From: Elizaphanian (elizaphanian@tiscali.co.uk)
Date: Wed Mar 26 2003 - 15:16:50 GMT
Hi Wim,
> If you mean that the issue is whether Saddam Hussein, as a dictator that
> maltreats the people he rules, should be removed from power, increased
> inspections that limit his space for maneuver ARE part of the issue, if
> outright removing him from power by external military force entails too
many
> risks for the Iraqi people, for the rest of the region and for the world
as
> a whole.
My point was really that 1441 wasn't about inspections, but about whether
Hussein had made the 'fundamental political decision to disarm'. We're now
in the position of waiting to see if the intervention causes too much
suffering.
> There is a good humanitarian case for intervention by a kind of global
> police force in Iraq, in North-Korea and in lots of other countries where
> people are structurally maltreated by their governments or where their
> governments are not able or willing to protect them against maltreatment
by
> other forces. There is NO good humanitarian case under present or ideal
> international law for intervention in these countries by the US. The US
> simply doesn't fit the job description of a good global policeman, because
> of its commitment to use its power mainly where its national interests
lie.
OK, let us accept that as true - that the US will act in its own
self-interest - it may be that the US is the only policeman that we a) have
or b) are likely to get in the foreseeable future. As US self-interest is
comparatively benign, I see room for hope.
> 'Humanitarian' intervention by the US (and consequent strengthening of the
> pattern that the US does as it pleases) may well postpone the prospect of
a
> democratic global government with global policing power.
I think we're a long way from that. And democracy is not a panacea - even
when it is better than many alternatives.
> A democratic global government with global policing power IS an option
> available to Bush now. He could pass over the supreme command of US forces
> to Kofi Annan requiring democratisation of the UN in return.
If Bush tried to do this he would be considered insane - and drummed out of
office. I guess I just see these proposals - however desirable in the long
run - as unattainable in the present situation.
> Getting
> agreement on democratisation (voting power relative to population sizes,
> gradual raising of requirements for representativeness of governments if
> they want to be have a vote) in UN, World Bank, International Monetary
Fund
> etc. might prove to be much easier than blackmailing Security Council
> members into sanctioning the wars the US wants to fight to protect its own
> interests.
Should, eg, China be given as many votes as India, when they have comparable
population levels, even though one is a democracy and one an authoritarian
state?
> Our views on Christianity indeed appear to be bridgeable.
Hooray!
> Your understanding
> of the doctrine of the Fall as I understand it is - approximately (-; -
that
> we are forced to choose between bad and worse.
Precisely so. Sometimes the best outcome is a bad outcome.
> You already confessed that
> lack of faith might keep you from trying ways out of such deadlocks. In
> MoQish: it's just static PATTERNS we are talking about, not absolute
> determination, that forces us. Trust God, trust DQ, be open to it, and
other
> options will show themselves.
I don't think that is enough of an answer.
> I only understand 'grace' in the expression 'the grace of God as shown in
> the life of ...' in Quaker eulogies for the deceased, probably because
'sin'
> is for me (indeed) only a matter of over-identification with static
patterns
> of value. I don't know how that relates to your '100% Protestant
> understanding' of 'grace'.
Luther emphasises salvation by faith not works, ie a free gift of God to all
who turn to him. That's what I meant by 100% Protestant. A bit misleading,
as it is also very traditional. It just got lost sight of in late medieval
Catholicism. "Grace finds beauty... in ugly things"
> I agree that 'we need to feed our social level static patterns just as
much
> as we need to feed our biological level static patterns, even if fourth
> level insights change their shape (and motivation).'
> Just as fourth level insights teach us that we can feed our biological
level
> patterns of value in better ways than with junk food, they also teach me
> that I can feed my social level patterns of value in better ways than with
> blind following of whoever imposes himself as leader and DQ insights teach
> me that I can feed my intellectual level patterns of value in better ways
> than with myth, ritual, magic and other low quality intellectual (!)
> symbolism.
So we agree on the framework, we just disagree on what counts as the social
equivalent of 'junk food'? How do you feed your social patterns?
> You also wrote 3 Mar 2003 12:02:32 -0000:
> 'Are you claiming that there is an equivalence between 'new' and
'quality',
> such that the new is necessarily good? If so, I think there is quite a big
> disagreement lurking here....'
>
> No, I claimed that 'dynamic' can be recognized by 'new'. Every experience
> (not only new experience) is quality.
How do you distinguish between randomly new and new which is DQ?
I respect your opinions re the Todd Beamer situation I referenced.
Sam
The actual outlook is very dark, and any serious thought should start from
that fact. (George Orwell)
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 : Wed Mar 26 2003 - 18:04:34 GMT