Senator Kerry, the UN & US Foreign Policy

Originally posted by Delmer
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 ...[text shortened]... have considered not fighting a moral failing, a personal weakness.

We waged war on the Nazis because on December 11, 1941, Germany declared war on us. We didn't enter the war when they invaded Poland, Denmark, Norway, etc. etc. You either don't know your history or have romanicized it into something it was not. And I doubt if many of the man and women who served in WWII would have considered it a "moral failing" not to go to war with Nazi Germany if they hadn't declared war on us. WWI, Korea and Vietnam are even more dubious examples and I doubt if you have any proof to your broad assertion that the people who fought in those wars would have found any moral failing in not getting into any of them.

Originally posted by no1marauder
We waged war on the Nazis because on December 11, 1941, Germany declared war on us. We didn't enter the war when they invaded Poland, Denmark, Norway, etc. etc. You either don't know your history or have romanicized it into something it was not. And I doubt if many of the man and women who served in WWII would have considered it a "moral fa ...[text shortened]... ple who fought in those wars would have found any moral failing in not getting into any of them.

I bow to an expert. Have a good life.

Originally posted by no1marauder
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 justi ...[text shortened]... intervention to stop egregious human rights abuses" would far, far outweigh any possible benefits.

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.

No, I’m not adopting a utilitarian defense. A utilitarian defense would be such that even very minor overall benefits of intervention would justify intervention if there were no other available alternatives that would result in equivalent or greater benefits. My claims are defended on contractualist grounds. I think that from behind a Rawlsian veil of ignorance, rational agents would consent to a political principle allowing nations to intervene in order to stop egregious human rights abuses, when such intervention substantially minimizes harm.

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.

I’m not claiming we ought to go to war when we have woefully inadequate information. Further, I see no reason why our information will, in every case, be woefully inadequate.

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.

I’m not claiming that every tyrant must be removed, nor am I adopting a general principle according to which any human rights abuses on the part of a government suffice to justify intervention. For instance, I doubt that in many cases intervention will actually minimize loss of life. As I mentioned above, if you stand to save hundreds by initiating an intervention that will cost tens of thousands of lives, such intervention probably isn’t justified.

Thus, one war of intervention would breed many causing millions of deaths. Wouldn't that result overshadow any possible benefit of the one war?

I don’t see how this follows from anything I’ve actually claimed here. All I’ve claimed is that there are times when it is justifiable to intervene by invading a nation that is egregiously violating human rights. I see no reason why, for instance, intervening currently in the Sudan would breed many wars “causing millions of deaths”. I don’t see how intervening in Indonesia’s slaughter of the East Timorese would have had these results.

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.

Well, I’m not arguing for such a broad and general principle, so I fail to see how this objection of yours is relevant to my view.

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?

I’ve not claimed that a country’s being ruled by a tyrant is sufficient justification for intervention.

Do you seriously believe that the adoption of your theory of "wars of intervention" would lead to less deaths of innocent people…

Yes.

…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?

No, but I haven’t claimed that calculations need to be precise. I think there are cases where it is clear that loss of life will be minimized by intervention.

Hasn't history shown us that wars are unpredictable, difficult to end once started and inconducive to a free society?

Sure, but the data set from which this inductive generalization is drawn consist primarily of wars of aggression, where the aim is not humanitarian relief, but rather the procuring of a nation’s resources.

Cmon, BBarr, the costs of adopting a "war of intervention to stop egregious human rights abuses" would far, far outweigh any possible benefits.

Well, since almost all your arguments seem to be aimed at a position I’m not actually defending, it’s hard to know how to respond. Suffice it to say that I disagree with this conclusion, and I’m having a hard time teasing out of your analysis any objections to the view I actually hold.

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?

It is absurd because people can only be held responsible for things over which they have control. It would be absurd for me to claim that you had an obligation to violate a law of physics, for instance. Similarly, it would be absurd for holding me responsible for being mugged, merely because I couldn't overcome my attacker. By your logic, a woman overpowered by a large man and raped would be as morally culpable for her rape as her rapist, merely because she couldn't fight off her rapist. By your logic, if I'm shot in a drive-by shooting while I'm walking down the street, I'm as morally culpable as the fellow who pulls the trigger. These examples suffice as reductios of your claim, your protestations to the contrary notwithstanding. While I'm a fan of personal responsibility as much as the next guy, and I think that our nature as autonomous agents is at the core of the correct ethical theory, I think you've turned respect for personal responsibility into something like a cult of personal responsibility. I agree that we should develop our talents, look out for ourselves and our loved ones and others unknown to us, not be foolish in our personal decisions, and so on. But to claim that in all cases being victimized by another entails a share of moral culpability succumbs so easily to counter-example that I'm baffled why you ever found such a claim plausible.

