Re: A War to Be Proud Of


The Chozen Few wrote:
> "kuff (Isaac Adams)" <kuff00@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:1125527883.466048.303000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> > The Chozen Few wrote:
> >> "kuff (Isaac Adams)" <kuff00@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> >> news:1125495406.842515.161840@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> >
> >> > The Chozen Few wrote:
> >> >> > "kuff (Isaac Adams)" <kuff00@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> >> >> > news:1125353469.196084.210760@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> >> >
> >> >> > The Chozen Few wrote:
> >> >> >> A War to Be Proud Of
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> From the September 5 / September 12, 2005 issue: The case for
> >> >> >> overthrowing Saddam was unimpeachable. Why, then, is the
> >> >> >> administration
> >> >> >> tongue-tied?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Because a war having such a purpose would be illegal - as Lord
> >> >> > Goldsmith advised Tony Blair almost 2 1/2 years ago. Being illegal
> >> >> > it
> >> >> > becomes very impeachable. :-)b
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> You and I have had numerous exchanges here on the legality (or lack
> >> >> thereof)
> >> >> of the war in Iraq.
> >> >
> >> > We sure have. The only way I suppose it can be ultimately resolved,
> >> > not necessarily to everyone's satisfaction, is to hold a formal trial.
> >>
> >>
> >> For a number of reasons -- not least the evident fact that it'll probably
> >> never even be resolved to everyone's satisfaction whether or not the war
> >> in
> >> Iraq was and/or is an illegal one -- a formal trial is hardly a
> >> likelihood.
> >
> > We can wait and see on that. In time there may be the strong wish for
> > a formal trial in order to establish innocence.
>
>
> Alternatively, in time there may be the strong wish for the rest of the
> world to adopt the U.S. legal tradition, wherein formal trials are at least
> ostensibly for the purpose of establishing guilt.
>

I agree 100% with that. The only thing the convening authority can
use a court for is to prove guilt. The defendant should not have to
prove innocence. That's barbaric.

What I was speaking to was charges floating around in the social and
political sphere about a defendant that don't get resolved by a trial.
Mine wasn't a legal argument but a social one. Take Michael Jackson
for instance.

>
> >> >> Below's an excerpt from one of them:
> >> >>
> >> >> ******************************************************
> >> >>
> >> >> TCF: As for whether a formal and explicit UN authorization was
> >> >> legally necessary, I think that given the existence of 1441 and the
> >> >> continued attempts by Saddam's regime to circumvent it, it would take
> >> >> a
> >> >> formal and explicit finding by the Council to legally establish that.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> k(IA): Here's the "deal" in a nutshell which explains a lot about the
> >> >> background of our differences on this point. My belief is that the
> >> >> use
> >> >> of
> >> >> force and the invading of other countries is prima facia wrong without
> >> >> explicit proof of legality.
> >> >>
> >> >> You seem to be coming from the position that in regards to the US, it
> >> >> may
> >> >> use force as it chooses unless such usage can be proved to be illegal.
> >> >>
> >> >> I'm saying that force and violence are illegal and unjust unless there
> >> >> is
> >> >> a specific legal justification or a compelling immediate threat. You
> >> >> seem
> >> >> to be saying that force and violence are acceptable unless it can
> >> >> specifically be demonstrated that such usage is illegal.
> >> >>
> >> >> My default position for violence is "don't do it". Yours seeems to
> >> >> be
> >> >> "stop me".
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> TCF: Actually, I'm in agreement with your position in a general
> >> >> sense.
> >> >> But
> >> >> again, the UN's own record of the inspections process abundantly
> >> >> demonstrate
> >> >> that Iraq under Saddam was a special case:
> >> >>
> >> >> http://www.un.org/Depts/unscom/Chronology/chronologyframe.htm
> >> >>
> >> >> http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/documents/2003-232.pdf
> >> >>
> >> >> And again, the language of 1441 and its predecessor UNSC resolutions
> >> >> make
> >> >> the exceptional nature of the case even more clear.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> k(IA): [no response]
> >> >
> >> > At the time you were a 'have to have the last word' poster. So I let
> >> > you.
> >>
> >>
> >> Given the number of subsequent posts in that thread by you in response to
> >> some of my other points, I doubt that satisfying my alleged desire to
> >> have
> >> the last word was your actual motive in that particular case... at least,
> >> it
> >> probably wasn't your primary one.
> >
> >
> > It was. Funny you doubt facts even when you hear them direct from the
> > horse's mouth.
>
>
> From the squid's ink orifice, I think would be a more accurate metaphor in
> your case.
>

Whatever.

