Comments for hawktraining http://www.dougjohnston.net/blog Wed, 08 Sep 2010 02:45:58 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7.1 hourly 1 Comment on Letter to America | Jürgen Habermas by mitya http://www.dougjohnston.net/blog/?p=88&cpage=1#comment-83 mitya Tue, 31 May 2005 04:57:00 +0000 http://www.dougjohnston.net/blog/?p=88#comment-83 thanks for your reply (and comments). i can take some of your points on board, but my problem was with less the evidence Habermas marshals than the conclusions he draws that i have a problem with - there's an air of hypocrisy there.<br/><br/>i do have a problem with the "more people died" argument, first because that's one of those "statistics" that is difficult to verify and highly subject to fiddling - who exactly do you count against whose total (but let's leave that aside). <br/><br/>Second, because war is a just bad thing, period, and anything can happen once it starts. I have a hard time calling the US conduct of the war - war constructed narrowly - an "atrocity." "War crime" doesn't mean a "criminal war" - war crime means doing things in a war that go beyond the pale of what the international community has deemed acceptable in those, the least acceptable of circumstances.<br/><br/>If you believe the US has systematically engaged in atrocities, then I would argue that you yourself are complicit, by failing to either a) use any means necessary to remove an immoral regime, or b) leaving the country. A little harsh, I know - and nothing personal, of course - but I think we have to be proportional in our language as well. One can compare Bush to Hitler for effect, but he still has some way to go before that's truly a reasonable comparison. thanks for your reply (and comments). i can take some of your points on board, but my problem was with less the evidence Habermas marshals than the conclusions he draws that i have a problem with - there’s an air of hypocrisy there.

i do have a problem with the “more people died” argument, first because that’s one of those “statistics” that is difficult to verify and highly subject to fiddling - who exactly do you count against whose total (but let’s leave that aside).

Second, because war is a just bad thing, period, and anything can happen once it starts. I have a hard time calling the US conduct of the war - war constructed narrowly - an “atrocity.” “War crime” doesn’t mean a “criminal war” - war crime means doing things in a war that go beyond the pale of what the international community has deemed acceptable in those, the least acceptable of circumstances.

If you believe the US has systematically engaged in atrocities, then I would argue that you yourself are complicit, by failing to either a) use any means necessary to remove an immoral regime, or b) leaving the country. A little harsh, I know - and nothing personal, of course - but I think we have to be proportional in our language as well. One can compare Bush to Hitler for effect, but he still has some way to go before that’s truly a reasonable comparison.

]]> Comment on Letter to America | Jürgen Habermas by Doug http://www.dougjohnston.net/blog/?p=88&cpage=1#comment-82 Doug Mon, 30 May 2005 18:04:00 +0000 http://www.dougjohnston.net/blog/?p=88#comment-82 I agree that its disturbing that habermas didn't cite those killings especially when he is using the argument that breaking international law should be the main MO for military action. The thing though, is that he is not arguing against action in iraq. He is arguing against the united states going after it without the backing of the UN, and without a solid plan of how to govern/manage post-hussein iraq, and arguing against the fact that the bush administration is using "domestic concerns" and flip-flopping arguments to justify attacking iraq without UN backing. he does metion the "obvious reasons" why regime change is desirable in iraq (a possible reference to the gassings?), but his argument using International Law should have led him to cite the gassings (in the 1980's against iraqis and iranians) since chemical warfare has been banned in war since 1925 and since its widely accepted that hussein attempted genocide on the iraqi kurds.<br/>I dont think his postion is angelic either... i didn't think it would be since he is coming from a background in critical theory (of marxist decent) and commenting on the largely unpopular actions of the united states. Though in his defense i dont see that he is trying to say future atrocities are what's important, what he is saying is that if someone breaks international law we cant just go in there and bomb them, we have to weigh ALL the consequences of the actions as an international community and we must act so that the actions do not create a greater atrocity than what has already occured. The iraq conflict is a great example in which already more people have died than in the gassings on the kurds and iranians, and on sept. 11 (which iraq had nothing to do with anyway) and the continued turmoil it has created in iraq which many say will spread to neighboring countries. Habermas uses the term "proportionality" to describe this mode of action, and the united states has not acted with porportionality in any way. Additinoally, Habermas could have cited all the ways in which the US has broken internaional law, and could continue to do so with the prison abuse scnadals, etc. I agree that its disturbing that habermas didn’t cite those killings especially when he is using the argument that breaking international law should be the main MO for military action. The thing though, is that he is not arguing against action in iraq. He is arguing against the united states going after it without the backing of the UN, and without a solid plan of how to govern/manage post-hussein iraq, and arguing against the fact that the bush administration is using “domestic concerns” and flip-flopping arguments to justify attacking iraq without UN backing. he does metion the “obvious reasons” why regime change is desirable in iraq (a possible reference to the gassings?), but his argument using International Law should have led him to cite the gassings (in the 1980’s against iraqis and iranians) since chemical warfare has been banned in war since 1925 and since its widely accepted that hussein attempted genocide on the iraqi kurds.
I dont think his postion is angelic either… i didn’t think it would be since he is coming from a background in critical theory (of marxist decent) and commenting on the largely unpopular actions of the united states. Though in his defense i dont see that he is trying to say future atrocities are what’s important, what he is saying is that if someone breaks international law we cant just go in there and bomb them, we have to weigh ALL the consequences of the actions as an international community and we must act so that the actions do not create a greater atrocity than what has already occured. The iraq conflict is a great example in which already more people have died than in the gassings on the kurds and iranians, and on sept. 11 (which iraq had nothing to do with anyway) and the continued turmoil it has created in iraq which many say will spread to neighboring countries. Habermas uses the term “proportionality” to describe this mode of action, and the united states has not acted with porportionality in any way. Additinoally, Habermas could have cited all the ways in which the US has broken internaional law, and could continue to do so with the prison abuse scnadals, etc.

