Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!looking!uunet!world!decwrl!shelby!csli!cphoenix
From: cphoenix@csli.Stanford.EDU (Chris Phoenix)
Newsgroups: trial.talk.politics.peace
Subject: Re: Peace?  Yes, fight for peace, among other things.
Message-ID: <17808@csli.Stanford.EDU>
Date: 19 Feb 91 08:33:33 GMT
References: <58120@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU> <2247@njitgw.njit.edu> <1991Feb19.060633.11270@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu>
Organization: Center for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford U.
Lines: 49

In article <1991Feb19.060633.11270@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> olsen@masala.lcs.mit.edu (James Olsen) writes:
>  The illegality of the Iraqi invasion (the only difference between the
>  hypothetical case and the actual case) is therefore one reason for the war.

Not quite.  It is one thing that makes the war possible.  Without the 
illegality, we couldn't have a war--we agree there.  But without our
military-industrial complex, we couldn't have a war either.  And I'm
sure you don't agree with me that the military-industrial complex is 
one reason for the war!

>  Even if a war is seen to be just, often it will not be wise to fight it.
>  This hinges on the likely cost (human and material) of the war, and its
>  likely benefits.  Matthew's three reasons would enter into this calculation.
>  States never fight wars unless they see it to be in their own self-interest.
>
>This step causes the 'inconsistency' that antiwar people see in our use of
>force.  But why must we be consistent?  No state is the 'World's Policeman',
>dedicated to upholding international law.

Your pragmatic point of view makes good sense.  But it is inconsistent
with our government's stated reason for fighting it.  We needn't be
consistent--unless we are claiming moral high ground, claiming that we
are fighting solely on moral principles, claiming that what the enemy
has done demands a war in response... the rhetoric I have heard from
Bush sounds to me like he's saying we *are* those policemen.  My main
problem with the war at this point is that the gov't's insistence on
morality as the basis for our actions has convinced me that it is
trying to conceal the real reasons for the war.  Why would they do
that?  Because they know I wouldn't like the reasons.  But then I
should be against the war.

>In sum, this war, as all wars, is being fought to further the national
>self-interest of the belligerents, but it is also being fought because of
>the Iraqi breach of international law.

In sum, this war is being fought to further the self-interests of the
people who promote it (*not* necessarily our national self-interests)
and the Iraqi breach of international law is just providing a
convenient excuse.  The reported Iraqi treatment of Kuwaitis is
providing an even better excuse.  Though I recently read on other
newsgroups people claiming that it was Palestinians in Kuwait who were
doing most of the raping.  Offhand I don't trust that last, but who
knows?

-- 
But the wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, open to 
reason, full of mercy and good fruits, without uncertainty or insincerity.  
And the harvest of righteousness is sown in peace by those who make peace.  
... You desire and do not have; so you kill.