From: Sam Norton (elizaphanian@kohath.wanadoo.co.uk)
Date: Fri Dec 10 2004 - 21:38:46 GMT
Hi Mark,
> msh says:
> You're right, That is some bonehead argument. Please show me where
> I or Chomsky, or any intelligent progressive thinker, has taken such
> a position in regards to the invasion and occupation of Iraq, or
> anything else. If you can't, then promise me that if I ever do make
> such an argument you'll slap me upside the head.
Er, actually it wasn't in either you or Chomsky, it was in me - and I wouldn't claim to have been an
intelligent progressive thinker. But I promise to give you a good slap if you make the argument :-)
I found that when I thought through the implications of rejecting it, I had shifted 'rightwards'. In
other words, I hadn't previously absorbed the truth that the benefits of the western system were
worth defending, and that, however many flaws and immoralities needed to be exposed within the
system, when it comes to a system-wide threat, there needs to be clarity about what is at stake.
Which makes the important question - what is a 'system wide threat'? We could have a good discussion
about whether Al Qaeda qualifies, for example.
> msh says:
> Of course. So let's get right into it, and see if we can agree on
> the invalidity of one moral argument made in support of the invasion:
>
> When the argument is made that we invaded Iraq because Hussein was a
> brutal dictator... <snip>
> Would you agree that these historical facts invalidate the idea that
> the USG objects in principle to the atrocities of brutal dictators?
> And that whatever valid reasons we had for Invading Iraq, the fact
> that Hussein was a brutal dictator can't be one of them? If so, then
> we can put this argument to bed, and move on.
I think the argument is invalid (in other words, I don't believe that this was the motivation for
the USG to act as it did), but I'm not sure the reasons you give are the best, for the 'consistency
over time' point that I mentioned before. In other words, it's not a logical fallacy for the USG (or
one of their defenders) to turn around and say 'we've changed' - this is the neo-con argument, isn't
it? What shows the argument to be a fallacy is that the USG is not applying the same criteria
elsewhere, eg Sudan, Congo, Zimbabwe etc. So at most the argument can be supplementary, it is not
enough in and of itself (in other words, if Hussein had been Gandhi-like then the justification of
the war would be significantly weaker).
There remains the question: if this was the truth behind the motivation for the attack, would it be
a sufficient justification for invasion? In other words, if the leadership of the West are now
committed to a path of liberal/humanitarian intervention, is this a good thing? I ask this because
Tony Blair gives a lot of evidence for acting in this way (Kosovo/Sierra Leone/Iraq etc).
> msh says:
> I agree. Let's avoid both of these absolutist positions. I can't
> imagine anyone claiming that the US or GB or any other state is an
> absolutely evil imperial aggressor.
Have you read Robert Fisk recently? - he thinks the West arranged for the murder of Margaret Hassan
in order to generate sympathy for the war against the insurgents. Or see John Pilger's latest
article on ZNet for an example ("How Silent Are The 'humanitarian' Invaders Of Kosovo?"). Perhaps
they are not making an 'absolute' claim, but their positions are pretty extreme, IMHO.
> However, it is absolutely true
> that the US and other nations have engaged in numerous acts of
> imperial aggression. This alone is reason enough to view any current
> or future acts of aggression with a suspicious eye.
I'm happy to accept that the US has acted as an imperial power in the past, and that a significant
part of their current actions can be explained by reference to strategic imperial concerns. But
something being 'imperial' does not, by definition, make it wrong. It was an imperial action by the
British Navy that abolished the international slave trade, for example.
Regards
Sam
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 : Fri Dec 10 2004 - 21:39:40 GMT