Big Iraq question: Can anyone tell me...

[HEIL PRESIDENT GOD]

The moral difference between Saddam gassing the Kurds, killing dissidents, etc., and the US responses to separatists at Waco and Ruby Ridge?

Wasn't the stated goal of Saddam's opponents not to establish "democracy"--but to kill the president, oust the government, or possibly become a separate country from Iraq? What part of that would John Ashcroft NOT respond to with lethal force?

Doesn't every government reserve the right to kill people indiscriminately when they start talking about A) removing the government by force and/or B) removing territory from the country (secession)?

I want to hear from people who believe in, or ever believed in, the invasion of Iraq and the ousting of Saddam. Is it really a crime to run a country? Don't we in the US use the violence of citizens to justify the violence of the government (police) every single day? Is there any possibility of a stable Iraq WITHOUT someone exactly like Saddam running it?

And aren't we now killing the same people who resisted him at a higher daily rate than he ever did?

[info being]

1. Not a discussion I'd get into before the election

Why not wait until after the election for this type of stuff?

[HEIL PRESIDENT GOD]

5. What makes the topic so dangerous?

I'm tired of all the campaign noise, personally, and in the mood for big-picture talk. I feel like the media and pollsters are just giving us a roller coaster ride. It's popcorn politics right now.

[knowbody0]

2. we illegally invaded

and now occupy iraq. we are killing people for defending their country. we are committing war crimes, and have become the world's most deadly terrorist. saddam-george. same dictator tendencies.

[Cocoa]

3. the Branch Davidians were not a serious threat to the U.S.

the Shiites on the other hand were of course a serious threat to Saddam.

The comparison is kind of odd.

[shockingelk]

4. Um,

The JD had reason to believe the Branch Davidians were manufacturing hand grenades and illegal weapons. People died because a justified raid went horribly wrong.

That's not equivalent to political assassinations unless you're a right-wing nut who believes the Branch Davidians were exercising constitutional rights while breaking the law.

[HEIL PRESIDENT GOD]

6. Interesting contrast in posts 3 and 4

Do you really think any POTUS has not been at least indirectly responsible for domestic assassinations?

[shockingelk]

10. not sure what you're talking about

What assassinations? JFK? RFK? MLK?

I mean, seriously, the only people I've heard defend David Koresh are extreme right wing militia types. Are you the member of a militia? Do you think Koresh had the right to modify weapons illegally?

[HEIL PRESIDENT GOD]

12. He had the right to equal treatment.

A million nonweird rednecks are modifying weapons illegally as we speak. Koresh was singled out for his religious views and rhetoric of separatism. I'm not "defending" him--I'm defending my rights, which are the same as his rights. I don't want to be singled out by law enforcement because of my views, because of posting on DU. If you know anything about law enforcement in practice you would be afraid--very afraid--of a visit from them, even if you've never once broken the law in your life.

[shockingelk]

13. did he have these rights?

To not peacefully accept a federal warrant?

To shoot at federal agents?

To barricade himself in a compound reinforced with walls of concrete feet thick?

I mean, it sounds like you're saying Koresh had an equal right to have disrespect for the law.

The raid was botched - but that doesn't seem to be your issue ...

[HEIL PRESIDENT GOD]

14. Yes, yes, and yes

Fuck the law. We'll be in the same position as him in a few months. You don't sound like someone who has ever experienced true "marginalization".

[Djinn]

7. my 2 cents has 2 parts

1) Saddam (and Milosevic btw) had far more legit reasons to fear armed struggle against the nation than any US Pres since Lincoln's day and therefore had far more "reason" to use force to stop those resistance/seperatist movements.

2) Most US Presidents are elected which to my mind gives them the authority to act on behalf of the people that Saddam never had.

[htuttle]

8. From a purely ethical standpoint, it comes down to consent of the governed

Or that would be the basis of how I'd make the ethical decision.

In all countries, violence (and the threat of violence) is used to enforce the will of the government. Whether that violence can be 'ethical' depends on the validity of the government -- whether it has the consent of the governed to govern.

But in cases of succession, it depends on the consent of the governed in the area that wants to succeed. The incidents at Waco and Ruby Ridge can be seen, ethically, as routine law enforcement situations -- albeit violent ones. If the entire state of Texas actually voted to leave the Union, however, it would be impossible to build an ethical case for bombing them into submission.

There is hardly a government on earth that doesn't rely to a certain extent on violence and the threat of violence in order to maintain the status quo. Some do it less, some do it more. It ultimately speaks to the question of collective engagement and the nature of cooperation. You're right -- it's one of those Big Questions.

[HEIL PRESIDENT GOD]

9. Thanks--that's what I was trying to get at.

My concern really comes down to our election--if it is as queered and smeared and utterly bogus as early reports seem to indicate; if the result is EVEN LESS CLEAR than 2000's; if Bush is re-selected by an elite body (SCOTUS or House of Reps), and we continue to kill overseas in the name of "freedom", what would be the difference then (from the Iraq War) if China (for instance) attacked us?

[htuttle]

11. However, It would not excuse China ethically if it did so

The US invasion of Iraq was indefensible from any standpoint.

Ethically, it was against the collective agreements we've signed, ie., International Law, so it was illegal.

Economically, the US will lose FAR, FAR more than it will gain.

Pragmatically or 'Realpolitikally', it has not achieved the result they were looking for (ie., Neocon Domino Theory of Democracy in the Middle East), and CANNOT at this point.

Another trifecta!

So it wouldn't excuse China if it invaded the US, since the US has not been and will not be ethically excused for invading Iraq.