[Psudo]

Quote:

It was meant for you to take the point more seriously.

What ever made you think I don't take it seriously?

Life, Freedom, and Peace. I had the gall to hope a temporary blow to peace would establish a lasting freedom. The extent of the loss of life was greater than I foresaw, and had I known of the human cost ahead of time I would have had a different outlook. But your cynical skepticism of the odds for freedom is similar to my naive skepticism of the potential cost: you trust without proof, based on your personal outlook on life. I was wrong. You may be too.

Having discovered the horrible price of events already irrevocably paid leads me to hope that which was purchased will be at least as great as expected. Similarly, the only silver lining around of the horrors of the civil war was an end to slavery. Would you take back the lives lost in that war at the cost of decades more slavery in North America? What is the number of lives enslaved equates to a life lost? The judgment is not easy or clear. Both sides deserve passionate advocates.

You say freedom is important but it is not the only thing. Others say "Give me liberty or give me death." Which of them is taking the other's pet virtue too lightly? Their conclusions don't prove the answer.

I take human life seriously. It shakes me when people suffer and die. I wish for less war. But this is not a complete list of the things I care about. I weigh them all carefully and judge the best I know how. If my judgment is faulty, I implore you to convince me of it so that I can right it.

But so far all I see is opposing views, both speculative and groping for facts to give them confidence. Your view offers me nothing more believable than what I already have, and is far less palatable to my tastes. My mind is unchanged.

[Ombrageux]

I don't have any problem with those who believe in liberty or death. If they were to die fighting, I agree, it is not the same as dying of tuberculosis or a car accident.

However we are talking about other people's freedom. No one held, or could hold, a referendum in Iraq to decide if the Iraqis were willing to risk their lives for an imported democracy. I think it's a bit rich for people to presume that the millions of dead and displaced in Iraq are OK on the grounds that they just want their 'freedom' that much. The fighting that is occurring isn't exactly the moral equivalent the Resistance..

I think Iraqis have little respect for their new republic and as much contempt for their (corrupt) politicians as Americans do for 'Washington'. I think Iraqis, like impoverished and insecure people everywhere, foremost want jobs and stability in their lives. They want an end to the wars, violence, embargoes, and bombings.. Then they could worry about imported abstractions.

Tiler: You are right that, for reasons that escape me, radical politics just gets nowhere in Anglo-Saxon countries like the U.S.A. and Great Britain. It should be noted that after WW2 the Communists were the most popular parties in both France and Italy, the U.S.A. had to practically rig the first elections in Italy to get the new Republic going. And it is not unusual for countries to elect leaders, Allende, Lumumba or Mossadegh, which for one reason or another, the U.S.A. finds unacceptable. There is no Cold War flashpoint outside the wealthy countries of Western Europe and Japan, where the U.S.A. did not prefer a reliable dictatorship to an elected government.

[Psudo]

Ombrageux wrote:

The fighting that is occurring isn't exactly the moral equivalent the Resistance.

I don't suppose you remember the news story about American diplomats negotiating to get arms and supplies to an Iraqi resistance movement in the early 90s (just after Desert Storm), only to not actually supply any such things to the ruination of said resistance when Clinton was elected and had a different foreign policy. Every search term I can imagine brings up stories from the past decade, making a little-known story from before that rather difficult to find.

So I offer it as a hypothetical. If Iraq had a resistance movement in the 90s, dedicated to Saddam Hussein's overthrow and Iraqi self-rule, and we screwed it over by creating dependency on us then failing to provide the help they depended on, would that create a duty to fix that which we broke? Does that address your requirement for a home-grown resistance movement to legitimize the overthrow of a dictator?

[Ombrageux]

The specific resistance movement you are talking about was an uprising of the Shiites and Kurds right after the end of the Gulf War 1 (early 1991). Saddam crushed it with the remnants of his army, notably using helicopters. Operation Provide Comfort was launched to help the Kurds in the north. Bush was long criticized for not using US airpower to destroy Saddam's helicopters.

The issue is not whether Saddam was a good man or whether his people liked him. I think a significant minority, many of the Sunnis, were attached to him for reasons of privilege. The rest would quite likely be very happy to see him replaced by almost anything. The U.S.A. replaced it with chaos. It destroyed the state and did not replace it. A safe dictatorship, and Saddam had long finished any wars or mass killings he did (and if he were to begin a repeat that might be legal grounds for war), is not better than anarchy.

