From dartvax!cabot!harelb Fri Feb 1 21:45:54 EST 1991 Article 8192 of alt.activism: Xref: dartvax alt.activism:8192 talk.politics.misc:52471 talk.politics.theory:6316 Newsgroups: alt.activism,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.theory Path: dartvax!cabot!harelb >From: harelb@cabot.dartmouth.edu (Harel Barzilai) Subject: Is protesting one atrocity supporting the others? Message-ID: <1991Feb2.021133.18470@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> Sender: news@dartvax.dartmouth.edu (The News Manager) Reply-To: harelb@cabot (Harel Barzilai) Organization: Dartmouth College References: <1991Jan31.220823@IASTATE.EDU> Date: Sat, 2 Feb 1991 02:11:33 GMT Lines: 131 That's what the war-ists have been selling since the beginning of time But the question is posed: In article <1991Jan31.220823@IASTATE.EDU> n1jkn@IASTATE.EDU (Ness Joel Kevin) writes: >Why doesn't the same group of people that protest about the attrocities >commited in El Salvador, to the Palestinians, etc., protest on the rape, >torture, and murdering of the people of Kuwait by Saddam Hussein >and his cronies. For one thing: [clearly I can only speak for myself, but "we":] What we are opposing, is Bush's war, Which has been and will be killing many, many, many, many more people than the number of people killed by Saddam; *however* if the number were not much greater, I should add, I would be still vehemantly against an action by the U.S. that would mean killing, say, the same number of people Saddam's invasion has been and is killing; this point vastly simplifies the reasons many of us oppose this war, but it begins to answer the question. Another thing, We are not Iraqis living in Iraq; we are U.S. citizens in a (reasonably) democratic country. I try to work within that democratic space to stop policies which are wrong. If I were an Iraqi, I would have to face the choice of trying to affect change within the far, far narrower space available there, thus risking my life (as, for example, the Salvadorans you mentions have been, earning the title of "communists" from those in Washington who prefer the status quo), or to join armed resistance, or to put my life above my principles, for example. You can be sure that had bush decided to join Saddam and support Saddam's invasion, against the "undemocratic monarchy" which "stole oil and land" from "moderate Iraq," joining directly or indirectly in the killing of Kuwaitees, the far-left and I would have bene protesting that very loudly too. The consistency of these two position are so transparent that only within the established framework wherein opposing your government's action makes you suspect of supporting the official enemy can one miss it. These two positions are in turn consistant with having been opposed to Bush's support of Saddam, and Reagan's, for years; true, many where too busy protesting issues like administration support for the death-squad government of El Salvador, where U.S. hands were more closely and intimately involved with slaughter of human beings to make very much noise --never mind enough for the mainstream media; but I for one recall conversations with "mainstream" folks back when Iran was the Official Enemy, stating the U.S. gov't had no business supporting Iraq, which was in many ways as brutal and undemocratic as Iran; this elliticted incredulity since, of course, the massacring of Kurds and other Iraqi atrocities where not publicized the way they are today, Saddam having been Hilterized by our Great Leader Bush; they even dismissed my pointing out that Iraq started the war; how could they be so blind, one had to wonder, not to see that every counter argument given was only for the purpose or supporting what was at the time Washington's policy and Washington's official Line about the Goodguys (relatively) and Badguys of the world? (The same things goes on today, with different Official Enemies/Hilters/Devils...) More crucially, one was attacked as being a supporter of the Ayatollah for making such a critique (saying the government should be promoting peace and not supporting both sides of the war.) Similarly, making the case that the attack on "Kadafi" (actually killing many civilians, including Kadafi's baby daughter, and made largely for U.S. domestic consumption) had little to do with concern over terrorist --never mind the issue of Washington's support of state terror in Central American and elsewhere-- and would do little to curb terrorism, if not enflame it, these where "support for Kadafi" Similarly, pointing out that taking our Noriga would not help curb drugs --never mind the issues of international law and whether even good ends justify the means which include killing hundreds of Panamanians who were not asked what they thought about sacrificing their lives for this wonderful policy-- or pointing out that Bush, former CIA director, knew, as did the rest of the butchers in Washington, of Noriega's drug dealing and human rights records, and supported him, nay, had him on the CIA payroll, becuase he was useful for other dirty deeds the CIA was interested in, including the training of contras, illegal in Canal territory, not to mention US and international law, who would go and murder teachers and health care workers and literacy volunteers and Nicaraguan peasants who wanted to work with the Sandinista government to promote impressive positive social change (ref.s available), to blow up hospitals built by the Sandinistas, etc; all of this was ""Noriaga loving" etc, etc. *** *** *** Has anyone else noticed that when you read the right-wing statements alleging peacenik "double standard" so often amount to an admission that Bush is Indeed morally on the level of Saddam , a statement I wholeheartedly agree with; a-la "oh yeah, well BUsh did't start the war; Saddam attacked Kuwait!" Saddam is a bastard, that we are allowed to understand in polite mainstream thought, but since criticism of "The Holy State" (beyond "mistakes") falls outside this range, Bush is not supposed to be a bastard when he "resorts" to "war" --mass-slaughter again, only on a grander scale befitting a super-power and its war "toys"-- to solve the problem which started when Saddam, the bastard, resorved to this same type of violence to resolve what troubled him. Of course, this entirely neglects the issue that Bush *wanting* the war with Iraq, which deserves separate analysis for some other time. >Keep it up!!! Saddam Hussein thanks you for your support!!! How many times does one have to point out that opposing slaughter by "one side" is not the same as supporting slaughter by the "other side"; Is it not clear that protesting both atrocities, but *especially* fighting agaist atrocities supported by *your* government, where you have say and, resumably, responsibility, is the moral stance, and is exactly the stance which *both* sides' demagogues could decry as "Keep it up! Support !!" Is it not perfectly obvious that the radical/peacenik in Iraq (who, granted, may not live long, but is not relevant to the point), protesting against Iraqi soldiers' human rights abuses, would be accused by the same type of right-wing natinalist jingoists as "Keep it up!!! Bush's B-52 Bomber pilots, mass-murderers of thousands, tens of thousands, thank you for your support!!!" Is there any need to justify the assertion that this is exactly what would happen, what no doubt is happening in Iraq in some form? (to be continued)