US Neoconservitism

Vader

Jee Sand Ive miss judged you, you are possibly the only pro-american Ive seen on boards who can logically defend his position. I dont agree with you but will treat you with far more resprect.

Ive asked Biffa Bacon to define the difference between a freedom fighter and a terrorist, so far he hasnt got round to it;) and I dont think he will. So Im askink you Sand for your definition as I see when you want to you can be quiet intelligent.

I think of a freedom fighter(heres those IRA veiws you disapprove of) as somebody who has been oppressed and is jusified to fight his oppressors so that he might end his oppression(attacks on soldiers) or transfer the suffering from his people to those who oppress him(attacks on civilians) so that they might rethink their position ie they might accept what they are doing is wrong and so stop.

Why should he have to fight a pitch battle when most modern wars are won by bombs deployed by soldiers their victums never see?

A terrorist has an agenda which he is willing to force onto people. His attacks focus on the psycological impact(shock and awe, if you will) of those actions,
ie who dies and how they die is more imporant than how many die. Terrorism involves both the use of force or the threat of force(remind you of any countries foreign policy)

Sand

I didn’t say it was true of 1945; only that Europe already had a long tradition of liberal and democratic values. The Middle East has not.

Im confused. But as I said its a side issue re: Europe. As for the ME not having a long tradition of liberal and democratic values, its true to a certain extent - particularly the democratic.

So the end doesn’t justify the means except for when it does, is what you’re saying. As for when it is acceptable, you seem to define this as when a group (such as a well-meaning oligarchy) decides that a lesser evil is acceptable because of the good it will bring.

I dont like having my views summed up in a slogan tbh.... but however inaccurately yeah. Dont act like Im a radical or scary for thinking like that - I honestly wish I didnt live in a world where people had to be lied to/misinformed to convince them to overthrow despots, a world where it is considered crazy to think that If war is justified to protect *our* human rights and rights to representive government then logically war is justified to protect *other* peoples human rights and rights to representitive government. The end justifies the means has been used to justify restricting the right to free speech for the greater good, in the case of incitement to hatred, in Germany in particular where they are rather sensitive to such things. People have always believed that the ends justifies the means to a *certain* extent. Even you do Corinthian, every time you get into a motor vehicle.

All democracies have undemocratic institutions and policies. The Irish Senate and the British House of Lords are two that spring to mind. Numerous laws exist that will also ride roughshod over democratic rights, for reasons of national security.

Agreed, often as in the case of the House of Lords pretty much an accident of history, but usually reinvented as a "moderating" force to prevent any radical shifts occuring too fast. Their powers are pretty restricted compared to the Iranian REC - the Irish senate for example can only delay bills AFAIK tho my knowlede of the senate is such that I stand ready to be corrected, and their remit is broader than simply ensuring that all laws are in compliance with the institutionalised faith - one way or the other.

Yet not too long ago our ‘priest ridden’ isle held immense influence over Ireland. DeValera even sought the advice of the clergy when drafting the constitution. Should we have had a regime change then?

Most definitly to my mind. Church and state should always be seperate if the state is to represent all its citizens fairly. Unfortunately given the deal struck with the Church over compensation claims it seems the regime change in Ireland is still behind schedule.

Students are today demonstrating and rioting to force change in Iran. Thirty years ago, our parent’s generation we doing much the same in the West.

And hopefully they will be successful , though sadly every apparent victory by the reformers has been met by increased crackdowns on them by the conservitives. The best thing the west can do ( US and the rest ) is to keep an arms length relationship with reform movements in Iran, support them but dont give the conservitives the exscuse they need to brand them as foreign infiltrators etc etc.

Re: Vader

Whilst the thread is fairly off topic anyway Im not too mad about dragging it even further off topic, especially into terrain that Ive already travelled dozens of times. If you want to open a new thread maybe or pm me, grand.

Vader

I honestly wish I didnt live in a world where people had to be lied to/misinformed to convince them to overthrow despots

If ppl *need* to be lied to in order to get their support then you dont have their support. American neocons want to police the world for the common good. If America some day actually finds a just caus nobody will trust them because if their track record.
The hole boy who cried wolf.

I think the difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter is very on topic because the main idea behind neocons is the war on terrorism and you, biffa bacon and qadafi all refuse to acknowlage these two groups as seperate entities because it destroys the whole war on terrorism doctrine.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Sand
I honestly wish I didnt live in a world where people had to be lied to/misinformed to convince them to overthrow despots, a world where it is considered crazy to think that If war is justified to protect *our* human rights and rights to representive government then logically war is justified to protect *other* peoples human rights and rights to representitive government.

You may indeed agree with such a defence of democracy, but if a democracy must lie to her citizens to do so does it not become a mockery of the very thing it claims to defend? We’re not discussing laws curtailing racism or which side of the road we may drive on (both of which would have been adopted without the need to lie to the electorate), but the conscious waging of war on another nation.

Additionally you should consider another possibility: if you consider recent events to be a justifiable untruth designed to remove a despot, who are you to say that this reason - the removal of a despot - is not simply another layer of misinformation, designed to fool you?

bonkey

Originally posted by Sand
I honestly wish I didnt live in a world where people had to be lied to/misinformed to convince them to overthrow despots,

But the issue is not why we had to be lied to, but rather whether or not is should be acceptable for a government to lie in order to get its way.

An easy parallell is whether or not it is reasonable to want the US to be in any way shackled by he UN. The US, and the supporters of individual actions, say "no". However, the greater issue arising from this is why anyone else should be considered bound by the UN.

a world where it is considered crazy to think that If war is justified to protect *our* human rights and rights to representive government then logically war is justified to protect *other* peoples human rights and rights to representitive government.

And if there was the slightest possibility that the war was actually fought for those reasons - or that the decision to fight was made for those reasons - , I'd consider that such a belief was somewhat reasonable grounds to support the actions.

However, it would still leave a significant unanswered :

If it is right and proper for the US to use its might in a manner it believes to be acceptable, for a goal it sees as desirable, then surely it is hypocritical in the extreme to suggest that other nations would be wrong for exercising the same rights, just because we happen do disagree with what they're doing or how they are doing it.

While I happen to believe quite firmly in the principles behind the various declarations of Human Rights, I also happen to believe that enforcing our vision of what is right and wrong on any other culture, through non-peaceful means is little better than the colonisations performed in the MIddle Ages in the name of "religion".

Lets not forget that you would also seem to have suggested that it is acceptable for a government to lie about the reasons for its actions when the public mightn't accept the truth as sufficient reason to support what the government sees as "the right thing".

Surely, even if you fully support the current actions, you can see the inherent risks and dangers of advocating such a system as an acceptable way to continue?

Sand

If ppl *need* to be lied to in order to get their support then you dont have their support. American neocons want to police the world for the common good. If America some day actually finds a just caus nobody will trust them because if their track record.

Agreed. But that sounds like an argument for the US being right in ignoring world opinion if they feel they are right - seeing as the world will always think theyre lying the worlds opinion isnt a useful barometer, and as sparks I think noted, under the nuremberg principles you are not bound by anyone opinions or laws if you feel there are crimes against humanity occuring.

I think the difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter is very on topic because the main idea behind neocons is the war on terrorism and you, biffa bacon and qadafi all refuse to acknowlage these two groups as seperate entities because it destroys the whole war on terrorism doctrine.

Ive not ignored definitions of terrorism. Ive spent weeks attempting to explain why people trying to blow up childrens parties are terrorists, not freedom fighters - Im totally sick of Israel/Palestine threads and the same crap that gets regugitated in them constantly. Hence my unwillingess to get into another. But just so you dont feel left out.....

Your definitions of terrorism and freedom fighters defeat the purpose of definitions. They ought to be objective. Yours are hopelessly subjective. I can interpret them to brand anyone and everyone a terrorist, or I can use them to brand anyone and everyone a freedom fighter.

I prefer a simpler, clearer set of definitions. A Terrorist deliberately targets civillians. A Military ( This includes guerillas/freedom fighters who operate according to milatary principles ) does not deliberately target civillians, their targets are milatary/economic. Note that a milatary is not just a government run group with guns and tanks - Serbian forces deliberately targeted civillians, they were terrorists/war crinimals.

Its that simple to my mind. Those sort of definitions arent popular however with those who like to talk crap like "one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter" and similar drivel.

You may indeed agree with such a defence of democracy, but if a democracy must lie to her citizens to do so does it not become a mockery of the very thing it claims to defend?

As you noted yourself most modern democracies contain checks and balances to protect democracy from itself - the Nazis were the largest party in Germany, democratically elected, Haider was democratically elected but was viewed as a threat to European democracy regardless, and there are laws in germany that prevent any party with less than 5% of the national vote to take their seats in the reichstag afaik.

Democracy without liberal values is not inherently better than dictatorships, ethnic minorities did better in Titos Yugoslavia than they did in the democratic Yugoslavia riven by ethnic hatreds - Japanese-Americans learned this when they were interned, as did African Americans for a long time after they were "free".

Simply because a majority ( and I allow that to prevent pointless debate as there was never any serious barometer of public opinion taken that didnt sway with the last opinion piece ) didnt support a war to liberate Iraq does not make the liberation of Iraq any less just, as wholly reprehensible decisions have been reached democratically and often governments have had to be more progressive than their citizens - didnt some US colleges have to be opened to African Americans using milatary force, when a majority would have no doubt disaproved?

Additionally you should consider another possibility: if you consider recent events to be a justifiable untruth designed to remove a despot, who are you to say that this reason - the removal of a despot - is not simply another layer of misinformation, designed to fool you?

Certainly possible - I dont imagine the likes of Bush crying himself to sleep at night for the plight of the Iraqis under Saddam, but neither does the oil explanation hold up to examination as far as I can see - the costs, political and economic far outway any benefit from access to Iraqi oil - which they were simply buying before the war anyway.

The reserve currency doesnt make sense as it doesnt explain why Blair went along with it and indeed argued for the war so passionately.

The latest explanation is actually credible - helping out Israel, but how does it help Israel to have major conflicts breaking out in their backyard, especially when there were reasonable fears Saddam might chuck a few more missles at Israel in the meantime or that given the opposition of many arab states that a larger war might break out. Sure Saddam gave cash to the families of palestinian terrorists, but it doesnt seem worth all the risk for that.

An easy parallell is whether or not it is reasonable to want the US to be in any way shackled by he UN. The US, and the supporters of individual actions, say "no". However, the greater issue arising from this is why anyone else should be considered bound by the UN.

I think I tacked your first point above in reply to Corinthian, as for this you could reverse it right around - as Neocons have done and ask if other states seem to feel theyre not bound by the UN why should the US? Granted the US invented the UN, and indeed its predecessor the League of Nations but both have failed....perhaps the US is simply recognising the facts?

While I happen to believe quite firmly in the principles behind the various declarations of Human Rights, I also happen to believe that enforcing our vision of what is right and wrong on any other culture, through non-peaceful means is little better than the colonisations performed in the MIddle Ages in the name of "religion".

We shouldnt let respect for others culture blind us to the wrongs that may be institutionalised in that culture. Nor should we diservice others cultures by assuming such wrongs are somehow part and parcle of the culture. Claims that arabs arent ready or willing to embrace democracy remind me of no doubt well meaning people who honestly believed the Irish and others werent capable of ruling themselves.

Surely, even if you fully support the current actions, you can see the inherent risks and dangers of advocating such a system as an acceptable way to continue?

As I said above a representitive government sometimes has to be more progressive than its citizens - and has to be prepared to take action against the populist grain..... the end justifies the means sometimes. Northern Ireland needs less Ian Paisleys and a few more John Humes, regardless of whether the democratic majority believe Paisley is going to be the one to lead them to the promised land. Id certainly be happy to lie if it meant Paisley and his republican counterparts were left behind in the forthcoming NI elections. Wouldnt you?

bonkey

Originally posted by Sand
I prefer a simpler, clearer set of definitions. A Terrorist deliberately targets civillians. A Military ( This includes guerillas/freedom fighters who operate according to milatary principles ) does not deliberately target civillians, their targets are milatary/economic.

Thats funny, cause when I mentioned that the US deliberately targetted civilians in Yugoslavia recently, you posted back implying that you didn't want to go into another discussion of explaining why that wasn't terrorism.

It was deliberate targetting of civilians and civilian resources. It did not aim to bring about the regime change by economic or military means, but by making the public so damned fed up of being bombed that they would remove Milosovic themselves.

Doesn't seem all that simple and clear to me that you defend this, whilst claiming that it is terrorists, and not military, who target civilians.

We shouldnt let respect for others culture blind us to the wrongs that may be institutionalised in that culture.

Wrongs? What wrongs? You mean "the things that our culture says are wrong about their culture"??? What gives us the right to say that these are wrong because we disagree with them, but which does not give the same right to those other cultures :

"They take culturally-acceptable (to them) action against other cultures that they disagree with. THey are monsters and barbarians and must be stopped by any means possible. We take culturally-acceptable (to us) action against them. We are heroes who should be supported and who should be free to use any means possible".

Should you not equally say, Sand, that we should not let anything blind us to the wrongs that are institutionalised in our own culture as well? But that seems to be what it boils down to - you see stomping on "the wrongs" of other cultures as being all-important. I see addressing the wrongs in "our own" (i.e. Western, broadly speaking) culture as more important. Even more important still is ensuring that no new wrongs become endemic in our culture as a result of some people's vehement desire to protect us from those who we can no longer exploit.

jc

bonkey

Originally posted by Sand
...if other states seem to feel theyre not bound by the UN why should the US?

Given that the US leads by example, I would prefer the US to be preaching a message of inclusion and co-operation, rather than taking the stance of "well, if you guys won't play fair, neither should we have to, but while its despicable for you to ignore/break the rules, it is only reasonable that we do the same".

Granted the US invented the UN, and indeed its predecessor the League of Nations but both have failed....perhaps the US is simply recognising the facts?

Then let them come out and state clearly that they believe the UN has failed. It has been pointed out several times on various discussions here that the US does not break treaties - it withdraws from them. If that is the case, and the US considers the UN to be a lost cause, then it should signal such by withdrawing.

jc

Sand

Thats funny, cause when I mentioned that the US deliberately targetted civilians in Yugoslavia recently, you posted back implying that you didn't want to go into another discussion of explaining why that wasn't terrorism.

I didnt want to get into another boring terrorist/freedom fighter debate ( see that Israel attacking syrian terrorist camp for example - same points are raised and discredited every single time, Im just waiting for the "What if the UK bombed Ireland cos of the IRA " tripe to surface again ), and I still dont. I offered my opinion of Vaders definition and gave him an example of an objective definition.

And I did respond to your view that the bombings of yugoslavia were terrorism - they didnt deliberately target civillians so I dont view them as terrorist attacks but attacks against valid milatary/economic targets. If the intention was to demonstrate to the Yugoslavs that their leadership had led them into another war they were losing badly then obviously thats the aim of almost every war. "Shock and awe" was just a shorthand way of saying "We want to demonstrate our utter milatary superiority so the enemy realises resistance is pointless and surrenders quickly". Or was it shorthand for "We want to drink the blood of their babies and use their skulls as hood ornaments". Guess it depends on what newsource you read.

Wrongs? What wrongs? You mean "the things that our culture says are wrong about their culture"??? What gives us the right to say that these are wrong because we disagree with them, but which does not give the same right to those other cultures :

Im sorry, I hold that everyone should be equal regardless of gender, race or creed. Now some cultures do not - arabic cultures for *example* tend to be less tolerant of womens rights than ours. Are we then evil and wrong to say "Thats wrong, women should have equal rights regardless of the culture theyre in". Are we wrong to say that its not okay to mutilate children because its part of their culture? Are we wrong to say that stoning someone to death is cruel and unusual punishment even if it is part of their culture and laws? For example if I was to go into a field and cut and wound a bull slowly over a long period of time until eventually killing the bull for my enjoyment youd no doubt - rightly - consider me a heartless monster. However in Spain/southern France youd just consider it part of the culture and feel you couldnt possibly say anything or do anything about it? Yes?

How do you reconcile your belief in the various declarations of human rights with your belief that cultural beliefs are utterly correct and to attempt to reform them or encourage change means youre more of a cultural chuavinist than a person who belies that there should be a bottom line of human rights regardless of their culture?

Theres a lot to be said for respecting other cultures. Theres not much positive that can be said for using culture as an exscuse to forget what you believe is right or wrong.

Should you not equally say, Sand, that we should not let anything blind us to the wrongs that are institutionalised in our own culture as well? But that seems to be what it boils down to - you see stomping on "the wrongs" of other cultures as being all-important. I see addressing the wrongs in "our own" (i.e. Western, broadly speaking) culture as more important. Even more important still is ensuring that no new wrongs become endemic in our culture as a result of some people's vehement desire to protect us from those who we can no longer exploit.

I refer you to Corinthian noting our less than perfect division of church and state throughout history and even recent times - Id have hoped my reply would have indicated that I dont view our culture as in any way perfect or complete. Weve a lot of problems throughout Irish and western culture. Just because we should be concerned that other peoples enjoy basic human rights does not mean we should stop examining ourselves either.

Given that the US leads by example, I would prefer the US to be preaching a message of inclusion and co-operation, rather than taking the stance of "well, if you guys won't play fair, neither should we have to, but while its despicable for you to ignore/break the rules, it is only reasonable that we do the same".

I see it as the only practical course of action the US can take. Its not like anyone views it as a moral authority anyway. Why should they pretend to be one, an act most would find unconvincing - and do even here and now.

Then let them come out and state clearly that they believe the UN has failed. It has been pointed out several times on various discussions here that the US does not break treaties - it withdraws from them. If that is the case, and the US considers the UN to be a lost cause, then it should signal such by withdrawing.

When did unbridled idealism become such a big part of politics? Neocons would enjoy leaving the UN no doubt, but how would that play to the American public who were at best uncertain about going it alone, and how would the the Israeli lobby in the US exercise the veto to protect Israel from UN resolutions? Best course of action from their point of view is to retain at lest a nominal prescence there and use its veto now and again to prevent anything nasty happening to it or its allies - like every other permament Security Council member.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Sand
As you noted yourself most modern democracies contain checks and balances to protect democracy from itself - the Nazis were the largest party in Germany, democratically elected, Haider was democratically elected but was viewed as a threat to European democracy regardless, and there are laws in germany that prevent any party with less than 5% of the national vote to take their seats in the reichstag afaik.

Let’s not confuse the acceptance of such checks and balances with the deception of the citizenry. Laws denying the right to express views that may incite violence have been debated and maintained by the citizens of democracies with transparency. Deception such as the burning of the aforementioned Reichstag and then pointing the finger at an opposition group is another matter alltoger.

What you are defending is neither a check nor balance but a coup d’etat.

Democracy without liberal values is not inherently better than dictatorships, ethnic minorities did better in Titos Yugoslavia than they did in the democratic Yugoslavia riven by ethnic hatreds - Japanese-Americans learned this when they were interned, as did African Americans for a long time after they were "free".

Simply because a majority ( and I allow that to prevent pointless debate as there was never any serious barometer of public opinion taken that didnt sway with the last opinion piece ) didnt support a war to liberate Iraq does not make the liberation of Iraq any less just, as wholly reprehensible decisions have been reached democratically and often governments have had to be more progressive than their citizens

I certainly would not disagree with your scepticism of (liberal) democracy. I’ve stated before, IMHO, that it is in many ways fundamentally flawed. However, not unlike the common argument on capitalism, it is also the least flawed of all the systems presently out there.

Consider for a moment what you’re advocating; that an enlightened oligarchy should act against the wishes if the mob for the good of that same mob (using deceptions to achieve its ends). However, you assume that this oligarchy is indeed enlightened, and not corrupt, deficient or insane. For all its ills, (liberal) democracy is still the best political system for keeping its leaders accountable. There is no mechanism for accountability in what you’re advocating.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

didnt some US colleges have to be opened to African Americans using milatary force, when a majority would have no doubt disaproved?

Actually, AFAIR, the majority approved by democratic national majority. Force was applied to execute this mandate.

Certainly possible - I dont imagine the likes of Bush crying himself to sleep at night for the plight of the Iraqis under Saddam, but neither does the oil explanation hold up to examination as far as I can see

As far as you can see - And if you yourself admit that in the event that you accept deception and the possibility that you do not know the true reason for such action, how can you be so certain that ‘as far as you can see’ is very far at all?

The latest explanation is actually credible - helping out Israel, but how does it help Israel to have major conflicts breaking out in their backyard, especially when there were reasonable fears Saddam might chuck a few more missles at Israel in the meantime or that given the opposition of many arab states that a larger war might break out. Sure Saddam gave cash to the families of palestinian terrorists, but it doesnt seem worth all the risk for that.

Not for the US, but it really depends on the ultimate national allegiance of the Neocons, doesn’t it?

Sand

Let’s not confuse the acceptance of such checks and balances with the deception of the citizenry.

Why not? Doesnt the end justify the means ? People lie for many reasons, often good reasons and in this case a greater good was achieved by a lie - if you allow they were lying, and did not believe what they were saying. Its the same logic as saying "we live in a democracy where everyone is equal and you can enjoy free speech but only about the things we let you, and whilst everyons equal were going to treat people differently based on their race". It goes against democracy, as you complained lying does, but it accomplishes a greater good.

What you are defending is neither a check nor balance but a coup d’etat.

Representive government I would have thought - the administration made a case for war, whose details and heavy criticism of those details was available for anyone to view. They then fought the war. If the people disagree with the war theyll vote Bush out next year, if not, they wont. They dont hold referendums on wars afaik.

I certainly would not disagree with your scepticism of (liberal) democracy. I’ve stated before, IMHO, that it is in many ways fundamentally flawed. However, not unlike the common argument on capitalism, it is also the least flawed of all the systems presently out there.

Agreed. But like the market it sometimes requires intervention to reach desirable outcomes. I believe the liberation of Iraq to be one of those times.

Consider for a moment what you’re advocating; that an enlightened oligarchy should act against the wishes if the mob for the good of that same mob (using deceptions to achieve its ends). However, you assume that this oligarchy is indeed enlightened, and not corrupt, deficient or insane. For all its ills, (liberal) democracy is still the best political system for keeping its leaders accountable. There is no mechanism for accountability in what you’re advocating.

Im advocating what has been advocated throughout history - that simply because a majority wish knackers could be thrown off into the sea doesnt mean the goverment should get the army to round them up and start pushing them off cliffs. Just because a majority ( again allowed - no serious measure was taken ) did not feel it worth the bother of deposing Saddam does not mean the government should not do the right thing.

As for accountability theres the same accountability there is for all representive forms of government - elections. Unless of course you believe people are too stupid to vote out government which cary out acts they disagree with - especially in hindsight? That would not be the most elequent defence of pure democracy tbh.

As far as you can see - And if you yourself admit that in the event that you accept deception and the possibility that you do not know the true reason for such action, how can you be so certain that ‘as far as you can see’ is very far at all?

Im not certain. Im not a fly on the wall in the oval office. But I see Saddam gone, a fairly representive provisional Iraqi government taking shape prior to the first real elections Iraqis will have had in decades if ever and I view that as a greater good. I certainly wouldnt see the status quo of 2001 being a better thing - with the sanctions still in place, with the Iraqis suffering under Saddam and the prescence of American forces in Saudia Arabia - required by the threat from Iraq.

Change is rarely easy or fast - but the status quo is not some absolute good when it tolerates such easily defeated dictators to continue to exist.

bonkey

Originally posted by Sand
It goes against democracy, as you complained lying does, but it accomplishes a greater good.

But does it?

You have to weigh the cost of the benefits that accepting lies may bring with the associated costs.

Just because we can point to a situation and say "well, the outcome was good" does not mean in any way, shape or form that the practice must be good.

At the end of the day, what are we going to say - that lying is ok as long as you don't screw up? And who defines screwing up? How long do we have to watch events unfolding in Iraq before we can determine whether or not Bush' lies were ultimately a good or a bad thing.

And, see, this is what I can't figure out....

People tell me that I should stop bitching about the events in Iraq and the US actions. Sure aren't the Iraqi people better off, etc. etc. etc.

Then when evidence is shown that may indiciate that all is not flowers and candy in Iraq, we get the "you have to give these things time" line. Its impossible to tell whether or not things are going well or badly....but we should give the US credit just for still being there.

Now, I can't gel these two stances. Either invading Iraq is measurable a good thing or it is not. If it is a good thing, then on what grounds? Lets not talk about the ifs, buts or maybes of the future, because the answer to the second point was "wait and see". I want to know on what grounds the lies of yesterday have led to a better today.

I can't see that they have. I see that there may be an argument that Bush's lies will lead to a better tomorrow, but I can see equal arguments that they will lead to a horrific tomorrow as well.

So why should I accept Bush's lies? It hasn't accomplished any greater good, and has raised the heads of several greater evils.

And before anyone points out that the greater good was removing Saddam Hussein, let us remember that that too is still a play in motion. He is still at large, his nation is far from free from oppression, and their future is uncertain.

At best, all I can see is that I should accept the lies from Dubya and his gang because their actions, when taken in isolation from the political messages they send, can be seen as a good start on a worthwhile cause if one chooses to only see them in that light.

For me, I must say that this is not enough.

jc

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Sand
Why not? Doesnt the end justify the means ? People lie for many reasons, often good reasons and in this case a greater good was achieved by a lie - if you allow they were lying, and did not believe what they were saying. Its the same logic as saying "we live in a democracy where everyone is equal and you can enjoy free speech but only about the things we let you, and whilst everyons equal were going to treat people differently based on their race". It goes against democracy, as you complained lying does, but it accomplishes a greater good.

I don’t see the point of your example.

Representive government I would have thought - the administration made a case for war, whose details and heavy criticism of those details was available for anyone to view. They then fought the war. If the people disagree with the war theyll vote Bush out next year, if not, they wont. They dont hold referendums on wars afaik.

In theory, if they are aware of the full facts. If not, such as if they have been deceived, then they cannot act as the watchdogs to their elected representatives. If the truth is either obfuscated or suppressed, then this argument of yours collapses.

Agreed. But like the market it sometimes requires intervention to reach desirable outcomes. I believe the liberation of Iraq to be one of those times.

There is certainly a case for anti-democratic intervention for the good of said democracy. In the Roman Republic, this was the dictator (no to be confused with the modern interpretation of the word) who in times of crisis would take charge for a temporary period and do what had to be done. A state of martial law is the modern version of this.

However, there are rules governing such interventions - where and when they may be enacted for the good of the State. And the rules governing such interventions are always transparent to the citizens. Your entire argument appears dependant that we should ultimately trust the competence and motives of those who would carry out those interventions.

Im advocating what has been advocated throughout history - that simply because a majority wish knackers could be thrown off into the sea doesnt mean the goverment should get the army to round them up and start pushing them off cliffs. Just because a majority ( again allowed - no serious measure was taken ) did not feel it worth the bother of deposing Saddam does not mean the government should not do the right thing.

True, but the will of the majority is probably a better metre than the opinion of a minority. Further more you insist in assuming that this was (or still is) the reason. If you yourself admit that it may not be, then please stop claiming it was.

As for accountability theres the same accountability there is for all representive forms of government - elections. Unless of course you believe people are too stupid to vote out government which cary out acts they disagree with - especially in hindsight? That would not be the most elequent defence of pure democracy tbh.

