----- Original Message ----- From: "Andrew Paul" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2004 11:25 AM Subject: RE: Winning the War on Terror
> From: Dan Minette [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > snip > > >What mild questioning? Your arguement that its hard to tell whether the > >people in Iraq are better off than under Hussein indicates that either > >Hussein wasn't such a bad fellow after all or the US is engaged in torture, > >wholesale murder, institutionalized rape, etc., or that these things are > >not primary criteria. Since Gautam has shown that, materially, most folks > >are better off, what remains to decide on? > > Firstly, I just cant subscribe to the view that I have to give wholesale support > to the US actions or wear a "I Love Saddam" badge. Cant I be upset why whats happening > in Iraq? Cant I ask questions without bing a traitor? But, that's not what either Gautam or I have been saying. If you can quote where I have said that, then I will apologize, because that would have been unreasonable of me. > I thought that was waht democracy was about. > Secondly, please remind me in which post Gautum "has shown" that people are better off > in Iraq. Look, I dont deny that they may well be so. There is enough nasty shit on my TV each night > that I feel justified in asking the question. How do we show that they are "better off"? I think that illustrates the real point. If 50,000,000 people are killed by the government off camera, then its a meaningless statistic. If one is rolled over by a tank on CNN, its a tragedy that shows the moral depravity of the government. These two examples, BTW, have nothing directly to do with Iraq. It has to do with the world response to the actions of the Chinese government. Roughly 50 million people died in the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution. Few died at Tienemin Square (sp). Yet, the latter reverbarates in world consciousness, and the former is pretty well forgotten. Thus, whether one sees bad things on TV is not a good means of judging the actions of various governments. My arguement is that there is tremendous evidence for Hussein's actions being horrendous; not just bad horrendous. Do you differ? That is a key point for me that you don't answer. You are free to answer or not. But, if there is dialog, then it is worthwhile for each of us to lay out our assumptions so we can see where we agree and disagree. My assumption is not that you are favoring slaughter, but that you don't want to deal with the > > > > >You talked about Gautam thinking in black and white terms. Having debated > >with him over the years, I know that isn't true. A number of conservatives > >do; he doesn't. > > I took no joy from that. I agree, all my reading of his words shows a reasonable thinking man. > I objected however to being cast as Saddams secret love child just cos I asked the question. > Surely some middle ground exists? I only said that cos he denied me that grey area, No, he didn't. I opposed going in, and have regiven my reasons why, and what I reccomended doing. Guatam advoacted going in; and has listed his reasons. We differ yet respect each other, at least partially because we each recognize the cost of our own position. I do not see this in your posts. All I see is broad retorical sweeps that, at best, lump Bush and Hussein in the same box. > So, where is this space. I am not being anti-American, > but surely we need space to be able to debate this without being called > Saddam lovers. Its even more confronting when the whole pretext of the war > had nothing to do with "saving" Iraq. Its annoying to be called a traitor just cos > the government moved the goalposts on you. And its distressing to see moral men > forced to squirm and invent so many excuses cos their government stuffed it up. Read my posts before and after the war. How have I changed my position? Its amazing that you claim we have called you all sorts of names, but I cannot see where we've done it. I've been called all sorts of names on Culture, and have had very specific points I have made ignored by a number of people who claimed that I was just another "Hotblack Desoto" (maybe I got the name a bit wrong.) And, this is for someone who was opposed to the war. > So we did the latter for 30 years, after putting the rapist in power, and now we decided its our turn. I would very much appreciate help in understanding how the US set up the Bathe party...or how we ensured Hussein rose in it. > And that makes us Princes of Morality? So you die in a paper shreder or in from a tank shot. So, there is no difference between torture and accidently killing an innocent person while trying to stop torture and murder? Let me ask one more time, do you think that the evil acts of Hussein were vastly overstated? Do you think the US is commiting the same type or quantity of acts. > Dead you are. > I know thats a provocative way to put it, and I apologise in advance (sorry Mike) but I cant see how > the unprovoked invaders of an independent nation can so easily take the moral high ground, or perhaps, > to be fairer, cast aspersions on those who question the heights they seem so keen to climb. Actually, the only asperations I am casting on you is for ignoring that all decisions have moral repercussions. I won't shout, but let me state it again: I was against the war, not but much, but I was against it. Given that, how in the world could you say that I am casting aspersions on you for not favoring the war. Since the question of going into the war was one that Gautam and I differ on, then it is only logical to conclude that he and I agree with each other and differ with you on some other question. BTW, calling it an unprovoked war is really not accurate. The US was not directly threatened, any more than it was directly threatened by Nazi Germany. Does that mean it would have been wrong to become involved in the European theater if the Nazies were smart enough to not declare war. Was Rosevelt helping Churchill immoral? It was an elective war, but that's not the same as a war out of the blue. Hostilites had continued, basically unabated, since the first Gulf War. > Who would rather be talking about how to solve it Maru If we cannot even agree on basic facts, even to within a couple of orders of magnitude, how can we discuss solutions? Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
