Since I'm kinda late in responding, I snipped nothing- > Gautam Mukunda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- Deborah Harrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Gautam Mukunda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I think that's a ridiculous position, but it is, > > in > > > fact, a position. But if you're saying "oil or > > > economic interests" as if it was an accusation. > > > It's not. > > Ah, I was not being clear: if one states that those > > *are* the reasons for going to war, at least one is > > being honest; my problem with this admin is that > > they cloak such concrete reasons in 'do-gooder' > morality. > But, look, why is it so hard to believe that people > can do things for more than one reason? I don't get > this. Do you have only _one_ reason for everything > you have ever done? I'm sure you don't. Why not > believe that the Administration had more than one > for invading Iraq. But reason(s) for *starting a war* are much more important than, say, why I teach equitation. And as has been pointed out by another, the _primary_ reason given for invading Iraq this time was WOMD: 'mushroom cloud over NYC' is a most compelling image. US intelligence particularly WRT Iraq's nuclear warhead capability was _not_ as conclusive as was stated publically, and this lead to near knee-jerk response/support from the public sector. The moral angle was trumpeted much later (after no WOMDs found? -- I really don't recall that timing). > Some people in the Administration > thought we should do it because we had a moral > obligation and it was in our national interest. > Others thought it was in our national interest and > we had a moral obligation. Some thought that one, > without the other, would have been sufficient. Some > thought that we would have needed both. What's the > problem here? What would have actually been *in* the nation's best interest. > > Agreed, but if one is going to claim _moral_ > > justification in pursuing war, one had better > ensure > > that citizens and foreign states will agree with > > one's assertions. Otherwise, they will eventually > > discover > > that such claims were, at best, misreprentation of > > the actual situation. And that destroys the > >credibility of that government. > Why? Morality is not the product of an opinion >poll. The discussion going on about morality as Absolute vs. Cultural is interesting - I hope to comment there later. > Something is either the right thing to do or it is > not. In this case, you're talking about whether > other > states that have an interest in the issue think it's > moral or not. Of _course_ the French said invading > Iraq was immoral. They had billions of dollars in > oil > contracts at stake - what did you think they were > going to say? Their motives for saying 'non' were clearly not pure -- but my 'nastily pragmatic' reason for not going in was a Vietnam-style quagmire. I am more hopeful than before about that, but think the jury is still quite out; a democratic - or at least not horridly despotic - Iraq in ~ a decade will prove me initially wrong. >We all know that interests shape your > perception of morality. People tend to believe that > things that are in their interest are also the > "right" > thing to do. Convincing other states of the moral > rightness of a thing is a good idea in terms of > realpolitik. It doesn't affect the rightness of a > cause even a tiny little bit. Agreed. Having a 'hard' reason is much tidier - as in GWI. > In fact, there's a huge logical flaw in what you > said. > "[I]f one is going to claim _moral_ justification > in pursuing war, one had better ensure > that citizens and foreign states will agree with > one's assertions." I just talked about that. But did not prove that your interpretation is correct, or mine is incorrect. > The next sentence was "Otherwise, they will > eventually > discover that such claims were, at best, > misreprentation of the actual situation." > Actually, there are _two_ logical flaws in taking > that > conclusion from the previous statement. One is the > assumption that they will "discover" the falsity of > such claims. No. The claims might be (were, in > this case) true. Of course, no mention was made of US culpability in giving Saddam biological WOMD technology/expertise...are you arguing that the US had a moral imperitive to correct its earlier error? I can't actually disagree with that much - but this was presented as a black-n-white Good vs. Evil situation. I think assassination would have been less bloody than invasion. >They might _believe_ them to be false, > but that has nothing to do with their veracity. No, he deserves to be shot, and his sons being dead is a good thing. > The second is that their belief that such claims are > true or false has anything with convincing the world > as to the justness of your position. Most of the > time, people believe what's convenient to them. > When > people don't, they're usually pretty extraordinary > people. People will believe or not believe in the > truth of the moral claims. You hope that they will. Which is why 'hard' reasons are much tidier. > You try to persuade them - and the Bush > Administration > on the whole did poorly in that regard. But what > they > believe has no impact on whether the case we made > was > a misrepresentation of the actual situation or not. > The moral case (at least) was not. Saddam really > was as bad as we made him out to be. Whether Our > European > Allies (TM) fail to believe this doesn't make it a > misrepresentation. But the moral after-the-fact justification was used because of the failure of the 'hard-sell' WOMD one. That's why I always use(d) documentable medical facts to back up my urging of young women to delay having sex; if I think the moral angle is relevent to her, I'll use that too, but primary is/was health issues. (OK, I work in the emotional issues as well, but I can't 'prove' them as easily.) Debbi who proved that 'what happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas' is *untrue* -- but that nasty cold probably came from the nieces, since no - fraternization - occurred ;) __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
