Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Netizens-Digest Volume 1 Number 407
Netizens-Digest Thursday, October 10 2002 Volume 01 : Number 407
Netizens Association Discussion List Digest
In this issue:
Re: [netz] Only more democracy can save democracy
Re: [netz] Only more democracy can save democracy
Re: [netz] Only more democracy can save democracy
Re: [netz] Only more democracy can save democracy
Re: [netz] Only more democracy can save democracy
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 13:28:22 +0300 (EET DST)
From: tnu@chania.di.uoa.gr
Subject: Re: [netz] Only more democracy can save democracy
Date: 09.10.02
Sender: Jay Hauben
Time: 18:16
> I dunno whether it's intrinsically undemocratic for a sorta democratic
> state to bomb a distinctly undemocratic state with the purported hope of
> making it more democratic.
I think it is undemocratic.
AFAIK, democracy depends higly on freedom; freedom of thought, freedom of
speech and freedom of act. I can't understand how a bombing, no matter how
"humanistic" may be labeled, is able to give a country freedom. How? By
bombing the territory around the bad-bad-bad dictator without avoiding the
massive "collateral damages"? No, thanks.
Even if the mighty dictator gets finally vaporized, that just cannot be
overweighed by the loss of the non-combatant people. During the war
against Yugoslavia the smart bombs weren't *that* smart; in fact, I think
that a brick could outscore them in an IQ test. The formal excuses, such
as "We are sorry/We didn't want to bomb the school/Our maps were outdated"
were awfully ridiculous and most people are afraid of watching a new
version of the same "{inc,acc}idents" again.
> In general, if that were the main rationale for attacking Iraq, I
> suspect most folks (in the U.S. and elsewhere) would agree that it's a
> Bad Idea.
Well, I know that people in Europe (except some areas in UK, particularly
10 Downing Street in London) find that a new war is a Bad Idea. Perhaps,
these opinions aren't "broadcasted" in the US by the TV networks but that
doesn't mean that they do not exist. I am pretty sure all Netizens know of
them.
I live in Hellas (aka Greece), a small country that has been suffered from
wars, dictatorships and such things, and our DNA knows very well what war
means and how "good" or "humanistic" it can be. We are all strongly
against another show-off of the US military chiefs.
As far as it concerns the "global threat of Sadham" (or, a couple of years
earlier, Milosevich), we have never felt threatened by either of these two
guys, no matter how we totally disagree with their actions.
P.S : Sorry for the slightly off-topic post.
Regards,
tnu@chania.di.uoa.gr
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 09:19:39 -0400 (EDT)
From: jrh@ais.org (Jay Hauben)
Subject: Re: [netz] Only more democracy can save democracy
From: lindeman@bard.edu
Jay,
> > I dunno whether it's intrinsically undemocratic for a sorta democratic
> > state to bomb a distinctly undemocratic state with the purported hope of
> > making it more democratic.
>
> I think it is undemocratic.
>
> AFAIK, democracy depends higly on freedom; freedom of thought, freedom of
> speech and freedom of act. I can't understand how a bombing, no matter how
> "humanistic" may be labeled, is able to give a country freedom. How? By
> bombing the territory around the bad-bad-bad dictator without avoiding the
> massive "collateral damages"? No, thanks.
Actually, my mind wandered when I used the word "bomb" -- it was an awful
choice of words, and I'm glad that you have called me on it. Ronda's original
statement was, "There are also democratic theory considerations that say to
make a 'regime change' by an outside attack is a violation of any democratic
process." I think she's right to raise the issues of democratic theory, but
I'm not convinced that the conclusion here is always right. Analytically, I
suspect it's possible for an outside attack to enable people to claim greater
freedom. I think this is not just an analytical quibble. I've heard a fairly
persuasive argument that once the U.S. _stopped_ freely bombing Afghanistan and
put forces on the ground to go after Taliban power, the net effect of the U.S.
invasion was tangibly to increase the freedom of many people in Afghanistan.
I'm not sure that's wrong.
