Paging Jason and Tim

[Rywill]

As Jason likes to say, whoops (http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/06/25/sprj.irq.centrifuge/index.html). Turns out Iraq was planning on building a gas centrifuge after all, and an Iraqi scientist recently turned over parts of the centrifuge to the CIA. I'll also note that a gas centrifuge was what the aluminum tubes were supposed to be for; critics contended that Iraq had no plans for a gas centrifuge and, therefore, the tubes were probably intended for an artillery piece, as Saddam maintained.

Is it a smoking gun? My answer would be "It's on the line." On the one hand, it doesn't show any sort of active nuke program. On the other hand, it's conclusive evidence that Saddam intended to have such a program in the future. Implicaton? Probably that A) we were wrong about how close Saddam was to getting nukes; but B) we were right that he was going to get them eventually.

Close enough, as they say, for government work.

Spin away, boys!

[XPav]

Yeah, because thinking about possibly starting up a nuke program is of course, the clear and imminent danger that Bush talked about and the reason we had to invade right now.

Now I think, as with all stories though, that we have to wait a month until all the facts come out. Nothing with Iraq is that simple after all.

[Jason McCullough]

The parts were unearthed by Iraqi scientist Mahdi Obeidi who had hidden them under a rose bush 12 years ago under orders from Qusay Hussein and Saddam Hussein's then son-in-law, Hussein Kamel.

Give me a fucking break. It's been under a rose bush since the end of Gulf War 1; isn't that a piece of evidence that the old way of dealing with Saddam was working?

I don't recall Bush saying "well, we've got to stop sanctions and inspections, and if we do so, then he'll eventually get a bomb." I recall him saying something along the lines of "what we're doing right now - sanctions and inspetions - will result in Saddam getting a bomb. We can't stop him." That it'd be been buried for a decade kind of implies we were stopping him, doesn't it?

Declaring that the aluminum tubes were to be used with this is unfalsifiable.

Call me when we find evidence of an active program - you know, what Bush claimed.

[Rywill]

Right, because the sanctions weren't completely breaking down or anything. I'm sure they were just as effective this year as they were in 1994. Well, except for all the countries not cooperating and the smuggling and the folks shipping technology to Iraq and all that, but who's counting?

I particularly like the way you manage to sound all indignant that people would consider this a major discovery. Seriously--you are the fucking man. I also like the way you again conflate the issue of "Did Bush lie to us?" (He did. Very bad.) with "Was invading Iraq the right thing to do because they were dangerous?" (They were.) Good quote job, too, where you conveniently eliminate the part of the quote about Saddam ordering the scientist to hold onto the equipment because Saddam intends to use it as soon as he can, and that the scientist should be "ready" to reinstate the nuke program when Saddam orders him to.

Excellent work overall. If I ever need an information minister, you are top on my list!

[Jason McCullough]

Yeah, he was keeping it ready for TWELVE YEARS.

Just for reference, a real, honest-to-god "ok, I'm on board" thing would be something like the Niger uranium order turning out to be true.

Right, because the sanctions weren't completely breaking down or anything. I'm sure they were just as effective this year as they were in 1994. Well, except for all the countries not cooperating and the smuggling and the folks shipping technology to Iraq and all that, but who's counting?

And that the only thing found so far is a piece of equipment from a decade ago? Real porous borders there.

[Captain Cookiepants]

I like how Jason's evidence needed for convincing has moved from 'Show me anything that proves they were working on any type of program or were violating sanctions' to 'Show me the actual missiles with pics of Saddam wearing a wig and holding a sign that says 'I'm going to p0wn ju'.'

USA: Saddam was violating sanctions and in contempt of the U.N.
Protestors: But did he have his finger on the button with the countdown on red LED lights in the background?
USA: Well no.
Protesters: Then fuck you, no war for oil.

Even if we did find a huge warehouse full of atom bombs they BETTER be primed and ready and have to be stopped one second before detonation or else it'll all be worthless.

[Mark Asher]

I agree with Jason. That this thing was buried for 12 years seems to imply that the weapons inspections were working. Everyone knew that at one time Iraq was trying to build WPMs -- that's no surprise and that bit of history isn't why we went to war. That's why the inspections began in the first place. Show me the active program they had in place recently, the one that the weapons inspectors couldn't find, the program that was our justification for going to war.

[Brian Rucker]

David Albright, who was a U.N. nuclear weapons inspector in Iraq in the 1990s, said inspectors "understood that Iraq probably hid centrifuge documents, may have had components, and so it is very important that those items be found."

"What it is that Obeidi was ordered to keep was all the information and some centrifuge components, so that if he was given the order, he could restart the centrifuge program," said Albright, president of the Institute for Science and International Security in Washington.

"In a sense, the program was in hibernation. He was the key to the restart of this centrifuge program, and he never got the order. So in that sense it doesn't show at all that Iraq had a nuclear program. And Obeidi told me that he never worked on a nuclear program after 1991."

That's pretty much the salient point in the story as far as I'm concerned.

[Dirt]

Considering how many US Citizens think that Iraq used chemical or biological weapons during the war, this is all the Bush Administration needs to continue lying to the American people.

[Rywill]

Here's what Dr. Obeidi said (http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/06/25/otsc.boettcher/index.html) to a reporter who interviewed him in Baghdad:


No, it's not dual use. He says precisely that this was to make a gas centrifuge to enrich uranium. It would have taken several dozen of them to enrich enough uranium in a period that would have taken about a year or so once they had that gas centrifuge built.

He believes that would have taken maybe another two years or so. So a total program of two to three and a half years. And he believes it was kept solely for the purpose of reconstituting the program once Saddam thought it was safe.

In terms of other programs, other weapons ... , biological or chemical, he says he does not have any information on that. And he says that the entire nuclear program was basically inactive, he believes, for the last 12 years, although he did reveal tonight when I spoke to him that in 2002 there may have been a parallel plan to conceptually bring back that gas centrifuge program, a plan to perhaps take this forward to its step when Saddam thought it was safe to try to build a bomb again.
(Their eillipsis/no modification to original quote) I am sensing that debating this with you guys is just as pointless as debating the justness of the war before we went in, so I'm pretty much going to lay off. To me, it's pretty clear that Saddam had the technology to build a nuke, and the desire to build one as soon as he could get away with it. If the main point of the antiwar crowd is that sanctions would have kept Iraq nuke-free forever, I guess we can just agree to disagree. To me, the evidence was crystal clear that sanctions had broken down. But you guys believe whatever you want.

[Toddy]

How the fuck is digging something out of a garden -- where it'd been for more than a decade -- evidence that Saddam was just waiting for the world to look the other way? Putting aside the whole "Saddam can be ready to fire WMDs in 45 minutes!" nonsense that Bush used to get the war going, does anyone actually believe that Saddam or his nutcase sons even remembered where this thing had been stashed? If anything, this stuff shows that Bush and Blair were wrong, that Saddam had pretty much mothballed his weapons projects after the first Gulf War, just like he claimed. But hey, you want to believe that this guy's forgotten garden ornament would have been key to making Saddam Dr. Strangelove by 2005 if not for the invasion, knock yourself out.

[Tim]

I agree this is no smoking gun, but, assuming it doesn't turn out to be another false alarm, it would still be significant. The fact that it remained hidden demonstrates willful and successful violation of the inspection process. Those weren't intended as a game of hide & seek, they were supposed to be more of a witnessing of disarmament. Iraq documents all the prohibited stuff they had developed and procured, and the inspectors are shown conclusive evidence that it's all been destroyed or otherwise rendered harmless.

Maybe there was no immediate danger anywhere else either, but it would certainly be conclusive proof that the inspections were not working.

Maybe we were lied to about the immediate threat, but I really doubt that. Why would the US government knowingly lie about Iraq's weapons and then invade and essentially call their own bluff? Had weapons immediately been 'found', I think there would be better reason to suspect dishonesty. But at worst, I don't think it could be anything worse than a misjudgment. I think there's a clever saying about not attributing to maliciousness anything that can be adequately explained by incompetence.

[Bullhajj]

Maybe there was no immediate danger anywhere else either, but it would certainly be conclusive proof that the inspections were not working.

All the disarmament that did occur in Iraq was a direct result of inspections programs. We found and destroyed lots of WMD in the early 90s. To date we have found no WMD as a result of invasion.

So let's see, on the one hand we have tons of WMD found and destroyed, and on the other we have dozens of news reports about WMD, each of which are routinely discredited.

Sorry to single you out, but I can't understand why people persist with this fantasy that inspections weren't working. Don't let facts cloud your opinion!

Ultimately history will record what was working and what was unnecessary.

[Cleve Blakemore]

We Australians marvel at how utterly mindless the American people are. It appears the U.S. government can literally feed them any doublespeak crap and they'll buy it.

Yes, I know the Australians are just as out of touch with reality on the issues that count, but seriously can you believe somebody would be stupid enough to think that you can preemptively attack nations and kill thousands of civilians because somebody had a centrifuge buried out in their yard under a rose bush?

That's 4000 civilians killed in Iraq. Have you Yanks no sense of decency? I've got no love affair with Islamic culture, but are your hearts so hardened you feel nothing for these civilians blown to shreds along with their kids, riddled by bullets and shot for sport by the centurions of the glorious empire?

I cried real tears when I saw some of the photos of what they did to kids in Iraq. It was horrible beyond description. I know you multicultist globalists don't believe in anything but yourselves and your marxist utopia but surely on some level you must realize the horrific monsters you have become in the past ten years? Between what you have done to the Palestinians with U.S. money and military support and these atrocities you have worked on these people in the Middle East, you must be able to comprehend why you are hated so much. Look in the mirror, you'll see a Lovecraftian cosmic monstrosity looking back at you draped in the American flag.

Yanks have become something so inhuman and feral they no longer fit anywhere into the species. Probably more than half of them could not even find Iraq on a map, but they fully support bombing them into rubble because of a rusty piece of junk under a rose bush. You're all bloody insane and we Ozzies know at least this much.

Our government in Oz had no majority support for what they did in Iraq. None. They went anyway. So much for "democracy."

[The Narrator]

Just seconds after reading Cleve's diatribe against the United States' invasion of Iraq, Jason McCullough became so confused that his head actually exploded, spraying droplets of blood that glistened like perfect red rubies on the glossy cover of Michael Moore's Stupid White Men.

[graller]

It frightens me when there are kernels of ideas I agree with in a post of Cleve's but this is one of them. Rusting parts buried in rose gardens does not make an effort to create WMD. Its nice that in 1991 Saddam told some people to bury some shit in their yards but this is not the justification for war that Bush claimed. In fact this smells more to me of Bush desperation to find ANY evidence to back his claims. I would almost claim this was a ruse on the part of our government.

[Bullhajj]

It frightens me when there are kernels of ideas I agree with in a post of Cleve's but this is one of them.

Yep, I know what you mean.

I would almost claim this was a ruse on the part of our government.

Wait a second. That story won't be out for another 3 weeks yet!

