I think it would be beneficial to have a debate over the extent to which the seemingly inevitable war with Iraq is morally justifiable. Although this topic has been the subject of other threads, it has yet to be explored in any systematic way. Many people, myself included, let their revulsion to the thought of war, or their general distrust of American foreign policy muddy the waters of debates over a war with Iraq. I have it on good authority, however, that some very smart and decent people support a war with Iraq, and I take this to be prima facie evidence that I may not know what the hell I'm talking about.
So, let's begin with a general question:
What reasons are there for thinking that a war with Iraq is morally justified?
Here are the arguments that I hear most often:
1) He has weapons of mass destruction and has/will use them.
2) He is guilty of atrocities to his own people.
3) He makes the region politically unstable.
4) He has violated 1441 of UN charter.
Whether or not one believes or accepts these I guess are open to debate. I just listing what I most often hear. Kirk
Originally posted by kirksey957I don't think that 4) has much legitimacy, even to those that claim it as a reason. It is hard to rely on a resolution of the UN Security Counsel as moral justification (as opposed to legal justification, which has very little to do with morality) for doing something to which certain members of the Security Council are publically opposed.
Here are the arguments that I hear most often:
1) He has weapons of mass destruction and has/will use them.
2) He is guilty of atrocities to his own people.
3) He makes the region politically unstable.
4) He has violated 1441 of UN charter.
Whether or not one believes or accepts these I guess are open to debate. I just listing what I most often hear. Kirk
Originally posted by kirksey9571) He has had WMDs for a no. of years now. There was no attempt to invade Iraq previously - Weapons inspections occurred and a no. of WMDs were gotten rid of. Only now have these weapons become a 'reason' for going into Iraq.
Here are the arguments that I hear most often:
1) He has weapons of mass destruction and has/will use them.
2) He is guilty of atrocities to his own people.
3) He makes the region politically unstable.
4) He has violated 1441 of UN charter.
Whether or not one believes or accepts these I guess are open to debate. I just listing what I most often hear. Kirk
2) Yes, he is terribly guilty of atrocities to his own people. As is Kim Jong Il. As is the Chinese government. As were the Taliban. There are no plans to invade China or North Korea. There would have been none to invade Afghanistan were not the Taliban harbouring Osama bin Laden.
3) Everybody makes the region politically unstable. Israel/Palestine is about as unstable as it gets. The Arab/Israeli conflict has been raging for 2000 years in one form or another, and in its present form ever since the formation of the Israeli state. I don't see how a dissident Arab power is making this situation any worse than it already is...
Originally posted by kirksey9571) He has weapons of mass destruction and has/will use them.
Here are the arguments that I hear most often:
1) He has weapons of mass destruction and has/will use them.
2) He is guilty of atrocities to his own people.
3) He makes the region politically unstable.
4) He has violated 1441 of UN charter.
Whether or not one believes or accepts these I guess are open to debate. I just listing what I most often hear. Kirk
Obviously it would not be morally justifiable to attack a country merely for possessing weapons of mass destruction. This would be analogous to me attacking my neighbor for possessing a gun. Similarly, it can't be the case that we're justified in attacking Iraq merely because they have used weapons of mass destruction. This would be analogous to me attacking my neighbor for shooting someone years ago. Furthermore, it can't be the case that we're morally justified in attacking Iraq because they have weapons of mass destruction and hate us. This would be analogous to me attacking my neighbor because he has a gun and hates me. What is needed is some reason to think that Iraq not only has weapons of mass destruction but plans on using them against someone. Furthermore, it seems like war would only be justified if both the preceeding conditions were satisfied AND there wasn't another option that would succeed in preventing the use of weapons of mass destruction with a reduced risk to innocent Iraqis. It seems unlikely that Iraq will use any weapons of mass destruction while U.N. weapons inspectors are actually looking for weapons of mass destruction, so it seems as though weapon inspections are a more morally justifiable alternative.
2) He is guilty of atrocities to his own people.
Although this is clearly the case, it's difficult to see why the fact that Saddam has committed atrocities would justify a war wherein further atrocities would occur to the people of Iraq. What must be meant is that Saddam has not only committed atrocities in the past but that he also is currently committing atrocities and will continue to do so. But even if that is right, does this fact alone justify a war against Iraq? Prima facie, it seems like the most it would justify is the removal of Saddam from power. So, again, the question becomes is there an alternative to war that would remove Saddam from power and would result in less lives lost by our forces and the civilians of Iraq. I don't know the answer to this question, but I'd like to hear the opinions of the people here.
3) He makes the region politically unstable.
What is the relevance of this consideration to the moral justifiability of a war with Iraq? What is it about the removal of political instability that justifies the loss of the lives of innocent Iraqi civilians?
4) He has violated 1441 of UN charter.
Again, what is the relevance of this claim to the question of the moral justifiability of a war with Iraq? How does violation of a U.N. charter justify the loss of the lives of innocent Iraqi civilians?
