--- Nick Arnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sat, 9 Apr 2005 00:10:57 -0700 (PDT), Gautam > Mukunda wrote >> I was talking about him immediately stepping down or > cooperating with the > inspections. I find it hard to have a conversation > when the subject changes > so abruptly.
Then _stop changing it_ to confuse the issue. > I'm feeling rather frustrated to even hear that > question. He could also have > given up, of course. What's different, that his > home is in the same country? > So what? A tyrant is a tyrant whether it is a > nation or an individual, > whether it was born locally or invaded from abroad. Yeah, I'm sure Saddam really thought and said, on his list of options, I think I'll just go home and garden in Tikrit. > Yes, the leadership changed. Without war. That's > the point! Nick,. do you know _anything at all_ about South Africa? I mean, like how the governments were chosen? I'll give you a hint - F.W. De Klerk was the _elected_ President of South Africa. You think that might have made a difference? > If he were just one man, surely. If the German > people were behind him, as so > many in India were? The difference is not in the > nastiness of the despots, it > is in the people who stood against them. There has > never been a tyrant who > could stand up to the united will of a people, if > only because endless murder > eventually destroys the empire itself. You just keep saying things like this, but, you know, that doesn't make it less absurd. During the Indian Mutiny, the British fired insurgents out of cannons and there were celebratory cartoons in the British press. After the Amritsar massacre, the officer who commanded it was thanked by the Parliament and given an enormous sum of money by subscription from the public. And this was the _British_, not the Germans or Belgians. Public support for violent methods isn't really much of an issue in a lot of governments. In the case of Iraq, it's not even relevant. You think Saddam Hussein took opinion polls before he used chemical weapons on the Kurds? What the hell are you talking about? The purpose of the methods of oppression in a totalitarian state is to make sure that the united will of the people can't exercise itself, because any leader who might do it gets eliminated. > It is a fact that in India and South Africa, > peaceful revolutions happened. It is a fact that George Bush was peacefully elected a few months ago, but that doesn't make the situation comparable to Iraq. > > > > > Are you saying that you hear me using > make-believe > > > arguments? > > > > Yes, absolutely. > > How very disrepectful. Nick, if you were any more patronising, arrogant, disrespectful, or rude, I'd just have put you back in my killfile, so why don't you lose the holier-than-thou pose? > > Cambodia - you mean where Pol Pot killed a third > of > > the population? The Congo, where one of the worst > > civil wars in history has been fought over the > last > > few decades? Cyprus, which is still bitterly > divided? > > Yugoslavia, where massive ethnic cleansing > resulted > > in hundreds of thousands of civilians displaced, > tens > > of thousands killed, and _two_ wars fought by the > > United States? Somalia, which was rescued from > > starvation by American power only to descend into > > anarchy when we left? These are your examples of > > _good_ policies? For God's sake, what's a failed > > policy? In fact, in your list, the only two cases > of > > "regime change" in which outside forces played a > major > > role are Serbia (two wars by the United States) > and > > Cambodia (an invasion by Vietnam). So _your own > > examples_ suggest that war is the only way to do > it. > > Because we see in Iraq that many fewer people are > being killed and peace is > coming about so much faster? Hah. I don't know. In Cambodia Pol Pot killed two million people. This doesn't _look_ much like Iraq. Peace certainly appears to be coming faster than it would have under Saddam. OTOH, you talk as if Saddam's Iraq was something like Victorian England, so maybe that explains your attitude. > As long as anybody in the world is insecure, so are > we, which is why a peace > based on fear is always an illusion. What a wonderfully empty statement. > > > Hope is not a method, as I beieve I've said > before. > > What is your point? Are you under the impression > that I am suggesting that if > we all sit around *hoping* really, really hard, > doing nothing, conflicts will > vanish? Actually, I'm under the impression that you suggest we sit around and talk about how much better we are than the people who are doing something, because we want a "more intelligent dialogue" while they, the nasty evil people, are making decisions and getting things done. > > > Peaceful regime change is a rare bird > > And what are we doing to make it *less* rare? It > seems clear to me that > addressing poverty and injustice will have just that > effect. Yet even here in > our country, one in six children lives in poverty, > which is as big a threat to > peace as one might find. > > Nick Yes, we _definitely_ had the ability to address poverty and injustice in an Iraq ruled by Saddam. Really, what the hell are you talking about? Poverty and injustice are the product of a lot of things, and one of the most important of those things is bad government. To fix them, you have to _change_ the bad government. If you think it's important to change a government quickly, and not wait 150 years (because all empires fall, after all) quite often that means going to war. Now, I'm not personally a big one for humanitarian intervention under anything but exceptional circumstances. Under your standard, as Dan pointed out, we could not have intervened in Rwanda, for example. Stop twisting in the wind and admit that. Basic intellectual honesty requires you to admit that there are costs and benefits for both sides. Just pretending otherwise is the essence of disrespect. And talk about changing the subject - "Hmm, I'm not making any sense at all talking about foreign policy - quick, let's go to an old reliable about poverty in the US". That's a bad thing, but no, it's _not_ as big a threat to peace as one might find. It's nothing of the sort. Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Freedom is not free" http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Find what you need with new enhanced search. http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250 _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
