The point I've been trying to make all these months is that we should focus on the war itself (the act) and not (solely) on the motives, beliefs, intentions, or reasons of President Bush. The whole article is a red herring. I actually wonder if the professor is laughing at his dishonest slight of hand. His whole artilce is actually an attempt to deflect attention from the war itself, (the act). The author is trying to get others to not question his assumption that the war (the act) was good. Therefore all we have to decide is the side issue of whether the motives or lies of Bush somehow negate an otherwise good war. 1) The war was evil ITSELF. It doesn't really matter whether Dubya lied or even if he did it out of the noblest and purest of intentions. Of course it would make opponents have more sympathy for Bush personally if they thought he didn't lie and do the war for other than his stated reasons. 2) Too many people were killed and are still being killed needlessly in the war. The good or justice to be achieved did not justify the instablility in the world, the probable increase in terrorism and the continuing deaths of thousands and thousands of innocents. 3) The lies of Bush are mainly relevant as they show from the beginning that the good to be achieved by the war was lacking. Only by lying could you attempt to justify the war.
"2) Too many people were killed and are still being killed needlessly in the war. The good or justice to be achieved did not justify the instablility in the world, the probable increase in terrorism and the continuing deaths of thousands and thousands of innocents." Can you cite how you made this evaluation? How many people could reasonably be sacrificed to overthrow a murderous tyraynt?How many potential torture victims saved does it take to equal one innocent victim? I believe it is the duty of free people to support the liberation of subjagated people every where. Dubya's administration certainly failed in their articulation of the justification for the invasion of Iraq but the nobleness of our and the Iraqi people's scarifice should never be questioned.
Can you cite how you made this evaluation? How many people could reasonably be sacrificed to overthrow a murderous tyraynt? Are you saying that no matter what the cost a murderous tyrant should be overthrown? Noble, but simplistic and misguided. Are you aware that many murderous tyrants have been overthrown without so much bloodshed? We have over 500,000 Iraqis killed between the two wars and the sanctions which were designed to overthrown Sadam. Can't you see that it isn't really for Bush, or his loyal followers to decide how many thousands of Iraqi lives are an ok cost?
Sishir Chang, True the US government is in republic form and allows for political manipulation by minority groups. But with a free press they are held to public scrutiny and changeable. The idea of democracy is certainly our moral directive but would be as yet impractical to implement. However with the proliferation of information technology it may not be so in the near future Also, I would say that the apathy of the American voter does not render our government immoral. Quite the contrary, it is a tacit approval that the course of our government is within the bounds of their approval. Our system's inherent checks and balances make radical actions virtually impossible but, should some radical proposal be imposed I think you would see a response by a majority of the American people.
Glych, I am not so naive as to say all tyrants must be overthrown no matter what the cost. As in all things, evaluations and compromises must be made. I'm just wondering how we make them. Bosnia felt right, Panama felt right, The UN not coming to the aid in Ruwanda felt wrong, invading North Korea feels wrong but I would support the assisnation of Kim Il Jong, supporting the overthrow of the Saudi Princes feels wrong but pressuring them publically and economically to support a democratic government feels right. There is just no empircal evaluations so we just have to argue it out and come to a consensus. I feel like in Iraq , Saddam was such a visable and egregious example that we are justified in our actions. My fear is though is that Saddam was not evil in himself but was only doing what was required to bring order within the boundries of an arbitrarily assembled country. That the animosities among the peoples could only be reigned in by the appearance of an omnipotent power. Will civil order ever be possible in a land passionate religeon, historical conflicts and no central identity? ( see it's great to be a liberal, you get to second guess yourself)
This artice is the reason why I originally supported the war. I felt that we would have good result even if the reasons and motivation weren't all just. My stance has changed. One very important question must be asked of the writer of this article: the crux of the argument is that the war is just if the result is good. Aren't we premature in saying we have a good result? We still have a chance for successfully creating a secular democracy there, which I hope and pray dearly will come. The people of Iraq have been in a somewhat secular country for a long time now, and certainly moderate in religion compared to their neighbors Saudi, Iran, Afghanistan, and Syria. They will welcome self-rule, and have enough infrastructure in place and income from massive oil fields to rebuild their country. But conditions are not good in Iraq. I won't even discuss basic infrastructure like bombed buildings, water and electricity. Basic safety is gone. Crime is rampant. On any given day Iraqis must worry if another massive car bomb will rip through their city, or another firefight in their streets. How long will the insurgency last? If/when the insurgency is gone, will foreign terrorists and Al Queda cells continue bombings? Will they continue attacks if/when an Iraqi democracy is in place and the americans are gone because they are a "western" government? Will the Kurds form and independent state in the north? Will radical right-wing religious leaders gain major posts of leadership? Even if you support this idea of a just war judged by ends instead of motivations, you still have a lot of waiting before you can call this just. They're out from under Saddam, but they've got other fears now. Furthermore, even if you found this war to be just, it still could have been done in a much better way. Bush should have waited and continued pressure. He should have formed a stonger coalition with UN approval. I'm dumbfounded by the way we rushed into this. What if we at least waited long enough to get Turkey on our side so we could have invaded on two fronts? Can you imagine how much shorter the war would have been if we invded from the north and from the gulf simultaneously? Diplomatically, this was just handled idiotically.
Coming To A Mall Near You: JU$T WAR The phrase <b>"Just War,"</b> used in reference to the battle being waged in Afghanistan, is beginning to resonate, not as a deep philosophical concept, but like the names of those specialty stores you find in shopping malls: "Just Lamps," "Just Bulbs," "Just Paper." In fact, <b>"Just War"</b> turns out to be an eerily accurate marquee for the little shop known as the United States of America. War, to the increasing exclusion of everything else, is the only thing that America collectively cares about anymore. We don't manufacture much of anything, <b>Just War</b>. We don't concern ourselves with education; <b>Just War</b>. We don't attend to the 40 million Americans without health coverage; <b>Just War. We don't' support the arts;<b> Just War</b>. Even though a multitude of human needs were in existence prior to September 11, and have only increased since then we continue to direct our attention and our resources into what we do best; <b>Just War. </b> Need a billion dollars for the military? No problem. Need an extra $40 billion for the war on terrorism? Here it is. Need a blank check to pursue an undeclared struggle with unexplained means and undefined ends. You got it, because that's what America is all about, <b>Just War</b>. America is the biggest supplier of conventional weapons. America's the biggest supplier of torture weapons. America manufactures and exports terrorists at its School of the Americas (now the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation). America exports violent entertainment around the globe. Prison construction remains one of our top industries. Global slavery is the secret behind our economic success. The military remains our biggest budget item. Whether it's war on people of color overseas, or war on our rights at home, that's what we're all about: <b>Just War. </b>
This is so off base that I wouldn't know where to begin to refute it. Did you intend to say the twenty-first century?? Which historical record are you referring to? The Japanese may have gone to war with us for economic reasons, but that is not your argument. Let's see... WWI, for economic reasons? WWII... you're kidding, right? Korea?? You're not helping your argument here. Just so you'll know where I'm coming from, I'm a Democrat who thinks Bush (junior) is one of the worst presidents of the modern era.
A good answer to my comment and I will admit I figured that was what you meant but I like playing Devil's Advocate too much to let a comment like saying "when a minority rules over a majority that is immoral." I will play Devil's Advocate further though by saying that democracy itself doesn't guarentee morality because it is still possible for an immoral government to come to power even through democracy or for the majority to use majority rule to behave immorally towards a minority. For example Hitler's government came to power through democratic means and in many places democractic governments have willingly repressed and killed minority groups with the approval of the majority of the population.
That's fine and good that it felt right that Saddam was overthrown but what do you base your feeling on? Even now there are other repressive dictators out there who don't get the coverage that Saddam does or in the case of North Korea get as much coverage yet are offered negotiations instead of war. There are more egregious human rights violations, for instance warring groups have been engaged in canabalism in Congo, that barely register on the Admin or the US in general radar screen. The problem that I have with the argument that "it feels right to overthrow Saddam" is that in regards to a moral imperative to overthrow Saddam for being evil looks very arbitrary when compared to how many evil regimes there are out there. A justification of moral rightness regarding overthrowing Saddam while not overthrowing every other evil regime is what conservatives (not necessarily you) most hate. It is relative. From the US's POV Saddam was the most evil regime out there because while others may act in the same way as Saddam, Saddam was the one who had the most recent history of conflict with the US and so was relatively more evil than say Turkmenistan.
