From: MaxPlumm@aol.com
Date: Wed Mar 26 2003 - 13:44:45 MST
Lee Corbin wrote:
>What is the emotional reaction of those protesting the war
>to American setbacks in the field?
>...
>Lee
>
"That's basically irrelevant. This is a war of aggression, and is
therefore wrong."
To get to the main point of Lee's post, Charles, I would be curious to know
that in addition to opposing this war, do you also protest it publicly?
Additionally, I would be curious to know if you if you organized or
participated in any protests either here or abroad of the Soviets invasion of
Afghanistan in 1979. If not, then perhaps North Vietnam's invasion of the
South in March 1972? How about France's unilateral decision to remove Emperor
Jean Bedel Bokassa from the Central African Empire in 1979?
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.
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
the examples I just mentioned. Where were the protests against Soviet
brutality? Saddam's? The North Vietnamese and Pathet Lao's? Protests against
anyone who is not the "evil" United States?
"That it's being sold as something else basically
demonstrates the power of the press. It's not the first time. Hearst
organized the Spanish-American war to sell more newspapers."
Are you going to seriously argue that the Iraqi people will not benefit from
the removal of Saddam Hussein? But you're absolutely correct on one point.
The press has willingly misled the public regarding wars in the past. Such as
when Walter Cronkite on February 27, 1968, in the wake of the Tet Offensive,
absurdly opined that the North Vietnamese "can match our every escalation."
"If you want to assert that Hussein is (or was) evil, I will agree. But
he wasn't as evil as having bombs dropped on your head, as having your
water supplies destroyed (in the desert!). Etc."
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
are taking great pains to do avoid that, at the cost of putting our own men
in further jeopardy. This has always been a feature of US military
involvement abroad. We could have easily won the Indochina War by flooding
the North Vietnamese dikes thus killing millions of them, or by using low
yield tactical nuclear weapons against them. However, our "evil" government
chose not to do these things, a fact that I don't think can be seriously
argued if the situations were reversed and our adversaries, such as Saddam,
possessed those capabilities.
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
this is not so, then please enlighten us as to what you do find to be
Hussein's "evil", so that we might discuss the merits of our positions. But
let me assume for now that you do in fact agree that Hussein is a mass
murdering thug. I think it a safe assumption that civilian casualties in Iraq
will not reach "hundreds of thousands" as argued by many, such as
anti-war.com, just as they did not reach epic proportions in Afghanistan
despite what the anti-war lobby argued then as well.
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
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?
"I have heard it reported that the CIA assessment was that Hussein was no
threat as long as he wasn't invaded."
And I "have heard it reported" that people in West Virginia were abducted by
aliens. All joking aside, please be kind enough to provide some documentation
of this assertion for us.
"That sort of cuts the legs out of
even the faint justifications of the people who claimed that fear that
someone might attack them was sufficient reason to attack first. (And
if it is sufficient justification, just consider where that puts the US
now. Now that it has initiated an unprovoked war of aggression.)"
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
see you consistently bash the French as "hypocrites" in the future, given
that they opted to remove a brutal regime that was of absolutely no threat to
them. Indeed, I see absolutely no differences between Saddam and Bokassa's
regimes beyond the fact that it is Saddam Hussein who has and continues to
actively pursue weapons of mass destruction. Additionally, Mr. Hussein has
already invaded one of his neighbors, something that Bokassa was never in a
position to do even had he wanted to expand the Central African "Empire."
Ever vigilant for signs of further French wars of aggression,
Max Plumm
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Mar 26 2003 - 13:52:01 MST