Atheists & The War On Terror

Brown Bomber

Deleted User wrote: »

I find your name ironic since judging from your posts the only colours you can see are black and white.

Thanks for sharing.

King Mob

And again you've dodged the points I made.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

For Hitchen's the war wasn't "imperialistic"? Really? He thought they were going to kill Saddam and then say to the free people of Iraq "there you go lads, enjoy Freedom and Starbucks" and then ride off into the sunset.

Please point to one single instance of Hitchens ever referring to the war as imperialistic and supported it because of that.
If you can't, what reasons did he then give for his support of the war?

Brown Bomber wrote: »

It's an inescapable fact that Hitchen's like everyone else in the world knew that an invasion would involve US control of Iraq as soon as they had defeated the army. This is imperialism.

No it's not.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Please point out what the war in Iraq was if it was not an "imperialist war of aggression".

Why? What would be the point?
Why should I bother when you are still ignoring a very simple point?
Even if I bother to write anything about the war you'd just ignore it and find some other tangent to latch on to.

If you want my opinion, first address the points already laid out, then maybe it would be worth wasting time on.

robindch

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Fair enough. I'll start the thread again then.

Your "new" thread has been merged into this one. You'll be carded if you start another thread on the same, or a very similar, topic.

DB21

Brown Bomber wrote: »

The "removal of an autocratic dictator" was not for the benefit of Iraqis.

You would agree that the removal of a muderous, psychotic dictator did help though?

DB21

DB21 wrote: »

You would agree that the removal of a muderous, psychotic dictator did help though?

Was Saddam's removal worth somewhere between 110,000 and 600,000 lives, depending on whose estimates you use, though?

I (partially) agree with BB on this one. Perhaps using "imperialist" as an adjective is a bit strong, though not entirely inaccurate, but I feel he's justified in describing it as a war of aggression. I would describe it as a totally unjust war justified on knowingly false pretences.

King Mob

gvn wrote: »

Was Saddam's removal worth somewhere between 110,000 and 600,000 lives, depending on whose estimates you use, though?

I (partially) agree with BB on this one. Perhaps using "imperialist" as an adjective is a bit strong, though not entirely inaccurate, but I feel he's justified in describing it as a war of aggression. I would describe it as a totally unjust war justified on knowingly false pretences.

But Orwell was never opposed to wars of aggression. He like Hitchens believed that such a war could be justified if it was to remove an evil, oppressive regime.
Further both men spoke out against torture and spying on your own people, amoung other things.
Hence BB's claim that Orwell would hate Hitchens, or that the pair are somehow diametrically opposed, is false.

King Mob

King Mob wrote: »

But Orwell was never opposed to wars of aggression. He like Hitchens believed that such a war could be justified if it was to remove an evil, oppressive regime.
Further both men spoke out against torture and spying on your own people, amoung other things.
Hence BB's claim that Orwell would hate Hitchens, or that the pair are somehow diametrically opposed, is false.

I was only responding to DB21's comment and expressing my own view on the war — that it was an unjustified war in all respects. I know what Hitchens' views on the Iraq war were, and I disagree with them; I haven't read enough of Orwell to form an opinion on what his opinions might have been. Hypothetically, if his views were like Hitchens', I'd disagree with him too. (In other words, I'm not arguing for or against BB's claim that Orwell would have opposed of war.)

decimatio

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Everything you've said is false. "The West" didn't remove him; Bush and Blair did.

Don't play word games. You know perfectly well what was meant there.

Even years into the occupation of Iraq when no WMD was found Hitchens was claiming that Saddam just hid them really, really well. He also pushed the bull**** that Atta was meeting with Iraqi officials in Prague.

I'm not going to get into this back and forth with you because as I already pointed out these reasons were not my reasons for supporting it nor were they hitchens' unless I'm mistaken.

Regardless, Hitchens would always go by what the evidence pointed to and when the evidence contradicted his position he changed his position. If you really did follow his writing on anything you would know and admit that.

It's unbelievable to me that you can say with a straight face that now with the benefit of hindsight and all the lies exposed that a "large part" of why the US invaded Iraq was due to actually believing the lies that they created themselves.

I am really not interested in this argument for reasons I have already highlighted.

But just one point, they did find chemical weapons in Iraq and at the time most intelligence agencies in the world believed Saddam did indeed have WMD's. So no, its not hard to believe. Not that I care.

decimatio

Brown Bomber wrote: »

For Hitchen's the war wasn't "imperialistic"? Really? He thought they were going to kill Saddam and then say to the free people of Iraq "there you go lads, enjoy Freedom and Starbucks" and then ride off into the sunset.

It's an inescapable fact that Hitchen's like everyone else in the world knew that an invasion would involve US control of Iraq as soon as they had defeated the army. This is imperialism.

By such a definition so was the war against Hitler.

decimatio

gvn wrote: »

Was Saddam's removal worth somewhere between 110,000 and 600,000 lives, depending on whose estimates you use, though?

I always found this such a fallacious argument.

What matters it if it was worth 6 lives, 6000 lives, 60,000 lives, or 6 million lives? What difference does the number of dead make to doing what was necessary?

How many lives could have been saved if the Allies left Hitler in control of Europe? How many lives could have been saved if the Japanese were allowed to remain in control of Korea, Manchuria, and Taiwan?

What about a potential invasion of North Korea to remove that regime? That could easily result in the deaths of millions. Would that be wrong?

Have you any idea what life was like under Saddam? Or how life is under the Kim Oligarchy?

You actually believe that leaving North Korea alone is a better option to removing that regime from power if it costs X amount of lives?

What difference does the amount of dead make?

As Orwell is relevant here how many deaths would be unacceptable to you to remove an Orwellian regime as depicted in 1984?

. I would describe it as a totally unjust war justified on knowingly false pretences.

The point being that those pretences false or otherwise were not Hitchens' reasons for supporting it. Hitchens supported the removal of Saddam and the Ba'th party regardless of what pretences the American right were throwing around at the time.

decimatio

decimatio wrote: »

What matters it if it was worth 6 lives, 6000 lives, 60,000 lives, or 6 million lives? What difference does the number of dead make to doing what was necessary?

The number of dead does not necessarily matter; it is wrong for any number of people, be it 6 or 6 million, to die in an unjust war. I don't believe the war was necessary; you do. This is where we differ. Somewhere between 100,000 and 600,000 deaths is obviously more tragic than 1 or 6, but when the statement is reduced to its principles the numbers are irrelevant.

How many lives could have been saved if the Allies left Hitler in control of Europe? How many lives could have been saved if the Japanese were allowed to remain in control of Korea, Manchuria, and Taiwan?

You're comparing the invasion of Iraq with WWII? That's a silly comparison for many reasons, the most prominent being that the Germans and the Japanese were themselves agitators; they were waging wars of aggression and declaring war on other states. Did Saddam wage a war of aggression? No — so the comparison you're making is tantamount to comparing apples to oranges. The Iraq war was an unprovoked war. Perhaps you believe that one sovereign nation should have the right to invade another, killing hundreds of thousands, for "humanitarian" purposes, and basing their actions off knowingly false pretences — but I don't.

What about a potential invasion of North Korea to remove that regime? That could easily result in the deaths of millions. Would that be wrong?

Yes.

Have you any idea what life was like under Saddam? Or how life is under the Kim Oligarchy?

No, and neither do you.

You actually believe that leaving North Korea alone is a better option to removing that regime from power if it costs X amount of lives?

Why should it be the U.S.'s, or NATO's, or whoever else's right to decide what regime rules in North Korea? Other states and their respective citizens have no right to invade and wage war on another sovereign nation with the intent to overthrow its government just because they happen not to like it.

The point being that those pretences false or otherwise were not Hitchens' reasons for supporting it. Hitchens supported the removal of Saddam and the Ba'th party regardless of what pretences the American right were throwing around at the time.

And I disagree with Hitchens on this. As I said above, that some independent, sovereign nation has a regime you do not favour gives you no right to remove that regime by violent means.

There's no point multi-quoting me on this because our disagreement can be summed up concisely: you believe that it is just for one state to invade another to overthrow a government, even if the invasion and consequent war were unprovoked. I disagree with this. I completely understand your view, as I held it myself for many years. I can sympathise with it, but I still come down on the other side. Sovereign nations are just that: sovereign. I believe it to be unjust (in the vast majority of circumstances, though there are exceptions) for one state to invade another to overthrow a regime or government. (And this is saying nothing of the likely true, surreptitious intentions behind wars such as the Iraqi one: control of oil. Though that's a story for another thread.)

decimatio

gvn wrote: »

You're comparing the invasion of Iraq with WWII?

No sorry I was comparing the deaths caused not the wars themselves. I'm in complete agreement with you in respect to the incomparability of them.

