11
   

Is War Justifiable?

 
 
bigstew
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Dec, 2009 09:26 pm
@vikorr,
vikkor wrote:

Less than the existing damage? It’s so simple, and you still couldn’t manage to say that?


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.

vikkor wrote:
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.


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)? Of course intentionally targeting hospitals with artillery fire etc. is morally repugnant. You seem to think it is necessary. How so?


Further, wouldn't fighting a war that did not target hospitals be the just way of conducting a war?

You may think that it is an practical impossibility. How so?

vikkor wrote:
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.

vikkor wrote:
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.


Jesus, it is like going around in circles with you.

1. the point of this argument is whether the resort to war is justifiable or not.

-I argue war is justifiable, based on certain causes e.g. humanitarian intervention in the case of genocide.

2. For the conduct of war to be justifiable, it has to meet certain conditions:

You seem to think this is impossible, I argue that in principle it is both possible, and something we morally ought to do.

You keep referencing the US military, so Ill use them to illustrate my point.

As they stand now, the US is not a good example of just conduct. Asymmetric warfare is not only indiscriminate, but devastating to civilian populations. 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, and always will be. Read some history dude, as war has historically progressed, it has always undergone changes in relation to moral constraints being placed on it.

1 OBVIOUS example:

War Crimes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crimes

War can't be totally indiscriminate right? Or else you get charged for war crimes. My point is that "constraints on war" is not a static notion.

How can you possibly not understand that?

As far as the "populace support" issue goes, here is what I say:

bigstew wrote:

Nor was it a necessary last resort even if the Saddam did have WMD's.

Pretty clear statement. I argue that the invasion into Iraq was not a necessary last resort. Alternatives like diplomacy could have been further pursued. Therefore, the US had no just cause to goto war.

bigstew wrote:

So I'm not sure whether the populace support for the United States was even there to begin with.


I am referring to Iraqi support.

So whats your point?


bigstew
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Dec, 2009 09:43 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
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?
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Dec, 2009 02:43 am
@bigstew,
bigstew wrote:

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?

In your scenario, Canada woud have to EXPECT
to be engaged by any military force that it has engaged.

If u fire upon them, u have to expect them to return fire.
I think that 's obvious.





David
bigstew
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Dec, 2009 02:59 am
@OmSigDAVID,
yeah it is.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Dec, 2009 03:32 am
@bigstew,
Welcome to the forum.

I hope that u 'll find it enjoyable.
U might consider writing up a self-descriptive profile
with your interests, preferences n aversions.

(Note that I am crusading for fonetic spelling.)





David
0 Replies
 
vikorr
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Dec, 2009 07:52 am
@bigstew,
bigstew wrote:
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.


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.

bigstew wrote:
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'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.

vikorr wrote:
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?)


bigstew wrote:
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.

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.

Quote:
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?
Yep, you just proved that you're sheltered. Charming in theory, but doesn't work in real life. And of course, you're going to object, because you can't comprehend how it wouldn't work.

Quote:
Your the dumbass who keeps assuming war simply just is
You do make a lot of assumptions, based largely on your ignorance of war. And of course, you can't help but put negative labels in to help bolster yourself...pointless, but if it makes you feel good...
bigstew
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Dec, 2009 04:02 pm
@vikorr,
vikkor wrote:

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.


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?

vikkor wrote:

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.


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? You haven't offered anything substantive about why in principle I am incorrect. Historically, you also shown some short sightedness. Instead you just make ad homminen attacks. That is a poor argument.

vikkor wrote:
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.


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."

This is a rather simple analysis of a complex issue. Obviously, you have to do, given the circumstances and the context, what is reasonable to do. But that does NOT mean, it is impossible to do. No one knew the consequences of WWII before hand, and by your reasoning, it should follow that the war should not have been fought. Can you actually use such an argument while western Europe was being invaded, resulting in hundreds of thousands of innocent civilian and soldier deaths? Obviously, you do what you can, given the circumstances. And in this case, the good effects were proportional to the harmful effects.

