Less than the existing damage? It’s so simple, and you still couldn’t manage to say that?
War, which you are talking about, involves indiscriminate killing to some degree " it’s impossible to avoid, most anywhere, but especially in an city setting.
It makes perfect sense " if you cared, you’d find out how many people the US (and the other nations involved) has killed. But you couldn’t care enough to find out (make sense now, having used ‘care’ in this last sentence?)
In tying war to being the method of 'humanitarian intervention' you make it one and the same question. It's a bit ridiculous to say that the method of your intervention has no bearing on whether you 'intervene' or not....for eg. if the intervention was economic with conditions tied...that is a lot easier to justify than a military invasion.
Nor was it a necessary last resort even if the Saddam did have WMD's.
So I'm not sure whether the populace support for the United States was even there to begin with.
I have a question for you:
Take a case of genocide. We'll use Rwanda as an example.
The ruling Hutu's (A) are systematically slaughtering the Tutsi (B) population.
Country (C), lets say Canada intervenes to help (B), in self defense. But (A) now thinks they are under attack.
Does (A) have a right to self defense against (C)? Or is self defense only limited to those who have done no wrong to begin with?
Someone try and explain to me what "less than existing damage " even means. Seriously dude, be more clear about what you arguing. You have the clarity of a 6 year old.
Is it impossible to avoid? Says who? Isn't it entirely possible to have a military that discriminates between targets? Doesn't the US already do that (albeit poorly)
It makes perfect sense " if you cared, you’d find out how many people the US (and the other nations involved) has killed. But you couldn’t care enough to find out (make sense now, having used ‘care’ in this last sentence?)
Again, you make no argument whatsoever. If the actual statistic is so relevant to your argument, LOGICALLY THEN, you should be citing the statistic and presenting an argument on why such evidence is important.
But of course you do not, because you clearly have no concept of what an argument even is.
But if clear conditions are laid out for what constitutes just conduct for war, and these conditions are accepted not only as moral, but rational, then who is to say war is necessarily indiscriminate?
Your the dumbass who keeps assuming war simply just is
You want to save people from being murdered in other countries, right? That = your humanitarian cause? So you would want to cause less deaths to innocent civilians than the deaths that are occurring to innocent civilians already in that country.
It's impossible to prefectly target the enemy or to perfectly identify the enemy. To say otherwise just shows ignorance.
I'm getting the feeling that you've never stepped outside of your computerroom - your writing shows an incredibly naievity to the ugliness of war, and in regards to the justifications for war - the ease of manipulation of people.
That you cannot even see how the number of deaths you will cause is relevant to the decision to make a humanitarian intervention is sad. That you don't give care about the number of people the US is killing is also sad. You obviously have no idea of the numbers. It's one of the reasons it was so easy for the US to use the 'he's a mass murderer' tag to help justify the war - when, up to the invasion, the US had contributed to hundreds of thousands more deaths in Iraq than Saddam had directly ordered murdered.
To be even more clear about it, when determining the consequences of war, you want the relevant benefits to be proportional to the relevant harms.
So, how is that not possible?
To claim perfect conduct is a fairly demanding standard to impose on morality. If everyone had to be morally perfect, that is one ought to be morally perfect, that in itself shows a naiveness about morality. Obviously you do what you can, all things considered.
Of course, everything should be done to restrict innocent non combatant deaths, and also the intentional targeting of innocent civilians. The more restrictive the better.
However, a perfect standard is itself a impractical notion. By your logic, allied intervention into the war should is unjustified because the war was not perfectly conducted. That is crazy.
Me naive? What about my example of war crimes? Is that not a legitimate and practical constraint placed on war?
I know where you are going with this, though it is again poorly argued. You are saying, "we can not know the consequences of war ahead of time" and therefore, we have no sound reason to argue for resorting to war, given that we can not know the consequences."
So I'm not claiming it is a just war at all, why keep trying to use it as a counter example? It just demonstrates illogical reasoning when you do.
I'm amazed, but now telling myself I shouldn't be surprised (seeing as you've given previous examples in this thread), that you can't follow conversations...I place a quote of the conversation thread directly before my comment....my comment was related to indiscriminate killing. You know...the stuff you say doesn’t happen.
