Invading Iraq is completly justified using this criteria:

This is just one of my dumb "take a step back and think" games, if you justify the war feel free to recognize criteria that would change your stance should you accept them as paramount.

Re: Invading Iraq is completly justified using this criteria


I cannot justify this war in any way because I believe killing to be wrong, that bombing and shooting result from the failure not only of diplomacy but of logic, of understanding and of reason; that for perhaps only one good result (the Iraqi people being released from the clutches of a murderous dictator) the many bad ones (the death and maiming of the innocents, the pillaging of the nation's resources--petroleum and historical--, and American hegemony, to name a few) are resulting in a worse set of immediate circumstances (and maybe for the long-term as well) on the way to the 'one good result.'

Not only for Iraq but also for the US of A.

Should generations of future terrorists be conceived as retribution for this action then we can be assured that the blood of our children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren will be spilled for the cause of....what exactly, again?

Regime change? WMD? 'In the name of peace'?

And please tell me once more what is our exit strategy?

We were lied to about our government's intentions on this war. ("I haven't made up my mind..."/"**** Saddam. We're taking him out") We have never been given any moral reasons to start it (the one most Moron-Americans believe, that Saddam was behind 9/11, is another lie convincingly sold). There MOST CERTAINLY has never been presented any coherent plans to end it. And the entire production is in complete contradiction with the administration's stated goals prior to 9/11 about foreign military campaigns, nation-building, being a "humble nation", etc., etc., blahblahblah.

War being wrong for starters, this war is more wrong for almost every reason I can think of.

deleted-- did not understand the type of criteria you were seeking.

Please no circumstantial criteria.

And please don't restate your views. Let's talk criteria.

e.g. least amount of suffering to the greatest amount of people.

That is the type of criteria I'm talking about (it happens to be a very popular one).

Thing is, using that very same criteria can lead to vastly different conclusions.

Another critera:

"Laws of nature, survival of the fittest"

And such..

Please try, it will be interesting.

bookmark

might makes right

Dammit! I was going to say "because we wanted to and we could" - but I realised that, of course, Craven had already used might makes right as am example - and to finish me off, you, Dyslexia, have already re-stated it!!!

I am trying as hard as I can to play along here, but I can't find an argument for the war which I find convincing.

I cannot bear to re-state all the arguments which I have used against it, either...so it seems I am useless.

I COULD run an argument based on utilitarian principles - but I am convinced that the negative fallout from the war will outweigh the positive (while hoping I am wrong) - I do not deny that there are likely to be positive effects, by the way.

If I were to run such an argument, it would talk about the likely future benefits to the Iraqi people of getting rid of Saddam (but I believe this was collateral benefit of the decision to invade - not a cause) and the fact that, surely, the UN sanctions must be lifted soon - so that medical supplies and such will be available again.

I guess you might be able to speculate also - if the US frightens the region enough - that the invasion might make settlement of, for instance, the Israel/Palestinian conflict more likely - which might save many lives.

I am sure that some would be talking about a sort of pax americana as adding to the possible utilitarian benefits - but I think this is all so tenuous and unpredictable that I would find it hard to mount the argument, and I find other, counter-weighing factors.

Sorry, Craven! I failed.

You don't have to support the criteria to acknowledge it. The criteria I will detail is not one I support, I use other criteria that supercedes it. But this isn't about my criteria, it's about criteria in general.

Ok here's mine:

Strategic geopolitical advantage.

American strategic interests are served by maintaining the overwhelming military advantage over other nations, excercising this might toward American strategic interests puts this might to use.

Not securing American strategic interests can be considered a waste of a perfectly capable military. Despite the progress civilization has made we are still governed by comptetition, survival of the fittest.

While our survival is not at stake we are still competing, and war can be considered a stronger competitive strategy than missing the opportunities to distance ourselves further from the pack.

Might makes right and pax Americana are arguments based on similar criteria.

Of course, there are other criterias that can be used to justify the war.


Sofia,

It's not a clear question, maybe if I said that what I aim to discuss is the underlying criteria that people use in making their judgements it would be clearer, dunno. Lemme know if I can elucidate.


dys,

You stated one very succinctly. I suspect you don't operate with that criteria but can you expound on the logic behind such a criteria?

deb,

Am I right to say that I have, in an earlier post, referenced your operating criteria? Can you come up with an equivalent that someone with differing conclusions might hold?

cdk- re might makes right- just my thoughts but it seems to me that the spectre of losing Vietnam was a major ego blip on the conservative agenda-loss of face in the race for military might. the new agenda involves restoration of might/power--all Bush needed was a winable conflict (Grenada-Panama was not a grand enough stage) without a dialectic post USSR enemies have to be created in order to establish power.

Pax Americana seems immoral to some people; but it is, maybe, the only possibility to avoid war of everyone against everyone and to put bloodshed under control. Of course, it would be ideal if there is no bloodshed at all, but achieving such a thing is non-realistic. Therefore, controlled bloodshed (when the bad guys are being extinguished before they gain enough military power to pose a real threat to the world order) is a lesser evil. I do not think that such a situation would be not in interests of the commoners around the world: oppression imposed on them by their domestic tyrants strongly exceeds limitation of any Western occupational regime.
The only side that obviously loses from the new world order are people that want to make a career of Napoleon Bonaparte: Pax Americana does not need any Napoleons; it does not need Saddams, Stalins, Hitlers, Mussolinis and Pol Pots either. So, such guys are doomed to permanent frustration and oblivion. For some obvious reasons, I do not feel any pity of them.

I'm going to avoid comment on the editorial replies that deviate from the discussion of criteria. I've heard your arguments before, some I agree with some I don't.

Again, criteria, not the conclusions on right or wrong morality and such.

Fighting for peace?

Wait and see how this Pax Americana deals with the killing by Israeli forces in Palestinia Until then i'm very sceptical.

But if this is your criteria? Why Iraq?

frolic,

What would it take for me to impress upon you that the discussion of the merits of each person's criteria happens very frequently and that the converse is a rarity?

Again, if you can't talk criteria why not just stay on the threads where views are repeatedly espoused.

It was easier to find formal justifying reasons for judicial purposes in case of Iraq.
Regarding Palestine/Israel: Mr. Bush is going to make public his "Road Maps" plan intended to put end to the conflict and to establish the independent Palestinian state by side of Israel. The only reason for delay is the fact that Palestinians have not yet formed their new government; the main obstacle to the latter is Arafat's obstructionist position toward Abu Mazen/Dahlan's efforts: he is afraid to lose his grip on power and to become a nominal leader (something like any of the European monarchs or Israeli president). Reasonable permanent solution of the conflict is possible under condition of irrevocable U.S. domination in the Middle East.

Sigh, forget it. Go ahead and do the repeat ad nauseum thing. 'Twas a pipe dream after all.

Craven--
I think what you have attempted to do here is very interesting, and (if I'm right about your goal) would force people to think objectively and strip us of falling back on our politically motivated rhetoric.

My problem is understanding your format. I'm now with you up to the point of stating the criteria---

Now that you have shared your criteria-- The war in Iraq was sought and fought to achieve strategic geopolitical advantage for the US in the ME-- How would you like members to proceed? ...make statements supporting or arguing with that supposition, devoid of partisan political commentary?

I think if members fully understood your preferences for this conversation, they would give it a go.

(I wish we could have ALL our conversations like this-- discussing ideas without devolving into gotcha mode.)

Sofia,

I think you get the idea more than you let on. My goal was to reduce the political issues to a definition of criteria. Everyone has a criteria they operate on but some don't think about the criteria as much as the issue at hand.

My goal was simply to have people define the criteria that is used to support other positions. Not the circumstance.

e.g.

Not

if the UN had approved I would support (that's an example of my conditional criteria for this war)

but

"my criteria for war is what's best for the dolphins" (dumb example so that I don't come off as caricaturizing the other side)

I think evaluating criteria will degenerate into the same discussion, though fun, that are the norm. This is why I posted a criteria that I did not criticize (only giving it the disclaimer that it's not the criteria I operate under).

BTW, just a small qualm but I didn't say that the criteria I posted was the motivation for the war, I just said it's a criteria that I think would, if used as the predominant criteria, support the war. I didn't comment on the motivating criteria that the initiators and supporters of the war use.

Strategic geopolitical advantage.

American strategic interests are served by maintaining the overwhelming military advantage over other nations, excercising this might toward American strategic interests puts this might to use.

Not securing American strategic interests can be considered a waste of a perfectly capable military. Despite the progress civilization has made we are still governed by comptetition, survival of the fittest.

While our survival is not at stake we are still competing, and war can be considered a stronger competitive strategy than missing the opportunities to distance ourselves further from the pack.
______________________________________

I assumed this was your 'thesis' statement in opening a debate on "Strategic geopolitical advantage is criteria, which makes the invasion of Iraq completely justified", due to your thread topic statement. I was progressing with this in mind.

I didn't understand more than I let on. I have been completely sincere in my efforts to join this conversation.

Did you seek debate of your statement, or just competing statements?