I don't think the U.S.A. meant anarchy. Things aren't going to plan. Major causes were arrogance and negligence. The idea of replacing a regime and socially engineering a society into a electoral democracy as we know it is an extremely ambitious enterprise. The U.S.A. did not follow the rules which might have made for a more successful enterprise:
* The invasion was done with around a third as troops of what war planners considering an invasion in the Clinton years proposed.
* It was not done, as in the first Gulf War, with a broad the coalition to share the burden to the fullest extent. In GW1, various allies increased by about half again the force of U.S. forces and those who did not contribute in men did so in cash (Japan, Germany, the Gulf States) which in fact turned into virtually a net profit for the U.S.A. In GW1, even the Soviet Union voted for the war. He we have Russia, France and Germany among a host of others being opposed to it, states who because of this the U.S.A. could count on no support.
* Perhaps as important as the friends who should been there, there are those neighboring states to take into account. In GW1, all Iraq's neighbors abandoned it (Egypt and even Syria contributed to the coalition). By going in knowing, and frankly encouraging, a hostile Syria and Iran, the U.S.A. went in knowing the project could be sabotaged. Turkey was not helpful either and did not allow a northern invasion because it feared stirring up the Kurdish problem. Even the other states, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the Gulf states who are allies of the U.S.A. are not sympathetic to the project there for simple reason that none of them are particularly democratic and all of them would have a lot to lose if a successful democratic experiment in Iraq encourages movements in their own countries. All this precluded the likelihood of a successful U.S. military adventure.
* Although the public opinion of Iraq cannot be measured, the overwhelming opposition of world opinion says a lot about . It is not just Europe, although the protests there were absolutely historic in nature, it is in Russia, in Latin America, across Asia and the Middle East itself. I think it would be little exaggeration to say that only Poland's public opinion was in line with the U.S.A.'s. As such, the Iraq War lacked (and lacks) legitimacy in the eyes of world opinion insofar as it exists, and therefore, insofar as it is a democratizing project it is illegitimate.

Given that the U.S.A. went to war knowing all these things, the invasion was a reckless gamble that was 1) Risky so it wouldn't work and 2) Illegitimate outside the U.S.A. Once one acknowledges that one cannot assume that, because of an uprising in 1991 and opposition to Saddam Hussein since that, this invasion by a foreign and particularly unloved power in this region was the fulfillment of the will of the Iraqi people. No one wants to play Russian roulette, especially when someone else is pulling the trigger. The U.S.A. gambled and she lost, she pays the price in percentage of GDP, Iraq pays its price in millions of lives ruined.

[Psudo]

Quote:

Once one acknowledges that one cannot assume that, because of an uprising in 1991 and opposition to Saddam Hussein since that, this invasion by a foreign and particularly unloved power in this region was the fulfillment of the will of the Iraqi people.

Neither can one assume a unison of Iraqi opinion in the opposite direction, which was my original point. You asked whether an Iraqi killed in the violence cares whether the USA is a democracy. I still answer, he might. And more likely he may care for the democracy rising in his own country. More likely still is the potential of appreciation from the next generation of Iraqis, who by modern indications will be freer and more prosperous than the generation before the war.

I don't dispute your figures, your clear knowledge of these events, or the high cost paid by both nations. I dispute only that these hardships erase any positive results. The means could have been better, an honest failure of foresight and implementation, but the intent was honorable and a good future is hinting it's dawn.

Why do you see only the costs? To weigh costs against benefits and judge the deal unwise is fine, but to ignore half the scale entirely is not. You dismiss the signs of Iraqi democracy with "I think the Iraqis have little respect for their new republic". As opposed to the great respect they had for the Hussein government? It is an improvement, undeniably. And you dismiss it as nothing. Similarly, there is no mention in your comments of infrastructure rebuilt and only the most reluctant acknowledgment of violence "arguably beginning to recede". You've dedicated yourself to the study of the failings and barely pay lip service to the successes. Is this the reasoning that is to change my mind?

I acknowledge the death. Do you acknowledge the life?

[Voyager]

I think the entire argument about whether or not hte US would be justified in starting a war with the intent of bringing freedom to an oppressed country side-steps the entire basis of the Iraq war.

We went to war with Iraq because it was in gross violation of the terms under which it surrended to us at the end of the Gulf War. That is the basis of the Authorization for the Use of Force in Iraq. No nation, after it has waged war can afford to permit the flouting of the terms under which it ended that war, if it hopes to have any functional foreign policy. Look at the UN.

