WAR: UK and US Leaders Acted Like Nazi War Criminals

Saddam was a lousy dictator. The US-UK overthrew his regime. Now, the British are provking violence. I assume the US is working with the UK.

Why does the Bush-Blair coaltion want more conflict in Iraq? Do they think they can control Iraq through conflict? Do they just want to kill people?

Originally posted by aimlessly
So does "paying the price" mean we can't defend? And yes i do believe to defend you sometimes have to be preemptive.

The problem with pre-emptive stikes, you often ignore any diplomatic efforts, and we now know that the reasoning behind the pre-emptive strike of invading IRaq was wrong. The whole "better there then here" flypaper stratagy is complelty bogus becasue many of the suicide bombers in Iraq that are causing the most deaths are actaully from Saudia Arabia, yet NTOHING is being done about that. and the death toll of US soldiers and Iraqi Civilians has been INCREASING.

Do you realise that the terrorist warning alert system for the united states has not changed since after the election? And it is quite possible the Bush administaration used the FEAR of terrorists to help himself win the election?

We can defend ourselves by NOT making almsot every country in the world mad at us

In respect to aggression in Iraq, which was the matter in which Ritter compared the actions of America and Britain to those of Nazi Germany, he had me at war, but he lost me with the criminal part. There is a growing sentiment in the world, especially among the privlidged aloof and the children of the welfare states (that is to say, people who have little or no idea of what it means to make something for yourself which is worth defending) that all war is a crime. The words war and criminal are natural partners to these people, so it is no wonder that branding everyone in sight a "war criminal" has come into vogue.

If I've said it once, I must have said it a million times: morality is an ad populum fallacy- that is to say, an idea without merit which is accepted as legitimate simply because it has gained the assent of a large number of people. I find it ironic that morality, which is not a measurable quality, could be referred to as "values", considering that we can not quantify the value of our "values". It seems to me that our legitimate "values" must be measurable by their effects. Only when they are grounded in the observable can they be logically supported.

What is the value of trading one tyrannt for another (I need not even contest the idea of Bush as a tryannt for those of you who would insist that he is)? I propose that the sum of the value of removing the one and imposing the next is zero if the two are equal, or positive to some degree if the new tyrannt is not so harsh as the old.

What is the value of destruction in one nation when it has some degree of chance at preventing greater destruction in another? Perhaps this is unknowable, depending on the likelihood of the averted danger, which while absolute and quantifiable, may not necessarily be discoverable to any certainty. There is in fair chance that the value is equal to or greater than zero.

What is the value of one nation's security being compromised so that another's strategic strength and therefore its security is enhanced? If the nation which benefits is larger, less harmful or more beneficial to the general welfare of the world, then the value is almost certainly positive. Unless one can argue that Saddam's Iraq had done or had the potential to do more good in the world than America, so much for that.


My point is that there is nothing fundementally wrong with war in and of itself. Force and the threat of force have been the prevailing factor in human affairs for millenia, and no other system has yet even been devised and proven practical at all, much less been shown superior. To say "stop fighting" is not enough. You can not replace a governining force with nothing. That is anarchy. Anarchy is the ultimate system of war and tyranny, wherein no man is protected except by himself, wherein every man may be a serf if he is not a tyrannt. To replace the historical tendency to resolve matters by force with nothing is only to encourage the rebirth and recycling of war all over again.

Impeach Bush, try him for treason, and let the new president carry out the sentence by his own hand on the lawn of the White House. Fine by me, I do not attatch any positive or negative morality to the idea, that's just rule by force in action. If the new government even sees fit to pull out of Iraq and foreswear violence, fine by me, although at that point I'll be leaving and applying for citizenship in some nation which is not trying to get itself killed. I have no particular interest in supporting the war for the sake of the war- and I don't own stock in Halliburton.

All I'm saying is that I'd think it a bit less foolish to undertake those operations without fully embracing a philosophically and logically inferior view of reality which so openly invites the strategic weakening of the nation to which your own fate and well being is attatched.
Say what you like about war, it's decided (note I do not say solved), at least temporarily, more conflicts than any other means known to man, except perhaps the mere threat of war.

