US war crime as free speech issue (help holmes sort this out)

Someone else mentioned that at that site where they were busy posting the pictures in question. That only adds to the irony, and my point. The people that posted this did not indicate that the military had any other policies or comments coming down the line than this memo. You implied that there could be, and I can't assume there isn't just because of this memo. Fine. Is there something else, regarding the posting gratuitous and in gloating fashion pix of dead and injured people that are under our protection or at war with us?And I have yet to hear you comment on this recent batch of assholes.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

It turns out that the images of mutilated bodies is not illegal in the US, even when they contravene the Geneva Convention, but sexual imagery definitely is and will be prosecuted.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

That atrocities could happen is not surprising. The surprise is that absolutely no action is being taken except for to take this opportunity to demonize and in fact prosecute sex and sexual imagery.They said this very thing (violent imagery) would not be done by our troops, and if so would be punished, while fighting for more freedom. Instead this thing is going on and we are repressing freedom. This makes us exactly equal to Hussein's army at this point.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Sorry but that is simply not true. While war is horrible in and of itself, and to be avoided as much as possible, it is sometimes necessary and it can be conducted without tolerating war crimes.War can be ended as much as crime can be... which is never. As long as someone is willing to kill another group other groups must be prepared in some way to defend themselves.If you are refering specifically to the Iraq occupation, then I am unsure how you suggest it be "ended". While the war was wrong, now we have a duty to protect Iraq until a stable gov't can be put in place. If we don't do this, what will happen to Iraqis?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Agreed. None of this addresses what I said. I was against the Iraq War and feel the next gov't will not necessarily be the best they could have had.To use that to argue we should end the occupation is to be willfully ignorant in support of a grand theory which even if well meaning is dangerously naive.When Katrina came through and knocked out the internal resources of New Orleans it was vital to move in new resources that could deal with the chaos so that local order could be restored. Without them NO would still be in chaos.Just because we created the chaos in Iraq, does not change the fact that Iraqis are in no position to "move in" new resources so that local order can be restored. We are the best equipped to do so and already in theater.We create the buffer that will allow Iraqis interested in restoring order, to do just that.If you have a practical suggestion on how Iraqis should stand up for themselves without our help at this time, I would be interested in hearing it.I think its funny that there are many people critical of the US for not helping in natural and manmade disasters that result in the same catastrophes, yet criticize our doing so here. It doesn't have to be and it likely never will be. I wish it were because I hate war. How can "we" change "policy" when war is the result of the fact that there is no such thing as we, and policies are sometimes fought with violence if necessary. Essentially you are stating what everyone since the beginning of time has stated: if everyone were to think the same thing (usually the same as me) then there will be peace.But that cannot happen. Wars certainly would end if we all agree to be good Xians and live by the values of fundamentalists. Would you agree to that if it meant an end to war? Or when they came for you as a thought criminal (or worse) would you stand as their enemy and fight to defend your way of life?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Are you honestly telling me that Iraq would be better off right now with none of our troops in there, and that we are actually preventing a new gov't from forming?If you wish to say that we could be doing a better job, then you are right. Of course to do a better job and especially using the suggestion you have made would involve a much more massive number of troops to be moved there. That might be possible if there was not a huge number of people suggesting that the best way to help the Iraqis and protest the Iraq War is to pull troops out.As it stands you seem to not know much about the situation. While some of the insurgents are coming from or getting assistance from neighboring countries, there are also groups within Iraq that are fighting us. IEDs do not require assistance from outside. Closing off the borders would not necessarily end the insurgency.I might also add that your very recommendation undercuts your original position and supports mine. What is putting pressure on someone using military assets, other than war or threat of war? But that is the problem with your theory, war is an option. War will almost always be an option. Whether its the worst or the best will depend on the person's point of view, but it is always there. And even if it seems one of the worst (in terms of lives lost) it is sometimes necessary.Can I ask how the Iraqis were going to remove Hussein themselves without war of some kind?If China invades Taiwan, what are the Taiwanese to do?Nations are like persons in that they have ways of doing things and some of them are violent. Recommending that war is never an option and would end if people would just realize it is like suggesting people should not learn self defense because there is no reason for violence and things like fights and rape will never happen if we just realize we don't need them.Its a nice idea, but people think and feel differently and will be willing to commit to violent action whether you want them to or not.