War

[Adam]

Recently Nasor said "They deserve to be attacked", regarding Iraq.

Now, let's examine this a bit. The majority of a nation's citizens are not in the government or the military. A large number of people displaced, maimed, or killed during war or in its aftermath (due to things such as increased cancer rates, landmines everywhere, et cetera) are civilians.

I don't object to fighting entirely. I say, if someone attacks you, kick the crap out of them until they can never attack you again. But do it to the attacker, not to civilians who happen to live in the same area.

Now let's look at an example of a hypothetical war situation.

• Country A does not attack Country B.
• But Country A either has something Country B wants, or Country B simply dislikes the administration of Country A.
• Country B makes claims about Country A which are not supported by evidence, and uses these claims as a reason to attack Country A.
• Country B points to really nasty things that Country A has done in the past, but on the other hand Country B has also done the same and worse.
• When Country B attacks Country A, a great number of those displaced, maimed, or killed will be civilians.

Does Country B have any right to attack Country A? How can the attack be justified?

 

[Asguard]

you actully expect logic adam?

 

[Adam]

I'm hoping for it.

 

[zanket]

Originally posted by Adam
Does Country B have any right to attack Country A? How can the attack be justified?

Yes, if Country B seeks to replace a dictatorship in Country A with majority rule. Majority rule must prevail, by force if diplomacy fails. In the long run violence is minimized and global problems are better resolved that way. As to civilian deaths, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Continuing improvement in technology and strategy increasingly reduces their number.

 

[zanket]

Originally posted by Adam
I say, if someone attacks you, kick the crap out of them until they can never attack you again.

Sounds like revenge to me. An unwarranted attacker should have its government controlled by a global majority until the public there comes to its senses. (Assuming the attacking government is already majority ruled; if not, it should be replaced forthwith as noted above.)

But do it to the attacker, not to civilians who happen to live in the same area.

Soldiers are often ignorant or conscripted. I would seek to minimize their casualties while targeting the government. In Zanket World, dictators would not survive sleeping in the same place twice.

 

[Thor]

Country A does not attack Country B.

Ya ha

But Country A either has something Country B wants

Ah

or Country B simply dislikes the administration of Country A.

Naturally

Country B makes claims about Country A which are not supported by evidence

Not good

and uses these claims as a reason to attack Country A.

Not right

When Country B attacks Country A, a great number of those displaced, maimed, or killed will be civilians.

Innocence is the first casualty of war

Does Country B have any right to attack Country A?

If Country B has been attacked, it has the right to fight back. It's called self-defense

How can the attack be justified?

Pre-emptive strike?

First off, what right has Country B got for attacking another country because of the administration? None what so ever. It's not their affairs and they have no right to say what goes in other countries...unless stated otherwise by someone like the UN.

Country B is obviously the aggresor here and it's actions are unjust and should be isolated for starting war in a world where we are trying to stop war...especially as this aggressor is the main party involved in keeping peace. Hypocritical methinks

 

[Nasor]

I believe that Iraq should be attacked because both the citizens of Iraq and the world in general would be better off if Saddam was taken out of power. Of course it is tragic that many civilians and a great many unwillingly conscripted solders will die in the process of removing him, but it would be more tragic to allow Saddam (and his likely successors) to stay in power.

Also: you infer in your original post that the US wants to attack Iraq because Iraq has oil. This has been discussed several times (there is currently a thread on it), and the claim that the US is attacking Iraq 'for the oil' is absurd. The US doesn't need to attack Iraq to get the oil. Iraq wants to sell its oil to the US. It would be much cheaper and easier for us to simply buy the oil that Saddam desperately wants to sell us. Even if Saddam is removed and a friendly government installed, the US will still have to pay for the oil at its market value. The oil won't be any cheaper after Saddam is removed than it would be now. The fact that our embargo has prevented Iraq from selling us their oil should be some indication to you that we are not interested simply in getting oil from them.

Of course I have no illusions about the fact that the US is attacking Iraq for cynical political reasons that have little to do with human rights. But since I feel that the forcible removal of Saddam is justified, I have no problems with it.

 

[zanket]

Originally posted by Thor
If Country B has been attacked, it has the right to fight back. It's called self-defense

It’s not literal self-defense once the immediate threat is gone. If someone punches you and walks away, you cannot legally fight back. Attacked nations should respond by waging peace not war. The former may involve weaponry but it’s not retaliation.

First off, what right has Country B got for attacking another country because of the administration?

Country B has an ethical responsibility to Country A’s citizens. There is war and peace and then there is oppression. A country waging peace should target the oppressor the same as the aggressor.

 

[Asguard]

no country a doesnt give a DAM about counrty b's people

otherwise counrty A would have been stoping country B in the UN for ages did this happen? nope

contry A has said nothing about country B's ciziens that will die in urban warfare because they are just colateral damage

the US cares about as much for iraq as israil does for palistine

 

[zanket]

I thought this was a hypothetical war situation.

 

[Nasor]

I think we all know what we're talking about here.