Subject:
|
Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 9 Jul 2004 17:08:59 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1113 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys wrote:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd wrote:
> > 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.
No. You said the war against Saddam was "unjust" and I disputed that. I did
say in passing that I would dispute "illegal". It was never about the wisdom of
the war, and I have said so repeatedly. Nor was it about Bush's stated reasons
for legitimacy, which I have also said. You have wanted to get up on your
soapbox about those, which is something of a waste since I've said many times
before my views on those are in agreement with yours.
> > > > > 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).
"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 :)"
"...does not mean action was not justified on another."
You ignored that part. Now below you DO address it (well, at least relate it to
your answer). So yes, it's a bad Python sketch, but entirely on your part.
> 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.
I really don't care what justification he used - his action was stupid from my
viewpoint. But that's not the point.
> 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.
Again, that's not the point.
>
> 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'.
Invading Poland wasn't stupid? Invading France wasn't stupid? Invading Africa
wasn't stupid? Invading Finland wasn't stupid? Another Stupid European War.
And yes, the events leading to war do count - it was the foolishness of Europe
that caused the war, no matter whether that it was worth fighting certain
elements once events were upon the participants.
> 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.
I needed a good laugh. Thanks. :-)
> > > > 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.
What part of "is it unjust to unseat a genocidal tyrant?" don't you comprehend?
> 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?
In interesting question but one that doesn't relate unless you are willing to
claim Saddam had stopped killing people wholesale.
However, to answer your question, there is no time limit on murder. "Oh, you
commited mass murder, but ten years ago? Hey that's okay!" I don't think so.
So, my answer would be yes, going after a mass murderer is always just. Would
it be wise to do is another question entirely, and I think once again there is a
confusion of what is not wise is not just, which isn't true.
>
> Saddam was a brutal man. But why did the US invade when they did?
Doesn't relate to whether it is inherently unjust to remove a mass murderer.
>
> 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.
I'd say mass murder is the real issue, but that's just me, I guess. But I won't
dispute that both Bushes are hypocrits.
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.
Something I have said long ago (and it was in relation to Iraq). And clearly I
don't accept the tyrant's defense: "This is a sovereign nation and I can do
whatever I want. Nyahh, nyahh, nyahh."
> 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?
That's an issue that is flux around the world and there is not a clear-cut
consensus on that.
>
> 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.
Justness. Wisdom. Not. The. Same. Thing. I agree that it may well not be
wise.
>
> >
> > > > 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?
Dunno...ummmm, I think I was looking at something else and placed this here by
mistake. I'll withdraw that. I stand chastised.
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.
Germany's didn't hold after WWI, but did after WWII. Mixed results at best -
generally I agree with you. I have no great hopes that any democratic processes
that are installed in Iraq will last even a decade. That which they didn't
achieve through their own hard work they won't value. Further, we will not be
in a position to enforce things for years like we were able to in Germany and
Japan.
> > And the morality of Saddam is well known (absolutely none).
>
> 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?
Yes. I'd have to get in line to shoot him if he started killing wholesale
portions of America, though, so I don't think it would ever have to come to that
(not to mention I don't believe Bush would ever do that - I'm not sure where to
put him on the morality scale, but not near Saddam. The stupidity scale is
something else entirely, though).
-->Bruce<--
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