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Agreed, though it may also be a physical removal of a threatening military or political entity, with no interest on economics. Our war in Afghanistan was not about economic pressure, neither was our war in Germany and Japan. There is no way that we can put our troops on all the borders, especially with the numbers we have and the realities of the communities in certain areas. If you have some different info I'd like to see what it is.And whether we are doing the right things in cities or not to ensure greater safety for our troops is an open question, but they are doing more than just getting killed. That is a patently ridiculous claim. They are there doing multiple different things and in the course of their activities they are getting killed. But that is what military assets in a dangerous area face.Many more Iraqis than US troops are getting killed. Would you argue that all they are doing is being killed? That's pretty damn heartless. Analogously then if the people of New Orleans wanted democracy, they should have just done it themselves? If the poor want to be rich they just have to work harder?The fact is we wrecked their central system of gov't and much of the physical infrastructure. That doesn't just come back online by people "wanting" it. There is poverty and there is destruction which hampers clean reorganization and there is rampant crime as well as violent insurgents (some which will NOT be shut off by guarding borders). Iraqis at this time need protection while setting up a gov't and infrastructure which will not collapse at its first test.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Check again, that is exactly what you said. How else is anyone supposed to interpret a comment that war is a different way of applying great economic pressure on another to induce change of policy? We also did not have a manmade disaster to deal with... they do. They had no infrastructure or mechanisms for employing solutions on a mass scale.To try and make comparisons between a relatively rich country with a functioning system (the US circa 1780), and an impoverished nonnation on the point of chaos without any system at all (these people didn't even have complete electricity, much less records and communication systems) is simple absurd. That is true. Capitalism does NOT guarantee a free market at all. That is the problem with capitalism. Working hard is not guaranteed to make one succeed. You might try and show me where capitalism says that.Even in communism hard work is supposed to get you benefits of some kind... in theory.What does any of this have to do with the subject at hand? WTF??? Where to start?1) The US and even France did not achieve victory all on their own. You do understand that right?
2) This has nothing to do with whether people in a crisis situation (which is what Iraqis are in) need help during their crisis
3) You are now arguing for war which is the exact opposite position from where you started.You claim people must give your life in war for democracy, and criticize Iraqis for not being in the streets fighting for a new constitution. How is that consistent AT ALL with your original position that war is not necessary and people need to realize that?Its seems that you are now arguing that everyone needs to fight if they are to have democracy.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I am definitely stunned by the positions and arguments you are using here. Yes we did not have electricity when we gained independence, but we didn't need it either, given that our living conditions were maintained without electricity.In modern Iraq many things, many important things to standard living conditions, require electricity. To pretend that when electricity goes down a modern nation can function as normal is almost delusional. That is not to mention the overt lack of food, water (in part because of the electricity), distribution of goods, and command/control of a defense force (police and military).These people were in a crisis situation. The equivalent of a natural disaster which took out all there gov't agencies on top of infrastructure. In 1780s US, they had all of their infrastructure and gov't intact... and they STILL needed foreign help. You lost me on that one. Captialism was not invented by the US. The concept of free markets had existed, even within feudal states. Although feudalism did effect taxation, and perhaps some licensing, it was mainly a political/power structure like democracy is. While the lower working class was screwed, there were merchants and craftsmen who functioned like today and made profits, vast profits.Your limitation was how you rose to "political" power, not economic. I think your comments are sort of comic given that much of the capitalist world is still monarchical. You are definitely limited in the Netherlands how high you can go in society simply by birth. No, even that extreme will not guarantee anything. I think the catch was "advance to managerial positions". Work and smarts do not generally help that, and sometimes can hinder it. Connections are better than anything else.I think we can look at who is currently leading this nation and who he has working at all of his appointed positions to refute your claims on this. ??? You are pretty ignorant. I can only assume you know absolutely no Iraqis. Tribal? Not like us? Not at a point where democracy is useful to them? I just can't believe what I am reading.I do agree that this has been thrust upon them unfairly. But that is a case of timing and mechanism, not whether it could succeed nor whether they might want it. It also says nothing about why we shouldn't be there now that the invasion occured.We cannot go back in time. If so I'd say yes let's not invade, like I said the first time around. Pulling troops now will not change what happened. What it will do is remove assets that are helping people out of a crisis situation. How can that help them? Totally agreed on this. But STOP LIVING IN THE PAST! The question I am addressing is not what we should have done (where I agree), it is what to do now. How will pulling troops out help them out of the crisis that they are in now because of us? War has existed since humans have existed. Indeed other species war on others. If you have some evidence to support this claim I'd like to see it.