"Marques, Jorge" wrote:

> 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.

Martin explicitly said he thinks the NATO action is wrong. Why would he argue
against his own position?  More likely, he finds fault with some of the
arguments people here are presenting.

I find Martin's comments direct and to the point.

> 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.

Well, since people have been mentioning _1984_:

That's just what Winston Smith's torturer said.

I am skeptical of those claiming to know objective reality, but I believe
reality is out there somewhere, independent of you and I, and it includes
Martin and his opinions.  Civil debate requires us to accept what our
interlocutors say they believe as what they believe.  If Martin says he thinks
NATO is wrong, then you have to accept he believes it unless you have credible
evidence to the contrary.  You do not have such evidence.

When the Kosovo threads first started, I found Martin's position confusing.  He
has since clarified it.

The problem here is that some of the arguments raised against the bombings are
not as strong as their proponents think.  Martin is challenging them.  This is
revealed in your attempts to prove Martin's "evasiveness" below:

>
> 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.

This use of force against Milosevic is obviously justifed.  How could anyone
disagree with that?

The issue at hand is how much force is justifed, at whom it is directed, and by
whom it is administered.  One can oppose NATO action without disagreeing that
force is justifed.  Martin apparently responded to a comment implying force is
not justified, which he rightly challenged.

>
> 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.

There is a similarity, but they plainly did not say the same thing.  The former
said we should "support and celebrate" the bombing.  The latter said no such
thing.  Martin's point is an obvious truism.  The US is not forbidden from
doing good because it has acted monstrously in the past (and continues to do so
in the present).

I'm not responding to the rest of this.  You are making a poor attempt to
attribute to Martin a position that he said he does not hold.  Why?

I think there is good reason to oppose the bombing.  Considering the complexity
of the situation, one can bring up many arguments against it.  Some of them are
good, and others are fallacious.  Martin is weeding out the bad arguments, at
least the ones on this list.

I wonder if many of those opposed to the bombing feel that way because of an
emotional aversion to decisive US action.  That was how I felt at first.  I am
still opposed to the bombing, but since then I think I have developed more
credible arguments.    I encourage you to try to do the same.