Iraq War Inquiry

[La_Dolce_Vita]

I am referring to NATO as the terrorists who shouldn't be continuing with this conflict.

[gazza]

This was also a legacy of the wars past and present.

 

To put it bluntly from the web.

 

The U.S. dropped so much depleted uranium on Iraq during the 1991 Gulf War that birth defects in Iraqi babies increased by 500 percent in the next 12 years. The radiation was so bad that 67% of American Gulf War veterans ended up having babies with serious birth defects as well. In 2003, we dropped so much depleted uranium on Baghdad that radiation levels rose to 2,000 times normal. Depleted Uranium has a half life of 4.5 billion years. Essentially, we have eliminated the Iraqi population (and many our of own troops) from the healthy human gene pool.

 

 

Do you think they planned that or just a little bonus they got

 

I am referring to NATO as the terrorists who shouldn't be continuing with this conflict.

 

Why does that no surprise me on bit that you think NATO is the terrorists

[La_Dolce_Vita]

That's good, Gazza. I just know what defines terrorism and then look at NATO actions. It isn't hard. It doesn't surprise me how the media portrays the Taliban and Al Qaeda as terrorists alone, but that it would be extremely unlikely for you to come across British and America being described as terrorist states and terrorist supporters. There are good reasons for that.

[Alias]

This was also a legacy of the wars past and present.

 

To put it bluntly from the web.

 

The U.S. dropped so much depleted uranium on Iraq during the 1991 Gulf War that birth defects in Iraqi babies increased by 500 percent in the next 12 years. The radiation was so bad that 67% of American Gulf War veterans ended up having babies with serious birth defects as well. In 2003, we dropped so much depleted uranium on Baghdad that radiation levels rose to 2,000 times normal. Depleted Uranium has a half life of 4.5 billion years. Essentially, we have eliminated the Iraqi population (and many our of own troops) from the healthy human gene pool.

Source? A lot of studies have said DU has negligible effects on humans (in the environmental concentrations caused from munitions, inside someone it's obviously a different matter, the same as any heavy metal)..

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full...588/1801?ck=nck

http://www.nato.int/docu/speech/2001/s010110a.htm (NATO statement)

 

In a previous post you also commented on the effect of post-'cheap' oil, and the effects of that on food production - you'll be surprised by how little oil-equivalent the transportation element of food production uses, it's a lot cheaper (in oil terms) to produce livestock in NZ (largely due to the climate and soil features) and ship it over here than to produce in the UK. This would change as oil gets more expensive and farming gets less oil-intensive, but I think you'd be surprised how much of a transition from oil would be required for this situation to reverse.

[gazza]

That's good, Gazza. I just know what defines terrorism and then look at NATO actions. It isn't hard. It doesn't surprise me how the media portrays the Taliban and Al Qaeda as terrorists alone, but that it would be extremely unlikely for you to come across British and America being described as terrorist states and terrorist supporters. There are good reasons for that.

 

yep forgot you see them flying planes into buildings every other day

[P.K.]

I am referring to NATO as the terrorists who shouldn't be continuing with this conflict.

Really? Oh, I didn't realise that....

 

Strange, but I've yet to see NATO personnel hanging the Prime Minister from a lamppost, subjugating women to the extent you can shoot them through the head in the football stadium, whilst hanging men from the goalposts and controlling the opium trade along with training radical Islam to commit mass murder in their democratic home countries.. What a fool I feel...

[La_Dolce_Vita]

yep forgot you see them flying planes into buildings every other day

And do you define terrorism as only when people fly buildings into planes full of civilians? I don't. Though if you have forgot or didn't know, the Americans shot down an Iranian civilians plane in 1988.

 

Strange, but I've yet to see NATO personnel hanging the Prime Minister from a lamppost, subjugating women to the extent you can shoot them through the head in the football stadium, whilst hanging men from the goalposts and controlling the opium trade along with training radical Islam to commit mass murder in their democratic home countries.. What a fool I feel...

No, you don't see that PARTICULAR behaviour undertaken by NATO. But you do them using or threatening force against the Afghani civilians. The invasion, the airstrikes, the threat of impending violence and conflict in civilian areas by invading forces - all terrorism.

 

And you'd certainly know about those countries who comprise NATO that are quite happy to support or even bring to power groups of men who would subjugate women, exterminate more democratic opponents, and institute a reign of terror.

[Alias]

At the end of the day LDV you just have to choose between being a homosexual in a NATO country or being a homosexual in a Talibani controlled part of Pakistan/Afghanistan. It is rare that foreign policy never subjugates someone, it's a ministries job to get the best deal for their own people.

[Chinahand]

LDV - do you understand the concept of intention?

 

Did the US deliberately intend, with preknowledge, to shoot down an Iranian civilian plane? Or did they mistakenly believe they were being threatened and shoot down what they thought was a hostile aircraft?

 

And secondly are all militaries terrorist organizations? Or will your anarchist pecadillos allow you to understand the concept of acts of war, and of war crimes?

 

Civillians die in war, mostly in its fog, occassionally deliberately. 911 was a deliberate massacre of 3000 people - the intention was to kill as many civillians as possible. Do you really believe that that is how the West fights its wars? Or is this just school boy rhetoric?

 

You seem to be giving moral equivilency to the Taliban and western forces acting in Afghanistan.

 

I think that is naive.

 

How do you want Afghanistan to end up? I pretty firmly believe that you would be totally wrong to claim that Afghanistan under a victorious Taliban would be better than it under a victorious NATO, or even under a state of war between NATO and the Taliban. I do not want the West to withdraw - I believe Afghanistan will have better prospects with there intervention.

 

And as I've posted before large majorities of Afghans tell opinion polls the same thing - how do you know different?

 

I see your last paragraph as being totally about face - NATO countries are attempting to reduce the subjagation of women, improve democracy and lessen a reign of terror, but they are aware the ideal of a liberal democratic (or even anarchist utopia) is impossible and so they have to attempt to work with the culturial environment existing in Afghanistan - that isn't good for women's rights, or democracy and will remain violent for a long time to come, but the objective - the intention - is to improve it. The Taliban's intention is to make it worse.

 

LDV your rhetoric reduces your argument and makes it too easy to dismiss as the rantings of Citizen Smith - you really would be more effective if you stopped equating the evil from misintention with the evil of intention. They are not the same.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

LDV - do you understand the concept of intention?

I do. Do you understand that they recognised that civilian deaths were a likelihood. What was intended with the bombings in Afghanistan? An intention to kill Al Qaeda and Taliban but a recognise that civilians are likely to affected, killed, or end up fleeing their homes. And the only desire to avoid such deaths is so not to incur criticism. When a war is undertaken with no good justification and with a recognise that violence will be brought against civilians, then yes, that's terrorism.

 

Did the US deliberately intend, with preknowledge, to shoot down an Iranian civilian plane? Or did they mistakenly believe they were being threatened and shoot down what they thought was a hostile aircraft?

It was a mistake they shot down their aircraft. What also a mistake was their presence in that region at that time. The result was a mistake where they shot down a civilian aircraft. And they recognised there was a strong possibility that it was a civilian aircraft.

 

And secondly are all militaries terrorist organizations? Or will your anarchist pecadillos allow you to understand the concept of acts of war, and of war crimes?

Civillians die in war, mostly in its fog, occassionally deliberately. 911 was a deliberate massacre of 3000 people - the intention was to kill as many civillians as possible. Do you really believe that that is how the West fights its wars? Or is this just school boy rhetoric?

Depends on whether they are undertaking actions that involve terrorism. That would seem obvious, Chinahand.

 

Where civilians have been killed or had violence threatened against them I would call terrorism. It serves little purpose, however, to refer to terrorism in wartime when we already recognise what it is, EXCEPT when the purpose of the conflict is OSTENSIBLY to end terrorism in another country.

