[extropy-chat] urban sprawl as defense

[Brett Paatsch]

Stephen J. Van Sickle wrote:

> On Tue, 2004-08-24 at 18:18, Brett Paatsch wrote:
>
> > I agree that its unpleasant to see only bad or spurious reasons
> > given for opposing things, but unfortunately, unless you are referring
> > to what's good for an email list, rather than what is good for an
> > electoral outcome, it isn't self defeating.
>
> Well, we'll see what is or isn't self defeating in November, the only
> real test.

I don't think we will actually. The fact of a Bush or Kerry victory won't
tell us how or why voters voted as they did.

> > When Bush bungled the handling of the UN after getting resolution
> > 1441 agreed to unanimously and invaded Iraq on a timetable that he
> > alone was setting and against resolution 1441 and against the UN
> > Charter he squandered an opportunity to strengthen civilization
> > (a more capable President could have handled the UN situation
> > better and made the UN a better institution in the interests of the
> > US and of the rest of the world) instead, working to a timetable
> > and/or an agenda of his own, he decided to just go ahead and
> > invade.
>
> How would a more capable President have handled the situation?
> The only alternative I can see was standing down the troops and letting
> the sanctions collapse.  And how, exactly, was the invasion in violation
> of 1441 and the Charter?  Although, that is really beside the point.

Damn, this is frustrating. On one hand you ask some excellent questions
(above) but no sooner do you do so then you say ...

> Arguing fine points of international law is silly when no one else seems
> to feel a need to be bound by them.

This sentence takes away almost the motivation I could have for taking
the time and effort of trying to pursuade you intellectually by providing
links and letting you see for yourself  because you *seem* to be
forewarning me that for you international law is *silly*.  So where's the
payoff for me?

Can't you see that without international law there can be no international
peace ever? How could there be when nations would inevitably war for
the simple reason that the strong wants what the weak has and the weak
have no alternative but to meet force with force.

Do you want all the innovators and industries of the future to dedicate
themselves to war technologies rather than to life-extension technologies?

Is "terrorism" for you just what the other guy does to you and yours
regardless of what you do to them and theirs, or is it rather a breach
of some standard by which third parties can look in and be outraged
too?

September 11 was a terrorist act in my book because civilians we're
attacked without warning and against international law. The attackers
were not US citizens. The standard they broke was not a US-only
standard.  Now the question is almost was it EVEN a US standard.

Can't you see that only the strongest countries and the brightest minds
can make the peace because the weakest are too much on the defensive
and too much in fear of the strongest?

What a person thinks is silly can define their limitations to other people.

What a democratic nation of voters think its silly may just define their
durability as a great nation.

Brett Paatsch