American intentions in Iraq

[Alon]

I would like to hear other Objectivists' opinions on one of my main reasons for supporting the war on Iraq.

While I did not believe there was a strong connection between Saddam Hussein's regime and fundamentalist Islamic terror organizations, I did believe America was fully justified in attackig Iraq for this reason: Iraq is surrounded by three of the largest terror supporters in the world; Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia. If the U.S. establishes a military presence at the heart of this "terror triangle" and even goes so far as creating a democratic government, it can strongly influence if not directly involve itself in the affairs of those states. Aid could be sent to the democratic movement in Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia can be militarily threatened.

Since Iraq was a dictatorship, I do not believe it had any claim to sovereignty, since sovereigny rests with the people. Thus, America was fully justified in taking control of that territory for the purpose of being better able to fight the war on terror to protect the freedoms of its own citizens.

[punk]

I would like to hear other Objectivists' opinions on one of my main reasons for supporting the war on Iraq.

While I did not believe there was a strong connection between Saddam Hussein's regime and fundamentalist Islamic terror organizations, I did believe America was fully justified in attackig Iraq for this reason:  Iraq is surrounded by three of the largest terror supporters in the world; Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia.  If the U.S. establishes a military presence at the heart of this "terror triangle" and even goes so far as creating a democratic government, it can strongly influence if not directly involve itself in the affairs of those states.  Aid could be sent to the democratic movement in Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia can be militarily threatened.

Since Iraq was a dictatorship, I do not believe it had any claim to sovereignty, since sovereigny rests with the people.  Thus, America was fully justified in taking control of that territory for the purpose of being better able to fight the war on terror to protect the freedoms of its own citizens.

First I do not believe a democratic government can be imposed from the outside. I think democracy requires constant vigilance and maintenance from the people who live within it. If the proper philosophical mind is not present in the people they cannot for a sustainable democracy. The most the US can do is maintain order as the people create a government.

No government can rule without the support of the majority of the people. I do not believe your contention that the dictatorship has no claim to sovereignty. It is the government the Iraqi people are choosing to have. The people are sovereign and can choose whatever government they want.

Iraqi sovereignty rests with the Iraqi people, and they should be able to refuse to have a foreign military presence in their nation if they want. That should mean the US should abandon its bases if the Iraqi people demand it. Since most people do not want for militaries on their soil, and Iraqi history has shown they do not want a foreign presence, why should the US assume it can go ahead and make military bases for the War on Terror?

[MisterSwig]

I would like to hear other Objectivists' opinions on one of my main reasons for supporting the war on Iraq.

While I did not believe there was a strong connection between Saddam Hussein's regime and fundamentalist Islamic terror organizations, I did believe America was fully justified in attackig Iraq for this reason:  Iraq is surrounded by three of the largest terror supporters in the world; Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia.  If the U.S. establishes a military presence at the heart of this "terror triangle" and even goes so far as creating a democratic government, it can strongly influence if not directly involve itself in the affairs of those states.  Aid could be sent to the democratic movement in Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia can be militarily threatened.

We don't need to go into Iraq in order to aid the rebels in Iran or militarily threaten Syria and Saudi Arabia. But in order to "bring freedom to the Iraqis," we apparently do need to invade and have boots on the ground. Actually, we have to be willing to police them and sacrifice our lives for theirs.

I don't think your reason is the reason why Bush went in. And since Bush is in charge, that makes your reason mostly irrelevant to the validity of the war.

[Patrick N.]

First I do not believe a democratic government can be imposed from the outside.  I think democracy requires constant vigilance and maintenance from the people who live within it.  If the proper philosophical mind is not present in the people they cannot for a sustainable democracy.  The most the US can do is maintain order as the people create a government.

No government can rule without the support of the majority of the people.  I do not believe your contention that the dictatorship has no claim to sovereignty.  It is the government the Iraqi people are choosing to have.  The people are sovereign and can choose whatever government they want.

