[eDebate] ans Kandeel

Josh Hoe jbhdb8
Sun Jul 2 13:09:33 CDT 2006

Not trying to help out too much here (as I am anti-war personally) but Mike
explicitly did NOT make the argument that the US Government intended to
liberate.  He made the argument that while US might be bad - on balance - US
better than Saddam and sons.

Your arguments against US paternalism are certainly relevent to that
discussion but dont really prove that Iraq would be "better-off" without US

I also think some of the things you say seem a bit crazy:

1. I suspect not all the US troops/support personel are "colonial rapists"
nor should you utter such generalizations.  There are also people who
actually went to Iraq because they wanted to help liberate it and many of
those people have lost their lives doing things like trying to get the power
back on for Iraqis.  Again, this is in no way supporting the attack...But I
hate this kind of broad generalization designed to simplify and obscure the
more complex picture of those that disagree with you.

2.  Many Iraqis are NOT part of the anti-occupation response which is funded
and staffed to a large extent by non-iraqi's. Many Iraqi's dont support the
US presence either.  My guess is many Iraqi's would like the US and the
anti-US opposition to stop blowing up parts of Iraq.  Just a guess.  It is
really dangerous for you intellectually to play the "anyone opposing the US
must be on the side of right" card.  Its pretty possible that quite a few of
these people are mass murderers of civilians as well.

3. Your journey through history is fascinating.  Cold War client states were
indeed frequently anti-democracy.  I think perhaps there is a much deeper
discussion of the methods and madness of cold war superpowers in attempting
to fight/stop the spread of communism vs democracy that you are not really
engaging in.  Its pretty oversimplistic to say "US supported dictators"
rather then "one method of trying to stop communism was to support pro-US
dictators.  This would probably be more accurate and give some context.   As
for the funding of Israel I think I will let my friends Omri and Jonah deal
with that one on their own time.

4. How do you explain all the "hoods" across America?  I think it was a
combination of the death of the industrial base and white flight.  Not sure
what your point is here.  Stringing together a bunch of disparate claims and
saying that they prove something isnt exactly going to win over many of the
un-converted Walid.

5. Its very possible that Mike could (although I suspect he does not)
believe that US government has done lots of bad things, probably went in to
Iraq for every bad reason there is, and still is better than the
alternative.  Not sure why you get to blame him for 100 arguments he didnt
make and conclude that proves your point.

I think reasoned, contextual, and well-researched and supported arguments
are what will win the day.  Mike has presented a challenge to your anti-war
feelings....Calling him names doesnt really help your cause as much as rally
the already converted.


ps. I am actually really on your side for the most part here (believe it or
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20060702/3466cd64/attachment.html 

More information about the Mailman mailing list