Arabs attack Grozny

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Heresson
So if Poland attacked Zimbabwe and anected it in order to meliorate its internal situation, would it be OK?

No, Zimbabwe is neither waging war against Poland nor are the people of Zimbabwe calling out to Poland for help against their government.

[Az]

ACTUALLY, it depends on the situation in zimbabwe, the type of reality you're going to create there afterwards, and the prospects of combat. But there is a possibility of it being a moral act.

[Heresson]

That way everybody has reason to attack and anect anyone it wishes. You can always find some reason. For example,
There is death penalty in USA. We must destroy it to abolish it! Some of Muslim states have laws which say that only a Muslim can become a president. We must attack them!Eastern Europe is corrupted! Lets destroy it! Israel occupies Palestine! Lets destroy it! (hm... here it would be right)...

[Lord Merciless]

Saddam vs Ayatollah Khomeini? Saddam all the way!

Russians vs Chechens? Russians all the way!

[chequita guevara]

I supported the Chechens in their first war of independence, but then Wahabist warlords took over the country, forcing Sharia on the people who didn't want it. Then they attack Dagestan and began bombing Russian housing blocks (though there is som eveidence that points to the former KGB). You attack your neighbor, you get attacked in return. Russia is fully within its rights to defend itself against invasion. It's the only allowable act of war in the UN charter.

[Az]

hehe. cute troll, but I am no SerB.

in the example of the US:
First of all, if the act you're fighting against is moral itself, there is no way that you're war would be moral. The morality of the DP, is debatable, even according to utilitarian principles, but since the public uproar (and thus, discontent) against the DP in europe is large, and in the US is close to non-existant, one could say that the DP is moral in the US, and immoral in the EU at the same time.

in any case, the suffering and pain caused by the war that you'll try to wage war against the US will be uncomparably large on any scale to the suffering of the people that are injustly condemned to death.

But in the cases I've mentioned above, the suffering of the population under the laws of the state (let's not forget that women are 50% of the pop ) was great, and a victorious war would mostly rectify that situation, bringing happiness to the people, and thus being 'good'.

[Ned]

Azazel, One of the points you make here is quite valid: The war not only requires a just cause, it requires a requires a reasonable likelihood of success - without great loss of life, I might add. This latter point would make a nuclear war "unjust" even if one side could technically win.

The case of Europe attacking the US because of the Death Penalty fails the "just war" criteria on almost every ground. First, as you pointed out, there is no just cause in the first place. Second, the Europeans have no hope of winning. Third, any such war would be so bloody that the cause does not justify it, just as you pointed out. The lives lost vs. the lives saved makes the war unjust per se.

In contrast, Russia was attacked by Chechnya. The have a right to defend. But now the Arabs, at least the Wahabbist states, have intervened on behalf of the invader/terrorists.

Russia would be in her rights to give these states an ultimatum.

But, what would the US do if those states include Saudi Arabia and Qatar?

[chequita guevara]

Those states are treaty allies of the US. Legally, we have an obligation to defend them from attack. Of course, we'd do our best to make sure there is no war.

What would be interesting is watching the Administration try and rally support in favor of defending states which sponsor terrorism not only against the Russians but also against us. Given that most Amerians aren't real happy with the Saudis right now.

[Ned]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Those states are treaty allies of the US. Legally, we have an obligation to defend them from attack. Of course, we'd do our best to make sure there is no war.

What would be interesting is watching the Administration try and rally support in favor of defending states which sponsor terrorism not only against the Russians but also against us. Given that most Amerians aren't real happy with the Saudis right now.

The problem is that we need these two states for our war on Iraq. If Russia sends these folks and ultimatum, they certainly will call in their cards. The Russians probably realize that any such ultimatum or Security Council motion could lead to a confrontation with the US.

I suspect US diplomats have cautioned Russia not to do anything rash until the issue of Iraq has been solved. We could then switch sides and join the Russians against Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

Very complicated.

[chequita guevara]

So, yet again, the War on Terror takes a back seat to the idiocy with Iraq.

[Az]

according to my definitions, the war with Iraq is rather justifiable. What don't you like about my definitions che?

[DanielXY]

Originally posted by Azazel
The morality of the DP, is debatable, even according to utilitarian principles, but since the public uproar (and thus, discontent) against the DP in europe is large, and in the US is close to non-existant, one could say that the DP is moral in the US, and immoral in the EU at the same time.

