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?

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

Well, I find that particular tactic evasive.

> 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..."

> 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.


> 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. 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.

>
>> 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.

>
> 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."

>
> Martin apparently responded to a comment implying force is not justified, which he
> rightly challenged.
>

No, actually, that reply was to a statement that Martin was using the same irrational argument as CNN/NATO when he said:

"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."

He was not challenging anyone else, those statements originated with him.

>
>> 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."

> 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.

>
> 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?

Jorge