From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Wed Apr 02 2003 - 21:02:00 MST
MaxPlumm@aol.com wrote:
> 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).
That we agree on this does not mean that liberation of the Iraqi
people is the primary motivation for our action or even a very
significant one.
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.
>
At this point I see no way of being sure that the proposed 23
ministries headed by Americans with Iraqis as only advisors will
appear to the Iraqi people or to the world as a net gain any
time soon. There is likely to be a lot of strife and violence
in imposing and maintaining this occupation. Iraqis sometimes
say that any other than a very strong and domineering leader
would not work in Iraq. I hope they are wrong.
A large part of the beleaguring of the people is, or is
perceived as, the doings of ourselves and the British
especially, and the UN more generally. There is some level of
veracity to this view. The people would be most un-beleagured
by getting the control of their country back without sanctions
and continuous bombardment and interference. I don't know at
this point how far we are from that. Noone does.
> > 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 wrongs of the US that are directly pertinent to the current
situation are still directly pertinent no matter how many rights
the US has also accomplished.
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.
>
I would like to see the US "humbled" from the unabashed
arrogance of presuming the right to attack any country at any
time, even preemptively, if they feel at all threatened. I
don't say *we* here because this is no part of this American's
understanding of what this country is supposed to be about. I
would like us "humbled" from the notion that we should and must
insure that no other country or group of countries ever becomes
as economically, politically and/or militarily as strong as we.
This also is in my mind an exceedingly un-American way of
conducting international affairs.
> "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.
Give us time. There are two ways of domination. One is by
rearranging governments wholesale to our liking or control. The
other is by undercutting governments so that they cannot gainsay
us too effectively.
> 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.
Hell, if I was in a country that had endured what Iraq had
endured I would have anti-US fervor. I don't see how we can get
anywhere at all without admitting that a lot of Mid-East nations
have considerable reason to distrust and even hate us. Without
seeing that we are acting from fantasy land.
>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?
>
Because it was part of Iraqi War 1 agreements that he disarm and
because the case was imho over-inflated of the danger he
represented. Any attempt to reevaluate the situation over the
years was vetoed principally by us. We largely control the
Security Council. As much disagreement as recently was the case
is the exception. Why is there so much disagreement with this
invasion if it is crystal clear it is the right thing to do and
that Saddam is still, after 12 years of sanctions, a huge
military defeat, years of inspections, continuous patrolling and
bombardment of the no-fly zones unilaterally imposed by us and
the British, a great and present threat? Why on earth would any
sane person believe he is much of a threat after all that? I
really don't understand it.
> "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.
It is not our job or the UN's job to insure every country has
what we or the majority might consider a reasonable leader.
> This is not
> surprising, given their failure to act while genocide occured in
> Cambodia, Rwanda and scores of other locales.
And their failure to act on our illegal actions in Nicaragua or
to act to stop Israeli actions against Palestine or even to send
inspectors to see for themselves the extent of the latter
problem. I certainly won't argue the UN is very effective.
However, that it isn't does not mean we can and should do
whatever we wish or that what we are doing in this case is
justified.
> 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.
>
Actually, I think we could support internal movements for change
and not come in until/unless asked by significant
representatives of the Iraqi people and only then if it was also
in our interest.
> "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."
As a matter of fact we have too many times supported dictators
at the expense of democracy abroad. As a matter of fact we have
toppled democratically elected governments using every form of
terrorism in the book. Not consistently but all too often. But
that is not what my position on this invasion of Iraq is based upon.
> 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.
This is not strictly true but that is another subject.
> 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.
>
I criticize us for acting extra-legally around the world,
frankly as terrorists, to change regimes to our liking. We have
used industrial espionage, economic sabotage, mass incitement to
riot, assasinations and so on for these purposes. Civilized
people must condemn this. I am amazed when I see what I presume
are civilized people excuse such.
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Apr 02 2003 - 21:04:34 MST