saddam is the bravest leader of all

[...]

Matt B, you were never this polite to me.

 

[matt b]

Matt B, you were never this polite to me.

oliver, how could you say such a thing!

i never set out to be rude. maybe subliminally, i knew you could take it.

 

[...]

I know, I know.

 

[vimothy]

bin laden claims he is acting morally. therefore according to the above quote he is justified in doing it.

So the American liberation of an oppressed country is as justified/as reprehensible as 9/11?

No, that isn't how it works at all mate. Saying that something is morally justified is hardly the same thing as something being morally justified. What bin Laden claims can be examined - and there's nothing from that camp that excuses the mass murder of thousands of civilians.

i don't agree with that either

Why not expand on some of these points Matt?

 

[vimothy]

you're making an assumption that i agree with galloway et al- i don't.

also, you wilfully misread my bin laden comment- it isn't my own view but a criticism of the Norm Geras position.

the point is that morality IS relative- religions claim a moral justification for all sorts of things you mention above. they would state that these ARE fundamentals.

i think part of the problem we face with regard to religious fanatics has been fanned by justifications for actions based on 'certain fundamentals' as stated by bush and blair, rather than legal justifications. that was the point i was trying to make.

with regard to aaronovich, i know he's not a communist, but some the authoritarianism that comes with communism remains in his current world view.

If we are to live on this planet without murdering each other then there should be some fundamentals that we can agree on (and you obviously don't think much of your beliefs if you think they are just a "matter of opinion"), after all we share a common genetic heritage which should give us a massive amount of scope for agreement. The right to basic liberties, political freedoms, the separation of religion and state, etc, have all been acheived through hard struggle and should not be discounted as "relative".

I take issue with your statement that Bush and Blair have fanned the flames by not adhering to your morally advanced meta-ethics. Religious fundamentalists have been fighting JIhad for years and need no encouragement. Trying to pin the blame on Bush and Blair also has the rather unfortunate side effect of placing less of the blame on the murderers themselves (take a bow Simon Jenkins and the rest).

I would be nice to see some evidence supporting your assertion that Aaronovitch is a commie or infected with commie-derived authoritarianism. Why not link to some of his articles?

 

[matt b]

ffs. oliver, you may see me getting less polite now

So the American liberation of an oppressed country is as justified/as reprehensible as 9/11?

No, that isn't how it works at all mate. Saying that something is morally justified is hardly the same thing as something being morally justified. What bin Laden claims can be examined - and there's nothing from that camp that excuses the mass murder of thousands of civilians.

MORALITY IS RELATIVE.

bush, blair and bin laden have all justified their actions b referring to morals.

a different set of morals, but morals none the less.

if bush can do it, why can't bin laden (or vice versa)?


i'm not saying its right, i'm just saying it is. please read what i write.

Why not expand on some of these points Matt?

very briefly; i am no fan of representative democracy as used in the UK. i believe it is alienating and gives our 'leaders' far too much power.

i much prefer anarcho-syndicalist style direct democracy (see: kropotkin, rudolph rocker, colin ward, bertrand russell for further information or 2.11 here for a concise/simple overview)

 

[IdleRich]

"No, that isn't how it works at all mate. Saying that something is morally justified is hardly the same thing as something being morally justified. What bin Laden claims can be examined - and there's nothing from that camp that excuses the mass murder of thousands of civilians."

True indeed, saying attacking Iraq is morally justified does not make it so and does not therefore provide a reason to ignore international law.
Everyone agrees that morality is a more important guide to the right thing to do than law - that's pretty much what it means. The question is where does the morally right thing to do lie? That's what we're debating isn't it?

"So the American liberation of an oppressed country is as justified/as reprehensible as 9/11?"

Well someone who wanted to argue that might point out that the "liberation" killed more innocent people.

 

[matt b]

If we are to live on this planet without murdering each <snip>

please read what i've written

i have a set of morals that i try to live my life by. i don't disregard morals completely. but i understand that others may well have different morals (i don't eat meat for example, many people do).

we were discussing morality vs international law in relation to nation states/ terrorism, which is something different, particularly in the way both bush and bin laden have used their morality to justify actions that go against other tenents of their faith e.g. though shalt not kill (innocents).

 

[vimothy]

ffs. oliver, you may see me getting less polite now

Go for it.

