Look where [the world’s reluctance to go to war against a tyrant] got [Hitler]? It got him pretty far, I think. If I’m not mistaken, it got him most of Europe and Africa. If England and France had tried to stop sooner, millions of people would not have died, and the entire world would not have been dragged into years of war.
The U.N. and all the “other measures” have had over a decade to work, and they have accomplished nothing. How many times do the “other measures” have to fail before we consider force as an alternative?
Really? Care to back that up? And I do note that you failed to address my question. Nice condescension, btw.
Define failure. He hasn’t invade anyone. He hasn’t used any WoMD. In fact, the UN has inspectors with broad powers in his country now, and they can’t find any “material breach”. He hasn’t gassed any Kurds. Hasn’t nuked any Shi’ites. But to you, that is failure.
And perhaps most important, he hasn’t flown airliners into US buildings.
I totally agree with you, Bush must be stopped now.
I am not willing to do your homework for you, but I am willing to give you a hint. All those measures you say “have accomplished nothing”? Well, they’ve actually managed to destroy more WMDs that during the actual Gulf War itself. This is common knowledge and extremely easy to verify.
As for the rest of your comment, perhaps you could explain to me who this collective “we” you speak of is? The only relevant “we” as pertains to an invasion of Iraq, is the United Nations. And has been amply repeated in most of the threads regarding this (faux) crisis, the United States has failed to provide anything remotely resembling a coherentcasus belli to go stomping into Iraq. If your country were to do without a UN resolution, you’d have the same rogue state status as you’re constantly imputing of the nation you’re about to invade.
Never mind the incredible incongruity of going in on the premise of enforcing UNSC resolutions, while at the same time ignoring UNSC resolutions. Hawkish views with ostridge vision.
But you know what? This is not about convincing me that Iraq is currently a threat. It’s ludicrous to think so. It is about convincing yourself that it is. And it light of the weakness of the Bushit arguments presented – all of them – I just don’t see how you, or anyone else, could come to that conclusion.
Easy. So far, Britain and Spain have sided with the US on Iraq, to name but two. How many nations would be willing to side with the US if we decided to take out Fidel? I’m betting none. After all, even Canada trades with Cuba. (The embargo on Cuba’s stupid anyway.) And what question did I fail to answer?
Ah, RedFury, nice to see you again. Missed your spewing hatred for Americans. I notice that you’ve failed to answer the questions I posed to you in this thread about what alternatives you have to offer. Oh, nice red herring you’ve thrown out there. The purpose of the Gulf War was not to destroy WMD, but to get Saddam out of Kuwait, which the war accomplished nicely. Of course, that doesn’t matter to you, you’ve already made up your mind that the US and all it stands for are totally evil. So to you, the US saying that Iraq is bad, means that Saddam should be nominated for sainthood.
Thanx. Nice seeing you too – I hadn’t heard the “America-hater” line for at least…oh, for ten whole minutes. Refreshing to say the least and oh so original.
As for having the “support of England and Spain,” sorry to intrude into your delusions, but you have the support of the goverment of those two nations. As a Spaniard myself, I can tell you that Aznar is viewed as little more than Bush’s personal errand boy. And if you bother to get your own head out of the sand on this issue, you’d see that Blair’s not faring much better.
As I said, the only ones that need convincing that Saddam is currently an inmediate threat, is yourselves. The rest of the world ain’t buying what you’re selling. It’s garbage. Literally:
Don’t much care for herring – and apparently, you don’t much care for reading in context. Becuase I was directly refuting a comment by a fellow warmonger of yours, Joe Cool, who said and I quote, that “the U.N. and all the “other measures” have had over a decade to work, and they have accomplished nothing”
As for the rest, pure tripe. Pretty low of you to put words in my mouth. Of course, desperate times as you hawks seem to be having, call for desperate (dishonest) measures.
