Joshua_Mayer

Should we conquer?

63 posts in this topic

Rick and I both agreed that we were going off topic. So I created this topic in case we wanted to continue this discussion further.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you can explain to me how a record level of violence can be interpreted as winning I would like to know? Unless, of course, it was our military using overwhelming force against our enemy than I would agree we are winning. However, when the opposite is occurring I beg to differ.

This record level of violence pales in comparison to previous wars. Violence happens in war, it is something we will have to accept. If they were taking back territories, I would agree with you. But we have maintained our ground and continue to.

Let's put this war in proper historical context. We are fighting a weak enemy who does not have the means to take back territory. We conquered Japan, a far more formidable enemy, in less time. The only thing holding us back from winning this war and conquering our enemy is the moral courage to use overwhelming force.

I whole heartedly agree with that statement. We really do need to step up to reduce causalities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rick and I both agreed that we were going off topic. So I created this topic in case we wanted to continue this discussion further.

Please define "conquer".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rick and I both agreed that we were going off topic. So I created this topic in case we wanted to continue this discussion further.

I'll engage in this discussion. However, based on the limited time I have I may not respond in a timely manner. My daughter's sleep patterns and my lack of sleep patterns dictate how much time I have to devote to responding.

First question, What do you mean by conquer? Define what you mean and I think we can go from there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rick and I both agreed that we were going off topic. So I created this topic in case we wanted to continue this discussion further.

Please define "conquer".

Looks like you beat me by a couple of minutes. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rick and I both agreed that we were going off topic. So I created this topic in case we wanted to continue this discussion further.

Please define "conquer".

Sorry it took so long for me to respond, I took me a while to formulate an acceptable answer to the question.

When I created this new topic, it was my intention to continue our discussion from before. So when I created this post, I specifically meant should we conquer Iraq? By conquer: I mean make them the 51st state.

Although, I think this topic would be a good time to create a general idea on the morality of conquering and see when (if ever) it is justified to conquer. So my intention of this topic is specifically is to start with Iraq, and from there create a basis to see when conquering is moral. Is that a sufficient answer?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
When I created this new topic, it was my intention to continue our discussion from before. So when I created this post, I specifically meant should we conquer Iraq? By conquer: I mean make them the 51st state.

First off, I disagree with your definition of conquer. My dictionary defines conquer as: to gain or acquire by force of arms: subjugate.

Statehood is a complex issue. The same issues confronting Puerto Rico would only be worse concerning Iraq.

Caution Needed on Puerto Rico Statehood

Statehood for Puerto Rico would cost American taxpayers greatly and would trigger divisive debate over language and culture. In addition, in the proposed referendum, the options for permanent political status are not fully defined, leaving room for Puerto Rican voters to misunderstand the choices. The possible establishment of an English language requirement could create a cultural crisis for Puerto Ricans, who neither teach it as an official language in school nor use it on a daily basis. Moreover, it could open a divisive controversy about the official recognition of second languages in America. Finally, Puerto Rican statehood would have adverse long-term budgetary and political consequences for the United States as a whole.

Budgetary Costs

Statehood carries major budgetary implications for the U.S. government. As a state, Puerto Rico would be eligible to participate in all federal social programs at a projected annual cost of more than $3 billion in new federal expenditures for welfare and entitlement programs, according to a 1990 Congressional Budget Office study. Administration estimates of increased annual federal outlays if Puerto Rico were to become a state include $1.2 billion in Medicaid, $800 million in Supplemental Security Income, and $620 million in food stamps, among others. A 1990 KPMG Peat Marwick study on the economic and fiscal impacts of Puerto Rican statehood indicated that "over the forecast 1992–2000 period, the net cumulative cost to the U.S. Government would be between $22.3 billion to $25.9 billion."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
First off, I disagree with your definition of conquer. My dictionary defines conquer as: to gain or acquire by force of arms: subjugate.

If you wanted a dictionary definition, why did you ask me when you could have done that yourself? In all honesty, when you asked that question, I was assuming you were asking something along the lines of "Where are you getting at with this?"

Statehood for Puerto Rico would cost American taxpayers greatly and would trigger divisive debate over language and culture. In addition, in the proposed referendum, the options for permanent political status are not fully defined, leaving room for Puerto Rican voters to misunderstand the choices. The possible establishment of an English language requirement could create a cultural crisis for Puerto Ricans, who neither teach it as an official language in school nor use it on a daily basis. Moreover, it could open a divisive controversy about the official recognition of second languages in America. Finally, Puerto Rican statehood would have adverse long-term budgetary and political consequences for the United States as a whole.

But that makes you wonder how the Romans conquered so much and not had a problem with the same issue. It is always possible for integration to happen, if a nation does it the right way.

Statehood carries major budgetary implications for the U.S. government. As a state, Puerto Rico would be eligible to participate in all federal social programs at a projected annual cost of more than $3 billion in new federal expenditures for welfare and entitlement programs, according to a 1990 Congressional Budget Office study. Administration estimates of increased annual federal outlays if Puerto Rico were to become a state include $1.2 billion in Medicaid, $800 million in Supplemental Security Income, and $620 million in food stamps, among others. A 1990 KPMG Peat Marwick study on the economic and fiscal impacts of Puerto Rican statehood indicated that "over the forecast 1992–2000 period, the net cumulative cost to the U.S. Government would be between $22.3 billion to $25.9 billion."

