[alicebot-aiethics] The Peace Platform
Noel Bush
alicebot-aiethics@list.alicebot.org
Fri, 14 Sep 2001 12:42:20 +0400
Rich and others have pointed out that not all of my points are that
good; for instance, I seem to be giving excessive praise to the US
military's behavior during the 60s -- clearly they did a lot of awful
things then, too, but my general point was meant to be in support of a
strong Federal militia.
It also appears that I've oversimplified the "religious war" view. I
should say that for *some* this appears to be that way, but for quite a
few Arab and Muslim nations this is no such thing and they appear to be
ready to lend support to find the terrorists who did this (from what
I've been reading). The general point I hoped to make is that the fact
that some people view this as a religious conflict makes it all the more
difficult.
I guess I should read up on what this "threat condition Delta" means
about free speech.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: alicebot-aiethics-admin@list.alicebot.org
> [mailto:alicebot-aiethics-admin@list.alicebot.org] On Behalf
> Of Tamara Thompson
> Sent: Friday 14 September 2001 8:22
> To: alicebot-aiethics@list.alicebot.org
> Subject: Re: [alicebot-aiethics] The Peace Platform
>
>
> Interesting and good points. Noel, 'have to point out that
> condition 'threat level delta' probably means that some
> amount of caution in speech should be exercised.
>
> Am I the only one noticing this?
>
> CNN reports that the FBI went to AOL and Earthlink (at least
> those two) and requested revelation of information regarding
> purported terrorist email
> accounts. The providers denied installing 'Carnivore' but
> 'cooperated
> fully with the FBI'.
>
> I would never censor or relinquish free speech. But it does
> occur to me that to make the job of the investigators easier
> we might try to be careful not to provide any red herrings in
> our emails. Does that sound unfair?
>
> I'm censoring myself as I say this of course. <smile>
>
> All your points are very good. Thanks for sending that.
> Freedom of ideas is what this country has worked so hard to defend.
>
> Tamara
>
>
>
> Noel Bush wrote:
>
> > One point worth noting is that this "war", as such, has not
> suddenly
> > begun, but has been going on for quite a while. Who can
> say how far
> > back in history it's relevant to trace things -- one only needs ask
> > why many of the Arab and Muslim countries of the world are
> so angry to
> > start talking about all of the bloody battles that were fought on
> > their (and
> > others') land as part of the Cold War, which goes directly
> back to WWII,
> > and one may say that history would have been radically
> different without
> > Stalin and the terror of the Soviet regime, but one also
> must note that
> > the USSR lost millions of lives and largely won that war,
> and onward and
> > onward backward you may go and discover that "peace" is
> just the word
> > for "conflicts elsewhere in the world aren't perturbing my
> daily life
> > right now".
> >
> > During the so-called "Gulf War", I was very much opposed to
> the action
> > that the US was taking. It was barbaric and even moreso because of
> > the surreal, "virtual" nature of how the US-allied forces
> fought using
> > Nintendo-like technology, barely dirtying their hands, figuratively
> > speaking. I felt at the time that the focus ought to be on
> relieving
> > ourselves of the tremendous dependence on oil. Blood for
> oil was not
> > a just exchange.
> >
> > It's also true that the tremendous bulk and sophistication
> of the US
> > military was completely inadequate to defend against what
> happened in
> > NYC and DC. But my conclusion is not that military
> protection ought
> > to be disassembled, but rather reconfigured to
> realistically protect
> > against the threats which do exist. That's one of the most
> important
> > mandates for the government -- to protect its ordinary
> citizens. I'm
> > far more in favor of a military that is organized and trained to
> > protect its citizens, than I am in favor of a thin, minimal,
> > "decentralized", largely symbolic force...because all that
> the latter
> > means is that in dangerous times the defense will be left to more
> > vigilante-like groups. I do not want to see the radical
> militia groups
> > in the US on an equal footing with the US military; I would not
> > support a weakening of the military in exchange for a throwback
> > situation in which small cells enforce the type of justice they see
> > fit. One ought to remember that the power of the US
> military services
> > have in fact been of service within the nation's borders as well as
> > without, as for instance in the case in the 1960s when the
> > centuries-old violence against black citizens of our country was
> > addressed in some significant ways with no small help from the
> > military.