U.S. leaders have consistently exaggerated the ability of military force to
promote democratization. That isn't my intent. I do think that some arguments
against the war are more compelling than others.
> Even if the mighty dictator gets finally vaporized, that just cannot be
> overweighed by the loss of the non-combatant people. During the war
> against Yugoslavia the smart bombs weren't *that* smart; in fact, I think
> that a brick could outscore them in an IQ test. The formal excuses, such
> as "We are sorry/We didn't want to bomb the school/Our maps were outdated"
> were awfully ridiculous and most people are afraid of watching a new
> version of the same "{inc,acc}idents" again.
Yes. These attacks that kill more innocents than combatants can't be justified
by just war theory, democratic theory, or any theory I can think of.
> > In general, if that were the main rationale for attacking Iraq, I
> > suspect most folks (in the U.S. and elsewhere) would agree that it's a
> > Bad Idea.
>
> Well, I know that people in Europe (except some areas in UK, particularly
> 10 Downing Street in London) find that a new war is a Bad Idea. Perhaps,
> these opinions aren't "broadcasted" in the US by the TV networks but that
> doesn't mean that they do not exist. I am pretty sure all Netizens know of
> them.[...]
I have some reason to believe that the range of opinions in Europe is somewhat
more nuanced. Many Europeans would be willing to support multilateral military
action against the Iraqi regime as a last resort. Like many Americans
(certainly including me), they don't trust the Bush administration to honor
those qualifications.
Best,
Mark
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 09:31:42 -0400
From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@gettcomm.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] Only more democracy can save democracy
>Date: 09.10.02
>Sender: Jay Hauben
>Time: 18:16
>
>> I dunno whether it's intrinsically undemocratic for a sorta democratic
>> state to bomb a distinctly undemocratic state with the purported hope of
>> making it more democratic.
>
>I think it is undemocratic.
>
>AFAIK, democracy depends higly on freedom; freedom of thought, freedom of
>speech and freedom of act. I can't understand how a bombing, no matter how
>"humanistic" may be labeled, is able to give a country freedom. How? By
>bombing the territory around the bad-bad-bad dictator without avoiding the
>massive "collateral damages"? No, thanks.
Let's take some historic examples. During the German occupation of
Holland and Denmark, we can safely say there was little democracy.
The Resistance movements of both countries asked that certain Gestapo
offices, in the central city, be bombed, accepting there would be
collateral damage. The French asked that Amiens Prison be bombed,
accepting some deaths, in the interest of giving an escape
possibility to some. While there was no significant resistance in
Japan, there was literally was a "Thought Police."
If the offices of such organizations are bombed, does that increase
or decrease democracy?
Similarly, putting aside the WMD issue, what about attacks on the
Iraqi secret police, domestic intelligence, etc.
>
>Even if the mighty dictator gets finally vaporized, that just cannot be
>overweighed by the loss of the non-combatant people. During the war
>against Yugoslavia the smart bombs weren't *that* smart; in fact, I think
>that a brick could outscore them in an IQ test.
Maybe not a brick, but certainly "smart bombs" are quite stupid when
contrasted to intelligent humans. They are, however, very obedient to
human orders. Most "friendly fire" incidents took place because
people erred in target identification or aiming, not bomb malfunction.
>The formal excuses, such
>as "We are sorry/We didn't want to bomb the school/Our maps were outdated"
>were awfully ridiculous and most people are afraid of watching a new
>version of the same "{inc,acc}idents" again.
>
>
>> In general, if that were the main rationale for attacking Iraq, I
>> suspect most folks (in the U.S. and elsewhere) would agree that it's a
>> Bad Idea.
>
>Well, I know that people in Europe (except some areas in UK, particularly
>10 Downing Street in London) find that a new war is a Bad Idea.
The question arises -- how are we all defining "war"?
>Perhaps,
>these opinions aren't "broadcasted" in the US by the TV networks but that
>doesn't mean that they do not exist. I am pretty sure all Netizens know of
>them.
