|
Progress in Iraq (pg. 4)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
Who is expecting the US to go to Africa and Darfur? |
Many of the same people who so adamantly protest the U.S. presence in Afghanistan & Iraq. It's a sin to go somewhere that might have a strategic benefit for the U.S., yet it's a sin NOT to go into a place where there are rampant human rights abuses, poverty and corruption. The line is less clear in places where there are both. FREE TIBET!!!
| quote: | | No hypocrisy here. The Iraqis themselves would have given Saddam his due treatment, if only they had a little help. It is not America's job to depose foreign leaders, unless they go around invading other countries. |
Well what exactly constitutes "a little help." Last I checked "a little help" didn't do much good in the first Gulf War that you probably have a very limited memory of. But yes, I do agree that America's job is not to be policeman/babysitter to the world--we have more than enough of our own problems. But what happens when we even consider cutting off foreign aid?
| quote: | | Eh, well, the world emphatically opposed the invasion of Iraq. |
That's an interesting ex-post facto view. I remember France was quite opposed to it, though France was a major roadblock to any action in the U.N. despite the clear and continued violations of 1441 and several others. Support for the invasion wavered much more after the fact. Sure, there were plenty of opposers prior to, but that is always the case with EVERY war. I don't think it's intellectually honest to frame it as black and white as you just have. |
|
|
| Krypton |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
Many of the same people who so adamantly protest the U.S. presence in Afghanistan & Iraq. It's a sin to go somewhere that might have a strategic benefit for the U.S., yet it's a sin NOT to go into a place where there are rampant human rights abuses, poverty and corruption. The line is less clear in places where there are both. FREE TIBET!!! |
I don't know one person who advocates covert or overt aide to Tibet except having relations with the Tibetan government-in-exile. Strategic benefit means absolutely nothing. Afghanistan is for Afghans, not American geo-political and commercial interests.
| quote: | | Well what exactly constitutes "a little help." Last I checked "a little help" didn't do much good in the first Gulf War that you probably have a very limited memory of. But yes, I do agree that America's job is not to be policeman/babysitter to the world--we have more than enough of our own problems. But what happens when we even consider cutting off foreign aid? |
If America really wanted to help the Iraqis overthrow Saddam, it should have done it during the Shiite uprising, not by invading and occupying the country. That's all I'm saying. I would rather America leave other country's alone in their own civil wars. How would we have liked Great Britian or France get involved in our civil war. Great Britian depended heavily on Southern cotton for their textile mills. What if, in their interest, they helped break the blockade of the South?
| quote: | | That's an interesting ex-post facto view. I remember France was quite opposed to it, though France was a major roadblock to any action in the U.N. despite the clear and continued violations of 1441 and several others. Support for the invasion wavered much more after the fact. Sure, there were plenty of opposers prior to, but that is always the case with EVERY war. I don't think it's intellectually honest to frame it as black and white as you just have. |
Of course its retrospective. That means nothing. The media may have portrayed support for the war as widespread before it started, but the opposition of Russia, China, France, and Germany at the UN, the fact that it was impossible for Iraq to prove it did NOT have WMDs (negative fallacy), and the massive popular protest against gave every reason for someone to be against the war. This wasn't world war II where 99% of the populace supported the war. |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
Of course its retrospective. That means nothing. |
I Disagree. Your argument only works with hindsight, not foresight--that's a pretty important differentiator that leaders generally don't have the luxury of throwing around on internet discussion forums.
| quote: | | The media may have portrayed support for the war as widespread before it started, but the opposition of Russia, China, France, and Germany at the UN, |
Note: The U.S. is not only NOT the world's policeman, the U.S. is also not the world's bitch. Russia, China, France and Germany aren't the ultimate determinors of U.S. foreign policy.
| quote: | | This wasn't world war II where 99% of the populace supported the war. |
There were no anti-war peaceniks in the 1940s? |
|
|
| Krypton |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
I Disagree. Your argument only works with hindsight, not foresight--that's a pretty important differentiator that leaders generally don't have the luxury of throwing around on internet discussion forums. |
There were plenty of people who, with foresight, opposed the war. The president is one of them. And if a leader is not capable of foresight, why are they a leader? Are you excusing GW Bush's idiocy by saying, "Oh, we can only oppose him retrospectively." No, that's simply not an excuse.
