An argument in support of the Iraq War.

[QuestioningStudent]

I venture the argument that any country that is tyrannical, despotic, and actively works against the interests of its citizens, especially if it is not of a republican (y'know, combination of representative democracy and a constitution, not the Republican party) form of government, is not a legitimate soveriegn government. I would further argue that the application of military force by a government which _is_ legitimate against one that is _not_, for the purpose of liberating the oppressed people of the illegitimate government, is a just application of force. Furthermore, simply because a government possesses support among certain--or even many-- segments of its populace does not confer legitimacy upon that government; see Nazi Germany and the USSR for examples of what I mean. Each government was supported by various groups within the state, yet neither one was a morally/philisophically legitimate government. Were each of those governments recognized by other nations? Yes. Were each possessed of the capacity to wield such military force that they were a power unto themselves, and could by termed 'soveriegn,' inasmuch as they were mighty? Yes. Would a military action against them (motivated either by self-defense concerns or to liberate the oppressed people) have been illegitimate? No; I contend that such action would have been (and/or was) quite justified. Likewise I contend that an American invasion of another country, provided it does not permanently reduce that country into a colony of America, was justified. Caveat to the last point: I do not accept that merely strongly encouraging a republican form of government equates _automatically_ to the creation of an American colony. Likewise, I do not say that a temporary occupying government will be free of all evils, but that the necessity for such a government forces one to accept some unfortunately neccesary evils.

SO, what do y'all think? Logical flaws there?

[wryter2000]

1. With those criteria in mind

I think Mexico ought to liberate the US.

[QuestioningStudent]

4. Alright.

Now, how is the US substantially despotic and tyrannical, esp. in comparison with Mexico? Especially in light of the protection afforded fundamental human freedoms and rights in the two countries?

[Walt Starr]

8. What protection of rights?

All somebody has to do is cry "TERRORIST!!!" and you too can have all of your rights stripped just before you are shipped off to Gitmo.

[QuestioningStudent]

20. So you contend that

there are no protections for civil rights in the United States? No checks or balances on goverment utilization of its police powers?

[Cheswick2.0]

75. duh

please go creep back under the rock. I'm sick of freeper fridays.

[QuestioningStudent]

88. The next time

you notice the fact that liberal interest groups (NAACP, NOW, Greenpeace, etc.) can and have made a difference in American politics, or that the judiciary can and has ruled in ways that protect liberties (Gideon v. Wainright, Engle v. Vitale, Brown v. Board of Education, etc.), or that the Constitution has actual protections for you--protections which can allow the courts to protect you from intrusive government actions--please reconsider your position. I think you will find the statement that "no protections exist to safeguard your rights, there are no checks and balances on the government's powers (to paraphrase what the point I made previously)" is incorrect.

[leftofthedial]

17. we are no longer a republican nation

votes don't count and our "leaders" are not lawfully elected.

[QuestioningStudent]

24. Actually, that's not quite true.

We are still a representative democracy--if our votes didn't count, do you think the Republicans would allow Senator Kennedy to remain in office? And while * didn't get the majority of the popular vote, however much it might be dislikable, he DID get the majority of the electoral college votes--and until such time as election fraud charges are proven in a court of law, I won't discount that as meaningless. Like it or not, whether or not one agrees with the electoral college system, as the situation stands now, * is our lawfully elected president.

[Blayde Starrfyre]

37. Hmm

I'm glad you support the purging of black voters from the Florida system. I am also glad you support the inelligible votes from the military which were counted. All these things worked to get Bush ellected through the Electoral College system. This is not a clear case of "Gore won the popular vote, Bush won the electoral college." It's a case of "Gore won the popular vote, Bush used his Flordia cronies to make it appear as if he won the electoral college."

[QuestioningStudent]

40. I never said that I supported those things.

I'm just not ready to say that, until such charges have been proven by a sufficient body of evidence to give them weight in a court of law, the election was false or fraudulent. There IS a difference between those two statements.

[Classical_Liberal]

51. It is the fox guarding the hen house in my view

http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=217&row=1

There has already been a confession that the purge took place.

[QuestioningStudent]

89. Then

if the evidence is there, it needs to be presented in a court of law. It needs to be validated and conclusively proven in an adversarial situation, with both sides having the opportunity to dispute facts. Afterwards, assuming the evidence that there was electoral fraud held firm, I'll sadly--but very willingly--condemn the election as fraudulent, and *'s presidency as illegitimate. Until such time, however, I have a great deal of trouble dismissing a presidential election on what are, until they have been held up to the highest of scrutiny, essentially unproven allegations. That is not to say such allegations are untrue, simply that they have not been proven true to a sufficient degree for my acceptance.

[Solomon]

109. We were on the way to proving it by counting the votes when

your supreme court said "don't count the votes". Anyway the biggest flaw in your reasoning is two-fold. Number 1, america does not have a legitimate adminsitration right now, so under your rules, it has no right to attack anyone. Secondly, you presume that voting as you understand it, is the only legitimate way for another country to have legitimate leadership. What a load of crock.

Nobody interrupted Europe when it found it necessary to have monarchies for development. The people WANTED monarchy and they didn't vote for it.

I find your post real sad. The arrogance of americans is unsurpassed and never ceases to amaze me, and now of course, the rest of the world.

[QuestioningStudent]

110. My supreme court?

I'd say "our" supreme court, or do you disavow any association with, oh, Brown v. Board of Education? Incidentally, the court didn't quite say "don't count the votes." What it said was more along the lines of "if you count some votes, you have to count them ALL, applying the same standards. Oh, and the SCoFl can't alter election laws to allow for additional time for the counts." Slight difference, but it is present.

And y'know what, I do present in this argument the idea that some forms of government are superior to others. Simply because, as I have said, a government was popular does not mean said government was morally legitimate. Those monarchies you defend were responsible for some fairly heinous (sp?) actions--Crusades anybody? What about the Inquisition?

And it's arrogance to espouse the belief that there is an objectively right course of action?

[Solomon]

116. You simply cannot force a particular government from the top down on a

people when they are not suited for it. You presume that democracies and republics just sprang forward without having a country's infastructure develeped by other forms of government.

And yes, I said your supreme court because it stopped being america's supreme court when it committed treason by not allowing the votes to be counted.

[jayfish]

71. Exactly, And I'll Tell Ya What...

If military votes arrive late in 04', the fist person who will condemn there inclusion in any vote count is GW*. They bend like reeds in the wind.

Jay

[Classical_Liberal]

50. No he didn't get the majority of electoral college votes

He stole Florida. Jeb kicked thousands of African Americans off the voting rolls in a Jim Crow vote purge.

[QuestioningStudent]

90. Please see Post 89.

That contains my viewpoint on this matter. Thank you.

[leesa]

60. Incorrect. He did NOT get the majority of the electoral votes

Independent studies show Gore won Florida and that's not even counting the disenfranchised black voters, the touch screen and other voter ballot fraud. All of this has been documented thoroughly but simply ignored by our 'democratic republic'

[QuestioningStudent]

92. See post 89.

It already contains my views on this issue. Additionally, I have heard of other independant studies showing that * won Florida. Not having reviewed any of the studies myself, and knowing that they haven't been reviewed in an adversarial encounter (see post 89) so as to establish their validity, I'm not going to accept them as valid just yet. Maybe I should take the time to look into them more thoroughly...that is a seperate issue for another time, however.