- Joined
- 16 Jan 02
- Moves
- 887459
the best hope is that Saddam and his entourage are offered exile,thus, avoiding war and removing him from power.Here in England our glorious leader has been on TV (several times) to justify our involvement in this war.His last thread of hope to convince anyone, seems to be a UN second resolution.However, this will only be obtainted if many countries are bribed and the vetos of others is ignored. the hypocracy is breathtaking.
Originally posted by peterhHave you heard any arguments for England's involvement in the war that have not been mentioned above? I'd like to canvas the arguments that have been presented so far by our respective governments.
the best hope is that Saddam and his entourage are offered exile,thus, avoiding war and removing him from power.Here in England our glorious leader has been on TV (several times) to justify our involvement in this war.His last thread of hope to convince anyone, seems to be a UN second resolution.However, this will only be obtainted if many countries are bribed and the vetos of others is ignored. the hypocracy is breathtaking.
- Joined
- 16 Jan 02
- Moves
- 887459
Originally posted by bbarrmr Blair sees that a pre-emptive attack is justafiable on the basis that the consequence of not taking action would be far greater. i e Iraq (and other rogue states)supplying weapons to terrorists etc.He also believes that the authority of the UN is at stake.It was the UN that demanded Iraq disarm and therefore it would be fatally undermined if could not back up its threat of 'consequences 'if Hussein ignores.To some extent, Mr Blair has been proven correct....Hussain is slowly disarming ,but only because there is a 'real' threat of war..i dont know if i'm adding to this debate or not...so ignore my ramblings if you feel appropiate!
Have you heard any arguments for England's involvement in the war that have not been mentioned above? I'd like to canvas the arguments that have been presented so far by our respective governments.
peter
The UN is a bit of a joke in my opinion. The US does not respect it or follow it's demands (they refused to pay compensation/reparations to Nicaragua for mining their waters after UN ordered them to), Israel does not follow the demands of the UN (how many resolutions are they breaking at the moment?). Maybe other countries too.
The message is - if you are a poor, weak country you must obey the UN. If you are a rich, powerful country you can do what you like.
Sorry for the slightly off-topic digression.
Varg - I think the UN has the potential in it to be more powerful. However, in order to achieve this, it cannot allow itself to be dominated by a single member, in this case, the US. When the UN was originally founded after world war 2, it was fairly obvious that the US and the USSR would be the dominant powers for years to come. This allowed some balance and debate within the UN, as neither country could hope to dominate important votes. With the demise of communism, this balance has disappeared.
I believe that the future of the UN lies in a strong, unified Europe. What I mean by that is that European countries need to become sufficiently economically and militarily independent of US, so that they are in the position that they do not have to automatically acquiesce to US demands. I believe this will benefit both the US and Europe, in that it will allow for compromises that we haven't seen in the past few years. It would appear that several European countries are beginning to realize this (See Chirac's, Shroeder's, Putin's vows to veto the US security council resolution concerning Iraq). However, I don't think the infrastructure is quite there yet for Europe to be on equal footing with the US. Come 2004 and 2007, with the inclusion of more countries into the EU and the proposed French military buildup, then Europe may be a power worth reckoning.
If, however, there is no country or group of countries that are willing to unite and take a stand against US dominance of the UN, then you are right Varg, it is a sham organization.
-mike
Originally posted by bbarrWeapons of mass distruction.
Have you heard any arguments for England's involvement in the war that have not been mentioned above? I'd like to canvas the arguments that have been presented so far by our respective governments.
Pan Am flying over a sleepy village in Scotland.
What did we do?
South Africa?
Yes we stopped playing them at cricket while they were segregating.
Zimbardway?
Yes we moved the cricket again(to South Africa)
Let's talk about ethnic cleansing.
What did the Americans use in the Baltics,in their rage about ethnic cleansing?
Helicopters they named APPACHE.
Wow
These helicopters are named after a tribe we F inklecleansed earlier?
Linda
Originally posted by legionnaireThe EU is already a force to be reckoned with at an economic level. However, European countries are not prepared to spend much on defence (we prefer spending tax money on health and education), and the organisation is politically fairly weak and suffers from a lack of identification with the population of Europe (ie you get the impression of 'faceless Brussels bureaucracy.'😉 That said, if in future the US's policies are frequently and seriously in conflict with European interests, the different countries in Europe will have the incentive to set aside their differences and gang together more closely than they do already. A European superstate could emerge, but only if the US is seen as enough of a threat to persuade countries to sacrifice their independence.
Sorry for the slightly off-topic digression.
Varg - I think the UN has the potential in it to be more powerful. However, in order to achieve this, it cannot allow itself to be dominated by a single member, in this case, the US. When the UN was originally founded after world war 2, it was fairly obvious that the US and the USSR would be the dominant ...[text shortened]... and against US dominance of the UN, then you are right Varg, it is a sham organization.
-mike