Dust off the Nuremberg Files

[*d*]

First, if Bush was that much of a hardliner, his foreign policies would have been genocidal.

Second, theoretically the military policy of the Bush administration is predicated on the primacy of reasons of State (the anithesis of theocracy). The formal rationale for removing Saddam was not that he was evil, but that evil regimes pose security risks. Morality is thus identified with- but also strictly subordinated to- expediency; what we're looking at is the variant of the doctrine of reasons of State known as liberalism, which teaches that what's morally right is also useful to the temporal ends of the State.

I believe Bush’s careless handling of the Iraq war and disregard for the lives of Iraqi civilians is indeed genocidal. And my belief comes simply from observation not any primitivist theocracy.
The US attempt at ‘military might to make right’ in Iraq has had nothing to do with reason. Any pragmatic reasoning that was used to justify the war and appease those of a reality-based theology, had to be made up or created. Up to the last days before the US declared war, UN weapon inspectors had yet to find any real threat in Iraq. So Saddam was not an imminent security risk to the US, nor was there any proof Saddam was part of any terrorist organization with potential crosshairs on America. But these are reasons not to go to war. Therefore to Bush, Saddam was just an evil man with a brash past to be reckoned with. I believe(through reason ) Bush’s immoderate ‘good vs evil’ ideology made him intolerant to Saddam. He wanted Saddam removed immediately simply because he was evil, no matter what the consequences. Of course there are those in both the US red and blue political camps that follow a more moderate stance than Bush. These people eagerly see Bush’s hardline ideology as a perfect opportunity to push for Pax Americana. Not sure what theology empire building falls under, but I’m pretty sure it’s not liberalism.

 

[WoodPeckr]

Because they could do (and have done) that, but don't. I think people fail to realize just how measured the inevitable military response to 9-11 really was.

Please. Saddam was not exactly a guy who had been standing around minding his own business all these years. He asked for it.

Trunc,
You are being silly or tipped one too many tonight.
As I recall Osama, along with 19 fellow Saudis attacked the World Trade Towers on 9-11, not Iraq!
OBL had a base camp in Afghanistan remember, Not Iraq!
So instead of gitting Osama, Dubya drops the ball and hightails it over to Iraq to git Saddam who BTW hated OBL !!!!!
In the Process of gitting Saddam over 100,000 innocent Iraqi women & children having nothing to do with Osama & 9-11 are killed and you have the gall to say how measured inevitable military response to 9-11 really was!?!?!?
Osama is still free....damn.... that US Special Forces Training Ronnie Reagan gave Osama back in the 80's was superb ehhh!!!

Really Trunc, get a grip....or is it time to feed your chimp a banana?......

 

[Truncador]

Exactly who or what are you suggesting were possible targets of nuclear retalliation after 9/11

Afghanistan (n.b. at the time, just before the party line changed, the Left despised the Taliban as much as the Right did)

or are we talking nuclear carpet bombing just to make sure?

It's not unimaginable, especially since an undefinable enemy usually generates the most irrational (and dangerous) forms of anxiety.

 

[Truncador]

I believe Bush’s careless handling of the Iraq war and disregard for the lives of Iraqi civilians is indeed genocidal. And my belief comes simply from observation not any primitivist theocracy.

There are still lots of people alive in Iraq. It's not for lack of wherewithal either. Put simply, if the USA was irrational enough to want to exterminate the Iraqis, it would have happened already.

Not sure what theology empire building falls under, but I’m pretty sure it’s not liberalism.

Successful empires are necessarily liberal to at least some extent. Conquered peoples usually draw the line at the privilege of maintaining local laws and customs in the ordering of local affairs, and the State must respect that in order to keep the tribute rolling in

 

[Truncador]

So instead of gitting Osama, Dubya drops the ball and hightails it over to Iraq to git Saddam who BTW hated OBL !!!!!

And in doing so transformed a knee-jerk-reflex campaign of vengeance into a calculated opportunity to both finish some pending business of State left over from past Administrations and deprive OBL of a natural partner in crime.

 

[Asterix]

Afghanistan (n.b. at the time, just before the party line changed, the Left despised the Taliban as much as the Right did)



It's not unimaginable, especially since an undefinable enemy usually generates the most irrational (and dangerous) forms of anxiety.

OK, fine, now I understand. You're saying that the US should be applauded for not going completely barking mad after 9/11 and nuking the first likely Muslim country available. Got it. This seems to be a recurring theme with you and Tom. Why not just admit you are itching to see a good part of Arabia obliterated by nuclear attack and we can end this ugly discussion.

 

[Truncador]

Got it.

You so don't get it.

Why not just admit you are itching to see a good part of Arabia obliterated by nuclear attack and we can end this ugly discussion.

It is an ugly discussion indeed, but I strongly feel that the potential ugly side inherent to State power should always be discussed in the open wherever possible (for the ugly side comes out most easily when nobody wants to acknowledge that it's there). It is clear from consideration of the nature of the State, American liberal traditions, etc. that there are currently two plans for dealing with Arab problem. Plan A is to see by way of social experiment whether or not the region can be rehabilitated and normalized. Plan B is obliteration. I don't make the policy; I'm just clarifying what everybody knows and nobody wants to admit. The occupation of Iraq is plan A.

 

[Mcluhan]

You so don't get it.

It is an ugly discussion indeed, but I strongly feel that the potential ugly side inherent to State power should always be discussed in the open wherever possible (for the ugly side comes out most easily when nobody wants to acknowledge that it's there). It is clear from consideration of the nature of the State, American liberal traditions, etc. that there are currently two plans for dealing with Arab problem. Plan A is to see by way of social experiment whether or not the region can be rehabilitated and normalized. Plan B is obliteration. I don't make the policy; I'm just clarifying what everybody knows and nobody wants to admit. The occupation of Iraq is plan A.

I wasn't aware there was 'an Arab problem', and that by consideration of the nature of the State this would be clear.

This passage of yours makes about as much sense as reading Scientology, and other pulp science fiction material.

"Social experiement"? Such an elabourate waste of time and words to describe the world's second oldest profession...war.

 

[*d*]

It is an ugly discussion indeed, but I strongly feel that the potential ugly side inherent to State power should always be discussed in the open wherever possible (for the ugly side comes out most easily when nobody wants to acknowledge that it's there). It is clear from consideration of the nature of the State, American liberal traditions, etc. that there are currently two plans for dealing with Arab problem. Plan A is to see by way of social experiment whether or not the region can be rehabilitated and normalized. Plan B is obliteration. I don't make the policy; I'm just clarifying what everybody knows and nobody wants to admit. The occupation of Iraq is plan A.

...rehabilitated and normalized? What -are the Arabs evil? Your so called, Plan A is not calculated at all. It's simply a perverted battle of east vs west fundamentalism. Bush is in one corner and OBL is in the other. Both are extremists, both are criminals, both are feeding off the hate for each other and neither one is interested in finding a way to tolerate the other. Iraq is the convenient battle field for the two sides to meet. Bush has had no love for the Iraqi people. He has used Iraq to draw the other side in for battle. Both sides have had no regard for the innocent Iraqi lives in the way of this battle. And that's genocidal. And what really erks me -the rest of Washington is egging Bush on with agendas of their own. This war is not normalizing anything. Its only forcing a wedge ever deeper between the east and the west. Creating what OBL wanted all along -all out war.

 

[Mcluhan]

...rehabilitated and normalized? What -are the Arabs evil? Your so called, Plan A is not calculated at all. It's simply a perverted battle of east vs west fundamentalism. Bush is in one corner and OBL is in the other. Both are extremists, both are criminals, both are feeding off the hate for each other and neither one is interested in finding a way to tolerate the other. Iraq is the convenient battle field for the two sides to meet. Bush has had no love for the Iraqi people. He has used Iraq to draw the other side in for battle. Both sides have had no regard for the innocent Iraqi lives in the way of this battle. And that's genocidal. And what really erks me -the rest of Washington is egging Bush on with agendas of their own. This war is not normalizing anything. Its only forcing a wedge ever deeper between the east and the west. Creating what OBL wanted all along -all out war.

