Getting involved in Libya

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dharma Bum

But saying there is no way we will help people who are suffering if it means we may have to get a little rough with the bad guys is just a recipe for greater suffering among those you claim you care about.

---

In places like Libya the people are basically having a civil war - Libyan against Libyan. Why are we taking sides? Probably OIL, not because we "care about" anyone. I worry that our "reputation" and credibility as a "good" nation is damaged.

What if the world community got together and focused on tackling stuff like sustainable energy instead of sustaining the status quo? I think our existence probably depends on it at some point. Why not now?

Diplomacy not war, solar panels not guns!!

Peace

Artificial legal boundaries do not relieve you of your moral responsibilities. Would you help a child that was being beaten and raped on your property? On the street in front of your house? If it was your neighbor on the property next door?

There are many factors that affect when and where you should risk the things you value to assist others. I'm not saying every situation warrants intervention. But I am saying that I find your blanket prohibition against helping others against aggression merely because they don't claim the same nationality as you to be morally unacceptable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bae

There is also a constitutional matter here.

Bombing the heck out of Libyan air defenses and military installations would traditionally be considered an act of war. The US Constitution does not give the President the power to declare war on his own initiative. In fact, Obama said in 2007, when asked when the President could use military force without Congressional approval: “The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.”

Pesky rules.

---

There has only been 5 declared wars following the constitution. They are The War of 1812, the Mexican-American War, the Spanish-American War, World War I and World War II. Even the Civil War was not a declared war.

I think the practical arguments are enough. Yes hypothetically *if* this war could be won in a few weeks of bombing it might be worth it. But I don't believe it when they say that. What we're really in for is being involved in yet a 3rd war. And yes like in all wars, an immense amount of suffering will occur/be inflicted/whatever. And yes our troops will be put in harms way for it. And yes we can't afford it financially.

But you want to make it purely about moral duty to save lives. Fine, riddle me this: how many lives would be saved by spending the same money we spend on this war on say medicine in Africa or something? I don't think you can make the case the war is cost effective here. Simply ROI (return on investment), right? Other investments offer more.

Then when I'm off debating philosophy 101 points about moral duty, I'm supposed to ignore actual real world reality. The first instance of ignoring reality is to make the assumption that the U.S. government (and yes even, it's coalitions) and yes especially when acting military, is a moral being that just wishes to do good in the world (and then it merely becomes a question of "what is good?" :~)). This has to ignore a massive amount of history.

The second reality I have to ignore is that of strategic interests (OIL), never mind the strategic interests they are irrelevant to the moral question. Hmm, but if strategic interest are the actual motive, is actual motive really that irrelevant, or does it maybe have some bearing on the results you get? Not to deny that good results can come from bad motive but they often don't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dharma Bum

But I am saying that I find your blanket prohibition against helping others against aggression merely because they don't claim the same nationality as you to be morally unacceptable.

---

I'm what?? :laff: You made me pull my dusty ethics text.

As a utilitarian, we should be weighing the costs/benefits of action vs inaction, and opting for the best strategy based on available evidence. Regardless of the ‘moral’ responsibility of acting or not acting, most nations, I would argue act in the ways that fits the image they wish to project to the international community. The moral implications are secondary because if we were to adopt a "moral responsibility" outlook, nations would intervene in every major conflict. That’s why we create rules (for ourselves and for each other), and in this case this seems to be more about "image" than obligation.

There are several conflicts going on these days that seem to have a more "moral" obligation but are not in the headlines.

Peace

Most people and nations do not seem to operate from morals, but from expediency and rationalization.

I would add politicians take action for reelection purposes and our men and women in uniform die for their reelection.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zigzagman

As a utilitarian, we should be weighing the costs/benefits of action vs inaction, and opting for the best strategy based on available evidence.

---

Fair enough. Maybe most times that leads to minding your own business, maybe not. But I think it would be difficult to presuppose that it always dictates a failure to use force.

Cheers.:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dharma Bum

Fair enough. Maybe most times that leads to minding your own business, maybe not. But I think it would be difficult to presuppose that it always dictates a failure to use force.

Cheers.:)

---

Cheers to you, my brother :)

Admittedly I am cynical of most US foreign policy initiatives but do agree that sometimes it is necessary. In those cases I would much prefer congressional approval versus executive authority.

My experience in Vietnam taught me not to trust many politicians, regardless of the flavor.

Peace

ZigZag, curious, were you drafted? My DBIL had one of the first numbers drawn in the lottery here. He didn't have to go, at his physical, they discovered his Hodgkins disease, being drafted actually saved his life. Go figure. Sorry to birdwalk, but have wondered about that ...