With the growing public sentiment (fueled by the Canadian media) against the war in Afghanistan coupled with the prospect of continuing rule by minority government, it seems unlikely that Canadian Forces will continue operations in the Afghan arena beyond the 2009 commitment.
Over the past year, it has become apparent that the Canadian media has taken up the war in Afghanistan as its personal cause (that is, when it isn’t spending all its time talking about climate change). It is impossible for one to go hardly a day without hearing a media outlet (be it a newspaper, radio show, or television newscast) compare the war in Afghanistan to the war in Iraq. This is an effective technique for turning sentiment against the war in Afghanistan: the war in Iraq has never been popular with the Canadian public. Many reasons could be proffered for why the public has such a hatred of the war in Iraq, but it should suffice that after seeing through the non-sense produced by the Bush administration in the lead-up to the invasion, great offense was taken at America’s attempt to bully and insult its closest allies into joining the Iraq foray. While holding a position against the Afghan war is a respectable position (though the author may disagree), there are several reasons why one can – and should – be against the war in Iraq and support the Afghan mission.
- While one may be able to argue that the invasion of Afghanistan was hasty, it was supported by the international community and supported with diverse armed forces.
- The Afghan community as a whole supports the mission to destroy the Taliban and is glad to be free from their government.
- The Afghan mission is not at the point of hopelessness.
Simply comparing the Afghan mission to Iraq is hardly a compelling argument, yet it appears to be working. Support for the operation has dropped from an already low 55% (March 2006) to 40% (May 2007) [PDF].
Canada is currently ruled by a Conservative minority government. In fact, it is the smallest minority government in Canadian history. According to polling, no single party is sitting in a position to form a majority (or even a strong minority) government if an election were called immediately. As such, it is highly unlikely that Canada will see a federal election at all in the foreseeable future and even if an election were called, it appears from the polling that the makeup of the government would change very little. There are currently four parties holding the balance of power: the Conservatives, the Liberals (the Official Opposition), the NDP, and the Bloc Quebecois. Only the Conservatives are in favour of continuing to support the Afghan Compact with military force. While the Bloc are representing their constituents (Quebecers are strongly opposed to the mission), the Liberals and NDP appear to be using the controversy as a political bat with which to beat the Conservatives. This political opportunism is worst with the Liberals, who were the ones who put Canada into the mission in the first place and now act as if they never had anything to do with the decision.
The long and short of it is this: regardless of the merits of the mission, Stephane Dion is right: no consensus will ever be reached to extend Canada’s involvement beyond the 2009 commitment. In the author’s view, this is a terrible thing for the people of Afghanistan.
Your right, we won’t be there after 2009, which is actually ok by me.
I’m not a pacifists, nor is it the cost that the war is taking on Canadian lives that has me opposing our involvement there; it’s the Afghanistan Government’s stance on the rights they give their citizens that bug me. I think we’ll all remember the case of the Christian convert who was to be executed? In the end, he wasn’t executed. The case was dropped becasue the courts (under international pressure) decided he was likely insane. What a statement that is; if you convert your insane.
Anyways, I do not believe that a Canadian solider should be dying to protect a goverment that does not offer the same rights to their citizens as Canadians have. If you want our help; you accept our values. To ask a solider to die for values less then our own I think is wrong.
So if the Afghanistan goverment would make their values and laws inline with Canadian ones, I’m all for keeping our troops there. If not, then take them out.
“The case was dropped becasue the courts (under international pressure) decided he was likely insane. What a statement that is; if you convert your insane.”
I thought it was a clever move by the court. They had two choices: 1) declare the man guilty and demonstrate that Afghanistan doesn’t respect human rights, or 2) let the man go free, thereby demonstrating that Afghanistan doesn’t respect the rule of law. Neither choice was good. So they found a loophole that respected human rights and the rule of law. It wasn’t perfect, but it was a good start.
I don’t see any particular reason that Canada needs to stay involved, though. It’s expensive, both in money and lives, and it isn’t your fight.
“1. While one may be able to argue that the invasion of Afghanistan was hasty, it was supported by the international community and supported with diverse armed forces.
2. The Afghan community as a whole supports the mission to destroy the Taliban and is glad to be free from their government.
3. The Afghan mission is not at the point of hopelessness. ”
All three points could be made about Iraq. Lest you forget, nearly 50 nations joined the U.S. in dethroning Saddam. Granted, many of those did not supply many troops, but that is more out of a lack of military than due to a lack of support. After all, ever since the U.S. became the de facto military of the world after the Second World War, many countries have practically eliminated their entire combat divisions.
The majority of the Iraqi citizenry prefers the current situation over the rule of Saddam. There are local populations where this may not be true, but as a whole, the people of Iraq want us there rather than for us to leave so they can get massacred.
The Iraqi mission is not at the point of hopelessness either. One only needs to listen to interviews of Petraeus or our other military leaders in Iraq to know that The Surge is having very positive results, even though it is only a few weeks old.
So, in other words, if one doesn’t get all of his news from the mainstream media, he knows that the Iraq War is not lost and it is supported by the inhabitants (at least in comparison to the alternative).
Furthermore, the tiresome appeal to “international support” is neither accurate nor does it matter much. So what if France, Germany, and Russia didn’t support it… they all had dirty motives. Besides, since when has international opinion ever been on the right side??? One only needs to look back to the past 100 years to know that history has shown that the “world opinion” has always come out on the wrong side. Did international opinion feel the need to fight back against Hitler (until it was too late)? No, it took a handful of brave leaders like Churchill to stem the Nazi tide. Was international opinion correct about abandoning Vietnam to the Communists? Over two million graves cry out an emphatic “NO!”. Was international support behind the Cold War??? No, Reagan is still mocked today by the left for his “simplistic” idea of the evil Soviet Union.
The axiom of learning from one’s history seems to never lose its accuracy.
“I don’t see any particular reason that Canada needs to stay involved, though. It’s expensive, both in money and lives, and it isn’t your fight.”
How is it not their fight? It is the fight of all the Western world for survival to defeat the Islamofascists. And how exactly is Afghanistan “expensive” beyond monetary means. Historically speaking, both current wars have amazingly low casualty numbers. Every lost life is awful, but that is war, and if you can conduct a war like these two with such a low amount of loss and such a huge payoff if successful (democracy in the Middle East and the crippling of the terrorism networks), why not continue the battle? As Al Qaeda leaders all agree, the fight for the world is now in Iraq. We lose there, we lose much much more.
It’s not their fight because it’s not their country. I don’t subscribe to the notion that the Western world is in any danger of succumbing to radical Islamic terrorists, either. Particularly not for Canada. This isn’t a fight for survival on Canada’s part. Their involvement in Afghanistan does nothing to improve the security and safety of Canadians and Canadian interests.
They could do better by just staying at home in North America, where they are geographically secure, and not meddle in world politics. By getting involved in foreign wars, Canada can accomplish nothing save spending money, losing lives, and making enemies.
I feel the same way about American involvement in foreign wars, too. The only caveat is that America needs foreign oil, so we’re sort of forced to support stability in certain parts of the world. (And I’m not defining the Afghanistan conflict as a foreign war. We were attacked first.)
I do not believe that a Canadian solider should be dying to protect a goverment that does not offer the same rights to their citizens as Canadians have
Very important point. We have to remember that these wars of “liberation” are not on behalf of the individuals in these countries but on the rulers that are in power (or the rulers that the US wants in power). Regardless of whether the war in Iraq or Afghanistan - the goals are still the same and they are still suspect. I am angered beyond measure that rather than simply pursue Osama Bin laden and the other terrorists responsible for attacks on the US, our government has instead abandoned justice at the first possible opportunity and instead embarked on imperialistic nation building.
Why should Canada pull Bushs chestnuts out of the fire. Remember the US used Bin Laden and the Taliban to overthro the secular government of the PDP,claiming it was Communist.By supporting these monsters the US and the rest of the world are paying the price. No reason for Canada to put herself in jeopardy for oil and Islamic fundamentalism
So countries should adhere to an “ignorance is bliss” policy of isolationism? I guess that’s where I disagree. Since the beginning of the 20th century, that is no longer possible. So much more now that there is an ideology (radical Islam) that aims for world domination AND is supported by a significant number of people. For example, sharia law is favored by a MAJORITY of European Muslims. Furthermore, a huge portion of that same population is at the very least sympathetic to groups like Al Qaeda and Hamas. Even in this country, you have groups like the Muslim student body at UC Irvine that openly supports terrorism in the Middle East. Or consider the “moderate” Islamic group CAIR, which has many ties to terrorism.
