With all this talk of the war being a "just cause" I am wondering what is a just cause to deserve war? Would it be invading europe to fight the Germans and stop them from destroying an entire race of people, as well as occupying neutral countries? I would say yes that was a just cause.
What really confuses me is the rational behind the just cuase in Iraq? I am still completly confused! Were we there to destroy and stop the WMD? and if so where are they? Were we there as a pre-emptive strike to stop Hussain from threatening the free world? Were we there to liberate a people from a dictatorship? but then only committ atrocities upon those very same people ourselves? Some people link the Iraqies to the taliban and claim they were responsible in some part to 9/11 yet we have no diffinitve proof, at least that I have heard.
So my question is this: What is the "just cause" for entering and fighting the war in Iraq? And does that cause still present itself as a legitamat threat?
(Though I am not a Bush supporter I am also not a Kerry supporter. I have yet to make up my mind, more than likely i won't vote for either man, as I find them both to be full of shit)
Most theorists hold that initiating acts of aggression is unjust and gives a group a just cause to defend itself. But unless ‘aggression’ is defined, this proscription rather open-ended. For example, just cause resulting from an act of aggression can ostensibly be responses to a physical injury (e.g., a violation of territory), an insult (an aggression against national honor), a trade embargo (an aggression against economic activity), or even to a neighbor’s prosperity (a violation of social justice). The onus is then on the just war theorist to provide a consistent and sound account of what is meant by just cause.
Trans, by no means do I think that Just Cause is made up, I was simply asking what were the just cause for this particular war?
Bassed on your excerpt it seems it boils down to how you define acts of aggression. Then to re-phrase my original question what were the acts of aggression shown by Iraq to justify a war?
LionsandTigersOhMy wrote:Having relations with Al Qaeda and harboring them!
Invading Kuwait!
Defying the UN for a decade!
Having WMD's
Using WMD's on innocents!
please provide a LINK to prove the first, fourth and fifth points.
Give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day, teach a man to fish and he'll drown because you forgot to teach him to swim.
[url=http://www.indra.com/8ball/front.html]Invaluable Fantasy Baseball Resource[/url]
Kingsac wrote:The US is guilty of all of the above except invading Kuwait.
that's not true! the US DID invade Kuwait... (at the time it was occupied by Iraq, but it did invade Kuwait).
Give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day, teach a man to fish and he'll drown because you forgot to teach him to swim.
[url=http://www.indra.com/8ball/front.html]Invaluable Fantasy Baseball Resource[/url]
LionsandTigersOhMy wrote:Having relations with Al Qaeda and harboring them!
Invading Kuwait!
Defying the UN for a decade!
Having WMD's
Using WMD's on innocents!
please provide a LINK to prove the first, fourth and fifth points.
The US is guilty of all of the above except invading Kuwait.
This is true, save that the U.S. isn't necessarily "harboring terrorists, as it is typically defined--they're here, sure, but we're not protecting them as the Taliban did (but not like Iraq).
It's well known, MatMat that Saddam used chemical weapons on the Kurds.
Out of curiosity, do all of you who are opposed to the war think that Saddam's regime's torturing of millions of innocent civilians was just? I think the decision to invade Iraq could be supported morally, but I guess maybe I'm alone in that thought. Afterall, we wouldn't want to think about anyone but ourselves and our safety...right?
Cafe Home
Fantasy Football
Fantasy Basketball
Fantasy Hockey
by Kingsac » Tue Jun 29, 2004 12:53 pm 
/olaf.gif){kind=small}
Afterall, we wouldn't want to think about anyone but ourselves and our safety...right?
