The crux of the argument from Bush supporters on Iraq

No, because I don't believe what we did was the right thing....if we had kept up pressure on Iraq and kept it isolated...it would have collaped on itself...just like, regardless of the Reagan rhetoric...happened to the USSR.....

I disagree. Mr. Perle was being disingenuous. He ought to have said: "I think in this case international law stood in the way of implementing the PNAC agenda." Mr. Perle is a founding member of the Project for a New American Century, which has called for an invasion of Iraq and the establishment of military bases there since long before the Shrub entered the White House.

Seems he's getting his wish. What was that? 17 US bases and the largest US embassy in Baghdad? Doesn't sound like an occupation to me! Heck, I'm not that stupid!

I don't agree with Perle, no surprise. My argument is the same argument one might make against vigilante justice.

Hmmm - I think it actually meant: "In this case International Law stood in the way of us doing what we wanted to."

Which is often the way it is with law, eh? And kind of what it is about?

Because if law is anything good, (and I believe that, generally speaking it is - and that, in fact, for all its faults, that it is one of the highest goods there is) it is about assisting the unlikely ability of a large number of people - or countries - to co-exist, for the most part, in peace, order and some degree of safety - is it not?

This means a lot of restrictions on doing what we want to.

We sacrifice the freedom to do so for the greater good described above.

So - invading Iraq (which is, I presume, what Perle is discussing?).

Excuse used in an attempt to justify the desired invasion - pre-emptive invasion based on there being an imminent threat.

Hmmm - one would bear the burden, I would think, of overwhelming proof, in order to justify such a thing. It becomes clearer and clearer that such proof did not exist.

So - the undoubted good of protecting whoever was the putative subject of the imminent danger, did not occur. The undoubted bad of taking the action in terms of the fabric of international law DID, and does.

As for the pretty much unadvanced at the time good of ridding Iraq of the self-same murderous dictator that the USA had previously supported and armed, as he merrily slaughtered Iraqis, Kurdish Iraqis and Iranians (these last the presumed target - the others, one assumes, unfortunate collateral damage), well, leaving aside the breath-taking hypocrisy, and addressing the meat of the post hoc inserted cause, this is a harder beast to address.

After all, presumably, we agree that the world would be better off without murderous dictators?

Leaving aside the notion that the super powers' not supporting them in seizing, maintaining and defending power, for reasons of perceived real politik advantages, in the first place, would be a helpful first step, we come to a discussion about whether having a powerful nation/a number of powerful nations operating a global police/pest removal service would be a good.

And, now I have to go to work, but I will blather more again later.

Thanks dlowan, and I corrected my first post, making sure to let everybody know that he was, in fact, speaking about the invasion of Iraq.

A lot of very interesting points from everyone so far. Thanks.

Setanta (or anyone who wants to field this one),

Do you know if Richard Perle still connected to the Bush administration in some way? I know he resigned from his position, but has he still got the ear of anyone with serious power? I think he is a nutball, and I would hate to see him having anything to do with how we deal with the world.

Vigilantes consider their ILLEGAL action "moral".

They THINK that what they do is an appeal to lawfulness, when in fact it is an exercise in ANARCHY.

Egg Zactly.

When would it not be vigilanteism?

This is the crux of what might have been the "rid us of the evil dictator" argument, were it not so hypocritical, and had it been seriously advanced other than as a post hoc excuse.

Re: The crux of the argument from Bush supporters on Iraq


First of all, I don't concede that the invasion of Iraq was in violation of International Law.

Secondly, I believe that so-called International Law is about as dispositive a body of "law" as the rules for professional wrestling.

Finally, if the invasion was, technically, in violation of International Law, then I agree with Perle.

The charge that the invasion was an act of vigilantism is invalid for a two primary reasons:

1) There is a difference between a vigilante who assumes the authority of the Law in an effort to right a wrong or prevent further or future wrong, and someone who acts in self-defense.

2) vigilantism presupposes that there is an existing authority of law that at least has the capability of of enforcing the law. There is no such authority that will or can enforce International law when it comes to anything other than administrative violations.

Dallas is well-known historically as the locale of much vigilantism.

1963, for example.

A posting utterly without merit or substance.

A posting failing at the feeble attempt to be smarmy.

Lol - well, only if you do not understand smarmy!

" smarmy [smarm·y || 'sm?rm? /'sm??-]

adj. excessively ingratiating, unctuous; sleek and smooth "


Whatever the aforementioned post may have succeeded at, or not, it signally failed to be smarmy!

It was a statement of FACT.

Spin it whichever way you will... apparently that's more important than fact to SOME people.

dlowan understands the primary explanation for the American position; it was all money and power, nothing else.

AKA Oil, OIL, and a base of operations for future excursions into Iran, etc.

It appears no amount of fact or logic will convince a knee-jerk conservative that this action is one of the dumbest...most counterproductive moves the United States has ever made.

Its a shame that's the way things are..but that is the way things are.

The only good point is that the number of knee-jerk conservatives is relatively small when the entire electorate is considered. And in my opinion, there simply are not enough stupid, naive, or senselessly scare shytless people in America to fill out their ranks and keep this incredibly incompetent president...and his incredibly incompetent adminsistration in office.

Come January 20th...John Kerry will be our president...and we will be through with this trash forever.

Frank, I like your confidence about the result of this election. I wish I had the same confidence, but when I see that almost half of Americans still think Saddam had something to do with 9-11, it doesn't give me any confidence in the American electorate.

Occupation, schmoccupation. Iraq is now America's new military base in the Middle East.