>
>I live in Hellas (aka Greece), a small country that has been suffered from
>wars, dictatorships and such things, and our DNA knows very well what war
>means and how "good" or "humanistic" it can be. We are all strongly
>against another show-off of the US military chiefs.
Seriously, what do you mean by the US military chiefs? Historically,
the military leadership proper has been rather reluctant to use force.
>
>As far as it concerns the "global threat of Sadham" (or, a couple of years
>earlier, Milosevich), we have never felt threatened by either of these two
>guys, no matter how we totally disagree with their actions.
I agree that the threat of Saddam may be overrated, and regime change
is something best done under UN authority. Nevertheless, the WMD
targets are largely in isolated areas where there would be little
collateral damage. Saddam has deliberately placed other targets in
cultural landmarks or populated areas.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 18:29:35 +0300 (EET DST)
From: tnu@chania.di.uoa.gr
Subject: Re: [netz] Only more democracy can save democracy
Date: 10.10.02
Sender: Howard C. Berkowitz
Time: 09:31
> Let's take some historic examples. During the German occupation of
> Holland and Denmark, we can safely say there was little democracy. The
> Resistance movements of both countries asked that certain Gestapo
> offices, in the central city, be bombed, accepting there would be
> collateral damage. The French asked that Amiens Prison be bombed,
> accepting some deaths, in the interest of giving an escape possibility
> to some.
True. During WW2 there were also some similar attacks here by members of
the Hellenic Resistance. But I think that it was a totally different
situation: We were fighting to throw Nazis away from our homes, to re-gain
our independence. Do you think that if the Americans (or the Russians)
were bombing Athens and killed children in hospitals and schools (even
"collaterally"), then our people would thank them or be friendly against
them? I have strong doubts on this and I think I am not the only one who
has.
[ I am not extremely familliar with what happenned in Holland or in
Denmark but I guess things were kinda similar. ]
> If the offices of such organizations are bombed, does that increase
> or decrease democracy?
IMO, there isn't an answer to this question. Democracy is an
"after-effect" of these wars. Anyway, I consider it sacrilege to bomb and
kill in the name of Democracy and Freedom [ And I am referring to today's
meanings of these two words ].
> Similarly, putting aside the WMD issue, what about attacks on the
> Iraqi secret police, domestic intelligence, etc.
Although I hate war, I realise that there are some critical
buildings/agencies that have to be destroyed in order to win a battle.
> Maybe not a brick, but certainly "smart bombs" are quite stupid when
> contrasted to intelligent humans. They are, however, very obedient to
> human orders. Most "friendly fire" incidents took place because
> people erred in target identification or aiming, not bomb malfunction.
That was my point. The bombs possibly were "smart" but the people who
aimed them were either stupid or were just plain-brutal killers. In any
case, judging by the result the "humanistic" effect of these bombs was
rather "slightly tragic".
> The question arises -- how are we all defining "war"?
For me, WW2 was a "war", the French-English war was a "war" and so on. I
don't actually call war the US attacks against various countries that are
governed by military dictatorships.
> >I live in Hellas (aka Greece), a small country that has been suffered from
> >wars, dictatorships and such things, and our DNA knows very well what war
> >means and how "good" or "humanistic" it can be. We are all strongly
> >against another show-off of the US military chiefs.
>
> Seriously, what do you mean by the US military chiefs? Historically,
> the military leadership proper has been rather reluctant to use force.
I was referring generally to the people who decide that they have to
attack various places for their purposes. That doesn't necessary mean
that *all* US military chiefs want war and they live just to play with
their highly destructive "toys". I am sure that there are some people who
realise that a war/attack isn't just hitting a couple of buttons, saying
some "Sorry"s and keep living. It's just that they can't be heard or at
least, they can't make the rest of the chiefs think in the same way.
I am not into conspiracy theories (at least, not except some weekends when
I want to smile a bit) but I don't think that the sole purpose of an
attack against a country is just to establish democracy there. An attack,
especially if it's covered (the way that it's usually covered) by the
large media, serves a lot more purposes than just to free people from a
(more or less) paranoid government. One of those purposes is to take an
actual "test-drive" for the newly manufactured weapons.
