GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum - View Single Post

gothweb · 03-04-2003, 06:10 AM

Because Saddam Hussein, and many of the people who run the country with him, are... say it with me now... Evil.

Many people accept this. They then go on to say that tis isn't a reason to go to war. Here are some of their arguments:

1.) It isn't the only reason the US claims they're going to war.

Basically, a lot of arguments run like this... "The US says that we're going to war because of terrorism, or weapons of mass destruction. They can't have it so many ways. Is it terrorism, mass destruction, or the fact that he is evil and slaughters his own people?"

My answer is simple. Why can't it be all three? It is possible to have more than one reason to do something. Under other circumstances, multiple justifications would be applauded as a sensibly made decision. Why, in this case, is it used as an objection?

Also, let's not be mistaken into thinking that these things are so far apart, as reasons go. The weapons of mass destruction we are most worried he has are chemical and biological weapons, the ones he has used on his own people. So his atrocities within his own country, and his possession of weapons of mass destruction go hand in hand. Also, it certainly looks like an act of terrorism to me. Slaughter a few villages in the most psychologically shattering way, its its amazing how the rest od the dissenters and minorities shut up and act loyal.

A big argument of this type is the "Iraq isn't part of Al Queda, so the War on Terrorism is just an excuse." We didn't claim to be going to war only on Al Queda, though. The US has long had very vocal enemies, in possession of dangerous illegal weapons. Saddam Hussein constantly says how he'd like to wipe us out, every man woman and child. Would you let someone who said that about you, who had the means to do so, just sit there? Even if Iraq has *nothing* to do with Al Queda, which is doubtful, they can still fall into the same category.

2.) We don't go to war on everyone who is evil.

Once again, here's the basic argument I keep seeing... "We don't march in and destroy/conquer every country that has an evil dictator. There are plenty of places where this stuff is happening, and they are getting away with it. So, this can't be the reason we are going to war."

Again, this comes down, as far as I can see, to an oversimplified understanding of causation. Just because the evil of the enemy can't be a cuase that totally justifies action elsewhere, does not mean it cannot be a major factor in taking action here. The fact is, while we are barely getting away with going to war with Iraq, we could not get away with going to war elsewhere. Why? Because few other countries have the same precendent set by UN mandate as is the case in Iraq.

Also, in the case of Iraq there are additional justifications. Going to war is not something to be taken lightly. Why do people whose whole position is based on that fact then hold it against America? It may be sad that we can't go in and get everyone who is evil... but if there is someone evil we can try to stop, why not do it?

I see a sort of common thread in these arguments. People seem to have an oversimplified idea of causation and/or justification. The US is saying, in this case, that a number of strong factors play into the decision to attack Iraq. One is the Al Queda connection, one is the terrorism threat from Iraq itself, one is Saddam Hussein's atrocities against his own people, one is the potential to stabilize the reason with democracy, one is that he possesses weapons of mass destruction, one is that he flouts his lack of regard for UN resolutions.

Yes, it is possible to take one of those reasons, and knock it down, *alone* using other facts about the situation. Congratulations. However, that does not mean that the *network* of multiple-justification falls down as soon as you do so.

War is a terrible thing. It is one of the most terrible things that can happen, because it involves the death of a lot of people. Worse, it involves their intentional and conscious murder by other human beings. That's something we should avoid wherever possible.

Unfortunately, some people miss out on the fact that there are worse things. If not going to war will cause those things to happen, or allow them to continue happening for *decades*, then well, frankly we have to reconsider. I hate war. I haven't been gung-ho *for* a war in my life, and never will be. However, sometimes it is a sad and regrettable fact that it is the lesser evil. These are hard decisions. It is easy to make them sitting in a coffee shop, or typing online. However, there are people who have to make these decisions for real, and live with them for the rest of their lives. There are people who have to order the war to start, and there are people-- some of them friends of mine-- who will have to march through the desert shooting people and making them die. Don't belittle the horrible decisions they have to make, by making easy ones in the comfort of the security they provide.

