05 Sep 04
1 edit
Originally posted by royalchickenNot solely on that basis, but also because he was continuing to engage in egregious human rights abuses and gave no signs of stopping. Moreover, his sons were standing in line of succession, and they were just as bad. I take this to justify intervention by some military power or other, not the US specifically, and I think it would have been better had a broad coalition shared the burden of intervention.
Do you believe that military action by the USA against Iraq was justifiable on the basis of Hussein's crimes?
05 Sep 04
Originally posted by bbarrSo you think it's alright to invade and occupy a country just because they're committing "egregious human rights" abuses? How serious do the abuses have to be since according to Amnesty International pretty much every country engages in such abuses. Would it have been alright for a coalition of European countries to invade the Unites States in 1850 because we still had slavery when most of them had already outlawed it?
Not solely on that basis, but also because he was continuing to engage in egregious human rights abuses and gave no signs of stopping. Moreover, his sons were standing in line of succession, and they were just as bad. I take this to justify intervention by some military power or other, not the US specifically, and I think it would have been better had a broad coalition shared the burden of intervention.
05 Sep 04
Originally posted by no1marauderYes, I do. I think that it would have been justified to invade Germany to stop genocide, even if, hypothetically, they had had no interests beyond their borders. How egregious is too egregious? There is no algorithm for answering this question. I can't provide you necessary and sufficient conditions for 'egregious enough', but I'm not sure why I should have to. Yes, I do think it would have been alright for a coalition of European countries to invade the US to put an end to slavery.
So you think it's alright to invade and occupy a country just because they're committing "egregious human rights" abuses? How serious do the abuses have to be since according to Amnesty International pretty much every country engages in such abuses. Would it have been alright for a coalition of European countries to invade the Unites States in 1850 because we still had slavery when most of them had already outlawed it?
05 Sep 04
Originally posted by royalchickenIf it was then why stop there. There are countless countries that are committing Human Rights violations. Should we attack them all? Or only those with oil? Or which have a strategic importance? Clearly the International Community should be doing more to try to get rid of 'evil' regimes. But we're giving many of them tacit support (because it 'suits our interests'😉 and also ensuring that our arms companies prosper. Shame on us!
Do you believe that military action by the USA against Iraq was justifiable on the basis of Hussein's crimes?
05 Sep 04
Originally posted by no1marauderI don't believe morality enters into such decisions. Such decisions are made upon the odds of wining or losing and later justified or not using moral arguments. Had a European coalition thought they could defeat the USA they certainly would have invaded in 1850, slavery or not. It was only 11 years later that European nations provided much support to the CSA slave owners in hopes of splitting the USA permanently into two countries. That support made the CSA believe secession would be successful in the first years of the war. Later the European nations ceased aid to the CSA when it became apparent the Union was not going to allow the CSA to secede and establish their own country. -Del
So you think it's alright to invade and occupy a country just because they're committing "egregious human rights" abuses? How serious do the abuses have to be since according to Amnesty International pretty much every country engages in such abuses. Would it have been alright for a coalition of European countries to invade the Unites States in 1850 because we still had slavery when most of them had already outlawed it?
05 Sep 04
1 edit
Originally posted by bbarrSo your all for invading any country that allows slavery? Any other
Yes, I do. I think that it would have been justified to invade Germany to stop genocide, even if, hypothetically, they had had no interests beyond their borders. How egregious is too egregious? There is no algorithm for answering this ques ...[text shortened]... of European countries to invade the US to put an end to slavery.
crime against humanity you feel justify wars?
05 Sep 04
Originally posted by ianpickeringIndividuals within the same family quite often can't agree on what is moral and what is immoral. It's simply unrealistic to speak of countries as being moral or immoral. Countries are like very large businesses. Each country does what it feels is best for it's survival. It exists to make a profit for its citizens. If the population within the country disagrees violently over the course of action the country has a civil war.
If it was then why stop there. There are countless countries that are committing Human Rights violations. Should we attack them all? Or only those with oil? Or which have a strategic importance? Clearly the International Community should be doing more to try to get rid of 'evil' regimes. But we're giving many of them tacit support (because it 'suits our interests'😉 and also ensuring that our arms companies prosper. Shame on us!
05 Sep 04
Originally posted by DelmerWhile it may not be correct to claim that a country is immoral, it certainly makes sense to say that certain acts sanctioned by a government are immoral. For instance, it makes sense to say that Germany's sanctioning of the slaughter of millions in concentration camps was immoral. It makes sense to say that the U.S.'s former policy of allowing one person to own another was immoral.
Individuals within the same family quite often can't agree on what is moral and what is immoral. It's simply unrealistic to speak of countries as being moral or immoral. Countries are like very large businesses. Each country does what it feels is best for it's survival. It exists to make a profit for its citizens. If the population within the country disagrees violently over the course of action the country has a civil war.
05 Sep 04
Originally posted by bbarrDoesn't it also make sense to say that war itself is immoral and an egregious human rights violation? After all, it is sanctioned mass murder of innocents, including the young men cajoled and/or forced to fight in it. Why is mass murder (war) sanctioned by a goverment any less immoral than mass murder (genocide) sanctioned by a government is?
While it may not be correct to claim that a country is immoral, it certainly makes sense to say that certain acts sanctioned by a government are immoral. For instance, it makes sense to say that Germany's sanctioning of the slaughter of millions in concentration camps was immoral. It makes sense to say that the U.S.'s former policy of allowing one person to own another was immoral.
05 Sep 04
Originally posted by bbarrNo, I suppose you didn't; however, you did say you thought it would
Did I claim that I am "all for invading any country that allows slavery"? No, I did not.
of been justified to invade Germany to stop genocide, and that it
would have been 'alright' for a coalition of European countries to
invade the US to put an end to slavery. So, I guess there is a spliting
of hairs there, not by much, but you can claim you didn't use the
word 'all for invading.' So is there anything besides slavery and
genocide you believe invasion of another country is 'justified' or
simply 'alright?'
05 Sep 04
Originally posted by no1marauderWar certainly may be accurately characterized as an egregious human rights violation. Wars of aggression are commonly characterized as such. I see no reason why all wars, of necessity, ought be so characterized. That is, I see no reason why a war cannot be just. Of course, the justness of a war will be subject to conditions. For instance, reasonable precaution must be taken to minimize loss of civilian life, citizens ought not be drafted into service unless absolutely necessary, etc. As to your last question, here's an example: Suppose I come across a person attempting to kill an innocent other. Suppose I have good reason to believe that the only way to prevent this killing is to kill the attacker. Do you think that the actions of the person attempting to kill the innocent and my attempt to kill the attacker are morally on a par?
Doesn't it also make sense to say that war itself is immoral and an egregious human rights violation? After all, it is sanctioned mass murder of innocents, including the young men cajoled and/or forced to fight in it. Why is mass murder (war) sanctioned by a goverment any less immoral than mass murder (genocide) sanctioned by a government is?
05 Sep 04
Originally posted by no1marauderWho gets to say what is immoral? I'm not trying to be difficult; I
Doesn't it also make sense to say that war itself is immoral and an egregious human rights violation? After all, it is sanctioned mass murder of innocents, including the young men cajoled and/or forced to fight in it. Why is mass murder (war) sanctioned by a goverment any less immoral than mass murder (genocide) sanctioned by a government is?
just want to know why your views of what is and isn't a egregious
human rights violation is so important? When I think of the
word 'right' it normally has some power base to authorize it as
just, where do your views come from? When we look at how
humans behave toward each other, war seems to be natural part
of life as far back as human history goes. So if war is unnatural and
on top of that a violation of human rights, when did this start
and who created this rule for human rights?
05 Sep 04
Originally posted by bbarrHow does ownership come about? Does one person own another because of a government policy? First there is power. Later there is government policy. Slavery was never a government policy of the USA. It was a European policy that was here long before there was a USA. The Declaration of Independence and The Constitution were quite clear about the policy of the USA and during the Civil War that was finally made real in blood. -Del
While it may not be correct to claim that a country is immoral, it certainly makes sense to say that certain acts sanctioned by a government are immoral. For instance, it makes sense to say that Germany's sanctioning of the slaughter of millions in concentration camps was immoral. It makes sense to say that the U.S.'s former policy of allowing one person to own another was immoral.