Perhaps you believe that one sovereign nation should have the right to invade another, killing hundreds of thousands, for "humanitarian" purposes, and basing their actions off knowingly false pretences — but I don't.

No, we are in agreement there too. In fact I despise such actions.

Yes.

Seriously? Could you elaborate please? I assume you're aware of the state of 'life' the ordinary citizen has in N. Korea?

No, and neither do you.

Regarding Iraq, I've never been but I've read enough to claim some knowledge.

But let's instead concentrate on N. Korea, I've travelled there, I've worked there (in Pyongyang) as a volunteer, and I have dozens of friends some of whom are North Korean refugeees, others who are North Korean citizens living in Japan. (They never lived in N. Korea but they are technically N. Korea citizens and have visited the place.)

One of my friends is an escapee from a NK reeducation facility where he was interred because his father committed the crime of escaping the North.

So I think I can claim to be fairly knowledgeable on the subject.

Why should it be the U.S.'s, or NATO's, or whoever else's right to decide what regime rules in North Korea? Other states and their respective citizens have no right to invade and wage war on another sovereign nation with the intent to overthrow its government just because they happen not to like it.

Not a right, a duty to our fellow human beings.

And I disagree with Hitchens on this. As I said above, that some independent, sovereign nation has a regime you do not favour gives you no right to remove that regime by violent means.

Its not about favouring it. Its about destroying such regimes that are simply evil for lack of a better word.

You may well think the reason to go to war with Hitler for example was because he attacked country X. I think it was necessary to destroy the Nazi's for the sake of the German people.

If Hitler never set a boot outside of Germany would you have left him alone?

Brown Bomber

DB21 wrote: »

You would agree that the removal of a muderous, psychotic dictator did help though?

Yeah. It helped Khomeini. It helped the recruiters of Al Qaeda worldwide. It helped the Al Saud tyrants by increasing the price of oil. It helped create not just mountains of corpses but over a million refugees, many of whom travelled to Syria and are again on the receiving end of US "help". It helped Israel's goals of becoming the sole regional power.

Brown Bomber

decimatio wrote: »

By such a definition so was the war against Hitler.

WWII from the allied perspective was a defensive war against an actual threat. Iraq was fought as a defensive war (through a pre-emptive strike) to defend against a fabricated threat.

To compare them is ridiculous.

Brown Bomber

decimatio wrote: »

Its about destroying such regimes that are simply evil for lack of a better word.

Could you list the "simply evil" regimes you would like to see "destroyed" and give a ball-park figure of the number of dead, maimed, orphaned, refugees and destruction this would cause.

Also, two of the biggest terrorist states in the world are The US and Israel. Would they be on your "destroy" list?

In fact, how many white majority states would be destroyed?

Brown Bomber

decimatio wrote: »

Don't play word games. You know perfectly well what was meant there.

It's an important distinction. The West didn't intervene in Iraq - this lends it a credibility it doesn't deserve. Two bloodthirsty sociopaths abused their positions as heads of state to lie their countries into an illegal invasion.

decimatio wrote: »

I'm not going to get into this back and forth with you because as I already pointed out these reasons were not my reasons for supporting it nor were they hitchens' unless I'm mistaken.

decimatio wrote: »

Regardless, Hitchens would always go by what the evidence pointed to and when the evidence contradicted his position he changed his position. If you really did follow his writing on anything you would know and admit that.

I've already pointed out to you that your assertion is false. Hitchens was still shamelessly defending his WMD position long after the Iraq Survey Group confirmed there was none.

decimatio wrote: »

I am really not interested in this argument for reasons I have already highlighted.

But just one point, they did find chemical weapons in Iraq and at the time most intelligence agencies in the world believed Saddam did indeed have WMD's. So no, its not hard to believe. Not that I care.

You should care. Almost everything you've said is false. Most intelligence agencies did not believe Saddam had WMD. There was no WMD in Iraq. You are trying to justify an illegal war that was built on a mountain of lies, even after the lies have been exposed.

Can you really not see what is wrong with that?

decimatio

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Could you list the "simply evil" regimes you would like to see "destroyed"

N. Korea for one.

and give a ball-park figure of the number of dead, maimed, orphaned, refugees and destruction this would cause.

Irrelevant.

Also, two of the biggest terrorist states in the world are The US and Israel. Would they be on your "destroy" list?

First of all, I never used the term terrorist state, secondly I don't accept the US or Israel are anything of the sort.

In fact, how many white majority states would be destroyed?

