Canada should join the 'war in Iraq...

[theloniusfleabag]

The following paraghraph is loosely quoted from "Just and Unjust Wars", by Michael Walzer, 1977.

"John Stuart Mill had a short essay published in the same year as the treatise 'On Liberty'(1859). He argues that ' it is not our purpose in international communites, (nor is it possible), to create [through intervention] liberal or democratic states, only independent ones" Further, intervention by another power should never 'tip the balance of power' but only complement one side or the other until equality,(or parity) so that those on the inside of the struggle can decide the outcome".

Now, if a nation has been 'freed' (such as Iraq) of a tyrant (such as Saddam Hussein), the job of 'freeing' has been overdone, to be sure. However, any further influence becomes, itself, an imposed 'tyranny of external will', and other nations have the moral right to 'once again free the oppressed' from influence that they did not seek nor desire.

[Big Blue Machine]

Sure, we could do that. But the US would invade us in a heartbeat. Ok, maybe the second heartbeat.

[PocketRocket]

THELONIUS: i think the USA is becoming more and more desparate every day to get the hell out of Iraq, but you'll never get a Republican to admit it.

They're beginning to see how much of a mire they've got themselves into.

We'll see in a couple months. Elections in IRAQ are due in January.

Once they've got their own government properly set up, I think we'll see the USA high-tailing it out of there as fast as they can possibly run while still trying to maintain some righteous dignity.

GWB won't be too keen to stay much longer, after all, the war is beginning to become unpopular, even among Republicans. That's not what he wants to see.

What worries me is if he's got yet another war planned. There's a lot of rhetoric about Iran having nukes now. It sounds like Bush is setting up his population to endorse yet another romp in the sand.

[Argus]

Now, if a nation has been 'freed' (such as Iraq) of a tyrant (such as Saddam Hussein), the job of 'freeing' has been overdone, to be sure. However, any further influence becomes, itself, an imposed 'tyranny of external will', and other nations have the moral right to 'once again free the oppressed' from influence that they did not seek nor desire.

You volunteering to go fight or will you cheer the gun fodder on from well to the rear?

All the yankee haters keep whining about getting the US out of Iraq, and I have NEVER heard a single one issue so much as a quibbling concern about what happens afterwards.

Most who are knowledgeable are convinced that the US pulling out of Iraq now would lead to civil war. Hundreds of thousands could die, maybe even millions, but the horde of ignorant picket sign wavers don't seem to care a whit about that in their frantic need to demonize the Americans - at literally any cost.

Well, any cost to other people, not themselves, of course.

[Argus]

Once they've got their own government properly set up, I think we'll see the USA high-tailing it out of there as fast as they can possibly run while still trying to maintain some righteous dignity.

GWB won't be too keen to stay much longer, after all, the war is beginning to become unpopular, even among Republicans. That's not what he wants to see.

I hope you're wrong. Bush doesn't have to worry about re-election and the stakes are fairly high here. If Iraq fails and dissolves into civil war, or reverts to another brutal, corrupt dictatorship then US hopes for a renaissance in the middle east will be dashed. US casualties are not that high, really. Consider that the US loses 2,000 people to murder every week within its own borders. We won't even get into such things as traffic fatalities.

Although the loses in Iraq are of enormous consequence to the people involved they are miniscule to a state the size of the US. And the hope of reforming the mideast by reforming Iraq was, I think, the driving force behind the Iraq war. If it collapses it will all have been for nothing. Worse than nothing, really, for it will have spawned deeper distrust and hatred for the US and the West and increased Islamic fanaticism and terrorism.

What worries me is if he's got yet another war planned. There's a lot of rhetoric about Iran having nukes now. It sounds like Bush is setting up his population to endorse yet another romp in the sand.

There is a lot of reason to be concerned about Iran. Any nation ruled by demented religious wackos is capable of anything. I would far rather see the US go into Iran than take the chance the mad mullahs might produce nukes from what is clearly a massive effort.

[Guest eureka]

You seem to overlook that it was the "picket wavers" who warned before the invasion that it would lead to the quagmire that it has become. It was they who warned that civil war was a very likely consequence.

They also warned of the true state - as is now becoming known - of the numbers of innocents murdered.

The number of American soldiers dead is now around 1200. What is not made public is that there are at least ten times that number maimes and disabled for life. There are many thousands more less severely wounded.

The human cost to America is greatly higher than is made known. This also was expected by the "picket wavers."

The "picket wavers saw all this and that it was for no legitimate purpose while all the armchair soldiers harumphed and puffed in favour of Bush and Brutality.

[caesar]

Most who are knowledgeable are convinced that the US pulling out of Iraq now would lead to civil war. Hundreds of thousands could die, maybe even millions, but the horde of ignorant picket sign wavers don't seem to care a whit about that in their frantic need to demonize the Americans - at literally any cost.

And just what do you think is happening even now with the Americans there. It is a mess. I don't necessarily promote the idea that the USA should get out of Iraq now. They should never have gone in. But now that they have and done such damage to the country"s infrastructure; they are responsible for repairing their damage.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Argus,

You volunteering to go fight or will you cheer the gun fodder on from well to the rear? 

All the yankee haters keep whining about getting the US out of Iraq, and I have NEVER heard a single one issue so much as a quibbling concern about what happens afterwards

If Civil War is such a bad thing, the USA should never have had one, for fear that someone (perhaps thousands) might get killed.

If the US does pull out of Iraq, and (as the right-wing fearmongers exaggeratedly extrapolate)millions get killed, I'd never find out because the headlines in the west would be about Janet Jackson's nipple exposure, rather than something trivial like mass deaths in a 'third world country'. Rwanda, anyone? The death toll from the genocide there was 800,000 in just over 100 days, yet it wasn't worth mention in western media until well after the fact. I strongly doubt hundreds of thousands, let alone millions, would die in Iraq.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear caesar,

But now that they have and done such damage to the country"s infrastructure; they are responsible for repairing their damage.

The US is only legally obligated to repair infrastructure (and keep a civilian death count) if they officially declared war, something they did not.

[Argus]

You seem to overlook that it was the "picket wavers" who warned before the invasion that it would lead to the quagmire that it has become. It was they who warned that civil war was a very likely consequence.

Civil war was inevitable for Iraq following Sadaam's ouster or death. It was the same situation as Yugoslavia, where Tito held the country together, crushing anyone who looked like he might arise as a powerful and capable ruler (and alternative), leaving no one behind to hold the place together after his death.

And few of the picket wavers spoke of quagmires. They were more concerned about "international law" whatever that is, and denouncing American imperalism, capitalism, militarism, and racism.

The number of American soldiers dead is now around 1200. What is not made public is that there are at least ten times that number maimes and disabled for life. There are many thousands more less severely wounded.

As I said, 1200 dead is one long weekend's worth of murders. Hardly debilitating to a state the size of the US.

The "picket wavers saw all this and that it was for no legitimate purpose while all the armchair soldiers harumphed and puffed in favour of Bush and Brutality.

The picket wavers, then as now, were intellectually lazy people who made no effort to posit a possible solution to the problems of middle east terrorism and the instability caused Sadaam's brtual government.

To be taken seriously you cannot simply argue that doing something is bad. You need to suggest a workable alternative. And the picket wavers never have and still don't.

[Argus]

Most who are knowledgeable are convinced that the US pulling out of Iraq now would lead to civil war. Hundreds of thousands could die, maybe even millions, but the horde of ignorant picket sign wavers don't seem to care a whit about that in their frantic need to demonize the Americans - at literally any cost.

And just what do you think is happening even now with the Americans there. It is a mess.

Instead of focussing on what the TV is showing you think of what it is not showing you. Yes, thinks are very messy - in certain areas. But in almost the entire south and north things are calm and rebuilding is well underway. The problem is largely in the Sunni triangle, due to the intransigance of local leaders and the continuing violence of foreign terrorists arriving for the fun and splendor of "jihad".

What seems likely to happen at this point is that a new government will be elected largely by Shiites and Kurds - Sunni leaders are telling their people to boycott the election. That new government, with the full support of Shiite religious leaders is going to start to have a more solidifying effect on the Iraqi military. At present, the Iraqis are not eager to fight for what they see as American control. That will change with a new government. The most powerful Iraqi leaders, including Grand Ayoutola Sistani has blessed the new Shiite political coallition which will probably take the most votes and assume power.

The Sunnis are going to get their asses kicked if they don't relent. It's as simple as that. The new Iraqi government, supported by Shiite religious leaders, is going to give short shrift to their complaints and to human rights. They're going to go into the Sunni communities and hammer anyone and everyone who dares to protest. You think Faluja was bad? Do a google on Hama Syria some time. That is unfortunately the way things work in the muslim world. It may lead to civil war, but it is a war the Sunnis have no hope of winning.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Argus,

posit a possible solution to the problems of middle east terrorism and the instability caused Sadaam's brtual government.

Actually, Saddam's regime did provide stability, just as your example of Josip Bronz. It wasn't a good place to live, but it was stable. As for terrorism, yes the 'picket wavers' have given solutions, but the right wing refuses to consider them. The US must move toward energy self-sufficiency, and away from supporting dictators (such as Saddam previously) to ensure that 'cheap energy' and goods at home.

[Argus]

Actually, Saddam's regime did provide stability, just as your example of Josip Bronz. It wasn't a good place to live, but it was stable.

The situation in Iraq was hardly stable, nor tolerable. To avoid massacres we had the "no fly zones" in the north and south. We had sanctions. We had the continuing threat of attacks against the Kuwaitis, the Saudis and the Israelis.

As for terrorism, yes the 'picket wavers' have given solutions, but the right wing refuses to consider them. The US must move toward energy self-sufficiency, and away from supporting dictators (such as Saddam previously) to ensure that 'cheap energy' and goods at home.

That is certainly a long-term solution. But I believe something in the shorter term was required.

[Guest eureka]

The "picket wavers" as you have termed people of conscience were not those in ofice to have a say in political solutions. Their intellectual sources - far more widespread than the international muggers - did propose solutions and have done so for many years. Unfortunately, solutions are not what the international muggers want. They want control and profit.

You have an odd idea of what peace is like if you think that resistance is only in the Sunni Triangle. It is going on throughout Iraq. The support of the Shiite clerics has been given as a conditional one only. The sipport is only for an early American withdrawal and we know that is not going to happen now.

Whether civil war in Iraq was inevitable at the ending of Saddam is not really certain: it was likely but given a large standing army loyal to Saddam, the succession may have been successful.

However, that is totally irrelevant. It would have been Iraq's civil war, not ours. We have no more justification for driving the country to civil war and economic destruction than had Bin Laden whose wishes for the United States were similar.

It is quite possible to argue that something is bad without, yourself, proposing a solution. The proposal of solutions for intergovernmental differences are for government that, presumably, has the requisite information to support proposals. It is clearly bad to decide that state murder and mayhem is the answer to a problem. It should only be necessary for citizens to say that and for their demand for government to obey law and find workable and peaceful solutions to be heard and obeyed.

That is the nature of citizen to government relations. The Rule of Law is doubly binding on government and its duty to take note of international law is not one that falls on citizens in the same way.

[Argus]

The "picket wavers" as you have termed people of conscience

I could have called them idiots. I was being polite.

were not those in ofice to have a say in political solutions. Their intellectual sources - far more widespread than the international muggers - did propose solutions and have done so for many years.

Such as what? I think the "solution" proposed prior to the war was to let Hussein alone to do whatever he wanted, oh, and to remove sanctions because it was impoverishing the people of Iraq. The "solutions" proposed were morally and intellectually bankrupt. Most of the idiots - er, picket wavers - were simply reacting in knee-jerk fashion against American militarism without the slightest care or concern for the well-being of the people of Iraq. As they continue to do.

It is quite possible to argue that something is bad without, yourself, proposing a solution.

No, not really. In the precence of a real problem which must be dealt with the person who has an idea which "might" work will be taken infinitely more seriously than the person who ridicules the idea but has none of his own to offer.

[PocketRocket]

Once they've got their own government properly set up, I think we'll see the USA high-tailing it out of there as fast as they can possibly run while still trying to maintain some righteous dignity.

GWB won't be too keen to stay much longer, after all, the war is beginning to become unpopular, even among Republicans. That's not what he wants to see.

I hope you're wrong. Bush doesn't have to worry about re-election and the stakes are fairly high here. If Iraq fails and dissolves into civil war, or reverts to another brutal, corrupt dictatorship then US hopes for a renaissance in the middle east will be dashed. US casualties are not that high, really. Consider that the US loses 2,000 people to murder every week within its own borders. We won't even get into such things as traffic fatalities.

Although the loses in Iraq are of enormous consequence to the people involved they are miniscule to a state the size of the US. And the hope of reforming the mideast by reforming Iraq was, I think, the driving force behind the Iraq war. If it collapses it will all have been for nothing. Worse than nothing, really, for it will have spawned deeper distrust and hatred for the US and the West and increased Islamic fanaticism and terrorism.

There is a lot of reason to be concerned about Iran. Any nation ruled by demented religious wackos is capable of anything. I would far rather see the US go into Iran than take the chance the mad mullahs might produce nukes from what is clearly a massive effort.

"Demented religious wackos"

I think this description could well be applied to Bush and his little band of cronies. The difference is that Bush's Boys' religion seems to be equal parts Christian fervor and Money Madness.

Bush's personal little Jihad will do little more than isolate and further enrage the Muslim fundamentalists, and give the extremists a larger pool of potential recruits to draw from.

This war, from day one, was based on lies and hypocrisy.

If it were otherwise, Bush's reasons for the war would not have changed on a regular basis. Like the kids who ate all the cookies, you tell one lie, and when that gets disproven, you tell another, and when that gets disproven......

Every time the current reason for the war is about to be shot down in flames, Bush's spin-meisters come up with another nice neat little package label for the war.

"War on Terrorism" "Operation Iraqi Freedom"

What about "We know for a fact that there are WMD's in Iraq. We know where they are being kept. We will go in and find them".

So far they've found about enough sarin to wipe out all the mosquito larvae in a backyard fishpond, and it's been speculated that this gas is leftovers from what the USA gave Saddam in the 80's.

No, Bush wanted to invade Iraq. He's wanted to do so for years.

All he needed was an excuse, and he even had to fabricate that.