From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Mon Jan 20 2003 - 15:00:53 MST
Dickey, Michael F wrote:
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Samantha Atkins [mailto:samantha@objectent.com]
>
> "I think we are more noble as Americans when we take our heritage seriously
> enough to avoid entanglements all over the globe
> engaged in for highly questionable reasons and at very high costs at all
> levels. We have no business as a free people going
> to war except in very clear circumstances. Iraq is NOT such at this time."
>
> Samantha, thanks for your comments. I can only ask what would you consider
> those 'very clear' circumstances to be? As free people, do we not value
> freedom, and in doing so, wish freedom upon others?
Wishing freedom for others sure. But freedom for others, even
preserving freedom for oneself, is not consistent we attempting
to establish it or abolish non-freedom all over the globe by force.
> As extropians, I should
> hope that we prefer all humans, regardless of ethnicity, geography, or
> ideology live under a system which grants them basic constitutional rights.
> By being 'anti-war' with regard to IRAQ, you are necessarily 'pro corrupt
> murderous despotic dictator'
That does not in the least follow. It is built on the
presumption that war against Iraq will bring freedom to the
Iraqi people. It is also built on the notion that our desire to
attack is somehow at least in part altruistic concern for the
Iraqi people. Both are extremely questionable. Being aginst
this war certainly does not mean I am pro Saddam. This is false
dichotomy.
> What of the IRAQ government, and Suddam's
> manner of oppression, do you find morally defensible? Since a state is only
> a collection of individuals, the only moral states are ones that exist as
> extensions of individuals, IRAQ is no such state, it is built on murder,
> oppression, corruption, and deceit. Given this, I do not understand your
> claim that we have 'no business' going there as 'free people'? Should we get
> in the habit of just not caring about people unless they are Americans?
>
The rest of the above argument is based on a false dichotomy and
thus is pointless rhetoric.
>
>> Emancipation was not delivered by cousin Abe with his Emancipation
>>Proclamation but by my great great uncle (and thousands of others) lying
>
> dead
>
>>in the military graveyard in Nashville, Tennessee (and other places).
>
>
> "So all you understand and consider honorable is war, might, death and
> destruction? If so, then I pity you."
>
> War committed in an effort to free people and dispose of murderous dictators
> is both 'honorable' and more importantly morally justified. Do you consider
> 'war' to never be honorable under ANY circumstances?
>
The people of Iraq did not ask for any such intervention. Nor
are we obligated to do such if they did. And such an argument
is not in the least the primary argument that is driving us
toward war.
I consider war honorable to stop a major and highly expansionist
evil such as Hitler. Although it would have been far cheaper
and more moral to have stopped him by more peaceful means much
earlier. Despite a lot of rhetoric, Saddam is simply not in
that class. I consider war moral to defends one's home and
country. But Saddam is at worse a very small threat to us. I
don't consider war justified to preemptively destroy any
possible threat to us anywhere and everywhere in the world
regardless of national borders and sovereignity. That itself is
extremely warlike and an honorable reason to go to war - against
any country that would act in such a manner.
> "What is this "we"? You will sit this one out due to age and cheer other
> "boys" on to their death in a more senseless
> conflict than even Vietnam was. Bully for you."
>
> Given the events that transpired in Indochina after the peace and anti war
> advocates 'won' and forced the US to abandon Indochina to the corrupt
> despotic murderous regimes of Mao, Pol Pot, Ho Chi Min and the Soviet Union,
> and the resultant millions who were murdered or killed, I do not understand
> how one can consider the Vietnam war 'senseless'.
>
We pulled out of a senseless war. Our handling of that war had
more than a little to do with the final outcome. The US had no
legitimate business in Vietnam to start with. Our actions there
, including our illegal actions in neighboring countries gave
fuel to Pol Pot. The rest of your laundry list in no way
justified what we did there or that we were there at all. I do
not see how anyone could judge the reasons and consequences to
this country (US) as anything other than senseless.
> Perhaps what was 'senseless' about it was that, in addition to many poor
> military decisions and political decisions, was that we gave up and
> abandoned those people to collectivization and labor camps. I hope that the
> same thing does not happen here, and that we do not abandon the IRAQI people
> to the hands of a murderous meglomoniacal dictator.
>
Puhleeze, we are not going in there for the sake of the Iraqi
people. Pretense that we are is sickening.
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jan 21 2003 - 17:10:21 MST