Comments on: “Not the Blitz”

By: Iang

Iang — Wed, 27 Jul 2005 08:25:53 +0000

Discussing the war is always fraught with danger of course. But here goes.
The UK was not attacked before the Iraq/Afghan invasions. Before the invasions, it would be hard to see why it would be attacked.
The US has been attacked for a decade or more, but the reason for that is clear – the US presence in the Middle East. So in terms of the US, the “rationale” for attacks on the US has not changed, just intensified.
The invasion of Iraq lacks a legal basis. Once that is established, all acts are bad, under general principles and/or the Geneva convention. It doesn’t matter whether it was random bombing or not, it’s all illegal, under some measure. It’s very hard to take a moral/legal posture today when ones very presence is immoral/illegal.

By: Adam

Adam — Sat, 23 Jul 2005 19:05:06 +0000

I agree both are bad. The US, in our failure to plan for the aftermath of a war, may even be at the level of having failed to meet important obligations under the Geneva Conventions. I don’t believe that they’re equivalent. Equivalence might be if the US intentionally bombed random neighborhoods in Tikrit.

By: Jim Horning

Jim Horning — Sat, 23 Jul 2005 17:37:41 +0000

Yes, the United States was attacked before we invaded Iraq. In 1812 by the United Kingdom, for example.
But we were NOT attacked by Iraq.
Killing 57 innocent civilians in England is “terrorism.” Killing 25,000 innocent civilians in Iraq is “collateral damage.”
I consider them both morally unacceptable, and we should attempt to bring the surviving perpetrators to justice.