From: Brett Paatsch (paatschb@ocean.com.au)
Date: Fri Feb 21 2003 - 20:33:43 MST
Hubert writes:
<snip>
> > [Brett]
> > For my part I wonder sometimes if my atheism which I think is
> > a position I've arrived at intellectually rather than emotionally
> > may bias my perceptions more towards being willing to be
> > hawkish when the circumstances require it.
> >
> > I grew up in a Christian tradition (Roman Catholic secondary
> > school and all) and went through the stages of agnostic to atheist
> > in my mid to late teens. ......
>
> I grew up with the very same mind set and became an atheist in
> my late teens. But it was in post war Germany, so I aquired the
> memes of my generation (I was born 1954) that no country
> should engage in a war anymore except when it is attacked.
So if I understand you correctly you see your position as strongly
influenced by prevailing German cultural memes of post war
Germany which include a strong never-again reaction to Hitler
and his wars of invasion? And this is based on a rich appreciation
of the consequences of wars of invasion both for people in the
countries invaded and then ultimately for the German people
themselves when the invasions were responded to ultimately by
counter invasion?
Is this so?
If it is so then I think maybe this is an understandable over-
correction but an over-correction nonetheless.
I see it as an over-correction because the logistics of modern
warfare are such that if you wait until the invaders are actually
attacking your country in force and don't take some preparatory
steps in response to what are apparently preparatory steps being
made by the potential aggressor then you wait too long either to
have a deterrent or to have an effective defence.
> In that case, of course it is justified to defend your life and I would
> probably learn to use a gun very quickly. And I know that some
> contemporary Christian think tanks (yes, the DO have some :-)
> are finally talking about a "just peace" - in the case of Iraq -
Interesting. Is that "just peace" a reference to the war that hasn't
started (the US build-up of forces etc) or are they perhaps talking
of the need to bring peace to Iraqi citizen's under Saddam?
> instead of a "just war" or a holy war, which had been a Christian
> dogma through the
> ages. There is a congregation (?) in Rome, forgot its name. They
> were already nominated for the Peace Nobel Prize. Maybe one
> of our Italian friends knows who I am talking about.
>
> Anyway, coming back to the topic: The USA are NOT attacked
> by Saddam,
Granted. Not yet. But Saddam was not cooperating with UN
resolutions and the terms of the Gulf War ceasefire. He definitely was
not doing so before Bush raised the ante on him with a military build up
and by lobbying, so hard, so far, within the appropriate forum, the UN
Security Council.
> so they have no bloody right to invade his country and piss at his
> garden fence with a GPS penis.
The US hasn't done that yet and may not have to if the Security Council
members do their job's well enough. This is the pivotal point. If
the Security Council doesn't *effectively* provide *security* the
Security Council and the UN are not able to perform their functions
as agreed in the UN Charter.
> It is a crime and Troubleyou Bush will be a criminal if he does so.
It is not a crime yet. Bush is not guilty of invading Iraq yet against the
UN Charter and against 1441 yet. He is engaged in brinkmanship
with Saddam - a career brinkman who may not take anything else
seriously, but he has not yet invaded Iraq. It is not a *crime* to
engage Saddam with brinkmanship. It is not a *crime* to lobby the
Security Council even very strongly. It is not a *crime* for a
US President to be a poor statesman or a poor communicator.
- Brett
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Feb 21 2003 - 20:10:55 MST