The silencing of Iraqi witnesses

[Knight0440]

The connection? I think it's rather obvious: warfare in the modern era. War crimes are systemic in modern war. War is a monstrous event that happens on a global scale effecting everyone and because it is so massive, anyone is a target and anything is permissible as long as it is done for a "just" or "rational" cause, regardless of how ludicrous it sounds.

[Corganist]

Originally posted by Knight0440
The connection? I think it's rather obvious: warfare in the modern era. War crimes are systemic in modern war. War is a monstrous event that happens on a global scale effecting everyone and because it is so massive, anyone is a target and anything is permissable as long as it is done for a "just" cause.

You basically just said: "War is bad, because bad things happen during war." Thats not an argument. By that logic, any nation that fights in war would be complicit in the sort of debauchery you claim the US is supposedly systematically participating in over in Iraq and elsewhere. Maybe you actually believe that, but its not relevant to the discussion at hand. We're talking about specific instances in a specific war, and whether or not those specific instances show that the US is systematically performing war crimes. Saying "Its obvious they are, because thats what happens in war." proves nothing at all, because then we'd have to get into a huge drawn out discussion on whether or not systematic war crimes really are inherent to war. Stop relying on generalizations.

[Sapphire]

Call me crazy, but during a time of war when you have over a hundred thousand soldiers in a land, and a couple of them lose their heads and do something stupid (i.e: shoot that unarmed man in front of the video camera), I don't think it's fair to say that that one person represents the whole government or country. I also don't think it's fair that the government or country should somehow be held accountable for those actions. Should the soldier? That's up to the courts. But focusing on these events that are sporadic at best when compared to the larger picture, I really think it's an unfair shake that the minute anybody does anything stupid or a few mistakes are made, it gets translated into the "sinister evil plot" the U.S. had going from day one.

[Injektilo]

i love how people in here talk about what's going on in iraq like they have any idea what is really happening on the ground there.

[Knight0440]

Sapphire:

The point I was trying to make with my comment was that Iraq under Saddam's rule shouldn't even have been considered a nation. This planet as a whole has gotten past the Middle Ages where a King could rule with absolute power and be held against no law.

Have we? Or does the power/authority manifest itself in different ways? Bush sure didn’t ask me about invading a nation but he went ahead and did it anyway in the name of my country, which *******s me. (the stars are hiding the word i n c l u d e s)

Saddam had no willingness to partcipate in any proceeding or follow any law. He did what he wanted to. He killed his own people, he attacked his neighbours, he knuckled a nation under his thumb. The problem with the U.N. and other nations was that they were treating Saddam's regime like it was a legitamite government, that would tend to its word and keep its promises.

You’re absolutely right. He and his government did do many of the things you list (killing his own, invading another country, attacked neighbors, and was treated as an equal at the UN) and he did almost all of them with the tacit support of Washington. You will of course concede that in the 1980’s Saddam and his Iraqi government were our allies, when most of what you speak of happened. In the 1980’s the Iraqi military was also at its strongest thanks to American “aid.” This “aid” consisted of food, weapons, money, and ammo. We also happened to be sending “aid” to Iran in order to perpetuate war between the two and see who would come out on top. (I would add this is a war crime.) On top of this, when Saddam did commit these gave injustices that you speak of, the US increased “aid” for a job well done. There were no outright criticisms or condemnations from the US government. Not like there was just before the Gulf War when the media’s job was to whip the American public into war frenzy/patriotic glee over the “evil, sadistic” Saddam. This all happened before Saddam became the unruly dictator, Hitler look-alike, and “Beast of Baghdad” that the US media made him out to be just prior to removing his forces from Kuwait, a monarchy and another one of our allies. (If you’d like sources try Middle East Illusions: Including Peace in the Middle East? : Reflections on Justice and Nationhood by Noam Chomsky, the previously mentioned The Clash of Fundamentalisms: Crusades, Jihads and Modernity by Tariq Ali, Endgame : Solving the Iraq Crisis by Scott Ritter, and Iraq Under Siege, Updated Edition : The Deadly Impact of Sanctions and War edited by Anthony Arnove.)

For, even with all the divisions, violence and confusion, the country is moving in a new direction. What that new direction may be, nobody knows. It could be good or bad. But at least there's that chance for good. And that chance never existed with Saddam in power.

What we are going to have in Iraq is a client state of US hegemony, much like Israel. There is no freedom, democracy, or goodwill. That’s talk. You need to look at actions, not be wooed by their rhetoric.

Iraq under Saddam Hussein followed none of the conventions that the international community set upon it. In fact, it flat-out ignored them.

What did he flat out not follow? What period of time are we discussing here?

And if Iraq is allowed to ignore all the rules and demands put upon it by the people calling it a sovereign nation, then why does the term still apply?

I think you are still missing the point. A sovereign nation is comprised of people, culture, traditions, customs, common language, religious beliefs and ideals, as well as a form of law, among other things. The US has violated so many people and countries it’s hard to count. They rarely listen to what other countries’ concerns are, follow international law, or play “fair.” Yet we are considered a sovereign nation.

