[extropy-chat] Re: Iraq and legality again

[Samantha Atkins]

On Jun 23, 2005, at 2:31 PM, Mike Lorrey wrote:

>
> Not quite. Samantha claimed we would suffer 100,000 casualties in Iraq
> (or 100,000 civilian casualties, or something along those lines),  
> which
> we are still nowhere near reaching 27 months later. The invasion  
> itself
> cost 150 civilian lives, and as we were calculating the other day, the
> total civilian lives lost (20k according to the UN) is still markedly
> less than the number of people who were being killed directly or
> indirectly by Saddam and his regime prior to the war (~80k-100k per
> year).
>

You are confused.  I claimed around 100,000 or more Iraqi dead.  And  
this is hardly the point.

> It is unfortunate that Bush was wrong about the WMD wrt Iraq (or,
> rather, that he has failed to be proven right, which is a different
> standard, given the evidence of secret Iraqi shipments to Syria in the
> days before the invasion).

Bush never believed the WMD claim.  The real intelligence did not  
back it up and he was in position to have the real intelligence.    
The evidence is that he used bogus intel long after he knew it was  
bogus to whip up enthusiasm for this adventure.  In short he  
defrauded Congress and the people.  He was not innocently mistaken.

> However, as I said before, if the result is
> a domino effect of democratization and individual liberty in the  
> middle
> east, I don't care whether Saddam had WMD or not: he knew how to make
> them, had the expertise and will to do so, and the moment the world
> chose to end sanctions with him still in power, he'd be back making
> them en masse, and anyone who thinks differently is naively foolish.
>

That is a foolish statement when we barely respect individual liberty  
at home much less in occupied Iraq.  That various nations are  
attempting to color themselves democratic to escape being next on our  
"axis of evil" list is hardly the same as real democracy, much less  
real freedom.   Anyone who takes your hypothetical as somehow  
providing support for your stance would be foolish.

>
> International law isn't suggestion, it is contract. If parties to a
> contract refuse to enforce its provisions (i.e. the UN enforcing a
> cease fire agreement with Saddam, the UN enforcing its charter against
> the US, etc) then it really carries very little weight, and less  
> weight
> over time the less it is enforced. Considering the first gulf war is
> the first time the UN (and the only time, really) has functioned as it
> was designed, it really is a joke and lacking in moral authority.
>

Our abrogation of treaties we signed gives us more moral authority  
simply because we have more arms and will use them?

>
>> Of course some brute are kinder than others, and I must say as brutes
>> go America must be in the top 5 percentile.
>>
>
> A very good point that some people either don't believe or don't want
> to believe.

I thought we prided ourselves on standing for and acting on  
principals beyond might makes right.  Dead is dead regardless of  
whether the US is or is not a kinder, gentler occupying power.   I do  
not consider a lesser degree of flouting human rights including  
stooping to torture to be any less heinous - especially for America.   
It would be better not to be on the list of countries that act as  
brutes at all.

- samantha

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050623/f05e5610/attachment.html>