Hi Horse (+Platt) and all,
HORSE
> Sorry for the delay in replying.
> Rather than get bogged down in red-herrings I would go back to the two
major
> points on which I disagreed with Platt and which you appeared to be in
general
> agreement - although I could be misinterpreting your position and if so
apologise in
> advance.
>
I rather like slowing the pace a bit. I've taken some time myself to mull
over what you are saying. In many ways, I find that I agree with both you
and Platt. I think a large part of the problem is labelling small parts of
the overall pattern as right or wrong, based on seeing things in isolation
as nice vs. not nice. The way I see it is that some things aren't nice in of
themselves, but may be right in the wider context. This is the pain that
pays for the gain.
> The first point being that human beings, of whatever kind, may not
reasonably be > regarded as the moral equivalent of germs.
This is itself a bit of a red herring. First, we need to throw out the idea
that it is good to destroy germs. Pirsig gave the analogy in a specific
context: it is better to kill the germ and save the patient than to save the
germ and let the patient die. There is no intrinsic value in killing the
germ. This idea is worthy of some exploration. Several research labs around
the world have faced the choice of keeping or destroying their stocks of
smallpox virus. While there is no question that the smallpox epidemics of
the past are to be avoided at all costs, there is recognition that the
smallpox virus represents a unique biological resource that may one day be
used towards some unforseen but noble goal. Biology presents plenty of
similar examples. It is clearly a great tragedy to kill a tiger, but it
could become a necessity when human life is endangered.
> > 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 see entirely where Platt is coming from, but his words need to be
qualified.
Germs don't need to be destroyed because they have low social and
intellectual quelity. Germs only need to be destroyed when they represent a
threat. The same logic to dealing with human beings who threaten the safety
and security of other human beings.
HORSE
> My second point is that it is hypocrisy to treat one group of countries
( the 'Allies' ) in
> one way whilst treating another group of countries ( the 'Enemy' ) in
another way for
> exactly the same behaviour.
>
First, in the case we were discussing (USA+Britain vs. Afghanistan), there
is a clear asymmetry. Secondly, even if all else is equal, it is natural to
favour your own.
> Apparently the further deaths of half a million children (and a further
million adults) by
> imposition of sanctions is a reasonable price to pay (according to
Madeleine
> Albright) in order to remove Saddam Hussein from power when an army was
within
> a few miles of Baghdad and could have achieved this end. This is
apparently not
> terrorism.
Horse, are you saying that the US-led forces should have kept pounding away
in 1991? Will you now apply this same logic to Afghanistan in 2001?
I don't want to argue the numbers game, but civilian deaths are bad however
you look at it. However, you have to look at the long and short term
alternatives. Saddam Hussein proved himself murderous even before 1991. I
can see many ways how things could have worked out quite differently and
MUCH WORSE.
>
> The continued bombing of Iraq is also acceptable and is also not
terrorism.
>
Whether or not you call this terrorism, what's the alternative?
> The use and support of a group of terrorists (Contra's) to overthrow a
> democratically
> elected government and to pay for this by illegal sales of arms (to Iran)
is also
> apparently OK and presumably is not terrorism or the support of terrorism.
>
Definitely not nice. In hindsight, I wonder if the USA now thinks it was
worth it.
> The toleration and protection of terrorists and terrorist affiliated
groups (IRA and
> NORAID) by the USA apparently does qualify the USA as part of the above
> group.
Again, not nice, but this is mostly a problem for Britain. It appears that
Blair has much bigger fish to fry.
> On 9 Oct 2001 at 22:41, Jonathan B. Marder wrote:
> > Terrorism must be confronted on ALL
> > levels, and that must include the use of appropriate military
force[snip]
HORSE
> I am not acting out of ignorance of the consequences and effects of
terrorist
> actions and would say that I abhor this sort of wanton violence. But from
both a
> practical and moral point of view see military action as a pointless and
retrograde
> action. This should not be confused with a pacifist position just in case
anyone feels
> like accusing me of such. It will not stop the violence and in many cases
gives the
> terrorists exactly what they want - which is the escalation of violence.
> Can you give me a relatively recent example of military action against
terrorists that
> has resulted in the destruction of the terrorist group. The normal
scenario is that the
> terrorists become part of the established social pattern through
negotiation and/or
> achieve their ends of domination.
>
> Let me know
>
First let me say that I think that the "war against terrorism" is very
difficult to win. However, it may be highly dangerous to abandon the fight,
because it may be a war that is EASY TO LOSE.
One doesn't usually get the chance to face the same terrorist threat twice
so that alternative strategies can be tried. Right now, I hate what is going
on just a few miles away in Bethlehem and other Palestinian towns. However,
I shudder to think what might happen if Israel lacked the military strength
to attenuate the terrorist threat. Right now, maybe containment is the best
we can hope for.
Thus, I am hard put to give an example where military action against
terrorists produced an outright victory, but here's an example of a country
that took military action to survive a terrorist threat: Jordan, September
1970.
There are plenty more examples of countries fighting ongoing battles - maybe
they won't win, but
they can't afford to stop fighting lest they lose.
Thus Horse, our argument ends up being an entirely pragmatic one - which
strategy is most likely to work. I hope this clears things up.
Jonathan
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 - 16:01:34 BST