Re: Christian Justification for War L3! Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)
--- Doug Pensinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Not that I don't agree with most of your post but > didn't we target Bosnian > infrastructure - bridges, power plants etc. with the > bombing. I thought > the only thing we tried to avoid was civilian > casualties. > > -- > Doug A good friend of mine was on the targeting team for Kosovo and says that we were attacking everything we could think of within about 48 hours after the first raids, because we had pretty much destroyed all of Serbia's purely military assets by that point, and we had to do something. Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Freedom is not free" http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Make Yahoo! your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)
--- Nick Arnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sat, 09 Apr 2005 18:04:35 -0400, JDG wrote > > > Just imagine how history might have been different > if Saddam Hussein > > had simply waited two or three more years or so, > and asserted his > > claim to Kuwait *after* acquiring nuclear weapons > - and then began > > to talk about securing the Muslim Holy Land as > leader of the Arab people > > What nuclear weapons? He wasn't building any. > > Nick That's a remarkable statement, given that the UN inspectors after 1991 reported that he was within a couple of years (probably less) of having a functioning nuclear device. Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Freedom is not free" http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: New Pope?
JDG wrote: I'm sorry, but I'm not sure that I detect the insult here. ...he says, batting his eyelashes in an expression of feigned innocence. And if he did so after open-mindedly considering all sides of the issue, would you still consider him to be closed-minded on the subject for issuing a final decision? I would say he gave the appearance of closing his mind on the subject by making a final decision, but that not knowing much about church politics I'm open to the possibility that I'm mistaken. How open minded was he on other issues such as birth control, celibacy and gay marriage? In my opinion, if one _favors_ tradition over change (or vice-versa), then one is inherently closed minded to some extent. -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: New Pope?
At 02:09 AM Sunday 4/10/2005, Doug Pensinger wrote: JDG wrote: I'm sorry, but I'm not sure that I detect the insult here. ...he says, batting his eyelashes in an expression of feigned innocence. And if he did so after open-mindedly considering all sides of the issue, would you still consider him to be closed-minded on the subject for issuing a final decision? I would say he gave the appearance of closing his mind on the subject by making a final decision, but that not knowing much about church politics I'm open to the possibility that I'm mistaken. How open minded was he on other issues such as birth control, celibacy and gay marriage? In my opinion, if one _favors_ tradition over change (or vice-versa), then one is inherently closed minded to some extent. OTOH, one could also say that if someone has no preference whatsoever on an issue, the issue must be of no importance at all to that person, as it's part of being human to have opinions on topics which are of interest to one. --Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)
At 10:46 PM 4/9/2005 -0700, Nick wrote: >On Sat, 09 Apr 2005 18:21:58 -0400, JDG wrote > >> Note that this resolution requires these things to be destroyed, >> removed, or rendered harmless under international supervision. >> This was to ensure that Iraq could never use the suspicion that it >> had chemical or biological weapons to again threaten its neighbors. >> Iraq NEVER complied with this provision. > >Then where are the chemical and biological weapons? As I understand things, >we've stopped even looking for them. Either they didn't exist, Iraq did >destroy them, or they are incredibly well hidden. > >> So, again, if one looks at the rationale for inspections - to provide >> assurances to the world that Iraq really did no longer have WMD >> weapons or programs, then it is impossible to say that the >> inspections were working, because no such assurances were ever produced. > >I have zero sympathy for Saddam and his buddies, but how can we fault them for >failing to produce something that didn't exist? The world may never know the ultimate disposal of the weapons. But again, the United Nations required him to dispose of these weapons we *know* he had (unless of course you wish to deny that Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons against the Kurds and Iranians) "under international supervision". Saddam Hussein never provided any evidence to UN inspectors that he had in fact destroyed his "chemical and weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and all research, development, support, and manufacturing facilities related thereto;."Since the inspections could not provide assurances to us that this had been done, it is very curious that you claim that the inspections, quote, "worked." JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)
On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 00:07:33 -0700 (PDT), Gautam Mukunda wrote > That's a remarkable statement, given that the UN > inspectors after 1991 reported that he was within a > couple of years (probably less) of having a > functioning nuclear device. Are you saying that he was actively working on something? If not, then the point is moot, at best. Nobody has said that he had the supplies on hand. Do you think we wouldn't have notice if he started *really* trying to buy uranium, centrifuge tubes and so forth? I suspect we are two years away from ending poverty in this country. That doesn't mean we're doing it. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)
- Original Message - From: "Nick Arnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Sunday, April 10, 2005 9:33 AM Subject: Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments) > On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 00:07:33 -0700 (PDT), Gautam Mukunda wrote > > > That's a remarkable statement, given that the UN > > inspectors after 1991 reported that he was within a > > couple of years (probably less) of having a > > functioning nuclear device. > > Are you saying that he was actively working on something? I hope you would accept the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists as a reasonable Source: http://www.iraqwatch.org/perspectives/bas-iraq-rules-nuke-8-91.htm There is a range of possibilities (from 6 months to many years) given there, but I see their consensus is that he had both the highly enriched uranium and the expertise necessary to build such a devise. Putting their statements together one sees an estimate of a capacity for the fairly rapid development of 2-3 bombs and a delivery system for those bombs ranging up to 1000 miles. > If not, then the point is moot, at best. Nobody has said that he had the supplies on hand. It is indisputable that he had sufficient weapons grade uranium at the time. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: New Pope?
