----- Original Message ----- From: "Gautam Mukunda" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2003 7:51 PM Subject: RE: EU Warns Iraq It Faces 'Last Chance' > > So what? The argument that we let black people die in > Africa so we need to let Arabs die in Iraq is a > profoundly surreal type of affirmative action.
The actual argument is that human rights is not really at issue, because we allow far worse violations all the time. If protecting human rights was the real issue, then we would pick the worse human rights violations, stop that, and work your way down as you are able. There seems to be a true statement. The real purpose of American foreign policy does seem to be to protect the interests of the US. That would be immoral if we were to attack Iraq because it wished to sell its oil at what the market would bear instead of at prices that we wished to pay. You stated/alluded to this in you shortened checklist for war. (The original was 4 items IIRC, with 3. are we likely to succeed 4. is there no way short of war to met our essential objectives. Added to the two you just gave. My understanding is that the suffering in Iraq is not the prime factor in going to war now. Our potential to alleviate the suffering gives credence to the concept that that we are not going to war immorally. One could also think of something representing a points system for 1 & 2. If, after considering all of the costs of going to war, something is borderline not in our interest, but it would greatly improve the lives of the oppressed citizens of a country, then it could very well be the right thing to do. The argument about a strong #1 is that if an action is very much in our national interests, we may convince ourselves its really best for the people in the country being attacked. I think that this is the source of the questioning of the real motivation. >It's telling, actually, that ad hominem attacks > are the best the anti-war movement seems capable of > doing. The actual merits of the policy are almost > never debated. It's always about that oil hungry > Texas cowboy. Actually, there is another point. There is the argument that we will go in with a splash, muck around a little bit, pick the wrong folks as friends, find that our "friends" are using us to settle scores, get out and watch the whole thing fall apart into a quagmire that would make the Balkans look wonderful. The real question that I see is whether war is better than using the threat of war to keep Hussein preoccupied with fooling the inspectors and the French and Germans so worried about restraining "that crazy cowboy" that they have no time to argue that we need to lift the sections because Hussein is now a nice boy who has learned his lesson. Personally, I agree that going to war is the best thing for the people of Iraq, but I'm not as certain that it is a no brainer as you appear to be. Earlier you talked about only a few months of running the country. What happens if Iraq disintegrates into a civil war after that? If it just breaks, and the Kurds start pushing for a free Kurdish nation that includes part of Turkey? Do you have numbers that indicate how many people are killed every year by Hussein? I won't argue against the proposition that the war will kill fewer than Hussein kills in a year, but it is not clear to me that Iraq will not fall into a situation that would make the Balkans look easy. I really think your idea of letting go in a few months is overly optimistic. Also, I can envision worse case scenarios that are worse than Hussein. However, I would agree that, from the position of what's best for the people of Iraq, its a gamble worth taking. I just don't see the peace being a slam dunk. And, a mess after we invade Iraq will not be in the interest of the US. You know I live in an area that has a lot of people in uniform; including a number of older reserve officers who have been called up. In our church, there is a thoughtful opposition to Bush's plan based not on the view that he is evil (many of these folks voted for him) but on the fear that it will blow up in our face after the war. A good conservative navy brat is opposed to Bush's plan. If Bush has planned better than I though and/or the task is easier that I think, that would be wonderful. But, I always think that one should assume Murphy's law will apply. Obviously, believing in Murphy's law doesn't mean doing nothing, engineers who believe in it have done quite a bit. But, it does require a lot of care before going in. Now, this doesn't make it onto the signs in the anti-war march. I'll agree that if people argue that "Bush is starting the war to 1) clean up a family mess 2) to steal oil 3) as part of a plan to take over the world Then that argument can be dismissed. But, the trepidation of many Americans is both more measured and more reasoned. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
