Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Netizens-Digest Volume 1 Number 410
Netizens-Digest Monday, November 11 2002 Volume 01 : Number 410
Netizens Association Discussion List Digest
In this issue:
Re:[netz]The UN Security Council's vote for war and the netizen desire for peace
Re:[netz]The UN Security Council's vote for war and the netizen desire for peace
Re:[netz]The UN Security Council's vote for war and the netizen desire for peace
Re:[netz]The UN Security Council's vote for war and the netizen desire for peace
[netz] about post being relevant to Netizen's list
Re: [netz] about post being relevant to Netizen's list
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2002 01:13:23 -0500
From: "R, v Head" <rvhead@juno.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] The UN Security Council's vote for war and the netizen desire for peace
> inspections. However, Iraq decided in early August 1998 to end
> cooperation with UNSCOM until sanctions were lifted. So it's _at
least_
> plausible that Iraq, rather than the US and Great Britain, precipitated
the crisis.
> Of course we could go over all the history and try to allocate blame
> cumulatively. At any rate, _some_ attention should be given to Iraq's
actions, not
> only the US and Great Britain's.
As I recall, Inspectors were withdrawn by the US and Britain preparatory
to bombing, which was done for the ostensible purpose of punishing Iraq
for its recalcitrance with the inspection regime.
It is false to say that Iraq expelled the inspectors, though of course it
could be argued that, had they been 100% cooperative, the bombing would
not have been necessary.
________________________________________________________________
Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today
Only $9.95 per month!
Visit www.juno.com
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2002 09:39:56 -0500 (EST)
From: lindeman@bard.edu
Subject: Re: [netz] The UN Security Council's vote for war and the netizen desire for peace
R, v Head wrote:
> As I recall, Inspectors were withdrawn by the US and Britain preparatory
> to bombing, which was done for the ostensible purpose of punishing Iraq
> for its recalcitrance with the inspection regime.
>
> It is false to say that Iraq expelled the inspectors, though of course it
> could be argued that, had they been 100% cooperative, the bombing would
> not have been necessary.
Yes. (For the record, unlike the Bush administration, I was careful not to say
that Iraq expelled the inspectors!)
Many war critics have portrayed Iraqi noncooperation as a pretext, more than a
rationale, for US and British actions. Many of the same war critics have cited
Scott Ritter's recent statements that Iraq doesn't have weapons of mass
destruction. So it's worth remembering that in 1998, Scott Ritter was
criticizing the Clinton administration for not taking a _harder_ line on
inspections.
While it's debatable how this issue relates to the mission of the Netizens
list, as long as we are discussing it, we should make every effort to see the
whole issue, not just debating points on one side or another. My comments are
intended in that spirit -- to round out the story, not to impose one version of
it.
Mark
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2002 12:11:39 -0500
From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@gettcomm.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] The UN Security Council's vote for war and the netizen desire for peace
At 9:39 AM -0500 11/10/02, lindeman@bard.edu wrote:
>R, v Head wrote:
>
>> As I recall, Inspectors were withdrawn by the US and Britain preparatory
>> to bombing, which was done for the ostensible purpose of punishing Iraq
>> for its recalcitrance with the inspection regime.
>>
>> It is false to say that Iraq expelled the inspectors, though of course it
>> could be argued that, had they been 100% cooperative, the bombing would
>> not have been necessary.
>
>Yes. (For the record, unlike the Bush administration, I was careful
>not to say
>that Iraq expelled the inspectors!)
I would agree that there was no formal expulsion, but something of a
consensus among the UN inspectors that they could not meet their
objectives.
>
>Many war critics have portrayed Iraqi noncooperation as a pretext, more than a
>rationale, for US and British actions. Many of the same war critics
>have cited
>Scott Ritter's recent statements that Iraq doesn't have weapons of mass
>destruction. So it's worth remembering that in 1998, Scott Ritter was
>criticizing the Clinton administration for not taking a _harder_ line on
>inspections.
Ritter's book _Endgame_ and his current pronouncements seem, to me,
to show quite a bit of inconsistency. Even while obviously despising
Saddam, his book does suggest that he encountered
outside-the-inner-circle senior officials that seemed to want to work
solutions. I think there is consensus, however, that the inner circle
is paranoid and simply will not reduce any controls.
