Senator Kerry, the UN & US Foreign Policy

Originally posted by KellyJay
No, I suppose you didn't; however, you did say you thought it would
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 ...[text shortened]... d
genocide you believe invasion of another country is 'justified' or
simply 'alright?'

Sure. Crimes against humanity in general, if undertaken on a large scale by a government against the innocent, may suffice to justify intervention. So, mass murder of citizens, mass rape, mass imprisonment, may all justify intervention, though whether intervention will be justified in any particular case will depend upon the details of that case, the range of alternative options, etc.

Do you think it is always unjustified to invade a country, even to stop genocide?

Originally posted by bbarr
War 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 wh ...[text shortened]... nocent and my attempt to kill the attacker are morally on a par?

Bbarr: "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?"


Are you referring to people killing abortiondoctors ?

Originally posted by Delmer
How 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

How is any of this relevant to what I wrote? I'm claiming that it can make sense to call a policy of a government immoral. It was a policy of the US, during the times of slavery, to allow one person to own another. Where this policy came from is irrelevant. It doesn't matter if it was imported form Europe, the US still enshrined this policy into law. The US sanctioned the ownership of persons, as evidenced by laws mandating that slaves caught fleeing their "owners" were to be returned. This is official sanction of slavery, and it is immoral.

Originally posted by bbarr
War 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 wh ...[text shortened]... nocent and my attempt to kill the attacker are morally on a par?

Your analogy is false because war doesn't kill a hypothetical about to be murderer; it kills thousands or millions of completely innocent people. Therefore, a war to end "egregious human rights abuses" is a contradiction in terms because mass murder is the most immoral and serious of all human rights abuses. Perhaps you could make a utilitarian defense of such a war IF you could be sure that the deaths caused by the war would be less than the deaths caused by the "egregious human rights abuses"; but it is an undenialable fact of history (including recent history) that wars tend to be far more bloody and difficult than those who choose to start them usually anticipate. And a country at war usually resorts to more repressive measures against its own people justifying all kinds of "human rights abuses" with the refrain "After all, there is a war on!".

The only war which I would say is justified is one that is in self-defense against an immediate threat to a country's own people (who are the ones who's lives you're willing to sacrifice for somebody else's human rights). Since the war in Iraq clearly did not meet these conditions (and would not have even if Iraq had WMD's) it was unjustified and immoral no matter how much of an SOB Saddam was. If the people there were so oppressed, it was there moral responsibility to rebel against him; they seem to have had plenty of guns and are willing to use them now against our kids. And if they were too cowardly to stand up for their own human rights, why should our people pay with their lives to free them from Saddam (assuming that would have been the rationale for Bbarr's war, not GW's)?

Originally posted by no1marauder
Your analogy is false because war doesn't kill a hypothetical about to be murderer; it kills thousands or millions of completely innocent people. Therefore, a war to end "egregious human rights abuses" is a contradiction in terms because mass murder is the most immoral and serious of all human rights abuses. Perhaps you could make a utilitari ...[text shortened]... free them from Saddam (assuming that would have been the rationale for Bbarr's war, not GW's)?

Recall that I'm talking about wars that are interventions. Just as I intervene with deadly force in the example, so a nation intevenes with deadly force when another nation is slaughtering innocents. Just as I am justified in intervening, if I have good reason to believe that only deadly force will suffice to prevent the attempted murder, so a nation is justified if there is good reason to believe that only deadly force will suffice to prevent the mass slaughter.

Now, your criticism of the analogy seems to be this: In my analogy only the would-be murderer is killed, whereas in an international intervention innocents will also die. I take it that you agree that if such interventions only resulted in the deaths of the guilty, such interventions would be justified (correct me if I'm wrong). So, I will modify my example in accord with this criticism:

Suppose I know that a sophisticated bomb has been set in a crowded subway, and the bomb is set to go off in minutes. Suppose I’ve cornered the villain responsible for the bomb to an abandoned room in the subway, and I know that he has taken an innocent hostage. Suppose that all attempts to reason with the villain or dissuade him from his villainy have been unsuccessful, and the only prospect for preventing the detonation of the bomb involves the use of deadly force. Suppose I’ve at my disposal a fully automatic rifle, and that I have good reason to believe that be spraying the abandoned room with bullets, I can prevent the villain from detonating the bomb. Moreover, suppose that a more restrained use of force (e.g., firing a single bullet, breaking down the door to the room, etc.) would allow the bomber sufficient time to detonate the bomb. Unfortunately, I also have good reason to believe that by spraying the room with bullets, I’ll kill not only the villain, but his innocent hostage as well. Now, suppose the bomb, if detonated, will kill hundred of innocents in the subway. Under these circumstances, is it morally permissible for me to spray the room with bullets?

I agree with you that the consequences of international intervention need to be taken into account when determining permissibility. If an intervention would cost tens of thousands of lives, and would result merely in preventing the deaths of hundreds, then such an intervention will probably not be justified. But I see no reason to think that all interventions are unjustified, merely because they will result in the loss of innocent life. When inactivity will also result in the loss of innocent life, it seems arbitrary to favor non-intervention as a matter of principle.

Originally posted by bbarr
How is any of this relevant to what I wrote? I'm claiming that it can make sense to call a policy of a government immoral. It was a policy of the US, during the times of slavery, to allow one person to own another. Where this policy came from is irrelevant. It doesn't matter if it was imported form Europe, the US still enshrined this policy into law. The ...[text shortened]... their "owners" were to be returned. This is official sanction of slavery, and it is immoral.