- Original Message - From: "Doug Pensinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Sunday, April 10, 2005 2:09 AM Subject: Re: New Pope? > JDG wrote: > > > I'm sorry, but I'm not sure that I detect the insult here. > > ...he says, batting his eyelashes in an expression of feigned innocence. > > > And if he did so after open-mindedly considering all sides of the issue, > > would you still consider him to be closed-minded on the subject for > > issuing a final decision? > > I would say he gave the appearance of closing his mind on the subject by > making a final decision, but that not knowing much about church politics > I'm open to the possibility that I'm mistaken. How open minded was he on > other issues such as birth control, celibacy and gay marriage? > > In my opinion, if one _favors_ tradition over change (or vice-versa), then > one is inherently closed minded to some extent. JP II's legacy was very complicated. In interfaith relationships, he proved to be extraordinarily open minded. He publicly prayed with a wide range of Christian and non-Christian believers. He visited mosques and synagogues. Although church teachings had already been that non-Christians could be saved by the power of Jesus, his willingness to state this belief in such a public symbolic manner was profound. Remember, the Catholic church expresses much symbolically and each step like this has profound meaning. There are also personal stories concerning people of other faiths who worked with him. The Jewish conductor who worked for the Vatican talked about his relationship with the Pope. He said that relationship was the basis of great spiritual growth...and that he became more Jewish as a result of his dealings with the pope. Never, he said, did the Pope try to convert him. This speaks to a tremendous openness to God working with others in many ways. On the flip side of the coin, he presided over unprecedented centralization of the Catholic church. The two previous popes (not counting JP I) appointed bishops and cardinals based on a number of factors. They gave strong heed to the chancery offices, they tried to pick people with strong pastoral skills. Paul VI, of course, wrote the birth control document, but he still picked bishops and cardinals in this manner. JP II didn't. He picked only those who strongly agreed with him on virtually all counts. He moved decision making from the diocese and councils of bishops back to the Vatican. Indeed, there was even a proposal at the Vatican that virtually all of his important decisions were to be considered infallible...a drastic change from the previous views. One of the best ways to understand this apparent contradiction is to note that he had a much different background than most Americans or Western Europeans. From his perspective, Americans are fairly spoiled and self centered. Given the tremendous suffering elsewhere in the world, our complaints look like whining. It will be _very_ interesting if we get a Third World pope. Their perspective will be decidedly un-American. Conservatives may be upset with economic pronouncements. Liberals may be upset to learn that, in non-economic matters, Africa and Latin America are much more conservative than the US. It should be interesting. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Peaceful change
- Original Message - From: "Nick Arnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Sunday, April 10, 2005 12:50 AM Subject: Re: Peaceful change > On Sat, 9 Apr 2005 18:40:38 -0500, Dan Minette wrote > > > I know church leaders personally. In the US, there is no > > requirement to study history or international relations before > > enterming seminary. > > Or politics. Right, and all are useful in trying to determine the most probable consequences of actions. Those type of questions can be regarded as emperical questions, for which analysis and modeling of observations provide our best predictions. > > So, in essence, the debate is on how powerful we are. > > Not from here. It's about how we use our power. Look back over the debate. Gautam and I have been arguing about what are choices arenot which choice we should have made. Indeed, you eventually favored going into Iraq because you placed trust in highly exaggerated reports of evidence for an ongoing nuclear weapons