06-20-2003, 07:06 AM
The US had many good reasons to invade Iraq and finish off Saddam Hussein, presented by others many times in other places. If you don't accept them, we must disagree. Allow me to follow the part of your response that interests me.
The precedent has long ago been set. My country (USA) explictly justifies its creation on this basis in its Declaration of Independence. I think the USA is the last revolutionary country on earth, and the rest of the world is filled with tired cynics.
This idea of 'implicit consent' is ridiculous. I realize that sometimes it is practical to deal with a 'de facto' existing regime as as if it were the proper gov't, but that is only a measure of convenience. There is no need or justification for inferring consent on the part of the captive population. Official recognition of a dictatorship by any government does not grant moral legitimacy, such legitimacy can only be derived internally from the population of the dictator's country. In summary, Saddam Hussein did not deserve any respect or recognition of sovereignty. Still, if only he'd been a bit more sensible he could have avoided being overthrown.
No, but large segments of it appear sympathetic to the terrorist attacks. You didn't answer my question.
We did not attack out of spite, we did not atttack the entire populace. Can you ever accept either of these facts?
Furthermore, if those who have taken up arms as terrorists do so because they are ill informed or brainwashed, this does not excuse them nor should it spare their lives. The war against Terror is a real war with the real goal of killing terrorists, not changing their minds by winning a debate. Saddam may not have had significant provable terrorist allies, but he was an obstacle to progress and provided plenty of provocation to finish him off. I believe war with Saddam would have happened someday even had the terrorist attacks of 9/11 not happpened.
And 10,000 frenchmen can't be wrong, eh?
The reason was the termination of French and German business dealings with Saddam circumventing the sanctions regime. I think the reason that the euro-crowd so frequently hurls the "its all about oil" charge at America is simple psychological projection: that is exactly what european businesses were doing, buying Saddam's smuggled oil.
Quote:A dangerous precedent to be set, don't you think? Any government in the world, presumably, derives its powers from the consent of the governed. In the case of a dictator such as Saddam, that consent is considered to be implicit as it is in many other countries, since there is no democratic means in place to explicitly state that it is so (keep reading, I'm not done).
The precedent has long ago been set. My country (USA) explictly justifies its creation on this basis in its Declaration of Independence. I think the USA is the last revolutionary country on earth, and the rest of the world is filled with tired cynics.
This idea of 'implicit consent' is ridiculous. I realize that sometimes it is practical to deal with a 'de facto' existing regime as as if it were the proper gov't, but that is only a measure of convenience. There is no need or justification for inferring consent on the part of the captive population. Official recognition of a dictatorship by any government does not grant moral legitimacy, such legitimacy can only be derived internally from the population of the dictator's country. In summary, Saddam Hussein did not deserve any respect or recognition of sovereignty. Still, if only he'd been a bit more sensible he could have avoided being overthrown.
Quote:Was the entire middle east responsible for the terrorist attacks?
No, but large segments of it appear sympathetic to the terrorist attacks. You didn't answer my question.
Quote:Attacking out of spite those whose opinions never had a chance of being properly formed...
We did not attack out of spite, we did not atttack the entire populace. Can you ever accept either of these facts?
Furthermore, if those who have taken up arms as terrorists do so because they are ill informed or brainwashed, this does not excuse them nor should it spare their lives. The war against Terror is a real war with the real goal of killing terrorists, not changing their minds by winning a debate. Saddam may not have had significant provable terrorist allies, but he was an obstacle to progress and provided plenty of provocation to finish him off. I believe war with Saddam would have happened someday even had the terrorist attacks of 9/11 not happpened.
Quote:The same cannot be said of that in Iraq. Support that existed for the march into Afghanistan disappeared when it came to Iraq. There was a reason for that.
And 10,000 frenchmen can't be wrong, eh?
The reason was the termination of French and German business dealings with Saddam circumventing the sanctions regime. I think the reason that the euro-crowd so frequently hurls the "its all about oil" charge at America is simple psychological projection: that is exactly what european businesses were doing, buying Saddam's smuggled oil.
Growler
"To excuse such an atrocity by blaming U.S. government policies is to deny the basic idea of all morality: that individuals are responsible for their actions." -- Salman Rushdie writing of September 11th
"To excuse such an atrocity by blaming U.S. government policies is to deny the basic idea of all morality: that individuals are responsible for their actions." -- Salman Rushdie writing of September 11th