Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Why can't Objectivists agree on Iraq?

Rate this topic


johny118

Recommended Posts

Styles, I suspect you're taking that quote out of context if you think it means that one may not destroy a hostile country, including the "innocents" therein. That quote seems to apply to a colonization scenario where a group of colonizers take over a slave nation and are justified in doing so if they aren't going to simply switch to being the new masters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 80
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

But, regardless of the initiation of force by another government, (as my take on that), any invasion we launch (such as Iraq) we are required to instate a free social system, because of the INDIVIDUAL rights of the "innocent" or "enslaved" people. It would seem that destroying an entire country (not just the government), would be an entirely new initiation of force, not morally justified (possibly immoral).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Styles, I suspect you're taking that quote out of context if you think it means that one may not destroy a hostile country, including the "innocents" therein. That quote seems to apply to a colonization scenario where a group of colonizers take over a slave nation and are justified in doing so if they aren't going to simply switch to being the new masters.

Exactly, it is obvious that the quote refers to "invasion" as taking over or colonization. What I'm saying taking over or rebuilding is unnecessary to achieve what our governments primary goal should be. Not one American troop has to go in the country to bomb terrorist hideouts. On top of that my way is even better than whats going on. " the invasion of an enslaved country is morally justified only when and if the conquerors establish a free social system" So what could be better than taking out the hostile despot who is training the terrorist and all of his flunkies and leaving them alone to let the people create there own social system. Who is to say our gat damn social system is so "free" There is still laws against having oral sex in this country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But, regardless of the initiation of force by another government, (as my take on that), any invasion we launch (such as Iraq) we are required to instate a free social system, because of the INDIVIDUAL rights of the "innocent" or "enslaved" people. It would seem that destroying an entire country (not just the government), would be an entirely new initiation of force, not morally justified (possibly immoral).

The only thing "we" (I presume you mean the government) are required to do is to initiate force on any criminal that violates our right to life. I'm not saying kill everything, but destroy anything that ever existed about our enemy. His network, his suppliers, his supporters defeat and isolate everything about him. This is how you win a war. We owe Iraqies nothing for removing their dictator who tortured them. The government owes us security and justice for Sept 11.

Edited by KnockOut
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No Styles, that does not follow. Suppose a country is ruled by a dictator who is a real and imminent threat to us. Also suppose that if we take out the threat, he'll most likely be replaced by another dictatorship which is hostile to us, but not a threat -- at least not an imminent threat. Allowing the threating dictator to remain, just because the alternative would hurt others would be to sacrifice ourselves.

Edited by softwareNerd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only thing "we" (I presume you mean the government) are required to do is to initiate force on any criminal that violates our right to life. I'm not saying kill everything, but destroy anything that ever existed about our enemy. His network, his suppliers, his supporters defeat and isolate everything about him. This is how you win a war. We owe Iraqies nothing for removing their dictator who tortured them. The government owes us security and justice for Sept 11.

Well, Iraq and sept 11 arent even remotely related, so your last sentence is irrelevant. But if you remove removed the dictator who tortured a group of people, then you 'owe' them a better social system than the one which you toppled. And this does not seem to have happened in Iraq.

Edited by Hal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Based on what standard? Can you reduce this claim to reality?

I was strictly referring to the cases where the purpose of the war was to remove the dictator, not (eg) as a form of self-defence.

Edited by Hal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, Iraq and sept 11 arent even remotely related, so your last sentence is irrelevant. But if you remove removed the dictator who tortured a group of people, then you 'owe' them a better social system than the one which you toppled. And this does not seem to have happened in Iraq.

"Aren't remotely related"!?!, go down the list of reasons why we went to Iraq it is an obvious extention of the War on Terror. Which stemmed from sept 11 the word terrorist immediately reminds us of that event. No one wanted to go in Iraq just to free the people from a dictator. Imaginary WMD's, supposed terrorist training camps, we were concerned with all of this because of the terrorist damage on sept 11.

