From: "John Foster" <borealis-AT-mercuryspeed.com>
Subject: Re: interPolltation
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 21:20:34 -0700



> >So now you are not 'justifying' the war with a poll.
>
> Please cite where I ever did that, since that is implied in your "So
NOW..."

Okay. You don't justify the war based on a poll.


> >What then are suggesting was justification for the war?
>
> How many times have I given you the three or four intersecting reasons,
> John?

Aside from the partial results of this poll then, what 3 or 4 reasons do you
justify mass murder and infanticide on?

Lets see, it cannot be the presence of WMD in Iraq, nor attacks by Iraq on
Kuwait or some other neighbour, nor on the UN (since the US wants the UN
back in Iraq). That leaves only four reasons: whim, whimful inference, lust
for blood, and revenge.....

But I suspect it is deeper than that: corporate capitalism is the reason,
which means 'oil'....heck with international law, domestic law, et cetera.
Mass murder by Duh Bush.

> >Are you suggesting that there was something immoral about the US
murdering
> >thousands of Iraqi's?
>
> Please cite where I ever granted your accusation of "murder".

You mean to say the US ruled by Duh Bush did not kill kids and other
civilians indiscrimantly?

> >One poll has determined 75% of the people in Bhagdad now believe that it
is
> >more dangerous in Iraq then before the US and UK invasion.
>
> And how many times have I answered that argument concerning present
> "danger," John?

That is all you want to do is argue. What is your point? Do you mean that
you want me to agree with mass murder by Duh Bush? Is not getting killed a
'present danger', or a 'future danger'?

Anthony:
> Please cite where I suggest that above.

What that Hobbes held on to principles, somehow immutable and prescient in
nature?

Then what were you saying then? Principles are principles, 'arche', what do
you think they are are copies? or what?

> >The war in Iraq then was worth all the death and destruction?
>
> The Iraqi people seem to think so.

They do? How did you arrive at that generalization? So you agree then on the
'all the death and destruction'? which is what you denied earlier. Now you
are suggesting that you can predict the future.

> >PS the only thing that I find in the polls suggestive of anything is that
> >most Iraqi's appear to agree that it is a good thing Hussein is not
around
> >anymore (6 out of 10), even though it is much more dangerous in Bhagdad
> >(75%
> >agree).
>
> Yes, and they say that the present danger was worth not having Hussein
> around anymore.

Was this not the justification you cited for the justification for 'all the
death and destruction'. How do you know there will not be more death and
destruction? Do you have a poll from the future in hand?

> >Mitsein is not peace, but without mitsein, there would be a lack of
peace.
>
> But if as you say above, mitsein is now war, then without mitsein there
> would be no war. But you say here that without mitsein there would be lack
> of peace. Therefore, no war means lack of peace? Could I suggest a logic
> textbook?

NO. You have turned 'mitsein' into a euphemism for war, conflict, and
strife. I can cite previous messages where you stated this implicitly and
directly. This is a clear indication that you do not agree with Hobbes. All
ethical and moral stands are purely relative, and there are no principled
standards.

> >War, evil, and error are a 'deficiency' or privation such that mitsein as
> >noted is at stake!
>
> How?

Well take a poll in Bhagdad and ask those who lost loved ones, or better yet
ask those in New York who died in the WTC (9/11) who lost loved ones. They
will tell you.
>
> >The simple explanation for mitsein as an
> >existential-existentielle is that it makes a world possible at all.
>
> That's true of every existential, not just mitsein.
>
> >Mitsein is the ontological primordia of all possible worlds, hence "In
the
> >beginning there was neither darkness nor light."
> >
> >As you can see from this simple declaration there is no difference, no
> >mitsein, no conflict. All is One in One, but not within or alongside nor
> >nearby, nor standing in for. Then the Lord of the Universe created Light,
> >saying Let there Be Some Light
> >
> >and flick
> >
> >we now have mitsein.
>
> Wow. Can I quote that in my next journal article?

Sure but cite your source: me

> >This definition accords strongly with the basic definition of communism.
>
> Karl Marx would beg to differ

I said 'ideal'. Marx was married too.
>
> >In
> >contrast research in the USA suggests that family well-being there is not
> >one of
> >'equalitarian liberal community'.
> >
> >"The USA offers no model of family well-being for us to follow. Family
> >breakdownindicators of divorce, extra marital births, child poverty,
mental
> >illness, school underachievement, crime and disorder and welfare
dependency
> >are
> >distressingly high. And the US infrastructure of family support is low.
> >There is
> >no equivalent of child benefit, few people have access to significant
paid
> >maternity leave, the quality of formal child care is largely unregulated
> >and
> >millions of children have no access to free quality health care."
> >
> >["A budget for all families?", Editorial in Family Policy, Bulletin of
the
> >Family Policy Studies
>
> Would you prefer the European model, except of course that the population
> there is shrinking into oblivion?

It depends. Eastern European families are really having a tough time, lots
of child poverty, like never before. I can supply adequate citations. Just
look at the problems Russia is having with their children.


> >So you are agreeing with us then? The US is big policeman and he went in
> >'this particular situation' because the UN was ignoring its OWN laws."
>
> No, the UN is the policeman refusing to enforce its own laws.

No. Absolutely wrong. That Iraq may be held in contempt is one thing, but
breaking any laws regarding disarmament is another thing. Like numerous
others have told you and have proved, the UN and the US have not found any
WMD. There was a lot of faked information such as the completely false
uranimum imports from Niger. These were faked by the CIA as a joke meant to
'wake up Duh Bush' and his murdering felons.

> >However the fact that Iraq did not meet the 30 day deadline still does
not
> >authorize the US to take military action, and as we all know the
following
> >resolution to use military intervention was vetoed by various permanent
> >members of the UN Security Council. As well  there was no 'material
> >breach' since there were no WMD found in Iraq according to all the
credible
> >sources
>
> For the SEVENTH TIME (!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!): "INCLUDING ANY
> WHICH IT CLAIMS ARE FOR PURPOSES NOT RELATED TO WEAPON PRODUCTION OR
> MATERIAL".

Well Anthony, history has proved one thing. Next time you miss your mortgage
payments, I hope you remember that. What a piddly excuse for mass murder of
innocents and $50 billion in property damage. It is a good thing that the US
is going to pay for the reconstruction, and why should we? You will be
paying for a long time....you are an American are you not?

> Will there be an eighth time? Tune in tomorrow.
>
> >We don't need any more alibis' nor analogies to justify or excuse the
acts
> >of mass murder of innocent Iraqis'. That Iraq was not fighting with it's
> >neighbours as you are suggesting is completely relevant, and does not
> >require a response.
>
> Please cite where I suggested that.
>
> Anthony Crifasi

You just admitted Iraq missed the deadline (mortgage payment) and now are
submitting the US has no alibi for the murdering spree it went on for a
couple of weeks last spring (does not a half a trillion dollars wasted on
death worry you?).



john



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