Afghani-what?

[Cain]

Silly rules against "copyright" laws prevent me from posting the entire article (which appears on the Op-ed page)

NYTIMES -- by Nicholas D. Krisotf:

Here's a foreign affairs quiz:

1. In the two years since the war in Afghanistan, opium production has:

(A) virtually been eliminated by Hamid Karzai's government and American forces.

(B) declined 30 percent, but eradication is not expected until 2008.

(C) soared 19-fold and become the major source of the world's heroin.

2. In Paktika and Zabul, two religiously conservative parts of Afghanistan, the number of children going to school:

(A) has quintupled, with most girls at least finishing third grade.

(B) has risen 40 percent, although few girls go to school.

(C) has plummeted as poor security has closed nearly all schools there.

The correct answer to both questions, alas, is (C).

With the White House finally acknowledging that the challenge in Iraq runs deeper than gloomy journalism, the talk of what to do next is sounding rather like Afghanistan. And that's alarming, because we have flubbed the peace in Afghanistan even more egregiously than in Iraq.

"There is a palpable risk that Afghanistan will again turn into a failed state, this time in the hands of drug cartels and narco-terrorists," Antonio Maria Costa, executive director of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, writes in a grim new report on Afghanistan.

...

One day back then when I was thinking of driving to the southeast, six Afghans arrived from there — minus their noses. Taliban guerrillas had stopped their vehicle at gunpoint and chopped off their noses because they had trimmed their beards.

...

An analyst in the U.S. intelligence community, who seeks to direct more attention to the way narco-trafficking is destabilizing the region, says that Afghanistan now accounts for 75 percent of the poppies grown for narcotics worldwide.

"The issue is not a high priority for the Bush administration," he said.

If Afghanistan is a White House model for Iraq, heaven help us.


http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/15/opinion/15KRIS.html


I remember seeing a cartoon in the economist before the Iraq invasion. It depicted America having a difficult time controlling a wild horse labelled Afghanistan. Then waiting in a pin was a much, much larger, angry looking bull labelled "Iraq."

[Jocko]

Oh, I see. It took 20+ years for Germany to recover after being conquered, but these days it should only take 18 months.

Gotcha.

Read a little history sometime, willya?

[BTox]

I guess it's hard to see anything when one always wears welding glasses... ;)

[Ziggurat]

What completely uninformative and easily manipulated questions. First, regarding opium production: has it "soared" even compared to its height under the Taliban? Or has it only soared in regard to the low it probably hit during our offensive, when presumably there was little transport into or out of the country? Can't tell from the question, can we? In other words, the question plus answer give us no real sense as to what's going on. Afghanistan used to be a major world supplier of opium, it is now, but we have no idea if the problem is really any worse or not.

The same sorts of problems apply regarding schools. What was schooling really like under the Taliban? Were children really learning anything? Is the situation actually better or worse? And most importantly, which way are things heading? We just can't tell from this, though the obvious implication is that the situation is deteriorating.

Oh well. I've stopped expecting columnists to actually have anything useful or informative to say.

[dsm]

Originally posted by Ziggurat
What completely uninformative and easily manipulated questions. First, regarding opium production: has it "soared" even compared to its height under the Taliban? Or has it only soared in regard to the low it probably hit during our offensive, when presumably there was little transport into or out of the country? Can't tell from the question, can we? In other words, the question plus answer give us no real sense as to what's going on. Afghanistan used to be a major world supplier of opium, it is now, but we have no idea if the problem is really any worse or not.


Well, let's see. A quick google comes up with this story:

http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/WO0310/S00315.htm

with interesting quote:


The survey found the area under opium poppy cultivation has jumped by 8 per cent over the last year, to 80,000 hectares from 74,000 hectares. Now there is opium cultivation in 28 of Afghanistan's 32 provinces, up from 18 in 1999.


so, although it doesn't say "nine fold", it does suggest that opium is now being cultivated in nearly the entire country.

Another interesting story is:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1764885.stm

with interesting quote:


Under the Taleban ban opium production fell from more than 3,000 tonnes a year to less than 200 tonnes and the poppies were virtually eradicated from areas under their control.


so, whatever other bad things the Taleban were doing, they were totally against opium production.

So, did the US invasion help or hurt the world drug problem? :confused: ;)


The same sorts of problems apply regarding schools. What was schooling really like under the Taliban? Were children really learning anything? Is the situation actually better or worse? And most importantly, which way are things heading? We just can't tell from this, though the obvious implication is that the situation is deteriorating.


Another quick google turns up:

http://www.cidi.org/humanitarian/hsr/centralasia/ixl30.html

suggests that there are problems still to be worked on in schools for Afghanistan and everything is not as rosy as the Bush administration might want you to think.


Oh well. I've stopped expecting columnists to actually have anything useful or informative to say.

First, I don't believe it can be called a "column" -- it was an op-ed piece. Second, searching for the real columns might turn up interesting information.

[athon]

Originally posted by Jocko
Oh, I see. It took 20+ years for Germany to recover after being conquered, but these days it should only take 18 months.

Gotcha.

Read a little history sometime, willya?

First of all, Afghanistan was not 'conquered'. Secondly, there were plans immediately after WWII to aid Germany into recovering. As far as I can see, the magnitude of aid being sent to Afghanistan is pitiful.

Perhaps you can justify the war effort, but you sure as hell cannot justify what many of us knew was going to happen following it - absolutely nothing! The US government's efforts is like a cliche Hollywood movie - go in, blow stuff up, play credits, wait for sequel...

Fine, the US felt obliged to bring down a regime. What p*sses me off is that those responsible for unabalancing a nation's powerbase are now quite happy to move on to their next 'problem' before finishing their first.

The coalition crows about 'freedom'...what goddamn hypocracy! Or don't people in Afghanistan deserve the tidings that true freedom brings.

Athon

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by athon


First of all, Afghanistan was not 'conquered'. Secondly, there were plans immediately after WWII to aid Germany into recovering. As far as I can see, the magnitude of aid being sent to Afghanistan is pitiful.



There were no such plans immediately after WWII.

It was over 2 years before the Marshall Plan was sent to Congress, long after it became obvious that Europe was going to h#ll.

[Cain]

Afghanistan used to be a major world supplier of opium, it is now, but we have no idea if the problem is really any worse or not.

Did you read the entire article? The preceding paragraph (observe the elllipses) read as follows:

The opium boom is one indication of the downward spiral. The Taliban banned opium production in 2000, so the 2001 crop was only 185 metric tons. The U.N. estimates that this year's crop was 3,600 tons, the second-largest in Afghan history. The crop is worth twice the Afghan government's annual budget, and much of the profit will support warlords and the Taliban.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Jocko
Oh, I see. It took 20+ years for Germany to recover after being conquered, but these days it should only take 18 months.

Gotcha.

Read a little history sometime, willya?

West Germany was under a stable political administration, and although there was massive work to do to repair the wartime damage, it was heading in the right direction, (the westren part, anyway), especially with the help from the Marshall Plan. (That is, Nation Building).

The US hasn't even managed to get Afghanistan to the state where the president can even travel in his own country. And it doesn't like anything much will be improving there for many years.

The fact is, Afghanistan was better off under the USSR. It may have been amusing for the US to back warlords in a proxy war in which no Americans died, but Afghanistan has been in a state of chaos ever since.

[Whoracle]

I wouldn't call it a failure, I mean we took them from a theocracy to a constitutional theocracy. Yay us.

[Dorian Gray]

Oh, I see. It took 20+ years for Germany to recover after being conquered, but these days it should only take 18 months.

Gotcha.

Read a little history sometime, willya?
Oh, I see. Iraq is capable of fighting a two front war against Britain, France and Russia after conquering most of its neighbors while simultaneously developing weapons the world has never seen.

Gotcha.

[Cain]

Oh, I see. Iraq is capable of fighting a two front war against Britain, France and Russia after conquering most of its neighbors while simultaneously developing weapons the world has never seen.

Look- Saddam was seeking WMD that would have made Hitler look like a five year-old by comparison. Need I remind everyone we found a component buried in the back of an Iraqi scientist's rose garden? Or the solitary vial botulin toxin stored in another Iraqi scientist's refrigerator?

We did not have to worry about Saddam's Hitler-like ambitions of world conquest precisely *because* Bush boldly (and rather brilliantly) preempted him.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Cain


Look- Saddam was seeking WMD that would have made Hitler look like a five year-old by comparison. Need I remind everyone we found a component buried in the back of an Iraqi scientist's rose garden? Or the solitary vial botulin toxin stored in another Iraqi scientist's refrigerator?

We did not have to worry about Saddam's Hitler-like ambitions of world conquest precisely *because* Bush boldly (and rather brilliantly) preempted him.

Not only that, but Hitler didn't have any plans to sell his weapons to terrorists like Saddam was going to.

Wow... Selling non-existent weapons to terrorist organisations he doesn't get along with... Doesn't bear thinking about.

[ssibal]

This is brilliant:

Blame the U.S. and only the U.S. for Afghanistan's problems when we are not the only country involved.

Many of the same people complaining about the rising opium production are the same people who feel that it should be legal.

Many of the same people complaining about the U.S. not doing enough in Afghanistan are the same people who want the U.S. to leave Iraq immediately.....maybe so they can then blame the U.S. for not doing enough there either.

[Cain]

Blame the U.S. and only the U.S. for Afghanistan's problems when we are not the only country involved.

Specifically, who (or what) is this in response to?

Many of the same people complaining about the rising opium production are the same people who feel that it should be legal.

So? That's like saying people cannot criticize the war on drugs and drug dealers at the same time.

Many of the same people complaining about the U.S. not doing enough in Afghanistan are the same people who want the U.S. to leave Iraq immediately.....

I don't think so. Rather, they're the same people who opposed the U.S. getting involved with Iraq in the first place.

maybe so they can then blame the U.S. for not doing enough there either.

Yeah, that's it!

[ssibal]

Originally posted by Cain


Specifically, who (or what) is this in response to?


The author of the article, as well as some people responding here. The U.S. is the only nation mentioned in the criticism, we are not the only nation involved.


So? That's like saying people cannot criticize the war on drugs and drug dealers at the same time.

You can, I just find it strange that someone would criticize the government going after those who manufacture and distribute drugs while at the same time criticize that same government because they are not doing enough to stop the people who are manufacturing and distributing drugs.



I don't think so. Rather, they're the same people who opposed the U.S. getting involved with Iraq in the first place.

Well, there is no time machine to go back and prevent that from happening. The U.S. is in Iraq, Afghanistan is supposedly messed up because the U.S. did not do enough. Why would you now want the U.S. to leave Iraq and presumably allow the same thing to happen?

[dsm]

Originally posted by ssibal
Why would you now want the U.S. to leave Iraq and presumably allow the same thing to happen?

Because we haven't shown that staying would be any better than leaving.

[Jim Lennox]

Here (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1086197,00.html) is a good article about the state of Afghanistan today.

And here's a quote for those who can't be bothered clicking..

'We have a lot of traffic on the roads now, which is good,' said the governor of Kandahar. 'It's a shame that one in 10 vehicles is carrying drugs.'

'There's a serious risk that this country will become a narco-state,' one senior ministerial aide told The Observer . In the south-east that has already happened, at least locally. The chief of one district begged The Observer to ask the government to send him a replacement for his police chief who, he said, was running 20 opium shops.


The Taliban are waiting for troops to leave then they're going to come back.

Is it so difficult to understand that you don't change people's minds by dropping bombs on them?

[ssibal]

Originally posted by dsm


Because we haven't shown that staying would be any better than leaving.

But the argument being made with regards to Afghanistan is that things have gotten worse since we have removed some troops. So, that would show that staying in Iraq would be better than leaving. Otherwise, nothing could show if staying or leaving would be better. But I can guarantee you, if we leave we will be blamed for anything bad that happens.

[ssibal]

Originally posted by Jim Lennox
The Taliban are waiting for troops to leave then they're going to come back.

Is it so difficult to understand that you don't change people's minds by dropping bombs on them?

When it comes to religious fanatics, their minds are pretty much made up. Bombing them is the best solution in my opinion.

[reprise]

Originally posted by ssibal
But the argument being made with regards to Afghanistan is that things have gotten worse since we have removed some troops. So, that would show that staying in Iraq would be better than leaving. Otherwise, nothing could show if staying or leaving would be better. But I can guarantee you, if we leave we will be blamed for anything bad that happens.

I think that you're correct up to a point, but I also think that there's an alternative between complete withdrawal and continued coalition occupation - a truly multinational reconstruction and peace-keeping force.

[ssibal]

Originally posted by reprise


I think that you're correct up to a point, but I also think that there's an alternative between complete withdrawal and continued coalition occupation - a truly multinational reconstruction and peace-keeping force.

I would like to see that as well. When we were searching for the WMD I thought the UN inspectors should have been the ones searching rather than the team we assembled.

[Skeptic]

Well, let's not get the protest signs mixed up, shall we?

After all, THE USA ABANDONED AFGHANISTAN TO ITS FATE! sign would look sort of silly next to the USA OUT OF IRAQ NOW! sign, while the AFGHANISTAN NOW WORLD TOP OPIUM PRODUCER! would lose it's effect next to the STOP THE RACIST WAR ON DRUGS! sign.

