[extropy-chat] Re: US not right to invade say Iraqis

Brett Paatsch bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au
Sat Dec 17 01:03:14 UTC 2005


John K Clark wrote:

> The interesting question is whether or not the invasion of Iraq on
> 20 March 2003 was a good idea or not. 

It wasn't just an idea, it was an action. An inherently dishonourable
action because the USA was a signatory to the UN charter and
had given its word not to take that sort of action against a 
soverign nation except when duly authorised by the security
council. 

The editor-at-large in The Australian today mentions for the first
time I have seen the phrase 'withdrawal from Iraq with honour'. 

He is dreaming. 

America cannot withdraw from Iraq with honour any more than
a rapist can withdraw with honor. The dishonour occurred when 
President Bush gave the executive order for America to go in. 

At that point the dishonour was only his. The Congress did not
authorise him to break the UN Charter or to set aside his 
obligations to uphold the US Constitution and his Presidential
oath. 

In my opinion the Congress as a whole, based on books I've
read and accounts I've heard, was genuinley mislead, as were
the American people. 

But there comes a time when outside observers of the whole 
US system have to conclude that the American people are 
complicit in allowing themselves to be mislead.  

> We know now that it was not a good idea, and thus people like
> me who were 50% for the invasion were 50% wrong and people
> like you who were 100% against the invasion were 100% right;
> you were right for the wrong reason but the important thing is you were
> right. It sure beats the hell out of being wrong
> for the right reason.

I was not 100% right and you were not 50%. You weren't
*seeing* the real gameboard and the importance of 
international law and upholding solumn oaths made then and you
are not seeing it now. 

When your country breaks its word it breaks its obligations
not just to you but to me. I am a stakeholder in the world too
and I have seen no acknowledgement from you anywhere that
in terms of human rights you as a US citizen own me as a non
US citizen and stakeholder in the world anything. 

But you do. Your human rights are in part underwritten by my
willingness to uphold them and vice versa.  I have less freedoms
than I did a year ago because of what you have not done to
uphold human rights.

Brett Paatsch 









Brett Paatsch





More information about the extropy-chat mailing list