On Thu, 7 Apr 2005 18:38:03 -0500, Dan Minette wrote > Look at the historical police actions. They don't work against well > armed fighters. For a police action to result in the overthrow of > Hussian, the Republican guard would have had to let lightly armed > units walk in and arrest Hussian.
I wasn't talking about arresting him, I was talking about inspections. And what about South Africa and India? Are they not examples of regime changes that were accomplished without war? Today, are we open to such possibilities, which seemed impossible to most people before they happened? > I think one is morally obliged > to consider the likely outcome of choices not just hope for the best. Are you saying that I proposed that we just hope for the best? > Analogies are risky, but let me try one. Let's say someone has serious > heart problems, and the best chance for helping him that someone can > come up with now is a risky surgery. How about if it is a risky surgery that will undoubtedly kill 10 bystanders and a few of the surgeons? That's what war is -- it always entails collateral damage and non-combatant injuries and deaths. > When I stated I was against the Iraq war I also stated that I acknowledged > that this would result in the continuation of widespread torture and > murder in Iraq. I don't see that in your posts. Rather, I see a > hope that some vauge untried plan would work without cost. Without cost? I haven't addressed that issue here, so please don't assume. My belief is that peacemakers are called to exercise as much discipline and be prepared to sacrifice just as much as a soldier. > Gautam quoted a number of people working in the area of international > ethics as well as the general question of war and peace. He stated that > there was a strong consensus that nothing short of war would force Hussain > out. Given the fact that this is part of his field of study, I > would bet that, while he may have missed one of them stating that > there might be a way to topple Hussain short of war, he has a pretty > good feel for the consensus. What about the strong consensus among other constituencies that the war was wrong? I refer to the churches and nations of the world who opposed or failed to support it. While they may be wrong, it seems unreasonable to give any special weight to an academic or policy-maker consensus. > We had two realistic choices: being willing to go to war to stop it > or standing by and letting it happen. Wishing for a third choice > would not have helped. I don't see anything there but an argument from your conclusion. > OK, let's say, the Korean Police Action notwithstanding, that we can > distinguish between police actions and war. The Serbians came with > significant force. They were not going to be stopped by lightly > armed police. You're making so many assumptions. Why would we send "lightly armed" police into such a situation? When the United Nations undertakes a police action, it doesn't mean the troops go in lightly armed. It means that the goals and rules of engagement are dramatically different than in a war. > the only hope to fufill > the UN's promise to protect the people in Serbicidia was a > willingness to use war against the Serbs. When the UN insisted only > police actions were allowable, the fate of the people in Serbicidia > was sealed. Because that was the only thing that would work? Again, arguing from your conclusion, aren't you? South Africa. India. > Look at Gautam's four criterion. How would using a nuclear weapon > to stop a litter bug benefit the non litterer's around him? It would end the littering, of course. My point was that the principles that Aquinas put forth raise further questions, they don't settle the issue. The questions are good, but he was describing a path, not the destination. > Why > isn't the arguement that the war must be, when all the costs and > benefits are added, better for the people in the theater of war > sufficiently stringent? Because I believe my faith holds that there is a very strong presumption against war. That means war is not justified by the fact that it will make things better, even when the cost might be expected to be low. Perhaps that's because the cost really never is low. I believe that we either must have been actually attacked or an in imminent danger of being attacked. From a more secular standpoint, the presumption against war is necessary because we have an enormous ability to deceive ourselves, especially when we are in a position of wealth and power. > Sure it is....and it would have been smaller if we actually were > able to provide power and water. But, at the same time, the > feelings are clearly mixed. The most influential figure in Iraq is > not calling for immediate withdrawal. Nor am I. But I would be happy to see another entity in charge immediately, with a good strategy for disengagement as quickly as possible. I am not in agreement with some of my friends who are calling for us to bring the troops home immediately. > The Iraqies seem to be doing > a marvelous job of putting together a government. If we can only > show modest competence in transitioning security to Iraqi forces, > there is actually a chance that a government as good as Turkey > might emerge. I'm afraid I'm more skeptical of the reports coming from Iraq, but that's a difference in perception, not fact. > The question now is resentment of the US enough for the majority, or > a significant minority, to actively back the insurgents. 6 months > ago, I would have said yes; now I'm surprised to say that I'm > leaning towards no. It's not just "insurgents" who are fighting us. Read about the ambush in Sadr City that killed Casey Sheehan, Mike Mitchell and others a year ago. That's one of the most dramatic examples of non-insurgents fighting with us, but it's far from the only one. There's no shortage of returning soldiers who seriously question our strategy there. Although their information is by nature anecdotal, it carries a bit of weight with me. > How do we reduce poverty and opression in countries where we have no > power? Is there country in which the world's only superpower doesn't have power? > Yes. It isn't intrisically immoral to help someone improve their lives. You had to *add* the word "intrinsically" to make the statement true. How is it useful to say that it is true without any context? > Now, one can make a pragmatic arguement against it: the cost to them > outweighs the desired help, but that doesn't make the desire to stop > torture and opression wrong. Who said that the desire to stop torture and oppression *is* wrong? > But it doesn't help to pretend there is an easy solution. Who is pretending there is an easy solution? > So, I'd argue that a realistic non-interventionist needs to > acknowledge the human suffering that could have been prevented if > only we intervened. Who is suggesting non-intervention? Non-violent intervention is the most powerful force in the world, in my opinion. Witness the cross, Gandhi, Romero, MLK Jr., etc. Nick _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
