US Neoconservitism

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?