In response to Tony Ralph:
Whose 'obtuse and obscene logic'? And whose 'linearity' of thought?
I raised the questions I did in the form I did deliberately,
precisely because there is the baggage of all the preceding
discussions that have occurred on this list. I may be wrong but pace
the comment by Christopher Chase, I do believe that questions of what
is or is not thought and thinkable (or as in the present case
bombable), foregrounded, deemed of sufficient importance and
centrality, selected to be acted upon in certain ways, is part and
parcel of Foucault's work.
Anyway, faced with a real world situation of obscene proportions --
on both sides, let me add -- all that stuff appears to collapse into
a simple arrogation by Tony Ralph unto himself and the side
sponsoring the actions he apparently supports the right (the power, I
admit they have) to stamp a particular narrative as the right one
(the truth?) and everyone else's as 'obscene', 'obtuse', 'linear
left', 'the proto fascist left', etc. Indeed, the terms and language
you choose to use -- "American and European efforts at enforcement"
-- invites unpacking, minimally the retort enforcement of what? You
assume of a certain morality, rightness, and so on. Is that so?
Indeed, the arrogation extends all the way to a statement that
"evidence is a trite academic term" only to further drive home the
degree of arrogation when numbers are cited, all the way down to how
many per minute, and yet put forward as truth that utilities, e.g.,
are not targetted (but perhaps that water supply, power, etc. are,
shall we say, less than regular, is simply a media stunt by the likes
of CNN and gang?).
Tony Ralph's own binary logic -- every act of disagreement is turned
into an act of support for Milosevic and gang -- is astounding.
Please do not presume -- especially since I advanced no argument; the
last sentence on Iraq was simply a reminder since it was pointed out
earlier that Nato can't be everywhere at once. But indeed, at least
the two most gung-ho members can be in at least two places at once.
Tony Ralph wants to play with numbers and the refugees -- and deny
that his doing so is obscene in the face of the fact that the numbers
cited have all occured post the bombing. Does Tony wish to deny any
link or association on the grounds that it was going to happen. Shall
we say the bombing hastened it, then?
Anyway, more frontally --
At 1:28 PM +0800 13/5/99, tony ralph wrote in response to my earlier
post with a vituperation perhaps better reserved for the Milosevic's
and Clinton's and Blair's of this world, and seeks to impose upon me
-- an act of power if I ever saw one -- views to which I do not
subscribe, attempts (of course to be denied) to label myself part of
the 'proto fascist left', imputes to me the view that 'the bombing
should stop' (I confess to believing it should never have started).
Given such self-righteousness on Tony's part, all I wish to say is
that the only effective action and the only one that could have
avoided the refugee tide was if Nato was prepared to drop in troops
in sufficient numbers by sea, land and air to secure Kosovo and wipe
out the Yugoslav and Serb forces there, deal such a drubbing that
there could be little prospect of their returning there subsequently.
Nato was not prepared to do so -- are Australians prepared to do so?
will Tony kindly volunteer for such action? (and not engage in the
'rhetoric' he accuses myself and presumably others of) -- and all
else is just bombs and anti-personnel cluster bombs (which
incidentally recently 'took out' or added another 100 to your 250
deaths a day) and crap.
Needless to mention, that leaves aside a thousand and one other very
real world issues to do with the international system that we have --
utopias aside -- for better and for worse. If that is of little
concern to you, it is of some concern to those of us on the
post-colonial spectrum who perhaps are not quite in the same
situation as Australia.
Incidentally, there was an issue of similar proportions, on
Australia's doorstep festering for all of 20+ years. Is it irrelevant
to ask whether Tony Ralph did or did not urge on Australia the need
to engage in acts of enforcement upon Jakarta/Indonesia for that? No,
this is not an issue of Australia's consistency.
Also, pace your comment on Chinese demonstrations -- was that
recently by a group of religionists also orchestrated?
