Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

Just War Theory

War Iraq Just War Theory

  • Please log in to reply
99 replies to this topic

#81 Josh

Josh

    He stares...

  • Islander
  • 13,774 posts

Posted 26 March 2003 - 12:55 AM

Yeesh. This is why I stay out of political arguments. The Us Vs. Them mentality is so prevalent and so overused that it makes me wonder why liberals and conservatives haven't picked up arms and gone to war years ago.

Is it really so hard to accept that both sides have points, that both sides are right and at the same time, both sides are wrong?

Thus is the nature of life in general.
"THE UNICORNS ARE NOT TO BE TRIFLED WITH!" - John Burke.

#82 EvilTree

EvilTree

    my silence is my pervading call

  • Islander
  • 623 posts

Posted 26 March 2003 - 07:26 PM

^Especially aggrevated by this 'you're with us, or against us' attitude some Americans have...
Loyalty, Vigilance, Excellence
-Motto of Imperial Space Marines


"Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. Breeds that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and freedoms."
-Robert A. Heinlein

"Self control is chef element in self respect. Self respect is chief element in courage."
-Thucydides

#83 Drew

Drew

    Josef K.

  • Islander
  • 12,191 posts

Posted 26 March 2003 - 07:50 PM

Josh, on Mar 25 2003, 03:46 PM, said:

Is it really so hard to accept that both sides have points, that both sides are right and at the same time, both sides are wrong?
In some cases there is no "other side" to which we should give a speck of credence. How can one justify the torture, rape, and murder of Iraqi citizens by saying "Well, I'm not in favor of such things, but who am I to say it's wrong?" To say that these things are acceptable under any circumstances is evil. Sometimes there just is no moral equivalency between the "sides."

Quote

Especially aggrevated by this 'you're with us, or against us' attitude some Americans have...

What virtue do you find in standing to the side and doing nothing while evil is confronted?
"Someone must have slandered Josef K., for one morning, without having done anything wrong, he was arrested."

#84 GiGi

GiGi

    Lipstick wearing PIG kisser!

  • Islander
  • 8,774 posts

Posted 26 March 2003 - 09:44 PM

Drew, on Mar 26 2003, 08:41 AM, said:

I How can one justify the torture, rape, and murder of Iraqi citizens by saying "Well, I'm not in favor of such things, but who am I to say it's wrong?" To say that these things are acceptable under any circumstances is evil.
I don't see anyone saying "who am I to say that torture, rape and murder is wrong"  I am seeing people saying that is IS wrong.

So how then does blowing Iraqi to kingdom come qualify as RIGHT?!

'Many dead' after Baghdad shops hit
Eyewitness: Shock and anger
Fourteen civilians died and another 30 were injured in Baghdad when a shopping area was hit during an air raid by US-led coalition forces, the Iraqi authorities say.

An angry crowd of several hundred people gathered in the area following the strike, waving the shoes and clothes of victims.
They shouted: "Down with Bush" and "Long live Saddam".


from HERE

Quote

What virtue do you find in standing to the side and doing nothing while evil is confronted?
I am doing something, I am protesting the evil that the US IS doing in the name of doing things RIGHT!!

Drew, I absolutely agree with you in theory.  It is in the practice of this theory as been shown by the US lately is what I question
"Life is as dear to a mute creature as it is to man. Just as one wants happiness and fears pain, just as one wants to live and not die, so do all creatures." -- HH The Dalai Lama

#85 Drew

Drew

    Josef K.

  • Islander
  • 12,191 posts

Posted 26 March 2003 - 10:01 PM

chiron777, on Mar 26 2003, 12:35 PM, said:

I don't see anyone saying "who am I to say that torture, rape and murder is wrong"  I am seeing people saying that is IS wrong.

. . .

I am protesting the evil that the US IS doing in the name of doing things RIGHT!!
^ The two are connected. If you see harm being done to your neighbor (and here we're talking the global neighborhood) and you don't do anything to stop it, then I think you are at least somewhat complicit. Which brings us back to the point of this thread. Yes, people will get killed in a war. But the cold equations kick in when we realize that military action now (in which people WILL get killed) will prevent a greater loss of life and greater conflict in the future. It's difficult, and against the modern, enlightened mindset, but sometimes it's what must be done. That's how we decide that going to war can be a "just" act.

Check out the "Challenges to Anti-War Protestors" thread I posted a week or so ago. The very first challenge asks us to ask ourselves whether we're only paying lip-service to the offense. Do we catch ourselves saying, "Sure, Saddam Hussein is a bad, bad man, but . . ." And by doing that are we not dismissing the actions of his regime as being trivial; maybe sorta not-nice, but certainly not worth going to war over?

Edited by Drew, 26 March 2003 - 10:04 PM.

"Someone must have slandered Josef K., for one morning, without having done anything wrong, he was arrested."

#86 Josh

Josh

    He stares...

  • Islander
  • 13,774 posts

Posted 26 March 2003 - 10:03 PM

^

Sorry, but there ARE two sides. There are reasons that people are protesting even as we think. Some of them are questionable reasons (or rhetoric, which is even worse. People will believe anything they're told as long as it fits in with what they believe) but at least they're doing something that means something to them and exercising their constitutional rights.

I am watching as people are dying. As they are blown to pieces and shot down. And that makes me very sad. I hope that in the end this war is worth something... because there's no backing out of it now.
"THE UNICORNS ARE NOT TO BE TRIFLED WITH!" - John Burke.

#87 Drew

Drew

    Josef K.

  • Islander
  • 12,191 posts

Posted 26 March 2003 - 10:09 PM

Josh, on Mar 26 2003, 12:54 PM, said:

Sorry, but there ARE two sides. There are reasons that people are protesting even as we think. Some of them are questionable reasons (or rhetoric, which is even worse. People will believe anything they're told as long as it fits in with what they believe) but at least they're doing something that means something to them and exercising their constitutional rights.
Will you grant any side validity merely because it "means something to them"? Is depth of feeling enough to grant moral equivalency?

Abducting Elizabeth Smart "meant something" to the sicko who did it, but should his "side" be considered morally equal to those who say he was wrong to do it?

I'm zeroing in on the great philosophical divide here.
"Someone must have slandered Josef K., for one morning, without having done anything wrong, he was arrested."

#88 Josh

Josh

    He stares...

  • Islander
  • 13,774 posts

Posted 26 March 2003 - 10:15 PM

^

I'm not justifying it, just stating how they feel because I'm in a major protesting city as well and I've talked to a lot of them. I'm neither pro-war or anti-war. I'm neutral. The fact of the matter is that no civilian has enough information to really know why we're in Iraq (and I completely do not buy that we're there for humanitarian reasons. Everyone has an agenda.) and we don't know what the President knows.
"THE UNICORNS ARE NOT TO BE TRIFLED WITH!" - John Burke.

#89 Rhea

Rhea

  • Islander
  • 16,433 posts

Posted 26 March 2003 - 10:26 PM

Drew, on Mar 26 2003, 11:00 AM, said:

Josh, on Mar 26 2003, 12:54 PM, said:

Sorry, but there ARE two sides. There are reasons that people are protesting even as we think. Some of them are questionable reasons (or rhetoric, which is even worse. People will believe anything they're told as long as it fits in with what they believe) but at least they're doing something that means something to them and exercising their constitutional rights.
Will you grant any side validity merely because it "means something to them"? Is depth of feeling enough to grant moral equivalency?

Abducting Elizabeth Smart "meant something" to the sicko who did it, but should his "side" be considered morally equal to those who say he was wrong to do it?

I'm zeroing in on the great philosophical divide here.
Drew, you're not zeroing in on anything. You're not assuming that people of good conscience can agree in principle and have major disagreement about the ways and means. You're not even accepting that some people philosophically oppose war, period. I'm not a Quaker, but I certainly concede the validity of their view on life.

And I refuse to participate in this "if you don't agree with me you're an idiot" conversation any more.

Let me tell you something - this whole conversation is a nasty repeat of innumerable ones that played out during the Viet Nam war. The man I loved died in Viet Nam. I hated that war. I refused to participate in the protests because I wanted to honor his service, but I believed strongly that the war was wrong. Misquided people tried to divide everyone into" Hawks " or "Doves, "as if no intelligent person could have any viewpoint in between.

