* It's been confirmed that there is atleast 1 other conservative, though she doesn't really know how to get a point across, merely become angry and combative
** Margin of error +/-9,970
*** Ideological values and party status cannot be confirmed
Well, disclaimers aside, I've recently returned from yet another session of my favorite course: Global Ethics or as I like to call it, and the title states "Me against 10k Liberals."
Little background on the class here: The class is about the application of moral philosophical theories to modern day events, practices, and customs. And as one might imagine topic number 1 in this class: The Iraq War.
As one might imagine, this might make for great debate, and great fun attempting to apply moral arguments for or against the War and try and make them stick. So far we've come across many arguments that attempt to prove that the Iraq War is immoral and unjustified. Whenever these are brought up, there is general agreement among many and very few counterarguments are brought up by the class, very few holes pointed out or explored. To do my fair share, I bring up a few things here and there attempting to poke holes in the argument and defend the war, just cause I've got to do my part of the liberal cause.
And the fact I secretly can't accept that a US President could have possibly managed to fool EVERYONE and keep it secret, especially when that someone is President Bush.
Anyway, not the best part, we are now on an argument that justifies the war, written by David Mellow and titled Iraq: A Morally Justified Resort to War. It grants nearly every other argument made against the war, No WMDs, Government lied, illegal act of aggression on Iraq, etc. However, it then argues that the war in Iraq was a case of Humanitarian intervention based on the following premises
1. Stopping an act of genocide provides sufficient just cause for any country to put an end to genocide.
2. The humanitarian situation in Iraq was close enough to cases of actual genocide to legitimize humanitarian intervention in Iraq.
3. It was morally permissible to overthrow Saddam and install democracy in Iraq.
Now the premises are backed up by a few things: repression of self-determination, constant torture, rape, forced displacement, etc of the Iraqi people and finally the fact that intentions don't make something morally reprehensible or justified.
Basically a usual argument against the war is that the US or another outside force cannot force the people to be free and have to sit back and let the people demand/work toward freedom themselves. Basically Mellow argues that the Iraqi people, or people in instances of genocide, are so repressed that they cannot possibly free themselves from the oppression. So therefore the US (or other agent) has a right or duty to liberate these people.
Next torture and things of that nature, that's pretty self explanatory, Saddam was known for gassing his own people and committing a list of human rights abuses the lengh of my arm and then some, with attrocities continuing even after the First Gulf War.
Which lastly leads us to the wonderful decision making and decision making of President Bush. Mellow contends that what President Bush believed or intended to do is completely unrelated to the morallity of the cause at hand. He provides the example of a Military Junta that is approached by a neighboring country to help them in their defense against a foriegn invasion. The Military Junta might see this as an opportunity not to help out a neighbor but as a opportunity to unify their people and solidify their power base by engaging in a foreign venture.
While the junta is becoming involved for the wrong, possibly immoral, reasons the action itself is morally justified and morally correct.
I agree with this argument that Mellow presents, I'd like to hear your throughts and stances on the matter, I already know my classmates reactions, who are violently opposed to anything close to justifying the Iraq war. One funny thing is that, once confronted with facts, most people in the class can't make a counterargument
Which prompted my teacher to jokingly comment "You liberals need to learn how to argue! Everyone always agrees with you you can't argue!" I'm sure many of you can form some great arguments and I look forward to reading them!
Comments
See, what many people fail to realize is that a lot of the violence in Iraq right now isn't directed at American soldiers. The majority of it is sectarian violence between the Sunni and Shi'a sects of Islam. That is why you hear so many reports of suicide bombers blowing up marketplaces; they aren't trying to kill Americans, they are trying to slaughter people from the other sect. In a way, it is our fault that this is happening. Saddam, cruel as he was, kept a lot of the infighting between the sects in check. Though, this one bit of good is outweighed by the secret police, mass slaughter of Kurds, state-sanctioned terrorism against the populace to keep them in check, and so on.
