US Intervention - Moral Responsibility?

[ParanoiA]

When you say "intervention" in the thread title' date=' do you distinguish between dropping bombs and dropping food?

 

 

If I wasn't clear, or you sensed my comments were counter to your stance, then that's my fault for presenting too concisely. Mea Culpa.[/quote']

 

Yes, I guess I could see a difference. I wanted to say, no, no difference, but in reality one could make an argument that helping nations with mercy services and supplies is itself a kind of national security - securing a positive image in the event an alliance is necessary for some threat. But, militarily, certainly no.

 

I guess I just misunderstood you, sorry. Sometimes I'm just thick like that...

[someguy]

In my opinion what really we need to do is merge all the countries together. we can have different laws, but that's it, everything else is the same. offensive weapons should be illegal except for one world army that can be called upon.

 

sure if the us wants to send aid in the form of food supplies, or possibly even perhaps knowledge/propaganda, but i don't know about that one, that's ok but anything else is not for the US to say. sure we can sit here and say that clearly it is wrong that saddam hussein led the country in a dictatorship and clearly dictatorships are wrong, but it is not for anyone else to say. jsut like it is not for bin laden and his crew to try to make us convert to islam because clearly our way of life is wrong.

 

basically, if you believe the us was justified in invading iraq then you must also believe the islamist terrorists were right in destroying the World Trade Center. the only way you can only believe in one of those statements is by saying that the american way is right and the islamist way is wrong, and that's what wars are made of, and puts the terrorist and americans on the same level except for how much money they have, how much land they have and how many people belong to their belief system.

 

you could even try to justify to me why the US way is right and the Islamist way is wrong, even if i agreed with you (just for the record i think they are both wrong) that would not give the US the authority to decide what is right and what is wrong and then act upon it.

 

i guess then in short is that my opinion is that it is the moral responsibility of the US, even by its own morals, is to leave other countries do whatever they want unless it directly puts the US at risk. and that's why the whole thing of nuclear arms happened, even though the US had no evidence. but then politricks is the american way, this type of thing is common in their history. that's why i think only the world army should have offensive weapons. defense should never take place on enemy territory unless a third impartial party can be proven to that it is necessary.

 

Karl Marx once said something to the effect of: in every war both parties are always fighting for freedom. so then isn't freedom such a stupid reason for war, unless of course it is on your land. score one for saddam hussein and negative one for bush and company.

[Pangloss]

In my opinion what really we need to do is merge all the countries together. we can have different laws, but that's it, everything else is the same. offensive weapons should be illegal except for one world army that can be called upon.

 

Someguy, you seem to be saying that all countries should be forced to "merge together", and do things your way -- complete with your own "world army". That's an interesting point of view. I'm not sure but it seems to me that I've read it somewhere before.

 

Just out of idle curiosity, in what way do you feel that you differ from President Bush?