If the US wants to free the world and give people chances to a localised
version of the American Dream, it's better to start from several "taboo"
areas (namely, Israel-Palestine, Africa, East Asia etc). And that kind of
interference doesn't need to have military colors.
> I agree that the threat of Saddam may be overrated, and regime change is
> something best done under UN authority. Nevertheless, the WMD targets
> are largely in isolated areas where there would be little collateral
> damage. Saddam has deliberately placed other targets in cultural
> landmarks or populated areas.
That is a well-known tactic. But I don't think that Saddam will even just
think of attacking any place nearby, since he understands (though he
barely moves) that after doing something like that, Iraq will be just soil
and rocks.
Regards,
tnu@chania.di.uoa.gr
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 15:54:49 -0400
From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@gettcomm.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] Only more democracy can save democracy
>Date: 10.10.02
>Sender: Howard C. Berkowitz
>Time: 09:31
>
>> Let's take some historic examples. During the German occupation of
>> Holland and Denmark, we can safely say there was little democracy. The
>> Resistance movements of both countries asked that certain Gestapo
>> offices, in the central city, be bombed, accepting there would be
>> collateral damage. The French asked that Amiens Prison be bombed,
>> accepting some deaths, in the interest of giving an escape possibility
>> to some.
>
>True. During WW2 there were also some similar attacks here by members of
>the Hellenic Resistance. But I think that it was a totally different
>situation: We were fighting to throw Nazis away from our homes, to re-gain
>our independence.
Let me put out what is semi-hypothetical, and indeed based on the
Afghanistan experience. In Afghanistan, the coalition's first
airstrikes were against air defense and command & control. Only after
fighters and missiles were no longer a threat could armed
helicopters, AC-130s, and even B-52s act in direct support of the
Northern Alliance, etc.
Now, let's assume the very controversial position that the US wants
to support the Kurdish resistance -- and there is one -- in northern
Iraq. Doctrine would again call for eliminating air defense and Iraqi
C3I, and then move to direct support. NO act of warfare has perfect
accuracy; you can be as dead from a poorly aimed rifle shot as from a
misdirected 2000 pound guided bomb. Let's say human or electronic
error wipes out a Kurdish forward hospital close to the front lines,
but also opens a gap through which the Resistance can attack.
Not a very clear situation, is it?
>Do you think that if the Americans (or the Russians)
>were bombing Athens and killed children in hospitals and schools (even
>"collaterally"), then our people would thank them or be friendly against
>them? I have strong doubts on this and I think I am not the only one who
>has.
>
>[ I am not extremely familliar with what happenned in Holland or in
> Denmark but I guess things were kinda similar. ]
I'm most familiar with the Copenhagen raid, which was carried out by
the British. One of the bombers was hit and crashed into a Catholic
school, killing dozens. The nuns of that school subsequently welcomed
the bomber pilots and prayed for them, in recognition of a greater
good being served.
>
>
>> If the offices of such organizations are bombed, does that increase
>> or decrease democracy?
>
>IMO, there isn't an answer to this question. Democracy is an
>"after-effect" of these wars. Anyway, I consider it sacrilege to bomb and
>kill in the name of Democracy and Freedom [ And I am referring to today's
>meanings of these two words ].
I'm missing who is advocating this as the primary motivation.
>
>
>> Similarly, putting aside the WMD issue, what about attacks on the
>> Iraqi secret police, domestic intelligence, etc.
>
>Although I hate war, I realise that there are some critical
>buildings/agencies that have to be destroyed in order to win a battle.
>
>
>> Maybe not a brick, but certainly "smart bombs" are quite stupid when
>> contrasted to intelligent humans. They are, however, very obedient to
>> human orders. Most "friendly fire" incidents took place because
>> people erred in target identification or aiming, not bomb malfunction.
