True, even the most evil people think they are doing good with their evil, so we need an external standard.
Isn't that by necessity going to involve...
suppressing all dissenting views and murdering dissenters if necessary... the ends justify the means.
Not if the motive genuinely is to promote the American ideals of the greatest freedom and prosperity for all, rather than an ideological agenda. Sometimes you have to fight for these ideals, but that is a far cry from suppressing dissenting views etc.
I personally think our American ideals are not compatible with the mindset of much of the rest of the world, in particular the Islamic Middle East, so that I tend to think that democracy-planting there is a doomed idea, but that's merely to fault the Bush administration's good judgment, not to fault their motives (and the amount of success he has in fact had has surprised me and I say more power to him). Besides which we have other reasons to be there.
In Iraq, both when we set up Saddam and now while taking him down, we claimed that the ends justify the means.
I cringe at the idea that we ever supported Saddam, but even then the idea was to foster the best solution for the situation at the time, and for all I know it WAS the best solution for the situation at the time. Political strategy is a judgment call. You are judging it on an abstract principle rather than the situation of the time. If all you have to work with is tyrants, you do the best you can do with what you've got. Saddam was always evil but sometimes you have a choice only between evils. Times change, situations change.
There was agreement about there being WMD by many others than the Bush administration, there was agreement that Saddam needed to be brought down.
No there wasn't agreement on the WMDs,
Well, here's a list of some Democrats who agreed WMD were a real threat:
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Bill Clinton. Feb. 4, 1998.
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Bill Clinton. Feb. 17, 1998.
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Husseinbecause I believethat a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is areal and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry, D-MA. Oct. 2002.
"[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal,murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents aparticularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone tomiscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response tohiscontinued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of massdestruction.So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real."
Sen. John F. Kerry, D-MA. Jan. 23, 2003.
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-MA. Sept. 27, 2002.
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weaponsstock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He hasalso given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al-Qaedamembers ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Husseinwill continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemicalwarfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY. Oct 10, 2002.
We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence thatSaddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developingcapacity forthe production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Bob Graham, D-FL. Dec. 8, 2002.
"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Clinton'sSecretary of State. Feb 18, 1998.
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright. Nov. 10, 1999.
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser. Feb,18, 1998.
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
----------Letter to President Clinton, signed by Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others. Oct. 9, 1998.
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-CA. Dec. 16, 1998.
"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
------------Letter to President Bush, signed by Sen. Bob Graham, D-FL, andothers. Dec, 5, 2001.
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored themandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of massdestruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin, D-MI. Sept. 19, 2002.
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemicalweapons throughout his country."
Vice President Al Gore. Sept. 23, 2002.
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddamis in power."
Vice President Al Gore. Sept. 23, 2002.
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course tobuild up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligencereports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd, D-WV. Oct. 3, 2002.
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is workingaggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclearweapons withinthe next five years ... We also should remember we have alwaysunderestimatedthe progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of massdestruction."
Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-WV. Oct 10, 2002.
"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years,every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm anddestroyhis chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This hehasrefused to do"
Rep. Henry Waxman, D-CA. Oct. 10, 2002.
Democrats on the Record
and while no one liked Saddam and did want him out many many people agreed ENDS DON'T JUSTIFY THE MEANS! Check your own words above on that issue.
Um, this is fudging the definition I believe. I'm sure there is a better way of answering the fallacy than I have at the moment but it seems to me we're talking about a *contradiction* between ends and means. If your end is to depose a dictator, or de-fang a nest of terrorists, your means are going to be violent -- no contradiction there. If your end is to make a peaceful world of Communism, or a peaceful world for Allah, then there's an implicit contradiction between the end and the murdering of everybody who is of a different persuasion -- which is going to amount to millions of innocents, not your armed enemies. I don't think I've said this the best way possible but I think it's in the ballpark.
Nobody on the Left cares about Saddam's vicious murders; the rap is that America is worse no matter what.