program. I favored not going in. I can understand how angry you would be, now knowing that due diligence was not taken when those reports were made. My point has never been that we should have gone in. My point was that anyone who was opposed to going in, as I was, needs to acknowledge the cost of not going in. If we look at history, we see military interventions to overthrow dictators works some of the time, but not others. In the Balkans, the police action didn't work, the acts of war did. The human costs of action were clearly lower than the human costs of inaction. In other cases, the cost is just too high. We couldn't have stopped the massive killings in China during the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution. We were, alas, morally obliged to sit on the sideline while tens of millions of people died because action would have caused/risked much higher casualties. Due to our weakness, we have to make this choice. I can go back through the posts, but I see repeated claims that we can find a choice that involves far less violence than war, yet accomplish the most important objectives. Personally, I see claims that convicting Hussein in the Hague would have a good chance of ending his regime as a very arrogant claim of moral power. However valid such a conviction would be, it is very unlikely to be compelling to the Republican guard who was keeping Hussein in power. Finally, I would argue that the only justification for killing and war is weakness. If we were strong enough to stop evil actions without such extreme measures, then we would be morally compelled to do so. But as it stands, remembering that postponing a decision is also a decision, we often have to make complicated moral choices. The lack of a simple choice, IMHO, is best understood by being as rigorous in investigating the negative consequences of the course of action one favors as the course of action one opposes. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Babble theory, and comments
From: Damon Agretto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion To: Killer Bs Discussion Subject: Re: Babble theory, and comments Date: Sun, 03 Apr 2005 20:37:24 -0400 On the Pope's death; I have always wondered how, if he is the true successor to Christ, he does not end up being resurrected bodily, as the Bible says His followers will do greater works than He (Jesus), and "By their fruits ye shall know them". Seems to me that if he is not healed or raised from the dead, this Roman cult cannot really claim to be the true successors to Christ. He's not the successor of Christ. He's the successor of John, in whom Christ gave his "authority" to create a church. I'm way behind and consequently playing ketchup...ah...catch-up...and anyway, I'm pretty sure that someone has already jumped on this...but wasn't it Peter and not John who was given the aforementioned authority to create the church? -Travis "rock" Edmunds _ Don't just Search. Find! http://search.sympatico.msn.ca/default.aspx The new MSN Search! Check it out! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Babble theory, and comments
From: maru <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion To: Killer Bs Discussion Subject: Re: Babble theory, and comments Date: Sun, 03 Apr 2005 20:43:31 -0400 Damon Agretto wrote: On the Pope's death; I have always wondered how, if he is the true successor to Christ, he does not end up being resurrected bodily, as the Bible says His followers will do greater works than He (Jesus), and "By their fruits ye shall know them". Seems to me that if he is not healed or raised from the dead, this Roman cult cannot really claim to be the true successors to Christ. He's not the successor of Christ. He's the successor of John, in whom Christ gave his "authority" to create a church. Damon. You mean Peter right? Ah, two posts up; or down, depending on your e-mail service and/or settings. As Yoda would probably lament, "You must learn control!" -Travis _ Take charge with a pop-up guard built on patented Microsoft® SmartScreen Technology. http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines Start enjoying all the benefits of MSN® Premium right now and get the first two months FREE*. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Hey, I'm on ITunes!!!!!!
