From: MaxPlumm@aol.com
Date: Wed Mar 26 2003 - 22:59:00 MST
I initially questioned Charles:
>If the answer is no, then you do not diminish Lee's main argument that these
>"anti-war" and even worse "peace" (whatever that fanciful concept means to a
>million different people) protesters ONLY criticize US intervention abroad.
>
"I protest when those who claim to represent me engage in actions I find
immoral. (It's less than clear to me what sense it makes to protest
someone who doesn't claim to represent me anyway.)"
So you would then agree that it is inappropriate for those abroad to protest
the US campaign against Saddam Hussein, given that they did not also protest
the aforementioned aggression of North Vietnam, the Soviet Union, and the
French decision to remove Bokassa?
>
>And these protesters do this despite the fact that said interventions, like
>the US's in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Korea, have the potential to
significantly
>better the quality of life for the people in those countries, unlike most of
>
"Getting bombs dropped on you head always improves your viewpoint. And
having your water supplies destroyed. etc."
Again, you either ignored or conveniently edited out my point regarding the
fact that the United States has gone to tremendous strides to avoid civilian
casualties. We could simply "bomb the hell" out of Baghdad indiscriminately,
just as we could have flooded the dikes in North Vietnam, causing millions of
civilian deaths but bringing those conflicts to swifter resolutions. And yet,
unlike our adversaries in Baghdad or Hanoi, mass terror is not our policy.
>...
>Are you going to seriously argue that the Iraqi people will not benefit from
>the removal of Saddam Hussein?
>
"If that were the only effect, then I wouldn't make that assertion. But
actually I expect that to be a minor benefit that they may obtain, if
the puppet we put in isn't even worse. (Remember, we put him in
originally.)"
No, we did not "put him in originally." We certainly did aid his regime in
his war against the Iranians. But so what? That fact alone does not look at
that decision in any historical perspective nor does it prohibit us from our
current action. We heavily aided the Soviet Union during World War II, a
temporary alliance that gave way to inevitable conflict when our common enemy
had been vanquished.
>...
>Let me address this on two points. First, you are being intellectually
>dishonest if you are in any way suggesting that the United States is
>intentionally attempting to inflict mass casualties on the Iraqi people.
They
>
"They are doing it intentionally in the sense that they are criminally
negligent if they didn't know ahead of time that this would happen. I'm
not claiming that they planned to do it, but rather that they had to
know that this would be one of the effects. "Collateral damage" I
believe the term is."
You claim we are "criminally negligent" for causing a limited number of
civilian deaths. What is Saddam Hussein then? It is absolutely ludicrous to
suggest that the amount of civilian casualties will approach any where near
the number of Iraqi deaths Hussein's regime is responsible for. It is only
logical to assume that the number of those butchered by that regime will only
continue to grow. The UN has done nothing to abate this situation. They did
nothing to stop genocide in Cambodia, Laos, Ethopia, the Soviet Union, China,
Rwanda, and a ton of other locales in the world. Are you suggesting that the
limited number of 1000-6000 (the estimates in Afghanistan) is worse than the
continued mass murder that will be inflicted on the Iraqis by Hussein and his
heirs apparent?
>...
>And please correct me if I'm wrong Charles, but if you accept that Hussein
>"is (or was) evil" then you must then accept the conservative estimates that
>he is responsible for the deaths of at least 200,000 of his own people. If
>
"I don't have any basis to accept or reject any particular set of
numbers. But there's a big difference between his doing it and our
doing it. If he does it, then he is the villian. If we do it, then we
are."
The end result will be a better quality of life for the Iraqis with a better
government. Are you going to offer that the Taliban or the Soviet proxies
were better for Afghanistan than Hamid Karzai's regime? The United States,
unlike the Soviets, does not have a long history of bringing WORSE regimes to
these nations.
>...That being said, in the long run, more lives will be saved through our
"war
>of aggression" than by allowing Saddam Hussein to remain in power. Not to
>
"This may or may not be true. It remains to be proven. Sometimes we
have replaced one vile madman with another, sometimes we have improved
things, sometimes we have made them worse. Usually on close examination
it turns out that we acted in what we saw as our own self-interest, and
any moralistic hand-wringing was just that."
I have never on this forum ever said that we have acted in anything beyond
our own self-interest internationally. I have made a point of illustrating
that is not a bad thing. However, there is a huge difference between the
self-interest of the United States and, for example, the totalitarians of the
Soviet Union, North Korea, North Vietnam, or Iraq. It is quite evident that
you enjoy bashing the United States. Now, please provide ONE nation that has
a better history of spreading the causes of democracy and freedom abroad than
the United States.
>mention the fact that the quality of life of the people of Iraq will be
>improved, just as "amazingly" happens almost every time the United States
>intervenes abroad. I think we all recall the South Koreans, Greeks,
Japanese,
>West Germans, and Afghans, among others, no?
>
"MacArthur and Marshall were extraordinary generals. And Hitler was the
kind of villian that Hussein only has wet dreams about. And we occupied
Japan for twenty years. But I can also recall many other events that
turned out much worse. The Dominican Republic comes to mind as an example."
Again, you may criticize the United States all you like. As a matter of fact,
I recommend it in regard to the policies of the Johnson administration.
However, the Trujillo regime that was in power in the Dominican Republic from
the 1930's through the 60's was certainly worse than what came after it. And
more to the point, it is absolutely ludicrous to suggest that democracy would
be in Germany, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Greece, among a score of other
countries without direct actions taken by the United States. Please
illustrate to me what other nations can make this claim?
>...
>I would simply ask what your justification would be for removing Saddam
>Hussein, since apparently our own defense and improving the quality of life
>of the Iraqis are not sufficient in your view. And again, I hope that I will
>
"I haven't seen any convincing evidence that he was a threat to us. It's
true my evidence that he wasn't is quite weak, but not, I think, as weak
as relying on the honestly of a Prince (i.e., Bush, but the reference
was via Machievelli)."
So, without commenting further, note the ease with which you criticize Bush
and not Saddam Hussein.
"The French have taken the position they have at least in part because we
are cutting them out of the oil. Is that what you mean? Yes, when they
are moralistic at this position then they are hypocritical. But they
aren't claiming to represent me."
But they, like the UN, have no business denouncing this action given they
have engaged in it themselves with even less provocation (in your view), or
done nothing at all to prevent human castrophe throughout the globe.
"I haven't looked at the Bokassa regime. I doubt that I would approve,
but as far as I know I'm neither supporting nor opposing them. The
world's a bit place, and I don't see it as my job to try to police the
whole thing. (And I'd rather that it didn't try to police me, either.
So, e.g., I'm against the WTO.)"
Nor is the United States policing "the whole thing." If it were, then it
would also be in the process of removing the totalitarian regimes in Vietnam
and in Laos. These regimes are of the exact same character and merit of
Saddam's, save for the fact that they have not been in active pursuit (no
doubt due to the fact they lack the oil revenue) of weapons of mass
destruction.
>...
>Ever vigilant for signs of further French wars of aggression,
>
>Max Plumm
>
OK. Do they represent you?
No, but given that the US is merely engaging in a more legitimate form of the
"French doctrine" of thug regime change, we must remain ever vigilant...:)
Max Plumm
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Mar 26 2003 - 23:06:04 MST