> >
> > It's admirable to suggest that the US ought to let go of
> the worship
> > of giant phallic skyscrapers and airplanes, and instead
> move "back to
> > the land", and there are plenty of reasons to pursue strategies for
> > city-building that reduce urban concentration and squandering of
> > resources in the service of making everything faster, bigger and
> > better. I'd love to see the day when it's considered a social crime
> > (if not a legal one) for a lone individual to be seen driving a
> > gas-guzzling SUV down the road to buy a gallon of milk.
> The US indeed
> > lays waste to the ecological balance in its own part of the
> world as
> > well as elsewhere. But in terms of the conflicts with other peoples
> > around the world, such strategies only suggest how to be "less
> > bothered", not how to live in peace.
> >
> > And in fact the "wired world" as it's called owes its existence to
> > this drive for "dominion over nature" as well as to the US
> military.
> > I'd be happy to trade technological progress for peace, but
> I wouldn't
> > go so far as to believe that "liberty and technology for
> all" will be
> > the descriptor of a world with more sane ecological practices.
> >
> > The danger to civil rights is one of the biggest risks in
> times like
> > this, and I remember well during the Gulf War when people of Arab
> > descent were discriminated against unfairly in the US. The
> US has a
> > particular sensitivity to issues of civil rights as it is guilty of
> > horrific crimes against humanity, against its own citizens,
> for which
> > it has thus far failed to make reparations. A huge part of the
> > population of the US still faces nearly insurmountable
> obstacles as a
> > result of these crimes, some of which continue today in modified,
> > apparently socially-palatable forms.
> >
> > Now, one of my classmates in college was a former Afghan "freedom
> > fighter". He described to me how he received very special
> treatment
> > from the US government: at immigration lines he was whisked to the
> > front, he was supported in attending a very expensive school, etc.
> > Presently I'm living in the nation (Russia) that attempted
> to conquer
> > his country, and which *still* has soldiers posted near the
> area, who
> > are still getting killed trying to prevent incursion of the Taliban
> > into Tadzhekistan. The US and Russia certainly share heavy
> blame for
> > the present situation. But my former classmate felt that
> his culture
> > and religion were under assault by the Western world. I found it
> > awful to imagine that he had killed people, and that he had been in
> > the midst of bloody fights in which his fellow countrymen
> were killed.
> > But what I found most significant was the cultural and religious
> > significance he attached to it.
> >
> > Right or wrong, the world is engaged in a sort of religious
> war. For
> > the radical Muslim part of the world (certainly not including all
> > people who practice Islam), this is "clear". For the US,
> which claims
> > itself to be above religion, this is an unutterable fact.
> The US is
> > in one way or another the present-day heir of the arrogance and
> > barbarism of the Christian crusaders who centuries ago felt
> it their
> > "duty to God" to Christianize the "heathen" world. This is
> certainly
> > not to say that Christianity itself is to blame, any more
> than Islam
> > is "to blame". But the value-set of this kind of
> imperialism is the
> > adopted heritage of the US, which feels that its "culture" of free
> > trade, consumerism for all, uplifting of the masses through
> > technology, etc., is the right solution for the whole
> world. This is
> > definitely the *focus* of anger for people whose countries
> have been
> > trampled by other much larger powers fighting over oil,
> trade access,
> > and so on. I do think it's possible to imagine a world in which
> > states identified as Islamic live in peace with states
> identified as
> > Jewish, Christian, Hindu, Buddhist and even "agnostic"...but I also
> > think that when one or another of those states have caused
> harm to the
> > other the religious differential is the natural first
> target of anger.
