--- Nick Arnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Are you saying that Warren been trying to prevent > democracy in Iraq?
Functionally, yes. > > Are you saying that war is the only way to get rid > of an evil dictator? Or > war was the only way to get rid of this one? Am I > mistaken in believing that > in almost every other case, our policy has been not > to go to war for that > reason? Is "removing an evil dictator" > justification for this war? It was _one_ justification. People who argue that it was only WMD are editing the transcript. WMD was one reason for invading, but it wasn't at all the only one - for Tony Blair, for example, the reason was clearly overwhelmingly humanitarian. WMD were the most important reason for me, but not at all the only one. War was definitely the only way to get rid of this one. We tried other methods for 12 years. Give me an example of a totalitarian dictator overthrown without war, for that matter. I can't think of one - they were all either beaten in combat (Hitler, Hussein) or died of old age (Stalin, Mao). We didn't go to war in other circumstances. We didn't in Rwanda. That didn't work out so well for the Rwandans. We haven't in the Sudan. That's not working out so well for the Sudanese either. > > For what it's worth, there is no major religion that > accepts such a > justification. There are two great religious > traditions with regard to war -- > pacifism and "just war" theology. The latter never > allows for a pre-emptive > war. Virtually every major religious body in the > world (the one notable > exception being the Southern Baptist Association) > urged us not to undertake > it, before it began, which means before we even knew > for sure that Iraq was no > threat to us. Oh, come on, Nick, I can sling "just war" theology around too. There are, for that matter, lots of non-religious doctrines about the ethics of war - starting with Michael Walzer's, for example. I even have one - Dan quotes it on the list every once in a while. First, you're wrong about the other never allowing a pre-emptive war. What you mean is that it never allows a _preventive_ war. Every military on earth has a doctrine for pre-emptive war. What we fought in Iraq was a preventive, not a pre-emptive, war. Second, a lot of the "just war" theorizers are just playing games, setting up just war criteria that can never be met. That's what your friend Wallis does, for that matter. Depending on whose you use, just war theology _does_ include humanitarian war under its precepts. So do some of the non-religious doctrines. Kant, in, umm, I think On Perpetual Peace (I'm sure Dan can quote it from memory) sets out as one justification for intervention being when a tyrannical government is acting inside its borders with such unrestrained violence that its populace cannot overthrow it on its own, for example. That sounds like Iraq to me. Finally, the original formulation of Catholic just war was drawn up centuries ago. Nuclear weapons weren't exactly a pressing concern back then, and while Europeans had already exterminated a few cities, they had to do it retail. We do have to rethink these ideas as situations change, and Father Hehir doesn't seem to have gotten around to it yet. He probably will, though. > > Very aggressive inspections by an international > force more like police than > military, indicting the leader in a world court and > other pressure could be > brought to bear in such situations. Well-developed > policies and plans for > such intervention, backed by international > agreement, would go a very long way > toward peace. And so would many things that I have > a direct part in -- > consumption of oil and other scarce resouces, more > diverse voices in the > media, a more intelligent national discussion of > issues and values... > > Nick Oh, come on. I'm sure Saddam Hussein would have been quaking in his boots at the idea of _being indicted by the World Court_. God forbid. Or, heck, if you gave up your car. Come on, Nick, this doesn't even qualify as an abdication of responsibility, it's not even concrete enough for _that_. This is exactly what I mean - it's preening. You can say exactly how much more moral you are than all those nasty people who supported the war...and evade any and all questions about what, exactly, that opposition meant for Iraq. Exactly how would any of these things have toppled a regime supported by the Mukhbarat? We had that country on starvation sanctions and air strikes for 12 years. In that span of time we now know he was able to corrupt the UN and buy off the French (one quarter of Iraqi oil fields were contracted out to Total, the French oil company). I mean, I'm sure that a more intelligent discussion of national ideas and values would have terrified Saddam (and since I'm quite confident that more intelligent discussion would end up on my side of the fence on most issues, I'm all in favor of it) but I don't think it would have helped the people being dropped feet-first into shredding machines. Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Freedom is not free" http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __________________________________ Yahoo! Messenger Show us what our next emoticon should look like. Join the fun. http://www.advision.webevents.yahoo.com/emoticontest _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
