Our opinions and advice to the world. Updated whenever we get around to it.

The Moral Compass

The two groups that support or are against the invasion of Iraq, like to argue back and forth between one another as to who's right about the situation, but in my opinion one side of the debate is never going to convince the other side that they are right and that the other side is wrong until the whole thing plays out sometime down the road from now. Its either going to take Iraq being a total failure or a budding democracy to convince the other side whether it was wrong or not.

The moral compass of the two sides in the debate, are just set differently than the other, and once ones moral compass makes a decision for you, its very difficult to change it. A person's core beliefs is the very foundation of their being and are usually set in stone. Making it very difficult for the two sides to agree on anything.

One group thinks that its immoral to invade a country without a very good reason to do so or are against war for any reason at all, therefor are against the invasion of Iraq. The other group tends to think that its immoral to stand aside and do nothing while a tyrant abuses and controls his population by using fear and/or force to do so.

Its just a person's make up that decides whether or not they support regime change in Iraq or not, its not because they are stupid or a moron, although there are a few on both sides of the argument, its because they truly believe they are right.

But somewhere down the road we'll all know who was right and who was wrong, but until then, both sides should keep on making their cases, this will provide the side of the argument that was right with plenty of ammunition to burn them with when this is all over. The only two things I hope for is that Iraqis will benefit from America's decision, and Gywnne Dyer is going to be wrong, as usual.


Anonymous said...

I believe that the issue must be viewed from an historical perpective. After WWI the Brits and the French created a completely artificial world in the Middle East.They had no regard for the tribal or religeous loyalties. Then oil became important. Isreal became an issue. The West sat on its hands in order to get the most out of the Middle East. There is no doubt that the West is the target of the Islamic terrorists and the US is seen as the leader, but all of what is commonly called the West including Russia and even China and India are targeted. Western nations claim to support liberty and freedom.This contention was hard to claim in the past due to the way some dictators were supported. This was done in the interests of holding off Communism. Now that is done there is no excuse to continue. An aggressive policy towards these countries is logical even if it is unpleasant to some.
PS Your post is most interesting and stimulating.

Anonymous said...

Excellent post Bob. The outcome will change a lot of minds however even after the liberation is successful and it will be- ( because the logic of the liberation is more compelling than the logic of the insurgency i.e. more people have more to gain and the manpower and firepower to get what they want)- we will still have those who will say they opposed the liberation because it violated international law.

We need to ask these people to explain why they have such reverence for "law" which itself shows such little respect for life and "law" which is enacted and enforced by a body which is corrupt and incompetent.

Anonymous said...

Your explanation of core beliefs being at stake is also what has prevented an NHL season from happening this year.

Anonymous said...

I beg to differ with your argument that people's moral compasses are fixed. To the contrary, I think the Iraq War has illustrated how malleable the individual's morality really is: We now have liberals who are against an invasion that has liberated an entire nation from a fascist dictator, which, as a position, is quite a departure from Woodrow Wilson's "making the world safe for democracy."

And I don't think a democratic Iraq will change anyone's mind. Consider the reverse situation from history. The U.S. gave up on Vietnam, and the country today is, in most measures, a failure. And yet the consensus is that the U.S. should never have been there in the first place.

Thirty years from now, even if Iraq is a democracy, it still won't be perfect, and according to the writers of university history books, it'll all be America's fault.

Anonymous said...

I have to agree with the granger on this one.

I figure most people's 'moral compass' is dictated by their emotions which in many instances make it appear that their opinion is 'set in stone'.

If you can get though their emotions then a person's opinion on a topic can be changed.

Anonymous said...

“Its just a person's make up that decides …”

Yes , but it’s also the MSM that keeps drilling it into their heads, e.g. that appeasement works.
Canada’s Peter Mansbridge is the equivalent to Dan Rather. People believe the assertions of Manbridge and his expert Gwynne Dyer over positions that most of us on this blog would offer.
However there is hope. Rather is gone , Jason Eason is gone , Howie Raines at the New York Times is gone. The truth will out in the end and the Blogsphere speeds it up.
Now that’ll eventually fix the MSM. However, I agree with the “granger” that tenured left wing academia is a problem, but i think even they will have to eventually face the facts.
Good work, keep it up and thanks.