War in Iraq

From PhiloWiki

Should the U.S. have gone to war in Iraq?

Yes

• Containment & Context, Mark Goldblatt, National Review

"This is a critical point—and, again, a perpetual blind spot for critics of the war. The U.S. did not oust Saddam only because we thought he had, or was developing, WMD. Rather, the U.S. ousted Saddam because we thought he had, or was developing, WMD, which, along with other violations, put him in breach of the 1991 cease-fire agreement. Critics of the war, including Democratic-party hacks and Hollywood mouth-breathers, continually omit that last clause. That omission lies behind their smirks as they inquire: “Well, if we’re going to topple Saddam because he’s a bad guy, why don’t we go after all the other bad guys?”

Answer: Because the other bad guys aren’t in breach of a cease-fire agreement."

• Media Coverage has distorted world's view of Iraqi reality - LTC. Tim Ryan World Tribune

"[There are]... distorted and grossly exaggerated stories from major news organizations about the "failures" in the war in Iraq. "The most trusted name in news" and a long list of others continue to misrepresent the scale of events in Iraq. Print and video journalists are covering only a fraction of the events in Iraq and, more often than not, the events they cover are only negative. The inaccurate picture they paint has distorted the world view of the daily realities in Iraq. The result is a further erosion of international support for the United States' efforts there, and a strengthening of the insurgents' resolve and recruiting efforts while weakening our own. Through their incomplete, uninformed and unbalanced reporting, many members of the media covering the war in Iraq are aiding and abetting the enemy."

• Member view - User: Amoniz

"As I'm sure everyone is aware it's a highly contentious issue. However the bigger issue is whether a country should go to war to protect the 'individual liberties' of citizens in another. It may be morally right for a country that upholds the rights of its people, to try its best to protect the 'individual liberties' of its neighbours, however, the method we to achieve this is in question as are the methods.

There is then the issue of whether it's right to try and protect the liberties of others or instead mind our own business. Neglecting this consideration, what intervention is necessary? If it's right to interfere with the affairs of another country when their government is not respecting basic civil and human rights, what action should be taken and in what circumstance is each action appropriate?

Time is a key factor, if time is allowed to passby the violations of civil and human rights will continue and it may be assumed that through delays, further violations take place. This infers a degree ot responsibility upon those that have been entrusted in dealing with the problems, and ultimately accountability.

Just a quick random bit about what I personally believe about the morality of terrorist actions etc

In a demoocracy it doesn't seem feasible to have the option of voting for an ideology (say worldview 'z') that doesn't embody 'individual liberty'.

It's fair to say that people should have the right to vote for this ideology 'z', however, ideology 'z' does not support the ideology that allowed the free election to take place, one that supports individual liberty and hence allows people to vote for the alternative ideology 'z'.

Let's say ideology 'z' allows the execution of citizens if they vote in favour of another ideology. This opposes the principal that everyone has the right to vote regardless of what ideology they wish to vote for. If people are executed for voting a particular way, they're losing their right to vote through intimidation. And if you believe that such killing is not justfied, then this is morally wrong.

Hence, any ideology that be allowed as an option of an election must protect the rights of the electorate to vote freely otherwise it shouldn't be allowed as an option in the election.

You may think that such action is denying the people the right to vote for whatever they want, and it is, but it's also protecting their right to vote without the intimidation of torture or execution - something that needs to be opposed by the state - because - as the question trys to draw attention - being totured or executed because one holds a certain belief is morally wrong.

The truth is that in a truely free society, you can't really deny the existance of these ideologies which oppose elections that don't allow intimidation though execution and torture, however, if the society is based on morality, it should recognise that such action is wrong and make laws against it.

This is why within a western country like the USA or parts of Europe, if you murder or torture someone you break the law and this is why such ideologies like Islamofasciam which allow murder and torture of others who oppose Islamofascim, are opposed by the state.

The hypothetical situation above mirrors the situation in post-war Iraq, and the justification for placing a strong limit on what level of negotiations are appropriate and even goes sofar to indicate that negotiating with terrorists is not healthy. It also throws up questions about the definition of terrorism.

Intimidation seems an important word with regards to terrorism.

To intimidate is not an individual liberty. Is terrorism an individual liberty, is intimidation an individual liberty? Clearly individual liberty has retraints in morality.

Protection of "individual liberty" requires action against intimidators. Intimidators who use terror are by definition 'Terrorists'. It allows you to make this distinction.

These issues are apaprent throughout western democracy. For example briefly, the British National Party are a political organisation dedicated to preserving the culture of the british people through measures which include verys strict controls on immigration. The lead of the British National Party Nick Griffin has been quite vocal about his opposition to the spread of the Islamic religion and its integration into the culture and evenmore so aspects of shariah into English law. Hence he has voiced his grievences in the British media which have been met with public outcry by organisations that oppose his ideology. These individuals and organisations have called for the dismantlement of the 'BNP' because it is alleged that this constitutes incitement of religios hatred. Even if this is the case, Nick Griffin is not telling the public to go out and kill people in the name of his cause. Contrast this with the visit of Sheik Yusuf al-Qaradawi to the UK and his support for the killing of innocent people in the Israel-Palestinian conflict. Al-Qaradawi's comments are an example of support of an ideology which adovocates the killing of innocents through intimidation. It adovocates terrorism. The BNP has some nasty policies but can they really be implicated with the killings of others if they don't advocate the killing. Shouldn't governments take action against al-Qaradawi and his followers who advocate the killing of innocents, rather than take action, even stronger action against organisations that only 'apparently' incite it?

No

The war in Iraq was a serious misuse of presidential power. From the beginning the American public has not been in favor of the war. In 2004, a poll of the American public reinforced this when 56 percent of Americans said that the war was a mistake. [1]

This position has been reinforced by recent events. This quarter [spring 2007] has seen more US military casualities than any other. There have been almost four hundred military personnel killed in this quarter alone.

The war has been a disaster for America's standing in the world. It has been an expensive and bloody misuse of resources. Quoting consertative pundits, as those in favour of the war so often do, does not change this basic fact.

An interesting side note is that the two comments made in favour of the war in the section in support of the war above were made by two men who have since changed their positions on this issue.

First, Tim Ryan, the Democratic Represenative from Ohio, now feel that the war was a mistake and did not support Bush's request to add to troop strengths in Iraq.

Second, the consertative commentator, Mark Goldblatt now also admits that the war was a major blunder for by the Bush administration. For more see his recent comments.[2]