how come? teargas is used domestically in case of riots and the like, isnt it?
is napalm illegal now? would it count as a chemical weapon?
Odd, I remember a clamour in the last gulf war that the cluster bombs were illegal.
Nah, they're both "legal". Domestic Crowd Control with non-lethal agents doesn't fall afoul of the laws of war. Its acceptable to employ non-lethal means against angry mobs, but not against hostile militaries.
ebrown_p
The "shaky ground" is inevitable. There is no anthropomorphic "logic" to "war"- only the exercise of primative emotional tribal instincts. We identify with particular groups and that identification necessarily evokes simplified stereotypes both for ourselves, the ingroup, and for the "enemy", the outgroup. These stereotypes then empower the group dynamics to which individual "morality" becomes subservient.
My argument attempts to direct attention to emotionality, not rationality, as the true "cause" of such conflicts, and that logical arguments between warmongers and peaceniks are merely vicarious kibbitzing.
fresco, Then we are in agreement.
However, I think it is possible to discuss the "morality" of a war using logic if you agree to common precepts of what is "moral" and avoid these stereotypes. There are plenty of facts that a moral argument can be based on.
I clearly think that this war on Iraq was completely wrong on both moral and strategic grounds. My arguments to support this are logical -- but admitedly they are based on moral precepts that not all Americans share.
I supported the war in Afganistan becuase it was based on moral precepts that were clearly stated and backed up with facts. Afganistan clearly contained the bases of terrorists who directly attacked our country. The war was had the broad support of the world. There are no stereotypes here. This argument is based on fact.
The war in Iraq is quite different. There is a set of moral precepts which justify this war. The problem is that the public argument is not based on these true assumptions. The public arguments were the elimination of a threat of WMD, and the "liberation" of the Iraqi people. Neither of these arguments hold up under logical analysis.
This leads many of us to conclude that the true precepts of this war have to do with American security at all costs that will be achieved by military dominance.
I do not feel the latter precept is moral. However, if you feel that the security of one nation is the most important thing and that military dominance is the way to get it. Than you can make a logical case.
Incidently I hope Mr. Bush forgets about Syria. North Korea is clearly the next true threat.
Since North Korea is acting as an agressor and is developing *true* weapons of mass desctruction, I would support a military strike on nuclear development targets (hopefully with international opinion).
I too empathised with the Afghan War for similar reasons, however I note that the current "democratic" leader cannot operate without heavy personal security. I was relatively neutral regarding the Iraq War but now witnessing the scenes of religious fervour which have resulted I am wondering about the maxim "better to deal with the devil you know".
As for logic and morality, the problem for me is still that accidents of birth decide our allegiances. A child born on either side of the Palestine-Israel conflict is likely to be conditioned as to his particular "moral right" to the land. It seems to be a prostitution of our unique human intellect to believe anybody can "own" land. This is surely reversion to animal/tribal territorial claims. So "intelligent discussion" seems to be a non-starter since "rights" are based on historical conquest, emotional allegiances, infantile religious beliefs, and other devisive axioms. Thus, if the basis of the axioms is questionable then all subsequent "logical discussion" could be viewed as having no more import than a barber shop discussion of a football game.
