Re: [Gnu-arch-users] [OT] facism gaining ground in US

[Michael Poole]

Roman Zippel writes:

> Hi,
>
> On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 address@hidden wrote:
>
>> Your email to which I responded did not contain specific criticism
>> except the unsupported hypothesis that "leaving Saddam in control over
>> it was not an option for the US gov", to which I would like some
>> support or clarification of what you meant.
>
> Unsupported? Well it pretty much depends on how far oil was a reason to go 
> into Iraq and that's pretty much undisputed over here.

It's pretty much undisputed over here that French and German companies
(if not politicians) were on Saddam's payroll, and that was a factor
in their efforts to protect his regime.  I'm not sure what your point
is in waving around "undisputed" claims about some else's government.

If we wanted Iraqi oil, it would have been enormously cheaper and
quicker to abet the corrupt UN oil-for-food program or just drop the
sanctions entirely.

>> The point of my email (as expressed in the last paragraph, which you
>> cut out) was that many people find it convenient to argue as if they
>> have a moral high ground, and it is easy to find some moral stance to
>> support that, almost regardless of the specific platform.  That does
>> not mean their actual motive is morality and it does not mean their
>> opponents are wrong.  Making vague comments that indirectly attack
>> some country ("I would rather suggest you read a bit more about.. what
>> kept them there") is a form of that.
>
> You don't know me, so making assumption about my motives instead of 
> responding to what I said is rather rude.
> What I said was intentionally vague and was more an advice, as it was 
> rather clear that Pierce has no idea how totalitarian systems work and 
> what keeps them working. Concrete critism had required some basic 
> knowledge about it, which I don't see. Of course I might be wrong with my 
> judgement, but then it should be no problem for him to prove me wrong.

Please clarify: Do you know Pierce well enough to make assumptions
about what he doesn't know rather than responding to what he actually
said?  (I ask sincerely, because I don't want to accuse you of
hypocrisy with no basis.)  I did not and do not want to answer for
him, since he seems more than capable of answering for himself.

Michael Poole