by OilyMon » Sat 03 Jun 2006, 01:42:59
I think when trying to establish just cause neither regime comes out looking any better.
I think justification is lacking in both the Congo killings and the Iraq "occupation".
Juystifying the Iraqi war by suggesting that car accidents cause more deaths per month is like saying that people who die in car accidents deserve to die for driving cars. Do people who are involved in wars deserve to die for being involved in wars? It's not the choice of either the Iraqi people or the American soldiers to be involved in this war whether they welcome it or not.
Geonicide, like the kind of which is taking place in the Congo is incomparable to the war in Iraq. The Congo genocides are an attempt to eliminate an entire race of PEOPLE. The war in Iraq is an attempt to eliminate an entire instance of a sovreign economy. Neither are justifiable especially when held together as co-justification for violence.
Imagine your neighbour had a really powerful computer, and you had no means of obtaining anything like they had. You at one point in the past had a great computer but you did not anticipate an increase in demand for computing power or a need to preserve and optimize your current computing power, so you sold all of your available time on your computer to others for a fraction of the cost your neighbour was able to sell theirs. Would you be justified to storm their house and sieze their computer takign their processing time for yourself?
I just wonder why the laws in the US are easily and UNDERSTANDIBLY applied to citizens, why they should not apply to the rest of the world and citizens of other economies/cultures/countries. It does not make sense to me that your neighbour with the computer is protected, when your neighbour with the oil is not despite their specific concerns and goals.
You might be jealous of your neighbour with the ultra-fast computer, but you still would not be justified stealing it from them or moving into their house so that you had constant access to it!