Edited by KnockOut
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was strictly referring to the cases where the purpose of the war was to remove the dictator, not (eg) as a form of self-defence.
But only mindlessness would yield a decision to go to war for the propose of removing a dictator. Removal of a dictator for any reasonable nation is but a mere means to an end, the end being the purpose of the act. So, I can't imagine us involved in discourse over the act of war based on the end of removing a dictator. No proper nation would remove for removal's sake. So, I dare ask, what is your point in positing such a claim, knowing that it bears little relevance to the evaluations of any self-interested nations? Edited by Felipe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The real question is: now that the U.S. (rightly or wrongly) gave the Iraqis this unbelievable opportunity... what are they going to do about it. If you want to use the word "owe", don't they owe themselves something: e.g., to make an unprecedented effort not to waste what might be a once-in-a-lifetime shot at freedom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Aren't remotely related"!?!, go down the list of reasons why we went to Iraq it is an obvious extention of the War on Terror.

I'm not denying that 9/11 was used to sell the Iraq war to the American public, I'm just saying that they arent related.

the word terrorist immediately reminds us of that event.
Iraq has no real connections to terrorism, although some wish to clutch at straws and talk about their policy of donating money to families of suicide bombers in Israel, as if this somehow showed that they posed a threat to America or justified an invasion based on preemptive self defence.

The real question is: now that the U.S. (rightly or wrongly) gave the Iraqis this unbelievable opportunity... what are they going to do about it. If you want to use the word "owe", don't they owe themselves something: e.g., to make an unprecedented effort not to waste what might be a once-in-a-lifetime shot at freedom.

The current situation in Iraq is hardly condusive to the rise of a free-society - if media reports are to be trusted, most of the country is bordering on anarchy. If terrorists were to blow up the Whitehouse, Congress and the US Senate tomorrow, do you think that Americans should be thankful for the once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to form a free society based on the original spirit of the Constitution.

Edited by Hal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The real question is: now that the U.S. (rightly or wrongly) gave the Iraqis this unbelievable opportunity... what are they going to do about it. If you want to use the word "owe", don't they owe themselves something: e.g., to make an unprecedented effort not to waste what might be a once-in-a-lifetime shot at freedom.

My guess is they end up still hating us, make friends with other enemy states like Iran and Russia( and make no mistake Russian leadership still hates us and will continue to move towards communism again making parternships with China and N. Korea while spreading seeds to mid eastern countries like Iran) and instead of a free state a country ruled by religious fundamentalist.

Edited by KnockOut
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But only mindlessness would yield a decision to go to war for the propose of removing a dictator.
It would be a sensible move as part of (eg) a policy aimed at liberating the people of a slave country (which was the context of Styles2112 post and AR quote).
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But even liberation of a slave country conceivable can be a means to an end. Perhaps of gaining alliance with the freed people?

Either way, supposing this is the sole end, are you saying that any truly selfless nation whom simply wants to liberate a slaved people for no tangible benefit owes the freed people a better state than they previously had? Are you saying that the people doing the freeing, in order to be consistent and non-hypocritical, have to complete their intended act and leave them with a better state, if indeed leaving them with a better state was their end?

But acting solely for "freeing a people" is unethical (based on a proper ethics), and so discussing how this unethical act should go if it is to be self-consistent is rather silly. It's like saying a burglar should carry out to completion his burglary, at all costs, simply because he professed that this was his goal. Further, that if the burglar failed to carry out his act to completion, something is morally wrong with him.

The point is, there is no moral ground in reality that leads to the notion that the US owes Iraq a freer society, whether or not their motive was selfish or selfless or a combination of the two. There is not point to discussing the proper ethics of unethical men or nations (presuming that's a plausibal proposition).

Edited by Felipe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not denying that 9/11 was used to sell the Iraq war to the American public, I'm just saying that they arent related.

Iraq has no real connections to terrorism, although some wish to clutch at straws and talk about their policy of donating money to families of suicide bombers in Israel, as if this somehow showed that they posed a threat to America or justified an invasion based on preemptive self defence.

The current situation in Iraq is hardly condusive to the rise of a free-society - if media reports are to be trusted, most of the country is bordering on anarchy. If terrorists were to blow up the Whitehouse, Congress and the US Senate tomorrow, do you think that Americans should be thankful for the once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to form a free society based on the original spirit of the Constitution.

"I'm not denying that 9/11 was used to sell the Iraq war to the American public, I'm just saying that they arent related"

Why don't you explain then what the American public don't know about why we went to Iraq.

"Iraq has no real connections to terrorism, although some wish to clutch at straws and talk about their policy of donating money to families of suicide bombers in Israel, as if this somehow showed that they posed a threat to America or justified an invasion based on preemptive self defence."

