On Thu, 7 Apr 2005 13:09:46 -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.
I wrote "invasion" and you've just written "intervention." Are we talking about the same thing? > 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. If you believe this was a war of last resort, that there was no hope of removing him from power without an invasion, then we disagree. I was asking if that is your firm belief or not. > 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. How about putting far more force behind inspections? A force that operates more like a police action, in which collateral damage is largely unacceptable? > 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. I hear this as that the end justified the means -- you're describing the outcomes, not how we got there. Is that what you're saying? > But there is no evidence that > using just the right technique on potential perpetrators will stop > violence. I believe that humanity in modern times has been much better at avoiding war than it has been throughout most of history. Is there some reason not to hope for that progress to continue? Or do you disagree with my premise? > 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. Who are you talking about? I hear a new issue here. > > 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. To what action are you referring? I don't recall that we declared war on Rwanda at any point. We eventually intervened in an internal war, didn't we? > The Dutch would have been morally oblidged to step aside to permit > the genocide in Serbicida. Reductio ad absurdum. Police actions are not war. > This would clearly allow wars to defend the lives and liberty of others. Yes, and it begs rather large questions of the means of war and circumstances under which such an undertaking is moral. Otherwise, couldn't one justify nuclear weapons to stop a litterbug? > 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. Ends justifying the means again, it sounds to me..>? And that's a big "if." I find it hard to believe there can be peace in Iraq as long as the United States is in charge there. Is the enormity of the resentment not obvious? I believe that working toward social and economic justice would be an enormously effective counter-recruiting effort. Reducing poverty and oppression will make it very hard for the fanatics to find anyone to sign up to be terrorists. We seem to be accomplishing the opposite these days. > 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. Is that a fair statement without factoring in the costs? Aren't you arguing from your conclusion by saying that we are helping? It's a tautology -- helping is good, there for helping is not bad. Well, what if we're not helping? Nick _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
