From: Sam Norton (elizaphanian@kohath.wanadoo.co.uk)
Date: Sun Dec 12 2004 - 15:10:56 GMT
Hi Mark,
I'll try and put all this into one post. I have a suspicion Horse has raised the size threshold
temporarily :o)
> msh says:
> You may be taking the thoughts of your congregation too lightly. You
> might want to ask some questions to see if they are really using the
> moral equivalence argument, as you defined it. It could be that
> their thinking goes something like this: Hussein killed or
> disappeared 300,000 of his people in 25 years. We've managed to kill
> over 100,000 Iraqi innocents in a year and a half. In this respect,
> it's hard to see where the US/UK coalition can claim the moral high
> ground. Unless you're saying the MOTIVES for our actions stem from
> some higher morality, which assumes the conclusion. That is, this is
> what we (you and I) and they are trying to figure out.
Well, I took the precaution of looking up a few statistics first, and my statistics aren't quite the
same as yours (what did we expect?)
The Documental Centre for Human Rights in Iraq (based in Iraq) has compiled documentation on over
600,000 civilian executions in Iraq. That's a separate figure to people killed within Iraq by the
various wars, and also excludes the people in Iran and Kuwait etc. So I think the figure you quote
is an underestimate, and quite a significant underestimate, of the extent of Hussein's slaughter.
Second, the Iraq Body Count estimates around 15,000 civilian dead at the moment, whereas the 100,000
figure comes from the study in the Lancet. That latter is a probabilistic estimate based on
interviews in just under a thousand households; it may or may not represent an accurate figure. How
about we agree on somewhere between those two - say 60,000? - otherwise we'll get distracted by
statistical argumentation.
In any case, I don't think they are comparable, either in outcome or intent. Is it really your view
that the USG is intending to kill civilians?
> msh says:
> First, I think if we're going to use the phrase "terrorist group"
> we'll probably need to agree on a definition of terrorism My
> position is that terrorism is a tactic employed by entities trying to
> achieve political goals, and that such tactics are by no means
> limited to loosely defined groups like Al Qaeda. In fact, there
> appears to be a direct relationship between the level of terror and
> the level of military power available to the political entity.
Why don't we run with the definition that Kofi Annan's 'great and good' came up with a week or two
ago: "any action intended to kill or seriously harm civilians or non-combatants, with the purpose of
intimidating a population or compelling action by a government or international organisation"?
So if, for example, it could be shown that the USG was intending to frighten the Iraqi civilian
population into accepting democracy, and were deliberately targeting civilians with their weaponry
to that end, then they would be guilty of terrorism.
<let's snip the 'system wide threat' for the time being; we'll probably come back to it>
> msh says:
> You seemed to recognize that ungoing USG support for brutal dictators
> invalidates any attempt to argue that Iraq was attacked in order to
> remove Hussein because he was a brutal dictator. Am I wrong here?
No, I agree with that. I do not believe that the true explanation for USG actions in Iraq was the
desire to remove a brutal dictator from power. I think the facts which prove that are the present
support/tolerance of brutal dictators elsewhere (not the historic argument that the USG has
previously supported brutal dictators, which is true, but doesn't address the 'we might have
changed' point).
<snipped a minor point about neo-cons>
Sam argued that present governments are more humane than predecessors:
> msh says:
> On the other hand, how can we say that the recent near unilateral
> invasion of Iraq is "significantly better" than anything that came
> before? In what sense is this action "humanitarian," when world
> opinion was 10 to 1 against it? How can you ignore the objections of
> 90% of humanity and call your action "humane?"
On the latter point, "100,000 lemmings can't be wrong". If popular acceptance was the mark of humane
action we'd still have the death penalty in England.
On the question of UN resolutions
> msh says:
> Here, I don't even agree with myself.
LOL. I know the feeling...
> Of course, we'd need to
> evaluate specific examples. However, I think that some steps can be
> taken toward egalitizing the whole UN voting process. For example,
> the one vote veto of UNSC resolutions has GOT to go. We should
> certainly require a majority of permanent members in vetoing Security
> Council resolutions. This is something that has been talked about,
> but is flatly rejected by the New Humanitarians. Even GA votes tend
> to show a very disconcerting trend, with the US-Israel vote the lone
> dissenters. So even as such resolutions are passed, they are not
> recognized or supported by the US, which has a hughly damaging
> effect on efforts toward a new humanism.
Do you think there should be any thresholds as to which nations should be allowed to vote? So: if
they're not a democracy, they're not allowed. And if they operate an exploitative economic system in
which only a handful of people benefit, they're not allowed. And if there is abuse of human rights
within a country, they're not allowed either. We'll end up with Sweden having the only veto.... hey,
there's an idea... :-)
> sam:
> Actually yes. But this one might fit better in the capitalism
> thread. Have you ever seen Monty Python's "The life of Brian"?
>
> msh says:
> Ok. But let's always look on the bright side of life. Dee dum, de
> dum, de dum de dum de dum...
I was thinking of 'what have the Romans ever done for us?' I'm not persuaded that 'imperialist' is
automatically an insult, that's all.
> sam:
> The question is one of proportion. I don't believe that killing one
> innocent in order to achieve a legitimate military objective makes it
> wrong. But if the one person becomes a hundred, or a thousand, then
> the balance starts to shift.
>
> msh says:
> Well, I've never quite understood the acturarial principles behind
> this argument. Pick whatever objective you like. Are the methods of
> achievement moral at the cost of 2000 lives but not 2100?
I don't think there is a fully rational answer. How do you weigh up the worth of a life? "if the
sufferings of children go to swell the sum of sufferings which was necessary to pay for truth, then
I protest that the truth is not worth such a price. ... too high a price is asked for harmony; it's
beyond our means to pay so much to enter on it. And so I hasten to give back my entrance ticket, and
if I am an honest man I am bound to give it back as soon as possible. And that I am doing. It's not
God that I don't accept, Alyosha, only I most respectfully return him the ticket." (Ivan Karamazov)
> sam:
> Noted and agreed: the USG is more concerned with US civilian
> casualties than with Iraqi.
>
> msh says:
> Good. Then you'll see where this applies in my argument above. I'll
> wait for your answer.
I think you've made a logical leap. To say that USG values US lives more highly than Iraqi lives is
not to say that the USG gives Iraqi lives no value at all. I'm not persuaded of that point. And I
don't think it possible (or perhaps even desirable) that this sort of preference be removed. I will
always value my family more than anyone else's. I expect that's a hard-wired biological phenomenon,
and I can't see the point in trying to change it. What we need to do is work with the grain of human
nature so that the 'circle of concern' is expanded. (A very conservative point of view there, of
course)
> msh says:
> I think his point is that the Bush Administration was not interested
> in whether or not Hussein posed a genuine threat. This to me is a
> failure of government. Their intent was to attack Iraq, regardless,
> and they wanted to use the 9/11 attacks as an excuse for doing so.
> And I think we have already agreed that there was plenty of
> government deception in this regard.
I'm happy to accept that there have been serial failures of government throughout this issue, and
that they haven't been wholly honest and open about their motivations. But then - a little of that I
can live with.
> Well, this is long enough. I still have half your original response
> to get back to.
> Again, I really appreciate the time you're taking with this.
You've caught me at a good point. For what it's worth though, I'm enjoying the discussion greatly.
If we're serious about pursuing the truth then we have to be able to subject our deepest beliefs to
intelligent and sceptical scrutiny - that's the only way we're going to grow.
Regards
Sam
"If ever it comes to a choice between Jesus and truth, we must always choose truth, because
disloyalty to truth will always prove in the long run to have been disloyalty to Jesus." (Simone
Weil)
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Dec 12 2004 - 15:34:11 GMT