|
|||||||||
Posted June 25, 2003
Regarding "Paragons of Empire" by Nebojsa Malic:
Bravo Nebojsa Malic!
I've been reading your articles for some time now.
Besides being an eloquent writer, you certainly are a well-read-up-to-date person.
Basically, in agreeing with most of what you, in such an excellent manner, say/ write, my humble note of (an older-ager's) reflection would've been in pointing up that, what you report as "Communism/ Communists", should have been approached in a slightly more cautious manner, for the term in usage is not well elaborated upon, especially by those who don't know (never knew) that K. Marx, presumably the 'perpetrator' of the idea, was a man who solidly spent several tens of years in the London Public Library investigating and coming up with answers to something that requires if not more than at least the same amount of time to dissolve.
Because the world's 'elite', basically, is a worthless band of "whomever else's" paragons at the door ring bell they respond to (as long as the subject being – knocking at the door – is alongside their own "shot at the sky"), we do not, necessarily, have to subscribe to it.
But you understand that so well. ...
Excellent! Continue! Your first name's well deserved, indeed! [Nebojsa is an old Serbian folk name, meaning "Fearless."]
~ Dr. Mart Gorski, Waterloo, Canada
Nebojsa Malic replies:
Thank you. I should perhaps use 'socialism' instead, since its meaning is much clearer – and certainly so when compared to individual liberty that I advocate.
Regarding "America Needs a Gore News Channel" by Matthew Barganier:
Unless the New Republic people are running this Gore network, I don't think your speculation is logical. Gore has already stated that he wouldn't have gone into Iraq.
Matthew Barganier replies:
A very convenient position for Mr. Gore to take, ex post facto. Gore and Marty Peretz are tight, as a cursory search on Google will attest.
Regarding Antiwar.com's pledge week:
I've just made an online donation. This site is one of the most valuable peace resources on the net and highly deserving of support. I hope your call for donations gets a generous response from your many readers!
Associate Editor Mike Ewens replies:
Thank you for your kind words and donation. We at Antiwar.com will maintain the quality that keeps you reading.
This may be the most important site for Americans on the web today. I found it via my link to the Lynn Sammuels website, a talk show host in the NYC area. I visit the site maybe 5 times a day to read the various articles and look for new links. Justin Raimondo is a great writer! In some ways he reminds me of my favorite author/ analyst Gore Vidal. In any event he is a great writer in his own write (HA-HA!) and I enjoy him immensely. I hope he comes to visit the Washington DC area sometime to speak.
Great job with this site. I have donated $50 as a commitment to help keep it going. If there was ever a time the country needed a site like this it is now.
Mike Ewens replies:
Thank you for your words of encouragement and donation. I know that Justin would be more than flattered to hear himself compared to Gore Vidal. As a matter of fact, I am in the middle of Vidal's United States: Essays 1952 -1992. I find his commentary timeless and trenchant.
Hi, it's John Stanton, co-author of America's Nightmare: The Presidency of George Bush II.
I'll be sending $25 by check within the next couple of days. Not much, but I don't have much.
Thanks for Antiwar.com.
Mike Ewens replies:
Thank you for your donation! I can tell by the title of your book that you don't have too many good things to say about Bush... good for you!
It is not tax deductible in the UK. It really doesn't matter, but I hope it helps. Will try to donate $250.00 by year end, but not on a monthly basis.
Mike Ewens replies:
Sorry that it isn't tax-deductible in the UK! Your donation will help a lot.
I'm a daily reader of Antiwar.com. While I can't make a significant financial contribution to the site, I would be more than happy to post your banner on my web page.
The question is, do you have a banner I could post?
Mike Ewens replies:
Here
are some banners (just right click and save them on your web
server):
http://www.antiwar.com/buttons/antiwar4.gif
http://www.antiwar.com/buttons/antiwar4b.gif
Criticism
FEEDBACK [IS] A SHAM.
I trawled through the archives of your backchat only to find that Justin Raimondo had "avoided" replying to the many letters of criticism of his piece "The Anti-Americans" and had labeled the majority as "nutty." ...
Backtalk editor Sam Koritz replies:
Backtalk is a readers' forum. While columnists can reply to criticism if they wish we neither promise nor expect replies.
