My Ears Burning at the Straight Dope Forum

I was working here at my computer when suddenly my ears turned red hot. "Holy Otolaryngologist! Someone's talking about me!"

So I closed my eyes and clicked on my AdFree Stats link at random. Sure enough, someone had accessed my site through the Straight Dope forum.

Somehow the conversation there turned to Riverbend, and a poster had recommended this lil' shack as a supplement to her blog. (Thanks Ryan Liam. I'm honored!)

Then someone started talking smack about me and this blog, sooooo I jumped into the mix.

Here's the conversation. Enjoy. :)

By the way, I included in that give-and-take my challenge to any Unrealist who thinks the removal of Saddam was illegal or a war-crime:

If Saddam was removed "illegally" then he should released from jail, returned to power, and compensated with the funds and weapons necessary to put down the newly empowered opponents of his regime. If you don't believe that should happen, then you don't really consider the act illegal. Pick one.

I've yet to get an Unrealist to admit that Saddam should be reinstated or to explain why he shouldn't be even though the invasion was illegal. But the offer still stands. In fact, if any Unrealist is willing to take this statement on -- answer it honestly or explain why the alternatives are irrelevant -- I'll post his responses in full on this blog.

[UPDATE]
I finally got a taker on my challenge. He/She didn't leave a name, did make a valient attempt:

Your challenge doesn't stand up to much scrutiny. Most opponents of the war were also opponents of Saddam. His removal was the silver lining of an extremely large cloud. Naturally that does not make an unprovoked attack on a sovereign country legal, and overall it has probably done much more harm than good. That's no reason to undo the single good thing that came out of it.

A similar argument to yours would be the following:
A burglar breaks into a house. When he gets in, he finds a man having a heart attack and calls an ambulance, saving the man's life, before escaping with his life savings. If you think the burglary was an illegal act, you should have the homeowner killed, as he was only saved because of an illegal act. If you think the homeowner should be allowed to live, you don't believe the burglary
was illegal (and you should let the burglar keep the man's life savings).

Nice try. You seem to be suggesting that the INVASION was illegal, but deposing Saddam was not. I'm sorry, but that simply won't fly:

Saving a life is perfectly legal. If the invasion was illegal -- a war crime -- then removing Saddam Hussein was NOT legal.

Any response?

[UPDATE]
Jeff Kantor has taken up my challenge. Nicely done too. I suspect I am about to cry "Calf Rope".

Get your user's certificaton in International Law in the Comments section of this post.

BTW I screwed up my last response. Jeff's quotes and my response are inexplicably set in the same paragraphs, but Jeff's words are italics and that is how you will know the difference.

[UPDATE -- "Calf Rope!"]
Okay. Jeff Kantor has definitely proved his point. IF the invasion of Iraq were illegal under international law, then it WOULD NOT require that Saddam be released, reinstated, and provided with funds and munitions to fend off his enemies.

International law is not what it would appear to be...not even as what it's most fierce propronents seem to think of it. His response is too long and involved to do justice here but I definitely recommend you read it in the Comments section of this post.

However, I don't think his explanation of international law and why Saddam can be left in history's ashtray is really what the unrealists have in mind when they call the invasion illegal.

CMAR II says "Check it out"