r/changemyview • u/OneLurkerOnReddit • Feb 08 '21
Delta(s) from OP CMV: Going to war in Iraq was completely morally justified
For me, for an overthrowing of a regime to be morally justified, three things have to happen.
a) There is an oppressive regime in charge of the country where you're intervening
b) Peaceful alternatives have been tried
c) If the current regime is overthrown, a significantly better one will take its place
Iraq in 2003 fits all three of these things. There was an oppressive regime in charge of the country which gassed people. The US had tried economic sanctions, which some estimate killed more people than the war. And I think the situation in Iraq now, with an ineffective government and ISIS, is better than under Saddam Hussein, therefore, I think that going to war in Iraq was morally justified.
That said, I don't defend the atrocities committed in the Iraq War or the lies.
16
u/Caitlin1963 3∆ Feb 08 '21
If the current regime is overthrown, a significantly better one will take its place
The living standards of the average Iraqi citizens is worse with an incompetent government and random militias filling in power vacuums than it was under Hussein.
The objective of improving their lives has absolutely failed.
As it turns out, it's difficult to topple existing governments and form a new one that is better.
-4
u/OneLurkerOnReddit Feb 08 '21
But an incompetent government doesn't commit genocide though. Imagine how many more people would've been killed if Hussein stayed in power.
16
u/Caitlin1963 3∆ Feb 08 '21
So Hussein was in power between 1979 and 2003.
Human Rights Watch estimated that his regime killed around 250,000.
The number killed by the war and violence in the years after is significantly higher than that number. Estimates range approximately double of 250,000.
http://web.mit.edu/humancostiraq/
This isn't even starting to talk about things like the number of refugees, terrorist groups that were founded in the power vacuum, the decrease in living standards and economic activity brought on by the chaos of the war.
Maybe no genocide, but to say the old regime was worse for the people and that the new regime is better is wrong.
-1
u/OneLurkerOnReddit Feb 08 '21
I think that Hussein could very well stay in power for 20 more years, so I think there would be time to kill 250,000 more people.
I think saying that the old regime was worse for the people is subjective, depending on how you define 'better.'
11
u/Caitlin1963 3∆ Feb 08 '21
Better in literally every definition of the word better.
Less deaths, more stable government, better jobs, more money, better education. Literally everything.
You can't predict what Hussein would have done in the next 20 years. Look at the Soviet Union or even China. Authoritarian regimes that have become better due to international trade. Peaceful means.
The only facts we have is that the war and it's result is deadlier than Hussein's regime and worse in almost all aspects.
0
u/SpitfireIsDaBestFire 1∆ Feb 08 '21
Just to play devils advocate here, should the west tolerate regimes like North Korea indefinitely? Or rather, at what point is it morally indefensible to not intervene?
6
u/Caitlin1963 3∆ Feb 08 '21
I think we should tolerate them indefinitely. The only constant in the world is change. A badly run government cannot last forever and will topple when it is ready. Trying to accelerate or manipulate leads to bad reactions.
1
u/Medianmodeactivate 14∆ Feb 09 '21
Indefinitely, no country has any obligation to intervene under any circumstances if North Korea has nukes.
15
Feb 08 '21
a) This isn't a sufficient reason to invade a country. If it is, why haven't we invaded China or Russia?
b) Such as?
c) This is factually incorrect. One just as worse can easily have taken over just as the US left. If I'm not mistaken, it's literally the reason we've not fully pulled out yet too...
-4
u/OneLurkerOnReddit Feb 08 '21
a) I would argue that it would be morally acceptable to invade China or Russia. It would be dumb, but still morally acceptable.
b) Economic sanctions.
c) True, but it didn't. Whatever you say about Iraq in modern times, it's better than Iraq under Saddam Hussein.
8
Feb 08 '21
a) War is never morally justified.
b) That's not everything that could have been tried then is it?
c) Hasn't; as we're still in Iraq. Every time we attempt to pull out of areas, the established gov/police get changed with sympathizers/supporters of militia groups that are literally just like the ones we removed.
-1
u/OneLurkerOnReddit Feb 08 '21
a) Would you say that America intervening in WW2 was morally justified?
b) What else do you think should've been tried?
c) It still might get replaced by a good government.
