| [ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, [9], 10 ] |
| Subject: Rumsfeldian English | |
Author: Trixta (UK) | [ Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
] Date Posted: 22:48:45 11/08/04 Mon In reply to: Ed Harris (Back in Shropshire) 's message, "And..." on 15:25:41 11/08/04 Mon That was almost as good as the 'known knowns and known unknowns' - yep, it makes sense but I did have to read it twice. The difference is not that we can't (we can't - I don't argue that), the difference is that we did and, up until what, the 50's / 60's, were being told by the US that we shouldn't. Now, we can, as part of NATO, and we have, under US direction done exactly what we used to do to further our own imperial interests. Those days were supposed to be gone (thank God) and yet our current PM still revels in phrases like "British interests". As the previous global imperial master and as the residual animosity towards us for our empire has shown what is most in our interests is distancing ourselves from our colonial history - not assisting our bastard offspring in achieving the same thing. The only excuse Britain, France, Germany, Spain, Portugal, Denmark and all the other empires have is that their actions were carried out in the age of conquest - when colonisation was at least the norm and at best a matter of survival for European nations. What's the US's excuse - it's making the world safer for good, Christian, God-fearing supporters of democracy. What was our excuse? The colonised were savages who could not appreciate the wonder of European civilisation and who spurned it - thus they were obviously unfit to maintain control of their country and would have to have civilisation forced upon them. Our excuse is not acceptable, even 100 years after the age of empire-building was drawing to a close. To actually start building an empire, or to continue doing so, in the 21st century is an anachornism of the worst kind. Do we really envy the US's power - hell, sure we do. We all want to be invulnerable and secure in that knowledge. Is this why so many of us frown upon it? No. Most of us have, however reluctantly, had to accept that imperialism is morally offensive, regardless of the perceived benefits from our perspective. That it should be the US, the original anti-imperialist in modern history who waged war against the world's most powerful empire to be liberated from it, that should now be the world's most powerful empire, imposing it's will on others by every means possible, is just another of life's bittersweet ironies. [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: No American has been 'secure' in their supposed invulnerbility since 11th September 2001 | |
|
Author: Roberdin [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 22:52:16 11/08/04 Mon [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Interests versus self-defence | |
|
Author: Trixta (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 02:14:15 11/10/04 Wed Don't worry about becoming a lefite - I'm a closet fascist anyway (hey, I try not to be but even I have to admit that, at the core, I'm significantly right of centre). The difference between, for example, battering the old biddy because she annoys you and preventing the old biddy from battering you is consistent with what I'm saying. It is, in my arrogant opinion, morally defensible to act to defend something (e.g. your bodily well-being) but not to act to attack something (e.g. the old biddy). The problem comes when what you are defending is your own exploitation of something at the cost of others. In world terms: it would be morally defensible to invade Iraq because we know (for a fact) that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction aimed at us and intends to use them without provocation. It is morally indefensible to invade Iraq because oil prices are high and Iraq has a lot of cheap oil. The former acts to prevent loss of life at the expense of profit, the latter acts to prevent loss of profit at the cost of life. Look at another example - free trade. It would be acceptable to act against someone or some nation that is preventing free trade between two consenting nations (e.g. UK and Australia). You are defending a legitimate, mutually-beneficial agreement made without duress on either party and advantageous to both. It would not be acceptable to attack a nation that is undermining your trade agreement by selling lower-priced goods to your opposite number in that agreement, or against the opposite number themselves, for that matter. Possibly the best example I can think of at this time in the morning are the two Iraq wars. In the first we all acted against an Iraq that had invaded Kuwait and taken an oil supplier from the market. In the second we acted against an Iraq that was staying at home and keeping its own oil for itself (I don't buy the whole WMD thing or the selective liberation of Iraq's disadvantaged). In essence, our primary 'interest' should be the defence of ourselves and our allies. When our 'interests' include the global price of oil - to my mind that's just greed. As for your neighbour - well I'm anti-European anyway. So I say just batter the bint (claim she's an Al-Qaeeda cell posing as a good Catholic to avert suspicion). [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Hehe | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (London) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 12:20:54 11/10/04 Wed Sounds about right. Although, of course, if oil were the principle motive for invading Iraq, then that makes us very stupid, since all crises in the Middle East drive up oil prices to the benefit of the House of Sa'ud and to the detriment of poor oil-purchasing nations such as ourselves. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Well... | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Back in Shropshire) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 12:41:43 11/09/04 Tue Good lord, I actually agree with much of that. I think I need to lie down. Perhaps I'm becoming a leftie in my old age. I would, however, take issue with a few points. Firstly, in the 20s and 30s, the Americans were against imperialism because they were secretly in favour of it. That is to say, they wanted the Royal Navy to disarm, in order to increase the RELATIVE strength of the US Navy without going to the expense of having to build a navy to rival Britain's. Very cunning, but our statesmen called their bluff and they didn't bother to translate their wealth into power until about 1941 - giving Britain a lease of 20 extra years on the Top Spot which our economic decline did not warrant. Still, bit of goose for us, what? And, secondly, you seem to be saying that the very concept of having one's own particular 'interests' is per se somehow morally reprihensible. I don't know about that. My 'interests' could be, e.g., the massacring of the old woman who lives in the flat downstairs because, frankly, without her complaining about me coming in late at night every time I pass her door, my life would be a lot easier. Until you have been berated in high-pitched Venetian-Italian by a senile religious fanatic whilst staggering towards lectures with a hang-over (on a boat), it is difficult to appreciate how ghastly it can be. But if I were to act on this interest it would be morally reprihensible. On the other hand, it could also be my interest, e.g., to prevent her from walloping me over the head with her old umbrella (which I suspect of being made of cast iron and whale-bone) whilst muttering things about St Mary the Virgin at me, by some peaceful means, as it might be placating the poisonous old boot by removing my shoes as I come in or, more strongly, by the confiscation of her brolley. That, I think you would agree, constitutes a legitimate interest. The difference is the means, not the ends, so why do you hate the idea of a personal 'interest' which is in competition with that of someone else? It is a fact of life, surely? [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Oops - misplaced response. | |
|
Author: Trixta (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 02:17:18 11/10/04 Wed Ahem, the response (Interest versus self-defence) above your point was meant for you. Sorry about that. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |