Quote:
Originally posted by bilmore
I, and many others, disagree.
If we see regions controlled by obviously bad people, where the populace is degraded, controlled, killed, and beaten down, I think that we have a duty, or at least a calling, to go and help them.
If you walk past a street corner and see a large man beating a small child, do you walk by and ignore it, saying "I hate violence, and so I will not be violent"?
No.
You become violent to the extent needed to impose your own moral system.
Because the day we give up our ability to judge, based upon our own moral system, is the day we abdicate our own brains.
|
You are preaching to the choir. I agree with the moral obligation. However, that was not the only reason that the US invaded Iraq. It was only one of the reasons. Perhaps it should have been the only reason, but it wasn't the only reson. That was my point.
Ty's point is if it is all about moral obligation, why not Haiti? My point is, because in the case of Iraq, it wasn't all about moral obligation.
Having said that, I do think it is the US's moral obligation to spread democracy throughout the world. I just don't think that can be done all at once. The smart way to do it is to pick those places first that will not only be the easiest but also serve other US goals. The former because, well that is just a smart way to allocate your resources, and the latter because by furthering our political interests, it makes it easier to go onto the next one. Moreover, not everyone in the US agrees with this and you have to sell it to them by saying it furthers US interests.
Threaded Mode