Eff's Rambles (Archive)

11/15/2004

Re: War and Moral Consistency

From Open Commentary

  • From: mô…
    Sent: 11/9/2004 1:34 AM
    i'm not sure, in war, if any side is ever really right.

    i think a lot of it comes down to political turn-over. leaders change and with them the dynamics of the group and sometimes the soical mentality too. it's a good demonstration of the need to always be self reliant, and forgiving, if the situation ever becomes reversed.

  • From: mô…
    Sent: 11/9/2004 1:36 AM
    are typos contagious?

  • From: F14_D
    Sent: 11/9/2004 1:45 AM
    I doubt they are.

    Interesting point.

From PhilosophyAbsurdity


  • From: Big_Daddy_76
    Sent: 11/8/2004 10:34 PM

    Enough of this 'country A' crap, let's get down to facts, and not rhetoric, if we may.

    After being driven from Kuwait, Iraq signed an armistice, further hostility being dependent on Iraq's compliance, or non-compliance with said armistice.

    After 10+ years (MORE THAN 10 YEARS!!!) of non-compliance with UN resolutions,
    after continued obstruction of UN weapons inspectors attempts to determine if Iraq
    still had WMD in it's possession,
    after 10+ years of illegally bypassing the UN's 'Oil for Food' program
    (abetted by UN members France, Germany and Russia, but let's not talk about that),
    and after continued attempts by Iraq to shoot-down US and GB aircraft enforcing the
    UN's 'No Fly Zone', (with components sold to it illegally by the UN members previously mentioned)
    (Mind you, the previous paragraph is not opinion, it is reality, that someone chooses not to recognize them, does not invalidate the facts!)

    Then.......
    The US decides (ALMOST unilaterally) to end the sham, and enforce the armistice agreed upon by Iraq!

    So, I have to ask:
    Why is the US considered the agressor?

    Why, after 10+ years of Iraqi non-compliance with UN resolutions, is the US accused of 'rushing to war'?

    Why is the US condemned for 'not seeking a world concensus', with nations actively involved in criminal activities in Iraq?

    Why is the US condemned for not having UN authorization, when the UN shows no 'moral fiber', and won't enforce it's own resolutions?

    IMNSHO, the only nation that has shown any 'moral consistency' at all, is the US!!
    But that's just my opinion.........

  • From: F14_D
    Sent: 11/9/2004 12:10 AM

    My understanding is the the "No Fly zone was not UN sanctioned.

    The actual guilt of anyone, let alone a country as a whole, or at least its government, remains yet to be seen. But it is yourt right to draw conclusions about the guilt or innocence of the nations you mentioned.

    As for whether or not America is morally consistent, I am not getting involved in that. I mostly as asking about specific choices in a narrow context. I understand if some cannot work within it, that's inherent is any hypothetical, at least I would think so.

    I do not know precisely why Europe opposed the war and feels America was in the wrong to go wage war, but I think the two most likely reasons are Europe's opposition to force, for humanitarian reasons and so on, in most circumstances unless urgent, and do not believe Saddam's continued presence in power in Iraq created.

    For them, necessity, it seems, trumps the issue of accountability, or at least the use of force to hold a state accountable. I cannot say they are wrong, but I do wonder, if further diplomacy and sanctions are the alternatives, just how long should the US and Britain have continued with the controversial No Fly Zones, defended sanctions which seem to have been manipulated? Even if cost and rsik factors are lower, it does not sit well to have to keep a force monitoring a dictator. Is it the contention of many European's that there should have been an end to monitoring of Saddam's activities, or at least a lessening of it. I am not out to target Europe, but I just wonder about policies. I wonder about whose accountable: why someone should or should not be; vaibility, pragmatism, practicality, reliability, steadfastness.

    I tend to lean toward Europe's view, as I understand it, though I do wonder about aspects of it.

  • From: Big_Daddy_76
    Sent: 11/9/2004 2:14 AM
    Tomcat:

    The 'No-Fly' zones weren't UN sanctioned?
    They certainly were a part of the Armistice, correct?
    There were never any UN resolutions condemning them, were there?
    If the NFZ weren't UN sanctioned, they certainly were tacitly approved.

    How long should they have been maintained?
    How about: "Untill SH was in compliance with the UN resolutions"?

    This mess should have been taken care of within 5 years of the end of the Gulf War,
    but, well, Bill Clinton happened, and we all know he was too busy using interns as
    humidors to do anything about the attack on the USS Cole, let alone that mess GHWB left behind..........

