From: MaxPlumm@aol.com
Date: Tue Apr 01 2003 - 04:17:43 MST
I originally wrote:
> Not acknowledging what has been done in the world to free
> people from oppression, tyranny, and intolerance because of arbitrary
deeply
> ingrained disdain based on what some might consider half truths and
> misconceptions is unacceptable.
>
To which Samantha responded to me:
"If our current actions are about nothing of the kind except in
rhetoric then such an exposition is irrelevant to judging said
actions."
Here I would challenge your assertion that our current actions have
nothing to do with liberation beyond rhetoric. Iraq is currently ruled by a
brutal, despotic regime (a point I hope all of us on this list might agree).
Though our actions are being taken primarily out of our own self-interest,
the Iraqi people will benefit from the removal of that barbaric thug Hussein.
As I have said many times, it would be foolish for anyone to suggest that
just because our actions are not based on altruism, that the end results
which follow them would then be devoid of merit. Unless of course you believe
that the removal of Saddam Hussein and his regime would not somehow
positively impact the lives of the Iraqi people. If that is indeed the case,
then I would respectfully ask that you elaborate on why you feel that
removing that butcher would not directly benefit in the long term that
beleagured people.
> That some people have absolutely nothing positive to say of the United
> States is deplorable.
"Sure. But this is not the point right now."
Not by itself, no, it is not. But when one's argument is based in large part,
as some have done, on unending criticism of the United States, then the
record of the US needs to be fully analyzed and understood in historical
perspective to refute such an argument.
The freedoms that each and every human enjoys on this
> planet (those fortunate enough to enjoy some) can all be attributed to some
> degree to the United States. Yet some insist that merely because the US (or
> any other country) is powerful and in a dominant world position, than it is
> bad, or "might makes wrong", in huMania's words. This position too is not
> acceptable in any form to many on this list, and the record of the United
> States as compared to other major world powers, most notably the Soviet
Union
> or Nazi Germany, is a necessary part of illustrating why the position of
> "might makes wrong" is not appropriate in all cases.
"You are over-simplifying the real objection."
I would respectfully disagree. Perhaps this is not an apt description of your
point of view, nor was I referring to you specifically in that paragraph, but
I have had debates on this forum where people opposed to this action have
acknowledged they would like to see the United States "humbled" due to their
preeminent position in the world.
"Which is the public text, speech and actions that we intend to use our
might,
right or wrong, to remold the world to our liking whether or not
that is what is best for or desired by the people of the
countries to be molded."
This, I would respectfully argue, is an oversimplification on your part. The
United States is not "remolding the world" in our image, or "to our liking"
or we would be installing democracies in countries currently ruled by
totalitarian thugs that have not sought weapons of mass destruction like
Laos, Vietnam, and sadly more African nations then I would care to mention.
The United States is acting in its defensive self-interests against a regime
that has actively sought weapons of mass destruction, in the recent past
invaded its neighbor, and shown a decidedly anti-U.S. fervor. If Saddam
Hussein truly possessed no threat to anyone, then why would a body with as
many divergent interests such as the UN have supported any resolutions on
disarmament, let alone see the need to ferry weapons inspectors in and out of
the country for more than a decade?
"There is nothing democratic or free
about changing people's home country to what you might prefer
regardless of their own wishes."
And there is nothing democratic, free, or humane in being satisfied with
allowing a butcher such as Hussein to run roughshod over Iraq for the
foreseeable future, which is what the UN, even with its half-hearted talk of
disarmament, seemed quite content in allowing. This is not surprising, given
their failure to act while genocide occured in Cambodia, Rwanda and scores of
other locales. I think it can be argued quite successfully that the Iraqi
people are not interested in democracy, they have no political traditions
which would give them any reason to be. However, I'm sure like most humans
they're interested in a better quality of life for themselves and their
families. You may not believe that the US bringing about regime change will
bring that. Fair enough. But you cannot seriously argue that the despotism,
torture, and arbitrary murder will somehow disappear under Hussein or his
sons.
>
> I will say again that I feel in some cases Greg's objections are
legitimate,
> since I do not consider (and have repeatedly said on this forum) that all
> foreign policy decisions made by the United States have been the correct
> ones. But regarding the question repeatedly posed to Samantha and others,
> his objections are totally off the mark. The most important reason for this
> is that Samantha has never adequately answered that question in the many
> times Matus, Ron, I or anyone else have asked it.
>
"Because it is utterly irrelevant to the question at hand and I
have much better things to do than jump through arbitrary hoops."
As I will subsequently illustrate, I must disagree that it has no relevance
to the question at hand.
> Illustrating that the United States helped foster and make possible
> democracy in Taiwan, Greece, South Korea, Japan, etc. is not "holding up a
> slogan", nor blind 'americanism' it is illustrating facts that cannot be
> seriously debated, in addition to pointing out that the United States
foreign
> policy is not the empty and bankrupt vessel some claim it is, ESPECIALLY
when
> it is compared to other major world powers.
>
> Samantha's positions are totally predicated on a belief that the US has
> consistently supported dictators at the expense of democracy abroad.
"This is absolutely false. Retract it immediately."
I will not retract it at this point, however I will add that I should have
said that "It appears to some of us on this list that Samantha's positions
are predicated on a belief that the US has consistently supported dictators
at the expense of democracy abroad." In more than one thread (such as one on
the Shah of Iran), in discussions with me, you have consistently criticized
the US's support of authoritarian regimes in the past. I have countered that
the US did not have a choice between democracy and authoritarianism, it had
choices between authoritarianism and worse. The world of the 1950s, 60s, and
70s saw dozens and dozens of democratic experiments fail, replaced by brutal
despotic regimes. Despite that, you have consistently criticized the United
States for in the past dealing with unsavory regimes. If you wish to fully
elaborate on your position regarding the US and its past dealings with
authoritarians and totalitarians during World War II and the Cold War which
followed it, I will gladly listen. And, if need be, I will then fully retract
my statement and offer a complete apology. If not, then you will have to
forgive myself and the others for in some sense still believing it...:) The
position I perhaps mistakenly attributed to you has been endorsed on C-SPAN
in the last week by Daniel Ellsburg, and before that Howard Zinn, so perhaps
it is more widespread than you would think.
All that being said, I am simply confused as to how it is that you can
criticize the United States for in the past supporting authoritarian regimes
and in your view "preventing democracy" and yet now severely criticize them
for attempting to bring (by a result of their actions) democracy and freedom,
or at worst the removal of a brutal tyrant, to the people of Iraq.
Regards,
Max Plumm
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Apr 01 2003 - 04:27:01 MST