RE: Iraq from 2 Aussie points of view:

From: Dickey, Michael F (michael_f_dickey@groton.pfizer.com)
Date: Mon Feb 03 2003 - 09:46:40 MST

  • Next message: Lee Daniel Crocker: "Re: Hydrogen as SCAM?"

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Damien Broderick [mailto:thespike@earthlink.net]

    "The trouble with deciding whether or not a war is just is that it is
    usually only possible to know when it is over. Most people would now agree
    that World War II (but not the Vietnam War) was a just war. What if Saddam
    is just as dangerous as Hitler was?"

    As myself and others have frequently noted on this list, it is logical and
    rational to consider the vietnam war as a just effort, and reasons for
    thinking otherwise have so far seemed to be internally inconsistent, biased,
    or ignorant of many of the events in Indochina. But I of course agree that
    'most people' do indeed consider the vietnam war as not just. I have
    wondered what 'most people' think of the Korean war, since they were so
    similar, but I havent heard much on that. It seems, from my limited
    experience, 'most people' don't think much at all about the Korean war, even
    enough to have an opinion on it.

    But popular opinion doesn't not make something just or un just, as this is
    the fallacy of 'voting = freedom' In unchecked system the majority can (and
    do) vote away the rights of the minority. In Vietnam the North attempted to
    vote away by majority the right of the South to exist, in the US decades ago
    the rights of minorities were easily voted away based on arbitrary traits,
    today many rights of minority idealogies are readily voted away by the
    majority in the US (atheists, people who choose to behave in ways not
    socially condoned by the majority, and even extropians, who are forbidden by
    law to combat with their intellect and determination the imprisonment that
    their arbitrary set of genes places on them with enhancement treatments) I
    am sure similar events occur in many other countries consider 'modern' For
    me, these arent modern enough.

    To consider something just or unjust we can not resort to popular opinion,
    we must base that on a set of ethical principles, not moral relatives and
    vague appeals to popularity, ignorance, or authority. With that in mind,
    the following text quoted in this email is absolutely deplorable, full of
    half truths, misconceptions, and outright propoganda. My comments on this
    text are inserted below.

    "So that's what people mean by a just war?"

    "I guess so. A just war is when you have to defend yourself because someone
    has attacked you. Or when a friendly country is attacked and its leaders ask
    you to help them defend themselves."

    [In this example Vietnam falls into both of these catagories, it was
    friendly to the US, and was attacked by an aggressive neighbor, and asked
    for help. Yet our involvment is consider by most to be morally unjust. It
    is rediculous of this author to imply that the only justifcations for war
    are self defense in an invasion of domestic territory, or at the specific
    request of another *country*. What if that *country* is not a voice
    representing its people? (e.g. is a monarchy, theocracy, or dictatorship
    that is despotic) What if the country is murdering its own people? Is it
    morally just to stay out or morally *required* to intervene. Was it moral
    to ignore the plight of the cambodian people under pol pots regime? Was it
    moral for US congress to make it *illegal* to help the cambodian people?
    Obviously the issua or a moral war is much more complicated then 'are they
    attacking us' What constites an 'attack'? What if a state is funding the
    attackers? What if the attackers only hit targets that are non domestic?
    What if they hit targets of allies? Is it moral to stand by and watch a
    corrupt murderous tyrant oppress his own people? Is it moral to stand by
    and allow that same murderous tyrant to control the worlds second largest
    supply of energy? We keep guns out of the hands of criminals, but claim it
    unjust to yank the power to run armies and launch invasions out of the hands
    of murderers?]

    "So if America attacks Iraq and Iraq defends itself, that wouldn't be a just
    war for America, but it would be for Iraq. And if Iraq asks one of its
    friends to help it defend itself against America, that would be a just war
    for the other country, right?"

    And

    "But if he doesn't attack anyone, how can invading his country be a just
    war? According to you, invading another country would always be wrong."

    [1st of all, Iraq is not a moral state. Saddam is a dictator and exists
    only on the oppresion of the people. A dictator has no *right* to be a
    dictator, and similiarly has no *right* to even exist as a country. 2nd of
    all, this statement ignores that justifacation that Iraq and Saddam
    represent a clear and present danger to the United States and its citizens
    and its allies. It has numerous weapons of mass destruction that have been
    unaccounted for, Saddam is west hating and has a clear record of murder and
    tyranny. An act of 'defense' does not require it to be in response as an
    effect to an outright invasion or act of aggression. Do we wait for our
    neighbor to actually shoot at us before it is moral to shoot at him? Are we
    morally right to shoot at him just because he is pointing a gun at us? Or
    do we get concerned when he starts acting in a suspicious manner, murdering
    and raping his kids, building an arsenal in plain view, posting signs and
    stating publicly his his hatred of us, and attempting to acquire large bombs
    and explosives? The question of the morality of self defense is obviously
    NOT as simple as this author portrays it to be.]

    "Well, usually, but, see, everyone thinks Saddam has these really awful
    weapons . . ."

    "Worse than America's?"

    "Not worse, no. But, well, because he's a bad guy, people think he might
    decide to use those weapons against some other country some day, so America
    wants to invade his country and destroy the weapons before he can use them."

    [Even more rediculous. Only comparing the extent of the damage that a
    weapon can cause COMPLETELY ignores the fact that Our president has to
    answer to his people on this use of these weapons. He is a representative
    elected official and as such has numerous checks and balances in place to
    ensure he does not become a ruthless tyrant who does whatever he wants and
    kills whomever he wants, including his own people, yet this is the exact
    kind of government in place in Iraq. Saddam needs no permission and answers
    to no one, he can kill who he wants with whatever he wants. Our weapon
    aresenal is not sitting aimed at the end crosshair aimed by Bush, Saddam's
    is. Merely 'having' 'awful weapons' is not enough, being able to use them
    is what matters. The is the fundamental basis for the efforts to reduce the
    profileferation of nuclear weapons. Simpleminded automotans unfamiliar with
    world affairs cry 'but the US has them as well!' But the US can not use
    them whenever and wherever they want, Despotic dictators can, and despotic
    dictators with a clear record of murder, tyranny, and hatred for the US and
    its allies represents a clear threat and a clearly more unique scenerio then
    the Oprah esque question of whether his weapons are just "Worse than
    America's?"]

    "Hugh Mackay is an author and social researcher."

    [Obviously Mr. Mackay is a paragron of ethical principles and the founding
    father of modern moral behavior. Or not...]

    See - "The justice of war"

    This was written in regards to the Taliban and Afghanastan, but its points
    on the moral justifaction for war remain valid and much more reasonably
    sound that Mr. Mackay's.
    ----------
    The Objectivist Center
    by Patrick Stephens
       According to Stephens, "In conducting this war, America must use the
    hierarchy of just-war principles, and refuse to be
       sidetracked or hamstrung by moral relativists who refuse to acknowledge
    either the justice of the cause or the responsibility"

    http://www.objectivistcenter.org/pubs/pstephens_justice_war.asp

    LEGAL NOTICE
    Unless expressly stated otherwise, this message is confidential and may be privileged. It is intended for the addressee(s) only. Access to this E-mail by anyone else is unauthorized. If you are not an addressee, any disclosure or copying of the contents of this E-mail or any action taken (or not taken) in reliance on it is unauthorized and may be unlawful. If you are not an addressee, please inform the sender immediately.



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Feb 03 2003 - 09:50:12 MST