There is something morally creepy about the way the White House responded to the news — released as inconspicuously as possible — that the 2,500th American soldier has died in Iraq.
“It’s a number,” said White House Press Secretary Tony Snow.
Yes, and so is 5,000, and 10,000, and 15,000. Is there is no amount of American bloodshed that would trigger a reassessment of the ideological fantasy that US power can transform Iraq into Kansas?
{ 136 comments }
← Previous Comments
Vince:”See the colonists versus the redcoats. And it appears that the Iraqis are proving that wrong as well.”
It’s odd that you consider the confederation of the 13 colonies anarchic when they had all the trappings of a fully developed state. The Dutch and French loaned the US the money to fight the war, without which we would have lost, and they thought they were loaning money to a state.
I disagree with the notion that the Continental Army was a militia. The state militias who started the war all went home before Valley Forge and didn’t effect the war’s outcome. Washington lamented that the yeoman farmers who started the war didn’t stick around to finish the fight (That’s the type of behavior I would expect under anarchism) and he was left with the a group of poor outcasts who had no other opportunities. Washington knew he needed a professional army to defeat the British and used the Winter at Valley Forge to transform his defeated “militia” into a professional army with the help of his German general (I forgot his name).
As for the Iraqi anarchists, they have done little more than kill women and children in mosques and markets for the past two years. They haven’t stopped the formation of a state and they have no chance of winning.
BTW, You never responded to my question above: Would it have mattered to you if Bush had been right, that Hussein did have WMD’s and was a threat to the US?
Roger asked me, repeatedly;
“Would it have mattered to you if Bush had been right, that Hussein did have WMD’s and was a threat to the US?”
A fair question.
Of all the countries in the world, what is our overall policy regarding WMDs? It seems to be “countries we like get to acquire them (India, Pakistan, Israel), countries we dislike get bombed (Iraq? Iran?), unless they sneakily acquire them (North Korea), in which case we do nothing”.
I don’t think this policy is consistent or moral. Either all countries can have them, or no countries can have them. There is no fair distinction.
Using these weapons is another question. As far as I’m concerned, defensive use is fair game. Offensive use is aggression.
In other words, Hussein having WMDs is no moral cause for war. Hussein using WMDs against invaders (even Americans) while horrible, is still moral and legal. Hussein actually using WMDs offensively is aggression and is grounds for retaliation.
So, given your formulation, no, I still think it would be illegal to invade Iraq.
Vince, Thanks for your honest answer. Rockwell gives the impression that because Bush “lied”, (another misuse of the word), the attack against Iraq was unjustified. But Rockwell, and all anarchists, would have found the war just as illegal had Hussein had nuclear tipped missiles aimed at New York, as long as he hadn’t fired them, yet.
I just want newcomers to the site to have a clear understanding of what anarchism stands for. I also want them to understand that they don’t have to be an anarchist to adopt Austrian economics. Mises and Austrian economcis have nothing to do with anarchism.
Franky, I find it a little dishonest for anarchists to use the coattails of the great Mises to promote anarchism. Rockwell has his own site, and there are plenty of other anarchist sites out there. Apparently, anarchism can’t stand on its own; you need the halo effect of Mises’s reputation to give it credibility.
That’s a bit of a cheap shot, Roger.
I think you misunderstood my answer, slightly. Simply pointing missiles, nuclear or no, toward New York (forgetting, for the moment that Hussein had nothing even remotely capable of actually reaching New York) is not sufficient justification for aggression. After all, how many missiles did the old Soviet Union have pointed at New York?
But it shows the essential absurdity of the threat, and the immorality of the response.
As far as whether Mises and anarchy go together, his brightest student (Rothbard) was definitely anarcho-capitalist, as are many followers of Mises and Rothbard. For many of them, anarcho-capitalism is a natural extension of Austrian Economics, though you are welcome to argue otherwise.
More to the point – there is nothing in Mises work that supports the institution of a large, centralized, imperial government. Therefore, it makes sense that Mises and Austrianism are consistent with and supportive of anarcho-capitalism, though I will allow that by no means is this the consensus of either the Austrian School or the people posting to these forums. But it is a large, legitimate subset of Misesianism.
