Kant and Mill in Baghdad

The American Prospect ^ | Issue Date: 6.1.03 | John B. Judis

[Jolly Rodgers]

Well then, who is your guy?

Don't have a guy. I'm not into hero worship.

What are you defending? You didn't make either clear.

The principles of individual liberty first and foremost. The Constitution of the United States at a minimum.

What is you solution, or are you just anti-Bush or possibly anti-American? What are you for?

I won't hide the fact that I'm not fond of Bush. However, this is not about personality worship. I am judging our actions based upon moral principle, right and wrong. The attack on Iraq was wrong and the occupation is compounding it. The solution? Bring our troops home and actually focus on national DEFENSE instead of building an American empire.

[Jolly Rodgers]

You have totally lost me.

I'm not surprised. Maybe someone you don't like will agree with me and then you'll know what to think. ;-)

[Jolly Rodgers]

The article fails to mention another justification for invasion: Iraq stood in violation the its agreement to provide full disclosure of its WMD programs. The Desert Storm coalition ceased fire based on that agreement, and the US and Britain resumed fire based on Iraq's violation of that agreement.

Nice try, but that red-herring fell on its face long ago. You can't claim UN justification for an action that the UN opposed.

[Ben Bolt]

On a lighter note 1 can look and see a liberal Republican named Teri Ann .. Who knows ?

[nicollo]

Forget philosophy, for the logic here is inverted and back again with this one:

...the absence of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), in particular nuclear weapons, combined with the ease with which the United States rolled over the Iraqi army, strengthens the claims of administration critics that Hussein's regime could have been contained without going to war.

The premise follows the argument. Not good. Oh well, that's to be expected from a writer who looks to Hans Blix for authority.

You're having way too much fun with this.

[Consort]

Don't have a guy. I'm not into hero worship.

---

Good.

---

The principles of individual liberty first and foremost. The Constitution of the United States at a minimum.

---

Maybe the Iraqis want a chance at the same thing and will now stop funding and stop giving safe haven to people who hate our way of life.

---

Bring our troops home and actually focus on national DEFENSE...

---

That head-in-the sand attitude sounds good but doesn't work.

---

...instead of building an American empire.

---

That naive and unsupported/untrue assertion does you in.

[kesg]

I'm not surprised. Maybe someone you don't like will agree with me and then you'll know what to think. ;-)

Yeah. And I think you're ugly and stink like a pig. :)

[secretagent]

The UN agreed that Iraq stood in violation of the peace terms, and they agreed on an invasion to address the violation.

They didn't agree on the schedule, but that's not a moral disagreement over invasion.

Effectively, Iraq made peace with the US and Britain, the latter two bringing the UN along for the ride, in an attempt to build proper international "law". The UN won't necessarily "get it" all the time, but the US and Britain keep trying.

(I have to smile here, because I see many exceptions to this line. It has some truth to it, though.)

[forewarning]

A Kantian might justify pacifism as universalizable even when his country was threatened with extinction.

Kant's categorical imperative may be a necessary condition, but it surely isn't sufficient. A stronger, better condition requires that a principle work not just as a universal law (this admits too many unworkable utopian principles), but also when only some adhere to it.

[xm177e2]

Why should we believe Judis?

Because he's a good guy who's also the editor of TNR?

[jwfiv]

JR, you called Consort's argument false and immoral.

If not immoral, your words are at the least discourteous.

Your entire argument is based upon the presumption that we have found, and will find, no WMD in Iraq.

Well, lad, I say the chase has only just begun...give it a little time..Herr Kant never tried to beat the clock.

Saddam's regime was the humanitarian disaster, and it's authors are being eradicated and cleaned up.

Your use words and intellect to persuade yourself and us that your perception is reality, but...it ain't.

[Jolly Rodgers]

Maybe the Iraqis want a chance at the same thing and will now stop funding and stop giving safe haven to people who hate our way of life.