]]> Comment on Letter to America | Jürgen Habermas by mitya http://www.dougjohnston.net/blog/?p=88&cpage=1#comment-81 mitya Mon, 30 May 2005 03:49:00 +0000 http://www.dougjohnston.net/blog/?p=88#comment-81 here's where i make myself unpopular: i'm not convinced that habermas' arguments are entirely sound. he supported the NATO intervention in serbia because of the crimes against humanity. yet no one - that i've read anyone -disputes the fact that saddam hussein used poison gas to kill thousands of iraqis in the 90s. the only logical escape i see from this conundrum is if habermas is trying to say it's the danger of future atrocities is what's important, and that ones actually committed in the past get ignored.<br/><br/>i think you're fooling yourself if you think there's not more than a dollop of garden variety anti-americanism / anti-right prejudice in this. not that i have a problem with that, let's just not pretend his personal position is angelic.<br/><br/>the last paragraph seems right on to me - although it sounds that habermas doesn't buy it. here’s where i make myself unpopular: i’m not convinced that habermas’ arguments are entirely sound. he supported the NATO intervention in serbia because of the crimes against humanity. yet no one - that i’ve read anyone -disputes the fact that saddam hussein used poison gas to kill thousands of iraqis in the 90s. the only logical escape i see from this conundrum is if habermas is trying to say it’s the danger of future atrocities is what’s important, and that ones actually committed in the past get ignored.

i think you’re fooling yourself if you think there’s not more than a dollop of garden variety anti-americanism / anti-right prejudice in this. not that i have a problem with that, let’s just not pretend his personal position is angelic.

the last paragraph seems right on to me - although it sounds that habermas doesn’t buy it.

]]> Comment on Letter to America | Jürgen Habermas by ultraist transmogrifier http://www.dougjohnston.net/blog/?p=88&cpage=1#comment-79 ultraist transmogrifier Sun, 29 May 2005 21:35:00 +0000 http://www.dougjohnston.net/blog/?p=88#comment-79 that's sensical. and obvious. that’s sensical. and obvious.

]]> Comment on what we’ve been making… by ultraist transmogrifier http://www.dougjohnston.net/blog/?p=74&cpage=1#comment-72 ultraist transmogrifier Mon, 23 May 2005 05:25:00 +0000 http://www.dougjohnston.net/blog/?p=74#comment-72 wow i love the tree. thats how i imagine before you tell me. <br/><br/>connected we are *. wow i love the tree. thats how i imagine before you tell me.

connected we are *.

]]> Comment on what we’ve been making… by Jon Roberts http://www.dougjohnston.net/blog/?p=74&cpage=1#comment-71 Jon Roberts Fri, 20 May 2005 17:26:00 +0000 http://www.dougjohnston.net/blog/?p=74#comment-71 Nice ART.<br/>WWW.FYIONLINE.BLOGSPOT.COM Nice ART.
http://WWW.FYIONLINE.BLOGSPOT.COM

]]> Comment on WHAT IS ANARCHO-SYNDICALISM? by Doug http://www.dougjohnston.net/blog/?p=69&cpage=1#comment-68 Doug Wed, 18 May 2005 15:16:00 +0000 http://www.dougjohnston.net/blog/?p=69#comment-68 an international conversation! Perú, Russia, the UK/Spain/Holland, the United States... I love the internet!<br/><br/>Yes i also agree its impossible. The more i thought about it last night, the more i was able to find lots of situations and needs in which people would most likely develop some sort of authoritative body, or series of them, which would in all likelyhood have some sort of heirarchical structure to it. Conflicts would arise and i dont have enough faith in humans to believe that a truly egalitarian social self-rule wouldn't produce brutal/barbaric/cruel ways of dealing with even the smallest infractions against laws, either societal laws, or personal moral codes. Humans are an extremely diverse group especially in thought and convictions, and this kind of utopian proposal seems to rely too heavily on a hightened level of agreement amongst all people.<br/><br/>Thats interesting... higher global standard of living represents a movement towards socialism. That's hard to believe when looking at the agenda of the bush administration. Maybe it is socialism in some sense... but dissolving governmental power into corporate control. If corporations and private institutions become the ones in control, and the state eventually dissappears, is that some form of socialism, or is it like the highest, most evolved for of capitalsim. Why can't marx come back and help us out with these questions...<br/>i need to read more Marx! an international conversation! Perú, Russia, the UK/Spain/Holland, the United States… I love the internet!

