Open Space & Anti-Americanism (longish)

[Steve Gawron]

Hello Masud and all,

Let us agree to disagree in friendship and respect.

It was interesting to me that you cited Alfred Sloan, since he considered to
be one of the "military industrialists" that President Eisenhower warned the
U.S. about.  Collins and Poras in their book "Built to Last" compare Sloan
(GM) to Henry Ford (FMC) in the way they approached building their
companies, which they call 'clock-building'.  They sum up Sloan as follows:
"... Sloan's clock had no soul; Sloan's clock was a cold, impersonal,
inhuman, pure business and totally pragmatic clock" (p. 53).  Henry Ford on
the other hand had a different view which I think applies better to our
discussion.   "History is more or less bunk. It's tradition. We don't want
tradition. We want to live in the present and the only history that is worth
a tinker's damn is the history we made today."
        Henry Ford, Interview in Chicago Tribune, May 25th, 1916
        US automobile industrialist (1863 - 1947) Available:
http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/24950.html

Keep in mind, this statement was made at the dawn of the production line
industrialism.  I prefer the view of George Santayana who said, "Those who
cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.
        George Santayana, The Life of Reason, Volume 1, 1905
        US (Spanish-born) philosopher (1863 - 1952)"
Available: http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/27300.html



I, too, share your disdain for the actions of my country during Vietnam.
Most people forget that it was a liberal party, the Democrats, who involved
us in Indo-China once Eisenhower left office.  You see, it is easy to twist
history and facts to make a point.


I don't think you are giving most Americans enough credit.  The major media
networks in our country actively ignored any stories that did not suit their
political leanings.  The U.S. election shows that those who did vote saw
past the smoke and mirrors of our 'fifth estate', the public media.

I agree that a true democracy should be directed by the people.  Our current
brand of politics has become an aberration of that ideal, but we still have
the right to change it if we so wish.


As far as countries who voice opposition to the US intervention in Iraq, let
us take a historical look at their positions prior to the conflict:

CANADA
Prime Minister Chretien told Parliament on February 9, 2002 that, "If we do
not act, if we do not stand up to Saddam, that will encourage him to commit
other atrocities." He continued that "the choice is clear (for Canada). It
is a choice dictated by the responsibilities of international citizenship,
by the demands of international security and an understanding of the history
of the world in this century."

FRANCE
The President of the Republic made this clear to the Iraqi Foreign Minister.
He stressed "the extremely grave risks that will result from a refusal by
Iraq to accept the inspection of the 'presidential sites.' Now time is
running out."

GERMANY
Mr. Rudolf Scharping, Chairman of the SPD Bundestag Group:

"I would like to state the central issues once again. First, there is only
one individual who bears the responsibility for the current confrontation
with the United Nations, and that is Saddam Hussein. Second, he has to see
to it that Iraq satisfies all the UN resolutions. Third, every possible
political effort has to be made to arrive at a peaceful solution. Fourth,
the danger posed by Iraqi weapons of mass destruction is a matter that no
one can view with indifference, and that is the case for all the other
states in the region, especially Israel, as well as for the Europeans and
the Americans. (applause) That is why Iraq should stop refusing to
cooperate, and if all the political efforts that are being made do not
result in success, a military operation cannot and should not be ruled out
in this case. (applause) The United States and Great Britain can absolutely
count on German solidarity."

 Foreign Minister Klaus Kinkel:

"Incidentally, I believe that we Germans in particular have good reason to
work toward preventing a dictator from causing something terrible yet again.
There was one dictator who was stopped too late. This one has to be stopped
in good time".

BALTIC STATES

Joint statements of the Presidents of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania:

"We believe that strict compliance with international commitments, including
United Nations resolutions, is an uncontested obligation of every country of
the world community.

"We unequivocally support the United Nations resolution of destroying
chemical and biological weapons in Iraq. The United Nations Special
Commission should be allowed to continue its work without any limitations.