From: "Robert G. Seeberger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion To: Subject: Hey, I'm on ITunes!! Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2005 22:27:53 -0500 One or two of you may remember 3 years or so ago when I got all excited because some of my lyrics made it on to an album. I just discovered that the album is available on ITunes. The downside is that the song I contributed to is broken up into 4 parts. (At 17:41 running time that is understandable. Progyou gotta love itor giggle a bit) The band is Dreamship and the song is The Grand Machine (but it doesn't appear under that name) The pertinent pieces are: The Young Man (6:16) The Traveller The Wanderer (3:27) Touching the Future (4:03) My Machine Alive (3:55) But what the hey, the song comes out on our new compilation in two weeks anyway. I remember inquiring about your musical endeavors sometime last year after you mentioned something on the matter in one of the music threads. And finally I get an answer... Sarcastic, yes. But that's pretty cool all the same. -Travis PS - The so-called pertinent pieces read like a Kansas epic! _ Don't just Search. Find! http://search.sympatico.msn.ca/default.aspx The new MSN Search! Check it out! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Gun Free Household sticker
> Behalf Of Julia Thompson s caliber." > > > > > > Large Bore Maru > > Large Bore indeed -- this thread is getting tiresome. Large boar: http://www.snopes.com/photos/animals/hogzilla.asp ;-) - jmh ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)
> ... asserted his claim to Kuwait *after* acquiring nuclear weapons - > and then began to talk about securing the Muslim Holy Land as leader > of the Arab people What nuclear weapons? He wasn't building any. On the contrary, Saddam Hussein's government was actively working on them. That is why some people were worried in 2002 -- they really did not think that Saddam Hussein was lying when he claimed to be continuing the effort. That is one of the reasons the Blix reports were so worrisome. The reports could not provide assurances that the Iraqis were lying and that they were not pursuing nuclear or, in a weaker situation in 2000, radiological weapons. (And the lack of US follow up means we still lack assurances.) Indeed, in the latter 1980s and early 1990s, to separate isotopes of uranium, Saddam Hussein's government was building calutrons, of all things. The US abandoned calutrons in the late 1940s or early 1950s as being too inefficent. In WWII, the US found that they separated more efficiently when provided partially enriched uranium, from the diffusion plant, than unenriched uranium. The US used calutrons because Lawrence knew how to design them and because they worked. As far as I know, the Iraqis never tried to build a diffusion plant. (There is the story that one of the Manhattan project people decided that silver would be good for calutrons' wire. Silver is a better conductor than copper and copper was being used for cartridges and other military purposes. The man, perhaps Gen. Groves, visited the Secretary of the Treasury to ask for several tons of silver, which the US government kept as backing for its `silver certificates' that could be redeemed in silver dollars. I got some when I was a child; but I don't have them any more. The Secretary of the Treasury is reputed to have said, `in this office, we speak of ounces of silver, not of tons'. But he loaned the silver.) As far as I know, the modern equivalents of calutrons are still used to produce highly purified isotopes. I think that a good portion, maybe all, of the uranium used in the Hiroshima bomb went through calutrons. (The Trinity and Nagasaki bombs used plutonium.) In the 1990s, pictures of the Iraqi calutron vacuum vessels were released by the UN inspectors and I saw them in Aviation Week and Space Technology. At the same time, or a bit later, I read about calutron history and design. Also, at that time, Saddam Hussein was researching delivery vehicles. People laugh about one of his delivery vehicles, his big gun. But it could have been defended against Iranian attack and maybe Saudi and Kuwaiti attack, too. (It could not have been defended against US attack.) The inspectors did not discover either the bomb project or the delivery projects for some time -- they were fooled. -- Robert J. Chassell [EMAIL PROTECTED] GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8 http://www.rattlesnake.com http://www.teak.cc ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Change without war (was something else)
Nick Arnett asked rhetorically, Why did the British decide to pull out [of India]? Was it their good-hearted nature? Was it because of fear of violence? Or did it have nothing to do with anything they did? Did they not resist until they recognized that resistance was futile? Before suggesting any of that, it is worth responding to the usually stated reasons. How much influence had these reasons? * The British were bankrupt and its government could not afford to suppress Indians who were against it. In the Victorian period the British were richer, relatively speaking, and more able to afford to suppress those who were against them, as in the India Mutiny. Put another way, the British government did not fear violence done by their soldiers, with little chance fighting would destroy London -- they had just fought a war involving that danger -- but understood that overcoming resistance was expensive. Put yet another way, the British government of the time was smart enough not to spend resources on what to them were lower priority issues. (Note that Britain also stopped funding the Greek government in the latter 1940s. The