From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Fri Apr 11 2003 - 01:16:10 MDT
Lee Corbin wrote:
> Samantha has written
>
>
>>Lee Daniel Crocker wrote:
>>
>>>This is why we have a hard time taking many of you arguments
>>>seriously, Samantha: while you are quick to make the distinction
>>>between the American people and its government, you then totally
>>>ignore that very distinction by implying that we are somehow
>>>attacking the world's people instead of their governments.
>>
>>I was not aware that only governments die when we bomb a country
>>or in the chaos after the military action is more or less done.
>> I am not aware that we have a good record of late of being
>>sure to clean up the mess after and leave the people with more
>>real freedom and access to modern technology. Perhaps you know
>>something that I do not here.
>
>
> I know that this list can be exasperating at times, Samantha,
> but I would ask that people in general restrain from empty
> remarks such as this; as you know well that everyone knows
> that not only governments die during wars, and that chaos often
> follows, and that the U.S.'s record was mixed (mostly, a point
> that *does* evidently need repeating, because the U.S. was
> involved in a cold war that left few options). So remarks
> like
>
Excuse me but I was responding to imho opinion very empty points
and comments that required a reminder that a war is not just
between governments as was directly claimed in what I was
responding to. I would not think I needed to state the obvious
either until the obvious was ignored and made light of. I am
also getting damn tired of being attacked and patronized by some
on this list. I had hoped that that sort of thing had improved
here but apparently not.
Please do not roll out the "because US was involved in a cold
war" as a given and accepted by all right thinking beings
excuse. It is not universally accepted as accurate or adequate.
It is annoying when it seemingly glibly is asserted.
>
>>Perhaps you know something that I don't
>
>
> are really obscuring and unhelpful.
>
I was generously allowing the possibility that I did not see
what the point was because what seemed to be claimed struck me
as absurd.
> In the thread "Arab World Stunned by Baghdad's Fall" you write
>
>
>>Our motives were not to free the Iraqis. At one time I believe
>>you admitted as much at least indirectly. You have seemed to
>>believe the motive was WMD. We found none. So do the Iraqis
>>dancing in the street say that our motives were other than what
>>they were or that the war was justified? I don't think so.
>
>
> Firstly, why do you not allow that there can be a mixture
> of motives?
Obviously I do allow that. However, none of the stated motives
or all of them put together seem sufficient to explain our
actions to me.
> A mixture of motives is often the case when
> decisions are made, at least by adults. Secondly, there
> really is a HUGE difference between Iraq's case and the
> cases of other countries who eliminated their WMD. During
> the Clinton administration, in 1993 or 94, Saddam Hussein's
> sons-in-law blew the whistle on him, and pointed the
> inspectors to documents showing there were thousands of
> liters of anthrax and tons of VX nerve gas, (and that they
> were still trying to buy materials to make nuclear weapons).
>
Strange that this was never found. Do you think that perhaps
the whistle blowers may have had ulterior motives of their own
or may even have been put up to it?
> Now in South Africa, and Turkmenistan (I think it was), other
> countries that were trying to disarm, there are clear paper
> trails of covering the destruction of the forbidden weapons,
> and plenty of evidence to show what had happened to them.
> There was none in Iraq. So either the weapons are still
> there, or they have been moved. They don't just disappear.
>
Where is the WMD? Show it to me. We control the land. Where's
the beef? Why was it necessary to invade to find any if there
was some to be found? Are you claiming after all the
inspections and all this effort coming up empty handed that WMD
really was a true reason we went in?
The most likely explanation for not finding it was that the
claims that these volumes of WMD existed were bogus to start with.
>
>>If my culture comes into your country and blows hell out of your
>>infrastructure and perhaps kills some of your loved ones are you
>>going to be particularly inclined to absorb my cultural values
>>or even give them a fair hearing?
>
>
> Already your words are belied by the events of yesterday
> that have happened after you wrote this. But in point of
> fact, despite the HUGE destruction of Germany and Japan,
> that's EXACTLY what happened.
>
No, they are not. Wait and see. An early set of pictures you
want to see and you believe we have done good and all will be
rosy? And they excuse me of being naive. Germany and Japan
were extremely different situations, among other differences,
they were countries that were actually at war with us.
> I always wonder why some people so misread the probable
> behavior of others. For every whacked-out Arab who is
> inspired by the latest show of Western force, there are
> probably five who wonder if their course shouldn't be
> moderated.
>
Fear is a poor substitute for diplomacy if the goal is to
transform a country to freer and more independent ways. I could
be wrong but I doubt very much we will attempt a Marshall Plan
in Iraq or something similar. I still consider the most likely
hypothesis to be that we are after control of the region and
control of as much of the oil as possible. If I am right
actually building a democratic free and independent Iraq would
run counter to our true interests. Time will tell.
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Apr 11 2003 - 01:18:30 MDT