As much as I’m glad Biden won, I’m not counting on a Biden/Harris governance to make a marked improvement in poor and low-income Americans’ quality of life, however much I believe the pair will try. And I have a hard time imagining anything resembling ‘Obamacare’ coming back.

The governance will, however, most likely maintain thinly veiled yet firm ties to large corporations, as though elected heads represent big money interests over those of the working citizenry.

(It may be reflective of why those powerful interests generally resist proportional representation electoral systems of governance, the latter which tends to dilute the corporate lobbyist influence on the former.)

Those doubting the powerful persuasion of huge business interests need to consider how governing officials can feel crippled by implicit or explicit corporate threats to transfer or eliminate jobs and capital investment, thus economic stability.

Also concerning is that corporate representatives actually write bills for our governing representatives to vote for and have implemented, typically word for word, supposedly to save the elected officials their time.

Nothing gives a government or group of people the moral right to intervene in the internal affairs of another country other than a direct attack or a genuine call for help. Or do u like unwanted "help"?

Nothing gives a government or group of people the moral right to intervene in the internal affairs of another country other than a direct attack or a genuine call for help. — Daniel

:up: :100:

I’m almost a complete pacifist, and even I’ll say it’s fine to go help someone else under attack if they want it, and they’re in the right in that conflict, and we can afford to stick our necks out for them.

If I was dictator for a day I’d make that the official requirements for ever going to war.

or a genuine call for help.

If you didn't hear the screams of Iraqi women as they were being raped by their own government, you must be deaf. I heard them and called up the US military to put an end to it.

intervene in the internal affairs of another country

I don't recognize the rape of women, or cutting out the tongues of Iraqi men as something "internal" that should be protected. The rape of any woman on this planet is my business. THAT's what should be protected. The right to not be raped by anyone, including your own government.

Or do u like unwanted "help"?

If my country (Australia) ever has a military coup, US help is most welcome by me, and I hope the majority of Australians. No sanctions. No dilly-dallying for decades. IMMEDIATE use of military force. I don't want to be enslaved by an Australian dictator for ONE SECOND more than necessary.

Then I think you should be fighting for a world unified under the same flag.

large corporations, as though elected heads represent big money interests over those of the working citizenry. — FrankGSterleJr

This is the problem with society. Like children disobeying their parents because they have some sort of say over their actions and behaviors, completely neglecting the fact said authority were once children themselves and subject to the same level of authority. Yes, in modern Western countries you can work hard and said work, time, and effort counts for something. I don't see why that even needs to be explained or worse "apologized" for. I get the (one and sole) argument some may have that those who have reached the top or "pinnacle" of human success in this world seek to and do "lock down" opportunity for those outside to ever reach said spot, but in a democracy with laws, rules, and order- that gate is more of a hurdle or obstacle that builds character and resilience while increasing one's own talents as opposed to a solid wall or mountain that does the opposite. So they say anyway, eh? :grin:

Then I think you should be fighting for a world unified under the same flag. — Daniel

Wise man, who's no longer with us (thank God- don't take that the wrong way) once said: "you can't make everybody happy".

Then I think you should be fighting for a world unified under the same flag.

Yes, that is why I fly the NATO flag, even though Australia is not yet part of NATO.

One day I hope that the entire world is a member of NATO (because they meet the requirements of being a secular capitalist liberal democracy) and then we can rename NATO to UN or UN to NATO (doesn't matter to me).

One day I hope that the entire world is a member of NATO — Paul Edwards

And for the time being, I think the sovereignty of each country should be respected. It is the moral obligation of oppressed people to liberate themselves; otherwise, oppression will just change forms but will always be present.

And for the time being, I think the sovereignty of each country should be respected — Daniel

Unless there is an expansionist agenda, of course. In this case, you should have the guts to declare war, invade, conquer, and annex.

