From: Wim Nusselder (wim.nusselder@antenna.nl)
Date: Tue Jun 01 2004 - 06:03:42 BST
Dear Platt,
You wrote 26 May 2004 12:04:34 -0400:
'Your response is typical of many who, if asked by a poll taker, would call
themselves Christians but who, like you, do NOT take bible stories
literally.
I count myself among these. So I suggest we take poll results with a grain
of salt (as you do), and be suspicious of those who, without qualification,
label all who identify themselves as religious as being "irrational". ...
Again, let's be careful about the blanket phrase "irrational religion".'
I agree (didn't know you would call yourself Christian too). I didn't mean
'irrational religion' as a blanket phrase, but as an indication of only a
part of religion.
You wrote:
'Use military force only as a last resort when all else fails. I agree. What
about preemptive military force?'
I see the need for enforcement of more or less generally accepted ends by a
society on some of its members that have chosen to belong to that society
and that have had a fair chance to democratically influence those ends. The
amount of force that can morally be used by that society depends on the
extent to which those defective members threaten that society. In other
words: within a democratic nation the police may need to use violence
(including pre-emptive violence) against those suspected of crime. Lethal
violence is as immoral as capital punishment of course, as is taking risks
that the violence used could be lethal as long as crime is only suspected
and not proved.
On a global level there is no such society. There's no 'police-like'
institution that can represent a democratic 'state-like' institution and
militarily enforce more or less generally accepted ends on countries or
states that have chosen to belong to such a global society. That makes
military intervention by one nation in another nation (including pre-emptive
intervention) illegal. Although Security Council backed military
intervention by a coalition of nations is better than such intervention
without that backing, the Security Council is so far from 'democratic', that
I hesitate to call it moral.
I agree with using the MoQ to determine whether a 'self' is worth defending.
You don't believe 'collective selves' exist. What kind of 'self' does US
government refer to then if it motivates 'war against terrorism' as
'self-defense'?
You wrote:
'In regards to Iraq, it was the opinion of the world intelligence community
prior to the war that Saddam possessed WMDs. It was realistic on the part of
the U.S to believe, given past relations and actions of Saddam, that he
might use them as he had in the past.'
It was not realistic to believe that Saddam could and might use them against
the USA. It was not realistic to believe that Saddam might pass them on to
the like of Osama bin Laden who might use them against the USA, but just as
likely against the Iraqi and Saudi regimes. The WMDs Saddam HAD used (in
Halabja, in the period when he had the support of the USA) were chemical.
Saddam had no missiles who could have carried these to the USA. Anything
short of largely destroying several major American cities would not
threaten the American 'self' understood as its social and intellectual
patterns of value. Exaggerating the terrorist threat and restricting
individual freedom in order to create more 'security' is much more likely to
endanger this American 'self' than the potential effects of what Saddam
could have inflicted on the USA.
Just as justifying torture as method to get information from suspected
terrorists would destroy this American 'self' at least in the eyes of those
outside the USA who see its system of justice as an example and for those in
Europe who still praise the conduct of American soldiers after the defeat of
Hitler.
You wrote:
'IMO there are no immoral methods of interrogation of criminals dedicated to
mass murder. ... Until we can read people's minds, guessing at motives is
futile and yes, irrational.'
Isn't dedication to mass murder an example of motives that can only be
guessed at, too? (In a situation in which it is obviously not in someone's
advantage to be open about them, that is.) Isn't a basic principle of the
American system of justice (which it holds as example to the rest of the
world) that suspected criminals are to be assumed innocent until proven
guilty? And doesn't a suspect have the right to be silent during
interrogation?
You wrote:
'I assume when you refer to "ALL U.N. resolutions" [to be enforced to make
enforcing one relatively rational] that you have resolutions pertaining to
Israel in mind.'
Among others, yes. Other referred to South-African apartheid and refer more
recently to scores of African countries.
You wrote:
'The reasonable fear at the time was that Saddam after taking Kuwait would
continue on to take Saudi Arabia, effectively shutting off oil to Western
civilization and bringing about an economic collapse with consequent
suffering to millions.'
Was that an official reason for coming to the aid of Kuwait? Wouldn't Saddam
have been in need of selling that oil too after conquering Kuwait and Saudi
Arabia to finance his palaces and arms (mainly to be bought from Western
companies)?
