I grow tired of pundits on both sides claiming moral superiority over their opponents.
Every day, I hear liberals say that we have a “moral obligation” to pull the American troops out from Iraq. And no sooner have I rolled my eyes at that do I hear a neoconservative proclaim that there was an “ethical obligation” to invade. Funny how both sides can invoke the same rationale to support their positions.
Morality and ethics are in the eye of the beholder. Is it so necessary for the liberals and the conservatives to justify their feelings with appeals to morality? Is it so impossible for them to say that their opinions are based on their own personal needs, without invoking the idea of a “higher calling”?
I’m neither for nor against the war. What I am against is the notion that one has to have a moral reason to take any sort of action.
Saddam needed to be removed. I think we have a moral obligation to stay becuase withdrawing would create another Afghanistan. Years of civil war would ensue followed by another Islamo-Fascist state. We broke Iraq and now we have to fix it.
What moral system are you operating under here? The same goes for the rest of the republicans just like it goes for the liberals. I think what H is trying to point out here is that these words ‘moral’ ‘ethical’ ‘terrorist’ are psychological trigger words which are used to draw attention, but are in turn never really defined in any real sense. By the definition of ‘terrorist’ as it exists in any standard dictionary, the US has comitted more acts then the rest of the ‘terrorist world’ (Al-Qaeda, etc) combined – this is a public fact expounded on by the good old statician Noam Chomsky.
For instance the Utilitarian would say that Iraq has been nothing more than illogical dance to the tune of ‘get killed’. However an ethical system which operates on a ‘get yours at the expense of those skinny kids who just died’ dynamic is quite different. The latter is what stands behind Bush’s term ‘freedom’.
I understand what you are saying, I understand the meaning of the post and I was well aware that I used the phrase moral obligation in my post. All I know is that pulling out immediatley would cause more pain and suffering in the years to come than if we were to stay. Running will cause more problems, but staying and fixing the problem will be wonderful. Another democracy in the Middle East. Of course it wont be perfect, but it’s a step.
Well, one can assume that there’ll be a vacuum of power, the fear being that Islamist militants or fundamentalists might take over.
Of course, it fully suited the US for this to happen in Afghanistan, but in Iraq? They won’t pull out. You don’t build military bases in a country you only intend to occupy temporarily.
Now that you mention Afghanistan that brings up an interesting point. The same thing that happened in Post-Soviet Afghanistan will happen in Iraq is we pull out without making sure that the Iraqis have things under control.
We build military bases becuase that’s what everyone does when they occupy a country for a period of time unknown to them.
The insurgents are not relinquishing, so what’s really worse:
Continuing to loose troops and engage in urban warfare
Letting the force that’s going to continue to be there just take over, and end this war at least.
The fact of the matter is this, at least in my mind: Iraq is genuinely fucked… it’s a pretty haggard place right now with a lot going on, but that’s no different from tons of other places. The US cannot simply shape the world into whatever image it wants, and in trying to do so more people are going to die. This is about money plain and simple… Iraq wasn’t even that bad off comparitively to the rest of the world, they have a higher literacy rate than the US does!! With places like Haiti and other shitshow hell on earth locations, the whole ‘Saddam was a bad guy’ argument looses a lot of steam.
Imagine if the US just backed out and said ‘We’re sorry… we were wrong, again’? It’s not that they don’t have the capacity to defend themselves, it’s that they don’t have the money to sustain themselves, lol.
If the US pulls out there will be another bloodbath, similar to what occured in Nam. Blood is being spilled now, but the level will probably pale in comparison if we leave.
The Sunni, Shia and Kurds will be at each others throats attempting to gain power/war lord status over the region. They will really fight where the oil is.
The Iraqis simply have to work this out, and simply are not strong enough to effectively do this at this time.
One poster mentioned the building going on. Right, we are building bases and constructiong a huge “embassy” in Iraq. Bush has no plans on completly leaving. The area is too militarily, strategially and politically important. He has positioned himself in the most strategic country in the Middle-East. We are sitting on Iran, Syria, Kuwait’s doorstep. If we and the Iraqis can stabilize the region, no much will occur without our knowledge.
Those defenders of the failed Iraq policy, what they
really advocate is stay and pray. You stay and then pray
like hell it all works out in the end. There is no plan
to win the peace, no plan to win the war and no exit plan.
That is the recipe for failure. I just read the congressional
office of budget I believe, has said that we have currently spent,
to right now, a half a trillion dollars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
500 billion dollars in those two countries in less then 4 years.