Perhaps replacing them all with the generic BUSH SUCKS! sign would do the trick. It would ensure uniformity of message (a must in most leftist protests... or else) and be truthful, since that's all the protest is about anyway.

[reprise]

Afghanistan had been abandoned to its fate long before anybody went in there looking for Osama.

Afghanistan cannot be reconstructed in any meaningful way without assistance. All the pissing contests in the world and going to fix what is wrong with Afghanistan and the world community as a whole needs to decide what it is going to do to help Afghanistan rather than simply declaring that "the US should fix things".

[reprise]

Afghanistan had been abandoned to its fate long before anybody went in there looking for Osama.

Afghanistan cannot be reconstructed in any meaningful way without assistance. All the pissing contests in the world aren't going to fix what is wrong with Afghanistan and the world community as a whole needs to decide what it is going to do to help Afghanistan rather than simply declaring that "the US should fix things".

Can a mod delete the dupicate post please?

[dsm]

Originally posted by ssibal
But the argument being made with regards to Afghanistan is that things have gotten worse since we have removed some troops.


Where? :confused:


So, that would show that staying in Iraq would be better than leaving. Otherwise, nothing could show if staying or leaving would be better. But I can guarantee you, if we leave we will be blamed for anything bad that happens.

But I hope you also realize that the reverse is just as true (ie. if we stay, "we will be blamed for anything bad that happens").

[dsm]

Originally posted by ssibal
When it comes to religious fanatics, their minds are pretty much made up. Bombing them is the best solution in my opinion.

Which, when dealing with a group that believes in "an eye for an eye" and thousand year wars, is no solution at all.

[dsm]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Well, let's not get the protest signs mixed up, shall we?

After all, THE USA ABANDONED AFGHANISTAN TO ITS FATE! sign would look sort of silly next to the USA OUT OF IRAQ NOW! sign, while the AFGHANISTAN NOW WORLD TOP OPIUM PRODUCER! would lose it's effect next to the STOP THE RACIST WAR ON DRUGS! sign.

Perhaps replacing them all with the generic BUSH SUCKS! sign would do the trick. It would ensure uniformity of message (a must in most leftist protests... or else) and be truthful, since that's all the protest is about anyway.

And so the "radical right" is heard from...

:p

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Well, let's not get the protest signs mixed up, shall we?

After all, THE USA ABANDONED AFGHANISTAN TO ITS FATE! sign would look sort of silly next to the USA OUT OF IRAQ NOW! sign, while the AFGHANISTAN NOW WORLD TOP OPIUM PRODUCER! would lose it's effect next to the STOP THE RACIST WAR ON DRUGS! sign.

Perhaps replacing them all with the generic BUSH SUCKS! sign would do the trick. It would ensure uniformity of message (a must in most leftist protests... or else) and be truthful, since that's all the protest is about anyway.

The US played a big part in screwing it up in the first place, handing out weapons for the resistance against the USSR. While not a model of modern government under them, at least it was non-sexist and secular with a single, ordered government. The arrival of the Taliban was the logical end result of the US support for anyone who would fight.

[reprise]

Afghanistan is one of those nations which could probably benefit from a period of democratic socialism. It does have natural resources, but at the moment it really has no way to exploit those resources for the benefit of its population as a whole.

[athon]

Originally posted by ssibal


But the argument being made with regards to Afghanistan is that things have gotten worse since we have removed some troops. So, that would show that staying in Iraq would be better than leaving. Otherwise, nothing could show if staying or leaving would be better. But I can guarantee you, if we leave we will be blamed for anything bad that happens.

Damn right the U.S. would be responsible if they left, and so they well should be!

Look, some people don't get the fact that changing a regime with military force is more than an invasion and an assassination. This is the issue - the coalition (while the U.S. government is the instigator, I agree that all those involved should have a share in the responsibility) jumped into Afghanistan in a knee-jerk reaction, without good cause, and worse yet, without a contingency plan on what to do once they had removed the controlling regime. And what do they want? Thanks?

Ha!

And it's all reflected again in Iraq. What is the reality that pro-action supporters want to see in the end? And how do they see it eventuating?

Athon

[Tony]

Originally posted by dsm


Which, when dealing with a group that believes in "an eye for an eye" and thousand year wars, is no solution at all.


When you have an attitude like that, you've already lost. If a group of people chooses to war itself into extinction, so be it. I see nothing wrong with that.

[Tmy]

The Taliban would still be in charge if they handed overthe Taliban when they were told too.

I remember the Whitehouse catching grief about not taking out the poppy fields when we were bombing. Just goes to show taht the 'war on drugs" is really bogus. Plus they didnt want to piss off the warlords who profit from them.

Isnt "warlord" a silly term. I feel like Im talking about Dungens and Dragons.

[dsm]

Originally posted by Tony
When you have an attitude like that, you've already lost. If a group of people chooses to war itself into extinction, so be it. I see nothing wrong with that.

So you're in favor of "genocide", then? That is, after all, what ssibal was proposing.

I'm in favor of:


Retribution for crimes committed.
Education to prevent future crimes.


A "bombing" campaign may fall under #1, but, without #2, #1 will be worthless in the long run UNLESS you're proposing genocide.

[Tony]

Originally posted by dsm


So you're in favor of "genocide", then? That is, after all, what ssibal was proposing.

I'm in favor of:


Retribution for crimes committed.
Education to prevent future crimes.


A "bombing" campaign may fall under #1, but, without #2, #1 will be worthless in the long run UNLESS you're proposing genocide.


I know genocide is a dirty word. But I’m not actively proposing that in the sense of rounding people up and murdering them because they are X race/religion/political persuasion ect.. However, if you are fighting a group of people who are committed to your destruction, the only way to beat them is to eliminate them as a threat. We can talk all day about “education” and “rehabilitation”, but when it comes to survival, it’s either them or us. Survival of the fittest.

How do you propose this education? What will it consist of. Should we take over their countries and impose our values and morals? I don’t see how "education" is going to work unless you find a way to circumvent or discredit the "teaching", which is really the indoctrination, of fundy islam.

[dsm]

Originally posted by Tony

I know genocide is a dirty word. But I’m not actively proposing that in the sense of rounding people up and murdering them because they are X race/religion/political persuasion ect..


Of course not -- you'd rather it be done by remote control from 30000 feet. In the end (and particularly from their point of view), is it any different?


However, if you are fighting a group of people who are committed to your destruction, the only way to beat them is to eliminate them as a threat. We can talk all day about “education” and “rehabilitation”, but when it comes to survival, it’s either them or us. Survival of the fittest.


That's also a vigilante view -- it is not the civilized view. The proper view you should be taking is "rule of law". If the current laws cannot handle the issue, then change the laws. If changing the (international) laws proves slow and difficult, then you do something on your own, but you never lose sight of the need to change the laws and do not substitute vigilante-ism for that need.


How do you propose this education? What will it consist of. Should we take over their countries and impose our values and morals? I don’t see how "education" is going to work unless you find a way to circumvent or discredit the "teaching", which is really the indoctrination, of fundy islam.


I said "retribution". Someone commits a crime, they face the consequences of that crime. In this sense, we need a very strong policy on all things "terrorist" that lays out clearly to the world what our view of terrorism is and how we will deal with it. This is the first step in "education" (showing people why it's bad and what its consequences are). In this, Bush began half the process after 9/11, but, due to some "cowboy" mentality, is not doing a good job of bringing the rest of the world into the anti-terrorism view. His policies seem to lack an "education" component.

"Education" should be a process that works hand in hand with the stopping of terrorism. Many (most?) in a terrorist movement have known no other way and, so, need to be educated on "other" possibilities. Some are beyond saving and, so, must be dealt with in the "retribution" sense. Many may be changed (or even averted from terrorism) if we can just reach them.

In this, the "carrot and stick" approach applies. We have to be more cognizant of how our government spends our money overseas. Aid packages to other countries should probably include incentives to allow our message to be gotten out to schools and such throughout the country. Establishing simple distribution networks for our products in the country will allow more people to see what our lifestyle is like and also provide the incentive of jobs. Of course, the fear our people would have is that we will be training people who could come along and take our jobs.

Ultimately, this is a problem. We can either bring everyone up to our level and, thus, spread the target wider or we can keep these people suppressed and, thus, paint bullseyes on our backs.

:teacher:

[Tony]

Originally posted by dsm


Of course not -- you'd rather it be done by remote control from 30000 feet. In the end (and particularly from their point of view), is it any different?


Yes, one act is war, the other is cold blooded murder.


That's also a vigilante view -- it is not the civilized view.

No it's not, its the view of someone who wants to survive. You're view is weak and naive.


The proper view you should be taking is "rule of law". If the current laws cannot handle the issue, then change the laws. If changing the (international) laws proves slow and difficult, then you do something on your own, but you never lose sight of the need to change the laws and do not substitute vigilante-ism for that need.

Tell me how changing the law is going to keep people commited to our destruction from achieving their goals?

The "rule of law" is a myth. It is, was, and always has been the rule of force.


I said "retribution". Someone commits a crime, they face the consequences of that crime. In this sense, we need a very strong policy on all things "terrorist" that lays out clearly to the world what our view of terrorism is and how we will deal with it. This is the first step in "education" (showing people why it's bad and what its consequences are). In this, Bush began half the process after 9/11, but, due to some "cowboy" mentality, is not doing a good job of bringing the rest of the world into the anti-terrorism view. His policies seem to lack an "education" component.

"Education" should be a process that works hand in hand with the stopping of terrorism. Many (most?) in a terrorist movement have known no other way and, so, need to be educated on "other" possibilities. Some are beyond saving and, so, must be dealt with in the "retribution" sense. Many may be changed (or even averted from terrorism) if we can just reach them.

In this, the "carrot and stick" approach applies. We have to be more cognizant of how our government spends our money overseas. Aid packages to other countries should probably include incentives to allow our message to be gotten out to schools and such throughout the country. Establishing simple distribution networks for our products in the country will allow more people to see what our lifestyle is like and also provide the incentive of jobs. Of course, the fear our people would have is that we will be training people who could come along and take our jobs.

Ultimately, this is a problem. We can either bring everyone up to our level and, thus, spread the target wider or we can keep these people suppressed and, thus, paint bullseyes on our backs.

If it's that easy, why hasnt it been done so far?

[dsm]

Originally posted by Tony

Tell me how changing the law is going to keep people commited to our destruction from achieving their goals?


It's called "isolation". It's why we have "jails" in this country. :rolleyes:


The "rule of law" is a myth. It is, was, and always has been the rule of force.


So I guess we could save time and money on crime by taking all the prisoners out and summarily executing them. After all, "force" is the only thing that works... :rolleyes:


If it's that easy, why hasnt it been done so far?


LOL! :roll:

Where did I ever say it was easy?? It isn't easy and it has been tried before to some degree. Just because we aren't living in an idyllic world doesn't mean that it hasn't had some successes. Our problem is that our government is setup in such a way that a coordinated "retribution and education" campaign cannot succeed because "retribution" would be handled by the Defense Department while "education" would be handled by the State Department. Therefore, all coordination has to go through the President which is not the way to build a long term plan.

[Tony]

Originally posted by dsm


It's called "isolation". It's why we have "jails" in this country. :rolleyes:


That doesnt answer the question. If the threat of jail didnt keep those people from commiting the crime that got them there, how will threat of jail keep terrorists from attacking?

So I guess we could save time and money on crime by taking all the prisoners out and summarily executing them. After all, "force" is the only thing that works... :rolleyes:

Force is what got them in jail in the first place. Without force how would the state arrest them and keep them in jail? Unless you think the "rule of law" is magic and everyone who breaks it magically appears in jail.



Where did I ever say it was easy?? It isn't easy and it has been tried before to some degree. Just because we aren't living in an idyllic world doesn't mean that it hasn't had some successes.

Would you be so kind as to show me these successes? I dont dis-like your idea, I just think its naive and somewhat woo-woo. But if it works, I am open to it.

Our problem is that our government is setup in such a way that a coordinated "retribution and education" campaign cannot succeed because "retribution" would be handled by the Defense Department while "education" would be handled by the State Department. Therefore, all coordination has to go through the President which is not the way to build a long term plan.

Not only that, but I dont think the general population would buy it. Say a nuke went off in a major city, would the people of this country want "retribution and education", or revenge?

I would rather want revenge, and there is nothing wrong with that.

[reprise]

I would rather want revenge, and there is nothing wrong with that.

Revenge against whom, though? The West has to accept a substantial amount of responsibility for the Taliban assuming power in the first place and also for the devastation which existed in Afghanistan prior to 11 September, 2001.

If anyone has the right to feel entitled to seek revenge, it's the people of Afghanistan. If you take a look at the threads which were being posted prior to military action in Afghanistan, there was widespread acknowledgement that the West could not go into Afghanistan without some kind of reconstruction plan and expect the people of Afghanistan to be grateful. Our leaders were saying "our quarrel is not with the people of Afghanistan", and yet the effect of staging part of the "war on terror" in Afghanistan has been no different than if our quarrel was with the people of Afghanistan.