[Tim]

But Other Tim, I don't think the inspections can be considered a partial success or failure. They either worked or they didn't. IMO, destroying 'some' weapons or weapon facilities is not sufficient for success. I don't believe the disarmament Iraq agreed to allowed them to keep some nuclear weapon producing equipment as long as they destroyed some other stuff.

They either have access to the stuff or they don't. Maybe I've misunderstood the inspections, but if they were simply intended to verify that Iraq had lost 'some' of its wmd, I would say they were pointless to begin with.

[SpoofyChop]

That this thing was buried for 12 years seems to imply that the weapons inspections were working.

Ok. This does not make sense.

Fact: The purpose of the inspections was to verify that Saddam had destroyed all his WMD material.

Fact: The UN resolutions stipulated that if Saddam couldn't verify that he had destroyed his WMD materials then he would be in material breach.

Fact: They just found WMD materials.

Fact: Saddam WAS in material breach.

They found banned material and you're conclusion is that the inspections were working?

What kind of reverso backwards universe are you living in?

Apparently the kind of universe in which I can't type in certain words without them being changed into tripe romance novel drivel.

What a ding dong.

:roll:

[Bullhajj]

If WMD had been uncovered as a result of the invasion, you would have more of a point. As I see it, the only failure of the inspections process was that the current administration was able to justify the invasion. In that respect, they were certainly a failure.

[Troy S Goodfellow]

Aren't we closing in on the point where the occupation has taken as long as the last round of inspections did? Inspections by professionals who were routinely mocked and discredited by the administration because "we know where the weapons are. Why can't you find them?"

Sure, Iraq is "the size of California", as we keep getting reminded, but now that we own Iraq, can go anywhere virtually unopposed, have arrested major Iraqi officials and scientists and have all that great CIA evidence to go by we still haven't found anything?

Three months was long enough for a small team of inspectors to do their job, we were told. Looks like it will take an army a little longer.

Troy

[SpoofyChop]

Hey Troy...here's some intelligence for you:

I've hidden some secret plans in my back yard. I even live in a state that isn't the size of California.

You should have no problem showing up at my house in a big white SUV marked "TSG" and finding them right?

:D

[Jason McCullough]

Just seconds after reading Cleve's diatribe against the United States' invasion of Iraq, Jason McCullough became so confused that his head actually exploded, spraying droplets of blood that glistened like perfect red rubies on the glossy cover of Michael Moore's Stupid White Men.

Nah, the paranoid types have been against this one for a while. Nothing new.

Allow me to summarize:

Bush justified the invasion on the grounds that the sanctions regime was failing at its goal of preventing Iraq from attaining a nuclear weapon. Postwar, no evidence has been presented that the sanctions regime was *not* working; on the contrary, this find indicates that the sanctions/inspections were. Saddam couldn't use this to build a bomb because the sanctions/inspections people were around; therefore, sanctions/inspections prevented him for building a nuke. Bush indicated he was building a bomb under our noses - no evidence has been presented to support this.

The terms of debate were not "is Saddam a very bad man" or "would Saddam build a nuke if we just stopped everything and went home." The answer to both questions is yes - but those weren't the questions the war was debated on, were they?? Bush said sanctions were broken and only a war would suffice. No evidence has been found that Bush's assessment was correct. None.

[Tyjenks]

Three months was long enough for a small team of inspectors to do their job, we were told. Looks like it will take an army a little longer.

Troy

That army is also attempting to police the country, suppress looters and guerillas and dodge hostile fire while looking under rocks. I am now on the fence about how long is too long for the evidence to show itself, but, correct me if I am wrong, none of the UN inspectors caught any bullets while they were doing their leisurely tours through Iraq with minders accompanying them.

[Troy S Goodfellow]

Three months was long enough for a small team of inspectors to do their job, we were told. Looks like it will take an army a little longer.

Troy

That army is also attempting to police the country, suppress looters and guerillas and dodge hostile fire while looking under rocks. I am now on the fence about how long is too long for the evidence to show itself, but, correct me if I am wrong, none of the UN inspectors caught any bullets while they were doing their leisurely tours through Iraq with minders accompanying them.

Well, yeah, but they have more than 100 guys doing the looking and no one to stop them from going anywhere. No guards checking papers, no amount of traffic, no need to be completely secretive about where you're going. You're not going to suggest that owning the country doesn't facilitate searches?

Troy

[Tyjenks]

You're not going to suggest that owning the country doesn't facilitate searches?

Troy

No. This is where my lack of knowledge about what it actually takes to fight a war and control a hostile Arab country kicks in. This is where I have to choose to either rail against the government for lieing to me in any and all cases where the war is concerned or give them a little more leeway and benefit of the doubt.

Frankly, I do not know what to think anymore. I am pretty cynical as a rule (especially where politicians on both sides are concerned), but I made a decision to support the war once I was presented with the threats at hand and the obvious liquid evil that runs through Saddam's veins. He had WMD's at some point and may have destroyed them all. The fact that he could not provide proof of that while he was still in power makes an already suspect evil dictator harder and harder to take at face value.

Soldiers are still dying and how much that inhibits the search for WMDs is something I cannot even guess at. In short, I am at a loss for what or who to believe.

[Daniel Morris]

As an admirer of the UN inspections regime, Jason, you ought to have some insight into the tens of thousands of tons of unaccounted-for WMD that UNSCOM had catalogued at the time of its forced removal from Iraq in 1998.

(UNSCOM's own catalogues, needless to remind, served as Bush's casus belli.)

So tell me something; I'm curious. Do you propose to tell me that the UN inspectors mistakenly catalogued tens of thousands of unaccounted-for WMD?

You'll appreciate the dilemma you face:

A. The UN itself was wrong about Iraq having extensive stores of unaccounted-for WMD.

B. Iraq disposed of that WMD, but did not disclose this fact as ordered by the UN, leaving both the UN and US to assume it still had them, despite repeated offers to make a full accounting of the disposal.

Which is it, smart guy?

[Jason McCullough]

Gwozdecky, who said the agency has no other information about the development other than press reports, said, "The findings and comments of Obeidi appear to confirm that there has been no post-1991 nuclear weapons program in Iraq and are consistent with our reports to the [U.N.] Security Council.

"Indeed, we have always made it clear that while we have found no evidence of any ongoing nuclear weapons program in Iraq, we are not able to detect small, readily concealable items such as these."

Those silly experts (http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/06/26/sprj.irq.iaea/index.html)!

I have no idea what you're talking about, Daniel.

[Daniel Morris]

I have no idea what you're talking about, Daniel.

I'm not surprised to hear that.

[Bullhajj]

Which is it, smart guy?

You conveniently make no mention of Iraq's unconditionally acceptance of U.N. weapons inspectors' return in 2002. Nor do you want to discuss the Bush administrations rush to invade, despite Security Council's objections and the lack of hard evidence of weapons programs.

[Jason McCullough]

Well, I guess you win by cryptic default, Dan.

Before the 1991 Gulf War, Obeidi headed Iraq's program to make centrifuges that would enrich uranium for nuclear weapons, the official said. Most or all of that program was dismantled after U.N. inspections in the early 1990s.

Details of Obeidi's activities during the past decade were not immediately available.

Obeidi turned over a two-foot-tall stack of documents that includes detailed designs for centrifuges, intelligence officials said. Obeidi told intelligence officials the parts from his garden were among the more difficult-to-produce components of a centrifuge.

Assembled, the components would not be useful in making much uranium. Hundreds of centrifuges are necessary to make enough to construct a nuclear weapon in such programs.

Oh, that crazy associated press (http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGAAOC00FHD.html)!

[bmulligan]

You conveniently make no mention of Iraq's unconditionally acceptance of U.N. weapons inspectors' return in 2002. Nor do you want to discuss the Bush administrations rush to invade, despite Security Council's objections and the lack of hard evidence of weapons programs.

'unconditional acceptance'? Surely you must be joking. Saddam never gave unconditional access, nor ever intended to. Saddam's statement to the UN was only to delay any retribution the UN had implied in resolution 1441. A resolution made in November of 2002. When exactly did this 'rush' to invade happen? 120+ days later? Yeah, sounds like a rush job to me.

[Jason McCullough]

Iraqi Mob Killed Britons (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A33526-2003Jun25.html)

MAJAR AL-KABIR, Iraq, June 25 -- The attack on British forces here that killed six military police officers Tuesday was carried out by a mob of Iraqis enraged that paratroops had sought to patrol the town's market, witnesses and local officials said today.

After a seemingly prosaic dispute between the paratroops and townspeople escalated into an intense firefight, witnesses said, scores of Iraqis armed with assault rifles and rocket-propelled grenade launchers laid an Alamo-like siege to a police station where British military police were training local patrolmen. At least four soldiers were killed at close range when their ammunition ran out.

"We freed our city. We kicked out the Baathists," said Talal Ahmed, 31, a shopkeeper who was appointed to speak on behalf of several local police officers and government officials. "The British did not free our city. We don't need them."

[bmulligan]

Obviously, the Brits need to be schooled in the "microwave therapy" technique.

[Bullhajj]

'unconditional acceptance'? Surely you must be joking. Saddam never gave unconditional access, nor ever intended to.

I never said access. But even if I did, it's not as if unconditional access would have been turned up anything, as evidenced by the fact that WE HAVE UNCONDITIONAL ACCESS NOW and haven't found any WMD.

Saddam's statement to the UN was only to delay any retribution the UN had implied in resolution 1441.

Interesting. All the psycological profiling prior to invasion seemed to indicate Hussein incapable of this kind of thinking.

When exactly did this 'rush' to invade happen? 120+ days later? Yeah, sounds like a rush job to me.

Me too.

[bmulligan]

I never said access. But even if I did, it's not as if unconditional access would have been turned up anything, as evidenced by the fact that WE HAVE UNCONDITIONAL ACCESS NOW and haven't found any WMD.

Yeas, we have unconditional access, now. 6 months later. You can do a lot in 6 months. I'm sure it only took you about a half a second to hide your playboy when your mom knocked on your bedroom door. It probably would have taken you 3 seconds to chuck it out of the window. a whole 10 minutes to come up with a new hiding place where she'd never find it.

I'm still confused. Whether you said access or acceptance, I don't see the difference, unless we should be discussing the definition of 'unconditional'.

[Bullhajj]

I'm sure it only took you about a half a second to hide your playboy when your mom knocked on your bedroom door. It probably would have taken you 3 seconds to chuck it out of the window. a whole 10 minutes to come up with a new hiding place where she'd never find it.

Ah, I see the debate has returned to the all important make up a stupid ananlogy stage. Or maybe I buried it in Spoofy's backyard?

[bmulligan]

look, the only reason the UN, Russia and France didn't want us going into Iraq is because of the deals they had with Hussein for Oil. The oil for food program was a great way for Saddam to make cash, Russia and france to get guaranteed prices, exclusive contracts, and the UN to get a commission on all transactions. I'll bet france and Russia left the country with a lot of technology and documents along with their diplomats. Remember the Russian convoy that left Iraq just after the conflict began? I wonder what they left with?

