"Just War" and Neutrality

BlkbrryTheGreat · Post by **BlkbrryTheGreat** » 2002-12-13 12:32am

I just read a facinating article on the this issue and it mostly agrees with most of the ideas I currently have on the issues presented within it. After reading it it occured to me that it would be interesting to throw this article into the arena here and see what happens, espically since most people seem to agree with Wong's moral interventionism policy. Namely, that people are morally obligated to join in on the "Just" side of a conflict. Correct me if I'm wrong about this policy Wong. Also, when someone decides to to post in this thread make sure you actually express and justify your opinion towards issues presented in the article..... no "interesting read' bullshit fluff posts. People who want to raise their post count in such a dishonest manner are encouraged to go to another thread.

This is the article, enjoy.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard20.html

data_link · Post by **data_link** » 2002-12-13 01:25am

I wonder where you got the idea that Wong is "moral interventionist," as I have not heard anything to indicate such.

Personally, I believe that this article's basic theme, that to intervene in the affairs of other nations, particularly to fight wars against them based on who's "right" and who's "wrong" is particularly stupid, is absolutely right. However I do have one objection to the criticism of the North in the American Uncivil War. Specifically, the difference between overthrowing an unjust government and preserving the integrity of the union. If you are to grant individual states the "right" to break free of their government whenever they want, then you also have the problem of defining the smallest unit of population that constitutes a "state." For instance, suppose that the city of Salt Lake decided to break free of the United States and create "Mormonland." In cases where the integrity of a simgle governmental body is compromised, that body has every right to attempt to preserve it's integrity. Whether this integrity is compromissed by people from within or from without the nation is irrelevant. And unlike a confederacy, which is at best an alliance of states, a Federation (the U.S. after adopting the constitution) is a single governmental body. Now, the fact that a governmental body has the right to preserve its integrity does not infringe on the right of opressed peoples to throw off the influence of their government. Thus, in a civil war, it is possible and even likely for both sides to be morally correct, which is one of the reasons why we shouldn't interfere in other people's wars. This applies in the case of North vs. South, although I'm personally a little bit inclined to favor the North in this case because they were not comprised of racist slave-fucking sons of fundies, and I happen to dislike racist slave-fucking sons of fundies.

Oh, and interesting read.

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2002-12-13 02:00am

A very interesting read. And I think that data_link said it right, that the underlining theme of the article is one of mind your own bussiness and people will leave you alone.

Unfortunately I don't believe in this philosiphy, one can point to the 1920's and 1930's Europe and to Britains and in fact alot of the worlds philosiphy that echoed the author of the article. Germany became increasingly more aggressive every time that they "got away" with some violent or war like act against its neighbors. Bit by bit the situation got worse but hey, its not our war. Finaly when Germany thought no one would oppose them, thing got alot more interesting.

I also think his idea of historicly neutral countries is rather quiet funny. Speaking generally here, most "neutral" countries were neutral to wait and see if they could take advantage in the defeat/victory of their neighbors. Attacks by neutral neighbors after a long and devistating war with another are seen once in a while through out history. The Swiss, who claimed neutrality in WW2, reaped hudge rewards by being neutral. Did they keep to themselves? No, they used the situation to their benifit, and sometimes by less than ethical behaviour.

And finaly his lobsided view of the American Civil War shows some bias. Both sides were wrong on multiple levels but he is right in that the war was more economical that some great crusade against slavery. How ever the economic troubles were a partialy a result of the industrial revolution that was transforming the nation both North and South. It wasn't a matter of shrugging of the chains of oppression than fear of change, of a new way of life with new technology.

Anyway, interesting read and as usual any opinions expressed are those of me and me alone. IMHO.

Post by **Coyote** » 2002-12-13 02:43am

This guy is a craphound and an imbecile. In the Civil War, slavery played only a very minor role but it did play a role, and he neglects the fact that the slaves were not in a position to do much to defend themselves. He also conveniently forgets the Confederate abuses at Andersonville Prison, a horror perpetrated without any help from the Union.

This son of a bitch also is implying that it was unjust and immoral to interfere with the Third Reich and the Axis. So, now we know where he stands in regards to ethics... As if the Chinese at Nankung, the Jews at Dachau, and the Ethiopians had any chance to stand up against their attackers and defend themselves...

We must remember something about people in this world: it does not matter if Osama and Saddam, with the ghost of Hitler between them, were flying around the world dropping nuclear bombs on Orphanges-- there would still be a small, dedicated group of uber-peaceniks that would refuse to use any violence whatsoever to stop them. Insane, but true.

XPViking · Post by **XPViking** » 2002-12-13 03:53am

There's one thing about old Murray. He would rather stay neutral than help someone out because he considers neutrality to be noble. Interesting read.

