The US, The UN and Iraq

Tres

Mix one absolutely concise/transparent law and one lawyer...upside-down cake.

Blatham

I just took a look at the article you have presented for "serious consideration". The title " America's Dangerous new style of war"

Why in the world would anyone ever read past the title unless you merely wanted support for your own position? It's a very contentious title which says that I have started with a preceived conclusion and now I'm going to support it for you people who can't think. She works for an organization with a pacifist agenda. Really Blatham you're not an unsmart guy---why would you let yourself in for criticism that is bound to come from the opposition when asked to "swallow such shallow journalism?

perception - I think it's a bit silly to hold blatham responsible for the realities of journalism which practically require authors to attach inflamatory titles to their work. I'll be the first to agree that there are some aggregious examples of this about, but in this case I read the title and then read the article to see if the title had merit. (My personal jury is still out on that question.)

I hope you don't mind my offering an opinion on this as someone who probably shares your views more than he shares blathams.

Regards,
TW

perception

Quickly, as I have work to do....title is really unimportant in any piece. Often, in newspapers at least, titles are composed by staff to draw attention as TW suggests, and often titles are misleading, or the body of a piece will be inclusive of a number of views.

But I don't pass by pieces simply because the title argues something I'm not likely to disagree with. I also don't standardly pass articles written by someone I'm likely to disagree with (eg WF Buckley) if I think the writer thoughtful and not steadfastly dogmatic or partisan.

As regards the organization this woman represents, I am quite in accord with its humanitarian goals as I am with other NGOs like Doctors Without Borders. State organizations commonly display self interest, and that can be their failing.

Rather than deal with some pronouncement from the Commentariat, why not read material closer to the primary source. The following is not definitive, but is at least authored by a person who knows the subject.

Overview on the Law of War

The actual document relevant here deals with area bombing and was established by treaty in 1977. Sorry, but I've been called away to do other things and haven't pulled it up on the internet. It probably is there somewhere, and should give folks something to occupy their evening with.

The United States military has not, and will not as a matter of policy violate the accepted rules of war. We have very explicit Rules of Engagement, and they are followed carefully by our forces. While the United States is scrupulous in following the rules, the same can not be said of North Korea, Iraq, and other rogue states.

I offer a suggested title that would have perhaps attracted some serious readers instead just steadfast followers.

Suggested title---"A serious look at America's new style of War"

I hear what you're saying Tres----- but if someone tells me I've got a flat tire----I look and say yup, you're right ---I've got a flat tire. That's exactly what her title say's---She sums it all up in the title and then supports it with...................garbage.

If the reader wants to swallow it fine but don't ask for a critical analysis of it.

Asherman, As 9-11 has proved, the "Rules of War" means nothing to most rogue states. That's not to say we should not, but I'd toss that Rule Book in the garbage if the enemy ignores it too. For example, if they used WMD on our troops, or used it against our citizens, I would think all bets would be off. If not, why even own them in the first place? c.i.

read this and weep

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/page.cfm?objectid=12581179&method=full&siteid=50143

Steve, I didn't weep, because I already knew what we had in GWBush. It only confirmed what is universally known. Thet's the reason why the majority of the people in this world is against a war with Iraq. Unfortunately, they have deaf ears to the protests and tears. c.i.

We are bound to follow the rules because we are civilized, and we value human life which the rules are intended to protect. If we did not conform to a high standard, we would soon be no better than those we must defeat. We have seen, even here in polite society a tendancy to paint the President and his principle advisors as greedy, self-serving, blood-thirsty beasts who can hardly wait to revel in oceans of blood. Hyperbole, surely. Shrub may not be the brightest President we ever had, but he isn't the least qualified either. Shrub is a politician and he certainly has an eye to what is politically advantageous. If the assertion that most of our People do not support use of U.S. troops in Iraq, then Shrub must be convinced of the necessity of acting though it is politically not popular. Rumsfeld has his marching orders, and he is confident that our military is capable of completing their mission with the minimum cost in lives. These men have chose to act now when victory is assured with relatively low costs, rather than to wait for a time where/when we will be forced to act and the equation may not be so favorable.

You and others disagree. Fine, make your opposition as persuasive as you can and perhaps public opposition will force a change in policy. I doubt it, but it is your duty to try. Our forces will probably be on the ground in the next few weeks, and I believe the conflict will be short and relatively bloodless. If you are correct, and we are wrong, you should have little trouble in electing someone to the Presidency who shares your extreme pacifistic views. In the meantime, why not give the administration some credit for being sincere in their efforts to protect American lives and interests. Isn't it just barely possible that they aren't monsters? Someone earlier here said that Bush was the most despotic leader since before Gengis Khan! What?

I love The Cato Institute.

Relevant to this discussion (and thanks, Asherman, for re-railing it) from Asherman's linked article is the following:



War is unpleasant. It is incumbent upon participants thereto that care be taken to avoid "Unnecessary" civilian consequence. It is accepted that some "Civilian Consequence" be inevitable. By and large, The Western Powers adhere to "The Laws of War" and reasonably are to be expected, as a purely pragmatic consideration of Cost/Benefit Ratio, to continue to do so. Rogue States, by contrast, admit to no such constraint, as a general rule.

Steve, I'll address your most recent offering shortly, unless some other worthy deems fit to do so prior to my return to this thread.

timber

asherman

Tip o the hat. Everything fine up to here... Speaking for just myself...I don't think my pacifism extreme. One must sort that question out case by case. I would have hoped Europe and the US had moved in Africa and Yugoslavia far faster than they did/or do. But US humanitarian concerns and operations are pretty uniformly trumped (and vastly outnumbered) by concerns and operations involving self interest. That's fine, but it does terminal damage to someone claiming the moral high road - evil becomes not the reason, merely the justification. Demonization precedes all presses towards conflict. We ought to count on it.