MORALITY IS RELATIVE.

That's your thesis, yes...

bush, blair and bin laden have all justified their actions b referring to morals.

a different set of morals, but morals none the less.

if bush can do it, why can't bin laden (or vice versa)?

Bush can do it, and so can bin Laden - it doesn't make either right though. If I say turning a plane into a giant human filled bomb and flying it into a busy city centre is morally justified, is it morally justified?

i'm not saying its right, i'm just saying it is. please read what i write.

Look mate, it's either morally justified or it's not: which is it?

very briefly; i am no fan of representative democracy as used in the UK. i believe it is alienating and gives our 'leaders' far too much power.

i much prefer anarcho-syndicalist style direct democracy (see: kropotkin, rudolph rocker, colin ward, bertrand russell for further information or 2.11 here for a concise/simple overview)

Hmm...

 

[vimothy]

True indeed, saying attacking Iraq is morally justified does not make it so and does not therefore provide a reason to ignore international law.
Everyone agrees that morality is a more important guide to the right thing to do than law - that's pretty much what it means. The question is where does the morally right thing to do lie? That's what we're debating isn't it?

Exactly: what is the right thing to do? I think the right thing (at the time certainly) was the liberation/invasion, not because George Bush says so, or whatever the moral relatvism argument states, but because of the humanitarian arguments and because of the growth of Jihadism in the Middle East. To say that something is moral is not to end the debate, but should be supported by critical analysis. Why one thinks an action is moral is surely important.

Well someone who wanted to argue that might point out that the "liberation" killed more innocent people.

Well, that's a bit more complicated (after lunch!) but it should certainly be remembered who has done the killing.

 

[matt b]

Go for it.



That's your thesis, yes...



Bush can do it, and so can bin Laden - it doesn't make either right though. If I say turning a plane into a giant human filled bomb and flying it into a busy city centre is morally justified, is it morally justified?



Look mate, it's either morally justified or it's not: which is it?



Hmm...

to reiterate.

you said that the iraq invasion was fine because it was morally justified.

i responded that as morals are subjective, people can use morality to justify all sorts of actions- just as bin laden has done.

i didn't at any point say i agreed with either of those actions or that i personally felt they were justified, i was simply criticising your position with regard to the iraq invasion.

surely that's clear enough now?

 

[crackerjack]

"surely that's clear enough now?"

The only thing clear about that is that you're an intellectual coward. If morality is subjective, and therefore an irrelevance in matters of politics, wtf are you doing on a political blog? Since something called international law is apparently the sole arbiter surely you'd be better off at a legal one.

 

[vimothy]

to reiterate.

you said that the iraq invasion was fine because it was morally justified.

i responded that as morals are subjective, people can use morality to justify all sorts of actions- just as bin laden has done.

i didn't at any point say i agreed with either of those actions or that i personally felt they were justified, i was simply criticising your position with regard to the iraq invasion.

surely that's clear enough now?

But the reasoning is very different in the two cases - yes bin Laden probably thinks that he is acting morally, that's not the point. Who's case is better? Who's case is actually morally justified? It's certainly not bin Laden's.

 

[IdleRich]

"Exactly: what is the right thing to do? I think the right thing (at the time certainly) was the liberation/invasion, not because George Bush says so, or whatever the moral relatvism argument states, but because of the humanitarian arguments and because of the growth of Jihadism in the Middle East. To say that something is moral is not to end the debate, but should be supported by critical analysis. Why one thinks an action is moral is surely important."

OK. But I think that Matt was justified in his criticism of that quote because it seemed to suggest that anyone can appeal to an abstract idea of morality to justify whatever they want. Presumably international law (as any law) is supposed to be an attempt at providing a framework based on morality ie in an ideal world its decisions would be morally correct. Obviously this is not the case in actuality but in theory countries agree to abide by its decisions as if it were. I think that the US and UK acted pretty shabbily by saying that they would disregard any "unreasonable" veto. It is clear that what they meant by unreasonable is one with which they disagreed. The thing is that the arguments (humanitarian or otherwise) they presented were not sufficient to convince the UN of the morality of their planned action so what they did then was pretty much say "but it is morally right so fuck you" - precisely the problem in that quote that Matt identified.

"Well, that's a bit more complicated (after lunch!) but it should certainly be remembered who has done the killing."

