Who are the cowards?

[janeeng]

Oh well Bry, thank for that input! Hial to Bry!:hail: hahaha!

I still say Man of 1951 - strapped bombs on backs = COWARDS!

 

[5stringJeff]

Originally posted by Bry
I liked your post, jeff.

Ditto! Great reading, on an intellegent level, without name calling! Right on!

... anathama...

This is such a cool word... I really need to use it more often!

The difficulty we face with suicide bombing is precisely that it is not an act of war, but the act of an individual. Unless a government can be directly linked to the act, the government in question bears no responsibility. If a government can be directly linked to the act in question, then it can be interpreted as an act of war. Neither can it be considered an act of war, the harboring of groups which encourage and fund these acts, though I may be mistaken on this point. It has not been demonstrated that the attack on the world trade center was an act of war, and the question of whether or not Afganistan and Iraq constituted an immediate threat to the US is a difficult question.

I believe that, at least in the present case, the organization of al-Qaeda has unquestionably committed an act of war against the US. Even though they don't have a sovreign state of their own, I would still call it an act of war. As far as harboring terrorists... if you are knowingly harboring terrorists, then you are faced with two options: 1) hand over the terrorists, or assist in their capture, as was the case with Pakistan, or 2) stand in the way and face the possibility that you will be taken out with the terrorists, as was the case with the Taliban and Saddam. The fact that they were actively assisting al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups (in the Taliban's case) or at least allowing them to exist without interference (in Iraq's case) puts them in the terrorists' camp, and therefore makes them a threat to the US.

As far as I know, there are no standards accepted by the international community for determining what constitutes a real threat to a state's security. As such it is something which should be discussed at length, as we were doing in the thread on pre-emptive strikes.

I would think that any organization that launched a pre-emptive attack on 3,000 civilians would constitute a threat to security. I'm not sure who would debate that.

Unfortunately, the United States is by far the strongest military force in the world, and they surrender none of their sovereignty to the UN, meaning they do not acknowledge the UNs or any others' authority to judge and if necessary penalize the actions of the United States ... essentially, whatever we do as a country is essentially justified, by virtue of our military strength.

Should we surrender part of our sovreignity to the UN? I would hotly contest such a move. What does the UN have to offer us? Arrgghh... one of my real pet peeves there.

Interestingly, the only other country immune to the machinations of the US is North Korea, by virtue of their posession of nuclear arms which prevents the US from taking decisive action, and their insusceptibility to trade embargoes due to their self-sufficiency and lack of international trade. They are the thorn in the side of our total domination, and they provide a valuable model to all other states in the world. It is sufficiently clear that any country wishing to defy the policies of the US government and economic expansion and exploitation of markets, must on the one hand posess deployable nuclear devices and on the other hand be so self sufficient as not to succumb to the economic pressure the US brings to bear on all who oppose them.

OK... first of all, the US is not bent on world domination. Otherwise, the Stars and Stripes would be flying over Paris, Bonn, Tokyo, Kabul, and Baghdad right now. The US actively seeks to export capitalism and democracy, which just happen to be the economic and political systems with the most personal freedoms. To call this 'exploitation' makes me wonder if you aren't an anti-globalization type - or worse yet, anti-capitalist. But if so, don't worry, we'll convert you!
And how in the world can you call North Korea self-sufficient?!? They can't even feed their own people without massive private aid. And if they didn't want to rely on the EVIL US, why not trade with their communist borthers-in-arms China? They don't like us either.

The primary alternative resistance is that of what we are so fond of calling terrorism. Here again, as with "coward", the way you define "terrorism" depends on what side of the conflict you find yourself. We certainly didn't refer to bin Laden and the Afghan resistance to Soviet rule as "terrorist". It was only when they turned their attention to the global hegemony of Capitalism that they became terrorists. Their methods, of course, were always the same, and they perfected their methods under the tutelage and watchful eye of the CIA.

Man... first off, bin Laden, et.al., were fighting as part of the Afghani resistance to a massive invasion of Afghanistan, a sovreign nation. It was far from terrorists killing innocent civilians, as happened on 9/11. It was a conventional war, soldier against soldier - though the Muslims did not always use conventional tactics. To equate a ground war with a plane flying into office buildings is intellectually dishonest. Their methods were quite different.
As far as the CIA... at the time, we were fighting the Cold War, and operated under the rule that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." Hindsight is always 20/20, and I'm sure that if we had known that there were going to be Islamic terrorists that were going to attack us, we would have done things differently. But you can't judge actions in the 1980's by what we know now in 2003 and say that 'they should have known better.'

... the Spanish government has been able, thanks to the sponsorship of the US, to severely limit the freedoms of speech in their country without risk of an international reaction, just as the US has done in their own country by passing the internationally notorious "Patriot" Act.

How, exactly, has your freedom of speech been 'severely limited?' I'd love to know.

