Many issues
I've accumulated some of the latest issues to discuss.
I would like to issue my regret and an explanation for ever joining the College Republicans. Basically, I thought long and hard about what to do in the fall. I am majoring in political science, and I felt like I wanted to get involved. But then I thought do I really want to join a club that supports a political party, yet call myself an independent? Finally I decided, that since there were no college democrats, I had to choose between the Republicans, and SDS, a radical socialist group. Obviously I oppose radical socialism, and the republicans at Pace weren't super right wing hawks. Besides, it wouldn't make me a Republican for life. I thought maybe I could bring up some discussion on where I might disagree with them, even though on some things I agreed. I support a Republican presidential candidate.
However, looking back on it now, I can vote for a specific individual regardless of party, but it doesn't feel right for me to join any organization, no matter what. I really want to be an independent, and most importantly, I oppose the idea of political parties. It causes people to be too polarized and makes them suck up and not be themselves in order to get support. As I've mentioned before, I hope no idiot says 30 years from now if I'm running for office as an independent "HE'S REALLY A REPUBLICAN HE WENT TO TWO MEETINGS IN COLLEGE." I've seen it before.
Anyway, how is President Bush's new plan to stabilize Iraq going?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18368743/site/newsweek/
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18393279/
Apparently not too good. I'd withdraw all troops right now. To be fair, maybe the surge isn't completely in place yet, but if it isn't, it's taking to damn long. Either way, there's no reason to be there, see below.
There's a big problem in this country, and that is that the religion of Fundamental Mormonism is allowed. You might say "Freedom of Religion" but you must be careful about how you interperet the Constitution. There is separation of Church and State, not freedom of religion. You see, this religion includes molesting children. That goes against the Constitution, where there is something about not abusing the rights of others. It's especially a problem when it's children. The worst part is that there are two towns (Colorado City, AZ; Hildale, UT) that seem to be immune from US law. They run on their own and the citizens get away with whatever they want. The schools run separate from the state and brainwash children. It's time for the state governments to take over. Arizona tried in 2005 and failed. I can't believe this is actually going on here.
Speaking of separation of church and state, that's a problem too. It's not completely separated. Religion in the public square is one thing, presidents being sworn in on the bible is another. I can't stand when groups try to ban people from displaying mangers, etc in public. There IS freedom of religion. If people and private businesses would like to display these, there's nothing wrong with that. If you don't like it, look away. I don't see why it would burn anyone's eyes though.
However, presidents should not be sworn in on a bible, but rather on a copy of the US constitution. That is what they are promising to uphold. By being sworn in on the bible, even if the newly elected President is a Christian, it makes no sense and there is a contradiction. Jesus taught pacifism. That is not using violence even if you are attacked. In that case, Franklin Roosevelt had to go against what he swore by when he very justifiably declared war against Japan after their attack. It makes no sense, Presidents look after everyone, not just Christians.
Ok, and now, in an LJ cut, is a 7 page essay, which I happily did for ethics class. It draws the conclusion that the only wars in which the US was justified to fight in the past 100 years were World War I, World War II, The Gulf War, and a few small peacekeeping operations. That's right, Afghanistan is not on the list.
Much controversy has developed lately based around America’s current involvement in Iraq and the mideast in general. There are those who support the effort, saying the world is better off today without the brutal dictator Saddam Hussein in control. On the other hand, there are vocal critics of the war, claiming that the decision to go into Iraq was irresponsible and bad for the world. Some are even more critical, saying that any current American involvement in the middle east is wrong. However, besides these arguments, situations where declaring war is acceptable and unacceptable can also be decided on ethical terms.
The first thing to do when considering when wars are justifiable is apply a universal standard, in the way Kant suggested. An obvious standard would be that invading a sovereign nation to gain more territory is unjustifiable. In this case, the government and people from the conquered nation are being taken over only as a means for the betterment of the conqueror. A nation cannot be morally in the right if it starts a bloody conflict without first having its own safety threatened. An example of this is Hitler’s invasion of Poland.
