US military engagements: Iraq and others

[ralis]

The Patriot Act is an unconstitutional, jingoistic mistake which levered an emotional crisis for the purpose of a power-grab by statists. Nothing even vaguely conservative about it.

 

That Saddam had weapons of mass destruction was clear (most of them were trucked into Syria during the build-up of troops) and his willingness to use them was self-evident. Neither of those justified the spilling of US blood or treasure in Iraq, though, and Congress should not have authorized it. I protested against until the point of no return was crossed; after that, I argued for the use of overwhelming force to effect a swift, complete & decisive conclusion. The military should be used very rarely and then with the objective of unambiguous victory. War is not healthy for children and other living things. When the occasion for war cannot be avoided (as it could have been with the overthrow of Saddam), it should be as unfair a fight as possible -- if you follow me.

 

 

The invasion of Iraq is a war crime which violated International and US law. The invasion of a sovereign country without provocation is a war crime which was well established at the Nuremberg Tribunals. In fact, the Nazis in the first trial were tried for unprovoked invasion of a number of sovereign countries and not the Holocaust as some are under the impression of. The other trials were for the Holocaust, the Nazi judiciary and medical experiments.

 

Unfair fight by using torture and  WMD's that are outlawed by international conventions? Geneva Convention violations?

Edited February 23, 2017 by ralis

[Brian]

People seem to forget that not only did the US Congress authorize that military action but the US was part of a coalition which, over time, included 40 nations. "Provocation" is in the eye of the beholder, you know.

 

Terrible idea but not W's private little invasion as the revisionists would like us to believe.

[ralis]

People seem to forget that not only did the US Congress authorize that military action but the US was part of a coalition which, over time, included 40 nations. "Provocation" is in the eye of the beholder, you know.

 

Terrible idea but not W's private little invasion as the revisionists would like us to believe.

 

 

The invasion was based on lies that were started by the Bush cabal which includes PNAC. I know the issues and am not buying into the revisionist argument. Provocation must be a physical act and not just mere words.

[Brian]

Cabal?

 

 

 

Which lies, ralis? (I'm not denying there were lies, mind you, just that they probably weren't what you believe they were...)

 

Personally, I think you have not just bought into the revisionism but I believe you are an active participant.

[ralis]

Cabal?

 

 

 

Which lies, ralis? (I'm not denying there were lies, mind you, just that they probably weren't what you believe they were...)

 

Personally, I think you have not just bought into the revisionism but I believe you are an active participant.

 

Please stop the mind reading Brian and the blatant accusation that I am participating in revisionist lies. You will say anything to make me look bad in front of your supporters here.

Edited February 23, 2017 by ralis

[Brian]

Please stop the mind reading Brian and the blatant accusation that I am participating is way out of line. You will say anything to make me look bad in front of your supporters here.

Don't think I have any supporters here, ralis, and no "mind reading" is necessary -- merely reading your statements over the past few years. In fact, when I pointedly asked you whether you are an active & willing participant in The Long March or just one of the useful innocents, you haughtily proclaimed that you are certainly not innocent. Evidence based on your own posts strongly suggests that you are a Progressive insider -- what Alinsky recommended euphemistically calling a "community organizer" rather than the other terms which had accumulated too much baggage.

 

I notice, BTW, that you still haven't answered the question I asked a few posts back...

[Apech]

Don't think I have any supporters here, ralis, and no "mind reading" is necessary -- merely reading your statements over the past few years. In fact, when I pointedly asked you whether you are an active & willing participant in The Long March or just one of the useful innocents, you haughtily proclaimed that you are certainly not innocent. Evidence based on your own posts strongly suggests that you are a Progressive insider -- what Alinsky recommended euphemistically calling a "community organizer" rather than the other terms which had accumulated too much baggage.

 

I notice, BTW, that you still haven't answered the question I asked a few posts back...

 

 

 

Just for the record I don't support you

[Aetherous]

I support Brian.

Make Daobums Brian Again.

 

(but it's really true that WMDs were shipped out through Syria)

Edited February 23, 2017 by Aetherous

[ralis]

I support Brian.

 

Make Daobums Brian Again.