Vince, I was just pointing out that anarchists don’t believe pre-emptive attacks are moral. Many Americans would have to die first, then you would consider retaliating OK.
Show me something in Mises’s work that leads you to believe that anarchism is a natural development from it. I rather think it’s a distortion.
Here’s some brief evidence that Mises would not have supported anarchism:
“But as human nature is, society cannot exist if there is no provision for preventing unruly people from actions incompatible with community life. In order to preserve peaceful cooperation, one must be ready to resort to violent suppression of those disturbing the peace. Society cannot do without a social apparatus of coercion and compulsion, i.e., without state and government. Then a further problem emerges: to restrain the men who are in charge of the governmental functions lest they abuse their power and convert all other people into virtual slaves. The aim of all struggles for liberty is to keep in bounds the armed defenders of peace, the governors and their constables. Freedom always means: freedom from arbitrary action on the part of the police power.”
This is from the daily article, The Idea of Liberty is Western by Ludwig von Mises
[Posted on Friday, June 23, 2006] Mises saw the real problem of achieving a balance between restraining criminal activity and restraining the state. He didn’t advocate abolishing the state.
Roger said;
“Vince, I was just pointing out that anarchists don’t believe pre-emptive attacks are moral. Many Americans would have to die first, then you would consider retaliating OK.”
Well, here’s a few questions;
1) How many Iraqis have died since the war started?
2) What percentage of the Iraqi population does that represent?
3) How many Americans have died since the war started?
4) What percentage of the American population does that represent?
5) How many Americans, approximately, would have had to have died in an attack to justify all of this killing?
I’m not being disingenuous here. I am trying to arrive at some sort of balance between retaliation and retribution.
By all means, if you believe Hussein had something to do with 9/11, then you might feel all this killing is justified.
Vince,
I don’t understand what you’re trying to say. I don’t believe Hussein was tied directly to 9/11, but for the sake of argument, let’s say he was. Are you saying that since he killed less than 3,000 people, then we can kill no more than that for this war to be just?
I’ve been reading Mises’s “Nation, State and Economy.” He defines imperialism as the desire to extend one’s power over others for economic gain. I know the left thinks we attacked Iraq for its oil, which would make us fall under Mises’s definition of imperialist. Do you think that’s why we attacked?
Roger,
Perhaps Vince might argue (i would) that the killing of 3000 innocent American lives only justifies retribution to those who actually instigated and perpetrated the crime, and no one else. From this it would follow that the killing of one more innocent life, or 3000 more innocent lives, or tens of thousands more innocent lives is not justified in any way by the 9/11 crime.
Not only was Saddam never seriously suspected of being behind 9/11, even if he was, it is only he and his associates who would have merited a violent response and no one else. And in the meantime, what has Washington accomplished in apprehending the real alleged mastermind behind 9/11? Nothing. It’s classic; if it weren’t so asinine and unjust, it would be a big pathetic joke worthy of a good laugh.
Or is such a view just twisted anarchist thinking again?
Paul,
Well it would be nice if the world worked that way. I’m afraid only God can do what you ask of us. As I’ve written a dozen times before, Hussein hid behind 500,000 troops who hid behind the women and children. We had two choices, kill those who defended Hussein, or let him go. And don’t say we could have assassinated him. Dozens of people tried. We tried multiple times.
What I would like anarchists to admit is that to be consistent with anarchism you can’t allow the US the right to defend itself because it’s a state, and by definition all actions by a state are evil, even self-defense.
Mises saw states, especially democracies, as legit institutions with the right to self-defense. As I’ve written elsewhere, Iraq attacked the US in the first WTC bombing and several times afteward. I won’t detail those again here. There are many books that do a better job. So I think Mises would view the Iraq invasion a justified.
If Saddam hid behind 500,000 troops who hid behind women and children, that’s no excuse for killing those women and children. But (a) his troops didn’t hide behind women and children, (b) he didn’t hide behind his troops (he hid holes in the ground), and (c) since he wasn’t responsible for 9/11 anyway, it’s all quite irrelevant. And he could have been assassinated. And the US doesn’t have a right to defend itself, because it is a state, and therefore not a real thing.
If Mises saw states as legitimate then Mises was wrong. Mises was only human, he made mistakes. Fortunately, Rothbard corrected some of his mistakes. You know that Mises and Rothbard knew each other personally, right? If Mises had a problem with Rothbard’s ideas, he had ample opportunity to say so. (In fact, he agreed with Rothbard; he even wrote himself that individuals should be able to secede at will)
RogerM
A “right to survival” does not convey a “right” to initiate force. Nor a “right” to steal.
What you provide in your posts is not proof. Just more unbacked assertion. Goodness gracious, all you’ve ever delivered is a little tower of assertions; one stacked atop the other. Surley you must be understanding by now how weak your position actually is.
What you are being asked to provide is the chain of logic from reality to your stated contention, disclosing the evidence that you use to validate each step. For a start you need to define exactly what you mean by the terms you use and what your axioms are. I’m not going to do you the favour of listing each step and what you are required to prove at each step because your assertion is so poisonous and the results of its application so evil that it is best if you discover for yourself exactly how false it is.
I will state this though, you’ve either never thought through or willfully ignore the impossibility of getting from a “natural right” (whatever you happen to mean by that term) or “right of survival” to the non-emergency application of force and violence upon every other individual, for that is the practical application of your asserted “right”. You criminal thief you!
Had you considered that what you conveniently ignore with your “right” to initiate force is the “natural right” of survival of everybody else.
Be aware of what may be justified when the likes of bin Laden, Atta, Azahari and fellow criminals of that order employ your very arguments.
Now be honest with yourself, sit down with a pencil and paper. Attempt your proof. I’m betting you can’t do it.
Sione
TokyoTom
I don’t really have further comment at this stage. What happened was that I heard an interesting conversation held by some people I met on the train (recommend catching the train from time to time- it’s far better than the bus & you can actually hear what people are saying) and asked them some questions to clarify what they were saying.
One of the passengers in our carriage was a lawyer. She mentioned that the standard to which the Crown must rise when charging a person was far higher than that for the US going to war. That sure got my attention. I hadn’t thought on the topic.
She maintained that there must be strong evidence to apply a charge for prosecution and put a man to trial. I asked a lot of questions about it. I wanted to understand the process for running a prosecution.
Then, she related how WMD were promoted as the reason for invading Iraq, but there were none and this was well known at the time. Might have been some somewhere, somehow, someday, just would not cut it for Court.
A jury must acquit an accused in the absence of any evidence (I know that is not necessarily the case in the US but in certain other countries the rules are that there must be evidence of a crime in order to convict). And so, it turns out an experienced, competent prosecutor will not take a case in the absence of evidence.
It was commented on (by a Maori guy whose name I do not recall, may have been Wirimu or Whetu, everyone kept called him “W”) that the best evidence available at the time came from the UN. Their investigations concluded there were not WMD in Iraq. “The UN fellers were looking for them for a long time,” he reckoned. Was it as long as a decade?
The lawyer, LeAnne, responded by saying that a criminal case with such a paucity of evidence would necessarily never even have been brought to Court. She thought that when the best available evidence available to the prosecution actually indicates innocence then there can indeed be no case to answer, hence no prosecution. I guess she was referring back to the UN data on Iraq.
So the WMD would not have passed the standard. People started saying things like, “Hard to get to trial then isn’t it?” and “So how come war is so trivial to start?”
Now that’s interesting but it gets better.
She mentioned that every time the Crown prosecutes a man in court, not only is that accused man on trial, so is the Crown. Not only is the evidence weighed and the witnesses examined. Not only is it required to prove allegations to the standard of beyond reasonable doubt. The Crown is in effect tried. It is tried to ensure that the proper processes for collecting evidence has been followed. It is on trial to see that it has not acted malevolently and that none of its agents and officers have acted with malfeasance or carelessness or with unfair bias. It is tried to show it comes to the Court with clean hands. This is important as the Crown is virtually omnipotent in comparison with an individual. The judge and jury must see to it that all is above board. This is why it is such a scandal whenever it is discovered that evidence has been planted or doctored or prosecution witnesses have lied or been bribed.
I never thought of any of that before. At the trial the state is itself tried (or rather its activities pertaining to the matter to hand are tried) to see that it has applied the law justly and that its own behaviour is consistent with the law and of high ethical standard. Fascinating stuff. I need to consider how that relates to the concepts pertaining to jury nullification (when the jury can say the law is wrong and hence throw a case out even if the accused is indeed guilty under that law).
And that WMD issue came up again. So many doubts. Such a poor case for prosecution. Likely those involved in taking such a weak case to High Court would have been put under the microscope themselves. Heads would have rolled and likely there would have been sanctions taken against those responsible. etc. etc.
Then, there was a bit of role playing humour from a couple of university students from law school.
Prosecution: You honour. We the prosecution ask for the accused to be jailed for 20 years for the possession of weapons that he may have used to attack other people.
Judge: Can you present such weapons to the Court?
P: No, but there might have been. There might be some somewhere, maybe, perhaps, somewhere.
J: Are there such weapons you have found?
P: No, but there might have been. There might be some somewhere, maybe, perhaps, somewhere. We have not found anything.
J: On what basis have you raided this man’s house and destroyed his possessions?
P: Well, he might have had weapons which he might have had an intention to potentially use to possibly attack someone, someday, somewhere.
J: What has he said to you about these possibilities.
P: Well, he said he had no such weapons and he had no intention to attack us your honour. He liked to kick his family around some though and he has bad breath and looks a little suss. Perhaps he is into drugs or something.
And so on. Black humour.
The general consensus was that the standard of evidence to launch a war of invasion on Iraq was ludicrously low. The lack of due process in making the decision would have been regarded with utter contempt in a Court. Further commentary surrounded the fact that even after the invasion here we all are years later & still >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no WMD evidence.
“You’d have thought they’d at least have planted something. That’s what any decent bent copper would do.” That from an ex-policeman. It raised a laugh or two.
They kept on but I had to leave the train at Central so I didn’t get to hear the rest. Pity. Some of the other people in the carriage were starting to get involved and the Maori guy started to talk about Sir David Lange and what he would have said about it all and what he would have done. That was really stirring things up. I’d like to have heard more about that as Sir David was a very interesting person.
Sione
BTW, why Tokyo?
“Well it would be nice if the world worked that way. I’m afraid only God can do what you ask of us.”
Roger, I am not trying to ask perfection from people, much less agents of the state. God knows what a crazy and impossible expectation that would be. What I’m asking for is that otherwise reasonable people not use human fallibility as a justification for acts that are very likely, i.e. expected, to kill innocent people. I know accidents happen; it’s just that killing people “accidentally” by dropping a bomb on their homes and neighborhoods and shooting into their cars at checkpoints strains the meaning of the term “accident”. It strains it beyond its elastic limits.
“As I’ve written a dozen times before, Hussein hid behind 500,000 troops who hid behind the women and children. We had two choices, kill those who defended Hussein, or let him go. And don’t say we could have assassinated him. Dozens of people tried. We tried multiple times.”
Would it be worth it to you, if someone else felt it necessary, to kill your wife and children, and have your house and life destroyed to accomplish these goals of bringing Saddam or any accused criminal to so-called justice? Speaking for myself, I can say the answer is no way, ever. I think you feel the same way. How is it we can justify the sacrifice of others innocent wives and children to bag Saddam, but not our own? There is no way we can.
“What I would like anarchists to admit is that to be consistent with anarchism you can’t allow the US the right to defend itself because it’s a state, and by definition all actions by a state are evil, even self-defense.”
I’ll speak for myself and admit to believing this: the state is incapable of acting on a moral and ethical basis. This is why it never does. Even when it appears to attempt to do so, it is merely an elusion. The state is by its very nature an aggressive, coercive monopolist of jurisdiction over people’s lives and it has no justifiable claim to such a role. Its crimes begin with lies, theft and arbitrary legislation over a duped public, and culminate in torture and mass murder. Its goal is not to protect its subjects, as 9/11 clearly demonstrated, but rather to protect itself, as post 9/11 continues to clearly demonstrate. History has always and will always repeatedly confirm this view, because it is necessarily true. You cannot expect to pick apples from a thorn bush. And by now, to all of us I should think, the fruit of the state tree should be giving us a pretty clear clue as to its fundamental nature.
“Mises saw states, especially democracies, as legit institutions with the right to self-defense.”
He also viewed that the individual should retain the right of secession from such democracies. That squares ok with me; how about you? But further, I would say that it did not occur to von Mises that anarchy does not imply lawlessness and chaos, but merely the absence of the one thing which he railed against with vigor his entire career: the menacing and marauding state. How amazing and boring it would be if Mises were so perfect as to have left no further insights for his followers to derive from his elaborations in praxeology.
“As I’ve written elsewhere, Iraq attacked the US in the first WTC bombing and several times afteward. I won’t detail those again here. There are many books that do a better job. So I think Mises would view the Iraq invasion a justified.”
The most you can say is that the totalitarian and despotic Iraqi government made the attack, assuming it did. As I’ve written elsewhere, this in no way justifies the killing of innocent Iraqis who by the very assertions of the US regime had no control over their own government.
Sione, thanks for your post. As your anecdote shows, we simply care more about how our government treats us (and those most like us) than how it treats foreigners. The lower degree of citizen interest creates opportunities for michief and misconduct, which is much in evidence today.
As for the moniker, ever notice that I seem to be online when others are not? I reside in the capital district of a rather small East Asian nation offshore of China and Korea.
Regards,
Tom
Why is a thief not valid?
Sione:”You criminal thief you!” Careful, you might injure yourself. I’m not going to write a thesis on natural law in this blog. If you care about the truth, you’ll read the book I mentioned above.
Anyone who doubts Saddam Hussein had WMD’s should read “Saddam’s Secrets” by General George Sada, one of Hussein’s top generals.
Paul, I just want to make it clear to everyone what the logical outcome of anarchism is. Whether we killed innocent people or not, anarchists would declare the war illegal, immoral and evil because it was prosecuted by a state and not by private citizens. And no matter how many times Hussein attacked the US, or US citizens, we could never go after him because civilians might be killed. So as long as he’s willing to hide behind civilians, he is free to murder, rape and plunder at will.
BTW, anarchists, along with their leftist fellow-travelers, regularly berate Bush for not going after Bin Laden. Have you considered that to do so would involve invading a friendly nation, Pakistan, and the deaths of many thousands more civilians? Bin Laden is hiding behind hundreds of troops who are using the local population as shields. Are you advocating killing those civilians to get at Bin Laden?
One of the odd things about the latest war was that experts predicted huge numbers of refugees to neighboring countries. That’s what civilians normally do during war; they get out of the way. Why didn’t Iraqi civilians leave the war zones and come back after the war?
Roger,
“Paul, I just want to make it clear to everyone what the logical outcome of anarchism is. Whether we killed innocent people or not, anarchists would declare the war illegal, immoral and evil because it was prosecuted by a state and not by private citizens.”
It is not because it is a state that its aggression is unjustified. It is the aggression that is unjustified. It just so happens that states are inherently aggressive and this is the single most significant fact behind anarchist thinking. The state is aggressive, unwarranted and unjustifiable. If the state could contain itself to the ethics that we hold the private individual to and avoid aggression and so avoid killing innocent people as a matter of principle, the state would be just fine. But then, it would hardly be a state would it?
“And no matter how many times Hussein attacked the US, or US citizens, we could never go after him because civilians might be killed.”
You concoct wild imaginary scenarios because of a wish to feel comfortable that your government kills and tortures innocent people. I guess its working.
“So as long as he’s willing to hide behind civilians, he is free to murder, rape and plunder at will.”
No your right. Whose neighborhood should “we” bomb next? There are still evil doers to be had.
“BTW, anarchists, along with their leftist fellow-travelers, regularly berate Bush for not going after Bin Laden. Have you considered that to do so would involve invading a friendly nation, Pakistan, and the deaths of many thousands more civilians? Bin Laden is hiding behind hundreds of troops who are using the local population as shields. Are you advocating killing those civilians to get at Bin Laden?”
No I’m not. If they can’t get him without murdering innocents, then they can’t get him. Are you suggesting Washington has a moral aversion to killing innocent people and that’s why they failed to get bin Laden? Bin Laden is merely less important to Washington than Iraq is. Curious that.