So what do you think? Do you hate the war because you feel it is pointless and stirred up all the sectarian violence? Or do you support the war because the new regime will, eventually, turn Iraq into a better, more comfortable, free, and safe country for the people? The reason why the average Iraqi isn't very supportive of the US occupation is because they are tired of it. They are ready for us to leave. They are happy we got rid of Saddam, but we have attracted extremists from neighboring countries, and stirred up the hatred between the sects. It is much like Japan and Korea: They just want us to leave and let them govern themselves without us interfering.
But, the most important thing is that we don't leave until the country is stable. This is slowly happening, if you look at news sources that aren't the likes of Fox or CNN. The Iraqi security force has made great strides in bringing themselves closer to being self-sufficient this year. Iraq will soon be capable of protecting itself, but the important thing is that we don't bend to the angry cries of the typical American citizen and leave too soon. At this point it doesn't matter if the war was right or wrong, or what we were really fighting for, the fact is that there has been a lot of improvement in Iraq so far this year. We need to stay and see it through to the end, or else it really would have been a pointless war. At the same time though, our cause in Afghanistan is suffering, and that is the country that really needs our attention because it is a hideout for the worst of Islamic extremists in the area.
I agree, I think we need to leave as stable and functioning a nation as possible. Unfortunately you can't really use that argument in a moral philosophic view, so the argument is pushed aside in class, but I do agree with it. It doesn't matter why we're there anymore, it matters that we leave it stable.
@Raven: Unfortunately for me I don't ever really get to voice that view, because I'm drown out by 15 Bush-haters who take that moment to extol their "wisdom" and views on the situation. I think it is a fair point to bring up that the violence against American troops has dropped and these terrorist attacks on the U.S. occupation troops and Iraqi people aren't always committed by Iraqi citizens, but by foreign nationals.
What do I think? I think the Iraq was was moral, because it will turn Iraqi into a better place, a return to the gold age of the 1970's for them.
When I look at Mellow's argument, and read the book Night Draws Near by Anthony Shadid about the feelings and experience of the Iraqi people, both pre-invasion and post, I get the feeling that justification for the war stops once the occupation begins.
With the genocide stopped and the Iraqi people self-determinate, I think all justification, at least the justification given by Mellow, has gone out the window. I think it just might be best for all of us for the U.S. to leave, soonish, but not post haste. I think when the Iraqization of the security apparatus is complete, we should leave. We need to leave these people alone, they welcomed us as liberators, only to get occupiers.
@Rich: I couldn't agree more!
I can see hokies now: "On this day, 300 conservatives stood against the might of Gamespot's liberal empire!"
@Electron: I whole heartedly disagree with the "cut and run" strategy, mainly because we'd leave behind security forces that may not fully be able to support themselves. Like Raven said, they're getting stronger everyday, but the US has been handling logistics for them for a while. It takes time to set this stuff up.
I also have numerous misgivings about the economic and domestic policies that Obama champions, but that is neither here nor now.
One day, my fellow conservatives and I will fight, so that our future generations may be free of Gamespot's Liberal Empire!
"The thousand posters of GS's Liberal Empire descend upon you! Our posts shall blot out the sun!"
"Then we shall post in the shade!"
Anyways, I'm going to admit that you probably know more about politics than I do and that I would rather withdraw from a debate that get involved, get owned, and then start grasping for straws like most of the GS debaters do when faced with someone like hokies.
In a debate about science, however....
I think you would be me like a drum in a science debate, quite easily.
@Ork: As I recall the professor stating it as the "**** morality, we've created a situation and we have to deal with it" argument, which really doesn't explore the moral or philosophical reasons and permissibility of the actions themselves. I think that's why it hasn't been explored in class. You can use it to argue morals.
OrkHammer007
Regardless of whether we should have invaded or not, we did. What really matters is how we leave it: as a dysfunctional anarchy, or as a stable and functioning nation in a critical area of the world.