2003-8-27 06:30:00
Felix writes:
The ironic thing here is that you, JJ Dewey, replied quite seriously to the post "Why Did We Go To War, Daddy?" and you wrote a ridiculous "reply" to it.
JJ:
Since you are fairly new here, and we also have some other new members coming on board, I would like to stress again the etiquette of the list. If you disagree with someone please do not take the low road and call them "ridiculous" hypocrites, loony etc. These are inflammatory astral attacks that abnegate the mind and the principle of good will.
On the other hand, if you think someone is truly ridiculous, hypocritical etc the encouraged path here is to ascend to the plane of the mind and illustrate it in harmless but enlightened writing and logic, yet still showing the principle of brotherhood as much as possible.
Come up higher my brother and see the glass as half full rather than half empty. I've read through all your posts and cannot recall one positive statement about anything. Surely, everything on the planet is not going to hell in a hand basket.
May I suggest the mantra of unification (given by DK) for you to reconsider:
The sons of men are one and I am one with them. I seek to love, not hate; I seek to serve and not exact due service; I seek to heal, not hurt.
Let pain bring due reward of light and love. Let the soul control the outer form and life and all events, And bring to light the love which underlies the happenings of the time.
Let vision come and insight. Let the future stand revealed. Let inner union demonstrate and outer cleavages be gone. Let love prevail. Let all men love.
The key sentence here is: "And bring to light the love which underlies the happenings of the time."
We tend to see what we look for. It appears that you are looking for the hate, cleavages and blunders that underlie the current events and are finding that for which you look. On the other hand, it is as true as any time in history that the principle of love does underlie many of the happenings of the present. Unfortunately, the love cannot be seen unless it is looked for and one will not look unless it already exists within his heart.
Having said this, I acknowledge that you think my post is ridiculous, but it would he helpful if you could provide some evidence or illustrations. Since I see none, I just assume you are venting frustration at not overcoming the checkmate in the dialog.
Felix:
I am a little surprised and little confused that this list (or is it just you?) discourages so-called controversial political posts. Politics is an area of life that profoundly affects the everyday lives of everyday people, the same people that have no desire to Self- realize themselves.
JJ:
This one post that I responded to is a good illustration of why we avoid it. We could toss around circular arguments on this one topic for six months and lose many people who came here to escape the political lists and learn more pure spiritual teachings.
This is not a free-for-all list, but a classroom. This gives it a different purpose than most of the lists out there. Not only are political topics off topic, but all topics are off topic that led us away from our main points of discussion. Since I am the head teacher here at present then I get to set the topics that are to be discussed. We do, of course, allow some off topic posts if we do not think they will lead to a major distraction. Political attack posts are the main ones we reject because they do lead the group off course.
This is one of those occasions where a political post got through and I responded, so it is on topic for now. I hope to get this covered quickly so we can get back to the more spiritual teachings.
Felix:
But besides the "purpose" of this list (and it's non-purpose of discussing an area of life that is intertwined with living on the physical plane) ....your reply was equally as humorous. I will elaborate.
The Illogic of J J Dewey's "The Logic of the War" by Felix Carter
Firstly, not all people with PhD's have pride because they have PhD's,...
JJ:
I never said they did. Of course, there are good and bad who have PhD's just as there are good and bad who wear the flag. Our common sense guy was irritated by the hypocrisy of this particular PhD stereotyping him with the worst of nationalism and separateness. He thus decided to throw a barb in return by stereotyping the professor right back to show him what it felt like.
In real life I have seen many accusations by intellectuals stereotyping everyone who wears the flag as having the worst elements of human nature. This is very unfair and judgmental in the worst sense. I know many people who honor the flag who are ten times as inclusive as average academia. My mother is one of them. You couldn't find a more inclusive loving lady who accepts all people despite their belief system.
Felix:
....whereas it's safe and logical to reach the conclusion that all people who genuinely "wrap themselves in the flag" DO have nationalistic pride. There are exceptions of course, but that's why i wrote "genuinely" - it's by choice, as much as that means when a person lives their life controlled by emotion.
