# Unitednationism, or, Temple of Turtle Bay



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

I never thought I would say it, but something more disturbing than the predictable strain of anti-Americanism on ehMac is the strength of the belief in a supranational, unelected body which holds as equivalent the worst tyrannies with the best democracies.

I am not mistaken in comparing it to a religious dogma, since its adherents, so numerous on the board, seem to believe in its unwavering moral superiority even as they eschew "absolutist" concepts like, well, morality.

They are repeatedly at a loss to explain how the blessing of China or Russia is equivalent to a good thing. Or how Sudan or Libya has the legitimacy of judging what is on the human rights agenda of the United Nations. 

Is the concept of legality = the right policy? Or even more puzzling, is legality = the right thing to do?

The legality of Clinton's NATO intervention in the Balkans, after Europeans decided to just watch the slaughter for a few years, was not approved by the United Nations--so was it wrong to go save more Muslims from being massacred by Serbs?

Having previously pointed out the operational bankruptcy of international law, I can point out something else about international law, too: it is morally bankrupt. But my challenge to this dogma is like insulting Allah in a mosque, apparently. In the narrative of Unitednationism, international law is never wrong; questioning it is apostasy; and insulting it is heresy.


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

I might add to the point further for clarification:

It may be useful to argue that the Iraq war may have been a bad thing for this and this reason. However, one of the flimsiest reasons possibly given against it is that it is "illegal". The existence of law does not make that law the arbiter of what is right, it makes it the arbiter of what is legal. This might--might I say, since I am really not convinced--make it illegal, but it does not prove the war was a bad policy or bad morally.

In short, this idea that international law is so righteous that it takes on a transcendental righteousness based on its own existence, this is a truly mad idea.


----------



## Paul O'Keefe (Jun 3, 2005)

Who, gotta love trolling.

If you can't see the good that United Nations does... the charity, the health programs, the declaration of human rights, the brokering of peace, I find it difficult that anyone here can show it to you.

Next thing you know you'll be complaining how the United Nations is a democracy.

If we didn't have he UN, I'm sure we would be in WWIV by now.

The UN is not the be all, and end of all things. They are not the ultimate government or law making body. They are a group representing nations all over the planet in a effort to promote peace and security.

If the UN didn't exist, international laws would still exist.

There is not ONE way, one culture, one set of laws that humanity lives by. We must respect our differences and find ways to live peacefully with each other, while helping our fellow man if they desire it. This is part of the role of the United Nations.

That being said all organizations of a certain size/level of power have to deal with beauracracy and corruption.


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

Paul O'Keefe said:


> Who, gotta love trolling.
> 
> If you can't see the good that United Nations does... the charity, the health programs, the declaration of human rights, the brokering of peace, I find it difficult that anyone here can show it to you.
> 
> ...



Please, this is not trolling, it is serious comment.

I never said the UN does NOTHING good, did I? But it's good to see you at least acknowledge that it is not beyond critique.

I have to object to your implying that the United Nations is a "democracy", though. A democracy of what, exactly? Did you elect your local member to the UN?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

planethoth,
The United Nations was founded to abolish war by replacing the rule of force with the rule of law.
The United Nations is in majority supported by all nations with the Bush Government being the exception.
By the UN, War is illegal except when it comes to self-defence or in conjunction with a UN resolution. The US, maintains that it can to "pre-emptive" strikes.
The UN is a young institution and stronger countries will try to bully their way around. 
The US used to abide for the most part by the UN but has had a shift of policy and is asserting American hegemony. 
This will/can only lead to other great super power defending their interest and the UN will die. China has started to rebuild it's navy/army/military because of such actions.
The League of Nations failed because countries preferred to act unilaterally - but even with a will to interfere in say Germany they could not have. The League of Nations mandate was to stop international aggression - not internal behaviour in a country.
The UN was born out of the League of Nations and it's charter/mandate does not make a distinction between dictatorship or democracy.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Planetoth, re your comment "The existence of law does not make that law the arbiter of what is right, it makes it the arbiter of what is legal.", I would tend to agree. At my trial for my Conscientious Objector status, the judge asked me what I would do if my appeal was denied, and would I then go to war. When I said no, he said, and I quote "Then we have the right to put you in jail." To this I replied, "You have the power to put me in jail, but not the right." I sense that this is somewhat of a synopsis of you aforementioned statement. If this is so, I would agree. Shalom.


----------



## Paul O'Keefe (Jun 3, 2005)

All institutions, governments, political parties, charities are open to criticism. Is important though not to throw out the good with the bad.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Point well made, Paul. This is why it is important for our politicians to deal with the people of our country honestly. They are there to serve us rather than us being here to serve them and their agendas. Any criticism that is directed to any of the "institutions, governments, political parties, charities" should also be rational and expressed in a sincere and non-violent manner.


