[CLUE-Talk] Iraq Stuph

[Matt Gushee]

On Mon, Apr 21, 2003 at 10:25:34PM -0600, Kevin Cullis wrote:
> 
> On Mon, 2003-04-21 at 21:37, Matt Gushee wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 21, 2003 at 09:03:07PM -0600, Match Grun wrote:
> > > Just because Baghdad fell so quickly does _NOT_ mean the anti-war
> > > movement was right. This seems like that old adage about statistics!
> > 
> > Perhaps--and it may depend what you mean by "right." It appears to mean,
> > does it not, that Iraq was really not much of a military threat after
> > all? Where was the imminent danger that our leaders made so much of in
> 
> In military terms, there are mercenaries and there are armies, which has
> the greater threat?  Depends in where and when it is used.  Look what 19
> mercenaries did on 9/11!  The threat is real no matter where or the
> numbers that are threatening us.  A person with a 22 is still as scarey
> as one with a .45 cal.

I'm sorry, but you're oversimplifying. You start out well, but then sink
back into platitudes. There is no such thing as "the threat." What
exists are a number of different potential or real threats, military,
political, and economic--some severe, perhaps, some not so severe. And
it seems to me that the location, form, and severity of that threat are
crucial in determining an appropriate response.

One more thing: I don't think the phrase "9/11" is at all helpful in
this debate. Whatever it once meant, that date has become a rhetorical
weapon used to stir up emotional responses. 

> > pushing for invasion. You do remember, don't you, that it was all
> > supposed to be about Weapons of Mass Destruction--until it became
> > embarrassingly obvious that there were few if any such to be found? Then
> > the reason switched to "liberating the Iraqi people." Which, if you ask
> > me, could be a legitimate reason for having started the war. But that
> > was *not* why this whole thing got started. Doesn't that bother you at
> > all?
> 
> >From my point of view, a threat is a threat

So (I was asking Match, but since you saw fit to jump in, I'll pick on
you instead) your answer to my question is no, it doesn't bother you?
Let me follow up a bit. I don't doubt that you sincerely believe that
this war will do, overall, more good than harm. But suppose--
hypothetically speaking--you, in your sincere belief, were being
manipulated by cynics whose objectives were entirely different from
yours? Don't you see that as a problem?

Okay, then, a bit less hypothetically: I gather you agree that the
publicly stated reasons for the war have shifted in a politically
expedient fashion. At least, you haven't challenged me on that point.
Well, then, if that is the case, doesn't it mean that the American
people have been manipulated into supporting this war? If not, what does
it mean?
> > 
> > Are you sure that Baghdad had to "fall" for meaningful change to take
> > place in Iraq?
> 
> Yes, I do!  It means that "democracy" will happen a little bit sooner
> now and the rest of the Arab nations will be looking hard at how it
> progresses as we get it going.  I will venture to say that the results

  ....

Okay. We'll just have to see what really happens, won't we? One
question, though. Is the real goal democracy, or is it laissez-faire
capitalism, or both (I'm not among those who think the two are
synonymous)?

-- 
Matt Gushee                 When a nation follows the Way,
Englewood, Colorado, USA    Horses bear manure through
mgushee at havenrock.com           its fields;
http://www.havenrock.com/   When a nation ignores the Way,
                            Horses bear soldiers through
                                its streets.
                                
                            --Lao Tzu (Peter Merel, trans.)