Talk:2003 invasion of Iraq/Fpahl vs Silverback

There can be little doubt that control of oil was the reason for the invasion, but you don't need some corporate conspiracy theory. The object was to remove the control of oil from a man of Saddam's demonstrated character. His resources were the threat, without them, Iraq would just be another Sudan. al Qaeda is contesting Iraq much more than Afghanistan precisely because of the oil, although the closeness of easily perverted human resources in the neighboring countries and in the parentless, irredeemable faydeen also make it easier to cause trouble in Iraq. Fortunately al Qaeda resources are being diverted against hardened US military targets instead of innocent US civilians.--Silverback 03:55, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Unfortunately US military resources are being diverted against innocent Iraqi civilians instead of hardened al Qaeda targets. Fpahl 08:33, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

There is no evidence of this. It is al Qaeda that is attacking Iraqi citizens. The military is trying to protect them and to train Iraqi's to be responsible for their own security. If you know the location any hardened al Qaeda targets please let the US military know. You will see action.--Silverback 09:04, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Before we get into a heated debate here, I should say that I'm not claiming that the US military is intentionally targetting civilians for the sake of targetting civilians. If I hadn't been restricted by my humourous intent of rearranging your sentence, I would have made that clearer. That said, I do believe that the US military is killing thousands upon thousands of civilians. If you doubt this, I would encourage you to visit the Iraq Body Count database and tell me what's wrong with their methodology. While these civilians are obviously not killed for the sake of killing them, it seems equally obvious to me that the US military would not even dream of proceeding as it does if these thousands of civilians being killed were US citizens. It is in this sense that it is showing no respect for human life.

This ties in with what originally upset me about your comment and prompted me to reply to it. Your comment is (perhaps intentionally) reminiscent of Mr. Bush's mantra "We need to fight the terrorists abroad so that we don't have to fight them here". In one sense, this is of course perfectly reasonable -- go and find them and deal with them before they get a chance to come here and attack us. But in the context of the lower value the US military places on the lives of Iraqi civilians, it takes on another flavour -- let's go and fight our fights elsewhere, so that it's Iraqi houses that get destroyed and Iraqi children that get killed and not ours. This is cynical in the extreme. Before the US attacked Iraq, there was no significant terrorist activity there. Thus, far from taking the fight to the terrorists, the US has taken the fight to the Iraqi people, who have nothing to do with it. That is not what I would call "fortunate".

BTW, I don't know the location of any al Qaeda targets. If I did, I would most certainly not report them to the US military, where they would be at risk of being tortured or otherwise deprived of their human rights. I would report them to the local authorities, as with any other criminals. Fpahl 11:01, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Before the US attacked Iraq, there was no significant terrorist activity there?

Saddam's regime RULED by terror. Could you possibly have missed reports of the cutting off hands and tossing people from buildings, the taking of children and raising them as feydaeen, the ruthless suppression of uprisings, etc? Saddam's regime even fought with terror, don't you recall the reports of guns pointed to the heads of family members of tank commanders until they when out to face US forces? Threats of force like this are every bit as morally repugnant as the actual carrying out of the threat. Just as there is no moral distinction between sanctions and war. The moral bright line was crossed when sanctions were imposed.

As for the current, terrorist activity, the blame lies with the terrorists who commit the acts, not with the United States. The U.S. would be happy to be out of Iraq now, if there were a peaceful regime there which respected individual rights. The United States has just as much right to oppress Iraqi's as Saddam did, which is to say, none, nada. His racial, religious, language or geographical affinity with the local populations do not create a special right to oppress, nor do they create a right in others to oppose his removal or to oppose the protection of individual rights there.--Silverback 12:07, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You're using a wider sense of "terrorism" than I was, which makes it coextensive with terror. I'm happy to go along with this use of the word, and of course you're right that in this sense there was a lot of terrorism in Iraq before the US attacked. I also agree 100% that threats of force are every bit as morally repugnant as carrying them out. In this sense, the US is terrorizing the world. It is openly threatening that it will use force in violation of international law and without due regard for civilians to impose its will, and it has already carried out this threat once. The gun it is pointing at Iran is not much different from the gun pointed at the tank commanders' family members.

I didn't claim that the blame for any current terrorist activity in Iraq lies with the US; I don't think I'd even want to claim that it shares much of the blame for people killed in the course of legitimate resistance activity in Iraq. Everyone is responsible for whom they kill themselves, and the US military is killing more than enough people themselves.

You are also, of course, right that my and everyone else's right to oppose US military action is not due to Saddam's racial, religious, language or geographical affinity. It's simply based on the spirit and the letter of international law. It is the community of all humans that decides what is to be done about people like Saddam Hussein. This is a difficult question, and I have great respect for the position that they should be deposed by force. But this decision is for the whole world to make, not for the president of a single country to arrogate. And if it is decided, with a heavy heart, that using force is the best option, it must be done with every single life counting as much as one's own. Everything else is a crime. Fpahl 12:54, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

US military would not even dream of proceeding as it does if these thousands of civilians being killed were US citizens?

