ClumsyMonkey.net

I don't know enough about international law to get into that but there are a few things in this article that I take exception to.

We are penned in by the arrogant idea that this country is the center of the universe, exceptionally virtuous, admirable, superior.

I don't think I or most Americans believe that we are the "center of the universe". I think the author is using that expression to refer to the belief of many Americans that we are virtuous, admirable, and superior...which I would have to agree that in many instances we are all of those things (the same could be said about Canada or other nations or peoples, not just the US).

Most Americans firmly believe there is nothing the United States or its political leadership could possibly do that could equate to the crimes of Hitler's Third Reich. The Nazis are our "gold standard of evil," as author John Dolan once put it.

No, I don't think most Americans believe that and yes, the Nazis are our "gold standard" of evil because they committed probably the most massive and senseless genocide ever.

But the truth is that we can, and we have -- most recently and significantly in Iraq. It was the decision to invade Iraq in 2003 that made possible the horrors of Abu Ghraib, the destruction of Fallouja and Ramadi, the tens of thousands of Iraqi deaths, civilian massacres like Haditha, and on and on.

Wrong. Not just wrong, bullshit. Abu Gharib and Haditha can mainly be attributed to individuals committing acts that are perversions of American values. The destructions of Fallouja and Ramadi were part of a military campaign against armed enemy combatants. I'd also like to see an actual number there as opposed to "tens of thousands" of Iraqi deaths and maybe some indication of what percentage of those were accidental killings of civilians and how many were acts of war against armed enemy fighters.

To suggest that the war in Iraq is similar to what took place in Nazi Germany is a wild, ludicrous accusation that I find extremely offensive. The genocide that took place in Nazi Germany was ordered, condoned, and carried out by Nazi leaders. It was a state-sponsored atrocity in every way. The United States makes every effort to spare innocent lives when it makes war whereas Nazi Germany sought to exterminate them. The difference could not be more stark or obvious and I find it outrageous that anyone would make such a comparison. Also to be considered is that Germany invaded other nations simply for the point of conquest. Weather the US invasion of Iraq was legal (since some consider it to be a “pre-emptive” war) is not relevant to this argument because the US did not invade Iraq to expand its borders and does not condone or intentionally commit atrocities.

I've heard professional ethicists say that invading Iraq was the most noble thing the United States has done since it helped liberate Europe during World War II.

One thing I will say is that this article is the first time I've heard anyone back up the claim that the war in Iraq is illegal. I was beninning to think people were just repeating what they'd heard from other knee-jerk liberals.

Ok, that's all. The evil Republican will shut up for now

I've heard professional ethicists say that invading Iraq was the most noble thing the United States has done since it helped liberate Europe during World War II.

Really? I'd like to hear more about that.

And, you're not the only evil Republican around here. Haha.

It was just a snippet on "Meet the Press" or some morning show. Unfortunatly I don't have anything in black and white. He did say that tho. I dun heard him with ma own two ears.

I love country speak.

The topic of Iraq and War Crimes and such has been beaten like a dead horse, so the only thing I want to touch on is this point...

redneck_bill wrote:I

I've heard professional ethicists say that invading Iraq was the most noble thing the United States has done since it helped liberate Europe during World War II.

Do you really believe that? The US only went to Europe because they felt it was the noble thing to do? If that was the case they would have entered the war from the start rather than sell weapons to both sides.

So if it wasn't an act of nobility, what was it?

Well they were attacked for one. Pearl Harbor forced them into the war and Germany and Italy declared war against the Americans.

Second, Russia started kicking the crap out of Germany, which weakened them significantly, making it easier to win on the western front. If Hitler didn't get weird and go after Russia, he would have probably been able to keep a lot of France that he conquered.

Third, the USA signed a deal (Lend Lease Act) with Great Britain, China and other allied nations saying that they were allowed to purchase weapons from the USA and wouldn't have to pay for them until after the war was over. If Germany wins the war, they don't get any money back for the military equipment they purchase. So they had a vested interest in ensuring the Allies won.


Since when is politics noble? There are motives behind EVERYTHING.

I don't believe that it's the only reason, no. It's true that the US was largely opposed to entering what was seen as Europe's war until Pearl Harbor happened.

I don't think it's fair to say the US only fought WWII in self defense. Was it really necessary for the US to help liberate France even tho France was essentially powerless at the time? I'm sure attacking the Nazis who were IN France was part of it...

You could go on and on. The ultimate philosophical question here is does anyone ever do something simply becuase it's the right thing to do, with absolutely no gain whatsoever for themselves...and that's a whole 'nother debate.

I just wanted to say that there are some who don't agree that the Iraq war is immoral.

I don't really think whether or not the Iraqi War was moral or immoral is relevant, considering morality is relative.

Whether or not the Iraqi Invasion was legal under International Law is more the controversy, especially since the United States (and Allies) defied the United Nations. And I am quite sure that Ethicists, who devote their entire lives to living by the rules are quite concerned with the Law.

It was good getting Saddams crazy ass out of office...but all the lying to go there was rediculus, and the fact that us being there is ten times worse then Saddams rule.

LifeRiot wrote: ...the fact that us being there is ten times worse then Saddams rule.

