From: Dwayne (ddraig@pobox.com)
Date: Mon Nov 26 2001 - 04:47:09 MST
Mike Lorrey wrote:
>
>
> I assume that Ned includes me in that mindset.
Ned is just a log in, I'm Dwayne. (I thought I set that to show me as
"Dwayne"?)
Why do you feel I include you in this mindset? Do you identify yourself
as such?
> I can counter by saying
> that I know more extropians who do not sub to this list anymore (as
> opposed to those who still do) specifically because it has become
> inundated by left winger socialist types in the last 3 years.
You are kidding are you not?
I've been lurking off and on since 94 or so, and this is not at all my
view. It seems massively dominated by (to me, a foreigner) insignificant
US political discussions which rapidly spiral out of hand and out of
control. It seems to me that far too much vitriol is spilt over mundane
issues when this list has a focus somewhat larger than that. I reckon.
> > The impression I have gotten is that a hell of a lot of other people
> > feel the same
> > way, leaving the list overpopulated with maniacs.
>
> Yes, but apparently not the maniacs you are thinking of.
Well, one man's maniac is another man's freedom fighter, (or something
as clever).
> > The problem is, does *anyone* beleve america acts altruistically? Even
> > if it does, it's
> > considered dubious by most people. The Gulf War is a classic example.
>
> What surprises me is that the moral relativists have such difficultly
> grasping the idea that just because America doesn't act according to
> YOUR principles that it doesn't act according to its own as IT
> understands them (NOT YOU).
Sorry, but I listen to the rhetoric as spouted by the US and then look
at it in action, and there's a vast shift.
I don't attempt to understand other people on my terms, I try to
understand them on their terms, and the US, while loudly proclaiming
itself the light of the modern world, isn't really. Not by a long shot.
> I'd think that people with such allegedly
> broad minds would be able to grasp, embrace, and even apologize for such
> things before breakfast.
Well, perhaps we don't think the way you do? And why do you feel that if
people disagree with the US they are moral relativists? I'm just
pointing out a known hypocrite when I see one.
> > You have just described 90% of the Western world.
>
> Yes, but we don't all watch the same TV channels, do we? Some of us live
> where most of the available media is not funded or produced by the
> government to fit its own agenda.
Most of the Western world has access to far more US programming than
from any other country, so I'd say that a lot of us *do* share a
somewhat common TV culture. CNN for news, for example, which we get
here. Movies. Music. Rah rah rah.
> Of course not. Popular world opinion is that either a) US military
> forces are a bunch of murderous raping criminals, or else b) that they
> are effete pampered pansies who can't put their combat boots on right,
> compared to the military in their own particular country.
Well, dunno about elsewhere, but there is that attitude here, to an
extent.
> In either
> case, it's obviously embarrassing to be seen asking for such infantry to
> join your particular cause.
Actually, the impression was that anywhere the US military goes into, US
spooks follow and the meddling starts, and I suspect that Australia was
jealous of anyone else meddling in her back yard.
> > > Also, the various anti-american americans on the list miss the point-
> > the US
> > > is reacting to the "intervention"
> > > by Osama bin Ladens forces on its soil, so the retaliation in
> > Afghanistan is
> > > clearly different to other interventions in the past.
> >
> > Well, allegedly retaliating, we have yet to see any evidence.
>
> After the NA forces complaining that we were not bombing enough to the
> western press (I found it so hilarious that the US tv media was trying
> to embarrass the Bush administration by reporting the NA recommendations
> that we carpet bomb MORE villages).
Oh no, I meant it is currently armed aggression against a sovereign
power, if we see the evidence it'll be retaliation.
> > > It is significant that the various and bloody Soviet interventions
> > were
> > > never demonised in teh same way as american actions.
> >
> > ??? You are joking, aren't you? There was a huge global outcry, the
> > Moscow
> > Olympics were torpedoed, etc.
>
> We, the US, torpedoed the Moscow olympics by staying home, but I don't
> recall many other countries staying home. Perhaps you can provide more
> info.
uh-oh.
I'm offline right now, but I suspect we're going to know the answer.
> Many more of us feel we've lost control of our government to NGO special
> interests funded by millionaire/billionaire aristocrats like Ted Turner
> and Andrew MacKelvey.
Really? You honestly feel that NGO special interests have more influence
over the US government than corporations? Really? I understand your
penchant for wild rhetoric, but, really?
> > I think you'd find that if NZ was a world-striding collossus like the US
> > then the NZ govt would be highly imperialistic, the same as the govt of
> > all major world Powers are, sort of goes with the turf. NZ can afford to
> > be idealistic as the biggest threat to NZ is an invasion from Samoa.
> > If NZ were stuck in the middle of Africa or Asia then I suspect things
> > would be a wee tad different.
>
> A very good point. NZ can afford a principled isolationist stance
> specifically for the same reasons the US could afford the same prior to
> WWII: you can't git theyuh frum heyah.... that easily.
Yup. And I'm sure if NZ was in the situation the US is in now with
respect to world dominance there'd be lots of critics of NZ foreign
policy.
Dwayne
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:12:12 MST