"We believe all diplomatic avenues should be exhausted to solve the current
crises, but we also support other actions of the international coalition
that are necessary to guarantee compliance of Iraq with its international
commitments and demolition of weapons of mass destruction.

"The Baltic States are ready, if necessary, within their means to provide
support to the international coalition to ensure implementation of United
Nations resolutions."

--------------------------------------------------

Enough history.  All countries involved on both sides of UN compliance
resolutions were "the good guys".  The major disagreement was 'were all
diplomatic avenues exhausted'?  The US and Britain and their allies felt the
options had been exhausted and moved on the UN compliance resolutions before
some horrible happened.

People point out that no weapons of mass destruction were ever found.  How
was any peaceful country going to accept that Saddam, who had used chemical
weapons on Iraqi Kurds, did not hide or stockpile weapons until the UN
inspectors could verify it?  The fact that a road side bomb in Iraq was made
up of a shell containing sarin gas component chemicals was proof enough for
me that these weapons had existed at some time.  Good or bad, that was the
situation.


I am sorry you did not understand the context I was viewing the fatwa.  I
have no doubt that Ayatollah Sistani had the best intentions for those
people he spoke to.  I did not mean to imply he was a tyrant.  He might
become the George Washington of Iraq.  My point was that there is an implied
disregard in the statement for those people who do not accept his fatwa.

As you have indicated, a democracy should be by its people, ALL of its
people.  The turnout in the Iraqi elections showed that there is, in fact,
some desire for a representative government by those people who risked their
lives to vote.

I appreciate your frank responses.  I shows that men of good will can and
should discuss misunderstandings openly in an "open space".

With friendship and openness,

Steve Gawron


----- Original Message -----
From: "Masud Sheikh" <masheikh at cogeco.ca>
To: <OSLIST at LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU>
Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2005 9:39 AM
Subject: Re: Open Space & Anti-Americanism


> Steve, thank for your email.
> We may need to agree to disagree soon.
>
> Many decades ago, Alfred Sloan (iconic CEO of GM) said "What is good for
> General Motors is good for America". Similarly, the present U.S.
> administration seems to believe that what is good for corporations and the
> rich, is good for all Americans; and what is good for America, is good for
> the rest of the world.
>
> I was a college student in Pakistan during the Vietnam War. Unlike many
> students, for a long time I accepted the American justification for that
> war, and changed my views fairly late in that war.
>
> During the last decade, I have done a lot of reading. In one of his books,
> M. Scott Peck (author of "The Road Less Traveled") talks about the lying
> that has become an accepted part of American administrations. He
conjectures
> that the lie about the Gulf of Tonkin incident during Vietnam War (which I
> believe was used as the excuse for Congress to declare war) was perhaps
the
> start of the slippery slope. The lies have been more pronounced in
American
> foreign policy - I believe partly because many U.S. foreign operations
have
> been covert and through the CIA.
>
> It is difficult for many Americans to accept that they have been lied to,
in
> the democracy in which they live. These American are as much in denial as
> those Muslims who believe that 9/11 could not have been perpetrated by
other
> Muslims.
>
> Specifically to me, your following comments are troubling:
> 1. Your saying "it was a small group of U.N. member nations lead by the
U.S.
> who acted upon the U.N. edict. Opposed by some members, but hardly,
> unilateral".
>
> Sounds like "The good guys" (America and its allies) doing the "right
thing"
>
>
> It was not only "some members" (of the Security Council) that opposed; it
> was a clear majority, in spite of U.S. arm-twisting. More important,
global
> public opinion was opposed. Also opposed were key American weapons
> inspectors (such as Scott Ritter) plus U.N. Secretary General as well as
> other mediators (Hans Blix etc) who were disregarded, and made fun of.
>
> 2. Also troubling is your view that Sistani's edict (an Iraqi who opposed
> the tyranny of Saddam Hussein, and forced the occupying power to hold
> elections for a constituent assembly) was akin to the statement of King
> George "a tyrant who .... tried to impose his will upon people in
America.".
>
> "The messiah/s" for any community or society can only arise from within.
If
> you see Sistani's fatwa akin to that of a colonial "tyrant", then Iraq has
> lesser hope than I thought it had.
>
> 3. Perhaps most troubling is your final "All we seek is to share our
> liberty". It sounds sanctimonious. America under Bush is focused on
> security, which trumps liberty whenever there is tension between the two.
> Replacement of Ashcroft by Gonzales is the most evident manifestation of
> this fact.
>
> I do not accept Bush's belief that America has been given a mandate by
> "God", "from beyond the stars" to spread liberty and freedom. He seems to
> truly believe that God speaks to him as "HE" spoke to Jesus and Moses.
Iraqi
> insurgents believe that the same God (re-named Allah) spoke to Muslim
Sunni
> clerics to defend Iraq against the invaders.
>
> And a few minor points:
> - I do not "misunderstand American Democracy". I believe those who believe
> that (any) democracy is limited to casting votes periodically
misunderstand
> democracy.
>
> There is another large group of Americans who do not understand democracy:
> These are citizens who are unconcerned that nine out of ten candidates who
> get elected in America are those that spend the largest amount of money.
>
> - What you read in Wikepedia about Fatwas is generally correct. However,
it
> particularly applies to Sunnis. Shias tend to have some sort of hierarchy,
> although it is not global as with Catholics.
>
> Take care,
> Masud
>
> There is something called learning at a rather small level of
organisation.
> At a much higher gestalt level, learning is called evolution - Gregory
> Bateson
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Steve Gawron [mailto:gawron at megsinet.net]
> Sent: February 8, 2005 2:58 PM
> Subject: Re: Open Space & Anti-Americanism
>
> Hello Masud and all,
>
> First, I appreciate your thoughts as expressed in your e-mail.  I would
like
> to respond to your questions.
>
> 1) Can open space be opened by force?
>   If open space needed to be opened at all, then it would not by
definition
> be opened in the first place.  The example you gave of a CEO and
consultant
> is not one I share.  Whatever the actions taken by the consultant on
behalf
> of the CEO, the CEO still owns the problem.  If he does not correct a
> dysfunctional department, he will soon be relieved of his responsibilities
> by the shareholders and stakeholders of his company.  The consultant may
or
> may not join him.
>   In the case you made for unilateralist, it was the United Nations who
> warned Saddam to comply with the consent of the members nations.  When he
> did not comply, it was a small group of U.N. member nations lead by the
U.S.
> who acted upon the U.N. edict.  Opposed by some members, but  hardly,
> unilateral.
>
> 2) ... does not loyalty to American ideals demand dissent of policies that
> disregard those ideals.
> You might misunderstand American democracy.  Our democracy is based on the
> premise that if a majority of its citizens disagree with the leaders and
> their actions, they have the right to change those leaders.  If you look
at
> last November's election, a majority of the citizens agreed with the
current
> leadership.  There was much dissention but the citizens were free to
choose
> and spoke through voting.
>
> I looked up the definition of fatwa on this site:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatwa
> I quote, a fatwa ... " is a legal pronouncement in Islam, issued by a
> religious law specialist on a specific issue. Usually a fatwa is issued at
> the request of an individual or a judge to settle a question where fiqh,
> Islamic jurisprudence, is unclear. A scholar capable of issuing fataawa is
> known as a Mufti.
>
> Because there is no central Islamic priesthood, there is also no
unanimously
> accepted method to determine who can issue a fatwa and who cannot, leading
> some Islamic scholars to complain that too many people feel qualified to
> issue fatwas."
>
> There is no parallel to this style of edict in the American form of
> democracy.  As a citizen, are guaranteed by our constitution the right to
> accept or ignore any edict whether it be the government, corporation, any
> religious leader, or other citizen.  You must, however, respect the right
of
> the other citizens to present their opinions.  In our country, disputes
are
> handled under a judicial system.  While it is often inefficient, it
> guarantees that all parties concerned have a right to voice their opinion
on
> the matter.
>
> The United States was born when a tyrant, King George of England, tried to
> impose his will upon people in America.  Even then, there were people who
> dissented of behalf of King George. (we call them Canadians)  We still
> respect their choices and consider them our friends though we often
> disagree.  The fatwa you cited sound more akin to a statement of King
George
> not of Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, or Patrick Henry.
>
> The people of Iraq will be in charge of their country when the Americans
> leave.  They will own their problems and hopefully will seek help from all
> nations around the world.
>
> As a free and democratic nation, the U.S. has made many mistakes.  All we
> seek is to share our liberty.  I look forward to future discussions with
> you.
>
> Steve Gawron
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Masud Sheikh" <masheikh at cogeco.ca>
> To: <OSLIST at LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU>
> Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2005 11:57 AM
> Subject: FW: Open Space & Anti-Americanism
>
> > Steve,
> > My questions below are not rhetorical, and I do hope that you will take
> them
> > in the spirit in which I am trying to ask them:
> >
> > 1) Can space be opened by force?
> > That sounds a lot like a CEO telling a consultant "that department is
> > managed and controlled very badly. I want you to open up space in it"
> >
> > Of course, in the case of American involvement in Iraq, the related
> question
> > is "Was Bush authorized to behave like the CEO of planet Earth?"
> >
> > Do remember that most of the criticism has been about American
> > administration's unilateralism.
> >
> > 2) While I empathize with American nationalism (fuelled and converted by
> > Bush & Co after 9/11 as support of American policy), does not loyalty to
> > American ideals demand dissent of policies that disregard those ideals?
> >
> > My opinions:
> > 1) I am afraid that the right thing was not done before something
horrible
> > went wrong. Abandoning Afghanistan after the Soviets were driven out (at
> the
> > end of 1980s) was the wrong thing to do in Afghanistan. Manipulating
> Islamic
> > religious feelings (and American policy was at the forefront of doing
> that)
> > was the wrong thing to do in fighting the Soviets. Similarly,
manipulating
> > post 9/11 fearful feelings of American citizens is wrong now.
> >
> > 2) Re Iraq, it is still too early to say what the long-term impact of
> these
> > elections will be. Also, the recently held election was not the
preference
> > of Bush & Co. They were forced into accepting these by Ayatollah
Sistani,
> > called "Ayatollah Democracy" in articles last year. Here is the
> Ayatollah's
> > Fatwa insisting on elections:
> >
> > "The Occupational Authority in no way has the authority to choose
members
> > for the drafting committee of a Basic Law. In no way does any authority
> > exist for such a drafting committee to represent the lofty interests of
> the
> > Iraqi people or to translate into law the wishes and basic identity of
the
> > Iraqi people, the pillars of which are the glorious faith of Islam and
> > society's values. The current [American] plan discussed is fundamentally
> > unacceptable.
> >
> > Accordingly, popular elections are necessary so that each Iraqi who is
of
> > voting age can choose his representative for a constituent assembly. And
> > then any Basic Law written by this assembly must be approved by a
national
> > referendum. It is incumbent upon all believers with their utmost
> commitment
> > to demand this, and asserting the truth of this path is the best way
that
> > they can participate in this process."
> >
> > He sounds like a re-incarnated founding father of America.
> >
> > Take care,
> > Masud Sheikh
> >
> > The world will be saved by individuals of integrity freely joining
> together
> > - Buckminster Fuller
>
> *
> *
> ==========================================================
> OSLIST at LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU
> ------------------------------
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, change your options,
> view the archives of oslist at listserv.boisestate.edu:
> http://listserv.boisestate.edu/archives/oslist.html
>
> To learn about OpenSpaceEmailLists and OSLIST FAQs:
> http://www.openspaceworld.org/oslist
>
>

*
*
==========================================================
OSLIST at LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU
------------------------------
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change your options,
view the archives of oslist at listserv.boisestate.edu:
http://listserv.boisestate.edu/archives/oslist.html

To learn about OpenSpaceEmailLists and OSLIST FAQs:
http://www.openspaceworld.org/oslist