How many times can we go into their country and create devastation before they are allowed to resent us? What was our plan for the liberation and reconstruction of Afghanistan on 10 September, 2001? Why are we so unwilling to accept the justifiable cynicism which the people of Afghanistan and Iraq express about our motivations and intentions? Why should the next nation which we decide needs a regime change welcome our presence and believe that their country will be better off for our intervention? Our rhetoric is worthless, it's our actions and their consequences by which we will be judged, and rightly so.

[Tony]

Originally posted by reprise


The West has to accept a substantial amount of responsibility for the Taliban assuming power in the first place and also for the devastation which existed in Afghanistan prior to 11 September, 2001.



It does? Wasnt the USSR the country that invaded and tried to conquer Afghanistan? Why should the West have to bear responsibility for the actions of the USSR?


and yet the effect of staging part of the "war on terror" in Afghanistan has been no different than if our quarrel was with the people of Afghanistan.

What effect is that? If you have evidence please present it. Frankly, I dont see how afghanistan could be anymore of a hell hole than before we started our campaign.

How many times can we go into their country and create devastation before they are allowed to resent us?

"We" didnt go into their country and create devistation it was the Soviets.

Why are we so unwilling to accept the justifiable cynicism which the people of Afghanistan and Iraq express about our motivations and intentions?

Where are you getting this from? Who is unwilling to accept the cynicism of the Iraqi and Afghan people?

[Tmy]

Afgan asked for it. We were attacked by ALQueda which was headquartered in Afganistan. We told the Taliban to turn them over or else. They chose to side with ALQ and now they sufferedd the consequences.

Iraq is a whole different story. Thats why so many people were OK with invading AFgan but not OK with going into Iraq.

[dsm]

Originally posted by Tony
I would rather want revenge, and there is nothing wrong with that.

Retribution (of which "revenge" is a variation) is a necessary component in the process. However, without education (ie. changing the mindset of the people who [might] commit the crime), the cycle of violence is not broken. Untethered "revenge" simply leads to "an eye for an eye" (with probable escalation). Terrorists car bomb a US compound. The US retaliates by bombing a suspected terrorist stronghold. The terrorists retaliate with a plane bomb into an American city. The US retaliates by taking out a country that supports the terrorists. The terrorists retaliate by unleashing a nuke/chem/bio bomb in a major US city.

Where and how does it end?

[Tony]

Originally posted by dsm

Where and how does it end?

We're going in circles. Ive already adressed this. You win a conflict by taking away the enemy's ability to make war. The reason we have the "cycle of violence" today is because we arent prepared to do what it takes to win.

[dsm]

Originally posted by Tony

It does? Wasnt the USSR the country that invaded and tried to conquer Afghanistan? Why should the West have to bear responsibility for the actions of the USSR?


Who supplied the Afghanis with the weapons they needed against the USSR? Who exactly were supplied with those weapons? What precisely was the purpose for which those weapons were supplied to the Afghanis? Was anything done to control those weapons once the USSR left?

[dsm]

Originally posted by Tony
We're going in circles. Ive already adressed this. You win a conflict by taking away the enemy's ability to make war. The reason we have the "cycle of violence" today is because we arent prepared to do what it takes to win.

What -- "genocide"? And how do you change the view of others that those killed are martyrs to be avenged?

Be more precise. List your steps in solving the "terrorist problem". Address how the actions you'd list would not simply "add fuel to the fire".

[Chaos]

Originally posted by Tony


We're going in circles. Ive already adressed this. You win a conflict by taking away the enemy's ability to make war. The reason we have the "cycle of violence" today is because we arent prepared to do what it takes to win.

Say, a terrorist plants a bomb that kills US civilians. The US find out who did it and where he is.

Now they have two possibilities:

A) (Your way) Kill the terrorist and anyone who is associated with him.

Result: terrorist dead, his friends, family and maybe countrymen will take revenge, a few dozen new terrorists created. Look forward to a few dozen more bombs.

B) (The way that works) Arrest the terrorist, put him on trial. Prove to everyone what he did. Find out why he did it. Find out if and how you can adress that - and do it, or at least some of it.
In the end, lock the terrorist up. Friends and family maybe angry, countrymen maybe not; probably no new terrorists.

[ssibal]

Originally posted by dsm


Where? :confused:


I cannot point to a specific thread or post recently. This argument was made before the Iraq war. The claim was thrown around that we were abandoning Afghanistan and the war on terror since some of those troops were going to Iraq.


But I hope you also realize that the reverse is just as true (ie. if we stay, "we will be blamed for anything bad that happens").

Yes it is true. And if the U.S. was negligent or responsible for something bad happening while they are in Iraq then they deserve the blame. But once the U.S. is gone, so is their limited control over what goes on in the country, therefore blaming them for anything bad that happens is silly.

[ssibal]

Originally posted by dsm


Which, when dealing with a group that believes in "an eye for an eye" and thousand year wars, is no solution at all.

With such a group, I think that is the only solution.

[ssibal]

Originally posted by athon


Damn right the U.S. would be responsible if they left, and so they well should be!


That all depends on the state that they leave the country in.

[Jessica Blue]

Originally posted by ssibal

With such a group, I think that is the only solution.You dont see the possibility for exponential, circular violence in such thinking? Just look at history? Just look at he Israeli/Palestine conflict? On and on it goes....an eye for an eye. And what about the bombs that hit people who just happen to be in the way? If you can justify bombs and destruction in the name of your *war on terrorists*, then how are you any better than they...?

Is it so difficult to understand that you don't change people's minds by dropping bombs on them?Quote of the day.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Tony



It does? Wasnt the USSR the country that invaded and tried to conquer Afghanistan? Why should the West have to bear responsibility for the actions of the USSR?



This is going back a few years now, but IIRC the Russians had a tame government in Afghanistan. It was commie, freedom of speech was restricted, but there was also education, equality for the sexes, and fundamentalists were not running the show. That is, it was by no means an ideal place to live, but it could have been worse.

The US then backed a proxy war, sending arms there, with the aid of Pakistan, which has always had a regional interest in the area.

Anyone who fought the 'baddies' was a good guy, and was given weapons. Russia, when it looked like their friendly government was falling, physically occupied the country. The war was like the one in Iraq now, a guerrila force, with small but potent weapons fighting a more powerful one.

The country plunged into something much worse than communism, uncontrolled anarchy and war between factions. Cities and towns were reduced to rubble. Travel was dangerous. Infrastructure was destroyed. The Taliban took over, gave Al Queada a home, and ran the place like an insane asylum.

As it did in Angola, the US, having satisfied itself that the evil of communism was destroyed, lost interest, but left behind a realm of chaos, war and brutality.



and yet the effect of staging part of the "war on terror" in Afghanistan has been no different than if our quarrel was with the people of Afghanistan.

What effect is that? If you have evidence please present it. Frankly, I dont see how afghanistan could be anymore of a hell hole than before we started our campaign.

[/b]

It was not always thus.

[shuize]

Originally posted by Chaos

B) (The way that works) Arrest the terrorist, put him on trial. Prove to everyone what he did. Find out why he did it. Find out if and how you can adress that - and do it, or at least some of it.
In the end, lock the terrorist up. Friends and family maybe angry, countrymen maybe not; probably no new terrorists.

Right. Like when the U.S. arrested and tried the first World Trade Center bombers....

Arrest them or kill them. Personally, I prefer the latter, but understand there may be reasons for the former ... interrogation, etc...

Unfortunately, I expect more terrorism for the foreseeable future. The cycle of violence will not end. I don't believe there will ever be a complete victory in the "war on terror" (and I expect to hear snide remarks about how the U.S. "still" hasn't won the war until I am old and grey) But, having said that, I'm all in favor of making it as difficult and costly on the terrorists as possible. Hunt them down and kill them in their sleep if possible. I also wouldn't lose much sleep if some of our so-called allies, the wealthy financiers, also began to meet with some very unfortunate accidents.

[dsm]

Originally posted by ssibal
With such a group, I think that is the only solution.

Then they've won... :(

[dsm]

Originally posted by shuize

Unfortunately, I expect more terrorism for the foreseeable future. The cycle of violence will not end. I don't believe there will ever be a complete victory in the "war on terror" (and I expect to hear snide remarks about how the U.S. "still" hasn't won the war until I am old and grey) But, having said that, I'm all in favor of making it as difficult and costly on the terrorists as possible. Hunt them down and kill them in their sleep if possible. I also wouldn't lose much sleep if some of our so-called allies, the wealthy financiers, also began to meet with some very unfortunate accidents.

It appears that the terrorists know how to win the war in the long run...

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/june01/2001-06-26-suicide-usat.htm

Maybe we should learn from them...?

[reprise]

Originally posted by Tony



It does? Wasnt the USSR the country that invaded and tried to conquer Afghanistan? Why should the West have to bear responsibility for the actions of the USSR?


and yet the effect of staging part of the "war on terror" in Afghanistan has been no different than if our quarrel was with the people of Afghanistan.

What effect is that? If you have evidence please present it. Frankly, I dont see how afghanistan could be anymore of a hell hole than before we started our campaign.

How many times can we go into their country and create devastation before they are allowed to resent us?

"We" didnt go into their country and create devistation it was the Soviets.

Why are we so unwilling to accept the justifiable cynicism which the people of Afghanistan and Iraq express about our motivations and intentions?

Where are you getting this from? Who is unwilling to accept the cynicism of the Iraqi and Afghan people?

Do you have any idea whatsoever of the history of US involvement in Afghanistan or do really believe that you were saving that country from "the communist menace" just as you are saving the world today from the "Islam menace"? How many villages and countries are you going to devastate in order to save them? How many "regime changes" are you going to put into place by military action only to justify the subsequent removal from power by military action of those very same people? And how many times are you going to bemoan the fact of their "ingratitude"?

Let's stop fighting our ideological battles on the soil of poverty stricken nations. If we really believe that our ideological battles are worth killing people and devastating nations for, then let's invite our opponents to fight us on our own soil or theirs instead of using these devastatingly poor nations as our arena and refusing to clean up our mess after us. Why don't we use affluent nations as the arena for our ideological battles?

How many people who are all for the "war on terror" right now would be willing for that battle to be fought on their home soil?

In some ways I wish that we could return to the days when one person's army fought another person's army on a formally declared battlefield and the winner took all. Let's return to the days of armadas battling it out at sea and stop pretending that our own particular ideologies (whether they be religious or political in nature) are worth killing other people for unless we are prepared to put our own lives on the line for the cause which we are supporting. Why is anything in which you or I believe worth OTHER PEOPLE laying down their lives if it is not worth our doing the same?

You wonder why the "your poor, your tired, your huddled" masses would rather live under their respective dictatorial, tyrannical regimes than embrace the "Western way"? It might have something to do with the fact that we in the West are into immediate gratification and don't really give a crap about what happens tomorrow as long as we can make ourselves look "good" and "rich" and "powerful" today. It might have something to do with the fact that the West has a very short attention span and makes extremely superficial alliances which it doesn't feel bound to honour if "something better comes along". It might have something to do with the fact that the West exemplifies "all animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others" just as much as any other ideology but refuses to acknowledge that it does so.

I do not presume to speak for my fellow Australians, but given the behaviour of our various governments (both Liberal and Labor) after the last 30 years I'm prepared to say without any equivocation that Australia DOES the government which it gets next year and whatever consequences follow from us electing that government. If we really gave a crap, the current government could be dismissed tomorrow, but we aren't yet angry enough to dismiss that government and so we have only ourselves to blame for it remaining in power.

[ssibal]

Originally posted by Jessica Blue
You dont see the possibility for exponential, circular violence in such thinking? Just look at history?

Sure it is a possibility, what is your point? I do not believe you will ever end violence as long as humans are alive. We already have circular violence, that is a given. Is it exponential? That is debatable, but it is a risk worth taking to rid the world of these religious fanatics.

Just look at he Israeli/Palestine conflict? On and on it goes....an eye for an eye.

Nonsense, there is no eye for eye in that situation. Israel does what? Steal land? Builds a wall? Accidentally kills innocents? And what do the 'Palestinians' do, purposely target and kill as many innocents as possible. No eye for eye there. Israel has shown so much restraint, too much in my opinion. I think they have given the 'Palestinians' the benefit of the doubt too much as well. I think one day they will finally snap and the conflict will certainly end, and it will not be pretty at all.

And what about the bombs that hit people who just happen to be in the way? If you can justify bombs and destruction in the name of your *war on terrorists*, then how are you any better than they...?

Because we do not deliberately target those people like the terrorists do.

[ssibal]

Originally posted by dsm


Then they've won... :(

Really? What did they win? Why are they still fighting if they won?

[reprise]

The US then backed a proxy war, sending arms there, with the aid of Pakistan, which has always had a regional interest in the area.

Sorta kinda, but I would suggest that you read the officially released documents which have become available under FOI both here and in the US since September 2001 - in particular the actions which were initiated and approved by Carter during his administration. I find it hard to reconcile the concept of "free speech" with the fact that the American people really don't have a clue at any given point in time what their government is doing on their behalf. It takes a lot to shock me but when I was putting crap on the Californians for electing Arnie and discovered that the "books" of that state aren't public record, - even to those people who are running for office - I nearly choked.

