How I judge the altitudes of posters and reader comments

Yes, I remember the discussion, and Ken's position really isn't that different from my own. Certainly it would have been ideal if a World Federation had gotten rid of Sadaam Hussein long ago.

But since we agree that he should be removed and no one (no world federation or any other country) was removing him, we can't say that the Bush administration was 100% wrong in removing Sadaam Hussein. That was what the blog was about, trying to look at the situation from all angles, all perspectives.

I'm not necessarily in agreement that he should have been removed unless he can be proven guilty of those charges.  The human rights charges alone warrant a serious investigation by an international tribunal, such as the U.N., to determine Saddam's guilt.  If these reports can be confirmed that Saddam Hussein had indeed murdered 300,000-500,000 of his own civilians, then he is clearly in violation of international human rights laws and should have been "dealt with" accordingly by an international body, such as the U.N.  Now, as to whether we agree that Saddam should have been removed--whether by the United States or by a world federation-- is another question entirely as "dealt with" and "removal" are two different actions that are not in all cases self-identical to each other. 

Whereas "dealt with" simply means to follow the established protocols for investigating a crime to determine the extent of these human rights violations that were alleged to be committed by Saddam against his people (including a thorough investigation of any other suspects or nations who were complicit in these crimes, if any), "removal" is a procedure that assumes guilt of these charges and refers to the actual process of eliminating this person from power or existence.  "Dealt with" is therefore the preferred methodology as it investigates the extent of Saddam's crimes to determine the appropriate action or punishment that is needed to be taken: which may be in the form of diplomacy, sanctions, no fly zones, or out right removal from power, depending on the nature of his crime and his guilt. 

But whatever approach we wish to take (and by "we" I don't mean "us" literally but rather an international body such as the U.N. or a world federation), "dealt with" or "removal" are both procedures that involve at least a two or three step process consisting first of a thorough investigation to determine the authenticity or accuracy of these reports (step one) which would then, depending on the outcome of the investigation or seriousness of the crime, determine the next action that is called for by the U.N.--whether in the form of a) sanctions, b) arrest and a fair trial before an international tribunal, c) a diplomatic solution, d) some other action, or e) full invasion and removal of Saddam by a multinational peacekeeping force, in which case the Iraq War would have been authorized by the U.N. and would have had the support of other nations (step two).

But I would still have to respectfully disagree with your analysis that the Bush administration was not 100% at fault for removing Saddam Hussein. The Bush administration was 100% per cent at fault for acting unilaterally and removing Saddam Hussein (irrespective of the benefits gained from this action or however monstrous Saddam may have been to deserve it) because it goes against worldcentric values.  The simple fact that no such thing as a "world federation" exists does not give the Bush Administration the right or authority to act on behalf of the world. 

At any rate, whether theoretical or no, there is already such an entity in existence that serves the function of a world federation in the form of an international peace-keeping force called the U.N. Security Council, which is comprised of many different nations.  That's how we won the first Gulf War.  So I'm not sure what purpose a theoretical entity such as a world federation would serve when there is already in place an international peace-keeping force in the form of the U.N. Security Council.

The simple fact of the matter was that the United States was not authorized by the U.N. to attack Iraq (as was the case in the first Gulf War), and so it acted unilaterally.  Unilateral military agression without the support of the world is counter to both worldcentric and kosmocentric values and should never be supported from an Integral standpoint.

So in truth, there is no "Integral argument" that can support or justify a pre-emptive war and regime-change of one nation-state by another nation-state.  Had there been one, KW would certainly have let us know about it considering his position on regime change.  But let's put that aside for now and consider some extenuating circumstances that might warrant a pre-emptive war and regime change of one nation-state by another nation-state from an Integral standpoint.  You listed the following:

“Sadaam did have the missiles to deliver them to Israel, however, and in fact did fire missiles into Israel during the first gulf war."

First, let's not lose sight of the fact that we are looking into Integral arguments to justify the current Iraq War; not a previous war.  The fact that Saddam fired missiles into Israel during the first gulf war is logically irrelevent to the truth of your claim, any more than the fact that the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor in 1941 is irrelevent to the truth of your claim.  These are historical facts that are unrelated to the current reasons for attacking yet again, and in any case do not justify a pre-emptive war and regime change of one nation-state by another.

 
"Also, Sadaam had supported Palestinian terrorists, so it wasn't far fetched to think that he might cooperate with terrorists in the future."

We can turn that argument on ourselves and say that the United States has supported Saddam, who is also a terrorist (should it be the case that what KW had noted about Saddam can be confirmed).  That being the case, what reasons do other nations have that the United States might not cooperate with terrorists in the future?  I don't think that you want to go there.

Naturally we don't want to condone terrorism of any form.  At the same time, we cannot overlook the glaring fact that the European Jewish settlers who established the nation of Israel could only do so via displacement and expulsion these native Palestinians from their ancestral homeland.  To date, they have yet to compensate these Palestinians for their losses -- whether in the form of monetary or property compensation.  Of the few remaining, there's been a 60-year ongoing policy of ethnic cleansing and apartheid against the remaining native Palestinians in Israel for the establishment of a Jewish state. 

The Palestinians are treated as second-class citizens wherever they go and have beem forced to take refuge in numerous surrounding countries, including Iraq.  Little wonder, then, that most Arab countries, including Iraq, do not like Israel.  Meanwhile, the United States has spent billions of dollars every year arming Israel with state-of-the-art military technology and nuclear weapons.  Israel has, in turn, has consistently used this military might and power to act aggressively both at home and abroad toward non-Jewish people. 

I don't claim to know the whole psychology and history surrounding Islamic terrorism, let alone Palestinian terrorism; yet I am fairly convinced that much of this has been brought on to the Israelis themselves as a consequence of their inhumane policies toward the Palestinians, who have since become destitute and humiliated.  Needless to say, in that sort of environment, resentment and hostilities are bound to build over time between the settlers and the natives.  And in the absence of a rich and powerful nation to arm the native Palestinians, radical militant groups will inevitably emerge and use whatever force they have at their disposal to resist Israeli agression or wage terror on Israeli civilians.  Terror, of course, is wrong however way you look at it.  Thus, given the wrongs committed on both sides, I personally think it is best that the United States refrain from taking sides in Israeli-Arab affairs unless for humanitarian purposes; and withdraw all military support to Israel.  In truth, it's really the only integral way to go about it.  However, as Garrison noted in the audio, there has been this ongoing radical support for Israel by the United States. 

" Deposing him did eliminate the threat his regime posed to Israel and reduced greatly the possibility that Iraqi scientists would cooperate with terrorists, so in that regard the Iraq War has been a success. . . .

As I had stated previously, I seriously doubt that Iraq has been in a capacity to pose any kind of threat or danger to any nation since the first Gulf War.  Since that time, their infrastructure and military has been in the shambles with ongoing sanctions and no-fly zones.  These measures have effectively worked to contain Saddam Hussein.  But suppose Saddam were still a threat to Israel because of the possibility that Iraqi scientists might cooperate with terrorists.  Well, I believe that that is why the U.N. had conducted routine weapons inspections in Iraq to ensure that Saddam was not developing any.  And I'm trying to figure out why you have such a concern for only Israel.  Sounds almost ethnocentric.  On an Integral level, it would seem that this concern for humanity would allow you experience this feeling of inclusivity and campassion for all humans irrespective of nationality: which includes, not only the Israeli civilians, but also the 300,000-500,000 Iraqi civilians that Saddam had allegedly murdered.

As you can see, Ken Wilber avoids many logical errors, as you've committed above, by avoiding taking "sides" and making his Integral argument for a regime change on the basis of human rights, not on political grounds.  There is a reason why he must confine his argument for regime change to reports that Saddam had murdered 300,000-500,000 of his own people: all of the reasons that you've stated thus far would not warrant a regime change.  However, if such a charge as the murder of hundreds and thousands of civilians could be proven in a court of law, then regime change would be justified.  Then, and only then, would I think you have a case.

Does that justify pre-emptive strike?  No, this is not an Integral solution to kill somebody "just in case."
 
“He also tried to assassinate a U.S. president, in addition to invading Kuwait, starting a war with Iran, gassing the Kurds, bombing the Shia, etc., so there was very good reason to think that he might cause problems in the future. The only things that had stopped him were the troops in Kuwait and sanctions, but this containment wouldn't necessarily work indefinitely--the point is that there were arguments for deposing Sadaam, and deposing him did have at least some benefits that need to be considered.

Sure, there were arguments for deposing Saddam, but none of them were Integral.

As you can see, Ken Wilber avoids many logical errors, as you've committed above, by avoiding taking "sides" and making his Integral argument for a regime change on the basis of human rights, not on political grounds.  There is a reason why he must confine his argument for regime change to reports that Saddam had murdered 300,000-500,000 of his own people: all of the reasons that you've stated thus far, aside from possibly gassing the Kurds, would not warrant a regime change.  However, if such a charge as the murder of hundreds and thousands of innocent civilians could be proven, then there is an Integral argument for a regime change.  But only if done so by a world federation or by U.N. authorization.

Then, and only then, would I think you have a case.

 
"In the old days you knew an attack was imminent because troops would be amassAning on your border. You might know months in advance that an attack was imminent. These days you may not know until after the attack. Things have changed; there need to be new rules of engagement. . . .

Rules based on Integral values and a multilateral solution.  No pre-emptive strikes.
 
“Yet they, and the intelligence agencies of Europe, believed Sadaam did have WMD--Sadaam had been very enthusiastic about obtaining nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons in the past, and he had continued to resist weapons inspections. . . [Also] there had been some relationship between Sadaam's government and Al Qaeda, and whether Zarqawi was Al Qaeda or not, he was in Iraq and was the next worst thing.The evidence certainly wasn't as good as the Bush administration said it was, but it wasn't as bad as the liberal press has sometimes made it out to be.”

As I had stated in the other thread, George Tenet, head of the CIA, briefed Bush that Iraq had no WMDs after coming back empty-handed.  Nor could the U.N. find any.  Why would you want to base your argument on heresay or on hypotheticals?  Because you wanted a regime change.  Fine.  Then you have to find a reason to justify it.  Those above do not.  
 
 
I do stand by the feminine typology bit. I wasn't really even referring exclusively to men and women there either, just communal types and agentic types, but on that subject it is generally true that women will be more likely to oppose a war than men. There are exceptions, of course--among leaders, Margaret Thatcher, Hillary Clinton--but I see polls that reflect this all the time, like this one.

I am in agreement with you that on the Integral stages, differences between men's and women's values toward war and peace become somewhat more sophisticated and less differentiated.  Naturally, being a woman predisposes me toward non-aggression.  But you should be careful to avoid insulting the intelligence or consciousnesses of great teachers such as Diane Hamilton or myself, a student of truth, both of whom are Integral yet are women.  I am confident that our reasons for our criticisms toward this war are based on Integral reasons, and not merely because of lack of testosterone.  To suggest it in any way in an integral discussion would be seen as an insult.  I realize now that you were referring to green, of course; and to neither myself nor to Diane Hamilton.  So am glad that you cleared that up to me
 
Thank you again for your blog, Barbi. You make some great points, and I look forward to discussing them more with you if you would like.

No, THANK YOU.  The pleasure is mine.  Feel free to comment back.