Never mind the fact that there is zero evidence to support your accusation -- unless you are an Israeli. Are you?

That head-in-the sand attitude sounds good but doesn't work.

The founders didn't consider it "head-in-the-sand," nor do I. I consider it the only moral and just way. Some of us still aspire to return America to her moral and just roots.

That naive and unsupported/untrue assertion does you in.

The facts stand in support of it. I know it makes you squirm to hear it, but you know darned well that it is exactly what it is. You can't wish it away. The best you can do is plug your ears and chant lalalalalala so you won't hear it.

[Jolly Rodgers]

Yeah. And I think you're ugly and stink like a pig. :)

Oink.

[Jolly Rodgers]

The UN agreed that Iraq stood in violation of the peace terms, and they agreed on an invasion to address the violation. They didn't agree on the schedule, but that's not a moral disagreement over invasion. Effectively, Iraq made peace with the US and Britain, the latter two bringing the UN along for the ride, in an attempt to build proper international "law". The UN won't necessarily "get it" all the time, but the US and Britain keep trying. (I have to smile here, because I see many exceptions to this line. It has some truth to it, though.)

I love how everyone hates the UN and cheers that it has been rendered impotent, and yet still tries to cloak themselves in its authority in order to avoid war crimes accusations. You can't have it both ways. You can try, but it just doesn't work that way.

[Jolly Rodgers]

JR, you called Consort's argument false and immoral. If not immoral, your words are at the least discourteous. Your entire argument is based upon the presumption that we have found, and will find, no WMD in Iraq. Well, lad, I say the chase has only just begun...give it a little time..Herr Kant never tried to beat the clock. Saddam's regime was the humanitarian disaster, and it's authors are being eradicated and cleaned up. Your use words and intellect to persuade yourself and us that your perception is reality, but...it ain't.

Just remember that I'm not the one who paraded out falsified documents in front of the world and claimed concrete proof that Iraq had WMD in order to attemt justification of a war of aggression. That would be the role of the neo-cons. And, here we are after how many weeks? Still nothing. Zero. Zilch. Even the administration is floating the spin that WMD's aren't important. The warmonger crowd jumps from one discredited rationalization to the next and around the circle back again, just as fast as their lies are made manifest. You talk about being courteous? When we just bombed a soveriegn nation that was doing its darnedest to capitulate to our every demand? That's pretty cheeky of you. Well, sonny boy, it just isn't going to fly.

[jwfiv]

"When we just bombed a soveriegn nation that was doing its darnedest to capitulate to our every demand?"

Whoa...now, you're sounding like Scott Ritter, or Baghdad Bob.

You've just proved my point.

Good night, good Sir...)

[Jolly Rodgers]

You made no point.

[1rudeboy]

You can't claim UN justification for an action that the UN opposed.

You're right, you can't have it both ways.

[Consort]

Never mind the fact that there is zero evidence to support your accusation....

---

That response is totally non sequitur to my comment. And, what accusation are you referring to?

---

I consider it the only moral and just way. Some of us still aspire to return America to her moral and just roots.

---

You have the right to be wrong. But don't don't assume that you are any more moral or just than any one else — control your ego. And stop living in the past.

---

The facts stand in support of it.

---

So far, the facts support nothing you have asserted.

---

I know it makes you squirm to hear it,...

---

You give yourself too much credit. Nothing you could ever say will make me squirm.

---

The best you can do is plug your ears and chant lalalalalala so you won't hear it.

---

Weak.

[Jolly Rodgers]

Baghdad Bob said the Iraqis were putting up a fight. But, they weren't. It was a "cakewalk." Remember? Token resistance by irregular units and mass disappearing act by the regular army. Huge ammo dumps left intact, unused and unguarded. Uniforms left laying in the dirt. Cheering crowds giving the GIs the thumbs up. Airforce buried in the desert not a single sortie flown. Sure looks like capitulation to me.