File spoon-archives/heidegger.archive/heidegger_2003/heidegger.0304, message 385


From: "Anthony Crifasi" <crifasi-AT-hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: its a new world order stupid
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 00:29:12 +0000


Malcolm Riddoch wrote:

>>But again, you fail to address the argument I gave - that there is a 
>>non-Christian fan of WtP on this list also sees Bush's faith as genuine. 
>>So since HE definitely is not seeing Bush through a Christian filter, you 
>>cannot simplistically dismiss my interpretation as a mere projection of my 
>>Christian beliefs.
>
>Why can't I? Kenneth has his interpretation based on an anti-christian 
>stance, you have yours based on a christian stance, and I have mine, which 
>is neither of those. Three interpretations, all of which are true for those 
>who posit them. I don't expect you to dismiss your own view, I just have a 
>different one.
>
>I'm just trying to rework the notion of 'will to will' as machination that 
>Heidegger used in his Nietzsche lectures.

Ok, but there are many levels of WtP besides ouright conscious insincerity 
(as in political pandering), since according to Nietzsche, even sincere 
faith is at bottom will to power. So you don't have go so far as to 
interpret Bush's faith as consciously insincere in order to simply rework 
the notion of will to will as machination.

>Well, from the perspective of power, I don't think there is any moral 
>obligation whatsoever for any nation's involvement with the UN process, at 
>least not directly. Individual regimes may be 'morally obligated' to their 
>constituency, but that just goes to serve their own national self interest 
>when dealing with other national powers. I'm not sure why you would think 
>there's any morality in it at all, or lack of morality, it's an amoral 
>process of negotiation between sovereign powers. It's called diplomacy.

But I think you have been inconsistent on this point because, on the one 
hand, your criticism of the US bypass of UN authority had strong one-sided 
moral overtones, while on the other hand, when I replied by defending US 
motives, you then switched to an amoral evaluation of both sides, in terms 
of will to will machination.

>It doesn't matter how you legally interpret 1441, the security council is 
>not a court or a legislature, it's a diplomatic negotiation process 
>concerning international security. You are free to interpret 1441 anyway 
>you like, it remains that the majority of those sovereign powers 
>represented at the council were not convinced that war was necessary 
>immediately.

Whether or not war was a necessary solution is a further issue - first, I 
want to know whether you even agree that there was a material breach in the 
first place. That's a matter of law, because the words (approved by all 15 
members of the Security Council) are not ambiguous:

"[1] false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq 
pursuant to this resolution and [2] 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"

So all you have to decide is whether (1) the inspectors found anything which 
was omitted from the Iraqi arms declaration but which was supposed to be 
included, and (2) whether Iraq COOPERATED FULLY with the inspectors. Blix 
himself on separate occasions has explicitly answered yes to #1 and no to #2 
(especially regarding interviews with Iraqi scientists). According to the 
above, that means one thing - "a further material breach".

>The historical difference I'm trying to draw your attention to is that the 
>US power has finally broken with the limitations of this negotiation 
>process. There is no other super power rival the US has to deal with 
>anymore, it is obviously unchallenged in military and economic affairs at 
>the moment so it has no need for UN arbitration and letting other powers 
>limit its use of power on the world stage. This unmatched power is going to 
>last for some time, and this is a new world ordering of power relations 
>between sovereign states in which the UN security council is no longer 
>involved, unless it serves US national self interest. It's a new world 
>order from the perspective of an interpretation of power and its 
>machination. What do you reckon?

All that is true, but I don't think you would lessen your criticism of a US 
bypass of UN authority if there were another superpower (as has happened 
before). If so, then even if there is something about the current situation 
which lacks precedence, this would still be irrelevant to the essence of 
your criticism.

Anthony Crifasi


_________________________________________________________________
STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail



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

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005