Accusing me of lying is a bit silly given the tentativeness with which I recalled the conversation. Such tactics are beneath you and you certainly have no reason to feel desperate already.
Hope you've found a job!
kelley
At 11:22 PM 1/12/2005, Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:
>snit snat snitilicious at tampabay.rr.com, Wed Jan 12 18:15:17 PST 2005:
>> >Doug didn't advocate a "police-first" way.
>>
>>Yes he did.
>
>Doug called for a nice war: "What is needed is some kind of seriously
>international action to capture the guilty - following upon a serious
>worldwide investigation - and to rebuild Afghanistan. That would require
>some sort of force; it's not like you could parachute the NYPD into Kabul
>to serve some arrest warrants. But whatever force that's applied should
>be multilateral and tightly focused" (at
><http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20050110/000760.html>).
>There can't be a nice war of the sort that Doug thought we should call
>for. Unless you recognize that, you will be doing the same thing the next
>time something similar happens. Some people never learn anything from history.
>
>>What he seemed to object to, in his typical Doug way as he traversed the
>>Scylla and Charybdis of two extremes, was this:
>>
>>1. Your and IIRC Carroll's position that it would be best not to call any
>>police at all. You illustrated this by claiming that where you mugged (or
>>perhaps _when_ you were mugged), you would refuse (refused) to call the cops.
>
>Seriously, stop lying. What I said was "I've been mugged by a black man,
>but I'm against the "war on crimes,"
>racial profiling, etc." (at
><http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/2001/2001-October/022512.html>). I'm not
>talking about a hypothetical either, as you can see from the mood of the
>sentence.
>
>>2. The supporters of the "police first" way who wanted to elide the
>>likelihood that even a police-first, internationalist approach would
>>likely entail lots of violence and death of innocents.
>
>You can't invade a foreign nation just because you want to police that
>nation yourself, rather than asking its government to do it for you.
>
>Seriously, how are soldiers -- be they American, German, French, or
>whoever -- expected to know who are "guilty" and who are "innocent" in
>Afghanistan? They had no clue when they began their invasion, and they
>still don't. You and Doug don't have a clue either.
>
>>At that time, it wasn't at all clear that the US probably could have
>>negotiated a more peaceful entree into Afghanistan.
>
>It would have been better if Washington had avoided getting any "entree"
>into Afghanistan at all. Why get an "entree" there? What's the bloody point?
>
>uvj at vsnl.com uvj at vsnl.com, Wed Jan 12 18:05:24 PST 2005:
>>1. Even a multilateral force or the UN led one would be seen as an
>>instrument of US imperialism and condemned for imposing its will on
>>Afghans ruled by Taliban.
>>
>>2. Taliban government was recognised by only three governments, Saudi
>>Arabia, Pakistan and United Arab Emirates. No other country recognised it
>>as the official Afghan government. Afghanistan was represented in the UN
>>by the Rabbani government in exile. How does the UN or any multilateral
>>entity can deal with the Taliban government in Kabul without an armed invasion?
>
>It appears that the Indian government, whatever it thought about the
>Taliban and the Ba'ath Party, has wisely avoided getting involved in the
>Afghan and Iraqi campaigns.
>--
>Yoshie
>
>* Critical Montages: <http://montages.blogspot.com/>
>* "Proud of Britain": <http://www.proudofbritain.net/ > and
><http://www.proud-of-britain.org.uk/>
>___________________________________
>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
"We live under the Confederacy. We're a podunk bunch of swaggering pious hicks."
--Bruce Sterling