Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2002 14:03:44 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: Fwd: 'Precision Weapons' Fail To Prevent Mass Civilian  Casualties


I just joined this list, and don't want to be too
presumptious, but I had a comment on the "americans
are ignorant racist" etc line. I wouldn't judge
Americans too harshly for this, since nationalism
tends to rise in any country during a war. State-forms
are good at training people and keeping the range of
public opinion narrow.

For the purposes of argument, I think it's best not to
focus too much on the collateral damage. Not that that
isn't important, but that people won't be swayed by
it. It's a factor in all wars, meaning people will
already be able to rationalize it. People that are
generally against war will be upset by it, people that
aren't will accept it. Unfortunately, the majority of
people fall into the latter category. While we should
always try and convince people to think otherwise, we
won't be able to do it very effectively while a war is
actually happening. 

I know that a listserv isn't the same as arguing to
the american public, I just thought I'd take the
occassion to say it.

I think in this case, the most effective arguments are
civil liberties, the total disruption of the society
(especially food delivery and such), the inevitable
strengthening of the fundamentalist right in the
region, and that any expansion will only provoke more
terrorist attacks by fueling militant anger against
the US. There are better reasons, but I think
Americans would be most sympathetic to the ones
mentioned. They're the ones that must be convinced if
military activity is to be stopped. Again, I just felt
like saying that, since I know many of my leftie
friends prefer the staunch pacifist or
confrontationally radical approach.  

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send your FREE holiday greetings online!
http://greetings.yahoo.com