Iraqi sovereignty rests with the Iraqi people, and they should be able to refuse to have a foreign military presence in their nation if they want.  That should mean the US should abandon its bases if the Iraqi people demand it.  Since most people do not want for militaries on their soil, and Iraqi history has shown they do not want a foreign presence, why should the US assume it can go ahead and make military bases for the War on Terror?

A dictatorship oppresses, kills, and enslaves the individuals who live under it. Such governments DO NOT HAVE ANY legitimacy or sovereignty. Only a government that respects and upholds man’s rights has any right to exist. Nazi Germany had no sovereignty, the USSR had none, and Saddam’s Iraq had none.

Also, what do you mean by “the people?” There is no such thing as "the people." There are only individuals. And many Iraqi individuals were gassed, tortured and killed by your "sovereign" dictatorship. Any semi-free nation that wanted to invade Iraq could have morally done so, if they deemed it to be in their self-interest.

There is no such thing as a right to enslave. There is no such thing as legitimate mass murder of a nation’s citizens by its own government.

[punk]

A dictatorship oppresses, kills, and enslaves the individuals who live under it. Such governments DO NOT HAVE ANY legitimacy or sovereignty. Only a government that respects and upholds man’s rights has any right to exist. Nazi Germany had no sovereignty, the USSR had none, and Saddam’s Iraq had none.

Also, what do you mean by “the people?” There is no such thing as "the people." There are only individuals. And many Iraqi individuals were gassed, tortured and killed by your "sovereign" dictatorship. Any semi-free nation that wanted to invade Iraq could have morally done so, if they deemed it to be in their self-interest.

There is no such thing as a right to enslave. There is no such thing as legitimate mass murder of a nation’s citizens by its own government.

No regime can stand if the majority of the people oppose it. If a regime stands then it has widespread support. In the case of Iraq I suspect people suspected that Saddam Hussein was much better than civil war which was the alternative, and is what we are moving toward now.

Think of Augustus Caesar. He was a dictator, but he is generally lauded. He was probably the only thing that could have held the Roman Empire together at the time, that is to say a vicious unrelenting strong man. The alternative was chaos and war.

As I understood it Saddam Hussein had the support of the majority of the Iraqi people on the eve of the invasion.

[Oakes]

No regime can stand if the majority of the people oppose it.

You didn't answer Patrick's point. When a nation becomes a threat to us, we have the right to invade it and occupy it as long as we wish. It's true that occupations are only beneficial to us if the populous supports the effort. When it doesn't, we should incinerate their cities and leave - not a single boot needs to touch the ground.

[Bryan]

As I understood it Saddam Hussein had the support of the majority of the Iraqi people on the eve of the invasion.

That is a bold assertion, and I find it difficult to believe. What basis do you have to make this claim? And how could one possibly know what the majority of the population truly supported when they had no freedom of speech, especially if it critical of a brutal dictatorship?

[Bryan]

Iraqi sovereignty rests with the Iraqi people, and they should be able to refuse to have a foreign military presence in their nation if they want.  That should mean the US should abandon its bases if the Iraqi people demand it.  Since most people do not want for militaries on their soil, and Iraqi history has shown they do not want a foreign presence, why should the US assume it can go ahead and make military bases for the War on Terror?

If that majority of the Iraqi people voted and decided that they wanted Saddam Hussian released from prison and put back as the "president" of Iraq, should we give in to those demands as well? What if the majority decided that they wanted a Muslim theocracy with a religous dictator who would be worse than Saddam, would this be ok too? Where do you draw the line?

If the majority of the population is wrong, it is still wrong. What Iraq needs is a constitutional republic, decidated to the defense of individual rights, not a democracy.

[Patrick N.]

No regime can stand if the majority of the people oppose it.  If a regime stands then it has widespread support.  In the case of Iraq I suspect people suspected that Saddam Hussein was much better than civil war which was the alternative, and is what we are moving toward now.

Think of Augustus Caesar.  He was a dictator, but he is generally lauded.  He was probably the only thing that could have held the Roman Empire together at the time, that is to say a vicious unrelenting strong man.  The alternative was chaos and war.

As I understood it Saddam Hussein had the support of the majority of the Iraqi people on the eve of the invasion.