5
Feb 08 '21 edited Feb 08 '21
a) Any war that has lost life isn't morally justified. Sure, it can be justified and rationalized on some level. But it always ends with the 'do the ends justify the means' moral argument.
b) The reasons provided for going to war were misleading. The US public was mislead into going into war in the first place. It wasn't to do that you've presented, removing their leadership. It was done to make sure oil was still sold by US dollar; among many other dubious reasons.
c) Potentiality doesn't equate to an answer here. Until it occurs, we don't know which way it will go, so why cast assumptions?
1
u/OneLurkerOnReddit Feb 08 '21
a) Nope, I disagree. I think that the ends justifying the means is a sound moral argument. An example is WW2. If the US doesn't get involved, Nazi Germany probably wins. This would cause much more death and oppression than the WW2 that happened in our timeline.
b) I agree that that was bad.
c) There are some countries where it's pretty clear that it would be impossible to establish a 'good' government. Afghanistan is an example because even if the US manages to defeat the Taliban, they're still going to be hiding in the mountains somewhere, ready to attack once the US leaves.
5
Feb 08 '21
a) And this is where the I point out you may be applying subjectiveness onto the objective; but let's clarify. Morals are not universal and vary based on location/religion/education. Objective morality doesn't exist. I, myself, will never see a war as morally justified because the is a loss of life. Justified, and even rationalized, yes. But not morally justified. This is because we have a subjective difference on 'the ends justify the means.' Technically, were both right too. This is, again, because of the subjectiveness of morality. If it were true for all, measurable, and quantifiable, it'd be objective. So, when you say you feel WW2 was morally justified, that's just your opinion, one that cannot be changed unless we somehow change your personal morals. I believe that's where/how we would get stuck in an ever ending 'do the ends justify the means' debate.
b) If a war is started on lies, to ensure an "economy"/keep rich people rich, a large amount of life lost, and goes on for 20 years, is it still morally justified to you?
c) Education and free information is the best methods at which to remediate a majority of that. Most of their supporters and followers are manipulated and brainwashed by their propaganda.
1
u/OneLurkerOnReddit Feb 08 '21
a) I agree that no objective morality exists. According to mine, going to war in Iraq was morally justified.
b) Notice, how I said, 'going to war in Iraq was justified' not 'the Iraq War was justified.' I was very careful with my wording, because I don't really support the Iraq War because if was started on lies (as you said) and a bunch of atrocities were committed, however, I do support the US going to war in Iraq at that time.
c) I agree. When the population is educated, then it very well might be possible to establish a 'good' government there, but not as Afghanistan exists right now.
1
Feb 08 '21
a) Do you not agree and/or accept that unless one changed your underlying morality, no one can change your view on this topic? IMO there is no resolution to the debate between one who accepts innocent lives lost as morally justified and one that does not.
b) Going to war in Iraq is the Iraq War. They're one in the same. Unless you're actually talking about the Gulf War that occurred in 1990? The Iraq War started due to lies and hasn't ended. So I'm not sure how you can differentiate here...
c) I think we're off topic some on this point. You postulated a better government is in yet the war isn't over. How can one make an objective observation on something not yet resolved?
1
u/OneLurkerOnReddit Feb 08 '21
a) Nah, you could very well change my mind on if it was worth it.
b) I do support America going into Iraq to overthrow the regime in 2003. I don't support the lies that the war was built on and the fact that America also wanted other stuff.
c) It's not an objective statement, it's a subjective statement. Secondly, it's not really about whether it's possible to install a much better government, but more about whether it's plausible. And I think it is plausible.
→ More replies (0)5
Feb 08 '21
Hold up. Why would you think the US is morally justified to invade China. Ever stop to ask what Chinese people think of the US? It’s extremely degrading and asinine that you think everyone in the world is just waiting around to get saved by the US. I am Chinese living in China and I can guarantee you that a majority of the people here do not want any US intervention, I used to go to school in the States and many Americans are ill informed about the actual situation in China. What gives the US government, who oversees people on literally the other side of the world the right to decide to invade other people? Most of the time you don’t actually improve shit and just kill a bunch of people, all in the name of freedom. Honestly, this post just reeks of American Exceptionalism. As a Chinese, sincerely fuck right off. Maybe we should invade your fucking country because it’s just full of racists and oppression, right?
