9/28/2002: What Semtex does

[Xugumad]

Hey,

this is a reply to tw and all others who are chiming in on the Iraq-war angle: there was a lengthy thread very recently concerning terrorism in the US, the American response, and war on Iraq.

It was buried quite deeply in the 'Bush Gored' threat, but went fairly in-depth regarding those issues. Please everybody, have a look at <a href="http://www.cellar.org/showthread.php?threadid=2158&perpage=15&pagenumber=2">this</a>, starting on page 2 of that thread. At least skim it. There is a lot of good (and bad) opinion in it, not least of all my "paranoid" comments.

Regarding the 'war' with Iraq - I don't believe Iraq is now, or at any point in the near future a threat to the US. Political reasons are at the forefront of the PR war against Iraq, as Republican campaigners happily admitted that the longer they keep beating the war drums, the more likely it is that they'll win the fall elections, having dominated the news with Iraq stories, rather than the failing economy or the rapidly-vanishing personal freedoms and rights.

X.

[juju]

<blockquote>Which would you rather sacrifice, your hot car or your life?

Die for oil, sucker.</blockquote><p align=center>-- Jello Biafra

[BubbleSculptor]

// at the risk of adding to a lengthening post


isn't lengthening posts the function of a message forum?

[jaguar]

Firstly UT, using IOTD for political statments is nto very wise, considering pervious stuff you've said about people leaving over what they thought was the 'offical stance' of the site.

1) Throughout history we see that probably the majority of peoples were impoverished and disenfranchised. Yet it's extremely rare to find killing civilians to be considered jusifiable in any way. What is different in this case?

Less people are these days. These poeple have been toys of US policy for decades. Sorry, did i say is justified anything? Stop trying to put words into my mouth. its also worth noting that impoverished is a relative term.

Furthermore, the fanatical muslims would find being "supported" in such a way to be a complete and total insult to his belief system - in which he is given to understand that he is better than you by the will of Allah.

Good job misunderstanding. If you free the majority you marginalise the fanatics, back to where they bleong - the fringes. Like nazis, thats the textbook case on this stuff.

Of course a good 'smackdown' will fix it right? Yea, force always works.....

As for cultural stuff, its a symptom of other things.

[Undertoad]

<i>Firstly UT, using IOTD for political statments is nto very wise, considering pervious stuff you've said about people leaving over what they thought was the 'offical stance' of the site. </i>

Yeah, but whaddya gonna do. I'm not gonna shut up. No subject can be taboo for IotD, politics is commonly discussed, and this one has led to more replies in one day than any other image in the last couple of weeks, so we got that going for us.

Actually *more* people are impoverished and disenfranchised these days; it's a trick of increasing population overall.

[Xugumad]

Tony,

you reserved the right for yourself to be the only one posting Images of the Day, if I am not mistaken. (I very well may be) This was apparently done in order to maintain editorial control over one section of the site.

In the eyes of some, you are now using this editorial control in order to bring a political slant to a section of the site that you have control over. Unlike dave's weblog, for instance, this is a highly 'public' section of the site. Quite a few people here seem to be uninterested in a site that has a public political slant. You say that No subject can be taboo for IotD, but it's not the subject that's dubious, it's the instant spin that you put on it.

Compare that to Slashdot, and a simple story submission; how many times have you seen a Slashdot editor attach a completely nonsensical and opinion-making line to what could otherwise have been a perfectly decent story? Did you notice that once that happens, more than the usual proportion of comments to that story are flames and criticism of the editor?

It seems you are using the 'more posts are better' argument to defend this. I don't doubt your honesty on that, but you may want to consider what kind of postings these are.

If popularity is your only rationale, and it seems to be the one that you are using to defend yourself, try posting some child pornography. (or something similarly controversial but less illegal)

I bet you'd get lots of replies.

X.

PS: Personally I don't mind; I am merely trying to explain what I think others are trying to say.

[hermit22]

Originally posted by Xugumad

I understand that my posts are sometimes (overly?) verbose; whilst skimming them, it's easy to overlook my actual opinion amongst deconstructivist neo-realist international relations theory.

One thing you never seemed was neo-realist in any way.

[juju]

UT's opinions are not hurting anyone. Speak your own mind, or STFU. He's not a journalist, and he doesn't have to be impartial.

[hermit22]

Originally posted by juju
UT's opinions are not hurting anyone. Speak your own mind, or STFU. He's not a journalist, and he doesn't have to be impartial.

yeah, I agree. It's his board, he can do whatever the hell he wants with it.

[Undertoad]

It's hard, because I do pick the image and write the first post and I *do* have biases, and I dunno whether it's better to just admit the bias and be fair to myself, or attempt some sort of journalistic "them's the facts" approach.

In this case, I did really think that the image was interesting regardless of bias, because we all have this concept of how big the explosion would be and we're all wrong. The image wasn't current, the news was, but the image gave us a different perspective.

When we heard about Reid's shoes, how big did you think the explosion was going to be? Consider that the above image is a 747, which is enormous...