>
>While it's debatable how this issue relates to the mission of the Netizens
>list,
I, too, really feel this is out of scope. It's not as if that a
significant number of Iraqi citizens can access the net and join the
debate. Barring net access and free speech, to me, is not a strong
point in judging a regime's legitimacy.
>as long as we are discussing it, we should make every effort to see the
>whole issue, not just debating points on one side or another. My comments are
>intended in that spirit -- to round out the story, not to impose one
>version of
>it.
>
>Mark
Howard Berkowitz
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 07:36:40 -0500 (EST)
From: <ronda@panix.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] The UN Security Council's vote for war and the netizen desire for peace
I appreciate the discussion and also the question about whether my
post was appropriate for the Netizens list.
I am taking that issue seriously.
I realize I consider Netizens those who both are citizens at home and
online citizens of the Net.
But I realize that isn't in the description of the Netizens list, but
my understanding.
It is most appropriate to post about being a citizen at home and online
by trying to solve problems like influencing how the infrastructure
of the Internet can be adequately protected.
Some, for example, are proposing that the UN be the place that can make
that possible.
I feel this is an appropriate discussion.
However, this vote by the Security Council raises serious questions
about the nature of the UN and its ability to protect even itself,
let alone the infrastructure of the Internet.
So perhaps this is a way to appropriately tie the decision about the
vote to unanimously go along with the US threats against Iraq
to the importance for netizens.
Also I agree that if there is a war against Iraq that this does
have implications for netizens. It is important that those in
Iraq have access to the Internet, not that they be bombed.
In any case, I appreciate the discussion and raising of questions
that has occurred and feel it is important to determine what is
appropriate for the list, as well as how to be netizens.
I posted about the Security Council vote as Michael would have
felt that this was a serious problem for netizens and for citizens.
But I didn't try to sort this all thru before doing the post.
Thanks for the helpful comments on my post.
Ronda
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 08:12:33 -0500 (EST)
From: <ronda@panix.com>
Subject: [netz] about post being relevant to Netizen's list
I just want to add to my previous post that though Michael would
have thought the action at the Security Council was important
to consider, he also did always feel that a post should be appropriate
to the list or the newsgroup it was contributed to. So once again
I appreciate the consideration by the list of what are relevant areas
for discussion. And I will try to learn from this consideration toward
making what I post clearly relevant to the list.
With best wishes
Ronda
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 14:57:55 EST
From: AGENTKUENSTLER@aol.com
Subject: Re: [netz] about post being relevant to Netizen's list
- --part1_161.16e67ede.2b0165c3_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
ABSTRACT:
As I concur with Lindeman, at the same time I do believe Ronda's post is at
least tangentially relevant in terms of discussion of 'how or if UN policy
diverges from Netizen advocacy.'
COGENCY OF 'UN RESOLUTION AND IRAQ' SUBJECT WITH NETIZEN POST
Consider:
Ronda might be making a case that 'the actions of the UN generally appear as
'unresponsive to the will of the Netizen constituency.'
In my interpretation of 'Ronda's belief of Netizen post cogency,' the recent
UN resolution toward Iraq may possibly represent or illustrate another
egregious instance of evidence that corroborates the claim.
Again, it is only my assumption that she is making such a claim as I have
articulated above, that the UN is unresponsive to Netizens; perhaps it is not
the case that she is making this claim.
PROTESTING IN STREET AS INDICATOR OF ONLINE MEASURE OF DISCONTENT
I assume that by employing the discussion of, for example, numbers of
protesters in physical demonstrations, Ronda is making, without attempting to
devise or communicate any kind of generally accepted "scientific online
measure," a possible allusion, albeit expressed tacitly, to her belief in a
relationship between dissension in the streets and dissension online.
To simplify, I believe Ronda's tacit assumption is 'the dissatisfaction on
the street does meaningfully shed light on online or Netizen sentiment.'
>From Ronda: 11/8/02 9:06:18 PM Eastern Standard Time
>There were up to 200,000 people in the US in Washington DC and
>many more around the country, yet the US government continues
>to press its efforts to control the oil of Iraq.
