Hi Lawrence:
>
> > You probably would have been swept up by the draft if you didn't
> > volunteer. The "glory" of war went out with the invention of the tank and
> > machine gun.
>
> Alas, the people of the Balkans have yet to get the word. (See, the movie
> BEFORE THE RAINS for a terrific portryal of the relationship between war,
> killing and honor.)
For the "unglory" of war, see the movie "Saving Private Ryan."
> > Good. You agree World War II was a moral war. How do you feel about
> > the Korean war? Was our participation moral?
>
> Platt, we cannot cover all wars at this pace, nor would it be instructive.
> So let me ask simply: what is your moral take on what is going on in Sierra
> Leone and Liberia right now, and why it is that you are not, if I assume
> correctly, not engaged in it in some way, if all that is needed to command
> your involvement is that the conflict involve issues of morality?
Since you ducked my question, I'll duck yours.
> > >But can one not imagine how an intelligent
> > > foreign policy might have stopped Hitler and his ilk in their tracks?
> >
> > Diplomatic efforts were made to stop Hitler. Remember Munich?
> > Diplomacy was underway at the moment the Japs attacked Pearl
> > Harbor. No, I cannot imagine how an intelligent foreign policy could
> > have stopped Hitler or Tojo.
>
> Well, no one has ever offered up Munich and Chamberlain's policies and
> actions there as an example of 'intelligent' forign policy. Indeed, it is
> held up as an example of short-sighted, blind, weak and ineffective policy.
> Historians of WWI and its antecedents have identifed several opportunities
> to have stopped Hitler, in that he assayed various initiatives, and when he
> found weak resistence proceeded with his evolving plans. (I'm not as
> familiar with Japanese WWII history, but would be surprised if the same
> stop-and-go mements were not present in US/Chinese/Japanese relations
> preceding Pearl Harbor.) I do know that the 'diplomacy' that preceded the
> days before Pearl Harbor were a sham on the part of the Japanese, but one
> would also have to recognize that the US foreign policy community and State
> Department were sloppy in their gathering of information and analysis -- and
> that US policy at the time could hardly be called 'intelligent' -- whether
> for those reasons or the general lack of cohesion of public opinion of the
> role of the US in world affairs.
You revisionist history is interesting, but of questionable accuracy. I gather your
sole definition of an "intelligent foreign policy" is one that avoids war.
> > > As for the civil war...I cannot speak for Pirsig, nor know the
> > reasons he
> > > would argue for its morality. I'd be interested in your take on
> > his views.
> >
> > Pirsig makes his views on the Civil War clear in Chap. 13 of LILA. He
> > believes it was moral in accordance with the MOQ. I agree.
> >
> > > In the meantime, I will simply say that I see nothing moral in the civil
> > > war. I see a bunch of broken down politicians, ego-driven, followed by a
> > > bunch of broken-down generals inflicting enormous damage on a
> > generation of
> > > kids. And the odd thing is that the Europeans decided that there were
> > > military lessons to be learned from the carnage, studied it voraciously
> > > complete with battle-field tours post bellum, and managed to
> > replicate the
> > > insanity in places like Verdun a half century later. No, for
> > me, morality
> > > has to do with doing the right thing, and learning from mistakes. The
> > > butchers of the US civil war and WWI fail on both counts. Ego
> > should never
> > > be allowed to masquerade as national or societal necessity, and
> > kids must be
> > > the first to call the old blighters on it.
> >
> > I take it the issue of slavery doesn't enter into your
> > calculations of the
> > morality of the Civil War.
>
> For better or for worse, the morality of slavery was not the cause of the
> Civil War. It became a symbolic issue with the Emancipation Declaration, but
> if it were the dominant issue, one must wonder why the Declaration did not
> extend to all slaves, whether in the territories controlled by the Federals
> or not, and whether or not states with slavery did not return to the Union
> by the deadline set by Lincoln.
Again, an interesting revisionist history, but of questionable accuracy.
> This is separate from the fact that I do view slavery as a moral
> abomination, whether it is defined by race or any other characteristic.
So assuming the Civil War was about slavery, I take it you would have
gladly fought on the side of the North.
> Question for you: where morally do you stand on the issue of current
> 'reparations' for slavery? Do you think Pirsig might have a take on this?
We have already made reparations for slavery: 620,000 Americans died
in the struggle to end slavery--reparations paid in blood. If that weren't
enough, Americans have spent more than $6.1 trillion on anti-poverty
programs targeted to the black underclass. I can't speak for Pirsig, but
as for me, enough is enough.
> > > Now, your last question begins to go in a more viable direction: who and
> > > under what circumstances would one kill if they were trying to
> > kill you (or,
> > > if we can enlarge the question, deprive one of a highly held value)? No
> > > longer are you promoting 'giving away' one's life, but of
> > taking that of a
> > > threatener. Good. What is your thinking on this?
> >
> > No one should inititate the use of physical force. If threatened, one
> > should meet force with enough force to eliminate the threat. The right of
> > self-defense is absolute. Do you agree?
>
> Yes, I agree. But this still leaves us with the conundrum of what should
> happen when all parties to a conflict view their survival as being at stake
> (such as the Israelis and Palestinians do). If we accept the right of using
> force for self-defence, can one party to a conflict deny that same right to
> those of their opponents who are threatened? If we don't accept this, are
> we not allowing one party a DQ strategy, and limiting the other to a static
> strategy?
Whoever initiated pysical force is at fault, regardless of how long the
conflict lasts. Each side can claim it is defending itself, but only one
acted in self-defense at the beginning.
Platt
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
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 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:01:27 BST