Sven put forward some thoughts on Iraq :

> The convoluted arguments in favour of whatever the status quo happens to
> be (Iraq invasion in this case) have all revised history, by saying that
> the USA invaded Iraq to remove a dictator.

> The official reason is that they invaded to disarm Saddam, to eliminate
> the immediate threat of WMD.

> I'm very disappointed by all these discussions - it's analagous to a
> return to postmodernism, where anything goes, and someone sufficiently
> in command of the English language can use rhetoric to justify just
> about any position.  It's clear, upon reading this, the people begin
> with the conclusions and work backwards.  The notion of universality
> (principles apply equally to all parties) seems to be rejected, as is
> any actually engagement with the actual effects of violence on humans.
> Surely violence should always be a last resort and surely those
> advocating or apologising for violence bear the onus in proving that the
> action was indeed a last resort and all other avenues were resorted, and
> that even greater violence was imminent.

> Legal arguments about precedents for the invasion totally miss the
> point.  Power can always, and has always, "legitimised" itself.  The
> brain can concoct just about anything by the use of language and logic.
> The history of philosophy and intellectual ideas is littered with the
> corpses of concepts that were elegant or "rational" or "legal" but have
> since been found to be totally false.

I'll of course jump up and down singing the praises of letting the 
different views in an open and civil forum. The only way we can find out
what is, in fact, reasonable is by opening up the discussion. Also, the
documents capture what people intended to say, not how the discussion
did in fact progress.

But, here's the above email with some commentary. Sven's original : > >,
David : > , Me : unindented

> > The convoluted arguments in favour of whatever the status quo 
> > happens to be (Iraq invasion in this case) have all revised
> > history, by saying that the USA invaded Iraq to remove a
> > dictator.
> 
> There's several questions can be asked: was the reason the US
> gave a good one; did a good reason exist; why did the US do
> what it did; did the US lie about its reason; etc.. It's easy
> for people to argue at cross-purposes, which is what happened
> at the meeting to some extent.
> 
> I'm unsure what question you're trying to address. The one I
> mostly care about is "was it a good thing to do on balance".

others may have revised history, but David does seem to acknowledge the
reasons the US originally invaded Iraq. And let's argue with David, not
others.

> > The official reason is that they invaded to disarm Saddam,
> > to eliminate the immediate threat of WMD.
> 
> Which is relevant if you're interested in evaluating stated
> reasons. But I find that one of the least interesting questions
> that can be asked.
> 
> > It's clear, upon reading this, the people begin with the 
> > conclusions and work backwards.
> 
> I didn't, I don't see why I'd want to.  I assure you I don't get
> anything out of it, indeed it does my image amongst my friends
> considerable harm to no identifiable benefit.  It's honestly held
> beliefs and the arguments given are an attempt to explain how I formed
> them.

It's clear blah blah blah is an assurance. Somewhat more humble is the 
statement "it appears to me that ...". Also, some illustration of just
how people are starting with the conclusions would be wortwhile.

> > The notion of universality (principles apply equally to all 
> > parties) seems to be rejected
> 
> I'm unsure how this would be applied. Saddam Hussein would fail
> even quite generous tests, I think.

I think Sven is thinking of the different parties for which we justify
intervention - how we justify one nation over the other. But David did
seem to engage with this in his article.

> > as is any actually engagement with the actual effects of
> > violence on humans.
> 
> I tried to make a comparison of the effects of violence that
> occurred with those that might have occurred if there'd been no
> invasion. I'm not sure what else I was supposed to do.

David has a point. Still, you can wonder about different ways of running
an invasion which minimise the violence on the population.
 
> > Surely violence should always be a last resort
> 
> So twelve years wasn't long enough?
> 
> I'm sceptical Saddam Hussein would respond to anything other
> than force majeure. He'd put up with crippling sanctions for
> quite a few years, and yet continued to irritate the UNSC
> when compliance would have greatly increased the chances of
> having them lifted.

I seem to recall Blix was saying the Iraqis were moving on this issue,
and should be given extra time ...

> > surely those advocating or apologising for violence bear the
> > onus in proving that the action was indeed a last resort and
> > all other avenues were resorted, and that even greater
> > violence was imminent.
> 
> You're saying there should be a precautionary principle? I
> guess that's more likely to be true if you're an idealist
> than if you're, e.g. a utilitarian.

I'd agree with Sven here. I didn't hear the argument from the Americans
expressed in such clear terms.
 
> > Legal arguments about precedents for the invasion totally 
> > miss the point. Power can always, and has always,
> > "legitimised" itself. The brain can concoct just about
> > anything by the use of language and logic. The history of 
> > philosophy and intellectual ideas is littered with the 
> > corpses of concepts that were elegant or "rational" or
> > "legal" but have since been found to be totally false.
> 
> Therefore we should stop arguing about things and set aside
> the tool of logic? I can't accept that, and find it hard to
> believe that's what you're advocating, but it seems to be
> what you're saying. What do you actually mean?

Yes ... let's disagree with other people's logic, but let's not abandon
logic. Discussion may be a frustrating tool to use, but it is the only
thing we have. Apart from making grunts.