quote:
So we keep hearing. I think you said something about how continuing the sanctions would have been the kinder thing.
Depends on which sanctions you mean.
Actually, Chomsky's analogy was to Andrew Jackson and the Cherokees, but it's the same point. And there is no need to cite the form of an argument. I mean, wouldn't our conversation look even more stilted if we appealed to authority at every turn: "As Lao Tse says, blah blah blah." Now-- findings, assertions of fact, and so on call for citation. I haven't noticed this stopping you from making bald assertions, which is actually what they teach you not to do in high school.
So, am I saying Saddam is not as bad as everyone says? Well, let's see. Did I say that? No, I didn't.
You're engaging in diversionary tactics. None are necessary, as I think our points of agreement are many and our disagreement is simple.
quote:
Presumably because Rumsfeld and co don't want to end up in gaol for war crimes. I don't think I would in his shoes, either.
Very perceptive. See, I knew we were on the same page.
To repeat, you know about all this already if you follow Human Rights Watch, which you appear to.
Why would he? Don't know. Why did he?
The point, which you have chosen to ignore, is that Saddam was not in the process of slaughtering 300,000 of his own people when the US-UK bombed and invaded. This was not a war to stop some genocide that in fact ended over a decade ago-- genocide that was carried out with (as you scrupulously omitted) US support. Those would seem important facts to note when you are recounting Saddam's crimes and using them as justification for our going in and smashing up the place and killing another 10,000 civilians. Don't you think so?
And as you recognize, above, the effect of the US capture of Saddam is not that he will be brought to justice under international humanitarian law, but quite the opposite. You say yourself that US officials are averting Saddam's prosecution in order to protect themselves. So I am glad you brought up Saddam's monstrous record, although in view of the facts we both know, I can't see how they justify the US-UK war. Quite the opposite (as I'm fond of saying).
An interesting juxtaposition, considering that the US supported Saddam through his worst crimes, as it did many others. I've mentioned Suharto, Pinochet, Marcos, Somoza, and so on. To spell it out for you, I don't think the US's record is all that great.
I never accused it of being!
I know that. We agree on that. We both know that the US (as it has done with many dictators) all but installed Saddam and then supported him through his worst crimes, in which the current administration is heavily implicated. So isn't it odd that you would juxtapose Saddam's record in Iraq with ours? I mean, it's the same record! ...at least with respect to those 300,000 victims you're referring to.
quote:
quote:
...you see right there in the polls we're discussing (not to mention the resistance) that Iraqis don't trust the USUK to improve their lot.
I didn't see that in the poll.
I hate cutting and pasting. Read it this time, OK?
"Only 5 percent of those polled said they believed the United States invaded Iraq 'to assist the Iraqi people,' and only 1 percent believed it was to establish democracy there.
"Three-quarters of those polled said they believed the policies and decisions of the Iraqi Governing Council -- whose members were appointed in July by Coalition Provisional Authority Administrator L. Paul Bremer -- were 'mostly determined by the coalition's own authorities,' and only 16 percent thought the council members were 'fairly independent.'
"....'most [Iraqis] are deeply skeptical of the initial rationale the coalition has given for its actions'...
"Forty-three percent of the respondents said they believed that U.S. and British forces invaded in March primarily 'to rob Iraq's oil.' While 37 percent believed the United States acted to get rid of the Hussein regime, only 5 percent thought it did so 'to assist the Iraq people'..."
So maybe, from these quotes, you can't see that Iraqis don't trust the US-UK to improve their lot. I mean, it doesn't say that in so many words, so maybe the Iraqis do trust the US-UK to make things better. But to me, it looks pretty clear that they don't trust anything about the Coalition's motives, or its intent to help the people of Iraq. That seems important.
quote:
quote:
I thought [the Marshall Plan] was mostly the pocket-stuffing. In the case of France, it was less about rebuilding than reasserting dominion over its previous subject realms in Indochina. That turned out great, didn't it?
No, but it was better than another World War. Which is what might have happened otherwise.
Destroying Indochina averted another World War? That's a new one on me. Forgive my thickness if that's not what you're saying.
Anyway, here again is another example of how your logic escapes me. Bombing the fuck out of 3 countries and killing millions of people was "better than another World War." Jesus. I mean even if we take it to be true, so what? Is carpet bombing and poisoning a helpless country the best that's expected of us, because it's better than Hitler? I'm speechless. I just don't know what to make of a remark like that.
I guess you just have a sunny view of human nature. People in the western world walk on the backs of the poor whenever they go to the bank, whenever they fill their petrol tank, whenever they buy a Nestle bar. It's easy to see how most people, given the power, would care very little about the deaths of thousands if it meant they could improve their own comfort slightly.
I don't see how I have a sunny view of human nature, because I sympathize with much of the rest you say here. Right, then. The question is, in view of all this, how again do you defend this attack on Iraq on moral grounds? If you see it as part of a pattern of violent exploitation on which our very economy is founded, then how can it be right? Wouldn't the right thing be to let Iraq and the rest of the Middle East up for air and get our own damn oil and chocolate bars?
I'm not sure, btw, that people in general care as little about widespread death as you say, or that it's really for the sake of their own comfort (although they may even perceive it that way). That's a whole other topic we can get into if you like.
---
What others say about boorite!
