Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!psuvax1!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!ncar!ncar.ucar.EDU!gary
From: gary@ncar.ucar.EDU (Gary Strand)
Newsgroups: trial.talk.politics.peace
Subject: Re: Peace?
Message-ID: <10271@ncar.ucar.edu>
Date: 12 Feb 91 21:28:03 GMT
References: <58120@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU> <2247@njitgw.njit.edu> <10211@ncar.ucar.edu> <1991Feb7.181854.26365@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu>
Sender: news@ncar.ucar.edu
Reply-To: strandwg@ncar.ucar.edu (Gary Strand)
Distribution: na
Organization: Climate Sensitivity and CO2 Research Group, CGD/NCAR
Lines: 59

>  Tom West
>> Gary Strand

   This conflict exists for three reasons:
   1. Keep Western control over the world oil supply. 
   2. To Clean up a NATO foreign policy mess
   3. To secure a U.S. Presence in the region. 

>> And these are the *only* three reasons, all others being mere rationaliza-
>> tions, eh?

> Much as many people would like to think otherwise, I fear 'tis so.

  The threat to Saudi Arabia, Israel and so on count for nothing? The record
  of Saddam in dealing with his neighbors and his own people doesn't matter?
  There is much more to the current conflict than blaming it all on the US
  and/or the West and/or NATO. Saddam himself actually carries the largest
  share of blame, because if he had withdrawn before the deadline, we would
  not be at war, probably. The final choice was left to him, and he made the
  wrong choice. 

> There are a number of far worse situations that the U.S.A. has seen fit to
> ignore completely, such as the occupation and subsequent attempt at
> genocide of East Timor.

  Suppose we had entered into that episode and done the right thing. Does that
  mean that you personally would approve of the US' actions now? I doubt it,
  so the whole issue of what we did and didn't do in the past doesn't affect
  your current political views. It's a red herring/strawman.

> This isn't to say that the U.N. intervention in Kuwait wasn't deserved.
> But to claim that the U.S. is fighting for peace and freedom and only
> coincidentally fullfilling the above three notions while ignoring the rest
> of the world's injustices (which coincidentally don't have any U.S.
> strategic value) is to demonstrate astonishing naivete.

  I'm not saying that the US doesn't have other interests involved. But to 
  claim that the *only* US interests are the "lower" ones is erroneous too.

  The whole point is that sometimes "peace", "justice", and "freedom" can
  conflict. If we wanted nothing but peace, then the Kuwaiti people would be
  suffering great injustices and have no freedom whatsoever. Similar claims
  can be made for many other situations in history. I for one do not hold
  "peace" per se as the highest possible value, because many peaceful places
  are some of the worst places that have ever existed, like the camps and the
  Gulag.

> It's a little bit disturbing to see how many people have taken the gov't
> line hook line and sinker.  I used to think that this might be the right
> war for the wrong reasons.  Now I wonder.

  It's also disturbing to see people reduce criticism to simple slogans that
  deny the complex underpinnings of the whole issue. There's much more to it
  than "No Blood For Oil", even though that makes a good soundbite. Perhaps
  a little skepticism toward *both* sides is in order.
-- 
Gary Strand                           There is only one success -- to be able
Internet: strandwg@ncar.ucar.edu      to spend your life in your own way.
Voicenet: (303) 497-1336                                 - Christopher Morley