Useful Idiots of the Day

[ImaginalDisc]

This essay falsely represents people who do not serve in the military.

Here is how the sheep and the sheepdog think differently. The sheep pretend the wolf will never come, but the sheepdog lives for that day. After the attacks on September 11, 2001, most of the sheep, that is, most citizens in America said, "Thank God I wasn't on one of those planes." The sheepdogs, the warriors, said, "Dear God, I wish I could have been on one of those planes. Maybe I could have made a difference." When you are truly transformed into a warrior and have truly invested yourself into warriorhood, you want to be there. You want to be able to make a difference.

Emphasis added. I will not serve in the military. I know the world is a violent and dangerous place, but I won't pick up a gun, and pretend that invasion, lies, conquest, and oppression will make it better. The U.S. military is as frequently the problem as it is a solution. The anlogy of a robin's egg works very well. Each country isolates itself, and tries to have a harder, more dangerous shell than the next, and then the eggs periodically get dashed against one another.

I'd like to see less of that, rather than a harder shell.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

This is rapidly becoming a complete derail, and that's my fault.

 

[rikzilla]

That's a powerful essay, Rik. I used to have it saved on my hard-drive.

Do you have a link to it?

Sorry I thought I stuck a link in there...but must have been distracted. I found the article here about halfway down the page.

-z

 

[RandFan]

This essay falsely represents people who do not serve in the military.
Emphasis added. I will not serve in the military. I know the world is a violent and dangerous place, but I won't pick up a gun, and pretend that invasion, lies, conquest, and oppression will make it better. The U.S. military is as frequently the problem as it is a solution. The anlogy of a robin's egg works very well. Each country isolates itself, and tries to have a harder, more dangerous shell than the next, and then the eggs periodically get dashed against one another.

I'd like to see less of that, rather than a harder shell.

Isn't that just an empty platitude? How do we get everyone to unilaterally disarm or to reduce their military? Thousands of years of history seems to indicate that this is not realistic. It's fine sentiment in a perfect world. However I don't see how it works in a world filled with nations that are occasionaly populated with the likes of Kim Jong Il.

Get back to me on this one. I'm interested.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Isn't that just an empty platitude? How do we get everyone to unilaterally disarm or to reduce their military? Thousands of years of history seems to indicate that this is not realistic. It's fine sentiment in a perfect world. However I don't see how it works in a world filled with nations that are occasionaly populated with the likes of Kim Jong Il.

Get back to me on this one. I'm interested.

Throw money at them.

Woo them with medicine, good education, reason, and economic oppurtunities. Conflicts arrise through scarcity. Scarcity in our modern world is, well, scarce. World wide food production is high enough to feed everyone quite well every single day. There's not enough resources for everyone to live like upper class Americans, but there's enough wealth and resources for the quality of life for everyone to go way up.

The problem with Kim Jong Il isn't that he's nuts, it's that he's in control of a small country that isn't part of our wealthy world. Prosperity breeds contentment, peace, and tolerance. Even at the hieght of the Roman Empire, when Rome was behaving like a sword waving, city sacking beast, life *inside* of Rome was much more tolerant and progessive than life anywhere else. We in the richer countries of the world have a good thing going, if we could only get everyone to buy into it in a way that gives every person on the planet equal oppurtunity for advancement and security, it would solve a great many conflicts.

Yes, there will always nutcases, but people immigrate to the U.S. every day, desperate get int our prosperous, tolerant system. It's very attractive.

 

[rikzilla]

This is rapidly becoming a complete derail, and that's my fault.

Derails happen...no big deal. I'm just kind of disappointed that you seem to think that the people serving in uniform are some kind of amoral crazies. It's not you know. There's a lot of vets right here on this forum besides me who can tell you that. As you have acknowleged; there is a real need in this dangerous world for the military. It's a tool; as such it can be ill-used; but there's no need to denigrate the individual soldier as some kind of gun-toting bully. At the least he's necessary; at the most he's heroic.

-z

 

[Mycroft]

Throw money at them.

Woo them with medicine, good education, reason, and economic oppurtunities.

The problem is that in this modern world, the conflicts are not coming from places where there is a lack of medicine, good education, reason and economic opportunities. Saudi Arabia, for example, Iran for another.

Conflicts arrise through scarcity. Scarcity in our modern world is, well, scarce.

That's just not true. Sometimes conflicts are created by religious extremism, sometimes it's just someone who wants power. Sometimes conflicts are resistance to rapid social or economic changes and have nothing to do with a lack of wealth.

