What's the Difference?

[monkspider]

Alb - That's a more intruiging question. There is no guarantee that this regime would necessarily be better than Sadaams. Certainly America's recent adventure in Afganistan leaves us less than optimistic, for the most part.

However, for the sake of arguement let's assume that somehow America sets up a functioning county with semi-democratic institutions that, on balance, offers a moderate increase in standards of living for the average Iraqi. This doesn't take into account how such an increase in living standards can occur, due to the widescale destruction of Iraqi infastructure, and where the massive fundage necessary for rebuilding would come from, and so forth. But again, for the sake of arguement, we will assume that the funding is somehow taken care of in some way. Anyway, what this creates is a situation that essentially says that a 5% to 10% increase in living standards (or if you want to be really optimistic, 20%) is worth X. Where X equals the number of Iraqis killed, likely to be at least in the tens of thousands, based on the precedent of the first Gulf War. To put this in perspective a bit, Is it worth the entire city of Philadelphia having a modest increase in living standards if it meant that several neighborhoods in Philadelphia had to be completely destroyed? You see, this creates an existentialist dilemma, you just can't put a value on human life. Moreover, this situation doesn't take into account the possibility that increased living standards may have occured had the United States not invaded, by some unknown scenario (sure it may seem unlikely but ya never know).

Despite all this, the greatest problem that with this arguement is that all the billions and billions of dollars the United States spends on a war that may or may not increase the living standards of Iraqis by a modest ammount could have been spent in various philanthropic ventures that would have increased the living standards of the entire world by much more than any possible increase that the war could bring.

thanks

[Sprayber]

Re: Re: What's the Difference?

[Sprayber]

Re: Re: Re: What's the Difference?

**** it. I dont feel like arguing tonight.

[David Floyd]

Can we assume you are against Saddam Hussein's dictatorship?

I am politically and morally against any dictatorship or tyranny, wherever it may be.

then the deaths of a certain number of Iraqis can be minimal compared to the greater good of deposing a dictator

Loss of life is never "minimal". In addition, the United States has been responsible for many more deaths over the years than Iraq has, so your argument breaks down right there. The US is not some ultimate good guy out to rid the world of evil.

that is true except those Iraqis who die are dying so that millions of other Iraqis may have freer lives

Did anyone ask the Iraqis we're killing, or are we just playing God again?
Further, I'm not sure how being a puppet state of the US will lead to a freer life.

Imran,

Also, I find it interesting that Floyd would rather see the troops of a dictator trimph over the troops of a republic.

Well, when the republic is behaving immorally, they shouldn't get a free pass just because the form of government is a republic (sorta) rather than a dictatorship.

Ned,

Why don't you simply get a job at a munitions factory and rig explosives to kill US soldiers, sailors and airmen. Or better yet, why don't you cut parachute webbings as well. If there were enough like you killing Americans from within, we would not need to have Iraqi's do it.

If I was going to kill someone, it would be the politicians who start wars, not the soldiers who are forced to fight them.

monk,

Good last post, I agree completely (except of course that bit about spending money on the rest of the world, that money should properly be returned to the taxpayer it was taken from by force - then if they want to donate to charity they can).

[monkspider]

Originally posted by David Floyd
monk,

Good last post, I agree completely (except of course that bit about spending money on the rest of the world, that money should properly be returned to the taxpayer it was taken from by force - then if they want to donate to charity they can).

Well I kind of figured you would disagree with me on that last little bit.

[David Floyd]

Of course, the argument there is the same as one I used above that you seemed to agree with:

WRT killing Iraqis to make the lives of others better, that's wrong because we are playing God and not giving them a choice in the matter.

Similarly,

WRT using my money for charity, that's wrong because I don't get a choice in the matter.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Well, when the republic is behaving immorally, they shouldn't get a free pass just because the form of government is a republic (sorta) rather than a dictatorship.

But in a battle against a republic and a dictatorship, favoring massive deaths by the republic basically indicates support for the dictatorship.

[David Floyd]

But in a battle against a republic and a dictatorship, favoring massive deaths by the republic basically indicates support for the dictatorship.

That's a generalization. I support the side that is not acting aggressively in this particular situation. That is, in a situation where one nation is attacking another nation, I'm going to want the nation which is being attacked to win, regardless of type of government.

[Imran Siddiqui]

It might be a generalization, but I find it a valid one.

[David Floyd]

So you are saying that a country with an elected government should be able to do anything it wants to a country with an unelected government?

[Ramo]

I'm taking this a different direction now... assuming you are against Saddam Hussein's dictatorship and that (despite your leftist beliefs) an American-supported Iraqi republic would be at least an improvemnt over Saddam... then the deaths of a certain number of Iraqis can be minimal compared to the greater good of deposing a dictator

Why would an American-supported Iraqi regime (republic, my arse - look at Afghanistan, an extremely unstable confederation of warlords) be any better than Saddam? It isn't in the US' interests to give the Kurds or Shiites too much power because of Turkey and Iran, respectively, so there will likely be a rather authoritarian regime to maintain power. Furthermore, since the regime would have US blessings, there would be no no-fly zones protecting the Kurds in Northern Iraq, just as there are no no-fly zones protecting the Kurds in Turkey. Right now, Iraqi Kurds aren't being repressed, for the most part. That'll change in the event of a regime change by the US.

So, the net result is that a bunch of people will die and a bunch of infrastructure will be destroyed to make the situation much worse. That's not my idea of moral use of force.

[David Floyd]

Bump.

I'm still waiting for a non-bull**** answer to my question...

[Graag]

But my question is, why is it OK for US soldiers to kill Iraqis, but not OK for Iraqis to kill US soldiers?

Answer: IMHO it ain't.

But from the perspective of someone who disagrees, it is alright becuase the deaths of Iraqis is a means to an end, i.e. the end of Saddam's regime and destruction of his WoMD.
The logic is a few thousand, or hundred thousand dead Iraqis is better than Saddam causing the whole middle east to fall into war.

[Ben Kenobi]

"WRT killing Iraqis to make the lives of others better, that's wrong because we are playing God and not giving them a choice in the matter."

I agree with you David, but for different reasons. There are no fundamental differences between Iraqis and Americans- they are both groups of people, therefore deserving of life and respect. Their rights are based on their personhood, and not because they have no choice in the matter.

For bias sake, I'm an evangelical Mennonite, which requests members to take non-combat service in times of conscription.

One argument in favour of the difference is the 'just war' theory espoused by Catholics, and many other Christians. Iraq, because of their belligerency with nuclear weapons towards United States, threatens to kill a great number of people. By containing them now, we can remove this threat and avoid deaths of a large number of people.

The question is one of both intent and capacity. Iraq must be capable as well as willing to use nuclear weapons on the US in order to justify the use of force and the loss of lives on BOTH sides. This is why the importance of inspections to determine the true capacity of Iraq's arsenal.

Lives can only balance lives. Nothing else. A 'just' war cannot be fought for reasons of resources or 'betterment of society.'

[tandeetaylor]

Originally posted by obiwan18
Iraq, because of their belligrency with nuclear weapons towards United States, threatens to kill a great number of people.

The only problems with that statement are that the only country ever to have used nuclear weapons and the only country threatening to kill great numbers of people is the United States, logistically Iraq could not attack America, only American troops that are in places they shouldn't be, Iraq was never "belligerent" toward the United States until we decided we should defend Kuwait, and, as far as I know, Iraq has never threatened to attack the United States.