Page 2 of 9 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 132

Thread: The Chilcot Inquiry

  1. #16

  2. #17
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    The Fear - Dublin
    Posts
    5,790

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by vimothy View Post
    The moral problem for the left is that it is impossible to have a system in which aggression is punished, whether by execution of those held responsible or some other means, without the aggression needed to secure it.
    Eh, no. It is possible to have a system of international law without committing the specific and supreme crime of the launch of a war of aggression.

  3. #18
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    North East London
    Posts
    5,209

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by vimothy View Post
    The moral problem for the left is that it is impossible to have a system in which aggression is punished, whether by execution of those held responsible or some other means, without the aggression needed to secure it.
    I'm not sure that justice and punishment have to be the same things.

    Also I don't think that a moral opposition to the death penalty is necessarily a left wing position. A liberal one certainly. It should not be used on an industrial scale against the working class / black population as is the case in the USA. Best used sparingly, if at all.

  4. #19
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    The Fear - Dublin
    Posts
    5,790

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sadmanbarty View Post
    From Blair's press conference:

    “Nowhere in this report do they say what they believe would have happened if we had taken the decision [not to invade].

    We might have had the same situation in Iraq today as we have in Syria[

    In Syria today more than double the amount of people who died in Iraq died in Syria*”

    * This is approximately correct when using the figures from body counts. Other methodologies produce higher fatality figures, but given that we are comparing Iraq and Syria it is important to use the same methodology. Also, per capita this disparity is even more severe.

    This is the point I made when me and Droid were having our Iraq debate earlier in the year.
    This assertion is morally and logically bankrupt.

    First of all there's the 'might'.

    • Saddam might have choked on his food.
    • Saddam might have had an aneurysm
    • Saddam may have discovered mystical powers and ascended to the godhead.
    • Saddam and his cabinet may all have spontaneously combusted.
    • Saddam and his sons may have been hit by lightning on a trip to the seaside.

    Secondly there is the moral problem with justifying a war based on what 'might have' happened. By that logic every conflict can be justified.

    • 911 is morally justified as it hastened the decline of an American empire responsible for the deaths of millions.
    • WWII was justified as the USSR might have invaded and enslaved Europe.
    • Kurdish Genocide was justified as they may have sparked a much more murderous civil war in Iraq.


    It is the worst kind of sophistry. A self serving, amoral and utterly ludicrous argument.

  5. #20
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    The Fear - Dublin
    Posts
    5,790

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by john eden View Post
    I'm not sure that justice and punishment have to be the same things.

    Also I don't think that a moral opposition to the death penalty is necessarily a left wing position. A liberal one certainly. It should not be used on an industrial scale against the working class / black population as is the case in the USA. Best used sparingly, if at all.
    And war crimes (a very specific one in this case) are one of the few cases where the chances of executing an innocent are slim to none (in comparison to criminal cases where it is inevitable).

  6. #21
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    North East London
    Posts
    5,209

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by droid View Post
    And war crimes (a very specific one in this case) are one of the few cases where the chances of executing an innocent are slim to none (in comparison to criminal cases where it is inevitable).
    Hard to disagree with that.

  7. #22
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,161

    Default

    Droid, your opposition to the war is based on what might have happened had we not invaded.

    I think a Syria style situation is more likely than some of the "mights" you suggested.

  8. #23

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by droid View Post
    Eh, no. It is possible to have a system of international law without committing the specific and supreme crime of the launch of a war of aggression.
    Only under a definition of aggression that is plainly self-serving, which is one of the problems of the current system.

  9. #24
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    The Fear - Dublin
    Posts
    5,790

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sadmanbarty View Post
    Droid, your opposition to the war is based on what might have happened had we not invaded.

    I think a Syria style situation is more likely than some of the "mights" you suggested.
    No, my opposition to war is based on the moral position that it is wrong to take human life without justification.

  10. #25
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    The Fear - Dublin
    Posts
    5,790

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by vimothy View Post
    Only under a definition of aggression that is plainly self-serving, which is one of the problems of the current system.
    ?

    The Crime of Aggression is the crime of planning, initiation or execution of an act of aggression by a person in a position to exercise control over the political or military action of a State where the character, gravity and scale of such an act of aggression constitutes a manifest violation of the Charter of the United Nations.[1] An act of aggression is the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations.[1] Acts of aggression include invasion, military occupation, annexation by the use of force, bombardment, and military blockade of ports.[1]

  11. #26
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    The Fear - Dublin
    Posts
    5,790

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sadmanbarty View Post
    Droid, your opposition to the war is based on what might have happened had we not invaded.

    I think a Syria style situation is more likely than some of the "mights" you suggested.

    What you are suggesting is a minority report system for states, run by murderers.

  12. #27
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,161

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by droid View Post
    What you are suggesting is a minority report system for states, run by murderers.
    I'm not using this argument to justify the decision to go to war (the Arab Spring was of course almost a decade away).

    But in retrospect, there is a good argument the war saved lives.

    My argument may have very little real world application.

  13. #28

    Default

    And how will you prevent these crimes of aggression?

  14. #29
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    North East London
    Posts
    5,209

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by vimothy View Post
    And how will you prevent these crimes of aggression?
    Communism and sexpol.

  15. #30

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sadmanbarty View Post
    But in retrospect, there is a good argument the war saved lives.
    Other things equal - but the desirability of those other things is also in question.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •