Quote:
Originally posted by Spanky
You know this is a B.S. example because it occurred in the United States. We are talking about foreign policy or defense outside the US. The US can seize property overseas without giving the person due process.
|
I think perhaps the strands of the conversation are getting confused, but if you look back you will see that I was presenting this example as one of courts constraining Article II powers.
Quote:
|
You think there was a quicker and more effective way to bring human rights to the Iraqis?
|
We've spent a lot of money and wasted a lot of lives making Iraq into a mess. As a practical matter, I don't think that many Iraqis are better off now than they were under Saddam.
Quote:
|
Actually our disputes are about the justification for going to war. You look at Afghanistan and think they attacked us, so we can invade them. Iraq didn't attack us so we can't invade them. Or they have weapons of WMDs so we can invade them, but if they didn't we can't. I think we have a right to invade any country that has a totalitarian dictatorship that doesn't respect its people rights. The Declaration of Independence gave people the right to rebel against a government if its government does not respect its human rights. I also think that right expands to any other country to invade and overturn that government. If a totalitarian regime took over our country and the government started committing genocide I would welcome the invasion of a foreign power to reinstate a democratic government here.
|
You're speaking a language of rights here, but I think there are circumstances where even if we have this "right" to do something, we ought not do it because it will not work well. Iraq would be an example. Intervening in Darfur might be another, though I'm not sure.
Quote:
|
The Bush administration went to war against the Taliban because it supported Al Queda. I don't think the Taliban was much of a threat any more. I supported the invasion because we got rid of a very evil government and have a chance to put in a Democratic one. Even if that attempt fails it was worth risk.
|
I don't think we disagree on Afghanistan. Even Barbara Lee voted to spend money to invade, right?
Quote:
The Bush administration had many reason for invading Iraq (fear of WMDs, threat to oil supply etc), I did not think those reasons were justifications for invading. However, I thought the invasion was purely justified in the fact that it got rid of a nasty regime. Even if the experiment in Democracy failed, just the chance it would work out was worth the effort.
The administration had many goals, but the only goal I cared about was to try and give Democracy a chance in these nations. Because a permanent democratic nation is invaluable.
The only time I think an invasion would not be justified, is if a democratic government that respected peoples right with in its borders but was attacking the US or working against our interests. I would support attacks on such a nation for our protection but I would not support an invasion of such a nation.
|
Let's table this particular argument -- it's a little late to be shifting gears from the other discussion to this one. Suffice it to say that we both agree that a peaceful, democratic Iraq would be a good thing, but have had different views about whether and how we can get there.