Ok. Let's pretend that Saddam Hussein did have the support of the majority of Iraqis. IT DOES NOT MATTER. His regime was still extremely immoral and had no right to exist.

It makes no difference how many people support a dictatorship. A dictatorship is immoral and has no rights - or any claim to sovereignty - no matter who thinks it does and no matter how many their number. Rights and sovereignty are not based on a subjective will of the majority, but on objectively defined principles. It is an objective fact that concentration camps, firing squads, and the murder of millions people are immoral actions. Any government that commits these actions is an abomination.

Ideas are not floating abstractions, but principles for dealing with the real world. Think of this in terms of the actual reality. Real people really have been tortured and murdered by their own rulers - millions of them. I am unable to keep myself from getting enraged just thinking about it. Atrocities like these really happened, in reality. And once the horrifying truth of just how brutal and evil these regimes are sinks in, it should be obvious why these regimes can have no claim to legitimate sovereignty. Any moral nation has the right to annihilate these regimes if it is in their self-interest to do so.

Why do you defend mass murderers and claim that they have moral legitimacy? Think about what this actually means.

Any regime that commits these unspeakable atrocities is evil and has NO RIGHT TO EXIST. Not even if the majority of people think it does.

[punk]

You didn't answer Patrick's point. When a nation becomes a threat to us, we have the right to invade it and occupy it as long as we wish. It's true that occupations are only beneficial to us if the populous supports the effort. When it doesn't, we should incinerate their cities and leave - not a single boot needs to touch the ground.

Iraq was no threat to the US in 2003.

1. Iraq had lost a war to the US in 1991

2. Iraq had been under sanctions during the following 12 years(resulting in the deaths of 500 000 children I might add)

3. Iraq had been subject to ongoing US aerial attacks during those 12 years, peaking in Operation Desert Fox in 1998

4. Iraq had no WMDs in 2003 (as has recently been admitted to by the administration although people were saying this prior to the invasion)

5. Iraq had tenuous ties with Al Qaeda in 2003 (the US probably has closer ties to Cuba)

6. I can go to a hobby store and build an "aerial drone" of about the capability of those the administration was saying Iraq had

7. None of Iraq's immediate neighbors considered it a threat to them (Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria, Turkey, Iran), and all opposed the invasion

I was saying all this in Fall of 2002, and it is still true.

There are consequences to every action. The Vietnam War eroded American economic superiority with repercussions lasting into the early '80s (and the oil shocks certainly didn't help). Iraq looks to do more of the same.

A good book:

"Superimperialism" by Michael Hudson

[punk]

That is a bold assertion, and I find it difficult to believe.  What basis do you have to make this claim?  And how could one possibly know what the majority of the population truly supported when they had no freedom of speech, especially if it critical of a brutal dictatorship?

Iraqis are now twice as likely to die under American rule than under Saddam Hussein.

Between sanctions and periodic aerial attacks, people are going to rally behind the existing leader. Carpet bombing during WWII increased support for the Nazi regime.

[punk]

If that majority of the Iraqi people voted and decided that they wanted Saddam Hussian released from prison and put back as the "president" of Iraq, should we give in to those demands as well?  What if the majority decided that they wanted a Muslim theocracy with a religous dictator who would be worse than Saddam, would this be ok too?  Where do you draw the line?

If the majority of the population is wrong, it is still wrong.  What Iraq needs is a constitutional republic, decidated to the defense of individual rights, not a democracy.

So the Iraqi people are children who need the great white father to take care of them?

[punk]

Ok. Let's pretend that Saddam Hussein did have the support of the majority of Iraqis. IT DOES NOT MATTER. His regime was still extremely immoral and had no right to exist.

It makes no difference how many people support a dictatorship. A dictatorship is immoral and has no rights - or any claim to sovereignty - no matter who thinks it does and no matter how many their number. Rights and sovereignty are not based on a subjective will of the majority, but on objectively defined principles. It is an objective fact that concentration camps, firing squads, and the murder of millions people are immoral actions. Any government that commits these actions is an abomination.