Thank you. You have described the setting spot-on using plain english in as few words as required. The wikipedia encyclopedia couldn't have done a better job.

 

[Truncador]

...rehabilitated and normalized? What -are the Arabs evil?

Not evil, but disordered. It's one thing for a few Bedouin herdsmen in the desert to run around with their heads full of a jumble of tribal honour values and theocratic nonsense. It's another thing for burgeoning nation-States with big populations, control over important natural resources, and mass-destruction capacity to do the same. These broken social systems are a menace to world security. The thought of the Administration is that they can be upgraded so as to become normal modern countries.

Your so called, Plan A is not calculated at all.

Yes it is. The new government in Iraq is already online, while that of Afghanistan (whatever fatal bugs it may prove to have in it) has been up and running for a few years now.

Bush is in one corner and OBL is in the other. Both are extremists, both are criminals, both are feeding off the hate for each other and neither one is interested in finding a way to tolerate the other.

One is a criminal, one is a policeman. Cops and crooks do not share equal moral standing. Cops need not and should not "tolerate" crooks, and crooks themselves aren't in a position to deign to "tolerate" anything. They have the choice of either abiding by the laws or perishing.

And that's genocidal.

Genocide= the systematic, intentional extermination of a group defined in terms of race, religion, ethncity, or nationality (or all of those things). The Holocaust was an attempt at genocide. So, arguably, were some American campaigns against Natives in the settler era. Abusing the term only serves to undermine the credibility of one of the few legitimate concepts of international criminal law.

 

[WoodPeckr]

Not evil, but disordered. It's one thing for a few Bedouin herdsmen in the desert to run around with their heads full of a jumble of tribal honour values and theocratic nonsense. It's another thing for burgeoning nation-States with big populations, control over important natural resources, and mass-destruction capacity to do the same. These broken social systems are a menace to world security. The thought of the Administration is that they can be upgraded so as to become normal modern countries.

Gets confusing here. You talking about Saudi Arabia, Kuwait or Iraq? Just curious. What's funny is Iraq even under Saddam was more westernized, secular, progressive and advanced than either of the monarchies in Saudi Arabia or Kuwait.

 

[someone]

Afghanistan (n.b. at the time, just before the party line changed, the Left despised the Taliban as much as the Right did)

Assuming that by "left" you mean anyone not backing Bush (e.g. Democrats), when did this party line change? I can't think of any mainstream organizations that support the Taliban.

 

[WoodPeckr]

Assuming that by "left" you mean anyone not backing Bush (e.g. Democrats), when did this party line change? I can't think of any mainstream organizations that support the Taliban.

It's part of Dubya's "You are either with me or against me" logic.
If you don't march in lockstep to Bush/Cheney you are a leftie & enemy.
Dubya only sees things in black & white.....don't ya know......

 

[Don]

I guess you also support hanging some Japanese for the crimes against their asian neighbors during WWII since they were never tried.

The whole concept of war crimes is laughable. Every side commits crimes and the side that loses are the ones who often get charged for them.

Don't worry WoodPeck I'm sure the U.S. will one day get badly beaten in a war and payback will be a bitch.

 

[*d*]

Not evil, but disordered. It's one thing for a few Bedouin herdsmen in the desert to run around with their heads full of a jumble of tribal honour values and theocratic nonsense. It's another thing for burgeoning nation-States with big populations, control over important natural resources, and mass-destruction capacity to do the same. These broken social systems are a menace to world security. The thought of the Administration is that they can be upgraded so as to become normal modern countries.

Yes, like Woodpeckr, I'm confused with what country you are referring to. In what way was Iraq an imminent menace to world security before the war broke out? And what moral right does America have to push its twisted interpretation of normal onto the world? I for one see their interpretation and their Pax Americana vehicle to enforce it, as more problematic than anything normal.

Yes it is. The new government in Iraq is already online, while that of Afghanistan (whatever fatal bugs it may prove to have in it) has been up and running for a few years now.

I see these fledgling governments with little or no control. They are only false fronts for the illusion of 'democracy and freedom'. The real controller is the US. The word 'plutocracy' comes to mind.

