Case Study
Liberal Democracies Go To War |
| |
Instructions:
- Enter your answers into the boxes below. If you'd like a print-out of your responses,
click on the Submit button at the bottom of the page, and you will be taken
to a printer-friendly page.
- If you have been instructed to submit your exercise online, enter both your and
your instructor's name and e-mail address, then click the Email button at the
bottom of the page. Your answers will be e-mailed immediately.
- You need the RealVideo™ Player to view the videos, which are desiginated by the video icon (
 ). The player is free, and can be downloaded by clicking the button below.
|
| |
|
|
| |
Do the Ends Justify the Means?
One of the most controversial aspects about the proposed military action against Iraq was its purpose. Some viewed the elimination of the threat of the development of weapons of mass destruction as the only legitimate objective for war against Iraq. Others saw the ouster of Saddam Hussein as a legitimate goal. Some argued that a commitment to the principles of international law must be the paramount concern. Still others contended that there was no greater objective than the stability of the region and the safety of millions of people.
 British MP asserting reasons for eliminating Hussein
Chirac’s distinction among objectives
Is it legitimate for liberal democracies to pursue military action against other nations to try and make these nations adopt the principles of liberal democracies? Should nations be able to unseat the leader of another nation, no matter how dangerous and despicable he might be? Can liberal democracies take actions that may violate international law to achieve results that are beneficial to these liberal democracies? Is that what is happening in the case of military action against Iraq? Do you regard this as hypocrisy on the part of liberal democracies?
Ted Stevens on the Senate floor
Ted Kennedy on the Senate floor
Do you believe that it is a bad idea for the United States to take military action against Iraq without a clear mandate of support from its allies, or was Senator Stevens correct when he said that it was enough that the U.S. had "might and right" on its side?
|
| |
| |
|
|
| |
| |
  |
