Registered: Sep 2000
Location: 51N3, 114W3
Posts: 1071

A week or so ago, Rex Murphy, a commentator for CBC's The National, gave quite a rousing rant in his weekly segment. CBC finally got around to posting the transcript.

I found this one of the most interesting arguments I've heard. It raises a question I've rarely seen discussed. Is this a moral war? Is this a just war?

Anyway, here it is:

quote:

---

To war or not to war: Canada faces a morality test

It is not a light thing to contemplate a war, to declare one or to decide ? if another nation is going to war ? that our nation will join it. However much these endless debates ? at the UN or in the streets and assemblies of the nations, about whether or not there is to be a war, and the arguments for or against a war ? however much time and passion these debates consume, we should be grateful that they're being held. It's a question of war. And we should be grateful that war, the decision to go to war, to shed the blood of soldiers and civilians, is a question being considered.

We know the two nations, or with greater precision the two leaders, who have settled the question of whether war with Iraq is necessary and who have also decided ? and it's not the same question ? whether war with Iraq is right. They are George W. Bush and Tony Blair. There are other countries that have decided to join these two but the U.S. and U.K. are the principals. And of these two, it is somewhat ironically Mr. Blair ? the willing ally ? rather than Mr. Bush ? the originating protagonist ? who has made the clearest, widest and most articulate argument why war with Iraq is both necessary and right.

I do not think the citizens of the United Kingdom, even the many who disagree with their prime minister, have grounds for feeling that Mr. Blair has acted in any way inconsistent with honour or his role as a leader in how he has faced the issue of war.

He has sought a moral basis on which to ground his decision and despite all the risks to his very standing as prime minister, has made his case openly, repeatedly, urgently and reluctantly. Mr. Blair is not eager for war. It is only because he sees it as necessary and right that he has taken the course he has.



George Bush is not gifted with Tony Blair's powers of presentation, but of all the criticisms that are levelled at the American president the two that seem most unfair are that he has decided to rush to war, and that he has decided to go to war other than for reasons that he sees as right and necessary.

If war against Saddam Hussein is right and if it is necessary, it is so regardless of what the United Nations will decide. And if a war with Saddam Hussein is wrong and unnecessary, it is likewise wrong and unnecessary regardless of what the United Nations will decide. The UN, after all, is but the collective utterance of the individual decisions of leaders and nations on these very questions. Well, we are now at the very end of the discussion and debate, and one way or another it looks as if there is to be a war.

What Canada owes to its dignity as a nation, and the prime minister owes to the country because he is its leader, is to declare whether the idea of going to war against Saddam Hussein on those grounds championed by Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair, or on other grounds, is the right thing to do and the necessary thing to do. To say we will join the war if the UN passes a resolution approving it is to sidestep a moral and political decision that we don't have the right to sidestep.

If the war is right, and necessary, we must join it. If it is neither right nor necessary, we must stay out. This is not a decision to put out to franchise. We must make it and the prime minister must explain it. Is war with Iraq right or wrong? The question is plain, profound and inescapable. And it deserves the very clearest of answers.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2001
Location: Hilbert Space
Posts: 35670

For those nations that consider the UN to be of great significance, it isn't fence sitting to see what the UN decides; what the UN decides is the most important thing.

It seems to me that Canada is lucky, because it can do nothing and the US isn't going to cut it loose (because the US needs good relations with Canada for its own security, given that it presumably isn't going to invade Canada and subjugate its people), so the political impetus on Canada to act is less than it is for Tony Blair, for example.

The fact that Tony Blair's powers of presentation are compared favourably with Bush's is a grave insult indeed.

I am surprised that Canada isn't at least cheerleading, even with what I said above, though. The war is going to happen, we are presumably going to win nice and easy enough and so Chretien appears to have actually found some spine over this matter (like Blair, but on the opposite side of the war argument).

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Sep 2000
Location: 51N3, 114W3
Posts: 1071

quote:

---

Originally posted by Smug Git
For those nations that consider the UN to be of great significance, it isn't fence sitting to see what the UN decides; what the UN decides is the most important thing.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2001
Location: Hilbert Space
Posts: 35670

Has Chretien not stood up against war (bp was saying it in chat, I thought, but I could have misunderstood)?

I think that the only leader exhibiting great courage here is Blair, to be honest; everyone else is doing well with their domestic gallery (not that there is anything wrong with that; you don't have to ignore popular opinion to do a good job, after all).

