Martin William Smith wrote:
> Dan Koenig writes:
>
> > I am a pacifist and I particularly deplore killing innocent
> > non-combatants either directly or indirectly ANYWHERE. So why not
> > an outcry about Russia's bombing?
> >
> > One word, Martin, hypocrisy.
> >
> > Russia is under the influence of blatantly corrupt and self serving
> > thugs who make no pretence about doing anything other than acting in
> > their own egoistic self interest (not even national self interest).
> > The U.S., on the other hand, holds itself out to be noble,
> > altruistic, very caring about the sanctity of life and innocent
> > civilians, government by the people, non aggressive, and so much
> > more bullfeathers under the leadership of the self proclaimed
> > enlightened and sanctimonious Clinton with his bible under his arm
> > as he heads to church every Sunday.
>
> But that's the way Russia presented prior to and during the NATO
> action. Russia was the voice of reason, the good cop to the US's bad
> cop. There is hypocrisy everywhere. I don't see Russia as being any
> worse than any other sovereign.
>
> Martin, I don't care how Russia presented itself, anymore than I do how
> Clinton or Blair present themselves. I care about what is, not what
> people tell me it is. If you don'r see the Russian Kleptocracy as bing
> any worse than any other national leadership, then I guess we are
> working from a different set of facts and there is nothing further to
> discuss. We have to agree to disagree.
> > That is why people are so outraged by the American atrocities and
> > war crimes (and throw in lapdog Tony Flair with him). NATO
> > notwithstanding, this was clearly an American campaign, as Iraq
> > was/is an Anglo-American campaign.
>
> That's not right. In the end, if all the nations that supported the
> Iraq action had chosen not to, then it would have been an American
> campaign. If the other members of NATO had refused, there would have
> been no Yugoslavia campaign. Don't say they couldn't have, that the
> US forced them against their will. We all have choices. We all have
> free will. The members of NATO chose to participate. The
> participants in the Iraq war chose to participate. Activists have
> chosen not to protest the Russian campaign.
> Once again we seem to be working from a different set of facts. It is a
> matter of public record that NATO had no knowledge about the specifics
> of American military matters, specifically their air missions.
> Similarly, NATO was under the supreme command of a U.S. general.
> Coinicidence? I don't think so. This was very much an American
> campaign with others brought along for diplomatic cover the same as in
> Iraq and in Vietnam. Once again, you seem to be forming your
> conclusions from what people say rather than the preponderance of their
> actions; I don't (and neither do I have time or desire to respond ad
> infinitum to arguing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin -- I
> have a life and AM very much involved in trying to make the world a
> better place, while recognizing that I would become hopelessly cynical
> and burn out if I thought that I could address every one of the world's
> problems. Others have already made that same point in response to your
> query. What part of it do you find so difficult to understand?)
> Parenthetically, I might also add that I think that you seem to equate
> the government of a country with the preferences of the people living in
> that country. Surely you are quite aware of that distinction; if not,
> there is little point wasting time to document it for you and explain
> how it happens. I have better things to do with my time.
>
> > Some of us expect more of people who tell us they share our values
> > than we do of people whom we know care nothing more than about their
> > self interest.
>
> I thought the idea was to save the Chechens, not punish the Russians.
> Isn't the point of activism to stand in solidarity with the weak and
> oppressed?
Where did you get that idea? I never said it. I said that I am opposed
to killing everywhere, not that I could stop it everywhere, that Icould
possibly have the resources to try to stop it everywhere, or that I was
vindictively interested in punishing the Russians or anyone else. You
seem to be simply grasping for straws to find something to argue about.
I'm not interested and won't respond further after this post.
> You make it sound like the point of activism is to defeat
> the bully. Since you can't defeat the bully, the weak and oppressed
> get slaughtered.
>
> Well, you're half right. You can't defeat the bully.
> No, Martin, you are either too pessimistic or too cynical. We can
> defeat the bully and we have done so over and over again throughout
> history. Apartheid in South Africa has been defeated. Hitler was
> defeated. Give it a moment's thought and you could add dozens more to
> the above list. This includes both personal bullies and institutional
> bullies (slavery, sexism, etc., some of which remain works in progress).
Get with the program and DO SOMETHING, even if it is taking an otherwise
homebound person for a walk in the park in your own community. You will
find the look of delight with your actions on some person's face far more
rewarding than trying to win sterile intellectual debates that will leave
the world no better a place whether you passed through or not.
Dan Koenig
>
> martin
>
> Martin Smith Email: [log in to unmask]
> P.O. Box 1034 Bekkajordet Tel. : +47 330 35700
> N-3194 HORTEN, Norway Fax. : +47 330 35701
|
