Zimphire:
Well, as I said, back in the 16th and 17th centuries, it was considered an acceptable rationale for war. But no one would have launched a war for non-religously motivated mistreatment of one's own people, as is allegedly happening here. It is in large part thanks to the fact that no one was very happy with the course of the Thirty Years' War that there was a more relaxed attitude towards religon, culminating in things like the American First Amendment.
I'm just trying to point out that if someone is itching for a war, and humanitarian reasons are considered enough to justify war, states _will_ abuse that merely by using their subjective judgment, as we're doing, in deciding if there is cause for war.
Then isn't it okay for anyone to help out anyone that's an underdog?
Wouldn't it be okay for the US to attack countries in South America that had democratically elected leftist leaders that were hostile to the US and replace them with 'underdog' right wing dictators that we install but who are friendly to the US? As long as we call it a humanitarian issue?
Lord knows we've done it before. Usually to protect US business interests abroad. Look into the history of Hawaii or Panama. Or much of Central and South America, really.
I'm sure that we could find some excuse -- maybe the democratic government we want to overthrow issues lots of parking tickets or something -- if we really look.
Humanitarian reasons will permit war to ease suffering of people EVEN IF THEY DON'T WANT THEIR SUFFERING RELIEVED, OR DON'T CONSIDER IT SUFFERING AT ALL. In the end, it is frequently just an excuse. That it is real sometimes isn't good enough, because it's going to get abused so often.
If it's non-nuclear, we're too tough to make it practical for the rest of the world to do anything about us. And of course, with the rest of the world respecting the UN, our veto makes that difficult. This is nothing new -- the US uses our veto to protect our interests all the time. IIRC we're #2 right after Russia, with whom we were often at loggerheads.
No, the US does not have to provide proof against Iraq. But the Security Council doesn't have to believe unfounded US allegations either. And _they_, not we, are the judges of when Iraq is a) in non-compliance, and b) if force shall be authorized. The most we can legitimately do is lobby and use our vote.
You're right. The Soviet Union should've gone to war with the rest of the world because of the oppression of capitalism. They would have done us all a favor to install communist regimes. The US should've gone to war with them (and various monarchies and dictatorships) to install democratic regimes since anything else is to suffer under the yoke of oppression. Europe, having largely abolished the death penalty should've gone to war with the both of us for continuing to practice it.
Do you begin to see how anyone can say that other people are oppressed and suffering. There's no objective basis for this decision. Which makes it amazingly dangerous to global stability.
Look; I'm an American. Like a lot of Americans I am torn between two conflicting goals. The first is to see people all over the world having self-governance in a democratic mode. But the second is to not force anything upon other people and so become an oppressor no matter how noble our aims. A benevolant tyrant is still a tyrant.
This is one of the reasons why the US was deeply torn over the ****ing French Revolution, back in the day when we had ourselves just emerged from our own revolution.
Given that the world has refused to accept wars for such reasons to be legitimate for centuries, prevailing opinion appears to be, and I can't find fault with it, that it has to be handled slowly. That it is better to be a beacon on a hill than to sweep in and force people to do whatever you think is right, secure in your strength, not in actual rightness.
Of course, then again, I seriously doubt that this war is actually being fought for humanitarian reasons at all. But even if it were, that just would not be an excuse, the way that we've handled it.
Quote:
| I guess we will just have to disagree as to the comparison [of humanitarian rationales for war and religious rationales for war]. I still believe it's not even close to being the same. |
Well, as I said, back in the 16th and 17th centuries, it was considered an acceptable rationale for war. But no one would have launched a war for non-religously motivated mistreatment of one's own people, as is allegedly happening here. It is in large part thanks to the fact that no one was very happy with the course of the Thirty Years' War that there was a more relaxed attitude towards religon, culminating in things like the American First Amendment.
Quote:
| Tyranical Regime? Give me a break. Obviously with wording like that, you aren't thinking about this too clearly. So it's bad that the US accidentally takes innocent lives, But had we not done anything. Manymanymany more civilians would die on purpose? That logic makes no sense. |
I'm just trying to point out that if someone is itching for a war, and humanitarian reasons are considered enough to justify war, states _will_ abuse that merely by using their subjective judgment, as we're doing, in deciding if there is cause for war.
Quote:
| Speak for yourself. I think it is the BEST reason to go to war. Again, that is a opinion. Iraq HAS attacked first. Iraq has attacked it's people, and the people surrounding them. Is it bad for the US to take up for underdogs? I am proud that we are willing to do so. Very selfless. |
Then isn't it okay for anyone to help out anyone that's an underdog?
