Grizzled, You should have asked me about this Administration before you spent all of that time writing a response. Let's just say I think it S U C K S. As for the War, they totally mishandled it, before and during (there is no 'after' yet) ... but Crimes Against Humanity? In the end, I think the Iraqis will be far better off with their Democracy, so I don't stress about overthrowing Saddam. If you thought Saddam was bad, imagine after he died and his sons took over.
Well, I posted specific critiques of both sources you posted, with the reasons why the numbers are flawed. If your response is just to ignore them because they're from 'neocon' sources, then there's no convincing you (although I find it interesting that they are 'neocon sources' when I didn't attribute the analysis to anyone after the first slate article [slate is neocon?]). Using your analysis it is reasonable to apply the same 6 x to deaths attributable to saddam - he controlled all media which has at least as much affect as your 'they don't go everywhere' analysis. Further, since most of the fighting has been 'in the main cities' I find your arguments spurious at best.
I’m not sure I see a real and effective democracy in the near future in Iraq. Again, given the set up, there a lot of interests inside and outside Iraq that don’t want: a) America to succeed or be viewed to have succeeded in the region b) Any increased American influence in the region, and if the new government in Iraq had ties or obligations to the US that would likely be viewed as American influence c) Democracy. These forces would prefer an Islamic theocracy. d) A unified Iraq. These forces would prefer to have control over their own regions, Kurdish, Sunni, Shiite … And I’m probably missing some. The US doesn’t appear to have enough manpower to keep the peace while such a democracy gained footing and they didn’t build a big enough or strong enough coalition to provide enough manpower, so unfortunately I’m not optimistic. I’m hopeful, but not optimistic. http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-4751884,00.html With regard to the Crimes Against Humanity, many, including Stephen Hawking, have called this a War Crime. I’ve upped it, which was admittedly a bit rhetorical and probably not that helpful given that the concept of a CAH is so vague. It really depends on what the motives were for this war. The way it has been approached they mush have known, or ought to have know, that it would result in high civilian casualty numbers, and apparently they didn’t care because they did not take the required steps to mitigate that result, namely the building of an appropriate coalition with enough forces to secure the country. Now if Iraq was just a relatively arbitrary target selected for the purpose of extending American power and influence around the globe, a regression back to the “puppet regime” strategy of Reagan and before, then this wasn’t just a crime committed against the people of Iraq, it was a crime against all of humanity, IMO. But the term is probably not that helpful in communicating the ideas in the end. Re: American. The term “ American” has been cooped by the people of the US to mean citizen of the US. You don’t hear Mexicans referred to as Americans, or Canadians, or Central or South Americans. Europeans sometimes get into trouble with Canadians because they don’t understand this, and they call us American. A Canadian is a Canadian or a North American, not an American. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American
Originally posted by Grizzled I’m not sure I see a real and effective democracy in the near future in Iraq. Again, given the set up, there a lot of interests inside and outside Iraq that don’t want: a) America to succeed or be viewed to have succeeded in the region You must admit that this has to be the most idiotic reason for the democracy to not be effective in Iraq. I personally do not think that anyone can effectively stand in the way of such things. Same principle can be applied to why the US cannot always get it's way. b) Any increased American influence in the region, and if the new government in Iraq had ties or obligations to the US that would likely be viewed as American influence As long as US troops leave, this effect will diminish over time. c) Democracy. These forces would prefer an Islamic theocracy. Which forces? Have you seen a poll where a lot of Iraqis want a theocracy? d) A unified Iraq. These forces would prefer to have control over their own regions, Kurdish, Sunni, Shiite … Certainly some people want independence, but how many? And how many will there be once the country starts recovering? And I’m probably missing some. The US doesn’t appear to have enough manpower to keep the peace while such a democracy gained footing and they didn’t build a big enough or strong enough coalition to provide enough manpower, so unfortunately I’m not optimistic. I’m hopeful, but not optimistic. http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-4751884,00.html I'm hopeful WRT the growing Iraqi military and police. And also I think the violence will lose a little steam at some point after the election and during reconstruction, then we will start reducing troops, which will take more steam out of their sails ... and it will continue on in that manner. With regard to the Crimes Against Humanity, many, including Stephen Hawking, have called this a War Crime. I’ve upped it, which was admittedly a bit rhetorical and probably not that helpful given that the concept of a CAH is so vague. It really depends on what the motives were for this war. ... I don't think 'motives' are part of the definition, are they? WRT to Hawking, he's entitled to his opinion, but that's all it is, one person's opinion. What do you think it is?
