Is War Ever Justified and What are the Aternatives?

[Imran Siddiqui]

the US had the highest standard of living in the world since the post-civil war years.

False. The United Kingdom had by far the highest standard of living in the world until World War 2.

[Velociryx]

Master Zen, I cannot agree.

You say that "when we are asked" to act, it's okay. In other words, the ONLY time it's okay for us to do something outside our borders is when we are doing something on behalf of others.

Under your paradigm, a nation may NEVER act outside its national borders in pursuit of strategic national interests then.

Do you realize that NO nation does as you describe. None. Not a single nation.

So long as you understand that, we're good.

Second, the US WAS asked into the region, and we have been asked by our allies in the region to remove Saddam, because he is a destabilizing force in the region and a threat to our allies.

Now, WHEN our allies made this request, it was understood that non-military means were preferred, and in fact, non-military means were tried.

We worked through the UN to get various resolutions passed to allow for inspectors inside Iraq, and to force Iraq to comply with the world body.

We (again working through the UN) saw sanctions imposed against Iraq, and do you want to know what happened? Our allies (most notably the French and Germans) did two things:

a) They ignored the sanctions, and continued doing business with Saddam, getting fat oil contracts and selling weapons, including weapons of mass destruction.

and

b) They p*ssed and moaned about how inhumane sanctions were....that they only really hurt the Iraqi people, and not the leader himself.

Fast-Forward 12 years.

We've had enough. Saddam is NOT complying, has made it clear that he has no *intention* of complying, and is playing his usual games.

Time for something more drastic.

Time for some serious consequences.

Forget the sanctions, let's get rid of him.

Ohhhhh, now wait a second though! Here comes a "new" French and German plan.....rather than use force, they want to play more of the same games we've been playing for 12 years....and guess what the centerpiece of "their plan"* is?

Sanctions! Yep....the same sanctions they ignored anyway, and were griping about earlier.....THAT's the master plan.

To say that we have gone in as the lone gunman, Master Zen, is to deny the truth of what occured.

-=Vel=-

* "Their plan" was actually floated by the US some years earlier, and shot down because "sanctions are bad"

[Ben Kenobi]

Velociryx:

Good points.

The big question is how high a price of peace that one is willing to pay. What is too high for you might not be for someone else.

Agreed, the system assumes that nations will abide by a pacifist tendency, but we can look at how nuclear weapons have been handled so far.

Since the cost of using Nuclear weapons is so high, no one is willing to use them to settle disputes, for fear of the destruction of the world.

Suppose war overall were to become intolerable, and far too costly in comparison to keeping the peace. In such situations, negotiations would take paramount importance.

In such a situation the nations will play ball not because they believe that pacifism is the only solution, but because it will be in the best interests to do so.

For one country to expose itself is suicide, but what about a consortium, agreeing to bilateral cooperation?

I don't know if this will happen in my lifetime, but do you not admit that this is the best of possible worlds?

[Colwyn]

Hey come back to 1941 Obi-one!!

There is a war (your turn RF DG) to finish there!

There won't be a present if the past gets ignored!

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

the US had the highest standard of living in the world since the post-civil war years.

False. The United Kingdom had by far the highest standard of living in the world until World War 2.

It is you who is mistaken. Have you even bothered to read economic history before making blind assertations with no proof whatsoever?

Lacking the availiable estimates which today can much better measure the standard of living of each country, the United States had higher wages than Britian since the post-Civil War era, and it's population was also better educated believe it or not and had much better job opportunities. Ever wonder why everyone flocked to the US and not the UK??

Here is some data on per capita GDP in 1990 Geary-Khamis dollars (for
the uninitiated: values in monetary units of each country converted into
dollars at the purchasing-power-parity or PPP exchange rates estimated
by Geary and Khamis, expressed in 1990 US dollars):

Country     1913    1930
US              5307    6220 
UK              5032    5195   

Source: Angus Maddison, Monitoring the World Economy 1820-1992, OECD,
Paris, 1995,pp.193 ff.

again, GDP per capita is but one of the instruments to measure standard of living but as I said, factors like education, health, wages, and employment on shift the balance even more towards the US.

unfortunately I do not have the pre-ww1 data on hand, if you wish to check it yourself take a look at The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers (Paul Kennedy) which mentiones the economic capacity of these two countries during the turn of the century and before.

[Ben Kenobi]

colwyn:

Please see my post in the RFDG.

Sorry.

[Colwyn]

Don't judge a country's success purely by per capita income

I live in Australia with a high standard of living (so called) yet 1,000's of our young people kill themselves each year and people look so stressed and miserable, when I went to Greece a few years back, people there were overall much happier.

Remember what Lenin said "the only just war is the revolutionary one"

PS obi now look what you made me get involved in!

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Velociryx

You say that "when we are asked" to act, it's okay. In other words, the ONLY time it's okay for us to do something outside our borders is when we are doing something on behalf of others.

Under your paradigm, a nation may NEVER act outside its national borders in pursuit of strategic national interests then.

You are going to the extremes. Every action taken outside of your borders should be justified for something a little bit more broad than "national security" reasons. Any country in the world can claim to do whatever the hell they want for "national security" reasons. Hey, Mexico might just as well drop out of NAFTA for those reason and under YOUR paradigm the US shouldn't say a word against it....Israel can start wiping out Palestine too, or invading Jordan and Lebanon. I'm sure they have many "national security" reasons to do so. Sorry but that's just not a good enough excuse for me.

Do you realize that NO nation does as you describe. None. Not a single nation. So long as you understand that, we're good.

Not a single nation is tempted to NOT consider it. However, most nations show restraint when faced with this option. Being a sole superpower unfortunately carries with it no restraint.

Second, the US WAS asked into the region, and we have been asked by our allies in the region to remove Saddam, because he is a destabilizing force in the region and a threat to our allies.

Excuse me but just when did this happen?? Who asked? If you are talking about Saudi Arabia during GW1 thats a different story. But SA did not ask for US help this time. No one invited the US to attack Iraq, save probably Kuwait but it surely was not Kuwait's idea in the first place. Who thought up of this whole idea? The US. Any allies who let the US do it can hardly count as the original invitation. The US invited itself to this party.

Now, WHEN our allies made this request, it was understood that non-military means were preferred, and in fact, non-military means were tried.We worked through the UN to get various resolutions passed to allow for inspectors inside Iraq, and to force Iraq to comply with the world body.

I do not disagree here. Saddam has been a pest for over 12 years. What I am arguing against, in case you haven't noticed is the TIMING. The same reasons to invade Iraq today have existed during the last 12 years and it just didn't happen. So either this is just a big huge coincidence (which it's not) in which Dubya chooses now to do this, after 9/11, after Afghanistan, after the infamous Axis-ofEvil speech, makes me think that the US is really just taking advantage of the situation to flex its muscle in the middle east. Even this same administration said nothing about Iraq pre-9/11 so all those arguments about Bush having the balls to do things which Clinton didn't is just bull.

We (again working through the UN) saw sanctions imposed against Iraq, and do you want to know what happened? Our allies (most notably the French and Germans) did two things:

a) They ignored the sanctions, and continued doing business with Saddam, getting fat oil contracts and selling weapons, including weapons of mass destruction.
and
b) They p*ssed and moaned about how inhumane sanctions were....that they only really hurt the Iraqi people, and not the leader himself.

Have I said the French are acting with noble intentions? Nope. Just a little opportunity to show some gallic pride. Now of course, haven't you realized that all those juicy oil contracts are now going to fall into US hands? Wouldn't you try to avoid that too? The US has never kept quiet when it's economic interests have been at stake so now you expect France to do the same? Just a few lines back you said all countries acted the same, well, this is an example.

Fast-Forward 12 years.

We've had enough. Saddam is NOT complying, has made it clear that he has no *intention* of complying, and is playing his usual games.
Time for something more drastic.
Time for some serious consequences.
Forget the sanctions, let's get rid of him.
Ohhhhh, now wait a second though! Here comes a "new" French and German plan.....rather than use force, they want to play more of the same games we've been playing for 12 years....and guess what the centerpiece of "their plan"* is?

Sanctions! Yep....the same sanctions they ignored anyway, and were griping about earlier.....THAT's the master plan.

Umm no, the plan wasn't about sanctions, it was about letting the inspectors do their job and letting the inspectors set a deadline until which they would declare Iraq in "material breach". No individual country was authorized to declare Iraq in material breach so it doesn't really matter if the US thought it had or not, it was up to the inspection team. And they weren't given that chance. Also, resolution 1441 did not give the green light to launch an attack in case Iraq did not comply, authorization for military action would have been necessary through a second resolution like the one the US/UK/Spain tried to pass just before the war started.


I'm going to put this in bold because I think no one is getting it:

THE SAME REASONS TO ATTACK IRAQ HAVE EXISTED SINCE YEARS BEFORE. IRAQ HAS WMD OR PLANNED TO BUILD THEM, SO HAVE OTHER NATIONS LIKE ISRAEL, INDIA AND PAKISTAN BUT THE WORLD SAYS NOTHING. SADDAM IS A DICTATOR YES, SO IS THE SAUDI ROYAL FAMILIY YET NO PLANS ARE MADE TO TAKE THEM OUT. THEY PLAY BY U.S. RULES AND THAT IS WHAT SHIELDS THEM. IRAQ IS A THREAT TO U.S. INTERESTS AND THAT IS THE SOLE REASON THAT THIS WAR IS OCCURING BECAUSE THE U.S. IS TAKING ADVANTAGE OF THE WAR ON TERROR TO TRY AND JUSTIFY WHAT IT HAD LONG SINCE LONGED TO DO BUT HAD WISELY AVOIDED SINCE IT WOULD HAVE SEEMED, AND STILL SEEMS TO BE A BLATANT WAR OF AGRESSION.

AGAIN, THERE ARE NO GROUNDS TO ATTACK ANOTHER COUNTRY BEFORE THAT ONE HAS DONE ANYTHING, BASING WARS ON FUTURE THREATS GIVES ANY COUNTRY THE EXCUSE TO ATTACK ANYONE FOR WHATEVER REASON. IF YOU JUSTIFY THIS WAR THEN YOU ALSO JUSTIFIED THE GERMAN ATTACK ON RUSSIA IN WW2, YOU JUSTIFIED JAPAN'S ATTACK ON PEARL HARBOR AND JUSTIFIED MANY OTHER WARS IN HISTORY WHICH YOU YOURSELF BELIEVE TO BE WRONG. JUST BECAUSE THE U.S. DOES THE SAME DOES NOT MAKE IT RIGHT.

[orange]

That's like saying you should negotiate with a mugger who has a knife out and has threatened you with bodily harm to see how much of your cash he should get.

You're absolutely right. Iraq shouldn't allow the US to threaten it in such a way.

[DinoDoc]

Shouting just makes you look like an ignorant arse, Zen.

[itsagreenday]

You're absolutely right. Iraq shouldn't allow the US to threaten it in such a way.

They didn't. And now Saddam will be forcibly disposed of.

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Shouting just makes you look like an ignorant arse, Zen.

I can shout it in your ear with a loudspeaker and you still won't get it.

[Frogman]

I agree with Master Zen that we have made it easier for other countries to justify war and have lost any moral authority to tell others to seek nonviolent solutions to percieved threats.

Time will tell the the true price of getting rid of Saddam.