British asked the US to fund the Greek government instead. Also, the British government negotiated a large loan from the US government. However, the British government misspent a fortune on peanut farms that failed in Kenya, the `ground nut' plan. They funded this effort because they worried that in another war Britain would lack a large enough fat supply.) * The Indians who were against the British were very smart in how they ran their campaign: in particular, even though millions died in the Partition, the impression given to many outside was that of life, not death. * Britain was ruled by a government who wanted to help its supporters, not those of its opponents, who were more likely to support British government spending on British rule in India. * Some of those who supported the then British government also favored governments `of the people' even if the people were not British. * The Labour Party had been against colonialism since its beginning, and the government, which was made up of Labour Party politicans, had to follow the party to some degree. If I remember rightly, some of the cabinet members opposed colonialism morally, but most were motivated more by finance. * Many powerful people in the US wanted to enter British markets and felt they could more easily do so with a change in rulers. * Some supporters of the US government favored governments `of the people' even if the people were not white Americans. Since the US was very powerful in the late 1940s, and since such different groups in the US opposed others' colonies, US anti-colonialism was very important. -- Robert J. Chassell [EMAIL PROTECTED] GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8 http://www.rattlesnake.com http://www.teak.cc ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)
On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 09:28:20 -0500, Dan Minette wrote > I hope you would accept the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists as a reasonable > Source: > > http://www.iraqwatch.org/perspectives/bas-iraq-rules-nuke-8-91.htm You want me to accept a report from 1991 to tell me if Iraq was actively building nuclear weapons in 2003? Are you kidding? Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)
Here, John is right: ... the purpose of inspections is to assure the rest of the world that Iraq did not retain any WMD stockpiles or programs. This assurance was impossible to make under the inspections. In January 2003, I read Blix's report on the inspections. While he did not report active violations of the terms (as he had in the previous report), he was also unable to provide assurances that the Iraqi government did not have radiological, nuclear, or chemical weapons or programs to create them, as they had had earlier. Blix said, in effect, that so far, inspections had failed. Blix was against the US invasion and argued at the time that in 6 months or a year, he could report more accurately one way or the other, but that at the time, he could not. In particular, in 2002, Saddam Hussein's government in Iraq started out by avoiding cooperation with the UN inspectors. Later Saddam Hussein's government did cooperate more, but that cooperation was not sufficiently evident that Blix could make assurances that he and his inspectors were not being fooled as they had been in the early 1990s. The January 2003 report was critical because after that time it became harder for the US government to do something else (such as borrow the same billion dollars a week, but use it to investigate and innovate alternative sources of energy, as I suggested earlier, rather than invade Iraq). You can argue that the US government acted years previously to prepare an attack against Iraq. The point is, both the Iraqi government and the UN inspectors understood the situation, and in January 2003, the UN inspectors could not provide assurances that they were not being fooled as they had been before. -- Robert J. Chassell [EMAIL PROTECTED] GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8 http://www.rattlesnake.com http://www.teak.cc ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)
At 04:32 PM 4/10/2005 -0700, you wrote: >On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 09:28:20 -0500, Dan Minette wrote > >> I hope you would accept the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists as a reasonable >> Source: >> >> http://www.iraqwatch.org/perspectives/bas-iraq-rules-nuke-8-91.htm > >You want me to accept a report from 1991 to tell me if Iraq was actively >building nuclear weapons in 2003? Are you kidding? Before reacting so indignantly, perhaps you aught to re-examine the context of this particular line of discussion. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)
- Original Message - From: "Nick Arnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Sunday, April 10, 2005 6:32 PM Subject: Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments) > On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 09:28:20 -0500, Dan Minette wrote > > > I hope you would accept the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists as a reasonable > > Source: > > > > http://www.iraqwatch.org/perspectives/bas-iraq-rules-nuke-8-91.htm > > You want me to accept a report from 1991 to tell me if Iraq was actively > building nuclear weapons in 2003? No. >Are you kidding? Ah, missed communications. JDG was talking about the program in 1991. Just imagine how history might have been different if Saddam Hussein had simply waited two or three more years or so, and asserted his claim to Kuwait *after* acquiring nuclear weapons - and then began to talk about securing the Muslim Holy Land as leader of the Arab people. He asserted his claim in '91. JDG's point was not that Hussein had an active nuclear program in 2003, but that he had one in 1991, when he claimed Kuwait. If he had finished a couple of bombs first, and then invaded Kuwait, things would have been different. In a sense, we were lucky. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Change without war (was something else)
