Re: Permission Slips Re: Rhetorical Questions RE: Removing Dictators Re: Peaceful change L3

[Warren Ockrassa]

Look, this flame bait is really kind of over the top now, isn't it? 
Obviously there's a history here, but frankly what that history is 
applies only because those involved are choosing to make it do so.

I don't think goading or coy allusions to prior misdeeds by 
(apparently) now-banned posters is particularly edifying.

While it's arguable that those who do not remember history are doomed 
to repeat it, I think it's as valid to suggest that those who do not 
*let go* of history are equally stuck.

--
Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books
http://books.nightwares.com/
Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror"
http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Permission Slips Re: Rhetorical Questions RE: Removing Dictators Re: Peaceful change L3

[Maru Dubshinki]

On 5/4/05, Dave Land <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On May 3, 2005, at 8:17 PM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
> 
> > At 09:25 PM Tuesday 5/3/2005, Dave Land wrote:
> >> On May 3, 2005, at 6:32 PM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
> >>
> >>> At 03:30 PM Tuesday 5/3/2005, Dave Land wrote:
>  On May 3, 2005, at 10:45 AM, Horn, John wrote:
...
> >>> Oh . . . did you mean "Who do I think is calling him- or herself
> >>> 'God' when posting to the list?"
> >>
> >> Um, yeah. I guess I could have been more specific.
> >>
> >> But I really enjoyed your thorough answer.
> >
> > "Would you like to know more?"
> 
> The text of your answer was already very familiar -- in fact, I think I
> had parts of it memorized at one point. For a year or so back in the
> '80s, I dated a Mormon woman who worked with me at HP, which is how I
> recognized your answer as LDS catechism. I believe I had a substantial
> portion of it memorized at one point or another.
> 
> I credit our relationship with helping me find my way back to God.
> That, and my roommate at the time, the son of the Lutheran Bishop of
> Northern Minnesota. It was quite a time in my life, with my girlfriend
> and her bishop father speaking their faith in one ear and my roommate
> and his bishop father speaking theirs in the other. I appreciated  the
> opportunity to approach Christianity again from such diverse
> viewpoints.
> 
> So thank you, but I am already quite happy with the relationship I have
> with God. Save a seat in the terrestrial kingdom for me, I guess. I'll
> be there with all the other religion-addled brains :-).
> 
> I repeat my question... You apparently have a theory about the identity
> of the poster who called "God." I am interested to hear your theory.
> 
> Peace,
> 
> Dave

Perhaps he has no theory, yet I do: from the fact that his posts are
moderated and  occasionally blocked, he is clearly not omnipotent.
Yet, he claims to be God!
We know already from our illustrious Gnostic forebears who the false
God is: he is Samael the Blind God! Do not the Nag Hammadi codices
mark him as the 'occluded one', irrational and angry, ever fighting
the true Heavenly Father?
He attempts to divide the readers from the
adminstrators^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H to divide the earthly humans from the
true supreme deity who created all; need we more evidence?  Let those
who have eyes, see; ears, hear.


~Maru
Come, let us drink this delicious Kool-Aid and cast off the shackles
of our gross material bodies! ; )
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Permission Slips Re: Rhetorical Questions RE: Removing Dictators Re: Peaceful change L3

[Dave Land]

On May 3, 2005, at 8:17 PM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
At 09:25 PM Tuesday 5/3/2005, Dave Land wrote:
On May 3, 2005, at 6:32 PM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
At 03:30 PM Tuesday 5/3/2005, Dave Land wrote:
On May 3, 2005, at 10:45 AM, Horn, John wrote:
Behalf Of God
Try this: ask people like Nick, Erik and JDG some questions that 
would
force them to seriously rethink their attitudes and opinions; 
hold them
accountable for what they say and do on this list. Then see how 
many (or
rather: how few) of those questions will actually get answered.
Oooo...!  It looks like God has just tipped his hand.
I mean if it gets through my dense skull, it must be obvious to
everyone else...
I've had brain surgery, and had a pretty solid cranium to begin 
with, so
please enlighten me... Who do you think God is?

Thank you, Brother Blankenship. And you didn't even have to put on 
your Missionary Uniform!
Or visit a barber for an appropriate haircut & shave (no longer 
available for two bits) . . .

Oh . . . did you mean "Who do I think is calling him- or herself 
'God' when posting to the list?"
Um, yeah. I guess I could have been more specific.
But I really enjoyed your thorough answer.
"Would you like to know more?"
The text of your answer was already very familiar -- in fact, I think I 
had parts of it memorized at one point. For a year or so back in the 
'80s, I dated a Mormon woman who worked with me at HP, which is how I 
recognized your answer as LDS catechism. I believe I had a substantial 
portion of it memorized at one point or another.

I credit our relationship with helping me find my way back to God. 
That, and my roommate at the time, the son of the Lutheran Bishop of 
Northern Minnesota. It was quite a time in my life, with my girlfriend 
and her bishop father speaking their faith in one ear and my roommate 
and his bishop father speaking theirs in the other. I appreciated  the 
opportunity to approach Christianity again from such diverse 
viewpoints.

So thank you, but I am already quite happy with the relationship I have 
with God. Save a seat in the terrestrial kingdom for me, I guess. I'll 
be there with all the other religion-addled brains :-).

I repeat my question... You apparently have a theory about the identity 
of the poster who called "God." I am interested to hear your theory.

Peace,
Dave
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Permission Slips Re: Rhetorical Questions RE: Removing Dictators Re: Peaceful change L3

[Ronn!Blankenship]

At 09:25 PM Tuesday 5/3/2005, Dave Land wrote:
On May 3, 2005, at 6:32 PM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
At 03:30 PM Tuesday 5/3/2005, Dave Land wrote:
On May 3, 2005, at 10:45 AM, Horn, John wrote:
Behalf Of God
Try this: ask people like Nick, Erik and JDG some questions that would
force them to seriously rethink their attitudes and opinions; hold them
accountable for what they say and do on this list. Then see how many (or
rather: how few) of those questions will actually get answered.
Oooo...!  It looks like God has just tipped his hand.
I mean if it gets through my dense skull, it must be obvious to
everyone else...
I've had brain surgery, and had a pretty solid cranium to begin with, so
please enlighten me... Who do you think God is?

Thank you, Brother Blankenship. And you didn't even have to put on your 
Missionary Uniform!

Or visit a barber for an appropriate haircut & shave (no longer available 
for two bits) . . .


Oh . . . did you mean "Who do I think is calling him- or herself 'God' 
when posting to the list?"
Um, yeah. I guess I could have been more specific.
But I really enjoyed your thorough answer.

"Would you like to know more?"
The Above Question Is Written In Black Instead Of Golden To Avoid Annoying 
The List Administrators Maru

-- Ronn!  :)
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Permission Slips Re: Rhetorical Questions RE: Removing Dictators Re: Peaceful change L3

[Dave Land]

On May 3, 2005, at 6:32 PM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
At 03:30 PM Tuesday 5/3/2005, Dave Land wrote:
On May 3, 2005, at 10:45 AM, Horn, John wrote:
Behalf Of God
Try this: ask people like Nick, Erik and JDG some questions that 
would
force them to seriously rethink their attitudes and opinions; hold 
them
accountable for what they say and do on this list. Then see how 
many (or
rather: how few) of those questions will actually get answered.
Oooo...!  It looks like God has just tipped his hand.
I mean if it gets through my dense skull, it must be obvious to
everyone else...
I've had brain surgery, and had a pretty solid cranium to begin with, 
so
please enlighten me... Who do you think God is?

Thank you, Brother Blankenship. And you didn't even have to put on your 
Missionary Uniform!

Oh . . . did you mean "Who do I think is calling him- or herself ‘God’ 
when posting to the list?"
Um, yeah. I guess I could have been more specific.
But I really enjoyed your thorough answer.
Dave
Insofar as it is Correctly Translated Maru
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Permission Slips Re: Rhetorical Questions RE: Removing Dictators Re: Peaceful change L3

[Ronn!Blankenship]

At 03:30 PM Tuesday 5/3/2005, Dave Land wrote:
On May 3, 2005, at 10:45 AM, Horn, John wrote:
Behalf Of God
Try this: ask people like Nick, Erik and JDG some questions that would
force them to seriously rethink their attitudes and opinions; hold them
accountable for what they say and do on this list. Then see how many (or
rather: how few) of those questions will actually get answered.
Oooo...!  It looks like God has just tipped his hand.
I mean if it gets through my dense skull, it must be obvious to
everyone else...
I've had brain surgery, and had a pretty solid cranium to begin with, so
please enlighten me... Who do you think God is?


God Is the Ruler of Heaven and Earth
The prophets have taught us that God is the almighty ruler of the universe. 
God dwells in heaven (see D&C 20:17). Through his Son, Jesus Christ, he 
created heaven and earth and all things that are in them (see Moses 2:1). 
He made the moon, the stars, and the sun. He organized this world and gave 
it form, motion, and life. He filled the air and the water with living 
things. He covered the hills and plains with all kinds of animal life. He 
gave us day and night, summer and winter, seedtime and harvest. He made man 
in his own image to be a ruler over his other creations (see Genesis 1:26–27).

God is the one supreme and absolute being in whom we believe and whom we 
worship. He is the Creator, Ruler, and Preserver of all things (see 
Discourses of Brigham Young, pp. 18–23).

What Kind of Being Is God?
Because we are made in his image (see Moses 6:9), we know that God has a 
body that looks like ours. His eternal spirit is housed in a tangible body 
of flesh and bones (see D&C 130:22). God’s body, however, is perfected and 
glorified, with a glory beyond all description.

God is perfect. He is a God of love, mercy, charity, truth, power, faith, 
knowledge, and judgment. He has all power. He knows all things. He is full 
of goodness.

All good things come from God. Everything that he does is to help his 
children become like him­a god. He has said, “Behold, this is my work and 
my glory­to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man” (Moses 
1:39).

<>
God is not only our ruler and creator; he is also our Heavenly Father. “All 
men and women are … literally the sons and daughters of Deity. … Man, as a 
spirit, was begotten and born of heavenly parents, and reared to maturity 
in the eternal mansions of the Father, prior to coming upon the earth in a 
temporal [physical] body” (Joseph F. Smith, “The Origin of Man,” 
Improvement Era, Nov. 1909, pp. 78, 80).

Every person who was ever born on earth was our spirit brother or sister in 
heaven. The first spirit born to our heavenly parents was Jesus Christ (see 
D&C 93:21), so he is literally our elder brother (see Discourses of Brigham 
Young, p. 26). Because we are the spiritual children of our heavenly 
parents, we have inherited the potential to develop their divine qualities. 
If we choose to do so, we can become perfect, just as they are.

<>

Hope This Helps Maru
-- Ronn!  :)
Oh . . . did you mean "Who do I think is calling him- or herself ‘God’ when 
posting to the list?"

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Rhetorical Questions RE: Removing Dictators Re: Peaceful change L3

[Frank Schmidt]

Dan:
>Frank:
> > The US does not rule the world, the US is not a pappa,
> > and the US is not a police force. The US is just the
> > strongest nation today. An alliance of other nations
> > can be stronger than the US, but at present these
> > nations have different goals. If the US pushes harder,
> > this alliance might form, which might start another
> > cold war.
> 
> You seriously think, that if push came to shove, Germany
> would prefer a world in which China were the major power?
> Europe decided after the Cold War to continue to expect
> the US to look after its security interests. There is a
> lot of difference between apeasing China while knowing
> that the US can be counted on to ensure that the
> government of China does not conquer others (such as the
> people of Tawain) and living in a world where China calls
> the tune.

Germany would not prefer such a world, nor would France.
But China would. Can you imagine an alliance between China,
Russia and several islamic states? Mutual disgust drives
them apart, even inside the islamic world, but if push
comes to shove...

> 
> >Which would mean a higher risk of nuclear annihilation.
> 
> There would be so many ways to challange the US short of
> that type of war, that I can't see this.

These 'so many ways' existed in the cold war, too, but we
still lived in fear of the mushroom cloud.


> > I have hoped for such altruistic interventions
> > several times in recent years, but most of the time
> > they either weren't altruistic or there was no
> > intervention...
> 
> Let me ask you a question about the Balkans, then. Why
> didn't Europe willing to do what it took to stop the
> genocide? Why did the US have to twist arms in Europe,
> when the US's interest in a stable Europe could be no
> greater than Europe's interest in a stable Europe? Why
> did Europe have to have the US take care of it's house?
> If you want a less imperial US, wouldn't it make sense
> to take responsibility for those areas where the US was
> glad to just help out, as in the Balkans?
> 
> Dan M.

Because Europe was deeply split over the Balkans. Germany
on one side, Britain and France on the other, the smaller
nations on the third. When the civil war in Yugoslavia
began, unified Germany had just turned from officially
being occupied by the Four Powers to being a sovereign
state. German chancellor Kohl had apparently decided to
change the foreign policy from humble negotiations in
which everyone gained to openly show Europe that Germany
was powerful now, and assert support for Slovenia and
Croatia.

These states were part of Germany's ally Austria-Hungary
in WW1 and firmly under German control in WW2 when Hitler
encouraged Croatian massacres on Serbs. So Germany's step
raised fear in Britain and France whose last memories of
a powerful Germany were also extremely bad, and allowed
Milosevic to present himself as an old brother in arms.
So whenever Germans pointed out Serb atrocities, this was
dismissed as German propaganda. It would probably been
wise if Germany had let the smaller nations step forward
and let them explain to France and Britain what was really
happening, but the mood was too confrontational for that.

So when as one of the last people Mitterrand realized that
the Serbs were *really* the bad guys (when they tried to
shoot down his plane), the civil war had become so intense
that everyone feared if they stepped in *now*, a lot of
soldiers would return in body bags. So in the end, the US
was called in, and the Bosnians and Croats got better
weapons, until they were strong enough to strike back.
If you wonder why I haven't mentioned Russia: at the
beginning, Russia was rather trying to reach a peaceful
solution, only over the years, ties to Serbia formed and
became stronger.

If you ask when I would have wanted an intervention: when
the fighting in Croatia was over, and an agreement between
Croatians and Croatian Serbs was made, Bosnian Serbs began
their actions. The Bosnian government asked the EU for
help, but the answer was the EU could only help if Bosnia
split off Yugoslavia like Croatia did before. After that
step of declaring independence, the intervention never
came. And back then, many Bosnian Serbs were still
demonstrating together with Croats and Muslims that they
were all one nation (late in the civil war there were at
least three).

What's your perspective on this?

(for the above I relied on my memory, which may be faulty,
not on research. I might accidentally misrepresent facts)

-- 
Frank Schmidt
Onward, radical moderates
www.egscomics.com

+++ GMX - die erste Adresse für Mail, Message, More +++

10 GB Mailbox, 100 FreeSMS  http://www.gmx.net/de/go/topmail
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Rhetorical Questions RE: Removing Dictators Re: Peaceful change L3

[Warren Ockrassa]

On Apr 25, 2005, at 10:15 PM, Dan Minette wrote:
- Original Message -
From: "Frank Schmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

The US does not rule the world, the US is not a pappa,
and the US is not a police force. The US is just the
strongest nation today. An alliance of other nations
can be stronger than the US, but at present these
nations have different goals. If the US pushes harder,
this alliance might form, which might start another
cold war.
You seriously think, that if push came to shove, Germany would prefer a
world in which China were the major power?
Naturally not. Germany would prefer a world in which Germany was the 
major power. China would prefer a world in which Chinese rule is 
unquestioned. And Kim Jong Il would just love a world wherein everyone 
wore perfect haircuts.

And was from North Korea.
Wasn't it Teddy Roosevelt who suggested speaking softly and carrying a 
big stick? What ever happened to that philosophy? It really does seem 
that we've been all stick lately. We've been, as it were, sticking it 
to anyone we care to. Not literally, but it sure can seem that way some 
days.

Gautam has listed
4 criteria for a war of choicewhich have been ignored by anyone 
but me.
I think they are a good way to frame the debate, and am not sure why 
others
would not wish to consider them.  A war of choice must

1) Be in the best interest of the nation fighting the war
2) The goals of the war should have a reasonable chance of being 
reached.

3) Other reasonable means have been tried.
4) The war will, at least, do no net harm to the people in the region.
These are interesting points. By their criteria, I find Iraq (example) 
even less justifiable than before! ;)

--
Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books
http://books.nightwares.com/
Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror"
http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Rhetorical Questions RE: Removing Dictators Re: Peaceful change L3

[Dan Minette]

- Original Message - 
From: "Frank Schmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" 
Sent: Monday, April 25, 2005 4:36 PM
Subject: Re: Rhetorical Questions RE: Removing Dictators Re: Peaceful
change L3


> Dan:
> >dland:
> 
> > > Dan Wrote:
> > >
> > > >> On Apr 24, 2005, at 4:03 PM, JDG wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> > Now that we've let the DPRK gain nuclear weapons,
> > > >>
> > > >> Assuming, that is, that the US rules the world, and
> > > >> therefore is in a position to "let" or "not let"
> > > >> nations like the DPRK gain nuclear weapons. Perhaps
> > > >> we might consider other nations as adults, instead
> > > >> of recalcitrant children that pappa America needs
> > > >> to discipline.
> > > >
> > > > That's an easy rhetorical point which I've never
> > > > found useful. The mob is filled with adults. A
> > > > police force that looks the other way lets them
> > > > run a city.
>
> The US does not rule the world, the US is not a pappa,
> and the US is not a police force. The US is just the
> strongest nation today. An alliance of other nations
> can be stronger than the US, but at present these
> nations have different goals. If the US pushes harder,
> this alliance might form, which might start another
> cold war.

You seriously think, that if push came to shove, Germany would prefer a
world in which China were the major power?  Europe decided after the Cold
War to continue to expect the US to look after its security interests.
There is a lot of difference between apeasing China while knowing that the
US can be counted on to ensure that the government of China does not
conquer others (such as the people of Tawain) and living in a world where
China calls the tune.

>Which would mean a higher risk of nuclear annihilation.

There would be so many ways to challange the US short of that type of war,
that I can't see this.  For all of it's displeasure, Europe is making no
moves to stop its reliance on the US's defence of it's interests.  Japan
and South Korea are working to lessen theirs, but that has been with the
encouragement and cooperation of the US.



> > 1) Is the African violation of international law by
> > temporarily stopping the genocide in the Sudan wrong?
> > 2) Would it be wrong for NATO to help them if called
> > upon?
>
> If the US against the international legal system, they
> should think about the reactions. Other nations might
> not trust the US to keep their treaties with them any
> more. And then the US people will wonder once again
> why the world hates them so much...
>
> If, on the other hand, the US could prove that they
> didn't do it for themselves but to stop a horrible
> genocide, and accidents with US troops killing
> civilans are rare, the US might even get a better
> reputation.



> (I don't believe for a second that starving Iraqi
> children were the main reason for the invasion. But
> I heard lots about WMD, which were not present, and
> Saddam being behind 9/11, which was not true.)

No, but it was a factor in the discussion going into it.  Gautam has listed
4 criteria for a war of choicewhich have been ignored by anyone but me.
I think they are a good way to frame the debate, and am not sure why others
would not wish to consider them.  A war of choice must

1) Be in the best interest of the nation fighting the war

2) The goals of the war should have a reasonable chance of being reached.

3) Other reasonable means have been tried.

4) The war will, at least, do no net harm to the people in the region.

