Invading Iraq is completly justified using this criteria:

dafdaf,

World peace is a criteria, it was extremely objective of you to acknowledge that that criteria can both support the war and oppose it.

dlowan,

Your criteria is might is right. The part about making an example falls under that criteria.

steissd,

I know this is a futile request but can you take your evaluations on criteria and the usuall dogma elsewhere? Whether or not America abuses its military power is not a criteria.

Walter,

America's adeptness at dimplomacy is also not criteria and is the same ole criticisms as always. Again, maybe a futile request, but aren't there enough topics for that already?

Tex-Star,

Of course it's not. But you know that. You did not reference any criteria. Just circumstances that when applied to a criteria would suggest a course of action.


dafdaf,

Here's another example of criteria (I'll try to make one for Tex-Star's line of thinking):

What benefits America benefits Americans and some people have determined that the dealings with Iraq were not beneficial to America.

Under the criteria of what's best for America, it can be argued that the war is justified under that criteria.

Craven wrote: "dlowan,
Your criteria is might is right. The part about making an example falls under that criteria. "

Wrong, I think.

My criteria for invading SOMEONE is might is right.

My criteria for choosing IRAQ is utilarianism - or, at least, causing harm to minimum number of people, which is implied.

Re: Invading Iraq is completly justified using this criteria

Anybody can come up with any criteria to justify the war that they want. It's irrelevent. The important question is whether that criteria is a good thing for the world. As a general rule, unilateralism is a bad thing. I would be interested in seing somebody lay out a criteria that justifies invading iraq and at the same time could be used universally and judged objectivly without increasing conflict in the world.

It may be irrelevant to you but my motive is to get people to think about what criteria they base thier judgements on. I am not trying to have a discussion where the war is taken on it's merits and the participants pound each other's heads.

There are plenty of those topics around.

From my vantage point, PDid expressed it best. Without the inclusion of ethics and morality, all other justifications for this war falls on it's face. c.i.

Criteria ...

Would the military removal of the Ba'athist Regime serve the interest of regional stability

Could the military removal of the Ba'athist Regime be accomplished at statistically insignificant damage to civilian well-being and infrastrucure, particularly in the absence of humanitarian disaster or ecological calamity

Would The Iraqi People benefit significantly if relieved of a corrupt, tyrannical dictator and his socio-political apparatus

Would the strategic presence of a US Force-in-Being provide flexibility to US response to geopolitical developments particularly as relating to The War On Terrorism

Would the danger of technologic or material transfer of WMD to both state-sponsored and stateless terrorist entities be lessened materially

Does The US have the diplomatic capital, the political resolve, and the physical means to prosecute such an undertaking absent explicit UN cooperation

Would the conclusive demonstration of US military capability serve as notice to other rougue states and stateless terrorist entities

Would the removeal of the Ba'athist Regime bring about a final resolution to matters pending from the 1991 Ceasefire


There are lots more I can think of, but there's a list of criteria. Some will argue the criteria listed above have been met ... others will dispute that.

And I contest that every single one of them are the circumstantial criteria I'd like to avoid.

There is criteria beneath that criteria and that is what I am after.

I guess I'm having a senior moment here, CdK ... I can't quite figure out what you're driving at, apparently.

no circmstantial criteria = criteria that is not relevant to a certain circumstance (i.e. this war)

To figure it out ask yourself how you cpuld apply that criteria to a different decision (e.g another war).

the justification i'd like to offer is, this is the way the world works.

something to add, personally i am for the US toppling the regime because in the long run, it benefits the world as a whole. my detailed viewpoint on this is posted in the philosophy debate section. the subject of that thread is "liberation of countries with repressive regime".

eeek!

come on, man. i do see some differences in these two rabits. mine smokes 555 while yours, i am sure, smokes KENT, doesn't it?

Soooooooooooo no comment! But Bunny NEVER inhales - is that a clue?

Er..... I am so not a man....

eh, sorry this mistake does not carry any sense of sex discrimination. i myself is a diehard feminist, although i am a male. i see myself as a pioneer of male feminism

uh-oh......this could get really bad...LOL! we must debate the point about whether males can be feminists in a patriarchy sometime! I am a pussy-cat on such matters, though....

I think I like aceploy !

grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr......

thanks, Gautam