Nick Arnett asked Do you mean to characterize Iraq under Saddam as an empire??? While a great deal of effort has been undertaken over the past 3/4 of a century to inspire people in Iraq to think of themselves as `Iraqi', it is clear that many of the people whom Saddam ruled thought of themselves as Kurds and Shi'ites rather than as ruling Sunnis. Iraq certainly had the characteristics of a multi-ethnic empire, like that of the Czars or the French 150 years ago. One of the things the Bush Administration has done so far is to prevent the Shi'ites and Kurds from getting justice from their oppressors. It has forced the major different groups to cooperate. As far as I can see, this is good. In 1991, Przeworski pointed out that this sort of injustice enabled many countries to transition from tyrannies to democracies in the latter 1980s. For example, I have heard many say that the South African Truth Commission enabled a peaceful change in government by preventing justice (or, as others put it, revenge) from prevailing. -- Robert J. Chassell [EMAIL PROTECTED] GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8 http://www.rattlesnake.com http://www.teak.cc ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Peaceful change
On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 10:55:11 -0500, Dan Minette wrote > Right, and all are useful in trying to determine the most probable > consequences of actions. Then we agree. > Those type of questions can be regarded as > emperical questions, for which analysis and modeling of observations > provide our best predictions. The question of going to war or not? If so, then we disagree, as I have no doubt that there is a moral dimension that does not arise from analysis but cannot be omitted. > My point has never been that we should have gone in. My point was that > anyone who was opposed to going in, as I was, needs to acknowledge > the cost of not going in. Acknowledged. Now can we move on? It seems like you are saying that I've been arguing for non-invertention, which frustrates the heck out of me, since I never intended to say any such thing and it seems downright silly to imagine that I would have. > I can go back through the posts, but I see repeated claims that we > can find a choice that involves far less violence than war, yet > accomplish the most important objectives. Is a "claim" the same thing as a "hope?" Is an argument the same thing as faith? > Finally, I would argue that the only justification for killing and > war is weakness. If we were strong enough to stop evil actions > without such extreme measures, then we would be morally compelled to > do so. I cannot agree with the premise that underlies this -- that evil is "out there" and we "in here," if powerful enough, can eliminate it. I see nothing wrong with pointing to Saddam and saying that he was doing extremely evil things. But the next step that we have take as a national policy, which is to say that they are evil and we are good, seems to me is hubris of the most dangerous kind. It is nationalistic idolatry. We are not the good. Like everyone else in the world, we have good and evil in us. Saddam seems to have let the evil take him over, but the fact that we can oppose that doesn't mean it doesn't exist in us as well. The faith you and I share, Dan, warns us repeatedly against the idolatry that would have us worship a nation, including our own, but that's exactly what we're doing when we iamgine that the United States fighting Iraq is a battle of good against evil. We removed great evil from a Iraq. That doesn't automatically make us good. In fact, military power comes with tremendous temptations. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)
On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 23:08:25 + (UTC), Robert J. Chassell wrote > > ... asserted his claim to Kuwait *after* acquiring nuclear > weapons -> and then began to talk about securing the Muslim Holy > Land as leader> of the Arab people > > What nuclear weapons? He wasn't building any. > > On the contrary, Saddam Hussein's government was actively working on > them. That is why some people were worried in 2002 -- they really > did not think that Saddam Hussein was lying when he claimed to be > continuing the effort. And we haven't found evidence of this, two years after invading, because...? Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)
On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 19:42:19 -0400, JDG wrote > Before reacting so indignantly, perhaps you aught to re-examine the context > of this particular line of discussion. I did not intend indignance. I had no idea you weren't talking about the war in which we are presently entangled. That's what I had been talking about in terms of inspections and the decision to go to war. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Christian Justification for War L3! Re: The Other Christianity(was Re: Babble theory, and comments)
