21 Day War over, "mopping up" begins!

[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 [img]/forums/images/icons/smile.gif[/img] 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? [img]/forums/images/icons/grin.gif[/img]

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

[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.