Yes, this is my sense of the MOQ, too, Sam. But I wonder if MOQers might
not someday do better. After all, logically, a good metaprogram should
delineate or at least guide choices all the way 'down' to day-to-day
specifics, IMO. What good is a metaprogram that is irrelevant to the lower
levels of thought and activity?
In ponderment,
Lawry
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk
> [mailto:owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk]On Behalf Of Elizaphanian
> Sent: Saturday, August 31, 2002 11:00 AM
> To: moq_discuss@moq.org
> Subject: Re: MD Baghdad and Morality
>
>
> Hi Lawrence,
>
> My own view is that the MoQ can't provide much in any specific conflict,
> simply because the MoQ operates at a 'higher' ie more abstract level, so
> that people can agree to accept the MoQ as a governing paradigm, and yet
> disagree on what the way forward might be in any particular conflict.
> However, IMO I don't think it's possible to accept the MoQ and be a
> unilateralist in international relations. So some of the
> positions are ruled
> out, even if irreconcilable differences remain.
>
> Sam
>
> "If what we do now makes no difference in the end then all the seriousness
> of life is done away with" - Wittgenstein
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Lawrence de Bivort" <debivort@umd5.umd.edu>
> To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
> Sent: Saturday, August 31, 2002 4:31 PM
> Subject: RE: MD Baghdad and Morality
>
>
> > Very nice analysis, Sam.
> >
> > I do think that your conclusions can be -- and have been -- reached by
> > thoughtful people without the benefit of MOQ...so without
> taking anything
> > away from your insightful analysis, I am still wondering what MOQ
> > contributes to the consideration of actual conflicts. You may remember
> that
> > a couple of months ago I asked this same question with regard to the
> > Israeli-Palestinian conflict -- what does the MOQ suggest with reagrd to
> an
> > Isr-Pal solution, and felt from the few but thoughtful responses that
> > essentially the answer was, not much. I would love to be wrong on this,
> as
> > those who are engaged in tackling these real problems do need
> all the help
> > they can get.
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Lawry
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk
> > > [mailto:owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk]On Behalf Of Elizaphanian
> > > Sent: Saturday, August 31, 2002 5:23 AM
> > > To: moq_discuss@moq.org
> > > Subject: Re: MD Baghdad and Morality
> > >
> > >
> > > Hi Rog,
> > >
> > > You asked an interesting question; one which I have been mulling over
> for
> > > quite a while:
> > >
> > > > What would you all suggest the MOQ endorses in the case of
> Iraq? What
> > > should
> > > > the rest of the world do with the perceived threat of
> Saddam Hussein?
> > > What
> > > > course is the best course?
> > > >
> > >
> > > A few things on this.
> > >
> > > The decision to attack Iraq has in effect now been taken,
> > > informally if not
> > > formally. That is because if Bush now backs away from a committed
> conflict
> > > then Saddam will be perceived to have 'won', and his position will
> become
> > > significantly stronger as a result - his credibility with Arab
> governments
> > > (and especially the Arab 'street') will be greatly enhanced - and his
> > > capacity to build up his economy and gain nukes (WMD) will be
> enhanced.
> In
> > > that case, a few years down the line, we will have a
> > > nuclear-armed Saddam to
> > > deal with, and the last situation will be much worse than the first.
> > > Although I don't rate Bush's intellect very highly (his or
> his advisers)
> I
> > > think that much will be clear to them, as will the fact that Bush will
> be
> > > exposed to ridicule in any re-election campaign, if he doesn't follow
> > > through on his bellicose rhetoric. (That he has resorted to such
> rhetoric,
> > > and closed off his options, is one reason why I don't rate the White
> House
> > > Intelligence Quotient particularly highly. Bush's various speeches to
> Wall
> > > Street also displayed a less than historical grasp of the situation -
> > > perhaps he thinks the name Hoover only applies to vacuum
> > > cleaners. But that
> > > is off the point)
> > >
> > > The justification/rationale for the attack runs roughly as follows:
> > > 1. Saddam is demonstrably aggressive and has used WMD.
> > > 2. Saddam is renewing his WMD capacity.
> > > 3. If Saddam gains WMD he will supply them to terrorists to attack the
> > > US/West and/or use them to establish hegemony over the oil
> > > resources of the
> > > Middle East.
> > > 4. 3 is an unacceptable outcome, therefore we must act now to prevent
> it.
> > >
> > > Logically, I think 3 follows from 1 and 2; much of the
> > > interesting debate it
> > > seems to me is about what 4 involves. I don't think 1 or 3
> are really at
> > > issue. Although Saddam isn't the only monster out there, he seems the
> most
> > > volatile and nasty. However, 2 is a little open to question.
> Embedded in
> 2
> > > (and most of the pro-war arguments) is the assumption or
> > > assertion that the
> > > international regime on non-proliferation is ineffective. I think
> > > that this
> > > point needs to be made more openly and strongly than it is at present.
> To
> > > say the least, there is room for scepticism about both sides of the
> > > argument - it is too easy a soundbite for someone like Rumsfeld to
> mouth,
> > > but that doesn't make it false. I haven't had a chance to read the UN
> > > inspectors reports, which would seem the first thing to do in
> > > order to gain
> > > my own conclusion. In any case, the authorities may have
> evidence which
> is
> > > intrinsically unavailable for public consumption, so it comes
> down to a
> > > question of trust. I'll come back to that.
> > >
> > > It seems to me that the most important aspects relate to issues of
> > > international law. And this is also where the MoQ has
> something to say.
> > > Broadly, with regard to a society of individuals, a social order has
> more
> > > quality if it is subject to the rule of law. The development of a rule
> of
> > > law was a highly dynamic break through with regard to human
> society - it
> > > prevented the concentration of force in the hand of the most
> > > brutal/strongest, and allowed more people to get on with their lives,
> with
> > > all the DQ possibilities inherent from that. The rule of law
> > > underpins both
> > > democracy and capitalism (so I'm assuming you'll be happy
> with that Rog
> > > -) ) It seems to me that an international order which
> respects a rule
> of
> > > law is of higher quality than one which does not - so the EU is of
> higher
> > > quality than the UN, which is of higher quality to the international
> order
> > > c1900.
> > >
> > > If the US unilaterally attacks Iraq then it will undermine the rule of
> law
> > > at the international level. Of course, the rule of law internationally
> is
> > > something of a misnomer - it's a fragile thing, lacking, in
> particular,
> an
> > > effective enforcement body - and clearly there are times when
> 'you have
> to
> > > take the law into your own hands'. But an action against Iraq which is
> > > undertaken without regard to international law would be very different
> to
> > > one undertaken with a heavy heart because international law had
> > > failed, and
> > > which was consequently followed up by action to support international
> law.
> > > (I think this is the difference between Bush and Blair. Bush
> > > 'couldn't give
> > > a shit' about international law/opinion, whereas Blair seems to have a
> > > strongly internationalist impulse).
> > >
> > > One other thing: one of the principles of 'just war' theory (which is
> what
> > > international law derives from) is that the outcome of a war
> > > should not be a
> > > worsening of the overall situation. I think this is a point that
> > > needs to be
> > > more thoroughly aired and debated. In particular, there seems to be no
> > > attention paid to the law (or risk) of unintended outcomes.
> > > Whilst I have no
> > > doubt that if the US was serious about it, it could conquer Iraq and
> > > dismantle Saddam's system, I worry about the long term
> > > consequences for that
> > > country and also for the other major countries in the region,
> especially
> > > Saudi Arabia, which could easily have a 1979-type revolution - and
> again,
> > > the last outcome will be worse than the first. However, this is a
> question
> > > of the balance of risks, and is for those in authority to judge - it's
> not
> > > something I think we can second guess. However, I'm sure we will be
> given
> > > sufficient insight into the quality of judgement and decision making
> that
> > > characterises our dearly beloved leaders. It's possible that the US
> could
> > > make the right decision for the wrong reasons (as also the
> converse, of
> > > course).
> > >
> > > Sam
> > >
> > > "If what we do now makes no difference in the end then all the
> seriousness
> > > of life is done away with" - Wittgenstein
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 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
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > 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
> >
> >
>
>
>
> 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
>
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 : Fri Oct 25 2002 - 16:06:30 BST