Moral imperative

perception, Since Hitler's Germany and the extermination of Jews, there have been other tyrants that have also killed millions of people without our country getting involved. If Iraq, why not Sudan (and many other places)?

0 Replies

America does not have the prescience nor the might to go into every nation that is a bad as Hussein's Iraq. To equate this action with standing against Hitler is sidestepping the facts. We did not do anything to help Tibet, the people of N. Korea, and the people of many other nations. Genocide in parts of Africa has been routinely ignored for the most part. What sets Iraq above all these other lands if we are doing the moral imperative thing? They, after all, did much of their criminal activity with the complicity of the good ole USA.

0 Replies

edgar, All good points, as always.

0 Replies

CI
Hello dere. You are in good form, as always.

0 Replies

perception wrote:

IronLionZion wrote:
The article was garbage

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.

Oh, the sweet irony.

I put a few good points out there. I was not addressing you, though. I prefer to limit my discussion to those of us who rode on the regular sized school bus. Your style of debate is not condusive to any meaningful discussion. Talk to me when you pull yourself out of intellectual poverty through sheer determination - never.

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

IronLionZion wrote:
The article was garbage.

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.

Actually I do advocate that the US as the leader of the free does have the responsilility to assist in the removal of every national leader who seized power illegally.

This would include Kim Jong IL in North Korea----unfortunately we have several good reasons why we cannot risk a military confrontation with NK.
About 10 million reasons and they all live in Seoul South Korea.

The first on the list is the one that will provide the US with most strategic advantage and give the global community the most benefit from our actions-----Iraq.

0 Replies

perc

I'm a bit pressed for time this evening, so let me get back a bit later to respond.

This is a good question you raise, by the way.

0 Replies

percy wrote:

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.

Oh my...so..when are we "taking out" the leaders of all of the little dictators we support in Central/South America, Egypt, Qatar, Kuwait, UAE, etc...?
Oh, and when can we expect the world to invade the US and take out our own leader, who is, by your own definition, not legitimate? Wink

0 Replies

perc's quote, "The first on the list is the one that will provide the US with most strategic advantage and give the global community the most benefit from our actions-----Iraq." It seems the "global community" is still hesitant to help with $$$ and their military if the payoff is so big.

0 Replies

percy wrote:

Actually I do advocate that the US as the leader of the free does have the responsilility to assist in the removal of every national leader who seized power illegally.

Translation: Regime change begins at home. Very Happy

0 Replies

I acknowledge all the events of history but since I can not alter history and those events BB(Before Bush) I try to limit my suggestions to events DB (During Bush). I tried to keep this non-partisan but ya'll just won't let me. Very Happy

I can also appreciate good humour and I don't even mind tired worn out cliches from our resident expert on fallacious reasoning and intellectual dishonesty----oh hello Hobit. :wink:

0 Replies

Hello Percy, I find your comments amusing, considering your long history of such.

0 Replies

You're doing good, perc......stay with the non-partisan.......your thread deserves a chance.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

perc's quote, "The first on the list is the one that will provide the US with most strategic advantage and give the global community the most benefit from our actions-----Iraq." It seems the "global community" is still hesitant to help with $$$ and their military if the payoff is so big.

That's OK C.I.---- that's life---when you want to control the football you ususally must pay for it out of your own pocket. But then that being the case no one should be surprised when we want to make our own rules to play by. Also everyone should realize that politicians sometimes want to indulge in a little revenge-----good ole human nature again. Twisted Evil

I would expect France to be on the outside looking in ad infinitum and Germany only allowed to pick up a few crumbs now and then.

0 Replies

Hey Lola

Glad you showed up to add a little class to the thread----regarding the non-partisan-----whew---it's like I imagine a patrol in Iraq much be like. Land mines, grenade lauchers, ground to air missiles-----you name it.

0 Replies

If the administration is truly concerned by the plight of the Iraqi public, why is it not letting the Iraqis do as much of the rebuilding as they can handle, instead of bringing in American corporations to do it at grossly exaggerated costs?

0 Replies

a good sense of humor will be needed, I think.

0 Replies

So, the French are left out, and the Germans can pick up crumbs, but what if the Iraqis don't want to play by the rules we're trying to impose on them?

0 Replies

perc,

Can you acknowledge that there are two separate issues? That one can think that a leader needs to be removed but not automatically justify any means to that end?

For example, lots of people don't want Bush to be president, in their minds they could, if so inclined, think of justifications to violently overthrow him.

My qualm with the war in Iraq is that when individual morality supercedes collective morality anarchy is produced.

There is a structure for conflict resolution in every civilized society. My qualm with the war was that it undermined the rule of law. It's vigilante justice when it could easily have been done in another way.

0 Replies

I believe the moral imperative argument is just an afterthought to the true reasons for the war. The administration obviously wants to be sure we have a hold on the Mideast and its oil that cannot be dislodged, much as we cannot be dislodged from the military base on Cuba. If they can impose a government that kowtows to American principles and at the same time keep a military footing there, we could, along with Israel, impose our will on the region for forseeable history.

0 Replies

Moral imperative

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know