[SpoofyChop]

You should see some of the stuff that's been buried in my yard:

Bill Hicks
Bill Cosby's son
Bill OfRights (John Ashcroft did it)
Bill Dungsroman's handle (changed to Bill Shitalian)
Bill Clinton's dog Buddy

It's nuts.

[Bullhajj]

Remember the Russian convoy that left Iraq just after the conflict began? I wonder what they left with?

Right, the Russians have the Iraqi WMD! It's a plot to make Americans look bad.

[Jason McCullough]

Remember the Russian convoy that left Iraq just after the conflict began? I wonder what they left with?

The contents of the Russian embassy?

[Daniel Morris]

I'll write using only words of three syllables or less, Jason. (And I'll only go as high as three so that I can get the word "syllable" in here.) I'll also number the stations on this train of thought so that they can be easily followed:

1. If you give credence to the UN inspections process, then you must acknowledge the tens of thousands of tons of unaccounted-for Iraqi WMD that the UN documemented when its inspectors were tossed out of the country in '98.

2. You'd then also have to acknowledge that Iraq was ordered by the UN to either surrender that WMD or document its disposal.

3. You'd also then have to acknowledge, as Blix did on many occasions, that Iraq's "final accounting" was far from a sufficient accounting of this disposal.

4. This leaves us with one of two possible realities -- either the UN was wrong all along about Iraq having those tens of thousands of unaccounted-for WMD, or else Iraq disposed of it all without telling anyone, the UN included.

Can you follow that? Because if you can't, my next post will have to be drawn with stickmen.

[Jason McCullough]

Ok.

3. You'd also then have to acknowledge, as Blix did on many occasions, that Iraq's "final accounting" was far from a sufficient accounting of this disposal.

4. This leaves us with one of two possible realities -- either the UN was wrong all along about Iraq having those tens of thousands of unaccounted-for WMD, or else Iraq disposed of it all without telling anyone, the UN included.

This is the "lord, liar, or lunatic" argumentive style, Daniel, and you're stretching the definition of "WMD" beyond all reason. It also has nothing to do with "did Bush lie", "was Iraq a threat," or "were sanctions working?"

[Mike Cathcart]

I'll write using only words of three syllables or less, Jason.
realities
Stickmen, please.

[Rywill]

"Unaccounted" has four syllables in it. Jason wins again!

[Daniel Morris]

http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/s/990125/

Not that anyone seems to care.

[Bullhajj]

Can you follow that? Because if you can't, my next post will have to be drawn with stickmen.

Oh, does this mean you'll be making another bellweather post to show us all how clever you are?

[Daniel Morris]

http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/s/990125/

[Gary Whitta]

Oh, does this mean you'll be making another bellweather post to show us all how clever you are?
Maybe, or he might just score a cheap point on you by pointing out that it's spelled bellwether.

[Daniel Morris]

http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/s/990125/

Let's make a deal, Tim -- how about you bother to read the UN's weapons report before we try to figure out who's clever?

[Jason McCullough]

Maybe we should start linking other irrelevant websites. It's a fun way to argue!

[Daniel Morris]

The bottom line here is that you're arguing a nonsensical position. You argue that "UN inspections were obviously working" because no WMD has been uncovered. But you refuse to acknowledge that it was the UN itself that documented the vast stockpiles of Iraqi WMD over which the war was fought.

(As detailed in UNSCOM's final report: http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/s/990125/)

So if the UN inspections were doing such yeoman's work, what do you have to say about UNSCOM's documented WMD?

The answer is apparent: you have nothing to say about it.

[Bullhajj]

Sure, but first can you explain how Iraq was a threat to the US, Dan. Which of the weapons in that report would have been used to take down the US? Please, elaborate.

[Daniel Morris]

Maybe we should start linking other irrelevant websites.


I linked to UNSCOM's report on Iraqi WMD. YOU are the weakest link!

[Bullhajj]

Well, there you have it. Never mind the UN opposed invasion, the UN is ultimately responsible for the lack of evidence to justify a preemptive strike on Iraq. Dan, this is as silly as you implying that the current tension in the Middle East can be traced back to decisions made by the Carter administration. Clever.

[Daniel Morris]

EDITED TO PRESERVE MY SANITY

[Captain Cookiepants]

You know, everyone ignores my posts anyway, maybe cause they make too much sense, but I'm gonna try:

Timeline:
USA: Iraq is defying the U.N.
Protesters: The U.N. is working
USA: We have proof that Iraq has WMD, a violation of the U.N.
Protesters: No blood for oil
USA: It's supremely ironic but we're defying the U.N. to prove they aren't a useless organization. We have evidence that Iraq has and is still defying the sanctions
Protesters: Give them more time.
USA: We kicked their ass, and look at all this evidence that they defied the UN and a whole shit load of stuff the inspectors missed. They could have had WMD within a month's time.
Protesters: Show us the actual weapons
USA: Look give us more time, we're still fighting guerillas and we move slow to protect our men which is what you want. We've already gotten evidence of our claim that Iraq was violating sanctions which was the original cause of the war.
Protesters: No blood for oil.

[Bullhajj]

Nothing personal, Dan. If I couldn't count on you to say such retarded things, I wouldn't have so much fun poking you.

[Daniel Morris]

Actually, the timeline is more like this:


"This war is madness unless the UN is involved."

America goes to the UN.

"This war cannot be undertaken without a UN resolution in the Security Council."

Resolution 1441 passes unanimously.

"Time must be given for Iraq to make a full disclosure."

Dec. 8 report submitted by Iraq...Blix calls "very inadequate."

"More time for diplomacy must be allotted."

Russia and France announce they will not authorize force under any circumstances.

"No blood for oil."

[Daniel Morris]

Nothing personal, Tim. Arguing with half-informed sophists is immensely more challenging than arguing with solid intellects.

This is good practice for me, in a way -- like in boxing, where it's often much tougher to fight the "first day in the gym" spaz than it is to spar with a professional.

[Anders Hallin]

I for one really got a new-found respect for the US as they really bent over backwards to make it clear to the world the relevance of the UN in creating a better tomorrow for the world in the months leading up to the world. They really showed how much they cared.

Not at all like a nation using the organisation as a tool to get a flimsy alibi. Now that would have been horrible.

[Mike Cathcart]

Nothing personal, Tim. Arguing with half-informed sophists is immensely more challenging than arguing with solid intellects.

Look, man, you can't even count syllables.

[Bullhajj]

And don't forget these ever popular timeline bullet points:

Invade Iraq

Reports of trailers used to make WMD

Reports of whooops, no trailers used to make WMD

Reports of undergournd stash of WMD

Reports of whooops, no undergournd stash of WMD

Reports of hidden desert factory for production of WMD

Reports of whooops, no hidden desert factory for production of WMD

[Gary Whitta]

Nothing personal, Tim. Arguing with half-informed sophists is immensely more challenging than arguing with solid intellects.

This is good practice for me, in a way -- like in boxing, where it's often much tougher to fight the "first day in the gym" spaz than it is to spar with a professional.

Oof! Below the belt!

[Bullhajj]

Ah, yes. Back to the old familiar refrain of I'm so clever, are we Dan? Are you going to write another bellweather post to prove what a smarty pants you are?

[Gary Whitta]

Ah, yes. Back to the old familiar refrain of I'm so clever, are we Dan? Are you going to write another bellweather post to prove what a smarty pants you are?
I keep trying to tell you, it's bellwether. We all know QT3 posters aren't above nit-picking a spelling mistake in order to score a cheap point in an intellectual slugfest, so mend that chink in your armor, boy, before Dynamite Dan sticks a dagger in it.

I must say, though, it's very refreshing to see terms like "retard", "spaz", and "smarty pants" being bandied about in a discussion about Iraqi WMDs. Perhaps if those stuffed-shirt UN diplomats could have engaged in sophisticated discourse of this kind, none of us would be in the mess we are today.

[Bullhajj]

I keep trying to tell you, it's bellwether. We all know QT3 posters aren't above nit-picking a spelling mistake in order to score a cheap point in an intellectual slugfest, so mend that chink in your armor, boy, before Dynamite Dan sticks a dagger in it.

It's from a thread (http://www.quartertothree.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=76743#76743) from before you were around. Lol, I bet old Dynamite Dan is probably itching to correct my spelling.

But I get your point about keeping to a higher standard. Jason is in charge of higher standards this week as evidenced by the post below. :)

[Jason McCullough]

The bottom line here is that you're arguing a nonsensical position. You argue that "UN inspections were obviously working" because no WMD has been uncovered. But you refuse to acknowledge that it was the UN itself that documented the vast stockpiles of Iraqi WMD over which the war was fought.

(As detailed in UNSCOM's final report: http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/s/990125/)

So if the UN inspections were doing such yeoman's work, what do you have to say about UNSCOM's documented WMD?

The answer is apparent: you have nothing to say about it.

You're just making up posthoc justifications for the war depending on the situation, Daniel. One, that inspections document doesn't contain a thing about nuclear weapons, which are the only form of WMD that threatens anyone. Two, the point of the postwar approach to Iraq was to keep them from building a nuclear weapon by tying them down through sanctions. So far the evidence indicates they were doing a pretty good job; as of this moment, it is safe to conclude that Iraq had no active nuclear program. Not only that, the stuff they did have was mothballed in rather useless bits and pieces.

Bush's rationale for invading was that Iraq was a "serious and mounting threat". What were they going to threaten us with? Decaying T-72 tanks? It's all they had, judging by what we've found so far. Bio and chem weapons aren't much of a threat, but they apparently didn't even have much in the way of those, either.

[Brad Grenz]

Jason, you know how full of shit you are? Maybe nukes are the only things that scare you, but there are a lot of people who think chemical and biological weapons are completely unacceptable as well. Your vaunted UN, for example. And would you and Tim get it through your cleary oh-so-thick skulls that a situation which required the inspection to never, ever end IS NOT A SUCCESS!!!! That's bullshit. The process was not designed for perpetual, continued application. Inspectors go in, inspect, either sign off or not and leave. You've constructed some absurd fantasy where inspectors go in and never come out! And as an added bonus in your situation, Saddam and his progeny getting to continue murdering and abusing thousands and millions of people. Oh what a glorius day! You don't have to make any hard decisions and Saddam can keep jerking off to women being dipped in acid!

I'm so sick of shit. You know what, maybe Bush did lie, everyone was wrong about the weapons, and Saddam was a cuddley dove when it came to nukes (which as we've established are the only thing bad a person can do in Jason's mind), that reflects poorly on the Administration, but not on the morality of the invasion. You don't hear about how we haven't found killing fields, mass graves, torture chambers, because that stuff was all very real. And as far as I, and a lot of people were concerned, the real, moral reason for kicking Saddam out of power. Of course, you can't muster international support for that sort of thing. Everyone seems to be pro-human rights, just not pro-enforcement of human rights. 4000 civilians died in the invasion, and that's tragic. But It's shaping up to be a pretty slow decade considering Saddam's past.

I'm sure you guys take a great deal of satisfaction in being right, but need I bring up the 6 month period in which Jason was pro war? What the fuck is your excuse? The only thing that drove you away was your undying hatred of republicans in charge, not the questionability of the intelligence everybody thought was true, and which Iraq made no attempt to disprove. But it's not like anybody's getting a medal for "I told you sos", so maybe you two can just shut the fuck up.

