 |
| 
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 4/16/2003 10:27 AM (GMT -6) |   | I am transplanting some messages that were first posted in the topic on how one can "solve" the problem of evil...
DLW:Since we all have the capacity for evil and falling, and typically our actions are geared to the future, with much of the future being uncertain, what is the evil that must be battled is not so straight-forward.
For example, I told my students before the war began that whether or not it would be justified depended on its length/casualties and how it will be resolved and that these two things were quite uncertain, but that anti-war protestors were doing nothing to help either one of them. The latter is still uncertain, but I think it depends on the willingness of Christians and others to put their lives at risk to ensure that peace will be established in Iraq.
Electra then wrote...
quote:
Yes, but since we all have the capacity for evil and falling, and typically our actions are geared to the future, with much of the future being uncertain, what is the evil that must be battled is not so straight-forward.
I don't see how order addresses the problem of uncertainty any more adequately than the warfare metaphor, especially if the nature of the order is not specified (e.g. order as an end in itself is no garantee that this end will be good rather than evil).
quote:
For example, I told my students before the war began that whether or not it would be justified depended on its length/casualties and how it will be resolved and that these two things were quite uncertain, but that anti-war protestors were doing nothing to help either one of them. The latter is still uncertain, but I think it depends on the willingness of Christians and others to put their lives at risk to ensure that peace will be established in Iraq.
You seem to be confusing just cause (the reason for going to war) and just prosecution (the way the war is fought). Though some hold that the prosecution of an invasion of an impoverished and disarmed nation by a superpower is inherently unjust, it seems that the American prosecution of this war has been quite just in terms of the successful efforts to minimize casualities. However, the just prosecution of this war is only one factor in determining the just cause of the war. For many who oppose the war, its just prosecution—while cause to celebrate—is not enough to justify its cause.
Just cause for war has traditionally included defence of self or others against clear and present danger. I personally do not find the evidence that Iraqi WMD present a clear and present danger that warranted interrupting internationally supported inspections with military invasion. I think that invasive foreign policies threaten the national security of ourselves and the Arab region more than weapons Sadam Hussein may or may not have and may or may not sell to terrorists who may or may not use them against us. I find it difficult to justify risking the lives of our own troops, Iraqi troops, and Iraqi civilians on the basis of the evidence supporting these possibilities.
I do believe that Sadam Hussein poses clear and present danger to the Iraqi people, and he has for the last three decades. However, I do not believe that military intervention is the most just way to respond to this threat, because in seeking to destroy Sadam Hussein's regime via invasion, we further threaten the very people we are trying to defend. I think that humanitarian aid is a more just way to empower the Iraqi people in their resistance to Sadam's regime, and international law is a more just way to prosecute the regime for its crimes against humanity. Both humanitarian and legal approaches are more likely to create greater international cooperation and security than military invasion that interrupts both humanitarian aid and rule of law.
Love in action is a harsh and dreadful thing. ~ Dostoevsky
Edited by - Electra on 04/15/2003 2:22:21 PM
DLW replied...
Electra:I don't see how order addresses the problem of uncertainty any more adequately than the warfare metaphor, especially if the nature of the order is not specified (e.g. order as an end in itself is no garantee that this end will be good rather than evil).
DLW:The problem of Order takes into account the potential for both the past and future Iraqi and USA regimes to abuse their power. As such, what should be done about the reality of evil in this world is less clear-cut.
Uncertainty is also present in the Warfare Theodicy. There can be unintended consequences. One can engage in friendly fire...but the uncertainty that I am talking about is more radical I think. You may have someone like Billy Graham, thinking he is doing what is right, and end up blessing the elections of presidents Richard Nixon and George Bush in a manner that violates the separation of Church and State and sets up barriers for non-Christians to take Christianity seriously.
quote:
For example, I told my students before the war began that whether or not it would be justified depended on its length/casualties and how it will be resolved and that these two things were quite uncertain, but that anti-war protestors were doing nothing to help either one of them. The latter is still uncertain, but I think it depends on the willingness of Christians and others to put their lives at risk to ensure that peace will be established in Iraq.
Electra:You seem to be confusing just cause (the reason for going to war) and just prosecution (the way the war is fought). Though some hold that the prosecution of an invasion of an impoverished and disarmed nation by a superpower is inherently unjust, it seems that the American prosecution of this war has been quite just in terms of the successful efforts to minimize casualities. However, the just prosecution of this war is only one factor in determining the just cause of the war. For many who oppose the war, its just prosecution—while cause to celebrate—is not enough to justify its cause.
DLW:Please forgive me for not being very thorough, but there are a number of points I didn't mention(I.e., I didn't go into the goals of the war(not all of which have been made public), the length of the war potentially destabilizing the World's Financial Markets; the war spreading and destabizing the entire Middle-East; the extent of urban-warfare that would have a higher casualty(among both US soldiers and innocents); whether the long-pent-up hostilities among the different groups in Iraq will be containable and reconcilable.
So on and so forth. My point was simply that we didn't know and still don't know whether the war will be justified. Now, many of the problems associated with its end would likely happen when Saddam died anyways, so I guess they are not as serious.
Electra:Just cause for war has traditionally included defence of self or others against clear and present danger. I personally do not find the evidence that Iraqi WMD present a clear and present danger that warranted interrupting internationally supported inspections with military invasion. I think that invasive foreign policies threaten the national security of ourselves and the Arab people more than weapons Sadam Hussein may or may not have and may or may not sell to terrorists who may or may not use them against us.
DLW:It depends on how the post-war situation is conducted. Changing the Iraqi regime may cut the funding for Palestinian militants, helping the peace-process progress more fast there. That, in turn, will help to reduce Middle-East tensions/terrorism. Also, noticeably, many Anti-USAmerican Middle Easterners had to confront the fact that the Iraqis were rejoicing over the end of Saddam's regime, since he had been viewed as hero for standing up to the US in the past.
So, I think Arab-US relations did get more tense during the war, but the long-run implications are not clear as of yet...
Electra:I do believe that Sadam Hussein poses clear and present danger to the Iraqi people, and he has for the last three decades. However, I do not believe that military intervention is the most just way to respond to this threat, because in seeking to destroy Sadam Hussein's regime via invasion, we further threaten the very people we are trying to defend. I think that humanitarian aid is a more just way to empower the Iraqi people in their resistance to Sadam's regime, and international law is a more just way to prosecute the regime for its crimes against humanity. Both humanitarian and legal approaches are more likely to create greater international cooperation and security than military invasion that interrupts both humanitarian aid and rule of law.
DLW:Humanitarian aid and int'l institutions were failing wrt to the Iraqi people(The inaction of the UN can be attributed to unilateralism of the French with their economic ties to the old regime in Iraq). If one compares the civilian casualties in this war wrt to other conflicts they were relatively low, particularly compared to the number of fatalities that regularly occurred among the Iraqis under Saddam's regime.
As such, what was in the best long-run interests of the Iraqi people depended and still depend on the two factors I mentioned before.
dlw
Electra replied...
DLW:Humanitarian aid and int'l institutions were failing wrt to the Iraqi people
Electra: I am not as quick to proclaim the failure of humanitarian aid and international institutions. I simply don't know enough about the extent of our own involvement in such efforts. Rather than abandoning them as if their potential to make a difference has been exhausted, I am more inclined to try increasing them—I assume there is plenty of room for these programs to grow. I wonder what would happen to the success of these these efforts if we invested our $80 billion in humanitarianism rather than military invasion? Even if we didn't invest a single dime, lifting the sanctions against Iraq would make a huge humanitarian difference.
DLW: (The inaction of the UN can be attributed to unilateralism of the French with their economic ties to the old regime in Iraq).
Electra: What are you talking about? The UN has been very active in Iraq. For example, maybe you've heard about UN inspections in Iraq, which have greatly contributed to its peaceful disarmament? I don't understand in what sense the French were unilateral? Their unwillingness to abandon peaceful disarmament of Iraq at this time was supported by other nations, such as Russia and China. If France's economic ties to the old regime make you doubt that it could have Iraq's best interest in mind, how do you respond to people who suspect that our interest in regime change is primarily economic? We should not discredit their motives so quickly if we expect others to trust our motives.
DLW: If one compares the civilian casualties in this war wrt to other conflicts they were relatively low, particularly compared to the number of fatalities that regularly occurred among the Iraqis under Saddam's regime.
Electra: Of course the United States looks like a saint when compared to Saddam Hussein's regime. What is your point? I don't find appealing to such a low standard in order to justify our invasion very persuasive. Like I said before, I celebrate the fact that the casualties were low. I'm proud of our soldiers and happy for the Iraqi civilians. I hope and pray that God will bring good out of this, and that the Iraqi people will be more free as a result of our destruction of Sadam Hussein's regime. But I do not believe that military invasion was the most just way to help them in their struggle against oppression, or in the broader struggle for security, especially since approaches that uphold rather than undermine humanitarian aid, rule of law, and international cooperation were far from being exhausted.
Iconoclast then weighed in with the following...
Electra
You seem to be confusing just cause (the reason for going to war) and just prosecution (the way the war is fought).
Iconoclast
My view is that these two things are entangled. Justly prosecuting the war strongly influences the justification of entering into the war. The ‘just cause’ of the war cannot be said to be fully ‘just’ until the actual behavior of the prosecution of the war plays out.
