What's the Difference?

[TCO]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
I think your misinterpreting his question. I don't think he cares about the minimalization of casualties, I think he cares about the moral justification of the war in the first place and the victory of the aggressor.

If someone engages in war immorally (i.e. unjust aggression), then they deserve to lose the war, from a moral standpoint. Now, inevitably that will result in the aggressor suffering a lot of casualties. But that's not the same thing as actively wanting people on the aggressor's side to die.

While it may seem contradictory, I think it's a valid position, because the crux is that the aggressor shoudn't be doing what it is doing in the first place. It makes little sense to believe your country is engaging in a morally unjust war and then, once that war is embarked upon, say you hope for a victory in that war.

Strategy isn't the issue here, morality is.

Tell that to your 44 Democrat Senators who voted to forbid the Gulf War...than fell all over themselves lauding the troops when they returned vicotorious.

[Lars-E]

This might not be relevant, but:

Saddam has used his arabic rethoric skills lately. It's just ridiculous when it's translated to English. But they say that's how Arabic is. If it is used like that - very colorful - I don't like it. Another thing I don't like is that muslims tell you you know nothing about islam if you don't read the Qur'an in Arabic. I guess God's mother tongue is Arabic. How stupid can you get??? There seems to be no limit among certain muslims.

Anyways Saddam said that Iraq would beat the USA and that the American warmongering was like the barks of dogs and hisses of snakes. How many Arabs and Iraqis actually believe this horse manure? Sadly, plenty do. :sad: (need a smiley for sad)

[Inverse Icarus]

it's : (

[Lars-E]

No, that is ":frown:". Sorry dude.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
No I don't think I am misinterpreting the question.

The morality of the war plays no role what so ever. If a war is engaged (short of having no war at all) the best conclusion is to make it as short as possible.

Having seen David argue a lot, I'd say you are misinterpreting. David has consistently argued that war is immoral unless done solely for the defense of one's country. It's one of his chief mantras, and his position here is likely what I have said--a U.S. war against Iraq would be immoral, so he would have to hope the immoral side loses. Saying morality isn't a part of war is untrue, since modern world sentiment very much believes it is, and as Vietnam showed, a democracy like the U.S. is beholding to moral standards in waging war. But still, that's irrelevant, because we're talking moral jusitification here.

Certainly, any nation that enters into war will engage in strategy to maximize gain and minimize casualties (ok, maybe not Russia... ). That's not a moral issue, no. But that doesn't retroactively bring any moral justification to the war itself.

If massive casualties ensue to the aggressor, it is the equivalent of two wrongs. Massive aggressor casualties means by definition massive victims casualties as no party wins when it cmes to war. Therefore IF war is engaged it needs to be as short as possible.

So had the UK and US backed down and given into the Nazis, letting Hitler have Europe, that would have been the right thing to do? Certainly it would have spared them the lives of tens of thousands of soldiers.

However, had Germany not engaged in hostile aggression in the first place, then it would be a moot point. Blaming the victim of aggression for massive attacker casualties seems pretty silly, don't it?

I would counter and say lets for arguement sake assume that we are morally in the wrong. Massive US casulaties ensue requiring a longer occupation massive destruction of Iraqi civilians and infrastructure etc. Does the fact that the US pulled out as was the case in Vietnam make the sitaution better? Did the fact that the US was showed up erase the massive casualties of the supposedly innocent Iraqi's.

The fact that the U.S. was "showed up" in Vietnam was, IMO, an overall good thing. It did indeed limit U.S. aggression abroad for fighting communism. There had been talks of expanding the battle to much more of SE Asia, and that was kyboshed real quick. I think you're underestimating the impact the loss in Vietnam had for the U.S. and on current war-making strategy. We are much more careful about foreign engagements than before. Not as much as we should be, especially with the current administration, but moreso than we were before.

Of course, I would have preferred the U.S. never have gone to Vietnam and that the 50,000+ U.S. soldiers hadn't died at all. That would have been the best course of action, morally.

One counter arguement to this is the assumption that it will prevent the aggressor nation (in this case supposedly the US) from engaing in war in the future. Vietnam shows us that effect is short term (one generation). Hence IMO it is fallacy to think this is valid. (unless of course you are French who haven't wanted to fight a war since WW1 )

Again, I disagree. Plenty of aggressive nations have learned their lessons, Germany and Japan being the most prominent of them. While I abhor that so many of their people died, I think they deserved to lose the war. I would rather, as I have said, they had not embarked on the war in the first place.

The only other counter to this is that the will to wage war will cause a cessation of hostilities, in todays world of massive firepower I think by the time the general public express that will and get it to a point of action the damage will be immense.

This seems to be pure conjecture, at this point, though.

Uber:

The only way we're going to lose is if masses of servicemen die, and that will probably only happen if saddam uses chemical / biological / nuclear weapons. I don't want to see anyone die like that, especialy voulnteers sworn to defend America.

I don't want to see anyone die like that either, especially Iraqi conscripts being forced to fight against their will by their government. I feel more for them than I do U.S. volunteers (which I desperately don't want to see die, either), as the volunteers at least willingly signed up and knew what they were potentially getting into.

If Saddam uses such terrible weapons, however, it will be our fault for driving him to it. If we engage in unjust hostilities, he has the right to defend himself from those hostilities. If we don't want him opening up his chemical/biological reserves on us, we shouldn't be attacking in the first place. Remember that we ourselves used a nuclear weapon against a nation that had attacked us. So we have no moral high ground there. And we targeted civilians, not soldiers.

Saddam does that TO HIS OWN PEOPLE. Something needs to be done about him, that much is clear, the his people are too weak, and the balance of power of the region to fragile to do much of anything. It must be done. America can do it.

First, the evidence that Saddam used chemical weapons on his own people is flimsy, as the Kurdish towns on the Iranian border seem to have been attacked by Iran, not Iraq (the chemical weapons weren't ones Iraq is known to possess, but Iran does, and Iranian troops occupied the area afterwards). This is from the Pentagon, mind you.

Second, until Saddam is posing a direct threat to the U.S. or allies like he did in 1991, then "doing something about him" doesn't include, IMO, "regime change." Overthrowing a government we don't like isn't our prerogative. What we've been doing--containment, inspections--is what we can do. I'd even concede the economic sanctions are acceptable, though I dislike their humanitarian cost immensely. Invasion and overthrow? No.

If you're morally oppopsed to the war, there is little to no chance for anyone to swing you to our side, and thats understandible. But wishing death upon your brothers doesn't fly right in my eyes. Sure, a true Marxist, humanitarian, whatever will tell you all brothers, but we all know damn well the world hasn't grown that much. The life of an American is worth more than that of an Iraqi, in my eyes, especially an Iraqi defending a despotic regime that does nothing good for it's people. Maybe you've reached a higher plane than i have Boris, Floyd, et al., but for me, I'd rather the Americans win with minimal losses.

Again, I don't wish death on anyone, just the opposite--I wish nobody would die. And again, that "Iraqi defending a despotic regime" is likely not willingly doing so, but as a conscript. And even if he is willingly doing so, I can't blame him, so long as he isn't engaging in murderous activities while doing so. I accept that there are Iraqi people of genuinely love their country and would fight and die to defend it from an outside attacker, just as many would do for the U.S. I see no difference between such an Iraqi and such an American in terms of the value of life or right to live.

GP:

Tell that to your 44 Democrat Senators who voted to forbid the Gulf War...than fell all over themselves lauding the troops when they returned vicotorious.

And that has to do with me or this discussion how? Let's leave out irrelevant points.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


Having seen David argue a lot, I'd say you are misinterpreting. David has consistently argued that war is immoral unless done solely for the defense of one's country. It's one of his chief mantras, and his position here is likely what I have said--a U.S. war against Iraq would be immoral, so he would have to hope the immoral side loses. Saying morality isn't a part of war is untrue, since modern world sentiment very much believes it is, and as Vietnam showed, a democracy like the U.S. is beholding to moral standards in waging war. But still, that's irrelevant, because we're talking moral jusitification here.

