Kevin Gowen wrote*

> I have a truly dizzying intellect.

Translation: Kevin has an overweening sense of self-esteem.

> I load up on protein powder.

Translation: He's constipated.

> Unlike the rather odd interests of
> furriners in the politics of the United States, I have no such interest in
> the policies of the UK.

Yes indeed, to the extent that the US keeps itself to itself and does not
impinge on the outside world it does seem rather odd that the outside world
would have all that much interest in *it*.

> I'll say that a particular demographic group must
> be targeted in order to take measures against any number of
> crimes/undesirable acts. It's called profiling.

Oh, well, if it's got a *name* it must be OK.

> > since you say no such group has
> > been "attacked", can I assume that you consider that they were
> > "targeted" for some other purpose than to be "attacked" and if so,
> > what was that purpose?
>
> First you will have to tell me what rights were eroded.

Why? The two matters are unrelated. Just tell me why they were, as you put
it, "targeted" if it was not in order that they be attacked.

> you will have to tell me what mistakes the UK government made.

The same ones the US government appears to be making.

> You simply must show your concerns to be reasonable.

I am not in a position to be so well-informed as Hans Blix, but someone so
close to the situation is concerned that there may have been no WMDs in Iraq
before the war (e.g.,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,962405,00.html) then so am I.
The reason I am concerned is because if *in fact* there were no WMDs, then
that leads to a further set of concerns about the claims that there *were*
(see ******* below).

> >> I won't expect a retraction.
> >
> > Expect what you like.
>
> No, I said what I *won't* expect, not what I will expect.

Oh, OK. Well, *don't* expect what you like, then (shrug).

> You can assume what you like.

Very kind of you.

> The peace isn't something to be won.

Try telling that to Japan or Germany!

> Nothing interesting about the fact that antiwar demonstrations took place.

Interesting that you took part in them, though.

> > Can I assume you were against the Gulf War? If so, why?
>
> Yes. I was 15 years old at the time. My opinions on the Gulf War have
since
> changed, as you may or may not be able to guess.

Ah, a convert! Now I understand why you have the uncompromising fervour of
the zealot.

> You can assume what you like.

Very kind of you.

> > Please tell me what I have to do to be in agreement with you
> > in this case.
>
> Rubbing two brain cells together would be a good start.

Since you bring this up, I do quite well on standard intelligence tests.

> You simply have to be right to agree with my side.

Ah! Perhaps there is a new kind of intelligence, the "KQ" ("Kevin Quota")
that, being superior, will ultimately replace the old IQ that fuddy-duddies
like me rely on.

> Huh?

Exactly. Now, on the old IQ rating "Huh?" would rank pretty low, but I'll
bet on the KQ scale that's right up there with...with 0.12 is "almost
double" 0.7 and other gems.

> The people in Crapistan can't vote in the US. Sometimes they can't even
vote
> in Crapistan.

Perhaps their lack of voting rights (frequently attributable, at least in
part, to US support of the dictatorships they live in), coupled with the
fact that people like you despise them, is why a percentage of them turn to
terrorism.

> Please explain the circumstances that would not lead to some assholes
> sacrificing their lives and taking a few US citizens with them.

You should all become hunter-gatherers and live in teepees.

> satisfying people is irrelevant.

Except before an election, of course.

> > Does this mean you feel that if a particular course of action actually
> > *provokes* a terrorist reaction there is no reason to regret or
> > modify the original course of action?
>
> Yes. I see that you didn't pay attention to last year's discussion of
> morals.

I followed it very closely. You argued that if something was right it was
still right, even if the results were bad, and if something was wrong it was
still wrong, even if the results were good, right? So perhaps the greatest
danger in this life is the evil that results from the actions of people who
have a high KQ and are always "right".

> What evidence is there of lies being told about Iraq's WMDs and strike
> capacity?

******* We were told Saddam Hussein had the ability to launch a chemical or
biological strike in 45 minutes, and there is no evidence that he had the
ability to launch one at all. As you enjoy pointing out, the onus of proof
lies on those who make the assertion, and when those who asserted that Iraq
had that kind of strike capability are unable to provide even elementary
corroboration of their claims one is left with a number of options; either
they were mistaken (in which case US intelligence is in a deplorable state)
or they were lying (in which case they acted immorally) or they told the
truth and someone has been tricky enough to make it *look* as though they
were mistaken or lying (in which case the forces of terrorism and evil are a
lot more powerful and resourceful than we imagine, and we had *all* better
be deeply concerned).

> To think this, you have to think that Bush and Blair are not only
> insidious but incredibly stupid.

I can't comment about what constitutes stupid on the KQ scale, but the IQ
approach is to consider the possibilities.

> Is your theory that Bush and Blair lied
> about WMDs to justify an invasion that they knew would show that no such
> WMDs existed?

Not at all. Anyone with a reasonable IQ rating would see that that does not
necessarily follow, but the KQ rating evidently does not allow of the same
range of possible interpretations.

> Assume what you like.

Very kind of you.

> I don't make statements such as "I care about
> Muslims", "I care about Catholics", "I care about seamstresses" etc
because
> I do not view people in terms of their group identity when deciding whom
to
> care about.

Only when deciding whom *not* to care about, eh, like the poorer
three-quarters of the world's population (of whom you said "I could not care
less") and, I take it, the "asshole" inhabitants of a country you call
"Crapistan"?

> > for us to agree I have to accept that human beings, all living on
> > the same planet, nevertheless do not have any common interests (such
> > as an interest in breathing fresh air) and identity (such as sharing
> > such abilites as those of building bridges and speaking languages)?
>
> Correct.

That is so palpably absurd that I'll go back to your original statement:

>>> There is no international community. I think the problem that
>>> you are having is that you do not know what "community" means. It's
>>> a group of people having common interests or identity. You can speak
>>> of the Jewish community, Tokyo community, and Mexican community, but
>>> there is simply no such thing as the international community. There
>>> are no common interests or identity at that level.

I think the problem is that you do not know what "international community"
means. The examples you give are of communities of *individuals*. Even those
"communities" are tenuous enough. What sort of "common interests" does (say)
the average Tokyo businessman have with a Yakuza pimp living in the same
city? Or a Mexican victim of a mugging with the street gang that mugged him?
The members of the communities you mention do not have any kind of
homogeneous identity. They vote for different people, frequent differing
venues, etc., because they have differing interests and a different sense of
what constitutes their identity.

However, tenuous though it is, there is *sufficient* in common for those
individuals to be able to identify themselves and others as part of a
community. Now, when we say "international community" we do not suppose it
to mean a community of six billion individuals (though, if stuck on Alpha
Centauri with no one but Alpha Centaurians for company, I suspect most of
that six billion would welcome any fellow human with open arms as a member
of the community of earthlings) but a community of *countries* - all of
whom, despite their differences, do most definitely have common interests
and a common identity. They all have a national anthem and a flag, they all
have a body of laws, they all print money, they all have an interest in
feeding their populace, in winning a gold medal at the Olympics,  etc., etc.
The things which identify an entity as a country are common to all
countries, to a much greater degree, in fact, than the things which identify
a Tokyoite as a Tokyoite are common to all Tokyoites.

> Tell me to whom you think states should hold themselves accountable.

Well, to me, preferably, but failing that to anyone except you.


--
John
http://rarebooksinjapan.com