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.

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.
vikorr
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Dec, 2009 05:24 pm
@bigstew,
Quote:
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.
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.

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.

Quote:
Me naive? What about my example of war crimes? Is that not a legitimate and practical constraint placed on war?
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.

That’s only a passing comment btw, for war crimes have little to do with what I’ve been talking about. Any sustained War will involve many, many cases incidental/accidental killings of civilians.

Quote:
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."

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’.
Quote:
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.
A number of reasons :
-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.
-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')
bigstew
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Dec, 2009 02:45 am
@vikorr,
you need to read all of this very carefully.

vikkor wrote:

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.


Now read carefully

bigstew wrote:

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.


You are wrong are clearly wrong about me stating indiscriminate acts of war does not happen. Straw man.

vikkor wrote:

I shouldn't be surprised (seeing as you've given previous examples in this thread), that you can't follow conversations...


Ad homminen.


vikkor wrote:

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.


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.

vikkor wrote:
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.



On your note about allied atrocities, do I say anything about only the victors being tried? Those responsible for the fire bombing of Dresden and the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki should be tried. That would be the morally consistent thing to do.

And you only prove my point, shouldn't there be constraints placed on war,and shouldn't those constraints apply to everybody? Thanks.

vikkor wrote:
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’.


No actually, YOU do not get it. Why do you think I argue for more restrictive constraints to be placed on war? Because I am concerned with how war is presently being conducted, its consequences, and the principles that it derived from. You keep referencing contemporary unjustifiable wars, but those are the wars which I am specifically pointing out as morally problematic. I am asking: why should the current state of war, be the absolute standard? Why do I have to accept it as is? Couldn't a war be justifiable, if certain conditions were adhered to. So obviosuly I care, and you make no sense. Again, another straw man.

vikkor wrote:
most people in the US thought it was a just war when it started.


Obviously, that does not make it morally justified now does it? To try and do so, as you continually try to do, is a fallacy: appeal to majority.

vikkor wrote:

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.

vikkor wrote:

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.


Why do you think I continually say the Iraq was was unjustified? Because I care. Because it had no just cause, and because the conduct of war was devastating is why I care. Need proof?

bigstew wrote:

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


Again, another straw man.


vikkor wrote:
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.


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.
This fact only adds to why the Iraq invasion is unjustified. But I don;t get your point. Why should all wars be as destructive? Isn't the point of a just war theory to constrain the destruction of war? Shouldn't the Iraq invasion be a clear example of why a war with no just cause, and with unjustifiable conduct should force us to re evaluate what would constitute a just war? Shouldn't these types of wars be avoided? It does not mean however, that all wars have to be of this type.

vikkor wrote:
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')


Straw man.


And I have a response to your accusation that all wars involve indiscriminate acts of killing civilians, and are therefore always unjustified. In other words, any war which involves indiscriminate acts of killing civilians is unjustified.

A domestic analogy:

Imagine a hostage scenario where a group of gunmen take a bank and it's workers hostage. After 24 hours, the gunmen begin executing people. A SWAT team is called in to intervene. Immediately, they storm the bank to attack the gunmen.

However, one of the SWAT members, upon entering the bank, is confronted by a gunman who uses one of the bank workers as a body shield. The SWAT member decides to intentionally shoots through the body shield to kill the gunman, with out any discrimination. He does not even attempt to aim for the gunman.

Obviously, this one act on its own, is morally unjustified. Further, this SWAT member should be seriously reprimanded.

But overall, does this one act of indiscriminate killing mean that the overall consequences of the SWAT team are morally unjustifiable? It does involve one indiscriminate act, but surely that should not mean the overall consequences were unjustified.

So as you see, acts of war could end up having indiscriminate acts of killing. Obviously these acts should be condemned, and if further restraints were placed on such acts, perhaps such acts could be further avoided. 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.
bigstew
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Dec, 2009 02:55 am
@bigstew,
And in reference to the domestic analogy, it should be further stated that though justified wars can still involve indiscriminate acts of killing, I do not mean that indiscriminate acts of killing should be weighted lightly. At the very least, indiscriminately killing 1 innocent civillian is worse that killing 20 enemy soldiers, tit for tat. Now of course, certain causes might override these constraints, but those are distinct issues.

My point is, your "perfect standard" is false and objectionable, if my domestic analogy follows. Common sense tells us it does.

And my note regarding war crimes, it should say: "do I say anything about only the losers being tried?" Victors should be replaced by "losers"
vikorr
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Dec, 2009 03:32 am
@bigstew,
Quote:
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.
Ignored by whom? It can’t be ignored by the soldiers for whom it is necessary to think that way....however, the ‘morals’ of it are meaningless to the dead - dead is dead to the dead, and mostly so to the families of the dead. “Oh I didn’t mean to kill him’ makes no difference to the fact that ‘you’ did kill their son/father/daughter/baby (whichever).
Quote:
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.

Well it’s about time you did a search to find out. However, searching so you can bolster your argument and actually caring about what the bodycount is, can be two separate things.
That said, those statistics relate only to those directly killed, rather than the total indirectly killed by the war....which is estimated at many times that number.
Quote:
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.

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.
vikorr wrote:
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)

bigstew wrote:
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.

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.
Quote:
My point is, your "perfect standard" is false and objectionable, if my domestic analogy follows. Common sense tells us it does.

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)
bigstew
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Dec, 2009 05:49 am
@vikorr,
I will only point out now the most obvious mistakes to your reply, since the majority of your response is just reaching towards desperation:

vikkor wrote:

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.


Again, straw man. Not once do I say all war is justified. Fallacy.

What do you think a humanitarian intervention is? Again, my most obvious example which I will restate again: Genocide in Rwanda

If the Tutsi's are being slaughtered by the ruling Hutu, and one intervenes on behalf of the Tutsi's, then it is done in self defense. How so? Because the intervening army is defending the Tutsi's from being slaughtered. Get it?

My domestic analogy follows the samef reasoning.

vikkor wrote:

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.


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.

Sheltered life?


vikkor wrote:
And the Iraqi dedacle also show’s how your ‘theory’ can be so easily manipulated.


Assuming theAmerican government easily manipulates it's citizens and coerces its citizens, does not mean the theory itself is incoherent or false. According to Just War Theory, the Iraq invasion violated a number of conditions. It failed the test to constitute a just war. It wasn't necessary, nor was it a last resort, and objectively it had no just cause. If people are fooled by Government propaganda, that is their responsibility.

But your 'reasoning' about how easily just war theory can be 'manipulated' just demonstrates your continual ability to make hasty generalizations and unwarranted assumptions.

vikkor wrote:
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.


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. Again, straw man, and a ad homminen to boot.

vikkor wrote:

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.


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.

vikkor wrote:
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)


I'm neither in-compassionate nor ignorant. I say time and time again the Iraq invasion was unjustified. The death count is a relevant harm. The indirect deaths too are an relevant harm. That is common sense. It all further amounts to how harmful, and unjustified that war was. So I do not see any how your 'objection' has any wight whatsoever, if you could even call it one.

vikkor wrote:

which displays some either ignorance or lack of compassion (you can figure which one)


Really? Why do I state this then:

bigstew wrote:


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.


Hmmmm, a little desperate with the ad homminen aren't we?
vikorr
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Dec, 2009 06:38 am
@bigstew,
Quote:
I will only point out now the most obvious mistakes to your reply, since the majority of your response is just reaching towards desperation:
Odd, could you care to substantiate this claim?

You don’t even comprehend what I am posting. There is a single message in there that is consistent, and you are reading misinterpreted tangents into my comments that simply don’t exist (many examples provided in your last reply - listed below)

Do you think that I think no war is justified? Or perhaps that humanitarian intervention isn’t justified? Is that what I said? Or am I talking about something different?

Quote:
Again, straw man. Not once do I say all war is justified. Fallacy.
An example of you misreading tangents into what I wrote - nowhere did I say you said that. What I said was :
Quote:
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.

Where did I say ‘you argument is that all circumstances are justified?

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.

Quote:
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.
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.

Quote:
Assuming theAmerican government easily manipulates it's citizens
There's no assumption there. That's proven fact.

Quote:
and coerces its citizens, does not mean the theory itself is incoherent or false.


See, this is what I mean by you have no comprehension of what I am saying (hence another misinterpretation of yours). I’ve never said that a ‘Just War’ theory had to be false.

Quote:
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.

Read my comment again " I did not say you were fooled by the government propoganda in regards to the Iraq war.
Quote:
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.
In principle regarding Just War theory? You could be right (that you think I believe the 'principle' to be wrong is again a misinterpretation). You seem to miss over and over again that my point is in relation to it’s practical application.

Quote:
I'm neither in-compassionate nor ignorant.

Again...go searching for the answer. From after Desert Storm, you will find that the deaths the US contributed to in Iraq is in the millions (if you add the total believed statistics up). You can work out for yourself how many millions. Ignorance by the way, is lack of knowledge of something. Every single one of us is ignorant of a wealth of knowledge. No one is exempt from that, but you are a proponent for ‘just’ war, and should be knowledgeable about the consequences.

You’ve read debate theory, but you fall over yourself misinterpreting comments, rendering your favourite debate fallacy phrases redundant. This last reply of yours has been thoroughly littered with such misinterpretations.
bigstew
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Dec, 2009 02:03 pm
@vikorr,
vikkor wrote:

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.


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.

vikkor wrote:

Where did I say ‘you argument is that all circumstances are justified?


It is easy to mis interpret you because your arguments lack cogency and clarity. That is not my fault.

vikkor wrote:
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).


You are making a fallacious hasty generalization.
You are arguing based on current social norms that Just War Theory can be easily manipulated. But what if 100 years from now social norms were quite different? What if 100 years from now, people actually understood what Just War Theory entails? Further, what if 100 years fro now, social norms were quite different about how people view war, and people actually took the time to question any argument to resort to war? As you see, you are making a hasty generalization about now to the future. 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. Further, you are assuming US social norms are universal. That is an obvious hasty generalization.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/hasty-generalization.html
vikkor wrote:
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. Legal thinking about war is in need of much updating. The crime of aggression did not even exist until 1933, nor had war crimes been substantively utilized in court since the Hague Convention and Nuremberg. The law of war is still very traditional with many loopholes in it. It is difficult to prosecute some crimes of war because the legal definitions of the crimes are still not precise. I won't deny that. It is in need of much updating. But the point is, law derives from our moral thinking. That is how law is properly prescribed in the first place. My argument is a deep moral argument, which if socially accepted over time, should further influence legal jurisprudence.

vikkor wrote:

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)?


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.

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. Just because you think the US is so easily manipulated (which I already think is a contentious point going in to the future), does not mean all nations are similar. Thus, a hasty generalization is made.


vikkor wrote:

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....


First, the US did not apply Just War Theory at all. If they had, it would failed the test. I have already demonstrated that.

Second, "the majority" justifies nothing. That is the appeal to majority fallacy. Something is only justified if it is objectively true. That is, it does not depend on how many people think it is true, it is true independent of such beliefs. Just because people were tricked into believing the invasion was just, does not mean it was morally just at all. And I think people are actually pretty pissed about that (e.g. the routing of the Republicans by Democrats in the last election). The same goes with Just War Theory. If a war is justified, it is true regardless of public opinion. It is that objective fact which people find reasonable to believe.

So your so called application of Just War Theory is flat out false in at least these two regards.

vikkor wrote:

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.


See above about hasty generalizations regarding social norms and objective truths. 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.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/composition.html



vikorr
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Dec, 2009 04:13 pm
@bigstew,
Quote:
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.

Self defense is quite different to humanitarian intervention. However, you keep missing (consistently) that I’ve never said ‘humanitarian intervention’ can’t (as compared to your use of is/isn’t)be justified.

That you keep missing it, means you still have no idea what I've been telling you (which is why you consistently misinterpret what I say to you)...it sort of gets through to you in bits and pieces...but you still can't bring yourself to believe that I don't have some other agenda 'against' your just war theory.

Quote:
It is easy to mis interpret you because your arguments lack cogency and clarity. That is not my fault.

True, my writing isn't perfect. That said, what you read into wording (that isn’t there to be read into) is your responsiblity. That your mind gets onto an erroneous track, and keeps interpreting comments over and over in that vein...is also your responsibility. Wherever you are uncertain you can ask ‘is this what you meant’? That lack of seeking clarification is your responsibility too.

Quote:
You are making a fallacious hasty generalization. You are arguing based on current social norms that Just War Theory can be easily manipulated.

Truly? Where do you get this misinterpretation " You claim you misinterpret because I’m not clear, yet most of the examples I provided have nothing to do with social norms. (Social norms do have something to do with the ease of manipulation of a society, but I've barely gone into them)
Quote:
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.

Quote:
But you have no idea how things will actually be, s o again you are begging the question.

Human nature doesn’t change particularly much, though knowledge and morals may. The world (in general) always has, and always will, revolve around power.
Quote:
Further, your "practical considerations" have no showed in principle why under these conditions, Just War Theory would be so easily manipulated.
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.

vikorr wrote:
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?
bigstew wrote:
The legality of war and the morality of war are 2 different things.

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?

Quote:
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.

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).
Quote:
Second, "the majority" justifies nothing. That is the appeal to majority fallacy.
As a general concept, that’s true, but once again - you fail to show that you are their moral superior, or that womd that are likely to be used against you aren’t a justification for going to war.
Quote:
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.
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.

vikorr
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Dec, 2009 04:23 pm
@vikorr,
To clarify, seeing the edit phase as closed, I meant :
Quote:
You'll have to find another reason why the decision to invade Iraq doesn't meet your 'just war' theory.
0 Replies
 
bigstew
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Dec, 2009 07:21 pm
@vikorr,
vikkor wrote:

Self defense is quite different to humanitarian intervention.


A attacks B. C intervenes to defend A. Is C not justified in defending A?

C is a case of humanitarian intervention. Humanitarian intervention in the case of war is synonymous with self defense. That is a very basic point, and I've illustrated it clearly. Now move along.

vikkor wrote:

Truly? Where do you get this misinterpretation


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. That norm is itself contestable, and far from universal. Therefore, you make a hasty generalization.

vikkor wrote:
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.


First off, this is laughable AND incoherent. 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.

I'm not even going to assume what else you are implying, because knowing you it could be so far from what would rationally follow. Instead I will just ask: so what are you implying?

vikkor wrote:
Human nature doesn’t change particularly much, though knowledge and morals may. The world (in general) always has, and always will, revolve around power.


So tell me this. Slavery was very commonplace in history. However, as history progressed people began to believe that the justification for slavery was inherently wrong. Thus slavery became universally outlawed. This is a key example of morality influencing the normative values. So those in power can no longer use slavery (in the traditional sense) without condemnation. 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?

vikkor wrote:

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.


Like I have said before, objectively accepted truths do not depend on any one person's individual beliefs. They are true independently. That is why people accept such beliefs as rational, because they are objective. If a group of people tried to argue with me that slavery is justifiable, would that change my mind? Of course not, because it has already been shown that slavery violates the fundamental human rights to self determination and autonomy, and this is objectively true.

vikkor wrote:


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?


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.

vikkor wrote:

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).


Do you even know what an analogy is? Scrutiny is the relevant similarity I had in mind, which I clearly stated.

Scrutiny:
1. a searching examination or investigation; minute inquiry.
2. surveillance; close and continuous watching or guarding.
3. a close and searching look.

I do not think this sort of analogy is irrational at all. In fact, i think it is the only rational method of accepting information as justified.

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.

vikkor wrote:

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.


