--- Gary Denton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I should have written besides signs and radical > speeches at rallies. > Or I should have written the pro-war side was wrong, > wrong wrong. Or > maybe I just should have said I was right when I was > in the minority > and was repeatedly attacked for how wrong I was.
Or maybe not. We haven't seen yet, have we? If Iraq becomes a democracy - as it still might, then will you still say that? Or is your position effectively unfalsifiable? It seems that way to me. > > I didn't see that sign - the civilian deaths are > estimated at ~12,000 > +/- 1,000 now. (It is a political decision by the > administration to > not count enemy and civilian deaths. Or show caskets > or body bags of > our side. I feel this is an example of > Machiavellian or Straussian > politics.) Estimated by whom? Machiavelli, by the way, invented modern liberal democracy in his political thought. I'm pretty sure I know where your estimate comes from (Iraq body count, right?) and given its established ludicrous methodology, citing it does not enhance your credibility. > > > That Saddam would use WMDs on our troops > > Your side said that. No, we said it was a possibility. > > > That the US was fighting to control Iraqi oil > > What the Hell were we fighting for? I have seen > that thesis list of > all the reasons given before the war but pick a > speech, any speech, > before the war from a high administration official > and see if the > reasons they gave made sense. There is more > evidence for this being > an oil war then against this. This is not the > entire or main reason > but if Iraq had no oil we wouldn't be there. No, there isn't. It's true if Iraq had no oil we wouldn't be there. If Iraq had no oil it would have no power. This war, like (almost) all wars was about power. If Iraq did not have oil it would not have been able to afford the weapons that made it a threat. If Iraq was not in the Middle East, a region of the world whose stability is crucial to the world economy, then it wouldn't be that important. But it is. That is the real world and we have to live in it. But we were not, of course, in it to capture Iraqi oil. If our goal was oil, we could have done exactly what the French did - struck a deal with Saddam to get preferential access to Iraqi oil. We did not because that's not the way the United States operates, in the end. > I was astonished daily by what your side was saying. > I seem to have > been more right than you were. No, it still doesn't look that way, actually. > Am I a leftist? I suppose liberal is considered > left. No, you're _definitely_ a leftist. _I_ am a liberal (in the classical sense of the word). > I don't mean either. Strauss is a particular > individual with > particular theories about how to govern. I find > them anti-democratic, > dishonest and elitist. Why? I find them to be impressive, if not entirely persuasive, with a great deal of insight to them. The central purpose of his philosphy is the preservation of democracy in a world filled with dangers to it. I find that pretty important, although it doesn't surprise me that many people find that philosophy to be dangerous to their goals. > Neo-cons are particular > individuals who > advocate an imperial role for the United States. Nonsense. At most you can say they advocate a hegemonic role for the United States, a very different thing. > Most are not Jewish, > most are not former Marxists. That is a frame the > right has tried to > put on them. The first to say that anyone who > disagrees with them is > anti-semitic, the second to say when they screw up, > "that's those > radicals for you." Do you even know where the word comes from? "Neo" means new. It was a term applied (perjoratively) to Irving Kristol and some of those who agreed with them. _By definition_ they're former leftists. That's what the word means. > I should have guessed. I disagree with him and do > not have his > admiration for Machiavelli. I think there are > currently two bad > strains in philosophy, the first are the > postmodernists the second are > Straussians. Well, Machiavelli only invented the modern liberal democracy (as I said above)... > I find the neocon world the > opposite of > praiseworthy. Yes, God forbid we have a world where people live in liberal democracies and the United States is secure and wealthy. I shudder at the very idea. ===== Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Freedom is not free" http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
