From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Wed Jun 02 2004 - 22:29:57 BST
Dear Wim,
> 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 would hope that if my nation's leaders knew that another nation was
planning an attack that they would take whatever steps were necessary to
prevent it. The right of any nation to self-defense is accepted by all.
> 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'?
"Self-defense" when applied to a nation is a metaphor, a short-hand way of
saying an nation is morally justified to to defend itself against attack,
just as your-self and my-self are justified to defend our-selves from an
assault.
> 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.
Why not? He hated the U.S., fired at our planes patrolling the no-fly
zone. That in itself was an act of war.
> 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.
Questionable. Everyone in the Middle East has his price.
> 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.
So destroying a few thousand Americans by exploding a bomb containing
serin gas wouldn't call for an attempt to prevent such a catastrophe? How
about 10,000 or 100,000 or 500,000? At what point would you say prevention
was justified? When would you go to war?
> 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.
Since Saddam is gone, thanks to the U.S.and its allies, we have avoided
disaster from that source which was much more worrisome than any imagined
threats from over-eager security concerns.
> 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.
Well, I don't see that Europe looks to the U.S. for leadership in matters
of justice anyway. In fact, we get precious little praise for saving
Europe from totalitarian rule twice in the last 100 years. I'm always
stunned by the lack of gratitude on the part of Europeans towards the U.S.
> 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?
In this war against terrorism, those who commit or seek to commit terrorist acts do
not come under the protections of the Geneva convention nor under the
American system of justice.
> 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.
Which shows the ineffectiveness of the U.N. IMO the U.S. should get out of
U.N. since it's proved to an utter failure in achieving its purpose of
maintaining peace. What did the U.N. do to prevent the attack on 9/11?
> 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)?
Would you want Saddam in control of the oil on which Europe as well as the
rest of the civilized world depends? Can you imagine the blackmail he
could have engineered?.
> 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.
Except Christians haven't flown airplanes into buildings or blown up any
trains lately. Muslim actions back their words, as does their silence in
the face of "horrific" acts by their believers, like beheading captives.
> 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.
The democracies in both Germany and Japan were imposed at the point of a
gun. That's "military means" in my book. Germans hated the Americans for a
long time after the occupation which lasted for seven years I believe,
longer in Japan. Compare that to some who think we should leave Iraq
tomorrow morning.
> 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.
Well, to bring our conversation back to what we should be talking about,
the MOQ, I can only repeat what Pirsig had to say about dealing with
threats to civilization:
"The instrument of conversation between society and biology has always
been a policeman or a soldier and his gun." (Lila, 24)
Thanks for an interesting exchange of views, Wim. I doubt if either of us
will change the other's mind on these issues, but at least we're not
shooting at one another. I'm not surprised by your pacifist views since
they are central in the Quaker belief system. Were everyone like you,
there would indeed be peace in the world.
Best regards,
Platt
Best regards,
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 : Wed Jun 02 2004 - 22:27:39 BST