Since you had already sent this message, I'll respond to it.

"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?

If I had meant incorrect, I would have said incorrect.  In fact, I
think it is both wrong and incorrect.  But believing it is wrong
wouldn't prevent me from doing it in this case, if I believed it would
stop another wrong.  I am willing to use a wrong to stop a wrong.  I
see that I can do evil, and I see that I don't feel guilty having used
evil to stop evil.  In this case, what would make me decide not to use
bombing is that it won't achieve the goal they should be trying to
achieve, which is political, not military.  But it is still using a
wrong to stop a wrong, regardless of what intent you attribute to
those who decided to bomb.

> 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?

It will achieve the military goal, if it is completed, or if the
Russians preempt with a settlement.  NATO, or more likely the UN, will
then have to send in a ground force to stabilize Kosovo while a
permanent settlement is negotiated.  I said this from day one, and I
haven't changed my opinion at all.

It is incorrect because the people who decided to bomb are using
military action to achieve a political goal.  That won't work.
They'll claim it has worked, when it's over, but it won't work.  It
will be like the situation in Northern Ireland for the last several
decades, but probably worse.

> > Why would he argue against his own position?  More likely, he
> > finds fault with some of the arguments people here are presenting.
>
> Fair enough. That could very well be the case. But I've seen enough
> examples where he has taken refuge in the fact that someone has
> misinterpreted his position (since he has not really elaborated on
> it) and simply dismissed the point that was being made on that basis
> alone.

I suppose I dismiss some arguments against me the same way the
person I am arguning with dismisses me.  For example, when he says I
am "parroting" the CNN or NATO line.  Just because I happen to hold
the same position as someone Michael Strutt heard speaking on CNN or
speaking for NATO doesn't mean I am parroting that view.  The
arguments I have expressed here are pretty much the same arguments I
have been using every step of the way.  I'm always trying to make
my views clearer, especially to myself.

> > I find Martin's comments direct and to the point.
>
> Well, I find that particular tactic evasive.

I haven't evaded anything.  Nor do I have time to compose responses to
the same dogma again and again.  Just because Chomsky is right and you
have the luxury of agreeing with him, as I do, it doesn't mean your
intellectual work has all been done for you.  There are still the real
causes to be found and the real problems to be fixed.  Stopping the
bombing isn't going to fix any of those problems.  Chomsky was on the
BBC World Service this morning.  He was only given a sound bite, so of
course he couldn't give a complete argument, but the news reader asked
him: Do you mean we should have done nothing (instead of taking
military action)?  And he responded by quoting the bit in the
hypocratic oath that says Do no harm.  Yes, he said.  We should have
done nothing.  Well, I don't know if he meant it only as it applied to
the bombing, but he said we should have done nothing.  I disagree with
that, strongly.  I wouldn't have used the military action, I think,
but I wouldn't have done nothing either.  I think I would have called
for thousands of UN volunteers to go into Kosovo unarmed, with video
cameras and satellite phones.  I mean thousands of people.  They would
fly into Yugoslavia on scheduled airlines; they would cross the sea
from italy, cross the border from Hungary, Bulgaria, Romania.  I would
supply them with airdrops of food and tents.  We would probably lose a
lot of airplanes.  Maybe a lot of people.

> > 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.
>
> Oh, I was not wading into that debate. I did not intend it to be a
> literal reference. More of an illustration. Maybe I should have
> used: "if it walks like a duck..."

You should have asked for clarification, since you didn't understand.
Trying to hand me off to Michael Albert by quoting me out of context
was wrong.  I didn't say incorrect.  It is a good tactic, but it's
wrong.

> > 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.

You only have the impression that I don't oppose the bombing?  Let me
say it again.  I think the bombing is wrong.  I think the bombing is
incorrect.  I do *not* oppose the bombing.  Is the problem that you
think I must oppose the bombing if I think it is wrong and/or
incorrect?  Why?

> > 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.
>
> >
> > 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.

Ok.  I have the impression that you are still beating your wife.  I'm
not trying to prove it, so I don't have to demonstrate it, but I'm
sure going to state it as if it is fact.

I responded to the rest of your message in a separate message.

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