What is your point? If an act of war involves indiscriminate targeting, I do not say it is morally justified. Intentionally targeting civilians is exactly the thing that should not be done in war. However, maybe sometimes it will be necessary to target a civilian.
I shouldn't be surprised (seeing as you've given previous examples in this thread), that you can't follow conversations...
Perhaps we should just use the word 'collateral damage' to refer to all the civilians killed...for you seem to be having trouble with the word 'indiscriminate'. But instead of using collateral damage, how about we use a more honest phrase, and keep saying 'the civilians killed' - it's only one word longer.
War crimes? I've noticed that the trials are set by the victors. According to the ‘rules of war’ (set down after world war 2), do you know how many thousand Brittish and Amercian aviators (together with their commanders) should have been tried for war crimes for carpet bombing in WW2? Not a one of them were. The Nuremberg defense would have worked against them too.
Lol, you know...you say you see where this is going, but you just don’t get it " you don’t give a damn, and neither does 90% of the population, or they’d be able to answer the question. From the current wars, you can’t learn a lesson of one of the outcomes of because you don’t know, and don’t want to know. You’re happy to keep your head in the sand saying ‘of course there’ll be less deaths than is already occurring there’.
most people in the US thought it was a just war when it started.
just because one person thinks it isn't a just war is not the point of such a theory in a democracy : it has to be most people who think it's a just war (see above point)
because the amount you care about the Iraq war will be a reflection of the amount you care about a ‘just’ war. If you don’t care about deaths in Iraq, you won’t care about deaths elsewhere.
As far as your Iraq example goes, of course I care. Many people suffered as a result of that war, Iraqi AND American. That war was completely unjustifiable. First, it lacked a justifiable cause to begin with. Second, the conduct of the war itself is, as you point out, unjustifiable. The Iraq invasion is an unjust war, in my opinion, and it shouldn't have been conducted
if you don't know the numbers in Iraq, you won't learn a lesson from the possible to probable amount of deaths in countries you decide to invade...so your future decisions are more likely to be flawed.
if you don't give a damned about the number of deaths you are causing - you shouldn't ever be placed in a position where you can make such a decision of whether or not to 'intervene' (pseudonym for 'invade')
But there is a significant moral difference between intentionally killing citizens and unintentionally killing civilians. Indiscriminate and discriminate targeting is dependent on this distinction. This is a substantive difference that can not be morally ignored.
Iraq civilian body count: 94,544 " 103,160
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/ (we'll assume it is a reasonable estimate)
I am quite aware of the death count in Iraq of only civilian deaths.
But the point is, even if some acts happen, it does not necessarily follow that the overall effects of the war are unjustified. In principle it is possible, and that is all I am arguing for.
just because one person thinks it isn't a just war is not the point of such a theory in a democracy : it has to be most people who think it's a just war (see above point)
Again, appeal to majority. Just because a majority may think a war is justified, does not objectively entail that it is. The US Iraq invasion being a prime example.
My point is, your "perfect standard" is false and objectionable, if my domestic analogy follows. Common sense tells us it does.
Wars of self defence are entirely justified. You’re argument is based on all circumstances " my initial reply was to do with ‘humanitarian intervention’ 'justificaton' - to which you replied...and to which all my subsequent replies have been directed.
This is why I will say again " you live a very sheltered life. You think I ‘appeal to majority’ without understanding that I am simply quoting facts that show how your ‘theory’ would be practically applied in a democracy.
And the Iraqi dedacle also show’s how your ‘theory’ can be so easily manipulated.
Until you understand that your ‘theory’ in practical application is easily manipulated, you too will be open to easy manipulation at some point in time. Apparently you are happy to put yourself in that situation.
Hmmm...I have been pointing out the flaws because it shows how impossible it is to be perfect...that you interpret this as then requiring a perfect standard is your own erroneous assumption.
That you are now acknowledging that civilians do get killed accidentally...which is a good thing to acknowledge. You are also acknowledging with a stat Iraqi deaths, which is a good thing...but doesn’t go further to acknowledge indirect deaths (which amount to many, many more than the stats you quoted) " which displays some either ignorance or lack of compassion (you can figure which one)
which displays some either ignorance or lack of compassion (you can figure which one)
As far as your Iraq example goes, of course I care. Many people suffered as a result of that war, Iraqi AND American. That war was completely unjustifiable. First, it lacked a justifiable cause to begin with. Second, the conduct of the war itself is, as you point out, unjustifiable. The Iraq invasion is an unjust war, in my opinion, and it shouldn't have been conducted.
