From: "Anthony Crifasi" <crifasi-AT-hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: its a new world order stupid
Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2003 14:32:14 +0000


Malcolm Riddoch wrote:

>     I noticed that you failed to address the fact that I was not the
>     only one on this list who is contradicting your contention that
>     Bush's Christianity is not genuine and merely political
>     opportunism, and that that other person is neither Christian, nor
>     very fond of Bush, and more of a fan of will to power than you.
>
>I was just having some malicious fun with you, my apologies.

In that case, concerning your reaction to my rejection of your Chomsky 
citation, my apologies for having some malicious fun with you.

>I'd like
>to make it clear that I respect yours or anyone else's religious
>beliefs, including my mother's. Although I'm an agnostic with regards
>to the meaning of 'god', and generally wary of religious dogma, I
>certainly do not think that religions and religious beliefs are
>necessarily evil. They can be, especially where power is concerned,
>but they can obviously lead to good outcomes as well.
>
>As for Bush, well I can just tell you of the garbled media impression
>I've got from the other side of your world. Please excuse this
>national insult, feel free to caricature my own glorious leader
>anytime you want - From a profligate coke sniffing boozing womaniser
>wasting his dad's money he religiously converted to politics, became
>chief executioner of the state of Texas, then with his dad's contacts
>and former colleagues he achieved majority GOP backing to scrape over
>the line in a very apathetic presidential election. He wouldn't have
>got there without the backing of fundamentalist christian
>conservatives which obliges him to mouth the various christian
>platitudes that pepper his speeches.
>
>Now you of course can be of the opinion that these platitudes reflect
>a genuine faith. I'm a cynic as regards politics and I think he's been
>groomed for the job and is backed up by a very efficient team of
>propaganda managers. Maybe the 'truth' is a confusion of the two. In
>the end it doesn't really matter either way for Kenneth, he's still
>being represented internationally by the christian dogma he despises.

But it matters for you, because it exposes motivations. It is one thing to 
disagree with Bush; it is quite another to cast him through a filter that 
that blinds you even to what's genuinely there and is a mere projection of 
your desire to have my opinion be a mere function of my Christianity and 
political affinities, when Kenneth's similar opinion shows that it is no 
such thing (thereby making it harder for you to explain). Just like it's one 
thing to disagree with the unliteral nature of certain US actions; it's 
quite another to conspicuously misrepresent such unilateral action as having 
had no precedent since WW2. One is a straightforward disagreement; the other 
is casted through a filter that blinds you to what's obviously there, masked 
as a disagreement about unilateralism. For example:

>Well it's like this Anthony - we have a UN process, which is an
>arbitration of national interests on the international stage. This is
>a more or less democratic process between the worlds nations, and in
>the security council we have five major powers with a veto on matters
>of international security. There have been numerous breaches of its
>resolutions over the years, and many resolutions vetoed. It couldn't
>stop the US going into Vietnam, the Israelis from occupying its
>neighbours territory, nor the Soviets invading Afghanistan. In spite
>of this, up until now this diplomatic process has more or less
>functioned even though it is not perfect and has many detractors.

And it will still more or less function, unless you are saying that US has 
more of an obligation towards the UN than, say, the USSR had when it 
bypassed its authority.

>As to the last Iraq resolution this too was the subject of intense
>diplomacy and when it came down to the count the US could not even
>manage a majority in order to force a veto. The difficulty seems to
>have been that France, Russia and China insisted that peaceful
>disarmament was the appropriate action to take, for whatever reasons
>of state. This was in the face of a rapid US military deployment
>backed up by publication of the US national security strategy that
>prepared the ground for an imminent US assault which has subsequently
>overwhelmed Hussein's regime, and well before the Iraqi summer.
>
>Now you can argue that 1441 implicitly authorised the use of force,
>but you can also argue that the weapons inspectors were doing their
>job. You might be of the opinion that Hussein breached 1441 and
>therefore a UN sanctioned war was necessary, or you might not. These
>things were argued out in the security council and the majority
>support for a continuation of the inspections was clear. That the US
>then bypassed the UN is a simple fact, as previous administrations
>have done many times over the last half century.
>
>The historical difference here is that the 'Bush Doctrine' put the UN
>on notice that unless it rubber stamps US policy then the US
>administration will dispense with the UN process altogether and from
>now on 'go it alone' as the global enforcer of its own self-interest
>in the world.

And the bypassing of the UN by the USSR was not? This is what I mean by 
conspicuous filtering, instead of a straightforward disagreement. If your 
motivation had simply been with the unilaterial nature of US action, then 
you would not have added that this is unprecedented since WW2, blind to the 
obvious fact (thereby making this conspicuous) that this has been done many, 
many times since WW2. The fact that you did add the latter is a clear 
indication of some other determination here.

>This is what has actually happened, and the passing of
>the UN marks the beginning of a 'new world order' that your own
>conservatives hope will become a 'Pax Americana'.
>
>This new ordering has its supporters but I'm not one of them. I think
>it's unfortunate that your president has chosen the path of military
>and economic domination instead of democratic leadership within the UN
>process and its international community. You obviously support this
>more aggressive stance and the abandonment of the UN. We have opposing
>opinions, and this is ultimately a matter of opinion and not one of a
>legalistic or logically definitive truth. It is my opinion that 'the
>US should not have bypassed the UN in this matter' because I prefer
>democratic mediation over force, for moral and ethical reasons. You
>can't change my mind on this because as I've told you already, your
>legalistic justifications miss the point as far as I'm concerned.
>They're justifications of your own pro war opinion that you already
>hold, and which you are of course welcome to.

Again, this is clearly just a projection of your desire to have my 
justifications be a mere function of my pro-war opinion, thereby making it 
easier for you to explain, because if you do not make this projection, you 
would have to face up to nasty things like this:

"false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq 
pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, 
and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall 
constitute a further material breach of Iraq’s obligations"

That's a direct quote from paragraph 4 of resolution 1441, Malcolm. Those 
aren't my words. So given that the inspectors explicitly said that they 
found certain items which were omitted from the Iraq arms declaration, and 
that they did not receive anywhere near FULL cooperation from Iraq (exact 
words above), then it is not a mere opinion that according to paragraph 4 
above, Iraq is in explicit material breach of resolution 1441. That is the 
kind of nasty stuff that you would have to face if you did not project my 
conclusion here as a mere function of my pro-war stance already. That would 
be a lot harder for you, so it's easier to just project.

Anthony Crifasi

_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*.  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus



     --- from list heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---