Why we SHOULD have invaded Iraq

[Sava]

Originally posted by GP
That is probably a more reasonable argument. I would only add that the very real threat of force was needed to get the inspections going. And that the French/German enthusiasm for the inspections seemed more to be as a means of stopping US going to war than out of interest in constraining Saddam.

I agree with you. The threat of force was needed. And don't think that I am on the side of the French or Germans. They were certainly mostly concerned with their own interests. It was just a coincidence that their plan happened to make the most sense. If anything, I'm more upset that Bush couldn't get the UN behind him. Eventually, some sort of military action was necessary. I just wanted it at the right time with the rest of the world taking on more of the cost. Now, the US is stuck with the bill.

[GePap]

Re: Why we SHOULD have invaded Iraq

Originally posted by skywalker
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.

A couple of issue with this:

One: we can't install liberal democracy. A government installed is by definition not a liberal democracy. We can lay the foundations for it, which takes time.

Two: What is the right thing? If you say: removing a dictatorisl gov. is the right thing, i agree. But how? Does the US have the power in and of itself to classify and then change reigmes? What gives us that authority?
Moe importantly, what gives the executive branch of a dmoecratic state that legitimacy? What if the people of said country don't want to bear the long-term costs of this policy? And do other states have the same right to classify the enemy, the evil, and destroy it?

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.

And what is our ability to do so? Overthrowing regimes is the easy part. As I stated, we can't install democracy, we cna only lay foundations, and that takes time.

I can;t argue that basic moral ligoc here, as I agree with it. But I do think the great, fatal flaw in this lies with the desire of the people, the foundation upon which your moral call toa ction lies, this being a dmocracy, does not share it one bit. It is easy to talk this way, it is easy to say: hey! Lets just go for it, but going for it has costs, great costs that the people might be unwilling to bear. And then there is an added danger: what if you were wrong?

I think Russia in 1917 is a great example. Why did the provisional goevrnemnt of Kerresnky stay in the war? He had plenty of both moral and practical reasons for why Russia should keep in the fight against Germany. But in the end this doomed his government and allowed the Bolsheviks to come to power. And what about the Bolsheviks? Did they knowingly want a terible dictatorship in Russia? were they nothing but greedy egotists seeking to enslave? Or where they driven moralist of your vain, seeking to maximize good and bring liberty tot he world?

You say this Skywalker, and my question to you is: how much will YOU as an individual, be willing to give to this endeavor? Would you support tax increases (or keeping tex rates as are) to pay for the susbtantial cost the enterprise you support costs? Would you think of, after your education is over, seeking positions overseas to actively particiapet in what you call "our responsibility"
If not, then ho can you expect others to bear a burden yuo won;t? And if so, how do you act at a time when most wouldn't follow your lead?

[Kuciwalker]

Yup. I want to do ROTC, and be career military.

My posting's probably going to be somewhere behind the front lines, unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on how you look at it ). I'd be a LOT more useful in the R&D sorta stuff than at the front lines.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Originally posted by Sava


There were three possible solutions to the problem of Iraq:
Do nothing (bad)
Stall and slowly choke Saddam (the best solution)
Play cowboy and invade (get's rid of Saddam, but creates bigger problems)

What's done is done. But the US continues to screw the pooch. Hopefully things will still be managable in 2004. Then America can hang a "Under New Management" sign on the door and begin to fix the problems Dubya has created.

[GePap]

Originally posted by skywalker
Yup. I want to do ROTC, and be career military.

My posting's probably going to be somewhere behind the front lines, unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on how you look at it ). I'd be a LOT more useful in the R&D sorta stuff than at the front lines.

And how will beign in the military make you worthwhile to install the basic foundations of dmeocracy? Fine, yuo will be able to "kill the bad guys", but what about creating a new judicial system? Who does that, and who would military training make you capable at all of doing so?

The great part of what you want to do is not military, never will be (for if it has to be, then obviously we have failed)

[Kuciwalker]

You twisted an answer to a question as to my dedication into some sort of perverted proof of my inability. I never claimed it qualified me to lecture you on morals. It's proof that I BELIEVE the morals. You're mudslinging.

[GePap]

Mudsligging? My oh me, we are taking a a cue from fez, aren'we?

Its nice to see you want to dedicate your life to serving your country..but you advocate a plan of action that calls for an immese effort from the whole society. You didn't fully answer my question, which was:

And if so, how do you act at a time when most wouldn't follow your lead?

Do you believe the average American wants to partake in some mission to change the world? And if not, then how could such a mission suceed? You see Skywalker, you (or any individual) is simply not enough. The question is, is the NATION ready to do so? That is the question that matters.

[Sava]

Gepap

One of the biggest problems with spreading Democracy to the Middle East is their culture. For over a thousand years these people have lived under Theocratic and Authoritarian rule. You can't expect to install a Western Democracy in a country where the people don't want it. Democracy is something the people have to decide they want. My avatar is a perfect example of this. And this is why deposing Saddam in this way was a bad idea.

I see only two possibilities at this point.
A US puppet regime (bad idea)
An Islamic government (bad idea)

If you let the people decide, they will choose Islam.

