Iraq: How do we get out?

[niky]

This shows a lack of understanding of the principles of limited government and takes a very narrow, specific view of the term democracy in order to create a weakness to attack. Yes, pure democracy is flawed. Good thing nobody's talking about that.

What kind of Democracy are we talking about, then? Basically, democracy is a vote, the most votes wins. That's why gay marriage still isn't legal in most states... ...and smoking in public is now illegal... conservative (not in the political sense, mind you), middle class people voting for their own security and mores dictate their will upon the country through the representatives they vote into power.

It's a narrow view, maybe, but many decisions made in a democracy are based on public clamor and perceptions... while the public doesn't vote on specific laws (thank goodness for that), they vote for people into power whom they see as having a similar mindset to themselves and whom they hope will vote in the way that they would.

Isn't that why the Iraqi occupation is coming to a close? People have voted in representatives merely to force the President to pull out sooner rather than later.

You don't have the right to prosperity, and you can lose your right to life. And basic human needs do not necessarily translate into a proper system of government. Every legitimate government on the planet was brought about by force.

The right to life is the most basic right there is. Without that right, society would not exist.

(BTW, governments not brought about by force?: India. The Philippines (well, the threat of force was there, but never used). The Soviet Union (although economic sabotage and the Cold War could count as "force"). There have been seamless transitions from monarchy to democracy without war.)

By saying that since most governments were created by force, force is a legitimate way to create a government, is to confuse actions with intentions. Most governments start out through the use of force, simply as an imperialistic means of landholders to gain more land and subjects. Their intent was personal wealth, not democracy or freedom for their people.

Recognizing their subjects' right to life gives them a thriving population that will produce more goods. Giving their subjects security and prosperity comes next... as subjects who aren't afraid of attacks from outsiders, and who are well-fed are even more productive subjects.

Once you fulfill the more basic needs, the more abstract needs, self-expression, freedom, and the like, are attended to. That's why democracy was so rare in the olden times... simply because security and prosperity were so hard to come by...

-----

If you're living hand-to-mouth, you don't care much about political issues... you just want a better job and an easier life. Note that a lot of elections in poorer countries are swayed immensely by the poor vote, which is how populist (and often socialst/communist) candidates come to power... because they promise prosperity to the poor, not to uphold the ideals of democracy and freedom of thought. And once in power, they then proceed to trample on free speech and make a mockery of free elections... they never promised this to the people anyway.

-----

Governments are toppled and created by force all the time. Oftentimes, it's those who do the toppling who take power. It's rare that they effect the transition to a democracy right away... if ever. Which is why I think we were lucky that our transition from dictatorship to democracy came via a bloodless coup. Even if the figurehead president they installed was a weak one, as long as there was a banner for most of the armed groups to stand behind, there was some stability.

In the end, legitimate governments, whether created by force or not, must be created by the people they govern... not outsiders. If they don't feel that they have a personal stake... that they've sweated blood and tears to achieve this, then they won't view the fruits of freedom and democracy as we think they ought to. Which is why the American Revolution worked so well. It was a revolution of the people, by the people and for the people.

It's not to say interventionism hasn't had its successes... but in this case, with the largely negative image the US has in the Middle East, one could see that they weren't exactly the "saviors" these people wanted. For the repressed Shia in Iraq, yes, there's an indebtedness there... but for the Sunnis who are now singled out for reprisal by previously oppressed friends, neighbors and countrymen, there may be some bitterness there.

Here I think we're on the same page.

It's the only logical thing. Much as I disagree that invading Iraq would help, democratizing Iraq and creating stability will. I regret that this chapter of history may come to a close before the goals of the Iraqi invasion have been met.

 

[Omnis]

Governments forming with force and by force are two different things. American government was not created by force, but with force-- force of defense after declaring independence. That is quite different than forcing a government on a people. This is somewhat like what's happening in Iraq. Their people are not the authors of change, our government is. Iraq will never become a free nation in this way. Besides, our soldiers are not upholding the Constitution by being their policemen.

Danoff, I'm not blaming America, I'm blaming the government. Who are they to have the balls to think they can do better when the middle-easterners have been at it for thousands of years as you say. The congress vote to give the President power also is unconstitutional. I said that "we let it happen" to acknowledge that transfer of power, though. That still doesn't make it synonymous with a declaration of war, however. I still think it's best to get out of Iraq. Even foreign aid would be a lot cheaper than maintaining the war/Iraqi police-state. If you want to argue about the war from a national security standpoint, you'd have to reevaluate our open borders before even beginning to think about the middle east. Leaving our borders wide open with the military on the other side of the world is just like inviting surprise buttsecks, except people being butthurt over immigration could be overshadowed by people being killed.

I miss these kinds of debate threads.

 

[Swift]

The congress vote to give the President power also is unconstitutional. I said that "we let it happen" to acknowledge that transfer of power, though.

Omnis, what are you talking about? The president is THE Commander-in-Chief. He can put the armed forces anywhere he wants any time he wants. He didn't "have" to get permission from congress. He could've just sent them over. But he wanted it to be a joint action of the government just so they couldn't do what they are doing now. The check and balance is that the congress can vote to de-fund the war. This president has not done anything unconstitutional.

Seriously man, don't just accept it because Ron Paul or anyone else says it. Read the constitution.

 

[KSaiyu]

You do know how to hit me where it hurts. I have a lot of respect for Greenspan. He's a smart guy. His argument that the invasion was over oil is the best that I've ever heard because it wasn't about Iraq's oil at all - it was about control over shipment points (if I understand it correctly from the blurb you posted).

Still, Greenspan is a fantastic economist. And he's right to blast the Bush administration over economics - and when he does, I listen intently to what he has to say. But he's not a diplomat, he's not a foreign policy guru, and he's not a military general. It's quite difficult to listen to his accusations when it comes to a situation regarding national security. Yes, he's provided the economic motivations in an interesting light, but I remain unconvinced.

Honestly that's a reason why I value his take on this over others spouting about "war for oil", plus the fact that you mentioned he isn't some guru on saying the right things to keep America's foreign policy looking rosy.

Ask the person I was responding to what they were getting at and I'm sure they'll tell you that we were going after Iraq's oil - a notion that really is absurd.

I think Greenspan is struggling with justifications for the war that either turned out to be incorrect, or didn't hold water. He sees an economic justification and latches to it because it makes the situation make sense.

While you're right it does seem that he believes this was the motivation for the war (I haven't read the book, this is from reading interviews in the paper and a good report that was shown on British TV that included more information such as the long term stability of the West, the future of America's economy etc) I'd disagree with what you seem to imply by saying that he's losing faith in his original beliefs about the justifications for war at the beginning. Of course this is all irrelevant since noone is the man himself.

I see you have an Ayn Rand quotation - have you played Bioshock for the 360 or PC. Apart from being a great game it's main "antagonist" is Andrew Ryan, an obvious allusion to her (confirmed by the developers) and it is a very rare thinking person FPS.

 

[Alfaholic]

Well, in the case of the Iraq situation yes. They are killing Iraqi, US and coalition forces. How else should they be described?

Opposition? How about freedom fighters? or Resistance? Since we are, for whatever reason, an occupying force. It's not uncommon for locals to fight back with whatever they have handy in such an instance, and its not uncommon for them to receive help from a sympathetic nation while doing so. Just like the French resistance got help from the British in WW2, and Afghanistan got help (mostly weapons) from the USA when they were occupied by Russia. Did that make the USA terrorists?

Oooooh, nice dodge. But seriously, you totally dodged the point. You advocated pulling out, I pointed out that pulling out now would be a humanitarian disaster. That remains to be the case. Whether or not you agree with how/why we went in, you surely realize that leaving at this point would be incredibly bloody

I don't think I dodged anything. It's incredibly bloody there right now. You said that pulling out would create a humanitarian disaster. I said no, the coalition is not avoiding one by being there, its creating one. It's already one of the most dangerous places on Earth to be a civilian, apparently. Somewhere between 72000 and 79000 Iraqi civilians have been killed since the war started, either by coalition fire or by their own countrymen. 44000 of those have been since January 2005. That's civilians, not combatants. Sounds pretty disastrous to me, but it gets worse. I mean it is literally getting worse. In 2005, 470 Iraqi civilians lost their lives each month. In 2006, that went up to 1388. In 2007, it's currently 1914. That's 1914 violent civilian deaths, each month, It started because we invaded, and we appear to be getting less effective at containing it.

The only thing that will happen if the coalition pulls out, is that the Iraqis will have their own internal battle for power, someone will take control, and they'll either do a good or bad job of running the country. Why is it OK for us to send over the world's most effective killing machine and use it force government change there, but it's not OK to let them do it themselves? The only reason I can think of is, as stated by either yourself or Foolkiller earlier, by forcing the change yourselves, you can influence the end result and effectively create an ally in the middle east. Whether the Iraqis themselves want to be or not. If they don't want to be, we'll never get out, because they'll tear down whatever we've created as soon as we take our thumb off their backs, whether that's tomorrow or in ten years. If they do want to be a Western ally, it will happen anyway without our help.

 

[Omnis]

Omnis, what are you talking about? The president is THE Commander-in-Chief. He can put the armed forces anywhere he wants any time he wants. He didn't "have" to get permission from congress. He could've just sent them over. But he wanted it to be a joint action of the government just so they couldn't do what they are doing now. The check and balance is that the congress can vote to de-fund the war. This president has not done anything unconstitutional.

Seriously man, don't just accept it because Ron Paul or anyone else says it. Read the constitution.

The president cannot create war without a declaration by congress. If Iraq had its (non-existent) navy in Chesapeake Bay, the President could strike the threat as recognized. There is a huge difference between starting a giant "preventive" war and making a preemptive strike.

...Congress shall have the powers...

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

Congress authorizing force is not synonymous to declaring war. Because of their irresponsibility, we're having the debate that should have taken place before we had to lose 5,000 men. A good declaration sets a time-table and has congress take responsibility for the actions taken. The authorization of force only gives the President free reign over what he wants to do and how he'll do it. That's not right. The President commands the military, but the troops belong to Congress. The President has military power only to protect and defend the country from an imminent threat. I really can't believe you'd justify the invasion of a sovereign state by saying, "the President can do whatever he wants."

 

[Swift]

The president cannot create war without a declaration by congress. If Iraq had its (non-existent) navy in Chesapeake Bay, the President could strike the threat as recognized. There is a huge difference between starting a giant "preventive" war and making a preemptive strike.

There is no difference in that except point of view. Your point of view is to wait until someone attacks you then react. The presidents point of view was to stop the enemy before they could attack. The same action is required as far as the military goes. It's simply a different outlook of the situation.

Congress authorizing force is not synonymous to declaring war. Because of their irresponsibility, we're having the debate that should have taken place before we had to lose 5,000 men. A good declaration sets a time-table and has congress take responsibility for the actions taken. The authorization of force only gives the President free reign over what he wants to do and how he'll do it. That's not right. The President commands the military, but the troops belong to Congress. The President has military power only to protect and defend the country from an imminent threat. I really can't believe you'd justify the invasion of a sovereign state by saying, "the President can do whatever he wants."

How is congress specifically saying to the president:

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.

Not declaring war? Just because the exact words "declare war" aren't used? Come on. It was LEGAL. 100%. It may be unpopular...now. But when things were set in motion it was completely legal and constitutional. Show me where the president did something unconstitutional, I'm talking a specific instance that pertains to the Iraq war.

Opposition? How about freedom fighters? or Resistance? Since we are, for whatever reason, an occupying force. It's not uncommon for locals to fight back with whatever they have handy in such an instance, and its not uncommon for them to receive help from a sympathetic nation while doing so. Just like the French resistance got help from the British in WW2, and Afghanistan got help (mostly weapons) from the USA when they were occupied by Russia. Did that make the USA terrorists?

Yeah, we were being pretty stupid then. Of course, we were just trying to stop communism. But we ended up fostering terrorism. So yes, we were acting like terrorists during that particular time.

You say they are freedom fighters or resistance? Why weren't they fighting so hard when Saddam was gassing them by the hundreds? Were was this resistance then? Oh, afraid of being slaughtered, I forgot. Sorry.

 

[FoolKiller]

I missed out on a few days due to the greatest college football victory (for me) of my lifetime, a related hangover, and work. I will just jump back in. If I missed any questions directed at me that anyone wants answered, please point it out to me. Otherwise I will avoid rehashing what is old stuff by now.

Opposition? How about freedom fighters? or Resistance? Since we are, for whatever reason, an occupying force. It's not uncommon for locals to fight back with whatever they have handy in such an instance, and its not uncommon for them to receive help from a sympathetic nation while doing so. Just like the French resistance got help from the British in WW2, and Afghanistan got help (mostly weapons) from the USA when they were occupied by Russia. Did that make the USA terrorists?

I don't know. Did the US purposely attack civilians celebrating a soccer victory, going to the mosque, or various other everyday, innocent activities? If so, then I will allow you to call them terrorists because people who purposely attack and kill innocent civilians are nothing more than terrorists and sre the farthest thing from a freedom fighter.

It's already one of the most dangerous places on Earth to be a civilian, apparently. Somewhere between 72000 and 79000 Iraqi civilians have been killed since the war started, either by coalition fire or by their own countrymen. 44000 of those have been since January 2005. That's civilians, not combatants. Sounds pretty disastrous to me, but it gets worse. I mean it is literally getting worse. In 2005, 470 Iraqi civilians lost their lives each month. In 2006, that went up to 1388. In 2007, it's currently 1914. That's 1914 violent civilian deaths, each month,

Wow, look at all those innocent deaths. Who did the actual killing? If the numbers, by war opponents, are correct then they are roughly 90% done by insurgents. You're right, they aren't terrorists, they are freedom fighters. If you kill all the innocent people then they are all free. By pointing out all of the civilian deaths you negate your previous argument. Whether they happened because America is now there or not it does not excuse them from purposely attacking non-strategical/non-military targets. Those actions make them terrorists, not opposition, freedom fighters, or whatever else you choose to call them.

When American troops purposely kill innocent civilians and the powers that be know about it we hold them accountable. When these guys kill innocent civilians their leaders praise them. See the difference?

 

[Danoff]

The only thing that will happen if the coalition pulls out, is that the Iraqis will have their own internal battle for power, someone will take control, and they'll either do a good or bad job of running the country.

The "only" thing huh?

Wow, look at all those innocent deaths. Who did the actual killing? If the numbers, by war opponents, are correct then they are roughly 90% done by insurgents.

So we pull out, and you expect the casualties to somehow decrease while the forces that have been doing the killing over there have free reign to use whatever means necessary to seize control?

 

[Alfaholic]

I don't know. Did the US purposely attack civilians celebrating a soccer victory, going to the mosque, or various other everyday, innocent activities? If so, then I will allow you to call them terrorists because people who purposely attack and kill innocent civilians are nothing more than terrorists and sre the farthest thing from a freedom fighter.

