US not right to invade say Iraqis Re: [extropy-chat]letter concerning presidential growth

Brett Paatsch bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au
Fri Dec 16 02:14:57 UTC 2005


Joseph Bloch wrote:

> They would not be able to decide anything, if the United States had not 
> acted. I find it a good thing that we did act, and Saddam is no longer 
> in power and able to terrorize his subjects. Was it perfect in execution 
> and aftermath? No, of course not, and nobody is suggesting otherwise. 
> Neither was World War II. But it is better than the alternative.

It would help me understand how you prioritise if you could talk me
through whether you think the invasion on 20 March 2003 was illegal
or not, and whether that matters to you or not. 

Bush, Blair and Howard, don't dare say that international law does
not matter to them publicly, they continue to maintain the fiction that
the war was legal, and they can only do that because the public 
doesn't care.  

Once the public stops holding its elected leaders to their oaths of
office and to the rule of law then democracy is finished. And that
is what is happening now, in my opinion.  

What is your opinion on whether the invasion of 20 March 2003
was legal? Do you think that it is of no consequence if it was not?
Is it your view that the end justifies the means?

Brett Paatsch






More information about the extropy-chat mailing list