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Apr 2001
Location: 0.50
Posts: 9355

chretien has been pretty vocal in his opposition to both bush and the war, i think.
but on topic, i don't think the article answers any questions. is it right and good to go to war? that's what everybody has been discussing for the past year. sure, bush feels it is and maybe his...moral tenacity should be admired, but others feel it is not so "moral", and not justified. still others aren't sure it is necessary, and require further jusitification. call it fence-sitting if you want, but that's how things work. i can't see the logic in rushing a decision in order to be seen as decisive. better to be right, i would think.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Sep 2000
Location: 51N3, 114W3
Posts: 1071

quote:

---

Originally posted by Smug Git
Has Chretien not stood up against war (bp was saying it in chat, I thought, but I could have misunderstood)?

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Sep 2000
Location: 51N3, 114W3
Posts: 1071

quote:

---

Originally posted by Buddha's Penis!
chretien has been pretty vocal in his opposition to both bush and the war, i think.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Sep 2000
Location: 51N3, 114W3
Posts: 1071

quote:

---

Originally posted by Buddha's Penis!
but on topic, i don't think the article answers any questions. is it right and good to go to war? that's what everybody has been discussing for the past year. sure, bush feels it is and maybe his...moral tenacity should be admired, but others feel it is not so "moral", and not justified. still others aren't sure it is necessary, and require further jusitification. call it fence-sitting if you want, but that's how things work. i can't see the logic in rushing a decision in order to be seen as decisive. better to be right, i would think.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Apr 2001
Location: 0.50
Posts: 9355

you'll see the same ambiguity among the people here, though. less so all the time, the people who "have yet to be convinced" are generally either falling in with one side or another, but i would still contend that this is not so simple an issue as to necessarily allow a simple yes or no. there are always "maybe"s, and i guess in this case the UN will be leading those to a decision.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location: NH
Posts: 6086

Why would you think Canada is irrelevant? All forum joking aside, I dont think the US or any democratic country in the world would think thats true.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location: NH
Posts: 6086

A side question: Your main concern is 'fence sitting' and not choosing a side. Unless I've missed it, I havent seen what side you are on. Not that it matters, after all you're a Canadian.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Sep 2000
Location: 51N3, 114W3
Posts: 1071

Right now I'm thinking my response is rather moot, since it looks like a sure thing that the US is going to war in short order, but I might as well respond now that my workout's over and I got a dandy endophin buzz going.

After four and a half months since the UN managed to get back on track, as it were, I think one should be convinced, either for, or against. It's been 12 years after the cease fire that ended the Gulf War. Twelve years in which Iraq has failed to meet the obligations of the conditions of it's cease fire agreement.

The members of the security council who have thus far opposed action have failed to live up to the obligations they (essential the permenant members) set forth in several resolutions to date, including 1441.

After this amount of time, I think the sides are pretty well clear. One either sees the rightness of the action or does not.

And for the record, if it isn't clear by now, I am for action, with or without the UN. There is no question in my mind to the rightness of the action. I felt that it should be with UN support, but it should be done regardless of what they said.

As to Canada's irrelavance, it was partially joking, and partially it was a deep seeded feeling that Canada, through it's polititians utter lack of courage to step forward on global issues has become irrelevant on the world stage.

Aside: Our governments passing of Kyoto excluded, which I was also in favour of, and for which I had hoped showed our government moving in a direction of leadership, but I was once again fooling myself.

But I suppose there's little left to be said. Tomorrow's front page stories are being sent to the Sparc servers as I type this, and somewhere in Ottawa, somebody just shrugged, said "whatever", and went about getting a double double at Tim Horton's.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Nov 2001
Location: Rio de los Brazos de Dios
Posts: 3876

Whether or not a war is "good" or "bad" is I believe almost impossible for the people who participate in that war to know or judge. Most wars are entered as a means of assuring the prevalence of the interests of the nation that started it. If a nation wins a war they are in a much better position to write the history books that are the true arbiters of whether a war is good or bad. If the historians of two hundred years hence deem this war justified they will so write---I doubt if anyone can even really decide that for about fifty years or so.

Since the citizenry of a country cannot collectively determine in real time whether a war is "Good" or "bad" it is imperiative for the citizens of a nation to trust their leaders that a war is in the "best interests of their country" because you can't stop at all points and have a vote of the citizenry on what ti do next.

