From: MaxPlumm@aol.com
Date: Fri Jun 06 2003 - 00:24:37 MDT
I said (amongst other things, to properly quote Emlyn):
>This is even more appalling when one considers that every civilian life
lost in Iraq could've been saved had Saddam Hussein simply relinquished
power by the time of the U.S. imposed deadline.
To which Emlyn responds:
"This is the second time you've said this in the last day or two. You don't
also say "This is even more appalling when one considers that every civilian
life lost in Iraq could've been saved had the coalition of the willing not
attacked in the first place." Why not?"
The answer to that is very simple. The causes of the Coalition to remove
Saddam Hussein from power and Hussein's quest to continue his murderous,
dictatorial regime are not morally equivalent. Again, you seem to be suggesting that
had the Coalition not attacked Iraq, then no killings of any kind would have
occured, as opposed to the daily doses of state sanctioned murder that was one of
the Hussein regimes distinguishing traits.
One can say "I'm no fan of Hussein" and despise (or claim to) every facet of
his rule until they're blue in the face, but ultimately such attitudes endorse
a status quo that permits unending human suffering. As fellow extropian Matus
likes to say "No one is free until everyone is free."
And as Churchill once said, "I choose not to be impartial between the fireman
and the fire."
Regards,
Max Plumm
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Jun 06 2003 - 00:36:02 MDT