Open Theism Discussion Board

Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Let’s solve the problem of evil > Contingency and Just War

Forum Quick Jump

32 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2

[ << Previous Thread | Next Thread >> | Show Newest Post First ]

BJS
Registered Member

Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 587

Posted 4/28/2003 10:48 AM (GMT -6)

Thanks for the response, Electra. Pretty swamped here. I'll get back to you soon, though.

Brett

"Siste viator et memento mori."

Electra
Registered Member

Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 611

Posted 4/28/2003 11:48 AM (GMT -6)

Electra: Given our human rights record in Palestine, why would Arab people trust that we care about them? As the invaders and occupiers of two Arab nations, we have a lot of work to do to gain trust and credibility in the Arab region.

dlw: We are not the invaders or occupiers of Palestine.

Electra: I should have been more specific. The two nations I had in mind in terms of US invasion and occupation were Iraq and Afghanistan, not Iraq and Palestine (which is not officially a nation). Regarding the Palestinians, we merely oppose international efforts to protect their human rights, and supply their Israeli occupiers with billions in foreign aid, enabling them to amass one of the world’s largest stockpiles of nuclear bombs and other WMD.

Love in action is a harsh and dreadful thing. ~ Dostoevsky

DLW
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457

Posted 4/28/2003 11:59 AM (GMT -6)

quote:

Electra: I should have been more specific. The two nations I had in mind in terms of US invasion and occupation were Iraq and Afghanistan, not Iraq and Palestine (which is not officially a nation). Regarding the Palestinians, we merely oppose international efforts to protect their human rights, and supply their Israeli occupiers with billions in foreign aid, enabling them to amass one of the world’s largest stockpiles of nuclear bombs and other WMD.

My bad. Which isn't to say we shouldn't be doing a better job occupying Afghanistan and ending its feudalistic state(s) that has all of the aid being sent to it staying in Kandahar.
For a good, lengthy article on the problems of Afghanistan I suggest.. http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/28/magazine/28NATION.html?ex=1028875527&ei=1&en=aebb1f5f3880c2c1

Also, I would submit that WMD are less hazardous in the hands of democratic countries.

dlw

Prayer from Kenya

From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me.

BJS
Registered Member

Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 587

Posted 4/30/2003 12:36 PM (GMT -6)

Electra:

quote:
I agree with you that we are more vulnerable after 9/11, and we can no longer afford to do business as usual. We should certainly apply our nation’s vast resources to preempting future attacks. Given the many resources available to us, why resort to violence? Military invasion of sovereign states is not a justifiable preemptive measure. It should be reserved for defense of self or others.

Your response here just begs the question, doesn't it? Neither of us is denying that military invasion "should be reserved for defense of self or others." The question is whether we are acting defensively or not in this war. I explained at length why I believe we are acting defensively, and other than your general aversion to violence (which I share, of course), I still don’t quite understand what your specific response is to the central question of whether this war was defensive or not.

Perhaps I am missing your point?

quote:
BJS:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DLW's contention that the Iraqis could not have overthrown Saddam by themselves is "simply inaccurate?" When were they supposed to overthrow him? He's headed a brutal regime for the last 25 years that has massacred hundreds of thousands of his people, left them in abject poverty, and forced them to live under the worst kind of fear and oppression since Stalin. Even after we decimated his military in 1991, he was able to stay in power---retaliating mercilessly against the attempted uprising of the southern Shias by slaughtering over 30,000 of them with a fleet of helicopter gunships that the US had allowed him to keep. With what weaponry and at what cost would you expect the Iraqis to overthrow Saddam without us? They've tried before and paid dearly for it. In fact, there has been much skepticism, as you know, from the Iraqi people about whether we would leave them in the lurch again this time, as we did in 1991.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Electra: I do not want to minimize the amount Iraqis have sacrificed for resisting Sadam Hussein’s regime. As you have detailed above, their suffering has been horrible. I also don’t want to minimize their successes, including self-rule in the Kurdish Autonomous Region.

