----- Original Message ----- From: "Nick Arnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <brin-l@mccmedia.com> Sent: Friday, April 08, 2005 7:59 PM Subject: Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)
> > > I didn't see analysis of what would happen without war from the religeous > > figures opposed to the war. That sounds pretty reasonable to me > > because we shouldn't expect, for example, an exemplary moral > > theologian to have any special insights into the likelyhood of the > > fall of any government. On the other hand, widespead agreement > > among accademics and policy makes who differ greatly on other issues, > > seems to me to be our best shot at understanding consequences. > > I fail to see any reason to choose between the two in decision-making, which > is why I offered no special weight to academics. 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? 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. While history and international relations are not science, I do think that a detailed analysis of hisory provides a better understanding than a cursorary analysis. A consensus of the best of those who do such analysis is the best guess we can come up with. > > Well, we've been discussing this for over two years: I saw three > > choices at the time: continuing containmnet, the war, and > > withdrawing the sactions and the no fly zones. Changing the > > containment slightly might have improved it slightly, but I didn't > > see anyone on the list or anywhere else lay out a program for regiem > > change that did not involve war. > Let me quote selectively from Julia's quote of the first step <quote> As urged by Human Rights Watch and others, the U.N. Security Council should establish an international tribunal to indict Saddam and his top officials for war crimes and crimes against humanity. Indicting Saddam would send a clear signal to the world that he has no future. It would set into motion both internal and external forces that might remove him from power. It would make it clear that no solution to this conflict will include Saddam or his supporters staying in power. <end quote> > There was a six-point plan from the churches, which Tony Blair took very > seriously, 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. Let me consider just the first step. With the French being paid of by Hussein, as Julia points out, achieving this would be very problematic. 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? Second, let's look at the forces that are to be involved. What internationl force, short of attacking with superior military power, could compel Hussein? What internal forces would exist? The only force that I could think of was the Kurds....and I don't think them marching on Bagdad is a realistic scenario. With Iraq as a police state, it would be very hard for someone who wanted to resist to know if a hint of a resistance movement came from a true member of the movement or someone paid by Hussein. This is, in a sense, a weakened version of the plan of Bush I. By defeating him soundly in Kuwait, with the army surrendering en mass, they accomplished two things. 1) The struck a strong blow to his image as a powerful sucessful leader. 2) They devistated his armies. Given this, they expected him to fall. But, he did not. Now, this plan is, in essence, to write him a very very stern note, with nothing to back it up. What happens if he ignores the indictment? All he has to do is say the Hague is controled by the Zionest conspiricy and he is a stronger champion of Arab causes.> > Korea is about the worst example to pick, since it looked far more like an > undeclared war than a police action. Certainly it was *called* a police > action, but that doesn't mean it was conducted like one. > > > OK, but your point was that there was no just war theology that allowed > > premeptive wars. Aquinas was a theologian. I think Kant's work > > pretty well eliminates the litter bug nuking issue. Then what is a police action? You must have a defintion I haven't seen. > > OK, let me clarify this. You would be opposed to using unilateral military > > force to stop genocide on moral grounds, right? Even if we found > > that the killing in Sudan was intensifying and that the Arabs were > > planning a "final solution", we would be oblidged to refrain from > > military action. > > Not "military action," war. Are you saying that it would be a moral course of > action for the United States to conquer the Sudan, as it has taken over Iraq? 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? It is possible that, with a bombing 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. > 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. A classic example that doesn't fit this mold is the run up to WWII, where the French and British thought they could gain safety by appeasing Hitler. It turns out that the best thing to do was stop the miniaturization of the Rhine at the very start. There are others. Take the environmentalists opposition to nuclear power. I don't know how many times that I've argued against viewpoints that directly contradict our best scientific understandings. There have even been arguments that purport that a "natural" 2.6 Mev gamma ray is safer than an "artificial" lower energy gamma ray. On a more personal level people drive drunk, endangering the safety of themselves and others, and tell themselves that they can handle it. Company presidents destroy their own market share instead of admitting that their presuppositions are wrong. People hurt themselves and the family they love in a circle of denial. There are several ways to deal with this. One is the use of scholarship, and the willingness to engage in detailed factual arguments. I think I've learned a lot arguing with Gautam, and hope he learned from me. While we are two very competitive people, I think that's really never caused a problem. I want to _be_ right more than have my present position proven right. I get the same feeling from Gautam. You are clearly capable of such a discussion, so I'm a bit surprised when you give simple answers to hard questions...like "look at India, look at South Africa" When I do look at them, I see particular circumstances that do not easily fit Iraq. If you would wish to analyze the history of these countries to show how they apply to Iraq in a manner I am unaware of, that would be good. But, just saying look at India and South Africa doesn't contribute to my understanding. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
