Conservative Donnybrook

I suggest that whether or not one agrees with how the Iraq War was handled or how one views the aims of the war, that it was legally authorized by an Act of Congress.  Furthermore, removing Saddam from tyranny was a just and right cause.

Now, what say you?

Be Sociable, Share!

• 

• Tweet

• Law and Morality , The War(s)
• Comments(2)

Comments Closed

2 Responses

1. Dean Says:
   January 14th, 2013 at 5:57 pm

   If removing Hussein {a polite way of saying obliterate a country, kill hundreds of thousands, install a new Muslim government} was just and right, it would seem to me that it would be even more imperative to depose the imperialistic regime that put him in power and supported his brutality with arms and money during his tenure.

2. Bill Says:
   January 14th, 2013 at 8:26 pm

   The problem with both Mike and Karl’s posts and responses is that I have not here nor on Karl’s hijacked Facebook post, defended the invasion of Iraq as just. Karl writes “Bill’s argument appears to be that the invasion of Iraq for the purpose of regime change is justified because Saddam Hussein was a bad guy. Specifically, he writes, ‘Saddam was a sadistic tyrant. The only way to prevent him from killing more of his own people and others in the region was to depose him.’” But then Karl leaves off the very next sentence of my response which reads “I wish a surgical strike or a single bullet had been employed rather than a full scale invasion. As it were, a more robust and flawed war was settled upon. I certainly admit that the ends do not justify the means. But as a morally justified matter removing Saddam can hardly be called into question.” Emphasis added. So, while I stand by my assertion that the “war” was legal, the invasion was unwise and damaging. Again, removing Saddam from power was the just thing to do, the means employed were not.
   Karl then makes a troubling statement. “This statement presumes that it is the role of the United States to intervene in the affairs of other countries when we determine that their leaders are acting tyrannically. I find this assumption dubious and dangerous. I would hope that some more immediate threat to the United States itself would be required before our sons are sent into battle.” I assume Mike agrees but I do not. I suggest that when a murder has a knife to another’s throat it is certainly justifiable for an able stranger to come to the victim’s aid.
   Think of it this way. An able stranger is walking down the street when he notices another man (call him the tyrant) brutally beating his son and daughter. The tyrant has a knife and is ready to kill the children should they displease him again. At any rate, he continues to savagely beat them. The able stranger has the means (a gun) to not only stop the beating but to end the threat of death from the tyrant’s knife without much of a threat to himself or his own family. I suggest that the able stranger is 100% justified in killing the tyrant. I am not and have not suggested that the able stranger is justified in killing the daughter so long as he also kills the tyrant and saves the son. I am, however, suggesting that the independent act of killing the tyrant is morally just under the circumstances. It does not matter, in this circumstance, if the son and daughter may be beat again and possibly even killed by another family member (or, as the case may be, their own hands). Of course this would be regrettable. However, in that instance on the street, as the tyrant held the knife and savagely beat his children, his death was not only fair but 100% just.

   I recognize that we, as a nation, cannot and should not send a bullet through the thought box of every sadistic tyrant. But when the opportunity arises to save people from a mad man, even especially one that our nation helped to power, it is always justifiable to do so.