American intentions in Iraq

[Al Kufr]

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.

NOT invading could mean atrocities . You are just assuming that NOT invading will mean they wont happen

[Patrick N.]

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.

You are showing that you did not grasp anything I have posted. I am making the point that dictatorships have no right to exist. You seem to think they do.

To be quite frank, I stopped taking you seriously after you posted this:

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

[Oakes]

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?

All I have heard Patrick argue was that slave nations like Saddam's Iraq cannot claim national sovereignty. He has not advocated that the U.S. should invade them on this premise alone. The government's job is not to police the world; it is to protect its citizens. Therefore it should only attack threats.

Iraq was no threat to the US in 2003.

Let's start with the principle (courtesy of Peter Schwarz): If a government has, or is actively seeking to acquire, the capacity to endanger the U.S., and has shown a willingness to use it -- then it is an objective threat and military action is warranted.

Now for the facts: (1) Saddam possessed and used WMDs in the '80s, and any American administration would be negligent not to assume he still had them and sought them absent of evidence to the contrary. (2) He harbored terrorists, including Abu Nidal, and gave monetary rewards to the families of suicide bombers. (3) He invaded Kuwait (threatening our oil supplies) in '90 and tried to assassinate President Bush in '93.

[Patrick N.]

All I have heard Patrick argue was that slave nations like Saddam's Iraq cannot claim national sovereignty. He has not advocated that the U.S. should invade them on this premise alone. The government's job is not to police the world; it is to protect its citizens. Therefore it should only attack threats.

Thank you. This is correct.

[johngalt1972]

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.

The United States is no stranger to concentration camps. My house is only a few miles from Tanforan (now a shopping center) which used to be a concentration camp for Japanese Americans. Currently the United States is maintaining a concentration camp in Guantanamo Bay. As for firing squads, I assume you are referring to capital punishment. Thirty-eight States and the Federal government in 2003 had capital statutes. Of the 65 executed in 2003, lethal injection accounted for 64 and 1 was carried out by electrocution.

If you consider the indigenous population of this continent as being people, then the United States is guilty of “the murder of millions [of] people.” I am referring to the policy of genocide by means of biological warfare, mass executions, and relocation to unarable land. Hawai’i , a sovereign nation under Queen Lili’uokalani until the 1893 coup backed by United States became subjected to similar tyranny. You know about Vietnam but don’t seem to make the connection. “Any government” means “any government.” Could you please explain otherwise?

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 ask you, “Think about what this actually means.” Despite some of my nations history, I am very proud to be an American. At birth, I was an American because I was born here. I remain an American today because I choose to be. But by your definition, the United States has “NO RIGHT TO EXIST.” Do you believe that the United States “is evil?” Do you wish to correct any of your statements?

[johngalt1972]

All I have heard Patrick argue was that slave nations like Saddam's Iraq cannot claim national sovereignty.

And by his arguments, neither can the United States.

[Patrick N.]

The United States is no stranger to concentration camps.  My house is only a few miles from Tanforan (now a shopping center) which used to be a concentration camp for Japanese Americans.  Currently the United States is maintaining a concentration camp in Guantanamo Bay.

Don't you think it's...misleading at best...to equate the US internment camps during WWII with places like Auschwitz? That is exactly what you do when you say, "The United States is no stranger to concentration camps." Were six million Japanese Americans killed in the internment camps? No, they were not. Millions of Jews DID die in Nazi death camps. Clearly there is a big difference, right?

As for firing squads, I assume you are referring to capital punishment.  Thirty-eight States and the Federal government in 2003 had capital statutes.  Of the 65 executed in 2003, lethal injection accounted for 64 and 1 was carried out by electrocution.

What are you talking about?

Why would you assume that?

I was not condemning capital punishment as such, I was referring to the murder of innocent people by firing squad at the hands of dictatorships such as Stalin's and Hitler's. It is my understanding that the Nazis would randomly pick Jewish civilians and execute them in cold blood by firing squad. There is a huge difference between this and the long legal process of arresting, trying, convicting, and executing someone for committing murder, in which the defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

If you consider the indigenous population of this continent as being people, then the United States is guilty of “the murder of millions [of] people.”  I am referring to the policy of genocide by means of biological warfare, mass executions, and relocation to unarable land.  Hawai’i , a sovereign nation under Queen Lili’uokalani until the 1893 coup backed by United States became subjected to similar tyranny.  You know about Vietnam but don’t seem to make the connection.  “Any government” means “any government.”  Could you please explain otherwise?