XPViking

Spoonist · Post by **Spoonist** » 2002-12-13 08:59am

I'd say that the article was a biased load of bull.

I'd rip it apart in full but but I don't have the time right now. (Hopefully someone else will do it for me, otherwise I might get back to this one after the weekend).

But this idiosyncracy was just to blatant to ignore:

In the old days, "standing idly by" was considered a mark of high statesmanship.

BS
The history of europe and asia had no such policy. (These are the ones I personally know most about but I think that the same goes for african and sam conflicts as well).
Back in the 'old days' waging war required lots of resources. Not engaging in someone elses conflict without seeing a certain gain was not "a mark of high statemanship" but rather the safe way to go.
When france and england waged their wars they always tried to get as many allies as possible, most would refuse them outright because they could earn more money by selling to the combatants.
So when was these so called old days? During the Stonage????

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2002-12-13 09:46am

Moral interventionism can be the right thing to do; nations do not necessarily have the right to do whatever they want. Imagine if someone had intervened in Nazi Germany before Hitler got out of hand, instead of sitting on their asses because it's none of their business.

However, the great danger of moral interventionism is that you intervene for entirely different reasons, and you wave morality as a flimsy excuse. To dismiss the entire concept of moral interventionism, as some people do, is absolutely ludicrous. Non-interventionism by itself is not a virtue. However, it is certainly a concept which should be applied judiciously; many purportedly moral interventions in practice are not.

C.S.Strowbridge · Post by **C.S.Strowbridge** » 2002-12-13 09:59am

Darth Wong wrote: However, the great danger of moral interventionism is that you intervene for entirely different reasons, and you wave morality as a flimsy excuse.

And if you intervene only some of the time, you risk a backlash which could make the problem worse. What happens after the US attack Iraq? The next government could be Islamic extremists who think the attack was an attack against Islam and not nearly 100% about Oil and sagging performance opinions in the US.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2002-12-13 11:19am

Yes, I think it's a good thing that we intervened in Nazi Germany, and that we were morally consistent and we intervened in the Soviet Union too and stopped Stalin...wait a minute, we didn't do that? We actually allied ourselves with a guy just as bad as Hitler to kill Hitler? Nevermind...

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2002-12-13 11:50am

Durran Korr wrote:Yes, I think it's a good thing that we intervened in Nazi Germany, and that we were morally consistent and we intervened in the Soviet Union too and stopped Stalin...wait a minute, we didn't do that? We actually allied ourselves with a guy just as bad as Hitler to kill Hitler? Nevermind...

Maybe you forgot the 40 to 50 years of history after WWII. We may have not had a direct conflict, but we moved and countermoved against Stalin and his predesessors for decades. We intervened in just about every country that the Soviet tried to intervene in and vice versa.

Arthur_Tuxedo · Post by **Arthur_Tuxedo** » 2002-12-13 12:19pm

C.S.Strowbridge wrote:And if you intervene only some of the time, you risk a backlash which could make the problem worse. What happens after the US attack Iraq? The next government could be Islamic extremists who think the attack was an attack against Islam and not nearly 100% about Oil and sagging performance opinions in the US.

It is partly an attack against Islam. I don't think you can rationalize the actions of the U.S. during the last forty years and the culture of suspicion that exists today and not conclude that the U.S. is anti-Islam. However, the two major reasons for this war are oil, as you said, and pursuing of Machievellian politics. If we come into Iraq and knock Saddam down, who any rational observer would see wasn't doing anything wrong, then that serves as a warning to the rest of the Islamic world not to fuck with us.

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2002-12-13 12:28pm

This guy is full of shit. Apparently to him the War of 1812 was unjust, WWII was unjust, Korea was unjust, the Gulf War was unjust, and our humanitarian mission in Somalia was unjust. Now I'll be the first one to admit that some, or even most, of the things America has done in the past were unjust, and sometimes extremely immoral, but this guy seems to think that's OK if we sit around on our asses and do nothing to help those who can't defend themselves. We should just sit around and let Hitler and Stalin carve out their little sections of the world. Hell, let the Canadians deal with them, we're too busy watching reality TV and eathing cheesypoofs.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2002-12-13 12:39pm

Knife wrote:
Durran Korr wrote:Yes, I think it's a good thing that we intervened in Nazi Germany, and that we were morally consistent and we intervened in the Soviet Union too and stopped Stalin...wait a minute, we didn't do that? We actually allied ourselves with a guy just as bad as Hitler to kill Hitler? Nevermind...
Maybe you forgot the 40 to 50 years of history after WWII. We may have not had a direct conflict, but we moved and countermoved against Stalin and his predesessors for decades. We intervened in just about every country that the Soviet tried to intervene in and vice versa.

