Was the Iraq war justified without WMDs?

[drag]

Greetings !

Originally posted by pelastration
Science must be as much as possible neutral. Facts must be judged on the correct value. There must be repeatability, and independent testing. A number of the definitions are based on conventions (to speak the same language and to compare results). Good and bad have no place it such an exercise. Good and bad are subjective values in relation to the outcome or in relation to the initial start.

Nope, they are only in relation to that who judges the facts.

Originally posted by pelastration
I disagree shooting missiles because there are better and more ethical
ways to act against criminals.

O.K. what are they ?

Let's lay off Bush for now.

Live long and prosper.

 

[pelastration]

Originally posted by drag
Nope, they are only in relation to that who judges the facts.

You means who interprets the results?
The results come from the measuring or experiment.
Then you can see if the confirm or contradicts with your expectations and initial idea.

Originally posted by drag
O.K. what are they ?

Every country should have a number of rules which warrants juridical rights to it's citizens or guests/visitors. They must include rights like the possibility to defend yourself against allegations, nobody is guilty without a fair trial, etc.
They should also be conform general principles as the universal declaration of the human rights, international rules of war prisoners, etc.
When a country doesn't have such rules or doesn't apply it's own rules it's is infringing the human rights. Also the kinds of punishments must be as human as possible, even the most extreme such as the death penalty.

I have a serious problem with countries where the religious or military courts have a superior ranks then civilian courts.
Extreme examples are in countries like most Islamic countries (with penalties like amputation of hand, stoning, etc) like Iran, Saudi-Arabia, Syria, etc.
But we see also that Israel uses martial law to execute suspects by guided missiles or other ways.
We see now also that the US has joined the countries which have created a juridical framework that gives them the possibility to act similar an international level (such as the right to kill Castro), and even proclaims that in such cases it doesn't accept 'independent' judgments - based on facts to be proven and possibilities to the accused to defend themselves - of a professional and balanced international court. What do countries like Israel and US - which call themselves democracies - have to fear?
When the Taliban 'suspects' were put - deliberately - by US from US-custody by US-planes into in a non-US-juridical area (Guantanamo) without any rights ... is that hypocrite or not?

Think about this analogy: When a parent beats his kid ... doesn't that mean that he has lost control over himself? And doesn't that means that he don't want to use less violent means or use arguments? Has that kid some rights Drag? Or can that parent just do what he wants with the kid and even send him the Neverland?

 

[pelastration]

Economic pressure on Israel

For years there's a rather technical dispute between Europe and Israel about the territories. Europe gives to a number of 'partners' zero import rights. Israel is one of them. But where is the exact border? A technical dispute with political implications!


Export labels split Israel
http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/1203/p01s02-wome.html
" Israel agreed last week to EU demand to specify products made in settlements.

MISHOR ADUMIM, WEST BANK – It is a clear winter's day in the Judean hills, but clouds are gathering around dozens of Israeli firms in the occupied territories that export to the European Union.

Last week, during talks with the EU, Israeli Trade and Industry Minister Ehud Olmert agreed that Israel will begin specifying the place of origin of its exports. The decision could threaten the well-being of Israeli West Bank firms producing everything from humus to skin-care products."

and more ... on that website.