Certainly, any nation that enters into war will engage in strategy to maximize gain and minimize casualties (ok, maybe not Russia... ). That's not a moral issue, no. But that doesn't retroactively bring any moral justification to the war itself.

David should then rephrase his questions. He asked them with an implicit statement that the US and Iraq had engaged in war. My point clearly is that if engaged the wheels of rationality turn so slowly that the best outcome is to have the war as short as possible. I posed the counter that if the war turned ugly for the US more harm to everyone would result and as a consequence would be the worst possible outcome.

So had the UK and US backed down and given into the Nazis, letting Hitler have Europe, that would have been the right thing to do? Certainly it would have spared them the lives of tens of thousands of soldiers.

However, had Germany not engaged in hostile aggression in the first place, then it would be a moot point. Blaming the victim of aggression for massive attacker casualties seems pretty silly, don't it?

Realistically speaking this is a nonsequitor. UK and France had given their word to support Poland and held to their agreement. In the case of the US, Germany declared war upon the US.

The fact that the U.S. was "showed up" in Vietnam was, IMO, an overall good thing. It did indeed limit U.S. aggression abroad for fighting communism. There had been talks of expanding the battle to much more of SE Asia, and that was kyboshed real quick. I think you're underestimating the impact the loss in Vietnam had for the U.S. and on current war-making strategy. We are much more careful about foreign engagements than before. Not as much as we should be, especially with the current administration, but moreso than we were before.

Of course, I would have preferred the U.S. never have gone to Vietnam and that the 50,000+ U.S. soldiers hadn't died at all. That would have been the best course of action, morally.

I submit this again was the impact of a single generation. By the 80's, America was spoiling to repair their damaged national pride. Only this time lessons learned would make the arsenals of the US even more effective.

Again, I disagree. Plenty of aggressive nations have learned their lessons, Germany and Japan being the most prominent of them. While I abhor that so many of their people died, I think they deserved to lose the war. I would rather, as I have said, they had not embarked on the war in the first place.

I would also submit this was more the impact of a split Germany, a completely disarmed Japan and nation rebuilding to prevent the reoccurance of resentment ala WW1, this is not necessarily the will of the governments listed above.

To summarize it is immoral to wish war to drag on even if the intention is to teach nations the folly of their warring ways. Wishing war never started is a noble aspiration, but once engaged you wish for the result to be quick and the victor to be compassionate to wish anything else is to wish for needless misery.

Saying all this I do think their is such a thing as a war for a moral cause and in those circumstances protracted fighting may be inevitable. But even in those cricumstances as was evidenced here their was plenty of discussion regarding the morality of tactics employed for the purpose of drawing the war to a hasty close.

[Inverse Icarus]

if the soldiers are conscripts that dont want to fight, they can surrender on the front line when saddam isn't looking over their shoulder with an AK47.

[SlowwHand]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Nobody here is wishing for catastrophic U.S. losses. I don't want anyone to die over this nonsense, especially American service members. To be sacrificed on the altar of international politics is a terrible thing, and I would hold Bush accountable as a criminal were he to commit U.S. forces to attacking Iraq unjustly.

But, were we to suddenly invade Iraq tomorrow, I would indeed say the U.S. deserved to lose the war for being the unprovoked aggressor.

It's already provoked, Boris. That's the point.
David, for instance, was still having his diapers changed when this started with Iraq.
Years later, and he's an expert on the situation.
I know. He's an amazing guy.
Besides that, he and his followers whine and moan around here, but I'll BET they do nothing in what for them passes as real life to do anything about what they don't like.
If there's a problem, get involved, like OzzieKP does with Youth Rights.
I don't agree with him, and think eventually he'll grow out of it; I also but applaud his efforts and involvement.
If the USA, or wherever you call home, is SO fouled up, then leave.
People leave their birth country every day.
Show some balls one way or the other.
Get involved to make changes, or go away.
Easy.