Originally posted by bbarr
[b]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.

No, I’m not adopting a utilitarian defense. A utilitarian defense would be such that even very minor overall benefits of intervention would justify intervention if there were no other available altern ...[text shortened]... ’m having a hard time teasing out of your analysis any objections to the view I actually hold.
[/b]

You said that an invasion of Iraq would have been justified because Saddam was committed egregious human rights abuses. Let's make that proposition A. I said that there are many leaders of countries who are about as bad as Saddam in this respect. Proposition B. If A and B are both true, then it flows from A that an invasion of these other countries would be justified, too. You've added an IF concerning what the costs v. benefits would be, but you've given no criteria for making that cost-benefit analysis. You also blandly say that the decision makers for war will have adequate information, but that simply ignores history: they always think they have good enough information to gauge what will happen in the war, but they're almost always wrong in assessing the duration and costs of the war.

I perfectly aware of what your position is, but I think you have failed to adequately consider all the ramifications of it. My objection to your view is quite simple: I believe that the military of a country is for that country's defense not for repairing failed social systems in other countries at the expense of thousands or millions of lives. Does that "tease" out of my analysis my objections to your view sufficiently?

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

Difficult questions, as I see it;

Wars: What if anything can make one just?

1. To be attacked, a just response would be to declare war,
as a response and fight.

2. Almost everything else is a slippery slope in my opinion.

Righting wrongs being done sets one up as a police force with
ideas of right and wrong being forced upon other nations
and cultures. So if other nations disagree with the nations
that believes themselves the righter of all wrongs, do they now
have to think war will soon come upon them? Wouldn't that be
the reality of that slope, because no one knows where the
righteous lines are drawn by the one that has taken it upon
themselves to say what is just or not?

If one thought they were being attacked even if the other country
was not using conventional means of attack like it's armies, does
this fit point 1? Terrorism as it goes strikes at the heart of the
country being hit, and if it is discovered that another nation is
doing the training, supplying the money, hiding the leadership
of terrorist can we say they are an aggressive nation that has
indeed attacked another? I believe I would say they have indeed
fallen within my first response, and defending one's self would be
a proper and just response.

Do I think Iraq fit responce nr 1? No, I do not, but I am willing
to say that the world believed it to be true at one time. The
trouble is that no one could prove it, making it more of a
slippery slope war than anything else. The government has tried
to put a good face on the struggle, and now that it has begun
it must been seen through to the point where Iraq can stand on
it's own two feet. What they want, how they behave after we leave
is up them not us. If we try to pull strings, than even our
govenment's happy face will be shown to be a lie.
Kelly

Originally posted by no1marauder
You said that an invasion of Iraq would have been justified because Saddam was committed egregious human rights abuses. Let's make that proposition A. I said that there are many leaders of countries who are about as bad as Saddam in this respect. Proposition B. If A and B are both true, then it flows from A that an invasion of these other coun ...[text shortened]... llions of lives. Does that "tease" out of my analysis my objections to your view sufficiently?

You said that an invasion of Iraq would have been justified because Saddam was committed egregious human rights abuses. Let's make that proposition A.

Well, that's not quite what I've said. Please refer back to my earlier posts, specifically those in response to questions posed by RoyalChicken and KellyJay.

I said that there are many leaders of countries who are about as bad as Saddam in this respect. Proposition B.

Like whom?

If A and B are both true, then it flows from A that an invasion of these other countries would be justified, too.

This doesn’t follow, unless you’re using some non-standard logic or have adopted some axiom of which I’m not aware. As I said before, I’m not defending any such general principle. The justifiability of invasion may depend on factors other than the mere fact that a country is tyrannical. As I’ve said before, in response to questions, it may be the case that invasion wouldn’t be worth the costs. It may be worth the cost, however, depending on the circumstances.

You've added an IF concerning what the costs v. benefits would be, but you've given no criteria for making that cost-benefit analysis.

Sure I have, please refer to my earlier posts. I haven’t given necessary and sufficient conditions, but I see no reason why this is necessary.

You also blandly say that the decision makers for war will have adequate information, but that simply ignores history: they always think they have good enough information to gauge what will happen in the war, but they're almost always wrong in assessing the duration and costs of the war.

Actually, I didn’t claim that they will have adequate information, I claimed that there is not reason to think they will never have adequate information. This is a substantially different claim, and I can only assume you missed this obvious difference because you're skimming my posts.

