Ethics Debate

This is not going to be easy. Our positions are as close to polar opposites as they possibly can be. It is not going to be easy to argue my points without also arguing that your basic belief system is wrong.

The nice thing about ethics debates is that neither side is wrong. Things are not black and white in this world, no matter how we would like to pretend that they are. You make some very valid points and you express your opinions with a lot of background knowledge. That's great. That my opinion is different doesn't negate your points, and since neither of us are in positions high enough to influence the decisions, we can just exchange views and build our understanding.

Telling a friend that you think they are wrong is a thorny thing indeed. I hope that you and I can do it with a minimum of offense. But I don't hold out much hope for that. Not because I think you are extra sensitive, but because for years I cultivated the fine art of being an ass and I expect that I will eventually say something assine... AGAIN.

"I do not believe that the United States has the right to make decisions about who should control other countries. Our responsibility, as you use the word, ends at our borders."

Your statement above looks like something Pat Buchanan wrote in his book "A Republic, Not an Empire." In this book, Buchanan argues that the war in Europe during WWII was none of our business. If Hitler hadn't declared war on us we should have stayed out of it. After all, Buchanan asserts, the Brits and the Russians would have beaten the Nazis eventually, so no skin off our nose, right? Whatever else was going on inside Nazi Germany or its conquered territories is none of our business. Chad if our responsibility ends at our borders then why do we send foreign aid over seas? Why do we work with the UN or NATO? Why are we not the isolationist nation Pat Buchanan wants us to be?

The responsibility of our government is to follow the will of the people, in accordance with the laws that are written by the representatives of the people, and as interpreted in relation to the Constitution. The preamble says "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." All of these statements focus the specific responsibilities of our government within the borders of the United States. This system of government works for us because it was designed to work for us. I object to the notion that we have the right or the responsibility to spread this system of government on people outside of ourselves.

However, you make a good point. Why do we send aid overseas? Because we can, and because we care. We are the richest country in the world. And sometimes we try to share some of that. Why do we work with the UN or NATO? Because it is in our best interest to do so. If we had not worked to create the UN, we would have gone back to being isolationist, which is the worst thing that could have happened. My loyalties spread out from my family to my neighborhood, to my city, county, state and country. Beyond that, my loyalties are to the entire human race and finally to all life. The UN was created to be a means of gathering representatives of all nations for a purpose:

WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom, AND FOR THESE ENDS to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours, and to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, and to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest, and to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples, HAVE RESOLVED TO COMBINE OUR EFFORTS TO ACCOMPLISH THESE AIMS.

This is the preamble to the UN Charter. It goes beyond what the US Constitution gives as the responsibilities for a single government, and outlines the self-determined responsibilities of many governments acting as one.

"In my opinion, unqualified as it might be, the United Nations was formed in the first place to be a legislative system with the responsibility to settle border disputes between countries, and to assist people of member nations to handle situations of human rights abuses. That the UN has trouble doing this is another argument entirely."

The UN is not a world Senate. It is not a world Congress or Parliament. It is a forum for airing complaints, disputes and issues of global or regional concern. As for helping the people of member nations to handle situations of human rights abuses, the UN releases reports about human rights abuses that are supposed to be non-partisan, but if the member states don't want to be bothered, nothing happens. It requires a big push by a few concerned states to force the issue. The reason the UN has trouble acting as the world's police, legislative and health care system is that it was never intended to be such. These duties were added, but no powers to accomplish these duties were added. The members states are not obligated by anything other than their honor since there are no consequences for non-participation.

Actually, the UN is the closest that we have right now to a World Congress. The decisions of the UN Security Council are considered to have the weight of International Law. And this is not mandated by any power inherent in the UN itself, but by the acceptance of the UN members of the authority of the UN. If a member state decides that the UN does not need to be listened to, the UN can present a resolution enabling sanctions against that member state, i.e. Iraq. But the law is only strong and valid if the people who accept that law continue to do so. That is a matter of honor, and of commitment to the goals and purposes of the UN. Without that, what point is there of anyone accepting national sovereignty? If we wish to be part of the UN to continue building a world that we are proud of living in, we need to show the honor to follow the rule of international law established by the UN Security Council and the UN General Assembly. A parallel can be see in the WTO today, and the fact that our administration is trying to establish tariffs that go against WTO standards, when we helped create the WTO to begin with. Where's the logic? Where's the honor?

"I simply object to a single country or coalition of countries from taking the law into their own hands and making the decision without the UN. I have no problem with the US being called upon to use our military and economic power to solve a bad situation, but unless called upon by the UN or NATO or some other group of countries, we do not have the right."

