Moral imperative

I guess that the majority of Iraqis woud not want an imposed foreign military presence in their country much like the majority of Americans would not want an imposed foreign military presence in their country.

You're an American, would you like an imposed foreign military presence in the U.S. of A?

0 Replies

hobitbob wrote:

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.

Regarding Karzai----I like my source better Laughing

rsday, 13 June, 2002, 18:12 GMT 19:12 UK
Karzai elected Afghan leader
Delegates said this was a new beginning
Afghanistan's grand assembly - or loya jirga - has overwhelmingly chosen interim leader Hamid Karzai to be the country's next head of state.

Mr Karzai received more than 80% of the votes cast - his closest rival was Massouda Jalal, the first ever woman to put her name forward.

God willing, I will be of service to Afghanistan, my religion and will work for the development of my country

Hamid Karzai

The voting was held by secret ballot at the insistence of the winner who had said he wanted the result to be legitimate.

On the wave of a resounding ovation, Mr Karzai thanked the delegates for the trust they had put on him and promised to go forward humbly to serve the people of Afghanistan.

The new head of state is to lead Afghanistan into elections in 2004.

Beginning

Voting - with black-and-white photos of the candidates adjacent to their names on the ballot slips - extended into the evening.

At the end, as expected, Mr Karzai won convincingly - 1295 votes out of 1575 cast. Dr Massouda Jalal got 171, and the third contender - government official Mahfouz Nedaei - 89.

Results
Total number of votes cast: 1575
Hamid Karzai: 1295
Massouda Jalal: 171
Mahfouz Nedaei: 89
83 people did not take part
"This feels like democracy. Maybe it isn't yet. But we're getting there," said one of the delegates, Abdullah from Kunduz, after casting his ballot.

"It's the first time ever in our history that we are witnessing such a situation. I like watching the people line up to vote," said another - H. Aktar Mohammed, an ethnic Pashtun from Ghazni province.

Proud

The BBC's Mike Wooldridge says the man who has made his mark around the world in the six months he has headed the interim administration has now won a mandate to steer the country through the next, most critical phase of its transition.

Karzai: proud to serve
He thanked the delegates for choosing him for the task ahead - he said it was "a matter of pride for me, for my friends, sisters and brothers, like you who voted for me to be head of the transitional period".

And then he promised to carry on the work which has barely begun.

"God willing, I will be of service to Afghanistan, my religion and will work for the development of my country."

In his nomination speech, the Afghan leader promised to focus on reconciliation

0 Replies

InfraBlue wrote:

I guess that the majority of Iraqis woud not want an imposed foreign military presence in their country much like the majority of Americans would not want an imposed foreign military presence in their country.

You're an American, would you like an imposed foreign military presence in the U.S. of A?

I'd be tickled as a pig in ___________ if they had just helped me get rid of an SOB like Saddam Laughing

0 Replies

Percy wrote:

Regarding Karzai----I like my source better

I'm sure you do since you have again failed to attribute it, and most likely edited it to fit your point of view. This is what is known as being "dishonest." I would suggest you do some basic research into the members of the council that "elected" karzai,and the pressure on them from the US to approve him.
I doubt that you will, of course, becasue you have shown yourself to be intellectually lazy over and over again. To be fair, the references were not for you as much as they were for the other members of this forum who are not intellectually lazy and may find them useful. Good night percy. I hope you have unpleasant dreams, as I'm sure you always do. Wink

0 Replies

Crave wrote:

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

Laughing

Lola was correct----you really need a sense of humour to discuss anything here.

The American revolution can hardly be compared to Saddam seizing power and George Washington(the man who could have been king) can hardly be compared to a thug like Saddam or any other dictator.

You are correct that morality should be verified collectively but how can you fail to recognize the inconsistency of the UN finally acting to stop human rights violations in Kosovo but not in Iraq? When the world body is negligent ( like a parent gone bad) what alternative exists? Some presidents would roll over and play dead but thankfully Bush did not.

This old man is off to bed----continue tomorrow.

0 Replies

Inconsistence doesn't indict an ideal, it indicts the implementation of it.

I don't equate America's revolution with Saddam's rise to power, but your criteria does by oversimplifying. The majority were most likely behind it, but then again they weren't polled. Saddam was recently polled and with favorable results.

Through the lack of caveats your criteria is lacking.

One criteria for unprovoked invasion that I would like to see respected is that a quorum is used to filter dishonorable campaigns.

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.

How can one have regard for the methods being used to form the new state: Exiles appointed over lifelong residents to form a constitution, terms of which essentially dictated by the US administration; a continued military presence even after the government begins to function, perhaps forever; said presence a clarion call to anti American attacks and everlasting elements for destabilization?

0 Replies

The belief that the US may claim a "right" to have military bases having preemptively invaded a sovereign nation kind of sums up the problem, doesn't it.

For certain kinds of nations, it's just too boring and unrewarding to be humane and law-abiding. Myanmar comes to mind, as does Hitler's Germany, and more recently the US.