Back to the original topic, anyone happen to notice that Russia still hasn't honoured the ceasefire?

[Ombrageux]

Quote:

Why do you see only the costs? To weigh costs against benefits and judge the deal unwise is fine, but to ignore half the scale entirely is not. You dismiss the signs of Iraqi democracy with "I think the Iraqis have little respect for their new republic". As opposed to the great respect they had for the Hussein government? It is an improvement, undeniably. And you dismiss it as nothing. Similarly, there is no mention in your comments of infrastructure rebuilt and only the most reluctant acknowledgment of violence "arguably beginning to recede". You've dedicated yourself to the study of the failings and barely pay lip service to the successes. Is this the reasoning that is to change my mind?

My arguments go on the basis that one can't eat democracy and one can't enjoy one's freedom if going outside your house is a mortal danger. There was a such a thing as life before 'democracy' or even 'liberty' was part of our vocabulary. The entire world was ruled by monarchs and aristocrats. There was still such a thing as a good life, and that was if you were safe and had food on the table. Voting every few years is not a privilege in itself if the government you vote for is impotent. That Saddam Hussein is gone is all well and good, no more totalitarian dictatorship. The fact is though, there is no reason to believe the parliamentary regime the U.S.A. has set up is sustainable. Iraq today is a society ruled by the rifle.

The UK and France left most of their colonies with democratic constitutions: Pakistan, Tunisia, Syria, most of Africa, and Iraq itself. Only a handful of nations, India essentially, have kept the democracy of their former masters. It seems to me that the U.S.A. has not only brought another round of death and destruction to Iraq, but also it seems fairly unlikely that what gains there are will be sustainable. What is there in Iraq today that would make it more likely to remain democratic than when the British first let it go?

[EyeBrock]

Voyager wrote:

I think the entire argument about whether or not hte US would be justified in starting a war with the intent of bringing freedom to an oppressed country side-steps the entire basis of the Iraq war.

We went to war with Iraq because it was in gross violation of the terms under which it surrended to us at the end of the Gulf War. That is the basis of the Authorization for the Use of Force in Iraq. No nation, after it has waged war can afford to permit the flouting of the terms under which it ended that war, if it hopes to have any functional foreign policy. Look at the UN.

Back to the original topic, anyone happen to notice that Russia still hasn't honoured the ceasefire?

Do you really expect the Russians to honour promises?

[Zipperfish]

Tiler wrote:

Zipperfish wrote:

Tiler wrote:

words words words

I don't think it's that nonsensical. JJ made the statement that clearly Russia had the intention to invade, occupy and annex Georgia. And yet there is not much evidence that they will do so. They are talking their sweet time, but I imagine they will leave--at elast to South OSsetia--and they don't seem to be in the process of taking out the Georgian government. I was merely pointing out the case for the occupation of Iraq is much stronger, since the US has occupied the country for some five years now.

Dying to defend them? Look, I hate to introduce you to War 101 but when you declare war on a country and invade it you are attacking it, not defending it. Democracy is great. I like it. But what about the children that died in the bombing of Bagdhad in 2003. Did they get to vote? Where were Maher Arar's democratic rights when the US rendered him to Syria? What about the new policies on torture and indefinite arbitrary detainment? Sorry, I don't see the US moral superiority argument at all. Not at all. Not after what I've seen Bush do in the last eight years.

While bringing out statistics of however many babies were killed in a war may score emotional points, it's irrelevant to the real core debate at hand here, which is motive.

What was the motive for the US invasion of Iraq? That is still up in the air, and we'll probably not get the full story until a few decades later, or W. Bush lays himself out on a psychiatrist's couch and spells it out for us. But, in my opinion, I would call the whole Iraq conflict a misguided attempt at nation building. You have an unpopular dictator terrorizing a country with a strong economy, surrounded by unstable nations. What better place to try to create a reverse 'domino effect'? The resulting chaos in mismanagement, and the subsequent dead babies and whatnot, wasn't borne from a malicious intent to seize control of a nation and it's precious oil deposits, more than human incompetence. If you look at Iraq today, with the violence seemingly at an end, an independent democracy, and making oil deals with China of all places... that is why I call the idea that of a US trying to control Iraq to be nonsense.