This established standard factors into other debates about going to war. It is brought up when other nations need to decide how to deal with an aggressive nation looking to build up territory or empire. Before any of this is discussed though, one must first consider the pacifist stance, and whether or not it can be applied.
2
The pacifist stance states that violence should never be used, no matter what. This is a stance held by few people, because even if one is attacked, they cannot be violent in self-defense. Simply stated, a nation cannot take this position and expect to maintain its sovereignty. If America held this position in World War II, it would have been conquered by the Japanese, who were willing to invade US territory. America was left with no choice but to fight Japan in a war.
Interestingly, many American Christians fought in the war, despite Jesus’ teachings of pacifism. This just shows that a religious stance cannot be taken in a nation like America in order to go to war. Most Americans had to choose to be inconsistent with their religion in order to save their country. President Roosevelt in particular had to be inconsistent since a commander in chief needs to put his nation before his religion. A president needs to look out for every American, many of which are not Christian, and most of which are not pacifists.
Again using America as an example, the country has been involved in numerous conflicts over the past 100 years. These include World War I, World War II, Korea, Vietnam, The Gulf War, Afghanistan, Iraq War, and more. Each of these wars were entered for different reasons. The only conflict in this list where US territory was attacked directly by an aggressive nation was World War II. It should also be noted that the Germans did not attack, yet America was still involved in two theatres after entering the war.
This brings up the next point, which is assisting allies, and fighting allies of the enemy. Through much of the first half of the twentieth century, America adopted an
3
isolationist policy. Where a vast set of alliances drew all of Europe into World War I, the US avoided involvement and did not join in to assist its allies until its own citizens were harmed. This policy continued through the beginning of World War II. The US finally abandoned the policy when it went to war against Germany. Japan and Germany had a loose alliance, and Germany threatened American allies in Europe.
The most important reason here that made the war against Germany justifiable was the endangered allies. Nations like France and Britain were not the aggressors, and were being unfairly invaded. For this reason, the US actually should have gotten involved sooner. If my friend walking down the street is attacked and I have the power to save him from harm because I am armed or larger than the assailant, yet I sit and watch him get hurt, it is wrong. It is a different case if action puts me in more danger than inaction. However, in the case of World War II, Hitler would have likely won without US intervention, and then put Americans in greater danger than they would have been in by fighting his regime.
Fighting the allies of an enemy is a different situation. It is only justifiable when the ally is assisting the enemy in harming a nation. Syria was an ally of Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. Invading Syria as part of the Gulf War would not have been right, since it had no involvement in the conflict. The invasion of Germany in World War II was not even justifiable on these grounds, but was instead justifiable on the previously discussed point. The invasion of Italy during World War II was justifiable since it was directly aiding Germany in its attacks on the allied troops.
Back to the issue of assisting allies, when a nation is considering coming to the
4
aid of an ally, it must consider whether or not the ally is acting morally. This was the problem with many European countries during World War I. Assisting an ally in a war for the sole reason being that an alliance exists is a flawed strategy. Assisting an ally in an unjustifiable war is just as bad as a nation starting one on its own. Before considering to assist an ally, one must first decide if they would have gone to war as well if it happened to them.
US involvement in World War I is a complicated situation. US territory was not attacked by the enemy, but merchant ships were repeatedly attacked, killing the Americans onboard. America did the right thing by first warning Germany to stop attacking merchant ships, but the command was ignored. One of the biggest concerns was when Americans were killed on the Lusitania, a British ocean liner sunk by the Germans. While Americans were killed, US territory was not directly threatened, and many more Americans would die if they were fighting in a war. There was also no knowing whether or not the attacks would persist. However, the key to the situation which finally caused America to enter the war for correct reasons, was that Germany showed that it was acting immorally and had the potential to be dangerous for the world if it won, and that less people would die in the long run if the war was put to an end quicker with US involvement.
The issue of the Americans killed on ocean liners opens up a can of worms. Basically it was an act of terrorism, before terrorism was so widely known and defined. Innocent Americans were killed. It is just like 9/11, except on a much smaller scale. On 9/11, US territory was attacked, but there was no invasion taking place. No more
5
Americans were in imminent danger after the attacks if homeland security was built up. However, a war on terror was declared on all states that sponsored terrorism. Afghanistan was the primary sponsor of terrorists, and was invaded. Iran and Syria are also sponsors, but they have yet to be invaded. The terrorists sponsored by these nations who killed Americans on 9/11 are just like the U-boat crews who torpedoed merchant ships in World War I. Either way, these terrorist acts do not justify committing similar acts of violence and going to war. It takes more of a threat. In World War I, Germany was gaining influence in the region that would negatively affect the world. Afghanistan was just one relatively weak third-world country. Invading it has only spread the terrorists out and made them harder to avoid. They can be seen killing people in Iraq today.
The Iraq war usually generates more controversy. There was never a point since the Gulf War where a war in Iraq was justifiable. This is especially the case now since no weapons of mass destruction were found. However, even if Saddam Hussein developed the weapons, there is no telling whether or not he would have used them, and he had little control over world politics as a whole. The Soviet Union was an enemy with weapons of mass destruction for years, but never used them, and was never invaded by the US. Unlike Iraq, the Soviet Union had influence, but a war would have created more danger. Even still, North Korea recently tested a nuclear weapon, and rightfully there was no invasion because the nation has little influence, and there is no way to know whether or not they will actually use the weapon. Iraq was not worth the loss of life and destabilization of the region.
The most difficult situation is deciding when policies advocate being “world
6
police” or when policies become imperialistic. Obviously nations who try to expand their empire by conquering other nations are imperialist. Imperialism is definitely negative, but it is hard to decide on whether certain “world police” policies are negative or not. Policing the world based on what is morally right is good as long as it does not create more trouble. For example, a genocide is occurring in Darfur right now. The only way to stop it is military intervention. If UN forces were efficient in occupying the region until it was under control, there would be little difficulty due to the weakness of the Sudanese forces and its limited influence. However, invading Iraq in 1988 due to Saddam Hussein’s gassing of the Kurds in Iraq would have been difficult and created more problems. George H.W. Bush made the right decision during the Gulf War when he decided not to continue into Iraq after saving Kuwait from danger and preventing Hussein from getting a larger influence. Careful considerations must be made beforehand to see what impact any action would have. Also, being “world police” becomes imperialist when invasions are made simply because of a difference in political agenda.
The situations in Korea and Vietnam were similar in the way that both nations were acting immorally, with one group brutally trying to gain control. Both situations had the communist sides trying to unite the region in a brutal way. However, in each situation, even though the nations were political opponents with the US, they posed little threat to the world, and huge problems if invaded. It shows now, since Korea was only half won, with the south saved but the people of the north still oppressed. It proved to be impossible to win in Vietnam and now there is just one communist Vietnam. It proves that deciding to go to war in these cases is a highly subjective and difficult task. Of course even more
7
problems occurred with Vietnam when President Johnson used false reasons to increase involvement, and President Nixon inexplicably decided to bomb Cambodia as well.
The decision to go to war is an important one, and something that should be handled with as much responsibility as possible, and of course only used in extreme conditions when it will produce a better result. In the last century, the only justifiable wars the US has fought in out of the ones I mentioned are World War I, World War II, and The Gulf War. This is not to say that the US is not a noble nation. None of the unjustifiable wars the US has fought in the past century have been against nations who were not themselves committing immoral acts. The problem was that in many cases, the wrong decision was made in how to deal with the acts going on in the nation. More military action should have been taken in Bosnia and Rwanda in the 1990s, and more action needs to be taken now in Sudan.
Better ways to deal with bad situations are increased diplomacy, sanctions, and for terrorism, increased homeland security, which has already been done anyway. Military action is once again only justifiable if less people will be harmed as a result, a nation threatens to destabilize the region, or the homeland must be protected. Good examples are set by those who follow these basic principles.
I would like to issue my regret and an explanation for ever joining the College Republicans. Basically, I thought long and hard about what to do in the fall. I am majoring in political science, and I felt like I wanted to get involved. But then I thought do I really want to join a club that supports a political party, yet call myself an independent? Finally I decided, that since there were no college democrats, I had to choose between the Republicans, and SDS, a radical socialist group. Obviously I oppose radical socialism, and the republicans at Pace weren't super right wing hawks. Besides, it wouldn't make me a Republican for life. I thought maybe I could bring up some discussion on where I might disagree with them, even though on some things I agreed. I support a Republican presidential candidate.
However, looking back on it now, I can vote for a specific individual regardless of party, but it doesn't feel right for me to join any organization, no matter what. I really want to be an independent, and most importantly, I oppose the idea of political parties. It causes people to be too polarized and makes them suck up and not be themselves in order to get support. As I've mentioned before, I hope no idiot says 30 years from now if I'm running for office as an independent "HE'S REALLY A REPUBLICAN HE WENT TO TWO MEETINGS IN COLLEGE." I've seen it before.
Anyway, how is President Bush's new plan to stabilize Iraq going?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18368743/site/newsweek/
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18393279/
Apparently not too good. I'd withdraw all troops right now. To be fair, maybe the surge isn't completely in place yet, but if it isn't, it's taking to damn long. Either way, there's no reason to be there, see below.
There's a big problem in this country, and that is that the religion of Fundamental Mormonism is allowed. You might say "Freedom of Religion" but you must be careful about how you interperet the Constitution. There is separation of Church and State, not freedom of religion. You see, this religion includes molesting children. That goes against the Constitution, where there is something about not abusing the rights of others. It's especially a problem when it's children. The worst part is that there are two towns (Colorado City, AZ; Hildale, UT) that seem to be immune from US law. They run on their own and the citizens get away with whatever they want. The schools run separate from the state and brainwash children. It's time for the state governments to take over. Arizona tried in 2005 and failed. I can't believe this is actually going on here.
Speaking of separation of church and state, that's a problem too. It's not completely separated. Religion in the public square is one thing, presidents being sworn in on the bible is another. I can't stand when groups try to ban people from displaying mangers, etc in public. There IS freedom of religion. If people and private businesses would like to display these, there's nothing wrong with that. If you don't like it, look away. I don't see why it would burn anyone's eyes though.
However, presidents should not be sworn in on a bible, but rather on a copy of the US constitution. That is what they are promising to uphold. By being sworn in on the bible, even if the newly elected President is a Christian, it makes no sense and there is a contradiction. Jesus taught pacifism. That is not using violence even if you are attacked. In that case, Franklin Roosevelt had to go against what he swore by when he very justifiably declared war against Japan after their attack. It makes no sense, Presidents look after everyone, not just Christians.
Ok, and now, in an LJ cut, is a 7 page essay, which I happily did for ethics class. It draws the conclusion that the only wars in which the US was justified to fight in the past 100 years were World War I, World War II, The Gulf War, and a few small peacekeeping operations. That's right, Afghanistan is not on the list.
Much controversy has developed lately based around America’s current involvement in Iraq and the mideast in general. There are those who support the effort, saying the world is better off today without the brutal dictator Saddam Hussein in control. On the other hand, there are vocal critics of the war, claiming that the decision to go into Iraq was irresponsible and bad for the world. Some are even more critical, saying that any current American involvement in the middle east is wrong. However, besides these arguments, situations where declaring war is acceptable and unacceptable can also be decided on ethical terms.
The first thing to do when considering when wars are justifiable is apply a universal standard, in the way Kant suggested. An obvious standard would be that invading a sovereign nation to gain more territory is unjustifiable. In this case, the government and people from the conquered nation are being taken over only as a means for the betterment of the conqueror. A nation cannot be morally in the right if it starts a bloody conflict without first having its own safety threatened. An example of this is Hitler’s invasion of Poland.
