[Peace-discuss] Re: discussion (fwd)

[C. G. Estabrook]

[Gentles: I sent the DI a copy of the flyer that I distributed (or tried
to) to counter-demonstrators last Saturday; I got several responses.
Here's my answer to one.  Comments welcome.  --Carl]


You write in response to my "article" in the DI, by which I presume you
mean the letter to the editor that appeared Tuesday, in which informal
discussions were proposed between the anti-war people who have been
demonstrating on Prospect Avenue this winter and the recent group of
counter-demonstrators.

Of course you're joking when you write, "more conservative people are
rarely printed in the liberal press," especially if you mean by
"conservative" pro-war.  I'm in fact not quite sure what it means to call
the DI "liberal"; of course many people who call themselves liberal aren't
anti-war (and conversely).

"Conservative" opinion surely hasn't been excluded from the DI -- in fact
the DI has gotten heat recently for being too inclusive -- e.g., racist
ads against Palestinians and racist letters against Jews.  And you can
hardly deny that what we call conservative views and pro-war positions are
pushed relentlessly by the News-Gazette.

You write, "I was the one leading this big rally of supporters."  I
thought it was organized by a man named Thompson, whose business' parking
lot was being used to organize the counter-demonstration.  I do understand
that you were using a microphone and a sound system set up in that parking
lot last Saturday, and I suppose that, if you really wanted to promote
your positions, you'd invite the anti-war demonstrators to discuss matters
with you.  Of course you think you and your friends hold logically
consistent positions, but I'm sure you don't think that you're the only
reasonable people around.

You say, "I have asked them to remain unconfrontational.  Their
unwillingness to read your literature is therefore understandable."  I
can't agree.  You also assert that I'm not telling the truth when I say
that I want to promote discussion, but I assure you I am.  You're wrong
when you say to me, "You aren't looking for a discussion, you are looking
for an opportunity to insult someone and express your hatred for the
American government."  Instead, I'm looking for opportunities to convince
people that the country we both love is committing a terrible crime.

I gather you are accepting my invitation for a discussion when you write,
"I will be happy to go one on one with you anytime of the year regarding
my respect for My country and if you would like to 'discuss' this with
someone representing the American supporters, I will be happy to
represent."  Where and when will be convenient for you?  You'd be welcome
at my house this Thursday at 7pm, if you wish.

You ask for "a list of 10 questions by tomorrow and I will openly address
them on Saturday in front of hundreds of people."  I've appended questions
(a dozen, in fact) drawn from a recent comment by Noam Chomsky, who
concludes, "The potential disasters [of this war] are among the many
reasons why decent human beings do not contemplate the threat or use of
violence, whether in personal life or international affairs, unless
reasons have been offered that have overwhelming force.  And surely
nothing remotely like that justification has come forward."

Why don't we both "openly address [these questions] on Saturday in front
of hundreds of people"?

Regards, Carl Estabrook

*************

[1] At the very beginning of the United States (in the Declaration of
Independence) stands "a decent respect to the opinions of mankind."  But
much of the rest of mankind thinks that the most powerful state in history
has proclaimed that it intends to control the world by force and is
demonstrating its intention by invading Iraq.  Many Americans meanwhile
think that the US is doing a necessary and even noble thing.  Given that
the US spends one-sixth of its GDP each year to convince the American
populace that its ways are right ("PR"/"marketing"), who is more likely to
be correct?

[2] Much of the rest of the world thinks that President Bush and his
cohorts believe that the means of violence in their hands are so
extraordinary that they can dismiss anyone who stands in their way, and so
have swept aside the United Nations, international law, and even the
advice of allies, in their determination to attack and occupy Iraq.  
Again, who's right?

[3] Many think that the consequences could be catastrophic not just for
Iraq but around the world, that the United States may reap a whirlwind of
terrorist retaliation -- and step up the possibility of nuclear
Armageddon.  Even the CIA warned of these possibilities last fall.  Can
they be easily dismissed?

[4] Can you deny that at least one of the reasons for which the US
undertakes this war is to expand its control over Persian Gulf resources
and to establish long-term military bases to impose a preferred form of
order in the region?

[5] Haven't the Bush administration's dealings with Iraq and North Korea
taught the world a dangerous lesson -- namely, if you want to avoid being
attacked by the US, you had better mimic North Korea and pose a credible
threat, rather than give up your weapons of mass destruction?

[6] Why is it that only Americans believe that if we do not stop Saddam
Hussein today he will destroy us tomorrow?  Could it be an example of what
Senator Arthur Vandenberg said to President Truman, 50 years ago, that to
convince the American people to launch a crusade of military intervention
against weak countries, "You have to scare hell out of them"?

[7] Last October, when Congress granted the president the authority to go
to war, it was "to defend the national security of the United States
against the continuing threat posed by Iraq"; but why is it that no
country in Iraq's neighborhood seems overly concerned about Saddam, much
as they may hate the murderous tyrant?  Is it because the threat doesn't
exist -- Iraq being one of the weakest states in the region, its economy
and military expenditures a fraction of some of its neighbors'?

[8] Isn't it true that Saddam benefited from U.S. support through the war
with Iran and beyond, up to the day of the invasion of Kuwait, and those
responsible in the USG are largely back in charge in Washington today?  
Didn't President Ronald Reagan and the previous Bush administration
provide aid to Saddam, along with the means to develop weapons of mass
destruction, back when he was far more dangerous than he is now, and had
already committed his worst crimes, like murdering thousands of Kurds with
poison gas?

[9] The sanctions and US attacks have clearly rallied the Iraqi people to
Saddam and built support for him (as 911 built support for George Bush),
and an end to Saddam's rule would lift a horrible burden from the people
of Iraq, so isn't the best way to accomplish that to copy the
circumstances that brought down, say, Nicolae Ceausescu and other vicious
tyrants -- Marcos, Suharto ("our kind of guy," said the Clinton people),
Duvalier, Mobutu -- all supported by Washington and overthrown from
within?

[10] Saddam remains a terrible threat to those within his reach, but today
his reach does not extend beyond his own domains; isn't it clear that US
aggression could inspire a new generation of terrorists bent on revenge,
or do the one thing the Bush administration says it fears, that is to
deliver WMDs (if they have any) to terrorists?

[11] Why is the US ignoring the advice of international relief agencies
that it is risking what the UN warns could be a "humanitarian emergency of
exceptional scale" -- including the possibility that 30 percent of Iraqi
children could die from malnutrition?

[12] Don't we Americans have an obligation to care for the needs of the
victims, not just of this war but of Washington's vicious and destructive
sanctions regime of the past ten years, which has devastated the civilian
society, strengthened the ruling tyrant, and compelled the population to
rely on him for survival?

	-end-