Invasion of Iraq

Dropping bombs on innocent civilians IS initiation of force. That's why war should only be launched as a response to an attack or when there is hard evidence of a clear and present threat. A couple of fuzzy pictures and discredited 'intelligence' doesn't just cut it.

Post 21

Sunday, February 9, 2003 - 10:45pm

Oh, and please, Saddam Hussein is not Hitler, and George W Bush certainly no Winston Churchill.

Post 22

Sunday, February 9, 2003 - 11:02pm

Nihilist style sneering sarcasm? I'm so hurt.

Post 23

Monday, February 10, 2003 - 1:44am

I can't wait for the day I hear that WE are invading Iraq along with our historically reliable and dependable allies the English! I agree with Mr. Speirs, but I hope it is US/UK invasion, not UN, and certainly not involving the completely unreliable untrustworthy French in any way possible (Je suis desole Francois, cela n'est pas pour toi!)

This reminds me of a popular British joke about the "mes/entante cordiale". Why are French country roads lined with poplar trees ? So that, next time, the German army can march in the shade! Something tells me that if the British have not been able to trust the French for a thousand years, we have even less to expect from them.

Post 24

Monday, February 10, 2003 - 2:26am

Zakeer,

Do words mean nothing? Does no one hear the constant intrusive invectives of vindictive Islamic fundamentalism arising from every corner of the Arab world? How many threats do we need to hear before we decide that there is a threat? How many threatening actions must we endure before we realize there is a threat? In my mind Mr. Bush has played enough hommage to festina lente, it is now the time to strike! and strike hard. There are enough good Arabs in the free world to rebuild Kabul, Bagdad and Teheran and create cities of peace and culture.

If the WTC was not a threat, and the incessant warnings of stockpiling are not enough to wake us up, then I don't know what will! When Mehmed conquered Constantinople in 1453, it came after years of continuous threats. When on the eve of the attack, when the last Byzantine Emperor said his prayers in the Hagia Sophia, he knew that he would get no aid from the West. The newly acquired popish allies and princes of Europe totally forsook him.

Although US is considerably more advantaged, the situation is similar in that our allies soon will have forgotten our sufferings (WTC, attacks on US embassies, etc). It seems to me that the worst threats come from within the US through the constant increase of Socratic Democrats weakening our national stance by their moral evasions. So, I cannot agree with you to wait till "there is hard evidence of a clear and present threat". How long would you have us wait Mr. Zakeer?

Post 25

Monday, February 10, 2003 - 7:07am

"Iraq initiated force."

True, but so did the US against its own citizens. And I'd much rather see the US be toppled than Iraq.

Post 26

Monday, February 10, 2003 - 8:05am

I draw everyone's attention to this statement from troll Francois Tremblay.

Post 27

Monday, February 10, 2003 - 9:38am

Hi folks...

I'm unable to conduct several discussions at once, but this has been a topic on the Philosophy of Objectivism list (OWL) to which I've been posting. I gave Arthur Silber permission to reprint my three OWL posts on his "Light of Reason" weblog.

Part one can be found at:

http://coldfury.com/reason/comments.php?id=P195_0_1_0

Part two can be found at:
http://coldfury.com/reason/comments.php?id=216_0_1_0_C

And part three can be found at:
http://coldfury.com/reason/comments.php?id=P234_0_1_0

In short, I am all ~for~ hunting down people who were responsible for attacking us---as Bush puts it---thereby bringing them to justice, or bringing justice to them.

But I am extremely critical of this move toward an Iraqi war---for reasons outlined in those posts. And I think that those of us who are persuaded by the power of Rand's analysis need to pay a lot more attention to the full-bodied critique of global statism that Rand was developing.

In AYN RAND: THE RUSSIAN RADICAL, I spent a lot of time reconstructing that critique as a radical, tri-level model of analysis. Any Objectivist theory of international politics will have to pay attention to the various dimensions of this problem: ethical, psycho-epistemological, cultural, political, and economic. It is that kind of fully contextual analysis that is all too often lacking in the various Objectivist pronouncements that I've read on this subject.

Peace (indeed!),
Chris

---
http://www.nyu.edu/projects/sciabarra/update.htm
---

Post 28

Monday, February 10, 2003 - 4:43pm

Um, I don't know where you got that idea, but I am not a troll. My statement was perfectly reasonable and serious. The United States is far more dangerous than Iraq right now.

Post 29

Tuesday, February 18, 2003 - 10:05am

Dangerous to whom? How is it dangerous?

Post 30

Tuesday, February 18, 2003 - 10:27am

Dangerous to whom? How is it dangerous?

Post 31

Tuesday, February 18, 2003 - 2:09pm

While I think it's silly to ask "Dangerous to whom? How is it dangerous?" when refferring to the United States, I must first say that Saddam MUST be removed from power. Bush MUST be removed from power. If the American people vote him in again, and I do mean VOTE him in, and not like the last elections, they will make a grave mistake. Lets also step back and Objectively look at the situation. I have been pondering the current situation for weeks and it saddens me to think that we have come to this. Satan himself has decided to rid the world of the "Axis of evil". No matter what your argument for the war on Iraq right now is, there simply is no justification for killing even one innocent Iraqi in case someone in Iraq may one day kill Americans. There simply isn't any morality to it. Bush will probably attack, and the day that happens, I will begin fearing for the lives of my loved ones here. Because of the fact that there ARE people who would kill themselves in the attempt to kill anyone who allowed those same their families to be killed. I fear it, because I would do the same if they invaded us, and killed mine. If you would like to argue that Iraq had something to do with 9/11, you don't belong on this website. Bottom line is, they've done nothing to us, we don't care if a few thousand of them die, just so we can be a little more comfortable going to sleep at night... paranoia has a way giving justification for murder. Just ask Hitler about the Jews.

Post 32

Thursday, February 20, 2003 - 5:24am

Posting my question twice-that was silly. However, if you're not going to answer the question, please don't refer to it.

I read your post and I'm pleased that you think my question was silly. Tell me more about "Satan himself" (preferably with more of your intriguing punctuation and sentence structure).

Post 33

Thursday, February 20, 2003 - 7:04am

bono's just a leftist troll. Of course he's not going to answer your question.

Post 34

Thursday, February 20, 2003 - 8:54am

I will answer your question, and I'm sorry if you think my grammar is not good. The US government is more dangerous, to it's own population as well as the entire world. Although, I agree that these tyrrants all over the world need to be dealt with (Saddam included), I honestly feel that bombing that particular country, at this point in time would only have the oppossite of the desired effect. I'm quite sure of this, as it has happened in the past. These Muslim extremists are quite passionate in their beliefs. They are willing to travel the world to kill a few infidels. Case and point (Bosnia, Kosovo). They came by the thousands, Al Qaida, Hamas, etc. to help their Muslim brothers and sisters. They planned and executed ambushes on police, army and civilian targets. Until Sep. 11, they all had a safe haven in those parts of the world for their part in the "freedom fighting". Now they are terrorists, but that doesn't change the fact that they are determined and capable of doing the same thing here. Yes, I am a "leftist" as you said, and I don't think there's anything wrong with that. Is it wrong to think that the life of someone I don't even know IS important, and shouldn't be snuffed out? And is it also wrong to oppose hundreds of thousands of these lives being taken away? If calling me a "leftist" is comical, or an insult for you, I truly feel for you. Back to my point. The US has a major arsenal of all kinds of Weapons of Mass Destruction, and to this day, there has been no proof (if you believe Powell, I have a bridge I want to sell you) of any such weapons in Iraq. Yet, Rumsfeld has already hinted that all of the might of the US military will be used if neccessary. So, it's ok for us to have these horrible weapons, and threaten to use them, but noone else can. I don't want to start an arguement dear Sir, but I have a right to an oppinion just like you, bad grammar or not.

Post 35

Monday, February 24, 2003 - 9:33am

Just to save me time, which other contributors should I ignore?

Post 36

Monday, February 24, 2003 - 9:45am

Just to save me time, which other contributors should I ignore?

Post 37

Monday, February 24, 2003 - 5:06pm

"In my Objectivist view" Peter?

Does anyone else see the irony?

It seems that too often people mean:
"In my subjective view"...but throw in a few
words like "objective", "rational", "logical"
etc. etc. to give it some validity.

A bit of a slip there letting the secret out Peter!

Post 38

Thursday, February 27, 2003 - 2:40pm

zakeer:

"More than one million Iraqis have died, half of them children, as a direct consequence of economic sanctions. As many as 12% of the children surveyed in Baghdad are wasted, 28% stunted and 29% underweight.

This immense suffering has also been only intensified by US and British bombing of civilian infrastructure in the illegal no-fly zones for the last 12 years."

I reply:
First, where are you even getting those statistics? From the Iraqi govt? Or some allied organization? Second, what were the figures prior to these trade embargo? What were the problems with 'the children' after any one of the several destructive wars between Iraq and its neighbors? How did the Kurdish children of Iraq fare when they were slaughtered, and poisoned and attacked with chemical weapons, by their leader, Mr. Hussein? Third, did you notice how beautiful, Hussein's palace was when he spoke with Dan Rather? Did you read about Hussein's hand-made, tailored suits? How were all these starving kids doing when Hussein ran everything to his liking? Fourth, did you know that Mr. Hussein, so concerned for civilians and children, has moved his military forces around non-military targets, daring America to attack them, and de facto making these poor, poor children, hostages? Finally, if you are concerned about the children, ask about the children who are orphaned by 9/11?

And, I just can't resist. Over 30 billion Americans have died, and 500 million have been poisoned as a result fo Saddam Hussein. See how easy it is to make up numbers?

Post 39

Thursday, February 27, 2003 - 2:54pm