From: owner-ammf-digest@smoe.org (alt.music.moxy-fruvous digest)
To: ammf-digest@smoe.org
Subject: alt.music.moxy-fruvous digest V5 #317
Reply-To: ammf@fruvous.com
Sender: owner-ammf-digest@smoe.org
Errors-To: owner-ammf-digest@smoe.org
Precedence: bulk


alt.music.moxy-fruvous digest Friday, November 30 2001 Volume 05 : Number 317



                               Today's Subjects:
                               -----------------
  Re: ...my point.                                       [SugarFly26@aol.com]
  An antiwar question                                    [SugarFly26@aol.com]
  Re: his point                                          [SugarFly26@aol.com]
  Re: ...my point.                  [Lori Martin <moonshimmer@xpnonline.net>]

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 22:44:18 EST
From: SugarFly26@aol.com
Subject: Re: ...my point.

Nathan said:

<<America is currently undertaking vast structural reform that is stripping 
us of our
civil rights in the name of freedom (that's right, a little backwards, isn't
it?)>>

Yes, and no. I understand fully the need to have rules for freedom. If there 
was total freedom, it wouldn't be at all.

<<Should it take an incredible violent act to get America's attention?>>

No. And personally, I'm a little disturbed by the exploitation of this, and 
even more by the blind patriotism. The feeling of, "Screw you, you messed 
with the wrong people, kill them all, go US." There's also the sudden 
commercial appeal of the flag, the AMERICA UNDER ATTACK dripping red letters 
on tv, and reporters on rooftops nearby on September 11. A gruesome need for 
horror. Splatter Splatter. I will say that hearing patriotic songs has meant 
more to me lately, but not because of blind patriotism, because it makes me 
think of what we have, what others don't, and how all that can be taken in a 
second. I think of patriotism more as a love for your country yes, but also 
supporting it at times. Not because some foreign enemy attacked you, but 
because it's how you truly feel. I don't consider anyone who's antiwar any 
less of a patriot as long as they explain to me their views. I don't have to 
agree with their views, but I do like to understand them. I would support 
anyone who burned an American flag as long as I could see why, as long as 
they could explain their reason to me and it wasn't something like "Because 
this country sucks."  What's my point? Eh...I don't really know. :)  Maybe 
just that I'm a little disturbed by the commercialism and the un-thought 
through positions on what's happening.

Ln

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 22:56:40 EST
From: SugarFly26@aol.com
Subject: An antiwar question

In Jian's article, I didn't really notice any suggestion of what alternative 
he would support. I kept waiting for one, perhaps I missed it? I'd be very 
curious. Up until now, following through Fruvous, I've agreed with nearly all 
his political views about issues I had knowledge of both sides on. Apparently 
not this one, and I'd be curious to know his alternative and reasoning. Did 
he perhaps go into it more at a show that someone was at, and could tell me 
about? Thanks.

Ln

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 22:35:20 EST
From: SugarFly26@aol.com
Subject: Re: his point

Lori said:

<<Angela was talking about the the people who will starve to death, and I 
answered
her comment.>>

I know this doesn't make it any less of a bad thing, but these people have 
been starving to death, as someone pointed out, long before we bombed them.

>I feel there
> is no way to eliminate terrorism unless everyone feels accepted, etc. and
> that is not likely to happen.

<<Why not?>>

Think of gay people. Are they accepted everywhere? Do you think they will be? 
I don't. Maybe I'm just being cynical.

<<Someone gets a big slice of the pie.  To most people, that means someone
else gets a smaller slice, or thinks they do.  We can't do anything about 
that?
We can't wrap our minds around the concept that it's not size that matters, 
but
whether everyone has "enough" -- and if people think they have enough, if 
they
feel secure, they won't worry so much about sizing up what else the other guy
has?>>

Again, I'm not talking about feeling accepted in a materialistic way. But, as 
far as materialism, if we could take care of that feeling of greed, then yes 
there would be less of a problem to work on.

<<Whether we're talking tangibles like food and shelter, or intangibles like 
human
dignity and freedom, there's "enough" to go around this globe.  There's 
plenty.>>

Again, human dignity. Take the Salvation Army. Again, gays. They recently 
added to their employee policy that they will give gays the same options for 
their live-in partners as married people, pending it's a serious 
relationship, etc. But they won't hire gay people. There've been court suits 
over this, I believe. That's like saying I brought you this basket of 
strawberries, but you can't have them because you're violently allergic and 
might die.

<<Taliban always has been willing to talk.  (Not listen, perhaps, but talk.>> 


Do you know anyone, who, when someone is annoyed with them, agrees to talk, 
and does so very calmly and rationally, and it seems like a nice agreement is 
made, until you realize the person didn't mean it? You give them another 
chance. Possibly another. Eventually you stop. I know people like that. 
Anyone will talk at some point if they think it's in their best interest. The 
New Bedford High school kids...no one would say anything at first. 
Eventually, it comes to self-preservation. They talked. Why? To get 
themselves off.