Of course, we had no problem with the brutal regime of Joseph Stalin when he was our ally (hell, our president even called him, the biggest mass murderer in the history of the world, Uncle Joe). Hell, we ENSURED that after Hitler was taken care of the Soviet Union would be around for the century 50 years. We didn't make the world safe for democracy, we made the world safe for brutal communism.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2002-12-13 12:45pm

...but this guy seems to think that's OK if we sit around on our asses and do nothing to help those who can't defend themselves.

So did the Founding Fathers.

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2002-12-13 12:54pm

Durran Korr wrote:
...but this guy seems to think that's OK if we sit around on our asses and do nothing to help those who can't defend themselves.
So did the Founding Fathers.

So what your are saying is that we should move to cure a problem before it hits our shore. The only just war is to burry our heads in the sand and wait until it lands in our lap, instead of moving to take care of the problems before they are right in front of us.

I understand that this would be abused from time to time and mistakes will happen. But to wait until the threat is upon us and to resist dealing with it until we have no choise in the matter takes away any advantage we had and gives it to the enemy.

One cant go throught he world fighting, that makes one a bully. But to "turn the other cheek" invites people to fuck with you because they know you won't react in time if at all. A proper balence must be kept, which is hard and mistakes will be made. However since neither Iraq, Panama, or other countries that we have had military actions in, are States of the Union or US territory, I think we balance pretty well.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2002-12-13 01:15pm

No one is attacking non-interventionist Switzerland, which has sat idly by during every major European conflict of the last 300 years and emerged unscathed.

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2002-12-13 01:29pm

Durran Korr wrote:No one is attacking non-interventionist Switzerland, which has sat idly by during every major European conflict of the last 300 years and emerged unscathed.

I would hardly call the Swiss, just sitting idly by. Their supposed neutrality was to play countries against each other and profit by this. Just because there is no blood on their hands, means they wiped it off with all the money they made pitting people against each other and offering their services as "neutral observers" to keep their money, valuables and meeting places for all manner of people and reasons. All with a price.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2002-12-13 01:39pm

Right, Swiss neutrality is one of the key causes of the fact that those damn Europeans haven't been able to stop killing each other for the last three centuries.

And so Switzerland banked for belligerent nations as well as non-aggressive ones. So?

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2002-12-13 01:51pm

Durran Korr wrote:Right, Swiss neutrality is one of the key causes of the fact that those damn Europeans haven't been able to stop killing each other for the last three centuries.

And so Switzerland banked for belligerent nations as well as non-aggressive ones. So?

My point is that they didn't just stay out of others buisness'.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2002-12-13 01:56pm

I'm saying they were non-interventionists, which they were, not economic isolationists. Doing business with a country is entirely different from going to war with or against it.

Spoonist · Post by **Spoonist** » 2002-12-13 06:35pm

Um Knife, you are really inviting nitpicking by being so 'righteaus'.

Knife wrote:Their supposed neutrality was to play countries against each other and profit by this.

No - the swiss didn't play any countries against each other during WWII. The Swiss was surrounded by the greatest superpower of the day. What you are claiming is the same thing as saying that during the cuban crisis Cuba "played" USSR and US against eachother.

Knife wrote:One cant go throught he world fighting, that makes one a bully. But to "turn the other cheek" invites people to fuck with you because they know you won't react in time if at all. A proper balence must be kept, which is hard and mistakes will be made.

Hmm. Let's see here. The US did try to go through WWII without having to fight, something which was very successful. The US supported the allies and provided them with resources for which they got substantial payment. This was a very good and profitable tactic. If the axis had not attacked US interests this would have been the 'right' thing to do. Especially since the public opinion in the US was against intervening in the war.

Knife wrote:However since neither Iraq, Panama, or other countries that we have had military actions in, are States of the Union or US territory, I think we balance pretty well."

So as long as you are fighting your battles on other peoples soil you think that 'we balance pretty well'? I hope that this is sarcasm...
Because if you are saying that the wars are true & just as long as US civilians don't die, then I think that you need an education about empathy.

Post by **Coyote** » 2002-12-14 03:09am

Arthur_Tuxedo wrote:I don't think you can rationalize the actions of the U.S. during the last forty years and the culture of suspicion that exists today and not conclude that the U.S. is anti-Islam.

Or is it that Islam is anti-US. Or more appro pos, anti Western. Before 40 years, face it, the US was largely ignorant of the Middle East. It was a late 1940's visit by one Hasan al-Bana who came to the US to study and was shocked at the sexual permissiveness and loose morality of the Americans that prompted him to go back and bring a radical bent to the Muslim Brotherhood.

