From: Mark Steven Heyman (markheyman@infoproconsulting.com)
Date: Sun Dec 12 2004 - 21:05:17 GMT
On 12 Dec 2004 at 15:10, Sam Norton wrote:
Second, the Iraq Body Count estimates around 15,000 civilian dead at
the moment, whereas the 100,000 figure comes from the study in the
Lancet. That latter is a probabilistic estimate based on interviews
in just under a thousand households; it may or may not represent an
accurate figure. How about we agree on somewhere between those two -
say 60,000? - otherwise we'll get distracted by statistical
argumentation.
msh says:
Fair enough. Actually, I find it obscene to use death-of-innocents
counts to justify actions of any kind. So, cool.
sam:
In any case, I don't think they are comparable, either in outcome or
intent. Is it really your view that the USG is intending to kill
civilians?
msh says:
No. As I've said three or four times now, the USG and UKG would have
been delighted if the Iraqi civilians had just packed up and moved
away. What I'm saying is that they don't care if they kill thousands
of Iraqi innocents if by so doing they can save the lives of even a
few US/UK combatants. This violates the GC, the MOQ, and basic
Christian beliefs, and, in addition, it annoys the hell out of ME. I
don't see how this activity can be justified on moral grounds.
> msh says:
> First, I think if we're going to use the phrase "terrorist group"
> we'll probably need to agree on a definition of terrorism My
> position is that terrorism is a tactic employed by entities trying
> to achieve political goals, and that such tactics are by no means
> limited to loosely defined groups like Al Qaeda. In fact, there
> appears to be a direct relationship between the level of terror and
> the level of military power available to the political entity.
sam:
Why don't we run with the definition that Kofi Annan's 'great and
good' came up with a week or two ago: "any action intended to kill or
seriously harm civilians or non-combatants, with the purpose of
intimidating a population or compelling action by a government or
international organisation"?
So if, for example, it could be shown that the USG was intending to
frighten the Iraqi civilian population into accepting democracy, and
were deliberately targeting civilians with their weaponry to that
end, then they would be guilty of terrorism.
msh says:
This IS an example of Platteral Shift. We were talking about coming
to grips with an understanding of terrorism in the sense of your
hypotheitical Al-Queda threat to the US. My point was that, if
9/11 can be called a terrorist attack, then so can the US mining of
Nicaragua's harbors, as well as embargos that cut off medical
supplies and food, blowing up airplanes and autos and buildings in
attempts to kill political enemies, etc.
But you've shifted us away from attacks during peace time to actions
during war. All war actions are attempts to compel certain government
actions, such as surrender. The UN definition limits "terrorism" to
peace time attacks. According to the UN, the war time equivalent of
terrorist acts are called "war crimes." There's plenty of evidence
that intentional bombing of civilian areas is a war crime: the GC
are quite specific on this. So our disagreement here turns on the
meaning of the word intentional. I say when someone performs an
action that he KNOWS will result in the death of innocents, he is
intentionally killing innocents. So far, you've offered no argument
to refute this.
You've also not said whether or not you believe the USG would have
acted in the same way if Baghdad had been full of the families of US
Seantors and Congressmen. Maybe you will later; but I must insist on
an answer to this question eventually, because this is a critical
point. If someone has the power to act in a way that will result in
the death of innocents, but they are willing to act only if the
innocents are not dear to him, then this is the height of hypocrisy
in both the literal and biblical sense. Such a person has no moral
ground for deciding to act. None. And the pretense should be
dropped.
> msh says:
> You seemed to recognize that ungoing USG support for brutal
> dictators invalidates any attempt to argue that Iraq was attacked
in
> order to remove Hussein because he was a brutal dictator. Am I
> wrong here?
No, I agree with that. I do not believe that the true explanation for
USG actions in Iraq was the desire to remove a brutal dictator from
power. I think the facts which prove that are the present
support/tolerance of brutal dictators elsewhere (not the historic
argument that the USG has previously supported brutal dictators,
which is true, but doesn't address the 'we might have changed'
point).
msh says:
Cool.
