Job Discussion Forums

[johnslat]

Dear Paul in Saudi,
So you think "the only remaining superpower" should also be a superhero, going about the world, righting wrongs, retifying injustices, and, in short, being that too oft used phrase: the world's policeman. Alright, let's assume that's the correct course of action. Then, of course,
President Bush would/should lose your vote for NOT invading places such as Burma and North Korea - and any other nation whose leaders are abusing their own people. Of course, if the USA did embark on such an adventure, one has to wonder where the list would end. There are certainly plenty of countries about the globe that could qualify. There's also the fact that, as collateral damage, a goodly number of innocents, both combatants and non-combatants, would suffer injury and death. But let's also take a look at how the USA's "follow-up" is proceeding in the places where we did invade: Afghanistan and Iraq. How's the "nation-building" going? Well, from all reports, not so great. In Afghanistan, the UN is on the verge of pulling out and - well, here's a link to the latest:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&ncid=578&e=19&u=/nm/20031212/ts_nm/afghan_assembly_dc

and in Iraq, here's another link:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=540&e=4&u=/ap/20031212/ap_on_re_mi_ea/israel_iraq_1

Of special interest in that last story, I find the quote from the Israeli military expert most notable:

"They are already doing things that we have been doing for years to no avail, like demolishing buildings ... like closing off villages in barbed wire," Van Creveld said. "The Americans are coming here to try to mimic all kinds of techniques, but it's not going to do them any good."

In Iraq, the Americans have a more difficult task than Israel's in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, Van Creveld said. Iraq is larger, the borders are open and there is almost unlimited access to arms.

"I don't see how on earth they (the U.S.) can win. I think this is going to end the same way Vietnam did," Van Creveld said. "They are going to flee the country hanging on the strings of helicopters," he added, referring to the 1973 U.S. departure from Saigon."

Regards,
John

[Paul in Saudi]

Yes the world is a scary place with lots of evil. I simply think good men have an obligation to protect the weak.

While I understand your argument of let them die, I'm rich and don't care I don't buy into it.

I suppose it is a matter of morality.

[johnslat]

Dear Paul in Saudi,
"Good men have an obligation to protect the weak".
I'm not so sure that President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Pearle, Karl Rove, etc. are what I'd call "good men". Neither do I think that they went into Iraq "to protect the weak." However, on an individual basis, you certainly can and should do all that you can to protect the weak. Hope you're so doing; it's always good to practice what you preach.
However, it's not always so good to misquote. You wrote, in reference to my posting, I think:

"I understand your argument of let them die, I'm rich and don't care I don't buy into it."

Now that takes brass - first of all to claim that this was the argument I was making, and then to mount your moral high horse by writing this:

"I suppose it is a matter of morality."

Paul in Saudi, I'll be more than happy to match my morality and/or ethics against yours any day of the week.
Regards,
John

[MacMahon]

I quote:

"As the guy in Spiderman said, "With great power comes great responsibility." History has given those of us in the FIrst World a lot of power."


Spiderman? First World?

I'm glad my lecturers were human. Maybe your "Spidey sense" can solve more of the worlds mess with less insulting terms such as "First World" and the like. Thanks Captin America... and hey... Keep up the good work!

[Paul in Saudi]

Well, now that I have your attention ...

No I do see it as morality. For too long too many people in the rich world have hidden behind any rhetorical fig leaf to avoid getting involved in stopping rapes, murders and other atrocities around the world.

Those who opposed the American intervention in Yugoslavia let Srebrenica happen. Those who opposed the Coalition invasion of Iraq let mass graves fill to overflowing.

Why did high-minded people choose to ignore the screams for help? Some for petty political reasons. Some out of a desire to earn even more money by trading for bloody money. Some out of a desire for personal peace that outweighed their own sense of obligation toward their fellowman.

All in all these are reprehensible reasons. Unworthy of an honorable man, no matter his gender.

The strong have an obligation to help the weak, to oppose evil. Sorry if you don't like George Bush, neither do I. But History has given us the chance to fight against Bush or Hussain. I would choose to expend my efforts against Hussain.

