Hi Rog:
> > P: I’m glad you concede the point that war is sometimes necessary.
>
> Wouldn't deny it. I can't see any reason to justify it in these current circumstances
> though.
Would it be justified if a London was hit by a gas attack that killed 6,000
or more?
> > P: Outrageous. I'm in favor of disbanding the UN. It’s incredibly
> > bureaucratic, totally ineffective and anti-British/American.
>
> You missed out anti-Israeli. But this isn't surprising seeing as how the US, UK and
> Israel (to name but 3) all ignore UN resolutions when it suits them or block
> inquiries where the outcome may be embarassing - as is the case with Sudan.
> The intriguing thing is though that all of the above get very stroppy when someone
> like Saddam Hussein does the same. I think the term for this is hypocrisy. And far
> from disbanding it I'd love to see it have much sharper teeth.
Ok, but put the headquarters in London. The U.S. should withdraw its
funding. It is immoral for a nation to support those who wish to see it
destroyed.
> > H: And while we’re on the subject of that scumbag Saddam, would
> > anyone care to enlighten me as to why the liberating of the West
> > stopped short of moving into Baghdad and capturing Saddam
> > Hussein?
> >
> > P: Many Americans, including me, have asked the same question. This
> > time, let's get him.
>
> Right! Like we've been bombing Iraq for the last several years for fun. But I'm sure
> you know as well as I do that to have gone into Baghdad and taken him would've
> ended up raising some very embarassing questions and answers - embarassing
> for the West anyway. And there were too many camera's around to risk
> assassinating him.
Embarassing on what grounds? Since when are war goals and
strategies guided by embarassment?
> > H: 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.
> >
> > P: You got it right. Defenders of liberty should never be asked to tie their
> > hands behind their backs.
>
> OK let's start from your initial premiss:
>
> PLATT:
> "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."
>
> I was born and brought up in London, England and remember well the bombing
> campaigns carried out by the IRA. I was within 5 minutes of being killed or injured
> myself in 1973 when I was working in Oxford Street and a bomb went off causing
> death and destruction. There were various other occurences such as this, like the
> Harrods bomb and the Hyde Park bombing. Additionally there were pub bombings
> which resulted in a number of persons being killed and maimed. In Northern
> Ireland there have been, I believe, in excess of 3000 people killed by terrorist
> violence.
> The U.S. has supported the IRA and tolerated members of the IRA. It has blocked
> extradition of self-confessed terrorists and allowed financial aid to be gathered and
> passed on to this organisation. The US has also supplied numerous weapons to
> the IRA. All of the attacks by the IRA on the British have been against a
> democratically elected government.
> By your reasoning the U.S. has the moral standing of a germ.
Yes, if you have given an accurate description of American policy, which
you haven't. Otherwise, I don't think Great Britain would have played
America's national anthem at Buckingham Palace shortly after the
terrorist attack on the Trade Center.
> PLATT:
> "You got it right. Defenders of liberty should never be asked to tie their hands
> behind their backs."
>
> To continue to use the U.S. as an example, much of the reasoning behind the
> threats against Iraq, Pakistan etc. are of the "My enemy's friend is my enemy"
> variety which also must include "My enemy's enemy is my friend ".
> To take this reasoning to it's logical conclusion, the attack on the WTC was by
> friends of the UK and other democratic countries and were part of the defense of
> liberty in association with these other countries. Why should WE have our hands
> tied when it comes to the tools we use?
>
> I imagine the lesson here is that before you go condemning others for their crimes
> it's probably useful to examine your [coutry's] own shortcomings.
Huh? Would you run me by that again. I know Britons believe
Americans are dumb Yanks, so let me bolster that belief by admitting I
don't follow your argument.
> > H: America, England, Australia, India, Israel, Iraq, Iran, Palestine,
> > Afghanistan, etc. are all SOCIAL patterns of value. None of them were
> > created by intellectual values.
> >
> > P: Disagree. England and the U.S were created by the intellectual
> > values of trial by jury, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, etc.
> > Surely you are thankful for the Magna Carter. I am, and I'm not British.
>
> I have a copy of the Magna Carta somewhere nearby but as I'm not one of the
> aristocracy whose rights are being defended I can't see that it does me much
> good. Surely you don't think John Lackland gave a stuff about the peasants and
> slaves in England when he drafted that. Or are you confusing this with some form
> of written constitution or rights or whatever.
The Magna Carta limited the power of the king, the first step toward
limited government. That's why we hold it in such high regard, even if
you don't.
> > H: The forms of government that emerge from these social patterns
> > are indistinguishable if they perform the same low value actions. . . . I
> > do try to apply any standards evenly and that includes looking at the
> > actions governments take.
> >
> > P: If there is moral equivalency between nations, we may as well hand
> > over our weapons to Hussein right now.
>
> Well by your reasoning (see above) this is probably the case. I don't think
> Saddam has been caught red-handed organising and supporting terrorist groups,
> lots of rumours though.
So I gather you put terror to defend freedom on the same moral level
as terror to defend totalitarism? Or have I misunderstood you again
since you didn't say it?
> > H: Brains not muscle is the only way to sort out this mess.
> >
> > P: So we call in a bunch of psychologists and invite Bin Laden to a
> > seminar on conflict resolution? I don’t think so.
>
> I was thinking more in the way of diplomats and peace talks but if you don't think
> the U.S. is up to it....
Sure, the way Neville Chamberlain was up to it when he said, " We can
do business with Hitler."
Obviously we have widely different worldview. But, I'm sure we can
agree on one thing--the hope that those who would do our countries
harm are eradicated before they kill again.
Platt
P.S. While I disagree with you, Horse, I am constantly appreciative of
the work you do to keep this forum going. All participants owe you a
debt of gratitude for defending the right of free speech by making this
platform available to us. Please accept my heartfelt thanks.
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