Godbert

[QUOTE]Originally posted by David M. Payne


1. Not an apples and apples analogy here, Bush wasn't in the business of wholesale murder of his opponents in Iraq, Saddam was. Did innocent people die in the war? Yes, that always happens in war. I think the more relevant question here is did we save more people than were killed by removing Saddam. I don't know yet, and neither do any of you.

Then maybe you should not have claimed just that in your truth-twisting "saddam was killing 70 to 120 people a day and the war killed only 5000 to 7000" post above?


2. Sorry but I will include all of the mass murder that Saddam was engaged in during his whole time in power. You know if you look at the logical extension of what you said here, then one could argue that; well you know Hitler wasn't so bad after all, I mean he wasn't killing massive numbers of Jews, Poles and other concentration camp prisoners at the end of his reign. After all he had already killed most of them early on hadn't he, so who was really left for him to kill? Ugh, lousy argument as far as I'm concerned.

Don't even know where to start on this one. First of all, Hitler did kill at a rate only limited by his capacity to do so until the end. Also, besides that he was engaged in several other minor transgressions such as having started a world war.
Yes, as far as I'm concerned that was about as lousy as arguments get.



2. If you want to argue international law, well the Bush people say that the UN resolutions give them the authority to do what they did. I'm not an international lawyer, I don't even play one in any of my stories, and so I don't know who is "absolutely in the right" here.


I guess you have to study law for several years to understand the ending phrase of all relevant resolutions that says that the Security Council "remains seized of the matter"
And furthermore resolution 1441 was only passed because the Bush people explicitly acknowledged that it did not contain a trigger for war


But when it comes to removing guys like Saddam or Osama bin Laden from the international scene, let me give you a hint where I stand. If those guys suddenly showed up in front of me when I'm armed with my favorite piece, they would get holey (not holy) real fast. Know what I mean?

Aaah, yes ....



In closing let me say that all wars are wrong, but some are necessary. Everything I write here is done with the idea that perhaps it will in some small way help humanity grow out of the need for war and the other evils that plague us.

We are all indebted to you

David M. Payne

Two things here GB, I didn't write the report on Saddam's mass murder, WAIS did. If you have a problem with it's accuracy attack it, not me.

As for my point about being willing to kill guys like Saddam and Osama, buddy I'm a Vietnam vet and I don't ask people to do something that�s dangerous that I'm not willing to do myself. If that offends you too bad. I hope you have the opportunity to meet one of them some day and see what kind of mercy they would have for you. Both of them are mass murderers and in a perfect world bad people would meet bad ends, and these guys deserve to come to a bad end. Perhaps you feel otherwise?

Guys like you (Assuming you're a guy) are why I don't play much here anymore. See ya.

David

RED DAVE

From David Payne:

There are other sandboxes. Go over to Graveyard of the Gods. You can play with Tremblay.

Seriously, now that the Tenet revelations are out, one more prop is knocked out from under Bush's lies. If you really believe that this "compassionate conservative" wanted to preserve human freedom and end a serious threat to international peace and save lives, you are playing with the neighborhood psychopath.

RED DAVE

RLV

David, glad to hear that your toe is better. Do you see now that I was right and you did better waiting before amputating your leg?

The problem in these numbers, 70-120 people killed a day, is not with the accuracy of WAIS, which nobody has disputed.
The problem is with the way you use them.
If we counted the people killed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki (how many were they? Say 200.000) and divided them for the number of days between the dropping of the A-bombs and today (about 20.000), could we say that the US is killing 10 people a day using atomic weapons?
Would that be right? I don't think so.

Er... I'm afraid again you failed to read my post. I said:
"we don't have to choose between Saddam or Bush.".
I'm not saying that Bush is as bad as Saddam, and it has not much relevance for the matter. If Mother Theresa were advocating for an invasion of Iraq in '03 I'd disagree with her, too.

And this is a very good reason to be very, very careful before launching one.

