Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Was the U.S. invasion of Iraq a mistake?
Topic Started: Jan 24 2008, 12:02 AM (1,497 Views)
RTW
Member Avatar
Vice Admiral
Minuet
Jan 31 2008, 12:43 PM
In my mind, due to the humanitarian issues, I think it was right. I also think action could have and should have been taken much faster against Hitler back in the 30's.

I see nothing wrong with deposing cruel dictators and the only reason we are having this moral relativism debate is because we are too ambiguous in our morals. We need to stand up strong for what is right. If Bush lied (and I am not saying he did) maybe he did so to convince those who worry more about thier own selfish interests then they do about doing the right moral thing.

:clap: :clap: :clap:

My knees are too sore to hail anymore today.

Could the UN being anyMORE ineffective in this respect? Some sort of world organization should be set up for this purpose - a league of action prone freedom loving nations.

Or perhaps a league of Christian nations?
Posted Image
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ImpulseEngine
Admiral
RTW
Jan 31 2008, 02:06 PM
ImpulseEngine
Jan 31 2008, 11:56 AM
RTW,

You missed the point.

Action: Punching someone.
Contexts:
1) No good reason
2) Self defense
3) Boxing

Does that clarify?

No.

Sorry. :shrug:

Ok, then I'll spell it out.

If someone doesn't like moral relativism, then apparently they subscribe to "if it's wrong at all, then it's always wrong".

My example was meant to say that, by that reasoning, if "punching someone" is wrong then it's always wrong whether it's "for no good reason" or "for self defense" or "for sport, as in boxing".

Therefore, when you said:
Quote:
 
self-defense = "no good reason"?

Boxing, where the point is for two WILLING participants to hit each other = "no good reason"?
that wasn't a reflection of what I was saying at all.

AB's rejection of moral relativism was in contrast to my statement that the circumstances can make all the difference. The example I gave was meant to make it more obvious that circumstances certainly can make a difference. I believe most people would say that punching someone for no good reason is immoral, punching someone in self-defense is morally acceptable, and punching someone for sport in boxing is probably somewhat more ambiguous although generally acceptable. Different circumstances and different moral implications, but all "punching someone".
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here

While you make a good point IE about moral relativism, your example is no where near the subject matter. We aren’t talking about deception for no good reason, vs deception for self defense. The subject matter is to close, too alike to use such an example. The “relativism” between Bush and FDR is to intertwined, to similar to make believe there is such a wide divide as in your punching example.

Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ImpulseEngine
Admiral
There doesn't need to be a wide divide (and I'm not necessarily agreeing that there isn't). They're not identical and so I stand by my point that each situation must be considered individually.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
ImpulseEngine
Feb 1 2008, 10:40 AM
There doesn't need to be a wide divide (and I'm not necessarily agreeing that there isn't).  They're not identical and so I stand by my point that each situation must be considered individually.

You can consider them individually if you like, but the stark similarities would force you to come up with similar conclusions. If you do not come up with similar conclusions you should be obligated to state clearly what makes the two situations different enough to account for the divergence.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Minuet
Member Avatar
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
Quote:
 
Or perhaps a league of Christian nations?


Like the EU? :rolleyes:
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ImpulseEngine
Admiral
Dandandat
Feb 1 2008, 10:52 AM
ImpulseEngine
Feb 1 2008, 10:40 AM
There doesn't need to be a wide divide (and I'm not necessarily agreeing that there isn't).  They're not identical and so I stand by my point that each situation must be considered individually.

You can consider them individually if you like, but the stark similarities would force you to come up with similar conclusions. If you do not come up with similar conclusions you should be obligated to state clearly what makes the two situations different enough to account for the divergence.

They aren't as similar as you would like me to believe. One huge difference is that the President decided to go to war with Iraq while Congress did so for WWII. With Iraq, Congress did approve of entrusting the President with that decision, but that trust included a belief that he would use his discretion wisely. Whether he did or not is arguable, but I wonder if we would have gone to war with Iraq at that time if, in fact, that decision was made by Congress. There were UN inspections still in progress, for example, when the authorization was voted on. Many who voted in favor may have also expected the President to allow that process to complete barring something very unusual - which didn't happen. Those same people, if they were instead voting on actually going to war right then (meaning when Bush chose to), may have voted "no". So the authorization for the President to decide may have made all the difference.

World opinion of us entering the war was different. Other alternatives to war were different. Our already existing military deployments were different. The prevalence and types of WMD in the world was different. The man in the Oval Office was different. Military technology was different. WWII was a pre-existing war before the US got involved; Iraq was not. Intelligence capabilities were different. The state of our economy was different.