I hoped NEVER to feel about my country's involvement in a war again the way I felt about Viet Nam, not just because it was so wretched to feel that way, but because of the great divide it created. But I do. And I have good reasons for feeling that way.

I have a friend who's rabidly anti-war, who believes that Bush should be taken out and shot for getting us into this war. I don't agree with her - in fact, I told her that her rabid anti-Bush statements have destroyed whatever moral high ground she *thinks* she has.

I also don't agree with the people who are pro-war hook, line and sinker.

But I concede that all viewpoints have a basis, not just in fact, but in FEELING.

And I hope that everyone involved in this thread will take a deep breath and drop this frelling "us vs them" crap and just concede that everyone's point of view may have validity.

Edited by Rhea, 26 March 2003 - 10:34 PM.

The future is better than the past. Despite the crepehangers, romanticists, and anti-intellectuals, the world steadily grows better because the human mind, applying itself to environment, makes it better. With hands...with tools...with horse sense and science and engineering.
- Robert A. Heinlein

When I don’t understand, I have an unbearable itch to know why. - RAH


Everything is theoretically impossible, until it is done. One could write a history of science in reverse by assembling the solemn pronouncements of highest authority about what could not be done and could never happen.  - RAH

#90 Rov Judicata

Rov Judicata

    Crassly Irresponsible and Indifferent

  • Islander
  • 15,720 posts

Posted 26 March 2003 - 10:29 PM

Quote

'Many dead' after Baghdad shops hit
Eyewitness: Shock and anger
Fourteen civilians died and another 30 were injured in Baghdad when a shopping area was hit during an air raid by US-led coalition forces, the Iraqi authorities say.

An angry crowd of several hundred people gathered in the area following the strike, waving the shoes and clothes of victims.
They shouted: "Down with Bush" and "Long live Saddam".

from HERE

For the record, the Pentagon denies this.

Call it propoganda if you will.... but it's the Pentagon's word against Saddam Hussein's. Only one of them will be accountable to others in a few weeks.

The Pentagon is not saying "We can't confirm whether or not we hit the marketplace". They're saying, "We did NOT hit the marketplace."

Bringing that up as an argument against war is premature; granted, civilians will be hurt and killed, but we don't know how this happened.

And now, IMO:

Further, if we *did* somehow hit it, it was because Iraq has placed military equipment and personell in civilian areas. That's not our fault. We'll do our best to avoid civilian losses, but if any happen, it's Iraq's fault, not ours.
St. Louis must be destroyed!

Me: "I have a job and five credit cards and am looking into signing a two year lease.  THAT MAKES ME OLD."
Josh: "I don't have a job, I have ONE credit card, I'm stuck in a lease and I'm 28! My mom's basement IS ONE BAD DECISION AWAY!"
~~ Josh, winning the argument.

"Congress . . . shall include every idiot, lunatic, insane person, and person non compos mentis[.]" ~1 U.S.C. 1, selectively quoted for accuracy.

#91 Drew

Drew

    Josef K.

  • Islander
  • 12,191 posts

Posted 26 March 2003 - 10:37 PM

Rhea, on Mar 26 2003, 01:17 PM, said:

And I refuse to participate in this "if you don't agree with me you're an idiot" conversation any more.
1) I never said this. This is coming entirely from you. I am attempting to engage in a philosophical discussion about the nature of war and morality vis a vis Just War theory. I never said "If you don't agree with me you're an idiot." Please do not put these words in my mouth or characterize my posts in this fashion. I don't take kindly to such "debate" tactics.

And 2) I am not forcing you to participate in this thread.

Quote

And I hope that everyone involved in this thread will take a deep breath and drop this frelling "us vs them" crap and just concede that everyone's point of view may have validity.

I don't get this "us vs. them" sense that people have brought up earlier in this thread. It's not coming from me. I'm not battling anyone.

But I will never agree that all points of view are equally valid. Here's the "great philosophical divide" I was referring to. One side of the divide says that there are universal truths; that there is such a thing as right and wrong. The other side disbelieves this, and suggests that all is relative. What's "right" for you may not be right for me. What's "wrong" today may not be wrong ten years from now.

