06-19-2003, 12:15 AM
I think you missed my point, so I will try again. First, a recapitulation of the original item to which I responded:
What I most object to here is the idea that the US and Saddam Hussein's Iraq were morally equivalent. Governments derive their powers from the consent of the governed, and in my humble opinion any gov't not so constituted is fundamentally illegitimate. (THIS IS NOT my full political theory, that would be off topic.) Any country in the world had the MORAL right to invade Saddam Hussein's Iraq (but not an obligation), because Saddam had no rights at all. I don't understand how the US is somehow less moral because it is well armed. Certainly how those arms are used counts, or in other words consequnces matter in moral judgements. Disagreements?
Agent Orange was an herbicide. Chemical warfare against plants doesn't count because plants, being non-human, don't have human rights. Certainly Agent Orange ended up killing and maiming people too, but that wasn't known or intended to happen at the time, and was far too slow and inefficient at causing harm to people to be considered a chemical weapon in the same way as, say, mustard gas is considered a weapon. In researching this post, I found that the US is signatory to the 1992 Chemical Weapons Convention as of 1997. I hope that means the Agent Orange scenario won't happen again, because consequences matter and I don't want to see those consequences repeated.
And now for the last part:
I was just being facetious there, cleverly changing a few words to turn around the quote and direct it back the other way. If it is not a defensible sentiment in America, does it somehow become defensible when it is in the mid-east? From a slightly different angle, have America's actions in Afghanistan and Iraq been morally equivalent to Al-Quada's attacks on America? Should America refain from acting to defend itself merely because of a negative world opinion? I say no, and no, and again no.
Growler
Quote:3. And even if Iraq did have WMD, the US have no moral right to invade on those grounds because the US have FAR MORE WMD than any other country in the world (and even used them, like in Hiroshima). You can invade on whatever reason you want, except that one. That's just calling everyone else an imbecille.
What I most object to here is the idea that the US and Saddam Hussein's Iraq were morally equivalent. Governments derive their powers from the consent of the governed, and in my humble opinion any gov't not so constituted is fundamentally illegitimate. (THIS IS NOT my full political theory, that would be off topic.) Any country in the world had the MORAL right to invade Saddam Hussein's Iraq (but not an obligation), because Saddam had no rights at all. I don't understand how the US is somehow less moral because it is well armed. Certainly how those arms are used counts, or in other words consequnces matter in moral judgements. Disagreements?
Agent Orange was an herbicide. Chemical warfare against plants doesn't count because plants, being non-human, don't have human rights. Certainly Agent Orange ended up killing and maiming people too, but that wasn't known or intended to happen at the time, and was far too slow and inefficient at causing harm to people to be considered a chemical weapon in the same way as, say, mustard gas is considered a weapon. In researching this post, I found that the US is signatory to the 1992 Chemical Weapons Convention as of 1997. I hope that means the Agent Orange scenario won't happen again, because consequences matter and I don't want to see those consequences repeated.
And now for the last part:
Quote:Okay, the shade of your neck is showing. Grow up and consider that those are real people over there, most of whom have no real idea of a.) what is going on in the world and b.) why those who hate America feel the way that they do. Of course, your reasons for hating them seem equally justified. Unfortunately, BS like that gives them a damn fine reason to feel the way that they do, while your ideas are based more on some tenuous notion of "freedom".
I was just being facetious there, cleverly changing a few words to turn around the quote and direct it back the other way. If it is not a defensible sentiment in America, does it somehow become defensible when it is in the mid-east? From a slightly different angle, have America's actions in Afghanistan and Iraq been morally equivalent to Al-Quada's attacks on America? Should America refain from acting to defend itself merely because of a negative world opinion? I say no, and no, and again no.
Growler