Can you show your work? I’d like to see how you did the math on that.
100k-600k dead due to US invasion vs. ~1 Million due to Saddam. So it isn’t as clear cut as I thought. But I did say “When the case isn’t overwhelmingly clear, we should err on the side of peace.”
Besides, saving oppressed Iraqis from the hands of their brutal dictator was not the reason we invaded, and it showed both in our treatment of them and in our execution of the war. So the point is moot. We invaded Iraq for misguided reasons and the people of Iraq are worse off because of it.
Sort of like the people of Germany were worse off because we fire bombed the shit out of them, no matter how many Jews they killed. It’s not a numbers game, more of a “do the least amount of harm” thing.
No government has an inherent right to exist outside of the will of the people. Government is a function of the people, and if they decide it doesn’t serve them or to collect in a different configuration and be governed differently, no matter how just or unjust that government was, it should adjust to properly govern the people. In fact, that’s part of the problem, where some states are drawn on geographical borders but include some very different groups of people who may not be best served governed under the same laws.
Well, now you’re making a different argument, but you’ll find references to the “brutal dictator” in the Iraq AUMF. WMDs were certainly the most important reason for invading, but saving the Iraqis from the “brutal dictator” was one of the reasons, too.
Not bad Qin. But practical considerations should trump conceptual ones when we are discussing foreign affairs.
One hundred years ago, sovereignty was considered pretty much an absolute: after the horrors of WWII, it came to be understood that concerns about genocide should really trump the niceties of sovereignty.
The most recent framework is known as The Responsibility To Protect. I think it’s better than the OP because it takes the focus away from the oppressor and towards the necessity of blocking atrocity.
RTP seems to mesh well with Rwanda or Darfur tragedies. Admittedly, I’m not sure what sort of conceptual framework would work best with North Korea – but then again the real problems with handling the hermit kingdom are practical, military and humanitarian: they are matters of power politics, not ethical principles.
Legitimacy won’t get you anywhere. First of all there are lots of ways some ruler might be legit or not. Second, even if we all agree that legit=by popular vote, what if 90% of people demand eradication of 10%?
Why is everyone so focused on “right” while OP was talking about “moral right” which, I think, is quite different. In my book “moral right to exist” means my (our, somebody else’s) morale doesn’t oppose something. E.g. I do not mind the existence of gay people (some people do) but I do mind the existence of torture (some people don’t)
Do you think that NK government represents people’s wishes?