----- Original Message -----
From: "Baardwijk, J. van DTO/SLBD/BGM/SVM/SGM" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2001 6:24 AM
Subject: RE: Landmines RE: US Foreign Policy Re: *DO* we share a
civilization?
> > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> > Van: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Verzonden: Thursday, August 16, 2001 8:42 AM
> > Aan: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Onderwerp: Re: Landmines RE: US Foreign Policy Re: *DO* we share a
> > civilization?
>
> > It is not unreasonable to me to suggest that a person who is an
> > anti-mine activist, whose paper is put up on the web by an anti-mine
> > organization, might, consciously or unconsciously, have slanted his
> > case in the Korean peninsula against land mines.
>
> Yet it is unthinkable that someone who puts a paper on the web in which he
> defends the use of landmines, is not (consciously or unconsciously)
biased?
>
>
> > >I doubt there are any unbiased sources in this case. Can you cite a
> > >few unbiased sources? (And no, the Pentagon is NOT an unbiased source
> > >-- in case you wanted to cite that one.)
> >
> > First, why doesn't the Pentagon count as an unbiased source?
>
> The Pentagon is one of the parties involved in this matter. They will only
> make statements that defend their policies, which means they cannot be
> anything else but biased. They are not a neutral source.
>
>
> > >BTW, I'm still waiting for you to cite a few sources that support the
> > >pro-landmine views of the US.
> >
> > The nice thing about this argument, from my perspective, is that I
> > don't have to do that.
>
> Thank you. Your statement is sufficient proof for me that your beliefs are
> not based on facts -- otherwise you would have had no problem providing
> sources that contradict anti-landmine sources.
Gautam and I have both explained why the standards of proof for your
position are greater than for ours. Your position is that no reasonable
moral human being could hold the position taken by the United States
government. Gautam and my position is that reasonable people can differ on
this subject. The evidence needed to prove that reasonable people can't
differ on a subject is higher than the evidence needed to demonstrate that
they can. Indeed, as Gautam pointed out, one doesn't have to prove that
reasonable people can differ on a subject, it is reasonable to assume that,
in absence of any proof either way, reasonable people will disagree.
Further, since the US has a representative government, you are accusing
those of us who are Americans on the list with complicity in crimes against
humanity when you accuse the US government of those crimes. That is a very
very significant accusation. Particularly in light of the fact that the US
is eliminating most of its land mines, and is requesting only one exemption
from a treaty that is similar, in the view of the US government, to the
exemption that European countries have. And, as Gautam has pointed out,
that one exception has the approval of a government elected by the people
who are put at risk by these land mines.
Also, I've asked a question you have ignored, so I'll keep on asking it. :-)
Why is it a crime against humanity for the Koreans to decide that the risk
of the land mines is lower than the increase in the risk inherent in
removing these land mines?
Finally, I think you are making an assumption about connectiveness. Even
though the sites you mentioned make no claims to any significant deaths due
to the land mines used in Korea, you seem to argue for a connectiveness
between the use of these mines in Korea and deaths elsewhere on the globe.
How would the US removing those mines in Korea stop deaths in Africa?
Dan M.
