[eDebate] ans Kandeel
Sun Jul 2 13:59:49 CDT 2006
You maybe a little right Josh, there is a possibility not every soldier is a rapist, and not every resister may have absolute righteous motives. that being said--many soldiers are there to kill (thats what they enlisted to do, thats what they understood joining the army to mean. You may argue that these killers joined the imperial army w/ good intention--but that may be because they dont have the best understanding of history--this still dont get them off the hook. furthermore, just following order sir--similarly dont get them off the hook. they are complicit, they have ability to think for themselves and stand up against injustice. (few have and dropped out of the army and faced penalties for doing so)
i do think Mike did make the argument that the US is there to liberate iraq, and my "string of disparate claims" do debunk that. the argument is that if the history of US policy has not liberatory in nature, then why can we assume they magically are now.
furthermore i addressed his claim that US is better then Sadam and company in my very first post. (US are commiting gross attrocities in the country thus not better then Sadam. and that the numbers game i.e. US killed less then Sadam is a stupid arg. See that means Sadam better then Hitler (congradulations--yes this is ridiculous (did i spell it right this time Korcok)
As far as the iraqi people hate the resisters too---this is only a respnse to colonization. if the US was not there blowing things up then people would not have to blow things up to resist the colonial occupation. (note US bombs came first)
As for Isreal debate--i dont think Omri and Jonah are exactly moderates in this discussion. See Omri racist blogs (i can send you a cite if you wish) Why dont you check out the work of Norman Finkelstein if you want a clear and accurate description of what cracken there.
Destruction of the Hood---i think its interesting how you mention de-industrialization and "white flight" but dont engage the conversation of racism at all. (yet im the one who is oversimplifying the issues?--really?)
thats funny how im portrayed as the biased/unrational one in this discussion as if US foreign policy and those who defend it are unbiased and rational and objective actors.
you ask why i blame korcok for the 100 arguments he did not make? my answer is that i am trying to get him to reconcile his position with countless examples that would indicate he may be wrong.
have fun responding.
all power to the people
Josh Hoe <jbhdb8 at gmail.com> wrote: 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 intervention.
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 not)
Do you Yahoo!?
Next-gen email? Have it all with the all-new Yahoo! Mail Beta.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Mailman