|
U-Know! Forum » Chomsky on Iraq |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
grufty jim 1978 posts |
Oct 17, 2002, 13:27
|
||
|
Yes, but neither you nor i are Iraqi civilians. We don't have the biological imperative of self-defence to back our violence up (and a protest that resulted in death can be considered "violent" for our purposes even if no act of aggression was carried out, i believe). Indeed, in the Nazi Germany 1943 analogy, we are not jews. Rather we are affluent ethnic Germans living it up in Bavaria on the proceeds of "liberated" Jewish gold. We are complicit in the holocaust - not it's victims. So again, i firmly believe our first obligation is to address our own complicity in this - and just because that's a long-term strategy in no way makes it any less vital. To do otherwise is to shirk responsibility. To lay blame at the door of others whilst typing away on our oil keyboards.
|
|||
|
YerArseInParsley 365 posts |
Oct 17, 2002, 13:29
|
||
|
I refuse to admit that wars are going to be fought over oil. Admitting that is giving my blessing to it. Wars are going to be fought over whatever only as long as we allow them to be, and we can stop them not through philosophical discourse by by practicle application. Men raping women is another trait we haven't evolved out of, but we don't accept it and act as a society to prevent it. So it is with wars. You are against the war and yet intend to do nothing to prevent it due to fatalism or unforseen consequences of any action. What are the unforseen consequences of doing nothing ? What the bloodily obvious effects of doing nothing ? You admit an oil blockade could damage the government. It would do more than that, it would bring the consequences our aggression home to the UK. Long term-ism can only be effective if there is a long term and you need short term survival tactics to give your vision a chance. I disagree with your fatalism more than your analysis, and I appreciate your thoughtful criticism.
|
|||
|
YerArseInParsley 365 posts |
Oct 17, 2002, 13:33
|
||
|
I'm not shirking from my complicity, nor from the long term strategy. But as an affluent Bavarian I feel more compelled to act forcefully to stop this genocide. My last lover was a persian - does that qualify as a biological necessity ?
|
|||
|
grufty jim 1978 posts |
Oct 17, 2002, 13:52
|
||
|
> > My last lover was a persian - does that qualify > as a biological necessity? > Not in the sense i was meaning it... but in truth i think that's straying from the point. Ultimately, however, i believe Einstein said it best (as ever) when he said: "It is the duty of every citizen according to his best capacities to give validity to his convictions in political affairs." What matters (in many ways) is that we each realise the crimes being carried out in our names and try to resist them in the manner we believe to be best. I do not see it as my job to change people's minds on the issue of energy resources. But i do see it as my job to inform people of my research and allow them to make up their own minds on the subject. Because i believe it's important stuff. I don't believe that direct action against energy resources is a valid protest. But that is my opinion. I believe it would be counter-productive and lead to more political protection of fossil fuels, not less. I also believe that a threat to the UK's energy resources would see a rightwing shift in public opinion (for a bunch of reasons). And perhaps most importantly, i believe that removing a necessary resource from a population without offering them a replacement is at best irresponsible; at worst downright evil (depending upon how far it goes). So yeah, that's my opinion really. You're right that i am rather fatalistic regarding this issue. I've spent almost 6 years now greedily consuming as much information about global energy resources and their political effects as i can. And i believe we are no longer at the edge of the cliff; i believe we have actually driven over the edge, though we're unaware of it. We're just waiting for the inevitable catastrophic crash now. Anyways, that's all just my opinion. I'm a smart guy, and i'm extremely knowledgeable regarding this subject matter. But my analysis is just as likely to be flawed as anyone elses. And now i shall take a break from this discussion to compund my complicity as i wander down to the market and buy some fresh mangos.
|
|||
|
YerArseInParsley 365 posts |
Oct 17, 2002, 14:12
|
||
|
I met a guy who said he wasn't going to do anything to make the world better except to live by example. I had to point out, either he is setting an awful example or nobody is paying attention to him. My aim this month isn't to save the world from all the problems it faces. This month I'm going to try and stop the war, using an oil blockade if possible and necessary. I'll try and get around to world energy consumption by Christmas. As an footnote: you would not believe what I am paying in petrol driving around trying to stop this war for cheap petrol :-/
|
|||
|
YerArseInParsley 365 posts |
Oct 17, 2002, 15:40
|
||
|
Anthony, you weren't slagging Chomsky were you ? Sorry, I guess your irony went over my head earlier. I am a deaf to intellectual nuance today, I shall go to bed at once where I am least likely to embarrass myself further. G'night.
|
|||
|
grufty jim 1978 posts |
Oct 17, 2002, 16:29
|
||
|
Sorry, but i need to return to this statement: > > Yes, I'd cut off the water if that was the case, > realising full well that would lead to innocent > deaths, if that was the only way to stop our > nation inflicting civilian deaths in an unjust war. > Why do you feel you have a right to pursue a policy leading to innocent deaths (which you acknowledge openly), yet you don't feel that Bush and Blair have that right? What gives you such moral superiority? Not only over Bush and Blair, but also over those you sentence to death (because you clearly feel their lives are worth less than your notion of what is "just" and what is not - a moral distinction). I suspect you don't really believe that, but that *is* the ramification of the policy you promote. Think about what you're saying there.
|
|||
|
grufty jim 1978 posts |
Oct 18, 2002, 01:01
|
||
|
http://www.guardian.co.uk/oil/story/0,11319,813965,00.html interesting article.
|
|||
|
RiotGibbon 1527 posts |
Oct 18, 2002, 08:58
|
||
|
http://www.guilfin.net/database/showevent.php3?ev_id=evDNX221 15 quids ...9th Dec, St Paul's, nice RG
|
|||
FourWinds 10943 posts |
Oct 18, 2002, 09:24
|
||
|
... fly to Iraq and bomb and set fire to the oil fields there. Then what will they fight about? But again this just allows the oil companies to hike up the prices and make more profits. People will still need to buy oil and will continue to do so, no matter what the cost. As Jim says the only way to hurt them is to stop using oil and oil derivatives. And that ain't easy.
|
| Pages: 6 – [ Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 6 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| U-Know! Forum Index | |