[Kamika]

2. Only one?? i got more

Just pick one

a. Religious war: Hey if youre a fundie christian/jew attacking those muslims is the way to go

b. Humanitarian: See we liberated the Iraquis from Saddam.. (just dont let our allies Saudi Arabia/Kuwait/Egypt etc etc know about this. Their people they might want to get liberated too)

c. Self defence/WMD: If we hadnt bombed Iraq Saddam would definetly have nuked us.

d. Al Quaida: Everyone knows the socialist Baath party were best of friends and had strong ties with the fundie muslim Al Quaida that carried out 911 and

e. Screw Al Quaida: Saddam was responsible for the whole 911

[QuestioningStudent]

25. Sadly, these straw-man arguments

do not actually show a logical error with the argument I have asserted; if you can more clearly demonstrate to me the flaws in the argument, I would appreciate it. As it is, I am afraid that I do not quite understand the merits of your case.

[tedzbear]

82. Point B is completely logical, smarty pants!

If Bush/Cheney is so concerned about downtrodden citizens, then they should put their money where their mouth is and invade a truly dangerous country: North Korea. Talk about a cruel, unjust dictatorship. N Korea has that in spades.

Of course N Korea doesn't sit on the world's second biggest oil reserves, so Bush ignores it. Also, its military force would actually be a worthy adversary and kill lots of Americans, so Bush would never risk that. When it comes to liberation, Bush wants his invasions to be cake walks (with oil for the icing).
:kick:

[QuestioningStudent]

93. I would say

based on the argument I initially advanced, that an invasion of North Korea WOULD be legitimate, and would be just--although, of course, one would have to assume, I think, that the invasion was carried out in as humane a manner as possible if it was intended for liberation--although it would not necessarily be justified. I mean by that comment that it would not necessarily be in the interests of the United States to invade North Korea. I distinguish a difference between saying a war would be legitimate and saying a war would be a good idea. There are any number of reasons that a country may not engage in a series of legitimate military occupations: cost, toll in human lives, inability, lack of concern, etc. I also do not argue for rampant crusades. I simply note that, if the war was conducted FOR THE GROUNDS I SPECIFY, and not for other grounds (oil, etc.) then it would be legitimate. If, in fact, liberation or self-defense were not the grounds for the war, my argument would argue against the legitimacy of the war, I believe.

Thoughts?

And, yes, I'll acknowledge your 2nd point; nonetheless, it was surrounded by effigies of men, composed of straw! :)

[tedzbear]

81. I love your point B.

Excellent rebuttal for the Bush/Repug fig leaf! If we are to follow Cheney's humanitarian logic, then we should invade Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Egypt and North Korea. Boy, that should keep the Pentagon busy. No wonder Bush wants to start using nukes again.

I bet there's a handful of African dictatorships that we ignore because we could care less about their democracy deserving citizens (not to mention HIV infected citizens). But if those same nations sat on as much oil as Iraq did, oh boy, Cheney would be foaming at the mouth with his phony humanitarian agenda.

It's all about Halliburton folks!
:kick:

[Hell Hath No Fury]

3. Sorry dude...

(or dudettes), no matter how you slice, what we did in Iraq was WRONG. Period. End of story.

And if you still don't get that, turn off Rush and get your butt back to school.

[QuestioningStudent]

27. Wrong conclusions.

I can't stand Rush. He's a windbag. Nonetheless, I would appreciate it if you could back up your assertion that the Iraq war was wrong in light of the arguments I have presented; where is the principle that I expounded in error?

[Classical_Liberal]

53. The arguments you presented are based on your own arbitrary standards

basically you are willing to let Bush lie about his motivation for the war as long as his lie is a valid argument that you accept. Well we aren't. We aren't neocons.

[QuestioningStudent]

62. Nope.

I presented an argument, and wonder if it applies to the Iraq war. If the motivation was either self-defense or liberation, the argument I presented would accept those as valid justifications for a war. If those were not the pretexts for the war (and justified pretexts, not mere claims), the argument would say, assuming the relative status of the governments was consistent with the argument, the war was justified.

If one lies about one's motivations, the lie does not constitute one's motivations. The lie, therefore, would not be a sufficient pretext for the war. The argument would not accept the lie as valid.

Incidentally, I have not claimed, nor have I asserted for any others, neocone ideology.

[Maple]

5. So when are you going to join up

to liberate Nigeria, the Congo, Saudi Arabia, China ....and all the other govts around the world that you don't approve of?

And what will you do when they decide they don't approve of the way your country is run?

Stay home. MYOB.

George Washington said it. Good advice.

[QuestioningStudent]

31. Good advice or not.

First of all, my presentation of an argument that seems to indicate the Iraq war was legitimate does not imply anything about my service to this country, nor should it. A war can be legitimately prosecuted, and an opinion can be issued to such an effect (or to counter-effect for that matter), without the issuer having to engage in armed conflict for their comment to be considered worthy of merit.

Second, that a group of people desires to continue oppressing themselves and their descendants is not by necessity a good argument for allowing them to do so. God forbid that all the people who wanted a Nazi government were allowed to have one in spite of the fact that they kind of annihilated whole groups of people. After all, the _Nazis_ liked it like that, so who were we (and many others) to make them change their minds?

[Terwilliger]

6. uhhhh...we put Saddam there

fomented the Ba'athist coup, watched Saddam come to power, and supported him even through gasing his own people


THEN, to repay the Iraqi people for even MORE than the horror we brought them in 1991, and 12 years of horrible sanctions, we kill 15,000 more!!!!!!

any questions?

[NNN0LHI]

15. No questions from here. I think you covered it.

[QuestioningStudent]

33. Thank you.

As I said, thank you.

[QuestioningStudent]

32. Let's see...

so once you commit an error, you should never take steps to rectify it, especially in light of later information on the extent of horrific ramifications of the original error? You would contend that, having put Saddam in power, it would be wrong of us to ever remove him for actions he took after our having empowered him? I would think that, having empowered him, any destructive actions he took afterward should IMPEL us to hasten his removal in an attempt to atone for the past mistake on our part. Thoughts on that?

[Terwilliger]

43. yeah, but that wasn't the motivation, so your point is moot

also, we didn't have a problem with Saddam until our interests were no longer served by him...Saddam was a pre-ordained excuse for a later group of people to invade his country (certain members of the family with the Bush name), so your premise doesn't work on that level either, because the US is repaying the Iraqi people for its own mistakes, and exacting further tolls on the Iraqi people.

As far as whether or not Saddam was bad enough as reason to invade his country, there are examples of dictators around the world that do far worse to their people, but I don't hear Bush (nor most Dems, frankly) talking about them

The whole idea that one inncocent Iraqi should die as penance for our mistakes is reprehensible. Frankly, we could have brought Saddam down without war, but that's not what we wanted.

There was no justification for this conflict.

[Darranar]

44. I don't really disagree...

but to be devil's advocate for a moment, how? How could we have brought Saddam down without war?

[Terwilliger]

45. actual sanctions, coaltion building, sowing internal dissent...

there were so many other options.

I still think the best option would have been never allowing him to come to power in the first place.

[QuestioningStudent]

47. No disagreement with that last sentence.

That, I think, is one of the most fundamental truths about this whole damn thing. Sad, isn't it, that it ever came to this?

[Darranar]

49. Clearly...

past actions are past actions, though.

What exactly do you mean by "actual sanctions?"

Perhaps I could phrase it in another way: Say you were elected preisdent in 2000. Say that you wanted to get rid of Saddam. How would you have done so peacefully?

[Terwilliger]

54. I don't know

I wasn't asked to be president so I didn't give it hard thought, and there are SUPPOSED to be better decision-makers than I.

Are you trying to say that Bush's approach was the only way?

