From: matus@matus1976.com
Date: Wed Jun 11 2003 - 12:04:09 MDT
Emyln commented:
>
> Not true. No war, no war casualties.
Right, so Saddam Hussein insisted on a war, and had *no* right to continue
his rule over the Iraqi people. If Saddam had left, no war, and no war
causalties. Yet you still blame the war causalities on the coalition, and
not the corrupt murderous dictator who felt it his right to rule over
millions of people.
I will grant you that people may have
> died by the actions of their government, somewhat counteracting the
> difference between war and peace (slightly).
*may*? Whats the figure now, 300,000 in mass graves? May!? Yeah, im sure
ol Saddam would have just stopped his mass killings, oppressive rule, and
exploitation. What about the deaths from the sanctions, which as a result
of the war, have been lifted.
>
> Remember, though, that you must also count the rioting and
> general civilian
> disturbance that has followed the war, and all the casualties incurred
> there, as part of the toll of the war.
Again, the moral culpability lies on Saddam, not the Coalition. Saddam and
the Baath party could have easily agreed to and facilitied a peaceful change
in government, and he *chose* not to. *chose*. No power outages, no water
shortages, no phone problems, no cluster bombs, no rioting. etc. etc. etc.
Saddam is still to blame for each and every death, you completely MISS the
point that he has NO RIGHT to be a dictator, and thus anything that results
from his insisting he remain a dictator he is morally culpable for.
You have no right to take over your neighbors house by force, and are
morally culpable in everything that happens as a result. In the US system
of law, you are held morally accountable if anyone dies, even a member of
the group committing a crime, while in the act of committing a crime. You
are the criminal taking over the neighbors house, if you friend helping you
dies in the process, you are held morally accountable. You have no more
right to take over a neighborhood than your neighboors house, and you have
no more right to take over a country than you have your neighboorhood. You
have no right to continue to rule over that country. You are morally
accountable for every death that occurs from the freeing of those you rule
over. How can you DARE imply that I would be as morraly culpable from
deaths that result in my attempt to free the neighborhood, or country, you
have taken by force, when you have no right to rule that country!!!
In the US system of law, you are also held morally accountable for deaths
that result from 'depraved indifference', which I assert each and ever war
opposer is guilty of.
>
> > 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.
>
> Come on, that's a bit strong. The statement wasn't supposed to support or
> oppose the war itself; I was attempting to point out that there are two
> sides to the coin of who is responsible for deaths in Iraq.
Yeah, and both sides of that coin have the head of Saddam Hussein on it.
Your statemt implies it does not.
I
> really have to
> strongly object to the idea that an aggressive, invading power bears no
> responsibility for the deaths; it *always* does. Sometimes that cost is
> warranted, as it may well yet turn out to be in this case. However, it is
> unescapable that when you attack a sovereign country and kill its
> citizens,
> you bear the responsibility for those deaths. Anyone is allowed self
> defense.
>
Dictators are not allowed that right when they are defending their continued
empowerment and enslavement of people. Your comments continue to illustrate
your strange conept of ethics. As Mike Lorrey pointed out, you are blaiming
the hostage rescuers for the deaths of the hostages. Saddam held every
citizen in Iraq hostage, and his mass graves and murderous track record
prove as much. Yet you blame the deaths that result from his removal from
power on the rescuers, not the hostage taker.
<scroll past red herrings>
> As far as "as an extropian" goes, I am quite unconvinced that you have
> evaluated this war action using the tools of an extropian. Is state
> aggression dynamist? Does it enhance liberty? Is it constructive, does it
> advance our knowledge of ourselves or the universe? Is it rational (in the
> worst realpolitik sense perhaps). War, as a tool, is possibly one of the
> least extropic choices that you can make. It is statist, it
> interferes with
> liberty, it destroys with abandon.
bla bla, all irrelevant to Saddam's morally culpability. You are nothing
less than a moral relavitist, or have such fleeting definitions of your
ethical principles that they sway and bend with the slightest breeze.
Is state pacifism progressive? Does it enhance liberty (no) Is it
constructive (no) Does it advance our knowledge of the universe (no) Is it
rational? (no) Apathy, deprativity, pacifism, ARE the least extropic choices
that you can make.
Does saddam hussein have a right to be a dictator, yes or no?
Please present your case that WWI resulted in fewer liberties
Please present your case that WWII resulted in fewer world liberties
Please present your case that the Cold war resulted in fewer liberties
Please present your case that this war will result in fewer liberties.
The fact is, no two democratic nations have ever been at war, and no
democratic nation has ever waged war on another. This century has seen
fewer wars in the world than any century before it. The previous century
saw some ten times as many wars as this, and the one before than a similiar
increase. The are fewer and fewer wars, and more and more free people in
the world, despite the moral cowardice presented by persons such as
yourself.
This is not to say that I think war is
> always unquestionably wrong. It is that war is the tool of last
> resort, even
> then to be questioned, and the aggressor must always carry the
> stain of the
> inevitable blood on its collective hands.
And Saddam was merely the innocent victim in this event, with the coalition
as the evil aggressors. You ignore, of course, the case for pre-emptive
strikes as a form a self defense, insisting unabashadly that the coalition
was an 'aggressor' did you forget the Gulf War? Where Saddam invaded a
neighboring country that we agreed to protect in case of such invasion? The
resolutions that resulted in this war came about as a flagrant disregard by
IRAQ of those agreements to end that War. On multiple grounds Saddam's
regime was the aggressor.
>
> > 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!
>
> It may very well have had more moral validity, but you are comparing two
> negative numbers of great magnitude.
it might very well!!!?? Did it or didnt it!? How *much* more? only a
little? Again, dispicable ethics. The Coalition removing a murderous
dictator from power 'might' have had more moral validity that said murderous
dictator remaining in power? Natasha, these are the kinds of twisted
ethical systems I am talking about.