> >
> > All this makes for a real mess, because on one "side" you
> have people
> > who feel they're fighting a religious war, and on the other "side"
> > people who almost deny that there even is such a thing as religion
> > (except as something that is to be granted "freedom"). It
> would seem
> > that the US-Western-democratic side has substituted "liberty and
> > technology for all" in place of "Jesus Christ for all", without
> > realizing they're pushing the same doctrine. The "other side"
> > substitutes "Jihad" for "stop destroying our country", in an eerie
> > mirror-image. When a militant Muslim radical attacks a
> symbol of US
> > imperialism, he feels he is attacking a symbol of Western-Christian
> > imperialism. When a Western force attacks a Muslim nation,
> it feels
> > it is attacking a dangerous, "backward" radical element.
> >
> > All of this symbolism blurs everyone's sense of what
> they're doing.
> > How is it possible for someone to contemplate the destruction of
> > thousands of lives in a single day? Rhetoric -- "jihad" --
> makes it
> > so. How is it possible for someone to accept that they live in
> > "peace" when their own nation has killed thousands of
> innocent people
> > to protect that person's "way of life"? Rhetoric -- "democracy" --
> > makes it so. Rhetoric is religion, though religion need not be
> > rhetoric. The rhetoric against "religious fundamentalists"
> is just as
> > dangerous as the rhetoric *of* religious fundamentalists.
> >
> > But separate rhetoric from action, see them distinctly, and you see
> > that regardless of rhetoric thousands of people were
> murdered. Throw
> > away rhetoric and that murder is unjustifiable, every bit as
> > unjustifiable as the murders the US has committed in pursuit of the
> > propagation of its own "way of life". Whether that "way of
> life" is
> > the 1950s Corn Flakes style that we can all easily ridicule, or the
> > whitewashed "wired world" rhetoric of the dot-com generation that
> > preaches equality and prosperity through the spread of technologies
> > that trash the earth in their production, "way of life" is no
> > justification for murder on any side.
> >
> > Look beyond the rhetoric that equates to "this is our fault
> for being
> > so greedy" and note that thousands of people were killed. Some
> > organization planned this very well. That organization is
> guilty and
> > must be found, and stopped from doing anything like that in the
> > future. Any organization -- government or "terrorist", must be held
> > accountable by the world for its actions. The US
> government and other
> > governments have not been held accountable for all of
> theirs, but that
> > is no reason to say that a false sense of "peace" can be
> had simply by
> > balancing out the economic and ecological practices of the
> US. Either
> > the world permits this kind of terror or it doesn't. There
> is no such
> > thing as "peace" until such terror is stopped, on all sides. If
> > stopping this organization means that the US military and
> its allies
> > must put soldiers in Afghanistan or elsewhere, that is a
> fight worth
> > fighting. The war has always been going on, just not always at our
> > doorstep. One may pray for peace as well as pray for rain,
> and both
> > may be of some comfort, but elsewhere there is someone praying for
> > blood. Stop that person. Stop those people -- those who are
> > particularly responsible and would continue such terror. That may
> > mean killing them, and if so, let it be that way. That is one
> > real-world outcome of "justice". Accountability on all sides is
> > important. Maybe there are US oil executives who are just
> as guilty
> > of perpetrating heinous crimes. Let all be punished. But it's
> > impossible to prettify the situation into a simple wish for
> "peace".
> > Impossible.
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: alicebot-aiethics-admin@list.alicebot.org
> > > [mailto:alicebot-aiethics-admin@list.alicebot.org] On Behalf Of
> > > Richard Wallace
> > > Sent: Thursday 13 September 2001 7:34
> > > To: alicebot-aiethics@list.alicebot.org
> > > Subject: [alicebot-aiethics] The Peace Platform
> > >
> > >
> > > Quickly realizing that I am in a small minority in my own
> country, I
> > > thought it would be appropriate for me to articulate my feelings
> > > about the war and peace. I have a long history of
> opposing American
> > > military involvement overseas, beginning with the Vietnam
> War, which
> > > ended when I was 15. I was one of the few opposed to the Persian
> > > Gulf War, believing that sanction were not given enough time to
> > > work. As a long time member of the Libertarian party, I have
> > > always favored a reduction of the U.S. military. These ideas
> > > are not all new in response to the current crisis, but a
> > > summary of long held personal beliefs and values.
