My wife and I toured Dachau today. While I don't have answers for his questions, his questions help form an answer to my own: is humanity 80 years wiser, or just 80 years older?
1. Why does my country have the right to be occupying Iraq?
2. Why should my country not support an international court of justice?
3. Is my country not strong enough to achieve its aims fairly?
4. When the leaders of a country cause it to do terrible things, what is the best way to restore the honor of that country?
5. Is it possible for potential new leaders to raise questions about their country's possible guilt, without committing political suicide?
6. Do I deserve retribution from aggrieved people whose lives have been ruined by actions that my leaders have taken without my consent?
7. How can I best help set in motion a process by which reparations are made to people who have been harmed by unjust deeds of my country?
8. If day after day goes by with nobody discussing uncomfortable questions like these, won't the good people of my country be guilty of making things worse?
Alas, I cannot think of a satisfactory answer to any of these questions. I believe the answer to number 6 is still no; yet I fear that a yes answer is continually becoming more and more appropriate, as month upon month goes by without any significant change to the status quo.
1. Why does my country have the right to be occupying Iraq?
A1. Because if the country just thinks about "rights," then the people with means can have what they want, while the people without want the meaning of have.
2. Why should my country not support an international court of justice?
A2. Everybody supports justice. Your country must believe that that court is not just justice.
3. Is my country not strong enough to achieve its aims fairly?
3A. If all agreed the aim was fair, then why the strength to achieve the aim?
4. When the leaders of a country cause it to do terrible things, what is the best way to restore the honor of that country?
4A. Collectively forget about the terrible things in that country.
5. Is it possible for potential new leaders to raise questions about their country's possible guilt, without committing political suicide?
5A. If committing political homicide, then yes.
6. Do I deserve retribution from aggrieved people whose lives have been ruined by actions that my leaders have taken without my consent?
6A. According to the aggrieved people: yes.
7. How can I best help set in motion a process by which reparations are made to people who have been harmed by unjust deeds of my country?
7A. Open a commercial franchise and employ those people. Sell those employees DVDs and iPhones.
8. If day after day goes by with nobody discussing uncomfortable questions like these, won't the good people of my country be guilty of making things worse?
8A. I don't know, because day after day everybody constantly discusses questions like these, yet they are good people and their country belongs to them. Maybe you belong to the country, and maybe you are good because it's inconceivable to you that you could be any other way.
Why does my country have the right to be occupying Iraq?
Why does anyone have the right to rule any territory? Why did Saddam have the right rule Iraq? Why did King Faisal II?
Going into Iraq may have been a pretty bad idea. But Iraq's explusion of the weapons inspectors was a completely valid Casus belli.
Why should my country not support an international court of justice?
By definition, a country is a sovereign state. A sovereign has not higher authority that it answers to.
An international court has either to possibilities:
a) it has no authority to impose the results of its decisions on its citizens. In this case it is a sham.
b) it has a authority to impose the results of its decisions. In this case, it is not an international court, but, by definition, a world government.
The reason for not wanting a world government is the same reason for not wanting one monopoly on any sort of product. Monopolists can abuse their powers. Especially when they have lots of weapons.
Is my country not strong enough to achieve its aims fairly?
No, not right now. The army is strong, but the political system very weak.
When the leaders of a country cause it to do terrible things, what is the best way to restore the honor of that country?
Historically, revolutions have almost always made things worse. The ballot box may work, but probably not, because
Is it possible for potential new leaders to raise questions about their country's possible guilt, without committing political suicide?
As long as they blame the guilt on rival political factions, they can and will. In fact, new leaders will often wrack their country with guilt, even if the country did not do anything wrong.
Do I deserve retribution from aggrieved people whose lives have been ruined by actions that my leaders have taken without my consent?
No. Nor is it productive for aggrieved people to seek reparations. Almost all ethnic/social groups have always done better putting their nose down and going forward with life, rather than spending time trying to seek reparations.
How can I best help set in motion a process by which reparations are made to people who have been harmed by unjust deeds of my country?
Well, first step would be to identify what the unjust deeds your country actually did. First question: which was the bigger mistake: colonialism or decolonialism? Which war was more unjust: Vietnam, or World War II against Iraq? Third question: If the goal of the war in Iraq had been to resurrect Evelyn Baring, and put him in charge of the country, would this have been just and in the interests of the people in Iraq?
If day after day goes by with nobody discussing uncomfortable questions like these, won't the good people of my country be guilty of making things worse?
These questions are hardly undiscussed. They are basically the talking points of the entire left and the entire academic establishment. They have been the talking points for eighty or ninety years. See: http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,801396,00.html Two things have happened since this 1942 Time magazine article. Part of the plan has been implemented ( the U.N., the world bank, de-colonialism) and has been ineffective at best and a disaster at worst. The rest of the plan has been blocked by people who have considered it and think that its a really bad idea.