Hm, so according to your definition everything can be moral as long as the mayority in that area believes it is?
So for example it was moral in the middle ages to burn witches cose the ppl. believed it was the right thing to do?

Originally posted by Azazel
according to my definitions, the war with Iraq is rather justifiable.

Hm?
It would not cose only the majority of the US things it is moral. Most of the rest of the World do not think it is and neither do the Iraqi ppl. that are gonna be "saved".

+ According to the UN Charta a "preventive War" is illegal and thus not moral or justifiable.

[Ned]

Originally posted by DanielXY


Hm, so according to your definition everything can be moral as long as the mayority in that area believes it is?
So for example it was moral in the middle ages to burn witches cose the ppl. believed it was the right thing to do?



Hm?
It would not cose only the majority of the US things it is moral. Most of the rest of the World do not think it is and neither do the Iraqi ppl. that are gonna be "saved".

+ According to the UN Charta a "preventive War" is illegal and thus not moral or justifiable.

Daniel, On point 1, I tend to agree with you. I have in mind the Old South prior to the Civil War. They believed slavery was OK. They were wrong.

On Iraq, I find it hard to believe that the majority of Europe or even of Germany does not support the UN.

On the people of Iraq: To the extent their people are no longer inside Iraq and can therefor speak their minds without fear, yes, they want Saddam overthrown.

On this issue of morality, Daniel, I would personnaly rate you a 0 on any scale for seeming to support or at least find nothing objectionable about a megalomanic dictator.

I also note that you are a German.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Azazel
according to my definitions, the war with Iraq is rather justifiable. What don't you like about my definitions che?

It opens the door for someone else deciding what maximizes my happiness. To a Christian, atheists are ruining their chances to get into heaven. Therefore Christians would be justified in overthrowing China to maximize the happiness of the Chinese people by helping them get Christianty and thus into heaven.

Furthermore, prior to the embargo, Iraq was one of the wealthiest, most educated societies in the ME. Despite the brutality of the regime, people had good livings and women were among the least oppressed of any Arab state. Therefore, it is not the Hussein regime that is causing misery, but the embargo.

[Az]

Hm, so according to your definition everything can be moral as long as the mayority in that area believes it is?
So for example it was moral in the middle ages to burn witches cose the ppl. believed it was the right thing to do?

no, it is not, because killing people for no reason instills fear in everyone. besides, the killing of people generally is against the idea of "as much people, as happy as possible, for the longest amount of time possible.". the hanging of an innocent person would not cause happiness in everyone, and most of the people in the township where the execution was held, knew that the person was guilty/not guilty.

Hm?
It would not cose only the majority of the US things it is moral. Most of the rest of the World do not think it is and neither do the Iraqi ppl. that are gonna be "saved".

problem is that people don't always know what's good for them. That's one of the reasons there was a government in the first place, the reason hierarchy exists EVERYWHERE.

+ According to the UN Charta a "preventive War" is illegal and thus not moral or justifiable.

I'd answer this argument with a question you asked yourself:

"So for example it was moral in the middle ages to burn witches cose the ppl. believed it was the right thing to do? "

the answer to the question is, of course, not. MY morals are that a person's actions are moral if they create more happiness than sorrow, and are immoral. Of course not immorality should be punishable, or to be more correct is worth punishing, because the 'suffering' (waste of time, etc.) created by the punishment will be greater than the suffering created by the act itself, (considering all effects, direct and indirect )

Why is the UN charter a basis to morality? did god give it? do most people on earth agree on it? what's it's basis?

quasi-utilitarianism (mine is also not pure, I limit it to humans) is actually a very common pov, if you think of it, since all codes of laws, were trying to achieve most utility for the time, place, and for the people it was accepted by, and usually later created a reason for it to be upheld by EVERYONE, like 'God', 'Natural Rights' (which are also connected to god,) etc. the more these rules are optimal for everyone, and are closer to the common ground, the more they're usually utilitarian. Actually, it is possible to make paralels between morals and statistics, just like there is an average value, which doesn't have to be in the initial group of numbers, (just like utilitarian values are liked by very few, yet they are the best for everyone) and there is the most common value, which is the value that is present in the group of numbers the most times. ( like the constitution of the majority )