Is War Ever Justified and What are the Aternatives?

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by spiritof1202


Several international aid agencies HAVE BEEN in Iraq, distributing the "Oil for Food" food and medicines. These goods are coopted by the Ba'ath party and resold to neighbors for hard currency, for regime projects (like Saddams palaces and a Chinese fibre optics network, for the military) and military hardware.

I've already told you this, I think the oil for food program is crap.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Azazel

ok. Let's refrase it. War can be sometimes the most ethical choice.

Bah..only aims are ethical. war is a means, and only in so far as how how you execute the means affects what your aim is, can war be seen as "ethical"

As I said, it is all about aims. A war for ethical ais is ipso facto ethical, and a war for unethical ais is ipso facto unethical.

This is why most "war debate" here on poly and specially out in the 'real world' is nonsense: people get so caught up arguing means but they either a) don;t care to debate aims, or b) mistakenly think the debate about aims has already happened and agreement reached.

[spiritof1202]

Originally posted by Osweld


I've already told you this, I think the oil for food program is crap.

Glad you've figured the problem out.

Any civilian program in Iraq would have the same effect, since it can't enforce anything, or protect anyone.

The Ba'ath party were all-powerful in Iraq til recently.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by spiritof1202


Glad you've figured the problem out.

Any civilian program in Iraq would have the same effect, since it can't enforce anything, or protect anyone.

The Ba'ath party were all-powerful in Iraq til recently.

What does such a program need to enforce, and what does it need to protect people from? All it needs to do is build schools, hospitals, housing, infrastructure, and educate people.

[spiritof1202]

Originally posted by Osweld


What does such a program need to enforce, and what does it need to protect people from? All it needs to do is build schools, hospitals, housing, infrastructure, and educate people.

It needs to stop the Ba'ath party from taking and reselling these goods and materials. A large potion of these good that are brought in by, for example UNICEF, are taken and resold by the Ba'ath party. Humanitarian organizations are unwilling and unable to protect these goods.

They are also unwilling and unable to protect the populace from torture and so on and so forth.

The Ba'ath party membership, and institutions have guns and are willing to use them to enforce their rule. Any organization which wishes to be effective in controlling aid distribution in Iraq needs to be backed by force, itself.

Or you could remove the Ba'ath party.

[Frogman]

War is always justified, hence the problem.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by spiritof1202


It needs to stop the Ba'ath party from taking and reselling these goods and materials. A large potion of these good that are brought in by, for example UNICEF, are taken and resold by the Ba'ath party. Humanitarian organizations are unwilling and unable to protect these goods.

They are also unwilling and unable to protect the populace from torture and so on and so forth.

The Ba'ath party membership, and institutions have guns and are willing to use them to enforce their rule. Any organization which wishes to be effective in controlling aid distribution in Iraq needs to be backed by force, itself.

Or you could remove the Ba'ath party.

They can't steal buildings, infrastructure, and education. I do not believe there was any famine or lack of medical supplies without the embargoes, anyways.


EDIT: Actually, I suppose they could 'steal' buildings, but not without being pretty blatant about it and everyone knowing.

[spiritof1202]

They steal the building materials, and the food, and the cash to pay teachers/doctors etc.

Everyone knows that they are doing this. Up til now, the world community just hasn't done anything about it.

[Sava]

I'd like to say that I think there is a distinct difference between military action, and war. An all out war is only morally justified in defense. A pre-emptive invasion without the consent of the Democratic world, or at the very least, our allies, and without any shred of credible evidence or proof or a direct threat is wrong.

[spiritof1202]

Morality is relative.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by spiritof1202
They steal the building materials

building materials? I thought I made it pretty clear I'm not talking about some half-assed aid program. I'd expect the organizations to be in there personally buidling them.

and the food

But I've never heard of famines before the sanctions.

and the cash to pay teachers/doctors etc.

Again, they would be being paid directly by the organizations incharge of the aid. Some of them would possibly even be foreign volounteers.

Everyone knows that they are doing this. Up til now, the world community just hasn't done anything about it.

I only know about it happening under the sanctions. I have never heard of it happening before then - infact, Iraq was apparently very well off and nearly a first world country a few decades ago.

[spiritof1202]

Originally posted by Osweld
building materials? I thought I made it pretty clear I'm not talking about some half-assed aid program. I'd expect the organizations to be in there personally buidling them.

Saddam and the Ba'ath party simply hasn't allowed this before. What on earth makes you believe that he would now? They control ALL activity. "Aid", construction, currency... everything.

Only the Kurds are autonomous... and only because they have guns and a no-fly zone.

I only know about it happening under the sanctions. I have never heard of it happening before then - infact, Iraq was apparently very well off and nearly a first world country a few decades ago.

