Re: MD The Quality of removing Saddam Hussein from power.

From: Wim Nusselder (wim.nusselder@antenna.nl)
Date: Thu Mar 06 2003 - 22:19:00 GMT

  • Next message: SQUONKSTAIL@aol.com: "Re: MD pragMATTic"

    Dear Platt,

    You quoted 18 Feb 2003 11:54:13 -0500:
    "In the beauty of the lilies Christ was born, across the sea,
    With a glory in His bosom that transfigures you and me;
    As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free!
    While God is marching on."

    I have no quarrel with 'dying to make men free' but with 'killing to make
    men free'; not with removing Saddam Hussein from power, but with a specific
    way of doing so. The way you favor may chain the world for decades to come
    to American jackboots.
    I don't have a clear alternative except a suggestion to develop it from the
    legacy of M.K. Gandhi and Martin Luther King. Non-violent direct action is
    also a way to make men free that entails the risk to die. It took Gandhi a
    lifetime to develop a way to free India from British rule.
    If America hadn't invested so heavily in military superiority, it could have
    developed the legacy of King for export purposes instead of weapons. While
    allegedly exporting weapons to help people to free themselves or defend
    their legitimate interests, American weapons are all too often used to chain
    people and to defend oppressive regimes. While allegedly wanting
    superpower-status to spread democracy and freedom, American foreign policy
    is quite unashamedly sold internally as promotion of self-interest. The
    means King and Gandhi developed have no such dual purposes.

    There is enough time, I think, to take the sharp edge off American
    war-efforts. Saddam Hussein is no more of a threat to American interests or
    to world-peace than quite a few other dictators. If America would take the
    initiative for open decision-making of 'the international community' about
    who should be removed from power, by what means and where to start, the
    outcome may still be war (after some postponing), but at least America
    could not be said any more to be only after its own interests. Also the idea
    of a global society with a police-force to subdue lower quality social
    patterns of value (in your words: biology) would get some reality. And ...
    there would be a chance that other ways than war would be found or that
    greater consistency in words and actions of 'the international community'
    would convince those dictators to mend their manners.

    With friendly greetings,

    Wim

    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 : Thu Mar 06 2003 - 22:17:54 GMT