Looks like I caused my own confusion with that one, since I lost track of the fact that the original description of terrorist which I questioned was used in reference to Iran. So apologies, resistance and freedom fighters are incorrect. I should have said "supporters of resistance and freedom fighters".

US Attacking civilians participating in innocent, everyday activities? It's happened often. Carpet bombing in World War 2. Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The US has proven that it will do whatever it needs to to win. So have the UK. So have hundreds of other armies fighting what they argued was a legitimate cause. The ends justifying the means should be a familiar concept to a country that has used napalm and atom bombs in anger. The guys blowing up mosques and whatever are doing what they feel they need to do to achieve whatever their objective is. Doesn't make it right, but if their objective is to achieve freedom, then they can be called freedom fighters. It just depends which side of the fence you're sitting on.

Finally, as for you "allowing" me to call the US terrorists, which I didn't anyway, am I the only one who sees the irony in that statement? For future reference, in case there's any misunderstanding, I don't need your permission.

Wow, look at all those innocent deaths. Who did the actual killing? If the numbers, by war opponents, are correct then they are roughly 90% done by insurgents. You're right, they aren't terrorists, they are freedom fighters. If you kill all the innocent people then they are all free. By pointing out all of the civilian deaths you negate your previous argument. Whether they happened because America is now there or not it does not excuse them from purposely attacking non-strategical/non-military targets. Those actions make them terrorists, not opposition, freedom fighters, or whatever else you choose to call them.

You lost me there. What previous argument did I negate?. Just to add, I didn't judge those civilians to be either innocent nor guilty of anything. The numbers serve to point out the scale of the humanitarian disaster currently taking place in Iraq. I dread to think how bad it would get, if indeed it got worse if the coalition forces weren't there.

I'll compare example in the rest of that paragraph to another group of people who took action when they felt oppressed by a military power. Most of the world supported Nelson Mandela and his ANC party in their fight to free South African blacks from oppression. Most would agree that the fight was justified and for a just cause. Did you know that members of the ANC also slaughtered thousands of its own countrymen, black, white or whatever was in the way? Did you know that they also blew up restaurants and walked into a church, slaughtering worshippers at random with machine guns? So same question back at you. Were they freedom fighters? Or were they terrorists?

When American troops purposely kill innocent civilians and the powers that be know about it we hold them accountable. When these guys kill innocent civilians their leaders praise them. See the difference?

Yes, from where I'm standing. But if I'm an Iraqi civilian who has just been shot in the head by an American soldier who I felt shouldn't be there in the first place, I wouldn't care if it was an accident, because the end result is the same.

 

[Danoff]

US Attacking civilians participating in innocent, everyday activities? ...if their objective is to achieve freedom, then they can be called freedom fighters. It just depends which side of the fence you're sitting on.

The word "terrorist" has a very specific meaning. The goal of a terrorist is to incite unrest and chaos by targeting civilians and creating "terror". Killing civilians is not sufficient, even targeting civilians is not sufficient. The intent is an important part of categorizing the activity as "terrorist".

In the case of the Atomic bomb, the goal was not to create chaos via fear. The was to intimidate our opponent's leaders into surrender via a display of overwhelming military force - not at all the same thing.

Yes, from where I'm standing. But if I'm an Iraqi civilian who has just been shot in the head by an American soldier who I felt shouldn't be there in the first place, I wouldn't care if it was an accident, because the end result is the same.

The end result is not as important as the intent. Consider, for a moment, a car wreck. Someone is killed. Was it an accident or a murder? If the car wreck was intentional, the action is criminal. If the car wreck was unintentional, the action is accidental. The end result is the same, but there is a world of difference.

If you hit a pedestrian with your car on purpose, we lock you away for a very long time. Do it accidentally and your insurance premiums go through the roof. The reason for this is two-fold. A) One is amoral the other is immoral. B) One means you're still a danger to society, the other means you're just having a really bad day.

Generally speaking, this is a huge mistake that many people make - to only consider the outcome of an event. Intent is everything.

 

[Swift]

Yes, from where I'm standing. But if I'm an Iraqi civilian who has just been shot in the head by an American soldier who I felt shouldn't be there in the first place, I wouldn't care if it was an accident, because the end result is the same.

Whoa...what?

You mean to tell me that collateral damage and murder of innocents are the same? Especially in a firefight? Of course the result is the same. But the difference is that the American soldiers in Iraq aren't targeting women, children and non-combatants. The "supporters of freedom fighters" generally are. That is the difference.

 

[Omnis]

There is no difference in that except point of view. Your point of view is to wait until someone attacks you then react. The presidents point of view was to stop the enemy before they could attack. The same action is required as far as the military goes. It's simply a different outlook of the situation.

No, that is not my point of view. It's the President's duty as commander to defend the nation. Invading Iraq is not and never was defending the nation. They posed zero threat to our national security. Again, if we were worried about them via terrorist proxy, we should have just sealed our borders and camped out in the gulf. Iraq learned its lesson after Kuwait. They were never going to screw with us. Israel would've been the first country to deal with them, anyway.

