|
Contributor: banquosghost
Date: 2003-02-22 22:05:51
Do we remember anymore? Can memory still play a role in how we collectively evaluate any particular aspect of foreign policy? Or have our attention spans become so truncated that we no longer have the capacity to recollect that too many of the violent incursions of one nation's armed forces into another's have been predicated on manufactured public relations or partisan political exercises?
Clearly I'm referring to the USA specifically here but it could probably equally apply to any country.
Grenada was a false pretext. Panama was a violation of long established US policy as well as of international law. While Kuwait in '91 had clear treaty implications there was still the presentation of the Kuwaiti girl and the story of the Iraqui soldiers bayonetting babies that turned out to be an utter deception.
How do we always seem to find ourselves assessing each incidence, 10 years later or 20 years later, as though it exists isolated in time and we have no history from which to learn. By now it should surely be clear that whatever current pretext is presented will be shown in the fullness of time to have been either a distortion or an outright falsehood.
How much history do need?
Or do we simply no longer have the capacity to remember history and thus learn from it?
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Waterloo
Date: 2003-02-23 11:29:06
I agree 100%, we should and must learn from history, and thereby avoid repeating mistakes already made. Of course, I refer to different lessons than you. I refer to the appeasement of Hitler in the 1930s. The world didn't show any backbone when dealing with him, and consequently suffered greatly.
Also, the Rwandan genocide of the early 90's. The UN was made aware of what was going on by Gen. Dallaire, but did not intervene. Between 800k and 1M people died as a result of reluctance and hesitance to use force. The genocide didn't stop until the victimised group started fighting back. BTW neither did the US do anything and I fault them greatly for this. But, they would have been criticized for intervening by some I'm sure as well.
It is well documented that nations, as well as people, go as far as they are allowed to. They push and push, and if nobody says anything, why stop? Iraq has defied multiple resolutions, most recently of course 1441. Res. 688 which deals with human rights is still obviously not being complied with, and the list goes on. Saddam Hussein has been given a multitude of chances to comply, but does not. Not just with 1441 or disarmament but numerous others (such as 688). And why does he not comply? Because nothing happens to him when he doesn't. You can't reason with the unreasonable, and as horrible as war is, there really is no other option. All other methods have been tried.
What the US says should not be the reasons for going to war. IMO they have little credibility in this dept. You're quite right in saying that they have an infamous history of making bad decisions. And as for propaganda it is nothing new, and will never cease. Everyone uses it, and it realy is quite easy to filter out. But the solution to this current crisis can be found in what the UN has said, and the evidence they have given. As well as from what Saddam himself has shown. If the US were against this war I would still be for it.
Believe me, I do not take the prospect of war lightly. It will be my generation fighting it, and from talking to vets, and reading books, I understand (as much as one can without being there) that it is a most horrible and indescribably painful and sorrowful time. However, what is the other option? Have a WMD attack on our soil five years down the road because we didn't want suffering now? That is not a viable option IMO.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Fleabag
Date: 2003-02-23 18:33:58
What are the parameters for declaring war of this sort?
There are many countries that have defied UN resolutions, secretly developed WMDs, etc(The US and Israel, Zimbabwe, etc). The defiance of a UN resolution therefore cannot be it. Aggression(China annexing Tibet, the US invasion of Panama)? Nope, lots of countries are guilty. 9?11 Terrorist attacks? Partly. The US went after Osama and the Taliban, but failed to produce results that will be of any long term significance. Now Iraq? The 9/11 terrorists were mostly Saudi. Why does the US forgive Saudi Arabia for sending death by terror to the US? The Saudi regime that runs OPEC is US-friendly. Iraq is not. Plus, they only accept the Euro. Those two facts outweigh any other arguments that Iraq is any worse than anyone else.
China's record on human rights abuses, crushing democracy, invasion and annexation of other nations, and it's willingness to supply countries with arms to spread communism by the sword far exceed anything that Iraq, Israel, even the US has done so far. Why does the US not stand up to China? They have an economic interest to keep communism in China working because of huge profits on Nike shoes, etc. The US only acts in it's own self interest and history, if you can find it untainted, proves it. Why should we believe the US now, when they have proven they will lie for their own self interest?
Saddam should be brought to the UN for a war crimes trial, and the UN should administer the governance of the Iraqi nation. NOT the US whose mantra consists of 'self-interest rules'.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Waterloo
Date: 2003-02-24 01:51:22
You leave out quite a few important points, and are incorrect in others. You are oversimplifying the situation.
First of all, the US secretly developed WMD? I don't think that was a very well kept secret, seeing as they dropped a nuclear bomb on Japan. As for chemical and biological weapons, I have never heard of the US denying having them either. In fact, they made quite the idiotic habit of selling them to people like Saddam Hussein. And you're right, it's not just the defiance of a UN resolution that necessitates force, otherwise both the Israelis and Palestinians (among others) would be long gone. But none of the nations you mentioned are a threat to world security, Iraq is. None of the nations you mentioned have proven willing to use WMD, Iraq has. It is the type of resolutions that count; ones that deal with global security. Resolutions have varying degrees of importance and therefore varying degrees of enforcement.
Force should always be a last option. If a nation refuses to comply, but is of little threat to others outside their country, then there are better ways to deal with them, eg sanctions. It's a shame about the human rights violations, but if the US intervened in every country where this happens, then think of the consequences and protests. As for China spreading communism still, this sounds a bit like a revival of McCarthyism. Great. China is terrible on human rights, but not the worst, and they leave most other countries alone nowadays. They are making improvements.
As for the Saudis, you fail to distinguish between people and government. It wasn't the Saudi government that attacked the US, it was Saudi nationals. Surely you see the problem in fighting the Saudis because of this? At any rate, (to the oil theory fans) if the US was after oil, why not invade SA? They have more oil than Iraq and the US already has troops there.
And we shouldn't believe the US. We should believe what the UN says. The UN says SAddam isn't disarming, and that he isn't co-operating to an acceptible degree. Seems pretty obvious to me.
The bottom line is that no other "administration" in the world has so frequently and consistently defied the UN, while simultaneously posing a threat to world security as Saddam's. I do agree, however, that he should be brought before the UN, and that the UN should govern Iraq after the war. Contrary to some people's beliefs, the case of Afghanistan is a success, and a similar style of 'occupation' should be instituted.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: fatmomma
Date: 2003-03-01 11:40:20
Waterloo You say we should remember Hitler and the appeasement and how the world suffered for not showing any backbone but then incredibly you make this comparison to Saddam. Who is the world trying to appease now; who is trying to control the support of other countries with bribes of armnaments and economic pressures. Watch any news cast and you will see it is GW Bush. Saddam is just a small player
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Waterloo
Date: 2003-03-02 23:41:37
The situations are obviously not identical, but I didn't say that. The world is, however, appeasing Saddam; just in a different way. They let him defy UN resolution after UN resolution, and do nothing about it. Why? Because they don't want to use force. We've seen the consequences of this unnecessary reluctance too many times. Don't get me wrong, all other options should be tried first, but when they fail, there is no viable alternative.
Iraq hasn't complied: they continue to lie, and 'magically' discover new weapons, chemicals and documents they just plum forgot about all the time. Come on let's be serious. As for the bribes, I fail to see the relevance of them. All western countries bribe all poorer countries to some extent or another; this is nothing new. We give them money and food if they 'behave' according to our principles. If they misbehave, they get their aid cut off. At any rate what does it say about Turkey that they are so willing to accept these bribes? Why is nothing said about them?
"Saddam is just a small player "
I see. Well, perhaps your definition of a small player is different than mine. I don't see how a man with WMD, a history of using them, huge amounts of oil, who invaded a neighbouring country, and a constant threat to the region and world's security is a small player. Furthermore, why did the UN vote unanimously on disarming him if he has such a small role?
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Fleabag
Date: 2003-03-05 21:27:47
Check out a resolution of the UN that was ignored. A/RES/44/240 from the 88th plenary meeting, 29 December 1989. Should countries that ignore UN resolutions be invaded and their regimes changed? Check out the UN resolutions that have been ignored in the past say, 20 years. Israel tops the list. Palestinians are back blowing up buses. There is no 'hot pursuit' that leads the US to Iraq. Only directives from oil companies are focused there.
An Iraqi ex-pat was on a radio talk show the other day, and he claims that F-16s flew close support/observation missions over the gassed Kurds. Did they intervene? Of course not. Kurdish independence would further break up control of the oil fields. The US does not want that. The gassing and murder of Kurds 'is a helpful action in the interests of the US'.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: cfallon
Date: 2003-03-04 16:28:03
Saddam seems to be quite clever and a very big player in this mid-Atlantic diplomacy rift.
His last-minute, half-attempts to disarm are just enough to keep those who profit from his regime on side and thwart those who want his regime ended from acting.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: fatmomma
Date: 2003-03-06 22:38:01
You are listening to too much CNN and not doing any research or just using common sense. Iraq has made no moves since the gulf war to warrant Bush's intense desire to attack. The USA is doing very little to rebuild Afghanistan; in fact Iran is contributing the most. Iraq is disarming; according to Blix; if it is not as quickly as you like; I think it is amazing that they are destroying their missiles so quickly when Bush and his cohorts are being adamant in their plan to bomb Iraq. There is also evidence that the USA instigated the gulf war by enticing Kuwaiti to overly drain joint Iraq/Kuwaiti oil fields. The Usa sat back and waited for their chance. I was disturbed by Bush's comment shortly after the World Trade bombing "You are either for us or against us" silencing any criticism for any action that they would take. No one wanted to appear to support the terrorists in any way; which no one I know does. Recently I heard on Propaganda CNN. Should we consider those who support peace to be unpatriotic. That is very much an attempt to silence critics.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Fleabag
Date: 2003-03-07 07:28:00
I have a copy of both Hitler's Mein Kampf and of Marx's Communist Manifesto. It seems that GW Bush is saying 'choose one or the other'. Guess which one I see him following?
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Vox
Date: 2003-03-08 12:18:04
Well then, since you seem to believe these ideas are the only relevant ones to choose from, I'd like to ask you:
Are you either for Hitler or Stalin?
After all, they were political contemporaries, opponents and supposedly stood for and implemented the doctrines that you deemed relevant.
Vox Canadiana
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Fleabag
Date: 2003-03-08 22:24:26
I am for Siddhartha Guatama. It seems that GW Bush is the one giving us the choice between Hitler and Stalin. Or, more to the point, Neitzsche and Lenin. I don't like either of those options, but at least Neitzsche made me think.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Vox
Date: 2003-03-10 22:50:01
It is good that you also choose to be enlightened.
Nietsche may not have been an optimist but his vision of man's challenge was not that of Hitler's "superman". He was not a Nazi even though his sister was pretty mixed up. Nietsche was also a theorist, a thinker. Hitler was a practitioner.
I chose to use "practitioners" as examples instead of "theorists" for a good reason. Since you claim to be a follower of the middle way you must also realize that the world of the "practitioners" is of a less enlightened level and functions in a more basic way. What matters above all is the protection of life as a process so that it may be perpetuated. As a Buddhist you must agree with it.
The desire to use WMD will destroy all life and the physical means to prevent that is to allow its natural reaction to eradicate it. America is the natural reactionary force. The role of the enlightened is to keep it focused and in check.
Vox Canadiana
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Fleabag
Date: 2003-03-13 22:48:20
I agree with 99% of what you say. I can only disagree with 'America is the natural reaction' and with the words 'keep it focused and in check'.
I am not a Buddhist by subscription, just by loose theory. I started to write a book, called "What and Why: Policy, The Manifestation of Attitude'
and in it, I suggest that all things act for purpose, and only in humans is the result of action above neccesity.
As Aristotle once wrote, (I am qutoing this from a reference by Albert Speer) "Only through pursuit of excess does Man commit injustice, it is never commited when driven by neccesity"
The US is an unnatural force acting on another unnatural force( unless you believe in the 'will to power' and the twisted 'the strong survive, the weak submit' philosophies.
I believe the role of the 'enlightened' is to eradicate 'that which causes non-existence'. I also believe that theory is the writing on our 'blank slate' and as human computers we can only translate 'the action input' of others according to who or what did the programming.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: jwitt
Date: 2003-03-14 17:37:21
Fleabag,
Question: just out of personal interest, was Speer's quote from Aristotle taken out of Inside the third Reich (the memoirs he wrote in prison)? If so, can you give me the page number? I'm just interested in the context in which he used it.
cheers
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Vox
Date: 2003-03-14 22:41:22
"Only through pursuit of excess does Man commit injustice, it is never committed when driven by necessity"
I cannot agree with this because I believe "necessity" is a subjective measure and hence naturally invites disagreement and conflict (of interest).
"...all things act for purpose, and only in humans is the result of action above necessity."
Again, I believe hat one person's necessity is (often) another person's excess or "poverty of spirit".
"... The US is an unnatural force acting on another unnatural force( unless you believe in the 'will to power' and the twisted 'the strong survive, the weak submit' philosophies. I believe the role of the 'enlightened' is to eradicate 'that which causes non-existence'."
The force(s) that want to use WMD have designed their methods (currently) towards the destruction of the US and "its allies". While I do not have a problem with people(s) who want to challenge the US using peaceful methods, the use of WMD is against the process of life and cannot be permitted. Because the US is currently the prime target and the most physically formidable opponent I view the US as the natural reaction that can most effectively neutralize the abomination of life that "rogue entities" represent.
It has nothing to do with my views on the lifestyles or moral values of American popular culture. I think I have made clear those opinions elsewhere on these forums. The US allows people to express their visions in peaceful ways and that currently makes the US a suitable agent for life. At the same time, the US is a spiritually immature country (I am not speaking of religion) and that is why its actions need to be tempered.
"... that theory is the writing on our 'blank slate' and as human computers we
can only translate 'the action input' of others according to who or what did the programming."
I follow a different view of existence. In the framework of this belief, the "slate" is actually already fully occupied and has always been. What prevents us from "reading from it" is, as you call it, our "programming" and our limited mental powers. It is enlightenment which helps us read from "the slate" from time-to-time. This is why we are inherently "the same".
Vox Canadiana
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: cfallon
Date: 2003-03-07 11:49:45
I don't watch CNN and never have.
I'm sorry that I have no common sense.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Vox
Date: 2003-02-23 20:53:25
I understand your lament upon "the role of memory". I have often felt similarly.
Some people would seem to forget (conveniently or unintentionally) the lessons of history. For those with negative memories of the US they might wish to recall Vietnam, Grenada or Kuwait as you pointed out. On the other hand, others may also recall the same conflicts in a different light. One might also wish to recall WWII, Kosovo, Bosnia, Somalia...etc. The bitter US memories of Somalia was generally thought to be the main reason why it did not intervene in Rwanda (BTW, US troops in Somalia were allegedly attacked by Al Qaeda-trained Islamic fighters). How our memories do often fail us indeed.
In my opinion, memory can provide precious lessons as well pose stubborn barriers to enlightenment. To be truly conscious and able to experience and accurately assess the present we also need to be receptive to what is before us as opposed to only what we associate with in our minds. We must be able to consider multiple and possibly conflicting impressions. In addition, to be effective, we must also be able to resolve the conflict inherent in these impressions or we might be reduced to endless debate and self-doubt.
Memory can also be a curse. There are places in the world where people listen to and even sing on a daily basis to the same bittersweet memories of past injustices and battles lost to "evil outsiders". I do not think those memories are serving anyone in a positive way. We all know of places where such memories drive people to kill and destroy in a seemingly unending manner. In a similar way, stubborn memories can present daily obstacles in our personal lives. Crucial memories are key factors our make-up and when unresolved can be poison to us.
I do not have any sure-fire answers to this issue of memory and its value. The one thing I do feel is that while fear and/or anger are often the strongest emotions associated with memories, they must first be overcome before we can make sound decisions that influenced by our memories.
Vox Canadiana
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: banquosghost
Date: 2003-02-23 21:30:50
Vox said "We must be able to consider multiple and possibly conflicting impressions. In addition, to be effective, we must also be able to resolve the conflict inherent in these impressions or we might be reduced to endless debate and self-doubt."
Under different names debate and self-doubt are two of the cornerstones of western democracy. So while it's true that that we need to be able to "consider multiple and possibly conflicting impressions" the task shouldn't be undertaken with the aim being one of eliminating either debate or self-doubt. In human affairs there's no such thing as certainty and debate, to be real in a democratic sense, must be open ended in all senses.
I also concur with your reminder of the curse of memory. These memories are almost always racially based. It takes a concerted multi-cultural effort to overcome these curses. Ireland is a good example. So, on the other hand, is Rwanda. So is some of our own experience in Canada. Quebec, First Nations, Metis, Chinese, Asian Indians to name a few.
Is enlightenment a goal of foreign policy?
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Barretm82
Date: 2003-02-23 23:56:08
..."Is enlightenment a goal of foreign policy?"...
In realistic terms the answer is no. With that said, I am no saying it shouldn’t be.
Take the policy of China; U.S, France, and Russia, what do the foreign policy of these countries have in common? Answer; the goal of their foreign policy is to further their own counties interests. Period.
Interestingly enough though, Canada does have an exceptional role when it comes to enlightenment on the world stage, it seems that we have been the offstage brokers between competing interests.
Perhaps it is partly due to our very capable debaters, and perhaps stong debating is a result of our cold winters and networked computers. ;)
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Barretm82
Date: 2003-02-24 01:32:07
-edit-
In realistic terms the answer is no. With that said, I am not saying it shouldn’t be.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Vox
Date: 2003-02-24 14:10:19
I think I understand why people feel enlightenment should not realistically be a goal of foreign policy.
I never actually said that it should - go and read my message again. Those words are not part of my posting. I believe we often read into what is presented to us. Sometimes we may be correct to assume but other times we may not be. The fact that people have assume that may mean that the idea is also partly theirs.
So just what did I mean about enlightenment and do I think enlightenment should be a goal of foreign policy? I apologize and I would like to give a proper answer but I must balance my life and attend to other matters at the moment. I will try to comment later in the evening.
Vox Canadiana
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Vox
Date: 2003-02-24 21:35:13
Okay, to answer your original questions:
My original allusion to enlightenment was simply with regard an individual's personal enlightenment. I feel that people develop more effective and lasting policies when they contain deep insight into the stakeholders' "mind space". Our 3 Pillars approach seems to embrace the concept of enlightening others of our values but what about being enlightened about other peoples' values? When diplomats meet and work with one another across the gulfs of races, cultures, ethnicity and customs, is there something more lasting and binding than simply a satisfactory arrangement with regard to our respective country's interests? Do they just talk "at" one another and stick to their own agendas?
This would lead me to ponder your suggestion that enlightenment (might) be a goal of foreign policy.
I have never been satisfied with perpetuating the "grind". Especially given the UN/NATO/EU squabbles of late, I would think there has to be something more effective than "the grind" and the all too familiar failures. Our approaches are so often reminiscent of zero-sum games. Is this really just "grindingly slow" growing pains? And do we really have that much time?
I think mutual enlightenment should be a parallel goal in foreign policy-making. If we mean to live in peace then we need honourable policies and others need to deeply understand where we all come from. In a sense, consistent and positive memory of who Canada is an aid to Canadian foreign policy. Having said this I realize that a persistent problem has always been whether the other countries will reciprocate and how to effectively manage cheaters and miscommunications. I'm still actively researching this but in general I believe there is no acceptable future but enlightenment.
Vox Canadiana
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Barretm82
Date: 2003-02-25 18:49:04
Vox, you pose some very thought provoking questions. I will have to take some time to examine the whole subject.
First off, a client of mine requires that I leave the city for at least week or so.
After that, I will get back to the forum and put some time into the subject and try to get a thoughtful response posted.
Regards;
Steve
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: banquosghost
Date: 2003-02-25 20:46:22
I wasn't challenging your use of the notion of enlightenment as much as I was exploring one of the themes that seems to emerge every so often...that of an "enlightened foreign policy" or an "enlightened social policy".
Classical Buddhist notions of enlightenment would mitigate against what proponents of enlightened government policies of this or that would seem to desire. Acceptance of suffering is a hallmark of this version of enlightenment, probably not an indication of what it's supposed to infer in regards to policy. I rather think the word enlightened in the context of government policy is more likely intended to refer to The Enlightenment, the period of western history which saw the emergence of rationalism and empiricism. http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/hum_303/enlightenment.html
Maybe that's just me. :-)
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Vox
Date: 2003-02-26 22:42:09
Thank you for your explanation. I actually did not view it as a challenge but more as a thoughtful and reasonable question. I also wanted to see if people were interested in the idea. So the questions that ensued were not surprising to me.
I had purposely only alluded to the word because the word itself was not a key concept to discuss (although its meaning in the context of memory was). The word "enlightenment" has much broader meanings to me while the application of the word in the topic's context would be seen initially to be more limited. My meaning of enlightenment is not of the empirical sense Western thinking often associates with the works of Locke, Rousseau, Voltaire,...etc. It includes those ideas while also going beyond them. It must because many foreign policy issues also involve people either not of or not convinced of Western thought.