>And there were 400,000 in London and many in other countries
>also protesting these activities.
>Clearly the UN is *not* caring about the interests or concerns
>of the world when it goes along with such an activity as the
>US government's demands for support for its harrassment
>of Iraq and its people.
To acquire a more precise measure one might want to contact someone like <A HREF="http://www.jmm.com/">
Jupiter Media</A> who could design and implement strategy for a "scientific"
report, and I do understand that such an inquiry might have exorbitant cost.
So I can understand why, for expediency, Ronda might not actually talk
network numbers. Otherwise one would have to laboriously confront the
network metric design problem, come up with a reasonable model that considers
the most salient features and then formulate a solution. I've never done
polling of any kind before but I can nonetheless conclude that the complexity
level regarding a sampling of online Iraqi war sentiment is pretty
formidable. The hardest part is asking the right question.
No matter the cost, the effort toward such reports will be necessary to
responsibly and constructively pursue polemic discourse to ultimately effect
change in the UN if indeed misrepresentation or inadvocacy of the UN w.r.t.
Netizens is true. I am not necessarily talking about the Iraqi issue here.
I am referring to metric reports that illuminate the sentiment of Netizens
about all issues where the UN would appear to be the best and most apposite
advocate.
ATTEMPT TO UNDERSTAND RELEVANCE OF RONDA'S CONTRIBUTION TO NETIZEN POST LEADS
US TO A MEANINGFUL QUESTION:
To illustrate my understanding of 'Why Ronda's post?' the logical argument
might go like this. Let us start:
Axiomatically speaking:
(I cannot truly claim (1) nor (2) as 'real axioms' because I neither have the
resources nor the information to establish these. I am just speaking
practically. Please forgive the non-rigor. It is enough that (1) and (2)
appear as though they could be axioms for this discussion to be meaningful.)
(1) (It can be argued that) 'the quality of life' both online and offline of
a Netizen is dependent on the rulings of the UN.
(2) All Netizens seek a 'reasonable quality of life' and trust the UN to
assist them in this endeavor.
Consider:
If it can be demonstrated the case that UN rulings are unresponsive to the
Netizen constituency in this context i.e. 'pursuit of reasonable quality of
life,' and particularly in this Iraqi instance, then it is meaningful to
pursue the answer to the following question:
Can the UN be trusted to act as advocate of the Netizen generally?
========================
THE NETIZEN PURSUIT OF TRUTH AND THE IRAQI THREAT ASSESSMENT
Excuse the non sequitur for a moment:
Let us consider the context of the Netizen and the "pursuit of truth." The
Netizen enjoys the ability to 'rummage' about the resources of myriad online
publishers and sample copious accounts of an issue to find the truth. What
is the truth here? How can the Netizen or any citizen fairly make any kind
of judgment about the UN ruling without copious accounts from all sources?
What sources are truly reputable regarding Iraq and an accurate threat
assessment of Saddam Hussein? What sources are not connected in any way
directly or indirectly with the governments involved in the drafting and
ratification of the UN resolution?
What Middle East news resources are reliable? Where do the common everyday
Iraqi people as well as the academicians electronically post their opinion of
the war and their government policy? Can they be sure that their messages
are kept private? Do they have available to them the appropriate encryption
technology? How does this affect what they say? Electronic messages can be
stored indefinitely thereby rendering a "weak encryption" transparent.
I personally cannot make any kind of judgment about the appropriateness of UN
policy nor US policy for that matter regarding the realistic Iraqi threat
assessment. Just because Hussein may have weaponry, it does not necessarily
follow that he will use it or use it against the United States. Perhaps, I
am wrong. The Iraqi impending threat is not clear to me and even if I had
all of the information, I am not an expert in foreign policy. I am not
qualified. Few people are.
But you know who we trust to be qualified? Consider our elected
representatives. Public protesting of the citizenry does not make any sense
in a democracy such as ours. There would be no protesting if the citizenry
were actively involved in policy making. Our elected representatives are
supposed to protest for us in proxy. This is how it is supposed to work.
