Ethics

[Dig-the-Man]

Ethics as a subject is very tricky and often heavily opinionated (which makes this question perfct for this forum!).

The question is though, was it ethical for the United States to attack Iraq without majority support from member states of the United Nations.

I am pro-war, but I think that it wasn't ethical... anyone else?

[NJDeadzone]

At 3/24/03 03:39 PM, Dig_the_Man wrote: Ethics as a subject is very tricky and often heavily opinionated (which makes this question perfct for this forum!).

The question is though, was it ethical for the United States to attack Iraq without majority support from member states of the United Nations.

I am pro-war, but I think that it wasn't ethical... anyone else?

the UN was wrong, the US found chemical weapons outlawed by the UN 10+ years ago. US wins because they found the evidence. The ends justify the means in this situation because the US is allowed to defend itself without UN permission. Who else would Iraq launch them at...Israel?

[Commander-K25]

A majority does not equal right.

The U.N. does not equal justification.

The League of United Nations is not the determinant of what is justified or not.

[JudgeDredd]

At 3/24/03 07:09 PM, NJDeadzone wrote:

At 3/24/03 03:39 PM, Dig_the_Man wrote: Is it ethical for the United States to attack Iraq...?

the UN was wrong, the US found chemical weapons outlawed by the UN 10+ years ago.

America has more chemical and biological and nuclear weapons than any other country. How does it justify this now by saying "but we don't attack other countries first"

US wins because they found the evidence.

no, none found yet... o_O

The ends justify the means in this situation because the US is allowed to defend itself without UN permission.

that's International Law you are brushing aside!!?

Who else would Iraq launch (them) at...Israel?

Simple answer, YES - and why not?!

[NEMESiSZ]

The war is both ethical and moral, if you say otherwise, your opinion needs more research.

[XkwiziTOnE]

ok there are many valid points out there but the main princple is that the person who has these weapons and they can do to the world with it. if you give a power hungry mad man a gun and a lot of firepower he is going to use it in every ways possible. so to elimante this problem you disarm him as soon as possible, because you dont know what he might do. you all remember what happened 10+ years ago and 20+ years as well so can you imagine, please do imagine what might and could possibly happen........

[JudgeDredd]

At 3/24/03 08:32 PM, NEMESiSZ wrote: The war is both ethical and moral, if you say otherwise, your opinion needs more research.

lol .. your arguments needs more effort - TRY HARDER!

[NJDeadzone]

At 3/24/03 08:09 PM, Judge_DREDD wrote:

that's International Law you are brushing aside!!?

yup, it's ineffective what the country do about it, bitch and whine until it mentions a cliche?

Listen up, there have been multiple attacks on US soil from foreign invaders. No one has to agree with the US's course of action, but i don't see any countries getting in the way just yet, which justifies an invasion that a few governments did not want to endorse due to concerns and consequences that may result in their own countries. Isn't that just as selfish as the US's overruling of the UN's ping pong diplomacy? well if you don't find that so, then you're jumbled in your opinions.

[JudgeDredd]

At 3/24/03 08:49 PM, NJDeadzone wrote:
Listen up, there have been multiple attacks on US soil from foreign invaders. No one has to agree with the US's course of action, but i don't see any countries getting in the way just yet, which justifies an invasion that a few governments did not want to endorse due to concerns and consequences that may result in their own countries. Isn't that just as selfish as the US's overruling of the UN's ping pong diplomacy? well if you don't find that so, then you're jumbled in your opinions.

if i understand you correctly, you'd say that the UN is nothing but another US target for terrorist attack, and as such it should be up and lifted to a small island in the South Pacific where France and Russia and Germany and China and Pakistan and a whole lot of countries can take turns testing nukes on it.

"Talk Shop" ..yes America really hates the UN, that's why it's based in NY??!

[Jiperly]

let me put it this way:

the America Government believes that Saddam has weapons of mass destruction. If there was proof, then the world opinion would be different.And the American Government is willing to sacrifice Iraqi civilians for their own protection.

Thus, The American Government is simply putting a price on human lives- and American lives somehow cost more. that, i believe, is inethical

[Ted-Easton]

Majority or minority does not justify an attack on Iraq for weapons. Ethically, it's Iraq's own business wether or not they have WMD.
But also, and even more powerfully, it is unethical for other countries to stand by while wanton cruelty is perpetrated against the people of Iraq.
It was ethically correct for the US to invade on grounds of liberating the people, not looking for WMD.

