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

Brett Paatsch bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au
Sat Dec 17 06:24:23 UTC 2005


Herb Martin wrote:
 
>... What we KNOW is that
> 25,000,000 people were freed from the Rape, Torture, and Murder
> of Saddam's regime (which would not have happened under any
> conceivable alternative within the next 5-30 years) and that
> his (admitted) support for international terrorism in general
> and Al Qaeda in specific is ended. 

No we don't know that. I know 25 million were not all, raped,
tortured and murdered. I don't doubt some were. Certainly
individual people who are raped, tortured and murdered are the
victims of wrongs in my opinion but I don't see why rape, murder
and torture is worse when Saddam is responsible for it. The 
capital letters are not justified.

> (Yes, there was documented
> support for Al Qaeda, only how much is debatable.)

I think you will understand if I don't accept your assertion as
true without evidence. If you have a document showing
Saddam supporting Al Qaeda I'd like to see it.  
 
> We know that Libya changed their behavior (so far) due to the
> example made of Saddam. 

I don't see how you could know that for a specific fact.
Anymore than you know that Iran or other countries didn't
become more hostile and more likely to want to harm 
Americans.  

>  We know that Lebanon has made much
> progress and this is partially attributable to the Iraqi 
> example and the US presence "next door" to Syria which has
> thwarted Lebanese attempts at peace and democracy for decades.

I don't see how you could know that for a specific fact either. 
 
> We know that it cost a lot of money.  We know that some 2000+
> US soldiers have died (and we know that while this is a tragedy
> for every one of them and their families individually, this is
> tiny compared with any other military action of any significance
> much less in of this large effect. 

The significance of the military action depends on ones point of
view.  I saw it as an aggressive illegal act. So did many in the
world.  

The USA cannot win the War on Terror.   

>  (Some 20,000 paratroops were
> EXPECTED to be sacrificed on D-Day just to distract the Germans
> from the beaches of Normandy, and more troops were lost in a
> practice run a few weeks before the Normandy invasion.)

Perhaps true, but irrelevant. In that war the United States was not
the aggressor, quite to the contrary. 
  
> We know that we got the US forces out of Saudi Arabia (which was
> one of the unmentioned goals), and that we have strategic 
> position on both Iran and Syria (and Saudi Arabia even) from 
> Iraq.

I don't know that.  I don't think its relevant. 

> We know that the HARDEST thing for a large conventional army to
> do when faced with terrorist or insurgency forces is to FIND
> AND FIX the enemy so that the superior numbers and weapons can
> be brought to effective use.  We know that by attracting the
> terrorists to Iraq we accomplish that.

Your naivette is staggering. Your countries foreign policy is creating
opponents with legitimate greivances that it did not have before. 

If those opponents have the freedom of movement to go to Iraq they
also have the freedom of movement to chose to fight on other terrain
more suited to there objectives if they so choose. If I was in their
shoes I wouldn't fight you in Iraq, Iraq would just be one area
of many areas of learning and training. 

Had I been living in Iraq and had your invasion killed my family
I would not stop fighting you in Iraq. 

> We know that the Iraqis are admirably moving towards a true
> democracy in a part of the world (Arab Middle East) where the
> naysayers and pessimists claim that such people cannot understand
> or support democracy.

I saw the poll figures I posted at the start of this thread. A majority
of Iraqis think it was not right for the US to invade. Pretty good
chance some of them have very strong feelings of enmity indeed
now.  

> We know a lot of things, but deciding it was not a good idea
> is not one of them.
>
> Depends on who you ask -- and if you ask those troops who lost
> their friends and who risk their lives you will almost universally
> find they believe it was a VERY GOOD THING.
>
> So do most of us who have served and would server again if asked.

That you have served in Iraq helps me to understand what could
be part of your motivation for seeing things a certain way.  

I wonder what you think my motivation might be. For your information
I am a white Australian of European "racial" background that has no
religion. I'm a rationalist and a humanist.   My views on the Iraq 
situation and many other things are in the archives.  I am anything
but the sort of person I imagine you would expect to have offended
and yet I tell you that your countries policies have offended me and
many like me. 

I am not a terrorist but it takes very little imagination for me to see
how others like me could decide to take action on principle that
you would think was terrorism and you would not have a hope
of seeing them coming in any sense of the word seeing.  Please
understand I am impling no personal threat I am trying to get you
to see the seriousness of the current state of human affairs. 

> Of course it was right to invade -- not only did EVERY BRANCH of
> the US government agree but also the UN, both before and after
> the invasion, as well as the Iraqi people.

The UN did not agree. 
 
> Many people overlook the simple fact that the UN Security Resolution
> 1441 UNANIMOUSLY found Saddam in breach on WMD 
> requirements and authorized force to remove Saddam.

No it did not. 

>   It remained the controlling
> resolution even though it was purposely written to give cover to
> Security Council member states who could point to this ambiguousness
> while they fully understood what they voted to support.

It did remain the controlling resolution and the UN security council 
remained the determinator of key terms. 
 
> Even Syria agreed Saddam was in violation and authorized the removal.
> 
> BTW, we also know that it is a sad state of affairs that the UN
> has to use such reasons (WMD) rather than the humanitarian concerns
> for an enslaved people -- this is due to the fact that a large
> percentage of the member states have their own forms of dictatorship
> to a lesser or greater extent and so do not wish to set the 
> precedent that saving a nation is reason to remove a violent
> dictator and murderer.

We don't all know that. 
 
> Oh yes, we also know that Saddam is on trial and will be judged by
> those same Iraqi people who he tortured and abused.

We all know that Bush is not on trial that quite to the contrary he
remains at large with the powers of a US President at his disposal
including the power to pardon.   
 
> And that is a good thing -- a very good thing.

In your opinion. 
 
> And this is STILL A STUPID THREAD.  Those who started it and the
> similar ones should be ashamed of their rudeness in abusing 
> the topics of this list AND their stupidity in not understanding
> such issues.

I am not ashamed. I am not stupid. I am aggreived. And it talking
with you I am giving you an opportunity to understand an alternative
point of view. 

On September 11, 2001, I was on the side of the aggrieved citizens
and people of the United States of America and I was interested in
finding solutions to their problem as though their problem was also 
in part my problem.  

That is no longer the case.  

Brett Paatsch




More information about the extropy-chat mailing list