We don't know for sure, but we have some quite clear indicators.
The number of people that has already died in a few months quite high, in the range of the tens of thousands. There is no indication that Saddam was killing people in nearly this scale in '03. And you can be sure that if any massacre of the kind had been found, it would have been greatly publicized, don't you think so?
The 'we don't know for certain' excuse is only so much valid. You've got to take decisions with the information you have, and people is dying because of these decisions.

[quiote]2. Sorry but I will include all of the mass murder that Saddam was engaged in during his whole time in power. You know if you look at the logical extension of what you said here, then one could argue that; well you know Hitler wasn't so bad after all, I mean he wasn't killing massive numbers of Jews, Poles and other concentration camp prisoners at the end of his reign. After all he had already killed most of them early on hadn't he, so who was really left for him to kill? Ugh, lousy argument as far as I'm concerned.[/quote]
Actually, as it has been pointed out, this is not true. Hitler's program of murders was being carried out during all the war, and it was not near completion when the war ended.

But anyway, to use your analogy, if Hitler had been contained in Germany, without the military might to be a threat to his neighbours, and he had been killing only his political opponents,
AND
the invasion needed to remove him would kill tens of thousands of the very German people that you mean to protect by removing Hitler from power, it would injure and maim many more and it would bring further destruction and danger of chaos to the country,
then I would argue against it all the same.

Mind you, is the killing of even more civilians going to help in any way those that have already been murdered? I don't think so.

The acts are to be measured for the net benefit they bring. Killing tens of thousands of poeple to save a few is not a worthy tradeoff.

Exactly. Saddam could be contained so that he wasn't a serious danger to the world or to his own people. This didn't require the killing of tens of thousands of the very same people that you intend to save.

To make it short, they didn't. Bush & co. are lying in this, too.

Understandable.
But what if Saddam and OBL were standing in the middle of a crowd of innocent civilians, and you had to kill them all to get to the baddies?
This is the situation we were faced before the invasion. Nobody argues that removing Saddam from power was a bad thing. We are arguing that it was not worth the huge cost in lives, destruction and danger that it's taking.

Agreed.
The invasion of Iraq was not one of the necessary ones.

This is very arguable. First, the existence of this 'civilizations conflict'. And secondly, that the actions of the US have no responsibility in making it way hotter than it would be without them. Have you already forgotten what Western country gave a decisive impulse for the mujahiddin, including OBL, to carry their war in Afghanistan?

No, he wasn't. Saddam was not a fundamentalist and he only used Islam as a tool for his means when he was threatened by 'Xian crusaders' as the US. OBL and his kind were a threat to him, not supporters.

Neither under any fundamentalist Xian regime, and probably neither under an stalinist regime. The question here is about freedom, not about Islam.

But even if we were to buy into your line of thought, how do you believe that invading Iraq is going to help reduce Islamic fundamentalism? You are giving them more reasons to hate the US, not less.


RLV

Farren

David I assume you're still lurking, since you've come back 2 or 3 times after promising to quit

RLV seems to be holding up quite nicely on the point-by-point side, so I'll keep this brief by paraphrasing the big issue I think you're dodging.

What I was trying to say in my earlier post is that everything should be measured against its consequences.

International Law: Background

The US broke International Law, period. I'll get into the consequences forthwith, but first an examination of the grounds for saying this.

All countries that have signed the UN charter and various international treaties for rules of engagement with other countries (such as the Geneva Convention) have signed a contract, not a wish list.

The UN charter specifically says that no country may declare war on another country (link provided in my post above) unless their sovereignty is under threat from that country.

The US/UK governments made two claims in order to get around this. Both were false. Whatever bull they've been feeding their own populations, these two claims were the reasons given to the international community to vindicate their actions in light of international law.

The first, supported by only one international law expert (Anthony Aust), was that Saddam had violated the terms of the original (Gulf War 1) chapter 7 resolution against Iraq, and that the US/UK therefore had a right to act.

Unfortunately, said resolution empowered them to act "in a coalition of nations formed for the defense of Kuwait". Aust himself got stuck on this bit, since Saddam wasn't threatening Kuwait any more. What's interesting is that Aust was a former Blair advisor and a loyalist. Most non-partisan international law bodies (like the International Commity of Jurists) strongly disagreed.