Again, if such actions are transparent. Otherwise if they are either obfuscated or suppressed, then accountability goes out the window.

Im not certain. Im not a fly on the wall in the oval office. But I see Saddam gone, a fairly representive provisional Iraqi government taking shape prior to the first real elections Iraqis will have had in decades if ever and I view that as a greater good. I certainly wouldnt see the status quo of 2001 being a better thing - with the sanctions still in place, with the Iraqis suffering under Saddam and the prescence of American forces in Saudia Arabia - required by the threat from Iraq.

What you see is what you want to see. Another interpretation is that there is a provisional Iraqi government appointed by an occupying force that are not presently in any hurry to introduce any real elections, but are in a hurry to award contracts and sell national assets to foreign (generally US) firms. The Iraqis no longer suffer under Saddam - now they suffer under completely new people.

Sanctions are now gone, but if, as it appears Iraq had indeed disarmed, they probably should have been lifted anyway. As for your contention that US troops are better off out of Saudi Arabia, last time I checked, they weren’t being picked off at a rate of a dozen a week there...

Certainly, the anarchy will eventually subside and a long-term government will take over in Iraq. But there is no reason that this government will be any more democratic or less repressive than Saddam was...

...unless you trust what the US administration is saying, that is. And if, as you say, they lied to achieve their end in the first place then you’d be a fool to do so. After all, fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me...

Change is rarely easy or fast - but the status quo is not some absolute good when it tolerates such easily defeated dictators to continue to exist.

True, but what is the cost of changing that status quo? You’re unfortunately buying into a version of events without bothering to look at the price tag.

Vader

Origionally posted by Sand

quote:

The English intelligentsia, on the whole, were more defeatist than the mass of the people—and some of them went on being defeatist at a time when the war was quite plainly won—partly because they were better able to visualise the dreary years of warfare that lay ahead. Their morale was worse because their imaginations were stronger. The quickest way of ending a war is to lose it, and if one finds the prospect of a long war intolerable, it is natural to disbelieve in the possibility of victory. But there was more to it than that. There was also the disaffection of large numbers of intellectuals, which made it difficult for them not to side with any country hostile to Britain. And deepest of all, there was admiration—though only in a very few cases conscious admiration—for the power, energy, and cruelty of the Nazi régime.

George Orwell

Sand seeing as your fond of Orwell (as evident by your signature) then would you tell me if you honestly believe that in 1984 the people of Air Strip One or Oceania were better off than people today? They were lied to, they believed the lies, they loved their leaders (which were the intellectual minority you seem to see fit to run a country) and wars were constantly being fought for the common good.

Origionally posted by bonkey
People tell me that I should stop bitching about the events in Iraq and the US actions. Sure aren't the Iraqi people better off, etc. etc. etc.
Then when evidence is shown that may indiciate that all is not flowers and candy in Iraq, we get the "you have to give these things time" line. Its impossible to tell whether or not things are going well or badly....but we should give the US credit just for still being there.
Now, I can't gel these two stances.

Sand will explain to you that this is called doublethink. Basically you are not intelligent to decide for yourself what is right and what is wrong. You need to be told, as do all the masses, by the minority which know more than you. You know they wont lie to you because the love you like a “big brother” would. E.g., Big Brother says sometimes 2+2=5 today and tomorrow he says 2+2=3 . Which is right. The answer is both, because big brother said so. All you need to know is when to quote each answer.

Origionally posted by Sand

Im not certain. Im not a fly on the wall in the oval office. But I see Saddam gone, a fairly representive provisional Iraqi government taking shape prior to the first real elections Iraqis will have had in decades if ever and I view that as a greater good. I certainly wouldnt see the status quo of 2001 being a better thing - with the sanctions still in place, with the Iraqis suffering under Saddam and the prescence of American forces in Saudia Arabia - required by the threat from Iraq.

Another important function of The Ministry of Truth was to falsify the past. America didn’t fund Bin Laden, America didn’t put Saddam in power, America didn’t sell Iraq WMD’s and didn’t know what was happening to the Kurds(and still doesn’t know what’s happening in Turkey)
They didn’t impose the sanctions, Saddam forced their arm when they refused to decommission the arms they don’t have and most importantly Bin Laden never wanted the US out of Saudi Arabia, the US wasn’t forced out, infact they were never there

Origionally posted by Sand

As for accountability theres the same accountability there is for all representive forms of government - elections.

....because all that documented evidence about Bush stealing an election is just lies touted by lying ignorant bitter Saddam Loyalist anti Americans!!

Sand

You have to weigh the cost of the benefits that accepting lies may bring with the associated costs.

Just because we can point to a situation and say "well, the outcome was good" does not mean in any way, shape or form that the practice must be good.

Of course, yet obviously the benefits will change with each particular case so making a hard and fast rule - lying in a democratic society is (wrong/costs outweigh benefits) *all* the time - is false. Which is apparently what you and Corinthian are trying to argue.

Were lied to all the time. Its nothing we should welcome but like bad weather its a fact of life. Every political manifesto you read is an exercise in lies. If Bush and his administration were lying then they were simply being politicians - and they accomplished a greater good in their actions.

Prior to the war there was a lot of debate on whether the Iraqis really did have WMD and whether Bush and Co were lying over the reasons for war. I said then that it didnt really matter if they were or not and its still my position.

Now, I can't gel these two stances. Either invading Iraq is measurable a good thing or it is not. If it is a good thing, then on what grounds? Lets not talk about the ifs, buts or maybes of the future, because the answer to the second point was "wait and see". I want to know on what grounds the lies of yesterday have led to a better today.

Of course I could invoke my new favourite parable - A house is useless and a waste of resources until it is built. The same for a war until it is won.

As for immediate benfits to Iraqis theyve greater political freedoms, espeically the shi'ites who are allowed much greater religious freedom than before. Political prisoners, some of whom were children have been freed. Massacres of people by Saddams loyalists have been halted and uncovered, like the hundreds/thousands of bodies found in a warehouse near Basra a few months ago. Sanctions are on the way out, which were killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqis directly and indirectly. Monsters like Uday are dead. Thats of the top of my head - there are probably other examples.

Probably the greatest benefit for the Iraqis is the potential they now have but thats an if, but or maybe.

I don’t see the point of your example.

My point is that whilst lying may be viewed as going against the very principles of democracy, so do those institutions and yet we accept them - not because we feel theyre required for a democracy ( theyre not imo ) but because they accomplish a greater good. Lying accomplished a greater good here so why should I have a problem with it?

Were lied to constantly. You live in a democratic society and youre told you have the right to free speech, but you dont. Youre told you have the same political rights as anyone else, but you dont. Youre told that the government doesnt discriminate against you on the basis of gender, creed or race but they do. Its not true, but weve been lied to so much that were pretty much conditioned to accept that what were allowed to say is free speech for example.

In theory, if they are aware of the full facts. If not, such as if they have been deceived, then they cannot act as the watchdogs to their elected representatives. If the truth is either obfuscated or suppressed, then this argument of yours collapses.

I agree but this is the purpose of the media is it not? Certainly were not naive enough to believe that politicians will give us the objective truth?

If anything, its arguable that many major media outlets tend to be - less well disposed - to Bush and Co so I wouldnt worry too much about them failing in their duty to try and get as much dirt on them out there.

However, there are rules governing such interventions - where and when they may be enacted for the good of the State. And the rules governing such interventions are always transparent to the citizens. Your entire argument appears dependant that we should ultimately trust the competence and motives of those who would carry out those interventions.

The rules governing such interventions may be transparent but the reasons for a potential intervention and the actual need of it are up to the elected government to determine. A government can quite easily lie to us about the need for such an intervention? We accept that though when we elect them, partly because we trust them not to abuse their power ( ha ha ), and also because it is for the greater good. No referendums are held on whether such interventions should take place.

The only accountability is that we can look back in hindsight and ask if the greater good was accomplished ( and nothing succeeds like success ) and then choose to either re-elect them or not. Lying, even when caught blatantly in the lie, has never served as a major disqualification from a successful political career - at least in Ireland anyway. Or if your name is Clinton ( A nice example of it being okay to lie).

What you see is what you want to see. Another interpretation is that there is a provisional Iraqi government appointed by an occupying force that are not presently in any hurry to introduce any real elections, but are in a hurry to award contracts and sell national assets to foreign (generally US) firms. The Iraqis no longer suffer under Saddam - now they suffer under completely new people.

And you see what you want to see? Or what someone else wants you to see? Is it any better than what I see?

...unless you trust what the US administration is saying, that is. And if, as you say, they lied to achieve their end in the first place then you’d be a fool to do so. After all, fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me...

In my opinion politicians have been fooling people all their lives, its not as if the US govt is the only govt to lie, or that politics was anymore truthful back in the good old days. France, Germany and so on lied claiming sympathy for the Iraqis in their opposition for the war. I didnt notice too many here criticising them for lying ( or maybe they honestly though Chirac *was* crying himself to sleep every night over the plight of the Iraqi people), as they believed that if France and co - regardless of their true motives for stopping the war - succeeded in preventing the war in the UN security council then the greater good would have been achieved. My evaluation of the situation was and is different.

Sand seeing as your fond of Orwell (as evident by your signature) then would you tell me if you honestly believe that in 1984 the people of Air Strip One or Oceania were better off than people today? They were lied to, they believed the lies, they loved their leaders (which were the intellectual minority you seem to see fit to run a country) and wars were constantly being fought for the common good.

No - Though we are lied to almost as routinely, I wouldnt go all left wing whacko and claim its 1984 just quite yet. And two oppressive ( you know, real live oppressive rather than Republicans ) governments having a war so they can expand their oppressive rule is not a greater good, so how could you argue the end justifies the means for that case?

Im not arguing that lying is an absolute good. Rather that this lie accomplished a greater good.

Because all that documented evidence about Bush stealing an election is just lies touted by lying ignorant bitter Saddam Loyalist anti Americans!!

I refer you to the on-topic part of this thread where Wolfiwitz enjoyed some reasoned, polite and worldy debate with many of those who disagreed with the war ( "Seig heil you nazi son of a bitch " wasnt it? ).

bonkey

Originally posted by Sand
Of course I could invoke my new favourite parable - A house is useless and a waste of resources until it is built. The same for a war until it is won.

But this seems to have been turned into an argument that because its possible that the war could be won, if it all goes well, then the war must be a good thing.

Its like building a house on top of some very unsure ground, and arguing that the earth-tremors which are causing building problems should be discarded, because...as you say...a house is a waste of resources until its built, so once the resources are acquired, the house must be started, and once the house is started, until its finished its a waste of space.

The problem - borrowing from your parable - is that the US have a history of leaving useless half-built houses around the world. They are now at the point where despite being massively in debt, they're borrowing from the rest of us to start building a house, and then telling the rest of us that we should be helping to pay for the rest of the construction cost. And all, as you say, because unless its finished then the house is a waste.

As for immediate benfits to Iraqis theyve greater political freedoms, espeically the shi'ites who are allowed much greater religious freedom than before.

So a half-built house isn't just a waste of resources then? See - this is what I'm talking about. You tell us "it needs to be finished before you can see that it was a good thing. Except for these good things that are there too. What? There's bad things as well? No - weren't you listening...you have to wait till its finished......"

As for the increased political freedoms....you are joking me, aren't you? Can you show me a single piece of evidence of political freedoms in Iraq today? Anything where what you do openly does not have to be pre-approved by the Americans?

We've seen clerics etc. arrested and detained for having the sheer audacity to claim that they have been chosen to represent local groups. We've had the US decide who gets to have a say, and how much of a say they get to have.

Perhaps these political freedoms are what have Iraq deciding to maybe build a new pipeline to their bestest buddies in Israel, so that the Israelis can refine their oil for them? Oh, hang on, despite everything but oil being put up for sale, it would appear that the Iraqis are no more in control of the oil either.

Political prisoners, some of whom were children have been freed.

And new ones, some of whom were children, have been arrested, and some of them sent to that bastion of western idealism - Gitmo.

Sanctions are on the way out, which were killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqis directly and indirectly.

Oh you have got to be joking me....

You're talking about sanctions which the US refused to even consider lifting, even though every expert in the book was lined up saying "this is not working".

Now you want the lifting of these sanctions billed as a good thing related to the war?

Probably the greatest benefit for the Iraqis is the potential they now have but thats an if, but or maybe.

No, I agree. They have potential. Unfortunately, their potential is not being realised right now. Iraq is being formed into the nation that America wants it to be....not the nation that Iraq wants to be.

No - Though we are lied to almost as routinely, I wouldnt go all left wing whacko and claim its 1984 just quite yet.

Is that "no" the answer to the question? I'm asking because nothing else actually answers the direct question of "do you think they have a better society than us". You seem to be saying that certain things are necessary "for the greater good". I am saying that even if that is true, the risks and frawbacks more than outweigh the benefits. Now, 1984 is your "good things[/i] taken to the next level. Does that make it better or worse? Is the 1984 society - which epitomises your "lie for the greater good, war for the greater good, even if the majority don't get to decide what the greater good should be" - better or worse than our current society which implements that to a lesser degree.

If its worse (which your "no" would imply, assuming that you actually answered the question), then how can you claim that these things are good for us today if getting more of them would make things worse?

And two oppressive ( you know, real live oppressive rather than Republicans ) governments having a war so they can expand their oppressive rule is not a greater good, so how could you argue the end justifies the means for that case?

Because you seem to have seperated "the greater good" from "what the majority want". You are advocating that it is a good thing to have governments who can lie to their electorate in order to go about doing what they themselves see as the greater good.

Arguing that its not a good system because these guys can use the same mechanisms to choose what they want, regardless of what is the greater good is exactly what *I* have been trying to say is wrong with accepting the lies and aggressions of the US today.