Some seek new lands to share a gift they've been given, others do so to take what gifts were given. This is the only true divide between men and what actually defines nations. Though, they won't tell you that. #Atheism - because, why not right?

Unless there is an expansionist agenda, of course. In this case, you should have the guts to declare war, invade, conquer, and annex. — Daniel

Or maybe there are better benefits when you expand without annexing?

And for the time being, I think the sovereignty of each country should be respected.

No, for the time being we should actively convert countries so that they meet the requirements to join NATO.

It is the moral obligation of oppressed people to liberate themselves;

No, that's what the Iraqis tried in 1991 and they got slaughtered. It's what the Chinese tried in 1989 and got slaughtered. It's not technically possible to defeat automatic weapons. We experienced the same thing in WW1 when *armed* men tried charging against machine guns. Unarmed civilians going up against automatic weapons is just a blood-sport.

And I can assure you that if Australia has a military coup, I will not be charging against armed Australian soldiers. I'm not going to throw my life away for nothing. I am happy to negotiate under what circumstances you are willing to send the US military to liberate me. Let's negotiate.

otherwise, oppression will just change forms but will always be present.

No, this theory about it being impossible to install freedom by force of arms was shown to be bunk in Iraq, just as it was in Panama.

Nothing gives a government or group of people the moral right to intervene in the internal affairs of another country other than a direct attack or a genuine call for help. — Daniel

I’m almost a complete pacifist, and even I’ll say it’s fine to go help someone else under attack if they want it, and they’re in the right in that conflict, and we can afford to stick our necks out for them. — Pfhorrest

But this is difficult to swallow. For both of you, apparently, silent genocide victims ought to be ignored even by countries in a position to help. Aside from the sometime legality of humanitarian intervention under the aegis of the United Nations and international law, moral intuition tells us that innocent victims ought to be helped even if they don't ask for help. A strong man ought to help a frail old lady who is being beaten by someone younger and stronger than she is, even if she is not asking for help. The situation with humanitarian intervention is significantly different from that analogy, but exactly how is it different, and what are the consequences of that difference for the moral rightness or wrongness of intervening?

I am not arguing for @Paul Edwards's position, and I am not saying you are both wrong, but I don't feel that his challenges have been fully met.

@Benkei What's your view?

I am not arguing for Paul Edwards's position, and I am not saying you are both wrong, but I don't feel that his challenges have been fully met. — jamalrob

I actually live in fear that one day someone is going to trot out a convincing argument that ends "And that's why Iraqi women should continue to be raped for as long as Uday felt horny". Because that will put an end to my hope of seeing world freedom in my lifetime. I'd like to die in peace.

Yes, because the strategy at that time was to let the competing psychopaths fight each other instead of fighting us. — Hippyhead

We didn't let, we encouraged and certain corporations made money off of it. Arming both sides is not justifiable morally. Given Sadaam, as part of that, high tech computers that could be used in nuclear programs also does not fit.

Yes, IS was a threat, and so the Islamic State was then effectively crushed. — Hippyhead

After intelligence agency warnings that it would happen were ignored. Only after they had done a great deal of damage to at least thousands of people (and they are not finished yet). And only after the Russian took a real aggressive stance in relation to them and also Trump. IOW the regular neocons, including people like Hilary, were not that interested in crushing them. (and I am no Trump fan by the way)

Iraq war critics showed no interest in the Iraqi people before the war, and now that American involvement in Iraq has wound down they again show no interest. — Hippyhead

Most people on both sides did not give a shit about them. One side created a mass of bs that this was (after no womd were found) the reason they were there and cared. Thus giving them the hypocrisy. But further on the left there was a significant minority who had been concerned about the embargo and the first war and had also long before that been critical of neo-con support for Hussein and other policies harming people in the Middle East.

