From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Mon Jun 16 2003 - 18:44:08 MDT
Eliezer writes
> Lee wrote
>
> > how can anyone read that post and believe that he is not
> > supporting Saddam Hussein? Paul certainly is defending
> > him again and again!
>
> Read the post carefully. Paul Grant is not supporting Saddam, nor even
> defending Saddam.
Well let's first look at what was written.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-extropians@extropy.org
> Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 3:42 PM
> To: extropians@extropy.org
> Subject: RE: How best to spend US$200 billion? [etc.]
<snip>
> [Michael Dickey wrote]
> > If Saddam had backed down, there would have been no senseless
> > waste of time, energy, money, goodwill, and ~20 million
> > Iraqis would have been freed without one drop of Blood being
> > shed. Yet you and others still insist the coalition bears
> > the moral culpability.
>
> [PG:]
> I was planning on releasing this to the press Monday morning, but....
> "President Bush. It pleases me to inform you that you should abdicate
> Your thron...OFFICE prior to the end of the week. If you do so you will
> Ensure that there is "no senseless waste of time, energy, money,
> goodwill, and ~288 million Americans would have been freed without
> one drop of Blood being shed. If you do not vacate your office
> immediately, I (and history) will hold you morally culpabable."
This defends Saddam, by saying that he is no worse than other
people. (I will address later the degree to which we should
regard this as "support".)
> > Saddam invaded another country we agreed to defend...
>
> Uh, just in case you didn't know, Kuwait was originally part of Iraq,
> Like Sudan was part of Egypt. In point of fact, Iraq refused to
> recognize Kuwait...
> So as far as I'm concerned, Saddam didn't invade anybody. He was
> putting down a long-standing rebellion when the rebels invited in a
> foreign power because they were scared of the consequences.
This is not only defense, but definitely borders on support.
In an aside, the writer demeans those rebelling against Saddam,
by implying that their motives were not the best.
The writer then does, however, go on to say
> This particular scene With foreign powers and psuedo independent
> states etc has been played out Repeatedly through history. I can't
> technically fault the man for his "invasion"; Kuwait would have
> expanded his capabilities. 'course he got his butt spanked by
> The US, but that's another story.
and a sympathetic reader may be entitled to wonder about how
much support there really is here. But the previous quote
can stand, not unfairly, without this IMO.
Eliezer continues
> He is pointing out that neither Saddam nor, for that matter, Bush,
> are exceptional from a realpolitik view of world history. I
> do not share that view of world history...
> Paul Grant, though, is simply stepping back and viewing the
> situation as a realpolitik-oriented historian might view it
> had it occurred a hundred years ago.
It seems to me that that's not all he was doing. His orientation
was clearly to defend Saddam, though not nearly so clear to
"support" Saddam I will admit.
> People in the grip of blind patriotism who will go to any lengths, however
> irrational, to exalt Bush and vilify Iraq, will exaggerate the genuine
> difference that exists between the two, even though there is a genuine
> difference.
Very true ;-) But logically, of course, it does not
follow that all who exalt Bush and vilify Saddam are
in the grip of the blind sort of patriotism!
> No matter how evil Saddam is, it will always be possible to
> paint a picture of him that is even more evil than the reality.
> A scrupulous arguer must then attempt to dispel this picture,
> and, I suppose, be accused of "defending" Saddam.
That's exactly why lip service *at least* is called for:
perhaps you misunderstood my point about it. What I
meant to say was that if one will take just a moment
to deliver a recognition of the part of the truth in
others' arguments, then one may proceed with one's
own tirade without making the situation much worse.
> Of course it may well be that [the writer], in the heat of
> bipolarized argument, went too far in arguing and tipped
> the scales the other way.
Yes, rather clearly.
> This should not be interpreted as any particular liking or
> support for Saddam, which is of course extremely unlikely
> in terms of prior odds.
But with no denial or criticism in evidence, it is not
unreasonable to suppose (or at least suggest) that the
bitter feelings of so many extreme partisans indeed
result in that very thing you consider so unlikely.
Suppose someone never criticized discrimination, never
said a harsh word about racists or racism, and invariably
pointed out that members of the KKK and other racists in
were not worse than many widely respected figures, and
that there were many historical precedents. What would
you think? What would you say? Would you say that he
was not only defending racists, but supporting them?
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jun 16 2003 - 18:54:10 MDT