One more war angle

[jn.loudnotes]

Here's a thought - there seems to be disagreement as to whether war in Iraq is justified.  Using the old standby, "Do the ends justify the means?" how do you feel about that?

i.e.  Does the potential to remove Saddam Hussein justify going to war against Iraq?

However, phrased differently:
Does saving American lives justify killing Iraqis?

Or more to the point:
Does the possibility of saving American lives justify the guaranteed death of Iraqis?

Furthermore, at what point do you draw the line.  How many American lives is the life of one Iraqi worth?

(This being a theoretical debate. . .replace American and Iraqi with any nationality. . .should it matter?)

[The Ghost of Bondo]

To add another element to your theoretical question...

Kant would say it is immoral to use anyone simply as a means to an end.

Are the people being killed and used as means to saving Americans and removing/killing Saddam being used simply as means?

Just like I can't find a logical justification for Iraqis civilian lives to be worth less than American civilian lives, I can't see how their deaths are being anything but a means.

I hope I don't sidetrack this but I wanted to pose another thought for consideration.  We all know Saddam has done some awful things, but perhaps one way to think of it is if he didn't do these things, he would not be the leader of the country and some other person would be torturing him and his family or killing them.  If he didn't do what he does, people would overthrow him and kill him and his family.  Perhaps his actions are basically him being immoral for his gain to prevent others from being immoral at his expense.  We should consider if his regime is really any worse than any other would be all other things being equal.

Now don't take this to mean I think Saddam is right to do what he does.  And perhaps the answer is that yes indeed things could be better if someone else was the leader.  I just think there is the possibility that if Saddam didn't do what he has done, someone else would be in power doing the same thing and that he has acted in part in his own defense.  

I think it is important not to view Saddams actions compared to how things function in America or Europe where the political culture has escaped the barbaric tinge, but rather compare it to similarly devolved forms.  I mean, is Saddam really any worse than many of the Kings of Europe back in the days who would kill to keep power and did similarly immoral things (without as much technology to do it on a larger scale).  Iraq is a dictatorship and as far as I can tell, Saddam is just a typical dictator that kills and oppresses to maintain power.  And it isn't his fault that he is a dictator, that is just the nature of that country and if he wasn't the dictator, someone else would be.

[Cossack]

Our government values our lives more, they are supposed to, they are also supposed to look after the people's interest.

[The Ghost of Bondo]

Our government values our lives more, they are supposed to, they are also supposed to look after the people's interest.

Ok, so maybe it is politically justified, but morally all human lives are equal. So definately killing many to pehaps save a much smaller amount can in no way be morally justified.

[K?nig]

I don't think Saddam is just a threat to the United States, I think he's a threat to the entire world. Islamic fundamentalists, which is who we are really worried about because they will probably be the ones doing the killing, hate the entire western world for its culture. The United States is not the only one with western lifestyles, although we are probably the most visible and therefore the most likely to be attacked. Many people in Europe don't have the same kind of fears we Americans do as they do not feel the same kind of hurt and have thus labelled us paranoid and cantankerous. I live in New York City, scarcely 3 miles from the World Trade Center, my father watched the second plane smash into the tower with his own eyes, and we could smell the smoke from the burning ashes for weeks after the attacks. I know the fear and pain terrorism can cause, but my greater fear is that those events were just the beginning. With people living so densly, it is easy to see ways to bring about an even greater disaster. I can only hope that we take action quickly and decisively so none of my fears are realised.

[The Ghost of Bondo]

I won't disagree that the US has more fear than Europe about attacks, but they have had more terrorist activities than we have, just on smaller scale.  Plus they have prevented many attacks as well.  

[abe]

ive pretty much said what i had to say on the topic and i think i got my viewpoint across adequately. here it is in the words of an iraqi:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0226/p11s02-coop.htm

, and bondo: No country in Europe has ever prevented a terrorist attack by accomodating terrorists and giving in to their demands. Whether Spain with the ETA, w. germany with the RAF, Italy with the bridgadi rossi or the UK with the IRA, no european government has ever handled the threat posed by terrorists by negotiating with them or changing their public policy. when you make a concession to terrorists its asking for another attack, imo....also, if you think its shouldnt be our concern what saddam does to the people in iraq, so why should it be a concern of ours what israel does to palestinians? u seem to have a double standard here.

[The Ghost of Bondo]

None of those groups you listed are countries.  Iraq IS a country.  That makes it much different.