From : Bob Armstrong Subject : Re: [nycjunto-discuss] Re: Friedman editorial (NYT: 2003/03/19) Date : Mon, 24 Mar 2003 08:33:35 -0500 To : Malcolm , Your comments on the UN are the most cogent I have recently heard , particularly your comments on representation proportional to dues . However , in this case , I think it is clear that the UN was transparently reflecting the opinions of the world's populations , and the gross dishonesty , distortion and warmongering by US was clear to all with access to media beyond the American mainstream . Some general thoughts expressed in a post on the LPNY discussion group are below : [LPNY DISCUSS] George Jr Bush makes US Rogue Nation ( http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lpny_discuss/message/13031 ) On Fri,  7 Mar 2003 15:12:16 -0800, James Lesczynski wrote: > Bob Armstrong wrote: > > I challenged the guy that I wanted to test his ability to think logically > > to give me a definition of "Rogue State" that excludes US if the Bush > > Bastards ignores the overwhelming voice of the world and the global > > democracy embodied , despite its flaws , in the United Nations . > I am fully opposed to the war with Iraq, but the fact that the UN is > also against it is irrelevant, IMHO. There is certainly nothing > resembling democracy embodied in the UN. Who elected the members? > It's a conference of thugs and strongmen. We might as well be talking > about the democracy embodied in the meeting of the heads of the > major Families at the end of "The Godfather". There is a lot of truth in your comparison of the UN being like a meeting of the heads of the Mafia Families . But on that level , it is a democracy ( with veto power ( insisted on by Stalin and Molotov ) by each original member ) . ( I made the observation at a Junto not long ago that the reason the totalitarian socialists , ie communists , had to seek world domination was that whatever the internal structure of countries might be , relations between them are either free market capitalistic - or war . ) Note , however , that at recent meetings the foreign ministers of the various countries have been directly representing their countries . The FMs in many if not most of the cases , are as directly selected as Powell . US has rejected out of hand the notion of a meeting of heads of state . My notions of optimal planetary governmental structure are strongly influenced by notions from topology , specifically notions of coverings of the set of all sets of a given domain . The hierarchical divisions from township to county to state to federation reflect the historical inevitability of such organization . ( The greatest title of a paper by the greatest professor I had at Northwestern U. , Donald T Campbell , was " A Fish Scale Model of Collective Omniscience" ; that's the flavor of notions without the subtlety of the topology . ) It makes no sense in this WWW age to expect the top level node to be empty . ( To make the point of that anachronistic notion , I am cc:ing a friend in England , and a friend in Russia on this note . I solicit their thoughts . ) We have to worry about all levels -- all are Mafias -- you've met our city council now ; you've seen it there . It's crazy to think that the RoW is less terrified by terrorists than we Americans are . But it is obvious that Iraq is already effectively occupied and contained and is becoming more so . But what is scaring the hell out of them ( and me ) , and is depressing commerce and markets around the world , is that the Bush Whackos are on the verge of destroying what democracy exists on a global level -- not just the representative council that meets here , but the massed voices of virtually the entire world including all but a couple of Iraq's immediate neighbors . If Bush ( and Blair unless parliament can take him out in a week ) cannot be stopped , it ushers in an period of USA hegemony that the USSR could have only dreamed of . We will have the entire world to fear because they , will have seen that they must . The USA will no longer be in any sense the world's policeman , it will ( Not in My Name ) be it's OverSeer . This is not about oil . Markets supply oil according to rules of choice , not force . This is about the life blood of the State : War itself . The argument was always that free democracies did not start wars of aggression because , with the individual being supreme , there was no gain for the State . But we have all seen that the Federal Government has become totally totalitarian in its Drug War , not giving a damn about votes within states . Now the world is seeing to its horror that democracy has lost its meaning here to a selected President with a monomaniacal vendetta , and 200,000 mouths and half a trillion dollars worth of hardware to feed and exercise at whatever cost to global stability and prosperity . -- On Thu, 20 Mar 2003 10:32:02 -0500, Malcolm Handte wrote: > Peter, been very busy lately, but one phrase popped out on a quick scan of > Friedman's piece; > > "... it had to be done with maximum U.N legitimacy" > > Current UN weapons proliferation (i.e., non-prolif.) chair: IRAQ > Current UN Human Rights Chair: LIBYA > > We ARE doing this war with the maximum possible UN legitimacy, i.e., zero. > > It's over. > > This emperor wears no more clothes than the League of Nations did. > > The US should immediately reduce its dues to one of the following: > > 20% (with Britain, France, Russia and Mainland China paying the same) if all > UN power resides in the five permanent seats -- palpably false; > > 10%, if half the power is in the permanent seats and the other half in the > other 10 security council seats (with Angola, Cameroon, etc. paying 5% of > the UN budget for that year whenever they take a rotation into one of those > seats); > > 5%, if the security council (as above) is half the power and the remaining > 175 odd (some extremely odd, not to mention microscopic) countries are the > other half. > > This last, I think, about represents the true spread of power in the > organization, and 5%, by the way, is about what our proportion of world > population is. > > But what about "One country, one vote"? Well, that is nothing more than the > Parliament of "rotten boroughs" which Britain got rid of in the 19th > century. We got to "one man, [or woman] one vote" by the middle of the 20th. > Why is "one political, unit one vote" still clung to in this bastion of > "progressive