 |
| 
Electra
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 611
| Posted 3/29/2003 3:31 PM (GMT -6) |   | | | |
 |
Terry_Baxter
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 187
| Posted 3/30/2003 7:28 AM (GMT -6) | | Hi Electra,
First, thanks for your response. I actually didn't check the site for a day for fear that I so offended you that you had blasted me in an angry response.
Honestly, I'm tempted to leave the conversation there--I really am not anxious to insert myself into the larger debate about the war. Instead, I think I'll lay out some assumptions behind my previous post (I'm big in to Meta-communication, in case y'all haven't noticed).
'One of the first casualties of war is truth.' I believe that. Add the need to lie and give partial information during wartime, and I hope we'd all agree that it can be extremely difficult to detect truth in political arguments of fact.
In my Intro to Argumentation classes, students would come in ready to pile up FACTS to win debates. What they found is that facts are hard to prove, and irritatingly open to interpretation and contextualization. It's hard to appreciate the slippery nature of facts and not become a relativist. (By the way, I feel much the same way about the truth value of much that passes for SCIENCE. The scientific enterprise is just as rhetorical as politics or criticism of poetry.)
So, when I read arguments that seek to invalidate the war based on "proof" that US/UK governments have lied about X,Y, or Z (that's Zed, for you Canadians  ) I tend to think:
-a lying government, what else is new?
-are the facts in question crucial to the justification of war?
-what, overall, has been the track record as near as we can discern it of that government?
So, for example, the mother of a killed British soldier was given two different stories about her son's death:
-Downing Street may be lying about his having been executed
-If he wasn't executed, there are still plenty of evidences of the Hussein regime's brutality and threat to the world that would justify Blair's harsh comments, so the particulars of this case hardly matter.
-If I had to judge whether Hussein's regime is capable of executing POW's based on their track record? You bet. In a second. They would love to do it and love to broadcast it, if it wasn't for that darn world opinion and the slim hope that their Western allies will negotiate a cease-fire.
Final assumption, then I'll get off my teacherly soap box.
Aristotle laid out three basic forms of argument, logos, pathos and ethos. In short, you can prove your case with (1) the words themselves (and their inherent logic), (2) with emotional appeals, or (3) by the qualities of the 'arguer himself'.
Aristotle hoped Logos would dominate Greek political argument (his affection for Socrates made him think that philosophy was actually useful in the real world  ). But he was realistic enough to recognize that "the masses" [one of those philosopher terms for 'real people') are moved more by emotional appeals than by mere logic.
At then end of the day, however, he agreed that all we really have in this world is ethos. Do I believe the person relating certain things as facts? Do I trust his judgement about what is reasonable, what is true, what is appropriate?
Frankly, I don't have the time or resources to delve in to every argument about the war. I don't have the inclination either. What I do have, is a mental checklist about the source. I know who is prone to shade truths in certain directions. Seymour Hersh, for one, had to leave the NY Times because his anti-conservative polemics were too often based on unreliable and unverifiable sources. If you're too liberal for the Times, then you've got a serious credibility problem.
That's not too say he MUST BE WRONG about Powell's UN evidence. If I had to judge between Colin Powell, one of the most trust men in the world, and a very reluctant warrior, or Hersh, it's not even a contest for me.
If I find an article in the Wall Street Journal critical of Bush, I read it very carefully because that is against their nature. When I read stories of former 'human shields' who are now pro-war/regime change, that really matters to me. Those people have every reason to maintain their egos and say "Bush bad, war bad." If Greg Boyd came out and declared the Open View obviously false, I would read his reasoning very carefully.
To a certain extent, it comes down to this: from what I know of this President, is he likely to say, 'yes, kill dozens or hundreds of Americans because I want cheaper oil'? He's certainly aware, from a fairly pressing example (his own father), that winning a war in the Middle East doesn't guarantee your re-election or even success in getting your domestic policy passed.
Having said all that, if Electra or anyone else still wants me to engage particular arguments, I'm willing to.
Longwindedly yours,
Terry
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Rpeterso
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 18
| Posted 3/30/2003 9:02 AM (GMT -6) | | Electra,
Although I admire your persistence and passion concerning this issue, I am still waiting for a viable solution. You continue over and over to emphatically argue that “war is not the answer,” but what is the answer? Please spare us from this extremely clichéd and over-used statement if you are not prepared to offer a legitimate solution. In all due respect, you seem to display this “holier than thou” attitude as if you have some moral high ground over the rest of us. But, quite honestly, your arguments carry no validity simply because you say there are other options but yet you fail to reveal one. Employing such arguments as “we should just give them more time is not acceptable…it has been TWELVE YEARS! In addition, not only do I find your appeal to past US actions completely irrelevant to solving this conflict, but also the fundamental premise of your argument is flawed simply because you presuppose that peace will generate more peace. I am sorry, but the existence of men like Saddam in this world is inevitable and not contingent upon any prior peaceful or violent actions. So please stop dismissing military action, which you imply will only generate more hate and evil, when the presence of hate and evil in this world is not conditioned upon whether a “peaceful” or “violent” position is implemented; hate and evil will always exist. The fact of the matter is:
Will Saddam, without force, EVER stop the pursuing weapons of mass destruction?
Will Saddam, without force, EVER stop the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction?
Will Saddam, without force, EVER engage in a democracy that seeks to preserve the human rights of his people?
Will Saddam, without force, EVER stop sponsoring global terrorism?
Will Saddam, without force, EVER display regard for international law and treaties?
Will Saddam, without force, EVER stop HATING the United States and everything it stands for?
The man is evil and irrational (he relied on sooth-sayers for strategic guidance in the first Gulf War). We've exhausted every other alternative.
Sanctions have not worked, deterrence has not worked, containment has not worked, and certainly diplomacy has not worked! So I ask you, what will stop Saddam from committing these heinous and brutal acts?
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Springs
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 636
| Posted 3/30/2003 5:10 PM (GMT -6) | | Terry, tackle hug back at ya, amigo! Wow. Great contributions to the thread! Good job hanging in there Electra.
One of the first questions that I had about the protestors was why they didn't go to Iraq and stand up with the Iraqi's, against Hussein and his henchmen, in a non-vioent manner? So I was impressed when I read that some had gone to become human shields. But I wasn't surprised at what they learned in the process.
Does anybody have any ideas or opinions as to how a sovereign Palistinian State could be created?
Springs
Thy love did read by rote and could not spell. - Friar Laurence. - Shakespeare | | Back to Top | | |
|
Electra
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 611
| Posted 3/30/2003 8:38 PM (GMT -6) | | Springs: One of the first questions that I had about the protestors was why they didn't go to Iraq and stand up with the Iraqi's, against Hussein and his henchmen, in a non-vioent manner?
Electra: Humanitarian and Christian NGOs have been standing up with the Iraqis against Hussein for decades, by devoting their lives to caring for the people who have been neglected and abused by his regime, by their neighbors, and by the rest of the world. Their efforts have been frustrated by the fact that Saddam Hussein was receiving support from the US and other powerful nations up until the Gulf War, after which sanctions that severly taxed the Iraqi people were imposed.
Springs: So I was impressed when I read that some had gone to become human shields. But I wasn't surprised at what they learned in the process.
Electra: I am impressed by the idea also—it takes a lot of guts. But I was turned off by their hostile, self-righteous rhetoric. They claimed that the press was publishing lies about them all along, and I’d be curious to hear their response to the reports about their colleague that Brandon, Terry, SeanG! (at least three times), and others have posted. But their website is no longer available.
Springs: Does anybody have any ideas or opinions as to how a sovereign Palistinian State could be created?
Electra: Good question! Imagine if a nation or a coalition of nations unilaterally decided to enforce UN Resolution 181 (passed November 29, 1947), which calls for the creation of independent Jewish and Arab states in Israel, and proceded to launch a bombing campaign on Jerusalem.
We are really appalled by any country, whether a superpower or a small country that goes outside the UN and attacks independent countries…No country should be allowed to take the law into its own hands. – Nelson Mandela former President of South Africa
Peace,
Electra
Love in action is a harsh and dreadful thing. ~ Dostoevsky
Edited by - Electra on 03/31/2003 09:42:48 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Electra
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 611
| Posted 3/30/2003 10:16 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
I didn't mean anything in my post to be a "personal challenge" to you, other than as a request for you to clarify your position.
Thanks. I think your request is fair, and I will do my best to oblige.
quote:
When you say things like "crucifixion outside the gate, rather than establishing ourselves on the pinacle of the temple" I don't know what you mean, or how that applies to this situation. I would really like to know what that looks like. Surely Hans Blix and his team don't represent "crucifixion at the gate." So I just want to know what you mean by that, and what you would do if it were up to you. I don't ask it as if it IS up to you.
Sorry about the cryptic references. In Matthew and Luke’s temptation narratives, the devil placed Jesus on “the pinacle of the temple,” the center of religious power and authority, in order to tempt him (Matt. 4:5; Luke 4:9). The reference to “outside the gate” comes from Hebrews 13:12. Criminals were crucified outside the city gate, because that’s where they used to throw the trash. From the moment of his birth, through his temptation, and to his execution, Jesus reliquished worldly power—and yet won the world. He embodied power that can make even the most vulnerable invincible.