[NJDeadzone]

At 3/24/03 08:56 PM, Judge_DREDD wrote:
if i understand you correctly, you'd say that the UN is nothing but another US target for terrorist attack, and as such it should be up and lifted to a small island in the South Pacific where France and Russia and Germany and China and Pakistan and a whole lot of countries can take turns testing nukes on it.

Now that's just twisting words. I'll be clear. My argument is that the strongest reason the UN wasn't giving the US authorizations was because countries such as France and Russia were threatening to veto.
They're vetoing because of the economic damages they might be inflicted as a result of the war, mentioning the horrors of Saddam on the side. However, Iraq is not the only oil dealer they can use, nor is it the only source of energy to ensure they don't freeze over in the just about finished winter. Nonetheless, they are rewarding a corrupt regime led by the man who has single-handedly destroyed the most Arab lives in history, and has kept his nation backward for 20 years.
So who's being more inconsiderate, the members of the security council not giving the US approval of defending themselves the best ways they can, while selling arms and supplies to them(Russia), or the US, bypassing a loosely-connected group that is not trying to protect her country from terrorist attack?

[Ted-Easton]

And Nem, you're creating far too many absolutes. Things like "and if you don't agree with me, then you're wrong" or "if you don't think this then you're crazy" etc.
It's equally possible that you're wrong, and you're just closing yourself off from debate.

[Der-Ubermensch]

At 3/24/03 08:32 PM, NEMESiSZ wrote: The war is both ethical and moral, if you say otherwise, your opinion needs more research.

I'm sure that I'm not the only who thinks this, but your damned one liners are beginning to get to me. You constantly rant and bitch when others have differing opinions than your own or when they try to disprove them. Why don't you lay your cards on the table instead of just vomiting " If you think or say otherwise, you're wrong". Last I heard there were no Nobel prize winners or expert political/social analysts posting on the NG BBS. You're being far too arrogant..

[NEMESiSZ]

I don't need to prove myself here, I speak the truth, if you want to argue with me, that's fine, you can stay up all night clicking refresh going "come on come on," i'll sit here knowing I'm correct.

[TheEvilOne]

At 3/24/03 08:09 PM, Judge_DREDD wrote: America has more chemical and biological and nuclear weapons than any other country. How does it justify this now by saying "but we don't attack other countries first"

Think of it like this: people are allowed to own guns, but that right is forfeited when one is convicted of a felony. Iraq committed a "felony" in 1990, when it invaded Kuwait. Therefore, they forfeit the right to own "guns" (weapons of mass destruction).

US wins because they found the evidence.

no, none found yet... o_O

The 100-acre facility that we found yesterday? It hasn't been confirmed as a chemical weapons facility yet, but the inspectors had no idea that it was even there.

The ends justify the means in this situation because the US is allowed to defend itself without UN permission.

that's International Law you are brushing aside!!?

What about the right of a sovereign nation to declare war? And what about the fact that Iraq is blatantly violating international law, and yet the UN refused to do anything about it? Someone has to do something, we have the authority under 1441, and in any case, we have the right as a sovereign nation to declare war.

Who else would Iraq launch (them) at...Israel?

Simple answer, YES - and why not?!

No comment.

[Der-Ubermensch]

At 3/24/03 09:52 PM, NEMESiSZ wrote: I don't need to prove myself here, I speak the truth, if you want to argue with me, that's fine, you can stay up all night clicking refresh going "come on come on," i'll sit here knowing I'm correct.

You know what, forget it.. If you're not even willing to EVER accept the fact that you could possibly be wrong, then there's no use arguing with you. It's utterly futile (like trying to teach an infant calculus).

[Commander-K25]

At 3/24/03 10:00 PM, Ruination wrote:
You know what, forget it.. If you're not even willing to EVER accept the fact that you could possibly be wrong, then there's no use arguing with you. It's utterly futile (like trying to teach an infant calculus).

Nemesisz = Biseor + Slizor

[implodinggoat]

This war is ethical, the United States does not recquire UN permission to declare war despite Kofi Annan's beliefs. The constitution gives our government the right to declare war. The U.N. is a fine forum for diplomacy but it has no authority to tell the U.S. what it can and cannot do.