 

You seem to be giving moral equivilency to the Taliban and western forces acting in Afghanistan.

Not equivalency at all. Just pointing out they are both forces engaging in terrorist acts.

 

How do you want Afghanistan to end up? I pretty firmly believe that you would be totally wrong to claim that Afghanistan under a victorious Taliban would be better than it under a victorious NATO, or even under a state of war between NATO and the Taliban. I do not want the West to withdraw - I believe Afghanistan will have better prospects with there intervention.

You come across as a liberal dreamer piggybacing on the actions taken in Afghanistan in the hope (and maybe strong possiiblity) that the ends will justify the means. I would like Afghanistan to end up as a democratic society. I am not prepared, however, to support the end goal of liberal democratic regime which is certainly better than life under the Taliban but which is attained through the deaths of many civilians, by having them flee their homes, when international law (which is supposedly what the West treasures) is ignored, and when the Aghani people's freedom doesn't factor into the reasons for challenging the Taliban.

 

Like I have said, I don't disagree life without the Taliban would be better. It doesn't present a justification for continuing involvement by NATO forces. Opinion polls may also demonstrate that the Afghani people want rid of the Taliban. Again, this doesn't justify NATO involvement.

 

I see your last paragraph as being totally about face - NATO countries are attempting to reduce the subjagation of women, improve democracy and lessen a reign of terror, but they are aware the ideal of a liberal democratic (or even anarchist utopia) is impossible and so they have to attempt to work with the culturial environment existing in Afghanistan - that isn't good for women's rights, or democracy and will remain violent for a long time to come, but the objective - the intention - is to improve it. The Taliban's intention is to make it worse.

NATO's purpose is only to eradicate the Taliban in order to make sure that the inchoate Afghani government can survive and remain as a compliant nation for the West. There isn't some overriding primary purpose to make the lives of Afghani people sweet and happy. Such improvement on the lives of civilians are seen only when it comes offering (or even generating) legitimacy through public approval (by voter ratification) to an American backed government and when counter-insurgency techniques require 'heart and minds' techniques to win over the populace FOR the purposes of gaining military victory.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

At the end of the day LDV you just have to choose between being a homosexual in a NATO country or being a homosexual in a Talibani controlled part of Pakistan/Afghanistan. It is rare that foreign policy never subjugates someone, it's a ministries job to get the best deal for their own people.

What the fuck does my sexuality have to do with anything? Completely missed your point.

[Chinahand]

... the only desire to avoid such deaths is so not to incur criticism. When a war is undertaken with no good justification and with a recognise that violence will be brought against civilians, then yes, that's terrorism.

 

... I am not prepared, however, to support the end goal of liberal democratic regime which is certainly better than life under the Taliban but which is attained through the deaths of many civilians, by having them flee their homes, when international law ... is ignored, and when the Aghani people's freedom doesn't factor into the reasons for challenging the Taliban.

 

NATO's purpose is only to eradicate the Taliban in order to make sure that the inchoate Afghani government can survive and remain as a compliant nation for the West. There isn't some overriding primary purpose to make the lives of Afghani people sweet and happy. Such improvement on the lives of civilians are seen only when it comes offering (or even generating) legitimacy through public approval (by voter ratification) to an American backed government and when counter-insurgency techniques require 'heart and minds' techniques to win over the populace FOR the purposes of gaining military victory.

Firstly where is international law being flouted in Afghanistan? The Taliban Government cooperated with a group which launched the largest single act of mass murder in the modern era and by refusing to end that cooperation showed itself allied to that act of war. Since then it has continued to maintain those hostilities - this is pretty standard causus belli stuff, and is not controversial in international law, unlike Iraq.

 

Secondly you always go to extremes in your language which reduces the impact of your arguments and creates a perception of disagreement when in fact when pushed you are capable of displaying nuance.

 

NATO isn't only concerned with killing civillians because it doesn't want to be criticized - it also doesn't want to kill civillians full stop. Are you really going to dispute that? Again there is a difference between bombing a Taliban target where civillians will inevitably die and deliberately attacking civillians such as when suicide bombers walk into hotels and shopping centres in Kabul.