I perfectly aware of what your position is, but I think you have failed to adequately consider all the ramifications of it.

What a strange claim, since you keep misrepresenting my position.

My objection to your view is quite simple: I believe that the military of a country is for that country's defense not for repairing failed social systems in other countries at the expense of thousands or millions of lives. Does that "tease" out of my analysis my objections to your view sufficiently?

No, it does not, and this isn’t an objection to the view I’ve presented here. This is an objection to some phantom view you’re attributing to me.

Originally posted by bbarr
[b]You said that an invasion of Iraq would have been justified because Saddam was committed egregious human rights abuses. Let's make that proposition A.

Well, that's not quite what I've said. Please refer back to my earlier posts, specifically those in response to questions posed by RoyalChicken and KellyJay.

I said that there are many leade ...[text shortened]... view I’ve presented here. This is an objection to some phantom view you’re attributing to me.

You seem to be misrepresenting your original position, not me: Here, verbatim, is your orinial exchange with Royal Chicken:

Royal Chicken: Do you believe that military action by the USA against Iraq was justifiable on the basis of Hussein's crimes?


BBarr: 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.

How is my proposition A "not quite what you've said"?

I'd prefer not to get sidetracked into a discussion about the degree of tyranny by certain world leaders, but human rights groups would say that's the present leadership of North Korea, Myanmar, Equatorial Guinea, Turkmenistan and others (including perhaps Iran and Saudi Arabia) were roughly comparable in their violations of the human rights of their own people, putting aside Saddam's actions in repressing the major Kurd and Shiite rebellions in the late 1980's and 1991 (as those happened at least 13 years ago I assume you're not arguing those justified an invasion in 2003).

If what you are saying is every decision must be made ad hoc, without any but the vaguest controlling principles ("we should stop human rights abuses&quot😉, then I guess I have been arguing with the wrong thing; I also probably gave you too much credit as I thought you were stating some kind of general principle for future action to be guided by instead of things that "may be" worth doing "depending on the circumstances". I regard such a view as a platitude, not a principle.
As war is a great evil, you should give "necessary and sufficient" conditions in advance before you blithely advocate a course of action that will cause thousands or millions of people to die who have no interest in another country's internal matters.

I understand your claim that they COULD have adequate information; what I'm saying is there are systemic problems which seem to insure that the decisionmakers will overrate both the quality of information and their military's ability to win a quick, "cheap" war. This is certainly what history teaches us and if you think differently you've been "skimming" the history books.

So does that "tease" out of my analysis my objections to your view sufficiently?

Originally posted by Delmer
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.

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 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? "

My question was: " Surely you know the Nazi-ideology ?"

Maybe I should have been a little more to the point. My question wasn't meant to mean: "Have you ever heard of the Nazi ideology", but rather: "Do you know what the Nazi ideology entails, what it stands for, what it teaches ?

If you mean by your statement, the one I started my post with, that we have a moral obligation to try and stop injustice I completely agree with you on that. I even want to agree with you that it is a moral failure if we REFUSE to do something about it. However I cannot agree with you on your general statement that "weakness is a moral failing".

I have the impression we are having some misunderstandings here. Could you elaborate on this please ?

Originally posted by no1marauder
You seem to be misrepresenting your original position, not me: Here, verbatim, is your orinial exchange with Royal Chicken:

Royal Chicken: Do you believe that military action by the USA against Iraq was justifiable on the basis ...[text shortened]... ease" out of my analysis my objections to your view sufficiently?

You seem to be misrepresenting your original position, not me: Here, verbatim, is your original exchange with Royal Chicken:

Royal Chicken: Do you believe that military action by the USA against Iraq was justifiable on the basis of Hussein's crimes?

BBarr: 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.

How is my proposition A "not quite what you've said"?

This was your proposition A:

An invasion of Iraq would have been justified because Saddam was committed (sic) egregious human rights abuses.