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> planethoth,
> The United Nations was founded to abolish war by replacing the rule of force with the rule of law.
> The United Nations is in majority supported by all nations with the Bush Government being the exception.
> By the UN, War is illegal except when it comes to self-defence or in conjunction with a UN resolution. The US, maintains that it can to "pre-emptive" strikes.
> ...



Well, I know what the United Nations was founded to do, that's historical trivia. The United Nations is "supported by all nations", except when these nations decide it is not in their interest. Furthermore I personally argue: and rightfully so! But in assuming you want international law, you need to have a mechanism of force to back the enforcement up for those who will not voluntarily comply. The United Nations does not have that and cannot have it.

If the United Nations is there to provide a mediation role, that's not objectionable to me. However, what has happened is that some people are taking this organization and pretending as if it is an absolute good in and of itself. The United Nations is not suitable to be the last word on deciding conflicts between states. Why? Because it itself consists of states who cannot in any meaningful sense be said to be impartial or disinterested, and of course, because it cannot enforce whatever decision it manages to come to, if any.

The UN's record of solving conflicts, in the real world, is downright abysmal. It failed with Iraq, failed in Cyprus, failed with Rwanda, failed in Bosnia, Vietnam, the Arab-Israeli conflict (several times over), Sudan... well, it has failed to resolve conflict pretty much everywhere. That's a cruel reality, perhaps, but what does it tell us about the efficacy of this organization?


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

Dr.G. said:


> Planetoth, re your comment "The existence of law does not make that law the arbiter of what is right, it makes it the arbiter of what is legal.", I would tend to agree. At my trial for my Conscientious Objector status, the judge asked me what I would do if my appeal was denied, and would I then go to war. When I said no, he said, and I quote "Then we have the right to put you in jail." To this I replied, "You have the power to put me in jail, but not the right." I sense that this is somewhat of a synopsis of you aforementioned statement. If this is so, I would agree. Shalom.


You are correct, chaver, this is the essence of that point.


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

Paul O'Keefe said:


> All institutions, governments, political parties, charities are open to criticism. Is important though not to throw out the good with the bad.


OK, that's another point I can agree with you on!


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Planetoth, I remember when President Clinton said "Shalom Chaver" to Yitzchak Rabin. I don't think I had ever heard a US president speaking Hebrew before.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

planethoth said:


> Why? Because it itself consists of states who cannot in any meaningful sense be said to be impartial or disinterested, and of course, because it cannot enforce whatever decision it manages to come to, if any.


The UN is not perfect - and given how much it is hated by some, it must be doing something right! It's a young institution and has a big task, only with the will of Superpowers will it work. During the Cold War it did play a vital role and can still.


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

Dr.G. said:


> Planetoth, I remember when President Clinton said "Shalom Chaver" to Yitzchak Rabin. I don't think I have ever heard a US president speaking Hebrew before.


Yes, I remember the moment myself, for some reason, I guess even in high school I paid attention to this stuff. Though I can look back and say Oslo was a terrible policy, the loss of Rabin was tragic and Clinton's Hebrew goodbye both touching and iconic.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

planethoth, as you've mentioned, the UN is there to provide mediation between countries. Much like the truce you tried to enact on ehMac, mediation is only effective if all parties agree to bide by the mediation. While every country in the UN must protect their best interests, there are often times when a country's best interest is in conflict with with international interests as determined through the UN--which may mean that a country will have to choose to act in the best interests of the world instead of there own. Otherwise, the mediation falls apart.

The UN is not above question, but if--as participants in the world--we are to have an international body to mediate and discuss international issues, we need respect its authority and not seek to undermine simply because force is not used enforce its authority.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Planetoth, when I was in high school and President Kennedy came up with his classic "Ich bin ein Berliner" in West Berlin, it was the closest thing to Yiddish (the language of my grandparents) that I had ever heard from a president.


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> The UN is not perfect - and given how much it is hated by some, it must be doing something right! It's a young institution and has a big task, only with the will of Superpowers will it work. During the Cold War it did play a vital role and can still.



How will it work, exactly? The superpowers and punypowers (my new term!) alike will sometimes have conflicting interests that are so vital to each or one of them, that there is no possibility they will voluntarily give up the right to do anything about them.

If you think about it, this is absolutely unavoidable. It is correct to say cooperation and voluntarism are elements of the human spirit, perhaps or likely even ingrained in our genes, as MacDoc might say. Unfortunately, so is conflict. It is logically impossible that such a conflict would be forever squelched.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

planethoth said:


> It is correct to say cooperation and voluntarism are elements of the human spirit, perhaps or likely even ingrained in our genes, as MacDoc might say. Unfortunately, so is conflict. It is logically impossible that such a conflict would be forever squelched.