This established standard factors into other debates about going to war. It is brought up when other nations need to decide how to deal with an aggressive nation looking to build up territory or empire. Before any of this is discussed though, one must first consider the pacifist stance, and whether or not it can be applied.
2
The pacifist stance states that violence should never be used, no matter what. This is a stance held by few people, because even if one is attacked, they cannot be violent in self-defense. Simply stated, a nation cannot take this position and expect to maintain its sovereignty. If America held this position in World War II, it would have been conquered by the Japanese, who were willing to invade US territory. America was left with no choice but to fight Japan in a war.
Interestingly, many American Christians fought in the war, despite Jesus’ teachings of pacifism. This just shows that a religious stance cannot be taken in a nation like America in order to go to war. Most Americans had to choose to be inconsistent with their religion in order to save their country. President Roosevelt in particular had to be inconsistent since a commander in chief needs to put his nation before his religion. A president needs to look out for every American, many of which are not Christian, and most of which are not pacifists.
Again using America as an example, the country has been involved in numerous conflicts over the past 100 years. These include World War I, World War II, Korea, Vietnam, The Gulf War, Afghanistan, Iraq War, and more. Each of these wars were entered for different reasons. The only conflict in this list where US territory was attacked directly by an aggressive nation was World War II. It should also be noted that the Germans did not attack, yet America was still involved in two theatres after entering the war.
This brings up the next point, which is assisting allies, and fighting allies of the enemy. Through much of the first half of the twentieth century, America adopted an
3
isolationist policy. Where a vast set of alliances drew all of Europe into World War I, the US avoided involvement and did not join in to assist its allies until its own citizens were harmed. This policy continued through the beginning of World War II. The US finally abandoned the policy when it went to war against Germany. Japan and Germany had a loose alliance, and Germany threatened American allies in Europe.
The most important reason here that made the war against Germany justifiable was the endangered allies. Nations like France and Britain were not the aggressors, and were being unfairly invaded. For this reason, the US actually should have gotten involved sooner. If my friend walking down the street is attacked and I have the power to save him from harm because I am armed or larger than the assailant, yet I sit and watch him get hurt, it is wrong. It is a different case if action puts me in more danger than inaction. However, in the case of World War II, Hitler would have likely won without US intervention, and then put Americans in greater danger than they would have been in by fighting his regime.
Fighting the allies of an enemy is a different situation. It is only justifiable when the ally is assisting the enemy in harming a nation. Syria was an ally of Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. Invading Syria as part of the Gulf War would not have been right, since it had no involvement in the conflict. The invasion of Germany in World War II was not even justifiable on these grounds, but was instead justifiable on the previously discussed point. The invasion of Italy during World War II was justifiable since it was directly aiding Germany in its attacks on the allied troops.
Back to the issue of assisting allies, when a nation is considering coming to the
4
aid of an ally, it must consider whether or not the ally is acting morally. This was the problem with many European countries during World War I. Assisting an ally in a war for the sole reason being that an alliance exists is a flawed strategy. Assisting an ally in an unjustifiable war is just as bad as a nation starting one on its own. Before considering to assist an ally, one must first decide if they would have gone to war as well if it happened to them.
US involvement in World War I is a complicated situation. US territory was not attacked by the enemy, but merchant ships were repeatedly attacked, killing the Americans onboard. America did the right thing by first warning Germany to stop attacking merchant ships, but the command was ignored. One of the biggest concerns was when Americans were killed on the Lusitania, a British ocean liner sunk by the Germans. While Americans were killed, US territory was not directly threatened, and many more Americans would die if they were fighting in a war. There was also no knowing whether or not the attacks would persist. However, the key to the situation which finally caused America to enter the war for correct reasons, was that Germany showed that it was acting immorally and had the potential to be dangerous for the world if it won, and that less people would die in the long run if the war was put to an end quicker with US involvement.
The issue of the Americans killed on ocean liners opens up a can of worms. Basically it was an act of terrorism, before terrorism was so widely known and defined. Innocent Americans were killed. It is just like 9/11, except on a much smaller scale. On 9/11, US territory was attacked, but there was no invasion taking place. No more
5
Americans were in imminent danger after the attacks if homeland security was built up. However, a war on terror was declared on all states that sponsored terrorism. Afghanistan was the primary sponsor of terrorists, and was invaded. Iran and Syria are also sponsors, but they have yet to be invaded. The terrorists sponsored by these nations who killed Americans on 9/11 are just like the U-boat crews who torpedoed merchant ships in World War I. Either way, these terrorist acts do not justify committing similar acts of violence and going to war. It takes more of a threat. In World War I, Germany was gaining influence in the region that would negatively affect the world. Afghanistan was just one relatively weak third-world country. Invading it has only spread the terrorists out and made them harder to avoid. They can be seen killing people in Iraq today.
The Iraq war usually generates more controversy. There was never a point since the Gulf War where a war in Iraq was justifiable. This is especially the case now since no weapons of mass destruction were found. However, even if Saddam Hussein developed the weapons, there is no telling whether or not he would have used them, and he had little control over world politics as a whole. The Soviet Union was an enemy with weapons of mass destruction for years, but never used them, and was never invaded by the US. Unlike Iraq, the Soviet Union had influence, but a war would have created more danger. Even still, North Korea recently tested a nuclear weapon, and rightfully there was no invasion because the nation has little influence, and there is no way to know whether or not they will actually use the weapon. Iraq was not worth the loss of life and destabilization of the region.
The most difficult situation is deciding when policies advocate being “world
6
police” or when policies become imperialistic. Obviously nations who try to expand their empire by conquering other nations are imperialist. Imperialism is definitely negative, but it is hard to decide on whether certain “world police” policies are negative or not. Policing the world based on what is morally right is good as long as it does not create more trouble. For example, a genocide is occurring in Darfur right now. The only way to stop it is military intervention. If UN forces were efficient in occupying the region until it was under control, there would be little difficulty due to the weakness of the Sudanese forces and its limited influence. However, invading Iraq in 1988 due to Saddam Hussein’s gassing of the Kurds in Iraq would have been difficult and created more problems. George H.W. Bush made the right decision during the Gulf War when he decided not to continue into Iraq after saving Kuwait from danger and preventing Hussein from getting a larger influence. Careful considerations must be made beforehand to see what impact any action would have. Also, being “world police” becomes imperialist when invasions are made simply because of a difference in political agenda.
The situations in Korea and Vietnam were similar in the way that both nations were acting immorally, with one group brutally trying to gain control. Both situations had the communist sides trying to unite the region in a brutal way. However, in each situation, even though the nations were political opponents with the US, they posed little threat to the world, and huge problems if invaded. It shows now, since Korea was only half won, with the south saved but the people of the north still oppressed. It proved to be impossible to win in Vietnam and now there is just one communist Vietnam. It proves that deciding to go to war in these cases is a highly subjective and difficult task. Of course even more
7
problems occurred with Vietnam when President Johnson used false reasons to increase involvement, and President Nixon inexplicably decided to bomb Cambodia as well.
The decision to go to war is an important one, and something that should be handled with as much responsibility as possible, and of course only used in extreme conditions when it will produce a better result. In the last century, the only justifiable wars the US has fought in out of the ones I mentioned are World War I, World War II, and The Gulf War. This is not to say that the US is not a noble nation. None of the unjustifiable wars the US has fought in the past century have been against nations who were not themselves committing immoral acts. The problem was that in many cases, the wrong decision was made in how to deal with the acts going on in the nation. More military action should have been taken in Bosnia and Rwanda in the 1990s, and more action needs to be taken now in Sudan.
Better ways to deal with bad situations are increased diplomacy, sanctions, and for terrorism, increased homeland security, which has already been done anyway. Military action is once again only justifiable if less people will be harmed as a result, a nation threatens to destabilize the region, or the homeland must be protected. Good examples are set by those who follow these basic principles.