The second attempt at justification was based on a questionable interpretation of the "self-defense" clause in the United Nations charter, to wit, "anticipatory self-defense".

This interpretation says that you have the right to attack another nation if you have adequate grounds to believe they will and can attack you.

This was the entire reason Colin Powell went and peddled his smutty wares (forged and inaccurate intelligence) to the UN Security council in what was arguably the biggest multimedia show ever performed before this body. Needless to say they didn't buy it.

Neither, I should mention, did Judge Richard Goldstone (who presided over Yugoslavian war crimes tribunals), the International Committee of Jurists and dozens of other well-respected IL experts. In fact the only people arguing in favour during this period were Republic/Labour party loyalists and people on the payroll of the UK/US governments.

The claim has repeatedly been made that we cannot conclusively say that this was a violation since no international court has actually passed such judgement, so I'll address this again.

Ronald Reagan presided over military action against a democratically elected government in Nicaragua. Specifically, the mining of Nicaragua's harbours and the supply of arms to rebel groups.

At the time, the US was a signatory to the establishment treaty of the International Court of Justice, so the Nicaraguan government took them to court. Note: the US recognised the authority of this body at the start of proceedings.

Things did not go well for Reagan's administration, and the court found in favour of Nicaragua, imposing a heavy fine on the US. Reagan's response? Refuse to pay the fine and withdraw recognition of the ICJ. Pretty isolationist if you ask me.

In an effort to address the ongoing problem of enforcing critical elements of international law, another body, the International Criminal Court, has been formed. This court will preside over international cases such as war crimes trials and has been carefully planned over a long period.

Clinton put his signature to the treaty establishing this court, and it was awaiting endorsement by the US congress. Note, the signing of the treaty constitued a promise that it would, in fact be put before congress and it has been argued that failure to even present it for ratification was a minor infraction of IL.

GW, of course, did (or didn't do) exactly this. Immediately prior to commencing war with Iraq, he withdrew the US from the ICJ treaty and stated that it would not go before congress for endorsement. Coincidence? Yeah, right.

In short, the majority of IL experts around the world concur that this was an illegal war and the present situation is an occupation. Most newspapers in my country refer to it as such and this is quite a normal view if you're not in the States (Blair is having a somewhat more difficult time than Bush right now because the fourth estate their have been somewhat more diligent in their duties than their counterparts in the States)

International Law: Consequences

During the cold war, people became accustomed to allowing that pragmatism preceded technicality, but with the collapse of the Soviet Union and an increasingly reasonable China, we no longer have that luxury.

The purpose of international law is to ensure that nuclear weapons do not proliferate, the global environment is not degraded, and war crimes are not perpetrated. These are not inconsequential aims.

Violating that law repeatedly does severe damage to the law itself, in the same way that admitting contaminated evidence ("fruit of the poison tree") and selective application of local law damages peoples faith in said law and leads them to vigilante action.

When the worlds largest military power repeatedly gives international law the finger they self-evidently open the door to all the things that said law is trying to hold back: War crimes, environmental degradation and nuclear proliferation, to name a few.

Ironically, if bodies like the ICJ were given a chance, there would be a structured legal framework for bringing cases against the likes of Saddam Hussein and obliging the UN to act in a consistent manner without excessive politicking.

In other words, George Bush and Tony Blair didn't just shoot up the bad guys hideout, they burnt down the new sheriffs office. This is not admirable, and I do not thank the US.

Economic Sabotage: Background

One of the stickier points of international law is the principal that a nation can be held accountable for its debts and contractual obligations even if the helmsman/woman who ran up these debts was not accountable to the general population at the time. The thinking , I think, is that people will be more incentivised to oust bad leadership if they are held accountable.

In any event, half of Africa is presently severely indebted to US corporations and caught in the stranglehold of unfavourable contracts. Many of these contracts were signed by military dictators or unelected civilians, but the debt is still carried by democratic governments. If they even think of reneging, the US state department waves a the very big stick of, you guessed it, international law, at them.