>
> >> > 1441 did not authorize military force.
> >> >
> >> > If you rely on 687, the ceasefire, then it fails also to establish the
> >> > legality of the invasion as it was executed. Even after arm twisting
> >> > and 'direction' provided to Lord Goldsmith he still wrote to Tony Blair
> >> > on 7 March 2003:
> >> >
> >> > "36. Finally, I must stress that the lawfulness of military action
> >> > depends not only on the existence of a legal basis, but also on the
> >> > question of proportionality. Any force used pursuant to the
> >> > authorization in resolution 678 (whether or not there is a second
> >> > resolution):
> >> >
> >> > - must have as its objective the enforcement the terms of the
> >> > cease-fire contained in resolution 687 (1990) and subsequent relevqant
> >> > resolutions;
> >> >
> >> > - be limited to what is necessary to achieve that objective; and
> >> >
> >> > - must be a proportinate response to that objective, ie securing
> >> > compliance with Iraq's disarmament obligations.
> >> >
> >> > That is not to that action may not be taken to remove Saddam Hussein
> >> > from power if it can be demonstrated that such action is a necessary
> >> > and proportionate measure to secure the disarmament of Iraq. But
> >> > regime change cannot be the objective of military action. That should
> >> > be borne in mind in considering the list of military targets and in
> >> > making public statements about any campaign."
> >>
> >>
> >> Lord Goldsmith's letter is indeed an interesting document, and it
> >> includes
> >> this bit:
> >>
> >> "26. To sum up, the language of resolution 1441 leaves the position
> >> unclear
> >> and the statements made on adoption of the resolution suggest that there
> >> were differences of view within the Council as to the legal effect of the
> >> resolution. Arguments can be made on both sides..."
> >>
> >> http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page7445.asp
> >>
> >> Though he goes on in the next section to express his opinion "that the
> >> safest legal course would be to secure the adoption of a further
> >> resolution
> >> to authorise the use of force," the letter as a whole makes it clear
> >> enough
> >> (to me, even if not to you) that he'd agree with what I've consistently
> >> said
> >> here -- that the legality of the war in Iraq was and remains a debatable
> >> issue.
> >
> > See. Debatable. Not unambigously legal. I reiterate my postion of
> > last year found above:
>
>
> Again, I've never denied that it *is* debatable (at least not from the
> standpoint of what's often charitably known as "international law"), or
> claimed that it *is* unambiguously legal (ditto). As for *your* position,
> last year or any year, you've consistently (and dogmatically) claimed that
> it's *il*legal, no qualifications, period. Have you now changed your
> position, or will you now squirt some more ink at us to say that it's been
> your position all along that the legality is debatable?

No. I still maintain it was illegal. I was saying that *if* we
accept your position of debatability that has consequences to your
argument. A non-lying rational actor would not have undertook a
military invasion under those circumstance.

>
>
> > "Here's the "deal" in a nutshell which explains a lot about the
> > background of our differences on this point. My belief is that the
> > use of force and the invading of other countries is prima facia wrong
> > without explicit proof of legality.
> >
> > You seem to be coming from the position that in regards to the US, it
> > may use force as it chooses unless such usage can be proved to be
> > illegal.
> >
> > I'm saying that force and violence are illegal and unjust unless there
> > is a specific legal justification or a compelling immediate threat. You
> > seem to be saying that force and violence are acceptable unless it can
> > specifically be demonstrated that such usage is illegal.
> >
> > My default position for violence is "don't do it". Yours seeems to be
> > "stop me"."
> >
> > ---
> >
> > To which you replied: "Actually, I'm in agreement with your position in
> > a general sense."
> >
> > Since doubt of legality (debatable) was sufficient, in your mind, to
> > establish legality for invasion and the inevitable murders which occur
> > from such undertakings, I think you are misspeaking when you say "I'm
> > in agreement with you position in a general sense."
>
>
> Reposting the rest of that paragraph for the purpose of providing context:
>
> *********************************************
> ...But again, the UN's own record of the inspections process abundantly
> demonstrate that Iraq under Saddam was a special case:
>
> http://www.un.org/Depts/unscom/Chronology/chronologyframe.htm
>
> http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/documents/2003-232.pdf
>
> And again, the language of 1441 and its predecessor UNSC resolutions make
> the exceptional nature of the case even more clear.
>
> *********************************************
>
> Furthermore, again, I only doubt the legality of the invasion from the
> standpoint of what's often charitably known as "international law."