One is a criminal, one is a policeman. Cops and crooks do not share equal moral standing. Cops need not and should not "tolerate" crooks, and crooks themselves aren't in a position to deign to "tolerate" anything. They have the choice of either abiding by the laws or perishing.

They are both criminals. Neither one abides by the laws. Both do as they please in spite of the laws.

Genocide= the systematic, intentional extermination of a group defined in terms of race, religion, ethncity, or nationality (or all of those things). The Holocaust was an attempt at genocide. So, arguably, were some American campaigns against Natives in the settler era. Abusing the term only serves to undermine the credibility of one of the few legitimate concepts of international criminal law.

You didn't continue with the rest of the Wikipedia definition of 'Genocide'. --'..in common use it simply refers to the deliberate mass murder of civilians.'
That describes the Iraq war very well. And besides, why would the US care about the legitimacy of international criminal law. They turned their back on the ICC to avoid being prosecuted for war crimes.

 

[Truncador]

In what way was Iraq an imminent menace to world security before the war broke out?

Iraq was governed by a pot-bellied Fonzie, a tenth-rate Hitler/Mussolini clone who, in the interest of proving what a heroic tough guy he was to his slaves, liked to:

-invade and annex neighbouring countries

-play with chemical and biological weapons

-boast about how he was going to destroy America (anyone remember the "mother of all battles" threat ?).

Finally, had he not been placed on the shit-list and dealt with accordingly, Bin Laden would already be making use of his bio-chem research labs and and stroking his tough-guy ego so as to flatter him into supporting the next 9-11 (which wouldn't have been hard to do).

And what moral right does America have to push its twisted interpretation of normal onto the world?

The inherent natural right of the State to wage war for self-defense, including proactive strikes. An additional argument is that America is the vanguard of civilization and freedom on Earth, several decades ahead of even the nations that resemble it most closely with respect to individual rights, the rule of law, good government, democracy, etc., and several centuries ahead of the rest. The extremely strong liberal traditions of the nation make it ideal as a world hegemon; America has no interest in empire or (unlike the UN) in exercising totalizing paternal control over every detail of what happens on the interior of States.

They are both criminals. Neither one abides by the laws. Both do as they please in spite of the laws.

I'd still rather live next door to Bush than Bin-laden.

You didn't continue with the rest of the Wikipedia definition of 'Genocide'. --'..in common use it simply refers to the deliberate mass murder of civilians.'
That describes the Iraq war very well.

No it doesn't. Every possible step was taken to avoid causing excessive civilian deaths. This included putting American troops in harm's way in regions that could have just as easily been (and arguably should have been) flattened like pan-cakes from above in the first instance.

They turned their back on the ICC to avoid being prosecuted for war crimes.

It's not hard to see why, given that (as this thread proves) as far as the international left is concerned every American soldier and Statesman is, ipso facto, a war criminal, no matter how they conduct themselves.

 

[Peeping Tom]

Maybe we should have followed the UN and done nothing. Indeed, had the UN done anything, it would have been done with US troops anyways. Or maybe World Pope Kofi Annan has a secret snake charmer's flute, with which he might have lured the viper from its den.

By inaction, Plan B would have been guaranteed. Unfortunately this would have executed after a potentially staggering loss of life - nobody knows what a homemade nuke (or other) might do in a major city. The consolation prize is that at least it would be a majority of leftists destroyed in the attack.

Tell me this, o wise warriors of the leftist pen. If the current inaction concerning Iran results in the production of a bomb, what then? The mullahs have vowed to nuke Israel at the first available opportunity. Israel of course will retaliate, emptying the bulk of their arsenal into the Mahometan world and quite possibly Europe, given their culpability in the course of foreign affairs via the UN.

Then what?

 

[Mcluhan]

Maybe we should have followed the UN and done nothing. Indeed, had the UN done anything, it would have been done with US troops anyways. Or maybe World Pope Kofi Annan has a secret snake charmer's flute, with which he might have lured the viper from its den.

By inaction, Plan B would have been guaranteed. Unfortunately this would have executed after a potentially staggering loss of life - nobody knows what a homemade nuke (or other) might do in a major city. The consolation prize is that at least it would be a majority of leftists destroyed in the attack.

