From: Camp, Christopher (CCamp@omm.com)
Date: Thu Jan 30 2003 - 12:44:39 MST
There are so many viable options that do not involve war. We are an
inventive species and I don't think this problem, philosophically or
practically, necessitates war. If you want to offer a proof that states the
opposite I'd be glad to investigate it.
Suffice to say that establishing with absolute certainty the option of
maximal efficiency is out of both of our ranges. With that as a starting
point I won't categorically say that war is not the best option I just
think, based on limited information and cognitive power, that we can do
better. As transhumanists/extropians we find ourselves dreaming of
immortality and so many of us are still calling for a bayonet to be shoved
in the gut of those who threaten us. Threats can be dealt with in so many
ways.
What would a containment strategy cost in dollars and in dangers. Why
couldn't we send in a force of 50,000 UN inspectors instead of our Armies
with the option of leaving them there as long is it (whatever we determine
it to be) takes. Why should we think that 100 or 1,000 inspectors is
anywhere near enough. If this level of force were to occupy Iraq - hiding,
working on and deploying any weapons of mass destruction would become a
dramatically more difficult option. If Iraq mistreated any of these
inspectors UN judgment would quickly find agreement and other action could
be taken.
Combine containment with a massive Marshall program in Afghanistan to help
modernize the country and educate its people. We'll make sure that
Al-Jazeera is kept up-to-date on all the improvements were making and how
happy the citizens are to have running water, air-conditioning, education,
democracy and freedom. In the meantime we'll continue massive propaganda
attacks on the minds of the Iraqi's and let them know that if they overthrow
Saddam we'll Marshall plan them too and let them run their own country - not
just install some puppet. Of course these don't seem to be very likely
options but it doesn't mean that the sane and reasonable shouldn't argue for
them in the face of war.
War seems like such a dangerous option for so many reasons:
Why martyr Saddam?
Why invite counter-attack from Iraq?
Why invite counter-attack from the Islamic world (didn't someone say
"Crusade")?
Why continue a cycle of violence and death when we are so close, as a
species, to finally cutting our biological ties to death - when will we cut
the sociological/psychological ties?
Why undermine the UN when there is no more important time for a credible and
effective world government to emerge?
In short I believe that we can find a better, more effective way to spend
$200 billion and still create acceptable levels of peace and security.
Chris
-----Original Message-----
From: Dehede011@aol.com [mailto:Dehede011@aol.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2003 10:13 AM
To: extropians@extropy.org
Subject: Re: Time.com asks you to vote for most dangerous country
In a message dated 1/30/2003 12:02:35 PM Central Standard Time,
thespike@earthlink.net writes: How astonishing! When I opened this up, I
wasn't even sure that USA would be an option. Current score:
How tacky of the Americans? They don't wish to be victimized by
people that have victimized them and others in the past. Is that what you
and the Europeans wish to convey to us Dr. Broderick?
Tell me what do you intend to do to guarantee our safety Dr.
Broderick -- other than write emails encouraging us to not protect
ourselves? We know that in your humble opinion we are in no danger -- but
we find no comfort in your words, we want action. What are you going to do
other than advise impotence in the face of a threat?
Ron h.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Feb 02 2003 - 21:26:03 MST