So this seems to be a case that when defending the actions of the US, the system (of politicians and leaders lieing to achieve what they want) is right and proper because you agree with the actions someone is taking under such a system.

However, when someone is accused of lieing and cheating in order to achieve something that we feel is not for the greater good, then its not ok to have lied, and we need a system with better controls, and, and, and....

I really must be getting old....I'm only able to apply one set of standards.

I refer you to the on-topic part of this thread where Wolfiwitz enjoyed some reasoned, polite and worldy debate with many of those who disagreed with the war ( "Seig heil you nazi son of a bitch " wasnt it? ).

And whats your point? Neither side is short of the loud-mouthed, insult-is-more-important-then-argument types. Oh - hang on - I'm doing it again, amn't I...applying the same standards to both sides.

Damn but I'm getting old....

jc

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Sand
My point is that whilst lying may be viewed as going against the very principles of democracy, so do those institutions and yet we accept them - not because we feel theyre required for a democracy ( theyre not imo ) but because they accomplish a greater good. Lying accomplished a greater good here so why should I have a problem with it?

What institutions? You gave no example of where lying to a democracy was for the greater good of that democracy.

Were lied to constantly. You live in a democratic society and youre told you have the right to free speech, but you dont. Youre told you have the same political rights as anyone else, but you dont. Youre told that the government doesnt discriminate against you on the basis of gender, creed or race but they do. Its not true, but weve been lied to so much that were pretty much conditioned to accept that what were allowed to say is free speech for example.

We’re not lied to though. We have a right to free speech but this freedom is finite. We have a right to pursue our lives as we see fit, but this too is a finite freedom. And these finite boundaries are called laws, codified and recoded for all to see.

Now if we are lied to, that’s another matter, that’s not the cure to social ills, but the disease. Just because politicians have a tendency to lie upon occasions for their ends, this does not mean that this is an acceptable political device. Indeed, if caught for such, politicians tend to be punished.

I agree but this is the purpose of the media is it not? Certainly were not naive enough to believe that politicians will give us the objective truth?

Apparently, according to you, we are naive enough not to be able to make decisions without being lied to so as to arrive at the right one.

If anything, its arguable that many major media outlets tend to be - less well disposed - to Bush and Co so I wouldnt worry too much about them failing in their duty to try and get as much dirt on them out there.

The non-American media, or ‘No Votes Media’ as the US administration will often call it, was in the run up to war. Contrary to the popular belief by many the European supporters of the recent conflict, their opinion counts for nothing in the US. Mainstream US media, television in particular, has been strongly pro-War-on-Terror up until recently. So pro-administration has US media been that even some members of the US media have expressed reservations in the past. So I’m afraid you’re in error.

The rules governing such interventions may be transparent but the reasons for a potential intervention and the actual need of it are up to the elected government to determine. A government can quite easily lie to us about the need for such an intervention? We accept that though when we elect them, partly because we trust them not to abuse their power ( ha ha ), and also because it is for the greater good. No referendums are held on whether such interventions should take place.

I refer you to my previous post where I pointed out that the one edge that democracy has on other political systems is that its citizenry acts as watchdog to its government. Obfuscate this truth and you interfere with a fundamental democratic process.

The only accountability is that we can look back in hindsight and ask if the greater good was accomplished ( and nothing succeeds like success ) and then choose to either re-elect them or not.

Then should accepting bribes should be acceptable if it results in a greater good being accomplished?

Lying, even when caught blatantly in the lie, has never served as a major disqualification from a successful political career - at least in Ireland anyway. Or if your name is Clinton ( A nice example of it being okay to lie).

That’s rubbish. Fro example, Richard Nixon’s resignation was largely as a result of the fact that he got caught lying about his involvement in the Watergate break-in.

And you see what you want to see? Or what someone else wants you to see? Is it any better than what I see?

Perhaps not. But I’m not trying to claim that a war based upon a lie was for he greater good. That would make my interpretation less questionable than yours.

In my opinion politicians have been fooling people all their lives, its not as if the US govt is the only govt to lie, or that politics was anymore truthful back in the good old days. France, Germany and so on lied claiming sympathy for the Iraqis in their opposition for the war. I didnt notice too many here criticising them for lying ( or maybe they honestly though Chirac *was* crying himself to sleep every night over the plight of the Iraqi people), as they believed that if France and co - regardless of their true motives for stopping the war - succeeded in preventing the war in the UN security council then the greater good would have been achieved. My evaluation of the situation was and is different.

So what if your evaluation of the situation was and is different. No one is arguing whether France, Germany, Russia, Britain, Spain or the US have ulterior and occult motives. They all do. You’ve argued that a government lying to it’s citizens, who know no better, for the greater good is acceptable. That is what you’re being challenged on.

I refer you to the on-topic part of this thread where Wolfiwitz enjoyed some reasoned, polite and worldy debate with many of those who disagreed with the war ( "Seig heil you nazi son of a bitch " wasnt it? ).

Both sides of this argument have their wacos. Also that part of this thread was decidedly off-topic.

Vader

Originally posted by Sand
governments having a war so they can expand their oppressive rule is not a greater good

Neo-conservatism is doing exactly that!!!!! All south America is indirectly run by the USA and is very oppressive. Most of these regimes started off as dictatorships with US military support which have evolved into corrupt democracy look-a-likes which always return the same people against a stream of public opposition. *I* feel America is doing the same thing in the middle east based on their record in Saudi Arabia and Israel.

Originally posted by Sand

quote: Originally posted by Vader

Because all that documented evidence about Bush stealing an election is just lies touted by lying ignorant bitter Saddam Loyalist anti Americans!!


I refer you to the on-topic part of this thread where Wolfiwitz enjoyed some reasoned, polite and worldy debate with many of those who disagreed with the war ( "Seig heil you nazi son of a bitch " wasnt it? ).

You’ve either misunderstood me or deliberately misquoted me. I’m saying that Bush stole the election and that when Ive said things to that effet Ive been shouted down as a “lying ignorant bitter Saddam Loyalist anti Americans!!” Because no pro Americans seem willing to acknowledge both the fact that A) Bush stole an election and Cheating in an election (like lying to people) is wrong.

Jaffus

It seems to me that the American political system is designed in a way to split opinion amoung it citizens so much to leave them screaming and shouting unable to comprehend all the Debates and Theories ect ect... that while they are all bunged in the mind with pure irelevant CRAP that their Goverment does what it wants to do anyway.......
Basically its a sort of sensory overload leaving the average Joe on the street too caught up in the bits and pieces of the issue at hand to take action against a plain and simple wrong their goverment is doing.
Neo-consevratives would just like to cut trough all of that and like like the pharaoh's "Let it be said......So Let it be done"

Sand

But this seems to have been turned into an argument that because its possible that the war could be won, if it all goes well, then the war must be a good thing.

Well, I think of it more being that the Iraqi war wasnt lost because the US armour wasnt in baghdad about 2 hours after they crossed the border - though of course there were a few doom and gloom merchants even then predicting tens of thousands dead, basing this on the unusually stiff resistance from Saddam loyalists.

In the end though, with hindsight, we can say an easy american victory was never in doubt despite the difficulties that cropped up.

Now just because the US hasnt managed to reverse decades of dictatorship and establish a liberal democracy inside 3 months doesnt mean such an outcome will not occur, or even that it is unlikely. What it does mean is than in the meantime, we will have to listen to a lot of doom and gloom merchants who will continue the sort of analysis that George Orwell complained about in WW2 - the "educated elite" couldnt predict nothing more than the continuation of the present - the Nazis were winning, hence the Nazis would always win, the Russians were losing hence they would always lose etc etc.

Using this rule, the inheritors of their ideals predicted US defeat/hardfought victory based on resistance encountered, and theyre predicting failure of the attempt to democratise Iraq based on current difficulties.

The problem - borrowing from your parable - is that the US have a history of leaving useless half-built houses around the world.

Agreed. But no better or worse than any of the other permament security council members - who are thus equally disqualified from foreign policy by such a standard. However I dont believe neocons were behind the driving wheel for all of the 20th century - the afghan/Iraqi adventures would seem to be the height of their influence on policy. It must also be understood that neo-cons are merely another "cabal" in Washington - their influence is far from unquestioned and other groups with different political aims could easily begin to guide policy instead - especially if Iraq becomes troublesome for Bush.

So a half-built house isn't just a waste of resources then? See - this is what I'm talking about. You tell us "it needs to be finished before you can see that it was a good thing. Except for these good things that are there too. What? There's bad things as well? No - weren't you listening...you have to wait till its finished......"

Hey, no one disagrees that there are problems in Iraq - the only people with unrealistic expectations are those who are getting ready to run up the white flag because theyre beginning to understand that its not easy to set up a democracy from scratch. A short visit to any history book should demonstrate this - almost every modern western democracy was born from revolutution, warfare and civil war and strife. Irelands a case in point. No then decided to give up on a independant democratic Ireland because of the immense civil strife and hardship that occurred in its creation.

To merely concentrate on the difficulties and make a judgement on how viable your objective is based soley on that whilst ignoring the benefits ( because they havent shown up yet ) is rather foolish. Its like not taking out health insurance or a pension. For 40 years of your life its just a drain on your resources with no benefit - and then you need it and its all worthwhile.

If its worse (which your "no" would imply, assuming that you actually answered the question), then how can you claim that these things are good for us today if getting more of them would make things worse?

The answer was just below the section you quoted. Lying is not always correct, no more than it is always wrong - youve got to weigh it against the benefit. I cant see any benefit to the lie referred to in 1984 so lying is not correct or benficial there.

Because you seem to have seperated "the greater good" from "what the majority want". You are advocating that it is a good thing to have governments who can lie to their electorate in order to go about doing what they themselves see as the greater good.

Yeah - most government that are elected tend to be rather afraid to offend anyone and slow to make radical changes. This can be bad or good as often radical change can be called for in certain cases. However it does prevent mob rule which most would agree is a good thing. The greater good is not what the majority want by definition.

However, when someone is accused of lieing and cheating in order to achieve something that we feel is not for the greater good, then its not ok to have lied, and we need a system with better controls, and, and, and....

Isnt that the way its always been? Look at Clinton - the positions on lying will have come full circle. If Democrats had any spine at all theyd be howling the house down about lying and impeachment. Meanwhile Republicans seem to have gone all quiet about honesty in office. Its the same in the media - they seem to have a dimmer view of lying in this case than they did in the Clinton case. I dont want to revisit the merits of the Clinton lie - just making the point that people do tolerate lying on a case by case basis. There are few people so principled to feel lying is wrong in all cases, regardless of situation or seriousness or result.

And whats your point? Neither side is short of the loud-mouthed, insult-is-more-important-then-argument types. Oh - hang on - I'm doing it again, amn't I...applying the same standards to both sides.

Just Vader was trying to make the point that anyone who disagrees with Bush is called such names ( I dunno why ) - Just making the point that quite a few deserve such titles. Especially those who feel cheated because the rules of s system they agreed to worked against them when Bush was elected fairly and legally by that system. None of them would be bleating on about it if Gore had lost the popular vote but won the only vote that mattered.

But then again thats another demonstration of peoples everyday tolerance for end justifies the means.

Sand

What institutions? You gave no example of where lying to a democracy was for the greater good of that democracy.

Sure I did, way back with Northern Ireland. The pro agreement parties have been steadily lying for the past while that elections are dependant on agreement between the pro agreement parties. Rubbish. Its just that if the pro-agreement parties go to the polls without the stage being set correctly theres a good chance theyll get thumped by firebrand anti-agreement types who will do their best to renegotiate/cancel the agreement.

Its a lie. Its politicians attempting to dupe their electorate by removing their right to vote until theyre sure theyll vote the "right" way. But if it preserves the fragile peace in Northern Ireland is it worth it? Is it the greater good? Yes to my opinion. I think my contempt for terrorism ( republican and loyalist ) is known, but I am practical enough to understand that a peace they do not sign up to - one such as Paisley might engineer - is worthless.

We’re not lied to though. We have a right to free speech but this freedom is finite. We have a right to pursue our lives as we see fit, but this too is a finite freedom. And these finite boundaries are called laws, codified and recoded for all to see.

Hmmm - we seem to have different definitions of lying. If you try to sell me a loaf and tell me its fresh when its not then youre lying. Sure its still a loaf but you cant eat it. If you try to tell me Ive the right to free speech and exspression but when I try to espouse views straight out of Mein Kamp you lock me up for inciting hate then youre lying. If you tell me Ive the right to worship freely but when me and my cult start up our own commune you treat us like dangerous outcasts then youre lying. If you tell me you view me and my neighbour equally - and indeed punish me for making distinctions - but then decide to grant benefits to my neighbour because he has a different skin colour or comes froma different ethnic background then youre lying to me.

I dont disagree with limitations on freedom - its part of social groups that you give up freedoms to be part of the gang but we are lied to.

Contrary to the popular belief by many the European supporters of the recent conflict, their opinion counts for nothing in the US.

Agreed, but whose going to break it to the students?

Id guess theyd argue that they are allowed to hold an opinion on an idea and exspress their opinion even if they no say in deciding the issue. Same for me too. I agree with the decision to liberate Iraq. I think it was a good thing. I disgree with the decision to revisit protectionism. I think it was a bad thing. Ive no say in deciding the issue but when challenged thats my views. And seeing as very little other than "What US (and its puppets) are doing badly today is...." is discussed were kinda snookered.

Mainstream US media, television in particular, has been strongly pro-War-on-Terror up until recently. So pro-administration has US media been that even some members of the US media have expressed reservations in the past. So I’m afraid you’re in error.

I wouldnt consider the non-US media to be more searching because they automatically take a dimmer view of the Bush administration. It could be argued that they are just as biased as US media and paint just as distorted a picture of the truth. Of course we tend to side with the media we view as most honest/most in line with our own views.

