Prehaps you're right, the UN does a fairly good job of humanitarian work, but not so good a job at stopping abuses. ie: Bosnia, Kosavo, Rwanda, etc.

So what are you saying Chewbacca that evil regimes are too numerous so we should not bother trying? Lets all bury our heads and ignore the evil that manifests itself in all corners of the globe? I hope not. As much as I have doubts as to the "why Iraq and not some other regime" motive, and also would have liked the UN involved *who would not*. The fact that evil is being fought deserves praise and support in my opinion.

Surely those that stand idly by while acts of terror are being carried out are guilty of some crime themselves especially when they have a power to bring change.</font>[/QUOTE]No, This is what I am saying:

I'm really not trying to argue for/against the war here, merely making an observation about the dangerous potential of current policy as well as it's inconsistent application and observing sadly that people do suffer the world over.

If you think worldwide conflict against human rights violators is the way to go, I respect your veiwpoint.

If you want me to argue against war in this case then here ya go:

I personally believe that waging war is evil, it causes death destruction and tragedy.IMO Bringing evil-doer's to justice is meaningless if the execution of that justice causes massive death, destruction and tragedy.

In other words Waging war except in the last resort case of self-defense will never have the moral high ground in my book.

So what are you saying Chewbacca that evil regimes are too numerous so we should not bother trying? Lets all bury our heads and ignore the evil that manifests itself in all corners of the globe? I hope not. As much as I have doubts as to the "why Iraq and not some other regime" motive, and also would have liked the UN involved *who would not*. The fact that evil is being fought deserves praise and support in my opinion.

Surely those that stand idly by while acts of terror are being carried out are guilty of some crime themselves especially when they have a power to bring change.</font>[/QUOTE]No, This is what I am saying:

I'm really not trying to argue for/against the war here, merely making an observation about the dangerous potential of current policy as well as it's inconsistent application and observing sadly that people do suffer the world over.

If you think worldwide conflict against human rights violators is the way to go, I respect your veiwpoint.

If you want me to argue against war in this case then here ya go:

I personally believe that waging war is evil, it causes death destruction and tragedy.IMO Bringing evil-doer's to justice is meaningless if the execution of that justice causes massive death, destruction and tragedy.

In other words Waging war except in the last resort case of self-defense will never have the moral high ground in my book.</font>[/QUOTE]Sorry Chewbacca, but that is exactlly what you are saying, and I quote:I personally believe that waging war is evil, it causes death destruction and tragedy.IMO Bringing evil-doer's to justice is meaningless if the execution of that justice causes massive death, destruction and tragedy.

Nobody is disrespecting your view point just trying to figure out how if causing death and destruction in an attempt to stop more death and destruction is wrong. Why would allowing death and destruction to continue, in effect causing more death and destruction through inaction or underaction, be ok?

So what are you saying Chewbacca that evil regimes are too numerous so we should not bother trying? Lets all bury our heads and ignore the evil that manifests itself in all corners of the globe? I hope not. As much as I have doubts as to the "why Iraq and not some other regime" motive, and also would have liked the UN involved *who would not*. The fact that evil is being fought deserves praise and support in my opinion.

Surely those that stand idly by while acts of terror are being carried out are guilty of some crime themselves especially when they have a power to bring change.</font>[/QUOTE]No, This is what I am saying:

I'm really not trying to argue for/against the war here, merely making an observation about the dangerous potential of current policy as well as it's inconsistent application and observing sadly that people do suffer the world over.

If you think worldwide conflict against human rights violators is the way to go, I respect your veiwpoint.

If you want me to argue against war in this case then here ya go:

I personally believe that waging war is evil, it causes death destruction and tragedy.IMO Bringing evil-doer's to justice is meaningless if the execution of that justice causes massive death, destruction and tragedy.

In other words Waging war except in the last resort case of self-defense will never have the moral high ground in my book.</font>[/QUOTE]<font color="cyan"> First can I say that I reread my post and it could have been taken in an aggressive way so [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img] for seeing beyond that. [img]graemlins/heee.gif[/img]

Second. If I may, I would suggest that even you Chewbacca would have a cut off point where you say, enough is enough, it's time to act. Yes you are right that any war is going to cause death and all manor of horrors. But would you have stepped in against Hitler’s regime in 1939? If you would then our only difference of opinion is surely the point in which we say "OK enough diplomacy its time to defend the innocents". And that argument would be impossible to resolve ;) </font>

So what are you saying Chewbacca that evil regimes are too numerous so we should not bother trying? Lets all bury our heads and ignore the evil that manifests itself in all corners of the globe? I hope not. As much as I have doubts as to the "why Iraq and not some other regime" motive, and also would have liked the UN involved *who would not*. The fact that evil is being fought deserves praise and support in my opinion.

Surely those that stand idly by while acts of terror are being carried out are guilty of some crime themselves especially when they have a power to bring change.</font>[/QUOTE]No, This is what I am saying:

I'm really not trying to argue for/against the war here, merely making an observation about the dangerous potential of current policy as well as it's inconsistent application and observing sadly that people do suffer the world over.

If you think worldwide conflict against human rights violators is the way to go, I respect your veiwpoint.

If you want me to argue against war in this case then here ya go:

I personally believe that waging war is evil, it causes death destruction and tragedy.IMO Bringing evil-doer's to justice is meaningless if the execution of that justice causes massive death, destruction and tragedy.

In other words Waging war except in the last resort case of self-defense will never have the moral high ground in my book.</font>[/QUOTE]Sorry Chewbacca, but that is exactlly what you are saying, and I quote:I personally believe that waging war is evil, it causes death destruction and tragedy.IMO Bringing evil-doer's to justice is meaningless if the execution of that justice causes massive death, destruction and tragedy.

