Facebook debate on Iraq

E-mail Comment Del.icio.us Digg Reddit Technorati Furl

Dec 15, 2008 Oppression, Orient, Past is prologue, Politics and Poker, Stragety

Ron Dean Esmay makes the one point about Iraq, the presidency and GWB and history that everyone’s all too willing to forget http://bit.ly/9R2A.via Twitter – 2:01pm

– 14 Comments

Brian Gocial at 3:12pm December 14

I certainly hope you’re right that in the long-term invading Iraq will turn out to have good consequences. But I think the only way “history will not be kind to many of the so-called ‘progressives’” is if the United States Constitution is no longer the governing law of our country.

Judith Weiss at 3:27pm December 14

The people most likely to play games with the Constitution are Dems. For example, Obama wants to use the Supreme Court to redistribute income, which is not its job.

Timbo Jones at 4:29pm December 14

True, the Supreme Court is not supposed to do such things…which is why I guess the Bush administration doesn’t bother with such things when conducting unconstitutional acts.

Rhoads Hollowell at 4:46pm December 14

I am sorry, Ron, but the Project For a New American Century was an evil group from the start, and the end does not justify the means, even in this case.

Ron Coleman at 5:01pm December 14

Brian, you’re certainly entitled to your opinion on that matter!

Which were the objectionable means you have in mind, Rhoads? Humor me.

Rhoads Hollowell at 5:07pm December 14

attacking a sovereign country just because you think it would be a good idea, and then making up the justification so you could do so.

Ron Coleman at 5:15pm December 14

Well, I suppose if I accept all your false premises as true, I’d agree with you. Yeah, definitely evil.

Rhoads Hollowell at 5:17pm December 14

And if you believed in the concept of the rule of law, you would accept my premises as true. There was only one reason that the war in Iraq could ever have been judged as legal: that we did indeed find WMD. We did not. Therefore it was not legal under international law. My source for this is Dean Slaughter of the WWS, a source I think is reliable.

Ron Coleman at 5:34pm December 14

I must admit this is the first time I ever heard it suggested that legality of an act is to be determined based on ex post evaluation of whether certain facts assumed to be true ex ante are in fact true, regardless of what a reasonable person would have believed ex ante.

I knew it that this was the basis — along with taking causalities — for Democrats to decide whether or not they supported the war when it was going badly, but not whether it was legal in the first place.

There is a vast degree of opinion regarding the war’s legality:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_the_Iraq_War

As a general rule almost every opinion on the matter promulgated by an institution, person or other entity came to a conclusion that could be predicted based on that source’s political inclinations regarding the matter.

That doesn’t mean you’re wrong or that it doesn’t matter. It means the question is more complex than you suggest.

Brian Gocial at 6:55pm December 14

Preemptive war, manipulating intelligence, illegal wiretapping, torture, rendition, signing statements, executive secrecy, indefinite imprisonment w/o due process … there is nothing complex about the unconstitutionality of these “means.”

Stephen Ban at 9:59pm December 14

and yet, no further terrorist acts on US soil, and ample evidence that many have been thwarted. It’s a fascinating choice… “unlawful” (your words) and alive vs. self-righteous and dead… complex world out there, isn’t it?

Ron Coleman at 10:50pm December 14

Not only that, Stephen. “International law” is pretty much of interest to those on the outside looking in. Every single country in a position to project power on any level ignores international law when it is in its interest do so, including all the weak sisters of Western Europe. And not only decades ago, but whenever it works for tghem.

Brian, you are mistaking political sloganeering for reality.

Brian Gocial at 8:33am December 15

Ron,

I only wish these serious issues were political sloganeering rather than reality …

But back to the point of your original post, history will be the judge of who is correct. Until then, we’ll each live in the reality of our own choosing.

Ron Coleman at 12:59pm December 15

Well, mentally anyway. Reality chooses us!

–

Pretty good stuff, and lots of anger still boiling. Still, it seems that great minds think alike:

History will one day credit Bush with patience, multilateralism and conviction. But right now, history is still being made. And there is a war to be continued and to be won.

Can you guess who said it?

This entry was posted on Monday, December 15th, 2008 at 2:25 pm and is filed under Oppression, Orient, Past is prologue, Politics and Poker, Stragety. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

One Response to “Facebook debate on Iraq”

YM Says:

December 16th, 2008 at 6:46 pm
Iraq, as part of the ceasefire agreement that ended the first Gulf War, agreed to a UN supervised disarmament. They then didn’t keep their end of the agreement. Therefore (one of) the legal justifications for the Iraq war of 2003. It was really just the end of the cease fire that ended the first gulf war.