----- Original Message ----- From: "Nick Arnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <brin-l@mccmedia.com> Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2005 12:09 PM Subject: Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)
> On Wed, 6 Apr 2005 20:08:41 -0500, Dan Minette wrote > > > It can be. Bush I and Clinton tried other means for ~12 years. I > > think, after that time, it was safe to say that Hussian wasn't > > losing his grip on the country and wouldn't without an invasion. > > Safe to say? Meaning it's not debatable? If you want to debate it, I'd be interested in why you would think there was a significant liklyhood he would fall without intervention. In particular, I'd be interested in seeing what steps that were stronger than the sactions we imposed, but not hurtful to the people of Iraq could be imposed. But, given the facts, I think it would be much more reasonable to count on his regime continuing than falling. >Do you think that international > pressure could have been increased -- something between what we were doing and > going to war? Theoretically, yes. Practically, no. There were, on paper, very stiff sanctions in place. We could have revoked oil for food, since the UN was corrupted by Hussain and gave a lot of money for food. But, since a Security council member with a veto, France, was given lucrative future contracts by Hussein, it's hard to imagine France both accepting the contracts and insuring that they would never profit. In short, I think we could continue to contain Hussain, but that there were no non-invasive options that had a reasonable chance of toppling him. After 11 years of failure in that regard, I think it is fair to ask for a specific plan and why it would have had a good chance to suceed where the previous sanctions have failed. > Even though Iraq neither attacked us nor posed a credible threat? I don't see > any room for such an action under any major religion's theology. > > > Well, let's look at three other cases > > I don't mean to disrespect your focus on the past, but I think we need a > vision for the future that is different from the past. None of our solutions > to this sort of thing has worked particularly well. Nothing has worked ideally. But, things have gotten better. Life is better in E. Germany and most of Eastern Europe after the Cold War was won by the US. Life in the Balkins is better after we acted. We stopped ongoing genocide. I consider that a good thing. Humans beings cannot attain perfection. That doesn't mean we should refer things to committee forever (as Presbyterians tend to do.) There are times that we need to act, as imperfect as we are. I agree with the Catholic rite of contrition where we confess for "that which we have done and that which we have failed to do." Both are sins. > Let's have an > international discussion that develops approaches to conflict resolution that > are as advanced as our weapons systems! We can develop scientific techniques that allows us to manipulate inatimate objects (within bounds of course) to do things we want. Thus, we can use physics and chemistry, engineering and systems design to come up with very deadly weapons. But there is no evidence that using just the right technique on potential perpetrators will stop violence. The best is oft the enemy of the good. I do not see the morality in refusing to accept the consequences of one's decision to not act, as well as the consequences of action. We have at least some responsibility for the ongoing death in the Sudan because stopping it is in our power. Neli is furious with the UN for not stopping it. No system that works will be dependant on the lack of evil actions. It needs to work despite selfishness, hate, and greed. The UN has not performed well in this area over the past 25 years. Indeed, the track record of the US, although it is certainly blemished, is significantly superior to that of the UN. > The questions I posed above are critical to making a moral decision, I believe > -- did the nation in question attack us? Does it pose an imminent threat. If > the answer to both is no, can war be justified? Sure. Otherwise, it was immoral to act to stop the genocide in Rwanda. The Dutch would have been morally oblidged to step aside to permit the genocide in Serbicida. IIRC, the ultimate justification for the use of force by Augustine was defence of the innocent, not self defence. While I'm on just war, let me give you a paraphrase from Tommy Acquinis on just war: it's at: http://www.monksofadoration.org/justwar.html A just cause is required to wage war. St. Thomas considers such a cause to be "that those who are attacked, should be attacked because they deserve it on account of some fault."(8) Finally St. Thomas discusses the right intention for waging war. Only two possibilities are presented: either the furthering of some good or an avoidance of some evil. The underpinnings of his arguments and most important contribution to St. Augustine's theory "would appear to consist in his stress on the natural law."(9) This would clearly allow wars to defend the lives and liberty of others. > If we're fighting terrorists, rather than nations, how can war be an solution > at all? What we are fighting is a complicated system, if you were. If we succeed in helping the people of Iraq establish a decently representative government which is only moderately corrupt, it will change the basic equation of terror in the Mid-East. With Hussein staying in power, the lesson was: the brutal use of force wins...honor is gained by standing up to the US. If we didn't botch the reconstruction, I think we might actually have been well on the way to that goal. Even with all the blundering, we might succeed in spite of ourselves. Success would be good for the US, but it would also improve the lives of millions in the Mid-East....who are our brothers and sisters. Helping them can't be intrinsically immoral. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