>
> Let me pose a different question:
> A little googling (not all that much, so I could be mistaken)
> tells me that
> the Iraq war has/will cost the US government (ie: the US people) between
> US$100 and US$200 billion. That's a lot of money.
>
> You can look at a figure like that as an extropic potential. The US has
> spent US$200 billion in extropic potential in waging this war. Forgetting
> questions of moral validity, etc etc, I would ask the list this:
>
> Given the choice, what would you rank as the most extropic way to expend
> US$200 billion?
>
> I might post a response to this myself; I'll have to think on it.
All interesting questions which I will contemplate, but completely
irrelevant to Saddams moral culpability.
>
> >
> > 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.
>
> That's not correct. Choices were made on both sides, and
> certainly each side
> carries a moral burden (assuming some consistent set of rules). The
> agressors hands can never be clean.
Again, you paint the coalition as a patent aggressor, which paints a moral
picture of its own, that you disgregard pre-emptive strikes as a form of
self defense and disregard the pre-existing military aggresion by IRAQ that
the UN resolutions were born from. Care to elaborate on your requirements
for the moral justification of a pre-emptive strike? Care to present the
case that this war was not an escalation of the Gulf War, the agreements
which ended that having been broken by 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.
>
> I don't defend Saddam Hussein. I defend neither side - big
> negative numbers.
Disgusting in itself. Is the US as bad as a world presence as Saddam
Hussien? I invite you to imagine a world controlled by Saddam, and then
convince me that neither side is worth defending. Rubbish, you wouldnt even
have a computer nor an internet to surf on if Saddam was the world leading
power, you, in all likelyhood, would be either a poor peasant farmer, dead,
or never have existed.
> There's no necessity to hand out black and white hats; the world is not
> boolean (unless we are in a sim :-)
You did not answer the question. You clearly indicate that if they are not
morally equally, then perhaps one *might* be morally more valid than
another, why? why not?
>
> > 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.
>
> Well, that's not actually true. The coalition of the willing went
> in to stop
> development and use of WMDs. Laudable self interest, if it is true (??).
> However, the saving of the iraqi people was *not* the driver for this
> action.
So? Again the primary motivation is irrelevant. If the Iraqi people are
freed from a murderous tyrant, I dont care if Bush's primary motivation was
tossing a few chicken bones and reading their divine meaning. Freeing the
Iraqi people was certainly not ANYWHERE in the list of Saddams motivations
for remaining a murderous DICTATOR!!! Ah, but the coalitions efforts
*might* have been more valid. Again, disgusting. Simply because 'freeing
the IRAQ people' even appeared on the coalition list of goals justifies
their moral highground over Saddam remaining in power! Yet you insist the
coalition bears more of the blame
As I and other have argued previouslly on this list, motivations are not
relevant, it is actions that are relevant. We can argue all day long what
the true motivations of the coalition were, oil, revenge, WMD, free Iraq,
democractic Arab Nation, etc. etc. We can judge from the stated goals,
which did include freeing Iraq (Hence, 'Operation Iraqi Freedom', and not
'Operation Find WMD') It is the ACTIONS we must judge on. The Actions in
the case have led to the ousting of a murderous tyrant, the freeing of some
20 million people, the ending of a monopoly over the worlds largest energy
reserves by a murderous tryant who used said energy reserves for murder and
tyranny, the setting up of a democratic arab nation to stem the tide of Arab
fundamentalist Islamic hatred, and to curtail the creation and spread of
WMD. Lets compare the results of this action with Saddams remaining in
power, shall we?
*might* be more morally valid!!
>
> >
> > To which you did not respond.
>
> You are on my killfile. Sorry. I only see your posts second hand
> in other's
> replies.
Then why do you ask me questions?
> > I'm pretty sure that I didn't say that. Got a direct quotation?
> >
> > Emlyn
> >
Perhaps it is only evidence that you want to sheild yourself from critics
of you strange system of ethics.
>
> >
> > 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
>
> Both share some of the burden, of course. I believe that the
> coalition must
> wear the majority, as I've said above.
THE COALITION MUST WEAR THE MAJORITY!!!! Amazing.
Again, Natasha, more evidence of the disturbing ethics present on the
Extropy list. Emyln is saying that Saddam Hussein, as a murderous dictator,
with a track record of hundreds of thousands of deaths, had more of a moral
right to remain in power then the coalition had to oust him. I am
completely flabbergasted.
What about the right of the 20 million people under saddams murderous rule?
do they, at least, outweigh his right to continue to rule them?
This is balanced by an
> altered future
> that is the result of their actions; how much so is impossible to
> say. When
> compared to the aftermath in Afganistan (ie: not stable democracy) it is
> very difficult, I think, to say thus far how much the war is justified by
> the result.
Given Saddams track record, unless the coalition led efforts kill more
people than would have died had Saddam remained in power, the the moral
validity is clear. Of course, life is not the only thing that we value,
freedom and standard of living are valued also, have you compared these in
your possible future tallies?
>
> You are right that I am against the Iraq war. It is because, as I've said
> above, from an extropian standpoint it stinks.
Regardless of whether you supported the war or not, Saddam still had no
right to be a dictator, and thus when the coalition was knocking on the
doorstep every death that resulted HE is morally culpable for.
For the record, does anyone have the right to be a dictator?
I wont outline it again
> (because I have above), but I really think that it should be clear that it
> must be a tool of last resort, if to be used at all. Not only is it a
> (spectacular) waste of resources and lives, it decreases our freedoms at
> home.
Just like WWI and WWII did right? They definately decreased our freedoms.
Regards,
Michael Dickey
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jun 11 2003 - 11:58:05 MDT