Diotallevi wrote:

World Affairs Correspondent Zseni wrote:

This is an impractical position, but morally extremely attractive.

So your interest in morality is purely aesthetic?

World Affairs Correspondent Zseni wrote:

Not for an instant is anyone fooled by the rhetoric of the "necessity" of the war in Iraq. Nobody believes that the war is furthering any possible gain for us and even for Iraq except for a stable source of very clean oil.

Bullshit. Your inability to understand the reasons for invading Iraq, or your unwillingness to accept them cannot waive them out of existence.

Wht constitutes a threat sufficient to justify the use of force? For most of human history, information, and armies moved slowly enough that "When his army attacks your army/territory," was a good enough answer. During the Cuban missile crisis, Kennedy recognized that that standard no longer held. Because nuclear devastation could be visited upon US cities from bases in Cuba, the stationing of missiles there alone constituted sufficient provocation to justify threatening the use of force in response. Of course things were simpler then. If a nuclear device were to have been used against the US at that time, its source would have been obvious to everyone. The absence of any avenues of "deniability" was a cornerstone of cold war nuclear deterrence. Absent the relative simplicity of the bipolar world, and given the existence of international terrorist groups with a demonstrated interest in killing great numbers of American civilians for public-relations purposes, it is the right, and the duty of the US government to identify and destroy emerging threats before they become "imminent." Given the bloodthirstiness of our adversaries, any threat that makes it to "imminent" will then immediately progress to "happened already," before we have any chance to do anything about it.

Nobody who has considered the issue, even briefly, doubts that Hussein is trying to build nuclear weapons. It is accepted as a given, even among most opponents of US action, that he's got large stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons. My question to you is: Why? You are Saddam Hussein. You are the king of a country blessed with the 2nd largest proven reserves of petroleum on the planet. With the merest effort, you could live in endless luxury, with US protection, like your counterparts in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. But you don't want this. Instead, you relentlessly pursue the development of weapons that are better at killing civillians than soldiers, even though the pursuit costs you trillions (more?) in oil exports, and earns you the ire of the most powerful country on the planet. Still you pursue the developments of weapons you do not have, and hide the ones you do. Even after multiple chances to say, "You know what, this is bullshit. Here are the weapons. Let's you and me cut a deal Mr. Bush. I get to stay, and you get France's oil contract..." you're still holding out, even as an army you can't possibly defeat masses on your borders. Why? What is it with you and these weapons? Why do you want them so badly? Why do you pursue them, and keep them, at great risk to yourself?

I don't know what the answers to those questions are, but I think prudence requires us to assume that he seeks these weapons because he wants to do something with them. Either to use them, or to profit from threatening to use them. I do not think that any reasonable moral argument requires us to wait and see what he wants to do with them.

World Affairs Correspondent Zseni wrote:

Where is the consistency in American political thought? At either end of the political spectrum, and most especially in the middle. Where is the force of public opinion? What is public opinion anymore?

This is an act of solipsism worthy of you-know-who at his worst. "Because the majority of the population of the US disagrees with my opinion, they actually have no opinions at all!!!"

World Affairs Correspondent Zseni wrote:

Actually, this is the hour of triumph for the higher-ups. A war which is essentially indefensible

In defense of war: the US benefits from a relatively stable international order. The more chaotic the state of the world, the more resources we need to devote to protecting our selves and our interests. International organizations like the UN promote this desired stability, and reduce the need for US military action around the world. The US, with UN authorization, went to war with Iraq in 1991. That war ended with a cease-fire, the terms of which required Hussein to reveal and publicly destroy certain types of weapons. He failed to comply with these terms. Further UNSC resolutions repeatedly demanded that he disarm, and he has ignored them. If Iraq is allowed to ignore binding UNSC resolutions simply because it dares to, then the UN is useless. If Iraq demonstrates in defiance, that the UN has no teeth, then what nation will ever take it seriously?

World Affairs Correspondent Zseni wrote:

which benefits only the conspicuous and unsustainable consumption habits of the world's most wealthy nation

Again, while some Iraqis will die in the attack, the unkilled majority will likely benefit, so this is bullshit.

World Affairs Correspondent Zseni wrote:

angry rhetoric lambasting the Rushes of the country

You ARE one of the Rushes of the country.

World Affairs Correspondent Zseni wrote:

What I want to do, and what, I think, must be done - eventually - is to rebel and revolt and remake.

Young people always think this. You would have a very low probability of "remaking" anything nearly as good as what we have now with your revolt.

World Affairs Correspondent Zseni wrote:

Is this not unbearable hypocrisy?

For you?