From: Dickey, Michael F (michael_f_dickey@groton.pfizer.com)
Date: Fri Jan 24 2003 - 07:25:03 MST
-----Original Message-----
From: Samantha Atkins [mailto:samantha@objectent.com]
Dickey, Michael F wrote:
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Max M [mailto:maxmcorp@worldonline.dk]
>
> "So far Bush is doing a very poor job convincing anybody that he is
morally
> right in attacking Irak. Especially the arab countries are
> convinced it is all just a ploy to get cheap oil. Exactly the situation
that
> turned Osama and many other arabs against the
> USA. So how can that be a long term solution?"
>
> The fact that Sadam is a murderous racist tyrant despotic dictator is
moral
> justification enough.
"With no or little consequences and death to only him and his direct guard
and troops that *might* be enough. But this is far from the case."
So because you feel 'innocents' might be killed, we should do nothing about
Sadam? What about the innocents slaughtered by his murderous tyranny? As I
noted to Kai, I would be interested in hearing some alternative and viable
methods of dealing with Saddam from the Anti-War side besides 'war bad, war
bad'
So we can not attack IRAQ unless we only kill or remove him and his direct
guard and troops. What about his Son? What about his supporters? What
about his political leadership and infrastructure? What about the soliders
standing in his way, shall we politley ask them to step out of the way?
What about his aresnal?
> The fact that Europeans do not find this as a moral
> justification is a testament to the liberalized moral relativist notions
> prevalent in Europe at the moment.
"This is nothing but empty rhetoric."
Your following response demonstates otherwise.
"The latest polls show that 70% of the American people believe we should not
use military means at this time, that we should give more time to
inspections and diplomatic means. Of course you can make your empty
accusations against them also. But at some point you really need to notice
that a great deal of the world and of US people do not believe this is the
correct course of action. Call them whatever names you will, the numbers
are against you."
A great deal of people in the world think that thier feelings could manage
to alter the course of a single spec of dust in the universe, believe that
stars tell their futures, and drinking urine in the morning is healthy. As
the numbers were also 'anti war' the vietnam era, and that cost the lives of
3 million indochinese people, I must appeal to the fallacy of logic known as
argumentum ad populum, just because more people say something, doesn't make
it more likely to be right. This same majority of people (such as yourself)
think its ok that 3 million indochinese people were murdered by an
expansionistic communist regime. I don't think it was ok, but does the fact
that more people think it was actually make it ok? This is the fundamental
basis for moral relativism, it is an appaling, irrational, and ultimately
deadly appeal to make. I don't care how many people say its ok to murder
and slaughter 3 million people, or that it was 'senselless' to try to stop
such an attrocity, it still is wrong.
> You also seem to be oblivious of the
> fact that this murderous racist tyrant also controls the worlds second
> largest supply of the cheapest and dense sources of energy in the world,
and
> surprisingly he has used it for murder and tyranny. This is NOT about
> 'cheap' oil so evil oil companies can profit, its about getting the
cheapest
> most plentiful source of energy, in fact the second largest depository of
> it, out of the hands of a murderous despotic tyrant.
>
"He hasn't been able to do much of squat with that oil for the last decade
in case you missed it."
What do you think his military industrial base runs on, solar power? Oh
wait, you did say 'last decade' was that specifically so I couldn't site his
fossil fuel burning war machines that were used to invade kuwait?
"There are many murderous despotic tyrants in the world. Why do we go after
this one in particular at this time? Are you sure oil and positioning US
forces don't have at least something to do with it?"
The same as Kai's "There are other morally less just military actions to
take, since we havent taken them, I will not support this one, which is more
morally just" Consider what you are saying, Sadam is a known murderous
tyrant, west hating, oppressor, racist, AND controls the worlds second
largest oil supply. That's a lot of strikes against him, not to mention he
has or is attempting to acquire weapons of mass destruction. Of the
countries Kai mentioned "Chile, Argentina, Nicaragua, Iran" which of these
also shares *all* these strikes? Is Chili West hating? Is it racist? Does
it have weapons of mass destruction? Did it use weapons of mass destruction
on its own people? Does it control the worlds second largest oil supply?
Michael Dickey
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 - 21:26:03 MST