0 Replies

perc, the more you explain your position , the more uncomfortable and scared I get. PS, Im glad that, for the present, my vote will cancel your vote.

As youve seen from more eloquent writers than i, 'moral imperative" is eyewash, especially since we , as a sovereign nation have picked and chosen how we define this term and who we target.
I, like many Americans was suckered into the belief of the correctness of our invasion on Iraq. similarly, I, like many AMericans , arent intellec tually cemented to this bad belief. To do so, based upon all the recent disclosures and evidence to the contrary is even a more midieval mindset than flat earthism.

Iron lion-I liked your quote of 'the quote" that perc had selected. Seemed a bit ironic to me too, maybe were not "creative thinkers'

0 Replies

It seems even Time mag along with ABC would concede that excellent progress is being made in Iraq. Its a refreshing article after all the doom and gloom here.

Where Things Stand
Outside the tense Sunni triangle, Iraq is displaying a new dynamism. For a joint report, TIME and ABC News traveled the land to chronicle the changes
By TERRY MCCARTHY I BASRA

For the full text:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101031110-536175,00.html

Got some errands to run.

0 Replies

For a less sanguine view on the subject see the New York Times link I posted above.

0 Replies

Let's face it: we're gonna continue to see both sides of the spectrum depending upon our political outlook, and the other side isn't going to admit the good or bad. The good news is that some Iraqi's are living without the fear of Saddam's Republican Guard; and the bad news is our Republican Guard is being killed (almost) every day.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

perc, the more you explain your position , the more uncomfortable and scared I get. PS, Im glad that, for the present, my vote will cancel your vote.

As youve seen from more eloquent writers than i, 'moral imperative" is eyewash, especially since we , as a sovereign nation have picked and chosen how we define this term and who we target.
I, like many Americans was suckered into the belief of the correctness of our invasion on Iraq. similarly, I, like many AMericans , arent intellec tually cemented to this bad belief. To do so, based upon all the recent disclosures and evidence to the contrary is even a more midieval mindset than flat earthism.

Iron lion-I liked your quote of 'the quote" that perc had selected. Seemed a bit ironic to me too, maybe were not "creative thinkers'

Farmerman:

I started this thread to debate the possible merits of an altruistic propostion-----that of a moral obligation to assist the citizens of any particular country who are suffering genocide and other cruelties at the hands of a dictator. Immediately it became apparent that since Iraq was linked and since emotions here run so high about Iraq, I felt compelled to give my opinion of some other practical considerations for invading Iraq and liberating them from Saddam. It also is apparent that you are an honest and caring person therefore I did not want be dishonest and continue with the altruistic line as the only reason for invading Iraq. Thus the reason for the lines about the need for a status of forces agreement for bases in Iraq and the influence we must have on their constitution. When we actually exit Iraq, our forces will be needed to support any nations in the area that want and need our help. We also want Iraq to be a willing ally in the fight against terrorism and they cannot be an ally if they implement an Islamic gov't similar to that in Iran----that we cannot allow. That is why Chalabi has so much support from elements of our gov't. He is a secular Shi'ite. I really don't care if the our form of democracy is accepted or not as long as it is a constitutional elected form of gov't it will be acceptable.
I also believe it would not be good for an exile like Chalabi to be pushed as the right man but I believe he should be considered by the people at election time---however since the Shi'ites are the majority in Iraq his election is not impossible. It will depend on his ability to convince the religious leaders to support him----I don't give him much chance in that regard.

BTW----I believe Zell Miller, the Democratic Senator who has just said he would vote for Bush in 2004, did so because he does not trust any of the other candidates to run this country during the next 5 years. You might want to examine his reasons.

0 Replies

Perc -- You are a master of hypocrisy!

0 Replies

Quote:

That is why Chalabi has so much support from elements of our gov't. He is a secular Shi'ite.

Gee, and I thought it was because he was a convicted embezzler. I'm sure Bush and his buddies felt right at home around such.

0 Replies

Tartarin

What an odd term for you to use----I appeared to me that you had not yet defined the word.

0 Replies

Tartarin wrote:

Perc -- You are a master of hypocrisy!

To further add to my statement above-----I am merely demonstrating my firm grasp on reality unlike your continual state of denial of reality. Laughing

0 Replies

Reality according to Perception:
-America is never wrong
-Military solutions are the only solutions
-Killing is good
-Education is bad
-Mercy is for the weak
-Everyone is picking on me
Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

Yeah, but he's rattling the tin cup along the bars of his cage, Hobit, so it's hard to ignore him.

0 Replies

hobitbob wrote:

Reality according to Perception:Perceptions replies in red
-America is never wrong-- rarely
-Military solutions are the only solutions----only when diplomacy fails which is frequently
-Killing is good-----always when dealing with muslim militant extremists
-Education is bad -------only in your case Hobity Bobity
-Mercy is for the weak----goes with compassion and the USA always has plenty to go around
-Everyone is picking on me-----I hadn't noticed

0 Replies

Moral imperative

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know