On a further note, in case you haven't noticed, the US is not at war with Iraq. America is fighting rebels who want to overthrow the Iraqi Republic. Hence, the American soldiers in Iraq are dying for Iraq. While the death of innocent people is a tragic thing, there is a marked moral difference between collateral damage and a massacre, even if the effects are the same, just as there is a moral difference between murder and negligence, even if they both result in death.

I've already said my views on Russia's intentions in Georgia, but I'm going to adopt a wait and see stance. Regardless, America's actions don't have any consequence on the morality of Russia's actions. Two wrongs don't make a right, if you want to look at it that way.

When you examine motives, you are essentially examining the moral aspects of the war. As in, were the "motives" for war good or not good. However, motives are not objective measurements. Just because George W Bush said that his intentions were honourable doesn't mean that they were honourable. Also, it should be noted that all aggressors and defenders in every war have told their people that their intentions are honourable, so the fact that the Bush administration says that America is moral in the invasion and occupation of Iraq is hardly a distinguishing feature.

As pointed out earlier, morals are fine, but at what point do results count? Results, unlike motives, are measureable. So, while I agree with you that motives may be relevant, the fact of the matter is that the true motives are unknown--even unknowable--to the world at large. So I prefer to look at results.

I've also adopted a wait-and-see attitude towards Georgia. Russia, like the US, like Georgia, publicly bases its claim on morals--they were just trying to stop genocide and arbitrary killings in South Ossetia. I tend to look at it in terms of power and interests.

It's not so much that I supported two wrongs making a right. I was just pointing out the mindset that could see the invasion of one sovereign state by another as some kind of unique happenstance in today's world when that person supported the same action (invasion of a sovereign state) a scant five years earlier. It's not that one was right and one was wrong, it's the mental barriers that had to be constrcuted to create such an alternate reality. To me, that is what happens when you spend all your time on ideology and morals and not enough on facts and results.

[Psudo]

Ombrageux wrote:

The UK and France left most of their colonies with democratic constitutions: Pakistan, Tunisia, Syria, most of Africa, and Iraq itself. Only a handful of nations, India essentially, have kept the democracy of their former masters. It seems to me that the U.S.A. has not only brought another round of death and destruction to Iraq, but also it seems fairly unlikely that what gains there are will be sustainable. What is there in Iraq today that would make it more likely to remain democratic than when the British first let it go?

US troops. Germany, Japan, South Korea... the track record of democracies established by US troops is pretty good. When we prematurely bring the troops home, however, you get Viet Nam or Cuba. In which of those five countries provides the better life? Let's follow the track record that led to that.

But I've become flippant. I think that signals the end of useful debate.

[Ombrageux]

I'm not trying to be difficult. I just think if we just generically use 'democracy' as a justification for US interventions, it is no different then when British or French imperialists would quite sincerely prattle on about the 'rule of law' or their 'civilizing mission'. There is a dull assumption that because of our state of technological advancement, we are competent in the art of transforming other socities.

And there are times when 'democracy' can be legitimately pursued. There is obviously Germany and Japan, rather special cases, given that WW2 is not a normal circumstance and they were among the world's more modern nations. In the tropics, in the Third World, things are more difficult. It took South Korea some 40 years to become something like a democracy. The Philippines has reverted on and off to dictatorship. In other places, South Vietnam, Panama or Kuwait, the USA has either failed or (probably quite sensibly) not tried to bring democracy despite the presence of American troops.

Democratizing in Iraq in this way, with inadequate means and in defiance of the peoples of the world, that was never credible. In a sense, the 'legitimacy problem' is a self-fulfilling one. If Iraq suddenly turns into a peaceful country, not divided into three parts, with falling unemployment, a booming economy and a functioning parmiamentary regime.. AND if it were shown that this would last and Iraq would not revert to rule-by-militia or military strongman.. Then perhaps we could say, on balance and after a gamble, it was good or bad. This shouldn't stop people from acknowledging the illegitimacy of the operation to begin with (something that I as a European feel is important but also as a human being who believes we must learn from our experiences).

[Zipperfish]

Ombrageux wrote:

I'm not trying to be difficult. I just think if we just generically use 'democracy' as a justification for US interventions, it is no different then when British or French imperialists would quite sincerely prattle on about the 'rule of law' or their 'civilizing mission'. There is a dull assumption that because of our state of technological advancement, we are competent in the art of transforming other socities.