David Bohm said that the only way we can truly know our deep intention is to watch our behavior. Our behavior will betray our deep intention – for good or for ill. Just as unjust means cannot justify a ‘just’ end so a ‘just’ cause (similar to an intention) cannot actually BE ‘just’ until the behavior that comes out of it actualizes itself and brings about that justification. These two are interlocked into a self-supporting relationship. Christopher Alexander said:
These two things are true of every living center:
1. Each center gets its life, always, from the fact that it is helping to support and enliven some larger center.
2. The center becomes precious because of it.
"The Nature of Order - The Phenomenon of Life" - Christopher Alexander
A ‘just’ cause is one that promotes ‘order’. I define increase in order as an increase in ‘life’. Alexander provides a formal and objective ‘material’ or abstract theoretical definition of this. Jesus, of course, showed us what this actually looks like in the spiritual reality we live in.
What I am trying to call out here is that the relationship of just means to just ends is one aspect of the entangled relationship – the other aspect is just cause to just means. When they support each other they bring both into existence. If they are divided – they both fall.
Jesus most succinctly expressed this (in my opinion) by saying that a good tree cannot bear bad fruit (and a bad tree cannot bear bad fruit) as well as saying that we can know a tree by its fruit – if the fruit is good then the tree is good (and if the fruit is bad the tree is bad).
Why is this so? Because to cause good fruit to come about causes one to become “good” and to be “good” causes good fruit to come about.
This is one aspect of the issue. Another aspect of the issue of ‘just cause’ is the nature of chance (free-will ‘chance’ and the resultant probability function) and the fallibility of our knowledge.
To clarify this issue we must first separate intention from the knowledge that one has a ‘just cause’.
To say that George Bush had a demonstrably good intention does not necessarily mean that he had the knowledge required to have a just cause. These are distinctly separate issues. They are however entangled in the sense that if we (and Bush) ultimately see that he had a good intention (based on his behavior) then we would be hard pressed to say that he KNEW that he didn’t have the knowledge for it to be a just cause. Now, at first would want to say that while yes he may have believed that he had the knowledge to decide that it was a just cause it wasn’t necessarily a just cause. Good intentions do not necessarily make something a just cause.
On second thought however we can see how this very formulation leads to the question of how we decide that something we are going to do IS a just cause. This formulation suggests that even if we have good intentions and believe that we have gained the necessary knowledge (facts, logic, third party feedback) to make a determination that some action is justified it is not necessarily justified. Then how do we ever know that it was in fact a ‘just cause’? We only know this by its ‘fruit’. However the very ‘fruit’ – the impact of the action - is greatly determined by the behavior that the action is carried out with. Bonhoeffer would argue here that an act IS truly justified when we have done all this (good intention, facts, logic, thirty party feedback) and prayed about it and THEN committed the action to God.
This is I believe where faith comes in. When we use the best of our abilities to determine a just course of action and carry out that action in accordance with the fullness of the good intent behind the justness of the cause then God blesses our action to bring about the good intent we desire. Thus, through faith, our just action causes the justness of our cause to come about. This is clear to see when our action is not in accordance with the justness of our cause. If our troops wantonly killed civilians and acted like occupiers then we would be hard pressed to say that our cause was just – because clearly is now seen not to be – it was just a pretense.
DLW
If one compares the civilian casualties in this war wrt to other conflicts they were relatively low, particularly compared to the number of fatalities that regularly occurred among the Iraqis under Saddam's regime.
Iconoclast
I am hearing DLW say that a piece of evidence that this war came out of a just cause is that the direct negative consequences of this action (# of civilians killed by our military) were actually less than the direct negative consequences of NOT taking this action (# of civilians that would have been killed by Saddam over the period of time that he PROBABLY would have been in power). Thus, the action in this respect actually increased order which is evidence of it being just.
By the way. I am not going after all this in order to defend the war. My goal is to use this specific issue as a way to get at the underlying issues related to the problem of evil. I tend to agree with you DLW that the very nature of the order of the reality we live in is at the heart of what we think of as the problem of evil. That this world is a complex adaptive system made of free-will agents that we navigate largely based on the inductions we make regarding how people and things will PROBABLY behave. And because of the inherent fallibility we have in the face of our incomplete knowledge based on induction ‘evil’ results happen – we sometimes cause less order than more order even when we intend to bring about more order.
The issue then of determining whether this was a just war comes down to our probability calculations.
What is the probability of Saddam conforming if we continue with alternative means?
What is the probability of our collective desire to make Saddam conform if we don’t go to war now? Could that desire evaporate (as it did on inspections after a number of years) if we don’t act now?
What is the probability of the best result happening if we go to war now rather than continuing to try other alternatives?
In a complex adaptive system one of, if not THE most, powerful determinent of an agent’s behavior is what that agent PREDICTS will happen given that behavior. This is of course mostly ‘induction’ driven. In other words we predict what will happen based on our or other’s experiences. Thus a complex adaptive system is largely INFLUENCE driven. It has been clearly shown that criminals modify their behavior based on their belief of the probability they will get caught and the consequences of getting caught. Thus a responsible agent will use both the carrot and the stick to influence the system to gain the highest order. This can even be seen in such mundane things as directly establishing and enforcing our personal boundaries with others. We say someone is passive aggressive when they have a boundary that they never directly set or enforce – when they seek to establish it through sideways (and therefore unclear) enforcement (punishment) – we all understand this as being less humane. A key aspect of influencing behavior is to build a reputation that you have the iron resolve to use the stick when necessary. The better you do this up-front the less you have to do it and the more humane the system becomes.
Thus, looking through the lens of a complex adaptive system we could make the argument that Bush has both influenced the world that he believed the cause was just and showed the world that he has an iron resolve to take just action on a just cause thereby establishing strong boundaries and clear standards up-front with the concommitant high-probability calculation now installed in all thugs and harbingers of thugs.
He showed that he believe the cause was just by using an open UN process for determining and building consensus that Saddam MUST conform.
He then showed the world that he (and the coalition) had the iron resolve to take action – even when there was not world consensus on taking that action. This actually raised the probability calculation for all thugs around the world because it is now clear to them that when George Bush (America) starts declaring that they are not in compliance and must start conforming then there is a significant probability that they might end up like Saddam Hussein.
He then increased his influence on the world that the cause was actually just by prosecuting the war in a more just rather than less just way (minimizing civilian casualties, no occupation symbols and so on).
He then showed the world that his induction that the Iraqi people would welcome us because they despise Saddam and want freedom was accurate.
He then further showed that he believes his cause is just by influencing Sharon to start backing away from his hard-line stance on giving up occupied territory.
If Bush continues to act in faith – that is, faithfully – to his belief – or is it really a commitment – in it being a just cause by continuing to act in accordance with this commitment then the actual fact of it being a just cause will come in to being and the world will experience greater order – or more abundant life.
thanks,
Iconoclast
Prayer from Kenya
From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me. | | Back to Top | | |
 |
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 4/16/2003 11:32 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Electra:I am not as quick to proclaim the failure of humanitarian aid and international institutions.
My point would be that the Saddam regime had been undermining the intent of humanitarian aid and flaunting the international institutions that had set conditions for the returns to normalcy for his country with the rest of the world after his invasion of Kuwait.
quote:
DLW: (The inaction of the UN can be attributed to unilateralism of the French with their economic ties to the old regime in Iraq).
Electra: What are you talking about? The UN has been very active in Iraq.
The UN failed to take action against numerous failures to comply. France often blocked taking action to ensure such compliance, due in part to its numerous economic ties with the old regime in Iraq.
It is critical to take some time and learn the relevant historical/geo-political facts on issues like this. I wrote a letter titled my anti-anti-war protestor grudge, which was primarily about the failure of most anti-war protestors to learn the facts surrounding Iraq.
Having said that, I was opposed to the time-line of the US administration regarding disarmament/regime-change and how it handled int'l diplomacy. One could say that how they did this is to be lamented especially since for much of the world, he characterizes their view of Evangelical Christianity.
But when the war began, I took that as the sign that the time for debate over its rightness/wrongness as over. For while we do have free-will, our exercise of it judiciously requires that we make judgements about what is subject to being altered and what must be taken as given(at least for now). I took the fact of the war as a given and wrote to my anti-war friends/students(most of them) that what mattered now was to ensure that success in the war did not parlay into an easy re-election for Bush and that the institutions of world-governance be reformed so as to make semi-unilateral actions like this war less likely and to ensure a continuing role for the UN in world-governance, as opposed to its competitors the IMF, World Bank, etc... . I also challenged the protestors to also protest the possibilility that Turkey may act unilaterally against the Kurds in Northern Iraq or the potential use of chemical weapons against the Coalition troops, saying that the only hope Saddam had was to drag the war out long enough with enough costs/casualties that the coalition forces would have to pull out before regime-change took place. I basically argued that anti-war protestors were prolonging the war some-what by giving Saddam the hope that this was possible.
That is all past history, but it illustrates how I adapt open-theism to the analysis of these events, trying to understand to the best of my ability the different factors and making judgements regarding what can and cannot be different.
quote:
Iconoclast wrote:Jesus most succinctly expressed this (in my opinion) by saying that a good tree cannot bear bad fruit (and a bad tree cannot bear bad fruit) as well as saying that we can know a tree by its fruit – if the fruit is good then the tree is good (and if the fruit is bad the tree is bad).
Why is this so? Because to cause good fruit to come about causes one to become “good” and to be “good” causes good fruit to come about.
I don't think it is that simple. I take it as a given that economic/national self-interest will always weigh-in on international manipulations(commonly called relations). Evil may come from good intentions, as with the Prohibition, and Good may come from evil intentions, as with much of what makes US distinct stems from the inter-relations of Whites and Blacks, made possible by the institution of slavery. Also, much of capitalism is based on not-so-good intentions(although, this clearly is not cut and dried).