I ask you, “Think about what this actually means.”  Despite some of my nations history, I am very proud to be an American.  At birth, I was an American because I was born here.  I remain an American today because I choose to be.  But by your definition, the United States has “NO RIGHT TO EXIST.”  Do you believe that the United States “is evil?”  Do you wish to correct any of your statements?

What do you mean by "biological warfare?"

Did Queen Lili’uokalani recognize individual rights? Was her government superior to the government of the United States?

What is meant by the statement, "You know about Vietnam but don’t seem to make the connection." What knowledge about Vietnam are you referring to? What connection are you referring to?

A point of clarification: I am talking about a government's right to exist, not a nation's. Don't equivocate between a nation and the regime that rules it.

Addressing you question about the United States:

I am not making the claim that the US government never did anything wrong and is morally perfect - no such government has ever existed. My point is that the government of the United States, while flawed, recognizes most basic individual rights. For this reason the US government has moral legitimacy. A dictatorship such as Saddam's Iraq or Nazi Germany recognizes no rights and therefore has no legitimacy or claim to sovereignty

[BurgessLau]

The United States is no stranger to concentration camps.

If you are trying to make the point in your posts that the U. S. government has violated rights of its own people at certain times and places and ways, no Objectivist would disagree. But you have launched a barrage of charges that amount to a smear -- throwing mud at one place deserving of attack and then spreading it to others undeserving.

Let's take one point as a start. First define "concentration camp." What are its essential distinguishing characteristics?

[johngalt1972]

Don't you think it's...misleading at best...to equate the US internment camps during WWII with places like Auschwitz? [...] Millions of Jews DID die in Nazi death camps. Clearly there is a big difference, right?

Yes, there is. My post was a direct response to statements you made. You brought up “concentration camps.” I did not read into that as being exclusive to Hitler’s Final Solution (this thread is about Iraq). I am very curious why in the above quote you’ve changed to “Nazi death camps” (emphasis added) instead of maintaining Nazi concentration camps? If anyone is trying to be misleading, it is not me.

I was not condemning capital punishment as such, I was referring to the murder of innocent people by firing squad at the hands of dictatorships such as Stalin's and Hitler's. It is my understanding that the Nazis would randomly pick Jewish civilians and execute them in cold blood by firing squad.

I did not understand your context to be such. Why would I? This thread is about Iraq.

What do you mean by "biological warfare?"

When small pox was deliberately spread throughout American native populations by means of infected blankets and other materials.

Did Queen Lili’uokalani recognize individual rights?

Yes.

Was her government superior to the government of the United States?

What the hell (sorry) does that mean and how is it not totally subjective?

What is meant by the statement, "You know about Vietnam...

We killed a lot of Vietnamese… mostly in the South (the ones we were defending (sic)). When did they attack the United States (i.e. initiate force)? Again, I bring this up to refute your earlier post.

I am not making the claim that the US government never did anything wrong and is morally perfect...

And I am not suggesting that you are. My proverbial alarm went off when you said:

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.

[...]

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.

[Patrick N.]

Yes, there is.  My post was a direct response to statements you made.  You brought up “concentration camps.”  I did not read into that as being exclusive to Hitler’s Final Solution (this thread is about Iraq).  I am very curious why in the above quote you’ve changed to “Nazi death camps” (emphasis added) instead of maintaining Nazi concentration camps?  If anyone is trying to be misleading, it is not me.

Look, if you want to have a discussion about this, I would be glad to. But let's back up and start over in a more civil tone. How about it?

[johngalt1972]

If you are trying to make the point in your posts that the U. S. government has violated rights of its own people at certain times and places and ways, no Objectivist would disagree.

My concern is with Patrick N.’s comment. If committing immoral actions negates a states right to exist, then the United States has no right to exist. I do not agree.

First define "concentration camp."

concentration camp

Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

noun: a camp where persons (as prisoners of war, political prisoners, or refugees) are detained or confined

MSN Encarta Dictionary

1. [HISTORY] Nazi camp for exterminating prisoners: one of the prison camps used for exterminating prisoners under the rule of Hitler in Nazi Germany

2. prison camp for civilians in war: a prison camp used in war for the incarceration of political prisoners or civilians

[johngalt1972]

Look, if you want to have a discussion about this, I would be glad to. But let's back up and start over in a more civil tone. How about it?

I’m sorry if I came across as uncivil, really. I should use those little emoticons with the smiles or something. Unfortunately, it’s against my religion (just kidding). So, just how do we shake hands online?

[Patrick N.]