You wrote:
'We differ on the possible effectiveness of "non-military lures" in regards
to radical Islam. Leaders of radical Islam have made clear their intentions.
For example, from Muslim theorist Syed Abul Ala Mandudi: "Islam requires the
earth--not just a portion, but the whole planet--not because sovereignty
over the earth should be wrested from one Nation or several Nations and
vested in one particular Nation, but because the entire mankind should
benefit from Islam which is the programme of well-being for all humanity."'
The lure of EU membership is one of the reasons why radical Islam doesn't
make a chance in Turkey. A decision to cut of this possibility would
certainly strengthen radical Islam there.
Your quote makes clear that he refers to converting people to the Islam, not
to conquering nations. It doesn't refer to the means to be used. It doesn't
appear more horrific to me than the statements about proselytizing
Christians have been making for centuries.
You wrote:
'I think the history of both German and Japan following WWII belie your
assertions [that "a totalitarian regime can be ended with military means,
but a democratic one cannot be built that way"].'
Were their democracies built with military means?? Germany at least was a
democracy before WWII. The Marshall plan and European Union (first ECCS and
EEC) were the most important means of resurrecting and strengthening it. I
already mentioned the conduct of American soldiers after the defeat of
Hitler, which was essential to limit the negative side-effects (i.e.
anti-Americanism) of ending Hitler's regime with military means.
You wrote:
'Never heard of that. ["Is it true that representatives of dictatorial
regimes (especially Latin-American ones) learnt such {interrogation} methods
in the past in the School of the Americas? Is it true that this school was
closed when that was made public somewhere in the 1990's ... only to be
reopened under another name?"] Is that from the same paper that published
the statistics about American religious belief? Sometimes I wonder if there
are really any credible sources of information left.'
I don't remember my source of those rumors. Not 'de Volkskrant' I think, not
recently at least. According to several internet sources it was only in 2001
that the 'School of the Americas' was renamed 'Western Hemisphere Institute
for Security Cooperation'. Its website is www.benning.army.mil/whinsec .
A General Accounting Office report of August 1996 to the House of
Representatives states:
'concerns about the continued need for the School in the post-Cold War
period have surfaced, driven in part by
adverse publicity over human rights violations associated with past students
of the School' (source:
www.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/useftp.cgi?IPaddress=wais.access.gpo.gov&filename=ns9617
8.txt&directory=/diskb/wais/data/gao ) If you google for 'School of the
Americas' or 'Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation' you
find lots of sources, at least for the rumor. It's difficult for me to
assess their credibility. That's why I asked you.
You wrote:
'If you believe there is a hidden agenda having to do with literal beliefs
in Bible stories, I would consider that irrational. It's more or less
typical of those against U.S. policy to attribute some sinister motivation
behind it without citing evidence to back up their conspiracy theories.
Until we can read people's minds, guessing at motives is futile and yes,
irrational.'
There's no need to read people's minds if they write and read bestsellers.
If you google for 'revelation Israel "foreign policy"' there's plenty of
references too. Again it is difficult for me to assess their credibility.
Can you have a look? For instance www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=15221
seems a quite credible account of the influence of fundamentalist Christians
on US foreign policy to me. What do you think?
You wrote:
'Do you believe your Amsterdam is safe from an atomic weapon in the hands of
a Muslim terrorist?'
Yes, relatively so. Anti-western terrorists won't be able to get hold of
more than a few atomic weapons and Amsterdam will not be among their first
targets. Dirty bombs are another matter, but they wouldn't threaten Western
civilization; not necessarily more than Chernobyl did, that is.
You wrote:
'I consider Western civilization or the "self-interest" thereof to be very
much worth defending. The alternative is a return to the Middle Ages. I
think it's in the global public interest, if there is such a thing, to
defend against threats to democracy and the guarantees of individual rights
of intellect that Pirsig identifies in Lila.'
I agree. Neither cheap oil nor material well-being in general are essential
for Western civilization, however, and some ways of defending it (e.g.
torturing suspected terrorists) are surer to return us to the Middle Ages
than the actual threats.
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 : Tue Jun 01 2004 - 06:05:58 BST