US Intervention - Moral Responsibility?

[ParanoiA]

Yesterday I called in to a local conservative radio show here in town and found myself on the business end of a radio talk show host's rage. It was about Ron Paul's exchange with Huckabee during the republican debates, that seemed to wake everyone up from the yawn fest it was until that point.

 

Apparently, many republicans, if not virtually all of them, feel we have a "moral obligation" to come to the defense of nations being attacked by an aggressor, or what have you.

 

I don't agree.

 

I asked what was so noble about forcing my sons to go fight for their moral code? Why is it that they feel they have a moral obligation to send other people's sons and daughters for their morality set?

 

So, we have a "moral obligation" to come to the defense of nations, but we don't have a moral obligation to our own youth? The moral obligation to another nation overrides the moral obligation to pursuade rather than force our people into a war of liberation?

 

Of course, this is the same thing I see with government programs. It's the same mindset. The implied "moral obligation" to help those in need - again, where's the nobility in taking my money to fix something you care about? You're taking my money against my will for something that has nothing to do with your's or my rights. This is going beyond the jurisdiction of government power.

 

Why do we feel it's ok to force our moral values on the rest of society? Particularly since the glory of this country is individuality and freedom.

[Phi for All]

Apparently, many republicans, if not virtually all of them, feel we have a "moral obligation" to come to the defense of nations being attacked by an aggressor, or what have you.

Isn't this a fairly recent addition to the Republican platform? I thought they were all about NOT being the world's police?!

[geoguy]

Isn't this a fairly recent addition to the Republican platform? I thought they were all about NOT being the world's police?!

 

True.

 

When was the last time the USA entered a war for moral reasons? I don't see any 'morality' being motivation for selling arms to the Saudis or 'morality' being the motivation for invading Iraq. Where is this record of a moral basis for military intervention? Dictators from Chile to El Salvador to Iran to Guatemala to...were propped up by the Americans.

 

I'm surprised so many American Republicans support the military invasion policy of George W Bush. As Pat Buchanan, a conservative notes: "This President has been a one man wrecking ball destroying the Republican image as a party reluctant to enter foreign conflicts".

 

The man in charge: The hero of the Right.

 

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070907/APEC_BUSH_070907/20070907?hub=TopStories

[Pangloss]

When was the last time the USA entered a war for moral reasons?

 

Somalia and Bosnia come to mind as recent examples that most people agree on. Perhaps you meant "while a Republican was in charge"?

[PhDP]

The U.S certainly has a moral responsibility to fix the problems created by the invasion of Iraq. Most Iraqis and Afghan would like to be free, but currently they would prefer security over democracy.

 

But to be honest, I really don't see how the U.S. can get out without destabilizing the region, but I'm not sure staying in Iraq will yield results (although I think Afghanistan is not a lost cause).

[ParanoiA]

Isn't this a fairly recent addition to the Republican platform? I thought they were all about NOT being the world's police?!

 

They certainly used to be. That's why I don't understand why all of the sudden the republican fold, not just the fringe, has turned into a war machine. To be fair, they do believe Islamic terrorists want us destroyed because of our freedom, not because we build bases on their soil and bomb their countries...

 

The U.S certainly has a moral responsibility to fix the problems created by the invasion of Iraq.

 

What if the fix is leaving?

[bascule]

I agree with Ron Paul's sentiment that isolationism, particularly in regard to the middle east, would've left us in better shape than we are presently.

 

Unfortunately, there's that pesky oil thing...

[Sisyphus]

pursuade rather than force our people into a war of liberation?

 

I agree for the most part, but I'm curious about this distinction. Are "persuade" and "force" two different methods, in your eyes? I mean, these are elected officials entering us into these wars, after all. You could make the argument that by electing them we've demonstrated that we are persuaded. Or did you mean something different?

[ParanoiA]

I agree for the most part, but I'm curious about this distinction. Are "persuade" and "force" two different methods, in your eyes? I mean, these are elected officials entering us into these wars, after all. You could make the argument that by electing them we've demonstrated that we are persuaded. Or did you mean something different?

 

I'm talking about the guts of the idea. When we fought in WWII, the decision to fight back militarily was forcing our position of retaliation onto other people's sons and daughters to fulfill. I accept that, considering the implications of national security, the basic defense of the nation.

 

But this "moral obligation" doesn't apply. There's no imminent danger at all. So, now forcing our youth to fight our code is flat out wrong, to me.

 

When I use the word persuade, I'm thinking along the lines of a mercenary, or other support that has to do with convincing individuals - not our government entity - to liberate a nation that some feel morally obligated to interfere in. And I'm not saying I'd never actually feel that way myself, I just don't believe I have a right to force your offspring into it.