My concern is with Patrick N.’s comment.  If committing immoral actions negates a states right to exist, then the United States has no right to exist.  I do not agree.

It is not my position that any state which commits any immoral action has no right to exist. If that were true then no state would have any right to exist. My argument is that the more a government upholds individual rights, the more claim to legitimacy it has, and the less a government upholds individual rights, the less claim to legitimacy it has.

States that at least uphold basic individual rights – such as the United States - can claim legitimacy and have a right to exist. Do you agree?

States that do not uphold individual rights at all - dictatorships that enslave and murder their citizens such as the USSR - can claim no legitimacy and have no right to exist. Do you agree?

[Patrick N.]

I’m sorry if I came across as uncivil, really.  I should use those little emoticons with the smiles or something.  Unfortunately, it’s against my religion (just kidding).  So, just how do we shake hands online?

I think you post here basically amount to a handshake of sorts. Thanks.

[Citizen Publius]

I always thought that it was the principles that a government recorded in writing that justified its existence and actions.

Why don't some of you kick around the United States Constitution as being immoral, unjustified, and evil instead of focusing on the corrupt acts of individuals and groups of individuals who have, at times, acted in the name of the American government?

I suspect that the reason is that you hate the principles espoused by the United States Constitution but are afraid to say so.

You keep setting up straw men and knocking them down in the hope that everyone is too stupid to see this.

[Patrick N.]

I always thought that it was the principles that a government recorded in writing that justified its existence and actions.

Why don't some of you kick around the United States Constitution as being immoral, unjustified, and evil instead of focusing on the corrupt acts of individuals and groups of individuals who have, at times, acted in the name of the American government?

I suspect that the reason is that you hate the principles espoused by the United States Constitution but are afraid to say so.

You keep setting up straw men and knocking them down in the hope that everyone is too stupid to see this.

You are refering to the people who have slung mud at the United States?

[Citizen Publius]

You are refering to the people who have slung mud at the United States?

Possibly. I am not sure exactly how you mean this.

Do you mean people who sling mud at the United States because of the principles refered to in the Constitution or do you mean people who sling mud at the United Staes because they only see and are effected by the misdeeds of people who act in the name of the United States?

Do you mean something else?

[Patrick N.]

Possibly. I am not sure exactly how you mean this.

Do you mean people who sling mud at the United States because of the principles refered to in the Constitution or do you mean people who sling mud at the United Staes because they only see and are effected by the misdeeds of people who act in the name of the United States?

Do you mean something else?

I meant people who sling mud at the United States because - as you said - they only see and are effected by the misdeeds of people who act in the name of the United States.

[BurgessLau]

You keep setting up straw men and knocking them down in the hope that everyone is too stupid to see this.

What are some examples -- or even one -- of straw men used in this thread in the way you have described? If you cite a particular post, your readers can go and see for themselves. Then your argumentation might be clearer.

[johngalt1972]

[...] My argument is that the more a government upholds individual rights, the more claim to legitimacy it has, and the less a government upholds individual rights, the less claim to legitimacy it has.

States that at least uphold basic individual rights – such as the United States - can claim legitimacy and have a right to exist. Do you agree?

States that do not uphold individual rights at all - dictatorships that enslave and murder their citizens such as the USSR - can claim no legitimacy and have no right to exist. Do you agree?

There is no scientific or objective way to measure a State’s freeness. It’s easy to ask such questions when you are comparing virtual opposites. But what happens when you compare the United States and, say, Canada? My point is that you have to be able to ask the exact same question of every State. What if, for example, the people of Canada determine that they have a right to Alaska and we no longer do because [insert reason here]. Do we agree that both Canada and the United States have a right to exist? If yes, then it all comes down who has the stronger military.

States exist only by the power of the people. If the majority of the governed are unhappy, they can and must initiate the change. The founders of our great nation were not happy under British rule. They declared independence and became outlaws and terrorists (in the eyes of King George). They turned to France for help, who ultimately provided troops and arms to help us fight our mutual enemy, the British.

Okay, that was the ultra-abridged version of U.S. History 101. What I want to make clear is that Franklin, Jefferson, Washington, et al could not have pulled off creating the United States without the will of the majority of the colonists. Furthermore, had the French said, “We’ll help you fight the British, but you have to do everything our way using our model,” the result would have looked more like Iraq does today.

[ex_banana-eater]

The American Indians died because they hadn't domesticated animals, so virtually all of them would contract small pox. America didn't pursue biological warfare--the natives would have died whenever they contacted people or animals. If an individual passed a dirty blanket to a native tribe, the tribe would still have been destroyed eventually, because a cure for small pox was a long ways away.

