--- Doug Pensinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > He doesn't acknowledge any where that there could be > any other reason > for protesting the war. I agree with you that most > of his missive was > well thought out, but if he means what you said he > means then this part > of it was very poorly written, seemingly labeling > any and all protesters > as bigots and racists and coming off as rather > xenophobic. > > Doug
All protesters wasn't fair, I will admit. I'm under a fair amount of stress and have been rather ill recently, so I wrote that kind of hastily. Incidentally, people, watch out. There's some sort of 36-hour bug going around that was the _worst_ experience of my entire life. I lost five pounds, and didn't eat from Sunday through Thursday. That being said, though - how come no one at the protests was holding up banners saying "Freedom for Iraq"? Where was the concern for the people of Iraq two years ago? Why do the leaders of the protests consistently seem to view George Bush as far worse than Saddam Hussein? Where is _any_ concern for the freedom of the Iraqi people, or any acknowledgement that Arabs too want peace and democracy? Why don't any of these things stir the enthusiasm that attacking the United States does? The average protester is not necessarily consciously racist or uncaring about the Iraqi people - but the assumptions that underlie their worldview are, I think, exactly that. You can, on ruthlessly pragmatic grounds, argue that we should not intervene in Iraq. It is a morally consistent, and even justifiable, position to say: 1. Deterrence works 2. It's not the job of American/British soldiers to die for _other_ people's freedom 3. We can contain Iraq without an all-out invasion 4. The condition of the people of Iraq is not my concern Therefore, do nothing, or at least do as little as possible. I would respect that. I wouldn't _agree_, but I would respect it. I could possibly even be persuaded to agree with it, actually. Arguing, though, that you oppose the war _because you think it would be bad for the people of Iraq_ is not a respectable position. Period. If that's your argument, then you are simply failing to make sense. The worst government any of us could imagine the US imposing would be a million times better for the people of Iraq than Saddam. The highest civilian casualties likely in a war would be fewer than the number killed in any given year by Saddam. You can argue against the war because you think it would be bad for the US, or for Britain, or for whomever you want. I respect that. If you argue against the war because you think it would be bad for the people of _Iraq_, then I have to call that one as I see it. Gautam __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Shopping - Send Flowers for Valentine's Day http://shopping.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
