| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 11/23 |
| 2005/12/8-9 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:40921 Activity:very high |
12/7 Yesterday on the radio I heard a lady say (paraphrased)
"Palestinians have the right to participate in the armed
resistance." What does this mean? The only meanings I can think
of are either meaningless or ludicrous.
\_ That's why I like to call NPR "National Palestinian Radio".
Sympathy with terrorists, pretentious boring shows and shitty music,
now that's a winning combination.
\_ Without the context of the discussion, it means even less to us.
Was she talking about Israel? Iraq? The US? Mars?
\_ I only caught a snipit, but she was talking about how evil
Israel is. The real quote went more like, "The wall
continues, and the Isreali soldiers beat or arrest any
protesters in the way. And those are the ones engaged in
non-violent resistence. You know what happens to those in
the armed resitence. The Palestinians have a right to do
participate in armed resistence, you know."
\_ Consider two questions: Did the colonies have the right
to declare independence and take up arms against the
British? And, did the Confederacy have the right to secede
and take up arms against the Union? I think most
Americans would say yes to the first and no to the second,
but that's because history is written by the winners. -tom
\_ Because the concept of "rights" is illusionary. As you
\_ Because the concept of "rights" is very ephemeral. As you
say, history is written by the winners which is just
another way of saying Might Makes Right.
\_ The concept of rights is the basis of civilization. -tom
\_ Not sure I agree. Individual rights (or lack
thereof) have little to do with the rise of
civilizations and there are probably savages who
afford many rights to their tribe members.
\_ But how much is that predicated upon relative
isolation and plenty?
\_ I'm with tom on this one. Without some form of
encoded rights (Hammurabi comes to mind), you
don't have much of a civilization. I differ
from tom in that I see them as something that
can be granted or taken away by the stronger,
whereas I believe he sees them as a natural
right and a part of being human. If I have
stated his position incorrectly, I hope he'll
step in and clarify.
\_ More important to civilization:
agriculture
\_ hunter/gatherers dont have civil.?
government (does not equate to rights)
\_ tribal chief?
religion
\_ atheist societies cant have a civil.?
education
\_ plenty of non-western societies without
school systems.
currency
\_ or cash.
arts and writing
\_ or writing, but yes they all have art
Hammurabi was the king of an already powerful
civilization.
\_ There are implicit rights inherent in
most of what you list. Currency and
agriculture both require property rights.
Education, religion, and the arts
require the right of expression.
The existence of a government requires
a right of government. -tom
\_ Yes, but these "rights" can be limited
to a small subset of individuals,
perhaps the ones with weapons. I
wouldn't really call those rights.
If someone with a gun tells me to
dig a hole then what rights are
encoded there? His right to threaten
me?
\_ Your right to dig a hole. ;-)
\_ Yes. However, they only exist if everyone agrees
they do and enforces them. A stronger entity who
chose to violate a weaker entity's "rights" would
find little to no impediment leaving the weaker
with limited recourse. "Rights" are a noble concept
and a good theory but they don't exist without both
the strength and will/desire to enforce them.
\_ Your commentary is fairly circular, here.
Anyone can have the strength and will/desire
to take up arms against a nation; that doesn't
mean they all have the right. I would argue
that Osama bin Laden had very little right to
organize the 9/11 attacks against US civilians,
despite the fact that he had the strength and
will to do so. On the other hand, Eritrea
had a strong right to defend itself against
Ethiopia (and Kuwait against Iraq). The
question is where Palestinians fall on that
spectrum. -tom
\_ Circular? Not at all. Might -> Right. Very
direct. It just so happens that reasonably
good people run most of the planet right now
so we have "rights". If the Nazis had won WWII
or the Soviets had won the Cold War, there
wouldn't be a whole lot of talk about human
rights violations around the world. As was
already said a zillion times, the winners write
the history. They also declare what rights,
if any, everyone has afterwards until the next
time.
\_ "might->right" is a thought-ending cliche.
Does a murderer have a right to shoot
someone else, just because he has a gun?
-tom
\_ No, of course not. Society has more
might than the murderer and says they
don't. There have been societies where
the answer would be "yes" if, for
example, the killer was a noble and the
victim a peasant. Fortunately, we don't
live in a society like that. Although
you're mixing personal interaction with
international affairs, the same M->R
concept still applies quite readily.