As you can see, might not only makes right, it provides the sufficient and necessary authority to define words like "terrorist". No matter how much we might argue against the standard use of the word "terrorist" by the US government and media, "terrorist" effectively means any action which defies the global hegemony of the US sponsored Capitalism, as indeed became clear when the US government, in reaction to massive wide spread international protests against the invasion of Iraq, stated simply that those demonstrators are supporters of terrorists, as "old Europe" is now considered to be in support of terrorists (and for that crime, we will no longer eat French fries, and the threat of embargoes were and continue to be considered). I too am a terrorist, or the supporter of terrorists: all the guilt but none of the glory. I suppose my only recourse is to become accostomed to my new name and perhaps even to wear it with pride.

Your "effective" definition of terrorist is much more encompassing than I have ever seen. It's got nothing to do with whether you don't like capitalism, it's got everything to do with attacking innocent civilians for political gain. The people who stood against the war in Iraq... as far as I am concerned, those people were supporting a terrorist regime. If you were one of those people, I would not consider you a terrorist, but I would consider you extermely unwise.

 

[Bry]

Thanks, jeff. another very thorough response. BTW, I spelled anathema wrong in my post.

I believe that, at least in the present case, the organization of al-Qaeda has unquestionably committed an act of war against the US. Even though they don't have a sovereign state of their own, I would still call it an act of war.

I'm not sure about this. Can a non-sovereign entity commit an act of war? I am doubtful. When Union Carbide, thanks to lax safety procedures, gassed thousands in India, was it an act of war? This is one of my main difficulties. I see no qualitative difference between the exploitation of natural resources for an individual's personal gain, the wanton polluting of our waters and atmosphere by corporate entities (especially when it is done by a US company on foreign soil), or the exploitation of third world labor force, or the hypocritical lending of support to fascist regimes (something which is not a thing of the past as your post suggests...) and an ideologically motivated attack on US corporate interests. The damage that US corporations do to the environment, the unethical conditions under which they exploit the third world labour forces and the natural resources of third world countries, the aggressiveness with which they attack local and traditional forms of commerce, all these things I see as ideologically motivated acts of war, in the same sense that you might suggest that al Qaeda's response could be interpreted as an act of war. As you stated in a previous post, the attack on the world trade center is an attack on civilians. I don't see it so clearly: the world trade center was probably the most visible and prominent symbol of US corporate abuse throughout the world. From the perspective of an organization which is dedicated to fighting the expansion of capitalism, an attack on the organizations which propagate that expansion seems only reasonable, or at least comparable to bombing a restaurant full of civilians in the hopes that we might in the act kill Saddam Hussein.

The difficulty, then is in the changing face of power in the world. In the old regimes, power was concentrated almost exclusively in the government, usually some form of monarchy, and it was nearly impossible to separate the economic interests of the state from the political interests of the monarch: they were one and the same. Now the world has changed, but we continue to pretend that the acts of an organization against a US corporation or corporations is an attack on US civilians. As you can see, what I am arguing against is the ideology of capitalism: to my mind, the corporations are themselves the new combatants, and as such, they are acceptable targets. To explain myself a little more thoroughly, it is necessary to explain how I am using the word ideology, and it’s accompanying concept, hegemony. “Hegemony” is a term to describe relations of domination which are not visible as such. The capitalist hegemony, then, is understood as the agenda of production and consumption, analysis and manipulation of market forces, and the primacy of profit margin as the core value of the western world. These things are all relations of domination, which describe the subjection of one majoritarian group to the interests of another minoritarian group. The main weapon at the disposal of the self propagating hegemony is ideology. Ideology can be understood not as beliefs we disapprove of, but the set of discourses and images which constitute the most widespread knowledge and values – “common sense”. Ideology, in the image of the good life which is presented to us in advertisements; the identification of our enemies as those barbaric and uncivilized cultures which do not subscribe to our values (as for us identified as “common sense”); in the notions of success in terms of the size of your house, the number of cars you own, the size of your television; the valuing of the rights and interests of the individual over the rights and interests of the community, etc. Our ideology appeals to concepts of patriotism, of the protestant work ethic, and the promise of rewards for the unquestioning in order to produce a population more docile and at the same time more productive and consuming. Just look at the evolution of the content of the word patriotic as it was used in WWI, for example, and how it is being used now. In WWI, a patriot was someone who sacrificed, who respected the rationing, who dedicated their labour production to the war effort to fight the evil German. (This too is a construction of ideology, the concept of the “evil German” was sold to the largely pacifist American people in WWI in order to create a mass hysteria by which it became a matter of common sense to fight against what came to be perceived as the implacable German menace.) Now, a patriot is someone who consumes the maximum possible (in order to keep our economy growing, and those profit margins substantial. They tell us: if we don’t consume, consume, consume, it is tantamount to acknowledging that we, as Americans, as defenders of the “American way of life” have been defeated.). And this is what is taken, now, for “common sense”. But there is nothing common about it. The populations of the “developing” world (which consists of any population which is taking steps to become more like us!!!) are not convinced that buying into this idea of American common sense is in their best interest, that filling the pockets of a precious few State side might not be what is good for them. They are, in a very real sense, the victims of a violence which our mythology advocates. We in the US see only the benefits: we are in a post-industrialization phase of developement which means that most of the real production, the mechanical labour required by the modern assembly line, has been exported to foreign countries, and more and more, we in the US have become a nation of administrators and bureaucrats with cush office jobs and fancy job titles, while the labour in our own borders is given increasingly to minorities and immigrants, or exported to the third world. As such, we have become enemies of the union and syndicate. Those are things of the past, for us who have entered into the world of administration: we are, for the most part, bosses big and small, and the organization of labour both in the third world and at home is seen increasingly as a threat to the affluence of which our “American way of life” consists. Of course, this “progress” within our own society is itself, largely, a lie. Yes, we have fancy job titles, but increasingly, we are asked to be more productive, to devote more of our energies to the corporations, to accept less time off, to make more sacrifices, because we have been convinced that we are the bosses and that that is what management does! They work for salaries, not hourly wages, and that means, the work must get done regardless of how much time it takes: for the good of the corporation! and now, some of us are asking: where the hell is my social security? What have you done with my retirement funds? Some of us are starting to figure out that the bosses are still the bosses, and even though most of us no longer are working in factories, we are still getting the shit end of the stick. How much more so the labourers in the third world who work for wages consistent with their economies, while the bosses in the US are pocketing previously unheard of salaries and benefits? This is the nature of the subjugation of the people, this is what we pridefully wave our flags for, and this is why our troops receive our unerring loyalty: because they are out there defending an “American way of life” that is in reality gradually eroding the buying power of the middle management, the middle class, rather than augmenting it.

