From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Thu Mar 27 2003 - 01:41:35 MST
Cory writes
> > Who really cares about [PR], if you succeed
> > in destroying a murderous, ruthless, and
> > horrifying regime like the U.S.S.R.? Okay,
> > so the lefties scored a few points on the
> > campuses when the U.S. set up a pro-Western
> > Iran. But the end result was that there is
> > no U.S.S.R. today.
>
> I actually don't know much of the Iran episode, I got
> the image from what you said of the US marching troops
> into a country holding an election and saying, "we
> don't think it's democratic. Do it our way",
No, that would never happen. On one or two occasions
that I know of (there could be others), a democratically
elected regime *was* overthrown by a CIA sponsored coup.
Nothing public, you understand. And it was done, never
forget, in a ceaseless "cold" war against the U.S.S.R.
> As to the USSR, we were taught, as the coming down
> of the Berlin Wall and the Soviet collapse were the
> big events of my middle school years, that much of
> the bloodbath that was the Soviet regime wasn't
> even known until after the fall.
Oh, it was known all right. It was known by everyone
who didn't have the ideological blinders of a certain
segment of political spectrum. Since *I* was in
Junior High School in the sixties, I had personally
known many people who refused to ever admit that
Joseph Stalin had done anything wrong. One of those,
the father of one of my friends, went to his grave
still resolutely refusing to entertain the notion
that Joseph Stalin was not the greatest friend of
the working man the Earth has ever seen.
> This would certainly throw bad light on a number
> of US actions, but I can't know how aware people
> really were/politicians were.
Yes, well, if the leftists (who are *still* very
much with us, usually out in the streets marching
for one damn thing or another) have their way,
this is exactly how it will go down in the history
books: "Because no one knew about of the enormity
of the crimes of the Soviet State until the release
of the Verona files in the 1990's, the anti-Soviet
actions of the U.S. were paranoid and unconscionable."
Gee. Where to start. Well, even leftists with
open minds, e.g. Bertrand Russell, became aware
that all was not well behind the Iron Curtain as
early as the 20's and 30's. A number of others
saw through the sham in the 1940's and 50's, but
it wasn't until 1967 with the publication of
Alexander Sohzhenitsyn's "The Gulag Archipelago"
that the evidence became overwhelming to all but
the most dogmatic leftists.
So yes, the U.S. state department, as well as the
governments of almost all nations, knew perfectly
well with what they were dealing vis a vis the
USSR.
> ...since I have no clue what Iraqis of any slant
> actually do feel about this war outside of the
> conflicting forces of the press, the government,
> and potentially fake web-logs.
Yes, exactly. Well, there are probably some Iraqis
living in the U.S. who could join this list or in
other ways give us tremendous insight, but it would
only take two for there to be two different opinions.
Yet over time, if history is any guide, the truth
will emerge as to what the Iraqi consciousness is
like for most people now.
> > 2. An ex-wife of an important Iraqi general
> > is found to be living in New York under
> > an assumed name. How far should the
> > U.S. military go to extract information
> > that may help them win a key battle?
>
> If Iraq is invading and killing citizens in America,
> do what you must if it involves torturing, although
> hopefully with at least an ounce of regret. If the
> ex-wife is guilty herself of atrocities, then maybe,
> pending the pertinence of the information. If she is
> innocent, and we're the invaders, no.
I meant to win a battle in Iraq, the U.S.
captures and tortures a civilian living
in New York. I would be completely opposed,
and for this reason: how a battle goes is
a pretty nebulous thing, and to break all
the rules in such a case would be unforgivable.
But I'm glad that we agree that if she knew
where an atom bomb that was gonna go off was,
then anything to get the information out of
her would be okay by you and me.
> > 3. Baghdad is about to fall, but a convoy
> > makes a wrong turn, and some cooks are
> > captured by some very angry and hateful
> > Iraqi soldiers. *Should* they torture
> > him, given that they have seen countless
> > comrades cut down by American machine-
> > weapons, and have been hating Americans
> > and non-Muslims their whole lives?
>
> I would recommend that they should have surrendered
> themselves to the US, (not meaning I'd have the gall
> to actually say this to a group of machine-gun
> wielding foreigners), and explain that America has a
> huge burden of not offending the rest of the world
> further; they'd be treated better as a POW than on
> their own (although this does contradict "Live free or
> die".
Yes. Good. That's all true, of course.
I would also do everything that I could
to emphasize to them the insignificance
of what they would gain by their revenge,
and, if permitted, try to instill some
extropian thinking into them---their
rifles hardly being conducive to my
best efforts at explication, I grant
your point! 8^D
> > 4. It's 1965 and Israeli agents have just
> > found a notorious war-criminal in South
> > America, and one of the Mossad agents
> > had a brother tortured and killed by
> > this same war criminal. You are one
> > of the other agents. The choice of the
> > group is either to kill him or torture
> > him first before killing him (extradition
> > is not an option). One of the other
> > agents does not want to torture him first.