“One of the odd things about the latest war was that experts predicted huge numbers of refugees to neighboring countries. That’s what civilians normally do during war; they get out of the way. Why didn’t Iraqi civilians leave the war zones and come back after the war?”
Oh it’s the Iraqi’s fault? Brilliant. It’s nice for us to sit comfortably in our armchairs asking why people of another nation didn’t leave their homes and move to refugee camps in preparation for the annihilation of their homes and neighborhoods by their friendly liberating world police nation. They just aren’t as forward thinking as we are. I guess that’s why we get to remain seated in our armchairs and they get to end up dead.
Paul,
Just to be clear, private militias of an anarchist society would allow criminals like Hussein to continue in their criminal activity if stopping him meant accidentally killing civilians in the process?
Given the nature of the debate on this thread, I thought some of you might be interested in one of my old articles on “anarchist national defense” that originally appeared on anti-state.com some years ago. Basically, I just intended this as a thought experiment motivated by my reading of David Friedman’s ideas on the subject.
http://www.attackthesystem.com/nationaldefense.html
Make sport of it all you wish!! Seriously, I don’t think the idea of an entirely privatized national defense is all that absurd. There are basically three kinds of militaries:
1) slave armies (conscripts)
2) mercenaries hired by the state (like the present US military)
3) non-state militaries
In the US, we see large collections of private groups forming asssociations for the advancement of their common interests like the AFL-CIO, National Council of Churches, National Association of Manufacturers, the collage of interest groups that comprise the Democratic and Republican parties, etc. Theoretically, there could be a Council on National Defense organized as a federation of militias, guerrillas, paramilitaries, mercenaries, various specialty squads and whatever else drawn from a larger pool of personnel and funds collected by businesses,unions, churches, universities, civic organizations, et.al. Again, it’s an interesting thought experiment but it’s so far removed from where we are now it’s not really worth worrying about.
On foreign policy, I tend to side (loosely) with the Buchananites, i.e., armed neutrality (like the Swiss). I opposed the invasion of Afghanistan on the grounds that no nation in history has ever successfully occupied that region and I could see no military reason to think the US could do otherwise. Why fight a war you can’t win?
I opposed the invasion of Iraq on the grounds that a) it served no useful purpose
b) the US would lose in the long run
c) radical Shiah fundamentalism would eventually get control over Iraq as opposed to the secular nationalism of Saddam
d) it would inspire more terrorist reprisals against Westerners by Muslims
e) it was motivated by the political influence of narrow partisan interests (radical Zionists and sectors of the oil cartel)
f) I oppose cultural imperialism in a broader sense.
g) I resolutely oppose any tendency towards global governance (whether Pax Americana or UN Uber Alles)
I stand by these conclusions.
Roger,
Hussein was a tin-pot tyrant until the CIA began helping him. Under Reagan, this help was increased drastically under the dictum “the enemy of my enemy (Iran) is my frind”. We gave him tremendous amounts of money, materiel (including chemical weapons), and political juice. Then he attacked one of our ‘friends’ (Kuwait), arguably with our tacit consent, and suddenly he’s our worst enemy.
If we had just stayed the hell out of Iraq in the first place, Hussein would have been an easy target as soon as he crossed a sufficient number of his own people. Granted, you cannot un-ring a bell, we made this guy into a monster, literally and figuratively. But subsequently invading, sanctioning, invading, and occupying Iraq have done nothing but make things worse.
Roger;
“Just to be clear, private militias of an anarchist society would allow criminals like Hussein to continue in their criminal activity if stopping him meant accidentally killing civilians in the process?”
More to the point, what Hussein did in his own country was a criminal matter, not a justification for aggressive war. Not to seem uncaring, but murdering his own people is an internal matter for his own people, not an external invasion.
Roger;
“”One of the odd things about the latest war was that experts predicted huge numbers of refugees to neighboring countries. That’s what civilians normally do during war; they get out of the way. Why didn’t Iraqi civilians leave the war zones and come back after the war?”"
One of the reasons you might express such an idea is that the (relative) level of development in Europe at the time of WWII permitted SOME movement of the type you mention. However, hundreds of thousands of DPs died due to WWI and WWII. Flight at best is still not riskless.