How is congress specifically saying to the president:


Not declaring war? Just because the exact words "declare war" aren't used? Come on. It was LEGAL. 100%. It may be unpopular...now. But when things were set in motion it was completely legal and constitutional. Show me where the president did something unconstitutional, I'm talking a specific instance that pertains to the Iraq war.

It was made into law, yes, but I would hardly consider it constitutional.

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq;

There were no weapons of mass destruction. Iraq had no navy or air force. There is/was no evidence to justify a threat against national security.

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.

The UN? Congress serves only the people of America. Every public servant takes on oath to uphold and obey the constitution, not to obey some foreign assembly. UN weapons inspectors found nothing, anyway. Even if the UN did say Iraq was ready to rumble and had nukes out the wazoo, Congress must make its own assessment of the situation and decide for itself whether or not to go to war. Putting the decision making into the hands of any group that does not directly represent the people of this country (the executive branch, the UN, etc.) is a betrayal against the people of this country.

Again, this was an invasion of a sovereign country, not a defense against an invader. There is no excuse to justify going in and there's no reason for our soldiers to stay.

If its oil someone wants, let that someone hire Blackwater.

 

[Danoff]

Again, this was an invasion of a sovereign country, not a defense against an invader.

The second part is true, the first part is debatable on several fronts. But a direct military attack isn't the only way that a country can pose a threat to national security - and sometimes you have to seize an opportunity to improve the situation for future generations, even if it means sacrificing a little now.

 

[Omnis]

Right, but doing that is certainly debatable. We didn't have that debate.

 

[Swift]

It was made into law, yes, but I would hardly consider it constitutional.

In all honesty Omnis, this is getting old. HOW was it unconstitutional? Explain it to me or stop making that statement.

No, that is not my point of view. It's the President's duty as commander to defend the nation. Invading Iraq is not and never was defending the nation. They posed zero threat to our national security. Again, if we were worried about them via terrorist proxy, we should have just sealed our borders and camped out in the gulf. Iraq learned its lesson after Kuwait. They were never going to screw with us. Israel would've been the first country to deal with them, anyway.

So, because a specific policy doesn't follow your point of view, it's illegal and unconstitutional?

The UN? Congress serves only the people of America. Every public servant takes on oath to uphold and obey the constitution, not to obey some foreign assembly. UN weapons inspectors found nothing, anyway. Even if the UN did say Iraq was ready to rumble and had nukes out the wazoo, Congress must make its own assessment of the situation and decide for itself whether or not to go to war. Putting the decision making into the hands of any group that does not directly represent the people of this country (the executive branch, the UN, etc.) is a betrayal against the people of this country.

What are you talking about? Congress authorized the use of force BEFORE the invasion. They authorized it. Against the general consent of most other nations. Omnis, seriously, you're NOT stupid but right now you're not even looking at all the info. What is your basis for this continued argument?

 

[Danoff]

Right, but doing that is certainly debatable. We didn't have that debate.

Ok but we don't live in a pure democracy. People do not vote on whether to go to war, they vote for people to make these decisions. The president has the ability to authorize military force, and congress has the authority to yank his funding. None of that broke down.

BTW - are you going to answer my question about where you draw the line in the chain of events? I'd really like to know which of those steps you're not happy with and why.

 

[KSaiyu]

Jumping in again, just saw a theme that was running in the thread on the Israel-Lebanon war

Yes, from where I'm standing. But if I'm an Iraqi civilian who has just been shot in the head by an American soldier who I felt shouldn't be there in the first place, I wouldn't care if it was an accident, because the end result is the same.

This is where I think the confusion is from, it's clear to see his point which is something I tried to bring up in that argument. Speaking objectively then of course it's terrorism, but the last thing you're likely to be when you've been an Iraqi and had to live through this recent war/occupation is just that.

 

[Alfaholic]

The word "terrorist" has a very specific meaning. The goal of a terrorist is to incite unrest and chaos by targeting civilians and creating "terror". Killing civilians is not sufficient, even targeting civilians is not sufficient. The intent is an important part of categorizing the activity as "terrorist".

In the case of the Atomic bomb, the goal was not to create chaos via fear. The was to intimidate our opponent's leaders into surrender via a display of overwhelming military force - not at all the same thing.

If the bomb was just used to display military force, a city crowded with civilians seems an odd place over which to to detonate it. And why two?

Are you seriously suggesting that it's not OK to blow up 100 people in a church, but it's OK to nuke 200000 people in a couple of cities, if your intention is good? If so, who are you to judge that Saddam's intentions when gassing however many thousand people were bad? Or the intentions of a suicide bomber? Just because the intentions of the "terrorists" in Iraq differ from the coalition's, it doesn't make them wrong and us right, or them bad but us good. And it doesn't excuse the actions of either.

The end result is not as important as the intent. Consider, for a moment, a car wreck. Someone is killed. Was it an accident or a murder? If the car wreck was intentional, the action is criminal. If the car wreck was unintentional, the action is accidental. The end result is the same, but there is a world of difference.

If you hit a pedestrian with your car on purpose, we lock you away for a very long time. Do it accidentally and your insurance premiums go through the roof. The reason for this is two-fold. A) One is amoral the other is immoral. B) One means you're still a danger to society, the other means you're just having a really bad day.

Generally speaking, this is a huge mistake that many people make - to only consider the outcome of an event. Intent is everything.

Firstly, I didn't only consider the outcome. Your mistake was to ignore the first part of my paragraph where I agreed that yes, from my point of view, I see a difference. For me, on this side of the fence, the difference is important. If I move to the other side of the fence, the difference becomes irrelevant. Moving on from that:

In your car crash analogy, what happens if the driver's intent was to kill pedestrian A but accidentally missed and killed pedestrian B instead? Will increased premiums still be the worst of my worries? That's what happens when a soldier intentionally pulls a trigger and the wrong person dies.

If intent is everything, then outcome must be nothing. In which case, the coalition has made its point, now stop wasting money and lives and leave, because the end result doesn't matter. Apparently.

But it's not actually working like that is it? What's actually happening is that the troops are staying there, regardless of the cost, until they achieve whatever goal they have, which according to this thread, is to create a western friendly power base in the middle east through which neighbouring states can be influenced / sanctioned / bullied into not harbouring enemies of the USA and its allies. And that, too, is what the opposition are doing. They are fighting to achieve their goal, regardless of the cost. The difference is only in the detail.

Also, intent and action are different. The intent, action and result are all important. None makes the other irrelevent, justified or acceptable. Just because the coalitions intentions in Iraq might be honorable (I'm not saying they are though), doesn't mean that the way it's being achieved is acceptable, or indeed unnacceptable. Similarly, the actions of a terrorist would be deplorable, but that doesn't by default make the terrorist's motivation or intention unjust.

At this point, I'm calling a truce on this discussion. I've run out of the desire to contribute further. I will of course read any replies to this, as well as other contributions to this thread, and thanks Danoff, Foolkiller, Swift and so on for your considered and comprehensive rebuttals and responses. I have read every post and tried to absorb the different angles to the argument, and will continue to do so.

 

[///M-Spec]

I'm pretty much reiterating what I was taught, and for the most part I take Dr. D's stuff as for the most part correct.

Please keep in mind that when I did my assignment for what is developed/not developed, I wasn't marked "correct" or "incorrect," but was instead told to rethink my assessments of Iran, Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Israel (to some extent).

I'm really not looking for an argument, but I figured it was worth discussing that there are very different definitions as to what is "developed" and what is not.

I'm not looking for an argument either. Just for a consistent message and the data to support it. Not much to ask is it?

Can you produce some facts to support your original statement? That there aren't any developed countries in the Middle East (not even in the slightest) and that everyone there is poor? That's all I want, really.


M

 

[Danoff]

At this point, I'm calling a truce on this discussion. I've run out of the desire to contribute further. I will of course read any replies to this, as well as other contributions to this thread, and thanks Danoff, Foolkiller, Swift and so on for your considered and comprehensive rebuttals and responses. I have read every post and tried to absorb the different angles to the argument, and will continue to do so.

Thanks for contributing. I’ll try to clear up a few things here.

If the bomb was just used to display military force, a city crowded with civilians seems an odd place over which to to detonate it. And why two?

The second was to prove that we could do it again – not a one-shot deal. But you’re right that it would have been an effective display of military force even if it hadn’t killed a single person. We only had two though (to the best of my knowledge), so we had to make them count for more militarily than taking out a couple of field mice. Overall, those bombs probably saved more lives than they killed. They brought about a very abrupt peace. Though, that doesn't justify their use inherently, their use was justified by earlier actions. Anyway, it doesn’t fit the definition of terrorism.

Are you seriously suggesting that it's not OK to blow up 100 people in a church, but it's OK to nuke 200000 people in a couple of cities, if your intention is good?

That’s not really what I was trying to say. I was saying that intention is critical for interpreting morality, but you’re right, I probably did overstep. Morality is not entirely determined by intention. I was in no way attempting to advocate that the ends justify the means. Rather the opposite.

The truth of the matter is that the ends can only truly be justified by the beginnings. But intent can render the outcome amoral when it would appear from the outcome that some immoral act was perpetrated.

I’ll go back to my car example. If you kill someone with your car, it would appear that some immoral act was done. If you did it accidentally, the ends are not “justified” so much as they are rendered amoral (neglecting criminal negligence naturally). The only way you can justify killing someone with your car is if that person had already done something/was doing something to you that justified it. Say, for example, the person was pointing a gun at you and telling you to unlock your door. In that instance I’d say the beginnings (their threat of your life) justified the ends (killing them with your car). That renders the act moral, but it isn’t intention that does so.

If so, who are you to judge that Saddam's intentions when gassing however many thousand people were bad? Or the intentions of a suicide bomber?

It isn’t so, so I don’t need to respond to this.

Just because the intentions of the "terrorists" in Iraq differ from the coalition's, it doesn't make them wrong and us right, or them bad but us good. And it doesn't excuse the actions of either.

