steissd, Too bad NK can't use the same tactic as Turkey. They want something like 50 billion dollars to approve the use of their country for US army personnel to fight in Iraq. c.i.
BillW:
Your statement
"JM The whole issue is not simple - this war = immoral, that is simple!"
explicitly states that this particular war is immoral. This implies that you believe there is such a thing as a moral war.
Could you site a historic example of a moral war and failing that perhaps the parameters of an imaginary or ideal moral war?
Respectfully,
JM
WWII - we were on the moral side there!~
BillW,
I guess want what I would like to know is what makes any war such as WWII moral and another, say, the upcoming Iraqi conflict immoral? Is it the original reason for the war? Is it the way in which it is waged? The lack of civilians killed?
JM
JM, WWII was only moral to the extent we were 'defending' our country. After all, Japan attacked Hawaii in a surprise attack before war was declared. As for how it was fought is a different issue for today. I agree with Truman's use of the A-bomb on Japan for the time and reasons. I'm sure the whole ethics of war is different today. c.i.
Many have said - and it makes sense - that the only thing that North Korea has to sell is its weaponry. So it may be more dangerous for the world to put North Korea into the position of being an arms supplier. On the other hand, the US is the biggest arms supplier in the world today.
As far as the rest of it - I do not believe morality enters into the picture of war. Back when England (and others) were waging what they called the Holy Crusades against the infidels, there were other reasons that are rarely talked about. Back then, England was struggling for survival, and was still divided into various areas. The law of primogeniture meant that only the eldest son would inherit an estate, so what to do with younger sons? The Crusades represented a great answer. And one of the missions of those on the Crusades was to gather in whatever riches they could along the way, as well as in the Holy Land.
Most of all, I think the desire for conflict is inherent.
However, the present, desired war by the Bush league against Saddam Hussein has nothing to do with ethics, and the stated aim of disarmament would only make sense if we were to apply it to other countries as well. So many people are so cynical about this that their cynicism cannot be easily dismissed. In almost a year of trying, of advertising and PR approaches, Bush has still not managed to whip up any great feeling about this. There's a message there - many messages.
JamesMorrison wrote:kuvasz,
Re jus ad bellum. Would Israel possess some legal justification to invade Iraq because of Saddam's proven policy of reimbursing suicide bombers' family?
JM
if so, using tyhe logic you state, the americans would have already bombed Riyadh since 15 of the 19 9/11 bombers came from saudi arabia and were supported by saudi financial aid.
and the ortega government of nicaraugua in 1982 would have been justified in attacking the US because the americans mined the harbors near managua.
it is the subjective, selective use of "Jus ad Bellum" which corrupts its fundemental basis in moral/ethical behavior towards others.
Oil and political advantange are not justifiable reasons for war!
BillW, However, I do not see any "political advantage" to this war with Iraq. Just the opposite. c.i.
Bush won the 2002 election with it for starters. Right now he is using the war to divert attention from his total ineptitude!
He hit the trifecta - ha, ha, ha; in his own words!
C.I.;
What scares me is the seeming lack of any intelligent approach to rendering the "madmen" of this world harmless.
With the historical example of Hitler, it is sad that no conscious effort has been made to put in place a "control system" to prevent a re-occurance of such havoc.
Look at Africa, Palestine, Afganistan, East Timor, Goa, ....................
Around the world, peoples of hundreds of nations preyed upon by leaders who have none of their "best interests" in mind.
And the powerful nations of the world send out the occasional "bandaid" to slow the bleeding (especially when their own interests are threatened).
And what is G"W"B doing about it? Preparing to punish the Iraqi people for the sins of their oppressor.
The U.N. seems scarcely more than a nice safe comfortable place for the representatives of each vested interest to "sit and talk" ad infinitum (that is overly cynical; much good work is done there, but this major problem remains unsolved).
Suggestions?
Perhaps a world version of the "Star Chamber" .......shivers !
Implanted chip at birth -
But who has the authority to call up the self destruct sequence?
And, as to "safeguards"...................
You just asked for suggestions, knew that those two items would be a problem - ha!
In truth, I gave the absolute extreme - anything less and we have a situtation just like today!
BoGoWo, GWBush doesn't care to listen to "the people of the world" or polls. He knows what is best for this world. With that kind of mind-set, we don't stand a chance - in hell. If by some miracle he would listen, the world community will support the containment of people like Saddam. It will be a "world" effort, but GWBush knows better. After all, he has all the firepower to demolish anything and everything he wants. c.i.
Including his legacy!!!!!!!!
Titters on the brink of oblivion!
Right Bill, but, at this rate, so do we!
GWBush initiates armageddon(sp).
