Bush & Saddam Should Stand Trial

[BPSCG]

Would having a peaceful, prosperous, democratic Islamic middle east tomorrow be worth the millions of deaths that might be necessary to bring it about?

I'll be the first to say I don't know the answer to those questions - they're questions for better philosophers and ethicists than I. But I fear events will one day force us to answer "yes."

So you want a peaceful world tomorrow and you hope you will have it through war!

Wow. It's like you're deliberately trying to misunderstand what I write, starting with your apparent attempt to make it sound like by "tomorrow," I meant "in the next 24 hours." Anyone with more than a sixth-grade education would have recognized the rhetorical device I used, where "tomorrow" means "in the future." Since you obviously have more than a sixth-grade education, I conclude you were deliberately trying to misunderstand.

And where do you get the idea that I hope for a war? I say I fear there may be one and you translate that as meaning I hope there will be one. So when someone says, "I fear I may be catching a cold," does that mean you believe he hopes he's catching one?

It is interesting that in spite of your self-expressed uncertainty and fear, you cling to the myth that you will save the Middle East and the world through war. Just look at the way you, Mephisto, Jocko, and a_unique_person carry on. I wonder what all of you would do to each other if given weapons and left in a room by yourselves. Is that a reflection of the world you want to impose on others?

This is so bizarre it defies reply.

 

[davefoc]

You missed the point, from top to bottom. I wasn't saying you beat the insurgents into submission. I was saying that if the Iraq invasion had wrought death and destruction comparable to what Germany and Japan had sufferred in WW II, or the Confederacy had suffered in the American Civil War, there would have been no Iraqi insurrection to begin with. When you have demonstrated that you are ready, willing, and able to utterly destroy your enemy, and his only way to keep you from doing that is to stop resisting you, he will stop resisting you rather than face destruction. People here talk about "imposing democracy," as if that's something bad, but that is exactly what we did to Germany and Japan, countries that, before WW II, were no more democratic than Iraq.

The ugly question is, is it worth the terrible cost? Would the world today be better off if the Nazis and the Japanese had extended their savagery no farther than their own borders, and not dragged the rest of the world into a war? Is having peaceful, prosperous, and democratic Germany and Japan today worth the hundreds of millions of lives it cost?

Would having a peaceful, prosperous, democratic Iraq today be worth the destruction that might be necessary to bring it about?

Would having a peaceful, prosperous, democratic Islamic middle east tomorrow be worth the millions of deaths that might be necessary to bring it about?

I'll be the first to say I don't know the answer to those questions - they're questions for better philosophers and ethicists than I. But I fear events will one day force us to to answer "yes."

It seems to me in the above you have done a pretty good job of putting forth the major uncertainties involved with intervention or no intervention in the middle east by the west. Another way of saying it might be, damned if you do, damned if you don't.

My guess, is that the middle east has been made more dangerous by western intervention. Further, my guess is that the post colonial intervention by the US has also tended to make things less rather than more safe. ETA: so I am thinking a little more damned if we do then if we don't.

As to the idea that the US could impose democracy on the middle east if it inflicted sufficient damage. I am not sure of that without hypothesizing overwhelming casualties. One advantage that US had with Germany and Japan was that these were natural countries. Right now the US is trying to make Iraq work as a country when it seems to have much less of a sense of national unity than Japan or Germany.

Another issue is that the attempt to stabilize Iraq is being run by Bushco. Bushco, has been almost unrelentingly partisan, corrupt and/or incompetent. No matter what level of destruction that you choose to hypothesize is there any reason to think that Bushco could run a successful reconstruction and stabilization project? I don't think so.

ETA: I think, that at least some of the post colonial US mucking about in the middle east was justified by the cold war. Now, I think the justification for US mucking about is much less clear, but roughly it would be: 1. our own safety 2. safety of our allies 3. benefit of the middle east population. The problem is that so far, in net, post cold war US mucking about has worked against every one of those goals.

 

[Patricio Elicer]

Well, I thought about calling you a [deleted - Patricio] or possibily a [deleted - Patricio], but it probably wouldn't get through the filters. Anyway, you've got a limited amount of imagination - think of the worst insult you can, then imagine me applying it to you. ****-for-brains.

[modp]Mephisto, please stop, or you'll risk further sanctions[/modp]

 

[Darth Rotor]

That is exactly what worries me. People no longer fear war.

Which people?