Starting a war will kill civilians, there is no way around it.  If the
number of civilians killed by the government in a year is greater than the
range of civilians expected to be killed during the war and the rest of the
year after the war, then the civilians are better off with the war than
without.  It is a considerationthe other considerations of US national
interest were very complicated.



> Now for Sudan, if the African intervention, aided by
> NATO, actually benefits Sudan more than any of the
> intervening forces, I'd be impressed. I think true
> altruism is a good excuse for going against a legal
> system if that system is deadlocked by non-democratic
> nations.



> I have hoped for such altruistic interventions
> several times in recent years, but most of the time
> they either weren't altruistic or there was no
> intervention...

Let me ask you a question about the Balkans, then.  Why didn't Europe
willing to do what it took to stop the genocide?  Why did the US have to
twist arms in Europe, when the US's interest in a stable Europe could be no
greater than Europe's interest in a stable Europe?  Why did Europe have to
have the US take care of it's house?  If you want a less imperial US,
wouldn't it make sense to take responsibility for those areas where the US
was glad to just help out, as in the Balkans?

Dan M.


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Rhetorical Questions RE: Removing Dictators Re: Peaceful change L3

[Dan Minette]

- Original Message - 
From: "Dave Land" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" 
Sent: Monday, April 25, 2005 8:53 PM
Subject: Re: Rhetorical Questions RE: Removing Dictators Re: Peaceful
change L3



> In the final analysis, we're not that far apart. At the risk of being
> considered an America-hater, Bush is a kind of ur-American: we tend to
> be pigheaded and plow ahead without regard to other views when we are
> certain.

Weaker countries have to consider other countries' viewpoints.  I'm trying
to think of times in history when the most powerful country in the world
sought considerable more consensus than the US has in the last 20-30 years.
Do you have examples?

> The other question -- to what extent "a decent respect to the opinions
> of mankind" requires that the US should give a measure of veto power to
> those opinions -- is the business of diplomacy, so I will continue to
> "just hope" that our diplomats will make that call wisely.

Veto power quite a bit to give up.  Countries reactions to the actions of
the US must be considered of course, but I don't think that means we give
up the right to stop us from doing things that we are convinced are both in
our own interest and does not significantly harm others.  The founding
fathers thought such a decent respect required us to explain our motives,
not check for approval.

Are you saying that there are circumstances under which the opinions of the
governments of Germany, France, Russia, and China would be enough to stop
us acting in a manner we have determined to be in our best interests as
well as morally acceptable?

Dan M.

Dan M.


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

The US and the DPRK Re: Rhetorical Questions RE: Removing Dictators Re: Peaceful change L3

[JDG]

At 09:01 PM 4/24/2005 -0700, Dave Land wrote:
>> Now that we've let the DPRK gain nuclear weapons,
>
>Assuming, that is, that the US rules the world, and therefore is in a
>position to "let" or "not let" nations like the DPRK gain nuclear weapons.

The US is the most powerful country in the world.   Given how incredibly
bad it is for us that the DPRK has nuclear weapons, if we had any ability
to prevent the DPRK from acquiring those weapons, shouldn't we do so?

>Perhaps we might consider other nations as adults, instead
>of recalcitrant children that pappa America needs to discipline.

Do children ordinarily invade their neighbors, starve millions of people,
torture thousands of others, and engage in terrorism?If not, what's the
point of the analogy here?   Not to let our children play with nuclear
weapons?   

>> there are simply no good options.
>
>Certainly none that begin with war. Then again, I imagine that there are
>plenty of options that begin with the assumption that war is the *last*
>resort, not the first.

I'm all ears.In fact, I am sure that Condi would be very, very,
interested as well.

At 10:57 PM 4/24/2005 -0700, Dave Land wrote:
>OK, I wrote the whole message below, then realized that I'm getting way
>too much into argumentation and not nearly enough into being simple and
>clear.
>
>So go ahead and read and tear apart the message that begins with "Dan
>Wrote:", but consider this my reply:

Well, I responded anyways, because your message did raise some questions
for me that might help clarify our difference in positions. 

>The main thing that promted me to reply to JDG was the phrase "there are
>simply no good options." I worry when I hear language like that. It
>triggers the "desperate times call for desperate measures" meme, in which
>people and nations often become careless about the relative goodness or
>badness of options, and start just "killing 'em all and letting god sort
>'em out." That's really my point: I don't want to stop trying to find the
>least bad options that are left.

I think you missed my point about "there are simply no good options."   It
was meant to imply the same conclusion as you do - we should try and find
"the least bad options that are left."   My dismal attitude was intended to
reflect the fact that even the "least bad option that is left" is still
incredibly, incredibly, bad for us not "let God sort it out." 

>What law is the DPRK violating in building nukes, and what "community"
>employed the US as its police force? 

I would counter: does the DPRK need to be violating a law for the US to try
to stop the DPRK from getting nuclear weapons in your view?  

>> You obviously were not in favor of stopping the weapons development by
>> force.  200k dead S. Koreans was certainly an overwhelming price.  But, to
>> let North Korea get to the point where they could flatten both South Korea
>> and Japan (say 90% dead) would be inexcusable.
>
>Inexcusable by whom? The UN? Like we care. International courts? Don't
>make me laugh. This gets back to the point I made earlier about global
>entities to whom the US would subject itself.

Since the US has formall commitments to defend both the ROK and Japan, and
as the US considers the ROK and Japan to be close friends, the US certainly
does care, and this would put us in quite a pickle.   

>> We have a government that's willing to starve millions of its own
>> citizens for some principal. Why wouldn't it be willing to bring down the
>> whole region instead of giving up that principal?  If we don't stop it,
>> when we can, are we not somewhat responsible for that result?
>
>Why do we not consider ourselves responsible for the starvation of
>millions of N. Korean citizens? Are we making plans to do something about
>that? 

For the record, the US has only nominal trade embargos on the DPRK, and is
one of the larger donators of humanitarian aid to the DPRK. Starvation
in the DPRK is largely a function of how much humanitarian aid the
government of the DPRK refuses in a given year.

JDG
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Rhetorical Questions RE: Removing Dictators Re: Peaceful change L3

[Dave Land]

On Apr 25, 2005, at 5:50 PM, Dan Minette wrote:
So, if your argument is that Bush tends to be pigheaded and plow ahead
without regard to other views when he is certain, then I will agree.
But, if it that, for the US to properly consider the views of other
nations, that it must give veto rights over certain foreign policy
actions to other nations, then I would tend to differ with that.
In the final analysis, we're not that far apart. At the risk of being
considered an America-hater, Bush is a kind of ur-American: we tend to
be pigheaded and plow ahead without regard to other views when we are
certain.
The other question -- to what extent "a decent respect to the opinions
of mankind" requires that the US should give a measure of veto power to
those opinions -- is the business of diplomacy, so I will continue to
"just hope" that our diplomats will make that call wisely.
Dave
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Rhetorical Questions RE: Removing Dictators Re: Peaceful change L3

[Dan Minette]

- Original Message - 
From: "Dave Land" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" 
Sent: Monday, April 25, 2005 5:57 PM
Subject: Re: Rhetorical Questions RE: Removing Dictators Re: Peaceful
change L3


> Your question reminds me that the metaphors we choose have power. The
> president's use of the phrase "permission slip" in the state of the
> union address was carefully chosen to call up visions of the United
> States as a child, having to go begging some adult nation for a kind of
> "hall pass." That vision was intended to be so repulsive that to suggest
> that the US must seriously consider the opinions of other nations before
> acting was to reduce our great nation to childishness.

The obvious question here is whether "seriously consider" means more than
just "seriously consider."  The US is unique in that it can project
meaningful military power.  The strongest example of that is the Balkans,
where Europe was unable to project power 500 miles from the German border
against a relatively weak Yugoslavian army. Thus, the heavy lifting in any
significant military action must be done by the United States.  Do you
think that, after seriously considering objections, it is OK for the US to
go ahead, or must it get approval.

For me, the argument that the United States should have had Russia approval
(needed for UN approval) to stop the genocide in the Balkans is  not very
strong.  The Russian government had reasons to turn a blind eye to this
genocide.  I think that the decision as to the wisdom of invading Iraq need
not give a strong weight to France's position, since they appeared to be in
a position to gain significantly if Hussein stayed in power.

So, if your argument is that Bush tends to be pigheaded and plow ahead
without regard to other views when he is certain, then I will agree.  But,
if it that, for the US to properly consider the views of other nations,
that it must give veto rights over certain foreign policy actions to other
nations, then I would tend to differ with that.

An extremely good set of articles that relate to this are available at:

http://www.policyreview.org/JUN02/kagan.html

http://www.carnegiecouncil.org/viewMedia.php/prmTemplateID/8/prmID/871

I think much of the argument can be framed as a difference between two
worldviews:

If we want the world to be a Kantian paradise then we should start acting
in accordance with the rules that should govern nations in a Kantian
paradise now.

If we want the world to be a Kantian paradise, we need to live in the
world, recognizing that the present rules are Hobbsnian.  If we act as
though it were presently a Kantian paradise, we invite disaster.

I'll agree beforehand that the first position may actually be more
idealistic than the views of folks on the list, but I think I  heard that
type of argument a good deal in the last couple of weeks here.

Dan M.
Dan M.


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Rhetorical Questions RE: Removing Dictators Re: Peaceful change L3

[Dave Land]

On Apr 25, 2005, at 3:16 PM, Dan Minette wrote:
OK, I never meant to advance the criminal justice model for
international relationships.  I was merely pointing out a counter
example to the notion that interfering with the actions of another
country presupposes that the leaders of the other country are children.
Do you think that the criminal justice model as a good one?
Not really. I think a "community of nations" is more apt, and does not
preclude recognition of the need for a criminal justice system within
that community. It calls upon "citizen-nations" to be responsible
members of the community, to respect others' rights, and to contribute
to the common wealth.
Personally, I am drawn to the "family of nations" analogy, but it
suffers from the problem that you point out above: it implies that there
are parent nations and child nations, and that's not necessarily
conducive to clear thinking about our roles in the world.
Your question reminds me that the metaphors we choose have power. The
president's use of the phrase "permission slip" in the state of the
union address was carefully chosen to call up visions of the United
States as a child, having to go begging some adult nation for a kind of
"hall pass." That vision was intended to be so repulsive that to suggest
that the US must seriously consider the opinions of other nations before
acting was to reduce our great nation to childishness.
Thanks for reminding me of that,
Dave
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Rhetorical Questions RE: Removing Dictators Re: Peaceful change L3

[Dan Minette]

- Original Message - 
From: "Dave Land" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" 
Sent: Monday, April 25, 2005 5:11 PM
Subject: Re: Rhetorical Questions RE: Removing Dictators Re: Peaceful
change L3


> On Apr 25, 2005, at 2:30 PM, Nick Arnett wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 13:32:37 -0500, Dan Minette wrote
> >
> >> Preventing someone from causing grave harm to us and our allies is
> >> not codependant behavior.
> >
> > Of course.  But how do we decide that someone is about to cause grave
> > harm?
> > That's the hard question, not whether to respond.  Ideally, like the
> > police at
> > their best, we do absolutely everything we can to avoid coming to such
> > a
> > confrontation, then do everything we can to allow the other party to
> > back
> > down.
>
> Most police forces have a "Crime Prevention Unit." It does not,
> generally speaking, preemptively invade the homes of potential criminals.
It does
> run programs that aim to address the causes of crime. If we're going to
use
> a criminal justice model to describe international relations, perhaps
> that's what's needed, as opposed to a SWAT team.

OK, I never meant to advance the criminal justice model for international
relationships.  I was merely pointing out a counter example to the notion
that interfering with the actions of another country presupposes that the
leaders of the other country are children.

Do you think that the criminal justice model as a good one?

Dan M.


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Rhetorical Questions RE: Removing Dictators Re: Peaceful change L3

[Dave Land]

On Apr 25, 2005, at 2:30 PM, Nick Arnett wrote:
On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 13:32:37 -0500, Dan Minette wrote
Preventing someone from causing grave harm to us and our allies is
not codependant behavior.
Of course.  But how do we decide that someone is about to cause grave 
harm?
That's the hard question, not whether to respond.  Ideally, like the 
police at
their best, we do absolutely everything we can to avoid coming to such 
a
confrontation, then do everything we can to allow the other party to 
back
down.
Most police forces have a "Crime Prevention Unit." It does not, 
generally
speaking, preemptively invade the homes of potential criminals. It does 
run
programs that aim to address the causes of crime. If we're going to use 
a
criminal justice model to describe international relations, perhaps 
that's
what's needed, as opposed to a SWAT team.

Dave
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Rhetorical Questions RE: Removing Dictators Re: Peaceful change L3

[Frank Schmidt]

Dan:
>dland: 

> > Dan Wrote:
> >
> > >> On Apr 24, 2005, at 4:03 PM, JDG wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > Now that we've let the DPRK gain nuclear weapons,
> > >>
> > >> Assuming, that is, that the US rules the world, and
> > >> therefore is in a position to "let" or "not let"
> > >> nations like the DPRK gain nuclear weapons. Perhaps
> > >> we might consider other nations as adults, instead
> > >> of recalcitrant children that pappa America needs
> > >> to discipline.
> > >
> > > That's an easy rhetorical point which I've never
> > > found useful. The mob is filled with adults. A
> > > police force that looks the other way lets them
> > > run a city.

The US does not rule the world, the US is not a pappa,
and the US is not a police force. The US is just the
strongest nation today. An alliance of other nations
can be stronger than the US, but at present these
nations have different goals. If the US pushes harder,
this alliance might form, which might start another
cold war. Which would mean a higher risk of nuclear
annihilation.

> > OK, and yours is a rhetorical device that I don't
> > find particularly useful, either, especially given
> > this administration's disregard for international
> > legal systems.
> 
> OK, you don't like the analogy...the point is that
> one often lets adults do things by not setting up
> boundaries.  But, given the track record of the
> international legal system with regard to genocide...
> in particular the fact that international law required
> government to step aside in the Balkans, I'm not sure
> that always abiding by it is called for.  I asked an
> unanswered question about the past and potential for
> future genocide in Sudan.
> 
> 1) Is the African violation of international law by
> temporarily stopping the genocide in the Sudan wrong?
> 2) Would it be wrong for NATO to help them if called
> upon?

If the US against the international legal system, they
should think about the reactions. Other nations might
not trust the US to keep their treaties with them any
more. And then the US people will wonder once again
why the world hates them so much...

If, on the other hand, the US could prove that they
didn't do it for themselves but to stop a horrible
genocide, and accidents with US troops killing
civilans are rare, the US might even get a better
reputation.

(I don't believe for a second that starving Iraqi
children were the main reason for the invasion. But
I heard lots about WMD, which were not present, and
Saddam being behind 9/11, which was not true.)

Now for Sudan, if the African intervention, aided by
NATO, actually benefits Sudan more than any of the
intervening forces, I'd be impressed. I think true
altruism is a good excuse for going against a legal
system if that system is deadlocked by non-democratic
nations.

I have hoped for such altruistic interventions
several times in recent years, but most of the time
they either weren't altruistic or there was no
intervention...

-- 
Frank Schmidt
Onward, radical moderates!
www.egscomics.com

+++ Sparen beginnt mit GMX DSL: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/dsl
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Rhetorical Questions RE: Removing Dictators Re: Peaceful change L3

[Nick Arnett]

On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 13:32:37 -0500, Dan Minette wrote

> We are lucky in that we can collectively,  within the nation, intervene
> with professionals by calling 911 in those cases or reporting suspected
> abuse to authorities. 

I think Dave's point was that you can't solve somebody else's problem with 
addiction, nor can any authority.  It is up to the person with the addiction.  
 No addict ever quit as a result of threats and attacks, I'm fairly certain.  
Those who seek to change have been helped by people who know how to nurture, 
including having tough boundaries that seem like punishment to the addict.  
Recovery starts with things like sleep and nutrition.

To stretch the analogy to international relations, we can't force democracy 
(our definition of healthy government) on a nation that doesn't want it, for 
example.  Sanctions and monitoring, such as the inspections and no-fly zone 
seem to parallel the idea of putting boundaries on the misbehaving individual. 
 Food for oil was an attempt to tackle basic health issues.  Invading, 
occupying and demanding democracy don't fit into any personal recovery model I 
can imagine.

> By moral people.  The US will not for the forseeable future subject itself
> to submission to outside agencies. It's wrong to sit back and let 
> Japan be obliterated by N. Korea if we could stop it.  It's also 
> very much against the interests of the US.  Combining the two, we 
> have compelling reasons to not allow N. Korea this capacity.

Stopping a nuclear attack has never been the question (since WW II ended), 
since nobody has actually tried to launch one.  The question has always been 
much murkier -- do we allow further development of nuclear weapons?  Stopping 
nuclear proliferation has the approval of most of the world; the question is 
how to go about it, not whether or not it is appropriate to stop anyone from 
launching nukes.

> Preventing someone from causing grave harm to us and our allies is 
> not codependant behavior.

Of course.  But how do we decide that someone is about to cause grave harm?  
That's the hard question, not whether to respond.  Ideally, like the police at 
their best, we do absolutely everything we can to avoid coming to such a 
confrontation, then do everything we can to allow the other party to back 
down.

Do we trust that we can decide when to use deadly force on our own, despite 
our capacity for self-deceit and our selfish side that thirsts for wealth and 
power?  How do we take into account the fact that our response to threats may 
cause enormous suffering?  

I think your wife might say that these are just the problems that people 
struggle with on a personal level, too -- what seems to be done selflessly is 
often discovered to be self-interest; much harm is done in the name of doing 
good for others.  That's codependency for ya.  The answer, I think, lies in 
self-awareness... so how does a nation develop its self-awareness?  How do we 
look in the mirror, how do we discover our motives?

Nick

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Rhetorical Questions RE: Removing Dictators Re: Peaceful change L3

[Frank Schmidt]

I wonder if people forget that China is just next door to North Korea, and
that they even have an alliance. Not that the Chinese like Kim Jong Il so
much, but they'd never tolerate an invasion like the US did in Afghanistan
or Iraq. However the Chinese might topple Kim Jong Il themselves if the USA
would give them Taiwan in exchange. Which opens another can of worms.

-- 
+++ GMX - die erste Adresse für Mail, Message, More +++

10 GB Mailbox, 100 FreeSMS  http://www.gmx.net/de/go/topmail
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Rhetorical Questions RE: Removing Dictators Re: Peaceful change L3

[Dan Minette]

- Original Message - 
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" 
Sent: Monday, April 25, 2005 12:57 AM
Subject: Re: Rhetorical Questions RE: Removing Dictators Re: Peaceful
change L3


> Dan, et al,
>
> OK, I wrote the whole message below, then realized that I'm getting way
> too much into argumentation and not nearly enough into being simple and
> clear.
>
> So go ahead and read and tear apart the message that begins with "Dan
> Wrote:", but consider this my reply:
>
> The main thing that promted me to reply to JDG was the phrase "there are
> simply no good options." I worry when I hear language like that.

I can understand that, but if you look at the preface (now that N. Korea
has nuclear weapons) I think it is clear that JDG now considers military
options less attractive than they were before.  I think this is fair, with
capacity for 6-8 atomic bombs, as well as a decent delivery system, N.
Korea's government's ability to drag people down with it has increased from
roughly a quarter million to roughly 2.0-2.5 million.  Plus, with the fuel
that can be extracted during the present shutdown, there should be an
additional capacity for 6 more bombsallowing N. Korea to obtain a good
deal of money from the right sources by selling these bombs while
maintaining the deterrent of 6-8 bombs.