 

(but it's really true that WMDs were shipped out through Syria)

 

Provide substantive evidence for your supposition.

[Brian]

Provide substantive evidence for your supposition.

You prove it's a lie -- I think the onus is on you since you claim the official multinational record is a lie.

[ralis]

You prove it's a lie -- I think the onus is on you since you claim the official multinational record is a lie.

 

 

I read the reports from the international team of inspectors and also heard their testimony. The Iraq war was built on the big lie.

[dust]

If the issue is either provocation or genuine fear of foreign attack... well then yes, a crime was committed.

 

Not sure if "someone told a lie" or "who told the lies?" is really the important issue. There was no provocation, and there was no genuine evidence for fear of attack. These are well-established facts now, no? Admitted by the men themselves. There was no "legal" reason for the war.

 

An entire war as a crime is a pretty fucking big crime.

[Brian]

Can you name a war which wasn't a crime?

[dawei]

If the issue is either provocation or genuine fear of foreign attack... well then yes, a crime was committed.

 

Not sure if "someone told a lie" or "who told the lies?" is really the important issue. There was no provocation, and there was no genuine evidence for fear of attack. These are well-established facts now, no? Admitted by the men themselves. There was no "legal" reason for the war.

 

An entire war as a crime is a pretty fucking big crime.

 

I have this small radar I apply which starts with a simple question:  "Does it make sense"?   Of course that can be a range of objective to subjective based on the issues but...

 

That Congress authorized it and 40 nations were a part of it...  it seems to make no fucking sense to me...    JMO

[dust]

Can you name a war which wasn't a crime?

 

Technically something's only a crime if it's legally defined as one at the time, right? A paleolithic human killing another didn't commit a crime -- there was no legal system.

 

But no, I can't think of a case of war, real or hypothetical, in which at least one party couldn't be considered at fault (and often all parties). And so if we consider that any war in history could be retroactively considered a crime, then there was never a war that was not a crime.

 

A point to note is "Who started it?" Sometimes it's not so easy to delineate, but sometimes it is. When the leaders of Japan declared war on the USA, they committed a heinous crime without provocation -- without any reason other than "We want to subjugate you". When the leaders of the USA retaliated, they did what they must to defend.

 

The invasion of Iraq wasn't on the same level as WWII, obviously, not as easy to delineate -- Iraq had had WMDs, and might have had them again, and Hussein was a brutal shit. But if we're talking current international legal definition of crime, Japan in the USA and the USA/UK in Iraq both committed the same legal crime of war without provocation. And the coalition's reasons were different than subjugation, but maybe no better in the end.

[Brian]

Technically something's only a crime if it's legally defined as one at the time, right? A paleolithic human killing another didn't commit a crime -- there was no legal system.

 

But no, I can't think of a case of war, real or hypothetical, in which at least one party couldn't be considered at fault (and often all parties). And so if we consider that any war in history could be retroactively considered a crime, then there was never a war that was not a crime.

 

A point to note is "Who started it?" Sometimes it's not so easy to delineate, but sometimes it is. When the leaders of Japan declared war on the USA, they committed a heinous crime without provocation -- without any reason other than "We want to subjugate you". When the leaders of the USA retaliated, they did what they must to defend.

 

The invasion of Iraq wasn't on the same level as WWII, obviously, not as easy to delineate -- Iraq had had WMDs, and might have had them again, and Hussein was a brutal shit. But if we're talking current international legal definition of crime, Japan in the USA and the USA/UK in Iraq both committed the same legal crime of war without provocation. And the coalition's reasons were different than subjugation, but maybe no better in the end.

Oh, except we had units engaged against the Japanese on the continent and were disrupting shipping prior to the attack on Pearl Harbor. We also tracked their fleet (lost it in a storm) and moved part of our fleet out of Pearl prior to the attack. We even spotted a mini-sub prior to the attack. Then, knowing there was a high likelihood that Pearl would be the target, the sergeant at arms (who had the keys to the weapons lockers at Hickam Field) was given a weekend pass. (My step-father was there and had some very interesting stories...) FDR manipulated the situation to get us into the war just as Wilson had with The Big War.

Edited February 23, 2017 by Brian

[Apech]

Can you name a war which wasn't a crime?

 

 

 

The Seven Years War 1756 - 1763 established the British Empire .... so all good.

[Brian]

The Seven Years War 1756 - 1763 established the British Empire .... so all good.

I am curious -- how do British schools portray the secession of the American colonies little more than a decade later? What I learned in school was incomplete and what my son was taught 30-some years later was bizarre (not just in comparison to what I was taught but also in comparison to what my own research has revealed).

 

I talked a while back with some half-drunk Japanese college girls about our war in the 1940s and it was very interesting for all of us -- self-serving indoctrination seems a universal characteristic of formal education regardless of the society/culture.

[dust]

Oh, except we had units engaged against the Japanese on the continent and were disrupting shipping prior to the attack on Pearl Harbor. We also tracked their fleet (lost it in a storm) and moved part of our fleet out of Pearl prior to the attack. We even spotted a mini-sub prior to the attack. Then, knowing there was a high likelihood that Pearl would be the target, the sergeant at arms (who had the keys to the weapons lockers at Hickam Field) was given a weekend pass. (My step-father was there and had some very interesting stories...) FDR manipulated the situation to get us into the war just as Wilson had with The Big War.

 

Perhaps a better example would have been Japan invading China in 1938. It's a very clear-cut "They started it."

 

So then, whether or not FDR intended a war with Japan prior to 1938 (you didn't claim that he did but I'm just covering the base), Japan was the first offender on that side of the Pacific. Japan was the first offender, period.

 

To go one step further: it is not in my view arguable that Japan had any legitimacy in any form at any time. They were an imperial invading force -- they raped and murdered and performed terrible experiments throughout China and much of Asia. They needed to be stopped. Whether or not the US had the "right" to step in and manipulate the situation I don't know -- and an American manipulation of the Pearl Harbor situation seems ethically tenuous at best -- but I don't think the general act of going to war with Japan was wrong. If the US hadn't stepped in they would have crossed the Pacific eventually anyway, no?

 

 

edit: I should be the first to say, my knowledge of the American side of WWII is bare, and my initial example of Japan invading the US was a little simplistic given the complexity of the situation, but I think the general point still stands: Japan was the aggressor.

Edited February 23, 2017 by dust

[Aetherous]

Provide substantive evidence for your supposition.

 

Absolutely no problem:

 

http://www.nysun.com/foreign/iraqs-wmd-secreted-in-syria-sada-says/26514/

[Brian]

Absolutely no problem:

 

http://www.nysun.com/foreign/iraqs-wmd-secreted-in-syria-sada-says/26514/

I was gonna wait until after he provided "proof..."

[dust]

I'm not sure that 'substantive' applies.. it's the word of one man. I haven't read the book but I doubt that anything more than his word is given as evidence?

 

Contrary evidence: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Survey_Group#Duelfer_Report

 

But then there's this: http://www.heritage.org/middle-east/report/the-real-news-the-duelfer-report

[Miffymog]

I am curious -- how do British schools portray the secession of the American colonies little more than a decade later? What I learned in school was incomplete and what my son was taught 30-some years later was bizarre (not just in comparison to what I was taught but also in comparison to what my own research has revealed).

 

I talked a while back with some half-drunk Japanese college girls about our war in the 1940s and it was very interesting for all of us -- self-serving indoctrination seems a universal characteristic of formal education regardless of the society/culture.

 

I did History up until the age of 16 and all we did for the last two years of this was the 20th Century. Lots on the 1st World War, League of Nations and 2nd World War.

 

Pre 20th Century we did cover when I was younger, but with a combination of my poor memory and there being quite a bit from 1066 onwards, I cant really remember much about the American War of Independence. It was in another country and had no direct affect on how our own country was governed, nor on our constitution.

 

I think it was portrayed as something of a natural and normal uprising. A country that was quite reasonably seeking independence.

 

------

 

On an aside, a greater myth portrayed in our classes is that of Churchill. When American joined the 2nd World War in 1941, Roosevelt wanted to invade France, through England, in the summer of 1942. Given Germany was already fighting Russia by then, the landing would still have been a success.