> >
> > What should you do? What should you be
> > in favor of your group doing? What would
> > you say, and to whom?
>
> No torture. It would serve nothing but petty revenge.
> Hannah Arendt's book "Eichmann in Jerusalem" put
> forth a brave stance from someone with close
> connections to the third Reich, that the 'evil' was
> banal and not this epitome of monstrosity most people
> associate with the Nazi regime.
Right on! Totally agree. I "understand" why my
friend and fellow secret agent wants to do this,
I do fully understand. But if the strength is
within me, I should do everything to talk him
out of it.
> > > Not that I don't understand *why*
> > > the coalition would choose this
> > > strategy in the war, but certainly
> > > it's not a fair fight to start with.
> >
> > Gasp! Choke! What do you think this
> > is, a game? What do you want to see,
> > maybe the Russians come in on the Iraqi
> > side so that we get a really good show?
>
> No, I don't think it's a game, nor do I want to see
> the Russians involved in this. Further I wouldn't
> want it to be a fair fight, as the day a dictatorship
> can have a fair fight with the strongest nuclear power
> in the world, [insert end of civilization scenario
> here]. I'm not entirely certain why you got that
> notion from what I said as it at least seemed to me to
> be consistent with everything else I had been writing.
Sorry. I may have overreacted to the phrase "fair fight".
If you'd like me too, I'll go back and resurrect the
context and be more careful.
> > Oh good grief. And so I suppose that
> > if the U.S. were to nuke Baghdad right
> > off the map with a 20-megatonner, you'd
> > have "some" moral outrage against the
> > U.S., but you'd also direct your outrage
> > at more than one source, say, Saddam
> > and Iraq?
> >
> > The lenses you're looking through seem
> > a little tilted to me.
>
> oh, no. I'd have "plenty" of outrage toward the US.
Good.
> Now, though, if Saddam's regime did something like a
> bio-chem warfare that the US weren't prepared against,
> and the US nukes out of fear, I'd have outrage toward
> Saddam too.
Fair enough.
> Now, if before we touch Baghdad, the nuke flies to
> Washington, then *all* the outrage goes toward the
> Saddam regime.
Well, this is an interesting scenario, thanks for
dreaming it up. Baghdad, 9 April 2003. A nuclear
scientist rushes in and says, "Beloved Leader, the
2nd of our two bombs has made it to Washington!
Do you still want to keep the last one in reserve
against the Imperialist unbelievers in the field?"
"Yes," says Saddam Hussein, "but I will now tell
them, heh, heh..."
At that moment a bomb crashes in the ceiling and
Saddam, critically injured says "Nuke the stinking
American bastards' capital. NOW!!"
We know what the Left would say: They'd say, "See,
two wrongs don't make a right, you should have known
better than to make them so angry."
The Right replies, "Well, we should have invaded
SOONER! Besides, they hated us so much already
it was only a question of time!"
And on the argument would go.
> > but, so long as it's the Americans
> > being nuked...
>
> Well no, it could be the British or Australian troops,
> or the Turkish should they decide to invade. And it's
> not that I'd justify it, just that I wouldn't really
> be outraged, as I'd never get outraged by an expected
> reaction to an event.
Yes. You are quite right. Come to think of it
I would not be "outraged". In fact, I half-expected
Saddam to test his new bomb in the desert the night
of the Dan Rather interview, just to show his friend
Dan that he was destroying his WMD.
> > Sometimes the right thing---that is, the
> > thing that you will approve of if you
> > reflect on it long enough and allow all
> > your knowledge and reason to come into
> > play---, sometimes the right thing is
> > to surrender.
>
> okay, I understand 'right' as you explain here, and
> agree, but looking on the smallest scale: a force
> intends to kill me,
okay
> I will not surrender to death save when my death would
> benefit those whom I ally with (friends/loved ones...
okay
> Now if you agree with this principle, put it in
> the perspective of who and what Saddam and his
> henchmen may value and then realize we intend to
> either kill, or try then execute him and a number
> of them (presuming living).
Right. I don't expect Saddam to ally himself to
be captured, or to go gently into that good night.
I would be surprised if he didn't use every weapon
at his command. I would be further surprised if
at the end he didn't try for as much revenge as
possible.
But what do I know? I thought there was a good
chance he'd choose exile. (I would have. But
then I don't think that I have the right stuff
to be a ruthless dictator.) Perhaps without all
those damned demonstrations giving him moral
support he would have.
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Mar 27 2003 - 01:42:13 MST