[Powderworks] Anti-Americanism
Virgil Thomas Alexander Morant
v-morant@onu.edu
Fri, 11 Apr 2003 16:03:08 -0400
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_0083_01C30043.D82220F0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
This one comment is pretty easy to respond to, so perhaps I'll be the =
first (I'm sure others will consider it, when they come across it).
----- Original Message -----=20
From: Felipe Castillo=20
To: powderworks=20
Sent: Friday, April 11, 2003 12:01 PM
Subject: [Powderworks] Anti-Americanism
***
This list have a general topic, a rock band that have been a protest=20
band for 25 years and many of their protests are against US =
aggressions=20
around the world, so you can call the Oils a truly anti-American band=20
and also an anti-war band, a green band, a hearted indigenous band,=20
aren't you?
You can call them whatever you want, but I doubt that even Midnight Oil =
would have called itself an anti-American band. I remember very well =
how, during the protest against Exxon in New York City, Peter Garrett =
spoke very highly of the values of our country and what our forefathers =
fought a revolution for. I don't think he was just paying lip-service =
to his audience. I think that he and the band had a deep appreciation =
for the American values that lie at the heart of our country, and I =
think that the heart of any Midnight Oil protest against the United =
States consists in the band's perception that the U.S. is doing =
something contrary to those fine values.
Allow me also, by the way, to echo something that Jacques just said: =
G.W. Bush believes in what he is doing for moral reasons and for reasons =
of protecting his country. The whole 9-11 connection may seem flimsy to =
some, but it is not so much about whether Saddam Hussein had a role to =
play in that attack as it is about the sort of attack that Hussein might =
have been able to inflict on the United States, if he had a sufficiently =
developed or sophisticated arsenal of weapons.
One further note. In international law, the controversy here is all =
about whether pre-emptive strikes are legal. The International Court of =
Justice came out very clearly against pre-emptive strikes several years =
ago, and the majority consensus, if I read it right, of international =
lawyers is that pre-emptive strikes are not legal. Now the American =
Society of International Law at its recent conference in Washington, =
D.C., seemed to hedge a bit on that position, but still the overwhelming =
majority of international lawyers and international law professors that =
I speak with and whose writings I read take the view that this attack on =
Iraq is illegal.
This is not to say that I agree with the views of most international =
lawyers, and, who knows, maybe in a few years the legality of this sort =
of thing will be changed and we'll refer to it legally as something like =
"The Bush Doctrine," but, right now, international law is basically =
opposed to what the United States is doing in Iraq. That has nothing to =
do with G.W. Bush's motives or the vitriol that is spewed against him by =
those who don't like him. If you want to criticize Bush, you would be =
well-advised to stop trying to read into his mind horrible economic and =
oil-driven motives and just stick to what you can see.
Like Jacques, when I watch G.W. Bush, I see a man who believes in what =
he is doing, because he wants to protect his country. There is no =
reason to doubt that. And, unlike many others in the field of =
international law, I do not believe that pre-emptive strikes are going =
to remain altogether illegal, because, in circumstances such as these, =
they may be necessary. A pre-emptive strikes sixty or seventy years ago =
might have saved many millions of lives.
Oh, but forgive me for throwing out that easy line, and please don't =
jump on my case for making the slightest of analogies to another famous =
event in modern history. I do not suggest that what is happening now is =
in every way identical to what happened before. I suggest, rather, or =
indeed state outright, that many are too quick to paint with the broad =
brush, stereo-type, miss the point, criticize for the wrong reasons, and =
so on. It would be easier to deal with someone who just flat-out argued =
that the attack on Iraq was contrary to international law than to =
respond to anyone who maintains that G.W. Bush is an evil, oil-hungry, =
greedy president.
And, once again, Midnight Oil was never an anti-American band.
-Virgil.
