Moral imperative

This is a clear sighted analysis, Edgar. IMO. We're there for the control over the oil. Not so much for the oil itself or to make money, although I think those are always nice........it's so we can't be held hostage for the oil. Or at least that's been my understanding.

0 Replies

Craven

Will you please read what I advocated which is: Removal of any leader who seized power through violent means and without the consent of the majority of the people.

People wanting to remove Bush is totally irrelevant to the discussion.

Saddam Hussein seized power through violent means and therefore addicated his right to be served by the rule of Law.

0 Replies

In Latin America in particular the US has always been complicite in violent overthrow of even elected governments. There is no sign Bush has or will reverse this policy.

0 Replies

Quote:

Will you please read what I advocated which is: Removal of any leader who seized power through violent means and without the consent of the majority of the people.

Continuing the list:
Musharref, Putin, Karzai, etc...

0 Replies

Lola and Edgar

I would say that you are both correct except Edgar please have little more regard for our methods to create a favorable gov't in Iraq. It will all depend on the constitution written by the Iraqis on which we will demand a very strong influence. We will also insist on a long term arrangement to station military forces in the country-----this is what we are paying for dearly and have every right to demand IMO.

0 Replies

hobitbob wrote:

Quote:
Will you please read what I advocated which is: Removal of any leader who seized power through violent means and without the consent of the majority of the people.

Continuing the list:
Musharref, Putin, Karzai, etc...

Well you got one out of three correct which for you is excellent. Musharif---you're correct. Putin and Karzai were elected by THEIR people.

0 Replies

Why do we have a right to demand a long term arrangement to station military forces in Iraq, in your opinion, perception?

0 Replies

perception wrote:

hobitbob wrote:
Quote:
Will you please read what I advocated which is: Removal of any leader who seized power through violent means and without the consent of the majority of the people.

Continuing the list:
Musharref, Putin, Karzai, etc...

Well you got one out of three correct which for you is excellent. Musharif---you're correct. Putin and Karzai were elected by THEIR people.

Wrong!

Putin was put in place by a coalition of oligarchs. Karzai was put in place at the "suggestion" of the US.

0 Replies

perception wrote:

Lola and Edgar

I would say that you are both correct except Edgar please have little more regard for our methods to create a favorable gov't in Iraq. It will all depend on the constitution written by the Iraqis on which we will demand a very strong influence. We will also insist on a long term arrangement to station military forces in the country-----this is what we are paying for dearly and have every right to demand IMO.

That's true..we bought the country, and those silly little buggers have no right to form their own constitution, now do they? Rolling Eyes

Let's see.... "favourable government," "we will demand a strong influence," "we will insist," yup, sounds like "we" have every intention of allowing Iraq to choose its own government.
Sad

0 Replies

perception wrote:

Saddam Hussein seized power through violent means and therefore addicated his right to be served by the rule of Law.

Hmm, I like the criteria, but what I think you misunderstand is that what I argue against is individual interpretation of a criteria.

I need no convincing that Saddam met a criteria that merited removal from power.

Thing is, I think having a quorum is important. I think that interpretation of moral criteria should not be individualistic. I happen to think morality is contingient on this.

0 Replies

For starters----their freedom has cost approximately 400 in our dead soldiers, several thousand wounded, approximately $100 Billion so far and probably another $100 Billion before it's over. IMO----why do you ask? Infrablue? I don't expect you to agree with me but perhaps you will give your opinion of why we shouldn't be entitled to a long term status of forces agreement.

0 Replies

perception wrote:

For starters----their freedom has cost approximately 400 in our dead soldiers, several thousand wounded, approximately $100 Billion so far and probably another $100 Billion before it's over. IMO----why do you ask? Infrablue? I don't expect you to agree with me but perhaps you will give your opinion of why we shouldn't be entitled to a long term status of forces agreement.

"They" are not exactly free, now are "they?" Restriction of movement and association, restriction of speech, and ithe inability to choose one's own form of government are not freedom by any definition of the word. I see many parralells between "Operation Iraq Liberation" and the efforts of the Japanese to "free" the oppressed Koreans from the Chinese in the late 19th century. Pray the Iraqis don't come to feel the same about us as the Koreans do about the Japanese.

0 Replies

hobitbob wrote:

perception wrote:
hobitbob wrote:
Quote:
Will you please read what I advocated which is: Removal of any leader who seized power through violent means and without the consent of the majority of the people.

Continuing the list:
Musharref, Putin, Karzai, etc...

Well you got one out of three correct which for you is excellent. Musharif---you're correct. Putin and Karzai were elected by THEIR people.

Wrong!
Putin was put in place by a coalition of oligarchs. Karzai was put in place at the "suggestion" of the US.

Please give me a competent source that agrees with your interpretation.

0 Replies

We shouldn't be entitled to a long term status of forces agreement because the Iraqis wouldn't want it.

Their "freedom" was paid for by the thousands upon thousands of collaterally killed Iraqi men, women and children through an imposed war of occupation. An imposed foreign military presence wouldn't be very free.

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

perception wrote:

Saddam Hussein seized power through violent means and therefore addicated his right to be served by the rule of Law.

Hmm, I like the criteria, but what I think you misunderstand is that what I argue against is individual interpretation of a criteria.

I need no convincing that Saddam met a criteria that merited removal from power.

Thing is, I think having a quorum is important. I think that interpretation of moral criteria should not be individualistic. I happen to think morality is contingient on this.

What I think you misunderstand is my postulation that when the UN and other countries fail to recognize their obligation and fail to act on their responsibilities then we have the moral imperative to take action.

0 Replies

The most recent thing I've read on Russia is the current issue of "Current History", vol 102, no 666 (scary!).
See "Between Realism and Reality: The United States and Russia Today." Celeste Wallander.
For Karzai, a simple perusal of the coverage of the formation of the Afghan government in 2002 in any newspaper should suffice. If that isn't enough, try: Rubin, B and Armstrong, A. "Regional issues and the Reconstruction of Afghanistan," in World Policy Journal , Vol XX, no. 1. Spring, 2003.

0 Replies

InfraBlue wrote:

We shouldn't be entitled to a long term status of forces agreement because the Iraqis wouldn't want it.

Their "freedom" was paid for by the thousands upon thousands of collaterally killed Iraqi men, women and children through an imposed war of occupation. An imposed foreign military presence wouldn't be very free.

You're being presumptuous to "know" what the majority of Iraqis want---did someone appoint you spokesman for all of Iraq when I wasn't looking?

The price of freedom comes high------I'm content to let history prove me correct----until then we can only agree to disagree.

0 Replies

perception wrote:

What I think you misunderstand is my postulation that when the UN and other countries fail to recognize their obligation and fail to act on their responsibilities then we have the moral imperative to take action.

Actually that's pretty clear, at least as clear as it is completely unrelated to the concept of morality being collectively determined.

Individuals frequently criticize courts, sometimes even with such stark language (that they are not doing their "responsibility" etc). Morality is not individually defined because of vastly different interpretations and the logistical impossibility of satisfying them all.

Civilized people therefore have a structure through which said discrepancy is addressed. And the vigilantes favored in infantile comic books are traditionally relegated to fictional accounts and in reality such a childlike (e.g. Superman good, pick pocket bad) interpretation of morality does not exist.

By your own criteria America should not have been allowed to exist. You oversimplify things.

0 Replies

perception wrote:

Craven

Will you please read what I advocated which is: Removal of any leader who seized power through violent means and without the consent of the majority of the people.

That happened in Florida. Conservatives seized power by violent means. Without the consent of the majority of the people. I haven't got over it yet, nor will I.

0 Replies

Nut'n like a little democracy in Iraq - dictated by the US. Is there a name for that? I think they call it colonization.

0 Replies

Moral imperative

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know