Yet for me the fact that oil, perhaps personal revenge, concern for the future stability of Saudi Arabia(when its current king dies, the line of succession may not be so clear-cut, which will significantly spill-over onto world relations.), re-election concerns were likely mixed with a concern for freeing the Iraqi people and reducing terrorism(at least in Israel by the Palestinians). All of these range from good to so-so to not-so-good intentions. So I don't want to bless the war in the post-war euphoria. The light at the end of the tunnel may be apparent, but then we got another tunnel to get through and then it still ain't over.
I do agree with Iconoclast that the war provides excellent material for a consideration of both uncertainty and the need for fallible judgements regarding tendencies of existing powers in the world. For example, I supported the threat of war/regime change against Iraq because my understanding was that the critical judgements of those who studied the area were that regime-change was the only thing that Saddam Hussein took seriously. Economic/Diplomatic sanctions were easily disregarded and circumvented due to his insulation from the sufferings of the people of Iraq and the discrete allies he could buy with his oil money. As such, that sinful tendency was taken as given in the determination of what foreign policy should be.
So we will see what comes of the post-war situation. I think that it depends on the willingness of individuals to put their lives at stake to ensure a different, peaceful future for the Iraqi people and that this will ultimately bring opportunities for the sharing of the Gospel, if Christians are willing to take on this responsibility. We must ensure our country does right by Iraq like we did with Germany and Japan and not allow our fears regarding our domestic economy make us withdraw from the international stage again.
dlw
Prayer from Kenya
From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me. | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 4/16/2003 12:23 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Just cause for war has traditionally included defence of self or others against clear and present danger.
I am going to argue that this characterization of just cause is part of fallible and changeable ecclesiastical tradition.
I think that just cause must take into account the future and the need to deliberate on the likely consequences of any military action and what sorts of non-military actions will they be accompanied with to avoid an institutionalization of hostilities between the two countries in question.
As such, with a focus on the future given its proper place, I think there is room for legitimate disagreement regarding whether just cause is present for a war. Although, much of the speculation of anti-war people seems to have been relatively baseless.
Removing Saddam from power, need not be seen as going to turn the arab world against the US. By now, they were well aware of the atrocities he had committed and do not see him as a hero, like many do of Osama Bin Laden.
dlw
Prayer from Kenya
From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Electra
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 611
| Posted 4/17/2003 7:06 AM (GMT -6) | | Iconoclast: …to cause good fruit to come about causes one to become “good” and to be “good” causes good fruit to come about.
Electra: Collapsing just cause and just prosecution is just as problematic as dividing them. For example, Joseph tells his brothers that though they intended evil toward him by selling him into slavery, God used it for good by helping him become second in command in Egypt. Does the good that God brought out of this situation mean that the brothers are no longer responsible for their evil intent toward Joseph? Does the fact that God is working to bring good out of every situation mean that all the intentions behind these situations become good?
Just cause and just prosecution are not divided, but they are distinct. If we do not maintain this distinction, then there would be no difference between judging someone’s heart and judging the outcome of their actions. We are able to judge actions (e.g. according to 10 commandments, Bill of Rights, etc.) but only God has the right to judge hearts.
DLW: I am going to argue that this characterization of just cause is part of fallible and changeable ecclesiastical tradition.
Electra: Could you clarify the intention behind your frequent references to fallibility? The ecclesiastical tradition does not make any claims to infallibility. As a human institution, it is subject to limitation and failure, which is why it is always developing and growing. Are you suggesting that your alternative method somehow gets behind this problem of fallibility annd changeability?
DLW: I think that just cause must take into account the future and the need to deliberate on the likely consequences of any military action and what sorts of non-military actions will they be accompanied with to avoid an institutionalization of hostilities between the two countries in question.
Electra: As I noted before, just prosecution is one factor in determining just war. Before you dismiss “fallible and changeable ecclesiastical tradition,” I suggest you look into it a little. For a start, the seven traditional criteria for just war include:
1. just cause
2. right authority
3. right intention
4. proportionality
5. last resort
6. probability of success
7. moral means
DLW: As such, with a focus on the future given its proper place, I think there is room for legitimate disagreement regarding whether just cause is present for a war. Although, much of the speculation of anti-war people seems to have been relatively baseless.
Electra: Many opponents to the war, including heads of state, believe that the coalition’s accusation that Sadam Hussein possesses WMD is relatively baseless. This is one reason other members of the UN Security Council did not believe the cause for invasion was just. You continue to reduce international opposition to this war to Frace, and continue to present the motives behind French opposition to invading Iraq as entirely economic. Does economic interest automatically disqualify any humanitarian interest in what is best for the region? Do you realize that this is the exact same logic—which you dismiss as “relatively baseless”—anti-war people use to discredit the US motives in invasion?
Electra
Love in action is a harsh and dreadful thing. ~ Dostoevsky | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 4/17/2003 7:34 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Iconoclast: …to cause good fruit to come about causes one to become “good” and to be “good” causes good fruit to come about.
Electra: Collapsing just cause and just prosecution is just as problematic as dividing them. For example, Joseph tells his brothers that though they intended evil toward him by selling him into slavery, God used it for good by helping him become second in command in Egypt. Does the good that God brought out of this situation mean that the brothers are no longer responsible for their evil intent toward Joseph? Does the fact that God is working to bring good out of every situation mean that all the intentions behind these situations become good?
Just cause and just prosecution are not divided, but they are distinct. If we do not maintain this distinction, then there would be no difference between judging someone’s heart and judging the outcome of their actions. We are able to judge actions (e.g. according to 10 commandments, Bill of Rights, etc.) but only God has the right to judge hearts.
I agree with Electra that intentions and prosecutions are distinct, but disagree that we should judge actions/prosecutions ultimately based on their consequences not their intentions...
quote:
DLW: I am going to argue that this characterization of just cause is part of fallible and changeable ecclesiastical tradition.
Electra: Could you clarify the intention behind your frequent references to fallibility? The ecclesiastical tradition does not make any claims to infallibility. As a human institution, it is subject to limitation and failure, which is why it is always developing and growing. Are you suggesting that your alternative method somehow gets behind this problem of fallibility annd changeability?
my method does not get behind this problem of fallibility, but it is more open regarding the problem of fallibility and open as to whether a given situation provides just cause or not by its emphasis on the importance of the future.
quote:
DLW: I think that just cause must take into account the future and the need to deliberate on the likely consequences of any military action and what sorts of non-military actions will they be accompanied with to avoid an institutionalization of hostilities between the two countries in question.
Electra: As I noted before, just prosecution is one factor in determining just war. Before you dismiss “fallible and changeable ecclesiastical tradition,” I suggest you look into it a little. For a start, the seven traditional criteria for just war include:
1. just cause
2. right authority
3. right intention
4. proportionality
5. last resort
6. probability of success
7. moral means
The UN, I presume you are inferring is the right authority, but this is a fallibly constructed institution, whose institutions were made for the Cold War not the Post-Cold War situation. It relies on consensus, but because of the competing unilateral objectives, this tends to lead to inaction.
As for right intention, as mentioned before I take it as a given that not-so-right intentions will always influence international manipulations. As such, statements like no blood for oil do express a note-worthy ideal, but it is because of Iraq's oil that he has been able to and had to oppress the Iraq people so much. If you read the NYTIMES Friedman, Oil has done much to hinder Democracy since when you have huge concentrations of wealth, you tend to oppose institutions that lead to redistribution. The arab nations that are the most democratic are those that do not have oil.
Proportionality and moral means, I don't understand.
I think last resort is subject to selective perception. There can always be more inspections, certainty as to whether or not the Iraqi gov't is hiding WMD in its country or neighboring countries.
So my point is that the criterion for a just war are open to different interpretations and John Paul's decision was most fallible.
quote:
DLW: As such, with a focus on the future given its proper place, I think there is room for legitimate disagreement regarding whether just cause is present for a war. Although, much of the speculation of anti-war people seems to have been relatively baseless.
Electra: Many opponents to the war, including heads of state, believe that the coalition’s accusation that Sadam Hussein possesses WMD is relatively baseless. This is one reason other members of the UN Security Council did not believe the cause for invasion was just. You continue to reduce international opposition to this war to Frace, and continue to present the motives behind French opposition to invading Iraq as entirely economic. Does economic interest automatically disqualify any humanitarian interest in what is best for the region? Do you realize that this is the exact same logic—which you dismiss as “relatively baseless”—anti-war people use to discredit the US motives in invasion?
Electra
The operative term here is what is best for the region. We have different conceptions of that. One could also portray much of the anti-war protesting as due to pent-up anti-USAmericanism and the poor international diplomacy of the Bush Administration.
As for the WMD, the Bush Administration did meander terribly in how it sought to justify the war, which gave much cause to not trust its reasons. Likely there are WMD, which may have been hidden or relocated to Syria, but whether or not the war will serve a just purpose does depend critically on what we do now in rebuilding Iraq.
dlw
Prayer from Kenya
From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Electra
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 611
| Posted 4/17/2003 8:07 AM (GMT -6) | | DLW: I agree with Electra that intentions and prosecutions are distinct, but disagree that we should judge actions/prosecutions ultimately based on their consequences not their intentions...
Electra: You’re right, human justice does take intent into account when judging actions (e.g. this is the difference between manslaughter and murder).
DLW: my method does not get behind this problem of fallibility, but it is more open regarding the problem of fallibility and open as to whether a given situation provides just cause or not by its emphasis on the importance of the future.
Electra: What are your criteria for identifying more openness regarding the problem of fallibility, and what do you think is at stake in this openness?
DLW:
quote:
The UN, I presume you are inferring is the right authority, but this is a fallibly constructed institution, whose institutions were made for the Cold War not the Post-Cold War situation. It relies on consensus, but because of the competing unilateral objectives, this tends to lead to inaction.
As for right intention, as mentioned before I take it as a given that not-so-right intentions will always influence international manipulations. As such, statements like no blood for oil do express a note-worthy ideal, but it is because of Iraq's oil that he has been able to and had to oppress the Iraq people so much. If you read the NYTIMES Friedman, Oil has done much to hinder Democracy since when you have huge concentrations of wealth, you tend to oppose institutions that lead to redistribution. The arab nations that are the most democratic are those that do not have oil.
Proportionality and moral means, I don't understand.
I think last resort is subject to selective perception. There can always be more inspections, certainty as to whether or not the Iraqi gov't is hiding WMD in its country or neighboring countries.
So my point is that the criterion for a just war are open to different interpretations and John Paul's decision was most fallible.
Electra: I did not intend to suggest a correlation between the traditional ecclesiastical criteria for just war and our invasion of Iraq. My point in listing these criteria was to encourage you to look into them for yourself—especially since you admit you don’t know what some of them are refering to—before you dismiss this centuries-old tradition in both Catholic and Protestant ecclesiology. I would take your dismissal much more seriously if it seemed like you had made some effort to be informed about what you are dismissing.
DLW: The operative term here is what is best for the region.
Electra: I agree, and so do many people who oppose the invasion of Iraq.
DLW: One could also portray much of the anti-war protesting as due to pent-up anti-USAmericanism and the poor international diplomacy of the Bush Administration.
Electra: Yes, one could choose to portray anti-war protestors this way, but I think doing so would be inaccurate and disrespectful. Which anti-war protestors are you talking about? The ones in USA, Europe, Indonesia, Africa, Middle East, Russia, or all of the above? One could portray them all dismissively as merely reacting out of “pent-up” emotions, or one could choose to engage their arguments in an informed and respectful way.
Electra
Love in action is a harsh and dreadful thing. ~ Dostoevsky
Edited by - Electra on 04/17/2003 1:09:58 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 4/17/2003 8:27 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
DLW: my method does not get behind this problem of fallibility, but it is more open regarding the problem of fallibility and open as to whether a given situation provides just cause or not by its emphasis on the importance of the future.
Electra: What are your criteria for identifying more openness regarding the problem of fallibility, and what do you think is at stake in this openness?
I.e., while I was not as familiar with the criteria used for determining just cause as you are, that does not mean that I have not thought and followed the discussions as to whether or not the Gulf-War was just or not.
My criteria is that the criteria/justifications given for why this war is just or not just typically are based on suppositions regarding the future and as such are tenuous. So whether or not the war is just or not is itself open.
quote:
DLW: The UN, I presume you are inferring is the right authority, but this is a fallibly constructed institution, whose institutions were made for the Cold War not the Post-Cold War situation. It relies on consensus, but because of the competing unilateral objectives, this tends to lead to inaction.
As for right intention, as mentioned before I take it as a given that not-so-right intentions will always influence international manipulations. As such, statements like no blood for oil do express a note-worthy ideal, but it is because of Iraq's oil that he has been able to and had to oppress the Iraq people so much. If you read the NYTIMES Friedman, Oil has done much to hinder Democracy since when you have huge concentrations of wealth, you tend to oppose institutions that lead to redistribution. The arab nations that are the most democratic are those that do not have oil.
Proportionality and moral means, I don't understand.
I think last resort is subject to selective perception. There can always be more inspections, certainty as to whether or not the Iraqi gov't is hiding WMD in its country or neighboring countries.
So my point is that the criterion for a just war are open to different interpretations and John Paul's decision was most fallible.
Electra: I did not intend to suggest a correlation between the traditional ecclesiastical criteria for just war and our invasion of Iraq. My point in listing these criteria was to encourage you to look into them for yourself—especially since you admit you don’t know what some of them are refering to—before you dismiss this centuries-old tradition in both Catholic and Protestant ecclesiology. I would take your dismissal much more seriously if it seemed like you had made some effort to be informed about what you are dismissing.
I am not dismissing the traditional criteria other than the need for the danger to be clear and present for the country. My point with regard to this one is that it disregards the future consequences of the decision to intervene militarily or not and that those future consequences are what are most important. The Iraqi people, who were the ones that faced harm in the clear and present manner, were clearly unable to throw off the Baath regime by themselves.
quote:
DLW: The operative term here is what is best for the region.
Electra: I agree, and so do many people who oppose the invasion of Iraq.
Yes, but treating it as operative means acknowledging the tenuousness and imperfectness of how we conceive of what is best for the region. I have never encountered an anti-war protestor that showed that level of self-reflection.
quote:
DLW: One could also portray much of the anti-war protesting as due to pent-up anti-USAmericanism and the poor international diplomacy of the Bush Administration.
Electra: Yes, one could choose to portray anti-war protestors this way, but I think doing so would be inaccurate and disrespectful. Which anti-war protestors are you talking about? The ones in USA, Europe, Indonesia, Africa, Middle East, Russia, or all of the above? One could portray them all dismissively as merely reacting out of “pent-up” emotions, or one could choose to engage their arguments in an informed and respectful way.
I have engaged their arguments in an informed and respectful way, but typically they come down to assertions about the future and whether or not war can ever be justified or that since there obviously are economic motivations behind the US's military intervention it cannot be justified, or just personal attacks on the US president. These sort of arguments cannot be engaged with so easily. As I observe the anti-war protestors, I generally get a sense of sadness that they, unlike Eli Wiesel, have generally not thought through their opposition and are choosing their tactics rather poorly.
This is me and my impressions. I would be less caustic if anti-war protestors did not portray their viewpoints as manicheistically as what is right when the presence of uncertainty in the future makes such a question hard to determine.
dlw
Prayer from Kenya
From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Electra
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 611
| Posted 4/17/2003 9:49 AM (GMT -6) | | DLW: I.e., while I was not as familiar with the criteria used for determining just cause as you are, that does not mean that I have not thought and followed the discussions as to whether or not the Gulf-War was just or not.
Electra: I’m glad to hear that you have been following discussions about the justification for the invasion of Iraq. Please reflect your awareness of the issues in this discussion.
DLW: My criteria is that the criteria/justifications given for why this war is just or not just typically are based on suppositions regarding the future and as such are tenuous. So whether or not the war is just or not is itself open.
Electra: Both pro-invasion and anti-invasion people hope for a good end in Iraq. But they disagree about the best means for attaining this end for a variety of informed reasons (so far you have reduced these reasons to reactionary, cynical, and ignorant objections). Some people argue that invasion is not a justifiable means to this end at this time, even if it this good end actually comes about. Sometimes crime pays, but that doesn’t make it a legitimate career.
DLW: I am not dismissing the traditional criteria other than the need for the danger to be clear and present for the country. My point with regard to this one is that it disregards the future consequences of the decision to intervene militarily or not and that those future consequences are what are most important.
Electra: The traditional criteria for just war takes the possible future outcome into account in a number of different ways. I continue to affirm the limiting just war to the criteria of “clear and present danger,” rather than expanding it to include the possibility of future danger because this possibility always exists, and could be appealed to to justify any war. Unless the danger is clear and present, we should use the myriad other means we have available to minimize against the possibility of future danger.
DLW: The Iraqi people, who were the ones that faced harm in the clear and present manner, were clearly unable to throw off the Baath regime by themselves.
Electra: This is simply inaccurate. In spite of tremendous opposition, the Kurds established an Autonomous region in Northern Iraq and have held their own democratic elections. In the south, Shias have also gained a measure of autonomy over and against the Baath party. It is true that opposition to the Baath party remains extremely risky in some areas of Iraq and many have suffered for it, but some resistance has been successful. Many Iraqis are more threatened by poverty and hunger than Sadam Hussein’s regime. Rather than invading their homeland and further exacerbating poverty and hunger, what if we had invested our resources in empowering the people to strengthen their own resistance to Sadam Hussein?
DLW: Yes, but treating [what is best for the region] as operative means acknowledging the tenuousness and imperfectness of how we conceive of what is best for the region.
Electra: Who is denying this? Obviously we are dealing with very complex issues. The failure to deal with this complexity is by no means an exclusive fault of those who oppose invasion.
DLW: I have never encountered an anti-war protestor that showed that level of self-reflection.
Electra: Do you know how extremely arrogant this sounds?
DLW:
quote:
I have engaged their arguments in an informed and respectful way but typically they come down to assertions about the future and whether or not war can ever be justified or that since there obviously are economic motivations behind the US's military intervention it cannot be justified, or just personal attacks on the US president. These sort of arguments cannot be engaged with so easily. As I observe the anti-war protestors, I generally get a sense of sadness that they, unlike Eli Wiesel, have generally not thought through their opposition and are choosing their tactics rather poorly.
This is me and my impressions. I would be less caustic if anti-war protestors did not portray their viewpoints as manicheistically as what is right when the presence of uncertainty in the future makes such a question hard to determine.
Electra: Again, which arguments, and which anti-war protestors—the opposition to the invasion of Iraq is global. I only presume to speak for myself, but I am at least one person who opposes the invasion of Iraq who nevertheless believes that some wars are justified, who trusts that our military intervention is not motivated by economic self-interest, who loves America, and who respects our president—though I have been accused of denying all these things and I am quite sick of it. Believe it or not, there are informed reasons to oppose this invasion. You seem to be either unaware of them or unwilling to deal with them, though you claim to be both informed and respectful of those who disagree with you.