Now, I wasn’t initially sure of how to understand “was committed” in your proposition A. I assumed you meant “has committed” or “was committing”. In either case, your proposition A asserts a single factor sufficient for the justifiability of invasion, either Saddam’s previous crimes or the crimes he was committing just prior to invasion, depending on how we interpret “was committed”. In my response to Royal Chicken, I mentioned more than one factor. In fact, I mentioned four factors: 1) Saddam’s past egregious human rights abuses, 2) Saddam’s human rights abuses occurring just prior to invasion, 3) Saddam’s likely future egregious human rights abuses, and 4) the likelihood that such abuses would continue even after Saddam himself was no longer in power, in virtue of his sons’ likely succession. Now, since proposition A points out a single factor, and my response to Royal Chicken above points out four, how do you figure they are equivalent? Sounds like some “fuzzy math” on your part. Further, these are not the only factors I’ve mentioned in this thread that I think would serve a justificatory role in an invasion. For instance, I’ve claimed that a necessary condition for the justifiability of intervention is the exhaustion of diplomatic alternatives. By “diplomatic” I mean non-violent negotiations, though I’m also inclined to think that non-violent economic coercion (e.g., sanctions) would be preferable to invasions unless there is good reason to believe that such sanctions would be worse than invasion, as was the case in Iraq, where a decade of sanctions resulted in the deaths of roughly half a million children.

Note, I also mentioned in my response to Royal Chicken that these factors serve to justify an invasion by some military power or other, preferably a broad international coalition. So, contrary to your ridiculous straw man construction, I’m not claiming that a general principle allowing one country to act as “judge, jury and executioner” is justified.

I'd prefer not to get sidetracked into a discussion about the degree of tyranny by certain world leaders, but human rights groups would say that's the present leadership of North Korea, Myanmar, Equatorial Guinea, Turkmenistan and others (including perhaps Iran and Saudi Arabia) were roughly comparable in their violations of the human rights of their own people, putting aside Saddam's actions in repressing the major Kurd and Shiite rebellions in the late 1980's and 1991 (as those happened at least 13 years ago I assume you're not arguing those justified an invasion in 2003).

Well, if we are to evaluate your claim that my view would lead to widespread intervention, then we must determine to what extent intervention would be justifiable in countries like those you mention above, and hence we will need to discuss the extent to which they currently commit egregious human rights abuses, whether these abuses are likely to continue, whether there are diplomatic or non-violent coercive measures that would suffice to substantially preclude such abuses, whether intervention would be more damaging to the citizenry of such countries than would non-intervention, and so on. Of course, if you would prefer to continue to merely make unsubstantiated assertions concerning the harm that would result from the adoption of my view, then that is up to you.

If what you are saying is every decision must be made ad hoc, without any but the vaguest controlling principles ("we should stop human rights abuses", then I guess I have been arguing with the wrong thing; I also probably gave you too much credit as I thought you were stating some kind of general principle for future action to be guided by instead of things that "may be" worth doing "depending on the circumstances". I regard such a view as a platitude, not a principle.

Why do you think that because a decision making process is sensitive to context and consequences, that it is ad hoc? I didn’t expect you to be prone to making such silly inferences. Anyway, I’ve outlined in these posts the types of considerations relevant in determining whether intervention is justifiable in a particular case. You seem to want necessary and sufficient conditions for determining when invasion is justified; you want decision making algorithm, rather than a decision making process. If so, then I think your view on these issues is simplistic to the point of naiveté, and I would urge you to reexamine your position.

As war is a great evil, you should give "necessary and sufficient" conditions in advance before you blithely advocate a course of action that will cause thousands or millions of people to die who have no interest in another country's internal matters.

Well, I don’t agree that all wars are necessarily evil, as I mentioned before. I think wars of aggression are evil, but I don’t think that wars of humanitarian intervention need be evil. While I agree that all wars will involve loss of life, I think there are times when such losses are necessary to prevent substantially greater harms. Further, it is impossible to give necessary and sufficient conditions for the obtaining of even relatively simple properties (e.g., the property of being a chair, for instance). Demanding necessary and sufficient conditions indicates that you don’t really know what necessary and sufficient conditions are. I’ll tell you what, if you can provide necessary and sufficient conditions for ‘chair’, I’ll try and provide necessary and sufficient conditions for ‘justifiable war of intervention’. I’ve provided a set of considerations applicable to determining whether intervention on humanitarian grounds is justifiable. If you persist in demanding a definition, then we might as well stop now, since that indicates that your views on these matters are simplistic to the point of naiveté.

I understand your claim that they COULD have adequate information; what I'm saying is there are systemic problems which seem to insure that the decisionmakers will overrate both the quality of information and their military's ability to win a quick, "cheap" war. This is certainly what history teaches us and if you think differently you've been "skimming" the history books.

