Martin William Smith wrote:
>
> "Marques, Jorge" writes, deliberately misquoting:

So, if I say I didn't deliberately misquote you will you take me at face value?

> > 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:
>
> I don't know what you are talking about with regard to one word in the
> title.  I don't know which word; I don't know which title.

It was right there at the top of the message you are responding to; your one line dismissal of an article titled _Tips On Talking with Advocates of the Bombing_ was "Jorge, I don't advocate bombing Yugoslavia."

> I
> explained why I didn't respond to an entire posting.  It had gotten
> way too long.  I could also have said we were going around in circles.

You've got the wrong person. But I can't keep track of your e-mail for you.

> This will be my last response to you, because you have deliberately
> broken the rules of honest discourse.  The cut and paste "atrocity"
> below is an example of the dishonesty of which CNN is accused.
>
> > ["" = 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.
> >
>
> You clearly mean the two quotes have something to do with each other.
> They don't.  I wasn't responding to Michael Albert's abstraction of
> what he perceives is an argument put forth by people who support the
> bombing.

Nobody said you were.

> I was responding to Micha Strutt's claim that a statement
> made by Bogdan Denitch and Ian Williams was irrational.
> The context
> from which you lifted my quote is this:
>
> <begin context>
>
> Bogdan Denitch and Ian Williams:
> > > Those who want an immediate NATO
> > > cease-fire owe the world an explanation of how they propose
> > > to stop and reverse the massive ethnic cleansing in Kosovo, in
> > > light of Milosevic's history as a serial ethnic cleanser and
> > > promise-breaker.
>
> Michael Strutt
> >         Seems to me that it's up to those who favour the
> bombing to show
> >         that it helps the situation, not those who oppose
> it to come up
> >         with an alternative.
>
> Martin Smith:
> NATO doesn't have to show anything, because there isn't any higher
> authority that can stop it.  NATO just has to decide to do it and then
> do it.  Without a higher authority, the only way to stop NATO before
> it finishes is to organize a massive protest that literally threatens
> the stability of the world economy.  That requires an enormous number
> of people to actually act against their own economic self-interest.
> If there were enough Buddhists in the west, it could be done.  But if
> there were enough Buddhists in the west, we wouldn't be in this
> situation in the first place.
>
> Michael Strutt:
> >         However, the irrational argument above is exactly the one
> >         promoted by CNN, the State Department and NATO spokestooges.
>
> Martin Smith:
> 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?
>
> <end context>
>
> Denitch and Williams' statement is not irrational.  It might be wrong,
> but it is not irrational.  People who advocate stopping the bombing
> ought to offer a solution that answers the concerns of the people who
> advocate or passively accept the bombing, whether or not the bombing
> is justified.  The obvious main reason for this is that: They won't
> stop the bombing unless you offer them a solution they will accept.
> It doesn't matter whether you like that or not.  That's the way the
> system works.  About my response, you then say:

Looked to me like he was saying your argument was irrational. But that is irrelevant. That first sentence in your reply, "But it isn't an irrational argument." could have been left out. It was superfluous to my point.
>
> "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."
>
> I have stated numerous times that the bombing has not been justified.
> I don't think I should have to attach it to every paragraph I write.

The direct inference from your 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. But I have been told that I shouldn't infer
things (even though inference is a form of logic), so let me ask you directly:

Should the Serb army be stopped by force now? If not now, when?  How close were we to the limit? What did you mean by "an organization like the Serb Army"? Did you mean a group of people that wear the same clothes and march around in formation? Or were
you referring to more sinister traits? What are those traits? What did you mean by "someone like Milosevic"? Did you mean an old white guy that sits around in fancy chairs? Or were you referring to more sinister traits? What are those traits? When you
asked, "If we had waited longer, would he have destabilized the entire region?" was it a rhetorical question? Do _you_ think that if NATO (certainly not "we") had waited longer, he would have destabilized the entire region?