Weren't you paying attention to the anti war rallies before the War in Afghanistan, and the much larger ones (both in US and elsewhere) before the Iraq war?

Without using platitudes and strawmen, is there a point you were trying to get across that does not include bludgeoning the obvious fact that people die in war?

A couple of aphorisms for you from an expert on war, Robert E Lee:

"It is well that war is so terrible. We should grow too fond of it." (I have seen "otherwise" added at the end of that in some citations.)

"What a cruel thing is war: to separate and destroy families and friends, and mar the purest joys and happiness God has granted us in this world; to fill our hearts with hatred instead of love for our neighbors, and to devastate the fair face of this beautiful world."

ETA: I think, that at least some of the post colonial US mucking about in the middle east was justified by the cold war. Now, I think the justification for US mucking about is much less clear, but roughly it would be: 1. our own safety 2. safety of our allies 3. benefit of the middle east population. The problem is that so far, in net, post cold war US mucking about has worked against every one of those goals.

Dave, some good points, but I will point out that the US is one of many actors mucking about in the Mid East, and a prime reason it and others do so is the current industrial world's/global economy's unceasing demand for energy, specifically oil.

Absent that, they most likely be left with their quaint little religion and we'd be trading for fresh water pearls from the Persian Gulf like we'd trade for Hummel figurines from Germany.

DR

 

[Pardalis]

Mephisto, what war crimes would Bush Jr. be accused of, according to you? Specifically?

 

[BPSCG]

A few more, from someone who knew a little about war:

• You people of the South don't know what you are doing. This country will be drenched in blood, and God only knows how it will end. It is all folly, madness, a crime against civilization! You people speak so lightly of war; you don't know what you're talking about. War is a terrible thing!
• You cannot qualify war in harsher terms than I will. War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it; and those who brought war into our country deserve all the curses and maledictions a people can pour out.
• If the people raise a great howl against my barbarity and cruelty, I will answer that war is war, and not popularity seeking.
• Its glory is all moonshine; even success the most brilliant is over dead and mangled bodies, with the anguish and lamentations of distant families ... It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, more vengeance, more desolation.
• The scenes on this field would cure anyone of war.
• The legitimate object of war is a more perfect peace.
• War is, at its best, barbarism.
• I regard the death and mangling of a couple thousand men as a small affair, a kind of morning dash — and it may be well that we become so hardened.
• I think I understand what military fame is: to be killed on the field of battle and have your name misspelled in the newspapers.
• Every attempt to make war easy and safe will result in humiliation and defeat.
• There is many a boy here today who looks on war as all glory, but, boys, it is all hell.

William Tecumseh Sherman.

 

[Pardalis]

Secondly, the American people were mislead by the Bush administration that Iraq was responsible for 9/11.

????? When did they ever say that?

 

[Darth Rotor]

Mephisto, what war crimes would Bush Jr. be accused of, according to you? Specifically?

I think armed aggression under the definitions of the UN charter would be one of them. Trouble is, the PM's of about 30 countries would be charged with him. I don't see that happening, politically.

Another would be charges of illegally handling a variety of prisoners taken on the field of battle in Afghanistan. Not as cut and dried as some would suggest, and probably winnable (by Bush team) in any objective court with even modestly talented attorney's. Part of the defense the Bush team has is their pursuit and punishment of people who incorrectly treated some prisoners in custody, both in Iraq and elsewhere. The Abu Grahib photos were released by a defendent being charged by a DoD investigation, begun in the fall of 2003, into mishandling of prisoners. Remember?

The internal battles over correct procedures and Gitmo are still, due to the partisan and non conventional nature of some of the captives complicated by the fears, in other cases, of persons being released only to be executed by their home nation.

DR

 

[FreeChile]

Wow. It's like you're deliberately trying to misunderstand what I write, starting with your apparent attempt to make it sound like by "tomorrow," I meant "in the next 24 hours." Anyone with more than a sixth-grade education would have recognized the rhetorical device I used, where "tomorrow" means "in the future." Since you obviously have more than a sixth-grade education, I conclude you were deliberately trying to misunderstand.

By “tomorrow,” I also mean in the future. How do you perceive me to mean “in the next 24 hours”?

In any case, consider my comments to address your open question. Why do you ask that question and not the other questions I suggested or address the actual topic of this thread about Bush possibly being a war criminal? If you had a President who were a war criminal wouldn’t that be a more urgent democratic concern to attend to than the situation in the Middle East?

