----- Original Message ----- From: "Nick Arnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, April 09, 2005 3:01 PM Subject: Peaceful change
> 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. I know church leaders personally. In the US, there is no requirement to study history or international relations before enterming seminary. In Presbyterian seminary, there are two classes in church history. My wife has taken them, and I know what their requirements are. I looked at the list, and one of them is the stated clerk of the Presbyterian General Assembly. Knowledge of history as it is applied to international relations is not a job requirement of that position. >Furthermore, any decision made solely by a group of > elites is suspect, in my opinion. Do you _really_ want to stand by that general statement? > > 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. Actually, the considerations needs to be sequential. First one does the best job one can evaluating the probabilities of various outcomes and then combines ones best understanding of the results with one's ethics to determine action. The former can and should be an exercise in reason and observation. The latter requires more. > > 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??? I didn't mean that literally, but in the colloquial sense. > > 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? Well, I was trying to focus on the one point that directly adressed the question we were debating. If you would wish to show how other parts have a liklyhood of being techniques for removing Hussein, I'd be interested in hearing it. > > 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. No, I'd temporary rule the country until an effective representative government was developed...like we did in Europe and Japan after WWII. It's akin to where we are in Iraq now. We would have to control the country to stop the genocide. Then, > > 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? We subjected Serbia to extensive bombing. We told Serbia that an American invasion was the next step if they didn't capitulate immediately. They thought the threat was credible, so they capitulated. Sometimes the threat of force does work. But, it is only effective if the threat is considered credible. One has to be willing to follow through, as Clinton was, otherwise it's an empty gesture. > > > 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. Most of the time, as I observed, it's a result of denial of the real lack of power over their drinking. >The executive who ignores > reality does so in order to retain power. Actually, they lost power when the did it. They just couldn't live with the idea that they were mistaken. >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. No. My point is the purpose of self deception is, more often then not, to avoid hard decisions. Let me recap my general point. What I am saying is that Gautam, you and me all want a better world, without genocide and without war between nations in the future. We see different roadmaps to get there. I am trying to use all my abilities to try to analyze what the best way to get there is. I've let my opinion be changed by engaging in debate with other. I believe that scholarship can help us better understand likely outcomes of various actions. With all due respect, and I do respect your views, I see an uncharacteristic unwillingness to engage in analysis on this subject. Take, for example, your short answers concerning the precedents of India and South Africa. Both Gautam and I have given fairly detailed analysis in order to see how these particular precedents apply. Let me try to phrase this in your language. Gautam and I are arguing that it is often not within our power to quickly (a few years instead of a few score years) to overthrow tyrants and prevent genocide without a real willingness to go to war. Even though the United States is the sole super power, it does not have this power. I agree with you that it would be absolutely wonderful if we had that type of power. Indeed, a willingness to either leave tyrants in place or use war to overthrow them is an acknowledgement of our lack of power. If we were powerful enough to overthrow tyrants by limited police action, then it would clearly be immoral to use excess force. In a sense, the historical analysis is an attempt to use some of the abilities we do have, such as the power to analyze, to understand what the extent and limitations of our power are. So, in essence, the debate is on how powerful we are. Gautam and I are arguing for a lower assessment of our power, while I see you as arguing that we are much more powerful than either Gautam or I think we are. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
