From: Cory Przybyla (recherchetenet@yahoo.com)
Date: Wed Mar 26 2003 - 22:56:24 MST
Unnecessaries have been truncated as it exceeded the
buffer of Yahoo mail...
--- Lee Corbin <lcorbin@tsoft.com> wrote:
> > > On the plus side, should the U.S. have
> > > subverted allegedly democratically
> > > elected governments in order to thwart
> > > the U.S.S.R.'s plans...
> >
> > If the US did that, it may have won a battle,
> > but probably have lost them the war via PR
> > relations.
>
> Who really cares about that, if you succeed
> in destroying a murderous, ruthless, and
> horrifying regime like the U.S.S.R.? Okay,
> so the lefties scored a few points on the
> campuses when the U.S. set up a pro-Western
> Iran. But the end result was that there is
> no U.S.S.R. today.
I actually don't know much of the Iran episode, I got
the image from what you said of the US marching troops
into a country holding an election and saying, "we
don't think it's democratic. Do it our way",
something that could have spurned a coup in the US.
As to subverting 'allegedly democratic' elections as a
general rule it would take a very strong effort to
prove the case. As to the USSR, we were taught, as
the coming down of the Berlin Wall and the Soviet
collapse were the big events of my middle school
years, that much of the bloodbath that was the Soviet
regime wasn't even known until after the fall. This
would certainly throw bad light on a number of US
actions, but I can't know how aware people really
were/politicians were.
> > OTOH, an Iraqi soldier capturing a US
> > soldier with just general strategy
> > knowledge, assuming said Iraqi intends
> > to defend his country, could easily view
> > torturing information out as the only
> > way to stand a fighting chance.
>
> Yes, he may. Or maybe he won't. Or it
> may depend.
I was very careful to insert the word 'could', since I
have no clue what Iraqis of any slant actually do feel
about this war outside of the conflicting forces of
the press, the government, and potentially fake
web-logs. But certainly, they could view it, and
might shed some light on why US soldiers were captured
and held prisoner (and maybe tortured).
> What I would like you to do
> is express approval or disapproval. You
> seem to be reluctant to do this, so I'll
> ask some sharp questions:
>
> 1. An Al Qaeda terrorist know where the
> bomb is. Torture him?
Still the one in NY city, or outside the confines of
their possesion (i.e. intent to use)? Yes of course,
do what one must to get the information out, and save
possibly millions of non-participants.
> 2. An ex-wife of an important Iraqi general
> is found to be living in New York under
> an assumed name. How far should the
> U.S. military go to extract information
> that may help them win a key battle?
If Iraq is invading and killing citizens in America,
do what you must if it involves torturing, although
hopefully with atleast an ounce of regret. If the
ex-wife is guilty herself of atrocities, then maybe,
pending the pertinancy of the information. If she is
innocent, and we're the invaders, no.
> (Again---not what would be expected, but
> what you'd sanction.)
I meant to not delete the earlier instances of
questioning my sanctioning...perhaps you didn't read
EVMick's full post as I only quoted part in my initial
response. I wasn't at all concerned with shedding my
opinion on when/when not to torture, something
tangential to extropianism at best. Just more
critiquing what seemed to be an extremely naive view
of "how dare they do that to us".
> 3. Baghdad is about to fall, but a convoy
> makes a wrong turn, and some cooks are
> captured by some very angry and hateful
> Iraqi soldiers. *Should* they torture
> him, given that they have seen countless
> comrades cut down by American machine-
> weapons, and have been hating Americans
> and non-Muslims their whole lives?
I would recommend that they should have surrendered
themselves to the US, (not meaning I'd have the gall
to actually say this to a group of machine-gun
weilding foreigners), and explain that America has a
huge burden of not offending the rest of the world
further; they'd be treated better as a POW than on
their own (although this does contradict "Live free or
die". In a dispersed regime like Iraq it seems likely
that any given individual who didn't act out against
the government could have lived in relative freedom in
rural areas. More libertarian than in the US at any
rate, but only for a very few rare cases).
But their view of the situation is almost certainly
skewed, so based on what MIGHT be their view being
true, in that America is a hostile invader hell bent
on killing them and declaring war on their religion,
yes torture. I can't relate further than this since
I'll never see the world from Muslim eyes, pending
severe brain reprogramming.
> 4. It's 1965 and Israeli agents have just
> found a notorious war-criminal in South
> America, and one of the Mossad agents
> had a brother tortured and killed by
> this same war criminal. You are one
> of the other agents. The choice of the
> group is either to kill him or torture
> him first before killing him (extradition
> is not an option). One of the other
> agents does not want to torture him first.
>
> What should you do? What should you be
> in favor of your group doing? What would
> you say, and to whom?
No torture. It would serve nothing but petty revenge.
Hannah Arendt's book "Eichmann in Jerusalem" put
forth a brave stance from someone with close
connections to the third reich, that the 'evil' was
banal and not this epitome of monstrousity most people
associate with the Nazi regime.
Furthermore, there's the obvious caveat I failed to
mention in my first response, that when one group is
willing to torture, their opposition may feel less
reservations to doing it back to them when the tables
are turned.
> > All-out war has no rules.
