Hi Platt
On 19 Sep 2001 at 17:14, Platt Holden wrote:
> Hi Horse:
>
> >The use of force of whatever form which results in the indiscriminate
> >death of innocent men, women and children is not justifiable by any means.
>
> Bombing of Germany, Italy and Japan in WW II was not justifiable? In
> war innocent civilians get killed. It's sad, but true. What you seem to be
> saying is that war is not justifiable by any means under any
> circumstances. Is that what you're saying?
As I didn't say it that isn't what I meant. My comments were purely in the context
of these recent events and those events that led up to them, not to WW II or WW1
or the Boer War or the battle of Hastings or anything else.
Additionally, both Germany and Italy had democratically elected governments and
were not terrorist groups however much one wants to stretch the use of language.
>
> >This applies equally to the hundreds of thousands of innocents
> >starving to death in Iraq because of Western sanctions . . .
>
> Food sanctioned? I don't think so. Iraq has money from oil to buy all the
> food it needs. Saddam gassed his own people. Why would you expect
> him to feed them?
The amount of oil the Iraqi's were allowed to sell was limited. The funds raised by
the sale of this oil was to be used to buy food - the Oil For Food (OFF) program.
>From Jan 1997 to January 2000 Iraq sold 40 billion dollars worth of oil. This
money was deposited into an account controlled by the UN 661 Committee. It is
UN Resolution 661 that imposed sanctions on Iraq.
As of January 2001 about 9 billion dollars has been distributed to Iraq, or less
than 25 percent of total sales. The UN has taken more than 13 billion to
compensate Kuwait for the war and to "administrate" the OFF program. In other
words, more money has gone into administration and to compensate Kuwait than
to feed and provide medical care for the Iraqi people. Iraq's food rationing system -
described by the UN as one of the least corrupt in the world - provides about 2000
calories a day which is up on the previous figure of 1200 calories (UN figures,
check 'em out if you don't believe me). Hundreds of thousands of children have
died because of malnutrition, subnutrition and lack of medical facilities and
Madeline Albright's comments on this fact were that it was a price worth paying.
What a nice lady!
As for the gassing of his own people in Halabja (5000 or so I believe or about the
same number as in the WTC) what was the US and the West's response?
Saddam was reprimanded! A smack on the bottom and told not be so naughty.
And while we're on the subject of that scumbag Saddam, would anyone care to
enlighten me as to why the liberating forces of the West stopped short of moving
into Baghdad and capturing Saddam Hussein, after all he was/is a murderer and
responsible for thousands of deaths - a terrorist if ever there was one - or why the
West stood by while he massacred thousand more Kurds after the war was 'over'.
Possibly George W. could tell us - or even his daddy???
> > On 14 Sep 2001 at 13:41, Platt Holden wrote:
> >
> > > I interpret the MOQ view to be that those who are terrorists and those
> > > countries who support and/or tolerate terrorists have the moral
> > > standing of germs and like germs must be deliberately and ruthlessly
> > > annihilated by all means at our disposal. In the last century we did
> > > precisely that to the terrorists of Germany, Italy and Japan. Now it is up
> > > to a new generation to do that to Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine and all
> > > other countries who harbor and support the new breed of international
> > > criminals. Once again, civilization itself is at stake.
> >
> > So can we assume that this applies to those countries that supported the IRA,
or
> > the Contra's or the Indonesian government or the Tamil Tigers? Because if it
does
> > then that would include the U.S.A, England, Australia, and India at the very
least.
> > Does it also include those countries that train and arm terrorists and
insurgents?
> > Again the list could go on to cover probably most countries in the world, only a
few
> > of which get a mention in your list. If we're going to apply the MoQ in this way
we
> > should at least apply the rules equally and without bias.
> >
> > So do we continue with the killing or do we stop now while it's still possible?
> > Civilization itself IS at stake.
>
> Oops. Sorry. I assumed you drew a distinction between countries like
> America, England, Australia, India, Israel and other constitutional
> democracies vs. Iraq, Iran, Palestine, Afghanistan, etc. To repeat:
>
> "Third, there were moral codes that established the supremacy of the
> intellectual order over the social order--democracy, trial by jury,
> freedom of speech, freedom of the press." (LILA, Chap. 13)
So let me get this straight. When an elected government of a constitutional
democracy supports terrorism and provides training and weapons and finance to
terrorist groups this is OK. But if that government is not a constitutional democracy
then it's not OK.
America, England, Australia, India, Israel, Iraq, Iran, Palestine, Afghanistan, etc.
are all SOCIAL patterns of value. None of them were created by Intellectual
values. The forms of government that emerge from those social patterns are
indistinguishable if they perform the same low value actions.
> I also assumed one defines "civilization" by the degree to which those
> moral codes were followed. You apparently take a broader view to
> include any group who believes in the rightness of their cause, such as
> Islamic zealots who have repeatedly shown their willingness to get to
> heaven--a heaven where 70 virgins await each matyr--by committing
> murder even as they commit suicide. I do not consider such groups
> civilized at all. They need to be exterminated.
Rasheed has already commented on this. What you are talking about is, I believe,
related to the Hashishin an order that sprang from al-Hasan ibn-al-Sabbah (died
in 1124). This has very little to do with either Islam or the Arabic countries any
more than Valhalla has to do with the USA.
As for your take on how I define civilization would you care to show me where I
have said any of the above. I do try to apply any standards evenly and that
includes looking at the actions that governments take.
> I'm sure you don't put British soldiers who fought in World War II on the
> same moral plane as suicide bombers. There's a difference, and
> Pirsig makes it crystal clear exactly what that difference is.
>
> Millions have died to ensure that the moral codes that established the
> supremacy of the intellectual order would survive. I pray this generation
> is up to the task.
And I pray that one idiot in his quest for revenge doesn't bring about the
destruction of the entire world. Brains not muscle is the only way to sort out this
mess. Intellect guiding society not intellect siding with biology.
Horse
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 - 16:01:31 BST