Hence the need for the UN. The UN was becomming more effective until the US decided to castrate it.

I don't think the UN is perfect (far from it) I strongly dissagree with the Superpower vetos but in the absence of anything better I chose to stick with the UN,

No nation (certainly not my native US) has shown an ability at act responsibly in the world theatre so we are stuck with the UN. 

The legality of conflict is a real issue and Iraq doen't fit.
USA has invaded Iraq without just cause and has comitted the same offence they prosecuted Germany for after WWII (see Nuremburg transcripts).

IF the UN were proplerly supported by the US we would see a landmine treaty, Kyoto accord, a Palestine next to Isreal, a world court and perhaps agreements in intervention in places like the Suddan. Arguing that the UN is impotent when you are doing everything possible to make it so is disengenious.


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

martman said:


> Hence the need for the UN. The UN was becomming more effective until the US decided to castrate it.
> 
> I don't think the UN is perfect (far from it) I strongly dissagree with the Superpower vetos but in the absence of anything better I chose to stick with the UN,
> 
> ...



Your assertions are exactly what I was talking about. These beliefs you have, that the United Nations was becoming "more effective" if it weren't for the UN, that legality is righteousness, that the UN would solve the world's problems if only it were allowed to! These are the beliefs I was referring to at the beginning of this thread--pure dogma detached from anything but wishful thinking!

The UN could be given more coercive power to enforce laws, but to what end? And who will submit willingly to this organization if it were given to it?

Do I want the United Nations to have more coercive power to enforce law? No, of course not--I don't want another leviathan state layered on top of all the levels of bureaucracy and regulation we already have. Any people would have to have a slave mentality to want to be subject to some organization like this.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

PH, you appear to be saying that the UN cannot be effective because individual countries have individual interests that conflict with international interests, and the UN has no ability to enforce law. Providing the UN with an enforcement arm is undesirable.

You are right.

However, I look at it this way. The UN can only be effective if individual countries recognize that the best interests of the world stage--while possibly in conflict with immediate individual interests--is ultimately in the best interests of each country because we are all members of global society with a shared planet and shared resources. And then choose to do this whether there is enforcement or not because the goal of co-operation between countries is more important in the long run than individual interests.

Idealistic? Impossible? Perhaps. But something, IMO, worth striving for all the same.

In some ways, the UN is one instantiation of an ideal, but not the ultimate ideal.


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

Sonal, you often make reasonable posts, and the above was no exception. If only they were all more like you...


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Planetoth, there are a few out there as reasonable and sincere as Sonal (not many, because she is a gem), but a few..........and maybe a few more now that I think of it a bit.


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

Dr.G. said:


> Planetoth, when I was in high school and President Kennedy came up with his classic "Ich bin ein Berliner" in West Berlin, it was the closest thing to Yiddish (the language of my grandparents) that I had ever heard from a president.


That is quite amusing in a dark way, since Kennedy himself was the son of one of America's biggest anti-semites. Yiddish would not have been Papa Joe's choice, though he may have been more comfortable with German, being soft on Hitler and all.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Planetoth, while I agree with you re Joe Kennedy's views about Hitler, I never felt that either John, Robert or Edward Kennedy ever felt this way.


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

Back to my point: I am glad to see here that there are many of you who agree that the UN and the precepts of international law in general are not beyond critique. 

Those who act like these issues are absolutely settled are people who do not want a debate. There are certain people on ehMac that have an unwavering, quasi-pious assumption that international law is sacred and an institution that we must pledge our support to regardless of its rightness.

Perhaps it should not be surprising that the UN produces a constituency of zealots, considering its history; the UN's predecessor, the League of Nations, was a pet project of the very utopian liberal Democrat president, Woodrow Wilson, whose haphazard use of American power abroad and within makes any mistakes Bush has made seem mild to say the very least.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

planethoth said:


> Back to my point: I am glad to see here that there are many of you who agree that the UN and the precepts of international law in general are not beyond critique.


Nothing is beyond critique - it's about compromise.



planethoth said:


> Those who act like these issues are absolutely settled are people who do not want a debate. There are certain people on ehMac that have an unwavering, quasi-pious assumption that international law is sacred and an institution that we must pledge our support to regardless of its rightness.


You are jumping to your conclusions. I believe in the UN. Stop putting words into other peoples mouth or at least show a direct quote.



planethoth said:


> Perhaps it should not be surprising that the UN produces a constituency of zealots, considering its history; the UN's predecessor, the League of Nations, was a pet project of the very utopian liberal Democrat president, Woodrow Wilson, whose haphazard use of American power abroad and within makes any mistakes Bush has made seem mild to say the very least.


