From: MaxPlumm@aol.com
Date: Sat Feb 01 2003 - 13:57:11 MST
Am Samstag, 1. Februar 2003 18:18 schrieb MaxPlumm@aol.com:
> "So you believe that "our unrivaled power to crush our foes" is
> what will draw the Middle East into freedom and democracy?
> Really? Isn't it more likely to increasingly lead to the US and
> all it stands for being hated as the worst sort of tyranny? Are
> we reduced to "we will crush you if you resist"?"
>
> Amazing. What brought Germany to freedom and democracy? What kept South
> Korea from falling into a Communist sponsored nightmare in 1950? What
> kept all of Europe from falling under the boot heel of Nazism?
To which Kai responded to me:
"(1) To compare the Middle-East of today with Europe of the 30s/40s or
Asia of the 50s/60s is not very sensible. The political structures and
history, the different interests, the influence of religion, ethnical
groups, the oil business, etc. are very different."
And they were similar in Korea circa 1950 and Nazi Germany? It is only not
sensible to those who do not acknowledge that force is sometimes required to
maintain and defend one's ideals and freedoms. Our past successes are not
meant to justify this action, they are merely to illustrate that we have had
to use force in the past, and those actions proved successful and ultimately
positive. Additionally, one cannot compare the actions of the United States
to those of the expansionist ones of the Nazis and Soviets as some have done.
Our domestic record is not the same, nor is our international one.
(2) Even successful actions in the past can not flatly justify current
actions; neither morally, nor technically. Every action stands for its
own. To put it simple: Doing something good and sensible in the past
doesn't excuse doing something wrong and stupid now :-)
Nor at any point on this forum did I ever say it did. I have only pointed out
that too many people have used examples of past entanglements to justify our
not getting involved in this one, when they don't even have full command of
the facts of those prior situations. I am simply seeking more justification
for this action being inappropriate than "we allied ourselves with Saddam in
the past." So what? We allied ourselves with Stalin during World War II. Or
"Many people will die needlessly." Where is the factual basis for this? This
is coming from the same people who said Afghanistan would turn into a blood
bath for the US military. "It will make the terrorists hate us more." Where
are all the major attacks following our removal of the Taliban?
"(3) The question, if a) a war, b) now will really solve more problems
then messing things up, is still unanswered. As far as I've understood
the Middle-East experts I've heard, they predict a rather uncontrollable
outburst of violence in the whole region, as well as a much higher risk
of terrorist actions. Or to refer to the historical events you mentioned;
this war could turn into a second vietnam."
This is precisely what I'm talking about. Explain to me how this would turn
into "a second Vietnam." What two major superpowers will be aiding Iraq
during this war with weapons, supplies, and logistical aid? And, given that
one of the worst holocausts in the 20th Century occurred in Indochina
following the United States withdrawal, you only provide more proof with that
sort of statement that is in everyone's best interests (save mustachioed
totalitarians) for us to become involved.
Regards,
Max Plumm
"At every turn, we have been beset by those who find everything wrong with
America and little that is right."
-Richard Nixon
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Feb 02 2003 - 21:26:09 MST