Micheal Moore's comments comparing the insurgency in Iraq to the resistance efforts of minutemen in America's revolutionary war stirred up some debate in
this diary.
Over there, me and CheeseMoose got into a debate about this issue and I thought it was an interesting enough question to put in a diary. So here are the posts (slightly edited to remove extraneous information,, edits indicated with elipses).
Moore's comment is morally wrong (3.00 / 3)
I would say. Callingt the insurgents minutemen is a moral judgement, an endorsement of their actions.
What the insurgents are doing is morally wrong. In adittion to killing soldiers with families and children (which I admit the minutemen did too) they are ruining Iraq's only chance of Democracy. Minutemen were advancing the cause of Democracy and freedom.
I didn't support the war, but if the US leaves now there is a vanishingly small chance that any kind of Democracy will evolve. Any Iraqi who chooses violence instead of working towards Democratic change isn't helping his country and so there is no way to excuse the harm to families and the taking of lives that he causes.
Moore's statement isn't just unwise, its morally wrong.
by samiam on Sun Apr 18th, 2004 at 01:51:11 EDT
Bullshit (3.66 / 3)
They are fighting a foreign occupation.
Proof? Who controls oil after this supposed hand-over of sovereignty? Who controls security? The U.S.
by CheeseMoose on Sun Apr 18th, 2004 at 02:04:38 EDT
its not that simple (none / 0)
Unless you believe that the US plans to stay in Iraq forever that makes no sense. If you were an insurgent and you believed that shouldn't you at least wait a while to see if its true before you start killing people with families?
Can you really tell me that the insurgents are increasing the likelyhood of a Democratic Iraq? If you can't say that for sure then I would argue that the actions of the insurgents are wrong because given that killing people is a pretty drastic step to take you should be as sure as possible that it will produce a good result...
by samiam on Sun Apr 18th, 2004 at 02:56:01 EDT
Thanks for thoughtful reply... (none / 0)
Let's put the shoe on the other foot for a minute. Let's say China had invaded us back during slavery days, to "right that wrong." So then the Chinese say, "we're going to give you the gift of Communism, where all are equal." They think it's the perfect form of government, they're just doing us a favor. But they lock up our resources for themselves and establish an "interim" government til we're "educated" sufficiently to run our own People's Republic. You don't think we'd be justified in hiding in alleyways and plugging their asses with lead?
All the talk about democracy in Iraq has never been anything but a smokescreen, for the reasons I mentioned in previous post: oil and security. I would defer to you if we were to renounce all control of oil and if we were to accept whatever freely elected government the Iraqis came up with and pulled our troops out. But we both know that'd never be acceptable to Bush. This whole thing is a power play. For some idiotic reason, the neocons thought it'd be easy. But they don't mind the fact that it's not easy - that locks us into the Arab-Israeli war and connects our fate to Israel's. They want America and Israel connected at the hip. I don't say this as an anti-semite - I'm Jewish. And I think this policy is going to be disastrous for Israel and America.
I wish we were the good guys in this thing but we're not. I hope we can come to our senses before we pay a terrible price.
by CheeseMoose on Sun Apr 18th, 2004 at 04:05:11 EDT
that bringsin another question... (none / 0)
I'm assuming that we all agree that a stable, free democracy is best for Iraq. I know that there are those who would disagree with that, but arguing from an abstract moral standpoint I say that it is the best form of government for Iraq. For that reason I don't think the China thing holds true. Alternatively, if we assume Communism is indeed the best form of government and China honestly wants to install it in America then killing chinese people would indeed be morally wrong.
Now we get to the key issue. Do Americans really want Democracy? I'd argue that in the long run the neocons do actually want a stable and free Democracy for geopolitical reasons. They think that they can build one and that it will transform the middle east.
As far as the oil goes I think you're wrong. We might demand enough of it to pay for the invasion but I'd guess that as long as a free Iraq kept it flowing we wouldn't demand a cut beyond those war costs.
I don't buy the vision of the Bush administration as rapacious neocolonialists intent on stealing resources from "brown people." I view them more as deeply delusional idealists.
However, lets assume I'm wrong or that the truth is unknowable. I'd still argue that for the actions of the insurgents to be morally right they would at least need to wait untill after the November elections. That sounds silly, but we don't think Kerry has any colonialist ambitions do we? What I mean is that even if Bush is an evil colonialist he isn't a permanent thing. Whether we are the good guys or the bad guys isn't fixed, we can change it and do so in more ways than simply pulling out.
I can also argue this from a different tack. I'd say that, even if America is a colonial power and will remain so forever with no intention of leaving, the best hope Iraqis have for a democratic, free Iraq away from our grip is to first form a Democracy and then fight for resistance if necessary. If the insurgents were to suceed tomorrow Iraq would be a shambles, civil war would be almost certain and warlordism and chaos would definately be certain. Compare that to what happens if a Democratic government starts to resist the US, it gets intenational support, greater popular support, and when it finally wins Iraq is a whole country, stable and effective. But, you say, America will never allow a true Democracy to form. I think it would, but even if we don't know or ar sure it wouldn't, surely its best to try before we take the drastic step of killing people.
One overriding concern I have is that in any moral calculation a great weight is placed on life. People should go to any and all great lengths to find solutions that are alternatives to killing people. In a situation of occupation it is all to easy to dehumanize the occupiers and justify killing them but that doesn't make it right.
by samiam on Sun Apr 18th, 2004 at 14:52:42 EDT
Tell me, Sam: Do You Like Green Eggs and Ham? (none / 0)
I'm glad you're replying in such depth to my posts. This is fun, because the whole reason I like to post is I want to hash this stuff out and figure out what is going on. I'm not attached to my point of view - I even hope that you're right, that our involvement over there has a moral basis. Cuz if you're not then things are all the worse.
The killing that's going on seems to be the most important issue, the one you keep coming back to, as far as what's moral and what's not. So, my reply to you is: we started the killing. The UN and pretty much the whole international community wanted us to wait until there was some proven immanent danger from Iraq before we attacked militarily. But we insisted on going to the military option - which is another way of saying, we decided to start killing people - and then found out there really was no immanent threat. Remember Shock and Awe? That was us killing people. Whatever our supposed reason, we were the ones who decided that killing people was the way to solve the problem.
The invasion was a crime, that we as a nation, perpetrated on the people of Iraq. For us to say it was for their own good is just...well, what would you call it? We have to assume, as you do, that democracy is the best form of government. But democracy, by its nature, cannot be imposed, because it is the will of the people to govern themselves. I like democracy. You like democracy. But a case can be made that democracy is easily corruptable and can lead to a tyranny. For instance, that is what seems to be happening in our own country right now: corporate interests have trumped individual interests by virtue of the primacy of money in electoral politics. We are now being ruled by a small group of people who were not democratically elected.
You start out by saying "I'm assuming that we all agree that a stable, free democracy is best for Iraq." Well, yeah, that'd be nice. But why is it for us to choose what's best for Iraq? Paul Bremer and other free-market ideologues assume that a free market is what's best for Iraq - but in a nation where 70% of the people were receiving free food rations before the war, maybe they'd prefer a little more good old fashioned socialism.
As far as Kerry goes, nothing he's said up to this point signals that he disagrees with American policy in Iraq - he's only been critical of the Bush administration's means of carrying it out. He says he would send more troops. He says we cannot afford to "lose" Iraq. He has not promised to give Iraqis total control of their oil fields or their security. So, I don't think we can say he doesn't have colonial ambitions. He's gonna have to prove it by his policies. Right now he looks like he's just gonna play LBJ to Bush's JFK - the democrat left holding the bag, trying to save face. In my opinion, that's not a winning strategy.
I mourn the killing that's going on in Iraq and wish it weren't happening. But to expect restraint on the part of the people who were attacked is not reasonable. It's a mess that we made and we have to be big enough to admit we made it and work to clean it up. And we have to do so, not on our own terms, but on the terms of the people we've harmed.
I personally think that we rely way too much on our mighty military to solve problems and have let our humanitarian skills degrade. It's an illusion to think we can bully the rest of the world into seeing things our way.
So, tell me Sam, Oh pretty please
Would you drive them to their knees?
Would you make them kiss our hand?
Would you make them join our band?
Would you, could you, with a gun?
Would you, could you, just for fun?
Let's stop the killing in Iraq
Let's call our troops and bring them back
I know that deep down you're good, Sam
What do you say, Oh Sam-I-Am?
by CheeseMoose on Sun Apr 18th, 2004 at 17:54:26 EDT
heh (none / 0)
Heh. Cute. It is good to have a real discussion.
we started the killing ...
The invasion was a crime, that we as a nation, perpetrated on the people of Iraq
Hmm, well thats is certainly true in a sense. Under other circumstances I might have supported an invasion but thats neither here nor there. To be clear abou this I never supported Bush's invasion...
democracy, by its nature, cannot be imposed, because it is the will of the people to govern themselves
But we can give them the opportunity to choose Democracy. An option they almost certainly won't have if we leave now. Realistically, if we leave now can you tell me that something other than civil war or theocracy will result?
why is it for us to choose what's best for Iraq?
It shoudln't have been, and it isn't in a specific sense. However, we are now occupying Iraq and we can't avoid the consequences of our decisions. Whatever we do will in effect be a choice about the future of Iraq, even withdrawing. Right?
He has not promised to give Iraqis total control of their oil fields or their security. So, I don't think we can say he doesn't have colonial ambitions. He's gonna have to prove it by his policies.
Naturally we don't know what Kerry will be like in office. However, this goes back to the issue of killing wich is the moral core of the question of the rightness of the insurgents' actions. Given that an election in Nov may produce an administration that will pursue a better policy it seems immoral to me to go immediately to the drastic step of killing people (I harp I know but its important) without waiting?
to expect restraint on the part of the people who were attacked is not reasonable
I agree. Doesn't mean that their lack of restraint is moral though. Its the old explicable/excusable thing, you may understand why it happens but that doesn't make it OK.
Is there much much more that we could do? Yes. Does that excuse the insurgents? No.
I think, over the course of this discussion I've had two key points.
- Killing people is a big step to take and so the insurgents' actions are wrong untill they are sure the situation isn't going to change (Nov at least).
- A pullout now would be bad for Iraq, and thus the actions of the insurgents are bad for Iraq (since they certainly hastena pullout) and therefore immoral.
The second one is the more important one I think, but we haven't talked about it much.
by samiam on Sun Apr 18th, 2004 at 19:33:19 EDT
thanks for the discussion (none / 0)
Well, we agree killing is wrong. Let's hope there's not too much more of it. And, since you're probably right that we aren't going to be leaving anytime soon, let's hope that your optimism regarding democracy comes to fruition...
by CheeseMoose on Mon Apr 19th, 2004 at 03:44:16 EDT
A few things to keep in mind. I intended my arguments to be moral in an abstract way. I admit that some of my arguments are a bit unrealistic in the sense that the requirements they put on people may be unreasonable.
So, what do you think?