Most people on both sides did not give a shit about them. One side created a mass of bs that this was (after no womd were found) the reason they were there and cared. — Coben

Are you one of those who didn't give a shit about them? What set of morals do you follow that ignores the plight of the Iraqis? Are you in a religion that teaches to not care about Muslims? We need a comprehensive review of all of this in light of the failure to act over institutionalized rape and tongue-cutting in Iraq. A philosophy forum is exactly the right place to be doing it. This is really basic philosophy. Do we care about Iraqi men having their tongue cut out by their own government or not? Or is their plight dismissed because they are brown, or because they are in the wrong religion? Would you like to see video of Iraqi men having their tongues cut out so that you can see if you are moved or not?

I really don't know what elicited this question. I'll aks you: Are you one of those people who did not care about Iraquis?

Are you one of those people who did not care about Iraquis?

No. Far from it. I believe everyone has the right to live in freedom, including Iraqis, and VERY much supported the 2003 war to free them.

I've spent decades trying to understand the forces that prevent others from supporting the same action I supported.

Note that I was an atheist in 2003, and I didn't need any religion to teach me to care about the Iraqi people. It was just innate. I wasn't alone either. See what these American soldiers said. Everyone in the free world should be supporting the Iraq war for the same reason as those American soldiers.

No. Far from it. I believe everyone has the right to live in freedom, including Iraqis, and VERY much supported the 2003 war to free them. — Paul Edwards

It wasn't a war to free them. The justification for the war was because they supposedly had WOMD's or Hussein did. But this was made up intelligence and manipulation. When it was obvious that there were no WOMD's, THEN the goal of the war was for the Iraqi people. Not for oil. Not for military presence in the Middle East, not for no bid billion dollar contracts to Cheney's old companies he still had connections with. Not for enormous money transferred to the private sector in the new more privitized military. The same neo cons, I mean, some of them were exactly the same people, who under Reagan had been quite friendly with Saddam Hussein, even when he used gas on the Kurds - who presumably also deserve sympathy - now demonized Saddam Hussein for the reasons above. He wasn't nice to his people back when they were pro-Hussein, but they used him for their ends at that time and even helped his military and intelligence services. When it became convenient for their ends, they demonized him. And he was easy to demonize, of course.

One can care about Iraquis and be for the war or against the war. One can recognize people's good intentions, some people's, on both sides of the argument. I think it is hard to know what actions were for the best and what side effects of the actions taking are in their completeness. Cynical selfish people can end up doing good things for the wrong reasons. I am not sure they managed even that. Soldiers on the ground can have all sorts of motives, obviously including good ones, though I don't think one should romanticize those motivations in a general way.

As described in the article, Trump's term as president led to some striking cross-party unity among his opponents. Former officials of the Bush administration, and then Republican national security officials, came out in support of Biden's campaign, the latter being specifically concerned with foreign policy. — jamalrob

I think if you're conjecturing a conspiracy between enemies to explain unanimity in hatred of Trump, you're missing the blindingly obvious! :rofl:

But this is difficult to swallow. For both of you, apparently, silent genocide victims ought to be ignored even by countries in a position to help. Aside from the sometime legality of humanitarian intervention under the aegis of the United Nations and international law, moral intuition tells us that innocent victims ought to be helped even if they don't ask for help. A strong man ought to help a frail old lady who is being beaten by someone younger and stronger than she is, even if she is not asking for help. The situation with humanitarian intervention is significantly different from that analogy, but exactly how is it different, and what are the consequences of that difference for the moral rightness or wrongness of intervening? — jamalrob

Shouldn't the cost of intervening be factored in? A country like the US is often in a position to interfere, but then what are the consequences? You get embroiled in someone else's civil war? Then it turns into another nation building exercise with troops still stationed there a decade later? And what if this involves complications with other nations? This also raises issues of why countries like the US or the EU get to intervene. Does that mean China and Russia do as well?

It's easy to say someone should stop and stop a Rwandan genocide. It's harder to think thought all the implications. What if the answer is yes for Rwanda because nobody else will oppose it, and no for Syria, because Russia, and no for North Korea because they could level cities?

It wasn't a war to free them. — Coben

YOU should have supported a war to free them, as I did. What stopped YOU from trying to help the Iraqis? Is it because they are brown?

Billions of people the world over should have supported the liberation of Iraq to free them from state-slavery. If Bush (allegedly - why don't you read his 2003 State of the Union address prior to the war) wouldn't act for any reason other than WMD, then billions of people should have been trying to convince Bush that Saddam probably had WMD, so he should take action. Bush shouldn't have needed to sell this war to the public. The public should have been clamoring for intervention. And let's start with you, as a member of the public, who likely expects his own human rights to be protected to the nth degree.

The situation with humanitarian intervention is significantly different from that analogy, but exactly how is it different, and what are the consequences of that difference for the moral rightness or wrongness of intervening? — jamalrob

Shouldn't the cost of intervening be factored in? A country like the US is often in a position to interfere, but then what are the consequences? You get embroiled in someone else's civil war? Then it turns into another nation building exercise with troops still stationed there a decade later? — Marchesk

Okay, so one answer to my question is that unlike the analogy, the possible costs often outweigh the moral imperative--costs in terms of, say, peace and stability, and in humanitarian terms. Would you want to generalize this to say that US involvement always makes things worse? Or would you say that it's fine under certain conditions? What would those be?

Shouldn't the cost of intervening be factored in? A country like the US is often in a position to interfere, but then what are the consequences? You get embroiled in someone else's civil war? Then it turns into another nation building exercise with troops still stationed there a decade later? — Marchesk

Yes, the US has been incredibly generous. Instead of lashing out after 9/11, they turned around and freed 52 million people from state-slavery, and did nation-building in 2 countries.

The US should be praised for its generosity, not derided.

Would you want to generalize this to say that US involvement always makes things worse? Or would you say that it's fine under certain conditions? What would those be? — jamalrob

I don't know. I tend to support pacifism and non-intervention. But reality is messy.

I don't know. I tend to support pacifism and non-intervention. But reality is messy.

Would you also go for pacifism/non-intervention if you saw a woman being raped in your street? Or are women in your street more important than Iraqi women? If so, why is that? What's so special about your street? What set of moral codes do you subscribe to that elevate women in your street?

I don't think it was worth it, outside of targeting Al-Queda, which would have been special forces/limited military action.

Intervening in other countries is not analogous to helping an individual here. That paves over a lot of complexity.

YOU should have supported a war to free them, as I did. What stopped YOU from trying to help the Iraqis? Is it because they are brown? — Paul Edwards

Seriously, is that the most charitable interpretation you can come up with. If you actually read my posts with humanitarian care you would see that 1) I never expressed the slightest bit of racism. 2) My concerns were humanitarian and I was critical of the motives of the people involved is making those decisions. So, stop asking me that question. See if you can imagine good motives for having the position I had and have on the war, and you can continue to disagree about what policies and actions would be best.

Billions of people the world over should have supported the liberation of Iraq to free them from state-slavery. — Paul Edwards

I really don't see how you could know that billions of people supported the war. And now much did those who supported the war, support the war based on false intelligence and lies by the Bush administration.

And let's start with you, as a member of the public, who likely expects his own human rights to be protected to the nth degree. — Paul Edwards

You want to focus on me and judge me and not focus on what I wrote, for the most part. The people around Bush, as I said before, were perfectly content with Saddam H.'s behavior toward the Kurds and his own people when it was in their interests to do that. These people lied to the American public and the world and whatever support they had was in large part due to those lies.

You choose to take an uncharitable ad hom approach to this discussion. You do not, for the most part, respond to points I make. It's rude and you make for a poor discussion partner.

I'll leave you to your moral superiority, assumptions and poor posting. I am sure you can find others to go ad hom about, and not really respond to, and they will likely treat you in a similar manner. There are plenty of people on both sides who post like you do. May you enjoy each other and confirm your biases.