 |
| |
|
| |
|
|
Lazarus and the Gimp
|
 |
Whale-raping abomination
Aug 2000
time: 05:33
|
|
I'll pull a quote from that-
quote:
The old-fashioned left used to be universalist-used to think that everyone, all over the world, would some day want to live according to the same fundamental values, and ought to be helped to do so. They thought this was especially true for people in reasonably modern societies with universities, industries, and a sophisticated bureaucracy-societies like the one in Iraq. But no more! Today, people say, out of a spirit of egalitarian tolerance: Social democracy for Swedes! Tyranny for Arabs! And this is supposed to be a left-wing attitude? By the way, you don't hear much from the left about the non-Arabs in countries like Iraq, do you? The left, the real left, used to be the champion of minority populations-of people like the Kurds. No more! The left, my friend, has abandoned the values of the left-except for a few of us, of course." |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lord Merciless
|
|
In principle, the Iraq war should be fought long time ago.
In practice, you don't go to war with bogus excuses and loack of planning.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lord Merciless
|
|
One problem the leftists have is their fixation on capitalism and ignorance of political/economic systems far worse than that.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
lord of the mark
|
 |
FUKCOV - Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia
Dec 2000
time: 00:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
Are these critiques new? no.
Are they valid? Partly.
The problem with the war in Iraq is not that it happened, but HOW it happened, when it happened.
Today we have an occupation regime in Iraq itching to get out, unsure how to go about, now at this point, about 8 months late calling for UN help, and a situation in the ground which has a good chance of devolving into civil war due to the rush job of this war.
That has always and shall always be MY critique of this war..sadly, no one here has ever engaged that specific critique. |
There was a great deal of debate during the run up about "why now" which ran the gamut of timing issues, from "imminent nukes" to "is containment sustainable" to "we need to drain the swamp now" to "we need to show how tough we are now" to " Jerusalem via Baghdad" to "will the French change their minds if we wait 2 years?" Its hard to do a retrospective cost benefit for several reasons 1. As a John Kerry would say, " I didnt now how theyd play it" - some of the cost and benefits of going, including going WHEN and HOW we did are impacted by policy choices of the Bush admin and of others - eg - IF we had gone with more US troops, and planned better for the occupation, THEN going without UN sanction would have been far less costly. 2. The games not up yet - we still dont know how things will play out in Iraq, militarily and politically, how things will play out in the "dominoes", or even what the long term implications for international relations and international law - can the US NOW reconcile with the UN, et al, and at what cost, if any, to the drain the swamp goals.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
chegitz guevara
|
 |
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000
time: 00:33
|
|
I'm not a big supporter of Berman's position. I thinhk wishy-washy lefties like Berman are too easily swayed by emotions and not by facts.
From the conclusion of an essay at Human Rights Watch:
http://hrw.org/wr2k4/3.htm#_Toc58744952
quote:
the invasion of Iraq failed to meet the test for a humanitarian intervention. Most important, the killing in Iraq at the time was not of the exceptional nature that would justify such intervention. In addition, intervention was not the last reasonable option to stop Iraqi atrocities. Intervention was not motivated primarily by humanitarian concerns. It was not conducted in a way that maximized compliance with international humanitarian law. It was not approved by the Security Council. And while at the time it was launched it was reasonable to believe that the Iraqi people would be better off, it was not designed or carried out with the needs of Iraqis foremost in mind.
In opening this essay, we noted that the controversial invasion of Iraq stood in contrast to the three African interventions. In making that point, we do not suggest that the African interventions were without problems. All suffered to one degree or another from a mixture of motives, inadequate staffing, insufficient efforts to disarm and demobilize abusive forces, and little attention to securing justice and the rule of law. All of the African interventions, however, ultimately confronted ongoing slaughter, were motivated in significant part by humanitarian concerns, were conducted with apparent respect for international humanitarian law, arguably left the country somewhat better off, and received the approval of the U.N. Security Council. Significantly, all were welcomed by the relevant government, meaning that the standards for assessing them are more permissive than for a nonconsensual intervention.
However, even in light of the problems of the African interventions, the extraordinarily high profile of the Iraq war gives it far more potential to affect the public view of future interventions. If its defenders continue to try to justify it as humanitarian when it was not, they risk undermining an institution that, despite all odds, has managed to maintain its viability in this new century as a tool for rescuing people from slaughter.
The Iraq war highlights the need for a better understanding of when military intervention can be justified in humanitarian terms. The above-noted International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty was one important effort to define these parameters. Human Rights Watch has periodically contributed to this debate as well, including with this essay, and various academic writers have offered their own views. But no intergovernmental body has put forth criteria for humanitarian intervention.
This official reticence is not surprising, since governments do not like to contemplate uninvited intrusions in their country. But humanitarian intervention appears to be here to stay—an important and appropriate response to people facing mass slaughter. In the absence of international consensus on the conditions for such intervention, governments inevitably are going to abuse the concept, as the United States has done in its after-the-fact efforts to justify the Iraq war. Human Rights Watch calls on intergovernmental organizations, particularly the political bodies of the United Nations, to end the taboo on discussing the conditions for humanitarian intervention. Some consensus on these conditions, in addition to promoting appropriate use of humanitarian intervention, would help deter abuse of the concept and thus assist in preserving a tool that some of the world’s most vulnerable victims need. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lord Merciless
|
|
The ones in Gaza and West Bank are nuts. Their presence essentially encourages other nutcases to blow themselves up in restaurants and kindergartens, thus drawing more Israeli retributions.
As long as Palestinians enjoy suicide bombings, there is absolutely nothing that should justify their cause.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by lord of the mark
There was a great deal of debate during the run up about "why now" which ran the gamut of timing issues, from "imminent nukes" to "is containment sustainable" to "we need to drain the swamp now" to "we need to show how tough we are now" to " Jerusalem via Baghdad" to "will the French change their minds if we wait 2 years?" Its hard to do a retrospective cost benefit for several reasons 1. As a John Kerry would say, " I didnt now how theyd play it" - some of the cost and benefits of going, including going WHEN and HOW we did are impacted by policy choices of the Bush admin and of others - eg - IF we had gone with more US troops, and planned better for the occupation, THEN going without UN sanction would have been far less costly. 2. The games not up yet - we still dont know how things will play out in Iraq, militarily and politically, how things will play out in the "dominoes", or even what the long term implications for international relations and international law - can the US NOW reconcile with the UN, et al, and at what cost, if any, to the drain the swamp goals. |
Before you can have a "why now?" debate you need a "WHY?" debate. This ia why the admins. misinformation to the public about Iraq's danger to the US is so galling..as much as some high-minded people like perhaps you , and someone like Friedman in the NYT might totally agree with the war, we live in a democracy, and the public, the congress (that body which is supposed to decide on war and peace) went to war NOT to back a long-term experiment, but to get rid of what they were told was a direct threat. The US should not be getting out of adminestering Iraq in a few months-the occupation authorities should, to do the job right, be there for years-then hand back power: but becuase the admin. ent to war on false pretenses now we are rushing.
You speak about the French: what was the French position? That Iraq was not a threat and that inspectors were enough to contain the threat form Iraq: THEY WERE 100% CORRECT!!!. The US never sought to engage the French and the Germans instead on this war as a way of remaking the MIddle East, which is what it was. If you go and tell me "buy this, its blue!", and I say "no, I don't like blue", how can you then say "idiot, you should have gone along cause its heavy!", if that was never part of the sales pitch!?
All the way back in Jan 2002 this admin. should have started going around the world and more importantly, the US, and made it clear this war was about remaking the middle east-that it would take years, hundreads of billions of dollars, and would need a grand international coolition to work- that it was part of the war on terror only in that, if successful, it would help "dry up the swamp". Instead, in august, this admin. starts hyperventilaitng about the grave Iraqi threat! (no such thing) demanding people be with us or against us! and while it makes a brilliant war plan, it seems to have no real clue about what would happen the day after.
Can it still go well? Yes, but after this messy start, we have more to loose than to win, and that is 100% the fault of this admin. If this fails, not only will the uS be in a worse position, even Iraqis themselves will be in a worse position- this one bit of truth was one the admin. NEVER states- and for that, they are weak, vasilating worms,a nd deserve no support.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
lord of the mark
|
|
FUKCOV - Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia
Dec 2000
time: 00:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by chegitz guevara
I'm not a big supporter of Berman's position. I thinhk wishy-washy lefties like Berman are too easily swayed by emotions and not by facts.
From the conclusion of an essay at Human Rights Watch:
http://hrw.org/wr2k4/3.htm#_Toc58744952
quote:
the invasion of Iraq failed to meet the test for a humanitarian intervention. Most important, the killing in Iraq at the time was not of the exceptional nature that would justify such intervention. In addition, intervention was not the last reasonable option to stop Iraqi atrocities. Intervention was not motivated primarily by humanitarian concerns. It was not conducted in a way that maximized compliance with international humanitarian law. It was not approved by the Security Council. And while at the time it was launched it was reasonable to believe that the Iraqi people would be better off, it was not designed or carried out with the needs of Iraqis foremost in mind.
In opening this essay, we noted that the controversial invasion of Iraq stood in contrast to the three African interventions. In making that point, we do not suggest that the African interventions were without problems. All suffered to one degree or another from a mixture of motives, inadequate staffing, insufficient efforts to disarm and demobilize abusive forces, and little attention to securing justice and the rule of law. All of the African interventions, however, ultimately confronted ongoing slaughter, were motivated in significant part by humanitarian concerns, were conducted with apparent respect for international humanitarian law, arguably left the country somewhat better off, and received the approval of the U.N. Security Council. Significantly, all were welcomed by the relevant government, meaning that the standards for assessing them are more permissive than for a nonconsensual intervention.
However, even in light of the problems of the African interventions, the extraordinarily high profile of the Iraq war gives it far more potential to affect the public view of future interventions. If its defenders continue to try to justify it as humanitarian when it was not, they risk undermining an institution that, despite all odds, has managed to maintain its viability in this new century as a tool for rescuing people from slaughter.
The Iraq war highlights the need for a better understanding of when military intervention can be justified in humanitarian terms. The above-noted International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty was one important effort to define these parameters. Human Rights Watch has periodically contributed to this debate as well, including with this essay, and various academic writers have offered their own views. But no intergovernmental body has put forth criteria for humanitarian intervention.
This official reticence is not surprising, since governments do not like to contemplate uninvited intrusions in their country. But humanitarian intervention appears to be here to stay—an important and appropriate response to people facing mass slaughter. In the absence of international consensus on the conditions for such intervention, governments inevitably are going to abuse the concept, as the United States has done in its after-the-fact efforts to justify the Iraq war. Human Rights Watch calls on intergovernmental organizations, particularly the political bodies of the United Nations, to end the taboo on discussing the conditions for humanitarian intervention. Some consensus on these conditions, in addition to promoting appropriate use of humanitarian intervention, would help deter abuse of the concept and thus assist in preserving a tool that some of the world’s most vulnerable victims need. |
|
HRW's principle concern is the evolving standard of international law on human rights intervention. Berman addresses grand strategic issues in the struggle with the fascisms now present in the Islamic world. See again Bermans point on international law, and the question Gepap raised on timing.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
lord of the mark
|
|
FUKCOV - Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia
Dec 2000
time: 00:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
[QUOTE] Originally posted by lord of the mark
HRW's principle concern is the evolving standard of international law on human rights intervention. Berman addresses grand strategic issues in the struggle with the fascisms now present in the Islamic world. [QUOTE]
As much as it is in fashion to call the Islamist movement facist, it is not an epxansionistic fascism ala the German, Italian, or Japanese style. Was the left advocating in 1936 invading Italy and overthrowing Mussolini, or instead stopping Mussolini, or Hitler, from gaining power elsewhere?
There are crucial differences, and comparisons to "mr. hitler" aren't enough opf a valid arguement. |
The islamist movement IS expansionist, at least within the islamic world, and on disputed borderlands, from south Sudan to Israel to India to Bali - what their ultimate stopping point would be should they acheive their intermediate goal of a pan-islamic state is a matter of dispute - at least in statements from Osama and his associates he seems to beleive that further jihad would be unnecessary, as the glorius achievements of the caliphate would lead to mass conversions to Islam in the non-Islamic world. Surely the intermediate steps are disastrous enough to warrant fighting back??? Just as it would have been worth it stand up for Ethiopians and Spaniards, even if fascism hadnt threatened world conquest.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
chegitz guevara
|
|
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000
time: 00:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by lord of the mark
HRW's principle concern is the evolving standard of international law on human rights intervention. Berman addresses grand strategic issues in the struggle with the fascisms now present in the Islamic world. See again Bermans point on international law, and the question Gepap raised on timing. |
PARSE!!!!!
The argument HRW is raising here is not one based on international law, but whether the invasion of Iraq can be justified on humanitarian grounds, which is what Berman is trying to do. HRW says that the invasion of Iraq fails to meet the test of a humanitarian intervention, irregardless of international law. If it was not a humanitarian intervention, does Berman then have a valid point? At least as regard Iraq, I would argue no.
Further, I disagree with Berman's characterization of the reactionary political movements in Islam as fascism. It shares certain characteristics of fascism, but its class nature is different and its goals are different. Facism is both a forward and backward looking philosophy. It seeks to justify itself in past glory, but it seeks to create a new type of society. It is based largely on declassé workers and ruined middle class types. It is a fundimetnally capitalist movement.
So-called Islamofascism rejects modernity and seeks to return society to a previous (but non-existent) society. It is based largely on the remains of feudal and tribal classes: preists, sheiks, peasants. Unlike fascism, it is neither nationalist nor racial. Finally, it rejects completely capitalism, seeking to restore pre-capitalist relations.
This means that these movements need to be confronted differently. Reactionary clerico-feudalism (my wordy term) needs to be confronted by the left, but that doesn't mean we need t do it by embracing our class enemies in the US government nor allying with the repressive Israeli government.
Both fascism and clerical feudalism are responses to the failure of capitalism to produce an acceptable standard of living. They are both symptoms of capitalism. The answer is not to attack the symptoms, but attack the problem. This means expanding democracy and rasing standards of living. The left is waging this fight. The misnamed anti-globalization movement is this fight. We show solidarity with the people of the Third World not by dropping bombs on them, but by standing with them against our own government's military and economic attempts to dominate them.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
|
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by lord of the mark
The islamist movement IS expansionist, at least within the islamic world, and on disputed borderlands, from south Sudan to Israel to India to Bali - what their ultimate stopping point would be should they acheive their intermediate goal of a pan-islamic state is a matter of dispute - at least in statements from Osama and his associates he seems to beleive that further jihad would be unnecessary, as the glorius achievements of the caliphate would lead to mass conversions to Islam in the non-Islamic world. Surely the intermediate steps are disastrous enough to warrant fighting back??? Just as it would have been worth it stand up for Ethiopians and Spaniards, even if fascism hadnt threatened world conquest. |
If the Islamist want to reofrm those lands that are islamic, that is not the same as bringing new lands into thier fold, which is what I see as expansionistic.
How does attacking a secular baathist dictatorship undermine the Islamists? Yes, I know the arguments how, but the fact is, due to how this war begun, was sold, and is being carried out, the Islamists have been big winners. In a way, attacking Iraq is like saying in 1938: lets get rid of the USSR becuase the threat of Bolshevism is one of Hitler's biggests draws, so if we remove that, we weaken hitler and win the war of ideas!
Becuase in essence, that is what this is, a war of ideas in the Islamic world, now undergoing radical changes due to population growth, economic pressures, so forth. A mishandled and failed war in Iraq utterly discredits outside intervention in the name of trying to make dmeocracy, thus providing the Islamist a huge win, at no costs since the guys who got hit are also their enemies (the baathists, the regimes of Egypt and SA) in the ME.
To put it most simply: the war in Iraq is burdened by an immense original sin, a sin that rots away at the whole enterprise. It will be hard overcoming this sin, and we will need to acknowledge it before we can. The sin is the fault of this admin., and it is incapable of undoing it.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:33.
Apolyton Time is 00:33. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
28-01-2004 23:09
|