Where exactly did you say that in this or any thread that I have ever participated in? Please don’t accuse me of inattention because of your incompleteness.
The simple fact is that the US does occupy Iraq as an invading force, it has removed the stable government using force. Whether it had the right to do so is rather moot at this stage, no? The plain fact is that it is dictating by force the manner in which the Iraqi government behaves.
The relevant point, IMO, is not whether it has a right to do so but that it is doing so, and doing so in a manner which allows the government to execute minorities simply for being a minority.
IOW it’s compounding of evils. If you do perform an act you have no right to perform, that doesn’t then absolve you of all responsibility for what comes from that act. Quiet the opposite. If I break into your house when I have no right to that doesn’t absolve me of responsibility when I then set fire to it accidentally with a cigarette. Nor does it make much sense for someone else to claim that I didn’t have any right to use your fire extinguishers, so therefore I don’t need to do anything to fight the fire. As soon as I forcibly entered the house in the first place the concept that I have no right, and therefore no obligation, to help make amends for the damage I caused seems… incongruous.
Oh, please. No one actually takes that sort of attitude seriously. That’s just an excuse for atrocity and self indulgence; when the people who say things like that are under attack, suddenly the other side is in the wrong. And you don’t hear “it’s just force, there is no right or wrong” arguments anymore.
That is certainly not the official position of the US government who claim there is an “independent”, “democratically elected” government in Iraq.
My position is that the USA had no right to invade and has no right to continue to be there or to impose anything by force. My position is that they ought to get out and let the Iraqis govern themselves.
Do you honestly believe that Iraq would be anything but a civil war zone if the US left?
This is the problem. You can’t destroy a country’s stable government, replace it with nothing, then walk away looking over your shoulder at the anarchy and bloodshed and say "They’re governing themselves.
America’s only goal is to control Iraq and the well-being of its people are of no concern. America could have started by, you know, NOT invading. It could have continued by, you know, NOT carrying out infamies like Abu Ghraib and Fallujah. It could have worked with other nations but it has made clear it will not cede one iota of control and the Iraqi people are of no concern. That is what America is clearly doing. The only reason America has ceded any actual control of Iraq has been when it was forced to by circumstances. It tries to sell the fiction of an independent Iraqi government while in reality controlling it like a puppet and ceding absolutely no control to anybody.
Any foreign countries who contributed troops had no say in what was to be done. America wanted the foreign troops to be there strictly to carry out America’s orders. Spanish troops had serious problems with this and left in disgust.
So do not give me this BS about America caring about the Iraqi people. America only cares about itself and could not care less if the rest of the world would disappear except in what way it would affect American interests.
sailor, I think we may be talking at cross purposes here. I am referring to what should be done, from an ethical/moral perspective. And to me that means the US fixing its fuckup with as few deaths fo Iraqi citizens at possible. It definitely doesn’t mean walking away and letting the warlords and religious extremists fight it out to see who carve out the biggest totalitarian state.
You seem to be coming from a more a more realpolitik position. ie the American government, military and electorate are going to screw over the Iraqi people no matter what and then walk away and leave them in the shit. So they may as well just fuck off and let them start fighting right now. I can sort of see where you’re coming from but I don’t agree with your assumptions concerning American motives or the best way to deal with that.
At the very least I assume you agree the average Iraqi is better off under the American puppet government than they would be under the control of the warlords and fundmentalists who would inevitably control things if the US left. Yes?
You do not seem to grasp the concept that the ends, no matter how good, do not justify the means¨. I am utterly convinced that Bush was evil and did huge damage to America. Should I have supported a military coup against him? I have no doubt in my mind that removing him by force would have been the best thing for America and for the world.
Also, you are selling something which I am not buying and that is that it is better for Iraqis if America stays. I do not buy that. It is better for Iraqis if they govern themselves, even if they have problems in the short run. This whole justification for colonialism was discarded some time ago.
Iraqis are not better off being governed by America or by an American puppet.
It’s not a non-sequitur - sailor certainly got the idea easily enough. Martin Hyde appeared to be dismissing any and all moral issues with the claim that only force matters, and morality is irrelevant. That’s a common excuse I hear from America and it’s supporters, but I don’t believe for a moment they actually mean it. They’ll handwave right and wrong away as unimportant, right until they or their interests are endangered.
Except that had not Germany declared war on half the world the rest of the world would have let them get away with the holocaust. In other words, the holocaust was one more thing after the war to show how bad the germans were but it was not the reason or an important reason for the allies to make war on Germany. The reason the allies made war on Germany was because Germany attacked them.
Furthermore. I might agree that when a country is committing genocide the community of nations represented by the UN has the moral power to intervene but this is not the case in Iraq at all where the USA went in against the international community who were seeing right through the lies been presented by America. So America in this case is not the good guys but the bad guys.
So what do you propose? Support the new scumbags? Just like we supported the preceding scumbags until he was no longer convenient? Look the other way? Round them up and shoot them? Take away their country club memberships? The country was fucked up before we got there. We just made it a different sort of fucked up. If their current govenment is really doing this shit and we stay and support them in the name of stability, we are just as guilty as they are. If we remove all support for this sham of a government, the wolves may just be the “common” people they are fucking with. At the very least, their supposed government might have to worry a little more about who they fuck with and for how long. They wouldn’t have Uncle Sam there to back them up. They had what? How many years to set up a working government? How many years to get their shit together? And this is the best they can do? Maybe it can’t be fixed, ever. By anyone.
I was just responding to bengangmo’s blanket, “It’s their country, they can do whatever they want,” philosophy. I didn’t intend it as a defence of the occupation of Iraq.
Here is what was said about this FOUR years ago. This mess was a long time coming, and our own government’s stupidity is the root cause. As usual, they had their plan, and no warnings or cautions would be listened to. Underlining is mine, for emphasis.
We went in under false pretenses, and made it worse. Now, are we to support this “islamic” government “in the name of democracy”? Should we aid and abet atrocities, just to save face?
Hell no. Let this “government” stand or fall on its own.
Let’s have a show of hands. Who wants to support an Islamist state that runs a kangaroo court, all in the name of “freedom and democracy”? Come on, raise those hands.
Who wants to stop supporting them? Let’s see those hands.