Wouldn't it be okay for the US to attack countries in South America that had democratically elected leftist leaders that were hostile to the US and replace them with 'underdog' right wing dictators that we install but who are friendly to the US? As long as we call it a humanitarian issue?
Lord knows we've done it before. Usually to protect US business interests abroad. Look into the history of Hawaii or Panama. Or much of Central and South America, really.
I'm sure that we could find some excuse -- maybe the democratic government we want to overthrow issues lots of parking tickets or something -- if we really look.
Humanitarian reasons will permit war to ease suffering of people EVEN IF THEY DON'T WANT THEIR SUFFERING RELIEVED, OR DON'T CONSIDER IT SUFFERING AT ALL. In the end, it is frequently just an excuse. That it is real sometimes isn't good enough, because it's going to get abused so often.
Quote:
|
No, we also have the Authority to do so. The UN has said as much. They have just said the never gave the PERMISSION to do so. Basically what the UN is saying is. "We don't want to give you the go ahead, that would cause people to be pissed at us, but go ahead and do it, and we wont stop you" The UN has no backbone.[quote] Um, no. The UN Charter is _amazingly_ clear on this. War that isn't a matter of self defense or collective self defense is illegal unless authorized by the UN. This requires the use of the magic words: Acting under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, the Security Council authorizes member states to use all necessary force to do (whatever). However, the Sec. Co. has not used the magic words. This is why the Administration is arguing, NOT that it has authorization under any of the recent resolutions, but that it has authorization under the resolutions from the first Gulf War still in effect, which is a pretty damn weak argument. [quote]Then why isn't the US taken to war crimes court? I mean the US is powerful, but not powerful enough to take on the rest of the world I am afraid. |
If it's non-nuclear, we're too tough to make it practical for the rest of the world to do anything about us. And of course, with the rest of the world respecting the UN, our veto makes that difficult. This is nothing new -- the US uses our veto to protect our interests all the time. IIRC we're #2 right after Russia, with whom we were often at loggerheads.
Quote:
| Let me give you a hint. The US does NOT have to provide any proof against Iraq. Iraq has ALREADY been found guilty. Iraq has done nothing to prove they got rid of said weapons. The proof is on Iraq, not the US. See when Africa disarmed, they gave proof that they indeed did so. Nothing happened to them. Iraq has given nothing but excuses, and lies. BTW the situation can be solved without war? Could you tell me how? We have tried the past 12 years. Doesn't work. Just gives Saddam more time to get MORE weapons. Saddam doesn't even listen to force!!! WE are talking reality here. We do not live in a world where Saddam is willing to listen to peace talks and disarm willingly. I keep hearing people say this, but they ignore the fact that Saddam doesn't play that way. That it looks nice, and sounds nice, it's just not realistic. |
No, the US does not have to provide proof against Iraq. But the Security Council doesn't have to believe unfounded US allegations either. And _they_, not we, are the judges of when Iraq is a) in non-compliance, and b) if force shall be authorized. The most we can legitimately do is lobby and use our vote.
Quote:
| I would think people would be more compassionate. |
You're right. The Soviet Union should've gone to war with the rest of the world because of the oppression of capitalism. They would have done us all a favor to install communist regimes. The US should've gone to war with them (and various monarchies and dictatorships) to install democratic regimes since anything else is to suffer under the yoke of oppression. Europe, having largely abolished the death penalty should've gone to war with the both of us for continuing to practice it.
Do you begin to see how anyone can say that other people are oppressed and suffering. There's no objective basis for this decision. Which makes it amazingly dangerous to global stability.
Look; I'm an American. Like a lot of Americans I am torn between two conflicting goals. The first is to see people all over the world having self-governance in a democratic mode. But the second is to not force anything upon other people and so become an oppressor no matter how noble our aims. A benevolant tyrant is still a tyrant.
This is one of the reasons why the US was deeply torn over the ****ing French Revolution, back in the day when we had ourselves just emerged from our own revolution.
Given that the world has refused to accept wars for such reasons to be legitimate for centuries, prevailing opinion appears to be, and I can't find fault with it, that it has to be handled slowly. That it is better to be a beacon on a hill than to sweep in and force people to do whatever you think is right, secure in your strength, not in actual rightness.
Of course, then again, I seriously doubt that this war is actually being fought for humanitarian reasons at all. But even if it were, that just would not be an excuse, the way that we've handled it.