The mere existence of WMD terrorizes people. If it were up to me, I would “shock and awe” people by destroying the vast majority of the world’s WMD—by starting with my own country. From there, I would persuade others to do the same. My strategy would be far more effective than Hans Blix’s when it comes to securing the world against the proliferation of WMD, because it would go straight to the sources instead of trying to monitor and manage all the potential buyers. I think that this approach to “shock and awe” would be more effective at creating good will than the current one. I would maintain a proportionate amount of conventional weapons for the purpose of defense of self and others in the case of clear and present danger (e.g. invasion).
We would certainly be more vulnerable toward those who remain resolved in their will toward evil, and we may suffer for this sacrifice. But I don’t believe “superpower” has anything to do with WMD. When my Sunday School teacher read the story of David and Goliath to us, she said that David was not afraid because he trusted God, and all he needed was five smooth stones. Guess what—in this day and age we are in the position of Goliath, so we better get over the gargantuan size of our sword and start getting serious about making peace with the guy with the slingshot.
I realize this is unrealistic and (almost certainly) won’t happen. But what can I say—I have a dream. (I’m sure some will gag on this cliché, but it’s the best I can do.) And this dream will help shape the choices I make during my lifetime, including the way I choose to respond to this war. I hope that no one will confuse this for self-righteousness. In voicing this dream, I also voice how I have failed to fulfill it. All I can claim for myself is that I dream it. And what is that worth?
Electra
My instinct as an artist has always warned me against this human capacity to become drunk on collective suffering, collective pride, collective hatred, or collective honor…Indeed, it makes me shudder, for while others weep with rapture and enthusiasm, cheering and venting and crying…I see blood flowing and cities going up in flames. Hermann Hesse
Love in action is a harsh and dreadful thing. ~ Dostoevsky
Edited by - Electra on 03/31/2003 10:01:37 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 3/31/2003 3:42 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
So, when I read arguments that seek to invalidate the war based on "proof" that US/UK governments have lied about X,Y, or Z (that's Zed, for you Canadians )
Hmmm...Sorry. But I go by zee.
Zee-bra? Zed-bra. Huh.
ABCDEFG...blah, blah, blah, blah...LMNOP...QRS...TUV...WXY and Zed???  Think 'bout how many chill'ns it will confuse. How many will cry because g, p, v, all ryhme but zee won't?? Poor things.
Now I will quarrel with you on this. Roof. Roo-ph. NOT, Ruf. Huh?? (Tim Allen sound affect, arr-oo??)
And maybe on this.
Route. Route as in gout. Not roo-t. Webster's online dictionary provides both pronunciations on both words. I go by the first for each word. Sheesh, thanks Terry. More things that make me ashamed to be Canadian.
Brandon
"Mommy, I know now that the terms, 'I'll knock yo' teeth down yo' throat!' meant you'd love me in the special way you do everyday of my life."--Darwin Hobbs
www.darwinhobbs.com | | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 3/31/2003 9:37 AM (GMT -6) | | Rpeterso: EXCELLANT POST! You hit on all the reasons why I stopped discussion. When people are not willing to put up viable alternatives, but only wish to critise and demonize, it is not worth the time to debate.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Electra
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 611
| Posted 3/31/2003 9:52 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Rpeterso: EXCELLANT POST! You hit on all the reasons why I stopped discussion. When people are not willing to put up viable alternatives, but only wish to critise and demonize, it is not worth the time to debate.
Many believe that increasing, rather than interrupting, humanitarian aid and the multilateral disarmament process are viable alternatives to invasion. Upholding the rule of law—e.g. trying and sentencing oppressive regimes for their crimes against humanity—is more likely to increase international peace and security than unilaterally invading their nations with the intent to destroy. Peace, Electra
“Many that live deserve death. And some die that deserve life. Can you give that to them? Then be not too eager to deal out death in the name of justice…” Gandalf, Lord of the Rings
Love in action is a harsh and dreadful thing. ~ Dostoevsky
Edited by - Electra on 03/31/2003 2:57:39 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Empiress
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 363
| Posted 3/31/2003 2:42 PM (GMT -6) | | Just popping in to make a few comments...
First, Electra, you've got your hands full and I think it's great the way you are holding your own. I've been in the (extreme) minority on my viewpoints many times on this board so I know what it can feel like when it seems you're the only one arguing for something. Way to go!
Semeia and Icon, as always I really appreciate your perspective and clarity.
I wanted you all to know that I'm following this thread closely but have not been commenting because....
I am COMPLETELY ambivalent and confused about this war and cannot remove myself from the "fence" on this issue. I wrestle with it constantly, cry, and listen to both sides, but I have not found any answer/response I can feel confident about. Both sides are very compelling to me. I have remained silent on this issue and have focused on praying for God's will, for a quick resolution, and for protection on everyone, as it's all I feel I can do. But it FEELS TERRIBLE to be so undecided. I wish I had more to offer, especially when so many of my students are questioning the morality of this war. Wish I could say more.
