Subject:
|
Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 9 Jul 2004 14:31:47 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1255 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd wrote:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys wrote:
>
> > > > Illegal in the same way that the speed limit along the QEW in Ontario, Canada is
> > > > 100 km/hour--If a state trooper pulls you over in Florida and gives you a ticket
> > > > due to one time in your life you were clocked on the QEW doing 110--that ticket
> > > > is illegal. It's not sanctioned by the Ontario Provincial Police, nor is it
> > > > enforcable in any court of law.
> > >
> > > What in the world was that about????
> >
> > Its an example to show that you can't use a country's laws legally in another
> > country. The UN had the resolution--the UN has to deal with enforcing it. The
> > US, stating the UN resolution as reason to invade, but at hte same time acting
> > against what the UN stated, started an illegal war. I thought it was clear.
>
> I thought I made it clear that I was not making any reference to the U.N.
> resolution you are refering to.
I thought we were talking about the legitimacy, legality, moralness, and wisdom
of the war. I was setting out to show via example, how this war was illegal.
>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > If the UN has a resolution, and this resolution was broken by a sovereign
> > > > country, then it's the UN that has the lawful right to decide what to do about
> > > > with the nation breaking UN sanctions. The US, acting against the UN and going
> > > > it alone, started an illegal war on Iraq--the US used the defiance of Iraq to
> > > > Res 1441 (and many many others as people here have listed in the past) as the
> > > > pretext to invade.
> > >
> > >
> > > "Because the U.N. chose not to take action on a specific front does not mean
> > > action was not justified on another." Which you promptly ignored with the
> > > above.
> >
> > Citing the breaking of a UN resolution and yet not acting on the behalf on the
> > UN is not justified. I don't ignore anything :)
>
> You just ignored it again!!!
>
>
No I didn't (this is sounding like a bad Python sketch). If action is justified
from another avenue, then action is justified on another avenue. That said,
Dubya didn't go down a different avenue--he used the UN resolution (the same
avenue) as justification for the invasion. Thus illegal, as I pointed out with
my example above--If Canadian cops did nothing about your speeding in Canada,
that does not give justification for a state trooper in Florida to use that
speeding incident in Canada as a Just reason to pull you over in Florida.
Dubya used the breaking of the UN resolutions as the prime reason for the
invasion. He didn't use something 'new' and 'recently discovered'--i.e. a
different avenue.
> > > Dunno, but I detected hostility was coming - you know, something like hurling
> > > "idiotic" at me.
> >
> > Not at you, at the statement. WW2 was started because hitler invaded poland.
> > The events leading to this may have been 'easily' preventable, but the actual
> > war was Just.
>
> But it happened because of stupidity, thus it was Yet Another Stupid European
> War caused by their incessant squabbling. That some of the participants made
> the only decision that they could make at the time the decision was presented to
> them doesn't mean that the events that lead up to that weren't from StOOpidity.
> Like I said, we've been over this before.
Therefore, not to ruffle your feathers more, the war wasn't stupid, the events
leading to the war were stupid. It wasn't another 'stupid european war'. I
might add, had Churchill done nothing, (and if Pearl Harbour never happened),
Hitler wouldn't have stopped with 'dumb Europe' and your country would have been
hit by the Nazis.
>
> > > > willful deaths of citizens around the world. Atrocities on atrocities
> > > > throughout the world. Yet, here, now, we're mired in Iraq? Why? I think
> > > > that's a rather important question.
> > >
> > > But not for the matter at hand - or are you saying that it is unjust to unseat a
> > > genocidal tyrant? I keep having to harp on that point because you keep wanting
> > > to dance around it.
> >
> > Again, I recall when SH was committing atrocities--Kurds dying and such.
> > However, I don't recall him making the headlines over the last couple of years.
> > So if SH was a bad man *then* why wait until now for the invasion? And looking
> > at the atrocities going on in the world today, why attack Iraq for past
> > transgressions?
>
> Sigh. You danced around the question again.
Sigh all you want. You're looking for the answers you want to see, yet cannot
comprehend what is said. Forget about visiting Hitler before he became this
tyrant--here's a hypothetical for you--Nazis didn't win nor lose the war--a bit
of a stalemate occured and a cease fire was called. So Germany stays under the
banner of the Nazis and Hitler's still running the country. 10 years go by with
not one death to anyone. We know of the concentration camps during the war, but
now it's 10 years later and Adolph hasn't done anytthing wrong. Do we have a
Just reason for invasion 10 years after the fact?
Saddam was a brutal man. But why did the US invade when they did?
I'm not interested in dancing, I'm interested in the debate. I haven't firmed
up my opinion one way or the other. Can you invade a sovereign nation based on
past misdeeds, and not on current *legitimate* issues. I do know that Saddam
was used by the US administration in the past, but now he's the bad guy. That
smells of hypocrisy. That's the real issue. The parenthetical (and I'm the
king of perenthetical disussions :) )debate regarding whether genocidal tyrants
can hide behind 'sovereignty', well, as I said, I'm being swayed to the idea
that the citizens of the country have to shake off the yoke of oppression--not
an outside country. Combined with sanctions against the import and export of
all goods and services from otehr gov'ts is, imho, the best solution we may
possibly have at this time. What if Austrailia all of a sudden get it in their
collective mindset that abortion is murder and finds that the US asministration
is willingly allowing the deaths of thousands of people daily? Do they have the
right to overthrow the US gov't?
Where do we draw the line on our moral values? This may seem callous, but
again, I'm not committed to this course of action.
>
> > > If Justness and Unjustness doesn't enter into it, then you agree with my
> > > challenge to you saying that removing Saddam is inherently unjust.
> >
> >
> > I'm being swayed by the 'sovereign nation' idea--I personally dislike SH but
> > does that give legitimacy for another sovereign nation to invade, especially
> > based on no 'imminent threat' to other countries?
>
> Its okay people to kill people in area X, but not in area Y?
How did you read that into what I said? It's okay for the citizens of any
oppressive regime to overthrow their oppressors. I'd go so far as to say that
if the citizens call for outside help to achieve liberation from the oppressors,
I'm good. But again, not firmly ensconsed in this idea. If we look at history,
we can see that when the citizens do the changing, it usually holds for a long
time. When governments affect change in other countries, it's usually not as
good in the long run--it doesn't take hold as well.
> > > You do recall this is a disagreement about "unjustness", not wisdom? We both
> > > agree the war is stupid.
> > >
> > > -->Bruce<--
> >
> > Just = legitimate or legal or even moral.
>
> adjective
>
> 1. fair and impartial: acting with fairness and impartiality
> 2. morally correct: done, pursued, or given in accordance with what is morally
> right
> 3. reasonable: valid or reasonable
>
> Nothing about legal or legitmate.
>
> The legitimacy of this war has been
> > disproved many times over. Some may disagree on my idea that this is an illegal
> > war, but Dubya did base this war on the breaking of UN res 1441 (and others).
> > And morality, eh, we already know the answer to that one.
>
>
> And the morality of Saddam is well known (absolutely none).
>
> -->Bruce<--
What about the morality of Dubya? Where does he fit on the scale? If he has
'absolutely none', does that allow another nation the avenue for invasion to
overthrow him?
Where's the line?
Dave K
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
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
|
|
|
|