So, Tuckerfan, you are now suggesting that allies are important? Because, frankly, we wouldn’t need Britain or Spain’s help to spank Castro. And my question was:
BTW, I haven’t run into RedFury before, but his post here was spot on. And I can’t find anywhere in his post where he suggests that the purpose of the Gulf War was to destroy WoMD.
His point, and quite accurate at that, was that Joe_Cool has a funny definition of “accomplishing nothing”. And on preview, I see he cleared that up himself.
I see you were elected by the Spanish to speak for the whole nation. Also, the opposition to war in both Spain and England have failed to get their respective governments to change their stands on the matter.
Of course, you ignore my point that the Gulf War had no mandate to seek out and destroy WMDs, and yet you insist on comparing the UN inspectors work to the Gulf War, when they had two different objectives! That’s like saying a snowplow does clears more snow than a string trimmer. The string trimmer isn’t designed to clear snow, so it’s not going to do a very good job of it! A war to kick Saddam out of Kuwait, isn’t going to do a very good job of destroying WMDs, since that’s not its purpose! One would think that you’d be able to grasp such facts. Again, I ask you, what alternatives do you propose to removing Saddam from power? Do you have any?
AZCowboy, I never said that the US shouldn’t have allies in taking out Saddam. We could do it without Britain and Spain’s help. It’d be a helluva lot harder to do without them, and support from the rest of the world, but we could do it.
Perhaps you can ask the UN what evidence they’ve seen, as it nearly unaminously agrees that previous inspection regimes have failed.
I don’t appreciative your putting words in my mouth. I never said that we have to go to war because we’ve threatened him. What I said is that now that we have threatened him once, threatening him again is extremely unlikely to be effective.
AZCowboy
The French sued Yahoo! for offering Nazi paraphenilia on their website. Countries around the world tell us we should sign anti-land mine treaties/ abolish the death penalty/ not pull out of the ABM treaty/ sign the Kyoto treaty. Every country enjoys telling other countries what to do. Every country thinks that its morality is the correct one.
What’s the point of morals if they don’t apply to other people? If I have an opinion about behavior, but it only applies to me, that’s not morality, that’s personal preference. I oppose many typical conservative positions, but I oppose their moral stance itself, not simply their attempts to impose it on others. For instance, in the case of abortion, I oppose the position that abortion is murder, not the imposition of a “don’t commit murder” rule on others.
Apparently the concept of a hypothetical eludes you.
While it’s probably true that most Americans think that the US should execute American criminals, I very much doubt that anything close to a majority think that the US should execute non-American criminals. Furthermore, you seem to be saying that because I oppose the concept that Americans should not impose any morality on others, I think that Americans should impose every moral position that they have. That extraploation is ridiculous.
Do you disagree that your position leads to the conclusion that suffering in other countries due to their governents is none of our business?
Ah, it’s not true debatre on Iraq until the liberals make their ad hoinem attacks on conservatives. :rolleyes:
Every police force enforces some morality. You just
So as long as some countries say that terrorizing their populace is not wrong, it’s okay? I don’t see why everyone needs to agree that soething is wrong for it to be wrong.
Your implication that “Quite mudering your citizens” and “don’t stare at a white woman, nigger” are somehow similar is absurd.
If I thought that someone else’s morality was better than mine, why would I continue to hold my own, rather than taking on the other’s? Of course I think my morality is better than others, and of course I feel an obligation to impose it on others. Which means that you just called me a pretentious bastard, which is against the rules of this forum. It also means that you called yourself a pretentious bastard, because the fact that you would criticize me for having a different morality than you emans that you think your morality is better than mine, and you feel an obligation to impose it on me.
Yes, I see a distinction. But this is a non sequitor. If I had written “So if 51% of the world population agrees that slavery is good, we shouldn’t do anything to impose slavery?” that wouldn’t have made any sense. Perhaps you meant to ask whether I see a distinction between “do anything to discourage” and “impose abolition of slavery”. While they are slightly different, I find the idea of referring to a response to a great evil consisting of nothing but idle task as “discouraging” as stretching the point. If we were to very emphatically tell Saddam that we disapprove, would that really discourage him?
This brings e back to a question that you didn’t answer:
No, I wouldn’t just turn my back. I would do what I can to assist the victim of violence and from the violation of personal property rights.
While for most people, these are moral issues (myself included), that is not the reason I would act. I would act because those issues not only have a broad moral consensus, they also have a legal basis.
To try to illustrate the point, if mugging were against my morals, but not against most other people’s morals - and hence, legal, I would not intervene. I would lobby my congressman and use whatever political influence I had to try to sway a majority of the public to my point of view, and try to pass a law preventing mugging. But I wouldn’t go around imposing my beliefs on everyone else. Get it?
Now, I’m still worried about my understanding your position. I know you specifically denied the assertion that abortion is murder, but hypothetically, if you did agree to that assertion, wouldn’t the rest of your opinion then justify the assassination of abortion doctors? Isn’t it the same argument that justifies vigilantism?
Let’s look at the rest of your last post, going backward. I fail to understand how my distinction is a non-sequitor. Non-sequitors come in three types, and inconsistency is the only one that I can see that could apply. Are you suggesting that my position is inconsistent? Please elaborate.
You go back to the slavery analogy. I understand hypotheticals, I simply feel that the hypothetical you setup was a poor choice, as it is not analogous to the current situation with Iraq. And while I will now answer your hypothetical, I must first point out that I am going to avoid your use of the “51% of the world’s population”, and state it this way:
“If the consensus opinion of the world was that slavery was morally acceptable, should the US use force to prevent slavery worldwide?”
And my answer is no - even if I feel slavery is morally reprehensible (as I do). Because I respect that other people have a right to their opinions - and more important - self determination. While I feel my morals are better - for me - I am not so self-righteous and pretentious as to suggest that my morals are better for everyone else. It is a simple matter of respect.
And to this point, you offer this gem:
If you would like to further discuss this point, then I do suggest that you open a Pit thread, as I cannot share my opinions on your personal view here. Suffice it to say, I respect your right to your opinions, but I find it to be pretentious beyond any reasonable construct, particularly if you would equate “impose” with “through force” (as you apparently do, or it simply is out of context in this thread). It is exactly this argument that leads radical pro-lifers to assassinate abortion doctors. And for clarity, no, it doesn’t apply to me, as I see no justification to impose my beliefs or morals on you or anyone else.
Let me skip the next section for a minute and get to this:
Kind sir, please review this thread, and determine which of the two of us first launched the “partisan” salvo. Mine was a proportionate response to your offensive attack.
Alright, what next. How about this:
I’ll assume you meant “Quit” and not “Quite”. In any case, that was not my implication, but one you have juxataposed. But let’s try to work with it. First, I’m not sure what you are referencing when you quote “quit murdering you citizens”. Are you referencing the message that the US is sending to Saddam, or the message that the rest of the free world sends to the USA regarding our death row inmates? Second, if a KKK member honestly feels that mixing races is immoral, should they impose (using force) their morals on everyone else? Do you support their “right” to do so?
Try stating it this way - as long as a consensus of the international community does not believe that a brutal dictator terrorizing their own populace is worse than a few countries desposing said dictator through miliarty force, then I don’t believe those few countries can claim any sort of moral highground. It is not that everyone needs to agree that something is wrong for it to be wrong. It is that a consensus of people need to agree that something is wrong before anyone else can ethically impose that moral judgement on others.
Not here in the states, thank God (pardon the implied pun). The police force enforces the law. The law may reflect morals, but only as indicated by the consensus of the citizens. If you can give me a single act that is legal and otherwise generally acceptable (morally) among the population, but at odds with your personal morals, I think I can drive this point home for you (if you are Christian, this should be pretty easy).
If the consensus of the international community is that it isn’t any of our business, then yes, it isn’t any of our business. It is the right of self-determination. Is it anyone elses business, but our own, to address the suffering here in the states?
Clearly, you missed my point. Should the US tell other free countries that they should execute their own murderers? And if the other countries respond, “No, that’s immoral”, shoud we send in the troops to impose our belief that it is moral?
In your quote above, in the part of that I have bolded, who decides which morals we should impose and which ones we shouldn’t? (this could be the crux of our difference of opinion)
Bunk. Hopefully, morals are what guides ones behaviors. They cannot be imposed on others. Where consensus of citizens agree that certain behaviors should not be permitted in a civilized society, due to morals or anything else, they can pass laws. And the laws can and should be imposed on all citizens.
My only hope that we can reach any sort of mutual understanding, besides agreeing to disagree, is your response to my question here. I’m wondering if you even understand the definition of “impose”. In each of the examples you provided, I would agree that the other countries have taken efforts to influence US policy, and have done so in an attempt to get us to see things their way. I consider that to be an immensely moral and legitimate method of building consensus. I have not seen one example of any other country imposing their will on us. And if they tried, we would certainly resist.
While later you suggest that you understand the distinction between imposing your view and gaining consensus, it is quite clear from your response here that you do not.
The implication of your argument is essentially, “Iraq is murdering their own citizens, murder is wrong, and we are morally obligated to stop it.” Is that right? If so, please take a moment to try to sum up my position. If not, please clarify your position. Otherwise, we will likely continue to go round and around these other extraneous issues.
I really hope I don’t. What I get is that the government has sole claim to use force to enforce its morals. If the citizens see a blatant violation of someone’s rights, they have no right to use force to stop it. They can peacefully petition their government to stop it, but they can’t use force. The government has the right to do anything it wants to, and anything it wants is automatically moral. There is no morality beyond the whim of the majority. I really hope I’m misunderstanding your position, because I find this position to be immoral, and I don’t see anything wrong with me denouncing it, just as you don’t see to have any problem denouncing my position. There seems to be a bit of hypocrisy in that you seem to think that my criticizing your position is unconsciously rude, but your criticism of my position is entirely justified. Morality is something that everyone is responsible for. You don’t get to delegate your responsibility to someone else, and if they do nothing say “well, I’ve done everything I can”.
If I agreed that it is murder, in the full meaning of the word, and if there was no way to stop them other than killing them, then yes. But note that even if I agreed that a fetus is a human being, that wouldn’t automatically lead to the conclusion that abortion is murder.
There are worse things than vigilantism, which I am trying to avoid specifying for fear of Godwin’s law.
It was irrelevant. You were implying that I had set up a strawman by saying “do anything to discourage" when I should have said “impose”, But if I had said “impose”, it wouldn’t have made sense.
I find that bizarre. Countenancing slavery is respecting other people’s self-determination? Yes, it’s respecting the slave owners’ self-determination, but it certainly isn’t respecting the slaves’, and I don’t see why the former are more important than the latter.
Also, let me remind you of what I was originally responding to:
If you don’t think enough of a distinction has been made between efforts to make the world better in general, and forceful efforts to do so, then I think that at least part of the blame is yours. May I take it that you meant to say
Are you referring to this?
I wouldn’t categorize that as an attack, and it certainly is not partisan (I said “liberals”, not “Democrats”). Nor do I think that a sweeping generalization is a “proportionate” response to a qualified statement.
To my way of thinking, considering an opinion to be pretentious and respecting it are mutually exclusive. And it seemed to me that you were the one equating force with imposition.
Yes, you do. You just call the morals that you feel comfortable imposing on others “laws” and consider “morals” to be composed solely of the morals you don’t feel comfortable imposing on others.
I’m referencing a general principle, of which the message that the US is sending Saddam is one instance.
It’s weird how absolute morality and relative morality get mixed up. Here I am, saying that I think that morality is absolute, and does not depend on what people think is moral, and you ask whether I think that someone holding an immoral belief should act on it. If I thought that “honestly believing” that one is doing the right thing is a carte blanch, why would I be opposed to Saddam’s regime? Presumably he honestly believes that his actions are justified. I no more support the “right” of the KKK to enforce their “morality” than I do for Saddam.
In the sense of convincing the world that we are the paragon of virtue, no, it’s not very effective. But I hope that the Bush administration is more concerned with being moral than convincing the world that it is moral.
Which is a morality. Hence I am correct.
And “your suffering is none of my business” is not a form of apathy?
I was quite touched after September 11th to see other countries addressing the suffering in the States. I would not have been any less touched had the official position of the government been that it was none of their business. Common nationality should not be a prerequisite for sympathy.
Then perhaps you should explicitly state it, rather than asking rhetorical questions.
I am at a loss to understand what could possibly make you think that I think they should.
Other countries failing to execute their citizens does not contradict the principle that it is acceptable to do so. Therefore, there is no need to force other countries to execute their citizens.
No one decides it. It’s an inherent property of the morality.
I fail to see the distinction. If we pass a law based on our morals, then we are imposing our morals on society.
Not quite. My position is that Iraq’s disregard for its citizens’ rights is a valid factor to consider in deciding whether to attack them. There are of course other factors to consider.
As I understand it, there is no such thing as morality per se. There is just what a consensus says is moral.
I think that it would be quite hard for Saddam to attack anyone with WMD without our sattelites and inspectors noticing it. If chemical weapons are found, it should not be cause to go to war. The inspectors have been trained in destroying WMD, and, if any are found, the inspectors would be sure to operate like they did after Desert Storm. I see no reason to go in with an army to eliminate WMD when we have inspectors who can do it already.
I think that if we want to focus on stopping terrorism, we need to look at the folks who provided 15 of the 19 Sept. 11 hijackers and ask ourselves why we’re still sucking oil from their teats.
Destroying weapons is not the inspectors’ job. It’s the Iraqis’ job to destroy the weapons. It is the inspectors’ job to see if the Iraqis are doing their job. That’s why they’re called “inspectors”, not “destroyers”. We do not have inspectors who can elliminate WMD. It is ridiculous to suggest that a few hundred people can rid an entire country of WMD. It takes an army to do that. It can be an Iraqi army, or it can be a US-led army. It’s Iraq’s choice.
red_dragon60, I’d certainly agree that chasing Saddam our of Iraq is unlikely to reduce the threat from terrorism.
The Ryan, the source of our disagreement is quite apparent now. I am a moral subjectivist - relativist, if you like. You appear to subscribe to moral objectivism.
I find moral objectivism appealing, but devoid of any practical or pragmatic application. It begs for a “higher authority” to determine/specify right and wrong. A hetergeneous group of individual moral objectivists must revert to the equivalent of moral relativism to form a society. IMHO, espousing moral objectivism in this sort of debate is worthless.
But I really have no care to debate moral relativism versus moral objectivism. And this thread wouldn’t be the place to do it, besides.
Your summary of my position is accurate, except it focused on the metaphysical level, and didn’t address the issue at hand. In an effort to thumbnail it for you, it would be, “Saddam is murdering his own citizens. Murder is wrong. But unless we can convince a wide international coalition, America’s actions will be perceived as imperialism, and many more innocent deaths will result in the long run.”
I see no need to resolve our moral objectivism/subjectivism to continue the debate. We can both agree that murder is immoral, right?
First, will you concede that a US invasion to remove Saddam is likely to kill thousands, perhaps tens of thousands, of innocent Iraqis, and hundreds, perhaps thousands, of US troops?
And on preview, I see your last post. You do understand that Iraq’s response to such a statement is that they don’t have any WoMD, so there is no choice to make - right?
I think that you’re so deeply wedded to the concept of relative morality that you are engaging in circular reasoning without even realizing it. Your belief that there must be a “higher authority” is based on your acceptance of relative morality, by the idea that morality does not exist separately from people. In your mind, every morality is based on some outside authority, so if I don’t accept society’s authority, I must accept some higher authority. But I don’t think that morality needs any outside authority. Morality is its own authority.
People with different ideas of morality must make compromises. But simply because I recognize that I don’t have the power to force you to accept my morality, that doesn’t mean that I disagree with it any less. A society is capable of acting with the belief that there is some absolute morality, without every member agreeing as to what that is.
It seems like you’re basing your argument on moral relativism. The focus of your argument has not been that attacking Iraq, specifically, is wrong, but that going against the world consensus, in general, is wrong. If this thread isn’t the place to argue moral relativism, then you shouldn’t be using as the basis of your argument.
This is where my modification to your summary of my position comes in. I agree that there are concerns about the widespread effects that an attack on Iraq would have, and I am open to the posibility that there would be negative effects that would outweight the benefit of removing a dictator. What I had a problem with was your apparent position that you have no need to establish that these negative effects would in fact outweigh the benefits, that the mere fact that other countries oppose it is enough to preempt any consideration of the benefits.
I agree that waging a war which the international community views as unjust will have serious repercussions, and is not a course to be taken lightly. What I do not agree with, and what you seem to be saying, is that we should not even consider it as an option, no matter how bad the alternative is.
Yes. Are you now going to argue that risking lives is murder?
Destroying the WMD is the first part of their obligation. Allowing this to be verified is the second.
How is that authority bestowed or exerted, if not through a controlling actor? What I mean is, since “Morality” can’t walk up to me in the street and slap my hand away from an old woman’s purse, then someone or something stops me from stealing purses. In my case, that something is the knowledge of living with myself afterward (subjective moral understanding); for others, it might be fear of outside authority (belief in a “higher authority”). So even on an individual basis, some moral authority is needed in order to apply a moral system.
On a collective basis, such as in the actions of nation-states, morality being “its own authority” presents a similar problem. Each nation must base its actions on a system of principles that is understood and accepted by that country’s Executive(s); while that system may be dynamic rather than static, it must at all times be adopted in toto by the state, otherwise moral action is impossible for that state because there is no controlling authority.
Which brings us to the interrelationship between nation-states. What I perceive AZ Cowboy to be saying is that dealings among states should take as the controlling moral authority some international system of principles in order to permit international rule of law. This is the very foundation for the appellation of “rogue state” which has been used to describe North Korea and Iraq. What I perceive The Ryan to be saying is that each nation state is its own controlling authority which is either outside the authority of any other state or collection of states, or which can/should override that authority when a conflict of principles is encountered.
I think the consequences of either viewpoint are as follows:
AZ: When established international principle is in conflict with a desired action prompted by a particular national principle, the nation is obliged to work towards a new international consensus before taking action.
TR: When such a conflict arises, the particular nation is obliged to consider the consequences of flouting international rule of law. Action should be based first on national principles and second on consideration of consequences.
While both points of view can result in unilateral actions, it seems to me that the AZ outlook is inherently less likely to propogate unintended consequences based on international perceptions of imperialism or mendacity.
Thanks, xenophon41, for the perspectives shared in your post. I agree with your characterization of my position, generally.
But the point I tried to make in my last post is that I do not believe one needs to resort to moral relativism arguments to support the anti- preemptive US strike position.
While I do hold the view you described, what got The Ryan and myself in the exchange above was not based on my moral relativism, it was The Ryan’s failure to understand my position (to which I will accept my share of the blame, btw, for failing to communicate it clearly).
The two statements I made that The Ryan originally took issue with were: “Who the hell are we to impose our belief structure on the rest of world?” and “If you are going to make the world a safer place for all of humanity, make sure that the majority of humanity agrees that it is a Good Thing ™.”
Now, both of those statements do reflect my moral relativism. And our difference on moral relativism/objectivism then ensued. But it wasn’t necessary.
This is evident in The Ryan’s last post, when he suggests my position is reflected by:
Which is simply incorrect. I don’t think it is “wrong”, only that it is bad and dangerous policy - even with a moral objectivist view.
That is, while we definitely have a difference of opinion on the source of morals, that difference becomes irrelevent in the context of this thread.
So, to reiterate, I am not basing my position on moral relativism. While I have used those arguments, they are not the basis of my position, although I do think they support my position. And when I said I will take a “devils advocate” position, I am acknowledging that for the purpose of this debate, I will stipulate moral objectivism, and I’m still prepared to continue the debate (with one hand tied behind my back).
I cannot take responsibility for your failure to understand my position on this one. The first sentence you quoted from me in this thread (the “Who the hell are we to impose our beliefs …”) was followed by this sentence: “It also might create the largest international anti-American backlash we have ever seen. It might then further threaten our national security.” Those two sentences followed a section where I refuted that december’s six benefits of this war had anything to do with the US’s national security interests. I then went on to espouse two principles to guide our decision to intervene in Iraq.
Giving him the benefit of the doubt, I can only conclude that The Ryan interpreted my second principle which read “the rest of the world (as evidenced by UN support) agrees that it is necessary” as a moral relativist argument. It was not. It was supported with the previous statements that “It also might create the largest international anti-American backlash we have ever seen. It might then further threaten our national security.”
It is correct to observe that I used moral relativism to support my position, but that doesn’t mean that moral relativism is the basis of my position.
What frustrates me about the progress of this thread is that, before The Ryan posted, I challenged, “Does anyone want to argue that december’s list of six potential “benefits” morally justifies proactive US attacks without UN support?” and while The Ryan has elected to attack my position, he (nor anyone else) has yet to support the opposing position.
Hey! I agree with the first sentence here. The second is a straw man, and I challenge you to show where I have taken such a position.
No. Would you agree that a resonable person might conclude that those costs will not outweigh whatever benefits may come from a pre-emptive invasion of Iraq by US forces without UNSC support? If you respond to anything in this post, please answer this question.
While you are not specific about where these obligations come from, I will assume that they can be characterized by UN resolution 1441, since it describes the most recent Iraqi obligations. And here I must point out that the US supported UN resolution 1441. Part of that resolution specified that only the UNSC could authorize force to enforce its provisions. If you recall, that was a point of contention, as the US wanted the authorization to use force for any material breach. The US conceded the point, and the resolution requires the UNSC to determine a material breach before the use of force. Therefore, under the same obligations that Iraq has to disarm, the US has to gain UNSC authorization to use force. You can’t have it both ways.
Now, the way 1441 was setup, Iraq had to disclose their WoMD. They, in essence, said, “we have no WoMD”. They have taken the position that they have already fulfilled the first obligation you listed. If you believe they do have WoMD (and I believe they do), then they took quite a risk here. All the UNSC has to do is find a material breach. Iraq has, begrudingly, allowed the UN inspectors in, unfettered by any restrictions. It is their position that they have met the obligations of 1441. So the onus shifts to the UNSC to determine if Iraq is in material breach of 1441. The inspectors have broad authority to look under any stone, but they have yet to find any material breach.
That is the game that the US and the UN setup. Problem is, the US doesn’t like how the game is going, and doesn’t want to play anymore. The US assumed they would win quickly, and now that that hasn’t happened, they want to change the rules - rules they help setup.
It should come as no surprise that many in the international community resent the heavy handed tactics of the US administration. It violates their basic sense of fairness (even for a moral objectivist!).
[hijack]
Despite the fact that I don’t wish to debate moral relativism vs objectivism, I cannot let some of those statements go by unchallenged. When I said, “It begs for a “higher authority” to determine/specify right and wrong,” The Ryan responded, "Your belief that there must be a “higher authority …” Please notice I didn’t say must, I said begs for - a consistent tactic of yours - another strawman. xenophon41 has already addressed why moral objectivism begs for a higher authority, so I won’t repeat the argument.
Which was exactly my point. Even if the individuals of a society espouse moral objectivism (but differ in their opinion as to what those morals are), the end result is the equivalence of moral relativism! To be a member of the society, you must compromise some of your “absolute” morals.
Thanks for making my case!
