From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Tue Mar 04 2003 - 10:02:40 MST
Hubert writes
> Lee, I think, it's really admirable that you stay cool enough
> to answer Mike Wiiks cynical proposal with reasonable thoughts.
You thought that was cool? ;-) Hardly.
> This thread started as a satire and it kept going in this spirit.
Yes, I know---and I don't have any problem with people having
a good time.
> This fantasy of personalizing bullets and bombs with its obvious hate
> towards Iraqui civilians is so utterly disgusting that you cannot ignore it.
> Reason and arguments have long since left this thread. So I answered by
> firing back in the same spirit. Al least I found a term for my political
> viewpoint: I think I am a militant pacifist.
Yes, but it is really too early to abandon reasoned arguments
entirely? Wouldn't you agree that we face enormous trade-offs
here? Yes, the risk cuts both ways. However, we see the
example I provided where if a country that really was going
to be posing a future threat could have been brought down
*before* millions of lives were lost, it would have been a
good thing.
The trouble with pacifism is that it merely seems to delay
the onset of war. Recall the famous toast by all the fellows
at Oxford or Cambridge in the late thirties who steadfastly
refused to support "King and country". A few years later they
were fighting anyway.
Don't you really think that within a few years at most a Western
city will be nuked? Doesn't it make sense to take preventive
action while we can? (As above, it's always a risk either way.)
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Mar 04 2003 - 21:47:56 MST