Is War Ever Morally Right/Justified?

[1871]

Quote:Shakur420

Even if we argue that there were good people with good intentions within institutions like governments or companies, it's impossible to show that they can actually make significant changes in favor of the public on a voluntary basis.

Now who is ignoring history.

Impossible eh? How would they make it on a voluntary basis if they are being paid to make changes. And you really believe good people in Government never made positive changes? I suppose all those women fighting for the vote made no change or didnt subsequently get themselves elected or that there werent people in public life who ever did things on a voluntary basi or made things better for society. We never had things like social housing or healthcare. Right.

My highlight here. The word 'distinction' is clearly stated;

Quote:Rick Ross 187 (responding to shakur420 ) Wrote: im interested here as to why you feel the need to use quotation marks around totalitarian and liberal. do you feel the distinction between what is described as a liberal and what is described as a totalitarian society is irelevent or of little consequence?

which Shakur420 responded with;

Quote:Shakur420

Well, who defines the words?

As though these words have no definitions of themselves and are dependent entirely on how others extrapolate an argument - and from which you extract only the worst scenario.You are given a positive suggestion and you respond only with bad faith. The word 'distinction' was clearly stated - you chose to ignore it. If you want to be clearer why not use the definition 'pseudo liberal' ? Liberal is quite different from totalitarian, though there are/have been totalitarian regimes who liked to describe themselves as liberal - but liberalism is not the same as totalitarian by any means. This is another example of syncretism. Up down,left right etc. And as if Berman is representative of all liberal thought - he is just one writer.

But then you tag RickRosses statement

Quote:Rick Ross 187 Wrote: im interested here as to why you feel the need to use quotation marks around totalitarian and liberal. do you feel the distinction between what is described as a liberal and what is described as a totalitarian society is irelevent or of little consequence?

on to this;

Quote:Shakur420

Dude like Paul Berman who tries to frame reactions to overt, calculated imperial/neocolonial designs as some kind of irrationality based in totalitarian institutions, doctrines, evolution - or whatever the fuck he goes on about - does his distinction between "liberal" and "totalitarian" mean anything? When he claims that there was no imperial designs in the Middle East - by the US - only in Asia and Latin America, can he be taken seriously? For this guy, economic inequality imposed by a dominant force for the purpose of extracting profits is not a "reasonably defined sense" of the term imperialism, therefore we can conclude that there was no US imperialism in the Arab world. HAHAHAHAHA

Does your distinction between liberal and totalitarian mean anything?

Or that liberal = totalitarian because a spokesperson for Communitarianism used an argument in relation to Afghanistan?

Next time someone talks about Ghandi why not tag it on to 'Hitler' because they both inspired religious fervour ? .Or, as Rick Ross was referring to something you said perhaps you are comparing yourself to Paul Berman (without being aware of it )? A 'cruise missile progressive' perhaps?

Introcluse called you out for presenting syncretic arguments. You are still doing it.


syn·cre·tism
   [sing-kri-tiz-uhm, sin-] Show IPA

noun
1.
the attempted reconciliation or union of different or opposing principles, practices, or parties, as in philosophy or religion.

2.
Grammar . the merging, as by historical change in a language, of two or more categories in a specified environment into one, as, in nonstandard English, the use of was with both singular and plural subjects, while in standard English was is used with singular subjects (except for you in the second person singular) and were with plural subjects.

Here is a syncretic argument;

1.Womens Rights took place in a society which pursued imperialism which is unjust. Womens rights were eventually endorsed by those who pursued imperialism.

2. Therefore womens rights are unjust.

Quote:1871 Wrote: Sure it happened - get used to that fact. Youre not going to be able to undo history with a massive, rhetorical, righteous, angst sermon looking back to the past. Every century had slavery, oppression, disease, famine, murder, tyranny. You cant change the past - or be hostage to it. All you can do is improve the present for a better future. Happens anyway.

Quote:Shakur420
Yeah, happens anyways - and continues to happen as long as people try to frame aggression and murder for the conquest of resources and profits as "humanitarian intervention".

Sure – when they do. Dont forget however the many examples of humanitarian intervention where they don’t. If you assume that all humanitarian intervention is framed in that way – it isn’t - and its quite wrong to assume that it is.

Quote:Shakur42
Or for example when people pretend that the "peace process" is meant to achieve a peaceful solution, instead of acknowledging that it's an open and clear effort to maintain a stalemate while "facts on the ground" are consolidated, you guarantee that things will continue to happen.

