Do the ends justify the means?

[JaneDoughnut]

There are many reasons to say that the election in Iraq was invalid or a failure (anonymous candidates, held under occupation, Sunni boycotts, continued violence, etc.), but the relatively high turnout suggests optimism in the Iraqi people and that is the point that's being and will continue to be spun by the RW.

For the first time, a positive outcome to this huge mistake of a war seems possible, and that's wonderful, for Iraq as well as for people like me who can barely sleep at night with so much blood on their hands.

But it also creates a frightening paradox I can't quite wrap my mind around. A positive outcome in Iraq will be used to validate the doctrine of pre-emptive, aggressive war. I want an end to the violence. I am simply afraid that we will end up using Iraq to justify new violence, and I am trying to figure out how to prevent that.

In the mean, time, I'll just pray that this question isn't premature and we really do see a good ending to this whole affair.

Any thoughts?

[soleft]

1. A. The means are the end

B. The United States will never allow the Iraqi's a true democracy, if it ever achieved it, we'd have to destroy it

[Lydia Leftcoast]

2. To quote Alduous Huxley (author of Brave New World)

"The ends cannot justify the means for the simple and obvious reason that the means employed determine the nature of the ends produced."

[NickofTime]

3. Iraq? How About Democracy in the USA

[kiraboo]

4. JDonut,

I've been walking around dazedly wondering the same thing. Once the WMD argument began to fall apart, my repug associates grabbed hold of the Iraqi Human Rights argument as rafts in a stormy sea. Yes, I still believe that the U.S. had and has ulterior motives. And I mourn those dying in the conflict. But if by some miracle democracy were to take hold in Iraq, the deaths and misery will fade in the minds of people around the world, and what will remain will be a good thing. Freedom isn't free, it's true. This "end" boggles my mind. I tell myself that freedom might have come to Iraq without our invasion. But, when? I tell myself that insurgencies will forever make Iraq unstable. But I don't know if that is true.

This whole thing has me wondering about the definitions of "good" and "evil". I would never believe that Bush is a good man based on the results in Iraq because I know in my heart he is not. But I have a sick feeling nevertheless that I have been missing the point of one aspect of the Repug argument. I echo you: "Is it possible?"

[JaneDoughnut]

5. I think it's possible

Because I think that enough Iraqis have demonstrated they do indeed want a democracy.

Then again, I do not think Bush will leave willingly, since they're building military bases over there and making sure that corporations based in America have a firm grip on Iraqi industry.

But if the situation is just stable enough that they can spin it as a positive outcome, it justifies BushCo's actions for a majority of Americans. And then his empire can just do it again....

It's difficult to rejoice in small victories when you can expect the powerful to misuse those victories.