| quote: | | Note: The U.S. is not only NOT the world's policeman, the U.S. is also not the world's bitch. Russia, China, France and Germany aren't the ultimate determinors of U.S. foreign policy. |
The US does not own the world, therefore, the US does not have the moral authority to unilaterally invade other countries. That doesn't make us the world's bitch...:rolleyes:
| quote: | | There were no anti-war peaceniks in the 1940s? |
Didn't say that. If you didn't get the comparison, the vast majority of people saw America's involvement in World War II as morally just, despite the massive casualties suffered by American forces. The invasion of Iraq was far below the standard of morally just. Is it no wonder the vast majority of world opinion, BEFORE THE WAR, opposed it? That's foresight if I ever saw. |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
There were plenty of people who, with foresight, opposed the war. The president is one of them. And if a leader is not capable of foresight, why are they a leader? Are you excusing GW Bush's idiocy by saying, "Oh, we can only oppose him retrospectively." No, that's simply not an excuse. |
No, I'm not excusing it. Mistakes were clearly made. What I'm saying is that it's easy for you to play armchair general with perfect hindsight, but it's not fair for you to falsely conclude with hindsight that, "Eh, well, the world emphatically opposed the invasion of Iraq." when that was not exactly the case. Yes, there was opposition, but I think it's way over the line to portray it like it was a 99-to-1 decision or something. In fact, there was an editorial in the WSJ right near the beginning of the war coined by 8 major world leaders in support of the invasion. I just think you need to be a bit more careful with your hyperbole as it supports your opinion.
| quote: | | The US does not own the world, therefore, the US does not have the moral authority to unilaterally invade other countries. That doesn't make us the world's bitch...:rolleyes: |
Countries make unilateral decisions every day that can appear good or bad depending on the outcome. Russia vs. Georgia 2008 a prime case in point--and they didn't even bother to go to the U.N.(joke that it is). On the contrary, the U.S. went before the U.N. for months before taking decisive action. And if unilateral means "with assistance from some allies" then I guess we're guilty of that too.:rolleyes:
| quote: | | Didn't say that. If you didn't get the comparison, the vast majority of people saw America's involvement in World War II as morally just, despite the massive casualties suffered by American forces. The invasion of Iraq was far below the standard of morally just. Is it no wonder the vast majority of world opinion, BEFORE THE WAR, opposed it? That's foresight if I ever saw. |
Were the U.S. bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki morally just? Why did Truman have such a low opinion rating? What is morally just? Morality is not an objective standard. |
|
|
| Krypton |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
No, I'm not excusing it. Mistakes were clearly made. What I'm saying is that it's easy for you to play armchair general with perfect hindsight, but it's not fair for you to falsely conclude with hindsight that, "Eh, well, the world emphatically opposed the invasion of Iraq." when that was not exactly the case. Yes, there was opposition, but I think it's way over the line to portray it like it was a 99-to-1 decision or something. In fact, there was an editorial in the WSJ right near the beginning of the war coined by 8 major world leaders in support of the invasion. I just think you need to be a bit more careful with your hyperbole as it supports your opinion. |
I'd have to disagree. I think my assessment is completely fair, even with hindsight. I'm going to take your word for the 8 leaders and the WSJ article. I simply don't care about that. I'd bet you that the countries those 8 leaders led, that their people were most probably adamantly against the war, BEFORE the war started. Great Britain, Spain, Italy, just to name a few, whose leaders chose to ignore their people's will, and join Bush on his war of retardation.
| quote: | | Countries make unilateral decisions every day that can appear good or bad depending on the outcome. Russia vs. Georgia 2008 a prime case in point--and they didn't even bother to go to the U.N.(joke that it is). On the contrary, the U.S. went before the U.N. for months before taking decisive action. And if unilateral means "with assistance from some allies" then I guess we're guilty of that too.:rolleyes: |
The actions of Russia on Georgia does not excuse our own actions. And yes, the US went before the UN, but guess what, the UN said, "HELL NO to your invasion of Iraq." The US subsequently said, " you, we'r doing it anyways." So essentially, what the US did was 10x worse than the Russians invading Georgia. And those "with assistance from some allies", it's obvious they also joined the " the UN bandwagon", going against the obvious will of the world, against their own people's wishes, and therefore, yes, a unilateral action.