Regardless of the Administrations reasons for being in Iraq, we are bringing down a dictatorial regime that rapes, tortures, and murders its own people. This is what Dev was trying to get at last week. Even if you think the Administration's reasons are suspect, assuming we pull this off, the Iraqi people will benefit. "Wrong", if you believe in that sort of thing, will be vanquished.

Edited by Drew, 26 March 2003 - 10:50 PM.

"Someone must have slandered Josef K., for one morning, without having done anything wrong, he was arrested."

#92 GiGi

GiGi

    Lipstick wearing PIG kisser!

  • Islander
  • 8,774 posts

Posted 27 March 2003 - 12:17 AM

Drew, on Mar 26 2003, 10:52 AM, said:

The two are connected. If you see harm being done to your neighbor (and here we're talking the global neighborhood) and you don't do anything to stop it, then I think you are at least somewhat complicit.
Drew, very interesting that you use that analogy!

I have real life experience with your example.

My neighbor was being beaten up on (again) by her boyfriend, (she was about 5'2" and he was big and burly and about 6')

My boyfriend went over to help her.  He got into a fight with the boyfriend. I called the police.

By the time they showed up my neighbor's boyfriend had left and my neighbor blamed MY boyfriend for the problem, complained about the blood on her couch and was saying my boyfriend should be taken to jail!!!

The police woman told me as an aside, that this is why they hate domestic violence calls the most.  The "victims" often get mad at the police for interferring.

This same neighbor wasted several days of my time helping her to get a restraining order against the violent boyfriend only to invite him over a week later and thus breaking the restraining order!

So I see the same thing happening in the Middle East.  We are not seeing people embracing the troops, but fighting.  A lot of the people hate Saddam, but do not want the USA to take over either.  And now a lot of people hate the USA more than Saddam.  What good is that?  I do have Persian friends (read Iraqi or Iranian, but no one I know uses those words, too loaded) so I am hearing these feelings from them as they worry about family and if they will die.  So this is not propaganda, but true feelings from people I know.

That is why I was so adament in my support for this to come from the UN.  I know, they were dragging their heels, but it would have been more productive for the USA to pressure them to do something than to go it relatively alone and now bear the brunt of the cost and the blame if something goes wrong.

And by the way, my anti-war protest consists of only lighting candles in prayer for the situation and to express my views on the internet and to my elected officials.  I do not support the antiwar protests that are happening that are causing trouble in the cities they are happening in.  I also send my prayers to our troops.

I agree with Rhea, we are thinking individuals and not black and white as labels of "Hawks" and "Doves" imply.

Edited by chiron777, 27 March 2003 - 12:29 AM.

"Life is as dear to a mute creature as it is to man. Just as one wants happiness and fears pain, just as one wants to live and not die, so do all creatures." -- HH The Dalai Lama

#93 GiGi

GiGi

    Lipstick wearing PIG kisser!

  • Islander
  • 8,774 posts

Posted 27 March 2003 - 12:21 AM

Javert Rovinski, on Mar 26 2003, 11:20 AM, said:

For the record, the Pentagon denies this.
It is 1 pm west coast time.  I have had the news on all day.  They keep saying "Coalition Missles"

Are you saying the Iraqi troops stole Coalition Missles to fire at civilians?

It may have been an accident, but I doubt that matters to the people who are dead...

It has inflamed the rest of the civilians in Iraq though!!!
"Life is as dear to a mute creature as it is to man. Just as one wants happiness and fears pain, just as one wants to live and not die, so do all creatures." -- HH The Dalai Lama

#94 Rov Judicata

Rov Judicata

    Crassly Irresponsible and Indifferent

  • Islander
  • 15,720 posts

Posted 27 March 2003 - 12:31 AM

Quote

It is 1 pm west coast time.  I have had the news on all day.  They keep saying "Coalition Missles"

*Iraq* keeps saying coalition missiles. We don't know whether that's true. It could have been an Iraqi Surface to Air missile that went wrong, an errant coalition missile, or an intentional Iraqi ploy.

Quote

Are you saying the Iraqi troops stole Coalition Missles to fire at civilians?

I doubt they stole coalition missiles, because A) That would be hard and B) I don't think they have the equipment to fire them.