I will only point out now the most obvious mistakes to your reply, since the majority of your response is just reaching towards desperation:
Again, straw man. Not once do I say all war is justified. Fallacy.
Wars of self defence are entirely justified. You’re argument is based on all circumstances. my initial reply was to do with ‘humanitarian intervention’ 'justificaton' - to which you replied...and to which all my subsequent replies have been directed.
For one, you are begging the question. You don't even know how just war theory has been properly applied in practice. Why? Let's look favorite counter example. If the US had properly applied Just War Theory, the test to invade Iraq would have failed. It would have failed the last resort condition. It would also have failed the just cause condition. So you do not know, you are only guessing. That is quite a bit different than knowing.
Assuming theAmerican government easily manipulates it's citizens
and coerces its citizens, does not mean the theory itself is incoherent or false.
I questioned the legitimacy of the war from the get go based on Just War Theory. I have stated that already in this thread. I was not manipulated by the 'apparent justification' of the US government.
So it is impossible to be perfectly moral? Agreed. So how does that show I am somehow in principle wrong? I never once say a war has to be conducted perfectly in order to be just. It is a ludicrous position to hold.
I'm neither in-compassionate nor ignorant.
Your argument is based on all circumstances " in all circumstances some are justified and some aren’t. Obviously the second half of my reply was stating that while your topic is generalised (covers a wide range of different justifications), I was talking about just one of your specific justifications.
Where did I say ‘you argument is that all circumstances are justified?
I will say again " believing that everyone will abide by your ‘just war theory’ is niaive in the extreme - and in many potential wars your ‘Just War’ theory can and will be used to manipulate public opinion to take on selective wars (usually where the is an economic benefit).
Laws have been made up for years, and still lawyers and judges find new ways to interpret and apply them. What makes you think that your 'just war' theory will be any different?
What about the information limitations when deciding what is a 'just war'. The CIA has proved time and time again that it can't get intelligence accurate. What about perceptual limitations? This particular beauty is used by politicians to twist stats/facts to say almost anything they want the stats/facts to say. How are you going to know that the information you are receiving from the governnment in relation to something that meets your 'just war criteria' is accurate, and not made up by the government? (who will aftwards blame their intelligence agencies)?
On a related but different tact to your moral standards : In fact, the US did apply a ‘Just War’ theory...which is why so many people believed it was just. That it didn't meet your standards of 'justness' is irrelevant, for it hasn't yet been decided that you are the moral superior of the majority of Americans...and most believed it morally just....
The government went out of it’s way to convince people of the justness of the invasion....and people believed in it (That you want to apply different standards, doesn't mean those standards are right, or would be relevant to all circumstances). The govt also applied demonisation theory (or whatever it’s called " it happens before every war), which is why so many people believed they were on the side of good, and were in the right to invade.
And that specific justification was the case of humanitarian intervention right? And on that point you have already conceded that self defense is a justifiable cause, which is exactly what the function of a humanitarian intervention is. Thanks.
It is easy to mis interpret you because your arguments lack cogency and clarity. That is not my fault.
You are making a fallacious hasty generalization. You are arguing based on current social norms that Just War Theory can be easily manipulated.
In science, any accepted empirical fact has undergone intense scrutiny. Any information I would accept for a just cause for war should undergo the same scrutiny.
But you have no idea how things will actually be, s o again you are begging the question.
Further, your "practical considerations" have no showed in principle why under these conditions, Just War Theory would be so easily manipulated.
Laws have been made up for years, and still lawyers and judges find new ways to interpret and apply them. What makes you think that your 'just war' theory will be any different?
The legality of war and the morality of war are 2 different things.
Further, you are making another hasty generalization. If in Canada, where I live, the Harper Government hypothetically argued that we need to attack Iran, I highly doubt Canadian citizens would accept any such justification without scrutinized facts.
Second, "the majority" justifies nothing. That is the appeal to majority fallacy.
