The Right Thing

[poliphilo]

I believe it was the right thing to do to challenge Gaddafi.

When a murderous bully is gaining the upper hand- and you're bigger than he is and have a fair chance of stopping him, it's wrong to sit on your hands.

This intervention was possible. And the calculations suggest a fair outcome is likelier than a miserable one. 

I have, in the past, called myself a pacifist. Obviously this was a lie.

Comments

[algabal.livejournal.com]

Then I'm sure you've thought of these questions many times.

My point is only that lending one's vocal support to a military conflict that one wouldn't directly contribute one's body to at this moment (if one were physically able) is basically cowardly. The fact that there are paid people willing to fight for you doesn't make the question irrelevant.

[steepholm.livejournal.com]

My point is only that lending one's vocal support to a military conflict that one wouldn't directly contribute one's body to at this moment (if one were physically able) is basically cowardly.

I'm having difficulty seeing why this follows. Can you expand on it?

[algabal.livejournal.com]

To support violence is a decision of enormous import. From then now, you become an advocate of violence, and there's a significant moral burden on you to justify and come to terms with your decision.

A really basic test of the rightness of this decision is to ask oneself whether the cause in question is of such gravity that you would give your own life to support it at this moment, if you were called to. That's precisely what you're asking the soldiers who have volunteered to defend you to do.

[steepholm.livejournal.com]

No problem with the first paragraph, but the second I'd take some issue with, if only because risking one's life isn't the same as giving it, and it's the former that the soldiers are being asked to do. But then there are plenty of occupations that involve risking one's life - being a firefighter, for example - and I don't think it's immoral or even necessarily cowardly to say both that one supports the work of firefighters and that one wouldn't want to be a firefighter oneself.

The fundamental moral question in this situation is surely whether one's prepared to take life, rather than to give it.

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

I believe I disagree.

The war is already in progress. The purpose of the intervention is to stop a crazy dictator from killing his own people. I think I am allowed to approve of this without being obliged to take up arms and rush to the front.

[daisytells.livejournal.com]

But isnt that what we said about Saddam Hussein? And what happened AFTER we succeeded? I cannot help wondering how many of our - and your - young soldiers will have to die, along with how many Libyan civilians, in order to achieve the goal. I also wonder whether if we accomplish this put down of a dictator, will all of us then have the good sense to go home and let the people of Libya work out their system for themselves?

[airstrip.livejournal.com]

No. What was said about Hussein was that he was a terrible person with weapons of mass destruction, not that he was about to shell a city of 600,000 into rubble.

[michaleen.livejournal.com]

Yes, indeed.

If you want to compare Libya to Iraq, compare how Poppy Bush encouraged the Shiites to rise up against Saddam Hussein and then stood by idly while they were summarily slaughtered. That, I think, is a similar situation.

[airstrip.livejournal.com]

That's precisely correct and there is a special circle in hell reserved for Bush I.

[michaleen.livejournal.com]

I believe so, yes.

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

There are differences. The allies went out of their way to pick a fight with Saddam. With Gaddafi they're intervening in a civil war.

I agree there's a chance it'll all end horribly. But it would certainly have ended horribly if we hadn't gone in.