[Sisyphus]

So you don't think governments should have the ability to fight wars?

[ParanoiA]

So you don't think governments should have the ability to fight wars?

 

No, they have to have the ability to fight wars, I think that's basic sovereignty 101. I'm saying that the decision to go forward with a war should be based on national security, which is a flexible enough refinement.

[PhDP]

What if the fix is leaving?

 

It's not impossible, but what if it's not the case ? Invading Iraq was probably the biggest mistake by a U.S president in recent history, but now it's done and the U.S. has a responsability to solve the problems created by their "preemptive war".

 

Iraq has no functional army, they badly need one, but they don't have any. Building an effective army takes years, many years, what are they going to do if/when the U.S. gets out ?

[geoguy]

Building an effective army takes years, many years, what are they going to do if/when the U.S. gets out ?

 

The same they will do if the USA gets out 10 years from now. What is going to change among the Iraqis? Unfortunately 'stability' is a pro Iran Islamic dictatorship.

 

I recall the words of one mother whose son, a U.S. soldier, was killed. Her son was 19 years old and has 6 months of military service. The Iraqis have had over 3 years of training. What exactly is going to change in the next few months or year to make the Iraqis more 'prepared'?

[iNow]

Why do we feel it's ok to force our moral values on the rest of society?

Who gets to make the final decision about what's "moral," and which side is the "aggressor?"

 

 

Relativity is about more than the speed of light.

[Pangloss]

Unfortunately 'stability' is a pro Iran Islamic dictatorship.

 

I don't think that's "stability" for Iraq, I think that's a recipe for ongoing civil unrest. The sunnis are blooded and trained now. They're not going to stop.

 

But it's moot -- we're not going anywhere, even if we elect a Democrat. Starting another thread on that now.

[ParanoiA]

Who gets to make the final decision about what's "moral," and which side is the "aggressor?"

 

The congress. The people. The country. Who did you think would make that decision?

[iNow]

The congress. The people. The country.

Is it your intent to suggest that the congress, the people, and the country are all of like mind and agree on what is "moral" and who might be the "aggressor?" Your answer is true, but non-specific, so it ignores the issue to which I was calling attention.

 

 

We have a hard enough time agreeing on what to have for dinner in my house.

[ParanoiA]

Is it your intent to suggest that the congress, the people, and the country are all of like mind and agree on what is "moral" and who might be the "aggressor?" Your answer is true, but non-specific, so it ignores the issue to which I was calling attention.

 

That's because it's an obvious issue, without any relation to my point. Unless you were just using my post to push it another direction, that's cool too, but I was under the impression you were retorting.

 

When are we acting on a "moral code set" and when are we just fighting in self defense? We have to make a judgement call. Is preemption really self defense? We have to make a judgement call. None of this has to do with my point, though. If we believe we're acting in self defense, then I accept the idea of forcing folks to fulfill it - they did volunteer for war work. But if we believe we're acting out of moral obligation, then I don't agree that we have a right to force folks to do it.

 

Now whether or not we're really being moral, or we're the aggressor or whatever, that's a different matter. Iraq wouldn't have qualified, in my mind. Afghanistan maybe.

[iNow]

Who is this "we" that makes the judgement call and agrees about any actions being taken due to a "moral obligation?"

 

 

The only absolute is that there are none.

[ParanoiA]

Who is this "we" that makes the judgement call and agrees about any actions being taken due to a "moral obligation?"

 

The congress. The people. The country. That's we.

 

Careful opening your mind so much your brain falls out.

[iNow]

The congress. The people. The country. That's we.

If that's your final answer, and you care not to phone a friend, then sure... okay. I'd personally rather my elected officials don't decide morality in decisions of war, especially since their decisions seem so frequently aligned with special interests and corporate initiatives. I also can't see why our country's morality somehow supercedes that of others. Talk about high horses.

 

 

 

Today, by a vote of 268 to 267, the US Congress has determined that is is morally wrong to feed kids bovine lactation, and we are going to use the collective force of our armed services to bomb the shit out of dairy farmers throughout the continental United States.

[Realitycheck]

Do you think it will get vetoed? Nobody has ever even scientifically disproven magical flying cows. We just don't have evidence against it yet.

[ParanoiA]

If that's your final answer, and you care not to phone a friend, then sure... okay. I'd personally rather my elected officials don't decide morality in decisions of war, especially since their decisions seem so frequently aligned with special interests and corporate initiatives. I also can't see why our country's morality somehow supercedes that of others. Talk about high horses.

 

I have no idea where you're going with this argument, what you think you're trying to say, and what in the world it has to do with my post.

