Issues with your account? Bug us in the Discord!
A philosophical question?
Freejack
Jake the Not-so-Wise
in Zocalo v2.0
UN resolutions and public opinions aside, do we not have a right to remove a tyrannical dictator? Do we have a right as a powerful nation to remove those who would murder and oppress their own people?
The people of Iraq are human too and deserve the same freedom from a tyrannical dictator that much of the world enjoys. Weapons, oil, United States security aside, the most compelling justification for war is the freeing of an oppressed people.
Now here is the slippery slope, where would we stop in this doctrine of liberation? How do we decide which dictators to remove and which oppressive regimes will be left in place. If we are to attack Iraq for the purpose of freeing the Iraqi people from Saddam's grasp (which in this case is not been the stated purpose) do we not have to continue on to all oppressive governments?
I am not trying to argue on way or another just simply asking a question and hoping to elicit some intelligent responses. Please leave your person opinions about individuals out of the discussion.
Jake
The people of Iraq are human too and deserve the same freedom from a tyrannical dictator that much of the world enjoys. Weapons, oil, United States security aside, the most compelling justification for war is the freeing of an oppressed people.
Now here is the slippery slope, where would we stop in this doctrine of liberation? How do we decide which dictators to remove and which oppressive regimes will be left in place. If we are to attack Iraq for the purpose of freeing the Iraqi people from Saddam's grasp (which in this case is not been the stated purpose) do we not have to continue on to all oppressive governments?
I am not trying to argue on way or another just simply asking a question and hoping to elicit some intelligent responses. Please leave your person opinions about individuals out of the discussion.
Jake
Comments
And you speak of "we".
After World War II, the peoples of the world came together and founded the UN to create a new "we". A "we" where, for instance, not the state with the most weapons should rule.
- We all know that there will *always* and inevitable be other reasons to go for war instead of "freeing people". In fact, "freeing people" is just a pretext to go for your own reasons, whoever the aggressor is.
Have you asked Iraq people or people from other countries who live(d) and work(ed) there if they want to be "freed" by another country? I haven't heard such things.
- "There is only one truth about war. People die." You surely know who said that. There is no such thing as a 'collateral damage'. Bombing a city has the *purpose* of invoking fear in the people, destroying the basis of living to weaken the enemy, and killing people directly.
I'd rather help the Iraq people (or any other including yours and mine) to free themselves than kill ten or hundred thousands people to 'free' them.
[BI'd rather help the Iraq people (or any other including yours and mine) to free themselves than kill ten or hundred thousands people to 'free' them. [/B][/QUOTE]
All the other reasons for going into Iraq aside:
In the past the United States and other nations have armed people of other countries and given them advice to help them gain their own freedom. This has worked in the short run but has blown up in our faces time and time again in the long run. We have consistently given the arms to the wrong individuals - that has in turn given them to much power and has corrupted them. Giving arms to anyone but your own military is dangerous because you never know where they will end up. This is a mistake the US has made in the past and I hope will not do again, it might be one reason for the policy change. Never again should we have to fear our own stinger missiles, that were given in good faith, be used against us.
So that in my mind excludes arming other people to help themselves in the future. So what about waiting the dictator out and hoping things change? In 1991 US troops watched and did nothing as the Sheites in the south and the Kurds in the north tried to gain their own freedom, we didn't shoot down President Hussein's helicopter gun ships, they were put down disarmed and massacred. I think the strong have an obligation to help others who are not in such a great position to gain their freedom.
My analogy is this: If you are walking down the street and you see a thug waving a knife in the air holding a person hostage, do you think to yourself "I should get involved and try and help." Or do you think, "Well, that person needs to fight for themselves." In my opinion if you are a decent person you're going to try and help the person. So you go over and try and reason with the person holding the knife. The person holding the knife has already slashed the torso of the hostage and the hostage needs medical attention now. Do you wait it out and hope for a peaceful resolution with the hostage bleeding to death or do you use force to get the knife away for the hostage taker? Same thing goes if you had called in the SWAT team, they give it some time but will eventually use force.
You should read Cruelty and Silence: War, Tyranny, Uprising in the Arab World by Kanan Makiya, it lays out an understanding of why we can and should help, and that there is support in Iraq for outside help.
Now, I've established that in my opinion the strong have an obligation to help others gain their freedom and why. However that opens up Freejack's question: where does it stop? This in my opinion was President Chirac's only compelling argument. He commented that this opened a can of worms. So where does it stop? I think helping with liberation should happen in any country were there is a tyrannical leader and no free elections. The implications people have made on this board that individuals are not smart enough to vote freely among other comments disturbs me greatly. In my opinion a country is fine so long as the people get to choose their own government with an elected system of checks and balances and continue to have free elections at regular intervals. Self determination is the basic human right, and the strong have an obligation to help the oppressed maintain their human rights. Democracy works in Capitalism, it can work in Communal systems, and it can work in Muslim states.
It might seem like this is a huge task, and it is, but it wouldn't be so burdensome if more free states were not so complacent and self-centered in their own thinking and freedom and would help with this noble quest.
This is not British Imperialism, the US doesn't have the stomach to stay in foreign places very long, this is about what is right. Freedom and self determination for every individual.
You can't negotiate with deceitful totalitarian dictators who have shown a willingness to attack his own people in the past.
[B]In the past the United States and other nations have armed people of other countries and given them advice to help them gain their own freedom. [...][/B][/QUOTE]
Um, please... have I said "Give them weapons"? I have not. If I meant that, I would have said it. Weapon-centered Americans, tsss.
BTW, I do not think that it was a "mistake" to give weapons to certain groups. It was a decision with a certain risk. The USA took the risk which mostly lead to many dead people and the US being in the comfortable situation of others fighting their wars or preparing the pretext for a direct assault (see UCK in the NATO war against Yugoslavia).
[QUOTE][B]My analogy is this: If you are walking down the street and you see a thug waving a knife in the air holding a person hostage, do you think to yourself "I should get involved and try and help." Or do you think, "Well, that person needs to fight for themselves." In my opinion if you are a decent person you're going to try and help the person.[/B][/QUOTE]
I'd propose you call the police before putting yourself at risk because otherwise no-one could be able to do so later.
And, please do not say that we don't have a "police" in the real world. Mr Blix and Mr El Baradei were just in the midst of an investigation if the thug has a weapon that he is not allowed to have by certain rules.
[QUOTE][B]So you go over and try and reason with the person holding the knife. The person holding the knife has already slashed the torso of the hostage and the hostage needs medical attention now. Do you wait it out and hope for a peaceful resolution with the hostage bleeding to death or do you use force to get the knife away for the hostage taker? Same thing goes if you had called in the SWAT team, they give it some time but will eventually use force.[/B][/QUOTE]
Reasoning is a very good strategy, in my opinion. Every thug hurts himself, in the end. Some can be taught that.
If there is a hostage and it needs medical attention, I suggest calling 911 in addition to the police.
There was erected an embargo against Iraq after the last gulf war which included a lot of medical products. The reason was that those products were said to be used as weapons or for the production of weapons. 1.5 million people have died because of that, mainly children.
So you see, the hostage is really not well. But it's not the thug's sole responsibility.
The police, on the other hand, have already begun to disarm the thug of his weapons that he could use, whether against his hostage or other people. Interviews have been done, many dossiers have been given. To me, it looks like the police is doing a fine job.
I see no reason why I should collect all firearms, bomber airplanes and not to forget nuclear weapons around me... and tell the policemen to go away in order to kill or at least terribly hurt the thug and the hostage and in addition making the place where the hostage used to live a wasteland.
[QUOTE][B]I think helping with liberation should happen in any country were there is a tyrannical leader and no free elections. The implications people have made on this board that individuals are not smart enough to vote freely among other comments disturbs me greatly.[...][/B][/QUOTE]
And, who would you like to decide about that?
For instance, in my opinion, the current president of the United States was not elected as it should be in a democracy. Also, I see that the USA is using the death penalty which I personally find disgusting and inhuman. In addition, I see the USA (among others, including my own country) continuing to attack other countries against international law and my own sense of fairness.
So, should I be allowed to go for war against the USA (apart from that: I would not even *want* to do such a stupid thing, even not when not considering military strength - it is just the wrong thing to do, I believe)?
[QUOTE][B]Self determination is the basic human right, and the strong have an obligation to help the oppressed maintain their human rights.[/B][/QUOTE]
You won't hear me disagreeing with that. Especially self determination is exactly what my first statement was all about (the misunderstanding about sending weapons).
In my opinion, the USA does not want to make Iraq a domacratic country. The US government stands for ignoring the will of even their own people and peoples around the world who do not want this war.
But let's assume they would want to be Iraq the type of democracy the US prefer. Who would give them the right to press this preference onto the Iraq people?
I dont like "tyrannical dictator" I hate them very much, I dont like tyrannical Communist, Who brought much shame to the word Communist.
I am against the war in iraq for many reson. And I am glad that my country has listened to the will of the people(80%), Unlike many others countrys. I also in a way dont realy care about the US going into Iraq, Thats what the people want.
Anyway the UN Has failed in some areas and Excelled in some areas.
+I have Come up with a World goverment that ever memeber country has a equal say(No more of that Veto bull shit). And the people of member countrys vote for who represents them. I Just not have gotten all my ideas put togeter, and have it put on paper.
problem 2. A world government at this point would collapse into a grand war the likes of wich would put WW II to shame.
Islamic fundamentalists control or have large amounts of sympathisers in nearly 25 countries, which makes them a sizable voting block, and they are in favor of stricter SOCIAL laws and regulations, (condeming homosexuality, abortion, keeping women subservient to men) And if a world government tried applying rules based on its cultural assumptions (and actualy enforcing them) We would see a hell of alot of bloodshed.
I never said you said we should give them weapons I was simply setting up my argument. There were three possible courses of action I saw (arming the people, waiting out the dictator, liberating Iraq now) it was my goal to discredit two and support the third - I know you like the "wait out the dictator" idea I just wanted to exclude the other possibility all together first then get to my main point. (It was a poor set up on my part.)
