File spoon-archives/heidegger.archive/heidegger_2003/heidegger.0303, message 244


From: "Anthony Crifasi" <crifasi-AT-hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Numbers Game Question
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 02:01:37 +0000


Malcolm Riddoch wrote:

>>>War, says, the world population,
>>>is no longer an appropriate cultural practice.
>>
>>Henry do you really think that is a new sentiment?
>>
>>1. In WWII, France chose non-conflict over war when Hitler entered the 
>>Rhineland. We saw the results.
>
>In what sense do you see a connection with the current crisis in France's 
>backdown from Hitler's restoration of the German Rhineland?

1. That "restoration" violated the Treaty of Versailles (as Hussein has 
violated UN resolutions 687 and 1441).

2. When Hitler sent forces into the Rhineland, he was testing France's 
resolve (as Hussein tested the UN's resolve in 90s, culminating in the 
expulsion of UN inspectors from Iraq) because he knew that France at that 
time had the military power to push Germany back (as Hussein knew that the 
combined might of the countries on the UN Security Council had the might 
necessary to enforce their resolutions).

3. So when France did not enforce the Treaty of Versailles (as the UN did 
not enforce readmittance of the inspectors into Iraq), Hitler concluded that 
since France did not lack the military power, what it lacked was the will 
(as Hussein concluded the UN lacked the will)

That is the connection.

>>2. Before Pearl Harbor, the US public preferred non-conflict over war. We 
>>now see that this was wrong.
>
>Does the fact that Japan was exercising it's fascist prerogative to a 
>pre-emptive strike against the US military presence in the pacific before 
>embarking on a war of conquest not strike you as somewhat ironic in the 
>present circumstances?

No less ironic than a pre-emptive strike against Hitler as soon as he 
entered the Rhineland might have shaken the resolve of the Axis Powers 
enough to prevent Pearl Harbor from occurring in the first place.

>>3. In Vietnam, US public opinion was for non-conflict over war. I can line 
>>up a kilometer of Vietnamese boat people who can tell you the results of 
>>the US withdrawal.
>
>I agree with public opinion here, the conflict in Vietnam led to the carpet 
>bombing of the south in order to support a repressive dictatorship with 
>massive loss of life.

Speak to some Vietnamese boat people about "repressive dictatorship" and 
"massive loss of life" and the picture switches quite quickly.

>Not to mention the illegal carpet bombing of Laos and poor Cambodia

That was because Laos was the source of the Ho Chi Minh trail, which was the 
life line for North Vietnamese supplies. Interviews with former North 
Vietnamese officers confirm that blocking the Ho Chi Minh trail would have 
completely cut off the North, and would have eventually led to their defeat. 
Instead, President Johnson was only willing to authorize a drip drip drip 
bombing that did not cut off the trail and also killed civilians. Moronic 
strategy, due to his fear of - yes - public opinion at the time.

>>4. In 1984, public opinion showed up in massive demonstrations, advocating 
>>non-conflict because the introduction of US missiles into Germany would 
>>provoke the USSR to war. We now know that this was incorrect.
>
>The Reagan administration, now more or less in power again in the US, 
>rampaged through south and central america, supported the murderous Suharto 
>regime in Indonesia, Islamic fundamentalism in Afghanistan, as well as 
>supplying Sadam Hussein with enough WMD's to slaughter a million Iranians, 
>Shiites and Kurds.

Perhaps because the forces on the other side of these conflicts were even 
more dangerous at the time?

>While the 'evil empire' under Brezhnev etal was getting bogged down in 
>their dreadful war of conquest in Afghanistan I don't think anyone 
>seriously thought they were going to invade western Europe.

At the end of WWII, did anyone "seriously" think that the USSR would invade 
Hungary? Czechoslovakia? Afghanistan?

>The escalation you're talking about was foolhardy in the extreme and an act 
>of pure provocation.

or deterrence. As for whether it was foolhardy, the result that was 
predicted by protestors at the time can now be tested against history.

>>5. In 1990, HALF of the US population preferred non-conflict over war 
>>against Hussein. And that was despite UN consensus and a blatant invasion 
>>by Iraq!
>
>This one's a better example, at least it's relevant to what's happening 
>now. Lot's of people prefer peace to war, but it was up to the US 
>administration to control the monster it had created and stop even more oil 
>falling into Hussein's hands. Unfortunately Hussein wasn't the target, just 
>his military machine, and the US let him stay on in Iraq cos they actually 
>preferred a strong dictatorship there.

Remember that UN authorization for the coalition at the time was not for an 
overthrow of Iraq, but only for a repulsion of Iraqi troops from Kuwait. So 
your argument here only gives more evidence that the decisions of the UN in 
these matters are not reliable. The current President Bush agrees with you 
about this.

>It's horribly ironic, don't you think, that the decade of sanctions which 
>has killed thousands of Iraqi civilians had the effect of weakening 
>internal opposition to Hussein, not to mention Bush's disastrous call at 
>the end of desert storm for the Shiites to rise up and crush their 
>oppressor. Pity so many of the Republican guard escaped destruction in 
>order to crush that uprising.

Agreed.

>>Do you really think that the "diplomacy works, not war" line is new, 
>>something we have "finally" realized? Have you ever heard of Neville 
>>Chamberlain? Do you know how he was cheered and praised when he returned 
>>triumphantly with a diplomatic achievement - a treaty containing Hitler's 
>>promise to not invade any further?
>
>What has Chamberlain's acquiescence to Hitler got to do with today? At the 
>time Britain was in no shape to risk war but rearmament was underway, I 
>agree that his diplomacy was utterly weak but it's unknown what might have 
>happened had Britain and France forced Hitler's hand a year or two earlier.

England and France combined would have repelled Hitler at THAT time. When 
Hitler entered the Rhineland, France had sufficient power to push him back, 
but when France did nothing, Hitler quickly built up his war machine beyond 
France's power to defend herself against.

>Besides which, these were major power plays between modern technological 
>states, what has this to do with the world's only super power preemptively 
>crushing a bankrupt tin pot dictatorship today?

Because that bankrupt tin pot dictatorship is probably acquiring a little 
something that would quickly make him a very internationally influential 
dictatorship. And we haven't even gotten to his blatant breach of UN 
resolutions 687 and 1441 yet. Remember that before just a few weeks ago, 
North Korea was also a bankrupt tin pot dictatorship. Now they are a 
potentially nuclear dictatorship.

>But what's this got to do with Iraq? And don't give me that bullshit about 
>a link with terrorism. Apart from the fact that Sadam Hussein would be one 
>of the first people up against the wall when the islamic revolution comes, 
>Bush's own security people are advising him that Hussein would only be 
>likely to give whatever WMD's he has left to terrorists if his own life is 
>about to be terminated. This war not only increases the likelihood of those 
>weapons going on the black market but it will also most likely push another 
>generation of borderline moderates towards Islamic fundamentalism further 
>destabilising the entire middle east and inflaming the global war on 
>terrorism.

There were plenty of identical warnings before the US overthew the Taliban 
in Afghanistan - that this would press another generation of moderates to 
the extreme, destabalize the region, and inflame the global war on 
terrorism.

>The Israeli Palestinian conflict is a good example of where a cylce of 
>violence, oppression and revenge will take you. No wonder none of Iraq's 
>neighbours want this war, or most of the world's population, but who is 
>going to stand up to US economic interests apart from Yemen, and France, 
>Germany, Chile, Angola, New Zealand, etc... By the way, you can read all of 
>this in the US establishment journal Foreign Affairs if you'd like to stay 
>up to date with the current debate.

Oh I stay up to date. Don't worry about that.

>>And do you think your last prediction is new? Do you remember the "war to 
>>end all wars"? Didn't, did it?
>
>Both my grandfathers fought in that war, they knew how utterly horrifying 
>industrialised human slaughter can be and would not have wished it on 
>anyone. The sooner world civilisation finally gets around to eradicating 
>war, famine and pestilence the better.

Agreed.

>We have the resources and intelligence to plan for it now, there's just no 
>political will for it in all of this pure machination. Plenty of global 
>public will though it seems. So all power to the they-self I say, cos it's 
>the only super power left that could possibly have an influence on the 
>overwhelming dominance of this present US administration.

I assume that you realize the misinterpretation of Heidegger involved in 
this ontic meaning of the "they-self," but I'll give you the benefit of the 
doubt and chalk it up to rhetoric.

>>So this is new? Only to those who have not learned from history.
>
>I think your historical insights are rather two dimensional Anthony, 
>history is written by the victors but if you dig a bit deeper nothing is 
>black and white,

Including the US supplying Hussein with WMD during the 80s and supporting 
Afghanistan? I have seen so many of these "nothing is black and white" 
arguments follow accusations which presume precisely this dichotomy!

Anthony Crifasi


_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE*  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail



     --- from list heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005