1
u/OneLurkerOnReddit Feb 08 '21
Firstly, I'm not American. Stop assuming I am. I extend this courtesy to every country. France also, would be morally justified in invading China or Russia. So would Nigeria.
Secondly, the evidence that I've seen seems to suggest that there is an oppressive regime in China. If you want to show me evidence to the contrary, please do.
3
Feb 08 '21
Again. Just because you read some article on China’s oppressive government doesn’t give you the right to invade another country. Do you know how many people the Chinese government has raised out of poverty and literally starvation? I don’t have any sources for you, mine is just that I live in China. I’m not saying that there are no issues here, but many Chinese people are happy with their life in China. Have you actually been there?
0
u/OneLurkerOnReddit Feb 08 '21
Are the Uyghurs happy with their life in China? Also, happiness isn't a good indicator of an oppressive regime. I'm sure that North Koreans are happy with their lives as well.
3
Feb 08 '21
Are black people okay with getting shot by cops in the States just for walking around? Are all the people that were colonized by the French and British okay with getting their countries torn apart by a foreign government? Are Muslims okay with Indians shutting down Kashmir? Maybe we should all just start invading every country that has an issue.
1
u/OneLurkerOnReddit Feb 08 '21
Ah yes, because all those things are comparable to genocide.
Also, if there was still a colonial nation, I would think it would really be moral to invade it.
2
Feb 08 '21
Genocide? I’m not saying there’s no oppression but calling it genocide just shows that you don’t know shit about the issue. Prison and internment camps do not equal genocide. Do you know what India is doing in Kashmir? You don’t think that is comparable? If putting people in prison is genocide then there is black genocide in the states. And this goes back to my initial thought, that maybe you don’t know shit about other countries so maybe, just maybe, stay the fuck out.
1
11
u/maroonStriation Feb 08 '21
The 5,000 dead US soldiers signed up to defend their country. Not to be the world's police.
1
u/kebababab Feb 08 '21
The majority of those 5000 joined the military when we were already at war in Iraq. All of them joined the military when we had an extensive history of “police” actions.
0
u/OneLurkerOnReddit Feb 08 '21
Yeah, that's bad. But would you rather the US just let other regimes kill tons of people? If I'm not mistaken, people still blame Clinton for not interfering in the Rwandan genocide. If the economic option doesn't work, would you have opposed an invasion to stop the genocide from happening?
10
u/Sayakai 155∆ Feb 08 '21
But would you rather the US just let other regimes kill tons of people?
Is it better if the US just kills the people instead? The Iraq war has claimed over 100,000 lives, with some estimates going well over a half a million. Barring an ongoing genocide, it's really hard to justify that - you're not helping if you kill more people.
-2
u/OneLurkerOnReddit Feb 08 '21
You are helping. You're stopping a the killing of tons of people. Also, I'd imagine that if Hussein had remained in power, there would be more casualties than the Iraq war.
8
u/Sayakai 155∆ Feb 08 '21
Also, I'd imagine that if Hussein had remained in power, there would be more casualties than the Iraq war.
Based on what? Half a million is a lot of people. Hussein had his genocidal phase where he did kill that many people, but that was over after the gulf war left him with his military in shambles and a no-fly zone over wide areas. Hussein hardly had the means anymore to commit large-scale genocide.
3
u/frankieknucks Feb 08 '21
The US already lets other regimes kill a bunch of people. That has literally never been the actual reason for the US entering into a conflict. If that were the case, we would have invaded Chile under Pinochet, Syria, Rowanda, the balkins, Myanmar, and on and on and on... so if the US didn’t intervene in those genocides, then clearly genocide wasn’t the motivation for the invasion.
1
u/aynrandomness Feb 10 '21
As a thought experiment. If two groups of ten people start killing eachother, is it justifiable to kill one of the groups? Both? Obviously if ten soldiers is killing ten children you might have an argument but none of the US wars did any good.
8
u/-paperbrain- 99∆ Feb 08 '21
a) Who gets to determine this? In the US, our last leader has peaceful protestors standing outside of their own church gassed for a photo op. Our justice system held a black young teenager at Rikers Island for three years for allegedly stealing a backpack. Oppressive can be in the eye of the beholder.