This is raison de etre behind Jubilee 2000 and other organisations trying to get rich nations to write off third world debt (which, interestingly enough, has been done repeatedly by those dastardly Germans and Frenchies, and to the best of my knowledge not at all by the States).

Prior to the Iraq war, the UN was running an "Oil for Food" program, whereby the Iraqi government could sell oil via the UN, and the UN vet the uses of the income. Under this scheme, the Russian company LukOil had just secured a lucrative deal with the Iraqi government. Was it immoral or unethical? No, as it was secured within the framework of a program devised to help the Iraqi people.

After occupying Iraq, the Bush administration cancelled the LukOil contract, once again in violation of international law.

Economic Sabotage: Consequences

The LukOil contract would generate thousands of jobs for Russian nationals and was a legal and binding contract on any future Iraqi administration.

The cancelling of that contract, and subsequent handing over of management of some of the same oil fields to Halliburton, was theft, pure and simple.

It was disgusting and immoral and eliminated potentially thousands of jobs for Russians. I can't begin to imagine how furious I would be if I were Russian.

Realpolitik: Background

For some realpolitik is a dirty word. Like "statistics", it is a word who's meaning can be twisted to serve many agendas. However, the concept it describes is sound, namely that the principles of a thing and the real world consequences of a things are often worlds apart.

Now Blair and Bush may argue from the "realpolitik" stance that this international law thing wasn't working properly. But I think I have already shown that the US is in fact, the biggest impediment to enforcement of international law. This is almost exactly parallel to people who constructed a second-class educational system for blacks in South Africa then argued that blacks lacked adequate education for government, which is just absurd.

The realpolitik that does bear thinking about, though, is why 9/11 happened. Its public record that the US became Al Qaida's enemy number one because of occupation of a middle eastern nation, namely Saudi Arabia. Al Qaida has repeatedly stated this, and there is little reason to disbelieve them.

Other fundamentalist and Arab nationalist groups have indicated same. In addition, continued massive military assistance of the Israeli's is a sore point, which is why I think the two are linked.

Its a matter of public record that Al Qaida hated Saddam Hussein an would rather see a fundamentalist government in Iraq.

Realpolitik: Consequences

These are so obvious I don't know why I'm spelling it out.

The US/UK have made the task of fundamentalists easier, and continued occupation will only increase the drive to fundamentalism. This, as has been pointed out on many other threads, is not the Japan or Germany of the 1940's. The dominant culture is vastly different and was being held in check by the secular Baathists.

Its also obvious that a UN administered Iraq would be an altogether more nebulous affair, with fair less obvious targets of hatred for fundamentalists. In addition, they would have a greater chance of engineering a society based on the principals of the UN charter, since even Arab extremists have conceded their moral authority many times by appealing to them. Alien or not to the dominant culture, their assertians would be harder to question.

What the US and UK governments have done is created a new, and more obvious rallying point for extremists in the region. Since US occupation of the ME is the primary cause of 9/11, it doesn't take a major leap in imagination to understand that GW has undermined the safety and security of US citizens.

But that's alright I suppose, because you got the bad man.

except, of course, you didnt get either of the bad men

(You wanna see carnage and human rights abuses? Take a look at warlord and fundamentalist controlled Afghanistan 1900's to present)

Farren

Part II: Accountability

Background

While it may be common knowledge that any democratic government has to grease the wheels with a few sugar coated pills and slight distortions of the truth, we should not waver in seeking the ideal - government that is truthful, transparent and accountable.

To accept minor infractions is one thing, to acknowledge and accept massive manipulation and lying as well as attacks on transparency itself is another.

What's emerged in the course of this war is that the Bush administration is willing to lie and distort at every turn to vindicate their actions to both the world and the people they were elected to govern.

Specifically

Flip: We have conclusive evidence that Saddam has WMDs and we know where they are

Flop: We can't find WMDs and we're not sure where Saddam put them. It doesn't matter anyway.

Flip: It will all be worth it if we capture Saddam

Flop: This war is bigger than one man

Flip: This will be a cheap war.