Nations make decisions without the UN all the time. But you're talking out both sides of your mouth here. You say you object to "a single country or coalition of countries taking the law into their own hands." But its okay if the UN or NATO does it? What is the UN or NATO but a coalition of countries? Especially NATO. NATO isn't the world, it isn't even half the world or a quarter of it? There are more countries backing the US War against Saddam Hussein than there are countries in NATO.

The logic here does not hold, and it's my fault for using the word coalition. The US joined with the UK and several other countries who expressed their support to the goal of removing the corrupt government of Iraq. But this group of countries was thrown together by diplomacy outside of the United Nations' efforts.

Then you go on to say you have no problem with the US being called upon by the UN to use our military and economic power to solve a bad situation. Are you sure? Can we refuse them? How much US sovereignty do you want to cede to the UN? What if every single nation on earth votes at the UN that the United States is just too scary and should disarm and be broken up into smaller less intimidating states... the USSR was (although obviously not by UN decree). Gee, the whole world thinks its a good idea, who are we to disagree?

The UN would not want to break our country up. But if the UN came up with a plan to disarm all countries peacefully, should we refuse to engage in the debate? We have more Weapons of Mass Destruction than all other countries in the world combined. Can we look at that situation from an outsiders point of view and decide that we can be trusted with that?

"Now that the Bush and Blair team have started this war, it has thrown the entire balance of power out the window. Suddenly, pre-emptive strikes are established as a legitimate way of solving problems where the charges being made against a country are circumstantial or unproven. India can say that Pakistan has plans to attack them, or North Korea can (is) saying that the US has plans to attack them (we probably do), and they can strike first and use the US/UK vs. Iraq War of 2003 as their example and justification."

Well obviously there have never been any pre-emptive strikes before this one. Now that we've given everyone the idea, I'm sure it will be the latest fad in diplomacy. Oh but wait? Hasn't this happened before?

Israel did it in '67 for the Six Day War and in '81 when they took out the Iraqi nuclear reactor.

Egypt did in in '73 for the Seven Day War.

The Japanese did it in 1905 when they destroyed the Russian Navy and 1941 when they took a crack at doing the same to ours.

The Germans did it to Poland. And while they claimed it was a defensive action against Polish agression, I think we all knew better.

The Russians did it Poland, the Baltic States, Czechoslokaia, Hungary and Afghanistan, all in the name of empire.

The UK did it in 1940 when they sank a large portion of the French Fleet, killing thousands of French sailors rather than let the warships fall into Italian and German hands.

The US did it in Grenada, Libya, and Panama.

France did it in when they sank the Rainbow Warrior, when they withdrew from NATO, when they single handedly blocked the admission of the UK into the common market.

Britain, France and Israel all did it together in 56(?) for the Suez Crisis.

Its an ugly fact of history that these kinds attacks have been performed since the first governments and militaries existed. No one is going to need our example as justification. Sure, they may point to it, but will it really make their war any more justified?

No war is justified any more, because any war can continue to escalate until there is danger to the entire planet. All of these ugly facts of history point to a desperate need to make sure that nothing like them happens again, by anyone. It's not good enough to say that these events were in the past unless we learn the lessons of history and don't repeat the same mistakes.

"All we are doing is escalating an already bad situation. I heard on the BBC radio the other day that some people in the Arab world are thanking us for doing this. Not because they agree with it, but because it gives them the ability to unite the entire Arab world. I've seen maps of the Indian ocean going back to the Ottoman Empire, and that empire controlled most if not all of the area currently considered the Arab world. This included a major portion of Africa, and most of India. If we want this kind of empire to be re-established, then we are doing a great job."

The idea that we are going to unite the Islamic world is more a pipe-dream or nightmare than anything else. For one thing, even when the Crusaders turned up and hacked and slashed their way to Jerusalem on what was absolutely a religious war against Islam, the Islamic world was not united. The only reason those tiny crusader states hung on for as long as they did was that the Islamic states were for more interested in fighting each other. Sunni fought Shite, Arab fought Persian, Berber fought Moor... and frankly the Turks fought everyone.

Now add to that the fact that the Ottoman Turks you mentioned were in fact conquerors, who held Arabs, Greeks, Serbs, Bulgarians, Albanians, Armenians, Persians, Kurds, Bedouins and Egyptians under the heel of an absolute Monarchy, policed by a slave army called the Jannisaries, who were the Sultan's personal property. When the Europeans snatched up those area lost to the Ottomans after WWI, the Islamic world did not unite to drive out the English and the French. It wasn't until after the Second World War that the anti-colonialization movement began.

What makes you think that this time the whole Islamic world from Morocco to Indonesia will unite against the west this time when it has never happened before despite numerous opportunities?

Because that region of the world has never had the methods of communication that are now available. The media in that part of the world are only about 10 years behind ours, and the Internet is growing at an amazing clip. One of the surprises at the end of 2002 and beginning of 2003 was how fast the anti-war movement gained a huge following because most of the people who found out about the marches and rallies through the Internet, either email or the World Wide Web. And the same kind of capability is now world-wide.

"Another thing I've heard about is Iraqi dissidents, people who fled the tyranny of Saddam Hussein, returning to the country to fight. But they're not returning to help the coalition forces to free the country, but instead to help the Iraqi army oust the Invaders. Syria is sending night vision goggles and other equipment to the Iraqi side to help them in the war. These are signals to me that we've bitten off more than we can chew, and that we're in for the long haul. Sure, we're the best army on the planet. We've been fighting wars for 227 years, and we're virtually undefeated when we can really get our blood boiling. A Japanese Admiral objected to the plan of bombing Pearl Harbor because he felt it would awaken a sleeping tiger, and he was right. I have no doubts that we have the capability to defeat the Iraqi army. And then we'll be able to go after Iran. And then North Korea, Syria, and whoever stands in our way, or presents a perceived threat. And in the process of this great buildup to war, our economy could boom with the great production requirements of the war machine, taking our unemployment rate down to where it should be and increasing our technology levels to help this effort, giving the population of the United States all the side benefits of these new technologies, etc. Sounds like Germany in the 1930's."

Don't make the comparison between Nazi Germany and the current US Administration. History's example point more to Iraq playing the role of Nazi Germany in this scenario. Not because Iraq is a nasty totalitarian regime. Iraq is germany after WWI, trying to throw off the restrictions of the Versailles treaty.

I can point to too many parallels NOT to make the comparison between the US now and Nazi Germany. I don't know about you, but I'm watching our government with increasingly more and more fear about what the next step is going to be. Are you aware that both the House and the Senate passed resolutions calling for a national day of prayer and fasting for the American People to meditate on their service to God? That goes so far beyond what is acceptable it makes me ashamed of our country!

Iraq lost a war and lost full sovereignty over portions of its territory. There are no-fly zones. Some areas have effective independence from Baghdad. The Iraqis were saddled with treaties requiring disarmament. They were saddled with sanctions which cause sever economic deprivation... especially since the oil for food program has been used as a way to generate hard currency for the regime rather than supply relief supplies. None of that has changed Saddam's mind about his intention to overcome these setbacks and become a regional super-power.

Now the world community's resolve is weakening. More and more countries would rather do business with Iraq than maintain the sanctions. There are billions to be made helping Iraq rearm. So there is less resolve to keep inspectors in place. Less resolve to keep sanctions in place. Less resolve to keep the no fly zones in place. Until George Bush threw his hissy-fit, the rest of the world was letting Iraq get away with more and more. Instead of annexing Czechoslovakia, the big crime being set up was the removal of the northern no-fly zone. As soon as that was gone the Iraqis would have been all over the Kurds. The Kurds would have been slaughtered. AGAIN. And we and the rest of the world would have shrugged our shoulders and passed a UN resolution condemning it. But the Kurds would still be dead.

But I have also heard analysis from people talking on the BBC that say the people in the region of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers have been fighting wars for 8,000 years, and that their way of life has not really changed throughout that entire time.

Every time I read something like that I wonder what the point of it is. So they have been fighting for 8000 years and their lives suck. What are you saying? That they are incapable of anything better? That we shouldn't expect them to be anything better than oppressed masses or brutal oppressors.

"That region saw the beginnings of civilization, writing and laws when Britain was still in the stone age. When the British came to Iraq in the early 1900's, they came in not as conquerors, but as liberators. So they've heard that tune before."

True enough. But again, the Brits are the softest conquerers in history. No mass executions. No raping and looting. No buring cities to the ground. That should have at least told them that the west was no longer the bunch of cannibalistic, genocidal, religious fanatics that launched the Crusades almost a thousand years ago.

"The US system stands for several things when it comes to human rights. There are many versions of these rights, but the three that seem to dominate can be stated like this: Everyone has the right to their material needs (food, water, shelter), self-improvement through education, and the right to self-government."

I would disagree as to this list of human rights. Human rights are not the same as human privledges. You don't have a right to your material needs. You have a right pursue those material needs with a minimum of impediment from your government and fellow citizens (ie. no, you can't steal and you can't make money dumping toxic waste in your neighbors yard). You also have a right to protect your material needs from being expropriated by anyone, even the government.

You do not have a right to an education. You have a right to persue an education unimpeded by things like segragation, or a caste system, or failure to be a member in good standing with the Party. But yes, I think the US does stand for the proposition that the population should have a voice in its government. Taxes are expropriation, but even then some value is returned in the way of public safety and civic improvements, and if you have some form of representative government, at least you have some say in where the money ends up.

Now I'm the one getting upset and angry. Let's keep people hungry, desperate and uneducated, but give them the ability to vote. That almost guarantees that whoever can make the best promises would be given positions of power. I would rather see a peaceful dictatorship where everyone is fed and knowledgeable than a warmongering democracy where the people are hungry and stupid.

"The question is the priority among these three. And the answer depends on whom you ask. My opinion is that material needs come first. Get the people what they need in terms of food, fresh water, shelter from storms, and protection from disease and they will understand that you are a friend. Then give them an understanding of their world, and how to develop all of these things for themselves without tromping on their neighbors."

If we throw a ton of aid at Iraq with the current government that's in place, the aid will be used for things we'd rather not see it used for. Either it will be sold to raise hard cash, and since it was given to Iraq for free it won't be hard to make a profit off it, or it will be distributed by the Iraqi Government to its people as the largess of Saddam, and he will get all the credit. Furthermore, how are we supposed to get them an understanding of the world with a government in place that controls all the media outlets and actively works to keep foreign news out of the country?

That could not have lasted. Satellite TV already exists in Iraq, because it's in the center of a region that has media outlets like Al Jazzerra. And how many times do I have to say that I'm not in favor of keeping Saddam Hussein in power? If George Bush wants to be a cowboy, then he needs to bring in the bad guy so he can face an international court on crimes against humanity. That would show the people in the Middle East exactly what he had been doing, and how much the people of his country suffered because of it. By just going in to kill him, we're not teaching anybody anything.

"The technology exists to be able to turn the Mesopotamia region into a land of plenty, a land overflowing with milk and honey. Instead, we're firing cluster bombs at them."

Chad. The guy running Iraq will use any of that technology you claim exists to fuel his war machine. Until he's gone, there is nothing we can do for Mesopotamia.

"You are right about one thing. I'm an idealist. I think in simple terms, not because I don't have enough information to make an informed decision, but because all the information I have read and gathered has not changed my basic, fundamental views about what is right and what is wrong. In this case, I do not believe that the end justifies the means. Bush and Blair have a plan to bring Iraq into the community of peaceful democratic nations. I hope it works. I'm willing to help rebuild after the damage has been done. I just wish that we would have found another way."

Then tell me another way. Tell me what is to be done? Give me your plan to remove the threat from Iraq and end the tyranny of its leader. And no, you don't just get to say "let the inspectors do their jobs." Inspections combined with what? Sanctions? We tried that. It was a dismal failure that brought misery to the Iraqi people and didn't slow down Saddam one bit. Who knows? If Saddam dragged out the Inspections long enough maybe there is a point where he does develop a nuclear offensive capacity and then just tells the world to fuck off. Its what North Korea did. Except in Saddam's case he can render a fair chunk of the worlds oil supply unusable with nuclear weapons. Then what? He's got us by the balls. Not just the US, but Europe and Asia, who get more of their oil from the Mid-east than we do.

The administration is touting some kind of 'Roadmap for Peace'. This includes (hopefully) establishment of a Palestinian state, and whatever else they want to throw in. A similar roadmap with milestones and resource requirement reports could have been drawn up to remove the sanctions. The UN could also set minimum requirements for self-governing in the country, and if Iraq signed that agreement and then backed off, then the UN would have called up the cavalry and gone in to show their authority. An army of relief workers should also have been forced on the country, making sure that all of the people have food, shelter, health-care, education, etc. The government should not have been given a choice but to welcome these relief agencies and accept their work. Show the people by taking their hand and leading them. What we are doing now is ignoring the citizens of the country until we have destroyed their government, then we're going to waltz in there to try and fix what we broke.

.... while I eagerly await your next volley, I am also dreading it. I don't want to waste any more time on this damn war of words. I'm not going to convince you of anything and this has actually consumed a large portion of my time and now I'm falling way behind in my work.

I will do my best to keep up with this, but I expect I will soon fall behind.

Don't worry about it. I think we're done. I start a new class on Thursday, which means all my spare time is gone until I graduate in June. Then other things will be more important, and hopefully we will have been able to end the war. I don't expect it, but I can hope.

Let's stop here. I don't see a point of continuing, because all we are doing is getting each other upset. Thanks for trying to see my points.