[Anders Hallin]

The world is full of horrible things that happen each day around the world. Billions of people are suffering in conditions that no human should ever need to endure. That is horrible. It shouldn't be that way. Every single dictator, corrupt government and exploiting company should be put to trial for their crimes against humanity, I think we can all agree. All those who would manipulate people to use as pawns in their sick power games.
But one of the many reasons that we are different than them is that we rarely see killing people as helping them, it is with good reason we see the Inquisition as a horrible thing, and if you believe that we (the Western world) could, by the means of war change the entire world to be like our own, then you are sorely mistaken, because what we will be at the end of such a crusade will be a far cry from what we begun as. Not to mention that people will fight us, because a benevolent totalitarian regime (which we would have to create) is in some ways just as jarring as a cruel one. And that would be in a perfect world where all those we want to help would see us as benevolent, think that will happen?
War begets war, as Europe finally learned, and cruelty begets cruelty. Oh, intentions may be noble, but I'm pretty sure that most wars have been supported on "noble" intentions.
I saw a quote a month or so ago, "Only a more savage nation can survive." I do not agree with this, but in the world of war that the caring enforcing you seem to advocate would create, I believe it would be. And as our nations grow more savage, the reasons for our quest will likely be forgotten or lose their meaning.
There are ways to change the world for the better, but world-wide war is not it. The peaceful way of trying to achieve a better world is long and arduous, not the least because we fear the power that the 80-90% that have so far been excluded from this better world would have. We would not be the masters of such a new world, and we should not wish to be, since masters imply underlings. It would not be profitable in the short term, which would be a problem, but if it was more than just a disappearing few that had the opportunity to develop our intellectual capital, just imagine the things we could discover.

If we would change the world by war, what would stop someone else from changing it all over again?

[ydejin]

If you've read my past posts, you know I'm not a big Bush supporter. However, I think Brad, Daniel, and Rywill are right when they say that sanctions were not a good long term strategy. They were potentially a decent stop-gap measure, but maintaining sanctions on a country forever, it's just not viable (plus it really was a humanitarian disaster).

The centrifuge under the rose bush is in fact a sign that Saddam wanted to restart his nuclear program at some point. Yes, that point could have been far in the future and only after whatever UN inspection process or other forms of scrutiny had ended. But he wouldn't have hidden it unless he still had dreams of aquiring nuclear weapons.

Frankly, I still think we were lied to and that the Bush administration had been pulling "facts" out of their a**. But that doesn't change the fact that Saddam would have remained a long term danger had something not been done.

At the same time, I think it's now very clear that Saddam was not in fact an immediate threat. I think the Bush administration should have waited six months to a year to show that it was serious about giving the UN inspections time. It's very clear from the evidence we have now that waiting another six months to a year for inspections to continue would not have increased the danger level at all from Saddam (although it might have played hell with Bush's re-election efforts). Also as Jason and Tim have pointed out, if we have taken this long to find any evidence of WMD certainly we should have given the UN inspectors at least this much time to carry out their inspections. Instead we were talking like they weren't finding anything because they were incompetent (and I think Bush owes them an apology on this score--not that it will ever happen of course).

As it stands, I think it's very clear the US acted as a bully pushing this war through and basically badgered countries and ignored other countries concerns. I think that's going to hurt us in the long term. Particularly as it is now very clear our evidence was full of crap (before the war, we really were making claims that "the WMD can be readied in 45 minutes", not "there's WMD scattered under Rose Bushes throughout the country that might be assembled in a year or two"). This also makes it harder when we make claims about other regimes. In my mind the Iran WMD situation is far scarier than Iraq ever was. While there is a very active pro-democracy movement in Iran, there is no doubt that Iran supports terrorism far, far more than Iraq ever did.

I think Brad is right, that from a moral perspective, the regime change was the right thing. However, I'm still not convinced we went about it the right way. Things right now aren't looking great in Iraq. We look like we're getting entangled in a long term guerrila war. They might calm down when we managed to track down Saddam (which I assume will happen sooner or later). But going it alone as the US and it's "coalition of the willing" (which I'm sure is interpreted in Arab countries as "the US and it's zionist cronies") is very different than going in under the UN flag. Under a UN flag I expect would have been much more welcomed (particularly if we had Arab troops going in with US ala Gulf War I) and I think the Iraqi population would have been far more likely to give us the benefit of doubt in sticky situations. It's now clear a fairly large and growing section of the population views us as the enemy. I'm worried that there is no good exit strategy. We cannot (and should not) leave under any circumstances until a strong functioning democracy is in place in Iraq (and hopefully one that is at least neutral to the US and is secular). That could take a long, long time and during that time our people will be at considerable risk. The monetary cost of this war will also grow the longer we're there. And unfortunately I'm not altogether sure we will be successful -- as Bush used to realize nation building is a very messy business with no guarantee of success.

[Brad Grenz]

The world is full of horrible things that happen each day around the world. Billions of people are suffering in conditions that no human should ever need to endure. That is horrible. It shouldn't be that way. Every single dictator, corrupt government and exploiting company should be put to trial for their crimes against humanity, I think we can all agree. All those who would manipulate people to use as pawns in their sick power games.
But one of the many reasons that we are different than them is that we rarely see killing people as helping them, it is with good reason we see the Inquisition as a horrible thing, and if you believe that we (the Western world) could, by the means of war change the entire world to be like our own, then you are sorely mistaken, because what we will be at the end of such a crusade will be a far cry from what we begun as. Not to mention that people will fight us, because a benevolent totalitarian regime (which we would have to create) is in some ways just as jarring as a cruel one. And that would be in a perfect world where all those we want to help would see us as benevolent, think that will happen?
War begets war, as Europe finally learned, and cruelty begets cruelty. Oh, intentions may be noble, but I'm pretty sure that most wars have been supported on "noble" intentions.
I saw a quote a month or so ago, "Only a more savage nation can survive." I do not agree with this, but in the world of war that the caring enforcing you seem to advocate would create, I believe it would be. And as our nations grow more savage, the reasons for our quest will likely be forgotten or lose their meaning.
There are ways to change the world for the better, but world-wide war is not it. The peaceful way of trying to achieve a better world is long and arduous, not the least because we fear the power that the 80-90% that have so far been excluded from this better world would have. We would not be the masters of such a new world, and we should not wish to be, since masters imply underlings. It would not be profitable in the short term, which would be a problem, but if it was more than just a disappearing few that had the opportunity to develop our intellectual capital, just imagine the things we could discover.

If we would change the world by war, what would stop someone else from changing it all over again?

Well, gee. Why enforce any laws then? People always get hurt. When you expand the scale of atrocities and the power held by the criminals, then the collateral damage increases as well. But the goddamn status quo is unconscionable. By your logic no one had any business interferring with Hitlers extermination of the Jews. After all, war was only going to make things worse. Lucky for the undersirables who hadn't been gassed yet Germany declared war as part of their alliance with Japan and gave America a reason to get into Europe.

I'm sorry, but I just can't abide this bullshit, everythings all right so long as we're not at war, sit on our hands mentality. Maybe Scandanavia's gotten over the need for war, but genocide hasn't burnt itself out yet and the powerful nations of this world ought to want to stop such things. I'm not interested in the US acting in such a sole capacity, the burden belongs to the entire world. But these dickless French peacekeeping forces who lack a mandate to even disarm people in the Congo isn't fixing anything. And why? Because of the politicized nature of UN enforcement! The French force isn't even free to go to the fighting in the countryside. That's like sending a police anti-gang task force to a neighborhood to stop a turf war, only to have the fighting move over a block where the cops haven't been authorized to go.

So what do I want? I, frankly, want some kind of real international governing body with the funding, military power and authority to actually enforce internationally agreed upon human rights. Ideally this would be embodied in seperate enforcement (military/police), judicial, legislative and humanitarian aide organizations working together for a common goal wherein genocide isn't allowed to occur because the Scandinavians are pussies.

[Jason McCullough]

0Well. You're a poopiehead too, Brad.

Maybe nukes are the only things that scare you, but there are a lot of people who think chemical and biological weapons are completely unacceptable as well.

Possession of bio and chem weapons is not a recognized casus belli. Gregg Easterbrook doesn't care about anything but nukes. Pollack doesn't care about anything but nukes. If you know of a qualified person who thinks they're a big deal, by all means, mention them, but I'm pretty confident that the US population wouldn't have supported an Iraq war based solely on bio and chem.

I'm sure you guys take a great deal of satisfaction in being right, but need I bring up the 6 month period in which Jason was pro war? What the fuck is your excuse? The only thing that drove you away was your undying hatred of republicans in charge, not the questionability of the intelligence everybody thought was true, and which Iraq made no attempt to disprove. But it's not like anybody's getting a medal for "I told you sos", so maybe you two can just shut the fuck up.

What is this, a "damn you if you end up being right?" It was Bush threatening Mexican immigrants if Mexico didn't suck up and give us a SC vote that flipped me; no process with that as a component is going to turn out well. And might I point out that the reason everyone believed all that intelligence info is that Bush was apparently actively surpressing internal doubts about it, and believing any fool bit of info that crossed his desk as long as it fit his thesis?

If Iraq turns into Angola, will "the morality of the invasion" still be unchanged? I hope it all turns out ok, but jesus, US presidents shouldn't be toying with the lives of US soldiers based on hope and their own willful disbelief in the evidence. That he was apparently quite willing to take an increased risk of fucking up the Iraq occupation and rebuilding process - do you think we'd be having this guerilla attacks if an international force was doing the occupation? - based on schoolboy spite doesn't help.

In summary: the ends do not justify the goddamn means, and the world has a way of dealing out retribution for it when you get cute about it.

[Idar Thorvaldsen]

But these dickless French peacekeeping forces who lack a mandate to even disarm people in the Congo isn't fixing anything. And why? .... Ideally this would be embodied in seperate enforcement (military/police), judicial, legislative and humanitarian aide organizations working together for a common goal wherein genocide isn't allowed to occur because the Scandinavians are pussies.

Because no country is manly until the civilian casaulties are ten times those of your military. At least.

Anyway, given the history of European colonialism in Congo, and French imperialism in general, I don't think anyone wants a blanket mandate for the French, themselves least of all. These rules are there for a reason; peacekeepers have all these restrictions placed on them so that they will be seen as peacekeepers, not outside forces with their own agenda. The restrictions are there to make the peacekeeping forces more palatable to the warring parties.

Before you start: someone in Congo will eventually have to be running the country; the process must, in the end, be internal. The UN can only facilitate the process.

[Anders Hallin]

But the goddamn status quo is unconscionable.
I whole-heartedly agree. The rest of your post didn't really seem to be pertaining to my argument.

[Rywill]

Good commentary (http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/06/27/nyt.kristof/index.html) piece in the NYT. I think it does a good job of separating what have always been, for me, two very separate questions: (1) Did Bush lie to get Americans behind the war? and (2) Given that he lied, were the true facts about Iraq, as best we knew them, bad enough/dangerous enough to justify invasion anyway?

