2
   

Debunking the Reasons to stay in Iraq.

 
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Sep, 2005 11:35 am
ebrown_p wrote:
If you had to pick a "Defender of Freedom and Liberty", would you choose the United States?

If the "Defender of Freedom and Liberty" is the term for the guy with the dominant military... than the US is a shoe in for the job.

But I don't think that is a very good qualification.

If "Freedom and Liberty" mean anything, their defender should be a country that has a history of defending Freedom and Liberty.

This would be a country that didn't overthrow democratically elected governments, support coups, or tacitly accept death squads to further its self interests in foreign policy.


So you overlook all the other things the US has done to defend freedom and liberty and concentrate solely on these things? Seems like you have a rather narrow vision when it comes to defining your terms.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Sep, 2005 11:45 am
DrewDad wrote:
...

Well, first I don't think the US needs to be the defender of freedom and liberty. It should defend the freedoms of its own citizens.

A major way for the US to defend the freedoms of its own citizens is to concurrently defend the freedoms of the citizens ofother countries. Historically, WWI, WWII, Korean War, Vietnam War, Bosnian War, Quwait War, and currently both the Afghanistan War, and the Iraq War are a few examples.

Second, I don't see much defending of freedom and liberty. If the US were truly in this role, then I'd expect to see a lot more action.

You want more! We do what we can do. Suppose there are 100 countries in which their citizens are deprived of their freedom and liberty. Should we abandon helping say one because we cannot help all? I think not.

If you saw 10 children drowning would you refuse to try rescuing one because you cannot rescue all ten? I hope not!


Third, why does the universe require a defender of freedom and liberty? IMO, that's something that each individual aquires for him or herself. I don't know about you, but I'm as free as I choose to be.

I don't know what the universe requires. Do you? I think not! I do know humanity requires as many defenders (individuals and countries) of freedom and liberty as can be encouraged to enlist.

Anything else the US should defend, by the way? Freedom and liberty being pretty generic (and synonyms).

This will do:
[quote]We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

[/color]

[/quote]
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Sep, 2005 12:01 pm
ebrown_p wrote:
...If "Freedom and Liberty" mean anything, their defender should be a country that has a history of defending Freedom and Liberty.


The US is such a country, albeit a faulty such country.

Suppose there are 100 children drowning. Are you implying that only those rescuers who are fault free rescuers should participate in the rescue of these drowning children? If that were what you were implying, that's irrational. That is, it is faulty reasoning.

Well, if you evidence faulty reasoning, do you think you ought to avoid attempting to reason rationally? HMMMMMM!
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Sep, 2005 12:29 pm
ican711nm wrote:
DrewDad wrote:
...

Well, first I don't think the US needs to be the defender of freedom and liberty. It should defend the freedoms of its own citizens.

A major way for the US to defend the freedoms of its own citizens is to concurrently defend the freedoms of the citizens ofother countries. Historically, WWI, WWII, Korean War, Vietnam War, Bosnian War, Quwait War, and currently both the Afghanistan War, and the Iraq War are a few examples.

I'm sorry, but the US had its own reasons for all of these wars. None of which was simply "defending freedom and liberty." Try reading some history.

Second, I don't see much defending of freedom and liberty. If the US were truly in this role, then I'd expect to see a lot more action.

You want more! We do what we can do. Suppose there are 100 countries in which their citizens are deprived of their freedom and liberty. Should we abandon helping say one because we cannot help all? I think not.

If you saw 10 children drowning would you refuse to try rescuing one because you cannot rescue all ten? I hope not!


What a nice strawman! If 10 kids are drowning, do you rescue the fat one or three skinny ones? If the blood and treasure of the US could be better spent, then are we not obligated to forgoe Iraq and help others? Imagine what these billions of dollars could do if they were spent on drugs in Africa.

Third, why does the universe require a defender of freedom and liberty? IMO, that's something that each individual aquires for him or herself. I don't know about you, but I'm as free as I choose to be.

I don't know what the universe requires. Do you? I think not! I do know humanity requires as many defenders (individuals and countries) of freedom and liberty as can be encouraged to enlist.

McGentrix seems to think the universe requires one. He asks who will be the defender if not the US? I reply "no one." Let each person, and each nation, determine their own fate.

Anything else the US should defend, by the way? Freedom and liberty being pretty generic (and synonyms).

This will do:
[quote]We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

[/color]

Pretty words, but hardly applicable. A right to life? Tell that to the hurricane victims. The universe is hostile to life, and we survive through luck, grit and determination.

[/quote]
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Sep, 2005 12:35 pm
Quote:
That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.


It is the right of the people under that government to do so, not for another nation to decide to do so.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Sep, 2005 12:50 pm
I believe the Shia's tried after the first gulf war. Unsuccessfully.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Sep, 2005 02:24 pm
DrewDad wrote:
...

Well, first I don't think the US needs to be the defender of freedom and liberty. It should defend the freedoms of its own citizens.

A major way for the US to defend the freedoms of its own citizens is to concurrently defend the freedoms of the citizens ofother countries. Historically, WWI, WWII, Korean War, Vietnam War, Bosnian War, Quwait War, and currently both the Afghanistan War, and the Iraq War are a few examples.

I'm sorry, but the US had its own reasons for all of these wars. None of which was simply "defending freedom and liberty." Try reading some history.

Try reading and understanding exactly what I wrote. I wrote:
[quote]A major way for the US to defend the freedoms of its own citizens is to concurrently defend the freedoms of the citizens of other countries.


That is how the US has and can continue to help each of us pursue "our own enlightened self-interest."[/color]

Second, I don't see much defending of freedom and liberty. If the US were truly in this role, then I'd expect to see a lot more action.

You want more! We do what we can do. Suppose there are 100 countries in which their citizens are deprived of their freedom and liberty. Should we abandon helping say one because we cannot help all? I think not.

If you saw 10 children drowning would you refuse to try rescuing one because you cannot rescue all ten? I hope not!


What a nice strawman! If 10 kids are drowning, do you rescue the fat one or three skinny ones? If the blood and treasure of the US could be better spent, then are we not obligated to forgoe Iraq and help others? Imagine what these billions of dollars could do if they were spent on drugs in Africa.

Not a strawman! Simply an analogy. You rescue whomever you can rescue. Such rescues count regardless of the number not rescued.

The billions we have already spent on drugs in Africa has made the leaders of several African governments very rich and desease among their people very rampant.

Secured liberty and freedom are better for people's health and survival than is free misspent aid.


Third, why does the universe require a defender of freedom and liberty? IMO, that's something that each individual aquires for him or herself. I don't know about you, but I'm as free as I choose to be.

You are as free as you choose to be until you are deprived that freedom by incarceration, desease, accident and/or death.

[/color=blue]I don't know what the universe requires. Do you? I think not! I do know humanity requires as many defenders (individuals and countries) of freedom and liberty as can be encouraged to enlist.[/color]

McGentrix seems to think the universe requires one. He asks who will be the defender if not the US? I reply "no one." Let each person, and each nation, determine their own fate.

Your doctrine sounds fine until one explores the history of its application and its pernicious results.

Anything else the US should defend, by the way? Freedom and liberty being pretty generic (and synonyms).

This will do:
[quote]We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. [/quote]


Pretty words, but hardly applicable. A right to life? Tell that to the hurricane victims. The universe is hostile to life, and we survive through luck, grit and determination.

Life got evolved on the "universe's watch." So the universe's hostility is to a significant extent dependent on what life has been evolved to have and do. People have been evolved to have and secure "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

"That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

Ahh, so to merely possess a right is insufficient. To enjoy a right one's right must be secured. Some governments strive to do that job and some governments strive to make some people's rights insecure. The latter governments are a threat to the rights of humanity.


[/quote]
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Sep, 2005 02:35 pm
ican711nm wrote:
DrewDad wrote:
...
Second, I don't see much defending of freedom and liberty. If the US were truly in this role, then I'd expect to see a lot more action.

You want more! We do what we can do. Suppose there are 100 countries in which their citizens are deprived of their freedom and liberty. Should we abandon helping say one because we cannot help all? I think not.

If you saw 10 children drowning would you refuse to try rescuing one because you cannot rescue all ten? I hope not!