Thanks all,
~E
| | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 3/31/2003 3:33 PM (GMT -6) | | Electra: thats the best you've got. Again, its no wonder Americans support for the war is at 80 percent.
Upholding the law? Trying and sentensing oppressive regimes for crimes against humanity? What kind of ludricous nonsense is that? When Hussein is surrounded by neighbors who won't do a damn thing to rein him in, with Palestinians who name their babies after him and demonstrate in the street for a person who kills people by putting them in paper shredders? By increasing aid that he will use, just as he uses the money made from any oil that gets out of his country.
Read the papers, Electra, we did not invade with the intent to destroy. At least attempt a valid argument (your slip is showing). It is amazing that our country hasn't fallen apart, given that so many people won't stand up against true evil but continue to support it through their ambivelence and fence riding. Its amazing some of you people can take a stand on anything of worth...
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 3/31/2003 5:36 PM (GMT -6) | | Empiress
I wish I had more to offer, especially when so many of my students are questioning the morality of this war.
Iconoclast
I would like to suggest three reasons why we might question the morality of this war:
1. Because we question the use of any violent force.
2. Because we question whether this situation requires violent force.
3. Because we question the morality of the agent using the violent force.
Is violent force ever justifiable?
Mahatma Ghandi would say no. When Paramahansa Yogananda asked Ghandi if it would be okay to kill a cobra (snake) who was threating a child Ghandi said no. He said that it would violate two of his principles: non-violence and fearlessness. Ghandi believed totally in non-violent resistance. Ghandi makes a powerful argument for his case and backed it up with incredible pragmatic success. However, it seems to me that his philosophy never really addresses what you do when you have governmental power – how do you deal with criminals? I asked an Indian friend of mine today what Ghandi did about a police force in India when he gained power. My friend told me that the leaders never let Ghandi actually take any governmental control of the country for just this reason. I think we would all agree that the police MUST use violent force at times (and of course as a last resort) in order to protect the innocent – otherwise anarchy would reign.
Thus I think we would all agree that it is generally appropriate to use violent force to stop criminals – a rampaging ax-murderer for example.
Does this situation require violent force?
I think this question breaks into two distinct questions:
1. Is Saddam’s regime a criminally violent regime?
I would guess that we would all agree that this is so. In my view resolution 1441 represents the world’s settled opinion on this matter.
2. Does this situation require violent force NOW?
It seems to me that once someone agrees with #1 above then they would have to agree that violent force MUST be used at some point AFTER all other alternatives have been exhausted – otherwise their logic would have to be that it is okay to let the “cobra kill the child”.
Therefore the argument must be that we have not exhausted all other possibilities (Electra’s argument).
There are really two lines of argument at this point. One is based on the coalition’s primary reason for this war – disarm Saddam of WMD. The other is based on the more fundamental argument that says that Saddam’s regime is criminally violent and the specific issue that we are going to use to force the issue is his WMD program. To me this is like knowing that Al Capone is the head of the mafia and needs to be stopped but we can only really nail him on tax evasion. So we nail him on tax evasion and give him the stiffest penalty possible.
Electra has suggested us laying down our WMD as a potential solution. The trouble I have with this is that when dealing with criminals I don’t think any of us would say that having the police lay down their guns or their RICO law would be the best thing to do. It is not the violent capability that is in question it is the criminal intent that the past criminal behavior has shown and the capabilities that one allows a criminal to have that is at issue.
If we actually WERE the world’s police force I don’t think any of us would disagree that it is past time to use violent force to stop Saddam’s violent criminal behavior. In fact, I think there would have been a huge outcry years ago about our lack of taking appropriate action to stop him.
Therefore, perhaps the most potent underlying question regarding the morality of this war is:
Is the coalition an appropriate moral agent to use violent force to stop Saddam?
I think this is the key question that is being battled over as we speak. Are we a moral agent or are we just acting in our own naked self-interest? Are we a force of liberation or are we really more like a force of occupation – remaking the world in our image to serve our own naked self-interest?
Unfortunately the answer to this question is NOT an unambiguous yes. Nor is this actually possible to fully answer and prove in my opinion until we see what happens after the war.
The first objection on basic grounds to this question is that no one elected the coalition to be the world’s executive branch on enforcing resolution 1441 – that we do not have some “authorization” by some “world government” to do this. I believe this objection can be dealt with by saying that to allow the murder of a child when you had the means to stop it cannot be justified by saying that you were not properly authorized to do so by some governing body.
The most potent objection in my opinion is the fact that a moral agent is considered to be “moral” when they are acting justly and fairly when it comes to the law. The moral agent thus gains the appropriate moral force or moral jurisdiction by being seen as a moral agent and thus can become an appropriate moral agent in using violent force.
