送交者: psycho 于 2005-10-24, 02:23:54:
回答: I agree end does not justify means, but 由 requestor 于 2005-10-23, 20:09:05:
"If Bush team says the goal of Iraqi war is to democratise middle east, it never fly in the congress and polls, but for the long term strategic view of US interest, it is probably the right move."--funny. If it's the right move as they believed, why they are not trying to convince the mass/congress? There would have been lots of discussion going on, including cost/benefit analysis. People will accept a more immediate war with greater risk(including the risk of being immoral) and cost for the sake of WMD, much less so for the sake of democratizing somewhere. On the other hand WMD, had it existed, is a clear concrete object and can be archieved without so much uncertainty. While "If Iraqi succeeded as a democratic country in 30 years, ", what's really "democratic country" is controversial--unless it can be so advanced like US, which few can even believe it. There is no clear cut on what is really the archievement (history doesn't have Take Two--people can argue it's better to leave it alone and let it develope its own democracy, who knows?). I could not deny there is possibility in it. But not a big one and when whether a decision is "right" *only* depends on a pure luck--that's not the defintion of "right" in Chinese/English dictionary.
A right move can get the support, a clearly unwise one can not. Are you implying a team is smarter than the remaining adults in US? Seeming American people are too stupid to deserve full information about their country's future. US was a "democratic republic" as I believe (OK, heard from steven). Seems it's only a "Republic" in the Platonic sense--even in Leo Strauss's sense. Hail to the Philosopher KIng!