You rather uncharitably hung krauts and nips because of 'international
law'.

> It's
> clear enough (to me, even if not to you) that it was legal from the
> standpoint of U.S. law.

I could make an argument that Congress never declared war therefore
making war was illegal but it would be weakened by precedent.

I could also maintain that the Congressional declaration was not
fulfilled by the Executive and, in fact, was exacted by lying to
Congress. Under such circumstances the 'contract' is null and void.

Finally I will point out that the writ of US law is the US. If Iraq
was nestled between Idaho and Nebraska then you have the makings of a
good argument. That Iraq was not part of the US demolishes your
position however.

>
>
> >> > As we know the first target in the Iraqi invasion was an assassination
> >> > attempt on Saddam. As we also now know, the US was determined to
> >> > 'fix' the intelligence around the desire to invade Iraq.
> >> >
> >> > The document URL's you provided in your response from over a year ago
> >> > have been overtaken by events and new information. New information to
> >> > us, the unwashed public, and not to those who were attempting to
> >> > engineer a justification to invade Iraq.
> >>
> >>
> >> The URLs I provided evidently reflected what was known at the time even
> >> at
> >> "washed" levels of the govt about Saddam's non-compliance with the
> >> provisions of the UN resolutions,
> >
> > But it is missing the doubts about what was known. And the inspectors
> > had found nothing and the US couldn't tell them where to look to find
> > anything (though the US claimed to know where the stuff was).
> >
> >> and I think you give the "engineers" much
> >> too much credit (or blame, depending on POV) for knowing the true nature
> >> of
> >> the shell game he was apparently playing.
> >
> > Saddam wasn't playing a shell game. Leastwise not with armies trying
> > to justify and eventually invade on false pretenses.
>
>
> Fine, you can write him in for President or Caliph or whatever during the
> first global election if you think he was such a relative paragon (or "hero"
> in a "definitional sense").

Who cares? Saddam's farting in elevators is not the issue. Your own
stench is.

>
> Elvis is still my guy here on the home front, though, and I suspect that
> even (or maybe especially) most Iraqis would vote for him over Saddam in one
> of their elections, given a free choice.

Not the Sunnis. There's been two demonstrations in the last 10 days
or so calling for Saddam. No Elvis demonstrations that I know of - by
Suuni or Shiite. (The hip wiggling likely would turn off the Shiites
too.)

>
>
> >> >> http://tinyurl.com/9qh5y
> >> >>
> >> >> *************************************************************
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> > Also a war having such a purpose fails just war doctrine making it
> >> >> > unjust.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Again I disagree, for reasons related to those I gave in the above
> >> >> excerpt.
> >> >
> >> > You may do that. Most people who concern themselves with just war
> >> > doctrine as part of their life and intellectual specialization disagree
> >> > with you.
> >>
> >>
> >> But as I've noted above, even one of your own sources apparently agrees
> >> with
> >> me that the legality of the war in Iraq was and remains debatable,
> >
> > Which means there was doubt about the legality of the invasion and
> > destruction of Iraq. That, plus the lack of any real, verifiable (in
> > the country, on the ground, free to roam) evidence of WMD would have
> > lead a non-lying, rational actor to call off the invasion.
>
>
> As I've pointed out to you here many times before, given the characteristics
> of Saddam's regime, there wasn't any way short of invasion to verify the
> presence or absence of WMD.

You mean other than asking the inspectors to go look where you claimed
they were? Or even taken up Saddam's offer and bringing in the CIA to
look? You know, rattling the sabres a little louder might even have
gotten Kay's bunch of merry men (and Judith Miller) in to look around
if the previous two offers (which were already made) were
unsatisfactory.

> And as I've also pointed out to you several
> times before, Duelfer's post-invasion report (link below) made it even more
> clear that the only viable alternative to knocking the Saddamoids out of
> power would've involved continuing the UN sanctions indefinitely.

And, as Goldsmith pointed out to Blair, the invasion could not be about
knocking out the Saddamoids and still be legal.

> I doubt
> that most Iraqis would've preferred the latter, especially since *effective*
> continuation probably would've involved discontinuing the Oil for Fraud...
> oops, Food... program, and imposing a total embargo.
>
> http://wid.ap.org/documents/iraq/041006keyfindings.pdf

I think the Iraqis would have preferred to have had clean water and
medical care for their kids in the preceding 10 years.

