21 Day War over, "mopping up" begins!

[Jedi Poker]

It's truly amazing how quickly the Coalition has made powerless the Saddam Regime. As of April 9, 2003 - only 21 days after the war began - the objective of "regime change" has indeed been achieved. The Coalition is now the de facto regime while uncoordinated command-less and control-less elements of the previous regime have in fact become the outsiders. In other words, the Coalition is the Government while remnants of the Saddam regime have become a band of rebels.

And now, "mopping up" begins. Ironically, this phase presents more risk to the lives of individual American soldiers (who effectively are the police force of Baghadad) in the field. This is so because the temporary absence of a central government makes it so that there is no real identifiable enemy. Just random groups of suicidal thugs fighting for a leader that no longer leads.

To summarize: After 21 Days of fighting, the war is finally over but the more dangerous (in terms of risk to the lives of the individual American soldier) phase of mopping up has begun. I hope the Coalition declares martial law as soon as possible. I also hope that they introduce a food (or money) for guns program - this move should eliminate a lot of guns from circulation very quickly, thus lowering the risk for the US soldiers and to the UN and Red Cross personell that should be moving in soon.

I hope, though, that the Coalition delays the official declaration of victory for months using "extreme dangers during the mop up phase" as an excuse to keep the UN at arms length for a while. In fact, they should declare victory only - and only - after at least 200 US companies have already been locked into juicy long-term contracts to fix infrastructure and exploit Iraq's oil resources. The fact is, the US risked blood and money while the others didn't. And it has to be paid for doing so! The Iraqis will be happy because this will create jobs. By allowing US companies to jumpstart the Iraqi economy, perhaps the US economy can be jumpstarted as well. Crisis is opportunity.

[Graham]

"they should declare victory only - and only - after at least 200 US companies have already been locked into juicy long-term contracts to fix infrastructure and exploit Iraq's oil resources. The fact is, the US risked blood and money while the others didn't. And it has to be paid for doing so!"

This is the worst idea possible!
So you think Iraq is a conquered country and the booty of war can now be divvied up? Paid?! Paid by who and why? The coalition decided themselves to go in; no 3rd party asked them to do it.

The purpose was to oust Saddam's regime to make the world safer, no? That's why the coalition went in, isn't it? I guess I was mistaken; I didn't realise it was an armed stick-up.

[Graham]

As an aside, it is likely to be mopping up mainly from now, but Iraq still has tens of thousands of troops in the Sunni heartland and northern Iraq - which the coalition does not control (even if much of Baghdad has pretty much fallen - though not all under coalition control even there). There's the suggestion that a last meaningful stand may occur at Tikrit, Saddam's birthplace and fiercely loyal spiritual home of his regime. The 4th Infantry are currently moving towards Tikrit.

G

[Cyrus]

(I was looking forward to put up a post for Jedi Poker, titled "Saddam to Jedi: Too Many!", tomorrow, on the 22nd day of the war, but it won't happen.)

I concede that the war is over today, even though militarily it might not be that way at all. Just came back from watching the Saddam Hussein statue in central Baghdad being toppled over on live TV and the spectacle was as significant as the Twin Towers going down all over the world.

So, in my book, the worst is past. A number of Americans will be killed in the months to come, just like they are killed, as we speak, in pacified Afghanistan. But the war is over and from the actions of the American administration, and the reactions of the Arab states (none of them a democracy, bar Lebanon) we shall see where this will go. And whether the whole thing will be dressed, however flimsily, with a vestige of legitimacy. Powell must have Anan's mobile number.

An obvious remark : The United States is at a position right now whereby it can ram through a tough and radical solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. If Bush surpasses his weaknesses as a leader and proves he's able to seize the day, well, then we might witness a momentous shift in the Middle East map. We just might. And a real one, not just a change in soldiery.

[Jedi Poker]

Dell Computers, Apple Computer, Microsoft, IBM, Cisco, Compaq and other American hi-tech firms can create a lot of Iraqi jobs once the US government gives them long-term contracts (and keep hi-tech firms from Anti-Coalition countries out) during the mopping up phase.

Various American contractors, architectural and design firms, and engineering firms can create a lot of Iraqi jobs once the US government has given them the opportunity to pre-empt long-term contracts to rebuild the Iraq infrastructure during the mopping up phase in which firms from Anti-Coalition/Anti-Iraqi Freedom nations are kept out.

American oil retailers, refiners, drilling equipment makers, tanker operators, and other oil related businesss can create a lot of Iraqi jobs once the US government has granted them exclusive contracts to redevelop the second richest oil producing country in the world.

United Airlines and American Airlines (both direct victims of 9/11), and other US airlines can create a lot of Iraqi jobs when the US government gives them first priority in locking up gates in the Baghdad International Airport.

UPS, Fedex, and other US-based carriers can create a lot of Iraqi jobs once the US government has allowed them to pre-empt Iraq's delivery system during the mopping up phase in which all firms based in Anti-Coalition/Anti-Iraqi Freedom countries have been kept out for the sake of their "safety".

Ford and GM, but not Chrysler (it is owned by the German Daimler-Benz), can create a lot of Iraqi jobs once the US government has given them the opportunity to be the first to lock in the most favorable location, raw materials and labor resources for auto production and assembly inside Iraq....and domestic distribution as well.

In short, many US companies can be given the opportunity to lock in business inside Iraq during the "neverending" mopping up phase during which foreign companies are kept out for their own safety. The Iraqi people are going to benefit the most through new job creation. Some local Iraqi entrepreneurs can also benefit when they build related and supporting industries that complement the US businesses that have locked into long-term contracts and first mover market, production, and distribution advantages inside Iraq. We are afterall in Iraq to help the Iraqi people not ourselves.

[Graham]

Snip: long post about how the US can ensure US corporations help themselves to benefits from upcoming Iraq rebuilding/restructuring.

"...We are afterall in Iraq to help the Iraqi people not ourselves."

[nicky g]

Iraq is one of the most technologically advanced nations in the Middle East (probably the most). Many of these contracts could be given directly to Iraqi firms. There are plenty of engineers etc there. But no; they'll be given to Bush chums. And the Iraqis will have to foot the bill with their own oil.It's been disgusting to watch the US, the UK, France and Russia squabble about who these contracts should go to, each desperate for a piece of pie. Whenever possible, they should go to Iraqis.

[Graham]

I don't think you've considered it - from your posts in this thread - but a big concern in the aftermath of Saddams downfall is how the restructuring of Iraq is viewed in the eyes of the Arab world. Stability in the middle east won't be promoted by the US being seen as exploiting this situation. Your priority of trying to get a buck out of the situation, instead of true political improvements in the region, is exactly what will generate further cynicism, suspicion and distrust of US motives.

[Graham]

reminds me of the cartoon in the washington post a couple of days ago, with bush and his generals sitting round a table with a military map of Iraq. cheney is also there and rolling a miniature Haliburton truck among the tanks, while Bush turns to him and says: "Not yet, Dick."

[adios]

Actually my understanding of the Iraqi economic system is that under Hussein privitization of business and free markets were sorely lacking. Iraq had a planned economy where products, production quotas, prices, etc. were scheduled from a central planning authority. There's a very good article today in the Wall Street Journal (front page, headline article) about the economic problems and challenges that lie ahead in Iraq. The truth of the matter is that the Iraqi economic situation is a mystery due to the secrative nature of the Hussein regime. Hussein rightly or wrongly refused to divulge economic data and thus spurned all economic assistance from such organizations as the IMF. The oil production numbers are better known since due to the food for oil program still Hussein smuggled much oil out of the country for his own benifit. Now if you want to have a free market economy, with privitization of businesses in Iraq (and I concede that the Iraqis themselves may not want this) you'll have to have capital formation and investment to establish them. I think it's ludicrous to condemn the USA for exploiting Iraq at this juncture. Now France, Germany, and Russia are another story. For one thing I think it would be a great gesture by these three nations if they decided to forgive the debt that they are owed by Iraq. After all the debts were incurred by an illegitimate regime. Also any and all contracts established by the illegitimate Hussein regime with these three countries are null and void. While we're at it I think that war reparation payments ought to be declared null and void or at least severely reduced.

[BruceZ]

And whether the whole thing will be dressed, however flimsily, with a vestige of legitimacy.

I strongly disagree that there is anything even vaguely illegitimate about all of this. There is nothing illegitimate about a nation responding to violations of the terms of surrender (from the Gulf War). The means by which Saddam came to power and the way he oppressed his people were illegitimate.

Just came back from watching the Saddam Hussein statue in central Baghdad being toppled over on live TV and the spectacle was as significant as the Twin Towers going down all over the world.

I think a more apt analogy would be the fall of the Berlin wall.

[Cyrus]

"I strongly disagree that there is anything even vaguely illegitimate about all of this."

Well, the established int'l law is clearly spelled out in the treaties and the charters of organisations that the two adversaries, Iraq and the U.S., belong to. Resorting to violence is prohibited; pre-meptive action is prohibited; acting outside U.N. madates is prohibnited; etcetera.

The only legitimacy American actions have is the threat about "serious consequences" contained in Resolution 1441.

"There is nothing illegitimate about a nation responding to violations of the terms of surrender (from the Gulf War)."

The official reason for the war in Iraq, as given out by Washington, had nothing to do with the 1991 Gulf War. In which war, if memory serves, there was no "surrender", nor "terms of surrender". (Iraq agreed to certain rules imposed by the U.N., while it was forced to accept other measures, such as the no-fly zones.)

"The means by which Saddam came to power and the way he oppressed his people were illegitimate."

I will not be an apologist for a dictator. All I want to point out is that, between nations, such notions do not hold water. As well as they shouldn't. Recognizing the legitimacy of a government and its administration is a matter of practicality and is dictated by the need for peaceful co-habitation. If ideology, instead of benign tolerance, was allowed to rule the relations between nations, we'd have constantly war and chaos in the world.

[BruceZ]

Well, the established int'l law is clearly spelled out in the treaties and the charters of organisations that the two adversaries, Iraq and the U.S., belong to. Resorting to violence is prohibited; pre-meptive action is prohibited; acting outside U.N. madates is prohibnited; etcetera.

When one party violates the terms of a contract or agreement, that contract or agreement becomes null and void. Of course the use of force is necessary to enforce these agreements or they have absolutely no meaning.

The official reason for the war in Iraq, as given out by Washington, had nothing to do with the 1991 Gulf War. In which war, if memory serves, there was no "surrender", nor "terms of surrender". (Iraq agreed to certain rules imposed by the U.N., while it was forced to accept other measures, such as the no-fly zones.)

That was my reason, better than Washington's reasons /forums/images/icons/smile.gif The Gulf war ended on the premise that Iraq would agree to the UN resolutions. If they did not agree to them, we would continue kicking its ass, and it is no different if they stop agreeing to them later.

All I want to point out is that, between nations, such notions do not hold water. As well as they shouldn't. Recognizing the legitimacy of a government and its administration is a matter of practicality and is dictated by the need for peaceful co-habitation. If ideology, instead of benign tolerance, was allowed to rule the relations between nations, we'd have constantly war and chaos in the world.

And I'm pointing out that our presumption of power in Iraq is no less legitimate than Saddam's presumption of power, and I think considerably less harmful.

[Cyrus]

"When one party violates the terms of a contract or agreement, that contract or agreement becomes null and void. Of course the use of force is necessary to enforce these agreements or they have absolutely no meaning."

Nope, resorting to force whenever a nation disagrees with another is (used to be) a no-no. Disputes between nations were not supposed to be resolved like disputes between persons.

"If [Iraq] did not agree to [the UN resolutions], we would continue kicking its ass, and it is no different if they stop agreeing to them later."

I know this is great fun, but you realize of course that you're making the rules as you go along. And who's this "we" ? The U.S.?
The U.S. has acted outside U.N. madate (..in order to protect a U.N. mandate!)

"Our presumption of power in Iraq is no less legitimate than Saddam's presumption of power."

