"The Dilemma" as seen by me.

[Petra]

My Interesting Dilemma (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=854) thread was posted in Philosophy, Religion, Morality (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=46) as I wanted to get replies that weren't strictly Politics and Law (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=41), but more ...'holistic', if you will; coming from all angles.

I feel the same way about this thread. I would like it to go beyond just Politics and Law, immersing the topic in deeper waters and encourage people to respond with everything they think and feel on any level regarding their view of this "situation".

And so, ladies and gentleman, I offer you The Dilemma. The game of wondering where the fuck we go from here...


The Dilemma

The world cannot step in and offer help to the US in Iraq, providing much needed military, monetary, and human support as it will mean that it is backing the PNAC, which is war corporatism and christofascism by any means. This is unavoidable because of the people and principles who are key in world politics, business and religion right now.

Yet, the world cannot step in and help Iraq combat it's 'liberating' and occupying forces either. It would be "anti-American" and would mean "the terrorists have won". This is unavoidable because of the people and principles who are key in world politics, business and religion right now.

So, the world is caught - it cannot step in because it would be condoning either terrorism or fascism - which ever way you cut it. And yet, somehow, it must. For humanity's sake. And for the sake of all the innocent Iraqis that have found themselves in the middle of it all. Even for the sake of all the "average" Americans who have found themselves unwitting partners in global grime; Bush-voting or not.

So, what can be done, what must be considered in making the decision as to what can or must be done, who should do it, how should it be done, what are the variables, why, and all that jazz? There is so much to consider regarding global resources, balance of power, superpowerdom, culture, money, "terrorism", industry, and etc etc.


We are at a crossroads, folks. There is a sign in every direction. They all read "FUBAR". What now?

[beyelzu]

I think the world needs to help rebuild Iraq for much the same reasons I think America needs to stay the course and rebuild Iraq. The damage has been done, nothing will "uninvade" Iraq.

It is possible for some good to come of this though. A functioning democracy would be a hell of a start.

[Petra]

I think the world needs to help rebuild Iraq for much the same reasons I think America needs to stay the course and rebuild Iraq. The damage has been done, nothing will "uninvade" Iraq.

See above dilemma.

It is possible for some good to come of this though. A functioning democracy would be a hell of a start.

Where is the democracy you are talking about - Iraq? Afghanistan? the US? Sweden? The "World" vote?

What is the possible good that may come of this? How does it swing the scales when weighed against the possible bad?

[beyelzu]

I think the world needs to help rebuild Iraq for much the same reasons I think America needs to stay the course and rebuild Iraq. The damage has been done, nothing will "uninvade" Iraq.

See above dilemma.

It is possible for some good to come of this though. A functioning democracy would be a hell of a start.

Where is the democracy you are talking about - Iraq? Afghanistan? the US? Sweden? The "World" vote?

What is the possible good that may come of this? How does it swing the scales when weighed against the possible bad?
I understand the dilemna as you outlined it. I think that the good of helping rebuild Iraq outweighs the bad of supporting an illegal war.

also, I think that net good can come from the invasion in spite of the reasons for the war if a functioning democracy in Iraq is a result of the war.

[wei yau]

I think this dilemma is the closest I've come to being religious since I realized I am atheist.

I completely disagree with the neo-conservative PNAC agenda of engendering democracy and security through force of arms in Iraq. I think the entire agenda is the epitome of arrogance mixed with naive idealism. The agenda itself is a contradiction.

However, Iraq has been invaded. Saddam has been toppled and the nation is seemingly without direction.

Now, I find that I have to believe that a functional democracy can be established in Iraq. I doubt whether or not such a thing will have a cascading effect throughout the region. It would be nice if it happens, but it's not the primary goal. The primary goal is to set things right.

I have to work towards a positive outcome. Allowing things to fall apart simply to score a moral point is not an option when so many innocent lives are at stake. It is not their fault, nor mine, that the situation exists. However, it is their obligation, as well as mine, to work towards a positive outcome.

Yes, I'm heartily troubled by the realization that such a success would justify the PNAC agenda. If that does happen, then I will have to admit that although I find the PNAC agenda to be morally reprehensible, it is not infeasible. I will have to think about what is moral versus what is practical.

[Godless Dave]

What I would like to see is a bunch of influential countries get together and say "we will help rebuild Iraq if and only if we are asked to do so by an elected Iraqi government, and only after US troops and US corporations leave the country."

The onus would be on the US to provide security up to the time elections are held in January, after which we would have to leave for the rest of the world to help Iraq.

[Farren]

What I think is that the world can offer to step in if and only if the US acquieses to UN control of the peacekeeping forces in Iraq. The US has an obligation to continue to contribute at least a proportion of both military and civilian personell because it was ultimately responsible for the current mess.

Demanding UN control of the peacekeeping effort and efforts at fostering democracy is a reasonable condition. It also allows a less ideological approach to be taken, for instance by scrapping Bremers edicts that allow ridiculous amounts of foreign ownership of the Iraq economy and ensuring that more Iraqis are employed for reconstruction efforts.

Some may think that it will put the dissenting countries in an awkward position if the US just says "no" because then they'll be sitting on their hands while the situation remains in its current quagmirish state on a point of principle. But such inactivity will be justifiable because the US has already demonstrated that it is not fully competent to win the peace, so simply supporting a US command structure would be a massive waste of resources.

[Petra]

If that does happen, then I will have to admit that although I find the PNAC agenda to be morally reprehensible, it is not infeasible. I will have to think about what is moral versus what is practical.

Damn. Those last couple of sentences made me shiver. :(

[Petra]

Godless Dave and Farren, I agree with you both. However, I don't think the US will "let go" of ultimate control, though. I also think that the US should pay reparations, like Germany pays reparations to Israel.

With the US not letting go of the power over Iraqi resources and American investor "potential" in the region, what are the rest of us to do?

We must make demands, and make them forcefully - BushCo won't listen to anything else - and maybe this is the brink of WW3 (or should that be WW1, part 3?). I don't know for sure, but personally I think it is - but we'll see what eventuates over the next several months or so. In a WW3 situation, I would have trouble choosing which side to fight for, as I'm sure many countries would - do we fight for or against the US at this juncture? And who the hell can possibly win?

[maddog]

One of the things I've never understood about this, for example, is why the un-bid rebuilding contracts went to Halliburton, and Bush said that other contracts would only be given to coalition members, not other foreign countries (notably France) that criticized the war. Why are FOREIGNERS getting rebuilding contracts? Why aren't IRAQI companies getting these contracts? What right does the U.S. have to "award" such contracts?

I'm *afraid* that I already know the answers to these questions: American foreign policy in the Middle East seems to be exclusively about oil, and not really about anything else. We go in there to do something about securing steady supplies of a dwindling resource, about which competition is bound to increase. We grab it for ourselves, secure it for ourselves, put in the infrastructure to suit and favor ourselves, and to reward our friends and punish our enemies. The people who live in Iraq seem to be merely incidental. There's no way the Bush administration is letting go of the power to control what happens in Iraq -- not that there's that much control to be had, but it certainly shouldn't be left in the hands of the natives, because who the heck knows what THEY are going to do with it!

If this were an ordinary political situation, I would foresee that the Iraqi elections would be held in January, a superficially democratically elected government would be in for a short time, the U.S. would be able to withdraw in a face-saving retreat (peace with honor), the initially-elected (puppet) government would undergo more upheaval and "reform" so that the real voice of the people will be heard, the majority will vote in a religiously-based group, and we will have created a theocratic state. If it were just politics, that's what I would predict. But, unlike Vietnam, Iraq has something we want, something we value: oil. So there's no way that the U.S. will withdraw and leave that oil to a native-chosen government. We're never getting out of this mess; not until something better than oil comes along.

[wei yau]

If that does happen, then I will have to admit that although I find the PNAC agenda to be morally reprehensible, it is not infeasible. I will have to think about what is moral versus what is practical.

Damn. Those last couple of sentences made me shiver. :(

You can imagine how I feel, as I wrote them. :freezing:

I hate the fact that I have to compromise my principles because I'm left with little choice in the matter. But, since Iraq can't be "un-invaded" (tm beyelzu), I don't know what I can do beyond working towards a functional democracy and hoping for the cascading affect envisioned by the neo-conservatives.