>
>
> >> even if
> >> initiating it under the particular circumstances wasn't "the safest legal
> >> course".
> >>
> >
> > It wasn't legal (if you say my it wasn't illegal because that's
> > debatable then it wasn't legal either) and there was no WMD evidence to
> > justify it.
>
>
> I think you left some stuff out of that sentence.

Like what? Is that a grammatical criticism?

>
>
> >> > And since the war was based on lies, your consideration of whether or
> >> > not it was just needs to have it's premises cleansed of the falsehoods
> >> > being fed to you by your leadership.
> >>
> >>
> >> *If* the war was based on lies, they were evidently Saddam's lies much
> >> more
> >> than anyone else's.
> >
> > Don't think so. Which of Saddam's lies are you talking about? "I
> > don't have any" or "Look whereever you want" or "bring in the
> > CIA" or ...
>
>
> Gosh, there were so many, I hardly know where to (re)start. But you might
> try actually reading the stuff at the links I've previously provided in
> this very thread and at other times:
>
> http://www.un.org/Depts/unscom/Chronology/chronologyframe.htm
> http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/documents/2003-232.pdf
> http://wid.ap.org/documents/iraq/041006keyfindings.pdf
>
> If nothing else, the first link might give you a whole new outlook on the
> term, "Full, Final and Complete Disclosure."

Which pretty much nobody was able to read because the US ran a major
editing/deleting pass over it before distribution.

And the US was making claims about specificity of inventory and
locality that either (1) data to verify was withheld from the
inspectors or (2) when some data was provided to the inspectors was
characterized by them as "crap" (they may actually have said "***").

The US had no evidence and, with eyes and boots on the ground in Iraq,
still couldn't come up with any.

>
>
> >> There's much more reason to believe that the
> >> "engineers" of the war in Iraq were more ill-informed (largely because of
> >> the insular and habitually deceptive nature of Saddam's regime) than they
> >> were ill-motivated.
> >>
> >
> > I don't think so. As you've help establish with some of your
> > arguments, a non-lying rational actor would not have invaded given the
> > non-legal nature of such an invasion coupled with the lack of evidence
> > that the actor was free to look at anywhere in the country of Iraq.
> >
> > (This little exchange with you has convinced me even more that the
> > invaders were ill-motivated. The logic you've brought out makes it
> > harder to give them the benefit of the doubt - they didn't act like
> > non-lying rational actors.)
>
>
> See previous suggestion about writing in Saddam's name during the first
> global election.

I see your distracting foray into fantasy. Doesn't work this time.

>
>
> >> >> > Finally if the real purpose was, even partially, to extend US
> >> >> > dominance
> >> >> > over the Middle East then the entire enterprise is immoral. Tainted
> >> >> > fruits.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Are you seriously suggesting that if even *one* of the motives for an
> >> >> enterprise is immoral, then the *entire* enterprise is immoral?
> >> >
> >> > Hmmm, that is perhaps too strong a position to take. The entire
> >> > enterprise can be immoral in a some circumstances however:
> >> >
> >> > (1) If the moral motivations of the enterprise are insufficiently
> >> > weightly to initiate the enterprise without the addition of the immoral
> >> > motivation then the whole enterprise is immoral.
> >>
> >>
> >> Even granting the dubious "If" at the beginning of that for the sake of
> >> argument, I disagree.
> >
> > It's an if-then clause. The "if" cannot be dubious. Technically you
> > can't even disagree with the "if" portion of it - only the "then"
> > portion.
>
>
> In Euclidean geometry, I'm sure that's true. In other realms, the"Ifs"
> usually aren't nearly as non-dubious.
>

Then the "then" breaks down. In this case the "if" portion is no more
complexm dubious or controversial than saying "if you have to add a
quart of water to 3 quarts of milk to make a full gallon then you can't
rightfully sell it as a gallon of milk".

But if you were a diary farmer you might disagree. :-)

>
> >> There's no logical imperative to conclude that a
> >> *whole* enterprise is immoral just because its moral motivations are
> >> insufficiently weighty -- even if the moral motivations were wholly
> >> *absent*, parts of the enterprise might nevertheless prove to be moral
> >> for
> >> *un*intended reasons.
> >>
> >
> > It's a moral imperative cast in a logical if-then form. And divorcing
> > intent from morality is a weird thing to do.
> >
> > "I didn't mean to run over the cat when driving to the hospital" is not
> > immoral.
> >
> > "While trying to run over the cat I ended up at the hospital" is.
>
>
> Or maybe, "While trying to find an appropriate analogy, I jumped over the
> moon along with the cat." Or was it only the cow who did that? Definitely
> a three-letter word beginning with "c", anyway.

