PDA

View Full Version : Iraq War (Hmk Help)


Black Mamba
05-23-2010, 09:38 PM
I am taking a philosophy class (Ethics of War and Peace), and one of my questions is to think about the following:

Was resorting to war in Iraq morally justified? Why or Why not?

I have my own opinion already formed, but I'd like to hear yall's thoughts and opinions. :) Short answer is yes. But I need to build up my philosophy ammo first in order give full details. This isn't due until the last week of class, so I'll share my full blown thoughts then.

flo
05-23-2010, 11:09 PM
In my opinion, yes; I'm not eloquent so I'd like to give my reasons in a pictorial.

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y117/floranista/saddam.jpg

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y117/floranista/iraqivotes.jpg

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y117/floranista/iraqivoters.jpg

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y117/floranista/iraqi_child_kiss-1.jpg

Tyburn
05-24-2010, 12:24 AM
I am taking a philosophy class (Ethics of War and Peace), and one of my questions is to think about the following:

Was resorting to war in Iraq morally justified? Why or Why not?

I have my own opinion already formed, but I'd like to hear yall's thoughts and opinions. :) Short answer is yes. But I need to build up my philosophy ammo first in order give full details. This isn't due until the last week of class, so I'll share my full blown thoughts then.

:laugh: NO COMMENT :laugh:

I suggest reading a guy called "Walter Wink" he talks about "The Myth of Redemptive Violence" I also think you should look into this from a utilitarian viewpoint, you might want to consider the pacifist angle, and try and distinguish that from the ideal of a Religious war (Crusade/Jihadist)

Finally, I would look up a guy called Major Tony Pfaff who wrote a lot to do with military ethics, its slightly dated now, but he was writing just prior to the conflict.

Make sure you have clear definitions as to what you mean by "Just War" because in Philosophy that doesnt always mean Sanctified by Laws, if you want to look at a purely Philosophical view look up Just War Theory...if you want to self define "Just" then you'll have to cover International Law, and also look at the individual countries and their own Laws

Your topics particular example is difficult for two reasons...First you have to have a detailed knowledge about exactly who did what and the theories on why, surrounding the lead into the war, and secondly, you need to have your own view point on the interpretation of the United Nations Artical governing Warfare...you must have both of those down, before you define anything, because that is your basis on which to start

Consider, for further depths whether you should persuit Justice if it means you have to break laws in order to do so? Is that right or wrong in your opinion...what if you could only install Justice by breaking the law...The Movie "The International" deals well with this subject, when a group of people try to hold a bank to account and realize the only way they can effectively do that is to take the law into their own hands.

if you need any help with this from me...then you appeal to Mr Nathan Rosario and ensure he writes in this thread his expressed permission for me to speak on the matter, as I have been forbidden from talking about specifics, lest I offend the Americans, with a Euro perspective...even though I am well capable of arguing either side...which is probably what you need most...sometimes its best to present the truth and let the reader interpret it for themselves.

I can comment no further without authorization...but I hope that perhaps I've given you enough to google and read if Nathan refuses to grant me (and you) this opportunity :) Until then I'm afraid I must maintain radio silence on this matter.

:wink:

(Background and modules passed to degree level in in Peace Studies, (specifically peace and security in a global environment, and military strategic studies,) and Social Sciences, (Philosophical and political ethics, Philosophy of the Mind, Philosophy of religion) all of which would be applicable here)

Play The Man
05-24-2010, 04:57 AM
Black Mamba, I would think hard about this one if I were you. The answer the professor is looking for is NO. There have been studies of the political affiliation of professors and depending on the department, the ratio of Democrats/Liberals to Republicans/Conservatives is about 10 or 20 to 1. If you answer YES, chances are, your grade will be lower than if you wrote a paper saying NO. If you feel strongly about it, write the paper that you believe in; however, be aware that it will likely cost you with a lower grade. Liberals talk about tolerance, but they are among the most intolerant people in certain circumstances.

VCURamFan
05-24-2010, 05:20 PM
Black Mamba, I would think hard about this one if I were you. The answer the professor is looking for is NO. There have been studies of the political affiliation of professors and depending on the department, the ratio of Democrats/Liberals to Republicans/Conservatives is about 10 or 20 to 1. If you answer YES, chances are, your grade will be lower than if you wrote a paper saying NO. If you feel strongly about it, write the paper that you believe in; however, be aware that it will likely cost you with a lower grade. Liberals talk about tolerance, but they are among the most intolerant people in certain circumstances.
As a philosophy major myself, I can atest to this. I was the only conservative in my classes & VCU is an extremely liberal campus. That being said, my professors were very professional in their grading. Even though they clearly disagreed with me, as long as I present my arguments clearly & cogently, they accepted my point of view.

Lil' D: I also say "Yes", I would encourage you to stick to your guns. if you say "No" in an attempt to appease your professor, it will undoubtedly come across as fake & forced, and your grade will suffer. A good philosophy professor wants his students to learn how to think for themselves & defend their positions, not simply get a case of mental nausea & puke his own opinion back at him on a test.

P.S. Is any of your class material online/in documents you could send me? We didn't have a "War & Peace" course at VCU, so I'd be interested in any of the reading you might have handy.

Tyburn
05-24-2010, 07:09 PM
Black Mamba, I would think hard about this one if I were you. The answer the professor is looking for is NO. There have been studies of the political affiliation of professors and depending on the department, the ratio of Democrats/Liberals to Republicans/Conservatives is about 10 or 20 to 1. If you answer YES, chances are, your grade will be lower than if you wrote a paper saying NO. If you feel strongly about it, write the paper that you believe in; however, be aware that it will likely cost you with a lower grade. Liberals talk about tolerance, but they are among the most intolerant people in certain circumstances.

She's not writing from a pure political sciences background, she's writing from a philosophical background...which actually means she will get both results depending on which ethic constructs she uses...and also means she doesnt need to express personal views...her result could easily be, that through certain political and philosophical paradigmns the answer is yes, and through others the answer is no. Which would be the wholly the truth, and any Philosophy lecturer would comprehend...I grant you a political studies lecturer might not, because he will disregard some of the philosophical streams of thought...which is precisely what asking such a question in a Philosophical paradigmn is designed to uncover.

Try to remember where you are writing from, because different social sciences look at the same things from different angles and come out with different results...Philosophy is the most inclusive, so its perfectly acceptable to display both sides of the story and simply state which ethics support and which ethics do not.

IMHO what they are looking for is someone to run through the scenario and match it up with all the different ethics and come to the conclusion that it completely depends on what paradigmn and whose ethics you are using as to what result you get. (excuse me if that sounds a liberal answer hahaha)

:)

Play The Man
05-24-2010, 07:44 PM
I guess I am more cynical than you guys are. You are describing it the way it should be. I fear it is not that way in reality. You both are younger and your college experience is more recent than mine. Ben's experience is in the field so his opinion is likely more valuable than mine. However, I have a rhetorical question - how does a department end up with one political opinion being dominant by a factor of 10 or 20 to 1? Academics is not unique. It is the same way in Hollywood, journalism, social work, library science, etc. I don't know much about Ben's college experience (and he doesn't need to post it all on a public forum) but as best I know he is not going on to graduate work in Philosophy. At some point in the undergraduate years, the Philosophy professor expressed interest in certain students (i.e. liberal students). It might have been a conversation after class, a grading comment left on a term paper, or a friendship outside of class. "Larry the Liberal, you are a brilliant philosophy student and I could see you having a bright future in this department. Have you ever thought about applying for our PhD program? I would be happy to offer you an excellent letter of recommendation. In fact, did you know that Dr. X just received a big grant and I think you would be a perfect assistant for his research. The position has a generous stipend. I know Dr. X personally from our Unitarian pot luck dinners. We both are on the board of the local chapter of the ACLU together. I'll give him a call and set things up." Meanwhile, poor Ben gets a pat on the head and a philosophy degree. That and a dollar will get him a cup of coffee.

Rev
05-24-2010, 08:09 PM
lol I love you dude! I wish i could hang out with PTM

VCURamFan
05-24-2010, 08:42 PM
At some point in the undergraduate years, the Philosophy professor expressed interest in certain students (i.e. liberal students). It might have been a conversation after class, a grading comment left on a term paper, or a friendship outside of class. "Larry the Liberal, you are a brilliant philosophy student and I could see you having a bright future in this department. Have you ever thought about applying for our PhD program? I would be happy to offer you an excellent letter of recommendation. In fact, did you know that Dr. X just received a big grant and I think you would be a perfect assistant for his research. The position has a generous stipend. I know Dr. X personally from our Unitarian pot luck dinners. We both are on the board of the local chapter of the ACLU together. I'll give him a call and set things up." Meanwhile, poor Ben gets a pat on the head and a philosophy degree. That and a dollar will get him a cup of coffee.
:happy0198: :happy0198: :happy0198: :happy0198: :happy0198: :happy0198:

PTM, you're hilarious! Thank you for summing up a year of job-hunting frustrations in two eloquent, concise sentences! :laugh:

Actually, I was good buddies with a coupla my professors. They tended to work out around the same time I did, so we'd chat for a bit between sets.

That being said, I was not a "good" philosophy student. I never went to get coffee with my classmates (don't like coffe & didn't much like my classmates! :laugh:), I never went to a single Philosophy Club event (even the year-end barbeques at Prof. Mills' house). I worked my butt off on the readings/paper, talked in class, came in during office hours to ask questions, etc., but I was never a philosopher.

-----------------

Lil D', one last comment: your professors may not be a tolerant of consevatives as mine were. You've spent time in the class & can probably guess how he'd react. If PTM's right 7 he's likely to blast you just because you disagree with him, then don't take the chance. Better to get a B doing a poor job outlining his view than to get an F because he's ticked you did such a great job defended your position! :scared0011: :angry: :ninja:

Tyburn
05-24-2010, 09:49 PM
I guess I am more cynical than you guys are. You are describing it the way it should be. I fear it is not that way in reality. You both are younger and your college experience is more recent than mine. Ben's experience is in the field so his opinion is likely more valuable than mine. However, I have a rhetorical question - how does a department end up with one political opinion being dominant by a factor of 10 or 20 to 1? Academics is not unique. It is the same way in Hollywood, journalism, social work, library science, etc. I don't know much about Ben's college experience (and he doesn't need to post it all on a public forum) but as best I know he is not going on to graduate work in Philosophy. At some point in the undergraduate years, the Philosophy professor expressed interest in certain students (i.e. liberal students). It might have been a conversation after class, a grading comment left on a term paper, or a friendship outside of class. "Larry the Liberal, you are a brilliant philosophy student and I could see you having a bright future in this department. Have you ever thought about applying for our PhD program? I would be happy to offer you an excellent letter of recommendation. In fact, did you know that Dr. X just received a big grant and I think you would be a perfect assistant for his research. The position has a generous stipend. I know Dr. X personally from our Unitarian pot luck dinners. We both are on the board of the local chapter of the ACLU together. I'll give him a call and set things up." Meanwhile, poor Ben gets a pat on the head and a philosophy degree. That and a dollar will get him a cup of coffee.

There was a time when Philosophy was taken seriously, when people actually lived their whole lives as Philosophers...that doesnt happen really anymore...and the biggest problem with Social Sciences and the work place, is that a degree in it, is like knowing all the answers of a Trivia Quiz to discover that all the questions are on the same portion of Trivia.

Philosophy at least allows you to think in as close to an unbias way as possible and not be punished for it. What relevence it has on future employment or beyond academia...is entirely another issue.

For me it has meant Fundraising, Hosting Events, Food Prepartion, The Church, Retail.....and maybe the Council Crematorium next....do you follow.

I havent decided which is best...to dedicate yourself to a career, do a tough degree in a well known field and get a job. Great if it works out, but if it doesnt then it was all for nothing. OR the opposite, taking such a wide degree you can apply it to so much is virtually worthless. I just dont know the answer to that.

Black Mamba
05-24-2010, 09:59 PM
Wow, where do I start. :wacko: :laugh:

Dave: Thanks for the suggestions, I will gladly look into them when the times comes. And I will ask Nate too, I like to hear differing perspectives and this may help me expand my thoughts.

Ben: My class is fully online so I can PM you the entire syllabus. :)

PTM: I have only taken one philosophy course (before this) and thankfully this guy was extremely open to differing view points. He actually loved the fact that student A and student B for example disagreed on Nth topic. He wanted an environment where we were all able to freely think. He was challenging in the regards that he would stretch our questions to the point where you forgot what your orginial question was. :laugh: This professor, I have no idea what his slants are. I don't start class officially until the 27th, so I will be paying attention to his bias and be cautious of them.

Last fall, I took a Western Civ course online and I did get penalized for my view points on the atomic bomb droppings. The professor felt one thing, and I felt another. We both clashed heads, I called it off, and I got 5 points taken off my response. I didn't care though, because I still got my A. :cool:

Honestly, I'm not afraid to clash heads with a professor. I make sure I have my evidence from reliable resources (so they can't attack my evidence) and then I go to war. Stupid? Maybe. Ballsy? Yes, and has even earned me some extra points in my history class.

