> -----Original Message----- > From: Gautam Mukunda [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2003 06:50 AM > To: Killer Bs Discussion > Subject: Re: EU Warns Iraq It Faces 'Last Chance' > > > > --- Doug Pensinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > He doesn't acknowledge any where that there could be > > any other reason > > for protesting the war. I agree with you that most > > of his missive was > > well thought out, but if he means what you said he > > means then this part > > of it was very poorly written, seemingly labeling > > any and all protesters > > as bigots and racists and coming off as rather > > xenophobic. > > > > Doug > > All protesters wasn't fair, I will admit. I'm under a > fair amount of stress and have been rather ill > recently, so I wrote that kind of hastily. > Incidentally, people, watch out. There's some sort of > 36-hour bug going around that was the _worst_ > experience of my entire life. I lost five pounds, and > didn't eat from Sunday through Thursday.
ZOIKES!! Go eat something! :( > That being said, though - how come no one at the > protests was holding up banners saying "Freedom for > Iraq"? At the pro-troop rally, I imagine. > Where was the concern for the people of Iraq > two years ago? Personally, it was right here all along, but I think that there are far stronger, louder arguments being made than this one re: the safety of the Iraqi people. > Why do the leaders of the protests > consistently seem to view George Bush as far worse > than Saddam Hussein? I don't think that's what's happening in general [0] Its only the bandwidth of rhetoric which makes it seem so. [0] - well, except for those nuts at ANSWER. They're /really/ loopy. > Where is _any_ concern for the > freedom of the Iraqi people, or any acknowledgement > that Arabs too want peace and democracy? Where was the concern for the Iraqi people in this administration 2 years ago? :) > You can, on ruthlessly pragmatic > grounds, argue that we should not intervene in Iraq. It is a > morally consistent, and even justifiable, position to say: 1. > Deterrence works 2. It's not the job of American/British > soldiers to die for _other_ people's freedom 3. We can > contain Iraq without an all-out invasion 4. The condition of > the people of Iraq is not my concern Therefore, do nothing, > or at least do as little as possible. I would respect that. Well, except for some minor issues with point 2 & 4 (which I dither about, as I believe we, as a country, SHOULD hav a moral goal of alleviating suffering when and where we are able to, working with RESPONSIBLE, reliable, and morally acceptable local groups /and/ with a minimum of disturbance to the local process of change, other than helping to act as a catalyst of such change) that's been my basic thougths about this conflict all along. I do also question the timing, attempts to use 9/11 as an excuse to attack Iraq, and the motivation of this administration in FP terms, but there you go :) > Arguing, though, that you oppose the war _because you > think it would be bad for the people of Iraq_ is not a > respectable position. Period. If that's your argument, then > you are simply failing to make sense. The only argument I can make in favor of the "its bad for the people" line is that I don't know that we should impose freedom on people, but its not a thought-out position. -j- _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
