5 Congress Members Arrested at Sudan Protest

SierraSong wrote:

nimh wrote:

And you, Sir, seem to be as unable or unwilling to ever address a single argument I make or fact I bring up (what was that about a UN army?), as you are prone to ascribe remarks to me that I never made in my life (Bush hopping on the Clooney wagon?) and attack me over those, instead.

And you, miss, need to go back and read this thread from the beginning to see who's attacking whom here.

But this all pales in comparison to the attack on our freedoms that President Bush has thwarted, by staying the course and carrying out his strategy for victory in Iraq!

Hillary Rodham Clinton DID NOT say that victory is just around the corner.

So war is strictly a last resort. Only in the most extreme of emergencies can war, IMO, be justified. [..] when it comes to invading a country, only one excuse could possibly count: to stop an ongoing genocide. To save people from a genocide thats happening right now. That's what we thought we were doing in Kosovo.

We will free people. We will also go in to make sure that those who are hungry are fed, those who need health care will have health care, those youngsters who need education will get education

Nimh,
You said...

Quote:

So war is strictly a last resort. Only in the most extreme of emergencies can war, IMO, be justified. [..] when it comes to invading a country, only one excuse could possibly count: to stop an ongoing genocide. To save people from a genocide thats happening right now. That's what we thought we were doing in Kosovo.

Tell me,is this a good reason...

Quote:

We will free people. We will also go in to make sure that those who are hungry are fed, those who need health care will have health care, those youngsters who need education will get education

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

Thousands of people were "dying horrible deaths" in Iraq. Therefore one must assume that you supported US intervention in Iraq.

I'm with those who argue that the US should intervene militarily in the Sudan, just as we should have intervened in Rwanda.

It would be much appreciated if some of you folks would remain consistent in your expressed views. [..]

If humanitarianism compels our intervention in the Sudan that so did it compel our intervention in Iraq.

Well, I applaud your consistency, it's definitely better than the couldnt-care-less burping of the other conservatives here.

As for your point re: those of us who opposed the war in Iraq. Fair enough question, not so easy to answer. I cant speak for the others, but I do keep to a consistent line, myself.

First though, lets get some side issues out of the way. Up until it started, any humanitarian motive for the war was granted a highly marginal role at best by Bush and his administration. It was, no matter how much some now retroactively want to make it otherwise, all about the WMD. (See this past post of mine for details).

This is a blatantly flawed line of argument. What Bush & Co may or may not have advertised as the reason for invading Iraq is immaterial to the question at hand. If the Administration decided to intervene in the Sudan for the stated purpose of increasing the profits of American capitalists, and yet put an end to the current genocide, would you argue against the intervention?

You seem to sneer at those of us who do view the invasion of Iraq as, in part, a humanitarian effort. Is it your position that an action can only be judged in terms of the stated intention of the actor?

Now, we already warned back then that the WMD case was dubious at best and lacked convincing evidence. We turned out to be right about that. We also warned that the Saddam/Al-Qaeda link was dubious at best, and to any extent it existed would be outshadowed by the Al-Qaeda recruitment ground the invasion would provide. We turned out to be right about that too. In the light of those main arguments, any marginal note of the Bush admin about humanitarian motives seemed to lack credibility.

Should we have embraced that marginal motivation anyway? Said that hey, we dont trust Bush for a second, but if he's going to help get Saddam out, then why not use him? That was the logic of some Iraqi exiles (see thread here). Point is, the notion of Iraqi democrats or humanitarian idealists using the US, rather than the other way round, seemed more than a bit naive.

In any case. My own line of principle here. I think of war as an evil. I believe war will almost always break more than it can repair. Wars escalate, and the more people killed and lives destroyed, the more bitterness and hatred gets rooted that will then create new wars, over time (see Yugoslavia).

So war is strictly a last resort. Only in the most extreme of emergencies can war, IMO, be justified. I would not deny countries the right to defend themselves when invaded, or call in allies' help when they are (eg Kuwait). But when it comes to invading a country, only one excuse could possibly count: to stop an ongoing genocide. To save people from a genocide thats happening right now. That's what we thought we were doing in Kosovo.

Now in 1988, when Saddam was gassing the Kurds, I would therefore have supported military action against Iraq. Unfortunately, when Donald Rumsfeld did go to Baghdad shortly after, it was to shake Saddam's hand, in order to ease the way for billions of US $ in support for his regime, courtesy of President Bush Sr.

In 1991, when Saddam was bombing the marsh Arabs in the aftermath of the Gulf War, there would also have been a rationale for military intervention.