Quote

It may have been an accident, but I doubt that matters to the people who are dead...

I wouldn't know. Never been dead. ;).

Seriously though.. if it was Iraqi fire, it *should* matter. And if it happened because Iraq intentionally put military equipment in civilian areas, that should factor in too.

Quote

It has inflamed the rest of the civilians in Iraq though!!!

Maybe it has, maybe it hsan't. We don't know how much was staged, what's genuine, and what came from the barrel of a gun.  It's not like we have gallup polls.

Accidents are inevitable. If it was our bad, we'll take responsibility for it.
St. Louis must be destroyed!

Me: "I have a job and five credit cards and am looking into signing a two year lease.  THAT MAKES ME OLD."
Josh: "I don't have a job, I have ONE credit card, I'm stuck in a lease and I'm 28! My mom's basement IS ONE BAD DECISION AWAY!"
~~ Josh, winning the argument.

"Congress . . . shall include every idiot, lunatic, insane person, and person non compos mentis[.]" ~1 U.S.C. 1, selectively quoted for accuracy.

#95 Drew

Drew

    Josef K.

  • Islander
  • 12,191 posts

Posted 27 March 2003 - 12:49 AM

chiron777, on Mar 26 2003, 03:08 PM, said:

I have real life experience with your example. . . .
You and your boyfriend did the right thing, even if you did get blamed. "No good deed goes unpunished." When this war is over, Iraqi citizens may blame us for civilian deaths that were really caused by Saddam's Republican Guard. Does that mean that we were wrong to try to stop him? Should we refuse to do right if we know in advance that we'll be blamed for wrongs we didn't do?

Quote

That is why I was so adament in my support for this to come from the UN. I know, they were dragging their heels, but it would have been more productive for the USA to pressure them to do something than to go it relatively alone and now bear the brunt of the cost and the blame if something goes wrong.

But if that was our reason for going to the UN--because we didn't want to bear the blame, rather we wanted the UN to bear the blame--doesn't that suggest that we are seeking to duck our responsibility as a citizen of the world? Aren't we then becoming exactly what critics of the UN say that they are becoming: a useless body that won't enforce its own resolutions? Is there no moral obligation to act against evil, whether you're talking about your neighbors locally or globally?

Edited by Drew, 27 March 2003 - 12:52 AM.

"Someone must have slandered Josef K., for one morning, without having done anything wrong, he was arrested."

#96 GiGi

GiGi

    Lipstick wearing PIG kisser!

  • Islander
  • 8,774 posts

Posted 27 March 2003 - 01:38 AM

Quote

You and your boyfriend did the right thing, even if you did get blamed. "No good deed goes unpunished." When this war is over, Iraqi citizens may blame us for civilian deaths that were really caused by Saddam's Republican Guard. Does that mean that we were wrong to try to stop him? Should we refuse to do right if we know in advance that we'll be blamed for wrongs we didn't do?
But I did learn to call the police first.  Someone could have gotten hurt really badly and it is better to get support from people trained to deal with this.

It is more than them blaming us, they see USA as evil as Saddam.  He kills people, our bombs are killing people, so they may be right about this.

I have never said we shouldn't stop Saddam, but the way we are doing it is putting us in the same league as him, even if it is only in the eyes of the people we are trying to save.

Quote

But if that was our reason for going to the UN--because we didn't want to bear the blame, rather we wanted the UN to bear the blame--doesn't that suggest that we are seeking to duck our responsibility as a citizen of the world? Aren't we then becoming exactly what critics of the UN say that they are becoming: a useless body that won't enforce its own resolutions? Is there no moral obligation to act against evil, whether you're talking about your neighbors locally or globally?
I don't see it as that simplified.  I am not trying to suggest we go to the UN JUST so they can bear the blame.  More like if someone wants to create an intervention, a group is more successful than and individual.  It is easier for the person being confronted to blame the one intervining than when a whole there is group of people confronting someone whose behavior is hurting others.  

I just wish we had waited a bit and had more world support.  By charging in we will be taking on an enormous amount of blame and we may pay a high price for that.  So now that it is done, we had better not be surprised if there is a terrible backlash.

Bottomline, Drew, as I said, I do agree with you.  I am still not convinced they way we have handled the situation will be as successful as it could have been if it had been handled with more backing of the rest of the world.   But we will see, won't we.
"Life is as dear to a mute creature as it is to man. Just as one wants happiness and fears pain, just as one wants to live and not die, so do all creatures." -- HH The Dalai Lama

#97 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 27 March 2003 - 02:04 AM

I am posting this here because it doesn't go in the update thread and I don't think another thread is necessary.

This is an email I received this afternoon...whether you find it humerous is no doubt a matter of subjective perspective.  

Quote

> > 'Warmonger' explains why we are at war To 'Peacenik'
> > [Author Unknown]
> >
> > PN: Why did you say we are invading Iraq?
> >
> > WM: We are invading Iraq because it is in violation of security
> >council resolution 1441. A country cannot be allowed to violate
> >security council resolutions.
> >
> > PN: But I thought many of our allies, including Israel, were in
> >violation of more security council resolutions than Iraq.
> >
> > WM: It's not just about UN resolutions. The main point is that Iraq
> >could have weapons of mass destruction, and the first sign of a
> >smoking gun could well be a mushroom cloud over NY.
> >
> > PN: Mushroom cloud? But I thought the weapons inspectors said Iraq
> >had no nuclear weapons.
> >
> > WM: Yes, but biological and chemical weapons are the issue.
> >
> > PN: But I thought Iraq did not have any long range missiles for
> >attacking us or our allies with such weapons.
> >
> > WM: The risk is not Iraq directly attacking us, but rather
> >terrorists networks that Iraq could sell the weapons to.
> >
> > PN: But couldn't virtually any country sell chemical or biological
> >materials? We sold quite a bit to Iraq in the eighties ourselves,
> >didn't we?
> >
> > WM: That's ancient history. Look, Saddam Hussein is an evil man
> >that has an undeniable track record of repressing his own people
> >since the early eighties. He gasses his enemies. Everyone agrees
> >that he is a power-hungry lunatic murderer.
> >
> > PN: We sold chemical and biological materials to a power-hungry
> >lunatic murderer?
> >
> > WM: The issue is not what we sold, but rather what Saddam did. He
> >is the one that launched a pre-emptive first strike on Kuwait.
> >
> >> PN: A pre-emptive first strike does sound bad. But didn't our
> >>ambassador to Iraq, Gillespie, know about and green-light the
> >>invasion of Kuwait?
> >
> > WM: Let's deal with the present, shall we? As of today, Iraq could
> >sell its biological and chemical weapons to Al Qaida. Osama Bin
> >Laden himself released an audio tape calling on Iraqis to suicide
> >attack us, proving a partnership between the two.
> >
> > PN: Osama Bin Laden? Wasn't the point of invading Afghanistan to kill him?
> >
> > WM: Actually, it's not 100% certain that it's really Osama Bin
> >Laden on the tapes. But the lesson from the tape is the same: there
> >could easily be a partnership between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein
> >unless we act.
> >
> > PN: Is this the same audio tape where Osama Bin Laden labels Saddam
> >a secular infidel?
> >
> > WM: You're missing the point by just focusing on the tape. Powell
> >presented a strong case against Iraq.
> >
> > PN: He did?
> >
> > WM: Yes, he showed satellite pictures of an Al Qaeda poison factory in
>Iraq.
> >
> > PN: But didn't that turn out to be a harmless shack in the part of
> >Iraq controlled by the Kurdish opposition?
> >
> > WM: And a British intelligence report...
> >
> > PN: Didn't that turn out to be copied from an out-of-date graduate
> >student paper?
> >
> > WM: And reports of mobile weapons labs...
> >
> > PN: Weren't those just artistic renderings?
> >
> > WM: And reports of Iraqis scuttling and hiding evidence from inspectors...
> >
> > PN: Wasn't that evidence contradicted by the chief weapons
> >inspector, Hans Blix?
> >
> > WM: Yes, but there is plenty of other hard evidence that cannot be
> >revealed because it would compromise our security.
> >
> > PN: So there is no publicly available evidence of weapons of mass
> >destruction in Iraq?
> >
> > WM: The inspectors are not detectives, it's not their JOB to find
> >evidence. You're missing the point.
> >
> > PN: So what is the point?
> >
> > WM: The main point is that we are invading Iraq because resolution
> >1441 threatened "severe consequences." If we do not act, the