Play The Man
05-24-2010, 10:22 PM
Black Mamba, you should definitely stay true to your beliefs. I am just saying to pick your battles. When your professor finds out you support the Iraq War it is going to go down about as well as a turd in the punchbowl at the Philosophy Faculty Winter Solstice party.

Black Mamba
05-24-2010, 10:40 PM
Black Mamba, you should definitely stay true to your beliefs. I am just saying to pick your battles. When your professor finds out you support the Iraq War it is going to go down about as well as a turd in the punchbowl at the Philosophy Faculty Winter Solstice party.

:laugh:

With this particular course, I will definitely pick my battles wisely. There isn't much room for error (the total number of points in the course is only 100), and from what I'm reading right now with the articles he's given out, he's a liberal nut ball.

I may have to tweak some stuff, while attempting to stay true to what I believe.

Black Mamba
05-24-2010, 10:42 PM
Here's just 2 of the links he's having us read:

http://www.pierretristam.com/Bobst/library/wf-200.htm (Warning graphic picture(s) ahead)

(This is the upper left hand corner: CULTIVATING LIBERALISM FOR ALL CLIMATES SINCE 1759 ) :huh:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,840403-1,00.html

Play The Man
05-24-2010, 11:27 PM
I know it probably isn't possible (you likely need the credits to graduate) but if you dropped the course and instead read Plato's Dialogues, some works by St. Augustine, The Consolation of Philosophy by Boethius and spent an afternoon speaking with a WW II vet and an Auschwitz survivor, I think you would gain more wisdom concerning philosophy and the morality of war than spending years in that professor's classroom. Just my 2 cents.

Black Mamba
05-24-2010, 11:35 PM
I wish my grandpa was still alive, he was a 'Nam vet and I would have loved to hear his stances. And I have a great uncle who has survived his fair share of IED blasts in Iraq. If I was in contact more with my Dad's side of the family, I'm sure I would learn more about the morality of war from them then this class. But sadly, I need this class for credits and it sure beats a Women's Studies course.

Play The Man
05-24-2010, 11:40 PM
I wish my grandpa was still alive, he was a 'Nam vet and I would have loved to hear his stances. And I have a great uncle who has survived his fair share of IED blasts in Iraq. If I was in contact more with my Dad's side of the family, I'm sure I would learn more about the morality of war from them then this class. But sadly, I need this class for credits and it sure beats a Women's Studies course.

Tsk! Tsk! I am sure you meant to write "womyn's" studies. It is sexist to use the word "women" as it derives from, and contains, the word "men".:wink:

Play The Man
05-25-2010, 12:12 AM
lol I love you dude! I wish i could hang out with PTM

I love you too!

Play The Man
05-25-2010, 12:17 AM
Here's just 2 of the links he's having us read:

http://www.pierretristam.com/Bobst/library/wf-200.htm (Warning graphic picture(s) ahead)

(This is the upper left hand corner: CULTIVATING LIBERALISM FOR ALL CLIMATES SINCE 1759 ) :huh:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,840403-1,00.html

Somehow I doubt he will have links to articles about "The Killing Fields" which resulted after America pulled out of SE Asia.

Play The Man
05-25-2010, 12:26 AM
There was a time when Philosophy was taken seriously, when people actually lived their whole lives as Philosophers...that doesnt happen really anymore...and the biggest problem with Social Sciences and the work place, is that a degree in it, is like knowing all the answers of a Trivia Quiz to discover that all the questions are on the same portion of Trivia.

Philosophy at least allows you to think in as close to an unbias way as possible and not be punished for it. What relevence it has on future employment or beyond academia...is entirely another issue.

For me it has meant Fundraising, Hosting Events, Food Prepartion, The Church, Retail.....and maybe the Council Crematorium next....do you follow.

I havent decided which is best...to dedicate yourself to a career, do a tough degree in a well known field and get a job. Great if it works out, but if it doesnt then it was all for nothing. OR the opposite, taking such a wide degree you can apply it to so much is virtually worthless. I just dont know the answer to that.

Yes, somehow I doubt one would find a modern-day Socrates searching for truth and wisdom on the faculty of a university philosophy department. I didn't take philosophy courses in college. I have tried to read a bit since graduation. It seems to me that much of the misery of the 20th century can be laid at the feet of philosophers - Marx, Nietzsche, Freud, Feuerbach, etc. I tend to agree with Cicero: "There is nothing so absurd that some philosopher has not already said it. "

By the way, I didn't want to bash people with degrees in the social sciences, I just wanted to point out the political correctness in such fields.