Don't insinuate. Say it straight or don't say it at all.

decimatio

Brown Bomber wrote: »

WWII from the allied perspective was a defensive war against an actual threat. Iraq was fought as a defensive war (through a pre-emptive strike) to defend against a fabricated threat.

To compare them is ridiculous.

I didn't compare them as they are, I compared them to your definition of imperialism which apart from been wrong would apply equally to both. I did this to show how ridiculous your definition was.

For Hitchen's the war wasn't "imperialistic"? Really? He thought they were going to kill Saddam Hitler and then say to the free people of Iraq Germany "there you go lads, enjoy Freedom and Starbucks" and then ride off into the sunset.

It's an inescapable fact that Hitchen's like everyone else in the world knew that an invasion would involve US control of Iraq Germany as soon as they had defeated the army. This is imperialism

Brown Bomber

decimatio wrote: »

I didn't compare them as they are, I compared them to your definition of imperialism which apart from been wrong would apply equally to both. I did this to show how ridiculous your definition was.

And you failed miserably because you can't seem to distuingish reality from deception and defense from aggression.

Brown Bomber

decimatio wrote: »

N. Korea for one.

So your hitlist of destruction only includes one state?

decimatio wrote: »

Irrelevant

decimatio wrote: »

.

You consider human suffering on a massive scale irrelevant? That puts you in the same category as those you want to "destroy".

decimatio wrote: »

First of all, I never used the term terrorist state, secondly I don't accept the US or Israel are anything of the sort

It doesn't matter what you "accept". The facts speak for themselves.

decimatio wrote: »

Don't insinuate. Say it straight or don't say it at all.

I did say it straight. I asked you how many white majority states would be in line for "destruction" in your utopia where human suffering is irrelevant.

As long as it happens to someone else "over there" I assume?

decimatio

There was no WMD in Iraq. You are trying to justify an illegal war that was built on a mountain of lies, even after the lies have been exposed.

Can you really not see what is wrong with that?

Let's try this again since you don't seem to be listening.

I don't care about the WMD or Al-Qaeda supposed links to Saddam. It's irrelevant to my support for the invasion. My only issue with the Iraq war was that it wasn't done years beforehand.

decimatio

Brown Bomber wrote: »

And you failed miserably because you can't seem to distuingish reality from deception and defense from aggression.

Neither of which you made any mention of when you made your (incorrect) definition of imperialism.

I have already made it abundantly clear that I do not, and would not, compare the two.

robindch

Brown Bomber wrote: »

And please, for everyones sake can you cut out the needless personal remarks. Thanks.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

And you failed miserably because you can't seem to distuingish reality from deception and defense from aggression.

BB - this is your first and final warning:

Any more stroppy personal remarks from you and you'll be sent packing.

decimatio

Brown Bomber wrote: »

So your hitlist of destruction only includes one state?

I'm getting quite tired writing out long responses to only get ignored in return so yes, I made a list of one because one is all I need.

You consider human suffering on a massive scale irrelevant? That puts you in the same category as those you want to "destroy".

Yeah because there's no suffering in N. Korea. :rolleyes:

It doesn't matter what you "accept". The facts speak for themselves.

Whose facts ?

I did say it straight. I asked you how many white majority states would be in line for "destruction" in your utopia where human suffering is irrelevant.

And why did you ask that ?

As long as it happens to someone else "over there" I assume?

What makes you think I'm not "over there" ?

Brown Bomber

Brown Bomber wrote: »

In fact, how many white majority states would be destroyed?

Yugoslavia was "destroyed" not so long ago.

You seem to have a problem with understanding nuances of opinions. Even those in favour of the war disagree massively about many aspects of it. Some, like myself, think it disgusting that Saddam Hussein was in power for as long as he was after his little trip into Kuwait and his, in some cases very, nearly successful attempts to destroy entire cultures while the rest of the world watched on. At the time I was against the war but my reading and meetings over the last few years just leaves me cold to the fact that it took lies for the right thing to be done.

decimatio

decimatio wrote: »

But let's instead concentrate on N. Korea, I've travelled there, I've worked there (in Pyongyang) as a volunteer, and I have dozens of friends some of whom are North Korean refugeees, others who are North Korean citizens living in Japan. (They never lived in N. Korea but they are technically N. Korea citizens and have visited the place.)

One of my friends is an escapee from a NK reeducation facility where he was interred because his father committed the crime of escaping the North.

So I think I can claim to be fairly knowledgeable on the subject.