However remember there are different players in the peace process. The peace process was/is designed to create conflict resolutions by peaceful means rather than war. If it continues hegemonies of power then war continues - there is another kind of war; ie; by political means rather than people shooting or blowing eachother up. If that isn’t successful it escalates to violence. Violence is not an a priori solution to conflict – invariably its unsuccessful – though not always. If you don’t have a ‘peace process’ you have a ‘war process’. If you have a ‘winner’ there will also be a ‘loser’. The creation of circumstances where there are ‘losers’ in a situation lead to more grievances, conflict and war.

Quote:Shakur420
When people try to say that regime change is being carried out for the benefit of native populations instead of saying what it really is - an effort to crack open markets and take resources - you guarantee that things will continue to happen. Again, and again, and again.

Not necessarily. Cracking open markets and taking resources for the benefit of native populations invariably means a regime change where hedgemonies of power mean that that regime is stealing the resources of natives populations, through rape pillage and murder. Justifying the actions of one thiefand murderer because you are against another thief and murderer does not mean that you speak for us the people. You just side with your preferred thief. Note how you slide from ‘people’ to ‘you’.

Quote:Shakur420
And that's the problem with framing history and "current affairs" - some people like the word "politics", but the victims call it their "lives" - in a way where you think things happen "anyways". It might be cool to be jaded when you're 15, or you might actually be jaded, but either way it's a ridiculous view.

We call it our lives and we call it politics. Do you think we are stupid ? Of course it happens anyways because it has happened to us. You think that one day we are going to wake up in some Shangri la? Some fucking ‘shakur420 heaven’? Get the fuck outta here !
All we can do is attempt to ammeliorate the problems through political means, so people sit down and talk with eachother instead of fighting and killing eachother. You can call that ‘moderate’ if you wish – but we learnt in the north out of experience. One side was always ‘right’ they could always point to some atrocity or other – so even though there were fools, fellows and foes, it didn’t make any difference. It was always acting in response to a response to a response. It was only when people knew the war could not be won by guns and bombs because it was just tit for tat – a war of attrition. No solution in that.

Quote:Shakur420
That hey, it's just history, no need to dwell on it.

Like I said – you cant change history. And I said be ‘hostage’ to it.

Quote:Shakur420

How are people supposed to just go "meh" when shit is ongoing, the same goals, tactics and lies are continuing as we speak?

Theyre not. Who said they were? I said that such things will occur – that is inevitable; there will be conflicts – its all about ameliorating the degree of those conflicts.

Quote:Shakur420
If we're "civilized" and expect people to act moderately or whatever the fuck you wanna call it, how are you gonna tell them to just accept what's happened to them, to get over it and stop pointing the finger at the cause?

You mean if ‘we’ are civilised and ‘they’ are not?
Do you stop for one moment to consider that you are constructing arguments of your own making and then attributing those arguments on to other people? That is what you are doing.
Interesting how you place oppressed people among the ‘uncivilised’ – with your argument it is our oppressors who are ‘civilised’ and the oppressed and subjugated who are ‘uncivilised’. This goes back to your earlier assertion when you said in another thread that you don’t give a fuck about people cultures. Its an example of why, through your ignorance, you would deem people who are oppressed to be ‘uncivilised’. The ‘other’. With you it is ‘them’ not ‘us’ but you’ll side yourself with ‘them because you think the ‘uncivilised’ are oppressed. I hope no one ever plays cards with you.

Quote:Shakur420
Especially when those same things are being done to others right now, how are people supposed to "get used to the fact" when we demand solutions from them and condemn and lie about the way they are reacting to those "facts"?

The sentence you are quoting I used - take note of the past participle and context;

1871
]Sure it happened - get used to that fact.

The injustices that occured have occurred as a fact of history.

Interesting how when you quoted me you did not quote where I said
about improving the present for a better future. Its the only thing in fact you didnt quote.

Injustice; Because we are used to the fact. Its always happened.. I think we are used to the fact that these injustices are with us. We are used to it. Recognising that there is injustice and poverty doesn’t mean that you don’t work against it as much as you can – even though we are used to it – this is an expression thats obviously different in your neck of the woods. We’re used to assholes being in power – doesn’t mean we vote for them. We are used to it raining – doesn’t mean we don’t go out without an umbrella in a storm. We’re used to the cold – doesn’t mean we don’t try tpo keep warm, etc,etc,etc,etc,. You attempt to ameliorate it even though youre used to it happening. You don’t say that because theres a flood that therefore youre going to get rid of water.lol.
Shit happens – you just got to deal with it in the best way you can – but don’t believe conflicts will suddenly one day just vanish into thin air.
Human beings struggle against injustice and suffering, but there will never be an end to struggling or to injustice and suffering existing – all you can hope to do is solve such injustices and suffering where you can. For thousands of years people have been struggling. Its the nature of reality. The nature of the Universe. A woman gives birth – its pain. Life is a painful experience – a mix of joy and pain – happiness and suffering you don’t get one without the other – and Im not talking about some bondage club lol – but its the reality of life, All you can possibly hope to achieve is such effects being ameliorated – stop injustice where you possibly can - and the best way to do that is through cultural/social/political change. It wont disappear altogether. Those goals, tactics, and lies will always be there because it is in human nature – but the opposite is also in human nature so there will always be that conflict and it depends on which way you can swing that balance. So Id say that we hope to solve things like war, famine, slavery - but they are still with us, not in the same way. Who knows the future. Its unwritten, but its my view that civilisations come and go - there are golden ages and dark ages - good times and bad - war and peace exist throughout history - when the golden age lasts for a millenia it will subside to something different and then back again.
It is the nature of Samsara.

Quote:Shakur420

You really wanna pretend that solutions can be hammered out without acknowledging and addressing legitimate grievances?

Again, - who said this apart from yourself ? Please point out to me in my post where I said any such thing.

Quote:Shakur420
So like when the massacre of Gaza stopped and Obama was asked about it, when he said that people should "look forward" - like not dwell on the fact that the US authorized, funded, armed and supported that destruction - you expect Palestinians to negotiate under those conditions? lol, you except anyone to act reasonably, moderately, carefully, when you approach them like that? lol, good luck on that one. Might've had a different perspective if you were a Native American born on a reservation.

^Heres a case in point. Like your use of ‘you’ here and your counterpointing of it with Palestinian. Of course you identify yourself with the Palestinians, and through your use of your syncretic arguments placing me in the opposite category – I mean, thats the level of your arguments - though Im not sure on what basis you make such affiliations. Religion? Ethnicity? Race ? Its a common tactic of someone with a Stalinist mentality. Attribute to your opponent things they did not say – identify them with a particular group. Go ahead, Ive come to expect little more from you.
You used the word ‘dwell’ not me. I used the word hostage – far more relevant – and that people should not be a hostage to history – not that they shouldn’t understand it. So in that context I would say that the US authorizing, funding, arming and supporting that destruction is very much an example of them, and the people killed, being hostage to that historical/political/religious/cultural/socio-economic process –as victimizers and victims, aggressors and those aggressed against and those aggressed against responding with aggression – so there develops a cycle of aggression - - and, being tied to the process – or to put it another way – the lower down you are, the harder the squeeze. Of course people are not going to act ‘reasonably,moderately,carefully’ after having been treated with violence they respond with violence but don’t assume that that response – however understandable it is, will achieve the means whereby the causes are solved or that there aren’t many issues in any given conflict. The saying is that ‘violence begets violence’ applies. Political solutions still have to be found.

Quote:Shakur420
. Might've had a different perspective if you were a Native American born on a reservation.

Probably not. Id still recognise a ............ when I see and hear one. You make a lot of assumptions based on your self righteousness about who you deem to be the oppressor or the oppressed. Similarly when you use the word 'we'. I doubt very much however that you would place yourself in the former category –( even though you live in the ‘west’ you consider yourself ‘east’ because your from Pakistan?india ) how very convenient for you, no doubt - other people can be labelled oppressor yes.. Just don’t try to speak for me- you don’t know me or my history.

[Funsized]

(04-19-2012 11:27 PM)YaelTheGreat Wrote:  

(04-19-2012 10:19 PM)Funsized Wrote:  No, because the morality of a subject can be different with each person. Thus it can never be justified.
Besides most wars are economical.

Morality is not subjective.

How is this?

[OnlyTheFaithful]

Perhaps the real question itself is the war on right and wrong - good and evil justified?

and the answer would have to be yes it is , and if you put right and wrong in the context of good and evil then no nation will come out smelling of roses.

you have to find what is right and therefore good, and keep refining it ,to the maximum purity.

everthing in my view i assume has something good no matter how bad ,things have to be so we can learn, but if questions arent asked, then answers are not found.

[Funsized]

true, but even good and evil can't be justified.
it's all within the context of the culture.

[OnlyTheFaithful]

(04-21-2012 07:14 PM)Funsized Wrote:  true, but even good and evil can't be justified.
it's all within the context of the culture.

everything is within a context, for i suppose an agenda a motive, the only true context for humans is the whole world and its people as 1. everything else holds right and wrong but has holes in it so therefore its kind of self serving and goes against the bigger picture of right and wrong.

philospophy psychatry , equality and things like this, havent rose at the same degree of progress as technology.perhaps they have rose or gained , but i seriously doubt in the same level as the technological revoloutions.

Decadance is springing up in words and minds "bootylicious booty call" utter bullshit words .

[1871]

Here are two things which are wrong and evil. So what do you do to stop them?

[OnlyTheFaithful]

well only 1 side can kind of win a war, and neither side is right becuase they kill people, but 1 side is more right than the other morally, but being morally right , and right to fit into the world society is 2 diff things isnt it, maths and economics, money dictates, and more.

[1871]

VLADIMIR ISACHENKOV

Associated Press= MOSCOW (AP) — Russia has no intention of curtailing military cooperation with Syria despite calls from the West to stop arming President Bashar Assad's regime, a senior Russian government official said Tuesday.

Deputy Defense Minister Anatoly Antonov said Russia will abide by existing contracts to deliver weapons to Syria despite Assad's yearlong crackdown on the opposition, in which over 7,500 people have been killed.

"Russia enjoys good and strong military technical cooperation with Syria, and we see no reason today to reconsider it," Antonov told reporters.

Russia has shielded Syria, its last ally in the Arab world, from U.N. sanctions over the Assad regime's bloody suppression of an uprising against his government.

Moscow has been a steadfast ally of Syria since Soviet times, when the Middle Eastern nation was led by the current president's father, Hafez Assad, and has long supplied Damascus with aircraft, missiles, tanks and other heavy weapons.

The Syrian port of Tartus is now the only naval base Russia has outside the former Soviet Union. A Russian navy squadron made a call there in January in what was seen by many as a show of support for Assad.

Also in January, a Russian ship allegedly carrying tons of munitions made a dash for Syria after telling officials in EU member Cyprus, where it had made an unexpected stop, that it was heading for Turkey. Turkish officials said the ship had instead charted course for Tartus.

Antonov said Russia's supply of weapons to Syria is in line with international law and will continue. "Russian-Syrian military cooperation is perfectly legitimate," he said.

"The only thing that worries us today is the security of our citizens," Antonov said in a reference to Russian military personnel in Syria that are training the Syrians in the use of weapons supplied by Russia.

He declined to say how many of them are currently stationed in Syria.

"It's part of our contractual obligations," said Antonov, who oversees military technical cooperation with foreign countries. "When we supply weapons, we have to provide training."

Antonov angrily dismissed allegations that Russia has sent special forces officers to assist government forces.

"There are no (Russian) special forces with rifles and grenade launchers running around," he said.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/feedarticle/10141192








How can Britain, one of the world's leading arms exporters, honour its stated commitment to promote human rights throughout the world?

With difficulty.

Vince Cable, the business secretary, has admitted as much. "We do trade with governments that are not democratic and have bad human rights records", he told a crossparty group of senior MPs. "We do business with repressive governments and there's no denying that".

Cable's refreshing admission of what we all know anyway did not satisfy members of the Commons committee on arms export controls on Tuesday night, not least the chairman, the former Conservative defence minister, Sir John Stanley. He accused the government of adopting a "rosy tinted" and "over optimistic" view of "authoritarian regimes".

The MPs were questioning Cable and William Hague, the foreign secretary, about Whitehall's approval of exports, including crowd control ammunition, guns and ammunition to Libya, Bahrain, and Egypt, in the period leading up to the Arab Spring last year. The MPs also raised questions about reports that Saudi Arabia sent troops in British trucks to Bahrain during the protests in the Gulf state last year.

In a stinging report a year ago, the parliamentary committee noted that successive governments had allowed British arms supplied to north Africa and the Middle East to be used for internal repression in apparent breach of official guidelines.

The MPs welcomed the revocations of 158 arms export licences to governments brutally cracking down on civil protests but added that this merely reflected the "degree of policy misjudgment" that had occurred.

