What Goes Around Comes Around

I don't think any country today has demonstrated a perfect moral compass on foreign affairs. Nor do I think this lack of a perfectly ethical government is a sufficent excuse for the US's lack of an attempt to demonstrate ethics, nor a sufficent reason to avoid criticising those nations who act unethically.

For example, on this specific issue, the french refusal to accept any UNSC resolution which contained a deadline for war is a specific example of an action that would be considered ethical by Kantian standards.
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/kant/kant1.htm
 
Sparks: would it be ethical if the French only sought to avoid war out of interests that had nothing to do with principles and everything to do with national self interest as they saw it? And would having it fit into Kantian standards then somehow make it any more ethical than it would be otherwise?
 
alanH,
If the french were acting out of national self-interest, then no, their motives wouldn't be ethical - though their action would be.
However, this doesn't in any way detract from the unethical manner in which the US pursued the passing of a resolution with a built-in deadline for a war.
Did you read that link?
 
sparks: no, I didn't. I don't have the time right now, though it looks interesting. Perhaps you can give me the short version as to why a deadline makes the push for war immoral.?
 
alanH,
I'd suggest making the time to learn what ethics is before subscribing to your government's version of it.

The reason it wouldn't be ethical is that it would be a licence for war. The US accused SH of having WMD's (sorry for the acronyms, but my fingers are tired now). The resolution says surrender the WMDs you say you don't have or we'll declare war. This precludes the possibility that he didn't have them - a possibility now looking exceedingly likely.
Thus it wouldn't have been a resolution issued in good faith. Thus unethical.
 
Sparks: I don't see why, given that we knew he did have them and he offered no proof that they were ever destroyed. He didn't cooperate with the inspectors and France finally admitted they'd never sign on to war no matter what.

I also don't see why "a license for war," as you call it, is automatically unethical.

I don't believe these "ethical" rules apply no matter what the circumstances. Ethics isn't so neat. You have to look at the whole picture, and the history of the issue as well.
 
Originally posted by alanH
France finally admitted they'd never sign on to war no matter what.
Click to expand...

Of course !!! As Saddam didn't have any WMD France would have not sign on for a war (or a resolution that would have gone to a war). If there were any doubt about WMD, UN inspectors would have try to resolve the problem during the next months.
The resolution was a big joke... As if I would say "I know that you are a murderer. Give me the evidences !!! If you don't I'll kill you and if you do, I will know that you're a killer so you'll die." (US system :D)
 
alanH

That's a fact !
"Innocent until you prove that he is guilty", I'm waiting for your evidences...
 
SG: familiarize yourself with some of the history here.

http://www.sfu.ca/~dann/Backissues/nn5-1_11.htm

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq11-5.htm

http://www.cfr.org/background/background_iraq_inspections.php


It would take a blindfold to come to the conclusion that the inspections over the last decade got all of the WMD, that Saddam really did destroy all his WMD but didn't keep any records to prove he did, and that all the delaying, obfuscating and noncooperation the various inspectors faced was for the fun of it, rather than to actually cover up anything.
 
alanH,
France didn't refuse to "sign on for war" - they stated they would veto any UNSC resolution which contained a deadline for war.
Get your facts straight.
 
Sparks: I believe that's a distinction without an effective difference. Certainly none of the pieces below made the distinction.



"Powell said the French foreign minister went to the three African countries that had votes on the Security Council -- Angola, Cameroon and Gabon -- to get their votes against the resolution.

Powell said he countered with telephone calls before each of de Villepin's three stops "making sure that he did not get" the three votes.

Still, the resolution did not come to a vote. "France said there's nothing you can write that we wouldn't veto," Powell said."


http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2003/04/23/national1646EDT0686.DTL




"The Bush administration is angry at France for its promise to veto any U.N. resolution authorizing the war that toppled the regime of former president Saddam Hussein."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8592-2003May3.html

http://reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=2676053


"U.S. officials have sought to tread carefully between venting their anger at France for its vow to veto any U.N. resolution authorizing the war and the need to maintain working ties to one of the United States' longest-standing allies."

http://reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&storyID=2626708
 
Originally posted by alanH
SG: familiarize yourself with some of the history here.

http://www.sfu.ca/~dann/Backissues/nn5-1_11.htm

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq11-5.htm

http://www.cfr.org/background/background_iraq_inspections.php


It would take a blindfold to come to the conclusion that the inspections over the last decade got all of the WMD, that Saddam really did destroy all his WMD but didn't keep any records to prove he did, and that all the delaying, obfuscating and noncooperation the various inspectors faced was for the fun of it, rather than to actually cover up anything.
Click to expand...

So you agree : there are no proves that there are WMD in Iraq ! Just come back when you will have proves... :cool:
 
SG: thankfully for the security of the free world, noone needs to "proves" anything to you. But I'll be interested in what you have to say if and when they find the WMD.
 
alanH - About your last post...

So ? What did you want to show here ?
France would not have allow a war in Iraq. That's true ! No need to put so much links for that...

The "only" problem in Iraq was Saddam and his government but all the UN resolutions were dealing with WMD and US threats...
 
SG: I wanted to provide some of the history of this issue, so it would be plain that there were most likely WMD's being hidden. It would be hard for an honest observer to conclude either that the inspectors found everything, or that everything else was destroyed.
 
Moving US forces further east is a mistake. Russia will not look on it too kindly and it could provoke a lot of resentment amongst the substancial portion of the russian population who yearn after the good old days of The Soviet Union.

The USA may not be best pleased with either Germany or Russia right now, but at least President Putin is unlikely to renew the cold war. I would advise the USA that it's intended actions could well be the trigger needed to begin a mass anti USA feeling in Russia which could easily topple Putin and see the installation of a hardline nationalist governement that would see US military forces so close to it's borders as a threat.

The world is used to US forces in Germany, nobody feels threatened by it. If it's not broken then don't fix it. Being closer to the middle east is a reason for not moving east rather than actually doing it.

George Bush, wake up, think about this.
 
Aghart: do you really see Bush creating such a de facto challenge to Putin, or to Putin acquiesing to it and incurring the wrath of his people? I don't see either eventuality occuring.
 
Originally posted by alanH
Aghart: do you really see Bush creating such a de facto challenge to Putin, or to Putin acquiesing to it and incurring the wrath of his people? I don't see either eventuality occuring.
Click to expand...

I hope not, but I can't help but think that the Bush administration thinks only in one dimensional terms, and dosn't stop to consider it's actions. Unless the US plans to intervene every week in the middle east, then is their any real need to move the forces east?.
 
Aghart: I think that "one dimensional" stuff is more the boilerplate of the anti-Bush crowd. It was kind of interesting, I was talking with my mother on Mother's Day, and she hates Bush like poison, but even she sees now that he's no idiot, like she originally thought.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top