posted
We have killed a surprising number of Iraqi civilians for them to not be considered part of "them." By the same logic, it only seems fair for the miscreants in question to be considered part of "us."
That this would not be the case in an ideal world only points out how far from ideal the world actually is.
You don't get to pick and choose who "we" are, Anne Kate. We are the people who represent us, even if they misrepresent our ideals to varying degrees.
posted
So we're allowed to sweep under the rug anything bad that happens, even as a direct result of ignoring reports of torture, for instance, so long as it wasn't officially done?
posted
Not at all. It's our responsibility to see that things are put right, of course, the same as at home.
Posts: 2843 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
Of course we have a responsibility. We have to stay and see that things are put right. We have to help to form and support a legitimate government, to rebuild the infrastructure, to see a healthy economy rise again and thrive, to help heal the damage that decades of brutality and tyranny have caused. That will not be an easy or quick task to accomplish. Yet we must have determination and faith to see it through.
Posts: 2843 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
Responsibility is one thing, but is it our RIGHT to chooose to force innocent and not-so-innocent Iraqis to suffer in order to make Iraq what we consider to be "right"? It's easy for the party who bears the smaller part of the burden to talk about what must be sacrificed - but it's the Iraqis who are losing thousands of lives, being tortured, and living in near anarchy because we destroyed their government.
posted
We didn't destroy "their" government. We destroyed a regime that committed systematic abuses on a scale far beyond anything we've done, including civillian battle casualties.
Now, that doesn't excuse or lessen the crimes committed by our forces. But please drop this "their government" nonesense.
posted
Of course, we have also failed to adequately put in place a new government, in particular we have put minimal effort into supporting mid-level management types, a category that has been targeted by enemies of the US.
Our follow through sucked, and its resulted in a state of chaos that's unconscionable.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
And last night, somewhere in the world, an impressionable young man saw the video and has spent the last 24 hours thinking about how that's how you beat America.
And in America last night, a few million impressionable young people saw the video and were shocked. They spent the last 24 hours thinking about who should win the next American Idol.
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:We didn't destroy "their" government. We destroyed a regime that committed systematic abuses on a scale far beyond anything we've done, including civillian battle casualties.
Well, we may have thought their government was bad, but it was still their government and we still destroyed it. And we have put little better in its place.
posted
Sopwith, that depends on who you ask. Anywhere from a month and a half to one year, with an option. __________________________ I just heard a reporter on the ground in Iraq say that the overwhelming majority of the Iraqi civilians are disgusted with the beheading. It sounds about as popular over there as the prison abuse mess is over here. That's good news. __________________________
I'm still confused on how we are going to have a government that isn't corrupt or militaristic. With the billions of dollars in oil that flow through that country, and the astounding corruption in the oil industry--so much so that the US recognizes a different set of accounting procedures for oil companies, where you can write off bribes, for example-- midwifing a healthy democracy is going to be really tricky, unless We redefine what is corrupt and what is above board. _______________________
For the record, it's never been an issue of which govenmental system will be better, it's an issue of if the standard of living, for the living, will so far improve that it warranted all of the killing, innocents and not, we are going to do to get it. And more importantly, how can we be so sure of the answer to the first question that we were right to scorn further world-wide discussion and planning before the invasion.
What kind of commitment to humble democracy comes from such brazen, unabashed unilateral action?
_________________________________________
quote: We have to stay and see that things are put right. We have to help to form and support a legitimate government, to rebuild the infrastructure, to see a healthy economy rise again and thrive, to help heal the damage that decades of brutality and tyranny have caused.
I'm just not sure that even if we do all of this, which I think we are obliged to do, you can ever just put right.
This idea of "putting right" is beyond me. If I'm a modestly successful family man who had figured out how to eek by under Saddam's rule and raise family in a largely stable environment, how can you "put right" the wife and kids I lost by an errant bomb. It's a facile notion to a complex problem. You can't just undo the damage of killing a man's family by laying down internet cable.
It reminds me of that scene in Great Expectations where Joe tries to apologize for the way Pip's sister treats Pip by piling more food on Pip's plate. _____________________________
If the Saudi Arabia wanted to "put right" the actions of the 19 some-odd Saudis who hijacked a plane and sent the plane into the Twin Towers. What would it take? A memorial and a baseball park? I can imagine a relative of victim saying, "Well, my son died, but I guess it's okay because the memorial is nice and I have season tickets to the Met's new stadium."
You can't just "put right" the acts of thoughtful violence. You can't do it by punishment. You can't do it by bribes. Maybe I'm speaking too boldly, you can't punish the "evil-doer" and offer me a bribe after the fact for raping my sister, and expect everything to be "put right."
quote:It wasn't "theirs." It was Sadaam's and his thugs. That's the critical difference.