The will of the majority does not matter if it is wrong. In the case of Iraq, we don't need the majority of support from the militant Islamists to make us right--we already are right. A majority isn't needed to maintain power over a population, look at Iraq. I'm sure only a small minority of people liked Saddam's regime, yet he had a strong hold on them. Comparing a nation of freedom-loving individuals to a nation full of anti-Western Muslems is a mistake of extreme context dropping.

The US and Canada are both relatively free countries, which puts them on equal footing in regard to foreign defence issues, since they both have a right to exist. Countries that have no sphere of rights are those who are dictatorships, not free countries. I believe this has been said multiple times in this thread.

The fact that Saddam Hussein had ties to the terrorists, and had lead to the deaths of Israelis and a small amount of Americans is moral justification to wipe him off the planet. America is at a war on terror--specifically Islamic terror--and Saddam was a sponsor. Nobody here has claimed that the Iraq war was better than going to Iran, only that America is completely justified in doing so. If the war was fought properly less Americans would be killed, so Objectivists are also advocates of fighting war without altruist tactics.

[BurgessLau]

What I want to make clear is that Franklin, Jefferson, Washington, et al could not have pulled off creating the United States without the will of the majority of the colonists.

This approach raises several questions:

(1) Is there any evidence showing that the "majority" supported the Revolution or the creation of the U. S. government?

I have not investigated this historical problem. I have heard historians say that, based on the evidence they have seen, the populace of the colonies was split almost evenly three ways: for the revolution, against the revolution, and undecided. Is that true?

One should always be careful about "must-have-been" arguments. They are historical arguments, to be decided by historical methods -- that is, the methods of a specialized science, not only the general methods -- observation, thinking and logic -- of philosophy.

(2) What do you mean by "majority" -- majority of whom? All individuals, only the adults, only the male adults, only the free (nonslave) male adults?

(3) What do you mean by "will" of the majority? Active support? Acquiescence? Something else?

[Patrick N.]

There is no scientific or objective way to measure a State’s freeness.  It’s easy to ask such questions when you are comparing virtual opposites.  But what happens when you compare the United States and, say, Canada?  My point is that you have to be able to ask the exact same question of every State.  What if, for example, the people of Canada determine that they have a right to Alaska and we no longer do because [insert reason here].  Do we agree that both Canada and the United States have a right to exist?  If yes, then it all comes down who has the stronger military.

States exist only by the power of the people.  If the majority of the governed are unhappy, they can and must initiate the change.  The founders of our great nation were not happy under British rule.  They declared independence and became outlaws and terrorists (in the eyes of King George).  They turned to France for help, who ultimately provided troops and arms to help us fight our mutual enemy, the British.

Okay, that was the ultra-abridged version of U.S. History 101.  What I want to make clear is that Franklin, Jefferson, Washington, et al could not have pulled off creating the United States without the will of the majority of the colonists.  Furthermore, had the French said, “We’ll help you fight the British, but you have to do everything our way using our model,” the result would have looked more like Iraq does today.

I honestly don't understand what your point is. It's like we are speaking two different languages. Let's back up and see what principles we can agree on.

1) Do you agree that the proper function and only moral justification for a government is the protection of individual rights?

2) Do you agree that consensus does not make something true, and that perception is not reality?

[Marc K.]

There is no scientific or objective way to measure a State’s freeness.  It’s easy to ask such questions when you are comparing virtual opposites. 

Wow!!!!! Do you see how your second sentence contradicts the first? First you say there is "no" way to measure freeness, then in the next sentence you say it is "easy".

What if, for example, the people of Canada determine that they have a right to Alaska and we no longer do because [insert reason here]. 

I would like you to "[insert reason here]" because I cannot think of one.

They declared independence and became outlaws and terrorists (in the eyes of King George).

This is moral relativism.

If King George considered them "terrorists" does that necessarily make it so? Does any objective recount of history assert this as being true?

Additionally, in order for us to further evaluate your thinking it would be extremely helpfull if you would answer the last two questions posed by Patrick N.

[Citizen Publius]

First I do not believe a democratic government can be imposed from the outside.

First, what you believe does not alter the facts of reality. The fact that you believe something is not a moral premise; it is merely an opinion. In this case it is an invalid opinion as has been disproved by the American liberations of Germany and Japan in World War II.

I think democracy requires constant vigilance and maintenance from the people who live within it.

The United States is not a democracy; it is a republic. It is demonstrable that a republic severely limits the democratic process to the election of public officials while limiting the actions of those public officials. In the United States Constitution, the part that limits the actions of public officials is called the Bill of Rights.

Disregarding the point about the nature of governments, your point is valid and is a good one. I will point out here that there is no democracy, or republic, in Iraq and it appears that you are trying to get your readers to substitute a geographic area for a non-existent form of government in their minds in order to validate your invalid point of view.

If the proper philosophical mind is not present in the people they cannot for a sustainable democracy.

This is true of a republic also. Witness Benjamin Franklin’s statement. When asked, “What type of government did you give us, Dr. Franklin?” he replied: “A republic, if you can keep it.”

The most the US can do is maintain order as the people create a government.

The US can provide moral guidance, and exemplary actions. Exemplary actions include things like rebuilding and improving the defunct power grid, improving the water supply, renovating the oil industry, rebuilding and improving schools. Moral guidance includes things like the humane treatment of prisoners and interacting fairly with the population on a personal basis. They can also keep order by maintaining an active military presence and training police and soldiers.

No government can rule without the support of the majority of the people.

The Soviet Union was kept in power and ruled by about 5% of the population. The remaining 95% had no say in the matter. The only firearms allowed in the hands of the population were guns registered to hunters who needed them for food and ammunition was strictly controlled. In Nazi Germany, in 1936, Hitler boasted that Germany was the first civilized nation to affect 100% gun control. (Hitler did not believe in hunting because he considered it cruelty to animals.) Once again, a small minority of the population controlled the vast majority of the population through fear of death. Millions of people were senselessly slaughtered under both regimes just like in Iraq under Saddam Hussein. Any political dissent was brutally crushed under all three regimes.

I do not believe your contention that the dictatorship has no claim to sovereignty.

“No one can claim a right to enslave.”---Ayn Rand.

It is the government the Iraqi people are choosing to have.

Millions of Iraqis were slaughtered under the Saddam Hussein regime. The killing happened on a daily basis, especially of those who rose up in defiance. The people who sought to choose a different government were publicly humiliated, tortured, and murdered by the goon squads that you so much love and try to justify. The government the people are choosing to have is the one that they will choose at the polls under the American aegis. The one that you obviously want them to have is the one that the minority of criminal goons, thugs, and punks want to inflict on them.

The people are sovereign and can choose whatever government they want.

The people of Iraq want to have free elections but you do not want them to. Once they have free elections, their sovereignty will be returned to them.

When you refer to “the people of Iraq,” you are obviously referring to the thugs and street punks who are not man enough to fight face to face but rather, hide their faces and use terror tactics to scare people to submit their point of view.

After a government is elected by the majority of the people, the ones that love productivity and peace, that government will draft a constitution writing down the principles by which they will live. In the United States, this process took over a decade.

If the United States allows this constitution to violate people’s rights, then the new government is no more righteous than the former. If this happens, THEN the United States will be in the wrong.

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.

Sovereignty in Iraq presently rests with the United States of America. It will rest with the United States of America until a duly elected body of Iraqis have drawn up a constitution and it is voted on by the general Iraqi public.

In the absence of US sovereignty in Iraq, WHO should be able to refuse a foreign military presence? Should the present ruling council decide? Should the Iraqi soldiers that make up the Iraqi army that the US is training decide? Should the Iraqi police whom the US military is assisting decide? You obviously want the cowardly and bloodthirsty terrorist minority to decide.

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?

The US is not assuming ANYTHING here. It has conquered a brutal totalitarian regime and is now the sovereign ruling authority in Iraq. The United States may do what it sees fit to protect its investment in American blood and American treasure. Iraq is presently surrounded by totalitarian regimes who are just wanting, wanting so badly, for the US to bugger out so they can send in their terror forces in the light of day rather than under the cover of cloak, dagger, and darkness like they now have to.

It is obvious to me that you are in favor of the terrorists, thugs, goons, and punks who thrive on terrorism. These are the people and the methods that you would have rule over people in America; people like me.

MOST Iraqis WANT the US Military to stay until things are stable. This includes the Iraqi government. This includes the people who want to have free elections and a constitution. This includes mothers and women who were not even allowed to attend school under Hussein. This includes scientists, engineers; general laborers and the entire spectrum of the productive work force that want to live in peace and raise their children without fear. This includes millions of Iraqis who now have computers and satellite dishes, which they were denied under Saddam Hussein in an effort to keep “HIS” people ignorant and isolated from the rest of mankind.