| quote: | | Were the U.S. bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki morally just? Why did Truman have such a low opinion rating? What is morally just? Morality is not an objective standard. |
They were morally just. It was World War II. Japan attacked us. We had every right to attack them and depose their regime. Truman's opinion rating is irrelevant. Morality can be deduced through several means. Namely, Just War Theory, and a vote by the nations of the world at the UN. Clearly, the actions on Iraq did not have a Just Cause, nor were they approved by the UN, thus, it was an immoral, unilateral action. |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
And yes, the US went before the UN, but guess what, the UN said, "HELL NO to your invasion of Iraq." The US subsequently said, " you, we'r doing it anyways." So essentially, what the US did was 10x worse than the Russians invading Georgia. And those "with assistance from some allies", it's obvious they also joined the " the UN bandwagon", going against the obvious will of the world, against their own people's wishes, and therefore, yes, a unilateral action. |
To think, I always thought it was more like a few of the voting members did not think the U.S. should take military action, with France specifically insisted they would veto any vote in support of using force(remember the days when a lot of people boycotted France? I knew plenty of people who refused to drink Grey Goose. Was that just hate for the French, or was that also a sign of support for America taking action?). The U.S., in turn, maintained that it held the authority to take action based on Iraq's history of non-compliance with UN resolutions and mandates, further supported by the contention that terrorists that would bring harm to the U.S. were being financed and trained in Iraq. Whether or not they had reservations, a majority of the voting members voted in support of the U.S. action.
It wasn't about a cowboy saying ' You' to a bunch of poor people to get his rocks off.
Not to mention that the U.S. did not explicitly need approval from the U.N. to pursue a foreign policy direction, though certainly there will always be consequences to actions. And Congress did grant Bush legal authority to invade in October 2002. That new information has come to light after the fact does not change the basis upon which the original decisions were made on available intel. It is what it is.
| quote: | | Clearly, the actions on Iraq did not have a Just Cause, nor were they approved by the UN, thus, it was an immoral, unilateral action. |
Love how you capitalize "Just Cause" like it is some sort of legal document or a commandment or something that came off the Magna Carta. |
|
|
| Krypton |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
To think, I always thought it was more like a few of the voting members did not think the U.S. should take military action, with France specifically insisted they would veto any vote in support of using force(remember the days when a lot of people boycotted France? I knew plenty of people who refused to drink Grey Goose. Was that just hate for the French, or was that also a sign of support for America taking action?). The U.S., in turn, maintained that it held the authority to take action based on Iraq's history of non-compliance with UN resolutions and mandates, further supported by the contention that terrorists that would bring harm to the U.S. were being financed and trained in Iraq. Whether or not they had reservations, a majority of the voting members voted in support of the U.S. action.
It wasn't about a cowboy saying ' You' to a bunch of poor people to get his rocks off. |
Of course many Americans were for at the time. 9/11 was only a year old. I'm talking about worldwide support. Europe, even the countries who sent a token force, their populace was undeniably against any invasion. BEFORE the invasion. Not to mention the rest of the world, most importantly, the UN rejecting such an invasion.
| quote: | | Not to mention that the U.S. did not explicitly need approval from the U.N. to pursue a foreign policy direction, though certainly there will always be consequences to actions. And Congress did grant Bush legal authority to invade in October 2002. That new information has come to light after the fact does not change the basis upon which the original decisions were made on available intel. It is what it is. |
The initiation of a large scale war should require UN approval, and if not, it should be labeled a war of aggression. The worst part of the American unilateral action was they did it even when the UN Security Council said no! That's worse than not having gone to the UN at all in my book...
| quote: | | Love how you capitalize "Just Cause" like it is some sort of legal document or a commandment or something that came off the Magna Carta. |
It is a concept in international political science, which certainly deserved to be capitalized. |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
Of course many Americans were for at the time. 9/11 was only a year old. I'm talking about worldwide support. Europe, even the countries who sent a token force, their populace was undeniably against any invasion. BEFORE the invasion. Not to mention the rest of the world, most importantly, the UN rejecting such an invasion.
|
So the right decision is always that which is the most popular?
| quote: | | The initiation of a large scale war should require UN approval, and if not, it should be labeled a war of aggression. The worst part of the American unilateral action was they did it even when the UN Security Council said no! That's worse than not having gone to the UN at all in my book... |
So you're arguing this based on your own personal prejudices, not necessarily based on what the reality is/was.
| quote: | | It is a concept in international political science, which certainly deserved to be capitalized. |
Define it. Then define Just. |
|
|
| Krypton |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
So the right decision is always that which is the most popular? |
Never said that. My point is there were a large LARGE number of people who opposed this war BEFORE it started, but you have been telling me, "Oh it's easy for you to oppose the war in hindsight."
| quote: | | So you're arguing this based on your own personal prejudices, not necessarily based on what the reality is/was. |
Personal prejudices? Against whom? Why should any country, even the US, have the right to unilaterally initiate a war of aggression. I don't think any country has that right.
| quote: | | Define it. Then define Just. |
Initiation of war must meet all of these requirements...
| quote: | Just cause
The reason for going to war needs to be just and cannot therefore be solely for recapturing things taken or punishing people who have done wrong; innocent life must be in imminent danger and intervention must be to protect life. A contemporary view of just cause was expressed in 1993 when the US Catholic Conference said: "Force may be used only to correct a grave, public evil, i.e., aggression or massive violation of the basic human rights of whole populations."
