Martin William Smith wrote:
>
> 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.

You say that like never in the English language have these two words been used as synonyms. Time to switch the discussion over to linguistics.

>  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.

Your choice of words makes all your statements hypothetical in nature. Thus, I am left with more questions:

Do you support this particular NATO action since it is a wrong, but you think it will stop another wrong? Or do you oppose this particular NATO action because in practice it won't stop another wrong?

On a different topic, if you are willing to use a wrong to stop a wrong, how do you make that determination? Do you have some index that tells you that if action A causes x death and destruction and action B causes y death and destruction, it's ok to use
action A to stop action B as long as x is less than y?



>
> > 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.

If the Russians preempt the NATO action with a settlement, how can you claim that the NATO action has achieved its _military_ goal?

> NATO, or more likely the UN, will
> then have to send in a ground force to stabilize Kosovo while a
> permanent settlement is negotiated.

Negotiated? If NATO, or rather the US/UK, were interested in negotiating we would not be in this situation right now. The best they can offer is ultimatums.

>  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.

Really? You have inside information that Yugoslavia isn't willing to negotiate a solution? I know it will be a much harder thing to do now, but I'm pretty certain, based on the information and analyses that I have seen that they were willing to negotiate
before the bombing. The best NATO/US/UK were able to do was make a token effort and then issue ultimatums.

The Serbs are apparently open to negotiate and to accept a UN peacekeeping force if the bombardment ends. Either this is true or it is not. So let me ask you this, how would the situation possibly get worse if NATO took them up on the offer and OSCE
observers were allowed back into Kosovo? Could the exodus of refugees possibly get any worse? Would the alleged atrocities inside Kosovo get any worse? Wouldn't we at least have people on the ground in Kosovo to witness and report on exactly what was
going on? If the Serbs were committing atrocities or forcing more refugees out and the bombing resumes, what would have been lost in the meantime? To quote John Lennon, "all I am saying, is give peace a chance."


>  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.

Oh, we're getting closer, but you still threw in that "I think", making it hypothetical.

> 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?

Why? Because what's the point of using words like "wrong" and "incorrect" if they hold no meaning? I'll let "wrong" go since you explained above that you are willing to commit one wrong to stop another (I share that sentiment, but certainly not in the
context of wrongs that produce destruction and human misery). However, just what do you mean by "incorrect" if you think the bombing is "incorrect" and yet you are not against it? Jump on off the fence, man.

>
> > > 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.

That analogy is so bad it is hardly worth mentioning except for its offensiveness. Look, the message in question had two parts. In the first, top, part I presented my perception of the evasive nature of your comments. It was and is, my opinion, nothing
more. And I've never stated it as fact.

The second part was simply my attempt at showing that Michael Albert's arguments could be used to refute your (non)position based on the similarities between your previous postings and the hypothetical comments he provided.

The two parts of this message were related only by the fact that they were in the same message.

>
> 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
>