Electra
Love in action is a harsh and dreadful thing. ~ Dostoevsky
Edited by - Electra on 04/17/2003 2:55:35 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
BJS
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 587
| Posted 4/17/2003 11:41 AM (GMT -6) | | Electra: Both pro-invasion and anti-invasion people hope for a good end in Iraq. But they disagree about the best means for attaining this end for a variety of informed reasons (so far you have reduced these reasons to reactionary, cynical, and ignorant objections). Some people argue that invasion is not a justifiable means to this end at this time, even if it this good end actually comes about. Sometimes crime pays, but that doesn’t make it a legitimate career.
BJS: Agree completely.
Electra: The traditional criteria for just war takes the possible future outcome into account in a number of different ways. I continue to affirm the limiting just war to the criteria of “clear and present danger,” rather than expanding it to include the possibility of future danger because this possibility always exists, and could be appealed to to justify any war. Unless the danger is clear and present, we should use the myriad other means we have available to minimize against the possibility of future danger.
BJS: Surely, though, you would admit that in assessing whether there is a clear and present danger, we must in fact take into account the plausibility of future danger, right? You don't expect us to wait until we have actually experienced the feared future harm before we take action? Particularly in a post 9/11 world in which we are fully aware of the level of death and destruction that can occur in a single, low-tech first strike? The shock of 9/11 was the realization of our immense vulnerability to attack, and the further realization that the black market proliferation of WMD renders that vulnerability even more terrifying and potentially lethal. As such, those responsible for our national security felt it necessary to take a much more proactive tack with unstable regimes such as Saddam's which has proven itself aggressive in the past, proudly declares its relationships with anti-West terrorist groups, has a history of decades-long WMD development and production, and refuses to fully cooperate with a twelve-year long UN effort to locate and destroy such WMD. Before 9/11 and the understanding that came with it, the United States felt safe enough to wait for full cooperation. They waited more than a decade. After 9/11, I believe there was a new and terrifying awareness of just how vulnerable we are to attack, and that the presence of WMD in the wrong hands could bring untold devastation to Americans and other citizens of the free world. In light of this new understanding, we felt compelled to wait no longer. As much as I would like the world to be a place in which national security did not ever require preemptive action, I do not believe that we live in such a world.
Electra [in response to DLW's contention that the Iraqis could not have overthrown Saddam by themselves]: This is simply inaccurate. In spite of tremendous opposition, the Kurds established an Autonomous region in Northern Iraq and have held their own democratic elections. In the south, Shias have also gained a measure of autonomy over and against the Baath party.
BJS: DLW's contention that the Iraqis could not have overthrown Saddam by themselves is "simply inaccurate?" When were they supposed to overthrow him? He's headed a brutal regime for the last 25 years that has massacred hundreds of thousands of his people, left them in abject poverty, and forced them to live under the worst kind of fear and oppression since Stalin. Even after we decimated his military in 1991, he was able to stay in power---retaliating mercilessly against the attempted uprising of the southern Shias by slaughtering over 30,000 of them with a fleet of helicopter gunships that the US had allowed him to keep. With what weaponry and at what cost would you expect the Iraqis to overthrow Saddam without us? They've tried before and paid dearly for it. In fact, there has been much skepticism, as you know, from the Iraqi people about whether we would leave them in the lurch again this time, as we did in 1991. The Iraqi people seem confident that our military force was necessary to overthrow Saddam, and despite the reservations they may have about our motives, they seem to be rejoicing for it. Apparently, you disagree with them.
Electra: Many Iraqis are more threatened by poverty and hunger than Sadam Hussein’s regime. Rather than invading their homeland and further exacerbating poverty and hunger, what if we had invested our resources in empowering the people to strengthen their own resistance to Sadam Hussein?
BJS: I find this statement interesting for a couple of reasons. First, while calling DLW's statement "simply inaccurate" because he claimed that the Iraqi people needed our help, you seem to concede here, a few sentences later, that our "resources" were in fact necessary to them. I guess I wonder what you mean when you say this. As opposed to the "resources" that we have provided them in the last four weeks (i.e., the unparalleled force and effectiveness of the United States military coupled with the largest humanitarian aid package the country has ever seen),what kind of "resources" were we supposed to have used to "empower them" to overthrow Saddam?
Furthermore, you claim that if we were concerned about Iraqi "poverty and hunger" we wouldn't have "exacerbat[ed]" the poverty and hunger by "invading their homeland." Again, I think it is safe to say that the sentiment of the Iraqi people is likely wholly at odds with your take on whether their poverty and hunger will be better or worse off as a result of the toppling of Saddam's regime. Do you really believe that our intervention will not lead to an immediate improvement in the Iraqi people's access to food and medicine? Do you really believe that the country's financial condition will not vastly improve now that its rich resources will be used for more than the selective fattening of Saddam and his regime?
Electra: I only presume to speak for myself, but I am at least one person who opposes the invasion of Iraq who nevertheless believes that some wars are justified, who trusts that our military intervention is not motivated by economic self-interest, who loves America, and who respects our president—though I have been accused of denying all these things and I am quite sick of it.
BJS: Just to be clear: I do not question your patriotism or intelligence because you are opposed to this war. I actually found the question to be rather difficult myself. Hope that comes across in my interaction with you.
Brett
"Siste viator et memento mori." | | Back to Top | | |
|
Electra
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 611
| Posted 4/17/2003 11:50 AM (GMT -6) | | BJS: Just to be clear: I do not question your patriotism or intelligence because you are opposed to this war. I actually found the question to be rather difficult myself. Hope that comes across in my interaction with you.
Electra: Yes, it does come across clearly and I truly appreciate it. And thanks for holding me accountable in this regard as well. I hope to respond to the good points you raised in your response, but I probably won't get to it until tomorrow. Just wanted to at least say thanks.
Electra
Love in action is a harsh and dreadful thing. ~ Dostoevsky | | Back to Top | | |
|
BJS
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 587
| Posted 4/17/2003 1:32 PM (GMT -6) | | Thank you. 
Brett
"Siste viator et memento mori." | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 4/17/2003 1:39 PM (GMT -6) | | Electra,
Let me start off by saying that I was not questioning your patriotism or your intelligence and to ask your forgiveness for my arrogance. I am in the opposite situation as you, living in a country where nearly everyone was opposed to the war.
My own position throughout this has been complicated. I favored the threat of a regime change to cause the destruction of the WMD, but believed that the Administration's time-line was unreasonably short and that if further inspections had taken place, it would have either confirmed the fact of Saddam's noncompliance or permitted the compliance to take place so the whole world would support any regime change. I did change my perspective for a while, because I lost any trust with the current administration over whether they would do the right thing after the war(I still am waiting and seeing on this). But when the war began, I restated my reservations and then took the fact that the coaltion troops were at war as a given. The time for debating whether the war had just-cause or not. What mattered was supporting the troops, since the only hope Hussein had was that if he held out long enough, inflicted enough casualties, then the coalition forces would have to pull out before regime-change took place. I.e., anti-war protesting would prolong the war and increase the deaths. That is how I saw things, honestly. So my concerns took more to trying to encourage Christians and others to pledge to make sure that the US would do right by Iraq in the aftermath of the war so as to make it just.
quote:
Both pro-invasion and anti-invasion people hope for a good end in Iraq. But they disagree about the best means for attaining this end for a variety of informed reasons (so far you have reduced these reasons to reactionary, cynical, and ignorant objections).
What I was saying was that we do disagree about what the good end for Iraq would be. An increased US and world presence in Iraq may be justified in the end given the problems that will ensue with the death of the King of Saudi Arabia and problems with his succession. The regime change in Iraq will also cut off the flow of funds to militant Palestinians and improve the chances for peace there as well, which will improve the Middle East situation in general.
I would also add that the advances made by the Kurds and other Iraqis were in large part because of the no-fly zone enforced by the threat of a regime-change by the US and the rest of the world. As such, my point that because of his wealth and military technology, Saddam Hussein was able to rule Iraq with a tight grasp and there was preciously little chance that the majority of Iraqis would ever have been able to shake off the rule of the Baath party by themselves.
The additional fact that our interest in this was spurred by non-altruistic motives, in all likelihood, does not imply that the regime change may be justified in the end depending on what we do next. The latter is, unfortunately, part of how the world works.
So I think pre-emptive action with no clear and present immediate danger can be justified if it goes through the proper channels. The US Administration did that, they got Congressional Approval and did go through the UN Security Council. No they didn't get the 2nd Approval, but France's Dominique Villepin had promised that we wouldn't need a second approval.
In my opinion, it seems likely that coalition troops have found evidence that Russia or China may have been selling weaponry to Iraq illegally, which is why N. Korea is now compromising due to pressure from Russia or China made in return for the Coalition troops not making their violations public.
In International Manipulations, seeking what is right conduct often requires that we take much wrong conduct as given or unlikely to change in the immediate future.
dlw
Prayer from Kenya
From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me.
Edited by - DLW on 04/20/2003 1:40:37 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 4/17/2003 3:10 PM (GMT -6) | | This seems like a reasonable and insightful analysis of the style of the president, which interesting enough is argued to be successful for its steadfastness and refusal to second guess its decisions or portray ambiguity over its goals.
dlw
> To view the entire article, go to
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37399-2003Apr5.html
>
> A Bush Trademark: Sticking to the Plan
>
> By David Von Drehle
> The war in Iraq must feel familiar to President Bush, and not just
because he is overseeing a campaign against his father's nemesis, Saddam Hussein. The war is a classic George W. Bush operation.
>
> To begin with, the plan defied conventional wisdom in favor of an
aggressive early burst designed to intimidate his opponents. Add to that the relentlessly repeated message of inevitability. Long before the decisive battles were fought, Bush and his spokesmen began insisting they would win -- and they kept saying it even when things looked shaky.
>
> And when chest-thumping and the initial display of power failed to break the foe, Bush, in his trademark way, stuck to his blueprint, seemingly free of self-doubt, and counted on his troops to pull through.
>
> This is how he ran his presidential campaign, and how he ran the
postelection recount. It's how he has approached key legislative battles, including his signature tax cuts. Washington insiders can argue over whether the war plan was shaped more by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld or by the commander of the invasion, Gen. Tommy R. Franks. But no matter who wrote the plan, its appeal to the commander in chief is obvious.
>
> In spirit, this is the president's war.
>
> "Like his campaigns, this has been a product of order, focus, having a plan and sticking to it and never blinking," said a longtime supporter.
>
> When Bush ordered an improvised attack on Hussein's bunker last month in hopes of ending the war before it began, he was working a strategic vein he has preferred at least since his first run for Texas governor in 1994. In that race, Bush dealt with the question of winning the Republican nomination by cajoling and squeezing the other potential candidates into skipping the race. It was "the shortest primary in Texas history," one Bush biographer wrote, and instantly gave him stature to challenge Gov. Ann Richards (D).
>
> But that was nothing compared to his entry into the race for the 2000 Republican presidential nomination. In the late winter and early spring of 1999, Bush began hosting GOP leaders from around the country in Austin, where he began piling up endorsements. Then, in a political version of shock and awe, he leveraged this support into an unprecedented money advantage over his best-known opponents.
>
> More than half a year before the first vote, in early summer 1999, Bush announced that he had $37 million in the bank -- a staggering number, as much as most candidates might raise in an entire campaign. Three months later, he cracked $52 million. His best-known rivals began raising the white flag.
>
> "I don't think I can explain how things are what they are," a dazed Lamar Alexander said at the time. Alexander, who is now a senator from Tennessee, was a seasoned campaigner and skilled fundraiser, but the Bush blitz forced him from the race before the first primary. Another recently elected senator, Elizabeth Dole of North Carolina, also surrendered, as did former vice president Dan Quayle.
>
> "It's a little reminiscent of the sort of thing you see on the Discovery Channel, where the animals make displays to intimidate or awe their adversaries. A sort of ritualistic shaking of the antlers," said Princeton University's Fred I. Greenstein, an authority on the presidency.
>
> But Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) mounted an insurgent campaign on a
shoestring, and surprised Bush with a whipping in the New Hampshire primary. Like the Fedayeen harassing coalition troops in southern Iraq, McCain rattled the sense of invincibility that Bush had worked to create. The reaction in Washington was similar in each case: Nervousness, second-guessing and calls for new personnel and new plans.
>
> Bush's reaction was also the same. He stuck with his plan and his people.
>
> "I think he learned a lot from watching his father," said one loyal supporter of both Bush presidents. "His father got to be president by never taking any chances. George W. got to be president by taking some pretty bold chances. He also learned that anguishing doesn't pay. He doesn't let his own inner core be supplanted by the hand-wringing of policy wonks."
>
> That's the assessment of a friend. Bush critics view the president's stony determination differently -- as a sign of insufficient agility or imagination. Either way, it is a defining quality of his leadership style. In a culture that extols instant analysis, high-speed change and constant pulse-taking, Bush tends to make a decision only once. He doesn't anguish afterward. He doesn't really anguish much to begin with.
>
> Washington lobbyist Ed Rogers, a veteran of two GOP administrations, believes this is the key to the administration's public unity and its ability to stick to one message, even under pressure and even when senior members of the Cabinet disagree, as Rumsfeld and Secretary of State Colin L. Powell reportedly have on aspects of Iraq policy.
>
> "When the president is viewed as anguishing after the fact, that's what breeds infighting in an administration," Rogers said. "One team tries to blame the other team because you think there is a chance to change the president's mind."
>
> Bush played a variation on these themes at the end of the 2000 campaign. In public and in private he projected serene confidence in the last week before the voting. "I'll be the most surprised man in America if I don't win," he told one friend. But on Election Day, Vice President Al Gore made a much stronger showing than Bush expected, winning the popular vote and holding Bush to a virtual tie in Florida, where Bush's forces had claimed supremacy.
>
> The Bush recount effort was marked by a relentless message of inevitable victory. And through shifting events and public opinion swings, Bush stuck doggedly to the strategy his advisers recommended in the first hours of the crisis. His legislative approach to tax cuts -- his defining domestic initiative -- has been another variation.
>
> Though his electoral victory was paper thin, and the Republican hold on Congress even thinner, Bush rejected conventional wisdom that he should proceed cautiously and instead proposed a $1.6 trillion tax cut. Bush won most of what he asked for, to be phased in over 10 years.
>
> But true to the pattern, Bush's juggernaut ran into trouble. A sagging economy dried up the federal budget surplus, while federal spending spiked. Delivering the tax cut suddenly implied years of deep deficits, and many in Washington pressed Bush to rethink his plans.
Instead, he asked for an additional $726 billion in cuts.
>
> Presidential advisers have come to believe that voters like the qualities Bush displays in these key moments. What his critics see as bluster, voters see as straight talk, they theorize. What sounds to his foes like rote repetition strikes voters as consistency and clarity, Bush advisers say. And what is doctrinaire or inflexible in the eyes of Bush opponents is perceived by most voters as steadfastness, they maintain.
>
> Greenstein said he doubted that Bush has consciously chosen this pattern. "I don't think he has a sort of rigorous, tightly joined set of assumptions about how to operate," he said. "It is a sort of standard bargaining ploy to take a tough position and seem intractable and maybe you unexpectedly get what you want."
>
> The chesty, stick-to-your-guns style may come at a price, Greenstein added. It plays better with conservative American audiences than it plays abroad, and that could have long-term consequences for U.S. foreign policy. The Bush style has given America some harrowing moments, but so far, it has worked out well for him. "Events play into his hands," one congressional
Republican summed up. "There is a period of inflated expectations . . . then the chattering classes say everything is wrong. When there's a turnaround, Bush cashes in all his chips and is even stronger."
Prayer from Kenya
From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me. | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 4/19/2003 12:25 PM (GMT -6) | | Electra:I would also like to add that when I described the traditional view of just cause as fallible, that that was not meant to be a slam or a dismissal. I generally view all ecclesiastical traditions on these sorts of issues as fallible due to changing technology and historical situations. Where was the clear and present danger to Great Britain and US when Hitler invaded Poland. In the future, if anywhere. As such, this criteria cannot be taken as the end-all be-all of whether we can be justified in going to war.
dlw
Prayer from Kenya
From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me.
Edited by - DLW on 04/20/2003 1:49:46 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Electra
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 611
| Posted 4/21/2003 9:12 AM (GMT -6) | | dlw, thanks for your apology.
Brett, sorry I haven't gotten back to you yet...I still intend to respond.
Later,
Electra
Love in action is a harsh and dreadful thing. ~ Dostoevsky | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 4/24/2003 8:14 AM (GMT -6) | |
More analysis of the realpolitiks surrounding the resolution of the reduction of trade-embargo on Iraq that points at further evidence that the leadership in the opposition against the war by the French did in fact have some very non-altruistic motivations.
dlw
Chirac's Latest Ploy
April 24, 2003
By WILLIAM SAFIRE
In their hubristic drive for dominance in Europe, France and
Russia are insisting that sanctions be imposed on oil sales
in post-Saddam Iraq.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/24/opinion/24SAFI.html?ex=1052204386&ei=1&en=09222ef6749c5412
Prayer from Kenya
From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Electra
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 611
| Posted 4/25/2003 5:06 PM (GMT -6) | | BJS:
quote:
Surely, though, you would admit that in assessing whether there is a clear and present danger, we must in fact take into account the plausibility of future danger, right? You don't expect us to wait until we have actually experienced the feared future harm before we take action? Particularly in a post 9/11 world in which we are fully aware of the level of death and destruction that can occur in a single, low-tech first strike? The shock of 9/11 was the realization of our immense vulnerability to attack, and the further realization that the black market proliferation of WMD renders that vulnerability even more terrifying and potentially lethal.
Electra:
I came across a paper I wrote the week after Sept. 11:
quote:
As I sat down at my desk and began typing last Wednesday morning, I wondered why my fingers felt so strange. I realized that I had chewed my fingernails down to nothing. It must have happened when I watched the World Trade Towers crumble on the news the day before. One week later, I listened to the radio in my car as dense fog stalled traffic. The anchor announced that “Operation Infinite Justice” had begun in earnest. Our nation’s “crusade” to “rid the world of evil” in our post-9/11 reality began with dispatching fighter jets to the Persian Gulf.
It seems trivial to mention my tender fingertips when so many have suffered so much so suddenly. For many people in the towers, the pentagon, and the airplanes it was over in an instant, but for many many others—not only in this country, but around the world—the suffering has just begun. The moments following such an interruption are marked by a new vulnerability. My fingertips remind me of this.
Our terrorizers prayed. They too feared God and hungered and thirsted for righteousness. They viewed their actions as responses to inexcusable and intolerable suffering. Their own experience of vulnerability led them to violence. Where will it lead us?
I agree with you that we are more vulnerable after 9/11, and we can no longer afford to do business as usual. We should certainly apply our nation’s vast resources to preempting future attacks. Given the many resources available to us, why resort to violence? Military invasion of sovereign states is not a justifiable preemptive measure. It should be reserved for defense of self or others. Given the existence of WMD and their growing availability, every nation in the world lives with the possibility that their future could include being victimized by WMD. Our use of unilateral preemptive force sets a dangerous precident for the whole world. Whatever means of preemption we choose should reflect the fact that our own security is interconnected with the security of other nations.
BJS:
quote:
DLW's contention that the Iraqis could not have overthrown Saddam by themselves is "simply inaccurate?" When were they supposed to overthrow him? He's headed a brutal regime for the last 25 years that has massacred hundreds of thousands of his people, left them in abject poverty, and forced them to live under the worst kind of fear and oppression since Stalin. Even after we decimated his military in 1991, he was able to stay in power---retaliating mercilessly against the attempted uprising of the southern Shias by slaughtering over 30,000 of them with a fleet of helicopter gunships that the US had allowed him to keep. With what weaponry and at what cost would you expect the Iraqis to overthrow Saddam without us? They've tried before and paid dearly for it. In fact, there has been much skepticism, as you know, from the Iraqi people about whether we would leave them in the lurch again this time, as we did in 1991.
Electra: I do not want to minimize the amount Iraqis have sacrificed for resisting Sadam Hussein’s regime. As you have detailed above, their suffering has been horrible. I also don’t want to minimize their successes, including self-rule in the Kurdish Autonomous Region.
BJS:
quote:
The Iraqi people seem confident that our military force was necessary to overthrow Saddam, and despite the reservations they may have about our motives, they seem to be rejoicing for it. Apparently, you disagree with them.
Electra: I rejoice with the Iraqi people over the defeat of Sadam Hussein’s regime.
BJS:
quote:
I find this statement interesting for a couple of reasons. First, while calling DLW's statement "simply inaccurate" because he claimed that the Iraqi people needed our help, you seem to concede here, a few sentences later, that our "resources" were in fact necessary to them. I guess I wonder what you mean when you say this. As opposed to the "resources" that we have provided them in the last four weeks (i.e., the unparalleled force and effectiveness of the United States military coupled with the largest humanitarian aid package the country has ever seen),what kind of "resources" were we supposed to have used to "empower them" to overthrow Saddam?
Electra: We could lift economic sanctions, improving health care, education, and living conditions for Iraqi people. We could continue to enforce UN-imposed no-fly zones over northern and southern Iraq which reduced the threat to those interested in organized resistance and self-rule. We could continue to support the UN’s multilateral weapons inspection program to secure the disarmament of Sadam Hussein’s regime. We could reinforce humanitarian aid programs already in place, and create more ways to improve living conditions for Iraqi people. We could pursue legal action against Sadam Hussein and members of his regime for their crimes against humanity. These are a few things off the top of my head.
BJS:
quote:
Furthermore, you claim that if we were concerned about Iraqi "poverty and hunger" we wouldn't have "exacerbat[ed]" the poverty and hunger by "invading their homeland." Again, I think it is safe to say that the sentiment of the Iraqi people is likely wholly at odds with your take on whether their poverty and hunger will be better or worse off as a result of the toppling of Saddam's regime. Do you really believe that our intervention will not lead to an immediate improvement in the Iraqi people's access to food and medicine? Do you really believe that the country's financial condition will not vastly improve now that its rich resources will be used for more than the selective fattening of Saddam and his regime?
Electra: Access to food and medicine has not improved immediately. Take one example. Parts of Baghdad still do not have electricty. Think about what would happen to your living conditions if did not have air conditioning, if your refrigerator and freezer did not work, if there was no water pressure in your sinks or showers, if your toilet stopped flushing, if every night it was completely dark inside and out even in the middle of the city. Imagine if someone you knew died, and there was no way to keep the body cool. Imagine if this lasted for days…then a week…two weeks…Before the invasion, there was electricity in Bagdhad. Eventually basic utilities will be restored in Iraqi cities. People will be able to put food in their refrigerators and flush their toilets. They will uncover loved ones buried in shallow graves and give them proper buriels. But it will take years to rebuild the structures that were destroyed by bombs. And some treasures, both ancient and new, may be lost forever (the looting of the museum in Bagdahd has been called the “cultural crime of the cetury” and it happened on our watch).
I think the most compelling reason for invading Iraq was liberating the people. I firmly believe that the vast majority of those who supported the invasion did so with good intentions for the Iraqis. Though we may be confident of our own good intentions, it is far more difficult to convince those we are invading of this. Many are not getting the message.
quote:
Many Iraqis Turn Anger Toward the U.S.
Wed Apr 16, 8:07 PM ET
By NIKO PRICE, Associated Press Writer
BAGHDAD, Iraq - Just days ago, U.S. troops were cheered and kissed as they destroyed the symbols of Saddam Hussein’s regime. Today, after a week of chaos, it's a whole different story.
After looters ran wild, American forces shot civilians and the lack of basic services spread misery across the land, many Iraqis turned their anger away from Saddam Hussein and toward what they saw as their new oppressor: the United States of America.
"They are aggressors," wheezed Ali Ahmed, 17, lying in a hospital bed as a tube drained fluid from his lungs. "They destroyed us. They put us in war and didn't let us sleep. They just raided Baghdad."
Ahmed said he was shot in the back by an American bullet Friday as he left his home to purchase bread for his family's breakfast. A suicide bomber attacked U.S. troops up the street, and Ahmed accused the Americans of responding with indiscriminate fire.
U.S. troops rolled across the deserts of Iraq expecting to find people dancing in the streets and cheering their arrival. There was some of that. But there was also anger.
Many Iraqis say that could subside quickly if the Americans — now de facto rulers of their nation — can quickly restore basic services, bring law and order to their cities, and stop shooting their people.
Others say they need to do one more thing: leave.
"If Americans and British are here to destroy the regime and liberate Iraq, we welcome them," said Emad Fadil, a 26-year-old worker in the southern city of Basra. "But if they come to occupy Iraq, we will fight them to the end — like the Palestinians."
On Tuesday, a crowd in the northern city of Mosul allegedly attacked a group of Marines trying to take over a government building. Iraqis threw rocks, hit the Marines with fists and elbows and spat at them, according to Brig. Gen. Vincent Brooks at U.S. Central Command in Doha, Qatar.
After reporting incoming fire, the Marines opened fire on the crowd, killing seven people, he said.
On Wednesday, another shooting in Mosul killed three people and wounded at least 11, including several who said American troops fired at them from rooftops. A Marine sergeant near the scene said the Americans were responding to fire from another rooftop.
"They are killing us and no one's talking about it. We want Saddam back," said Zahra Yassin, whose 17-year-old son was shot in the stomach and wounded. "Let the embargo return. At least there was security."
In the city of Kut, southeast of Baghdad, an anti-American cleric took over City Hall. Hundreds of his followers blocked U.S. Marines from entering Tuesday with a message that "there is more than just one leader in the region." The Marines departed, opting against confrontation.
In the southern city of Ur, Shiite Muslims boycotted a meeting to create a postwar government because of U.S. plans to install a retired American general as Iraq's temporary administrator. Thousands protested near the meeting, chanting: "No to America and no to Saddam!"
There have been daily demonstrations in Baghdad as well, many outside the Palestine Hotel, temporary home to hundreds of international journalists and U.S. Marines. Hundreds of people hold up banners demanding the restoration of electricity, water and phone service. Many also urge the Americans to leave town.
Even as people topple statues of Saddam, they criticize the U.S.-led invasion for the death and destruction it wrought, and warn that Americans will become targets unless they fix what they destroyed and leave.
"America comes to destroy Iraq and its people," said Fouad Abdullah Ahmed, 49, part of a rally setting a Saddam statue on fire. "We are Muslim. We don't like the Americans and the British."
Many Iraqis believe the Americans launched the war to seize their oil. In what many in Baghdad consider confirmation of that, one of the first Baghdad buildings seized by U.S. forces was the oil ministry. They are still there.
"Let them take the oil and leave," Mohammed Ramadan said in the northern city of Tikrit, trembling at the sight of American tanks rolling through his city.
Actor Fadel Abbas watched his theater get torched by looters.
"They didn't want to protect these places — only the oil ministry," he said. "Why the oil ministry?"
The U.S. military now says it will work to stop looters. Americans armed newly recruited Iraqi police officers with handguns to help keep order.
Marines and Iraqi police caught about a dozen men trying to loot money from a burned out bank in central Baghdad on Wednesday. Marines wrestled some of the men to the ground — including one who had a prosthetic leg — and found large stacks of Iraqi dinars on them.
Looting that has plagued Iraq's cities has been the cause of much of the people's anger, and many blame the Americans for encouraging it. Donny George, director for research at the Ministry of Antiquities, complained that the Americans let Iraq's museums be sacked.
"This is what the Americans wanted," he said. "They wanted Iraq to lose its history."
Love in action is a harsh and dreadful thing. ~ Dostoevsky
Edited by - Electra on 04/25/2003 11:19:16 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 4/26/2003 7:40 AM (GMT -6) | |
quote:
Electra:I think the most compelling reason for invading Iraq was liberating the people. I firmly believe that the vast majority of those who supported the invasion did so with good intentions for the Iraqis. Though we may be confident of our own good intentions, it is far more difficult to convince those we are invading of this. Many are not getting the message.
I think that key to sending a loving, Christian message to the Iraqis and the Arab-Muslim world is to put aside our differences regarding the war and focus on helping to make what emerges in Iraq something better that will provide for improved democracy and increasing cultural autonomy that will make the rest of the Arab world initiate its own changes and, eventually, reduce some long-standing tensions between Christians and Muslims and Jews.
dlw
Edited by - DLW on 04/26/2003 12:47:26 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Electra
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 611
| Posted 4/26/2003 8:38 AM (GMT -6) | | DLW:
quote:
I think that key to sending a loving, Christian message to the Iraqis and the Arab-Muslim world is to put aside our differences regarding the war and focus on helping to make what emerges in Iraq something better that will provide for improved democracy and increasing cultural autonomy that will make the rest of the Arab world initiate its own changes and, eventually, reduce some long-standing tensions between Christians and Muslims and Jews.
Electra: I agree. How do we invest the time and energy necessary to “provide for improved democracy and increasing cultural autonomy” when people are already demonstrating against US occupation and demanding an Islamic theocracy? I think that our efforts would be more welcome if we had invested more in the people—e.g. by lifting sanctions that would have improved living conditions—before invading their country.
Terrorists take advantage of people in desperate situations—those who have lost friends and family members, who have been humiliated by a seemingly invincible foe, who have been reduced to poverty while others enjoy plenty—by convincing them that their victimization justifies the victimization of others. Instead of healing, terrorism restores strength to people by hardening hearts. Ideally, the best way to fight terrorism is to help wounded people heal before terrorism takes advantage of them in their brokenness.
What does this restoration look like in post-Sadam, post-invasion Iraq? This is an incredibly complex challenge. I am grateful that our soldiers worked very hard to minimize Iraqi casualties during the invasion, because every civilian loss will be used against us by anti-western groups. Given our human rights record in Palestine, why would Arab people trust that we care about them? As the invaders and occupiers of two Arab nations, we have a lot of work to do to gain trust and credibility in the Arab region.
Electra
Love in action is a harsh and dreadful thing. ~ Dostoevsky | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 4/26/2003 11:50 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
DLW:
quote:
I think that key to sending a loving, Christian message to the Iraqis and the Arab-Muslim world is to put aside our differences regarding the war and focus on helping to make what emerges in Iraq something better that will provide for improved democracy and increasing cultural autonomy that will make the rest of the Arab world initiate its own changes and, eventually, reduce some long-standing tensions between Christians and Muslims and Jews.
Electra: I agree. How do we invest the time and energy necessary to “provide for improved democracy and increasing cultural autonomy” when people are already demonstrating against US occupation and demanding an Islamic theocracy? I think that our efforts would be more welcome if we had invested more in the people—e.g. by lifting sanctions that would have improved living conditions—before invading their country.
Terrorists take advantage of people in desperate situations—those who have lost friends and family members, who have been humiliated by a seemingly invincible foe, who have been reduced to poverty while others enjoy plenty—by convincing them that their victimization justifies the victimization of others. Instead of healing, terrorism restores strength to people by hardening hearts. Ideally, the best way to fight terrorism is to help wounded people heal before terrorism takes advantage of them in their brokenness.
What does this restoration look like in post-Sadam, post-invasion Iraq? This is an incredibly complex challenge. I am grateful that our soldiers worked very hard to minimize Iraqi casualties during the invasion, because every civilian loss will be used against us by anti-western groups. Given our human rights record in Palestine, why would Arab people trust that we care about them? As the invaders and occupiers of two Arab nations, we have a lot of work to do to gain trust and credibility in the Arab region.
Electra
I shared my brainstorm concerning ways we can make a difference in the Ensuring the Peace through Reconciliation posting.
We are not the invaders or occupiers of Palestine. We have remained silent on some of the abuses of the Palestinians by the Israeli state.(The best example I know of was how the Israeli state made it impossible for well-educated Palestinians to get higher-skilled jobs in Israel. The Palestinians are among the best-educated of Arabs. This caused many well-educated Palestinians to have to settle for far inferior quality work than they were prepared for and, needless to say, exacerbated the tensions between the two countries.
However, saying that, the Palestinians have been taken advantage of and mistreated by many people and more-so by other arabs than anyone else. It is because of their anti-semitism that many palestians can be worked up to focus their rightful anger on Israel and not elsewhere.
So as stated in other posts, we, the US, probably should have been and should be more autonomous regarding this conflict, but that means not taking sides period.
dlw
Prayer from Kenya
From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Electra
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 611
| Posted 4/26/2003 12:13 PM (GMT -6) | | DLW: We are not the invaders or occupiers of Palestine. We have remained silent on some of the abuses of the Palestinians by the Israeli state.
Electra: Look at the US voting record on UN resolutions concerning Palestinian statehood and human rights issues. We are almost always the only nation (the UK sometimes votes with us) to vote against these resolutions. Also, Israel is one of the top three recipients of US foreign aid—much of it in the form of weapons, including WMD.
DLW: However, saying that, the Palestinians have been taken advantage of and mistreated by many people and more-so by other arabs than anyone else. It is because of their anti-semitism that many palestians can be worked up to focus their rightful anger on Israel and not elsewhere.
Electra: Anti-semitism? Palestinians are Semitic people.
DLW: So as stated in other posts, we, the US, probably should have been and should be more autonomous regarding this conflict, but that means not taking sides period.
Electra: I don’t understand what you mean by this.
Peace,
Electra
Love in action is a harsh and dreadful thing. ~ Dostoevsky
Edited by - Electra on 04/26/2003 5:14:09 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 4/26/2003 12:31 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
DLW: We are not the invaders or occupiers of Palestine. We have remained silent on some of the abuses of the Palestinians by the Israeli state.
Electra: Look at the US voting record on UN resolutions concerning Palestinian statehood and human rights issues. We are almost always the only nation (the UK sometimes votes with us) to vote against these resolutions. Also, Israel is one of the top three recipients of US foreign aid—much of it in the form of weapons, including WMD.
Yes, we supported Israel and its occupation of surrounding territories that it took after all of its neighbors tried to gang up on it and holocaust them out into the ocean. The palestinian people became a people with the divvying up of territories by the British when the state of Israel was formed. They had been a nomadic people before that and probably had not been in the area for that long(so their claims to the lands stem mostly from the arbitrary divisions that were made by the British. There were also some serious issues regarding whether or not granting Palestinians statehood would endanger Israel again.
It may have been wrong or too much in one direction, but its not like the US didn't have its reasons. I think the Palestinians also gained from Israel, since it did provide jobs/opportunities that they otherwise would not have had access to. Human rights abuses are tricky to deal with, since our definitions are based on what Europeans/USAmericans have acheived, but improvements elsewhere tend to be slow and gradual and taking a stand against a country for abuses with the consequent economic sanctions may end up doing more harm than good.
Besides, the palestinians need to learn non-violent methods of protest. In a post-9-11 world, no one is going to usher in int'l support by suicide bombing buses indiscriminately.
quote:
DLW: However, saying that, the Palestinians have been taken advantage of and mistreated by many people and more-so by other arabs than anyone else. It is because of their anti-semitism that many palestians can be worked up to focus their rightful anger on Israel and not elsewhere.
Electra: Anti-semitism? Palestinians are Semitic people.
You know what I meant by that. There also is the anti-semitism of the Europeans who spend so much time protesting the abuses of the Palestinians by the Israelis but do not similarly protest the way Arabs are treated by their leaders elsewhere. If that isn't guised anti-semitism, I don't know what is.
quote:
DLW: So as stated in other posts, we, the US, probably should have been and should be more autonomous regarding this conflict, but that means not taking sides period.
Electra: I don’t understand what you mean by this.
Neither supporting everything that either side wants, but being a more neutral broker. This is a conflict, not a battle of Good vs. Evil with either the Palestinians or the Israelis playing whichever side we cast them as.
Peace,
dlw
Prayer from Kenya
From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Electra
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 611
| Posted 4/26/2003 1:15 PM (GMT -6) | | Oops, I got my figures wrong.
Apparantly Israel receives one third of US foreign aid, making it the largest recipient of US aid in the world, even though it has one of the world's highest per capita incomes. More info
I wish I never would have started down this road. It’s quite depressing.
Electra
Love in action is a harsh and dreadful thing. ~ Dostoevsky | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 4/26/2003 2:00 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Oops, I got my figures wrong.
Apparantly Israel receives one third of US foreign aid, making it the largest recipient of US aid in the world, even though it has one of the world's highest per capita incomes. More info
I wish I never would have started down this road. It’s quite depressing.
I don't think it is depressing. We both agree that the USAmerican policy toward Israel and Palestine should be different. Our difference surrounds the degree to which we characterize the past policy of the US as fallen.
Anyways, I think, as before, we should put aside our difference on the past and just focus on trying to make a better future. Hopefully, with the regime-change in Iraq, there will be less militancy among Palestinians and that won't be holding up the peace-process as much.
I also would counsel that in political dialogue, it generally is a good idea to not take a terribly strident position against the status-quo power, since doing so tends to raise their hackles and makes it more difficult to affect significant changes.
dlw
Prayer from Kenya
From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me.
Edited by - DLW on 04/27/2003 2:11:27 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Electra
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 611
| Posted 4/27/2003 9:23 AM (GMT -6) | | Thanks for the advice, dlw. Maybe I will take you up on it later.
For now I won’t be discussing this issue anymore because I’m not handling it very well.
I think I’m going to stick my head in the sand for a while.
Peace,
Electra
Love in action is a harsh and dreadful thing. ~ Dostoevsky | | Back to Top | | |
| 32 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 2:23 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|