Comparative justice
While there may be rights and wrongs on all sides of a conflict, to override the presumption against the use of force, the injustice suffered by one party must significantly outweigh that suffered by the other. Some theorists such as Brian Orend omit this term, seeing it as fertile ground for exploitation by bellicose regimes.
Legitimate authority
Only duly constituted public authorities may wage war.
Right intention
Force may be used only in a truly just cause and solely for that purpose—correcting a suffered wrong is considered a right intention, while material gain or maintaining economies is not.
Probability of success
Arms may not be used in a futile cause or in a case where disproportionate measures are required to achieve success;
Last resort
Force may be used only after all peaceful and viable alternatives have been seriously tried and exhausted or are clearly not practical. It may be clear that the other side is using negotiations as a delaying tactic and will not make meaningful concessions.
Proportionality
The anticipated benefits of waging a war must be proportionate to its expected evils or harms. This principle is also known as the principle of macro-proportionality, so as to distinguish it from the jus in bello principle of proportionality. |
Is there any legal document which entails these criteria...YES! It's called the UN Charter!
Basically, you'r saying the initiation of a war is subjective. Ok, well, if that's the case, then I could theoretically think Nazi Germany deserved to stomp France into ground because the Versailles Treaty was so bad to the Germans and they deserved revenge. No. The initiation of war can and is a very objective decision which can definitively be made WITHOUT hindsight, which every leader, when making a decision about going to war, must be able to do, and if not, they are not a leader... |
|
|
| Magnetonium |
Here's an ugly development. Who would've thought ...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7904889.stm
| quote: |
Iraq MP 'aided parliament bomber'
A man and a woman flee after the bomb attack on Iraq's parliament, April 2007
The attack on parliament was a rare strike at the heart of the Green Zone
A Sunni lawmaker in Iraq could face arrest and charges over allegations he was involved in a 2007 bomb attack on the country's parliament.
Iraq's Shia-led government may now seek to have Mohammed al-Daini's immunity revoked after a warrant was issued.
Alleged confessions obtained from two bodyguards linked Mr al-Daini to the attack, in which seven people died in a parliamentary canteen.
He condemned the bodyguards' arrest and pledged to respond to the accusations.
The Associated Press news agency said Mr al-Daini described the allegations as "untrue and baseless".
"They have the right to say anything they like and I have the right to give my answer," he told Reuters.
The MP was reportedly put under effective house arrest at a hotel in Iraq's fortified Green Zone.
'Retribution'
Announcing the allegations at a news conference, a military spokesman played recordings said to be taped interviews with the two bodyguards - one of whom was Mr al-Daini's nephew.
One of the men in the video recording, named as Riad Ibrahim al-Daini and said to be the MP's nephew, gave details of how the lawmaker allegedly helped facilitate the attack on parliament.
The attack in April 2007 killed eight people, among them three MPs.
"The suicide bomber entered parliament with an authorisation paper from Mohammed al-Daini and blew himself up at the parliament," the video testimony said, according to the AFP news agency.
The nephew also accused Mr al-Daini of involvement in a string of attacks during a bitter period of sectarian violence in Iraq.
"When 11 of Daini's security guards were killed... he asked militant groups to abduct about 100 people - he wanted 10 people for each of his guards," Riad al-Daini said on video, Reuters said.
Mr al-Daini is a Sunni Muslim MP with Iraq's National Dialogue Front party. He was elected to parliament in 2005 to represent Diyala, a mixed Sunni-Shia area which has long been the scene of sectarian violence.
Iraq's government, headed by Prime Minister Nouri Maliki, is led by a coalition of Shia Muslim parties.
Supporters of Mr al-Daini accused the ruling Shia majority of effectively persecuting their Sunni opponents, AP reported. |
|
|
|
| atbell |
As a general question, does anyone know if people are traveling outside of the green zone in Bagdahd?
Last I heard reporters would land at the air port, be driven to the green zone by a convoy, then wouldn't ever leave without a full on escort.
I have a feeling that any 'draw down' is going to be a crazy crazy thing unless the city is safe enough for journalists to walk the streets on thier own. |
|
|
|
|
