From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V12 #69 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Tuesday, February 25 2003 Volume 12 : Number 069 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: The complicity of France (was: anti-war movement) [The Great Quail ] Re: boo yah [Eb ] Re: OT war/politics "into the morass" [The Great Quail ] Re: boo yah [Tom Clark ] Re: boo yah [Tom Clark ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 14:54:32 -0500 From: The Great Quail Subject: Re: The complicity of France (was: anti-war movement) Marcy writes, > Did I say that? I don't think I did. In fact, I think I acknowledged > the political/economic ties. You make a point. Looking back through the posts, it was really Michael's view of the French I was most reacting against when this thread began. > And for the record, I seem to recall that the US has supplied arms > to other nations Of course, and I meant not to imply that we didn't, in fact, I mentioned that we sold Iraq itself plenty of equipment. The US is a major arms supplier, all around the world. My argument was to counter the opinion that France is primarily acting from a humanitarian base. > Very true, by all accounts. But how does that give us the right to wage > war on the country of Iraq? Rights are a matter of political reality, not natural law. So, yes, we do have the "right" to intervene. The degree to which this right is recognized is contestable, of course, and a UN imprimatur would be nice, but not necessary. International law is trick at best, and not always morally sound. > Supply arms to those in Iraq who want to > rise up against him and depose him? Absolutely. I'd support that in a > heartbeat, but I have not yet heard anyone make the case that we've been > asked to come in and go to war. This has been tried several times as part of the strategy of "regime change" within the policy of containment, but it failed for numerous reasons, the two most important being (1) too much infighting among those who would oppose Saddam, and (2) Saddam's regime is too well entrenched. He has uncovered numerous rebellions, coups, and palace revolutions, and murdered them all. Although you have not heard anyone make a case that we have been invited, that's because you have not been listening to the right sources. Numerous Iraqi exiles are quite happy to have the US depose Saddam. >Are we the world's policeman? if we > are, then let's be realistic and say that. It is more complicated than that, for many reasons. Other than humanitarian aspects, there's also (1) the security of oil, (2) the degradations of containment, which is very much as US-supported policy in the aftermath of the Gulf War, and (3) the fiasco about weapons inspections, which requires US military intervention in the case of material breach. The fact the UN has failed to find any "material breaches" in the last decade is based more in politics than any common sense, from the revelations of Hussein Kamel to the discovery of VX to Saddam simply throwing out the inspectors altogether. > No it's not. Failure to comply is grounds for blockades, boycotts, etc. > but it's not grounds to kill innocent people. Well, your opinion unfortunately does not hold up well to the actual UN resolutions, which do in fact call for the use of force. You may be against the war, whatever, but boycotts, sanctions, and blockades have *failed* miserably. They have eroded to the point of near-uselessness. Not only does Saddam play a good game with the UN, but countries like Syria, Turkey, Iran, Russia and China have no problems with smuggling, whereas France has too much invested in oil. I invite you to read up on the deterioration of containment. It's rather eye-opening. > Oil isn't the only issue--I merely brought it up as one of the issues. My fault with my wording. *I* meant to imply that oil is an important issue, so important its basically a-priori. But there are other issues as well. > But these are still not reasons to go to war. We disagree. Saddam wants nukes, and he's threatened to nuke Tel Aviv, let along what he would do to the States if he could get away with it through terrorist networks? >Pakistan and India > threatened each other with nukes not so long ago. We didn't wage war on > either of them. Both countries already *have* nuclear weapons, and are in a state of belligerence regarding each other. Very different matter than Saddam trying to acquire nukes so he may declare war on Israel. (Or Kuwait, or Iran, or Saudi Arabia.) >Deposing Hussein (why do people call him Saddam?) Heh -- I just learned this last week, actually. It's because his name *is* Saddam. Arabic names are not like ours. He is "Saddam, son of Hussein." Hussein is not a family name, nor is it disrespectful to call him "Saddam," as it would be to call our president "George." (Or Doofus.) So technically, "Saddam" is more correct than "Hussein." >is not > the same as waging war on the nation. Let's get rid of him