Ed Huntress wrote:


Don't tell anybody I said this, but I believe you're quite right.
What we DO
know, however, is that the US has just introduced a new principle
into
international relations, one that we have been the biggest defenders
AGAINST
since Pearl Harbor. We used to maintain a sharp distinction between
"pre-emptive" war and "preventive" war. The first was sometimes Ok,
but the
second never was Ok. We're the ones who wrote it, or defended its
principle,
in the UN charter.

Unlike the Japanese we did not attack without declaring war. I think
there is a big difference here. We stated that if Sadam did not live
up to the terms of the Gulf War surrender, that we would invade.

I don't know how else we could have enforced the terms of surrender.
We did try economic pressure, but Sadam had the UN in his pocket.

Well, we differ there. I'm very proud to be an American. I'm just not
very
proud of some of the actions being taken in our name by the current
resident
of the White House.

Curious, I am only able to be proud of my own accomplishments. Never
was really a team player. I had very little to do with shaping the
U.S. And therefore have not figured out why I should be proud of being
an American.


Is Iraq better off because of the invasion? Probably. The number
of
people that have died because of the invasion is less per year than
the
number that died because Sadam was in power.

Most of the sources say that isn't true. Even Amnesty International,
as I
quoted indirectly a couple of days ago and which is inclined to put
the
worst possible spin on Saddam's human rights record, says that the
number of
people he killed was only in the hundreds per year during the last
few years
of his reign.


Sure if you pick the right day the number of people he killed might be
none. But you have no way of knowing what he would do in the future.
So I don't think you can pick and choose which times to use in deciding
his human rights record. You need to use all of them.

However, as the IBC says, that's not much of an argument.
Furthermore, it's
not why we allegedly went to war. Supposedly it was because of a
real,
immediate physical threat to the United States.

I never thought we went to war because of a real immediate threat. I
thought we went to war because Sadam would not honor his agreements. I
don't see how anyone would have thought that there was an immediate
physical threat.

Loved is not the issue. Undermined, resisted, and terrorized are the
issues.

We were being undermined, resisted and terrorized before we invaded. I
don't think the invasion has changed that.


Is this thread appropriate for RCM? Hardly.

So, were you doing something that was more useful than organizing
your
thoughts for the very reasonable and well-considered case you made
above?
g

Absolutely. Just before posting that I made a bit for a Simplicity
Tractor I am bringing back to life. Very simple part, just a bar
silver soldered to a bolt for the parking brake clamp.

Dan