MonteZuma

My essay on the matter: Yes. Whether something can be right and bad or wrong and good is interesting from a philosophical perspective. The direction that this kind of debate takes depends very much on your definitions. Perhaps 'good and bad' are based on personal perspectives and 'right and wrong' refer to society as a whole? Or maybe it is sometimes based on timeframes? Short term 'good' and long term 'right'?. Or maybe the two really are inseperable? Dunno. If there is no agreement on definitions we could argue about this indefinitely. Debate about right and wrong / good and bad is important in a democracy. People redefine what is right and good all the time - and so they should. If we didn't change our minds about what is right and wrong we would still be burning 'witches' at the stake, enslaving Africans and appeasing the nazi party (for example). There certainly is not only one "right way". Sometimes decision-makers (including governments) need to make decisions without perfect information. I don't think that every human has a knowledge of right and wrong. I still don't know if it was right to invade Iraq. In business, there are strategies for dealing with this kind of uncertainty. One strategy is adaptive management. The term isn't often used by politicians in relation to social and military matters because it implies that governments (and military) don't have perfect information and that their decisions might eventually be regarded as 'wrong'. No government wants to admit that they don't know what to do. The world would be a better place if politicians were able to admit that they didnt know what to do and that their decision was a management 'experiment'. But people aren't ready for this kind of honesty from governments yet. People mistakenly think that if governments don't have perfect information, or the knowledge and wisdom to act on information, then they have failed in their duty. This isn't always the case. I would also argue that there is no absolute 'truth'. Claiming that there is an absolute truth is unhealthy. We need to be tolerant of other peoples beliefs and value systems. What is true to one person or group is not always true to another. Is this topic boring? Is an air temperature of 17degC warm or cool? Should you postpone your barbeque if the probability of rain is 70%? Should we postpone our invasion of Iraq until after the weapons inspectors say thay are done?The "answer" to many questions depends on the context. Even when the same information is available to all affected parties, there is still no absolute truth. A$0.02

The day that we don't fear nuclear catastrophe or war will be the day that someone is dumb enough to do something stupid and obliterate civilisation.

Bases are NOT only located in strategic locations for the countries that need them. I can think of half a dozen bases just off the top of my head that are on foreign soil for nothing else but US self-interest. Any support given to other countries by these facilities is simply a co-benefit. You need to look up neo-colonialism in a dictionary.

Clearly you don't. Otherwise the US wouldn't have so many military bases and diplomatic missions in every corner of the world. And the US wouldn't need to involve themselves in so many minor and major international conflicts. In order to support its lifestyle and values, the US is very dependent on the rest of the world. You reject the concept of US neocolonialism? LOL.

Being inconsequential is good.

I thought geeks read broadsheets? There may be hope for you yet.

Hooray, can we go to Disney now? aah yea, i'm from Quebec...no US protection now...we're such losers... LOL. If Nintendo wasn't cut off from the outside world, he'd probably laugh at this.

I think that Iraq has sent a message to rogue nations that being "rogueish" is not acceptable. This might be a good thing (eg Libya and maybe Iran and Nth Korea). But I think it could probably have been handled better/differently. Consensually through the UN would be my preferred option for managing rogue nations. But I concede that this method is somewhat flawed. The navel blockade might be another way. Better intelligence gathering? Sanctions? Travel restrictions? Better passport/immigration technology? Dunno. I find it hard to believe that such a blunt instrument as a full blown invasion is the best way to send a message to abberant(sp?) nations. But anyway...this is supposed to be a war on terror. What has the Iraq invasion done to curb terrorism? I think the threat from terrorism is no less now (and may in fact be worse) than it was before Iraq was invaded. Afghanistan on the other hand probably achieved a lot - by messing with Al Qaeda.

Yes. We are talking about a s-*BAD WORD*- so deadly, that when it exploded, it caused two people to suffer nausea and blurred vision for a few hours. That certainly is a WMD! Thank heavens US troops found it before it was used to terrorise the western world! I'm sure the families of the 10,000 Iraqis and 500 Americans who have died would agree that this useless s-*BAD WORD*- justifies their loss.

In any case, the s-*BAD WORD*- was found to pre-date the first gulf war. heh.

Bacchus, Web-surfing and visiting ssforum.com when you are at a bar is so wrong.

Where is the evidence of this? Saddam is gone, Americans sit in his offices, and nobody has found any evidence of Iraq being involved in any existing or proposed terrorist actions. I doubt that the threat to his own citizens was so dire that it was worth accidentally killing 10,000 innocents in order to remove him from power. Get a grip.

Fact is, if Bush listened to Blix and most of the Europeans, hundreds of Americans and thousands if Iraqis would still be alive, and so would the guy who was beheaded. Was the war worth it? What are we being protected from?

For there to be true justice, there must be equal standards of accountability for both Iraqis and Americans. Do you think an Iraqi that tortured an American would get a demotion, a discharge and 12 months incarceration(sp?) in a US prison? Would they even get a trial?

The CIA planted me to correct forum spelling. occurred* BTW, montezuma, please get rid of that ugly avatar and get a smaller banner so that I can read your posts 50%, You'll make someone a nice secretary. Who knows, maybe I'll let you work for me some day? Do you have nice legs? As for the avatar/banner. Ummmm. No. My advice: My Controls-->Options-->Board Settings-->Do you wish to view members avatars when reading topics?-->Select "NO" My Controls-->Options-->Board Settings-->Do you wish to view members signatures when reading topics?-->Select "NO"

I wouldn't be surprised if the sarin gas was staged. We'll probably find out soon that it was a Mr Gaspo helium balloon cylinder that went off in a party store. The woman who was 'exposed' to the gas was blowing up Thomas the Tank Engine balloons for a kids party when the accident occured.

