Subject:
|
Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 8 Jul 2004 02:31:38 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1040 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Leonard Hoffman wrote:
> 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 gave my reasons.
> > > 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.
So, Germany could slaughter jews at whim in the 20th century because it was a
sovereign nation and you fully support that?
>
> 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.
Perhaps you mean "right" and not "power", because you are demonstrably wrong on
that account. And clearly Bush, at least, no longer recognized Saddam's
government or right to rule.
>
> Think of it this way: If i had killed Timothy McVey I would be guilty of
> *murder*, despite McVey kill 150 other people.
McVey is about to blow up a another building with hundreds of people in it. I,
not authorized by the U.N., U.S., or anybody else, pop him with two to the chest
and one to the head. It would not be murder even though I wasn't directly
threatened.
> The only entity with the right
> to execute McVey, or any murderer, is the government. Anyone else who does so
> is doing so illegally.
And has Saddam been executed? I'm not sure where you are going with this.
>
> >
> > >
> > > 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.
Unsanctioned.
> The war was immoral and
> unjust because the 'ends' do not justify the 'means.'
The war was not about what Bush was claiming it was about, and even if it was,
his claims certainly weren't accurate - one can make a claim for it being moral
or immoral either way regardless of whether it was wise or not (was it deception
or honest error - entirely ignoring that Saddam was a murdering bastard in the
first place). I am more concerned about the cure being worse than the disease,
myself.
> By "ends" i mean the
> capturing of Saddam, placing him on trial, on creation of a new Iraqi gov't.
I think it would have been wiser to let someone else besides the U.S. do this,
and I would certainly not have a problem with the morality of his neighbors
doing it, U.N. sanction or no, beyond his neighbors are pretty dubious in their
own way.
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.
This is about "wisdom". I've already questioned the wisdom of this war many
times here.
>
> When evaluating a war, we have to weigh the good that will be done against the
> bad - and then can we determine the justness.
You are confusing wisdom with justness. They are not the same thing, and your
confusion of such is why you both misunderstand the situation and my views on
it.
>
> >
> >
> > > 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.
We need to vote against him a second time, yes, but it would still probably be a
fiasco no matter which president tried it without firm backing by the U.N.(and
even then my bet is it would be a fiasco).
-->Bruce<--
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