<snipped a minor point about neo-cons>
> Sam argued that present governments are more humane than
predecessors:
msh says: On the other hand, how can we say that the recent near
unilateral invasion of Iraq is "significantly better" than anything
that came before? In what sense is this action "humanitarian," when
world opinion was 10 to 1 against it? How can you ignore the
objections of 90% of humanity and call your action "humane?"
sam:
On the latter point, "100,000 lemmings can't be wrong". If popular
acceptance was the mark of humane action we'd still have the death
penalty in England.
msh says:
People aren't lemmings, and all people should have some say regarding
events that will affect them. What's odd here is that you are
denying the legitimacy of democratic institutions, assumming there
are such things. You are suggesting there is some small ultimately
moral subset of humanity who should rule the world, by violence if
necessary, regardless of the majority opinion.
I mean, I sympathize with what you are saying, to an extent. But if
capital punishment in England was eliminated against the wishes of
the clear majority of British citizens, then I say doing so was
wrong, within that particular sphere of democracy. If you claim to
be democratic, and you believe a democratic decision is wrong, your
moral responsibility is to educate people to your pont of view. Part
of this education will start from the cradle, and will involve
working assiduously for the free and open interchange of the full
spectrum of ideas. So, instead of emphasizing the Bible and its eye-
for-an-eye, you'd work to insure that Camus' Reflections On The
Guillotine will receive equal attention.
Anyway, you are not really in favor of democracy if you are going to
violently oppose democratic decisions you don't like. (Of course,
all of the foregoing assumes we really do have working democratic
institutions, which we do not.)
> Some snips on the question of UN resolutions, mostly agreed...
> Mark asks if Sam thinks the occasional imperial act of beneficience
justifies the general slaughter of imperialism...
> sam:
> Actually yes. But this one might fit better in the capitalism
> thread. Have you ever seen Monty Python's "The life of Brian"?
>
> msh says:
> Ok. But let's always look on the bright side of life. Dee dum, de
> dum, de dum de dum de dum...
sam:
I was thinking of 'what have the Romans ever done for us?' I'm not
persuaded that 'imperialist' is automatically an insult, that's all.
msh says:
I know. But I'd hoped you would recognize that argument for what it
is: A variation of "But at least Hitler made the trains run on-
time." Or was it Mussolini?
Point is, EVERY imperial power has claimed that they are bringing
light to the savages. (The Dutch Empire was a possible exception;
much to their credit, they never pretended that their imperialist
adventures were really some sort of civilizing mission (sorry Wim)).
> 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?
sam: I don't think there is a fully rational answer. How do you
weigh up the worth of a life?
msh says:
Exactly. So, in holding the high ground of morality, we cannot act
in a way we know will result in the death of innocents. Especially
when we would act differently, if the innocents were loved ones and
not strangers. (Not quite Dostoyevsky, but not bad. :-) )
> 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.
sam:
I think you've made a logical leap. To say that USG values US lives
more highly than Iraqi lives is not to say that the USG gives Iraqi
lives no value at all.
msh says:
I don't see the leap. And I don't say what you say I say. Again, my
claim is that the USG-UKG values the lives of innocents less than the
lives of it's combatants, at least when the innocents are strangers
unfortunate enough to be living in a foreign country the USG -UKG
wants to invade.
sam:
I'm not persuaded of that point.
msh says:
I know. But you should be. Consider it just from the Christian
angle alone.
sam:
And I don't think it possible (or perhaps even desirable) that this
sort of preference be removed. I will always value my family more
than anyone else's. I expect that's a hard-wired biological
phenomenon, and I can't see the point in trying to change it.
msh says:
I'm a little surprised by this is very weak reasoning. Men are hard-
wired to father 1000 children a year; would you encourage that sort
of behavior? Evolution in the MOQ means rising above our biological
inclinations when they prove detrimental to society. And, within
Christianity, aren't you encouraged to expand your notion of family
to include the family of man?
< snip some minor disagreement....>
sam:
You've caught me at a good point. For what it's worth though, I'm
enjoying the discussion greatly. If we're serious about pursuing the
truth then we have to be able to subject our deepest beliefs to
intelligent and sceptical scrutiny - that's the only way we're going
to grow.
msh says:
Me too. Thanks.
BTW, in looking at your argument about US concern for International
Law (IL) as a validiation of the attack, I think you are on pretty
hopeless ground. It will be quite simple to show that the US cares
not a wit about IL, unless it can be useful in achieving realpolitik
goals.
Are you sure you want me to spend time on it, the way it's
formulated? Or do you want to come back with something that doesn't
suggest that the USG-UKG is the guiding light of international
diplomacy?
Best,
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 - 21:09:33 GMT