In 2003, however, Saddam was as weak as he had ever been. The Kurds, remember, were safely ensconced in their own autonomous area, out of reach of Saddam's soldiers. A no-fly-zone prevented Saddam from bombing anyone.

Of course his regime was still a dictatorship, of course there was still torture. But - however harsh this might sound - not more than in a dozen other countries around the world. Compared to Saddam's emasculated regime, there were other dictatorships worse in the world. Not just North-Korea, ccountries like Turkmenistan as well.

In short, there was a humanitarian argument for invading Iraq that would meet my "ongoing genocide" criterium, but it did not apply anymore in 2003.

Genocide, like racism, has become a political term and tool.

From what I have been able to determine, the number of Sudanese actually killed in the current circumstances is around 50,000. The number of displaced Sudanese is in the millions. Both are horrendous statistics and, as I have already declared, warrant US intervention, but it's difficult to see how they amount to genocide.

Hitler's attempted extermination of all Jews was genocide. He didn't care whether or not they left Germany, he wanted to rid the world of them. The Arab Sudanese will be content if they can drive the Black Sudanese outside the borders of The Sudan. They will not pursue them to the ends of the earth.

Again, the situation in the Sudan requires intervention, but if genocide is truly the only condition which, in your mind, warrants military intervention then I suggest you hold truer to the definition of the word.

You are making at best a naive and at worst a cynical distinction between the travesties in the Sudan and Iraq. Firm numbers on those murdered by the Saddam regime are difficult to come by, but most sources that I've found put it north of 100,000. Are you really trying to tell us that because Saddam may or may not have taken a breather from the slaughter of his people the suffering in Iraq was starkly distinguishable from that in the Sudan?
The massacres in Darfur, on the other hand, are a different question. In no place in the world today is a whole people being slaughtered like in Sudan. This is genocide. And there's the difference.

Your analysis was brilliant, Finn D' Abuzz. I await a cogent response( if one is forthcoming) from nimh. If I may, I would add two important additions to your excellent post, Finn.

First, when the issue of WMD's is raised, there are very few who note that the danger of WMD's was forcefully articulated by none other than William Jefferson Clinton on Dec. 18th, 1998 when he issued an order( without Congressional authorization) that missles be launched at Baghdad.

Clinton was crystal clear about WMD's in 1998.

He said:

"Second, if Saddam can crippled(sic) the weapons inspection system and get away with it, he would conclude that the international community--led by the United States--has simply lost its will. He will surmise that he has free rein to rebuild his arsenal of destruction, and someday, make no mistake--he will use it again as he has in the past"

There is no ambiguity in that statement. Clinton was warning that Saddam could not be allowed to cripple the weapons inspection system or he would rebuild his "arsenal of destruction".

and

"And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them and he will use them"

That is also unambiguous. The President of the United States is warning that Saddam Hussein will not only develop weapons of mass destruction but that he will use those weapons.



After all of the furor about what some call President Bush's failed adventure into Iraq dies down and the record is examined, it is clear that there should be a comparison made.

The pre-emptive strike ordered by President Clinton on Iraq should be compared with the session of Congress in which the House and the Senate--the representatives of the people who act as proxy for the people--on Oct. 10th and 11th OVERWHELMINGLY voted to grant the president full authority to attack Iraq unilaterally. The vote in the House was 296 to 133, and in the Senate 77 to 23. The Congress gave Bush the full go-ahead to use the military "as he determines to be necessary and appropriate" to defend against the threat of Iraq.

The key words in the paragraph are "full authority" and "as he determines to be necessary and appropriate"


Of course, citizens may show their displeasure at the war in Iraq and the fact that it is now in its fourth year. If they wish to do so, AND THEY ARE NOT INVOLVED IN PARTISAN POLITICS, they must lobby thier Senators and Representatives. After all, it is they who gave the President the Authority.



Again, a marvelous job, Finn!!!

Your analysis was brilliant, Finn D' Abuzz. I await a cogent response( if one is forthcoming) from nimh. If I may, I would add two important additions to your excellent post, Finn.

First, when the issue of WMD's is raised, there are very few who note that the danger of WMD's was forcefully articulated by none other than William Jefferson Clinton on Dec. 18th, 1998 when he issued an order( without Congressional authorization) that missles be launched at Baghdad.

Clinton was crystal clear about WMD's in 1998.