Under official UK guidelines, no arms exports would be allowed that would exacerbate regional conflict or be used for internal oppression. "We don't have perfect foresight", Cable told the MPs.

Hague went further. "In the case of Libya noone predicted what was going to happen", he said as though Gaddafi had only turned into a dictator last year after Libyans in Benghazi began to rise up.

As to Iraq, Hague added, that country had a right to self-defence. Moreover, it had a booming oil industry. "It was very important that BP and Shell are involved in a country like that", said the foreign secretary.

As far as Saudi Arabia was concerned, he said the government had raised concerns about its treatment of women and foreign workers. But 99 percent of Britain's exports to the Kingdom consisted of Typhoon jets. "They are not relevant to our concerns about these rights", said Hague.

And Saudi forces were sent into Bahrain last year "to guard installations but not to take part in dealing with unrest in Bahrain so they did not fall foul [of the export guidelines]".

Cable told MPs that the government had reviewed its system of monitoring arms exports and that in future ministers would be able to "suspend" arms exports quickly in the event of political upheaval or a regional crisis.

Britain is among the world's top five arms suppliers, selling more than £2bn in 2009, according to the latest figures from the International Institute for Strategic Studies. The most lucrative markets, notably in the Middle East, but also the Indian subcontinent, are those where the citizens are not in a position to object or where arms sales further destabilise an already unstable region.

As Hague demonstrated, there are always ways of getting round mutually contradictory policy objectives - in this case, promoting both arms sales and human rights.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/defence-...ts-exports



*********************************************************

So what conclusions?

1. Domestically nations stop arming repressive regimes. A MORAL foriegn policy.

Russia and China vetoed a unanimous United Nations Resolution condemning Assad in Syria.

Nations have said there will be no military intervention. Massacres go on.

So, in other words there is no short term solution. If one side doesnt arm cruel dictators who massacre their own people the other 'side' will..

Lately the trade embargo on Syria is;

Sanctions on Syria

Extent of restrictive measures imposed on Syria

There are extensive trade restrictions on Syria. These include an arms embargo, which is a ban on the export of 'arms and related material' (ie military ammunition, weapons and goods). This can be put in place by either the United Nations (UN), the European Union (EU), Organisation on Security and Co-operation in Europe or at a UK national level.

The UK interprets an arms embargo as covering all goods and items on the UK Military List (which forms part of the UK Strategic Control Lists), unless stated otherwise. For more information see our guide on the UK Strategic Export Control Lists - the consolidated list of strategic military and dual-use items.

Additionally, some goods which are not on the UK Military List might also need an export licence. For more information, see our guide on Military End-Use control guidance notes.

Other specific trade sanction measures adopted by the European Union comprise the following:

a prohibition on the sale, supply, transfer or export of arms and related material of all types

a prohibition on the sale, supply, transfer or export of a list of equipment that could be used for internal repression

a prohibition on the trade of gold, precious metals and diamonds
a prohibition on the provision of technical or financial assistance or of brokering services related to any of the above


an asset freeze against, and prohibitions on making funds or economic resources available (including the supply of goods) to a specified list of people held responsible for the violent repression against civilians
a ban on cargo flights operated by Syrian carriers
a travel ban against specific listed individuals

There are limited exemptions in place, including for supplies to the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force (UNDOF) and for supply of non-lethal equipment for humanitarian or protective use.

Other measures include:

a prohibition on the sale, supply, transfer or export of equipment or software intended for use by the Syrian regime in monitoring or interception of internet and telephone communications. Provision of technical or installation assistance in support of such items will also be prohibited. There is an exemption for pre-existing contracts.

a prohibition on the supply or transfer of specified equipment or technology to be used in certain oil and gas natural sectors in Syria or to Syrian-owned enterprises outside Syria. There is no exemption for pre-existing contracts.

a prohibition on participation in the construction of new power plants for the production of electricity in Syria, including through the provision of finance or financial assistance for such projects or the acquisition of shares in, or formation of joint ventures with, enterprises in Syria engaged in such projects.

There are also additional restrictive measures placed on Syrian banks and insurance. These include:

a prohibition on Syrian banks from opening new branches, subsidiaries or representative offices in EU Member States and from establishing joint ventures or acquiring an interest in banks in the EU. Likewise, EU financial institutions are prohibited from doing the same activities in Syria.