> >security council will become an irrelevant debating society.
> >
> > PN: So the main point is to uphold the rulings of the security council?
> >
> > WM: Absolutely. ...unless it rules against us.
> >
> > PN: And what if it does rule against us?
> >
> > WM: In that case, we must lead a coalition of the willing to invade Iraq.
> >
> > PN: Coalition of the willing? Who's that?
> >
> WM: Britain, Turkey, Bulgaria, Spain, and Italy, for starters.
>
> > PN: I thought Turkey refused to help us unless we gave them tens of
> >billions of dollars
> >
> > WM: Nevertheless, they may now be willing.
> >
> > PN: I thought public opinion in all those countries was against war.
> >
> > WM: Current public opinion is irrelevant. The majority expresses
> >its will by electing leaders to make decisions.
> >
> > PN: So it's the decisions of leaders elected by the majority that
> >is important?
> >
> > WM: Yes.
> > PN: But George B . . .
> >
> > WM: I mean, we must support the decisions of our leaders, however
> >they were elected, because they are acting in our best interest.
> >This is about being a patriot. That's the bottom line.
> >
> > PN: So if we do not support the decisions of the president, we are
> >not patriotic?
> >
> > WM: I never said that.
> >
> > PN: So what are you saying? Why are we invading Iraq?
> >
> > WM: As I said, because there is a chance that they have weapons of
> >mass destruction that threaten us and our allies.
> >
> > PN: But the inspectors have not been able to find any such weapons.
> >
> > WM: Iraq is obviously hiding them.
> >
> > PN: You know this? How?
> >
> > WM: Because we know they had the weapons ten years ago, and they
> >are still unaccounted for.
> >
> > PN: The weapons we sold them, you mean?
> >
> > WM: Precisely.
> >
> > PN: But I thought those biological and chemical weapons would
> >degrade to an unusable state over ten years.
> >
> > WM: But there is a chance that some have not degraded.
> >
> > PN: So as long as there is even a small chance that such weapons
> >exist, we must invade?
> >
> > WM: Exactly.
> >
> > PN: But North Korea actually has large amounts of usable chemical,
> >biological, AND nuclear weapons, AND long range missiles that can
> >reach the west coast AND it has expelled nuclear weapons inspectors,
> >AND threatened to turn America into a sea of fire.
> >
> > WM: That's a diplomatic issue.
> >
> > PN: So why are we invading Iraq instead of using diplomacy?
> >
> > WM: Aren't you listening? We are invading Iraq because we cannot
> >allow the inspections to drag on indefinitely. Iraq has been
> >delaying, deceiving, and denying for over ten years, and inspections
> >cost us tens
> > of millions.
> >
> > PN: But I thought war would cost us tens of billions.
> >
> > WM: Yes, but this is not about money. This is about security.
> >
> > PN: But wouldn't a pre-emptive war against Iraq ignite radical
> >Muslim sentiments against us, and decrease our security?
> >
> > WM: Possibly, but we must not allow the terrorists to change the
> >way we live. Once we do that, the terrorists have already won.
> >
> > PN: So what is the purpose of the Department of Homeland Security,
> >color-coded terror alerts, and the Patriot Act? Don't these change
> >the way we live?
> >
> > WM: I thought you had questions about Iraq.
> >
> > PN: I do. Why are we invading Iraq?
> >
> > WM: For the last time, we are invading Iraq because the world has
> >called on Saddam Hussein to disarm, and he has failed to do so. He
> >must now face the consequences.
> >
> > PN: So, likewise, if the world called on us to do something, such
> >as find a peaceful solution, we would have an obligation to listen?
> >
> > WM: By "world", I meant the United Nations.
> >
> > PN: So, we have an obligation to listen to the United Nations?
> >
> > WM: By "United Nations" I meant the Security Council.
> >
> > PN: So, we have an obligation to listen to the Security Council?
> >
> > WM: I meant the majority of the Security Council.
> >
> > PN: So, we have an obligation to listen to the majority of the
> >Security Council?
> >
> > WM: Well... there could be an unreasonable veto.
> >
> > PN: In which case?
> >
> > WM: In which case, we have an obligation to ignore the veto.
> >
> > PN: And if the majority of the Security Council does not support us at
>all?
> >
> > WM: Then we have an obligation to ignore the Security Council.
> >
> > PN: That makes no sense:
> >
> WM: If you love Iraq so much, you should move there. Or maybe
>France, with the all the other cheese-eating surrender monkeys. It's
>time to boycott their wine and cheese, no doubt about that.
>
> > PN: I give up.