The best solution would be to inspire tolerant Democratic elements in the region, but this will take time. And that's why the whole Cowboy strategy was bad.

Another mistake that America is making is that they are not taking history into account. Ever since the crusades, western powers have invaded the Middle East. They don't make the distinction between the freedom loving Americans and the Theocratic Crusaders of the Middle Ages. And Mr. Bush, pro-war people, and just about everybody else in America is ignorant to this fact. And this point is extremely relevant to most aspects of American foreign policy. You can't act like a cowboy. And you certainly can't treat Korea the same way. The Koreans also have a history of fighting against invading foreign powers. Why do you think they would seee the US any different than the Mongols or Imperial Japanese. You and I might know better, but they don't. And we need a foreign policy that is best suited to these facts,

[Q Classic]

this entire reason of deposing saddam for human rights violations is valid, but it only holds water because
a) saddam is a nasty mothafvcker
b) saddam is (in)famous/notorious
c) saddam is relatively easy to take care of

mugabe is black and not very famous.
kim jong il isn't easy to off.
shevardnadze who?
gaddafi and khatami are sooo 1980s.
hu jintao isn't a nasty motherfvcker.
castro is more funny than anything else.
and chirac is far too easy to take care of.

[Kuciwalker]

I think that we should stay in there for a LONG time, like we did in Japan. With patience it will work.

GePap - sorry, I didn't see the question. I still don't quite understand it. If you mean, how would I act if America wouldn't follow me, then, well, I'd try to convince people to my side, but if they aren't convinced, well, it won't happen. I'm not going to go on some mad crusade - because it ISN'T part of what I've been advocating in this thread. On my own, I do not have the capability to do this, therefore it is not my responsibility to do it alone.

If you meant, what would you do if the Iraqis didn't want me, I'd stay in there a long time, leave it under a military governor, basically repeat what we did in Germany and Japan after WWII. It seems to have worked, so I think it's the best approach.

[Kuciwalker]

q cubed - lol at Chirac

[yago]

An Islamic government

I don't see why this should be a bad idea. A democratic Goverment in the middle east has to develop from an islamic goverment. I can see no other way.

Anyway, the west is not a good example. Most countries in the West (especially the US) are pretty "christian". They put weird crosses on their flags or have things like school-prayer. I don't see, how someone from the west can explain someone from the east, when the west does it, it' s ok, when the east does it, it's not.

And no Iran-Bashing. Iran has democratic flower that blossoms. Coming from an Islamic Goverment. We would be better off to support Islamic-Democracy, than to push them into Islamic-Despotism.

[Kuciwalker]

The problem with an Islamic government is because it would enforce Islam AS the law. At least in the West the bible isn't the code of laws.

[cinch]

I have a question about the whole "Crusade For Democracy" idea. That is, taking out brutal dictators worldwide, and 'installing' liberal democracies. Where does it stop?

I certainly wouldn't shed a tear if the Yanks went into Zimbabwe tomorrow, but at what point does a 'brutal dictator' become a 'benign dictator'? Or, rather, how do you deal with dictators who will fight back a little harder than Saddam?

Say, the New American Century folks get their way, for the most part: That means "regime change" in Iraq, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Libya... maybe Zimbabwe, if they feel like it. Then you come to North Korea. Defuse that, and who's the biggest, baddest bastard in town? China (heck, they're arguably the FIRST America should have gone after, if we're speaking from a purely humanitarian standpoint). And then what? Declare war on China?

No, the Americans would never do that. So does it just end, there? You spend a good number of years in near-continuous war, liberating peoples after peoples... and then just stop, because there's nowhere left to liberate?

Or do you move on to the socialist or otherwise unfavourable democracies? I just think the massive militarisation of American culture (even more so than now) that would be needed for such a full-scale campaign would require fundamental changes in gov't and society, which would be hard to just 'switch off' once the 'last' despot worth caring about is deposed.

But I'm just thinking out loud (?) here.

[Kuciwalker]

I certainly wouldn't shed a tear if the Yanks went into Zimbabwe tomorrow, but at what point does a 'brutal dictator' become a 'benign dictator'?

I assume you're talking about a military governor. Well, it becomes a "benign dictator" when it is subject to the will of a democratic regime and is working for the betterment of the country of which it is a dictator.

Say, the New American Century folks get their way, for the most part: That means "regime change" in Iraq, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Libya... maybe Zimbabwe, if they feel like it. Then you come to North Korea. Defuse that, and who's the biggest, baddest bastard in town? China (heck, they're arguably the FIRST America should have gone after, if we're speaking from a purely humanitarian standpoint). And then what? Declare war on China?

The second requirement for something being your responsibility is that you are CAPABLE of it. Personally, I question our ability to reform China (we simply don't have enough people), especially after many other conflicts.

Or do you move on to the socialist or otherwise unfavourable democracies? I just think the massive militarisation of American culture (even more so than now) that would be needed for such a full-scale campaign would require fundamental changes in gov't and society, which would be hard to just 'switch off' once the 'last' despot worth caring about is deposed.

No, because politics is 2-dimensional - there's the economic axis, conservative-liberal, and the government power axis, anarchist-authoritarian. The test as to whether a government should be overthrows is what is its position on the government power axis, not the economic.