From: matus (matus@snet.net)
Date: Thu Mar 27 2003 - 11:50:04 MST
MaxPlumm@aol.com wrote:
>I initially questioned Charles:..
>
>"I protest when those who claim to represent me engage in actions I find
>immoral. (It's less than clear to me what sense it makes to protest
>someone who doesn't claim to represent me anyway.)"
>
>So you would then agree that it is inappropriate for those abroad to
protest
>the US campaign against Saddam Hussein, given that they did not also
protest
>the aforementioned aggression of North Vietnam, the Soviet Union, and the
>French decision to remove Bokassa?
>
Yes. Not that I expect people to be consistent. As the most obtrusive
figure the US can expect to gain the most scrutiny. By and large we've
done pretty well, especially in a historical context, but I don't expect
people to notice that.
AND
>"Getting bombs dropped on you head always improves your viewpoint. And
>having your water supplies destroyed. etc."
>
>Again, you either ignored or conveniently edited out my point regarding the
>fact that the United States has gone to tremendous strides to avoid
civilian
>casualties. We could simply "bomb the hell" out of Baghdad
indiscriminately,
>just as we could have flooded the dikes in North Vietnam, causing millions
of
>civilian deaths but bringing those conflicts to swifter resolutions. And
yet,
>unlike our adversaries in Baghdad or Hanoi, mass terror is not our policy.
>
I didn't ignore it, but despite any care that may have been taken,
people are being maimed, killed, wounded, and having their water
supplies destroyed. You can argue all you want that it could have been
much worse, but ensuring a large number of survivors who have been
grossly damaged by you is going to make you LOTS of enemies.
N.B.: survivors. We are injuring people, and insuring that they, or
their relatives, survive. People that you kill aren't going to hurt
you. People who aren't involved may be disgusted, frightened, etc., but
they won't feel vengeful. People whose children you kill are going to
hate you bitterly. I consider this war to be immoral from the start,
but I also consider that it's being conducted in a way that is almost
designed to create a large number of bitter enemies.
>>...
>>Are you going to seriously argue that the Iraqi people will not benefit
from
>>the removal of Saddam Hussein?
>>
>"If that were the only effect, then I wouldn't make that assertion. But
>actually I expect that to be a minor benefit that they may obtain, if
>the puppet we put in isn't even worse. (Remember, we put him in
>originally.)"
>
>No, we did not "put him in originally." We certainly did aid his regime in
>his war against the Iranians. But so what? That fact alone does not look at
>that decision in any historical perspective nor does it prohibit us from
our
>current action. We heavily aided the Soviet Union during World War II, a
>temporary alliance that gave way to inevitable conflict when our common
enemy
>had been vanquished.
>
I think you are wrong about that, though I'll need to check. (I had
been told that he worked for/with the CIA, and extrapolated from that,
perhaps incorrectly.) If we didn't put him in, then we have even less
moral standing in removing him... so from my point of view, you are
saying that I've been giving the US too much credit for moral
justification for this war.
No, I believe he is saying that your assumptions are not true.
> ...
>
>"They are doing it intentionally in the sense that they are criminally
>negligent if they didn't know ahead of time that this would happen. I'm
>not claiming that they planned to do it, but rather that they had to
>know that this would be one of the effects. "Collateral damage" I
>believe the term is."
>
>You claim we are "criminally negligent" for causing a limited number of
>civilian deaths. What is Saddam Hussein then? It is absolutely ludicrous to
>
No. I believe that they did know that they would be causing many deaths
in non-combatants, and in people who just objected to their homeland
being invaded by a foreign power. I don't feel that they acted in
ignorance.
>suggest that the amount of civilian casualties will approach any where near
>the number of Iraqi deaths Hussein's regime is responsible for. It is only
>
It makes a big difference who is doing the vile things. If we are doing
it, then it is our responsibility. If we are supporting their bein
done, then it is partially our responsibility. If we aren't doing them,
then it isn't our responsibility.
You omit the next possible logical scenerio, we sit by and allow it to
happen. Is that moral?
"We might reasonably assist someone requesting our aid."
And if they are unable to request it because they will be beaten, raped,
gased, tortured, or executed? Plenty of exiles have requested our
assistance.
In this case I think it would be justified to place
a price on Hussein's head (a fairly large one). But this is because I
feel that we are already involved (I still haven't check on your earlier
assertion). If we weren't involved, then I don't feel we would even
have the moral right to go that far.
>logical to assume that the number of those butchered by that regime will
only
>continue to grow. The UN has done nothing to abate this situation. They did
>nothing to stop genocide in Cambodia, Laos, Ethopia, the Soviet Union,
China,
>Rwanda, and a ton of other locales in the world. Are you suggesting that
the
>limited number of 1000-6000 (the estimates in Afghanistan) is worse than
the
>continued mass murder that will be inflicted on the Iraqis by Hussein and
his
>heirs apparent?
>
There are many massacres occuring in the world. Are you suggesting that
we should invade and destroy whereever they might be about to occur, or
have recently occured? Seriously? And you are considering that this is
not only moral, but demanded by morality?
Yes, to think that if we have a reasonable cause to suspect a mass murder,
genocide, democide, or similar event is about to occur and that we should do
nothing about it is absolutely immoral. If you were to watch your neighbor
get beaten and butchered while you were cleaning your handgun, would you
consider it moral to sit idly by? I dont know what strange convention of
morality you abide that that *requires* you to do nothing to help others
when you are perfectly capable of helping them.