It is legitimate only in that it is based on the use of force. Having force as the factor that decides presumption of power in a country sounds a little unsettling (excuse the pun). Today, force is with the good guys; tomorrow, who knows? Legalizing brute force as an acceptable means of grabbing power anwhere ("a dictator does it ...so we can do it too") is not a comforting thought.

[BruceZ]

What you have argued in the last two posts is that the use of force to presume power is a "no-no", but once someone does this successfully, we must then recognize them as legitimate, and it isn't for us to say that they are illegitimate even when they abuse that power to oppress the people for personal gain. Then when someone tries to preempt the preemptors, they are committing a no-no again, until they are successful and then they are legitimate again, and so on, and so on. Can't you see how ridiculous this is?

I know this is great fun, but you realize of course that you're making the rules as you go along.

I'm not making any rules. You are trying to make the silly rules stated above. My rules have been the same since the first caveman picked up a stone. Might may not make right, but it does make reality. Always has, always will.

Today, force is with the good guys; tomorrow, who knows?

Exactly, that's why we need to make sure it stays with the good guys. That sometimes means using that power so that others don't get the idea they can run all over you. I sound like Mason now.

Legalizing brute force as an acceptable means of grabbing power anywhere

The alternative is impossible. International laws cannot be made to illegalize brute force because all laws must be enforced if necessary by brute force! This is a contradiction. This is the same reason Sklansky uses to argue that Geneva convention rules of war are silly, and he is right. Rules will never be agreed upon in advance unless they will be in the best interest of both parties, and rules which if followed may lead to the ultimate destruction of one of the parties will never be agreed to, nor should they be.

[Cyrus]

"What you have argued in the last two posts is that the use of force to presume power is a "no-no", but once someone does this successfully [sic], we must then recognize them as legitimate, and it isn't for us to say that they are illegitimate even when they abuse that power to oppress the people for personal gain. Then when someone tries to preempt the preemptors, they are committing a no-no again, until they are successful and then they are legitimate again, and so on, and so on. Can't you see how ridiculous this is?"

It is not ridiculous. Think it over some more. This is how politics work in the real world. Real as opposed to ideology-driven and brutalizing politics. One can be right when opposing violence and be right when accepting the results of that violence. (Constitutional Law offers some deep insights to this concept.)

The term "successfully" is not mine. It is not exact. A revolution that wins and creates power legitimizes itself by that fact alone. Even a coup d'etat. Franco's Spain was a vile, fascist regime but the world's democratic governments came to recognize it and live with it.

"International laws cannot be made to illegalize brute force because all laws must be enforced if necessary by brute force! This is a contradiction."

It is not a contradiction! Think it over some more. Nations have been entering into various non-aggression (ie against "brute force") agreements for centuries. Then they most often violate them! I submit that these actions are neither illogical nor contradictory. I'm sure you will understand this, if you think beyond the current fog of unmitigated success of the "good guys'" brute force.

"My rules have been the same since the first caveman picked up a stone. Might may not make right, but it does make reality. Always has, always will."

I haven't disagreed about the mightiness of ..might! Of course might shapes reality (Marx said that violence is the midwife of History). I only submitted that might should not be legitimized as making right. We need a little more than that for a relatively stable world -- and a world that is slouching towards an elementary moral direction. We cannot adopt natural law as human law and you know what happened the last time we tried that.

What we have seen so far in History (three millenia) is entropy working non-stop. An assignment we could take home would be to identify now the seeds of decline that will beget the United States' eventual fall from its current position. (The alternative is the standard 1000-year utopia.)

[BruceZ]

It is not ridiculous. Think it over some more.

OK...Nope, still ridiculous.

This is how politics work in the real world.

You are living in the land of Oz. And I don't mean Sklansky. The way politics work in the real world is that everyone acts in their own best interest. There are actions, and there are consequences of actions. The weak must consider consequences imposed on them by the strong. The strong have fewer such consequences to consider since the weak can impose few consequences on them.

Constitutional Law offers some deep insights to this concept.

The earth has no constitution.

It is not a contradiction! Think it over some more.
Nations have been entering into various non-aggression (ie against "brute force") agreements for centuries. Then they most often violate them! I submit that these actions are neither illogical nor contradictory.

OK thinking...nope, in fact not only is it illogical and a contradiction, but it actually makes any such agreement inconsistent in the mathematical logic sense of the word ala Goedel. A law is meaningless without a method of enforcement of that law, and the method of enforcement cannot violate the law itself or the law would mandate illegal action, hence an obvious contradiction...illegal law see? You might as well say true is false, right is wrong, black is white, up is down. Once you accept an inconsistency, you can justify anything. Thus any such law is impossible in a consistent theory. QED.

However, I do agree that nations have been entering into such agreements for centuries. These agreements are silly and ridiculous for the same reason Sklansky gave for the Geneva convention being silly and ridiculous.

Speaking of mathematical proofs, ever hear of the method of proof by intimidation? /forums/images/icons/grin.gif

I only submitted that might should not be legitimized as making right.

I don't know what legitimized means. To me the term is undefined for world politics, and I don't see a way to define the notion in any way that would be consistent and useful, nor do I see a need to.

What we have seen so far in History (three millenia) is entropy working non-stop.

No sir, what we have seen is evolution working non-stop. Evolution is entropy reducing.


I believe I've passed the age of consciousness and righteous rage
I found that just surviving was a noble fight.
I once believed in causes too,
I had my pointless point of view,
And life went on no matter who was wrong or right.

-Billy Joel, Angry Young Man

[Cyrus]

"Nope, still ridiculous."

Once more :
Phase 1: Nation A goes to war against Nation B with which it has no treaty whatsoever.
Phase 2: Nation A wins over B (or vice versa)
Phase 3: There's a peace agreement signed, according to the war's outcome and the parties' interests, and eventually a non-aggression pact. Soon after, more peace treaties. And more peace treaties.

Notice that in every phase, each nation acts in its own best interest.

Phase 4: Nation A goes to war against Nation B.
Phase 5: Nation A wins over B (or vice versa)
Phase 6: There's new peace treaty signed, according to the war's, etc etc.

Now, what I said is that in every phase, each nation is acting on its own best interest. If, in the process (e.g. by going to war), a nation violates a law, treaty, agreement, etc, then that nation will face in the next phase the consequences of that action according to the war's outcome. This does not mean that (a) the treaties were useless at the time (phase) they were signed, nor that (b) the violator-nation will be necessarily "punished" for its violations.

Circumstances change; actions conform to circumstances; the need for stability is constant; perceptions of threat or opportunity can overcome that need; legitimacy enhances the resistance of that need before it is overcome.

Tell me if you spot any ridiculous notion thus far.

"Speaking of mathematical proofs, ever hear of the method of proof by intimidation?"

Yes, of course. Our junior high math teacher once made the student trying to prove a theorem on the blackboard pee in his pants. Happened in front of me.

"I don't know what legitimized means. To me the term is undefined for world politics, and I don't see a way to define the notion in any way that would be consistent and useful, nor do I see a need to."

Then all treaties signed by the U.S. are null and void. Treaties and agreements (and charters) define what's acceptable; they legitimize it. We could, for instance, legitimize euthanasia or eugenics. Or, we could legitimize violence as a means of solving problems between nations.

Not legitimizing them wil not make them disappear! Euthanasia and eugenics still happen, not to mention violence between nations. But lex is the convergence of collective morality. Failure to understand this, allows one to make cavalier remarks such as "we don't need that".

Ask yourself about the reason for the divergence between natural law (I-want-woman-now-I-rape-woman-now!) and human law (You-gotta-ask!). It's not because human law can make rape disappear. It's because this, the non-rape situation, is where we wanna be. Give that notion some thought.

"No entropy. What we have seen so far in History is evolution working non-stop. Evolution is entropy reducing."

Are you seriously suggesting that the laws of thermodynamics do not apply in a particular topology of the cosmos? Do you actually submit that evolution creates energy out of the vacuum ?!

"[lyrics by] Billy Joel, Angry Young Man"

Tell you what. Invoking Billy Joel is a losing proposition. /forums/images/icons/grin.gif

[BruceZ]

You're talking about treaties that end wars. Those are fine. They say "we'll stop kicking your ass in exchange for you agreeing to these terms". It is in both parties' best interest to accept such treaties. I said earlier that is essentially what we had with Iraq. That is different from an agreement that says "we won't attack you under any circumstances", or "we will never do X under any circumstances". Such agreements are ridiculous, and any nation who would abide by them deserves to be destroyed. Saying that such agreements increase resistance to certain actions by removing legitimacy from them is false, except insomuch as there are people who falsely believe this is true and thus provide this resistance. On the other hand, entering into such agreements with no intention of abiding by them, so they are really not agreements at all, may still be an advantage if it causes the other side to reliquish something, but then they are not in both sides' best interest, so they should be rejected by the other side.

Ask yourself about the reason for the divergence between natural law (I-want-woman-now-I-rape-woman-now!) and human law (You-gotta-ask!). It's not because human law can make rape disappear. It's because this, the non-rape situation, is where we wanna be. Give that notion some thought.

Now you're talking about laws we agree to as a society, and this is a completely different thing. We agree as a society to make certain actions illegal and place penalties on those actions because doing so is in the best interest of those of us who agree to make these laws.

Are you seriously suggesting that the laws of thermodynamics do not apply in a particular topology of the cosmos? Do you actually submit that evolution creates energy out of the vacuum ?!

This shows a serious misunderstanding of the 2nd law of thermodynamics, and it is the same misunderstanding that creationists use to "disprove" evolution. The 2nd law of thermodynamics applies to closed systems. The earth is not a closed system because the sun is shining on it. Of course there are many processes which decrease entropy, evolution being one, and these do not in any way violate the laws of thermodyamics. There are no known violations of the laws of thermodynamics.

[Chris Alger]

"There is nothing illegitimate about a nation responding to violations of the terms of surrender (from the Gulf War)."

So the US has a right to use any force it wants to enforce the Gulf War surrender terms, but has no obligation to comply with the terms of its own treaties, such as the UN Charter and the 4th Geneva Convention. Classic American hypocrisy.

"The means by which Saddam came to power and the way he oppressed his people were illegitimate."

But perfectly legitiamate for the US to help bring him to power and help him maintain it? Ditto.

[Cyrus]

"Thermo fallacy"

At last. Your own titles in the posts. /forums/images/icons/wink.gif

"The earth is not a closed system because the sun is shining on it."

Come again?!

"Of course there are many processes which decrease entropy, evolution being one, and these do not in any way violate the laws of thermodyamics."

I would truly appreciate learning how one can decrease entropy without violating the laws of thermodynamics. And I don't mean "delay" entropy.

..As to your continuing refusal to acknowledge the finite and discrete nature of human actions (eg treaties between nations), I have nothing to add beyond what I've already written. Suffice to say that the record of History is on my side: why do you think no treaty has lasted for ever? Not because no treaty was ever signed in good faith.

Now, if you honestly believe that the U.S. will defeat entropy and last for ever, I salute your stance -- and the flag in your posts. But the logic fails me.

[BruceZ]

I would truly appreciate learning how one can decrease entropy without violating the laws of thermodynamics.

2nd Law of Thermodynamics: The entropy of an isolated system increases during any natural process.

There are other equivalent statements of the law, but this is the one which is appropriate here. The earth is not an isolated system since, as I said, it receives energy from the sun. Living things self-organize and reduce the entropy of their structures while increasing the entropy of their environment. The entropy of the entire universe cannot decrease by any process, but it can and does certainly increase within particular systems.

[Cyrus]

"The earth is not an isolated system since, as I said, it receives energy from the sun. The entropy of the entire universe cannot decrease by any process, but it can and does certainly increase within particular systems."

You realize of course that, by the above interpretation, entropy occurs only in the totality of the universe and not in any particular topology of it, since only the (Newtonian) universe is a "truly" closed system.

So, whence entropy?

"Living things self-organize and reduce the entropy of their structures while increasing the entropy of their environment."

What about the closed system of (living things & their environment)?

[BruceZ]

You realize of course that, by the above interpretation, entropy occurs only in the totality of the universe and not in any particular topology of it, since only the (Newtonian) universe is a "truly" closed system.

