The tortured logic of self-defense (MSN Front Page Byline)

MSN ^ | Posted Wednesday, January 8, 2003, at 10:33 AM PT | By Christopher Hitchens

[ken5050]

Gen Patton said it best..( paraphrasing ).."You don't want to die for YOUR country....you want to make the other stupid son of a bitch die for HIS country"

[wjcsux]

Beg to differ. We could, theoretically, choose to respond by killing all people of Arab ancestry anywhere in the world. We have the capability to do so, but it would be highly immoral, as I'm sure you will agree.
I don't see anything immoral about a pre-emptive first strike against a bunch of sorry ragheads who are hell bent to kill all of us.

[Chemist_Geek]

Beg to differ. We could, theoretically, choose to respond by killing all people of Arab ancestry anywhere in the world. We have the capability to do so, but it would be highly immoral, as I'm sure you will agree.

Around here, though, you'll get a pretty large cheering section for that idea.

The fact that a people is the victim of an immoral and unprovoked attack does not remove them from the obligation to respond in a moral manner.

Hear, hear!

[Restorer]

I don't see anything immoral about a pre-emptive first strike against a bunch of sorry ragheads who are hell bent to kill all of us.

Serious vision problem.

You seriously think it would be moral to kill 200M+ people, just because a few hundred or thousand among the same ethnic group have attacked us? Using this exact "logic," I could prove that Hitler was right to try to kill all the Jews. After all, a very disproportionate percentage of the leading Bolsheviks were Jews.

[neutrino]

Beg to differ. We could, theoretically, choose to respond by killing all people of Arab ancestry anywhere in the world. We have the capability to do so, but it would be highly immoral, as I'm sure you will agree.

Around here, though, you'll get a pretty large cheering section for that idea.

I believe your assessment is a bit too optimistic. Actually, thorough genocide is a nontrivial problem - especially since it involves lots of people spread over a large area. With a mere 500,000 combat troops, we simply couldn't do it. Were we to build the armed services to a larger number - say, WWII levels that would equate to 25,000,000 men (and women?) in uniform, it might be do-able. That wouldn't make it practical, though. It would be much better to modify their belief system such that they would be useful trading partners and potential allies should China become expansionist.

And you mention "morality". I am reminded of the statement by the Abbot of Citeaux in 1209 when he stated

"Tuez-les tous; Dieu reconnaitra les siens."

("Kill them all; for the Lord knoweth them that are His.")

So, at least in one instance, a Christian leader chose a broadly targeted solution. This is hardly unique; I note that the koran has something to say about infidels:

Indeed, Koran is very clear, slaying the Infidels is a must. But the question now is "who are the infidels?!" According to the Islamic teachings every Muslim will immediately say:

The infidels are those who are not Muslims and do not believe in the Koran. The answer is very clear, we (the Christians), the Jews and all those who don't believe in Islam or any other religion are counted infidels. Well, what is the penalty of being infidels? You know the answer: DEATH.

You may see the entire item at THIS SPOT

Are we to conclude, then, that mo-slimes are immoral? Now there's an interesting point, eh? (Grin)

The fact that a people is the victim of an immoral and unprovoked attack does not remove them from the obligation to respond in a moral manner.

Hear, hear!

But what is this moral manner of which you speak with such confidence? I would contend that it is moral to assure that the attack will never occur again, and that all the world would be dissuaded from trying it again.

I believe you'll find that you're on quite a slippery slope; is it "moral" to refuse entry into the US to illegal immigrants? They are, after all, only seeking a better life. Is it "moral" to deny health care (with no limit) to all who need it? Would you let them die in the name of mere money? Ahh, morality! What a grand stick it is with which to beat the opposition about the head and ears!

Actually, I have high hopes that certain upcoming events will solve the problem elegantly, justly...and neatly. But I prefer not to go into the specifics just yet.

[wjcsux]

1. We aren't the aggressors in this situation.
2. Our adversary is willing do do anything, including suicide, to kill all of us.
3. Our adversary is indoctrinating their young to hate us.
3. Reasoning with these people is useless, this has been proven over and over again for the past 1500 years.
4. These people consider it an "honor" to kill us infidels.
5. Armed conflict with these people is inevitable.
6. If we don't take the battle to them in the Middle East, we will fight it here.

[Restorer]

Please define "our adversary."

Is it all Arabs, or those Arabs who are trying to kill us?

I'm in favor of the strongest possible actions against the second group.

Only a genocidal maniac would be interested in attacking all those in the first group.

[Restorer]

Actually, thorough genocide is a nontrivial problem - especially since it involves lots of people spread over a large area. With a mere 500,000 combat troops, we simply couldn't do it.

Ever hear of nukes? Sure, they have certain unpleasant side-effects, but they do a dandy job of killing off a large population.

I'm sure we could quickly develop some neutron bombs and then move in and take the recently-vacated oil fields.

[F.J. Mitchell]

It would be highly immoral to deliberately wipe out hordes of innocents, who are merely linked ethnically or religiously with the enemies that threaten your existance, but fear of collateral damage among those among whom they hide, need not be apologized for, nor can it be defined as immoral.

It behooves those who may be confused with the enemy to clearly identify themselves as friend without an iota of sympathy for the enemy. I agree one hundred percent with President Bush's proclamation, soon after 9/11, "Those who are not with us are against us." Lame excuses for not going after world wide terrorism and it's enabling Nations, can be viewed in only one of two ways-the excuse makers are cowards, or they support the terrorists.

Rational people at this time can clearly see that the choices available to the civilized world are: " erase terrorism as a political tool, from the face of the earth-or sit down and watch the heathen enablers of terrorism, erase civilization from the face of the earth.

Do those Flintstone flicks have anybody longing for the good old,old,old,old,old,old,old,old,old,old,old,old,days? The extremist terror mongers of Islam are.

[F.J. Mitchell]

Sonovagun,guy! Your rational from response to response seems contradictory-maybe it's just me. Anyhow I must BUMP! your response 28. Does that mean I've been Snookered?

[F.J. Mitchell]

Rationale, was what I meant.

[Restorer]

The friend of my enemy is my enemy.

A slight variant on the cliche.

I have no objection at all to killing terrorists, by whatever means are necessary. And I realize some collateral damage goes along with that. I just object to the (hopefully) hyperbolic remarks about killing them all.

With "them all" meaning Arabs or Muslims, not terrorists.

As you point out, the non-terrorist Arabs and Muslims had better start making their position clear, or we might "accidentally" identify them wrongly.

[TigersEye]

TE: So according to Hitchens opening premise Iraq has lost on the field of moral principles.

Restorer: I think that's his point.

If that is the case then why does he refer to war with Iraq as pre-emptive?

In the present case of Iraq, a pre-emptive war is justified by its advocates on the grounds of past Iraqi aggressions and the logical presumption of future ones—which would make it partly retaliatory and partly preventive.

His entire article builds a foundation for the last two paragraphs which bring into question our entire basis for attacking Iraq.

This is fraught with the danger of casuistry...
But tautology lurks at every corner, ...
...and only hindsight really works (and not always even then).

He's not exactly making a case for the U.S. here. What bigger example of moral relativism can be made than his last sentence?

The lesson is that all potential combatants, at all times, will invariably decide that violence and first use are justified in their own case.

[TigersEye]

Ever hear of nukes? Sure, they have certain unpleasant side-effects, but they do a dandy job of killing off a large population.

If we used every nuclear weapon in our arsenal we couldn't kill half the arabs in the world. Your understanding of how they work and how big the Arab world is is in error. Thankfully our leaders, both political and military, have no intention of using nukes as anything but a last resort.

[Restorer]

If we used every nuclear weapon in our arsenal we couldn't kill half the arabs in the world.

My understanding is that we presently have about 6,000 nukes. If a bomb each was dropped on the 6,000 most populous Arab communities, I suspect a lot more than 50% of Arabs would be dead.

I suspect 100 bombs deployed in the same way would do the trick.

I am, however, very glad that we will do no such thing.

[Restorer]

A little bit of research has indicated that we presently have somewhere between 8,000 and 20,000 nukes. And we could certainly build more if necessary.

Perhaps we could borrow some from the Russians?

[TigersEye]

Try this Nuclear Blast Mapper out. You can pick the size of blast and the city. It will give you details of the expected damage. I think you will be amazed at how many people are projected to survive within a short distance, relatively speaking, of ground zero.

[Bob J]

On NOW at RadioFR!

Join AnnaZ, Mercuria and Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson for a…
A DAY AT THE RACISTS!
The Lott Thing!
The Byrd Thing!
The Je$$e Jack$on Thing!
The Sharpton Thing!
The Profiling Thing!
The Reparations Thing!
The Thought Police Thing!

Click HERE to listen LIVE while you FReep!

Click HERE to chat in the RadioFR chat room!

Miss a show?

Click HERE for RadioFR Archives!

[TigersEye]

Apparently the Blast Mapper has changed. I can't find where you pick a city or area on the map like it used to be. Here is the thread I first found it on. It was kind of fun blowing up the closest city and seeing whether it would get you or not. PBS probably found out people were having un-PC fun with it and changed it. :(

[Maelstrom]

"Agreed, but I'll take allies wherever I can find them."

THAT is a mistake.