Ok, once it is realized and accepted that radical Islamism is not a minority belief within Islam or at the very least is one held by a significant percentage of Muslims (10%, or 100 million worldwide to be conservative), the next obvious argument is that radical Muslims are mostly confined to the Middle East and South Asia and have relatively small communities within the Western world. This argument, however, falls quickly by way of the skillful analysis of people like Melanie Phillips or Mark Steyn. Steyn deals entirely with the demographics issue, pointing out that while Muslims make up only like 5% of Europe’s population today, their distinctly higher birth rates than their non-Muslim neighbors point to a drastic uptick in their overall numbers by mid-century.
Now, as everyone in this country knows, a group doesn’t have to have majority numbers to significantly impact culture and politics. So even if by 2050, Muslims still only make up 20% of the population (albeit 70% of the under-30 crowd), but a majority of those support sharia law while the rest of Europe has, like today, no national or continental identity, what happens? As Bin Laden says, the world goes with the strong horse. And Islam, while perhaps being only superficially strong, is much stronger than any alternative secular Europe has to offer. Unfortunately, if Europe doesn’t address this issue now (for example, Sarkozy in France is now offering immigrants thousands of dollars to return to their native countries), it will get to the point where the only option many Europeans will feel left at their disposal is to do what they did in Bosnia: genocidally kill off Muslims. Now no one wants that, but if they don’t immediately address their own cultural weaknesses, that could come to pass. After all, in Russia, their population will halve in 50 years. One only needs to look at the birth rates of Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Palestine, Sweden, Italy, Spain, and Greece to figure out who will be running the world in a few decades.
“So countries should adhere to an “ignorance is bliss” policy of isolationism?”
Yes. I’m advocating a policy of complete ignorance. America’s knowledge should stop at the border. We should actively discourage learning about the rest of the world. Globes and world maps are unpatriotic. World history starts with the American revolution.
(Or, if you’d like to stop equating isolationism with ignorance, I’m willing to continue the discussion and explain my beliefs in more detail.)
“I am angered beyond measure that rather than simply pursue Osama Bin laden and the other terrorists responsible for attacks on the US, our government has instead abandoned justice at the first possible opportunity and instead embarked on imperialistic nation building.”
Ah yes, the old “kill Bin Laden and all will be peaches and daisies” idea. This simplistic view is the one spouted by Hillary and B. Hussein Obama ad nauseum. So if we had only killed off Osama, the London bombings and the many attempted attacks here in the US would have never happened? The war on terror is not about one single person, nor is it a mission of merely apprehending and imprisoning the perp. That pre-9/11 mentality is what gave us two smoldering piles of debris in New York.
You say that we’ve abandoned justice and embarked on imperialistic nation building. I don’t see how; it is in the world’s (besides his future victims) interest to dethrone a tyrant and terrorism supporter like Saddam and the Iraq War has reaped some significant fruit (democratic elections in Iraq, Libya disarming itself, Syria pulling out of Lebanon, to name a few).
I don’t see how this isolationist worldview can still be so rampant when we have had the previous 70 years to show us how truly foolish and dangerous it can be. Most recently, had Bill Clinton shown some cajones when the WTC was first bombed or the USS Cole was attacked, 9/11 might never have happened. Instead, the terrorists saw weakness, so they kept prodding the sleeping giant til we awoke.
When I said ignorance is bliss, I didn’t apply that to all knowledge of other countries or cultures as your hyperbolic answer stated, but rather the apparent desire to remain ignorant of certain threats as long as they don’t directly attack us. A fiddling Nero comes to mind…
As one probably can tell by now, the threat of radical Islam is to me what inflation is to Mr. Hammond.
Anyway, Jew, please elaborate why you think that Islamism can be ignored as long as they leave us alone. I think there are legitimate arguments against getting too agitated about the threat of radical Muslims, but ignoring them as long as they don’t attack us doesn’t seem to be one of them, in my opinion. At least, not in the global world in which we live. 300 years ago, had some group of nutcases in the Middle East decided to take over the world or destroy it in the process, they would have been as successful as Pinky and the Brain. Nowadays, that’s a very real possibility, at least the destruction portion of their quest.
“please elaborate why you think that Islamism can be ignored as long as they leave us alone”
I’m not suggesting ignoring the phenomenon. I’m suggesting that getting involved in foreign wars puts the nation at greater risk.
It would be hard either the US or the UK to disengage right now, given that both nations have been attacked multiple times within their borders. But for Canada, it’s a different story. If Canada isn’t involved in any foreign wars, the terrorists will focus on America and Britain. I don’t see that Canada has much to gain from staying in Afghanistan.
So if we had only killed off Osama, the London bombings and the many attempted attacks here in the US would have never happened? The war on terror is not about one single person, nor is it a mission of merely apprehending and imprisoning the perp. That pre-9/11 mentality is what gave us two smoldering piles of debris in New York.
That’s a straw man - I’m not saying that at all. The original justification for the invasion of Afghanistan was to get the people responsible for attacking us - i.e., pursue justice. We then abandoned that and went on this vague crusade for “democracy” and “tyrant dethroning” and left Osama Bin Laden in freedom.
You say that we’ve abandoned justice and embarked on imperialistic nation building. I don’t see how; it is in the world’s (besides his future victims) interest to dethrone a tyrant and terrorism supporter like Saddam and the Iraq War has reaped some significant fruit (democratic elections in Iraq, Libya disarming itself, Syria pulling out of Lebanon, to name a few).
Significant fruit indeed: tens of thousands of civilian deaths, much more than any of the terrorist attacks against this country (regardless of the fact that barely any of those can be linked to Saddam’s government); billions of dollars of borrowed money that Americans are now responsible to pay back (more financial damage than any terrorist attack); and a dramatic loss of freedom and liberty in this country (much more lost freedom than any terrorist group could take away from us).
It is in the world’s best interest to punish crimes - and Saddam and others have done their fair share and should be punished - but the Iraq war was not “punishment” - there were no courts assembled, there were no laws cited - it was merely the exercise of unilateral force by the US and a few other countries to execute a well-documented strategy that was in place long before 9/11.
I don’t see how this isolationist worldview can still be so rampant when we have had the previous 70 years to show us how truly foolish and dangerous it can be. Most recently, had Bill Clinton shown some cajones when the WTC was first bombed or the USS Cole was attacked, 9/11 might never have happened. Instead, the terrorists saw weakness, so they kept prodding the sleeping giant til we awoke.
the past 70’s years has been a constant stream of international entaglements! There has not been a period of five years where the US has not engaged in some kind of international military confrontation (either directly or through funding). Yup, Bill Clinton did not pursue justice - just like the current US policy is not pursuing justice. And guess what - well probably have more terrorist attacks because of it. When you don’t punish crime - you get more of it.
I would probably agree to a certain extent that Canada has little to gain, with the caveat that every country has something to gain with our success in the Middle East. However, just because it doesn’t involve itself in those wars won’t protect Canada. Germany has had to stop a couple significant plots, even though they have never really supported either war, especially the Iraq one. I don’t think a “hope they don’t notice us” policy works for any country. It sure didn’t in World War II. Remove Canadian troops from the equation, and you likely would have still had the plot to attack the Canadian Parliament and behead the Prime Minister that was stopped a couple years ago.
After all, there was no Iraq or Afghanistan war when they attacked the World Trade Centers (either time), nor did we have a military presence in either location when they bombed the USS Cole. I don’t think we can go back to a pre-9/11 scenario where they leave us alone if we leave them alone because that wasn’t the case back then. Are we fomenting Al Qaeda and providing them recruitment material by being in Iraq? Of course, the bad guys always get mad when you attack them. Hitler got quite upset when we entered the war, so he started dropping leaflets all over Europe that claimed that America was a country run by Jews so that he could build his armies. But keeping Hitler’s recruitment numbers down wasn’t a valid reason against attacking then and neither is it valid today.