No the American effort is not perfect, but with your help it could be made better. No work of man is perfect. In the real world we have to choose between the imperfect right and the imperfect wrong.

It was Eric Blair (George Orwell) who enraged his liberal friends by pointing out the objective fact that pacifism aided fascism. The same is true in our age.

We face great evil. Those who will not oppose it are actively supporting it.

I would add they are doing it with very finely-polished rhetoric. Pretty words do not change ugly facts. Civilization is at war, we must destroy those who would kill and enslave us.

[guty]

[quote="MacMahon"]I quote:
with less insulting terms such as "First World" and the like[/quote]

McMahon,
can you please explain why you find that term insulting?

[MacMahon]

Well my man, I would ask "first" in what firstly?
It has a colonial stench about it. Then there is the Tribes and "Super Tribes" aspect it clearly promotes. What may put one country/countries ahead of another, by way of technology and order, does not in turn mean it/they is or are deserving of such tiltles as "First World".

Who is second then and why? Then who would be third and why? And what of the inhabitants of those countries? Are they in turn "second world citizens?" It is a divisive term in nature and breeds xenophobia and conceit I feel.

As Spiderman said:

"The use of the term "First world" is wrong"

And Professor X:

"Can't we just all get along? Mutant and non Mutant alike? First world is WRONG"


Peace in the Middle East...

[MacMahon]

And Malcom X....

Ahh, we'll save that for another day.

[johnslat]

Dear Paul in Saudi,
I must admit I like your idealism. I don't, however, think the current USA administation shares it. As I mentioned, the invasion of Iraq did not, in my opinion, take place for noble, humanitarian motives. But let's get down to specifics - just what are YOU doing to help suffering humanity? You certainly seem to talk a good fight:

" History has given us the chance to fight against Bush or Hussain. I would choose to expend my efforts against Hussain."

" . . . we must destroy those who would kill and enslave us."

And you mentioned Eric Blair, also a personal hero of mine. He went to Spain to assist actively in the fight against Fascism; are you planning to head north to fight the good fight? You see, talk is cheap and it's deeds, not words, that count. Or is your morality of the vicarious sort, in that you are staunchly opposed to evil, but are content to let others do the actual heavy lifting? Mr. Blair, it should be noted, became rather disillusioned during his time in Catalonia by all the political machinations that he observed on the Republican side. He witnessed how the Communist Party allied itself with right wing socialists and liberals to crush the POUM, with the standard "communist" accusation that anyone to the left of them were Trotskyists and therefore fascist traitors. I think it's almost always a mistake to "trust politicians"; they will usually mask their self-serving, ignoble ends under a facade of high-minded virtue and principled righteousness. Have you ever read " Candide"? If not, may I recommend it - a book written by a man (Voltaire) wiser than I and, I dare say, than even you? Saving the world is something even Spiderman can't accomplish, but we can all "cultivate our own gardens". So, how does your garden grow?
Regards,
John

[Paul in Saudi]

I am shocked, shocked, so many literate people on this board are unfamiliar with the philosophical works of the American author Stan Lee. Don't they teach the classics in school anymore?

The last time I heard a serious objection to the use of the term "First World" was in a wee-wee contest between American Trotskyites and CPUSA types. They were into that sort of thing in the '70s and '80s. Not that that is important.

And as for myself? I am now forty-five years old and had my fights (Bolivia and Panama). I am afraid it is a young man's business. I wish I could be there. My nephew, I am pleased to say is planning to follow in my bootprints.

It was Samuel Pepys who pointed out that "Every man thinks less of himself if he was not a soldier."

Still I do my bit, I give blood, donate to the Shrine Hospitals and Save the Children. My wife is an easy mark for all the local charities in Panama.

Oh, but I suppose you enquiry was just an ad hominem.

OK, let me return the favor. What have you done lately to make the world a better place?

