----- Original Message ----- From: "Doug Pensinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, December 12, 2004 12:21 AM Subject: Re: Are You A Neocon? Neocon Quiz
> I thought I already sent this - over three hours ago, but I don't see it > on the list so I'll try again. > > Gautam wrote: > > > See, Doug, this is where we disagree. You have > > somehow managed to convince yourself that the rest of > > the world is interested in the "right thing". > > No, _I'm_ interested in doing the right thing as, I believe, are the vast > majority of the people (not > governments) of the world. > OK, let's foucs on one topic, then. What about Israel? Do you think most of the people of the world are for doing the right thing with regards to Israel? I'd argue that, from what I've seen, the majority of people in Islamic countries believe in the anti-Semetic lies that they are being told and are strongly anti-Israel. Europeans named Israel the country that is the greatest danger to world peace. I can do a bit more research to see if I can find more poll numbers, but I don't think that hostility to Israel is limited to governments. > It was wrong because it didn't have anything to do with 9/11 or the war on > terrorism. > > > So far as I can tell you've consistently > > made the second argument, but that won't really wash. > > The straw man is constructed and then... > > > A simple example is the obvious one. The most > > unpopular thing that the US does - and the easiest way > > for us to improve our relations with the rest of the > > world - would be to turn on Israel. We could line up > > with the French and say that we prefer Arab tyrannies > > to Jewish democracies. If popularity is a key > > criterion for you, why not advocate that? That's an > > easy win for us. > > ...obliterated. Well done! Why is this a straw man? As far as I see it, you are arguing for the importance of respecting the views of the people of the world, which is anti-Israel and often simply anti-Semetic. > Popularity doesn't have anything to do with it. But, then I don't understand your point. I think going to war with Iraq was wrong because the administration was unprepared to win the peace. That doesn't mean that the goal of overthrowing a dictator is a bad one. That doesn't mean that fighting an unpopular war is a wrong one. One reason I don't consider this a straw man is that you, Gautam, and I, as well as Zimmy and a number of others are all on record supporting Israel's right to exist. We all differ with the poplicies of the various governments of Israel from time to time, but we do not have, say, Jeroen's view that the Arabs are the good guys in this conflict. Much of Europe, and the overwhelming majority of people in Mosilum countries do. >Iraq was not a threat and > if Bush hadn't been so anxious to attack them, it would have been possible > to determine this prior to the war. As it is the focus has been taken > off of terrorism and resources and manpower have been dedicated to a > failing effort to subdue a country that didn't have the capability to do > us any harm. The resources we've squandered would have gone a long way > towards actually solving the problem of terrorism which, I reiterate, has > little or nothing to do with Iraq or Sadam Hussein. Would you say solving the problem of terrorism has nothing to do with trying to "drain the swamp?" You know that I opposed going in, but I am trouble with the absolute sounding nature of your arguements. One could argue that, as long as the Mid-East has a significant income source (oil) and is mostly governed by dictatorships, the problems will continue. If the Mid-Eastern countries would progress to the enlightened state of, say, Jerry Farwell's view of America, then we'd have lowered the threats of terrorism significantly. The problem that I have with world public opionion is that, in hard cases, the prevailing opinion is to deny the tough options. Look at how long it took Europe to recognize the problem in their own back yard sufficiently to allow the US to solve it for them. > The reason we need to preserve good relations with other countries is > because the terrorism we are fighting is stateless and has tendrils in > many other countries. >If we work together to root it out we stand a far > better chance of defeating it. That's true, but there is also the "bell the cat" problem. In the short run, it is easiest for every country besides the US to let someone else do it. The US doesn't have that option. I think Gautam's point is that we could argue until we're blue in the face, and there will be opposition to action against dictators from a large part of the world. >If we piss everyone else off we'll not > only not get cooperation, many of them may even decide that it's just ok > to help our enemies out. To the extent that Bush and company have gratuitously insulted traditional allies, and have had an "in your face" attitude with those who differ with them, I think you are right. But, on the other hand it is likely that a significant fraction of moral actions will continue to raise both popular and governmental opposition. In those cases, from a moral standpoint, we should make the case, take the allies we can get, and go forward. From a practical standpoint, a lot more has to be considered. In short, my objections to Bush's attack of Hussein were and are practical. They were not ready to win when they went in. I'll admit that the conditions in Iraq were far more favorable towards achieving our objectives than I had thought pre-war. But, the incompetence of the administration was also beyond my imagining. The American tragedy in Iraq may be that the Administration was right in that the peace in Iraq was quite winnable, but the arrogance of their incompetence led them to fail. What worries me now is that, after a disaster in Iraq, nothing will be done in Iran or in N. Korea, or in countries X, Y, or Z who will be developing nuclear weapons. As the cost of nuclear bomb technology continues to come down, and with the uncertainty concerning Russian nuclear material being extended indefinitely (at least we see no end), I think we will be facing a real possibility of a nuclear terrorist attack in the next 20-30 years. My SWAG estimate is that, without changing the basic conditions, the odds on a nuclear attack will be 50%/50% during that time. Consider the results of just the Hiroshima bomb centered at a dock near Manhattan, for example. I'd guess that the US's public reaction would be very severe. I think that the immediate deaths and destruction, as bad as they would be, would only be the start of the problem. There would be a real crackdown on liberty in the US and either relentless attacks on those who had _anything_ to do with the attack, or attacks on similar ethnic minorities in the US. In other words, the reaction would be more out of emotion than reason, compounding the destruction of the initial attacks. To recap, I agree with a moderated view of what I see as your arguments; but I have severe trouble with the arguments I see presented here. (I use "I see" deliberately because I'm open to the possibility of miscommunications.) Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
