Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Wars justified?

Rate this topic


determinist

Recommended Posts

Presently, I am reserving judgment about the wars in the Middle East because I do not know enough. I realize there is a widespread consensus that UN intervention in Middle Eastern countries failed.

I hesitate to hop on the bandwagon. You can call this subjective whim, but here is where I began brainstorming the wars more. I saw a YouTube video and it was only an imitation of what happens in real-world Iran rather than first-hand footage, but it was disturbing. It was a woman, completely alive, whose body was buried under the ground with only her shoulders, neck and head above the ground. A crowd gathered around her, shamed her, and threw rock after rock at her face, stoning her to death. What was her crime? It was something really petty and stupid, like having sex before marriage. The video struck a chord with me and reminded me of Ayn Rand. She argued that a country that does not respect individual rights can complain about being invaded but can not do so by right. I always found this persuasive.

I realize the critics of the Iraq war claim that guerrilla warfare and instability turned out worse than before the United States entered, that Al-Qaeda swarmed in after the UN entered, and that there is blowback. That is a very widespread consensus, but Ayn Rand inspired me never to treat something as an irreducible primary and to supposed axioms. So I am. Does anyone think that Iraqi citizens are or will be will be better off with respect to individual rights? Is there evidence? Do you think Rand would have supported the war?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I linked you to all the atrocities perpetrated by government and non-governmental agencies, our military would be stretched across the globe, from Mexico to China.

Horrible things that happen to people in foreign countries does not justify a war. Not even a genocide justifies an intervention by the U.S. Were it not for Pearl Harbor, we would not have had justification to enter into WWII.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I linked you to all the atrocities perpetrated by government and non-governmental agencies, our military would be stretched across the globe, from Mexico to China.

Horrible things that happen to people in foreign countries does not justify a war. Not even a genocide justifies an intervention by the U.S. Were it not for Pearl Harbor, we would not have had justification to enter into WWII.

World War Two in Europe was very close and US intervention at least prevented the Soviet Union from enslaving more of Europe than they did. World War Two, for the US was not just self-defense against Japan, it was a fight to live in a free world. The fight to live in a free world was well worth the cost of war and self-interested even without the self-defense aspect.

Of course, something like a genocide alone does not justify military intervention. It must also be self-interested to intervene. It is the serious initiations of force and violations of individual rights of a government or country that gives any free country the right to use force to intervene. It is the self-interest that justifies it.

Edited by oso
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is the serious initiations of force and violations of individual rights of a government or country that gives any free country the right to use force to intervene. It is the self-interest that justifies it.

Only if the rights/lives of the citizens of the free country are at stake.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

World War Two in Europe was very close and US intervention at least prevented the Soviet Union from enslaving more of Europe than they did. World War Two, for the US was not just self-defense against Japan, it was a fight to live in a free world. The fight to live in a free world was well worth the cost of war and self-interested even without the self-defense aspect.

Of course, something like a genocide alone does not justify military intervention. It must also be self-interested to intervene. It is the serious initiations of force and violations of individual rights of a government or country that gives any free country the right to use force to intervene. It is the self-interest that justifies it.

And didn't that miserable place known as the Soviet union choke to death on its own vile corruption? Why would a National Socialist state not do the same, and at the cost of so many less lives? And remember that the war was something we wanted before we attacked, and there is compelling evidence we knew of the Japanese plans prior to December 7th and did nothing.

We got involved in WWII because of self interest, but certianly not self interest of the union, but mostly for the self-interest of the powers that be, much like WWI.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

, that Al-Qaeda swarmed in after the UN entered,

Feature, not a bug. It is so much better to kill them there with them on the defensive than to let them have the initiative to attack anywhere in the world at the times and places of their choosing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ayn Rand said herself.

“Reason is not automatic. Those who deny it cannot be conquered by it. Do not count on them. Leave them alone.”

And

"Do not ever say that the desire to "do good" by force is a good motive. Neither power-lust nor stupidity are good motives."

The truth is we can not force people to be rational beings. I believe female circumcision is a horrific thing done to girls and I abhor that it happens. However, I can not force the people who practice it to understand that it is "bad" when they believe it is "good". And to say we should declare war on countries who allow it to be practiced is just begging for exploitation and marked with imperialism.

Maybe one day I will travel to countries and try to educate people and maybe I will have some luck in getting the practice stopped.. but, war would not change anything.

Forcing our ideals and values on other people will not work.

For all of these reasons.. I firmly believe the Iraqi citizens will not be any better off after the U.S. invasion.

The truth is, even with Saddam gone, they will still cling to what many of us consider backwards ways of life. It is so easy to point to dictators and place the blame squarely there.... but, we quickly over look cultural differences which shouldn't be so quickly swept under the rug. It bothers me that there are a lot of horrible things going on in the world, but the reality of the situation is there is nothing we can do to stop all infringements on human rights.

Edited by Snow_Fox
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Saddam was a tyrant, and oppressed his own people, so we had all the moral justification to forcibly remove him from power.

That does not, however, mean that it was a good idea. For it to have been a good idea, there would have to be some rational, selfish motive for the USA to spend lives and treasure fighting that war, and I can think of none.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just read this article and it pisses me off.

http://www.cnn.com/2...ning/index.html

Now that most of the troops left, does anyone think Iraq presently has more hope than it did when Saddam was in power?

Troops have withdrawn from IRAQ, not IRAN. Troops were never in IRAN. The article you linked is a story about IRAN.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Feature, not a bug.

lol - Nice Grames.

--------

When it can be agreed that forceful action by a free nation is only justified and necessary in defense of the citizens of that free nation, then the correct philosophy is being applied.

How imminent the threat must be (and even if it is a threat at all) is an issue of politics and law. Each case must be argued on the merits and judged accordingly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...