From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Sat Mar 15 2003 - 02:44:49 MST
Michael M. Butler wrote:
> I'll try to put my thoghts down in sme sort of coherent way by the weekend.
> In the mean time, forwarded from my friend Dan L., the below.
>
> "A DISMAL THOUGHT: I'm left with the conclusion that we will only get
> such consensus in favor of pre-emption after the destruction of a major
> Western city, or a chemical or biological catastrophe. In this sense,
> Blair and Bush may simply be ahead of their time. And what they see as
> the potential threat is so depressing and terrifying that it's perhaps
> only understandable that the world for a while will wish to look the
> other way. The truth is and we may as well admit it: we have failed to
> convince the world, just as Churchill failed to convince the world in
> the 1930s. And as 9/11 recedes a little, we are even tempted to falter
> in this dreadful analysis ourselves.
Uh huh. How is it "preemptive" if it is a response to a direct
attack against the guilty party? Oh, you mean attack
preemptively any and all who we think might be a threat
sometimes although they haven't done anything? Sorry, but this
is always wrong and always will be.
>
> "The difference between now and the 1930s, of course, is that we may now
> have Churchill in office - but before the world has become convinced of
> his rectitude: history repeated as a deeply tragic farce.
There is not a bit of "rectitude" to be had in preemption.
>
> "STILL, SKEPTICISM: To add to the complications, we may be right about
> the basic analysis but wrong in this particular case." --Andrew Sullivan
>
If we consider preemption to be reasonable then it is certain we
are wrong in our basic analysis, never mind the particular
victims we pick.
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Mar 15 2003 - 02:45:57 MST