>It triggers the "desperate times call for desperate measures" meme, in
which
> people and nations often become careless about the relative goodness or
> badness of options, and start just "killing 'em all and letting god sort
> 'em out." That's really my point: I don't want to stop trying to find the
> least bad options that are left.

I agree with that.  I interpret "no good option" as indicating that the
demonstration that the proposed path is an extremely unappealing option is
not sufficient to reject the path.  Rather, it most be compared with the
other extremely unappealing options to see which is best to do.

The real risk of the US going into a "killing 'em and letting God sort 'em
out" mode is a very significant attack on the US.  By very significant, I'm
referring to something that will kill multiple tens of thousands of people.
The main worry for me is a shielded A-bomb in a shipping container, sent to
a US address.  It hits a major port, such as NY, LA, or Houston and is set
off before or as customs inspects it.



> -- And now, my "not-as-good option" in replying --
>
> Dan Wrote:
>
> >> On Apr 24, 2005, at 4:03 PM, JDG wrote:
> >>
> >> > Now that we've let the DPRK gain nuclear weapons,
> >>
> >> Assuming, that is, that the US rules the world, and therefore is in a
> >> position to "let" or "not let" nations like the DPRK gain nuclear
> >> weapons. Perhaps we might consider other nations as adults, instead
> >> of recalcitrant children that pappa America needs to discipline.
> >
> > That's an easy rhetorical point which I've never found useful.  The mob
is
> > filled with adults.  A police force that looks the other way lets them
run
> > a city.
>
> OK, and yours is a rhetorical device that I don't find particularly
> useful, either, especially given this administration's disregard for
> international legal systems.

OK, you don't like the analogy...the point is that one often lets adults do
things by not setting up boundaries.  But, given the track record of the
international legal system with regard to genocide...in particular the fact
that international law required government to step aside in the Balkans,
I'm not sure that always abiding by it is called for.  I asked an
unanswered question about the past and potential for future genocide in
Sudan.

1) Is the African violation of international law by temporarily stopping
the genocide in the Sudan wrong?
2) Would it be wrong for NATO to help them if called upon?


> (Almost) nobody in those communities questions the right of the police to
> act on their behalf.

> What law is the DPRK violating in building nukes, and what "community"
> employed the US as its police force?

The nuclear non-proliferation treaty is the obvious one.  The North Korean
government letting their own citizens starve to death is clearly acceptable
under the UN; I won't argue that point.

>These are not (just) rhetorical
> questions. If the DPRK is the mob, then of what community's laws is it in
> violation? Would the US would subject itself to that same authority? In
> what community would (almost) nobody question our right to act on their
> behalf?

I wasn't
> > One can let adults do damaging things in relationships too...its often
> > ass

Re: Rhetorical Questions RE: Removing Dictators Re: Peaceful change L3

[dland]

Dan, et al,

OK, I wrote the whole message below, then realized that I'm getting way
too much into argumentation and not nearly enough into being simple and
clear.

So go ahead and read and tear apart the message that begins with "Dan
Wrote:", but consider this my reply:

The main thing that promted me to reply to JDG was the phrase "there are
simply no good options." I worry when I hear language like that. It
triggers the "desperate times call for desperate measures" meme, in which
people and nations often become careless about the relative goodness or
badness of options, and start just "killing 'em all and letting god sort
'em out." That's really my point: I don't want to stop trying to find the
least bad options that are left.

Dave

-- And now, my "not-as-good option" in replying --

Dan Wrote:

>> On Apr 24, 2005, at 4:03 PM, JDG wrote:
>>
>> > Now that we've let the DPRK gain nuclear weapons,
>>
>> Assuming, that is, that the US rules the world, and therefore is in a
>> position to "let" or "not let" nations like the DPRK gain nuclear
>> weapons. Perhaps we might consider other nations as adults, instead
>> of recalcitrant children that pappa America needs to discipline.
>
> That's an easy rhetorical point which I've never found useful.  The mob is
> filled with adults.  A police force that looks the other way lets them run
> a city.

OK, and yours is a rhetorical device that I don't find particularly
useful, either, especially given this administration's disregard for
international legal systems.

The activities that the mob engages in violate the laws of the communities
(states and nations included) in which they operate. Those communities,
states, and nations employ police of various sorts to enforce their laws.
(Almost) nobody in those communities questions the right of the police to
act on their behalf.

What law is the DPRK violating in building nukes, and what "community"
employed the US as its police force? These are not (just) rhetorical
questions. If the DPRK is the mob, then of what community's laws is it in
violation? Would the US would subject itself to that same authority? In
what community would (almost) nobody question our right to act on their
behalf?

> One can let adults do damaging things in relationships too...its often
> associated with codependancy.

I'm glad you brought up codependency. A common -- in fact, almost defining
-- facet of codependent behavior is trying to solve someone else's
problems when they didn't ask you to. Like invading a country to rid it of
a dictator.

>> > there are simply no good options.
>>
>> Certainly none that begin with war. Then again, I imagine that there are
>> plenty of options that begin with the assumption that war is the *last*
>> resort, not the first.
>
> OK, let's go back 11 years.  Clinton had the three options...he chose to
> pay money in a deal to slow down the development of nuclear weapons by
> North Korea.  They agreed to stop processing fuel...leaving then with
> enough in hand for two nuclear weapons.  Unsurprisingly, they had a
> clandescent program going on, and were in a position to develop enough
> enriched U for about 1 bomb every 3-4 years.  Much better than 50/year.

Are you defending John's statement, "there are simply no good options"
with this history lesson? If Clinton had chosen to do nothing, that would
go some way towards demonstrating that there were and are *no* good
options. But, as you point out, Clinton did chose an option. Is the jury
still out as to whether it is a "good" option? Did he choose the only
remaining "good" option? What is your criteria for a "good" option?

> At the time the North Korean government was willing to starve millions of
> its own citizens to death as an acceptable price for not just changing the
> government, but not changing how the government was run.  If Clinton
> wasn't given a third "half loaf" option at the last minute,

[digression]
I see this a lot in your messages: paragraphs that just sort of trail off
in the middle of a sentence. Is it something technical, or do you start a
paragraph, think of something else to write, and never get back to
finishing the one you left off? I'm genuinely curious.
[/digression]

> You obviously were not in favor of stopping the weapons development by
> force.  200k dead S. Koreans was certainly an overwhelming price.  But, to
> let North Korea get to the point where they could flatten both South Korea
> and Japan (say 90% dead) would be inexcusable.

Inexcusable by whom? The UN? Like we care. International courts? Don't
make me laugh. This gets back to the point I made earlier about global
entities to whom the US would subject itself.

> We have a government that's willing to starve millions of its own
> citizens for some principal. Why wouldn't it be willing to bring down the
> whole region instead of giving up that principal?  If we don't stop it,
> when we can, are we not somewhat responsible for that result?

Without getting too tautologica

Re: Rhetorical Questions RE: Removing Dictators Re: Peaceful change L3

[Dan Minette]

- Original Message - 
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2005 11:01 PM
Subject: Re: Rhetorical Questions RE: Removing Dictators Re: Peaceful
change L3


> On Apr 24, 2005, at 4:03 PM, JDG wrote:
>
> > Now that we've let the DPRK gain nuclear weapons,
>
> Assuming, that is, that the US rules the world, and therefore is in a
> position to "let" or "not let" nations like the DPRK gain nuclear
> weapons. Perhaps we might consider other nations as adults, instead
> of recalcitrant children that pappa America needs to discipline.

That's an easy rhetorical point which I've never found useful.  The mob is
filled with adults.  A police force that looks the other way lets them run
a city.  One can let adults do damaging things in relationships too...its
often associated with codependancy.

> > there are simply no good options.
>
> Certainly none that begin with war. Then again, I imagine that there are
> plenty of options that begin with the assumption that war is the *last*
> resort, not the first.

OK, let's go back 11 years.  Clinton had the three options...he chose to
pay money in a deal to slow down the development of nuclear weapons by
North Korea.  They agreed to stop processing fuel...leaving then with
enough in hand for two nuclear weapons.  Unsurprisingly, they had a
clandescent program going on, and were in a position to develop enough
enriched U for about 1 bomb every 3-4 years.  Much better than 50/year.

At the time the North Korean government was willing to starve millions of
its own citizens to death as an acceptable price for not just changing the
government, but not changing how the government was run.  If Clinton wasn't
given a third "half loaf" option at the last minute,

You obviously were not in favor of stopping the weapons development by
force.  200k dead S. Koreans was certainly an overwhelming price.  But, to
let North Korea get to the point where they could flatten both South Korea
and Japan (say 90% dead) would be inexcusable.  We have a government that's
willing to starve millions of its own citizens for some principal.  Why
wouldn't it be willing to bring down the whole region instead of giving up
that principal?  If we don't stop it, when we can, are we not somewhat
responsible for that result?

Dan M.


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Rhetorical Questions RE: Removing Dictators Re: Peaceful change L3

[dland]

On Apr 24, 2005, at 4:03 PM, JDG wrote:

> Now that we've let the DPRK gain nuclear weapons,

Assuming, that is, that the US rules the world, and therefore is in a
position to "let" or "not let" nations like the DPRK gain nuclear
weapons. Perhaps we might consider other nations as adults, instead
of recalcitrant children that pappa America needs to discipline.

> there are simply no good options.

Certainly none that begin with war. Then again, I imagine that there are
plenty of options that begin with the assumption that war is the *last*
resort, not the first.

Dave


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Rhetorical Questions RE: Removing Dictators Re: Peaceful change L3

[Dan Minette]

- Original Message - 
From: "JDG" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" 
Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2005 6:03 PM
Subject: Rhetorical Questions RE: Removing Dictators Re: Peaceful change L3



> Pray.
>
> Now that we've let the DPRK gain nuclear weapons, there are simply no
good
> options.

