Subject:
|
Re: Cease fire (was: Re: Peace in the Mid-East?)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 1 May 2002 07:48:50 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
922 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
>
> > Anyone who supports the actions of
> > terrorists is just as culpable as the terrorists themselves.
>
> I happen to agree with this viewpoint.It's nice and tidy and has a nice
> absolute finality to it. No equivocating. But it has a big problem. It opens
> one up to questioning one's own motives.
>
> People who want to assail one's position will (rightly) point out that you
> yourself have supported terrorists before. And it's true, the US has in fact
> supported groups that were terrorists (sometimes for what seemed good
> reasons at the time, sometimes for the personal power or aggrandisement of
> particular officials).
>
> Worse, the US public (individually, via donations) supports all sorts of
> groups... The IRA, Hamas, Shining Path etc. etc. all get donations from US
> citizens even if the government doesn't. Since many repressive goverments
> and their state media organs have a lot of trouble with the concept of
> independent citizens making independent contribution decisions, that tends
> to get lumped in with official government actions.
That's odd, it’s my understanding that it is against the law to fund raise
for the IRA in the USA... I may be wrong(?).
By "repressive governments", do you include those who imprison suspects
without trial? Interestingly, the UK will not hand over any al-Qaida
suspects it finds in Afghanistan to the USA, instead it will ensure every
detainee we capture is treated as a prisoner of war under the Geneva Convention.
>
> If one evaluates relative good and relative outcomes, it's pretty clear that
> the US is mostly a force for good, whatever the excesses (which are
> unacceptable in and of themselves and in a country that is rule of law all
> need to be fixed), and that Syria, for example, is mostly a bad guy,
> whatever the small good things that it might do happen to be (which all need
> to be encouraged).
Is that the best you can say about the USA? That it is better than Syria? I
actually agree with your sentiment, but I think Gary Younge puts it a little
better:
"The primary concern is not so much that America's current foreign policy is
informed by self-interest - that is true of most countries - but that its
interests appear to be at odds with almost every other nation and it is
unencumbered by any coherent strategy. In just over a year, it has angered
Europe with its steel tariffs, the Arab world over Israel and Afghanistan,
much of South America with alleged complicity in Venezuela and indifference
to the plight of Argentina, and just about everybody with its rejection of
Kyoto."
"White House attempts to wrap up this blunderbuss approach in moral
imperatives would be laughable if the consequences were not so dire. Bush
talks of bolstering "the dignity and value of every individual": tell that
to the people of Jenin. The secretary of state, Colin Powell, offers more
clarity which ultimately reveals even greater contradiction. "Over the past
year, the broader tapestry of our foreign policy has become clear," he says.
"It is to encourage the spread of democracy and market economies." This
assertion must baffle steel workers in Europe and democrats in Islamabad."
"As America trains its sights on Iraq we will hear much of how the latter
has flouted resolutions from the UN - a body the US has dispensed with
whenever convenient. We will hear tales of Saddam's demagogy, vicious
treatment of the Kurds and ostentation in a land where many starve. Many, if
not most, will be true. All will be irrelevant to American intentions."
"America is no more interested in establishing democracy in Iraq than it is
in preserving it in Venezuela. The crucial factors, in both cases, are that
they are oil-rich, non-compliant states. Its talk of democracy and human
rights, in this context, is yet more moral camouflage for yet another
immoral war."
>
> But you can't make that mostly argument when you use absolutes. Since I'm an
> absolutist that's a big problem.
>
> So I'd rather make a relative argument as it's more convenient. For example:
>
> Israel is bad at adhering to rule of law and human rights, but the PLO is
> somewhat worse.
On what scale?
>
> Janet Reno is bad at adhering to the rule of law but Fidel Castro is far worse.
>
> and so on...
>
> But as soon as I make that relative argument, I get called on it, because
> I'm an absolutist. And pointing out that the callee is worse cuts no
> mustard. You see that in effect here, don't you? Any enumeration of PLO
> transgressions is met with an enumeration of Israeli transgressions in
> reply. Make no mistake, in a perfect world Sharon would be tried as a
> terrorist.
In a perfect world there would be no terrorists. ;)
Scott A
> But in that perfect world a lot of people, worse than he, who are
> getting passes now, would be too.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
93 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