\_ No, it doesn't apply in either case.
Taiwan may not have the *ability*
to resist a Chinese takeover, but
they certainly have the right to.
-tom
\_ The Chinese would say otherwise.
And that's the point: rights are
not absolutes. They do not exist
as laws of nature, physics, etc.
They are an issue of ethics or
possibly morals which is the realm
of Man where the only rights you
have are those you can keep by
force or those a stronger entity
chooses to allow you to have. In
either case they are not "rights"
as you seem to be defining them in
the Natural or Physics sense.
\_ There's this thing called
'Philosophy' which allows people
to deal with abstracts that
aren't necessarily quantifiable.
\_ Yes, we've been discussing
it in those terms for about
2 hours now. Join us if
you'd like.
\_ No, I've been discussing
philosophy, and you've
been spouting cliches.
-tom
\_ Too bad you chose to
end it like that. Oh
well. And here I was
beginning to think
you could actually
engage in an honest
intellectual discussion
without resorting to
that. My mistake.
I'm done here.
\_ "[R]ight, as the world goes, is only in question
between equals in power, while the strong do what
they can and the weak suffer what they must."
\_ "But God chose the foolish things of the world to
shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the
world to shame the strong."
\_ They have a right to be homocide bombers!
\_ Oh, I didn't know those Palestinians are fighting against gay
rights.
\_ They're more like flaming.
\_ It means someone has an opinion that you don't understand. Congrats.
Your next step will be reading books without pictures in them.
\_ Wow, what an amazingly moronic troll.
\_ The main difference is that their side has used suicide bombers on
civilians, and people are kind of pissed about that.
\_ suicide bombing is a highly evolved method of resistance
twisted, but ingenious
\_ On civilians?
\_ Yes. It's cheap, and among a demographic that's fucked
up enough to go for it, every bombing makes you even more
admired. Now if, as in the case of Iraq, you're actually
hurting (directly or indirectly) the people you depend
on to some degree for support, well, then that's not very
ingenious. -John
\_ Unless say you want to start a civil war and you're
only blowing up Shiites.
\_ Unless say you're a Sunni and your buddies are only
blowing up Shiites, and you want a civil war.
\- always an enjoyable read:
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/melian.htm
\_ Which they're not. -John |
| 11/23 |
|
| www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/melian.htm Sixteenth Year of the War - The Melian Conference - Fate of Melos THE next summer Alcibiades sailed with twenty ships to Argos and seized t he suspected persons still left of the Lacedaemonian faction to the numb er of three hundred, whom the Athenians forthwith lodged in the neighbou ring islands of their empire. The Athenians also made an expedition agai nst the isle of Melos with thirty ships of their own, six Chian, and two Lesbian vessels, sixteen hundred heavy infantry, three hundred archers, and twenty mounted archers from Athens, and about fifteen hundred heavy infantry from the allies and the islanders. The Melians are a colony of Lacedaemon that would not submit to the Athenians like the other island ers, and at first remained neutral and took no part in the struggle, but afterwards upon the Athenians using violence and plundering their terri tory, assumed an attitude of open hostility. Cleomedes, son of Lycomedes , and Tisias, son of Tisimachus, the generals, encamping in their territ ory with the above armament, before doing any harm to their land, sent e nvoys to negotiate. These the Melians did not bring before the people, b ut bade them state the object of their mission to the magistrates and th e few; upon which the Athenian envoys spoke as follows: Athenians. Since the negotiations are not to go on before the people, in order that we may not be able to speak straight on without interruption, and deceive the ears of the multitude by seductive arguments which woul d pass without refutation (for we know that this is the meaning of our b eing brought before the few), what if you who sit there were to pursue a method more cautious still? Make no set speech yourselves, but take us up at whatever you do not like, and settle that before going any farther . And first tell us if this proposition of ours suits you. To the fairness of quietly instructing each other as you propose there is nothing to object; but your military preparations are too far advanced to agree with what you say, as we see you are come to be judges in your own cause, and that all we can reasonably expect from this nego tiation is war, if we prove to have right on our side and refuse to subm it, and in the contrary case, slavery. If you have met to reason about presentiments of the future, o r for anything else than to consult for the safety of your state upon th e facts that you see before you, we will give over; It is natural and excusable for men in our position to turn more ways than one both in thought and utterance. However, the question in t his conference is, as you say, the safety of our country; and the discus sion, if you please, can proceed in the way which you propose. For ourselves, we shall not trouble you with specious pretence s- either of how