Replies; three different ones

[The Great Quail]

Chaim,

>The US's political/military actions are in fact stopping the
>flow of food into Afghanistan, which certainly is a sufficient condition
>for the starvation of a great many people, so it isn't at all clear to me
>that the US can absolve itself of the consequences of its actions by
>saying "yeah, but if it weren't for these evil people..." We must
>differentiate between necessary and sufficient conditions.

I never implied we are absolving ourselves. If you read again what I 
wrote, I state that the US is has complicity.

>Also, Quail's argument that the current course of action is the proper and
>ethical one

In *my* opinion. *I* feel it is the proper and ethical solution; in 
other words, it is *a* proper and ethical solution. Doug, Barbara, 
yourself, and probably most of this list disagree, as is their right. 
Just a fine point -- I am not, as Doug has occasionally asserted, 
shouting down the opposition. I don;t think you are implying that, 
but I did want to make the distinction.

>rests on the presumption that there is a binary choice to be
>made: either force the Taliban and Al Queda network into submission and
>accept the starvation of millions of innocent people -or- accept the
>consequences of inaction which will lead to more attacks on US interests
>(which is ostensibly worse). While those are certainly two possibilities,
>this can only be a false dichotomy -- obviously there must exist more
>possibilities for action and effect. It may, for example, even be true
>that the US can continue with this campaign and not starve one Afghani.

Well, ok. Suggestions?

See, I have yet to hear any solutions to this problem that don't 
sound like appeasement, inaction, or wishful thinking. If you could 
tell me who we can force the Taliban and al-Qaeda from power, and 
fairly soon, without causing loss of innocents, I would be most happy 
to hear it. But so much opposition on this List cries out against 
what we are doing, but offers no serious solutions.

>Arguing that it is ethical to take someone's life is a hard argument to
>make.

Correct; which is why ethics can be quite relative.

>Making the case that it is right to take the lives of millions of
>people is that much harder to do. I am unswayed by the argument that it is
>acceptable and just to take action leading to the death of millions
>because it is the only alternative. It chills my blood to hear such a
>specious argument made for the starvation of so many.

Well, I don't think you have offered any real grounds to call my 
assertion "specious." But frankly, it *is* blood-chilling. War is 
ugly, and it should chill the blood.

>I don't believe that the line of reasoning which critically considers the
>humanitarian aspects of action (and in this case the US attack) "another
>psychological weapon in their arsenal," but rather an indispensible tool
>in the arsenal of every intelligent and humane person.

No, you misunderstand me. Of course every intelligent and humane 
person feels pain at humanitarian suffering; I don't think I said 
anything against that. But the Taliban *are* using the suffering of 
their "people" as a psychological weapon. They will do anything to 
paint us out to be monsters who are out to destroy the Afghan people 
and Islam in general. They themselves do nothing to alleviate the 
suffering; in fact, they have been known to seize food, and to 
threaten people who accept the meagre US aid. Of course, our bombing 
is a huge factor in halting relief effort right now, of course. But 
are the Taliban are to hide forever behind the walls of starving 
people, building up their networks of terror with Saudi millions? 
It's a terrible situation. I for one believe that we must act, 
swiftly and decisively. Which we have been doing.

Barbara writes,

>Now there's an argument!

Well, it's easy to make an argument on the basis of a different 
ethical viewpoint. I wish Chaim would have provided more concrete 
solutions to oppose mine. It would be more convincing than , 
"Starving people is bad and there should be another way."

Barbara writes,

>And I
>couldn't'a said it that good anyway. You should speak out more often.  Toby
>too.

Yes, they should.

>I've heard Quail's argument in other people I know.  Real people I admire
>and respect (well, used to).  One fellow at work in particular said
>essentially--after I sent him one of Doug's articles via e-mail--I don't
>have to care about  the starving people of Afghanistan because 1) they were
>starving before anyway  2) they're not the only ones around the world
>starving  3) their own government doesn't care about them so why should we?

Um, Barbara, is that "my argument?" I would say it certainly is not; 
yet you strongly imply that your workmate and is espousing "my 
argument." That's a dirty trick.

>What can I say to that?  What do you say to a person who just doesn't care
>about the about the other people of the world?  What could I ever say to
>somebody to convince him to care?

Probably nothing. But that is not me, nor is it anyone else on this 
List I have read about. There is a difference between not caring and 
still making a decision to support a policy that results in 
casualties. I care about all the Germans we killed in WWII, also. But 
that doesn't mean we should have allowed Hitler to remain in power. 
Of course, this is not as immediate, but I am currently tying this 
only a mile and a half from a mass tomb, the result of THEIR attack 
on US. (I

Despite your reading of Pynchon, sometimes you have to make a "fatal 
distinction" -- especially when it is thrust upon you over and over 
again. I am sorry, Barbara, I do not consider the Jihadists "US." I 
would like to; I really wish they could adopt a form of Islam that 
did not call for my own personal annihilation. Personally, I believe 
that you take the THEM and US dichotomy of GR too seriously, without 
the more soft and ambiguous approach Pynchon himself adopts in 
Vineland and M&D. (Or so it seems to me.)

>That's what it basically comes down to,
>I'm convinced. Like Pynchon alludes to on GR 862--the 'mortal sin' of Man is
>drawing that line in the sand. Making that fatal distinction in the value of
>life so you can justify to yourself in killing your enemy (or anybody in the
>way of  killing your enemy, whatever the case may be).

But again, what happens when that distinction is thrust upon you? Do 
you curl up into a ball, hand them flowers, or just turn the other 
cheek? Do you, as a government, say to your citizens, who have just 
been attacked, and are being attacked, and have heard from the 
"enemy" that they will attack and attack again; do you say to them, 
"Well, the fact is, they are hiding in a poor country with starving 
people, so we have to sacrifice our own security until they change 
their ways."

That's not the actions of a nation-state, those are the actions of a 
religious/pacifist sect who are willing to sacrifice themselves for a 
higher cause. And that's not how any country works, I am sorry.

And to answer you before you bring it up, I am not naive enough to 
think the US does no wrong. But the Jihad has certainly thrust a 
situation into our face, one that we must respond to. I have not yet 
heard a single solution from you. I appreciate that you want to keep 
your hands clean, but...?

>The mortal sin of
>man is the creation of US and THEM! It's even in square brackets! "[The true
>sin was yours: to interdict that union...]"  He's speaking directly to his
>Reader.  It doesn't matter whose character he's speaking  through. He's
>speaking directly to you, and he's speaking to the very heart of Man. It's
>complex thing our collective psyche, but I think he means to imply, It
>really starts with *you*.

Um, ok, thanks. It is a good point, but unlike you, I do not view the 
Pynchon of GR as a direct hotline to God. He may be a critic of the 
system, and perhaps the entire human condition, but his work 
certainly draws distinctions as well, despite his own agony at the 
very act. There was no Union; there is no Return.

Toby writes,

>And to me a life is a life.  A person dying of starvation in Afghanistan
>is just as indefensible as a person dying in the World Trade Center.

Then I assume the Taliban dead are also as indefensible? From your 
statement above, ultimate pacifism could be the only conclusion -- a 
pure Christian sort of inaction that refuses at all cost to take a 
life. Is that what you are saying? Or do you only mean "innocent" 
lives? I am honestly "just curious."

--Q



-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Great Quail, Keeper of the Libyrinth:
http://www.TheModernWord.com

Better hope deferred than none. Up to a point. Till the heart starts to sicken.
Company too up to a point. Better a sick heart than none. Till it 
starts to break.
So speaking of himself he concludes for the time being,
For the time being leave it at that.
      --Samuel Beckett, "Company"