the archives

dusted off in read-only

  •  

Leaving Iraq by 2008 posted 01 Dec 2006, 13:12 by Harrol, Moderator

Well it looks like America will start to scale down our troop involvement in Iraq by June of 2007 and be almost completely uninvolved in the fighting by 2008. To me I think this is a good thing because our involvement there just seems to be inflammitory. What does everyone else think? view post


posted 01 Dec 2006, 19:12 by Warrior-Poet, Moderator

Att this point it seems we will be pulling the majority of the troops out of Iraq by 2008 even though I find this to be a very wrong decision. First off we entered this war and made things the way they are now, we are responsible, the job is not done and I dont think we should leave until it is. We made the decision to help the people of Iraq and until we have done all we can do for them we cannot leave. Despite what many people think and what the media shows good things are happening in Iraq and many of the people do want us there, with the all the trouble going on over there if we were to pull out now another dictatorship or something worse would spawn and we would right back to step 1 or put ourselves in a worse position. view post


posted 04 Dec 2006, 13:12 by Harrol, Moderator

I understand what you are saying, but enough people with power do not want us over there. Unless we want to make Iraq a territory of the United States then I am thinking we should leave. view post


... posted 04 Dec 2006, 15:12 by TheDarkness, Peralogue

touchy subject. my view is this: there is no situation now that we could call a victory or success. Iraq is a lost cause, while i agree that things will get worse if we leave, they will also get worse if we stay. right now 136 people die every day in Iraq. there is a mass exodus from the city, as there should be. the insurgency grows stronger and we continually lose men. they grow stonger because they have a purpose, kill the occupiers. Pull out and wait. Our homeland is safe at the moment, while we are always vunerable to terrorist attacks, No middle eastern nation would dare an invasion on American soil. Protect Isreal. that is our only perogotive. view post


posted 04 Dec 2006, 17:12 by Harrol, Moderator

I really do not believe unity and stability is America's goal in the Middle East. I believe we want war and death over there. I say that because if you look at that region every time they unite they invade their neighbors. It behooves America, Europe and Asia to have the muslim world killing each other rather than trying to conquer/convert the rest of the world. view post


posted 04 Dec 2006, 18:12 by Sorcerous-Words, Auditor

this war is not of religion...it's about flexing muscles view post


posted 04 Dec 2006, 19:12 by Warrior-Poet, Moderator

This war is being torn between people who want to do the right thing and the easiest thing to do, people do not want to take responsibility for the events in the Middle East even though we are apart of the problem. view post


posted 04 Dec 2006, 20:12 by Sorcerous-Words, Auditor

wisely put view post


posted 05 Dec 2006, 07:12 by alhana, Auditor

This war is exactly about religion. In religion and it's trappings, we can name an enemy as heathen, we can cleanse a region for a cause (salvation or Democracy), we can fear the heretics, we can take resources(oil) from the damned, and we can yield the power of proganda. Religion is the easiest way to make it about Us and Them. Think of the Holy War in Prince of Nothing....there are so many similarities to the mechanics behind how that fictional war and how our Real Life War played out. At the heart of both, religion was the motivation for the common people to carry out the political gains of the ruling classes. Ultimately war is about power; but in this conflict, war is the cart and the religion is the horse of the cart on the road of Power. view post


posted 05 Dec 2006, 16:12 by TheDarkness, Peralogue

Is it possible to war for reason and not for faith? i defintely believe for revenge but what about pure logical reasoning. the loss of so many men for any cause, is it reasonable or logical? view post


posted 05 Dec 2006, 17:12 by Peter, Auditor

[quote:ccmkdaje]Is it possible to war for reason and not for faith? i defintely believe for revenge but what about pure logical reasoning. the loss of so many men for any cause, is it reasonable or logical?[/quote:ccmkdaje] It all depends on how you are going to define reason, thinly or thickly. A thin definition will include only minimal contentless requirements of reason, such as consistency and perhaps adherence to the laws of logic (but perhaps not even that), whereas thick conceptions will include contents as inherently reasonable. So, we might think that it is inherently reasonable for someone to pursue their desires, or even to seek certain specific things, such as love or happiness. The thicker the definition we give, the easier it will be to argue that certain actions are performed from reason, but also the weaker our defninition of reason will seem. If we make reason so thick that we require reasonable people to seek something like love, then we must define anyone who seeks for other things (material goods, spiritual awareness etc.) as being either irrational, or seeking these things in the pursuit of love, neither of which option seems very acceptable. Even a moderately thick account of reason, such as economists use, which states that pursuit of power is reasonable (because power, usually in the form of money is the means to all other goods) seems to have problems. The ascetic living on a mountain top seems to require no money or power (or only a very little, and certainly not so much that he may be defined as a power-maximiser) and yet it seems somewhat harsh to say that he is unreasonable [i:ccmkdaje]because[/i:ccmkdaje] he doesn't seek for these. Of course it may be that he is unreasonable for other reasons. So, I suggest that a thinner account of reason is preferable, one requiring adherence to certain basic rules of consistency in thought etc. Many people argue that this account of reason is so thin that it cannot motivate action, for it is so thin that almost all action is equally reasonable and there is no rational preference for one choice over another. On this account, war could not be motivated by reason. Of course we might imagine a sect of ultra-rationalists who despise all things deemed untrue or ungrounded and hence unreasonable, such as faith or belief in the supernatural and seek to eradicate such beliefs from the world. In such a situation one might imagine war in the name of reason. But this would be to treat reason as an object of belief, rather than the foundation of belief or a method underlying the holding of beliefs etc. which is not precisely what reason is (at least according to our definition above). Now personally I believe that even a thin definition of reason can give one cause for action, if it can be shown that consistency of action demands that certain actions not be performed etc. and that certain ones are required. I won't go into the full arguments, but Kantian Ethics develop from the premise that we must perceive ourselves as being free (even if we are not), that this freedom requires that we act according to a law (if we "act" without any consistency at all we can not even be said to be acting, let alone acting freely) and this law, when properly developed, will promote certain actions (development of one's talents etc.) and forbid others (theft, lying). Eventually, the argument develops such that people are taken into account etc. But here it seems unlikely that one could go to war for reason, because it the positive duties we have (to other people's happiness, to developing our talents etc.) are all capped by restrictions on how other people are to be treated. In a certain sense, war is forbidden, after all in a perfect world there would be no good reason for war, but in the imperfect world that we live in there might be circumstances in which military force might be justified (though the vast, vast, vast majority of wars would not be). Self-defence, defence of others (though this would have to be impartial, not just because they speak the same language or belong to the same ethnicity etc.) might be reasons, but even here, sometimes passive resistence might be morally superior. But even if a war were sanctioned, it would not stem from reason, it would be consistent with it. I cannot see a situation where reason requires war, though it may exist. In relation to the OP, I think that the US is now in a position where nothing it does is going to be deemed morally justified (because the alternative not undertaken will always be held to have been self-evidently superior), but on balance I think withdrawal so soon will lead to actual civil war. Most deaths are now sectarian. The Americans are universally hated, but the killing is between Shias, Sunnis and Kurds and full-scale civil war is probably held in check only by the US and allies. The question is not and never should be about national interest (I want to start a thread up at some point about the problems I perceive with the notions of nationhood and even community), but rather ONLY about what is right. Of course what is right will take into account the danger to US troops, but will likely be outweighed by the danger to Iraqis posed by a withdrawal. Sigh, mostly I think that Iraq is going to go to hell with or without continued US presence, but at least staying will slow things down leaving the thinnest modicum of hope for some peaceful conclusion. Another long post... I get carried away. :oops: view post


posted 05 Dec 2006, 18:12 by Harrol, Moderator

Peter your post was probably not long enough, but well put an informative. Let us look at the sectarian violence if Iraq and Syria really try to help stabalize the region. If they are sincere then we need not fear too much violence in my opinion. I do worry for the Sunnis and the Assyrian Christians because they will suffer the most. view post


  •  

The Three Seas Forum archives are hosted and maintained courtesy of Jack Brown.