Member States are obliged not to provide loans or other forms of financial support to the Syrian Government, together with restrictions on the supply of banknotes and coinage to the Central Bank of Syria.
a prohibition on the provision of re/insurance to the Syrian government or entities or controlled by it.

If you intend to export to Syria, you should keep yourself well informed of the current situation through the media and other information channels. For further details of the financial restrictions in place on Syria you should access the current UK financial sanctions explained on the HM Treasury website - Opens in a new window. For details of import sanctions, read the import notifications issued by the Import Licensing Branch (ILB) part of the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS). - Opens in a new window

Updates to the current sanctions and embargoes situation are also issued by the Export Control Organisation (ECO). Read current Notices to Exporters on the BIS website.

To receive regular updates on the latest changes you can join the ECO mailing list, find contact details for the ECO on the BIS website.

http://www.businesslink.gov.uk/bdotg/act...=RESOURCES

**********************************

So when Assad is shelling civilian areas what is the immediate response -do something or do nothing?

[Funsized]

Honestly I don't know. But I do know that not everything is black and white. Nd yeah ot us it logicaly sounds bad but this is the logical we were raised in, they don't know any better cuz that's what they grew up with

[shakur420]

All the stuff I said was relating to the concept of "just war", it was all background. Notice that I tied it all in to decisions for war, the people who make those decisions, the record of decision making, and the framework surrounding the issues - issues we supposedly want solutions for - and, ultimately, logical ways to approach issues like "just war" presented by people in power. Logical in my mind, at least.  You didn't address that in any of your comments, all I see is gibberish about how I supposedly construct arguments.  Not addressing any of the points I made, the examples I dropped, the conclusion on "just war", nothing.

So for example, you responded to my doubt that Iran is the biggest threat to world peace with an article about human rights violations there.  No where in the article does it mention Iran is a bigger threat than the US, no mention of it's threat to the world at all, actually, only the threats to it's domestic population.  If I contrast the violations of Iran, say with US behavior, it just supports the worldview that the US is the biggest threat.  You know, the things mentioned in the article like prison conditions, executions, arbitrary arrest and detention, shit like that. But this gets turned into me being "stalinist" or something, lol.

You completely ignored the point, that if we believe in "just war", say in the case of Afghanistan, then surely we must also believe in it when it's directed at us, by Iranians, Iraqis, etc., and if we don't believe in this principle of universality then we better not pretend that things are undertaken for "humanitarian" reasons. Uncontroversial examples show us clearly that there is almost never a "humanitarian" motive (bring up Kosovo if you want, it's one of the easiest to dismiss). "Humanitarian" considerations only enter the discussion when it serves the interests of those in power, like say when interests "align", lol. People championing "just war" while providing false frameworks, backgrounds - like the people I mentioned - don't give a rat's ass about humanitarian considerations. Otherwise, they would first be dealing with their own contributions to humanitarian catastrophe before pointing at official enemies. Like somehow, interests "align" when the state which maintained and supported a brutal dictator in Iraq - and sanctions described as "infanticide" by UN officials - decides to depose that dictator under conditions that are expected to bring even more suffering, death and destruction to Iraqis. How dare they bring up "humanitarian" motivations? When the actions you propose are expected to bring more suffering, how does it align with humanitarian interests?

Like Kosovo. Bombing Serbia was expected to severely increase atrocities and to cause massive civilian casualties. How dare anyone supporting such actions claim motives like "humanitarian intervention"? It's bullshit, on the simplest possible level. You ignored it completely. Though, maybe I'm wrong, maybe it was mentioned in the colorful text you provided. I can't read that shit. I use v1 of the forum, it's a light grey background. Light colors like yellow, white, shit like that, I can't read.

A next example.  I specifically remember saying "significant change".  I mentioned things like the New Deal, that came about because of public pressure, not because of benevolent politicians.  Things like womens' and minority rights also fit this category. You ignored that, lol.  If you disagree with what I actually said, drop 1 example please - in another thread, maybe - of any rights being handed down without a struggle, and then maybe I'll take you seriously.

You just wanna argue, it's transparent.  I linked a post where you previously pointed out overt designs to dominate the planet, pointing out the very things I've been pointing out.  Then, the day I said "old people suck", you got bitter and began arguing with me on every possible thing you could. It's pathetic, really.  I'll drop the link again in case you need to jog your memory.
http://www.immortaltechnique.co.uk/Threa...rge-Kennan

We can touch another example. On Berman, he not only presents a standard liberal line - you know, "aligning interests" (see Hitchens for another glaring example), but he's someone who's presented to me - in the context of justifying war by the powerful - by the people I'm talking with.  Don't see why there's issue with using him as an example. Not to mention, you never addressed the shit. Just dismissed it by implying that he doesn't represent "liberals". Your boy there might disagree with you, I'm sure he can point you towards some of the "literature that advocated the Iraq war", lol, like liberals who felt that interests aligned.