I find it amazing that Americans care about the religion of their political representatives, their sexuality, their marital status, their opinions on abortion or homosexuality, and yet still proclaim what a "free" nation America is and how it upholds the separation between church and state.

Our systems of democracy are so very different that we cannot understand theirs and they cannot understand ours. I can't imagine living in an open democratic society where "question time" did not exist and where you couldn't find out how much your leader on wine on a given day because the information was "classified".

There are many times when I wish that we could combine the best aspects of the Australian political system with the best aspects of the American political system. Our systems are different - they are stuck with their leader until the next scheduled elections until such time as they want to change their constitution to give them an immediate option for getting rid of their head of state. The idea that you cannot dismiss your government is reprehensible to us, and yet the very provisions of our constitution which allow us to dismiss our government were written to protect the interests of the Crown and not the people. We happen to be very lucky in that every single provision of our constitution which was originally written to protect the interests of the Crown and the Empire is now used by the people who actualy hold that power (ie, our Governors General) to prtoect the interests of the Australian people. We are further lucky or smart that we frame our constitution in terms of the individual states being unable to secede. Every single time an American tells me that Texas is the only US state which has retained the right of secession I wonder about what the hell the political representatives of the other states were thinking at the time when they ratified the union...

We see geopolitics through our own particular filters - as do the Americans. The more I'm hearing about how they don't think that the world gave a crap on 11 September, 2001, the more I am realising that not only do we see them through a filtered lens, but they see us likewise.

[reprise]

Because we do not deliberately target those people like the terrorists do.

Cite?

[ssibal]

Originally posted by reprise


Cite?

Cite what? That terrorists deliberately target innocents or that the U.S. goes out of its way to avoid killing innocents?

[dsm]

Originally posted by ssibal
Really? What did they win? Why are they still fighting if they won?

They are winning the hearts and minds of their people because we are abandoning the effort to change their minds. It's easier to simply believe that we can eliminate the problem with a few well-placed bombs (of course, "few" is a relative term).

[reprise]

Originally posted by ssibal
That terrorists deliberately target innocents or that the U.S. goes out of its way to avoid killing innocents?

One word : napalm. Sure the US military goes out of its way to avoid killing "innocents". At least those who were voters at the time can put together a coherent argument about their contemporary viewpoints. I opposed the Vietnam war then and I still think that it was a major CF, but I'd like to hear your personal reasons for opposing the war rather than your cut and paste criticisms of those who supported it.

[Jessica Blue]

Originally quoted by ssibal
Sure it is a possibility, what is your point? I do not believe you will ever end violence as long as humans are alive. We already have circular violence, that is a given. Is it exponential? That is debatable, but it is a risk worth taking to rid the world of these religious fanatics.What do you mean "what's my point"? My point is that a *bomb the problem* mentality will not rid the world of religious fanatics, but rather creates more resentment and hostility and thus more fanatics. As to "we will never end violence as long as humans are alive"...what's your point? Because violence is part of the human condition we should abandon ourselves to it? It's therefore justified?


Nonsense, there is no eye for eye in that situationIt's not nonsense that there's a cycle of violence there...whatever they're doing it's not working. And both sides do act out of retaliation.

Because we do not deliberately target those people like the terrorists do.Tell that to the ordinary Joe's lying in hospital with their arms blown off...I'm sure it'd be a great comfort.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Chaos


B) (The way that works) Arrest the terrorist, put him on trial. Prove to everyone what he did. Find out why he did it. Find out if and how you can adress that - and do it, or at least some of it.
In the end, lock the terrorist up. Friends and family maybe angry, countrymen maybe not; probably no new terrorists.

That is the way it was handled with Lockerbie. To be consistent, those who commit war crimes in the US armed forces should also be prosecuted. This does not happen. Even routine cases of rape in foreign bases are often not investigated.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Tony


We're going in circles. Ive already adressed this. You win a conflict by taking away the enemy's ability to make war. The reason we have the "cycle of violence" today is because we arent prepared to do what it takes to win.

What if the majority of the population does not want you there, as in Vietnam? Do you have to kill them as well?

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by a_unique_person

What if the majority of the population does not want you there, as in Vietnam? Do you have to kill them as well?

Irrelevant comparison. Many Iraqis DO want us there, though only temporarily. Even the ones who want us to leave now don't expect us to be there forever, and we don't plan on it. If in five years things haven't changed, you'll have a point. Right now, though, you don't.

Repeat after me: Iraq is not Vietnam. Iraq is not Vietnam. Iraq is not Vietnam...

On a more general note, there's this idea that terrorism is necessarily a "cycle" of violence. You know what perpetuates terrorism? The success of terrorism. That's your cycle. People continue to do things they think accomplish something. If terrorists can kill significant numbers of their targets (jews, americans, whoever) for each of their losses, they will continue to mount suicide operations. Terrorism will fade if it cannot produce such successes. That's one of the terrible things about 9/11: it gave terrorist the idea that they could kill hundreds of people for each casualty they take. If they could keep that up, they really would have a chance at winning.

Changing the ratio CAN defeat terrorists. If they can only kill one or two Americans for each terrorist who gets killed or captured, they will not be able to sustain their attacks, both because they will run out of manpower without accomplishing much and because even people wiling to martyr themselves still want to be able to accomplish something with that martyrdom and won't be nearly as interested if they think it won't do much. Again, this is unlike Vietnam: the terrorists simply do not have vast manpower resources, they cannot suffer large losses without harming their operational capability. Keep your eyes on the kill ratios: if we're capturing/killing higher numbers of terrorists than the casualties we take, we're winning (and again, this is DIFFERENT than Vietnam, where the VC's could suffer enormous losses and still keep coming). And that looks to be the case right now as far as I can see.

[dsm]

Originally posted by Ziggurat

Changing the ratio CAN defeat terrorists. If they can only kill one or two Americans for each terrorist who gets killed or captured, they will not be able to sustain their attacks, both because they will run out of manpower without accomplishing much and because even people wiling to martyr themselves still want to be able to accomplish something with that martyrdom and won't be nearly as interested if they think it won't do much.


Ridiculous -- there are many more (potential) Muslims in the world than there are Americans. Certainly, not all Muslims will become martyrs to the cause, but, with a 10-20 times advantage, there may be a large number of potential terrorists to draw from (especially if they perceive us as the great threat).

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by dsm
Ridiculous -- there are many more (potential) Muslims in the world than there are Americans. Certainly, not all Muslims will become martyrs to the cause, but, with a 10-20 times advantage, there may be a large number of potential terrorists to draw from (especially if they perceive us as the great threat).

This is an absurd claim. The number of people who are interested in becoming terrorists has always been, and WILL always be, a VERY small minority. The potential pool is not nearly as large as you seem to imagine, and it shrinks, not expands, if terrorists do not have spectacular successes (which they aren't having right now).

Why terrorism fails:
http://www.benadorassociates.com/article/453
Successes in the war on terrorism:
http://www.benadorassociates.com/article/371

[ssibal]

Originally posted by dsm


They are winning the hearts and minds of their people because we are abandoning the effort to change their minds. It's easier to simply believe that we can eliminate the problem with a few well-placed bombs (of course, "few" is a relative term).

When I said bomb them I was referring to bombing the terrorists, not "their people." They do not have any people, they are separate from 'ordinary' muslim people (who may still hold some crazy views but not enough to blow up innocents or support those actions). And we are not abandoning the effort to change those people's minds (the people who have hope of their minds being changed not fanatical terrorists). Look at how many schools have been repaired and are opening up in Iraq. I do not think that they will be teaching the same things Saudi schools teach (at least while the U.S. is present).

[ssibal]

Originally posted by reprise


One word : napalm. Sure the US military goes out of its way to avoid killing "innocents". At least those who were voters at the time can put together a coherent argument about their contemporary viewpoints. I opposed the Vietnam war then and I still think that it was a major CF, but I'd like to hear your personal reasons for opposing the war rather than your cut and paste criticisms of those who supported it.

What does Vietnam have to do with this? I was not talking about Vietnam at all. Citing past actions or policy of a different administration is pointless when we are discussing current policy and actions.

[ssibal]

Originally posted by Jessica Blue
What do you mean "what's my point"? My point is that a *bomb the problem* mentality will not rid the world of religious fanatics,

Maybe I should clarify, when I said rid the world of those religious fanatics I meant to diminish their actions and influence so much that they are virtually insignificant. Obviously, it is impossible to rid the world of them completely without wiping out all humans.

but rather creates more resentment and hostility and thus more fanatics.

It will only create resentment and hostility among those who already see their actions as being just and necessary. But, if these people see their actions as being just and necessary then they are probably already resentful and hostile.

As to "we will never end violence as long as humans are alive"...what's your point? Because violence is part of the human condition we should abandon ourselves to it? It's therefore justified?

My point is that it is here to stay. Yes, I do think it is justified in certain situations. You can complain all you want about an endless circle of violence but that is as likely to ever disappear as sex.


It's not nonsense that there's a cycle of violence there...whatever they're doing it's not working. And both sides do act out of retaliation.

Yes, and as I stated what Israel is doing is not working (i.e. not being tough enough on the 'Palestinians').

Tell that to the ordinary Joe's lying in hospital with their arms blown off...I'm sure it'd be a great comfort.

Unfortunately, accidents happen. :(

[dsm]

Originally posted by Ziggurat

This is an absurd claim. The number of people who are interested in becoming terrorists has always been, and WILL always be, a VERY small minority. The potential pool is not nearly as large as you seem to imagine, and it shrinks, not expands, if terrorists do not have spectacular successes (which they aren't having right now).

Why terrorism fails:
http://www.benadorassociates.com/article/453
Successes in the war on terrorism:
http://www.benadorassociates.com/article/371

Very strange and (IMHO) naive sounding articles from one author. He plays with numbers and tries to lead you to the opinion that 9/11 was a failure for terrorism (amongst other things). He seems to base a lot on the seeming lull in terrorist activities after 9/11. His basis for this, though, is a very short timeframe when one side would be likely to pull back to see what happens and the other side would be likely to increase its efforts against a repeat of the terrorist incident. Therefore, how can you use that time as an example to show that 9/11 was a terrorist failure?

[Chaos]

The "bottom line" of terrorism is not dead enemies or property damage. It is both the fear that these attacks instill, and the reaction they provoke.

Look at 9/11. 19 terrorists (if you count the support personnel, at most 30-40) managed to shut down air travel in/to/from the US for days (or weeks? I´m not sure.) because of fear of subsequent attacks. Stock markets tanked out of fear. The USA invaded two countries, and while they did hurt Al-Quaeda and the Taliban, they have further fueled anti-American sentiment among Muslims (and not only there), and brought fanatical muslim terrorism thousands of new recruits. The terrorists have brought the Americans to let their government dismantle their civil rights, for fear of terrorism.
All this by sacrificing a few dozen men and spending perhaps a few million dollars. If that is not cost-effective - what else is?

Let´s face it: terrorism does work. The terrorists need not kill many Americans to be successful. They only have to provoke harsh retribution, which will further alienate people from America, which will in turn give the terrorists even more new recruits and even more funding.

[Martin]

Originally posted by ssibal
When I said bomb them I was referring to bombing the terrorists, not "their people." They do not have any people, they are separate from 'ordinary' muslim peopleHow fortunate that our bombs can distinguish between terrorists and ordinary people.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by dsm

Very strange and (IMHO) naive sounding articles from one author. He plays with numbers and tries to lead you to the opinion that 9/11 was a failure for terrorism (amongst other things). He seems to base a lot on the seeming lull in terrorist activities after 9/11. His basis for this, though, is a very short timeframe when one side would be likely to pull back to see what happens and the other side would be likely to increase its efforts against a repeat of the terrorist incident. Therefore, how can you use that time as an example to show that 9/11 was a terrorist failure?

Because they've lost much of their leadership, lost many of their bases, lost many of their foot soldiers, and it's becoming more difficult to chanel money to such organizations. The terrorists haven't "pulled back". They're constantly trying to strike at us. They have lost significant capability and not gotten us to back down. That qualifies as loosing in my book. And you didn't even address the main point of the first article, which is that terrorism is not sustainable when it isn't successful.

[dsm]

Originally posted by Ziggurat

Because they've lost much of their leadership, lost many of their bases, lost many of their foot soldiers, and it's becoming more difficult to chanel money to such organizations. The terrorists haven't "pulled back". They're constantly trying to strike at us. They have lost significant capability and not gotten us to back down. That qualifies as loosing in my book.


Define "constantly". Sure, the terrorist networks are probably always planning and implementing various activities. However, indications were that 9/11 was in planning for years, so it seems that they don't just throw wave after wave of suicide bomber at any old target.

Also, your definition of "losing" is weak. They may not have gotten us to back down yet, but they've made a big impact in the rest of the world. We have been shown to have weaknesses. We can be hurt and we can be hurt big. And that was just one terrorist incident!

With third world poverty levels still very high (~60% among Palestinians), there are large numbers of people who might sign up for a terrorist organization. Remember that "poor" also means (probably) "uneducated" and, therefore, exploitable by the right people.


