Martin William Smith wrote:
> Jorge, I don't advocate bombing Yugoslavia.
You see, that's why Michael called you evasive (well, I'm not Michael so
maybe it was for other reasons). You certainly advocate against opposing
the bombing. I realize that it's not an either/or situation: just as I'm not
for Serbian repression in Kosovo simply because I oppose the bombing, you
may very well not be for the bombing simply because you are not against it.
But it sure gives you an easy out in these discussions; it allows you to
dismiss entire arguments simply because someone characterizes you as being
pro-NATO based on your anti-anti-NATO comments. IMO that's evasive; you
criticize the positions of others without ever really stating your own
position, leaving us to imply it from your statements and then dismissing us
when we do. Well I can safely say that I'm probably not the only person that
is left with the impression that you advocate bombing Yugoslavia based on
your comments. And as they say, perception is reality.
Now, back to your reply: since you so curtly dismiss that entire posting
because you disagree with one word in the title, let's ignore the title and
see if the examples of statements by bombing advocates presented are similar
to what you have been arguing:
["" = quoted from the article, > = quoted from your recent posts]
EXAMPLE 1:
"After all, Milosevic is horrible and there was genocide going on and
someone had to do something and NATO did something, so that's good...right."
> But it isn't an irrational argument. When should an organization like
> the Serb army led by someone like Milosevic be stopped by force?
> Never? If not never, then how close were we to the limit? If we had
> waited longer, would he have destabilized the entire region?
The implications of this statement are certainly that the Serb Army led by
Milosevic were doing horrible things and that the use of force was
justified.
EXAMPLE 2:
"But even if the U.S. has been bad and bad and bad through all these cases
that you offer (that is, the evidence offered about Vietnam, Nicaragua,
Grenada, Panama, Guatemala, Timor, Colombia, Turkey and whatever cases I
happen to mention), we should support and celebrate that at least this time
around the U.S. is doing good."
> Neither is it required that the US have an
> impeccable track record before it can act. The track record is
> appalling. Now what do we do?
The similarity between these two statements if pretty much straightforward.
EXAMPLE 3:
"Well, I don't know, I hate war, yes, but surely bombing is better than
doing nothing."
> The action is decisive. You can't possibly claim it isn't decisive.
> It's purpose is to diminish, if not destroy, the military capability
> of Yugoslavia, which is being used to do wrong. You can't claim the
> Yugoslavian military is not being used to do wrong.
The bombing is decisive, and by implication better than doing nothing (i.e.
be indecisive) because it might actually stop the Yugoslavian army from
doing wrong.
EXAMPLE 4:
"But for whatever reason, it may do good, and the achievement will be the
measurable success of the operation."
> I don't think it is off to a fine start, but it does look like the
> military objective of neutralizing the Serb military might succeed to
> a high enough degree to then be able to send in a NATO ground force
> that can maintain a stable situation in which a political settlement
> can be reached.
Again, you don't like war and it's not off to a fine start, but it might
succeed enough to do some good...especially if it destroys "the military
capability of Yugoslavia," preventing it from "being used to do wrong," as
in the previous quote above.
The basic point I'm getting at, is that whether or not you think you're an
"advocate" of NATO bombing, the arguments in the article I presented
certainly apply in your case. And I think there are some very good and
thoughtful points presented in that article that quite effectively counter
the positions you have (sort of) taken on this list in the last few weeks.
Jorge
|