What a nice strawman! If 10 kids are drowning, do you rescue the fat one or three skinny ones? If the blood and treasure of the US could be better spent, then are we not obligated to forgoe Iraq and help others? Imagine what these billions of dollars could do if they were spent on drugs in Africa.

Not a strawman! Simply an analogy. You rescue whomever you can rescue. Such rescues count regardless of the number not rescued.

The billions we have already spent on drugs in Africa has made the leaders of several African governments very rich and desease among their people very rampant.

Secured liberty and freedom are better for people's health and survival than is free misspent aid.


Strawman. "Should we abandon helping say one because we cannot help all?" I never made an argument that even comes close to that.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Sep, 2005 02:37 pm
ican711nm wrote:
DrewDad wrote:
...

Well, first I don't think the US needs to be the defender of freedom and liberty. It should defend the freedoms of its own citizens.

A major way for the US to defend the freedoms of its own citizens is to concurrently defend the freedoms of the citizens ofother countries. Historically, WWI, WWII, Korean War, Vietnam War, Bosnian War, Quwait War, and currently both the Afghanistan War, and the Iraq War are a few examples.

I'm sorry, but the US had its own reasons for all of these wars. None of which was simply "defending freedom and liberty." Try reading some history.

Try reading and understanding exactly what I wrote. I wrote:
[quote]A major way for the US to defend the freedoms of its own citizens is to concurrently defend the freedoms of the citizens of other countries.


That is how the US has and can continue to help each of us pursue "our own enlightened self-interest."[/color]
[/quote]
OK. I'll say it again though: These lives and this money could be better spent elsewhere. Just as you don't like the way aid has been handled in Africa, I think this this war is a pitiful joke.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Sep, 2005 02:40 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:
That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.


It is the right of the people under that government to do so, not for another nation to decide to do so.

Cycloptichorn


That is where you and I have a fundamental disagreement.

I say all people have rights to life, to liberty and to the pursuit of happiness, except those people who have and do deny those same rights to others. Whenever I decide that securing those rights for others as well as myself is in my own enligtened self-interest, I do what I can to secure those rights for as many others as I can, regardless of whether all such others want me to or not.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Sep, 2005 02:45 pm
ican711nm wrote:
I say all people have rights to life, to liberty and to the pursuit of happiness, except those people who have and do deny those same rights to others. Whenever I decide that securing those rights for others as well as myself is in my own enligtened self-interest, I do what I can to secure those rights for as many others as I can, regardless of whether all such others want me to or not.

So... You get to decide things for others if it serves your self-interest. Do I then get to decide things for you if it serves my self-interest?
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Sep, 2005 02:51 pm
DrewDad wrote:
Strawman. "Should we abandon helping say one because we cannot help all?" I never made an argument that even comes close to that.


Yes you did!

Quote:
Well, first I don't think the US needs to be the defender of freedom and liberty. It should defend the freedoms of its own citizens.

Second, I don't see much defending of freedom and liberty. If the US were truly in this role, then I'd expect to see a lot more action.


Whatever we manage to accomplish counts. Whether we accomplish only a little or some, but not a lot, or not all, the US is truly in this role.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Sep, 2005 02:55 pm
ican711nm wrote:
DrewDad wrote:
Strawman. "Should we abandon helping say one because we cannot help all?" I never made an argument that even comes close to that.


Yes you did!

Quote me.

ican711nm wrote:
Quote:
Well, first I don't think the US needs to be the defender of freedom and liberty. It should defend the freedoms of its own citizens.

Second, I don't see much defending of freedom and liberty. If the US were truly in this role, then I'd expect to see a lot more action.


Whatever we manage to accomplish counts. Whether we accomplish only a little or some, but not a lot, or not all, the US is truly in this role.

Nope. Thank god you're not my financial advisor. Personally, I look for the best return on my investment. You're apparently happy to get any return.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Sep, 2005 03:12 pm
DrewDad wrote:
ican711nm wrote:
I say all people have rights to life, to liberty and to the pursuit of happiness, except those people who have and do deny those same rights to others. Whenever I decide that securing those rights for others as well as myself is in my own enligtened self-interest, I do what I can to secure those rights for as many others as I can, regardless of whether all such others want me to or not.


So... You get to decide things for others if it serves your self-interest.


No, I do not get to decide things for others if it serves my self-interest.

I only get to decide to secure the rights of others to their life, liberty and pursuit of happiness if it serves my enlightened self-interest.

DrewDad wrote:
[Do I then get to decide things for you if it serves my self-interest?


No, you don't get to decide things for me if it serves your self-interest.

You only get to decide to secure my rights to my life, to my liberty and to my pursuit of happiness if it serves your enlightened self-interest.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Sep, 2005 03:18 pm
Return on Investment?

We have invested 1,800 American lives, thousands of Iraqi lives.

We have upset allies and lost international credibility.

We have suffered the ebarrassment of Abu Ghraib. We have created a huge painful rift in American society that hasn been seen since Vietnam.

We have invested a huge amount with very little chance of real return.

It is time to pull out of Iraq.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Sep, 2005 03:27 pm
ican711nm wrote:
DrewDad wrote:
ican711nm wrote:
I say all people have rights to life, to liberty and to the pursuit of happiness, except those people who have and do deny those same rights to others. Whenever I decide that securing those rights for others as well as myself is in my own enligtened self-interest, I do what I can to secure those rights for as many others as I can, regardless of whether all such others want me to or not.


So... You get to decide things for others if it serves your self-interest.


No, I do not get to decide things for others if it serves my self-interest.

I only get to decide to secure the rights of others to their life, liberty and pursuit of happiness if it serves my enlightened self-interest.

DrewDad wrote:
[Do I then get to decide things for you if it serves my self-interest?


No, you don't get to decide things for me if it serves your self-interest.

You only get to decide to secure my rights to my life, to my liberty and to my pursuit of happiness if it serves your enlightened self-interest.

And if someone would prefer security above freedom? Lots of those folks in the US.

Yes, you are deciding things for other people.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Sep, 2005 03:30 pm
DrewDad wrote:
...Nope. Thank god you're not my financial advisor. Personally, I look for the best return on my investment. You're apparently happy to get any return.


No, I'm happy to secure the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness of as many people as I am able.

I see no validity whatever in the doctrine that, if the US doesn't secure the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness of alot of non-Americans, then the US ought not try to secure the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness of only a few non-Americans. I claim it's in the enlightened self-interest of all Americans to secure the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness of as many non-Americans and Americans as we can.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Sep, 2005 03:42 pm
ebrown_p wrote:
Return on Investment?
...

It is time to pull out of Iraq.


Those 1800 Americans died voluntarily trying to secure the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of Iraqis. Most of those currently attempting to do so, do not want us to pull out of Iraq.

Unlike you, they know their basis for evaluating our progress or lack of progress in Iraq is more reliable than that published in the TOMNOM (i.e.,The Oxy-Moron News Opinion Media).
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Sep, 2005 03:45 pm
ican711nm wrote:
I see no validity whatever in the doctrine that, if the US doesn't secure the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness of alot of non-Americans, then the US ought not try to secure the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness of only a few non-Americans.

Once again, nobody has made that argument.

Try this: The US ought not secure the <insert self-righteous gobbledy-gook> of a few non-Americans when it can secure the <insert same self-righteous gobbledy-gook> of many non-Americans for the same cost in lives and money.

It's not a question of some versus all. It is a question of a few versus many.

ican711nm wrote:
I claim it's in the enlightened self-interest of all Americans to secure the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness of as many non-Americans and Americans as we can.

OK. As a stand-alone statement, you might be right. As an argument in favor of the Iraq war, it is patently ridiculous.

Edit: In fact, if you actually believe this then you should be wanting to pull out of Iraq and calling for Bush's resignation. It's obvious that this money and these lives could have been "used" much more productively.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Sep, 2005 03:53 pm
ican711nm wrote:
ebrown_p wrote:
Return on Investment?
...

It is time to pull out of Iraq.


Those 1800 Americans died voluntarily trying to secure the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of Iraqis. Most of those currently attempting to do so, do not want us to pull out of Iraq.


I am surprised to hear that there are any Americans attempting to die voluntariliy.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/22/2022 at 09:13:13