03-04-2003, 06:10 AM
gothweb Confirmed User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Back in the USSA Posts: 8,849	Because Saddam Hussein, and many of the people who run the country with him, are... say it with me now... Evil. Many people accept this. They then go on to say that tis isn't a reason to go to war. Here are some of their arguments: 1.) It isn't the only reason the US claims they're going to war. Basically, a lot of arguments run like this... "The US says that we're going to war because of terrorism, or weapons of mass destruction. They can't have it so many ways. Is it terrorism, mass destruction, or the fact that he is evil and slaughters his own people?" My answer is simple. Why can't it be all three? It is possible to have more than one reason to do something. Under other circumstances, multiple justifications would be applauded as a sensibly made decision. Why, in this case, is it used as an objection? Also, let's not be mistaken into thinking that these things are so far apart, as reasons go. The weapons of mass destruction we are most worried he has are chemical and biological weapons, the ones he has used on his own people. So his atrocities within his own country, and his possession of weapons of mass destruction go hand in hand. Also, it certainly looks like an act of terrorism to me. Slaughter a few villages in the most psychologically shattering way, its its amazing how the rest od the dissenters and minorities shut up and act loyal. A big argument of this type is the "Iraq isn't part of Al Queda, so the War on Terrorism is just an excuse." We didn't claim to be going to war only on Al Queda, though. The US has long had very vocal enemies, in possession of dangerous illegal weapons. Saddam Hussein constantly says how he'd like to wipe us out, every man woman and child. Would you let someone who said that about you, who had the means to do so, just sit there? Even if Iraq has nothing to do with Al Queda, which is doubtful, they can still fall into the same category. 2.) We don't go to war on everyone who is evil. Once again, here's the basic argument I keep seeing... "We don't march in and destroy/conquer every country that has an evil dictator. There are plenty of places where this stuff is happening, and they are getting away with it. So, this can't be the reason we are going to war." Again, this comes down, as far as I can see, to an oversimplified understanding of causation. Just because the evil of the enemy can't be a cuase that totally justifies action elsewhere, does not mean it cannot be a major factor in taking action here. The fact is, while we are barely getting away with going to war with Iraq, we could not get away with going to war elsewhere. Why? Because few other countries have the same precendent set by UN mandate as is the case in Iraq. Also, in the case of Iraq there are additional justifications. Going to war is not something to be taken lightly. Why do people whose whole position is based on that fact then hold it against America? It may be sad that we can't go in and get everyone who is evil... but if there is someone evil we can try to stop, why not do it? I see a sort of common thread in these arguments. People seem to have an oversimplified idea of causation and/or justification. The US is saying, in this case, that a number of strong factors play into the decision to attack Iraq. One is the Al Queda connection, one is the terrorism threat from Iraq itself, one is Saddam Hussein's atrocities against his own people, one is the potential to stabilize the reason with democracy, one is that he possesses weapons of mass destruction, one is that he flouts his lack of regard for UN resolutions. Yes, it is possible to take one of those reasons, and knock it down, alone using other facts about the situation. Congratulations. However, that does not mean that the network of multiple-justification falls down as soon as you do so. War is a terrible thing. It is one of the most terrible things that can happen, because it involves the death of a lot of people. Worse, it involves their intentional and conscious murder by other human beings. That's something we should avoid wherever possible. Unfortunately, some people miss out on the fact that there are worse things. If not going to war will cause those things to happen, or allow them to continue happening for decades, then well, frankly we have to reconsider. I hate war. I haven't been gung-ho for a war in my life, and never will be. However, sometimes it is a sad and regrettable fact that it is the lesser evil. These are hard decisions. It is easy to make them sitting in a coffee shop, or typing online. However, there are people who have to make these decisions for real, and live with them for the rest of their lives. There are people who have to order the war to start, and there are people-- some of them friends of mine-- who will have to march through the desert shooting people and making them die. Don't belittle the horrible decisions they have to make, by making easy ones in the comfort of the security they provide. __________________ Photos by Ian X.: Distinctive photos of goth babes. Blood Money:Your traffic, my sites, our money. MojoHost: Still the best.