Actually........Blair and Bush are puppets to those forces that are leading to such war criminal like actions of "preemptive war"........

Those forces are the international finance commitees and transnational corporate charters............the IMF and World Bank coupled with mulitnational corporation's charters of maximizing profits while externalizing costs require that the entire world be democratized in a free trade environment regardless of the consequences...........it is an amoral force without regard to the human condition or conscious.......

Bush and Blair along with these forces are convinced that they will "save the world by making it a better place for all" and have been manipulated to believe this through contributions to political parties..........they have Bush believing that his role is to rid the world of tyrants and spread freedom with demoncracy on the march...........(so we can expand free trade and maximize those bottom lines)

Well.......the results are less than desirable at times..........often creating huge wage gaps among populations, destroying environments and cultures, and compromising national securities............all without considering how we are going to raise the level of consumerism (ie quality of life) for the whole planet's population without........ever considering the fast depleting supply of natural resources.............

But then again.........Bush and Blair don't have to submit to such forces..........but then if they don't they would have never been in a position of power to beging with..........

In our whole human history it seems that it always ends up being about dominance or submission...................and nowadays that duplicity is fought with money as much if not more so than weapons..........

It isn't that Bush is like Hitler, he isn't. It isn't that the US government is like the Nazi's, it isn't.

It's the group in control behind and manipulating the scenes that the parallels can really be drawn to, as well as the complacent and accepting, even encouraging, posture of a large segment of the domestic population. They have bought in, or sold out as the case may be, to the controlling group's diatribe lock, stock, and smoking gun barrel. They have married the beast, so to speak, and will find her an insatiable burden on their souls.

Going to War, Goering Style

A Nation of Martin Niemollers

Originally posted by futuretense
Actually........Blair and Bush are puppets to those forces that are leading to such war criminal like actions of "preemptive war"........

Preemptive war isn't a war crime by any legitimate standard. See above.

it is an amoral force without regard to the human condition or conscious.......

You are exactly right to say amoral, although I believe the word you are looking for is immoral. There is no morality affecting the matter. I'm not saying it's a necessarily agreeable thing, but nobody has invented a functioning alternative yet. If you don't like it, the current system does not deny you the opportunity to take up arms and make yourself heard. It's tough, but it's fair (at least in a certain light- it obviously wouldn't be a fair fight).

In our whole human history it seems that it always ends up being about dominance or submission...................and nowadays that duplicity is fought with money as much if not more so than weapons..........

This is the heart of my point. Human history is characterized by domination and submission, generally as a function of force or the threat of force, because so far that's proven to be the "supreme authority, from which all other authority is derived", if I may quote Starship Troopers. I'm all for inventing another way, but I'm just not that brilliant. What could possibly be implemented that could stand against opposition except if supported by force?

Why does Ritter even try? Britain and the US no longer have democracy but societies where consent is manufactured. Damn, he's dumb. I guess he wants to make a few bucks off books because there's no other reason to resist the manufactured truth with the reason.

Originally posted by The Vagabond
You are exactly right to say amoral, although I believe the word you are looking for is immoral.

amoral
1. Not admitting of moral distinctions or judgments; neither moral nor immoral.
2. Lacking moral sensibility; not caring about right and wrong.

I think he nailed it...

Originally posted by Regenmacher
I think he nailed it...

I think what vagabond means is that morality cannot be accurately gauged in this case, and therefore it is amoral. What I believe the previous poster meant to say was that the actions of our leaders are intentionally evil, and therefore immoral. If they were amoral, they would not be aware that what they are doing is wrong, and that goes against the contentions of many on this board. I think.

Originally posted by 27jd
If they were amoral, they would not be aware that what they are doing is wrong, and that goes against the contentions of many on this board. I think.

Let's refrain of putting words in other people's mouths, taking things out of context and presuming what they meant...futuretense can answer for himself.

