[Peace-discuss] US betrayed by Democrats again

[Stuart Levy]

On Fri, Jan 05, 2007 at 04:11:11PM -0600, Chas. 'Mark' Bee wrote:
> >Chas. 'Mark' Bee wrote:
> >>the myopic hard left.

Karen Medina replied:

> >Chas.,
> >
> >Do you consider yourself to be soft left? Just where are you?

>  Non-myopic "star-trek-Socialist", or at least that's my term for it, but 
>  one that recognizes and accepts the long road ahead.  Eventually, no money, 
> machine labor, free education and resources, etc. - but not quite yet.  I'm 
> certainly not one to prevent the only party in a position to get results 
> from helping decouple Congress from the M.I.C. in return for 5 minutes of 
> video exposure, if that's what you mean.
> 
  [...]
> >But what are your views on the issues?
> 
>  De-Americanization ASAP, then demilitarization, no further power vacuum 
> allowed.  Full return of internal security and internal resources to the 
> Iraqi people.  Full reconstruction on our dime.

Splendid.   Clear and concise.  And I'm happy to agree with it.  And
I imagine that many of the people who hang around with AWARE, or
come to protests, would as well.

But you (Mark) also wrote:
 
>   I've stated my Iraq war position on the list before, to assorted flavors 
>   of indifference and disrespect.  US out, UN (or other multinational 
> substitute) in.

I could agree with that, too.

You mentioned last summer, in response to Carl's invitation to come to a
Main Event,

}} I doubt signs like 'US OUT, UN IN' 
}} would be found to possess the desired level of absolutism. 

Well, that's strange.  Desired by whom?  If you brought two signs like that,
I'd carry one.

But I'm more disturbed by your calling Carl's "US betrayed by Democrats again"
a lie, or by things like

> Being a pragmatist seeking actual fixes rather than an 
> increase in my own feelygood happysap level, I count my desired results 
> pretty much strictly by number of lives to be saved on the ground.

See, when you say things like these, you (a) insult the addressee(s)
and (b) presuppose that you understand what he/we/they thinks,
and why he thinks it.

Neither (a) nor (b) is a very useful rhetorical tactic.
(b) is particularly ineffective, especially if you turn out to have
presupposed wrong.  It's unlikely to convince anybody, and it's not
even an effective way of letting other people know what you yourself think.
You mention that

>  I've stated my Iraq war position on the list before,
>  to assorted flavors of indifference and disrespect.

Well, I've been reading this list since March, and I've never seen
you explain it remotely as clearly as you have here.   If you've met
indifference, maybe it's because we didn't understand what you do
think, aside from the personal attacks.


It's at best misguided to represent "US betrayed..." as a lie.
Maybe you don't feel betrayed by the opening of this Congress,
maybe I don't at present, but Carl might very well feel that way.
So what does it mean when you call it a lie?  It seems as though
you are telling him what he thinks, or must think.
In anarchic circles (like AWARE's) this is considered bad form.


>  No, but if you'll put on _your_ specs for a bit, you'll notice a number of 
> comments on his routine dishonest tactics.  Perhaps a quick review of my 
> posts is in order,

Yes, I've done that.  One argument from a few months ago --
again with Carl -- called him dishonest for taking David Gill to
task over the bombardment of Lebanon.  Carl wrote (publicly) to Gill,
inviting him to make a statement; David made one; then Carl argued that
the statement made was not as strong as it deserved to be, in his opinion,
and clearly explained why he thought so.

You labelled this "transparent treachery" and "a filthy dirty trick".
Treachery?  I think it's entirely appropriate to disagree -- as you did --
with how far Gill could or should be pushed, given that he was facing
an election, etc.  You might criticize Carl's choice of rhetoric.
But it's hard to see how such an exchange could have been dishonest.

And raising it in this combative way just obscured any attempt you might
have made (if you did make one) to explain what you thought of Lebanon,
Hezbollah, Israel, the US' studied non-response to the bombardment,
or any other substantive matter.


Why am I writing all this?  I guess it's an invitation to a conversation.
Come to an AWARE meeting or a demonstration sometime and talk with people.
Please do.  You may find that you and we agree more than you seem to think.

Cheers

   Stuart Levy