--- Deborah Harrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Overstatement. A coalition was forged before, so it > can be again. Will it be easy? No. But that's not > a > reason not to try.
No, it really wasn't an overstatement. Do you have _any_ evidence that a coalition can be forged again. I mean, any at all? 12 years of French undercutting of the sanctions and you think they're going to turn on a dime because we ask them to? We have tried continually to form a coalition. We got a unanimous resolution of the Security Council _which is being ignored_. Given that fact - that the opponents of the war were willing to vote for a resolution and then turn around and completely ignore its explicit terms - what, other than wishful thinking, makes you think that this can happen? > Because most people don't know that France helped SH > build a nuclear reactor? I hesitate to use the term > "war of words," but I don't think that a good > _public_ > case of how France/Russia is benefited by SH's > continuance has been put forth by the Admin. It > isn't > enough for the Admin to believe that they have a > case > - they need to convince the American (and preferably > world) public. That blunders have been made in this > 'game' of perception/appearance has not helped their > case (frex, claiming to have evidence of SH' > involvement in 9/11, then later the 'informant' is > discredited). The case has been made. People don't care. As Michael Walzer memorably wrote (I posted his article to the list) one of the main drivers here is superiority. It's the self-righteous thrill of pointing out the flaws of the US. You don't get that by actually doing something useful. > > >It's not like this is an aberration - > > they've been doing it for decades. So why isn't > > that > > getting people excited? Again, it's suggestive. > > Suggestive of what? Not being informed? Not having > the facts? Not trusting what they've been told > recently because prior claims have been dismissed? Not caring. It's so much easier to criticize the United States than to do something. You can feel superior and so much more knowledgeable and enlightened than people who concern themselves with practical realities. You won't actually achieve anything - in fact, you'll probably make things worse. But since when does that matter? > <grin> *Your* definition, not mine. To desire a > better world is the basis for many improvements. Or > do you dismiss those who "have a dream?" Gandhi and > MLK decided that they didn't want their worlds to > continue unchanged - so they worked towards that > change. [Note that I *am not* equating their work > of > improved social justice to war/not-war WRT Iraq -- > only your statement that what "ought" is "not, in > fact, going to happen." Because sometimes it does.] No. If Gandhi or MLK were like you're suggesting they would have said "Gee, I don't want the British in India. So in my world, they're not." They wouldn't have marched and protested and struggled. They would have just lived in a fantasy world. Your argument isn't just a straw man, it's an absurd one. They decided that they didn't want their world to remain unchanged because they were aware of _what their world actually was_ - not living in a fantasy universe where what they wanted was the way things actually are. You can say "ought" all you want - but the very things you support will actually make the "ought" less likely. Only the threat of unilateral US action brought us to the point where something can be done. But you condemn US unilateral action. There's a pretty damn big disconnect between what you say you want and what you're willing to support to get it. > Several things - chief among them, a poorly-waged > "war > of words" (see also my prior post about squandering > the goodwill of many peoples). Also, that as the > bigshot, the US must be 'like Caesar's wife above > reproach' - not that that's fair, but that's the way > it is. This is what I meant, btw. To you, everything is _always_ the fault of the US. We're both omnipotent and incompetent, an odd combination. You always come back to "If only we'd acted differently." Nope. We're the most powerful country in the history of the human race, but that doesn't actually mean that we control the world. The French acted the way they did because that was in consonance with their perception of French interests. The Germans the same. The goodwill meant jack shit to them, because "Gratitude is the virtue of dogs" (Joseph Stalin) and they believe that, even if we don't. Or do you see many signs of gratitude in French public opinion? Any? The Americans who get spat on in France nowadays - how many of those Frenchmen remember Omaha Beach. I'll actually go farther - the goodwill is one part of the reason _why_ they hate us. If you're strong and someone else is weak, and they hate you because they're weak, then doing things to engender gratitude will get you more hatred, not less. > Bluntly, because I find the "holier than thou" > attitude WRT the-US-vs.-the-world foolish, > condescending, and most of all **counterproductive > to > the stated goals** of the government. It's one > thing > to claim to be better (which we are), another > _entirely_ to state that one has both God's ear and > His mission --which happens also to be the claim of > certain Muslim extremists. If this is presented as > a > "holy war," it *will not* stay confined to Iraq. Can you please give me a quote where anyone in the government "state[d] that [we] ha[ve] both God's ear and His mission?" Or presented this as a "'holy war'"? Even _one_? > Umm, could you please rephrase this? I'm not sure > what you're asking me... > (although I have already stated that I certainly do > not think the US is 'worse than Saddam' -- which is > an > absurd position, and no one I know would say or even > think such foolishness) > > Debbi Take a look at the people in the protests - the people on your side of the debate (not mine, thank God) - and you'll notice that a lot of them _do_ think that the US is 'worse than Saddam'. You might want to worry about who you're associating with a bit. I know if I was on the same side of an argument as ANSWER _and_ David Duke, I'd be a little concerned. Gautam __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more http://taxes.yahoo.com/ _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