I agree. Personally my gut feelng is that a terrorist attack which has killing civilians as its primary aim is less justified than an attempt to liberate that is reckless to the number of lives it claims even if it claims far more. The same is probably true even seeing that "liberation" more cynically as an oil grab or whatever, for me there is some difference in that it is not primarily trying to kill citizens. I would find it quite hard to justify why I think this though.
My point was just that it's not quite as certain as all that which of the two actions was more morally reprehensible.

 

[crackerjack]

Idlerich
I largely agree with your first para, especially your assessment of the US/UK position re the UN. But I think your wrong about what Matt B was saying. Vimothy's argument wasn't that Bush appealed to morality, therefore the invasion was justified, but that the invasion could be justified for moral reasons. Matt's stance is that morality is irrelevant since one man's ethics are another man's female genital mutilation.

 

[vimothy]

Idlerich
I largely agree with your first para, especially your assessment of the US/UK position re the UN. But I think your wrong about what Matt B was saying. Vimothy's argument wasn't that Bush appealed to morality, therefore the invasion was justified, but that the invasion could be justified for moral reasons. Matt's stance is that morality is irrelevant since one man's ethics are another man's female genital mutilation.

Exactly

 

[Mr. Tea]

Can I just point out here...

now days,every single day passes more than 150 people die in iraq but...........who will accuse the usa troups with any murder eh?

A lot of people seem to think "people dying in Iraq" = "US/UK troops going around butchering people for no reason". Without wishing to deny that US/UK troops *have* killed a lot of Iraqis, and by no means all of them fighting men, the vast majority of deaths currently happening are the result of attacks carried out by Iraqis themselves. A hugely complicated and ugly civil war is going on and the 'coallition' forces seem to be running around like clueless teachers in a school full of feral children, without any idea as to how to stop it.

It seems to me that the situation in Saddam-era Iraq was a bit like Tito's Yugoslavia - an admittedly tyrannical leader keeping a lid on tribal tensions that have simmered away for centuries (possibly - I'm no expert on Arab history), with all hell breaking loose once that lid is removed.

Oh, and hi, Rich.

Edit: I've sort of jumped on the end here without reading the whole thread, so I apologise if someone already made this point days ago.

 

[IdleRich]

"But I think you're wrong about what Matt B was saying. Vimothy's argument wasn't that Bush appealed to morality, therefore the invasion was justified, but that the invasion could be justified for moral reasons. Matt's stance is that morality is irrelevant since one man's ethics are another man's female genital mutilation."

I agree that he does seem to have veered down that path but (what I take to be) his original point is sound. Of course morality is more important than law but the quote that Vimothy supplied doesn't really give any moral argument for the war, it simply states that because it was the "right" thing to do then the law ought to be changed. The whole point is that a lot of people thought it wasn't the right thing to do.
If I am mis-representing Vimothy's argument then I'm sorry but it is an understandable mistake because I take it that it is being presented as a defence of US actions and the US did in fact act exactly in the way that Matt feared that quote was being used to justify.

 

[IdleRich]

"Oh, and hi, Rich."

Hey.

"A lot of people seem to think "people dying in Iraq" = "US/UK troops going around butchering people for no reason". Without wishing to deny that US/UK troops *have* killed a lot of Iraqis, and by no means all of them fighting men, the vast majority of deaths currently happening are the result of attacks carried out by Iraqis themselves"

True, and I think that Vimothy did kind of draw attention to that earlier but the US were repeatedly told that this is exactly what would happen and they either didn't care or were just arrogant/dumb enough to think that they knew better. In either case some sort of moral responsibility does lie with the people who made the decisions that caused this to happen doesn't it?

 

[Mr. Tea]

Oh, sure. As you say, if it wouldn't have happened if they hadn't invaded, and it was a reasonable assumption that it would happen, then responsibility for those deaths does lie at least partly on the US.

As a former invasion-supporter, it saddens me to think that life for most Iraqis was better five years ago than it is now. What a wasted opportunity (and I'm talking here about the monumental cock-up that has been the post-invasion 'strategy', if you can call it that, rather than the invasion itself - I still think things could have worked out much better if they/we'd had an idea of what they/we were going to do once Saddam was deposed).

I can't help but think the Americans lost the real war the moment they raised Old Glory in Baghdad. The stupid twat that did that wants shooting.