and his > cronies. If journalists are able to find him for interviews, surely our > special forces could find him without having to conduct a war. Well, first of all, I don't think Delta Force assassins have as much Iraqi-screened access as the media. Second of all, deposing Saddam is not the same as removing the Ba'th regime. The next in line are just as murderous and evil. > This is part of the problem right here, Quail. It's the attitude that > this is only just about us. It's not just about us, it's about us, the > British, the Spanish, the Italians, the Australians, etc. etc. > Repercussions would not just be felt by us, they'd be felt by people > around the world, most of whom who would have had nothing to do with it. I wouldn't worry to much about them, Marcy, unless they happen to be near American or Israeli landmarks. > Thanks for purposely missing my point about Canada. You stated the exaggeration, I merely brought it back in a context to show how ridiculous it was. >There has been no > evidence presented that Iraq has the means or even half the means to make > nuclear weapons. I listened to Colin Powell's speech to the UN and most > of what he presented was circumstantial and some of it was actually > explained by the inspectors, so I'm not convinced his obtaining nukes is > that immediate. Please, please read up on the ways that Saddam has been obscuring his WMD programs. While I am not saying that he has nukes, nor do I know how close he is, he is certainly trying to attain them, and given their increasing levels of accessibility, I view it as a legitimate threat. And bear in mind as well all the places the Inspectors were NOT allowed to go. Is this to say that Bush wouldn't trump up any charges? No. He'll do anything to get his way, even tying Saddam to bin Laden. It's ludicrous -- I feel he should at least be honest, and present a case to the US public that relies more on hard facts than his whim-of-the-moment reasoning. >The dictatorship is another issue. I think that his > regime is definitely one that needs to be destroyed both because of what > he's doing to the Iraqie people and because of what he may do to them in > the future. But waging a war that is more likely to end the lives of > innocents than to depose Hussein is something I cannot support. Then you plan to wish him away? Sanctions, containment, and UN pressure have not worked. There are only two courses of action available to remove the Ba'th regime: force, or waiting a few generations. You want the regime "destroyed," but the only options you seriously consider are assassination or more sanctions. Neither of which are very realistic. I'm more comfortable with your earlier implication that we shouldn't be the world's policemen. At least that's a more tenable stand against an invasion than believing you can destroy Saddam without the use of overwhelming force. > What makes you so sure that a war will change what's going on there? Did > we change things last time? Oh that's right, we allowed Hussein to stay > in power because he asked us to. First of all, as I have said, my biggest concern is whether or not we can create a stable society after the war. Sadly, I do not think Bush or his cronies have the desire to do the right thing. However, we did not allow Saddam to stay in power "because he asked us to." The Bush administration halted the war because they were not prepared for nation-building, and saw Saddam's Iraq as a force keeping the region "stable." A cynical decision, and one probably more rooted in Cold War ideology than current reality, but it was still not an arbitrary decision. (Worse still was our failure to actually support the Iraqi people during their brief uprising, an intifadah we helped create.) > The rulers of the regime may wind up happily alive, just like last time > and just like Bin Ladin. We still have yet to catch him and isn't > Afghanistan a smaller country than Iraq? There is a world of difference between the two operations. Osama bin Laden is head of a decentralized, secretive, nationless network. Saddam will have little power outside of Iraq. It's not a matter of "catching" Saddam, it's a matter of destroying his regime and occupying the country. > So, Quail, when do you ship out? This is a cheap shot. Not only because I previously expressed a sense of hypocrisy, but because its resorts to the same sort of fallacy the right uses when they utter the old, "Love it or leave it." As a United States citizen, I feel that I have a *duty* to have an informed opinion about where we commit our troops. Just because I think that an invasion of Iraq can be justified, it does not follow that I have the obligation of shipping out myself. Like all American men my age, I registered when I was 18, but unlike some, I did not choose the military as a career option. That does not mean I am voiceless regarding where Bush chooses to commit or not to commit our forces. This is the last I will reply to your emails about this subject. I find your views helplessly naove, and I doubt either of us are going to change any opinions. Your primary argument seems to be that "war is bad." I know that already. I just think that sometimes its the best solution to prevent something worse. - --Quail ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 15:14:17 -0500 From: "Rex.Broome" Subject: Delete previous. And current. Urk-- just accidentally reposted the digest to the list. Did any of the political arguments get any better the second time around? Many apologies, Rex ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 15:10:26 -0500 From: The Great Quail Subject: Iraq re: Jeffrey Jeffrey writes, > In other words, *if* the presence of a murderous dictatorship is positive > grounds for intervention, the UN or similar representative international > body is the only ethical vehicle for such intervention - not a particular > nation, and particularly not a grossly self-interested nation like the US > (I mean self-interested in the current situation: i.e., geopolitical > control over vital resources.) Jeffrey, I agree with you in the ideal sense. But sadly, I think the UN is so badly compromised, they lack the moral authority needed to make these sort of decisions. The fact is, I am probably more comfortable with the role of the US as a superpower than you are, and I am certainly more comfortable with *some* of its Imperial trappings. While I couldn't agree with your more that we are hopelessly self-interested here, if that's what it takes to remove Saddam, that's ok with me. (In theory.) Most of those who oppose us are doing so for equally self-interested reasons, all the while Saddam crushes his people and threatens the US and Israel. Again, my biggest problem is with our spectacular failure to envision a *better* postwar Iraq. > And none of the above suggests that war - particularly saturation bombing - > is the best strategy of intervention even in such cases. And you propose...? >>So failure to comply with inspections is >> a >> legitimate reason for war, yes. > > Again wit' da UN. And again with my reasons for distrusting the members of the P-5. > The history of Saddam suggests that Saddam is most interested in Saddam; > that he's unlikely to propel himself toward personal or national suicide > ("nation" defined here as his cronies). While I agree with you that nuking Tel Aviv would be suicide, I'd rather not take the risk. >However, an all-out attack would > likely trigger a corresponding all-or-nothing response. *If* Saddam has > WMDs of any sort, he's *most* likely to use them in response to war. Very true, yes, and a good point. In fact, defectors say that he would definitely use nukes or VX if his rule were directly threatened, and his history of past aggression is not a good sign. But it is one that leads us to different conclusions: you say, "leave him alone," I say, "take him out now." >(Nations > *with* WMDs - esp. under administrations that are actively threatening to > use them - cannot be surprised when nations so threatened wish to acquire > same to defend themselves.) First of all, I am HORRIFIED that Bush would even allow the hint of using nukes. (cf, "I hate Bush.") Secondly, Saddam's notion of "defense" is not to my liking. Thirdly, just because we and other countries have nukes, this is no reason to allow a free-for-all. The US and Russia have, if you will, passed through a period of nuclear maturity. (Bush notwithstanding.) One cannot say the same about Pakistan, India, North Korea, and Iraq. >> Again -- IF WE HAVE VIABLE PLANS FOR A >> RECONSTRUCTION. > > And we don't, and are very unlikely to do so...and even if we did, it's > highly questionable that we *could* do so or that it would be successful. I think it could be successful if we put our resources to it. But sadly, I agree with you, we have no good plans, and that stops me from fully supporting the invasion. > No. I'd prefer to live in a world where the US doesn't have the bomb > either - and perhaps the best way to ultimately ensure that (as Tom Lehrer > put it) Alabama doesn't have the bomb is to work toward multilateral > disarmament. The continuing presence of nukes is not stabilizing; quite the > opposite. Amen. - --Quail ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 12:32:56 -0800 From: Eb Subject: Re: boo yah >Kenstreet: >never mind that vince guaraldi should be suing jessie harris. Interesting that you said this, because that Norah song produces some vague "Peanuts special" association in me too. Except I can't recall the original melody well enough to pin it down. >i was very happy to see and hear all of the anti war rhetoric. Uh, where? All I heard was one rote mention by Fred Durst, which led to nothing but a nation of music fans smirking about his "agreeance" malaprop. Even worse, E! channel viewers voted him the "Worst Dressed Male" of the night...heaven knows how his career will ever get over *that* hump. Heavy rain and earthquakes out here...2003 is shaping up to be the most apocalyptic year ever. I don't really have enough hard facts to enter the war debate, but no matter what I hear about Iran's Evil Doings, I still can't help but wonder if this is all just a case of Dubya switching his Big Bad from Osama to Saddam because the War on Terrorism wasn't producing enough "sexy" results. Eb ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 15:45:38 -0500 From: The Great Quail Subject: Re: OT war/politics "into the morass" Kenneth writes, > (BTW- pro-war/anti-bushies: How does it feel to be complicit with the > administration you purport to despise?) I do not "purport" to despise it. I truly do despise it. And to answer your question, it feels ugly and confusing. But the fact is, not everything they do is anathema to me, although I loathe the arrogant way Bush is carrying this out. And as I have said a hundred times, I do not trust that he'll do an effective job to rebuild a better Iraq. Also, again, I am not really sure I *do* support the war, because I do not trust Bush or the aftermath. But I certainly see the argument for an invasion. > In this case the peaceful solutions are working. They are not, and they have not been working for many years. This is not something new. Every time the buzzer is about to ring, Saddam sacrifices some small thing for the inspectors, makes promises, signs resolutions, acts the Mensch. The very next second he is back to his old tricks. The man is the ultimate scam artist, and his untrustworthiness is legendary even to his own people. If left alone, one day he'll get a nuke -- or his familial successor will get a nuke, and then the whole situation will change for the worse. > War is evil (no excuses, no exceptions) and should be discouraged, not > touted and glorified as the only option each time troubles rear up. Yes, war is an evil djinni, you summon it cautiously and know that while you may train it to do good, it will compromise you and fuck you at every opportunity. But believe it or not, the present Iraq situation has been brewing for over a decade. Bush may be taking advantage of 9-11 to gain popular support for a war, but the ideas have been out there for a while, and Saddam just keeps getting more and more powerful as containment erodes. See, here's were I *am* a warmongering hawk: WMDs are only one aspect of this to me. I think he should be removed, period. Whether or not he suddenly, after 12 years, decides to finally comply with inspections. > If Saddam has weapons or weapons programs, war will not deter their use, > they will encourage it. A pre-emptive war by American forces will lead > directly to the use of the weapons it seeks to prevent and contain. Not if he doesn't have them yet. > Sanctions and inspections are working. Again, I am afraid this view -- while "popular" -- is actually based more on wishful thinking. Read up on the last decade of sanctions and inspections, and it is self-evident that they are not, in fact, working. It is lamentable that the Bush administration has done little to really present this case to the people -- while it would take some patience and attention, I'd rather he argue it rationally than point to localized violations of the last few months, as if *suddenly* this were a problem. Bear in mind, I went into this with the same opinion. It's only through spending a month or so studying the issue that my eyes have opened up to what's been going on behind the sound bites. > Time is our ally and the healing balm. Not in this case. For 12 years the sanctions have failed, only causing more pain to the Iraqi people as Saddam capitalized on them and other countries began smuggling oil out and weapons in. Time is not on our side in this case. > The Iraqi citizens are not thrilled about their options should war be waged > on them. Let's empower them to decide their own fate without using force > that will decimate them. That sounds like nice rhetoric, but what does it mean? Saddam has been actively eradicating them for years, playing them off of each other, purposefully keeping them weak and hungry. He has ruthlessly crushed every attempt to challenge his rule -- by the way, most of these attempts surge in the wake of US military actions, such as Desert Storm and Desert Fox. There is no evidence at all that his people will throw him off without the help of force. > The UN or some similar body should approach the council of Arab nations with > a peaceful proposal to do away with Hussein. The Arab neighbors understand > by now the alternative to leaving him in power, which is to let the raving > lunatic American regime off its UN leash. ??? I can't even believe I'm reading this statement. The amount of ignorance, naivety, and reflexive anti-Americanism it shows is appalling! First of all: "some similar body?" Like what, NATO? OPEC? The Rotary Club? Secondly, the UN is not a unified body, it is a conglomeration of conflicting interests. Thirdly, the "Arab nations" rarely act