Kant and Mill in Baghdad

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

[Jolly Rodgers]

Waging a war of aggression and subjugating the occupied population so that their natural resources can be controlled is not moral in any way. You know that, but flush with victory, you don't really care. What's a few dead Iraqis compared to the excitement of winning the big game. It's not like they're real people. Right?

[secretagent]

Anyone can charge war crimes - but lets look at whether we agree with them.

In short: (1) Iraq invades Kuwait (2) The US comes to the defense of Kuwait and forces Iraq out, and ceases fire, short of a justifiable regime change, contingent on Iraq agreeing to certain peace terms. (3) After 12 years of violation of those peace terms, the US resumes Gulf War 1 to change the regime - an understood consequence, 12 years ago, of Iraq's failing to uphold the peace terms.

Iraq has kept its aggressor status the entire time.

[Consort]

Waging a war of aggression...

---

Try the word "liberation" and if you don't believe it, ask any Iraqi who is not a puppet of Iran, Suria, or Egypt. Get real.

---

...and subjugating the occupied population so that their natural resources can be controlled is not moral in any way.

---

You're batting .000 so far. If we wanted their resources we could have taken total control years ago and kept it all to ourselves. (You already know that).

---

...flush with victory, you don't really care. What's a few dead Iraqis compared to the excitement of winning the big game. It's not like they're real people. Right?

---

Wrong again. How did you get the way you are?

[KayEyeDoubleDee]

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.

We enforced the justified UN resolutions, after they refused to do so.

[lib-r-teri-ann]

and I killed the murder victim because someday he might kill me?

I can appreciate your analogy here. And I can also see that it is completely false, misleading and out of context.

FIRSTLY, there was no murder here, there was a war. One is a civil crime between individuals, another is an international affair between governemnts and peoples. To falsely use the term "murder" in this context is absurd.

Second of all, there is no "victim" here. A tyrannical regime and nation got what it deserved; liberation and conquest.

Thirdly, pre-emption is a recongnized part of the right to self-defense, so yes, I can "kill" the "murder victim" before he kills me.

[KayEyeDoubleDee]

Waging a war of aggression and subjugating the occupied population so that their natural resources can be controlled is not moral in any way.

Is sticking my fingers in my ears any more childish than the "No War For Oil" mantra which prompts it?

[KayEyeDoubleDee]

Just remember that I'm not the one who paraded out falsified documents in front of the world ... we just bombed a soveriegn nation that was doing its darnedest to capitulate to our every demand.

Zzzzzzzzzzz

[Outraged]

Those materials and programs were subsequently destroyed, as evidenced by the current lack of their existence. Their only true WMD program was bombed by Israel many years ago and has never been reconstituted. The remnants were tagged and bagged and under continuing inspection by the UN.

There is no evidence of your assumption of destruction, as evidenced by lack of proof. You imply that Saddam disallowed effective inspection and then just got Holy and decided to destroy his weaponary and then keep it secret from the U.N.(collection of dictators)...This strains credulity given the cost of his little non-existent shell-game cost him not only his throne but his life.

So, to claim a priori as the justification is to confess having waged war on a false and immoral assumption.

So, to make this statement is hollow. Saddam had known links to Osama Bin Laden and would gladly have supplied or funded terrorist groups in their world dominantion interests...Saddam WAS a threat, he violated U.N. resolutions and used said WMD on his own people...He did not comply and therefore formally breached the contract which justified action.

[Outraged]

When we just bombed a soveriegn nation that was doing its darnedest to capitulate to our every demand? That's pretty cheeky of you.

You really have to put down that crack pipe. You have the logical capacity of democraticunderground.com, and the ability to selectively recall (outright ignore evidence to the absolute contrary) events that favor a genocidal maniac. That's pretty creepy of you.

[Jolly Rodgers]

The Justifications Crumble Creepy is the people who cheerlead for naked aggression and warmongering.

[lib-r-teri-ann]

this was a shameful violation of law

No, you are a shameful violation of conservative and American principles. We got a liberal here JimRob! Somebody with the admin rights needs to extirpate this idiot.

[Jolly Rodgers]

Somebody with the admin rights needs to extirpate this idiot.

Is that the solution? Just delete anybody who presents facts that you find inconvenient or uncomfortable? You must win lots of debates that way. hehehe

Like I said earlier, just put your hands over your ears and hum lalalalalalala. If that doesn't work, pull the sheets up over your face so the monsters can't see you. It works for lots of immature children.

[Jolly Rodgers]

Is sticking my fingers in my ears any more childish than the "No War For Oil" mantra which prompts it?

Are you trying to assert that the Bush administration is not going to take control of the Iraqi oil fields? Seriously? Bwahahahaha!!!

[section9]

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.

Then you are a fool.

International relations and strategic policy do not involve the determination of right and wrong. They involve the pursuit of national interest. That is all.

We had a national interest in preventing a bad actor from obtaining chemical and biological weapons. Why? Precisely because he could have shipped same to his allies of convenience in the terrorist international. To prevent him from doing that, even in the future, we destroyed his regime.

Whether it was morally right or wrong is immaterial. You can criticize Bush for doing something that you believe is morally wrong. You can also vote for Harry Browne to see how far that gets you. But George W. Bush acted in our national interest, pursuant to the doctrine laid down by Sun Tzu 2500 years ago: "War is the most serious business of the State."

You may pretend that we have an option to "defend the homeland" by bringing out troops home. That is a fool's errand. Doing so leaves the initiative with the enemy. We can only defend by attacking, by killing our enemies before they kill us.

Now then, how long will this last? For several decades. Get used to that. This isn't the Nineties and our enemies want to bring destruction to our homeland.

If that brings you discomfort, so be it. If it leads to dead Jihadis, all the better.

Be Seeing You,

Chris

[activationproducts]

So why was Saddam so reluctant to have inspectors in and allow them to prove he had no weapons?

You need to understand that one of the conditions for ending the first Gulf War is that Saddam disarm of WMD's (all UN security council members agreed that he had them in 1991) and prove it. That is what he failed to do. This is the justification for Operation Iraqi Freedom. That's not too hard to understand.

[Jolly Rodgers]

Then you are a fool.
International relations and strategic policy do not involve the determination of right and wrong. They involve the pursuit of national interest. That is all.

Perhaps I am a fool, but that is far better than any man who shows disrespect for what is right and wrong.

[Jolly Rodgers]

This is the justification for Operation Iraqi Freedom.

No, actually, it is not. That justification would require agreement by the UN. There was none. Furthermore, the fact that the country is proving to be devoid of chemical, biological, as well as weapons of mass destruction (nuclear) would have defeated that rationalization anyway.

[Outraged]

You can do better than Bock...my mistake, you can't. Even his name is chicken speak. I will never forget the din of the antiwar crowd, replete with Mao shirts, Che-Guevera regalia. I went to one of these hate-ins and witnessed communists, homosexuals and other sordid socialists and neo-communists more bent on hating Bush than liberating the people of Iraq and ridding the world of a despotic dictator bent on Stalinist world domination.

I am sure your Kantian logic includes you in the ability to induct that there is a great deal of intel that we are not privy to for justified reason...In fact reason enough to convince Tony Blair, and it does not take a brilliant mind to discern that he was convinced enough to jeopardize his position.

On a more skeptical note, I would imagine sometime in the time-frame that the cacophany of the leftist reaches a crescendo, that plate of crow is going to be served up hot and WMD undeniably will be located.

[section9]

Perhaps I am a fool, but that is far better than any man who shows disrespect for what is right and wrong.

Well, that may be. But that doesn't help you if you end up dead now, does it?

Self-righteousness won't win any arguments here; indeed, it won't even get you a good cup of coffee.

However, you might win some respect from Ronald, for what that's worth....

Be Seeing You,

Chris