Posted Image

#98 Rov Judicata

Rov Judicata

    Crassly Irresponsible and Indifferent

  • Islander
  • 15,720 posts

Posted 27 March 2003 - 02:18 AM

*shrugs*.

I don't think that it's a fair representation.

A Few Points:

Most "war mongers" have cast off the UN as useless years ago. A lot of conservatives didn't even want Bush going to the UN about this <Remember, neither did Clinton for his ground wars... a point that often gets forgotten>. So, a "war monger" wouldn't emphasize the UN so much. A war monger would have brought up that the UN has Libya in charge of human rights, and Iraq in charge of disarmament.

Also, the lack of cooperation with weapons inspectors would have been brought up.

If it was meant as a collection of strawmen, then it's great. If it was meant as an actual examination of the arguments used, then it's very poor.

It would be no better than having a similar "dialogue" where the dove (hate that term, but can't think of a better one) says things like, "No war for Israel!", "No blood for oil!", "George W. Bush and Saddam are exactly the same" and "You can't PROVE Saddam gassed his own people!".

And I find it *amazing* that liberal pundits can't move beyond the 2000 election. It was done lawfully, under the Constitution. Cope.

JM2C.

PS: I don't think the boycott against France makes much sense. Russia-- who, on the eve of battle sold military equipment to Iraq-- is a much more logical target for any economic protest, if one is so inclined.
St. Louis must be destroyed!

Me: "I have a job and five credit cards and am looking into signing a two year lease.  THAT MAKES ME OLD."
Josh: "I don't have a job, I have ONE credit card, I'm stuck in a lease and I'm 28! My mom's basement IS ONE BAD DECISION AWAY!"
~~ Josh, winning the argument.

"Congress . . . shall include every idiot, lunatic, insane person, and person non compos mentis[.]" ~1 U.S.C. 1, selectively quoted for accuracy.

#99 Banapis

Banapis

    Tilting at Shadow Depositories

  • Islander
  • 2,222 posts

Posted 27 March 2003 - 04:18 AM

Javert Rovinski, on Mar 26 2003, 11:09 PM, said:

And I find it *amazing* that liberal pundits can't move beyond the 2000 election.
Speaking of The Great Debacle, here's an update of what's being done to prevent a repeat.

In February, Congress authorized $1.5 billion to fund the first 2 Titles of the "Help America Vote Act of 2002" (HAVA).

Of the $1.5 billion, $650 million will be applied under Title I to replace punchcard and lever machines (this works out to approximately $4,000 per precinct).  

Other mandates of HAVA:
1.) The State must offer provisional voting and a means of verification.  (Allows voters who claimed they are registered, but whose names do not appear of the rolls, a way to verify their votes were counted either through a website or toll-free number)
2.) The State must create a Statewide computerized voter database.
3.) The State must require first-time voters who register by mail to present some form of identification or verification at the polls.

Impact to date:
As of February, no State met all 3 mandates of HAVA.  However, the election officials of 27 States have indicated they intend to accept the money to replace punchcard and lever machines.  MD, GA, D.C., OK, and Alaska already have ditched those wretched machines (and will seek reimbursement).

Banapis

#100 Drew

Drew

    Josef K.

  • Islander
  • 12,191 posts

Posted 27 March 2003 - 07:12 AM

By the way, I just want to remind that we are not "going it alone." We now have more nations on board than we did in the Gulf War.
"Someone must have slandered Josef K., for one morning, without having done anything wrong, he was arrested."



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: War, Iraq, Just War Theory

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users