From: Dickey, Michael F (michael_f_dickey@groton.pfizer.com)
Date: Wed Jan 22 2003 - 11:57:43 MST
-----Original Message-----
From: Samantha Atkins
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."
In some cases there may be no other way to bring freedom to others except by
forcibly destroying the corrupt dictators that oppress and enslave them.
The fact that you think there are still other options to accomplish this in
IRAQ is just a point we disagree on, all the conventional diplomatic
options have been exhausted.
> 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."
Do you think instead it will place them under a worse and more oppressive
regime?
"It is also built on the notion that our desire to attack is somehow at
least in part altruistic concern for the Iraqi people."
No its not, but it is an added, positive, extropic benefit that in securing
our own future existence and peace as a pro-freedom, democratic constitional
nation we will be simaltanously riding the world of a meglomaniacal murderer
and freeing the people held under his guns and whips. Does our sole
intention HAVE to be an altruistic concern for the Iraqi people to make this
effort Valid? By that reasoning, the only way this can be valid is if, not
only do we not gain anything from overthorwing sadam, but we should in
effect come out worse then we went in. 'Altruism' is a destructive and
counterproductive meme, it requires self-sacrifice for the good of others.
Progress in not a zero sum proposition, we (both the US, and the people of
IRAQ) can come out of this situtation better than they entered it.
"Both are extremely questionable. Being aginst this war certainly does not
mean I am pro Saddam. This is false dichotomy."
Then what do you propose be done about Saddam? While you are thinking about
it, he is attempting to acquire WMD, it a murderous racist dictators, and as
such controls the second largest cheap abundant energy supply in the world.
> 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."
I would hardly consider the moral validity of statehood as 'pointless
rhetoric' Are you a moral relativist?
>
>> 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."
Nor do they need to 'ask' for the action to be morally valid, as I said
above, Saddam as a dictator has no 'right' to be a dicatotor, and thusly the
nation of IRAQ has no 'right' to exist, as it does not even recognize the
rights of its individuals.
"And such an argument is not in the least the primary argument that is
driving us toward war."
See Above
"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."
Yet 'peaceniks' and 'anti war' individuals were isolationist at the time. I
also do not comprehend why you found it honorable to stop Hitler as a mass
murderer yet did not find it honorable to stop communism as a highly
expansionist evil that had slaughtered millions in the case of the vietnam
war. Is Communism ok, but Hitler is evil? What has killed more people, and
thus which is more extropic?
"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."
A threat he is, nevertheless, and I am sure the oppressed IRAQI people
consider him more than a 'small threat' as well, but I guess that doesn't
matter to you, since you don't live there, right?
"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. "
Nor do I consider war justified in every case, but in this case, it clearly
is. As Saddam is a murderous tyrannical dictator, is racist, hates the
west, which stands for freedom, scientific progress, and capitalism,
controls the worlds second largest supply of cheap abundant energy, and
funds terrorist groups and organizations. What part of this isnt justified?
> "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 find it hard to believe that in one sentence you say ""I consider war
honorable to stop a major and highly expansionist evil such as Hitler" and
no more than a few paragraphs later you say we had no business being in
veitnam? Never mind the fact that we were fighting a murderous expansionist
regime, but South Vietnam requested our help and assistance. So what part
of this made our present 'illigitimate' exactly?
"I do not see how anyone could judge the reasons and consequences to this
country (US) as anything other than senseless."
I do not see how anyone with reasonable knowledge of the events of communism
and indochina could consider our presence and effort in vietnam anything but
moral. Again I ask you to compare and contrast the vietnam war and the
korean war, I would like to hear what you have to say about it.
> 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."
It is no pretense, it is an added benefit. I can only draw the conclusion
from statements such as this that you feel the only moral actions are
altruistic ones. Is that the case? If that is the case please sacrifice
your life and give me all your money. It is clear that both we (The US and
the post industrialized west) will be far better off without Sadam in power
of IRAQ, simaltaneously the people of IRAQ will also be far better off. Do
you not agree that the people of IRAQ would be far better off under a
democratic constitutional republic than under Saddam?
Regards,
Michael
LEGAL NOTICE
Unless expressly stated otherwise, this message is confidential and may be privileged. It is intended for the addressee(s) only. Access to this E-mail by anyone else is unauthorized. If you are not an addressee, any disclosure or copying of the contents of this E-mail or any action taken (or not taken) in reliance on it is unauthorized and may be unlawful. If you are not an addressee, please inform the sender immediately.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Feb 02 2003 - 21:26:02 MST