 

I agree with you that improving the lot of Afghans isn't the overriding primary purpose of the conflict, but you are wrong when you say it doesn't factor into the reasons for challenging the Taliban now - it is an important secondary purpose as without the new government being seen as legitimate the Taliban will be able to gain support.

 

A government is complicit with an act of war - a decision is taken, for that reason, to enter into a war against this government. In order to win that war a legitimate alternative must be installed into that country. I agree that this legitimacy does go both ways; not only must it be accepted as legitimate by the local population - which means providing economic well being, not being repressive etc; also it must enter into international norms of behaviour.

 

But the idea that it must be complant to the west goes too far - Serbia was not like that and the Kosovo war followed a very similar pattern, but in that case the causus belli was more complicated because it did not involve an attack on a third party, but internal violence against a portion of its own population which is not seen in international law as a justification for a soverign power to be overthrown.

 

There is a chance your going to go that the West is uninterested in installing a legitimate government into Afghanistan and would be quite happy with a despot - I don't think so - the huge amounts of money invested in democracy, in ending despotism and corruption are direct evidence that the west is willing to put its money where its mouth is to replace despotic and violent political institutions with those based on a more civil society. Why are they bothering with that effort, especially when it does not gel well with the local culture, if not in the hope that it gains some root in Afghanistan's thin soil?

[jimbms]

At the end of the day LDV you just have to choose between being a homosexual in a NATO country or being a homosexual in a Talibani controlled part of Pakistan/Afghanistan. It is rare that foreign policy never subjugates someone, it's a ministries job to get the best deal for their own people.

What the fuck does my sexuality have to do with anything? Completely missed your point.

I would say quite a lot, if you openly declaired your homosexuality in quite a few countries you defend here I doubt you would have your freedom long enough to make another comment.

[Chinahand]

I'm not entirely unsympathetic to a more nuanced version of LDV's arguements - the West shouldn't go around using military force to make governments behave in ways that the West wants them to, especially when it involves alot of civillian deaths.

 

I think that is his point - rather than defending the Taliban.

 

The thing is the West would have basically ignored Afghanistan if it hadn't been complicit in 911 - it had done for the 10 years prior to then, and lets be honest the West isn't scheming to invade Nepal no matter how many pipelines could be laid through its mountain passes.

 

I tend to think that the West's ignoring of Afghanistan prior to 911 - which would seem to be something LDV should be happy with - isn't something to be praised.

 

My attitude is that if an intervention ends a regime which killed many of its civillian population each day through design or neglect and replaces it with one which allows its population to develop and live in peace; then that good can be used to justify some of the bad created by a war fought for another reason.

 

I definitely agree the original cause of the war had nothing to do with this, but definitely think NATO's leaders and generals are considering how to improve the lot of the people they have occuppied and how to stop those who plan to undo that good. I don't think that is necessarily illegitimate, especially when the reason for the occupation in the first place was also legitimate.

 

In Iraq where the legitimacy of the original causus belli is much more questionable it is even more emperative to leave the country in a state capable of improving the lot of its people.

 

LDV seems to disagree - after invading and bringing misery to many the West should just leave and allow an evil, violent and despotic regime return. That really doesn't make sense to me.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Firstly where is international law being flouted in Afghanistan? The Taliban Government cooperated with a group which launched the largest single act of mass murder in the modern era and by refusing to end that cooperation showed itself allied to that act of war. Since then it has continued to maintain those hostilities - this is pretty standard causus belli stuff, and is not controversial in international law, unlike Iraq.

I am referring to the principles of war and our understanding of war crimes. Such as limiting the goal of war to the political goals established at outset; 'crimes against peace' - which I do in the ease at which the western nations have taken up using violence, especially when it had not been conclusively determined that Bin Laden and his close associates in Afghanistan were directly responsible, when evidence could not be provided to the Taliban to arrange an extradition, and when the Americans arrogantly denied the necessity of any evidence being provided. And the Afghani conflict does not accord with the UN Charter.

