The Iraq War retrospective Thread

[kandrathe]

You are taking "I agree with that intellectually, but my feelings are that the SOB deserved it." out of context, we were talking about a guy who was shot kicking to death a toddler. My observation was that it was either justifiable defense of the child, or justifiable homicide in eliminating a scum bag. And, in allusion to Saddam, and his Bathist government, my feeling was they also were served their just desserts and I feel the scumbags in Baghdad deserved their fate for all the heinous things that they had already done, and to prevent them from causing any more death and destruction within Iraq, or the world.

It still isn't trying to treat individuals as nations, and the rules of how nations interact with each other are vastly different than how individuals interact with their government. When I said, "You probably should not treat a nation like an individual." it was in the context of you trying to give kangaroo's the rights of humans. It's an apples to oranges problem, not the inconsistency of logic you make it out to be. So, let's consider the appropriateness of comparing the Texas CPS seizing 430 some children from their parents in a preemptive move to protect them from abuse to the US declaring war on Iraq in a preemptive move to protect the citizens of the US. There are some similarities in the weakness of evidence for example. But, I would still maintain the individuals have rights that nations do not have. The individuals have a legal system which when exercised resulted in justice, whereas nations have a UN forum for self interested political discourse. If in the national dialog the nations do not agree on a resolution, then whatever happens is beyond the UN's control. So, I would ask again, what power does the UN really have other than as a forum for political intercourse?

I would refer again to Clausewitz, "We know, certainly, that war is only called forth through the political intercourse of Governments and nations; but in general it is supposed that such intercourse is broken off by war, and that a totally different state of things ensues, subject to no laws but its own. We maintain, on the contrary: that war is nothing but a continuation of political intercourse, with a mixture of other means. We say, mixed with other means, in order thereby to maintain at the same time that this political intercourse does not cease by the war itself, is not changed into something quite different, but that, in its essence, it continues to exist, whatever may be the form of the means which it uses, and that the chief lines on which the events of the war progress, and to which they are attached, are only the general features of policy which run all through the war until peace takes place. And how can we conceive it to be otherwise? Does the cessation of diplomatic notes stop the political relations between different nations and Governments? Is not war merely another kind of writing and language for political thoughts? It has certainly a grammar of its own, but its logic is not peculiar to itself. Accordingly, war can never be separated from political intercourse, and if, in the consideration of the matter, this is done in any way, all the threads of the different relations are, to a certain extent, broken, and we have before us a senseless thing without an object."

Jefferson has many interesting thoughts on The Rights of Nations. Reading them in context of US foreign policy highlights how far different the thinking is of contemporary politicians from the original founders. I agree with Jefferson's point of view largely, however, the events of WWI and WWII moved the US into a much more highly interventionist position. A position that has put us into the position of the world's police force. A position most Americans, and I assume the world detests. Yet, the fundamental question remains; should a nation like Britain, Germany, Russia or the US who has the power to do so, try to stop a tyrant committing genocide on their own populace? Should we ignore the atrocities of the Stalin's, Pol Pot's, Idi Amin's, Adolf Hitler's, Saddam Hussein's and the Robert Mugabe's to terrorize and murder their own people? I believe unless we want to move toward a one world government, we must not intervene in all the horror that is committed. I would like to see the US step out of the world police role, and focus more on its own domestic tranquility. I believe the approach the US intelligence services is taking now to fight against terrorism is much better than what was done in the past. The result should be to lance the boils before they infect and compromise the host requiring the more massive use of armies to regain health.

If you want to focus on acts of war, then there is ample examples of Iraq committing acts of war on the US, the UN, our allies and protectorates. The issue, which has been discussed earlier, is that none of these acts of war were sufficiently outrageous to convince the average American to invest in going to war. Wrongly, the Bush administration exaggerated or puffed up a tempest in a teapot. But, my comment that the "SOB deserved it" still stands. We have the right result by wrong methods. The aftermath of what to do with a broken nation is where the difficulty lies. Pull out and let the dogs fight, or try to do the more humane thing and establish some semblance of order, then pull out, and watch it all crumble with your conscience clean?

I also found this quote which ironically applies here, "I am Cyrus. King of the world. When I entered Babylon... I did not allow anyone to terrorise the land... I kept in view the needs of Babylon and all its sanctuaries to promote their well-being... I put an end to their misfortune." -- From The First Charter of the Rights of Nations, Cyrus, The Great, 539 B.C., Founder of The First Persian Empire