 

[zenith-nadir]

Throw money at them.

The world already threw money at the Palestinian Authority and here's what happened to it.

Nov. 9, 2003

(CBS) Yasser Arafat diverted nearly $1 billion in public funds to insure his political survival, but a lot more is unaccounted for.

Jim Prince and a team of American accountants - hired by Arafat's own finance ministry - are combing through Arafat's books. Given what they've already uncovered, Arafat may be rethinking the decision. Lesley Stahl reports.

So far, Prince's team has determined that part of the Palestinian leader's wealth was in a secret portfolio worth close to $1 billion -- with investments in companies like a Coca-Cola bottling plant in Ramallah, a Tunisian cell phone company and venture capital funds in the U.S. and the Cayman Islands.

Although the money for the portfolio came from public funds like Palestinian taxes, virtually none of it was used for the Palestinian people;

"Arafat for years would cry poor, saying, 'I can't pay the salaries, we're gonna have a disaster here, the Palestinian economy is going to collapse,'" says Indyk. "And we would all mouth those words: 'The Palestinian economy is going to collapse if we don't do something about this.' But at the same time, he's accumulating hundreds of millions of dollars."

The stockpile went well beyond the portfolio. Arafat accumulated another $1 billion with the help of -- of all people -- the Israelis. Under the Oslo Accords, it was agreed that Israel would collect sales taxes on goods purchased by Palestinians and transfer those funds to the Palestinian treasury.

{emphasis mine}

The money has yet to be recovered.

November 08, 2004

Palestinian officials who gathered around Yasser Arafat in recent weeks have been anxious to extract from their ailing leader the secret codes and locations of bank accounts they believe contain more than $1 billion diverted from official Palestinian funds.

"It's an uphill struggle, and we may never get the bulk of it," says the official, who declined to be identified out of fear for his safety.

Jawad Ghussein, who was secretary-general of the Palestinian National Fund until 1996 but now lives in London, charged last week that Mr. Arafat had for years misappropriated Palestinian funds — much of it donated by oil-rich Arab governments — for personal use.

"The billions Arafat has stolen over the years from the Palestinian people facilitated the corruption of the Palestinian leadership, and is the source of his power over them," Mr. Ghussein says.

Mr. Ghussein says that for 12 years he had deposited $7.5 million to $8 million each month into Mr. Arafat's personal bank account.

Saudi contributions until 2003 amounted to $15.4 million every two months, and the United States has increased its annual contribution to the Palestinian Authority to $223 million.

An International Monetary Fund report, "Economic Performance and Reforms under Conflict Conditions," released in September 2003, concluded that $900 million in Palestinian Authority revenues from 69 commercial enterprises had "disappeared" between 1995 and 2000.

Shortly before Mr. Arafat was flown from Ramallah for treatment in France, his wife received $60 million in her Paris bank account.

As of August 2002, the center reported, Mr. Arafat's personal holdings included $500 million that rightfully belonged to the Palestine Liberation Organization. In all, his holdings were estimated to total $1.3 billion at that time.

The money "is enough to feed 3 million Palestinians for one year, and also buy 1,000 mobile intensive care units, as well as to fund 10 hospitals for a decade," the center said. At least 60 percent of the Palestinian Authority's budget comes from international aid contributions, of which the European Union is the largest donor.

{emphasis mine}

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Derails happen...no big deal. I'm just kind of disappointed that you seem to think that the people serving in uniform are some kind of amoral crazies...

...At the least he's necessary; at the most he's heroic.

-z

A) I doesn't it really matter, in the big picture, whether a solider is moral or not. There were good, honest, decent Red Coats in the American Revolution, it doesn't excuse the actions of the Brittish Empire. There were prefectly reasonable, sane and decent Roman Soliders who torched Carthage, and plowed their fields with salt.

B) At worst, soliders are people, like any other, being asked to do the wrong thing. At best, they save the world. That's just like anyother person, be they a school teacher, soldier, doctor, or lawyer.

 

[Freakshow]

Throw money at them.

I think it sets a bad precedent to bribe people to behave.

Woo them with medicine, good education, reason, and economic oppurtunities.

In some cases, that is not possible without massive changes to the society we are attempting to help.

Conflicts arrise through scarcity.

They also often arise because sometimes people get put in charge that are psychotic nutbags who crave power and conquest, and get off on causing pain and suffering. History is full of such people.

