From: "Anthony Crifasi" <crifasi-AT-hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: The crazy, or everyday irrationality, was Einstein
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2003 15:29:16 +0000


John Foster wrote:

> > Rumsfeld did not say that Hussein and the Bath Party have no connection 
>to
> > AL QUAEDA. What he and Bush said was that they have no connection to 
>9/11
> > specifically. Bush never premised the US action on the contention that
> > Hussein had a connection to 9/11, but rather that he had connections to 
>Al
> > Quaeda. And Al Quaeda camps were indeed found in Iraq during the 
>invasion.
>
>So, after this declaration what then is the reason for the invasion?

Exactly the same combination of reasons as before:

1. The explicit violation of two UN resolutions on numerous occasions over a 
period of 12 years, including the one that defined the terms of SURRENDER 
after the first gulf war.

2. The threat to US national security posed by Hussein's assistance to Al 
Quaeda, not for religious reasons necessarily, but for anti-US reasons.

3. Hussein's crimes against humanity, which FAR surpassed what Milosevic 
did. And yet many of the same people who had no problem with the Yugoslav 
campaign for humanitarian reasons were against the Iraq invasion, even 
though the Yugoslav campaign was also without UN approval, and was 
originally criticized by Annan for that reason.

>Afterall the UN did not authorize itself nor the US to invade Iraq.

Same in Yugoslavia. Did you oppose that war?

>What you
>are suggesting is that the US had the moral authority to invade Iraq, bomb
>Bhagdad on the 'suspcion' that there were indeed Al Quaeda cells in Iraq.

First, that has been confirmed. Secondly, the connection to Al Quaeda was 
only ONE of the intersecting reasons that Bush gave for invading Iraq. For 
example, there are many countries with Al Quaeda connections, but which have 
not explicitly violated two UN resolutions over a period of 12 years, or 
have not committed atrocities against humanity on the scale that Hussein 
did.

>However as you also acknowledge the Bath Party (the ruling party) had no
>connection to these cells.

No, what I said was that the Baath party had no connection to 9/11 
SPECIFICALLY. That is what Bush and Rumsfeld said.

>What you are telling me is that based on suspect
>'information' and other tenuous information it is okay for the US to invade
>any country it chooses to invade, regardless of the United Nations mandate,
>so long as there is a suspicion that there are Al Queada cells to attack.
>But the US did not simply invade Iraq, rather it used bombs  a new
>manner,called the 'pre-emptive strike' to route out suspected enemy. More
>than 3000 civilians died in these attacks, not to mention hundreds of
>thousands in the gulf war.

If by the latter, you mean the first gulf war, remember that that was UN 
sanctioned, thereby dissolving one of your main objections.

>Your only suggestion is that a poll supports this attack.

But it is a poll of the "indigenous" peoples themselves. According to you, 
that is better.

>The fact though is that it cannot be established if there were really any 
>Al
>Queda in Iraq;

John, they were FOUND both during and after the invasion. Not just 
individuals, but Al Quaeda camps.

>Indeed the invasion and
>bombing was premised on the 'belief' that Saddam Hussein was constructing
>weapons of mass destruction, which also has been found to be false.

UN resolution 1441 does not just list actual weapons of mass destruction. It 
also lists equipment needed to produce, maintain, and deliver such weapons, 
and such equipment was explicitly found by the inspectors themselves. That 
is an explicit material breach of 1441, sorry to say.

But let me appeal to you personally. Say, your neighbor has a proven history 
of violence, and has made threats against you and your family. You suspect 
(but cannot prove) that he has firearms. You call the police to go there and 
check whether he has firearms, but he either refuses to let them in, or once 
they are let in, he won't let them go just anywhere in his home. So the 
police leave, saying they find no evidence of firearms, but they place a 
restraining order that he cannot come within 100 yards of you (like, say, 
the no-fly zones). But then he openly flouts that restraining order 
repeatedly, and continues to make threats. One day you come accross your 
neighbor with your family, and he reaches towards his pocket. You also have 
a gun.

Now, you don't know whether he has a gun in his pocket, or whether he is 
merely bluffing. So, with your family behind you, do you shoot 
pre-emptively, on the mere SUSPICION that he has a gun?

I would.

Anthony Crifasi

_________________________________________________________________
Frustrated with dial-up? Get high-speed for as low as $29.95/month 
(depending on the local service providers in your area).  
https://broadband.msn.com



     --- from list heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---