From: Gautam Mukunda [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>--- Andrew Paul <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> From: Gautam Mukunda [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >You _can_ make this argument, I guess, but actually >> >_making_ it makes you an apologist for one of the >> most >> >brutal dictators in human history - you have to >> >believe all of the propaganda that he and his >> >supporters put out. Are you willing to go that >> far, >> >Ritu? >> >> I dont get this sort of black and white thinking. >> It scares me as much as the mob violence we saw on >> TV. >Then something's wrong with you. When the mob >violence happened, I had friends call me to say that I >shouldn't go over there - because, to quote one, "I >don't want the last time I see you to be your body on >the front page of the New York Times." That really >happened to four people. Gautam, its terrible what is happening in Iraq. I dont deny your feelings on the subject, and I dont treat the commitment that America has shown lightly. I do however proclaim my right to wonder if there is another way, and to question the moral, and equally, the strategic basis for the methods used so far. And to do so without being painted as an asslicker of Saddam. I see it as a basic right of democracy. I am a democrat, and strange as it may seem, support the American Hegemony. I dont support a fascist America that cannot deal with criticism. And if you are asking me to hail GWB as the New Christ, and Donald Rumsfeld as the leader of the New Apostles, all incapable of sin or error, then sorry, I cant. Being elected the American President is a great honour, but it does not, as far as I know, sanctify you. >> I had no time for Saddam or his regime. To suggest >> that just questioning >> the outcomes of the war is somehow supporting Saddam >> is ludicrous, and well, >> the way you phrased it, somewhat offensive. >But this is not, in fact, what happened. And if it >offended you, grow up and move outside of your >ideological echo chamber. Saying things were better >in Iraq before the war than after is, actually, kind >of supporting the regime, because the only way you can >possibly believe that is to believe what Saddam and >his regime said about the way things were in Iraq. I can believe whatever I like. And it depends not a whit on what Saddam said or did not say. My interest is not with the spin bullshit of either regime, its about life for Iraqi's, wake up, eat work, sleep kinda life, not whatever crap the regime of the day is trying to sell us. I dont even begin to understand how we, safe behind our keyboards could make a judgement about wheter its better or worse. I never claimed to know. I just posed the question, and said I wasn't sure. I thats a sin, then mea culpa. >>If you paid _any attention at all_ to _anything_ about >>what life was really like there under his regime, you >>wouldn't say that. The _Iraqis_ don't say that. >>Who's left, exactly? So those folks rioting in the street, waving placards and tearing people apart, they are just having a bit of fun are they, a bit of a giggle. I dont know if its better or worse, all I can say is that, from my couch, it does not look pretty. And those who claim its undeniably better, cos now they are "free" need to take a walk down the back streets of Baghdad or Fallujah and then I may listen to their opinion. I haven't, and thus I cant say. >I'm sure you "had no time for Saddam or his regime." >I'm willing to bet, though, that you opposed any and >all efforts to actually _do_ something about Saddam >and his regime. And you seem a lot more upset about >people who _were_ than you are about the regime >itself. You would lose that bet Gautum. I think they should have got rid of him in 91. Why must I be a Saddam lover just cos I question the strategic correctness of the American invasion? Can I infer from the US lack of an invasion of North Korea that Bush enjoys licking the ass of Mr K? >> >> I didn't like Sadaam, and I dont like what is >> happening in Iraq now. >> I can hold both those postitions and still sleep at >> night. >Fine. I don't either. But if you hold those >positions with _equal intensity_ then you're morally >obtuse at best. You have lost me here. I either love Saddam and want him extradited to Australia so I can vote him in as President, or I want him drawn, torn and quartered in front of the Lincoln Memorial? Cant I have something in between? Like something sensible? >> The only way I could take your position is to deny >> that there was any other >> possible approach to dealing with Saddam than the >> one we chose. And that is patently untrue. >> >> Andrew >Well, there was no other way of _getting rid of >Saddam_ than the one we chose. There were other ways >of dealing with him, certainly But that is >immaterial. The question is, are things better in >Iraq than they were under Saddam? Yes, they are. Are they? How do we know that? Ahh, CNN said so, of course !! And is that the question? I thought the question was about how best to safeguard the world from Terrorists? I still dont get how invading Iraq answers that question. And why werent we asked about how best to make Iraqis feel happy and safe 12 months ago? Perhaps I missed the news that night. Or have the goalposts moved since the questions we were asked all turned out to be wrong and misleading. The evidence was flimsy, the approach rushed to fit a self-centered Bush political agenda, and it was as stupid a thing I have seen America do since the Bay of Pigs. >A more interesting question is - why are so many >people who so self-righteously proclaim their morality >and concern for the people of Iraq far more upset >about _overthrowing_ Saddam than they ever were about >Saddam itself? What does _that_ say about them? I disagree. A lot of other questions are more interesting. But thats my take. And you seem to have cast me in a mould I dont think I fit. If I (and the world community) thought invading Iraq was going to make the world a better place, then I'd be there with bells on. I happen to think it was a stupid misconcieved idea, and all the rancor and debate and passion we are seeing now is a result of it being immoral, and more importantly plain, homecooked, hold the pickles, stupid. I liken it to Operation Barberossa, as a highpoint of strategic thinking. You dont invade other countries, with such extended supply lines, and a basic hostility from both the populace and all the neighbouring countries, combined with a strong religious framework on which they can build dissent, and expect it to be a success. Let me put it in my moral context as well. You dont invade other countries just cos you feel like it. Thats called War. No country starts a War without severe provocation. Like being invaded. You dont do it cos it might win you the next election. Thats called Fascism. Andrew
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