But come on – have you no inkling of Iraqi geography? Most of the country outside of the cities is poorly-roaded desert.
Vince, Joran, Saudi Arabia, Syria and Iran prepared for huge numbers of refugees. So did the UN. I think those people know a little about the geography. I don’t know the answer to why the Iraqis civilians didn’t flee the fighting, but I suspect that Hussein wanted to use them as shields.
Those who opposed the war might find this interesting:
“”Most liberals, at least among our writers, favored the U.S. military intervention in Iraq. I myself have written articles in support of it, before and after the invasion. I didn’t support it because of Iraqi WMD…, but for democracy. We would have liked President George W. Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair to say openly that they were invading to liberate the Iraqi people. Remember, even Riad Turk was not against the U.S. intervention. A Syrian, Abdul Razzaq Eid, who spent most of his life in the doctrinaire Syrian Communist Party of Khaled Bekdash, even wrote articles welcoming it…”
This is part of an interview with the owner of the website, Metransparent. He’s speaking about liberal Arabs. You can read the whole interview at http://memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SD119306
Roger;
“Vince, Jor(d)an, Saudi Arabia, Syria and Iran prepared for huge numbers of refugees. So did the UN. I think those people know a little about the geography. I don’t know the answer to why the Iraqis civilians didn’t flee the fighting, but I suspect that Hussein wanted to use them as shields.”
What I forgot to add was that because most of Iraq is roadless, trackless desert, a large majority of refugees leaving the cities for those places would simply die in the desert. I suspect that rather than the insane logic you employ to explain why they did not risk almost certain death, along with a loss of any claim to their property, simply staying and waiting out the fighting was slightly less risky, in their estimation. For some, it was a damned if you do, damned if you don’t. What is moral about giving those people a choice of ways to die?
If you really believe what you said, I’m afraid that further moral reasoning would be wasted on you.
Vince:”What I forgot to add was that because most of Iraq is roadless, trackless desert, a large majority of refugees leaving the cities for those places would simply die in the desert.”
You must think the governments of Syria, Iran, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the UN are pretty stupid. They didn’t know Iraq doesn’t have roads! But they prepared for millions of refugees anyway. How stupid of them. Sarcasm aside, I think those people know the region better than you do.
Roger said;
“You must think the governments of Syria, Iran, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the UN are pretty stupid. ”
Well, being an anarchist, I think most governments are pretty stupid, so yeah, I’ll cop to that.
)
They are not, however, stupid enough to forget which side their bread is buttered on – the US asks, they comply. It doesn’t mean it makes any sense.
Vince, Actually, the roads out of Iraq are pretty good if you look at the commercial traffic, pilgrims, etc. coming and going. If you read Gen. Georges Sada’s book mentioned above, you’ll probably agree that Hussein would have no problem keeping his people as shields. Gen Sada, one of Hussein’s top generals, wrote that Hussein built his command and control centers beneath bunkers for civilians for the purpose of using them as shields.
Roger;
“Gen Sada, one of Hussein’s top generals, wrote that Hussein built his command and control centers beneath bunkers for civilians for the purpose of using them as shields.”
All the more motivation to flee…yet they didn’t.
I presume you have never been a refugee. My grandparents were displaced persons after WWI – my great-grandparents were Italian, my grandmother was born in Germany. Refugee life isn’t a piece of cake – that’s one of the reasons so many Jews stayed in Germany after it became obvious that things were going bad.
RogerM
You write, “I’m not going to write a thesis on natural law in this blog. If you care about the truth, you’ll read the book I mentioned above.”
Establishing the truth is WHY you were asked for proof. That is, demonstrate the method by which you derive and validate your contention using a chain of logic and evidence from reality. You do not need to write a thesis on “natural rights” just provide a proof for your self-claimed “right” to steal by force. A proof for that particular “right” is all I asked of you.
It is disturbing that you appear to rely on the likes of General Saba (a Saddam henchman, war monger & state worshipper no doubt about it). Too easy to say go believe in one or other book. You have to think these things through, evaluate them, locate evidence and test them etc.. How else do you establish whether what is in a book is valid? That something may be printed in a book is all very well but that does not mean that:-
a) you understand it &
b) it is correct.
