You Can Be A Leftist and Be For The Overthrow of Hussein

[subgenius]

Nat Hentoff
Why I Didn't March This Time
I participated in many demonstrations against the Vietnam War, including some civil disobedience—though I was careful not to catch the eyes of the cops, sometimes a way of not getting arrested. But I could not participate in the demonstrations against the war on Iraq. As I told The New York Sun in its March 14-16 roundup of New Yorkers for and against the war:

"There was the disclosure . . . when the prisons were briefly opened of the gouging of eyes of prisoners and the raping of women in front of their husbands, from whom the torturers wanted to extract information. . . . So if people want to talk about containing [Saddam Hussein] and don't want to go in forcefully and remove him, how do they propose doing something about the horrors he is inflicting on his people who live in such fear of him?"

I did not cite "weapons of mass destruction." Nor do I believe Saddam Hussein is a direct threat to this country, any more than the creators of the mass graves in the Balkans were, or the Taliban. And as has been evident for a long time, I am no admirer of George W. Bush.

The United Nations? Did the inspectors go into the prisons and the torture chambers? Would they have, if given more time? Did they interview the Mukhabarat, Saddam's dreaded secret police?
.....
http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0314/hentoff.php

I am for the mission, and the troops, if we remember why, how and who got us into this situation.
We have met the enemy and he is us.
Those that don't remember history are condemned to repeat it.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by subgenius
Nat Hentoff
Why I Didn't March This Time
I participated in many demonstrations against the Vietnam War, including some civil disobedience—though I was careful not to catch the eyes of the cops, sometimes a way of not getting arrested. But I could not participate in the demonstrations against the war on Iraq. As I told The New York Sun in its March 14-16 roundup of New Yorkers for and against the war:

"There was the disclosure . . . when the prisons were briefly opened of the gouging of eyes of prisoners and the raping of women in front of their husbands, from whom the torturers wanted to extract information. . . . So if people want to talk about containing [Saddam Hussein] and don't want to go in forcefully and remove him, how do they propose doing something about the horrors he is inflicting on his people who live in such fear of him?"

I did not cite "weapons of mass destruction." Nor do I believe Saddam Hussein is a direct threat to this country, any more than the creators of the mass graves in the Balkans were, or the Taliban. And as has been evident for a long time, I am no admirer of George W. Bush.

The United Nations? Did the inspectors go into the prisons and the torture chambers? Would they have, if given more time? Did they interview the Mukhabarat, Saddam's dreaded secret police?
.....
http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0314/hentoff.php

I am for the mission, and the troops, if we remember why, how and who got us into this situation.
We have met the enemy and he is us.
Those that don't remember history are condemned to repeat it.

I don't doubt that you are sincere in your concern for human rights. However, I do doubt that GWB and friends have this concern at the top of their list. As the war pans out, you do have to wonder that if the US was genuinley seen as having this as one of their real priorities, that the war may have had a much different course. The Iraqi people may have been welcoming the coming of the troops, rather than, as now appears to be happening, hardening against them.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


I don't doubt that you are sincere in your concern for human rights. However, I do doubt that GWB and friends have this concern at the top of their list. As the war pans out, you do have to wonder that if the US was genuinley seen as having this as one of their real priorities, that the war may have had a much different course. The Iraqi people may have been welcoming the coming of the troops, rather than, as now appears to be happening, hardening against them.
Didn't say that this was this administration's justification for the war.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by subgenius

Didn't say that this was this administration's justification for the war.

which is the problem, as they are the ones running it, not you.

[Lurker]

What does it matter if subgenius diagrees with the government's justification of the war and has one of his own? The end result is the same, support for the war.

Now, if you want to argue about after the war what Bush will focus on in a newly shaped Iraq I think the path of subgenius and Bush may diverge.

Lurker

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Lurker
What does it matter if subgenius diagrees with the government's justification of the war and has one of his own? The end result is the same, support for the war.

Now, if you want to argue about after the war what Bush will focus on in a newly shaped Iraq I think the path of subgenius and Bush may diverge.

Lurker

I would think that the means if very much a part of the end. A war that is not being fought for human rights may in fact be fought by different means and motivations than one fought for human rights.

[Mike B.]

Hey Subgenius,

There are some good articles in a recent "New Republic" that echo Hentoff. The magazine is center-left, but they support the war as a "liberal" war.

Also, Ann Clywd, a Labor Party MP gave a very convincing speech in favor of the war because she did go and see the torture chambers and the genocide against Kurds and "Marsh Arabs."

[Lurker]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


I would think that the means if very much a part of the end. A war that is not being fought for human rights may in fact be fought by different means and motivations than one fought for human rights.

If I have my own motivation for supporting the war that differs from Bush's that means I can still support the war, doesn't it? Or following your logic should I not do so?

Now, if you want to debate about what happens after the war - whether GWB will tend to his reasons for starting the war more than mine and perhaps my concerns even get left by the wayside, well that logic I would agree with. Otherwise, I respectfully disagree.

Lurker