KJ Khoo
For reference, Tony Ralph wrote:
>Actually, this is about the Kosovo crisis and what to do given the
>limited
>options available. Its about nearly 1.5 million people being driven into
>exile in around 60 days. And if one percent of the refugees die, its also
>about the systematic murder of 15,000 people. Your: "Who chooses who to
>address, or to bomb, or not at all...", is a philosophical
>discussion about
>global morality, about good versus evil, its also about who has the right
>to create a just world, essentially its about human "redemption" and
>"salvation" above a landscape of "despair".
>
>I think the enlightenment and utopian projects are generally worthy
>topics
>for discussion. But its a logical absurdity and an insult to mix esoteric
>coffee table rhetoric with the human misery in Kosovo. And to
>clarify your
>comment: "when Chinese students demonstrate in China against US-Nato, the
>media casts it as orchestrated", I humbly suggest that any student
>protest
>in China which does not involve tanks crushing students is orchestrated
>however the media cast it.
>
>Instead of ruminating on the morality of the "bomb", the "bomber",
>and the
>"bombed", work from the problem at a practical level. If 15,000 Kosovors
>die in a 60 day purge at a rate of 250 deaths per day, what do we do? The
>issues are really about Serbian intentions, the effectiveness of
>negotiations, what are the alternatives to bombing, is it even worth
>intervening? Its about the Serbian commitment to both negotiation and
>incremental cleansing, its about Serbia's ten year drive for purity, its
>about the lessons from Bosnian.
>
>Why do the proto-fascist left insist on preaching to the world about the
>morality of imperialism as though only they possess this sacred
>knowledge?
>Why do you keep telling me about other examples of evil treatment? I do
>have this knowledge. And I agree that NATO is amoral and does not
>have the
>right to cast the first stone.
>
>But to argue that the American and European efforts at enforcement should
>stop because they and NATO are illegitimate is as futile as
>suggesting that
>Americal and European efforts at negotiation cease because the western
>negotiators belong to imperialist capitalist war-mongering nations.
>
>To the linear left, think about your obtuse and obscene logic and please
>avoid applying it to the actual crisis in Kosovo, its doing enough damage
>in rhetoric.
Whose 'obtuse and obscene logic'? And whose 'linearity' of thought?
I raised the questions I did in the form I did deliberately,
precisely because there is the baggage of all the preceding
discussions that have occurred on this list. I may be wrong but pace
the comment by Christopher Chase, I do believe that questions of what
is or is not thought and thinkable (or as in the present case
bombable), foregrounded, deemed of sufficient importance and
centrality, selected to be acted upon in certain ways, is part and
parcel of Foucault's work.
Anyway, faced with a real world situation of obscene proportions --
on both sides, let me add -- all that stuff appears to collapse into
a simple arrogation by Tony Ralph unto himself and the side
sponsoring the actions he apparently supports the right (the power, I
admit they have) to stamp a particular narrative as the right one
(the truth?) and everyone else's as 'obscene', 'obtuse', 'linear
left', 'the proto fascist left', etc. Indeed, the terms and language
you choose to use -- "American and European efforts at enforcement"
-- invites unpacking, minimally the retort enforcement of what? You
assume of a certain morality, rightness, and so on. Is that so?
Indeed, the arrogation extends all the way to a statement that
"evidence is a trite academic term" only to further drive home the
degree of arrogation when numbers are cited, all the way down to how
many per minute, and yet put forward as truth that utilities, e.g.,
are not targetted (but perhaps that water supply, power, etc. are,
shall we say, less than regular, is simply a media stunt by the likes
of CNN and gang?).
Tony Ralph's own binary logic -- every act of disagreement is turned
into an act of support for Milosevic and gang -- is astounding.
Please do not presume -- especially since I advanced no argument; the
last sentence on Iraq was simply a reminder since it was pointed out
earlier that Nato can't be everywhere at once. But indeed, at least
the two most gung-ho members can be in at least two places at once.
Tony Ralph wants to play with numbers and the refugees -- and deny
that his doing so is obscene in the face of the fact that the numbers
cited have all occured post the bombing. Does Tony wish to deny any
link or association on the grounds that it was going to happen. Shall
we say the bombing hastened it, then?