The recent protesting worldwide regarding UN / Iraqi policy establishes the
fact that not all people believe in the judgment of their governments.
Particularly in the United States, the protesting establishes the fact that
there is a remarkable contingent of people here that do not trust their
elected officials, particularly their President.
I've got a solution. Instead of complaining and finger-pointing, perhaps
more of us should vote. Furthermore, let me not end there. Our
responsibility does not end at the voting booth. We must get actively
involved locally in all issues that affect our immediate environment so that
it never becomes the case that "bad" policy is escalated to the point where
there is no practical reason to contest it because there is no way to contest
it. The effort expended now by the protesters is too late. The US is
already in Iraq.
If you ask me, the dissenting voices should have rallied the public to engage
their local representatives long ago in the process before it had traveled
this far.
Because the torus is already in the oil, it's too late to make an eclair.
Larry Leathers
- --part1_161.16e67ede.2b0165c3_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><FONT SIZE=2>ABSTRACT:<BR>
<BR>
As I concur with Lindeman, at the same time I do believe Ronda's post is at least tangentially relevant in terms of discussion of <I>'</I>how or if UN policy diverges from Netizen advocacy.'<BR>
<BR>
COGENCY OF 'UN RESOLUTION AND IRAQ' SUBJECT WITH NETIZEN POST<BR>
<BR>
Consider:<BR>
<BR>
Ronda might be making a case that 'the actions of the UN generally appear as <I>'unresponsive to the will of the Netizen constituency.' </I><BR>
<BR>
In my interpretation of 'Ronda's belief of Netizen post cogency,' the recent UN resolution toward Iraq may possibly represent or illustrate another egregious instance of evidence that corroborates the claim. <BR>
<BR>
Again, it is only my assumption that she is making such a claim as I have articulated above, that the UN is unresponsive to Netizens; perhaps it is not the case that she is making this claim.<BR>
<BR>
PROTESTING IN STREET AS INDICATOR OF ONLINE MEASURE OF DISCONTENT <BR>
<BR>
I assume that by employing the discussion of, for example, numbers of protesters in physical demonstrations, Ronda is making, without attempting to devise or communicate any kind of generally accepted "scientific online measure," a possible allusion, albeit expressed tacitly, to her belief in a relationship between dissension in the streets and dissension online. <BR>
<BR>
To simplify, I believe Ronda's tacit assumption is 'the dissatisfaction on the street does meaningfully shed light on online or Netizen sentiment.' <BR>
<BR>
>From Ronda: 11/8/02 9:06:18 PM Eastern Standard Time <BR>
<BR>
>There were up to 200,000 people in the US in Washington DC and <BR>
>many more around the country, yet the US government continues<BR>
>to press its efforts to control the oil of Iraq.<BR>
<BR>
>And there were 400,000 in London and many in other countries<BR>
>also protesting these activities.<BR>
<BR>
>Clearly the UN is *not* caring about the interests or concerns<BR>
>of the world when it goes along with such an activity as the <BR>
>US government's demands for support for its harrassment<BR>
>of Iraq and its people.<BR>
<BR>
To acquire a more precise measure one might want to contact someone like <A HREF="Jupiter">http://www.jmm.com/">Jupiter Media</A> who could design and implement strategy for a "scientific" report, and I do understand that such an inquiry might have exorbitant cost. So I can understand why, for expediency, Ronda might not actually talk network numbers. Otherwise one would have to laboriously confront the network metric design problem, come up with a reasonable model that considers the most salient features and then formulate a solution. I've never done polling of any kind before but I can nonetheless conclude that the complexity level regarding a sampling of online Iraqi war sentiment is pretty formidable. The hardest part is asking the right question.<BR>
<BR>
No matter the cost, the effort toward such reports will be necessary to responsibly and constructively pursue polemic discourse to ultimately effect change in the UN if indeed misrepresentation or inadvocacy of the UN w.r.t. Netizens is true. I am not necessarily talking about the Iraqi issue here. I am referring to metric reports that illuminate the sentiment of Netizens about all issues where the UN would appear to be the best and most apposite advocate. <BR>
<BR>