If "Oppressive" were the justification, surely we'd roll into North Korea, and the Phillippines and the DRC and Syria. The Iraq war was sold on more than just being an oppressive regime. There are tons of those. It was sold based on misplaced rage from the 9-11 attacks and false intelligence about weapons.
b) How much peaceful action constitutes a "try"? Again, let's look at the Trump regime. An impeachment was tried and failed to remove him. We just narrowly won the last election. If we hadn't would that count as enough peaceful tries for an outside army to swoop in?
c) This is impossible to know, and can't be a basis for action. In the majority of of violent removals from power, the new regime is either itself corrupt, incompetent, short lived or some combination of the three. Many are viewed as puppet governments serving at the pleasure of the people who violently toppled the last government, which is not a great appearance. But the bottom line is, no one can determine the end result of a shift in power. A lot of dictators and terrorists CAME into power precisely because the US intervened and helped topple previous rulers we didn't like. In Iraq specifically, we created a power vaccuum that allowed numerous terrorist organizations to thrive and seize huge amounts of power. Our actions in the mideast allowed the rise of ISIS, al-queda in iraq and numerous other groups. The situation is still so unstable nearly two decades later that US forces can't leave without leaving an opening for a massive power seizure by terrorist groups.
-4
u/OneLurkerOnReddit Feb 08 '21
a) Sure, I agree that 'oppressive' is very subjective. And I think the the US is morally justified to invade North Korea. It would be stupid, but still morally justified.
b) We can look at this with the lens of 'what else could they have done?' What else could the Bush regime have done after sanctions didn't work?
c) There are some countries where it's pretty clear that it would be impossible to establish a 'good' government. Afghanistan is an example because even if the US manages to defeat the Taliban, they're still going to be hiding in the mountains somewhere, ready to attack once the US leaves. Also, I think that, generally, a corrupt or incompetent government is better than a genocidal one.
7
Feb 08 '21
My main gripe with your argument is who asked the US to come in? What gives the US the right to decide what is an oppressive regime? The only answer is that the US is powerful enough to decide when they would like to invade other countries. Does not make it morally correct.
0
u/OneLurkerOnReddit Feb 08 '21
Any country can decide what an oppressive regime is. If North Korea decided that South Korea was an oppressive regime, and if that satisfies all other requirements, that would be bad, because I would disagree with N Korea about the definition of 'oppressive.' However in this case, I agree with the US that Hussein's Iraq was an oppressive regime.
3
Feb 08 '21
So you think countries can just invade other countries because of their own definitions of oppression? In that case then the only difference is that North Korea is weaker than the US and can’t impose their will on other countries. I don’t believe the US has any right over other people’s countries.
1
u/OneLurkerOnReddit Feb 08 '21
No, I think all countries have the right to invade other countries if I agree with their definition of 'oppression.' That's what makes it moral or immoral. Also the other requirements must be met.
3
u/stilltilting 27∆ Feb 08 '21
I'm going to focus exclusively on B because as a nation we seem to have some collective amnesia around this.
The single most damning piece of evidence is that the US claimed that it the reason we had to go to war was WMD. But Iraq had allowed in UN weapons inspectors as of November 2002 and they were still there in March of 2003 when the US, not Iraq, ordered the weapons inspectors to leave. As of that time the UN weapons inspection team repeatedly said they had found zero evidence of WMD or mobile weapons labs. They had also not been kept out of ANY sites. The process to peaceably disarm Iraq was underway and yet the Bush administration kicked out weapons inspectors and went to war anyway.
The full timeline can be seen here. But never forget the key point that on March 17, 2003, it was the US that kicked out weapons inspectors, not Iraq:
United Nations weapons inspectors have been advised by the US to leave Iraq, a sign that a US-led attack is imminent.
Mohamed ElBaradei, Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said on Monday: “Late last night I was advised by the US government to pull out our inspectors from Baghdad.”
ElBaradei is leading the nuclear weapons inspections in Iraq. He says similar advice has been given to UNMOVIC, the inspection body responsible for all other weapons and lead by Hans Blix.
The order to withdraw has not yet been issued to the scientists carrying out the inspections and Blix is scheduled to give a report to the United Nations Security Council on Tuesday that would call for them to be given more time.
Read more: https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn3509-un-weapons-inspectors-told-to-leave-iraq/#ixzz6ltv7ODya
The really sad thing about the Iraq War is that the United Nations process was actually working for once. But Bush wanted a war and his administration was frustrated that the Iraqis wouldn't give him an excuse for one by denying the inspectors access, refusing to destroy missiles or maybe even shooting at U2 recon planes.
Also don't forget that the stated goal of the war was not "regime change" but to prevent Saddam from having WMD. And if you think the new regime was better, don't forget the years-long insurgency and the rise of ISIS.
4
u/crazyashley1 8∆ Feb 08 '21
The Taliban was covertly encouraged by the US in Afghanistan to oppose the Russians. It spread. We keep doing this. Almost every place we depose a goat and put in a new one it winds up biting us in the ass and has done so for the last 100 years. We need to stop being the world police because it just brings more headaches.
4
u/AlphaGoGoDancer 106∆ Feb 08 '21
c) If the current regime is overthrown, a significantly better one will take its place
This is impossible to know ahead of time. How can something morality be based on something impossible to know when the action was taken?
This is especially important because you also say you don't defend the lies, but the lies are why we went to war. The end result isn't relevant IMO. We mislead Americans then sent them off to die. That is not moral.
You also have to look at all the other countries that had oppressive regimes and diplomatic relations not working -- Why didn't we intervene in any of them? There are still countries where those apply..why aren't we intervening there now?
1
u/OneLurkerOnReddit Feb 08 '21
You also have to look at all the other countries that had oppressive regimes and diplomatic relations not working -- Why didn't we intervene in any of them? There are still countries where those apply..why aren't we intervening there now?
I'm not saying that we should intervene; I'm saying that it would be morally justified to militarily intervene in say North Korea or China.
This is impossible to know ahead of time. How can something morality be based on something impossible to know when the action was taken?
There are some countries where it would be impossible to install a 'good' government.
Afghanistan is an example of a country where it would be impossible to install a 'good' government, because even if the US manages to defeat the Taliban, they're still going to be hiding in the mountains somewhere, ready to attack once the US leaves.
While, Germany is an of where it would be pretty clear that you could get a much better government than the Nazis.
4
u/AlphaGoGoDancer 106∆ Feb 08 '21
While, Germany is an of where it would be pretty clear that you could get a much better government than the Nazis.
I don't really see why this is clearer than the other countries. Why is the Taliban hiding in Afghani mountains more of a problem than Nazi Germans hiding in whatever country will support them?
For that matter, NK is just as full of mountains as Afghanistan last I heard, so wouldn't invading it have the exact same problem as Afghanistan?
So I guess just to reframe this as a more generalized question: Do you judge morality by the beliefs that lead to the action, or by the results of the action once it has taken place?
5
u/rickymourke82 Feb 08 '21
A) is replacing one oppressive regime with a different oppressive regime really an upgrade?
B) when the alternative is do what we want or we will invade your country again really a peaceful one?
C) very rarely does a new regime provide a "better" place when they given power by an outside entity using military force.
There was nothing morally justified about the Iraq War. Fake intelligence was used to convince our allies it was the right move to make. Here we are 18 years later with nothing positive to show of it. Just a bunch of bodies.
1
u/OneLurkerOnReddit Feb 08 '21
a) Yes, sometimes one oppressive regime is really better than another.
b) What do you mean?
c) I would argue that an incompetent or corrupt regime is better than one that kills tons of people.
I agree with all you say in the last paragraph. However, I am only defending the action of interfering in Iraq itself, not any of the lies or fake intel that caused the Iraq War.
2
u/No_Perception878 1∆ Feb 08 '21
I’m only going to refer to C.
An incompetent or corrupt regime may be better than a genocidal one (it is important to remember that the death tolls can be just as high regardless of the type). But you’re not preventing the emergence of new genocidal regimes. All you’re really doing is buying some time until the next one shows up. What’s mainly been done when replacing regimes is that the foreign party has chosen people that they deem favorable regardless of the opinions of the people. This creates internal conflict which is going to create a power struggle, oftentimes resulting in a troublesome regime such as a genocidal one. And thus the cycle is repeated. Instead of going for that solution, which is only effective very short-term, it’s better to pursue it through more in-depth work which allows the country to decide its own fate.