Iraq under Saddam has ALWAYS had its military prioritized. Its based largely on a Stalinist system, without the facade of being benign.

[Velociryx]

Big C - No. I am not making a false dilemma. I'm simply telling it like it is.

Human beings have, through our own history, demonstrated repeatedly that we're really only consistantly good at two things: Fighting and Fvcking.

The proof is here before us. That you and I are able to banter back and forth is a testiment to our parents' abilities in the sack.

As to the other, let's take a gander at some of the most talked about events in our collective history and see if they have anything in common:

Athens vs. Sparta (war)
Spartan defense of Thermopaly (war)
The fall of the Roman Empire (war)
The thirty years' war
The hundred years' war
The US Civil War
WWI
WWII

Tons of others. Notice any trends? Any common themes?

We are the descendents of apes. Monkeys who got kicked out of their arboreal homes by an act of nature.

Our choices then were to adapt so that we could go head to head, compete and win against the long-standing carnivors of our new environment (lions, tigers, and bears, oh my!), or we could wither and die.

We chose to fight, and even though we were poorly equipped physically compared to our opponents, we had an ace in the form of intellect, which we turned into a weapon.

It worked.

Human beings have become the most efficient killing machines the planet has ever seen.

We're so good at it that if we wanted to, we could ignite the atmosphere of the planet and burn it off entirely.

Do you think it was the cozy concept of roman law that protected the empire while it existed? The senate? The emperor? Nope. It was the Legion. The armies of Rome.

Things haven't changed much.

Now, the peaceniks among us would argue that if we but showed our more enlightened, peace loving side to the world that we could effect change.

This is false.

The *reason* it is false is because if you disarm, then those who have not will come and remove you from the planet. Thus, your thinking will last a single generation, as none of your children will be alive to carry on the good work.

The best we can hope for is to be "enlightened warriors" until such time as we, as a species, are ready to move beyond what we are today.

We're not there yet.

Want proof? Look around.

-=Vel=-

[Sava]

Originally posted by spiritof1202
Morality is relative.

Oh, I agree completely. Some people think its okay to murder abortion doctors, or commit suicide bombings, or invade other countries for a political agenda; for example.

[spiritof1202]

Originally posted by Sava
Oh, I agree completely. Some people think its okay to murder abortion doctors, or commit suicide bombings, or invade other countries for a political agenda; for example.

and what is your view of the morality of the torture chambers in Iraq which have been shown this last hour on CNN?

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by spiritof1202


Saddam and the Ba'ath party simply hasn't allowed this before. What on earth makes you believe that he would now? They control ALL activity. "Aid", construction, currency... everything.

Only the Kurds are autonomous... and only because they have guns and a no-fly zone.

I have a hard time believing Saddam would refuse aid. Not only does it improve Iraq, but refusing it would utterly destroy him in world opinion.

Iraq under Saddam has ALWAYS had its military prioritized.

So what? The military is obviously a priority in the USA, but that doesn't stop them from having some of the highest living standards aswell.

[Dauphin]

Vel, the fact that few international disputes end in war is proof enough to me that fight or die is not the only option.

Granted a nation must always be ready and able to fight a war but you seem to suggest that we should be actively seeking wars as a first course of action to protect our future. I disagree with that conclusion.

[Sava]

Vel... unfortunately, the examples you are basing your views of humanity and wars are restricted to Western Civilization and Imperialism. Peaceful human societies have existed for thousands of years without wars (North America). Unfortunately, America and it's genocidal expansion exterminated the last remaining elements of such societies. All modern conflicts have been the direct result of such imperialism. Whether it's Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, the Soviet Union, the United States... the ideology is irrelevant. The end result is the same. An imperialist power wants to impose it's will on somebody else. I agree that in today's world, the deterence of annihilation has kept some peace; but that's not to say peace isn't possible.

[Sava]

Originally posted by spiritof1202
and what is your view of the morality of the torture chambers in Iraq which have been show this last hour on CNN?

I haven't been watching CNN in the last hour.

[spiritof1202]

Originally posted by Osweld
I have a hard time believing Saddam would refuse aid. Not only does it improve Iraq, but refusing it would utterly destroy him in world opinion.

He has been "accepting" aid and reselling it for 11 years now, Osweld. We have 11 years of history for your plan.

So what? The military is obviously a priority in the USA, but that doesn't stop them from having some of the highest living standards aswell.

and thats because there is a representitive form of government in the US. There is a repressive form of government in Iraq.

[spiritof1202]

Originally posted by Sava
I haven't been watching CNN in the last hour.

Video of the torture chamber segment, is avaiable on the CNN website.

[Velociryx]

The original question was "is war justified?"