Perhaps in the way my government could be called Bush's and his thugs'. But it's still my government, and the Iraqi government was still the Iraqis' government.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm still confused on how we are going to have a government that isn't corrupt or militaristic. With the billions of dollars in oil that flow through that country, and the astounding corruption in the oil industry--so much so that the US recognizes a different set of accounting procedures for oil companies, where you can write off bribes, for example-- midwifing a healthy democracy is going to be nearly tricky, unless We may just have to redefine what is corrupt and what is above-board.
I also think it's likely that, even if we do achieve a democracy, it will be a highly anti-American one and one that strongly supports Islamic extremism. After all, in democracies, the most popular officials get power. And in Iraq right now, it seems that the most popular Iraqi officials are the religious leaders in starkest opposition to America.
My suspicion is that our government will be more inclined to force pro-Americanism and anti-extremism on the Iraqi people if they can, rather than true democracy - if we are forced to choose between them.
quote:So, just to be sure I understand what you're saying, your contention is that killing people to send a message to the organization with which they're affiliated is wrong?
In and of itself, yes, that is wrong. What seperates Coalition forces from 'insurgent' forces is largely that we're targetting militant enemies and attempting to avoid civilian casualties. They are targetting civilians, Coalition soldiers, and each other-and maximizing civilian casualties.
quote:At what point does our desire for vengeance exceed the demands for justice?
A good question, too-rarely considered. I don't think vengeance is always wrong (or, at least, I don't think it always leads to bad outcomes), but basing response solely on that would be wrong. But violent response to this does not equal vengeance.
quote:We can see an example of the successful application of this model in Israel today.
Yes, well given that there are two real-world solutions-Israel's national death or a continuous bloodletting with Israel still alive-I think your point is incomplete. There is, of course, the (for now) pie-in-the-sky hope for peace.
quote:No. I am worried that this incident, by giving us an even worse example of atrocity, will encourage us to ignore the fact that our own actions are empirically evil -- that, by simply being LESS evil, we will conclude that we are actually good.
On that we agree. I am probably less worried about it than you are, though. And I am hesitant about things like 'empirical evil'.
---------
Ssndrake,
quote:"Collateral damage"= "we bombed the hell out of the neighborhood so as not to risk injury to our troops."
I'm not defending terrorists at all. In fact, one of the things that displeases me about the administration is that they got distracted from anti-terrorist activities. Instead, they got us into a situation that has increased regional sympathy for terrorists and enhanced their recruiting.
But of course you are, because even though you aren't saying they are right or justified, you are saying, "Well, they do have a point." That's a defense, to be sure a valid one, but still a defense.
Your definition of 'collateral damage' is by no means complete or the most commonly used. And their 'distraction' was to topple a regime publicly friendly to terrorism? Whenever people talk about 'no links to terrorism' in Iraq, that little reward to suicide bomber families bit kinda gets left off...
quote:I don't mean to villainize him - but I don't think it's right to suggest that businesses over there are engaging in "nation-building" as acts of charity. The wages being paid to just American truck drivers are extremely high - but they have to be to get Americans to want to work in the area. We can all see why now if we didn't before.
Of course not. They're doing a good thing and in the process, making some pretty good money. So your 'non-villainizing' is exhibited by mentioning the latter and minimizing the former. Again, it's not villainizing him, but it's still a defense of sorts.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:This is only the beginning of how Iraq will turn into a PR nightmare for the US just like Vietnam.
An example of a war lost by the public if there ever was one. Find me another war in which the military lost not one single major battle, but lost the war, and I'll cede the point. Fortunately, though, the result of the American public and government weakness in that situation wasn't too bad, aside from the wasted dead on both sides.
-----
quote:I don't know if we get to get hopping mad, and much less surprised, when one of our own passes.
Cold-blooded murders are quite different, even though at the end someone is dead.
quote:The acts of all terrorists are abhorrent, it doesn't matter whose side they are on.
I agree. I also still think that the soldiers who committed the acts of torture (I stand by that word here) should still be tried in Iraq, by Iraqis, and punished in Iraq. For reasons both moral and practical.
quote:I don't know if these things can just be "put right." It's a pretty American way of thinking if we say, "The US is sorry about sodomizing you and your cellmate bleeding to death, how about we cut you a check."
As a matter of fact, it's a pretty human way of thinking. People and religions have been doing it for a long time now, financial reparations for wrongdoing. Not so 'American' after all.
quote:If we saw it coming, and yes the atrocities were forseeable, then you can't just cut a check, you can't even say that it's never going to happen again.
I agree, I disagree.
--------
quote:It's a war. They want to win. So do we, if we wanted fair play, we'd hand out tanks to even up the score.
Who said anything about playing fair? She was just complaining about ultimate goals and calculated means-tyranny and deliberate targetting and murder of civilians. Rather different from American style warfare.
-------
Tresopax,
quote:...because we destroyed their government.
Well, we may have thought their government was bad, but it was still their government and we still destroyed it. And we have put little better in its place.
Perhaps in the way my government could be called Bush's and his thugs'. But it's still my government, and the Iraqi government was still the Iraqis' government.
When did Sadddam Hussein's regime become the government of the Iraqi people? It must have happened after we toppled it; sure as hell it was not before we did. We didn't just 'think' it was bad, it was bad. And yes, if you go by the short-term (which we are screwing up), then yes, we've put little better in its place.
And not remotely in the same way, Tresopax. That is a ridiculous, stupid, incorrect and offensive point. Categorize for me, if you will, the similarities between Dubya and Saddam, excluding that you voted for neither.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rakeesh (in reply to my remarks on "collateral damage):
quote:But of course you are, because even though you aren't saying they are right or justified, you are saying, "Well, they do have a point." That's a defense, to be sure a valid one, but still a defense.
Your definition of 'collateral damage' is by no means complete or the most commonly used. And their 'distraction' was to topple a regime publicly friendly to terrorism? Whenever people talk about 'no links to terrorism' in Iraq, that little reward to suicide bomber families bit kinda gets left off...
Rakeesh, the points you make in your second paragraph are a fair rejoinder. The first paragraph, though, is way off base (interpreting my statement as "they (terrorists?) do have a point."
Yes - it was a distraction from actually going after the cells that were and are hiding throughout Afghanistan and other regions. While there was support for terrorism by Saddam, there are other contenders for being more significant financial backers of terrorism in the area.
Also, in response to my comments about Richard Berg's motives for being in Iraq:
quote:Of course not. They're doing a good thing and in the process, making some pretty good money. So your 'non-villainizing' is exhibited by mentioning the latter and minimizing the former. Again, it's not villainizing him, but it's still a defense of sorts.
I don't see why people have a problem with this. Isn't emphasizing his reported wishes to help while minimizing his very real search for business opportunities also misleading?
I like to draw a distinction, because there really are people in Iraq and other distressed spots in the world who are there solely to help - relief workers and the like, who often receive little more than room and board.
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Ultimate goals and calculated means-tyranny and deliberate targetting and murder of civilians. Rather different from American style warfare.
Not if your experience with American-style warfare includes being one of the innocent civilians whose house we broke into right before shaming their family and dragging them off to prison without any trial whatsoever, to be abused or tortured and photographed for the entire world to see.
Not that that is at all indicative of American warfare on the whole--and dollars to donuts these killers are well aware of that fact--but in a war to win hearts and minds, perception is the queen on the chess board.
Unfortunately the administration seems incapable of intelligently directing this all-important game piece. Which is rather odd considering how effectively they move it around here on the domestic front.
Posts: 4350 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Perhaps in the way my government could be called Bush's and his thugs'. But it's still my government, and the Iraqi government was still the Iraqis' government.
No. You had a say in the process that resulted in Bush's election, even if your preferred candidate lost.
Put it this way: in our country, the Ralph Naders run for President. In old Iraq, they're dead. Citizens under Sadaam had NO recourse in who represented them and what the government policies are. Here, the opposition rallies right in front of the President's residence to express their displeasure with the way things are going.
posted
Dag, it is empirically correct that Iraqi's had less ownership over their government than American's have over ours. However you have to keep in mind that Iraq has a national identity--albeit a confused one (rather like us, imo)--which is a separate entity from its rulership. People are proud and they don't like being rescued. Especially if you are one of the millions of Iraqis who did NOT suffer under Hussein.
Posts: 4350 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I seem to recall that Iraq was a democracy for a few decades before the US overthrew their first democratically elected government and installed Saddam Hussein in its place. Is it any wonder if the average Iraqi is suspicious of our commitment to establish democracy?
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
And I'd like to echo aspectre's perspective that the "betterness" of American democracy has to be based on the most positive interpretations and ringing endorsements of our political system.
For one thing, we are BRAND SPANKIN' NEW to the human rights table of the world, having only a few decades under our belt in which ALL Americans have had the right to vote. And even today voter fraud and election rigging still takes place on a regular basis.
To say nothing of social inequalities that not only still exist, but are sometimes supported by the majority of the populace.
