US war crime as free speech issue (help holmes sort this out)

But even without those practical reasons, my ethics finds the further demoralization of a defeated enemy (and that is what a dead enemy is) weak, cowardly, and cruel.

If we don't do this, what will happen to Iraqis?

I agree. I have opposed this war since before it began.

Don't we have a moral obligation to fix it and at least leave them with some kind of working government.

Yes that is right. However using the military to stabilize an area and protect resources until order returns is like using a military force exactly the way its supposed to be used.

The position taken by me is that the invasion of Iraq was wrong and Bush's theory of spreading democracy via military conquest is wrong... but now that someone else's eggs have been cracked we need to help clean up the mess.

That is in addition to the fact that we are legally bound to help restore order. Breaking international law again does not solve the first time we broke international law.

My position is very easy. The Iraq War was an international crime, and even if it wasn't the planning and execution were bungled (besides the decimating forces part). The war ended and now we are an occupying force and fulfilling our legal duties to aid a nation whose gov't we have removed. We are also the only cogent force within that region caable of providing the necessary assistance. Though Bush claims they are getting a democracy they are not. It isn't hardly even a democratic republic. That said, I do hope it can be a functionally stable gov't with more interest and capability to help Iraqis than Hussein had. A chaos of warring factions will be worse for all Iraqis... and us.

There are several agreements we are a part of, including sections of the Geneva Convention. No I do not have the time to go pouring over any and all documents we are a party to, in order to find the relevant sections.If you want, I can get you quotes from orgs that state we have that legal duty and suggest some of the docs where such obligations are found.

How does staying after the war is over change anything about the war?

That you appear to want to assuage your conscience of our guilt by allowing a humanitarian catastrophe to occur, seems pretty selfish to me.

Well you are not cutting it as a reader. I said appeared, I didn't say what you were actually doing. If you argue that we should pull out now because we did something wrong a long time ago, then you are asking to pay for a past crime by punishing the Iraqis.

That is a non sequitor and a pretty moronic one at that. The war is over. We were fighting a regime and its forces. Those forces are gone and now we aren't fighting any particular entity

I don't play the "agree to disagree" game. If you really believed that you shouldn't have started posting to me.

Nice that you haven't mentioned anything about the legal obligation thing.

Personally I find it a very cheap dodge and rather inconsistent given that you started posting in reply to me. If you believed you had the right position, then you could not have believed both were mere opinion.