Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!shelby!bu.edu!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!ncar!neit.cgd.ucar.edu!gary
From: gary@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand)
Newsgroups: trial.talk.politics.peace
Subject: Re: Peace?
Message-ID: <10339@ncar.ucar.edu>
Date: 19 Feb 91 00:35:47 GMT
References: <58120@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU> <2247@njitgw.njit.edu> <10211@ncar.ucar.edu> <1991Feb7.181854.26365@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> <10271@ncar.ucar.edu> <37827@netnews.upenn.edu>
Sender: news@ncar.ucar.edu
Distribution: na
Organization: Climate and Global Dynamics Division/NCAR, Boulder, CO
Lines: 43

>  Dan Hardt
>> Gary Strand

>> So the whole issue of what we did and didn't do in the past doesn't affect
>> your current political views. It's a red herring/strawman.

> This is a common point of view among war supporters, which I don't think
> makes much sense.

  It makes perfect sense when we are presented with a list of past US actions
  or inactions, with the taunt "We didn't do it before, why are we doing it
  now?"

> The avowed U.S. argument is that we went to war based on some general
> principles about violations of sovreignty, democratic principles, etc.  The
> argument against this is not just that the U.S. has we been _inconsisent_
> about going to war to avenge such violations -- it would be crazy to think
> that we should go to war whenever we judge that some country violates these
> principles.

  Why would it be crazy to go to war every time a given country violates these
  principles? If we really want to be the Good Guys, then we need to hold to
  our principles, and apply them continuously. Since we do not and have not,
  then what restrictions does that place on actions we take now and in the
  future? As I have argued, none.

> The point is, our policy hasn't followed such a simple (and brutal)
> principle, and it never will.  The government just uses it to avoid a
> serious discussion of whether we should be at war or not.

  No, the antiwar folks use it as some kind of "argument" against US action at
  any given time, when in fact the whole basis is specious.

  Again, suppose the US had strictly and completely followed the principles of
  fighting for democracy, territorial inviolability, and so on. Would you still
  be against the war? Of course. So, regardless of what principles the US has
  had, and whether or not we always stuck to them, you would not support the
  war. Thus, the argument is rendered a red herring.

--
Gary Strand                           There is only one success -- to be able
Internet: strandwg@ncar.ucar.edu      to spend your life in your own way.
Voicenet: (303) 497-1336                                 - Christopher Morley