Well, you are saying now that Blix was not going to expose the Bush lie. However, after reading the information it is clear to me that Blix was going to report soon that the intelligence regarding WMD of the USA and England was just shit. (I remember an inspector coming close to say that when asked about what the latest inspections showed regarding the places to look thanks to the “intelligence” the US and England claimed to have.)
I do not believe that it was just foolishness that the USA decided to not risk getting a “no” vote at the UN for the second resolution to approve military action and to also ignore that the last inspections were showing virtually no WMDs in Iraq.
And let’s not forget unleashing the vilification of France for their “cowardice” in wanting the inspections be completed before voting in the UN to authorize war. That stench hasn’t entirely dissipated yet.
I’m saying that there was nothing imminent that would have blown the Bush case to shreds. When Blix reported to the Security Council on March 7, there were efforts ongoing to define a list of benchmarks to define the completion of UNMOVIC’s work. In his book, he estimated that doing the job right would take an additional four months. (Four months that would have been well spent, IMHO.) There was some talk of trying to finish inspections under some to-be-developed benchmarks in a matter of weeks.
Would there have been some breakthrough during that time that would have resulted in a clean bill of health? The answer to that is speculation. I don’t know. It is possible. But it wasn’t like Blix was holding a smoking gun that showed that Bush was lying. Again, at the time, Blix’s personal view was that Iraq probably was hiding something, but he had increasing suspicions that the Western intelligence wasn’t panning out. Furthermore, in his addresses of February and March, he was determined not to announce any conclusion, but allow the facts of what he found lead countries to their own conclusions.
This is true. In fact, Blix had already complained about it.
There were similar comments made in March, IIRC.
No, of course it wasn’t. Bush didn’t want to look like he was thumbing his nose at the UN, when he really was. There was certainly a bald-faced lie when Nicholas Negroponte said of UN Resolution 1441 that it had no “hidden triggers for war,” and then the US went to war because 1441 “allowed” the US to do so.
But I think the concern from Bush was not that UN inspections were going to disprove the WMD claim, it was that the inspections would go on forever with no conclusive end. Bob Woodward wrote extensively on this point.
As far as France goes, I think the stench that people smell is the foul-odored cheese breath that goes along with laughing about being in the right while her ally goes marching off to folly.
You continue to persist in your belief that “ethics” is some universal set of rules that everyone feels that everyone else should abide by. This is simply and demonstrably not true. I agree that Country A may send its military to attack Country B if the Country A believes that Country B has done something unethical. But the Country A will make its own determination about whether Country B has done something unethical. Country A won’t care whether or not Country C also thinks Country B has done something unethical. Also, Country A can decide on a variety of responses to unethical behavior by Country B–sending the military is not the inevitable response even if it decides that Country B has acted unethically.
Also, when deciding on a course of action, a country should consider the likely responses by other countries. Determining whether the action would be regarded as “unethical” is unnecessary–the salient point is what action other countries will take.
Of course you would think this. You disagree with what I value. You value other things. Doesn’t mean either of us is “unethical” or “immoral.” If either of us were “unethical” or “immoral,” then so what? There’s no impact to it, so deciding whether that is the case is nonsensical and irrelevant.
I am not Ayn Rand. Many of my views differ from hers.
How one society acts toward another is a completely different subject from the best way to set up a society. Therefore, it’s perfectly fine and consistent to argue that the government should not forcibly move value from the productive to the unproductive while also arguing that there are no “moral” or “ethical” rules that prevent one society from using force to take things from another society.
Either there are or there are not ethical and moral rules but you cannot say lying, cheating, stealing, raping, torturing and killing are moral and ethical depending on whether the victim is your immediate neighbor or lives further up the street.
In reality you are saying there is no morals or ethics and that might makes right and it is OK to do whatever you can get away with. Even Bin Laden has better morals than that.
This is the central tenet of Objectivism. You are of course free to differ from her views, I just find it odd that you would choose your user name and hold views fundamentally opposed to everything Ayn wrote.
See, what your arguing for is that totalitarianism or colonialism and the seizing of the goods of others from the barrel of the gun by the government is acceptable. Again, you’re perfectly free to hold this vile belief. It is, however, fundamentally at odds with everything Ayn Rand wrote. So why the user name?
“In reality” is exactly right. That’s what I’m saying because that’s how it is (ETA: in dealings between two societies). When the Europeans showed up in force to colonize North America, did it matter whether there is some ethical or moral rule saying “don’t take land belonging to other people?” Nope.
Same with the US’s involvement in Iraq. The U.S. could drop a nuclear bomb on Baghdad if it wanted to. It doesn’t matter whether that would be “immoral” or “unethical.” If the U.S. did that, debating about whether it was “immoral” or “unethical” would just be empty words because there would be no impact to deciding one way or another.
Of course, other countries can decide to respond in different ways (immediately and in the years to come) to the U.S. nuking Baghdad, and the U.S. should take those possible responses into account when deciding whether to nuke Baghdad. But saying “Nuking Baghdad would be unethical so the U.S. shouldn’t do it” can’t serve as a proxy for actually doing the work of analyzing other countries’ possible responses and the effects those responses would have.
All of your “shoulds” and “oughts” don’t amount to a little beany walkway to the receiving center on the entry ramp to the hill of beans.
The “illegitimacy of taking things by force” is not the central tenet of Objectivism. Ayn Rand believed that a government taking from the productive to give to the unproductive was a bad thing. That says nothing about her views on whether it was “immoral” or “unethical” for one society to take things from another.
Some people said that Bush lied to get the US into Iraq to steal oil (or insure a supply, or something). These people believe that is “immoral” or “unethical.” I’m saying that there’s no such thing as morality or ethics when it comes to one society dealing with another, so if the Iraq war was “all about oil” then that is not necessarily “a bad thing” and does not necessarily mean that the U.S. did something wrong.
All of em believe that?
I’m thinking that it’s quite possible tothink Bush lied to get the US into Iraq, without sticking those lies into an arbitrary moral framework.
Truth or falsehod is NOT universally dependent on morality.
I don’t know what you are saying here, but it appears that you are trying to paint me as a Bush supporter and then show that I have hung myself by my own petard. I am not a Bush supporter.
Wow - you have actually read Ayn Rand, right? Here’s a cliff notes version of John Galt’s speech for you in which Ayn outlines her philosophy. Take note of the number of times she discusses morality. Take note of the reason Ayn believes that the government taking things is a bad thing. Hint: it’s because it is taken by force or the threat of force:
Here’s Ayn defending capitalism on its morality and addresses governmental use of force, please take note of the bolded part:
The Iraq Invasion occurred at a time when our Venezuelan source for oil was being compromised, as was our Nigerian source. China and India presented possible threats to an unlimited supply as competiton. Russia was jailing oil grabbers who existed under the free market. All these things, and the fact 9-11 triggered an old Nixon-era emergency plan of invading the middle east as a national security move for energy security, culminated in the Invasion . Myself, I don’t think it too ridiculous to suggest if things got really bad we could pump Iraqi oil for ourselves and pay them for it under emergency circumstances.