I certainly agree with you there. The corrollary of neo-conservative foreign policy is that if you do not live in a democarcy, your life is forfeit to neo-conservative America. If you do not live in a democracy, the neo-conservatives are right and moral to come in and kill you and your entire family, and perhaps millions of others, because their cause is, to them, just. They value life so much, the neo-conservatvies, that they are willing to kill everyone else to create a society that values life as much as they do. They value freedom so much, they will enslave you to ensure your right to vote. And therein lies the stupidity and the cruelty of their warped and domineering ideology.

[CanadianJeff]

Zipperfish don't forget that for better or worse it's always justified by "saving lives" in the future from slavery or tyranny. Vietnam and Iraq are both now being justified by saying that "we are improving the lives of future generations".

Well I'd just like to point out that no one can predict the future. But hey guess what...we can live in the present.

[Tiler]

Zipperfish and Tiler wrote:

words words words

Zipperfish wrote:

When you examine motives, you are essentially examining the moral aspects of the war. As in, were the "motives" for war good or not good. However, motives are not objective measurements. Just because George W Bush said that his intentions were honourable doesn't mean that they were honourable. Also, it should be noted that all aggressors and defenders in every war have told their people that their intentions are honourable, so the fact that the Bush administration says that America is moral in the invasion and occupation of Iraq is hardly a distinguishing feature.

As pointed out earlier, morals are fine, but at what point do results count? Results, unlike motives, are measureable. So, while I agree with you that motives may be relevant, the fact of the matter is that the true motives are unknown--even unknowable--to the world at large. So I prefer to look at results.

I've also adopted a wait-and-see attitude towards Georgia. Russia, like the US, like Georgia, publicly bases its claim on morals--they were just trying to stop genocide and arbitrary killings in South Ossetia. I tend to look at it in terms of power and interests.

It's not so much that I supported two wrongs making a right. I was just pointing out the mindset that could see the invasion of one sovereign state by another as some kind of unique happenstance in today's world when that person supported the same action (invasion of a sovereign state) a scant five years earlier. It's not that one was right and one was wrong, it's the mental barriers that had to be constrcuted to create such an alternate reality. To me, that is what happens when you spend all your time on ideology and morals and not enough on facts and results.

Well, as I said about looking at results without looking at the morality, you may be able to make objective judgments and be able to see things for what they are, it's the thing you don't want to do when dealing with justice. The comparison between Iraq and South Ossetia relies on the concept of justice, in the sense of 'was the war just or was it unjust, who is guilty for the death of innocents, etc.' Unfortunately, as you said, these concepts are hard to gauge and are well masked behind lies of all kinds. However, it's the only way to be able to decide whether Russia or America was more 'right' in their actions, if that's your goal.

It's just the same as the example I gave. In comparing justifiable homicide with murder, merely looking at the results of the situation can paint an inaccurate picture. Even including the events leading up to the incident can be equally vague. Only if you look at the reasons and the morals behind the actions can you decipher the difference between the two situations. And, as you said, this is hard to do, easy to get wrong, and even easier to make politics out of.

[Zipperfish]

Tiler wrote:

Well, as I said about looking at results without looking at the morality, you may be able to make objective judgments and be able to see things for what they are, it's the thing you don't want to do when dealing with justice. The comparison between Iraq and South Ossetia relies on the concept of justice, in the sense of 'was the war just or was it unjust, who is guilty for the death of innocents, etc.' Unfortunately, as you said, these concepts are hard to gauge and are well masked behind lies of all kinds. However, it's the only way to be able to decide whether Russia or America was more 'right' in their actions, if that's your goal.

It's just the same as the example I gave. In comparing justifiable homicide with murder, merely looking at the results of the situation can paint an inaccurate picture. Even including the events leading up to the incident can be equally vague. Only if you look at the reasons and the morals behind the actions can you decipher the difference between the two situations. And, as you said, this is hard to do, easy to get wrong, and even easier to make politics out of.

Agreed. That's probably why hindsight is such a valubale tool in analyisis. A lot of the lies and inaccuracies become evident over time.

I would argue that "just" is different than "moral," in that just implies a legal argument. There are legal theories of a "just war." Admittedly, law is just codified morality, but it has some virtue of objectivity since it is written down and cannot be arbitrarily changed. Like morals, all invaders insist that their invasions are legal these days. However, unlike morals, at least their opinions of lgeality is open to rational inquiry. There is no rational response to "we are good and they are evil."