Ideas are not floating abstractions, but principles for dealing with the real world. Think of this in terms of the actual reality. Real people really have been tortured and murdered by their own rulers - millions of them. I am unable to keep myself from getting enraged just thinking about it. Atrocities like these really happened, in reality. And once the horrifying truth of just how brutal and evil these regimes are sinks in, it should be obvious why these regimes can have no claim to legitimate sovereignty. Any moral nation has the right to annihilate these regimes if it is in their self-interest to do so.

Why do you defend mass murderers and claim that they have moral legitimacy? Think about what this actually means.

Any regime that commits these unspeakable atrocities is evil and has NO RIGHT TO EXIST. Not even if the majority of people think it does.

I contend that Iraq was no theat to the US. What gave the US a moral right to invade? Where did America accrue the right to commit murder?

[Patrick N.]

There are consequences to every action.  The Vietnam War eroded American economic superiority with repercussions lasting into the early '80s (and the oil shocks certainly didn't help).  Iraq looks to do more of the same.

If the US had a proper military policy, the outcome would have been very different.

The Vietnam War should have never happened - I fail to see how it was in our interests to get involved at all. But that does not change the fact that once we were involved, the United States could have won. Instead of fighting a defensive "no win war," the US should have invaded North Vietnam and crushed them. A total war against the north would have ended in a smashing victory for the US.

[Patrick N.]

I contend that Iraq was no theat to the US.  What gave the US a moral right to invade?  Where did America accrue the right to commit murder?

You did not answer the arguments in my post.

I already told you what gives any semi-free nation the right to invade a brutal dictatorship. Can you refute my arguments?

[Patrick N.]

So the Iraqi people are children who need the great white father to take care of them?

Here we go again...

Can you not separate RACE from IDEAS?

This has nothing to do with race. The issue is INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS.

[punk]

If the US had a proper military policy, the outcome would have been very different.

The Vietnam War should have never happened - I fail to see how it was in our interests to get involved at all. But that does not change the fact that once we were involved, the United States could have won. Instead of fighting a defensive "no win war," the US should have invaded North Vietnam and crushed them. A total war against the north would have ended in a smashing victory for the US.

Can you name a guerrilla war that an imperial power has actually won?

[Patrick N.]

Iraqis are now twice as likely to die under American rule than under Saddam Hussein.

Between sanctions and periodic aerial attacks, people are going to rally behind the existing leader.  Carpet bombing during WWII increased support for the Nazi regime.

So what? Are you blanking out the fact that the Nazi regime was annihilated anyway? Let them support their murdering regime. It won't matter once that regime is wiped out.

[punk]

Ok. Let's pretend that Saddam Hussein did have the support of the majority of Iraqis. IT DOES NOT MATTER. His regime was still extremely immoral and had no right to exist.

It makes no difference how many people support a dictatorship. A dictatorship is immoral and has no rights - or any claim to sovereignty - no matter who thinks it does and no matter how many their number. Rights and sovereignty are not based on a subjective will of the majority, but on objectively defined principles. It is an objective fact that concentration camps, firing squads, and the murder of millions people are immoral actions. Any government that commits these actions is an abomination.

Ideas are not floating abstractions, but principles for dealing with the real world. Think of this in terms of the actual reality. Real people really have been tortured and murdered by their own rulers - millions of them. I am unable to keep myself from getting enraged just thinking about it. Atrocities like these really happened, in reality. And once the horrifying truth of just how brutal and evil these regimes are sinks in, it should be obvious why these regimes can have no claim to legitimate sovereignty. Any moral nation has the right to annihilate these regimes if it is in their self-interest to do so.

Why do you defend mass murderers and claim that they have moral legitimacy? Think about what this actually means.

Any regime that commits these unspeakable atrocities is evil and has NO RIGHT TO EXIST. Not even if the majority of people think it does.

So you concede (at least for this argument) that:

1. Iraq was no threat to the US

2. Hussein was supported by the majority of the Iraqi people

And somehow from this the US has the right to go in and kill as many innocent civilians as it likes to overthrow the regime?

Does the US have the right to annihilate every last living Iraqi to do this?

Does it have the right to annihilate half of them?

How many is too many?

