Why we SHOULD have invaded Iraq

[cinch]

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.

What I mean is... Take Turkmenbashi. He's got nowhere near the deathcount of a Saddam or a Pinochet, but he rules the country at his whim, and he does such ca-ca-ca-razy things as renaming months and days after himself.

Will he be overthrown under the new world order?

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.

But once the dictators are 'all gone', who will become the new enemy? In a military-industrial complex, there must always be an enemy. The socialists and unfavourable democracies will fill the void.

[Kuciwalker]

1) Yes, he should be. Doesn't mean he should be FIRST.

2) That's a fallacy - not because it's necessarily wrong, though. You're arguing that we shouldn't do the right thing now because it may lead to us doing the wrong thing later. The alternative, however, is to do the wrong thing now. Also, if we have the self-control to do so, we CAN avoid doing the wrong thing later.

[TCO]

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.

They need smart guys in the field also. Check out the navy nuke program.

[Kuciwalker]

You want me near NUKES?! Are you INSANE?! My friends were horrified when I *jokingly* told them I want to major in nuclear physics

[cinch]

2) That's a fallacy - not because it's necessarily wrong, though. You're arguing that we shouldn't do the right thing now because it may lead to us doing the wrong thing later. The alternative, however, is to do the wrong thing now. Also, if we have the self-control to do so, we CAN avoid doing the wrong thing later.

I guess it all depends on one's definition of wrong and right. At this point, I would argue that the 'right' move for America would be to free itself from the military-industrial complex. But that's not going to happen, so I'd just as soon see them create the least amount of death possible.

[Kuciwalker]

Exactly. We're preventing deaths by going into Iraq. How many has Hussein killed? How many have we? I'll bet those numbers will be VERY different.

[cinch]

Exactly. We're preventing deaths by going into Iraq. How many has Hussein killed? How many have we? I'll bet those numbers will be VERY different.

Taking out one tin-pot dictator and waging a world campaign against every single unfavourable despot are two different beasts. The latter will require the American forces to thin themselves out across the globe, making each nation they conquer less and less secure, not to mention the homeland.

Combine that with the fact that most of the people in these nations won't be too happy about an American invasion (they may want democracy, but most aren't too fond of American-installed democracy), and even one death (and I'm talking U.S. Armed Forces personnel, here, too) seems unjustifiable.

[Kuciwalker]

Remember the capability thing? If we can't do it, then it isn't our responsibility. We should do AS MUCH AS WE CAN, no more. Any more would jeopardize what we can do.

[TCO]

Originally posted by skywalker
You want me near NUKES?! Are you INSANE?! My friends were horrified when I *jokingly* told them I want to major in nuclear physics

The smarts are for the plant. Not the bombs. For the bombs, you just need high integrity.

[TCO]

Originally posted by GePap


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)

Don't listen to the pacifist. Serving in the military is a noble calling. He just wants to make it seem less noble to make himself feel better.

[Kuciwalker]

GP - I listen to everyone, evaluate their arguments logically, and accept them or reject them based on whether or not they hold. That particular comment I rejected because it was irrelevent.

[Spiffor]

However, GePap has a point. if you want to have maximal efficiency in helping other people, the military sin't the best way, far from it.

Working in NGOs actually devoted in reconstruction (the setting up of a sanitation network, of educational material, of a telecommunication network), will bring much more good than the army will ever do.
Because despite all the nice extras, the army's job is ultimately to kill its enemies. Sure, the soliders sometimes help, sometimes keep the order, sometimes protect a humanitarian convoy. But it isn't the core of their job. Their job is sometimes necessary, but a soldier more often brings and experiences pain and despair the the opposite.

Besides, the army is a tool in the hands of the politicians, and its interventions can be ill-advised, and make people suffer for the sake of some powerful people's greed.

A military carreer is far from being the best way to look if you intend to help your fellow man.

[GePap]

Originally posted by skywalker
Exactly. We're preventing deaths by going into Iraq. How many has Hussein killed? How many have we? I'll bet those numbers will be VERY different.

If things were just a question of numbers, why go into Iraq? More human beings have died in the last 5 years in Central Africa than in all the wars in the ME and all the repression there two in 50 years.

The greater problem is that even most Americans do not think we have the legitimacy to change the world: they are happy to agree to bomb any Arab or Muslim states, cause hey, they are all terrorists! And they are glad to include NK cause they make good Bond enemies, but otherwise, they don;t crae to go into the world: they can barely place it on a map, far less understand that, well, you know, things are complicated. America is usttely unwilling to do what it takes to be an empire: obviosuly then, it would make sense to try to make this a world crusade and not a one state one, but the fact is that for the most part, this admin. has done about eberything you could do to convince the world they don't really give a damn about democracy world wide, since they decide to act by fiat when they care to.

Don't listen to the pacifist. Serving in the military is a noble calling. He just wants to make it seem less noble to make himself feel better.

Brilliant way to utterly ignore the comment and make completeyl incorrect characterizations of a person! Wow, GP, been at it long?

[Kuciwalker]

Spiffor - I personally thing that quality of life comes second to political freedom.

GePap - I wasn't saying we should go into Iraq FIRST - I said we should go into Iraq. I also didn't make preservation of life the sole criterion for intervention; there are also capability and, importantly, preservation of liberty. Both elements need to be preserved; neither is worth anything without the other.

[GePap]

GePap - I wasn't saying we should go into Iraq FIRST - I said we should go into Iraq. I also didn't make preservation of life the sole criterion for intervention; there are also capability and, importantly, preservation of liberty. Both elements need to be preserved; neither is worth anything without the other.

I am not disagreeing with you that in theory it is just for the Us to remove dictators: my problem lies with the how's of such an implementation, and I owrry that a half-assed attempt at crusading is worse than none. Pluse, at the same time we act militarilly against Iraq, we don't take the myriads of much less radical but nonetheless important measures we could take to foster democracy everywhere.