Sure, there are some similarities too, but no they aren't so clear-cut as to make it highly likely that conclusions about the two wars would necessarily also be similar.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
ImpulseEngine
Jan 31 2008, 06:32 PM

If someone doesn't like moral relativism, then apparently they subscribe to "if it's wrong at all, then it's always wrong".


I'm someone who dislikes moral relativism because, A does not always equal B. Equating the actions of Saddam Hussein to George Bush is simply distasteful.

Yes, we are and were better than they are. Stop living in denial. We won't think of you as anti-whatever simply because you take a stand.

The example you cited was non sequitor. I would have framed an example more in context instead of illustrating absurdity.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
ImpulseEngine
Feb 1 2008, 11:33 AM
Dandandat
Feb 1 2008, 10:52 AM
ImpulseEngine
Feb 1 2008, 10:40 AM
There doesn't need to be a wide divide (and I'm not necessarily agreeing that there isn't).  They're not identical and so I stand by my point that each situation must be considered individually.

You can consider them individually if you like, but the stark similarities would force you to come up with similar conclusions. If you do not come up with similar conclusions you should be obligated to state clearly what makes the two situations different enough to account for the divergence.

They aren't as similar as you would like me to believe. One huge difference is that the President decided to go to war with Iraq while Congress did so for WWII. With Iraq, Congress did approve of entrusting the President with that decision, but that trust included a belief that he would use his discretion wisely. Whether he did or not is arguable, but I wonder if we would have gone to war with Iraq at that time if, in fact, that decision was made by Congress. There were UN inspections still in progress, for example, when the authorization was voted on. Many who voted in favor may have also expected the President to allow that process to complete barring something very unusual - which didn't happen. Those same people, if they were instead voting on actually going to war right then (meaning when Bush chose to), may have voted "no". So the authorization for the President to decide may have made all the difference.

World opinion of us entering the war was different. Other alternatives to war were different. Our already existing military deployments were different. The prevalence and types of WMD in the world was different. The man in the Oval Office was different. Military technology was different. WWII was a pre-existing war before the US got involved; Iraq was not. Intelligence capabilities were different. The state of our economy was different.

Sure, there are some similarities too, but no they aren't so clear-cut as to make it highly likely that conclusions about the two wars would necessarily also be similar.

You know what Congress thinks, or thought at the time? Okay then...

Quote:
 
Many who voted in favor may have also expected the President to allow that process to complete barring something very unusual


Maybe, maybe not. Who's to know.

I'm pretty certain key members of Congress held the exact same belief at the time in 2001 and 1941. The only difference between 2001 and 1941 is that most of the more recent Congress lacked any leadership qualities, much like today (2008). Instead of thinking, "We're doing the right thing" they immediately sought out pollsters and put their collective fingers into the wind. That's just (to be blunt) ball-less. My judgment is based on their actions of the time.

The problem today's society lacks is the ability to make a decision based on what is right, instead of what is politically correct.

Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ImpulseEngine
Admiral
Admiralbill_gomec
Feb 1 2008, 12:09 PM
ImpulseEngine
Jan 31 2008, 06:32 PM

If someone doesn't like moral relativism, then apparently they subscribe to "if it's wrong at all, then it's always wrong".


I'm someone who dislikes moral relativism because, A does not always equal B.

"A does not always equal B" sounds like support for moral relativism. :headscratch:

Quote:
 
Equating the actions of Saddam Hussein to George Bush is simply distasteful.
If you're saying I did that, then you misunderstood.

Quote:
 
Yes, we are and were better than they are. Stop living in denial. We won't think of you as anti-whatever simply because you take a stand.
Who are "they"? (I'm not being difficult. I honestly don't know who you're talking about. Iraqis? Terrorists?)

Quote:
 
The example you cited was non sequitor. I would have framed an example more in context instead of illustrating absurdity.
Why is it absurd? Simply because you can't deny it's truth? The example you wanted was already given, but judging by your "crapola" comment you didn't see why moral relativism was appropriate there. So you left me no choice but to get away from that to illustrate the point. If you want an elaboration on why it fits the two wars, I just gave one in reply to Dandandat.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ImpulseEngine
Admiral
Admiralbill_gomec
Feb 1 2008, 12:15 PM
You know what Congress thinks, or thought at the time? Okay then...

No I don't and neither do you or anyone else. My point is the only way to know would have been to have Congress declare war at the time Bush decided to invade Iraq. Since that didn't happen, we can't know and so you can't assume that all is equal in both situations - it's just the opposite side of the same coin where you would say we can't assume they are unequal. That, of course, amounts to we can't assume anything and that supports my point that circumstances should be considered individually.

Quote:
 
Quote:
 
Many who voted in favor may have also expected the President to allow that process to complete barring something very unusual


Maybe, maybe not. Who's to know.
Correct. See what I just said above.

Quote:
 
I'm pretty certain key members of Congress held the exact same belief at the time in 2001 and 1941. The only difference between 2001 and 1941 is that most of the more recent Congress lacked any leadership qualities, much like today (2008). Instead of thinking, "We're doing the right thing" they immediately sought out pollsters and put their collective fingers into the wind. That's just (to be blunt) ball-less. My judgment is based on their actions of the time.

The problem today's society lacks is the ability to make a decision based on what is right, instead of what is politically correct.
I disagree. There are simply different views about what's "right".
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
RTW
Member Avatar
Vice Admiral
Admiralbill_gomec
Feb 1 2008, 10:15 AM
The only difference between 2001 and 1941 is that most of the more recent Congress lacked any leadership qualities, much like today (2008). Instead of thinking, "We're doing the right thing" they immediately sought out pollsters and put their collective fingers into the wind.

The problem today's society lacks is the ability to make a decision based on what is right, instead of what is politically correct.

Posted Image
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
ImpulseEngine
Feb 1 2008, 11:33 AM
They aren't as similar as you would like me to believe. One huge difference is that the President decided to go to war with Iraq while Congress did so for WWII. With Iraq, Congress did approve of entrusting the President with that decision, but that trust included a belief that he would use his discretion wisely. Whether he did or not is arguable, but I wonder if we would have gone to war with Iraq at that time if, in fact, that decision was made by Congress. There were UN inspections still in progress, for example, when the authorization was voted on. Many who voted in favor may have also expected the President to allow that process to complete barring something very unusual - which didn't happen. Those same people, if they were instead voting on actually going to war right then (meaning when Bush chose to), may have voted "no". So the authorization for the President to decide may have made all the difference.

Not quite, FDR sought the Congress to approve going to war. But it was he who decided to go to war. It was he who set the stage for the US to enter the war which was ripe with deception. When he went to the congress to approve war, they did. That is the only difference. The current Congress skirted their responsibilities while FDRs congress did their constitutional duty and decided yea (or na) even if it was mearly a rubber stamp.

Besides this point is a bit irrelevant we are discussing the possibly deceptive tactics of president Bush and FDR. What congress did or did not do does not change these actions.


Quote:
 
World opinion of us entering the war was different.


Irrelevant, A US president does not answer to world opinion. He answers to US opinion. The whole world could have wanted FDR to deceive the Americans people, but does not make it right.


Quote:
 
Other alternatives to war were different.


No they weren’t. And that perhaps is the biggest point. The alternatives in WWI and Iraq where parity much the same. Go to war or not. Germany was not a direct threat to the US, they may have been in the future but not then. Same with Iraq. The US could have easily sat out of WWII, who knows what the long term ramifications might have been but it was just as uncertain as letting a Iraq and the middle east going unchallenged.


Quote:
 
Our already existing military deployments were different.


So its ok to deceive the American people based on how it’s military is deployed?

Its not but lets take a look at that any way.

I guess your point is that the US had too few resources to commit to Iraq. That such a lack or resources has lead to problems that should have been taken into consideration?

Well the fact of the matter is that late 1930's America was not the power house it was post WWII. The country was still reeling from the great depression; its famous WWII industrial base was not yet realized. At the start of the war and most certainly when FDR set out to deceive the American people the US did not have the resources to go to war. It was this fact that lead to such a strong opposition to war in the first place.


Quote:
 
The prevalence and types of WMD in the world was different.

Military technology was different.


I fail to see the relevance of these two points. We are talking about the past and the present of course technology is going to be different. Is your point to say that one can never compare the past and the present? Base on this point we don’t even need to have a conversation then.

Quote:
 
The man in the Oval Office was different.


Different how? One was a liberal the other a conceptive. This one I agree with you on, it seems to be the main point of where the moral relativism comes from.

However that doesn’t make it right, it make the arguments biased.


That said, it is in fact my opinion that despite form domestic issues Bush and FDR where every much similar men.


Quote:
 
WWII was a pre-existing war before the US got involved; Iraq was not.  Intelligence capabilities were different. 


Not for the american people it was not.

Quote:
 
The state of our economy was different.


Yes, present economy was well equipped to support a war. 1930's America was not well equip to support a war, they were still recovering from the great depression.



Quote:
 
Sure, there are some similarities too, but no they aren't so clear-cut as to make it highly likely that conclusions about the two wars would necessarily also be similar.



We aren’t talking about the conclusions of the wars. We are talking about deceptive nature of the men who brought the US to war. Whether each war is won or lost is irrelevant. Either the wars where worth fighting or they where not; and even if they where worth fighting we must still ask if it was acceptable to be deceived into fighting them.



Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
Dante brought up something very interesting, and it may be something that IE doesn't know much about (not insulting, just speculating).

This is the first major war fought in 60 years. So, where are the signs at home? Are we growing victory gardens? Is the government spending MORE than 42% of GDP on the war? Where is the rationing? Where are the draft boards? Where are the bond drives? Put bluntly, where is the sacrifice?

The current war's effect on our economy is negligible in comparison.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ImpulseEngine
Admiral
Dan,

Actually, the discussion of deceptive tactics was the other thread, not this one.

This one started out about whether it was a mistake to go to war in Iraq. Within that context, RTW made a post followed by a post by you and then me:

Dandandat
Jan 30 2008, 05:12 PM
RTW
Jan 30 2008, 04:18 PM
Dr. Noah
Jan 30 2008, 06:18 AM
I would prefer our next president be more careful with the lives of people in our armed forces and those of the thousands innocent civilians this mistake has affected.

I agree. FDR threw away about 3,000 American lives on 6/6/44 alone against a country that hadn't attacked us.

It would have been much better for FDR to wait until attacked and then have those men die at home along side their wives and children.

It would appear worse then that, he simple didn’t through those lives away on a war that didn’t involve the US. He deceptively mislead those men and their families.


ImpulseEngine
Jan 30 2008, 05:19 PM
Sorry guys, but that logic doesn't work.  If it did, then the President could deceive people tomorrow into thinking there was valid cause to invade Canada, and if by some minuscule chance, he actually succeeded and we invaded Canada, would you then cite FDR's move as evidence that the deception or aggressive approach was acceptable in that case?

It can be acceptable in one circumstance, but not another.


So that brought us to a discussion of whether one deception can be viewed as acceptable when the other is not. That's what we were discussing. (For the record, I find both to be unacceptable which is what I said in the other thread, but that's not what we were discussing.) My point was that the circumstances surrounding each are quite different and so I disagree with the notion that just because one is viewed as acceptable or unacceptable that the other would have to be viewed the same.

I gave a list of factors that make a lot of difference.

You say world opinion is irrelevant. I disagree. In either case, when the President's decided to deceive, the consequences of making the wrong choice on behalf of the entire US population had to be considered. Had either been wrong, damage to our world reputation would have been cited among the list of reasons for why the deception was wrong - as it has been by those who believe Bush has been wrong. With FDR, there wasn't the same dissent in the world about our decision to enter the war (we had been attacked by Japan after all) so the risk concerning world opinion wasn't as great. With Bush, world dissent was wide.

Alternatives to war were more than just entering or not entering at least in Bush's case. His objective was to combat terrorism and to eliminate Saddam as a threat within that context. War wasn't the only alternative to accomplish that. Even in choosing war, he could have finished the inspection process first, garnered further world support, took the time to provide proper armor to the military, and therefore entered that war in a far stronger position than he did. He chose to deceive the public into thinking that we just couldn't wait when that was far from clear. Maybe he was right not to take a chance, but that' not what I'm discussing. The point is those factors need to be considered in an evaluation of the moral acceptability of the deception. And, for Bush, it's not just whether he was right in taking us to war, but whether he was right in how he took us to war. For FDR, these factors weren't even part of the picture.

WMD: There were no nuclear weapons when we entered WWII. Going to war against Iraq, who was supposedly actively working on developing WMD, opened the risk that one could actually be launched at us or at another country. Being wrong about a decision to go to war with Iraq, therefore, had potentially much graver consequences than being wrong about entering WWII; which is then another factor that could change whether the deception could be viewed as acceptable in either case.

I'm not going to go back through every difference I previously listed. The point is some might say there are times when a President would justifiably deceive based upon not being able to reveal top secret information. But, as the potential bad consequences of a decision grow, I think that our right to know increases and at some point reaches a level of the deception not being acceptable anymore. I'm arguing that there are enough significant differences with the circumstances of both wars that the potential bad consequences are at different levels. Therefore, they must be assessed independently.

One other comment. The order of events immediately preceding our involvement in WWII were Pearl Harbor; FDR asked Congress to declare war on Japan; Germany and Italy declared war on the US; then Congress declared war on Germany and Italy. So your refutation of my statement that Congress declared war in WWII is incorrect.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Tweet
comments powered by Disqus