And you didn't even address the main point of the first article, which is that terrorism is not sustainable when it isn't successful.

No enterprise that can't show (at least some) success can be sustained. However, the premise of the article (that terrorism hasn't been successful) is so weak that to base your hopes of the unsustainability of terrorism on a lull in terrorist activity is, at the very least, naive.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by dsm

No enterprise that can't show (at least some) success can be sustained. However, the premise of the article (that terrorism hasn't been successful) is so weak that to base your hopes of the unsustainability of terrorism on a lull in terrorist activity is, at the very least, naive.

I don't think you're following the logic of this. It's NOT merely the lull in terrorism that indicates its unsustainability. It's also very much based on the fact that they cannot maintain the spectacular kill ratio they achieved on 9/11. They're suffering huge losses now, on levels they simply did not suffer prior to 9/11. Even if they can mount more spectacular operations, they will inevitably also continue to suffer huge losses. They have reached the point of diminishing returns, and there's no going back to the early days where they could gather their forces freely in preparation for attacks. And we, meanwhile, have realized that we cannot back down from this conflict, that we cannot give in to the terrorists, that we MUST fight them tooth and nail.

Yes, 9/11 shows we can be hurt. But it also shows we are strong, and we will strike back. Look at what happened after 9/11: in a matter of months, we were able to topple a government on the other side of the globe because of their role in supporting the terrorists responsible. Bin Laden is likely dead, but even if not he's at least in deep hiding, and Al Quaeda has largely been reduced to making impotent threats against us. We have not backed down, we have not abandoned Israel, we went on the offensive. Despite the massive blow we recieved, we have not bowed to their pressure, we struck back, and hard.

[ssibal]

Originally posted by Martin
How fortunate that our bombs can distinguish between terrorists and ordinary people.

I did not say or imply that.

[dsm]

Originally posted by Ziggurat

I don't think you're following the logic of this.


Hmmmm... (http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0907-02.htm) :rolleyes:


It's NOT merely the lull in terrorism that indicates its unsustainability. It's also very much based on the fact that they cannot maintain the spectacular kill ratio they achieved on 9/11. They're suffering huge losses now, on levels they simply did not suffer prior to 9/11. Even if they can mount more spectacular operations, they will inevitably also continue to suffer huge losses. They have reached the point of diminishing returns, and there's no going back to the early days where they could gather their forces freely in preparation for attacks. And we, meanwhile, have realized that we cannot back down from this conflict, that we cannot give in to the terrorists, that we MUST fight them tooth and nail.


Your faulty premise here is that the "huge losses" they've suffered are not simply viewed as "casualties of war and martyrs to the cause". We have lost a lot of support (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002-08-14-1a-cover_x.htm) in the world since 9/11 and that is something that the terrorists can leverage to replenish their stocks. Their war has been going on for decades (centuries?), so a few more years is not that long to wait.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by dsm

Hmmmm... (http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0907-02.htm) :rolleyes:


What a wonderfully uninformative and irrelevant article. It freely mixes and matches between different issues (for example: the casualties in Afghanistan are ONLY stacked up against 9/11, totally ignoring the issue of the Talban and the horror they were inflicting upon the country) without any real regard for the overall picture. And it makes ridiculous statements like "Iraq is spinning out of control" without any evidence to back up that assertion. It makes meaningless comparisons between Iraq and Vietnam, and even says some completely nonsensical things (for example, critiquing our approach to Iran's nuclear weapons program as being too harsh when in fact we've let the IAEA take the lead on that issue so far). You want a point-by-point rebutal? I'm not going to bother unless you're actually curious. But that article is complete crap, from start to finish.


Your faulty premise here is that the "huge losses" they've suffered are not simply viewed as "casualties of war and martyrs to the cause".


Martyrs are admired if they accomplish something. The number they can kill is quite definitely a major factor in their status. If they can't kill many people, the inducement to become a martyr is significantly diminished. You seem to think that this is simply a religious issue for them, but it is not. Martyrdom is both a political and especially a social action.
http://www.suck.com/daily/2000/10/30/1.html
And in the context of a social action, it depends very much on how successful it can be. Getting killed on our terms is not ever going to be comparable to martyring themselves on their terms.


We have lost a lot of support (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002-08-14-1a-cover_x.htm) in the world since 9/11 and that is something that the terrorists can leverage to replenish their stocks.


The Europeans are mad because we've removed one of the worst dictators ever. The arab world is mad because we deposed the man directly responsible for more arab deaths than perhaps any man in history. The fact that we are percieved as being on the wrong side is a signal that something is seriously wrong with much of the rest of the world (bonus question: did US intervention in Yugoslavia have UN approval? Were the Europeans protesting that? What's different now, other than the fact that the European left has a bug up their backside about Bush?). But I see no reason to refrain from doing the right thing because it might piss some people off. Tough luck. But you're also wrong about it being a giant recruiting drive. The pool of people who dislike us is not the same as the pool who are willing to join terrorist groups and commit senseless acts of impotent violence. Expanding the first pool does not automatically expand the second. Showing that we will not be disuaded by terrorists or despots, that their actions are futile and that we can and will hunt them down, is going to be very discouraging to potential terrorists.

[Jessica Blue]

Showing that we will not be disuaded by terrorists or despots, that their actions are futile and that we can and will hunt them down, is going to be very discouraging to potential terrorists.Whether or not America has done the "right thing", I think your wrong there. You're applying your own rational thought process to a group which has no real affinity with reason or even self-preservation . Despots might want to save their own hide, but a steady stream of terrorists readily martyr themselves...reckless young men who thrive on anti-American hatred. Why should they care if they're "hunted down"? Why should they fear US retribution when it is the greatest honour to fight the *Great Satan* and die in the service of Allah?

Do you really think fanatic Islamic terrorists are so pragmatic that they will desist because they fear the wrath of the US?

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Jessica Blue
Whether or not America has done the "right thing", I think your wrong there. You're applying your own rational thought process to a group which has no real affinity with reason or even self-preservation.


Terrorists are deluded, and they have irrational goals. But they have goals nonetheless. And nobody likes to fail at meating their goals. The willingness to die is a social phenomena. Even deluded, suicidal terrorists don't do it alone (read the link above, it's very insightful, it was written pre-9/11 and it was the first thing I thought of when I heard about the attacks). The social aspect of it depends critically on the possibility of success. The willingness to face death, contrary to propaganda, is fundamentally about earning respect from your peers, not about religious convictions. That goes for terrorist just as much as for our own troops. But that respect is predicated entirely on respect for success. Take away that success, and the respect disappears.


Despots might want to save their own hide, but a steady stream of terrorists readily martyr themselves...reckless young men who thrive on anti-American hatred. Why should they care if they're "hunted down"?


Because getting killed like a rat in a hole is a very different prospect than dying like a hero in front of their comrades. Even for lunatic terrorists.


Why should they fear US retribution when it is the greatest honour to fight the *Great Satan* and die in the service of Allah?


Because it's NOT a fundamentally religious activity (why do you think it's not imams actually blowing themselves up?). It's fundamentally a SOCIAL activity. And it that context it matters very much.


Do you really think fanatic Islamic terrorists are so pragmatic that they will desist because they fear the wrath of the US?

That's not even the right question. It's not a matter of whether or not they fear our wrath. It's a matter of whether or not they fear failure. And everybody in the world fears failure. Fear of failure is very much operative in ANY social activity. So let me state, once again: terrorism is a SOCIAL activity, not a religious activity.

[Jessica Blue]

Originally posted by Ziggurat
Terrorists are deluded, and they have irrational goals. But they have goals nonetheless. And nobody likes to fail at meating their goals. The willingness to die is a social phenomena. Even deluded, suicidal terrorists don't do it alone (read the link above, it's very insightful, it was written pre-9/11 and it was the first thing I thought of when I heard about the attacks). The social aspect of it depends critically on the possibility of success. The willingness to face death, contrary to propaganda, is fundamentally about earning respect from your peers, not about religious convictions. That goes for terrorist just as much as for our own troops. But that respect is predicated entirely on respect for success. Take away that success, and the respect disappears. But how are are bombs and acts of violent retribution by the US going to dispell the social heroism of terrorists within their own demographic? As long as men are held up as heroes of Islam and perceived as warriors in battle the social compulsion within this group will remain. The US has dealt a heavy hand to Iraq and yet fresh acts of terrorism are occuring all the time.


Because getting killed like a rat in a hole is a very different prospect than dying like a hero in front of their comrades. Even for lunatic terrorists.Well yes, that's true. Being hunted down, prosecuted and thrown in jail is less appealing than dying in a state of suicidaI martyrdom. A cell is a better vision to offer potential terrorists than the Islamic Paradise. This is why its better to treat them as criminals rather than warriors. Better to track down ringleaders than invade nations. Though it may be supported by powerful figures within a nation, terrorism itself has no nation of its own and so can't be dealt with by bombs. Such action incites the hatred which drives the social activity of terrorists and makes martrys of ordinary people.


Because it's NOT a fundamentally religious activity (why do you think it's not imams actually blowing themselves up?). It's fundamentally a SOCIAL activity. And it that context it matters very much.I wouldn't really argue with that. It 's a social/political activity propped up by religious illusions and propaganda. Islam provides the identification and the platform for the political act...it is the outward presentation of something deeper.

That's not even the right question. It's not a matter of whether or not they fear our wrath. It's a matter of whether or not they fear failure. And everybody in the world fears failure. Fear of failure is very much operative in ANY social activity. So let me state, once again: terrorism is a SOCIAL activity, not a religious activity.Their greatest failure would be to end the virulent and and fantical anti-western hatred which so propells the cause of terrorism. Bombs are not going to achieve that.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Jessica Blue
But how are are bombs and acts of violent retribution by the US going to dispell the social heroism of terrorists within their own demographic? As long as men are held up as heroes of Islam and perceived as warriors in battle the social compulsion within this group will remain. The US has dealt a heavy hand to Iraq and yet fresh acts of terrorism are occuring all the time.
Terrorist activity in Iraq is not a good indicator that the long-term problem has gotten any worse. It's a convenient target (it's right next door, the borders are porous, they don't need to speak English to get around, etc), so it's going to bring out a lot of people who were just waiting for an opportunity to strike at us. The current level of terrorist activity is not at all indicative of what the long-term level will be. Our bombs alone are not going to dispell the heroism. Our bombs are going to kill our enemies. It's the fact that our enemies aren't getting to strike at us in the ways they want to, that they aren't able to get us to leave Iraq on their terms, that is going to dispell the myth of heroic resistance. At this point, bombs aren't even our main weapon.
Well yes, that's true. Being hunted down, prosecuted and thrown in jail is less appealing than dying in a state of suicidaI martyrdom. A cell is a better vision to offer potential terrorists than the Islamic Paradise. This is why its better to treat them as criminals rather than warriors. Better to track down ringleaders than invade nations.
There were other reasons to invade Iraq. I'll save that for another thread, but I just want to point out that the comparison between invading countries and tracking down ringleaders isn't quite relevant.
Though it may be supported by powerful figures within a nation, terrorism itself has no nation of its own and so can't be dealt with by bombs. Such action incites the hatred which drives the social activity of terrorists and makes martrys of ordinary people.
It can't be dealt with by bombs alone. But the position you suggest here is that we shouldn't strike out at them for fear of further reprisals. But that's cowardice, and that doesn't defeat terrorists. Yes, we need to be mindful of collateral damage, and the possibility that we can incite more anger against us. But that need not paralyse us, and there are plenty of times when we both can and must act with force.
Their greatest failure would be to end the virulent and and fantical anti-western hatred which so propells the cause of terrorism. Bombs are not going to achieve that.
Yes, that is true. Democracy and prosperity are the only long-term way to achieve that. But sometimes you can't get to that point without breaking up some logjams. And for that, bombs may indeed be needed.

[Jessica Blue]

Originally posted by Ziggarut
But the position you suggest here is that we shouldn't strike out at them for fear of further reprisalsI can see how you might think that but I agree with you, I don't think we should be cowardly and fail to act just because we might fear reprisal. But the only people I think we should be tough on are the terrorists. Collateral damage is a sanitised term for the death of ordinary people quietly living their lives...and thousands of them have died in the name of this *war on terrorism*. In an effort to thrust democracy upon a people, nations have been shaken up and dislodged, with as yet no clear success. It's this which I believe brings reprisal and exacerbates anti-western hatred....it's not that we have acted, but that we haven't acted in the best way.

Yes, that is true. Democracy and prosperity are the only long-term way to achieve that. But sometimes you can't get to that point without breaking up some logjams. And for that, bombs may indeed be neededWell that's where we diverge. Fast foods and MTV will be more effective carriers of democracy than bombs.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Jessica Blue
In an effort to thrust democracy upon a people, nations have been shaken up and dislodged, with as yet no clear success. It's this which I believe brings reprisal and exacerbates anti-western hatred....it's not that we have acted, but that we haven't acted in the best way.


Anti-western sentiment would flourish even if we did nothing. How we acted has little to do with it: when the Arab world holds up Saddam as a leader and admires him for opposing us despite him having killed hundreds of thousands of arabs and muslims. This is not a rational hatred we're dealing with.