Originally posted by futuretense
And we should refrain from putting words in others mouths and not take it out of context.Those forces are the international finance commitees and transnational corporate charters............the IMF and World Bank coupled with mulitnational corporation's charters of maximizing profits while externalizing costs require that the entire world be democratized in a free trade environment regardless of the consequences...........it is an amoral force without regard to the human condition or conscious.......

No conscious implies they don't care or don't know if it's right or wrong, hence amoral.

I don't think I put any words in anybody's mouth. I merely stated what I thought was meant, not what was meant. Didn't you read where I stated " I think"? I guess not.

Decartes would say if you think it, so it is..."I guess" or "I think" or "I presume" can mean many things and can all evolve down to semantical insanity. Socrates dialogue can work to prove anything is true, so asking the source for clarity saves a lot of headaches and doesn't skew their in intention i.e. innuendos.

"It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is" ~Bubba Klintoon

As for Bush, he probably "thinks" he's moral and under divine influence in an amoral world and our opinions count naught.

[edit on 11-10-2005 by Regenmacher]

Originally posted by Regenmacher
Decartes would say if you think it, so it is..."I guess" or "I think" or "I presume" can mean many things and can all evolve down to semantical insanity. Socrates dialogue can work to prove anything is true, so asking the source for clarity saves a lot of headaches and doesn't skew their in intention i.e. innuendos.

"I think" in this cyclone of semantic insanity, I've lost track of who the source that should be asked for clarity is.

As for Bush, he probably "thinks" he's moral and under divine influence in an amoral world and our opinions count naught.

Then using Decartes logic, isn't Bush acting morally? And wouldn't that counter the idea that they are amoral, and that they have no conscience?

Of course we don't see it that way, but maybe Bush feels it would be immoral not to act like a Nazi, just like the Nazis did.

aimlessly:

I'm sick of this anti war bull crap. Since when does a country NOT have a right to protect itself? Saddam needed to be put out of power, for OUR good not just the Iraqi's that can't stand up for themselves and control their own destiny.....

Oh, right. The USA was protecting itself from Saddam by invading him and overthrowing his regime.

1) Saddam never threatened the USA.
2) He had NO WMD to attack with.
3) He had no Air Force.
4) He had a small, inconsequential army.
5) He was ruling a Third World country.

So, uh, there was no threat. NONE of his neighbors wanted in on the Coalition because NONE of them were afraid of him. His neighbors had no fear of him but the US, across an ocean, did? Sounds a little yellow to me.

And DON'T give me the "We are freeing Iraqis".

You didn't give a rat's ayse about Iraqis for 30 years while Saddam murdered and terrorized them, so save your sanctimonious and misplaced sense of duty for another thread.

Bush Inc. not only waged war in Iraq and Afghanistan, he has waged war on the US citizens. 5 years of deception and demagoguery is telling the majority it's time to jump ship or drown.

Conservatives and exiles desert war campaign
The latest CBS poll shows that 32 per cent of Americans approve of President George W. Bush's handling of the situation in Iraq, and 59 per cent want US troops out “as soon as possible, even if Iraq is not completely stable”.

CIA review faults prewar plans
A newly released report published by the CIA rebukes the Bush administration for not paying enough attention to prewar intelligence that predicted the factional rivalries now threatening to split Iraq.

Originally posted by Jakomo
Oh, right. The USA was protecting itself from Saddam by invading him and overthrowing his regime.

Not all of the pro-war people know why they are right, so they may as well be wrong, but I believe they are, accidentally, on target.

America was "protecting" itself (actually I would prefer "advancing its interests" over "protecting), by attacking Iraq. Many people go wrong by considering the issue in a vacuum. Strategic concerns are rarely, if ever, bilateral though.
An analogy: 10 men are coming to fight you, but before they can, they must cross a bridge guarded by 1 man. You can defend yourself against the 10 by overpowering the 1 and disabling the bridge.

Similarly, America's invasion of Iraq did not only affect America's standing in relation to Iraq. It affected America's standing in relation to the entire Persian Gulf region, a group of nations, which if they unified in opposition against us while we were not strategically positioned to respond, could severely undermine our economy at least for a time. It also affected America's political standing in relation to nations which derive much of their international influence from the United Nations, especially France, but also Germany, Russia, and to the least extent, China. It affected America's intelligence standing (no bad puns please) in relation to middle eastern nations by giving America access to and experience with a middle eastern population, some of whom may be made assets.

A host of secondary and tertiary advantages were derived over literally dozens of nations by invading Iraq. Iraq in and of itself was not everything. America did infact have a compelling strategic interest in invading Iraq. The real occasion for debate here lies with one of two questions. First, the ethics of the invasion itself could be questioned with more or less effect, although I would contend, as I already have, that this is basically irrelevant if it is existant at all. Second, perhaps more compellingly, the actual motives and results of the invasion as executed could be contrasted with what would have been expected in a more textbook case in order to make the claim that America did not invade Iraq, but that Bush did and that therefore strategic concerns may not have been served and thus the weight of their value may be missing, which, if established, would necessarily affect the relative morality of the war, although since absolute values can not be assigned, the overall positive, negative, or null moral value of the war itself would remain unknowable.

Just to recap for clarify- of course America had plenty of reasons to invade Iraq, and there is really very little way for us to determine whether or not they were "good" reasons. All we can really hope to debate is
1. Were America's reasons, whether good or bad, incontrovertibly inferior to other alternatives?
2. Were America's reasons served, did they fail to be served, or was their no attempt to serve them- the later would theoretically invalidate a great deal of logical support for the war.

And DON'T give me the "We are freeing Iraqis".

You didn't give a rat's ayse about Iraqis for 30 years while Saddam murdered and terrorized them, so save your sanctimonious and misplaced sense of duty for another thread.

In all fairness... we did free the Iraqis, right before we replaced Saddam's yoke with our own. I suppose you could argue that it's at least a lighter yoke, but I'm sure that comforts the man behind the yoke a lot more than the man under it. I realize I'm not really doing either side any favors with this statement, so it arguably adds nihl to the discussion- I'm just making a minor point of fact.

Originally posted by The Vagabond

If I've said it once, I must have said it a million times: morality is an ad populum fallacy- that is to say, an idea without merit...

Morality is a personal thing - both being moral and, the necessary precurser, choosing morals to live by. It's nothing more than a code of personal behavior. The fact that there is no uniform set of morals for all doesn't mean the concept is a fallacy. In fact, I would suggest that the desire to choose and live by a set of morals is a significant and important aspect of human evolution. To the extent that you discard morality you take a step back on the ladder of evolution.

My point is that there is nothing fundementally wrong with war in and of itself. Force and the threat of force have been the prevailing factor in human affairs for millenia,

Without morals to guide human behavior war indeed must seem like no big deal. I disagree with that conclusion, however, as I suspect do the survivors of the German death camps from 60 years ago as well as the victims of the wars and genocides both of history and currently taking place around the globe. War seems like no big deal to you because you are too young and privileged to have experienced the consequences of war-like behavior directed towards you or your loved ones. It is the smug statement of elevated privelege.

I would expect the same type of remark from our spoiled, bullying, frat-boy president. I only wish the body bags returning from Iraq held the remains of the loved ones of those who made the unlawful decision to step into the present quagmire rather than our trusting, overwhelmingly poor, young people or the innocent children of Iraq. What's the matter, don't you hear the screaming from your ivory tower?

Vagabond: Good post.

The real occasion for debate here lies with one of two questions. First, the ethics of the invasion itself could be questioned with more or less effect, although I would contend, as I already have, that this is basically irrelevant if it is existant at all.

Well, the ethics of it is that international law was flouted. The "pre-emptive" invasion of a Third World country with a small army, no Air Force, and suffering after 12 years of international sanctions and 1/3 of its' airspace shut down was falsely represented to the world as a whole.

The Bush Administration essentially said, "We don't care what you think. 75% of you disagree, but we are going in anyway."

What is to stop China from invading Taiwan using the exact same logic? We are sure they have WMDs aimed at us. Oh, most of the rest of the world doesn't think so? The UN won't approve our invasion? Well, this is a Chinese matter, so you're either with us or against us. We're going in and invading.