Then should accepting bribes should be acceptable if it results in a greater good being accomplished?

Well ask yourself if you would have bribed one of the Justices to rule against Bush in the florida court case - knowing that it would prevent the misery and turmoil the Bush administration has spread around the world, all the failed treaties and embittered allies, the humiliation of the UN and its principles, the terrible wars against defenceless civillian targets, the vast upsurge his polices have caused in terrorism and nuclear proliferation, the corruption and backhanders to his oil cartel buddies. On the other hand youre robbed of a thousand satires:|

It all depends on your opinion of Bush and his policies. It all depends on whether you belive Gore would do a better job. It all depends on whether you believe the republicans rigged the elections so youve got to grease the wheels of justice to make sure the majority of americans get the president they voted for. Gore won the popular vote after all. Should an outdated electoral throwback to colonial times elect the man who got less votes?

Ill bet Vader wouldnt think twice about doing the good thing.

That’s rubbish. Fro example, Richard Nixon’s resignation was largely as a result of the fact that he got caught lying about his involvement in the Watergate break-in.

Only because there was no benefit or greater good. The american leadership lied that it was necessary to lock up Japanese Americans during WW2, and they lied that their laws and constitution allowed it. They lied that it wasnt logical that German - Americans should also be rounded up under the same logic. This is viewed as a great tragedy and injustice- in hindsight I might stress.

Many would argue that a similar tragedy and injustice is occuring in Guantamo Bay, Cuba. They would argue that the US administration is also lying that it is perfectly just. Maybe theyre right and scholars do write the history books so theyll have the greatest say in the end, but not many are bothered by those lies because the greater good of preventing terrorism is being achieved.

Perhaps not. But I’m not trying to claim that a war based upon a lie was for he greater good. That would make my interpretation less questionable than yours.

A matter of opinion surely? I could turn it right around and ask if peace was maintained on the basis of a lie - the US actively supported Afghani forces against the soviets, but they lied and said they werent involved to prevent a war with the USSR, for example - would the greater good be achieved always?

Also that part of this thread was decidedly off-topic.

I agree about that General - sounds like a nutcase but hes apparently guaranteed freedom to worship - just not too much eh?:)

And it was on topic, imo at least - You started the thread on neocons and views of their policies - the article TomF (? ) provided was very much on-topic in that regard.

Neo-conservatism is doing exactly that!!!!! All south America is indirectly run by the USA and is very oppressive. Most of these regimes started off as dictatorships with US military support which have evolved into corrupt democracy look-a-likes which always return the same people against a stream of public opposition. *I* feel America is doing the same thing in the middle east based on their record in Saudi Arabia and Israel.

Like I said - I wouldnt go all left wing whacko and declare 1984 just yet.

You’ve either misunderstood me or deliberately misquoted me. I’m saying that Bush stole the election and that when Ive said things to that effet Ive been shouted down as a “lying ignorant bitter Saddam Loyalist anti Americans!!” Because no pro Americans seem willing to acknowledge both the fact that A) Bush stole an election and Cheating in an election (like lying to people) is wrong.

Bush won the election according to the rules of the election. And if Gore had won in a similar fashion you wouldnt hear even an iota of the harping on about it from Democrats/left wing types. Of course no doubt the Republicans would do their best to make up for it. People tolerate different things based on their views of whether its for the greater good or not. Anti-Demcratic practices, lying, etc etc.

If I was to beat a kid to death youd call me a monster. Wrap an Irish flag around me while I was doing it and youd want a street named after me. Theres still a kid dead but it was for the greater good of a United Irish republic.

---

Hmmm, replying is taking longer and longer as thread goes on but its interesting from my point of view as its a good way to "test" what your views are. I remember a year or more ago arguing that the government should always go with the democratic majority in any decision even if they "knew" the popular decision would lead to disaster. And of course there were people arguing that such decisions should be left to panels of experts whod advise the government - anti democratic, but I see now that it is for the greater good in most cases. Im getting more and more cyincal as I get older:|

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Sand
Sure I did, way back with Northern Ireland. The pro agreement parties have been steadily lying for the past while that elections are dependant on agreement between the pro agreement parties. Rubbish. Its just that if the pro-agreement parties go to the polls without the stage being set correctly theres a good chance theyll get thumped by firebrand anti-agreement types who will do their best to renegotiate/cancel the agreement.

Debatable point, so you’ll forgive me if I don’t take that example too seriously.

Hmmm - we seem to have different definitions of lying. If you try to sell me a loaf and tell me its fresh when its not then youre lying.

No that’s not what I said. To use your analogy I’ll tell you that the loaf is not terribly fresh, but it’s as fresh as you’re going to get it. In other words and I’ll spell it out for you; we know the limitations to our freedom within society. They are transparent (at least if we bother asking) - we know the truth. If on the other hand they are not and we are told something in complete contradiction with the truth (as you postulate with the US Administration) then it’s not transparent. That’s called a lie.

Agreed, but whose going to break it to the students?

Irrelevant.

Id guess theyd argue that they are allowed to hold an opinion on an idea and exspress their opinion even if they no say in deciding the issue. Same for me too. I agree with the decision to liberate Iraq. I think it was a good thing. I disgree with the decision to revisit protectionism. I think it was a bad thing. Ive no say in deciding the issue but when challenged thats my views. And seeing as very little other than "What US (and its puppets) are doing badly today is...." is discussed were kinda snookered.

Again irrelevant. I’m not questioning that you believe that invading/liberating Iraq was a good idea, but that the use of deception by the US, or any other, government is an acceptable means to an end.

Even on a Machiavellian level, your standpoint is flawed as you base your opinion upon the standpoint of what you believe to be liars. And if they are, and their motives are ulterior, you cannot know whether they are for the greater good - something which you seeming sheepishly believe.

I wouldnt consider the non-US media to be more searching because they automatically take a dimmer view of the Bush administration. It could be argued that they are just as biased as US media and paint just as distorted a picture of the truth. Of course we tend to side with the media we view as most honest/most in line with our own views.

Again irrelevant. I was debunking your claim that the media has been anti-Bush. If you now want to qualify your statement - don’t; it’s intellectually disingenuous.

Well ask yourself if you would have bribed one of the Justices to rule against Bush in the florida court case

Again irrelevant. We are not discussing particular cases but whether such a practice is reasonable within a democratic (or frankly any) society. No doubt bending or breaking the rules can do great good, but that’s not the point. You assume that such corruption and deception will only be used for good, which is horrifically naive.

Only because there was no benefit or greater good. The american leadership lied that it was necessary to lock up Japanese Americans during WW2, and they lied that their laws and constitution allowed it. They lied that it wasnt logical that German - Americans should also be rounded up under the same logic. This is viewed as a great tragedy and injustice- in hindsight I might stress.

Again irrelevant - stick to what is discussed, not what you would prefer was discussed.

You said: “Lying, even when caught blatantly in the lie, has never served as a major disqualification from a successful political career”. I pointed out that you were wrong on that, not that the American, or any other, leadership has not lied and gotten away with it.

Sand, I would appreciate if you stick to what is said to you rather than changing the argument to suit you. Looking back on my post, I’ve noted that on almost every count you’ve responded with unrelated or irrelevant arguments and not with the points that were actually being discussed.

bonkey

Originally posted by Sand
Look at Clinton - the positions on lying will have come full circle.

Who's position has come full circle?

I did not believe Clinton should have been allowed to get away with lying on the issue, and I don't believe Bush should be allowed get away with lying over the case presented for war.

I will acknowledge that the Lewinsky affair is not something I think was worth pursuing, as I see a difference between the actions of the man and the actions of the President. So while I would see lying to senate in order to commit your nation to a war as the misuse of Presidential Powers to lie. Storing your cigar in a novel manner is not a misuse of Presidential Powers. Having said that, once the case was persued, and Clinton lied under oath, and was shown to have lied, then he should have been cast out.

If lying is for the greater good, then let the politican lie, then let him or her come forward and say "I lied, and it was for the greater good, and I will now resign my post". Given that Sand and many others support the notion of "acceptable losses" and "unavoidable casualties", then why is this logic not also extended to politicians? They lie, they serve the greater good (or not), and they leave or get thrown out. The good has been done, so what loss is the politican....just another sideline casualty.

And while you might wish to say "but that would cause elections every second day of teh week"...it would only do so if the politicians lie that often. And if they lie that often, you really have to wonder about the term "the greater good", because it begins to read more like "our vision of your future".

jc

Sand

No that’s not what I said. To use your analogy I’ll tell you that the loaf is not terribly fresh, but it’s as fresh as you’re going to get it. In other words and I’ll spell it out for you; we know the limitations to our freedom within society. They are transparent (at least if we bother asking) - we know the truth. If on the other hand they are not and we are told something in complete contradiction with the truth (as you postulate with the US Administration) then it’s not transparent. That’s called a lie.

And didnt we know that Bush and his administration were arguing their side of the case for the war, that the facts were there to support or debunk his claims ( at least if we bothered asking ) - and hence we knew the truth by your logic. Bush lied only as much as you claim the government does or doesnt - they make a claim (Youre free / Saddam has WMD ) and way down the back theres the facts (The Law/ Factual criticism and UN reports) which you can then use to decide if theyre telling you the truth.
And if Bush honestly believed what he was saying, then as far hes concerned he was telling the truth.

---

Right lets recap, because youve been going down side-issues and when you dont like the answer you claim its me dragging you that way. I didnt bring up the issue of whether our votes count for anything in the US, nor did I bring up the issue of whether the US media is more or less truthful than European media, nor did I bring up the issue of whether bribery is okay if its for the greater good, nor do i flip flop from refusing to discuss certain cases ( the criticism of the Justices example ) to basing my argument on them ( Your Nixon example ). All I did was respond to your points. /me shrugs - I guess I should ignore them from now on.


Okay, the recap

People claim Bush lied about the reasons for the war. I say , so what - he lied, a greater good was achieved by the lie so no matter.

This of course is wrong - lying is always wrong, *regardless* of any benefit resulting from it, according to yourself and bonkey. It is antidemocratic. If the government lies then, automatically that is the issue, not the result of the lie which is irrelevant to the fact the government has lied.

My position is that lying is not always wrong, that if a greater good is achieved by the lie then the lie is justified. I feel were happy to accept anti-democratic practices when it is for the greater good so whats the difference with lying ...something we expect from politicians.

Thats the crux of the issue - is it *always* wrong to lie or are there circumstances in which lying is the proper course of action? I believe there is, and you dont. I look forward to you proving that it is *always* wrong to lie. I have a much easier time of demonstrating that it is okay to lie if it is for the greater good.

Hell, think how shocked and appalled people were when the US was honest in saying that it viewed France as not being its ally because it opposed its policies rather than supporting them!!!!!!!!

Shock! Horror! Thats not how politics is done - Youre supposed to lie and not fight in front of the children:|

Who's position has come full circle?

Example: The Republican Party - They were real hot under the collar about the President being truthful when it was Clinton werent they? They dont seem half as outraged about lying when its their buddy Bush telling porkies?

And you can reverse it for Democrats.

And reverse it for those sympathetic to both parties views, domestic and abroad.

Given that Sand and many others support the notion of "acceptable losses" and "unavoidable casualties", then why is this logic not also extended to politicians? They lie, they serve the greater good (or not), and they leave or get thrown out. The good has been done, so what loss is the politican....just another sideline casualty.

Again Bonkey I ask, when has idealism ever played that great a role in politics?

I will acknowledge that the Lewinsky affair is not something I think was worth pursuing, as I see a difference between the actions of the man and the actions of the President.

Agreed - who gives a toss about Clinton and his sex games? But those who are sympathetic to that view cannot then come up with the principle that lying is always wrong, even if it serves the greater good because theyve already put a qualification themselves on how harmful lying is. In certain situations its okay as far as their concerned, even if it makes a laughing stock of their elected representitive.

The only difference is that I put a different qualification - if the greater good is achieved by the lie then so be it.

bonkey

Originally posted by Sand
I believe there is, and you dont. I look forward to you proving that it is *always* wrong to lie. I have a much easier time of demonstrating that it is okay to lie if it is for the greater good.

No. If the greater good is served, that still doesn't excuse you from lying. You may say that it is the right thing to do, but you should still be held accountable.

Why?

Who decides if a politician should be held accountable? The public? Well, if overwhelming popular opinion isn't enough to force a governments hand - as you have argued in the past I believe, then surely popular opinion of any form is equally unacceptable to you as a judge of whether or not an action is wrong.

Now, assuming that no crime was comitted, that also rules out the law - which in theory at least (as well as in law in the US I believe?) is seperate from State. (In reality, I know it isn't, but I'll come back to that.

Example: The Republican Party - They were real hot under the collar about the President being truthful when it was Clinton werent they? They dont seem half as outraged about lying when its their buddy Bush telling porkies?

But what makes you think that my argument is either in support of the Democrats' expressed outrage, or that I was supporting Republican outrage in the past. I know that both of these parties are identical in this type of standards-shifting. I don't support either. I'm not saying Bush should be held accountable because I want to see the Democrats back in, I'm saying that he should be held accountable because he should be held accountable in my opinion. And if I am wrong in the assumption that he did not break any laws if he did lie, then I am also saying that the legal system in the US must prove it is not a lackey to the government and take the necessary action if there is a case which should be answered.

Which brings me nicely back to....

Again Bonkey I ask, when has idealism ever played that great a role in politics?

Now, lets not mince words here Sand. We're not talking about idealism in general, we're talking about one specific ideal - the value of truth - and nothing else.

If a law has been broken, then Law must show that it is not just a pawn of the State, and it must act as it is obliged to. To do otherwise makes an mockery of the entire legal system and the concept of equality. Or do you believe that politicians should be above the law? Say, for example, in the hypothetical situation where the President broke the law in his actions "for the greater good". And if so, which laws are ok to break? Where would we draw the line?

