Moral imperative

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.

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

Inconsistence is not the issue here----morality is the issue

How can you one over simplify morality?

When you observe murder committed what is the requirement for caveats or other criteria?

Your term "unprovoked invasion" is an unproven allegagion to obscure the issue. Your use of "dishonorable campaingns" is an attempt to draw a favorable conclusion to your argument before the fact and I don't accept either

Percy wrote:

Regarding Karzai----I like my source better

Blah......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.....

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.

Pray do tell me where does this 'moral imperative' of America come from? For you will not find it in political philosophy or history of liberalism and democracy. And why does America feel it posseses it, and not other liberal democracies, certainly not to the same degree? Why such strong feelings towards Iraqi people, when others (Congolese, Nigerian etc. to mention just the most rampant examples) were happily trampled upon while America supported their dictators and instituted a change for the worse? And, coming from Central Europe, I have to ask where was America when we turned to it crying for help? 1939, 1956, 1968, even late 1980s - it chose its 'splendid isolotion'. True, we do not have oil, or diamonds. But this 'moral imperative' is not about it, right? It is about principles... Funny how selective they get...

Dagmar

This is a philosophical exercise which could beome reality due to a change in America's global role as the undisputed leader of the Free world. To go along with said role it is my hypothesis that there exists a moral obligation to assist other countries of the world who suddenly become the victims of some thug who suddenly seizes power----usually through a military coup.
This obligation existed prior to the establishment of our total military dominance but due to a serious lack of capability until recently it could not be a serious proposition.

Why does America feel it possesses it? As the leader of the Free world we would IMO be negligent if we ignored this obligation. When Hitler attacked the rest of Europe and started the genocide of the Jews we were not the leader of the free world and yes we were isolationist and we continued to be isolationist until just recently. We as the default leader of the free world have recogized that a global strategy is required and now that we have the military capability we can explore ways of expressing our committment to freedom and civil rights around the globe. However one must be realistic----we cannot direct China to correct their human rights abuses, we cannot direct North Korea to do anything because of the threat to the South Koreans who live near the DMZ(10 million in Seoul alone), there are many other situations where we are still limited to diplomatic efforts but there are many other situations where we could intervene without dire consequences and I'm not speaking of a military invasion like in Iraq.

The selectivity which you castigate is and was based on practical considerations not on our desire to ignore our responsibilities.

And, coming from Central Europe, I have to ask where was America when we turned to it crying for help? 1939, 1956, 1968, even late 1980s - it chose its 'splendid isolotion'. True, we do not have oil, or diamonds. But this 'moral imperative' is not about it, right? It is about principles... Funny how selective they get...