Gautam Mukunda wrote: > > --- Andrew Paul <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Gautam, why is it that only other countries have > > self-interested > > agendas? > > Is it possible that now and then, America does too? > > I think it is, and > > that's why I think it is worthwhile getting a second > > opinion. > > No, the question is the exact opposite. Why is it > that you claim that it's _only_ America that acts only > in its self-interest, and everyone else gets a pass?
Point out where I said that. No one else gets a free pass. > We constantly hear about war for oil or what not in > the US's case, when there's no logical connection > there. Look, I am not a "War for Oil" theorist, not in a direct sense, but you can't deny that if Saddam was a dictator in some oil-free tinpot African state, we would not be having this conversation, cos he would still be in power. > But when there _is_ a connection between > corruption and self-interest and nations that _oppose_ > the United States - not a word. Other countries - > Britain, for example - do sometimes act in ways that > are not purely self-interested. That's why you have > to analyze each case. Now, in the Sudan, we have a > case of genocide going on where the US is saying > "Let's try to do something". And France is saying > "There's no genocide here." Now one of those two > countries has massive oil contracts with the Sudanese > government. I leave you to guess which one. And > which one is more likely to be acting for selfish > reasons. > Umm, and after the US intervention, I will leave you to guess who would have 'new' massive oil contracts with the 'new' Sudanese government. > > Perhaps that is what you believe. I don't know. I > > like America, but I > > don't think it is perfect. > > You have a funny way of showing it. You know, I > constantly hear, "I like America" from people who > never have anything good to say about it and who > oppose everything it does in the world - particularly > when they are the _beneficiaries_ of what it does in > the world. You'll forgive me if the simple statement > doesn't quite convince me one way or the other. > Well, that is your choice. I would not even be arguing about this if I did not feel strongly about freedom and democracy, of which America is a great champion. And how am I supposed to "show it"? By slavish adoration of every action America takes? That's not democracy, or freedom. Right now we are debating something about which I disagree with the actions taken by the Bush Administration. So, well, sorry if I don't sound grateful enough but that will be because I ain't. Does that make sense? I am arguing because I disagree, not because I am some dullard whose knees jerk automatically every time I hear America mentioned. > > To use an argument style that really peed me off, > > does this inability to > > intervene in Darfur because the US is stretched out > > in Iraq, mean that > > support for the Iraq war is functionally, tacit > > approval of the > > slaughter in Darfur? > > > I Was Shocked Too Maru > > > > Andrew > > Well the argument probably "peed" you off because it's > _true_. People said "Don't invade Iraq." And we said > "That will leave Saddam Hussein in power." And they > said, "Don't invade Iraq." And we said "The _only > way_ to remove Saddam Hussein from power is to invade > Iraq." and that statement is true, and hasn't been > refuted by anyone on the list, and can't be refuted, > because it is, in fact, a true statement. No, it can't be refuted because it is, in fact, too late to try any other approach. Maybe you > don't care. Maybe you think removing Saddam isn't > worth the cost. But you can't say that opposing the > invasion wasn't functionally a stand in favor of > Saddam remaining in power, _because it was_. > In part it's your use of terms that "peed" me off. You use the term, a "stand in favour", implying that I liked Saddam, that I "favoured" him. I did't, and never have. Opposing the invasion, was, surprisingly enough, opposing the invasion. As a consequence, he may have stayed in power, I accept that, but I did not "favour" him. Andrew _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