And here we have the neo-cons agenda... It's getting very predictable planethoth....


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Nothing is beyond critique - it's about compromise.
> 
> 
> You are jumping to your conclusions. I believe in the UN. Stop putting words into other peoples mouth or at least show a direct quote.
> ...



Artist Series, you simply don't understand what a neoconservative is, do you? Do you know that Wilson's foreign policy and neoconservative ideas are often 
compared, unfavourably, by the anti-neocon critics on the right? Look, I am not trying to condescend to you, I assume you know some things before you debate them. Would you stop with the utterly predictable "neo-cons agenda", because I think that is getting really tired.

If you really "believe" in the UN, I think the burden is on you to explain why countries need hand over their right to defend their interests to it even while it works against them.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

planethoth, do you understand american neoconservatives?
Your questions are based on an agenda with false pretenses.

The present American strategic doctrine assumes the usurpation of international law.

Pax American has isolated the US, much to their dismay. 
The UN does not stop countries from defending their interest - you have little understanding of the UNs "being". 

Ask the right questions.


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> planethoth, do you understand american neoconservatives?
> Your questions are based on an agenda with false pretenses.
> 
> The present American strategic doctrine assumes the usurpation of international law.
> ...


What you just said here was all shell and no kernel. You addressed nothing I said, either.

I am imploring you to explain to me how the UN was NOT an impediment to solving the Iraq problem. The UN sanctions failed to end Saddam Hussein's belligerency and in fact strengthened his position. Then, when the Americans and British tried to get the UN to do something tangible about Saddam, the UN acted against them and proposed no solution. This pretty much proves to me that the interests of the United States and Britain were not addressed by the UN.

I can't say I am surprised, though--the UN is fundamentally incapable of addressing these types of conflicts, even though that is what it aspires to.


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

Furthermore, Artist Series, by using this term "neo-con" so loosely, you have led me to suspect you do not know what it means. Neoconservatives are not the only ones who criticize the UN system or support intervention in Iraq!

I recommend just dropping the use of this term, since it does not describe much in your usage of it.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

The justification for the invation of Iraq was not about Saddam but weapons of Mass destructions - 

Ask the right questions....


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> The justification for the invation of Iraq was not about Saddam but weapons of Mass destructions -
> 
> Ask the right questions....



No, that was ONE justification for war. You are avoiding answering any questions, it seems.


----------



## The Doug (Jun 14, 2003)

ArtistSeries said:


> It's getting very predictable planethoth....


So very true. But if you remember how all this began not very long ago, you shouldn't be in the least surprised. Fortunately there is an easy solution to this relentless sophomoric drivel.


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

The Doug said:


> So very true. But if you remember how all this began not very long ago, you shouldn't be in the least surprised. Fortunately there is an easy solution to this relentless sophomoric drivel.



Oh yes, it is "sophomoric drivel", because you don't agree with it? Pray tell, Dougie, do you prefer ehMac to only cater to your specific political views?


----------



## Paul O'Keefe (Jun 3, 2005)

*Thanks for the suggestion.*



The Doug said:


> Fortunately there is an easy solution to this relentless sophomoric drivel.


I've wanted an ignore feature on another board I frequent. I think I may just take advantage of it here.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

planethoth said:


> Those who act like these issues are absolutely settled are people who do not want a debate. There are certain people on ehMac that have an unwavering, quasi-pious assumption that international law is sacred and an institution that we must pledge our support to regardless of its rightness.


Oh please no. Not the religious adhearance to the mighty UN argument again? Surely this if anything is a worn out cliche by now.

You are the one who doesn't want a debate. Arguing with you is like watching question period in parliament. It seems impossible for you to counter a point without 
1) riddiculeing those who dissagree with you and 
2) making up what they said in their posts (ie you put words in everyone's mouths

The dogma is beyond reason. By your standard anyone who supports the UN is some kind of fanatic.

You promissed to leave in the first thread you posted to in this forum. I invite you to do as promised.
Thanks!


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

martman said:


> Oh please no. Not the religious adhearance to the mighty UN argument again? Surely this if anything is a worn out cliche by now.
> 
> You are the one who doesn't want a debate. Arguing with you is like watching question period in parliament. It seems impossible for you to counter a point without
> 1) riddiculeing those who dissagree with you and
> ...



Give me a break, bro. Did you contribute to this thread? You simply don't like my opinion. So what?


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

planethoth said:


> Give me a break, bro. Did you contribute to this thread? You simply don't like my opinion. So what?


Dude: you complain when I use a cliche but object when I call you on the same.

Tough.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

planethoth said:


> Oh yes, it is "sophomoric drivel", because you don't agree with it? Pray tell, Dougie, do you prefer ehMac to only cater to your specific political views?


Michael Pukin, ehmac does not cater to one specific political view. 
You have accused "us" of leaning to the left. I'm closer to a Libertarian. I have even agreed with some conclusions of right winger MacNutt (although not the logic to get to that conclusion).

As far as I can tell of your dogma (if you have one) is to argue pro-USA slogans without even exploring the issues because you believe that in the end it helps Israel. 

One truly wonders if you are not suffering from some "mental defect" as you assume that "we" are persecuting you. Is this a long suffering condition? Your own op-ed pieces seem to indicate this. 
This one is particularely amusing http://www.msu.mcmaster.ca/sil/archives/010215/oped/pukin.htm
"What is a white J-wboy like yours truly doing lauding a holiday that seems geared exclusively towards black people? " Now, that's chutzpah.....


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

AS...you beat me to it! 

Now, we know what a poli-sci student/grad does in their spare time. Going on boards such as reason.com and Oliver Stone's website to spout off.


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Michael Pukin, ehmac does not cater to one specific political view.
> You have accused "us" of leaning to the left. I'm closer to a Libertarian. I have even agreed with some conclusions of right winger MacNutt (although not the logic to get to that conclusion).
> 
> As far as I can tell of your dogma (if you have one) is to argue pro-USA slogans without even exploring the issues because you believe that in the end it helps Israel.
> ...


Oh you found some of my old work! Well that is great. I am a libertarian too, not like you however, obviously. If you were a libertarian, you would not want to subsume a national government to a transnational government like the UN wishes it were.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

planethoth said:


> subsume a national government to a transnational government like the UN wishes it were.


The UN wants to take over the world? Where does it say that in its mandate?


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> As far as I can tell of your dogma (if you have one) is to argue pro-USA slogans without even exploring the issues because you believe that in the end it helps *Israel*.


Ahhh, finally you come out and just say it already... after pussyfooting around with sort of ambiguous comments, you finally reveal the concrete anti-semitic comment! Well I am glad to know now I know my enemy!


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

IronMac said:


> The UN wants to take over the world? Where does it say that in its mandate?



No, I suppose you're right... handing your national interest over to some group of foreign states just don't seem like any big deal...


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

planethoth said:


> Ahhh, finally you come out and just say it already... after pussyfooting around with sort of ambiguous comments, you finally reveal the concrete anti-semitic comment! Well I am glad to know now I know my enemy!


He didn't say was anti-semitic. Stop that! He said: "As far as I can tell of your dogma (if you have one) is to argue pro-USA slogans without even exploring the issues because you believe that in the end it helps Israel."

This was clearly meant to imply you are fixated not that he hates Jews.

If you want people to stop with the Nazi / Facist card you need to stop with the anti-semite card.


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

martman said:


> He didn't say was anti-semitic. Stop that! He said: "As far as I can tell of your dogma (if you have one) *is to argue pro-USA slogans without even exploring the issues because you believe that in the end it helps Israel*."
> 
> This was clearly meant to imply you are fixated not that he hates Jews.
> 
> If you want people to stop with the Nazi / Facist card you need to stop with the anti-semite card.


Did you get that? HOW IS THAT NOT ANTI-SEMITIC TO ACCUSE ME OF BEING PRO-USA TO HELP ISRAEL?

There are only two people I accused of saying anti-semitic things on this board, Macspectrum and Artist Series. And I stand by that. This is an absolute anti-semitic comment.


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

That's what it all comes down to, isn't it? The old accusation that, no matter what I say, I am just saying it because I am a Jew.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Please show me how this is anti-semitic. I see only an acusation that you are spewing a pro USA line because you believe it will benefit Israel. He accuses you of being blind but he says nothing about hating Jews you made that up with your own paranoia.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

planethoth said:


> That's what it all comes down to, isn't it? The old accusation that, no matter what I say, I am just saying it because I am a Jew.


I think the implacation is that you are a fanatic. That you happen to be Jewish is besides the point.

AS correct me if I am wrong.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

planethoth said:


> No, I suppose you're right... handing your national interest over to some group of foreign states just don't seem like any big deal...


Boy, you're really pushing the boundaries (of course, that cuts both ways so beware). The UN doesn't take over or subsume...sheesh. A nation-state can ignore whatever resolutions it wants. But, you should know that by now.


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

martman said:


> Please show me how this is anti-semitic. I see only an acusation that you are spewing a pro USA line because you believe it will benefit Israel. He accuses you of being blind but he says nothing about hating Jews you made that up with your own paranoia.


What, are you so blind that you only see anti-semitic when it reads "Die Jew!"??

To claim that I, a Jew and Artist Series knows that very well, only defends the United States because I think it will help Israel, you don't see something anti-semitic about that? Why don't I do it because I think it will help, say, Canada? Why don't I do it because I think it will help Britain? Iraq? Turkey? India? Australia? I also support all of those countries too! 

No, there can only be one reason for saying, yeah, planethoth, you just support USA for Israel's sake.


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

martman said:


> I think the implacation is that you are a fanatic. That you happen to be Jewish is besides the point.
> 
> AS correct me if I am wrong.



You are wrong. The implication is that I have a loyalty to Israel only and that is the tail that wags the dog.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

planethoth said:


> Did you get that? HOW IS THAT NOT ANTI-SEMITIC TO ACCUSE ME OF BEING PRO-USA TO HELP ISRAEL?


Wow...that's really pushing it. I don't have time to check out the whole entry in Wikipedia but if you can find where that comment fits in then all the power to you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Semitism


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

IronMac said:


> Wow...that's really pushing it. I don't have time to check out the whole entry in Wikipedia but if you can find where that comment fits in then all the power to you.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Semitism


Give me a break with your wikipedia references. Artist Series thinks I am pro-USA to support the interests of Israel only. That's absolutely outrageous, a claim that I have no other interest than a Jewish interest that drives everything I say. You cannot avoid the anti-semitic implication of this. If you do, you're a bloody liar.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

planethoth said:


> No, there can only be one reason for saying, yeah, planethoth, you just support USA for Israel's sake.


No there is another one: he believes you are fanatic as I said before. The thing is not every attack on you is because you are Jewish. 
My but you have a massive persecution complex!
I repeat if you want people to not use the Nazi / facist card you need to stop with the anti-semite card. 
He critisized you not Jews in his statement. You may think he is an ass for saying that but he is not an anti-semite just because he thinks you are fixated. I think it is really nasty to play that card the way you do.


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

martman said:


> No there is another one: he believes you are fanatic as I said before. The thing is not every attack on you is because you are Jewish.
> My but you have a massive persecution complex!
> I repeat if you want people to not use the Nazi / facist card you need to stop with the anti-semite card.
> He critisized you not Jews in his statement. You may think he is an ass for saying that but he is not an anti-semite just because he thinks you are fixated. I think it is really nasty to play that card the way you do.



Look, I am NOT playing a card. This is an anti-semitic comment, period. You have some freaking nerve accusing me of that when the comment is right in front of you. We were not discussing Israel in this forum and I did not start the forum about Arabs and Israel. You read it again.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

planethoth said:


> Give me a break with your wikipedia references. Artist Series thinks I am pro-USA to support the interests of Israel only. That's absolutely outrageous, a claim that I have no other interest than a Jewish interest that drives everything I say. You cannot avoid the anti-semitic implication of this. If you do, you're a bloody liar.


This is BS. You gave me that impression and I am not an anti-semite. I'm sorry but you really do come off as fixated on one issue. Now maybe if you didn't come off this way you would have an argument. 
And I'm no liar. I think you are paranoid.


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

martman said:


> This is BS. You gave me that impression and I am not an anti-semite. I'm sorry but you really do come off as fixated on one issue. Now maybe if you didn't come off this way you would have an argument.
> And I'm no liar. I think you are paranoid.


Get off the paranoid. You are denying that someone is anti-semitic when they said that I am only pro-U.S. because I think it benefits Israel. That is quite a coincidence to say that to a known Jew, isn't it?


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

planethoth said:


> Get off the paranoid. You are denying that someone is anti-semitic when they said that I am only pro-U.S. because I think it benefits Israel.


Only because it is you.


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

martman said:


> Only because it is you.



Oh yes, Martman, you do have a point there: you get a pass from people when you are a Jew like you, who doesn't give a sh-t about your own people and their interests. So, naturally, an anti-Israel Jew like you gets a pass. All of us who are proud? No matter what we say, we're just Jews.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

planethoth said:


> Oh yes, Martman, you do have a point there: you get a pass from people when you are a Jew like you, who doesn't give a sh-t about your own people and their interests. So, naturally, an anti-Israel Jew like you gets a pass. All of us who are proud? No matter what we say, we're just Jews.


That is a load and you know it. You come to this board with a serious persecution complex and a chip on you shoulder a mile wide. You express an extreme viewpoint to the exclusion of any other never showing any moderation of compromise. You only attack those who dissagree with you nad never waver off message. The impression you give is precisely what AS said. If it was someone else maybe I could see why you made this accusation but the truth of the matter is you are fixated on a single issue and being Jewish or not has nothing to do with it.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

If you really feel AS is being anti-semitic please go to the moderator.
Bet we all get banned.


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

martman said:


> That is a load and you know it. You come to this board with a serious persecution complex and a chip on you shoulder a mile wide. You express an extreme viewpoint to the exclusion od any other never showing any moderation of compromise. You only attack those who dissagree with you nad never waver off message. The impression you give is precisely what AS said. If it was someone else maybe I could see why you made this accusation but the truth of the matter is you are fixated on a single issue and being Jewish or not has nothing to do with it.



You can keep ignoring what he said so that you don't have to deal with its meaning, don't worry. It is a very good to ignore the details.


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

martman said:


> If you really feel AS is being anti-semitic please go to the moderator.
> Bet we all get banned.



NO, you know what? I believe in free expression and I don't want censorship. Artist Series has done me a service, in a way, to show who their true feelings. You too, I know you know what that statement implied. I am a true libertarian, and I will not give up my principles and ask for people to be banned.

What Artist Series said was loathsome but this is the price of freedom.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

It is so convieniant to hide behind being a victim.


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

martman said:


> It is so convieniant to hide behind being a victim.


No, I am not a victim. A victim would ask for restitution or for someone to ban him. The Jews are done being victims. Real Jews fight back.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

planethoth said:


> NO, you know what? I believe in free expression and I don't want censorship.


Finally you have said something I can respect.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

planethoth said:


> Give me a break with your wikipedia references. Artist Series thinks I am pro-USA to support the interests of Israel only. That's absolutely outrageous, a claim that I have no other interest than a Jewish interest that drives everything I say. You cannot avoid the anti-semitic implication of this. If you do, you're a bloody liar.


A. Your ignoring the wikipedia references fits into your prior modus operandi that I recognized weeks ago.

B. I don't think you have any other interest than a Jewish interest...no, I am not going to use "Jewish"...more like a Zionist interest. Can I back this up? Well, we can point to at least two other websites and your op/ed column at McMaster. 
Out of close to three hundred posts on this board that you've made on this board, it seems only a half dozen are not related to the Middle East, directly or indirectly.

C. Just because I don't adhere to your conclusion/viewpoint does not make me a liar. If we were to use that logic I can easily turn around and label you a liar too.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

planethoth said:


> NO, you know what? I believe in free expression and I don't want censorship. Artist Series has done me a service, in a way, to show who their true feelings. You too, I know you know what that statement implied. I am a true libertarian, and I will not give up my principles and ask for people to be banned.


planethoth, perhaps you are sincere in claiming to be a "real libertarian" in favor of free expression, but you don't seem to understand either subject.

"Freedom of expression" protects us from government censorship. It has no application in a private forum like this. The moderators are free to establish and enforce whatever standards of speech they wish. Hell, they can ban people on whim, and it would be their legal right to do so.

You can be a "libertarian," a liberal, a civil libertarian, and whatever - and still complain to the moderators that someone is harrassing, defaming, or insulting you. They are free to take any action, or none, according to their own preferences. You are free to "take your business elsewhere" if you aren't satisfied.

A forum for discussion (including letters to the editor, conferences, union meetings, debating clubs, and internet message boards) may and should establish rules to enhance the discussion and bar the disruptive. A long homily on the merits of viagra may be useful, but if the members of the Amateur Geology League of Ontario think it's inappropriate at their meeting, no one can scream "censorship" over it.

A libertarian is supposed to recognize the difference between private action and public action. A "real" libertarian? Whatever.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

martman said:


> I think the implacation is that you are a fanatic. That you happen to be Jewish is besides the point.
> 
> AS correct me if I am wrong.


martman, you are correct.

In my opinion, Michael Pukin has an inferiority complex and likes the accuse people of being anti-Semite. I don't know where this delusion comes from and may explain why he does not want us to question his mental state.

MP has used "anti-Semite" to try and provoke people time and time again:
http://www.samizdata.net/blog/archives/003105.html (last comment).

I find it ironic that someone who is so "sensitive" to race/religion would go and describe himself as "white ******", will call a neighbourhood "WASPified stronghold" or even use "the black man was the Jew"
http://www.msu.mcmaster.ca/sil/archives/010215/oped/pukin.htm
If I, or most anyone on this board used that kind of language, surely we would be banned and called all kinds of names. As MP wrote "Sometimes, spin is everything."
http://www.msu.mcmaster.ca/sil/archives/001130/oped/pukin.htm

The "Jewish" stereotypes that he rallies so hard against, he is ready to embrace and wear as some perverted badge of honor.


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

lpkmckenna said:


> planethoth, perhaps you are sincere in claiming to be a "real libertarian" in favor of free expression, but you don't seem to understand either subject.
> 
> "Freedom of expression" protects us from government censorship. It has no application in a private forum like this. The moderators are free to establish and enforce whatever standards of speech they wish. Hell, they can ban people on whim, and it would be their legal right to do so.
> 
> ...