we have a right to our empire because we overthrew the Mede, or are now attacking you because of wrong that you have done us- a nd make a long speech which would not be believed; and in return we hope that you, instead of thinking to influence us by saying that you did no t join the Lacedaemonians, although their colonists, or that you have do ne us no wrong, will aim at what is feasible, holding in view the real s entiments of us both; since you know as well as we do that right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the stro ng do what they canand the weak suffer what they must. As we think, at any rate, it is expedient- we speak as we are ob liged, since you enjoin us to let right alone and talk only of interest- that you should not destroy what is our common protection, the privileg e of being allowed in danger to invoke what is fair and right, and even to profit by arguments not strictly valid if they can be got to pass cur rent. And you are as much interested in this as any, as your fall would be a signal for the heaviest vengeance and an example for the world to m editate upon. The end of our empire, if end it should, does not frighten us: a rival empire like Lacedaemon, even if Lacedaemon was our real antagon ist, is not so terrible to the vanquished as subjects who by themselves attack and overpower their rulers. We will now proceed to show you that we are come here i n the interest of our empire, and that we shall say what we are now goin g to say, for the preservation of your country; as we would fain exercis e that empire over you withouttrouble, and see you preserved for the goo d of us both. And how, pray, could it turn out as good for us to serve as for you to rule? Because you would have the advantage of submitting before suff ering the worst, and we should gain by not destroying you. So that you would not consent to our being neutral, friends inst ead of enemies, but allies of neither side. for your hostility cannot so much hurt us as your friendsh ip will be an argument to our subjects of our weakness, and your enmity of our power. Is that your subjects' idea of equity, to put those who have not hing to do with you in the same category with peoples that are most of t hem your own colonists, and some conquered rebels? As far as right goes they think one has as much of it as the o ther, and that if any maintain their independence it is because they are strong, and that if we do not molest them it is because we are afraid; so that besides extending our empire we should gain in security by your subjection; the fact that you are islanders and weaker than others rende ring it all the more important that you should not succeed in baffling t he masters of the sea. But do you consider that there is no security in the policy whic h we indicate? For here again if you debar us from talking about justice and invite us to obey your interest, we also must explain ours, and try to persuade you, if the two happen to coincide. How can you avoid makin g enemies of all existing neutrals who shall look at case from it that o ne day or another you will attack them? And what is this but to make gre ater the enemies that you have already, and to force others to become so who would otherwise have never thought of it? Why, the fact is that continentals generally give us but littl e alarm; the liberty which they enjoy will long prevent their taking pre cautions against us; it is rather islanders like yourselves, outside our empire, and subjects smarting under the yoke, who would be the most lik ely to take a rash step and lead themselves and us into obvious danger. Well then, if you risk so much to retain your empire, and your s ubjects to get rid of it, it were surely great baseness and cowardice in us who are still free not to try everything that can be tried, before s ubmitting to your yoke. Not if you are well advised, the contest not being an equal on e, with honour as the prize and shame as the penalty, but a question of self-preservation and of not resisting those who are far stronger than y ou are. But we know that the fortune of war is sometimes more impartial than the disproportion of numbers might lead one to suppose; to submit i s to give ourselves over to despair, while action still preserves for us a hope that we may stand erect. Hope, danger's comforter, may be indulged in by those who have abundant resources, if not without loss at all events without ruin; but its nature is to be extravagant, and those who go so far as to put thei r all upon the venture see it in its true colours only when they are rui ned; but so long as the discovery would enable them to guard against it, it is never found wanting. Let not this be the case with you, who are w eak and hang on a single turn of the scale; nor be like the vulgar, who, abandoning such security as human means may still afford, when visible hopes fail them in extremity, turn to invisible, to prophecies and oracl es, and other such inventions thatdelude men with hopes to their destruc tion. You may be sure that we are as well aware as you of the difficul ty of contending against your power and fortune, unless the terms be equ al. But we trust that the gods may grant us fortune as good as yours, si nce we are just men fighting against unjust, and that what we want in po wer will be made up by the alliance of the Lacedaem... |