[thenark]

I wouldnt say unethical as much as hypocritical. They have the largest nuclear arsenal in the world, and somehow they think that a scud, (a design that has been around since shortly after world war II, and can not hit what they are intended to most of the time), is somehow an extremely dangerous weapon of mass destruction. And as well, once George learns he can get away with this war, whats to stop him from turning on any country that displeases him and change THEIR "regime"?

[karasz]

At 3/25/03 12:13 AM, implodinggoat wrote: This war is ethical, the United States does not recquire UN permission to declare war despite Kofi Annan's beliefs. The constitution gives our government the right to declare war. The U.N. is a fine forum for diplomacy but it has no authority to tell the U.S. what it can and cannot do.

well if the UN has no authority then attacking Saddam for being in violation of UN resolutions is moot and cant be used anymore... thus meaning that Iraq is allowed to have nuclear weapons, since the UN resolutions are irrelevant...

[thenark]

karasz is right

[ben-e]

Well Countered

[karasz]

At 3/25/03 12:27 AM, thenark wrote: karasz is right

i like the sound of that... i encourage everyone to say that much more frequently... u dont even have to mean it...

[implodinggoat]

At 3/25/03 12:26 AM, karasz wrote: well if the UN has no authority then attacking Saddam for being in violation of UN resolutions is moot and cant be used anymore... thus meaning that Iraq is allowed to have nuclear weapons, since the UN resolutions are irrelevant...

I don't care about UN resolutions. I want to be rid of Saddam because he is one of the few true tyrants left on this planet and one that can be rather easily desposed of.

[thenark]

One of the last few tyrants on earth? I'd love to meet whoever taught you to count.

[karasz]

At 3/25/03 12:31 AM, implodinggoat wrote:

At 3/25/03 12:26 AM, karasz wrote: well if the UN has no authority then attacking Saddam for being in violation of UN resolutions is moot and cant be used anymore... thus meaning that Iraq is allowed to have nuclear weapons, since the UN resolutions are irrelevant...

I don't care about UN resolutions. I want to be rid of Saddam because he is one of the few true tyrants left on this planet and one that can be rather easily desposed of.

ok but now, make the case for attacking iraq without using the broken UN resolutions... also killing his own people is a pretty bad example cuz turkey does that and we just gave them a brib... relief aid and they shoot kurds, just like iraq...

[TheEvilOne]

At 3/25/03 12:26 AM, karasz wrote: well if the UN has no authority then attacking Saddam for being in violation of UN resolutions is moot and cant be used anymore... thus meaning that Iraq is allowed to have nuclear weapons, since the UN resolutions are irrelevant...

I knew someone would say that. I can counter by saying the following:

As I said above, we have the authority under Resolution 1441. And in case you think we don't, than I have a point to make about the UN resolutions. Iraq was not complying with 1441, which said that Iraq must declare what weapons they have or had, and account for every single one of them. Every last ounce of mustard gas, every last missile, every last vial of anthrax. No one here can say they did this. And yet, when we proposed an ultimatum to sternly warn Iraq that force would be used if they didn't comply by a certain time--one that probably had enough votes to pass--one nation that shall remain nameless--France--refused to accept it, and threatened to veto it. Apparently, UN resolutions are meaningless to France. And if UN resolutions are meaningless, then Iraq has the right to carry WMDs... but we have the right to go to war without UN approval. Whoops!

[NEMESiSZ]

The basic idea is, the USA will do what it wants, and the UN is allowed to pretend it gave us "permission" if they don't want to look bad.

[Disguy-youknow]

At 3/25/03 12:31 AM, implodinggoat wrote: I don't care about UN resolutions. I want to be rid of Saddam because he is one of the few true tyrants left on this planet and one that can be rather easily desposed of.

Hate to burst your bubble, but there are tyrants everywhere. If we were to attack all dictators, the US would be at war with most of the Mideast, mostr of Africa, China, and North Korea. As we can see, there is an obvious problem trying to be the world's police force.

Here is my opinion on when a war would be justified: A war would be justified against Iraq if we find evidence that he is a major threat to our allies. They helped us during the war on terror; we protect them. THer trouble is, when Bush attack, he did not have sufficient evidence. Powell showed the world evidence that Iraq waws hiding something but did not know what. What Bush should have done is to militarily back the inspectors. If the inspectors weredenied access to a place, the military would engage in "aggesive negotiations" to get them access. OF Saddam attacked the troops, then Iraq dies, as a coalition much bigger that the current one would have formed.