  • From: F14_D
    Sent: 11/9/2004 2:28 AM
    I don't know the details of the armistice.

  • From: morgue_evolved
    Sent: 11/9/2004 8:21 AM
    okay so i didnt read every word in this thread.

    but, i believe the US was accused of rushing into war..because no one shot at us on our soil first. it's always been that way, hasn't it ? no one is allowed to start a war without repercussion without having been "hit" first.

    okay...don't mind me...just pass right by this post.

  • From: Dreamian™
    Sent: 11/9/2004 1:24 PM
    If I knew for sure that someone hated me enough to kill me, and I also knew that this person has killed before and has no problem with killing again, and I knew that it was only a matter of time that this person would be able to carry out this threat, and there were only 2 choices: wait for it and hope he misses, or strike first. I suppose so long as you're not too squeamish, and you value your life, and it would be considered self defence by anyone that counts, then the choice is easy.


    Dreamian*.(

  • From: morgue_evolved
    Sent: 11/11/2004 8:25 AM
    hi dreamy !

    okay, with that line of thought, there was a point in my life where i could have killed my ex-husband (and wanted to).

    why didn't I ?

    the upset of my already fragile life ?
    the repercussions it would have on our son ?

    i suppose thoughts of what would occur afterward. thinking ahead to what would transpire. did bush think ahead ? shit, does bush think ? i don't think it's his job anyway, to think.

    you know, i read a book once (wow..really)...involving a conspiracy where the powers that be around the world (corporations) get together and devise a plan where a terrorist organization hits the US bigtime allowing for attacks on other countries...putting everyone (the little people and those that still think what they do and say matter) around the world into an uproar...keeping them busy while the big guys sit back and rake in the mula and the power....it ends with the world f-ed and the little people still little....no happy ending. God knows why i just typed this sh-t...

    anywho...have a good day.

  • From: Dreamian™
    Sent: 11/11/2004 1:51 PM
    Morgue, what do you mean by "could have killed my husband"? Was he trying to kill you?

    I see what you are saying morgue, but that does not fit in with the scenario I layed out. I basically said that if I had reason enough to believe that someone was going to kill me as soon as they got the chance; the smart thing to do may be to strike first.

    Thinking of the future is what I believe bush is doing. I think that it is obvious that if Sadam were left in power, and if he were able to hinder our efforts (lets not mention the cost thereof) to insure that he is unable to obtain the ability to hold the world at hostage, or inflict enormous casualties upon his enemy (namely US), then he surely would achieve this goal; in our future!

    I don't see how anyone can doubt that if sadam were ever handed a missle capable of reaching the USA or numerous missles for that matter, with nuclear war heads, that he would use them in a heartbeat. Probably would even attatch one or more of his own soldiers to it to aide in making sure it reached its destination, if he thought that would help.


    Dreamian*.(

  • From: Dreamian™
    Sent: 11/11/2004 1:54 PM
    I think that he would probably make it look like someone else did it and then wait for his chance to walk into kuwait again, or wherever else he thinks he can get away with it. He strikes me as the sneaky type for some reason.


    Dreamian*.(

From Philosophy 4 Everyone


  • From: stevapaloooza
    Sent: 11/8/2004 5:16 PM
    C is currently slaughtering unarmed civilians in the Ivory Coast in the name of protecting it's colonial holdings. So I doubt it sat out Iraq for moral reasons.

    The answer to your question is C is a douchebag.

  • From: F14_D
    Sent: 11/8/2004 6:27 PM
    C is not specifically France. As I said, inspired by. And several states that opposed the war will not help, though France may b ethe most important and necessary state for acheiving America's goal in Iraq.

  • From: Hershey
    Sent: 11/8/2004 8:05 PM
    F14_D here is another aguement to consider:
    A has a hard on for war and he's using it soley for the purpose of f..king weaker countries to get what he wants..

    "Bush has got them scud missiles lined up so accurate-like that he ain't never gonna shoot a camel in the ass when he's wanting to take out Osama's testicles"
    -- Alpy the alpinist

  • From: F14_D
    Sent: 11/8/2004 8:19 PM
    Stiff forces make for a hard enemy to defeat. Boooinnggg.

  • From: Rorke11
    Sent: 11/9/2004 1:43 AM
    Side D is right. Side D recognizes that Side A is an Imperialist, Side B is a regional dictator that constitutes no real danger to Side A save for the danger to Side A's fortune 500 corporate interests in petro chemicals and Side C doens't wish to jeopardize its business interests with Side B by supporting the Imperialist Side A who has a long standing history of both saving and screwing Side C. Side D decides that the best course of action is to simply let Side A overextend itself, bankrupt itself and then take the vacated spot on top of the global econimic hill. Sometimes in-action is the best action to take....
    Rorke

  • From: turboenjen
    Sent: 11/9/2004 6:06 AM
    I like that Rourke. Who is side D when taken out of hypothetical terms? Genius!

    Here goes:

    It depends on what basis of judgement you use. If you go by the law of the land,

    A should never have been in power and should be held accountable for war crimes

    B should never have been in power and should be held accontable for war crimes

    C has not commited any war crimes and therefore can not be held accountable

    If you go by moral conscience

    Well you better hope that A, B, and C were all guided by conscience and not by political agenda. Unfortunately we have no means with which to judge that. Will they burn in hell for ignoring their conscience and submitting to political agenda? Well, Aren't we already?

  • From: RubyTuesday_
    Sent: 11/9/2004 8:07 AM
    Lets simplify it a tad more:

    A=A man arrested as a serial killer
    B=The Police Cheif
    C=The Judge

    A man is arrested and accused of being a Serial killer, 1st degree murder.

    There is no proof he is indeed a Serial Killer and the facts prove otherwise.

    He is an ass who beats his wife and children, and believes it is his responsiblity to keep order in his household according to his religion, (spare the rod, yadayada) but he is not charged with that offense.

    The Police cheif knows he is wrong, but being unable to locate the real serial killer he decides to arrest a crimanal, any criminal. He refuses to acknowledge his deception on the grounds that the Man is infact a criminal, maybe not guilty of the crime he is charged with but a crimal non the less and hey crime is crime and it's his job to arrest criminals. The Police chief truely believe he is stopping crime.

    Under the law 1st degree murder is punishable by death, yet the man is guilty of 1st degree assault punishable by 10-15 years incarceration (guessing).

    The Judge is aware the charges are bogus, and that the Police cheif violated the Man's rights.

    If The Judge refuses to hear the case and brings to light the violation of the Man's rights, the Man could be set free and continue to beat his wife and children.

    If The Judge continues the deception the Man will die based on a lie and the Judge will have set aside his Legal responsibilities and Moral ethics.

    If the Judge says and does nothings and asks that the case be transfered to another court, he then is part of the deception and thus also a guilty party.

    Mean while the real serial Killer is free to contine his reign of terror against society.

    If The Judge had been able to rule on the Facts of the Crime the Man actually commited Justice would have been served.

  • From: ČhëriWølf11
    Sent: 11/9/2004 10:25 AM
    I realize this thread is an excellent exercise in thought and perception. But I can't help but point out a serious problem in a nation with a military like the USA. When issues of wrongful distortions leading to war, poor planning of that war, diminishing jobs, a greater poorer class are trumped by so called morals we have a cultural divide that can only be termed as frightening.

  • From: F14_D
    Sent: 11/9/2004 10:51 AM
    That is an interesting scenario, Ruby, and your point about the limited ability, or inability, of C to make a decision that is in the best interest of serving the cause of justice without full knowledge is a good one, and how can we fault what might be an imperfect judgement when the facts upon which it was made are imperfect (hopefully I have not grosly misunderstood your points)? But, as I have said, the Iraq war was an inspiration, one which I did not intend to imply should be reflected in all aspects of my hypothetical. Of course, it's allright if people wish to use the facts or their interpretations of the Iraq war issue. But A, B and C were not meant to be assumed as being guilty of what at the very least rumor says they are. Also, and I do think your scenario whent a good way toward addressing this, the underlying motives and actual behavior of A and B are not the main question, whether or not C is acting more or less in acordance with an element of its ethic if it engages further or does not, is. And I do not think the scenarios quite match up. Besides the difference in scale, the war scenario has violence in the present sense. Your scenario has that at first, but is a matter for B (A) to decide. When the issue comes before C, the violence which may result in bad judgement is itself hypothetical. Even with all knowledge, the wrong choice, if defined by outcome, could be made. If the reasoning was sound in C's decision, would the moral onus, if any, on C be as high for presumed violence as opposed to existing violence? Granted, there is presumption in both scenarios. The violence in my scenario could suddenly cease. But abrupt cessation of violence was not listed as a possibility and could not be within the power of C to bring about as easily as it could in your scenario. If such were so, there likely would be no need for C to be asked by A to consider involving itself in a way it disagrees with. The C in your scenario differs in that it is placed in the role of a judge that has the burden of responsibility to maintain law and the fair application thereof. C fulfills its responsibility by acting in compliance with narrow parameters to which it is legally bound. A's violence, if released and under the presumption it woud be violent, then becomes under the purview of B to deal with. The C in the war scenario is not a judge and thus cannot claim to have met its responsibility, as the legal parameters may not exist or be as clear in its case. This C must contend with whether or not its action or inaction is consistent with or ideal to its morality. Can it claim it followed the law and is therefor not responsible for X, Y and Z?

  • From: stevapaloooza
    Sent: 11/10/2004 4:13 AM
    C is not specifically France. As I said, inspired by. And several states that opposed the war will not help, though France may b ethe most important and necessary state for acheiving America's goal in Iraq.

    I don't care. I used your well-constructed moral equation as a flimsy pretext to attack France. And I'd do it again!!

  • From: F14_D
    Sent: 11/10/2004 6:16 AM
    Yeah. Glad to be of service.

  • From: ČhëriWølf11
    Sent: 11/11/2004 11:24 AM
    Hey Stevie,

    It is nice to see you pop in again. How ya been? Tell all you been up to. Don't leave out any names. Heehee.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ok, now let me address this very interesting hypothetical representation F_14D presents and also some comments from others.

Since we have a human history laden with the process of war, the fact that it exists as a way to settle differences or disputes must come as no surprise.


After much diplomatic wrangling between entities, A wages war on B; the third entity (C) was and remains opposed to the actions of A on strategic and moral grounds.


So what we seem to be concentrating on with F_14D's scenario is the morality of war's existence, human behavior in general, and the accountability for actions when agreements exist.


C is bound only to unquestioned loyalty to itself, those under its charge, and select, overriding principles.


It is the above statement that most catches my focus. Stevie puts a name on C saying it is France. Even if C is France the question of their being bound to participate in the war requires two properties.

1. Does C owe A their uncontested support and participation from some valid contract or agreement between the two?
2. If so, what gives validity to any contract of the sort?


IMHO, if A and C have some sort of contract that says one will come to the others aide in time of need, that pertains to A requiring the efforts of C due to a survival situation. I believe when the survival of any ally is at risk the person has a moral obligation to assist in some manner to stabalize the situation. I would not go so far as to declare they must physically fight the war. Participation could be in using other channels like the diplomatic one.

So if that contract can be loosely interpreted and inclusive of C's right to verify the status of A's claim, and thus choose between aiding A by one means or another than C abides the contract on a superficial level even if C morally decides not to participate by sending troops. If the contract specifies that C will participate in any engagement of war involving A and C uses no means to work with A, claims nuetrality or moral indifference, than C sounds remiss.

I know all that speel above seems like double speak. But taking a part of one argument F_14D points out :


By not assisting A or B, C is being true to its principle. It is not engaging in a war it opposed by physical interaction.


I would add those three words to make that statement representative of where I would comfortable is stating C's stand. It doesn't mean I would appreciate C or have much respect for them after they made such a choice. And on a personal scale in all likihood it would eventually result in my severing the contract ties with C.

Because I might interpret their decision as an end to our original agreement. But before severing ties I think in all fairness I would at least be willing to draw up a new contract with C that would either entail specifics of their participation in any action, or give them the latitude of their moral convictions.

Consequently, I don't view France as C. To me C would have to be a nation that actually had a committment to A in respect to any war action. And so I would ask how such a contract could be morally right in the first place? And who would be willing to sign or agree to something like that?

Thus, to sum up the parts I mentioned should be addressed, the morality and decision of A's choice to war falls on A. Human behavior to date demonstrates that humans solve problems via methods that result in killing one another. And the accountability for the killing remains an unsolved mystery, because humans tend to blame each other and noone takes the responsibility for the death and destruction. Yet in their history the loser of the conflict most often carries the burden for the blame.

Cheri

From Philosophy with your coffee II


  • From: TALLYBENDER
    Sent: 11/8/2004 11:25 AM
    UNITED NATIONS

For the purpose of this discussion let A through Z represent

nations. All nations agrred to join together and prevent wars

after WWII. Nation A iniated the start of This United Nations

and hosts it today on its soil. A strongly critized nation R for

vetoing decisions not in their self interest. But when all voted to

sanction B for using poison gas, only A and I abstained from

voting for it. All from A to Z helped to prevent B from

occuppying nation nation Q. Now A is involyed in occuppying

B without United Nations approval. Your question is should C

and others support a war they did not authorize. Perhaps they

should help get this war stopped end the occupation of B.


  • From: F14_D
    Sent: 11/8/2004 6:45 PM
    As I said, this is inspired by the Iraq war. I do not intend to apply answers given to the hypothetical to the event upon which it is based and charge the countries C applies to with being wrong. I do not see the relevance of A's moral consistency or lack thereof. Obviously you're referring to Halabja in the real life situation, but even then the question would be whether France, et al, is being morally consistent, not the purity of America's motives.
    I did not consider the option you gave, and I should have. Thanks for bringing it up. that's why I said some arguments and not the arguments.

  • From: TALLYBENDER
    Sent: 11/8/2004 8:10 PM
    MORALS AND AGGRESSION We loudly condemed Russia when it invaded Hungary and Afghanistan and justly so. If we are to have an internatioal body to prevent wars, all must abide by the same standard. To take a year to plan an invasion does not seem qualify asan imminet threat. Leaving plenty of time if neccessary for a constitutional declarationof war by congress or a decision by the United Nations.

  • From: Big_Daddy_76
    Sent: 11/8/2004 10:19 PM
    Enough of this 'country A' crap, let's get down to facts, and not rhetoric, if we may.

    After being driven from Kuwait, Iraq signed an armistice, further hostility being dependent on Iraq's compliance, or non-compliance with said armistice.

    After 10+ years (MORE THAN 10 YEARS!!!) of non-compliance with UN resolutions,
    after continued obstruction of UN weapons inspectors attempts to determine if Iraq
    still had WMD in it's possession,
    after 10+ years of illegally bypassing the UN's 'Oil for Food' program
    (abetted by UN members France, Germany and Russia, but let's not talk about that),
    and after continued attempts by Iraq to shoot-down US and GB aircraft enforcing the
    UN's 'No Fly Zone', (with components sold to it illegally by the UN members previously mentioned)
    Mind you, the previous paragraph is not opinion, it is reality, that someone chooses not to recognize them, does not invalidate the facts!

    The US decides (ALMOST unilaterally) to end the sham, and enforce the armistice agreed upon by Iraq, so I have to ask:

    Why is the US considered the agressor?

    Why, after 10+ years of Iraqi non-compliance with UN resolutions, is the US accused of 'rushing to war'?

    Why is the US condemned for 'not seeking a world concensus', with nations actively involved in criminal activities in Iraq?

    Why is the US condemned for not having UN authorization, when the UN shows no 'moral fiber', and won't enforce it's own resolutions?

    IMNSHO, the only nation that has shown any 'moral consistency' at all, is the US!!
    But that's just my opinion.........

  • From: F14_D
    Sent: 11/9/2004 12:01 AM
    My understanding is the the "No Fly zone was not UN sanctioned.

    The actual guilt of anyone, let alone a country as a whole, or at least its government, remains yet to be seen. But it is yourt right to draw conclusions about the guilt or innocence of the nations you mentioned.

    As for whether or not America is morally consistent, I am not getting involved in that. I mostly as asking about specific choices in a narrow context. I understand if some cannot work within it, that's inherent is any hypothetical, at least I would think so.

    I do not know precisely why Europe opposed the war and feels America was in the wrong to go wage war, but I think the two most likely reasons are Europe's opposition to force, for humanitarian reasons and so on, in most circumstances unless urgent, and do not believe Saddam's continued presence in power in Iraq created.

    For them, necessity, it seems, trumps the issue of accountability, or at least the use of force to hold a state accountable. I cannot say they are wrong, but I do wonder, if further diplomacy and sanctions are the alternatives, just how long should the US and Britain have continued with the controversial No Fly Zones, defended sanctions which seem to have been manipulated? Even if cost and rsik factors are lower, it does not sit well to have to keep a force monitoring a dictator. Is it the contention of many European's that there should have been an end to monitoring of Saddam's activities, or at least a lessening of it. I am not out to target Europe, but I just wonder about policies. I wonder about whose accountable: why someone should or should not be; vaibility, pragmatism, practicality, reliability, steadfastness.

    I tend to lean toward Europe's view, as I understand it, though I do wonder about aspects of it.

  • From: F14_D
    Sent: 11/9/2004 12:05 AM
    Well, I am not sure what imminent threat is. I suppose that, had the WMD threat existed in reality to the extent many thought, the option to use force might lost its realistic worth by the time diplomatic efforts had been exhausted. And it's nearly impossible to exhaust diplomacy, especially if the philosophies of those defining exhaustion are highly pacifistic.

  • From: just a reader
    Sent: 11/9/2004 6:18 AM
    Thank you, F14_D, for bringing this one over here, to this coffee board also. Interesting, the different replys you are getting. Especially, so soon after the election. That was a difficult choice, for most Americans, I'm thinkin'.....but, a choice had to be made. Good to have the groundwork done, on the different philosophies. Why, do we think, and do, like we do? Doesn't anyone know history anymore?
    E.

  • From: TALLYBENDER
    Sent: 11/9/2004 6:20 AM
    damn I like a good argument, but the war is a fact, as much as I like arm chair quarter backing, May be we should discuss some way out of that mess.

  • From: Cabster_297
    Sent: 11/9/2004 8:19 AM
    We could sit and debate the right and wrong of the US attack ( let's face it .. Coalition??? ..yeh right ) on Iraq. It's a done deal, right or wrong.

    I remember Powell coming up here and presenting his 'irrefutable' evidence of WMDs and hidden nuclear devices to our politicians ... and when our Prime Minister made his statement to the effect .."show me proof .. the proof is the proof and I don't see any proof" most people made fun of him and it was fodder for the standup comedy crowd ... but now it doesn't seem like such a joke ... eh?

    As an aside ... Powell has been conspicuously absent from the world stage lately.. hasn't he? My money says he will be replaced/resign after Jan./05.

    Anyway ... the way I see it ... The US is in Iraq to stay. Obviously they will have to reduce the numbers, but Iraq is going to serve the same purpose that the Philipines served for years. A military presence that will keep the locals in line. As long as there is a ready to go military force in the region ... no one will give Israel a hard time. Oh .. there are going to be the fanatics .. but the regional enemies like Syria, Jordan, Egypt etc ... will not risk any kind of an assault. And don't rule out the protection it affords the Saudi Royal Family. They have a few internal problems with fundamentalists as well. And how much of America do they own???

    A strong commitment in Iraq serves two purposes ... it protects and assures the flow of oil from the region and it provides a major security blanket for Israel. And I don't think that would have changed if the Dems had gotten elected. Now .. if Nader had made it ... hmmmmm.

    I think the US was wrong for taking on the roll as The World's Cop ... but it's done and we just have to live with it. Killing Iraqi's and sending the flower of American Youth back in body bags (again) isn't much of a deal.

    I think that with the Rep. holding onto The Whitehouse and gaining control of both the Senate and the Congress ... you are going to have to watch your Government very closely. Four years could prove to be a very long time.

    And ... the death or whatever it's called today .. of Arrafat certainly isn't going to make things any more pleasant in the area. All they need now is a Palestinian civil war.

    I read somewhere that he is the 6th richest man in the world and he left his family out of his will ... seems that all that money that the world was giving to Palestine was going to Switzerland ... duhhh ... what a surprise...eh? No wonder his wife doesn't want him declared dead.

    Now if I could solve the problems of the Middle East and then gain control of the weather and make my wife take me seriously ... damn .. I could rule the world!!!!

    Mack

  • From: TALLYBENDER
    Sent: 11/9/2004 8:30 AM
    YEH I KNOW A LITTLE ABOUT HISTORY ESTE, LIVED A HELLUVA LOT OF IT.NEBUCHADNEZZAR HAD TROUBLE LONG AGO HOLDING 0N TO IRAQ AND EVERONE SINCE HAS.

  • From: F14_D
    Sent: 11/9/2004 8:55 AM
    Sure, Estte. I've posted this a few places. The responses have been interesting.

  • From: F14_D
    Sent: 11/9/20

I think, after these threads die, which I presume they will eventually (not too long from now, I suspect), I might copy the replies into my blog.

From Terminology Poets


  • From: ziigzaag
    Sent: 11/8/2004 10:47 AM
    F, the problem I have with the parameters of your question is that you first present C with moral AND strategic rationales for not supporting the war.

"After much diplomatic wrangling between entities, A wages war on B; the third entity (C) was and remains opposed to the actions of A on strategic and moral grounds."


But in your list of options, C’s rationale is restricted to "moral" reasons only. Yes, I think that’s an extreme limitation of parameters as to why C would not support the war. Surely you don’t think it’s that simple.