Ok, but this wasn’t what you said before. Now, if you think there are such systemic problems, then what are they? What are these systemic problems that in every circumstance, past and present, have insured that decision maker will have faulty information? Remember, in order for this objection of yours to have any force, you must show that these systemic problems are such that even in cases like East Timor, Rwanda, and Sudan, there is no good reason to think that intervention for humanitarian reasons will actually minimize harm. You are pushing for epistemic skepticism regarding our ability to determine the direct costs of intervention, but you haven’t provided any evidence for such a claim, you’ve merely asserted it. Since reality doesn’t shape itself in accord with your edicts, however, I’ve no reason to think your claims here are actually true. What are these problems, what is the evidence for their nature as systemic and unfixable, what is the evidence that these problems will lead not only to imprecision in our estimates, but completely vitiate any attempt to determine whether intervention will result in more harm than non-intervention? You haven’t even addressed these questions, of course, and I doubt you will. You’d prefer, I’m sure, to continue to skim my posts, construct straw men positions, advance ‘arguments’ (in the loosest sense of the term) without providing and justification for your claims, resort to nebulous appeals to ‘history’, ignore any of the actual examples I bring up, and, in short, debate like a typical two-bit lawyer.

So does that "tease" out of my analysis my objections to your view sufficiently?

You call that ‘analysis’? Get thee back to the drawing board!

Originally posted by bbarr
[b]You seem to be misrepresenting your original position, not me: Here, verbatim, is your original exchange with Royal Chicken:

Royal Chicken: Do you believe that military action by the USA against Iraq was justifiable on the basis of Hussein's crimes?

BBarr: Not solely on that basis, but also because he was continuing to engage in e ...[text shortened]... your view sufficiently?[/b]

You call that ‘analysis’? Get thee back to the drawing board!
[/b]

If you want to have a serious discussion of the matter, you should refrain from petty insults. Should that eventuality never happen, by all means keep agitating for war as a solution to the killing of people, a "burn the village to save it" attitude and keep ignoring the facts regarding the duration and costs of wars as opposed to what the people who started them believed would happen (heard of WWI). I'll withdraw now because I prefer not to dignify low class tactics like personal insults in a serious discussion about a matter of grave importance. Post again when you grow up.

Originally posted by no1marauder
If you want to have a serious discussion of the matter, you should refrain from petty insults. Should that eventuality never happen, by all means keep agitating for war as a solution to the killing of people, a "burn the village to save it" attitude and keep ignoring the facts regarding the duration and costs of wars as opposed to what the peo ...[text shortened]... insults in a serious discussion about a matter of grave importance. Post again when you grow up.

In this thread alone, you've claimed that previously you were giving me "too much credit", that my claims were "bland" and "platitudinous", that my claims are "blithely" advanced, that if I disagree with your historical claims, then I'm "skimming the history books", etc. Both the content of your posts and their tone has become increasingly aggressive, and while misrepresenting my views you simultaneously avoid addressing any of my obections to your claims, or my calls for clarification. You seem to think that I'm on the witness stand here, and that you may cross-examine me as you see fit, whithout extending me the courtesy of reading my posts closely, nor with responding to my counter-obections, nor remaining civil in tone. If this is how you prefer to "debate", then I want no part of it. I'd love to continue this debate in the amicable spirit in which it started, but it takes two to debate that way, and you need to examine whether you are interested in debating or merely attacking. If the former, then please respond to the substance of my earlier posts, if the latter, then good day to you.

Originally posted by Exy
[b]lib·er·al adj

* Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.

* Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas a ...[text shortened]... huge difference in the meaning of that word across the Atlantic?[/b]

Sounds good in theory; however, practice it is a drain on everyone
in my opinion.

1. For one free from bigotry isn't true, the names as to who is disliked
change, but the bigotry is still there. Human nature and all that!
2. Closer to a true description in my opinion would be undermining
established, traditional, orthodox, and authoritarian attitudes,
views, and dogmas is a better description. There are fewer and
fewer things people are loyal too, not God, not country, and
all authority is questioned creating a foundationless country. It
becomes more of me, me, me society in practice. The only true
loyalty is to one’s own self.
3. Tolerant, again goes with bigotry sounds good but isn't true. The
mindset is more of a tolerant of those that agree with me, than
those that do not. Tolerant of those that accept me, not those that
'feelings' may dislike me, or as bad those who I might think dislike
me.

This is my opinion, like you I have them too. I believe that no society
will flourish under those conditions. The ideals the way you describe
them sound good on the surface, but in practice I have not seen it.
I'm in sunny California where the liberals have been in power for some
time and they have driven this place into the ground by giving in and
giving to anyone and everyone anything they can. It will not support
itself. There will come a point where people will be required to adopt
conservative values when it comes to money and personal
responsibility or bankruptcy will surely come.
Kelly