a sampling of replies to my editorial and to Pres. Carter

[Dave Farber <dave () farber net>]

From: Harvey Silverglate <has () silverglategood com>
Date: Sat, 08 Mar 2003 21:50:58 -0600
To: dave () farber net
Subject: RE: [IP] I M y editorial policy on the Iraq issue

Dave,
    You are doing a tremendous service, applying reason to this
situation in which so many hot-heads on both sides reign supreme. I'm
writing mainly to offset whatever hate mail you're getting!
    Perhaps it's because I'm a lawyer that I approach the situation
as I do, but it seems to me that we risk doing enormous damage to the
fabric of international law, and to the slow, long and painful trek that
the United States has been leading for a couple of centuries now, toward
what we call the Rule of Law. Without it, it's the jungle. I'm no
pacifist; I think Churchill was absolutely right about Hitler, and I
wish the U.S. would have entered the war much sooner. I even have come
to respect, even if not fully accept, arguments that the United States'
fighting in Vietnam laid the groundwork for the demise of voracious
world Communism. But what I've seen from the Bush Administration has
been a war against the Bill of Rights at home and international norms
and covenants abroad (not at all limited to Iraq), and the next election
can't come soon enough for me.
    
                    Harvey Silverglate
------------------------------
From: grimes () altaplana com
Reply-To: grimes () altaplana com
Date: Sun, 09 Mar 2003 07:39:47 -0800 (PST)
To: Dave Farber <dave () farber net>
Subject: Re: [IP] a reply to -- My editorial policy on the Iraq issue

Dave, one comment, which you may post if you see fit --

Why would rebuilding Iraq necessarily cost us a lot of money?  Iraq has
huge oil reserves and could fund their own rebuilding.

                    Seth

P.S. Please don't construe that comment as meaning that I favor the war.
I oppose it and feel that containment and continued pressure for regime
change in Iraq is the best approach right now.
------------------
From: Bill Marcy <wmarcy () stny rr com>
Date: Sun, 09 Mar 2003 08:24:22 -0500
To: dave () farber net
Subject: RE: [IP] this should be read no matter what your opinionis djf --
Article: Just War - or a Just War? By By JIMMY CARTER -- thisshould be read
no matter what your opinion is djf

Lets then hope that the suitcase nuke is detonated in Georgia, instead
of NYC, giving Mr. Carter his justification for finally going to war.
------------------------
From: Ted Kircher <tkircher () earthlink net>
Organization: Information Age Consulting
Reply-To: Ted Kircher <tkircher () earthlink net>
Date: Sun, 09 Mar 2003 05:55:15 -0500
To: Dave Farber <dave () farber net>
Subject: Re: [IP] Just War - or a Just War? By By JIMMY CARTER

Dave,
 
While I am in agreement with everything that Jimmy Carter says in his
article, he does not - understandably
- address what I consider to be the primary underlying intent of the Bush
administration to dispose Saddam Hussein
which is to increase the American influence in the Middle East and further
safeguard Israel.
 
A preemptive war with Iraq, in addition to the U.S. allowing (by U.N.
vetoes) the Israeli to further ravage Palestinians,
has to be viewed by most Muslims as a form of another Crusade.  The
terrorists that this combination will create
will be felt decades from now when biological WMD will replace dynamite on
(and in!) suicide bombers. The power
of destruction by an individual will continue to escalate!
 
I hope this the following is not viewed as a corny analogy, but this lack of
recognition of the accelerating power
of destruction by individuals seems very similar to me (from personal
experience) to the lack of recognition of
the power of the PC by IBM in the last 1980s.  By the time, this was
recognized by IBM management, it was too
late to recover.  When one thinks of how easily humans, even from relatively
good families in the U.S. (Columbine
students, Timothy McVey, ...) can get their head screwed up, just think of
all of the Palestinians and Iraqi who will
be warped by the current actions of Israel and the U.S. which they could
exact revenge decades from now.
---------------------------------------
From: Einar Stefferud <Stef () thor nma com>
Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2003 02:18:00 -0800
To: johnmacsgroup () yahoogroups com
Cc: Dave Farber <farber () cis upenn edu>
Subject: Re: [johnmacsgroup] Carter: Just War - or a Just War? ... and
comments by Dave Farber on his publication policies and his own positions.

For johnmacsgroup, and for IP if acceptable, or not if not...\Stef

I have known and respected and partnered with Dave Farber since 1960, and I
regularly send him stuff for his IP list.  Sometimes he sends my comments to
his list and sometimes not.  I do not keep score, nor criticize him for his
choices. Sometimes I am disappointed, but I still send material for him to
exercise his judgement;-)...