If we do not spend it on Iraq, we are bound to spend it somewhere else. Politicians have no sense of restraint when it comes to spending whatsoever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you wanted a dictionary definition, why did you ask me when you could have done that yourself? In all honesty, when you asked that question, I was assuming you were asking something along the lines of "Where are you getting at with this?"

I am seeking clarification. Based on what you have said in this thread and the other thread that started this thread, I have identified several contradictions. One example, your use of the word 'conquer'. The topic, which you created, is Should we conquer? If by conquer you mean Should Iraq be the 51st state, than why not make that the topic of the thread as opposed to Should we conquer? There is a difference between conquering your enemy and making a territory a state. I cited my dictionary definition as a starting point. If we can't agree on the proper meaning of what the word 'conquer' means than there is no reason for me to continue the discussion.

As to where am I going with this, I want to know if you can recognize the contradictions you have stated and whether or not they can be corrected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What was the moral basis of actually invading Iraq?

Iraq did not have a legitimate rights-respecting government, and it was believed to be a threat to the U.S. because its anti-American dictator was supporting terrorism and was believed to have biological and other weapons that could be used to attack Americans. In addition, Iraq has strategic military importance in the fight against our real enemy, Iran. We had conquered Afghanistan and, if we also conquered Iraq, we could have Iran surrounded.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We had conquered Afghanistan and, if we also conquered Iraq, we could have Iran surrounded.

That was my initial thought when the prospect of invading Iraq first came up. If only that had been the reason...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with surrounding Iran. The desire to invade Iraq and overthrow Saddam can be traced back to 1998 and a letter issued by Project for the New American Century which is an advocacy group for interventionist Republican foreign policy experts including Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Armitage and John Bolton. The Bush Administration invaded Iraq because it did not think that the Clinton strategy of containment was working, was too costly, and that the Shiite rebels in southern Iraq were not properly supported during their uprising after the first Gulf War.

As I have stated in the past, there are two books that should be taken into consideration.

Fiasco: The American Military Adventure in Iraq by Thomas E. Ricks

Cobra II: The Inside Story of the Invasion and Occupation of Iraq by Michael R. Gordon and General Bernard E. Trainor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is the Letter to President Clinton

Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate. The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.

What was not known at the time was that the containment policy was working and Saddam Hussein was getting rid of his weapons of mass destruction. Operation Desert Fox and its bombing campaign worked and 'that(the use of overwhelming force)' is the proper and moral strategy that should be used to fight our enemies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What was the moral basis of actually invading Iraq?

Iraq did not have a legitimate rights-respecting government, and it was believed to be a threat to the U.S. because its anti-American dictator was supporting terrorism and was believed to have biological and other weapons that could be used to attack Americans. In addition, Iraq has strategic military importance in the fight against our real enemy, Iran. We had conquered Afghanistan and, if we also conquered Iraq, we could have Iran surrounded.

My understanding is that no meaningful WMD were found.

Is it Objectivist policy to rid the world of all undesirable governments?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My understanding is that no meaningful WMD were found.

Is it Objectivist policy to rid the world of all undesirable governments?

Just because we didn't find them doesn't mean they didn't exist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Bush Administration invaded Iraq because it did not think that the Clinton strategy of containment was working, was too costly, and that the Shiite rebels in southern Iraq were not properly supported during their uprising after the first Gulf War.

Isn't the Iraq war costing approx $400 billion per year?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My understanding is that no meaningful WMD were found.

Is it Objectivist policy to rid the world of all undesirable governments?

Just because we didn't find them doesn't mean they didn't exist.

Why didn't they use them in retaliation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why didn't they use them in retaliation?

Who knows?

But for more information, see this article (where they interview a former Iraqi General) here, stating that Saddam sent the WMD's to Syria before the invasion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why didn't they use them in retaliation?

Who knows?

But for more information, see this article (where they interview a former Iraqi General) here, stating that Saddam sent the WMD's to Syria before the invasion.

http://www.antiwar.com/casualties/

This website claims that approx 1.2 million people have been killed to date.....there's also property damage to consider.

I just don't see how it makes any moral sense to kill this many people when a country effectively had no meaningful amount of WMD.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What do you expect from antiwar.com?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Bush Administration invaded Iraq because it did not think that the Clinton strategy of containment was working, was too costly, and that the Shiite rebels in southern Iraq were not properly supported during their uprising after the first Gulf War.

Isn't the Iraq war costing approx $400 billion per year?

Pathetic, isn't it?

Have you read the two books I have referenced?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Bush Administration invaded Iraq because it did not think that the Clinton strategy of containment was working, was too costly, and that the Shiite rebels in southern Iraq were not properly supported during their uprising after the first Gulf War.

Isn't the Iraq war costing approx $400 billion per year?

Pathetic, isn't it?

Have you read the two books I have referenced?

No I haven't.

I use the net for most of my political details, I only buy hard copies of philosophy/science and text books.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Bush Administration invaded Iraq because it did not think that the Clinton strategy of containment was working, was too costly, and that the Shiite rebels in southern Iraq were not properly supported during their uprising after the first Gulf War.

Isn't the Iraq war costing approx $400 billion per year?

Pathetic, isn't it?

Have you read the two books I have referenced?

No I haven't.

I use the net for most of my political details, I only buy hard copies of philosophy/science and text books.

I recommend you visit your local library or spend some time in your local book store and take a look at the two books that I have referenced. Both books will give you all the political details you need and then some.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites