On Fri, 8 Apr 2005 18:03:39 -0500, Dan Minette wrote

> 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

Did you leave that for me to finish?

... has increased the death rate dramatically.

> 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 understand where the number "zero" came from.  It would be nice if 
zero innocents were killed in police actions, but in reality, it happens 
often.

> 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.

I fail to see any reason to choose between the two in decision-making, which 
is why I offered no special weight to academics.

> 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.   

I suspect you can thank the media for that.

> 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.

There was a six-point plan from the churches, which Tony Blair took very 
seriously, while it was virtually ignored by the media and the administration 
on this side of the pond.

> 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?  

Korea is about the worst example to pick, since it looked far more like an 
undeclared war than a police action.  Certainly it was *called* a police 
action, but that doesn't mean it was conducted like one.

> 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.

I hope that Kant isn't needed for that degree of common sense.  And Aquinas' 
arguments did not allow for an unprovoked or pre-emptive war.  The principle 
of a just cause insists that *initiating* agression is wrong.  But even that 
begs the question, since there are many meanings of aggression.  I don't think 
we can invoke Aquinas and settle the issue.

In any event, do you want to argue that *this* war fits into "just war" 
morality?

> 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.

Not "military action," war.  Are you saying that it would be a moral course of 
action for the United States to conquer the Sudan, as it has taken over Iraq?

> 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.

Aren't we far more likely to deceive ourselves in ways that maintain our 
personal safety, wealth and power?  Doesn't that make a presumption against 
war appropriate?

Nick
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Reply via email to