> The Carter article was posted on the Farber list and Dave's comments about
> publication and his positions follow. (Note -- unlike this list, Dave's
> list is a moderated list in that he reviews all submissions and make the
> decision as to whether the submissions are publishable. There is something
> to be said for this approach -- as there is something to be said for my
> approach.).

[Carter's remarks are removed, as all readers here have them for review.]
[Or you can use the following (tested) URL to find them.]
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/09/opinion/09CART.html?ex=1048170690&ei=1&en=
b9c95660094bf724

I am inserting some comment's into Dave's comments below:

> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Dave Farber <dave () farber net>
> Subject: [IP] I M y editorial policy on the Iraq issue
>
> First let me state clearly I personally am not in favor of the current
> action unless the UN supports it. If we intend to strike without the support
> of the UN then our Congress, as the constitution mandates, should vote a
> declaration of war (not the mushy resolution they voted). Then for better or
> worse, our people, though their representatives, will have spoken.

It is good to see a clear statement of position.  Better than leaving us
guessing

> I understand well the lessons of history and that the Iraq government
> attacked its neighbor and would do it again if they had the where-with-all.
>
> But a unilateral strike based on decisions that have not been clearly
> presented to the public  sets a very dangerous precedent.

I think that the definition of "unilateral" is a topic for discussion.
Is "40" nations a number too small to negate "multilateral" as a useful word
here?
At the very least, I see a use for discussion on this point.

> As to what I publish. I believe the press covers very well the position of
> the administration. I try to supplement those views by alternative views in
> the belief that informed citizens can make up their own mind.

I agree this is patently  true.

> I get a few "hate" mails for this and very few reasoned opinions that I can
> publish (and I will when they are reasoned -- by the way I will not publish
> pieces against the actions of the administration if they are , in my opinion
> unreasoned).

I accept and applaud this as reasonable judgements applied, given that we
all have 
multiple sources of information, so readers of Dave's IP list are in no way
controlled by his choices.

As such, 'might makes right' as a sole or even primary justification is no
longer an option of governments!
 
Ted Kircher

--------------------------------
From: "Munro, Neil" <nmunro () nationaljournal com>
Date: Sat, 08 Mar 2003 22:35:23 -0500
To: "'Dave Farber '" <dave () farber net>
Subject: Reasoned response to J Carter? Who has the space? But I'll try -
Neil Munro

 

I am constantly surprised by those, such as Carter, who believe the U.S.
needs the United Nation's approval to liberate Iraq. Under this belief, they
actually give China and France a veto over the decisions of our elected,
democratic government.

China? Just what moral claim do they have to tell us anything? It is an
unelected kleptocracy with no interest in our well-being. Instead, it gains
when we lose. 

France is a democracy, but one whose government is hostile to ours. Its
current leader, Msr. Chirac,, has been a close ally of Saddam since the
1970s (see
http://www.theweeklystandard.com/content/public/articles/000/000/002/313ycqj
e.asp) and is likely to be embarassed by whatever revelations emerge from a
liberated Baghdad. Chirac is also engaged in a important battle for
leadership of the semi-United Europe, and thus he and his ally -- the
Germans -- are trying to undermine their European-rival, our ally, Prime
Minister Blair, head of the British left-of-center Labor Party, by derailing
U.S.-UK effort sto enforce UN rulings against Saddam.

The Germans similarly lack moral stature, largely because their Foreign
Minister Fischer was closely entangled in the far-left anti-American
movements of the 1970s and 1980s. For more, read this;
http://www.postwritersgroup.com/archives/kell0211.htm Clearly, we are not
under any moral obligation to convince him, even if it were possible. It
should also be noted that Fischer's government is deeply unpopular at home;
a litle bit of Bush-bashing can avert eyes from an ailing economy.

If should be obvious that these countries do not have the moral claim to
hinder out actions. Their unfounded claim to greater moral judgement,
however, becomes positively vile when their demands would protect Saddam and
his Ba'athists party-members, who have ruled Iraq for more than 3 decades.
In that time, they have killed up to 1 million Iraqis and roughly 1 million
Iranians. These Ba'athists do not deserve the protection of anyone. Not even
Chirac or Fischer. 

Still, I do think we should humor Carter and his friends in the UN-first
camp. In a democracy, people -- especially intellectuals -- should be
allowed to humuliate themselves by rushing to defend Saddam. Of course,
those who agree with them will complain about the contempt they call upon
themselves, and will instead call it 'hate' speech.

All the more reason to laugh as we collect eveidence from the blood-soaked
dungons of Baghdad of the UN-firster's terrible moral and strategic
judgement. It is the classically liberal thing to do.


Neil Munro. 


-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as interesting-people () lists elistx com
To manage your subscription, go to
  http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/