Were there good options when they could kill 200k in Seoul without nuclear
weapons.  It's not nuclear weapons, per se, that are the problem.  It's the
ability of those weapons to enhance the damage that could be done.  So,
since the three options that Clinton had in '94 were:

1) The buy half a loaf option
2) Invade and have hundreds of thousands of S. Koreans killed
3) Let things progress, and see N. Korea producing 40-50 bombs/year by
2000.

You said #1 was a failure.  Which one of the others would you have picked
when Clinton had this choice?  It appears to me that Bush has chosen
#3.except that construction on the big reactor has not restarted yet.

Dan M.


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Rhetorical Questions RE: Removing Dictators Re: Peaceful change L3

[JDG]

At 10:13 PM 4/22/2005 +1000, Andrew Paul wrote:
>JDG wrote
>> 
>> At 01:34 PM 4/22/2005 +1000, Andrew Paul wrote:
>> >Dan, it was a rhetorical question. I know why he isn't, and frankly
>very
>> >glad he isn't. But thank you for the refresher. I must learn to put
>more
>> >umm, nuance in my typing tone.
>> 
>> It clearly wasn't a very good rhetorical question - and it wasn't the
>lack
>> of nuance, it was the weakness of the question itself.
>> 
>
>Well, it was a poorly phrased rhetorical question, I concede. As a
>simple question, I don't see it as weak. I am not sure how such a blunt
>question can be weak (or strong for that matter)
>
>> >And why isn't the US invading North Korea?
>
>I will happily accept that the answer may be obvious, hence the
>rhetorical nature of it, and even that it could be considered a stupid
>question.

Well, ordinarily, a rhetorical quesiton is one so pointed that it conveys a
line of argumentation without requiring an answer.   When a rhetorical
question is trivially simple to dismiss, as yours way, it probably fails in
conveying any meaningful line of argumentation.

>Anyway. What do you think should be done about North Korea?
>It is troublesome that such an unstable state has nuclear weapons.
>And an apparent lack of interest in its own peoples welfare.

Pray.

Now that we've let the DPRK gain nuclear weapons, there are simply no good
options.  

JDG
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Removing Dictators Re: Peaceful change L3

[Dan Minette]

- Original Message - 
From: "Andrew Paul" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" 
Sent: Friday, April 22, 2005 1:45 AM
Subject: RE: Removing Dictators Re: Peaceful change L3




Dan Minette wrote
> > From: "Andrew Paul" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


> > >Poor George, no wonder he looks tired, tossing all night, crying over
> > >the starving Koreans kiddies etc...
> >
> > What I don't understand is, given that I'm pretty sure I already
> mentioned
> > this to you in an earlier discussion, why you don't consider any
> answer
> > but
> > Bush is a bad boy.  Did you ask yourself "what are the differences
> between
> > N. Korea and Iraq?"  "Is there any difference in the estimated number
> of
> > civilian casualties in each war?"
> >
>
> >I was not saying that Bush is a bad boy. I was expressing my disbelief
> >that he can probably walk on water, and then turn it into wine. He is
> >the President of the USA, and not a very gentle or non-confrontational
> >one at that.  I have no problem with Bush being able to do good things,
> >or the USA doing good things. I just don't accept that _everything_ he
> >and/or America does shines with a golden light from on high.
>
> But, that's not what you wrote.  With all due respect, if you want a
> debate
> on the issue, dragging out old clichés isn't helpful.  Think about it.
> AFAIK, we have one regular on this list who has expressed strong support
> of
> Bush.  Gautam gave him a D- rating as president during the fall
elections.
> I voted for him once, when he was reelected governor of Texas, because
the
> Democrats ran a yellow dog against him. (A yellow dog Democrat is one who
> would vote for the Democrat even if they were running a yellow dog for
the
> office.)  I think his tax cuts are dangerous and counter-productive.  I
> think his handling of the reconstruction in Iraq during the last two
years
> shows criminal incompetence.
>
> Yet, I find myself arguing for him when you post  because I think to
> myself
> "he's no prize, but he's not _that_ bad."
>
> Dan M.
>
>What I was reacting too, and what prompted my colorful phrasing was the
contention that GWB
>invaded Iraq to save the Iraqi people. It was being suggested that this
was maybe the _real_
>reason behind the invasion (Most of the others having run out of any
relevance long ago) and that that
>was made clear at the time, that he and the government put this forward in
such a way that it had some >parity with the issue of WMD. My memory is not
perfect, but it ain't that bad. Frankly, the whole idea is >total
revisionist bollocks.

Hmm, maybe part of the problem is that you jumped in the middle of a
debatewithout seeing what at least I thought was the premise: whether
the decision to go in was indefensible (maybe another word was used, but
that was the idea).  After a long sub-thread with Warren, we've agreed that
he writes like a fiction writer (his poor excuse for that is that he _is_ a
fiction writer and editorbut we'll let that pass for
now  ), so he used a bit of hyperbola there.

Part of the background was the long debate _here_ on whether the invasion
was the right thing to do, where the status of the people of Iraq came up
frequently.  In fact, one of the rules for a voluntary war given by Gautam
was that it would, at least, do no net harm to the people in the region.
Invading a dictatorship like, say, Singapore, would be different than
invading Iraq because the people in Singapore do not live in fear of being
tortured and killed by the government.  I guess I can see where you thought
that it was argued that it was pure benevolence on the part of the US, but
that's certainly not what I was arguing.

>He was (and as President of the USA this is his job, so it's not insulting
to suggest it I hope) acting in what >he saw as the best interests of the
United States. And, no, I don't think that makes him bad.

Noand I think the criterion that one should do no significant harm to
others while pursuing those interests is a valid oneand one that is
usually met.



I am sorry that I overreact to such concepts as the idea that I should be
ashamed of myself for having misgivings about the war, or that I am somehow
complicit in the torturing of Iraqi children because of these misgivings,
by using a few tired old cliché's. I guess its cos I am sometimes
speechless at the hypocrisy (not specifically of those here, don't get me
wrong) of the world, and how easily we forget because it suits us.

We invaded Iraq to save the Iraqi children from Saddam. Yea. Right. Sure.

We invaded Iraq because we saw a chance to get away with it, on the back

RE: Removing Dictators Re: Peaceful change L3

[Andrew Paul]

JDG wrote
> 
> At 01:34 PM 4/22/2005 +1000, Andrew Paul wrote:
> >Dan, it was a rhetorical question. I know why he isn't, and frankly
very
> >glad he isn't. But thank you for the refresher. I must learn to put
more
> >umm, nuance in my typing tone.
> 
> It clearly wasn't a very good rhetorical question - and it wasn't the
lack
> of nuance, it was the weakness of the question itself.
> 

Well, it was a poorly phrased rhetorical question, I concede. As a
simple question, I don't see it as weak. I am not sure how such a blunt
question can be weak (or strong for that matter)

> >And why isn't the US invading North Korea?

I will happily accept that the answer may be obvious, hence the
rhetorical nature of it, and even that it could be considered a stupid
question.

Anyway. What do you think should be done about North Korea?
It is troublesome that such an unstable state has nuclear weapons.
And an apparent lack of interest in its own peoples welfare.

Andrew



___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

RE: Removing Dictators Re: Peaceful change L3

[JDG]

At 01:34 PM 4/22/2005 +1000, Andrew Paul wrote:
>Dan, it was a rhetorical question. I know why he isn't, and frankly very
>glad he isn't. But thank you for the refresher. I must learn to put more
>umm, nuance in my typing tone.

It clearly wasn't a very good rhetorical question - and it wasn't the lack
of nuance, it was the weakness of the question itself.

JDG
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

RE: Removing Dictators Re: Peaceful change L3

[Andrew Paul]

Dan Minette wrote
> > From: "Andrew Paul" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


> > >Poor George, no wonder he looks tired, tossing all night, crying over
> > >the starving Koreans kiddies etc...
> >
> > What I don't understand is, given that I'm pretty sure I already
> mentioned
> > this to you in an earlier discussion, why you don't consider any
> answer
> > but
> > Bush is a bad boy.  Did you ask yourself "what are the differences
> between
> > N. Korea and Iraq?"  "Is there any difference in the estimated number
> of
> > civilian casualties in each war?"
> >
> 
> >I was not saying that Bush is a bad boy. I was expressing my disbelief
> >that he can probably walk on water, and then turn it into wine. He is
> >the President of the USA, and not a very gentle or non-confrontational
> >one at that.  I have no problem with Bush being able to do good things,
> >or the USA doing good things. I just don't accept that _everything_ he
> >and/or America does shines with a golden light from on high.
> 
> But, that's not what you wrote.  With all due respect, if you want a
> debate
> on the issue, dragging out old clichés isn't helpful.  Think about it.
> AFAIK, we have one regular on this list who has expressed strong support
> of
> Bush.  Gautam gave him a D- rating as president during the fall elections.
> I voted for him once, when he was reelected governor of Texas, because the
> Democrats ran a yellow dog against him. (A yellow dog Democrat is one who
> would vote for the Democrat even if they were running a yellow dog for the
> office.)  I think his tax cuts are dangerous and counter-productive.  I
> think his handling of the reconstruction in Iraq during the last two years
> shows criminal incompetence.
> 
> Yet, I find myself arguing for him when you post  because I think to
> myself
> "he's no prize, but he's not _that_ bad."
> 
> Dan M.
> 

Dan, I am unable to find what I wrote that you are referring to. I don't 
actually recall saying Bush is a bad boy, or anything like it. I said I did not 
like what he had done (or more how he had done it). I said that I doubted that 
the well being of the Iraqi people was uppermost in his mind when he decided to 
invade Iraq. In neither of those cases did I suggest he was bad. I can happily 
disagree with GWB without needing to consider him bad. What I was reacting too, 
and what prompted my colorful phrasing was the contention that GWB invaded Iraq 
to save the Iraqi people. It was being suggested that this was maybe the _real_ 
reason behind the invasion (Most of the others having run out of any relevance 
long ago) and that that was made clear at the time, that he and the government 
put this forward in such a way that it had some parity with the issue of WMD. 
My memory is not perfect, but it ain't that bad. Frankly, the whole idea is 
total revisionist bollocks.