------=_NextPart_000_0083_01C30043.D82220F0
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1141" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Times New Roman">This one comment is pretty easy to =
respond to,=20
so perhaps I'll be the first (I'm sure others will consider it, =
when they=20
come across it).</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Times New Roman"></FONT> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE=20
style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV=20
style=3D"BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: =
black"><B>From:</B>=20
<A title=3Descrutador@language.proz.com=20
href=3D"mailto:escrutador@language.proz.com">Felipe Castillo</A> =
</DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A =
title=3Dpowderworks@cs.colorado.edu=20
href=3D"mailto:powderworks@cs.colorado.edu">powderworks</A> </DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Friday, April 11, 2003 =
12:01=20
PM</DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> [Powderworks]=20
Anti-Americanism</DIV><FONT face=3D"Times New Roman"></FONT><FONT=20
face=3D"Times New Roman"></FONT><FONT face=3D"Times New =
Roman"></FONT><FONT=20
face=3D"Times New Roman"></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE=20
style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"><FONT=20
face=3D"Times New Roman">***</FONT>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Times New Roman"></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV>This list have a general topic, a rock band that have been a =
protest=20
<BR>band for 25 years and many of their protests are against US =
aggressions=20
<BR>around the world, so you can call the Oils a truly anti-American =
band=20
<BR>and also an anti-war band, a green band, a hearted =
indigenous band,=20
<BR>aren't you?<BR></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Times New Roman"></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Times New Roman">You can call them whatever you want, =
but I=20
doubt that even Midnight Oil would have called itself an anti-American=20
band. I remember very well how, during the protest against Exxon =
in New=20
York City, Peter Garrett spoke very highly of the values of our country =
and what=20
our forefathers fought a revolution for. I don't think he was just =
paying=20
lip-service to his audience. I think that he and the band had a =
deep=20
appreciation for the American values that lie at the heart of our =
country, and I=20
think that the heart of any Midnight Oil protest against the United =
States=20
consists in the band's perception that the U.S. is doing something =
contrary to=20
those fine values.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Times New Roman"></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Times New Roman">Allow me also, by the way, to echo =
something=20
that Jacques just said: G.W. Bush believes in what he is doing for moral =
reasons=20
and for reasons of protecting his country. The whole 9-11 =
connection may=20
seem flimsy to some, but it is not so much about whether Saddam Hussein =
had a=20
role to play in that attack as it is about the sort of attack that =
Hussein might=20
have been able to inflict on the United States, if he had a sufficiently =
developed or sophisticated arsenal of weapons.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Times New Roman"></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Times New Roman">One further note. In =
international=20
law, the controversy here is all about whether pre-emptive strikes are=20
legal. The International Court of Justice came out very clearly =
against=20
pre-emptive strikes several years ago, and the majority consensus, if I =
read it=20
right, of international lawyers is that pre-emptive strikes are not =
legal. =20
Now the American Society of International Law at its recent conference =
in=20
Washington, D.C., seemed to hedge a bit on that position, but still the=20
overwhelming majority of international lawyers and international law =
professors=20
that I speak with and whose writings I read take the view that this =
attack on=20
Iraq is illegal.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Times New Roman"></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Times New Roman">This is not to say that I agree with =
the views=20
of most international lawyers, and, who knows, maybe in a few years the =
legality=20
of this sort of thing will be changed and we'll refer to it legally as =
something=20
like "The Bush Doctrine," but, right now, international law is basically =
opposed=20
to what the United States is doing in Iraq. That has nothing to do =
with=20
G.W. Bush's motives or the vitriol that is spewed against him by those =
who don't=20
like him. If you want to criticize Bush, you would be well-advised =
to stop=20
trying to read into his mind horrible economic and oil-driven motives =
and just=20
stick to what you can see.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Times New Roman"></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Times New Roman">Like Jacques, when I watch G.W. =
Bush, I see a=20
man who believes in what he is doing, because he wants to protect his=20
country. There is no reason to doubt that. And, unlike many =
others=20
in the field of international law, I do not believe that pre-emptive =
strikes are=20
going to remain altogether illegal, because, in circumstances such as =
these,=20
they may be necessary. A pre-emptive strikes sixty or seventy =
years ago=20
might have saved many millions of lives.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Times New Roman"></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Times New Roman">Oh, but forgive me for throwing out =
that easy=20
line, and please don't jump on my case for making the slightest of =
analogies to=20
another famous event in modern history. I do not suggest that what =
is=20
happening now is in every way identical to what happened before. I =
suggest, rather, or indeed state outright, that many are too quick to =
paint with=20
the broad brush, stereo-type, miss the point, criticize for the wrong =
reasons,=20
and so on. It would be easier to deal with someone who just =
flat-out=20
argued that the attack on Iraq was contrary to international law than to =
respond=20
to anyone who maintains that G.W. Bush is an evil, oil-hungry, greedy=20
president.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Times New Roman"></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Times New Roman">And, once again, Midnight Oil was =
never an=20
anti-American band.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Times New Roman"></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Times New Roman">-Virgil.</FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_000_0083_01C30043.D82220F0--