In favour of war

[andrewducker]

Anyone want to read this and then tell me they're not in favour of war?

Comments

[andrewducker]

He doesn't have nukes and the chemical and biological weapons that weren't destroyed before (and there is good evidence that most were) are now useless due to age

Which isn't what the weapons inspectors were saying when they reported all the unaccounted for VX and other agents. If it's old and useless why doesn't he come out and say "it's there, it's no use, we buried it in this hole in the ground."

If we really want to get rid of such people, stop foolish embargoes and instead try to help the residents become prosperous enough to resist and heavily fund any reasonably competent and non-horrid rebels

I think that funding rebels is actually worse than intervening yourself. If there's a moral case for overthrowing a despot, then get in there and do it, don't just prolong things by helping out people that don't have much of a chance of actually succeeding.

I'm certainly in favour of working with countries to make them better places to live, increasing education, etc. The EU approach of allowing countries to join once they have their human rights legislation in place is definitely a great model. But I don't think it works in all cases. I think there is sometimes a case for war. I wish that people had intervened faster when Hitler invaded Chekslovakia, faster when Yugoslavia went to Hell and when the Rwandan atrocities started. The "It is a far away place of which we know nothing and anyway, maybe they like being ruled over by a mad dictator" approach isn't one that works for me.

[cangetmad.livejournal.com]

If there's a moral case for overthrowing a despot, then get in there and do it

Except that that makes you a despot yourself. Sometimes it's the only thing to do, but it's not strictly moral, and I don't believe it should be done unless there is truly no alternative at all. A moral regime change is about empowering the people of the country to make choices - and, no "empowering" isn't a pointless, wishy-washy word. It can mean "arming", it can mean "supporting with force", it can mean any of a range of things. What I think it doesn't mean is deciding to go in, kill lots of people, and put in either a US dictator, or a US-supported dictator.

[andrewducker]

it's not strictly moral

I stopped believing the word moral had any kind of absolute meaning a loooong time ago.

And seeing as all of the Iraqi comments I've heard from outside of Iraq seem to be in favour of us invading, that seems empowering.

Of course I'm in agreement that US-imposed dictators are a bad thing. But the Japanese model (help rebuild the economy and then hand power back to an educated, self-reliant populace) seems like a good one.

[heron61.livejournal.com]

The case with Hitler invading Chekslovakia is a bit different. I think there is considerably more justification for interfering when a nation invades another than when a nation is having internal problems.

[andrewducker]

I think there is considerably more justification for interfering when a nation invades another than when a nation is having internal problems.

I'm going to admit to not caring at all about nations. If people are hurting people then I think they should be stopped.

[mysticlegacy.livejournal.com]

so we stop people hurting people by going in and hurting people? Sounds like a lot of six of one and half a dozen of the other.

[andrewducker]

And it's wrong to break up a fight by hurting people too.

If I see a rapist attacking someone it'd be wrong for me to punch him, because all violence is wrong.

Morals are relative - there's no absolutes involved here.

Thankfully, so far, the vast majority of the Iraqis are putting up no resistance or are actively surrendering. I'd really rather keep the bloodshed to a minimum. If this keeps up, it'll hopefully all be over as quickly as the first Gulf War was and the rebuilding can get started.