The lack of a battle is not the presence of peace... I can't help but think that what the US is doing in Iraq is not freeing people (you can't coerce people to be free, that's contradictory), and it's not creating "peace", it's merely suppressing the battles, which isn't necessarily good and wont last.
Instead of ending the hatred, the factions and separation through consentual education and example, we have simply introduced a new faction capable of suppressing the others. It's an illusion of peace at best, which isn't any good at all. The way I see it, before, at least people KNEW who their enemy was. Now they have a new one that's in the guise of being "good".
So, really, in Iraq, all we've done is replaced a known enemy (the violence, the fighting, the tyrannical government), with an unknown enemy (the new government, viewed as good by many, especially here in the US, which will inevitably end up horrible, suppressive, socialistic, and ultimately tyrannical). How is this not WORSE? For example... Not very good education before, right? So lets say the US invades and they set up a new government with an education system. That's a GOOD thing, right? Has it been a good thing in the US? Why do people think it will be any better there?
Righteous government, or the righteous lack thereof, is not the producer of a righteous society, it is the product of one.
You can't have my guns, but I'd be glad to give you my bullets...
You have described the problem well. Chances are once we are gone or mostly gone from Iraq and Afghanistan they will fall into fighting among themselves, more than they already are, to gain control and form a new tyrannical government.
Government education only teaches enough to be useful servents of the government and to love and not question the very government that educated them.
These problems are why Washington, Jefferson, and Madison with others said we should not get involved with the politics of foreign countries, and we should not get into any permenant alliances with any foreign country or system. Iraq and any other country will only be free if the people there decide they will not have a tyrannical government over them which is something the US, as a whole, has appearantly forgot.
thepaintballer45:The lack of a battle is not the presence of peace... I can't help but think that what the US is doing in Iraq is not freeing people (you can't coerce people to be free, that's contradictory), and it's not creating "peace", it's merely suppressing the battles, which isn't necessarily good and wont last.
Anything involuntary cannot be described as less than coercion. What the US military is doing in Iraq is illegal and immoral. It has been since day 1.
There is no need to look at the consequences. Utilitarian arguments are just a "pragmatic" veneer on the obvious facts.
liberty student: Anything involuntary cannot be described as less than coercion.
Anything involuntary cannot be described as less than coercion.
If what's going on in Iraq is involuntary, then what's going on in the US? We are all involuntarily forced to follow rules and laws that none of us had a say in. Do kids have the choice of attending school these days? Even as a homeschooling parent, you're supposed to report it to the state. Maybe we are freeing the Iraqis - making them just as free as us.
And of course they'll continue with their old ways once the US/UN/NATO leaves. Their problems are rooted in religion and those problems will never go away. It's a belief system and people will fight and die for their beliefs. So let them continue to fight and die on their terms, on their land, without the US poking its nose into business it doesn't understand.
evelyn:And of course they'll continue with their old ways once the US/UN/NATO leaves. Their problems are rooted in religion and those problems will never go away. It's a belief system and people will fight and die for their beliefs. So let them continue to fight and die on their terms, on their land, without the US poking its nose into business it doesn't understand.
Iraq was a secular dictatorship before America invaded. Saddam was not a religious man.
Iraq had the best health care system in the middle east, and women were able to get high level educations and work as professionals.
This is the problem with the invasion, even if one is a statist. Americans don't know a damn thing about the people they attack, let alone how to find the country on a map. It's such casual, callous murder. Absolutely sickening. Then some have the gall to cry about an attack on 9/11, when America was contributing with the UN to starve 500,000 Iraqi children to death in the 90s.
And then astoundingly, these people wonder why they are the focus of terrorism.
Unless the people of the US make a drastic change, they will never be "out of Iraq". We have military bases all over the world. We had military bases in Iraq long before the war started, and if the Gov. has their way, we'll have bases there forever.
"There is peace in dungeons."
-Jean-Jacques Rousseau
Austrian Theory of the Business Cycle in 9 steps (Soliciting comments)
liberty student: Utilitarian arguments are just a "pragmatic" veneer on the obvious facts.
Indeed, and moreover:
(a) There is no way of measuring utility; it is ordinal rather than cardinal(b) There is no way of discovering subjective valuations, even if they could be measured
Utilitarianism is just about the most ridiculous thing ever when applied as a supposed practical moral system.
The difference between libertarianism and socialism is that libertarians will tolerate the existence of a socialist community, but socialists can't tolerate a libertarian community.
liberty student: Iraq had the best health care system in the middle east, and women were able to get high level educations and work as professionals.
Do you have citations for this? I don't doubt you, but I could use them.
Not sure how we got onto Utilitarianism... I didn't mean to sound as if I suggested or supported it.