Anyway, more frontally --
At 1:28 PM +0800 13/5/99, tony ralph wrote in response to my earlier
post with a vituperation perhaps better reserved for the Milosevic's
and Clinton's and Blair's of this world, and seeks to impose upon me
-- an act of power if I ever saw one -- views to which I do not
subscribe, attempts (of course to be denied) to label myself part of
the 'proto fascist left', imputes to me the view that 'the bombing
should stop' (I confess to believing it should never have started).
Given such self-righteousness on Tony's part, all I wish to say is
that the only effective action and the only one that could have
avoided the refugee tide was if Nato was prepared to drop in troops
in sufficient numbers by sea, land and air to secure Kosovo and wipe
out the Yugoslav and Serb forces there, deal such a drubbing that
there could be little prospect of their returning there subsequently.
Nato was not prepared to do so -- are Australians prepared to do so?
will Tony kindly volunteer for such action? (and not engage in the
'rhetoric' he accuses myself and presumably others of) -- and all
else is just bombs and anti-personnel cluster bombs (which
incidentally recently 'took out' or added another 100 to your 250
deaths a day) and crap.
Needless to mention, that leaves aside a thousand and one other very
real world issues to do with the international system that we have --
utopias aside -- for better and for worse. If that is of little
concern to you, it is of some concern to those of us on the
post-colonial spectrum who perhaps are not quite in the same
situation as Australia.
Incidentally, there was an issue of similar proportions, on
Australia's doorstep festering for all of 20+ years. Is it irrelevant
to ask whether Tony Ralph did or did not urge on Australia the need
to engage in acts of enforcement upon Jakarta/Indonesia for that? No,
this is not an issue of Australia's consistency.
Also, pace your comment on Chinese demonstrations -- was that
recently by a group of religionists also orchestrated?
KJ Khoo
For reference, Tony Ralph wrote:
>Actually, this is about the Kosovo crisis and what to do given the
>limited
>options available. Its about nearly 1.5 million people being driven into
>exile in around 60 days. And if one percent of the refugees die, its also
>about the systematic murder of 15,000 people. Your: "Who chooses who to
>address, or to bomb, or not at all...", is a philosophical
>discussion about
>global morality, about good versus evil, its also about who has the right
>to create a just world, essentially its about human "redemption" and
>"salvation" above a landscape of "despair".
>
>I think the enlightenment and utopian projects are generally worthy
>topics
>for discussion. But its a logical absurdity and an insult to mix esoteric
>coffee table rhetoric with the human misery in Kosovo. And to
>clarify your
>comment: "when Chinese students demonstrate in China against US-Nato, the
>media casts it as orchestrated", I humbly suggest that any student
>protest
>in China which does not involve tanks crushing students is orchestrated
>however the media cast it.
>
>Instead of ruminating on the morality of the "bomb", the "bomber",
>and the
>"bombed", work from the problem at a practical level. If 15,000 Kosovors
>die in a 60 day purge at a rate of 250 deaths per day, what do we do? The
>issues are really about Serbian intentions, the effectiveness of
>negotiations, what are the alternatives to bombing, is it even worth
>intervening? Its about the Serbian commitment to both negotiation and
>incremental cleansing, its about Serbia's ten year drive for purity, its
>about the lessons from Bosnian.
>
>Why do the proto-fascist left insist on preaching to the world about the
>morality of imperialism as though only they possess this sacred
>knowledge?
>Why do you keep telling me about other examples of evil treatment? I do
>have this knowledge. And I agree that NATO is amoral and does not
>have the
>right to cast the first stone.
>
>But to argue that the American and European efforts at enforcement should
>stop because they and NATO are illegitimate is as futile as
>suggesting that
>Americal and European efforts at negotiation cease because the western
>negotiators belong to imperialist capitalist war-mongering nations.
>
>To the linear left, think about your obtuse and obscene logic and please
>avoid applying it to the actual crisis in Kosovo, its doing enough damage
>in rhetoric.