Many times in reality, morality is a luxury most cannot afford. Is it really practical or possible to act on every immoral act or human rights abuse we see going on in the world? How much is a country willing to sacrifice it’s own lives and treasure to fix every human abuse that goes on in the world?


Using any sort of moral argument for the invasion of Iraq is nothing more than a convenient manipulation to disguise the reasons we actually invaded.


Dufar in the Sudan should be enough evidence to convince you that this moral argument is bogus in the first place and consider the moral questions you are posting here to be for the most part moot or useless since it has nothing to do with the reason we invaded.


If your question dealt more with strategy and practicality, that would be more to the reality of what’s happening, to me.


  • From: F14_D
    Sent: 11/8/2004 7:22 PM
    From:
    ziigzaag
    Sent: 11/8/2004 10:47 AM
    F, the problem I have with the parameters of your question is that you first present C with moral AND strategic rationales for not supporting the war.


"After much diplomatic wrangling between entities, A wages war on B; the third entity (C) was and remains opposed to the actions of A on strategic and moral grounds."


But in your list of options, C’s rationale is restricted to "moral" reasons only. Yes, I think that’s an extreme limitation of parameters as to why C would not support the war. Surely you don’t think it’s that simple.


No, I do not, and I should have given more respect to reasons for C's opposition on strategic grounds, but that is in large part because after acknowledging those could exist, my interest was, and had been from the beginning, to ask about the morality of C's position in my hypothetical. I actually think C's right to put the interest of itself first justifies its opposition to A's action. I do not think C owes A blind loyalty. WhatI do wonder is if c is being more consistent to its principles or less consistent if it seems A is incapable of handling the situation. But, going back to reality, the anti whatever forces in Iraq sem to be making a mockery of the Iraqi defensive forces. I heard one station was taken out in an hour, and we're supposed to have 125,000 members of their police forces up and running some time in December. I'm sorry to armchair quearter back, but things look like shit as they are now. Well, on the bright side, Bush's rose colored State of the Union speech, at least the foreign matters part should be good for a laugh. Just remember that "things is hard" and have a cookie. I'm reassured by that, why aren't you?


Many times in reality, morality is a luxury most cannot afford. Is it really practical or possible to act on every immoral act or human rights abuse we see going on in the world? How much is a country willing to sacrifice it’s own lives and treasure to fix every human abuse that goes on in the world?


True, it is not practical. However, it was not, nor has not been argued that all instances of abuse must be addressed with force. And it does ask the question of when and where force is justified if no one is doing anything and a people are suffering. If not out of self defense or reasons such as resource control, there seems to be no reason to aid anyone, which is a shame, but perhaps an understandable one.


Using any sort of moral argument for the invasion of Iraq is nothing more than a convenient manipulation to disguise the reasons we actually invaded.


I do not engage in speculation on true intent. I do not contest that some of them could be right, it is just not something I am comfortable in doing. That is naive of me, yes, but it is just how I am. And whether or not America was justified, or A was, is another, though fair to ask, question.

Dufar in the Sudan should be enough evidence to convince you that this moral argument is bogus in the first place and consider the moral questions you are posting here to be for the most part moot or useless since it has nothing to do with the reason we invaded.


The arguments were primarily about whether or not C is right to maintain its stance if it is trying to be in keeping with its principle, not if A was right to have attacked B. But I do agree that Arfur does strongly demonstrate hypocrisy if human rights concern is considered as the motivating factor. Do you think America should go in?


If your question dealt more with strategy and practicality, that would be more to the reality of what’s happening, to me.


The scenario is a hypothetical. Nothing in it is an exact mirror of what is occuring in the event that inspired it. It is inherently flawed. I respect your criticism and thank you for it. TALLYBENDER did point out that I neglected to give C the option of working to stop A from continuing to war with B. A definite major oversight on my part. I am glad I said some argument and not the arguments. As for the strategic and practical necessity of the real life situation and the hypothetical, the former is beyond my level and skill to address fairly, in part because of doubt, and I would have to invent such reasons for the latter beyond A's vague proclaimed ones.


  • From: phootyraskel
    Sent: 11/9/2004 12:49 PM
    A...hey B you bettter stop it right now or im coming over there and kick your ass.

    B...infidel! you will all die

    C...please you two calm down somebody might get hurt

    A...did you see what they did, somebody has got to pay are you wit us C

    B...haha we didnt do it but we are glad it happened ..infidels!

