[Reader-list] Are Flagan's full reply to "The Poverty of Debate on Iraq"

[Jamie Dow]

Re: 2/19/03 5:53, "Jamie Dow" <jamie.dow at pobox.com>:


<snip>
>
> The lobby anti-war
>
> - Oil. It almost seems enough to mention the word oil to make the case, in
> some people's minds. Such minds are debased if the mere hint of a slur
> counts as an argument. To say that oil has something to do with a reason
> against (see how vague the case is!) requires an argument that war would
> bring some oil-related advantage to the US (and perhaps the west in
> general). EVEN THEN, the case is insufficient, since all that would be
shown
> by that would be that there is a possible motivation for the US & UK. It
> does not tell us ANYTHING about the rights and wrongs of war. (Let me
> illustrate: suppose the police offer a reward for information leading to
the
> conviction of a serial rapist, does the advantage to me of the reward make
> it wrong for me to bring forward the information? Does it make it wrong to
> bring forward the information even if my ONLY motivation is the reward?
The
> answer to both is a clear NO. If I was only motivated by rewards, I would
be
> a sick sort of person, but if I helped in the conviction of a serial
rapist,
> I would have done the right thing, even though through base motives.)
There
> is an additional problem about oil. Even to show that the US has bad
motives
> is pretty tricky. The west needs low oil prices. War would raise the price
> of oil. So where is the advantage? I'm not saying there's not a slur to be
> made on America's motives here, I'm just saying that noone's making it! A
> closer look at the facts on oil might make the slur difficult to
> substantiate. And it horrifies me at how so vague a case is so easily
> accepted.
>

What if you were also a serial rapist framing another serial rapist to get
off and then claim the reward? Plenty of people are making the case for oil,
from the US's 59% reliance, to the problems in Venezuela, to the diminishing
domestic reserves, to the control of a truly price fixing depository, to the
Saudi relations breaking apart, to the Iraq switch to the Euro, to the Bush
cronyism fortune amassed since Prescott hosted the Nazis and Georgie traded
inside with Harken and lobbied for Enron and Condies oil tanker...and so on
and on. The other question is of you think gaining control of another
country's natural riches qualifies as legit, and if economic imperialism is
OK and on a par with the _progress_ of corporate globalization.

> - Global Imperialism: again the case here is at best eliptical. It looks
> like another case of slurring motives, rather than dealing with the rights
> and wrongs of the case. And again it is hard EVEN to establish the slur on
> motives. Is it really thought that the US is trying to take over
countries?
> If something less than full-blown empire, then what? Establish & support
> friendly regimes in countries throughout the world? Seems like a
reasonable
> thing to do..... doesn't every nation try to do that? .... and if they
> don't, shouldn't they start?!! Again, we need better than a hint of a
slur.
>

Yes, but not by first promising to eradicate the population with shock and
awe (why not THE BOMB, he, he, we can't rule it out) and then govern via
strings. See the current Afghan puppet and consider his previous employment
record. Remember "free" trade agreements? And did you read anything at all
about the last *US* election? Ah, a model of democracy.

>  "We aren't dealing with Israel's weapons of mass destruction." This looks
> like either (a) a reason not to deal with anybody's weapons of mass
> destruction; or (b) a reason FOR dealing with Israel's. Interpreted as
(a),
> it is a reason against war with Iraq, but is a plainly ridiculous policy.
> Interpreted as (b), it would seem like no reason against war with Iraq at
> all, just a reason for doing something else AS WELL. I can't help thinking
> that the cause of global disarmament would actually be helped by trying to
> tackle regimes one by one.
>

The obvious conjuncture lies in AND. And the US and...oh, we need to disarm
with arms so someone trustworthy must hold the gun? Let's pick a truly
psychopathic personality without accountability and a low, uncaring IQ then.
It makes perfect sense.

> - "We aren't enforcing UN resolutions flouted by Israel". Parallel
arguments
> apply. This is either (a) a reason not to enforce any UN resolutions; or
(b)
> a reason FOR enforcing those against Israel, the US, etc. etc..
>

And. And why not start with the oldest where there is bloodshed in the
streets every day? Oh...the emerging Afghanistan, Iraq, Israel axis and the
1996 plan drawn up by quite a few members of the current admin to redraw the
map of the Middle East.


> - "War should never be adopted as long as a shred of doubt remains, or
> another option is left open." There is some truth in this reason, but it's
> certainly not quite right as it stands. On this view, all that a Hitler or
a
> Milosevic would need to do (and they DID adopt these approaches) would be
to
> ensure that a glimmer of hope remained always to sustain the case for
> appeasement. Real politics seems to me to involve taking some hard
decisions
> on the balance of probabilities. Risk is never altogether eliminated - bad
> people will always ensure that a good gloss can be put on their actions.
>

The difference lies in a _preemptive_ strike based on scant evidence, which
history has show is frequently manufactured by the powers that be to justify
the action. See, for example, the other Gulf in Vietnam. Hence the below.
>
> The best case against war seems to me to start with the "burden of proof".
> War involves killing people and destroying infrastructure, buildings, and
> the like. It needs substantial and overwhelming reasons BOTH (i) for doing
> something about a particular problem; AND (ii) that the "something" in
> question should be war. If the case is not made on both counts, we should
> not go to war.
>

It is one thing to disqualify arguments as not being good, another to deny
and simplify their existence. Do you have any affiliation with FOX news at
all?