[johnslat]

Dear Paul in Saudi,
Well, I'd say the "ad hominem" began with you:
"While I understand your argument of let them die, I'm rich and don't care I don't buy into it.
I suppose it is a matter of morality."
Now, as to what I've done lately to make the world a better place, well -
I'm not sure. Besides, I'm not trying to make the WORLD a better place, just my little corner of it. The problem is - one never knows for certain the far-reaching consequences of one's actions. I don't, for example, donate to groups such as "Save the Children" because, in my opinion, they're badly organized, administratively top-heavy and have confused goals. I prefer to do my "donating" on a one-to-one basis. That way, at least I know the recipient is getting 100 cents of every dollar. At the moment, here in Santa Fe, I'm "sponsoring " 4 kids as a "Big Brother", which, to be quite honest, may be too many because I've found that it's taking up a lot more of my time (and money) than I'd anticipated. I have put a Iranian friend through medical school (he and his family now reside in Kentucky where he practices internal medicine) and am currently putting another friend through grad school in archaeology at Oklahoma University. I'm volunteering one evening a week at a local "free clinic", doing "administrative stuff". And while I'm not sure if you'd consider it "making the world a better place", I'm actively involved with the Howard Dean campaign and recently gave a talk at a major rally here. Oh, in addition I'm (funnily enough, for an agnostic) helping out with Sunday school at St John's Lutheran Church. As an AA member I also have 3 "sponsees" who need attention (and occasionally more material help) every so often. I also do counseling (again associated with AA) two nights a week at the local RAP (Recovery of Alcoholics) program here. Is all or any of this "making the world a better place"? Perhaps, but that's not my primary motive for doing it, though it may be a nice spin-off. Nope I'm doing this stuff because I'm selfish: it makes me feel good. Since you put "lately", I've omitted my Viet Nam Marine Corps experience, but then I'm also quite sure that didn't help make the world a better place anyway.
I'm 60 years old, by the way, and while I'm very familar with the works of Stan Lee, I regard superheroes as pure fantasy.
Regards,
John

[Truth Hurts]

I don't know what it is, my upbringing, genetics, mindset, emotional state or whatever, but I always kinda cringe when I hear people meticulously going about impressing on others their "good deeds" or acts of infinite generosity in the grand cosmos of things.

Each to his own, I suppose...

TH

[johnslat]

Dear Truth Hurts,
" I don't know what it is, my upbringing, genetics, mindset, emotional state or whatever, but always kinda cringe when I hear people meticulously going about impressing on others their "good deeds" or acts of infinite generosity in the grand cosmos of things. "
You don't know what it is? Gee, that's easily explained. You're simply a much more modest, humble guy who shuns vainglorious boasting of his many noble acts. Of course, I hope you won't mind if I point out that both Paul and I were responding to specific questions, brought on by (in my case) what I saw as Paul's too generalized love of suffering humanity as a whole. And perhaps you missed this part as well:

" . . . I'm doing this stuff because I'm selfish: it makes me feel good."

Now I know you're much, much too reticient to publish a list of what I'm sure are your many estimable acts ( How do I know that - Why, because you told us; you're proud of your modesty, and rightly so). But I hope you can find it in your heart to pity and forgive us lesser mortals.
Regards,
John

[Truth Hurts]

John

Oh, Ok I get it. So you want to pass yourself off as a 'modest' philantropist.

Actually, it's not the modest/vainglorious dichotomy that struck me it's the I'm-an-altruitsic-agnostic-that-has-a-morbid-hangup-with-organized-religion discourse that I found intriguing.

As I said, each to his own...

TH

[johnslat]

Dear Truth Hurts,
What? Me modest? Not hardly. I think I'm pretty darn good, especially when I look over the competition. And "philanthropist"? Nope again. Anything I do that could be construed as "philantrophy", I do only because it makes me feel good. To me, that sounds a lot more like selfishness than altruism. A "hang-up" with organized religion"? Nope, yet again. I'm all in favor of whatever helps each person get through the night. If it's "organized religion" for some, then that's just jim dandy. It doesn't work for me personally, but hurrah for those it does. I await, with eager anticipation, your next broadside. Fire away, Mr. Gridley.
Regards,
John