Flop: No-one said it was gonna be cheap

Flip: We'll be in and out in no time. The rejoicing Iraqis will immediately embrace a western democratic government

Flop: This is gonna take a long time...

Each of these is in an of itself acknowledgement that the Bush adminstration either

1) Lied
2) Didn't have the foresight of a blind mule

Never (in my lifetime, at least) have I witnessed the citizens of a wealthy western nation endorse so much incompetence and dishonesty. War supporters continue to write blank cheques for a man who, were he the CEO of a company, would be drawn and quartered by his shareholders.

Consequences

At home, the consequences of buying this crap are obvious for US citizens. The war in Iraq has fueled a record breaking government deficit and drawn attention away from frighteningly bad economic management.

On the world stage, this administration has squandered two of the most vital commodities a nation has: trust and goodwill. Hardly anyone trusts the US anymore. Its certainly a minority that believe anything the Bush administration says.

From personal experience I can say that 90% of all the political cartoons I see involving Bush and his cronies, 90% of all the opinion pieces I read and 90% of all the television and radio commentary and "listeners/viewers opinions" ridicule and parody GW and his administration.

My brother, a UK citizen, reports that he and his cohorts are similarly hated and reviled by the majority of UK citizens, although in slightly smaller proportions, and my friends in Australia report same.

GW was known as a fool the world over by the politically cogniscent before this war. But Iraq as made even the politically unconscious sharply critical of the US president.

If you do a quick Google for "Boycott US" on the web, you'll find that there are countless initiatives to boycott US goods.

When GW and allies held themselves above accountability to the world and gave the UN and their traditional allies the finger, a fair proportion of the world's population decided to respond in kind.

Every US citizen that supports a war and ongoing occupation that the majority of the worlds population vehemently disagrees with, spreads a little more of that anger out from the leader to the people of the US themselves. So its not just your leader. Pro war advocates in the US are doing immense harm to the US's current and future economic prospects.

Heres a little test. Scan through these fora and take a look at opinions on the war of various members. Take a look at where they're from.

Even better, browse other fora and web sites on the web. Look at the opinions and look at where they're from. You'll find it illuminating.

RLV

Farren, very well put.


RLV

David M. Payne

I am not lurking, I've nothing left to say so there!

Seriously guys, you make good points (Well some of you do, RLV, Farren) but we will continue to disagree about whither he needed to be removed from power. I can cite support for my position that he needed to go, and you can cite support for why we needed to stay out of there. I do have mixed emotions about it, as evidenced by what I said in Utopia-612, but on balance I'm glad he is out of power. I think most of you would like to believe that this is a new conflict dating back no farther than the oil biz, but I don't think so. I think this conflict has its roots in the very old conflict between Islam and the Christian west. It is more about dogma than oil in my mind. I will continue to look at this thread, but unless something new is raised, well this horse has been beaten into the ground as far as I can see. And with that thought it is time to go for me, but it was nice debating with some of you here.

David

Hum, this just in; al Quaida link to the attacks in Iraq? Well we will have to stay tuned to this breaking story.

Optional

Oh, damn. This is going to be used as evidence of Iraq-terrorist links, when it is exactly the opposite...

There has been no evidence of international terrorism for decades in Iraq, UNTIL we go in and 'liberate' them. Three months later, al Queda has a branch office.

-me

John Hancock

Well boy howdy here I comes as my normally Nudnik self. Godbert, Farren you have treated the honorable although wrong David Payne in a shame full manner. RLV you have behaved with impeccable taste. Of course Red Dave you've called me a baby killer (guilty but this is the good old USA). Since then General Butler and Joe Slovo have become my heroes makes me different now?

Like I said I'm a nudnik. The life of any US. Military Person is not worth the crap ass of any [deleted]. Bush lied worse than a rug for the benefit of his oily business partners.

He's a traitor and I'd like to be on his firing squad (and willing my rifle didn't contain a blank).

Even if he was an officer David Payne deserves more respect than he's been allotted in this thread.

John Hancock
__________________
"Fascism,should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power." Mussolini