From: matus (matus@snet.net)
Date: Sun Mar 30 2003 - 15:12:36 MST
> Okay, Mr. Dickey, one more time:
>
> The United States can be the greatest power in the World. I do not mind at
> all.
Note you said in your previous post
"But what I fear is that this war might be the first step towards a new
world order where the law of the strongest, i. e. USA reigns."
Correct me if I am wrong, but that seems to contradict your statement in
this post, that you 'do not mind at all'
> But what I FEAR is one war after the other on countries that seem
> unpopular
> to the US.
Interesting... So, hypothetically speaking, would you support this (and
only this effort in particular) if you knew that the US would persue no
other regimes in the 'axis of evil'?
Your statement seems to say to me "I object to this war, because the US may
start others"
What I want to know is, what are your feelings on *this war* in particular,
ignoring what you think the US might or might not do in the future. That
is, given the established existing scenerio (res 1441, the lack of
co-operation with inspectors, 'serious consequences', and the requirement to
present a credible threat of force to enforce UN 'international law' and
inspectors, and the conservative estimate of 200,000 deaths from Saddam) Do
you consider the effort to remove Saddam Hussain, as a despotic dictator,
from power a morally just one?
Note, in a previous series of posts, we had this discussion (trying to
accurately cut/paste/summarize without distorting stances)
Mania: "You[r] political leaders are way beyond simple paranoia. They are
inhuman future war criminals."
Me:"If they were 'War Criminals' I wonder what you would propose doing about
it...Should an international coalition be formed to remove him from power,
or demand he be removed? Perhaps the UN could present a resolution
declaring that he must lose his capability to attack other nations by some
certain deadline, and if he does not by that deadline members of that
coalition can remove his capability by force if necessary."
Mania: "Yes, of course, what else? Remove him from power...The WHOLE
administration of course that is responsible for the Iraq war. For every
single dead child Bush should be sentenced to livelong prison...I know what
you are trying to say. No nation or organisation is powerful enough to
remove an American President from power...If you are a true patriot, you
must stop these imbeciles from bringing war to one country after another
Mike Lorrey said:"Apparently, Mr. Mania, you have no sense of irony. The
respondent was using acts that Saddam has committed, and which you and your
country seem blithely unwilling to bring him to task on. The fact that you
are
so willing to remove Mr. Bush for acts which Mr. Saddam has committed, and
not willing to remove Mr. Saddam, exposes your hypocrisy and hidden
agenda...."
Mania: "Yes, you are right, I failed to see the irony here. But anyway, your
fine President will be responsible for the deaths of American soldiers and
for invading a country. So, the reasons for accusation remain just the same,
no matter if I failed to detect ironic statements or not."
Me: "So you now recognize the irony, but do nothing to answer the question?
Why would you support a move, unilitarerally or multilaterally, to depose
Bush as a war criminal but CALL Bush a war criminal for trying to do exactly
that with Saddam, who IS in fact a war criminal."
Mania: "Allright. I give up. No more communication possible. A complete
waste of time and energy. The falcons on this list live in a giant bubble
and don`t even realize that they are isolated in the world. You are lost, my
un-friends!"
In short, you acknowledge that had Bush done what Saddam did, an
international coalition would be justified in removing Bush. But when
pointed out to you that you do not support the ousting of Saddam for doing
this, and in fact claim Bush to be a War Criminal for doing what you
consider just to do to Bush, you merely 'give up' claiming 'no more
communication possible'
So, whats the deal, is it morally just to remove Saddam, but your primary
reluctance is that if you support it, you might indirectly give creedence to
further US aggresions which you definately will not support?
This particular concern of yours seems more evident when I go through older
posts. It seems though, to be a fallacy of extremes, or the slippery slope.
e.g. "If we let this war slide, well let every war slide" I wonder what,
intrinsically, you consider the moral validity of *this war* to be, and why?
When you acknowledge that War Criminals can be removed by force from
international coalitions (presumably without 'international law', given that
in your example the US, with Veto power, would surely Veto any UN security
council resolution calling for the ousting of the US government) But
consider the attempt to remove Saddam for those crimes (and many others) as
unjust, its just a bit confusing. All of these things lead members of this
list (at least myself for sure) to suspect you merely dont like the US,
since every single thing you endorse supports this conclusion.
Regards,
Michael Dickey
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Mar 30 2003 - 15:04:43 MST