Politics: Where we struggle to kneel in the muck.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
Rwanda was a sovereign nation too. Under your reasoning, it would be morally unsupportable for a nation to invade Rwanda as the government ordered the slaughter of its own people. And why you say? Because the Rwanda government's proclamation that all members of the minority group, the Tutsi's, must be raped and slaughtered (to the point where the citizens were so exhausted from using their machetes they'd chop the achilles tendons of their victims and then leave them to cry all night while they went and slept and came back in the morning to finish chopping at them) is simply "behavior that is not in accordance with our standards". I wonder how this little guy, one of the survivors who has to take a rest from the food line, feels about your cultural relativism?

You do love the provocative pictures, don't you? However, on a moral basis, what gives us, as one sovereign nation, the right to kill one group of Rwandans in order to prevent the killing of another group of Rwandans?

See, I'm not the one who has a problem with moral relativism. It was Club's question, dealing with Iraq, and dealing with it on a purely moral basis, that I was responding to. Your post helps point out, from the other side, the problem I was highlighting. There are no moral absolutes. And everything is relative.

I agree that we should have done something in Rwanda. And Mozambique, and the Congo, and Sudan, and Chad, etc. However, as I've pointed out before, we don't have the money or the manpower to be the world's policeman. And the only way to really solve the problem is to become the world's emperor.

Which creates all kinds of moral, political, economic, and social problems that I don't have the solution to. But neither does Club. And nor does George Bush. He just has the cowboy attitude to talk large, act first, and dump the bills on our children.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by taxwonk
He invaded Iraw as a smokescreen to cover the fat that he failed in one of his main objectives in Afghanistan.

Do you realize that implicit in this sort of charge is the requirement that Tony Blair be a fat idiot? for all our fights, I still admit you don't drift into the conspiracy side of town, til this.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Never mind

Sure thing. Buh bye.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Club, what in your view is the moral case for not invading Zimbabwe, Syria or Burma?

I don't know about Syria or Burma, but there probably isn't one for not doing something in Zimbabwe. Your point? Let me guess. If we can't do the moral thing in all countries we shouldn't try to do it in one?

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Translation: there aren't any

No. Translation, I think it's an argument that's beside the point.

If you really want to declare victory and do the dance, though, you'd be well served to answer Ty's question.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Actually, the war on terror is a war against TERROR. Not just islamic facism.

Disagree.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by taxwonk
How about the fact that Iraq was a sovereign nation and we can't morally support invading soveriegn nations any time we feel they aren't behaving in accordance with our standards?

If I understand you right I find this incredible. You are (1) backing moral relativism and (2) you are giving priority to a nation's sovereignty over human life?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Gattigap

If you really want to declare victory and do the dance, though, you'd be well served to answer Ty's question.

stp

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Adder
You really don't see the difference between the questions of whether Saddam was a bad, bad man and whether we should have gone to war in Iraq?

Of course I do.

I take it then that you believe we should be invading most of subsaharan Africa? And Burma? etc.

Invading? If that's what it takes. But certainly we should be doing something.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I don't know about Syria or Burma, but there probably isn't one for not doing something in Zimbabwe. Your point? Let me guess. If we can't do the moral thing in all countries we shouldn't try to do it in one?

I'm going to have to read the piece you linked to if we take this much farther so that I can tell you specifically what I disagree with, but there are a bunch of different reasons why we shouldn't do what you call the moral thing all the time. Some have to do with the limits of our power. If some foreigners are trying to kill other foreigners, often there is little we can do about it. Also, there are questions about what gives us the right to impose our views on others. To me, the latter objections evaporate in the face of genocide. But less so the former. What could we do in Zimbabwe to change things in the long run? And then there are the practical problems. How do we intervene in Zimbabwe if none of its neighbors want us to?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I'm going to have to read the piece you linked to if we take this much farther so that I can tell you specifically what I disagree with, but there are a bunch of different reasons why we shouldn't do what you call the moral thing all the time. Some have to do with the limits of our power. If some foreigners are trying to kill other foreigners, often there is little we can do about it. Also, there are questions about what gives us the right to impose our views on others. To me, the latter objections evaporate in the face of genocide. But less so the former. What could we do in Zimbabwe to change things in the long run? And then there are the practical problems. How do we intervene in Zimbabwe if none of its neighbors want us to?

I fully agree that we can't always do the moral thing. I was just trying to limit the discussion to the moral issue, to see if anyone could come up with a MORAL argument against the invasion. There are many legitimate practical arguments against invasion.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by sgtclub
There are many legitimate practical arguments against invasion.

There are many legitimate practical arguments for invading, too. Everyone pre-war thought he had WMD. Even Old Europe did. Moreover, we have to start somewhere in radically changing the middle east if we ever want to win the war on terrorism. Iraq was the logical place to start.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I fully agree that we can't always do the moral thing. I was just trying to limit the discussion to the moral issue, to see if anyone could come up with a MORAL argument against the invasion. There are many legitimate practical arguments against invasion.

It's not always "can't". A realistic -- indeed, conservative -- assessment of the limits of our power would acknowledge that there are very real limits on our ability to change the world. Arguably, Iraq has had a repressive government because of the conditions it finds itself in. A strong government is needed to hold the country together because it coheres so poorly. It appears that Kurds, Shi'ites and Sunnis identify more with those groups than they do with the nation. Moreover, they're in a dangerous neighborhood. As strong as we are, we can't do anything about these facts. Hussein was a bad man, but it's not clear yet that we've brought stability or a more legitimate government. Indeed, at this point, the government is less legitimate (in the Weberian sense) -- at least Hussein was installed in power by Iraqi guns.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by sgtclub
http://normblog.typepad.com/normblog...st_word_o.html

Anyone care to rebut this?

According to hello, God is the sole source of morality. God told me the war against Iraq was immoral. Therefore, it was immoral. QED.