Saturday, January 12, 2002
A few comments from one of the Lockean commentators:

If you believe that “civilized war consists in killing, or attempting to kill, men with arms in hand; and that any other kind is simply murder, calling for the universal execration of mankind” then there is a moral imperative to act.

If that were the case then there would have been a moral imperative to act against the American bombing of Afghanistan and the Israeli free fire zones in the West Bank. I do believe that the Just War concept to be a valid idea about how we should conduct ourselves, but like charity I do not see it as an imperative to force it on third parties.

Do you consider Locke’s moral imperative as utterly flawed?

In this case it is.

In this case, in point, is it not the only means to bring peace to the region?

It will not bring peace to the region without exhausting the Western powers, and as a subject of one of their heads, I don't want to see that. The only realistic way for peace in any region is for the people to realise that they get more out of peace than war, and the prospect of military aid is one of the biggest disincentives to peace.

Is it not the first step to ridding the region of despots

Who cares about their despots? It's up to the countries themselves.

and preventing the terror of 9/11 from returning?

As the root of the terror was the American involvement in the Middle East, then more involvement will not solve anything.

And this on Zimbabwe:

Like the animals of Jones Manor, Britons might ponder at some future date that further support of American policy was an advantage. British nationalism is no guarantee of British freedom.

This is a good point. We may need an ally to get us out of the EU. However in the long term we will by definition be unfree if we instinctively back another power - no matter how friendly.


Post a Comment

Blog Archive