Response to Human Rights Watch World Report

Dear Rolf,

Why is it so hard to admit you were wrong? Don't you find it rather demeaning and embarassing to have to scramble to come up for justification for this war? Your desperation is starting to ooze from between your lines.

I suppose if we wait long enough we will eventually see Dick Cheney running around Iraq to find the one last person there who is glad the war was visited on his country.  But, least we liberated him.

Most Iraqis are and will remain happy about the end of Saddam's rule.  (Of course a lot of Russians were happy about the end of the Czar's rule, but then look what happened...or the end of colonial rule in Africa, and the great sucesses people are experiencing there...) I think it is still to early to really celebrate the creation of a free democratic Iraq.  The country is currently under occupation.  I will be extrememly happy, genuinely happy, if the Bush administration actually manages to facilitate successfully this transition to a sovereign democratic state.  But looking at their record; how can anyone believe the Bush administration will ever get anything right? This is not the government noted for its great intelligence and use of that intelligence, its ability at diplomacy, its economic plan, its great building of an open society, its job creation, healthcare, environment...need I go on.  What would lead any sane, rational person to actually believe that this government can achieve this goal?  The only thing I can think of is the fact that some people are so catagorically filled with denial that the whole thing is really a true act of faith.  Bush is the new religion.  You just have to believe, Baby! And all will be revealed! 

No WMD, no chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons of any kind found. Not a trace, no delivery vehicles, no labs, no smoking gun, no gun at all

No connections to Bin Laden

No connection to 911

No justification based on Humanitarin grounds (based on 2003 intervention)

So what was the "real" justification.

Here is an analogy (which hearkens back to eyal's self-defense analogy).

I have just killed someone.  That person was breaking into my house.  That person was armed to the teeth.  That person was threatening my life and the life of my family.  He was going to kill me, my wife, my children, and burn my home to the ground. 

I would still be arrested. I would still have to prove that my taking of a life was justified for self-defense.  Now what would my chances be for an acquittal or dismissal if it were found out: The person had not broken into my house.  The person was unarmed.  The person was not threatening my life and the life of my family.  The person had no intention to kill me nor my family, nor burn my house down. And oh, yeah, there is that little insurance policy I had taken out on the guy... 

I would go to prison. For Murder. (Well, in Texas, they'd kill me)  Yet our government is not held accountable whatsoever. does that seem right?  In what court of law could you ever argue: that, really, the community is better off for me having offed this person (even if it were true) therfore they should elect me mayor and give me a ticker tape parade. The law becomes irrelevant. You are a smart guy, Rolf, what would happen to a society that advocated such behavior?

What you are advocating, Rolf, is vigilanitism on a world-wide scale.  According to your line of thinking if we were to kill all criminals there would be no crime. Well, except for the killing we'd be doing....uh, hmmm. And then of course there is that little problem of trying to figure out which ones intend to committ a crime so we can kill them before the crime takes place...

Created By: Gary Nihsen