The Muslims have wanted to destroy the West since they lost al-Andalus (Spain) in the Crusades (the western crusade was part of the overall scheme). The West used to be Europe but now the US has become the focal point for anti-Western hatred.

In truth, I don't think it matters if we had any interests there or not; they'd hate us.

And there actually is more to this than oil. Geez.

Post by **Coyote** » 2002-12-14 03:11am

Durran Korr wrote:No one is attacking non-interventionist Switzerland, which has sat idly by during every major European conflict of the last 300 years and emerged unscathed.

The fact that Switzerland doesn't have anything that anyone would want helps too. Chocolate, cuckoo clocks, and cough drops?

And they banked off the riches of millions of people who got turned into air pollution. Ahh, the moral high ground of neutrality!

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2002-12-14 04:11pm

Spoonist wrote:Um Knife, you are really inviting nitpicking by being so 'righteaus'.
Knife wrote:Their supposed neutrality was to play countries against each other and profit by this.
No - the swiss didn't play any countries against each other during WWII. The Swiss was surrounded by the greatest superpower of the day. What you are claiming is the same thing as saying that during the cuban crisis Cuba "played" USSR and US against eachother.
Knife wrote:One cant go throught he world fighting, that makes one a bully. But to "turn the other cheek" invites people to fuck with you because they know you won't react in time if at all. A proper balence must be kept, which is hard and mistakes will be made.
Hmm. Let's see here. The US did try to go through WWII without having to fight, something which was very successful. The US supported the allies and provided them with resources for which they got substantial payment. This was a very good and profitable tactic. If the axis had not attacked US interests this would have been the 'right' thing to do. Especially since the public opinion in the US was against intervening in the war.
Knife wrote:However since neither Iraq, Panama, or other countries that we have had military actions in, are States of the Union or US territory, I think we balance pretty well."
So as long as you are fighting your battles on other peoples soil you think that 'we balance pretty well'? I hope that this is sarcasm...
Because if you are saying that the wars are true & just as long as US civilians don't die, then I think that you need an education about empathy.

I don't think I was being righteous, I was tring to point out that the author of the article of the original post was advicating a stick your head in the sand pollicy and that his so called historical evidence of the policy was in error. Yes the Swiss did not militarily participate in the World Wars but they were an economic factor in both. Are you suggesting that there is no economic factors in war?

Yes America, and before it, Europe ignored the Germans in what can be called the begeining of the Second World War. Did it work? No, the aggressors continued to be aggressive because no one stood up to them. If the Americans or Europe as a whole would have stood up to Hitler in the 30's, the War would have either not happened then or been alot different.

And yes, if we can cure the problems without it hitting our shore's, I would call that better than waiting until it does hit our shores. Its a basic national interest type thing. Will we make mistakes? Yes, but that should not deter us from defending our selves when we feel threatened and if we make mistakes then we stand up and take responsibility to them. Do we do this, well I think we can do it better but it is not an excuse to stop defending our interests. Why would we want to wait until it is in our own house when we can deal with it somewhere else, and that goes for any country. Personaly I think that too many people flip flop over what the role of America is in the world. If you want our money then you have to deal with the fact that we might want to use that as a lever in situations that concern us. If you don't want us to butt into your buissness then stop asking for our charity, money, help, and other such things. We constantly get blamed for both being in everyones buissness and not giving enough help to others. Please choose.

Arthur_Tuxedo · Post by **Arthur_Tuxedo** » 2002-12-14 07:31pm

Coyote wrote:Or is it that Islam is anti-US? Or more appro pos, anti Western. Before 40 years, face it, the US was largely ignorant of the Middle East. It was a late 1940's visit by one Hasan al-Bana who came to the US to study and was shocked at the sexual permissiveness and loose morality of the Americans that prompted him to go back and bring a radical bent to the Muslim Brotherhood.

The Muslims have wanted to destroy the West since they lost al-Andalus (Spain) in the Crusades (the western crusade was part of the overall scheme). The West used to be Europe but now the US has become the focal point for anti-Western hatred.

Islam is a major world religion with billions of members across continents. To think that you could generalize the entire religion as "anti-Western" is frankly retarded. Don't be so eager to buy into propaganda.

In truth, I don't think it matters if we had any interests there or not; they'd hate us.

While I'm not quite sure who the "they" is that you're talking about, I'll assume it's the radicals like Al-Qaeda & Co. While it's true that they are fundies and assholes, there's no way they would give enough of a shit to take action against the U.S. if it had not supported Israel and persecuted Muslims since the '50s.

And there actually is more to this than oil. Geez.

Of course. World issues are rarely one-dimensional.