I agree that wording poses a very real challenge whenever people from different backgrounds or experiences try to discuss complex issues. A key word can have significantly different meaning for each party. I fondly recall an experience I had in grad school where I literally spent 6 months working with 7 other people to simply agree on the meaning of the words "strategy" and "strategic". LOL!
Vox Canadiana
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: kn_aeshap
Date: 2003-02-23 23:31:46
"(BTW, US troops in Somalia were allegedly attacked by Al Qaeda-trained Islamic fighters)."
Could you please provide some evidence to support this statement?
"Memory can also be a curse. There are places in the world where people listen to and even sing on a daily basis to the same bittersweet memories of past injustices and battles lost to "evil outsiders". I do not think those memories are serving anyone in a positive way."
The television and movie industry in America seems to do fairly well...financially, that is- depicting past conflicts and such. Not to say that it's a "positive" thing though.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Barretm82
Date: 2003-02-24 00:03:05
As I understand it;
Al-Qa'ida supports Muslim fighters in Afghanistan, Bosnia, Chechnya, Tajikistan, Somalia, Yemen, and Kosovo. It also trains members of terrorist organizations from such diverse countries as the Philippines, Algeria, and Eritrea.
Al-Qa'ida's goal is to "unite all Muslims and to establish a government which follows the rule of the Caliphs." Bin Laden has stated that the only way to establish the Caliphate is by force. Al-Qa'ida's goal, therefore, is to overthrow nearly all Muslim governments, which are viewed as corrupt, to drive Western influence from those countries, and eventually to abolish state boundaries.
This isn't the best public source but it is a good place to start. (Federation of American Scientists)
Link;
http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/ladin.htm
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: kn_aeshap
Date: 2003-02-24 02:37:40
Thank-you Barretm82, I'd read through that page before. I was merely looking for Vox Canadiana to back up the statement with a quotation, a citation...it amazes me how few people using these forums actually cite their sources and examples- it makes serious discussion quite difficult when the majority of talk falls short of that.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Vox
Date: 2003-02-24 13:14:11
Kn_asshap:
I just posted a reply to your earlier question. I do have other important things to do with my time.
I undestand your wish to ask questions but you must also learn to wait for answers before complaining in public. You might also remind yourself that you also have the responsibility to research and present your own ideas and proofs.
I try to take care in giving my views and the words I choose are designed to minimize misunderstanding. When I say "alleged" I mean "alleged". Whatever proof I deliver would still be less than 100% by my standards. So you are free to contend - go and look for yourself. Take a chance and give an assessment. We're on the Internet after all.
Vox Canadiana
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: kn_aeshap
Date: 2003-02-24 13:50:41
"I try to take care in giving my views and the words I choose are designed to minimize misunderstanding. When I say "alleged" I mean "alleged". Whatever proof I deliver would still be less than 100% by my standards."
*sigh* Yes, Vox Canadiana, I am aware that you said "alleged"- and when you said it I assumed that "alleged" was what you meant. But someone must have "alleged" that U.S. troops in Somalia were attacked by Al Qaeda-trained Islamic fighters...was it an 8 year old child? Was it you- making it up? Was it the State Department of the United States?- was it Chuck Jones? You gave absolutely no source for the information what-so-ever. The problem is not that your proof wasn't "100%", it is that you provided no proof- at all. That doesn't bode well for a serious conversation...not at all, actually.
If you can't be bothered to cite the information you're using, well, you should probably prefix everything with 'In my opinion'...or 'I think' (or something of that nature)...without a source for the facts, what you say is meaningless to a discussion that is based on the facts.
"I undestand your wish to ask questions but you must also learn to wait for answers before complaining in public."
I wasn't complaining about anything, I should say- I just wanted you to provide a quotation, a cited source, for the information that you brought forward. Nothing less, nothing more. You failed to do so, hence...
If ever I do not provide cited sources or examples for the points I make or the information I bring foward, and you would like one- just let me know, buddy.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Vox
Date: 2003-02-24 12:56:46
Kn_aeshap:
Regarding allegations that Al Qeada trained (and directed) the attacks on US troops in Somalia (recall that the US wanted to protect and organize distribution of food aid that was being looted by armed bands), much information was uncovered but not communicated to the public by the media. I am not sure why there was lack of effort but perhaps this is now partly responsible for the current disconnect between US authorities and the public (and other nations). Perhaps US authorities felt the information was too hot, too provocative and may create paranoia amongst some people who may act out against innocent Arabs. Perhaps the US did not want to be forced by public opinion to take firmer action. Perhaps they felt unprepared to act.
