RE: POLITICS [&WAR]: Neo-Conservative policies and power

From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Thu Apr 10 2003 - 23:11:04 MDT

  • Next message: Lee Corbin: "RE: Help with a Minimum Wage Model"

    Samantha has written

    > Lee Daniel Crocker wrote:
    > > This is why we have a hard time taking many of you arguments
    > > seriously, Samantha: while you are quick to make the distinction
    > > between the American people and its government, you then totally
    > > ignore that very distinction by implying that we are somehow
    > > attacking the world's people instead of their governments.
    >
    > I was not aware that only governments die when we bomb a country
    > or in the chaos after the military action is more or less done.
    > I am not aware that we have a good record of late of being
    > sure to clean up the mess after and leave the people with more
    > real freedom and access to modern technology. Perhaps you know
    > something that I do not here.

    I know that this list can be exasperating at times, Samantha,
    but I would ask that people in general restrain from empty
    remarks such as this; as you know well that everyone knows
    that not only governments die during wars, and that chaos often
    follows, and that the U.S.'s record was mixed (mostly, a point
    that *does* evidently need repeating, because the U.S. was
    involved in a cold war that left few options). So remarks
    like

    > Perhaps you know something that I don't

    are really obscuring and unhelpful.

    In the thread "Arab World Stunned by Baghdad's Fall" you write

    > Our motives were not to free the Iraqis. At one time I believe
    > you admitted as much at least indirectly. You have seemed to
    > believe the motive was WMD. We found none. So do the Iraqis
    > dancing in the street say that our motives were other than what
    > they were or that the war was justified? I don't think so.

    Firstly, why do you not allow that there can be a mixture
    of motives? A mixture of motives is often the case when
    decisions are made, at least by adults. Secondly, there
    really is a HUGE difference between Iraq's case and the
    cases of other countries who eliminated their WMD. During
    the Clinton administration, in 1993 or 94, Saddam Hussein's
    sons-in-law blew the whistle on him, and pointed the
    inspectors to documents showing there were thousands of
    liters of anthrax and tons of VX nerve gas, (and that they
    were still trying to buy materials to make nuclear weapons).

    Now in South Africa, and Turkmenistan (I think it was), other
    countries that were trying to disarm, there are clear paper
    trails of covering the destruction of the forbidden weapons,
    and plenty of evidence to show what had happened to them.
    There was none in Iraq. So either the weapons are still
    there, or they have been moved. They don't just disappear.

    > If my culture comes into your country and blows hell out of your
    > infrastructure and perhaps kills some of your loved ones are you
    > going to be particularly inclined to absorb my cultural values
    > or even give them a fair hearing?

    Already your words are belied by the events of yesterday
    that have happened after you wrote this. But in point of
    fact, despite the HUGE destruction of Germany and Japan,
    that's EXACTLY what happened.

    I always wonder why some people so misread the probable
    behavior of others. For every whacked-out Arab who is
    inspired by the latest show of Western force, there are
    probably five who wonder if their course shouldn't be
    moderated.

    Lee



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Apr 10 2003 - 23:20:20 MDT