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

[Brett Paatsch]

John K Clark wrote:

> "Brett Paatsch" <bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au>
>
>> It wasn't just an idea, it was an action. An inherently
>> dishonourable action
>
> I realize that,... now. It was dishonorable not because it broke some 
> mythical thing called "international law" [[[*1]]]]but because it was 
> based on something that was untrue, the entire Weapons of Mass Destruction 
> crap. I don't know if they were lying or if they really
> believed that load of putrid shit.   [[[*2]]]
> And I don't know which is more disturbing either.  [[[*3]]]]

[[[*1]]]

If I do you the service of proving to you that international law is not
a myth, that it is every bit as real as the US Constitution, how would
you propose to express your gratitude?

I would really like for us to be able to get past this John, then we
could have a good discussion, but I need to get some sense that it
will be possible for you to recognize that international law exists.

[[[*2]]]
Do you care to know?

[[[*3]]]
Please do think about it. I'd like to know which would disturb you
more that "they" genuinely believed or that they were lying and
deceiving including to Congress and to the American people. It
would help me understand your moral code to see which disturbs
you more.

>> You weren't *seeing* the real gameboard and the importance of
>> international law
>
> And I don't see the importance of international law to this day.

I know please see above. I await your reply with genuine eagerness,
so much so that I expect you will dodge the questions or not send
it ;-).

> People
> forget but at one time it looked like Bush had a good chance of getting
> UN approval for the war; if he wasn't such a bumbling diplomat
> it could very well have happened.

I haven't forgotten. This is not quite right but nearly.

> But if that had happened would you now be saying good things about Bush?

I can say good things about Bush. I think he really loves his
family. I think he is probably genuine in his faith in God.

>  I wouldn't because Iraq would still be a horrible mess.
>
> Or suppose Bush invaded without the UN seal of approval but he found
> loads of weapons of mass destruction just as he said he would, and the
> Iraqi people really did greet American soldiers as liberators, and today
> Iraq was peaceful free and prosperous; would you still say bad things 
> about Bush?

This is getting almost too hypothetical to deal with as too many facts
have to change for it to have been so.

> I wouldn't.

I understand that. It follows from your notion that international law
is a myth and so would fit into the category of no-harm no foul.

But America paid a heavy price in blood in world war two to
make international law exist and it does exist.

If you want to have a conversation with a rationalist, humanist that
thinks different then see the above.  I hope you do.

Brett Paatsch