There's not enough resources for everyone to live like upper class Americans, but there's enough wealth and resources for the quality of life for everyone to go way up.

Not possible in every society, unless some of them make massive, extensive, fundamantal changes.

The problem with Kim Jong Il isn't that he's nuts, it's that he's in control of a small country that isn't part of our wealthy world.

And the reason for that is...Kim Jong Il is nuts.

Yes, there will always nutcases, but people immigrate to the U.S. every day, desperate get int our prosperous, tolerant system. It's very attractive.

I agree with you there. But many countries can't be prosperous like us unless they change. Not every society has the same potential for prosperity. My view of thinking turns out to be very unpopular with the "make all these poor countries much better" left, because it dares to suggest that not every society is equal.

 

[rikzilla]

The problem is that in this modern world, the conflicts are not coming from places where there is a lack of medicine, good education, reason and economic opportunities. Saudi Arabia, for example, Iran for another.

Exactly. Scarcity of food, medicine, education, infrastructure, wealth, etc is just one aspect. Scarcity may fuel local conflict; but regional and national conflicts are fuelled more often by ideology, religion, or simple greed for power or treasure. Remember how in the 80's and early 90's the televised faces of famine in Somalia spurred huge donations of food? "We are the world" etc... Then how a UN invasion became necessary just to insure that the food actually reached the people? Scarcity wasn't really the main problem then...it was security. The sheepdogs had to make an appearance because simple well meaning altruistic pascifism doesn't always feed people...sometimes it merely attracts the wolves.

That's just not true. Sometimes conflicts are created by religious extremism, sometimes it's just someone who wants power. Sometimes conflicts are resistance to rapid social or economic changes and have nothing to do with a lack of wealth.

In the end it comes down to imposing order through force. Like they say; "The road to hell is paved with good intentions." But if you're smart and lucky you have some good tough sheepdogs with you to insure followthrough on the good intentions and shielding from the hell.

-z

 

[Freakshow]

The sheepdogs had to make an appearance because simple well meaning altruistic pascifism doesn't always feed people...sometimes it merely attracts the wolves.

Ahem...note the quote from my sig...

[FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica][FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica] "Never show weakness around wolves." - Bernard "The Executioner" Hopkins
[/FONT][/FONT]
Words to live by (or maybe more accurately, survive by), in my not-at-all humble opinion.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

I think it sets a bad precedent to bribe people to behave.

I wasn't clear. I'm sorry. I meant that we need to improve with economies, and allow them to participate in ours.

In some cases, that is not possible without massive changes to the society we are attempting to help.

I know this sound very Marxist to say, but the majority of a culture is dictated by its economy. India's become much, much more prosperous, and its caste and religious systems are having to adjust to its economy, not vice versa. I believe it was David Brin who said, "Only people with full stomachs can become envrionmentalists." If an economy provides for a person's needs, and provides oppotunities to better themselves, it tends to become more tolerant.

They also often arise because sometimes people get put in charge that are psychotic nutbags who crave power and conquest, and get off on causing pain and suffering. History is full of such people.

Not possible in every society, unless some of them make massive, extensive, fundamantal changes.

I agree with you there. But many countries can't be prosperous like us unless they change. Not every society has the same potential for prosperity. My view of thinking turns out to be very unpopular with the "make all these poor countries much better" left, because it dares to suggest that that every society is equal.

Decmoracy and private rights have historically arrisen because of ecnomic pressures. The Magna Carta was written because the rich got tired of being bossed around. I have a lot of bad things to say about the perils of laizze-faire capitolism, but properous populaces give their governments way less leeway than poor populaces, because prosperous people have the power and modivation to protect their assests, which include civil liberties.

 

[Freakshow]

I wasn't clear. I'm sorry. I meant that we need to improve with economies, and allow them to participate in ours.



I know this sound very Marxist to say, but the majority of a culture is dictated by its economy. India's become much, much more prosperous, and its caste and religious systems are having to adjust to its economy, not vice versa. I believe it was David Brin who said, "Only people with full stomachs can become envrionmentalists." If an economy provides for a person's needs, and provides oppotunities to better themselves, it tends to become more tolerant.








Decmoracy and private rights have historically arrisen because of ecnomic pressures. The Magna Carta was written because the rich got tired of being bossed around. I have a lot of bad things to say about the perils of laizze-faire capitolism, but properous populaces give their governments way less leeway than poor populaces, because prosperous people have the power and modivation to protect their assests, which include civil liberties.

As I see your views spelled out more clearly, I am starting to agree with you more. I am all in favor of changing some societies so that they are more free and prosperous, and it makes the world a better place. It is a very bitter pill for some to swallow, though. Because in order to support it, they first have to toss relativism out the window, and admit that some societies are better than others. Very tough thing for the extreme left to do.

 

[Skeptic]

This essay falsely represents people who do not serve in the military.
Emphasis added. I will not serve in the military. I know the world is a violent and dangerous place, but I won't pick up a gun, and pretend that invasion, lies, conquest, and oppression will make it better.

If you think being armed in this dangerous world never solved anything and didn't make things better, try being unarmed and see how you like it. The Armenians, European jews, and numerous other groups could tell you something about that.

As Kipling said, you "make a-mock of uniform that guard you while you sleep". That's not nice.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

This essay falsely represents people who do not serve in the military.
Emphasis added. I will not serve in the military. I know the world is a violent and dangerous place, but I won't pick up a gun, and pretend that invasion, lies, conquest, and oppression will make it better.

If you think being armed in this dangerous world never solved anything and didn't make things better, try being unarmed and see how you like it. The Armenians, European jews, and numerous other groups could tell you something about that.

As Kipling said, you "make a-mock of uniform that guard you while you sleep". That's not nice.

Being a critic of the military doesn't mean I'm inviting robbers. I have chosen to embrace a pascifist philosophy. If someone were to point a gun at me, I wouldn't try to kill them to stop them. I'm well aware of the consequences of my choice.

Keep in mind that if everyone felt the I do, there wouldn't be any wars. Call it a pipe dream if you like, but I'd rather die a fool than live with blood on my hands.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

As I see your views spelled out more clearly, I am starting to agree with you more. I am all in favor of changing some societies so that they are more free and prosperous, and it makes the world a better place. It is a very bitter pill for some to swallow, though. Because in order to support it, they first have to toss relativism out the window, and admit that some societies are better than others. Very tough thing for the extreme left to do.

I don't think it's unfair to say that prosperous societies, which embrace principals of liberty, and allow for everyone to have a relatively fair shot at improving their lives are better than societies without those qualities. Afterall, the biggest debates in our society revolve around how to make our society better. Clearly, we all have some rubric we use to measure societies, no matter how fair and uninsulting we try to be.

 

[Mycroft]

Being a critic of the military doesn't mean I'm inviting robbers. I have chosen to embrace a pascifist philosophy. If someone were to point a gun at me, I wouldn't try to kill them to stop them. I'm well aware of the consequences of my choice.

Keep in mind that if everyone felt the I do, there wouldn't be any wars. Call it a pipe dream if you like, but I'd rather die a fool than live with blood on my hands.

Bravo for you! Good thing there are some solid sheepdogs that make it more likely you will live than die.

 

[Skeptic]

Being a critic of the military doesn't mean I'm inviting robbers. I have chosen to embrace a pascifist philosophy. If someone were to point a gun at me, I wouldn't try to kill them to stop them. I'm well aware of the consequences of my choice.

Yes, true, but you only allow yourself to act this way because you know that others, who aren't pacifists, will protect you as well as themselves.

You do rely on the force of arms for your own safety; you only insist that it will be force of other people's arms instead of your own.

The correct word for your position, then, is not "pacifist", but "parasite".

 

[Freakshow]

Being a critic of the military doesn't mean I'm inviting robbers. I have chosen to embrace a pascifist philosophy. If someone were to point a gun at me, I wouldn't try to kill them to stop them. I'm well aware of the consequences of my choice.

Keep in mind that if everyone felt the I do, there wouldn't be any wars. Call it a pipe dream if you like, but I'd rather die a fool than live with blood on my hands.

This is the point where you and I disagree.

If you want to live your own life like that, that's fine. People make choices. I prefer to let them.

But...to expect that there is even the remotest possibility that everyone will choose this way of life, crosses over into being delusional. There are bad people that must be dealt with by force. Always have been. Always will be. Its one of the unpleasant things we have to deal with in the human experience, but it is reality.

I was going to point out anyway that where you and I disagree is that sometimes, I think the only way a society can be changed is to overthrow its existing government by force. So we are left in those cases with two, and only two, choices. 1: Overthrow the government by force, and allow for changes for the better. 2: Decide you can't/don't want to overthrow it by force, and sit by and watch the society go its own course.

When you are dealing with completely totalitarian governments like North Korea, there really isn't any practical 3rd option. There is no way to influence that much control inside a nation like that.