Now, in the more likely event that no law was broken.....that rules out the argument for idealism in Law entirely anyway, as they have no part to play.

Now, given that public opinion shouldnt - as you have argued - sway government decisions, surely public opinion also has no right to judge the rightness or wrongness of a President's actions, nor to judge whether or not the greater good was served, nor indeed, whether the serving of a greater good excuses the lie.

So thats the law, and the public ruled out. That leaves the politicians themselves to act as their own watchers.

You believe that idealism holds no place in politics and I agree fully to that.
However, I would say that you also believe that idealism should hold no place in politics, and that I would thoroughly disagree with - specifically when we are talking about the value of truth.

If politicians alone get to judge, and idealism holds no place, nor the value of truth, then what possible hope is there to argue that these self-judging people will hold much weight for the ideal of the greater good??? How can we possibly trust that they are only lying to serve the greater good, or indeed that we agree with their unstated vision of what the greater good is.

I would argue Sand that the lack of some very simple ideals like the value of truth, and democracy itself, should be central to politics, not happily absent.

And remember, I'm not talking about them, or what they think. I'm talking about me, and what I think. I'm not talking about what will happen, I'm talking about what should happen.

In certain situations its okay as far as their concerned, even if it makes a laughing stock of their elected representitive.

Again, I have never been talking about them. I have been talking about me - what I think, and why I think it.

Sand

Who decides if a politician should be held accountable? The public? Well, if overwhelming popular opinion isn't enough to force a governments hand - as you have argued in the past I believe, then surely popular opinion of any form is equally unacceptable to you as a judge of whether or not an action is wrong.

Well you see "overwhelming popular opinon" is actually a lot of nasty newspaper editorials, columnists sniping, and a group getting together anything from a few dozen to a few thousand protestors out onto the street.

We dont base politics on mob rule, rightly or wrongly. We elect politicians because we believe they will represent us best. If they fail to live up to our expectations then we elect someone else. If were happy with their performance - lying and all - then we keep them on. FF told an almightly pack of lies to get elected last time. If people are unhappy with them come next election then they will elect FG or some other shower instead who will also tell an almighty pack of lies to get elected - though perhaps not as blatantly as FF have.

Thats the accountability as I see it. We get the government we deserve.

I know that both of these parties are identical in this type of standards-shifting. I don't support either. I'm not saying Bush should be held accountable because I want to see the Democrats back in, I'm saying that he should be held accountable because he should be held accountable in my opinion.

Of course - Im just trying to demonstrate that lying is not viewed by society in general or the political "set" as inherently wrong, unless its the other side lying.

Say, for example, in the hypothetical situation where the President broke the law in his actions "for the greater good". And if so, which laws are ok to break? Where would we draw the line?

Thats a tough question - easy answer would be something like victimless crime but its hard to think of a situation where a President or other political leader could break a law and have it described as victimless .... bar of course some of those crazy laws which state youre not supposed to get your hair cut on a sunday morning or somesuch.

Thinking about it you couldnt even bar murder if it was for the greater good - assassination is of dubious legality and yet has been practised by several nations - the US was certainly trying to kill Saddam, often ignoring the threat to civillians in their attempts - of those who they believe to be plotting terrorist attacks is certainly justifiable in that it saves lives.

And we cant forget that we admire politicians such as Ghandi who made a career out of breaking the law for what he saw as the greater good.

The best judge of what means are and are not justified by the end would be the ballot box imo.

You believe that idealism holds no place in politics and I agree fully to that.
However, I would say that you also believe that idealism should hold no place in politics, and that I would thoroughly disagree with - specifically when we are talking about the value of truth.

Yes I believe that Idealism is not found in politics, today or ever - there was no golden age for the old timers either.

But I do believe that Idealism *should* be in politics - I simply hold a different set of Ideals than you do, I believe the government we elect should do the right thing even if it goes against the wishes of the people, the democratic majority or whatever else. Never forget that it is democratic forces such as farmers unions which effectively kill millions of the poorest people in the world by crushing their agrarian economies and angrily opposing any serious reform.

I would argue Sand that the lack of some very simple ideals like the value of truth, and democracy itself, should be central to politics, not happily absent.

I believe that a government that does the right thing is our goal and that democracy and so on are only tools towards this end - not the be all and end all of it. I stated before that democracy without liberal values is not an inherently great place to live simply because its a democracy.

Again, I have never been talking about them. I have been talking about me - what I think, and why I think it.

Grand, but only the opinion of society - best exspressed at elections - has a real effect on politicians at the end of the day.

bonkey

Originally posted by Sand
Well you see "overwhelming popular opinon" is actually a lot of nasty newspaper editorials, columnists sniping, and a group getting together anything from a few dozen to a few thousand protestors out onto the street.

In this specific instance you may be able to argue that this is the case, but you'll notice that the point this is in response to was posted in the conditional - what you believe should be done if there is overwhelming public support/opposition for/to something.

But lets leave that aside for now...

But I do believe that Idealism *should* be in politics - I simply hold a different set of Ideals than you do,

Unfortunatley, truth isn't among them, apparently....given that this is the specific ideal we are discussing.

Nor are adherence to the law, nor the democratic process from other things you have said in that past post.

Never forget that it is democratic forces such as farmers unions which effectively kill millions of the poorest people in the world by crushing their agrarian economies and angrily opposing any serious reform.

Why is it that everytime someone tries to say "things could be better", the counter-argument is "but group X is even worse".

So what? Does that mean that things can't be better? That they shouldn't be better?

And besides, I'm sure those farming unions are working "for the greater good" as well....

I believe that a government that does the right thing is our goal and that democracy and so on are only tools towards this end

Thats priceless, considering that you just argued earlier in the same post that people can democratically choose not to re-elect a politician.

Now you're saying that as long as the politician is acting for the greater good, this process, just like the truth, is something which can be corrupted in order to better serve your goals.

So, if democracy itself is subservient to "doing the right thing", and you followed the logic I expected in concluding that law is also somewhat of a hindrance we shouldn't worry about having to adhere to too much when doing the right thing, then who controls the politicians other then themselves???

You're saying that as long as a poltician is acting in the greater good, he can act against the wishes of the public (even to the point of subverting democracy, cause thats just another tool to you, not an ideal which must be upheld), as well as the law (another tool, shouldn't get in the way).

So who decides this greater good, Sand??? Only the politicians are left. You're effectively saying that any politician can justify any act by simply saying "I believe I acted for the greater good".

I stated before that democracy without liberal values is not an inherently great place to live simply because its a democracy.

But truth, law, and the actual democratic process itself are not values you feel are actually amongst those liberal values....so exactly what values are you talking about? The value of money? The value of power? Of what?

Grand, but only the opinion of society - best exspressed at elections - has a real effect on politicians at the end of the day.

But you've been just saying that democracy is only a tool, not an ideal we should stick too rigidly to.

And this is where I get to the point...

Sand - you've just effectively argued that a politican may subvert law, democracy and truth in order to act for the greater good. But once these three ideals can be subverted, who can judge if the greater good was served???

If Dubya decided to nuke Iran in the morning, and then tell us all it was for the greater good, who could hold him accountable.

He could lie, and say "they were just about to attack us".

His actions - by your standards - should probably not be accountable to law, because - as you said - "The best judge of what means are and are not justified by the end would be the ballot box imo."

And unfortunately, the ballot box itself cannot be trusted because democracy is only another tool like truth, not an ideal, so its ok for Dubya to cheat there too, as long as he is acting in the greater good.

Now, here's the kicker.....

If he isn't acting in the greater good, what ability have your standards left us with to deal with it? A handicapped legal system, no value for the truth, and a democratic process which we can have no faith in.

More importantly, when democracy, truth and law are all subservient to "the greater good", who gets to decide what that greater good is Sand, if not the politicians themselves?

jc

shotamoose

Originally posted by bonkey

If Dubya decided to nuke Iran in the morning, and then tell us all it was for the greater good, who could hold him accountable.

Here's another situation. Myself and some black-polonecked pals provoke an armed uprising against a government we claim is not governing 'in the greater good', and set up an authoritarian but well-intentioned regime in its place. We suspend (temporarily, of course) the instituations, democratic or otherwise, of the previous regime, because they had been corrupted by the self-interest of the ruling classes, and embark on a wholesale improvement of every aspect of society. Since we're working for the greater good, anybody who tries to stop or undermine our work must be working against the greater good, and it will be no great loss if they happen to go away for a while, disappear or, say, get murdered with an icepick in Mexico.

We've got a damn good theory that tells us how we can engineer a perfect society, and if things don't seem to be going to well in the meantime, well that's obviously because some people just aren't trying hard enough. Unfortunately we might have to coerce large parts of the population into looking past their blinkered, short-term me-first attitudes and recognising that if they just do as we say everything will be for the best at some point in the future we're not going to define right now.

The problem is we're not only being attacked from the inside but from the outside too. In order to fight for the greater good, we'll have to greatly increase our military strength and maybe invade a few nearby states and set up puppet governments to protect the motherland. Don't worry, we're acting in their greater interests too.

I suppose you'd be right behind us all the way, Sand. But I'm not all that sure it's really a great idea. Thinking about it, why should we believe anyone when they tell us they know what's good for us in the long term? I know we all do from time to time, but I can't help thinking that the only 'greater good' I can identify with any confidence consists of things like truth, transparency and democracy in government. Unlike the Communists, the neoliberals and, apparently, you, I can't accept that the ends (any ends you or they say) always justify the means (any means you or they consider are necessary). Means are all we've got, and the end never comes.

The Corinthian

Sand has postulated that the US administration deceived the West in its reasoning for invading Iraq, yet that this was acceptable to him based upon the principle of a greater good being followed.

Now let’s assume using purely Machiavellian logic that the end justifies the means.

Of course the problem with accepting Sand’s position is that he does not know what this ‘good end’ is. That it was removal of a brutal dictator is simply an assumption on his part - and given his acceptance that the original reason was a deception, there is no reason to believe that even regime change was nothing more than an altruistic by-product of a more occult purpose.

Ultimately it is this end and its effects that he supports. This position, of course, is entirely illogical as, like us, not only does not know what this end is, but whether it has even been achieved.

Secondly, there is the price to any action that must be considered. Even were the end to be altruistic or even simply accidentally so, it cannot be justified if it is pyrrhic. The removal of a brutal dictator can hardly be deemed justifiable if it results in a fundamentalist (or even simply an American sponsored) dictatorship taking over within a few years due to the instability wrought or getting US troops out of Saudi Arabia (another of the endless list of reasons mooted) is not ultimately justifiable if all that happens is they end up in Iraq being shot at on a daily basis.

Of course the most pyrrhic of all benefits is that the good gained from such actions is ultimately outweighed from the potential evil of the true reasons - that are as yet unknown.

Thus Sand’s logic is regrettably flawed.

bonkey

Originally posted by shotamoose
Since we're working for the greater good, anybody who tries to stop or undermine our work must be working against the greater good, and it will be no great loss if they happen to go away for a while, disappear or, say, get murdered with an icepick in Mexico.

Strangely enough....the society that this logic leads to sounds suspiciously like the type of dictatorship the US just went out of its way to remove from another nation on the grounds that it was a bad thing.

Guess one man's greater good is another man's lesser evil.....which causes my ideals no bother whatsoever, but would seem to scupper the argument's supporting Sand's.

jc

Vader

Originally posted by Sand
the end though, with hindsight, we can say an easy american victory was never in doubt despite the difficulties that cropped up.

When the Americans get their victory ie when the fighting stops and the death toll is recorded then we’ll debate weather or not it was easy or cheap.

Originally posted by Sand
the inheritors of their ideals predicted US defeat/hardfought victory based on resistance encountered, and theyre predicting failure of the attempt to democratise Iraq based on current difficulties.

I’m predicting Iraq will end up like every other country America civilizes ie corrupt, poor and oppressive.

Originally posted by Sand
quote:

---

The problem - borrowing from your parable - is that the US have a history of leaving useless half-built houses around the world.

---

Agreed.

So its not just Iraq that has current difficulties?

Originally posted by Sand
Irelands a case in point. No then decided to give up on a independant democratic Ireland because of the immense civil strife and hardship that occurred in its creation.

That’s actually one reason the unionists didn’t want to join at first, but this is getting a bit off the point; unless your saying unionists are neo-cons who frequently lie. In which case I agree with you.

Originally posted by Sand
I cant see any benefit to the lie referred to in 1984

People were happy, jobs were plentiful and governments were stable.

Originally posted by Sand
There are few people so principled to feel lying is wrong in all cases, regardless of situation or seriousness or result.

Originally posted by Sand
Just Vader was trying to make the point that anyone who disagrees with Bush is called such names ( I dunno why )

The tone of the article that started this thread.

Originally posted by Sand
Bush was elected fairly and legally by that system.
/
Bush won the election according to the rules of the election.

I’m not talking about the popular vote being greater than the vote resulting from winning certain states. I’m reminding you that bush didn’t win florida. Besides the confusing ballot (which is not a credible argument imo), tens of thousands of eligible voters were struck off the registrar and oversee ballots which shouldn’t of been counted(because they were posted late, weren’t stamped or the envelopes had been tampered with) were counted while other oversee ballots which should have, weren’t. The recount was going Gores way when the supreme court intervened. The Supreme court ruling was that it would be damaging to America’s international image is they impeached their president, not that Bush won fairly.

