On Sat, 28 Feb 1998, Daniel D. Worley wrote:
> It never ceases to amaze me that any time ANY one points out one or more
> of the atrocities and/or failures of Saddam or his henchmen, they are
> immediately bombarded with anti-Semitic trash like the above. I suppose I
> shouldn't be too surprised, knowing how many supporters of Socialism and
> Communism there are on the Sanet list. I sit here calmly reading what a
> great guy Castro is and how many "Really Great" ideas and policies Communist
> Cuba has; how Cuba is doing so well at sustainable agriculture practices.
> And how our government is soooooo bad!
And it never ceases to amaze me that let anyone mention Israel in a
slightly negative way, and one is immediately called an anti-semite. I
don't really mind being called a communist or socialist. But I regard
myself as a supporter of liberation movments (whether Israel or Palestine)
and wouldn't really like to be called an anti-semite, thank you.
> OK. I'll bite! What UN resolutions would you have Israel comply with?
> Has Israel used chemical or biological weapons on their own people? Of
> course not. Have they attacked their neighbors without provocation? NO.
> Have they used chemical or biological weapons on their neighbors? NO! Have
> they openly advocated the total destruction of one of their neighboring
> countries? Not so far as I can see.
The UN resolutions that I will have Israel comply with, is the ones
pertaining to their withdrawal from their neighbouring countries, notably
Lebanon and Syria. And pray, what is the provocation that the
Palestinians provided that they cannot live without being attacked in
their own countries. That they are fighting to live in lands that they
have lived for tens of centuries before the Israeli's came there?
> >And the US government is the mass murderer who killed 100s of thosands of
> >Vietnamese simply because they chose a form of govt. with which the US
> Malarkey!!!! Pure, unadulterated male bovine excrement ! You have either
> not read the history books or you are making that one up sir. the US went
> in there because we were asked to help the South Vietnamese government
> oppose the North Vietnamese Communist government that was attempting to take
I don't know what kind of history books they have in the US or how Vietnam
is interpreted, but I think it is not sufficient to read history books.
One has to also reflect on what happened in history. The US has always
intervened on someone else's request. But under what conditions did these
requests come about. What kind of legitimacy did the 'requestors' enjoy
among their own people. After all how did 'north' and 'south' Vietnam come
into existence. If you go back to your history books you will find that
these were the creations of an unscrupulous decolonisation process where
ex-imperialist countries wished to preserve their enclaves in their
erstwhile territories and prevent unfriendly parties from coming to power
which would prevent continued exploitation of their countries.
And who `asked'the US to help out in Nicaragua, El Salvador, Chile,
Guatemala? Who supported every two bit tin pot dictator in Latin America
and throughout the world. Where was the US when Papa Doc and his like
were tortuting and exterminating their own people?
> Mistakes were made. And I am not happy with our original reasons for
> going in there, nor am I happy with the way it was handled. But the view
> you presented is no where near correct.
Mistakes!! You should talk to the Kurds in Iraq who were nerve gassed by
Saddam. And why the US and other countries like britain and germany turned
a blindly eye when he was doing this for several years, he was fighting
their dirty war against Iran. You should talk all those millions who were
killed by dictators in Latin America or Africa with arms provided by the
US. Its easy to talk of mistakes and say you are sorry, much more
difficult to stop committing those mistakes
> >No!! What did the US use in Vietnam if it was not chemical weapons. As you
> >rightly put it agent orange has had devastating effects which still affect
> >the ecology in Vietnam. All this is without counting conventional weapons
> >of mass destruction directly used or provided to dictators around the
> >world which have killed millions.
> Agent Orange is a defoliant. A wide spectrum defoliant. It MAY have had
> serious side effects on humans. Research shows it might have had such an
> effect on persons who had long term, very close contact with it in high
You should talk to the Viet. Vets and find out if the may is indeed a DID
have effect on human beings. Reuters reports over the last week provide
clear evidence that it was the US which provided chemical and biological
weapons to Iraq. Another mistake committed by the US.
> As for the rest of that paragraph, every major power has given or sold
> conventional weapons to other countries. Would you rather we did nothing
> and allowed the un wanted takeover of all those small countries by others?
There are ways of solving these problemsm nore peaceful, cooperative, and
less arrogant and less self-righteous ways. The way in which it is
behaving no problem is going to be solved. You have to think of promoting
democracy everywhere, not just where it suits the US.
It makes me laugh, talking about takeover of small countries by others.
Not so very long ago all developing countries, big and small were taken
over by "others". The current problems are partly the leftovers from the
decolonisation process, and partly the effect of modern colonialism by
As far back as in the 1960s, the sociologist C.Wright Mills spoke about
the "inherent corruption of the (American) deterrence policies".That seems
to prevail even today. there are a lot of reasons why Saddam should be
ousted, but acting as a deterrent for takeover of small countries is one
of the weakest.
I was hesitating to carry forward this debate on sanet, but unfortunately
one of my earlier posts in response to Betty Gras never got posted and I
would like to reiterate what I said there.
I believe, in spite of positions like those of Dan, that the majority of
those in the sustainable agriculture movement share a larger perspective
on the world, a perspective which is more humane, and primarily believes
that the means are as important as the ends.
How anyone can remain unaffected by the sight of children sufferingin Iraq
is beyond me. That Saddam is responsible for it is a truism. But if our
actions prolong this suffering how are we any different from Saddam. Do we
not need to show a great deal more maturity and resonsibility than Saddam
There is a lot of arrogance and self-righteousness in the pro war position
which is detested quite a lot by those in the third world. Who gave the US
the right to decide who is guilty and how they should be punished. Would
you condone it if the some people affected by the dictators of a Latin
merican Republic decided to assassinate the US president or attack US
citizens holding them responsible for their sufferings?
Let us not turn the debate into one of anti-semitism (or anti-Islamism),
and let us not descend into personal comments. Let us decide to focus on
issues, and how we need to get out of a vicious circle of supporting
dictators and killing them when their utility is up, and causing a lot of
much avoidable human suffering. Above all let us get a proper perspective
I believe that is is communities such as the those in the sustag movement
who have moral and ethical visions of a shared future who can contribute
the most to this.
Indian Institute of Technology
To Unsubscribe: Email firstname.lastname@example.org with "unsubscribe sanet-mg".
To Subscribe to Digest: Email email@example.com with the command