Tell me this, o wise warriors of the leftist pen. If the current inaction concerning Iran results in the production of a bomb, what then? The mullahs have vowed to nuke Israel at the first available opportunity. Israel of course will retaliate, emptying the bulk of their arsenal into the Mahometan world and quite possibly Europe, given their culpability in the course of foreign affairs via the UN.

Then what?

Hogwash all. Not even good science fiction. Israel is far more at risk today, than it was 2 years ago, and the US invasion of Iraq put it there.

The president's own counterterrorism coordinator Richard Clarke explained exactly what would happen, and it has since come to pass:

"Any leader whom one can imagine as president on September 11 would have declared a 'war on terrorism' and would have ended the Afghan sanctuary [for al Qaeda] by invading," Clarke writes. "What was unique about George Bush's reaction" was the additional choice to invade "not a country that had been engaging in anti-U.S. terrorism but one that had not been, Iraq." In so doing, he estranged allies, enraged potential friends in the Arab and Islamic worlds, and produced "more terrorists than we jail or shoot."

Your reaction to this outcome probably, if standard for your ilk, will be to discredit Clarke. The problem with that smear and shoot-the-messenger tact is that now, 2 years later the Military Command in the field is verifying Clarke’s prediction has come to pass. The US has turned Iraq into a breeding ground for terrorists.

It is a case example of a politician demoting a career specialist in his field because reality as presented did not agree with the fantasy the leader prefered to hear. Your fantasy is similar, in as much as it flies in the face of the facts, a case where you and yours are seen to be shoveling water against the tide. As with your fearless leader, eventually the facts will drown you.

Meanwhile 100,000 civilians have needlessly died and more will die tomorrow, and the day after that. The blood of those dead is on the hands of the leader, and equally on your hands, for lending him your support. Especially now, a time after the lies and falsehoods are commonly known.

 

[*d*]

Iraq was governed by a pot-bellied Fonzie, a tenth-rate Hitler/Mussolini clone who, in the interest of proving what a heroic tough guy he was to his slaves, liked to:

-invade and annex neighbouring countries

-play with chemical and biological weapons

-boast about how he was going to destroy America (anyone remember the "mother of all battles" threat ?).

Finally, had he not been placed on the shit-list and dealt with accordingly, Bin Laden would already be making use of his bio-chem research labs and and stroking his tough-guy ego so as to flatter him into supporting the next 9-11 (which wouldn't have been hard to do).

Granted, Saddam was never the nicest guy on the block. But in Mar. '03 he was securely under wraps. He was in no condition to do battle with anybody, and UN inspectors had yet to find any WMD. Saddam was no global threat. His power, like his country, had been reduced to nothing. And to imagine him connecting up with OBL would be purely speculative and groundless for war. The two wanted nothing to do with each other, so any secret liaison would have indeed been a stretch.

The inherent natural right of the State to wage war for self-defense, including proactive strikes. An additional argument is that America is the vanguard of civilization and freedom on Earth, several decades ahead of even the nations that resemble it most closely with respect to individual rights, the rule of law, good government, democracy, etc., and several centuries ahead of the rest. The extremely strong liberal traditions of the nation make it ideal as a world hegemon; America has no interest in empire or (unlike the UN) in exercising totalizing paternal control over every detail of what happens on the interior of States.

Sounds like the defence team for the Nuremburg trial. Sorry, but preventive war is not self-defence and is not a natural inherent right. That's why the UN charter was wrote in the first place. To make sure preventive war is observed as illegal in the future.

No it doesn't. Every possible step was taken to avoid causing excessive civilian deaths. This included putting American troops in harm's way in regions that could have just as easily been (and arguably should have been) flattened like pan-cakes from above in the first instance.

Though the International Criminal Tribunal for Iraq has no authority to charge Bush, they at least had the legal know how to expose him. Under the Geneva Convention and according to the ICTI, Bush is guilty of genocide and crimes against humanity. They include the use of indiscriminate weapons, cluster bombs and depleted uranium on civilians. Remember the disgraceful mess in Falluja?
http://www.icti-e.com/GeneratedItems/2005 ICTI Final Judgment.pdf