A small thought (on the Iraqi war)..

[uss]

I recently thought of an analogy of a sort.

Isn't the Iraqi war, in a certain context, a larger model of execution as punishment over a crime?

I mean, the strongest argument for the Iraqi war is that it's ruled by a dictator. The principles of 'killing the few to save the many' and 'killing the few for the greater good' are somewhat similar.

Of course, there are many other factors that come into account with the war. Also, execution is about an individual, whereas the war is about a collective. Despite that, I guess I would view a person who supports the war while being against execution in general as rather.. quirky. [img]tongue.gif[/img]


I would like to know what you guys think.

[johnny]

I think you think too much.

[Barry the Sprout]

One minor point; whlst you are right that the strongest excuse for war was the removal of a dictator it should be made clear that that wasn't the legal basis for the war, or the primary motivation of what public support it managed to garner. The war was not justified by an appeal to human rights but by "evidence" of WMD, and it was only after the weapons failed to materialise that the justification shifted.

Just a brief question for the pro-war crowd - if the war was about liberating people from oppressive regimes can we expect to see tanks rolling into Moscow to stop the persecution of the Chechnyans? Into Israel to stop the persecution of the Palestinians? Somehow I doubt it...

[uss]

Originally posted by Barry the Sprout: One minor point; whlst you are right that the strongest excuse for war was the removal of a dictator it should be made clear that that wasn't the legal basis for the war, or the primary motivation of what public support it managed to garner. The war was not justified by an appeal to human rights but by "evidence" of WMD, and it was only after the weapons failed to materialise that the justification shifted.

Yes, I am aware of that. Disarming the WOMD was the official excuse for the war, removing the tyrannous was the popular objective while obtaining oil was the real reason behind the war. I'm probably wrong about the latter point though. [img]graemlins/heee.gif[/img]

Originally posted by Barry the Sprout: Just a brief question for the pro-war crowd - if the war was about liberating people from oppressive regimes can we expect to see tanks rolling into Moscow to stop the persecution of the Chechnyans? Into Israel to stop the persecution of the Palestinians? Somehow I doubt it...

While I'm not exactly pro-war, I'd like to answer that.

First of all, America, in its current state, doesn't seem to be ready for another war, let alone angering the rest of the world any more than it has by now. It would be foolish to continue with another country at this point. In that sense, USA has done its democratic deed for this time.

Though I can see where you're coming from - War on Iraq certainly wasn't a perfect descision. It had its share of flaws. Why not attack some other country?

Second, both of the examples you put would mean stepping into an already existing conflict between two different peoples. I'm not sure about stopping the persecution of the Palestinians but attempting to stop the persecution of the Chechenyans would definitely be too bold. It could in fact provoke another Cold War.

Why not attack some other country? - Why not attack Iraq? In the scale of countries ruled by terrorists and generally bad people, it seems to have a relatively low risk factor (compared to other similar ventures) while bringing democracy to a lot of people.


Though yes, the question of "Why attack any country at all?" lingers quietly amidst the shadows.. [img]graemlins/heee.gif[/img]

Originally posted by johnny: I think you think too much.

That's for sure! This is me on a Saturday afternoon with nothing to keep me occupied. [img]graemlins/awcrap.gif[/img]

[ 04-30-2005, 11:54 AM: Message edited by: uss ]

[Azred]

Originally posted by Barry the Sprout: Just a brief question for the pro-war crowd - if the war was about liberating people from oppressive regimes can we expect to see tanks rolling into Moscow to stop the persecution of the Chechnyans? Into Israel to stop the persecution of the Palestinians? Somehow I doubt it...

No, unfortunately we cannot expect to see such events. One reason is that too many nations--not just the US, mind you--lack the cajones to do what needs to be done in various places in the world. Another reason is that even if several nations banded together to liberate an oppressed people, then some other nations would whine about that action as "aggressive" or "unilateral" or "non-democratic".

[Djinn Raffo]

Originally posted by Barry the Sprout: Just a brief question for the pro-war crowd - if the war was about liberating people from oppressive regimes can we expect to see tanks rolling into Moscow to stop the persecution of the Chechnyans? Into Israel to stop the persecution of the Palestinians? Somehow I doubt it...

If the answer is yes, would it be something you would approve of despite your doubt of it ever happening?

[shamrock_uk]

Well, I was pro-getting rid of Saddam because I didn't like the idea of someone giving the finger to the UN for all these years over WMD.

Now the full facts are known my opinion has shifted considerably.

The problem with 'moral' interventions in the world is inevitably practicality.

For instance, I feel that Britain has a particular responsibility for getting rid of Mugabe as we were heavily involved in getting rid of Smith's government in the first place to allow elections to be held.

But is sending in the troops an option here? Is getting rid of Mugabe worth the human suffering it would cause? Granted, many die and are tortured or raped under the current regime, but there is no denying that Mugabe has popular support in many areas of the country, especially the urban ones. Support for the MDC is certainly not universal and even the seats they allege fraud in are mainly in rural areas. How do we punish someone like Mugabe without committing crimes comparable to his? I'm not convinced its possible.

Consider North Korea - in my opinion the greatest threat to world peace at the moment. Now in an ideal world I would be launching strikes to destroy any fledgling nuclear capability they have. But again, how do you change the regime and the system that keeps millions in desparate poverty? Everyone in the country is raised from birth to blame America for everything - an invasion would be fought tooth and nail for every inch and be tremendously costly. With a million men under arms its probably not even possible.

Russia and Chechnya are another example - we're simply unable to do anything in practice, no matter how large the crimes are.

So, if we can only punish weak states who we think committed crimes, what kind of justice is this?

By what right do we intervene into an oppressive state, when there is often popular support for it? Are we really being the 'voice of the people'?

How can we administer a punishment that won't result in the deaths of civilians?(whether by bombings or sanctions).

I think in the current climate its easy to forget how radically new the idea of humanitarian intervention into another state is - violating a nations sovereignty because of how they treat their citizens has gone from being an unthinkable act to almost common-talk in 50 years.

I'm not sure its a question of cajones either Azred - was the British public wrong to oppose the Iraq war? Are the coalition troops who did have the cajones in the right when their action has killed at least tens of thousands of Iraqis?

There is a worrying trend I think to de-humanise casualties. Ever since over three million people were killed in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia in an attempt to stop the advance of Communism, it has been all too common to simply brush over it. Three million! Do it once more and you've equalled Hitler and his holocaust. Did the pilots who carpet bombed those countries have "cajones"? Were they just "doing what needs to be done"? I can't help thinking "they weren't Communists, they were farmers.."


When any state intervenes believing they are on the side of right, there is hardly ever a winner and the losers are those civilians caught in the crossfire. Are we right to condemn those regimes? Absolutely. Do individual countries have the right to administer a punishment for their crimes? I'm definitely not convinced.

We've reached an age where we no longer live like savages and are in a position to acknowledge the true wealth of a human life. When considering the morality of an intervention, this human life must be weighed into the calculation. When it isn't, we see a result like Iraq.

[ 04-30-2005, 08:25 PM: Message edited by: shamrock_uk ]

[Stratos]

Some good points there, shamrock.

I also want to add that very few countries even have the military capacity to wage an extended war halfway across the globe.

[shamrock_uk]

Which I guess would further prejudice the administration of punishment against those that did not have such capability.

[Barry the Sprout]

Originally posted by Djinn Raffo: If the answer is yes, would it be something you would approve of despite your doubt of it ever happening?

My point was that this has nothing to do with high-flown values and principles about bringing democracy to people, and liberating them from dictatorships. If that were the case then there's a hundred and one places we'd be invading. The intervention in Iraq is anything but altrustic.