From: Mark Steven Heyman (markheyman@infoproconsulting.com)
Date: Mon Jun 07 2004 - 23:14:35 BST
On 7 Jun 2004 at 13:57, David Robjant wrote:
"Gallup Poll of Iraq":
msh says:
Please see comments re polls as "evidence" in Adam's response to you,
and the new Polls and Morality thread.
DavidR:
And now on a few further related matters from MSH:
No. That is not a summation of the disagreement.
msh says:
Ok, my mistake. Let me try again to pinpoint the source of our
disagreement, as I believe this is our only chance for meaningful
discussion. I'll also leave NC out of it because he seems to upset
you in a way I, frankly, still don't understand.
YOU:
You believe that the US invasion and occupation of Iraq (Spring 2003)
was the only way to remove a brutal dictator from power. That the
invasion was justified and performed for this reason. That all
avenues had been tested and tried, and that this was a morally
necessary last resort. Also, that the US is morally qualified to
make such a decision, regardless of the UN and world opinion.
ME:
I believe that removing a brutal dictator was NOT the reason behind
the US invasion and current occupation of Iraq. My evidence for this
is that the US has supported and continues to support similar brutal
dictators and brutal occupations. Additional evidence may be found
in that official reasons for the invasion changed over time, as
contradictory and mitigating evidence came to light, and that other
more realpolitik reasons can be presented and evaluated.
If this is an acceptable description of our disagreement, I am
willing to explore it further in a new thread, if you like. Or, if
this is not an acceptable description, please rewrite it to your
satisfaction, and get back to me, if you like.
Now I'll limit my comments on the rest of your post to questions you
ask of me, unless I detect some argument rather than opinion:
DavidR:
So, when Chomsky says that the British were 'bad enough', perhaps you
will be gracious enough to cite his specifics. Was it the railways,
the law, the education system, the plumbing, the doctors, the
schiolarship or the trade that Chomsky most objects to?
msh says:
This and everything that follows is a version of "But Mussolini made
the trains run on time!" It is an attempt to justify the invasion
and domination of one society over another, as well as the
destruction of the invaded society's chances for true self-
determination. "Just look what we've done for these backward
natives!" It warrants no further discussion.
DavidR:
In another post you responded to my *trucking* analogy...
And (the gist from several pages of) Chomsky's alternative means of
transporting a Saddam-free Iraq into reality is:
> "The choice was never restricted to war or murderous sanctions that
> destroy the society and strengthen the dictator. Another
possibility
> was allowing the society to reconstitute so Iraqis could determine
> their own fate....
Er, which means what? Which means a game of fantasy revolution:
msh says:
No, it means providing support, or at least not obstructing, Iraqi
self-determination, internally, and outside through support of Iraqi
exiles.
DavidR:
> NC: "Some, like
> Ceausescu, were easily comparable to Saddam Hussein as tyrants and
> torturers. All were overthrown, from within. There's every reason
to
> believe that SH would have gone the same way if the US hadn't
> insisted on devastating the civilian society
Those reasons being?
msh says:
As indicated. Similar society's, without US obstruction and/or
support for their tyrants, have managed to overthrow their
oppressors. Even better chances with US support. This is very odd.
I guess I don't understand why you, apparently, have no trouble
believing that the US can install and support dictatorships without
actually invading a country, simply by supporting the dissident
population, yet it's impossible to go the other way.
DavidR:
By the by, if this analysis of Ceausecu...
really holds water as a policy recomendation, it would
appear to invalidate the D-Day landings.
msh says:
Don't see how. But the point is moot. As NC has made clear, by 1939
it was almost certainly not possible to stop Hitler without going to
war. In the decade prior, there were numerous opportunities to rein
in the Fascists which, had they been pursued, would possibly have
made the war unnecessary.
> "At the time of the 1991 uprising there were many things that could
> have been done, had there been any interest in allowing Iraqis to
> run their own affairs. It would have been possible, for example,
not
> to authorize Saddam to use military aircraft to crush the uprising.
> Or not to deny rebels access to captured Iraqi military equipment.
DavidR:
Ah - now we go beyond mere fantasy towards the Chomsky Plan for the
liberation of Iraq, or the Chomsky hindsight Plan for the liberation
of Iraq, given that at the time he was hardly arguing for more action
against saddam. What does the plan consist of again?
msh says:
Your tone here is becoming so disrespectful, I'm tempted not to
continue. Please remember he was answering an email, not providing a
fully developed plan.
> It would have been possible, for example, not to
> authorize Saddam to use military aircraft to crush the uprising.
DavidR:
Whadayamean "not to authorize"? ... Hm, so some limited military
action against Saddam is OK - but why limit it? Why not support the
rebels properly, on the ground? Oh no - that would be imperialism.
msh says:
No. At this point, with the US attack in full swing, it might have
been fighting with the Iraqi people to help remove their dictator.
Imperialism would be, after the removal of the dictator, refusing to
allow the people of Iraq any say in the future of their government,
and installing instead a US proxy government, what use to be called a
colonial government. Much like what is happening right now.
DavidR:
> NC: Or not to deny rebels access to captured Iraqi military
equipment.
You mean we should ship the iraqi arms captured from Kuwait into
Basra? That's sweet. Don't interfere in Iraqi affairs, no, just send
them guns and let them fight it out themselves.
msh says:
As above, at this point, with the US attack a fait accompli, the US
would have been joining with the rebels to help overthrow their
dictator. The fact that they didn't indicates that the first Gulf
"War" was no more about democratizing Iraq than was the second.
Thank you,
Mark Steven Heyman (msh)
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 : Mon Jun 07 2004 - 23:35:10 BST