|
Post by catholicxjw on Aug 15, 2005 22:44:53 GMT -5
Tell us the reason for why you voted the way you did.
|
|
|
Post by heretic on Aug 23, 2005 13:20:49 GMT -5
ok I'll be daring!! :-)
I think a war can be just, if it is to rescue people who are suffering badly eg genocide, and as long as it is directed at the right people ie the actual perpertrators of the crime. I don't think Iraq is a just war because innocent civilians have been killed by the blanket bombing in the early days.
We should keep in mind that war is never the best option. Only when all other peaceful avenues have been tried should war be considered.
|
|
|
Post by carloshelms on Aug 27, 2008 16:36:16 GMT -5
War, in theory, is an extension of how we, as individuals, think. We are, for instance, justified in protecting ourselves, our families and our property from being molested. At times, this may require deadly force to offset deadly force. It is logical that we be able to extend that same idea to our neighborhoods, communities and countries. Of course, this is "perfect world" thinking...and in a "perfect" world, there would be no need for such things.
The War on Terror, I believe, is a war of ideologies. It has been posited that it's a war for oil; but I see no call for petroleum or mechanical engineers to rebuild the Iraqi oil infrastructure. I see no oil tankers from Iraq streaming across the Atlantic. I see it as a war for hearts and minds...and the Iraqi location gives the West an advantage right in the middle of the radical Islamic empire. You may have noticed that Iraq's borders are largely unprotected - allowing for the free flow of "insurgents" into the heart of the conflict. These areas are controlled by US Marine Expeditionary Units and the likes of the US Army's 10th Mountain Division. It's what I call the "Roach Motel" strategy. In other words, better Basra than Baton Rouge.
AMDG,
Carlos
|
|
|
Post by gkchesterton on Aug 29, 2008 9:29:39 GMT -5
I don't think that's a perfect analysis. We have worked on the oil infrastructure, but working on that infrastructure doesn't make it a war about oil. France, Russia, and China (interestingly the members of the UN Security Council that blocked US movement in Iraq) all had existing oil contracts that hid under the Oil-for-Food program. The US could have done the same thing. The US however, contrary to the Imperialistic picture often painted of it, is Idealist and _not_ Imperialistic. Depending on the day of the week and your opinion this can be just as bad. You are however correct that Iraq is example in the middle to the mid-east (a terrible name since in traditional studies Afghanistan/Uzbekistan and the like are mid-east and Iraq/Israel/Arabia are all near-east). The example was not supposed to be a roach motel but an example of democracy in almost the same way that Russia was supposed to be a shining Communist example in beleaguered Eastern Europe. It is part of the neocon philosophy (which I consider myself an erstwhile member of; for more on what a neocon is from one of them this series might be helpful www.nationalreview.com/goldberg/goldberg051603.asp Jonah Goldberg is a great whit and an easy read). Unlike Russia it appears to be working. While Iran (Persians) hasn't moderated much, the minor Arab powers and Libya both have moderated some. Libya was probably the most radical shift out of the traditional Arabian powers. Qaddafi has since abandoned his nuclear ambitions and played a game of placation with Washington. Small states like Qatar are being pulled into a stronger orbit with the West. Traditional Muslim states like Uzbekistan (one of the former Soviet "republics") are also more firmly Western (even if their leaders are more than slightly problematic). I glanced back at the thread and noticed the mention of indiscriminate bombing. Bombing of innocents is not a qualifier of just war. Intentionally targeting non-combatants is. The US has been frustrated by the tendency of the irregular forces they are fighting (mostly Al Queda out of Eqypt and Arabia for the Sunni's and Iran's Revolutionary Guard trained Shia proxies who mutually hate each other). They tend to use meat shields at which point the law of unintended consequences takes effect. Sometimes neutrals and good-guys get shot because the bad-guys are using them as shields and _not_ shooting and trying to hit the _bad-guys_ would result in additional good-guys dying. The thread was started years ago and today we see an Iraq picture that is much better than in 2005. Surge troops are being withdrawn and hopefully will eventually dwindle down to West German proportions.
|
|