connected his personal grievances to deny the US of support even if a UN resolution should ask for it. If you extend the analysis much further, you can detect certain similarities to the twisted mentality that drove people to feuds, ethnic hatred, the piling up of grievances, often one based on the other, that prevented people from discussing and cooperating on issues based on the merits of the arguments presented. It drove many people to mindlessly disagree with each other, ending up with blind hatred imposed on succeeding generations, and unending tragedy.
Some people refer to this as poison. They're right. It is poison because it can pervade and twist people's responses to so many things. It does not matter how worthy subsequent issues (or people) may be of eliciting cooperation or goodwill, deep-rooted bias and failure to "...hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function" would doom those people to failure and misery, not only for them, but also for other people they so often "claim" to be responsible for (like their families, clans, tribes or countries).
It's unfortunate that the concept of "doublethink" has an esoteric quality to it because it really is a commonplace idea. One may also label it as being "sensible", "level-headed" and "open-minded".
So, IMO, it is foolish to tie a decision of supporting the US to past issues (or "baggage"). It's more constructive to tie it to current issues. I'll discuss a few of these below.
Regarding other people's opinion on the dangers of attacking Iraq, one can always find a contradicting opinion. You may perhaps recall pundits' opinions prior to the Gulf War, Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan...etc. So where were these opinions afterwards? I think it is not fruitful to speculate either way. War is very risky but so should defying the world, using chemical and biological weapons on people and developing weapons that goes way beyond any self-defence requirements. By "stepping up to the table" and being the enforcer for the UN on this issue, the US serves the critical role of preventing the proliferation of WMD. We all live with the concept of being policed. While you and I may mean to be good abiders of laws we know it's not that simple.
You may complain that the US, France, UK, Russia, Pakistan, Israel, China and India (and possibly South Africa) all have WMD but again, use "doublethink"... what the US (and the UN) are saying is that "proliferation" and willingness to use WMD are the issues. Ideally, we want every nation to disarm but that's no longer possible - the Genie has been out of the bottle for many years. It IS hypocritical of us but we currently do not want to force the other nations to disarm because the complexities and risks involved "currently" outweigh the benefits.
As for linking Bin Laden with Hussein, everyone has theories and answers but the real truth lies with them. Once again, your emotionalism would seem to betray you. Why should you be so upset at the American people? The issue is really with Hussein. Because he defies all efforts from the world community to have him comply with UN resolutions on the issues of disarming, he poses a great risk as a "proliferater" of WMD. North Korea is already a "proliferater" of arms but presents a nastier risk because it may already have WMD and any escalation may justify Japan to re-arm. I may be wrong but if Japan has WMD it may suddenly become a huge problem for China and so on...again "doublethink" - you may want to call it hypocrisy but in this case that's just getting annoyed and as I've indicated, too much emotion can be problematic.
IMO, the US stands the most risk of being attacked by the first WMD used by terrorists. Terrorists of Bin Laden's nature want rapid global change to world order. His vision is to re-map and undo whatever we have at the moment. To do this he must quickly break down the current structure. The US is the de facto backbone of the current structure. Rogue nations like Irag, N. Korea and perhaps Iran may be tempted to let these terrorists "borrow" or "buy" a couple of WMD that may knock over their nemesis (i.e. the US). In the past, someone may try to blow up a car or a building but the government as a whole would survive. However with WMD, you can lose the whole city and the nation and perhaps the world would probably experience widespread chaos. No US head of state can allow that. I suppose our PMs never had to worry about being a target for a WMD but when you lead a country like the US, your operating mentality would be drastically different from Canada's, Germany's or France's. It's easy to criticize when you know the other party is really the one who will suffer the first blow. If we ignore this we would no longer "get it". And if we don't "get it" we'll likely fail miserably in diplomacy. IMO, Prime Minister Blair demonstrates clearly that he "gets it".
As for your observation about Canada vis-à-vis the EU, I wish others had similar clarity of thought.
Finally, I want to add that I did not post my original message to debate. I have many other matters that require my attention. I did not want to contradict other people but simply wanted to offer food for "doublethink". I only saw your message because I checked to see if my original message got posted.
Good luck to you and while I share some of your sentiments they do not get in the way of my view of what Canada currently needs to do in foreign policy. The word you should heed is "currently". If you really wish to take this further you can read up on "game theory". It offers very good guidance on how people can live more successfully with one another.
I must go now...cheers,
Vox Canadiana
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: banquosghost
Date: 2003-02-28 12:46:50
http://www.orwelltoday.com/doublethink.shtml describes "doublethink" this way.
"Doublethink lies at the very heart of Ingsoc, since the essential act of the Party is to use conscious deception while retaining the firmness of purpose that goes with complete honesty. To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing them and to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies - all this is indispensably necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this knowledge; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth. Ultimately it is by means of doublethink that the Party has been able - and may, for all we know, continue to be able for thousands of years - to arrest the course of history."
