The US, The UN and Iraq

Deus Tantor dixit.

On the problem of proving there are no green cows in the universe. Or proving there are no WOMD in Iraq.
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/15/weekinreview/15EAKI.html

Walter
Our Tantor is a fine fellow. He's fresh out of the military and is possibly looking for a new and consequential function in civic society. If he chooses to try out being and speaking for God, I think we ought to allow him this 'personal-growth' experiment. At least, for a day or so.

Bill W

Here, I think Tantor has it right (well, other than the happy happy kill kill riff at the end there) regarding loss of life and who is responsible. The defense of Kuwait seems surely a justifiable military engagement, even if one at the same time indicts the US for being blithely inconsistent in the targets it chooses for bringing 'good' to the world. But also, I'm quite sure that there are folks on 'our side' who wouldn't hesitate to attach a car battery to a dirty smelly evil Arab's testicles in the name of freedom and justice and the American Way.

Actually, I have been spending the last eighteen years with you fine civilian folk. Serving in the military is quite a consequential function in society, seeing as it guarantees all those freedoms that so many callow civilians take for granted. Perhaps you know guys like that, blatham.



Blatham, the secret police who keep Saddam in power should die. This is no mere bloodthirsty cheerleading but a moral pronouncement. The British just released a dossier in the last week or so about Saddam's atrocities in which they revealed that one of Saddam's agent's job title was "Taker Of Women's Virtue." In other words, Saddam keeps at least one professional rapist on the government payroll. We also know that Saddam has his secret police torture and rape the wives and children of his suspected opponents in front of them, to break them. The secret police returns imprisoned sons to their family and shoots them on their doorstep. They remove the brains from executed prisoners and return the bodies to their families. They cut the limbs from executed prisoners, sew them back to the wrong joints, and return the disfigured bodies to their families. They run Nazi-like experiments prisoners to test the effectiveness of chemical and biological weapons. There is a lot more.

Blatham, these people are evil. They should not be allowed to put down their bloody instruments of torture and live their lives out sunning themselves on a villa. They must die to avenge their victims and as a warning to others who would follow their path.

What is your objection to punishing Saddam's secret police with death? Do you prefer some alternative? Detail and defend it.



When I went to New York to see the WTC site, my guess is that I could pull any dozen people from the fence and they would think that Osama Bin Laden would benefit from some input from a car battery. My boss here in Washington who lost three friends in the Pentagon on Sep 11 might look the other way should such an event come to pass. The fact is, such treatment would be just.

However, the US military doesn't work that way except in the minds of those who only know it through fiction they watch on TV and the movies. In the real world, torture doesn't work that well because when you place people in pain they will tell you whatever you want to hear. If you want them to tell you they are a witch, they will do so to escape the pain. We don't need confessions of witchcraft for political purposes but rather real information we can use.

The way to break down a prisoner is to isolate and disorient him. Most people break right away, especially if they are untrained to deal with the situation as most Al Qaeda grunts. The very toughest guys can hold out weeks or months. The Al Qaeda leadership we have captured do not appear to be made of such stern stuff. They talk right from the git go.

If you are an Al Qaeda terrorist sitting by yourself in a cell with no communication except with your interrogators, you will rightfully give up hope of ever rejoining your former life. That cell is your life and your only human contact is your interrogator. After a while you will come to look forward to those interrogations, will come to see your interrogators as friends in a perverse way, and will scour your mind to produce useful information to keep that relationship going. In time, the interrogators will vacuum your brain clean of all useful information.

Tantor

perception: "You make a very good point and it is filled with "reason" however what you and every well meaning person who uses this argument, must realize is that thugs and psychopaths NEVER conform to reason and logic." It makes some of us wonder if you've ever heard of Tim McVeigh, the Unibomber, or other "Americans" who have wrought terrorism in their own country. They really did kill Americans. I don't know of any incident where Sadaam has killed any American. I think balance of "good points" and "reason" is the primary reason some of us think GWBush's war with Iraq is wrong, wrong, wrong.... c.i.

In fact, thugs and psychopaths do conform to reason. McVeigh and the Unabomber could not have constructed their bombs had they been irrational. The Unabomber had a PhD in math. That requires quite a devotion to and aptitude for reason. Both of them sought to avoid capture, something an irrational person would not do. Ted Kozcinski, the Unabomber, took elaborate precautions to avoid detection. This was the product of a rational mind, though with radically different values. The fact that they sought to avoid capture demonstrates that they feared punishment, that such punishment inhibited their crimes.

Saddam has indeed killed Americans. For example, he killed Americans in the Gulf War, which should be obvious, I would hope. Long before that in the 1980s, he fired a ship to ship missile into an American warship that killed American sailors. He also attempted to kill ex-President Bush, an American, and bomb the Radio Free Europe station in Prague, which held Americans. The first attack on the WTC in 1993 was done with the support and probably the direction of Iraq. The second attack on Sep 11 may well have been sponsored by Iraq. Laurie Mylroie makes a persuasive case that Iraq was the ultimate sponsor of the attacks on the USS Cole and the African embassies. Certainly, his forces have attempted to kill Americans patrolling the no fly zone thousands of times. In 2002 alone, Iraqi forces have attempted to shoot down US jets 470 times. The only thing stopping Saddam from killing more Americans is the incompetence of his people.

The torturers working in Saddam's prisons are rational people working toward evil ends. Torture is a path to success in Saddam's Iraq, as demonstrated by Saddam himself, who worked as a torturer for the secret police as he worked his way up the ladder of power. Death will be a significant deterrent to them and those like them.

And they deserve it.

Tantor

If Sadaam killed Americans during the Gulf War, it seems like a 'defensive' act to me! c.i.

Tantor, As a point of fact, it seems Sadaam has a high aptitude of reason. Look at how long he has been able to play hide and seek with his WOMD. Look at the political wins he's had over the past twelve years with the French, the Russians, China, and some Middle East countries; much longer than the Unibomber or McVeigh. Most of the world community is against the US and UK war against Iraq. I think Sadaam is pretty smart. c.i.

C.I.

Are you defending this psychopath while insulting those of us who feel he should be arrested and tried as a war criminal. You say most of the world community is against the US and Uk war against Iraq. Can you ignore the 15-0 vote of UN security council in favor of the war after the inspectors confirm our suspicions. Seems to me my call for reason and logic have gone completely over your head.

Now, wait a just a second, c.i. Giving Saddam the excuse of 'defense' is is exactly the same as saying that an armed robber killing someone to avoid arrest is acting in self defense. The courts take a different approach.

The UN vote was not to authorize a war with Iraq. Your conclusion that I'm defending Sadaam, the psychopath, is nowhere stated in any of my statements. Smart doesn't equal defend. c.i.

BTW, there's a huge difference between the UN vote vs how most in this world feels and thinks about the US war with Iraq. c.i.

To add to c.i., the UN vote specifically stated that if Iraq does not comply, then and only then the UN will make a new decision. World opinion is against the US because of the cowboy style, not the fact that there is something wrong in Iraq. To suggest otherwise is blatant obfuscation.

The armchair psychiatry is throwing this off track -- if anything, you're discussing sociopaths, not psychopaths. Psycopaths don't function in the real world. Sociopaths, however, can be quite intelligent -- they simply don't have a conscience. I doubt that we'll ever have the opportunity to get any professional psychiatric interviews with Hussein. Timothy McVeigh and the Unibomber were both examined and found to be sane. A psychopath is not a sane person. Flinging around such terminology to make a point isn't helping the credulity of anyone's argument.

I don't see us going to war -- the military buildup, the intelligence gathering and cooperation with the UN will likely curb a military solution. I also don't see Saddam surviving the scrutiny and the diplomatic battering he's going to keep getting.

If you want to believe the characterization of the mind set of the chicken hawks as wanting to tobble this regime and bring democracy to all the Arab countries, that's your judgement for yourself and yourself only. I might personally think you're on something. Maybe it's just too much caffeine.

Exactly right on the psychiatry, LW. I once visited a friend in the forensic ward of the Colorado State Hospital who passed along an interesting sidelight about dicipline. When someone got violent, the attendents would offer to strap them down (to the bed) and leave them for an indefinate period of time. I'm told this threat was almost 100% effective.
When it wasn't, you were probably dealing with a true psychotic.

You don't see us going to war? That makes us a minority of two, barring the possibility of action by Iraq against a neighboring country.

What about Wolfowitz. He said way back in September I think it was - that the US had to go to war now that Bush had done so much grandstanding. It would be unseemly for a (un)President of the USA if he didn't.

BillW. Thanks for that clarification on why the world is against the war with Iraq. There is also the issue of how the Arabs feel about the US support of Israel. Many feel it's a US war against Islam. c.i.

Well, yeah, but at anytime, the administration could decide that in the absence of any positive findings by the UN inspection team, international law would preclude military action at this time, while keeping the possibility open. Of course, it could also be decided that weapons fired at aircraft patroling the no fly zones were sufficient cause for action.

So, that is a personal opinion, based on a belief that Bush let his acceptable options be severly curtailed when the UN opted for two separate resolutions, instead of just one. I'm not claiming forsight on this one, but it isn't wishful thinking either. I would very much like to see Iraq disarmed of everything other than clearly defensive weapons. I just do not see it as a job to be done by the United States and Britain alone.

one thing that seems to be confused and i have no understand of is that Scot Ritter said that regarding the no-fly zones-they were never part of the UN resolution following the Gulf War and are ergo not relevant as an issue of material breach. he went on to say that the US along with GB initialized the no-fly zones without UN sanction. i dont know if this is relevant other than the constant references i see from the media and the White House.

In the first place, (IMHO), we should not be the world's policeman, and interfere with wars outside our border on a very 'selective' basis by our government. If you haven't noticed already, we don't go to other countries where they are having wars. The inconsistent manner in which our country uses our military is wrong. The "armed robber" you are talking about happened in another country. If that armed robber came to the US, we have a right to defend ourselves. Not until then. c.i.

c.i., that's pretty much an isolationist stance, at least as far as military use goes. Would you go any further, such as trade, etc? Would this be a "unique" situation, militarily? Can you expound a little? Thanks!