Nothing is to stop them. Certainly not a stretched thin US military.

Second, perhaps more compellingly, the actual motives and results of the invasion as executed could be contrasted with what would have been expected in a more textbook case in order to make the claim that America did not invade Iraq

He had no WMDs, he was no threat. So 2000 more US soldiers would be alive and probably about 40,000 Iraqis. There would be less terrorism in Iraq. There would be less nervousness among countries to actually start thinking about using nuclear weapons as DETERRENTS to U.S. invasions.

Just to recap for clarify- of course America had plenty of reasons to invade Iraq, and there is really very little way for us to determine whether or not they were "good" reasons. All we can really hope to debate is
1. Were America's reasons, whether good or bad, incontrovertibly inferior to other alternatives?

Do you honestly think that if two groups of people with wildly differing opinions sat down and talked about their points of view for a few weeks, that the result would actually be WORSE than what is happening now in Iraq as a result of its' military invasion in 2003?

2. Were America's reasons served, did they fail to be served, or was their no attempt to serve them- the later would theoretically invalidate a great deal of logical support for the war.

Certain aspects of America's corporate world were served. Defense contractors, oil companies, etc.

As to America's interests, well, what has it cost so far? 2000 lives and 400 billion dollars? Is that the price of this war? A war that was probably unneccessary? A war that was definitely strongly hyped by your own elected officials who may have known that it was false data and spin? A war that you, your children, and your grandchildren will end up paying for in one way or another (HOPEFULLY just financially, rather than lose a loved one close to them)?

In all fairness... we did free the Iraqis, right before we replaced Saddam's yoke with our own. I suppose you could argue that it's at least a lighter yoke, but I'm sure that comforts the man behind the yoke a lot more than the man under it.

After 2 years of occupation more Iraqi civilians are dying to carbombs and suicide attacks than ever before. Wasn't there some kind of Operation Iron Fist in Western Iraq just recently to take over some towns? They might have been miserable and oppressed under Saddam's regime, but they knew where they paycheque was coming from, and no cars blew up.

Originally posted by seattlelaw
Morality is a personal thing - both being moral and, the necessary precurser, choosing morals to live by.

I agree- it is completely subjective. This in and of itself invalidates any claim of the merit of having a code of morals. What if my subjective morals were racist, misogynistic, sadistic, or otherwise centered on doing harm to others?
If something is subjective, can not be assigned any concrete value, can not be applied in any kind of uniform manner as a predictive or prescriptive instrument, does not conform to logic, and in short, for all intents and purposes is not real, then I would assert that any attempt to derive absolutes from it is indeed fallacious. The aforementioned rule certainly applies to your suggestion that developing a subjective set of personal ethics is somehow meritorious. To make an emotional/moral argument in support of valuing morals is just an exercise in circular logic. I contend that a moral code must be logically supported to be relevant. Of what practical use is an unsupported and illogical claim?

Without morals to guide human behavior war indeed must seem like no big deal.

The qualifier in and of itself is vital to understanding my position. Despite my aversion to subjective morals, I do of course believe in placing comparing alternatives where values, either concrete or relative can be logically deduced. I do not have a great aversion to words like "good", "bad", "right", "wrong", etc. I define these words according to what can be valued. Thus, if war is the most materially advantageous option on the whole then war can be "good", compared to the other options. That option which kills fewest people, causes least pain, and in general advances the human race most- in short which affords us the best tangible results- is the right one. At a certain point in the course of events, where wrong choices have brought us to a choice between two more wrongs, the lesser evil must be chosen, and it may at times be war.

I will not chastise you much for your attempt to poison the well on me with the holocaust remark, because happily enough it illustrates my point wonderfully. Failing to fight the Nazi regime which made a great many choices which were materially disadvantageous to the human race, and therefore "immoral" in the logically supported sense of the word, would have been a greater "wrong" than fighting them.