As to whether it is "moral" I doubt that any war is moral as a dominant virtue. Wars are all about killing and wounding and captivating a host of other people and it is very difficult to ever square that with morality. Besides sime of the cruelest and most devastating wars ever fought were fought in the name of religion which seems sometimes to set aside man's moral views.

The best it seems that we can do is "Is this war in the interest of my country"/

__________________

[Ignore Sig]

oxsan


Don't kick until yer spurred.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: May 2002
Location:
Posts: 8833

Is it "morally right" for a leader or U.N. ambassador to a marginalized country (like say, Austria) to stand up and give their particular opinion of the subject even though it will in NO WAY affect whether or not war occurs, and more likely end up hurting their constituents by burning bridges with either the pro or anti war camps? I would think it morally reprehensible to vocalize one's opinions simply to hear themself speak (and if thats not the reason, what is it?) when "showing their cards" will be detrimental to their country.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Sep 2000
Location: 51N3, 114W3
Posts: 1071

Then, let's take a step further. Is it morally right to permit a man whose reign has been ripe with brutality and cruelty to continue in power? If war is not the answer, and 12 years of sanctions, 12 years of weapons inspectors, have failed to remove him from power, then what is the answer?

I believe that a democratic (though I use this term rather loosey goosey) leader is empowered by the people to be a moral leader. They were elected, for the most part, by the people (or in Canada and other parlimentary democracies, by the membership of his or her party), to represent the people, and in times of strife have the courage to act as their moral conscience.

In 1990, polls showed extrememly weak approval for the Gulf War in the United States and Canada (other places as well I would assume), but both George Sr. and Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney went to about making plans for war.

I would think it morally reprehensible to vocalize one's opinions simply to hear themself speak (and if thats not the reason, what is it?) when "showing their cards" will be detrimental to their country.

How so? "Showing ones cards" is pretty much mandated when you're the leader of a people. As for being determental, I highly doubt being for, against, or even neutral, would be detrimental in the long term. Economies are far too tied together for the rift to be lasting. The "with us or against us" posturing is little more than posturing, IMO.

France and Germany see themselves as the "natural leaders" of Europe. Other nations in Europe beg to differ. They've shown they're cards, so have the French, the Germans and the Russians. This also isn't a question of military involment. It's a question of support. Do we, as Canadians, support the rightness of removing Saddam Hussien and his regime from power. Do we, on the other hand, not support the action and wish to maintain the status quo of sanctions and inspection that have proved to be oh so useful. There was even a third option. We could have stated our neutrality. Frankly saying that the Canadian Government neither supported, nor objected to action, and would in now way state any opinion regardless of the outcome. Basically we could have folded out cards, got up from the table and went about our buisness.

Instead, we sat at the table, kept asking for more cards, and then threw them in the air when the dealer called.

I don't approve of the Bush administration. I don't much trust their motivations. Nor do I trust the French, German, or Russian camp's. But is the end is just and right, and there is, IMO, no viable alternative, then I'll throw my cards in with the US and Britain. Someone once said (and Ill be buggered if I can remember who) that it doesn't take a righteous man to perform a righteous act, the act itself is important.

*edit: dropped a bunch of anti-Mulroney rubbish. I'm still bitter about the GST and the FTA, I can't help but rant about it.

*whew* I'm spent.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2001
Location: Hilbert Space
Posts: 35670

quote:

---

Originally posted by scatmonkey
Then, let's take a step further. Is it morally right to permit a man whose reign has been ripe with brutality and cruelty to continue in power? If war is not the answer, and 12 years of sanctions, 12 years of weapons inspectors, have failed to remove him from power, then what is the answer?

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Sep 2000
Location: 51N3, 114W3
Posts: 1071

As pleasant side effects go, it's about as good as it gets. Hell, if we were a moral world, it wouldn't be the side-effect but the root reason. (So... I live in a dream world...)

As far as oil is concerned, there is no question in my mind that this has to do with the oil. Both the US's push for war, and the Franco-German-Russian blocks push against. They were, after all, trying to test the waters to loosen sanctions so they could get their hands on some more. Well, the french and Germans anyway. I figure the Russians just want the billions that Saddam owes them.

But like I said, as far as side-effects go...

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged