Maybe it's our place to do it at home and not our place to do it abroad but it's not morally wrong to do it abroad unless it was morally wrong to do it here, and I hold that it was morally right to "impose freedom" here.
2007-01-31 02:25:48 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
Great question, although the libs will point out that we didn't go to Iraq to give them freedom but because of WMD's. Funny we found all sorts of Chemical weapons which Iraq was not supposed to have, we found documents, locations, can equipment to prove Saddam had a secret nuclear weapons program in direct violation of several UN resolutions. Granted they were only in the R&D stages but the program existed.
2007-01-31 02:35:31 · answer #1 · answered by crazyhorse19682003 3 · 2⤊ 2⤋
We did not force freedoms to which you are referring in the war between North and South.
If you think we should go around the globe freeing all the slaves such as the ones in Africa, or enforcing equal rights for all then we would have to have 10 times the number of troops and be willing to give up about half of the lives of our young men and women. Are you willing to do that to fight a losing battle or even a winning battle. Why can't these countries do what we did - fight their own battles?
2007-01-31 11:29:43 · answer #2 · answered by Lou 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The answer is "no" to both.
The War Between the States was not fought over "freedom;" the Southern states were fighting to gain independence from the United States, just as the colonists fought to gain independence from England.
The issue that was "forced" in the '60s was equality. Big difference between that and 'freedom.'
I don't think either was morally wrong. I also don't think it's morally wrong to do it someplace else.
2007-01-31 10:46:33 · answer #3 · answered by Team Chief 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
you are one screwed up punk as your description of freedom is completely the opposite from what I read about , and understand,
I seem to understand in our constitution each state is a independent country to make its own laws and to enforce them, the gov, only had jurisdiction over 3 things 1 espionage, 2 counterfeiting, 3 interstate commerce, meaning no state could restrict trade nor passage nor tariffs to another state, in or out,
since the gov, made its own rules and violated the constitutional rights of the south first in the 1860s and then in the 1960s by using federal troops against its own people, I feel the south is still illegally still under material law, and they are not free, anyone who didn't like the laws in the south had the option of leaving ,
since integration , look what has happened to our educational system not only in the south but the north as well, we have fallen so far behind even 3rd world countries in math, science. engineering, etc , the list is endless and you have the nerve to say freedom, if so freedom for who???
2007-01-31 10:51:46 · answer #4 · answered by james w 3 · 0⤊ 4⤋
You should do more research into the Civil War. It was more about economics than it was about "forcing freedom".
So then you have to ask yourself. Look how America is now and then ask yourself should we continue to be in Iraq.
There is no easy answer. But everyone on this planet is entitled to live in freedom and peace.
2007-01-31 10:43:08 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
no. actually freedom was taken away. the civil war was about state rights and unfair tariff. the north was seeking to control southern business ventures. i'm not talking about slavery,the war wasn't over slavery
the 60s were about enforcing the words of the founding fathers"all men are created equal"
2007-01-31 10:38:26 · answer #6 · answered by b 5 · 0⤊ 2⤋
That is a great example. Thanks for the ammo.
2007-01-31 10:55:41 · answer #7 · answered by Tink 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