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.
vikorr
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Dec, 2009 08:57 pm
@bigstew,
Quote:
Humanitarian intervention in the case of war is synonymous with self defense.

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.

Quote:
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.

Easy justification? You need to stop misinterpretting...over, and over again.

You seem to be saying that the social norm is that the society is easily manipulated, so that makes them easily manipulated? What a silly rephrasing of the examples I've given on how the manipulation occurs.

bigstew wrote:
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.

vikorr wrote:
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.

bigstew wrote:
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.

Seriously, go and read a pulitzer prize winning book from 2007 called “Legacy of Ashes : a history of the CIA’ written from CIA records and interviews with operatives. It’ll show you just how often they are wrong, and the difficulties of verification. Stop typing in ignorance and go and find out what you are talking about.

bigstew wrote:
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?

What a wonderful dreamland you live in. No wonder I keep thinking you are so sheltered.
bigstew wrote:
because it has already been shown that slavery violates the fundamental human rights to self determination and autonomy

Slipping into philosophy " while I agree with you, that is a subjective right, not an objective right. It is based on peoples perceptions...one that still isn't universal by the way. And it's also easily argued that the West engages in other forms of purposeful slavery.
Quote:
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.
Nice try, but it's very obsvious that you don't work in the legal field. Everything from after your second sentence is a diversion from the real problem you face " you would have to codify your theory (otherwise it would never be widely known, understood, or accepted)...once codified, it faces the same problems all codes have.

Quote:
Do you even know what an analogy is? Scrutiny is the relevant similarity I had in mind, which I clearly stated.

And as I replied " I doubt they’d scrutinise it much beyond the newspaper and TV. Just because you would like a thing a certain way, doesn’t mean it ever will be. Again, an appeal arising from a sheltered life of idealism.

As always, I’ve been talking about the practical application. I doubt you’re exactly an intellectual/academic, for you can’t follow your own conversation or remember anothers, or even they determine the path they are on...let me guess...you’re in IT?

Quote:
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.
You keep thinking this is about you, rather than society in general. Get out of your shell and start looking around at all the other people in the world.
Quote:
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.

Sure enough, Saddam interfered with the weapons inspectors...but the US also knew that it had given Saddam womd (at least, the US liked to classify them as womd for their own devices). They also spoke of fertiliser factories that could produce womd.
Now...there’s arguments against each of those " but most people didn’t know that.
Quote:
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.


Oh I haven’t missed it. It’s something to be skirted around because I think certain things are situational, while you think they can be written down in black and white.
vikorr
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Dec, 2009 09:16 pm
@bigstew,
Anyway, as with most sheltered, idealistic people...you strongly view the world to suit your view, rather than seeing it the way it is...hence you make numerous mistakes in interpretation, and overlook anything that doesn't meet your views...thereby reinforcing it.

I've pretty much said what needed to be said, and think that anything more on my part would probably amount to hot air (yeah, I know that comment is open to be poked fun at).

People are content to go on living in their worlds. What's that saying 'ignorance is bliss'.
0 Replies
 
bigstew
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Dec, 2009 09:29 pm
@vikorr,
vikkor wrote:


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.



Im going to leave this open for public interpretation about how any of this logically follows.

This makes no sense whatsoever. How can A attack A, if A is a distinct class?

You might be trying to imply a civil war, but even there is 2 distinct classes.

This is the clear and logical way of approaching this analogy:

If A (lets say Poland) is attacked by B (lets say Germany), wouldn't C (lets say France be justified in assisting A?

Wars like this are common place. We can even substitute state actors with non state actors. Still, the analogy follows.

Don't sidestep the question. This clearly a justified case of self defense in a case of humanitarian intervention. To argue otherwise is nonsense.

Further, I am not watering anything down, this is a common sense way of approaching the case.

This pretty flagrant desperate attempt at an objection pretty much sums up the entirety of your argument: incoherent and flat out false.

P.S do some reading on basic logic.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 07/30/2021 at 04:16:17