--- Nick Arnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Man, I'm getting tired of seeing people who oppose > this decision being > labeled "supporters" of the current regime in Iraq. > I'm not going to shoot > Jerry Falwell, but that doesn't mean I support him. > Can we please, here at > least, acknowledge that there is a range of > positions one can take? I'm not > ready to rush into war, but I am resigned to the > reality that it may be the > best thing to do right now. And to the fact that we > simply cannot know for > certain what will happen if we don't -- or if we do. > I certainly don't want > to see another 9/11, but there is a limit to what > freedoms I'd support > sacrificing to try to prevent terrorism. I sure as > hell don't support the > Iraqi government and absolutely support its > downfall. Nobody, absolutely > nobody on this planet is certain what the best way > to bring that about is. > Whatever we do, we'll be stuck with that decision > and won't ever know how > things would have gone otherwise. Either way, war > now or international > pressure now (with the ongoing possibility of war > later) is a judgement > call, not an objective decision. I don't think > we'll make our best > judgement when we're using language that paints our > countrymen into a > corner. Calling me a supporter of a cruel > dictatorship is akin to me > calling you and Bush bloodthirsty warmongers. It is > ridiculous, divisive > hyperbole that divides us at a time when we should > be striving to find a > workable compromise that delivers our best strategy > for bringing about > change in Iraq. > Nick
There are three problems with this: 1. The single most prominent opponent of the war effort - the French government - has, over the past 12 years, provided immense evidence that they are, in fact, supporters of Saddam Hussein. Not neutral, not ambivalent, not unwilling to fight to oppose him but opposed otherwise, but just, straight out, his supporters. There is no other way to interpret an unvarying record of assistance to his regime. 2. Many of the most prominent other opponents of the war seem to be very newly come to their (usually very perfunctorily mentioned) opposition to the Hussein regime, and seem chiefly to be animated by opposition to efforts to remove him. 3. The position of "I'm not in favor of this but I'm not saying what I _am_ in favor of" seems to be most useful as a way of criticizing people without, you know, having any responsibility for your own positions. I'm willing to come out and say - this is what I think we should do. We should go to war to topple him. I think it'll be a mess, but it's worth it. Erik seems to have a similar position. Jeroen thinks that overthrowing Sharon is much more important than overthrowing Saddam Hussein. That is also a position, whatever I might think of it. When things are over we can all evaluate various positions and see how they turned out. Other than that you don't seem to like people who support the war and try to paint them as crypto-fascists who want to eliminate dissent - and, to be blunt, that is _exactly_ what you did with your tendentious post about anti-anti war opponents, which I'm still pissed about - what do you believe, Nick? What do you want to do? If your only contribution to the debate is that you don't like people who want to get rid of Hussein, then whatever it is that you actually believe, objectively, you are working in favor of his regime. You don't want to do that. I certainly understand that. But what _do_ you want to do? Gautam __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Web Hosting - establish your business online http://webhosting.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
