RoR: Forum

That was a great post, Pete--I think that you show a lot of integrative insight on this matter.

Ed

Post 41

Saturday, April 9, 2005 - 11:07pm

Pete,

(there are indeed some bad dudes held at Guantanamo).

It is so refreshing to hear statements like that from those who don't agree with the Iraq invasion.

So you want civil war over there. Hmmmmm...

This is where I disagree again. The Internet and advanced accessible satellite communications (TV and radio principally) are completely undermining fundamentalism throughout the world. That should do the trick over there too - over time.

But it will be necessary to keep things protected until the organized violence stops (i.e. the new ideas take hold).

Michael

Post 42

Sunday, April 10, 2005 - 4:45am

For those of us who accept the going to war in Iraq as a legitimate option, do you agree that the key measure of success is the rejection of Islamic fundamentalism in the new Iraqi state and the creation of potential ally in fighting this Islamist enemy?

Post 43

Sunday, April 10, 2005 - 5:17am

Jason Pappas, the key measure of success was met well over a year ago. Go here, to understand my reasoning.

Post 44

Sunday, April 10, 2005 - 5:44am

Actually, I wholeheartedly agree, George, with that article. We already removed Iraq as a dangerous aspirant to the nuclear club and as a major regional aggressor. I didn’t ask my question correctly. There are two components of the Iraq effort – one with immediate short term gains and one that will only bear fruit over the long term. We’ve achieved the short term objectives. However, after removing Saddam, the option of nation-building – creating the basis for liberal democracy – is an investment for potential long-term stability in the region and a potential ally in the fight against Islamism. We could have allowed (installed) a benign dictatorship and moved on to other matters.

I have no moral qualms with the motivation of nation-building as a long-term investment in the sense that we are doing something respectable for the people in the region and hopes for stability. I’m worried about the prudent use of resources given the prospects for success in this regard and the immediate dangers like the one you cited in your article: Iran. The success with nation-building is already greater than I expected (which says something about my expectations). Thus, my question was more about the continued investment in nation-building: is success measured by the creation of a new ally to fight Islamists?

I worry that we may get side-tracked with nation-building instead of taking care of gathering threats elsewhere. Thus, as you note in your article, I await for Mr. Bush’s next step. I must admit that I underestimated Mr. Bush in the past and he has pleasantly surprised me.

Post 45

Sunday, April 10, 2005 - 7:05am

"My question took the morality of this war as a given. It was an ethical war, and if you think the US initiated the force, you are intensely deluded and I have no interest in arguing with you."

When you take the morality of the war as axiomatic I suppose you won't get much interesting discussion. What bizarre ethics.

"No, I won't change my mind on whether this was an *ethical* war."

So no matter what the US were to do - eg. if US resumed conscription, and turned Iraq into an irradiated crater - you would never consider the war unethical. What was that elegant term again, ah - 'disingenuous dogmatist'.

Post 46

Sunday, April 10, 2005 - 2:58pm

Aaron, when I said the "morality of the war is a given" I mean that it's a given in the context of my question. I was trying to set a context, and you're trouble understanding the importance of context may explain why you are so confused about the war in general.

I wasn't taking the ethics of this war as "axiomatic." I was simply maintaining that I have no interest in arguing anymore whether it was ethical or not to launch it -- as only anti-Americans and severely deluded fools think *we* were the agressors -- but that, for those who claim to only oppose the war because of its destructiveness to national security, I'd like to pose a question.

And no, the ethics of going into war cannot be reversed. Certainly, the ethics of how the war is *conducted* is always open to question -- but that would have nothing to do with the war's justification and everything to do with whatever those unethical acts are.

All your compulsive misinterpretations suggest side-stepping. If you actually think the US initiated the force here, which it seems that you do, my question doesn't apply to you. Since I'd guess that you're not an anti-American, that leaves only one other option: intensely deluded fool.

Alec

Post 47

Sunday, April 10, 2005 - 4:54pm

I realize I'm treading on thin ice here, now, in the midst of what has become such a heated "debate."

One option, would be for me drop out of the discussion entirely, so as not to get caught up in a flame-war. Another option, would be for me to resign from any position and follow whichever position is "winning" at the moment. But these 2 "damage-control" options just don't feel right in my heart.

I do not mean to prove anything deductively by what I'm about to say below--I'm merely stating a concern that just doesn't fit right in my psyche.

The question of "Who Benefits" was popularized by Rand herself. The quote escapes me, but it could be paraphrased by the following:

------------
When faced with a political perpetuation of error, don't bother figuring out all the particular errors for a future cross-examination, ask yourself who benefits from the perpetuated errors.
------------

In this respect, when things don't seem right, and when someone benefits from that which doesn't seem right--then that is a red flag, and it is expected that people should start hooting and hollering about it (at least, initially).