He was (and as President of the USA this is his job, so it's not insulting to 
suggest it I hope) acting in what he saw as the best interests of the United 
States. And, no, I don't think that makes him bad.

Your point about old clichés is an interesting one. I am sorely tired of being 
fed similar things, day after day, lies basically, dressed up often in some 
slighty funkier post-cliché form, by my and other governments et al. Groupthink 
is not my scene. If others wish to paint the invasion of Iraq as some noble 
'Save the Iraqi kiddies from Evil' thing then fine, they can go right ahead. I 
would call them naive, but if that's what they want, fine. 

I am sorry that I overreact to such concepts as the idea that I should be 
ashamed of myself for having misgivings about the war, or that I am somehow 
complicit in the torturing of Iraqi children because of these misgivings, by 
using a few tired old cliché's. I guess its cos I am sometimes speechless at 
the hypocrisy (not specifically of those here, don't get me wrong) of the 
world, and how easily we forget because it suits us.

We invaded Iraq to save the Iraqi children from Saddam. Yea. Right. Sure.

We invaded Iraq because we saw a chance to get away with it, on the back of 
9/11, and because it suited our long term strategic interests.

(*Note - long term strategic interests involve many things, including even 
making life a little better for people. And long term strategic interests are 
not, of themselves, a bad thing).

I can deal with that, I don't need it dressed up as some noble humanitarian act 
to be able to sleep at nights. To pretend that would be a lie, and there have 
enough of them already.

Andrew


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Removing Dictators Re: Peaceful change L3

[Dan Minette]

- Original Message - 
From: "Andrew Paul" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" 
Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2005 10:34 PM
Subject: RE: Removing Dictators Re: Peaceful change L3


Dan Minette
> From: "Andrew Paul" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: RE: Removing Dictators Re: Peaceful change L3
>
>
>
> >And why isn't the US invading North Korea?
> >Why is it, as you put it "doing nothing"?
>
> As JDG said, the answer to that is fairly straightforward.  South
Korea
> begged Clinton not to.  Even before they had nuclear weapons, the
> proximity
> of Seoul to the border, and the training of mutiple (10k)
guns/morters on
> Seoul by North Korea would result in massive casualties.  While there
is
> little doubt that the US and South Korea would quickly win any war
with
> North Korea, it wouldn't be quick enough to prevent 100,000-200,000
> deaths.
> That was an overwhelming price to pay, and Clinton decided to accept
the
> half a loaf solution with a verifyable freeze on plutonium extraction
and
> production from the known nuclear reactor.
>
> JDG called this a failure, pointing out that other secret facilities
were
> built and that N. Korea probably already had enough material for 1 or
2
> more bombs.  I differ with that assessemnt.  As it stood, N. Korea had
the
> ability to kill 100k-200k without nuclear weapons.  This was the
> functional
> equivalant of roughly 2-3 atomic bombs of the caliber that N. Korea
would
> have.  If the US attacked, it was considered very likely that N. Korea
> would counterattack.
>
> Not making a partial deal and not attacking would leave the status quo
in
> place.  N. Korea had just extracted fuel rods that could be used for
~6
> more weapons.  They were also working on a large reactor that, by
about
> 1998, woiuld be able to produce enough plutonium for about 40-50
> bombs/years.
>

Dan, it was a rhetorical question. I know why he isn't, and frankly very
glad he isn't. But thank you for the refresher. I must learn to put more
umm, nuance in my typing tone.

>
> >Poor George, no wonder he looks tired, tossing all night, crying over
> >the starving Koreans kiddies etc...
>
> What I don't understand is, given that I'm pretty sure I already
mentioned
> this to you in an earlier discussion, why you don't consider any
answer
> but
> Bush is a bad boy.  Did you ask yourself "what are the differences
between
> N. Korea and Iraq?"  "Is there any difference in the estimated number
of
> civilian casualties in each war?"
>

>I was not saying that Bush is a bad boy. I was expressing my disbelief
>that he can probably walk on water, and then turn it into wine. He is
>the President of the USA, and not a very gentle or non-confrontational
>one at that.  I have no problem with Bush being able to do good things,
>or the USA doing good things. I just don't accept that _everything_ he
>and/or America does shines with a golden light from on high.

But, that's not what you wrote.  With all due respect, if you want a debate
on the issue, dragging out old clichés isn't helpful.  Think about it.
AFAIK, we have one regular on this list who has expressed strong support of
Bush.  Gautam gave him a D- rating as president during the fall elections.
I voted for him once, when he was reelected governor of Texas, because the
Democrats ran a yellow dog against him. (A yellow dog Democrat is one who
would vote for the Democrat even if they were running a yellow dog for the
office.)  I think his tax cuts are dangerous and counter-productive.  I
think his handling of the reconstruction in Iraq during the last two years
shows criminal incompetence.

Yet, I find myself arguing for him when you post  because I think to myself
"he's no prize, but he's not _that_ bad."

Dan M.



___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

RE: Removing Dictators Re: Peaceful change L3

[Andrew Paul]

Dan Minette
> From: "Andrew Paul" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: RE: Removing Dictators Re: Peaceful change L3
> 
> 
> 
> >And why isn't the US invading North Korea?
> >Why is it, as you put it "doing nothing"?
> 
> As JDG said, the answer to that is fairly straightforward.  South
Korea
> begged Clinton not to.  Even before they had nuclear weapons, the
> proximity
> of Seoul to the border, and the training of mutiple (10k)
guns/morters on
> Seoul by North Korea would result in massive casualties.  While there
is
> little doubt that the US and South Korea would quickly win any war
with
> North Korea, it wouldn't be quick enough to prevent 100,000-200,000
> deaths.
> That was an overwhelming price to pay, and Clinton decided to accept
the
> half a loaf solution with a verifyable freeze on plutonium extraction
and
> production from the known nuclear reactor.
> 
> JDG called this a failure, pointing out that other secret facilities
were
> built and that N. Korea probably already had enough material for 1 or
2
> more bombs.  I differ with that assessemnt.  As it stood, N. Korea had
the
> ability to kill 100k-200k without nuclear weapons.  This was the
> functional
> equivalant of roughly 2-3 atomic bombs of the caliber that N. Korea
would
> have.  If the US attacked, it was considered very likely that N. Korea
> would counterattack.
> 
> Not making a partial deal and not attacking would leave the status quo
in
> place.  N. Korea had just extracted fuel rods that could be used for
~6
> more weapons.  They were also working on a large reactor that, by
about
> 1998, woiuld be able to produce enough plutonium for about 40-50
> bombs/years.
>

Dan, it was a rhetorical question. I know why he isn't, and frankly very
glad he isn't. But thank you for the refresher. I must learn to put more
umm, nuance in my typing tone.
 
> 
> >Poor George, no wonder he looks tired, tossing all night, crying over
> >the starving Koreans kiddies etc...
> 
> What I don't understand is, given that I'm pretty sure I already
mentioned
> this to you in an earlier discussion, why you don't consider any
answer
> but
> Bush is a bad boy.  Did you ask yourself "what are the differences
between
> N. Korea and Iraq?"  "Is there any difference in the estimated number
of
> civilian casualties in each war?"
> 

I was not saying that Bush is a bad boy. I was expressing my disbelief
that he can probably walk on water, and then turn it into wine. He is
the President of the USA, and not a very gentle or non-confrontational
one at that.  I have no problem with Bush being able to do good things,
or the USA doing good things. I just don't accept that _everything_ he
and/or America does shines with a golden light from on high. Apparently
that means I am a child torturing Stalinist, and one with few manners at
that. 

Andrew


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Removing Dictators Re: Peaceful change L3

[Dan Minette]

- Original Message - 
From: "Andrew Paul" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" 
Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2005 12:29 AM
Subject: RE: Removing Dictators Re: Peaceful change L3



>And why isn't the US invading North Korea?
>Why is it, as you put it "doing nothing"?

As JDG said, the answer to that is fairly straightforward.  South Korea
begged Clinton not to.  Even before they had nuclear weapons, the proximity
of Seoul to the border, and the training of mutiple (10k)  guns/morters on
Seoul by North Korea would result in massive casualties.  While there is
little doubt that the US and South Korea would quickly win any war with
North Korea, it wouldn't be quick enough to prevent 100,000-200,000 deaths.
That was an overwhelming price to pay, and Clinton decided to accept the
half a loaf solution with a verifyable freeze on plutonium extraction and
production from the known nuclear reactor.

JDG called this a failure, pointing out that other secret facilities were
built and that N. Korea probably already had enough material for 1 or 2
more bombs.  I differ with that assessemnt.  As it stood, N. Korea had the
ability to kill 100k-200k without nuclear weapons.  This was the functional
equivalant of roughly 2-3 atomic bombs of the caliber that N. Korea would
have.  If the US attacked, it was considered very likely that N. Korea
would counterattack.

Not making a partial deal and not attacking would leave the status quo in
place.  N. Korea had just extracted fuel rods that could be used for ~6
more weapons.  They were also working on a large reactor that, by about
1998, woiuld be able to produce enough plutonium for about 40-50
bombs/years.


>Poor George, no wonder he looks tired, tossing all night, crying over
>the starving Koreans kiddies etc...

What I don't understand is, given that I'm pretty sure I already mentioned
this to you in an earlier discussion, why you don't consider any answer but
Bush is a bad boy.  Did you ask yourself "what are the differences between
N. Korea and Iraq?"  "Is there any difference in the estimated number of
civilian casualties in each war?"

