Tweet
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.
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.
Comment