In my view the US does not have the appropriate “moral status” today that is really required to successfully take this action. A specific and very egregious example of this in my opinion is how we deal with the UN resolutions regarding Israel. Israel is in serious violation of both UN resolutions and some would argue (a Jewish friend of mine specifically) the Geneva convention (settling occupied territory) and not only do we do nothing but we totally support them.
At the same time I would argue that this does not instantly disqualify the US and the coalition from taking this action. The morality of this war can still be gained but only by our actual forward behavior (which will reveal intent) and the impact we have. In my view this means that we MUST very quickly quit denying the obvious when it comes to Israel and a sovereign Palestinian state. We MUST at the same time we are bending over backwards to give Iraq back to the Iraqi people force Israel to come to the table – we must force them to get out of all occupied territories and then force them to carve out a Palestinian state and make Jerusalem an international city governed by the UN (or some such thing). It is my opinion that only in this way can we become the appropriate moral agent and in that moment this war will indeed BE a just and moral war against a violent criminal.
thanks,
Iconoclast
"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson
Edited by - Iconoclast on 03/31/2003 10:41:53 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Electra
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 611
| Posted 3/31/2003 5:43 PM (GMT -6) | | Thank you for your encouragement Empiress, and Springs and Mayflower (wherever you went). This is a very complex issue, and so much is at stake whether we support war or whether we do not. Although it is painful, I think your ambivalence is a healthy response given this complexity, and I appreciate your willingness to listen to both sides. And no matter which side we are one, we can agree with your prayers for God’s will.
Electra
Love in action is a harsh and dreadful thing. ~ Dostoevsky | | Back to Top | | |
|
Electra
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 611
| Posted 3/31/2003 6:51 PM (GMT -6) | | Iconoclast
Does this situation require violent force?
I think this question breaks into two distinct questions:
1. Is Saddam’s regime a criminally violent regime?
I would guess that we would all agree that this is so. In my view resolution 1441 represents the world’s settled opinion on this matter.
Electra
Resolution 1441 does not pronounce a sentence, it presents stipulations for the process of Iraq’s disarmament. This process was interrupted.
Iconoclast
2. Does this situation require violent force NOW?
It seems to me that once someone agrees with #1 above then they would have to agree that violent force MUST be used at some point AFTER all other alternatives have been exhausted – otherwise their logic would have to be that it is okay to let the “cobra kill the child”.
Electra
The consequences of failing to comply with the stipulations were not specified in the resolution. The nature of these consequences would require another resolution.
Iconoclast
Therefore the argument must be that we have not exhausted all other possibilities (Electra’s argument).
There are really two lines of argument at this point. One is based on the coalition’s primary reason for this war – disarm Saddam of WMD. The other is based on the more fundamental argument that says that Saddam’s regime is criminally violent and the specific issue that we are going to use to force the issue is his WMD program. To me this is like knowing that Al Capone is the head of the mafia and needs to be stopped but we can only really nail him on tax evasion. So we nail him on tax evasion and give him the stiffest penalty possible.
Electra
The evidence of Saddam Hussein’s crimes against humanity is far more compelling—and condemning—than the evidence that he currently possesses WMD and intends to proliferate them among terrorists who will use them against us. If Saddam Hussein has committed crimes against humanity (and I agree that he has), then we do not need any pretext—he should be tried and sentenced in a court of law for these crimes.
Iconoclast
Electra has suggested us laying down our WMD as a potential solution. The trouble I have with this is that when dealing with criminals I don’t think any of us would say that having the police lay down their guns or their RICO law would be the best thing to do. It is not the violent capability that is in question it is the criminal intent that the past criminal behavior has shown and the capabilities that one allows a criminal to have that is at issue.
Electra
My goal of laying down our own WMD was in response to the threat of WMD as a justification for this war. Regarding Saddam Hussein’s crimes against humanity, I think that the rule of law is a more just alternative to invasion. Putting Saddam Hussein on trial is a far more ethical way for us to take responsibility for our own complicity in his crimes than laying the entire blame for them solely on his regime and proceeding to destroy it.
Iconoclast
If we actually WERE the world’s police force I don’t think any of us would disagree that it is past time to use violent force to stop Saddam’s violent criminal behavior. In fact, I think there would have been a huge outcry years ago about our lack of taking appropriate action to stop him.
Electra
Aren’t we skipping a step? In our democratic society, criminals are tried for their crimes before they are sentenced for them. It is certain that Saddam Hussein would be convicted and condemned. Why hasn’t he been tried? Doing so would uphold the rule of law, and preserve the Iraqi and coalition lives that have been/will be lost as a result of this invasion. It would also give us an opportunity to take responsibility for whatever way we were complicit. Even though this may have consequences for us, it would ultimately help us regain credibility.
Iconoclast
Therefore, perhaps the most potent underlying question regarding the morality of this war is:
Is the coalition an appropriate moral agent to use violent force to stop Saddam?
