From: Max M (maxmcorp@worldonline.dk)
Date: Thu Jan 23 2003 - 12:45:13 MST
Robert J. Bradbury wrote:
> The question I would ask Max and others is "When does one act?".
When we, or our allies, are in clear and present danger. Or when we have
the moral obligation to do so.
The only long-term solution there is to threats like terrorism, are
those we have applied to the Soviet Union. Time and "economic warfare".
We won over the soviet union by a mix of stick and carrot. We are
currently winning over China! A potential much bigger threat than Iraq.
This just go basically unnoticed because we are doing it slowly by peace
and trade.
They are all moving in the direction of a free (market) society. When
they show us a little movement in the direction of human rights and
freedom, we open the trade and cooperation a bit. Until they finally
have an open and free society.
The problem right now is that we in the west needs the oil from the
middle east. This means that we cannot do what is morally right.
We simply cannot tell the arab dictators to "get democracy, human rights
and freedom, or we will isolate you!" So we, albeit unvillingly, support
dictatorships.
Here we are on the moral low ground. This is the main problem with the
current situation. We are hypocrites. All of us in the west, not just
the US.
The only real alternative I see if we could make ourself independent of
the middle east oil. Perhaps by developing a hydrogen economy?
> How much of Northern Iraq should we let the Islamic fundamentalists
> take from the Kurds? Do we allow them to create another Afghanistan?
> Should we stand by while violence takes 100+ lives in Nigeria?
> What about 1 million+ lives in Rwanda?
It is limited both by our moral obligations, and by how much we are
actually able to do. This is no easy call. But there should be a clear
and consistent policy in these situations. This is missing right now.
> I don't think we (the U.S., Europe, etc.) apply our interventionist
> policies in very consistent ways. I can think of Yugoslavia, East
> Timor and Afghanistan as cases where we intervened with some success.
> But it was only after a lot of human suffering had taken place.
Agreed! We have a moral obligation to help. But then again we don't have
the obligation to solve every problem in the world. I actually think
that we are doing it just right right now in the EU. Adding more and
more countries to out peacefull circle of influence.
In time they will be strong and rich allies. If we can then gradually
expand this circle, soon the world could become a peacefull place.
> Sticking our heads in the sand doesn't solve the problems because
> there are intolerant and/or power hungry people out there who
> *will* take advantage of that situation (Hitler, Stalin, Milosevic,
> Khomeini, Osama, Saddam, etc.). The real question is how to
> intervene in ways that don't create bigger problems down the
> road (as many cold war activities may have done).
It is a balance between our moral obligations toward other people and
towards our own citizens. We don't have an endless suply of soldiers to
waste in conflicts. We should not send troops to a conflict we do not
expect to "win". Both long and short term.
A problem with Iraq is what to do after the war? Should the west really
become an occupational force in a muslim country? We would probably not
win many friends in the region that way.
They are pretty upset over the israeli occupation of palestinian
territories as it is. Which we by the way are not doing much against.
Even though the UN has demed it illegal.
We cannot just leave Iraq after having destroyed the power structure .
That would open it up to all kind af dangerous possibilities. So it is
far from certain that we can "win" the conflict.
-- hilsen/regards Max M Rasmussen http://www.futureport.dk/ Fremtiden, videnskab, skeptiscisme og transhumanisme
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Feb 02 2003 - 21:26:02 MST