What!? Are you serious man? Do you think the Iraqis are really worse off than when they were under the dictatorship (a minority dictatorship, I should mention) of Saddam than they are now? Saddam may have supressed the sectarian violence in Iraq through military rule but he did nothing to advance human rights or bring lasting peace to Iraq. The US invasion has given Iraqis a chance to end ALL atrocities in Iraq, be they state or terror sponsored -IF- they accept the compromises required by majority rule and renounce violence, something they appear unwilling to do. Maybe we were overly optimistic when we expected this of them. Maybe it wasn't our place to impose freedom on Iraq but don't tell me the Iraqis were better off before. Don't blame us because the Iraqis are murdering one another and us daily. If there is a civil war in Iraq today (which there is not) it is becuase the American invasion has allowed it, not created it. Meanwhile, our coalition forces are working to suppress this sectarian violence every day. Saddam may have stopped the symptoms (daily violence) but he did nothing to cure the disease (fear, intolerance). Democracy is the cure if Iraqis are willing to accept it. Saddam quelled the sectarian violence by being the most violent and powerful offender of them all. Some of you will probably say "oh, that's what the US does to the world!". Well, I think you're wrong. It's not in the best interest of the US to rule the world, something you fools seem to think we want to do. It is actually MORE in our interest to see to it that the world rule itself responsibly and adopt peace as a means of prosperity...SOMETHING IT ABSOLUTELY REFUSES TO DO in places like the middle east, for example. This is PRECISELY why it is in the United State's best interest to see a moderate, democratically elected government in Iraq and precisely why were are working toward that goal. If Iraq fails, peace fail. And if peace fails the US is in trouble. Some people can't understand the idea that war can be necessary to achieve peace but in this instance it absolutely is. We haven't created more terrorists. These people have always hated us. They blame us for everything. They are INSANE. We've given the Iraqis the best hand they've ever been delt. How they play it is up to them. I'm tired of these beseless, knee-jerk comments like "Iraq was better off, bla bla" get real.

What do you think would have happened in Iraq when Saddam Hussein died? Or when there was an uprising against him? There would be the exact same kind of violence in Iraq now that there is and will be if we withdraw too early WITH THE EXCEPTION that there would be absolutely NO effort to stop it and the victor would be just as bad or worse than his predecessor. Do you think the world would intervene to stop a civil war in Iraq? If you do I have one word for you. Darfur. God help us.

I'll say what I said on the other board when I flipped out the other day:

I apologise for losing my cool. I'm embarassed now, but I take back nothing I said.

"Lord, I apologise..."

Democracy is the cure if Iraqis are willing to accept it.

I think it's pretty obvious they aren't willing to accept it, and least not the total country. I think it's great that Saddam isn't in control over there anymore, however our presence there is only in an effort to keep us close to being in a controlling position of one of the worlds most used resources. The people of Iraq likely don't want our democracy and culture, they want their own culture and want to live how they want to, not how the US wants them to live. I also don't see how you can say that the US wants to promote peace, when we do so many things that contradict that. I see that there is a want for the rest of the world to live just like us. Perhaps it would be better if we cleaned our own house first and then help the others who WANT our help to clean theirs as well.

xjsb125 wrote: Perhaps it would be better if we cleaned our own house first and then help the others who WANT our help to clean theirs as well.

Exactly.......

xjsb125 wrote:

Democracy is the cure if Iraqis are willing to accept it.

I think it's pretty obvious they aren't willing to accept it, and least not the total country. I think it's great that Saddam isn't in control over there anymore, however our presence there is only in an effort to keep us close to being in a controlling position of one of the worlds most used resources. The people of Iraq likely don't want our democracy and culture, they want their own culture and want to live how they want to, not how the US wants them to live. I also don't see how you can say that the US wants to promote peace, when we do so many things that contradict that. I see that there is a want for the rest of the world to live just like us. Perhaps it would be better if we cleaned our own house first and then help the others who WANT our help to clean theirs as well.

I think a fact that a lot of people misunderstand is that it is not the US that is killing the Iraqi's. It's other Arabs. And to this point, the Coalition forces there are a stabilising factor. Should you remove the semblence of law and order that is provided by the forces, then anarchy will surely result.

That's true, but it's what they want. They don't want a democracy, so why should it be forced on them?

That is pretty much Americas motto now

If you don't do what we want, we'll bring democracy to your country.

xjsb125 wrote:That's true, but it's what they want. They don't want a democracy, so why should it be forced on them?

I think you'll find (as per usual) it's the vocal (and mostly violent) minority that are objecting. If you asked your normal every day Iraqi what he thinks of democracy I'm sure he'd give it favourable reviews. It shouldn't be forced on them but I don't think that withdrawing now would be the wisest of moves.

LifeRiot wrote:That is pretty much Americas motto now

If you don't do what we want, we'll bring democracy to your country.

True.

That and "Everything you do is considered terror."

The whole terrorism thing is overused.

It's smart to have a good defense plan, but the only reason terrorism is mentioned so much is because Bush knows he fucked up with 9/11.

Korzic wrote:

xjsb125 wrote:That's true, but it's what they want. They don't want a democracy, so why should it be forced on them?

I think you'll find (as per usual) it's the vocal (and mostly violent) minority that are objecting. If you asked your normal every day Iraqi what he thinks of democracy I'm sure he'd give it favourable reviews. It shouldn't be forced on them but I don't think that withdrawing now would be the wisest of moves.

Perhaps the minorities are so vocal and violent because they fear a democracy will silence their voices just as well. Look at North America, both Canada and America have laws in place to protect the minorities but the minorities still have such a hard time gaining what they deserve and being heard.

They get what they want, and the get what they deserve. It's not the "being heard" part that is right, it is the getting what is a right to them. In order for that to happen, a majority of the rest of the country has to convince them of it. Just because you are a minority and you think you have some right doesn't mean it is true.

I think it's all just evidence of how the media taints our perception of reality. The other day I learned in a law class that 96% of Americans pray. That implies that the majority of us are, in fact, religious. Yet if you had asked me that before I would have said that a much smaller percentage of Americans are religious. It's because we end up thinking the most vocal minorities actually make up a larger part of the percentage than they do.