To what extent DOES the end justify the means?

Maybe we haven't, though. Bummer.

I don't know about assassination. It could be a slippery slope. If we want to remake the world in our image, shouldn't our image be a bit more rule-of-law than that?

They certainly did bomb the fuck out of parts of Iraq. Only parts, so that makes it all okay.

Stop right there...explaining anything to gung-ho's was impossible before the war and will be just as impossible after. They have their minds made up and no amount of logic seems to affect them. The very fact that they favor force over other means is testament to this.

Over who would win the conflict I had few doubts. The US is the most powerful military nation the world has ever seen. Iraq is far weaker than in 1991.

International law has broken in my view and the UN has been weakened; the humanitarian crisis is real; massive amounts of innocent civilians have been killed, maimed and injured; thousands of combatants have been killed; cluster bombs and depleted uranium weapons have been used in huge amounts; there is real anger in the Arab and Islamic world; the aftershocks of this conflict have yet to be experienced. I fear the worst.

One hopes scenes of rejoicing Iraqi’s may mitigate the sense of humiliation felt throughout the Arab world. I doubt it. Simon Jenkins writes the UN should stay out of Iraq and let the US sort it out. I’m inclined to agree.

I type this listening to a crowing Rush Limbaugh. I can almost hear the popping corks in neo-conservative circles in Washington. Andrew Sullivan is celebrating victory. All premature in my view. It is a huge military victory to be sure, but it’s the political outcome that will determine whether this conflict has been a success and this has yet to be seen. One hopes the US will play a more constructive role than in Afghanistan where they have left a bloody mess behind.

If 4/100,000ths of the population of Iraq is too substantial a sacrifice for freedom, what isn't? Saddam averaged more than twice that many murders per week, every week, since 1979. How can you see those two figures and still denounce this war on behalf of Iraqi civilians?

America has not left Afghanistan. America is spending $830 Million on Afghanistan in FY2003 alone.

I denounce war, period. I know, people have said that for forty years and more, and you know what, something like this rather unfortunately proves how futile that's been. A prick like Bush wouldn't even be interested in a 'better way' -- he's got off on every second of this.

My idealism says: there has to be a better way. My cynicism says: probably not in society as we know it. As long as people go on pretending it's OKAY, that'll never change.

What would be justifiable then, Christine? Or do you not consider freedom all that important? You would rather live as a slave than die for freedom?

THEORY: George W. Bush plans to use Iraq as a staging
area to exterminate any further pests that pop up
and generally impose his will on the middle east.

Re: Stuart
It is not and never has been the job of the US armed
services to gallivant about freeing nations. It is not
only wrong it is dangerous.

Raise your hand, Stuart

THEORY: George W. Bush plans to use Iraq as a staging
area to exterminate any further pests that pop up
and generally impose his will on the middle east.

Re: Stuart
It is not and never has been the job of the US armed
services to gallivant about freeing nations. It is not
only wrong it is dangerous.

Have you noticed that every time we form alliances to
take down an evil dictator, the dictators we ally ourselves
with to accomplish this are equally evil, or in some cases
MORE evil? Stalin is the easiest example - he was Hitler
with sharper diplomacy and killer PR.

was this an intentional joke?

re: oops
I can document the fact that Stalin was worse than Hitler
and that we KNEW this in 1941.

You see, the Iraqis themselves answered that question for you. NONE of them wanted to die. They didn't want the coalition around, either, while they represented an ever-present threat of that resulting in their asses being blown off. They're happy now. Sure. That threat has dissipated hugely, and Saddam's on the out. Given the choice, they'd have not elected to have bombs hurled at them... you would have been hard pressed to find a single Iraqi who would say, 'Sure, I'm happy to die if it means most of fellows get to be free.' Hate to tell you this, but on the whole people just aren't that noble.

Now then, take this further. What if -- just what if -- this causes a raft of terrorist attacks upon the US and UK? This is a great opportunity for you. You can say, 'Hey! I might get my ass blown off, BUT, lots of people are now free so it's a price worth paying!' Are you gonna say that if it happens? I think probably not. But if you do, Mssrs. Blair and Bush will be real proud of you from their bunkers, make no mistake!

The premise of the Iraq invasion was to eliminate the probably non-existent stockpile of chemical weapons the UN were looking for. As it has become clearer that this stockpile doesn't really exist, we've seen a dramatic course-correction in coaltion rhetoric take place. The liberation is a fine idea, but do I believe Bush & Co. really give a shit about that? Not really, no.

To justify KILLING in any form is just not an option unless you're willing to take it all the way. The mindset has to accept that killing someone who's pissed you off is okay too. You can't take a neutral position -- that's a false position. Killing is either okay or it's not okay.

THANKS GENIUSES

THANKS A LOT

TOOK US 10K+ CENTURIES OF THOUGHT AND ALL OF A SUDDEN YOU'VE FIGURED OUT THE WHOLE WORLD

YOU KIDS ARE SO SMART

War is never justified. No shit. Neither is crime or terrorism or malpractice. Is this the part where the meek inherit the earth? Let me know if I've missed something here. Last I checked the whole goddamned planet was a huge swirl of evil and injustice perpetuated by man against man. Last I checked, any improvement in this situation was fucking WELCOME. It was all like 'Well here's this horribly evil dictator, the world needs to be rid of him' and the proposals were 'Well we should do absolutely nothing about it, or maybe hire a ninja' versus 'Damn the torpedoes, we can whup this guy's ass in under a month'. For some reason, perhaps because I'm a blithering gung-ho idiot, I thought the second option held more promise (or perhaps because I'm more concerned with a promising future than I am with the status quo). When they got started on this, I and everybody else whether they agreed or not seemed to think this was going to be MUCH, MUCH WORSE than it turned out to be. All of a sudden we've deposed a deliberate mass murderer who likes to return fathers to their sons in the form of a sack of mincemeat, and this is still UNSATISFACTORY. I seem to recall requesting suggestions for peaceful solutions from any number of folks before this thing really began in earnest, and I heard none. I suppose you all practice isolationism on a daily basis, perhaps. I suppose none of you would dare physically impose yourself on someone to try and stop a one-sided beating, because a person might get hurt (nevermind that another person is ALREADY BEING BRUTALIZED).

No, you're right. It's useless to argue with us gung-ho imbeciles from the get-go. We're a bunch of fucking bloodthirsty cunts, us. We're out feeling our oats because a bunch of children got killed, that's EXACTLY how it works. GOD FORBID I FEEL GOOD THAT SADDAM IS ON THE RUN, BECAUSE PEOPLE HAD TO DIE TO GET HIM THERE. OH NO, DYING. OH NO. VIOLENCE. HOW TERRIBLE, HOW CRUDE. WHAT NASTY SORT OF PEOPLE COULD POSSIBLY SUPPORT THE MAIMING OF CHILDREN.

Well, look at it this way: Children grow up and live full, happy life. Then all of a sudden one of them is overheard saying something less than beautiful concerning the Hussein family. Off to the butcher's with them. Perhaps that 15 years of life with arms before facing a terrible death at the hands of fat Ba'athist torturers is the variable I'm not weighing enough. But what about the children's children?

If we all went about behaving like a bunch of deontological insects we'd be stuck under the thumb of the first thug who figured out how to lie. America's "true ('america' and 'true' in the same sentence = connotations of 'sinister' evidently) intentions" even taken into account - do you truly and reasonably believe that whatever comes of this, and whatever we have done, is worse than the continued reign of Saddam Hussein? And if so, do you know ANYTHING about the man?

Okay. My meatballs-for-brains gung-ho ass is out of steam. Please continue.

I truly and reasonably believe that it's way too early to tell.

http://members1.chello.nl/~p.lankreyer/dudikoff/pics/am4_9.jpg

As I muttered on the (first) war is over thread, this really is going to be the sticking point and already was. I don't have one myself. Does anyone?

Yeah Saddam's a murderous dictator, it's better he's gone. What a mindblowing revelation, Tom. But what's the long-term lesson here? I'd think it's something along the lines of "covert support of right-wing hardliners in order to defeat vaguely leftist governments leads to years of misery for the nation in question and possibly big-time US military mobilization just to get rid of the problem." Sadly I don't see any reason to believe the US elites will EVER learn this lesson though.

Key sticking point. I'm thinking they can't or won't be able to in the end, perhaps less in terms of budget (maybe) than in terms of actually getting what they want in Iraq in general, which is why, though I'm hardly sanguine about the situation, I'm not as flat out paranoid as some. Basically, whatever happens in Iraq over the next few months (or year or more) determines what happens next, so at present it's too soon to tell. Can they win the peace or can't they? My guess -- but not my set in stone conviction, not yet -- is ultimately no, despite the best efforts of many folks over there on the ground (or soon to come there) to do so.

I would! I'd bomb both of them and let God sort 'em out.
I am really tired of this 'liberation' business masking our selfish reasons to go to war.