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Wow what a brilliant response. Brilliant in that it is glaringly obvious as a logical fallacy. How on earth did you ever think that a list of names and a blank assertion would work as an argument?I studied war, it isn't learned... unless you are discussing tactics and strategy?As a start maybe you can describe where ants learn militancy. I'm not ignoring shit, but you seem to be ignoring the contents of my posts. I agree that people have to initiate and maintain a democracy.The point... if you will please read this carefully and understand it... is that the US has already removed the gov't of Iraq. In doing so we not only set up a political crisis, but a very real life crisis. There is much that must be done to keep the cities operating and not allowed to fall into chaos which would be much much worse.Now eventually a gov't must replace the old one. A gov't must replace the void that currently exists, or chaos will reign and the humanitarian catastrophe will be enormous.I think I am quite on record that I don't believe the next gov't will be truly democratic. Though of course they might pull on off in time. Regardless of the nature of the next gov't, pretty much ANY gov't will be better than pure chaos and a humanitarian catastrophe. As such we have a duty to help Iraqis put into place some gov't so that it can function and not collapse. Heheheh. I notice you switched from they to we. You are probably right. WE will get a new dictator. Americans have been clamoring to hand more power to the gov't for a long time. Most do want a new gov't. The question is which kind. They are working for it. Iraqis are being blown up in greater numbers than US citizens as they work for that system.As far as your strategy it is devoid of facts. Being outside a city does not magically make us less vulnerable to attack. And as I have said there are insurgents and criminals within the cities which have no connection to outside nations. Pulling out of cities will do nothing but create a power vacuum which criminals and insurgents will be free to operate within.Hey, I think it would be great to pull our troops out asap, and out of cities before that. But what is required is a force to replace our own first. That's the p in asap. Yes they have a different culture. The idea that it is incompatible or indicative of whether they would enjoy democracy is foolish. Calling it tribal is ridiculous.Frankly I don't know what the majority wants, but they will not be getting a true democracy anyway because of our own security concerns.I also do not think they have to have a democracy to be alright. As much as I like republics, I believe there are many different types of gov'ts which can work okay... even if I wouldn't want to be a part of them.That does not change the fact that they need a new gov't and an infrastructure of some kind before we leave. What quotes? Where? I am telling you what I know from ordinary Iraqis as well as people from many different fields. I have yet to see anything from you that was consistent with that.Maybe if you provided some pertinent quotes, and better than that, some solid arguments with data, I might be encouraged to believe you.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

How is that not true of America? Another winning argument. Okay, if/when I get the time and find the book I'll read it.But regardless of that, I have already presented an example and you should be talking to me about it yourself. Ants have wars. If wars are only learned behaviors, please explain this phenomena.There will be more to follow.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Haven't you heard the news? The war is already over. It ended a long long time ago. We went into Iraq to overthrow Saddam Hussein. The Army (what there was of it) was defeated and the infrastructure (some of it necessary) destroyed.We are no longer fighting the Iraq War.What we are now doing is suffering through an occupation of Iraq. Pulling the troops out now will not change that we started a pointless war which has resulted in needles suffering for the Iraqis and US troops. Not necessarily. It depends on the nature of the gov't and infrastructure put in place before we leave. I find this position curious. If a major disaster occured to some nation and they needed help to restore order and basic infrastructure of life, wouldn't you be for us sending in troops to help?I guess our allowing the Rhwanda genocide was a good thing after all, huh? Yes that is right. However using the military to stabilize an area and protect resources until order returns is like using a military force exactly the way its supposed to be used.The position taken by me is that the invasion of Iraq was wrong and Bush's theory of spreading democracy via military conquest is wrong... but now that someone else's eggs have been cracked we need to help clean up the mess.