One could argue that terrorism is inherently immoral – that it cannot be justified because of its goal. But I’m not sure I want to make that argument, so I’ll just say that I don’t disagree with any of that. A difference in goal (which I'm distinguishing from intent below) in-and-of-itself does not justify the actions of either party.

However, in this specific case, the goal of the terrorists in Iraq actually do justify the coalition response.

In your car crash analogy, what happens if the driver's intent was to kill pedestrian A but accidentally missed and killed pedestrian B instead? Will increased premiums still be the worst of my worries? That's what happens when a soldier intentionally pulls a trigger and the wrong person dies.

Depends on whether you were justified in killing pedestrian A. If you weren’t, you’re both negligent AND an attempted murderer. Otherwise you’re just negligent.

If intent is everything, then outcome must be nothing. In which case, the coalition has made its point, now stop wasting money and lives and leave, because the end result doesn't matter. Apparently.

Well, to a certain extent, US law actually functions in this manner. If you don’t actually break a law, but you intend to break the law, you’re guilty of attempted “whatever law it is you were trying to break”. However, intent isn’t literally everything, and I shouldn’t exaggerate like that in this format. Attempting to kill someone doesn’t have the same penalty as actually doing it.

What I should have said instead of “intent is everything” is “intent is a requirement”. You have to understand intent in order to properly categorize a particular action. That doesn’t mean that you can’t figure anything out without knowing intent, or that you can figure everything out without knowing anything else – but it does mean that it is a critical piece of coming to a complete understanding of the situation.

What's actually happening is that the troops are staying there, regardless of the cost, until they achieve whatever goal they have, which according to this thread, is to create a western friendly power base in the middle east through which neighbouring states can be influenced / sanctioned / bullied into not harbouring enemies of the USA and its allies. And that, too, is what the opposition are doing. They are fighting to achieve their goal, regardless of the cost. The difference is only in the detail.

The devil is in the details. These “details” you refer to contain the entire moral justification for the actions listed above.

Also, intent and action are different. The intent, action and result are all important. None makes the other irrelevent, justified or acceptable.

Just because the coalitions intentions in Iraq might be honorable (I'm not saying they are though), doesn't mean that the way it's being achieved is acceptable, or indeed unnacceptable. Similarly, the actions of a terrorist would be deplorable, but that doesn't by default make the terrorist's motivation or intention unjust.

There’s a great deal of confusion about the point I was trying to make in this paragraph. I obviously need to clarify my point.

When I refer to intent, I don’t mean the goal. It’s an easy mistake to make… in fact, I’m not 100% sure I haven’t done that somewhere above. When I refer to intent, I’m distinguishing between whether an action was intentional or accidental. I do not mean to imply that a particular goal can render an action moral. The ends never justify the means. Keep in mind that that doesn’t rule out justifying the means some other way.

 

[Omnis]

So, because a specific policy doesn't follow your point of view, it's illegal and unconstitutional?

Pretty much, yeah. What can I say? I don't think it's right even if it's legal and many others think the same.

What are you talking about? Congress authorized the use of force BEFORE the invasion. They authorized it. Against the general consent of most other nations. Omnis, seriously, you're NOT stupid but right now you're not even looking at all the info. What is your basis for this continued argument?

I understand that. I just disagree with it. I'm just fed up with congress and how they granted authorization in the first place when the pretenses for going in were not justified. Which leads me to danoff's post...

Ok but we don't live in a pure democracy. People do not vote on whether to go to war, they vote for people to make these decisions. The president has the ability to authorize military force, and congress has the authority to yank his funding. None of that broke down.

BTW - are you going to answer my question about where you draw the line in the chain of events? I'd really like to know which of those steps you're not happy with and why.

I'm primarily upset with how much money and how many lives this war is costing. Almost a trillion dollars is pretty insane. On second thought, it might be best that we do hijack their oil.

But, let's get back to the reasons for going in:

1. Iraq had WMDs; and, 2. UN Resolutions.
Nobody could find any WMDs. UN Weapons inspectors (UNMOVIC, etc.) finally had cooperation in Iraq in 2003 before the US invaded. link
Ambassadors from the US, UK, and Syria also affirmed that the UN resolutions were not triggers for war, nor was automatic war even a consideration for the resolutions.

Finally, we went in and the mission was to rid Iraq of all WMDs. But, wait a minute. In spite of all of this, why would Congress not pull the plug before going in? Why wouldn't they set the timeframe and the budget according to the mission so we could get in, declare mission accomplished, and get out? By giving the Prez the authority to create a never-ending police-state in Iraq while making us a welfare-warfare state is not what I think is right. I don't think Iraq can ever get off the ground if we keep standing over it. I just don't think any of it was right. Neither does Kofi Annan.

I feel terrible for Iraq, but I just don't think occupying the land will do any good either.

Feel free to rebut further.

 

[Swift]

Omnis, as I said earlier, I don't think you're stupid. But you're presenting your argument in a very stupid way.

You keep repeating the term "unconstitutional" when there was nothing unconstitutional about this conflict. Nothing! It's all your point of view. Now, if you don't like it for whatever reasons, that's perfectly fine and your right as an American citizen. But it doesn't make it any more or less unconstitutional just because you don't like it. Do you agree on that particular statement?

