"Marques, Jorge" wrote:

> Matt Hill Wrote:
>
> > Martin explicitly said he thinks the NATO action is wrong.
>
> Fine. He thinks the NATO action is "wrong." Is that wrong as in a moral sense, where it's a bad thing but has to be done anyway? Or is that wrong as in the correctness of the action, i.e., a mistake? And if it is the latter, is the action incorrect
> because it won't achieve it's stated goals (whatever they are today) or for some other reason?
>

I suspect the latter, but you will have to ask him those questions.


> > 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.
>
> I don't doubt that Martin thinks NATO is wrong. I'm still not sure what he means by "wrong," but I don't doubt it. However, I know that on many occasions I have certainly been left with the impression that he does not necessarily oppose the bombing.

At first I had the same impression, but later I realized he is simply attacking holes in the arguments presented here.


>
> > When the Kosovo threads first started, I found Martin's
> > position confusing.  He has since clarified it.
>
> Perhaps you can explain it to me then.

He thinks NATO action is wrong.  That is not much information, but it's clear.

>
> >
> > 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:
>
> No, you misunderstood. I was not trying to prove Martin's "evasiveness." That is simply my impression of his tactics in these discussions. The point I was trying to make was that the Martin has made comments very similar to the examples given in the
> article by Michael Albert and thus maybe he should respond or at least take note of it rather than curtly dismissing the entire thing simply because of the implication that he advocates bombing Yugoslavia.

There may have been similarities, but they were not the same arguments.

There are countless ideologues who observe that Chomsky spends more time criticizing the West than he does Communist regimes, and therefore he must support Communist regimes.  From a superficial reading, one could indeed conclude that he is biased.  For
instance, in _Deterring Democracy_ he gives extensive attention to US support of the contras in Nicaragua, and hardly any to the human rights crimes committed by the Sandinista government.  Does this imply Chomsky supports Communists?  Hardly.

Similarly, you cannot extrapolate Martin's position from the impression he leaves on you, or from similarities with arguments other people made.  You especially cannot do so when he explicitly says what his position is.

> >
> >> 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.
> >
>
> The direct inference from Martin's comment, at least to me, is that NATO, or someone, had to do something to stop the Serbians, i.e., use force. That is precisely the sentiment expressed in the sample comment.

I prefer to take Martin's comments at face value, rather than draw inferences with which he might not approve.  Martin might well share my position in thinking the NATO action is wrong, but could be rectified if it were carried out in a different manner.

>
> >
> > This use of force against Milosevic is obviously justified.
> > How could anyone disagree with that?
> >
> > The issue at hand is how much force is justified, at whom it
> > is directed, and by whom it is administered.  One can oppose NATO action without
> > disagreeing that force is justified.
> >
>
> No. _This_ use of force already includes how much, at whom and by whom. These attributes are no longer up for discussion. So, yes, I disagree that _this_ use of force against Milosevic is justified.
>
> And I ask you: justified on what basis? What proof do you have that this use of force is _helping_ the situation? I strongly agree with those who have brought up the Hippocratic Oath: "First, do no harm."

I'm very sorry.  I made a typo.  Instead of "this use of force" I meant "_The_ use of force against Milosevic is justified."  That's a big difference, because I do not oppose _the_ use of force against Milosevic (in principle), but I do oppose _this_ use
of force (i.e., the current bombings).  Again, I'm sorry about that.

Everyone agrees Milosevic is and has been committing atrocities, so unless you are an absolute pacifist you should agree force against Milosevic is justifed.

I hope that makes my position more clear.

>
> >> 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.
>
> To me, the tone says: "So the US has an appalling record, so what? Someone had to do something. At least they are not paralyzed due to their record and they are doing something."

To some, Chomsky's tone in _After the Cataclysm_ says Pol Pot is not a mass murderer.  You have to be careful when drawing inferences based on tone or vague impressions.  The world is a complicated place.  It is not always possible to give equal weight and
equal attention to every factor.

Like me, Martin sees problems in the arguments advanced by some leftists, and challenges them.  With his question he did seem to imply the US should do something, instead of wallowing in self-hatred.  But he did not say what the US should do.  Nor did he
say he is happy with what the US has done so far.

He is dealing with the argument with which he finds fault.  If you want his recommended course of action you will have to ask him.


>
> > Martin's point is an obvious truism.  The US is not forbidden from
> > doing good because it has acted monstrously in the past (andcontinues to do so
> > in the present).
>
> Yes, it is a truism. And when the US starts actually doing some good I'll happily support it. But that is simply not the case here. And while past (and current) atrocities do not preclude good actions in the future, I do not think it is inappropriate to
> bring up past abuses on the part of the US, especially with people that may not be aware of them. They are certainly an example of a pattern of behaviour that can shed some light on the current situation.

They shed light, but does mentioning them bolster the argument that the NATO bombing is wrong?

I think comparisons to Turkey, Columbia, Indonesia, etc. are useful to prove how the US does not act for humanitarian reasons.  Many people think the US does act to preserve freedom and democracy, and they need to learn the hard truth.

On the Chomsky list and other leftist discussion boards, however, I don't see how this argument is useful.  We know what the US is about.  We know the US does not care about people getting killed.

We need to consider, specifically, what is it we are trying to argue in this forum.  It is easy (and correct) to say the US is evil.  That is irrelevant here.  We need to determine if the NATO action against Yugoslavia is something we should support or
denounce.   We need to consider (a) whether we agree with its putative goals; (b) whether we agree with its implementation so far; (c) what we think of its prospects for success.

I support NATO on (a), but not on (b) and (c).  Therefore I oppose this war for now, but could be persuaded otherwise if NATO changes its strategy.  The West's motives or underlying sympathies are a factor, but not a major factor.  What counts is whether
NATO can accomplish its putative goal: to meliorate the humanitarian crisis.  Presently, I think not, so I oppose the bombing.  I would think the same thing if Uncle Sam were really a saint.

> >
> > 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.
> >
>
> Cheap shot. How can you judge the credibility of my arguments against the bombing when I have yet to get express them on this list?

You have defended arguments that I find implausible.  You attack Martin for making sensible criticisms of implausible arguments.  If you have better ones, please advance them.