What I find especially troubling about how things are panning out (and this doesn't deductively PROVE anything), is that the IMMEDIATELY IDENTIFIABLE non-Iraqi benefactors of this Iraq war--are, in some way, linked to the assault on the US:

-unprecedented existence of al Qaeda recruitment camps in Iraq

-unprecedented windfall oil profits for the country in which most of those wicked terrorists were raised (Saudi Arabia)

Obviously, it must've been awful tricky to have picked the head of a particular country (Saddam), for the first pre-emptive strike, that had also happened to be one of bin Laden's enemies. Regardless, does anyone who advocates war also find the 2 points above troubling? Are there "red flags" flying for pro-war advo's, or not even a one?

I'm not claiming that I know a deductive truth here. I freely admit that I don't have ALL the knowledge known about factors which--potentially--may justify the Iraq war. All I'm saying is that the public was not given what I would call a rational justification--I can think of only 3 reasons why this would be so:

1) no rational justification exists

2) a real, but PREVIOUSLY-UNKNOWN justification does now exist, but the initial, premature (wrong) justifications that have been given to us--now rule out the "spelling out" of this new, real (right), justification

3) a real and known justification has always existed, but it would have "jeopardized" national security to have spelled it out--with clear logic, and in a rational way--to the US citizens (the public of THIS democracy needed to be kept in the dark)

Though I expected to be name-called for such a "harsh" investigation of the principles behind this war--I'm willing to take this "punishment" and risk burning a bridge or 2 with some folks. I do this because I believe in the potential of Man, and I believe that we benefit from each other's rationality, and I believe that individual thought and rational dialogue are the things which have created every single value on this planet.

I have made an effort to clearly outline how and why I feel as I do about the war--I'm asking for the same effort in return. And I am not about to turn my back on the prospect of benefit from furthered rational dialogue--just because debate is heating up and mud is starting to be slung.

Ed

Post 48

Sunday, April 10, 2005 - 5:48pm

Ed,

You wrote:

-unprecedented existence of al Qaeda recruitment camps in Iraq

-unprecedented windfall oil profits for the country in which most of those wicked terrorists were raised (Saudi Arabia)

as non-Iraqi benefactors.

They seem so incomplete to me. For example, "unprecedented existence" of recruitment camps. Unprecedented? Are you sure about this? In a country that was know for secrecy in all matters?

And as to oil profits, there is that "unprecedented" again. How about the 70's? And also, this time around, only Saudi Arabia?

For me, your examples are way too restrictive.

This whole war, outside of moral/religious considerations, needs a little Occum's razor to understand properly. Go for the simplist explanation.

When there is oil involved, I personally follow the money...

Michael

Post 49

Sunday, April 10, 2005 - 8:42pm

First - relax. "Goon", "deluded fool" and "dogmatist" (yes, I'm guilty of tossing that one back at you too) aren't winning any points with the logic gods.

Second - it's now clear you mean something different than I have when you talk about the 'morality of war'. Your view was only clarified with:

"And no, the ethics of going into war cannot be reversed. Certainly, the ethics of how the war is *conducted* is always open to question -- but that would have nothing to do with the war's justification and everything to do with whatever those unethical acts are."

You are regarding the goal when going to war as defining its morality. Assuming you regard the end goal of the Iraq war as eliminating the threat of Saddam being in power, then I agree that was, is and will be an ethical end - he personally killed innocent people and ordered thousands others killed, so forfeited not just his right to lead, but his right to life.

However, I had not been regarding that as the 'morality of the war', and thought you meant - as I was using - the morality of the total of means used in execution of the war. I have not been shy about pointing out where initiation of force has taken place in the methods of pursuing the goal of deposing SH. Though most US soldiers (and Iraqi citizens) are good honest people that I want nothing more than to see home safely, individuals aggressing against other innocent individuals in Iraq has happened many times in this war - and it's not unidirectional. The massive confiscation of $ from Americans to fund it is of course also an obvious aggression taking place here. Hence I do not regard the (to be clear) 'morality of the conduct of the war' as noble and good, despite an ethical goal.

Though I don't think you regard unethical means with nearly the gravity I do in this case, I am at least glad to see you recognize that how a war is conducted need not be necessarily ethical even if the goal is.

Post 50

Sunday, April 10, 2005 - 10:53pm

Michael,

Congratulations, you caught me off-guard ...

---------
"unprecedented existence" of recruitment camps. Unprecedented? Are you sure about this? In a country that was know for secrecy in all matters?
---------

No Michael, I am not "sure" about this. I am sure about my sensory-perceptions, logical contradictions, empirical falsifications, and a few dozen axiomatic concepts--the rest is just a best guess.

IF bin Laden REALLY WAS a sworn enemy of the largely secular leader, Saddam; and IF Saddam had tight, tyrannical control of his nation, THEN it stands to reason that few, if any, al Qaeda cells would exist there.

---------
And as to oil profits, there is that "unprecedented" again. How about the 70's? And also, this time around, only Saudi Arabia?
---------

Michael, here is the estimated oil price differences (the 70's and today's) with the time-scale for price increase:

Inflation adjusted: 2000 US$

1972: ~$13 / barrel
1981: ~$59 / barrel
(prices quadrupled in one decade)

1999: ~12 / barrel
2005: ~$58 / barrel
(prices quadrupled in less than a decade--a greater "windfall")

A graph of 1972-1999 can be found at:
http://www.wtrg.com/prices.htm

And yes, my focus WAS on Saudi Arabia--in order to keep the discussion relevant to the task at hand: red-flags, not logical deductions. I do realize that Saudi Arabia is not the only major oil producer besides Iraq.

Michael, please cut me some slack for not having only discussion points that are all 'nice and tidy and correct-to-all-eyes'; and please keep my purpose in your mind when you evaluate my words. I'm not mad, I'm just trying to be "defensive"--in the good way that folks can be defensive.

p.s. I don't disagree with your insights Michael, I just felt that you had mistook mine.

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson
on 4/10, 11:28pm)

Post 51

Sunday, April 10, 2005 - 11:25pm

Further clarification:
Some of you may think I'm deluded (perhaps even unpatriotic?) for having doubts about the war in the first place. Please understand that I'm compelled to follow the evidence to which I've been exposed--and in the best way of which I'm capable.

A look through my eyes:
Political persuasion (through my eyes) has always seemed so different from rational persuasion--and that has always bugged the hell out of me.

The original move on Iraq was more subtle THAN I could defend--at the time.

The Afghanistan war efforts turned into to the Iraq war efforts too smoothly FOR ME to be comfortable about it. It REMINDED ME just too much of Orwell's 1984 (where Oceana had just been "declared" to have always been the enemy).

These initial seeds of doubt, were then fertilized by other similar instances of a statist trend that I could not turn my attention away from.

I know the counter-argument: You'd better god-damned well accept your "statist trend" brother--it's the only thing that has kept you safe from terrorists. I wrestle with it in my mind. All I can do is to tell you how this "match" looks as I perceive and reflect on it.

There are, more or less, hideous folks in the world. Is initiative force the best or only answer? These are the 2 key sentences on this matter--both begging for noncontradictory integration with empirical evidence and knowable trends.

Ed
(Edited by Ed Thompson
on 4/10, 11:32pm)

Post 52

Sunday, April 10, 2005 - 11:53pm

Ed, I won't necessarily think you are deluded unless you actually believe that this *was* an "initiation of force." Do you?

Alec

Post 53

Monday, April 11, 2005 - 1:07am

Alec, the pre-emptive strike on Iraq could've been better justified by placing a more clear ultimatum on Saddam's skirmish around UN resolutions. Something clear and precise would have settled my spirits. Here is how a more perfect scenario would've run--in my mind:

October 2001:
State a precise (2 weeks?) deadline for Iraq to fully comply with all WMD investigators/investigations--at all costs to Iraq.

State a precise outcome of failing to meet the deadline (invasion and overthrow of Saddam's regime).

If the deadline is not met, then invasion proceeds promptly on schedule, and with no concessions.

All financial costs to the US (from this invasion and overthrow) will be recovered from the first few weeks or months of Iraqi oil production--during a "weeks-" or "months-long" occupation of Iraq.

From there on, Iraq will be expected to recover "on its own" from the initial US invasion and overthrow.

A national report will be given out to Iraq:

If a new tyrant takes control after we've left, then the same methods (invasion and overthrow--with the financial costs coming solely out of Iraqi GDP) will be used again; only this time--and every subsequent time to follow--we'll take an additional 10% profit over-and-above the financial costs of the invasion and overthrow.

If they screw up once, then they (their resources) fund our invasion. If they screw up twice, then they increase our individual prosperity and standard of living.

Ed

Post 54

Monday, April 11, 2005 - 1:18am

Ed,

Sorry - it wasn't my intention to catch you off guard. I am not competing with anybody in this discussion. I feel that you are in earnest and was limiting your analyses to too-restrictive premises. I said so - that's all - I wanted to help you think as I like your posts.

Just like you, I live in this world. Forces greater than myself are blowing up parts of it at will and I MOST SURELY want to understand why.

This shit has got to stop.

George Cordero wrote an article on SOLO called One Down, Two to Go, where he stated the following:

... our most important goal has already been more than accomplished. The complete destruction of the military infrastructure of a nation that was in the hands of a man who desired to use it.