I think this is the key question that is being battled over as we speak. Are we a moral agent or are we just acting in our own naked self-interest? Are we a force of liberation or are we really more like a force of occupation – remaking the world in our image to serve our own naked self-interest?
Unfortunately the answer to this question is NOT an unambiguous yes. Nor is this actually possible to fully answer and prove in my opinion until we see what happens after the war.
Electra
Thank you for this helpful analysis. Even well-intended policies of the United States have had hurtful consequences that we did not forsee. Whether well-intended or not, we need to take responsibility for these consequences in order to gain moral authority. For the sake of the people we want to liberate, and for the sake of our own security, we need to account for our choices in the past, and articulate how the future will be different.
Iconoclast
The first objection on basic grounds to this question is that no one elected the coalition to be the world’s executive branch on enforcing resolution 1441 – that we do not have some “authorization” by some “world government” to do this. I believe this objection can be dealt with by saying that to allow the murder of a child when you had the means to stop it cannot be justified by saying that you were not properly authorized to do so by some governing body.
Electra
The purpose of resolution 1441 was to disarm Iraq. Saddam Hussein’s crimes against humanity should be tried in an international court.
Iconoclast
The most potent objection in my opinion is the fact that a moral agent is considered to be “moral” when they are acting justly and fairly when it comes to the law. The moral agent thus gains the appropriate moral force or moral jurisdiction by being seen as a moral agent and thus can become an appropriate moral agent in using violent force.
In my view the US does not have the appropriate “moral status” today that is really required to successfully take this action. A specific and very egregious example of this in my opinion is how we deal with the UN resolutions regarding Israel. Israel is in serious violation of both UN resolutions and some would argue (a Jewish friend of mine specifically) the Geneva convention (settling occupied territory) and not only do we do nothing but we totally support them.
Electra
I agree.
Iconoclast
At the same time I would argue that this does not instantly disqualify the US and the coalition from taking this action. The morality of this war can still be gained but only by our actual forward behavior (which will reveal intent) and the impact we have. In my view this means that we MUST very quickly quit denying the obvious when it comes to Israel and a sovereign Palestinian state. We MUST at the same time we are bending over backwards to give Iraq back to the Iraqi people force Israel to come to the table – we must force them to get out of all occupied territories and then force them to carve out a Palestinian state and make Jerusalem an international city governed by the UN (or some such thing). It is my opinion that only in this way can we become the appropriate moral agent and in that moment this war will indeed BE a just and moral war against a violent criminal.
Electra
Other than trying Saddam and members of his regime for their crimes, I think this is the next best option, but it is very risky. If we fail to follow through we will have nothing left to offer the Arab people as a sign of good faith. It would simply confirm all their suspicions about us. Also, as you note our track record with Palestine is deplorable. We consistently vote against efforts to protect their basic human rights. The sudden change in our policy on Palestine suggests that it is an attempt to appease Arab nations regarding our invasion of Iraq rather than a sincere change of heart toward the suffering of Palestinian Arabs.
Thanks,
Electra
Love in action is a harsh and dreadful thing. ~ Dostoevsky
Edited by - Electra on 03/31/2003 11:53:23 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Electra
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 611
| Posted 3/31/2003 7:39 PM (GMT -6) | | The beginning of the end of South African Apartheid was when Steven Biko convinced black South Africans that they were beautiful. A sense of intrinsic beauty and infinite worth can make even the most vulnerable people powerful.
If we are serious about winning the hearts of the people of Iraq, and not just the war, we should share their grief but regard their suffering as dignified rather than pitiful. Saddam Hussein has murdered and crushed countless Iraqi people. Nevertheless, countless more have survived and and persistant resistance has yielded results.
For example, in 1992 Kurdish parties overcame Saddam Hussein’s brutal oppression and set aside their own differences to democratically elect an administration to govern the Kurdish Autonomous Region. Successful attempts to establish self-rule within Iraq in spite of tremendous sacrifices defeats one of the most powerful weapons of mass destruction—the lie that their lives are worthless and their suffering is in vain.
Peace,
Electra
Love in action is a harsh and dreadful thing. ~ Dostoevsky | | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 4/1/2003 3:49 AM (GMT -6) | | I think this thread is pretty much a wrap for me. But I will tell you one last thing. I’ll tell you what this war is all about! It’s about Jesus coming back! It’s about the end times. It’s all in the Bible. Look for yourselves!
Rev 16 includes the only mention of Armageddon in the Bible, and carries a direct reference to the Euphrates River, which runs through modern-day Iraq.
"The sixth angel poured out his bowl on the great river Euphrates, and its water was dried up to prepare the way for the kings from the East," writes John, possibly the apostle, of a container of God's anger emptied on the ancient land of Babylon, now Iraq. The kings will move their armies through the Euphrates valley en route to Har Megiddo (Armageddon) in northern Israel.
The Euphrates appears a second time with one of seven angels whose blaring trumpets warn that the Final Judgement is near. "Release the four angels who are bound at the great river Euphrates," a voice commands the sixth angel, who unleashes agents of death who "had been kept ready for this very hour and day and month and year and were released to kill a third of mankind."
Then comes the clincher saints! In chapter nine, verse 11 - yes, that's 9:11 - John says the leader of an army of locusts released to fight humankind is named Abaddon in Hebrew, Apollyon in Greek. Both words mean Destroyer, one of several meanings of "Saddam."
Iraq fits like hand in glove brothers and sisters! The Rapture, the Antichrist's rise to power and the seven years of ``hell on Earth'', Armageddon, and the return of Jesus in the Glorious Appearing - all occurring before Jesus's 1000-year reign on Earth. There are those of us pre-tribbers who believe Jesus will "rapture" believers before the Great Tribulation, and we are convinced that the Antichrist will rule the world from a restored Babylon.
Listen, according to biographers and news reports, Saddam fancies himself a modern Nebuchadnezzar, the 6th-century BC king who conquered and enslaved the Israelites and brought great prosperity to the land. And he has begun fulfilling prophecy by rebuilding the ancient city of Babylon. But he won't be around to enjoy it. That’s because once the U.S. gets Saddam out of the way, sanctions will be lifted, oil wells will flow again at full capacity and Iraq (Babylon) will regain its power, allowing the Antichrist to mount an army for an assault on Israel. The stage is thus set for the Rapture, Armageddon, the Glorious Appearing and the other stages people!
Some support the war because the world will be a better place without Saddam Hussein. But not me. I support it in part because it will be a catalyst for the final days. Those are MY “war sentiments.” Come quickly Lord Jesus! And long live Hal and that Imp fella!
Brandon
"Mommy, I know now that the terms, 'I'll knock yo' teeth down yo' throat!' meant you'd love me in the special way you do everyday of my life."--Darwin Hobbs
www.darwinhobbs.com | | Back to Top | | |
|
kerygma
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2002
Total Posts : 45
| Posted 4/1/2003 5:25 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Springs: Does anybody have any ideas or opinions as to how a sovereign Palistinian State could be created?
Electra: Good question! Imagine if a nation or a coalition of nations unilaterally decided to enforce UN Resolution 181 (passed November 29, 1947), which calls for the creation of independent Jewish and Arab states in Israel, and proceded to launch a bombing campaign on Jerusalem.
Peace,
Electra
That is a great question! I cannot imagine a nation unilaterally deciding to enforce UN Resolution 181, frankly, because 181 is under Chapter VI of the UN Charter and therefore unenforceable.
UN Resolution 181, including most others relating to Israel, are under Chapter VI, "Pacific Settlement of Disputes", which are advisory, and therefore cannot legally be forcibly enforced under the Charter, and virtually always recommend reciprocal action by both sides of the conflict.
It is simply a matter of law that the resolutions on Iraq are different because they are taken under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, concerning "Threats to the Peace". Such resolutions are binding and enforceable by sanctions or force, and require unilateral compliance.
Scott
But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed. Isaiah 53:5
| | Back to Top | | |
|
kerygma
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2002
Total Posts : 45
| Posted 4/1/2003 5:34 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Is violent force ever justifiable?
Mahatma Ghandi would say no. When Paramahansa Yogananda asked Ghandi if it would be okay to kill a cobra (snake) who was threating a child Ghandi said no. He said that it would violate two of his principles: non-violence and fearlessness. Ghandi believed totally in non-violent resistance. Ghandi makes a powerful argument for his case and backed it up with incredible pragmatic success. However, it seems to me that his philosophy never really addresses what you do when you have governmental power – how do you deal with criminals? I asked an Indian friend of mine today what Ghandi did about a police force in India when he gained power. My friend told me that the leaders never let Ghandi actually take any governmental control of the country for just this reason. I think we would all agree that the police MUST use violent force at times (and of course as a last resort) in order to protect the innocent – otherwise anarchy would reign.
The Bible says yes, and therefore trumps Ghandi.
See my "War can restrain evil" post,
http://www.gregboyd.org/gbfront/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=1930
which says in part "The Bible (New Testament) advocates a healthy fear of punishment as a deterrent against those who would perpetuate a pattern of evil against a society. This is the divine mandate for the use of force to bring evildoers to justice, whether they are a government's own citizens, or foreign adversaries....."
