I'm asking this question here because you guys are a lot sharper than a lot of people around here. I feel like the United States should never have gone into Iraq, let me make that clear. I think it was a poor decision, and I think we did it for the wrong reasons. That being said, I don't think we can pull out. I worry it would destabilize Iraq even further, and I worry that it would undo what progress has been made. Let me also say that my primary news source is national public radio, so I don't think I'm as terribly misinformed as a lot of people. Anyway, you're all thoughtful people, what do you think?
Oh, and to make it count as philosophy, include something about metaphysics in your answers.
Debate over just causes and methods of war are in Ethics and that is a field of philosophy, as are Metaphysics, Logic, and Epistemology,
Metaphysics is about the ultimate nature of reality; underlying physics,
Epistemology is 'what is truth'
and Logic is the stuff abused all over CF but particularly in General Apologetics and Crevo.
Fear not; this thread does belong in Philosophy because Ethics and Morality are debating the application of accepted Ethics and Morals whereas by posting in Philosophy we challenge the Ethics and Morals themselves, often by looking at the results (hence overlap with E&M)
Iraq. Start simple. USA attacks Iraq, not in self defense, kills lots of people.
Now assess each part of the situation.
Geographical location and who started the war justifies the
'attacks' bit, in fact Iraq never got to make counter attacks on US bases outside Iraq, all the fighting has been in Iraqi territory.
Consider the '
not in self defense' part. The US would not have attacked if we had not been confident of very low casualties on our side, so evidently there was no necessity involved.
And the final part of the statement is '
kills lots of people'. Some claim fewer died as a result of the invasion and occupation of Iraq than were dying before. This is an 'ends justify the means' type of argument, to 'do wrong that good may come of it' to be Biblical.
It has been well said that 'truth is the first casualty of war' and the data we are fed disagree on the key point of '
kills lots of people'. My impression is the death rate was low when Saddam was restricted during the Clinton era and the policy of containment, and was higher both before and after, but I look forward to some specific data to confirm or dispute this impression.
The philosophy of Ethics has adherents who consider rule following to be the best plan, and others who consider intent to be the best way to achieve results. The proof of the pudding is results.
