Re: How America Massacred Many Innocent Civilians At Fallujah

From: derdrittemann (derdrittemann2003_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 06/20/04 

Date: 19 Jun 2004 20:53:58 -0700

a_weisman@yahoo.com (A_Weisman) wrote in message news:<e55e6d97.0406190816.7ab87b63@posting.google.com>...
>
> "But you shouldn't underestimate the role of international law in
> preventing disputes or providing alternative resolutions or dealing
> with the aftermath of disputes".

Why?

Can you provide me with some illustrative examples of its success?
>
 
> "I think your conception of international law is too legalistic. It is
> really about politics not laws. Treaties aren't going to be legally
> enforceable. They are politically enforceable".

Funny...I was about to say the same to you...that is, your concept is
too legalistic. What I am saying is don't confuse the image with
reality.
>
> "International law isn't about compulsion so much as cooperation. It is
> a framework for multilateralism. Compliance is achieved through
> political pressure, not legal enforcement actions".

In theory.
>
> "It is a quite different animal than the american legal system der".

I think I understand that much.
>
 
> " hope you're not saying that YOU don't see much difference between
> the parties? There is a big difference"

Well...what I am saying is that a phenomenon like Ashcroft should be a
reminder to Dems like me who sat the last one out because they
couldn't bring themselves to vote for Gore...that there can be
consequences for that.(In fairnss to me, I was also getting constantly
called for jury duty, and it was a total pain in the ass to try to
explain what Lyme was...how debillitating it can be...I was having
documented concentration problems, etc.).

I remember suggesting to a friend even...that maybe Bush wouldn't be
so bad as long as he deferred to Rumsfeld, Powell, etc., who had
considerable experience.LOL. I now blame this lapse in judgment on
Lyme and an "infected brain".(For the record, I have voted for ONE
Republican in my entire life. He was a local candidate...and got
indicted and convicted for misuse of public funds before his term was
even over).
>
> " don't like Kerry. I think he's fairly despicable. And a terrible
> candidate. But between him and bush it isn't a tough choice"

I doubt that a Kerry administration would follow a greatly different
middle eastern policy. If they had been in power...I suspect that the
initial push to intervene in Iraq may not have occurred.
>
> "Hve you read the relevant memos? The legal arguments are interesting.
> You could disagree with them certainly. But they are colorable
> arguments. The supreme court might agree, though I think even this
> court wouldn't".

No, I haven't. But what I am addressing here is the political decision
to request the ruling in the first place. I'm sure you agree that just
because you can make a persuausive case that a certain course is
legally permissable...that doesn't mean you should follow that course.

I'm sure your friend presented excellent arguments. I understand and
sympathize also with lawyers who are asked to justify policies that
they may personally disagree with...but that is, as they say, part of
the territory. It's your job.
>

> " wouldn't so easily dismiss the legal arguments without having read
> them der".

Yes, well...you may not have noticed...but I HAVEN'T, in fact,
dismissed them.
All I said was...that the Bush admin should have OVER-protected the
rights of detainees...instead of seeking ways to loosen interrogation
rules.

Shortly after the roll-up on Baghdad concluded, I predicted to a
friend that the US would try to hand responsibility for detainees over
tolocal authorities ASAP. Why? So that methods of interrogation that
Americans would find distasteful could be used...by the Iraqis
themselves...in order to find Saddam, WMDs...and so we could deny
knowledge and appear horrified if it was uncovered by the media. I
guess I was surprised that we were not capable of this amount of
subtlety...and engaged in it ourselevs.
>
> "hey were meant as a legal opinion not a political one. The lawyer who
> wrote them takes the position that his job was to answer a legal
> question. And he advocated one legal view. He believes that the
> political decisions shouldn't be made by those acting as lawyers. That
> job is for the diplomats and politicians".

 
> >What is remarkable to me...is that the rather obvious
> > "play" politically...SHOULD have been to OVER-protect the rights of
> > detainees. Give them every protection of the US Constitution...whether
> > applicable or not. Ashcroft, as you have observed, laid the groundwork
> > here for disaster...they were, perhaps tempted by a desire to extract
> > information...especially in regards to the alleged WMDs. This is what
> > can happen if you are caught manipulating public opinion, perhaps.
>
> "don't understand the manipulating poltical opinion point means"

It means that what seems to be missing here is a fairly explosive
connection between the attempt to legally rationalize the mistreatment
of prisoners and the purported justification for intervention in the
first place...the alleged WMD cache.

