We — Paul Edwards
state-slavery — Paul Edwards
we could simply nuke all the slave states — Paul Edwards
Who is this "we" and what gives you a duty or even a right to "construct" the world we all share in your image of justice?
imaginary slavers that seem to exist everywhere and anywhere but in the mirror
However, the Iraq war was a mess
What country are you hoping will be the next target and what is it you'd like to see the "free world" doing?
The Iraq war was misbegotten from the beginning. The justification (that they were working on nuclear weapons) was a lie told to the American people, and everybody else.
Worse, the US did not display insight into how to remove a mostly hated dictator without collapsing the whole society into chaos from which they have still not recovered. It was an altogether inhumane AND incompetent operation.
The Iranian people will have to work out their own liberation -- not because nobody cares about them, but because it seems highly unlikely that the US, or any other power, can confer liberation upon them.
We contributed a great deal to the Iranian people's previous suffering under the Shah. Let's not repeat the gift.
"We" is the free world. And yes, it is a stated assumption that we want a just world — Paul Edwards
instead of dismissing this world as some sort of purgatory that we just need to accept. — Paul Edwards
Ok, there is another assumption I have that dictators are enslavers while ordinary citizens like myself are not. Would you like to see video of Saddam's goons cutting out someone's tongue? Can you not see a difference between that and using an iphone? — Paul Edwards
What is free?
Sure, that's a sovereign leader (again, an individual, one bad apple) committing human rights abuses which should be punished swiftly and appropriately.
Are you familiar with the Just War Theory?
But the combination of these 2 goals requires a hell of a lot of thought to devise a cunning plan for world liberation. — Paul Edwards
However, the Iraq war was a mess, the plan changed several times and the US answers to establishing a democracy seem to be flawed. — Judaka
In my opinion, it was conducted near-perfectly, given what was known at the time — Paul Edwards
I like this, thumbs up.
Unless we are for psychopathic dictatorships, it's really a tactical question, not a moral one.
Occupation, a mess.
A key problem in such discussions is that Americans (and many other Westerners) have had freedom for so long we typically no longer appreciate it. Understandable, but an obstacle.
As example. A forum user may wail against the war in a thousand posts, but the moment a mod deletes one of their posts they go hysterical. All perspective and context lost. They can rationalize Saddam all day long, but would launch rockets against the mod if they could. So long as it's somebody else's freedom being discussed it's all theory, once it's MY freedom being affected, reality returns.
There were long lines of volunteers for the new security forces, despite the fact that the country was occupied by a non-Muslim force. — Paul Edwards
Well, the 2003 Iraq war fails on a few levels to be considered a just war based on what has been written on the subject. Quite obviously so to be honest. — Benkei
From reading your posts, you seem to have a pre-conceived conclusion
and are trying to collect information to strengthen your case.
Which is fine because many people do that but it doesn't make for interesting discussions.
I'll post an overview I wrote years ago about the historic development of just war theory as well.
Basically they're not putting themselves into the shoes of an Iraqi. Let's see if we can get agreement with your/my position in this thread. — Paul Edwards
No, the occupation was done perfectly too, given the information available at the time — Paul Edwards
The missing information, imho, was that we didn't fully grasp how traumatized the Iraqi people were. Once Saddam's knife was off their neck, a great deal of bottled up rage came poring out. And it couldn't be directed at Saddam, so they rebelled against us.
Bush thought the Iraqis would welcome us with open arms. He thought he was invading Belgium in WWII.
"they" didn't do just one thing. They were split 50/50 on whether Iraq was "liberated" or "humiliated". No-one at all predicted such a split. — Paul Edwards
Right. My point too. No one predicted it. Someone in charge should have.
We Americans are technically brilliant, and culturally clueless. So, invasion went great, occupation a mess.
I don't think the topic would be as controversial if everyone thought that the US was invading Iraq on behalf of the Iraqi people, for the purpose of their liberation.
The other issue is that even though it's been years since the Iraq war, Iraq is still a mess and with that knowledge, it's difficult to call the war a success from the standpoint of helping the Iraqi people.
What about North Korea, China, Saudi Arabia and others? Will the US just invade them all?
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.