also, schopenhauer is ambivalent on the war, but said he probably would have favoured some other course of action. how do i know? i checked with my ass.

I laughed, I thought I’d die…

he said he liked the idea of a process of change whereby the western-led international community stopped acting like hopeless drunks in free bar and decided, in concert, to create a better, safer middle-east. this necessarily included an agreement to stop rigging elections, or even just to let them happen, the refusal to supply further arms to favoured protagonists in the region, the deployment of un troops to conflict areas with the actual and unconditional backing of the security council, the initiation of programmes of constructive engagement with middle-eastern countries, notably in the economic sphere (rather than the rapacious plundering in consort with various despots that constitutes the current state of affairs – constructive meaning, at the very least, ‘including the possibilty of benefit for citizens of the countries affected’) and various other lines of activty. he wasn’t sure, though.

epicurus said he didn’t give a damn, and that since austerity was good for one, neither iraqis nor americans should complain abouit the coming world austerity programme.

hobbes said tough titty.

g.e. moore (who resembles george bush, in the same way that chritopher hitchens resembles bertrand russell) said all it took was common sense.

what’s next? messages from dead movies stars?

so, here’s the experiment – i took zdenek’s criteria for kantian illegitimacy (which he appears to have sucked out his ass), and on which bases what he laughably calls his argument for the war, and reapplied them to another modern day example:

was (america) illegitimate in Kant’s sense ?

was it:

a) “manifestly despotic” – 50/50. well-managed, distributed despotism. more oligarchy than tyranny.

b) “not a law abiding member of UN” – yes. see the ongoing violations of resolutions

c)”people denied basic rights” – yes. ref. guantanamo etc. also the class of folk represented by cory maye, et al, who are policed in their inner city ghettos by paramilitary swat teams. etc etc etc, fill in your own violation here

d) “crime regularly commited (sic) by rulers” – yes. that’s almost becoming the definition of an american ruler.

e) “manifest threat to peace” – more so than ever, having committed the most egregious acts of aggression in recent memory, ostensibly in response to saudi terrorism, without ever actually invading the fortress of the house of saud. (what are they doing, throwing darts at a map of the middle east?)

f) “has invaded neighbor” – grenada, i suppose. otherwise, no. tends to invade on other continents. (not sure why zdenek makes next door invasion a criterion, unless he’s just playing too much age of empires.)

g) “commited (sic) genocide” – yes, and supported it. and not merely native americans. filipinos, too. latterly attempts to have others do it on its behalf. in service of such ideals paid indonesia militarily and financially for 25 years to destroy east timor. trained indonesian special forces (kopassus) on us soil, despite clear evidence of massive wrong-doing. bragged in the un about preventing humanitarian aid to timor (for which moyihan will roast and roast and roast). bombed laos and cambodia into complete chaos, from which they might never recover (for which kissinger will be basting alongside moynihan).

h) “bend (sic) on imposing its will on others” – this is too easy. (start with iran, to be topical.) give me another one.

i)”state claims voice in UN to promote itself and its policies and amplify its power” – beyond satire, now.

_______

it follows that under the terms of zdenek’s argument, you could have reversed the roles (iraq invades america) and kant (poor kant) would have had to support it. possibly under threat of zdenek representing him to posterity.

or perhaps zdenek’s argument is crap. who want to take a go at his preceding ‘philosophical sketch’? his proposition number 6 promises to be fun.

in his justification he also says ” because it is a larger power that is also a republic , is anxious to spread republican values and is motivated by some version of the Ideal of Reason Kant spells out in ‘Perpetual Peace’ and US is confident that it can destroy the despotic state with minimum harm to its people”, the us can invade iraq.

someone might want to tease apart the claim that the all that would be required would be the confidence of the us (the landmass? the airspace?) rather than the justifiable likelihood, as attested to by impartial bodies. i suspect kant would have demanded more than ‘i know i can, i know i can’ as grounds for war.

of course, this is all within the context of zdenek’s imaginary universe where such considerations were actually meaningfully addressed by policy planners, rather than brushed aside by ideologues, and subsequently delegated to dispirited teenagers with guns for implementation. his arguments collapse when measured against anything in reality. but that’s not the point here. just have fun.

That’s the one the neocons are violating. The collection of beings that comprise population of Iraq under Saddam – them, of course, being rational (not to mention – heavily armed) should’ve been able to take care of their own affairs; instead they are currently being treated by the neocons and others as mere objects that need to be ‘liberated’, ‘democratized’, etc. God, I love the word ‘being’.

It is a perfectly valid objection because Zdenek you presented your case as if it was self-evident that each and every condition was satisfied. That there are not perfect examples (which is obvious) indicates that you Zdenek-not Chris, not anyone else-have to prove that the US is sufficiently close an approximation so that your conclusion is warranted.

Trouble is, I doubt that even you could seriously maintain that your conditions (2) and (3) are met by any actually existing states. So your argument is somewhat moot.

Two questions : was former Iraq illegitimate in Kant’s sense ? yes because it was manifestly despotic , not a law abiding member of UN , people denied basic rights , crime regularly commited by rulers , manifest threat to peace , has invaded neighbor , commited genocide , bend on imposing its will on others , state claims voice in UN to promote itself and its policies and amplify its power.
Second : is the US the right state for the job ? yes because it is a larger power that is also a republic , is anxious to spread republican values and is motivated by some version of the “Ideal of Reason ” Kant spells out in ‘Perpetual Peace’ and US is confident that it can destroy the despotic state with minimum harm to its people—less harm than harm suffered were the illegitimate state allowed to operate.

Would it be right for such a republic to go to war against such a despotic state ? Kant would say yes.