Do We Have A Moral Obligation?

[Mulu]

Some of you are clearly confusing moral intervention with strategic intervention.

Part of the problem of even considering the morality of intervention or nonintervention is the fact that we have been so incredible immoral in our past and current interventions, at which point the question becomes less about obligation, and more about authority, namely, "Do we even have the moral authority to intervene?" Or have we simply proven through our past dishonor that we will always pursue purely selfish intentions, at whatever cost to the folk living there.

Put more simply, if I know that the doodyheads in charge at the State Dept. and White House caused or at least strongly encouraged the current fighting, why would I want them to involve themselves even more?

[Veilan]

I'm probably not the most likely champion for the U.S. case, but I really think the U.S. didn't screw up so badly morally due to being immoral, but due to being vastly insensitive, ignorant, arrogant and incompetent - at least those are qualifiers I'd be willing to slap on the foreign policy of the last two administrations, and in bouts before.

By and large I still think the U.S. acts out of a desire to do good - foremost for its own people of course, but I can understand that - and I think moral authority is partly derived from the intention, not only the actualy result. Unlike DnD alignment. Of course there are exceptions, and corrupt branches and interests having maybe too much of a say, but I don't think the U.S. general strategic interest are those - it was just too comfortable to keep them in check, and let them torpedo efforts to do good instead.

On the actual topic at hand, it really is a tough question. I doubt we're going to solve the middle east here. I think the moral obligation in this case is quite given though, not from the overarching aspects of humanism, but due to the U.S. being quite responsible for creating the mess with Hamas contra Fatah, by refusing to take a pragmatical approach to the former organization and all but forcing the current chaos.

See... by refusing any negotations (Hamas, Iran, North Korea...) until recently, I think the U.S. again tried to maneuver with morally sound intentions ("Don't reward the bad guys."), but with hapless incompetence, ignoring all sense of realpolitik. For instance, you can talk to the bad guy without rewarding him, unless you are so arrogant to believe that talking to the U.S. is a reward, and not simply a basic tool to resolve something, or to communicate.

[Lusipher]

Fuck em. Less terrorists later on if they kill each other off in the process of this crap. If Israel wanted too they could get rid of all their problems on their doorstep real easy, but they have held restraint for a long time.

Im at the point anymore that other countries can kiss our asses and fend for themselves. They did the same shit with WW2 and it will happen again. Let them fight their own freaking battles for once. No one thinks we can do anything right and we have our kids dying for no real reason anymore.

Let some of the other countries step in and do some good. The USA is tapped out and doesnt fucking care anymore.

crew up so badly morally due to being immoral, but due to being vastly insensitive, ignorant, arrogant and incompetent

Sounds like Germany about 60 yrs ago or so.

[Veilan]

Sounds like Germany about 60 yrs ago or so.

I wouldn't say so, the situation was quite different.

I believe the Nazi regime was highly immoral up in the high positions. Many of them even realized it.

I grant that they were arrogant, but incompetent? Hardly . That austrian painter dude was plain outright insane, but most of the government was chillingly effective (apart from their rivalries, which led to some screw-ups).

In any case, we're nearing Godwin's Law territory here, heh.

[Mulu]

I'm probably not the most likely champion for the U.S. case, but I really think the U.S. didn't screw up so badly morally due to being immoral, but due to being vastly insensitive, ignorant, arrogant and incompetent -

Hmm, never assume malice when incompetence explains the behavior? I suppose I can accept that.