Quote:Quote:
And I am stating that the United States government does not agree with you and never has. Thus, when citing your particular views on this matter it would be wise of you not to link them to US government actions (i.e. The Iraq War, "Saddam was a terrible dictator", etc) or try to use them to justify said actions.
They should be kept entirely separate.
Im not talking about nor refereeing to the US and its foreign policy. Im talking about right and wrong and justice. Has nothing to do with ANY country and its foreign policy.
Quote:Quote:
In this thread, you and others have been discussing the Iraq War, its justification ("Saddam was a brutal dictator") and its effects(i.e. were the military casualties worth it, "died for nothing", etc). We are also discussing the merits of an ethical foreign policy in this context.
Such a discussion is inexorably linked to the topic of US Foreign Policy (which is the dominant influence worldwide), and stems directly from it. It is entirely relevant.
It depends on the context & premise of someones statements. In my case, they had nothing to do with the US policy. I cant speak for the other posters though. You are making the jump and trying to link my statements with the US, and also saying I cant make claims separately from US policy. That is simply false, and is just some strange opinion of yours.
Quote:Quote:
The core of this topic relates to a discussion about the Iraq War and the US military (several of its veterans being participants in this thread) and is therefore inexorably linked to the realm of US Foreign policy. Your musings about the merits of an ethical foreign policy stem directly from a discussion about the Iraq War and the US military, in which the OP serves.
There is no relative discord here, especially when you also consider the fact that the United States is the world's dominant economic, military and political power, with there being no close second at the moment (not even China). Since America largely dictates the course of world geo-politics, any discussion of a global, international ethical foreign policy (which you have suggested with your statements about a "bi-national committee", and the like) would largely be dominated by American foreign policy and its influences.
In other words, when you mention an "international effort" and claim not to specifically be talking about the United States, but "people", you are in fact talking about the United States. This is a unipolar world, and America is at its geo-political center. There is no separating the United States from a topic like this-the world goes as the USA goes.
The core of this topic may very well be about the Iraq War, but that has no bearings on my statements alone. Im speaking hypothetically in a black and white sense of right and wrong, along with punishment & justice.
Quote:Quote:
"Justice and principle" do not guide geo-political conduct. All of the evidence points to the contrary.
So there is one be all end all geo-political conduct / guide? Even if that were true, which it aint, doesnt change the merit of my premise. Ethnic genocide is wrong. No one has the right to kill innocent people. So by principle ALONE this is grounds for retribution which can be dealt with in a number ways not solely war.
Quote:Quote:
This is actually a fact, but it is geo-politically irrelevant.
Once again, im not making all these assumptions as you are and jumping to sweeping generalizations. It wouldnt be geo-political irrelevant in a right and wrong sense. Not sure why you are trying to install some end all be all geo-political policy.
Quote:Quote:
I did not claim that Saddam's actions did not constitute war. I questioned the use of Saddam Hussein's actions as justification for war. Given the factual backing I have provided, this is not an opinion-the US does not follow an ethical foreign policy, and thus Saddam's actions should not necessarily be considered justification for war in and of themselves.
There is a very big difference between what I actually said and how you have re-written it.
You said and I quote "Not rational justification for any major conflict". This was in reference to my post about Sadam and ethnic genocide. Like I have said previously, my comment had nothing to do with WHY the US went to war. Simply that those actions merited war. Nothing more nothing less. I didnt re-write nothing sir.
Quote:Quote:
Such a committee would be useless. Moral concerns have no force in the realm of geo-politics, and any committee/organization dedicated to enforcing them will have no real influence. It will be a "feel good force" with little practical effectiveness, much like the current UN.
Even in the event of the rise of such a committee, you could expect American foreign policy (the most dominant global influence worldwide) to be the guiding light and, as we've discussed, American foreign policy (like those of nearly all other sovereign states) is amoral.
Here again this is your opinion. A stupid one at that. So let me get this straight. The committee learns about ethnic genocide being done in Africa. Deploys troops and removes dictator from said country stopping the ethnic cleansing. That is USELESS??!?!? I dont think soo.
Also you are making the assumption and jump that American policy WOULD guide / lead such a committee.
Im gonna assume you are CONFUSED on what type of committee im talking about. My committee has nothing to do with anyones foreign policy. It is all about right and wrong. Ensuring peoples freedom, and right to life. Everyone in this world should be entitled to freedom and life. Nothing to do with any geo-political agenda or foreign policy.
Quote:Quote:
1. This is a very arrogant argument to make. You just finished suggesting the creation of a very tolerant international committee, one that promotes "freedom" regardless of where or who you are.
By that same token, people do have a right to live as they please and as their own cultures dictate without your forcing change with your "highly thought out" agenda designed to get them all to look like you. Your plan is inherently intolerant.
2. I see no evidence that other parts of the world can be turned into the West. Even today, many former colonies of European empires remain fundamentally different in a socio-cultural sense from their former overlords, and that is in spite of a very concerted economic and missionary effort to force change (an effort quite similar to the one you are proposing, one that involved highly thought out plans and the confrontation of native agendas).
3. I doubt that the West has the resources and/or strength needed to embark upon such a world-changing effort, and the motivation within the west for the maintenance of such an effort appears to be waning as well.
Your theories do not appear feasible.
Here again I feel you are misinterpreting my statements. How does my theory not include freedom?
The plan / agenda im talking about is SOLELY for maintaining peace and order. Not controlling the people in any political or social context.
They could go back to a dictatorship, if they want. Only thing is the dictator would have to operate in a morally correct manner. IE no innocent killing of its people, no un-just oppression. Pretty much he needs to operate in the capacity that he was meant to operate per the people of said country.
My theory is more than feasible, and is the only solution at the moment to restoring peace and order in the Middle East.
Enjoying this debate. Stimulates my mind. Which is good being out of school and all for 2 years haha.