Sunday, December 18, 2005

Much of the opposition to the Iraq mission we're in is based on the rather racist assumption that Arabs are too evil/stupid for democracy. The thing is that so far democracy in the Middle East has had as much sucess as democracy in Africa. However political correctness (in this case correct) insists that it has nothing to do with racial differences. In the Middle East liberals must balance their support for government building with their contempt for the war. Therefore they must deny that Iraq can handle democracy. My only dilemma about this war is that our government's job is not to save lives but to protect America. Even with this in mind I have two justifications for going in. 1. Given that we aren't living in a libertarian paradise we must utilize our life-saving resources for the best gain. That is Iraq where we are saving 10s of thousands of lives a year. We save these lives by eliminating Saddam who was a mass murderer but also by lifting our sanctions which killed many Iraqis (not 100s of thousands but 10s of thousands). The large problem is that people refuse to put a value on human life arguing that a life is priceless. Therefore they end up not valuing human life at all. Those who are called callous for putting a monetary value on life are the ones who truly realize what life is worth (to the last dollar). However to those who claim life is priceless how do they explain suicide bombers or soldiers falling on a grenade to protect their friends. These people are putting a value on their life and are putting something above it. (This may be twisted or noble but it is the value they truly believe their life has.) 2. Even if government shouldn't spend money to save lives I still believe we should be there because a stabilized democracy does not attack America. Iraq will not attack Israel or support terror as a terrorized democracy dependent on the U.S.


At 2:59 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"That is Iraq where we are saving 10s of thousands of lives a year."

Is that before or after you factor the 100,000+ that have already died in the past 2 years?

saddam may have been a mass murder, but nowhere near the same scale of mass muder that is taking place there today.

At 11:07 PM, Blogger Mike said...

100,000 is a contrived figure and wildly off mark. I believe the accepted figure is around 30,000 deaths. I think this includes insurgents but I don't know. However, consider that the people claiming 100,000 deaths are those who claimed 50,000 deaths a year from sanctions. Also rich countries have a higher life-expectancy than poor ones. I guess you think we should have lifted sanctions and left Saddam alone because that would really stop him from acquiring a WMD program. Your strategy worked so well with North Korea and Iran.


Post a Comment

<< Home