Is War Ever Justified and What are the Aternatives?

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by spiritof1202


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.

I've already told you this, I think the oil for food program is crap.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Azazel

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

Bah..only aims are ethical. war is a means, and only in so far as how how you execute the means affects what your aim is, can war be seen as "ethical"

As I said, it is all about aims. A war for ethical ais is ipso facto ethical, and a war for unethical ais is ipso facto unethical.

This is why most "war debate" here on poly and specially out in the 'real world' is nonsense: people get so caught up arguing means but they either a) don;t care to debate aims, or b) mistakenly think the debate about aims has already happened and agreement reached.

[spiritof1202]

Originally posted by Osweld


I've already told you this, I think the oil for food program is crap.

Glad you've figured the problem out.

Any civilian program in Iraq would have the same effect, since it can't enforce anything, or protect anyone.

The Ba'ath party were all-powerful in Iraq til recently.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by spiritof1202


Glad you've figured the problem out.

Any civilian program in Iraq would have the same effect, since it can't enforce anything, or protect anyone.

The Ba'ath party were all-powerful in Iraq til recently.

What does such a program need to enforce, and what does it need to protect people from? All it needs to do is build schools, hospitals, housing, infrastructure, and educate people.

[spiritof1202]

Originally posted by Osweld


What does such a program need to enforce, and what does it need to protect people from? All it needs to do is build schools, hospitals, housing, infrastructure, and educate people.

It needs to stop the Ba'ath party from taking and reselling these goods and materials. A large potion of these good that are brought in by, for example UNICEF, are taken and resold by the Ba'ath party. Humanitarian organizations are unwilling and unable to protect these goods.

They are also unwilling and unable to protect the populace from torture and so on and so forth.

The Ba'ath party membership, and institutions have guns and are willing to use them to enforce their rule. Any organization which wishes to be effective in controlling aid distribution in Iraq needs to be backed by force, itself.

Or you could remove the Ba'ath party.

[Frogman]

War is always justified, hence the problem.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by spiritof1202


It needs to stop the Ba'ath party from taking and reselling these goods and materials. A large potion of these good that are brought in by, for example UNICEF, are taken and resold by the Ba'ath party. Humanitarian organizations are unwilling and unable to protect these goods.

They are also unwilling and unable to protect the populace from torture and so on and so forth.

The Ba'ath party membership, and institutions have guns and are willing to use them to enforce their rule. Any organization which wishes to be effective in controlling aid distribution in Iraq needs to be backed by force, itself.

Or you could remove the Ba'ath party.

They can't steal buildings, infrastructure, and education. I do not believe there was any famine or lack of medical supplies without the embargoes, anyways.


EDIT: Actually, I suppose they could 'steal' buildings, but not without being pretty blatant about it and everyone knowing.

[spiritof1202]

They steal the building materials, and the food, and the cash to pay teachers/doctors etc.

Everyone knows that they are doing this. Up til now, the world community just hasn't done anything about it.

[Sava]

I'd like to say that I think there is a distinct difference between military action, and war. An all out war is only morally justified in defense. A pre-emptive invasion without the consent of the Democratic world, or at the very least, our allies, and without any shred of credible evidence or proof or a direct threat is wrong.

[spiritof1202]

Morality is relative.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by spiritof1202
They steal the building materials

building materials? I thought I made it pretty clear I'm not talking about some half-assed aid program. I'd expect the organizations to be in there personally buidling them.

and the food

But I've never heard of famines before the sanctions.

and the cash to pay teachers/doctors etc.

Again, they would be being paid directly by the organizations incharge of the aid. Some of them would possibly even be foreign volounteers.

Everyone knows that they are doing this. Up til now, the world community just hasn't done anything about it.

I only know about it happening under the sanctions. I have never heard of it happening before then - infact, Iraq was apparently very well off and nearly a first world country a few decades ago.

[spiritof1202]

Originally posted by Osweld
building materials? I thought I made it pretty clear I'm not talking about some half-assed aid program. I'd expect the organizations to be in there personally buidling them.

Saddam and the Ba'ath party simply hasn't allowed this before. What on earth makes you believe that he would now? They control ALL activity. "Aid", construction, currency... everything.

Only the Kurds are autonomous... and only because they have guns and a no-fly zone.

I only know about it happening under the sanctions. I have never heard of it happening before then - infact, Iraq was apparently very well off and nearly a first world country a few decades ago.

Iraq under Saddam has ALWAYS had its military prioritized. Its based largely on a Stalinist system, without the facade of being benign.

[Velociryx]

Big C - No. I am not making a false dilemma. I'm simply telling it like it is.

Human beings have, through our own history, demonstrated repeatedly that we're really only consistantly good at two things: Fighting and Fvcking.

The proof is here before us. That you and I are able to banter back and forth is a testiment to our parents' abilities in the sack.

As to the other, let's take a gander at some of the most talked about events in our collective history and see if they have anything in common:

Athens vs. Sparta (war)
Spartan defense of Thermopaly (war)
The fall of the Roman Empire (war)
The thirty years' war
The hundred years' war
The US Civil War
WWI
WWII

Tons of others. Notice any trends? Any common themes?

We are the descendents of apes. Monkeys who got kicked out of their arboreal homes by an act of nature.

Our choices then were to adapt so that we could go head to head, compete and win against the long-standing carnivors of our new environment (lions, tigers, and bears, oh my!), or we could wither and die.

We chose to fight, and even though we were poorly equipped physically compared to our opponents, we had an ace in the form of intellect, which we turned into a weapon.

It worked.

Human beings have become the most efficient killing machines the planet has ever seen.

We're so good at it that if we wanted to, we could ignite the atmosphere of the planet and burn it off entirely.

Do you think it was the cozy concept of roman law that protected the empire while it existed? The senate? The emperor? Nope. It was the Legion. The armies of Rome.

Things haven't changed much.

Now, the peaceniks among us would argue that if we but showed our more enlightened, peace loving side to the world that we could effect change.

This is false.

The *reason* it is false is because if you disarm, then those who have not will come and remove you from the planet. Thus, your thinking will last a single generation, as none of your children will be alive to carry on the good work.

The best we can hope for is to be "enlightened warriors" until such time as we, as a species, are ready to move beyond what we are today.

We're not there yet.

Want proof? Look around.

-=Vel=-

[Sava]

Originally posted by spiritof1202
Morality is relative.

Oh, I agree completely. Some people think its okay to murder abortion doctors, or commit suicide bombings, or invade other countries for a political agenda; for example.

[spiritof1202]

Originally posted by Sava
Oh, I agree completely. Some people think its okay to murder abortion doctors, or commit suicide bombings, or invade other countries for a political agenda; for example.

and what is your view of the morality of the torture chambers in Iraq which have been shown this last hour on CNN?