This information was well-known to US authorities way before 9/11 and you may recall that in the aftermath of 9/11, investigations eventually revealed all of the same details and posed the question of why the administration had not taken firmer action much sooner. One of the answers that I recall was that the alarm had been raised and the leaders were worried that something big would follow from what they knew but they were all reluctant to act. No one seemed to want to take the responsibility.
Now to give you the information you requested - A number of people and organizations have been indicted by the US on charges of terrorist activities. These people and organizations have also been indicted by the UN for similar reasons. You will find Canada's role in dealing with the matter at the following Canadian Legal Information website, where Canadian law documents may be found. The following URL will take you to the documents on "United Nations Suppression of Terrorism Regulations, [SOR/2001-360]":
http://www.canlii.org/ca/regu/sor1-360/
If you read the "Schedule (section 1 and 2)" you will find the names of the people and organizations being banned and subject to legal action. Amongst the names of individuals you should find the following:
Muhammed Atef
Saif Al Adel
Abdullah Ahmed Abdullah
Mushin Musa Matwalli Atwah
Fazul Abdullah
Ahmed Mohammed Hamed Ali
Mohamed Sadeek Odeh
Abu Ubaidah Banshiri
These individuals and the Al Qaeda were all named by CS-1 as having taken part in activities in Somalia that led to the attack on US troops. "Confidential Source One" (CS-1) was an Al Qaeda defector who was kept secret for years and who was subsequently named as Jamal Ahmed al-Fadl). You can obtain transcripts of his court (3) testimonies from this website at The Center for Nonproliferation Studies:
http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/reports/binladen.htm
If you really want to see the words that identified Al Qaeda and its members as major conspirators and agents in the attacks on US troops in Somalia you should download and read the testimony given on Feb 6, 2001:
http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/reports/pdfs/binladen/060201.pdf
Using Acrobat Reader, search on the word "Somalia" and go from there. You should also read the growing indictment against bin Laden. There you will find summaries of the charges against him, members of Al Qaeda and network of terrorists.
http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/reports/pdfs/binladen/indict.pdf
It is very unfortunate that the public neither sees or wishes to investigate these matters. The details of the transcripts and indictment show the deliberate manner and deep-rooted mind-set of the people who planned and committed these acts.
Now as for television, nowadays I find TV shows, especially the US variety, all too often just rubbish if not totally objectionable. I do not own a working TV because it is not worth it. Movies are marginally better but I shudder to think of what it's all doing to young minds let alone to the rest of us. I also agree with your contention that the media recycle "negative memories" for profit. Perhaps many of us look for affirmation of our pet peeves or scapegoats, however misguided that may be.
Vox Canadiana
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: kn_aeshap
Date: 2003-02-24 14:13:06
"I do not own a working TV because it is not worth it. Movies are marginally better but I shudder to think of what it's all doing to young minds let alone to the rest of us."
It's selling us things, most likely- television networks sell space & time to the advertisers...the networks are using the people who watch their programs as currency.
The better the ratings are for a particular television show that they play, the larger the crowd- the more expensive the advertising space. And then the advertisers sell us their products. Doesn't sound all that great to me either...
"Perhaps many of us look for affirmation of our pet peeves or scapegoats, however misguided that may be."
Yes, perhaps...or perhaps people are looking to be told what their pet peeves should be.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: banquosghost
Date: 2003-02-24 17:13:05
I am one who believes that bad television (yes Virginia there is such a thing as *good* television :-)and bad films (I won't repeat it) are contributive factors to the diminishment of the importance of memory in our culture. But that's neither here nor there...
Both media *do* tend to oversimplify, over-glorify or "macho-ize" the role of foreign policy in the world. That also is neither here nor there...
Is the act of remembering subversive?
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Vox
Date: 2003-02-24 21:37:44
I think remembering is simply in our nature. Is it subversive? I guess it depends on what it's subverting us from and what it's subverting us into. I mean if we were "nasty" to begin with and we build up "nice" memories to cancel out our "nastiness", would that still be subversive?
I would guess that memory is neither "good" nor "bad". (Actually good and bad are themselves subjective concepts but I think that's too OT here).