You are correct about censorship, it refers technically to government. Indeed, there is a difference. However, I am not the proprietor of this message board and I will not ask him to ban Artist Series. They can decide what they want on their message board. I am carrying libertarian principles into this forum even though it is technically private, since a political debate is SUPPOSED to be open. You are right, though, about the line between public and private.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

planethoth said:


> . I am a libertarian too, not like you however, obviously. If you were a libertarian, you would not want to subsume a national government to a transnational government like the UN wishes it were.


Learn to read and understand - I wrote "I'm closer to a Libertarian."


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> martman, you are correct.
> 
> In my opinion, Michael Pukin has an inferiority complex and like the accuse people of being anti-Semite. I don't know where this delusion comes from and may explain why he does not want us to question his mental state.
> 
> ...



Oh yes, well you know I wrote literally dozens of articles in the past and only some were about Jews or Israel. You need a good cover for your anti-semitic comment, but why bother? Nothing will change the meaning of what you said.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

planethoth said:


> Oh yes, well you know I wrote literally dozens of articles in the past and only some were about Jews or Israel.


Some? All of your online writings so far is about Jews or Israel!


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Planetoth, start writing about dachshunds (aka "doxies") and watch the knives come out. I read the hyperlinked articles that AS provided, and was interested in the Hanukkah/Christmas piece.


----------



## iPetie (Nov 25, 2003)

Dr.G. said:


> Planetoth, start writing about dachshunds (aka "doxies") and watch the knives come out. I read the hyperlinked articles that AS provided, and was interested in the Hanukkah/Christmas piece.


Dachshunds, did somebody say dachshunds? Where? Well I never .....


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Told you so................. Of course, iPetie is one of the finer members of ehMacLand and is a true gentleman. He might not mind a single mention of the "d" word.


----------



## iPetie (Nov 25, 2003)

Dr.G. said:


> Told you so................. Of course, iPetie is one of the finer members of ehMacLand and is a true gentleman. He might not mind a single mention of the "d" word.


I'll get over it, I've got some work to on do the "D" front, but I am improving as a person every day.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

iPetie, you may be "improving as a person every day", but you have a sound base upon which to build. I don't think I have ever read an unkind thing you have written with a malicious intent to someone here in ehMacLand.


----------



## iPetie (Nov 25, 2003)

Kind words Dr. G. Thank You.
However, I have let my emotions get the best of me at times, even here. But I do try!


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

iPetie, but I don't see you being malicious. You openly state your views, which is your right, but at least do it in a way not to overtly or covertly try to hurt someone else. This is my perception of you, and I may open up the floodgates with other people combing through past posts to demonstrate a time you might have been overly demonstrative with your use of the common venacular. Still, I see you as a fine person. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## iPetie (Nov 25, 2003)

The feeling is mutual Dr. G. Thanks!


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Merci, mon ami. I think that we have calmed the waters somewhat in this thread. A cease fire truce might be in order..............with doxies as peacekeepers.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

Is it just me? Or have hot threads brought out a rash of compliments?

Not that I mind--thanks again, planethoth and Dr. G. This is definitely a rash I'm happy to catch.


----------



## iPetie (Nov 25, 2003)

Agreed, and doxies do make fine peacekeepers. Particularly in this case!


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Sonal, yes, maybe there has been an outpouring of compliments due to all of the verbal "fist fights" that have been taking place. Of course, Sonal, you have earned far more compliments than you have received, so here is one more -- thank you for being the person that you are here in ehMacLand. It may be a cliche, but it is expressed with sincerity.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

iPetie, it may be working. Doxie peacekeepers have kept down the fighting so far. We shall see........we shall see.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

I have a feeling that I am going to "catch hell" when I log on tomorrow for trying to "divert" some of the more "heated threads" away from their overt acts of "verbal abuse". Still, they grow us tough in New York City. We shall see.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

I don't know how much longer I shall be able to keep this up. If I keep posting "gentle thoughts", it might prove as effective as quoting Ghandi or Martin Luther King, Jr. We shall see.


----------



## Cameo (Aug 3, 2004)

Well, I say keep it up Dr. G.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"The pursuit of truth does not permit violence on one's opponent." Ghandi.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"Honest differences are often a healthy sign of progress." Ghandi


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"I believe that unarmed truth and unconditional love will have the final word in reality." Martin Luther King, Jr.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"I grow weary and must get some sleep." Dr.G.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

Good night, Dr. G. Pleasant dreams.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Good morning, Sonal. Keep the faith, sister.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

Quoting Ghandi? Boy...will that rile someone...


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

Morning, Dr. G.

I'll be in and out today, but on the topic of pleasant dreams:

"He felt that his whole life was some kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it." -- Douglas Adams


----------

