Is War Ever Justified and What are the Aternatives?

[spiritof1202]

Originally posted by Osweld


I know next to nothing about the "food for oil" scheme, but it sounds like crap to me, for one - if the name is anything to go by - it is just as much about taking as it is giving. Secondly, I don't believe that it is surpervised. Get a few dozen international organizations and maybe even the UN in there handing all the stuff out. If saddam still manages to steal the money, give more. Shower the country in wealth.

This should be done everywhere, infact. Poverty is the number one cause of crime and I think that can easily be applied to a geopolitical level, too. It's counter to my environmental beliefs, but I guess that's the most realistic way of changing the system now that I think about it. The only thing you'd have to worry about then is all the racial hatred born from the wars of the past.

Well... it was actually well supervised. The UN "Oil for food" program is one of the big profit centers in the UN. It grossed $800M "administration fee in 2001.

The UN had a financial motive to continue the status quo.

"Showering the country with wealth" will simply put MORE money into Saddams palaces and weaponry.

Its the regime thats the problem, not the countries wealth. The regime STEALS the countries resources, whatever they might be, to its own benefit first.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Azazel
Sometimes war is justified, and sometimes not.

Anything, and I mean anything, can be "justified". It is all a question of aims.

[Velociryx]

The short answer is yes.

War is justifiable.

Some people who fancy themselves "enlightened" and "above" the notions of war...the notions that sometimes force must be met with force are denying some of the more basic facts of our nature as a species.

That's all well and good, but their high-minded denial does not change the way the world is.

People hate. People steal. People starve and torture each other.

Sucks, but it's the truth.

And if you project weakness, then others who think themselves stronger WILL attempt to take what you've got by force.

If you don't like it, be prepared to shoot back.

If you are not prepared to shoot back, that's certainly your choice, and you will be ushered quietly off the world's stage.

-=Vel=-

[General Ludd]

Well... it was actually well supervised. The UN "Oil for food" program is one of the big profit centers in the UN. It grossed $800M "administration fee in 2001.

If they where making a profit on it, then it certainly is not at all what I am suggesting.

Just the thought of making profit out of a humanitrian aid program...

"Showering the country with wealth" will simply put MORE money into Saddams palaces and weaponry.

So what? even taken to extremes, I doubt he'll ever be able to fund the Iraqi military on a level even approaching that of the USA. He's armed, everyone else is armed, who the hell cares?

Its the regime thats the problem, not the countries wealth. The regime STEALS the countries resources, whatever they might be, to its own benefit first.

That's what I'm saying, give the people so much aid and support that it doesn't matter what saddam's doing. If he's sitting there trying to steal people's money to build palaces while everyone else is having palaces built for them, he's going to quickly lose his influence and he certainly won't be needed anymore.

Truth be told, I haven't heard of anything particularily evil about Saddam's regime anyways. Just the usual stuff that politicans do - a bit of stealing, the odd chemical weapon. The Iraqi people actually enjoy some of the best living standards (pre-war, anyways) and freedom in the region. If I where a humanitarian, I'd be more concerened about places like Afghanistan, or Saudi Arabia.

[spiritof1202]

The only way to give physical aid directly to the Iraqis would require a physical UN presence in Iraq, including armed troops... which Saddam was not prepared to accept, since it would have loosened his grip on power.

France and Russia were not willing to let this happen, vetoing any authorization of effective force, as between them, Saddam owes them $14BN (Russia $9.5BN and france $4.5BN.) They want Saddam to remain in power so that he can repay them. If hes ousted, then the new regime will negate the debt.

[Az]

Anything, and I mean anything, can be "justified". It is all a question of aims.

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

[spiritof1202]

Indeed. War can be ethical, if the alternative or status quo are more harmful than the resultant harm of war.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Velociryx
The short answer is yes.

War is justifiable.

Some people who fancy themselves "enlightened" and "above" the notions of war...the notions that sometimes force must be met with force are denying some of the more basic facts of our nature as a species.

That's all well and good, but their high-minded denial does not change the way the world is.

People hate. People steal. People starve and torture each other.

Sucks, but it's the truth.

And if you project weakness, then others who think themselves stronger WILL attempt to take what you've got by force.

If you don't like it, be prepared to shoot back.

If you are not prepared to shoot back, that's certainly your choice, and you will be ushered quietly off the world's stage.

-=Vel=-

Or "Might Makes Right".

[spiritof1202]

War is valuable insofar as a definitive solution. Diplomatic debate can become an impasse. War is usually definitive, insofar as each distinct individual is either dead or alive.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by spiritof1202
The only way to give physical aid directly to the Iraqis would require a physical UN presence in Iraq, including armed troops... which Saddam was not prepared to accept, since it would have loosened his grip on power.

Why do you assume it would require force? No one has tried doing without. I'd rather the UN not be involved, anyways - I'd like to see a multitude of international organizations like amnesty international, unicef, ect... doing it. I don't think those organizations have ever needed to sport a military to acomplish their goals, either.

[spiritof1202]

Originally posted by Osweld


Why do you assume it would require force? No one has tried doing without. I'd rather the UN not be involved, anyways - I'd like to see a multitude of international organizations like amnesty international, unicef, ect... doing it. I don't think those organizations have ever needed to sport a military to acomplish their goals, either.

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.

Force (and fear of force) has been, and is the only currency of control in Iraq.

[Velociryx]

Big C - the "in a nutshell" phrase of "might makes right" does not even come close, IMO, to my position.

No, might doesn't make right. But the sorry truth is that in the world we live in, if you do not HAVE might, then those that do will use it against you.

So....whatchagonna do? Doesn't make it right, but your choices are to hit back or die. Which do you pick?

-=Vel=-

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Velociryx
No, might doesn't make right. But the sorry truth is that in the world we live in, if you do not HAVE might, then those that do will use it against you.

So....whatchagonna do? Doesn't make it right, but your choices are to hit back or die. Which do you pick?

You are making a false dilema.

[Mellian]

Originally posted by UberKruX
war is, and will forever be, the end all be all in terms of making YOU do what WE want you to do.

How can you make them do what you want if their dead?

-Mellian

[spiritof1202]

Originally posted by Mellian


How can you make them do what you want if their dead?

-Mellian

You just don't kill EVERYBODY.

or you do, and then claim the territory for yourself.