Do you know what we could have done with 500 billion
dollars? We could have funded (among other things)
universal health care, collage for anyone who wanted it,
we have spent half the amount the the United Nations say
is needed to end extreme poverty around the WORLD,
we could end the needless deaths of over 10 million people
in the world with decent medical care in Africa and asia,
we could end malaria in Africa forever with only 100 million
dollars, we could improve every school on planet earth,
we could also pay the education of millions of doctors,
teachers, nurses the world over.
So offer us the failed policy of stay and pray.
I would rather us spend the money on policies
that really would end the war on terror by ending people’s
poverty. That is one great solution for ending the war on terror.
End the poverty that drive people to terrorism. Give people
positive choices for their lives and you end terrorism.
Anyway, the funny thing is that both sides believe that the source of morality is on their side, never realizing it only seems so because they make it so.
Hierophant: “Funny how both sides can invoke the same rationale to support their positions.”
Well, that is because both of the parties are really the same; when you get past all of the partisan politics to what is really happening in this country, that is.
Yep, it is about power and control Many of these “leaders” are rich and are in this for power. This includes Democrats too folks. The Senate has a huge number of millionairs, then there is Rummy, he is in the big bucks league. Kennedys’ are rich as well.
Bunch of corrupt!@##$%%^ Clinton now makes huge profits from his speeches. Remember, how the Democrats screamed regarding Reagan earning 2 million for two 30 minute speeches in Japan. They sure are quiet regarding Clinton.
[quote=“Peter Kropotkin”]
Those defenders of the failed Iraq policy, what they really advocate is stay and pray. You stay and then pray
like hell it all works out in the end. There is no plan
to win the peace, no plan to win the war and no exit plan.
That is the recipe for failure. I just read the congressional
office of budget I believe, has said that we have currently spent,
to right now, a half a trillion dollars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
500 billion dollars in those two countries in less then 4 years.
Do you know what we could have done with 500 billion
dollars? We could have funded (among other things)
universal health care, collage for anyone who wanted it,
we have spent half the amount the the United Nations say
is needed to end extreme poverty around the WORLD,
we could end the needless deaths of over 10 million people
in the world with decent medical care in Africa and asia,
we could end malaria in Africa forever with only 100 million
dollars, we could improve every school on planet earth,
we could also pay the education of millions of doctors,
teachers, nurses the world over.
So offer us the failed policy of stay and pray.
I would rather us spend the money on policies
that really would end the war on terror by ending people’s
poverty. That is one great solution for ending the war on terror.
End the poverty that drive people to terrorism. Give people
positive choices for their lives and you end terrorism.
I couldn’t agree more. Choosing to use force and might is one of the major failures of the “war on terror.” Economic exploitation gives rise to terrorism. The Europeans know this all too well, which is precisely why the US alienated them so when the they chose to define the “enemy” on its own as “they.” It would have been wise to consult with the Europeans on two fronts: 1) as mentioned above, they have been dealing with terrorism for many many years and could have been a source of tremendous support and direction; 2) the U.S. and the Europeans together could have shared in the definition of “threat” and “enemy.” But no; instead, the U.S. decides to declare this mighty war on terrorism on its own, fails to consult with other parts of the world, and declares “either you are with us or against us.” Well I guess for others in the world, namely Europe, that don’t share in the definition of the threat and the scope of the enemy, well, they are with the terrorists. BRILLIANT!
I’m pissed… I will start a separate thread on the failures of the war on terrorism.
Joseph, do you really believe we can negotiate with terrorists. Your claim regarding economic enfranchisement appears to be a bit off, as Atta, bin Laden, Arafat are/were well-educated and middle-class. Have you read MEMRI? Have you read what many Muslim’s claim The site that has some insight is Nonie Darwish’s Arabs for Israel. She knows the lies as she was raised in Egypt.
These choice bits from today, are from a Muslim who claims to be a sophomore at Georgetown, and he is not unique on the board.
I didn’t say anything about negotiating with terrorists. I spoke of the need and benefit of consulting with the countries of Europe regarding the nature of the threat and the categorization of the “enemy.” As for my statements regarding economic exploitation, I will delve into it in more detail when I start my thread on the “war on terrorism.” But I will say this now: merely saying that my comments regarding economic disenfranchisement appear to be a bit off, clearly falls short of establishing that the comments are meritless.
![[img=http://img207.imageshack.us/img207/8607/pershing6wn.th.jpg]](http://img207.imageshack.us/my.php?image=pershing6wn.jpg){kind=link}