Iraq

[The Great Quail]

Me:

>> First, there are numerous other unjust and murderous regimes out there; so
>> why select Iraq?

Rob:
> This is such a dud argument. There is not one system of jurisprudence, not
> one defence attorney, who would even think to countenance a case on this
> basis: "Your Honour, whether or not my client is guilty is irrelevant. There
> are many other criminals who are just as guilty who are not being tried in
> this court

Well, I see what you are saying, but:

1. When I wrote, "so why select Iraq?," I meant it more to set up my
following answers -- the primary one being oil, part of our "national
interest." I didn't mean to imply that the choice is seemingly random, but
rather that it cannot be based solely on moral principles.

2. Even so, I don't agree that your analogy is completely applicable. This
is not a singular court case held within a universally applied system. This
is the case of one nation sing out another nation, well aware that other
nations are in violation as well. Particularly North Korea and Pakistan. To
return to your example, it's more like a prosecutor grabbing one felon off
the mean streets, dragging him into court, and saying "This one goes to
jail!" When in fact, the jury is well aware that this particular felon is
married to woman the prosecutor would very much like to drill. (Too bad two
jurors, Pierre and Ivan, have a convenient "arrangement" with the lady's
husband.) 

Er...maybe you get the picture! I agree that Iraq has the potential to pose
a threat; I protest against the rank cynicism practiced by Bush and cronies
in meeting that threat.

--Quail