Wrong again, it was the Conservative Republicans that did not care about Saddam's vicious murders. Remember, while people (left, right, and the middle) were outraged by those murders AT THE TIME, and predicted this was a maniac we should not be helping into power, Rummy and Reagan and Bush Sr were putting dissenters down as mamby pamby bleeding heart liberals?
I didn't see your evidence, but I might agree with you about their bad judgment if I knew all the particulars, but I still object to the condemnation of mere bad judgment in the moral terms that you are using.
He did not become an enemy until he destabilized the region and posed a threat to oil stability. At that point the Conservatives said "oh look at that monster". So you see to the Conservative Reps:
1) vicious murders=people who say Saddam is bad are bleeding heart wussies,
2) destabilize region and oil supply= Saddam is a vicious murderer.
You are paraphrasing rather than giving evidence for an actual change in assessment of Saddam's character. I doubt the conservatives ever thought he was not an evil man. Diplomatic attempts to deal with difficult situations don't deserve the vicious denunciations that are leveled against people who are acting in good faith. Instead of criticizing particular judgments, and instead of putting American safety above all other concerns, Bush critics don't seem to mind selling us out to our enemies. The habit now is to denounce the character and motives of the person making the judgment and resort to the most vicious slanders. This is a very evil trend.
Get the picture? We stay consist, you guys blow with the wind.
You are fooling yourself. There has been no change in basic motives or character, just in situations. International politics blows with the wind of necessity because there are so many different kinds of cultures and governments and personalities and mindsets that have to be taken into account. Many times there is no choice but to negotiate with evil men. Then you have to fight them when they turn on you. Maybe bad judgment was involved, but not evil men with evil motives as the Left just loves to smear the Right.
And America has gotten worse with all of these events, especially the normalizing of lies and hyperbole to support partisan policy.
There has been no lying. I'm sure you're convinced but this is all trumped up.
America is put on an equal plane by the Left with the murderers of the Islamic and Communist world.
I don't think that most critics of America would put it as equal. I think most however would find us culpable.
Culpable of what? Defending ourselves? Putting our interests ahead of our enemies? Putting our sovereign interests ahead of the interests of the thugs who run the UN?
The apologists are trying to whitewash the whole deal, and pretend as if that will straighten things out. Everything will all be better if we just realize THE END JUSTIFIES THE MEANS.
Indeed look at that paragraph you wrote, after decrying ends justify means you now champion that very notion!
That's nonsense, I've answered you above as well as I can. Our ends and means are consistent with one another and it is just some kind of ill-willed logic-chopping that tars our efforts with those of tyrants and murderers.
I would say there is a moral equivalence between Bush (and some of his neocon crew) and OBL.
Well, there it is, the Leftist putting of good for evil and evil for good. Such moral blindness is frightening and depressing. And you don't even know that it is the result of decades of careful propaganda to bring down America do you? This crap is taught in our universities by our fifth column.
Indeed, I'd be interested to know where you find the difference, besides technical know how on killing, and the nature of the end religious/political goal. They have both taken the stance that you are with them or against them, and anyone including innocents must die in the offense of their position, or the world will end in catastrophe.
There has to be a name for this pernicious fallacy but I don't know what it is. Something like comparing the least important most superficial elements between two things and calling the wholes equivalent. Sort of like saying mice and elephants are the same thing because they both have two eyes, four legs and a tail. Like saying Hitler and Gandhi are identical because they both liked dogs (I don't know if either of them liked dogs).
Is there something else I'm missing about these men?
===
Before you make such moral equivalences I guess we need to know what YOU think is good.
====
Personally, I don't have such a moral system which involves "good" and "evil" as some sort of objective quality.
Well, that probably explains a lot.
However I do equate good with things that generally make one successful, or improve living conditions.
Here's what I think is "good":
Using your brain to honestly analyze the history of an area and its people, as well as trends within those areas, then constructing programs and policies which will generally improve the living conditions of people within that area as well as remove threats to our own physical safety.
Now if only the dogmatic apologists of Bush would get on board.
I'm not a great Bush fan myself, but his opponents are a blind and ill-willed self-righteous bunch in my opinion and unfortunately they have persuaded huge numbers of people to follow them.
™ Version 4.2
