From: Jonathan Davis (jonathan.davis@lineone.net)
Date: Thu Mar 04 2004 - 17:11:07 MST
Hi B,
Your faith in me is was justified. I am neither a proponent of might is
right nor am I meaning to suggest that just because things are "pragmatic"
they are the same.
My vague point (as this is only a half-cooked notion) is about motives.
I supported the war because I was convinced of the moral use for it. I
believe it was the right thing to do.
Those who opposed it no doubt believed the same thing. When I discussed this
with anti-war friends etc, some used the argument that the war was
unjustified on pragmatic grounds even if there was some justification for
the idea of getting rid of Saddam. There were many good arguments against
and I am just discussing one.
My objection was that the same people were often against the consequences of
similar pragmatic approaches in the past: Vietnam, arming the Mujeheddin
etc.
Of course I am pointing out two extremes On the one hand bleeding heart
humanitarian intervention and on the other pure calculated rational
advantage.
The people who once were resolutely on one side or the other have swapped
and it I fun to point out the apparent inconsistency (even if as you have
pointed out, it is only apparent).
Late and tired and not making sense :-)
Kind regards
Jonathan
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-virus@lucifer.com [mailto:owner-virus@lucifer.com] On Behalf Of
Blunderov
Sent: 04 March 2004 22:17
To: virus@lucifer.com
Subject: RE: RE virus: More bush democracy
Jonathan Davis
Sent: 04 March 2004 01:40 PM
<snip>
I think foreign policy of virtually every state is rightly about
self-interest (yes, even Sweden and Switzerland).
</snip>
[Blunderov]
Yes, but to what extent is it permissible to pursue self interest?
Someone, it may have been Churchill, once remarked that 'War is foreign
policy by other means'.
If war is in the interest of a particular state is it ok to just go for it
irrespective of the circumstances?
The Limbic whom I know and respect is not, as far as I know, a proponent of
'might is right'. I feel reasonably certain that we can agree that war is an
order of magnitude different to plain old foreign policy and that Churchill
(if it was he) was overstating the case.
So, perhaps persons who criticize a pragmatic foreign policy and who
simultaneously criticize a pragmatic war are not being inconsistent; they
are talking about two different things. The fact that both decisions are
'pragmatic' does not necessarily make them equally virtuous surely?
Best regards.
--- To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l> --- To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Mar 04 2004 - 17:13:53 MST