Re: Coalition of the willing

James,

This was a particularly shameful message. Just had to get that straight
first.

On Wed, 19 Feb 2003, James Robertson wrote:

> By backing "peace",

Fortuneately, I support *peace*, not "peace".

> you are objectively on the side of Hussein and the
> loathsome regime he represents.

No, and your fantasies doesn't make it so.

An example makes this clear.

But your reasoning, if I oppose (as I do)  the complete destruction of
Iraq by a barrage of 200 thermonuclear weapons. Hussein, and his regime,
would certainly perish in that scenario, thus, my opposition aligns with
his interests. Ergo, in this scenario, I am "objectively on his side".

I trust the reductio is clear.

(To take another example. If, in a war, a general makes a decision that
her opponent hoped she would, that general is not, objectively or
subjectively or any way "on the side" of her enemey, in any meaningful
way. Grow up.)

(To take another example. Are all those who wanted to drive iraq out of
Kuwait objectively on the side of the Kuwaity monarchy. Bah.)

> Give sanctions and inspections more
> time?

Let geonocidal, illegal sanctions with ongoing "low level" bombing
continue to torment Iraq without even harming or weakening Hussein? D'uh,
no. I've opposed sanctions for *years*. Do I prefer inspections to
continue in spite of the dangerous precedents and blatent sovergnty
violations instead of what's likely to be a horrific slaughter? Well, uh,
yes.

>  And allow Hussein to continue to starve his own people (as he has
> for the last 12 years)?

Well, as was pointed out in a message to the list (I don't know if you got
it), presanctions, Iraqi's weren't starving. Oh gee, *what* changed?

And hmm. Iraqis by and large oppose our invasion plans (*including* Kurds,
though they are more worried about our postwar "reconstrution" plans). Gee
James, if *you* were starving, would *you* think "gosh gee, an invading
force! yay!"


> Opinion polls in 1938-1939 also showed great public reluctance in Europe to
> face evil.

Citation? (Oh I can see the questions two: "Hello Mr. Europe Person, how
reluctant are *you* to face evil? Not at all, some, a lot, greatly?

Do I have to rebute this stuff in detail? You play the appeasment card
without a shred of supporting argument (e.g., that the situations are
analogous, etc. etc.), i.e., as mere abuse. Why should I grant you
anything in return? I don't. There were plenty of war mongers in Germany
and Italy calling for war to strengthen their civilization, restore
national greatness, etc. etc.

> Some people apparently <never> learn.

Some people apparently like to be facists.

(Oh, let's see: Intervened in Iran in the '50s, let to a despot, got
overthrown, we host/rescued the despot, the people overthrowing him hated
us. Iraq, supported a despot as he attacked those Iranians and did lots of
nasty stuff, whoops, we know where *that* went. Afghanistan, '80. Don't we
*ever* learn? Oh right, *this* time, we'll do it right.)

Finally, there's several principles here. One is "opposing evil". Another
is "democracy". Those opinion polls reflect, to some imperfect degree (and
I don't trust opinion polls), the current "will" of the people of those
countries. Right or wrong, a *democratic* government should take that
seriously. Now, true enough, who cares what the mob thinks. The mob can
be, and often is, wrong, ring led, bloodthristy and cruel. But *just*
becasue the mob thinks it, doesn't mean the elite leaders are right.
Quite the contrary.

Gosh, I thought you were a *libertarian*? But you think that people who,
for whatever reason, refuse to do what you think they ought to do should
be *forced* to do so by their governments? Wow. I guess war lust really
does override principle.

As always, if you are remotely interested in a *real* debate, one with
respect on both sides, start over and we can try again.

Bijan Parsia.