I'm really not trying to be difficult or sarcastic, but how does this respond to my point that the Iraqis were not prepared to overthrow Saddam by themselves (as you argued earlier, using the Kurds as an example)?

quote:
BJS:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I find this statement interesting for a couple of reasons. First, while calling DLW's statement "simply inaccurate" because he claimed that the Iraqi people needed our help, you seem to concede here, a few sentences later, that our "resources" were in fact necessary to them. I guess I wonder what you mean when you say this. As opposed to the "resources" that we have provided them in the last four weeks (i.e., the unparalleled force and effectiveness of the United States military coupled with the largest humanitarian aid package the country has ever seen),what kind of "resources" were we supposed to have used to "empower them" to overthrow Saddam?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Electra: We could lift economic sanctions, improving health care, education, and living conditions for Iraqi people. We could continue to enforce UN-imposed no-fly zones over northern and southern Iraq which reduced the threat to those interested in organized resistance and self-rule. We could continue to support the UN’s multilateral weapons inspection program to secure the disarmament of Sadam Hussein’s regime. We could reinforce humanitarian aid programs already in place, and create more ways to improve living conditions for Iraqi people. We could pursue legal action against Sadam Hussein and members of his regime for their crimes against humanity. These are a few things off the top of my head.

I hear you saying that instead of military action, we could have accomplished the overthrow of Saddam by "lifting economic sanctions" and "improving health care, education, and living conditions for Iraqi people."

How would all of these measures have effected the overthrow of Saddam? Any aid that was going to Iraq, even under economic sanctions, (i.e. the "oil-for-food" program) was merely appropriated by Saddam's regime and leveraged against his people (hence our discovery of countless warehouses brimming with food and medical supplies amidst an Iraqi people deeply in need of those provisions). Lifting economic sanctions would merely have strengthened Saddam's stranglehold on the Iraqi people; it would not, as you assert, have helped overthrow him.

Another proposal you gave for overthrowing Saddam was to "continue to enforce UN-imposed no-fly zones over northern and southern Iraq which reduced the threat to those interested in organized resistance and self-rule."

We have enforced no-fly zones for over twelve years now. Obviously, it did not overthrow Saddam.

Your most puzzling proposal for overthrowing Saddam was to "pursue legal action against Sadam Hussein and members of his regime for their crimes against humanity."

Legal action? We could have overthrown Saddam by taking him to court? Do you really believe that? Do you really believe that we could just demand that he show up at the Hague and be prosecuted for crimes against humanity, and then shuffle him off in handcuffs, never to persecute his people again? Of course not. He would never submit himself to such a process, nor has any despot in history. Saddam's kind must, unfortunately, be handled with due force if they are to be overthrown.

quote:
BJS:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Furthermore, you claim that if we were concerned about Iraqi "poverty and hunger" we wouldn't have "exacerbat[ed]" the poverty and hunger by "invading their homeland." Again, I think it is safe to say that the sentiment of the Iraqi people is likely wholly at odds with your take on whether their poverty and hunger will be better or worse off as a result of the toppling of Saddam's regime. Do you really believe that our intervention will not lead to an immediate improvement in the Iraqi people's access to food and medicine? Do you really believe that the country's financial condition will not vastly improve now that its rich resources will be used for more than the selective fattening of Saddam and his regime?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Electra: Access to food and medicine has not improved immediately. Take one example. Parts of Baghdad still do not have electricty. Think about what would happen to your living conditions if did not have air conditioning, if your refrigerator and freezer did not work, if there was no water pressure in your sinks or showers, if your toilet stopped flushing, if every night it was completely dark inside and out even in the middle of the city. Imagine if someone you knew died, and there was no way to keep the body cool. Imagine if this lasted for days…then a week…two weeks…Before the invasion, there was electricity in Bagdhad. Eventually basic utilities will be restored in Iraqi cities. People will be able to put food in their refrigerators and flush their toilets. They will uncover loved ones buried in shallow graves and give them proper buriels. But it will take years to rebuild the structures that were destroyed by bombs. And some treasures, both ancient and new, may be lost forever (the looting of the museum in Bagdahd has been called the “cultural crime of the cetury” and it happened on our watch).

My point was not that we will be able to solve the problems associated with Saddam's regime as simply as throwing on a light switch. Of course, it will take some time (probably weeks) to restore electricity and other basic necessities to the Iraqi cities. My point was that few will disagree that the Iraqi people's access to food and medicine, as well as other essential infrastructures, will VASTLY improve in a post-Saddam Iraq. Are you disagreeing with that statement? If you are, then I will say again that the vast majority of Iraqis are likely wholly at odds with your contention that they will be worse off now than they were under Saddam's regime.

