Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2003 01:37:39 +0800
Subject: Re: its a new world order stupid
From: Malcolm Riddoch <riddoch-AT-central.murdoch.edu.au>


> 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

Huh? What's 'genuinely there'? I've already told you I don't think he's 
a genuine christian but more of a straw man front for his party 
machine. You 'cast him through a filter' of your belief in the genuine 
christian values of the GOP, and perhaps that 'blinds you even to 
what's genuinely there' - in this case the purely amoral machination of 
power, in the sense that Heidegger gives this in his interpretation of 
the problem concerning technology and its critique of Nazism. You are 
welcome to your opinion, and as I said before, I genuinely think you 
are wrong. As for your inability to understand something as simple as 
the permanent subjugation of the UN by an unchallenged and aggressive 
super power:

> 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.

The USSR had to deal with the USA. The UN 'more or less functioned' as 
a way of arbitrating between these exceedingly dangerous super powers 
and their global cold war. The USSR no longer exists but when it or the 
US bypassed the UN this did not signal the end of that international 
forum. I can't put it more plainly than this - your government no 
longer recognises the authority of the UN at all, from now on and into 
the future. It has demonstrated that it has no obligation to the UN 
whatsoever and has embarked on a global war to forcefully implement the 
'democratic' regimes and economic development that it deems are in its 
own national interests. In this new US dominated world order the UN 
'will still more or less function' only if it rubber stamps US policy, 
and that is the clear implication of the recent Iraq resolution. We're 
either with you or agin you... the UN is agin you and therefore 
rendered entirely superfluous, not just for this Iraq war and its peace 
but for all future matters relating to international security. There is 
no precedent for 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^Òs obligations"
>
> 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.

This matter was argued in the security council, in the opinion of the 
majority of the representatives the inspectors reports did not 
constitute a reason for war, and this was backed up by those inspectors 
themselves who suggested that the inspections were indeed working and 
that they needed more time. In your opinion, which just parrots the 
Bush administration, there was a reason for not waiting for the 
inspectors to complete their job and its justification simply is your 
legalistic interpretation. I think that the reason for such a rush for 
war was simply that Bush fully expected the UN to buckle under and 
sanction his war and by default his national security strategy and that 
he couldn't wait any longer before launching the campaign before the 
onset of the Iraqi spring and its intense heat. On the other hand you 
might say it was due to the threat of an imminent attack by Iraqi 
sponsored terrorists. This is all fundamentally a matter of differing 
opinions and I still think you are wrong.

Your government doesn't need the sanction of the UN or anyone else, I 
don't understand why you still think any of what has happened has 
anything to do with UN resolutions. It's all about power, and about the 
US administration publicly releasing itself from the democratic 
limitations of UN arbitration, now and into the future. Is this 
starting to get through to you yet Anthony?

> This is the reason that this whole Iraq discussion has been invaluable 
> - it
> has brought to light some very common underlying distortions of 
> Heidegger's
> fundamental ontology, misinterpretations which violate the very 
> distinction
> between the ontic and the ontological in the first place. Such
> misinterpretations give the mistaken impression that Heidegger's 
> ontology
> lends an enlightened status to certain ontic positions, such as
> environmentalism, globalism, or anti-capitalism, when it does 
> absolutely
> nothing of the kind.

I have already told you that I don't think you understand the 
ontical/ontological distinction at all. This latest is a good example. 
Can you explain to me how it is that Heidegger himself clearly thought 
his ontology 'lends an enlightened status to certain ontic positions' 
regarding the problem of technology and the power structure of 
machination's will to will and explicitly as regards the 'inner truth 
and greatness' of national socialism in its world historical conflict 
with democracy and communism? He wrote volumes and volumes about these 
'ontical' problems, real worldly problems. I find your conclusion that 
ontological interpretation has nothing to do with 'ontic positions' 
such as environmentalism, globalism, anti-capitalism and especially 
christianity completely absurd and pointlessly bankrupt.

Regards,

Malcolm Riddoch


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