More than any other argument I have come across about the Iraq invasion, this is what most echos my deepest thoughts.

Leaders who arm their countries to the teeth, constantly spout off hateful diatribes all the time (the great Satan will burn, etc.) and do all kinds of crazy antics with their weapons must be stopped before they end up doing stupid things like invading a neighboring country, not after.

I do hope that those in the "against" side do not try to proclaim that Saddam Hussein would not want to do anything like that anymore. His acts spoke very loudly to the world over the years. He didn't because he couldn't. That's the only reason.

In Brazil there were several arms manufacturers who constantly supplied Iraq during the embargo. They made oodles of money. A lot of people sure lost a lot of income down there with the fall of this particular dictator. Like Brazil, there were many countries taking Iraq's money to sell it weapons.

All this does not excuse the monkeyshines that some people in key positions on our side have engaged in. Nor does it excuse the piss-poor public relations performance about WMD. There is a whole list of things I could bitch about that we did and are doing wrong. (And I feel strongly that they must be properly addressed.)

But, to repeat from other posts, Hussein was a HERO to the Arab world. He stood up to the great Satan and made it back off once. He inspired the young - and these particular young blow stuff up when they are true believers. On top of that, he was amassing mountains of new toys and was always itching to play with them.

He had to be stopped. America did it. I for one applaud.

That may not be a tidy solution for all aspects, but it sure as hell worked. And I hope America does it again - to other madmen who are doing what Hussein used to do. Once you take away their destructive toys, they will no longer be able to blow up the world at random.

Can you think of a better way than go in and take their weapons from them? I can't.

OK, so now there is still a mess over there to deal with. Well, war is messy. It always has been.

We have some new concepts I have a great deal of difficulty with like "surgical bombing." What the hell is that? I vastly prefer something like "high-precision bombing" - because you are still blowing people up. "Surgical" makes it sound nice and it most certainly isn't.

Maybe, in our modern remote control society where you change the channel when you get bored, people get irritated because there is nothing like "surgical occupation" or whatever that is a lot easier and faster. And there is that holy mess to clean up that is so boring and is taking so long.

Some people even didn't like losing the war and want to do something about it. They are trying as best they can with what little weapons they can muster.

Our side has to contain them (and destroy them if necessary) while the new structures are being put in place. Things are pretty ugly right now and anyway, isn't that strange? They were supposed to wait for the commercial break...

Oh, so we must be wrong then. Right... (change channel)

There is also that "follow the money" thing. Serious decisions made behind closed doors that impact our world strongly - not just because of the aftermath of the war - but using the war as an excuse instead.

But these issues are for another post.

(Dayamm! I sure get long-winded when I get wound up!)

Michael

Post 55

Monday, April 11, 2005 - 4:14am

Michael, you're thinking like me again. I don't know how you do it, but I like it...a lot. *purrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr*

Post 56

Monday, April 11, 2005 - 5:33am

"That may not be a tidy solution for all aspects, but it sure as hell worked. And I hope America does it again - to other madmen who are doing what Hussein used to do. Once you take away their destructive toys, they will no longer be able to blow up the world at random.

Can you think of a better way than go in and take their weapons from them? I can't."

Do you really think that's the right question to ask though? Domestically we don't share leftists' fixation on guns, and we focus on criminals rather than weapons ('guns don't kill people, people kill people'). Even in foreign policy, if the US worried about weapons rather than who controlled them, Russia would still be enemy #1 and any middle eastern nation except Israel or Pakistan wouldn't crack the top 10. A question focusing on the real culprit would be 'Can you think of a better way to take away the madman?'

Post 57

Monday, April 11, 2005 - 9:01am

Michael thanks for the long-winded reply--I agree with most of it, too.

Aaron, as to solutions (tidy or not) I like your view better than Michael's presentation of a view, which could be distilled to:

-------------
Go after and capture (or destroy) scary men, not scary technology.
-------------

A nameless, faceless global war on scary technology (ie. Global Gun Control; GGC) might just have the same effect as the domestic version--more costs, more crime, and delighted, deluded liberals.

Ed

Post 58

Monday, April 11, 2005 - 9:22am

Ed and Aaron:

Ed wrote:

Go after and capture (or destroy) scary men, not scary technology.

Hell, do whatever is needed to get the scary technology away from the scary men who want to use it - take them both out on a case by case method if necessary.

That's what we did in Iraq. Now we just have to clean up the mess.

But there are a bunch of them out there to keep an eye on.

Make no mistake about it - some of them really do want to blow up stuff, including you and me if we happen to be in the neighborhood. I don't want to let them.

Michael

Post 59

Monday, April 11, 2005 - 11:16am