Play The Man
05-25-2010, 12:27 AM
Have any of you seen the vampire movie, "The Addiction"?

adamt
05-25-2010, 01:07 AM
two questions:

define morals..... what morals? People's or God's

and

was it immoral? the art of being moral, is to not be immoral. being moral is about what you don't do. not what you do do. if you have sex before marriage that is immoral. if you steal that is immoral. if you stand by and watch someone getting raped that is immoral.

flo
05-25-2010, 02:39 AM
You the man, PTM.

flo
05-25-2010, 02:43 AM
Tsk! Tsk! I am sure you meant to write "womyn's" studies. It is sexist to use the word "women" as it derives from, and contains, the word "men".:wink:

Er, you mean "wymyn's" studies, don't you PTM?

:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

flo
05-25-2010, 02:44 AM
Somehow I doubt he will have links to articles about "The Killing Fields" which resulted after America pulled out of SE Asia.
Or about the fall of Saigon after our exit.

Play The Man
05-25-2010, 03:06 AM
Er, you mean "wymyn's" studies, don't you PTM?

:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

Is that the spelling they have moved on to? They always concentrate on the important stuff like that. No need to sweat the small stuff, like: female infanticide in China, female genital mutilation in Africa and Islamic countries, Afghan girls getting acid thrown in their faces for going to school and trying to learn how to read, etc., etc., etc.

Play The Man
05-25-2010, 03:08 AM
You the man, PTM.

No, Flo, I'm not; but, at least I try to "Play The Man".

flo
05-25-2010, 03:46 AM
No, Flo, I'm not; but, at least I try to "Play The Man".

Heh, I was echoing rev's sentiments. :)

I know what you mean about PC terms. Much nicer to come up with a pretty, new spelling or catchphrase than actually address a pesky issue.

rearnakedchoke
05-25-2010, 02:56 PM
this is definitley a tough question, but you could very well have an answer of both yes and no and back either of them up ... imo, in any war, you are going to have casualties of innocent life ... you have to look at the end product and determine if the area is going to be better before or after the war ... in iraq's case, going in and toppling a dictator who was ruthless in his rule seems like you really can't justify not going in .. if the intentions to going into iraq was for the good of the iraqi people and to prevent saddam from using WMD again, then yes, the war was morally justifiable ...

Buzzard
05-27-2010, 10:48 AM
:laugh: NO COMMENT :laugh:

I suggest reading a guy called "Walter Wink" he talks about "The Myth of Redemptive Violence" I also think you should look into this from a utilitarian viewpoint, you might want to consider the pacifist angle, and try and distinguish that from the ideal of a Religious war (Crusade/Jihadist)

Finally, I would look up a guy called Major Tony Pfaff who wrote a lot to do with military ethics, its slightly dated now, but he was writing just prior to the conflict.

Make sure you have clear definitions as to what you mean by "Just War" because in Philosophy that doesnt always mean Sanctified by Laws, if you want to look at a purely Philosophical view look up Just War Theory...if you want to self define "Just" then you'll have to cover International Law, and also look at the individual countries and their own Laws

Your topics particular example is difficult for two reasons...First you have to have a detailed knowledge about exactly who did what and the theories on why, surrounding the lead into the war, and secondly, you need to have your own view point on the interpretation of the United Nations Artical governing Warfare...you must have both of those down, before you define anything, because that is your basis on which to start

Consider, for further depths whether you should persuit Justice if it means you have to break laws in order to do so? Is that right or wrong in your opinion...what if you could only install Justice by breaking the law...The Movie "The International" deals well with this subject, when a group of people try to hold a bank to account and realize the only way they can effectively do that is to take the law into their own hands.

if you need any help with this from me...then you appeal to Mr Nathan Rosario and ensure he writes in this thread his expressed permission for me to speak on the matter, as I have been forbidden from talking about specifics, lest I offend the Americans, with a Euro perspective...even though I am well capable of arguing either side...which is probably what you need most...sometimes its best to present the truth and let the reader interpret it for themselves.

I can comment no further without authorization...but I hope that perhaps I've given you enough to google and read if Nathan refuses to grant me (and you) this opportunity :) Until then I'm afraid I must maintain radio silence on this matter.

:wink:

(Background and modules passed to degree level in in Peace Studies, (specifically peace and security in a global environment, and military strategic studies,) and Social Sciences, (Philosophical and political ethics, Philosophy of the Mind, Philosophy of religion) all of which would be applicable here)

As much as I gloss over what you write sometimes, I find it disturbing and somewhat sad that you won't write what is really on your mind beacause you aren't "authorized."

