In favour of war

[andrewducker]

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

Comments

No.

[johnbobshaun.livejournal.com]

*Reads article* I'm not in favour of war. No kind of emotive bullshit is going to make me believe that two wrongs make a right.

Re: No.

[andrewducker]

So you think, for instance, that it would have been reasonable to leave the jews in concentration camps, because liberating them would require violence?

You believe that pulling a rapist from a woman would be wrong, because it would mean hurting him?

You think that the police shouldn't use violence to prevent people from murdering one another?

Really?

Re: No.

[johnbobshaun.livejournal.com]

I refer the honorable member to my comments regarding "emotional bullshit" but would like to add a further comment referring to "insane troll logic".

Re: No.

[andrewducker]

It's not emotional bullshit. You stated very clearly that "Two wrongs do not make a right." was your binding moral principle. I then gave you three examples of situations where a wrong would very clearly have to be committed in order to combat another wrong and asked you if you agreed that your moral code was such that you agreed with inaction in those situations.

Saddam Hussein, as laid out in the article I linked to and vast numbers of others, carries out/causes to be carried out rapes, murders, torture, etc. I believe that the right thing to do is to prevent it and that the wrong of the invasion is less than the wrong of leaving him to carry them out. I believe this is a direct parallell of the examples I gave.

Labelling this as "insane troll logic" is not an answer, it's a way of avoiding giving an answer.

Re: No.

[johnbobshaun.livejournal.com]

Andy, my friend, I don't have the time or the inclination to get involved in a pissing contest over this. You saying something, me replying and us both getting nowhere seems like a lot of hard work at this time on a Friday afternoon.

Re: No.

[andrewducker]

I don't want to get nowhere, nor is this a pissing contest. I'm genuinely interested in what you have to say. I was (and still am) trying to communicate, to find out what you believe and why you believe it. I'm not firmly convinced of anything and if you have a good reason for what you believe in I'll quite likely be convinced by it.

You know as well as I do that I'm not standing behuind Bush shouting "kill the for'n people!", but on the other hand I'm not a pacifist either, which is what you seemed to be espousing. If I'm failing to understand what you mean I really would like to you to explain to me so I can understand where you're coming from.

Re: No.

[johnbobshaun.livejournal.com]

Okay, okay, okay. Jeez you're pushy. I'll keep this brief. This is eating into valuable Mario Sunshine time .

I think there is no justification for war at this time. Without a common concensus in the UN... other channels still open for investigation... destabilisation of the middle east yadda yadda yadda, all obvious stuff. And yeah, Saddam has a horrific human rights record but to be frank he can join the fucking queue. The appauling shit I get from Amnesty International breaks my heart. Countries like China, Haiti, Isreal (key US ally in the Middle East. Hmmmmm) Zimbabwe and (lawks) the good old US of A.

I was wondering today whether we still would have gone in *without* the human rights issues. Not sure to be honest. I get the feeling that they would have found another excuse.