JJ:
I'm sure that just as many (percentage-wise) PhD's genuinely wrap themselves in their labels as do patriots who wrap themselves in the flag.
I'm not even sure what the phrase means as no one has attempted to define it except to say it is a bad thing. I do not know if I have ever met anyone who wraps themselves in the flag the way you describe. Can you name me one person who does this so I can have a greater understanding of your thought process?
For instance, do you think that everyone who wears or displays the flag is "wrapping themselves" in it? If you do then you give the impression that you are condemning all such persons without giving them the benefit of looking upon their hearts.
You would certainly overlook a lovely soul by letting a prejudice cause you to not see the good will in my mother, for example.
Felix:
Also, how does having "PhD" next to a name equate "telling them you are better than the rest of us"? That does not make sense. Having PhD next to a name can simply mean they have their PhD, sorry to burst your bubble - but it can be that simple. You said this person in question with a PhD is a college professor and they were wearing a name tag ...could it be that this college professor was at a college, hence him wearing his name tag with PhD next to it? ;)
JJ:
I thought it was obvious that they were not at college because I thought it was obvious that the man of common sense was not a student or teacher. I was going to state that they were at a high school function for their kids but wanted to streamline it as much as possible.
You missed the point that was being made. The point had nothing to do with any idea that PhD's are better than the rest of us. The common sense guy would have never brought that up if he had not been attacked. He brought this point up to show the professor that if he played by his rules of engagement then the professor could also be stereotyped and falsely accused with more substance than the professor himself used.
Felix:
This man wearing the American flag on his jacket, says he's wearing it because he's in the same boat with everyone in the country... could this be the same boat of nationalism? The same boat of American isolationism? The same boat that many Americans were aboard in 1940 when they didn't want to go to war and help their brothers in Britain and France? I think it is the same boat.
JJ:
To say that everyone who wears an American flag is nationalistic and an isolationist is stereotyping in the most emotional thoughtless way I can imagine.
I have an American flag on the back of my car and on the door to the office, but consider myself a world citizen first and United States citizen second. I challenge you to find even one thing of negative nationalism or isolationism in my writings. If you cannot find it then this is proof your accusations are astral based and not from the plane of the mind.
Felix:
If this man in question wearing the American flag on his jacket were to go to France today, he surely would not be in the same boat as the majority of people of France are in. So should all people board the boat of THEIR OWN country? If everyone did that we would have the world we have today. A world where it's one country on guard and suspicious of another country. A world where trade and lending and borrowing are the norm, and NOT sharing. A world where it's us against them. And i can guarantee you that when American benefits, not ALL countries benefit equally or even at all.
JJ:
This is an example that I stated earlier of your looking at the glass half empty. Just because someone wears an America Flag you assume that he is hurting France, suspicious, unwilling to share, us against them etc. I have rarely seen so much negative vision from so little data.
Felix: quote two - "CS: So did you support our war against Slobodan Milosevic in Bosnia? CP: Yes. "
Again, you're just writing a completely hypothetical example, but the danger in doing so is how subjective your example is... i can ask a different PhD (in America to boot) and he would answer "No" he did not support the war against Milosevic. I also found it humorous that you brought up Milosevic when the piece in question had no mention of Milosevic and yet you also write nothing at all about China when this Michael Moore-esque child brings up China a number of times.
JJ:
This is not a hypothetical example in that many of the intelligentsia did support Clinton in all his wars. I listen to news programs about six hours a day while I am working at my business so I catch about everyone out there who is saying anything political. I do not recall hearing even one of the many who publicly opposed the war in Iraq say anything negative about the Clinton Wars (which include Bosnia, Serbia, Haiti, bombing Iraq etc.) This smells of hypocrisy to me.
Of course, there were a few who were against both sets of war, but the lack of outcry over Bosnia indicates there were very, very few in academic circles or other circles who raised their voice over both wars. A few Republicans were suspicious that Clinton was using war to divert attention away from his scandals. This was the main complaint I heard.