While appealing, moral objectivism is a useless concept when applied to a society (unless you have a “higher authority”, like a theocracy).
[/hijack]
If it’s its own authority, what needs does it have to be bestowed? To be bestowed means that it once did not have authority, and now it does. I don’t believe that to be the case.
As for “exerted”, it is true that morality’s authority can’t be exerted without an actor. But I don’t believe that diminishes its authority.
I believe that both a nation’s principles and its actions should be moral, so it follows that I believe that action should be based on principles insofar as I believe that both should be moral. However, the implied position, that action should be based on principles, regardless of what those principles are, is not mine.
I don’t understand whether you’ve addressed the issue of conflict with international rule of law with this clarification.
Earlier, I believed you to have put forth the opinion that a nation should test the morality of its actions against its own changing principles, rather than an outside set of principles, no matter how widely adopted in the international community. Now it appears you’re saying that no test of that morality is needed, although the actions should be moral. However, that poses rather a puzzle for me: how can a nation assure the morality of its actions without testing them against some set of moral principles?
Well, I think you should be prepared, if you repeatedly say that things like “And you call it moral?”, and “make sure that the majority of humanity agrees that it is a Good Thing ™”, for people to think that you think it is wrong.
I don’t see how that contradicts what I said. You simply stated reasons why we shouldn’t attack Iraq; you made no argument as to why these reasons were more important than the reasons to attack; thus “your apparent position that you have no need to establish that these negative effects would in fact outweigh the benefits” is an accurate description. You may in fact believe that you should make such an argument, but I stand by my statement that you have made it appear as though you don’t.
And I disagree that you refuted that the benefits had anything to do with the US’s national security interests. You simply stated this with no support.
While this may in fact be your position, your posts imply otherwise. You said of stopping a mugging “While for most people, these are moral issues (myself included), that is not the reason I would act. I would act because those issues not only have a broad moral consensus, they also have a legal basis.” I don’t think it was a huge jump for me to assume that while there are many reasons why you oppose an attack on Iraq (anti-American backlash, etc.) the consensus of the world is the criterion which unltimately matters.
Some people might be glad their opponent has not mustered a strong argument.
But I don’t see much grounds for discussion. Either you believe that the six reasons justify an attack, or you don’t.
I think that you use the term “strawman” too liberally. The term implies a deliberate missatement of one’s opponent’s position in order to have an opposing position which is more easily attacked. It is not some blanket term to be applied to any statement involving your position which you do not like.
Yes. Do you agree with the reverse?
As I understand it, part of the agreement which ended the Gulf War was that Iraq would disarm. If you have information which counters that understanding, feel free to present it. But it is that basis which I find most compelling as far as Iraqi obligations are concerned.
To what part are you referring?
In resolution 1441, there is the phrase:
[first numbered item; my emphasis]
So is it your contention that
(a)The Security Council erred
(b)Iraq was in material breach, but suddenly wasn’t after the resolution was passed
or (c)Iraq was and still is in material breach?
Again, I disagree with your use of the word “strawman”. And what does “beg for” mean if not “must”?
Even if moral absolutism results in the same effect as moral relativism, that hardly means that it is actually moral relativism. Equivalence goes both ways; if you argue that my moral absolutism is equivalent to moral relativism, then I can just as easily argue that your moral relativism is equivalent to moral absolutism.
But I disagree with your apparent belief that someone who believes that something is wrong, but is unable to stop it, is equivalent to someone who doesn’t believe it is wrong. Even if two people act in the same manner, that doesn’t mean their morals are the same.
I don’t see it as compromising morals. The morals themselves are intact. It’s just the actions that are compromised.
And a nitpick: “setup” is a noun; “set up” is a verb.
I don’t see where the idea that a nation should not test its actions against morality comes from. A nation should test its actions against morality. Perhaps what’s confusing is that my belief that it is not sufficient to simply test the actions against the nation’s principles. This is because the principles may themselves not be moral, in which case testing against them doesn’t do any good.
