From: Mark Steven Heyman (markheyman@infoproconsulting.com)
Date: Sun Dec 12 2004 - 01:31:57 GMT
Hi Sam,
Continuing... with the discussion of what constitutes a valid threat
and rational response...
> sam:
> I am wholly with you that the issue is about a properly rational
> analysis of threat and response. I am not convinced that it is an
> accurate description of current US military action in Iraq to call
> it "consciously murdering the Bathist regime's VICTIMS".
>
> msh says:
> I agree that my point was made too poetically, with a little dose
of
> exaggeration for effect. Hussein's victims are not being
> consciously murdered in the sense that this is the purpose of the
> attack and occupation. As I've said before, the USG and UKG would
> have been delighted if all the innocent civilians had simply left
> the country prior to the aggression. The murder is conscious in
the
> sense that the aggressors KNOW that their tactics will lead to the
> death of large numbers of innocents, and they nevertheless proceed.
sam:
The question is one of proportion. I don't believe that killing one
innocent in order to achieve a legitimate military objective makes it
wrong. But if the one person becomes a hundred, or a thousand, then
the balance starts to shift.
msh says:
Well, I've never quite understood the acturarial principles behind
this argument. Pick whatever objective you like. Are the methods of
achievement moral at the cost of 2000 lives but not 2100?
And this leads to something that will come up again later. It's
clear to me that the "morality" of the action is not determined
solely by the number of innocent lives taken. A very important moral
consideration appears to be WHOSE innocent lives are taken. Do you
believe the aerial bomardment of Bhagdad would have occurred if the
city had been filled with the families of US Congressmen instead of
innocent Iraqis?
You know the answer as well as I. In this regard alone, the US/UK
slaughter in Iraq is morally indefensible.
sam before:
So I would dispute your use of the word 'murder'. I think for murder
to be the correct term there needs to be the clear intention to kill
civilians, and that hasn't been established.
msh says:
I addressed this idea of intention with my bus-missile analogy, which
you responded to below. Or it might be in the next post. Still only
half way through your first response.
> Also, I mentioned the OK City attack because I want you to make
note
> of the difference in the way the USG went about apprehending and
> trying the domestic terrorists versus their full-scale attack on
two
> countries in response to 9/11. This obvious difference is evidence
> in support of my position that some innocent civilians are regarded
> as more valuable than others.
sam:
Noted and agreed: the USG is more concerned with US civilian
casualties than with Iraqi.
msh says:
Good. Then you'll see where this applies in my argument above. I'll
wait for your answer.
> msh said:
> You might find the others worth looking into. Lots of info
> available on the net. Richard Clarke is the Bush insider who blew
> the whistle on the fact that the Bush and previous administrations
> were looking for reasons to invade Iraq long before 9/11. A day or
> two after 9/11 he was just about ORDERED to find a connection
> between the WTC attacks and Saddam Hussein, though he knew none
> existed.
sam:
It's quite clear that the neo-cons wanted to tackle Iraq before 9/11
happened, definitely agreed on that. But the problem would be the
manipulation of information, not (necessarily) the motivation or
rationale. (That is, the motivation and rationale might make perfect
sense, but if the perpetrators of the act concealed the truth, or
actively lied to cover up the truth, then that's the problem. Is that
what Richard Clarke was exposing?)
msh says:
I think his point is that the Bush Administration was not interested
in whether or not Hussein posed a genuine threat. This to me is a
failure of government. Their intent was to attack Iraq, regardless,
and they wanted to use the 9/11 attacks as an excuse for doing so.
And I think we have already agreed that there was plenty of
government deception in this regard.
But google Clarke and 60 Minutes, and you can read the transcript for
yourself. You can also find excerpts from his book on the web.
Well, this is long enough. I still have half your original response
to get back to.
Again, I really appreciate the time you're taking with this.
Later,
Mark Steven Heyman (msh)
--
InfoPro Consulting - The Professional Information Processors
Custom Software Solutions for Windows, PDAs, and the Web Since 1983
Web Site: http://www.infoproconsulting.com
"Thought is only a flash between two long nights, but this flash is
everything." -- Henri Poincare'
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
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 2.1.5 : Sun Dec 12 2004 - 01:53:36 GMT