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

[Brett Paatsch]

Joseph Bloch write:

> Not being an expert in international law, I am not qualified to render a 
> judgement on the question.

You are in the same position as every other reader to the list in one
very important respect. Whether you are an expert or not yours is the
only judgement on this question or any question you will be able
to render. I want to talk to adults that can think for themselves. I want
intelligent adult conversation and I will have to ignore childish 
interjections to have it in an open forum.  

This question of whether or not the invasion of Iraq on 20 March 2003 
was in violation of the UN Charter and constituted a high crime and 
misdemeanor on the part of the US President and is thereby grounds
for impeaching him is an important one. It important to humanists and to
transhumanists. 

If you can't follow the argument or if you are not interested in the
argument then please do not interject in the argument.  Please allow
me to have a discussion at a level with others that can. 

> Being a student of current events, however, I can say that opinion among 
> such experts is divided on the subject, and thus it is entirely possible 
> that the invasion of Iraq was entirely within the bounds of 
> international law and the United Nations resolutions on the subject.

I think you are wrong on this. I think that independent expert opinion, 
ie opinion, that is not tied up with the respective Bush, Blair and Howard
governments, is overwhelmingly on one side: - it overwhelming supports
the conclusion that it was illegal. 

If the political will was ever found to hold Bush to account it would
be on legal grounds that he would be found guilty. I think there is 
a case. Apparently so do some US senators.  What remains to be seen
is whether the US citizen gives a damn. Frankly I am very pessimistic
about that.  But I am trying to give some of you I know the benefit of
the doubt. 

> As for your last question, I would say that in this particular case, the 
> ends have justified the means retroactively. It is better that Saddam 
> Hussein and his brutal regime are out of power, and a democratic
> system of government seems to be taking root. I would never want 
> to make a blanket assertion. 
>
> Although I might ask you, Brett; do you believe that the ends never 
> justify the means?

I try to be rational and not to just believe things. Please do not ask
me what I believe, but rather ask me what I think.  And then please
do not ask unless you really want to know. 

Brett Paatsch