Obviously, a great deal of political weight now rests on whether the
WMDs are found or not.

If the media ever CONNECTS the mistreatment of prisoners...and I am
tempted to say that I am amazed that they haven't...but then, I am
never amazed at the shallowness of the media...

...connects the mistreatment to an attempt to extort info on the
location of the WMDs...then what you have is the Bush administration
torturing people in order to justify their political hides...after the
fact. Torturing people in order to justify what they did in invading
Iraq. I mean, WHAT do you think they want to know from some of these
folks?

Not a pretty picture.
>
>
>> "Ithink dan is very reactionary whether that is sincere or playing
to
> the audience. I think his little rants are often just silly. I think
> he is smug. And he looks like a weasel. Although his looks aren't what
> make me dislike him. Just a gratuitous observation".

The media works in a very, sort of bio-feedback sort of way. It is a
loop between the media and the public...at times, the media
leads...and times it leads and reinforces.

>
> "Dplomacy rather than bullying is what can help avoid armed conflict.
> Once armed conflict ends winning the peace requires diplomacy.
> Cooperation"

And...diplomacy has proven remarkably unsuccessful in the past when
dealing with thugs like Hitler or Saddam Hussein.
>
> > > "Bush tried to argue that the UN and multilateral action was irrelevant
> > > if they didn't go along with what he wanted. He out and out called the
> > > UN irrelevant and tried to bully them into doing what he wanted saying
> > > if they didn't they were irrelevant".

And I think the part that you are unwilling to acknowledge is that
there was then, as we call it, a "joinder of issues"...and what
remained was basically a tactical decision over how to deal with the
situation.

You seem also to look at this situation in isolation...as if it has no
other effect on future matters.

There may be a simple message here that the UN is NOT an
irrelevancy...but that it was the French led coalition of the
unwilling that made the UN and international resolve appear weak.
> >
> > As I understand it,their position was, and is, that Iraq was in
> > substantial breach of previous UN Resolutions...regardless of what the
> > sort of French led coaltion of opposition maintained. Their position
> > was that legal justification was present.
>
> "bt the question was whether was necessary? Whether diplomacy had been
> fully tried and failed? Whether multilateralism was preferable to
> unilateralism".

As I said before...my personal assessment of Saddam was that he was
attempting to play on the reluctance of the international community to
take forceful action...just as Hitler did...even depending on it.

>> "ou're wrong if you think the french maintained that iraq wasn't in
> breach".

Yes...and I didn't say that.
>
> >>
>
 That is what happened. It isn't fair or accurate to demonize the
> french the way you are.

I really don't think I am "demonizing" the French...you should
understand that I tend to throw out alternative ideas in
DISCUSSION...which sometimes gets me into trouble. It appears that I
am taking a position, arguing, when what I am really doing is testing
ideas...getting feedback...so that my own understanding is better
developed. I thought this is what thinking people do.

You, on the other hand, if I may, seem to want to argue...point,
counter-point.

I am trying to just suggest alternative explanations.

But...there is an interpretation of the events there that suggests
that the French manipulated the situation...not so much in response to
the situation itself...but rather in reaction to a perceived
misalignment of power and fear of US dominance. In short, France
attempted to provide an answer to the question of who would step up
and assert that the rest of the world will not now arbitrarily
rubber-stamp US initiatives.
>
>> It didn't happen the way you're saying.

You are not correctly sensing that I am NOT suggesting that this is
what happened...but simply that it may have.

I don't know.
>
>>
>
> What we lost was the ability to be seen as an honest broker by
> supporting the saudis and others even as they repressed and betrayed
> their people.

How do you avoid this realistically? Unless I am mistaken...the Saudis
are the ones who usually increase oil production in order to haul the
market off the coals. It isn't exactly a relationship that hasn't been
beneficial...so, what are you suggesting? That we should somehow have
been playing footise with insurgents within Saudi Arabia? What EXACTLY
would have diffused the situation?
>
> > They are similar to the Scottish border lords who played both the
> > English and Scots crowns against one another...even sending one son to
> > fight for England...the other for Scotland. Didn't want to get caught
> > backing the loser. Tribal chieftans. Looked after themselves only,
> > totally treacherous. What I was saying was that I actually can feel
> > some empathy for the aspirations of the insurgents.
>
> Yes. I loved braveheart.

