From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Sat Mar 15 2003 - 13:48:38 MST
Michael M. Butler wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Mar 2003 01:44:49 -0800, Samantha Atkins
> <samantha@objectent.com> wrote:
>
>> There is not a bit of "rectitude" to be had in preemption.
>
>
> I am going to spend a lot of time repeating that the issue isn't just
> about Iraq. But to get one Iraq-specific point out of the way...
>
Of course it is not about Iraq. It is about the stated policy
of being justified to use preemptive strikes wherever we believe
we are threatened.
>> From the standpoint of an armistice with dictated terms (not a peace), a
>
> military action in response to a violation of the terms of the armistice
> is not preemption. It would be a cleaner matter in old (Treaty of
> Westphalia) terms if there had been a tidy declaration of war on both
> sides, but such seem to have gone out of fashion. I wish I really
> understood why--I have my suspicions.
>
I am not speaking primarily of Iraq and I don't consider that an
instance of any meaningful preemption in any case. Stupid
policy and unjustified use of force yes, but not preemption
except for those who still believe Iraq is somehow a creditable
threat.
> I'm not sure. I used to be sure. As I said, non-solution unsatisfactory.
> And the even more correct term is not pr-emption, it's PREVENTION, which
> is an even bigger red flag to the parts of me that are still wired to
> dislike "status crimes"--making things, rather than actions, unlawful.
>
Prevention of war or terrorism by killing all who might every
likely be able and desire to attack? Surely this is not
justifiable ever. There can be no peace if this is considered
reasonable. No one and no country with any serious
disagreements with a country having such a policy and the might
to enforce it would ever sleep soundly until said country was
defanged. Where is there any moral high ground or justification
at all for such?
> The point being that pre-emption is action taken when an attack is
> imminent, and prevention is action taken to make attack impossible. I
> don't like it when, e.g., some busybody want to PREVENT me from doing X
> or Y or Z. But I don't have a track record as bad as Saddam's.
Make up your mind. Is this about Iraq or not? I believe it is
far broader. I would also point out that we ourselves don't
have a lily white track record. The question is whether the
initiation of force is justified in international relations. I
do not believe it is.
> Factor
> out the "who gassed who" jazz, ignore whether or not he got a green
> light to roll over Kuwait--he's still killing something like 36,000 of
> his countrymen every year. That's HIM doing it, as a matter of policy,
Maybe so. But then we and the allies are responsible for even
more deaths in Iraq every year. We admitted as much. So surely
this is not a justification for killing hundreds of thousands
more and destroying much of the rest of the infrastructure of
the country. We have supported many leaders who have much, much
worse track records. So this is no justification.
> independent of any effect of sanctions. And I think there's some
> indication that if somehow Saddam is "contained" for, say, ten more
> years, another 300,000 to 400,000 of his people will be killed by his
> policies.
>
And by ours.
> But I am done talking about Saddam in this post.
>
Good. I thought you were much earlier, but ok.
> You want everybody to wait until there's a big smoking hole; that's the
> only fair way to fight. In the abstract, I do agree with
> you--retaliation is much more clear-cut. But did you actually read the
> referenced articles, or are you simply reacting to the parts I (/Dan)
> quoted? The notion that some states are much more functionally sovereign
> (and more functionally vulnerable) than other is crucial to the
> conclusions quoted. I am not sure I disagree sharply. I do agree that
> things are a mess.
>
Yes, I read it.
> And as the scene is becoming clear, in the general case one can create a
> big smoking hole without leaving a clear contrail back to the guilty
> party. It truly is only a matter of time before someone manages to pull
> that off. What then? And the crucial thing is that superempowerment can
> lead to a non-state actor deeply damaging a sovereign state. Do we just
> grimace and shrug when that happens?
> I mean, hey, after all, it's a free world, right?
>
It has always been truth that big smoking holes could be created
without leaving a contrail back to the guilty party. But how is
that a justification for preemptive strikes on the terroritory
of other nations? How is it a justification for invasions? A
better guarantee of safety as we get more personal power for
destruction (arguably it still isn't that easy) is to act as
civilly with one another and between countries as possibly. But
this is very much not the policy of the US right now. So
when/if it happens I do not in any way see how we can claim that
we are totally blameless. We have hung the proverbial sword
over much of the world now. Should we be oh so shocked and
surpised that some will resent it and act on that resentment?
No, this is not a justification for terrorism. But it is
pointing out that the way to reasonably peaceful and free future
is not through eliminating all possible threats regardless of
how we ourselves act.
> I am opposed to human suffering. As one of the quoted parts of the
> article said, it might very well be that Saddam isn't the droid we're
> looking for.
He absolutely certainly is not "the droid" we claim we are
looking for.
> But it also may be that by granting creeps like him the
> same standing as leaders of less screwed up countries, we are doing a
> net disservice to humanity. This presupposes that some creeps really are
> a lot worse than others--sepecially inasmuch as they might not care who
> they empower, or might even delight in the deniability of same. The
> issue needs to be looked at squarely, independent of the situation with
> Iraq qua Iraq.
>
So, we can march into and take over any country we consider to
be run by creeps and other wise leaders and peoples should do
the same heh? Wonderful. The utter rule of might and the
prejudicies and fears of the governments. Doesn't these seem
like a buge step toward oblivion to you?
When it comes to creeps we have empowered and supported some of
the worst on earth, including Saddam.
> And this is separable from all the things you (I guess) don't like about
> George Bush. It really is.
> And it is separable from all the things the US has done in foreign
> arenas in the past that sucked. It really, REALLY is.
>
George Bush is irrelevant. He is simply holding the bag while
the US is taking the gloves off on attitudes and actions,
especially towards the rights of Americans themselves, that have
been cooking and developing for decades. I wish it was as
simple as this one man being a mad dog. Unfortunately it is
much worse than that.
It is not separate from the things we have done that sucked if
much of the anger and likely agression towards us is BECAUSE of
those things.
> Maybe it _is_ time for "sovereignty lite". I don't like it much. But I
> consider the topic to be open for discussion, INDEPENDENT of the
> presenting situation in/around Iraq, which is why I posted. I suspect
> that the Treaty of Westphalia is on borrowed time no matter what happens
> to/in Iraq. And I do not consider dicsussion of such unreasonable.
> Especially if a paradigm shift really is on the way, for good OR ILL. I
> am not confident I grok all the ramifications. It doesn't have to imply
> utter chaos, though that's a comfortably-hysterical view for some.
>
So sovereignity is absolute for those with the most guns and
lite for everyone else heh? Or in terms of rights and equality,
"some are more equal than others". This is a formula for global
insecurity and war. All of our >human goals are likely to be
toast for at least a generation if we go down this road.
Consider very deeply the consequences of what you propose.
Whether there is a paradigm shift is up to us in a country
supposedly representing the will of its people. We cannot
simply sit back and allow a dangerous shift. Not if we care
about our lives and future.
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Mar 15 2003 - 13:49:24 MST