After all, there was no Iraq or Afghanistan war when they attacked the World Trade Centers (either time), nor did we have a military presence in either location when they bombed the USS Cole. I don’t think we can go back to a pre-9/11 scenario where they leave us alone if we leave them alone because that wasn’t the case back then.
Not true at all. We had been meddling in the middle east for decades prior to 9/11. We were funding and training in the Afghanistan in the 80’s. We were in Iraq in 1991. We put sanctions on Iraq during the 1990’s. Our military was heavily involved in Saudi Arabia.
Bin Laden’s 2002 letter cites these things and more. Among them:
“You have starved the Muslims of Iraq, where children die every day.”
“The American people are the ones who pay the taxes which fund the planes that bomb us in Afghanistan, the tanks that strike and destroy our homes in Palestine, the armies which occupy our lands in the Arabian Gulf, and the fleets which ensure the blockade of Iraq.”
We weren’t leaving the middle east alone at all. The current policy is merely an escalated form of the policy that led to the terrorism we are now experiencing.
“We weren’t leaving the middle east alone at all.”
Thanks Colin. I was going to bring up a lot of the same things. Many of these problems have their roots in American foreign policy. Most American citizens have no clue what the US government does in the rest of the world. For example, we have a global propaganda instrument called Voice of America (VOA) that broadcasts on shortwave to the whole world–except for America. We don’t broadcast in America.
I understand why we don’t–the government shouldn’t be able to blanket the nation in propaganda. But it leaves us in a tricky position where our government is talking to the world, and we don’t know what it’s telling them. I don’t mean to imply that VOA is evil or wrong. I am just using it to highlight the fact that American citizens have no clue what our government is doing in the rest of the world.
From WW2 to the 60’s, The U.S. gradually found itself the heir to Europe’s failed colonialism. And we never knew quite what to do with it.
In the Middle East the U.S:
1. Used covert ops to overthrow the democratically elected Iranian Prime Minister.
2. Supported Israel - Selling them advanced weapons and giving them intelligence assistance in war. (Also, very likely assisting Israel’s development of nuclear weapons.) In addition, starting with Reagan, supported Israel’s settlement of the West Bank which most thought was against existing treaties.
3. Invaded Lebanon (and later intervened in Lebanon’s civil war).
4. Worked to prevent Arab Nationalism (including bankrolling the Saudi and Jordanian Royal Families).
5. Aided Iraq against Iran in the Iraq-Iran war with money, intelligence, and technology.
6. Aided Extremists in Afghanistan - against the Pakistani government (this was before, and may have promoted, the Soviet Invasion).
7. The Gulf War, The Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Some of these actions may have been justified, but there’s little wonder why the Middle East sees itself as a victim of Western Imperialism.
Yes, we were involved. Obviously we were involved, but not at war per se. As for Bin Laden’s letter, who cares what a madman gives for his reasons to murder innocents??? “Starving the children of Iraq?” Please, that is 100% Saddam’s fault.. in case you don’t know about it, there was this little thing (actually, quite big) called the Oil-for-Food money laundering scheme where Saddam got millions of dollars. Did he spend it on those starving children? Apparently not, and Bin Laden had the gall to blame the U.S. Please, don’t bring up silly little moral equivalents like that again, they make my blood boil!
You also quote Bin Laden about Palestine… next you’re going to start quoting from Jimmy Carter’s Apartheid book of lies. Seriously, what is with this “all cultures are equal” bunk? There are many innocent Palestinians and Iraqis, but to blame their misfortune on the US or Israel is truly disgusting. Next we’ll blame the deaths in Dresden or Hiroshima on the Allies instead of the Germans and Japanese. FIGHTING EVIL ALWAYS EXACTS A COST! But does that mean that we should Neville Chamberlain it every time evil rears its head? Hopefully that is a rhetorical question.
Did we make mistakes in the past with whom we supported in the Middle East (e.g. Saddam in the early 80’s)? Yes, of course, but such oversimplification belies the fact that fighting evil sometimes requires having enemy-of-our-enemy alliances. Gee, here’s another great place to use a Second World War example: FDR and Stalin. Had we not allied ourselves with him and worked together, we likely would not have beaten Hitler.
“Significant fruit indeed: tens of thousands of civilian deaths, much more than any of the terrorist attacks against this country (regardless of the fact that barely any of those can be linked to Saddam’s government); billions of dollars of borrowed money that Americans are now responsible to pay back (more financial damage than any terrorist attack); and a dramatic loss of freedom and liberty in this country (much more lost freedom than any terrorist group could take away from us).”
Let me deal with each of these points separately.
First, you’re pooh-poohing of the “fruit” is insightful. Very easy for someone safe and sound in the USA who never has to worry for his life in case he ticked off a governmental official to sarcastically play down the moment when millions of Iraqis BRAVELY went forth and vote for the first time in their lives. Take your freedom to vote for granted if you want, but DO NOT dare to presume that others do!
Furthermore, innocent lives are ALWAYS lost fighting evil… seriously, if history teaches us anything, it is that. I guess with your tortured logic, we should have let Hitler do his thing (especially considering there were many more lives lost during WWII in fighting back than there have been in Afghanistan and Iraq put together). Go back and read some newspapers from after the collapse of Germany in WWII… people were saying that the Allied (primarily American) rebuilding process was a joke and going terribly.
Second, I’ll say it again, fighting evil requires S-A-C-R-I-F-I-C-E, including financial.
Third, please name the losses of freedom that you or anyone you know have experienced….. what is that I hear, crickets??? Come on, stop spouting the Daily Kos lines, they are old and tiresome.
Mind you, I do believe one can honestly look at the facts and decide that the Iraq War was not worth it. But not by ignoring the facts, forgetting history, and making up stuff to fit our opinion. Let’s have a debate over the Iraq War or War on Terror or whatever, but let’s leave out the mainstream media talking points for once.
Jasen, agreed that they see themselves as a victim. And agreed that there may have been unjustified incursions into Mid East politics. However, that doesn’t justify their cause or make them in the right now. Germany felt screwed after WWI, didn’t justify what they did in WWII. Why is it so hard for some people to see those obvious parallels?? Sometimes in the interest of our nation or an ally or the world at large, our government has had to pick the lesser of two evils. Possibly at times we shouldn’t have picked either side, but hindsight is almost always clear.
well, another win for the terrorists..err, I mean Democrats… no wait, I did mean terrorists. I seem to confuse some of them so easily.
The John Doe amendment was voted down.
there, my blood is back down to a simmer
Darius, I hope you don’t mind.
There are many innocent Palestinians and Iraqis, but to blame their misfortune on the US or Israel is truly disgusting. Next we’ll blame the deaths in Dresden or Hiroshima on the Allies instead of the Germans and Japanese.
Perhaps the only thing more disgusting is to suggest the Allies weren’t to blame. Consider Japan. Forget the strong possibility that Japan was on the point of surrender prior to these bombings, and explain why, after the Japanese brought on themselves the 140,000 deaths in Hiroshima, they forced our hand three days later into 74,000 more in Nagasaki.
FIGHTING EVIL ALWAYS EXACTS A COST!
I agree. Hopefully it will not exact too high a cost from our reverence for God-given life. But is it the government’s job to go out and fight evil, even evil not directly threatening that nation?
… agreed that they see themselves as a victim. And agreed that there may have been unjustified incursions into Mid East politics. However, that doesn’t justify their cause or make them in the right now.
Of course not. But, according to your reasoning that Germans and Japanese are to blame for us bombing them, we are to blame for people in the Middle East reacting to us as they have.
Sharon, with that last statement you are getting into the moral equivalency business. What you have just done is to equate Germany and Japan with us. For your sake, I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you did this accidentally and will readily retract that statement.
I am kind of surprised how isolationist so many on this site are, and how reticent some people seem to be to make a distinction between America and our enemies, both past and present.
“I am kind of surprised how isolationist so many on this site are”
I don’t know why you’re surprised. Zeal for Truth is a bastion of libertarianism. We like to mind our own business.
I’ll retract the statement if you want, though apparently it didn’t communicate as intended (maybe I should go study Thainamu’s posts) - 1) it was to follow your line of reasoning, not make a moral equivalence; 2) it was to drive home the fact that one’s perspective depends on one’s situation, and that we can’t just ditch another’s perspective as invalid because it isn’t ours. Perhaps understanding another’s perspective will help us to deal more wisely with a problem.
As for moral equivalence, of course Germany, Japan, and the U.S. are three different stories, but sinful humans live here too.
I can’t speak for the others, but I am not necessarily “isolationist”, certainly not to be annoying; I am taking that position partly to debate the topic, and partly to support George Washington. You must have read his Farewell Address.
Yes, we were involved. Obviously we were involved, but not at war per se.
Yes we were. Whether funding, training or even direct use of our troops. Technically, right now we’re not at war (no war has been declared since WWII).
As for Bin Laden’s letter, who cares what a madman gives for his reasons to murder innocents??? “Starving the children of Iraq?” Please, that is 100% Saddam’s fault.. in case you don’t know about it, there was this little thing (actually, quite big) called the Oil-for-Food money laundering scheme where Saddam got millions of dollars. Did he spend it on those starving children? Apparently not, and Bin Laden had the gall to blame the U.S. Please, don’t bring up silly little moral equivalents like that again, they make my blood boil!
No, the sanctions were imposed by the US and other countries. Do you think that hurt Saddam? Do you think those people liked Saddam’s rule? DO you think they would have left if they could?
You also quote Bin Laden about Palestine… next you’re going to start quoting from Jimmy Carter’s Apartheid book of lies. Seriously, what is with this “all cultures are equal” bunk? There are many innocent Palestinians and Iraqis, but to blame their misfortune on the US or Israel is truly disgusting. Next we’ll blame the deaths in Dresden or Hiroshima on the Allies instead of the Germans and Japanese. FIGHTING EVIL ALWAYS EXACTS A COST! But does that mean that we should Neville Chamberlain it every time evil rears its head? Hopefully that is a rhetorical question.
I never claimed all cultures are equal. In fact, I will go on record and say that middle eastern politics and culture has had it’s backwards moments to put it nice. Throughout this last post you do this quite often - assuming that because a person takes a certain “liberal” position that he holds all liberal positions. Stop it. Argue what is presented - not what you assume.
Did we make mistakes in the past with whom we supported in the Middle East (e.g. Saddam in the early 80’s)? Yes, of course, but such oversimplification belies the fact that fighting evil sometimes requires having enemy-of-our-enemy alliances. Gee, here’s another great place to use a Second World War example: FDR and Stalin. Had we not allied ourselves with him and worked together, we likely would not have beaten Hitler.
So it’s ok to ally with evil to fight…. evil? Last time I checked “evil” is evil. There isn’t isn’t “good evil” and then “evil evil”. There are no shades of grey in evil. If you want to use absolute language, at least have the decency to follow your own definitions.
First, you’re pooh-poohing of the “fruit” is insightful. Very easy for someone safe and sound in the USA who never has to worry for his life in case he ticked off a governmental official to sarcastically play down the moment when millions of Iraqis BRAVELY went forth and vote for the first time in their lives. Take your freedom to vote for granted if you want, but DO NOT dare to presume that others do!
Voting is not a “freedom” - it is a privilege granted by a state. And I could care less if Iraq’s vote or not. I care a lot more if my money is funding their deaths or my government’s policy is robing them of life, liberty and property. But hey, it’s ok that tens of thousands have died - the one’s that lived got to vote!
Furthermore, innocent lives are ALWAYS lost fighting evil… seriously, if history teaches us anything, it is that. I guess with your tortured logic, we should have let Hitler do his thing (especially considering there were many more lives lost during WWII in fighting back than there have been in Afghanistan and Iraq put together). Go back and read some newspapers from after the collapse of Germany in WWII… people were saying that the Allied (primarily American) rebuilding process was a joke and going terribly.
That actually turns my stomach. Who decides who should die and who should live? Who has that right? You? Me? The government? No. Each individual has free-will to decide if they live or die. That is the essence of the founding of this country. It is the foundation of freedom. There is no cause so just that men may take up the responsibility of doling out life and death.
Second, I’ll say it again, fighting evil requires S-A-C-R-I-F-I-C-E, including financial.
If it requires sacrifice, then let it be borne by those who pursue such actions. My neighbor has no right to force me to bear his sacrifice. What you are speaking is the heart of socialism - that men are their brother’s keepers. I would call it evil to take by force a man’s life, liberty or property - so would our founders.
Third, please name the losses of freedom that you or anyone you know have experienced….. what is that I hear, crickets??? Come on, stop spouting the Daily Kos lines, they are old and tiresome.
Since 9/11, my phone can be tapped, my person searched, my assets siezed and my person detained - all without a trial, lawyer or the basic standard of Habeas Corpus. I’ve flown about 30 times since 9/11 and even the circus there has been unacceptable.
Mind you, I do believe one can honestly look at the facts and decide that the Iraq War was not worth it. But not by ignoring the facts, forgetting history, and making up stuff to fit our opinion. Let’s have a debate over the Iraq War or War on Terror or whatever, but let’s leave out the mainstream media talking points for once.
You claimed there has not been military involvement - that is ignoring history.
You claimed Bin Laden’s reason’s for attacking us are irrelevant - that is ignoring the facts.
You assumed that I took a bunch of bogus left wing views based on absolutely nothing - that is making stuff up to fit your opinion.
Well, you conveniently ignored most of my points… what an exercise in futility this is becoming. This may have diminishing returns, but here goes one more try. Try addressing my points if you can…
“So it’s ok to ally with evil to fight…. evil? Last time I checked “evil” is evil. There isn’t isn’t “good evil” and then “evil evil”. There are no shades of grey in evil. If you want to use absolute language, at least have the decency to follow your own definitions.”
Why did you not bother to respond to the Stalin/FDR example I gave? I must assume that it is because you have no answer. God used evil men all the time in the Old Testament to do His purposes, and while I am not equating America with God or His will, I am saying that using evil for good is CLEARLY Biblical.
“I would call it evil to take by force a man’s life, liberty or property - so would our founders.”
From this and almost every other statement you’ve made, it would appear that you would disagree with fighting back against Hitler and Japan.
“Since 9/11, my phone can be tapped, my person searched, my assets siezed and my person detained - all without a trial, lawyer or the basic standard of Habeas Corpus. I’ve flown about 30 times since 9/11 and even the circus there has been unacceptable.”
Aww, you’re not keen on slower airport lines? So your solution is what???? Go back to our old system and let them blow us up as much as they want??? Gee, I bet there are a majority of Americans who would rather take a little longer to board an airplane yet live to see the next airport. As for your other points, you again conveniently didn’t answer the question. I asked what freedoms you HAVE lost, not that you COULD lose. Also, nice of you to ignore the rather big qualification to “phone tapping, person searching, assets seized, person detained”: all of the above are possible ONLY if you have made contact with known terrorists or are yourself a terrorist. Are there a handful of mistakes along the way? Sure, but 100% of those have been cleared up very quickly.
“You claimed there has not been military involvement - that is ignoring history.
You claimed Bin Laden’s reason’s for attacking us are irrelevant - that is ignoring the facts.
You assumed that I took a bunch of bogus left wing views based on absolutely nothing - that is making stuff up to fit your opinion.”
I am sorry that I attributed views to you that you don’t hold, but you didn’t leave much room on some of your statements for other interpretation. Quoting Bin Laden is a classic left wing technique, so what was I to think? And yes, it is pretty much irrevelant what a madman says. And I never said there has been NO military involvement, just not a war like we are currently having, except of course the first Gulf War, which methinks you were against as well.
This is the biggest problem with libertarianism, the chink in the armor, if you will. Libertarians have no answer for evil. This is not to say that they don’t recognize evil, which liberals tend to be incapable of, but rather they don’t know how to respond. Thankfully, FDR wasn’t a libertarian, at least not in the modern sense. Everything you have said indicates that you think (or would have at the time, since WWII was such an obvious necessity in hindsight) we should have let Hitler clean out Europe and as long as he didn’t interfere with America, who are we to fight evil or take another person’s life, especially if it involved enabling Stalin to acquire more power. I agree with the libertarian position 85% of the time, but they lose me when they get into foreign policy issues.
“what an exercise in futility this is becoming”
Of course it is, Darius. All you are doing is making Straw Man arguments and attacking people personally. On this site we always consider the other side’s point before posting. The fact that you are here is fantastic because now we can clearly hear your viewpoint, but please consider this fact before hitting ’submit’.
I am attacking their arguments, I have tried to not attack anyone personally. Where did I call someone stupid or a fool or anything along those lines? Pray tell. Have I been sarcastic here or there? Of course, so have some of the responses to my comments. I am sorry if I personally offended anyone, but I would appreciate it if you could delineate the argument from the arguer.
Two people have now claimed I am making straw man arguments, yet neither (especially you) really bothered to show me how. Almost every commenter has worked very hard to avoid my points and rather just give their own platitudes about freedom. Just because you say that something is a straw man argument doesn’t make it so, so perhaps you could enlighten me where I have missed the boat. I will admit that I have generalized and made assumptions that were not likely true of others’ viewpoints, but then, who hasn’t on this comment thread? I have tried to directly address the other comments, while most of the other commenters have tried to avoid addressing my points. Thus, we get this “exercise in futility.” Who really is fighting a straw man here?
Probably the most frustrating thing I take from this debate is how so many of the lessons that World War II offered to us have not been properly learned or understood. At least, I have yet to see one response saying that WWII was good, or at least necessary, but the Iraq War/War on Terror is bad, and here’s how they are different. Instead, the closest anyone has gotten to addressing the WWII similarities was Sharon, and there she claimed that we should have had perfect hindsight prior to bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki and that THE ALLIES were to blame for their deaths. If you believe that, then logically you should be against the War on Terror. If one cannot react against evil, then we are in a heap of trouble as a world.
I promised to explain my views in more details, so here goes. Let me take something Darius said as a starting point.
“This is the biggest problem with libertarianism, the chink in the armor, if you will. Libertarians have no answer for evil.”
I find that interesting, because my libertarian sympathies make me more inclined to see the world as a conflict between good and evil. The greatest evil is the violation of individual liberties. (I am speaking of purely earthly evils. Speaking religiously, there are greater evils. But this isn’t a religious discussion.) The proper role of government is to protect the rights of individuals. When governments violate these rights and oppress the citizens, that government has no legitimate authority. Anybody has the right to remove such a government.
We can see historically that Hitler’s Nazi Germany was among the worst offenders of human rights. If any foreign war demanded involvement, it was World War II against Germany. And again today, Saddam’s government in Iraq had no legitimate authority to govern. Removing that government was absolutely justifiable, because it had no right to exist in the first place. In retrospect, the original justifications for the war were wrong–Saddam had no real nuclear program, his chemical weapons were aged and useless, and he had no biological weapons to speak of. So I’m not convinced that George W. Bush’s decision to invade was the correct one.
That’s not to say that Saddam’s government had a right to continue ruling; it didn’t. Removing that government was right, and (in my opinion) it was a great gift to the Iraqi people. They have a chance to form a government that protects their liberties instead of trampling them. But if you ask me whether America has an obligation to secure the freedom of foreigners from their own oppressive governments, I will say no. It’s a nice sentiment, and it’s flattering to think of ourselves as liberators of an oppressed world. But taxing the American public and sacrificing our soldiers for the benefit of somebody else is a violation of the individual liberties of Americans. In essence, I’m being taxed to finance a war that benefits someone else. That’s a form of collectivism that is at odds with freedom and liberty. No government has the right to violate the rights of its citizens, not even to secure the rights of others.
If a war is legitimately of concern to America as a matter of security, then I can understand. We may be helping other people by removing a dictator, but America gets something out of it too, which makes it acceptable to tax the American public. I’m not convinced that the continued occupation of Iraq is doing more good than harm to American security interests. For one thing, every day we stay in Iraq is a day that millions of people around the world ask “Why are you killing Muslims?” They may be misguided, and they may not understand the issues, but our actions do help to drive them to extremism. It makes us less secure in the long run. (I’m not speaking purely from conjecture either. My parents are missionaries, so I get to meet a lot of missionaries. When they’re overseas in Muslim areas, Muslims ask them questions, and “Why do you hate/kill/bomb Muslims?” is one the biggest questions.)
My main concern is that America gets involved in too many foreign situations that serve no definite good purpose to us. We usually have noble intentions. Sometimes that works out OK, like in Bosnia. (Which, by the way, America should get more credit for. America acted to prevent the genocide of Muslims, while the Muslim nations of the world stood by and watched.) Often it gets us in the position of fueled hatred and breeding new generations of people who have legitimate reasons to hate America. Not that those reasons justify terrorism, but at least we should understand that American foreign policy has predictable consequences.
I recognize that even if we stop involving ourselves in foreign affairs, we can’t completely protect our borders. Terrorists will strike from time to time. That’s a price I’m willing to pay. We’ll be a little less secure within our borders, but we’ll be more free, our soldiers won’t be dying in foreign lands, and we’ll save a whole boatload of money. That’s a fair trade.
Given the extent to which the American government has already involved itself in world affairs, I don’t know if there is a good disengagement strategy. For one thing, the American economy depends on oil, which requires a certain level of stability in the oil-producing countries. Any decision to lessen America’s involvement in foreign politics must be preceded by a move to become more independent of foreign oil.
Now that was the discussion of the issues that I have been waiting for, Jew. Thank you for taking the time to clarify your position. When I get time, I will discuss your thoughts. But for the time being, suffice to say that I understand where you are coming from and while I may not entirely agree with you, at least you have a reasonable and clear position. As Dennis Prager says, I prefer clarity over agreement.
“Probably the most frustrating thing I take from this debate is how so many of the lessons that World War II offered to us have not been properly learned or understood.”
We cannot learn from our history if we are unable to admit that we are fallable and made mistakes.
Well, you conveniently ignored most of my points… what an exercise in futility this is becoming. This may have diminishing returns, but here goes one more try. Try addressing my points if you can…
I addressed every single one of your points - both specifically and generally. I cited examples, history and philosophy to do it. I assumed nothing other than what you wrote and dealt with it directly and decisively.
Why did you not bother to respond to the Stalin/FDR example I gave? I must assume that it is because you have no answer. God used evil men all the time in the Old Testament to do His purposes, and while I am not equating America with God or His will, I am saying that using evil for good is CLEARLY Biblical.
I did respond to your FDR/Stalin example - read it. Stalin was the “evil” that we allied with to fight evil. You cited an example to support a principle. By showing the principle is wrong, your example is countermanded. This is debate 101 - don’t accuse me of not dealing with your points. Yup, God uses evil for good because he’s God - he has that power and authority by virtue of his creation alone. We however are commanded:
- Let love be without hypocrisy. Abhor what is evil. Cling to what is good. (Romans 12:9)
- Repay no one evil for evil. Have regard for good things in the sight of all men. (Romans 12:17)
- Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good. (Romans 12:21)
- Test all things; hold fast what is good. Abstain from every form of evil. (1 Thessalonians 5:21-22)
- Finally, all of you be of one mind, having compassion for one another; love as brothers, be tenderhearted, be courteous; not returning evil for evil or reviling for reviling, but on the contrary blessing, knowing that you were called to this, that you may inherit a blessing. For “He who would love life And see good days, Let him refrain his tongue from evil, And his lips from speaking deceit. Let him turn away from evil and do good; Let him seek peace and pursue it. (1 Peter 3:8-11)
- Beloved, do not imitate what is evil, but what is good. He who does good is of God, but he who does evil has not seen God. (3 John 1:11)
We are not God. We have no right to ally ourselves with evil.
From this and almost every other statement you’ve made, it would appear that you would disagree with fighting back against Hitler and Japan.
This is an irrelevant argument and a straw man - specifically points 1 and 5 of the wikipedia entry defining a straw man. If you are curious of my position on WWII for it’s own sake I will answer it - but it has nothing to do with my position on Iraq or Afghanistan.
Aww, you’re not keen on slower airport lines?
No Darius, I said nothing about slow airport lines. Where are you getting this? It’s an invasion of my privacy and my 4th amendment rights.
So your solution is what???? Go back to our old system and let them blow us up as much as they want??? Gee, I bet there are a majority of Americans who would rather take a little longer to board an airplane yet live to see the next airport.
This is outrageous. You are blindly equating federalizing airport security with increased safety and justifying it by citing an ad populum. Ridiculous. Make a point - and I will refute it. This is not a point.
