NationStates Jolt Archive

I've been playing this game for a good long time, and I'm interested in the following, as a centerist, what do others think the concept of war is? I've seen both sides argue this till they were blue in the face over the issue of Iraq. Does having the UN back a war make it legal? I'll state my own opinions once the discussion gets underway, but I'm deftly curious as to what people think, although I'm pretty sure I've anticipated the response.

Seeing as how I've anticapted the worst let me set a few ground rules, this is going to be a CIVIL debate of ideas. There will be none of the following:

Leader bashing(No Anti GWB comments, there are enough of that in other threads, this will not contribute to that)
Nationality bashing(Different nations, different cultures,different perspectives. Respect them all.)
Bringing up of topics wholly unrelated to the subject at hand. (Try to keep the ranting on course.)

These are simple rules, and if you break them I'll ask a moderator to deal with you. I'm not in the mood to see this turn into a flame fest, as it is a legit question.

Fighting for ones rights is fine, fighting for someone elses is admirable, but fighting for someone elses rights and then imposing your own upon them is just wrong.

The UN didn't back Spain when the Aztecs were slaughtered. But if they had, would it have been alright?

(Im not nation bashing Spain, it happaned a long time ago and its not your fault)

Anything could be called legal as long as you abide by rules provided in international law.
I believe you are asking for the debate of legitimacy. Even the most horrifying decisions can be legal, the question is: are they by a moral standard right?
If you are a legal positivist you wouldn't care about underlying morals, as you only believe in the law.
If you put your faith in natural law, you DO belive there are a law above the one accepted by human beings.
(Arguments of this sort was used e.g. the Nürnberg trials, because the nazis used their legislation as a shield.)
Ultimately you end up in a tricky position and a discussion of what is moral, what principles are obvious for everyone?
If you, for instance, are a soldier and ordered to do something, you take a considerable risk if you refuse on moral grounds, then again, you could face trial if you don't obey.

The current doctrine being used (PNAC) of preemption is a very dangerous slippery slope to go down. The problem that faces the world with war based on "preemption" is that once one country does it.. it's sort of hard to deny another country who says the same thing, true or not. Also, if one is to practice preemptive war, they damn well better be right. Thus far this has not been the case.

The current doctrine being used (PNAC) of preemption is a very dangerous slippery slope to go down. The problem that faces the world with war based on "preemption" is that once one country does it.. it's sort of hard to deny another country who says the same thing, true or not. Also, if one is to practice preemptive war, they damn well better be right. Thus far this has not been the case.

Neither should one forget the right a nation has to defend itself according to international law. This right is not limited to the scenario of a full-scale attack by an aggressor: it is also allowed for a state to strike against e.g. terrorist groups in other countries if the leadership in this country in question will not take action. (Obviously this group has to have a base in this country and has to take hostile action against the state)

War is part of human nature. But we also have the capability to improve ourselves. Can we not therefore resist the urge to go to war.....

War is.

The United Nations is a forum for international diplomacy and a mechanism of international relations. Although its constituent organizations formulate policy, it does not have the wherewithal to determine the legality of anything.

There are many Internationalists out there who are looking for a form of World Government. Likewise there are many pacifists that are seeking a method to remove war (or the application of military force) as an option. Both sets would like to legitimize an organization like the United Nations to enforce a new order to the world.

A war, or any form of force, is a method for entities to decide matters when other manners will not serve. Wars can be categorized as good wars or bad wars, wars of aggression or defense. Wars can even be declared or watered down as “police actions” in newspeak. War is an option.

War is not the option of first resort, nor is it the last. Rather, it should occur in the order to which it is reasonable and conscionable.

The United Nation is a combatant. It has “peacekeeping” forces. It was a combatant in Korea, and its title was used as a term for the anti-Axis Powers in the 1940-45 period of the World War.

“Blessed are the peacemakers . . . “, not the peacekeepers. An organization like the United Nations is more interested in the status quo with an acceptable opportunity for advantage amongst its members. If there is racial cleansing in some corner of the world, such as Rwanda, the United Nations is content to stand idle. The invasion of Kuwait by Iraq upset too many, and the United Nations leapt to its rectification. The depravities perpetuated against the Kuwaiti peasantry, and the subsequent looting of the nation were not the prime motivators.
All manner of inhumanity is perpetuated. If Hitler had kept his final solution within his own borders there would have been no world movement to stop him. Stalin killed more, but his ambitions were inward looking. Pol Pot had his day.

It was NATO that stepped into Kosovo.

I do not believe that the United Nations, in its current form, has the moral fiber or legal mandate to declare wars legal or illegal.

We do discriminate and call things war crimes.