And I'm claiming that it serves no useful purpose to argue over whether a government policy is moral or immoral. It only wastes time that should be spent in arguing over the functionality of that policy. If slavery is immoral is not the slave as immoral as his master? If I am weak enough to let another man rule me am I not as guilty as he? -Del

Originally posted by bbarr
Sure. Crimes against humanity in general, if undertaken on a large scale by a government against the innocent, may suffice to justify intervention. So, mass murder of citizens, mass rape, mass imprisonment, may all justify intervention, though whether intervention will be justified in any particular case will depend upon the details of that case, the range o ...[text shortened]... ons, etc.

Do you think it is always unjustified to invade a country, even to stop genocide?

Actually I never gave an opinion on what is and isn't justified as
far as invading a country goes.

Originally posted by Delmer
And I'm claiming that it serves no useful purpose to argue over whether a government policy is moral or immoral. It only wastes time that should be spent in arguing over the functionality of that policy. If slavery is immoral is not the sla ...[text shortened]... k enough to let another man rule me am I not as guilty as he? -Del

Well, I think debating the morality of policy may be a useful excercise, and it may motivate people to mobilize for change. I think that Martin Luther King Jr.'s moral arguments against Vietnam and against Jim Crow served a useful purpose, and helped people see clearly what was wrong with US policy (or the policies of individual states, as the case may be), and hence were instrumental in bringing about change.

Also, you ask the following:

If slavery is immoral is not the slave as immoral as his master? If I am weak enough to let another man rule me am I not as guilty as he?

The answer to both these questions is 'no'. By your logic, if a man overpowers me and takes my wallet, then I'm morally culpable for not being strong enough to resist him. This is an absurd conclusion, however, and hence so is the implication of your questions, namely that weakness is some sort of moral failing.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Actually I never gave an opinion on what is and isn't justified as
far as invading a country goes.

Ok, well what is your opinion on these matters?

Originally posted by bbarr
Ok, well what is your opinion on these matters?

🙂 Sorry for the word games, it was difficult to resist after your
response to me earlier. I'll respond to this later. Difficult question,
I'm going to have to think about it. Personally, I hate death and
war causes that in great numbers.

Originally posted by bbarr
Recall that I'm talking about wars that are interventions. Just as I intervene with deadly force in the example, so a nation intevenes with deadly force when another nation is slaughtering innocents. Just as I am justified in intervening, if I have good reason to believe that only deadly force will suffice to prevent the attempted murder, so a nation is jus ...[text shortened]... he loss of innocent life, it seems arbitrary to favor non-intervention as a matter of principle.

I assume by what you just wrote you a adopting a utilitarian defense of "wars of intervention" as you call them i.e. more good for a greater number. Your example requires you to "know" a great deal; has I previously pointed out what the people who choose to go to war "know" is almost always wrong. You also ignore that the adopting of a rationale justifying "wars of intervention" would in reality mean a great increase in the number of wars as there are many countries with tyrants about as bad as Saddam. Thus, one war of intervention would breed many causing millions of deaths. Wouldn't that result overshadow any possible benefit of the one war?

Interventions in other countries' internal affairs are disfavored for many good and compelling reasons; but the most important is that a policy of allowing other countries to be judge, jury and executioner of another land's internal policy would destabilize the entire world system. Isn't there enough strife in the world today without leaders of one country deciding we will invade country X because it's ruled by a tyrant? Do you seriously believe that the adoption of your theory of "wars of intervention" would lead to less deaths of innocent people and do you seriously believe that anyone can calculate the costs of unleashing the horror that is war as easily as you can balance a checkbook? Hasn't history shown us that wars are unpredictable, difficult to end once started and inconducive to a free society? Cmon, BBarr, the costs of adopting a "war of intervention to stop egregious human rights abuses" would far, far outweigh any possible benefits.

If slavery is immoral is not the slave as immoral as his master? If I am weak enough to let another man rule me am I not as guilty as he?

The answer to both these questions is 'no'. By your logic, if a man overpowers me and takes my wallet, then I'm morally culpable for not being strong enough to resist him. This is an absurd conclusion, however, and hence so is the implication of your questions, namely that weakness is some sort of moral failing.
[/b]

Why is it absurd to conclude that weakness is a moral failing? I fail to see how weakness can be a moral strength. If a man overpowers you and takes your wallet because you are not strong enough to resist him is not your weakness a failing on your part? And does not your weakness in being unable to stop him make you in some measure morally responsible for the next person he robs?

Originally posted by Delmer
Why is it absurd to conclude that weakness is a moral failing? I fail to see how weakness can be a moral strength. If a man overpowers you and takes your wallet because you are not strong enough to resist him is not your weakness a failing o ...[text shortened]... u in some measure morally responsible for the next person he robs?

Delmer: "Why is it absurd to conclude that weakness is a moral failing?"

It is not so much absurd as disturbing and worrying. The more after reading your profile. You're telling us you wrote a book on WW II.

Surely you know the Nazi-ideology ?

Originally posted by ianpickering
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!

I was going to say something similar.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
Delmer: "Why is it absurd to conclude that weakness is a moral failing?"

It is not so much absurd as disturbing and worrying. The more after reading your profile. You're telling us you wrote a book on WW II.

Surely you know the Nazi-ideology ?

LOL! Of course I know the Nazi ideology. And if we would not have waged war on the Nazis wouldn't you have considered that weakness a moral failing? I think it would have been absurd to not consider such a weakness a moral failing. My books contain the combat memories of moral American men and women who fought in other countries in WWI, WWII, Korea and Vietnam and they would have considered not fighting a moral failing, a personal weakness.