ATTEMPT TO UNDERSTAND RELEVANCE OF RONDA'S CONTRIBUTION TO NETIZEN POST LEADS US TO A MEANINGFUL QUESTION:<BR>
<BR>
To illustrate my understanding of 'Why Ronda's post?' the logical argument might go like this. Let us start: <BR>
<BR>
Axiomatically speaking: <BR>
<BR>
(I cannot truly claim (1) nor (2) as 'real axioms' because I neither have the resources nor the information to establish these. I am just speaking practically. Please forgive the non-rigor. It is enough that (1) and (2) appear as though they could be axioms for this discussion to be meaningful.)<BR>
<BR>
(1) (It can be argued that) 'the quality of life' both online and offline of a Netizen is dependent on the rulings of the UN.<BR>
<BR>
(2) All Netizens seek a 'reasonable quality of life' and trust the UN to assist them in this endeavor.<BR>
<BR>
Consider:<BR>
<BR>
If it can be demonstrated the case that UN rulings are unresponsive to the Netizen constituency in this context i.e. 'pursuit of reasonable quality of life,' and particularly in this Iraqi instance, then it is meaningful to pursue the answer to the following question: <BR>
<BR>
<I>Can the UN be trusted to act as advocate of the Netizen generally?</I><BR>
<BR>
<BR>
========================<BR>
<BR>
THE NETIZEN PURSUIT OF TRUTH AND THE IRAQI THREAT ASSESSMENT<BR>
<BR>
Excuse the non sequitur for a moment:<BR>
<BR>
Let us consider the context of the Netizen and the "pursuit of truth." The Netizen enjoys the ability to 'rummage' about the resources of myriad online publishers and sample copious accounts of an issue to find the truth. What is the truth here? How can the Netizen or any citizen fairly make any kind of judgment about the UN ruling without copious accounts from all sources?<BR>
<BR>
What sources are truly reputable regarding Iraq and an accurate threat assessment of Saddam Hussein? What sources are not connected in any way directly or indirectly with the governments involved in the drafting and ratification of the UN resolution? <BR>
<BR>
What Middle East news resources are reliable? Where do the common everyday Iraqi people as well as the academicians electronically post their opinion of the war and their government policy? Can they be sure that their messages are kept private? Do they have available to them the appropriate encryption technology? How does this affect what they say? Electronic messages can be stored indefinitely thereby rendering a "weak encryption" transparent.<BR>
<BR>
I personally cannot make any kind of judgment about the appropriateness of UN policy nor US policy for that matter regarding the realistic Iraqi threat assessment. Just because Hussein may have weaponry, it does not necessarily follow that he will use it or use it against the United States. Perhaps, I am wrong. The Iraqi impending threat is not clear to me and even if I had all of the information, I am not an expert in foreign policy. I am not qualified. Few people are. <BR>
<BR>
But you know who we trust to be qualified? Consider our elected representatives. Public protesting of the citizenry does not make any sense in a democracy such as ours. There would be no protesting if the citizenry were actively involved in policy making. Our elected representatives are supposed to protest <I>for us</I> in proxy. This is how it is supposed to work.<BR>
<BR>
The recent protesting worldwide regarding UN / Iraqi policy establishes the fact that not all people believe in the judgment of their governments.<BR>
<BR>
Particularly in the United States, the protesting establishes the fact that there is a remarkable contingent of people here that do not trust their elected officials, particularly their President. <BR>
<BR>
I've got a solution. Instead of complaining and finger-pointing, perhaps more of us should vote. Furthermore, let me not end there. Our responsibility does not end at the voting booth. We must get actively involved locally in all issues that affect our immediate environment so that it never becomes the case that "bad" policy is escalated to the point where there is no practical reason to contest it because there is no way to contest it. The effort expended now by the protesters is too late. The US is already in Iraq.<BR>
<BR>
If you ask me, the dissenting voices should have rallied the public to engage their local representatives long ago in the process before it had traveled this far. <BR>
<BR>
Because the torus is already in the oil, it's too late to make an eclair.<BR>
<BR>
Larry Leathers</FONT></HTML>
- --part1_161.16e67ede.2b0165c3_boundary--
------------------------------
End of Netizens-Digest V1 #410
******************************