[Darranar]

55. No, I'm not...

because I think war was the wrong approach to it.

War is almost always the wrong approach.

What you said about stregthening opposition groups in the above post seems reasonable; supporting the rights of the Kurds and the Shi'ites to their own states might have been productive as well.

[Terwilliger]

56. If we'd spent the last 50 years helping Iraq with democracy...

we wouldn't be having these problems now

[Darranar]

63. Agreed.

[leesa]

61. Duh, Saddam was completely defanged. He was brought down by

UN sanctions

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Walt Starr]

9. Here's your logical flaw

Join up and go over to Iraq. Come talk to us after you get back.

Until then, you're blowing shit out of your typing fingers.

[QuestioningStudent]

34. As I said before...

You contend that one's thoughts and opinions, logically constructed or not, are ONLY valid once one has engaged in armed service for their parent country? Can you explain why that is so? Or do you have trouble refuting the argument? If not, why don't you do so? I would appreciate it.

[Walt Starr]

95. The answer is simple

Credibility is the key.

Join up or you're blowing more shit.

[QuestioningStudent]

104. In other words,

you can't offer a response to that argument other than to say it again. I only hope you discount everybody's opinion as much as you are discounting mine.

Now, regardless of my credibility, what do you think of the LOGIC of my assertion? They are not the same thing: credibility =/= logic. Or is my credibility insufficiently established for you to perceive _that_ claim as credible?

[Walt Starr]

106. Nope, you're putting words into my mouth

You have established no credibility to be setting the terms of any argument.

You have repeated redefined words within this thread. You're defintions bare little resemblance to actual definitions. Repeatedly you say "I define <insert term here> as...". That lacks any credibility whatsoever.

I won't make any points about your ludicrous arguments because you are attempting to set the terms of the conversation (similar to what the right wing does in the media).

Go get some credibility, then come back. I've suggested the only way for you to become credible in my eyes (yep, I'm setting the terms).

[karlschneider]

10. I think you are engaging in a bit of silly "devil's advocacy", and it is

"sovereign", not "soveriegn."

Finish your homework, get a good night's sleep and have a complete breakfast in the morning.

[QuestioningStudent]

36. Thanks for the edit.

Sadly, I DO make spelling errors when I type too much. Alas. :) My homework can wait until tomorrow. I have better things to do than sleep. Complete breakfasts are good. Devil's Advocacy is always entertaining. And caffeine is good too...I need more. Good hearing from you again!

[Classical_Liberal]

11. We would be at war with most of the countries on this earth then.

See the problem. Bush uses this argument hypocritically against one country only.

I don't feel I have a responsibility to enforce repulbican government in any country but my own.

Our own democracy committed a holocaust against Indians, so the holocaust is an ahistorical argument. Ethnic cleansing can happen in democracies.

[QuestioningStudent]

38. OK, an extension.

Of my argument. While I did say that the war could be considered legitimate, I did not argue about its practicality, nor whether or not it is the responsibility or duty of a legitimate government to engage in war against an illegitimate (by my terms) government. I would actually make the case that it is not the duty, per se, of a legitimate government to undertake such actions; conversely, I would not dispute the legitimacy of such a war should it take place.

Yes, ethnic cleansing can happen in a democracy. It can happen in a republic too, but I would contend that it is both less likely to occur in a republic than a democracy and that the effects of such an attrocity would be less in a republic than a democracy. Additionally, I would say that, while a republican government may commit an attrocity, it is much more likely to learn from its mistakes and prevent future attrocities than other types of governments.

[Classical_Liberal]

48. We killed 90% of the Indians so

your arguments don't hold water. The nazis were not nearly as successful in killing off the jews. It also looks like there is a pretty good chance that the next episode of ethnic cleansing will happen on the West Bank, so this particular democracy appears to have learned nothing even though it is governed by people who survived a holicaust. In fact it appears to have created a mirror of Germany's sense that it is the victim of minorities.


I also share the view that the current administration wasn't democratically elected, and is constitionally illegitimate. I also see you think that one cannot be a republic and a democracy at the same time. I particularly think that republics that have few democratic traits will not learn from history.

[QuestioningStudent]

64. I'll get back to this more later.

When I have more time. Allow me to quickly correct your perception of my definition of a republic, for I do not claim they are unrelated to democracies. I define a republic as a representative democracy, combined with a written constitution delineating limits on the government's powers. A republic is, therefore, a very specific type of democracy, significantly distinguishable to warrant its own terminology.

[tedzbear]

83. Didn't we kill most of the Indians with small pox?

Or measles or one of those nasty viruses that Europeans had developed immunity to?

Not to mention the million some Indians we murdered with guns.

Anyone have a good link to the history of the American genocide against the American Indian? I would be interested in learning more of the stuff that was kept out of my third grade history book.
Thanks.

[Solomon]

111. Look, All you are saying over and over again is that might makes right.

Your theory is not novel, brilliant, different, worth talking about, etc. It's the same old "we're better than they are shit so we can do what we want." I assume you are young and its shocking that a youngster would have such a point of view. Youngsters usually crave justice. Is there someone in your household hollering "blow them all away"?

[Iverson]

12. reaction after about 5 seconds

It raises the question as to who gets to determine legitimacy. Also, tyrrany isn't necessarily an either/or proposition. There are gradations.

Also, the notion of permanence is problematic, since 500 years, for example, isn't permanent.

The logical flaws are that we are asked to presume as true things that haven't been demonstrated. I'd also call might-makes-right offensive to logical processes, and that is what your argument rationalizes.

[QuestioningStudent]

46. Determination of legitimacy.

I would contend that legitimacy would be an objectively establishable characteristic, although we would perhaps need to elaborate on the criteria.

Tyranny is not an either/or proposition, true. I would say that legitimacy would also to a certain extent exist on a spectrum as well; the legitimacy of a republic may be called into question if it begins impinging upon the freedoms and liberties of its citizens, if its elections become corrupt, etc.

I would say the notion of permanence would have to be resolved on a matter of practicality; at the outside limit of acceptability would be an occupying government lasting about a generation, at the most. At least, that's my first thought.

I would not say my argument rationalizes the whole 'right makes right' idea; rather, I would say it suggests that simply possessing the greatest amount of power in a country and declaring your faction the 'government' does not make it legitimate. This seems, to me, to directly counter that idea. Am I misinterpreting it?

I will expound upon my definitions of legiimacy shortly...the spouse needs me. Thanks for the patience.

[Iverson]

91. wishes and frames

QuestioningStudent, as I noted in the response title, my scan of your argument was very brief, so my reservations about it should hardly be taken as conclusive. However, your defense of those points I did bring up seems tragically flawed. To summarize:

"legitimacy would be an objectively establishable characteristic"

This is wishful thinking. Legitimacy is a subjective abstraction by its very nature. Even if one applied a reliable measuring device, it too would be bound by the subjective preferences of those who establish it.

"I would say that legitimacy would also to a certain extent exist on a spectrum as well"

Glad you see this.

"the legitimacy of a republic may be called into question if it begins impinging upon the freedoms and liberties of its citizens..."

I assume that you mean a government, not a republic, lest every non-republic suddenly become the target of Operation Enduring Apocalypse. However, in any case this is insufficient since governments and laws by definition impinge upon freedoms and liberties of at least some citizens.

"permanence would have to be resolved on a matter of practicality"

This too is a fine abstraction, but it is easy to see that practicality is a subjective measure, and there may be important differences between practicality for an occupying power, an occupied power, and third parties.

"I would not say my argument rationalizes the whole '(m)ight makes right' idea ..."

That may not be the intent, but since you have presented it in your title as an argument in favor of the current invasion, we must all take it as such. That's the context.

Your search for justifying criteria could have been answered, at least in part, by those very institutions we've been undermining (e.g.- Constitution, UN Charter). Our invasion didn't meet those criteria, but they were things upon which many people agreed once upon a time.

I also caution that framing your question in terms of logical fallacies does not exclude other meaningful criteria. I could discuss logical fallacies all day, but the most compelling idea to me is this notion, also a subjective one, of civilization. There is very little in the way of a logical process that can convince me that killing distant civilians is wise and just.

[QuestioningStudent]

96. Forgive the style...

A { preceeding a line indicates it is from the previous post; a > indicates it is my response. This is done for organizational purposes. Thank you for bearing with it.
---------------------------------------------------------------
{"legitimacy would be an objectively establishable characteristic"
{
{This is wishful thinking. Legitimacy is a subjective abstraction by {its very nature. Even if one applied a reliable measuring device, it {too would be bound by the subjective preferences of those who {establish it.
>Let me first say that I do believe in an objectively definable morality. It is from this viewpoint that I argue that legitimacy would, I imagine, be objectively determinable. If I am right on this point, I think my general logic holds true. I think I am right on this point. Oh, well, someone'll probably take me to task over it...

{"I would say that legitimacy would also to a certain extent exist on {a spectrum as well"
{
{Glad you see this.
>How could I not?

{"the legitimacy of a republic may be called into question if it {begins impinging upon the freedoms and liberties of its citizens..."
{
{I assume that you mean a government, not a republic, lest every non-{republic suddenly become the target of Operation Enduring {Apocalypse. However, in any case this is insufficient since {governments and laws by definition impinge upon freedoms and {liberties of at least some citizens.
>I believe I did mean to say government at that point, and thank you for pointing that out, since that does quite dramatically change the meaning of the statement. I should also clarify the phrase "impinging upon the freedoms and liberties of its citizens." Modify the phrase with the words substantially, unreasonably, arbitarily, and/or tyrannically, and I think it'll work better. Opinion?

{"permanence would have to be resolved on a matter of practicality"
{
{This too is a fine abstraction, but it is easy to see that {practicality is a subjective measure, and there may be important {differences between practicality for an occupying power, an occupied {power, and third parties.
>Actually, I considered and offered a possible standard for practical permanence, I think in the post you responded to, although perhaps not, of a generation being the _outside_ limit of acceptability for an occupying government.

{"I would not say my argument rationalizes the whole '(m)ight makes {right' idea ..."
{
{That may not be the intent, but since you have presented it in your {title as an argument in favor of the current invasion, we must all {take it as such. That's the context.
>I would appreciate it if you could direct me to where, specifically, I so terribly misphrased myself.

{Your search for justifying criteria could have been answered, at {least in part, by those very institutions we've been undermining {(e.g.- Constitution, UN Charter). Our invasion didn't meet those {criteria, but they were things upon which many people agreed once {upon a time.
>First, I would't say that popularity of an idea implies legitimacy. Second, even if we undermined the authority of an institution, if it was a legitimate (oh, god, this sentence will be weird, forgive me) arbiter of the legitimacy of military conflict, regardless of its enforcement authority, its pronouncement of legitimacy would still be legitimate. *nervous twitch after typing sentence* In other words, if the UN could rightly say whether or not a war was legitimate, its ruling would still be a true evaluation of the legitimacy of the war, whether or not the UN was considered by the warring nations to be authoritative. IMHO.

{I also caution that framing your question in terms of logical {fallacies does not exclude other meaningful criteria. I could {discuss logical fallacies all day, but the most compelling idea to {me is this notion, also a subjective one, of civilization. There is {very little in the way of a logical process that can convince me {that killing distant civilians is wise and just.
>The wisdom of engaging in a war that I would, on these terms, define as legitimate is quite debatable. I would say that there is a large difference between a wise war and one that is legitimate.

[Iverson]

99. short, short

I have to get off of the computer, but I just saw that you replied, so here you go.

">Let me first say that I do believe in an objectively definable morality."

OK, you do, and I do not. Let us hope that if a moral absolutist prevails, the result is something with which we can live. However, from a logical perspective, citing moral absolutes as a reason for objective measures of legitimacy is a simple "begging the question." Ultimately, the justification is embedded in ideology. Logic has nothing to do with that.

">I would appreciate it if you could direct me to where, specifically, I so terribly misphrased myself."

The title of this thread is "An Argument in support of the Iraq War."

Your penultimate paragraph is opaque to me, but I can assure you that I have not argued for legitimacy in terms of popularity. My reference to agreement "once upon a time" was a side comment about frameworks that have been recently undermined by preventive invasion.

[xray s]

13. And what should the penalty be....

...for those that aided and supported those tyrannical despots? That used the US treasury to supply them with weapons and US intellegence to help their military? That personally reaped profits from those sales? That shook their hand when is was convenient to do so?



History is a bitch, ain't it....

[QuestioningStudent]

97. That would depend, I think, on context.

You are setting up a hypothetical in which, and correct me if I am wrong, public officials of a legitimate government (call it A) had a hand in bringing to power an illegitimate government (call it B)?

Based on those loose bounds, I will proffer the following opinions:

First, if the bringing to power of B by A was done through causing the downfall of another legitimate government (call it C), then A's actions were clearly criminal, unless C would have posed a clear and imminent danger (I think this works out) to A, in which case all bets are off.

Second, if A brought B to power to advance its (A's) interests in a region, and if A did not bring down a legitimate government to advance B, I would probably not call for criminal charges against A's public officials, _if_ A took steps to insure that either a minimalization of attrocity under B, or the swift removal of B from power, occurred.

I could go on, but I don't really want to right now. Regardless, are you saying that if A brought B to power, and B commits attrocities, A should not stop B simply because A brought B to power? A's commission of a stupid act makes it wrong of A to attempt to fix that act? What?

[Political_Junkie]

14. legitimate government?

"I would further argue that the application of military force by a government which _is_ legitimate against one that is _not_, for the purpose of liberating the oppressed people of the illegitimate government, is a just application of force."

-- We don't have a legitimate government at the moment...

[RichM]

18. Oooh, that's very good -- and for a 1st post, no less!

:hi:

[Iverson]

22. welcome aboard, Political_Junkie

Pull up a chair and enjoy yourself.

[Political_Junkie]

28. Thanks for the warm welcome...

RichM and Iverson, don't mind if I do.

[leftofthedial]

16. false premise and other flaws

ONE
"I venture the argument that any country that is tyrannical, despotic, and actively works against the interests of its citizens, especially if it is not of a republican (y'know, combination of representative democracy and a constitution, not the Republican party) form of government, is not a legitimate soveriegn government. "

This is a patently false premise, by legal, historical and ethical precedent. Therefore, the logic is flawed.

TWO
"I would further argue that the application of military force by a government which _is_ legitimate against one that is _not_, for the purpose of liberating the oppressed people of the illegitimate government, is a just application of force."

This contradicts the premise in your first sentence, since it is unlikely that such application of force would be in response to any clearly expressed desire of the citizens of the country to be "liberated." In other words the application of military force violates the "will of the people" just as clearly as the hypothetical despotic government. There also is nothing in your statement to indicate that the country applying military force has any legal right or authority to act as the arbiter of social justice at its own discretion.

THREE
We (Americans collectively) believe in the virtues of republican forms of government. There is no ultimate authority that deems OUR belief to be ultimately correct.

[QuestioningStudent]

98. Once again into the breech, dear friends.

>>On edit: hit Post too soon! Oops!