The answer to the question is still yes.

Does that mean that there aren't other options? Of course not, and I never once said that it did!

But war IS justified. It is a valid means of resolution.

It is not the only means, nor should it always be the means of first resort.

But to ask if the act itself is justified is to deny what we have proved that we are.

The peace-loving societies you speak of also fought wars. On a smaller scale, it is true, but one need only look at the "peaceful" indian tribes of North America to see that many of the indian tribal migrations were caused as a direct result of one tribe forcing another out of its hunting grounds, and so forth.

Hardly eden, then.

-=Vel=-

[Sava]

ah, but a far cry from European battlefields

[Velociryx]

True....but still war, yes?

[GePap]

Vel:
Any species that were to destroy the atmosphere, or do any other such horribly destructive acts would be commiting suicide, and thus be a failure by your own very standards.

War is not simply violence. War is an organized political act. Man existed for most of its hisotry without war. You speak of Rome as if it were some organic thing: it wasn't, it was a political configuration. Rome ended, but the people whom made up Rome lived on, to form new societies and cultures under new political leadership.

All those wars you mentioned: how much time did they take: WW1 and WW2 took 10 years together. So for 90 years out of 100 of th 20th century there was no general war: thats 90%. You make this huge poitn about war, but can you explain that 90%?

The *reason* it is false is because if you disarm, then those who have not will come and remove you from the planet. Thus, your thinking will last a single generation, as none of your children will be alive to carry on the good work.

I agree if you disamr and other don't, then you are at a disadvantage. But your annalysis is incredably shallow. Why do we accept things such as rules of war? You say it is false to be a pacifist, that people are inherently violent, so forth and so on: well then, explain to me why then we don't fight wars like before? I don;t mean with the same tools, I mean the same methods. In the 13th century the Mongols came to the gates of Baghdad. They took the city, then slaughtered everyone in it and razed it to the ground. The Mongols were incredably sucessful at war: no one could beat them, no one. Why then don;t we emulate them? Why do we not simply oblitrate Baghdad of the map? Iraq is our enemy:kill it! NO mercy! this was tyhe old formula, the one you call so natural..why don;t we follow it anymore, if it is so natural, like fvcking? We fvck the same way as we did in 1280, but we don't war the same.

Oh, and were are the Mongols and thier empire? All their skills at war, simply did not help them survive in the end.

Want proof? Look around.

I am. The question is, where are you looking?

[GePap]

Originally posted by spiritof1202


and what is your view of the morality of the torture chambers in Iraq which have been shown this last hour on CNN?

Well, what if they are also used to make some terrorist tell you were they just planted a bomb that is about to explode? Would you approve of these rooms then?

[Sava]

Originally posted by Velociryx
True....but still war, yes?

GePap took the words right out of my mouth. War is organized political action. Not a few warriors fighting over buffalo.

[Velociryx]

GePap: You act as though wars must be fought in linear fasion....that only one war can be ongoing at any point in time.

Right now, how many places on the planet see fighting? Just Iraq, yes? No violence....no WAR anyplace else, right?

I agree with you....we *could* burn the atmosphere off with our killing tools, but we haven't, because we're smart enough to recognize that it'd be lose-lose. No disagreement there whatsoever.

As to why we accept such things as "rules of war" I would point out that given our history, and taking the portion of our history in which we have abided by any such "rules of war" it is a relatively new concept, and a good one. It shows that we're making progress.

What it does NOT mean, however, is that because we've agreed to certain terms of large scale killing in war, that it's time to put down the weapons and all join hands and sing Kumbayah together.

I'd not recommend it, but you can if you wanna....

-=Vel=-

[Velociryx]

War is an organized political act.

The tribes of North America were organized, and actually had quite advanced governments. When they fought over hunting grounds, it WAS war.

No ifs, ands, or buts.

Smaller scale, and with lesser technology than was used in the same time period in Europe, but that doesn't change the character of what it was.

-=Vel=-

[GePap]

Right now, how many places on the planet see fighting? Just Iraq, yes? No violence....no WAR anyplace else, right?

This is correct, but, then the question is, is any plcae in the world cosntantly at war? Take even Afghanistan. It ahs seen 2 decades of war, but you could then point to the 2 decades before it of relative peace. which is its normal state?

What it does NOT mean, however, is that because we've agreed to certain terms of large scale killing in war, that it's time to put down the weapons and all join hands and sing Kumbayah together.

If you read my first posts, you will see that to me, war is jus simply a means. It has no inherent morality, anymore than a hammer somehow has some ethical value. I think trying to achieve the aim of makign the tool that is war forbidden is a laudable one, and, an achievable one, though much later in our hisotry than now, if we make it that far.