I think we’ve reached the beginning of the end of the Iraq campaign. At this point, it sure looks to go down as another smashing US victory. Whatever lingering doubts I had were cleared up by the recent reports of a warehouse full of cardboard boxes with human remains and detailed records of how victims of Saddam were executed; the terrible details of torture in Iraqi prisons, and the revelation of a children’s prison. I know the end doesn’t justify the means, but after the fanatical attacks on coalition forces during the war, it seems to me this government would never have been removed by any means short of war, nor would anything but a worldwide united front have achieved disarmament — and I have my doubts that even that would have succeeded.
Is Saddam dead? I don’t know. But last time we thought we got him, the regime continued to function, although in a strangely passive manner. This time, in less than 24 hours the regime seems to no longer exist — even the police and media minders have dropped from sight. If we did get him this time, it would provide a small amount of personal satisfaction as reportedly he was killed by four BLU-109 JDAM variants (I think that’s what they mean when they say bunker busting GBU-31’s, which can be either Mark 84s or BLU-109s with the JDAM kit) as I happened to have helped out on the aerodynamics on that particular variant.
#1 by Tim on April 10, 2003 - 9:52 am
Quote
Lately I’ve been debating the legality of this war with a group of protestors. I’ve concluded:
(a) what we did is probably wrong, UN-rules-wise.
(b) we have a heck of a lot of company in the UN, since just about everybody else has used force without Security Council approval.
I agree: ends don’t justify means. But it’s been hard to watch the reaction of the Iraqis and conclude we’ve done something immoral. And it also seems less will be dead this way than with the old status quo.
So if what we did was moral, yet illegal, what does it mean? I think it means that the law itself must be immoral.
The UN immoral? Nah…