 

[Danoff]

I'm primarily upset with how much money and how many lives this war is costing.

Ok, go back to that trail of events and tell me what you'd have done differently.

1. Iraq had WMDs; and, 2. UN Resolutions.
Nobody could find any WMDs. UN Weapons inspectors (UNMOVIC, etc.) finally had cooperation in Iraq in 2003 before the US invaded. link
Ambassadors from the US, UK, and Syria also affirmed that the UN resolutions were not triggers for war, nor was automatic war even a consideration for the resolutions.

Finally, we went in and the mission was to rid Iraq of all WMDs. But, wait a minute. In spite of all of this, why would Congress not pull the plug before going in? Why wouldn't they set the timeframe and the budget according to the mission so we could get in, declare mission accomplished, and get out? By giving the Prez the authority to create a never-ending police-state in Iraq while making us a welfare-warfare state is not what I think is right. I don't think Iraq can ever get off the ground if we keep standing over it. I just don't think any of it was right. Neither does Kofi Annan.

Was this a response to me? I don't remember ever using either of those justifications for invasion. Since when did UN membership usurp US sovereignty?

 

[Omnis]

Omnis, as I said earlier, I don't think you're stupid. But you're presenting your argument in a very stupid way.

You keep repeating the term "unconstitutional" when there was nothing unconstitutional about this conflict. Nothing! It's all your point of view. Now, if you don't like it for whatever reasons, that's perfectly fine and your right as an American citizen. But it doesn't make it any more or less unconstitutional just because you don't like it. Do you agree on that particular statement?

Yeah, I do. But, my point in saying that "it" was unconstitutional regards such heavy power being given to the executive branch. Between the Military Commissions Act and the Patriot Act and the war, you have to question what Congress is doing and compare it to the original intent of our social contract. I don't think Congress should be deferring so much to the executive branch, which is why I'm saying they're acting unconstitutionally.

 

[Omnis]

Ok, go back to that trail of events and tell me what you'd have done differently.



Was this a response to me? I don't remember ever using either of those justifications for invasion. Since when did UN membership usurp US sovereignty?

That's what the government used as justifications for invasion. I would've appreciated going in for treaty violations, but only if Congress came in on the matter and set some standards and benchmarks adding some transparency to the war costs and the whole operation. I'd rather they had enacted some type of war tax to pay for everything rather than insidiously borrowing and printing. Then they could've sent "the surge" to begin with, getting the job done before the people here rebel. Oil interests could've hired Blackwater USA or similar contractors to be a part of the coalition.

Otherwise, we could always stay out of binding treaties in the first place.

Saving the world would be nice if we could afford it.

 

[Danoff]

That's what the government used as justifications for invasion. I would've appreciated going in for treaty violations but...

Consider it the case then. That the justification exists is more important than whether Bush used it in a speech.

Otherwise, we could always stay out of binding treaties in the first place.

What we did with Iraq after Gulf War I was similar to what we did with Japan after WWII. Are you saying that we should not have had a treaty there either? They're incredibly useful and can save lives and tax dollars as long as they carry some weight.

Saving the world would be nice if we could afford it.

It's not something I think we should be doing.

 

[KSaiyu]

I understand that. I just disagree with it. I'm just fed up with congress and how they granted authorization in the first place when the pretenses for going in were not justified. Which leads me to danoff's post...

Unfortunately it was still constitutional, no matter how murky the details are.

Yeah, I do. But, my point in saying that "it" was unconstitutional regards such heavy power being given to the executive branch. Between the Military Commissions Act and the Patriot Act and the war, you have to question what Congress is doing and compare it to the original intent of our social contract. I don't think Congress should be deferring so much to the executive branch, which is why I'm saying they're acting unconstitutionally.

Correct me if I'm wrong, I'm definetly no expect in American governments but isn't that just a disagreement on your part towards the way you're country is set up for this kind of decision making? For it to be unconstitutional musntn't there be a rule against it beforehand....?

 

[Swift]

Yeah, I do. But, my point in saying that "it" was unconstitutional regards such heavy power being given to the executive branch. Between the Military Commissions Act and the Patriot Act and the war, you have to question what Congress is doing and compare it to the original intent of our social contract. I don't think Congress should be deferring so much to the executive branch, which is why I'm saying they're acting unconstitutionally.

I think you have a warped view of what is and isn't constitutional. What president Bush has done is but a fraction of what FDR did during WWII.

Are you really saying just because congress said, "We declare war" that everything else was OK? Just because of three words it's constitutional? Come on.

At any time congress could defund the war. Thereby checking the so-called overpowered president. I'm just not seeing anything even remotely close to unconstitutional. You simply don't "like" it.

Of course, I'm still blown away by the fact you advocate sitting back and waiting for us to be attacked, but that's for another thread.

 

[Omnis]

Of course, I'm still blown away by the fact you advocate sitting back and waiting for us to be attacked, but that's for another thread.

Don't put words in my mouth. I advocate national defense, not invasions. What's stopping us from being blown away when our borders are wide open?