This war is illegal!

Kymar, just prior to the attack, the Iraqis were complying. Blix himself -- who'd know a bit more about it than you or I -- said so. (In any case, given their track record in telling the truth, I wouldn't be too quick to accept the Bush camp's claims regarding the extent of noncompliance.)

 

Well, I'm stumped as to how, after months and months arguing about this issue, you still remain unable to absorb or acknowledge the mutiple strategic and moral arguments I have posted. It's hard for me to see much point in repeating them all again.

No. Institutions can be wrong and completely unjust. In addition, there is as yet no real "system of global governance," and it is by no means clear that the majority of nations are currently capable of forming or functioning within a "just" one.

The timing is at most a secondary concern. Once one concludes that a war is just and necessary, timing is chiefly a practical concern, with an emphasis on the sooner, the better.

In my view, the prior policy was responsible for the deaths and ruination of millions of Iraqi and other lives. The peace movement's policy, to the extent it offered any alternative at all, amounted to the indefinite perpetuation of an unjust and dangerous situation.

I really don't know what you're referring to when you describe "hundreds of thousands" of lives "ruined" by the war. Do you mean Baathist murderers, torturers, and larcenists who now must seek alternative employment? It appears to me that, for the first time in decades, millions of Iraqis now have at least the chance to live as free people under a government that puts their interests first. Under Saddam, the lives of the vast majority were ruined. Baathist Iraq was a Ruination. The war has un-ruined it.

 

Why have a timetable? Why bother to look for WMD then. If we don't ever need proof of their being hidden, why bother to look for them?

How do we know things are being "done right" if there are no consequences for doing them wrong?

 

I believe that you misquote Blix, and that the most he ever said on the behalf of the Iraqis was that they appeared to be offering improved compliance on procedural matters and on some substantive issues. He also claimed that, given more time and presuming further Iraqi cooperation, the inspectors might have been able to complete their work. For various reasons, this statement, especially taken within the larger context and in relations to its underlying presumptions, was not an adequate reason for an alteration in US policy.

No one (in his or her right mind and not working for the Iraqi government) ever claimed that the Iraqis offered the "full and immediate compliance" that was explicitly required of them.

 

Refusing to commit to a specific, unrealistic timetable is different from letting things play out indefinitely.

The objective as regards WMD is to draw as clear and detailed a picture as possible - not only for political and accountability issues, but also because it is important to know where actual WMDs and WMD equipment, supplies, information, experts, and so on, may now be.

The Pentagon only yesterday sent an augmented team of investigators (over 1,000) to Iraq. For them to function effectively, they need security, access, equipment, and time.

In real terms, the only meaningful deadlines are political ones. In that sense, Bush has until the next election to offer a complete picture for us to assess. To the extent, however, that he and his administration are already suffering from a credibility problem, their ability to prosecute other initiatives - in regard to Iran, for instance - will be impaired until they address it more effectively.

 

The only real and meaningful deadlines are political ones?

Really.

Imagine this:

There were WMD, and they were exported right along with Hussein and his family to another location.

Is he more or less inclined now to use them? Are the detainees in Cuba more or less inclined if and when returned to their homes to support terrorism against the USA?

This is/was the concern of many, that a preemptive strike if unsuccessful might have long term consequences even worse than if we had let the process play itself out.

The administration (and previous administrations) are well known for dragging their feet, often having to be taken to court to release and reveal certain documentation that is damaging to their "public" agendas.

So, on the one hand, the administration takes refuge in stonewalling, but when it serves there interest goes quickly into battle against those who stonewall.

I am not making a judgment at this point, mere observing and gathering data, and to this point there is a lack of certain evidences and revelations of other evidences that paint the current administration in what can be perceived as a dubious light.

You may be too young to remember how government, if left unchecked---not scrutinized---not held accountable can abuse its privileges.

The pressure needs to be placed on the party in power and kept there to keep them honest and on track.

Anything less is totalitarian.

 

One thing I don't understand is why if Saddam is so smart and didn't have WMD why didn't he simply say for the inspectors to look whereever they wanted to and give them full and complete access. Instead he wouldn't let the inspectors return until the buildup of allied forces was started and then he stalled and did everything he could to hinder them. If he had jumped on the cooperation bandwagon and the inspectors had given him a clear bill then he would still be in power along with his whole regime. If he didn't have them then this route seems pretty dumb to me. Why lie your way into defeat and out of power and into a life of being hunted.

 

I suspect my "simplistically mechanistic view on the role of public discourse," is in large part a product of the current state of public discourse. There is evidence to support that prior to and immediately following the founding of this nation, public discourse was at once both substantive and integral to the functioning of the then fledgling republic. The Federalist Papers, written by A. Alexander, et al are one example of such evidence. It appears that since then the importance of public discourse has declined precipitously. At this point I will concur with your views however, that this is a debate in and of not worth taking up here, although I would be more than happy to continue this discourse via private email.

Your concept of citizenship as the participation of a single entity within a mass of similar (and dissimilar?) entities is interesting and from my vantage point is worth taking on in two ways.

The first deals with the idea of "responsible" citizenship. For, it should be apparent that the degree to which such responsibility is upheld is directly related to the degree to which such citizenship is worthy as an undertaking. Raised by a principled father, one who I would have deemed a responsible citizen, I too desired to live a principled life. It was a result of my experience, education, and critical thinking that I began to realize how few the number of such principled individuals I was surrounded by. I would argue that the principles of responsible citizenship have shifted in the last fifty years, and that this shift has primarily resulted in two dominant principles: collect and distribute capital. It is not a pleasant thought to be sure, but I am not so interested in what is pleasant as what is fact. (Check out "Stiffed," or 'Fight Club' - both in there own way address these issues, albeit primarily from a male point of view)

Secondly, I think by analogy you have eliminated an important aspect of citizenship. An antibody, a synapse, and to a lesser degree a soldier each hold in common a distinct lack of choice. As I function in society, I adhere to the aforementioned principles. However, the principles I hold dear I do not find being upheld by others and for this reason I conscientiously object to societal participation. This does not preclude connection with all individuals, for I have found in my travels a number of people worthy of personal relationship, but it does preclude in communis acceptance of my neighbors and at times my government. I would propose that properly practiced objection is, in a well-functioning democratic society, as integral as societal adherence. The fact remains however, that the principled wield little power - even when viewed as a whole.

Switching gears, I will take a moment now to address the latter portion of your post. You have correctly noted my views/thoughts as egocentric. This is essentially the only views/thoughts one can have, for, "We are like shop windows in which we are continually arranging, concealing or illuminating the supposed qualities other ascribe to us - in order to deceive ourselves." (Daybreak)
I have been misleading in my earlier statements pertaining to the 'peonic' state in which we exist. This was meant to emphasize only our relatively insignificant ability to effect change and I am by no means 'languishing' over this fact.
As for my purpose in life, the design of my posts, and my behaviour at ET take this assurance as you will, my actions are not without purpose or intent.

-RLB

 

Follow your own words.
Why did we attack/invade Iraq?. It's evident the truth was neither known nor proven regarding WMD's.

I call them all f%$kers liars, they deliberately lied. And if there is something else behind this whole frigin mess we the people need to know the truth before we rally behind this f^%ked up war.

Since you seem to like Wolfowitz, his latest answer from the horses mouth:

Wolfowitz says major reason for Iraq war was to get U.S. troops out of Saudi Arabia

---do you remember months back all the arguments on TV and ofc here in these forums?

“The war was sold on the basis of what was described as a pre-emptive strike, ‘Hit Saddam before he hits us,’” “It is now quite clear that Saddam did not have anything with which to hit us in the first place.”

http://msnbc.com/news/919535.asp?0dm=N13ON


So what justifies the attack?

Look some things are plain and clear. They have the second known largest oil reserves on this planet.
It costs 1.5$ per barrel to produce it. It reaches the retail consumer at 30$ per barrel.

Known reserves 120 BILLION barrels. Estimated unexplored could bring up the total friggin capacity to 280 BILLION BARRELS.

You do the math. Trillions upon trillions of $$$ to the pockets of few Oil cos.

What's few hundred dead of our brothers and sisters, and few thousand innocent children women and men of theirs? Shouldn't their surviving family members, have deep hate and willing to blow us up???

But hey! the common street thug kills the old lady for $50
We kill few thousand for many trillion dollars.. Using your business mind I'd say it's a damn good return. RIGHT???

Not to mention that with all this moola you can buy all the laws you want, put all the congressmen in your pocket, have the media cover anything you want, and the story goes on...

And then why ask why the world hate us.

Look man I have nothing against you personally or the rest of the warmongering herd. I hate to see intelligent people getting the wool pulled over their head and losing their critical thinking. You are clinging on media words and gov't puffery. And you neglect the facts?
ON NO EVIDENSE we kept hearing hours every day about how Iraq was tons of WMD's and it's a huge threat to poor little US. There was not a national channel I could switch without listening the same rhetoric for months on. Where are they now?mad:

The Oil Shrub Mafia and Company, has possibly made this the most hated nation on this planet.

We used to stand for something......

 

1. Salman Pak- Probably the link between 9/11 and Iraq. The gov't has never exploited this possibility much yet.

2. We have known all along that Iraq didn't have the means to deliver large amounts of WMD directly on our shore. So the Salman Pak connection grows more important as a means of delivering small amounts here.

3. The real concern is whether the Iraq WMDs were transferred to somewhere they could still find their way into Salman Pak style attacks. The war really didn't change this either way.

4. A court in New York was satisfied that there was a strong connection between Salman Pak and 9/11 by the evidence and testimony.

5. At least the money that was being funneled into terrorist and bribery efforts can now help the Iraqis. The payments by the former regime to the PLO terrorists families was definitely a direct link to terrorism.

6. Since, until today, it took nearly 7 years to catch the bomber in South Carolina and that was within a few hundred miles of FBI headquarters. It could take some time to catch Osama and Saddam, The Carolina bomber was even on the FBI's home turf.

7. If the Salman Pak method of delivery was planned only a very small amount of WMD would be needed which would be much easier to hide.

8. I had wondered for almost 20 years what had happened to Abu Nidal and the Abbas guy and guess what. Right in that playpen of poor abused Saddam.