|
U-Know! Forum » Chomsky on Iraq |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
|
YerArseInParsley 365 posts |
Oct 17, 2002, 11:12
|
||
|
Liberal isn't a derogatory term except in ultra right wing societys Ant. ( US citizen by any chance ?) Chomsky isn't a conspiracy theorist, which is a pretty meaningless term of abuse anyway - or do you not believe the hijackers 'conspired' to attack the WTC, did they all just act out a sudden urge ? And as for paranoid, well look in the mirror.
|
|||
grufty jim 1978 posts |
Oct 17, 2002, 11:49
|
||
|
No one died as a consequence of the last blockade because it was called off in time (not because the oil companies got cuddly). However i do recall watching interviews with doctors saying that hospitals were finding it more and more difficult to do an efficient job with many of their staff having transportation problems. Now that could have been anti-protester propaganda at the time - but the issue is a real one. A fuel depot protest ultimately hurts the most needy in society long before it starts to hurt those in power. That's what i believe is crap about the tactic. That's why i had such a problem with the fuel protesters last time (aside from their politics). Scuppering society because it's about to wage war is only (in my opinion) legitimate if you're not an active part of that society. As i said before - you can't solve a problem until you cease being the root cause of it. And again; "scuppering society" always does most harm to those who depend most upon its infrastructure. How much more suffering will be inflicted upon inner-city tower blocks in the event of energy shortages than upon industry fat cats in country estates? Who can least afford increases in heating bills? Nah, still don't see blockading fuel depots as a legitimate tactic, myself, but what do i know?
|
|||
|
grufty jim 1978 posts |
Oct 17, 2002, 11:59
|
||
|
i could be way off the mark here (in which case, i apologise); but i think you may be thinking of oil as a commodity / product like most others, instead of as an essential resource. As an analogy; if the water companies in this country were discovered to be directly involved economically in the upcoming war (rather than merely indirectly), would you find it acceptable to protest by cutting off the water supply to the nation?
|
|||
|
YerArseInParsley 365 posts |
Oct 17, 2002, 12:10
|
||
|
Yes, I'd cut off the water if that was the case, realising full well that would lead to innocent deaths, if that was the only way to stop our nation inflicting civilian deaths in an unjust war. However, no deaths are necessary. The media scare stories last blockade were just scare stories. A blockade can be politically successful over a very short period and oil tankers can be negotiated through as they were previously. To use another metaphor, would you consider it immoral for sabateurs to attack any essential resource inside Nazi Germany during the war - knowing full well that it would lead to German deaths ? Is it more moral to stand back and watch the civilians of Bagdhad get pummeled into submission - due to the dangers of urban warfare that has been the standard method of taking a city for the past 60 years, bombard it until it surrenders. Even indirect violence such as cutting off essential resources is to be fought against, but in a violent situation I believe using minimum force to end that violence is legitamate.
|
|||
|
grufty jim 1978 posts |
Oct 17, 2002, 12:25
|
||
|
> To use another metaphor, would you consider > it immoral for sabateurs to attack any essential > resource inside Nazi Germany during the war - > knowing full well that it would lead to German > deaths ? > That's an interesting question, and i'd have to answer "No" to it, if the *primary* effect of the sabotage was to hurt innocent German civilians (and yes, that sparks off a whole debate about the concept of "innocence" in a nation with Death Camps - but that's a separate discussion, though perhaps a relevant one). Y'see, my main problem with the attack on Iraq is that it will result in the deaths of many innocent Iraqis. Obvious really. That's got to be the first objection, and abstract geopolitical ideas like economic imperialism and cultural colonialism have to come after that first objection. Individuals in the USA and UK have no right to make life or death decisions about thousands of people in Iraq. Simple. Straightforward. Ethically black and white in an area usually dominated by shades of grey. Any protest that resulted in the death of people would be unacceptable to me under the same criteria. I don't believe i have any more right to make life and death decisions than Tony Blair, Dick Cheney or Dubya Bush. By being prepared to take a life to make your point, you are either claiming to have that right, or that it doesn't matter that you don't. Fair enough. That's where you see yourself. I just don't feel confident enough in my own infallibility and righteousness to make that sort of permanent decision about other people's lives. Indeed, it is my opinion that one of the reasons the world is going down the toilet is because too many people, corporations and organisations have got it into their heads that they *do* have the right to make those decisions about the lives of others. This war needs to be stopped if at all possible. Punishing the people of the countries waging it, when it is their government's who are to blame is like bombing Baghdad because Iraq has a bad government... oooh full circle!
|
|||
|
YerArseInParsley 365 posts |
Oct 17, 2002, 12:37
|
||
|
Gandhi said Nazism could have been beaten through non violent means, although he admitted the casualty rate would have been enormous. I think the fight against fascism should have been fought, and fought earlier to keep the casualty rate low. I am not proposing an action that will certainly lead to civilian deaths, but neither can I sit back and live my life by pacifist example when the cluster bombs start falling. If someone went berserk with a gun on my street and started killing my neighbours, I would be prepared to kill him and I would be prepared the risk the lives of my flatmates to achieve this if there was no other way non fatal. For me, nationality isn't important, innocent civilian deaths must be minimised using minimum force. If you suggest a strategy as peaceful and effective as mine in the short term, then I'll change my mind.
|
|||
|
YerArseInParsley 365 posts |
Oct 17, 2002, 12:39
|
||
If a Jew assasinated Hitler in '43, would that make him as bad as Hitler ? Full circle implies that. Sometimes you start fires to fight fires, its not the method but the intent and the effect that is important to me.
|
|||
|
grufty jim 1978 posts |
Oct 17, 2002, 12:52
|
||
|
Firstly, the analogy of the berserk loony with the gun isn't really fair. To kill a direct threat to yourself and your loved ones is a biological imperative and goes beyond ethical discussion (in my opinion). You ask me to propose an alternative plan, and (aside from the long term strategies i mentioned before - ending our dependence upon oil) i just don't have one. Our entire society is fueled by a resource that is getting scarcer and scarcer. the remaining large concentrations of the stuff are in the Middle East. Wars are going to be fought over it. Get used to that fact. The *only* thing that will prevent those wars is a major drop in demand for that oil. [In My Opinion - as always - and i want to stress that] Human beings will go to war over who controls essential resources - always have done, and i don't see that trait evolving out of us very soon. So long as we *need* that oil to survive, our government will go to war over it. It's their job to protect society after all. I honestly believe that fuel depot blockades would ultimately be counter-productive. Certainly such tactics would do no long-term harm to the oil industry (seriously, it wouldn't hurt Exxon or BP or Shell except perhaps very slightly in the short term). Blockades would damage the government alright (if they were effective), however i believe that form of damage would transfer a lot of political capital to the Tories (for a bunch of reasons). You propose a short-term course of action that would had dubious practical effectiveness, potentially large negative fall-out and insist that it is the right course of action because no other short-term strategy is being proposed. Perhaps that's because there is no *short-term* solution to the problems we face regarding global energy resources. Fuel depot blockades are the mirror-image of invading Iraq - an aspirin instead of the required triple-bypass surgery. Ineffective short-termism only serves to distract from the vital, and ignored, point... the only effective strategies are long-term.
|
|||
|
grufty jim 1978 posts |
Oct 17, 2002, 12:57
|
||
|
Nope. That's not full-circle at all. If a jew assassinated Hitler in 1943 she would be remembered, rightly, as a heroic figure. Had she done it in 1939, then the jury would probably be still out on it - and the holocaust may well not have happened (though anti-semitism wouldn't have "final solution" connotations historically and someone else might have used Jewish society as a scape-goat a few years later - who knows?). Had that same jew killed Hitler in 1918, say... now then you have a simple case of murder with the jew rightly being condemned for an unprovoked act of violence that took the life of a young man with his whole future ahead of him. We have neither time-machines, nor accurate precognition, so the question is entirely moot.
|
|||
|
YerArseInParsley 365 posts |
Oct 17, 2002, 13:16
|
||
In this analogy our newpapers are own time machines. From an Iraqi civilians point of view, this isn't 1918 or 1936, this is well into the period of unjustifiable mass casualties, which is why i chose 1943.
|
| Pages: 6 – [ Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 6 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| U-Know! Forum Index | |