Nick, At 11:04 PM 4/9/2005 -0700, Nick wrote: >> The creation of >> the United Nations following World War II crystalized a concept of >> "international >> peace and security" that was in the collective interest of nations. > >The United Nations was not formed to prosecute wars, but to resolve conflicts >as peacefully as possible -- to avoid war. That is true, but the United Nations also gave itself the authority to use war as a means to maintain international peace and security. Under the definition of "just war theology" that you provided, the US was *not* justified in launching Gulf War I to liberate the Emirate of Kuwait from occupation by Saddam Hussein.Presumably you would want to update your definition of "just war theology" to also justify wars like the First Gulf War and the Korean War. Of course, there are other problems with your definition of "just war theology", as I (and others) have pointed out that it would preclude a country like the United States from intervening against a government conducting a genocide against its own people. You have claimed that this is a "reductio ad absurdum argument, and pointed out that "there is an enormous spectrum of possibilities between war and non-intervention." I think that you are missing the point, however. I don't think anyone is suggesting that other means short of war should be pursued whenever possible. In fact, I at least have specified that the exhaustion of other means is a *requirement* for just war under Catholic theology. The question before us, however, is would war *ever* be justifed on the part of the United States to put a stop to a genocide being conducted by a government against its own people? Your description of "just war" theology, however, would say that such a war would *never* be justifed, as a country like the United States would neither have been attacked, nor in imminent danger of being attacked. I find such logic very unsatisfying. I also find it somewhat disappointing that you did not respond to my point about police action requiring legitimate authority. Instead, you seem to be offering a semi-definition of "police action" based upon the level of force involved. What I think you are missing is the fact that in domestic affairs, governments have a monopoly on the legitimate use of force, abd usually a true monopoly on heavy weaponry. In most countries, individuals are not allowed to maintain such things as tanks, anti-aircraft guns, and other heavy weaponry. This difference in capabalities is what defines the level of force used to resolve a problem. Thus, I think that trying to define the difference between "police action" and "war" on the basis of force ends up being a tautalogy. In domestic affairs, the government has a monopoly on the use of heavy weaponry, and so a lighter level of force is used in police actions. In international affairs, there are no such monopolies, and indeed only a few limitations on the use of force, and thus the heavier use of force, "warfare" is used in international affairs. Suffice to say, that while the NYPD may be New York's finest, the NYPD is not capable of putting a halt to state-sponsored genocide, nor to the sort of ethnic cleansing that occurred in Kosovo. And as Gautam and others have pointed out, even if we were to agree to your distinction between "police action" and "warfare" based on the size of force deployed, the size of force deployed in Kosovo much, much, more closely resembles warfare than it does a "police action." Again, as noted earlier, in the Kosovo "Action" we destroyed every bit of Yugoslavia's infrastructure that we could, used heavy aircraft and cruise missiles, and targeted Yugoslavian government buildings without absolute assurance that everyone connected to them, or even in them, was a "perpetrator" of ethnic cleansing. Therfore, using the definition you seem to be proposing, our actions in Kosovo would seem to constitute a "War" and do not Meanwhile, I find it amazing that you can continue to suggest that the US "[did] not at least listen to the voices of our friends... and make some effort to build multinational support for such extreme measures."The United States spent well over a year attempting to build support for the Iraq war. He sent Colin Powell to the United Nations, and various officials on trips to Europe. The US did *not* rush into war without listening to the voices of our friends. Indeed, let's consider a reasonable definition of the US's friends as being those countries with which the US has a formal Alliance (excluding the largely defunct Rio Treaty.)Of the 32 or so of these countries, at least 22 of them supported the Iraq War (I gave you the benefit of the doubt on any country that I was not quite sure of). Is this not "multinational support" and "listiening to the voices of our friends"? If not, then what is it? (And please remember that support for the Kosovo "Action" was n
Inspections in Iraq Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, andcomments)
At 11:40 PM 4/10/2005 +, Bob Chassell wrote: >Here, John is right: > >... the purpose of inspections is to assure the rest of the world >that Iraq did not retain any WMD stockpiles or programs. This >assurance was impossible to make under the inspections. > >In January 2003, I read Blix's report on the inspections. While he >did not report active violations of the terms (as he had in the >previous report), he was also unable to provide assurances that the >Iraqi government did not have radiological, nuclear, or chemical >weapons or programs to create them, as they had had earlier. > >Blix said, in effect, that so far, inspections had failed. Blix was >against the US invasion and argued at the time that in 6 months or a >year, he could report more accurately one way or the other, but that >at the time, he could not. > >In particular, in 2002, Saddam Hussein's government in Iraq started >out by avoiding cooperation with the UN inspectors. Later Saddam >Hussein's government did cooperate more, but that cooperation was not >sufficiently evident that Blix could make assurances that he and his >inspectors