> > >
> > > Today in our Writer's Group at the Chapel we began to prepare a
> > > statement for Peace, but we were interrupted by a member
> who wanted
> > > to Bomb Them Back to the Stone Age and be the Policeman of the
> > > World. The mood changed and we couldn't finish the
> statement, so I
> > > decided to take another crack tonight:
> > >
> > > 1. Let's not concentrate office workers in gigantic towers, but
> > > spread them around many smaller facilities throughout cities and
> > > suburbs. 2. Let's not rely on jet travel so much. America
> made some
> > > bad choices in the past, when we sacrificed the railroads
> to build
> > > interstate highways and support jet travel. Rebuild the
> railroads
> > > and diversify our transportation options. 3. Stop driving
> so much.
> > > Telecommute more, and decrease our reliance on automotive
> > > transportation, and in turn oil. 4. Alternative energy
> sources like
> > > Wind and Solar need to be developed much more. Continued
> reliance
> > > on oil only increases the chance of conflict. 5. Decrease U.S.
> > > military involvement overseas. Let other nations settle
> > > their own conflicts without us. We don't have to be
> > > Policeman of the World. 6. The Wired World will help us
> > > decrease our reliance on fuel and transportation, and allow
> > > us to spread out and decentralize organizations. The recent
> > > burst of the Internet bubble does not invalidate the
> > > long-term potential for services such as home shopping.
> > > Investing in network and computer technology will liberate us
> > > from the hydrocarbon economy. 7. The Pentagon and the World
> > > Trade Center are powerful symbols of America. But they are
> > > also symbols from a time gone by. The Pentagon was built
> > > during World War II and oversaw the Cold War. But it is a
> > > symbol of an industrial age, an age of mechanized war between
> > > states. We should decentralize the military as much as
> > > possible to remove such high-profile targets. The World
> > > Trade Center too is a symbol of an age when Bigger was
> > > Better. The challenge to build the highest building in the
> > > world is an archetype of the age of extremes. It was an age
> > > before environmental impact studies, historical preservation,
> > > or archaeological studies of building sites in lower
> > > Manhattan. As evil as the destruction of these symbols was,
> > > we should ask whether the existence of such symbols is worth
> > > the price. 8. No outcome could be worse than the loss of
> > > civil liberties and human rights that have been built up over
> > > generations. We cannot sacrifice any of our civil rights in
> > > the name of tracking down and punishing terrorists. 9.
> > > Afghanistan is one likely target of military action. It
> > > should be remembered that Afghanistan has never been
> > > conquered, although the British and Russian both tried for
> > > centuries. Afghanistan destroyed the Soviet Union. The
> > > terrain is mountainous and the people are accustomed to
> > > fighting foreigners on their own soil. The last place in the
> > > world where America should be involved militarily is
> > > Afghanistan. 10. Pray for peace. Whether you stand for war
> > > or peace, please say a prayer for a peaceful outcome as soon
> > > as possible, with the smallest loss of life. Even if you
> > > disagree with every point above, you can't disagree that the
> > > pain and suffering ahead should be as limited as possible.
> > > If enough people pray for peace, it can be achieved.
> > >
> > > Thanks for listening.
> > > Rich
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > alicebot-aiethics mailing list alicebot-aiethics@list.alicebot.org
> > > http://list.alicebot.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/alicebot-aiethics
> > >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > alicebot-aiethics mailing list alicebot-aiethics@list.alicebot.org
> > http://list.alicebot.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/alicebot-aiethics
>
> _______________________________________________
> alicebot-aiethics mailing list alicebot-aiethics@list.alicebot.org
> http://list.alicebot.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/alicebot-aiethics
>