In His peace,
Scott
But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed. Isaiah 53:5
| | Back to Top | | |
|
SeanG
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 278
| Posted 4/1/2003 12:59 PM (GMT -6) | | It is really funny, because the first picture that is displayed in the first post of this strain has an ANSWER sign. (Remember, answer is a Marxist organization that has footed funding and man-power for many of the marches seen “around the world.”)
http://www.time.com/time/photoessays/peacerallys/index.html
Electra, you said, “Resolution 1441 does not pronounce a sentence, it presents stipulations for the process of Iraq’s disarmament. This process was interrupted.” / “The consequences of failing to comply with the stipulations were not specified in the resolution. The nature of these consequences would require another resolution.” You are wrong.
*****************
 | | Back to Top | | |
|
Observer
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 4
| Posted 4/1/2003 2:20 PM (GMT -6) | | Dear Sean G!
I have read a large number of your many, many posts. Regardless of subject, your posts all sound very, very similar. (ANTAGONISTIC!!)
I think you may have too much free time on your hands.
I hope you find peace.
Sincerely,
This Observer
| | Back to Top | | |
|
SeanG
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 278
| Posted 4/2/2003 1:10 PM (GMT -6) | | Observer, whether you believe I am antagonistic or not doesn’t change the fact that clearly anti-American groups fund and organize almost all of the anti-war marches (as the first picture of the first post supports), nor does it change the fact that Electra is clearly wrong by stating what I quoted of her.
By all means Observer, tell me about my attitude (which I believe you have misjudged), but don’t participate in the subject I challenged Electra on. I could equally say you are dodging the subject I responded to by merely attacking my character – which I have not done with Electra or you – which could be construed as an ad homonym attack, but I won’t call it that.
*****************
Edited by - SeanG on 04/02/2003 6:16:33 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 4/2/2003 4:22 PM (GMT -6) | | Brandon: that would depend on whether or not one accepts your version of the end times (which many do not).
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Springs
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 636
| Posted 4/2/2003 5:59 PM (GMT -6) | | Yeah, what he said! I'm totally a mid-tribber! 
-S
Thy love did read by rote and could not spell. - Friar Laurence. - Shakespeare | | Back to Top | | |
|
Rpeterso
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 18
| Posted 4/2/2003 7:59 PM (GMT -6) | | Electra,
Once again, your unwavering persistence is somewhat inspiring. However, I feel inclined to respond. First, I suggest you re-read Resolution 1441. The U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441 “Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions…” It stipulates “a FINAL OPPORTUNITY to comply with its disarmament obligations.” It requires “full and verified” disarmament. It recognizes that “failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate FULLY in the implementation of this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq’s obligations…” Finally, it warns that Iraq “WILL FACE SERIOUS CONSEQUENCES AS A RESULT OF ITS CONTINUED VIOLATIONS OF ITS OBLIGATIONS.” Essentially, the Resolution does not serve as a “roadmap” to the disarmament of Iraq with concrete processes or instructions to follow. Rather it serves as a warning. Ultimately it is all agreed that Iraq remains currently in material breach, and thus the world demands immediate, unimpeded, and unconditional disarmament. This was Iraq’s ONE FINAL CHANCE to cooperate and cooperate fully. Unfortunately, Saddam did not fulfill HIS obligations. He now must face “serious consequences.” What does serious consequences imply…more resolutions…more inspectors…more time??? (Sure, I agree with an international criminal court, but how do you suppose we go about capturing this guy and transporting him? Oh wait…I believe that’s one of the primary objectives of this war.)
Also, the term “disarmament” from a context of international relations consists of both a “process” and an end “state.” Essentially, the term is in reference to the actual act of disarming, in that all weapons are being removed, and also to a finality where the nation-state assumes a condition of being weapons free. Saddam has done neither of the two but rather pursues more weapons. The process of disarming was not interrupted, as you claim, because it never began in the first place. Essentially, the process begins when Saddam stops pursuing weapons of mass destruction and chooses to cooperate. This war is in fact part of the process of disarmament, which will render Iraq a fully disarmed nation-state (please don’t make reference to his petty release of a few missiles right before we invaded, for that is not the full cooperation specified in 1441).
I’m sorry, from a legal perspective your arguments are inaccurate.
-Ryan
| | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 4/3/2003 3:16 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Brandon: that would depend on whether or not one accepts your version of the end times (which many do not).
Ahhhh...haaaa...jokes on you foo...I DON'T even believe "MY" scenario. That is why I said long live Hal Lindsey and Jack Van Impe. They're whacked! I practically don't adhere to any particular millennial position. I think they all have something to contribute to eschatology. But for sho I don't adhere to premillennial eschatology whatsoever. Hee, hee hee, hee hee hee, MuaHAHAHA...<---thanks Meph Man!
Brandon
"Mommy, I know now that the terms, 'I'll knock yo' teeth down yo' throat!' meant you'd love me in the special way you do everyday of my life."--Darwin Hobbs
www.darwinhobbs.com | | Back to Top | | |
| 165 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 8:38 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|