The US has taken remarkable care to avoid civilian casualties. Certainly no other country could target more precisely and certainly any internal attempt within Iraq to depose Saddam could have been as precise and relatively bloodless or have such desciplined well trained forces. Iraqis are getting rid of Saddam on the cheap. If US citizens were harboring terrorists or hostages among them, the US would treat them just the same, consider the shoot down order on commercial airlines on 9/11, the sieges in Waco and on Ruby ridge, the shooting of students at Kent state, etc. Of course, innocent civilians are killed all the time by the US government using "net lives saved" arguments, such as the hundreds of thousands killed by FDA delays in approving life saving medicines (most flagrantly beta blockers and "clot busters"), consider the death of Thomas Morris who was blocked by a government licensed gatekeeper (an MD) from getting the Cipro he needed to protect himself from anthrax, etc. If net-lives-saved are good enough for mass murder of civilians in peace time, why should the standard be any higher in war? In most major wars of the past the US military has tortured and killed thousands of innocent US citizens, see conscription.

BTW, I don't mind heated debates, and don't take them personally. If you oppose the war as a pacifist, I respect that, but if you try to cherry pick this war to oppose with its voluntary military, careful targeting and preservation of civilian infrastructure and nobel purpose, I don't see how you can justify any others, except perhap Granada.--Silverback 12:26, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm not a pacifist, though I would agree that justifiable wars are few and far between. The fact that you don't see how I can justify other wars while opposing this one emphasizes that you are neglecting (or perhaps not interested in?) the aspect of international law. While we seem to have a considerable difference of opinion about the "remarkable care" taken by the US military (did you look at the Iraq body count site?), I do agree that in this respect this war represents a considerable and welcome improvement over many previous wars. I'm not "cherry-picking" it, I consider it the most arrogant and flagrant violation of international law to be perpetrated during my life so far. I believe that the world will become a far more dangerous place if a single country arrogates the right to use violence when and where it pleases, and that the solution to the problems that we probably agree are the pressing problems of our time lies in the cooperation of all countries, with respect and humility. There is no respect and humility in the current US administration's attitude to the world. Fpahl 13:06, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You are correct in identifying international law as a key area in which we differ. I opposed the first gulf war perhaps as much as you oppose this one. While I was appalled at Saddam's invasion of Kuwait, I could not agree with with the first President Bush's use of the phrase "New World Order". It seemed to mean that while Saddam had no right to oppress the Kuwaiti's, his right to oppress his own people should not be abridged. This was hardly an inspiring thing to fight for. Governments of the world united to protect their perogitives. Recall during that war, there was also concern about whether it was OK to target Saddam, because it might violate directives against assassination. This was another area where leaders implemented self serving policies at the expense of the people. There was however, no compunction about burying one or two hundred thousand innocent Iraqi conscripts in the bunkers. Add to that the war crimes of purposely targeting the civilian infrastructure of Iraq, which incidently also occurred in Serbia.

I think respect for law, like anything else, should be on its merits, not out of somekind of mystical reverence. The UN did not earn respect in the first Gulf War and in the subsequent sanctions which are threats of war which become meaningless unless they result in war every so often. The UN is a body for protecting nations rights, and makes no distinction between dicatorship or democracy, the language about territorial sovereignty is honored there more than that about individual rights. What were france and germany waiting for in Iraq, payola? Why should US citizens expect anything worthy of respect from an Internation mogrel like the an international court? We can't even get courts, police and prosecutors that respect the law here, where there is a fairly homogeneous culture that does, perhaps naively given the reality, respect the law. If the UN sanctions Iran, it will have started a war. Iran will have the choice to surrender (comply) or fight. At least that is they way it should work. With the UN of Germany and France, it will be given a third choice, delay and maybe UN resolve will weaken so that the sanctions are meaningless.

Perhaps the US is threatening the rest of the world, but the objections from the rest of the world seem based more on jealously than any moral high ground. Do you really think Western Europe feels threatened? If they can't understand the US any better than that, then it is far too early to expect an international law worthy of respect to emerge.--Silverback 14:03, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm enjoying this discussion and appreciate the time you're taking to exchange arguments. Before any more "we"s and "they"s, I should mention that I live in Germany. I went to a German-American school in Berlin and have both citizenships. I'm not a big fan of the German state; I'm critical of all industrialized nations, not just the US. I do, however, believe that Germany has been playing an increasingly constructive role at the UN since the Red/Green government came to power in 1998.

You point out many defects in the international system, and I agree with you on some of them. The question is what to do about them. You seem to be proposing to give up on the UN as inherently flawed. From that it would follow naturally that powerful nations would have to take the law into their own hands (though it might still be hoped that this would be done by leaders who aren't so terribly sure that they can tell right from wrong and good from evil as Mr. Bush). I think this is an unnecessarily pessimistic view of the UN. It seems to have gained a lot of popularity in the US, but I don't quite understand why. Let's look at your criticism of the UN in some detail.

You say "the UN is a body for protecting nations' rights, and makes no distinction between dicatorship or democracy, the language about territorial sovereignty is honored there more than that about individual rights". There is some truth to this, but I think it's quite exaggerated. Individual rights are playing an increasingly prominent role at the UN, and the fact that sovereignty is not absolute but can be forfeited by egregious human rights violations has become almost commonplace -- at least among countries like Germany and France. We have a long way to go, and I know that China and Russia often impede this development. But this not what stops human rights from being upheld. China and Russia would not have cast a veto to block an intervention in Rwanda at the height of the genocide. It's the fact that the West, including the US, lacks the political will to consistently uphold human rights that allows them to be trampled on everywhere.