Electra:

quote:
I think the most compelling reason for invading Iraq was liberating the people. I firmly believe that the vast majority of those who supported the invasion did so with good intentions for the Iraqis. Though we may be confident of our own good intentions, it is far more difficult to convince those we are invading of this. Many are not getting the message.

But that's another issue entirely. Whether we are doing a good job of convincing the Iraqi people of our good intentions has nothing to do with whether our intentions were good. Our discussion, at least thus far, has related to the latter and not the former.

Brett

"Siste viator et memento mori."

Electra
Registered Member

Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 611

Posted 4/30/2003 1:17 PM (GMT -6)

quote:
Neither of us is denying that military invasion "should be reserved for defense of self or others." The question is whether we are acting defensively or not in this war. I explained at length why I believe we are acting defensively, and other than your general aversion to violence (which I share, of course), I still don’t quite understand what your specific response is to the central question of whether this war was defensive or not.

Yes I agree that we are more vulnerable post-9/11. But I don’t agree that preemptive defense in the form of invading other countries and overthrowing their governments is therefore justifiable.

I don’t believe that Iraq posed a credible threat to the US. Before the invasion, the evidence for the existence of WMDs was embarassingly flimsy. After the invasion, no proof has been found that Iraq possessed weapons that would have posed a threat to us and so far the officials we have interrogated are uniformly denying there are any such weapons in Iraq. Even if we did find some scrap of evidence to support our accusations against Iraq, I don’t think threat alone justifies defense in the form of invasion.

I do believe that Sadam’s regime posed a credible threat to the Iraqi people, but that’s been true for decades. Our government’s sudden interest in this sad fact strikes many as opportunistic.

Love in action is a harsh and dreadful thing. ~ Dostoevsky

Edited by - Electra on 04/30/2003 9:48:27 PM

Electra
Registered Member

Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 611

Posted 4/30/2003 4:43 PM (GMT -6)

quote:
I'm really not trying to be difficult or sarcastic, but how does this respond to my point that the Iraqis were not prepared to overthrow Saddam by themselves (as you argued earlier, using the Kurds as an example)?

OK, here is why I keep refering to the Kurds. Democracy involves self-rule and free elections. The Kurds have achieved a degree of self-rule and have held free elections even with Sadam still in power and even though Sadam has used some of his dirtiest tricks against them. The Shias aren’t as far along, but they too are organizing resistance. The resistance of the Kurds, Shias, and other Iraqis have accomplished much in spite of the terrible odds they have faced. We could do a lot in terms of changing those odds without invading their country.

Regarding sanctions— Most Iraqis hate Sadam for his sadistic tactics, but many also hate us because of the sanctions. Before we imposed sanctions, Iraqis enjoyed a relatively high standard of living in the Middle East. Sanctions have brought the Iraqi people to the brink of third-world status, while leaving Sadam unaffected. Rather than weakening Sadam as they were intended to do, the sanctions has only widened the power gap between Sadam and his people. Economic hardships cripple people who otherwise may have been in a position to resist opression.

Regarding the law—international law has been used to depose rulers in the past. Of course Sadam would not willingly comply, but a multi-lateral police force could be used to seize and deport him for trial. Sure this would be difficult to orchestrate. But is it any more complicated than planning a full-scale invasion? Why are we willing to direct so much energy and resources to invasion designed to destroy a regime, and yet balk at the prospect of arresting it leaders and charging them for their crimes?

I don’t have time to keep this up. The more energy I direct toward this issue, the more cynical I become. We can go on indefinitely about what we could have, should have, would have done. For better or for worse, what’s done is done. I need to move on if I am going to have something constructive to offer.

Thanks for your stimulating challenge and accountability throughout this discussion.

Electra

Love in action is a harsh and dreadful thing. ~ Dostoevsky

Edited by - Electra on 04/30/2003 9:53:29 PM

DLW
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457

Posted 5/1/2003 5:25 AM (GMT -6)

I stand by my dictum from before that we should put behind us our differences regarding whether the war against Iraq was justified.

It may be a good idea for us to put our energies into other things, like perhaps trying to ensure that the popular perception that the war was a success doesn't parlay into an easy reelection for the Bush Administration

dlw

Prayer from Kenya

From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me.

32 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2

Forum Information

Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 1:10 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

Need Support? | Forum Help Manual