WHY DO YOU DERAIL THIS THREAD AND TAKE FOCUS AWAY FROM THAT QUESTION?

And where do you get the idea that I hope for a war? I say I fear there may be one and you translate that as meaning I hope there will be one. So when someone says, "I fear I may be catching a cold," does that mean you believe he hopes he's catching one?

No. I look at what that person is saying or how the person is acting and try to see if that fear is legitimate. Your logic and questions suggest that the fear may be operating. At this point I would ask you why do you have this fear?

I am assuming you have a desire to get rid of the fear you mention above and that desire is being expressed in the form of false hope with the hypothetical question you are asking. This thread was about the President being a possible war criminal and not about your hypothetical situation. Obviously, you want to make it about that.

I got the idea that you support the present invasion and that you were defending it regardless and were indeed proposing more forceful and violent action. Also, that your self-expressed fear was somehow clouding your judgment and allowing you to be manipulated by your President.

This is so bizarre it defies reply.

It is related to what I just said.

 

[FreeChile]

The professor’s argument is pretty weak.

Well then, let’s see if your response is any better.

It all falls down here: "the atrocities of the Iraq war--from the Abu Ghraib prison scandal and the massacre of dozens of civilians by U.S. forces in Haditha to the high number of civilian casualties caused by insurgent car bombs--were highly predictable at the start of the war."

Well that some atrocities might happen is predictable.

This means you agree with the professor.

But not specifically those.

The article does not really say specifically those. You have yourself interpreted it that way. That is not what I got from the article. I understood those to be examples of atrocities. In fact, the quote appropriately presents the examples parenthetically using dashes.

This being true, one would have to try anyone who ever starts or maybe even responds to a military engagement. This means outlawing war which is never going to happen and wouldn't work anyway since people would rather go to prison than not fight for what they believe in.

You are wrong again. If you get the approval of the international community (in this case the UN) by justifying your aggression, you can do all the warring you want. But it would be very difficult to pass because even then, there would be specific cases where military action is permitted—it excludes the use of military force to remove an invented or imagined threat.

 

[FreeChile]

Man, I have a few contract/agreements I wish I could remove my signature from when they became inconvenient

Read the article. It says how Bush has been getting out of those aggreements. I like the part where he can actually invade the ICC detaining country if Americans were detained overseas like the Nazis. He has also outlawed support for the ICC, according to the article. Why would he want to do all that?

 

[BPSCG]

No. I look at what that person is saying or how the person is acting and try to see if that fear is legitimate. Your logic and questions suggest that the fear may be operating. At this point I would ask you why do you have this fear?

I am assuming you have a desire to get rid of the fear you mention above and that desire is being expressed in the form of false hope with the hypothetical question you are asking. This thread was about the President being a possible war criminal and not about your hypothetical situation. Obviously, you want to make it about that.

I got the idea that you support the present invasion and that you were defending it regardless and were indeed proposing more forceful and violent action. Also, that your self-expressed fear was somehow clouding your judgment and allowing you to be manipulated by your President.

Well, I guess I'll have to defer to you, since you apparently know my thought processes better than I do. I didn't realize I was hoping we could have a large-scale war with the Muslim world. Thanks for setting me straight.

 

[FreeChile]

I was not talking about the wider Middle East. I was talking about Iraq.

Now back to the open question, why are you afraid?

 

[a_unique_person]

????? When did they ever say that?

It was masterful piece of association. The majority of troops in Iraq think that's why they are there, according to one survery.

 

[BPSCG]

I was not talking about the wider Middle East. I was talking about Iraq.

Now back to the open question, why are you afraid?

Let's get straight what it is that I'm afraid of, first.

I am afraid that Islamism, not confronted and stopped today, will interpret the west's unwillingness to confront as weakness. That they (the Islamists) will then commit some new, frightful atrocity on the order of September 11, or worse - much worse (think nuclear) and that the result will be a terrible shooting war not against Islamism, but against Islam in general and the Muslim middle east in particular. Not a "war on terror," but a war on Islam. Not a war to defend ourselves, but a war to destroy a fifth of the world's population and lay waste to entire cities and countries.

That is what I fear lies down the road. The kind of war that William Tecumseh Sherman described almost 150 years ago fought with weapons Sherman could never have conceived of.

Now, if you want to believe I prefer that to living in a world where Muslim countries become peaceful and democratic without first being crushed, then you need to have a talk with your doctor, because there are medications for that kind of delusion.

