Who/What Confers "Right"?

And from now on kids who smoke cigarettes or drink beer before legal age will not be allowed to become policeman when they grow up

New Zealand should be the ones to take down Saddam obv

but seriously, again, where does that right come from? is it simply our standards of moral decency, that what Hussein does violates something so intrinsic that the idea of "right" is besides the point, except in relation to "who" posesses it? the other problem in Chomsky's scheme is that, in finding the group, which would be quite small, of those who would have the right/moral authority, to depose Hussein, who would have the ability? I could easily imagine that a small group of celibate Buddhists who have spent their lives meditating and performing community service might have the "right" to depose Saddam, but, well, can you imagine them being enlisted? It reminds me a bit of the parody of the movie Ghandi in the movie UHF!!!

Also, and here is a BIG question that might need another thread (maybe nitsuh should continue hos series?), when does a country regain its moral authority/legitimacy of "right"? I mean, Momus is always nice enough to point out that the Americans used Nuclear Weapons on civilians. I agree that this is a huge shortcoming, one that can not be underestimated (and it is amazing that many in America seem to feel no sense of shame, or many have at least forgotten), but I wonder when he and others who bring that up will feel that they have done their job, that it is time to be quiet, that the sins have been atoned for. Assume no military action by the U.S. Assume total domestic spending, the complete eradication of poverty, children being educated WELL. Assume that happened, all of it, tommorrow. Would the US automatically get its right back? Would it still take time after that?

!= sense of shame about Fucking Up Rogue Dictators Who Threaten To Attack Us With WMD.

The case for this happening in the past few months seems to have been stronger from North Korea rather than Iraq, frankly.

Frankly.

And Iraq does? News to me.

The framework for my own beliefs here rests on "natural law", a belief that standards of morality are derivied from the nature of the world and the nature of human beings.

St. Thomas Aquinas, for example, identifies the rational nature of human beings as that which defines moral law: "the rule and measure of human acts is the reason, which is the first principle of human acts" (Aquinas, ST I-II, Q.90, A.I). On this common view, since human beings are by nature rational beings, it is morally appropriate that they should behave in a way that conforms to their rational nature.

So can we wage war?

"Catholic philosophy, therefore, concedes to the State the full natural right of war, whether defensive, as in case of another's attack in force upon it; offensive (more properly, coercive), where it finds it necessary to take the initiative in the application of force; or punitive, in the infliction of punishment for evil done against itself or, in some determined cases, against others. International law views the punitive right of war with suspicion; but, thought it is open to wide abuse, its original existence under the natural law cannot well be disputed."

What makes a "just war"?

"Under natural law a war, to be just, must be waged by a sovereign power for the security of a perfect right of its own (or of another justly invoking its protection) against foreign violation in a case where there is no other means available to secure or repair the right; and must be conducted with a moderation which, in the continuance and settlement of the struggle, commits no act intrinsically immoral, nor exceeds in damage done, or in payment and in penalty exacted, the measure of necessity and of proportion to the value of the right involved, the cost of the war, and the guarantee of future security."

A war Iraq, certainly at least the unilateral war isnt a just war from a Catholic perspective. Just my 2 cents of course...

I think that the North Korean question actually adds to the case *for* war. NK is frankly fucked and the reason we are unable to do anything about it is because of the threat of WMD. The NK government is clearly aware of this, and knows we wouldn't dare attack them because of what they could so easily inflict on South Korea or Japan. One of the arguments for the "pre-emptive" war on Iraq is that once Saddam does have fully functioning WMD our chances to influence that situation disappear.

Do we have the "right" to attack Iraq? If you believe that our cause is right, then we do.

What is Millar on about? When has Iraq been doing this? The only countries I have reiterate their willingness to strike first with WMD in recent times have been Britain and America.

Which is hardly news, true, but you wanted to know. With all due respect, Nick, I don't recall anyone threatening first-strike use of WMD. It is policy for the US to respond in kind, however, so if our troops do get attacked w/ chemical or biological agents, you can bet on some fireworks. I believe that is what Bush et al. have stated and if they have said otherwise I'd like to see it.

I agree with Bingo and Tom.

Also, Tom is dead on. Which is sad, but true. Ask India and Pakistan!

*and one which takes a more radical anti-American position than his Dad too - another reason to take his comments with a bit of a pinch of salt.

Bring back the draft.

Seriously, if you were a head of state, even an unelected and tyrannical one, and your country was invaded with overwhelming force - what would you do? Even the most recent US guidelines on using nuclear weapons admit that in emergency conventional situations (eg a Chinese invasion of Taiwan) they would consider using them.

Only if you've already volunteered.

Let me reiterate:
Uday makes threats about WMD. Saddam has not. I don't believe he will actually use them because he probably intends to survive this fiasco and escape the country, something made rather difficult in the case of a nuclear attack. He knows what will happen if he escalates the conflict. All I pointed out was that he intends to employ a scorched-earth strategy (which may well include neighbouring countries' resources) and I pointed that out to show that Saddam's concept of a desperation strategy was a bit smarter than Uday's.

No worries. It's that kind of debate and topic to get riled up over on either side.

I don't believe he will actually use them because he probably intends to survive this fiasco and escape the country

Survive, yes. Escape? If he could pull that off, then I'd be bemused.

I think we all are although I dont really understand philosphy in much depth myself, I should do a night course or something. Perhaps a few of the real brains around here can help me... I find the idea that everything "is relative" so there is no universal good or bad etc a bit much to stomach. I laugh at some people when they say it all comes down to how YOU FEEL. Fucking babies for example to me is just plain evil. It seems crazy to allow people to say "incest is ok cause it just feels right"

Catholics have a framework for morality provided, and yeah its quite incredible in its scope and intellect, it really is,- 2000 years of some of the best minds around has producded some compelling arguments-especially if you accept the existance of God :-).

But in the end Catholic philosophy ackoweldges the final and ultimate decision on morality rests in a persons conscience, or in their own heart. Most theologians believe it must be an "informed conscience"-ie based on scripture and church teachings but still the fact remains morality rests on your own feelings. This bothers me a bit, any comments or thoughts?

ie we attack you, you use dirty weapons against our troops, we nuke you.

Well that sounds a bit morally ambiguous at best.

Hawaii and Alaska are not only part of the US, but two of its fifty states. Not to mention Ned rather correct assertion that there are no missiles capable of going further than a few hundred miles in Iraq.

>>The only countries I have reiterate their willingness to strike first with WMD in recent times have been Britain and America. <<

Though I think its been brought up (at least in part), Pakistan, India, and Israel to thread!

>>Uday makes threats about WMD. Saddam has not. I don't believe he will actually use them because he probably intends to survive this fiasco and escape the country, something made rather difficult in the case of a nuclear attack. He knows what will happen if he escalates the conflict. All I pointed out was that he intends to employ a scorched-earth strategy (which may well include neighbouring countries' resources) and I pointed that out to show that Saddam's concept of a desperation strategy was a bit smarter than Uday's.<<

I think you're right to a point. Iraq might not use chemical weapons for the sheer fact that it would mean assured destruction for them. They will certainly tear up every oil well they can find. They also certainly will try as hard as possible to make Baghdad another Chechnya (an intense urban conflict that goes on for months if not years). We'll see what happens, as apparently the US is rather intent on invading.

-
Alan

>>4. Even though Iraqi and American casualties may be considerably less than the total number of deaths that could result from many more years of Hussein being in power, isn't there something still odd about the idea of killing people to prevent death?<<

No. While I don't personally believe its warranted here in the case of Iraq, that's not the case. I'll get to why in a moment Using history as an example).

>>I mean, Momus is always nice enough to point out that the Americans used Nuclear Weapons on civilians. I agree that this is a huge shortcoming, one that can not be underestimated (and it is amazing that many in America seem to feel no sense of shame, or many have at least forgotten), <<

I heard this a thousand times. I understand you aren't personally knocking it, but I'll speak on it anyways.

Look; the US was given a deal by the Japanese to end the war that didn't exactly please us. We weren't gonna leave the Emperor in power (apparently someone in the US read Machiavelli, which was smart of him) and we weren't going to let them have the Korean Penninsula. So, the war continued. Our objective was to force surrender and topple Hirohito. So, in 1945, plans were set in motion for a invasion in the south of Japan with approximately 350,000 people landing on the beaches and parachuting in. Turns out Japan was stocking an equal amount of troops there (and accompanying weaponry) because they figured we might try that. Invasion called off.

The other choice, however, was not an atomic bomb, but rather a bombing offensive/blockade meant to annhilate food sources, all production facilities, and transportation. Probably would have gone on for a couple years before most of Japan starved to death and we would have invaded. What a nice deal for them.

Now, yes, the Atomic Bombs killed hundreds of thousands of people, many civilians. So did the fire bombings in Tokyo (who killed more than either A-Bomb). But, there was still infrastructure in Japan. And, after the war, we rebuilt their country and made them into an industrial super power. Now, sure, the US fucked up royally in places like Chile, but here, for once, is an example of those "bad Americans" doing some good.