I think what may help us use memory effectively is, as I had mentioned earlier, if we are able to step outside of our emotions (and our physical selves) when we examine what is presented to us. Memory would then just be information. "Where" we actually are when we "step" outside of our emotions is an interesting place. Is that place then enlightened?
Vox Canadiana
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: banquosghost
Date: 2003-02-24 23:19:33
I ask about the subversiveness of memory in the context of criticising the US. I have been called anti-American for publicly recalling certain historically indisputable facts, in other words by remembering those facts. I'm probably not alone in that. So I find myself wondering if the act of remembering is going to be addded to the list.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Vox
Date: 2003-02-25 14:39:42
Remembering "facts" is not subversive by itself but overly dwelling on those memories while not realizing that they are selective and incomplete as well as prone to error is probably naive...but also not necessarily subversive.
What ought to be considered subversive is if we indulge in our emotions and passions in spite of realizing our flawed perceptions and forge ahead all the same with the intentions of misrepresenting information for our own twisted purposes.
Vox Canadiana
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: kn_aeshap
Date: 2003-02-24 23:23:26
"I think what may help us use memory effectively is, as I had mentioned earlier, if we are able to step outside of our emotions (and our physical selves) when we examine what is presented to us."
Agreed- having the ability to be completely objective (removing ourselves from our emotions) would be of great value in a situation where emotion may reign.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Barretm82
Date: 2003-02-24 23:39:54
Hi Vox,
Hmm…. step outside our emotions? Enjoyable thought, not practical. We need those emotions to ground us, to provide empathy with others. Here is food for thought, look at the description for people who are outside there emotions, the term non-empathic sociopath behavior. (Definition; egocentric individuals with no empathy for others, and are incapable of feeling remorse or guilt).
That definition can hardly be deemed enlightenment. (Side note; I do understand the gist of your statement, I am just complicating it). ;)
I think your point was to put aside our problem causing emotions when dealing with a crisis. However the emotion of empathy is a part of that process, the ability to put yourself on someone else’s shoes, but I digress…..
Here is a second thought; can accurate information stored on the internet be considered memory? We can access it and sort the information fairly quick, use the information to reference and at times sharpen our perceived realities.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Vox
Date: 2003-02-25 21:02:01
"Barretm82", to "step outside our emotions" does not mean that we become inhumane. I mentioned elsewhere (in particular see "The 3 Pillars" under "Beyond policies and ideals") that one is often challenged to simultaneously manage conflicting impressions but that we still need to function effectively in spite of this uncertainty.
We all know that when we let our emotions rule all of our actions we are no better than a 'basket case'. Emotions are very powerful and if you have any formal training in psychology or behavioural studies you will recall that emotions are one of our fastest reacting senses (physical reflex actions are even faster). 'Thinking' is much slow.
Therefore when we wish the best for someone who may be suffering (could even be ourselves) we sometimes need to allow our slower senses to catch up. When we 'step outside our emotions" then we give a chance for our minds to work. If we are humane, we then have a better chance of extending better assistance to the sufferer (or ourselves).
BTW, when viewed broadly, 'enlightenment' is merely deep understanding of the nature of things. It has no inherent meaning, purpose or intent. Some people use it in responsible ways while others use it to successfully exploit people. 'Enlightenment' is merely a 'higher' tool. However, when we choose to ignore it, we ignore it at our own peril.
Vox Canadiana
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Barretm82
Date: 2003-02-25 22:26:10
I have to post a brief reply as I am preparing right now to leave tomorrow morning.
I understand your points, at this point I look forward to when I return, as I don't have enough time to dive into the subject.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Barretm82
Date: 2003-02-24 23:50:45
..."Memory would then just be information."...
Just to add, think of the internet as extended collective memory for people? Society?
(Yes, my philosophical computer engineering side is showing)
lol...
Steve
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: banquosghost
Date: 2003-02-25 09:59:01
As I've mentioned elsewhere I work in market research. A few months back I came across a verbal response to a question pertaining to sustainable energy development that I thought encapsulated quite perfectly our current cultural relationship to "information". Someone made the following observation (and this is a verbatim quote): "I am fairly well informed on the issue so I have not given it much thought."
Too often these days we confuse the posession of information with the activity of thinking.
Reply to this message
|
Visit us online at: http://www.foreign-policy-dialogue.ca
|