I don't think the 'cooping' was intentional. As for you being pissed for being called American, really sorry 'bout that. I know how it is though, I almost busted a European's lip when he called me Canadian.
Let me elaborate on my previous answer. These people, like Al Qaeda and any number of other terrorist groups in the region, hate the US and what the US stands for. They do not want the US to been seen to succeed at anything in the region because that would legitimise what the US stands for. Therefore, this is one of the reasons they will almost certainly be in post election Iraq trying to destabilize it thought assassinations, bombing pipelines, etc. Idiotic or not, it’s a well known dynamic in the region. These people are there now and are not likely to pack up an leave after the election. There is a long history in the region of US backed puppet governments too, don’t forget. Saddam himself was supported by the Americans when he was gassing the Kurds, a fact which they remember. The Shah of Iran, the Saudi Royal Family, etc. are all hated governments who were or are seen to have close ties and obligations to the US government. There would have to be no strings like this attached either. Also, I doubt that people would accept the Iraq government being forced to pay the US for the war with oil revenues. This would give the impression that the war was in fact about oil money. Given that Iraq has no history of democracy I would suspect that there are a lot of people there who aren’t familiar with how it works in practice and who are suspicious of it. The US is a democracy, after all, and they hate Americans, more and more every day. Many of these people, especially the Shia, follow their religious leaders very closely, as we have seen throughout this war, and these leaders may very well favour a theocracy, led by themselves of course. But the groups I was really thinking of were Al Qaeda and the government of Iran. They want Islamic theocracies in the ME and they don’t want to see democracy established in Iraq, and as the US troops move out I’m sure the activity of their operatives will increase. This is a no-brainer, but this is main point that this administration seems to have overlooked. Iraq does not exist in a bubble. This is literally a basic lesson from undergrad Project Management. It is essential to consider the broader stakeholder group and the impact it could have on a project. Because this administration didn’t do that (except for Powel) they needlessly put themselves in a situation that was virtually impossible to win. Because of the way they set this up, this war was almost a guaranteed loser from the start. Remember again that these people have no history of democracy. I suspect that most will feel safer if their political unit was one that was dominated by their own people. Are the Kurds suddenly going to trust the Sunni simply because of this thing called “democracy”? I doubt it. I think they will want to fall back on essentially tribal security. They will want a state made up of their own people. Now, there will be differences within the group and maybe the more educated would favour democracy, but I’m not sure they believe that it will really be allowed to take root there either. I’m big on hope. Faith, Hope and Love are words to live by, but if you ask me to do a risk assessment on the situation I would say that it looks bad, very bad. Make a list of all the countries and groups in the region who don’t want the US or democracy to succeed in Iraq. Now ask yourself if they have the ability and the will to send operatives to Iraq (and given the proximity they could essentially take weekend trips) for the purpose of destabilising Iraq and causing the democracy to fail. Unfortunately I think that the violence will be every bit as bad after the election, and maybe worse. There maybe some groups who have been holding off until after the election just to drive home the point of another US failure. I need to short hand these answers: Yes, intent is part of the definition of CAH. http://www.crimesofwar.org/thebook/crimes-against-humanity.html Hawking’s opinion is an informed and intelligent opinion from someone who must have put a lot of thought into this to stick his neck out and make such a bold statement. Yes, it’s one man’s opinion, but I’m sure you value some people’s opinions more than others, and many people will value Hawking’s opinion very highly, and on this issue I’m one of them. I value it infinitely more than the opinion of a relatively uneducated, unworldly, and rigidly ideologically driven individual like George W. Bush, for example.
Make that “co-opting” and it may well not have been intentional. Intention would require a certain state of awareness, which very often doesn’t seem to extend past the boarders of the good ol’ US of A. And I wasn’t taking offence to your reference. Americans don’t tend to call Canadians Americans, for whatever reason, but it is something that Europeans do fairly regularly, which starts to get annoying. There is clearly a major deficiency in their education systems.
Stereotypes are so generally stereotypical, but I generally think that I wouldn't Stereotype generalizing.
