[lit-ideas] Re: dealing with the Slobodan Husseins
- From: "Andy Amago" <aamago@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2005 23:02:52 -0400
> [Original Message]
> From: Eric Yost <Mr.Eric.Yost@xxxxxxxxx>
> To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: 7/19/2005 10:12:50 PM
> Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: dealing with the Slobodan Husseins
>
> M.C. I'm going to assume that Eric is not trying to abuse our
> intelligence by referring to the American invasion as an example of ?the
> best-intentioned meddling in other countries' affairs. It is surely
> painfully obvious even to him now, as it was to many of us prior to the
> invasion, that the U.S. invasion had diddly squat to do with
> humanitarianism : Bush and his cronies, who hesitate to lie about as
> much as they hesitate to blink, did not even *claim* it was at least
> originally : the war, as Eric will recall, was supposed to be about
> protecting the war from the terrible dangers of Saddam's WMD, and to
> punish him for being in cahoots with Al-Qaida.
>
>
> EY: That chip on your shoulder must be terribly heavy.
>
A.A. The chip is on Bush's shoulders. For some reason it's not visible to
you.
> Assuming you are correct, what are the criteria for assessing ?the
> best-intentioned meddling in other countries' affairs"? Simply "not
> Bush" cannot suffice. You dismiss the relevance of the argument by
> submitting Bush's "real reasons" (which you somehow have access to, and
> fit with a likely explanation of Bush's actions).
>
> Under your scenario, had WMDs been found, links to al-Qaeda irrefutably
> documented, and many demonstrable attacks-in-progress averted--even
> then--the war would still have been wrong because Bush had undertaken
> the war for sleazy motives.
A.A. Would the moon be made out of cheese too. He was told repeatedly by
inspectors that there were no WMD, that al Qaeda had nothing to do with
Saddam; that he needed a plan for after the shock and awe. There is no
"even then" to discuss unless you want to indulge in wishful thinking. All
the facts say that Bush undertook this war for sleazy motives and then
executed it with utmost incompetence. I wish the reality were different
too, but it isn't.
>
> Yet motives are hardly proof one way or the other of whether an action
> has been good or bad. We blame unintentional killers by convicting them
> of manslaughter.
A.A. I'll take it. Convict Bush of manslaughter.
We praise people for accomplishments largely conducted
> out of self-interest, e.g., the Nobel Prize, election to public office.
A.A. I'll buy that one too. Bush's invasion was motivated 100% by self
interest. Not your interest, not my interest, not American interest, not
Iraqi interest. Only his interest and that of Cheney, et al. Kosovo was a
success and was justified because it had nothing to offer except altruism,
most notably, no oil.
Andy Amago
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
> digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
