[CLUE-Talk] Going to war, how much to pay people

[Kevin Cullis]

On Fri, 2003-01-31 at 23:40, Matt Gushee wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 31, 2003 at 12:03:09AM -0700, Kevin Cullis wrote:
> > On Thu, 2003-01-30 at 22:48, Matt Gushee wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jan 30, 2003 at 07:36:53PM -0700, Kevin Cullis wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > The fact that Hussein has proven to be brutal is one thing, but times
> > > > have changed so that today we're NOT like 1940's.  Hussein can now
> > > > deploy a dirty bomb anywhere in the US since our borders are so open!! 
> > > > Is this a good enough argument!!
> > > 
> > > No.
> > > 
> > > First of all, we don't know that Iraq has any such weapons. And even if
> > > it does, the fact that it *could* deploy them in the US doesn't mean
> > > that it would. Saddam Hussein is not Osama Bin Laden. For one thing, he
> > > has a lot to lose. He's got all that oil, and perhaps more importantly
> > > for him, he has several million people under his thumb. Maybe he's a bit
> > > mad, but I doubt he is so mad as to not realize what would happen to him
> > > and his country if he actually attacked the United States.
> > 
> > You actually TRUST Hussein?
> 
> 1. Would you cool it with the all-caps and multiple exclamation points,
>    please? I can read perfectly well without them.

Hey, at least I'm not using ALL CAPS!!  ;-)

> 2. Read what I wrote. My statement had absolutely nothing to do with
>    Saddam's (un)trustworthiness. It was a logical projection based on my
>    understanding of the world situation and of human nature. My logic
>    could be flawed, and my understanding is certainly incomplete. Can
>    you claim anything different for yourself?
> 

That's why I consider this a good exchange, I always want to challenge
my thinking and you give me this opportunity to do that and, no, I only
claim that I'm imperfect (flawed in your words), but a work in
progress.  Thanks.

> > Do you think that he may have had ties to
> > Osam bin Laden?
> 
> No, I don't. But your ritual invocation of the 9/11 symbol implied that
> you do. At the risk of stating the obvious, my point was to draw a
> distinction between Bin Laden, who is a stateless religious fanatic, and
> whom we are fairly certain is a terrorist leader, and Saddam Hussein,
> who is the secular dictator of a once-powerful country, and who is not
> known to be an active sponsor of terrorism outside his own borders.
> 

It is easy to lump Hussein and bin Laden in the same boat and in some
cases I don't we should, but until I've been shown otherwise they've
proven to me to be closely "allied" in their selection of the US as an
enemy to fight.


> > On tonight's PBS about the Gulf War, Hussein was elated
> > that he would stay in power and that the US was not coming after him. 
> 
> Exactly. He knows we could crush him, and I argue that that knowledge
> helps keep him in check.
> 
> > It seems you always find places to support Hussein 
> 
> That is a very low blow. Not quite character assassination, but getting
> pretty damn close. What on earth leads you to believe that I support
> Saddam Hussein? My position is:

Forgive my lack of considering all of the aspects of this argument, but
it was not my intention to say that you do support Hussein but could
clarify that you disagree with the US (versus disagree with Hussein and
support the US and all of the variations in between).

> 
>  * It is unproven that Saddam Hussein poses enough of a threat to
>    justify military action at this time; I personally believe he does
>    not.

While I somewhat agree with this, again, I don't think it would take
much to cause something less than 9/11 but just as unnerving to us.

>  * It is not our job to judge the entire world and to destroy all that
>    we see as being evil.

We can not rid the world of all evil, but it's in our and the world's
best interest to limit or reduce it for the world's safety.

>  * We and our allies have interests, and I hope that we will pursue them
>    in an enlightened manner as far as possible (see next point).
>  * There is very little international support for this war effort, and
>    we will do serious long-term damage to our relations with the world
>    if we continue on our present course without compelling new evidence
>    against Saddam Hussein.

I agree

> 
> > rather than ask the Iraqie people what they want.
> 
> So you have asked them what they want? What did they say to you?

Did you read the Post about a month ago regarding the Kurds, about 30
million people bordering Turkey, Iraq, and Iran who have no "home" but
are controlled by those three countries.  Do you watch the news
regarding what the Iraqie people say off camera because of the fear of
being hunted down by Hussein's goons if they say anything bad about
Hussein?

Personally, I try and watch out for the little people: oppressed Iraqie
people, Enron investors, laid-off workers because of fraud in
management, Linux developers, and poor people who are not given
opportunities to get ahead.  And this includes the fact that in Japan
the gap between the lowest worker and the highest paid CEO is 30 times,
Germany 30-60 times, America 500 times.

