The political theory argument makes some assumptions though doesn't it. Like that there is some "right" or "wrong" I'm not saying something is "right or "wrong" I'm only stating my opinions. Well, what makes you think OUR WAY is "right" and that theirs is "wrong." What further makes you think our form of gov't is more stable, less corrupt, better, and will continue indefinitely. I fear history shows otherwise. Freedom, and aleged "democracy" are anomolies in history, not the general rule. And to believe that this will continue indefinitely, through out the rest of time, is foolishness. Sure, we disagree with this form a gov't NOW, but what makes you think ours will last "forever" thats a long time! So what happens when we give up on "freedom" here. Should people have the right to liberate our people from "tyrany." Ok, by that time, we could be potentially unchallenged, and "unstoppable" (assuming the Bush dotrine is implemented sucessfully), but who knows, what if it is china, the Europe (the EU) or some other state is THE sole super power buy then. Do they have the right to liberate us because they don't like our form of gov't, or our leaders. What if the people dont' complain, what if they do? What akes it right? I don't know to be honest, I only have my opinions, I don't pretend there is some absolute "right" and "wrong." We don't live in a fundementalist religous state. For OUR PEOPLE "right" and "wrong" are relative terms, based on precedent and personal belief. The same isn't true for the people in question though, is it. Well, anyway, one could still argue that their beliefs and religions in which their belief systems are based are invalid, and false, thus still for the world as a whole, there is no "right" and "wrong," and such terms can never exist with any absolute meaning. Then one could assume that one could do as one wishes in setting new precedents for what is "right" and "wrong," in effect creating a new "political theory," a new system of "rules" new laws, and a new "right, and a new "wrong." Meaning it would be "right" to overthrow leaders we don't approve of, and "wrong" to let them "tourture" their people, and in prison them under a regieme we disaprove of. Nevermind the fact that to overthrow these regimes, to "save the people" we must kill a significant portion of them in the process. Sure, we are helping them, we did a marvelous job in Kosovo. What did they need briges for anyway, what about other infrastructure? What about the lives taken but the liberators? We helped them, sure we did. I'm sure they are all overjoyed to be liberated from "tyranny." Yes, they are certainly better off than they were before, as the Iraqis don't doubt will be as well, huh. Yeah, I know, gotta break a few eggs to make an omelett huh. Is that what you are thinking. You must tear down before you rebuild, is that what you are thinking. Well, remember that one day when the tides are turned, and with the passage of time the rebublic disapears here, because in all probability it will, eventually. YOu can of course rely quite well on that old history repeating argument. Of course, this still leaves us with no "right" or "wrong" doesn't it. A new precedent can change what is established in the future can't it? Well, everythying is arbitrary. I realize that. I don't pretend to have answers, I only have QUESTIONS, as you should!!! Don't assume because it was taught, because a harvard man or a yale man said it, it must be "true" or "right." Things in life are relative, there are no absolutes, and NOTHING is so simple as people would like it to appear. Of course, if people, or more importantly the media, or our leaders wanted to fully develop the argument, they might confuse people, overwhelm them, and make the issue more divisive. WE wouldn't want that would we? Of course not, our saftety is at issue, and that is ALL that is at issue here. The "right" or "wrong" of it is irrelevent. Isn't it?
My question to you, is simple. Is it ok to kill the people to liberate them? Assuming you are correct, that its "right" to overthrow dictatorships, and install "democracies" of course "democracies" friendly to our interests no doubt, what about the loss of human life? Is it right to kill people destroy their homes, their bridges, their power generating plants, infrastruture in general, criple their ecomonies for decades, destroy families, and later impose our will on these same people indirectly through the new "democratically elected gov't." Most times these countries revert anyway, you realize that right. Most times it ends up with a worse gov't than it had before, and with a large portion of the population hating the west, and in particular the US. But nevertheless, do you still think its worth it?
Assuming you can change, and shape and mold "right" and "wrong" to the image you choose, doesn't still seem like something so wonderful as you pretend it to be?
Its just a question for you, I have no answers to this, only questions, as should you! Don't take things at face value, even if we can legitimize something, there is still the issue of should we do something, even if we KNOW we can? Of course, "right" or "wrong" we can do whatever we wish, just ask bush. We will continue to reshape and rewrite international law as it suits us, and who will oppose us, but you have it ask if its worth it. Just the end result justify the means. I don't think there is a question, if you try hard enough to defend or justify any argument, if you have enough scholars working on it, you will find your justification, no matter what the cause. I'm quite confident of that. The only question is, "is it worth it."
Now, if the question is "is it worth it to protect the US from Iraq," I would say sure you can argue that quite sucessfully. However, if you argument is that he is a dictator, and that we are trying to help the people, I think you will find more difficulty. Further, if you put it this way, that we would rather kill Iraqis today, than take the chance that some Iraqis may kill us tomorrow, I think you have some trouble with your arguement don't you. That assumes an ameican is worth more than an iraqi, and that we are better than them, now doesn't it? Am I wrong? Explain to me how I'm wrong please?
