----- Original Message ----- From: "Andrew Paul" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, April 22, 2005 1:45 AM Subject: RE: Removing Dictators Re: Peaceful change L3
Dan Minette wrote > > From: "Andrew Paul" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >Poor George, no wonder he looks tired, tossing all night, crying over > > >the starving Koreans kiddies etc... > > > > What I don't understand is, given that I'm pretty sure I already > mentioned > > this to you in an earlier discussion, why you don't consider any > answer > > but > > Bush is a bad boy. Did you ask yourself "what are the differences > between > > N. Korea and Iraq?" "Is there any difference in the estimated number > of > > civilian casualties in each war?" > > > > >I was not saying that Bush is a bad boy. I was expressing my disbelief > >that he can probably walk on water, and then turn it into wine. He is > >the President of the USA, and not a very gentle or non-confrontational > >one at that. I have no problem with Bush being able to do good things, > >or the USA doing good things. I just don't accept that _everything_ he > >and/or America does shines with a golden light from on high. > > But, that's not what you wrote. With all due respect, if you want a > debate > on the issue, dragging out old clich�s isn't helpful. Think about it. > AFAIK, we have one regular on this list who has expressed strong support > of > Bush. Gautam gave him a D- rating as president during the fall elections. > I voted for him once, when he was reelected governor of Texas, because the > Democrats ran a yellow dog against him. (A yellow dog Democrat is one who > would vote for the Democrat even if they were running a yellow dog for the > office.) I think his tax cuts are dangerous and counter-productive. I > think his handling of the reconstruction in Iraq during the last two years > shows criminal incompetence. > > Yet, I find myself arguing for him when you post because I think to > myself > "he's no prize, but he's not _that_ bad." > > Dan M. > >What I was reacting too, and what prompted my colorful phrasing was the contention that GWB >invaded Iraq to save the Iraqi people. It was being suggested that this was maybe the _real_ >reason behind the invasion (Most of the others having run out of any relevance long ago) and that that >was made clear at the time, that he and the government put this forward in such a way that it had some >parity with the issue of WMD. My memory is not perfect, but it ain't that bad. Frankly, the whole idea is >total revisionist bollocks. Hmm, maybe part of the problem is that you jumped in the middle of a debate....without seeing what at least I thought was the premise: whether the decision to go in was indefensible (maybe another word was used, but that was the idea). After a long sub-thread with Warren, we've agreed that he writes like a fiction writer (his poor excuse for that is that he _is_ a fiction writer and editor....but we'll let that pass for now <ducking quickly> ), so he used a bit of hyperbola there. Part of the background was the long debate _here_ on whether the invasion was the right thing to do, where the status of the people of Iraq came up frequently. In fact, one of the rules for a voluntary war given by Gautam was that it would, at least, do no net harm to the people in the region. Invading a dictatorship like, say, Singapore, would be different than invading Iraq because the people in Singapore do not live in fear of being tortured and killed by the government. I guess I can see where you thought that it was argued that it was pure benevolence on the part of the US, but that's certainly not what I was arguing. >He was (and as President of the USA this is his job, so it's not insulting to suggest it I hope) acting in what >he saw as the best interests of the United States. And, no, I don't think that makes him bad. No....and I think the criterion that one should do no significant harm to others while pursuing those interests is a valid one....and one that is usually met. I am sorry that I overreact to such concepts as the idea that I should be ashamed of myself for having misgivings about the war, or that I am somehow complicit in the torturing of Iraqi children because of these misgivings, by using a few tired old clich�'s. I guess its cos I am sometimes speechless at the hypocrisy (not specifically of those here, don't get me wrong) of the world, and how easily we forget because it suits us. We invaded Iraq to save the Iraqi children from Saddam. Yea. Right. Sure. We invaded Iraq because we saw a chance to get away with it, on the back of 9/11, and because it suited our long term strategic interests. (*Note - long term strategic interests involve many things, including even making life a little better for people. And long term strategic interests are not, of themselves, a bad thing). >I can deal with that, I don't need it dressed up as some noble humanitarian act to be able to sleep at >nights. To pretend that would be a lie, and there have enough of them already. One point on that. It was certainly part of the debate in the US. One of the most significant columnists in the US made that his focal point for justification, agreeing that there was no immediate threat. There is a group in the US that could be called hawkish liberals who feels the US is morally oblidged to act against genocide, mass torture, etc. The US would not have considered invading Iraq if it risked significant damage to US interests (e.g. stopping the USSR in Hungury would probabily have started a nuclear war), but the fact that the government was a brutal regiem did factor into a number of people's decision making process. Elsewhere you stated that you would like to move on now, and that's fine. We've got a situation that's developing in the Sudan. There is an unauthorized African peacekeeping force in the Danfur (sp) region trying to keep the peace. It's unauthorized because the politics at the UN is such that they don't want to anger the government of Sudan. The US is asking NATO to help this group if needed to prevent a renewal of a campaign of genocide. So obvious questions arrive. In the absense of a UN mandate, do the Africans have a right to protect their black brothers from the minority Arab govenment's genocide? In the absence of a UN mandate, does NATO have a right to help them. In the absence of NATO, does the US have a right to help them. If the government of Sudan's army looks like it can overwhelm these peacekeepers, does the US have the right to stop the genocide against the wishes of the UN? This is relevant and current, and involves some of the issues we've been discussing. Dan M. P.S., I'm about to go visit my mom, so I may be out of the discussion over the weekend. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
