Re: Coalition of the willing (fwd)

Ugh.

I've *met* this guy.

yick.

Bijan.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 21:06:57 -0500
From: James Robertson <[email protected]>
To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia-vEoVa6Jh+/J4piUD7e9S/[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [Bonobos] Coalition of the willing

At 07:14 PM 2/21/2003 -0500, you wrote:
>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.


So said the fantasists in 1935-1939.  They had all sorts of great reasons
why it was better to leave a horrid regime in place.  Rationalize it all
you want.  You stand with evil.



>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".

Ok, that's just stupid.  We aren't about to drop 200 nukes.  More likely is
a bunch of JDAMs aimed at the high command.  As in Afghanistan and Gulf war
I, civilian casualties will be light.

And, less than the number Hussein will kill himself over the next 1-2
years, if - AS YOU DESIRE - we leave him in place


>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.)

Not the same thing.  Being a pacifist is objectively siding with
evil.  because the pacifist <will not> stand up to fight the objectively
bad thing.


>(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.

Sure, that's a plan.  It worked real well in the past.  You are willing to
stay with a system that you know doesn't work, and will keep the horror in
place.  Brilliant


> >  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?

They are starving for the same reason North Koreans are.  Aid that is
<supposed> to get to the people goes to the armed forces instead.  Your
plan to change that is, what?  Harsh language?


>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!"

Nazis opposed them too.  That's not an argument.  Not to mention - how do
you expect to get an honest read of opinion in a place like Iraq?  People
say what <they know is safe to say>



> > 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?

Gallup, polling in England and France.

>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.

No, we like to oppose fascists.  The Baath party is fascist.


>(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.)

Cold war interventions had different rationales.  And I note that the 2001
war in Afghanistan helped a lot.  Women are being schooled instead of
beaten, and 2 million + refugees have returned.  I presume you preferred
the status quo ante, since war is never the answer?


>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.

We had a vote in Congress last year, and it authorized force.  If you want
to be mad, be mad at two faced idiots like Dascle, who opposes the war, but
does not have the guts to vote that way.


>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.

The Congress authorized, and if anything, the 2002 elections ratified that
vote.

>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.

<Talk Small and Carry a Big Class Library>
James Robertson, Product Manager, Cincom Smalltalk
http://www.cincomsmalltalk.com/blog/blogView
[email protected]