were not being fooled as they had been in the early 1990s. > >The January 2003 report was critical because after that time it became >harder for the US government to do something else (such as borrow the >same billion dollars a week, but use it to investigate and innovate >alternative sources of energy, as I suggested earlier, rather than >invade Iraq). > >You can argue that the US government acted years previously to prepare >an attack against Iraq. The point is, both the Iraqi government and >the UN inspectors understood the situation, and in January 2003, the >UN inspectors could not provide assurances that they were not being >fooled as they had been before. Indeed, consider UNSC Resolution 1441 (2002), which as I recall, was passed unanimously by the UN Security Council, acting under its binding authority under Chapter VII of the UN Charter: "1. Decides that Iraq has been, and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevation resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991) [which I cited in a previous e-mail], in particular through Iraq's failure to to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 and 13 of resolution 687 (1991); 2. Decides, while acknowledging paragraph 1 above, to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with the disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions by this Council" You can read the full text of the resolution here: http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N02/682/26/PDF/N0268226.pdf?OpenElement To anyone who says that the US did not listen to others in the lead-up to the Iraq War, this resolution is a solid counter-point to that.The US voted for the above resolution, and clearly gave Iraq a "final opportunity" to comply with its *existing obligations* as a Member of the United Nations and party to the San Francisco Treaty.If Iraq had complied, there would have been no war - which is precisely the opportunity our few friends that did oppose the war had asked for. Iraq refused. UN and IAEA inspections were unable to provide the world with assurances that Iraq was not stockpiling WMD threats. The rest is history. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Societal Evolution Re: New Pope?
In a message dated 4/9/2005 10:52:02 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > "Evolutionary dead ends are very common in the human fossil record. In > fact, there are people who would claim that we probably don't know any > direct ancestors to Homo sapiens in that record. But if the pattern of > human evolution has been one of the production of new species and the > selective extinction most species in the fossil record, then clearly many, > many species that we know as fossils were evolutionary dead ends in the > sense that they didn't give rise to descendent species." > > Ian Tattersall, Curator in the Department of Anthropology at the American > Museum of Natural History in New York > He is my next door neighbor. Kind of a dour guy. The point is that there is no trend towards "better" in evolution. Natural selection is short sigthed and opportunistic. Apparent trends reflect consistent environmental conditions that favor some adaptation. Complexity in living organisms has increased throughout history but that does not mean that there is a direction in favor of complexity since along with this trend there have been organisms that have become simpler. If one were to judge the most "successful" groups based on total biomass, number of species or longevity, bacteria win hands down. Even if one accepts that increasing complexity on balance is increasing and that complex organisms (like us) have had a dominant effect on life history that does not mean that there is some inate drive to complexity it simply means that in a world filled with successful organisms the only way to succeed is to try something new and new things are usually more complex than existent things ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Hey, I'm on ITunes!!!!!!
- Original Message - From: "Travis Edmunds" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Sunday, April 10, 2005 1:54 PM Subject: RE: Hey, I'm on ITunes!! > > PS - The so-called pertinent pieces read like a Kansas epic! To my ear, some of it sounds almost exactly like Kansas. But I had nothing to do with that. (As in cannot claim credit, I just write words and mark through the ones that don't rhyme) xponent Reads More Like Texas Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Societal Evolution Re: New Pope?
Zim wrote: He is my next door neighbor. Kind of a dour guy. Wow, any more interesting folks around? The point is that there is no trend towards "better" in evolution. Agreed, hence my regret in using "better" in my first post. Natural selection is short sigthed and opportunistic. Apparent trends reflect consistent environmental conditions that favor some adaptation. Complexity in living organisms has increased throughout history but that does not mean that there is a direction in favor of complexity since along with this trend there have been organisms that have become simpler. If one were to judge the most "successful" groups based on total biomass, number of species or longevity, bacteria win hands down. Even if one accepts that increasing complexity on balance is increasing and that complex organisms (like us) have had a dominant effect on life history that does not mean that there is some inate drive to complexity it simply means that in a world filled with successful organisms the only way to succeed is to try something new and new things are usually more complex than existent things So there is no linearity. -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