Credit for sincere efforts to protect American lives...no, not in this case. That is what we've been debating all thread...is that what their effort is really about, and I think it isn't for all the reasons stated.

"Monsters" sets me up for a straw man, Asherman...naughty. Humans are varied and have failings, even, as Shakespeare points out rather artfully, the powerful. It's not a matter of 'monster', and I've never used such a term, though Sadaam is commonly fit with it.

Pilger is right to draw attention to the realities of war to those like Bush jnr who have never experienced it.

I'm not a pacifist, but I remain unconvinced there is just cause for this war.

In particular I genuinely do not understand how the national security of the UK is so threatened that we have to send a good proportion of our military to destroy an "enemy" which, all things being equal, only wants to trade their oil for our manufactured goods.

I supported military action in Kosovo, Sierra Leone and Afghanistan. Not because I like war, but because it was the right thing to do. Am I really being asked to send our young men and women to fight and die because Iraq is co operating, but not co operating enough for the President of the United States?

Asherman, That's exactly where I'm having the problem. GWBush says he's protecting us, but how come I don't have any fear of Saddam? Al Qaeda, somewhat more, but I think the world community is doing a pretty decent job of catching its members, and putting them away where they will not be a threat to any society. If Saddam attacks somebody/anybody with WMD, he will not survive very long. EVERYBODY KNOWS THIS. c.i.

Steve, while I'll acknowledge Pilger addresses legitimate and serious concerns, I find he fails to do so in serious, objective, legitimately critical manner. Inflamatory buzzwords, sweeping generalizations, questionable allegations, perjorative tone, and pandering to agenda are not journalism. They more amount to rabble-rousing than to reportage.

There is much legitimate negative criticism which falls deservedly on The Current Adventure. To my mind, Mr. Pilger does disservice to the cause of the avoidance of war. Rather, I believe such as he cloud the issue, hinder effective po-active resolution, and are otherwise unpleasant and contemptable to my sensibilities.

I abhor the concept of war, seeing among other considerations a failure of reason by several definitions. War is tacit admission of failure if Civilization means anything. I have great respect for and reliance upon those who consider carefully and counsel restraint in the matter of war. I have no respect whatsoever for hotheads apart from defense of their right to be outrageous. In that specific alone, I support Mr. Pilger, his kind, and their adherents.

You are welcome to them. You are also welcome here ... I hasten to add I disagree only with your present argument as opposed to the shared sentiment in which it is offered; I find you generally an all-around good sort, and enjoy arguing with you. You're good at it, and you're getting better. Keep it up!




timber, who should at least use the "preview" button before clicking "Submit"

Asherman

The article from the Cato Journal concerning International law on war, while intellectually stimulating and authoritative, really was only a philosophical basis for laws concerning the conduct of war. All I got out of it was intellectual "common sense" when discussing the application of laws after the conflict.

Like you, I stand strong in the belief that the US and the UK have always waged war within all the bounds laid out by these philosophical guidelines. Rogue nations do not and probably never will abide without the stated threat as posed by Jim Baker prior to the first gulf war. A good example is the inhumane treatment of our prisoners in the "Hanoi Hilton" by the North Vietnamese.

BTW--here is a statistic of civilian casualties(Iraqi) during the 6 weeks of US bombing during Gulf 1.-------------2300. Everyone of these unfortuante deaths was an accident.

Now why in the world would anyone presuppose the massacre of hundreds of thousands(as stated by the recent references here on this thread) when everyone of our missiles and bombs will be aimed at MILITARY targets and the duration will be at the most 3 days?

The inflamatory overstatement by so called journalists is obviously aimed at selling copies but should be placed in the same category as the Daily Mirror and certainly not used as any sort of evidence for discussion.

On the night of March 9/10, 1945, The US destroyed some 12 to 15 square miles of metropolitan Tokyo, an area with an estimated population density on the order of 1 million persons or more per square mile in some districts, through the employment of a bomber assault a few hours in duration. Exact numbers will never be known, but generally accepted estimates allow a minimum of 100,000 civilian dead, with perhaps twice again that number variously injured and/or homeless. Property damage totalled billions in then-contemporary dollars, and would be virtually inestimable in terms of today's dollars.

Among the destruction were some production, distribution, communication, and military assets. The hundreds of thousands of unfortunate civilians were "Acceptable, if regretable, collateral damage", as were 10s and scores of millions of other unfortunate civilians throughout Japan and Europe, to say nothing of The Asian Subcontinent, over the years of WWII.

In the Gulf War, fewer than 2500 confirmed civilian deaths attributable to Allied Action occurred over a 45 day period. Damage was fully intended for and astoundingly largely confined to legitimate targets. Iraq as a Nation suffered far, far fewer civilian casualties during the Gulf War than did the City of Atlanta during her angry, similarly lengthed visit from General W.T.C. Sherman during our own Civil War.


I would say we are very much kindler and gentler than formerly as regards non-combatants. We have become far more efficient. We waste far less in the way of munitions and other resources on irrelevent targets than once, even recently, was our wont. Our enemies, I suppose, should consider themselves fortunate, though I doubt any will see it quite that way.




timber

Dresden?

Yes, Dresden, Nagoya, Cologne, Kobe, and Berlin and countless other cities full of civilians. Our current enemies are fortunate indeed. Ludicrous, but undeniable.



timber

timber, I'm sure our enemies think we are stupid in the ways of war for following some kind of universal agreement. After all, they are out to kill as many innocents as they possibly can with maximum efficiency. c.i.