With reference to Iraq (as opposed to the 'war on terror') Iraq isn't exactly like Vietnam, but there are obvious comparisons: Stalemate in the UN security council Undeclared status of the 'war' Guerilla(sp?) tactics Widespread opposition to the war "at home" and abroad Difficulty identifying friend from foe Clash of ideology The absence of any workable exit strategy Embedded journalists and iconic pictures Violation of human rights I suppose many of these conditions occur in most conflicts, but the scale and intensity of each is very reminiscent of Vietnam imo.

Yeah. The security council needs a revamp. I don't know what kind of system should replace it though?

There is no 'moral' authority in that statement. Morality is about goodness and badness. Not fitness. 'Survival of the fittest' is an amoral concept. Bah. The invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with brains (in so far as strategy is concerned). Solving the imaginary 'crisis' in Iraq without using brute force would have been the smart thing to do. International Law will never be the only thing holding a nation together. But in what way does international law 'fail in several portions if the "social contract"'? Social Contract theory says we give up injustice and practice justice. International Law is one way of codifying a social contract. In any case, social contract theory is just that. A theory. Not a truth. Whenever Bush made a speech and spoke in the US he was speaking to the world. And whenever he spoke at the UN he was speaking to his own citizens. There was no distinction. The UN doesn't 'attack'. They are totally geared towards defense. As time goes by, I am more and more certain that the UN is doing exactly the right thing in relation to Iraq. ...And they all lived happily ever after. Not. Could it be that the motivation for regime change in Iraq was a combination of 'all of the above'. And could it be that the decision to invade Iraq was hot-headed and misconcieved? It strikes me that you are re-writing history. The motivation and justification that was presented to me and to most people in the rest of the world who were asked, through there political leaders, to contribute to this invasion were to get rid of a rogue leader with WMDs who was a threat to world peace - mainly because of his abundant WMDs and his willingness to use them. The problem is he didn't have any and he wasnt a threat. We were either lied to, or we went along with advice from inept intelligence agencies. We can philosophise all we want, but it is as simple as that.

The US and the coalition didn't exactly "save succeeding generations from the scourge of war" when they invaded Iraq. They did the opposite. Sometimes war is unavoidable. In the case of Iraq, it was not. If the UN has failed in its charter, I think it has more to do with lack of will to 2on the part of member nations than it does on the part of the concept and ins!@#$%^&*ution of the UN itself. You can't compare Iraq to post-war Europe. If the Iraqis were as submissive as the people in the Axis powers after WW2 then Iraq would be functioning better than ever in just a few years time. Iraqis may well be free of a cruel dictator, but they are hardly 'liberated'.

(1) Indeed. (2) Two wrongs don't make a right. Punish the guilty on both sides. (3) Those pictures haven't been authenticated yet. But being peed on in a fraternity initiation isn't quite the same as being peed on by folks from another country who captured you in your own country at gunpoint, speak another language and point a machine gun at your head. That is a kind of fear you and I will hopefully never experience. If you hold your military up as being squeekly clean, professional and brave, and present the enemy as being vile, das-*BAD WORD*-ly and cowardly - you really have set yourself up for a fall when this kind of thing happens Maybe its time to acknowledge that it isn't as simple as the Iraqis wear the black hats and the US wears the white hats. Maybe there are shades of grey on both sides. Remember the US woman who was captured (rescued more like) by the Iraqis early in the invasion? Maybe some of the white hats belong on the enemy's head, and some of the black ones on ours? As for race wars? Sounds worthy of a new thread. I thought race was an outdated concept?

People who support military intervention in Iraq often point to the failure of the UN as justification. Some people actually still think that the UN failed. But the absence of any WMDs and any organised military defense shows that the UN, largely through the influence of the US, but also other nations including and excluding coalition States, and through weapons inspectors, diplomacy, etc, actually did neutralise the threat. The UN worked. The US (ie the coalition) has gotten rid of Saddam - a worthy achievement - but they are now left with the power vacuum that earlier US governments were always afraid of. The precise reason Bush Snr and Clinton didn't want to get bogged down in this crap. I find it astounding that Bush and his supporters have the gall to spin this into a great victory for peace in Iraq and rest of the world. So far it looks like a stunning failure to me.

Perhaps. But I suspect that these abuses are just acts perpertrated by people under extreme pressure who had been desensitised by their training and their war experience and had forgotten that the enemy was just as human (or inhuman) as they are. Basically...They lost it. But just as anyone who is under stress and loses it in the civilian world is punished, so should these people. The system (and people) that allowed this to happen should also be scrutinised. Setting all that aside...I can't believe that they were dumb enough to take photos.

Well...Apparently some senior officers and maybe some people very high up the chain of command knew about these crimes. It isn't really surprising that they tried to cover them up. This case should go to the International War Crimes Tribunal or some other respected International body so that there can be no doubt that the matter was investigated thoroughly and without bias.

Death and injury is unavoidable. The invasion of Iraq was avoidable. The invasion hasn't stabilised the Middle East or anywhere else.