Of course, I blame these unwieldy portmanteau posts with uninformative "Re:lbo-talk-digest" titles on the current regulatory regime, which regulates posts by number and is thus bound to create perverse incentives. Under a quota-trading scheme all these problems would be solved, etc, etc
---------------------------------
>I was talking about the larger point, which is that the Soviets
>allegedly flattened whole cities and the U.S. has allegedly tried to
>avoid civilian targets. I'm perfectly willing to believe either or
>both are false, but I'm wondering if there's any evidence on either
>side that contradicts these assertions.
>Doug
Makes sense on the face of it that this would be true. The Russians were trying to control a guerrilla army within the territory of Afghanistan and lacked a local militia, so it's not surprising that they ended up resorting to massacre of anyone looking remotely like a mujahedin as a tactic. The Americans weren't, and they aren't monsters, so they had no reason not to use as much care as possible to avoid civilian casualties (contrast their behaviour in Vietnam, for example, where similar strategic conditions had similar results). I think that trying to condemn the Americans for bombing an inconvenient TV station is a bit much; I'd certainly have given it an accidental nudge if I'd been in charge and thought it was pumping out propaganda.
The interesting thing perhaps is that, although they're trying not to just bomb anyone who looks a bit Taliban, by bombing the Taliban, they are indulging in the same tactic at a different level -- bombing anyone who looks remotely like Al-Quaeda. Which, I think, suggests that I'm unlikely to be changing my view that the current military action is more, not less, likely to result in the death of me or someone I care about by violence.
--------------------------------------
-----------------------------
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 10:39:15 -0500 From: "Charles Brown" <CharlesB at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> Subject: Crime/War
((((((((
>CB: A fine description , but what do we make of it ?
>Since the perpetrators of the Sept 11 murders are of >sufficient status to
have a war declared on them, shouldn't >they be called "warriors" or
"soldiers" ? Of course, soldiers >and warriors are the greatest purveyors
of terror in >civiliization.
>On the other hand, if these are only terrorists , how can >one support a
full war against them ? They don't rise to the >level of a worthy opponent
in war. They are mere violent >criminals, terrorists. One can only have a
war with soldiers.
Strikes me that as a term intermediate between "soldiers" and "common murderers" that you are looking for, the word "terrorists" is pretty accurate and has the advantage of being widely understood.
---------------------------------------------
>Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 11:21:19 -0500
>From: "Nathan Newman" <nathan at newman.org>
>Subject: Re: U.S. is acting illegally
>First, when an argument is theoretically and factually >bankrupt, making
the
>argument is a bad idea-- it taints the credibility of the left in far
>broader arenas.
I think that your view of
a) the existing credibility of the left in broader arenas and b) the potential for improvement in the credibility of the left if it were to stick only to theoretically and factually simon-pure arguments
has to be put into the category "admirably plucky". Or to put it another way, when the Wall Street Journal and the Cato Institute gear up for another attack on Social Security, do you think anyone hangs around saying "but making arguments which are desperately, obviously false and self-serving to boot will taint the credibility of the right in broader arenas"?
> Truth is the most important weapon and we should stick to
>arguments that conform with our beliefs and reality, not >make
propagandistic
>nice-sounding statements that ring hollow to most >intelligent listeners.
Very fine words. In that spirit, I hope you'll appreciate my informing you that
1)Truth isn't the most important weapon 2) Saying that it is, is a nice-sounding statement that rings hollow to most intelligent listeners.
Surely the idea that there is any chance whatever of the other side either 1) choosing to play by these Queensbury rules or 2) giving you a fair hearing and admitting that you're being honest even if you are, has been falsified over time. Krugman seems to have got this point. Telling the truth is a good thing to do, and lying is silly and unnecessary, but it's self-delusion to assume that either of these things has any effect on the credibility of the left.
------------------------------
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 17:45:15 -0500 From: Doug Henwood Subject: Re: FBI Arrests
>Why the hell would they make this info public?
You're assuming that they did. In the choice between 1) the FBI has given away information about an ongoing investigation or 2) a tabloid newspaper is bum-talking to create an interesting story, my money's on the side with the long run of data.
>Are they hoping we'll
>just be impressed today and forget it by the day after >tomorrow?
That's the only credible alternative explanation
> What
>sense does this make?
Go on, without looking, what was the headline on the Post on Friday?
-
Get Your Free Email at http://www.al-islam.com