as a unit; and lastly, I just cannot believe that you think the US is a "raving lunatic regime." How can I debate with you if you believe in such an absolute? > Marcy has a great idea, lets take all those fat, pompous, armchair war > mongers and give them each a rifle and maybe some ammo and a gas-mask then > ship their ass to Iraq. By that you mean, me. At least that seems to be the implication, as that's what Marcy wrote about me. > Well see how far their shrill pop-culture poli-sci > ravings take them in the desert of despond. Wow, you really are on a tear, aren't you? > Can anyone seriously suggest that there is no alternative to perpetual war? > If this is true, allow me to be cynical and say, let the nukes fly, because > thats what perpetual war means: mass-suicide. OK, Captain Johnson, we have now left the earth and any sphere of rational debate on this issue.... > War will do nothing better that a peaceful regime change and further > inspector-assisted cleaning up of the weapons cache wont. Right, because we all know that peaceful regime change and inspector-assisted cleaning up is such an option when dealing with history's dictators, tyrants, and psychopaths. Jesus, you can hate war, but at least try to be somewhat realistic. > We have crazy megalomaniacs all over the globe of all colors and stripes > threatening world peace. If we depose them all and allow peaceful democracy > to flourish that would be ideal for sure. We all know that is not about to > happen, but it would be nice. And how do you propose doing this without the use for force? Even containment and deterrence imply the use of force. We do not live in an ideal world, so we must work with realistic solutions to attain ideal goals. - --Quail ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 16:20:04 -0500 From: Ken Ostrander Subject: cross my heart and swear to die >Quick question - a friend of mine says she once heard one of robyn's songs >and she liked it but doesn't remember much about it offhand other than >it's (mostly?) acoustic, had a good riff at the beginning, and supposedly >mentioned "October." 'autumn sea' makes the most sense. at the very end of the song is the "ahhh...october", which would make it the easiest thing to remember, other than the storytelling in the middle. what's that all about anyhow? i can never figure out what 'the fellow whose name i can't remember' is talking about. "rotten things lefts...and women" hmmm... >>paul simon looked like death. does he hate art that much? > >Sorry, we don't get the Grammys. What happened? Did they perform together? Did they get some kind of lifetime achievement award? yup. they opened the whole show with a rendition of 'sounds of silence'. they both looked haggard and serious; but paul just looked like he'd been subjected to torture or something. it definitely seemed like he didn't want to be there. >>i was very happy to see and hear all of the anti war rhetoric. > >Uh, where? All I heard was one rote mention by Fred Durst sheryl crow had a guitar strap that read "no war" bonnie raitt said something and i seem to recall queen latifah as well; but now i'm not sure. coldplay's performance of 'politik' was a statement in and of itself. then again, execs didn't want anything http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/2003/02/21/20030221_165511_cbs.htm >> Most of the people saying we have to have this so-called war aren't >> even involved in the fight, they're not on the front lines, not in the >> gov't, not sending their own kids/brothers/husbands/wives/fathers to be >> killed. > >That's the way of the world and it underlines the hypocracy. war has always been this way and it has always been dispicable for this reason. i will say that it is the military buildup in the gulf and the u.s. posturing that has brought this issue to the front burner; however, to actually strike on our own will only show us to be at least as dangerous as the leader of iraq. hussein has been a tyrant for decades at the behest of the united states. for the past decade we have pursued a questionable policy of sanctions after the devestation of the first gulf war. bush sr called out to the iraqi people to "rise up" against saddam. when they did, the united states chose not to support the popular uprising. there was a window of opportunity then to take care of this problem and we let it go with deliberation. this kept saddam in power and helped to build distrust of the united states within iraq. of course, hussein massacred the rebels. http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,899030,00.html the question of imposing a draft for this dubious military action in iraq seems like a good one; though the wealthy always seems to be able to work around such conscription. http://www.awolbush.com/whoserved.html i've heard people complain that the anti war protestors seem to be "anti bush". the fact is that it is this administration that is driving this policy. bush has personal and