>
> Here is a statement from me in response to Michael Strutt.  It was in
> a message I was writing in response to his last lengthening of my long
> response to him
>
> Michael Strutt:
> How do you justify the deaths with unbelievable data?
>
> Martin Smith:
> I don't justify any of it.  I explain it.  An explanation is not a
> justification.  Neither side can justify its actions.  If you insist
> that I give you the justification I would use if I were the NATO
> spokesman, I would say this: The Serb army, police and paramilitary
> cannot justify their action against the Kosovo Albanians.  NATO will
> now use military force to stop that action.  The NATO action will not
> stop until the Serb action stops.  When the Serb action stops, an
> international ground force will occupy Kosovo until the situation
> stabilizes.
>
> There is no justification beyond that, that I can see, I don't think
> any further justification is needed.  That doesn't mean I think it is
> justified.  I mean that is the best that can be said by way of
> justification.  It reduces the problem to a situation analogous to one
> in which a man comes upon a second man being beaten and robbed by a
> third man.  The first man sees that the third man has crossed over the
> line of human being and is not being human.  The first man elects to
> stop the third man by crossing the same line to be not human as well,
> using the same or worse evil behavior until he stops the third man or
> until the third man stops on his own.  If we expand the context around
> the three men, we see that the first man has also been guilty of not
> being human whenever it suited him.  He might even know that.  Maybe
> it is why he finds it easy to stop being human in this case.  He feels
> justified using evil to stop evil.  Two wrongs don't make a right, but
> he isn't trying to make a right.  He is trying to stop a wrong.  Maybe
> he sees that he can also gain in other ways by stopping the third man.
> Maybe the second man will become a customer of the first man's
> business.  Maybe the first man will be able to loan money to second
> man and collect interest.  But these additional aggenda are not
> justifications.  They are explanations.  Their existence does not
> obviate the need to stop the third man.  I am not the first man, nor
> the second man, nor the third man.  I am a fourth man.  You are trying
> to stop the first man by convincing the fourth man that the first man
> is doing wrong.  How stupid is that?  The first man is the most
> powerful man in the world, and the fourth man already knows that the
> first man is doing wrong.  Then what are you really doing?  You are
> making me look bad.  You are not stopping the bombing.  You are not
> changing the system that generated the situation that led to the
> bombing in the first place.
>
> This fourth man believes that your most effective action would be for
> all anti-NATO protestors to actually go to Kosovo and occupy it, and
> Serbia as well.  Hundreds of thousands, maybe even millions, of
> protestors marching on and occupying Yugoslavia.  This would require
> some logistical planning of course, but the bombing would be stopped.
> Just the movement of so many people toward Yugoslavia from all parts
> of the globe would actually threaten to destabilize the world economy.
> Imagine millions of people (just the ones currently alleged to be
> protesting the NATO action; I don't doubt they exist), flying,
> driving, cycling, and walking toward Kosovo on a great pilgrimage.
> Take no money along.  Reject the system that generated the problem.
> Steal food along the way.  Civil disobedience.  Just the movement of
> so many people, stealing food, clogging transportation systems,
> starving, spreading disease, causing a wave of petty crime, would
> actually threaten to bring the entire world economy crashing down.
> Airports and train stations would be jammed with people going nowhere.
> The air traffic system would have to be shut down.  National guards
> would have to be mobilized in all nations.  Hospitals would be jammed
> with dehydrated protestors.  Even CNN couldn't hide the truth.
>
> That won't be done.  It would actually work, but it won't be done.  It
> won't be done because people don't think it can be done.  Of course it
> can be done.  All you have to do is down tools and start walking.
> It's a lot easier to piss and moan, and pissing and moaning gives one
> self-esteem.
>
> > 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.
>
> So is the dissimilarity, which is more important.  I didn't say we
> should support and celebrate the NATO action.  Michael Albert should
> be ashamed for giving the impression that kind of thinking is typical
> of people who do not try to stop the bombing.  I didn't say the
> U.S. is doing good.  In fact I have said more than once that the NATO
> action is a wrong to stop a wrong.  You tried to connect Albert's
> pissy sentiment with me.  Your attempt is another example of dishonest
> discourse.

Ok, so you think the NATO action is "wrong". Yes, you've said it many times. Let's get more direct:

Do you (a) support the NATO action, (b) oppose the NATO action, (c) neither support nor oppose the NATO action, or (d) both support and oppose the NATO action? Why?

>
> > 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.
>
> You again try to claim that I am saying the same thing as Michael
> Albert's quote.  The two quotes do not express the same thing.
> Here is the actual context, again, of my statement:
>
> Michael Strutt:
>   >> Gullible, manipulable people favour NATO action because no effort
>   >> or expense has been spared in organising the media to make people
>   >> think that aggravating the situation in aid of US
> strategic interests
>   >> is actually 'decisive action to stop a wrong'.
>
> Martin Smith:
> >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.
>
> I didn't say, as Albert's sentiment says, that the NATO action is
> better than doing nothing.  I don't know if it is better or not.  It
> might be better in the long run.  In either case, I was responding to
> Strutt's attempt to discredit the claim that the NATO action was not
> decisive and that it was not an attempt to stop a wrong, neither of
> which implies that it is better than doing nothing.
>
> > 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.
>
> Even in this case, where my statement is actually similar to Albert's
> distillation, the two are not the same.  I doubt the NATO action will
> do good.  I think it will achieve the military goal I stated.

Is ending atrocities "good"? Is the Serb military committing atrocities in Kosovo? Does achieving the military goal of "neutralizing the Serb military" include from eliminating the ability of the Serb military to commit atrocities in Kosovo?

>  In the
> long run, achieving that same goal worked in Germany and Japan at the
> end of WWII, judging by the development of those two countires since
> the end of the war.  It didn't work in Korea or Vietnam, but the
> military goal wasn't achieved in either case.  The military goal might
> not be achieved in this case.
>
> > 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.
>
> I was going to send an analysis of Michael Albert's piece, but I don't
> have the time to respond to everything that comes through, and he
> isn't here to defend himself anyway.  But no, I don't see myself as
> one of the hypotheticals Albert talks about.  I don't hold the views
> he claims to refute.
>
> 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
>