The column passes by the WMD part of (2) to concentrate on the humanitarian aspects. I know this has all been debated ad nauseam on this board, but I thought this column laid it out in a clear way.

[Rywill]

But I get your point about keeping to a higher standard. Jason is in charge of higher standards this week as evidenced by the post below. :)
Obviously. In the rich tradition of QT3, I'd like to sum up the Daniel/Tim debate:

Daniel: Emerging facts support my view that the invasion was justified. Also, your position is internally inconsistent because it requires simultaneous beliefs that the UN is both very competent and a bunch of fools.

Tim: I remember you misspelled "bellwether" that one time.

Daniel: Your argument that UN inspections were effective because we haven't found WMD cannot be reconciled with the UN's own assertions that the WMD existed and there is no evidence of the WMD's destruction.

Tim: Dude, you totally spelled it "bellweather."

Daniel: The UN's own findings, which I am linking to, show that there were documented WMD that were apparently never destroyed. Unless you think the UN are fools, the WMD must still be out there; if you DO think the UN are fools, you cannot maintain that we should have trusted with UN inspections to abate Saddam's threat.

Tim: "Bellweather" OMFG LOLOLOLOLOL ROFL LOLZ0RZ!!!11!!

[Jason McCullough]

Good commentary (http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/06/27/nyt.kristof/index.html) piece in the NYT. I think it does a good job of separating what have always been, for me, two very separate questions: (1) Did Bush lie to get Americans behind the war? and (2) Given that he lied, were the true facts about Iraq, as best we knew them, bad enough/dangerous enough to justify invasion anyway?

The column passes by the WMD part of (2) to concentrate on the humanitarian aspects. I know this has all been debated ad nauseam on this board, but I thought this column laid it out in a clear way.

Yeah, that's a great summary.

[Bullhajj]

I only tease Dan because he is a pompus ass who makes outrageous claims that are easily shot down. And because it's fun.

Say whatever you like about the UN, they didn't vote to invade Iraq. It is easy to punch holes in any organization. At the end of the day what matter is this: the UN programs seemed to be working as evidenced by the lack of evidence of WMD in Iraq. Had we followed the UN direction, the US wouldn't be in the unsavory position its in now. It's not like there was anything like overwhelming support for the invasion. Contrary to opinions of some here, it's not even like there was overwhelming evidence to justify an invasion. We had pshycological profiles of Saddam, testimony from defectors who had little credibility, sattelite photos, and a sort of mass hysteria brought on by 9/11. Like the man said, "If you can keep your head while others about you are losing there's..."

[Gary Whitta]

Like the man said, "If you can keep your head while others about you are losing there's..."

Is that one your own error, or another ironic pointing-out of someone else's previous one?

[Brad Grenz]

Because no country is manly until the civilian casaulties are ten times those of your military. At least.

Anyway, given the history of European colonialism in Congo, and French imperialism in general, I don't think anyone wants a blanket mandate for the French, themselves least of all. These rules are there for a reason; peacekeepers have all these restrictions placed on them so that they will be seen as peacekeepers, not outside forces with their own agenda. The restrictions are there to make the peacekeeping forces more palatable to the warring parties.

Gee that sounds a lot like, "we should send people, just so long as they don't do anything." What good is a peacekeeping force if it can't one, go to where the fighting is, and two, take weapons from the warring parties? It's useless. Wow, I'm so bloodthirsty the way I want the peacekeepers to be able to stop the warring parties from murdering eachother. Bad me, evil cowboy American who likes to see people die. Well, I didn't send my peacekeepers so they could have front row seats to the brutality. The French troops get to smell the death, they just can't stop it. Who said anything about a blanket mandate? All I'm saying is perhaps the UN should not have tied France's hands behind their back. More palatable to the warring parties? You don't bust down the door of a serial killer worrying about how he's going to feel about the invasion of privacy. If we want a better world everyone is going to have to forgo some soveringty in favor of real standards about, you know, ethnic cleansing.

do you think we'd be having this guerilla attacks if an international force was doing the occupation?

You think we wouldn't? Are you that stupid?

[ydejin]

do you think we'd be having this guerilla attacks if an international force was doing the occupation?

You think we wouldn't? Are you that stupid?

If we had gone in with international support, we would definitely be catching less crap from the Iraqi populace. If we had gone in as in Gulf War I accompanied with at least token Arab military support we would be getting much, much less crap from the Iraqi populace. The fact is the Arabs by and large view us as the enemy. And give our unqualified support letting Israel do whatever the hell it wants to the Palestinians, while at the same time supplying Israel with weapons and money, frankly they are right -- we are their enemy.

A broad UN coalition including troops from Egypt, Syria, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia, as happened in Gulf War I, would have been much more accepted by the population. Having American troops out there largely by themselves is giving every Islamic fanatic in the Gulf Region their dream come true -- an opportunity to kill Americans without even having to travel far from home.

Come on Brad, do you really believe that having a broad International force instead of practically an all US force really would have no effect on the number of guerilla attacks. Yeah, I'm sure the hard core Bathists might try taking a few pot shots at UN-flagged troops anyway, but consider for example a power station guarded by US troops vs. one guarded by Syrian troops under UN flag. In the first case with US troops, anyone wanting Americans dead (which is lots of people) is going to take a shot at us. In the second case with Syrian troops only the serious hard core Saddam supporters are going to take a shot at them.

[Brad Grenz]

Please, being "international" isn't some magic bullet when you invade a country. Some are going to be pissed and fight whoever it is. I doubt the Muslim gangs in Somalia thought twice before mutilating their Pakistani brothers. And that UN force was just trying to hand out food.

[Jason McCullough]

You're right, Brad - the French put up just as much resistance to the American WW2 occupation as they did to the German.

[bmulligan]

Iraqis aren't pussies like the French.

[ydejin]

Please, being "international" isn't some magic bullet when you invade a country. Some are going to be pissed and fight whoever it is. I doubt the Muslim gangs in Somalia thought twice before mutilating their Pakistani brothers. And that UN force was just trying to hand out food.

You are correct there is no magic bullet. However, saying international support has no effect is either disingenuous or naive. There would have been a positive effect if we had gone in with a broader coalition, particularly one containing Arab military. How much of an effect that would have been is open to debate and we will never know the answer. Unfortunately, Bush basically went about this in the way guaranteed to piss the most non-Americans off.

So are you claiming that our International policy and attitude toward other groups has no effect on how many people want to see Americans dead? You think we might as well just act like cowboys because they all hate us anyway? Well there is a reason why they hate us and we can increase that amount of hate or we can try to defuse it. Going in without International support increases that amount of hate (and not just in Arab countries), and Americans will die and are dying as a result of that.

As far as the Somalia's and Pakistani's go, they are very different ethnic groups. The situation is not comparable at all.

[bmulligan]

Well there is a reason why they hate us and we can increase that amount of hate or we can try to defuse it.

There is no possible way to diffuse their hatred for the US. They will hate us no matter what we do. At least they will respect us because we'll do what we say we're going to do.

Come to think of it, why do they hate us?

[ydejin]

Come to think of it, why do they hate us?

If you really have no idea why they hate us, you've had your head under a rock as far as foreign policy goes. If you have done any reading at all you should have some idea of why they hate us, even if you don't agree with it.

This has all been covered extensively elsewhere on these boards, so I won't repeat everything, but I think the main complaints are:


US Arab/Israeli policy is heavily tilted toward Israel. Israel performs many actions which most of the world (outside of the US) consider highly immoral including use of Palestinian civilians as shields and killing innocent bystanders on a regular basis (see my post in another thread (http://www.quartertothree.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=62697&highlight=#62697) for some specific examples). While much of the world has criticized Israel, the US not only refuses to criticize Israel, it also provides Israel with weapons and money.
US troops are in Saudi Arabia which is considered holy ground by Islamics (although our troops will be leaving Saudi Arabia shortly now that we have new bases in Iraq :?)
US talks about democratic values but supports authoritarian repressive governments throughout the Arab world. The US puts it's own economic interests before it's "values".


I'm sure there are more reasons, but I think these are the main ones. They are pretty big reasons and I think that in many ways the Arabs are justified for hating us. If the sides were reversed, I think it's a safe bet we would hate them.

[bmulligan]

Let's see:

We need to destroy Israel, remove Americans from all places considered holy, and stop pursuing our own interests. Sounds good.

Would you all like to crawl under my rock with me so the muslim world will like us here in the USA?

Your first 2 reasons are one and the same. They want the jews removed from their territory because it's insulting to have infidels on holy muslim land. They cannot tolerate infidels. Therefore they cannot tolerate us no matter what we do. What, then, are our options?


In addition, our values are one and the same with our econimic interests.
I don't see the dichotomy here. Perhaps you could crawl out from under your New York Times and CNN rock and explain that one to me.

[ydejin]

We need to destroy Israel, remove Americans from all places considered holy, and stop pursuing our own interests. Sounds good.

bmulligan did you read the post I linked at all? We don't need to destroy Israel, but we need to stop providing Israel a blank check to do anything they want. Witness for example what happened two weeks ago with Bush and the Israelis. Bush criticized Israel for obstructing his peace inituitive. The Israelis, conservative Christians, and conservative Jewish groups criticized Bush for not letting Israel do what it wanted. Bush stopped his criticisms immediately (less than 24 hours after he started them). Do you think he really though his criticisms were invalid or do you think he made the calculation and decided that it was going to cost him too many votes to do the right thing.

If you think the Israeli's are all peaches and cream you might also want to check out this thread. (http://www.quartertothree.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=91387&highlight=#91387) The Israeli's once performed the exact same actions they are now complaining about.

If you don't want to educate yourself on these issues, then really there is no point discussing these matters further. I may disagree with Brad and Rywill, but at least it seems clear that they've done their reading. With you on the other hand that doesn't seem to be the case.

As far as our economic interests being the same as our values. That's clearly not always the case. There are situations where we can either chose to support democratic values or we can improve our economic situation. If you're arguing that we don't really have democratic values we only have economics and everything else is secondary, I will admit that this is a consistent argument. I certainly hope though that most Americans won't agree with that.

[Bullhajj]

Is that one your own error, or another ironic pointing-out of someone else's previous one?

Just a reminder, Gary, that your only contribution to the thread thus far has been multiple cracks about my ability to spell. Dan may be a pompous ass, but at least he's able to voice an opinion.

Obviously. In the rich tradition of QT3, I'd like to sum up the Daniel/Tim debate:

Your lame argument about the junk in the rose garden was pretty much ignored, so now you're trying to switch tactics and adopt Dan's weak avoid-the-issue-strategy. Whatever. I can't believe that after months of searching and coming up empty handed, you're still expecting to be vindicated on the nukes.

[bmulligan]

YDEJIN: Did you read my post at all? You should request a lower altitude for your overeducated ego, you're getting nosebleeds from all the so-called knowledge you have on the subject.

Muslims can not tolerate infidels in muslim holy land. Do you know any of the history of Israel and the wars they have fought since their inception because of this principle? Nothing will stop Israel's arab neighbors from their total destruction except for Israel's tenacity and our help. Go cry to your beloved UN for allowing Israel to exist in the first place. Using palistinians as shields? Give me a freaking break. If you believe Israel is the sole bad guy here, you need to do more reading yourself.

read my lips: THEY WILL NOT STOP UNTIL EVERY JEW IS DEAD AND THEIR BODIES REMOVED FROM THE MUSLIM HOLY LANDS. It won't matter what concessions are made. It won't matter if they get jerusalem back. It is not a war of ideology, not of just territory. Muslims believe that allah will destroy them if they allow infidels(non-believers) to infiltrate their societies. They cannot allow us to exist.

This same concept is found in here in christian fanatical groups. Those that believe their towns are punished by god because they allow gay marriages or abortions. Those that believe AIDS is punnishment from god. There is no reasoning with these people.

I'm starting to think Cleve is right, there is no logic to these conflicts, nor logical resolutions, only faith and the despots who speak in it's name.

And yes, our econimic interests are paramount. Just like all other countries econimic interests are their #1 concern. To think otherwise is to live in a fairytale land of altruistic gayness, making sure everyone has their pillow, blanket, and daily food ration.

And as far as Israel is concerned, If they really got to do what ever they wanted, Israel would be the size of Egypt, Syria and Jordan since 1967. They haven't crossed any line that hasn't already been breached by the arabs.

[Bullhajj]

Muslims can not tolerate infidels in muslim holy land... Nothing will stop Israel's arab neighbors from their total destruction

What about Egypt? Egypt is full of muslims who have agreed to peacefully coexist with Israel.

If you believe Israel is the sole bad guy here, you need to do more reading yourself.

You should read more of ydegin's posts. Although this is a topic that just draws the partisan out of most people, he's been about as even handed as you'll find.

[Brad Grenz]

You're right, Brad - the French put up just as much resistance to the American WW2 occupation as they did to the German.

Gee, that's comperable, considering your example throws an additional third party occupation into the mix. The Germans, you know the people occupying France, DID put up a fight, much as the Bathists, the occupational power that was in Iraq, continue to do. But the current situaiton is far to complicated to be wedged into your crude attempt to draw a parallel. For example, France didn't have all sorts of neighboring countries whose terrorists are crossing the border to stir up trouble and for a chance to kill Americans.

But my point was to illuminate the idiocy inherent in your previous statement that an "international force" would be not subjected to continued attacks. There's absolutely no evidense to support such a claim. Nobody's releasing statements saying that they wouldn't have shot those six British soldiers like dogs if only there had been Jordanian peacekeepers in country.

[graller]

You're right, Brad - the French put up just as much resistance to the American WW2 occupation as they did to the German.

Gee, that's comperable, considering your example throws an additional third party occupation into the mix. The Germans, you know the people occupying France, DID put up a fight, much as the Bathists, the occupational power that was in Iraq, continue to do. But the current situaiton is far to complicated to be wedged into your crude attempt to draw a parallel. For example, France didn't have all sorts of neighboring countries whose terrorists are crossing the border to stir up trouble and for a chance to kill Americans.

But my point was to illuminate the idiocy inherent in your previous statement that an "international force" would be not subjected to continued attacks. There's absolutely no evidense to support such a claim. Nobody's releasing statements saying that they wouldn't have shot those six British soldiers like dogs if only there had been Jordanian peacekeepers in country.

You have got to be kidding. You don't think that if we had handled the diplomacy better, if we had built a coalition that included the other Arab nations, that the current situation would not be better? Come on! I am not saying it would be France ca 1944 but it would certainly be an improvement over the situation we have now. The other countries at the least would have helped make sure all their disaffected population were not running out, grabbing guns, and crossing the border to make trouble.

[Anders Hallin]

You know, once upon a time, religious extremists had considerable power in Europe. Not so much anymore. If it could be done in Europe, why not the rest of the world?

[Rywill]

Your lame argument about the junk in the rose garden was pretty much ignored, so now you're trying to switch tactics and adopt Dan's weak avoid-the-issue-strategy. Whatever. I can't believe that after months of searching and coming up empty handed, you're still expecting to be vindicated on the nukes.
Huh? I said my piece on the Iraqi nuke pieces, and said I was done arguing about it, ages ago. I was just poking fun at the way you refuse to debate Daniel on his point (oh no, the thread shifted topics! I guess Tim wins!). I mean, I guess this is just another of your trademarked "Post a response to something, then post three more responses hours later" sorts of arguments, so I probably shouldn't be responding at all. Anyway, I wasn't trying to shitft the topic--I was done with the original one, and although obviously I agree with Daniel about his topic, I wasn't even trying to discuss it. I just thought it was funny the way he presents a decent argument and all you can think of to say is "You misspelled bellwether last year." It's even extra-funny now, because when someone makes fun of your spelling, you get all prissy and indignant about it.

[Jason McCullough]

But my point was to illuminate the idiocy inherent in your previous statement that an "international force" would be not subjected to continued attacks. There's absolutely no evidense to support such a claim.

Except that it worked in Kosovo and East Timor?

[Cleve Blakemore]

But my point was to illuminate the idiocy inherent in your previous statement that an "international force" would be not subjected to continued attacks. There's absolutely no evidense to support such a claim.

Except that it worked in Kosovo and East Timor?

No, it didn't.

You really believe every single damn thing the television says, don't you?

Nothing "worked" in either one of these countries, which are now far more unstable than they were before they were bombed into rubble in the name of freedom and peace.

You should really see a movie called "Wags The Dog" with Robert De Niro. It would probably be a terrorist crime to make a film like this now. That movie was not exaggerating - that's the reality of the "wars of justice" in these little slavic nations.

Basically, the United States drops random bombs on everybody, then news readers point to smoking rubble and say this was a soldier's garrison, this was a WMD plant, this was a genocide camp. All of these targets and photos are of things like bakeries, school bus stops and hospitals. You are then shown pictures of people lying dead in the street and told they were ethnic cleansing advance troops, when in fact they were a baker, a plumber and a family going to church caught out.

All lies. Everything from the media, lies, damned lies and statistics. Lies every word of it. So many lies that it is easier for most to simply believe it all because it seems too incredible that such lies could be made up and broadcast.

Did you know Madeleine Albright was given asylum in Serbia for years as a child when fleeing Germany and when her family left the embassy they personally stole millions of dollars worth of rare artwork right off the walls, as well as silverware and anything else they could rip off? When Albright became a big girl, she came back and decided since the Serbs were expelling violent secessionists who themselves were only in the country originally as refugees, they should all be killed through carpet bombing. Wonderful girl, she is. The Serbs found out how people like Albright reward kindness.

Tell me again about those "mass graves" in Serbia of the "ethnic cleansing," again. Right. What about the millions of Albanian women raped in the "rape camps?" Or the hundred thousand Albanians blinded with hot pokers? Yeah, reality. It must be, it's on televitz!

[Jason McCullough]

Hah. "Stability", a goal above all! And the US actually didn't send troops to Timor.

[Bullhajj]

I was just poking fun at the way you refuse to debate Daniel on his point

Humm. I asked Dan if he could point to the part in his link where it discuss weapons programs that threatend the US. He sill owes me an answer.

BTW, you are welcome to attack my spelling, if you like. :)

[Troy S Goodfellow]

Did you know Madeleine Albright was given asylum in Serbia for years as a child when fleeing Germany and when her family left the embassy they personally stole millions of dollars worth of rare artwork right off the walls, as well as silverware and anything else they could rip off? When Albright became a big girl, she came back and decided since the Serbs were expelling violent secessionists who themselves were only in the country originally as refugees, they should all be killed through carpet bombing. Wonderful girl, she is. The Serbs found out how people like Albright reward kindness.

Not true. Her father did work in Belgrade as a Czech diplomat when the war started, but they fled to England when Czechoslovakia was conquered. The family returned to Prague in 1945 but left again in 1948 after the Communist coup.

Troy

[Idar Thorvaldsen]

Gee that sounds a lot like, "we should send people, just so long as they don't do anything." What good is a peacekeeping force if it can't one, go to where the fighting is, and two, take weapons from the warring parties? It's useless. Wow, I'm so bloodthirsty the way I want the peacekeepers to be able to stop the warring parties from murdering eachother... You don't bust down the door of a serial killer worrying about how he's going to feel about the invasion of privacy.

The serial-killer analogy is flawed, to say the least. There is more than one "bad guy" here, the whole power structure of the entire country's involved. You can't just take all the guns away, separate the warring parties, then say "let's all be friends" and expect the conflict to end. These people are fighting for a reason, and that reason will still be there. If you actively intervene, you become part of the conflict.

See, it's a peacekeeping force, not a peacemaking force. They are to enforce a peace sort of already there. If you start being too active, you'll immediately be accused of taking sides, you will, of necessity, be taking sides, and then you'll have to fight the side you don't back, and occupy the country afterwards. Effectively, you'll be conquering and holding diverse countries.

In the specific case of DR of the Congo: You've got a government, rebels, seven other African nations, shitloads of ethnic groups and various smaller militant organizations. Are you suggesting the French just take them all on? Just occupy the whole country? This isn't Iraq, with a regular army to bomb and a hostile government headquarters to capture. This is a long and ugly civil war we're talking about, with militants spread all over.

If we want a better world everyone is going to have to forgo some soveringty in favor of real standards about, you know, ethnic cleansing.
Forgo sovereignty? Why should the offending nations "forgo sovereignty"? what do they have to gain by that? It would mean that, heaven forfend, they would have to stop their oppression!

Where are you going to draw the line? Shall we intervene in the Congo? North Korea? China? Turkey? Russia?

[Kalle]

You know, once upon a time, religious extremists had considerable power in Europe. Not so much anymore. If it could be done in Europe, why not the rest of the world?

I've come to think it's cause we managed to export most of them to America, where they've thrived and now wield considerable influence over the President.

Maybe all countries should export their religious fanatics to America, so we can watch them fight it out once and for all which god is holiest.

[ydejin]

If we want a better world everyone is going to have to forgo some soveringty in favor of real standards about, you know, ethnic cleansing.

Interesting Brad, I would not have expected this coming from you. How do you feel about the International Crimes Court (ICC)? I would have expected you to side with the current administration viewing it as a threat to America's sovereignty. But this quote from you indicates you may support the ICC.

Personally I think a move in the direction of a world based on law rather than merely force is a good thing. Right now, the US is the biggest kid on the block, so playing with right-by-might rules works out just fine for us. But I think in the long run it's counterproductive. For starters it means other people can use rule by force just like we do, except against our friends and allies -- say Tawain and China for example or Russia and the Ukraine or Georgia. It also inhibits globalization--and I think overall the effect of globalization is positive for both rich and poor countries. I also think it's destabilizing in the long term which is not in our interests.

In my book, international standards are generally a good thing, and I wish the United States had signed on to the ICC.

[Idar Thorvaldsen]

You know, once upon a time, religious extremists had considerable power in Europe. Not so much anymore. If it could be done in Europe, why not the rest of the world?
I've come to think it's cause we managed to export most of them to America, where they've thrived and now wield considerable influence over the President.
We've got the Christian People's Party in government (along with the Conservatives, who make the actual policies), and the Prime Minister's a priest. Our minister of culture... well... there was an organization called Women against Valgerd.

[Brad Grenz]

Interesting Brad, I would not have expected this coming from you. How do you feel about the International Crimes Court (ICC)? I would have expected you to side with the current administration viewing it as a threat to America's sovereignty. But this quote from you indicates you may support the ICC.

I like the idea of an effective international court system, but there are legitimate concerns about perhaps unfair persecution of American citizens in such a system just because there are a lot of people out there who hate the US. I think there are those who would abuse such a system as it grants influence disproportionate to actual, effective power. The real problem I see is that the ICC can't exist alone, we need a legitimately representative republic legislative body (IE, not one where half the representatives were sent by their country's dictator), and an effective investigation/enforcement organization. In that sense I don't think the stage is presently set for the ICC just yet.

Forgo sovereignty? Why should the offending nations "forgo sovereignty"? what do they have to gain by that? It would mean that, heaven forfend, they would have to stop their oppression!

Yeah, what a huge bummer if being a brutal dictator wasn't ok anymore.

Except that it worked in Kosovo and East Timor?

And those are direct analogs how? Seriously Jason, you just need to admit that an international force would not have guranteed the attacks would not continue. You're just assuming, without any real knowledge, and I'm just saying that's a silly assumption. Would there be less attacks? Maybe, I can't say for sure, but it's stupid to think they would have magically disappeared.

[Rywill]

I think there are those who would abuse such a system as it grants influence disproportionate to actual, effective power.
That's all any court does.

[Jason McCullough]

Except that it worked in Kosovo and East Timor?

And those are direct analogs how? Seriously Jason, you just need to admit that an international force would not have guranteed the attacks would not continue. You're just assuming, without any real knowledge, and I'm just saying that's a silly assumption. Would there be less attacks? Maybe, I can't say for sure, but it's stupid to think they would have magically disappeared.

Yeah, it's pretty unreasonable. To think, that the population would look upon an international coalition army under the UN occupying the country differently than the army of the imperialist, oil-grabbing, revenge-obsessed ("he tried to kill my dad!") superpower.

Obviously we aren't there for revenge or oil, but no amount of explaning is going to convince them of that.

[Brad Grenz]

Christ, Jason, you really think the hardcore Bathists and terrorists would care who they were shooting at and blowing up? They'd have trouble druming up as much popular support, but they'd still be killing whoever they could. But I'm sure your, I'm right and they are wrong fantasy is very comforting to you. Doesn't make it true, though.

[Toddy]

Yeah, they would. Maybe you don't quite get this, but Americans are pretty much reviled through most of the world at the moment. Especially the ones in uniform. Especially the ones in uniform who still haven't got the electricity running properly in Baghdad after two months of 110-degree temperatures. Nobody wants to be occupied forever, whether the troops are wearing powder-blue or red, white, and blue, but at least with the UN most people would have some faith that things would eventually improve. The Iraqis have no faith that the Americans will ever leave. And it's a pretty reasonable fear. At the very least, the US will want to set up permanent military bases there to replace those vacated in Saudi Arabia. Goooooood morning, Baghdad!

[Idar Thorvaldsen]

Forgo sovereignty? Why should the offending nations "forgo sovereignty"? what do they have to gain by that? It would mean that, heaven forfend, they would have to stop their oppression!

Yeah, what a huge bummer if being a brutal dictator wasn't ok anymore.

I think you missed a point somewhere. The point was: Dictators and human rights abusers will not forgo sovereignty.

[Cleve Blakemore]

America will soon be reminded of the simple principles of wisdom that came naturally to her founders.

If you want to play the game that the big monkey gets all the coconuts, then you have to accept that you will only get to play with the coconuts until a bigger monkey comes along. If you say might makes right and then ten minutes later realize that someone else is now using the same justification to kick your arse, you shouldn't cry and whine about the rule of law and the need for diplomacy. I suspect America will when she is weak, crushed and falling apart from the inside.

Wait until you lose a couple million people in a single day from a random terrorist attack and it shuts the economy down for oh, say, thirty years into permanent depression. I think all will become clear to you at that point.

Good military policy is easy. It consists of minding your own friggin' business, staying within your borders and maintaining such a threatening profile that nobody has the incentive or nerve to make trouble with you. It is pretty funny that a country that destroyed its civil defense program back in the late 80's is throwing its weight around, considering its citizens are just clay ducks sitting in the open. If you're gonna style yourself an empire, here's a hint - build a fortress mentality inside your nation to defend against the attacks that will inevitably come. Having a citizenry with no reasonable civil defense program and antagonizing middle eastern nations with a billion sympathizers capable of becoming terrorists at the drop of a hat is amazingly, astonishingly gay. Combined with an open borders immigration system, I can't understand why you are waiting for somebody else to put you out of your misery, you should put a bullet in your own heads and get it out of the way.

Johnny-come-latelys who don't know the rules that govern the rapid collapse of empires just as they reach their nadirs shouldn't cry and sob when they reap the consequences of their ignorance. America is going to get whacked and she has only herself to blame when it happens.

[Cleve Blakemore]

Yeah, they would. Maybe you don't quite get this, but Americans are pretty much reviled through most of the world at the moment. Especially the ones in uniform. Especially the ones in uniform who still haven't got the electricity running properly in Baghdad after two months of 110-degree temperatures. Nobody wants to be occupied forever, whether the troops are wearing powder-blue or red, white, and blue, but at least with the UN most people would have some faith that things would eventually improve. The Iraqis have no faith that the Americans will ever leave. And it's a pretty reasonable fear. At the very least, the US will want to set up permanent military bases there to replace those vacated in Saudi Arabia. Goooooood morning, Baghdad!

Standard malpractice for morons in these conditions, it's called the "Saigon Shuffle":

1. March around in the open allowing guerilla fighters to pick away at your numbers on a daily basis.

2. Counterattack innocent civilians in retaliation with various atrocities until entire nation is united in their opposition to your presence.

3. Retreat inside firebases until your men go nearly mad from isolation and the tension of possible attack from any quarter at any time.

4. Evacuate in ignoble humilation clinging to a helicopter skid as religious fanatics finally overthrow your last defense and drive you from the country, disgracing you in front of the whole world.

5. Watch as post defeat (like Vietnam) your fiat ZOGbux plummet in value as a reserve currency and your entire economy collapses like a soggy paper bag, plunging you into a depression that signals the end of your short lived reign as a world power.

It's so easy, even a Bush can do it!

[Cleve Blakemore]

Hey, I just had an idea how to reinvigorate the U.S. civil defense plan. They could start making empty Starbucks coffee cups interlocking so you can use them as concrete forms and build your shelters one cappuccino at a time. Either that or they could design a cappuccino cup you can actually jump inside of or pull over your head like Bert the Turtle when you see the blast wave coming. That's more realistic than the current American CD program.

[Jason McCullough]

"ZOGbux" cracks me up.

[ydejin]

Interesting Brad, I would not have expected this coming from you. How do you feel about the International Crimes Court (ICC)? I would have expected you to side with the current administration viewing it as a threat to America's sovereignty. But this quote from you indicates you may support the ICC.

I like the idea of an effective international court system, but there are legitimate concerns about perhaps unfair persecution of American citizens in such a system just because there are a lot of people out there who hate the US. I think there are those who would abuse such a system as it grants influence disproportionate to actual, effective power. The real problem I see is that the ICC can't exist alone, we need a legitimately representative republic legislative body (IE, not one where half the representatives were sent by their country's dictator), and an effective investigation/enforcement organization. In that sense I don't think the stage is presently set for the ICC just yet.

I agree we do need to need to insure that the system can't be abused. UN General Assembly votes don't provide a great deal of confidence in this regard. At the same time though, the US seems to maintain the philosophy that while others can and should be tried in International Courts, the US should remain above the law. We're perfectly happy, for example, to have Milosevic and his ilk tried in International Court for crimes against humanity, but heaven forbid if someone wanted to try a Lt. Cahill in International Court for the My Lai massacre.

In general, I personally believe that the US military has a fair system of justice and will try and convict those US military personnel guilty of crimes against humanity. But we can't go around supporting one form of justice for non-Americans while insisting Americans have a different set of rights than everyone else. This makes no sense and it weakens the concept of International laws and rules of conduct. This in turn encourages rulers like Milosevic and Saddam Hussein to do whatever they want as there is no International law limiting their abuses.

[ydejin]

America will soon be reminded of the simple principles of wisdom that came naturally to her founders.

If you want to play the game that the big monkey gets all the coconuts, then you have to accept that you will only get to play with the coconuts until a bigger monkey comes along. If you say might makes right and then ten minutes later realize that someone else is now using the same justification to kick your arse, you shouldn't cry and whine about the rule of law and the need for diplomacy.

Standard malpractice for morons in these conditions, it's called the "Saigon Shuffle"

I'm actually in agreement with Cleve! This is just too scary. :?

[Rywill]

At the same time though, the US seems to maintain the philosophy that while others can and should be tried in International Courts, the US should remain above the law.
How do you respond to the argument that the US demands special treatment because the US holds a special position in the world? Not to be cliche about it, but most people view the US as the "world's policeman." That doesn't mean the US sends its military everywhere there is injustice (it doesn't), but it DOES mean that when injustice is forcibly stopped, it's almost always stopped at least in part with the US military--often, with ONLY the US military. If the US has to do most of the military heavy lifting, isn't it reasonable for the US to ask for special treatment? Especially since, as you said, the US generally does a good job at self-policing?

The US is special in another way, too--it's the biggest kid on the block not just militarily, but also economically. And its culture reaches far and wide as well. That, combined with the US's visible foreign policy stances, makes us the object of a lot of hard feelings. Maybe those feelings are justified, and maybe not--that's not the issue. Whether the feelings are right or wrong, they're there, and they often cause other countries to try and strike back at the US any way they can, often in ways that are unjustified (e.g., kicking the US off the Human Rights panel). No other country has such a high profile. Isn't it reasonable for the US to ask for protection from that kind of lashing out? It's one thing for us to lose some chairs in the UN; its something else entirely to have an individual soldier pay the price for people not liking his country. They already do that in combat.

[Brad Grenz]

I think you missed a point somewhere. The point was: Dictators and human rights abusers will not forgo sovereignty.

No kidding. In some cases it would have to be taken. The North took the South to task on just such an issue during the Civil War.

[ydejin]

At the same time though, the US seems to maintain the philosophy that while others can and should be tried in International Courts, the US should remain above the law.
How do you respond to the argument that the US demands special treatment because the US holds a special position in the world? Not to be cliche about it, but most people view the US as the "world's policeman." That doesn't mean the US sends its military everywhere there is injustice (it doesn't), but it DOES mean that when injustice is forcibly stopped, it's almost always stopped at least in part with the US military--often, with ONLY the US military. If the US has to do most of the military heavy lifting, isn't it reasonable for the US to ask for special treatment? Especially since, as you said, the US generally does a good job at self-policing?