It did nothing for the people while building huge castles so that Saddam would be looked upon as a great ruler in future generations.

Actually, aside from Israel, before the Gulf War, Iraq was one of the most advanced nations in the Middle East. They had universal health care, numerous hospitals with modern technology, a rising literacy rate, new schools, etc. In the Gulf War, war crimes occurred, namely the bombing of the civilian infrastructure, which really decimated the progress of the country. That’s not to say the Iraqi government didn’t participate in horrible atrocities even with its societal advances, nor that certain sectors of society were not oppressed. But you can find that in Westernized countries as well. If you want more information, check the above sources.

Corganist:

You asked for a unifying action that causes all the issues we’ve been talking about. I claim that characteristic is the very nature of modern war. It was a generalization and one that is relevant to every state, not just the US. Can you name a war/conflict in the 20-21st centuries that didn’t have war crimes? If you stop modern war, you will see an end to many of these crimes. As a student of law, I am pretty shocked that you so easily blow off war crimes and international law just because they are not recorded in Holocaust numbers.

And back to Sapphire:

…It gets translated into the "sinister evil plot" the U.S. had going from day one.

I never said “sinister evil plot.” Those are Corganist’s words and I wish you would not attribute them to me. Because war crimes are systemic in modern war, it is in the very nature of going to war that produces these instances.

How states interpret their own war crimes and other states’ war crimes is a different matter. These actions are not only limited to “American policy” but rather state policy. This seems to be a policy that can be used by any government to condemn any other state or group when said state’s interests are being interfered with. When one state starts condemning another’s war crimes, that condemnation gives the government and the population a false moral ground to take action rather than let the perceived injustice continue. This faux moral ground, that say the US takes, is a way to legitimize the use of propaganda to incite hatred, violence, and fear against another state, let’s say Iraq. The propaganda I speak of are the acts of aggression used against Iraq’s neighbors and citizens by US media. The reports can also be considered propaganda because they are used to stir up the population into a war frenzy, while leaving out important historical facts in order to paint our desired enemy in black and white colors, with no accountability falling on the country that provided the WMDs which were used to commit the war crimes, namely the US.

[Pmack]

Originally posted by Sapphire
It's the equivalent to an absolute retard being crowned the King of a nation. Being barely able to breath and wear a crown at the same time, this man is technically the King, correct? But, does he do any of the functions of a King? Does he rule the land? Make sure the law is upheld? And do what's best for the economy? No. But he's still the "King," right?

Unfortunately, yes. Like it or not, George W. Bush is still the leader of this country.

[Corganist]

Originally posted by Knight0440

Corganist:

You asked for a unifying action that causes all the issues we’ve been talking about. I claim that characteristic is the very nature of modern war. It was a generalization and one that is relevant to every state, not just the US. Can you name a war/conflict in the 20-21st centuries that didn’t have war crimes? If you stop modern war, you will see an end to many of these crimes. As a student of law, I am pretty shocked that you so easily blow off war crimes and international law just because they are not recorded in Holocaust numbers.

I'm not blowing off anything. I'm only taking exception to the tone of the rhetoric that US critics have used when evidence suggesting war crimes have been found. Yes, I am quite aware that war crimes happen in every war, sometimes even on a wide scale. I'm not going to argue that is an insignificant thing. But I reject the notion that the US policy in Iraq is somehow more conducive to or approving of war crimes than any other state's policies in other conflicts. If anything, the opposite is true. Does that mean bad things don't happen? Of course not. But there is nothing that shows that those bad things happen because the US encourages them, or that they're lax on preventing them. There's nothing to suggest that the war crimes committed by the US are any more numerous or blatent than what you admit is inherent in modern warfare. Perhaps it should be less (and maybe it is), but thats a different argument.

It seems that you're starting to drift off into the realm of discussing whether the war is even necessary, rather than whether the execution of the war is within acceptable standards even if it were legitimate in the eyes of international critics. These are two seperate discussions, and the latter is the one that concerns me at the moment. You get me wrong if you think that I am saying that there is an excuse for US war crimes. One is too many...but given the nature of war, obviously we can't expect even the most disciplined soldiers to act rationally all the time. Isolated incidents will occur, and the violators should be punished. My only problem with is the people who take these isolated incidents and try to paint a bigger picture of deeper problems, when there's no evidence to show it.

[Mariner]

man, if knight0440 is freaked out about what's going on now, what is he going to think of the world twenty years from now? this is stable, happy cake compared to the likely direction events are going to take in the near future.

[phaedrus]

Originally posted by Injektilo
i love how people in here talk about what's going on in iraq like they have any idea what is really happening on the ground there.

so true.

that's why i prefer to talk in generalities. i don't have the time and patience to reference a million different stats and articles either. if i wanted to put that much effort into it, i'd find some collection of higher intellect to take it to.