thinking"? > > Even a UN in which mainland China has 20% of the power and we 5% is probably > better than the current Jerkwater Jerkaround. > > And of course, the population champs, China & India, would only get that > power if they were willing to pay proportionate shares. > > Why, because -- I dare say -- every study of organizational decision making, > whether in the political or private sectors, places the granting of power > without responsibility high on the list of predictors for bad decision > making. > > And in this game responsibility comes in only two forms: blood and treasure. > > Now, it can be argued that our dues (about 25% now, I think) are about in > line now with our share of world GDP (ditto). Fine, but, again, if that's > what we are to pay, then we should get 25% of the voting shares. > > -- Malcolm Handte, March 20, 2003. > > ----Original Message Follows---- > From: PeterLJohnson@aol.com > To: PeterLJohnson@aol.com > Subject: Friedman editorial > Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 07:31:44 EST > > > D-Day > > March 19, 2003 > By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN > > President Bush is fond of cowboy imagery, so here's an > image that comes to mind about our pending war with Iraq. > In most cowboy movies the good guys round up a posse before > they ride into town and take on the black hats. We're doing > just the opposite. We're riding into Baghdad pretty much > alone and hoping to round up a posse after we get there. I > hope we do, because it may be the only way we can get out > with ourselves, and the town, in one piece. > > This column has argued throughout this debate that removing > Saddam Hussein and helping Iraq replace his regime with a > decent, accountable government that can serve as a model in > the Middle East is worth doing - not because Iraq threatens > us with its weapons, but because we are threatened by a > collection of failing Arab-Muslim states, which churn out > way too many young people who feel humiliated, voiceless > and left behind. We have a real interest in partnering with > them for change. > > This column has also argued, though, that such a preventive > war is so unprecedented and mammoth a task - taking over an > entire country from a standing start and rebuilding it - > that it had to be done with maximum U.N legitimacy and with > as many allies as possible. > > President Bush has failed to build that framework before > going to war. Though the Bush team came to office with this > Iraq project in mind, it has pursued a narrow, ideological > and bullying foreign policy that has alienated so many > people that by the time it wanted to rustle up a posse for > an Iraq war, too many nations were suspicious of its > motives. > > The president says he went the extra mile to find a > diplomatic solution. That is not true. On the eve of the > first gulf war, Secretary of State James Baker met face to > face in Geneva with the Iraqi foreign minister - a > last-ditch peace effort that left most of the world feeling > it was Iraq that refused to avoid war. This time the whole > world saw President Bush make one trip, which didn't quite > make it across the Atlantic, to sell the war to the only > two allies we had. This is not to excuse France, let alone > Saddam. France's role in blocking a credible U.N. > disarmament program was shameful. > > But here we are, going to war, basically alone, in the face > of opposition, not so much from "the Arab Street," but from > "the World Street." Everyone wishes it were different, but > it's too late - which is why this column will henceforth > focus on how to turn these lemons into lemonade. Our > children's future hinges on doing this right, even if we > got here wrong. > > The president's view is that in the absence of a U.N. > endorsement, this war will become "self-legitimating" when > the world sees most Iraqis greet U.S. troops as liberators. > I think there is a good chance that will play out. > > But wars are fought for political ends. Defeating Saddam is > necessary but not sufficient to achieve those ends, which > are a more progressive Iraq and a world with fewer > terrorists and terrorist suppliers dedicated to destroying > the U.S., so Americans will feel safer at home and abroad. > We cannot achieve the latter without the former. Which > means we must bear any burden and pay any price to make > Iraq into the sort of state that fair-minded people across > the world will see and say: "You did good. You lived up to > America's promise." > > To maximize our chances of doing that, we need to patch > things up with the world. Because having more allied > support in rebuilding Iraq will increase the odds that we > do it right, and because if the breach that has been opened > between us and our traditional friends hardens into > hostility, we will find it much tougher to manage both Iraq > and all the other threats down the road. That means the > Bush team needs an "attitude lobotomy" - it needs to get > off its high horse and start engaging people on the World > Street, listening to what's bothering them, and also > telling them what's bothering us. > > Some 35 years ago Israel won a war in Six Days. It saw its > victory as self-legitimating. Its neighbors saw it > otherwise, and Israel has been trapped in the Seventh Day > ever since - never quite able to transform its dramatic > victory into a peace that would make Israelis feel more > secure. > > More than 50 years ago America won a war against European > fascism, which it followed up with a Marshall Plan and > nation-building, both a handout and a hand up - in a way > that made Americans welcome across the world. Today is a > D-Day for our generation. May our leaders have the wisdom > of their predecessors from the Greatest Generation. --  Bob Armstrong -- http://CoSy.com -- 212-285-1864 Ultimate Computing Environment :  http://cosy.com/K/CoSy.htm A WTC vision : http://cosy.com/CoSy/ConicAllConnect/                  2003/03/21 11:27:42 PM ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> Your own Online Store Selling our Overstock. http://us.click.yahoo.com/rZll0B/4ftFAA/46VHAA/TDfwlB/TM ---------------------------------------------------------------------~-> To Post a message, send it to: nycjunto-discuss@eGroups.com To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: nycjunto-discuss-unsubscribe@eGroups.com Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/