You write "Why should US citizens expect anything worthy of respect from an Internation mogrel like the an international court? We can't even get courts, police and prosecutors that respect the law here". In this I sense the disturbing arrogance that seems to have taken a hold of the US. How could something that can't be done in the land of the free and the home of the brave possibly be done anywhere else? I think that the International Criminal Court is a historic milestone for human rights, and it's deplorable that the US is actively undermining it. Why do you think that international courts deserve so much less respect than US courts? (That's not a rhetorical question; I'm really interested in finding out where this visceral reaction to anything international comes from.)

Sanctions are not threats of war. To the contrary, they are policy instruments one of whose function is to make threats of war less necessary.

Yes, I really do think that Western Europe feels threatened. I know because I live here. We all have to live on this planet together, and the US is turning it into hell on Earth. Most people here are very worried that Mr. Bush might get re-elected and go on setting the world on fire. What do you mean by "if they can't understand the US any better than that"? If they have a different opinion and critize US policies, then they just don't understand and aren't worthy of your respect for international law?! Fpahl 20:10, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I too have lived in Germany, but that was in 1968 while my father was in the army and stationed in the Hanau and Frankfurt are. I was there during the Soviet invasion of Czeckoslovakia. I think the UN will be inherently flawed while it has dictatorships and until it develops some moral fibre, which it needs whether it has dictatorships or not. The UN serves the interests of power is and is more about accomodation to it than about protecting individual rights. Consider the corruption in the oil for food program. The international community had been criticizing US support for sanctions in Iraq because the sanctions were harming the innocent Iraqi civilians and the health care system was suffering and the infant mortaliity was in the 10s of thousands for each year. Now we find out the oil for food program was corrupt, lining the pockets of Saddam and European and third world politicians. Now the UN is stone-walling the investigation into that corruption, and it does not look like there will be any accountability. In the United States respect for the law is not based upon the devine right of Kings or the government to impose whatever it wants upon us. Respect for the law here is based on the fact that those that govern are limited and held to standards and must obey the same law itself. The UN must become more open, transparent and accountable. The UN must also be willing to take principled stands, to stand up for something even if it means another large scale war. Consider for instance the democracy in Taiwan, there is no moral basis for an outsider to claim the right to override their self government, just as there was no right for Argentina to try to take over the Faulklands even though the people there did not want their rule. But will the UN be the one to stand up if China increases its hegenmony towards Taiwan? Even the United States with its one China policy has made rhetorical compromises of important principles.

You say that sovereignty can be forfeited by egreious human rights violations. What are the examples of this? There are several opportunities that cry out for this around the world. The Sudan government claims it is not responsible for the attrocities in the southern Sudan, since this is an area where it is unable to protect the rights of "its" citizens. Why not redraw the boundaries and tack it onto one of the neighboring countries that might be willing to undertake the responsibility, or allow self rule? No, the immoral sovereignty rights are the Sudan government are instead being honored. Similarly the US is adhering to arbitrary borders between Afghanistan and Pakistan even though the control of the Pakistani government over those tribal reasons is in name only. What would be the UN's stand if the US supported government in Afghanistan claimed those lands and attempted to do a better job? Where is the UN pressure on Saudi Arabia and Iran to improve its protection of the rights of the individuals living there? There isn't a moral consensus to do this, instead things the UN spirit seems to be one of accomodation and acquiescence. The international moral climate may actually have been better back in the 1920s, at least there was an international movement to attempt to end conscription with prominent moral leaders like Einstein and Gandhi, until the virulence of nationalism and retribution overwelmed it. I do agree that the US is too tolerant of human rights violations, it has done nothing to protect the Israelis and Germans from conscription and lack of the right of the citizens of Chine to emigrate amounts to a form of captive labor or conscription.

I find your disrespect for national sovereignty very refreshing. I largely agree with you in this area. Individual rights are what counts, and national sovereignty is a mere instrument for guarding them that should be put aside if it stands in their way. But you are framing the debate such that the US appears on the side of individual rights and the UN and Germany and France appear on the side of state power. That's not right. There are arguments pro and con humanitarian interventions on both sides of the Atlantic. If Bush had gone to the UN and said, "Look, I have no idea what Saddam is doing about WMDs, we need to wait for the inspectors to find out, but that's secondary really, because he's such a serial abuser of human rights -- I think it's time for us to rethink this whole idea of national sovereignty and show people like him that they can't torture with impunity -- I'm truly sorry that the US has been friends with people like him for so long, but we've seen the error of our ways -- who's up for going there and freeing those torture victims?", the debate would have taken quite a different course. A lot of people in Western Europe would have been in favour of that. I might have been in favour of that. That's not what happened. What Bush said was essentially, "I decide when the US has a right to defend itself. I don't really care what the rest of the world thinks. When we feel threatened, we attack. End of discussion." Fpahl 11:06, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I agree, after the US has aroused so much resentment, even if it couldn't become pacifist even if it wanted to. It is like hitting someone half a dozen times and then before they can strike back, declaring that one has reformed. You shouldn't be surprised if you get hit anyway. I suppose it is part of the legacy of the messy cold war. However, just because the resentment against the US is there and perhaps understandable, doesn't mean it is justified. The US aid to Saddam was a generation ago, I don't think blaming across generations is justified and it certainly doesn't justify those who traded arms to Saddam in violation of the sanctions.

Blaming across generations?! Did you see the picture of Mr. Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam in the eighties? How many in the Bush administration were in the Reagan and Ford administrations? If they really wanted to come clean, they should have said so. "Look folks, we've made a lot of mistakes in the past, all this power politics and supporting dictators and all that was pretty bad stuff, but you know, Cold War and all -- bygones." You can't turn your policies around 180° and expect people to believe you've reformed if you're not even willing to admit your mistakes. I certainly don't believe for one second that Bush has said farewell to power politics and turned into a humanitarian do-gooder. Look at whom he's supporting in Pakistan -- a military dictator who's helping him against the wishes of his own people and whose chief scientist distributed nuclear weapons technology all over the world. In Iraq, every petty Al Qaeda officer who was operated on in a Baghdad hospital was inflated into official cooperation with terrorists -- and in Pakistan, the country's chief scientist sells the most dangerous weapons to the most dangerous people, and they're praised as a great ally in the war on terror. As long as such egregious double-standards are applied, Bush can claim all the noble motives he likes -- he will be perceived as a power politician with lots of hypocritical rhetoric. That's what I think he is. And if not him, then the people around him. They are the generation that supported Saddam when he was convenient. Fpahl 13:58, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I was thinking of generations as about 20 years, and I have opposed the prosecution of Nazis after such a gap, people can change and justice delayed is justice denied. I think it is presumptious of governments to punish as if they are moral arbiters, but rather it is the protection of society that they must attend to. Saddam was a lesser of two evils back then, let him fight a surrogate war for the US. I don't think there were illusions about him back then, except that his evil was underestimated. Iran used chemical weapons as well during the war, and I don't see that as any better or worse than conscription, just more portable. I personally am not comfortable with lesser of two evils choices, I believe we are responsible for the evil we do even in those circumstances, that is why I didn't and can't vote for Bush, but Kerry is not an improvement. I don't find nearly the hypocrisy in Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell, etc. that I see in Kerry. If you doubt it, just ask which ones are easier to predict, and which is more likely to lie. The Bush crew is remarkably frank and intelligent. Their motivations in the cold war are pretty clear as are their motivations now, perhaps realizing it is possible that choosing the lesser of two evils then and self interest prioritized humanitarianism now are consistent with the same set of principles. Kerry is more of a fascist/nationalist who arrogantly thinks he knows what is best for everybody. This is more apparent domestically perhaps rather than internationally, he is using class warfare rhetoric and has proposed mandatory public service for high school graduation and is associated with Ted Kennedy who has proposed mandatory national service in the past.

Pakistan is an interesting case. The scientist and his network has been neutralized, I don't see a need for punishment beyond that, especially since he is irrationally popular there. Is dealling with the miltary dictator a lesser of two evils decision? Perhaps any regime that replaced him, even if democratically elected be more repressive? Are his policies possibly eventually going to lead to a more secular pluralism than the population is ready for now?--Silverback 14:34, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I am pretty certain the Bush administration thought war against Saddam was justfied even before 9/11, having to trust Saddam not to transfer weapons of mass destruction to terrorists was just icing on the cake, and ultimately justified since the evidence shows he would have restarted his programs after sanctions were lifted.

Ah -- the "weapons of mass destruction related program activities" argument. According to Kerry, 30 to 40 nations were closer to building a nuclear bomb at the time than he was. I don't know where he got that number from -- perhaps it was only ten, it doesn't matter. Since he was anything but unique in his desire to obtain those weapons, your argument amounts to "we didn't trust him with those weapons, hence we had a right to attack him". Guess what -- a whole lot of people in the world don't trust the US with their weapons -- do you want to live in a world where it's OK for them to attack the US as soon as they get a chance?

Also, this "after sanctions were lifted" argument is another piece of Bush propaganda. Sanctions would have been lifted after confirmation of disarmament, but not monitoring. In fact, it would have been a smart move to make the lifting of sanctions conditional on effective long-term monitoring. If you really believe that evidence for an intent to develop nuclear weapons if one is somehow able to shake off international monitors justifies countries to invade other countries, the US has a lot of invading to do. It is highly rational for all countries to obtain such weapons as fast as they can, and the US is making it more rational by the minute by its threats. Fpahl 13:58, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

However, I think, you place too much blame on the US. Surely France and Germany both could have thought of the human rights justifications even if the Bush administration didn't, I know I and others had thought of them even during the 1st gulf war. What precluded France and Germany from bringing them up?--Silverback 12:42, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. As I said right away when I mentioned that I live in Germany, I'm not a big fan of the German state. There were lots of things wrong with the world before Bush came to power, and Germany is anything but innocent. Germans also care more about other Germans than about people in far-away countries. Germany also upholds an unfair trade regime out of its own economic interest. France and Germany had different economic interests in Iraq than the US, and they are not much better at putting humanitarian issues above their national interests than the US is. All this is deplorable. But the US is not making it better but worse.

You believe that Germany has been playing an increasingly constructive roles since 1998. While I was reading that, I heard a news story on the G7 conference, where Germany (and France) were refusing to mitigate any of the debt they claim Iraq owes. I believe the US proposed that 50%, but they refused. The Iraqi's are under no moral obligation to honor debts incurred by Saddam. I doubt Germany is going to declare war on Iraq if they don't pay and renounce the debt, I doubt they will even refuse to buy Iraqi oil, will the refuse to let Saddam borrow any more money? I suspect that Germany will be obstructionist in the UN if they don't get their money. That is hardly juding issues on their merits. Will they take the debt to the international court for collection? Germany and France were not constructive before the war, they gave Saddam reason to hope that he could wait out the sanctions through obstruction and delay.

Saddam could easily have avoided the war, just open up in such a way that was clear that no one was under any pressure to hide anything. Unfortunately his past behavior was such that his word was not enough, but that would have been no barrier if he had opened up. I think he could have bargained harder and had the most wonderful opportunity that any leader ever had for his people. I think he could have offered to open up his country and to disband his military in exchange a guarantee of his borders and a certain income. His could become the first people to have to bear no self defense expenditures and to have their human rights internationally enforced. If only some entity could credibly offer the US this.

Of course Saddam could and should have done all sorts of things. That what Saddam did was wrong doesn't make what the US did right. It wasn't Saddam who got killed, it was conscripts and civilians. The war has to be justified towards them, not towards their dictator. Fpahl 11:36, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I agree with what the goal should have been, but as I recall it, that is remarkably close to how the war was conducted. The spear head of the armored columns met relatively little resistance as most the the Iraqi military melted away except those who had guns held to their family's head. The republican guard were pounded pretty hard outside of Bagdad, but then they were not the conscripts. Most iraqi casualties were among those armed units throw against the supply lines, and these were the fanatical feydaeen, sometime lead by Republican guard officers, once again not conscripts. Most of the civilian casualties occured here as some were used as human shield and the in the urban areas there was more colateral damage. It is difficult to imagine how it could have been much cleaner or briefer. The aftermath could have perhaps been less troublesome if it hadn't been so quick, so that more of the feydaeen would have thrown their lives away against the supply lines.--Silverback 12:04, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You probably now more about the details of the conduct of the war than I do. It is my impression from seeing rows of destroyed houses in Najaf, from reading how the US military changed the rules for checkpoints after a couple of US soldiers were killed, leading to lots of innocent people being shot to death at the checkpoints, from reading practically every time after air strikes that the US claims there were no civilian victims and the Iraqi hospital staff say that women and children were killed, that the US are not valuing Iraqi lives at the same price as they do their own. This was also my impression in the Kosovo war, when they flew at very high altitudes so the pilots were safe, although they knew full well that this reduced their targetting accuracy and led to lots of additional civilian deaths. But I may be wrong about all this. If you're right and the US military would be doing exactly the same things if they were fighting in Florida, I'd be very happy. I doubt it.

The war was compelling viewing, I watched it almost continuously. I'd have to know the particulars of the behavior at the check points and whether there was fair notice of how to behave so that all lives were protected. I think you also have to consider, not just american lives saved when risks of collateral damage to civilians are taken but also future Iraqi lives saved. The US wouldn't hesitate to take out Osama even if he were at home with his wives and children. It may be hubris, but by preserving their own lives, the US soldeirs are preserving Iraqi lives in the long run. If casualties get too high, the US may cut and run, especially in a Kerry administration. I think you are right about Kosovo, the US didn't have control of the air, air defenses were stronger, so they were flying higher. The US also was targeting civilian infrastructure, a war crime, although done in a way so as to minimze loss of civilian lives. However, the weapons were precise, and if my recollection is correct, most of the unintended casualties were due to decisions made on the ground, through incorrect and outdated intelligence, and just plain human error. If the US had to go into such hotbed neigborhoods in Florida, I think the emphasis on preserving the lives of those doing the fighting would be just as high. It may not be covered by the media over there, but there are weeks of swat team type training here in especially constructed villages where identification of friend/foe and combantant/non-combantant identification is realistically practiced. In the annals of human warfare, I doubt there has been better training with the intent of avoiding the type of casualties you fear. Some soldiers have been deployed as prison guards without proper training, however. --Silverback 15:01, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

But for the sake of argument, let's say the war is being conducted as admirably as possible, with every life being valued equally. I already said that I have great respect for the opinion that it would then be a valid action to free the Iraqis from tyranny. It's hard to count the tens of thousands killed and maimed against those that would have otherwise been tortured, but if you sincerely weigh it up and come out on the side of intervention, that's fine with me. That's not our main point of disagreement. You seem to imply that what reasons were given for the war is merely a question of rhetoric, and what really counts is whether there were valid reasons. I disagree. The effect that the attack had on international relations is almost entirely determined by how it was initially justified. Everyone must now fear that the US will attack whomever it wants whenever it wants citing spurious reasons. They will need to defend themselves accordingly. And those who sympathize with the terrorists and could be motivated to join them will certainly not think, "Phew -- we thought it was an illegal war of aggression against a Muslim country based on mendacious accusations, but luckily it turns out that it was all for the noble cause of liberating the Iraqi people -- long live America!". There is already enough reason all over the world to resent the power politics of the West (not only, but particularly, of the US), and the US is fuelling this resentment very efficiently. Fpahl 12:46, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Rather than spreading "fear that the US will attack whomever it wants whenever it wants citing spurious reasons.", perhaps some reassuring points should be made. The US not only gives some warning by citing spurious reasons, in the case of Iraq it cited those spurious reasons through more than a decade of sanctions and inspections that could not refute them. For that period of sanctions, the UN agreed that the spurious reasons were good enough to continue sanctions that included military action (the no fly zone) against Iraq.

