RE: IRAQ Reasons for War (was: RE: First Announcement of the Secretary of PUKE...)

From: matus (matus@snet.net)
Date: Sun Mar 30 2003 - 15:12:36 MST

  • Next message: John Grigg: "Re: IRAQ Reasons for War (was: RE: First Announcement of the Secretary of PUKE...)"

    > 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