The US 'reasons' or 'justifcations' failed the Just War Theory test because they were not true to begin with. You are skipping that point altogether.
You'll have to find another reason why the decision to invade Iraq doesn't meet your 'just war' theory.
Self defense is quite different to humanitarian intervention.
Truly? Where do you get this misinterpretation
This is hilarious " you don’t think the CIA (or any other intel service) tries to verify it’s information? Dude, you are living in a dreamland. You may as well shut it down and do without any intelligence services.
Human nature doesn’t change particularly much, though knowledge and morals may. The world (in general) always has, and always will, revolve around power.
Duh, Iraq, and the bible are two prime examples. Just remember, though I’ve said it before...your belief in what constitutes just war, may not be what others believe is just war...and you are yet to show that you are anyone’s moral superior. Considering the name calling you feel you have to resort to, I would say that you are far from that.
You can’t followthis through to it’s logical conclusion? Your ‘just war’ theory would have to be codified " like a law. And apart from strange interpretations by lawyers and judges of laws - you haven’t ever heard of how the bible has been misinterpreted for use in wars?
Suit yourself. I doubt they’d necessarily have the accurate and verified information to do so (you do want scientificly tested information to back your position, don't you?...wonder where you'd get it from..), and I also highly doubt that the majority of them would care enough to look past the newspapers and TV (which is the governments strongest form of mass manipulation).
Is that your point? Hindsight is a wonderful, wonderful thing isn’t it? How many mistakes wouldn’t be made if we had knowledge of the future at the time we needed to make a decision?
No, at the time of making the decision to go to war, your
""The US 'reasons' or 'justifcations' failed the Just War Theory test because they were not true to begin with"", Is an argument based on an impossibility " knowledge of the future.
You'll have to find another reason why Iraq doesn't meet your 'just war' theory.
Humanitarian intervention in the case of war is synonymous with self defense.
Because you continually reference supposed social norms regarding the easy justification of war, and only one particular case, and then claim that is the universal standard. For example, that people are easily manipulated by their government.
In science, any accepted empirical fact has undergone intense scrutiny. Any information I would accept for a just cause for war should undergo the same scrutiny.
This is hilarious " you don’t think the CIA (or any other intel service) tries to verify it’s information? Dude, you are living in a dreamland. You may as well shut it down and do without any intelligence services.
The whole point of counter intelligence its to verify the information it gets That is why certain types of intel are stronger than others. Now I'm not saying the CIA is a institution I wholeheartedly accept, but you are at the very least wrong about one basic fact.
Is it not entirely possible that just war theory could have the same impact on war, considering it's grave consequences (analogous to slavery)? Shouldn't it be entirely possible that those in power can not use war for their own self interested gain? Isn't that the entire point about laying out just conditions for war?
because it has already been shown that slavery violates the fundamental human rights to self determination and autonomy
So short sighted. Law is codified BASED on accepted moral norms. But that does not mean law and morality are one and the same. We could have quite a different conception of morality and quite a different legal system in some cases. Please do not talk about legal jurisprudence until you have done some reading relevant to the topic. It just displays ignorance.
Do you even know what an analogy is? Scrutiny is the relevant similarity I had in mind, which I clearly stated.
As far as media manipulation goes: another hasty generalization. Why should I accept it as true without proper scrutiny? I sure as heck do not as do a majority of people in Canada.
The decision was not made in hindsight, it was made leading up to the outbreak of the war. The US failed the test because it did not provide sufficient justification e.g. evidence for the existence of WMD's. Instead there was a lot of rhetoric about the topic by the Bush administration and the US news media.
You've only indirectly supported what I have been saying all along, if there isn't sufficient proof, why should it constitute a just cause? That lack of knowledge is itself more reason to be skeptical.
I shouldn't be surprised that you would miss that.
Says who? In your analogy,you’ve boiled down the countries down to the wrong common entity. It is if A attack A, then B can attack A...which shows not just how silly the analogy is, but how silly the claim that is that it is synonymous with self defense.
If B goes to help A, it is not self defense, it is Invasion.
In your analogy you also want to boil a stew down to water, ignoring it’s ingredients...you try to reduce a populace to a single entity " it’s not...it is a complex, varied, culturally/politically/relgiously different society.
