From: matus@matus1976.com
Date: Mon Jun 09 2003 - 21:25:47 MDT
> Matus wrote:
> > > >more it effects me' and 'removing a murderous tyrant is
> > morally as bad as
> > > >being a murderous tyrant'
> > >
>
> This bit's from Damien B:
> > > Inverted commas in this context imply that these are
> > quotations and that I
> > > have made those statements. I did not. Don't do that again.
> > >
> >
>
> Matus (Michael Dickey?) replied again:
> > The former is a paraphrase of your moral principles stated in previous
> > discussions, the later is a paraphrase of Emlyn's.
>
> I'm pretty sure that I didn't say that. Got a direct quotation?
>
> Emlyn
>
You said in response to Max Plumm:
Max Plumm said, amongst other things...
" 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. "
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?
Emlyn
To which I responded:
He probably didnt say that because it is completely absurd.
It is difficult for me to even began to coalesce the reasons why such a
statement is repulsive to me as an extropian and an person who values human
life. Regardless of your opposition to the Iraq war, had the goal of the
coalition been simple to remove Saddam just because they wanted to, this
would have *still* had more moral validity than a murderous dictator
remaining in power, simply because he was a murderous dictator. Dictators
have *no right* to be dictators!
Every single person who died in the coalition war did so ONLY because Saddam
did not want to give up his control over the 20 million or so people of
Iraq. Please explain to me your ethical principles that place his choice in
this conflict of staying in power and opposing the coalition efforts in a
morally valid catagory. I simply can not fathom how any extropian can
consider Saddam's actions in this situation as morally valid. Given his
past track record of murder, future likely hood of murder, track record of
wars and aggressiveness, systematic effort to wipe out the kurds, slaughter
of some 50,000 shiites, suspicions of harboring WMD, economic control
resulting in the untolds thousands of deaths, etc. etc I can not even began
to understand how you place the moral culpability of those deaths on the
people attempting to STOP that, instead of the person choosing and insisting
that he must continue it.
To which you did not respond.
Just to clarify, I shall ask you the same question I asked Damien, and you
can choose to not answer as he has of course.
Is Saddam Hussain morally culpable for the deaths of the civilians in the
Coalition lead effort to remove said murderous tyrant from power, or is the
coalition morally culpable?
Michael Dickey
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jun 09 2003 - 21:23:15 MDT