 

All I'm making is a philosophical statement that I believe it's wrong to force others to fulfill my moral obligations. And I've partitioned the difference between moral obligations to defend other nations and our own national defense. Now, how you define "moral obligations" and "national defense" is another matter.

 

You're going off on some trip about who decides this, that and the other thing - logistics I never commented about nor even implied in any context. If you want to widen the discussion, fine, but quit acting like you're rebutting something - I've already offered you one chance to bite on that.

 

And what in my post suggests no one in my country should consult with anyone? Also, who else should make the decision about my country's interests except my country? Or are you trying to worm in your aversion to groups and labels argument?

[iNow]

I was actually trying to support your position in a different way back at post #14. Your response to me was curt and abrasive, so I responded in kind and we've been attacking each other somewhat since then, despite the fact that we align.

 

I still agree with your position that we shouldn't attack based on "moral obligation." I am against dropping bombs and/or missiles based on such information which is so differently interpreted by each observer. I do contend, however, that we should help others specifically on this principle (think "Darfur"). If this "doubles my standard," then I'm fine with that. I am confident that we as a collective (call it congress, call it "the people," call it the country... whatever) will agree more easily on helping others than we will on attacking them.

 

When you say "intervention" in the thread title, do you distinguish between dropping bombs and dropping food?

 

 

If I wasn't clear, or you sensed my comments were counter to your stance, then that's my fault for presenting too concisely. Mea Culpa.

[pioneer]

To answer the question of moral obligation one needs to start at the grass roots and then scale up. This way, it is easier to see the bigger affect. Say you were walking down the road and a mugger was assaulting a lady; this is aggresssion on a micro-scale. What you do is dependant on how you look at yourself. If you think you are strong enough to kick butt, you go over there and mug the mugger. If you want to help, but do not feel strong enough to fight him, you may phone the police and let them do it. But this has the disadvantage of the mugging happening already. Some people, don't wish to get involved. While soome will have a sadistic side and watch and marvel at the heartlessness of the mugger. Others will run the other way, so they can avoid being seen or mugged, next.

 

How one deals with this situation is dependant on how you see your own and other people's situation in the light of the danger that is involved. One would not expect a little old lady to try to fight the mugger. But if Bruce Lee was around, everyone would expect him to intervene to protect the victim from a bully. If Bruce Lee just stood there and watched and then left, that would satisfy the needs of other muggers and those who gets some sadistic pleasure in this. But it would not satify those who would try to help, or those who would run away. That show of indifference means the mugger is around for another day of mugging.

 

If you scale this up to countries, there are also giant muggers. Some people are too weak to deal with them ,so they call the police or a larger country to protect them. The police can stay on their coffee break and let the muggers have a field day. Or they can send a partol car or two to try to catch the mugger before he mugs again. The young men and women in the military, like the police and fire fighters, all know the risk and have chosen these profession. They wish to protect and serve the good people. But the mugger profession seems to have protectors.

 

For some vague reason the liberals tend to favor muggers. For some reason they prefer the muggers get extra protection. What liberals tend to forget is most muggers are not first time offenders. They may have gotten away with a reign of terror before being caught. Yet the focus is only on the activities of getting caught. If the police, hit him a few times, even though this is hardly justice for all they did, it is taken out the context of the hostorical persectiive and treated like the mugger is some type of victim. All the many real victims of the reign of terror have to suck it up. The poor mugger is the only victim of immediate concern, he has feelings.

 

What many people do not seem to understand is the mugger plays by a different set of rules and ethics than does his victims. His standards are twisted in a way that allows him to victimize without any remorse. He does not respect the civilized rules of his victims. He exploits this as a weakness . One needs to deal in a way that they can understand so one can create a meeting of the minds. His ethical standards sets the rules of engagement and this is the easiest way to help them understand.

 

One thing that muggers and liberals both have in common is victims. Both have a philosophy that does not empower victims but which seems to keep them forever dependant as victims of some type of mugger. For the US and western powers to go into Africa to throw out the muggers who lead some fourth world countries, this would get the liberals pants get in a bunch, since these are masters of victimization. To empower the people would be counterproductive to their vision of a world run by a bunch of totalitarian PC nammies, who would rule with a rolling pin.

 

The UN needs to set up a basic standard with respect to victims. It can begin with one simple rule based on killing and human atrocities. If in violation, we go in with overwelming force and purge the muggers and then leave behind food and supplies. After a few treatments the countries will start to assemble peacefully. (As you have done to others, so it shall be done to you) The liberals won't like this, since too many of their mugger allies would get purged decreasing the supply of victims. But the peace loving people in these poor countries will dance in the streets.