He said:

"Second, if Saddam can crippled(sic) the weapons inspection system and get away with it, he would conclude that the international community--led by the United States--has simply lost its will. He will surmise that he has free rein to rebuild his arsenal of destruction, and someday, make no mistake--he will use it again as he has in the past"

There is no ambiguity in that statement. Clinton was warning that Saddam could not be allowed to cripple the weapons inspection system or he would rebuild his "arsenal of destruction".

and

"And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them and he will use them"

That is also unambiguous. The President of the United States is warning that Saddam Hussein will not only develop weapons of mass destruction but that he will use those weapons.



After all of the furor about what some call President Bush's failed adventure into Iraq dies down and the record is examined, it is clear that there should be a comparison made.

The pre-emptive strike ordered by President Clinton on Iraq should be compared with the session of Congress in which the House and the Senate--the representatives of the people who act as proxy for the people--on Oct. 10th and 11th OVERWHELMINGLY voted to grant the president full authority to attack Iraq unilaterally. The vote in the House was 296 to 133, and in the Senate 77 to 23. The Congress gave Bush the full go-ahead to use the military "as he determines to be necessary and appropriate" to defend against the threat of Iraq.

The key words in the paragraph are "full authority" and "as he determines to be necessary and appropriate"


Of course, citizens may show their displeasure at the war in Iraq and the fact that it is now in its fourth year. If they wish to do so, AND THEY ARE NOT INVOLVED IN PARTISAN POLITICS, they must lobby thier Senators and Representatives. After all, it is they who gave the President the Authority.



Again, a marvelous job, Finn!!!

Somehow Nimh is able to argue a distinction between the two...because there was a lull in the rate of murder.

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

Somehow Nimh is able to argue a distinction between the two...because there was a lull in the rate of murder.

Because the mass murder in question took place over ten years earlier, yes - and the prime group it targeted, the Kurds, by 2003 actually had a safe, self-governed, Western-protected territory of their own.

Details, details..

Genocidal mass murder, to me, is a valid justification for military intervention, yes. But not with a timelag of 15 years - especially not if the victims in question by then live in their own safe territory.

Was there still oppression in Saddam's Iraq in 2003? Of course there was. But no longer the gassing and bombing of minorities that should have triggered intervention, ten and fifteen years earlier. No longer mass murder on the scale we have now been seeing in Sudan. No greater repression, in fact, than you find in Burma, Turkmenistan, Lybia, North-Korea, Syria, arguably Zimbabwe or Uzbekistan. And unless you think you can pull off invading seven or eight of those countries, then that alone can simply not be a reason to go to war.

There is only one reason to argue for intervention in The Sudan and against intervention in Iraq, and that is partisan politics.

You, apparently, find there is a meaningful distinction between a regime that murders 50,000 citizens in the span of two or three years and one that murders 100,000 citizens in the (arguable) span of ten years.

Your smarmy comment "details, details," needs blow back in your face.

Somehow these "details" mean something to you. Pray tell us how so.

Starting again with the least important bit because it's the shortest:

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

There is only one reason to argue for intervention in The Sudan and against intervention in Iraq, and that is partisan politics.

Absolute bullshit. My party, best I know, actually opposes Western military intervention in Sudan. I disagree with them. Whereas there are conservatives who are clamoring for more militant intervention. This is not a partisan issue, however much it seems that angle is the only thing about it that interests you.

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

You, apparently, find there is a meaningful distinction between a regime that murders 50,000 citizens in the span of two or three years and one that murders 100,000 citizens in the (arguable) span of ten years.

Side-note 1*: Compare: "100,000 civilian deaths under Saddam in the arguable span of ten years"; 35,000-40,000 civilian deaths in the three years since the invasion. You do the math.

Side-note 2*: "Arguable". You seem to bandy this number around loosely. In your previous post, you still wrote that "numbers on those murdered by the Saddam regime are difficult to come by, but most sources that I've found put it north of 100,000". That would be, then, "north of 100,000" in 35 years, since that is how long Saddam had been in power. Now it's the same 100,000 years in "an arguable span of ten years". Which is it?

This is relevant because, of course, he had actually become incapable of that scope of mass murder in the last ten years. The Kurdish autonomous territory and the no-fly zones had both already been in place for over ten years by the time of the invasion.

I'll help you out. In the thirty-five years of Saddam's rule, it's been far more than 100,000. US officials in 2003 reported 300,000 bodies in mass graves. However, they also said that "The mass graves mostly included the remains of ethnic Kurds and Shia Muslims killed for opposing the regime between 1983 and 1991."

This is what the humanitarian argument for the Iraq war, as argued by Bush supporters, has mostly come down to: we need to invade to stop the mass murder that took place 12 to 20 years ago.