Hotpoint
Rome Treaty Legions
ybbor said:
On the contrary. Whether we think it was right or wrong is irrelevant, the judgement of the international commmunity on this issue is the important opinion.
Do you think it was right To Oust Saddam?
- Thread starter HamaticBabylon
- Start date
On the contrary. Whether we think it was right or wrong is irrelevant, the judgement of the international commmunity on this issue is the important opinion.
Zarn
Le Républicain Catholique
Hotpoint said:
I on the other hand think that if you believe something is right or wrong, stand up for yourself. Many Americans believe the United States is doing just that.
Also, on this forum, it is perfectly relevent. If you don't think our opinions matter, why participate?
Hussein gone is one less dictator in the world.
ybbor
Will not change his avata
Hotpoint said:
not here, we're discussing whether it was right or wron, and just because some nations agree with you doesn't make you right. O.J. was found not guilty, doesn't mean he was
Hotpoint
Rome Treaty Legions
Zarn said:
I think you misunderstand which may be my fault for not explaining where I'm coming from here as well as I might have (mea culpa). I'm deliberately not approaching the "right" or "wrong" issue from a personal perspective because I'm trying to think "big-picture" in defining what "right" actually is.
Fundamentally the question of whether the invasion of Iraq and the removal of Hussein is a good thing will be decided by whether its wider effects are positive or negative, and for the most part that relies of how it is perceived by the international community. Their opinions are hence the ones that matter because it is precisely those opinions that will determine what is "right" in the end.
In any case by setting a precedent that a major power can and will act illegally because it believes to do so is morally right, you are opening Pandora's Box. The long-term consequences in terms of international law and order are extremely worrying in themselves especially given the relative decline of the West that will occur over the next few decades, if we play fast and loose with the rules when we're at the top then so will China when it is and the moral compass they might be following might not point to the same north that ours does.
If I was going to give my own thoughts then taking up a more concrete argument, from a perspective of trying to keep a lid on Islamic Fundamentalism the removal of the Saddam Regime was an error. He was an evil SOB but he was an evil secular SOB who was a major bulwark against the Religious Extremists.
Hussein gone is one less enemy of Osama Bin Laden in the world too.
ybbor
Will not change his avata
Hotpoint said:
Bin Laden: America is the Great satan
Saddam: America is the great satan
the enemy of my enemy is my friend
Zarn
Le Républicain Catholique
Hotpoint said:
1) Right and wrong has nothing to do with the majority opinion. If the international community (which really sounds alot like just Europe) said is was right to kill others for looking at you awkwardly, would it be right?
2) Illegal (and I use that term very loosely) doesn't mean wrong. Here (In NJ), it is illegal to have a knife with a bent back blade, even if it is dull. It's not morally wrong to have the knife. Owning a knife does not hurt anyone. It's just the law. That isn't one of the dumb laws, though.* Point is laws or agreements don't make something right or wrong.
3) Hussein secular? Tell that to all Non-Sunnis in Iraq.
*In New Jersey, it is illegal to slurp your soup, or for a man to knit, during fishing season. It's also against the law to frown at a police officer. In Trenton, it is illegal to eat pickles on Sunday nor can you throw a bad pickle out onto the street. Here is a whole site dedicated to stupid laws. Alot of these laws don't prevent 'wrong' actions.
FriendlyFire
Codex WMDicanious
ybbor said:
Unfortunity we supported people like Saddam an Osama against OUR great enemy the USSR
Jack the Ripper
King
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2004
- Messages
- 785
'We' as in...?
FriendlyFire
Codex WMDicanious
Jack the Ripper said:
The West of course
A'AbarachAmadan
Deity
Hotpoint said:
I disagree. Judgements can be wrong.
In the late 1930's most Brits and French believed appeasing Hitler was the right thing to do. They were wrong.
Most Americans on 6 Dec 1941 thought we should remain neutral in WWII. Their judgement was wrong.
Most Americans and many Europeans thought we should not interfere in Rwanda or Bosnia (at least until it was too late to save hundreds of thousands). Their judgement was wrong.
In this case, I think the international coummunity's judgement is wrong. I will always do and/or support what I think is right, even if it is contrary to popular opinion. I'm no lemming.
Verbose
Deity
Was it right to oust Saddam?
Yeah. Right in principle, daft in practice. Lots of things work like that.
The way it happened, to paraphrase Napoleon's minister of police Fouché:
'It was worse than a crime; it was a mistake.'
Yeah. Right in principle, daft in practice. Lots of things work like that.
The way it happened, to paraphrase Napoleon's minister of police Fouché:
'It was worse than a crime; it was a mistake.'
Hotpoint
Rome Treaty Legions
Zarn said:
You're thinking of "Right" and Wrong" as a moral judgement I'm thinking in terms of positive or negative outcomes because morality is a lot more subjective. Keep in mind that there is a very real possibility that Saddam considered his actions to be morality correct as he saw them.
A utilitarian analysis of the Invasion of Iraq would seek to determine whether in the long term it will make things better or worse for the world as a whole. The greater good for the greater number as it were.
As for the international community meaning Europe. When the US and UK abandoned their attempts to get a second UN resolution through to support the invasion it was because only 4 of the 15 Security Council were expected to vote for it.
Zarn said:
Once again you're thinking morality and I'm thinking outcomes. We're just as crossed-purposes methinks.
Zarn said:
Hussein non-secular? Tell that to Tariq Aziz (who is Christian).
Hussein oppressed the Kurds and Shia because they were a political threat not because they were non-Sunni
A'AbarachAmadan said:
Not as good a case as you may think in that they were wrong because they were taking a viewpoint based upon a moral judgement not a long-term utilitararian one. The appeasement enthusiasts were so blinded by their horror at the slaughter of the Great War that they couldn't think outside the box.
If they'd be thinking dispassionately then appeasement would have been abandoned but instead they did what they thought was morally right.
Morality should have no place in international politics. It tends to get a lot of people killed
Hotpoint
Rome Treaty Legions
ybbor said:
Saddam Hussein: Iran is dangerous
GW Bush: Iran is dangerous
The enemy of my enemy is my friend?
BasketCase
Username sez it all
Dubious--the U.S. recently demonstrated that it doesn't need friends in order to get stuff done. 
Bronx Warlord
Squad Leader
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2004
- Messages
- 2,449
Why should we? In all honesty, we have worked hard for were we are at today and have the right to get what we feel is needed done. The UN is not a world goverment, it's a sad joke in many regards. We have the right as a nation state to impose our will, don't like it then being it... I dare you 
E-Raser
hard, but unfair
Bronx Warlord said:Why should we? In all honesty, we have worked hard for were we are at today and have the right to get what we feel is needed done. The UN is not a world goverment, it's a sad joke in many regards. We have the right as a nation state to impose our will, don't like it then being it... I dare you
This kind of diplomacy is mainly the reason for all this kindness your state faces through out the planet.
BasketCase
Username sez it all
The U.S. has never had any genuine kindness. We've been getting yelled at for doing this or that for the past two hundred years (i.e. as long as we've been the U.S.)
Sure, during those two-hundred years, we've been getting kind words every now and then from other nations, words which mean just as much as those kind words the Persians give you in a game of Civ3 when they want to trade world maps, while they're planning to come at you three turns later and threaten to declare war on you unless you give them 25 GPT.
The U.S. isn't getting treated differently than anyone else. Nations sweet-talk each other or yell at each other in order to extract favorable behavior. Nothing more.
Sure, during those two-hundred years, we've been getting kind words every now and then from other nations, words which mean just as much as those kind words the Persians give you in a game of Civ3 when they want to trade world maps, while they're planning to come at you three turns later and threaten to declare war on you unless you give them 25 GPT.
The U.S. isn't getting treated differently than anyone else. Nations sweet-talk each other or yell at each other in order to extract favorable behavior. Nothing more.
Hotpoint
Rome Treaty Legions
Bronx Warlord said:Why should we? In all honesty, we have worked hard for were we are at today and have the right to get what we feel is needed done. The UN is not a world goverment, it's a sad joke in many regards. We have the right as a nation state to impose our will, don't like it then being it... I dare you
Why is your nation-state more legitimate than another though? Are you saying then that might is right?
By the way since the UN Charter was ratified by Congress it is as much a part of United States Law as any other piece of legislation and so the US is legally bound by its own domestic legal apparatus to obey it too.
Also in any case the United States really is bound by International Law according to a ruling by the Supreme Court. The relevant SCOTUS judgement can be found in the Paquete Habana case of 1900 in which the court ruled that:
"International law is part of our law, and must be ascertained and administered by the courts of justice."
Interestingly the international legal precedent being obeyed in this case originally dated to a Treaty signed between England and France in 1403 so it predated the birth of Christopher Columbus let alone the United States itself!
BasketCase
Username sez it all
So, if Congress voted to de-ratify (or whatever the word is) the UN Charter, that would make the UN an illegitimate entity?Hotpoint said:
Same question turned around. Who decides what's right and wrong? In the filibuster thread I started, someone raised the idea of protecting the minority from the "tyranny of the majority", so it's not as simple as "well, most people on the planet think X".
E-Raser
hard, but unfair
BasketCase said:
The main problem IMO is that most ppl think "y", just the US doest "X"- that's why...
Kyoto, immunity for US troops, and so on.
If US gov doesn't care about a common consense with the rest of the world they shouldn't be too much astonished why their arrogance may rise anti-americanism.
My 2 cents...
Similar threads