If the US kills more Iraqis than Hussein was killing does it lose the moral right? Is it not become then a worse dictator than Hussein ever was?

If the US moves in to overthrow the dictator and the people all resist the US invasion does it now have the right to kill the Iraqi people to make them free?

How much is too much?

Did other countries prior to the Civil War have a moral right to invade the US to end slavery?

Did other countries prior to 1900 have a moral right to invade the US to end its slaughter of the Native American and its sending of them to concentration camps (reservations)?

Did other countries in the early 1900's have a moral right to intervene in the Philippines to end the US slaughter of people there?

Do you think the US was wrong to oppose the Vietnamese intervention in Cambodia to put an end to Khmer Rouge attrocities there?

[Patrick N.]

Can you name a guerrilla war that an imperial power has actually won?

No, I can't. That's the point. It's a mistake to fight a guerrilla war when you can fight a total war. Annihilate your enemy using massive firepower with minimal loss of life on your own side. Use everything you've got.

[punk]

If the US had a proper military policy, the outcome would have been very different.

The Vietnam War should have never happened - I fail to see how it was in our interests to get involved at all. But that does not change the fact that once we were involved, the United States could have won. Instead of fighting a defensive "no win war," the US should have invaded North Vietnam and crushed them. A total war against the north would have ended in a smashing victory for the US.

The Vietnam War was primarily a guerrilla war in the South (that is why about 80% of US bombs were dropped on South Vietnam). They had support from the North, but simply overthrowing the government in the North would not have ended the war, it would have just created an expanded guerrilla war throughout North and South Vietnam.

[punk]

So what? Are you blanking out the fact that the Nazi regime was annihilated anyway? Let them support their murdering regime. It won't matter once that regime is wiped out.

The point was that attacks on the civilian population increase support for the government. The essentially continual low-level US war in Iraq from 1991 to 2003 only increased support for Hussein. That is why he had such high support in 2003 (and why he wasn't getting overthrown, which for some reason the US government was hoping would happen at the same time that it was strengthening support for him).

[Patrick N.]

So you concede (at least for this argument) that:

1.  Iraq was no threat to the US

2.  Hussein was supported by the majority of the Iraqi people

And somehow from this the US has the right to go in and kill as many innocent civilians as it likes to overthrow the regime?

Does the US have the right to annihilate every last living Iraqi to do this?

Does it have the right to annihilate half of them?

How many is too many?

If the US kills more Iraqis than Hussein was killing does it lose the moral right?  Is it not become then a worse dictator than Hussein ever was?

If the US moves in to overthrow the dictator and the people all resist the US invasion does it now have the right to kill the Iraqi people to make them free?

How much is too much?

Did other countries prior to the Civil War have a moral right to invade the US to end slavery?

Did other countries prior to 1900 have a moral right to invade the US to end its slaughter of the Native American and its sending of them to concentration camps (reservations)?

Did other countries in the early 1900's have a moral right to intervene in the Philippines to end the US slaughter of people there?

Do you think the US was wrong to oppose the Vietnamese intervention in Cambodia to put an end to Khmer Rouge attrocities there?

You still have failed to answer the arguments in my post that you have now quoted twice.

Before I answer any of your questions, please answer my arguments. What, specifically, is wrong with them?

[punk]

You're "arguments" are too poorly thought out to respond to. All you have said is:

1. Free nations are good

2. Dictatorships are bad

3. Therefore free nations have the right to invade dictatorships

And you are ignoring the necessary consequences of what an invasion entails.

An invasion is going to mean atrocities of its own. You are just assuming an invasion can happen without them.

[Patrick N.]

The point was that attacks on the civilian population increase support for the government.  The essentially continual low-level US war in Iraq from 1991 to 2003 only increased support for Hussein.  That is why he had such high support in 2003 (and why he wasn't getting overthrown, which for some reason the US government was hoping would happen at the same time that it was strengthening support for him).

It does not matter who does or does not support a brutal dictatorship. It is still a brutal dictatorship and has no right to exist.

Do you agree that Hitler's government had no right to exist, no matter who may have supported it or not?