From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Fri Mar 07 2003 - 13:51:13 GMT
Dear Wim:
> 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
Unless "killing" is implied in the context of song, "dying" would mean
committing suicide to make men free. I don't think the terrorist method
of attempting to remove Saddam is the way to go.
> The way you favor may chain the world for decades to come
> to American jackboots.
I'm sure Europeans can distinguish between American jackboots and
Fascist/Communist 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.
America invested heavily in military superiority to defeat the Axis in WW
II and Communism thereafter. To believe that passive resistance could
have defeated the global ambitions of Germany, Italy, Japan and Russia
is naive. For the King/Gandhi technique to work, the opposition must
have a social moral conscience that is able to engender feelings of guilt.
>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.
America is not the only country producing weapons as the situation in
Iraq and North Korea illustrates. It is their possession of weapons of
mass destruction and willingness to use them that is at the root of the
problem. As for American's promotion of self-interest, if self-defense is
considered to be morally indefensible, then we plead guilty.
> 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.
This is debatable. Past actions of Saddam suggests he has no moral
brake that would prevent him from using weapons of mass destruction
against the U.S. Unlike European countries, America suffered a
horrendous attack and loss of life at the hands of those Saddam
supports.
> 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.
To act after one's own interests is not, as you seem to suggest,
inherently immoral.
> 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.
Forming a UN police force to enforce human rights as defined by a country
like Libya should frighten every freedom-loving person.
> 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.
If the international community had supported the American initiative to
force Saddam to "mend his manners" by adhering to UN demands over
a period of 12 years, war might not now be necessary.
I join you Wim in hoping that war can be avoided. If I thought for a
moment that passive resistance would have an effect on dictators like
Saddam, I would support your strategy. But I'm reminded of Germany in
the 30's when Hitler, breaking the WWI armistice agreement, like
Saddam is breaking the Gulf War peace agreement today, re-armed
while the League of Nations and the Allies looked the other way. Even
when Hitler's ambitions became obvious, appeasement prevailed. I don't
think Hitler's ambitions would have been altered in the slightest by a
King/Gandhi-like protest. The SS would have no compunction in mowing
down a street mob.
The horrific results of Nazism might have been avoided if nations had
had the will to take on Hitler before his arms build up was complete.
Imagine what the world would be like today if the Nazis had developed
the atom bomb. Transfer that prospect to Saddam and you have what I
consider a reasonable basis for disarming and removing him.
But I could be wrong. Men of goodwill can disagree. The risks are high
indeed. We live in a dangerous world. I do not hesitate to join you and
others here and abroad in praying for peace.
Platt
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 : Fri Mar 07 2003 - 13:52:16 GMT