OK, OK, I got over-indulgent in the comments and that was probably wrong!

*sigh*

In the long run we really should have some sort of voting system for IotD. I put that off when I saw how hard it would be to write a system to auto-post new threads. It's me being lazy again...

Well, here's an easy solution.

Post the image, and the facts around it and some commentary, and if it's a politically charged image (as this one may be), ask questions that you think will create discussion. Carefully denote your opinion ("Looking at this image, I have to wonder - is France's foreign policy to blame?", etc)... be honest in saying "I'm a human being, and I have biases too... here's the image, and here's what I think about it." That's how I read them anyway, but perhaps others don't see it that way.

But that's just my suggestion...

[Xugumad]

hermit22
One thing you never seemed was neo-realist in any way.

Interesting claim. I probably should take this to a new thread, but I'll try to briefly clarify.

Neo-realism views international relations as an area of permanent conflict in which dominance can and must be asserted by the strongest power. Survival is the most important goal, as everyone fights everyone else. (sound familiar?)

Realism views societies and life in general as very unpleasant, and government as the only solution for imposing order; such order must ultimate resemble the Hobbesian Leviathan, a society not unsimilar to 1984; in such a Hobbesian society, which features complete surveillance, it is assured that infractions are punished instantly and severely. (sound familiar?)

Realism depends on the power principle, focusing on its leaders; in short, those with money rule - the "Golden Rule" of politics. (sound familiar?)

Realism denies the desirability of international law, as universal systems of morality can not be applied to a world in which survival is the ultimate goal. Ethics are not respected, but they are used to whatever goal it is that realists aspire to - usually control, assuring them a privileged position. (sound familiar?)

Realism has been relegated to an 'also-ran' position in the world of international relations/political science, as it completely failed to either predict or rationalize the end of the Cold War. It may or may not experience a resurgence right now, as the ideals of the post-Cold War euphoria are being subverted.

I personally believe that realism seems to be the default modus operandi of international relations, and apparently also of domestic politics. I argue against it, because I do not want to see people blithely assuming such a predatorial worldview as desirable, or even commendable. I don't believe that greed, egotism, and authoritarianism are good for either the individual or society as a whole.

That it's not right doesn't mean that it's not true, however.

If five-hundred years of western civilization since the Englightenment have brought us only more conflict and struggle for dominance, then we might as well pack it in. Realism is ultimately little more than a thinly-disguised justification for why we act like animals, survival our only goal.

I pray we can rise above. Anyone with even a shred of Faith must discount realism as that what we can become if we lose sight of what it is to be human.

X.

[hermit22]

Originally posted by Xugumad

Interesting claim. I probably should take this to a new thread, but I'll try to briefly clarify.

Neo-realism views international relations as an area of permanent conflict in which dominance can and must be asserted by the strongest power. Survival is the most important goal, as everyone fights everyone else. (sound familiar?)

Realism views societies and life in general as very unpleasant, and government as the only solution for imposing order; such order must ultimate resemble the Hobbesian Leviathan, a society not unsimilar to 1984; in such a Hobbesian society, which features complete surveillance, it is assured that infractions are punished instantly and severely. (sound familiar?)

Realism depends on the power principle, focusing on its leaders; in short, those with money rule - the "Golden Rule" of politics. (sound familiar?)

Realism denies the desirability of international law, as universal systems of morality can not be applied to a world in which survival is the ultimate goal. Ethics are not respected, but they are used to whatever goal it is that realists aspire to - usually control, assuring them a privileged position. (sound familiar?)

Realism has been relegated to an 'also-ran' position in the world of international relations/political science, as it completely failed to either predict or rationalize the end of the Cold War. It may or may not experience a resurgence right now, as the ideals of the post-Cold War euphoria are being subverted.

I personally believe that realism seems to be the default modus operandi of international relations, and apparently also of domestic politics. I argue against it, because I do not want to see people blithely assuming such a predatorial worldview as desirable, or even commendable. I don't believe that greed, egotism, and authoritarianism are good for either the individual or society as a whole.

That it's not right doesn't mean that it's not true, however.

If five-hundred years of western civilization since the Englightenment have brought us only more conflict and struggle for dominance, then we might as well pack it in. Realism is ultimately little more than a thinly-disguised justification for why we act like animals, survival our only goal.

I pray we can rise above. Anyone with even a shred of Faith must discount realism as that what we can become if we lose sight of what it is to be human.

X.

I know what a realist is (since I started my master's program last week, I've gotten a crash course in IR theory)...you just don't seem like one. Even in this post, you are arguing against realism.

[Xugumad]

Xugumad
I personally believe that realism seems to be the default modus operandi of international relations, and apparently also of domestic politics.

That it's not right doesn't mean that it's not true, however.

I am not arguing against realism, it is what we will always fall back on, and it is what's currently dominating international relations.

I merely believe that it is harmful to assume that realism is a good system.

X.

[Undertoad]

Dave, that makes sense and that's what I'll do. Thanks.

H, don't quote the *entire post* when the entire post is right above, thanks!