The Iraqi no-fly zones were not authorized by the UN. While they at first served the worthwhile purpose of shielding some parts of Iraq from Saddam's violence, they later became instruments of unilateral agression on the part of the US and UK. Fpahl 22:07, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The world should further be reassured, that despite not finding as much immediate danger in Iraq as world intelligence agencies had predicted, the United States did not manufacture false evidence and is reforming its own intelligence apparatus.

On the one hand, I agree -- many here were expecting the administration to plant false evidence, and it is somewhat heartening that they didn't. On the other hand, it is extremely disheartening that they apparently didn't need to, since they seem to be getting reelected despite the lack of evidence. Fpahl 22:07, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps the rest of the world is alarmed, that US public opinion is split on whether so much deference should be given to the United Nations in the future. Whatever spurious reasons the US cites in the future, those reasons will at least be publicly stated (giving fair warning). Those reasons will be pursuasive enough to win the support of at least a significant plurality of the US population and that the international community will have some opportunity either in the UN, via direct diplomacy, in their own press, or on the internet to refute the evidence the US presents, present counter evidence or to at least detect that US intentions are serious and thus escalate their efforts to resolve the situation. The US is not likely to be as patient with the UN again and the very existance of the UN itself will be in danger if Kerry is elected, because he will have more pressure to prove himeself by not letting the UN dictate US actions and the UN's reputation will probably be irreparably damaged in the US if Kerry is unable to obtain its cooperation. So the world should not live in unreasonable fear, the US actions gave fair warning and were predictable, except perhaps by Saddam. If the US actions were not correctly predicted the UN and its component nations should improve their intelligence agencies.--Silverback 10:58, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I don't understand this focus on predictability. What consolation is there in the US aggression being predictable? If they tell Iran "if you don't stop enriching uranium within 6 months, we will attack", that's predictable enough. That predictability doesn't make it less rational for Iran to acquire weapons to deter such threats. Refuting things on the internet is, alas, futile. All of Bush's lies had already been refuted before he launched the attack; everyone here knew the yellowcake story was bogus, everyone knew the Al-Qaida connection was tenuous at the very best, everyone knew there were 15 Saudis on the hijacked planes and not a single Iraqi, everyone knew that IAEA chief Al Baradei publicly disproved some of the claims in Powell's presentation to the UN and flatly stated that Iraq had not reconstituted a nuclear weapons program, everyone knew that Blix was making progress and hadn't found a single thing whenever he followed US "intelligence" leads -- everyone here, that is, knew, but no-one in the US seemed the least bit interested in these facts. They were all over the internet, but who needs the internet when there's Fox News and when even the New York Times and the Washington Post have been so intimidated or patriotically brainwashed that they have to apologize with hindsight for their uncritical reporting?

One more general point: Many of your arguments are permeated by a sense of "it's OK when the US does it, we're the champions of liberty". While to have this attitude is already very problematic, to believe that others will agree with it is dangerously naive. The US's role as the champions of liberty has always been extremely ambivalent (in view of what you consider "the compromises of the dirty Cold War"), but what legitimacy it had left is gone, and the US is now globally considered the champion of aggression and arrogance. A world order built on the idea that the US is allowed to do things that others aren't because we can trust them to do the right thing is simply not an option to anyone outside of the US's own patriotic reality bubble. Fpahl 22:07, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"the US is turning it into hell on earth.???? I thought you weren't blaming the US for the terrorism?

"Blaming" and "seeing as a primary cause" are quite different. I don't blame the US for deaths caused by terrorists, since it's mainly the terrorists who are responsible for these deaths. Blaming the US for Iraqis killed by terrorism would make as little sense as blaming the US for US citizens killed by terrorism. None of these deaths are intended by the US, and if there were a court case, it would be the terrorists and not the US who would be convicted of murder. That's compatible, however, with thinking that the way the US is behaving in the world is a major cause of terrorism and other violence. Say your housemate puts up a sign saying "Beware of the dog", and you believe that this actually makes a break-in more likely, because burglars think that only people who have something to guard put up such signs. Then there's a break-in. It wouldn't make sense to "blame" the break-in on your housemate -- it was the burglar who stole things, and your housemate was only trying to protect the house. But she in fact didn't, and you would be right in saying that she had made the house less safe. In the same sense, the US is turning the planet into hell on Earth. Fpahl 11:36, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Without the terrorism, there would just be a quiet orderly process in place towards democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan.

