----- Original Message ----- From: "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2003 1:35 AM Subject: Re: Who is the sheriff?
> 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. But, you assume your conclusion in your basic statement. If you slide the assumption that you are right into the framing of the question, then it is trivial to prove your argument. I think the key question is: what defines success? If you define success as getting rid of Hussein, then it is trivially clear that Bush's plan has a very high chance of success. If you define success as having a more favorable situation in 5 to 10 years than you would have using another option, then it is not nearly as clear. The reasonable arguments against overthrowing Hussein that I've seen involve the repercussions of a prolonged US occupation of Iraq. Those costs are not easy to quantify. Reasonable people can differ on the cost benefit analysis of an invasion. Thinking that the cost to the US and the world of overthrowing Hussein is greater than the benefits does not equate to being pro-Hussein. Its like arguing that people who are opposed to high speed chases in urban areas are pro-criminal. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