Is it really worth it? Speak free and express your thoughts with authority, otherwise you bare your chest to the knife that will cut out your heart.

Tyburn
05-27-2010, 12:34 PM
As much as I gloss over what you write sometimes, I find it disturbing and somewhat sad that you won't write what is really on your mind beacause you aren't "authorized."

Is it really worth it? Speak free and express your thoughts with authority, otherwise you bare your chest to the knife that will cut out your heart.

See Buzzard, unlike yourself, I actually respect authority. I am in a privialaged position on this Forum as a Moderator. Its Voluntary work, that makes Nathan Rosario technically speaking, my boss around here.

I knew he was in charge when I was asked to become a Moderator, and to his credit, he has let me express my views in the past, if anyone cares to look back I'm sure they will find much of what I might say if permitted, with be repartitions of what I've already done to make my position quite clear.

It is because I have respect for authority, that, unlike yourself, I do what I am told. I follow the law...and whilst I might have objections, those are done in private between me and whoever else...its not passive acceptance....its a choice to honnour someone else above myself...something you might not truely understand. There is a chain of authority that runs through this place, this forum is NOT a democracy, it is really a Military Dictatorship, under which there is a council who might vote on specific things, or express their view points if they are consulted. Being upon that Council in this anaology, I fall lower in the chain then the Forum Administrator.

I am free to express my opinion whenever I like...I can always quit the council and become a civilian like yourself...but I do not wish to, and that sometimes means limited sacrifices as a comprimise.

Matt Hughes pays for this Forum with his own money, he has the right to be Soverign here, because we do not pay him a dime, we, in a sence do not pay taxes. Therefore Matt Hughes has the right to appoint whoever he sees fit, he has sole right to hire and fire, because there are no trade unions, and no written contracts (well not for Council and lower at any rate) He has the right to get rid of anyone he doesnt want on his property. He has given the day to day management of this forum over to Mr Rosario, who he has full trust in, and Mr Rosario has made a rulling on the matter.

Therefore, as I value my place in this community more then my freedom to speak on a single topic which I have already discussed many times with many people on this site, I shall aggree out of respect to follow his command on such issues.

This of course is quite an exceptional circumstance when someone is not simply trying to debate the topic, but is doing academic research. Therefore I considered it worth asking Danelle if she would appeal to Mr Rosario on this one circumstance.

I hope you can now see where I am coming from. :)

NateR
05-27-2010, 01:51 PM
if the intentions to going into iraq was for the good of the iraqi people and to prevent saddam from using WMD again, then yes, the war was morally justifiable ...

Yes.

Pictures from Saddam Hussein's chemical weapons attack on Halabja on March 16, 1988:
http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c201/Barada73/Kurds.jpg
http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c201/Barada73/halabja-1.jpg
http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c201/Barada73/halabja.jpg
Estimated 5000 dead and 11,000 injured directly from the attack, with thousands more dying later from complications, diseases and birth defects in the years after the attack.

It's not a question of IF Saddam Hussein had WMD, because that is an undeniable fact (despite what that dumbass Sean Penn claims). Right now it's a question of what happened to them and exactly who has them right now.

Saddam Hussein was a man who needed to be removed from power by any means necessary. Even without 9/11 and the War on Terror, I would have supported going to Iraq. In fact, I voted for George W. Bush in the 2000 election with the hope that he would do just that.

Black Mamba
05-27-2010, 10:39 PM
I do have to agree with you Nate, in the sense I would had supported going to war even if 9/11 didn't happen. History speaks for itself on that.

And I'm just making some notes so I can resort back to this thread in six weeks:

Justifying conditions of war according to just war theory:
1) Jus ad Bellum: the morality of resorting war, the eval of the reasons for fighting
2) Jus in Bello: the morality of conduct during war, the eval of the means used in prosecuting the war.

* At this point and time, thoughts are bouncing around from yes and no. Yes) because it fits with Jus ad Bellum. No) Jus in Bello... conduct can be questioned on both sides. (beheadings, POWS, suicide bombings, etc) (scandals mainly)

Neezar
05-28-2010, 05:59 AM
Therefore, as I value my place in this community more then my freedom to speak on a single topic which I have already discussed many times with many people on this site, I shall aggree out of respect to follow his command on such issues.



:applause:




This of course is quite an exceptional circumstance when someone is not simply trying to debate the topic, but is doing academic research. Therefore I considered it worth asking Danelle if she would appeal to Mr Rosario on this one circumstance.



Perfect situation for a PM! :w00t:



:laugh: