Investigators Say Iraqi Mass Graves Hold 300,000

[adios]

An absolutely horrific number of civillians murdered, or this collateral damage from the Hussein regime or is this Bush make believe?

Investiators Say Iraqi Mass Graves Hold 300,000 (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=564&ncid=564&e=3&u=/nm/20031108/ts_nm/iraq_graves_dc)

Investigators Say Iraqi Mass Graves Hold 300,000
2 hours, 5 minutes ago

By Andrew Hammond

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Iraqi and U.S. rights investigators said on Saturday they suspected Iraq (news - web sites) had up to 260 mass graves containing the bodies of at least 300,000 people murdered by the former regime of Saddam Hussein (news web sites).


They told a conference that the task of identifying bodies and preparing evidence for tribunals could take years and millions of dollars, but the long process would be worth it to heal the wounds of three decades of brutal Baath Party rule.

"We have reports of 260 mass graves and we have confirmed approximately 40 of them," said Sandra Hodgkinson, director of the Coalition Provisional Authority's (CPA) mass grave action plan'.

"We believe, based on what Iraqis have reported to us, that there are 300,000 dead and that's the lower end of the estimates.

"In Bosnia it's now eight or nine years since similar atrocities and only 8,000 bodies out of 30,000 have been uncovered. Here in Iraq it's 300,000," said Hodgkinson, a human rights lawyer brought in by the CPA after U.S.-led forces toppled Saddam in April. More sites could still be found.

The three-day conference aims to prepare Iraqi rights workers and officials of the Iraqi human rights ministry for the process of disinterring graves and convincing families that they should wait rather than rush to dig up bodies themselves.

Hodgkinson said only 11 of the 260 sites had been disturbed since the graves were first discovered in May, when distraught families frantically dug around for the remains of loved ones.

Iraqi officials, who will gradually take over control of the investigations, also called for patience.

"Iraq doesn't have the capability at present to do the work of investigation. The main task for the moment is how to protect the sites which have been opened," Human Rights Minister Abdel-Basset Turki told the meeting.

KURDS VICTIMISED

The U.S. military has footed the bill for satellite imaging to identify sites, but Turki said more money would be needed.

Iraq's Governing Council asked an international donor conference in Madrid last month for $100 million to be spent on equipment and manpower over the next five years, but Turki said little has been forthcoming yet.

A team of forensic experts will arrive in Iraq in January to begin work on up to 20 sites around the country where evidence will be collected for future trials of regime figures. Work to identify bodies has begun at the other 200-odd sites.

Investigators have identified six major crime periods: 1983 attacks on Kurds, a 1988 campaign against Kurds, chemical weapons attacks on Kurds 1986-88, the 1991 crushing of a southern Shi'ite revolt, 1991 crushing of Kurdish insurrection, and crimes against all sectors of the population during the entire period of Baath rule.

Rafid al-Husseiny, a doctor who has led disinterring work at the Mahaweel site near Hilla south of Baghdad, is leading efforts to train Iraqis in the gravedigging process.

"Since May we have investigated a mass grave there of 3,115 people. We identified 2,115 bodies, which were reburied by their families," he said, stressing reconciliation among Iraqis.

"Iraqi citizens must look with both eyes, one looking to the future and one looking toward the past."

[Chris Alger]

Of course it isn't "make believe." It's been public knowledge for many years. I recall seeing figures of 300,000 and 400,000 murdered or "disappeared" during the early 1990's. The UNSCOM inspectors stumbled across mass graves during the 1990's. There might be call for forensic accounting or a "truth commission" of some sort, but the notion that the Iraqi government outright murdered hundreds of thousands of people hasn't been disputed by anyone I'm aware of outside the government of Iraq. I follow the antiwar literature fairly closely and I've never seen it disputed, not once.

The sickening thing is that the U.S. is trying to portray its new influence over Iraq as some sort of counterpoint to Saddam's atrocities. Note the dates, however: the hieght of U.S. support for Saddam occurred after or during the worst of them. Anyone who thinks that the U.S. will terminate it's support for the new Iraqi regime if it does the same needs a history lesson.

We're only hearing about these atrocities now because the U.S. is exploiting them for its own cynical ends. If a new U.S.-backed regime engaged in the same behavior, our government and most of the media would be looking the other way and diluting the force of what little comes to public attention with official apologetics about the vile nature of the enemies, the difficulty of establishing order in a turbulent region, the imperatives of the "war on terror," etc. This was, after all, just what we did when Saddam was being courted by the U.S., just as (smaller scale) repression and atrocities in Uzbekistan and Khazakstan are being ignored now.

For a good example of looking the other way, consider the case of Suharto's Indonesia. In October 1965, the U.S. -armed Indonesian military, under the direction of Gen. Suharto, launched a series of crackdowns and massacres of communists and other suspected enemies of the state. The result was hundreds of thousands murdered (estimates for the period 1965-1969 range from 400,000 to upwards of a million) and the installation of Suharto as Indonesia's dictator/kleptocrat for the next three decades. During this period of mass graves, forced labor camps, and absolute tyranny (mass political prisoners, mass torture, arbitrary arrest, no fee press, no right to dissent), Indonesia was every bit as repressive as Saddam's. Yet Indonesia received U.S. diplomatic and military support throughout, including during it's genocidal invasion and conquest of East Timor, which Henry Kisinger expressly greenlighted, even though the arms provided by the U.S. were used in violation of U.S. law.

How did the mainstream media react to U.S. support for such monsters? On the few occasions when it wasn't praising U.S. support it simply ignored them, or reported atrocity stories without any notion of U.S. complicity or support (as in the Reuters story you quote), or, in extreme cases, bragged about hwo great it was that the U.S. had such influence over one of the worst governments on earth. Here, for example, is James Reston writing in the New York Times on June 19, 1966: "The savage transformation of Indonesia from a pro-Chinese policy under Sukarno to a defiantly anti-communist policy under Gen. Suharto is, of course, the most important of these [more hopeful political developments in Asia]. Washington is being careful not to claim any credit for this change in the sixth most populous and one of the richest nations in the world, but this does not mean that Washington had nothing to do with it."

You're not hearing anything about the mass graves found in Indonesia, or how during the height of the atrocities there were so many bodies that they choked rivers. The key difference, of course, is that the mass media effectively suppresses U.S. support for atrocious regimes while highlighting its oppostion to others. The creates an impression among the ill-informed and naive that the U.S. only supports the good guys or, under duress, the "lesser of two evils," a claim that is so endlessly repeated in the media that most Americans can't imagine any alternative description of reality.

[MMMMMM]

So all the more reason it was past time to get rid of Saddam.

[nicky g]

M,

What do you think of US support for Saddam in the 1980s? Was it right? Are people who were behind it fit to be in government now?

[adios]

"What do you think of US support for Saddam in the 1980s?"

Let's put it this way, I'm not favorably disposed to it now. I'm surprised you didn't pose the same question about the 90's in the post Gulf War years. I'm fairly certain that at the time when the Gulf War had just ended there was a lot of sentiment from the UN coalition to cease hostilities. However, I'm fairly certain also at the time the Daddy Bush and his administration preferred Saddam to the Kurds and the Shiites.

"Was it right?"

No.

"Are people who were behind it fit to be in government now?"

I think you need to elaborate on this.

I'll add a question that I think you forgot.

"Was it a mistake for the US to support the Hussein regime?"

Yes.

[ACPlayer]

It would not be at all surprising if this report was accurate.

I do have two mutually complementary questions to contemplate:

a. What does this report have to do with the price of milk in Iowa?
b. What does the control of one of the largest oil reserve in the world have to do with the price of milk in Iowa?

A third supplementary question: What does Iowa have to do with election politics?

As I argued in a different thread, it is not our role to be the world's policeman. Even if it were there are other countries more deserving of a policeman (a number of African countries come to mind here) role.

[MMMMMM]

I don't know much about our history of support for Saddam's regime. To whatever degree we did support him, though, that in no way lessened the recent moral argument in favor of liberating the Iraqi people. Any support we provided historically might weaken our more recent position somewhat, but it does not lessen the needs of the Iraqi people for deliverance (in contemplating the Iraq war).

[Chris Alger]

Our support for Saddam "in no way lessened the recent moral argument in favor of liberating the Iraqi people," although "[a]ny support we provided historically might weaken our more recent position somewhat."

Is this the blatant contradiction it appears to be or are you seriously trying to distinguish our "recent moral argument" from our "recent moral position?"

[nicky g]

I think the gist of his argument is that past US actions don't make the Iraqi people any less deserving of "liberation", though they do make the US look a bit foolish. I'd also suggest that the fact that many of the current administration have worked for administrations that supported Saddam also suggests that the US is not the best qualified to take such a decision or be put in charge of the Iraqis in its aftermath.

[MMMMMM]

No Chris, maybe I didn't phrase it very well.

What I was trying to say is that the degree of morality (or lack thereof) of the liberator or rescuer is a separate issue from the need of the oppressed to be liberated. Even if the rescuer is highly immoral that doesn't lessen the needs of the oppressed to be delivered from their sufferings. In other words even if our historical position was morally horrible or inexcusable (and I really don't know enough to judge this), the Iraqi people still needed to be delivered from Saddam. The 300,000+ mass graves are a testament to this need for deliverance.

[MMMMMM]

Yes, nicky, that is the gist of what I was saying.

Also, I agree that in light of past actions, perhaps the USA is "not the best qualified" to be in charge of, etc......but I don't think anyone else is really qualified either--and that includes the U.N.

[Chris Alger]

If "the degree of the morality" of the "liberator" has nothing to do with it, then it should make no difference if the Iraqis were "liberated" by the U.S. or Syria or Iran.

Obviously, the moral history of the alleged "liberator" is primarily relevant to the question of what's happening really amounts to "liberation." Which makes the rhetoric about mass graves and the Iraqi's need to be saved from Saddam (which, BTW, no one disputed), nothing more than question-begging noise designed to muffle the more serious question. The argument is and always has been that the U.S. has no more interest in liberating Iraq now than it did when it supported Saddam, and is therefore just as inclined to install and prop up in Iraq the same kind of brutal dicatorship that it has installed in so many other countries before, and quite possibly leave the Iraqis in worse shape than they were before.

[MMMMMM]

I always thought that was a different argument.

[John Cole]

M,

You probably will have an untenable position if you drag morality into the discusion to begin with. Is it possible to do something morally correct without having a moral intent to begin with? Perhaps this is a question for Zeno.

John

[MMMMMM]

I always said that a moral intent was not our primary motivation in getting rid of Saddam. But the moral argument for the liberation of the Iraqi people still was strong. I don't see why so many people insist on conflating the two matters.

What is more important in determining the overall morality of the Iraq war: the needs of the Iraqi people to be liberated from their tyrant, or how moral or pure the motivations of the U.S. are?

If some kids are torturing a puppy, and an older kid makes them stop, the moral imperative has been fulfilled--even if the older kid made them stop primarily because he wants the pleasure of bossing them around and not because he felt much sympathy for the puppy. In other words the puppy's need for deliverance is far more important, in determining whether or not the older kid should intervene, than the older kid's motivation for so doing. Would you tell the the older kid not to intervene unless his motivations were blameless and pure? Of course not. And if the older kid had before been cruel to animals himself years ago, would that mean he is now unfit to intervene, and therefore shouldn't? Again, no. The puppy needed help; the Iraqi people needed deliverance; if Godzilla had risen from the sea and saved the Iraqi people only because he wanted to eat Saddam and his cronies for dinner, that would still have been a good thing for the Iraqi people.

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps this is a question for Zeno.


[/ QUOTE ]

John,

I just noticed the above statement. What sort of ploy is this? Was the statement administered in good faith and with the backing of sound reason and precedent? One can only wonder.

If I recall correctly, I mistakenly made a positive contribution to a similar political/policy/moral type of discussion a long time ago - something that I almost always shirk from doing - and I quickly fled from the scene of my crime.

George Washington warned about getting involved in foreign entanglements. I will heed his advice.

Regards,

Zeno

[Boris]

My memory of the rhetoric leading up to the invasion of Iraq was that this was not a "moral" war. And by moral I mean rescuing an oppressed people from a ruthless dictator. I think the Bush administration made it pretty clear that in their mind Saddam Hussein was a clear and present danger to the US and thus he needed to be deposed.

I think hawks and doves alike would agree that there are numerous instance where oppressed peoples could use a helping hand from a powerful external force like the US. The hawks and the doves would also generally agree that the US is not and should not be in the business of guardian angel or world savior. The mess is simply too big.

On the other hand, there is the definition of moral offered by BruceZ (which he got from the dictionary) that says that anything a group does to further self preservation is moral. Under this definition then you definitely have to question whether the war in Iraq is a moral war. Clearly, Saddam would have played ball with the US if we decided to support his oppressive regime and be his major customer of Iraqi oil. You can also be sure that if Saddam was still in power and was a friend of the US, there would not be any of the terrorist activity occuring Iraq like there is in Saudi Arabia. History has shown that dictators lose their power when they get soft and Saddam by all accounts was anything but soft.

[Cyrus]

"If some kids are torturing a puppy, and an older kid makes them stop, the moral imperative has been fulfilled--even if the older kid made them stop primarily because he wants the pleasure of bossing them around and not because he felt much sympathy for the puppy."

This is actually wrong -- and the fallacy can also lead you astray in games that combine chance and skill, such as poker. Revisit John Feeney's Inside The Poker Mind, for more, and in particular the essays about the fallacy of confusing short-term results with one's long-term potential. In other words, the good outcome of a specific trial (poker hand, Blackjack hand, kids playing, etc) that's due to bad play (such as the kid having other or even adverse intentions) should be counted on as having negative EV in the long term for us. (As a an example, imagine the older kid "bossing around" a hundred times versus the one whereby it acted righteously.)

We must strive to "play well" (i.e. the deciding factor in your argument should be the moral imperative, rather than the intent to "boss around") instead of focusing on "winning". Focusing on the latter means welcoming a win even when we have played badly, which, actually, is just not good for us.

From that point on, your argument breaks down, due to its internal inconsistencies, which are not unlike the current American administration's inconsistencies in its justification of the Iraqi war policy and tactics:

"In other words the puppy's need for deliverance is far more important, in determining whether or not the older kid should intervene, than the older kid's motivation for so doing. Would you tell the the older kid not to intervene unless his motivations were blameless and pure? Of course not."

I would try to put the bullying kid, the one that's doing the "good deed" right now, out of circulation as soon as possible! That's what I'd do. (See above for the explanation why.) The bully represents a long-term hazard.

"And if the older kid had before been cruel to animals himself years ago, would that mean he is now unfit to intervene, and therefore shouldn't? Again, no."

The fact that the "older kid" is actually a bad kid is what you should be focusing on. How come they/you left him off the hook for so long? How come, now, when he helps you "win" in that situation is the bully not a bully? To take the poker analogy a bit further, it is worthwhile to examine (yes, Virginia!) whether it is actually more beneficial to remove that kid from circulation right now, even at the short-term cost of seeing a puppy being tortured (if no one else can save it...).

Funnily enough, certain winning concepts discussed in Feeney's book could've been legitimately used by Dubya's gang! Instead of their insistance on the (losing in the long-term) concept of unilateralism. (One against all is a winning concept, per GWB!) They can't, of course, because I'd wager they are worse poker players than they are political leaders, if that is possible.

--Cyrus

[Cyrus]

"I think the Bush administration made it pretty clear that in their mind Saddam Hussein was a clear and present danger to the US and thus he needed to be deposed."

Before the war started, Zbignew Brzezinsky, who's definitely not a dove, or shy of brutal strategies, was going around the television talk shows. His opinion was that the President should attack Iraq immediately and unilaterally if he had actually true evidence of Iraq representing a clear and present danger to the US. Not imaginary, inflated or constructed danger but clear and present danger. Otherwise, the President should work towards strengthening a wide coalition of consensus towards implementing the UN resolutions, increase the pressue on Saddam's regime, etc.

Subsequently discovered evidence (by the US military, no less) has indicated that, if anything, Saddam represented nothing like the clear and present danger that George W Bush claimed.

"On the other hand, there is the definition of moral ... (from the dictionary) that says that anything a group does to further self preservation is moral."

That definition (which I haven't noticed, btw) would be wrong.

For a clearer understanding (rather than a crude "definition") of human morality, one would be well advised to read several primers on the subject. Books, instead of "dictionary definitions" -- is that too advanced a concept for some people here?

As to human morality, it is an "unnatural" construct. We should approach it with temerity and humility. Not with the arrogance exhibited by, for instance, young Gamblor here, who claimed that "Human rights do not exist anyway, they were invented by the weak to delay Darwinism.". Such lines of argument are erroneous in their most basic tenets but I will only say this, and allow others, more knowledgeable, to elaborate :

If power defines and rules human interaction, then the strongest inevitably survive and prosper among humans, be they individuals or groups. If morality is indeed supporting the weak, then those strong rulers would never allow it to survive. Yet, it has!

[MMMMMM]

What you are failing to acknowledge is that the puppy's need to not be tortured outweighs the rest of the matter (motivation of the bossy kid in making the others stop).

Likewise the needs of the Iraqi people to not be tortured and killed on massive scale outweighs the irony that the only nation capable of saving them quickly and militarily has at times acted improperly and is not a perfect rescuer.

The rest of your argument is not really applicable because I am
not fallaciously playing results; I'm saying that the moral imperative of the salvation of the puppy or the oppressed people is not in any way lessened by whether the savior would list that as the first motivation or the fifth. So if the USA has at times been a bastard, and if it places the salvation of the Iraqi peopole well below its own strategic interests, that still does not lessen the moral argument in favor of saving the Iraqi people. And if the USA wouldn't get involved without strategic interests (because we can't be involved everywhere at once), then the Iraqi people were damn lucky we had strategic interests there this time arund. To you that might be an argument against getting involved but to me it is just another reason it is a good thing. Strategic interests plus being able to do some good in the humanitarian sense = a good thing--no matter how you weight each.

Why all this isn't obvious is also rather baffling to me;-)

[MMMMMM]

What you are failing to acknowledge is that the puppy's need to not be tortured outweighs the rest of the matter (motivation of the bossy kid in making the others stop).

Likewise the needs of the Iraqi people to not be tortured and killed on massive scale outweighs the irony that the only nation capable of saving them quickly and militarily has at times acted improperly and is an imperfect rescuer.

The rest of your argument is not really applicable, because I am not fallaciously playing results; rather, I'm saying that the moral imperative of the salvation of the puppy or the oppressed people is not in any way lessened by whether the savior would list that as the first motivation or the fifth. So if the USA has at times been a bastard, and if it places the salvation of the Iraqi peopole well below its own strategic interests, that still does not lessen the moral argument in favor of saving the Iraqi people. And if the USA wouldn't get involved without strategic interests (because we can't be involved everywhere at once), then the Iraqi people were damn lucky we had strategic interests there this time around. To you that might be an argument against getting involved but to me it is just another reason it is a good thing. Strategic interests plus being able to do some good in the humanitarian sense = a good thing--no matter how you weight each.

Why all this isn't obvious is also rather baffling to me;-)

[MMMMMM]

Cyrus (and Boris) get your facts straight please.

The Bush administration never said that Saddam presented a "clear and present danger" or an "imminent threat." Rather the administration's claim was that the potential threat posed by Iraq was growing or accelerating.

[Timer]

I wonder how many mass graves there are of Indians in this country?

[John Cole]

M,

Surely all the rhetoric, though, lead some people to assume, quite naturally I think, that Saddam was more than a "potential" threat. Didn't it go something like this: He has WMDs, he has already used them against his own people, and he is, the madman that he is, ready and willing to use them RIGHT NOW to support terrorism worldwide."

[John Cole]

Zenom

Yes, this was in good faith. My philosophy background is weak, but I assume that most philosophers would claim that moral actions are impossible without moral intentions.

[adios]

It's amazing how many ignore what some of the leading Democrats, who voted for the resolution on Iraq in Congress, say about it. Dick Gephardt who I would say doesn't have a conservative bone in his body when interviewed on a Neal Cavuto show the other night stated that he didn't rely on Bush's portrayal of Iraq, he investigated the intelligence reports and such and came to his own conclusion that the US needed to act in Iraq. He still maintains that the action was right. It's not like the Democrats in Congress say ok Bush said Saddam is a threat that needs immediate attention so we should go. They attended the intelligence briefings and certainly did their own fact finding. Lieberman and Gephardt both supported the resolution authorizing Bush and still do. Kerry did too. One of Kerry's big problems is that he's waffling on the Iraqi issue by trying to play both sides agains the middle. What can Kerry say about supporting the resolution authorizing Bush? Hey I didn't do any of my own fact finding and I just believed the President? I submit that the message that it portrays isn't one voters are going to gravitate to. I've pointed out many times that Clinton stated the same thing more or less about Hussein and WMD's when be bombed Baghdad in 1998. It's been US policy for nearly a decade that Saddam had WMD's stockpiled and they proposed a threat. For the Democrats that voted against authorizing Bush in Congress, they can rightfully say I didn't believe for a moment that Iraq and Hussein posed any threat to the USA. For the Democrats that voted for the measure authorizing Bush, they can't say that we were duped by Bush because we didn't do our own fact finding and have any credibility with voters. It's understandable why people condemn Bush for his actions in Iraq after the fact but IMO any informed citizen certainly can't lay the blame solely on Bush. It's been US policy for 10 years that Hussein had WMD's.

Gephardt alluded to the fact that there probably is a problem with US Intelligence and it appears to me that there is a major problem there. I'm not passing the buck regarding Bush as the trite old saying of the "buck stops here" is true for Bush as well. Bush does need to address the issue of what lead the US to believe that WMD's were stockpiled. Those that condemn Bush for being a compulsive liar about WMD's in Iraq ought to remember that he's apparently become a compulsive truth teller about their non existance.

[MMMMMM]

"Yes, this was in good faith. My philosophy background is weak, but I assume that most philosophers would claim that moral actions are impossible without moral intentions"

How about moral results?

[MMMMMM]

The rhetoric was also that he might sell WMD to terrorists at some point, or that he might gain a nuclear weapon in the not-too-distant future (and although the yellowcake from Niger info. was found to be flawed, there were many other indications that Saddam had not abandoned his nuclear ambitions or his bio/chem WMD programs). And so far, none of this has been disproved, only called into doubt. As Tom Haley points out, the US position (and the position of other notable intelligence agencies worldwide, by the way) has for years been that Saddam's WMD programs existed. Heck, long before any whiff of the Iraq war, and even before 9/11, German intelligence had stated that Saddam would have a nuclear weapon by 2005 at the latest.

[Cyrus]

"How about moral results?"

LOL! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

(MMMMM, what are you doing??)

[Cyrus]

"Get your facts straight please."

Sorry, but in all honesty, it is you who needs to get up to speed here. Read on.

"The Bush administration never said that Saddam presented a "clear and present danger" or an "imminent threat." Rather the administration's claim was that the potential threat posed by Iraq was growing or accelerating."

I didn't claim that Bush said any of those things. Go back and read those posts again, if you want. Zbignew Brzezinsky challenged, in effect, the administration to attack immediately and unilaterally if they had, in fact, evidence that Saddam presented a clear and present danger. Otherwise, Zbig and a host of others, myriads of others, actually, strongly recommended consensus-building and a common diplomatic front with America's allies.

Zbig, and lots of serious, no-nonsense strategists, have dismissed the arguments for pre-emptive strikes (a bankrupt notion even against the Soviet Union, in the Cold War) as so much hot air. A "potential threat" that is "growing" or "accelerating" is a stupid argument for unilateral and dangerous military actions, such as in Iraq, not because of some moral reasons. But because it is bad policy.

You have not been paying attention. Stop playing with that doll and listen up...

[Chris Alger]

This is partly true, but only in the sense that the White House was pushing its doctrine of "preventative war" to provide a precedent for unprovoked attacks against countries, like Iraq, that posed no apparent threat at all. It's still dishonest, given that the White House knew it could rely on the usual coven of war propagandists to take the ball and run with it by amplifying the threat to make it appear imminent. Ann Coulter talked about mushroom clouds over the capital, Krauthammer warned of attacks that would kill "millions" of Americans. Tony Blair, whose government holds him a bit more accountable, felt compelled to warn of a "clear" and "current" danger in the same speech that he repeated the lie about the 45 minute launch time. Of course, the White House did nothing to correct these statements or the public impression created thereby, and instead sought ot exploit it. It's an example of the symbiotic relationship between the state and the private sector propaganda system.

Of course, we now know that there wasn't even a "growing or accelerating" threat, which makes the issue one of identifying the precise lies rather than whether the government lied in order to justify the war.

[Chris Alger]

This criticism of the Democrats for using the war to score partisan points is absolutely fair. There are exceptions, like Kennedy and Bryd and Kucinich, but for the most part, when it comes to foreign policy, even launching an unprovoked war of imperial conquest, the U.S. remains a one-party state.

[andyfox]

"he might sell WMD to terrorists at some point, or that he might gain a nuclear weapon in the not-too-distant future (and although the yellowcake from Niger info. was found to be flawed, there were many other indications that Saddam had not abandoned his nuclear ambitions or his bio/chem WMD programs). And so far, none of this has been disproved,"

It's going to be pretty hard to disprove these things since he's no longer in power. But even if he was, how could we ever disprove that he "might" do things "at some point" or in the "not-too-distant future"?

C'mon, everybody knows that the Bush administration oversold the justifications for going to war. Every administration does this, it shouldn't come as a surprise. The moral justification is the only one that has real merit (as pointed out, by, of all people, Chris Alger on this forum), but they chose not to use it until their PR needed a boost.

Bush listed Iraq, Iran, and North Korea on his axis of evil (correctly I believe). After going into Afghanistan, though, it should not have come as a surprise to anyone if those three attempted to upgrade their miltary capabilities. So there is an elements of self-fulfilling prophecy in the Bush policy. These guys are evil; we bomb a country; these guys attempt to build up their military in response; and we say, see, they're building up their military. I'm not saying this is all that is in the picture; as I said, I agree that those countries belonged in the axis of evil. But there's certainly an element of this to their military build-up and pugnaciousness.

[MMMMMM]

I don't get the joke.

[MMMMMM]

But we don't know that there wasn't a growing threat.

[MMMMMM]

Fine--it was late and I was tired--as long as we are agreed that the administration didn't say there was an "imminent threat" or a "clear and present danger."

[Zeno]

My apologies (if needed).

Thinks get sticky because (most) damn philosophers insist on definitions and then many questions degenerate into esoteric battles about words, and meanings. But some standards have to be agreed upon to have meaningful discussions. And, as is obvious in many discussions/debates here, no universal standards or frameworks are set before hand, or could even be adhered to, thus, the unending haggling. Indeed, one may argue that universals standards are a foggy utopia and simply do not exist at all. But an acceptable framework of ideas and concepts that all could adhere to is obviously needed for a reasonable debate to move forward.

As to your specific question, as someone that almost always works within the framework of doubt, due, no doubt, to my grounding in science, I can with the utmost confidence say that – I do not know.

And I am comfortable with it. Others find this notion impossible – and that is what leads the world into the chaos of imbecilities that so often confronts us. I will take people who doubt their positions any day over those that are always so cocksure of it. The former are usually more reasonable and better thinkers and the latter, well - the history of the papacy is a good example of their ilk.


[ QUOTE ]
....moral actions are impossible without moral intentions.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wish it were true. But my wishing so does not make it so. (Yes, I think most philosophers would make this claim, with the usual stipulations and waffling and unending qualifications etc.)


-Zeno, Le Misanthrope

[ACPlayer]

Hypothetical Speech by Bush prior to the war.

My fellow Americans,

Tomorrow I am going to go the United Nations to make our case for war in Iraq. Tonight I want to outline the essence of our case and why I am going to ask you to pay billions of dollars and the lives of hundreds of our fine young men.

Now, I could argue that after the 91 war, a crippled Saddam, under a trade embargo with the world is building Nuclear Weapons and stockpiling chemical weapons which could be used against us. However, our intelligence community has not been able to provide us with proof positive of this. So, I am not going to scare you with this line of thought.

I could also, suggest that the Iraqi's are responsible for September 11 disaster in NY and DC. However, again our intelligence services dont really have proof of this. There may have been a meeting between Atta and some minor Iraqi officials or there may not have been, we are not completely sure.

So, there is no clear and present danger from Iraq. Of course, just as the leaders of any other country in the world, could Saddam may develop these weapons for use against us sometime in the future.

So, this brings us to the real reason. Saddam is a thug. He kills some of his citizens, wont let the Shia's worship freely, rapes women at will. He is a very bad man.

So, my fellow Americans, there is no clear and present danger from Iraq. However, I am asking you for the sacrifices so that we can make lives better for the Iraqis. We will have to make some small sacrifices here, but so what.

Good night and god bless America.

==================

The next morning the country and the congress rose up and celebrated the great leader for his kindness to the Iraqi population.

[John Cole]

M,

I think the same claim would hold. Without a moral intent, the result cannot be a moral one. For example, while attempting a drive-by shooting of Cyrus, you misfire and kill me as I am atttempting a drive-by shooting shooting of___________. Although you have certainly prevented a crime, your intent was immoral; therfore, the result cannot be moral. (Perhaps this is a terrible example.)

John

[nicky g]

I agree that such a result can't really be described as moral; morality has to do with intentions, while consequences are simply good or bad depending on your perespective. But regardless, something positive can emerge from an immoral action; eg the Iraqi people could theeoretically emerge as better off because of a US action that was not carried out with any moral intenet or with the Iraqis' best interests at hand. Not that I think that's necessarily what has happened.

[MMMMMM]

John,

I think you may (and others) may be overlooking something here, or perhaps I'm not explaining my view well enough.

I'm not weighing only whether the active party acted with moral intent.

If a tyrant is horribly brutalizing people, a moral imperative exists that this brutalizing be stopped somehow. One might also call this the humanitarian imperative. This imperative exists prior to and separately from any potential source of intervention.

This moral/humanitarian imperative does not hinge on whether the "rescuer" acts in pure or good faith or not, because this imperative exists before any potential rescuer enters the picture. The tormented people need deliverance. That is the moral/humanitarian imperative.

How moral might be the intent of a rescuer is a worthy question, but it is a separate issue. A potential rescuer with purely altruistic intent does not increase the need of the tormented for deliverance, and a greedy self-interested potential rescuer does not lessen the needs of the tormented for deliverance. Thus a situation could exist where the moral/humanitarian imperative became fulfilled through outside intervention, even if the party intervening did not have the same primary interests in mind. The act of rescuing could fulfill the moral/humanitarian imperative, even if the motives of the rescuer were primarily selfish.

Also, let's look at your statement:

"Without a moral intent, the result cannot be a moral one."

This seems perhaps too exclusionary. I think "moral" equates roughly to "good" in most cases: am I defining "moral" inaccurately here (I know "moral" connotes other things too as it is sometimes used)?

For if the word "good" replaced the word "moral" in that sentence, the statement would be false:

"Without a good intent, the result cannot be a good one."

Does the word "moral" refer only to intent? That's not my impression, but I haven't looked it up lately;-) Also, in this whole discussion I'm postulating certain things as good and bad--needless and wanton cruelty is bad, for example. I don't think postulating certain things as good or bad is out of line for this discussion.

[Cyrus]

You have understood the issue much better than MMMM, which, IMHO, says a lot about the poker strength of you two, comparatively.

It is like this : You take 50% of the action for a year of a tournament player, thinking, of course, that your horse is a good one. Actually, your man is a bad tournament player, yet he wins the very first tournament of the year! I'm saying that while you should be grateful for the short-term lucky break and very glad to get 50% of first prize, you should abandon that player as soon as you realize he's terrible.

In Iraq, the United States has supported Saddam, armed him and assisted him and cajoled him, allowed him a free hand in killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and then hundreds of thousands of Iranians -- and then changing its moral compass faster than you can say freedom fries the United States undertakes a moral crusade to rid the world of the monster!

Short-term we are OK (Saddam gone) but the problem is, of course, the losing long-term strategy, whereby actions are guided by a shifting set of objectives, there's no sense of direction and the attitude is of that of reckless gambler's. We should be changing horses, pronto.

[MMMMMM]

Cyruds, those considerations were obvious to me from the outset. But those points are not what I was arguing about.

[John Cole]

M,

I agree with the good/bad distinction. Of course, I've maintained that if we intend to consider morality and humanitarian concerns, then we must jump into the fray whenever and wherever moral and humanitarian concerns are legitimate. This is why I've maintained that we can offer any reason we want for intervention--as long as we avoid humanitarian and moral considerations.

John

P.S. You're still a much better poker player than I. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[MMMMMM]

"Of course, I've maintained that if we intend to consider morality and humanitarian concerns, then we must jump into the fray whenever and wherever moral and humanitarian concerns are legitimate."

Given unlimited resources, I would agree. Given limited resources, I think it makes sense to weight three aspects: the moral/humanitarian concerns on one hand, the practical costs on the other hand, and the self-interest on the third hand;-) The reason self-interest should be weighted also is because it is a hidden factor in figuring cost.

In an ideal world, I would agree with your statement. But since we cannot help everyone, does that mean we should help no one? I think by following and hopefully weighting well the principles above, we could help as many as practically possible (which isn't too many, sadly).

I think you (and anyfox) may at times be seduced by the all-or-nothing aspect of certain ideals. So am I, but in the messy real world, we must often settle for less. I don't think that means we have to settle for nothing, though.

[John Cole]

M,

I stunned that you would mention that bleeding heart Andy and me in the same sentence--stunned I say! /images/graemlins/grin.gif

I guess for once I'd like to see us throw our energy into one cause or concern where we have little to gain. Samantha Powers' chapter on Rwanda in A Problem from Hell: America in the Age of Genocide and the story of Romeo Dallaire should serve as a lesson.

[Zeno]

The following is an exert from an article titled, “Moral Judgement, in “The Oxford Companion to Philosophy”.


“What are the proper objects of moral judgement? – The particular acts of responsible agents, their general policies, and their traits of character: but these considered in a special (moral) context or from a special point of view. Understanding these is a major task of normative ethic theory. However humanly complex and specific the situation in which I have to act, to reach a distinctively moral judgement on how I ought to act is to introduce an impersonal note. It is to ask what universal rules or principles bear upon my situation, and what are their relative urgencies? Does a strong requirement of justice or fairness take precedence, for instance, over all other, even benevolent, actions? Am I considering the interests of everyone involved, not self-deceivingly masking, giving privilege to, my personal inclinations?

For a serious and convincing moral judgement, there are both formal and substantive requirements to be met. The readiness to universalize, the impersonal note: But also deference to basic human values that alone can make these procedures and attitudes intelligible, and a concern with the regulation of life that furthers their realization and enjoyment.

In some moral contexts, “judgement” refers not to an epistemological act, but rather to the quality possessed by someone with a particular sensitivity to complex moral situations, where no rule of thumb, no simple appeal to a single principle, can ensure a rational outcome. A case in which none of the conflicting factors loses its serious claim to complaint action calls upon, not arbitrary decision, but fine or “nice” moral judgement.”

************************************************** *******************

The person who wrote the above article should be shot for using the term “nice” in the last sentence. I post this little ditty for the edification and digestion of the all the posters on this form that think the above is worth reading.

-Zeno

[Chris Alger]

"But since we cannot help everyone, does that mean we should help no one? I think by following and hopefully weighting well the principles above, we could help as many as practically possible (which isn't too many, sadly)."

The policies you've backed have never followed this principle. If you were interested in efficiently allocating scarce resources for the cause of liberation or simply improving the lot of the worst, you'd only have to trace your own country's support for egregious human rights violators (in the Occupied Territories, Colombia, Indonesia, Uzbekistan, for a few examples) and demand that it be stopped, curtailed or conditioned. Instead, you uncritically support those policies and government demands for massive new expenditures for causes that, at best, are morally ambiguous. Intervention and war throughout the Middle East, for example, one of your favorite demands, entails a significant and obvious risk of making things worse, and unquestionably will for hundreds of thousands of innocents who would lose lives and families in the process. Yet these massively expensive policies are the ones you advocate most strenuously, while the relative simple expedient of getting the U.S. to stop exporting arms and cattle prods to aggressors and human rights violators seems like to much work. It doesn't make any sense.

Let's say, for example, that you were seriously concerned about efficiently "liberating" people. If that were true, you'd abandon your practice of jumping on every government or right-wing bandwagon against foreign entities that invoked such rhetoric. Instead, you'd ask serious questions about whether, how and to what extent U.S. policies already in existence tend to thwart freedom and democracy. Since those are the policies that you, as an American citizen, are not only responsible for but have the greatest ability to change, you'd look homeward instead of searching out monsters from across the ocean to slay.

At the very least, you would have learned or at least shown some interest in the state of affairs for oppressed people worldwide, and consider how best to allocate your resources and those that you can influence. Yet you appear to be wholly ignorant and uncurious about the voluminous literature on this subject and informed only about those cases that are celebrated by the U.S. government or in the right-wing press. Hardly the sign of anyone who takes human rights at all seriously.

The only common thread to your advocacy has been uncritical acceptance of official doctrine and rhtetoric. Therefore, far from reflecting any concern for "limited resources," your ideology is one of simply not having the balls or energy to take on the U.S., making your talk about the limits of our good intentions another of your illogical rationalizations.

[MMMMMM]

M: "But since we cannot help everyone, does that mean we should help no one? I think by following and hopefully weighting well the principles above, we could help as many as practically possible (which isn't too many, sadly)."

Chris Alger: "The policies you've backed have never followed this principle."

Yes, they have. My position in favor of the liberation of the Iraqi people is precisely this. Likewise for the Iranians and North Koreans.

The worst human rights violations today occur under: Arab/Islamic theocracy/totalitarianism, Terrorism (since it targets the most innocent and helpless members of society), and Communism (China, North Korea, and to a lesser degree Cuba). I generally refuse to buy products made in China (often by slave prison labor). In Sudan, probably the worst human rights tragedy in the world today, Muslims are killing and enslaving Christians and animists on massive scale.

My position is to take a stance against the very worst violators of human rights. These worst of the worst violators are not America, Russia or even Israel.

Also, since so many Muslim charities have been found to support terrorist organizations, I try not to patronize convenience stores and gas stations which appear to be Arab-owned because I want to minimize the chances that my dollars will somehow find their way into the coffers of terrorists.

My positions are pretty consistent I think. I target the worst of the worst, since it is impossible to target everything bad for improvement. In keeping with this, during the Cold War, the USSR was a worse human rights violator than the USA. Hence I lambasted them too. Have to go shortly but I will be back after the weekend if you want to continue this discussion.

[Chris Alger]

Okay, let's see the short summary of the comparative evidence you've assembled showing, for example, how people in Cuba are treated worse than they are in Gaza, or how Saudi Arabia (which you suppport) is less of a totalitarian theocracy than Iran. Just so we'll know you're not pretending.

"I try not to patronize convenience stores and gas stations which appear to be Arab-owned...."

You get a freebie here.

[MMMMMM]

M wrote:"The worst human rights violations today occur under: Arab/Islamic theocracy/totalitarianism, Terrorism (since it targets the most innocent and helpless members of society), and Communism (China, North Korea, and to a lesser degree Cuba)."

Chris Alger wrote: "Okay, let's see the short summary of the comparative evidence you've assembled showing, for example, how people in Cuba are treated worse than they are in Gaza, or how Saudi Arabia (which you suppport) is less of a totalitarian theocracy than Iran. Just so we'll know you're not pretending."

I think the comparison between Communism overall and Israel would show Communism to do much worse. I didn't compare Israel to Cuba but to today's Communism overall, so let's not leave Red China and North Korea out of the equation.

Also, I included Islamic Theocracy right along with Arab Theocracy as having some of the worst human rights violations in the world today, so I see no need to compare Saudi Arabia and Iran in this regard. Perhaps my shorthand was a bit confusing when I wrote: Arab/Islamic theocracy/totalitarianism; I intended it to represent: Arab theocracy and Islamic theocracy and Arab totalitarianism and Islamic totalitarianism...so Iran of course is included under Islamic theocracy and Islamic totalitarianism. Sorry if I failed to make this clear.