On Thu, 12 Sep 2002 11:35:36 -0400 Dennis Perrin <dperrin at comcast.net> wrote:
> > your position sounds to me rather like a
> "soft-on-saddam" left position .
> . .
> > are you arguing that iraq and the world would
> not be better off w/o saddam
> > hussein? are you miminizing the crimes saddam
> has in fact committed (e.g.,
> > gassing kurds or contributing consciously,
> voluntarily, and non-trivially
> to
> > the starvation of his own people while he and
> his officers live in the lap
> of
> > luxury)?
[incidentally, you never addressed this point]
> >
> > true, saddam hussein did not massacre several
> thousand in new york and
> > washington, dc, but if *that* is the
> determinative difference between
> saddam
> > and al-qa'ida, then that alters the substance
> of your argument about
> > afghanistan, as far as i can tell. indeed, it
> shows that afghanistan
> really
> > WAS what we think it was: US vengeance, with
> the side-effect of the
> liberation
> > of a downtrodden people from a thoroughly
> repressive regime. wouldn't bush
> > fils finishing the vendetta of bush pere be
> the same thing--US
> vindictiveness
> > (and/or worse) that ultimately makes things
> better for iraqis?
> >
> > jeff
>
> If Saddam had sent those planes into the
> Towers, and promised more death to
> come, then yes, I would definitely support
> attacking his regime. >
this alone proves my point, afaict. the difference is punishment for an attack on US soil, not saving the poor downtrodden masses, who, in the case of afghanistan, would still be downtrodden had the mouse not roared. frankly, i find the logic twisted. i suppose you take your overturning of repressive regimes where you can get it, but your description of leftists dancing to the cues of empire suddenly seems to apply to you more than to anyone else.
j
> But as it
> stands there is no evidence of any kind, and a
> unilateral assault on Iraq
> would, in my mind, be disastrous. Apart from
> the civilian dead, what would
> be done to placate the various nationalisms? I
> mean, would the Shi'ias get
> their patch, the Kurds theirs? What about the
> Sunni minority which rules
> Iraq? I think containment of Saddam has worked
> fine. This "regime change" is
> totally unnecessary, especially given that Iraq
> controls only a portion of
> its own air space. What the hell is it going to
> do?
ah, yes the "it's impractical" argument. this will not bail you out.
>
> If the US sought mere vengeance, then
> Afghanistan would be a parking lot.
here i think you give my argument a twist and address your own version. were it not for US vengeance, afghanistan would still be a taliban/al qa'ida parking lot. now, we're providing bodyguards for our choice among rival tribal leaders.
> It's not, quite the contrary,
indeed, no, it's a pipeline facility. oh, wait, that would NEVER happen.
> and this no doubt
> rankles the Soft-on-al-Qs --
> oh for a million dead! Think of the organizing
> possibilities!
oh, please. this is thoroughly offensive.
> Al-Qaeda has
> recently stated that it will kill as many
> people as it can, that last year's
> attacks were just the beginning. Saddam, awful
> though he is, hasn't gone
> this route,
no, he just raises money for palestinian suicide bombers. that's SO much better. this is a weak weak weak argument.
> and being a materialist thug, it
> certainly isn't in his
> interests. That's one difference between the
> two situations. A big one,
> actually.
actually, not.
but in any event, methinks thou dost protest too much. it keeps coming down to who's a threat to us or has done damage to us. this white man's burden thing is just a facade, and deep down i think you know it.
j