business reasons to do what he is doing. >Look, I agree with you that Bush is playing havoc with the economy. I hate >Bush, I think he's a terrible president. But I have learned to decouple my >hatred of Bush with my judgment about all current US policy, and I am >increasingly of the mind that if we can follow through with an Iraqi >reconstruction, the war is just. (My big fear is that Bush will falter >horribly on this element.) Again -- IF WE HAVE VIABLE PLANS FOR A >RECONSTRUCTION. But so far, we don't -- and that's the only think making me >hesitate giving my full support to the war. given your admitted distrust of the current administration and its motives, why is this the only thing on which your support of the war hinges? you seem to have a lot of "yes; but"s. does this mean that if the bushies come up with some kind of plan for a post-war iraq that you'll go along? now, the hawks have been planning this thing for a long time, perhaps as far back as the oil crisis of the 1970's; doesn't it seem strange that in all that time there's been no plan for reconstruction? of course, it shouldn't (and couldn't) be a purely emotional decision to go to war; but it's also true that these decisions shouldn't be cold and calculating. >sadly, I think the UN is >so badly compromised, they lack the moral authority needed to make these >sort of decisions. The fact is, I am probably more comfortable with the role >of the US as a superpower than you are, and I am certainly more comfortable >with *some* of its Imperial trappings. the thing that compromises the un more than anything else is their dependence on the united states. with the u.s. as the sole "superpower" in the world, it'll take all of the nations in the world to counter its imperialist tendencies. >>>So failure to comply with inspections is >>> a legitimate reason for war, yes. >> >> Again wit' da UN. > >And again with my reasons for distrusting the members of the P-5. i distrust the "security council". i'm sure that a general assembly vote would be very different indeed. >Most of those who oppose us are doing so for equally self-interested reasons if you're refering to governments, then you're probably right; but there were millions of anti-war protesters around the world for which that argument doesn't apply. > No. I'd prefer to live in a world where the US doesn't have the bomb > either - and perhaps the best way to ultimately ensure that (as Tom Lehrer > put it) Alabama doesn't have the bomb is to work toward multilateral > disarmament. The continuing presence of nukes is not stabilizing; quite the > opposite. we seem to have done a pretty good job in the last fifty years keeping nukes out of the hands of most countries. strict controls over supplies of weapons grade elements have been essential. the fact is that we cannot un-learn this knowledge. i wonder if everyone had the bomb, would we all be safer? imagine...each country has one nuclear weapon...use it wisely. ken "there's never been a good war or a bad peace" the kenster ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 13:24:51 -0800 From: Tom Clark Subject: Re: boo yah on 2/25/03 9:12 AM, Ken Ostrander at kenster@MIT.EDU wrote: >>> ken "moving to florida" the kenster >> >> Is this official now? No offense to present or future residents, but there >> are way too many episodes of "Cops" filmed in Florida for my liking. > > it is official. i put my notice in yesterday. hence "boo yah". i've been at > sloan school since september of ninety four and all i have to show for it is > years of email correspondence and websurfing at work. that reminds me, my > kenster email will be disappearing as well. > I guess that's the main reason I oppose your move to Fla. Seeing that mit.edu address always reminds me of the good times I had living in Billerica while attending Umass Lowell. I guess I'll just have to be content with Aaron's harvard.edu addy for the time being. Good luck with the move. - -tc ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 13:24:51 -0800 From: Tom Clark Subject: Re: boo yah on 2/25/03 9:12 AM, Ken Ostrander at kenster@MIT.EDU wrote: >>> ken "moving to florida" the kenster >> >> Is this official now? No offense to present or future residents, but there >> are way too many episodes of "Cops" filmed in Florida for my liking. > > it is official. i put my notice in yesterday. hence "boo yah". i've been at > sloan school since september of ninety four and all i have to show for it is > years of email correspondence and websurfing at work. that reminds me, my > kenster email will be disappearing as well. > I guess that's the main reason I oppose your move to Fla. Seeing that mit.edu address always reminds me of the good times I had living in Billerica while attending Umass Lowell. I guess I'll just have to be content with Aaron's harvard.edu addy for the time being. Good luck with the move. - -tc ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V12 #69 *******************************