Is Iraq a classic case of "The means justifies the ends" from the point of view of the USA?

Question

Please explain

Answer 1

Not classic at all. We did not want war with Iraq. We knew back in 1990 that to remove Saddam would cause a power vacuum and would have us occupying an Arab nation much longer than we wanted. Once 911 took effect, we had no choice but to show strength and go after terrorist supporting nations and nations that were harboring terrorist. Remember in 1990 we had the support of the world in attacking Saddam, but we avoided that prolong war, in a feeble attempt to retain peace in the region. The real failure is we should have done it when we had a consensus of support.

See I can give a lucid answer when I want to.

Answer 2

interesting question......

we have a good end in mind, peace and yay to a healthy stable iraq, but are willing to kill millions to acheive this. Well actually that is the classical example. You however want to flip this on it's head. You want to say.....

We are trying to be good now and live each moment correctly and by this you say that it will bring a bad end. But you must be specific, if we wish to know. Is the situation now the bad end or is the situation now the good means? Because I don't think the US is using good means. I still see it classically that the US is using and ends justify the means approach. They want stability later and use this as an excuse to cause chaos now. Which the enlightened have told us is foolish.

But in some sense i do see US talking about being nice and so on but at best it's half and half. They are trying to fight a gentlemans war, perhaps as all countries do when they get fat and don't really need to be fighting at all, it's conquest and playtime, no real impending doom or knife at the throat of the homeward. In which case the dogs chew thier own legs off to survive.

So are they tip toeing around, should they be swift and brutal... crush all resistance? No because in Iraq if you wanted swift and brutal that's what Saddam was for, do you really want his job, do you think you'll fare better than he turned out? and in the end you would have done it all for nothing. Just went and killed someone cause of your own fear and paranoia, welcome to the club ya know. the cycle of violence.

Answer 3

Iraq is a classic revenge case. Without Saddam having invaded Kuwait, Osama bin Laden would not have had the incentive to attack the US basing itself on Saudi soil after the Gulf War ended. After 9/11, Bush saw Iraq as the indirect reason for regional instability and the attacks from al Qaeda therefore pursued revenge on the Iraqi dictator. Iraq and al Qaeda were not linked but the cause/effect that precipitated it were. In the end it was all over oil wealth and imperialism.

Answer 4

What is going on now in Iraq is a turning point in World History.

Noting like this has ever happened before.

It is a battlefield in a war against a global non-conventional terrorist adversary.

Even the word 'global' is new in this context.

There is nothing classic about it.

Answer 5

The proper wording is : the end justifies the means, meaning whatever is needed to accomplish the objective is ok. In this case, the muslim religion vs western civilization, yes, the end does justify the means. If it does not, we certainly will all be praying to allah, because in their mind, nothing is forbidden when it comes to attacking the infidel (which is anyone not muslim). There is truth to the statement of bloody muslim borders.

Answer 6

If by classic case you mean doing what is in the best interests of the US and by extension western culture, than yes. After all what could be more important for all of mankind.

Answer 7

Interesting you can't even get the quote right. You must be really informed.