 <<And can we really say we're any better when it comes to listening?>>

No. And that's a big problem with this country. We can't even say, in my 
opinion, that we are good at listening on an individual level, to our peers. 
Someone always has to jump in with a story that tops it. "Yes, that's exactly 
like when..." 

<<surrender an honored guest to hostile authorities>> 

So you don't feel there's any right on our part to ask for that surrender, 
because even though this person could be doing terrible things, he's highly 
regarded where he is, and we shouldn't mess with that.

<<Taliban forces did not attack us; we attacked them.  Without even trying to
discuss the situation.  Instead we issued ultimatums.>>

Taliban forces did attack us. We did attack them. Sometimes simple talking 
isn't going to work. 

<<And therefore we'll never know.  That's the value of what-if.  It's not
Monday-morning quarterbacking; it's "why didn't you (the government) pay
attention?  And when are you going to start?  When will you look not just the
crisis but the subtext before instinctively resorting to firepower?">>

I don't want this to come across as bad as I know it's going to sound...but 
do you personally do things about this? Why didn't *the government* pay 
attention, why not this...I'm just noting that there's a lot of blame, and 
I'm not saying it's unwarranted by any stretch of the imagination, but it 
sounds like you're making it a lot more simplistic than I feel it really is.

<<Giving the Taliban tens of millions>>

If we hadn't...I think there would be people around going Why aren't we 
supporting them?! That's not right! We can't be discriminatory! 

<<Furthermore, it's petty, a game of chess using the earth as a
board.  But those pawns are real people, forced to wear burqas, working for
practically no salary if they're allowed to work at all, with no education,
little food, and abysmal health care.  And they're trapped -- not only hemmed 
in
by their own bishops and queens but also, arbitrarily, sacrificed  or 
"protected"
in the short term for our game objectives.>>

And their game objectives. In chess, both sides sacrifice themselves and 
their enemies to help reach their own means. You don't direct your rook to go 
help the other side checkmate you. I don't quite understand what you're 
getting at with this analogy.

<<And it's a big surprise that they resent or even hate us for our 
manipulations>>

I'm not surprised.

> This goes back to the old trick of deciding when other people's crosses are
> your crosses as well.

<<No.  It goes back to not weaving yourself inextricably (and favorably, to 
your
interests) in their economic and political systems unless you're prepared 
also to
take responsibility for the social climate in the area.  Because to a large
extent that climate becomes your doing, imbuing every political or economic 
move
you make regarding that country with personal impact on the lives of its
citizens.>>

I understand that. I would more fully support the bombings if I was confident 
in knowing that the United States has every intention of creating a better 
Afghanistan, by their standards, not ours, not "westernizing" them, and that 
it happened. If it does,  then I see nothing wrong with getting rid of the 
Taliban by whatever force necessary, as I don't feel it *is* supported by the 
common person of Afghanistan. I work with several Iranians and Arabs. I have 
two Muslim students in one of my classes. They have told me that they fully 
support getting the Taliban out of power, hoping that the US will do that and 
then help rebuild, and that as few innocent lives are taken as possible.

> <<never mind that al-Qaeda has posed a distinct threat to our own
> military and diplomatic corps for half a decade.>>
> The half decade that was in the Clinton adminstration, perhaps?

<<Yep.  What of it?>>

Nothing, I just have a lot of disagreements with the last several presidents. 
:) 

<<Do you want to talk about the blunders of the Gulf War as well, and how 
Bush,
Sr's mess was left undone and waiting to explode for the Clintonites? >>

Not really, no. Been over those several times. It's just that you mentioned 
the last half decade and it got me thinking about the first Trade Center 
bombing, African embassies, USS Cole, etc. 

> Which is more important: 1.) Spending time finding out why we didn't do
> something before and making it seem like a simplistic, moronic oversight or
> 2.) Admitting that this oversight was wrong

<<Have we done this?  "We" as a government, I mean, looking at our own 
policies and motivations and how they are perceived by those they impact, not 
just the failure
of our containment methods or intel?  I hadn't noticed.>>

Does the government ever say, "Whoops, I guess we were wrong. Sorry about 
that. Our bad." Eh. No. I feel that many of the people in the government know 
somewhere that we were wrong and are perhaps taking wrong steps in handling 
this. But anger, fear, grief...these things all cloud the way of honestly 
saying this is at least partly our fault. I hope things clear quickly and we 
can see things more objectively than subjectively, but whether or not that 
will happen remains to be seen.

