From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Wed Mar 26 2003 - 21:07:05 MST
Cory wrote
> Lee wrote:
> > Cory writes
> > > So, here, most Iraqis must know that
> > > they cannot win against any one of
> > > the coalition nations in an all out
> > > war, let alone all of them. If to
> > > them, being overrun by the infidels
> > > or western imperialists, or whatever
> > > association the may rightly or
> > > wrongly have, is the worst fate,
> > > then they logically must do anything
> > > they can to circumvent this.
> >
> > "Anything"? You are putting forth the
> > interesting thesis that any act is
> > justified in order to avoid losing a
> > war. There are pluses to this view,
> > and minuses.
>
> nah, it depends on what losing [this is
> also the correct spelling of that slippery
> word, for the benefit of those admirable
> people who don't have English as their
> native tongue] the war means to the people.
> And I'm not sure what you intend with the
> word "justified".
> I certainly was not claiming it [the Iraqi
> position to be] right or just, but that it
> is what they must do to prevent losing.
> So again it routes back to what is to be
> lost from the war.
Yes. What will be the consequences of *losing*
is a big component all right.
> > On the plus side, should the U.S. have
> > subverted allegedly democratically
> > elected governments in order to thwart
> > the U.S.S.R.'s plans...
>
> If the US did that, it may have won a battle,
> but probably have lost them the war via PR
> relations.
Who really cares about that, if you succeed
in destroying a murderous, ruthless, and
horrifying regime like the U.S.S.R.? Okay,
so the lefties scored a few points on the
campuses when the U.S. set up a pro-Western
Iran. But the end result was that there is
no U.S.S.R. today.
> > Therefore, I would suggest that if the
> > U.S., for example, captures an Al Qaeda
> > terrorist who knows where an atom bomb
> > in New York city is hidden, then torture
> > him, I say, in order to learn where.
>
> This is undoubtedly true, and I imagine that
> almost anyone in such a position would do so.
> > But [battlefield conditions would be
> > different]
>
> that and the US are after all the ones
> invading. Certainly at the very least,
> they need to live up to a higher standard
> to justify any actions they do.
Yes, good point.
> OTOH, an Iraqi soldier capturing a US
> soldier with just general strategy
> knowledge, assuming said Iraqi intends
> to defend his country, could easily view
> torturing information out as the only
> way to stand a fighting chance.
Yes, he may. Or maybe he won't. Or it
may depend. What I would like you to do
is express approval or disapproval. You
seem to be reluctant to do this, so I'll
ask some sharp questions:
1. An Al Qaeda terrorist know where the
bomb is. Torture him?
(You said "this is undoubtedly true"
but failed to express your approval
or disapproval.)
2. An ex-wife of an important Iraqi general
is found to be living in New York under
an assumed name. How far should the
U.S. military go to extract information
that may help them win a key battle?
(Again---not what would be expected, but
what you'd sanction.)
3. Baghdad is about to fall, but a convoy
makes a wrong turn, and some cooks are
captured by some very angry and hateful
Iraqi soldiers. *Should* they torture
him, given that they have seen countless
comrades cut down by American machine-
weapons, and have been hating Americans
and non-Muslims their whole lives?
In effect, I'm asking what you would say
to them, whether you would exhort them to
any course of action, and whether you
could back it up with reason integrated
with a moral perspective you'll defend
here on the list.
4. It's 1965 and Israeli agents have just
found a notorious war-criminal in South
America, and one of the Mossad agents
had a brother tortured and killed by
this same war criminal. You are one
of the other agents. The choice of the
group is either to kill him or torture
him first before killing him (extradition
is not an option). One of the other
agents does not want to torture him first.
What should you do? What should you be
in favor of your group doing? What would
you say, and to whom?
> All-out war has no rules.
Wrong. No one wanted to win more than the
Allies or the Germans in WWI but no one
used poison gas (though I admit that
possibly there was strong self-interest
involved). The Germans scrupulously
avoided bombing London in World War II
---it was against Hitler's policy to
bomb civilians. But a Luftwaffe plan
went off course one night---one plane
out of dozens---and dropped a very few
bombs on London doing very little
damage. The English retaliated with a
quite large bombing run aimed exactly
at a German city, and that was the start
of WWII's frightful civilian death toll
from the air in both arenas of the war.
There had been rules in play, and the
British directly broke them.
> > Now here are the acid questions:
> > (1) would you or would you not
> > have any moral outrage against
> > the U.S. were the Americans to
> > do to enemy captives what is
> > apparently being done to theirs?
>
> Okay, before I can answer this, which
> would you rather have?
Okay. As you wish. I am not shy.
> A few soldiers of your party captured and
> tortured, or Washington routinely bombed,
> communication broken off and surrounded so
> that eventually if by some miracle the
> invading force doesn't break through,
> everybody will inevitably starve to death?
I would rather have a few of my soldiers
tortured.
> Not that I don't understand *why*
> the coalition would choose this
> strategy in the war, but certainly
> it's not a fair fight to start with.
Gasp! Choke! What do you think this
is, a game? What do you want to see,
maybe the Russians come in on the Iraqi
side so that we get a really good show?
> In other words, yes I'd find moral
> outrage [for the U.S. torturing Iraqi
> captives taken in desert fighting] as
> it is utterly unnecessary and cruel
> in our case [for the U.S. to do so].
Thanks for the answer.
> > (2) Is there any act of perpetrated
> > by the Iraqis against enemy
> > combatants (or enemy nations,
> > e.g., an A-bomb in New York's
> > harbor) that would elicit moral
> > outrage on your part?
>
> Certainly the A-bomb would,
Good!
> although I'd keep in mind that we
> could have NOT invaded and this
> wouldn't've happened, so perhaps
> the outrage would be directed at
> more than one source.
Oh good grief. And so I suppose that
if the U.S. were to nuke Baghdad right
off the map with a 20-megatonner, you'd
have "some" moral outrage against the
U.S., but you'd also direct your outrage
at more than one source, say, Saddam
and Iraq?
The lenses you're looking through seem
a little tilted to me.
> OTOH, if Baghdad was on the brink of
> extinction, (and I mean no question:
> they either do something drastic or
> die, surrender not even an option)
> and a centralized group of troops
> located in Iraq were nuked, it would
> certainly be a horrible thing,
but, so long as it's the Americans
being nuked...
> but I can't be certain I'd be outraged
> at them, as they were left with no other
> choice.
Yes, you *do* always have a choice. And
that's what I'd tell the understandably
upset Mossad agent in 1965. You can still
choose to do the right thing!
Now, take a look back at what is known
as "the finest moment in American History".
Recall the unbelievably visceral hatred
that existed between Yank and Rebel.
At Appomatix courthouse in 1865, Robert E.
Lee sadly walked out of his surrender to
general Grant and addressed his troops.
He could have said, "We will fight in the
streets, we will fight in the hills, we
will NEVER surrender!" And if he had said
this, even unto this very moment pockets
of Rebels would be holed up in the hills
and swamps of the South. But he did not
say this.
"It's all over, boys", said he. And so it
was.
Sometimes the right thing---that is, the
thing that you will approve of if you
reflect on it long enough and allow all
your knowledge and reason to come into
play---, sometimes the right thing is
to surrender.
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Mar 26 2003 - 21:06:55 MST