 

Did this happen? No. Why? Because Churchill wanted to sit back and watch the Germans and Russians kill each other. 20 millions Germans died, 20 millions Russians died, and 8 millions Jews were executed. How much less would these numbers have been if France was liberated in 1942 rather than 1944?

 

Instead, to delay this, Churchill insisted on attacking through Italy, where it was well know that some of the roads up the centre of the country were little more than horse tracks. This then at times meant progress could only be made by slowly loading all the troops and equipment on to boats, travelling up the coast a few miles, and then unloading them again.

 

Roosevelt kept asking Churchill to move the D-Day landings forward, and he kept delaying so much that the Russians got to Berlin first. The result of this? The Iron Curtain, the development of the Eastern block and the Russian oppression of Eastern Europe - Literally because of one man, Churchill.

 

In academic circles, Churchill's weaknesses are fairly well accepted, but they are definitely not something the British people want to hear about, so instead, he is still seen as a hero. Rather than the man who doubled the length of the War in Europe, increased the death toll by millions, and created a Russian super state.

Edited February 24, 2017 by Miffymog

[Spotless]

Saddam was largely using puffery to keep Iran and others at bay. He had no weapons of mass destruction of the type and size the war was falsely predicated upon. But he played his bluff to his end - perhaps knowing that the US and U.K. knew it was a bluff he could not fathom an attack so clearly ridiculous - after alll - he was practically installed and intensely militarized by Ronald Reagan and that administration was complicit in chemical weapons attacks made by him against Iran.

 

Colin Powel has made much of his career as a mouthpiece for big lies at the right moment.

Edited February 24, 2017 by Spotless

[Apech]

I am curious -- how do British schools portray the secession of the American colonies little more than a decade later? What I learned in school was incomplete and what my son was taught 30-some years later was bizarre (not just in comparison to what I was taught but also in comparison to what my own research has revealed).

 

I talked a while back with some half-drunk Japanese college girls about our war in the 1940s and it was very interesting for all of us -- self-serving indoctrination seems a universal characteristic of formal education regardless of the society/culture.

 

 

Hi Brian,

 

I have no idea what is currently taught in British schools about the American War of Independence - probably nothing much or perhaps some anti-colonial rhetoric I assume

 

When I was at school (in the days when they did teach history) it was taught in the context of the growth of the British Empire and also the dynamics of the loss of power of the Monarchy - which was under severe pressure during this time.  Saved by the reinvention under Victoria as a kind of national model of propriety and identity - but this happened later.

 

What was understood was that certain groups of English and other Europeans had fled Europe because of either religious persecution, famine or just the economic pressures of the vast growth in population that was occurring and

 had moved to the New World to start a new life.  Among the common people of England these emigrants carried a lot of support and sympathy.  There was huge social change in Britain as the Industrial Revolution kicked in and there was a mixture of exciting new opportunities for life and trade, coupled with grinding poverty for the workers thrown off the land and working in mills and factories.  The fuel of this was raw materials and markets across the globe - so it was a mixture of luck, pragmatism and believe it or not a modern system of administration and government under William Pitt which had allowed Britain to replace France as the leading nation in Europe.  During the Seven Years War France had attempted to operate under the fossilised power structures of the French Court - while Britain had moved to a modern Parliamentary democracy which had curbed the powers and influence of the King.  However when it came to the American colonies the king forced a policy which had no or little popular support.  There were demonstrations in the streets of London against it.

 

This half-heartedness and the problems of logistics led to a disastrous campaign which as you know ended in failure (or success for your side).

 

The decline in French fortunes led as we know to violent revolution a few years later which generally shocked the British ruling classes - and thence on to the Napoleonic wars and eventually for a period almost complete dominance of the seas by Britain.  I don’t think the Americans were ever viewed as, as dangerous as the French - mostly because of the lack of proximity - but tensions as you know rumbled on for many decades.

 

I’ve probably missed a great deal out but I think that paints the general picture.

 

Generally Americans were regarded as slightly crazy cousins - in fact I would guess that in England we tend to think we are more similar than the average American does.  Two counties separated by a common language as someone once said (was it Churchill)?