Moral imperative

where I feel hes gotten it wrong is that its neither Conservative nor liberal to champion or be against such a preemptive war. I know as many conservatives and liberals who are soundly against what John Adams feared were " unreasoned foreign adventures'

Farmerman

I believe the author was not postulating that going to war was either a conservative nor a liberal proposition but that instead it should be viewed as a "moral imperative" based on the reasoning in the following excerpt:

But not one of those arguments will lead to the liberation of a frighteningly Orwellian society based on fear and torture. Not one of them will protect the citizens of the Middle East's democratic nations against future attacks with weapons of mass destruction. Not one of them could lead to a beachhead -- however small -- of democracy in the Arab world. Not one of them will help resolve the Israeli-Palestinian standoff. Not one of them will allow America to take initial steps toward addressing the "root causes" of terror. Not one of them is worthy of the deeply moral traditions of Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Delano Roosevelt. And not one of them will lead to progress in the Middle East -- yet these objections are apparently all most "progressives" have to offer.

I know, but he failed to bring up the most obvious one of alll. We as Americans dont (or shouldnt celebrate) pre emptive attacks. By doing so Weve just joined the ranks of all the rest including the French .
As I get older, I wish to have my own moral checkpoints clearly defined and " my country right or wrong" aint on my own list.

As far as imposing democracy, Jefferson said it best. It must first be desired and even that, is not always a moral certainty.

How do we bring to these people the realisation of the ultimate rightness and goodness of the American position by bombing them to hell?

Do you know, some of them are still ungrateful.

"As I get older, I wish to have my own moral checkpoints clearly defined and " my country right or wrong" aint on my own list."

YES!

perc

Michael Ignatieff, another fellow I quite respect, has also argued for that taking Sadaam out was a moral imperative. And to tell the truth, this too is my position...but with enough caveats to make this a very long post, and I don't have time today.

I happen to think that civil and human rights issues are a valid reason to interfere, even militarily, with another sovereign state. I believe it is immoral to not intervene in such an instance. This is most acute where instances of 'ethnic cleansing' are in progress, as in Kosovo and in Africa.

But I have no illusion that the US is involved in this case out of a moral imperative. Nor do I allow for a single state to be granted this discretionary power, to pick and choose where their military ought to be deployed, because of the sentence preceding.

I agree with the above, and would only add that we should have the capacity (if we don't already) to do something about human rights abuses without stuff like "shock and awe." And since the American moral compass is a tad unreliable these days, I'd want to make sure other countries joined in both the decision-making and action-taking processes.

New York Times Sunday Magazine

Blueprint for a Mess
By DAVID RIEFF

Published: November 2, 2003

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/02/magazine/02IRAQ.htm

farmerman got it right; "I wish to have my own moral checkpoints clearly defined," and not what my government says it is.

I strongly supported the removal of Saddam from power. With caveats that made me strongly oppose the war in Iraq.

One of them is that I support the removal from power of many world leaders.

The article was garbage. Especially his reasons (I should say reason in the singular) why Saddam cannot be deterred: because we think he may have attempted to assassinate Bush senior. That seems like a fickle argument considering the overwhelming wealth of evidence supporting containment. He also makes the usual leaps of logic about Iraqi nuclear weapons (the imaginary ones) and democracy. Nothing new here. Also note it was written before the war. As in, before the imaginary weapons were discovered, before Saddam escaped our grasp, before it degenerated into a guerilla war, etc.

Interesting you chose to quote this paragraph, considering it makes little sense.

First of all, there are many 'Orwellian societies based on fear' in the world. You're making a hypocrite of yourself if you justify the invasion of Iraq on some 'moral imperitive' of 'liberation' while you ignore or even support regimes as brutal as Saddams all over the world. A naive hypocrite at that. Although the 'war for oil' argument may have been a little off base, you are underestimating the intelligence of the people involved if you don't think the economic benifits were not discussed along with the military aspect by those in the Bush administration.

He then references the imaginary weapons of mass destruction and puts forth the baseless idea that those imaginary weapons would be used against other nations.

Then there is the curious reference to solving the Israel-Palestine problem. I say curious because replacing the Iraqi regime will do little to solve that problem. In fact, if anything, it will only excacerbate it. If the administration was serious about solving the issue they would strongly advocate a Palestinian state - not invade Iraq.

Then comes my personal favorite - references to non-existent terrorist connections. Never mind that every nation in the middle east has more established terrorist connections than Iraq. Especially our buddies in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.

This, of all the paragraphs, is the one you chose to quote?

Blatham

It is almost enough of a triumph to hear you admit there could be instances of justification for interference in the affairs of a "sovereign" nation. Let's talk for moment about the term sovereign nation. What is so sacrosanct about a nation where control of that nation has been ripped from the people through violence and they have been imprisoned by a dictator? To my way of thinking any other country that possesses the means to rectify the above situation is morally negligent if it does not act.

I recognize sovereignty to be sacred only when the leader of that country has been designated by the majority of the citizens of that country.

Siezing control of a country through violence without the consent of the people is illegal from my viewpoint and should be punished by the world body that has been formed to prevent human rights abuses among other things. The UN is that organization. The UN should immediately authorize action to rectify the illegal seizure and the arrest and punishment of the culprit. The failure of the UN has been witnessed so where then does the responsiblity for the moral imperative lay?

There is no moral imperitive for doing what has been done to Iraq. That that nation had a corrupt system and a leader oppressive of the people does not make it our right to go in and attempt to Americanize them. Conservatives and liberals ought to join together to decry the travesty visited on Iraq.

ILZ---you can rant on if you care to but I won't reply because obviously you are intellectually encapable of discussing anything other than garbage.

When we speak to the issue of moral imperative, at what point does it justify the preemptive attack on a country that results in the killing of 15,000 people - 20 percent of which are innocent civilians, and the other 80 percent in the military some of whom are serving against their will in an attempt to remove one dictator? You tell me, because I'm not sure I have the answer.

Quite right. Replace the words "North Korea" for "Iraq" and "Kim Jong-Il" for "Saddam Hussein" in the article and one can see that it makes a better case for invading North Korea.

I'm talking about the same moral imperative that should have been the catylist which brought the US into WWII to stop the genocide of the jews-----but we were too isolationist and did not realize our capabilities and would not accept our responsibilities.

That was 60 plus years ago----have we not advanced in our sense of responsibility to other human beings not fortunate to have freedom? I believe it especially relevant now that we have the unquestionable capability.

We did not possess a crystal ball then and could not forcast that Hitle would actually attempt to exterminate the Jews from the face of the earth (as the Arabs would now like to do) but we did know the intent was there. What did we do-----we stuck our heads in the sand.

tuning in