Thursday, March 13, 2003
Should morality guide America's foreign policy and the use of military intervention?
Many in the anti-war camp probably believe morality is a reason for not going to war. I counter this and say morality is a reason for war.
Consider these questions that will shape America's future foreign policy.
Should America get involved militarily in another country to protect people from atrocities commited on a mass scale?
Should America be the worlds policeman?
In an ideal world the UN would be the worlds policeman but in this imperfect world we all share, the UN is pathetically incapable of this duty. America is the only nation capable of policing the world. Like Spiderman's Uncle said, "with great power comes great responsibity". Is it America's responsibility to help those who need help?
If you say "yes" then you must also believe it is morally unaccectable for the United States and the world for that matter, to sit back and let Saddam Hussein rule Iraq.
If there is such thing as a just war, then a war to remove a genocidal dictator who has ruled as cruelly and sadistically as Saddam Hussein is the defintion of a just war.
The call to intervene against Saddam for moral reasons is not new, it is not something that has been drummed up in the last few month's to gain support for a war. We have been morally intervening in Iraq for the last 12 years. The No Fly Zones in Northern and Southern Iraq are there for moral reasons, to protect Iraqi's from Saddams persecution.
America is the reluctant policeman, we are too isolationist to get involved in other people's problems and we rarely do unless it's in our national interests. Occasianally we are pulled into a moral war, such as the two US led interventions in the Balkans and our parlay into Somalia.
My question to you is, should the USA fight moral wars against atrocity and be the world's policeman?
Many in the anti-war camp probably believe morality is a reason for not going to war. I counter this and say morality is a reason for war.
Consider these questions that will shape America's future foreign policy.
Should America get involved militarily in another country to protect people from atrocities commited on a mass scale?
Should America be the worlds policeman?
In an ideal world the UN would be the worlds policeman but in this imperfect world we all share, the UN is pathetically incapable of this duty. America is the only nation capable of policing the world. Like Spiderman's Uncle said, "with great power comes great responsibity". Is it America's responsibility to help those who need help?
If you say "yes" then you must also believe it is morally unaccectable for the United States and the world for that matter, to sit back and let Saddam Hussein rule Iraq.
If there is such thing as a just war, then a war to remove a genocidal dictator who has ruled as cruelly and sadistically as Saddam Hussein is the defintion of a just war.
The call to intervene against Saddam for moral reasons is not new, it is not something that has been drummed up in the last few month's to gain support for a war. We have been morally intervening in Iraq for the last 12 years. The No Fly Zones in Northern and Southern Iraq are there for moral reasons, to protect Iraqi's from Saddams persecution.
America is the reluctant policeman, we are too isolationist to get involved in other people's problems and we rarely do unless it's in our national interests. Occasianally we are pulled into a moral war, such as the two US led interventions in the Balkans and our parlay into Somalia.
My question to you is, should the USA fight moral wars against atrocity and be the world's policeman?