>
> Wrong. No one wanted to win more than the
> Allies or the Germans in WWI but no one
> used poison gas (though I admit that
> possibly there was strong self-interest
> involved). The Germans scrupulously
> avoided bombing London in World War II
> ---it was against Hitler's policy to
> bomb civilians. But a Luftwaffe plan
> went off course one night---one plane
> out of dozens---and dropped a very few
> bombs on London doing very little
> damage. The English retaliated with a
> quite large bombing run aimed exactly
> at a German city, and that was the start
> of WWII's frightful civilian death toll
> from the air in both arenas of the war.
> There had been rules in play, and the
> British directly broke them.
point taken.
> > Okay, before I can answer this, which
> > would you rather have?
> > A few soldiers of your party captured and
> > tortured, or Washington routinely bombed,
> > communication broken off and surrounded so
> > that eventually if by some miracle the
> > invading force doesn't break through,
> > everybody will inevitably starve to death?
>
> I would rather have a few of my soldiers
> tortured.
agreed.
> > Not that I don't understand *why*
> > the coalition would choose this
> > strategy in the war, but certainly
> > it's not a fair fight to start with.
>
> Gasp! Choke! What do you think this
> is, a game? What do you want to see,
> maybe the Russians come in on the Iraqi
> side so that we get a really good show?
No, I don't think it's a game, nor do I want to see
the Russians involved in this. Further I wouldn't
want it to be a fair fight, as the day a dictatorship
can have a fair fight with the strongest nuclear power
in the world, [insert end of civilization scenario
here]. I'm not entirely certain why you got that
notion from what I said as it atleast seemed to me to
be consistent with everything else I had been writing.
> although I'd keep in mind that we
> could have NOT invaded and this
> wouldn't've happened, so perhaps
> the outrage would be directed at
> more than one source.
Oh good grief. And so I suppose that
if the U.S. were to nuke Baghdad right
off the map with a 20-megatonner, you'd
have "some" moral outrage against the
U.S., but you'd also direct your outrage
at more than one source, say, Saddam
and Iraq?
The lenses you're looking through seem
a little tilted to me.
>>me
oh, no. I'd have "plenty" of outrage toward the US.
Now, though, if Saddam's regime did something like a
bio-chem warfare that the US weren't prepared against,
and the US nukes out of fear, I'd have outrage toward
Saddam too. Err I suppose I have outrage towards him
anyway, but more so. And this seems to come closer to
paralleling the Iraq nuking us now situation, as
certainly they would be doing it in retaliatory fear,
no? Although there's still a factor of having
non-combatants in Baghdad.
Now, if before we touch Baghdad, the nuke flies to
Washington, then *all* the outrage goes toward the
Saddam regime.
>>
> OTOH, if Baghdad was on the brink of
> extinction, (and I mean no question:
> they either do something drastic or
> die, surrender not even an option)
> and a centralized group of troops
> located in Iraq were nuked, it would
> certainly be a horrible thing,
but, so long as it's the Americans
being nuked...
>>me
Well no, it could be the British or Australian troops,
or the Turkish should they decide to invade. And it's
not that I'd justify it, just that I wouldn't really
be outraged, as I'd never get outraged by an expected
reaction to an event.
>>
> but I can't be certain I'd be outraged
> at them, as they were left with no other
> choice.
Yes, you *do* always have a choice. And
that's what I'd tell the understandably
upset Mossad agent in 1965. You can still
choose to do the right thing!
>>me
Here I diverge greatly. I don't believe in the very
concept of there being a 'right' thing. And there was
no trade off involved with the Mossad agent. Nothing
worse could come to him in not torturing. The other
example, not only *can* something worse happen, but
something worse *will* happen, so it's easy for me to
understand the motivation even in not agreeing with it
(as I'm very non-violent personally).
>>
Now, take a look back at what is known
as "the finest moment in American History".
Recall the unbelievably visceral hatred
that existed between Yank and Rebel.
At Appomatix courthouse in 1865, Robert E.
Lee sadly walked out of his surrender to
general Grant and addressed his troops.
He could have said, "We will fight in the
streets, we will fight in the hills, we
will NEVER surrender!" And if he had said
this, even unto this very moment pockets
of Rebels would be holed up in the hills
and swamps of the South. But he did not
say this.
"It's all over, boys", said he. And so it
was.
>>me
hmmm, google tells me he didn't die till 1870, so his
life wasn't even at stake in giving up. So we return
to what then is at stake.
>>
Sometimes the right thing---that is, the
thing that you will approve of if you
reflect on it long enough and allow all
your knowledge and reason to come into
play---, sometimes the right thing is
to surrender.
Lee
>>me
okay, I understand 'right' as you explain here, and
agree, but looking on the smallest scale: a force
intends to kill me, I will not surrender to death save
when my death would benefit those whom I ally
with(friends/loved ones, as others may say) in much
more multitude than my life would for me. Now if you
agree with this principle, put it in the perspective
of who and what Saddam and his henchmen may value and
then realize we intend to either kill, or try then
execute him and a number of them (presuming living).
Cory
>>
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop!
http://platinum.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Mar 26 2003 - 23:03:25 MST