humanities.philosophy.objectivism

On Feb 23, 12:36 pm, Gordon Sollars wrote:
> In article <1b479fe0-fd2b-4e71-aa96-44656fd3c353
> @s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, cbel...@bellsouth.net says...
>
> > On Feb 18, 9:25 am, Gordon Sollars wrote:
> > > In article >
> > > Neither of
> > > these interpretations support the invasion of Iraq.  
>
> > Yes, they do,
>
> No they don't.

My premises are justifications -- which you may not like -- but they
*are* justifications. You are not entitled to merely state that they
are not justifications (as they *are* justifications). You must
elucidate and argue on how you do not think they are justifications
not to your liking. Are you following this, or is it too deep for
you?


>
> > plus Iraq was a criminal state at war with the US since
> > 1998.  There was already a reason to attack, as Clinton did in 1998,
> > accomplishing nothing.
>
> The issue isn't whether we had or needed an excuse to attack,

Yes, it is. It is the premise behind one of my justifications for the
war. Let me repeat: you must elucidate on how you do not think it is
*not* a just reason, and not . . .

> but rather
> whether there is a cogent argument that it was a good idea from some
> perspective,

Yes, from the prespective of George W. Bush and the majority of
Congress [and Bill Clinton and the majority of Congress in 1998] and
the majority of the people at the time of commencement. That is moot
now.


> which, for this discussion, is an egoistic one.


My ego desires the destruction of those enemies who threaten to
destroy my life or fulfillment of my life. Duh!

> Let me
> repeat that the gap between what we have a right to do and what is
> correct to do is supposed to be bridged by good judgment.

No, it is isn't. What I have is the legal right to do is to urge my
President and my Congress to carry out my desire in the afore
mentioned destruction of my enemies. It is both my legal and moral
right. There is no "gap". The only "gap" would be produced by a
political system that failed to fight my enemies (hypothetically under
the present Congress and a President Obama).

>
> > > First, Iraq had no
> > > especially high concentration of jihadists on 9/11,
>
> > There was an al-Qaeda training camp,
>
> The camp was in northern Iraq, where Saddam's control no longer extended
> due to actions primarily by the U.S. government.

Doesn't matter. The camp was in Iraq, al least following on the War
in Afghanistan, and the one purpose was to pursue and destroy the
enemy to whereever they went. The argument that the War itself
produced encampment of al-Qaeda in Iraq is wrong.


>
> > and AL-Qaeda was extremely well-
> > prepared to start an "insurgency" immediately after  Saddam's fall.
>
> All the more reason not to ensure Saddam's fall at that time.

No, it is an indication that the enemy had fairly free passage in and
out of Iraq.


>  But,
> again, nothing in what you have said marks Iraq a having a particularly
> high concentration of jihadists before the U.S.-led invasion.  We seem
> to have brought out the "best" in them after our arrival, however.    

The surprise was just how they were good in numbers, supplies, money
*before* we arrived. The presumption that Hussein knew nothing about
any of that is the notion that is far-fetched. The coordination
between pro-Hussein Sunnis and al-Qaeda was almost instant --
surprising for two supposedly antagonistic groups

>
> > > and Saddam had the
> > > radicals under his boot at no cost to us.  
>
> > "Under his boot" could also mean immediately available for him as he
> > pleased.
>
> Oh, right, they would certainly have been willing to lick that boot
> immediately as it was removed!  

It is more plausible that at some point after 9/11 and before the
invasion Hussein measured his options of alliance with al-Qaeda, but
not with OBL directly. As I said the coordination of operations
between the anti-American, pro-Hussein Sunnis and al-Qaeda was too
good to have been ad-hoc from the first day of invasion.


> You will apparently believe any scenario
> in which any Muslims will drop all differences and unite against the
> U.S.  I am wondering, for instance, if you have heard of the terms
> "Shia" and "Sunni"?  Just curious.

Yes, and the fact that Hussein was hardly going to ally with himself
with Shia but *could* ally with Sunni al-Qaeda is plausible, and the
fact that it was a known strategy of al-Qaeda to attack Shiite
mosques, etc.


>
> > > Second, we could have better
> > > lured jihadists from around the world to Afghanistan.
>
> > No,  Afghanistan had to be secured as was not done after the Soviets
> > were forced out.
>
> Really?  So it was better to "secure" Afghanistan rather than lure
> jihadists there!  I take it your view is that it is easier for us to
> kill them in Iraq?  

The alliance with the Northern Alliance, and then later with other
Afghani elements could hardly include the option of continuing their
country as a battleground. Iraq, on the other, was a perfect country
for that option, for unlike Afghanistan, it is Arab and holy both to
Shia and Sunni.