War seems like no big deal to you because you are too young and privileged to have experienced the consequences of war-like behavior directed towards you or your loved ones. It is the smug statement of elevated privelege.

I was a US Marine. I ASKED to be an infantryman because I WANTED to go to Iraq with my best friend. I've recieved a back injury in training that haunts me daily; I'd be in perfect health if I hadn't made it my business to share the burden of the war, but I don't regret it.
A couple of guys I went to highschool with went and didn't come back. One came back with a piece of his jaw missing. A friend of my younger brother's has come home with more than a few screws loose. I'm anything but aloof.

The key to refuting an idea is that you must first understand it. You failed in the second and thus can not succeed in the first. I do not suggest that war is entered into lightly, that it is inconsequential, or that it can be justified merely by financial profit regardless of cost, as you may believe that I do in your failure to stop, think, and comprehend before responding. What I contend is that war, simply by virtue of being war, is not necessarily the worst option in terms of what is real and observable, which I consider the only sound basis for a morality which can not be perverted by the subjective ideas of the individual at the greater expense of the human race.

I would expect the same type of remark from our spoiled, bullying, frat-boy president.

While this is a sound description for the most part, it's still just petty well poisoning with no logical bearing on the discussion.

I only wish the body bags returning from Iraq held the remains of the loved ones of those

That's the problem with your subjective morals. Do you not realize that you have just wished that Bush would murder his family? Is this morality the vital step in evolution to which you referred earlier? The morality I promote, a morality based simply on what is factual and logical, is immune to such errors of subjective judgement when weighed intelligently.

who made the unlawful decision

(emphasis mine)
Changing the subject, but changing it in a very wise direction. At least the lawfulness of the war can likely be determined to near certainty in a logical, non-subjective way, assuming of course that the evidence is weighed in an impartial manner. I do not, however, concede that the decision was necessarily unlawful, nor do I reject that possibility out of hand- that's another question. As I said, it's a better question to ask than the subjective morality of the decision.

quagmire

Pick a topic and stick to it. If you want to talk tactics just start an appropriate thread and stand by for stomping. Wars are not quagmires. Foolish tactics mire themselves even in bedrock.

overwhelmingly poor, young people or the innocent children of Iraq.

Do you watch the Simpsons? "Think of the Children!" Appeals to ad misericordiam don't go far with me. My heart may bleed, but my mind won't blink.

What's the matter, don't you hear the screaming from your ivory tower?

Ah, one last ad hominem for the road: the cornerstone of any effective argument. A little education goes a long way my friend; get it, use it, enjoy it. Bringing logic to a name calling match is like bringing a chainsaw to a knife fight, and it's a lot of fun. Go get your own chainsaw and let's do this again.

I'm going to condense this reply since I was so verbose in my other one. Let me commend you Jakomo on bringing a sound argument though- do not feel dismissed if I do not go into the same depth. Some of the points in my previous post apply here, though the tone with which some of them were delivered does not.

Originally posted by Jakomo
Well, the ethics of it is that international law was flouted. The "pre-emptive" invasion of a Third World country with a small army, no Air Force, and suffering after 12 years of international sanctions and 1/3 of its' airspace shut down was falsely represented to the world as a whole.

All of those things I grant you, but it goes back to what constitutes morality, which I have already stated my view on. If a war is the lesser evil, it is right by default, and so, arguably, are the lies required to bring about the execution of the lesser evil. Ditto for the violation of the law as a matter of morality. The legality in and of itself is another issue. Just because something is "right" (or at least less wrong) doesn't mean it's not illegal of course.

The Bush Administration essentially said, "We don't care what you think. 75% of you disagree, but we are going in anyway."

Suppose 75% of the people wanted to burn down not only their homes, but the entire apartment building which they and all of their neighbors shared. Would overruling them be wrong? It is no infringement of liberty because liberty ends where it infringes on the most fundemental liberties of another. If 75% of the population is against the lesser evil, and the consequences which will be shared by dissenters may include personal harm, I will not pretend that the issue is by any means beyond debate, or even that you do not have a very strong leg to stand on in said debate, only that the matter is not "wrong" on its face.

What is to stop China from invading Taiwan using the exact same logic?

Either American armed forces or nothing at all. If China can take Taiwan and incur great advantages to their strategic and economic security, and perhaps other advantages, and be reasonably assured that no countering evil will result (for example a genocide, a nuclear war, etc) then it is not inconcievable that in real terms such a move might not be wrong, or at least may not be the greatest evil.

Certainly not a stretched thin US military.

Now we're talking tactics, which is not really the heart of the issue, since it's not a matter of who would win so much as what the net result would be, and therefore any war at all, regardless of outcome, is a cost to the big picture. The relevance of this question really extends only as far as whether or not America would try, but not to the capability of an overextended American force to win. (on that tangent I will say that with sound strategy and clever tactics nothing is impossible, especially to a well equipped and disciplined force such as the USMC).

He had no WMDs, he was no threat. So 2000 more US soldiers would be alive and probably about 40,000 Iraqis. There would be less terrorism in Iraq. There would be less nervousness among countries to actually start thinking about using nuclear weapons as DETERRENTS to U.S. invasions.

Some of those things are considerations, others are contestable. More importantly those factors do not make up the whole of the equation. There is the enhanced ability to prevent one of those nations most likely to acquire nuclear weapons and wield them in a destabilizing manner from acquiring them. There are the attrocities under Saddam which would have continued. There are probably 2 or 3 dozen things on either side that you or I would miss if we mulled this over for the next week. While that would be a stimulating excercise simply for purposes of debate, I frankly could care less about proving this particular war to be just.

A large part of what I was attempting to convey in the quote to which you replied is that by comparing the outcome to what would have been expected in a more standard case, we may actually find that the war was not carried out in the interest of the United States at all, but rather in the interest of the military industrial complex or some other such entity. I was infact offering you an alternative line of consideration whereby the morality of the issue in real terms might be ascertainable, because the elimination of US interests from the equation would naturally unbalance the equation in favor of immorality.
Let us remember that I am not one of those who have been called, among other things, "Bushbots". I merely intervened here to challenge the prevalent but, in my opinion, fallacious view that war in and of itself is necessarily immoral.

Do you honestly think that if two groups of people with wildly differing opinions sat down and talked about their points of view for a few weeks, that the result would actually be WORSE than what is happening now in Iraq as a result of its' military invasion in 2003?

I've had stitches in my head 5 times in my life, and consequently I experience glitches from time to time. I may be experiencing one now because I am not completely certain of the relevance of this question. Since attacking Saddam was not time sensitive, at least not on the scale of mere weeks, I obviously would not contend that debate was a bad thing. I'm not really sure where I ever implied that it would have been. All I intended to say (although given a couple of typos that I've taken notice of, God only knows what I actually did say) was 1. Subjective morality is really not applicable, 2. real morality will probably be ambiguous, 3. War is not the least attractive option just because it is war. and finally, (and I emphasize this strongly now) that questions circumventing the unsupportable assumptions which prompted me to join this conversation, such as consideration of real morality if the ambiguity can be overcome, and especially determining whether the positive interests offsetting the negative effects were even really served (as I mentioned just a moment ago) would be a better approach.

Certain aspects of America's corporate world were served. Defense contractors, oil companies, etc.

Fair enough, but I wouldn't have asked that question if that wasn't the answer I wanted. You've got the ball and I hope you run with it. I think that expanding on that angle would take this thread in a far more meaningful direction than the previous charges which were so heavily reliant on subjective morality.

By vagabond: In all fairness... we did free the Iraqis, right before we replaced Saddam's yoke with our own. I suppose you could argue that it's at least a lighter yoke, but I'm sure that comforts the man behind the yoke a lot more than the man under it.

This wasn't actually a challenge to you. This was just sort of a snide remark to both sides intended to demonstrate that neither can entirely ignore the others arguments.

I've gone longer than I expected and become a bit disorganized in my approach now, as I have been chomping at the bit to get offline, have a smoke, and get some sleep, so forgive me if I haven't been pretty in this post.