I never stated there was a real connection but Americans were told there was and that was the reason for war. That cannot be changed. There was never any real difference between races but one race tells themselves they are better than another and this is the reason they think they are superior.

Edited by KnockOut
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Either way, supposing this is the sole end, are you saying that any truly selfless nation whom simply wants to liberate a slaved people for no tangible benefit owes the freed people a better state than they previously had?
Yes, of course. Otherwise their invasion was an unprovoked initiation of force against the people living in that country. It would be like me deciding to firebomb a house because I believed that the father who lived in it was abusing his children.

But acting solely for "freeing a people" is unethical (based on a proper ethics)
Wrong; its no more unethical than giving to charity. A war of liberation funded by taxation (or money otherwise coerced from the public) is unethical, but this is trivial since the same applies to a war motivated by any other purpose. Edited by Hal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wrong; its no more unethical than giving to charity. A war of liberation funded by taxation (or money otherwise coerced from the public) is unethical, but this is trivial since the same applies to a war motivated by any other purpose.
Well, we're both wrong: it depends on context. Giving to charity can be ethical if it's not at a cost of a higher value, but can be unethical if it is. War for the sake of "freeing people" can be ethical and unethical in a similar fashion.

For Iraq, waging war just for the sake of "freeing people," considering what it has cost, is unethical. Knowing that freeing Iraq would cost more than it would yield, and using this as the motivation for war, would make the choice sacrificial. (But of course the reasons for the war have been all over the place.) To then discuss that in order to save face, morally speaking, we have to hold to our decision at all cost, is an afront to morality.

Further, considering the fact that the initial reasons given for war did not prominently (or at all) include "giving Iraq a free state," we aren't obliged to do so. That they now have become so in a shamefull deterioration of principle is very unfortunate. But if there is any justifiable reason for not failing to give Iraq a free state, it's so that our military (and nation) doesn't suffer a castatrophic blow to moral owing to a failure to act on principle. There aren't, however, any moral grounds, from the perspective of the Iraqi people, for claiming that we owe Iraq a free state.

Edited by Felipe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, of course. Otherwise their invasion was an unprovoked initiation of force against the people living in that country. It would be like me deciding to firebomb a house because I believed that the father who lived in it was abusing his children.

Wrong; its no more unethical than giving to charity. A war of liberation funded by taxation (or money otherwise coerced from the public) is unethical, but this is trivial since the same applies to a war motivated by any other purpose.

"Yes, of course. Otherwise their invasion was an unprovoked initiation of force against the people living in that country. It would be like me deciding to firebomb a house because I believed that the father who lived in it was abusing his children."

Unbelieveable, so not only do we have to free them we have to give them our ass backward democratic government. So let me ask you when you give you girlfriend flowers are you obligated to bring her the dirt to continue to grow it? If you give a homeless person some food are you also obligated to show him how to cook it? Hey you can't just give him something different other than what he is use to like half eaten month old apples you also have to give him a job to help him pay for the new food you introduced him to.(sarcasm)

Edited by KnockOut
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unbelieveable, so not only do we have to free them we have to give them our ass backward democratic government
You dont 'have' to do anything - you didnt 'have' to invade in the first place. But if you do invade for purposes other than those directly related to self defence then yes, you owe them a better country than the one they had before you decided to interfere. Other than that, I agree with Felipe's above post.

So let me ask you when you give you girlfriend flowers are you obligated to bring her the dirt to continue to grow it
If you're giving her flowers in order to replace the roses which died when you dropped the vase containing them onto the floor, then yes, you would be obligated to make sure the replacement flowers are given the right conditions to grow.

If you give a homeless person some food are you also obligated to show him how to cook it?
If you gave him a frozen hamburger because you accidentally stood on the apple that he was eating then yes, you would have such an obligation. Edited by Hal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Man, what a can of worms I've opened up. Just when I thought I was getting it, too. Ugh.

Unfortunately, nowhere in anywhere else of that essay did Ayn Rand stipulate any excluding reasons for invasion and reconstruction (unless she did so at a later time, which she might have, for all I know).

I agree with Knockout in the sense of, punish the criminals, not the slaves, but I'm also not sure how he achieved the logic of his last (sarcastic) post. Eh, nevermind, I'll just read more. Not like the opinions change anyways.

Edited by Styles2112
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You dont 'have' to do anything - you didnt 'have' to invade in the first place. But if you do invade for purposes other than those directly related to self defence then yes, you owe them a better country than the one they had before you decided to interfere. Other than that, I agree with Felipe's above post.

If you're giving her flowers in order to replace the roses which died when you dropped the vase containing them onto the floor, then yes, you would be obligated to make sure the replacement flowers are given the right conditions to grow.

If you gave him a frozen hamburger because you accidentally stood on the apple that he was eating then yes, you would have such an obligation.

Lol, that was kinda funny

What you don't seem to understand though is to the American people it was related to self defence against a supposedly terrorist harboring, WMD making country. On top of that its just this simple would you rather have a proven crazy dictator in charge of the country or have someone take him out and leave? The Iraq people have demostrated they would rather the latter. They don't want us there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What you don't seem to understand though is to the American people it was related to self defence against a supposedly terrorist harboring, WMD making country.
But it doesnt matter what the American people believed - it matters what is true. The important question is "did the American people have rational grounds for believing that the war was a matter of self defence?". I believe the answer is no.

On top of that its just this simple would you rather have a proven crazy dictator in charge of the country or have someone take him out and leave? The Iraq people have demostrated they would rather the latter. They don't want us there.
Compare this to the "terrorists blowing up the Whitehouse and Congress" scenario I mentioned above. No matter how bad a government is, eliminating it and leaving the country in a state of anarchy is normally going to be a terrible idea. Edited by Hal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But it doesnt matter what the American people believed - it matters what is true. The important question is "did the American people have rational grounds for believing that the war was a matter of self defence?". I believe the answer is no.

Compare this to the "terrorists blowing up the Whitehouse and Congress" scenario I mentioned above. No matter how bad a government is, eliminating it and leaving the country in a state of anarchy is normally going to be a terrible idea.

"Compare this to the "terrorists blowing up the Whitehouse and Congress" scenario I mentioned above. No matter how bad a government is, eliminating it and leaving the country in a state of anarchy is normally going to be a terrible idea."

You underestimate the will of the people to survive. There was people before government. Society had to form one on their own to survive. Only thing we did was remove their crap one so they can try again. Now suppose we had left them alone and they developed an Objectivist government, could've happened (lol) but it will never because we chose to push our belief and social system on them. Gat damn shame.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not like the opinions change anyways.
You'd be surprised at how much they do, even if not immediately. :) Let me make one more attempt at opinion-changing...

But, regardless of the initiation of force by another government, (as my take on that), any invasion we launch (such as Iraq) we are required to instate a free social system, because of the INDIVIDUAL rights of the "innocent" or "enslaved" people. It would seem that destroying an entire country (not just the government), would be an entirely new initiation of force, not morally justified (possibly immoral).
As a starting point, we're assuming that the war is a just war, right?

If the good guys destroy bad guys some "slaves" will be killed too. That's true. It would be unjust to kill "slaves" on purpose if we had no military reason to do so. I gather that you're not objecting to that; it is part of war. We cannot be expected to die instead of the "slaves".

I understand that the situation you're speaking of is when the good guys dismantle significant legal and political structures in the other country. How do the ex-slaves have the right to our efforts in helping organize their political system? How is it a violation of their rights to say: "okay, we killed the dictator, now organize yourselves"? While I cannot see how such a claim could arise, it is often practical for the good-guys to start the process of getting the ex-slaves to organize. Else, the good-guys may find themselves back at war in a few years.

Now, consider what the US did in Iraq. For starters, seeing that the country was in disarray, the US appointed a governor-type person. Then, the US transitioned to an local government, chosen by the US. Then, the US organized an election for a President. Then, the US got the parties together to write a constitution. Then the US held a referendum on the constitution. Next, the US is going to hold local elections, to devolve power down more deeply.

Meanwhile, the US has been pouring lives and money into building schools, hospitals, pipelines...and what not.

The Iraqis could have written themselves a good constitution -- the flaws in it were not put in by force. (It is not as though there aren't examples around the world that they can draw from.) They could have elected a President from the secular party, rather than from the religious one. Do they not "owe" themselves this much?

How much more does the US owe them?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...