Hence, I ask you to demonstrate a single proof. That means you have to show what you understand and how you apply it.
The assertion that you have a “right” to steal by force appears to underlie your entire political philosophy. Surely you’d be well familiar with something so fundamental to your cause. Look mate, even communists that one comes across from time to time are better acquainted with their political theory and philosophy than you appear to be with what you have promoted. I’m guessing you are arguing on the basis of doctrinal belief.
Back to a lesson from the Matai. He asked us, “Who would Jesus kill?” After some silence one lad stood up and said, “He wouldn’t. He’d tell us not to.” Fair enough.
The responsibility you have to yourself as a volitional human being is to understand how to think and what you think and why you think it. This is critical because upon your thoughts (ideas) rely actions.
So where do you get your justifications? Show the proof please.
Sione
No your right. Whose neighborhood should “we” bomb next? There are still evil doers to be had.
I say we bomb Roger’s neighborhood. I’m sure there’s some nasty criminal in there somewhere that “we can’t get at without killing Roger’s family”. Pity, but what can you do when these criminals hide behind innocent people?
If you read Gen. Georges Sada’s book mentioned above
Of course, this former Iraqi general (assuming he really is one; I haven’t done any research on the guy) doesn’t have an agenda of his own. (Is this the same one that you get your claim that Saddam (who never showed any religious streak except for political expediency) invaded Kuwait after a dream where Allah told him to?)
There were no WMDs. Everyone knows there were no WMDs. Everyone with a brain cell in their head knew there were no WMDs long before the invasion. The only surprise is that no WMDs were ever found – I would have bet a lot on money on the US planting some.
Peter said;
“The only surprise is that no WMDs were ever found – I would have bet a lot on money on the US planting some.”
OH yeah – after the WMD ‘scales’ fell from my eyes (about 2 days after the notorious “Mission Accomplished” photo-op), I had EXACTLY that thought. Except their pollsters are so smart, they probably saw the bad numbers after that stunt and realized how badly it would backfire if it was ever exposed. Besides, the invasion was a fait acompli aththat point – no need to ride that WMD horse – better to try to get the public to forget about it…
On another issue.
It’s a little rich to be critical of Iraqi people for staying put during the war. Perhaps they remembered the thousands of refugees who got collateralised by air power on the Bagdad Road during the First Iraqi War. Those who got straffed and incinerated. Perhaps that’s why people stayed put this time around.
Sione
So–The best that this vile, criminal and loathsome elements from the US government who are responsible for these wretched wars could come up by way of response to the latest casualty figures is that “2500 dead Americans is only a number”!
I have another number for you, Mr. President, 500!
500 MORE dead Americans will top the 3000 who died in the 9-11 Twin towers atrocity, the proximate “cause” of your wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. This number is bound to be exceeded in the next year, perhaps even in the next six months!
We have a professional criminal class in Washington DC who not only FAILED to protect our country from those who committed the twin towers atrocity, killing approx. 3000 innocent Americans there, but we will soon see at least ANOTHER 3000 innocent Americans with their lives snuffed out, their families bereaved, their futures gone, for NO REASON WHATSOEVER so that an evil and contemptible class of murderers, liars, and slanderers could go through the motions of a “war on terror”, all the while increasing the actual danger of terrorism against us, both at home and abroad!
Bush’s so-called “war on terror” will have been shown for all the world to be a total goose egg!
All of his critics will have been shown to have been right, and he, and his infamous criminal ‘neocon’ owners and handlers will be shown to be what they are!
In another six months or so, we will have the case of Bush’s war casualties exceeding the casualties of the atrocity it was ostensibly meant to avenge. JUST A NUMBER!
Six thousand dead Americans, Mr. President–Just a number!
Costs of Twin Towers atrocity: c.3000 dead Americans
Costs of war-on-terror atrocity: c.3000 dead Americans!
Just a number, President Bush???
Oh, well, when you are the “President”, I guess American lives are ALL pretty cheap, aren’t they?
GOD BLESS AMERICA!!
David K. Meller
← Previous Comments
Comments on this entry are closed.