 

NATO isn't only concerned with killing civillians because it doesn't want to be criticized - it also doesn't want to kill civillians full stop. Are you really going to dispute that? Again there is a difference between bombing a Taliban target where civillians will inevitably die and deliberately attacking civillians such as when suicide bombers walk into hotels and shopping centres in Kabul.

There is a difference, and of course it is about intention. I do not dispute that. But I find it very relevent that recognition of what war involves is pertinent. When the US chooses to airstrike Afghanistan there is almost a certainty that civilians casualties will ensue. It's terrorism when the US chooses to use tactics with not too much regard to civilian casualties when they airstrike. It is terrorism when violence is quickly chosen as the response to the Taliban when such action would very likely result in even worse hardship (starvation) of the people, when there were already food shortages.

 

I agree with you that improving the lot of Afghans isn't the overriding primary purpose of the conflict, but you are wrong when you say it doesn't factor into the reasons for challenging the Taliban now - it is an important secondary purpose as without the new government being seen as legitimate the Taliban will be able to gain support.

And I recognised that such improvements are made FOR THE PURPOSE of creating a legitimate government that will comply with the economic interests of the West. Although the government's of the West do not truly give a flying fuck whether some unimportant people are starving to death or are suffering under an awful regime, it matters when there is something that America can get out of them. You improve their position they will be more likely to support the politicians and figureheads that the US endorses. And of course, it makes it easier to maintain a US militart presence, and possibly a continuing presence for the future.

 

A government is complicit with an act of war - a decision is taken, for that reason, to enter into a war against this government. In order to win that war a legitimate alternative must be installed into that country. I agree that this legitimacy does go both ways; not only must it be accepted as legitimate by the local population - which means providing economic well being, not being repressive etc; also it must enter into international norms of behaviour.

Well it really is a 'Might is Right' situation here. If complicitness in acts of war (ignoring in this instance was inability of the US to provide evidence) was reason for ANY nation to go to war then it would be a difference world picture if all countries held to this maxim. Certainly, many countries would have good reason to invade the United States. Do you simply support and endorse wars when they are fought by the powerful nations seemingly acting along the lines of international law? (Again, if so, you would be ignoring extradition protocol).

 

But the idea that it must be complant to the west goes too far - Serbia was not like that and the Kosovo war followed a very similar pattern, but in that case the causus belli was more complicated because it did not involve an attack on a third party, but internal violence against a portion of its own population which is not seen in international law as a justification for a soverign power to be overthrown.

"That it must be compliant"? Not sure what you mean? The purpose of the war is that the country will be compliant or will at least satisfy the needs of the US and other western nations who have strategic and economic interests there. There isn't any other reason for continue the fight.

 

Kosovo is a completely different scenario, and was another example of where NATO should not have been involved.

 

There is a chance your going to go that the West is uninterested in installing a legitimate government into Afghanistan and would be quite happy with a despot - I don't think so - the huge amounts of money invested in democracy, in ending despotism and corruption are direct evidence that the west is willing to put its money where its mouth is to replace despotic and violent political institutions with those based on a more civil society. Why are they bothering with that effort, especially when it does not gel well with the local culture, if not in the hope that it gains some root in Afghanistan's thin soil?

The West WOULD be all right with a totalitarian regime in any country if could offer the West what it requires in terms of economic control. It is easier to push for liberal democracy primarily because invading another country and removing its government creates a power vacuum that COULD be filled by those unfriendly to the US and WOULD be filled by those who the US government could not truly depend upon. Too big a gamble and it makes sense to maximise on the monies already spent on a failed conflict to capture Al Qaeda. Certainly, there are very modern trends in mainstream politics, such as the neo-con and New Labour where the spread of liberal democracy and humanitarianism are pretended to be the goals in themselves, but the manner in which the US and Britain conduct their foreign policy contradicts such noble goals.