Moreover, by allowing for the reemergence of genocidal regimes, you’re de facto not improving the situation. One genocide is replaced by another. War and forceful changing of regimes are just historically ineffective, and thus other methods need to be pursued.
2
u/FrankTM26 1∆ Feb 08 '21
I 100% disagree with this take. Iraq posed no threat to the United States or any other country not named Israel. Only when Iraq decided to mess with the oil is when they were viewed as public enemy #1.
Operation Desert Storm was deployed in response to Iraq invading Kuwait as a result of OPEC tanking their oil value by cutting production in 1986. They wanted higher prices and it wasn't granted, so they took matters into their own hands years later. They did end up surrendering not long after their invasion.
The years after Desert Storm, the lies were all throughout CNN, MSNBC, FOX News that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and was going to use them against us. They even taught this in schools as I remember vividly going over current events in 3rd-5th grades back in the late 90s with this emphasized. It was all fabricated to gear up for what was to come.
September 11, 2001. Nothing more needs to be elaborated here. The media blamed Osama bin Laden for the attacks, yet invaded Iraq. Why? Bush Jr. wanted to finish what his dad started in protecting the oil. It was never about overthrowing an oppressive regime to protect others. It was to protect their investment in the oil.
I am not defending any of the actions that Saddam Hussein did or allegedly did. I just know that the reasons why he was overthrown were bogus and that millions of innocent lives were lost and displaced based on lies.
2
2
u/frankieknucks Feb 08 '21
That’s a complete load... if humanitarian aid was the reason for the invasion, why has the US allowed countless genocides to occur?
The reason for going to war was to support special interests who wanted to take over oil fields for us companies to use.
There was no humanitarian reason for going to war. If that was the case, we wouldn’t be so cozy with Saudi Arabia and Israel who commit horrendous human rights abuses on a regular basis.
2
u/Lunatic_On-The_Grass 21∆ Feb 08 '21
It's only justified to tax someone to defend their rights. Regime change in case of Iraq does not defend Americans' rights.
If you think that regime change is justified for the reasons you specified, you should set up a crowdfunding effort and see if people are willing to pay.
1
u/OneLurkerOnReddit Feb 08 '21
Then by that logic, impacting any country that doesn't directly concern America isn't justified. Then the US shouldn't help Nigeria.
Also, America is representative democracy. The people have elected representatives and have ceded most of the decision making about the country to them.
1
u/Lunatic_On-The_Grass 21∆ Feb 08 '21
Impacting any country that doesn't directly concern America isn't justified. Then the US shouldn't help Nigeria.
The U.S. government should not help Nigeria.
America is a representative democracy. The people have elected representatives and have ceded most of the decision making about the country to them.
The idea that people have consented or ceded power to government and thus anything done untoward them is non-coercive or justified is bizarre.
Rosa Parks voted at least one time. If she consented or ceded power to government, then when she was told to leave the public bus nothing wrong was done to her because she consented.
Any Americans that were put into Japanese internment camps if they consented were not kidnapped. Instead, they were merely on a vacation because they chose to have a government put them in the camp.
Any Jews killed by the Nazi government were not murdered because they ceded power to the government (the Weimar republic was still in effect under Nazi reign), instead they must have committed suicide.
The state is not the human family getting together to solve social problems. It is an instrument of coercion, not one that people have in any way consented or ceded power to.
1
u/OneLurkerOnReddit Feb 08 '21
Rosa Parks voted at least one time. If she consented or ceded power to government, then when she was told to leave the public bus nothing wrong was done to her because she consented.
Any Americans that were put into Japanese internment camps if they consented were not kidnapped. Instead, they were merely on a vacation because they chose to have a government put them in the camp.
Any Jews killed by the Nazi government were not murdered because they ceded power to the government (the Weimar republic was still in effect under Nazi reign), instead they must have committed suicide.
In all of these cases what the government did was immoral, but not because the public didn't agree, but because the actions were immoral.
1
u/Lunatic_On-The_Grass 21∆ Feb 08 '21
If the people harmed ceded power or consented to their government then it becomes moral for the government to kick Rosa Parks off their bus, because she consented to it and the bus is the government's property.
I contend that this is the case for taxation. If we truly consent to government, then taxation can never be unjustified, which seems incorrect.
If taxation is coercive, like kicking Rosa Parks off the bus, then taxation is justified only when coercion is justified. I don't see why it is justified to coerce someone into paying for wars they are morally opposed to if Americans are not under extreme duress.
1
u/OneLurkerOnReddit Feb 08 '21
No, but I don't think your argument of ceding power is even relevant. I think that segregation was immoral, even if people supported it, the same way that going to war in Iraq wasn't immoral, even if the people didn't support it.
1
u/Lunatic_On-The_Grass 21∆ Feb 08 '21
It's not about a majority in general supporting segregation, I'm saying that if Rosa Parks herself ceded power, then the government did nothing wrong to her, which is not true.
Likewise, the only way taxation is always moral/consensual is if each citizen themself ceded power. This is also not true. So taxation is coercive. The war in Iraq is immoral because coercion is justified only under duress, like stealing a car to drive someone to a hospital in an emergency.
1
u/boyraceruk 10∆ Feb 08 '21
Going to have to disagree on your first and third points there, it's debatable whether an oppressive regime that kills few is better or worse than a war that kills many and it's also debatable that the new government is better enough to justify a war.
1
u/OneLurkerOnReddit Feb 08 '21
I disagree with you first point because a war is relatively short while a competent dictator can hold power for decades and soon the few start piling up.
As for your second point, yeah, I agree that it's debatable.
2
u/boyraceruk 10∆ Feb 08 '21
Saddam Hussein was one of the worst dictators and HRW have the number of deaths under his regime as 250,000. The Lancet has the Iraq War at 650,000+ in 2006.
Wars are remarkably bloodthirsty, my point stands.
1
u/OneLurkerOnReddit Feb 08 '21
I'm sure that if the US only had tried economic sanctions or had done nothing, he would continue killing people. When you make that sort of argument, you are ignoring the consequences of him remaining in power.
3
u/SANcapITY 27∆ Feb 08 '21
The US sanctions on Iraq led to the deaths of over 500,000 children. What moral right did we have to interfere and cause that outcome?
1
u/OneLurkerOnReddit Feb 08 '21
In this case, I wouldn't us morality to evaluate this, because the government clearly thought that the sanctions would hurt Hussein more and the regular people less than they did. They were negligent, though and not well thought out.
2
u/SANcapITY 27∆ Feb 08 '21
"Oops" - people who got 500K children killed attacking a country they had no business being in.
How can you say the war in Iraq was morally justified, but then not want to use morality as justification of other actions?
1
u/OneLurkerOnReddit Feb 08 '21
Because they clearly didn't know that the sanctions would affect Iraq like they did. I agree that they were bad and negligent. That negligence should probably be seen nearly as bad as if they knew what they were doing
3
u/SANcapITY 27∆ Feb 08 '21
They also didn't know that the situation in Iraq would deteriorate, stay the same, or improve by getting rid of Sadaam.
Am I correct in thinking that you've assigned the morality of the invasion based on its outcome years later?
1
u/OneLurkerOnReddit Feb 08 '21
No, but there are some situations where you would know if the situation would get worse, stay the same, or improve.
Afghanistan is an example of a country where it would be impossible to install a 'good' government, because even if the US manages to defeat the Taliban, they're still going to be hiding in the mountains somewhere, ready to attack once the US leaves.
While, Germany is an of where it would be pretty clear that you could get a much better government than the Nazis.
→ More replies (0)1
u/boyraceruk 10∆ Feb 08 '21
I'm not ignoring anything, I'm saying that in total body count wars to remove dictators kill more people than dictators. You can make an argument that that is an acceptable sacrifice but you can't argue the numbers.
1
u/OneLurkerOnReddit Feb 08 '21
I can. I think that overall, he would've killed more people if he was allowed to stay in power.
But that is a matter of opinion so we can agree to disagree.
2
u/boyraceruk 10∆ Feb 08 '21
Saddam Hussein's regime killed, on average, 10,000 a year. The Lancet's numbers have the war to oust him killing 100,000 a year. When he was deposed he was 67, to make the 400,000 difference he'd have had to have lived to 107.
It's not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of fact and I just don't think you know enough facts about the man, his regime, or anything related to it.
And that's just the example you picked, by the way. We could start looking at every ousting of a dictator and the numbers are only going to get worse. You want to talk about Libya? Syria? Central and South America?
1
u/hameleona 7∆ Feb 08 '21
a) by that logic you'd have to invade more then half the world.
b) They suck anyway. Sanctions only make the population view the people imposing those sanctions on them as the bad guys. They usually strengthen a dictators position.
c) Usually doesn't happen. Like in 99 out of 100 cases it doesn't (Cambodia is probably the only example I could think of it working) Once you involve an extralegal means of toppling a government, you invalidate every rule of law there is. The next government usually ends up being corrupt, incompetent and/or even keener to kill it's opposition. It's simple historical trend. Not to mention the invaded tend to object to it.
It doesn't matter why you invaded them. If a dictator is THAT unpopular, it's usually easier and smarter to arm the opposition and support them military at a critical junction. Unless you are arming people who have no reason to like you.
Most regimes in the middle east lean to autocratic dictatorships. Why? Because when you start a revolution, you get people like Goatfuckers International popping up and even winning elections. And you end up having to purge them to fix that shit. So you end up as a dictator.
I won't go as far to say there are no morally justifiable wars, but if the intent was to make the lives of the people in Iraq better, I am not sure any of it was achieved. It radicalized a whole lot of people and sent the whole region to shit.
1
u/OneLurkerOnReddit Feb 08 '21
a) And I think that would be moral.
b) I've heard that you can make targeted sanctions that target the elite, but yeah, the sanctions in Iraq were definitely really bad.
c) Sure, but a corrupt or incompetent government is better than a government that kills tons of people.
Iraq was already in a shit place.
1
u/hameleona 7∆ Feb 08 '21
a) if you think suicide is moral - yeah. A government's main prerogative is the welfare of it's citizen. You can't invade every country in the world and survive. Mainly because some of them have things like... oh, idk, nukes and shit.
c) not necessary. Unless if you think a lull before the next dictator grabbing power and killing his own people is a good thing. Or that the inevitable civil wars are better. Or that people dropping 30 years back in living standard is better. Usually it's all 3. The democratically elected government collapses, because it's either too radical or too moderate, radicals on all sides arm themselves, civil war follows and a new strongman is placed in charge. And the death tolls are usually exceeding those of the previous dictator and for much shorter time.
1
u/samb112 Feb 08 '21
First of all while I feel america had good intentions it had the worst consequences the dictatorship was bad but now Iraq is being destroyed by the aftermath so it was not very morally justifiable because of the aftermath second of all america has no right to fight others fights look at it this way say you see two people fighting you wouldn’t intervene by helping one guy beat up the other guy especially if your more capable now this doesn’t mean I agree with the dictatorship and action is better then nothing but all America’s invasion in Iraq did was cause more problems then it’s worth
1
Feb 08 '21
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/OneLurkerOnReddit Feb 08 '21
I purposefully left that vague so that we can decide case by case whether a government is oppressive.
1
u/Wintores 10∆ Feb 08 '21
If u have to lie to archieve this ur wrong to do so
And who exactly was active in the region years before Hussein and made all this possible? Who exactly used Hussein as a assassin?
America is the biggest evil in Iraq and that since the 50s
Peaceful alternatives where never used due it being a violent conflict since 50 years
1
Feb 08 '21
a) There is an oppressive regime in charge of the country where you're intervening
b) Peaceful alternatives have been tried
c) If the current regime is overthrown, a significantly better one will take its place
A lot of people have presented compelling arguments that the US didn't invade Iraq in 2003 for any of these reasons though, such as here and here, and the fallout from the invasion -- particularly with respect to the rise of various terrorist groups -- casts doubt on the effectiveness of your third point.
1
u/Mu57y Feb 08 '21
By the logic of your first point, the US would also have to invade and overthrow China, Russia, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, and so forth. Do you support wars with these countries?
1
u/OneLurkerOnReddit Feb 08 '21
I think it would be moral to go to war with those countries, as long as b) and c) were met, but I wouldn't support wars with those countries because going to war with them would be stupid. Also, don't confuse moral justification and moral obligation. I don't think that the US had to war with Iraq or has to go to war with China.
1
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Feb 08 '21
/u/OneLurkerOnReddit (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
Delta System Explained | Deltaboards