From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Tue Feb 18 2003 - 00:35:44 MST
Samantha writes
> I doubt very much that those who want a regime change within
> Iraq are overly given to wanting an invasion of foreign troops
> and in the main determination by foreign countries of what the
> new government and its leader should be. I doubt many of them
> believe that further destruction of the countries infrastructure
> and further death of its citizens is the best way.
Well, since you wrote that there has been ample evidence
in the thread "CULTURE / WAR: More on Harold Pinter".
Moreover, your words where you doubt that many of them believe
that destruction of infrastructure and death of citizens
is unacceptable sounds like a Western sentiment more than a
Middle Eastern one. The people of the Middle East---all
the cultures, it appears---are not so worried as we about
death.
> > I'm surprised that I should have to spell it out. But
> > that merely shows how each of us finds the viewpoints
> > and arguments of others comparatively alien.
[Note how I immediately explained my remark in a fair,
friendly, and indeed accurate way.]
> > You do grant the possibility that the uniform pressure
> > from the armed might of the world might cause him to
> > accept one of the deals that is talked about, and just
> > abdicate?
>
> I do not think we are just positioning to get Saddam to stand
> down in the least. I find your argument spurious.
You don't say why you find it spurious. It doesn't matter
if we are just "positioning" or not; if there was a genuine
regime change, the allies would have little justification to
proceed. (Of course, from your perspective they have little
anyway---I'm talking about the masses in the middle between
us.)
> Also I don't believe it is a legitimate tool of diplomacy
> or reasonable international relations to threaten a country
> with eminent invasion and mayhem unless it changes its
> leadership to suit you.
I have a question. When U.S. and British forces had driven
the Nazis back behind the borders of Germany, was it necessary
to demand a regime change? Or would you have said, "Okay,
they've been kicked out of France and the other countries,
why invade them? Is it legitimate to dictate to the German
people---who still favor Hitler---that he has to go?"
> >>>This resembles ever so much the Vietnam debacle a
> >>>generation ago, the main difference being that in
> >>>addition to the encouragement and support given to
> >>>the murderous Hanoi regime, western politicians were
> >>>deeply affected by the demonstrations and protests
> >>>as the years went by. At least this time there
> >>>will not follow such tragic consequences.
> >>
> >>If western politicians do not heed the cry of the people the
> >>consequences will be tragic indeed.
That's all you wrote---just one single sentence. I thought
by "tragic consequences" you meant the death and destruction
in Iraq that you're always going on about. How was I to know
that you meant tragic *here*?
> > Okay, we have you on record as predicting that. I'll go
> > on record as predicting that the deaths of Western soldiers
> > will be less than a thousand, and that because of the
> > difficulty that capturing Baghdad poses. It is said that
> > some sectors of the city will be so willing to depose Saddam
> > that the first things that arriving troops should do is pass
> > out pistols. Other areas are known to be quite loyal to
> > Hussein.
>
> The tragic consequences include the consequences to so-called
> democracies of ignoring and overriding the voices of their own
> people.
In representative government, as you have reminded us before,
the leaders are elected to lead, not to respond to polls.
Just as you have explained, we in the West do not have
democracy, except perhaps in places like France where some
leaders seem to attend only to the latest polls.
> There are many other negative consequences of the
> proposed action, both planned consequences and likely ones. But
> I was principally referring to the damage done to democracies by
> "leaders" callously dismissing the wishes of the people. I am
> surprised I had to spell that out to you.
Well, as I said, our views and pre-suppositions do seem
alien to each other. Yet I note that you managed to
phrase that in a more aggressive manner than (see above)
I did.
> > As for the deaths of Iraqi soldiers and civilians, as General
> > McCafferty (or McCaffrey) said, there's little telling. It's
> > expected that the Allied propaganda leaflets already dropped
> > will cause the main Iraqi army units to surrender quickly, but
> > that the Republican Guard units will not. Civilian casualties
> > will be almost entirely limited to Baghdad, and will be much
> > less than in other wars in which a capital city was conquered
> > (e.g. Berlin) because of modern capabilities---no block by
> > block, street by street fighting.
>
> So our unwarranted act of aggression is something you think we
> can "get away with" with relatively low body count so we should
> proceed? May history have mercy on such attitudes.
Here you are being most uncharitable. Why, I myself advanced
six reasons to invade Iraq. Do you want to see the list, (a)
through (f) again? A low body count was not one of them.
But if someone advances a reason *not* to do something because
too many lives would be lost, that argument must stand until
either evidence against it is presented, or until what is meant
by "too many" is clarified.
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Feb 18 2003 - 00:32:07 MST