[DinoDoc]

Nobody here is wishing for catastrophic U.S. losses.

Isn't that what David said in his first post?

[Drogue]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Where can I find the most recent polling data? The most recent one I can find is from October and it doesn't match your numbers.

It was on a BBC program, and I have no idea where they got the figures from I'm afraid.

Originally posted by Ned
But anyone who would wish another Vietnam on the United States, or for that matter, anyone else, is truly immoral. War can be just. But if fought, as you said Ogie, war must be fought in a way to minimize the loss of life on both sides.

I don’t wish another Vietnam on anybody, not least the Vietnamese. The USA should not have attacked Vietnam, rather than have used overwhelming force. I agree, if the USA does fight, it should use overwhelming force, however it should not be fighting in the first place. I just wish America had learnt from Vietnam, and didn’t keep attacking other countries it doesn’t agree with.

Originally posted by Ned
The nut of what you are saying is that we should have removed Saddam in '91 and not punished Iraq with sanctions.

I wholeheartedly agree with this.

But the numbskulls of '91 chose the route of sanctions and inspectors. It is now too late to change course.

Not really. While I agree with the defence of Kuwait, we had no business attacking Iraq. Weapons inspectors are one thing, to see what he has, and make sure he is not a major threat, but all out war was, and is, going too far.

Originally posted by UberKruX
I see you point Boris, and vicariously Floyd's, but i don't agree.

I understand everything you last post said. It makes perfect sense that someone morally opposed to a certain war would seem to be hypocritical to wish for victory, but I don't like that one bit.

If you're morally opposed to the war, there is little to no chance for anyone to swing you to our side, and that’s understandable. But wishing death upon your brothers doesn't fly right in my eyes. Sure, a true Marxist, humanitarian, whatever will tell you all brothers, but we all know damn well the world hasn't grown that much. The life of an American is worth more than that of an Iraqi, in my eyes, especially an Iraqi defending a despotic regime that does nothing good for it's people. Maybe you've reached a higher plane than i have Boris, Floyd, et al., but for me, I'd rather the Americans win with minimal losses.

I hear your sentiment. Obviously, being a Brit, I have no sacred value of American life above all others, and as such, I would value an Iraqi life just as much as an American one. However, I don’t see why there is a need for war at all. If there is no war, no Americans need die, and no Iraqis. Isn’t that best for all concerned.

I can understand that you do not like the idea of someone wishing America to lose, but that is probably just because of your patriotism? If someone did not think America should go to war, why should they support that war? Why does it make a difference if they are an American too? I will always wish that the aggressor will lose the war, even if that aggressor is Britain. And you may say I’m not patriotic because of that, but is that such a bad thing? A country is a place to live, I don’t agree with everything the government say, and I would never expect too. What is so great about Patriotism? Someone accused David of having no Patriotism, like it’s a great insult. Why is someone worth more just because they belong to the same country you do? Why is what your country does good, and another’s bad? I have nothing against America, but I don’t see why its moral code, its laws, its beliefs, are more important, or any better than anyone else’s. Why does it have to impose them upon everyone else?

David has consistently argued that war is immoral unless done solely for the defense of one's country

This I completely agree with. America attacking Iraq is still an unprovoked attack IMO. Iraq has not given America any direct provocation.

You accuse David of wanting to cause US casualties, but you are the ones wanting to go to war, you are the ones that seem to want to cause death, not David. All he and others (including myself) are saying is we shouldn’t go to war. Is that such a bad thing to believe?

[SlowwHand]

"I don’t wish another Vietnam on anybody, not least the Vietnamese. The USA should not have attacked Vietnam, rather than have used overwhelming force. I agree, if the USA does fight, it should use overwhelming force, however it should not be fighting in the first place. I just wish America had learnt from Vietnam, and didn’t keep attacking other countries it doesn’t agree with."