You are lumping all use of force against the US under terrorism. Mr. Bush's administration has worked very hard at this Orwellian maneuver, and it's often shocking to see how successful it seems to have been in the US, but the rest of the world doesn't fall for it. I agree there is some terrorist activity in Iraq currently. For instance, the attacks on the UN and the International Red Cross were despicable. But much if not most of the violence is guerrilla resistance. In large part it's not even resistance by Saddam loyalists, but by the people who were oppressed him. Fpahl 11:50, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

In the bathist hotbeds, I characterize it as guerilla resistance if it is an attack upon US forces. If it is an attack upon Iraqi or humanitarian civilians or civilian employees of US contractors aiding in reconstruction then it is terrorism. I don't think it is the resistance that makes Iraq a "hell", it is those attacks I characterize as terrorism. The 1000 or so American military killed are an acceptable and moderate price to pay to liberate so many people. I'm not sure how to characterize the Sadr "resistance", it is not a popular resistance, and the Iranian financing clouds its legitimacy. But to the extent it is directed at US forces it is fine. Their takeovers of the mosques were not directed at US forces.--Silverback 12:19, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

We seem to be roughly in agreement on what constitutes resistance and what constitutes terrorism (though I don't understand what makes it less legitimate for Iran to meddle in Iraq than for the US). How does this fit with your original statement that "without the terrorism, there would just be a quiet orderly process in place towards democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan"? The reason why the US can't go into lots of areas to prepare for elections is that resistance fighters would then shoot at them, not that terrorists would then bomb more civilians. Fpahl 13:09, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

BTW, thanx for engaging in this dicourse. It is actually what I wish Bush and Kerry would do, I think it would be much more revealing and relevent to presidential qualifications than the off the cuff, on your feet debates. I would even allow each candidate to delegate responses to members of a team to test how good a judge of talent and character they are. As to why it is legitimate for the US and not Iran to meddle, I think motives and goals are relevant. Democracy while not universally good, is at least not as predictably oppressive as theocracy. The provisional Iraqi government that Sadr's forces are disrupting is recognized by international law as well as being the best hope for protecting the rights of Iraqi citizens. The reason that the US has not gone into the few lawless hotbeds is not because the resistence fighters would shoot at them, but rather because they would shoot back at the resistant fighters and the collateral damage from the carnage would be considerable and perhaps politically damaging for the Iraqi government. When Iraqi forces are ready to assist, the US will have to go into these areas to prepare for elections, but the very fact that this has to be done to prepare for elections show that this form of resistance is a form of terrorism or at least not a resistance against the US but rather in favor of the former immoral regime and directed also at the Iraqi government. Otherwise they would prepare for elections themselves, while the US stayed out of the areas. --Silverback 13:56, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The US would not have much interest in the rest of the world, there is a strong isolationist strain that only periodically gets reversed. Yes, the US would have some concern still for others, such as the Korean people or those of Taiwan. Without terrorism the US would probably not have any concern about Iran developing a nuclear weapon, they have as much to do so as anybody else, although altruism and concern for Europe's oil supply might generate some attempt to prevent Isreal and Iran from using them.

Calling what the US is doing hell on earth reminds me of the tragic sillyness of WWI, losing the war would not have been that bad for any side. The Kaiser's regime in control of all Europe and Britain would not have been that bad, more international responsibilities would probably have lead to more liberalization. A better result would have been Britain in control of all Europe and Russia because of immediate surrender of all parties (yes even the "allies"). Imagine all the suffering that could be avoided. My thought experiement of course assumed that the terrible costs of the conflict is avoided. However, even that is not necessary, even at the end of WWI, if instead of Versailles (sp?), if Germany had instead unconditionally surrendered to becoming another part of Great Britain, the terrible toll of the blockade could have been avoided and Britain would have a hard time exacting as much of the reparations from what would gradually become itself, unfortuantely the Russian revolution would not be avoided in this scenerio. In this vein, perhaps a good thought experiement would be to imagine what would happen if the US "wins" this "hell on earth" struggle. Democracy and open and secure markets, the end of theocracies everywhere. Yes it would probably impose a terrible drug war, but international responsibilities are already showing some accomodation to chemical freedom, such as in Afghanistan. With more global interests the US might even take global warming more seriously. So the best course for the world to surrender immediately. Unfortunately this might not work as well as it would have in the WWI scenerio, because the US would probably refuse, it has no territorial ambitions.