As regards your first point: I specifically declared, as I recall, that I did not accept legal recognition of a government to be sufficient, per se, to establish that government's legitimacy. I would think it would be clear I am making an essentially moral argument here; this is why I have qualified, several times, my definition of sovereignity and legitimacy to exclude such nations as the USSR and Nazi Germany, which were mighty but illegitimate. Care to provide the philisophical arguments here, or should we accept that any war against another Nazi-esque nation is wrong, as long as they only oppress the people within their borders, since such a nation would be legitimate "legally?"

On your second point: I never indicate that the acceptance of the people of the illegitimate government for the intervention by the legitimate government was necessary for the intervention to be legitimate. As a matter of fact, I specifically mention that the oppressive, illegitimate government may be quite popular among some or many sectors of its populace (Nazi Germany, USSR, etc. and so on and so forth), and I dismiss this as a factor granting the government legitimacy. Finally, as regards this section, it ought be clear by now that I am talking principally about moral authority. There may be questions and cautions that would prevent or discourage a legitimate nation from engaging in a legitimate war of liberation. Some of these considerations may be legal: perhaps the legitimate nation has a constitutional limitation on wars of this type. Perhaps the consideration is practical: the legitimate may not have the money or manpower to spare. But practicality =/= legitimacy.

On your third point: I do not accept that there exists no objective standards by which we can measure our conduct. So sorry we disagree here.

[Speed8098]

19. What???

I venture the argument that any country that is tyrannical, despotic, and actively works against the interests of its citizens, especially if it is not of a republican (y'know, combination of representative democracy and a constitution, not the Republican party) form of government, is not a legitimate soveriegn government.

Let me get this right....If we have a tyrannical government, but we are a republic, we CAN be a sovereign nation, HOWEVER.....if we have a tyrannical government and it is a dictatorship, it CAN NOT be a soveriegn nation?!?!?

:wtf: I feel like my head is spinning off. Where did you come up with this?

I would further argue that the application of military force by a government which _is_ legitimate against one that is _not_, for the purpose of liberating the oppressed people of the illegitimate government, is a just application of force.


So with that line of thought, you think we should be happy to invade any government we think is oppressive? Or do you think we should only invade those countries that have resourses we need, who happens to be oppressive?

It is not the job of the American government to police the world. We have enough problems right here in these 50 states that need attending to.

It seems to me that you don't realize that the people being ambushed and killed were sent there based on lies from a facist government that only wants to cater to the rich and powerful at the expense of the middle class.

This war was a farce from the very first word that was uttered trying to connect Iraq to the WTC bombing.

The people that are dying daily are HUMANS, not governments, These are people's sons and daughters.


THERE IS NO LEGITIMATE REASON FOR SUPPORTING THIS INVASION/OCCUPATION


on edit: fixed typo

[QuestioningStudent]

100. More breaches to charge into...

First point: I intended to suggest that I considered, for this argument, a republic to be a superior form of government in that it tended more than any other variety of government towards legitimacy. Can a republic be illegitimate? Theoretically yes. I simply believe it less likely than other forms of government being illegitimate, and this is all that statement was intended to convey. Your interpretation of my statement, while likely due to poor phrasing on my part, is not a correct interpretation of my position.

Second point: I do not make the argument that a legitimate government should happily invade an illegitimate government. I have made my thoughts on that issue clear in other posts, however to recap: While a war may be legitimate, it may not be practical; it may be a downright stupid thing to engage in. Nonetheless, stupid or impractical or whatnot, it may still be a generally legitimate undertaking.

If you want to make the argument that the conditions in Iraq don't fit my argument's criteria for legitimacy, and that, based on my argument, the Iraq war would be illegitimate, I'll listen to that case if you'd like to make it.

[Speed8098]

117. Ok

If you want to make the argument that the conditions in Iraq don't fit my argument's criteria for legitimacy, and that, based on my argument, the Iraq war would be illegitimate, I'll listen to that case if you'd like to make it.

Let's look at some of the reasons we "INVADED" Iraq.
1. WMD's......All a lie
2. Terrorism.....No connection to Saddam
3. Liberation....from what? A dictator that the US helped gain power.
4. He gassed his own people....Wrong, it was the Iranians who gassed the Kurds
5. Saddam can attack the US within 45 minutes..Yep that's a legitimate reason to invade.....Oops...we were wrong
6. Nukes from Niger.....You know what happened there.

So let's turn this back to you and I'll ask you.

Tell me what exactly was the LEGITIMATE reasons we invaded a sovereign country?

[alcuno]

21. Here's why the argument falls apart.

It does not not carry with it the consent of the governed of the liberating country. If a candidate for the presidency of the most powerful and free country on the face of the earth campaigned on a platform of the liberation of oppressed people throughout the world, that would give the voters the opportunity to choose that direction for their country. I suspect that many liberals would find that an appealing issue.

However, to take a country into an unnecessary war without the consent of the people, goes against everything that this country is supposed to stand for and bypasses the will of the people. For we never truly had a will to liberate the people of Iraq; the American people were responding to what was represented to them as a threat to their safety and well-being.

You can't take a nation to war on the basis of national security and then as an AFTERTHOUGHT say that it wasn't really about that, but about conducting a humanitarian experiment. Any president who does so should expect the condemnation and outrage of the governed as well as removal from office.

[KG]

23. war is mass murder, your arguement in support of mass murder sucks, too

oh, and are you ready to enlist in support of your theories?

btw, they teach ya about paragraphs and indentations at your school?

the premise of your screed would still suck, but it would be easier to read.

[QuestioningStudent]

65. Oh erudite one, illuminate for me your wisdom.

Catch the sarcasm? Gosh, I sure hope so. Very mature argument subject, and a masterful introduction of the good ol' "When are YOU going to join?" straw-man fallacy. Just beautiful.

Incidentally, did you ever learn about capitalization when you were in school? Or, for that matter, exercising anything resembling courtesy when phrasing a comment? Granted, I'm being snippy now, but dear lord above that was exasperating.

Nonetheless, thank you for your input.

[KG]

73. oh, are you offend by my response?

too bad, apologists for mass murder offend the heck out of me.

[RichM]

26. No, this argument is all wet.

You're trying to word it so that it sounds very moral & reasonable. The problem is that you don't seem to realize that you're looking at the whole thing from inside the American propaganda system. The US is not the "good guys" -- & never has been. It doesn't do good deeds, & doesn't have the right to invade anybody. In fact, by the definition you advance in your 1st sentence, other countries would have much more right to invade the US (which is tyrranical, despotic, & actively works against the interests of its citizens, & has only a pro forma republican government).

[QuestioningStudent]

101. So you agree.

With the argument I advance, not necessarily its application to the Iraq situation, let me hasten to add!

Thank you for your input. Could you offer some comparisons between the US and other nations, illustrating why the US is more illegitimate than other nations? I would prefer to avoid the following topics: the 2000 election, the Indian massacres, and slavery, as those are either endemic to other nations or have been discussed already in this thread by others, quite capably. I simply wish to avoid redundancy. Thanks again, hope to see your reply!

[Solomon]

113. LOL Classic tactic.

If we discuss whether US has done bad things in relation to other countries, don't talk about genocide of the Indians, slavery of the Africans, etc., in other words, all the bad things that america has done. It's not consistent with your white hat belief so you choose to simply ignore the evidence. That's really funny. It's so sad to see a youngster with such a narrow mind.

[Xyxzy34]

29. Problem with your argument

It will take years and hundreds of billions of dollars to create a stable, free, and democratic Iraq. Neither the American people nor the politicians are willing to spend that.