Originally posted by Sand
Well ask yourself if you would have bribed one of the Justices to rule against Bush in the florida court case - knowing that it would prevent the misery and turmoil the Bush administration has spread around the world, all the failed treaties and embittered allies, the humiliation of the UN and its principles, the terrible wars against defenceless civillian targets, the vast upsurge his polices have caused in terrorism and nuclear proliferation, the corruption and backhanders to his oil cartel buddies

First off I’d like to say fair play. Admitting you’ve a problem is the first step to recovery.
They were influenced. They were appointed by Bush I and other republicans. If I had any power, I would do everything in my power to see that the truth be told. -1 X -1=1

Originally posted by Sand
Ill bet Vader wouldnt think twice about doing the right thing

Vader always does what he thinks is the right thing. Hypothetical debates are difficult but I always try to say what I believe to be true. Níl saoi gan locht.

Originally posted by Sand
Many would argue that a similar tragedy and injustice is occuring in Guantamo Bay, Cuba. They would argue that the US administration is also lying that it is perfectly just. Maybe theyre right and scholars do write the history books so theyll have the greatest say in the end, but not many are bothered by those lies because the greater good of preventing terrorism is being achieved

History is written by the victors. That’s why the same mistakes and wrong doings are done over and over throughout history. You wouldn’t believe the trouble Ive gone through to get a truthful account of NI, the Balkens, Cold war etc. But that’s the problem with your point. Nobody knows what was done before so they cant learn from other peoples mistakes.

Originally posted by Sand
quote:

Neo-conservatism is doing exactly that!!!!! All south America is indirectly run by the USA and is very oppressive. Most of these regimes started off as dictatorships with US military support which have evolved into corrupt democracy look-a-likes which always return the same people against a stream of public opposition. *I* feel America is doing the same thing in the middle east based on their record in Saudi Arabia and Israel.



Like I said - I wouldnt go all left wing whacko and declare 1984 just yet

I feel you brushed away my point to easily. There is a serious problem in south America and the middle east; and that the blame belongs mostly to america.

Originally posted by Sand
If I was to beat a kid to death youd call me a monster. Wrap an Irish flag around me while I was doing it and youd want a street named after me. Theres still a kid dead but it was for the greater good of a United Irish republic

The IRA is a very organized and structured army. They have rules, what you can do, who you can do it to and what will happen to you if you act ultra vera.Unlike the US army I might add. Their soldiers cant be held responsible for war crimes. The UN didnt agree to this; the US simply said it would be the case and used the threat of withdrawal aid and peacekeepers and it became law. And for the record Im not a flag waving, tracksuit idiot who goes round singing the Fields of Athernry.

Sand has established his philosophy that the end cans justify the means; if said end accomplishes the greater good. I tend to agree with some of what he says to support this but I don’t agree that a leader lying to his people is one of these means or that the USA is accomplishing any greater good. Iraq can at this stage go either way, using an example, older than 5 years(so there will be sufficient fact for debate) show me how America accomplished the greater good.

Originally posted by Sand
Hmmm, replying is taking longer and longer as thread goes on

That’s because first you post then The Corinthian, then bonkey then me (it just keeps going round in a circle)and so you’ve to read 3 long ass replies before going on. You should see if you can get another pro American poster or two to help you out

Sand

And besides, I'm sure those farming unions are working "for the greater good" as well....

No theyre working purely for the good of their members who they represent, no one else. This is justifiable of course but it is not the greater good. The greater good would be served by farmers accepting the levels of subsidies they receive are excessive and are indirectly killing people who might otherwise be able to raise their standard of living by exporting food cheaper to the west.

But hey - the 3rd worlders are no-votes people as Corinthian puts it. Democracy dictates that our politicians should only be concerned by the needs of the farmers union and feck the 3rd worlers.

Thats priceless, considering that you just argued earlier in the same post that people can democratically choose not to re-elect a politician.

No Im saying that democracy is only a *tool* to achieve *good* government. Wasnt it Khruschev (sp? ) who said that communism was no good if it couldnt put food on the table or some such? Political systems are merely tools - even communists believe their system will lead to a better way of life; thats the end goal for all political systems.

In a democracy a politician can and will be elected or re-elected by the people. Theyre the ultimate judge of whether that politician acted in a way they agree with or not - lying and all. Theyre a better judge to my mind than the law which is set by the politicians, and interpreted by Judges appointed by the politicians. Zimbabwe is an example - all legal and above board, and if it wasnt Mugabe changed the law and the judge until it was.

Look at Northern Ireland - democracy has effectively been suspended and restricted so as to achieve the greater good. It has been recognised that democracy is merely a tool, not the be all and end all of the system.

See the farmer union examples - why exactly should any elected government give a tools about the 3rd world? Its not like they hold any votes.

But you've been just saying that democracy is only a tool, not an ideal we should stick too rigidly to.

Yes a tool - the people get to judge the politicians so the politicians try not to do anything which would cause them not to get re-elected. In this way it helps achieve good government.

Look at FF - they lied. What laws are there to save us from their lies? None. Whats the comeback? The next elections where the people will decide whether they want FF, lies and all.

I suppose you'd be right behind us all the way, Sand.

Id judge and evaluate your case like I do each particular case and Id decide whether I belive the greater good was served, and whether the means you used were justified by the end.

This is what I done in the Iraq example - Saddams gone, Bush ( we assume ) lied. Greater good served. End justifies the means used.

In your example the soviets talked the talk but acted only in their own good, rather than the greater good - not really shocking for politicians I grant you. And they were free to do so as there was no serious democratic evaluation by the people. Vote communist or communist.

I can't help thinking that the only 'greater good' I can identify with any confidence consists of things like truth, transparency and democracy in government. Unlike the Communists, the neoliberals and, apparently, you, I can't accept that the ends (any ends you or they say) always justify the means (any means you or they consider are necessary). Means are all we've got, and the end never comes.

And truth, transparency and democracy are only tools we use to achieve good government, to achieve the greater good. Thats it. Sometimes they fail - we recognise this and like in Northern Ireland we use different tools or modify drastically the ones we have - to achieve the greater good. Were happy to do this, to undermine democracy and transparency and the truth when it serves the greater good. Arent you appalled that the Allies for example didnt make public the battleplans for D-Day? Where was the truth and transparency there? The democracy? It was sacrificed for the greater good.

And if Bush had to lie to motivate the west into deposing a medeival dictatorship then so be it. The greater good was achieved. Come next election he will have defend himself on whether he lied or not, and the US will elect or re-elect him depending on whether they feel the greater good was achieved.

Luckily, just like Haider in Austria, were free to refuse to respect the democratic process of another country, if we feel the greater good will be achieved.

Of course the problem with accepting Sand’s position is that he does not know what this ‘good end’ is. That it was removal of a brutal dictator is simply an assumption on his part - and given his acceptance that the original reason was a deception, there is no reason to believe that even regime change was nothing more than an altruistic by-product of a more occult purpose.

Occult purpose? Oil? Pfft - like they just couldnt have bought it.

The lie and the war achieved an end, the overthrow of Saddam. Now, maybe Im wrong - but I view that as a good thing and I support it. You view it as a bad thing, and do not support it. Grand.

Perhaps its an assumption on my part to view it as a good thing, but hey if youre free to assume that bush lied - he could just have been wrong in his beliefs - Im free to make a few assumptions as well. If youre free to assume that the US will make a balls of it, then Im free to assume they wont. If youre free to assume that going along with the UN would have led to the greater good - with no proof, then Im free to assume that it would not have - and at least I can point to benefits to the Iraqis.

Ultimately it is this end and its effects that he supports. This position, of course, is entirely illogical as, like us, not only does not know what this end is, but whether it has even been achieved.

And by the same standards your position is entirely illogical as you do not know what the end is or even if it has been achieved so you cannot say the lie was not justified by the end?

Even were the end to be altruistic or even simply accidentally so, it cannot be justified if it is pyrrhic.

But logically, it can be if it was not phyrric?

That’s because first you post then The Corinthian, then bonkey then me (it just keeps going round in a circle)and so you’ve to read 3 long ass replies before going on. You should see if you can get another pro American poster or two to help you out

Agreed - But I dont view myself as being pro-american, Im not blind to their mistakes and bad policies in the past so people going "Oooooh the CIA did this in 1963 in South Africa, therefore the US is always wrong" are wasting their breath. I simply feel that the west has a duty to improve the standard of living of the less fortunate people in the world who suffer under the likes of Saddam. The US is currently the only major power taking any real steps in this. If France and co were doing it Id be supporting them.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Sand
But hey - the 3rd worlders are no-votes people as Corinthian puts it. Democracy dictates that our politicians should only be concerned by the needs of the farmers union and feck the 3rd worlers.

I didn’t say that. Please stop misquoting me.

I said that than for the US Administration considers the foreign media, and by extension foreign pubic opinion, to be the No Votes Media. That includes us First World Euro-weenies. Our interests, even those of new Puerto Ricans like yourself, are also secondary to the interests of the US.

Vader

Agreed - But I dont view myself as being pro-american, Im not blind to their mistakes and bad policies in the past so people going "Oooooh the CIA did this in 1963 in South Africa, therefore the US is always wrong" are wasting their breath. I simply feel that the west has a duty to improve the standard of living of the less fortunate people in the world who suffer under the likes of Saddam. The US is currently the only major power taking any real steps in this. If France and co were doing it Id be supporting them

Is that your way of once again refusing to acknowlage my claim that the US has a terrible track record and that the techniques they are using today are the same as they have been using for decades to no avail.
If you can see the mistakes of the past and the US is doing nothing new this time round then why cant you see the war in Iraq is a mistake?
In nearly everyone of your posts you justify your position with the claim that the war in Iraq accomplised the greater good. The war isnt over so as it has been repeatedly pointed out, Iraq isnt a valid example. I challenged you to find another, finished, example. You couldnt. For all your fine debating skills and fairly accurate knowlage you cant defend your position based on experience or irrefutable logic. Doesnt that send alarm bells off in your head? You are wrong, you know you are wrong and your own examples prove you are wrong. Watch.

Your basic principle is that the end justifies the means when the end is a greater good; but you cant find one example.

Your second principle is that lying is a justifiable means; but if you accept that you have been lied to, then you dont know what the end is or what else was used to acheive it. That aside, you also claim that when lying is used continuously and a greater good is acheived, that lying is wrong because it is being used too much.
If there is no past example of the US doing the right thing except Iraq (as you claim) and this time they lied more than usual (as you claim) then would it not imply that the US should lie more often and more outragously. Again your reasining is wrong; and you know it.

You dismiss you critics as being narrow minded and say that you can see both sides of the america coin, yet you attack me personaly for my support of "terrorists" like the IRA. You cant acknowledge that maybe they are acheiving a greater good because it is the opposite road to your greater good. You have however acknowledged that the situation in the north was unjust and wrong and that everything(including lying and cheating) should be done to prevent a return to the days of the troubles. Well if now is better than then, did the IRA not acheive a greater good?
When you defend both sides of an arguement you are not both right and wrong. You are just wrong because you are obviously lying to yourself and trying to cover your bases.

Q: Is that true or false.
Ans: True, I mean false.
The examiner will simply give you a zero.

Double think is a continuous problem with your posts as has been pointed out before. This is clear evidence that you already know(even if it is only subconsciously) that you are wrong.
A good example sice you have used it in three seperate posts I think, is that america could have just bought the oil. Not if Iraq was switching to euros, limited as to how much it could sell by sanctions and chose only to deal with France and Russia. You must have known this since you have pointed out repeatedly how the US has lifted sanctions that have been responsible for millions of deaths(red cross figures) and that France has been acting for its own ulterior motives.
Just because you think its OK for people to lie to you doesnt make it all right for you to lie to us.


Your third principle is that democracy is only a tool not a goal. If the US doesnt want to act democratically then it should stop calling itself the leader of the free world. If it doesnt want to listen to its people it shouldnt hold elections and if it isnt going to give Iraq democracy then it should have left it with a dictator.
What you say about the need to perverse democracy reminds me of what Craig said: "The oppression wrought by the tyranny of the masses is worse than that wrought by the tyranny of Kings".
Craig didnt bring about a greater good according to yourself so why would you follow his logic. The circumstances dont matter a, spade is a spade wheather there is a lady present or not and flawed thought can only result in flawed action. You know from your knowledge of history that this action is flawed.

This thread will continue to go round in circles with the same three saying their same philosophies but in different ways. I dont see the point anymore. I dont hate you sand and Im not out to get you. I've enjoyed this debate more than any other Ive had on boards because of the level of intelligence in the opposition. But I do think Ive shown your position to be untenable using your own words and logic as well as historical truths. You have consistantly ignored my posts, you cannot ignore any part of this one.

As far as debating as an art form is concerned you have lost.
You theories and logic when put into practice do not bring about a greater good.
You have convinced me that the end can sometimes justify the means, I am man enough to admit it, but lying is not one of those means and Iraq is not one of those ends.

Sand

I didn’t say that. Please stop misquoting me.

Oh so the 3rd worlders do have votes then? Either they do or they dont, and under democracy they are either important to politicians or they arent. Because as we all know, democracy is the be all and end all - politicians should not be concerned with anyone who hasnt votes.

Our interests, even those of new Puerto Ricans like yourself, are also secondary to the interests of the US.

Try not to devolve to childhood please. Just because we disagree does not make me any more puerto rican/US fanboy than it makes you French.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Sand
Occult purpose? Oil? Pfft - like they just couldnt have bought it.

Could they? Perhaps, I don’t know. Was there another reason? Perhaps, I don’t know. And neither do you.

The lie and the war achieved an end, the overthrow of Saddam. Now, maybe Im wrong - but I view that as a good thing and I support it. You view it as a bad thing, and do not support it. Grand.

The overthrow of Saddam was a good end, but it wasn’t the only one. Neither is it the only fallout from the war. How you can assume that this

Perhaps its an assumption on my part to view it as a good thing, but hey if youre free to assume that bush lied - he could just have been wrong in his beliefs - Im free to make a few assumptions as well.

Hold on, you have assumed that Bush lied, but was justified in doing so for the greater good. I’m just picking you up on that one.

and at least I can point to benefits to the Iraqis.

Power and water shortages, crime, 80% unemployment...

That’s not to say that there are not benefits, only that it’s rather selective to assume that no one can point out the deficits either.

And by the same standards your position is entirely illogical as you do not know what the end is or even if it has been achieved so you cannot say the lie was not justified by the end?

True, but again I’m not and never have said that the end is not justified - only that your logic in justifying it is flawed.

But logically, it can be if it was not phyrric?

If you accept that the end justifies the means and this end is good, then logically yes.

Oh so the 3rd worlders do have votes then? Either they do or they dont, and under democracy they are either important to politicians or they arent. Because as we all know, democracy is the be all and end all - politicians should not be concerned with anyone who hasnt votes.

No. You’re right - I misread your post. Apologies.

Try not to devolve to childhood please. Just because we disagree does not make me any more puerto rican/US fanboy than it makes you French.

Again apologies.

Belfast

The Libertarian Party is committed to America's heritage of freedom:
individual liberty and personal responsibility
a free-market economy of abundance and prosperity
a foreign policy of non-intervention, peace, and free trade.

http://www.lp.org/

bonkey

I'm sure all the parties have nice-sounding little descriptions just like that.

Having it on their website doesn't make it in any way true though.

jc

Belfast

Originally posted by bonkey
I'm sure all the parties have nice-sounding little descriptions just like that.

Having it on their website doesn't make it in any way true though.

jc

I do not understand you. Why would a political party put a list of policies on its web site if they were not party policy?

My point is that the NeoConservative gets a lot of coverage but they are not the only right wing group out there.
Libertarian Party is see as right wing in economic terms but liberal in social terms and are opposed to American interference in other countries affairs.

http://www.libertarianism.com/

http://www.cato.org/

Sand

Hold on, you have assumed that Bush lied, but was justified in doing so for the greater good. I’m just picking you up on that one.

No, I allowed that he lied to prevent debate on something that cant be known - only Bush and Co know whether they believed what they said and hence whether they were mistaken or deliberately lying knowing there was no WMD in Iraq.

That’s not to say that there are not benefits, only that it’s rather selective to assume that no one can point out the deficits either.

Again I accept there are negatives, I mentioned the greater good which accepts that the benefits outweigh the negatives. The negatives you mentioned are realtively short term in my opinion. They are serious of course, and must be resolved as soon as is possible, but given that the benefits will impact Iraqi lives for generations as opposed to the current difficulties then I hope I can be forgiven for believing them to be greater than the difficulties and negatives. Even for the US, who are sacrificing the lives of their soldiers in the here and now but who in the long term will have removed one of the oppressive regimes which create Arab discontent which can easily be translated into terrorism.

True, but again I’m not and never have said that the end is not justified - only that your logic in justifying it is flawed.

You have said though that the removal of Saddam was a good end, with which I agree, and that so long as the means were not phyrric that they can be justified by this end, with which I also agree - where we seem to disagree most seriously is with the unknown .... We do not know all the ends ( and in my opinion we can never know all the results of any given action until well after the action is taken, if even then ) hence you seem to believe this is enough to reject the above logic and assume the end does not justify the means, whilst I do not - given the information I have available to me now I belive the means were justified. We can only make decisions based on the information we have available. Otherwise were paralysed by indecision, at least thats how I see it.

This is of course, the curse of the UN in my opinion.

I do not understand you. Why would a political party put a list of policies on its web site if they were not party policy?

Why would a political party get "creative" with its manifesto at all? To win votes - appeal to all, and dont scare off anyone. SWP are an example of the success that awaits politicians who say what they believe, most of the time anyway

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Sand
No, I allowed that he lied to prevent debate on something that cant be known

And it can’t be known for what ultimate reason? The greater good? And in ‘allowing’ for it, is that not an acceptance of such means for the stated end? Kind of brings us back to what I pointed out of your position, dress it up as you will.

We can only make decisions based on the information we have available. Otherwise were paralysed by indecision, at least thats how I see it.

Or we may decide against such an action if there is sufficient reason to mistrust the ultimate motives of that action’s principle. Or to quote an old Italian saying; “fidarsi e bene, non fidarsi e meglio” (“To trust is good, not to trust is better”)

Sand

And it can’t be known for what ultimate reason? The greater good? And in ‘allowing’ for it, is that not an acceptance of such means for the stated end? Kind of brings us back to what I pointed out of your position, dress it up as you will.

No, you misunderstand - I do not mean cant be known under the official secrets act or some such - but rather you cant say whether Bush *believed* what he said. If he did believe it then he wasnt lying, he may have been wrong but not lying. Whereas if he didnt believe it and said it anyway then he would be lying.

Only one who can say is Bush. Who will say he wasnt lying regardless of whether he was or not, like any good politician would.

Either way the people will decide if they believe him or not, or even if that plays a major role in their decision to elect or depose him next year.

Or we may decide against such an action if there is sufficient reason to mistrust the ultimate motives of that action’s principle. Or to quote an old Italian saying; “fidarsi e bene, non fidarsi e meglio” (“To trust is good, not to trust is better”)

Surely the result is indecision? No major power can intervene for fear of people somewhere around the world calling it a imperialist act, for fear of its ultimate motives being questioned - and lets be honest, despite the US being the whipping boy for post-colonial guilt theres is not a single nation who can claim to be whiter than white. Who decides on who has the approved ultimate motives? Who do we trust to make that decision? The UN? Surely theyre merely a group of the above less-than-angelic powers scrabbling for influence.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Sand
No, you misunderstand - I do not mean cant be known under the official secrets act or some such - but rather you cant say whether Bush *believed* what he said.

Irrelevant. I’m questioning your assertion that, in your words:

They lied to you, to accomplish a greater good. Build a bridge, and get over it.

Whether he lied or not is unimportant, that you believe that it is acceptable is another.

Surely the result is indecision? No major power can intervene for fear of people somewhere around the world calling it a imperialist act, for fear of its ultimate motives being questioned

As I said perhaps the action was to oppose action. Perhaps that would ultimately be the best course of action in the long run. Allow the dictator to die of old age and see what happens next. Perhaps the Iraqis would be better off as a result. Who knows?

Éomer of Rohan

Quoted from Sand
Surely the result is indecision? No major power can intervene for fear of people somewhere around the world calling it a imperialist act, for fear of its ultimate motives being questioned - and lets be honest, despite the US being the whipping boy for post-colonial guilt theres is not a single nation who can claim to be whiter than white. Who decides on who has the approved ultimate motives? Who do we trust to make that decision? The UN? Surely theyre merely a group of the above less-than-angelic powers scrabbling for influence

The hate and fear of the US has nothing to do with it being the whipping boy for post-colonial guilt; the fact is that Britain and France and all other nationstates, run by their capitalist (or Stalinist) elite envy the USA - they would gladly return to a period where they held the dominance - the method of dominance has changed however, just as it has always changed throughout history - "the ideas of an age are the ideas of the ruling class" to paraphrase Marx and Lenin.

As for the bottom line in the post Sand, whom do we trust? We can trust NONE of them - we can only seek to change things.

Sand

Corinthian

Hold on, you have assumed that Bush lied, but was justified in doing so for the greater good. I’m just picking you up on that one.

Me

No, I allowed that he lied to prevent debate on something that cant be known - only Bush and Co know whether they believed what they said

Corinthian

And it can’t be known for what ultimate reason? The greater good? And in ‘allowing’ for it, is that not an acceptance of such means for the stated end? Kind of brings us back to what I pointed out of your position, dress it up as you will.

Me

No, you misunderstand - I do not mean cant be known under the official secrets act or some such - but rather you cant say whether Bush *believed* what he said.

Corinthian

Irrelevant. I’m questioning your assertion that, in your words:

Me: They lied to you, to accomplish a greater good. Build a bridge, and get over it.

Corinthian:
Whether he lied or not is unimportant, that you believe that it is acceptable is another.

Sorry. WTF?

At no point did I assume that Bush lied - in fact at several points i raised even discreetly the possiblity that he did not lie but was merely mistaken. As far as I know Im the only contributor to this thread to raise that possibility. Everyone else seems to have assumed that bush lied - the build a bridge quote you menioned was in response to a "Wheres the WMD then?" typical line from ....someone. I simply allowed that he lied because A) It prevents a useless debate on whether Bush lied or not, which could not be resolved without knowing whether bush believed his position or did not - which we do not know, and It honestly doesnt bother me whether he did or not as either way it accomplished a greater good, which is the line along which this thread has gone anyway.

As I said perhaps the action was to oppose action. Perhaps that would ultimately be the best course of action in the long run. Allow the dictator to die of old age and see what happens next. Perhaps the Iraqis would be better off as a result. Who knows?

Perhaps, perhaps not. Perhaps your action in favour of inaction would not have been justified by the ends. Perhaps millions of Iraqis die from the sanctions before Saddam dies. Perhaps when he dies a civil war breaks out causing even more deaths and suffering, or merely one of his sons ascend and continue the cycle for another 40 years. How do you know? You dont and I dont, right? All you can promise the Iraqis with any degree of certainty is more sanctions and more of Saddams benevolent leadership for another 1-30 years. When is it enough? How many Iraqis die before the civillised world says we dont tolerate that in the 21st century?

And to pre-empt you - the police do not stop all murder, doesnt mean we should tolerate murder. Powerful figures may conspire to murder people, but it does not mean we should tolerate murder. Previous administrations and governments may have consorted with dictators or even raised them, but it does not mean we should tolerate them.

The hate and fear of the US has nothing to do with it being the whipping boy for post-colonial guilt; the fact is that Britain and France and all other nationstates, run by their capitalist (or Stalinist) elite envy the USA - they would gladly return to a period where they held the dominance - the method of dominance has changed however, just as it has always changed throughout history - "the ideas of an age are the ideas of the ruling class" to paraphrase Marx and Lenin.

Agreed. As a sidenote though, seeing as communism was an idea of an age between, say the late twenties and the late eighties would it have been the idea of the ruling classes?

As for the bottom line in the post Sand, whom do we trust? We can trust NONE of them - we can only seek to change things.

Though you cannot trust any nation - they are afterall, groups - would you approve of nations carrying out actions you agree with and disaprove of nations which are not - or are even actively opposing such actions?

Éomer of Rohan

Quoted from Sand
Agreed. As a sidenote though, seeing as communism was an idea of an age between, say the late twenties and the late eighties would it have been the idea of the ruling classes?

I would agree in so far as I know that you mean Stalinism where you write communism and yes, it was indeed an idea of the ruling class of a corrupted revolution which proceeded to corrupt all other revolutions whether genuine or self-seeking.

Quoted from Sand
Though you cannot trust any nation - they are afterall, groups - would you approve of nations carrying out actions you agree with and disaprove of nations which are not - or are even actively opposing such actions?

The liberal would answer that by supporting such nations as he can when he can but the socialist realises that the question is biased; all nations act out of self-interest and they mistakenly perceive the greater way to the end of self interest as competition and division to maintain as Hobbes put it their 'individual social contract(s).' Under a capitalist system, one may agree with what a nation does but must look closely to see why that nation does it - and always the answer is that there is sme benefit in the action for the ruling elite.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Sand
No, I allowed that he lied to prevent debate on something that cant be known - only Bush and Co know whether they believed what they said

What’s your point? That’s just another way of saying that you think it was all right for them to lie for the greater good, which is what I said.

They lied to you, to accomplish a greater good. Build a bridge, and get over it.

You’re missing the point and the problem with what you’re saying is encapsulated in that statement.

You do not know that they accomplished a greater good, the removal of a dictator may be good, but given imperfect information (largely due to some of it being false) is it a greater good? You cannot logically say that. It may all prove to be a disaster in the long run, or may have been better served without invasion - we do not presently know and in some ways may never know.

Yet, and this is the surreal thing, you are happy to place your faith in someone who you accept would lie to you.
At no point did I assume that Bush lied - in fact at several points i raised even discreetly the possiblity that he did not lie but was merely mistaken. [/B][/QUOTE]
Please don’t use semantics to redress your point. Ultimately it is not that you allowed for the possibility that he lied, but that he would be justified in doing so.

As far as I know Im the only contributor to this thread to raise that possibility. Everyone else seems to have assumed that bush lied

I’ve not. Again, I’m not questioning the logic of saying that he’s lied or not but your logic that he was justified had he done so.

It honestly doesnt bother me whether he did or not as either way it accomplished a greater good, which is the line along which this thread has gone anyway.

Except you don’t know if he accomplished a greater good. You’re taking the word of someone who was, by your reckoning, at best incompetent with intelligence if not blatantly dishonest. Additionally you don’t now what other reasons were involved, that may partially, if not completely reverse any good from the removal of Saddam.

The fundamental flaw in your logic sand if you seem to either accept that the greater good was done on the basis of a superficial assessment or you have faith in the purpose of the present US administration.

Even if one accepts that the principle of the ends justifying the means, such a position is naïve at best.

How do you know? You dont and I dont, right? All you can promise the Iraqis with any degree of certainty is more sanctions and more of Saddams benevolent leadership for another 1-30 years. When is it enough? How many Iraqis die before the civillised world says we dont tolerate that in the 21st century?

You’re right, I don’t know. Then at best you’re no more wrong than I, at worst, however, it generally makes more sense to not act because of lack of information than act - fools rush in where angels fear to tread, and all that...

As for the downside of not having invaded; you’re just speculating. I can equally speculate that the result of his removal in this manner will ultimately be a civil war so bloody that it would make one of his purges look like a picnic.

Previous administrations and governments may have consorted with dictators or even raised them, but it does not mean we should tolerate them.

But did they not consort and raise them for the greater good?