[eDebate] ans Kandeel
Sun Jul 2 14:22:52 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)
JBH: I guess we probably disagree over if a military should exist at
all....so I am not sure if this will go far. I would at the very least
suspect you might be a little class and race sensitive with regards to the
makeup of the current army instead of assuming everyone is a "killer" etc.
There are also tons of non-military personel trying to do good work in
Iraq. Just saying its not as simple as you seem to suggest. In addition,
history is constantly in dispute...not sure your version is the "best
version" nor do I think mine is either. People generally do the best they
In addition, what about the hook you let the bombers/killers on the
"resistance" side....are they killers? Do they get off the hook for
targeting civillians? Do they have the ability to make informed decisions?
Sure seemed like you were not only anti-war but also pro-insurgency.
WK: 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.
JBH: In that last email Mike went out of his way to say that was not what
his argument was. He made like 10 jokes about it.
WK: 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
JBH: Fair enough, although I am not sure I agree that you are ahead here.
WK: 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)
JBH: Wellllllll not sure I agree with this. At the very least it doesnt
explain your own flip-flopping on what appropriate ethical behavior is or
why its ok to ever target civillians etc.
WK: 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.
JBH: I was kind of kidding....I just figured the pro-Israel folks would be
better to engage you in this debate than an Israel moderate like me.
WK: 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
JBH: Could have sworn when I said white flight I was engaging in the
conversation of racism....Of course not at the same - Please note: OFFICIAL
CONSPIRACY 500 WHITE MEN RUN THE WORLD story at 11 - level your arg was at.
WK: 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.
JBH: Funny, since I stated explicitly that I was anti-war....or for some
WK: 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.
JBH: Guess I just dont see the web of connections you do between things like
white flight and our policy in Iraq. I could easily populate a list of
millions of things the USA has done to help the poor in countries all over
the world (including countries with citizens of color) and lots and lots of
things that fly in the face of your conspiracy of corporate/racist
leadership arguments. Odd how that stuff is never included in the radical
left list. Do we do bad things - no duh.....Do we do good things - no
duh....I think that we as citizens should try to minimize the bad and
promote the good. As I have mentioned three times at least - I am anti-Iraq
war...This is a tactics discussion.
Very skeptical of conspiracy theories in general, very skeptical of using
"conspiracy" as a method to convert people to more leftist politics, and
extremely skeptical of calling everyone who disagrees with the left things
like "colonial rapists"
> 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
> 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.<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=42243/*http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/handraisers>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Mailman