[QuestioningStudent]

67. So you would say

that the problem with the Iraq war is a matter of practicality, and does not lie with the argument I presented?

[Mike_from_NoVa]

30. in an economic vacuum maybe

But doing all that shit costs too much. Unless you want to raise taxes...

Haha. Yeah right.

Look, unless the country is really on board with such a program and IT'S BASED IN TRUTH, you're not going to get people willing to make the sacrifices that come with going wholeheartedly onto a war footing. Certainly America is NOT being asked to make sacrifices for this effort. Quite the contrary - America gets a tax cut! There are no sacrifices being asked for because the basis for the action is a pack of LIES. If sacrifices were required, the LIES would get too much scrutiny.

So I'm not on board. And I haven't been from the git go. We had a job to finish in Afghanistan. We needed to concentrate on finishing that. We had a virtual fence around Iraq to the point where it wasn't a threat to us. It was cheap enough to do that indefinately. That was the world consensus too. Boy did we screw up on this one. And now "we broke it, we bought it". Lucky us!

[tedzbear]

84. Right on!

Well said, Mike.

Unfortunately our neocons couldn't stand looking at all that oil through our "virtual fence" without salivating and foaming at the mouth (Cheney). Like the spoiled brats they are, they didn't want to wait until Saddam died of old age to get their hands on it.


edit: for clarity

[Stargleamer]

35. By this logic invading Iran and Saudi Arabia should follow

due to their tyrannical governments. If we were to invade these countries, we would inflame a huge segment of the Islamic world, and probably cause world warfare. Sometimes the cure is worse than the disease, as Rachel Carson noted long ago.

Also, what about the number of Iraqis who have died as a result of this war? How does this compare to how many would have died due to Saddam? Are the numbers of those who will die due Iraqi resistance to the U.S. occupation, equal to the number that would have died due to Saddam, or as I suspect, a lot less?

What did the majority of Iraqis want? For the U.S. to repeatedly ignore their government's assertions that they had no weapons of mass destruction and invade anyway. Do the majority now consider that their country has been liberated in the same way that the French did in 1944?

Finally Americans have never felt that the tyranny that exists in some countries to be in itself sufficient enough reason to wage war--notice there never was a groundswell of demand to invade Chile when it was under Pinochet. So Bush himself had to unjustly hype the case for war, because he knew that Saddam's tyranny wasn't enough. A war that was entered into under exaggerated and misleading premises is not a just war.

[Darranar]

39. I've had some of those thoughts, too...

and these are the conclusions I've come to:

War, the resources neccesary for it, and the casualties inflicted by it is an unneccesary cost most of the time. There are exceptions; though I did not like the way NATO handled Kosovo, I think intervention in the case of genocide is at times neccesary.

However, there are so many things in the world that cause intense harm that can be solved with less resources then this war cost. How many millions did Saddam kill? The highest estimate is around one million. How many millions die annually because they can't afford food? Perhaps we can start combating corporate globalization with a few common-sense regulations for human rights and working conditions that will cost far less and do far more good then war.

How about eliminating our dependence on oil from brutal dictatroships like that of Saudi Arabia? How about cutting back our aid to countries such as Israel and Egypt that have horrible human rights records? That will SAVE money, not COST money.

How about actually helping the Iraqi people with humanitarian aid, even when they were under Saddam? Impossible, you say? I strongly disagree. Saddam lacked the power or the lack of sense to refuse. I am far from convinced that war was the only option.

And the last thing I have to say is that the Iraqi people are not better off. Billions of dollars, hundreds of soldiers, and several months later, the Iraqi people have no real government, no democracy, little security, few of the services they had under Saddam, a very poor infrastructure, and tremendous chaos plaguing their country. And it isn't going to stop anytime soon.

[Zorra]

41. Yes, I believe that there are flaws in your logic.

You are speaking from a distinctly American point of view, and are assuming that your culturally biased way of thinking and being is absolutely correct, and you seem willing to impose your ways of thinking and being on people that may not agree with you, and may not want, or like, your intervention, form of government, and/or way of life.

Travel around the world, and mingle and speak with people from other cultures everywhere you go, particularly indigenous peoples, and ask them if they agree with you. Bolivia might be a good place to start. Or the Pine Ridge Reservation in South Dakota even.

I suspect that your perspective might change drastically.

Here is something that may be difficult to read; I am simply posting it as an alternative viewpoint to yours. It is written by someone who does not agree with your argument.

http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/mexico/ezln/1997/jigsaw.html

[QuestioningStudent]

68. Thank you.

I appreciate your constructive dialogue. I shall read that link at the earliest opportunity.

[dreissig]

42. Forms of Government

You are implying that when one form of government is clearly superior to another that invasion by foreigners is justified. I don't think that's true at all.

Having made a false assumption, it doesn't make any difference whether your logic is correct or not. And by the way, we haven't improved the lives of the Iraqis. What's the death toll so far?

[quaker bill]

52. The entire notion is flawed

Is there a limit in this logic for how many people we would kill to 'liberate' them. There seems not. (would it be 10,000 - 100,000 - a million? why not nukes, if we need them, after all, our cause is just!)

Communists believed that ownership of the 'means of production' by the people was the only legitimate governance. Substitute a few terms in your logic and it provides ample support for the overthrow of 'oppressive capitalist regimes'.

Substitute a few more terms and you have the line of logic Hitler used.

The funny thing is that they all thought they had the right idea and the moral imperative to impose it on others by military force if necessary.

This is 'purity of essence' thought ala General Ripper. If you don't know what I am talking about, see Dr. Strangelove sometime.

[Cat Atomic]

57. There are several problems with that argument.

How do you define "actively working against the interests of its citizens"?

Is it using the powers of government to benefit the powerful rather than the middle/lower classes? I could argue that our own government is doing that.

Is it simply a matter of not getting the majority of the vote? How will you account for countries like Italy, where many political parties split the vote, and the winner generally gets a tiny percentage of the overall votes cast?

Beyond simply defining the terms of the argument, you'd have to be willing to ignore decades of history. The US record in "spreading democracy" is extremely lacking. Chile is a good example of the problem. Chile's democratic government was wrecked and replaced by a pro FREE TRADE dictator.

[mmonk]

58. The main flaw to the argument is

Iraq was taken over for the U.S. to have a foothold in the middle east so it could do what it wants in the middle east including toppling other nation states. It was the first step of a broader plan. The "liberation", while good for Iraqis in the future, was not the true objective. Conquering sovereign nations seems in itself against traditional American principles.

[leesa]

59. That is not the reason we invaded Iraq. We don't give a rat's ass

about Saddam. It was invaded for the purposes of looting and to punish them for planning to go with Euros for oil currency instead of dollars. Your premise for the war is invalid because it is not the reason we invaded them. The official lie was that they were a threat to us by virtue of WMD that they planned to use.

Secondly, our own government is currently illegitimate. Bush was not elected and the votes that were legally cast were not allowed to be counted...also massive voter fraud has been shown but never addressed. So by your arguement, someone should be invading us right now!

So you think we should invade all the dictatorships around the world? Are you nuts? Let the people work it out. That is exactly what Iraq wanted to do. ALL they wanted from us was to end the sanctions so that they could become strong enough to take back their country. The US government created the mythology that they wanted us to liberate them from Saddam. If we gave a shit about this we would be in Liberia now.

[many a good man]

66. At Least One Great Big Logical Flaw

Who are YOU to determine what is a "just application of force" ?

The invasion of foreign nation-states is a matter of international law. The international legal framework has been developed so that neither YOU nor any single nation-state or small group of nation-states would be tempted to make this type of judgment leading to military force without broad international consensus. This consensus is the only thing that can make such a thing legitimate.

For all its shortcomings, the international legal system has its own definition of "sovereignty." Of course it does not exactly match the definition you give, which is based on our history, heritage, and culture (although it aspires to it). And as a signatory of the United Nations Charter, we are bound to respect the international legal definition.

Our failure to secure sanction for such a war would make the action definable as a "war of aggression," a crime against humanity.

As a side note, I was wondering if QuestionableStudent would be willing to volunteer his/her age or other biographical information. I only mention this because of your use of underscore characters to _emphasize_ words in your posts. I haven't seen that used in quite some time; it was once popular in internet forums in the days before the world wide web and html. Just curious...

[kentuck]

69. There's a sense of naivete in the poster....

He seems to have a deep, abiding faith in his leaders and everything they say. There could never be the possibility that he is being lied to or deceived in any manner. In fact, a very dangerous individual. One that sees the speck in his neighbors eye but cannot see the log in his own. Perhaps he would like to explain what he means by "actively works against the interests of its citizens"? Does he mean they are 'against' healthcare for their citizens? Perhaps he means they fail to adequately take care of their elderly and less fortunate members of society? Or is that open for debate in a "republican" form of government? Under the barrel of a gun, we will determine who is "oppressed" so we can set them free. Well, we'll let some young soldiers set them free, in our name...

[Mountainman]

70. Yes, we murdered innocent people in Iraq and continue to do so

There is no moral right to invade another nation and kill it's people and take it's natural resources for our own.

That is what we are doing in Iraq. We are forcing our innocent military citizens to kill and be killed for the wealth creation of a few who have control of our government right now.

Nothing you say resembles reality in Iraq.

[jayfish]

72. Several Problems With Your Argument But The Main One Renders The Rest...

irrelevant.

"I venture the argument that any country that is tyrannical, despotic, and actively works against the interests of its citizens, especially if it is not of a republican (y'know, combination of representative democracy and a constitution, not the Republican party) form of government, is not a legitimate sovereign government."

No, one person, state, or federation has the power or right to dictate what is or is not a legitimate form of government. That responsibility falls on the people who are governed by the established system. Since the rest of your argument is based on your definition of what is legitimate governance, it is worthless.

Jay

[Guaranteed]

77. Yes, that's right...and there's one more large problem:

Which is that just because it might be morally acceptable to invade another country, it doesn't mean that we SHOULD do it. Especially considering that we're in the middle of the "war on terror."

[QuestioningStudent]

102. We disagree on this issue.

I would argue that the question of the legitimacy (I'm almost getting tired of that word) is objectively determinable. We can debate that point if you wish, but I'll give you these brief examples I have now repeated several times: Nazi Germany. The USSR. Were these "legitimate governments?" They were, after all, supported by great numbers of their respective citizens. 'Tis amazing what the argument "legitimacy occurs through popularity" can allow the acceptance of, isn't it?

[jayfish]

112. Popularity Has Little To Do With It.

Sometimes popularity and rebellion (or conquest) go hand in hand, sometimes not.

Jay

[Cheswick2.0]

74. yeah, screw all the 10s of thousands of dead and maimed people

we killed and maimed for OIL.... the real reason we went BTW, just in case you weren't clear about that.

[Hong Kong Cavalier]

76. Major logical flaws, but you probably already know that.

Kentuck's post above also re-inforces this argument that your argument is irrelevant.
With that argument in line, then it could be reasoned that the current government of the United States is actively working against the interests of its citizens. How many times have various parts of our government tried to destroy Social Security? Or Medicare? Or any kind of health coverage? (Yes, I'm talking about the Republicans here) How about the outsourcing of technical jobs? Or the widening of the gap between the rich and the poor, and how they are determined to make things worse in this country for those who can't make ends meet?
Using your argument, QS, I say that the United States is not a legitimate soverign government.
What about someone desiring a military action against the United States using your argument?
You cannot simply state "your government is not legit because it doesn't fit my criteria" and expect that any military action against that government to be justified. "My way or the highway" is not a morally correct stance.

[Guaranteed]

78. I'd like a clarification- Imperative or Elective?

I'd like to know if you believe our invasion of Iraq was a moral imperative or a moral elective. In other words, did we HAVE to, in order to be moral, invade Iraq, or, on the other hand, did we just do something that was not morally unacceptable?

Most people seem to be having a serious problem making this distinction. Your own viewpoint seems to be leaning toward the side of the US having gone to war electively- that is, it isn't something that HAD to be done in order to live with our consciences. Your statements using the word "justified" sound like they'd be used in such an argument. I, too, believe that this war was started without obligation.

If that's the case- that this war was an elective- don't you think that we, having just been attacked by terrorists on 9/11, should maybe have focused our efforts and resources on more threatening issues, like the terrorists themselves? Doesn't it seem as if, to put things in such a way that Bush himself might, instead of putting our own house-fire out, we just went and lit up another one? FURTHER, doesn't it seem fairly intuitive that STARTING a war, unprovoked, in Arab land is simply going to solidify the resolve and the ranks of the terrorists?
Does this seem like the best way to handle our national security to you? Starting an elective war when we have this other war on our hands?

[Guaranteed]

79. Kick cuz I want an answer. nt

[tedzbear]

85. To answer your questions: No.

Exzzzzzzzzzzzelent post! Well said. Keep on kickin' ass!

[QuestioningStudent]

103. An elective, of course.

OMG, the whole post just got deleted. AAAAAAAARRRRRRRGGGGGGGHHH. There, forgive me.

I argue, as you correctly interpret, that the Iraq war was a moral elective; that is, it was not a moral mandate that we do engage in it, but having engaged in it, the war was not morally unacceptable.

I will actually admit that there is a great deal of controversy over whether or not the war was the best maneuver possible to promote our safety, and have certain questions and reservations about it myself. Fortunately, I am not arguing the wisdom of the war here!

Thank you for your post, it was very enjoyable reading it.

[Guaranteed]

107. Alright...

And...you know I could continue on the moral level, too, right? This is a utilitarian argument you're making here....not the strongest....
Anyway, I understand the point you're trying to make. It's good for us to sharpen our beaks a bit.
Thanks for some good fodder ;)

[QuestioningStudent]

108. You're welcome.

Thanks for the engaging dialogue. Now I'm off to go polish my beak...

[Paschall]

80. You're confounding morality and legality

As you know, you cannot go before a court and obtain a favorable ruling against an adversary--no matter how morally despicable--unless that party has indeed broken the law.

You may feel that "any country that is tyrannical, despotic, and actively works against the interests of its citizens...is not a legitimate soveriegn government," but moral legitimacy has nothing to do with recognized legal sovereignty.

From the looks of it, you can only draw one of two rather widely dissonant conclusions from your thinking: (1) Either every nation is imbued with absolute moral authority to judge--and use force against--any other nation, ie multilateral institutions and international law are irrelevant. Or (2) multinational institutions should be strengthened massively to include your notion of "legitimacy," ie, if a government acts brutally against its own population, its legitimacy is nil.

There are those--on the left notably--who favor some version of the second option. Bernard Kouchner, who founded Doctors Without Borders, argues there is a "right to interfere" (droit d'ingérence) in the domestic affairs of a sovereign country if the population is endangered--for example in Kosovo or Rwanda. I tend to agree with him when there are documented, massive crimes against humanity being committed. This was not, however, the case with Iraq under Saddam in 2003. I have no doubt that in 2003, Saddam committed far few atrocities against his own population than at least a dozen other regimes, some of which receive our active financial, diplomatic, and military support. And our "findings" in Iraq seem to support my belief. (Regardless, the problem is the "threshold." What are "massive crimes against humanity?" Hundreds of people suffer every year under the despotic reign of the House of Saud. Are those "crimes against humanity?" I don't have the answer to that question, since I'm not a legal expert. On a moral level, however, I find the Saudi regime rather despicable.)

Of course, the central problem in your thinking is that (1) you--rightfully, I believe--claim that democratic republics are somehow more (morally) "legitimate" because they require the consent of the governed and include a system of internal checks on governmental power that are written into law. But (2) you assume an international order in which no such law could or should apply, in which individual nations are absolutely endowed with the moral right to use force against other governments for the "good" of their populations (ie when the issue is not one of self-defense). In other words, you advocate a constitution for the "homeland," and anarchy--lawlessness--for the planet.

It's worth mentionning that we probably wouldn't even be having this conversation about the human rights of oppressed populations if it weren't for the United Nations and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In the past half-century, the notion of "universal human rights" has become a political given in world affairs. Prior to the multilateral acceptance of the Declaration, little attention was paid to the domestic actions of governments. And this is yet another argument for international law and multilateral institutions.

[trumad]

87. I'm willing to give QuestioningStudent a break (for now)

with hopes that he truly is trying to figure all this out...He's asking good questions and he's getting good replies... BUT...at the end of the day if he comes away still supporting the PNAC Doctrine towards this unjust war then I'll conclude that he ain't as bright as he seems to be...

Oh...and QuestioningStudent..quit throwing out the term strawman... It makes it look like you just learned the word in your last semester..

[QuestioningStudent]

105. I appreciate the kind words.

Wouldn't be any kind of student if I didn't try to figure these things out, now would I?

And I'll take the advice under consideration. Thanks.

[Paschall]

114. Thanks, trumad, but I'm not (willing to give QuestioningStudent a break)

I'd like a response. Someone who says, "...I'll take the advice under consideration," should be able to think on his/her feet.

I'd like to see it (think on its feet, that is).

[Guaranteed]

94. Great post...

A great explanation of the "that's just your opinion of their government" response, which is proper.

[Lexingtonian]

86. You're young, indeed

I venture the argument that any country that is tyrannical, despotic, and actively works against the interests of its citizens, especially if it is not of a republican (y'know, combination of representative democracy and a constitution, not the Republican party) form of government, is not a legitimate sovereign government.

The problem with this is that there are no criteria here for "tyrannical, despotic" or "actively works against the interests of its citizens". The Continental Congress and its agents can very well be regarded as tyrannical or despotic by the Tories of 1775-1782. The present Israeli government and the Russian government can be seen to be "actively works against the interests of its citizens". What if a state just declares some group non-citizens and then persecutes them- as has been done to Gypsies, Jews, Huguenots, Hutus?

Even if you set the bar as low as 'wantonly murders a subset of its citizens', you're still in trouble about the best interests of its citizens part. The Jewish Revolt of 70 AD, for example, would give you all kinds of problems.

You appear to be assuming some 2002/2003-ish continental American operational definition of all the important terms. I mean, the Revolutionaries of France in 1792 proposed pretty exactly these same ideas you expound on- and they did get the monarchies of Europe shaking. Still, by 1820 these ideas were pretty much discarded and France was run by an inane, fairly despotic, monarch again.

I would further argue that the application of military force by a government which _is_ legitimate against one that is _not_, for the purpose of liberating the oppressed people of the illegitimate government, is a just application of force.

Wars are never "legitimate"; they are considered justified by the parties who observe or take part in them, or they aren't. Wars are immorality in action, so they can't demand legitimacy proper.

Furthermore, simply because a government possesses support among certain--or even many-- segments of its populace does not confer legitimacy upon that government; see Nazi Germany and the USSR for examples of what I mean.

You seem to be demanding Divine intervention in the world, applying a tag of "Legitimate" or "Illegitimate" to any and all governments. Among human beings, whose voice does matter in determining government at any given time? You have to admit Rousseau in here somewhere, and Plato's Philosopher King, and Hobbes's 'nasty, brutish, and short'.

There were about a dozen small states formed out of pieces of the Austrian Empire and bits of the the German one after WW One. Few of them were all that viable, let alone sound, and almost all of them quickly got taken over by small (hence "tin pot") dictators. Russia and Germany crushed the lot of them, Germany even getting far more "legitimate" (by your criterion) Quisling governments installed. These governments did nothing violating your "legitimacy"- they voluntarily kicked out their Jews mostly, let their men serve with the Germans, harnessed their industries and farming to the German war effort, and so forth. Yet the U.S. crushed states like Vichy France and fascist Greece.

So you may want to get out of your U.S.-centric/2003-ish assumptions if you want to start writing broad political theories based on abstract concepts. Situational thinking as a method and and social contract theory as a foundation are alot better of a foundation for political theory, because they are the First Principles. Starting with conceptual formulations of government (all the -acy's) means to start with so many hidden assumptions that you seem unaware of that your argument becomes tautological about their "legitimacy".

Basically, your are trying to formulate a political theory that is somehow independent of a historical time element. Governments depend on social contracts, and the interpretation of its social contract depends on the People's/Society's sense of where the group is within History and its own attempt at selfperfection. And every country has a different notion, and a different experience, to work from. All have at some point by consent resorted to despotism, and anarchy, and tolerated dictatorship as consistent with their needs and desires. All have a quiet aristocracy on which the society hopes to fall back upon in times of existential crisis. To talk so blythely and categorically about 'tyrannical, despotic' regimes and 'against the interests of the people' is to be high-handed and, in many cases, presumptive.

Each people ultimately writes its own history and gets forced out of the history of other peoples as an intruder. In my opinion, interventions are justified when one tries to malevolently or paternalistically change another's selfdevelopment. But these are all situational judgments, all judgments peoples and states speak over themselves. I find very little room for a lot of transacting of political abstractions when the question of war or intervention arises- the arguments involved in war are about human suffering. When we talk about what is desirable in peacetime, in that I see no problems throwing about abstract concepts and problems of higher order abstractions. The need is to keep focus on the actual human beings and their real capabilities when we are talking force and change in form of misgovernment. (Bierce: Revolution, n. A change in the form of misgovernment.)

[progressivejazz]

115. And I venture the argument...

that any country whose actions piss me off is not a sovereign government. I further argue that the application of military force by a government that doesn't piss me off is just.

This is as logical as your argument. Since you haven't given us any truly objective criteria for "legitimacy", I don't have to either.


Hey student, you're a Sophomore, right? At least your argument is sophomoric.

[farmbo]

118. Lock & load...QS's leading us into Saudi Arabia, Kuwait,China, N.Korea

You are shoring up the Neoconservative realpolitik with a hind-sighted moral framework.

Its lipstick on a pig.

The same arguments we're made in support of British & French colonialism: "The White Man's Burden".


...Take up the White Man's burden--
In patience to abide,
To veil the threat of terror
And check the show of pride;
By open speech and simple,
An hundred times made plain,
To seek another's profit
And work another's gain....

Rudyard Kipling, 1899

(Alas, I digress)


You convienently ignore the issue of the conversion (rape) of the 'illegitimate' country's natural resourses by the conquering power. (You cannot deny that the US has seized the Iraqi oil industry...even at the expense of securing public utilities and nuke storage sites) That one fact totally destroys the moral justification for the conquest in the first place.

[Skinner]

119. This is a troll who has been banned.

I'm locking this thread.