That's correct, the entropy of the entire universe must increase. In fact, that is another statement of the law. It also must increase in an isolated system. This is not an "interpretation", this is what the law says.

What about the closed system of (living things & their environment)?

I just told you that isn't an isolated system because it receives energy from the sun, so it isn't necessary for this system to increase entropy even though it may. If you throw the sun into this system, then that system will increase entropy.

[Cyrus]

"You're talking about treaties that end wars. They say "we'll stop kicking your ass in exchange for you agreeing to these terms". It is in both parties' best interest to accept such treaties. I said earlier that is essentially what we had with Iraq. That is different from an agreement that says "we won't attack you under any circumstances", or "we will never do X under any circumstances". Such agreements are ridiculous, and any nation who would abide by them deserves to be destroyed."

You mean all the non-aggression pacts that have been signed up to now among various nations are "ridiculous" and that the signatory countries should be "destroyed" as punishment for their "stupidity"?! You still fail to understand the relativity of a treaty's value across time frames. (And, by the way, the argument is valid for any kind of agreement, even about corned beef.)

If you remember, the whole thing started when you submitted that it is fine ("legitimate") when the U.S. attacks Iraq but it is not fine (it is "illegitimate") when Saddam grabs power through the same means! This is no logical inconsistency; it is the support for a system of legitimacy whose point of reference is not universal but Americano-centric. Something that Chris Alger (without resorting to entropy-decreasing attributes /forums/images/icons/wink.gif) already points out in the same thread.

"You're talking about laws we agree to as a society, and this is a completely different thing."

The argument, if you recall, is whether we can actually enforce something (e.g. peace between two nations; the non-rape of women) through legal means, such as treaties or laws. I submitted that peace is not secured through treaties but through interests; I also submitted that rape will not disappear because of a law. What this does NOT imply is that treaties and laws are meaningless!

And it has nothing to do with what you say. In any kind of rational agreement, between nations or between citizens, of course they do that because it is to their best interest.

The signatories of the Geneva Convention protocol were acting (or honestly believed they were acting) in their best interest. And the Geneva Convention becomes useless when you have no fear (or honestly believe you have no fear) of ever being punished for violating it. Full circle back to the United States of America, twenty-first century...

[Cyrus]

"If you throw the sun into this system, then that system will increase entropy."

What was I just saying?

"The entropy of the entire universe must increase. In fact, that is another statement of the law. It also must increase in an isolated system. This is not an "interpretation", this is what the law says."

But I know and agree with this! If you recall, I submitted that what we have been witnessing so far in human history, is entropy working non-stop. (If this needs further elaboration, here it is: civilisations come and go not because man is inherently destructive, but because, crudely, entropy begins work as soon as a civilisation reaches a certain level. And that's as crudely as it gets. Historicism for the rest of the story.)

You rebutted this by arguing that what we have been seeing is evolution, instead, which "decreases entropy". We may be talking about different things : I am talking about political history and you may be talking only about biology. Either way, evolution, in political systems or physical beings, is achieved at the expense of the rest of the elements of the system around the subject of evolution. Which ultimately begets the decline of that subject, be it a country or a flower. (The successful evolutionary model of the cockroach will also go down when the sun bursts -- unless they will have migrated in cockroach-built and cockroach-infested spaceships elsewhere. Now, there's a thought to take to bed.)

[BruceZ]

You mean all the non-aggression pacts that have been signed up to now among various nations are "ridiculous" and that the signatory countries should be "destroyed" as punishment for their "stupidity"?!

I mean just what I said, and it sure isn't that.

You still fail to understand the relativity of a treaty's value across time frames.

I don't fail to understand anything. An agreement that says "we will never do X" has no time frame.

If you remember, the whole thing started when you submitted that it is fine ("legitimate") when the U.S. attacks Iraq but it is not fine (it is "illegitimate") when Saddam grabs power through the same means!

I never said that. I don't believe in the concept of legitimacy, and this was simply an example to show the uselessness of that concept.

[BruceZ]

I am talking about political history and you may be talking only about biology. Either way, evolution, in political systems or physical beings, is achieved at the expense of the rest of the elements of the system around the subject of evolution. Which ultimately begets the decline of that subject, be it a country or a flower.

No matter what kind of system you are talking about or how you draw the boundaries of the system, the entropy of the system needs not increase unless the system is isolated. The 2nd law of thermodyamics only applies to isolated systems. Countries, flowers, and political systems are not isolated systems, so the 2nd law of thermodynamics does not require that they increase the entropy of themselves or of any system in which they sit including the whole planet if that system is not isolated. Now they very well may increase the entropy of some non-isolated system, but the 2nd law has nothing to say about that, so that law cannot be used to establish that does in fact occur. Evolution is an example of a decrease in entropy in flowers and in political systems as well.

[BruceZ]

I said the US action was not illigitimate. If you adopt the notion of illigitamacy, which I do not, then Saddam's action was at least equally illigitimate. "American-centric" or not, the actions are the same. The reasons were different as we were enforcing peace agreements, acting in self defense, alleviating human rights violations, etc.

[Cyrus]

"An agreement that says "we will never do X" has no time frame."

Sure it has. A(x) says "we will never do x". Peace treaties do not contain time limits, they are at best evergreen agreements, which is another way of saying "never". At the time A(x) gets born, it is True in its time frame. When it (inevitably) gets violated, it proves worthless, in other words False. But does that make it worthless/False in the time frame it was born? I say "No". If you say "Yes", we are back to my question about all 'em treaties bein' null and void 'fore the ink gets dry.

"I said the US action was not illigitimate."

There's no such word as "illigitimate". /forums/images/icons/wink.gif

"If you adopt the notion of illigitamacy, which I do not, then Saddam's action was at least equally illigitimate. "American-centric" or not, the actions are the same. The reasons were different as we were enforcing peace agreements, acting in self defense, alleviating human rights violations, etc."

There is no logic and no specified point of reference to the system you are trying to impose here. Who decides what action is legitimate or not? Usetabe the U.N. Now, it's the U.S. Whose criteria are used for said legitimacy? Usetabe the U.N. Charter. Now, it's stricly American interests. (Hence, Americano-centric world order. Happy trails.)

[BruceZ]

But does that make it worthless/False in the time frame it was born? I say "No". If you say "Yes", we are back to my question about all 'em treaties bein' null and void 'fore the ink gets dry.

I haven't read them all, but if they say never, then yes they are worthless and ridiculous.

There's no such word as "illigitimate".

That's why it can't be illigitimate. There is such a word, just not such a useful concept in this context.

There is no logic and no specified point of reference to the system you are trying to impose here. Who decides what action is legitimate or not? Usetabe the U.N. Now, it's the U.S. Whose criteria are used for said legitimacy?

That's why I don't beleive in legitimacy. However, if you do beleive in legitimacy, then you must at least be consistent in how you apply it, and two actions that are the same must have the same degree of legitimacy.

[Cyrus]

C > "There's no such word as "illigitimate"."

BZ > "There is such a word, just not such a useful concept in this context."

Uhh, Bruce, I meant that literally. It was a joke, man. You had a typo.

BZ > "I haven't read all [of the U.S treaties], but if they say never, then yes they are worthless and ridiculous."

For the last time: There is rarely the explicit expression of eternity in treaties. And when they don't include explicit dates of termination, they certainly don't aspire to eternity. But they also certainly don't restrict themselves in the time frame of their birth! A non-eternity treaty is still (supposed to be) valid after x units of time, even when this isn't made explicit. And x is in-definite, in more ways than one. (The concept of evergreen contracts reveals very elegantly the concept I'm trying to make you understand. But maybe I'm stuck arguing with a thermodynamic lawyer.)

Here's an analogy from Chess, taken from real life incidents:

<ul type="square">The inexperienced Chess player playing in a tournament is having difficulties with his position. It's his turn to move. When his opponent gets up to stretch his legs, the player struts over to his uncle, who's a grandmaster, and asks for his help. The uncle huffs and puffs and finally gruffs that the player should consider getting the Queen to h7.
The player returns to his seat, thinks over the move, makes some analysis and can't see what good it can possibly do to his position. In fact, it looks to him as an outright blunder! (Of course, the move suggested by his uncle is correct and winning.) So our hero decides on a different move and plays it. A dozen moves later, his position is much worse and close to hopeless. Exasperated, he looks over the board and sees he can still play Queen to h7. So, he does. And gets check-mated.[/list]

But surely that's impossible since we accepted that the move suggested by the grandmaster was correct.

...Take care.

[BruceZ]

Did you know that illegitimate actually means illegal or against the law, and that's the only definition that is close to what we are talking about here?

[Cyrus]

"Did you know that illegitimate actually means illegal or against the law, and that's the only definition that is close to what we are talking about here?"

Yes, Ripley, I do. Not only do I know that, the above definition is the one I strictly employed throughout our repartee.

To wit : The U.S. declares that its actions are "justified". Legal scholars have rushed, in addition, to cover those actions with the vestige of "legitimacy" (see your definition above). You seem to agree with both arguments, the first being of political nature, the second purely of legal. You may even go some steps beyond that position.

On the other hand, and irrespective of whether I consider the American actions to have been "justified" or not, I consider those actions to have been outside the (established and recognized) int'l law.

Now, if you want us to go around the musical chairs thing again, I pass. Endgame is endgame.

[BruceZ]

Well the US action was obviously not illegal. The idea that there can be an international law making a blanket prohibition of such an action is ridiculous. First of all, such a law would not be in the best interest of the US, so we would never agree to such a law. Second of all, there is no court in which this supposed violation of this law will be tried. No trial no conviction, no conviction no guilt. What you or anyone else may think is outside the law is quite irrelevant. Third of all, if there were such a court, the law could not be enforced, and a law that cannot be enforced is not a real law. The whole concept is laughable. If you believe the UN imposes such a law, we can and should remove ourselves from the UN. Agreeing to laws of the UN is primarily to the advantage of weaker nations who cannot defend themselves, so they can obtain the protection of stronger nations like the US. The only reason we belong to such an organization at all is because it might be nice if it causes the weaker nations to give us a hand once in a while in exchange for this protection. We don't really need it, and we can build our own coalitions. Since it has become clear that the other nations will not even provide this support, then we have no use for the UN. The organization has proven itself time and again too be too impotent to even enforce its own resolutions.

[Cyrus]

You seem hell-bent on supporting the untenable! From the little I have seen of your posts on standard poker or math topics (my loss), it looks like you are losing the robustness of your thought process when it comes to politics. Pity.

To wit, you wrote a whole paragraph and I still cannot make out what you're after! What is it you want to prove, exactly?

That there exist no international treaties and agreements whatsoever between nations to which the U.S. is a signatory? One such agreementbeing the U.N. Charter. That such treaties do exist but they are not worth the paper they are written on? That we have come to the point where all the old canons of relations between countries are obsolete? Such canons being the recognition of sovereignty, the non-interference in others' domestic affairs, etc. That we are back to the rule of the mightiest and the one who claims to be the most righteous? Which happens to be the U.S. at this point in time?

If that is what you're trying to say, waste not one ounce more of that grey matter. We are closer than you think! It's just that I'm protesting this situation, while you're excited about it. I'm saying things shouldn't be that way, and you say, no, things are as they should be, and they are legit too. I'm protesting for a myriad of reasons, of which the legal argument is the least important, albeit no less valid, but here is, briefly recapitulated, the one argument that you should take home : it won't work. Arbitrary notions of justice and the most naked exploitation of military superiority don't work to anyone's long-term benefit. You might as well invade Mexico and Canada next.<ul type="square">
Let's do it (http://planeta.terra.com.br/esporte/problemasdexadrez/engsm01.htm) [/list]

[BruceZ]

From the little I have seen of your posts on standard poker or math topics (my loss), it looks like you are losing the robustness of your thought process when it comes to politics. Pity.

Well, I have no formal training in political thought, but that won't stop me from reasoning out a position, and from what I can tell, I have reached the same conclusion as the majority of those who do have such training. I do believe that if such people were trained in the thought processes of math, or even poker, that even more would reach robust conclusions.

you wrote a whole paragraph and I still cannot make out what you're after!