You recommend we call the police: I feel they would do that same thing, give time to negotiate, then if the negotiations showed no progress they would save the hostage by force.
You said "Reasoning is a very good strategy, in my opinion."
I agree, however in my opinion we have tried reasoning for 12 years and it has failed, you can not reason with the Iraqi leadership. The Iraqi leadership has had 12 years to comply with the UN resolutions they have not come close.
You said "1.5 million people have died because of [the embargo], mainly children."
So why do you want to let the Iraqi leadership drag out the disarmament any longer? If we were to simply lift the embargo, which was supported by the UN, that would be a victory for the leadership of Iraq and it would create an even worse sense of hypocrisy and show an unwillingness on our part to follow through on things. The food for oil program has backfired, the Iraqi leadership has used it to abuse its own people further.
You said "To me, it looks like the police is doing a fine job."
It has taken twelve years to get this far and it's absurd- and the Iraqi leadership started production of their new long range missiles during the time they were supposed to be disarming. It has been twelve years and they are still being deceptive about the Sarin and VX gas. The Iraqi leadership has NEVER in twelve years shown it is willing to be fully compliant and it only partially complaint when 200,000 troops are ready to strike. The US can not keep that kind of pressure on for another twenty years! You said it yourself - During the police investigation 1.5 million people have died and lived under the oppressive rule of a dictator. How long are you willing to let it go on? I challenge you to set a date you feel would be ideal and explain why.
You said "...in order to kill or at least terribly hurt the thug and the hostage and in addition making the place where the hostage used to live a wasteland."
I admit that there is a chance that we will hurt the hostage - however the thug has hurt and most likely would have hurt or killed the hostage in the future - I say it's worth the risk. How long are you willing to let the hostage be in pain before you are willing to bring the stand off to a quick end? (admittedly with some risk to the hostage involved.) I also trust the humanitarian aid will be moved in and that the United States and the world will help to rebuild Iraq to a point better than before 1991.
You said "For instance, in my opinion, the current president of the United States was not elected as it should be in a democracy."
That's the good thing about US democracy - In four years we can try again - the Iraqi people don't have that option. In addition there is more support for the liberation of Iraq in the US than you might have been led to believe. It's just that the descenters in the US are much louder than I am. I ask this question - If it's taken 12 years to get this far in the disarmament how many more decades will it take for the people of Iraq to be able to descent against their own government without the fear of retaliation from said government? In my opinion the Iraqi people will never be free unless the Iraqi dictator if forced out.
You said "In my opinion, the USA does not want to make Iraq a domacratic country."
Well there is the problem - and I know that nothing I say could change your position. I believe the USA [B]does[/B] want to make Iraq a democratic country. Given some past track records i might understand why you might think the way you do - However if the rest of the world would support the process perhaps they could help to ensure the right path is taken.
"Who would give them the right to press this preference onto the Iraq people?"
I don't know exactly what you are asking, but, it is my hope that if the people of Iraq (including women) had freely elected their own government the USA would respect the wishes of the new elected Iraqi government as long as those free elections were kept in place.
The USA has shown it respects the wishes of democracies like Turkey, I trust it will stay that way. If it doesn't I will go and exercise my right to protest and I will take it into account during the next election.
The three fundamental differences between you and I is I think the current Iraqi government has had enough time to change its ways, I think it has not changed - you disagree. However I ask you - they have had 12 years how much longer would you wait given the option? :(
The other difference is I think it is worth risking a few lives now to free a people who have no voice against thier own government and who have and will be attacked by their own government in the future. You don't. :(
The final difference is I trust that the real goal of the USA is to establish a democracy in Iraq. You don't. :(
I see no way of changing your mind on the previous three issues - just as you will probably not change mine - as a result we will probably never agree on the mater - I just hope that you see what my perspective is, and that it is not that of a fanatic, but of someone who truly cares what happens to the people of Iraq in the long run. :)
-------
To close I'd just like to say that I do not care for Gerhard Schröder, I think Angela Merkel is a very wise women. However, no matter what I think of the politics: I lived in Stuttgart for four years, I loved Germany and I love the people. I do not want to see a wedge put between us.
"Einigkeit und Recht und Freiheit" hoffentlich nich nur für das Deutsche Vaterland, aber die Welt.
[B]I dont like fundamentalists very much, But Mind you the US Supports a country with very very Strick Social laws and regulations...... [/B][/QUOTE]
If you are referring to Saudi Arabia, I agree, that is part of the reason we appear to be hypocrites in the eyes of the rest of the world. It is my hope that we will start to be more even handed in criticizing repressive nations/actions, whether it is in Saudi Arabia or Israel ect. The US needs to be more constant in its stance and I think were are heading toward that - Unfortunately our foreign policy will probably change after the next election furthering the feeling of hypocrisy.
-----------
I do not think we should leave dictators alone - you said "Its not really our right to impose our ideas onto other people."
The idea that you can impose freedom on someone is silly!!! :confused:
I don't see how anyone who is free can stand by and let a dictator impose his will on others. It boggles my mind. No one in their right mind wants to be part of a dictatorship unless they are part of the system, that is for certain.