Oh, Christ. Another misinformed expert.
Drogue, your analysis of Viet Nam is so severely flawed, I wouldn't know where to begin.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Oh, Christ. Another misinformed expert.
Drogue, your analysis of Viet Nam is so severely flawed, I wouldn't know where to begin.

Have you been possessed by Fez? Because that was one serious BAM.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Saddam Hussein is a cancer. Think of an allied military operation against him as chemotherapy- it's brutal, dangerous and very unpleasant, but may represent the best long-term prospect if the patient can survive it.

There are three options. Inaction, sanctions and war. Sanctions have had a decade and are just causing the deaths of Iraqi children in their thousands with no prospect of relief. Even the most ardent anti-war campaigners agree on that.

Inaction? I can't stomach that prospect. Some regimes are too evil to be tolerated, and while Hussein's Ba'athists don't top my personal wish list to be toppled, they're certainly shortlisted. I think it was the gassing of the Kurds and poisoning of the Shia population that swayed it.

War? If there's a 4th option, please share it. I can't see an alternative I'd consider acceptable. If in doubt, I tend to wonder about what George Orwell would have done, and his contempt for the appeasement movement was heroic. I'm convinced he'd have been in Kurdistan or the South Iraq marshes with a rifle.

Like any European, I remain grateful that the appeasement/isolationist movements in WW2 were unsuccessful. I hold out hope that they will be unsuccessful again.

Then I hope we invade Burma.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
"I don’t wish another Vietnam on anybody, not least the Vietnamese. The USA should not have attacked Vietnam, rather than have used overwhelming force. I agree, if the USA does fight, it should use overwhelming force, however it should not be fighting in the first place. I just wish America had learnt from Vietnam, and didn’t keep attacking other countries it doesn’t agree with."

Oh, Christ. Another misinformed expert.
Drogue, your analysis of Viet Nam is so severely flawed, I wouldn't know where to begin.

I never claimed to be an expert, and what analysis of Vietnam? I wasn't aware I had provided one. It shouldn't have happened. That is my belief. I don't claim to know everything about it. I was answering Ned's point, about not wishing a Vietnam on anyone. I wish Vietnam hadn't happened too, but that was in America's hands. War is wrong IMO, and America could have avoided the Vietnam war, by not attacking. But this is off the point. What is the answer to Davids question? Putting aside Patriotism, and a belief that you and your country is better than anyone else's, what isn the difference between US soldiers killing Iraqis, and Iraqis killing US soldiers?

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp
Saddam Hussein is a cancer. Think of an allied military operation against him as chemotherapy- it's brutal, dangerous and very unpleasant, but may represent the best long-term prospect if the patient can survive it.

There are three options. Inaction, sanctions and war. Sanctions have had a decade and are just causing the deaths of Iraqi children in their thousands with no prospect of relief. Even the most ardent anti-war campaigners agree on that.

Inaction? I can't stomach that prospect. Some regimes are too evil to be tolerated, and while Hussein's Ba'athists don't top my personal wish list to be toppled, they're certainly shortlisted. I think it was the gassing of the Kurds and poisoning of the Shia population that swayed it.

War? If there's a 4th option, please share it. I can't see an alternative I'd consider acceptable. If in doubt, I tend to wonder about what George Orwell would have done, and his contempt for the appeasement movement was heroic. I'm convinced he'd have been in Kurdistan or the South Iraq marshes with a rifle.

Like any European, I remain grateful that the appeasement/isolationist movements in WW2 were unsuccessful. I hold out hope that they will be unsuccessful again.

Then I hope we invade Burma.

Why is inaction so bad. He is opnly evil in your opinion. I am much less hasty to brand anybody as evil or not. Who is to say what the effect onm his life will be in 100 years? Who is to say whether the world will be better or worse for it? Only God, if you believe in such a idea, can. We have no business saying who is good or evil, and who should be removed or not. Until he attacks, we should not. If the world were run on that principle, there would be no wars. It is Americans, not their opponents, that seem to be the aggressor in most conflicts involving them. What makes Americans 'just' and they opponents evil? What right do they have to dictate morallity to the rest of the world?