[lit-ideas] Re: Willie Pete's Role Reversal
- From: Michael Chase <goya@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 17:12:45 +0100
Le 10 nov. 05, à 15:16, Phil Enns a écrit :
Andy Amago wrote:
"Okay, so now we know what his intention wasn't. But what was his
intention?"
For the sake of this thread, it is immaterial. M. Chase was unable to
distinguish the moral difference between Iraqi terrorists trying to
blow
up as many civilian Iraqis as possible and U.S. soldiers trying to stop
them.
M.C. It does indeed sound noble to describe U.S. Army activity as
"trying to stop the terrorists". Heavens to betsy, who could be against
that?
And yet the US soldiers were there before the terrorists, indeed it
was their arrival that made possible the current infestation of Iraq by
the brutal, savage al-Qaeda operatives of al-Zarqawi. Phil might care
to recall that there was no terrorism under Saddam, nor any links to
al-Qaeda.
So it looks like it's not quite true to say the US army is involved
*only* in trying to stop terrorism. In 2003, while there was nary a
terrorist to be found in Iraq, US troops were responsible for an
unprovoked, illegal attack which began by shelling and bombing
civilians : roughly 2000 killed and 4000 injured *in the first fifty
days of the conflict alone*. We'll almost certainly never know the
numbers of civilians killed by American troops in Fallujah and the
countless other "operations" carried out by the "Coalition" in Iraq
At yet Phil despairs of me, because I can't see why these appalling
casualties, inflicted on an innocent population by an unscrupulous
group of liars in the White House, pursuing exclusively their own
greedy and illegal agendas, are less evil than the actions of the Iraqi
resistance.
Phil will probably argue, as E. Yost has done, that these casualties
are mere collateral damage. I'm sure it would come as a tremendous
consolation to the parents of children blown up in their beds at home,
to know there were the victims of mere collateral damage rather than
deliberate acts of terrorism. I'm sure they would be quick to adopt
Eric's argument : "Hey, lots of us were being killed under Saddam
anyway, so it's no biggie, you know ? I mean, we understand that Cheney
has to get rich and Bush has to prove he's more of a macho hombre than
his daddy : so if a few thousand of us innocent civilians have to get
slaughtered in the process, then we're cool with that".
I am glad that Andy is able to recognize the difference but I
despair of M. Chase.
I can live with that. For me, war crimes are war-crimes, and those
committed by corrupt, cynical and fanatical American officials are
every bit as evil as those carried out by Saddam, al-Qaeda, or anybody
else, for that manner.
All best wishes,
(goya@xxxxxxxxxxx)
CNRS UPR 76
7, rue Guy Moquet
Villejuif 94801
France
Michael Chase
(goya@xxxxxxxxxxx)
CNRS UPR 76
7, rue Guy Moquet
Villejuif 94801
France
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