Dan M.


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Removing Dictators Re: Peaceful change L3

[Nick Arnett]

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 22:23:43 -0400, JDG wrote

> I would respond by noting that you seem to agree that Christians are 
> called to do justice.   I think that Christians should stop 
> dictators if to do so would be justice.   For example, if a dictator 
> is killing his own citizens, and we have the power to save those 
> lives from that killing, is it not just to do so?Even if it 
> requires the use of force?

This discussion has never been about whether or not to intervene (no matter 
how many times people try to reduce it to that), it is about *how* to 
intervene and why there is a moral presumption against war.  For me, it has 
been about faith that regards war as failure, rather than pro-war 
triumphalism.

> Therfore, we could 
> reasonably conclude that continuing these policies would likely not 
> result in the removal of Saddam Hussein for several years -
>  particularly based on our experiences in Cuba, DPRK, and elsewhere.

Reasonable people have reached other conclusions as well.  

Nick
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

RE: Removing Dictators Re: Peaceful change L3

[Andrew Paul]

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of JDG 



>>And why isn't the US invading North Korea?
>>Why is it, as you put it "doing nothing"?

>The calculation has to include the probability of success.   While "doing
>nothing' in the DPRK is clearly resulting in the deaths of North Koreans,
>the probability that an invasion of DPRK would result in the flattening of
>Seoul, or worse, the detonation of one or more of the DPRK's nuclear
>weapons has to weigh in the balance *against* war in DPRK.   That is, it is
>likely that a war against DPRK would likely result in more deaths than the
>status quo.

Yes, the realities of global politics. I guess thats what I was getting at. It 
suited the US to Invade Iraq, for a whole lot of reasons. It does not suit them 
to invade the DPRK. It wasnt cos GWB was worried about the little Iraqi 
kiddies, as my rather intemperate response to Gautum's post was trying to make 
clear. I am fine with that, its the dressing it up as some sweet natured 
lovey-dovey caring for the people of Iraq bit that annoys me. It was part of 
the Great Game. And if had not suited GWB to invade Iraq, almost no amount of 
starving kiddies would have made him. The timing was right, he had a 
justification ( one I believe he misused, and played upon the baser parts of 
human nature to get what he wanted, and to be fair, what he thought was best 
for America, and perhaps the world) and he took the opportunity. Good  luck to 
him. Just dont expect me to buy that he did it for the poor starving kiddies of 
Iraq. He didn't. He did it as part of as plan to cement American control in a 
crucial part of the world.

What annoys me is that he started a war. And he dragged my country in with him. 
I dont like staring wars. And there were other ways, flawed as they may have 
been. How patient do we need to be? When is enough enough? These are the 
questions I ask myself.  And it set a precedent. This idea of a "Justified 
War", who defines the parameters for that? Does it not give any nation the 
right, in a philosophical sense, to invade any other nation, on the grounds 
that they think it is just? Well, the US did it, Australia did it. England did 
it. Do you see my quandry. I am glad of be rid of Saddam, and I hope Iraq 
becomes a stable, strong democracy. But, and call me a wimp, but for mine, the 
only body that has the moral authority to condone the starting of a war is the 
united people of the world., in the only shape we currently have, ie, that of 
the UN. 

I know the UN is a mess, but if not them who? I asked the silly question, about 
does this validate 9/11. I know it does not. But where is that line, who 
decides? I am upset that we started a war. Its as simple as that. Without being 
attacked, we started a war, and a lot of people have died, and more will. This 
whole doctrine of premptive attack is so fraught with danger, it scares the 
crap out of me. And to do it on the basis of such flimsy and flawed evidence. 
Its dangerous incompetence in my mind, and I can see why the Arab world views 
it as American Imperalism. Thats cos, and I would be interested in your 
thoughts on this, thats cos it basically is. GWB was elected President of 
America, not the world.  He chose to impose what he saw as American interests 
on the Middle East. I know why he did it, and in many ways it makes a lot of 
sense, if you are the President of  the USA. Now, and this is another 
interesting question, is that democracy?

>And as I have noted, the DPRK situation is a key reason why it was
>important to liberate Iraq.   Once a dictator acquires nuclear weapons, it
>is *too late*.So, to go back to your earlier question - once we learned
>in 2001 that the DPRK had built nuclear weapons, there was suddenly a very
>real possibility that an impoverished DPRK might sell a fully assembled
>nuclear weapon to a country with large oil revenues - like Iraq.

I am opposed to the proliferation of nuclear weapons. They are way kinky, 
nasty, bad shit, way too dangerous to have live, ( I think we need some on hand 
for odd alien invasion scenarios, but thats another story, I am talking about 
live nuclear weapons). But again, who decides that its just fine and hunky-dory 
for country A to have to have bunkers full of ticking ICBM's and yet a mortal 
sin, punishable by immediate invasion, for country B to even contemplate the 
idea of having a few scientists working on them in some back room. The American 
nuclear deterent is appareantly moral and justified, and needed... the DPRK's 
nuclear deterent is a crime against humanity. Apparantly. Just as the USA acts 
in its own interests, so does the DPRK. If the USA was threated with invasion, 
would it lay down its ICBM's cos they would kill a few people? Why arent we 
persecuting Pakistan or India, France or England. If you were the President of 
North Korea, what actions would you take to defend your country? Accord them 
the same need, and the same right to defend their way of life.

RE: Removing Dictators Re: Peaceful change L3

[JDG]

At 03:29 PM 4/21/2005 +1000, Andrew Paul wrote:
>> Thus, Nick, we have the situation where choosing to continue
>condemnation
>> and sanctions, etc. would result in the deaths of innocent Iraqis and
>war
>> would result in the death of innocent Iraqis.   I think that a great
>many
>> people were able to judge that war would most likely result in the
>deaths
>> of fewer Iraqis in the long run.
>> 
>
>
>Why wasn't this decision made in say June 2001? What was it that drove
>the timing? 

George Bush gave the "axis of evil" speech in January 2002, one year after
being elected.Beterrn January 2002 and March 2003, the US spent a lot
of time attempting to persuade the world of the merits of liberating Iraq,
and listening to their objections.

>And why isn't the US invading North Korea?
>Why is it, as you put it "doing nothing"?

The calculation has to include the probability of success.   While "doing
nothing' in the DPRK is clearly resulting in the deaths of North Koreans,
the probability that an invasion of DPRK would result in the flattening of
Seoul, or worse, the detonation of one or more of the DPRK's nuclear
weapons has to weigh in the balance *against* war in DPRK.   That is, it is
likely that a war against DPRK would likely result in more deaths than the
status quo.

And as I have noted, the DPRK situation is a key reason why it was
important to liberate Iraq.   Once a dictator acquires nuclear weapons, it
is *too late*.So, to go back to your earlier question - once we learned
in 2001 that the DPRK had built nuclear weapons, there was suddenly a very
real possibility that an impoverished DPRK might sell a fully assembled
nuclear weapon to a country with large oil revenues - like Iraq. 

JDG

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

RE: Removing Dictators Re: Peaceful change L3

[Andrew Paul]

JDG
> 
> elsewhere.
> 
> Thus, Nick, we have the situation where choosing to continue
condemnation
> and sanctions, etc. would result in the deaths of innocent Iraqis and
war
> would result in the death of innocent Iraqis.   I think that a great
many
> people were able to judge that war would most likely result in the
deaths
> of fewer Iraqis in the long run.
> 


Why wasn't this decision made in say June 2001? What was it that drove
the timing? 

And why isn't the US invading North Korea?
Why is it, as you put it "doing nothing"?

Poor George, no wonder he looks tired, tossing all night, crying over
the starving Koreans kiddies etc...

Andrew



___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Removing Dictators Re: Peaceful change L3

[JDG]

At 06:54 PM 4/17/2005 -0700, Nick wrote:
>> When, according to our best
>> understanding,  we have an opportunity to decrease human suffering 
>> and death, when does God call us to let things unfold instead, 
>> increasing human suffering and death? When does God call us to say 
>> no when people ask for help?
>
>Who called for help?  Exactly which Iraqis called for us to invade and
occupy 
>their country?  Was there any evidence of even an partial consensus for
that?  

Nick, this is a curious standard.   Would a consensus of Rwandans been
necessary to justify intervention in that country?   

Also, given the constrainst upon freedom of speech in Iraq, weren't the
reactions of people dancing in the streets worth something to you?

You later ask if "must dictators be physically stopped?"

I would respond by noting that you seem to agree that Christians are called
to do justice.   I think that Christians should stop dictators if to do so
would be justice.   For example, if a dictator is killing his own citizens,
and we have the power to save those lives from that killing, is it not just
to do so?Even if it requires the use of force?   

I think that you sense the weakness of the rhetorical question "must
dictators be physically stopped?" because you proceed shortly to the
question of urgency:

>And we absolutely had to remove him from power as quickly as possible?
Why?  
>On what basis was there such urgency all of a sudden?  

I think that here you need to weigh the damage being done vs. the
probability of success.   For example, we know Saddam Hussein was killing
some several thousand Iraqis each month.   We also know that for 12 years,
various condemnations of international condemnation; diplomatic, military
and economic sanctions;  covert support for opposition parties; and
targeted airstrikes had failed to make any noticeable progress in
dislodging him.   Therfore, we could reasonably conclude that continuing
these policies would likely not result in the removal of Saddam Hussein for
several years - particularly based on our experiences in Cuba, DPRK, and
elsewhere.   

Thus, Nick, we have the situation where choosing to continue condemnation
and sanctions, etc. would result in the deaths of innocent Iraqis and war
would result in the death of innocent Iraqis.   I think that a great many
people were able to judge that war would most likely result in the deaths
of fewer Iraqis in the long run.  

JDG

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l