Regarding the DB/ Mike Ewens dialog posted June 18:
DB: Think back Mike to what your Uncle Chamberlain once said about the English Channel protecting him from Hitler's AK-47's. And yes I do know what they are. I was shot by one in 1969 while on patrol with 101st.
Mike Ewens: So you are likening Hitler's military prowess to Saddam's weak as hell army, airforce and non-existent navy. Then you equate the English channel to some 3000 (I think) miles between the US mainland and Iraq. What? I am more frightened by Canadian Mounties rushing the US border than anything Saddam was able to muster (which empirically, was little).
DB: And I dare say we need them (subs, planes, guns etc.) more than Saddam. What does he have worth protecting as opposed to our economic engine that has rained peace and prosperity on so many?
ME: That is a GREAT question: what did Saddam have to protect??? Not WMD, planes, or military might. No matter, I never meant to infer that we didn't need our weaponry, rather, we sure have a lot of it, making us so formidable that we should fear very little. Wait, there is something to fear with all those weapons at our disposal: those in the administration who handle the levels of control over the missiles, troops and ships.
DB: Taking that moron to the woodshed was righteous.
ME: Morally "righteous" or surfer guy "Righteous!"? I worry for the others you subjectively deem "morons"... am I next?
DB: Thanks Mike for your kind reply. While it would seem we disagree a bit on this subject I still respect your "right" to post your views. One thing I cannot respect is the way you folks try to talk down, edit, and trivialize all who dare to stray from the party line.
ME: My intention was not to "talk down, edit, and trivialize" you or anyone else that "stray[s] from the party line." First though, my position against this war is not a "party line," rather it is a conviction based on the principles of morality, justice and the proper role for government. This conviction is unswerving because I believe it is right. Any variance from my position would violate the very principles that I try to maintain.
DB: I certainly don't have answers to all the worlds problems, but I do know that history is full of guys like Saddam and other despots. Why you insist on selling them short is beyond me.
ME: I too do not have answers to all the problems in the world, nor does anyone else. However, I still disagree with your assessment that I am "selling Saddam short" by believing he was no threat to America and military intervention would have more costs than benefits. If Saddam had WMD: contain him. If he is a brutal dictator: don't support him, but don't go "freeing people." These two options were what I advocated vis-à-vis Saddam, nothing I would call "selling short." Each accepts who Saddam is and, from America's standpoint, deals with each in the best way.
Also, by continually bringing up Hitler when you mention Saddam you are implicitly equating the two. You did it again below.
DB: Hitler's navy was once non-existent, the channel did provide an obstacle as great as does the Atlantic today, given the techno advances. Of course Saddam was no Hitler, but that doesn't mean he couldn't wreck havoc in his own perverse way. ...
ME:
I don't know if you intended to do this, but this is exactly what Pres.
Bush's did before the war in Iraq. Example:
Bush: "America will never forget 9/11. Saddam is an evil tyrant.
The terrorists who attacked the twin towers must be punished. Saddam Hussein
has WMD.... etc."
I think that the evidence shows that Saddam's "perverse way" didn't involve WMD, large invading armies or anything else threatening to the US. Moreover, suppose he did have these things... then we either learn to contain him, better defend ourselves, or discover the best ways not to piss him off.
DB: As for Saddam, he let his people suffer at the expense of his lust for weapons power and wealth, moron might be too kind a term. ...
ME: I agree, moron is not a strong enough term. However, do his actions require military intervention? If so, how should America proceed with the Congo? Is America's role one of "protecting the oppressed"?
The more I discuss Saddam with supporters of the war, I have come to realize that much of the disagreement revolves around whether Saddam was really a threat. I am still unconvinced – both empirically and theoretically – that he was or could have been. Moreover, there was no indication that containment or a general defensive posture was not a better action to direct invasion. I still believe that the current and future costs of the invasion are too high.
DB: ...[M]ilitary proliferation is not the answer to world peace, it won't feed the Korean peninsula or turn oil into food but I'll tell you what will. Responsible government acting peacefully with their neighbors creating and enforcing reasonable laws.
ME: Amen! Now we just have to agree on what those "reasonable laws" are.
DB: Thanks again for your time and best wishes in stopping the next war. I think you will agree the antiwar forces failed miserably the last time around. I wonder if any of them wonders why?
ME: I think that I know why: few had a principled position against the war. The idiots on the Left hated the war because a Republican (who I voted for) was for it. Were those same people protesting the intervention in Kosovo, Haiti or Clinton's random bombing of third world nations? No. The Left's rhetoric was idiotic and anti-American, and thus didn't appeal to reasonable Americans. And unfortunately, the voices who were both patriotic and antiwar – like those of us at Antiwar.com – received little attention. However, we did gain some important inroads that will perhaps aid in the slowing down of the War Party's mission to "liberate" the world.
DB: Why not examine the editorial feedback at Antiwar.com, I think it fair to say that any writer who questions the position(s) of any staffer IS talked down, edited out of context and trivialized. This was both a fair and truthful statement and I stand by it.
Sam Koritz: As much as I hate to interject myself into other people's discussions, as Backtalk editor, I must object. Lots of criticism is posted in Backtalk and the most of the critics aren't replied to at all, never mind "talked down to" or trivialized. And most letters are not edited for content (excisions are indicated by ellipses).
ME: Yes, some of our responses to letters seem this way, but perhaps we give what we get sometimes. The amount of hateful and horribly reasoned letters demand a sometimes mordant reply. I hope that I have not done that to you in this correspondence. Could you point me to some examples of this phenomenon, for I don't think the problem is as prevalent as you say it is.
DB: This probably illustrates our disagreement best. I say its too early to say he has no WMD's. I'm betting he did and you are saying he did not and therefore represents no threat to us or anyone else. Time will tell whose right I guess. I would however have to ask why AWC has insinuated Israeli culpability in 9/11, but NO evidence has ever surfaced, yet AWC does not question itself on why it attacked the Israelis. Double standard?
ME: "Time will tell" is, I think, a pretty immoral thing to say to the thousands of dead Iraqis and over a hundred American troops who died. I really don't care if Saddam has or ever had WMD. Matt Barganier sums it up best:
"Instead of lending undue significance to weapons possession, we must reiterate our original arguments against the war: it didn't serve our national interests, it was immoral, and it could have awful repercussions."
To this, I would add John Q. Adam's quote (which also addresses a point you make below):
“America goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. She will recommend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example."
I admit, this is an idealistic quote, but I think that it captures something important. Simply, I see no role for the U.S. to make sure all the villains of the world disappear. The ramification (i.e. blowback) is usually worse than inaction. I also have little confidence that the government can succeed at removing evil people with such a foreign policy. That same government can't deliver mail, save money, teach children, etc., sure as heck can't effectively decide who is "bad" and then find the best means of eliminating that bad.
Also, we never said that Israel was responsible for 9/11... rather, some evidence suggested that the may have had knowledge of it while it was being planned.
DB: The party line I refer to is the vision held by all of you that everyone else in this world is inept except the those who hold convictions close to yours. I mean are Bush, Blair, Rice, Powell and their subordinates all a vast conspiracy bent on world destruction? Why does a bunch that is so inept keep winning? Because they're rich? How did they get so rich if they're so inept?
ME: I do not believe that those who don't hold my views are "inept" rather I contend that they don't see the world correctly (based on principles I see as reasonable and well excepted). AWC holds opinions and worldviews that contrast sharply with our opponents. Admittedly, I think that some of those who openly disagree with me are inept, but that sentiment usually arises from their blatant ad hominens towards antiwar types like me (e.g. anti-American, Saddam supporter, unpatriotic, etc.). Finally, Bush et al are in power because they are politically intelligent (and they were helped by my vote).
DB: We are pretty close here. I still think that AWC contributed to the defeat nearly as much as the lefties by its inaction. ... It broke bread with Al Sharpton. It engaged in sensationalistic journalism at the expense of Israel (how many casualties at Jenin?) and it gave credence to obscure web sites and blogs that were basically manned by losers whose degree of journalistic expertise were questionable at best. I could go on.
ME: ... Broke bread with Al Sharpton? What? If that was somewhere on the site it was a mistake. We don't actively support any candidates in elections. I would like evidence of this "sensationalism" and the "credence" we gave to bad blogs, etc. In terms of linking sources, we do our best to cover all the sides of the antiwar debate, and by linking them we don't say that we support their views. We report what other sources report, and do our best to pick the most accurate. Unfortunately, numbers, such as those related to Jenin may be initially false. The same holds true though, for the "sensationalism" of the threat of WMD.
DB: I am against war as much as anyone. I lost 5 uncles in World War II and was wounded myself in 1969 near the Perfume river in RVN (yes, it still hurts) but I still believe the Saddam was a potential troublemaker and needed to be forcefully removed as does Jong, Arafat, Kaddafi and Mugamba among others. These are not people with a different viewpoints expressing a difference of opinion, these are cold blooded killers who need to be removed from the world's stage. I don't want to liberate anybody, I don't want to be globocop, I just want to live in peace and I want to live here in the US and want to live under our present form of Government (which is not to say some changes are not necessary). I have been around the globe a few times and I honestly think our system isn't that bad. I have been in the same room with Arafat and his people I have walked the streets of Gaza to Hue to Berlin. I want peace as much as you only I think short term warfare will bring a broader longer lasting peace if used to rid the world of pariahs and, yes, if one surfaces in the Congo I'd support a strike there as well. (Please don't refer to me as a supporter of war. I am a supporter of peace, enforced by the threat of war.)
ME: I equate "need to be removed from the world's stage" with a nation that is acting as a "global cop." How such a policy is any different from say, the US enforcing it drug laws in Amsterdam, is beyond me. I worry that a policy that purports defense involves removing dictators from the world – who are not imminent threats – will lead to perpetual war, huge government at home, less freedom and Empire.
Regarding "An Interview with David Harris" by Allison Hunter:
I have heard similar comments from David Harris elsewhere, on KTVU news as well as on the radio. I am of his generation and do not agree with his perspective.
Sorry David but the massive demonstrations in October, November, January and February were every bit the equal of some of the great antiwar marches of the Vietnam era. I wonder, were you there?
Was David Harris there observing when the war started and protesters chained themselves down in the streets? Or is he making his critical analysis based on distorted TV reports and the New York Times? I will bet the answer is the latter.
If David Harris had been there, he would have noticed there was a huge amount of SUPPORT for the protesters from people in the offices and people in the cars. Drivers held up in traffic were largely honking support and flashing peace signs to the marchers! But David does not know that. If he had been there he also would have noticed that many of the protesters had very insightful placards and signs indicating they understand very well what the Iraq invasion is about. And that they are for peace.
David Harris did some great work in the past, credit to him. I have not read his recent writing but he has primarily made a name for himself recently as a critic of antiwar protesters. His credentials are twenty-five years old and need renewal.
The guy who is former president of the PSE, Father Bill O'Donnell, the San Francisco Chronicle reporter who subsequently got fired because he was arrested, the thousands of others who got arrested, lets face it, these people are activists. David Harris is welcome to do all the progressive organizing he can. At the same time, I suggest he observe more closely and learn a few things about the wonderful work that is being done by others.
Hyperlinking Appreciated
Been meaning to drop ya'll a note for some time to thank whoever is responsible for the generous attention to hyperlinks in Justin's columns – 32 in today's installment alone. It is not unexpected that a writer would link to other writers that he is quoting, or to current news articles, but to find links on so many of his historical and cultural references (e.g., "phrenologist") is a treat, even if I don't have to time to follow all of them. Hyperlinking is the great glory of the Web, yet so few people put it to as full a use as you do. I know it's a lot of extra work for someone, so I just wanted to let you know that it is noticed and appreciated.
~ Steve Smith, Chapel Hill, North Carolina
Regarding "Bush Blames Failure to Find WMDs on Looters":
I actually think that it was the naughty pizza man (a character that used to appear on the placemats at Pizza Hut restaurants).
Seriously, who can believe this drivel? They have satellites with lenses that can read the name tag on a soldier's uniform but somehow the "large stocks" of WMDs and associated materials were spirited of by persons unknown? If Bush & Co. truly knew the whereabouts of the WMDs, as they inferred in their run-up to war, they would have kept these sites under continuous satellite surveillance and known what was happening. Blaming the lack of discovery on looters and bogeymen shows how thin the original claims were and how desperate the warhawks are getting.
All the more likely that they will embark on a new adventure to distract the masses from their mendacity. Watch out Iran, Syria or N. Korea, your friendly liberators from the west may be coming to visit you sooner than you think.
~ KW