Kant and Mill in Baghdad

The American Prospect ^ | Issue Date: 6.1.03 | John B. Judis

[Paleo Conservative]

The American Prospect ^ | Issue Date: 6.1.03 | John B. Judis

Why should we believe Judis?

[Jolly Rodgers]

You shouldn't believe anybody. You should think for yourself based on as much input as you can gather from as varied sources as are available.

[Consort]

Prior to the war, the United States failed to produce compelling evidence of Iraqi WMD or ties to al-Qaeda.

The a priori existence of WMD is what pre-emption is based on. That's the absolute reality and ontological premise of the Bush Doctrine.

[Jolly Rodgers]

The a priori existence of WMD is what pre-emption is based on.

Iraq never did possess WMD. The did possess chemical weapons at one point in history, and they did have an active biological research program. That was all prior to Desert Storm. Those materials and programs were subsequently destroyed, as evidenced by the current lack of their existence. Their only true WMD program was bombed by Israel many years ago and has never been reconstituted. The remnants were tagged and bagged and under continuing inspection by the UN.

So, to claim a priori as the justification is to confess having waged war on a false and immoral assumption.

[lib-r-teri-ann]

oh puh-lease. Saying they had WMD was simple political cover. A completely legit tactic. The real issue is that they might have developed nukes in the future - hence Iraq had to be taken down. And hence Iran will have to follow. It's too late for N Korea - that genie is already out of the bottle.

[Jolly Rodgers]

I thought libertarians were supposed to adhere to the Non-Aggression Principle?

[Consort]

So, to claim a priori as the justification is to confess having waged war on a false and immoral assumption.

Wrong. Like I said, it was pre-emption if he hadn't yet acquired WMD. Additionally, it was prevention if he had them already and we didn't give him the chance to use them. Also, it was moral to take him out on non-WMD grounds and strictly on humanitarian grounds. That's the way it is. Kant you underestand that?

[kesg]

When a leftie says that our foreign policy is not Kantian enough, we must be doing something right.

[Jolly Rodgers]

Also, it was moral to take him out on non-WMD grounds and strictly on humanitarian grounds.

I suppose if you evade the humanitarian disaster that we are directly responsible for, then you might be able to convince yourself to believe that for a while.

[Jolly Rodgers]

When a leftie says that our foreign policy is not Kantian enough, we must be doing something right.

Why would you delegate your opinion of right and wrong to the opinion of someone you don't like? That leaves you open to be manipulated from all sides, with nary a cognitive thread of your own to hold firm.

[pfflier]

Can the morality of our actions -- whether as individuals or nations -- be judged simply by the eventual results?

The answer is a resounding YES!!

20th century history is full of genocide resulting from the lack of action from "moral" nations. The UN created Israel as a direct result of the post war guilt over inaction against German persecution and genocide. Who can forget the horrors of communism, the Stalin purges which may have exceeded the Holocost in actual victims, the killing field of Pol Pot's Cambodia and China's "agricultural reform"?

In fact the question isn't whether we were right, it is "Why isn't the UN or some other country doing more to stop immorality like what is happening in the Congo right now"?

[Consort]

Jolly, just what humanitarian disaster are you alluding to?

I've been following what's going on there along with all the atrocities they are finding from the Saddam regime that you are defending. Don't confuse the chaos of new-found freedom with the controlled tyranny of what prevailed in the regime you miss so much. Your guy lost.

[Jolly Rodgers]

I do not share your delusion of grandeur for ruling the world.

[Jolly Rodgers]

I've been following what's going on there along with all the atrocities they are finding from the Saddam regime that you are defending. Don't confuse the chaos of new-found freedom with the controlled tyranny of what prevailed in the regime you miss so much. Your guy lost.

Nice try at the smear, but it only gets traction from the embiciles. I have not defended Saddam, nor is he "my guy." The fact that you are forced to stoop to such dishonest tactics is strong evidence that you know your position is immoral. Don't try to hide behind ad-hominem.

[Consort]

Well then, who is your guy? What are you defending? You didn't make either clear. What is you solution, or are you just anti-Bush or possibly anti-American? What are you for?

[kesg]

"When a leftie says that our foreign policy is not Kantian enough, we must be doing something right."

Why would you delegate your opinion of right and wrong to the opinion of someone you don't like? That leaves you open to be manipulated from all sides, with nary a cognitive thread of your own to hold firm.

You have totally lost me. Either that, or you have totally misunderstood me if you think that's what I am doing here.

[secretagent]

The article fails to mention another justification for invasion: Iraq stood in violation the its agreement to provide full disclosure of its WMD programs.

The Desert Storm coalition ceased fire based on that agreement, and the US and Britain resumed fire based on Iraq's violation of that agreement.