From: Elizaphanian (elizaphanian@tiscali.co.uk)
Date: Fri Mar 14 2003 - 22:53:57 GMT
Hi Andy,
> Andy: Very nice.
>
> and now its off I go to the bookstore once again.
I've talked about Neil Gaiman on the list once or twice before. He's a big
influence, and a wonderful read.
You seem very familiar with the list, and I seem to remember your name, but
you've obviously been quiet for a while, before rejoining the list. Welcome
(back) - I have enjoyed reading your comments.
> Sam, I usually like the quotes you include at the end of each post. Not
> always, but usually. Platt's opinion on most issues are fairly
> predictable. You, however, can be an enigma. As someone influenced by
> Platt and Risky Rog, but also someone who seems not as likely to simply
> repeat dogmatic mantras from talk radio, or major news outlets, I was more
> interested in your thoughts on the "costs" of using violence to eliminate
a
> violent dictator.
Did that mean that I do sound like someone from talk radio or not? I wasn't
clear (grin).
Some simple answers, then something more.
> Is the removal of Saddam worth the price of one innocent
> life?
Yes.
>How about two?
Yes
> How many lives would you equate this objective too?
Less than a hundred thousand, probably less than fifty thousand, hopefully
less than ten thousand, with grace, less than a thousand.
The status quo does not equate to choosing not to allow the death of
innocent people, however. Saddam is reckoned to have caused over a million
people to die. Let's say that applies over twenty years, that's fifty
thousand a year, and counting. Sanctions have caused up to half a million
deaths (UN figures, derived from Iraqi government figures). My bottom line
is that the status quo is unsustainable and wrong. "Woe to those who cry
'Peace, Peace' when there is no peace" (the prophet Jeremiah, I think)
> And, what do you think of the utility of the United Nations?
I would like to see a world government based on a firm foundation in human
rights and democratic legitimacy, with an unshakeable commitment to true
subsidiarity. It's a dream, but the UN is probably a step along the way. I
don't see it as the fount of moral legitimacy.
> Is the US
> justified in going to war without the backing of the security council?
Yes.
> Do
> you fear the possible repercussions of a US led war in Iraq, in terms of
an
> increase in terroristic retaliations around the world?
The terrorist problem exists. In the short term, war in Iraq will probably
increase the risk. I think there is room for hoping that a short and
successful war will diminish the long term risk. Of course, there is a clear
risk that the war will not be short and successful, in which case it will
all go horribly wrong.
I do fear the outcome. I fear the outcome in Korea much much more. The
prospects of dealing with that through the international fora diminished
rapidly in the last two months, thanks primarily to the French.
> Finally, I wonder,
> if you think it is possible to "bomb the world to Peace."
Once upon a time, I wrote on this list: "Thesis three: Military force cannot
defeat an intellectual pattern." I still think that's true. It can't create
an intellectual pattern either. You can't force someone to choose freedom.
But you can remove an obstacle to that person claiming freedom.
> Can peace ever
> be the final outcome of extreme violent actions?
Probably not this side of the eschaton. Yet Western Europe has been at peace
for over fifty years, after extremely violent actions, as has Japan. I think
you have to make choices, acknowledging all the time that you are likely to
make mistakes. It's the people who don't seem to feel able to admit mistakes
that worry me.
> I am sincerely in your
> thoughts.
Is that what you meant to say?
> Although, my mind is already made up on the answers to the above
> questions (y,n,1,very useful,n,y,n,n), I like to know what other
thoughtful
> people think.
In 'The Brothers Karamazov' Ivan tells Alyosha why he rejects God. He
doesn't not believe in God, he just rejects him. He says that no possible
future happiness can justify the suffering of one innocent child, so he
'respectfully returns the ticket' (of entry to the world) back to God.
I think that he is right. Yet I also think that it is not possible to return
the ticket - we either give in to despair or we do the best we can. Doing
the best we can means making mucky choices, where, often, no choice
presents itself clearly as the right way forward. That underlies my 'yes'
answers to the early questions.
As I say, the really scary ones are those who think they know the answers,
and are prepared to sacrifice everything to enact that answer. 9/11 was one
outcome of that attitude, but so were the French and Russian revolutions.
Fundamentalists exist in various walks of life, including (especially
including) our own.
Cheers
Sam
"Andros knows that he will not live to see the tree blossom again.
It is going to be a beautiful day."
(Neil Gaiman, Brief Lives)
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 14 2003 - 22:53:00 GMT