Felix:
Also, what gives America the right to be the policeman of the world? And not only that, America is now the law enforcers AND now is excused from the law, United Nations law that is. That is a deadly combination.
JJ:
What UN law are you talking about?
Each nation must do what it can to make the world a better place, but judgment must be used. Sometimes it is good to police (as DK said we should have done with Hitler before entering World War II) and sometimes it is best not to. Each circumstance must be looked at on its own merits.
I probably agree with about half of our policing actions and disagree with the rest. To just rule out all such activity is an ideal belonging to the passing sixth ray which needs to be allowed to diminish.
Felix:
Why is it America going to Iraq and saving the Iraqis from their oppressor? And spare me the UN incompetent bullshit. History tells and will continue to tell that the only time America steps foot in the Middle East is because of oil. The black liquid, the perfect symbol of astral glamour.
JJ:
I gave the reason for war in my dialog. An answer to your oil accusation is posted below. This was a post a made several moths ago.
If the United States were in this just for the oil we could have taken Iraq's oil in the first Gulf War. Since we are a powerful nation, we could have taken Kuwait's oil also any time we wanted.
Our past actions alone belie this accusation.
The oil accusation has been made about every war the U.S. has fought in my lifetime. They said this about Vietnam, the first Gulf War, Afghanistan and now the current war. At least there is some reason for suspicion with Iraq because of its high oil reserves.
It's good to be suspicious but I see no evidence of this common accusation, nor have I seen anything to back it up, save guilt by association.
Let us examine this from the plane of the mind.
It is costing the United States $70 billion in additional funds, plus the funds already at hand to just get started in Iraq. This alone amounts to probably about $120 billion. I'm not sure of British expenditure, but they would be at least $25 billion. But the expenses will not end there. Spending twice this amount before things are stabilized is a conservative estimate.
In addition, to repair and expand oil production in Iraq would cost as much as $30 Billion. This (most probably) would not come from the government but from business investment.
So let us add this up. $120 billion + 25 billion times two equals $290 billion plus 30 billion = $325 billion.
Let us suppose there are greedy SOB's in this for the oil. How long will it take to make the $325 billion investment back?
Recently Iraq has been exporting around $7 billion worth of oil plus whatever Saddam Hussein has been able to sell on the black market. The oil equipment is in dire need of repair, but after many billions are invested Iraq should be able to produce around $20 Billion a year. Of course, even this is not all profit. Production expenses must be subtracted from this amount.
Let us take a high projection and say that the profit would be $15 billion a year. If the United States and Britain were to grab all that money for themselves, and the investors, it would take 21 years (plus several years to get the oil field in shape) to get the investment back not counting interest involved.
This by itself is not much of an incentive to make such an expenditure, especially when the war was risky and could have been a disaster.
It is also something impossible to accomplish. If we were to confiscate all the oil profits from Iraq this would cause tremendous suffering for the Iraqi people and would cause a world hatred and disgust that would make the current dislike of the U.S. seem very mild.
On the other hand, Colin Powel has already stated that the profits will be put in a trust fund to help the Iraqi people.
There is another important consideration. After 911 Bush's approval ratings were around 90% and stayed high until he began talking about a war with Iraq. His enemies pounced on him and his approval ratings sank dramatically. Many political opponents sided with the peace protesters thinking that a war posed extreme political risk and any screw up would be disastrous for Bush.
It was indeed a risky move. If Bush were going to war for political reasons for it could doom his political career forever. Even some of his strongest opponents concluded that he must be sincere in this endeavor for they figured that only a fool would go to war for political benefit.
Whatever you think of G W Bush, a war with Iraq for either the oil or for a political bonus does not make sense. After all, look what happened to Lyndon Johnson during the Vietnam War.
I am out of time tonight but will write more soon.
A conclusion is the place where you got tired of thinking.
Steven Wright
Copyright 2003 by J.J. Dewey, All Rights Reserved