> 
> And I claim we currently have extremely unwise people at the top. If you
> haven't seen that, I don't think I have the energy to even start to try
> to convince you.

There is a difference between unwise and mistakes: a wise person admist
his/her mistakes and imperfections and an unwise one doesn't.

> 
> > > Or have you bought into Mr. Bush's Manichaean delusion, that the world
> > > is divided into good countries and evil ones (the US being among the
> > > good, of course), and that the good ones have the right and
> > > responsibility to, as he puts it, "rid the world of evil?"
> > 
> > There are good, better, and best countries in terms of providing for the
> > health and welfare of it's people and compared with Iraq, I'll pick the
> > US anyday.  It still has it's problems, but it's the best at the moment.
> 
> Having spent eight years in Japan, I'm not so sure that the US has the
> best system in terms of health and welfare. But you've missed my point
> entirely. President Bush, if his rhetoric is taken at all seriously,
> believes that the world is irrevocably divided into good and evil
> nations, and that he is on a mission from God to destroy the evil ones.
> He is, after all, on record saying that we will "rid the world of evil."

And you would let the evil ones, such as bin Laden, live?  We can not
rid the world of evil, but we do have a responsibility to protect
citizens and rid the world of evil people.  But God does use evil people
and events for His purposes.

> Think for a moment about the implications of that statement (BTW, any
> Christians tuned into this debate? Isn't that generally considered
> heresy?). If you share that point of view, then this whole debate is
> utterly pointless.
> 
> On the other hand, if you take what I would consider the rational
> position that nations and their actions come in shades of grey, then I
> think you have to come up with compelling reasons why invading Iraq
> 
>   a) is morally justified, or at least a pragmatic necessity; and
>   b) will benefit us, our allies, or the world more than it costs.
> 

Good points, but that's why I'm discussing things with you on this list
to learn and to see how things can be decided, including changes in what
I think..

> At this point I don't accept either proposition. We'll see what happens
> when Colin Powell presents his secret evidence to the UN, but my
> armchair prognostication is that he will fail to win new allies to the
> cause, and the US will invade anyway (how could we back down now? The
> Bush camp has been demanding its war for over a year now, and there
> are--according to an article I read today--about 200,000 troops waiting
> for the signal to invade).

I, too, wait for more info, but at some point I have to trust my
government to do the right thing based on all available info.  Can we
make a mistake?  Absolutely, from both angles.

> 
> > > > Matt, the game rules have been changed by the terrorists.  Before 9/11,
> > > > most airline hijackers wanted money or something else so the typical
> > > > response by airline pilots was to go along with their captors.  Just as
> > > > when airline hijacking first began changed the rules for flying, so has
> > > > the new MO for the terrorists after 9/11.
> > > 
> > > New rules? Do you mean the Rumsfeld-Wolfowitz rules for foreign
> > > relations, and the Ashcroft rules for domestic policy? The rules that
> > > amount to "destroying the village in order to save it?" The rules that,
> > > in the case of the USA PATRIOT act, our so-called representatives
> > > approved without having read them?
> > > 
> > 
> > I'm in agreement with some of these issues you're advocating.
> > 
> > > New MO? Are you referring to the tactic of flying planes into buildings?
> > > How does attacking Iraq address that terrorist tactic? How does anything
> > > the Bush administration has done address that tactic?
> > > 
> > 
> > You're clouding the issue, it's not the tactics, but WHO does it
> 
> Now you need to read what *you* wrote. The paragraph I was responding to
> states that we need to think and act differently, specifically because
> of the terrorists' "new MO" (whatever you think that is).

Then what do you think we ought to do with someone who is after us and
want to end our way of life (not curtail it some, but would be happy
about that)?  The US provides not only the "police" of the world, but we
also give a lot of financial support in the form of our tax dollars to
third world countries leaders who siphon what we give for their poeple
for themselves.  Some actually get it to the people. What should be do
differently?  I agree that some of the larger corporations do not take
much responsibility for their actions, but again, what do you propose
that we do?

> 
> > > But if we are to remain a country worth fighting for, we need two things
> > > (at least). We need the *informed* consent of the governed for any
> > > anti-terrorist measures. And we need a sense of proportion. It's hard to
> > > calculate our chances of dying in a terrorist attack, but I think most
> > > rational people would estimate them as far less than our chances of
> > > dying in a car accident.
> > 
> > But that's why it's called terrorism, it strikes FEAR into people. If
> > guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns. 
> 
> I'm less sure about gun control than I used to be, but I think overused
> slogans like that one ought to be outlawed ;-)

I'll come up with another one, but it's the one that works at the
moment. ;-)

-- 
Kevin Cullis <kevincu at orci.com>