The US military does indeed do more than its fair share of heavy lifting. As you say, when there is injustice, more often than not, if it is stopped using military force, US troops will be involved. And that is something the US should be proud of. However, that fact by itself does not provide any rational for separate treatment of its personnel (although your second point which I address below might). Just because the US is deployed more frequently than the Pakistanis or Italians doesn't mean that it should have a separate system of justice for human rights violations. If there are only a handful of Swiss deployed with the UN and one of them is responsible for a human rights violation that person should be treated exactly the same as if one of the many US servicemen were to make that same violation.

Creating a multi-tiered justice system is very troublesome. It's not all that different from a system of justice in which noblemen are treated to a different form of justice than peasants. The objective should be to come up with a system of justice which is fair for both noblemen and peasants, one in which Swiss, Pakistani, Italians, and Americans are all fairly treated. If an International Criminal Tribunal isn't fair enough for an American such as Lt William Cahill of My Lai fame, I see no reason why it's fair enough for a Milosevic or even another Hitler.

Otherwise what we're saying is, the International Crime Tribunal isn't a very good justice system. We aren't willing to let them try Americans, but it is good enough to try and to sentence non-Americans. We're happy to support the ITC and to hand suspects over to them, even though we don't think it's fair and just enough for Americans.

The US is special in another way, too--it's the biggest kid on the block not just militarily, but also economically. And its culture reaches far and wide as well. That, combined with the US's visible foreign policy stances, makes us the object of a lot of hard feelings. Maybe those feelings are justified, and maybe not--that's not the issue. Whether the feelings are right or wrong, they're there, and they often cause other countries to try and strike back at the US any way they can, often in ways that are unjustified (e.g., kicking the US off the Human Rights panel). No other country has such a high profile. Isn't it reasonable for the US to ask for protection from that kind of lashing out?

This is indeed a concern. What we want is a system that protects everyone--both US soldiers and our enemies--from unfair politically motivated "justice". Now, is such a system possible? This is a hard question to answer. I would say that a close approximation of such a system is possible. It won't be perfect, but it will be close. Unfortunately, I don't see the US making a good faith effort to make this work, I see us being obstructionist.

We are indeed the biggest kid on the block, militarily and economically. If we believe in the American ideals, then we need to be proactive about bringing them to the International Community. I do believe at core America has much to offer. We believe in a government which represents the people who are governed, we believe in equal justice for all, we believe in freedom of the press, in freedom of religion. We need to join together with Europe and others and move toward a system in which these aren't rights for Americans, or Europeans, but everyone.

Now the International Criminal Court admittedly isn't going to bring freedom and democracy to everyone -- of course, not. But it is a step, a first step in a good direction. It's a statement that there are limits to the behavior that the International community is willing to accept. Right now those limits are pretty low, but at least supporting the ICC says that they are there. I think America needs to join in that first step, even if the system isn't perfect.

It's one thing for us to lose some chairs in the UN; its something else entirely to have an individual soldier pay the price for people not liking his country. They already do that in combat.

This is probably the point that's hardest to address. At some level, I believe that soldiers are there to support and implement the policies of their country, even if that puts them at greater risk. I don't want to sound callous. I honor our American soldiers. I am very aware that they are risking their lives and their freedom to protect us. That goes for when I agree with their deployment and when I do not. American servicemen are professional, they go where the government tells them to and rightly so as that's what separates us from a "Banana Republic". Now, having said that, I think the risk of an unfair imprisonment needs to be considered as comparable to the risk of getting shot at or killed. If our government decides that it is in the best interests of the country to support the International Criminal Court, then our soldiers as instruments of American foreign policy must accept that as another risk of their job.

I honestly do not believe the chances of severe injustice to American servicemen is very high. First of all, America has way to much power and prestigious for someone to get completely buffaloed. Second the number of incidences involving US personnel of sufficient magnitude to come to the attention of the ICC seems likely to be quite small. Finally if things get completely out of hand, we can simply withdraw from the treaty. It will look bad from a PR standpoint, but if the treaty is a complete disaster, so be it.

[Brad Grenz]

I admit that I don't know very much about what is actually proposed. How will the International court actually function? Are we talking just a judge? A jury? A jury system would be really complicated, but I think if it was set up so that, say, half of the jurors are from the same nation as the accused such concerns about persecution would be diminished. But there are all sorts of problems like, language barrier, finding qualified jurors and what happens when you get the notice of Jury duty, do they fly you to Switzerland? I think if you go "up the chain", so to speak, you risk over politicizing the process.

[ydejin]

I admit that I don't know very much about what is actually proposed. How will the International court actually function? Are we talking just a judge? A jury? A jury system would be really complicated, but I think if it was set up so that, say, half of the jurors are from the same nation as the accused such concerns about persecution would be diminished. But there are all sorts of problems like, language barrier, finding qualified jurors and what happens when you get the notice of Jury duty, do they fly you to Switzerland? I think if you go "up the chain", so to speak, you risk over politicizing the process.

I'm not an expert on the ICC (and I'm also not a lawyer), but here's what I know (or think I know ...)

I believe the ICC is patterned after the Nuremberg and Tokyo War Tribunals. Trial occurs before a three judge panel with possibility of appeal to a separate five judge panel. Depending on how the case is brought to trial, there's another three judge panel that in some cases needs approve by before proceeding (this additional check is there in large part to further insure the process is not politically motivated). Judges come from a pool of 18 judges who are elected by the various member nations of the treaty. In addition, the UN Security Council ultimately has veto power over any case. It can order the ICC not to pursue a case for 12 months and can renew that order indefinitely, which in effect permanently tables the case.

The Treaty was developed with the participation of the US under the Clinton administration and the US was one of the original signatories. A pro-ICC website claims a US military lawyer was one of our key treaty negotiators. The Treaty includes many of the same protections provided by US law including a belief in innocence until proven guilty, a right to remain silent, and the right to examine witnesses. Here is a full list (http://www.usaforicc.org/facts_america-icc.html).

As the ICC Website (http://www.icc-cpi.int/php/show.php?id=home&l=EN) says: This is the first ever permanent, treaty based, international criminal court established to promote the rule of law and ensure that the gravest international crimes do not go unpunished.

The ICC has quite limited scope. There are three areas of active jurisdiction with a potential addition of a fourth at some later point. The active areas are:


The Crime of Genocide
Crimes Against Humanity -- including enslavement, torture, enforced prostitution.
War Crimes -- including torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments, willfully depriving a prisoner of war or other protected person of the rights of fair and regular trial, taking hostages. There's a list of "secondary" war crimes including intentionally using starvation of civilians as a method of warfare, conscripting or enlisting children under the age of fifteen years, employing poison or poisoned weapons.

The full list (http://www.un.org/law/icc/statute/99_corr/2.htm) is available on the web.

The sad thing is that not only has the US withdrawn from the treaty, it is actively working to undermine the ICC (http://www.usaforicc.org/facts_ASPA.html). US Courts, state, and local governments are now prohibited from responding to requests for cooperation from the ICC. No agency of the US, state, or local governments may provide any support for the ICC. Agents of the ICC are prohibited from carrying out any investigative activity or other proceeding in the US. We are also working to punish other countries that sign by withdrawing US military assistance to any signatory of the ICC treaty for one year after the treaty goes into force.

Way to go, the rest of the World wants to work by rule of law, but the US prefers might makes right.

[Idar Thorvaldsen]

I think you missed a point somewhere. The point was: Dictators and human rights abusers will not forgo sovereignty.

No kidding. In some cases it would have to be taken. The North took the South to task on just such an issue during the Civil War.

It would have to be taken in all the cases that mattered. That's far from practically possible, and will quickly lead to problems, as briefly outlined above.

[Rywill]

I'm no ICC expert either, but my understanding is the same as ydeljin's. The problem is with the "war crimes" jurisdiction, which could easily be applied to all manner of military accidents, mistakes, etc., if there were the international political will to do so. Even the threat of a prosecution would have a serious impact on the individuals involved and, to a lesser extent, the country as a whole. Not to mention the expense (not just in money, but in time) of investigating and fighting against the potential unfair prosecutions.

I agree with ydeljin re: my point #1 (US does all the heavy lifting). We shouldn't be exempted simply because we do most of the fighting. But let me put the point another way: ydeljin, don't you think that if we signed the treaty and subjected ourselves to ICC jurisdiction, that the popular sentiment in the US would be anti-interventionist? Are people still going to be willing to send troops to Bosnia, or to enforce food deliveries in Africa, or any of the other humanitarian missions they currently undertake, if they think US soldiers are likely going to be brought up on politically motivated war-crimes charges? Even one or two such incidents would probably sour the country on the whole concept. Where will the world be then? Do we really think UN peacekeeping troops will be able to pick up the slack?

[ydejin]

I agree with ydeljin re: my point #1 (US does all the heavy lifting). We shouldn't be exempted simply because we do most of the fighting. But let me put the point another way: ydeljin, don't you think that if we signed the treaty and subjected ourselves to ICC jurisdiction, that the popular sentiment in the US would be anti-interventionist? Are people still going to be willing to send troops to Bosnia, or to enforce food deliveries in Africa, or any of the other humanitarian missions they currently undertake, if they think US soldiers are likely going to be brought up on politically motivated war-crimes charges? Even one or two such incidents would probably sour the country on the whole concept. Where will the world be then? Do we really think UN peacekeeping troops will be able to pick up the slack?

This is a good point which I will have to admit I had not thought of. My best guess is that joining the ICC by itself would not change popular sentiment in the US. Frankly I don't think most Americans really think about this stuff and I think the majority when told that there was now an International Crime Court to persecute war crimes would say "Great" (without bothering to look into the details or any potential problems).

The risk is, as you say, if one or two highly politically motivated cases end up being prosecuted against our soldiers. This would be a major problem and would put a serious damper on American support for UN peacekeeping. I think the danger of this is relatively small though, particularly as the UN Security Council can put a stop to any case right away (although bringing something like this up before the Security Council would probably cause a scandal in and of itself). I think the most likely thing to happen would be for a case to come up where the soldiers were guilty at some level, and perhaps for the ICC to prosecute them at a greater level than we thought appropriate.

Consider for example the case of the National Guard pilots who dropped bombs on Canadian troops. (Note I don't think this would actually be under the jurisdication of the ICC, but it's the closest real world example I could come up with). Was that an accident? Should they be charged with manslaughter or even murder? Even if we thought they should be charged with a lesser crime, or even completely let off, if the ICC ended up charging them with murder, I don't think there would be that much of an outcry. I think the American people would view this as the National Guard pilots perhaps being penalized more than appropriate but not really getting shafted (they did after all really screw up and did kill people).

It's obviously hard to make conclusions on how the court will act one way or another, but the system does have checks and balances to prevent abuse.

The question is whether moving to a system in which we have clear guidelines on behavior world-wide and a means of prosecution is worth the potential risk. I would lean toward yes, but you do bring up some good points.

I think what is more disturbing than our saying "yes, we should join in this effort" or "no, we should not" is the way we withdrew from the treaty after signing it and are now actively working to undermine it.