On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 01:00:09AM -0600, Marvin Long, Jr. wrote: > The third possibility is that one thinks Saddam doesn't deserve to > be planet Earth's - or even the USA's - priority number one. It's > arguable that, say, the world AIDS epidemic is a far more immediate > threat in humanitarian terms than Saddam
May be true. It is also arguable that the solution to Saddam is far more immediate and clear than the solution to AIDS. > I advance these arguments not for their own sake but as examples to > point out the false dichotomy inherent in the assertion that any view > about Iraq can or ought to be simply boiled down to being pro- or > anti-Saddam. If one looks around the world and thinks that in moral > terms the money we're about to spend ousting Saddam could be much > better spent elsewhere, and if that makes one against this particular > war, does that make one pro-Saddam? Yes, if you actively oppose removing Saddam from power, you are advocating pro-Saddam policies. Being pro-Saddam in this manner does not preclude having a valid argument that the resources could be better spent elsewhere. But I haven't see a good argument for that. > If that's the case, then shouldn't being in favor of the war mark one > as being pro-AIDS, pro-Famine, pro-whatever bad thing that money isn't > being spent to correct at this moment? No. There is a difference between ACTIVELY OPPOSING a proposed solution that is widely believed to have a high chance of success, versus simply not placing a high priority on another issue. If someone actively opposes someone else's feasible solution to AIDS, then THAT would make the opposing person pro-AIDS. > My feeling is that outside the nastiness of some of the ANSWER > leadership and some other fringe factions, most war protestors believe > that by embracing the concepts about American hegemony and preemptive > warfare which a success in Iraq would be used to vindicate, America is > starting to take a long dangerous turn similar to the sort the Romans > took when they decided that an emperor might be more efficient than > a senate. Whether one buys the argument or not, one should at least > recognize that it does not in any way contain an attempt to defend > Saddam on any ethical grounds whatsoever. It's the recognition that > a behemoth gone astray is more dangerous than the most vicious of > hyenas. Whether one states that they like or dislike Saddam has little practical effect. He will continue to hold power, develop WMD, oppress his people, etc. Actions speak louder than words. Also, this viewpoint you relate sounds irresponsibly and selfishly ivory towerish: "Let's debate the finer points of possible future paranoid fantasies instead of taking action to help people who are suffering NOW". Like something out of the movie "Clueless". Not that I am against questioning authority, but it should not stand in the way of taking practical steps to accomplish goals in the near-term that are clearly for the good of almost everyone involved. We should pick our battles. Oppose the administration when they go against the principles of the country such as the Constitution, freedom, democracy. Support extending the rights of the Constitution to people throughout the world, not just in the US. Promote a world organization that only allows membership to liberal democratic states. That is the way to fight excessive US world power. > Plus I think there's a general spiteful resentment and belief that > if Bush succeeds in Iraq, he and his party will have an almost > unassailable position from which to carry out their most conservative > policies at home as well, and American protestors have what they > feel to be their own personal interests at stake in addition to any > theories they may have about the well-being of the world. I'm not > sure if this crosses the line from enlightened self-interest into > hypocrisy or not. What bothers me is that many of the people likely to think this way could have voted for Gore, but instead either did not vote or voted for a 3rd party candidate who had no chance. I'll deride hopeless idealism over pragmatic reality whenever I hear this sort of whining. -- "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.erikreuter.net/ _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
