JeffR,
[quote]JeffR wrote:
Makkun wrote:
“Rome was quite tolerant when it came to other religions and cultures. Yeah, they fought the Christians, but they regarded them as somewhat subversive.”
They were inclusive FOR THEIR TIME. Let’s not downplay the utter butchery they employed against the Jews/Christians: Feeding them to the lions, Pompey burning their temples, Masada, etc…[/quote]
Off course, you always have to put everything into historical and socio-cultural context. That’s why I’m so reluctant with historical comparisons. 
[quote]“But in general they understood that letting people in the roman provinces govern themselves and embracing their religions worked quite well.”
There is definetly truth in that statement.[/quote]
And that’s why I (for once) have chosen to use a historical analogy.
[quote]“Iraq was a center for terrorist training, recruitment, and dissemination. Think about the briefcase. hussein threatened their neighbors (our allies) and the world’s oil supply. They were one of the grossest examples of human rights violators on the planet. They were making a mockery of the “world government.” They were targeting and firing on our planes. Finally, their location makes them ideal for encouraging Democracy in the region.”
You wrote:
I understand that this is the current US government’s position. I rather agree with its critics though. But that is not the point of the thread.
Makkun, did you read the 2002 W. speech I posted? It’s been his position right along.[/quote]
No. Haven’t read it. And in the context of this thread it does not really matter.
But to digress for a second: It’s been interesting to the political fallout in the UK has been, now that several memos and emails have been published under the UK freedom of information act. One of the Lord Chancellor’s (our chief law lord) points was that WMDs aside, regime change is not legally valid reason for the UK to go to war; that, at least for the UK, puts the WMD discussion right back into the middle of the discussion. It might not really have mattered for the US - but it did for the UK, the second biggest force of the coalition.
[quote]Second, I smell the loyalty to party clouding our judgement thing.
[…]
Fair enough.[/quote]
I took some stuff out we agree upon.
[quote]“I’m very serious about this. All bullshit aside, I don’t get a kickback from any of this. Implying that I stick to this stance solely out of party loyalty/inability to admit I am wrong, is incorrect.”
Then I’m glad I didn’t say that.
I think what might have brought you towards this conclusion might have been my tongue-in-cheek comment to ProfX. That was clearly pointed at the strong polarisation that he and I seem to perceive within US culture. If that already counts as a party-political attack, then some people are really sensitive.
That was where I got it. I just wanted you to understand that many of us don’t put party before principle. We actually believe in these actions.[/quote]
Off course you don’t. Even a hateful liberal understands that conservatives are truly convicted to their causes.
[quote]“Each one of us (fickle democrats included) knew that this was a bold move. It was and is fraught with dangers for everyone.”
Including the many who did and do not support the decision. But indeed, we all have to live with the consequences. I retain my right to bitch and moan about a course of action I think was bad.
I respect your right. I am paying close attention to each of your posts. We have come to the point where we can disagree without being disagreable. I trully appreciate that.[/quote]
Sure. Why not? Actually I tend to have more fights with other people from the left-wing spectrum, as we have a tendency to be divided rather than unified.
[quote]"As you can tell, I look to history for examples. Unfortunately, human nature changes very little. Fortunately, the patterns are there as a rough guideline.
Identify the patterns. Think about this threat being left to fester. There were essentially no controls on hussein present from the mid-1990’s to 2003. You’ve read the report. This guy was on his way to reconstituting his offensive arsenal.
That was an unacceptable alternative."
As I said earlier, I will not delve into the Duelfer-discussion in this thread (and not bring it off-topic). My interpretation has been clarified there, and needs no further repetition, except that I completely disagree with your interpretation of the report.
See http://www.t-nation.com/readTopic.do?id=625295 "
I didn’t realize that you completely disagreed with me. Shall we bump the thread?
Pretty compelling stuff there.[/quote]
To be honest - nah. We’ve done that one. I found it quite interesting how much we tend to interpret differently statements we all tend to think are clearly stated and concise. But that shows how much there is no “one truth”, and “facts” are always changed by interpretation.
[quote]One more thing, the whole “nations disregarding the U.N. thing” has to be exposed.
I agree.
The u.n. was in bed with the tyrant.
That is unproven. There were people within the organisation involved - some of which were recently fired from their positions.
That is interesting. I’m surprised that you are witholding complete condemnation. Sounds like the start of a new thread!!![/quote]
Not another one on the OFF programme. I have trouble following the current ones…
[quote]We need to summarize some very damning information found in Iraq indicting the u.n. representatives and the “international community.”
It has shown itself both before and after the invasion to be a group of greedy beaurocrats impotent in a crisis. Hypocritical to a tee. We do not trust it’s judgment.
I have addressed this issue and agree partly. My explanation for it has been posted earlier.[/quote]
On that one I agree again - it’s always important to find stuff out, regardless of what agenda you have. If my political camp fucks up it’s equally important to find out and sanction against, as well if yours does it.
But let’s stick to the main discussion on the thread: Can there be such a thing as a just war? My view is - not really, as I tend to think that by starting a war (for whatever good reason) you loose the moral justification you started out with. Except for immediate and moderate self-defense.
What’s your take on that?[/quote]
Makkun