Posts: 4350 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Put it this way: in our country, the Ralph Naders run for President. In old Iraq, they're dead. Citizens under Sadaam had NO recourse in who represented them and what the government policies are. Here, the opposition rallies right in front of the President's residence to express their displeasure with the way things are going.
While Dag and I disagree on whether or not we should have invaded Iraq, we agree on this.
Quoting again from my favorite inspirational text:
Let us in the name of radical pragmatism not forget that in our system with all its repressions we can still speak out and denounce the administration, attack its policies, work to build an opposition political base. True, there is government harrassment, but there still is that relative freedom to fight. I can attack my government, try to organize to change it. --Saul D. Alinsky, in Rules for Radicals in 1971, which was a time as contentious as the one we're in right now.
quote:No. You had a say in the process that resulted in Bush's election, even if your preferred candidate lost.
Put it this way: in our country, the Ralph Naders run for President. In old Iraq, they're dead. Citizens under Sadaam had NO recourse in who represented them and what the government policies are. Here, the opposition rallies right in front of the President's residence to express their displeasure with the way things are going.
Rallies are no recourse if they are ignored, and a say is not a say if it makes no difference. Yes, there is a difference between the amount of say I had in the Bush administration and the amount of say Iraqis had under Saddam. But it's a relative matter, not a qualitative difference.
The point remains that representing the views of all or any of the people is not a requirement for being the government of that people. When we invaded Japan after WWII, we installed their new government. Does that mean it wasn't really Japan's government? Nope. Heck, the Soviet Union forced all sorts of governments on nations. In such cases, it might mean the people didn't consent to their government, but it doesn't change the fact that it is their government, and is the entity responsibile for maintaining order and making laws. Once the people start obeying it, it becomes so.
Iraq was no anarchy under Saddam. It had a government, so Saddam must've been it. We destroyed it, plain and simple - to the delight of some and anger of others. We are responsible for that choice.
posted
"Rallies are no recourse if they are ignored, and a say is not a say if it makes no difference."
So if you vote for a candidate and they lose the election, then you feel you have no say in government? Whether your vote is on the winning side is immaterial, it is counted. And was counted in 2000 so get over it already, please! What would you prefer? We all have to vote for one candidate in mockery of an election like dictators set up to claim being the victor in legitimate election? Living in a democracy means that people are FREE to disagree and seek change by convincing others of their viewpoint. Power comes from many people feeling and voting the same way. So if a rally for a view is ignored because it is unpopular, that is how it should be until it gains suppport.
Both actions are ways of having a say, and though they might not be popular, they matter. They provide alternatives. Choice.
"The point remains that representing the views of all or any of the people is not a requirement for being the government of that people."
Untrue in a democracy. A democracy only exists because of it's people. If they reject it, it dies. If the Japanese decided to get rid of their democracy after we set it up for them, then that would have beent heir democratic choice. If the Iraqis reject their new democracy, it will die, and we should (and hopefully will) let it. But the catch-22 is that you must instill a democratic government in order for the people to have a say whether they beleive in it and want it to contuniue to exist or not.
The same is true here in the US. If the majority of people here decided to abolish our democracy, it would perish and be replaced. What other type of government allows for it's people to abolish it if the majority of them deem it necessary?
Pal
*edited for shoddy spelling *re-edited to add: Awesome quote above, sndrake!
quote:But it's a relative matter, not a qualitative difference.
I apologize for offending, that is horseshit, Tresopax. There is a big honking difference-not just quantitative-between being 'ignored' and being executed or having to watch one's family raped and tortured.
And you can make a difference. Just because your frankly radical, ivory-tower ideas are not shared by the government does not mean your say is not a say. "Say" does not mean "the government does what I think it should".
As for what 'their' government is or is not, again you're withdrawing to the safety of academic philosophical definitions. Just because I obey something doesn't make it mine. By your reasoning on this issue, I could steal a car and it's mine until someone comes and takes it.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Alexa: To put in a working government? Not all that long, actually. Remember, most of the civil services still existed in at least some form, but we didn't build on that foundation at all. We've largely retreated to a few of the larger cities (and our strongholds inside them) and are not doing much at all besides restoring certain critical infrastructures. We aren't doing much governing at all. Despite the need for it.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Rallies are no recourse if they are ignored, and a say is not a say if it makes no difference. Yes, there is a difference between the amount of say I had in the Bush administration and the amount of say Iraqis had under Saddam.
Right - rallies are a nice dog-and-pony show. They aren't without value, but they aren't sufficient for exerting influence.
We all know money makes a difference and Bush supporters definitely have an advantage there.
So what?
Money is not the only thing that makes the difference. And for all the money being spent on political advertising, this is still a closely divided country (in numerical terms).
When it comes to who ends up being sworn into the office of the presidency next January, voter turnout will be crucial, especially in close states.
If you want to see the current administration lose its position, then DO something - call the local campaign headquarters and see what you can do about helping to coordinate mailings or help with voter registration with whatever free time you have. Inquire with the campaign officials if they need drivers in November to help get voters to the polls.
I'm involved in some pretty nasty policy issues in which the opposition has us completely outspent and gets its voice respected in a way we have to fight for. Complaining about it doesn't help (unless it's in an op-ed or public speech). DOING something - in conjunction with others is the only thing that opens up the possibility for changing the current reality.
/rant
PS to Dag: The only problem with using Nader as an example in your analogy is that the Dems would be more likely to want Nader locked up than the Republicans right now. Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
this is lovely... a guy gets his head sawn off with a knife and in order to derail the topic we're back to attacking republicans as wealthy, selfish punks who bought the election and are trying to step all over our hard-won freedom(stereotypes anyone?)
You guys are not making yourselves look good here.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
My point, Fugu, is the amazing derailment this thread has taken. It was started in outrage at the deeds of yesterday and has become yet another referendum on the president.
When you grab every availible stick to beat something with, you say more about yourself than the person you are trying to discredit.
posted
[EDIT: Not Dagonee, Jim-Me], y'know, when conservatives occassional derail a thread in this way, I don't hear too many people attack the reputation of people doing so.
Yes, the thread got derailed, but the fact that it got derailed in this way is rather par for the course at Hatrack, I don't think it reflects much on anyone's reputation.
Sorry, I hear/read this complaint frequent enough that I had to say something. Ignore at your leisure.
posted
Jim-Me, how could this not become a discussion about the president, given that he almost single-handedly dragged us into this in the first place?
Do you really think that this man would have had his head sawn off with a knife if Bush hadn't decided that, for whatever reason, we needed to go to war in Iraq?
Posts: 2220 | Registered: Jun 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well if Clinton hadn't gotten blown by Monica, I would have voted for Gore so it's Hillary's fault for not providing that service that Bush is now president etc.
Though I think not finishing this war the first time was a more direct link. Getting back to the topic:
quote:I do know a non-negligible amount of people who profess that they would rather be killed than raped, but maybe that's all talk.
I don't know if you live in America, but this is kind of an antiquated notion. Or maybe I'm mixing it up with Grandma telling her daughters it would be better to be dead than defiled.
Though in Iraq, the perception may be different. In the case of the prisoners of Abu Ghraib. Maybe. No way all of those prisoners were zealots who would happily die for the faith.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
This is an election year. And since it's Bush's first term in office, the election is almost exclusively a refferendum on the incumbent. It should be no surprise that threads covering matters of state eventually devolve into how-the-topic-relates-to-the-President-and-why-you-should-or-should-not-support-him.
And really, "why do you have to take every opportunity to be critical of Bush?!" is a very weak response to criticisms of Bush.
Posts: 4350 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I criticize the President a lot because there's a lot to criticize about him, plain and simple. There isn't much to talk about on the idea that its a very bad thing for terrorists to cut off people's heads.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
And if you're quoting one of them for reasons people shouldn't spend large quantities of time criticizing politicians, you're quoting the wrong person . Romans were incredibly political animals. Incredibly factional.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
First of all, the troll saying that there is no difference between living in the US, and disagreing with the President, and living in Iraq three years ago, and disagreeing with Hussein is nuts.
I disagreed with the President three years ago. I am alive to vote against him this year.
However, the biggest difference is Law. The President, whether getting illicit sex from his assistant, or selling drugs to get funds for the Contra's, must obey the law as much as the next person.
(This means they can only break it where they are certain not to get caught)
Hussein and his followers were the law. They wanted someone dead, bang, he got to kill them. The Ba'athist, his clansmen, and to a lesser extent, his fellow Sunni's were above the law.
What we are supposed to be doing is going into Iraq and saying, "No one is above the law."
Unfortunately, the tact we are taking is to do so while being above the law ourselves.
Those who have suffered the volitale law under Hussein are expecting better. And since we are not providing it, they are looking for others who say they can, whether those are fundamentalist clerics or radical terrorists.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would say that it wasn't their government... I mean it was theirs as in they lived in the nation with that government.. but they didn't OWN or control that government. There was no representation.
Posts: 4953 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dan, the people who are responsible for commiting our abuses are being found out and held to the fire.
Hopefully the people commiting the atrocities like what we witnessed yesterday will continue to be treated with similar tenacity.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
. Romans were incredibly political animals. Incredibly factional.
