Messages in this collection:
* Re: [lbo-talk] Re: "Save Darfur" etc (and other responses)
* Re: [lbo-talk] Re: "Save Darfur" etc (and other responses)
* Re: [lbo-talk] Re: "Save Darfur" etc (and other responses)
* Re: [lbo-talk] Re: "Save Darfur" etc (and other responses)
=========== Message 1 =========== Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Re: "Save Darfur" etc
At around 29/4/06 2:44 pm, Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:
> On 4/29/06, ravi <gadfly at exitleft.org> wrote:
>> Do you also realize
>> that the rest of the world is a fucked up place with its share of brutal
>> thugs? If polls in Iraq can be believed at all, until recently, a
>> majority of *Iraqis* wanted continued U.S presence (IIRC), exactly to
>> handle the situation we (the U.S) had created.
>
> I never bought those polls, but let's assume the polls have been
> correct. Is there not a lesson to be learned from the Iraqis who have
> changed their minds?
>
Yoshie, IIRC, even at that time you were calling for withdrawal of US troops! And if Kerry had won (which he almost did) perhaps there would have been enough of a difference for the Iraqis to not change their opinion.
=========== Message 2 =========== Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Re: "Save Darfur" etc
At around 29/4/06 3:12 pm, Dwayne Monroe wrote:
>
> Regarding UN peacekeeping missions, try this -
>
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_UN_peacekeeping_missions>
>
Funny, that was the third link (IIRC) that I found on Google. Further down was a page about general U.N peacekeeping efforts from the world community and for larger U.S participation. Will try to find the link again.
> An intriguing list of actions. I don't think US
> troops were deployed under the UN flag in many of
> these operations (if any). Also, it would be an
> enlightening exercise to track how much "good" was
> done in each situation. There appears to be a iceberg
> of gray there.
Gray is what I am arguing for here. What I find difficult to swallow is the position that without fail U.S action (to be fair to my opponents in this thread, by that is mostly meant U.S military action) will worsen the situation.
> Regarding pressuring Washington to participate in a UN
> mission for Darfur...
>
> That sounds fine in principal but if Washington
> becomes militarily involved it will insist on doing
> things its way without "interference" from lesser
> powers (the US' de facto stance towards the UN since
> the beginning).
Yes, I think I have expressed this problem too... but...
> Now here's the thing...if my only option for rescue is
> a bunch of gangsters well, I'm going to pick up the
> goddamn phone and call the mofos. But, once the
> immediate problem is dealt with - or at least, held at
> bay - I'm contending with a bunch of gangsters who
> have gangster style plans for my life. And oh by the
> way, I owe them.
>
> Parables about leopards with their non-changeable
> spots and a scorpion killing the frog (or some such
> animal) helping it cross a river come to mind: you
> know, because it's in the nature of some things to
> just do what they do.
>
> What Washington does is what great powers have always
> done - play games for the benefit of a few well placed
> folk. Nothing new under the sun.
>
I think this is where the argument is over-extended in its historical determinism. Even in the worst case, owing the U.S gangster is still a better life for some than being slaughtered today?
> But what you're, more or less, saying is: 'well yes,
> that's true but maybe we can pressure these gangsters
> into becoming aid workers - if the pressure's great
> enough and applied at vital acupressure points, the
> geopolitical qigiong can be re-directed; yes, we can
> ride this bull, turn it away from plunging its horns
> into that quivering flesh (though it longs to do so)
> and towards the softer, helping arts.'
>
> To which I say, go to it. Hope is nice. If you hope
> to alter Washington's course via pressure then good
> luck and tell me how I can support the effort ?
> because, well, ?pessimism of the intellect, optimism
> of the will?.
You are making it out to be more dramatic than it is. Perhaps this is the difference between a liberal (me) and a radical leftist. I think a bit more U.N control, continued participation by NGOs, a little less mailing list activity and a little more activism on our parts, can make a difference. Will we do it? Perhaps not... but that is all I am discussing here; I am not marching in DC tomorrow.
When PBS (not Fox) airs material showing Iraqis welcoming U.S troops, pockets of fruitful collaboration, etc., is it outright lying or being hoodwinked, or is it some different version of reality?
> The sort of funding you suggest IS a better idea and
> has been for over sixty years. But there's the problem
> of ?linkage? - if US funds are being used, the US gets
> a say and the American style is to turn ?a say? into
> THE say. This brings us back to the smart bombs, the
> thermobarics and clusters and all the other 'solve the
> problem quickly from the air' options our modern
> Curtis LeMays' love so well.
I read a statistic that the U.S funds a large portion of U.N peacekeeping efforts, at least some of which are generally accepted as successful. E.g: Mozambique.
> And note that, per the polled desires of
> Iraqis ? at least, ?until recently? - the helpful
> Americans did indeed stay ? and in force with all
> their toys. But, as you know, this hasn't helped
> things at all.
>
Well how do we know it hasn't helped? Can we predict what Iraq would be if the US pulled out overnight as many U.S leftists desire?
=========== Message 3 =========== Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Re: "Save Darfur" etc
At around 29/4/06 4:53 pm, Carrol Cox wrote:
>
> Mark Twain knew this a century ago. Eugene Debs knew it. I really don't
> see how it is so difficult to understand.
>
I think what makes it difficult to understand, old boy, is that unlike Mark Twain, Eugene Debs (I am assuming here), and you, I (and I guess Wojtek) have lived in other parts of the world. We can actually think of situations where U.S actions, with all its implied horrors, may even be better than the status quo.
=========== Message 4 =========== Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Re: "Save Darfur" etc
At around 29/4/06 4:56 pm, Carrol Cox wrote:
> ravi wrote:
>>
>> Genocide should take a back seat? You cannot be saying that. So, what
>> are you saying?
>
> Doug can answer for himself, but my answer to this is I don't fucking
> care. We have to stop the U.S. We have to give humanity room to breathe.
> Approving of u.s. intervention against genocide someplace isn't opposing
> genocide, it's just supporting more sophisticated forms of genocide. I
> hope you are merely playing devil's advocate here, because the position
> you are supporting is truly evil.
>
Carrol,
would you calm down? Humanity room to breathe? Come on man! The asses in India are celebrating their own stratifying version of a .com boom as if its some sort of revolutionary liberation, while naively mouthing the same illogic as the supply siders and reagenites -- all this their own willing creation -- while the poor are still struggling to survive if they haven't already given up and committed suicide. Its almost a matter of conceit to attribute current and potential [maximal] evil to the U.S.
Of course I am [partially] playing devil's advocate here. But who says the devil is wrong?
--ravi
-- Support something better than yourself: ;-) PeTA: http://www.peta.org/ GreenPeace: http://www.greenpeace.org/