Really!? That sounds like a profound reading problem on your part then. I would think it would be abundantly clear to most people.

I'm saying things shouldn't be that way, and you say, no, things are as they should be, and they are legit too.

I said they are not illegit. There is no legit, remember I said that?

I'm protesting for a myriad of reasons, of which the legal argument is the least important, albeit no less valid

I soundly dismissed that one.

That there exist no international treaties and agreements whatsoever between nations to which the U.S. is a signatory? One such agreementbeing the U.N. Charter. That such treaties do exist but they are not worth the paper they are written on? That we have come to the point where all the old canons of relations between countries are obsolete? Such canons being the recognition of sovereignty, the non-interference in others' domestic affairs, etc. That we are back to the rule of the mightiest and the one who claims to be the most righteous? Which happens to be the U.S. at this point in time?

Now you're making some sense. See, you understand more than you think. You should have more confidence.

It's just that I'm protesting this situation, while you're excited about it.

I'm indifferent to it.

it won't work

Well that depends on what you mean by "work". Works for me. /forums/images/icons/smile.gif You mean the world cannot operate this way? It has for thousands of years, millions if you look at the animal kingdom. Besides which, I don't see that you have offered a workable alternative which offers any advantages.

[Cyrus]

"You mean the world cannot operate this way? It has for thousands of years, millions if you look at the animal kingdom."

Perhaps your are still too drunk from the recent TV images so I will give you some rope here. If you come back tomorrow and are still in favor of adopting the natural law as human law, I'd be more than willing to entertain your arguments. (I will be wearing an armband to drive some points home, though.)

"I don't see that you have offered a workable alternative which offers any advantages."

This is a little rich coming from the camp that disparages the U.N. but offers no alternative!

Oh, I forgot: there's the alternative of unilateral and arbitrary exercise of military power. Silly me! To recap what "makes sense" to you, here's a summary of your beliefs, according to what you agreed to:

<ul type="square">There exist no international treaties and agreements whatsoever between nations to which the U.S. is a signatory. One such agreement being the U.N. Charter. Such treaties do exist but they are not worth the paper they are written on. We have come to the point where all the old canons of relations between countries are obsolete. Such canons being the recognition of sovereignty, the non-interference in others' domestic affairs, etc. We are back to the rule of the mightiest and the one who claims to be the most righteous. Which happens to be the U.S. at this point in time.[/list]

"I'm indifferent to it."

No, you're not. The flag gives the game away.

"Resignation accepted"

O vey! So you lose.

(You may be familiar with the Woody Allen short story about the two Jewish friends playing postal chess.)

[Chris Alger]

Bragging rights? An elephant sat on an ant because the ant was a "threat" and now brags about the courage it displayed in proving its might.

Maybe Orwellian bragging rights.

[BruceZ]

This is a little rich coming from the camp that disparages the U.N. but offers no alternative!

I offered an alternative to the U.N. I said we can form our own coalitions.

Oh, I forgot: there's the alternative of unilateral and arbitrary exercise of military power.

Yeah, that too.

BTW, you still have not offered any superior alternative. People like you never offer any alternatives. You just bitch and moan about the status quo which has existed for milions of years and will always exist. You probably oppose check-raising, and whine when people draw out on you.

As for your tirade, you forgot to mention that we could easily vaporize all our enemies, and yet we do not. Instead we let our own children be killed and tortured. Think about that next time you try and equate our integrity with that of some other folks around the globe.

No, you're not. The flag gives the game away.

What, you don't support the flag? What are you, some kind of terrorist?

[BruceZ]

So the US has a right to use any force it wants to enforce the Gulf War surrender terms, but has no obligation to comply with the terms of its own treaties, such as the UN Charter and the 4th Geneva Convention. Classic American hypocrisy.

We are enforcing the UN Charter, and we are complying with the Geneva Convention, even though the other side has broken both. Wait until you hear that they strung that poor girl up by her ankles and broke her arms, legs, and spine by beating her with clubs. Isn't that nice? Where was your Geneva Convention there? /forums/images/icons/frown.gif

But perfectly legitiamate for the US to help bring him to power and help him maintain it? Ditto.

As far as anything can be legitimate, very legitimate, yes. Certainly no less legitimate.

[Cyrus]

"I offered an alternative to the U.N. I said we can form our own coalitions."

...Which is how the U.N. actually started. And, since the U.N. is "bankrupt", the new "coalition" will have different rules. Out with the "bankrupt" U.N. rules, such as the veto power by permanent SC members. In with ..what?

Wake up! I am the one who has something to offer. And that is the current regime of ineternational legitimacy, as expressed through the U.N. The U.S. alone in the planet thinks otherwise. Even the British poodle, Tony Blair, doesn't go as far as Bush and his acolytes. Blair is in favor of retaining a U.N., that is quite strong too. Or doesn't Fox report such trivia?

Come on. Give us a chuckle. Give us the procedural rules and the decision-making process of your "coalition". (This should be good.)

"There's the alternative of unilateral and arbitrary exercise of military power."

Roger. Gotcha. I know. I jus' want the audience to see the jingoism bare naked. (It takes more effort to get it out your system than from a wogga's.)

Yeah, that too.

"You just bitch and moan about the status quo which has existed for milions of years and will always exist."

Careful, there, you're projecting! I'm the one who advocates that the status quo (ie the rule of human law) has served us well and is the result of centuries of (painful) evolution. It is you who prefers going outside the status quo and regressing to the natural law.

Arbeit Macht Frei, right?

"You probably oppose check-raising, and whine when people draw out on you."

No, this is an incorrect reading. I am actually quite satisfied qhen people wanna "draw out on me". I may get temporarily upset when they make it (and kudos, professor, if you never do) but I know it's to my best interest when they put an extra bet in by check-raising me and have the worst of it!

Maybe you prefer it some other way, but that's how us poor deluded liberals play. (We money liberators, baby.)

"What, you don't support the flag? What are you, some kind of terrorist?"

Yes, didn't you know that already?

[Cyrus]

"We are enforcing the UN Charter..."

/forums/images/icons/smirk.gif

"...and we are complying with the Geneva Convention..."

/forums/images/icons/smirk.gif

"...even though the other side has broken both!"

/forums/images/icons/smile.gif

"Wait until you hear that they strung that poor girl up"

/forums/images/icons/smile.gif Brilliant! The war happened because, when it would happen, the Iraqis would violate the Geneva Convention. This is great stuff, really. (Don't call Jay Leno before you talk with our people, please.)

"Yes, [it's] perfectly legitimate for the U.S. to help bring [Saddam Hussein] to power and help him maintain it!"[kaaa-chiiiing!]

/forums/images/icons/grin.gif /forums/images/icons/grin.gif [APPLAUSE]

[Cyrus]

"Bragging rights? An elephant sat on an ant because the ant was a "threat" and now brags about the courage it displayed in proving its might."

No, not that bragging. The bragging by Jedi Poker because he predicted the number of days the war would last, i.e. 21. A brilliant guess by Jedi Poker.

Irrelevant aside: I'm a Blackjack player. Quite often the 3rd base "expert" will stand on his stiff against a dealer's ten because he "knows" the dealer's hole card. When the "expert" turns out to be right and the dealer also busts, I along with the rest of the players at the table congratulate him profusely on his "expertise".

What a game.

[BruceZ]

Wake up! I am the one who has something to offer. And that is the current regime of ineternational legitimacy, as expressed through the U.N.

Oh God! And how is that impotent league of nations going to change anything? And do be specific.

Come on. Give us a chuckle. Give us the procedural rules and the decision-making process of your "coalition". (This should be good.)

I can't promise a chuckle. When we need to do something and want help, we take along those who are willing to help. Those who aren't, we won't, and they can expect similar consideration from us. It's a "coalition of the willing".

I'm the one who advocates that the status quo (ie the rule of human law) has served us well and is the result of centuries of (painful) evolution.

So what's you're problem then?

Arbeit Macht Frei, right?

English only on this board. I studied Spanish in school.

I may get temporarily upset when they make it

This is completely illogical (but not surprising). When they make it, you still gain by the FTOP. If they never make it, they won't be there to play with you.

"What, you don't support the flag? What are you, some kind of terrorist?"

Yes, didn't you know that already?

Well there you have it.

[BruceZ]

Brilliant! The war happened because, when it would happen, the Iraqis would violate the Geneva Convention. This is great stuff, really.

Boy you do have a reading problem. The Iraqis have been violating the Geneva Convention for years, or have you been under compost heap for the last decade?

"Yes, [it's] perfectly legitimate for the U.S. to help bring [Saddam Hussein] to power and help him maintain it!"[kaaa-chiiiing!]

Similar comments. If you can't respond intelligently to my posts, do not create your own and respond to that. Once you have been reduced to doing this and laughing like a 6-year old in a schoolyard, you have obviously been soundly defeated. I don't need to do any more.

[Cyrus]

"How is [the U.N.] that impotent league of nations going to change anything?"

Then they were useless for five decades and only now we get to find out, right? I mean, that war in South-East Asia that the U.N. condoned, approved started and won, was a huge mistake, right? Right.

I repeat : Give us the procedural rules and the decision-making process of your "coalition". Lame generalities (like this: "When we need to do something and want help, we take along those who are willing to help") just don't do. And they are not funny. We expect something funny.

And I repeat : I'm the one who supports the status quo (ie the rule of human law). This human law is expressed through institutions such as the U.N. This human law is the result of centuries of human cultural evolution. Your side on the other hand advocates fuzzy and quite dangerous "alternatives", instead, and is keen on resorting to the naked application of power for solving int'l problems -- without restrictions from any treaty, agreement or pact (e.g. the U.N. Charter) whatsoever. Your words, mein herr, and words to that effect.

"English only on this board. I studied Spanish in school."

Arbeit Macht Frei was proclaimed by the last folks on the planet who advocated a regression to your kind of "laws", the natural laws of selection, the laws "that have served us well for millions of years". Those folks were not English, American or Spanish. They were very good at mathematics though.

Way to go, mein herr.

[Cyrus]

"Boy you do have a reading problem. The Iraqis have been violating the Geneva Convention for years, or have you been under compost heap for the last decade?"

But.. but.. it's you who invoked something that happened after the invash--- liberation of Iraq, and not before. If you had invoked the specific cases where Iraq had violated the Geneva Convention before its inv-- liberation (the Geneva Convention, mind you, not anything else) then I wouldn't have laughed.

I wouldn't even chuckle.

"You have obviously been soundly defeated. I don't need to do any more!"

No, no, don't go away yet. Pray tell us one more. One more! Tell us how it is "perfectly legitimate for the U.S. to help bring [Saddam Hussein] to power and help him maintain it!" /forums/images/icons/grin.gif.

[BruceZ]

You posted too fast, now go back and read the poker slam I added after you read it.

Lame generalities (like this: "When we need to do something and want help, we take along those who are willing to help") just don't do.

Yeah, and you have really elucidated exactly how your plan will be merrily accepted by everyone, and we can all live happily ever after.

Blair is in favor of retaining a U.N., that is quite strong too.

Well he would, wouldn't he? The man's country is a small island.

Your side on the other hand advocates fuzzy and quite dangerous "alternatives", instead, and is keen on resorting to the naked application of power for solving int'l problems -- without restrictions from any treaty, agreement or pact (e.g. the U.N. Charter) whatsoever.

I repeat, if that was really our policy, we would have vaporized all of our enemies long ago. We have not, because we are on the side of right (or we are stupid, one of the two). If we are on the side of right, then everything necessary should be done to keep that power on our side. Notice I didn't say everything possible, I said everything necessary. The only debate should be over what is necessary, and that is a technical discussion, not a philosophical one.

[BruceZ]

But.. but.. it's you who invoked something that happened after the invash--- liberation of Iraq, and not before. If you had invoked the specific cases where Iraq had violated the Geneva Convention before its inv-- liberation (the Geneva Convention, mind you, not anything else) then I wouldn't have laughed.

I was comparing our behavior to the Iraqis, not using it as a reason for the war. How could you not realize that? I see nothing funny about it. This also demonstrates the futility of any rules of war when the other side will not follow them. Would you agree not to check-raise me even though I will probably still check-raise you?

Tell us how it is "perfectly legitimate for the U.S. to help bring [Saddam Hussein] to power and help him maintain it!"

Well, that one I misread before I responded, sorry for that (and only for that). On the other hand, it is not impossible to be legitimate in the support of an illegitimate act if the only alternative is even more illegitimate. That may not hold up legally, and it may not apply in this case I don't know, but then I don't support the whole concept of illegitimacy anyway in this context, only self-interest. /forums/images/icons/tongue.gif

[Cyrus]

Ah, poker talk! I thought I was lost but now I'm found.

This is completely illogical (but not surprising). When they make it [and draw out on you], you still gain by the FTOP. If they never make it, they won't be there to play with you."

I already wrote that it is incorrect for me to get upset but, there you have it, I often do. I admit it. I know that they should get their money's (and darn probability's) worth, in oder for them to be there next time ..but I'm only human.

I mean, I wish they would draw out on someone else!
Call me a hand-out, no-good liberal ...or call me human.

"If that was really our policy, we would have vaporized all of our enemies long ago. We have not, because we are on the side of right."

What you waiting for, Yossarian? A kiss?? Ge'back in line.

It's really amazing that you purport to give out serious and robust advice, yet you fail the test whenever you must come out with something specific, even if it doesn't have to be original.

To recap:

1. You dispute that the U.N. has achieved anything -- even though the U.N. has resolved a lot of crises in History and even took the West to war over Korea.

2. You want to diband U.N. --yet you offer no credible alternative besides a fuzzy "coalition of the willining", without any rules beyond Washington's dictats. (Then you deride me for not offering a credible and legitimate organ for world disputes!)

3. You profess a preference for human progress --yet you unashamedly declare a preference for the law of the jungle, the law of natural selcetion and the law of naked power. (Yet you insist the world has nothing to worry about, because the U.S. is "on the side of right". How comforting.)

4. Then you are ready to accept as "legitimate" the American actions propping up Saddam --while denouncing the very same actions as "illegitimate" when done by Saddam.

..Do you realize how ridiculous those posts read, my good man?

I recall an article written by an old hand in American foreign policy in which he was congratulating the U.S. for managing "not to blow up the world" during the Cold War. I mean, that was an achievement for him! (Like those parents who brag on TV shows that they never beat their children and they feed e'm an' all that. You're supposed to do that, mo-fo!! What you want, a kiss??)

[Cyrus]

"...This also demonstrates the futility of any rules of war when the other side will not follow them. Would agree not to check-raise me even though I will probably still check-raise you?"

I might. As long as you don't actually Check-Raise me, I could possibly devise a profitable strategy. Check-raise me once, and the deal is off.

This is the basis of a lot of agreements based on uncertain conditions. I guess you never heard of such procedures before, huh? (Don't please start on dilemmas and prisoners.)

"That one I misread before I responded, sorry for that."

I can't forgive you, no. The most funny joke in the repertoire and you're ready to spoil it by some lame "misread" excuse.

What else you got?

[BruceZ]

1. You dispute that the U.N. has achieved anything -- even though the U.N. has resolved a lot of crises in History and even took the West to war over Korea.

Oh that war in SE asia. Last I heard, we didn't win, it was a draw, but I haven't read this morning's paper yet. As of yesterday we still had 35K troops there, and they were fixin' to blow you and your California liberals to smitherenes. Hmm, maybe it was a success after all.[/i]

2. You want to diband U.N. --yet you offer no credible alternative besides a fuzzy "coalition of the willining", without any rules beyond Washington's dictats. (Then you deride me for not offering a credible and legitimate organ for world disputes!)

I'm basically a libertarian. There are very few rules, but there are opportunities. At least my plan, fuzzy or not, is practical and now has a track record. Your plan of "we should agree to not do bad things and the world will follow us down the primrose path" is neither practical nor clear, except for clearly wrong.

3. You profess a preference for human progress --yet you unashamedly declare a preference for the law of the jungle, the law of natural selcetion and the law of naked power. (Yet you insist the world has nothing to worry about, because the U.S. is "on the side of right". How comforting.)

It gives me great comfort to make you feel comforted.

4. Then you are ready to accept as "legitimate" the American actions propping up Saddam --while denouncing the very same actions as "illegitimate" when done by Saddam.

I already fixed that below.

I recall an article written by an old hand in American foreign policy in which he was congratulating the U.S. for managing "not to blow up the world" during the Cold War. I mean, that was an achievement for him!

Damn right it was! You think Saddam could have done that? Can you think of any other time in history when a nation did not use ALL its military might against its foes?

[BruceZ]

I might. As long as you don't actually Check-Raise me, I could possibly devise a profitable strategy. Check-raise me once, and the deal is off.

Here is a more apt analogy. You agree not to bluff me and always show your hand, even though I'll probably still bluff you and never show my hand, but I'll tell you what I had at the end of the session.

[Cyrus]

"Here is a more apt analogy."

You realized the previous one was naff. I'm comfortable.

"You agree not to bluff me and always show your hand, even though I'll probably still bluff you and never show my hand, but I'll tell you what I had at the end of the session."

Why don't you throw the Booklyn Bridge in the bargain?

This was supposed to be your robust example of the dangers of uncertainty when agreeing to a game's rules. You must think that by bringing in an a priori unequal status to the two players, you have some kind of proof. Congrats.

...You know, I have the sneaking suspicion you have never closed a deal in your life where you weren't 100% sure about everything. Am I wildly wrong here, tell me? (I'll believe you if you'll try hard enough.)

[Cyrus]

"As of yesterday we still had 35K troops [in Korea], and they were fixin' to blow you and your California liberals to smitherenes. Hmm, maybe it was a success after all."

So, the U.N. was wrong about how they handled Korea as well. I wonder, how would you have liked that conflict to be handled? It's not a rhetorical question. This is a Saturday matinee, after all.

"I'm basically a libertarian. There are very few rules, but there are opportunities."

Relations between nations are supposed to be resolved from now on, on the basis of opportunism, is that it? No rules, whatsoever. All world leaders should be "libertarians" and refuse to abide to any rule or treaty or whatever. You dismiss all the rules that nations have self-imposed on them throughout History as nonsense. I see. Well, you are too deep for me.

(I get it. You must think I believe that those rules were imposed by countries on the basis or morality instead of interests! Or was that your next shot I pre-empted?)

" Damn right it was an achievement for the U.S. for managing "not to blow up the world" during the Cold War. Do you think Saddam could have done that?"

Tsk tsk. Again, it is a sad sight, seeing you resort to comparisons with Saddam. Is that your yardstick? That you do better than Saddam? You must want that kiss very badly.

"Can you think of any other time in history when a nation did not use ALL its military might against its foes?"

In times of peace, lots of times... In times of war, never, especially if it meant danger in the homeland.

I remind you, we are talking about resolving issues between nations in times of peace i.e. before going to war. You are recommending the application of aggressive military (and "righteous") power to solve matters in peacetime, such as forcing Turkey out of Cyprus, India out of Kashmir, China out of Tibet, Russia out of Chechnia, etcetera. This is the gist of your argument, since all you offer is a "coalition of the willing", something you admit is quite "fuzzy". I characterize this strategy as a self-weighting strategy, my good man.

It's more than criminal, it's wrong.

[BruceZ]

I'll let you debate David Sklansky on the ridiculousness of rules of war. I am tired, and anyway he taught me. I had a rebuttal to him all typed up before I realized he was right, so I s-canned it.

[BruceZ]

I remind you, we are talking about resolving issues between nations in times of peace

When do those times come? We are certainly not at peace now, nor were we at peace before the Iraq war. We are never at peace as long as people exist who would kill us if given the opportunity. There is always war, there are just long cease fires.

Tsk tsk. Again, it is a sad sight, seeing you resort to comparisons with Saddam. Is that your yardstick? That you do better than Saddam?

Trying to make us equal with Saddam or other Arab lunatics is a favorite trick of your side. Do you think there is a single Islamic nation in the middle east that wouldn't vaporize us if they had what we had? Those people all thought we were getting our butts kicked in Iraq, and when they finally saw the truth, and the people celebrating their freedom, and Saddam's head dragged throught the streets and so forth, they thought it was a hollywood movie! The ones that saw the liberation and happiness we brought to those people still hate us just because of who we are. We do good, and they hate us. We do bad, and they hate us. And you want to make nice nice with those people???!!! They don't live in the same world I live in, and I'm sick of sending our youth to some s-hole part of the world to die and be tortured so we can spare as many of those jerkoffs as possible, and then have to listen to some liberal snot noses about how we are criminal. If we are going to be called criminals, we might as well show them what criminal really is and be done with the problem once and for all.

[ACPlayer]

Is the use of "terrorist tactics" of non-governmental entities OK under the apparent viewpoint that the use of force as a way to achieve a goal is the way of humans from cavemen till today? What is being argued apparently is that anybody can and should do whatever they need to, in order to achieve their goals.

This is the strangest line of thought i have seen in a while (among some very strange lines of thought in this forum).

[ACPlayer]

As a libertarian I object to your using that term for this line of thought.

Anarchism or imperialism, is probably closer.

I strongly recommend sticking to solving abstract algebra probems.

[BruceZ]

What is being argued apparently is that anybody can and should do whatever they need to, in order to achieve their goals.

This is the strangest line of thought i have seen in a while (among some very strange lines of thought in this forum).

Not only isn't there anything strange about it, it's actually just a tautology. Think about it. Of course if not doing certain things happens to be one of your goals, then you couldn't do those things and still achieve your goals. This works under any set of goals or value systems. In any case, I was specifically talking about survival above, not just any old goal.

As a libertarian you want to censor my speech? /forums/images/icons/grin.gif I know the ACLU is becoming self-contradictory and fascist these days, that's why I added the word "basically".

[Chris Alger]

1. What makes the US the final legiitmate authority on how the UN Charter should be enforced? As opposed to, say, the members of the UN?

2. The UN Charter authorizes the use of international military force in two cases: self-defense and when expressly authorized by the Security Council. "Self-defense" is narrowly construed:

Under Article 51, the triggering condition for the exercise of self-defense is the occurrence of an armed attack ("if an armed attack occurs"). Notwithstanding the literal meaning of that language, some, though not all, authorities interpret Article 51 to permit anticipatory self-defense in response to an imminent attack. A generally recognized guide to the conditions for anticipatory self-defense is Daniel Webster’s statement regarding the Caroline affair of 1837: Self-defense is justified only when the necessity for action is "instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation." (Letter from Daniel Webster, Secretary of State, to Lord Ashburton, August 6, 1842, reprinted in 2 John Bassett Moore, A Digest of International Law 409, 412 (1906)). A modern version of this approach is found in Oppenheim’s International Law: Ninth Edition, 1991, p. 412 (emphasis added):

The development of the law, particularly in the light of more recent state practice, in the 150 years since the Caroline incident suggests that action, even if it involves the use of armed force and the violation of another state’s territory, can be justified as self defence under international law where:

a. an armed attack is launched, or is immediately threatened, against a state’s territory or forces (and probably its nationals);

b. there is an urgent necessity for defensive action against that attack;

c. there is no practicable alternative to action in self-defence, and in particular another state or other authority which has the legal powers to stop or prevent the infringement does not, or cannot, use them to that effect;

d. the action taken by way of self-defence is limited to what is necessary to stop or prevent the infringement, i.e. to the needs of defence…

http://216.239.57.100/custom?q=cache:-uJqsTC0PUAC:www.lcnp.org/global/iraqstatement3.htm+war+iraq+violation+internationa l+law&amp;hl=en&amp;ie=UTF-8

How can this possibly be squared with the invasion of Iraq and, indeed, the entire US doctrine of "preventative" war?

3. According to Protocol 1 of the Geneva Conventions Article 52 (2) "Attacks shall be limited strictly to military objectives. In so far as objects are concerned, military objectives are limited to those objects which by their nature, location, purpose or use make an effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military advantage."

How can you square this language with the deliberate bombing of Baghdad's civilian TV transmitters? According to Amnesty International, "The bombing of a television station, simply because it is being used for the purposes of propaganda, cannot be condoned. It is a civilian object, and thus protected under international humanitarian law." Why is AI wrong?

4. There seems to be general agreement with this statement by Kenneth Roth, the executive director of Human Rights Watch: says, “When combatants disguise themselves as civilians or surrendering soldiers, that’s a serious violation of the laws of war.”

According to the Associated Press, however, "the Pentagon on Friday defended the use of some civilian clothes by U.S. special operations forces, a tactic used to help them blend in with the local population."
http://216.239.51.100/custom?q=cache:AtEtd5r-wngJ:www.militarycity.com/iraq/1743426.html+"special+forces"+"dressed+as+civilians"&amp;hl=en&amp;start=1&amp;ie=UTF-8 (http://216.239.51.100/custom?q=cache:AtEtd5r-wngJ:www.militarycity.com/iraq/1743426.html+)

How is this different from Iraqi irregulars wearing civilian clothes?

5. Regarding Jessica Lynch, what's your point? Do you the US Geneva Convention policy should be different from Iraq, so that Iraq's violations of the Geneva Convention irrelevant to US policy, or do you think US policy should be similar to Iraq's, making irrelevant US criticism of Iraq's violations of the Geneva Convention. Or is this just another of you flag-waving hate minutes where people are supposed to get riled up at some foreign perfidy while refusing to consider whether our own behavior is better or worse or the same?

[BruceZ]

With the opinions of all these fine magistrates and noblemen, I hardly see how I am qualified to add anything of value. Did you catch the part of that I got from Rounders? I don't expect you to design a digital communication system, why do you expect me to hand down legal opinions? Anyway, I will do my best to address every potential indiscretion of the American forces in the most recent war, if that is your wish. Actually it may not be my best. I could probably do better if I was more interested and spent more time.

Fellow patriots, Jimbo, Haley, MMMMMM, wogga, B-Man, other voices of reason, feel free to chime in any time now.

1. What makes the US the final legiitmate authority on how the UN Charter should be enforced? As opposed to, say, the members of the UN?

If legitimate is defined as strictly in accordance with the UN, then the answer is obviously that it cannot in general. Legitimate doesn't simply mean legal though, as opposed to illegitimate which does mean illegal. The two are apparently not perfect antonyms. Legitimate can mean in accordance with established norms or practices. The UN certainly has established norms and practices, but these do not encompass all options that the US may consider established norms and practices. The UN did not always exist, and the US is perfectly free to cease being a member of that body at any time, especially if they fail in their ability to perform their function and enforce their own mandates. In this particular case; however, UN resolution 1441 is all we needed to make the actions legitimate even under UN rules.

Under Article 51, the triggering condition for the exercise of self-defense is the occurrence of an armed attack ("if an armed attack occurs"). Notwithstanding the literal meaning of that language, some, though not all, authorities interpret Article 51 to permit anticipatory self-defense in response to an imminent attack.

I hope so, otherwise we'd have to wait until we are nuked. This is unacceptable to me.

generally recognized guide to the conditions for anticipatory self-defense is Daniel Webster’s statement regarding the Caroline affair of <font color="red">1837</font color>:

1837. 1837! Are you kidding me? I would hope we have something a little more relevant to the nuclear age than 1837. In any case...continuing with 1837:

Self-defense is justified only when the necessity for action is "instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation."

Check, check, check, and check. The consequences of WMD handed off to a terrorist are overwhelming. We exhausted every means of negotiation available over a 12 year period with both the UN and with Iraq, and it was clear to most that this was going nowhere. "Instant" and "not leaving a moment for deliberation" are more controversial for a threat we cannot even prove exists; however, I contend that this still applies because we do not know when this instant may occur, we are confident that it will occur, and once it does, which could be the 1 second from now, we will no longer have a moment for deliberation. Therefore, we are effectively already in this instant without a moment for deliberation. To take a different interpretation would likely require that we wait for one of these threats to be carried out before we take action, and that is again unacceptable. This is not my best argument for war, I'm only addressing the particular source you cited. I did not choose the source. I don't believe it is even necessary to prove self-defense, and instead of looking up archaic legal opinions from 1837, you should instead look up what the US is allowed to do to continue the hostilities of the Gulf war if the UN terms were not agreed to. Anyway, to continue:

A modern version of this approach is found in Oppenheim’s International Law: Ninth Edition, 1991, p. 412 (emphasis added):

I'm glad we made it to the last century.

The development of the law, particularly in the light of more recent state practice, in the 150 years since the Caroline incident suggests that action, even if it involves the use of armed force and the violation of another state’s territory, can be justified as self defence under international law where:

a. an armed attack is launched, or is immediately threatened, against a state’s territory or forces (and probably its nationals);

b. there is an urgent necessity for defensive action against that attack;

c. there is no practicable alternative to action in self-defence, and in particular another state or other authority which has the legal powers to stop or prevent the infringement does not, or cannot, use them to that effect;

d. the action taken by way of self-defence is limited to what is necessary to stop or prevent the infringement, i.e. to the needs of defence…

I can defend this the same way as the 1837 article, but with far less stretching. An attack is threatened. The only controversial word here is "immediately" which is open to debate.

According to Protocol 1 of the Geneva Conventions Article 52 (2) "Attacks shall be limited strictly to military objectives. In so far as objects are concerned, military objectives are limited to those objects which by their nature, location, purpose or use make an effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military advantage."

How can you square this language with the deliberate bombing of Baghdad's civilian TV transmitters? According to Amnesty International, "The bombing of a television station, simply because it is being used for the purposes of propaganda, cannot be condoned. It is a civilian object, and thus protected under international humanitarian law." Why is AI wrong?

I wasn't aware that we were beholden to any AI laws, but I could be wrong. The transmitters make an effective contribution to military action when they spew lies that cause the guerillas to keep fighting because they think they are winning. In fact, in that case they become the primary contribution to military action.

4. There seems to be general agreement with this statement by Kenneth Roth, the executive director of Human Rights Watch: says, “When combatants disguise themselves as civilians or surrendering soldiers, that’s a serious violation of the laws of war.”

According to the Associated Press, however, "the Pentagon on Friday defended the use of some civilian clothes by U.S. special operations forces, a tactic used to help them blend in with the local population."

How is this different from Iraqi irregulars wearing civilian clothes?

It isn't. As I recall, there was contention about whether this was true. A pentagon official stated that our special forces wore the required insignias clearly indicating their military affiliation. There was some contention about what constituted a "uniform". In any case, the Iraqis clearly violated this, and I think even Cyrus would agree that asymmetrical adherence to a rule cannot be expected. That is, we cannot continue to abide by a rule of law that places us at a disadvantage when the other side is violating that rule. I've already made my position clear about the futility of such rules in general, so these comments just address what happened assuming such rules are valid.

5. Regarding Jessica Lynch, what's your point? Do you the US Geneva Convention policy should be different from Iraq, so that Iraq's violations of the Geneva Convention irrelevant to US policy, or do you think US policy should be similar to Iraq's, making irrelevant US criticism of Iraq's violations of the Geneva Convention. Or is this just another of you flag-waving hate minutes where people are supposed to get riled up at some foreign perfidy while refusing to consider whether our own behavior is better or worse or the same?

Taking the last question first, I think fact that our behavior is better should be obvious to any rational being, though this may not be admitted by those who hate the flag and what it stands for rather than wave it. If it's a hate minute, I am entitled to as many of those as the other side. I already stated my opinion on the ridiculousness of Geneva Convention rules of war, and they are in agreement with David Sklansky's. So argue with him since he may have more to say, but I do not. I will say that whether or not you accept such rules as reasonable, the actions which these rules address are not always justifiable, and the situation I mentioned is a case in point.

[BruceZ]

Anarchism and imperialism are completely wrong characterizations. Anarchism is the abolishment of all governments. I don't want to abolish governments, just a world government. Imperialism is the acquisition of territory. I don't want to acquire any territory. I only want to attack nations that threaten us when it's necessary. I'm actually an isolationist as much as possible.

[IrishHand]

Fellow patriots, Jimbo, Haley, MMMMMM, wogga, B-Man, other voices of reason, feel free to chime in any time now.

LMAO - You went 0-fer-3 at the plate on that one! But hey - At least you were man enough to admit in advance that you're not capable of defending your side of the argument - I respect that, if nothing else.

(1) You claim that Iraq's handing over WMD to terrorists constituted an immediate threat which justified pre-emtive invasion, yet you have no evidence that Iraq has ever done such a thing - or indeed has any reason to do so now or in the future. (You also have no evidence that they have WMD, but since they probably do - just like every other sensible nation - we'll ignore this 2nd hole in your approach.)

(2) You criticize legal precendent when it's too old? You can't be serious...unless you have some opposition to the Constitution (among a plethora of others).

(3) You raise vaguely humanitarian arguements, yet disparage Amnesty International. That's consistent...I assume you've adopted that specialized version of humanitarianism where there are two groups of humans - "us" and "not us." FYI - We aren't "beholden to AI laws" - far as I know, AI doesn't write laws. They try to improve the lot of humans around the world. If they offer a persuasive argument as to why bombing media transmission outlets, "who cares" is hardly the appropriate answer. If you want to stop propaganda, bomb the propagandist, not the method of transmittal.

(4) Our special forces most definitely do NOT wear US military uniforms when they're infiltrating the local populace. Spies don't do to well if they wear their nation's flag on their arms. (However, I agree that rules prohibiting this sort of thing are mindless.)

[Chris Alger]

"Legitimate can mean in accordance with established norms or practices."

That's irrelevant in this case. You, Bush and everyone else accepts the premise of Article 51, the "norm" it embodies: it is wrong to launch a war of aggression, a war that cannot be justified as self-defense. It is presumptively wrong to invade a country that has neither attacked nor threatened to attack the invader or its allies. Everyone agrees with this. The problem is that you and Bush are trying to equate "preemptive" war with "preventative" war. The former means defense against imminent or at least likely attack, the latter is just a phrase that masks all-out aggression whenever the aggressor deems fit. Hitler's speeches about the "threat" posed by Poland are a good example of how the doctrine of prevention works in practice. Indeed, if I recall right Poland was nowhere near as powerless before the Third Reich as Iraq was before the US.

"UN resolution 1441 is all we needed to make the actions legitimate even under UN rules."

You're just parroting the official line, Soviet Kommisar style, while refusing to face facts. No language in 1441 supports this conclusion. The resolution threatens "serious consequences" by the Security Council, not its members acting alone. Nothing in 1441 authorizes any country to use force against the other, and nothing in it authorizes unilateral action by the US. The plain language calls for violations to be reported to the Security Council, and for the Security Council alone to decide which steps, if any, need be taken. This is further supported by the history of the resolution, which was able to pass only because language expressly authorizing force was removed at the insistence of members that voted for it.

"The consequences of WMD handed off to a terrorist are overwhelming."

Unless the US is equally justified in going to war with Pakistan and India, or any of the other 20-30 countires with WMD, there has to be some minimum threshhold of likelihood regarding Iraq. After 30 years of Saddam, including 12 of intense conflict with him while he had WMD indicates no likelihood of this happening at all. It's no better than saying, he's a ruthless, brutal dictator, therefore he's a "madman," therefore he's likely to give WMD to terrorists at any moment, therefore thousands must die so that the US can not only overthrow Saddam but conquor his entire country. It's an immoral perversion of logic that I'm sure you would scarcely tolerate if the target were the US.

"We exhausted every means of negotiation available over a 12 year period with both the UN and with Iraq, and it was clear to most that this was going nowhere."

This is just the official line again without any facts or reasoning. The UNSCOM inspections were so effective at destroying Iraq's WMD capacity that the US could not point to a single case of WMD's actually in Iraq's possession prior to the war. Further, the US requested that the inspectors be pulled out after getting caught infiltrating spies within them and went years without even trying to negotiate a return of the inspectors and steadfastly refused to accpet Iraq's demand of reduced sanctions in return for elminating WMD. Not only were negotiations not "exhausted," they were never seriously persued.

"I think even Cyrus would agree that asymmetrical adherence to a rule cannot be expected. That is, we cannot continue to abide by a rule of law that places us at a disadvantage when the other side is violating that rule..."

US special forces were disguised in civilian clothes while carrying out offensive (and illegal) operations in Iraq prior to the war. So what you're saying, in other words, is that Iraqi irregulars shouldn't be expected to remain at a "disadvantage" by wearing uniforms since the US had already abandoned the principle. Fair enough, but that's not exactly the way you see it, is it?

"I think fact that our behavior is better should be obvious to any rational being"

I agree that in most respects the behavior of the US, its officials, and its armed forces is "better" than Saddam's and his henchmen. If this is the standard to which you hold your country and its leaders, then your regard for the flag and all it stands for is infinitely lower than mine. Some "patriot."

[Cyrus]

"I'll let you debate David Sklansky on the ridiculousness of rules of war."

At least the debate will be much briefer than ours!..

"I am tired, and anyway he taught me."

I have the highest respect for David Sklansky. Before you turn in, think of these two items:

A. If the 2 prisoners can communicate * with each other, and there are repeated trials, then they can both follow a strategy that is the most beneficial for the two of them together, (or the least harmful, same thing) as long as both sides keep to the strategy. The moment one side is "tempted" to go for an "egoisitc" stratehy, the bargain is off, and we are back to the standard problem. Assuming that we are dealing with rational prisoners, it shouldn't be too hard for them to figure out what's best for them.

B. In the thermo---(no, it's not about that!)---nuclear age, the two superpowers behaved like two prisoners who could communicate. They even behaved like this when they were fighting through proxies, eg Vietnam where the A-bomb was not used even though this omission cost the U.S. the war.

* Communication doesn't necessarily mean a hotline. "Messages" can be conveyed through action or inaction.

Good night. Take care..

[Cyrus]

Here we are, having a nice and airy repartee, and you feel you have to butt in with the facts and confuse the hell out of us.

Go away.

[BruceZ]

You went 0-fer-3 at the plate on that one!

I don't understand what you mean. /forums/images/icons/confused.gif

At least you were man enough to admit in advance that you're not capable of defending your side of the argument

My side of what argument? And where did I admit I couldn't defend something? I can only assume you are refering to my statement about not adding value to the legal analyses being that I'm not a legal scholar, and somehow that got twisted in your brain into what you wrote. The legal analyses are not the basis of any argument of mine. I've never even seen them before. I was presented with some arbitrary statements, and asked how they apply to some situation. If there were some argument on which I have chosen to take a side, you can be damn well sure I can defend it, so I have no idea what the hell *you* are talking about.

You claim that Iraq's handing over WMD to terrorists constituted an immediate threat which justified pre-emtive invasion, yet you have no evidence that Iraq has ever done such a thing - or indeed has any reason to do so now or in the future.

...and your point is? Why would we need evidence that they have done such a thing, or that they have a reason to do such a thing, in order for there to be an immediate threat of them doing such a thing? If you're in a convenience store and some armed robbers break in and hold up the place, do you need evidence that he has shot someone, or that he has a reason to shoot you before you decide they might be a threat to you? Also, your statement is completely wrong. Saddam has used WMD on his enemies. He has made us his stated enemy. He declared war on us. He hates us. He has known associations with Al Qaeda, the evidence for which was present before the war, and has been proven conclusively during the war.

You also have no evidence that they have WMD

I don't, but the government sure does. We have a detailed inventory of all the biological and chemical weapons they had, and we know what was not destroyed and what is not accounted for. We have found all the items associated with chemical weapons ready to be used on the battlefield, including missiles capable of carrying them. We have found barrels of chemicals on the battlefield. We even know who was in charge of hiding WMD, and we have surveilance of conversations regarding them. Since the weapons they had could not be accounted for after the inspectors were expelled from the country, they *must* be considered to still be there, and this fact alone would be sufficient even if there were not a scrap of physical evidence.

we'll ignore this 2nd hole in your approach

I won't ignore the holes in either of your holes, and you can shove them in your hole. /forums/images/icons/ooo.gif

You criticize legal precendent when it's too old?

Oh come on. Surely you know that what may have applied in 1837 may not be adequate to completely address the nuclear world that we live in today. That's why there was a more recent precedent given which was different.

You raise vaguely humanitarian arguements, yet disparage Amnesty International.

Where do you see any place where I "disparage Amnesty International"? Not in any post that I am aware of. /forums/images/icons/confused.gif

We aren't "beholden to AI laws" - far as I know, AI doesn't write laws.

That is what I said, and I said it because I was fairly certain that they don't write laws. The only difference is I said "I could be wrong", and you said "far as I know".

"who cares" is hardly the appropriate answer

Are you even reading the same post? There is no "who cares" in the whole post, I just did a grep. /forums/images/icons/confused.gif I thought we were discussing legal precedents.

If you want to stop propaganda, bomb the propagandist, not the method of transmittal.

You mean drop a tomahawk on Baghdad Bob's head? That's humane. Wouldn't that take out the station too?

Our special forces most definitely do NOT wear US military uniforms when they're infiltrating the local populace. Spies don't do to well if they wear their nation's flag on their arms.

I didn't say they wore uniforms. I said the pentagon stated that all personnel had identifiable insignias. I have no idea what they wear, but I do know what the pentagon stated. I think "spies" usually refer to CIA operatives, not the military, and I wouldn't expect them to have to wear uniforms.

This was a pretty sad rebuttal. Aside from the logical errors and terrible arguments, you didn't even read carefully enough to quote me correctly nor respond to what I wrote. It was hardly worth the time I put into replying. /forums/images/icons/frown.gif

[Cyrus]

"Fellow patriots, Jimbo, Haley, MMMMMM, wogga, B-Man, other voices of reason, feel free to chime in any time now..."

Tell you what, when you came to invoke the help of the likes of Wogga, well, my eyes kinda got bleary and weary and I stopped reading much after that. I'll have to scan the resta your post later.

Oh. And by the way. I do consider you to be a patriot and a voice of reason. I'm sorry the feeling is not reciprocal -- but what can I do. My beer's full of tears.

[Cyrus]

It took more effort than with a wogga, but it's out finally. Don't you feel better now?

"If we are going to be called criminals, we might as well show them what criminal really is."

Yep. That's right.

Couldn't think of a better way to end this if I tried! Thank you very, very much.

[BruceZ]

I've said it before, it just got buried, so it had nothing to do with your effort.

[BruceZ]

What is the prisoner problem? How does it relate to us vaporizing all our enemies unilaterally now that we have the chance? Would that be the trivial solution?

I have the highest respect for David Sklansky.

Well then you should respect my argument, since it is essentially the same as his statement. Here is his statement from the book, followed by a response he made to me about it. That was all I needed to figure it out.

"...it does not seem that most wars are worth entering into. (On the other hand, those that are worth fighting are total struggles for survival - not games. It is ridiculous to have rules for war like the geneva Convention rules. I believe that if you are forced to enter a war, you do whatever is necessary to keep your men from being killed, except possibly hurting enemy civilians)."

- David Sklansky, Poker Gaming and Life

I stand by my geneva convention statement. We can discuss that in another thread. That doesn't mean that I believe that all acts are justified. But setting out rules beforehand is ridiculous. Would you cheat at cards if your family died if you didn't? Abiding by certain rules only makes sense if both sides gain from abiding.

[ACPlayer]

I have no desire or ability to censor your speech (of course if I could use force to do so, apparently you would argue that this is acceptable).

We all humans live on a planet where we wish to share in the resources and pursue liberty and happiness. Libertarianism does not mean that we should not live without rules, just that when there are grey areas we would tend to favor the individual rights. Republicans on grey areas tend to prefer big business, and Democrats cant figure out what to do.

The family unit has rules by which it lives even if it sometimes causes a particular member difficulties. Similarly families live in towns, which belong to counties, which are in states, which are in countries and which are in planets. When states have conflicts they go to the Federal courts and then have to accept the rulings even when they do not like them. Texas invading Arkansas over a dispute would be dumb. When tough guy on a school does not like the rules he sits on the face of the weaker person - that is exactly what is happening with Iraq.

Why do you suggest that the countries should not have a framework of rules by which they attempt to live in? Sometimes the rules are broken and sometimes the rules need to be adjusted. The rules were those of the UN, NATO etc. The UN came up with UNMOVIC and the US had plenty of authority and ability to decide how, who and what the group can and should do.

The UN could not decide to invade one of its members, so two contries decide to lead a coalition of the willing, hence breaking the rules that Iraq is accused of breaking.

Seems like the US could have worked to rework the rules if that was needed rather than invade a country on a fairly flimsy pretext of pre-emptive self protection -- combined with the self serving propoganda of freeing the Iraqi's from a brutal dictator.

[Cyrus]

Yep, it's me again. ("It's like a nightmare, isn't it?")

"We have a detailed inventory of all the biological and chemical weapons they had, and we know what was not destroyed and what is not accounted for."

No one from the American government has come up yet with a list showing any of the above. Or indeed any list.
Try again.

"We have found all the items associated with chemical weapons ready to be used on the battlefield, including missiles capable of carrying them."

Certain conventional missiles can be capable of carrying both conventional or chemical weaponry. If a missile is capable of carrying both, does this make its owner guilty of possessing chemical weapons? I don't follow the logic.
Try again.

"Since the weapons they had could not be accounted for after the inspectors were expelled from the country,.."

The inspectors were not expelled by the Iraqis. Try again.

"Surely you know that what may have applied in 1837 may not be adequate to completely address the nuclear world that we live in today."

You might want to advise us how far back you accept legal precedent, then. Do, please, be specific. (And by the way : We are not living in the same "nuclear age" we were living ten years ago. There is a number of differences,, some of which would actually make you rejoice. But I'm in no giving mood this morning!)

"I didn't say they wore uniforms. I said the pentagon stated that all personnel had identifiable insignias."

Spies don't wear neither. And they don't have to do anything, in order to be considered as unlawful combattants -- check the Geneva Convention again. A spy accepts the risk that when he's caught, even when he only tends his garden at home as a sleeper, he has no legal protection whatsoever. There are no laws or treaties that oblige combattants to wear uniforms or insignia; that would be stupid and meaningless. There are only treaties that acknowledge the fact that the spies are outside legal protection, eg of the Geneva Convention protocols.

The hole in your argument is when you try to mislead your audience about the practices of American CIA spies or Special Forces as far as their uniform is concerned. Those folks quite correctly will camouflage themeselves! By this action they knowingly place themselves outside the protection of the Geneva Convention. Yes, that makes their actions courageous, if anything.

The fact that Afghanis or Iraqis wearing civvies were shooting at American soldiers, on the other hand, DOES NOT detrimentally affect their status as POWs! They, being a militia, should enjoy the protection of the GV. Check the text out -- and try again.

[Cyrus]

"What is the prisoner problem?"

Ask David.

"How does it relate to us vaporizing all our enemies unilaterally now that we have the chance?"

You have to figure it our for yourself. I've given you all you need.

"Would that be the trivial solution?"

To a "libertarian" as you call yourself (and which is rightly contested by someone else on this borad), well, I believe it might already be trivial to behave "like a criminal". You already revealed yourself, sir: Since they call us criminals, we might as well behave like criminals!

Why do you feel I need there's anything left in proving you are behaving like criminals? My work is done.

...Say something witty and draw the curtain.

[BruceZ]

"Legitimate can mean in accordance with established norms or practices."

That's irrelevant in this case.

It's not irrelevant. You asked if the action was legitimate. That legitimacy can be based on US policy, and does not have to be based on UN policy. The US is not beholden to the UN. The US is free to withdraw from the UN at any time, rendering any pronouncement of illegitimacy by the UN irrelevant. This could have been done in this case, but it was not necessary. We elected not to ask the UN to render a decision on the legitimacy of this action since, in part, there seemed little relevance to having policy that affects US security decided by Guinea and Cameroon. /forums/images/icons/smirk.gif

You're just parroting the official line, Soviet Kommisar style, while refusing to face facts. No language in 1441 supports this conclusion. The resolution threatens "serious consequences" by the Security Council, not its members acting alone. Nothing in 1441 authorizes any country to use force against the other, and nothing in it authorizes unilateral action by the US. The plain language calls for violations to be reported to the Security Council, and for the Security Council alone to decide which steps, if any, need be taken. This is further supported by the history of the resolution, which was able to pass only because language expressly authorizing force was removed at the insistence of members that voted for it.

You're missing my point. The UN agreed last fall that a violation of 1441 had occurred, a violation for which the vague "serious consequences" could be used for enforcement. This was obviously the only wording they could get an agreement on, which is why that organization is worthless and impotent. They might as well have said "or you'll be sorry". In any case, the vote on the use of force to enforce this resolution was never put to the UN. They didn't decide to use force or to not use force. They legitimized that force may be used by voting that 1441 had been violated. The subsequent enforcement by the US was a whole different thing, outside the UN. The UN did not legitimize the US acting on its own, but it did not vote that this action was illegitimate either. The only vote it made was that 1441 was violated, which would be consistent with the use of force. That doesn't mean it wasn't legitimate from the standpoint of US policy, and the UN vote on 1441 was used in part to establish this legitimacy.

Unless the US is equally justified in going to war with Pakistan and India, or any of the other 20-30 countires with WMD, there has to be some minimum threshhold of likelihood regarding Iraq.

If you're suggesting some additional targets, I do not disagree, but we can only do one thing at a time. Again, there is not a single reason for going to war against a particular country. Iraq was chosen for a number of reasons, the most important of which in my mind is that we were already at war with them. As far as I'm concerned, the Gulf war never ended. Now go like wonderdog and fetch me proof that that is illegitimate.

The UNSCOM inspections were so effective at destroying Iraq's WMD capacity that the US could not point to a single case of WMD's actually in Iraq's possession prior to the war.

You have got to be kidding me, because you are not this stupid. I'll try to get through this with a straight face. The fact that we didn't find weapons had nothing to do with the inspections being effective. We didn't find weapons because Iraq had 12 years to hide them. However, the inspections were effective in proving that those weapons existed because they were inventoried and not accounted for. The fact that inspectors that returned did not find weapons didn't prove that they weren't there, it proved that Saddam failed to comply. The purpose of the inspectors was not to play hide and seek with small jars of anthrax that could be anywhere in Iraq. There purpose was to verify the destruction of the WMD that they already knew existed. Whether or not these weapons existed was never an issue. If neither set of inspectors could verify their destruction, then by definition Saddam failed to comply with the resolution to destroy its WMD, because that resoluton expressly states that the destruction of these weapons will be verified by the inspectors.

Further, the US requested that the inspectors be pulled out after getting caught infiltrating spies within them and went years without even trying to negotiate a return of the inspectors and steadfastly refused to accpet Iraq's demand of reduced sanctions in return for elminating WMD. Not only were negotiations not "exhausted," they were never seriously persued.

The inspectors were thrown out by Saddam who accused them of being "spies". There were no negotiations persued because there was nothing to negotiate. We had an agreement with Iraq at the end of the Gulf war, and Iraq was out of compliance with those negotiations. This business of failing to comply and then demanding more negotiations is simply a stalling tactic used by Saddam. It is very effective only because there are people like you who are made so gullible by their fear of not "persuing every option to war" that he is allowed to get away with it. He plays you people like a fine fiddle.

US special forces were disguised in civilian clothes while carrying out offensive (and illegal) operations in Iraq prior to the war. So what you're saying, in other words, is that Iraqi irregulars shouldn't be expected to remain at a "disadvantage" by wearing uniforms since the US had already abandoned the principle. Fair enough, but that's not exactly the way you see it, is it?


It doesn't matter what they wore prior to the war, only during the war. /forums/images/icons/wink.gif The only statement I have heard is that all troops were in compliance with the requirement to wear insignias.

I agree that in most respects the behavior of the US, its officials, and its armed forces is "better" than Saddam's and his henchmen. If this is the standard to which you hold your country and its leaders, then your regard for the flag and all it stands for is infinitely lower than mine. Some "patriot."

I get so tired of responding to weak thinking and leaping to conclusions. How do you go from my statement that the behavior of the US forces is better than Saddam's, which was a response to a question, to the statement that the behavior of Saddam's forces is the highest standard to which I hold the US? You know, it can be shown that if you permit a single logical fallacy, you can reach any conclusion possible. With these kinds of fallacies in *thinking*, it is little wonder that you hold the opinions that you do. Don't ever question my patriotism again with a half-assed argument like this one.

[Cyrus]

And here I was thinking it was only my effort that got it out of your system. There goes my bibliography reference.

In any case, that cathartic cry of yours was a great one !

I wonder if it would make a good signature for my posts. Here, I'll try it on for size. Tell me what you think? You have an eye for these things.

<ul type="square">"If we are going to be called criminals, we might as well show them what criminal really is!"
--Bruce Z[/list]

[BruceZ]

I have no desire or ability to censor your speech (of course if I could use force to do so, apparently you would argue that this is acceptable).

You entirely misunderstand my position. Not surprising, with all those long posts, just skimming them would give you the wrong idea. I greatly value freedom of speech, and all the rights granted us by our constitution, and I abhor censorship. My discussion with Cyrus about the use of force dealt exclusively with international law and defense of the nation.

My point was that if nations are going to make treaties and then break them when they deem it is in their best interest to do so, then why make the treaties to begin with? Why go to the trouble of changing them as new circumstances arise so that we can do what we want, why not just do what we want? What purpose do the laws serve if we are going to do what we want anyway? How is the final result any different than if these laws did not exist at all, and the nations acted in their best interest? If the actions are the same, the laws are irrelevant. Only if the actions are different would the laws be relevant, but that would mean the nation does not always act in its best interest in defense matters, and that is unacceptable.

Note that this does not apply to any other level of laws that you mention; cities, states, nations, and so forth, because there is always a superceding body that can enforce violations of laws. At the global level, there is no such higher authority that can enforce laws when you are the strongest nation. So we are only talking about international laws, and then only about matters of defense of the nation, because compromising the survival of the nation makes no sense at all. No other goal can be more important than survival itself, so the strongest nation must always act in the best interest of its own survival regardless of what any prevailing laws may say.

You can kind of see the similarity between this and the idea that you cannot prove the consistency of a complete theory from inside the theory itself. You have to go outside the theory, and at some point you can no longer go outside the theory because you are at the top level.

[BruceZ]

Since they call us criminals, we might as well behave like criminals!

You understand the logic behind the emotion right? We are prohibited from doing many things in the interest of our survival only because of world opinion and how it in turn affects our survival. From bombing hospitals and mosques to vaporizing the half of the world that threatens us. If world opinion becomes such that we are equally hated regardless of what we do, then there is no longer any penalty for not doing these things, other than that which we choose to impose on ourselves. There would be no consequences imposed on us externally, hence no violation of any external law, since laws without penalties are not laws.

[Cyrus]

"You understand the logic behind the emotion right?"

Emotion schmoshon. I prefer to take you at your word. Too late for retractions.

<ul type="square">"Since they call us criminals, we might as well behave like criminals!"
-- Bruce Z[/list]

That's all folks. Enjoy the game :

<font color="blue"> PLAY THE PRISONERS' DILEMMA ! </font color> (http://www.princeton.edu/~mdaniels/PD/PD.html)

[BruceZ]

No one from the American government has come up yet with a list showing any of the above. Or indeed any list.

You are quite wrong. The list is quite extensive, and lists everything to the last liter of various nerve agents. I know about it, so why don't you find out some facts before you spout off nonsense and waste even more time and space?

Certain conventional missiles can be capable of carrying both conventional or chemical weaponry. If a missile is capable of carrying both, does this make its owner guilty of possessing chemical weapons?

And I assume the chemical protective gear was to protect them from our WMDs. The missles were only one example of such paraphenelia. They had everything necessary to wage a chemical war.

The inspectors were not expelled by the Iraqis.

Saddam got tired of them, accused them of being "spies", and they were forced to leave.

As for the rest of your post, it's all babble because I wasn't talking about spies. The GC rules address uniforms and insignias of millitary personnel.

[BruceZ]

No retractions. That is what was intended.

[Cyrus]

"The list is quite extensive, and lists everything to the last liter of various nerve agents. I know about it, so why don't you find out some facts before you spout off nonsense and waste even more time and space?"

Thank you, sir, may I have another?

Now, care to share with us your knowledge? Any citations? Web links? (Pentagon babble?)

"They had everything necessary to wage a chemical war."

If they had, we would know about it by now. I already told you, as I told MMMMMM: Now that the American armed forces are in control of Iraq, we are sure to find them WMDs! And if you take that to imply that, if necessary, the U.S. will plant them there, yes, that's what I'm implying. (Clarkmeister already beat me to expressing this sentiment.)

So far though, nothing. Nada. Zilch. Niente. Hold your horses for a spell...

"Saddam got tired of [the U.N. inspectors], accused them of being "spies", and they were forced to leave."

You mean the inspectors left because their feelings were hurt? How were they "forced" to leave, if not by force? No one accused the Iraqis of using force or otherwise expelling the inspectors. No one, except you. So, once more, you have your facts wrong. This might be the reason you resort to frustrated and personal remarks (e.g. "the rest of your post it's all babble").

Well, the babble is in your claim that "The GC rules address [only] uniforms and insignias of military personnel."

Wrong again!.. (Aren't you tired of all that mud?!) Check out the text of the Geneva Convention (http://usmilitary.about.com/library/milinfo/genevacon/blgeneva.htm), for yourself, and then try once more. (Put some effort into it, man!)

The text of the Fourth Geneva Convention, 1949 (http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/History/Human_Rights/geneva1.html)

[BruceZ]

I stand by all my statements.

Now, care to share with us your knowledge? Any citations? Web links?

Yes, my post. I saw the document with my own two eyes. Do your own research. I don't have time to educate argumentative net trolls.

If they had, we would know about it by now.

They had. I do. You wouldn't. You have to actually listen to learn things.

"The GC rules address [only] uniforms and insignias of military personnel."

Wrong again!.. (Aren't you tired of all that mud?!)

Is it fun editing my statements and then calling them wrong? What happened, is your playstation on the fritz? Well have fun, I'll get out of the way.

[Cyrus]

"I stand by all my statements."

Yeah. Even if you wanted to retract all of them, my man, I would forever keep the one about "America behaving like a criminal". Priceless.

"I saw the document with my own two eyes."

You're not a spy, are you?

"I don't have time to educate argumentative net trolls."

It's funny but I saw that one coming the moment you lost your cool and exclaimed about "America behaving like a criminal"! What can I say.

"Is it fun editing my statements and then calling them wrong?"

What "editing"?? The point was whether Iraqis that are fighting dressed in civilian clothes can be accepted as legit POWs. The Geneva Convention was invoked. Remember? It is only fair to conclude that when you respond, in this context, that "The GC rules address uniforms and insignias of military personnel", you clearly mean "only uniforms and insignias of military personnel". There is no other meaning possible.

No distortion. No editing. Just the obvious. You simply don't know the relevant provisions of the 4th Geneva Convention protocols. Nothing wrong with that -- until you pretend you do and get called.

I'm sorry if the sight of your blunders on the web raises your blood pressure.

[Cyrus]

Before you put on the nightie, tell me how you can sleep at night knowing that "half of the world threatens us" (http://www.twoplustwo.com/forums/showthreaded.php?Cat=&amp;Board=exchange&amp;Number=241115 &amp;page=13&amp;view=expanded&amp;sb=6&amp;o=14&amp;vc=1) , the "us" being the U.S. of A. It sure looks like you gotta stay wide awake ! Is this another of your wild exaggerations or do you actually mean half the planet? Enquiring minds want to know.