As for success, yeah, go figure, it takes more than a few months to rebuild a country devastated by decades of misrule.


Well that's where we diverge. Fast foods and MTV will be more effective carriers of democracy than bombs.

You're kidding, right? How exactly was MTV successfully promoting democracy in Iraq? Democracy in Iraq was an impossibility with Saddam in power. We couldn't even wait for him to kick the bucket, because his sons were in line, and were just as bad. The only possible way to remove him from power was by force.

[Jessica Blue]

As for success, yeah, go figure, it takes more than a few months to rebuild a country devastated by decades of misrule.It's been two years, not months, since the bombing in Afghanistan and there is evidence that terrorism may already be starting to regain its hold in that region. Time will tell, in Afghanistan and Iraq, but the theory behind your convictions may not match the practical result.

You're kidding, right? How exactly was MTV successfully promoting democracy in Iraq? Democracy in Iraq was an impossibility with Saddam in power. We couldn't even wait for him to kick the bucket, because his sons were in line, and were just as bad. The only possible way to remove him from power was by force.Oh well...America's most influential, widespread and successful export is its popular culture. Dont underestimate the power of consumer desire.

Don't you think we can win on the field of ideas? If US style democracy is so great why cant we let it speak for itself? In order to change politics you have to change culture and aspirations, pre-conditions are usually built, not imposed and violently forcing democracy upon a nation is a high risk venture, costly in economic, political and human terms, especially when that nation has been transformed into the "frontline for the war on terrorism".

If liberating Iraq from Saddam Hussein can be seen as a primary justification for this war... how do we choose which future nations to liberate? Should we then go barging into other nations where tyrants can be seen as an impediment to democracy? Do we maintain the *act tough* philosophy and threaten or invade all nations seen to be sympathetic to terrorist activity? Bombs and destruction don't seem like a very satisfactory way to usher in democracy and inspire nations to a better way of life.

[dsm]

Originally posted by Jessica Blue
Don't you think we can win on the field of ideas? If US style democracy is so great why cant we let it speak for itself? In order to change politics you have to change culture and aspirations, pre-conditions are usually built, not imposed and violently forcing democracy upon a nation is a high risk venture, costly in economic, political and human terms, especially when that nation has been transformed into the "frontline for the war on terrorism".

If liberating Iraq from Saddam Hussein can be seen as a primary justification for this war... how do we choose which future nations to liberate? Should we then go barging into other nations where tyrants can be seen as an impediment to democracy? Do we maintain the *act tough* philosophy and threaten or invade all nations seen to be sympathetic to terrorist activity? Bombs and destruction don't seem like a very satisfactory way to usher in democracy and inspire nations to a better way of life. [/B]

Here, here!

:th:

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Jessica Blue

Don't you think we can win on the field of ideas?


On a level playing field, hell yes. But the world isn't a level playing field. The middle east, in particular, is basically devoid of anything approaching a free press. In that environment, conspiracy theories and delusions blossom, and the truth withers and dies. Those in power get to control much of what the public even has access to. Check out
http://www.memri.org
if you want to see how truly disfunctional the arab media is. And do you even think that these regimes are in power because they've convinced the people that they are the best rulers? These regimes do not rule because of their victory on the field of ideas, they rule because they have the guns.


If US style democracy is so great why cant we let it speak for itself? In order to change politics you have to change culture and aspirations, pre-conditions are usually built, not imposed and violently forcing democracy upon a nation is a high risk venture, costly in economic, political and human terms, especially when that nation has been transformed into the "frontline for the war on terrorism".

[QUOTE][B]
If liberating Iraq from Saddam Hussein can be seen as a primary justification for this war... how do we choose which future nations to liberate? Should we then go barging into other nations where tyrants can be seen as an impediment to democracy?


That's not a simple question, and the answer isn't simple. But first off, I have absolutely no problem in principle with overthrowing brutal dictators by force, whether or not they pose a direct threat to the United States. And that's because I believe in the common dignity of all humanity as a cause worth fighting for. But I'm well aware that, as a practical matter, we cannot do this to every dictator. Who's next? Maybe nobody for a while. We have other tools available as well, and we will use those other tools where we can. But Saddam was an obvious standout, those other tools weren't working with him, and he presented a unique challenge and threat to US interests.


Do we maintain the *act tough* philosophy and threaten or invade all nations seen to be sympathetic to terrorist activity? Bombs and destruction don't seem like a very satisfactory way to usher in democracy and inspire nations to a better way of life.

We have tried many things in Iraq, and nothing short of war worked to change the basic problem. That is not the case with every state which we have problems with. North Korea, for example, depends on external aid for its very survival, and that provides significant leverage which was never going to exist for Iraq. Yes, bombs are not a particularly satisfactory way to usher in democracy. But there WAS nothing else that was going to bring about any sort of democratic reform in Iraq. You keep saying that we should lead by example. But in the case of Iraq, that's not a plan or a strategy, that's a useless platitude. Saddam was not someone we could sway with arguments. He was not someone interested in democratic reforms or even the basic welfare of his people. And it didn't matter how much we got the Iraqis themselves to want democracy, he had a stranglehold on them, and them wanting democracy (which I believe they have wanted and still do) wasn't ever going to change that. What did change that? Bombs. Unsatisfactory? Perhaps. But not nearly as unsatisfactory to me as leaving Saddam in power. What about you?

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by Ziggurat


1. On a level playing field, hell yes. But the world isn't a level playing field.

2. But first off, I have absolutely no problem in principle with overthrowing brutal dictators by force, whether or not they pose a direct threat to the United States. And that's because I believe in the common dignity of all humanity as a cause worth fighting for.

1. Funny, a lot of the world thinks the same thing about the power the US enjoys. I.e. the US enjoys advantages it exploits to stay ahead of the rest of the world economically. I guess a level playing field depends on what game you are playing. We have the same situation when it comes to advocating free trade - free trade tends to be how we define it to our advantage (US tariffs on steel imports for example).

2. The end justifies the means, eh Ziggy? Call it what it is. Do it for a "noble" purpose and that makes everything OK. I don't think so. We must respect sovereignty or expect more wars. Of course, there are plenty of people in the US who want more wars. And there are always "noble" causes to advocate.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by DrChinese

1. Funny, a lot of the world thinks the same thing about the power the US enjoys. I.e. the US enjoys advantages it exploits to stay ahead of the rest of the world economically. I guess a level playing field depends on what game you are playing. We have the same situation when it comes to advocating free trade - free trade tends to be how we define it to our advantage (US tariffs on steel imports for example).


Steel tariffs are a bad thing. And while they help the US steel industry, they hurt the rest of the US economy (in the form of higher prices), so they don't actually give us an advantage overall. But we're far from alone in pursuing harmful protectionism (the EU engages in plenty of the same), and I have no intention of defending it. But are you seriously trying to blame us for the world's problems? Yes, some people are under the deluded impression that we're to blame for everything. Funny thing about that, though: the countries that actually improve their situation don't waste their energy playing the blame game. Which game do you want to play today?


2. The end justifies the means, eh Ziggy? Call it what it is. Do it for a "noble" purpose and that makes everything OK. I don't think so. We must respect sovereignty or expect more wars.


The ends don't matter, eh Dr. C? We can flip blatant mischaracterizations around all day if you want (deja vu). And frankly, compared to human rights, I believe very much that sovereignty should play second fiddle. I'll willingly trample on a dictator's sovereignty any day of the week. Do you think that us respecting sovereignty in any way guarantees that our enemies will as well? Nope, not going to happen. The sovereignty of a dictatorship should NOT be treated with the same kind of respect that we treat the sovereignty of a democracy. The later has positive value, the former has negative value. I make no appologies about the distinction.

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by Ziggurat
The ends don't matter, eh Dr. C? We can flip blatant mischaracterizations around all day if you want (deja vu). And frankly, compared to human rights, I believe very much that sovereignty should play second fiddle. I'll willingly trample on a dictator's sovereignty any day of the week. Do you think that us respecting sovereignty in any way guarantees that our enemies will as well? Nope, not going to happen. The sovereignty of a dictatorship should NOT be treated with the same kind of respect that we treat the sovereignty of a democracy. The later has positive value, the former has negative value. I make no appologies about the distinction.

How you live your life matters. The ends do not justify the means, no sir. And sovereignty is a much more important principle in world affairs than human rights. Because we can usually get even "bad" leaders to respect sovereignty, which limits the scope of their misdeeds. Without it, I see a world at war. If we sacrifice sovereignty, we open the doors to every cause as a justification for war - not just protecting human rights (as if that had anything to do with our invasion of Afghanistan or Iraq anyway). This was recognized long ago, and that is why the principle is so fundamental in international relations.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by DrChinese


How you live your life matters. The ends do not justify the means, no sir. And sovereignty is a much more important principle in world affairs than human rights. Because we can usually get even "bad" leaders to respect sovereignty, which limits the scope of their misdeeds. Without it, I see a world at war. If we sacrifice sovereignty, we open the doors to every cause as a justification for war - not just protecting human rights (as if that had anything to do with our invasion of Afghanistan or Iraq anyway). This was recognized long ago, and that is why the principle is so fundamental in international relations.

You are absolutely right...if you ignore the entire history of the world.

Sovereignty is something that can be changed, altered or dispensed with all together, human rights should be held to much higher standards, IMO.

[Chaos]

So, Grammatron, if what you say is true...

...what would then keep, say, the government of Iran from invading its neighbors to further the right of people to live according to the shariah - or Colombian guerillas invading the US to further the rights of American drug addicts to get their drugs?

This is just a random example - 20 years ago it would have been the Soviet Union violating the sovereignty of other nations to bring their people the blessings of communism.



What I want to say is: the sovereignty of nations as a principle is too important to allow for blanket clearance of violating it under the pretense of the (never defined) "human rights".

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by DrChinese

How you live your life matters. The ends do not justify the means, no sir.


I never said they did, any more than you ever said that the ends were irrelevant. Or did you?


And sovereignty is a much more important principle in world affairs than human rights.


I'll remember this quote.


Because we can usually get even "bad" leaders to respect sovereignty, which limits the scope of their misdeeds.


What? You're kidding, right? You're wrong on both counts: we CAN'T get bad leaders to respect sovereignty, and the atrocities that can not only occur but even be PROTECTED by sovereignty are unacceptable (unless you're OK with genocide). Dictators respect military power, not principles, and you're a fool to even suggest otherwise. And they are not prevented from committing attrocities by confining them to act only within their borders - Saddam's genocidal campaign against the Kurds was not OK just because it was an internal matter. Rwanda was not OK. And the conflicts within Yugoslavia were not OK (now THERE's a great puzzle for those who hold sovereignty as a guiding principle - what the hell does sovereignty even mean in such a case?).


Without it, I see a world at war.


Europe was all keen on sovereignty prior to WWII. Didn't seem to help them out much in avoiding war, though, did it? Do not look to hollow principles to save you from conflict if the core (human rights) is rotten. You've got it completely backwards: respect for human rights brings peace, not the other way around.


If we sacrifice sovereignty, we open the doors to every cause as a justification for war - not just protecting human rights (as if that had anything to do with our invasion of Afghanistan or Iraq anyway).


Human rights had a hell of a lot to do with my support for the Iraq invasion. I don't care if Bush did the right thing for the wrong reasons, I care that he DID the right thing. You can throw all the acusations you want about motives, and I can hurl plenty back (the French and Russians only opposed us because they want to exploit Iraq themselves with their sweatheart deals, which prop up a ruthless dictator and starve his people). And we haven't opened up any floodgates. Did Saddam need a human rights precedent to invade Kuwait in the first place?

[dsm]

Originally posted by Grammatron
Sovereignty is something that can be changed, altered or dispensed with all together, human rights should be held to much higher standards, IMO.

And, of course, you don't realize how the first part of your sentence contradicts the second...

:rolleyes:

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Chaos
So, Grammatron, if what you say is true...

...what would then keep, say, the government of Iran from invading its neighbors to further the right of people to live according to the shariah - or Colombian guerillas invading the US to further the rights of American drug addicts to get their drugs?


You're an idiot for needing to ask this question. What keeps them from invading for those reasons is exactly what keeps them invading for illegitimate reasons as well: military power. In the absence of military power, dictators will be willing to invade regardless of precedent or justification, as Saddam did in Kuwait. Saddam NEVER renounced his claim to Kuwait. Why then do you figure he never invaded it again after we kicked him out? Did he respect their sovereignty? Clearly not, if he never renouced his claim. No, he did not respect their sovereignty. The ONLY thing that kept him out was American military power.


What I want to say is: the sovereignty of nations as a principle is too important to allow for blanket clearance of violating it under the pretense of the (never defined) "human rights".

What I want to say is: human rights are too important a principle to keep those who violate them in the worst possible ways safe from retribution merely because they have a seat at the UN. Don't come here pretending to hold the moral highground when you're explicitly stating that dictators should be safe from any retribution so long as they confine their attrocities to their own border. The world is a messy place, and pretending that the mess isn't your problem doesn't make it any cleaner.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by dsm
And, of course, you don't realize how the first part of your sentence contradicts the second...

