 |
| |
|
|
Kuciwalker
|
 |
of Schmooism
Feb 2001
time: 00:27
|
|
NOTE: I'm talking about the reasons we SHOULD have invaded Iraq, NOT why we DID.
First, I'd like to make a point to head off a bunch of "evil bush administration" posts. Here's a pretty common scenario: you have a corporation, and it donates money to charity. Now, this corporation almost assuredly has an ulterior motive (make ourselves look good), but it doesn't mean we should prevent them from giving the money to charity. Doing a good thing for wrong reasons isn't necessarily bad (note: if those wrong reasons result in a different action, then the action itself isn't necessarily good, and the rule still holds).
The reasons for going into Iraq were pretty self-evident. We (America) are capable of going in there and removing an oppressive totalitarian (redundant?) regime that had shown a tendancy to declare war on its neighbors. Replacing this regime with a liberal democratic (as in, not the sort of democracy that existed in 1900) government can do nothing but good for the people of Iraq and the stability of the region. We are capable of doing a good thing, and therefore it is not our right, but our RESPONISIBILITY to do the right thing. Now, if we just suck Iraq dry of oil, or establish an equally oppressive regime that's friendly to us, then we aren't doing a good thing, and so the rule holds.
Some may say, however, that we're only doing it in places that make our president look good [to the American people], so he's really a hypocrite. I say, SO WHAT?! If he's doing something good, why stop him? The only possible problem there is that he should be doing MORE of it - that is, overthrowing regimes in other countries too. In fact, that's what I think - we should do that to the maximum of our ability.
Another point, that the national security element [and WMD's] are irrelevent to this discussion.
At school, a friend of mine I argue politics with a lot disagrees with me about this argument, but his argument is that morality is subjective, which is a conflict of fundamental premises, and therefore irreconcilable.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
yago
|
|
I don't know if I fit the descripton of people who should not post, because their posts are interpreted as anti-republican. But I do it anyway.
quote:
We are capable of doing a good thing, and therefore it is not our right, but our RESPONISIBILITY to do the right thing. Now, if we just suck Iraq dry of oil, or establish an equally oppressive regime that's friendly to us, then we aren't doing a good thing, and so the rule holds. |
Well:
A. Establish an equally oppressive regime. I think that's the only reason for US-troops to remain in Iraq.
B. We (Americans) are capable of doing a good thing. Ahm, no, I don't think that the Americans are capable to reshape Iraq like they want. The American military was able to conquer Iraq. And it has the abiltiy to establish an oppressive regime. It is beyond the capability of America to reshape a country.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Spiffor
|
 |
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001
time: 06:27
|
|
Skywalker :
The "Saddam is bad" argument is not enough, far from it, because it doesn't handle about the future of Iraq.
In another thread, I explain how dangerous it is to intervene abroad with moralistic preconceptions without trying to see what the other's moralistic stance is. More clearly, it is dangerous to impose our definition of "good" there without knowing what their definition of "good" is.
Yes, the Iraqis knew saddam was a bloody astards, and I'm sure 99% of them are glad he's finished. But what do the Iraqis want instead ?
The only organized opposition groups in Iraq are the Shiite clergy and the Kurdish nationalists. Revolted Iraqis didn't want democracy; they wanted either a theocracy (Shiites) or fostered rabid nationalism. Both aren't "good" in our book. Yet, bith are "good" in their partisan's book. There was no real urge for democracy in Iraq, and there is still none. Chalabi et. al. are a gathering of intellectuals and businessmen that do not represent the actual demands of the average Iraqi.
Today, most Iraqis want safety and decent conditions of life. Most will probably be satisfied if democracy could bring it, but I don't think it's their main concern right now.
There was no real urge for democracy in Iraq, and the trend continues. Yet, the US wants to impose its preconception of "good" (i.e democracy) in a population that might be more ready for theocracy or nationalism. If the US goes forth to impose these views through force, they'll only get resentment for this, and a backlash at some point.
"Saddam is bad" is not an argument enough. It must come along with the refusal of "flock to the true good, ours" attitude.
Had the Iraqis wanted Democracy, the agression would have been justified.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
TCO
|
 |
Richmond, VA
Jan 1970
time: 00:27
|
|
Mikey has a real point when he says that we are benefited by a lower price of oil. We truly are. It is a cartel-controlled commodity. And if we can go back to an oil glut and free competition, like in the 80's, it would be a huge boon to the US and all oil-importing states. (but would hurt Texas.)
The interesting thing is that some of the oil guys will be hurt from this. Bush Sr. got a black eye from the REagan administration when he told the Saudis that prices were too low. (The Reaganites wanted cheaper prices (i.e the cartel to crack). Cheney has also made some statements (well maybe pre-election) where he was in favor of "stable prices". I don't want stable prices. I want the bottom to fall out and the cartel to never get its act together.
Last edited by TCO on 27-04-2003 at 22:51
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:27.
Apolyton Time is 00:27. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
27-04-2003 22:05
|