Subject:
|
Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 8 Jul 2004 00:29:27 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
997 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd wrote:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Leonard Hoffman wrote:
> > > But overthrowing Saddam in itself is not "unjust".
> >
> > Would you mind providing why you think this?
>
> That he is a genocidal tyrant that has additionally invaded two of his neighbors
> soley to steal their resources springs to mind. Or are you saying that Saddam's
> actions are "just"?
I'm not suggesting, nor making any statement, that Saddam's actions are just.
I'm questioning whether the USA's actions were just. Or rather, specifically,
wondering why you think they were "not unjust."
>
> >
> > I think we'd all agree that war, all things being equal, tends to be unjust.
>
> Unjust things happen during any war - however, from a given perspective, not all
> that wage war are unjust in doing so.
>
> And please note that we are only speaking hypothetically - I would have been
> quite happy to see the U.N. go in and stomp Saddam, while at the same time I
> think Bush is an idiot for doing the same thing unilaterally.
I'm speaking hypthetically as well. And by "all things being equal" i mean in a
idealized world. But things are not all equal, and there are some times when
War is necessary (hence, 'just').
>
>
> > Furthermore, Saddam was the recognized (by us) legitimate ruler of a sovereign
> > nation. He did thumb his nose at UN resolutions, but none of those resolutions
> > questioned his legitimacy or the sovereignity of Iraq.
>
> None of this really has anything to do with just and unjust.
It has everything to do with justness and unjustness. Being a sovereign nation
means that the nation has the right to make laws governing itself and to enforce
those laws - furthermore, being a recognized nation means that other nations
will respect that right.
Being legitimate means that Saddam *was* the ruler of Iraq - and we, by
recognizing his government, had no right to undermine his rule. The only body
that had that power is the UN.
Think of it this way: If i had killed Timothy McVey I would be guilty of
*murder*, despite McVey kill 150 other people. The only entity with the right
to execute McVey, or any murderer, is the government. Anyone else who does so
is doing so illegally.
>
> >
> > Are you're saying that Saddam was a jerk and therefore waging war to overthrow
> > him was just?
>
> I merely disputed the assumption that David made that the war was "unjust".
> I'll also dispute "illegal". I won't dispute "stupid", "unsanctioned",
> "trumped-up", and any number of terms uncomplimentary to Dubya.
For the reasons mentioned above, the war was illegal. The war was immoral and
unjust because the 'ends' do not justify the 'means.' By "ends" i mean the
capturing of Saddam, placing him on trial, on creation of a new Iraqi gov't. By
"means" i mean the thousands of Iraqi civilians who have died, the hundred of US
soldiers, the damage to US's reputation around the world, the damage to the
concept of international law, the political chaos in Iraq, and the great cost in
dollars to US taxpayers.
When evaluating a war, we have to weigh the good that will be done against the
bad - and then can we determine the justness.
>
>
> > Then why don't be just go around the globe overthrowing random
> > other jerks?
>
> Because it would be just as big a waste as this attempt is? Mind you, in theory
> it isn't such a bad idea. In practice, I'm sure it would be a fiasco.
In practice, we'd start by throwing out Bush.
_lenny
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
120 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