Yes, well, that really wasn't what I meant...and as history
goes...probably only accurate to the extent that yes, there was a guy
named William Wallace and he fought border wars against the English
and was executed in a very grotesque fashion. Great testosterone
rush...the battle scenes and all. But Mel is an Aussie...and just
another run at England bashing. Not that it isn't deserved...but
"Breaker Morant" and "Gallipoli" were better at that. I was referring
by analogy to the sort of tribal rulers...in Scotland...more the
border lords of the period of Mary, Queen of Scots. It was always like
that...even up to Culloden.
>
> >>And I wouldn't underestimate religion as a motivation for wars
> throughout
> > > history".
> >
> > I would.
>
> That's a mistake. A reductionist approach. There are many factors that
> motivate people, no one factor motivates everyone. Failing to consider
> the multiplicity of factors and motivations means you can't really
> understand history. Or the present.
>
>>
> > Even the "Great Crusades" were largely over the control of lucrative
> > trade routes.
>
> Reductionist historical analysis.

LOL. "Reductionist"? You mean I am simplifying a greatly complicated
situation into simple one line sentences? Yes, of course. As we age,
we get tired...and we call this "wisdom"...you know...crackerbarrel
philosophy.

Sometimes, there's a great deal of truth hidden in there, though.
>
> > What many Americans don't seem to understand about the "Troubles" in
> > Northern Ireland, for instance, is that the Catholic and Protestant
> > divisions are traceable to differences in ethnicity as well.
> > Protetsants are descended from Scots and English settlers of defeated
> > "Irish" by William of Orange. So, not really a RELIGIOUS
> > difference...but an ETHNIC one...religion only being a part of the
> > equation.
>
> But a big part for some. The religious differences alone might not
> have caused the "troubles." But without them the troubles might not
> have occurred. It takes soemthing powerful to motivate people to fight
> especially long term.

I would not go far as to say that "religion is the opiate of the
masses"...but...education of the masses is what causes religion to
become a less important factor. You are often talking about the impact
on different classes...where different classes play different roles.
>
> I know that is your heritage. And you have some reasonable good
> insights into it. But too reductionist a view.

Merely meant it as an illustration of what many Americans mistakenly
view as a purely religious conflict.
>
>> I wouldn't underestimate the role that religion plays in motivating
> bush. He thinks he's on a mission from god. To do "good."
>
> Bin laden is similarly motivated.

I don't know either of these things to be true.
>
> So are many of his followers. They might not be willing to do what
> they did if it weren't for serious economic privation and other
> repression but religion is their rallying cry.

They are friggin' nuts.
>
>
>
> Maybe not realistic. But the only real hope of "winning" the "war" on
> terror is to positively engage with the people who consider
> themselves our enemies. Stop exploiting them and supporting those who
> do including their leaders. Pressure the saudis to treat their people
> better. And NOT pressure them to blindly support us (even while they
> support the terrorists by paying what amounts to "protection" money to
> them). To be even handed in enforcing the principles we stand for.

How do you do this?
>
> >
> > I think that is a fundamental misinterpretation on your part. I think
> > it is very clear that it is Islam...fundamentalist Islam...that wishes
> > to establish Islamic governments, ruled by Islamic law...has
> > identified western values...particularly those of the US, as
> > inimicable to their beliefs.
>
> That's a reductionist analysis of islam. Not all muslims take this
> view by any means. We've done alot to alienate the more moderate ones
> and make it more difficult for them to prevail. We've fed into the
> anger that motivates the masses to support the radicals.

And you are diverting the issue. THE problem is, has been, NOT
Islam...but FUNDAMENTALIST, RADICAL Islam...that is NOT what I said.
No one suggested that Islam is the problem.
>
>
> > These regimes are a very reactionary attempt to turn back the
> > clock...a repression of the advancement of their own cultures and
> > peoples...and I have every right to form that opinion. I would NOT
> > suggest anyone act against any such regime on that basis.
>
> The ascendancy of radical islam yes. But that isn't the inevitable
> result of islam. Nor of islamic rule.
>
> You are painting muslims with a broad brush that glosses over the many
> different views of islamic peoples between countries and within them.

