A strange question about war

[germanos]

Re: Re: Re: A strange question about war

Originally posted by DanS


What did you think of Gulf War I?

Gulf War I wasn't about Saddam's internal policies

edit: unless DanS is speaking about the Iraq-Iran war, and he sees saint Saddam as the eliminator of evil mullahs

[DanS]

At best, those are very incomplete and uncreative answers for a realist such as Dinodoc. I'd like to hear what he has to say.

[GePap]

You don't have much of a clue about realists, do you? Every single realst I know of heartily approved of the first gulf war, including many that were against this current one.

[DanS]

Even if true, your answer is incomplete and uncreative.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by DanS
What did you think of Gulf War I?

You'll have to explain the type of answer you are looking for before I can give you a complete answer. As it stands now the question is kind of vague. I will say however that the war was not about Iraq's internal politics but the threat its actions posed to the US. That threat had been ended by the containment regime put in place at the war's end.

[DanS]

It was meant to be vague, to give you a little running room.

I'd like to hear your thoughts about the situation after the Iran-Iraq War, how Kuwait wrote checks its ass couldn't cash with regard to demanding repayment of Iraq's debt to Kuwait while pushing for $18/bbl oil from OPEC and then relying on Uncle Sugar to save their bacon, whether it might not have been advantageous to us for Iraq and Saudi Arabia to go to war in a more proper fashion to bleed both dry, the construction of the case that Bush took to the American people playing the Hitler card, and the aftermath where the US didn't demand unconditional surrender from Saddam, but rather let him keep power.

[DinoDoc]

whether it might not have been advantageous to us for Iraq and Saudi Arabia to go to war in a more proper fashion to bleed both dry,

I've never seen any serious discussion on the benefits of such instability in such a strategic area of the world. I doubt such an option was ever seriously considered. A hegemon is inherently a power that likes to preserve the status quo.

the construction of the case that Bush took to the American people playing the Hitler card,

Americans, in general, have an innate dislike of realism. It conflicts with the view we have of ourselves and the wider world. It shouldn't be much of a suprise when a case for war is couched in such liberal terms.

and the aftermath where the US didn't demand unconditional surrender from Saddam, but rather let him keep power.

We had accomplished the mission and ended the threat. What would have been accomplished by going to Bagdad with even less support than we have now.

[Berzerker]

Ours is a society that is ostensibly opposed to genocide. We have been educated by World War 2, where not only the Nazis, but the ideology of isolationism, caused the deaths of millions.

HEY! Dont hang that on us "isolationists". It wasn't isolationists who kept starting all those Eurotrash wars, and it wasn't isolationists throughout the west who built Hitler and Mussolini up as a counter to the Commies. Btw, the genocide began after the war started and it was Hitler's concern that an all out genocide would draw the US in so it didn't really start until after US entry into the war. So blame us for that too and you'll have all the bases covered

With that in mind, I would like to ask whether anyone on these boards believes that the murder of millions of civilians, or hundreds of thousands, or what have you, by a government is reason enough to invade it. If you do not think so, please state why.

Of course not, I have no right to "ask" or force other people to die fighting for my moral outrage at some dictator on the other side of the planet. I wouldn't send my own kid (or go myself), so how could I send your kid?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by BlackCat
Doesn't neither make sense - Taiwan isn't starting wars with it's neighbours, doesn't use WMD's on it's own population and isn't a dictatorship.

Sure - but the thing is who is the judge here? Who makes the call of saying, "this action is bad enough so this government should be toppled, while that isn't?"

Do bear in mind that ethics is a gradual spectrum of grey.

[GePap]

Originally posted by DanS
It was meant to be vague, to give you a little running room.

I'd like to hear your thoughts about the situation after the Iran-Iraq War, how Kuwait wrote checks its ass couldn't cash with regard to demanding repayment of Iraq's debt to Kuwait while pushing for $18/bbl oil from OPEC and then relying on Uncle Sugar to save their bacon, whether it might not have been advantageous to us for Iraq and Saudi Arabia to go to war in a more proper fashion to bleed both dry, the construction of the case that Bush took to the American people playing the Hitler card, and the aftermath where the US didn't demand unconditional surrender from Saddam, but rather let him keep power.

The US went to war in 1991 for the House of Saud, not the Emir of Kuwait. Why the **** would the US want to bleed its oldest ally in the entire Middle East, one of its biggest arms customers, and the guarantor of a reliable oil supply to "bleed itself", specially since it was obvious the House of Saud could not handle the army Iraqi had built on borrowed money???


You are weird sometimes.

[DanS]

I've never seen any serious discussion on the benefits of such instability in such a strategic area of the world. I doubt such an option was ever seriously considered. A hegemon is inherently a power that likes to preserve the status quo.

Iran-Iraq was very convenient for us in that it has by and large defanged the Islamic Revolution and in part pan-Arab facism. I found the whole process distasteful, like tying two cats' tails to the clothesline and having them fight it out, but have no illusions about how favorable it was for us.

Why was Gulf War I our fight in the main?

We had accomplished the mission and ended the threat. What would have been accomplished by going to Bagdad with even less support than we have now.

I think it's easy to say now that we wouldn't have had support to go to Baghdad. Bush built the coalition in such a way that it had no support to go to Baghdad.

And since when have we allowed our enemies to stay in power after laying them low? It is a collosal waste of time to assemble a half million of the world's finest troops, have the American people behind you, and then not be ambitious enough to finish the real job. I think we were afraid of what it would take to finish the real job, and did everything to avoid having to pay the price. It was a weakness couched in whatever intellectual trappings we could come up with at the time.

[Az]

Unethical? Interesting point. Not that I understand the logic behind it.

I'll explain, if you wish.

its nice to know you already know what is and is not ethical already. Care to tell us what magic book you got all the answers from?

The same as you. Non-interventionism is a claim, on it's own, having no power over other claims, and povs. It's through debate based on the same axioms that one can decide who's magic book is better.

That being a big part of the point of the thread.

Yep.


KH:

It's unethical for Palestinians to have the right to move back to where they and their families came from 50 years ago but ethical for Jews to have the right to move back to where some of their distant ancestors might have come from 2000 years ago?

The ethics of the right of return of palestinians and jews have zero to do with who's ancestors lived where. It's an emotional argument, for both sides. nice strawman, though.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
I've never seen any serious discussion on the benefits of such instability in such a strategic area of the world. I doubt such an option was ever seriously considered.

What are the benefits of the current instability there?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Az

The same as you. Non-interventionism is a claim, on it's own, having no power over other claims, and povs. It's through debate based on the same axioms that one can decide who's magic book is better.

Not really thought. Your point, and Zevico's point, are moralistic ones. My point is utterly AMORAL, having to deal far more with how such a system would work.

The current world system is based on the assumption that each soverign state is free to persue whatever policy internally they wish with zero outside interference as long as their policies do not directly affect other states. That is a harsh, cold system, but one that works. I may morally support attempts to impose some higher form of legitimacy, as it were a blast to the past of the pre-Westphalian system, but it is only sane to do so as long as you can come up with a way to avoid the drawbacks of the pre-Westphalian system, which was pretty much round the clock warfare.

Because if you start making war moralisitic, you have to accept the fact that different people have different moral standards, and what you may consider OK might not fit in someone elses book.

[BeBMan]

Re Westphalia - souvereignty as such didn't changed much about wars. The primary meaning of souvereignity after 1648 was first the religious one - that rulers could define the confessions in their sovereign state, and then of course that absolutist rulers (esp. those in the HRE) could generally run their own states as they wish without outside interference (for example by the emperor). But they still had lots of wars after 1648 in Europe, and over a certain time it was hold that states have a right to go to war, because war was seen - long before Clausewitz' definition as a legitimate form for solving conflicts of interests between states. That has changed in theory pretty much after WWI, and finally after WWII and with the UN, although in reality it is still more a question of having enough power to get away with whatever you want to do..