    C...hey lets just talk this thing over

    A...(bombs and bullets fly people do get hurt)we won! we won! see C we didnt need you after all braaa brraaack (makes like a chicken)

    B...(more bombs and bullets fly more people get hurt)sure you did... infidels.

    C...ok see i told you guys what a mess.

    A...(waves flag patriotically) ok boys lets go kick some B.ass

    B...die infidels!

    C...mon ami

  • From: LilyVon
    Sent: 11/9/2004 7:35 PM
    good to see you
    active
    and
    here

  • From: F14_D
    Sent: 11/9/2004 9:33 PM
    Thanks.

    Active on and off and about. Spreading my drivel around. Poor world.
    f14d

  • From: ziigzaag
    Sent: 11/10/2004 3:59 AM
    Isn't A also claiming some moral high ground?

  • From: F14_D
    Sent: 11/10/2004 6:46 AM
    A would probably claim its action is moral and being done in the interest of many; that the "sacrifices" of those who must implement its strategy are acceptable because it is, at minimum, trying to stop what it calls a qualifiable evil. There is a question of moral consistency for A: Is its action in the best interest of its supposed primary concern, that of defeating what it perceives as a threat? While it might turn out that A has no option but fight B, it does not necessarily follow that its methods need inevitably lead to chaos and turn or allow B to become liken to Hydra. If B becomes unstable and others follow, domino chaos, how much use good was A's war againt B? A might not need to war against B, but if it does, that does not excuse mismanagement by A.

    On the other hand, C does not have the questionable element of necessity for an action as A believes itself to. C does not claim to be under any threat, or at least to need to be in defense of itself in the manner A chose. C's decision is based solely on its philosophy. A claims to base its choice on both morality and necessity.

  • From: UnFrozenCavemanPirate
    Sent: 11/10/2004 10:41 PM
    A:"a, b c-in d golfish?"
    B:"L, m n no golfish."
    C:" O S M R, C M P?

  • From: Ramona
    Sent: 11/11/2004 12:00 AM
    I think C has to consider what A means when it says B is "dangerous." C has an obligation to it's own citizens, and perhaps the world, to make sure said danger is real and of a magnitude that justifies a war. This should also be true of A.

    Additionally, A must take responsibility for any casulties in its war that occur on either A or B's side that are the result of a poorly planned or executed assault. One of the ways of preventing that is to listen and weigh the advice of knowledgable others, even if they disagree, say for example one's own generals, or even (god forbid!!) C! I know it's hard for bureaucrats to fathom, but technology alone does not win wars and a little bit of consideration before the fact works better than a lot afterwards...

  • From: F14_D
    Sent: 11/11/2004 8:55 AM
    From:
    Ramona
    Sent: 11/11/2004 12:00 AM
    I think C has to consider what A means when it says B is "dangerous." C has an obligation to it's own citizens, and perhaps the world, to make sure said danger is real and of a magnitude that justifies a war. This should also be true of A.

    It should, but A also has the responsibility to sincere acy in the best iterest of its citizens, which could necessitate a lower standard than what C finds acceptable. While reason might forgive A for not acting, its people might not, or at least might not understand if A's suspicions comes to pass with terrible result.

    A is vague in its claim of danger, so if you would like to address A's responsibility of proof and necessity for threats it claims exist against itself and to the world, that is fine.


    Additionally, A must take responsibility for any casulties in its war that occur on either A or B's side that are the result of a poorly planned or executed assault. One of the ways of preventing that is to listen and weigh the advice of knowledgable others, even if they disagree, say for example one's own generals, or even (god forbid!!) C! I know it's hard for bureaucrats to fathom, but technology alone does not win wars and a little bit of consideration before the fact works better than a lot afterwards...

    A and anyone in its position should absolutely listen. It does not have to follow the advice given to it, but listening at least shows respect and gives some comfort that their opinions and data might have been considered because they at least got to speak to A.

But the primary question still remains, but I do like your post on this issue, as well as RubyTuesday's at Philosophy4Everyone (she presented another version of my hypothetical moral question): With the war already underway and A apparently unable to deal with it on its own, is C following its principle or acting against it by not being present in the combat, or in a still more dangerous to itself C predicates its belief on its, for lack of a better term. humanitarianism, desiring as little death as possible. With it presumed that C's involvement now would cost less lives than its nonparticipation, should C consider that when trying to adhere to its principle instead of the deaths it believed would occur as result of the war, which was a major reason for its opposition to the war?

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home


 

Online dictionary at www.Answers.com

Concise information in one click