All of this by way of saying that some people see it for what it is: a violent aggression toward our well being. And a few of us are even willing to respond in kind, with violence against the corporations. After all, it is a war which they have long been waging. It is only recently that some of us have started to recognize it for what it is. By this way of thinking, even the notion of "property" is little more than an accepted form of violence. This, then, is the basis of my argument, and I will now turn to address some of the specific comments in your post.

 

[Bry]

As far as harboring terrorists... if you are knowingly harboring terrorists, then you are faced with two options: 1) hand over the terrorists, or assist in their capture, as was the case with Pakistan, or 2) stand in the way and face the possibility that you will be taken out with the terrorists, as was the case with the Taliban and Saddam. The fact that they were actively assisting al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups (in the Taliban's case) or at least allowing them to exist without interference (in Iraq's case) puts them in the terrorists' camp, and therefore makes them a threat to the US.

I was under the impression that it was the other way around, that the Taliban were allowing al Qaeda to operate within their borders, but that they were not directly aiding al Qaeda. They defended their sovereignty when the US decided they had the right to persue terrorists within the borders of other sovereign states, thus the war in Afghanistan. The argument for the war in Iraq was that Saddam was specifically providing aid to the terrorist organizations, and that there was a threat he might provide them with WMDs to aid their cause. Regardless, my description of the USs aggressions as being justified solely by their military strength, I maintain to be accurate. The world did not recognize our claims with regard to Iraq, though I consider it possible that our rights were more violated and our security more threatened by Iraq than by the government of Afghanistan. In the wake of 9/11, most countries, out of sympathy, were willing to give us more leaway to maneuver against Afghanistan than they were willing to give us later as we continued appealing to threats to national security in order to justify invasion of sovereign states.

Should we surrender part of our sovreignity to the UN? I would hotly contest such a move. What does the UN have to offer us? Arrgghh... one of my real pet peeves there.

Of course, the UN has little to offer us, other than legal and moral support when our claims are seen as justified by the world community. In a state of nature, the strong have nothing to gain from the institution of law, accept as a means to order the rest of the people for easy subjugation to their plans, by making it seem in their best interest. By joining the UN, the US would simply have to become more clever in the way they manipulated the world. They couldn't simply resort to their big stick whenever they feel it necessary. But, by the same token, the institution of "Democracy" within our borders, I see as simply a more advanced mode of subjugation of the masses; so too would be the entering of the US in a more formal relationship to the UN, unless they changed their ideology and started advocating the rights of the masses, rather than the rights of the chosen few. In that way, I am somewhat ambivalent about whether or not the US should recognize the authority of the UN as the appropriate ground for arbitration of international disputes.

OK... first of all, the US is not bent on world domination. Otherwise, the Stars and Stripes would be flying over Paris, Bonn, Tokyo, Kabul, and Baghdad right now. The US actively seeks to export capitalism and democracy, which just happen to be the economic and political systems with the most personal freedoms. To call this 'exploitation' makes me wonder if you aren't an anti-globalization type - or worse yet, anti-capitalist. But if so, don't worry, we'll convert you!

I would argue that the corporations of the US are bent on world domination and the US government, thanks to our lack of restrictions on campaign finance, finds itself complicit in that domination. Simplify: by controlling the politicians, the corporations are able to use even the US military as a weapon of force and fear against those who stand in the way of the expansion of market domination and exploitation of natural resources. I know that it is somewhat controversial here, but I still maintain that the underlying motive for conducting the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, in the manner we have chosen is first and foremost the facilitating of the construction and control of the oil pipeline through Afghanistan (the same is true for Kosovo, believe it or not, which is part of why I don't consider myself a partisan to either of the big parties of US politics) and the direct exploitation of the oil reserves in Iraq. For the record, I am ant-globilization, in the sense that I am against the domination of world economies by a few specific "master" economies: I don't think the whole world needs Coca-Cola, though the advertisements of Coca-Cola as being the key to happiness has had a rather disasterous effect on locally produced beverage industries, for example, and has led to the exporting of profits in exchange for the importing of products. On the otherhand, one of the positive aspects that might fall under the heading of globalization is the internet and global communication, which allows such productive activities as this debate and the mobilization of massive demonstrations against the wars and market dominations. However, the profits from the telecommunications sector overwhelming go to the same chosen few in the old US of A that control that market as well.

Anti-capitalist? I would say I am more pro-communitarian. Look at the evolution of the word "public" in our society. Those things which are "public" are generally perceived of as being of lesser quality than the "private": jobs in the "public" sector are generally less rewarding monetarily and offer less promises of advancement. Public bathrooms? Public schools? Public health care? All inferior according to the defacto policies which follow the popular ideologies of preferring the rights of the individual to make as much monetary gain as possible, at the expense of the community. We console ourselves by saying we as individuals may have the ability to arrive at being "successful", but the reality is that relatively few are able to achieve that status, and it becomes a receeding horizon: the more we have, the more we want.

And how in the world can you call North Korea self-sufficient?!? They can't even feed their own people without massive private aid. And if they didn't want to rely on the EVIL US, why not trade with their communist borthers-in-arms China? They don't like us either.

I thought "self-sufficient" might cause some problems. I take it back, but I will say that the leader of NK demands of his people that they sacfice in order that they remain free of the US ideologies. Make no mistake, I do not think Kim's policies are favorable for his people, either, but by renouncing the west as trading partners, they maintain a degree of autonomy which i think is desirable. Cuba, by the same token, has accepted isolation in exchange for an increased autonomy from the Capitalist hegemony. In that sense, they are more free than we are. Again, to clarify, I do not see freedom as a list of rights, but rather as the accomplishment of autonomy from those sources of power that would seek to subjugate us. And NK does trade with China, but China has enough trouble feeding it's own population without trying to export food.

Man... first off, bin Laden, et.al., were fighting as part of the Afghani resistance to a massive invasion of Afghanistan, a sovreign nation. It was far from terrorists killing innocent civilians, as happened on 9/11. It was a conventional war, soldier against soldier - though the Muslims did not always use conventional tactics. To equate a ground war with a plane flying into office buildings is intellectually dishonest. Their methods were quite different.

The afghani resistance did engage in "terrorist activities" targeting those "civilians" and businesses which were complicit with the puppet government installed by the Soviet Union. If you don't like that example, there are plenty of other examples of the CIA providing training and funding for what I will call "terror-like" activities, in order to keep straight the distinction between what we do (terror-like) and what they do (terrorist). In my opinion it ammounts to the same thing. Columbia, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Peru, Argentina...

As far as the CIA... at the time, we were fighting the Cold War, and operated under the rule that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." Hindsight is always 20/20, and I'm sure that if we had known that there were going to be Islamic terrorists that were going to attack us, we would have done things differently. But you can't judge actions in the 1980's by what we know now in 2003 and say that 'they should have known better.'

Yes you can judge our actions in the 1980s by what we know now. It is precisely in reaction to our policies of most of the entire 20th century (not just the 80s) that we are now the targets of so many "terrorist" attacks. You think that we can get away with saying "Oh, that? That was twenty years ago. We have much nobler ends and means now." I don't believe it, and this administration isn't demonstrating it.

How, exactly, has your freedom of speech been 'severely limited?' I'd love to know.

The challenges which the Patriot Act makes to our civil liberties are many, but the fact that it is still a new law, and it remains to be seen exactly how it will be implemented. It is potentially very restrictive, allowing the government to make searches circumventing due process, to access the list of books we've checked out from the library, etc. Of course, you may say, if I have no intention of being a terrorist myself, I have nothing to worry about. I would argue that nothing could be farther from the truth. God forbid the FBI takes independent council Ken Starrs method of conducting an investigation, and, well, no stone remains unturned. I simply don't want to find myself without protections from a government that show signs of becoming invasive and fascist, from a government which believes if you're not with them, you're against them, and that protestors are little removed from terrorists. Exactly what more would they need to launch an investigation of my own activities than this very post?

Your "effective" definition of terrorist is much more encompassing than I have ever seen. It's got nothing to do with whether you don't like capitalism, it's got everything to do with attacking innocent civilians for political gain. The people who stood against the war in Iraq... as far as I am concerned, those people were supporting a terrorist regime. If you were one of those people, I would not consider you a terrorist, but I would consider you extermely unwise.

That rhetorical device is called deconstruction: take the founding principles of an ideology and stretch them to their logical extreme where they inevitably begin to contradict themselves, and fall apart of their own weight. Of course I don't consider myself a terrorist, but the rhetoric coming from the white house and right wing media doesn't leave me very far from being a terrorist either. Like you said, by protesting an invasion of a sovereign state, such prostest being justifiable by a wide range of agendas and motivations, all of those possible motivations and agendas, in the hands of the US government, and you yourself, are reduced to the classification of "supporting a terrorist regime". The enemies of my enemies are my friends. The friends of my enemies are my enemies. If you are not with us, you are against us, War is Peace......

 

[5stringJeff]

Wow... I don't want to quote too much of that, but I will say this: the purpose of the US government is to protect our individual freeodms, both political (e.g. freedom of speech, religion, etc.) and economic - thus, capitalism becomes our economic system, as it allows the greatest economic freedoms.

I do not agree with your assessment of capitalism as a worldwide exploitative force. While I agree that companies should be held to regulations to protect the environment, I don't see how free trade is harmful to the economy - in fact, global free trade is good for all economies involved.

Originally posted by Bry
... the leader of NK demands of his people that they sacfice in order that they remain free of the US ideologies. Make no mistake, I do not think Kim's policies are favorable for his people, either, but by renouncing the west as trading partners, they maintain a degree of autonomy which i think is desirable. Cuba, by the same token, has accepted isolation in exchange for an increased autonomy from the Capitalist hegemony. In that sense, they are more free than we are. Again, to clarify, I do not see freedom as a list of rights, but rather as the accomplishment of autonomy from those sources of power that would seek to subjugate us.

I disagree with your definition of freedom. Which is more important - for a country to be 'free' from a percevied hegemony, or for the people of that country to be free to pursue their own ways in life? I argue the latter - and further argue that a country full of people with political and economic freedoms will, on its won, create a country that is more and more self-sufficient and, therefore, able to gain the autonomy that you are talking about.

The afghani resistance did engage in "terrorist activities" targeting those "civilians" and businesses which were complicit with the puppet government installed by the Soviet Union. If you don't like that example, there are plenty of other examples of the CIA providing training and funding for what I will call "terror-like" activities, in order to keep straight the distinction between what we do (terror-like) and what they do (terrorist). In my opinion it ammounts to the same thing. Columbia, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Peru, Argentina...

I am not familiar with those instances that you are alluding to, though I don't deny that they happened. My point is that the war in Afghanistan was primarily a conventional war, not a terrorist campaign.

The challenges which the Patriot Act makes to our civil liberties are many, but the fact that it is still a new law, and it remains to be seen exactly how it will be implemented. It is potentially very restrictive, allowing the government to make searches circumventing due process, to access the list of books we've checked out from the library, etc. Of course, you may say, if I have no intention of being a terrorist myself, I have nothing to worry about. I would argue that nothing could be farther from the truth. God forbid the FBI takes independent council Ken Starrs method of conducting an investigation, and, well, no stone remains unturned. I simply don't want to find myself without protections from a government that show signs of becoming invasive and fascist, from a government which believes if you're not with them, you're against them, and that protestors are little removed from terrorists. Exactly what more would they need to launch an investigation of my own activities than this very post?

The fact that you still posted this means that you obvioulsy aren't worried about the black helicopters landing in your backyard. Seriously, though, I have yet to see someone arrested for checking out a library book, or dragged to jail for speaking a certain political opinion. However, I have seen a law passed recently that makes it illegal to speak about an incumbent's voting records or political positons before an election - McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform. If you are truly concerned about erosion of your right of freedom of speech, why not fight for the repeal of this law? I know that CFR is totally off subject - probably should be in a different forum - my point is that the Patriot Act has been on the books for a year and a half, but all the screeches from the Left about lost rights and secret police have not come to fruition.

 

[Bry]

Cool, jeff, thaks for the response. This is one of my favorite subjects. Sorry if it comes across as a bit extreme. My whole way of thinking has come from an attempt to step outside of the belief systems I was born into, and taking nothing for granted, reanalyze the American system. Granted that it is a practical impossibility: I cannot be other than who I am. But I believe the exercise is very useful, and the criticisms which I have arrived at, with the help of many philosophers who have persued similar projects in much greater detail, I believe are valuable. I must admit, though, that I misstep fairly regularly, and have to back track a bit. So thanks for bearing with me.

Wow... I don't want to quote too much of that, but I will say this: the purpose of the US government is to protect our individual freeodms, both political (e.g. freedom of speech, religion, etc.) and economic - thus, capitalism becomes our economic system, as it allows the greatest economic freedoms.

I do not agree with your assessment of capitalism as a worldwide exploitative force. While I agree that companies should be held to regulations to protect the environment, I don't see how free trade is harmful to the economy - in fact, global free trade is good for all economies involved.

I agree that it SHOULD be the purpose of the US government to protect our individual freedoms, both political and economic. But we would be better served if the government left off with their messianic crusades, and started protecting us from the true menace to our freedom: the corporation. Take the internet boom of the 90s, for example. There was a new technology which suddenly was being exploited in fantastic and previously unimaginable ways, and there was a massive proliferation of new businesses. Then suddenly, it was over, and what was left, for the most part, got eaten by the giants that were always there waiting. This was, in part, due to a general over exuberance. New businesses were going public almost as fast as they could get organized, and the stocks were sky rocketing almost over night on companies that were totally unproven, and in most cases, unable even to fill the demand created by their new service. Fine. But it is also part of an on going pattern in the US economy. Every day, we have fewer actual businesses, and everyday the big conglomerates get even bigger. In this kind of system, there is no such thing as economic freedom. It is almost impossible for a business to start from scratch and compete with the already goliath corporations. Look at Microsoft. With the advent of the combustion engine, there were literally hundreds of businesses manufacturing automobiles in the US. Now there are two and a half companies in the US. Is that because their product was better, or they gave us a better value? In part, certainly, but the advent of modern advertising strategies, bankrolled by the economic giants, minimized the role of direct competition and innovation. Yes, it may be said that sometimes, new technology comes along, and for a while you see some start ups doing well, but inevitably they get eaten, and whatever innovation they may have had either gets thrown away to maintain the profits of the technologies already in place, or in some few instances, the corporations make the adaptations required in order to fill the new demand that had been created.

As for our personal freedoms, I am sad to say they are somewhat hollow, and that they too suffer from the lack of control placed on the corporations. The fact is, the corporations have invaded our lives so pervasively, that we almost don't even recogize it. And steps are being taken to increase that control. Have you seen Spielberg's movie, Minority Report? If not, I recommend it. The fact is, it is hardly even science fiction. Every time Tom Cruise enters a business, his retina is scanned, and suddenly all of the advertisements on the digital screens that surround the business are geared to his interests as determined my his credit record. He hears music playing from bands whose music he has purchased. He is reminded that he is out of toilet paper at home and it is time to buy some more. (I don't remember exatly what happened in those scenes, so I invented that example as an illustration. The point is that the corporations had invaded the lives of the people to such an extent there no longer existed free thought. They were essentially living in a giant skinner box, and being manipulated like so many puppets. In the real world, things are already not so different, and they are getting worse. I am already receiving advertisements in the mail that are a direct reflection of what I have bought in the past. In La, they are experimenting with a new technology that determines what radio stations are being listend to by the majority of the cars stuck in the traffic jam of the day, and they synchronize the advertisements on the digital billboards to coincide with the advertisements that are being played on the radio. But that is a minor example. The true threat comes from our use of credit cards. Every time we use a credit card, that information is being scrutinized, analyzed, and used to more completely manipulate the consumer (and we are all good, patriotic, little consumers.) And not only that, but that information is being scrutinized, analyzed, and used by the pentagon to identify people who might be considered to have "Arab" buying habbits (among other things. I heard a radio report on this just last night, so I have no direct documentation. In another thread, jim posted an article that indicated (and i tend to agree that it is probably the case) that the media was severely limiting our information on what is really happening in Iraq. I criticised jim for being so nearsighted as to blame it on "liberal" media, and he took it personally. My point, however, was not that he was incorrect, but rather that the source of the problem is not "liberals", but rather the capitalist system, as we now see it in the US. The corporations for the most part don't give a shit if Bush continues as president or not. The war happened, many corporations are and will continue to benefit richly, and just maybe what is needed to spark another economic boom is a scapegoat. The corporations will all see their benefits from the war, and their interests will be just as represented by the Democrats as the Republicans. But the public loves a scandal. Far fetched? I don't think so. Imagine the public, so happy to have done away with this imposter that involved us in spurious wars when we have so many problems at home. They will feel soooo good about replacing him with a Democrat (nevermind that the Democrats, too, supported the war lock stock and barrel) that they won't even realize that there is no difference in terms of policy. The fact is, there is so little difference between Republican and Democratic policy in the last 20 odd years, it is startling. The public is so mesmerized by such non-issues as abortion rights and illusionary tax cuts, that they can't even see the issues that really effect us. In short, Freedom is the accomplishment of autonomy from those sources of power that would seek to subjugate us. Anyone else find it interesting that some judges don't want to limit the access of salesmen to our private homes and our private time via our phone lines? Or that the lawyers who would defend it appeal to the FREEDOM OF SPEECH? True freedom in the US applies only to the corporatioins. We the people, for the most part, have long since been reduced to little flag waving puppets. Anyone wonder why unions and syndicates, those organizations whose true function (when they work as they were intended, which is when they aren't subverted by the corporations) is to defend the rights of the majority of us who are not the bosses, have diminished to such an incredible extent in recent years?

As for free trade being good for all economies involved, nothing could be fartherfrom the truth. What we are seeing as the economy globalizes is the wealth is concentrating in a few select master economies, and diminishing every where else. What else could be the result of all the world loving a Coke? Coke pays alot of money each year to insure that restaurants serve only coca cola products. Soda companies have even secured contracts with school systems in the US to insure that their products are available to the students all day (between class periods, of course.) Is this what you would call competition through product innovation? Hell no, it's just superior marketing techniques, and it is already way, way out of control.

I disagree with your definition of freedom. Which is more important - for a country to be 'free' from a percevied hegemony, or for the people of that country to be free to pursue their own ways in life? I argue the latter - and further argue that a country full of people with political and economic freedoms will, on its won, create a country that is more and more self-sufficient and, therefore, able to gain the autonomy that you are talking about.

I am arguing, as I think is clear from what i said thus far here, that the two concepts of freedom are not separable. Freedom from a hegemony is necessary in order for us to enjoy such freedoms as inumerated in our Bill of Rights. One of the reasons I also declined to support the regime of NK is because they too are victims of a hegemony of a different sort, less subtle in its attack on the rights of the people. The principles on which our government was founded are as good as a compromise from a Continental Congress could supply, but I am arguing that those freedoms have been eclipsed by the rampant unbalanced liberties which the corporations have enjoyed. It's time to recognize that freedom to an extreme results in a limitation to our personal freedoms, in the same way that a "rule by the masses" would result in an infringement of the rights of the minority who is not in agreement, even if that minority constitutes 49% of the population.

I am not familiar with those instances that you are alluding to, though I don't deny that they happened. My point is that the war in Afghanistan was primarily a conventional war, not a terrorist campaign.

Fine. It is also not in the interest of anyone that the policies of the US government, (as controlled by their biggest financial backers) be so flagrant as to awaken the slumbering masses from their day dreams. There are a lot of rumors, and not so many established facts to back what I said there, and I appreciate your willingness to compromise.

The fact that you still posted this means that you obvioulsy aren't worried about the black helicopters landing in your backyard. Seriously, though, I have yet to see someone arrested for checking out a library book, or dragged to jail for speaking a certain political opinion. However, I have seen a law passed recently that makes it illegal to speak about an incumbent's voting records or political positons before an election - McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform. If you are truly concerned about erosion of your right of freedom of speech, why not fight for the repeal of this law? I know that CFR is totally off subject - probably should be in a different forum - my point is that the Patriot Act has been on the books for a year and a half, but all the screeches from the Left about lost rights and secret police have not come to fruition.

I am, actually, worried about the black helicopters landing in my back yard, so to speak. I am a little less worried given that I am only in the US about a month out of the year, but i don't pay with credit cards if ever I can help it. About two months ago, I rather absent mindedly punched in the words "Anarchy Cookbook" in my search engine, and was about to enter one of the sites that came up, when I remembered that the FBI tracks that kind of information, just as they track who has perscriptions to High Times magazine, and various other "marked" information sites. And I think I am taking a risk by writing these things. If, by some coincidence, I were ever to be somehow implicated in something serious, I would have those little marks on my record, which in the end could amount to quite a lot, especially when the US has diminished the rights of the suspect with anything that might be related to "national security", that they can hold suspects indefinitely without charging them or allowing them access to legal representation. It's one of the rights that is most seldom appreciated in the country, the rights of the accused, and for my two cents, it is one of the most crucial. And the most undermined (potentially, as I believe we have agreed) by the Patriot Act.

Thank you for the information on the CFR. I didn't know it had been passed. I don't always see the US local news, living in Spain. You're right, that is a travesty, and I will look around the net for more information and ways to fight it. As for being on topic, well, with such broad ranging discussions, we can hardly expect to stay on topic all the time. But it is a good idea to start a new thread. It sounds like a topic that deserves specific attention.

Thanks again for your responses, jeff. Cheers!

 

[eric]

Ok Bry,

You are treading on my Corporate holy ground again!

I do not have time to respond in full tonight, too much work to give it my full attention, so get your gloves ready we spar tommorow.

 

[Bry]

i was going to suggest you come over here, or maybe we start a new thread. I'd like to address your analysis of Socialism vs. Capitalism from the other thread.

But before we spar, please read my last four posts here. It gives most of the basis for my present arguments. (And implies an outline as to how I might reply to your S vs. C post.)

And keep in mind I have said I am NOT anti-capitalist, but feel that an economy (and politics) dominated by a few massive corporations is detrimental both to economic and personal freedoms, not to mention the community as a whole. I actually agree with significant portions of your Soc. vs. Cap analysis.

Otherwise, I'm looking forward to it!

-Bry

 

[5stringJeff]

Bry,

I also will reply tomorrow. I have a feeling that Eric and I are going to say much the same things, but we'll see.

 

[Commander Klank]

Perhaps its true suicide bombers/terrorists aren’t cowards in the literal sense. I would also say they are not truly courageous as well. Courage is the ability to overcome fear (of death, injury, failure or whatever). Seeing how most all them are religious fanatics who TRULLY believe they are going to paradise or heaven when they are killed won’t it be safe to say that in the end they in their own minds really have nothing to fear?

I think you know what I mean…

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by Commander Klank
Perhaps its true suicide bombers/terrorists aren’t cowards in the literal sense. I would also say they are not truly courageous as well. Courage is the ability to overcome fear (of death, injury, failure or whatever). Seeing how most all them are religious fanatics who TRULLY believe they are going to paradise or heaven when they are killed won’t it be safe to say that in the end they in their own minds really have nothing to fear?

I think you know what I mean…

Well said, Commander!

Welcome to the board, hope you'll stick around.

 

[janeeng]

Well, Commander, yes, welcome aboard and glad to see that someone makes some sense out of this!

 

[Bry]

QUOTE]Perhaps its true suicide bombers/terrorists aren’t cowards in the literal sense. I would also say they are not truly courageous as well. Courage is the ability to overcome fear (of death, injury, failure or whatever). Seeing how most all them are religious fanatics who TRULLY believe they are going to paradise or heaven when they are killed won’t it be safe to say that in the end they in their own minds really have nothing to fear?

I think you know what I mean…[[/QUOTE]

Welcome to the board and thanks for your post. My personal take on it is that most suicide bombers do not feel free to expend their own lives to take out a few enemies simply because they believe they are going to paradise. (Hell, maybe they ARE going to paradise! Wouldn't THAT be an interesting turn of events. Dificult to demonstrate, i suppose...) Anyway, from the interviews and short bios I've read, most of them seem to be people who have suffered tremendously. it actually appears in many instances that the decision of a suicide bomber is one of passion: many of them had actually themselves lost close family members and friends just before they decided to become suicide bombers. It seems an act almost of passion. In any case, I'd say the vast majority of them are not seeking paradise, they are seeking venegeance. Telling themselves they will go to heaven seems little more than a paliative to their knowledge that Allah condemns the suicides. I imagine, too, that it is used as propaganda, by those in their immediate surroundings that would seek to add blood to blood: one can imagine a distraught teenage girl who had just lost her brother who had just been in the wrong place at the wrong time when the Israeli missile piled into the car that was driving passed him. One can imagine that girl who already hates Israel for all of the suffering she has seen, who has just lost her brother, then there is someone whispering in her ear... It's easy to imagine. But I think the primary motivator, in almost every case, would have to be venegeance.

 

[Bry]

Oh yeah, I wanted to mention this... Did anyone else notice that no one claimed the bombing that killed three Americans in Gaza? Or that the people who were killed were hired from a private firm? I can't help but think this one smells like a setup. Palestinians killing three Americans makes great headlines, and other than three dead and one severely wounded, the only group it hurts is the Palestenians. Looks like Bush wasted no time in taking advantage of it. He holds the Palestenians Authority responsible, so I guess it doesn't matter who actually did it. Does anyone doubt the Israelis are capable of such an act?


(just editing to put a space in no one. Thanks jim. )

 

[5stringJeff]

But why would the Israelis kill three Americans? And wouldn't the anti-Israeli press (read: pretty much everyone) have that all over the headlines if it were true?

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by Bry
(just editing to put a space in no one. Thanks jim. )

And that concludes our class for the day! "If I could make a difference in just one life..."

 

[Bry]

It's not "true", it's just a hunch. They would want to kill three Americans because that would give Bush an excuse to support the Israelis in their "war against terrorism". Sorry, I thought I made that clear. Anyway, no it's not news, it's just paranoid old me. And by the way, I don't think you can call the American Press anti-Israeli.

 

[Bry]

This is probably my last post.

I'm going to London tomorrow to see my wife for the first time in a month. I need to start packing.


PS you all are a bunch of PIGS!!!



(yum, slave pig. I'll have some of that!!!)

 

[5stringJeff]

Slave pig... good one, paranoid lib!

 

[janeeng]

Nah, they are a bunch a SHWINES Bry!!! hahahahahahaha! you and Spirit hooking up? seems that both Bry and Spirit have decided to leave this little love nest!