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Your link didn't work. Not only did I say that was a starting point the first time I mentioned them, but I ended my last post explicitly stating more would follow. Your first task was to explain what evidence there is that war is learned. How? Ants don't learn war, they simply engage in it. That's 100% opposite of your claim. Who said anything about war being "excused"? I dislike war. I wish there was no such thing as war. I think nations that begin wars are usually culpable for great crimes.I'm not even saying the fact that it will happen and must be prepared for is an excuse for it. It still sucks. Lao Tzu was right in saying that they should be treated like funerals and not with pomp and glory. Disease also happens, I would not say we should end medicine and doctors and it will go away.Now let's get back to what I said. War is not learned. I didn't say it was instinctual. If you are labeling everything that is not hardwired instinctual as "learned". Then yes, war is learned. Mass violent activity is not hardwired into our brains.But then you tell me what terms to use. This assessment is incorrect... Again, there are other ways to settle differences that war. But that does not make war learned. In fact it is lack of learning and selfdiscipline which creates war. It is the inability to see any other way than violent conflict to reach one's goals which causes war.That said, reality is that as long as brains come in all different shapes and sizes, as well as people having different life experiences, there will always be someone (or more appropriately some group of people) who see violence as the only realistic solution to their problem. Indeed some may even view a lack of violent conflict as a problem they must solve (some people really are cruel and enjoy violence).As long as such people exist, or may exist, we must prepare ourselves with how to deal with them.I honestly respect anyone who wishes to prevent wars, and wants to avoid violent conflict. I just do not respect anyone who bends the truth so far to say that war is never a necessary act to physically survive in this world.The Amish and other religious people of course have an honest out as they may believe physical survival is not important at all.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I have already agreed to that position. How many times do I have to say it before it sticks? The invasion of Iraq was wrong.That does not mean however that no wars are ever necessary to be fought, nor that staying in Iraq to help until a new stable gov't emerges is wrong or should be seen as a validation of the war.I opposed the Iraq War, I was within protests against the war, I honestly believe Bush has commited international crimes for having started the war and should be prosecuted if any international org (or national one) has the balls to enforce international law... yet still believe we have a humanitarian duty to continue stability until there is a replacement.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

That's not true. The main reason there is no order is that we invaded and completely toppled a gov't, as well as decimating its infrastructure, and removing some of the key elements that would have been required to keep order, with absolutely no plans on how to maintain order in the resulting power vacuum.Instead of starting and encouraging the looting and destruction, we should have been rapidly recruiting and encouraging formation of new police and emergency response units. Apparently photo ops of people pulling down a statue of Saddam was thought more important than photo ops of civilians rapidly becoming organized and efficient to take over necessary duties.That said, there are no other organized elements in the region to help police and counter insurgent elements and deliver supplies and fix infrastructure, except for our forces.My question to you is what do you believe will solve the crisis they are facing if our troops left? Most Iraqis that don't like what we did understand they need to stay right now. Time to get new glasses. Our military fucked up the Iraq War, and are continuing to screw up with the occupation. However it could be worse. That is not an excuse for it to not be improved, but is a reason we should not yet leave. Really you must need glasses as I already made my point clear on this. The war was wrong. It is still wrong. I would be fully for prosecuting those involved with having started the war.THE WAR IS OVER. It ended a while ago. As soon as Hussein's troops were gone and the gov't removed and the infrastructure decimated, the war ended.What we were then faced with was a nation in crisis. It could have been a major earthquake or a hurricane or whatever that did the same damage... it doesn't matter. The point was that Iraq was now devastated and our troops are there and are the best resource for doing what needs to be done.That is in addition to the fact that we are legally bound to help restore order. Breaking international law again does not solve the first time we broke international law.I find it intriguing that under the guise of humanitarianism and righteousness, people are arguing that we need to abandon our legal duty and deny aid to a nation in crisis.Keeping troops in does not make the war right, what it stops us from doing is compounding our first crime with another. Besides the Civil War and perhaps several smaller wars throughout the west, I would say none. Democracy generally cannot be installed.Could you give me an example of where I ever said that it has? You are fighting strawman after strawman here.My position is very easy. The Iraq War was an international crime, and even if it wasn't the planning and execution were bungled (besides the decimating forces part). The war ended and now we are an occupying force and fulfilling our legal duties to aid a nation whose gov't we have removed. We are also the only cogent force within that region caable of providing the necessary assistance. Though Bush claims they are getting a democracy they are not. It isn't hardly even a democratic republic. That said, I do hope it can be a functionally stable gov't with more interest and capability to help Iraqis than Hussein had. A chaos of warring factions will be worse for all Iraqis... and us.If we set a precedent that unpopular wars should be protested by pulling out stabilizing forces AFTER the conflict is over (apparently because our guys are getting hurt) then the future looks pretty bleak. If you want to protest a war by pulling troops, do it before and during. Once its done, its done.Do you honestly believe pulling troops out will make it as if the antiwar side "won"?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)