From: john williams (ducati900@bigpond.com)
Date: Sun Feb 02 2003 - 12:41:43 GMT
Sam
By the way, I would be greatly sympathetic to the idea of an international
> criminal court, and indeed to the UN being given stronger powers (along
with
> a more democratic structure). However, the problem exists now, and we need
> to deal with it using the institutions that we have to hand.
>
> I think this element is met in full - although I acknowledge, in saying
> that, that events could show that confidence to be misplaced. My judgement
> is that Bush is a genuinely good person. I could be wrong.
This is why people who aren't convinced about Bushes motives are sceptical,
Any attempts to set up international courts would be and are being vetoed by
this regime sorry, Government, because Americans are not allowed to be
treated the same as
anyone else on the planet, how can you trust anyone who will not be held to
account in the way they would expect everyone else to be.
Just as an example, are you aware that all of the foreign Taliban fighters
(European,
Australian,etc) who were caught in Afghanistan are languishing in Cuba with
out legal aid or contact with there families. There is one exception, the
American Taliban fighter was taken back to the US given legal aid and access
to his family, why? one would assume it's because Americans are more human
than the rest. It does not inspire faith in the motives of those advocating
going to war.Or support of a country capable of such hypocrisies.
Say it's UN sanctioned, well get all of the UN resolutions followed through
before
people mouth off about the reputation of the UN being sullied.
> "A good objection helps one forward, a shallow objection, even if it is
> valid, is wearisome." Wittgenstein
>
So, it is much better if you are detailed and wrong, than being to the
point and right.
I like Wittgenstein, he involved himself in something that when he realised
he was wrong he changed his point of view.
yours in puerility
John from The Rock
Oh by the way, I reckon Suddam needs to go, lets come up with another way of
doing it. I know why don't we encourage the Kurds to rise up against him and
give them the support they need to follow it through, that was tried before
wasn't it? What went wrong?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Elizaphanian" <Elizaphanian@members.v21.co.uk>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Sunday, February 02, 2003 9:28 AM
Subject: Re: MD The Quality of removing Saddam Hussein from power.
> Hi Wim,
>
> > It is good that Anglican priests are free to have an opinion that
differs
> > from that of their employer. I do expect you to be able to explain why
you
> > differ, however. Can you explain to me why according to you the
> > requirements for a 'just war' ARE met now?
>
> I won't try and justify the hierarchy's perception at the moment; it's not
> really the place, particularly as my writing here is on a personal basis
> (I'm hardly a chaplain to the MoQ community!)
>
> So: just war theory. Well, not sure I would say I accept just war thinking
> in its entirety, but it's certainly a useful tool. Key elements of just
war
> theory, as I understand it:
>
> ##1 A just war can only be waged as a last resort. All non-violent options
> must be exhausted before the use of force can be justified.
>
> OK, well we've had supposedly non-violent options used for the last twelve
> years. As I said in my post, they're not really non-violent because the
> general population of Iraq has suffered grievously from them. Maintenance
of
> the status quo requires a maintenance of that suffering, which I don't
think
> is acceptable. So - either all coercion is lifted, or the boil is lanced
(to
> my way of thinking). I think it is possible to argue that non-violent
> options are never exhausted; I don't think that's the intention behind
this
> element. In my view, this element is met (I think a case could be made
that
> fewer lives would be lost by a short war than by the maintenance of
> sanctions; obviously that's extremely hypothetical and wholly dependent on
> the length of any war). It's not as if the Hussein regime has lacked
> opportunities to change its ways and reintegrate itself into the world
> community.
>
> ##2 A war is just only if it is waged by a legitimate authority. Even just
> causes cannot be served by actions taken by individuals or groups who do
not
> constitute an authority sanctioned by whatever the society and outsiders
to
> the society deem legitimate.
>
> Good question about what constitutes a legitimate authority. Certainly
what
> has taken place so far has been within UN auspices, and I would expect
that
> to continue. However, I personally would think democratically elected
> governments have greater legitimacy. So this element is, I think, met in
> full.
>
> ##3 A just war can only be fought to redress a wrong suffered. For
example,
> self-defense against an armed attack is always considered to be a just
cause
> (although the justice of the cause is not sufficient - see next point).
> Further, a just war can only be fought with "right" intentions: the only
> permissable objective of a just war is to redress the injury.
>
> This would seem to be the cast-iron element against the currently proposed
> endeavour. However a) this action cannot be understood separately from the
> 1990 attack on Kuwait (following which there was a conditional ceasefire,
> and the Hussein regime is not meeting the conditions) and b) the doctrine
or
> pre-emption is relevant. Again, I think this element is met, although this
> is perhaps the most arguable point.
>
> ##4 A war can only be just if it is fought with a reasonable chance of
> success. Deaths and injury incurred in a hopeless cause are not morally
> justifiable.
>
> I think this element is met, although I think the conflict is potentially
> much more fraught than the 1991 war.
>
> ##5 The ultimate goal of a just war is to re-establish peace. More
> specifically, the peace established after the war must be preferable to
the
> peace that would have prevailed if the war had not been fought.
>
>
> ##6 The violence used in the war must be proportional to the injury
> suffered. States are prohibited from using force not necessary to attain
the
> limited objective of addressing the injury suffered.
>
> I think this element will be met. Certainly judging be other comparable
> recent military actions, the risk to eg civilian life is massively lower
> than in previous conflicts.
>
> ##7 The weapons used in war must discriminate between combatants and
> non-combatants. Civilians are never permissable targets of war, and every
> effort must be taken to avoid killing civilians. The deaths of civilians
are
> justified only if they are unavoidable victims of a deliberate attack on a
> military target.
>
> Again, I think we can have a high confidence that this element will be
met -
> certainly for the US/UK side of things.
>
> ~~~
>
> So that's the 'just war' analysis - clearly, whether you think the
elements
> are satisfied will depend upon how you view the evidence in the first
place.
> I think this is something on which people of good will can have genuine
> disagreements. ##1 and ##3 are where the debate has focussed; as I say, in
> my judgement the criteria are met. I expect your views on that differ
> somewhat!
>
> My qualms about this analysis are that it can lead to some
counter-intuitive
> results. For example, on a straightforward reading of ##4, Britain should
> have sued for peace with Hitler in 1940. I think that Churchill was right
to
> put two fingers up to that prospect.
>
>> Cheers.
>
> Sam
>
>
>
> MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
> Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
>
> To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
> http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
>
>
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Feb 02 2003 - 12:42:07 GMT