Hi Everyone:

Given the concerns about the US involvement in Iraq etc, do you think that the US should intervene in the internal affairs of sovereign nations.

I suppose that I should declare my opinion first. The US should only intervene to stop the mass murder of civilians. To this end, allow me to thank those of you in the US for caring enough to intervene in this regard. I realize that the US is not obligated to save the lives of people of other nations, and you have not intervened in all countries that desperately needed military intervention, but thank you for when you have intervened.

I believe that nations should not interfere with the internal affairs of other nations, and should respect their sovereignty and territorial integrity. I do not believe that any nation has the right to violate another nation’s sovereignty in order to bring relief to citizens suffering under a leader who is corrupt, and has mismanaged the country’s finances and social services. That is an internal matter for the citizens to resolve. However, some leaders see their citizens as their property, to torture and murder at will.

When leaders begin to mass murder their citizens, then those leaders should become illegitimate and the United Nations should remove them. Unfortunately, the United Nations is not effective at removing despots, so generations of people continue to suffer.

Human beings are not property, as African slaves were legally defined some 200 years ago. All human beings are our brothers and sisters, and they are not somehow less valuable just because they have the misfortune of living under an oppressive regime. Every oppressed person has the right to expect to be liberated.

Well, that is my opinion, what is yours?

Brotherska, first I got a shock when i read the title of your post, something like "What! Are they at it again!"

Then it seemed that you were thanking the US for their humanitarian military intervertions, and I thought this was was satire, like Voltaire.

But you're really serious.

The the sentence that changes everything:

The US should only intervene to stop the mass murder of civilians.

This to me means thay would never do interventions at all.

I'm sorry to say, but very few countries ever undertake military interventions for the sake of saving humanity . What works is things like national interests, oil, etc...

Perhaps the US have done more humanitarian interventions than other countries (who have done next to nothing) but then it is difficult to assess US behaviour abroad after 8 years of irresponsible Bush administration.

How do you weigh the good and the bad that has been done in Irak (from the point of view of the Irakis. One Iraki man was asked that question a few weeks ago on TV and he said that on balance they were as unhappy now after several years of US intervention that they had been under Saddam.

If you think of the "good" military interventions you have to put the bad into the balance as well (Vietnam, South America...).

The two world wars would classify as "humanitarian help" i think (but then why did the leaders really make the decisions?)

I realize that the US is not obligated to save the lives of people of other nations, and you have not intervened in all countries that desperately needed military intervention, but thank you for when you have intervened.

You probably know more than I do-- I don't know many examples where thanks are due, again after the two world wars.
The one example I know of the US-led war against Serbia with NATO help.
That was selfless (I think). There was no oil, nothing to be gained. The Europeans, for once, also did their duty to the oppressed, but that was only after years of watching atrocitities and doing nothing-- so we can't feel all too proud of ourselves.
In Serbia the US led the type of humanitarian intervention that they like to do do: bombing from the air. The Kosovars and other minority groups had to learn to dodge the bombs of their liberators, to risk their lives to go to work everyday, taking the brige, wondering whether today was the day the Americans would bomb the bridge.

Then, in the end, when the military operations had ened, Milosevisc was still in power, and the Americans did something I thought was very clever:
they say they would pay to rebuild everything they had bombed IF the Serbs replaced Milosevisc. And it worked. The Serbs suddendly decided they they were fed up with "Slovo". I don't remember the details, but in the end they put enough pressure on him and he left.

To conclude, I think it will remain to the everlasting shame of the Bush adminstration that so many countries were suspicious and angry at the US for 8 years, including their own allies.

Thankfully Obama is at the helm now, and we are beginning to build relations of trust with the US that should never have been interrupted.


In conclusion, and just in case, there is, 99 % of the time, only one place I feel comfortable with seeing US troops, and that is: at home..

On September 11th, 2001, popular perceptions of terrorism were transformed. Although many terrorist activities had occurred earlier, the 9/11 outrages were widely seen as escalating the terrorist danger to an entirely new level. Vast resources were suddenly poured into "the war on terror," sweeping legislation was rushed through Congress, a major new department of the federal government was created, and two foreign countries were invaded and occupied in the name of the struggle against terrorism.

There has been no shortage of action. Yet human action is always directed by ideas, and many of the ideas inspiring the current flurry of "anti-terrorist" activities are in need of scrutiny and clarification. In Philosophy 9/11, philosophical scholars specializing in terrorism-related topics, several of them also officers in the United States military, closely examine some of the basic presuppositions of our response to terrorist attacks.

What is terrorism? How does it differ from other kinds of violence? Is the struggle against terrorism warfare—or is it really a matter of law enforcement?
What part does technology play in classifying and combating terrorists? Are we locked into a high-tech approach by the way we define the problem?
Is torture of terrorist suspects ever justified, and if so, when? And what about "targeted killing" and pre-emptive military strikes?
What can the ethics of "just war" tell us about the right way to deal with terrorism? Ought terrorism to be supported in a just cause? Can we hold terrorism to be inherently wrong without judging all operations inflicting civilian casualties to be wrong?

There are some people who fall in-between the Pacifists and the Just War thinkers. They believe that Christians should engage in war, but only because it is a lesser evil when compared to the injustice that will be realized if the war is not engaged. This is a flawed form of thinking. The basic premise to the statement is that war is evil, but necessary. But is war in itself evil, or are the underlying motivations for the war responsible for whether the war is just or unjust?

The real evils in war are love of violence, revengeful cruelty, fierce and implacable enmity, wild resistance, and the lust of power, and such like.

War is a dreadful thing, and I can respect an honest pacifist, though I think he is entirely mistaken. What I cannot understand is this sort of semi-pacifism you get nowadays which gives people the idea that though you have to fight, you ought to do it with a long face and as if you were ashamed of it.

The greatest commandment: Love your neighbor as yourself.
But can one love their neighbor (which includes one’s enemy) as themselves while they engage in a war against them? How can these two ideas be reconciled?

"Remember that all through history, there have been tyrants and murderers, and for a time, they seem invincible. But in the end, they always fall. Always." - Mahatma Ghandi

Hi Ophelia:

Perhaps Bush enjoys more support outside of the US than within. But that is another topic.

In my neighboring island country of Grenada, despots executed the Prime Minister and members of the Cabinet, and massacred some civilians in 1983. The governments of Barbados, Dominica, Jamaica, St. Lucia, Antigua, and St. Vincent responded by informally asking US President Reagan to join them in a coalition of the willing in order to liberate the people of Grenada. The USA only agreed to participate after these nations made a formal request. President Reagan then convinced the American public to support the intervention, by explaining that the operation included securing the safety of American medical students at the university in Grenada.

I followed that operation with interest since Barbados was used as the staging area for what was called Operation Urgent Fury. I remember when it was all over, and President Reagan subsequently visited Grenada, that the Grenadian people were so elated that they wanted to change their national anthem to the US national anthem – such was the temporary exhilaration of being liberated, and I felt their joy.

I have subsequently read publications that criticized the USA’s involvement in the operation. However, I have visited Grenada many times and regardless of the US Government’s motives, Grenadians are generally happy that the US participated in their liberation.

Many people have misgivings about the war in Iraq. However, that invasion sent a message to depots and potential despots worldwide that sovereign borders will not be respected if they start to mass murder their citizens. It should be noted that people living in developing countries, under leaders with little accountability, can potentially be one election away from despotism.

So with all sincerety, I must again thank the US for caring.

Brotherska,

I read the information about Grenada with great interest.

Many people have misgivings about the war in Iraq. However, that invasion sent a message to depots and potential despots worldwide that sovereign borders will not be respected if they start to mass murder their citizens.

I beg to differ: The invasion has sent the message to despots that If they are believed to have weapons of mass destruction that can threaten the US, they can be attacked and removed from power.

All other despots are safe from the US (who, after all, are already over extended and badly in debt as it is), whatever brutal treatment they may inflict on their population.

Perhaps Bush enjoys more support outside of the US than within. But that is another topic.

More support outside? What part of the world are you thinking of? Was Bush popular in the Caribean?
In Europe he was hated.

Thrillwriter
War is a dreadful thing, and I can respect an honest pacifist, though I think he is entirely mistaken. What I cannot understand is this sort of semi-pacifism you get nowadays which gives people the idea that though you have to fight, you ought to do it with a long face and as if you were ashamed of it.

I am a fighter, I was trained by my government and countless hours of my own time, however am reluctant to engage in combat when not necessary… My reasoning is because it is addictive… it is enjoyable… competitive… the rush is unmatched.

I am also an atheist so I harbor no unnecessary guilt concerning the matter, I am proud to have taken part in Desert Storm, but I also empathize with other people well, so I do not bully.

In fact bullies are one group that I actively despise.

In my view pacifism is the least moral of all choices, because it gives free reign for others to commit violence at will, I do not understand it or respect it.

Later

When has the US invaded any country to stop mass murder of civilians?

I, too, was puzzled at this thought.
You need to read Brotherksa's post about Grenada to find the answer!

Ophelia wrote:Brotherska,

I beg to differ: The invasion has sent the message to despots that If they are believed to have weapons of mass destruction that can threaten the US, they can be attacked and removed from power.

Thank you, Ophelia. I quite agree with you. I think the keyword you said there is "if they are believed" which is very significant. We believed there were weapons in Iraq based on a cherry picked piece of intellegence out of a mound of contrary intellegence. It may not always be moral to "liberate" people with military action if US lives and treasure get stuck in a quagmire. Or if that "liberation" creates a power vacuum that invites other forces to try to seize power. It's like trying to save a drowing person in a strong current when you might get swept away yourself, so diving in really wasn't helpful at all. Most of our current problems in the world have been where we meddled in the past. The lesson is to learn to use military might sparingly, with prudence, and perhaps where victory is swift and assured to reduce the loss of lives and treasure.

In conclusion, and just in case, there is, 99 % of the time, only one place I feel comfortable with seeing US troops, and that is: at home..

France wasn't asking the US to stay home in 1944 when we stormed the beaches of Normandy and liberated your country from German forces. I'm not sure how your above statement would translate into German, but you ought to show some appreciation for the fact that literally tens of thousands of US, British and Canadian forces died to free France and other nations from Hitler.

I'm sure you'll reply that you do appreciate this single act, but our WWII good deeds don't mitigate our bad deeds for the past 8 years. But maybe you ought to add in a word of thanks here and there when you bash the United States. Some of us happen to be rather fond of the US and our freedoms and our role in the world. No, not everything we do is going to please everyone, but your posts are almost exclusively negative towards the US and it exhausts me.

Someday France may need our help again and some of us are going to think twice before supporting rescuing a people that seem to have a memory problem and don't show much appreciation for the blood we have shed for them.

I know my words won't be met here with much understanding as most of our members are left-leaning Bush-hating liberals. I'm not too fond of Bush myself so don't get me wrong, but I think there ought to be some level of gratitude expressed by France and other nations we have bailed out militarily. And I don't see it in your posts, Ophelia, Maybe, somewhere deep down buried between the words of criticism there is a gleam of gratitude, and I'm sure you'll be able to pull it out of the massive volume of your negative comments, but it is rather obvious you don't hold the US in too high of regards and this bothers me.