Assuming the depravity perpetuated by the Taliban and Saddam Hussein against their own peoples (or minorities thereof) and the suffering that was allowed to continue, the invasion and reconstruction is morally justifiable. The obstruction of the action by certain nations anxious to keep their relations with Iraq status quo (and quiet) are harder to justify. These nations expressed their pleasure that the tyrant was removed, but why did they not do it themselves? Was a bilateral war between the Coalition and the Iraqi regime the only reasonable way to resolve the matter?

Do the profits made by French, German, and Russian companies under the “Oil for Food (and luxury for the Ba’ath elite) Program” while the Iraqi people were hung with wire or shot in the sand constitute a war crime, or just co-conspirators thereunto?

Military force is but one aspect of war. Economic, political, propagandistic, philosophic, systematic, emotional, and diplomatic approaches are all warfare concealed.

War is, pacifist or not.

The current doctrine being used (PNAC) of preemption is a very dangerous slippery slope to go down. The problem that faces the world with war based on "preemption" is that once one country does it.. it's sort of hard to deny another country who says the same thing, true or not. Also, if one is to practice preemptive war, they damn well better be right. Thus far this has not been the case.

Neither should one forget the right a nation has to defend itself according to international law. This right is not limited to the scenario of a full-scale attack by an aggressor: it is also allowed for a state to strike against e.g. terrorist groups in other countries if the leadership in this country in question will not take action. (Obviously this group has to have a base in this country and has to take hostile action against the state)

I agree. As I believe so does the world. NATO, and just about every country I can think of backs the war in Afghanistan where the terrorists who struck at America on 9/11 resided.. and under international law, it was/is a just war. I don't think any one disputes that.

Where the problem lays is that the war in Iraq is very much against international law and they didn't attack any one nor were they a threat to any one but their own people.. and even that in past years had died down. No one liked Saddam, he was a horrible despot.. add him to the list. However, there was no self defense issue here. There is no "liberation" going on. It was bad Intel at best and a lie at worst.

I fear that when any one decides that their agenda trumps international law.. we have entered a new period of instability in the world and it is without being dramatic at all, a threat to world peace and security. It's setting a very dangerous precedent. One I think we don't want to see other countries follow.. but if they do.. what can we say now?

I suppose the question becomes.. is it too late? Has this precedent already been set by the invasion of Iraq?

My personal feelings...
A nation has the right to defend itself if attacked in any way.
A nation has the right to defend a nation unjustly attacked.

With regard to brutal dictators and genocide cases, they are terrible but war should only be used as a last resort. There might be a better way of resolving the issues with few further deaths, especially to inncoents.

But then again, wars, especially civil wars that start over ethnic grounds or independence movements are really tough to consider...

I don’t like any formal alliances like the UN. It pressures it’s members to adhere to certain guidelines, and denies them the right to freely govern themselves. It also calls certain actions war crimes. When in reality there is no such thing as a war crime. There is only one guideline for what can be done in war, which is keeping the actions relative with the reasons for war. There is no such thing as a war criminal except for the losers. Nobody can judge the winners, because there is nobody left to judge them.

Reasons to wage wars vary, most commonly it is for political reasons and acquiring resources. Neither of which is necessarily wrong. Especially if certain resources are in relatively short supply. Fighting wars over ideals are the worst. They intentionally destroy cultures and ways of life just for the sake of destroying them.

War by itself is not wrong, at times it is necessary. Avoiding war is good, but denying it is certain suicide. While rushing off all the time to fight a war is just the same. Nobody lives forever though, just do what you do and appreciate the time you have.
__________________________________________________
Out of all the demons in this world, none is more frightening than man

My father remarked when he came back from WW2 made the comment that "War is the natural state of man, and that peace....however worthwhile is still the illusion of time we call the period between wars"

The current doctrine being used (PNAC) of preemption is a very dangerous slippery slope to go down. The problem that faces the world with war based on "preemption" is that once one country does it.. it's sort of hard to deny another country who says the same thing, true or not. Also, if one is to practice preemptive war, they damn well better be right. Thus far this has not been the case.

Neither should one forget the right a nation has to defend itself according to international law. This right is not limited to the scenario of a full-scale attack by an aggressor: it is also allowed for a state to strike against e.g. terrorist groups in other countries if the leadership in this country in question will not take action. (Obviously this group has to have a base in this country and has to take hostile action against the state)

I agree. As I believe so does the world. NATO, and just about every country I can think of backs the war in Afghanistan where the terrorists who struck at America on 9/11 resided.. and under international law, it was/is a just war. I don't think any one disputes that.

Where the problem lays is that the war in Iraq is very much against international law and they didn't attack any one nor were they a threat to any one but their own people.. and even that in past years had died down. No one liked Saddam, he was a horrible despot.. add him to the list. However, there was no self defense issue here. There is no "liberation" going on. It was bad Intel at best and a lie at worst.

I fear that when any one decides that their agenda trumps international law.. we have entered a new period of instability in the world and it is without being dramatic at all, a threat to world peace and security. It's setting a very dangerous precedent. One I think we don't want to see other countries follow.. but if they do.. what can we say now?

I suppose the question becomes.. is it too late? Has this precedent already been set by the invasion of Iraq?

What other countries I wonder?
The only one having a precedent would be the US itself, now knowing the UN hasn't much(any) force behind it without the US.
I would like to add this: taking a glance at history, don't we wish that someone had taken care of Hitler just a little sooner? Or perhaps Stalin or Pol Pot? The latest century of cruel slaughters, genocides, has perhaps left an odour of bad conscience. Now, when someboby does act - then it is to be considered wrong?

I perfectly understand that there were others issues than concern for the iraqi people that made this attack real. Then again, the "nations for peace" in this particular case had substantial economic interest in keeping Saddam and his mad sons.
It's not a "clean" cause, but a cruel regime is gone...hopefully it will not be replaced with another.

War is, by its nature, above law. There is no such thing as a 'legitimate' or 'illegitimate' war. The concept of 'war crimes' is bogus. The only purpose of a real war is to destroy your enemy's ability to resist.

What other countries I wonder?
The only one having a precedent would be the US itself, now knowing the UN hasn't much(any) force behind it without the US.
I would like to add this: taking a glance at history, don't we wish that someone had taken care of Hitler just a little sooner? Or perhaps Stalin or Pol Pot? The latest century of cruel slaughters, genocides, has perhaps left an odour of bad conscience. Now, when someboby does act - then it is to be considered wrong?

I perfectly understand that there were others issues than concern for the iraqi people that made this attack real. Then again, the "nations for peace" in this particular case had substantial economic interest in keeping Saddam and his mad sons.
It's not a "clean" cause, but a cruel regime is gone...hopefully it will not be replaced with another.

Well, I'd argue that Hitler was a very diferent case. I don't think you can equate his "master race entiteld to world domination" theories with Saddam. But yeah, I wish Grandad had had a gun on him and a certain mindset when he ran into Adolph in Munich in '36.

Also, the "nations for peace" as you call them were a greater number than those on the security council that didn't go along with this war. France, Germany, and Russia were simply the ones focused on for pressure because of their position. After all, neither of the US's immediate neighbours agreed to join the coalition either and neither of them had vested economic interests in Iraq.

You knwo - It is easy to play that card. But please remember that once it became clear the the US was going in regardless of the UN, then surely if it was the economics that mattered then those three would have signed up. Because they knew darn well that Saddam couldn't stand against the coalition and that their contracts would becom worthless paper. But still they stuck by their convictions.

You can agree or disagree with their position, but to point only to contracts as the basis of their position is, I think, an unfair assertion.

-Z-

What other countries I wonder?
The only one having a precedent would be the US itself, now knowing the UN hasn't much(any) force behind it without the US.
I would like to add this: taking a glance at history, don't we wish that someone had taken care of Hitler just a little sooner? Or perhaps Stalin or Pol Pot? The latest century of cruel slaughters, genocides, has perhaps left an odour of bad conscience. Now, when someboby does act - then it is to be considered wrong?

I perfectly understand that there were others issues than concern for the iraqi people that made this attack real. Then again, the "nations for peace" in this particular case had substantial economic interest in keeping Saddam and his mad sons.
It's not a "clean" cause, but a cruel regime is gone...hopefully it will not be replaced with another.

Well, I'd argue that Hitler was a very diferent case. I don't think you can equate his "master race entiteld to world domination" theories with Saddam. But yeah, I wish Grandad had had a gun on him and a certain mindset when he ran into Adolph in Munich in '36.

Also, the "nations for peace" as you call them were a greater number than those on the security council that didn't go along with this war. France, Germany, and Russia were simply the ones focused on for pressure because of their position. After all, neither of the US's immediate neighbours agreed to join the coalition either and neither of them had vested economic interests in Iraq.

You knwo - It is easy to play that card. But please remember that once it became clear the the US was going in regardless of the UN, then surely if it was the economics that mattered then those three would have signed up. Because they knew darn well that Saddam couldn't stand against the coalition and that their contracts would becom worthless paper. But still they stuck by their convictions.

You can agree or disagree with their position, but to point only to contracts as the basis of their position is, I think, an unfair assertion.

-Z-

I will not excuse myself, but I will clarify: I wanted to point out that regardless of motives for the state(or states if you will) that did attack and the states that opposed, perhaps this could be a good thing for the iraqi people?
Perhaps, in spite of the chaos that seems to be taking over today, this people will have a better future?
No one can really tell, neither could one have told what would have happened if Hitler would have died in the attempted assassination.
What I've heard before the invasion, the iraqi people weren't exactly having time of their life.
I'm not a seer, but I honestly hope that it will turn out to the best, as I believe we all do.
(and also I haven't heard of any real motive for the opposing states other than that they didn't want to: if you know any you're welcome to enlighten me (even if it sounds like sarcasm - it isn't, really!))