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

I can see you've never done a scalp dance. It's quite a validating experience.

Who cares? The American people didn't till G. B II siced us on them. We better be more concerned about what's happening here.The idea that we can "install democracy" is the height of hubris.Seems like a 21st century version of the "White Man's Burden"

I agree. I have opposed this war since before it began.Still, the issue remains. We went their and broke things. Don't we have a moral obligation to fix it and at least leave them with some kind of working government.

So we agree. Let's end it. No. No matter what we do, when we leave there will be chaos.Using an Army to build democracy is like using a jackhammer to crack eggs.

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)

One of the main reasons there is no order is the presence of our military. How will the continued presence solve that?I see you have unbounded faith in the military. So something that was wrong to start with must now be supported because we did it?If it was wrong to begin with it must be wrong now. If it is wrong we should stop doing it. Now.Could you give me an example where the U. S. Army has installed a democracy?

being prepared is highly different than preemption.

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)

Could you cite the law?I'm not aware of any treaties we have signed that requires us to rebuild former enemies. Fair enough.My position is that it was wrong to start and becomes more wrong each day we stay, so I don't think we have any common ground here.

There are several agreements we are a part of, including sections of the Geneva Convention. No I do not have the time to go pouring over any and all documents we are a party to, in order to find the relevant sections.If you want, I can get you quotes from orgs that state we have that legal duty and suggest some of the docs where such obligations are found. Who said rebuild? I'm not talking about putting every shingle back in place and paving the streets with gold. I said restore order. That will require some rebuilding of infrastructure and that can be found easily enough within the Geneva Conventions.This has me scratching my head. Do you honestly believe that we do not have provisions protecting populations from negligence by invading forces? How does staying after the war is over change anything about the war?How does abandonment of the people we invaded and crippled as a nation reverse the fact that we had an illegal war?You may be right that we have no common ground as far as opinion goes, but we do have the same set of facts to deal with. We wrecked Iraq. Right now our forces are the only ones in the region to prevent an even greater humanitarian crisis.That you appear to want to assuage your conscience of our guilt by allowing a humanitarian catastrophe to occur, seems pretty selfish to me.

---

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

No sweat. I wouldn't want you to trouble yourself to provide evidence of your assertion. The war ain't over til the dying is done. My conscience is not your affair.Don't quit your day job, you ain't cuttin' it as a mind-reader.

This is an online forum and my proving everything to anyone is not going to change the facts on the ground. I do not have the TIME to wade through all relevant documents to find the specific citations. These are long.As it stands groups like Amnesty Int'l and other legal groups related to the UN have stated that we have this obligation, on top of member's of our own gov't. That's why I asked if you'd settle for commentary which is much quicker for me to find.In the end you can claim that I am asserting something, but than you have done nothing but assert yourself. You can choose not to believe, but then you might or might not be equally in error.At best this is a non resolution and not support of your position. And as I said I was willing to link to quotes from pertinent orgs who mention some of the docs where legal obligations could be found. I also mentioned the 4th Geneva Convention. I believe such obligations (though more generalized) are found in Sect 3 articles 59 on, but that could be wrong. Here is an interesting discussion of responsibilities focusing solely on Geneva Convention rules as applied to Iraq. It doesn't get into protecting the population's safety as it is about infrastructure issues, but you should get the point. Information like this is available if you do the work. That is a non sequitor and a pretty moronic one at that. The war is over. We were fighting a regime and its forces. Those forces are gone and now we aren't fighting any particular entity. Now we are taking fire from various forces within a crisis region, just as our forces were in New Orleans after Katrina hit.Let's use an analogy. In Vietnam we were always at War. There had been no victory over the enemy while we were losing people and eventually forced to withdraw. In Germany we eventually won the war, but did face insurgents afterward during the occupation. Though we are facing more casualties now than in Germany that has more to do with the difference in stability between the two nations, not whether we are at war or not.In fact, unless Bush's lies are right and we went into Iraq to fight terrorists and insurgents, this war is definitely over. Just answer the questions straight? Who did we go to fight? Where are they now? Who are we fighting now? Well you are not cutting it as a reader. I said appeared, I didn't say what you were actually doing. If you argue that we should pull out now because we did something wrong a long time ago, then you are asking to pay for a past crime by punishing the Iraqis.

---

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

I have already said that we are going to disagree about it. You mistake disagreement with lack or reading skills. What's worse, being a moron or arguing with one.This "no particular entity" is killing a lot of people. We better find it fast.I guess we disagree about the definition of war. Yours is more formal than mine.We seem to be in a war of insurgency.Save me a seat on the last helicopter leaving the embassy.