My intent is not to start another general pro-war anti-war thread. This is to address the assertions that the US cannot claim a valid reason of the upcoming war to be of liberation, or even just taking out a bad guy, without doing the same for other known, similar situations.
This has honestly struck me as odd. And even though I have asked for explanations, it usually gets skirted around because of the inherent “emotions” of my analogies.
Do we eschew Mrs. Struthers and other only because they have the gall to ask us to only help one child?
I connot grasp the apparent logic of those arguments even if it could be deemed inconsistent. And it would not be inconsistent if we all agree that liberation is a good thing, and that we should help others when we can.
It is not my intent to get into the factualness of the assertion about this being a valid reason for war. I know that many on both sides who consider this a disingenuous assertion by some if not all about the reason to go. And I can understand that pov. I just do not comprehend the arguments that even if it was a sincere reason by those in charge, that it would still be wrong based on our consistency.
Well, I actually considered this to be a hijack of a thread with an OP talking about French hypocrasy and those that agree with them. I wanted to debate the thought process I had described in detail instead of focusing on France and the war in particular. You will notice I linked to it, so there must have been a difference for me to waste my time.
…oddly, if this was a war about liberation, I would have expected to have seen the current United States administration propose a Resolution at the Security Council condemming Saddam’s human rights record, seen bundles of Ammnesty International Reports handed over to the UN, and other stuff, to help build the case. Instead, they haven’t.
What have we seen instead? A reminder that 12 years ago, Saddam used WMD on his own people, the comments from a few, seemingly random defectors, and…nothing. Nothing, that is, apart from the assertion from members of the administration that a war against Iraq will “liberate” the Iraqi people. The United States have only contributed 15 million (1) dollars to help fund United States refugee projects in the Gulf, a projected total shortfall in funding of about 80 million dollars.
The “liberation” of Iraq has been “spun” by the White House “Doctors”, if the United States were serious, we would have seen more action and evidence by now…
Perhaps I wasn’t as clear as I hoped I was when I stated this.
Or are you saying that only because they did not state the evidence against Saddam on how you would expect them to, then they can’t claim liberation? And any validity they claim through liberation is null? And extending that, it does not matter if a goal of a war would be liberation if the intent is not 100% genuine in your point of view?
Does it matter that a military is actually set to accomplish the liberation? Because of this percieved insincerity, do we have to automatically relegate the liberation of a people in the context of thw entire un-free (for lack of a better word) world? nd their liberation must be seen in the context of what we would do if this this war where to never happen?
This is a direct question on why we cannot liberate a people without attemtping to remain consistant on all people who we deem as un-free.
The fact that this administration is so choosy about which oppressed peoples need to be liberated makes me deeply suspicious. In other words, it’s not that there aren’t humanitarian grounds for liberating Iraqis from Saddam; it’s that the coincidental harmony with Bush’s realpolitikal goals makes me very cynical about whether or not any humanitarian goals will be achieved at all.
Look at this way: say you’re walking down the street with an acquaintance. As you pass a homeless person, you muse aloud whether or not you should give some money, and your acquaintance says “no no, don’t give money to him.” Another homeless person is passed by, and once again, no money is given. Four homeless people later, your acquaintance suddenly says “This one! This one right here! Give him everything in your pocket!”
You’d be a little suspicious, wouldn’t you?
And then, if you questioned him, and he admitted that he gets 50% of what that beggar takes, you’d be reluctant to hand over anything, wouldn’t you? But your acquaintance says “what are you hesitating for? Even if I’m a venal crook, it’s still a good thing to give money to the homeless, and he gets 50% anyway.”
At that point, I’d be sceptical that the beggar gets anything at all.
That’s kind of the position I feel I’m in now: yes, there are grounds to go to war to liberate Iraqis from Saddam; there’s definitely grounds for a humanitarian intervention. But at this point, I’m so cynical about this administration’s motives and plans that I can’t honestly support it. Add to that the damage they’re doing to international stability and important institutions, and I’m dead set against it.
Well, if you think the administration is that evil, self serving, powerful, and manipulative, I can’t really argue with that.
you think that any liberation will only serve the administration and you have doubts that any “liberating” would actually happen.
I do not want to start another general war debate so I won’t argue things like sanctions, Saddam, and the “realpolitik’s” of the world we actually live in today.
But this answer I can understand, even if your understanding of the situation I can’t agree with.
Yes, I think that there is a fundamental difference between the pro-war and anti-war crowds that hinges largely on what I said (for a significant number of people, at least), and it’s not something that can be resolved with debating or rhetoric. This isn’t the 30s, where American communists denied Stalin’s purges; the anti-war movement is, for the most part, well aware of just how vile Saddam Hussein is.
Your first sentence was hyperbolic, but your second sentence was exactly right.
For what it’s worth, I don’t think that I’d be more charitable towards a Democratic administration pursuing the same course, even though I would have voted for Al Gore.
Pretty much what Hansel said. There are circumstances where I would agree with a war to liberate the Iraqi people, just as I agreed with the UN peace-keeping in East Timor.
However, looking at the approach of the US, I’ve concluded that the liberation of the Iraqi people isn’t exactly high on the list of e priorities and will probably be handled poorly, both during and after the war.
It seems to me (fun analogy time) like some guy, whom I’ll call Frank, is trying to convince me to help him murder the belligerent drunk next door because this dastardly drunkard owes Frank money. And you know, once he’s dead, his kids won’t have to put up with him coming home drunk anymore and beating them up.
I doubt that Frank has the interests of these metaphorical kids at heart.
