[lit-ideas] Re: well, it's heating up....

  • From: Ursula Stange <Ursula@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 16:03:55 -0500

Lawrence Helm wrote:

> Ursula,
> Your argument is the moral equivalence argument. It implies there is no moral difference between the Islamists and us. Do you really believe that?

Ursula answers:

Lawrence. No it isn't. It was an observation about how the tactics work the same over there as they do over here. Human nature being what it is and all that...

And, you really must stop equating non-support for toppling the Iraqi regime with supporting it. Those are not the only two choices. It's a sophomoric trick.

I did not support Saddam Hussein's regime. I do not support the Iranian regime. But there are conflicting issues here.
We have a responsibility to oppose evil.
We have a responsibility to let other countries be masters in their own house.
Since these two moral directives are often in conflict, we have to make a case by case decision.

Are we so sure we know the last word about evil? If we are sure, do we then have the right to topple their regimes? Certain Islamists think they know the last word about evil. If they are sure, do they then have the right to topple our western regimes? What if France knows for sure that we are being manipulated by an evil regime. Do they have the right to come and topple our government? The UN charter says 'no' to all these scenarios. For good reason.

Ursula

Lawrence also wrote...

You might be interested in Paul Berman’s /Terror and Liberalism. /Berman is a Liberal who was appalled at the Liberals who, in effect, supported Saddam Hussein during the war with his regime. He didn’t agree with Bush’s reasons for fighting against Saddam. He preferred purer reasons. He thought we should overthrow Saddam’s regime because it was the right thing to do. Liberals should stand for good against evil. There was no excuse for arguing that Saddam’s regime should be left alone. Saddam’s regime was a blight upon humanity, an offense to Liberals everywhere and should be overthrown. Liberals should have supported that overthrow rather than opposed it.

And if you now, in effect, support the equally evil regime in Tehran, you fall under the same criticism Berman leveled against his political compatriots back in 2003 when he wrote his book.

What does Liberalism stand for? If it stands for defending Saddam Hussein’s regime and the present regime in Tehran, then where is its moral compass?

iginal Message-----
On Behalf Of Ursula Stange
Sent: Sunday, February 19, 2006 5:45 PM
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: well, it's heating up....

Eric, read carefully what you've written. 2+2=4 over here. 2+2=4 over

there. They threaten, we crouch behind our leaders. We threaten, they crouch

behind their leaders. Venal leaders on all sides. Stupid followers on all sides.



------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html

Other related posts:

  1. Home
  2. lit-ideas
  3. Archive
  4. 02-2006