From: Charles Hixson (charleshixsn@earthlink.net)
Date: Wed Mar 26 2003 - 14:55:29 MST
MaxPlumm@aol.com wrote:
>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?
>
Yes, to a minor degree. I'm basically non-political (i.e., all the
parties disgust me). But I have taken part in a couple of protests. I
expected at the time that it was futile.
>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
>
No. They didn't claim to represent me.
>South in March 1972? How about France's unilateral decision to remove Emperor
>Jean Bedel Bokassa from the Central African Empire in 1979?
>
Ditto.
>
>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.)
>
>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.
>...
>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.)
>...
>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.
>...
>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.
>...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.
>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.
>...
>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).
>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
>
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.
>...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
>
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.)
>...
>Ever vigilant for signs of further French wars of aggression,
>
>Max Plumm
>
OK. Do they represent you?
-- -- Charles Hixson Gnu software that is free, The best is yet to be.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Mar 26 2003 - 15:02:50 MST