From: matus (matus@snet.net)
Date: Thu Mar 27 2003 - 12:07:35 MST
Charles Hixson wrote: (please ignore the previous response I sent to this
thread, it was sent accidently and prematurely)
"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
"Actually, in many place the US has made things worse. It does have such a
history."
Which is it, does it have a history of making things worse, or has it 'by
and large done pretty well'?
"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."
AND
"People that you kill aren't going to hurt you."
So you would basically prefer that the US just outright Nuke baghdad, and
therefore just kill people they would otherwise just make angry?
"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."
That being said, which manner would you prefer it be conducted (if it is to
be conducted anyway), massive civilian causalties, or taking great care to
reduce such casualties? You seem to merely acknowledge the different
manners, but not state which you would prefer.
>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."
Yeah, I think you do need to check that.
"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. And why you
would place 'we put him there' as a greater moral justification for removing
him than 'he has murdered 200,000 people' is beyond me.
>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? Your basic stance appears to be 'who cares what
goes on in the world, as long as we arent doing any bad things' Do you also
draw that same distinction at a personal level? "who cares what other
people do, as long as I am a good person" Why make the distinction between
the behavior of states and that of people?
"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.
>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."
Your own admitted morality point you to not care what else occurs in the
world as long as you are a good person.
Michael Dickey
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Mar 27 2003 - 11:58:39 MST