The following is an archived copy of a message sent to a Discussion List run by the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
Views expressed in this archived message are those of the author, not of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
[Main archive index/search] [List information] [Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]
[ Presenting plain-text part of multi-format email ] mr salih forgive me. i am trying to understand the logic of your points of rebuttal. 1) i suspect your first sentence is stated jocularly, in the same sense that an american father may tell his child "i brought you into this world, and i can take you out of it", followed by hearty laughter. it is understood that threat is indeed absurd. so i will allow you your humor. then you go on to describe an america that resolves differences amongst competing groups by peaceful means and , as you say, "to the mutual benefit of those groups". yes of course, the american declaration of independence and constitution are two extraordinary documents that provide the philosophical and humanist underpinnings that allow for fair and equitable and peaceful resolution of competing issues. while occasionally these may be interpreted parochially, they more often than not have a universal appeal. also the sense of these documents, as an american sees them, is that they ought to function as well in america's dealings with other cultures and other nations. the sense of mutual interest is appealing and compelling... and even if other nations' interests and "american interests" are "mutually" exclusive, some efforts at peaceful resolution should be permitted and mediation by international organizations welcomed without ultimatums . should american interests not invalidate all others? do you see that? or should the United States be crowned a Caesar to and over the world then all others can indeed " render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's" mark 12:17. you mentioned caesar. perhaps you are correct about this kindly "hegemon". you really think the non-english speaking folks should simply accept that fact? how do we best convince them? 2) the american justice of the constitution and bill of rights, of the declaration of independence and magna charta took form exclusively of dialectic materialism and marxist philosophies---geez, i also don't know what any of that means--- . should george bush, on the american side at least, not pay proper respect to these and work within their constraints. he may invoke his god and initiate crusades, but is that not contrary to the humanism of these documents? the american democracy has been transformed effectively into a one-party system, but then that is considerd good in order to protect and expand "american interests"...there is a certain club-like exclusivity to that expression...he clearly has the help and admiration of many arabs like you...i am tempted to join your club, but, to paraphrase another Marx,..." i would not join a club that would have me as member" 3) i do not understand any portion of this paragraph. please try again, some of us are indeed confused! oh yes , it is difficult for me to discuss a post-saddam future when the scenario must include foreign occupation, a foreign military governor and a new mutassarrifa in the middle east. pleasefogive me for not joining that discussion. tony _______________________________________________ Sent via the discussion list of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq. To unsubscribe, visit http://lists.casi.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/casi-discuss To contact the list manager, email casi-discuss-admin@lists.casi.org.uk All postings are archived on CASI's website: http://www.casi.org.uk