Yes i also agree its impossible. The more i thought about it last night, the more i was able to find lots of situations and needs in which people would most likely develop some sort of authoritative body, or series of them, which would in all likelyhood have some sort of heirarchical structure to it. Conflicts would arise and i dont have enough faith in humans to believe that a truly egalitarian social self-rule wouldn’t produce brutal/barbaric/cruel ways of dealing with even the smallest infractions against laws, either societal laws, or personal moral codes. Humans are an extremely diverse group especially in thought and convictions, and this kind of utopian proposal seems to rely too heavily on a hightened level of agreement amongst all people.

Thats interesting… higher global standard of living represents a movement towards socialism. That’s hard to believe when looking at the agenda of the bush administration. Maybe it is socialism in some sense… but dissolving governmental power into corporate control. If corporations and private institutions become the ones in control, and the state eventually dissappears, is that some form of socialism, or is it like the highest, most evolved for of capitalsim. Why can’t marx come back and help us out with these questions…
i need to read more Marx!

]]> Comment on WHAT IS ANARCHO-SYNDICALISM? by mitya http://www.dougjohnston.net/blog/?p=69&cpage=1#comment-67 mitya Wed, 18 May 2005 10:39:00 +0000 http://www.dougjohnston.net/blog/?p=69#comment-67 an interesting post, doug, if a bit long for this reader.<br/><br/>i was glad that you worked around to the problem of leadership and managers. the kind of utopian society that most varieties of socialism - A-S among them - posit political and economic egalitarianism. i would argue that, apart from a few periods of exceptional times and exceptional individuals, this is impossible. by nature some people are natural leaders and motivators and i would probably want them "in charge" over someone who lacked those qualities.<br/><br/>at the same time, without incredibly strong institutional and societal (moral) constraints, the privileges and advantages that accrue to leaders will naturally corrupt.<br/><br/>i don't think that any of these utopian socialist projects are feasible, or even that societies are particularly progressing toward them. the best we can hope for - and for the most part, not a bad option - are capitalism with socialist elements. although "the revolution" may not happen in my lifetime, i would happily bet that inequality eventually will eventually undermine even the most democratic capitalist societies. an interesting post, doug, if a bit long for this reader.

i was glad that you worked around to the problem of leadership and managers. the kind of utopian society that most varieties of socialism - A-S among them - posit political and economic egalitarianism. i would argue that, apart from a few periods of exceptional times and exceptional individuals, this is impossible. by nature some people are natural leaders and motivators and i would probably want them “in charge” over someone who lacked those qualities.

at the same time, without incredibly strong institutional and societal (moral) constraints, the privileges and advantages that accrue to leaders will naturally corrupt.

i don’t think that any of these utopian socialist projects are feasible, or even that societies are particularly progressing toward them. the best we can hope for - and for the most part, not a bad option - are capitalism with socialist elements. although “the revolution” may not happen in my lifetime, i would happily bet that inequality eventually will eventually undermine even the most democratic capitalist societies.

]]> Comment on WHAT IS ANARCHO-SYNDICALISM? by ilisu http://www.dougjohnston.net/blog/?p=69&cpage=1#comment-66 ilisu Wed, 18 May 2005 08:18:00 +0000 http://www.dougjohnston.net/blog/?p=69#comment-66 i loved reading that!!<br/><br/>someone once told me socialism will happen naturally, and we are slowly evolving towards it as the living standard rises for everyone.<br/>as slow process, and not lacking of the education and the awareness you mentioned.<br/>indeed, violence is out of the question. i loved reading that!!

someone once told me socialism will happen naturally, and we are slowly evolving towards it as the living standard rises for everyone.
as slow process, and not lacking of the education and the awareness you mentioned.
indeed, violence is out of the question.

]]> Comment on WHAT IS ANARCHO-SYNDICALISM? by ultraist transmogrifier http://www.dougjohnston.net/blog/?p=69&cpage=1#comment-65 ultraist transmogrifier Tue, 17 May 2005 23:52:00 +0000 http://www.dougjohnston.net/blog/?p=69#comment-65 i was reading marx's "11 tesis of feuerbach" today. he emphasizes how the most important about human experience is the fact that it can be described as a practice that is displayed in "el conjunto de las relaciones sociales".<br/><br/>i remembered why i used to love him. i was reading marx’s “11 tesis of feuerbach” today. he emphasizes how the most important about human experience is the fact that it can be described as a practice that is displayed in “el conjunto de las relaciones sociales”.

i remembered why i used to love him.

]]>