Fundamentalism (General)

by Carl, Saturday, November 08, 2008, 14:49 (5655 days ago) @ Walter

Walter: "... you just don't seem to be concerned about the ethical implicatons of this war. 
Incontrovertable facts: the pretext on which the US went in was that Saddam had WMDs. Al-Quaeda links were thrown in as a sweetener. The UN was opposed to the invasion. International lawyers said it was illegal. Bush and his poodle Blair took no notice and went in all the same. As a result, there are millions of people dead, injured, homeless etc. There were no WMDs. Saddam had no link with Al-Quaeda."
The UN did approve the invasion. That is the mandate that is going to expire at the end of this year. Perhaps I need to make it clear to Walter that I agree the Iraq invasion was a complete disaster, and that if there was total deception on Bush's part he should be charged with international crimes (and it would have been unethical). I suppose the legal term would be "malice aforethought". If it was just incompetence, that probably isn't criminal.
Walter seems to forget that the Iraqis contributed to the millions dead, injured, homeless. It was the perversity of the Sunni insurgents and the Shia militia that caused all the blood and death, not the U.S. It was their suicide bomber that blew up the crowd of children gathered around the U.S. soldier passing out candy. The U.S. was guilty of incompetence and naiveté, but it was the ruthless bloodthirsty ferocity of the Arab insurgency that killed the innocents.
Walter, it is dishonest to judge Bush and Blair with 20/20 hindsight. You must judge based on the known facts and honest misjudgments on the eve of invasion. But deliberate deception on the core reasons for invasion at that point would be criminal. I suspect your reasoning process is being overridden by your horror at the outcome (which I share). There probably is no argument which will dissuade you.