Should I continue?  lol

If you make another post talking about me instead of the points I raised, the examples I dropped and the principles I'm talking about, I'll ignore it. Because you ignored the entire thing.  You tried to respond to individual comments but ignored the purpose, the point of what I was saying.  This is a thread about "just war" theory, after all.  If war can be justified, if it's ever "just".  The entire post was leading up to support my comments on "just war", which you completely ignored.

This is the problem.  When people bring up the hypocrisy of the US, or say that it's the biggest violator of human rights, there's a purpose.  People don't point these things out to display their hate for freedom, their love of dictators or whatever other hollow statements people wanna attribute to them.  People want this shit to stop.  The first step is to smash the propaganda and get rid of the crimes you're responsible for - like recognizing the brutal dictators in the Middle East are a product of direct, overt designs to control the regional resources.

The "Arab Spring" is a clear cut case of this. People want these dictators gone, but all we keep hearing about is "what if Islamists get into power?" Nobody gives a fuck about Democracy, not people who are running things that is, and their cheerleaders. They give a fuck about their own interests, which in a place like the Middle East means blocking popular movements that are trying to reflect public opinion in their governments' policies, because Democracy in the Middle East would be against the interests of those who are trying to maintain regional dominance. It was the point of the "de-democratize" thread, but it was conveniently ignored on ideological grounds, like trying to display how bad the Iranians are. Or trying to point out how bad Assad is, while dismissing the global and regional Superpowers that have overtly tried to maintain guys like him, tried to bring about the "Lebanonization" of the Middle East.

Pointing all this shit out, so we can reject the formal "peace process", for example, and move towards real peace initiatives (like the ones supported by the whole world, including those crazy terrorists, for the last 4 decades) brings out fevered rhetoric about "Islamofascism" and shrugged shoulders on things like history. It gets met with "you're anti-western" or a "Stalinist" supporter, or whatever other nonsense comes to mind.  It's transparent.  I'm sure you'd agree, if you weren't so preoccupied with playing devil's advocate and simply arguing with me out of spite.

[1871]

Shakur420 - I took apart your argument and showed how it was flawed due to your use of syncretic arguments - and how you reached those conclusions - not disagreeing with the contention that Afghanistan invasion is wrong. I also think it pretty much addressed the 'just war' argument - but I'll develop this further.
The link you supplied to the George Kennan thread did not make sense regarding your contention especially as I was agreeing with and expanding on the findings of that document as it related to the events specified. You should watch the Pinter video again. Are you reading the same thing as me? The posts I made on that thread agreed and expanded and gave examples on that - where it had been pursued. Show me where I said that the US were not pushing their own interests. What Im saying is the point Rick Ross made on the Taliban thread about there being multiple factors in war and oppression - not one single root cause attributable to one single cause.

Also - on this title of this thread;

Is War Ever Morally Right/Justified?

isnt just about 'just war' in the context of Afghanistan/Iraq - although you seem to be attempting to isolating it down to that, but also is a general philisophical/political question.

I think I sufficiently addressed the vacuousness of your arguments re 'just war' and the nonsense you posted on it - Berman/Hitchens etc - when I defined what is a syncretic argument. As you said you had trouble reading it with the bright font old man, here it is again in a font you can read, make sure you have your glasses;

Quote:Here is a syncretic argument;

1.Womens Rights took place in a society which pursued imperialism which is unjust. Womens rights were eventually endorsed by those who pursued imperialism.

2. Therefore womens rights are unjust.

So in the context of 'just war'. A war can be a 'just war' but wged by 'unjust' people it becomes an unjust war 9EG;iRAQ/aFGHANISTAN) - particularly in the manner in which they are waging it.

Does this make the war against the tyrant they are waging against 'unjust' ? In my view - no.
It makes their war unjust, in the manner they wage that war; but war can be waged by many different means - not just in the category you attempt to define it to. I agree with the war on the Taliban. I agree with a war on the US/Bush style administration which wages war from its own economic/geo-political motives. One does not cancel out the other.
As RAWA stated 'they are bretheren in creed'.