Now, back to the "killing people to save people" thing. This is war. I don't know if you understand what that means. Perhaps you've played games like Warcraft, Starcraft, or other strategy games. the idea of those games, like war, is to defeat your opponent (obviously) by killing as many as possible and causing submission or just outright getting the whole bunch. War is exactly the same, except you have a human element to it that you want to get home. Strategy for war then is not to "save as many people as possible". Its to win (defeat your opponent) while taking as few losses toyourself as possible. Throw the "but you're still killing" morality crap out the window when it comes to warfare. After all, when those Spitfires were knocking down ME-110 after 110 out of the sky, it was to save the lives of British citizens at the cost of killing Germans. Or anti-aircraft gunners in Pearl Harbor trying to defend themselves by shooting down Japanese aircraft.

-
Alan

Never claimed I wasn answering the main queston at hand...just that 4th appendage.

-
Alan

As for the atomic bomb issue, I only brought it up to point out our own moral imperfection.

Oh c'mon...that has nothing to do with it. Lots of people are killed by their gov't all over the world. The US has even helped keep dictators in power who do it. Its about Oil, under the guise of "protecting America from WMD". The people the US Gov't supposedly cares about are its own, not that of Iraq.

>>WWII is a much different issue. I take issue with the fact that you could draw comparisons with the two (WWII and Iraq),<<

I never once compared Iraq to WWII, other than reminding one of the fact that in all war the idea is to win with as little in terms of losses (and in this case, collateral damage) as possible.

>>During the American Civil War, troops were heavily concentrated, and highly seperate from the civilain population, as many battles took place on the outskirts of cities and towns. Yes, civilians were killed, but they were not targeted to the same extent as they were in WWII.<<

Now we're comparing apples and oranges. In the Civil War, the most dangerous weapon on the battlefield were large pieces of artillery capable of firing, what, a half mile? By WWII, man had invented thigs like trucks, tanks, and airplanes, capable of dropping more fire power *conventionally* in a day than used in the entire Civil War.

War was also still seen as something solely for soldiers. That changed at the end, when Sherman's men marched through the south, sacking everything in their path.

>>Since then, the line between civilian and soldier, both as target and combatant, has become blurred.<<

That's true. But that also has to do a lot with the fact that weapons have become deadlier and tactics have changed. Wars used to be fought only on agreed upon battlegrounds with well trained soldiers. Then along came guerilla warfare. Needless to say, tactics on defending one's self or making moves based on changes when other's tactics dictate new ways of war be fought. Japan is an example of this. In western society (minus Russia), no one set up squadrons where poorly trained pilots were given planes to crash into ships. Obviously then, the usual surrender ethos has changed. So tactics to deal with it must change. Does that mean that firebombing Japan was the moral thing to do? No. Was it necessary to try and break the will of those living there so that we could win the war? You could certainly argue that it was.

>>The more that civilians are involved in a conflict (either by choice or, mostly, by accident, ESPECIALLY when the civilains are living in a *Totalitarian* country), the more of a moral issue it becomes.<<

Then you have to question the morality of war. Thing is, war is as "amoral" as anything can possibly be. You kill people in war, after all. Why is killing a soldier any more or less in the boundaries of morality (which is subjetive to begin with...another argument altogether) than the accidental or purposeful killing of civilians? Especially so when the goal is to make everyone in the nation submit, including said noncombatants...

-
Alan

This is quite an annoying thing to say.

blah...that was nonsensical. Should look like;

"Needless to say, tactics on defending one's self or starting offensives have changed on many occasions when other's (read: opponents) tactics dictate new ways of war need be fought"

-
Alan

No you see I don't think that anyobody's real reason for going to war is a concern for human rights. My outlook on the rationale is similar to yours. I was simply oferring reasons that I have heard, whether they were oferred in good faith or not is a different matter.

>>>WWII is a much different issue. I take issue with the fact that you could draw comparisons with the two (WWII and Iraq),<<

>>I never once compared Iraq to WWII, other than reminding one of the >>fact that in all war the idea is to win with as little in terms of >>losses (and in this case, collateral damage) as possible.

Sorry my mistake.

As for the rest:
I think the whole POINT of this thread is that war is amoral. The question initially regarded the complex issue of moral justification for immoral acts (or if it didn't then, well, that is what I meant to talk about!). I have been drifintg a little off-topic in my posts, but...

yes