Doesn't sound so desireable that way although it does sound like what we've got happening.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Vox
Date: 2003-03-02 19:55:45
You're right, it isn't desirable but it isn't truly "doublethink" either. It seems to me to be self-delusion by selfish but twisted people. The webpage that you cite appears to be merely one interpretation of how a person might use "doublethink". I'll try to provide some additional information on "doublethink" for consideration:
- "doublethink" is a mental tool that is useful when people don't have all the facts or complete understanding that would enable a clear answer
- in life, for a thoughtful person, it is a not uncommon to feel a lack of sufficient facts and understanding when confronted with difficult decisions
- the ability to "doublethink" allows one to function effectively when one does not have the luxury to procrastinate
- it also allows one to be faithful to more than one belief and act effectively for all of them if one should hold them all to be relevant and meaningful
So, to correct your misunderstanding (and to augment the web-author's "singlethink" polemic on "doublethink"), "doublethink" is merely a mental capacity that can be learned by anyone. IME, some people will find it more difficult to master "doublethink" than others. To best develop this ability, one has to start by shedding all of one's prejudices and mental blocks. In a sense, one has to start with a clean slate; something that is best done with either an enlightened mind or with the benefit of responsible mentoring.
Just like the ideas condemned on the webpage you cite, I also know of people who use "doublethink" to justify their twisted indulgences. In all of those cases, those people appear not to have truly shed their prejudices and mental blocks but rather, used "doublethink" as a convenient way to justify their prejudices to their conscience. Unfortunately, whether you or I choose to understand "doublethink" and use it for betterment, such people will still exist. I agree with you, it can be frightening because they may really think they are conscionable. Such people may effectively lack a social conscience.
People of position are invariably able to "doublethink" because so much is demanded of them but sometimes it also takes a more enlightened mind to tell when a person of responsibility is using "doublethink" for noble versus selfish reasons, consciously or unconsciously.
Remember that mental capacity can be used towards "good" or "bad" ends. There are some very intelligent but twisted individuals and systems the coexist in this world. I suspect they will always exist. Some are consciously so while others are unconsciously so. If one wishes to turn away from a more enlightened way of being open to different ideas and views, one does it at one's own peril and to one's own disadvantage. Ignorance may be bliss but it is also self-limiting. Think of "doublethink" as being hand-in-hand with what Adam received when he bit into the forbidden fruit. It's neither inherently "good" or "evil".
Vox Canadiana
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Vox
Date: 2003-03-02 22:43:33
"Doublethink" is often cited as the diabolical method behind misinformation. That is essentially the Orwellian view on "doublethink" (1984).
If you would also consider the F. Scott Fitzgerald (earlier) version you will notice that the arguments for and against "doublethink" itself constitute a "doublethink".
Doublethink is really just a more enlightened way of thinking through difficult situations. It can be abused as well as honoured. I would suspect many people of authority practise doublethink whether they are aware of it or not. It is one of the challenges of leadership.
Vox Canadiana
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: banquosghost
Date: 2003-03-05 17:38:02
Holding 2 conflicting ideas in mind simultaneously is one thing, crafting a foreign policy that implements both of those conflicting ideas is quite another.
Usually that's called being "two faced". It's rather looked down upon.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Vox
Date: 2003-03-05 23:19:24
On the contrary, I believe you may have missed a point regarding "doublethink".
"Holding 2 conflicting ideas in mind simultaneously is one thing, crafting a foreign policy that implements both of those conflicting ideas..." is in fact a valid demonstration of doublethink.
So, take for instance, the case where current US policy would dictate that possession of WMD is a threat to world security but at the same time would allow the US to continue to possess WMD. I gather this is an effective example of what you would call "two faced".
If you agree then I would suggest to you that your contention is mistaken in this case.
The reason is, although the ideas are conflicting on their own, they are perfectly congruous when taken on a higher plane of understanding (enlightened). If we view world disarmament as an ultimate goal then WMD development and possession should be halted in order for the nations who currently have them to reach "equilibrium". Once this equilibrium can be verified to the satisfaction of all, stockpiles of WMD can then be reduced multilaterally. The problem with disarmament is to verify that no one is cheating. When "rogue nations" acquire WMD and do not play by these rules we end up with chaos where the existing abiding nations who have WMD feel they must increase or maintain WMD capability to stay ahead of the rogue states. That is what happened during the cold war. When the USSR capitulated, the US did in fact begin to disarm along with the USSR.
So, in an honourable case, the perception of doublthink does not mean the ideas involved are truly conflicting. A common problem is that many people do not understand the higher order of intentions or perhaps, to suit their selfish motive(s), these people choose to call the case, "two faced", so as to injure the party that is grappling with the complex issues.
Of course, there are also instances when people unscrupulously use doublethink to justify or mask their ulterior motives. Orwell did a good job of demonstrating that. Those examples support your point.
Vox Canadiana
P.S. Actually, on the subject of WMD proliferation, if you would study contemporary French history you will find plenty of evidence that post-WWII de Gaulle pressed the US to give it WMD technology and that it pursued WMD research and development even though they were repeatedly requested not to. I should add that the Germans of that period were particularly annoyed by the French action. You may also recall that in 1985, so as to conduct nuclear tests, the French navy went so far as to blow up the Greenpeace flagship, The Rainbow Warrior, while it was moored in Auckland, killing one person. I do not believe France ever made amends for that crime. To this day, France maintains a credible WMD arsenal, even though its rationale of deterring Soviet aggression is arguably obsolete. Would you then also call France "two-faced"?
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: banquosghost
Date: 2003-03-06 12:45:02
Yup.
I'd call almost all of the major participants in this current fiasco two-faced.
Wait, let me think...no, I'd call every single one of them two-faced. If not three-faced.
What we have here is rampaging self-interest from all sides. It's probably becoming more dangerous to world stability than anything since the Cuban missile crisis and it may be even more dangerous than that was. Fun, huh?
Reply to this message
|
Visit us online at: http://www.foreign-policy-dialogue.ca
|