 

[a_unique_person]

Let's get straight what it is that I'm afraid of, first.

I am afraid that Islamism, not confronted and stopped today, will interpret the west's unwillingness to confront as weakness. That they (the Islamists) will then commit some new, frightful atrocity on the order of September 11, or worse - much worse (think nuclear) and that the result will be a terrible shooting war not against Islamism, but against Islam in general and the Muslim middle east in particular. Not a "war on terror," but a war on Islam. Not a war to defend ourselves, but a war to destroy a fifth of the world's population and lay waste to entire cities and countries.

That is what I fear lies down the road. The kind of war that William Tecumseh Sherman described almost 150 years ago fought with weapons Sherman could never have conceived of.

Now, if you want to believe I prefer that to living in a world where Muslim countries become peaceful and democratic without first being crushed, then you need to have a talk with your doctor, because there are medications for that kind of delusion.

"confronting" it is just what the extremists want, it will split the world in the best act of wedge politics ever seen. It will lead to more war. The battle is for the 'hearts and minds' of those who are not exremists.

 

[BPSCG]

"confronting" it is just what the extremists want, it will split the world in the best act of wedge politics ever seen. It will lead to more war. The battle is for the 'hearts and minds' of those who are not exremists.

Hate to go Godwin on you, but what you just wrote would have fit in perfectly in any appeaser's speech in 1938, as noted in the other thread about Rumsfeld's recent speech.

 

[FreeChile]

Let's get straight what it is that I'm afraid of, first.

Yes. Let’s see if your fear is well founded.

I am afraid that Islamism, not confronted and stopped today, will interpret the west's unwillingness to confront as weakness.

So you prefer confrontation and violence now hoping for peace tomorrow. That is the hope I was talking about, isn’t it? And that hope is rooted in fear. Here’s a simple question. How many Islamists do you suggest we fight in order for you to no longer be afraid? You may also want to account for any Islamists that may be created as a result of our efforts to confront and stop them or anyone who becomes sympathetic towards them as a result.

Islamism is a very general word. It is akin to saying Jews or Christians; these groups are very diverse. Who do you mean by Islamism and what is it that they are doing now that must be confronted and stopped today? Finally, how is all this related to you, BPSCG? After all, BPSCG is the one who is afraid.

That they (the Islamists) will then commit some new, frightful atrocity on the order of September 11, or worse - much worse (think nuclear) and that the result will be a terrible shooting war not against Islamism, but against Islam in general and the Muslim middle east in particular.

I still don’t understand what you mean by Islamism, Islam, and terrorism. It is not clear what you are fighting and how that relates to your fears of mushroom clouds.

Not a "war on terror," but a war on Islam.

From what you’ve said above, the present war is not really a war on terror. It is a war on Islamism. Remember, you are trying to confront and stop Islamism today. Also, what is more and what is less likely to bring about a war on Islam, a war on Islamism, a war on terror,

Not a war to defend ourselves, but a war to destroy a fifth of the world's population and lay waste to entire cities and countries.

That is what I fear lies down the road. The kind of war that William Tecumseh Sherman described almost 150 years ago fought with weapons Sherman could never have conceived of.

Again, how is this related to you, personally, BPSCG? The Crusades also happened hundreds of years ago, and BPSCG and America is here now. Why are you concerned about a peaceful world 100 years from now? Not only will you not be there to see it, but also the future is pretty much guaranteed not to happen the way we envision it today. Ask GW; he could probably tell you a lot about that.

Now, if you want to believe I prefer that to living in a world where Muslim countries become peaceful and democratic without first being crushed, then you need to have a talk with your doctor, because there are medications for that kind of delusion.

It is not clear what you mean by this last part. I understand you are hoping for a peaceful Muslim world. But what do you mean by “first being crushed.”

 

[Pardalis]

Hey Mephistopheles, how about answering this lie you just wrote:

Secondly, the American people were mislead by the Bush administration that Iraq was responsible for 9/11.

When did the Bush administration ever said that Saddam was responsible for 9/11?

Please provide exact quote and source.

 

[FreeChile]

Hey Mephistopheles, how about answering this lie you just wrote:

When did the Bush administration ever said that Saddam was responsible for 9/11?

Please provide exact quote and source.

It is possible to mislead people without lying to them--especially if people are afraid and gullible. Look at any of the skeptic sites on the techniques of the psychics to learn more about that. It is also possible to mislead or misguide oneself and those who follow you. Many cults exist showing that this is so.