As for your other points, you again conveniently didn’t answer the question. I asked what freedoms you HAVE lost, not that you COULD lose.
Those are freedoms I have lost. I now cannot board an airplane without the government searching me. I have been searched for no reason. That is a violation of my rights.
Also, nice of you to ignore the rather big qualification to “phone tapping, person searching, assets seized, person detained”: all of the above are possible ONLY if you have made contact with known terrorists or are yourself a terrorist. Are there a handful of mistakes along the way? Sure, but 100% of those have been cleared up very quickly.
No, I am searched because I am presumed guilty until proven innocent. Anyone who boards a plane is presumed a terrorist until the government approves them. It is exactly the opposite of what you are saying. People’s phones are tapped, assets are siezed and are even detained to prove them innocent, not because they have been found guilty.
I am sorry that I attributed views to you that you don’t hold, but you didn’t leave much room on some of your statements for other interpretation. Quoting Bin Laden is a classic left wing technique, so what was I to think? And yes, it is pretty much irrevelant what a madman says. And I never said there has been NO military involvement, just not a war like we are currently having, except of course the first Gulf War, which methinks you were against as well.
Quoting Bin Laden is perfectly neutral - the fact that you assume otherwise is irrational. There are all kinds of reasons to quote Bin Laden - some of them left wing, but not all of them by any stretch.
This is the biggest problem with libertarianism, the chink in the armor, if you will. Libertarians have no answer for evil. This is not to say that they don’t recognize evil, which liberals tend to be incapable of, but rather they don’t know how to respond.
Libertarianism has clear definitions for evil and how to deal with it. Unlike consequentialism (where evil is defined relatively and by utility), we have absolute definitions for evil and adhere to them.
“I did respond to your FDR/Stalin example - read it. Stalin was the “evil” that we allied with to fight evil. You cited an example to support a principle. By showing the principle is wrong, your example is countermanded. This is debate 101 - don’t accuse me of not dealing with your points. Yup, God uses evil for good because he’s God - he has that power and authority by virtue of his creation alone. We however are commanded:
- Let love be without hypocrisy. Abhor what is evil. Cling to what is good. (Romans 12:9)
- Repay no one evil for evil. Have regard for good things in the sight of all men. (Romans 12:17)
- Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good. (Romans 12:21)
- Test all things; hold fast what is good. Abstain from every form of evil. (1 Thessalonians 5:21-22)
- Finally, all of you be of one mind, having compassion for one another; love as brothers, be tenderhearted, be courteous; not returning evil for evil or reviling for reviling, but on the contrary blessing, knowing that you were called to this, that you may inherit a blessing. For “He who would love life And see good days, Let him refrain his tongue from evil, And his lips from speaking deceit. Let him turn away from evil and do good; Let him seek peace and pursue it. (1 Peter 3:8-11)
- Beloved, do not imitate what is evil, but what is good. He who does good is of God, but he who does evil has not seen God. (3 John 1:11)
We are not God. We have no right to ally ourselves with evil.”
To clarify, you are saying it was wrong to ally with Stalin in order to defeat Hitler, and, assuming you are fully aware that we probably would not have beaten Hitler without Stalin’s help, you still consider this better than working with Stalin? If that is the case, then yes, you did answer it originally. However, I assumed no one, at least on this site, would hold such a position.
Anyway, I figured this would be the likely basis for your argument against governments and countries allying with evil dictatorships, just as many of these same verses are used as arguments against the death penalty. Almost all of our disagreement stems from our interpretation of those and other similar Biblical verses. I interpret that as a directive to me as a Christian individual, and you interpret it to apply to Christian individuals AND secular governments. That is the crux of the matter. All of the details over which we disagree matters little in comparison to the underlying cause.
As for your comment about being searched post 9/11, this was a possibility prior to 9/11 as well. The standards merely became tighter. As for the wire-tapping and fund-freezing, please name an example of this happening that doesn’t involve actual terrorism supporters and I will then, and only then, grant you that some innocent Americans (foreigners have no rights to privacy) have temporarily had their freedoms infringed upon. Otherwise, this is merely a slippery slope argument based not on reality but on paranoia.
“If you are curious of my position on WWII for it’s own sake I will answer it - but it has nothing to do with my position on Iraq or Afghanistan.
I see the War on Terror and WWII as very similar battles. As with Nazism, we are now fighting an ideology that hopes to overrun the entire globe, only I would argue that Islamism is more dangerous than anything Hitler thought up, since it is an ideology that loves the deaths of its enemies MORE than the life of its adherents. The ever-so-slight weakness of Islamism is it doesn’t currently have any open backing from a country to stabilize or organize it. However, as we have seen repeatedly in the last 10 years, Bin Laden and his minions are plenty capable and very organized.
The argument could be made that Iraq was not a part of the War on Terror (I would disagree, but I can understand how one could come to that conclusion), but the time is long past for that debate.
“foreigners have no rights to privacy”
I disagree. People have rights, period. You don’t lose your human rights just because you cross an arbitrary political line. It is evil to violate a man’s rights just because he happens to be a foreigner in your country.
If you don’t believe privacy is a right, that’s a whole different debate. David Brin, who calls himself a pragmatic libertarian, argues persuasively (and wrongly) that the best way to achieve liberty in a modern society is by the abolition of personal privacy. He calls it the transparent society.
To clarify, you are saying it was wrong to ally with Stalin in order to defeat Hitler, and, assuming you are fully aware that we probably would not have beaten Hitler without Stalin’s help, you still consider this better than working with Stalin? If that is the case, then yes, you did answer it originally. However, I assumed no one, at least on this site, would hold such a position.
If the goal is just to “beat Hitler” than that goal would not have been achieved without allying with Russia. World War II, especially in the context of World War one and the policy goals and ideals of the progressives in the early 20th century, was clearly about a lot more than a simple “beating of Hitler”. I can easily and comfortably discuss my views on the wars of the first half of the 20th century, but it bears no relevance to this topic.
Anyway, I figured this would be the likely basis for your argument against governments and countries allying with evil dictatorships, just as many of these same verses are used as arguments against the death penalty. Almost all of our disagreement stems from our interpretation of those and other similar Biblical verses. I interpret that as a directive to me as a Christian individual, and you interpret it to apply to Christian individuals AND secular governments. That is the crux of the matter. All of the details over which we disagree matters little in comparison to the underlying cause.
No, I interpret it as an individual. We has individuals form, fund, submit to and participate in the US government. We are responsible for its actions individually and morally at least indirectly and often directly. We have to be good stewards of our individual political responsibility. Moreover, we are called as individuals to not yield to a government that violates God’s law. We are not to compromise with evil.
As for your comment about being searched post 9/11, this was a possibility prior to 9/11 as well. The standards merely became tighter.
No. before 9/11 it was a private security company searching me, as is their right. Post 9/11, it was the government - that is not their right.
As for the wire-tapping and fund-freezing, please name an example of this happening that doesn’t involve actual terrorism supporters and I will then, and only then, grant you that some innocent Americans (foreigners have no rights to privacy) have temporarily had their freedoms infringed upon. Otherwise, this is merely a slippery slope argument based not on reality but on paranoia.
Here’s the second result on Google:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/07/21/attack/main564189.shtml
I see the War on Terror and WWII as very similar battles. As with Nazism, we are now fighting an ideology that hopes to overrun the entire globe, only I would argue that Islamism is more dangerous than anything Hitler thought up, since it is an ideology that loves the deaths of its enemies MORE than the life of its adherents. The ever-so-slight weakness of Islamism is it doesn’t currently have any open backing from a country to stabilize or organize it. However, as we have seen repeatedly in the last 10 years, Bin Laden and his minions are plenty capable and very organized.
The argument could be made that Iraq was not a part of the War on Terror (I would disagree, but I can understand how one could come to that conclusion), but the time is long past for that debate.
I listened to (and agreed with at the time) a long talk that David Horrowitz gave on this subject. I thought exactly as you did. While much of what you are saying is accurate in describing the problem - the current solution is unjust and morally repugnant. Evil is not fought with evil, but with good. The best theory on dealing with these issues is the Christian theory of Just War - which does not include preemptive war. Preemptive war is the tactic of all imperialist states and groups - the Islamic extremists use it too (which is bad when they do it, but good when we do it).
What I was trying to get at earlier is that the U.S. has intervened in world affairs much more than most Americas are aware. I listed the most obvious ones in the Middle East, are involved in East Asia has been just as much, and our involvement in Latin America has been much greater.
This involvement has often been to further American interests, in ways that sometimes were against the interests of other countries (or the populace of other countries). That is of course nothing new, every superpower in history has done so, and the U.S. has definitely been one of the nicer ones.
Part of way the U.S. is resented around the world is simply because we are the biggest kid on the block, but a great part of it is because we’ve often been a serious buttinski (for fairly good reasons) at best, and a big bully at worst (setting up economic structures for our benefit, supporting unpopular tyrants and overthrowing popular ones).
There are good reasons for much of the world to resent the U.S. and also some reason for demanding we do things that are basically cleaning up our own messes (we basically financed Bin Laden and greatly aided the creation of Saddam’s war machine).
The thing about the U.S. is that we’ve been the most idealistic/naive superpower in history. We genuinely expected other countries to like us and were surprised when they didn’t (after all we were always just acting in their best interest supposedly).
Jew… constitutionally, foreigners do not have the same right to privacy that is afforded to our citizens. They merely have the most basic of rights, and I don’t include the right to privacy in those, since it was a made-up right in 1965; prior to that there was no such “right.” In other words, I am not willing to afford a right to foreigners that has only existed for 40 years and one that I don’t even agree with in its application to American citizens.
Colin…
“No, I interpret it as an individual. We has individuals form, fund, submit to and participate in the US government. We are responsible for its actions individually and morally at least indirectly and often directly. We have to be good stewards of our individual political responsibility. Moreover, we are called as individuals to not yield to a government that violates God’s law. We are not to compromise with evil.”
Ok, let’s interpret it as applying to only individuals. As individuals who form a government, we are to protect the innocent. Such protection requires fighting evil in all its forms.
The example you gave of lost freedoms is NOT a valid example. I said AMERICANS who had not made contact with terrorist links but lost freedoms, not foreigners. After all, you made the claim that YOU and your fellow countrymen have lost freedoms (besides the airport searches). Yet you continue to struggle to give a legitimate example.
As for fighting evil with good, I agree ENTIRELY… on the individual level. When it comes to governments and people groups, I disagree completely. We tried fighting Hitler with good (appeasement) and that got us nowhere. We attempted to just arrest those directly involved in terrorism attacks pre-9/11, and that obviously didn’t work. We are going through a complete paradigm shift which requires us to re-analyze our methods of combating evil.
As for the Just War theory, let us analyze the main principles that determine if a war is “just” and see how they apply to the Iraq War.
———————
Just cause - The reason for going to war needs to be just and can therefore be recapturing things taken or punishing people who have done wrong. A contemporary view of just cause was expressed in 1993 when the US Catholic Conference said: “Force may be used only to correct a grave, public evil, i.e., aggression or massive violation of the basic human rights of whole populations.” Obviously, Saddam constituted a grave, public evil to the whole Iraqi population
Legitimate authority - Only duly constituted public authorities may use deadly force or wage war. As a member of the U.N. and the premier military force in the world, the US had legit authority.
Right intention - Force may be used only in a truly just cause and solely for that purpose—correcting a suffered wrong is considered a right intention, while material gain or maintaining economies is not. However wrong the international intelligence community was about WMDS (leaving aside the argument that WMDs were possibly smuggled into Syria and that Saddam was actively pursuing WMD material), at the time of the invasion Bush had the very reasonable idea that Saddam had WMDs and that Saddam could very easily intend to use them in the near future. Combine that with Bush’s other 20 reasons for the Iraq War (such as Saddam’s tyranny over his own people and his open monetary support for suicide bombers against Israel, our close ally), it seems clear to me that the Iraq War meets the “right intention” qualifier.
Probability of success - Arms may not be used in a futile cause or in a case where disproportionate measures are required to achieve success. Obviously, in hindsight, the probability of success in Iraq was not as high as we expected. However, at the time of the invasion, and especially after the fall of Baghdad, almost every military adviser would have put the probability of success (relatively easy removal of Saddam and implementation of a freer society) as very high.
Last resort - Force may be used only after all peaceful and viable alternatives have been seriously tried and exhausted. Saddam had defied numerous U.N. decrees and we had given him a decade to openly disarm. Clinton and Congress had put together an Act to push for regime change in Iraq long before we invaded, giving Saddam plenty of chances to shape up. Yet, to the very end, he played cat and mouse with the inspectors and global community.
Ok, let’s interpret it as applying to only individuals. As individuals who form a government, we are to protect the innocent. Such protection requires fighting evil in all its forms.
Yup, but not with evil. It is evil to kill civilians, kill soldiers and steal money. It is evil to set up dictators and tyrannical governments. It is evil to intervene in people’s basic humans rights and rights granted by the Creator himself (that is even going so far as to fight against God and God’s order).
The example you gave of lost freedoms is NOT a valid example. I said AMERICANS who had not made contact with terrorist links but lost freedoms, not foreigners. After all, you made the claim that YOU and your fellow countrymen have lost freedoms (besides the airport searches). Yet you continue to struggle to give a legitimate example.
The article does not say foreigners but immigrants - legal US citizens. Read things before you respond to them.
As for fighting evil with good, I agree ENTIRELY… on the individual level. When it comes to governments and people groups, I disagree completely. We tried fighting Hitler with good (appeasement) and that got us nowhere. We attempted to just arrest those directly involved in terrorism attacks pre-9/11, and that obviously didn’t work. We are going through a complete paradigm shift which requires us to re-analyze our methods of combating evil.
What if we had allied with Hitler to fight Stalin? I doubt you are for that?
Appeasement is not “good” - it is just another tactic, and it didn’t work. But appeasement is not the only representative of good. That is another straw man - point 3 on the wiki entry.
———————
Just war interpretation and application
All of what you cite is well and good but it ignores the fact that the Iraq war and the “war on terror” is a preemptive war. That is absolutely against Just War. You can argue it’s just cause, legitimate authority, rightly intended and possibly last resort (although the UN was the beginning and the end of diplomatic steps, which hardly seems exaustive) - but it can easily be argued that insurgents reactions to occupation are just in the same manner. By the way, that is who we are fighting in Iraq - not primarily Al Qaeda or terrorists, or even radical Muslims - but people defending their life, liberty and property from an occupying force - regardless of that force’s reasons, that is what is happening on the ground. The Bush Doctrine is for preemption and a war of aggression - that is incompatible with just war as it no longer follows last resort.
“I am not willing to afford a right [to privacy] to foreigners that has only existed for 40 years and one that I don’t even agree with in its application to American citizens.”
So would you characterize privacy* as a privilege, not a right?
* By privacy, I mean freedom from government snooping, in the Fourth Amendment sense and also relating to wiretapping and electronic eavesdropping.
Colin said: “The article does not say foreigners but immigrants - legal US citizens. Read things before you respond to them.”
The article you linked to is poorly structured. It starts out talking about immigrants, then jumps almost without warning into discussion a different report about foreigners picked up on immigration violations. The original immigrants are presumably citizens, but you have to read the article closely to figure that out. I had to read it twice to figure out what was going on, and it still doesn’t explicitly say that the immigrants were citizens.
Actually, Colin, as Jasen points out, the article refers to immigrants, not necessarily citizens. READ STUFF BEFORE YOU LINK TO IT.
Oops… as JEW points out, not Jasen.
Jew, yes, I would more closely align privacy to that of a privilege rather than a right. Only the last generation has grown up with the idea that it was a right. Historically speaking, that isn’t much time, even if only considering the history of this country.
CNN’s article has a link to the Office of Inspector General’s report, which contains more details. Some of the reported violations were against foreign nationals; at least one was against a citizen.
“The OIG is investigating allegations that FBI agents conducted an illegal search of an Arab-American’s apartment and that during the search they vandalized the apartment, stole items, and called the complainant a terrorist. The complainant alleged that the items taken were never returned or logged into evidence.”
“Yup, but not with evil. It is evil to kill civilians, kill soldiers and steal money. It is evil to set up dictators and tyrannical governments. It is evil to intervene in people’s basic humans rights and rights granted by the Creator himself (that is even going so far as to fight against God and God’s order”
I am still not sure if I understand you, or at least how you would apply this definition of evil to our wars. WWII? Vietnam War? Iraq War/War on Terror? All three had civilians and soldiers killed, but never by way of an expressed desire on our part to do so. That is the difference between Israel and Hamas… both kill innocents, but only one intentionally does so. (Note: This does not include individual soldiers’ vendettas and war crimes) As for “stealing money,” are you referring to a particular situation?
Anyway, back to the definition of “evil” wars… I agree with the principle that it is evil to “intervene in people’s basic human rights”… it’s a very nice-sounding platitude. However, give me a war example where you believe America was “evil” by that definition and where it was “good” and tell me the difference. Because, I find it evil to sit back and allow people to suffer if a situation presents itself to do something, such as the Iraq War. As Edmund Burke once said, “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.” I consider “doing nothing” to be evil or at least morally repugnant, if there is a difference.
“What if we had allied with Hitler to fight Stalin? I doubt you are for that?
Appeasement is not “good” - it is just another tactic, and it didn’t work. But appeasement is not the only representative of good. That is another straw man - point 3 on the wiki entry.” I agree that appeasement isn’t good, but it was considered “good” by many leaders of that day. You say evil is not fought with evil but with good, but never bother to give me an example. Taking WWII as an example, what “good” options did we have?
Also, had we fully known in the 1940’s what we know now as far as what Stalin was doing to his own people and what the Soviet Union would become and do in the next 4 decades, I am sure we would not have allied ourselves with Stalin. But at the time, the USSR was a closed country; very few details came out back then regarding what atrocities were being committed. On the other hand, we KNEW what Hitler was doing since he was brazenly attacking all of Europe. You can’t equate the two, unless you ignore the historical context.
“All of what you cite is well and good but it ignores the fact that the Iraq war and the “war on terror” is a preemptive war. That is absolutely against Just War. You can argue it’s just cause, legitimate authority, rightly intended and possibly last resort (although the UN was the beginning and the end of diplomatic steps, which hardly seems exaustive) - but it can easily be argued that insurgents reactions to occupation are just in the same manner. By the way, that is who we are fighting in Iraq - not primarily Al Qaeda or terrorists, or even radical Muslims - but people defending their life, liberty and property from an occupying force - regardless of that force’s reasons, that is what is happening on the ground. The Bush Doctrine is for preemption and a war of aggression - that is incompatible with just war as it no longer follows last resort.”
One comment and then I’m done. A majority of the people we are fighting are Iraqi “insurgents” instead of terrorists, correct. However, the majority of the violence is caused by Al Qaeda and similar terrorist groups. This very point was made by General Petraeus a couple days ago during Hugh Hewitt’s interview with him.
Furthermore, a MAJORITY of Iraqis want us there rather than either the alternative of Saddam in power or the likely alternative of genocide if we leave.
Ok, there ya go, Jew. That is an example of ONE person losing some possessions over a mistake by some agents. The hundreds or thousands of terrorists we caught when applying that policy properly were then not worth it? Punish the agents who screw up, not the nation for a policy that if followed correctly, will not impinge on anyone’s legitimate rights.
I am still not sure if I understand you, or at least how you would apply this definition of evil to our wars. WWII? Vietnam War? Iraq War/War on Terror? All three had civilians and soldiers killed, but never by way of an expressed desire on our part to do so. That is the difference between Israel and Hamas… both kill innocents, but only one intentionally does so. (Note: This does not include individual soldiers’ vendettas and war crimes) As for “stealing money,” are you referring to a particular situation?
Regardless of whether a homicide, for example, is committed by accident, by ignorance or by premeditation - it is still homicide. The punishment is adjusted to fit the crime, but it is still a crime. Civilian casualties are not a necessary evil - they are evil and they are a known consequence of the kind of war we are engaged in.
Stealing money is in reference to the taxes that are being forced out of US citizens to pay for a war they may or may not support. It could also be in reference to the property stolen from Iraqis to fund their new government. It may be less of a cost than under Saddam - but it is still the same principle.
Anyway, back to the definition of “evil” wars… I agree with the principle that it is evil to “intervene in people’s basic human rights”… it’s a very nice-sounding platitude. However, give me a war example where you believe America was “evil” by that definition and where it was “good” and tell me the difference. Because, I find it evil to sit back and allow people to suffer if a situation presents itself to do something, such as the Iraq War. As Edmund Burke once said, “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.” I consider “doing nothing” to be evil or at least morally repugnant, if there is a difference.
I agree that it is evil to sit back (as a Christian) and do nothing if someone is suffering and you can help. But it is also evil for me to force my neighbor to help me fight evil at the cost of his life, liberty or property. So it was morally good, for example, for the waves of people who volunteered for the army in WWII to fight Hitler. Those were brave and noble men. but it was wrong for the government to force other men to fight and die. To force them from their homes and families and send them to die for a cause they did not support. The revolutionary war is the most just war I can think of in that respect - the men that fought all did so voluntarily, with their own money and for their own property and lives. I think a war like the Vietnam war was an unjust one - where, simply in order to further imperialist strategy against communism, the US forced men to die and forced the public to pay for it. That is unjust.
I agree that appeasement isn’t good, but it was considered “good” by many leaders of that day. You say evil is not fought with evil but with good, but never bother to give me an example. Taking WWII as an example, what “good” options did we have?
We open our borders to refugees and do all that we can to help Jews and others leave those countries. We ask for a voluntary force of men and contributions to do the job. Hitler and any who commit crimes would be tried, in absentia if essential, and then punishment carried out for his committed crimes.
Also, had we fully known in the 1940’s what we know now as far as what Stalin was doing to his own people and what the Soviet Union would become and do in the next 4 decades, I am sure we would not have allied ourselves with Stalin. But at the time, the USSR was a closed country; very few details came out back then regarding what atrocities were being committed. On the other hand, we KNEW what Hitler was doing since he was brazenly attacking all of Europe. You can’t equate the two, unless you ignore the historical context.
We knew what was going on in Russia - we just didn’t talk about it because it contradicted our alliance.
One comment and then I’m done. A majority of the people we are fighting are Iraqi “insurgents” instead of terrorists, correct. However, the majority of the violence is caused by Al Qaeda and similar terrorist groups. This very point was made by General Petraeus a couple days ago during Hugh Hewitt’s interview with him.
The violence can be dealt with by those who are being violated and their institutions - not by the US military. We have no legitimate authority there.
Furthermore, a MAJORITY of Iraqis want us there rather than either the alternative of Saddam in power or the likely alternative of genocide if we leave.
A majority does not have the right to trample on a minority. That is a form of tyranny. A majority of people in this country want to enslave doctors to provide them free healthcare - it does not mean doctors must oblige.
“Ok, there ya go, Jew. That is an example of ONE person losing some possessions”
There might have been others. I stopped reading after I came across the first incident that identified the subject as a citizen.
“We open our borders to refugees and do all that we can to help Jews and others leave those countries. We ask for a voluntary force of men and contributions to do the job. Hitler and any who commit crimes would be tried, in absentia if essential, and then punishment carried out for his committed crimes.”
Well, I think this discussion has mostly come to a close, but regarding this particular comment: this is the most nonsensical idea I’ve ever heard. Are you living in some utopian dreamland? What you just suggested would have allowed many more Jews (not to mention Europeans) to be killed than otherwise were. This view that a “jury of peers” justice system is some perfect system to combat evil on the scale of Hitler or Saddam is a bit humorous. Hitler would have laughed his way to world domination if anyone had pushed forward that foolish idea back then. How exactly would you have arrested Hitler after he was convicted??? “Please, Adolf, we decided you’ve been bad. Put down your weapons and come to jail.”
Furthermore, didn’t we do most of what you suggested anyway? We did open our borders to many refugees, but it wasn’t like the Germans were letting the Jews leave. “Come on, people, we’ve got our gate open. Oops, your country won’t let you leave and would rather kill you. Oh well, bad luck for you.” We also asked for a voluntary army, and filled in the holes with draftees where a voluntary army wouldn’t fulfill our needs. A voluntary army alone would likely have lost the war; especially if you apply that to all of the democratic Allies.