<<But do you want to do the same-old same-old -- going for the quick,
visible  "victory" and ignoring the long term implications -- or would you 
like
to try something that hasn't got such an abysmal track record as war?>>

In all honesty, my ideal plan at this point in time would be to use whatever 
force necessary to remove the Taliban from their rule, and work on Al-Qaeda, 
with the least civilian casualties, and for the US, Canada, Great Britain, 
everywhere else that is also involved in this to help reconstruct a better 
life for these people, again not how we want it, not our world. But funding 
it, helping them with setting up what they need to, etc. Naive? Sure. This 
would be a long project, but it would solve both short and long term goals in 
my eyes. We could appease whatever twisted revenges we have (whether we 
should appease them or not, I don't know yet.)  which is the short term, and 
ultimately fix something that should have been taken care of a long time ago. 
The United States is often looked to almost like it should be solving 
everyone else's problems. This is quite illogical, but a lot of times, we 
could help substantially, and I feel that this is one of those times.

As far as war having an abysmal track record, I don't quite agree with you 
there. This country is less 400 years old. And we are one of the major world 
powers. That's no small feat. We had a war with Great Britain to even get 
that freedom. You talk about short and long term things. War, though 
regrettable, has ocassionally yielded long term results that are probably 
more positive and productive that what would have come around without it. 

> If the choice is not doing what's right because you don't want to be
> hypocritical, or fixing an injustice and therefore accepting that hypocrisy
> and realizing something was wrong l personally would choose to be a
> hypocrite, with the hope that I'll remember this and hopefully make better,
> less hypocritical decisions in the future.

<<I would choose that as well.  I would not, however, choose to make exactly 
the
same mistakes as before and somehow hope it will all turn out different this
time.>>

I wouldn't either. But there are so many varied circumstances with situations 
that often you don't realize you stupidly just made the same mistake until, 
looking back, you're like "Wow that was just like blah blah blah, why are we 
so stupid?" The same mistake tricks us by showing up in many guises, 
sometimes really clever ones. Life is a hard teacher. It gives the test 
first, and the lesson afterwards. 

<<We could try waging peace and justice, for starters.>> 

Indeed. 

<<One interesting thing I've noticed in the past 10 weeks or so is that it 
seems
very easy for many people to consider themselves pacifists or "not hawks" so 
long
as they haven't been attacked.  It's a bit more challenging to *be* a 
pacifist --
to try to parse a non-violent method of self-defense or, more properly, 
universal
protection that doesn't dehumanise someone else, instead of trying to justify 
the
use of force "in this case" -- when we've been taken unawares, when we feel 
we've
lost the choice of whether or not to engage.>>

I'm not a pacifist. I understand what you're saying. Except for what you mean 
about losing the choice of whether or not to engage. Clarification, por 
favor?

Ln

- --
Lori

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 23:11:06 -0500
From: Lori Martin <moonshimmer@xpnonline.net>
Subject: Re: ...my point.

Eric wrote:

> Nathan,
> How do you propose that we bring Osama bin Laden and the rest of his Al-
> Qaeda network to justice if not through violence?  Did George W. Bush not
> say prior to the invasion that we might be able to avoid an invasion if the
> Taliban handed over bin Laden?  Gee, that didn't work, what a surprise.  The
> Taliban is not interesting in adhering to any international laws or
> treaties; I think that is obvious.

I'm not Nathan, but I'll ask anyway:  is it?

They offered to hand over bin Laden to third-party courts if we ceased bombing.
That wasn't good enough for the Bush administration to consider, much less make
a counter-offer.

Yes, maybe they were stalling.  Yes, maybe they wanted to hand him over to a
"third party" like Libya or Syria that would be unlikely to restrain him much
less punish him.  BUT ...

Did anyone at the White House or Pentagon even take into consideration that it
is one of the highest cultural values within various Afghan tribes to protect a
guest with one's life if necessary?  While the Taliban, in the opinion of many,
does not represent true Afghan culture, clearly they could only lose further
credibility and control within their own country had they delivered one of their
own "honored guests" on *ultimatum* -- not negotiation or diplomacy -- to a body
clearly inimical to that guest and likely to pursue his death.

Don't ignore, either, that in the minds of many in the middle east and Asia
there is little evidence that bin Laden had anything to do with Sept 11.  Their
own media are spinning the story in much the same way CNN and the networks are
spinning it here. And make no mistake about it </George W. Bush> our media ARE
spinning it, with personalities and bad guys and rumours (also called
"unconfirmed reports").   Furthermore, whether any media, US or Pakistani or
British or Russian, is telling the story accurately, without editorialising or
selectively editing, isn't nearly as relevant as the buzz the coverage generates
among the public.

- --
Lori

------------------------------

End of alt.music.moxy-fruvous digest V5 #317
********************************************