Why draw a distinction when 'states' are involved. Especially when one
state is a representation of its people and embraces freedom and individual
rights, while the other is headed by a murderous tyrannical dictator. Such
a state is not a valid or moral state in the *first* place, Saddam has no
*right* to rule Iraq as he does not respect the rights of his own people.
I'm sorry, but that's not the way my morality points. At the most, the
absolute most, we could announce, and then follow through with, a policy
of placing a price on the heads of state whenever some group (who?) had
reached a conclusion that the head of that state had been guilty of mass
murder. (It had better be a fairly large number, or the ex-governor of
Texas might find himself on the list.)
Mind you, I still have questions about the morality of that. Perhaps it
should be limited the the heads of state secret police and allied
agencies rather than the head of state himself. And even so, I'm not
sure about the justification used for intervening were we weren't
previously involved. The slim thread of morality is that we wouldn't be
encouraging the killing of anyone who wasn't already responsible for
murder. But that's pretty slim.
>>...
>>And please correct me if I'm wrong Charles, but if you accept that Hussein
>>"is (or was) evil" then you must then accept the conservative estimates
that
>>he is responsible for the deaths of at least 200,000 of his own people. If
>>
>"I don't have any basis to accept or reject any particular set of
>numbers. But there's a big difference between his doing it and our
>doing it. If he does it, then he is the villian. If we do it, then we
>are."
>
>The end result will be a better quality of life for the Iraqis with a
better
>government. Are you going to offer that the Taliban or the Soviet proxies
>were better for Afghanistan than Hamid Karzai's regime?
And the USSR suppressed ethnic rivalries that have resulted
in massive bloodshed, so one could easily argue that they often made
things better. Both nations generally act in their own perceived self
interest, and justify it with fancy speeches. The US hasn't wanted
undefensible territories far from it's borders, but it's been quite
eager for various minerals. The USSR plundered western europe of it's
industrial capability when it didn't have it's own (for a combination of
reasons). Neither action seems particularly moral to me, but both have
generally made moralistic justifications. And they US supports corrupt
and abusive dictators all over the world, as long as we find them
beneficial.
>>...That being said, in the long run, more lives will be saved through our
>>
>>
>"war
>
>
>>of aggression" than by allowing Saddam Hussein to remain in power. Not to
>>
>"This may or may not be true. It remains to be proven. Sometimes we
>have replaced one vile madman with another, sometimes we have improved
>things, sometimes we have made them worse. Usually on close examination
>it turns out that we acted in what we saw as our own self-interest, and
>any moralistic hand-wringing was just that."
>
>I have never on this forum ever said that we have acted in anything beyond
>our own self-interest internationally. I have made a point of illustrating
>that is not a bad thing. However, there is a huge difference between the
>self-interest of the United States and, for example, the totalitarians of
the
>Soviet Union, North Korea, North Vietnam, or Iraq. It is quite evident that
>you enjoy bashing the United States. Now, please provide ONE nation that
has
>a better history of spreading the causes of democracy and freedom abroad
than
>the United States.
>
>
>
>>mention the fact that the quality of life of the people of Iraq will be
>>improved, just as "amazingly" happens almost every time the United States
>>intervenes abroad. I think we all recall the South Koreans, Greeks,
>>
>>
>Japanese,
>
>
>>West Germans, and Afghans, among others, no?
>>
>>
>>
>
>"MacArthur and Marshall were extraordinary generals. And Hitler was the
>kind of villian that Hussein only has wet dreams about. And we occupied
>Japan for twenty years. But I can also recall many other events that
>turned out much worse. The Dominican Republic comes to mind as an
example."
>
>Again, you may criticize the United States all you like. As a matter of
fact,
>I recommend it in regard to the policies of the Johnson administration.
>However, the Trujillo regime that was in power in the Dominican Republic
from
>the 1930's through the 60's was certainly worse than what came after it.
And
>more to the point, it is absolutely ludicrous to suggest that democracy
would
>be in Germany, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Greece, among a score of other
>countries without direct actions taken by the United States. Please
>illustrate to me what other nations can make this claim?
>
Germany had a democracy before WWII, and would probably have returned to
one as a choice after defeat, though our intervention probably hastened
things. Japan's democrary is still largely a matter of form (the same
ruling party has been in power since the start, if I'm remembering
things correctly). It may become more democratic with time, or at least
adopt the "two identical partys" system that we use. I'm not really
very familiar with South Korea, but I seem to recall that it was
basically run by a strong-man... still that was decades ago, and I
haven't paid much attention recently. Taiwan has been under the
domination of the Nationalist Party since it took the island, but since
their founding strong-man (sorry, I forget his name-- I keep wanting to
say Ho Chi Minh or Sun Yat-Sen) died they have been less internally
autocratic. But I understand that the original inhabitants still have
essentially no rights. Greece has been a Kindom, a Democracy, a
WarLordShip??, and I guess it may be back to being a democracy again.
Again I don't know the details, but I'm guessing that their central
government, whatever it's form, is relatively weak (a good thing from my
point of view). And the US supported all of the variants. The US
doesn't really support democracies, though it tends to like oligarcies,
and finds it convenient if they pretend to be democracies... sometimes
the pretense will drift into an actuality. This may be happening in
Mexico. But it isn't a short process.
> ...
>
>So, without commenting further, note the ease with which you criticize Bush
>and not Saddam Hussein.
>
Bush claims to represent me.
> ...
>
>Max Plumm
>
-- -- Charles Hixson Gnu software that is free, The best is yet to be.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Mar 27 2003 - 11:41:57 MST