Really? I'll bow to your superior knowledge on the subject. I'd love to visit one day; it's a fascinating country (and fascinating for all the wrong reasons, I suppose).

Seriously? Could you elaborate please? I assume you're aware of the state of 'life' the ordinary citizen has in N. Korea?

I've read quite a bit on N.K., but, not having seen the country first hand, my knowledge is inevitably going to be extremely limited. However, yes, I'm aware of the quality of "life" citizens of N.K. experience.

As well as my objection in principle to one country's invasion of another with the intention of overthrowing its government (which I've explained above, so there's no point going over that again), I have other objections. To use N.K. as an example, and it's a very good example, I don't believe a "revolution by an external hand" would be successful. A successful revolution, the successful overthrow of a despotic governing oligarchy, has to come from the people; the people have to will the overthrow. Supplanting a new government for an old without the effort and will of the people is a pointless exercise, I believe. You can't "gift" freedom like that; freedom has to be earned, and earned the hard way, or it won't be respected, and if it's not respected there's nothing stopping a new elite eventually ascending to power and returning to ways of old.

I do agree, however, that the government of N.K. needs to go. I disagree that it is our duty to initiate such an overthrow. Such decisions are not ours to make.

Not a right, a duty to our fellow human beings.

I respect and empathise with that point of view. My objection lies with the method: one country (or two countries, as with Iraq) deciding to invade another, solely on "pre-emptive" or "humanitarian" grounds, to rid that country of a so-called terrible tyrant, causes, I suspect, as many problems as it solves. Such occurrences, if allowed to become standard practice, would also set dangerous precedents.

Its not about favouring it. Its about destroying such regimes that are simply evil for lack of a better word.

You may well think the reason to go to war with Hitler for example was because he attacked country X. I think it was necessary to destroy the Nazi's for the sake of the German people.

If Hitler never set a boot outside of Germany would you have left him alone?

Let's not use Hitler — it's a wasted exercise if we speak in hypotheticals. It's a good question, so let's use a real-world example: the Khmer Rouge, whose regime was arguably worse than, or at least as bad as, Hitler's; their attempt to destroy civilisation itself, and by any and all means, is one of the most heinous crimes of the last century. (And one that all too few are aware of, I believe.)

If I were in a position of power in, say, the U.S., and I knew what was happening in Cambodia in the late 1970s, would I have invaded? (Ignore the ridiculousness of this proposed situation, considering U.S. actions greatly helped in the Khmer Rouge's ascent to power.) Yes, I probably would have — not on my own, though, I'd have sought some kind of consensus among world leaders, if such an option would have been at all feasible. I understand that in stating this I'm being inconsistent with my previously stated views; this is an uncomfortable inconsistency to hold and, more importantly, be aware of. It's an internal battle between principle and practicality; between a particular philosophy and a belief in the brotherhood of humanity. I've yet to solve this dilemma, and it's important that it is solved, for my own sake at least; an internal dissonance of such ideas is uncomfortable to hold, especially in today's world when regimes like al-Assad's continue to slaughter innocent people.

To sum up my views: in principle I object to such invasions, but principle isn't always strictly applicable to real world situations, so there are exceptions; I'm not totally opposed to such interventions in reality — sometimes principle and ideology have to be put by the wayside when images and thoughts of human suffering confront you each day. I'll have to think about it all some more, and I have been thinking about it for years, but I suspect a solution won't be easily won.

robindch

gvn wrote: »

I'd love to visit one day[...]

I went with these guys and would trust them to organize a trip to the furthest moons of Jupiter:

http://www.koryogroup.com/

KT were also involved in making most of the documentaries that have come out of the country over the last few years.

gvn wrote: »

I've read quite a bit on N.K.

Aficionados refer to it as DPRK The best book I've read on country is Bradley Martin's anything-but-a-coffee-table-book, Under the Loving Care of the Fatherly Leader: North Korea and the Kim Dynasty:

http://www.amazon.com/Under-Loving-Care-Fatherly-Leader/dp/0312322216

Recommended.

MagicMarker

I'd also recommend Nothing to Envy: Ordinary Lives in North Korea.

Thanks, Robin and MagicMarker. Both books added to my BookDepository wishlist, anticipating my next spending splurge.

Delirium

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I wanted to ask if someone more in the know could suggest a current militant atheist author that is an opponent of the so-called "war on terror".

I only use the term "militant atheist" to differentiate an author who happens to be an atheist with an author who views religion as a cancer.

You mean an anti-theist author?