----- Original Message ----- From: "Justin Schwartz" <jkschw at hotmail.com>
> >As far as the South was concerned, the North had as much right to send in
> >troops as the UN has to send troops into Iraq.
> >But then what do the vagaries of nationalist history have to do with the
> >justice of fighting for democracy?
>
> Firstly, Nathan, you and I, anyway, are patriots if not (I hope) national
> chauvinists, so the answer is, for us, a great deal, even if not for
Yoshie.
That may be true but my lefty form of patriotism has more to do with the ideals embodied in theory if not always in practice in our institutions, not in the particular blood and soil of its peoples. For the same reason I can welcome essentially open borders without a qualm where nationalists see a threat to "national sovereignty", I similarly don't take "self-determination" seriously outside the democratic context of a right of a people to choose their representatives. So when a people such as the Iraqis lack that basic right, issues of sovereignty are pretty irrelevant in my view. Other issues such as the general preference for non-violent over violent methods of change play a strong factor.
So as for this-
>Iraqi democracy is for the Iraqis to settle. It's
> that simple. We have no right to invade Britain because we think a
> constitional system is more democratic than a parlaimentary one, and no
> business generally goping around installing whatw e think of democracy all
> over the place. Don't you see that there is no stopping on your theory?
jks
We aren't talking about the relative merits of parliamentary versus Presidential systems, or even of the more debateable issue of "peoples democracy" in Cuba versus corporate-perverted democracy in the US. Iraq lacks even a hint of democratic institutions and I find the "let them settle it themselves" argument ridiculous, when one side dominates the state and military apparatus and butchers those who dissent. Should the French have stayed out of our "internal" war with Britain, a far more debateable issue of internal injustice? Should domestic abuse in families be settled by themselves?
There are lots of good arguments on the danger of the US acting unilaterally as world cop, but that is an issue of checks and balances on power. Turning that fear of abuse into a principle that local bullies have "might makes right" on their side through rhetorics of "national sovereignty" and "self-determination" is exactly the moral bankruptcy that appalls me about modern antiwar rhetoric.
-- Nathan Newman