Nobody is disrespecting your view point just trying to figure out how if causing death and destruction in an attempt to stop more death and destruction is wrong. Why would allowing death and destruction to continue, in effect causing more death and destruction through inaction or underaction, be ok?</font>[/QUOTE]Moral issues. metaphor: Two wrongs don't make a right.
whatever...
I have explained my POV. Explaining any further would be circular so now I am done! [img]smile.gif[/img]

So what are you saying Chewbacca that evil regimes are too numerous so we should not bother trying? Lets all bury our heads and ignore the evil that manifests itself in all corners of the globe? I hope not. As much as I have doubts as to the "why Iraq and not some other regime" motive, and also would have liked the UN involved *who would not*. The fact that evil is being fought deserves praise and support in my opinion.

Surely those that stand idly by while acts of terror are being carried out are guilty of some crime themselves especially when they have a power to bring change.</font>[/QUOTE]No, This is what I am saying:

I'm really not trying to argue for/against the war here, merely making an observation about the dangerous potential of current policy as well as it's inconsistent application and observing sadly that people do suffer the world over.

If you think worldwide conflict against human rights violators is the way to go, I respect your veiwpoint.

If you want me to argue against war in this case then here ya go:

I personally believe that waging war is evil, it causes death destruction and tragedy.IMO Bringing evil-doer's to justice is meaningless if the execution of that justice causes massive death, destruction and tragedy.

In other words Waging war except in the last resort case of self-defense will never have the moral high ground in my book.</font>[/QUOTE]<font color="cyan"> First can I say that I reread my post and it could have been taken in an aggressive way so [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img] for seeing beyond that. [img]graemlins/heee.gif[/img]

Second. If I may, I would suggest that even you Chewbacca would have a cut off point where you say, enough is enough, it's time to act. Yes you are right that any war is going to cause death and all manor of horrors. But would you have stepped in against Hitler’s regime in 1939? If you would then our only difference of opinion is surely the point in which we say "OK enough diplomacy its time to defend the innocents". And that argument would be impossible to resolve ;) </font></font>[/QUOTE]If back in 1991, based on a moral perogative, we invaded Iraq to finish Saddam because he had and used womd, then at the time it may have been appropriate as well as consistent and logical.

Although I am personally a pacifist in the buddist sense, I do think outside the box [img]smile.gif[/img]

If Saddam were going to exterminate 1,000 or 100,000 like some claim he has in the past, then clearly a pre-emptive attack to deter this may be right. What if North korea was going to do this? They have over 200,000 political prisoners and execute them regularly. Would the fact they can rain 10,000 artillery shell on S. Korea stop us from invading to liberate the people there as well?

If you take alot of lives under the guise of saving alot of lives, without a clear and present danger, I would call that shaky moral ground. Perhaps that is why it is described as sad but neccessary!

I say it bodes well to be cautious and consider what unintended evil comes sometime from trying to do what is good. "Two wrongs dont make a right" to quote my self ;)
In the current situation it is this very caution that inspires the majority of religious leaders to speak against war.

Ultimatly I believe that evil never goes unpunished. The laws of Karma are Gods law of cause and effect. So even if we can't stop all or some of the bad guys, they will pay for their transgressions one way or the other. These are just my personal veiws. I am not intending anyone to agree or disagree with them but If it sheds further light on why it seems I would tolerate an evil tyrant and a lack of war then fine.

Which brings me to your secong point..Its all in the eye of the beholder thats why its immpossoble to resolve!. What is the cut-off point? 1,000? 100,000? 1,000,000? I cannot judge. I do percieve each and every individual life as sacred. But thats just me. All in the eye of th beholder

Ah well I have rambled on in this post, oh well! [img]smile.gif[/img]

[ 03-30-2003, 01:25 AM: Message edited by: Chewbacca ]

With the greatest possible respect, are we really fighting the war to end human rights abuses?

If that is the case, what is the justification for doing it ourselves, and allying ourselves with those that do?

http://www.hrw.org/press/2002/12/us1227.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2343777.stm
(for example)

Is it because we don't do it in an evil manner?
Is it OK for us to do because they are evil and we are not?
Are these the arguments that they use too?

Well, I think I know what Reeka meant, but I won't try to explain it because I don't want to put words in her mouth. Instead, I will share my thoughts.

I've said it many times over the past few months. Freeing the Iraqi people from a brutal dictatorship is NOT the reason for going to war in Iraq, but it is a wonderful side effect, and it is worthy of being mentioned as long as we don't confuse the issues. Yes, Bush does focus on it quite a bit, but the idea that Iraq needs to be disarmed isn't argued much. Even most of those who oppose the war believe Iraq should be disarmed, they just disagree over the methods, so Bush pushing the other positives of the action isn't unreasonable.

Disarming Iraq certainly has it's costs, but it will also have some great results and great side effects, while allowing Saddam to lead the UN by it's nose for another 12 days, 12 months, or 12 years offered neither.

Ronn, I believe that the human rights abuses is one of the stated reasons, Sec. Defense Rumfeld gave in one of his first briefings at the start of the war. As well as President Bush gave in his address to the nation. IIRC it was number 8 or the last reason. I personnaly believe it ought to have been the first reason. But you can't always get what you want...
if you try some times, you jus might find you get what you need. ;)

Heh.. hopefully Mr Bush finds time to drop by Zimbabwe on the way to North Korea after the Iraq crisis is over ;)
If you are making the world a better place and all, best to go all the way.