----- Original Message ----- From: "Nick Arnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2005 7:36 PM Subject: Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)
> 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. OK, let's talk about medical policy then. According to UN figures, tens if not hundreds of thousands were dying in Iraq due to conditions under Hussein. The war > > 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. OK, without collateral damage, then. Let me give my point of view considering recent genocide. If we went in with force to stop the genocide in Rwanda, we would kill innocents. As much as we would try to avoid it, it would be impossible to set the number of innocent deaths at zero....just as it is impossible to get friendly fire deaths down to zero. I don't think that means we shouldn't have intervened, if need be, to stop the genocide. I also believe that the > 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. Two different points are being argued. _I_ was opposed to the war, and I thought that, without such a war, Hussein would stay in power for the forseeable future. Gautam's mentors, who he listed, were opposed to the war and thought that, without such a war, Hussein would stay in power. I didn't see analysis of what would happen without war from the religeous figures opposed to the war. That sounds pretty reasonable to me because we shouldn't expect, for example, an exemplary moral theologian to have any special insights into the likelyhood of the fall of any government. On the other hand, widespead agreement among accademics and policy makes who differ greatly on other issues, seems to me to be our best shot at understanding consequences. > > 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. Well, we've been discussing this for over two years: I saw three choices at the time: continuing containmnet, the war, and withdrawing the sactions and the no fly zones. Changing the containment slightly might have improved it slightly, but I didn't see anyone on the list or anywhere else lay out a program for regiem change that did not involve war. Everything I read from serious opponents to the war (by serious I mean that they weren't simply saying "No Blood for Oil" indicated that the alterntive they saw was continued containment. > > 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. All right, lets look at one of the first police actions: Korea, How were the rules of engagement in Korea limited, and how did that reduce civilian deaths? In some cases, like Gulf War I, there were negociations limiting the goals of the war in order to gain a broader consensus, but I am not aware of a special set of engagement rules for UN police actions. > > 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. OK, let's look at those two cases. The best date for the start of white domination of South Africa is probably December 16, 1838...the battle of Blood River, when 464 Boers defeated 10,000 Zulu, killing 3000, while suffering no casualties. The end of the domination, IMHO, was when Nelson Mandela was inaugurated on the 10th of May 1994. Those dates are 150 years apart. The British rule of India has no one start date, as far as I can tell, but 150 years is not an unreasonably long period of time for the length. I will happily concede that there is every chance in the world that by the year 2100, there would not be a Bathist Iraqi government. > > 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. OK, but your point was that there was no just war theology that allowed premeptive wars. Aquinas was a theologian. I think Kant's work pretty well eliminates the litter bug nuking issue. > 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 think the point is more lower than just low. I used a criterion for deciding how to judge what would be best for the people back before the war started, and I didn't see any arguements why this was a bad criterion. It was "lets assume my kids were magically placed as random people in the area....and they would be affected by the decision. I am forced to make the decison. Which do I choose? >I believe that we either must have been > actually attacked or an in imminent danger of being attacked. OK, let me clarify this. You would be opposed to using unilateral military force to stop genocide on moral grounds, right? Even if we found that the killing in Sudan was intensifying and that the Arabs were planning a "final solution", we would be oblidged to refrain from military action. >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. I think the point is that the power to deceive ourselves is not limited to those favoring war. Those who argue that it is not needed also need to be sure that they are making a concerted effort to see the most likely repercussions. > > > 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. > 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? How much power do we have in Iran, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, China, etc.? When it comes down to it, it's fairly minimal. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