>
>That was my point. The bombs possibly were "smart" but the people who
>aimed them were either stupid or were just plain-brutal killers. In any
>case, judging by the result the "humanistic" effect of these bombs was
>rather "slightly tragic".
>
>
>> The question arises -- how are we all defining "war"?
>
>For me, WW2 was a "war", the French-English war was a "war"
ummmm....which one? :-)
> and so on. I
>don't actually call war the US attacks against various countries that are
>governed by military dictatorships.
Serious question: what should be done by the world community to/for
dictatorships that cannot be overthrown internally, and are
committing atrocities on their own citizens? Let's take a place
where there are no conflicting issues of oil resources or of balance
of power, such as Rwanda?
>
>
>> >I live in Hellas (aka Greece), a small country that has been suffered from
>> >wars, dictatorships and such things, and our DNA knows very well what war
>> >means and how "good" or "humanistic" it can be. We are all strongly
>> >against another show-off of the US military chiefs.
>>
>> Seriously, what do you mean by the US military chiefs? Historically,
>> the military leadership proper has been rather reluctant to use force.
>
>I was referring generally to the people who decide that they have to
>attack various places for their purposes. That doesn't necessary mean
>that *all* US military chiefs want war and they live just to play with
>their highly destructive "toys". I am sure that there are some people who
>realise that a war/attack isn't just hitting a couple of buttons, saying
>some "Sorry"s and keep living. It's just that they can't be heard or at
>least, they can't make the rest of the chiefs think in the same way.
>
>I am not into conspiracy theories (at least, not except some weekends when
>I want to smile a bit) but I don't think that the sole purpose of an
>attack against a country is just to establish democracy there.
I don't see anyone in the Bush administration proposing that as the
principal motivation for attack. I see the attack being justified
(and I don't necessarily agree with it) to eliminate a threat from
weapons of mass destruction.
When I read the Pentagon Papers, the most cynical but realistic memo
I saw was from then Assistant Secretary of Defense (International
Security Affairs) McNaughton to Secretary of Defense MacNamara. It
cited the reasons for the US to be in Viet Nam:
70% to protect the reputation of the US as a [treaty] guarantor
20% to limit the spread of Communism
10% to improve the well-being of the South Vietnamese people.
>An attack,
>especially if it's covered (the way that it's usually covered) by the
>large media, serves a lot more purposes than just to free people from a
>(more or less) paranoid government. One of those purposes is to take an
>actual "test-drive" for the newly manufactured weapons.
Test driving, without question, was present in the Spanish Civil War
and elsewhere. Engineering test techniques have evolved to a point
where there can be reasonable certainty that something will work in
combat. Not perfectly -- no plan survives contact with the enemy.
>
>If the US wants to free the world and give people chances to a localised
>version of the American Dream, it's better to start from several "taboo"
>areas (namely, Israel-Palestine, Africa, East Asia etc). And that kind of
>interference doesn't need to have military colors.
But I'm not sure I see the US acting for those reasons. It's acting
more unilaterally for its own benefit, which I won't necessarily
condemn. I absolutely agree that the Palestinian situation must be
resolved, and I'm not happy with all of Israel's actions. For that
matter, the Kurdish situation is as or more complex.
>
>
>> I agree that the threat of Saddam may be overrated, and regime change is
>> something best done under UN authority. Nevertheless, the WMD targets
>> are largely in isolated areas where there would be little collateral
>> damage. Saddam has deliberately placed other targets in cultural
>> landmarks or populated areas.
>
>That is a well-known tactic. But I don't think that Saddam will even just
>think of attacking any place nearby, since he understands (though he
>barely moves) that after doing something like that, Iraq will be just soil
>and rocks.
It's very hard to predict Saddam. I think his primary motivation is
survival, and then power, first in Iraq and then regionally.
I can think of very few plausible scenarios where he would give WMD
to terrorists, except possibly as a final deterrent to attacks on
Iraq. I would see his likeliest use would be against Israel to start
a regional war, and next likeliest against invasion forces
------------------------------
End of Netizens-Digest V1 #407
******************************