NO I DID NOT. Where did I "paint Muslims with a broad brush"? (Yu sort
of have a bad habit of anticipating arguments and responding to
them...regardless of whether the perosn said it or not...I'm not the
first person to say this to you, either. This one is a little
offensive...I'm sure you didn't intend it that way...but you are
saying that I insulted all Moslems...I said nothing of the sort).
>
> It isn't about the "only democracy." It is about the only staunch us
> ally in the region. It is geopolitical not ideological in terms of
> democracy. It is geostrategic.

Could you elaborate? As far as allies go...I wish they could at least
behave like one while we are taking out one of their most ardent
foes...instead of making things worse in Gaza on an almost daily
basis. During "Gulf one" as you may remember...the Israelis threatened
to unravel the whole thing by responding to the scud attacks.

I think it would be hard to argue with the proposition that Israel is
the primary beneficiary of this action...at least in the short term.

>> What regional catastrophe? We could have stopped sadaam from
hurting
> his neigfhbors. We did and the world supported it when he invaded
> kuwait. His military was a joke especially after the first gulf war.
> he had no WMDs.

No WMDs? Then WHY the clearly obstructionist behavior with the UN
inspectors? An INSANE game of hide-and-seek that brought his regime to
an end? If he didn't have them...then what did he have to hide? Why
not just show Blick everything? Blick said himself afterwards...that
he assumed Saddam was hiding SOMETHING...because of the way he
behaved. To WHAT purpose? Sure lookedguilty as hell. Tariq
Aziz...early on said something to the effect that when the Americans
get to Baghdad..."they will be chasing shadows". What do you suppose
he meant by that?

I don't know. Too early. The Dems, in my opinion, should be prepared
for this, should some stories prove true.
>
> It is much more likely that we have incited a series of events that
> will lead to regional catastrophe and chaos.

That is a possible outcome.
>
>>
> I don't think that you can compare the threat of sadaam to the threat
> of hitler and germany. Like comparing a bullet to a bomb. Or a flea to
> a vulture.

Before Gulf 1...Iraq was the world's 4th military power...developing
missiles capable of deivering bioweaponry to Tel Aviv. Saddam himself
was dedicated, swore oaths to the extermination of Israel. You're
right, though...Saddam preferred comparisons to Stalin. What happened
at Abu Gharib...was horrible. But it doesn't even begin to compare
with what it was under Saddam. What about the notion of a truly
"criminal" regime under international law? Iraq and its leaders were a
band of murderers. Remember that.
>
> If anyone is a threat to world peace it is bush not sadaam.

That is...ummmm...I don't know what...but I am beginning to suspect
that you may be suffering from having spent too much time with the
"blame America first" crowd. It is an all to common problem in
academia these days.
>
>> >
> > And they(the European critics) benefit...while not only taking no
> > risk...but distancing themselves in the event of failure...yet
> > expecting to share in the rewards of success.
>
> No. We denied them the opportunity to participate and bid for
> contracts. Wouldn't even let them bid.

LOL. Are you serious? They showed unbelievable "gaul" in even asking.
Sit on your hands and then ask for a piece? LOL...you're kidding,
right?
>
> > I would recommend "The Price of Power", by Seymour Hersh to you, if
> > you haven't read it already...(and if you have...how could you say
> > this)?
>
> Observing his impact and knowing his thinking doesn't mean I agree it
> was good or by any means that he was a good man.
>
> But he was a "great man" in terms of his impact on the world and world
> history.

If this is your measure of a great man...then Hitler qualifies, too.
>
>>
> I NEVER said I ADMIRE him.

LOL. I was in college...you know, the radical years then. Perhaps its
a legacy of the VietNam years, I don't know. I missed being called up.
I won the draft lottery...but no numbers were taken that year as
Saigon was falling. It is hard to forget what bastards Nixon and
Kissinger were then.
>
> I don't know how you can dismiss him even if you hate him and disagree
> with him.

Repeat...read Hersh's book. Hank talks a good game...but n actual
practice, his brilliant philosophy is about as subtle as the
Hick's...beat the crap outta them until they want peace. Genius.
>
 
> > NO!!! Our whole JUSTIFICATION for our foreign policy was predicated on
> > the notion that we weren't dominant. Different.
>
> I don't follow this. Did you just restate what I said but disagreed
> without explaining? I'm confused. Please restate. All the intervening
> responses make it impossible to follow here.

Not now...the editing function here is going beserk. Very frustrating.
Gotta quit.
>
> >

Quantcast