> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Behalf Of Gautam Mukunda
... > There are three problems with this: > 1. The single most prominent opponent of the war > effort - the French government - has, over the past 12 > years, provided immense evidence that they are, in > fact, supporters of Saddam Hussein. Not neutral, not > ambivalent, not unwilling to fight to oppose him but > opposed otherwise, but just, straight out, his > supporters. There is no other way to interpret an > unvarying record of assistance to his regime. Where is this unvarying record documented? I've had a bit of a hard time coming up with any sort of summary. There's no shortage of glib criticism of France, but is there a factual accounting somewhere on-line? More to the point, you've changed the subject, as well as your premise. Earlier, the French were supports of Hussein because they are against war, like the "jackasses" in the mall and the other "anti-American" war protestors you have described. Are we talking about what it means to be a supporter of Iraq's regime or are we talking about whether we should go to war? One thing at a time, if you please. I'm sticking to what I was writing about. > 2. Many of the most prominent other opponents of the > war seem to be very newly come to their (usually very > perfunctorily mentioned) opposition to the Hussein > regime, and seem chiefly to be animated by opposition > to efforts to remove him. Throw a party for them if they've come back to embrace the truth as we see it, don't punish them for past foolishness. Otherwise, we are hypocrites, considering the oppressive regimes we have supported, funded, supplied with arms and even put into place in some nations. Seems to me that one of your common cries is for us to be pragmatic about these matters. Well, the pragmatic reality of every nation on earth, including ours, is that sometimes we support bad guys because they're the best of a bunch of bad choices... and sometimes we kid ourselves into thinking that's what we're doing when when we're really just lining our own pockets, or we're just plain afraid. > 3. The position of "I'm not in favor of this but I'm > not saying what I _am_ in favor of" seems to be most > useful as a way of criticizing people without, you > know, having any responsibility for your own > positions. I'm in favor of doing away with the polarizing rhetoric that divides us, to take us back to the subject you were responding to. This is a nation that has, from its beginning, honored diversity and criticism. Inspired largely by Milton's argument that truth emerges from vigorous, open debate, Jefferson and his pals created a kind of freedom never before seen. When we allow winning the disputes to become more important than making the best choices, we've abandoned a foundation of our freedom. That's what I hear in the "Everybody who disagrees with me is wrong" talk from far too many advocates of war and peace. They've left advocacy in the dust. > I'm willing to come out and say - this is > what I think we should do. Are you willing to take a position on *how* we make these decisions, in addition to the issue? That's what I was talking about. If you want to debate the decision itself, that's another discussion. I'm very opposed to the way you paint those who disagree. Is that what you think "taking a stand" requires? > When things > are over we can all evaluate various positions and see > how they turned out. No, we won't. Only in fiction do we know how things would have turned out if we acted differently; we will only see the consequences of what we choose. Any evaluation of the alternatives will be pure speculation. "History will prove me right and you wrong" is a refuge of the insecure partisan. > Other than that you don't seem > to like people who support the war and try to paint > them as crypto-fascists who want to eliminate dissent > - and, to be blunt, that is _exactly_ what you did > with your tendentious post about anti-anti war > opponents, which I'm still pissed about - what do you > believe, Nick? I believe it is immoral to rend the unity of our national values and purpose by insisting that you are right and everyone else is wrong, whether you do so in the name of war, peace or fashion design. That is the behavior of people who have lost sight of the values that stand above political differences, binding us nationally and culturally with the people across the street and across the oceans. It is modeled by the mass media these days, to such an extent that I fear that the vast majority of people don't even realize there is a better way to engage in national and international debate. > What do you want to do? If your only > contribution to the debate is that you don't like > people who want to get rid of Hussein, then whatever > it is that you actually believe, objectively, you are > working in favor of his regime. That's exactly the kind of behavior and language that I referred to above. Or even more damaging, since it is based on nothing I've said or implied, and lowers the imputed position to a mere "don't like" feeling. I invite you to engage fully and appreciate the fact that there's more going on here than some feelings about who I like and don't like. Heck, I might even like you, even though I think you are mistaken in some of your beliefs. I could name several people I work quite closely with, some who are confidants, with whom I disagree strongly about various issues. And yet I'm satisfied that it is okay for us to disagree, it is good to have such disagreements. I try to remember to do my best to let your ideas influence me, staying open-minded. And that fails miserably when you lower the discussion to the level in the paragraph above. I tend to advocate liberal positions (though I don't like being labeled), but that doesn't mean I want to live in a community of liberals. We'd never decide anything! I advocate those positions because that's how I see things, not because I'm convinced that liberalism is somehow more true than conservatism. I'm with Milton; keep the playing field fair, respect each others' viewpoints, and the truth will emerge. I have the same attitude in business. Partner me with somebody who is focused, goal-seeking, who gets off on closure -- the kind of person who typically is politically conservative -- and we make a great team, as long as we look at ourselves as complements. Leave me to myself and I'll brainstorm all day, but I might not ever ship a product or close a sale. Leave my typical partner alone and he'll never come up with an innovative product or strategy. Somewhere in the compromise between us arises the creativity that drives success. We need each other to succeed. This country, if not western culture, is going to have its come-uppance sooner rather than later unless a lot more liberals recognize that we need conservatives and vice versa. And perhaps it galls you (no pun intended), but I understand perfectly what France means when it says the rest of the world needs to contain the United States. And I have no problem with that. It doesn't mean I agree with their positions on issues, it means I agree with the idea that in a healthy community, individuals are accountable to one another. > You don't want to do > that. I certainly understand that. But what _do_ you > want to do? Here's what I want to do -- remind, or inform, people that it doesn't have to be this way. They don't need to be "losers" if they are peace advocates and we go to war; they don't need to be "losers" if they advocate war and we hold back our troops. We are acting as a community; if we go to war, the honest, pragmatic peace advocate is worried, sad, disappointed, but satisfied that voices for restraint were heard. If we hold back, those who advocated war could feel the same. What kind of "winner" results in strong, brave young people dying -- which could easily describe the result of either choice we face. We, the Allied powers, were the winners in WWII; we, the human race, failed to avoid all that bloodshed. What kind of "losers" would we be if our decision emerges from respectful disagreements? You are not just taking a stand for what you believe in, you are also taking a contemptuous stand against anyone who disagrees. And make no mistake, I see this just as plainly in many of those who are against this war. That is the behavior of fear and foolishness, not strength and wisdom. It is not dislike for those who want to go to war; it is dismay at the peace-mongers who don't respect the need for defense, dismay at the warriors who want to be unrestrained, sadness that each forgets what binds them to the others. Or call it the lack of respect, or humility, the hubris... Where is *your* true, strong voice, the one that says, "Here is what I believe in," with the courage to let your words stand on their own, the man know knows that contempt for those who disagree weakens you? I know that all of us have that voice, but it is far too rare nowadays. Nick _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
