On Sat, 9 Apr 2005 12:13:52 -0500, Dan Minette wrote > So, in your opinion, someone who has a cursuary knowledge of history > and international relation's opinion about the likelyhood of future outcomes > has as much weight as the best respected people in international relations?
I would hardly describe a coalition of global church leaders as having cursory knowledge of history and international relations, so no, that's not my opinion. Not at all. Furthermore, any decision made solely by a group of elites is suspect, in my opinion. > When we discuss whether or not Hussein would soon fall from power, > we are not discussing ethics, we are discussing facts that can and > will be discovered. Yes, and in context, it is inseparable from the question of what to do about a despot, which has a moral dimension. > Maybe as a way of finding support for actually doing something, but I > cannot imagine that he would think that an indictment would work magic. It would have been magic to remove Saddam from power without a war??? > Further, the second paragraph is unbelieveably vague. Why would a dictator > who was firmly in control of massive forces have no future because a > body without power behind it pronounced him guilty? How would the > indictment be different than security council resolutions? How about if we don't take one point of a six-point plan out of context? > For as long as it would take to ensure that, after we left, the genocide > wouldn't just pick up where it left off...yes, we'd be responsible > to do that....once we came in. Without conquering the armies, how > does one stop the genocide? Well, then, we clearly disagree about what is right to do in such a situation. You would replace the government with your own people, right? I don't think that is ethical or effective when the country in question poses no threat to us. To do nothing is wrong, but to try to control the whole thing is wrong, too. > campaign and a realistic threat of occupation, they would have > relented. That worked in the Balkins. But, the police action > failed. We had to resort to war to stop the genocide. Perhaps memory fails me. Upon whom did we declare war in the Balkans? Which country did we occupy? > > 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? > > If one is to generalize, I'd say people deceive themselves by telling > themselves that what they want to be true is true. This does, often, > manifest itself as you said. But, it doesn't always. Of course it doesn't always, that's why I said "more likely." > On a more personal level people drive drunk, endangering the safety > of themselves and others, and tell themselves that they can handle > it. Bad example, since that's a case of a person exercising self-deception in order to have the power of an automobile available. The executive who ignores reality does so in order to retain power. The fact that these things catch up with people doesn't mean that the purpose of self-deception is to cause an accident or destroy a company. Nick _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
