Brad and David have their main articles attached, and Dany has provided a background paper. I've also attached my introduction. The meeting did not go quite along the lines of the attached documents, and I've added a few bits from discussions after the event.

I was intrigued by some assertions of inconsistency. Brad claimed the left was originally complaining about the effects of sanctions on innocents in Iraq, but then changed to promoting the merits of sanctions when an attack on Iraq was contemplated. Dany said the US spoke of promoting democracy - but only when convenient - the US would not support the democracy emerging in Palestine.

I'm concerned about democracies that become entrenched dictatorships, or at least having one party only. There is a concern that Egypt would become a religious state if there were an election. Still, we need to distinguish between a democratically elected government which will preserve democracy, and allow itself to get voted out at the next election - regardless of whatever else it does - and one that would subvert democracy.

Anthony said the US had subverted the unions in Iraq - and had further issues about the nature of the democracy which the US promoted.

There seemed to be agreement between all parties on the notion that military intervention was worthwhile to protect human rights. The disagreement was on whether the US should be making those decisions itself, or what other means were possible - and whether the US was right in the particular case of Iraq.

One issue was the moral status of the US. Personally, I think you can separate out what the US is up to generally from this particular action. We could say they are utter bastards, but did something right here - that you can do good things for bad reasons.

David felt Iraq was a gradually rising issue over the decade since the original Gulf War - Dany thought it was a sudden change.

Brad felt the US was a valid operator. He felt the crimes of the US in Abu Graib were of a different character to those of Saddam. He also seemed to assert that Abu Graib was not respresentative of the operation of US forces, but Dany felt it was representative, and a result of orders from the top.

Dany felt a need to link the US' "moral record" into the picture - its inconsistent manipulation of world affairs and record of support in Iraq were very real concerns - and the motives of the US was a concern which could not be separated from the Iraq conflict.

David said the what the US did in the depths of the cold war when the Soviet Union was a very real threat and what it does now are two separate issues. Further, our standards of operating governments have changed - by the standards of a 100 years or so, Saddam was not that bad a character. David felt the world has undergone significant and continuous improvement - we do not realise how standards have changed.

Brad said that if the US choses not to do something because of the consequences - that it only intenvenes where it can do so - that's entirely fair enough. If the US does not intervene in North Korea because it has nuclear weapons, that's an unfortunate reality, and does not really undermine the US' moral status.

Then there's the UN. David & Brad criticised the UN for being subject to the whim of the veto powers, and subversion by despotic governments. David said the UN had only made two _military_ actions - but Dany noted that the UN has been involved in many operations, supportive and peacekeeping aside from this. I'd imagine the eradication of smallpox was one example.

Everyone agreed the UN was in need of reform, but what we do in the meantime was a difference. Dany felt it inconsistent to leave a club when you disagreed with the outcome, and Brad felt it reasonable to undermine the UN given its problems.

The May 2005 Issue of International Humanist News notes that the Rand Corporation endorses seven of eight UN led missions as having brought sustained peace (Namibia, El Salvador, Mozambique, Sierra Leone, East Timor and Cambodia) [yes, I know there's only six, that's an original error.]

However, Ivette notes that in El Salvador, the Guerillas and Civil War have been replaced with criminal gangs; and in her opinion things were better in Civil War because people at large were not targetted as much as you get with criminal gangs; the end of civil war can mean a decline in personal safety, paradoxically.

Dany also brought up the ruminations of the Project for the New American century, promoting US control of the planet, with ideas which were ready to take advantage of the opportunity presented by the S-11 attack. David said that the Neo-Cons are diluting the idea of US self interest driving foreign policy, and are doing a good thing.

Dany noted that many US citizens connected Saddam to the S11 attacks when there was no such connection. Richard wondered why there was so much discussion over what Governments said they were doing when it's not really worth worry about what they said - why they did what they did and their true motivations were of more interest.

Richard asked who benefitted from the Iraq war, Leon noted some contractors, related to Halliburton would have been the major beneficiaries.