Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aceventura3
Like I wrote, I doubt any "support" would meet your standard, and we don't have the benefit of knowing what would have happened if other actions were taken.
|
I asked you to support all of the arguments you made, and you said that you didn't have to. That's not how life works, Ace. People are held accountable not only after they've made decisions, but as they're making them and even when they're proposing them.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aceventura3
You certainly can take my position to an absurd extreme.
|
Absurd? You said:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aceventura3
If I think someone or something is a threat, I will act and answer questions later.
|
I essentially said the same thing back to you and you called it absurd. I agree, it's a completely unreasonable and absurd ideal.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aceventura3
However, there are legal standards for people to use to determine if a response to threat is reasonable. For example in my state, legally I would be justified in using deadly force if:
I believe deadly force is necessary to prevent an imminent threat of death, great bodily harm, or sexual assault.
And, the facts and circumstances would cause a reasonable person to hold that belief.
And, I am not the instigator or initial aggressor
And, the force is not excessive - greater than reasonable needed to overcome the threat.
|
None of those were met in the case of Iraq. Not by a mile, even.
1) As I've stated, Iraq was not a threat to the US in any way shape or form.
2) No reasonable person could look at all the information available in 2003 (and I can post it if you'd like) and come to the conclusion that the US was in any danger.
3) We were the instigator.
4) Excessive? 1,200,000 dead Iraqis and many still don't have water and power 5 years later.
It seems, actually, that WE were the danger, and that Iraq had a right to defend itself... only it didn't have the means. Now they can in a way because the US military has trouble with guerrilla tactics, but they've already lost.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aceventura3
So, on an individual basis, you could take an absurd action but legally you would be held accountable for it. On the other hand if you responded to a threat in a reasonable manner within legal parameters you may save your life or the life of another.
|
The problem is that the US sits in a permanent seat on the UN Security Council, which means that we can't be held accountable by the legal body under which we fall. It was absurd, and not only most of the world, but finally most of the US thinks so.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aceventura3
No. The word I chose was imperfect because it encompasses not only the possibility of information being incorrect it also encompasses the possibility of the information being incomplete. Was it Rumsfeld who said: "There are known , knowns; known, unknowns; unknown, knowns; and unknown, unknowns. Or, it may have just been the voice of Samuel Jackson from an episode of the Boondocks. Either way information available can be "imperfect".
|
Imperfect means that it's not perfect. That can still mean it's correct. Incorrect would be a perfect description for the intelligence that Iraq had WMDs. Not imperfect, incorrect; and the difference therein is gross, not subtle.