Thanks for that. It was an interesting article.
As I said, I not mind talking about whether a regime is oppressive, and its leader a psychopath beyond human attributes. However, I will not go into how a regime or its leader is "evil", especially as part of an argument to start a war.
I agree with this statement from the article you have posted:
It may not be of much help, in propaganda terms, to describe an enemy as "evil." Time spent in understanding and studying a foe is always time well spent, and absolutist categories may easily blunt this rigorous undertaking.
There may come a time when a real psychopath will come to reign in a country, for example a completely twisted character bent on destruction of all life on earth, who is so mad that he has lost all instinct of self-preservation and cannot be deterred. Then there might be a point in arguing how it is imperative that he be eliminated right away.
However, I do not see the same conditions holding in the case of a man who has been in power for decades, a significant portion of which period he was a buddy of the US. He was not "evil" then. But he is "evil" now. Hm.
Again, I find "They are evil, we are good" to be an argument planted firmly in religious rhetoric. "Good vs evil" is a concept that I have not seen anywhere after about age eight, in kids' books and cartoons like "Battle of the Worlds".
I would, however, be very much interested in talking about how this proposed invasion of Iraq will be for the good of Americans and the rest of the world, if anyone is interested in putting together an argument for this.
Seriously, we heard all about "poor little innocent Iraqis suffering under Saddam" and "he is evil", but that is hardly an argument for how this war will be for the good of the American people, and if possible, the rest of the world. |