Foray into fantasy again? Pitiful.

Do you divorce intent from morality?

>
>
> >> > (2) Obviously, if the immoral motivation is the real reason for the
> >> > enterprise and the moral reasons are just window dressing for public
> >> > consumption then the entire enterprise is immoral.
> >>
> >>
> >> See above, substituting "entire" and "entirely" for "whole" and "wholly,"
> >> and "just window dressing" for "insufficiently weighty."
> >
> > Uh, no. If one's intent is immoral then the act is immoral.
>
>
> Nope. Intent reflects on the actor, not necessarily on the act.

Well duh. It is the actor which can be moral or immoral. The act is
just the act. It is called an immoral act if the actor is immoral.
And the intent of the actor establishes the immorality.

One of the dead cats above is the result of an accidental act. The
other is the result of an immoral act.

Surely you see this. Don't you spend a bit of ink defending US caused
civilian deaths (collateral damage) by referring to the intent of the
actors (not targeting civilians intentionally) and contrast that with
the immoral acts of terrorists who do target civilians intentionally?

> For
> instance, if I were to make a donation to a cat (or cow) rescue society
> *solely* for the purpose of influencing a cat-loving (or cow-loving) girl to
> go to bed with me, I'd call that an immoral intent,

I wouldn't. Depends on your culture.

> but the donation per se
> wouldn't be an immoral act (or at least, it probably wouldn't seem immoral
> to most people).

If you thought the intent of the actor was immoral then the act would
be immoral since morality doesn't adhere to the act but the actor.

That animals accidently benefit from the act false under the "every
cloud has a silver lining" saying.

>
>
> >> > (3) If the moral motivations proviede sufficient justification of the
> >> > enterprise then as the moral motivations are proven false or otherwise
> >> > abandoned then the immoral motivation gains prominence per (1) above
> >> > and the entire enterprise can become immoral.
> >>
> >>
> >> Even if moral motivations are based on evidence that *later* proves to be
> >> false, that doesn't retroactively change the morality of the motivations.
> >
> > No it does not. What it should do is trigger a re-evaluation of the
> > enterprise as it might now be immoral.
> >
> >> And again, there's much more reason to believe that the "engineers" of
> >> the
> >> war in Iraq were much more ill-informed than ill-motivated.
> >>
> >
> > You've help demonstrate that this is less likely to be the case than I
> > would have thought yesterday.
>
>
> At this point, I suspect you're likely to seize upon *anything* as help in
> that regard.

To help what? I want to understand what happened. Don't you?
Before this little thread I gave the US more benefit of the doubt than
I do know. Thanks for that bit of simplification (what a non-lying
rational actor would do).

>
>
> >> > Then there's the karmic thing which I will just comment on without
> >> > attempting to support in any way.
> >> >
> >> > (4) If the enterprise is immoral then all moral motivations put up for
> >> > enterprise justification are in peril of being lost. It is as if they
> >> > are ante'd up in a good/evil poker game. If freedom is claimed as a
> >> > moral reason then freedom will be lost. If reduction of terrorism is
> >> > claimed as a moral reason then terrorism will increase. If stopping
> >> > the proliferation of WMD is claimed as a moral reason then WMD
> >> > proliferation will increase. If radical Islam is.... But you get the
> >> > idea.
> >>
> >>
> >> Have any of your dogmas ever actually caught any karmas?
> >
> > No - they get distracted by the catechisms.
>
>
> Happens sometimes. Btw, here's a bit of doggerel for you:
>
> There once was a poster named Thad
> Whose country made him so darned mad
> He said, "Take a hike!"
> And called himself Ike
> Thenceforth claiming we'd all been had.
>
>
>
> >> >> In any case, even *if* the purpose you mention was indeed "the real
> >> >> purpose... even partially," I think it's debatable whether (and/or to
> >> >> what
> >> >> extent) the use of force to extend US dominance over the Middle East
> >> >> is
> >> >> actually immoral, in view of the characteristics and conduct of the
> >> >> Middle
> >> >> Easterners who attacked us before the invasion of Iraq, and who
> >> >> clearly
> >> >> aspire by use of force to achieve dominance not only over the ME, but
> >> >> also
> >> >> over as much of the rest of the world as possible.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> [snip for brevity]
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> > http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/995phqjw.asp?pg=1
> >> >> >
> >> >> > ****************************************
> >> >> >
> >> >> > A piece of writing to be proud of, too.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > -- TCF

.

Loading