for those who think unnecessary wars are a good idea, as you guys over there generally seem to believe.

BTW, I'm Australian, and only 50% (to my shock and horror) of Australians supported the liberation of Iraq. The other 50% are apparently closet sociopaths who aren't even moved by the thought of men having their tongues cut out for exercising their freedom of speech. Or girls being abducted and raped by Uday. Australia is now a scary country to live in.

There's a reason why intent is important, which you happily ignore because you want to reach a certain conclusion.

By analogy, you're now proposing that murdering someone and killing someone accidently are the same thing, because intent doesn't matter.

Or, if I'm a serial killer and I happen to kill a family planning to commit a terrorist act, that I committed a laudable act. This is of course ridiculous. Intent matters.

The sooner you accept you've barely scratched the surface on this subject and therefore have no reason to take a position one way or the other the better for everyone involved in this thread.

No, it's not whataboutery. It's the fact that Saddam was a criminal who ordered the rape and mutilation of innocent Iraqis, and by any sane philosophical position should have been brought to justice. The appropriate tool to bring him to justice was a war of liberation, which is exactly what Bush did and what you should have supported.

You should not have supported the alternative of allowing a criminal to continue committing crimes, and trying to stop the police from arresting him.

It's a very simple concept. — Paul Edwards

Oh, the attractiveness of being judge, jury and executioner of others, as long as the same doesn't apply to them, is very simple, I agree.

Again, though, this isn't philosophy. It's just right-wing propaganda.

Oh, the attractiveness of being judge, jury and executioner of others, as long as the same doesn't apply to them, is very simple, I agree.

And that description is best suited to Saddam. Which you happily ignore, and even go so far as standing in the way of those who would put an end to his criminality.

And that description is best suited to Saddam. Which you happily ignore, and even go so far as standing in the way of those who would put an end to his criminality. — Paul Edwards

It's equally simple to divide the world into pro-our-war-crimes or pro-his-war-crimes. Again, propaganda, not philosophy.

By analogy, you're now proposing that murdering someone and killing someone accidently are the same thing, because intent doesn't matter.

No, that is not my position.

Or, if I'm a serial killer and I happen to kill a family planning to commit a terrorist act, that I committed a laudable act.

If I knew a family was about to commit a terrorist act, and I saw a serial killer enter their house, indeed, I would not stand in the way. If there were no repercussions for killing the family, I would kill them myself. Especially if the terrorist act was something like 9/11 with people jumping from skyscrapers. When I saw video of people jumping from skyscrapers, I just hoped they knew that they would be avenged, and set about planning vengeance myself. Cleaning up the Middle East is part of that plan.

Thanks for creating a philosophical argument.

It's equally simple to divide the world into pro-our-war-crimes or pro-his-war-crimes.

I'm not pro-US-war crimes. Nor is the American government or the American people. If an American commits a war crime, or any crime for that matter, they are charged and jailed (and I support that). Under Saddam's regime, it was a criminal in charge of the government. The US et al thankfully rectified that horror.

Under Saddam's regime, it was a criminal in charge of the government. — Paul Edwards

What the Iraq war taught us is that lots of folks are simply never going to get this. Until the goons knock on their door.

I'm not pro-US-war crimes. Nor is the American government or the American people. If an American commits a war crime, or any crime for that matter, they are charged and jailed (and I support that). — Paul Edwards

And yet why do I get the impression that your answer to the statement that the Iraq war was most definitely a war crime will be that no one was charged...?

the Iraq war was most definitely a war crime will be that no one was charged...?

The Iraq was most definitely NOT a war crime. If you believe there is a law that protects Saddam's "right" to rape and mutilate, you have a duty to ignore that "law" and then do your best to CHANGE that "law".

What the Iraq war taught us is that lots of folks are simply never going to get this.

I am curious at what mental blocks exist that prevent people from understanding that criminals need to be brought to justice, and whether there is a combination of words that can persuade them of this. Or whether it really does require goons knocking on their door before they return to reality.

Are you just here to bitch about Muslims? Cause we will eggboy you.

↪Benkei

By analogy, you're now proposing that murdering someone and killing someone accidently are the same thing, because intent doesn't matter.

No, that is not my position. — Paul Edwards

I've been trying to reconcile this with the intent of the Iraq war. If Bush's intent was to see lots of dead Arab Muslims, that would have been wrong. But since the *actual order* given to his troops was "liberate Iraq", then it was the right thing to do.

And certainly no-one should have been standing in the way of the order "liberate Iraq".

I'm not sure if this correctly addresses the analogy. Maybe someone else can help isolate and resolve the philosophical argument here.

Are you just here to bitch about Muslims?

No. There are Muslims on both sides of the war. 87% of Afghans supported non-Muslim US over their local Muslim dictator. These people are staunch allies.

On 9/11 America was attacked by:
1. Religious bigots
2. Racists

And those exist in every country and every religion. Responding to 9/11 ultimately involves cleaning up America itself. But first things first. Let's get the enemy governments defeated.

Ok good.

The Iraq was most definitely NOT a war crime. If you believe there is a law that protects Saddam's "right" to rape and mutilate, you have a duty to ignore that "law" and then do your best to CHANGE that "law". — Paul Edwards

You have a very peculiar idea of what constitutes a war crime. Usually you have to consider the actions of the culprit, not just the target. Lying to your people in order to justify killing tens of thousands of innocent people in turn to break a country we were at peace with's resolve (the states aim of S&A) on the grounds that, in Paul Wolfowitz's words, "it is swimming in a sea of oil" is not improved by the country's dictator being a criminal. Few people mourn Saddam; we can all agree the world is better off without him. But moral people do not use one person's evil to justify their own. Right-wing propagandists do.

I suppose the question all debaters of any flavor need to ask themselves this Hallow's Eve is: "how can one be certain the utopia one seeks isn't actually a dystopia of the worst kind?"

Now if you'll excuse me I have to send my young children to stranger's houses unsupervised in sparkly clothes to consume items of unknown origin. All on a night associated with heavy (oc)cult activity. Seems legit. I mean it's no crawling around in the woods with the subconscious hope of running into a fully grown man dressed in a bunny costume who beckons you to follow him somewhere but whatever. Aren't our holidays great?

Few people mourn Saddam; we can all agree the world is better off without him.

Surely this is the basis for a meeting of the minds?

Instead of sitting back and expecting Bush to articulate a perfect reason for liberating Iraq, why weren't you actively stating the case for liberating Iraq yourself? Then, when Bush came along, you could have said "well that's nuts, but it fits into my objective anyway, so go right ahead".

The war crime in my opinion is to stand in the way of the police as they try to bring the criminal Saddam to justice. And as I said, you should have been part of the police yourself.

Instead of sitting back and expecting Bush to articulate a perfect reason for liberating Iraq, why weren't you actively stating the case for liberating Iraq yourself? Then, when Bush came along, you could have said "well that's nuts, but it fits into my objective anyway, so go right ahead". — Paul Edwards

Because I'm not a psychopath.

The war crime in my opinion is to stand in the way of the police as they try to bring the criminal Saddam to justice. And as I said, you should have been part of the police yourself. — Paul Edwards

Right, my options are: become an Iraqi citizen, train as a police officer, and single-handedly arrest the dictator of my new country, or support war crimes against said country. Utterly ridiculous.

I suppose the question all debaters of any flavor need to ask themselves this Hallow's Eve is: "how can one be certain the utopia one seeks isn't actually a dystopia of the worst kind?" — Outlander

This is actually a formula for doing nothing, because you can never be certain of anything. If you see a woman being raped in your neighborhood, maybe it is just an optical illusion, so there's no need to call the police. And anyhow, the police will come by car, polluting the air with CO2 which will cause global warming which will lead to the destruction of the earth. Nah, just ignore her screams.

I have a belief that our secular capitalist liberal democracies are better than cruel dictatorships, so seek to spread the "best technology" we know of. x% of any target country agrees, and they are our allies. x = 87 in Afghanistan, 50 in Iraq, and who knows in Iran. We need to get about 20 liberations under our belt before we can get a decent average and standard deviation. And even then, it's only my allies I really care about, whatever percentage that is.

Right, my options are: become an Iraqi citizen, train as a police officer, and single-handedly arrest the dictator of my new country, or support war crimes against said country.

No, all anyone is asking you to do is be a citizen who supports the police (or a posse) who is in the process of arresting a criminal. You don't personally need to go to Iraq, there are sufficient volunteers willing to do that already. All anyone is asking you to do is say "thanks America", like I did here.

I am curious at what mental blocks exist that prevent people from understanding that criminals need to be brought to justice, and whether there is a combination of words that can persuade them of this. Or whether it really does require goons knocking on their door before they return to reality. — Paul Edwards

Note that as previously mentioned, I did manage to get a Russian to flip position, and he explained his mental process here. Basically if you cease to be a nationalist, then new, ideological dividing lines open up. It is truly fascinating. But so far I haven't been able to repeat it.

No, all anyone is asking you to do is be a citizen who supports the police (or a posse) who is in the process of arresting a criminal. You don't personally need to go to Iraq, there are sufficient volunteers willing to do that already. All anyone is asking you to do is say "thanks America", like I did here. — Paul Edwards

I politely decline on grounds of nauseating distaste for fascism.

I politely decline on grounds of nauseating distaste for fascism.

It is Saddam who was the fascist. He was brought to justice by anti-fascists. If you claim to be an anti-fascist you should have joined the campaign. Instead, you did your best to leave a fascist in charge of an entire country.

It is Saddam who was the fascist. — Paul Edwards

There can be multiple fascists and, indeed, multiple fascists at any one time. The fact that you recognise America as the police of the sovereign nation of Iraq is an implicit acknowledgement of its kind of fascism.

There can be multiple fascists and, indeed, multiple fascists at any one time.

Even if you wish to incorrectly label America as fascist, why didn't you play off one fascist against another to get the end result, which is the non-fascist Iraqi people electing a non-fascist Iraqi government?

The fact that you recognise America as the police of the sovereign nation of Iraq is an implicit acknowledgement of its kind of fascism.

And you seem to be policing America, despite America being a sovereign nation. I don't have a problem with you policing America when it does something wrong (which it does sometimes do, such as recognizing Kosovo independence). But I expect you to sing America's praises when it does something beautiful like replace a cruel fascist dictator with a non-cruel non-fascist democracy.

Hi All,
There wasn’t a real war in Iraq in year 2003.

Iraq (people, army and natural resources) was simply sold to the World’s Elite. But it had to be prepared first for about 2 decades (economical sanctions against the Iraqi people and 10-year war with Iran) before its delivery.

The seller was presented as being the cruellest tyrant in human history who was even threatening the entire world, starting from USA. Obviously, the world couldn’t hear of such ridiculous character if the world’s media, everywhere, is not well controlled by the buyers.
In year 2003, we all heard that the American army had to invade Iraq to save its people from their TYRANT. The main mission of the American troops, at that time, was to capture this tyrant, so that he could be judged and condemned to death for being a cruel killer who had no mercy at all towards his powerless victims.

Then a miracle happened. A few days before the arrival of the well-armed Americans who were asking for his head, this tyrant, the anti-America number 1, became a true loving Christian. He decided to ‘Love His Enemies’. Yes, he didn’t take the American civilians (he had in Iraq) as hostages and let them reside in his various buildings which were supposed to be targeted by their army (as any newbie terrorist does). It happened that his heart became very sensitive, all of a sudden. So, he did his best to let them all return home back 'sane and safe'. His heart couldn’t see the heads of these innocent Americans be blown by their own bombs and missiles. After all, these hi-tech missiles were sent to blow his head and of the Iraqi people only.

Don’t you see? Even in our days, a clear miracle did happen :)
But, it may not be so to those who knows that all stories which were made and spread worldwide about Iraq (to justify its invasion and destruction) since before year 2003 till our days, are just fairy tales made especially for the smart adults :) This great talent in creating such stories is very important in 'the Art of Politics'.

No, that is not my position. — Paul Edwards

That's the consequence of ignoring intent.

I suppose it's good to know you think murderers should be excused as long as you don't like the victims. An ethically repugnant position. It's even worse than I thought and apparently you need to study ethics too.

No, that is not my position.
— Paul Edwards

That's the consequence of ignoring intent. Jesus are you daft or something? — Benkei

I have admitted that I am unsure what terminology underpins my position here.

On the one hand I couldn't care less if Bush ordered the liberation of Iraq because he hates presidents whose name begins with "S", or any other daft reason.

Perhaps there is a "secondary intent" or something. Basically he issued an order of "liberate Iraq and confiscate any WMD you find". It wasn't pure liberation, as there was intent to "steal" someone else's WMD. But the initial thing to do, prior to confiscating WMD, was simply to liberate the country. Bush intended for his generals to follow his orders and liberate Iraq. I wanted the same thing. It is something I believe everyone should get behind.

I'm not sure that a stupid "initial intent" is relevant unless/until it morphs into some other action, like invading Australia because Scott Morrison's name starts with an "S" too.

I can also get behind the idea of encouraging people to have a sensible "initial intent" on top of any "secondary intent".

I suppose it's good to know you think murderers should be excused as long as you don't like the victims.

It is you who excused Saddam's murders and tried to prevent the police from arresting the murderer. Maybe it's you who doesn't like Iraqis.