These thoughts are very interesting. I think you may be underestimating people's desire to be ruled by a government that at least gives them an illusion of being theirs, which militates against this sort of "let's just surrender and let whatever government wins rule over us to avoid all this killing" solution, but I may be wrong. If your radical renunciation of national sovereignty were put into practice as a coherent principle, it might well have many advantages over the current state of affairs. Sadly, that is absolutely not what the US is doing. The US is the very first to invoke its national sovereignty. You said you don't want non-US judges to sentence US citizens -- why do you think people in other countries should feel differently? Your arguments become inconsistent if one removes the basic premise that the US is somehow better than the others, and it is acceptable that it meddles in their affairs but not they in its. In the absence of this assumption, which the rest of the world perceives as mind-boggling arrogance, national sovereignty needs to be replaced with some legitimate process for deciding who is allowed to meddle in whose affairs. Saying "it's my job as the president of the US to decide that, and Kerry is a wimp if he thinks we need to pass some 'global test'" is not a solution. Fpahl 12:13, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I don't completely understand the resentment of international law myself. Part of it may be a lack of respect for the law that exists. But it obviously goes back to WWII if not further. The fire bombings and atomic bombings, the delayed repatriation and forced labor of German POWs were clearly violations of international law, yet the allied leadership and much of its populace thought they were justified. The logical thing to do would be to try to change international law so it properly accounted for the circumstances which justified these actions. But I've never seen any evidence that this was attempted. I think part of the fear of deferring to international law, is that the US respect for law would be unevenly used against it. Decisions from international treaties have the force of law in US courts. Plus by the time international law can act, it is too late. In the WWII case, where was the international law when Germany and Japan were violating it, why wasn't it enforced early when it could have done some good? More recently, International cooperation was discreditted among a segment of the US intelligentsia when in the first gulf war, the compromises required to build the coalition left Saddam in power, and able to suppress the Kurdish and Shiite uprisings. The seemingly hypocritical nationalism in favoring US judges is actuall less nationalism than it seems, because in the US justice is local. Citizens are actually judged by juries of the peers. Another part of the fear of international courts, is the strong marxist influence in European and third world universities and intelligentsia. This is a religious fundamentalism as frightening as any in christianity or islam. These pseudo intellectuals let themselves be brainwashed into a secular faith, and didn't pursue hegelian criticism to its logical conclusion, the same nihilism that cartesian criticism results in. (See Stirner). Americans fear being selectively prosecuted and punished for somekind of collective "guilt", because they are Americans and not based on the individual merits of their cases. While I suggested surrender as a good option in those earlier times, my fear is that the bigger government gets, the more oppressive and less responsive it will be, so my real hope rather than one world government is a fracturing of national sovereignties, or perhaps non-geographical sovereignties that allow those who choose to be free, to be free whereever they live. International law needs to generate a better record of good decisions if it wants to earn trust, the first gulf war, the kyoto treaty, the iraqi sanctions, the oil for food program, etc. did not inspire trust.--Silverback 13:34, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sanctions are an act of war, what do you think a no fly zone or a blockade is? No powerful country would coutenance it. Or are you thinking of trade embargoes, such as the one the US imposed on oil to Japan prior to WWII to curb their presumptuous (because they were yellow) colonial ambitions. If it is a critical resource then it is definitely an act of war. If it is not critical, perhaps the response will be more measured, certainly some sort of response would not be a surprise.--Silverback 10:30, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You can call them "acts of war" in the widest sense. But you had originally said that sanctions are "threats of war which become meaningless unless they result in war every so often". That's completely different. There you were saying that sanctions are necessarily threats of something else that constitutes war. I don't think so; they can, at least in principle, be meaningful in themselves, without resulting in any further actions. (I'm not making any statement about the sanctions against Iraq, which to me seemed very ill-conceived.) Fpahl 11:06, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You write that "if US citizens were harboring terrorists or hostages among them, the US would treat them just the same". We're not talking about people harboring terrorists. We're talking about children and ordinary people who happen to go to the wrong wedding parties. We're also talking about people harboring people whom they believe to be defending their country against foreign occupation. You can't get the blood off the US military's hands by declaring everyone whom they kill to be harboring terrorists. Fpahl 13:12, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I don't understand how what you write about the "noble purpose" of the war fits with what you wrote above, that "his resources were the threat, without them, Iraq would just be another Sudan." While it's debatable to what extent the resources figured as a threat and to what extent simply as resources, we seem to agree that the reason that Iraq was invaded and Rwanda and Sudan weren't is that the US had an interest in Iraq (be it security or oil) and not in Rwanda and Sudan. Now you might reply that it's legitimate for the US only to pursue its noble goals if there is simultaneously enough to be gained for the US. Soldiers can't be sent to die if they're not also furthering their own interests. I'd hope that they could, but perhaps not. But this leaves open the question how to prevent such noble purposes from becoming a mere rhetorical instrument, sometimes convenient to justify violent action one takes in one's one interest, but quickly forgotten when less convenient. The only answer to that question that I know of is international law. International violence cannot be justified by a single nation acting in its own interests; it requires exactly the same democratic legitimation as violence used within a state. Fpahl 13:40, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The noble purpose is not much different than what it would be in the Sudan. The oil just effects the priorities, they together with Saddam's character, Iraq's strategic location, next to other governments that need reform and an example of democracy, just made Iraq the priority. An invasion of Sudan would be fine, UN sanctions or not. When a government does not protect the rights of its citizens, it has no legitimacy. A pack of mercenaries attacking Sudan would also be fine, it they could credibly protect the citizens rights better.--Silverback 14:09, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This is perhaps slightly off topic, but I find it interesting that you consider the FDA delays to be based on "net lives saved", i.e. consequentialist arguments. You probably know more about this subject than I do, but it always seemed to me the prototype of an anti-consequentialist, rights-based approach: We could save lots of lives, on average, by approving drugs faster and less carefully, but we can't justify experimenting with the people who try them first and whose chances of being harmed this would raise. BTW, I'm an ardent consequentialist and certainly don't object to the Iraq war out of any dislike of "net lives saved" arguments :-) Fpahl 13:52, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You are correct, it is more complicated in its origins, with drug companies hoping to increase profits through regulatory barriers to entry and increased confidence in quality, etc. The public justification and the way the FDA is sold is as net-lives-saved, although there is little other than anecdotal evidence for it. It isn't experimenting "with" the early adoptors if they make the decisions themselves, they are the ones doing the experimenting. I don't agree that others making consequentialist decisions about my life, so I can't in good conscience do so for others, either in person or in the voting booth.--Silverback 14:26, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)