From: Kenneth Van Oost (Kennethvanoost@belgacom.net)
Date: Sun 15 Dec 2002 - 21:31:26 GMT
> Some prisoners become so inured to the system that, when freed, they
> will commit another crime just to get reinstitutionalized. This is no
> reason to condemn Iraq's children, and future generations, to the same
> fate, by not heeding the desperate pleas we hear to free them.
>> I won 't do that ! I just want to get the record straight that it won 't
be easy to teach people to be free and to act freely whenever they want what they want ! It won 't be easy to engage themselves from what the govern- ment meant for them_ if the state controls every part of their lives, in an other setting free initiative, free enterprise and individualism don 't get a chance ! The Saddam- period will continu to rule Iraq long after he is gone, Iraqs past will continu to rule the peoples lives....
> > They don 't know even to act free ! The position I take has to do with
> > the fact that within each individual the point of wanting to be free
> > has to establish itself and lead towards a ' collective existential
> > revolution within ' ( Havel) Otherwise I don 't see how the US its
> > attempt will succeed in the short run....
> It is unfair and inhumane to deny them the chance to grow into freedom.
> By your logic, slavery in the US should never have ended.
>> I don 't deny them any chance whatsoever to be free !
I just want to recon the possibility that it can turn out bad if the US, or others don 't consider the memetical implications of the country's past
( even we here in Belgium and you in the US does still have problems with shakin' off the yoke of your past ( and mine)). The implications of being a collaborater still work thru' even today ! The same can be said about the Peal Harbour and the Vietnam war, still the conse- quences are working thru'... and you gonna try to set things straight within years in Iraq !? You have my support !
> Actually, there is a Tikrit-based tribe, to which Saddam belongs, that
> inflicts serfdom upon the rest of the ppulace. Since that tribe controls
> the weaponry and are quite willing to viciously use it, they can enslave
> a hapless and helpless majority.
>> What will he do, kill them all just to proove he is right !?
Who will he enslave if there is no people left !? The revolt of the masses can induce his downfall, but of course I understand, and specific meme- tical that it can 't be done ! But on the other hand, see what happened in Rumania, Ceausescu had also everything under control, nothing excludes the possibility that within the people groups are active which will get support from the army when the time is ripe....you underestimate the force within a population.
> Many there prefer slavery to death, because they have never tasted
> freedom. Saddam was a hit man for the previous regime; he
> enginneered a coup within it. The vast majority of the Iraqi people had
> no say in the matter. The US did not see him being anything except a
> local strongman who would keep control of his population and maintain
> cordial relations with them as long as the US furnished him with the
> weaponry with which to perpetuate his reign. They were wrong, and the
> US itself has more fully embraced its own ideals. For these twin
> reasons, the US is morally obligated to rectify its horrible error in
> supporting such a megalomaniacal butcher.
>> Ah, you recon it was a blunder !? But that is just what most other
peoples of the world reproach the US ! That with doing what you describe as your foreign policy you are eager to support dictators for your selfish interest, whatever that might be ! You have giving the bastard weapons as long, his point of view, he controls his people in a decent way... and you don 't find that an odd situation for a country like the US which devine purpose in this world is to engage freedom and democracy !? I don 't stand surprised if peoples from around the world, despise the US !
> Not when the opposition enforces (and attempts to expand) its
> hegemony by means of poison gas and anthrax and is pursuing nukes.
> The pen is not mightier than the sword on the battlefield. Where did all
> your words get you with Milosevic?
>> But that is your side of the story ! This afternoon on BBC- World there
was an interview with someone who worked for the US- government, didn 't noticed her name though, saying that Saddam isn 't that dangerous if he wasn 't attack, he's got now NO reasons to attack the US. If the US however did strike the forst blow Saddam will get his reasons, and others like bin Laden,will follow. It will proove to many that the US is to blame and they will attack you ! Taking out Saddam can be proven to be just the start of a conflict you never be able to win... the whole of the Islamitic world will stand up like a tiger and tear you apart. Think about it !
> They are not getting their fair chance to constructively contribute to its
> constitution and evolution.
>> But what is a fair chance if the rules are set by others, they are
obliged, if they want to participate in the economical strive of the world to do it with our rules ! Rules they don 't see the end off ! They don 't understand which complications/ implications the globalisation of the economy has, and will have ! I understand you are talking here about the peoples under Islamitic rule, but that it to simply ! Other populations, like Russians or the Chinese has even equal difficulties to positively contribute ( as individuals) to the world economy...saying Muslims do is a bad example....
> > << This can count for anti- democratic movements as well for funda-
> > mentalistic religious ones ! Extremists are everywhere, even in the
> > finest democracies of the world. Fighting for the right of others to
> > be free seen as one idealistic trait of your country is from my POV
> > the same as the ground where Muslim extremists work on...
> Then your vision is truly myopic, for there is no way that the two can be
> compared, except on the self-contradictory ground of absolute moral
> relativism, that would equate Adolph Hitler with Mahatma Gandhi. The
> same arguments have been put forward to allow primitive tribes to force
> genital mutilation upon their unwilling young girls, and they are equally
> misplaced there.
>> Maybe it is, " but if a Muslim can 't practice his belief as he/ she
wants it within the bounderies of the society he/ she lives in, well he must conduct to hijra [ or something], that means migrate ! " said a Muslim on Dutch TV this afternoon. If thus in my view, for whatever reason any country don 't wants freedom and democracy for its people, the US and Europe has to back of. That is maybe in your view cultural relativism and something we must let go of, but that also means in my view that you think that your ruling, law and justice are superior to the ones you condenm ! I do not think along those lines ! I think along the line of absolute freedom even that means people will get mutulated _ it IMO a ' natural ' thing....moreover it is a ' cultural ' thing!
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun 15 Dec 2002 - 21:15:30 GMT