S & A in progress i.e., people burning alive right now, people being crushed to death right now
Sat, 22 Mar 2003 11:10:22 -0800
> From: Jeff Bone [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> This is the kind of crap I'm talking about. I have no friends in
> Bagdhad --- either among the people or among the regime.
> I'm not interested in defending SH. I agree that he does not have the
> right to do what he does.
Oh, I believe you when you note that SH is a bad guy. But you are in
fact his supporter when you specifically try to keep him in power. That
is _exactly_ the result if we listened to you.
With 'enemies' like you SH has no need of friends. Your objectives and
his are perfectly aligned.
> But I also believe we did not win the right to do what we're doing.
> There is a process in place by which we could have won that right ---
> but we tried, and failed.
The veneration of the UN is laughable on its face. Why, exactly, should
the US care about the opinion of Cameroon? Power politics indicates we
have to listen to Russia and China, but using them as an example of
moral sanction is very, very, rich.
> It was up to us to keep trying. It was our
> duty, our obligation to the world. More to the point, it was our
> obligation to ourselves to win that right before proceeding.
The League of Nations is dead. Now, probably, the UN is as well. Had
they lived up to their obligations that would be one thing. They
didn't, so now we are doing the right thing.
Moreover, by citing this you are not arguing against the war, you are
arguing for the war with the permission of Chirac. THEREFORE all
comments regarding actually fighting the war are not relevant to your
What is relevant is defending the idea that Cameroon is a power we
should consult and China is a regime that deserves as much or more moral
respect than Britain and the US.
> We are operating outside of our own rights to prevent a tyrant from
> operating outside of his. That's called "hypocrisy" where I'm from.
Ineffective legal fictions versus the interests of real live people.
And you call this a moral position?
> Right thing. Wrong way. We lose.
Right thing. Right Way. We win. Humiliating the French and
demonstrating how silly the UN is are just bonus points.
> However good our intents, however
> noble the goals --- we do not occupy the moral high ground in this
Of course we occupy the moral high ground. Unless, of course, you want
to claim SH has that ground.
> Morals are consensual, not inherent --- and we failed to
> operate within that consensual moral framework.
What a nice justification of Nazi death camps.
> > That _is_ what you have been
> > supporting, leaving the man in place.
> Try hard to understand this: the world isn't all black and white.
> not supporting anything --- I'm OPPOSING the way we've gone about
> Not the same as SUPPORTING Saddam Hussein. Casting things in that
> is called a "false dichotomy" and it's a logic error.
Try hard to understand this. You would leave him in power forever.
That IS supporting SH. The only way to remove SH is how we are doing
it. Perhaps the dream of doing it a different way had some credibility
12+ years ago. It doesn't, now.
Not taking responsibility for the consequences of your actions is a
childish act of moral cowardice. Pointing that out is simply rubbing
your nose in it.