Arabs attack Grozny

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by DanielXY
According to the UN Charta a "preventive War" is illegal and thus not moral or justifiable.

I don't think that this part of the Charter is legally binding given the shear number of violations by member states.

[Az]

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.

first of all, heaven is bull, and due to that, has no place in our discussion. But still, I'll bite.Atheists are ruining their OWN chances to go to heaven. trying to force them to believe in something else will cause misery to the atheists, and therefore is immoral.

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.

I never said that the embargo was useful. Actually, it was the Hussein regime that caused the embargo by mistreating funds (just look at the Kurds up north ) but still the embargo's only use would be to buy time to devise a plan to topple Saddam.

[DanielXY]

Originally posted by Ned

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

Well the problem is rather that Europe is more interested in the UN than the US is. The UN Charta says it is not legal to invade an other nation without beeing atacked first. If you do so anyways you are the agressor and not the other way round.

Also the Nato papers say the same. If you want to atack Iraq your allys in Europe are under no obligation to help you. Since Nato is a Defence Pact.

Originally posted by Ned
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.

Yes, but is it the majority? And if so, do they want a war or no? Im quite sure they dont.

Originally posted by Ned
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.

Hm? I didnt say that.
There is more than the infamous with us or against us.....

Originally posted by Ned
I also note that you are a German.

Dont know what this has to do with anything. Maybe you can explain....

Originally posted by Azazel
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.

I think everyone should have the oppertunity to decide himself what is good for him or not.
If he is wrong so be it, its his decission.

Originally posted by Azazel
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?

At least it is a set of rules most nations agreed too. When even the world-policeman doesnt give a damn about the rules, he is nothing else than some evil criminal himself.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Azazel
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.

Hierarchy has nothing to do with what's good for everyone, but with what's good for those at the top of the hierarchy. The point of government has always been to serve the interests of those who created it. If they can make society a little more stable in the modern world by tossing some crumbs, they'll do so. If it's more cost effective to bludgeon the masses, they'll do so.

[Ned]

DanielXY, I still don't follow you. We are talking, I hope, about a hypothetical war on Iraq by the UN to enforce its resolutions. You say the majority of Europe is against this. I can only conclude, then, that Europe does not support the UN unless they agree with its resolutions.

On the issue of Iraqi internal support for a war, how do we really know what that is? All we can really tell is what the people who leave say to us. The people inside Iraq cannot speak their minds freely. The guy in charge, Saddam, enjoys watching people tortured.

[DanielXY]

Ok lets see

a) The US want to enforce UN resolutions by waging war.
b) The UN basic rules say the US is not allowed to atack Iraq
c) The UN seems to oposses a war on Iraq atm (so probably no resolution that allows for a war)
d) Bush says, in this case the US is going alone. With or without the UN.

I conclude the US does whatever it wants and does not really give a damn about the UN. Therefor their claimed moral to do so only for the sake of enforcing UN-resolutions (ergo our all good or something) is plain bs

[Ned]

Originally posted by DanielXY
Ok lets see

a) The US want to enforce UN resolutions by waging war.
b) The UN basic rules say the US is not allowed to atack Iraq
c) The UN seems to oposses a war on Iraq atm (so probably no resolution that allows for a war)
d) Bush says, in this case the US is going alone. With or without the UN.

I conclude the US does whatever it wants and does not really give a damn about the UN. Therefor their claimed moral to do so only for the sake of enforcing UN-resolutions (ergo our all good or something) is plain bs

And so I see. You are not in favor of the UN at all. You are in favor of the League of Nations - a body that passed resolutions with the "hope" that they would be followed.

And yes, the decisive moment for the UN may be at hand. If the inspectors conclude that Saddam is hiding WoMD and the UN fails to do anything effective to enforce its resolutions now openly defied, then yes, the UN is finished. The world has a right to defend itself against aggressive dictators such as Saddam that are seeking WoMD so that they may hold the world in a grip of terror.

Are you totally ambivalent about megalomanic dictators?

[Az]

Hierarchy has nothing to do with what's good for everyone, but with what's good for those at the top of the hierarchy. The point of government has always been to serve the interests of those who created it. If they can make society a little more stable in the modern world by tossing some crumbs, they'll do so. If it's more cost effective to bludgeon the masses, they'll do so.

Command structures are very important in large organizations, Che. ignoring that is closing your eyes on reality. A rather limited amount of people should be taking the decisions, because people that are experienced and/or talanted have a better chance at succeeding at a certain job. but those people should be either at first entrusted by a majority decision, or selected in an egalitarian manner by the state/whoever is running the company. This is the most effective, and good type of organization. You simply cannot have no hierarchies. They build themselves, and you'd rather have good ones than bad ones, right?

[DanielXY]

I believe their has to be an organisation that controls and which rules are obeyed by its members.
Unfortunatly this isnt always the case with the UN. If now even the US (I mean they are supossed to be the good ones) is waging war without consent of the UN, it gives a precedent for other nations to ignore the UN completly.
No rules results in chaos.
Maybe China decides to take over Taiwan. Or any other nation can make up some terrorist bombing excuse and go atack any country they like.
Since the rules are absolete you cant do anything about it.


And honestly do you think the US would be so keen on atacking Iraq if there wasnt any oil?

[Ned]

Originally posted by DanielXY
I believe their has to be an organisation that controls and which rules are obeyed by its members.
Unfortunatly this isnt always the case with the UN. If now even the US (I mean they are supossed to be the good ones) is waging war without consent of the UN, it gives a precedent for other nations to ignore the UN completly.
No rules results in chaos.
Maybe China decides to take over Taiwan. Or any other nation can make up some terrorist bombing excuse and go atack any country they like.
Since the rules are absolete you cant do anything about it.


And honestly do you think the US would be so keen on atacking Iraq if there wasnt any oil?

At times I believe that you are not listening. The issue is whether the UN will enforce its resolutions and prevent a dictator from acquiring WoMD. The issue is not about the US taking action without regard to the UN -- that is unless the UN is presented a clear case of material breach and then refuses to act.

Just reading your posts, I think you are a victim of propaganda. You are assuming that Bush will attack Iraq even before the UN has a chance to vote and even if Iraq is not in material breach. That is pure propaganda.

[DaShi]

Arabs attack CBeast!

[DanielXY]

Originally posted by Ned
You are assuming that Bush will attack Iraq even before the UN has a chance to vote and even if Iraq is not in material breach. That is pure propaganda.

No I think the US will wait for the UN to vote. And Bushs reaction will be like:
a) If the result is yes - excellent
b) If the result is no - hm, bad luck, too bad ... lets atack anyways

If this is propaganda it is spread by Bush himself

[Heresson]

Originally posted by Azazel
hehe. cute troll,

Thank You!

but I am no SerB.

Fortunatelly.

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.

This way You could claim that whatever is done by whoever is moral - there., if it is supported by majority of people or authorities at least.

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.

it's not about if they were convicted to death justly or injustly. Anyway: the suffering coused by war would be incomarable to almost any mistreating of people.

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'.

Why do You claim that these women were suffering? Some of them certainly did. But most wear the things they were forced to anyway, because it is part of their tradition. And no war will change the attitude of society towards some things, and this is as important, if not more important, than laws.

[Az]

it's not about if they were convicted to death justly or injustly. Anyway: the suffering coused by war would be incomarable to almost any mistreating of people.

how false. . So I guess opression is better than confrontation? say, if you walking, and you saw a person who you knew and didn't like, abusing a child, wouldn't you stop it? And if these are different cases, how so?

This way You could claim that whatever is done by whoever is moral - there., if it is supported by majority of people or authorities at least.

this wasn't my point. My point was that deterring criminals, and removing them from society had less utility, than the "negative utility" generated by the dismay of the european public by the DP. no such emotions exist in the US, so proceeding with the DP wouldn't be immoral. That, of course, in the case that the DP is moral itself. I haven't decided yet, actually, though I am leaning towards 'yes'.

Why do You claim that these women were suffering? Some of them certainly did. But most wear the things they were forced to anyway, because it is part of their tradition. And no war will change the attitude of society towards some things, and this is as important, if not more important, than laws.

so the fact that they were forced to do it against their will and because of some tradition is no reason for suffering? ok, carry on. . Fact is that women were liberated from very evil and primitive laws, and though they weren't completely equal to men, of course, this was a giant step for the right direction, and was a very moral act.

[Heresson]

Originally posted by Azazel

how false. . So I guess opression is better than confrontation? say, if you walking, and you saw a person who you knew and didn't like, abusing a child, wouldn't you stop it? And if these are different cases, how so?

USA abuses its criminals, doesn't it.
Also, it supports Israel

this wasn't my point. My point was that deterring criminals, and removing them from society had less utility, than the "negative utility" generated by the dismay of the european public by the DP. no such emotions exist in the US, so proceeding with the DP wouldn't be immoral. That, of course, in the case that the DP is moral itself. I haven't decided yet, actually, though I am leaning towards 'yes'.

I don't understand a thing. What is it different from mine example? If someone kills unfidel wives by harassing them by stones, and has a profound feeling that it is moral,
is it anyway different?
I am willing to understand, but this is quite unreadable to me. What are those utilities You are writing about?

so the fact that they were forced to do it against their will and because of some tradition is no reason for suffering?

Death penalty in USA is also sort of tradition. And the ones it refers too are against it in some 100%...

ok, carry on. . Fact is that women were liberated from very evil and primitive laws, and though they weren't completely equal to men, of course, this was a giant step for the right direction, and was a very moral act.

Death penalty is a primitive, barbaric law as well.