Home arrow Commentary arrow OPINIONS arrow op-ed arrow Is Pro-Democracy Killing Moral?
Sep 20 2007
Is Pro-Democracy Killing Moral? | Print |  E-mail
Op_ed
By MWC NEWS   

Translation

Is Pro-Democracy Killing Moral?
by Jacob G. Hornberger

Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, left, took Texas Congressman Ron Paul
Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, left, took Texas Congressman Ron Paul

During a recent Republican presidential debate, former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee took Texas Congressman Ron Paul to task for calling for a withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq. Huckabee suggested that it was irrelevant whether the United States should have invaded Iraq. The point, he stated, was that because the invasion had "broken" Iraq, the United States had the obligation to remain and fix it. As Huckabee put it, "We bought it because we broke it."

Huckabee is wrong on several counts, and his reasoning only goes to show how far American conservatives have fallen in terms of conscience and morality.

Let's assume that when Huckabee was a teenager, he broke into his local hardware store with the intent of stealing supplies to give to the poor. Let's say that as he reached for the items, some of them fell to the floor and broke.

When the police arrived, would Huckabee have had the right to remain in the store to fix the items he had broken? Could he have told the police that this is what his mother taught him when he was a little boy? Of course not. The police would have taken him into custody and removed him from the store. While he would have been obligated to reimburse the store owner for the broken items, Huckabee would not have had any right, legal or moral, to remain in the store to fix them.

Thus, Huckabee is wrong to suggest that the justification for invading Iraq is irrelevant. Given that the United States had no right, legal or moral, for invading and occupying Iraq, it has no right to remain there to fix anything it has broken. The United States is in no different position, legally and morally speaking, than the burglar who has broken the items in the hardware store. After all, let's not forget that in the Iraq War, the United States is the aggressor and occupying power.

"Unfortunately, as Huckabee well knows, the invasion of Iraq did not simply involve the breaking of houses, automobiles, office buildings, museums, and other inanimate objects. It also involved the killing of Iraqi people -- in fact, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi people, a fact that exposes the callous and immoral way that Huckabee and so many other pro-war conservatives view the Iraqi people."

Unfortunately, as Huckabee well knows, the invasion of Iraq did not simply involve the breaking of houses, automobiles, office buildings, museums, and other inanimate objects. It also involved the killing of Iraqi people -- in fact, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi people, a fact that exposes the callous and immoral way that Huckabee and so many other pro-war conservatives view the Iraqi people.

From the very start, everyone knew that the invasion of Iraq would involve much more than the breaking of inanimate objects or simply capturing Saddam Hussein. It would also involve the killing of Iraqi people -- many, many Iraqi people. That's why some U.S. soldiers were consulting with military chaplains prior to deployment. They wanted to know whether killing Iraqi citizens was consistent with God's laws. They were right to be concerned, for God does not say "Thou shalt not kill unless the killing is done in the pursuit of democracy, stability, regime change, or other political goals." He says, "Thou shalt not kill."

Where was the morality in the killing of even one single Iraqi citizen in the process of ousting Saddam Hussein from power and replacing him with a new regime? Huckabee and other pro-war conservatives take the position that the deaths of Iraqis will be worth it if certain political goals are ultimately achieved -- e.g., democracy, the installation of a pro-American regime in Iraq, or stability in the Middle East. But every American needs to ask himself the following question: Is it moral to kill even one person, much less hundreds of thousands, for the sake of such political goals?

Neither the Iraqi people nor their government ever attacked the United States and no Iraqi citizen or government official was part of the 9/11 attacks. Thus, at the center of all this discussion and debate on whether the United States should remain in Iraq is one critical point: Americans had no right, moral or legal, to invade and occupy Iraq and kill even one Iraqi. They still don't.

Jacob Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation (www.fff.org).

Recommend this article...




Did you enjoy this article? Please bookmark it onto:
Digg!Reddit!Del.icio.us!Newsvine!Blogmarks!Yahoo!

Quote this article on your site | Views: 1072

Comments (6)
RSS comments
1. 20-09-2007 20:08
Absolutely. Well stated. 
 
It appears to me that some of these so-called "compassionate conservatives" who double as neo-con war hawks need to seriously look in the mirror and ask themselves what they truly believe. 
 
God gave us all a mind to think for ourselves. If He'd wanted automata, he'd have made us all thoughtless puppets directly controlled with strings out of the sky. More people need to understand, accept, and USE that gift of free thought to arrive at the correct moral and logical conclusions instead of letting hacks like Mike Huckabee dictate Truth to them simply because it makes facing themselves and their faulty past decisions easier. 
 
Dangerous is the man who is reluctant to admit mistakes and correct them by LETTING THEM GO. Often we make a situation even worse by trying to fix it. If a rapist tried to clean the scratches and wounds of his rape victim, don't you think the woman would rather he just left? She doesn't want him to fix anything. She just wants to be free from him to fix herself. He's already caused enough pain and sorrow. HE NEEDS TO JUST GO!
electrictoothsyndrome@gmail.comNOSPAM! ">Brad Linzy, Evansville, IN
2. 20-09-2007 20:56
No - The loss of Moral is due to taking prayer out of our schools, trying to kick God out of every store, park or any where he may be seen.  
 
No God/No Moral
Tabor
3. 20-09-2007 22:07
You HAVE the right to school prayer! No one has taken that away from you! In fact, they can't! Those students who want to pray are allowed. Those who do not, don't have to. It's that simple. It's called FREEDOM. 
 
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or preventing the free exercise thereof" don't we as a country understand? It's pretty darned simple. 
 
It irks me sometimes how little people understand the very issues they try to expound upon. My advice to some of you...understand that your own Federal Government has enlisted the aid of 26,000 clergy and preachers throughout the country to aid them in keeping order in times of crisis. There have been actual news reports about it. 
 
A critical thinking individual - as Christ himself was - should question everything they're taught and ask themselves, "Does this have the ring of Truth? Or am I being misled by false doctrine, such as we saw coming from the Pharisees?" 
 
For instance, did Christ say "everyone will be required to pray"? No, he didn't. But did he die on the cross so that all might have the prospect of eternal life? Yes indeed. It is all about FREE WILL, folks. God cannot be "kicked out" of anything. Don't you see?! 
 
Where two or more gather, there is his church, whether sanctioned or not by the so-called "authorities" of this world, THERE is his church. PERIOD! My suggestion is re-read your bible and meditate on what it means to live freely. 
 
Like the parable of the seed, one must take root on good ground to truly know Christ's teachings in the first place. They cannot be dragged there, and simply by allowing them the freedom to refuse prayer is not leading down any path they were not already on. 
 
For it to mean anything, it has to be done of one's own free will.
electritoothsyndrome@gmail.comNOSPAM! ">Brad Linzy, Evansville, IN
4. 21-09-2007 14:28
Killing
God said, thou shalt not kill, hum. 
I agree, the US has absolutely no right, to turn Iraq into a killing ground, because it wants to control the Middle East that has got all that oil. 
Coming back to God: I have a problem about God and killing when I read, things like Isaiah 13:16-18, Ezekiel 9:5-7, and Hosea 13:16, and of course there the flood, almost compete genocide of all species because one species would not toe the line. 
Then what of the killing of the first born of Egypt, pretty radical in deliberate mass murder, not a good example for mankind. Also what of the damming mankind to death because one person was tricked by a hugely superior intellect. The Old Testament 
is a horrible book filled with every conceivable atrocity known.  
 
Mike
5. 21-09-2007 21:57
Response to Mike
Sure, God was often a wrathful God in the Old Testament. But when Jesus Christ arrived on the scene he introduced a sea-change in the relationship of God and man. Now it became "he who is without sin cast the first stone." Whereas we see in Leviticus and Deuteronomy all manner of death sentence being executed for crimes of morality (sins). 
 
When Jesus was asked "how many times shall I forgive my brother", he didn't say "Once," or, "twice," or even "seven times"... He said "seventy times seven". And this included our so-called "ENEMIES"!!! 
 
But Jesus is not saying "let your enemies run you over", he's saying DON'T let your enemies run you over by giving them the very reaction they desire! Thus "turn the other cheek" as if to say "we are BOTH above this. Let's not fight, brother." 
 
This is precisely why Bush's and McCain's and Giuliani's and Romney's "follow them to the ends of the earth and damn the consequences" attitude is an affront to wisdom.
electrictoothsyndrome@gmail.comNOSPAM! ">Brad Linzy, Evansville, IN
6. 22-09-2007 03:11
The other cheek.
Brad, 
I like your response, we really are not that far apart. I agree there was a \'sea change\'. I believe myself that what changed with his ministry was mans understanding of his relationship to the Devinne, and his interpretation of the events around him with respect to God. 
The God of the Old Testament is the God of the New, and also I am aware according to the scholars, that the old testament was a compilation of two old religions, some say a third,(I have long suspected thus, regarding the vengeful, and the loving and God).  
There is a very old concept much older than Christianity, called \'investment in loss\', the concept is by often taking what looks at first, like the a week response, turns out to have great hidden power. You described this concept to me in the last two paragraphs of your response to me.

Write Comment
  • Please keep the topic of messages relevant to the subject of the article.
  • Personal verbal attacks will be deleted.
  • Please don't use comments to plug your web site. Such material will be removed.
  • Just ensure to *Refresh* your browser for a new security code to be displayed prior to clicking on the 'Send' button.
  • Keep in mind that the above process only applies if you simply entered the wrong security code.
Name:
E-mail
Homepage
Title:
BBCode:Web AddressEmail AddressBold TextItalic TextUnderlined TextQuoteCodeOpen ListList ItemClose List
Comment:



Code:* Code
I wish to be contacted by email regarding additional comments

Powered by AkoComment Tweaked Special Edition v.1.4.4


Tags:  Jacob G. Hornberger Republican presidential Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee Texas Congressman Ron Paul
 
< Prev Content   Next Content >
 

Translate

Enter Amount: