dagblog - Comments for "Libya, Obama, and the Just War Theory"

I think he'd rather shut down

we are stardust — Sun, 27 Mar 2011 02:51:38 +0000

In reply to I think quinn might be more

I think he'd rather shut down his blogsite, shoot himself in the head, and ship his body to France.

I think quinn might be more

Verified Atheist — Sun, 27 Mar 2011 00:03:55 +0000

In reply to Yeah, but then there's

I think quinn might be more interested in a Sarah Palin (like new!) instead.

Yeah, but then there's

we are stardust — Sat, 26 Mar 2011 23:56:14 +0000

In reply to Yeah, tell me about it. We

Yeah, but then there's No-confidence vote. Where will that get ya? Elections? Could we rent you some candidates? We are over-stuffed with them. What will you bid for a Tim Pawlenty? A Ging-rich?

Yeah, tell me about it. We

quinn esq — Sat, 26 Mar 2011 23:28:47 +0000

In reply to Uh-oh, Quinn; don't look

Yeah, tell me about it. We have two of the worst assholes in Canadian politics running - psychopath Harper, and Iggy-Lurch, the ego that walks like a man. We're in hell. Minority governments are great in that they don't let anyone do too much damage, but it sure would be nice if we'd move into a stage of some sane leaders.

Uh-oh, Quinn; don't look

we are stardust — Sat, 26 Mar 2011 22:22:12 +0000

In reply to What is it about naming an

Uh-oh, Quinn; don't look now. "Canada to lead Libyan Mission". (along with "But who leads Canadia".)

(Nice picture of your friend Harper, though.)

http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/03/25/canada_to_lead_libya_mission_but_who_leads_canada

I was a litlle bit spare on

we are stardust — Sat, 26 Mar 2011 22:05:05 +0000

In reply to Oh, that's right. I'm a

I was a litlle bit spare on words, sorry, but I guess I would have thought you'd take my meaning. I was wrong. What I meant was that if Gadaffi is brought down, then the hard stuff starts in building a new nation, and often the factions, tribes, fight each other, equally bloody civil wars. It may not be as hard as in Iraq, which is still horrid from all our 'nation building', but even now no one is quite sure who is whom in the rebel force. Insurrection, civil war; I dunno.

But it will be interesting to see which nations participating want to exert influence, especially since there are arguably plenty of potential benefits to reap, both resources and geopolitical.

Accepted and I will only add,

A Guy Called LULU — Sat, 26 Mar 2011 21:55:04 +0000

In reply to You know what, LULU? I

Accepted and I will only add, for now, that I have skin too, and it was once pretty intensely invested in the game when I would have much preferred being in college. And my skin too got worn thin in a few places. I do not take any of these questions lightly and I certainly do have strong feelings about questions, the answers to which have life or death consequences, be they academic questions or otherwise.

What is it about naming an

quinn esq — Sat, 26 Mar 2011 21:42:01 +0000

In reply to You know what, LULU? I

What is it about naming an individual that somehow - in your mind - magically moves the discussion from one of practicality... and over into (apparently) irrelevant personal morality?

I mean, do I really need to spell this out?

If you go to war with a monster and a mobster, then the conduct of your war changes. For instance, if Canada goes into a war led by George W Bush, are you telling me that there is absolutely no material difference than if it is led by Barack Obama? Seems to me that's the view of the most extreme Bush = Obama fanatics.

In the same way, I mentioned that all 4 Allied leaders named are in tenuous electoral positions, and thus, are looking desperately for things that will make them look leader-like, in the face of poor domestic performances. It is widely disussed in American politics how Presidents who don't have the ability to pass domestic legislation may look for foreign policy gain. I can assure you, it's the same in the 4 Allies countries.

As for Berlusconi, the Wikileaks documents show the US Government itself is highly concerned with his extraordinary personal links with Putin, who is a tyrant-mobster not just of real power, but of great canniness. Ally their seeming desire for personal wealth with great media empires, roles inside and outside NATO, and you have a recipe which makes for serious distrust.

But you - and others here - keep explicitly labelling these real-world pragmatic issues as having to do with "moral authority" (or "moral virtue") and being best discussed in seminar rooms.

At this point, I'm just going to say, that... is ludicrous.

It has nothing to do with whether he personally is a pervert and molester of teens (though that makes his "humanitarian" reasoning appear a biiiiit weaker, I must say), but has everything to do with --- how the war will be waged, how it will be continued if/as it is handed off, what the risks are of leaks and double-dealing, how much short-term political and PR concerns will over-ride actual war-fighting and citizen protection, etc.

In short, it is not whether the people in the firing line are better off being killed than protected by a guy like that... but whether more of them WILL be killed as a result of "protection" from a guy like that.

That is no seminar question, but hey - pose on.

You know what, LULU? I

Doctor Cleveland — Sat, 26 Mar 2011 21:18:28 +0000

In reply to Oh, that's right. I'm a

You know what, LULU? I apologize for that. I was responding to your "class dismissed" line as an extension of quinn's long comment. I read you as saying amen to his comment.

And I should have addressed your earlier specific comment, up the thread, and separate your points from quinn's.

As far as the previous comment goes, I would agree that I'm only with the bombing as long as it's about stopping the current bloodshed, and not with it if (or when) it turns into a long-term effort to shore up the international status quo.

The "class dismissed" comment clearly did get under my skin, as it was intended to.

Oh, that's right. I'm a

A Guy Called LULU — Sat, 26 Mar 2011 21:02:34 +0000

In reply to Oh, that's right. I'm a

Oh, that's right. I'm a college teacher.

Since I am a college teacher, no lives are actually at stake in these questions.

Did I suggest anywhere in this or any other thread that it wasn't a question of life or death that deserved due consideration?

Since I am a college teacher, the question "will civilians die or not?" is just a schoolteachery question.

Did I address anything you said with less than an honest attempt to debate it or otherwise present salient points?

Since I am a college teacher, the question of whether or not Silvio Berlusconi is a good person must be more pressing than the question of whether civilians die or not.

Did I ever say the name Silvio Berlusconi? Did I mention the specific character of any leader in any of my statements? The only reference I find to my personal feelings about leaders is in the following quote of myself where I addressed a hypothetical. "I could be for intervention and despise the leader who made the decision if I believed he made it for wrong reasons."

But I'm not in the classroom today, and the question of whether people will get killed or won't seems pretty real world to me. The question of Berlusconi's moral authority strikes me as a seminar-room question. If you strip it down to what it really means, it's just this:

Those people would be better off being killed than being protected by a guy like that.

Nuts to that, I say. Sorry if that's too academic for you.

Sorry if your pissed off knee jerk reaction causes you to lose your ability to read. .

It's true, as you said upthread, lulu, that we face many, many problems at home. I'd certainly like to spend a lot more money on our real domestic issues. That's why I said, in the original post:

I never said anything about many domestic problems up this thread.

There are various grounds on which a reasonable person could object to the Libya strikes (diplomatic reasons, military reasons, pragmatic reasons, reasons of consistency, even Constitutional reasons).

Did you see me anywhere on this thread saying that the intervention was wrong? I only asked questions about "Just War Theory" and then later made my assertion that I do not see how the theory affects reality.

"We can't afford it," is a good reason. If that's your objection, I have no argument. Never actually offered one.

But since I'm not in a classroom today, I have only one question: how many civilians die?

You got me on that on, teacher. I don't know even though I did some extra home work all on my own. I got out a text and did some reading on your subject, "Just War Theory". [Extra credit?] I hope you will read ME before you give me too harsh a grade.