:rolleyes:

The contradiction is not in Grammatron's position, but in the position of those like Dr. C and Chaos, who mistakenly believe that the PRINCIPLE of sovereignty is what upholds sovereignty. That is simply not correct. It has NEVER been correct.

Grammatron is quite correct: sovereignty is a slippery concept. It's based upon who has the power to control a state. And that can change quite a bit, whether we want it to or not. Yugoslavia is a prime example: where does sovereignty lie in a state that is disintegrating? That's really hard to say now, isn't it? But despite whatever political turmoil may be occuring, which can throw into doubt the idea of sovereignty, the ideas of human rights remain.

[Jessica Blue]

Originally posted by Ziggurat
But there WAS nothing else that was going to bring about any sort of democratic reform in Iraq. You keep saying that we should lead by example. But in the case of Iraq, that's not a plan or a strategy, that's a useless platitude. Saddam was not someone we could sway with arguments. He was not someone interested in democratic reforms or even the basic welfare of his people. And it didn't matter how much we got the Iraqis themselves to want democracy, he had a stranglehold on them, and them wanting democracy (which I believe they have wanted and still do) wasn't ever going to change that. What did change that? Bombs. Unsatisfactory? Perhaps. But not nearly as unsatisfactory to me as leaving Saddam in power. What about you?I see your logic and I understand it, but I have a problem with pre-emptive wars against countries which have posed no immediate threat...a war launched by a government whose primary motivation was not about liberation, but ostensibly self-defence and WMD's.

You've made it clear the Bush administrations motives dont matter to a jot to you, but clearly they do matter to others...and for this reason they ARE important. If the US motivation for the war in Iraq is seen by many in the Middle East to be driven by self-interest, propped up by manipulated evidence and generally blighted by dishonesty doesn't this matter? Couldn't it affect the outcome in significant ways?

You appear to be working on the confident assumption that success is assured. Can the tranformation of the Middle East into a chain reaction of flourishing democracies really materialize if the foundation for change is accompanied by questionable motivation and violent aggression at the hands of what is supposedly the democratic leader of the world? Is this then an example of democratic leadership....change by force of war based on false information? What if the collateral damage and violent methods used to impart democracy to an oppressed people engender enough further hatred and distrust of the US to give greater power to the enemies of western democracies, and perhaps even may make it impossible to establish peace and an effective government? In which case what good is your moral justification if Iraq and Afghanistan remain in turmoil?

I understand that with Saddam Hussein in power there was no chance at all for a democratic Iraq...and I wish I had an inspired answer for that. I don't. But as a moral question, if I were to accept war as the solution to this problem in Iraq then firstly I would have to be convinced of a successful outcome, which I'm not, and I would have to accept it as a moral precedent for other wars, as well as a stamp of approval for the doctrine of pre-emption and I think that would be a dark and ominous path to tread.

But having said all that, if you were to ask me if I'm sure I'm right...I'd say no, I'm not. Even as I debate with you I feel some doubt. I feel doubt because I dont have any fine solutions to offer for the problem of tyranny and oppression and feel pessimistic and disheartened that in the new 21 century we still can seemingly only find resolutions in acts of war.

[dsm]

Originally posted by Ziggurat
It's based upon who has the power to control a state.

Ah, there is the contradiction because that is not the question we ask. We ask not "who has the power to control the state", but rather "who has the power to take the control of the state away!". The distinction is important in determining how and when one nation can intervene in the affairs of another nation. This, too, is a slippery slope to play on. If one nation chooses to intervene in the affairs of another without properly recognized justification (either before or after the fact), then it runs the risk of being labelled a "rogue" state and having its affairs intervened upon by still other nations (from simple sanctions to war). The US position in the world (as well as its military power) gives it a large amount of leverage to get other nations to "forgive" it when it does something that runs against what other nations would deem justifiable, but that does not make it right in everything that it does.

You have made plain that the human rights issue in Iraq was for you enough of a reason for the US to invade Iraq immediately. Truthfully, it would also have been enough of a reason for me as well had several things happened:


The Bush Administration had changed its focus from WMDs to human rights.
The Bush Administration had documented for the UN plainly what Iraq's human rights abuses were (ie. another Powell show and tell).
The Bush Administration had introduced another resolution focused on this issue with a list of demands for Saddam Hussein.
Saddam Hussein had not shown compliance with that resolution (with or without it being enacted by the UN).
The Bush Administration condemning Saddam Hussein in a vote in the UN (regardless of how the rest of the UN voted).


These steps would've been in keeping with the principle of sovereignty AND addressed the human rights concerns in a manner that wouldn't get the US labelled as a "rogue" state by most of the world. At the end of these steps, war with Iraq could more easily have been justified and these steps would not have taken any longer than the steps that the Bush Administration took (ie. talk war with Iraq, see the UN is upset by that, talk of WMDs, and get a resolution). I never saw anything before the Iraq war to strongly say that the human rights issue was so important that we had to do something now. This was the problem I had with the war for "human rights" in Iraq. The "result" of the war (ie. removal of Saddam) was never an issue -- it was the lack of proper justification on the how and when it should occur that was the problem.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Jessica Blue
You've made it clear the Bush administrations motives dont matter to a jot to you, but clearly they do matter to others...and for this reason they ARE important. If the US motivation for the war in Iraq is seen by many in the Middle East to be driven by self-interest, propped up by manipulated evidence and generally blighted by dishonesty doesn't this matter? Couldn't it affect the outcome in significant ways?


Our intentions will be deliberately misrepresented regardless of what we do. Deference to those who are angered by the removal of a dictator gets us nowhere. Those in the middle east screaming loudest for our defeat are not themselves interested in Iraq's welfare (and in fact many WANT democracy to fail in Iraq, or it will highlight their own shortcomings), so it's hard for me to see why we should be trying to accomodate them.


You appear to be working on the confident assumption that success is assured.


I think our goals are achievable. The biggest risk I see is abandoning the project too soon. I do not think success is assured, but I think it's very much worth the risk, and very much worth fighting for.


Can the tranformation of the Middle East into a chain reaction of flourishing democracies really materialize if the foundation for change is accompanied by questionable motivation and violent aggression at the hands of what is supposedly the democratic leader of the world?


Is there really any OTHER way to bring democratic reform to the middle east? Previous policies have been miserable failures. It was time to abandon the notion that diplomacy alone could achieve what needed doing. People can worry all they want about motives, but the results are staring the world in the face: Saddam is gone, Iraq has the only free press in the arab world, and it IS on its way towards democracy, despite the fact that the road is still bumpy.

What are Iraq's neighbors REALLY worried about? That we'll invade them? Of course not. They know that we're not going to do that. No, what they're worried about is that we'll succeed in making Iraq a democracy. Because that poses a direct threat to their corrupt and illegitimate governments.


Is this then an example of democratic leadership....change by force of war based on false information? What if the collateral damage and violent methods used to impart democracy to an oppressed people engender enough further hatred and distrust of the US to give greater power to the enemies of western democracies, and perhaps even may make it impossible to establish peace and an effective government? In which case what good is your moral justification if Iraq and Afghanistan remain in turmoil?


Now we're getting into the realm of particulars: were the costs low enough and the benefits high enough? The answer can indeed be no, in which case you are correct, we cannot justify it. Both for Afghanistan and Iraq, the answer was yes. There were lots of predictions of mass refugee movements, starvation, disease, etc. in both cases, and those predictions turned out to be wrong. The people who planned the war, it turns out, did know what they were doing a lot better than their critics.


I understand that with Saddam Hussein in power there was no chance at all for a democratic Iraq...and I wish I had an inspired answer for that. I don't. But as a moral question, if I were to accept war as the solution to this problem in Iraq then firstly I would have to be convinced of a successful outcome, which I'm not, and I would have to accept it as a moral precedent for other wars, as well as a stamp of approval for the doctrine of pre-emption and I think that would be a dark and ominous path to tread.


We're living in dark and ominous times. The threats we face now are different than ever before: despite having by far the greatest military power in the world, our enemies can still strike terrible blows at us. And many of those enemies cannot be disuaded by any means. We can no longer rely on simple deterence. We must be proactive about making the entire world a safer place. We are uniquely vulnerable to spill-over violence. Dictatorships that encourage violent ideologies will inevitably spawn people who wish to strike at us, merely because of our place in this world.


But having said all that, if you were to ask me if I'm sure I'm right...I'd say no, I'm not. Even as I debate with you I feel some doubt. I feel doubt because I dont have any fine solutions to offer for the problem of tyranny and oppression and feel pessimistic and disheartened that in the new 21 century we still can seemingly only find resolutions in acts of war.

I'm honestly glad to hear that you're having doubts - it's much easier to just stick to a position and never waver than to really re-asses your own beliefs. Although I'm very much in favor of preemption for some cases, I'm also well aware that it's a tricky business, and it does make me nervous too. But the policies that worked in the past are failing us now, and we need to make radical changes to our foreign policy. The countries that oppose this dramatic shift can do so because they have the luxury of not needing to deal with the world's problems. We do not.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by dsm

You have made plain that the human rights issue in Iraq was for you enough of a reason for the US to invade Iraq immediately. Truthfully, it would also have been enough of a reason for me as well had several things happened:


The Bush Administration had changed its focus from WMDs to human rights.
The Bush Administration had documented for the UN plainly what Iraq's human rights abuses were (ie. another Powell show and tell).


The problem here is that human rights issues were already part of the security council resolution that Iraq was ignoring. The security council simply didn't care about human rights in Iraq. And neither does most of the UN. The UN as a whole is NEVER going to want to allow human rights as a justification for intervention, because it's a dictator's club. So I find it quite ironic that you ask that Bush should have done something that would basically guarantee zero interest or support from the UN.


The Bush Administration had introduced another resolution focused on this issue with a list of demands for Saddam Hussein.


There were already unmet human rights issues in previous security council resolutions. Resolutions don't matter to Saddam.


Saddam Hussein had not shown compliance with that resolution (with or without it being enacted by the UN).


But that DID happen. It's been happening for over a decade, and the security council simply doesn't care.


The Bush Administration condemning Saddam Hussein in a vote in the UN (regardless of how the rest of the UN voted).



What this amounts to is a demand that Bush step through some useless procedures in order to get your support. I'd have liked to see him handle things a little differently as well. But none of that would have changed the essentials: France and Russia were going to oppose invasion under any circumstances.


These steps would've been in keeping with the principle of sovereignty AND addressed the human rights concerns in a manner that wouldn't get the US labelled as a "rogue" state by most of the world.


Hardly. They'd just have a different set of complaints (we're hypocritical, etc.). Again: the UN as a whole doesn't give a crap about human rights. Rwanda ring a bell? It would have been great if some country had had the guts to just go in, regardless of the UN's position, and stop the violence. But nobody was brave enough then. We don't need permission from the UN to do what's right, and UN permission doesn't define right and wrong either. It would have been nice to have, but they weren't going to give it to us regardless of what we did, so we made do without.

[Chaos]

Oh, maybe I was a not clear enough, Ziggurat.

What we need, is:

Firstly, a clear definition of what "sovereignty" is and how far it goes; for example, if China can just declare Taiwan an "interior affair" and thus make the conflict off-limits to others - or if the US can declare the matter of Camp X-Ray an internal affair.

Secondly, a clear definition of what "human rights" is and what exactly it includes; for example, if China´s wanting to bring the Taiwanese "back into the fold" (after all, they could claim to do this out of regard for the population´s "basic right of living in communism") of mainland China is a human rights issue - or if the US´ invading Iraq on trumped-up reasons is a human rights issue (after all, they did bring the excuse of "doing this to liberate the people of Iraq from tyranny").

Thirdly, a mechanism by which to decide in which cases "human rights" is more important than "sovereignty".


In short, we need to make sure that NO-ONE can just draw the "human rights" card and go on to do whatever he pleases.

[Giz]

That's true to an extent Chaos. But what about the very composition of the UN?

You may put things to a "democratic" vote in the UN but the representatives that are voting are from all kinds of unsavoury tyrannies. Getting the UN to keep a check on tyrants is like getting Mussolini and Hirohito to police Hitler. Too many states in the UN either:

a) Don't care
b) are next on the list
c) wary about setting precedents
d) rank short term trading/political gains above ideals

for the UN to be able to respond effectively.

And by the same logic, the UN cannot morally legitimize an action (unless you count 73 presidents for life, 21 Generals and a Dear Leader to be a moral majority!)

Maybe it's a good thing that the USA is capable of unilateral action.

[Chaos]

Gez

I see what you mean. But...well...the recent Iraq war (to take just one random example for unilateral action) wasn´t even agreed on by the majority of "good" (i.e. democratic) heads of states. And that doesn´t even consider the people; I dare to say that the majority of those people with sufficient access to information and sufficient freedom of expression to voice an educated opinion were against this war.

I think you will be hard pressed to find one example for unilateral US action that was agreed on by the democratic nations but not by dictatorships.
And as long as this is so, I do not accept the "the majority of UN countries are dictatorships, so we must not let them decide on what we do" argument - and this "USA as the last guardian of freedom and democracy" pathos.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Chaos

I dare to say that the majority of those people with sufficient access to information and sufficient freedom of expression to voice an educated opinion were against this war.


Argument from authority. Read my signature.


I think you will be hard pressed to find one example for unilateral US action that was agreed on by the democratic nations but not by dictatorships.


Well duh, wouldn't be unilateral then. But you must have selective memory. NATO (an alliance of democracies only) did NOT have permission from the UN (an organization with lots of non-democracies) to interfere in Yugoslavia, but did anyways. Funny thing, there weren't significant protests against it, despite the fact that it was also an infringement on a country's internal, sovereign affairs. But then again, Milosevic didn't have Chirac bought off with sweatheart oil deals and huge loans he owed to the French.

[Jessica Blue]

Originally posted by Ziggurat
We don't need permission from the UN to do what's right, and UN permission doesn't define right and wrong either. It would have been nice to have, but they weren't going to give it to us regardless of what we did, so we made do withoutWasn't that Saddam Husseins attitude too? It's true the UN is only as good as its member states, but the United States has done much to undermine the credibility of the UN and yet still attempted to use it to cynically provide political cover for whatever they wished to do. The most powerful country in the world has shown its contempt for international law, in its claim of exemption from the International Criminal Court and in its policy of pre-emptive war which is directly contrary to the UN charter, not to mention the rorting of an important part of the geneva convention at guantanamo bay.

The UN is flawed but necessary. The alternative to the United Nations is a Pax Americana, which the rest of the world will oppose. International law and the UN charter is the best chance we have to provide a uniform and moral basis for keeping the peace and settling disputes between nations. Working towards that goal should be our ambition. The United States, properly led, would seek to strengthen international law and cooperation, not subvert it, because one day they will be themselves eclipsed. No nation can be preeminent forever. To hold up a single country as the moral arbiter of the worlds affairs is to undermine the whole idea of trying to create a stable international order in which to do business.

As a solution to global conflict, this idea of a political superpower selectively discarding international laws and charters in order to impose its own vision of world stability, is more flawed than the UN.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Jessica Blue
Wasn't that Saddam Husseins attitude too?


Such comparisons are hollow and meaningless, and you know that. Come on, I know you're smarter than that, you don't need to resort to such vacuous moral equivalency arguments.


It's true the UN is only as good as its member states, but the United States has done much to undermine the credibility of the UN and yet still attempted to use it to cynically provide political cover for whatever they wished to do.


Funny, I seem to only hear that criticism about the US. Of course, the USSR was really the biggest user of the UN security council veto, France doesn't consult the UN when it goes on African military adventures (many of which serve to prop up dictators), and seems to me like Saddam was really the one cynically using the UN for cover.


The most powerful country in the world has shown its contempt for international law, in its claim of exemption from the International Criminal Court and in its policy of pre-emptive war which is directly contrary to the UN charter, not to mention the rorting of an important part of the geneva convention at guantanamo bay.


I think this shows a lack of understanding about international law. The international criminal court has absolutely NO power EXCEPT by agreement of those countries which want to be part of it. It's not showing contempt to claim we're exempt. We, along with every other country, are exempt by default. We have refrained from joining in under the conditions outlined by it. And frankly, judging by how poorly run other international institutions are, I can't say I blame the Bush administration for taking a pass on this one right now. Or did you forget that some people tried to bring war crimes charges against Clinton for Yugoslavia? When I have any confidence that the international crimes court won't be used as a tool to restrict legitimate US actions, I'll support it. I'm not confident of that right now.


The UN is flawed but necessary. The alternative to the United Nations is a Pax Americana, which the rest of the world will oppose.


It's a failure of the imagination to believe that those are the only alternatives. They are not.


International law and the UN charter is the best chance we have to provide a uniform and moral basis for keeping the peace and settling disputes between nations.


It is up to the UN to make itself relevant, we cannot always do it for them. And so far, they have not chosen to become relevant. They have abrogated their own responsibilities. The US is not to blame for that. If the UN wants to be the premier institution for settling international security issues, then it damn well better start taking its own role seriously. Twelve years of failure to hold Saddam accountable show quite plainly that it is not serious about that role.


Working towards that goal should be our ambition. The United States, properly led,


It always gets back to this: the fundamental criticism isn't so much about what we're doing, but about who's doing it. Keep your eyes out for this: if you haven't been paying close attention, it's easy to miss, but it's really quite startling how much this aspect underlines criticism of the current administration.


would seek to strengthen international law and cooperation, not subvert it, because one day they will be themselves eclipsed. No nation can be preeminent forever.


Especially if it binds its fate to the will of countries who want it to fail just to fail (read: France).


To hold up a single country as the moral arbiter of the worlds affairs is to undermine the whole idea of trying to create a stable international order in which to do business.


Flip side: the UN isn't a moral arbiter at all, most member states could give a flying * about morality.


As a solution to global conflict, this idea of a political superpower selectively discarding international laws and charters in order to impose its own vision of world stability, is more flawed than the UN.

I don't think so. In terms of international security issues, what has the UN ever accomplished? Pretty much squat (Rwanda? Yugoslavia? The West Bank?). I'm all for the benefits of multilateralism, I think actions backed by the UN do gain legitimacy from that backing. But the UN is still a failing, incompetent, irresponsible organization which can't pull its own head out of its ass. And legitimacy is only useful if it's backing actions that can actually accomplish that. Time and time again, the UN has come up short on actually producing actions.

Saddam knew damn well the UN was never going to authorize an invasion, and so he never felt like he needed to fully comply with it. Why the hell should he, if he got away with it for over a decade? The UN made itself irrelevant by making it clear it had no intention of backing up its own demands with the only thing that would ever make a difference: military force. And it's precisely that refusal to make credible demands of Saddam that made the invasion innevitable: had Saddam thought the UN would authorize an invasion, there's a damn good chance he would have come into compliance. Is unilateral US action a flawed solution? Yes, I agree it is. But right now, the UN isn't a solution at all, it's a cop-out. I'll take the flawed solution over the complete non-solution any day of the week.

[Jessica Blue]

Is unilateral US action a flawed solution? Yes, I agree it is. But right now, the UN isn't a solution at all, it's a cop-out. I'll take the flawed solution over the complete non-solution any day of the week.Looking at the WOT in broad terms, what exactly are the success indicators? The US has unseated the Taliban and the Iraqi Baathists, and scattered Al Queda, but haven't destroyed any of them: Bin Laden, Mullah Omar, and Saddam are still at large - it's not clear that the total number of people willing to take up arms against the US and its allies is diminishing or growing. Afghanistan and Iraq are now client states that will require years of military support (and much more money than has been asked for so far), and Al Queda moves on to Turkey and Saudi Arabia. The grand scheme as currently articulated of spreading 'democracy' throughout the Middle East will take decades if ever. While *speading freedom* abroad will the American homefront suffer...?

Are we safer without Saddam in power? Perhaps, in the removal of a possible future source of WMD's...but even that is not certain, we may have just inspired the arms race to further heights. Are Iraqi's better off without him,? Yes, if they can get past the turmoil and fractiousness in their own country, but the remedy of invasion, occupation and nation-building is not one the US can afford as a general strategy, as I think you have already conceded. Or have you...?


The UN Charter: Okay, while the Iraq war might've finessed around this through Saddam's violations of the various resolutions and sanctions at the end of the Gulf War, the Bush Doctrine of attacking states based upon their potential threats at some point in the future is not a principle that could be universalized - and law that only applies to a single player is no law at all. Any war of aggression could be spun as the prevention of some future war.

International Criminal Court: Default position or not, the bad example set by Americans being exempted from investigation of their wartime acts doesundermine the whole idea of international law. When say you fear the ICC could be used as "a tool to restrict legitimate US action" it sounds like another way of saying you dont think the US should be held accountable to any restraints and laws. Would you apply this view to all countries...or just the US? After all, any country could see the ICC as a barrier to what it sees as "legitimate action", so are you really saying the idea of an international court should be scrapped?


The Geneva Convention: Which does apply to partisans as well as uniformed soldiers. If the Taliban was the recognized government in Afghanistan (Bush paid them millions in response to their poppy eradication program and was negotiating with them for a Unocal gas pipeline route up until at least July '01), then why aren't Taliban soldiers awarded POW status? We all loathe the Taliban, but again here's an example of one law for the US and another for lesser peoples. Here's a link:

http://people.howstuffworks.com/rules-of-war3.htm

My gripe with Bush is his abbrogation of law in general in favor of his own personal 'freedom' of action. This now seems to be the direction of the US, given leverage by the emotional trigger of 9/11. The *War on Terrorism* is a forceful cause to hoist, but it's also worrying since wars against 'evil' have no end point.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Jessica Blue
Looking at the WOT in broad terms, what exactly are the success indicators? The US has unseated the Taliban and the Iraqi Baathists, and scattered Al Queda, but haven't destroyed any of them: Bin Laden, Mullah Omar, and Saddam are still at large


Osama is probably dead. And though I'd like to see Saddam and Omar captured, I also much prefer them on the run than in power. Yes, it is difficult to guage progress. But there is progress being made. The Saudis, for example, are starting to wake up to the fact that the monster they helped create is going to bite them in the ass, and they better get ready to fight back against it.


it's not clear that the total number of people willing to take up arms against the US and its allies is diminishing or growing. Afghanistan and Iraq are now client states that will require years of military support (and much more money than has been asked for so far), and Al Queda moves on to Turkey and Saudi Arabia.


Germany and Japan also needed years of support to get on their feet, I don't see many people claiming we shouldn't have spent the effort. Funny thing, though, plenty of people did say that at the time. Radical terrorist were going to strike at both Turkey and Saudi Arabia eventually, and that has nothing to do with us: they will be attacked because they fostered Islamism (meaning a political ideology not simply the religion), and the Islamists inevitably feel that their host governments aren't Islamic enough. They're reaping the results of their own folly, not ours. And maybe they'll actually learn something this time around: Islamists do not make good allies.


The grand scheme as currently articulated of spreading 'democracy' throughout the Middle East will take decades if ever. While *speading freedom* abroad will the American homefront suffer...?


That's a speculative and useless question. While spending money to combat aids, will we fail to protect our planet from asteroid impacts that could wipe us out? There is no answer to either question, because they are ill-formed questions. Give me a well-formed question and I'll try to answer it.


Are we safer without Saddam in power? Perhaps, in the removal of a possible future source of WMD's...but even that is not certain, we may have just inspired the arms race to further heights.


This is one of the falacies of the anti-war argument. Dictators need no external threat to be highly motivated to develop WMD's. They know, even if the peacniks don't, that such weapons can be used for a lot more than defense. The arms race is already going on, sitting on our behinds is never going to slow it down.


Are Iraqi's better off without him,? Yes, if they can get past the turmoil and fractiousness in their own country, but the remedy of invasion, occupation and nation-building is not one the US can afford as a general strategy, as I think you have already conceded. Or have you...?


Yes, we cannot do in most dictatorships what we are doing in Iraq. I have already stated that we simply do not have the resources. But conversely, I never claimed that this had to be a general strategy. Iraq was a particularly good candidate for the invasion treatment for a number of reasons, which I can go over again if you really want.


The UN Charter: Okay, while the Iraq war might've finessed around this through Saddam's violations of the various resolutions and sanctions at the end of the Gulf War, the Bush Doctrine of attacking states based upon their potential threats at some point in the future is not a principle that could be universalized - and law that only applies to a single player is no law at all.


Since when is a doctrine a law?


Any war of aggression could be spun as the prevention of some future war.


Wars of aggression will always be spun. And giving a justification is far from having that justification accepted, as the present case clearly shows. You seem to be overly worried about the power of precedent. But the biggest threats against us need no precedent to act. Was there a precedent for 9/11? Nope. Didn't stop them, though. We are not enabling anyone by providing a precedent, because evil needs no precedent.


When say you fear the ICC could be used as "a tool to restrict legitimate US action" it sounds like another way of saying you dont think the US should be held accountable to any restraints and laws.


Perhaps an example would help illustrate my position. Consider a situation similar to the UN safe zones in Yugoslavia, where hostile forces overran the safe zone and massacred civilians while the peackeepers did nothing. It was a terrible tragedy, and the only way to avoid it is for the peace keepers to be permitted AND willing to use deadly force. And therein lies the problem: imagine US troops in a hostile environment, in a position to prevent a civilian massacre by using deadly force. Suppose you're one of those soldiers. If you shoot, and accidentally kill an innocent or even if you killed someone who was likely to commit such acts, you could face charges under the international court. The court ironically may make war crimes MORE likely by the threat of prosecution of those in the best position to actually prevent such attrocities.


Would you apply this view to all countries...or just the US? After all, any country could see the ICC as a barrier to what it sees as "legitimate action", so are you really saying the idea of an international court should be scrapped?


I'm saying it's deeply problematic, and always will be because of the inherent difficulty in getting countries to cooperate with each other. It may be salvageable, if there were better means of demarkating when military forces should not be subject to it. And such exemptions need not be for the US alone, though the standards should be high.


The Geneva Convention: Which does apply to partisans as well as uniformed soldiers.


I agree with you on this point, in that I'm not satisfied with the indeterminate status of the GitMo prisoners (which is a much more important issue that whether or not they are technically considered POW's). But that's a separate question from Iraq.