From: Arlo Bensinger (ajb102@psu.edu)
Date: Tue Nov 16 2004 - 19:11:13 GMT
At 08:36 AM 11/16/2004, you wrote:
>In a message dated 11/15/2004 9:24:54 PM Central Standard Time,
>markheyman@infoproconsulting.com writes:
>Let's set aside for the moment the historical fact that the US most
>certainly has deliberately killed civilians, in Dresden, Nagasaki,
>Hiroshima, Royan in France at the very end of WWII for no military
>reason other than wanting to test Napalm, which would then be used to
>kill more civilians in North and South Vietnam, Laos, illegal and
>secret carpet-bombing of Cambodia... Not to mention financial,
>military, and diplomatic support of Indonesia's genocide in East
>Timor, direct military, financial, and logistical support for death
>squads in El Salvador and Guatemala, direct terrorist strikes against
>the democratically elected government of Nicaragua..... Well, it
>goes on and on, and back to the very beginnings of the country.
>
>Translation: See, the United States is a fundamentally evil, murdering
>nation, all the way back to its very beginning. Anything good it has
>accomplished is inconsequential compared to its overwhelming contribution
>to human misery and an unforgivable roadblock to ultimate utopia.
>
Jon, where in Mark's criticisms (valid ones, I might add), do you infer
that your "translation" is accurate? I believe what Mark is arguing for is
for an unbiased acceptance of the good and evil our (or any) nation-state
commits. These events happened, they are not something we should be proud
of, but they are not something we can ignore just to feel good about the
ol' US of A.
The reason this is so critical is that we are so ready and quick to point
out the injustices committed any other nation-state, but so absolutely in
denial about our own. Is it so difficult for people to accept that their
nation-state committed attrocities, acts that we should admit to and
consider as evidence towards resistance to US hegemony?
I believe it can only strengthen the US, in its global dealings and towards
future action, to face its own image in the mirror. Until we are ready to
do this, until we cease demanding to be spoon-fed feel good
nationalistically revised history to convince ourselves that we are
superior, until we condemn our own with the same vehemence that we condemn
others, will we continue down this path of actions that Mark points out. We
do this not to condemn the entire USA, but to strengthen it.
>MSH:
>Instead, let's focus on the first few days and nights of the recent
>US invasion of Iraq, when hundreds of Cruise missiles were fired into
>Baghdad business and government centers and surrounding
>neighborhoods. Conservative estimates put the civilian death toll at
>well over a thousand due to these missile attacks alone. In what
>sense, precisely, is this not intentionally murdering civilians?
>What's the argument? "Well, we didn't tell them to be sleeping
>there, in their homes, at 3am, dammit. They got in the way!"
>
>JON:
>Again, you prove me fundamental point about intent. You're actually
>suggesting that civilians being killed accidentally is the SAME as the
>civilians who have been beheaded? Again, INTENT. If you set out to "prove"
>that killing civilians accidentally is the SAME as proudly holding up a
>severed head, you're going to sound increasingly foolish.
>
Accidentally? How so? Seems to me those missiles were right on target.
And how is rejecting global bans on napalm and dropping this utterly
deplorable invention on civilians "for psychological effect" any better
than beheading? Seems to me both are pretty much designed for the same
psychological effect, yes?
Here again is that same foolish dichotomy, we are so wonderful and they are
so evil. We are so blinded by our narcissism that anything we do is
justified and moral. Both sides are at fault, and until we reach that
point, well, the bombing and napalming will continue, and more terrorists
will be made, and soon the killing will seem more natural than peace. And
we'll keep patting ourselves as the back for our wonderfully superior
morality...
>And if civilian killing were actually a goal of the US, wouldn't it be a
>lot easier to simply round up some innocents off the street, and execute
>them? Why go to the elaborate lengths of ordering expensive bombing
>missions, when outright executions would be so much economical? Maybe
>because the US does NOT want to give the impression of being proud of
>killing, yet the terrorists demonstrably DO want to give the impression
>that they are happy to execute innocents?
>
Your point is that if we're not publically proud of it, it's okay? And what
impression, anyway, does the dropping of napalm on civilians send to the
Iraqis? That we are so much more a noble, moral culture than they? Right.
>MSH:
>Jon, your little essay is nonsense, the rantings of a mind horribly
>brain-washed of historical reality. Sorry. Nothing personal: you
>can probably blame it on your parents, or maybe Rush Limbaugh or
>something, Bill O'Reilly. Or have you been hanging around with my
>friend Platt? Anyway...thanks for the fantasy diversion.
>
>JON:
>Translation: Obviously, anyone who disagrees with your unspeakably
>powerful logic must be insane.
It's pretty hard to argue logically with inane dichotomies. Indeed, in this
context and nearly every other one I've been involved in since joining the
list, its this polarization and inability to critically analyze both sides
that has been the underlying issue. I'll admit a certain bias is inherent
in all thinking, but a refusal to accept this and paint the world as pure
good versus pure evil, and to dichotomize all things into these categories
seems to be a common motis operandi, or at the least a psychological bauble
to stroke the ego.
> After all, you speak of self-evident truths, right? Sorry you can't
> handle the possibility of being wrong about Iraq and the United States.
How is Mark wrong about Iraq? Because he refuses to accept the wonderous
white knight liberating the murderous arab hordes from their own tyranny,
the innocent and benevolent peace-bringer who was attacked by "those who
hate freedom"? Or is it because, maybe, just maybe, in the complex
historical involvement, we have not been very moral in our dealings with
these people either, and to a very real extent have engendered the very
situation we act so appalled by.
>It seems that you have ready-made pigeonholes for all the varieties of
>people who disagree with you. If someone agrees with Rush or O'Reilly,
>they must be brainwashed.
Because all these people do it trumpet the same Good/Evil dichotomy over
and over. We are so good, they are so bad. Whether the "we" is the USA, the
republican party, or themselves (versus the so-called "liberal media"). Dan
Rather may not be much better, but we should be ashamed of them ALL, not
just the ones "on the other team".
Arlo
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Nov 16 2004 - 22:04:30 GMT