Iraq: Past, Present, Future

[Gorgon]

The UN charter does not allow for the notion of 'preemptive strike', and the US and UK are signatories. The adopted resolution do not change that fact, neither do you start interpreting resolutions and going to war on your own.

 

The war was technically illegal, thats not really in question, Kofi Annan said as much.

 

Now as to whether being in compliance with the UN charter means that much in practical and legal terms to a head of state, that is something else, apparently it does not. This is a contradiction in national law that is expectable when you think about it, but in terms of the organisation's own rules, there is no doubt.

Edited March 29, 2008 by Gorgon

[Walsingham]

The UN charter does not allow for the notion of 'preemptive strike', and the US and UK are signatories. The adopted resolution do not change that fact, neither do you start interpreting resolutions and going to war on your own.

 

The war was technically illegal, thats not really in question, Kofi Annan said as much.

 

Now as to whether being in compliance with the UN charter means that much in practical and legal terms to a head of state, that is something else, apparently it does not. This is a contradiction in national law that is expectable when you think about it, but in terms of the organisation's own rules, there is no doubt.

 

I concede you have a good point. Although I'm not sure I follow you all the way through your logic. i suspect you know more about interntional law than I do (I have been taught about the Geneva conventions twice, and read the papers about Iraq). Is there really any such thing as illegal/legal in the international arena, excluding crimes against humanity?

[Gorgon]

I'm no expert on international law, i'm just going on reports. You would assume that a commitment to be a member of the UN, and to abide by it's principles and charters either matters, or it doesn't. In purely practical terms the president's prerogative trumps international commitment, the report you linked to in its conclusion states definitely that 'regime change cannot be the objective of military action', and yet the coalition is convinced, well, make a show of being convinced, that they got their resolution and with its somewhat ambivalent and emminently interpretable wording could do away with the say of the security council. There are way too many questions raised and conditions not wholly fulfilled for blatantly declaring that the war was sanctioned.

 

The invasion of Iraq unquestionably weakened the already imperfect security council and organisation, because what does it really mean now that it can be sidestepped by a minority when the decision doesn't go their way.

Edited March 29, 2008 by Gorgon

[Walsingham]

I agree that the UN council was grotesquely weakened by the invasion. However, I respond with two points:

 

1. The stance taken by France and Russia was equally damaging to the UN's moral mandate.

 

2. Was the pre-invasion stance of sanctions morally sound? With the UN itself estimating civilian deaths in the hundreds from inadequate medicines and food. In addition it served no purpose whatever in terms of weakening the regime.

 

3. Regime change may be illegal, but is it actually immoral?

[Gorgon]

Morality has a tendency to be swallowed up by international politics, at best the UN can be convinced to intervene in some third world plague pit not directly in the crossroads of so many different strategic aims. A majority broke the rules in dealing with Milosovich, and the international outrage was decidedly muted.

 

I think though, that an action in order to be moral has to be free of lies.

 

The coalition wanted weapons to be there and in their rush to prove it asked the people they are ultimately responsible to, their own voters, to risk their lives based on exaggerated and unsubstantiated intelligence claims.

[Walsingham]

Obviousy I temperamentaly agree with your statement about being free of lies. However, I ask another question:

 

If - as I do - one believes the pre-war stance was in fact immoral, is it immoral to lie in order to provoke action? I ask in the context of my premise, not in general terms.

[Gorgon]

I guess that depends on intent doesn't it. If you believe the coalition acted out of an altruistic desire to free the people of Iraq, it could be considered moral. I actually think that was a small part of it, emphasis on small. Morality can be divorced from legality and perhaps truthfulness as well, although starting a war on a purely moral basis, I don't think there is a real world precedent.

Edited March 29, 2008 by Gorgon

[Walsingham]

I guess that depends on intent doesn't it. If you believe the coalition acted out of an altruistic desire to free the people of Iraq, it could be considered moral. I actually think that was a small part of it, emphasis on small. Morality can be divorced from legality and perhaps truthfulness as well, although starting a war on a purely moral basis, I don't think there is a real world precedent.

 

It's basically impossible. I hope I haven't given the impression that I think the war was purely moral. My objection is to statements claiming it was immoral. Viz our recent discussion on glossing over details in judging right and wrong.

[Sand]

There are times in which war is justified and right and other times that it is wrong. In my ever so humble opinion our invasion of Afganistan was justified and right. A terrorist organization backed by Afganistan's government at the time attacked us on our sovereign territory. The invasion of Iraq was not justified and definitely not right. However, what is done is done. The question now is the expenditure of resources and where the responsibility lies for the US government. Who is the US government more responsible for? Who should it fulfill the needs first? Its own citizens or the people in Afganistan and Iraq. Given how the US economy is going south along with the rising costs of fuel, which in turn raises the prices of everything else, I am of the opinion that the US should place the needs of its own citizens before foreigners.

 

Since we do give resources, which I am against, to other countries I think we need to reprioritize them just a bit. Those countries who are the neediest should get the greatest amount of aid. For example Israel gets billions and billions of dollars a year, yet it is pretty much self-sufficient now. Would it not make sense to lower or end aid to Israel and split those funds with Iraq and Afganistan?

Edited March 30, 2008 by Sand

[Walsingham]

I would certainly back any increase in reconstruction aid to Afghanistan. It's the only way a lasting peace can be fashioned - although it's important to understand that reconstruction can only occur within secure areas utilising force.

 

Aid to Israel is an entirely separate issue, and hardly a very simple one. We cannot afford to get into it here.

 

As to the correct allocation of money you have been told several times - and not just by me - how money spent abroad can assist the US economy. I'l try one more time because I don't like quitting. Imagine you are in a Fallout style village and you discover a means of fashioning tools. It is true that you can sell these tools, but after a while you realise only a very people can afford them. If, however, you give away some special kinds of tools, like ploughshares and knives, then the other residents become more effective and prosperous. Thus they own more interesting things of better quality, and you are able to trade your tools at a higher price and in greater volume.

 

If you want to see the above in action I suggest you play the game X3, and tinker with local economies.

[Sand]

The problem with that lets say raiders strike your village or the village gets hit with natural disaster that causes your tools and whatnot to be destroyed. Since you gave those excess tools away instead of saving them in storage your village has nothing and the poorest members of your village are now suffering because of short sighted give-aways.

[Walsingham]

The problem with that lets say raiders strike your village or the village gets hit with natural disaster that causes your tools and whatnot to be destroyed. Since you gave those excess tools away instead of saving them in storage your village has nothing and the poorest members of your village are now suffering because of short sighted give-aways.

 

True. But if you hadn't given them away you'd now be worse off. Because at least this way you can :

 

a) expect some help in return. Which is precisely what happened in Katrina as other countries, including the Uk sent aid.

b) increased local prosperity means it's easier for you to sell any new tools you make. Otherwise you'd be far worse off, because you'd need desperately to make capital but the market would already be saturated.

 

EDIT: I just realised that we can't even have a disagreement unles you deny the US itself has a national economy which you are part of and which you benefit from. Your personal economy is part of the US economy. The US economy is part of the global economy.

[Sand]

Never expect help from someone else. Accept it graciously, of course, but never expect a hand out from anyone. Also if you have resources stored, the level of prosperity will not go down because you are dipping into that stored resources which is designed for such emergencies. Once the basics are covered you can once again create a surplus to replineshed the stored resources you used.

[Walsingham]

Never expect help from someone else. Accept it graciously, of course, but never expect a hand out from anyone. Also if you have resources stored, the level of prosperity will not go down because you are dipping into that stored resources which is designed for such emergencies. Once the basics are covered you can once again create a surplus to replineshed the stored resources you used.

 

This is a simply cretinous statement. But I'm damned if I'll get drawn into it any further. I refer you simply to every work of economic theory written since 1700. I can only hope they are more clear and persuasive.

[Gorgon]

Everybody owns a little bit of everybody else, that is the basic premise of financial institutions in a global marketplace. It's also why a collapse of a few key loan institutions as a result of the housing crisis could, if we are not careful, create a cascade effect not seen since the 1920s.

[Sand]

This is a simply cretinous statement. But I'm damned if I'll get drawn into it any further. I refer you simply to every work of economic theory written since 1700. I can only hope they are more clear and persuasive.

 

Well, I am not against helping others but we should only do so once we, ourselves, are in good enough shape so we can do so more effectively.

[Eddo36]

Love yourself before you love others.

 

Help yourself before you help others.

[Sand]

Because if you are unable to help yourself then you are unable to help others.

[Musopticon?]

Love yourself before you love others.

 

Help yourself before you help others.

How about helping yourself and not being such a freak constantly?

[Sand]

Muso, just let Eddo be Eddo.

[walkerguy]

Love yourself before you love others.

 

Help yourself before you help others.

 

No.

[Hildegard]

So what's the position of the Bush administration now, they went into Iraq to bring freedom and democracy to the Iraqi people and the Middle East, oh how noble of you Mr. President

[walkerguy]

Yes.

[Gorgon]

Love yourself before you love others.

 

Help yourself before you help others.

 

No.

Thats not as stupid a maxim as it sounds, all empathy derives from self, on being able to sense your own pain, or pleasure in others (I dunno why but that sounded a little kinky).

 

By protecting the group you protect yourself.

Edited April 1, 2008 by Gorgon