(From a Netfriend):

There has been much discussion in this list about John Howard and the Iraq Invasion.

I agree the invasion was unjustified on moral grounds, but what is a moral invasion anyway? There were no weapons of mass destruction (as if anyone ever really believed there were). The Iraqi people did not greet the US forces as liberators, but in fact fought them as invaders. If anyone was under any delusion that the US invaders were there for the good of the Iraqi people (rather than to take control of the oil reserves of a 3rd world country) then that was negated when the US forces did nothing to prevent the looting, plundering, and destruction of Baghdad in the state of anarchy that followed the invasion.

OK no problems with all of that. Now on to the difficult question. Was John Howard right to join in the war? I think any intelligent and non-naive appraisal of our situation would reach the conclusion that John Howard had no choice. The USA asked. The only answer Australia could give was yes. Privately we all (probably John Howard included) knew what a fiasco the war would be but we all want our children to live in a safe country so we compromise for the sake of our Nation’s survival. Any other response to a USA invitation other than yes sir three bags full sir is irresponsible and naive. Given that Australia is in a dangerous position with the world’s largest Moslem nation just to the North (180 million in Indonesia) and they don’t like us at all, we can not under any circumstances lose the friendship of our powerful ally the USA. John Howard knows these harsh realities and he acts responsibly with the best interests of Australia at heart. I am sure he does not believe for a minute in any of that “weapons of mass destruction” moral imperative propaganda, but he pays lip service to it, as a responsible PM of Australia should, and keeps the friendship with the USA.

So what is this “moral justification” issue? What is morality and ethics in a post-modern secular world? My morals are what I want them to be and your morals are whatever you want them to be. Nobody has any right to impose their ethical values on others. Nobody has the correct answer on ethics. Evolutionary psychologists tell us that the basis of ethics does not lie in God’s will. Ethics is “an illusion fobbed off on us by our genes to get us to cooperate”.

So John Howard cooperated to keep Australia safe. Well done mate! Let’s leave ethics out of it, ethics and morality in the post-Christian world in which we live is whatever you want it to be. John’s was pragmatic. He did it for the future safety of our children.

As an aside, on this ethical issue, the humanists can not have their cake and eat it. They take God out of the equation and then they try to impose their humanist morality based on the na ¯ve belief that humanity can work together for good (in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary). The bible states that all are sinners and fall short of the Glory of God, and that the only hope for humanity is to admit their failure (repent) and turn to the only non-subjective yardstick of morality. This is distasteful.

I’m interested in the thoughts of list members on this vexed question of morality and ethics in a secular post-modern society. We have a grand experiment going on right now in the land of Abraham (Ur of the Chaldees, Abraham’s hometown, was around about the area of the swampland in Iraq not far west of the Iraq/Kuwait border, in fact exactly where the recently discovered petrochemical reserves that inspired this invasion were discovered.

Ironic!!!