The war onSaddam in Iraq and the Taliban in Afghanistan was unjust -or , more accurately lets say it was an incompetently waged war, since Sadaam and his Ba'ath party henchmen were evil it was espoused for just reasons (getting rid of a tyrant) but waged by people who were often tyrants themselves, political leaders - but remember that the war against Saddam was waged prior to the invasion -by Iraqis themselves - and intervention was called for, by them, and not given - so was this a just or an unjust war relating to Saddam? In my view, given Saddams genocide of the Kurds as well as his other massacres and political oppressions it was justified when carried out by the Iraqis. The invasion was carried out bilaterally based on the lies regarding WMDs. No doubt you would make the claim that if arms were supplied to insurgents fighting against Saddam that this would constitute 'interference' or 'regime destabilisation'. Whatever - but its why people like you are dinsosaurs.

Similarly you cannot provide any evidence whatsoever of any western country committing Saddam-style genocides - 182.000+ Kurds in their own domestic countries.

The example of Syria is an adequate example of a middle east regime oppressing and murdering 'its own' population (though they are not 'his own' though they are all Syrians since they are opposing factions). Syria is not a regime which is 'destabilised' by the west, it is supported by Russia mainly; and a tyrant like Assad obviously welcomes that support. To suggest that nations will not support and back eachother is unrealistic, not to mention, childish. This pretty much shoots apart your ridiculous contention that nations somehow occupy some kind of bubble seperate from other nations - or that this can possibly be a formula for policy, or that 'left to their own devices' countries will automatically choose democracy - or even, and here is the main one - that there wont be circumstances where intervention is absolutely necessary.

Again, if you would like to point out any example in the last fifty years of any western European or American/Canadian nation bombing their own civilian populations in civilian populated areas- go ahead. Waco is the only one I can think of anfd there was a furore about that. Again this destroys the contention that superpowers 'meddling' in the middle east have soley created these circumstances - unfortunately there are many people in the countries you refer to who actively choose those tyrants and who wage war with eachother on sectarian divisions grounded in their own ideologies and history; things which you conveniently ignore.

I mean really, who gives a fuck about Berman? lol. Some 'communitarian' New York intellectual jerk who only a few who read things like 'counterpunch' are interested in.Oh yes, but wait a minute - the academics and liberals take him seriously so you should as well ? Again you extrapolate a broad argument from that. You are so far up your own hole on these articles from middle class academics its unbelievable.Why bother? Cant you think for yourself? You should get your feet back on the streets - not worry about what a few elite middle class NY wankers write about. Berman is a fool anyway who doesnt know what hes talking about. Fuck him.

Quote: shakur420
The "Arab Spring" is a clear cut case of this. People want these dictators gone, but all we keep hearing about is "what if Islamists get into power?" Nobody gives a fuck about Democracy, not people who are running things that is, and their cheerleaders. They give a fuck about their own interests, which in a place like the Middle East means blocking popular movements that are trying to reflect public opinion in their governments' policies, because Democracy in the Middle East would be against the interests of those who are trying to maintain regional dominance.

which includes islamic extremists, warlords,etc

no use attempting to dismiss their influence

Quote:shakur420

It was the point of the "de-democratize" thread, but it was conveniently ignored on ideological grounds, like trying to display how bad the Iranians are. Or trying to point out how bad Assad is, while dismissing the global and regional Superpowers that have overtly tried to maintain guys like him, tried to bring about the "Lebanonization" of the Middle East.

erm, actually it wasnt. i put up links to the effect but, as you said, you didnt, and werent going to read them. I suppose we should just say 'yes we agree with everything you say' and leave it at that.

[1871]

Quote:otf wrote;
well only 1 side can kind of win a war, and neither side is right becuase they kill people, but 1 side is more right than the other morally, but being morally right , and right to fit into the world society is 2 diff things isnt it, maths and economics, money dictates, and more

but what if the 'world society' is morally right? The question still remains;

The UN (world society) unanimously voted condemning Assads attacks in Syria and the bombing of Homs, Babr Amr and other civilian areas. Over 100 nations.

Russia, China and a few others vetoed it. Russia, China and those nations carried the day claiming that it threatened Syrias sovreignity and amounted to regime change.

Question still remains. Who is right?

Theres also a question of how many, who, are being killed, the use of disproportionate force, the targetting of civilians etc.