Aaron Jeske on Apr 07, 2008 at 08:59 AM:

Blah Blah Blah

Seriously, you guys had your week some time ago, isn't about time to stop beating this dead horse?

First be careful of who you call a civilian. Just because they don't wear a uniform does not make them innocent.

Secondly, we have heard the war crimes argument over and over again. How come we haven't seen any real movement to bring war crimes charges against us? Perhaps because some people realize the difference between defense and aggression.

You can sit around a fish statistics out of the Internet all day, and I will go around fishing mine that will say exactly the opposite. If you really want to convince someone, make a concise argument and support it with real facts.

Johanan Raatz on Apr 07, 2008 at 09:49 AM:

“Iraqis of all sectarian and ethnic groups believe that the U.S. military invasion is the primary root of the violent differences among them, and see the departure of ‘occupying forces’ as the key to national reconciliation.”

If that's the case then their behavior makes no sense. The reason we are staying is because they continue to be violent. If they want us to leave the solution is simple. All they have to do is behave themselves and we won't have to be there.

"A study by the highly respectable British polling agency Opinion Research Business recently estimated that 1.03 million Iraqis have died from violence since the U.S. invasion in 2003."

The vast majority of the other statistics including the UN's own statistics place the death toll far lower. In the 10k-40k range. If you find a few statistics that are this far out of the mean it is likely that they are wrong. Speaking scientifically 1 million+ is not even in the right order of magnitude and would normally be thrown out of a data set as an anomaly.

"The Lancet were “the only ones to estimate mortality in Iraq using scientific methods.”

The Lancet study was funded by Soros. People tried to conceal this fact, and raises questions as to whether the whole thing was set up to present to worst possible scenario.

“What should the world do about the United States?” And the answer is to enforce international law, compel the U.S. military to withdraw, pursue war crimes prosecution,"

No, if anything this idea demonstrates that international law as it stands is defective and must be ignored.

Though I have problems with how Bush went about the war, he pressed a very important point in defying the UN. States must be allowed to act in their own interests.

Even before the war the UN was comprised of many states that opposed our national interests. It treats Western societies the same as totalitarian regimes and Islamist societies. We can not tolerate hostile elements subverting our foreign policy. As such the UN must be viewed as collaborative body only and never as something that the US should be subserviant to.

The very idea that the UN should punish the US for the Iraq war, but leave Sudan to go on genociding those in Darfur and China to continue forced abortions and executions of political prisoners is absurd.

The UN did NOTHING to stop Saddam. Whatever hidden motives our government may have had it has NO RIGHT to punish us for doing what they were unwilling to do themselves.

"and request reparations for the rebuilding of Iraq."

We are already trying to rebuild Iraq. The idea that we should be made to make reparations for trying to fix Iraq makes no sense. Its like saying we need to make reparations for making reparations. I respect the opinions of those that oppose the war, but for the love of God if you think we made a mess then what is the harm in letting us fix it?

"The Nuremberg Tribunals stated that the “supreme international crime” was that of “aggression,” i.e."

After studying the Nuremburg definitions of "war crimes." I have come to the conclusion that only one of them (crimes against humanity) was a valid one. Wars happen and there is always an aggressor this is not unusual. What is unusual is the naivete of much of the 20th century that leads to assumptions such as the moral equivalence of states like Saddam's to ones like the US or the UK.

This naivete would lead to conclusions that if Hitler(Saddam) had not invaded other countries but merely genocided the Jews(Kurds) that a first strike on Nazi Germany(Baathing Iraq) would have been a war crime.

So who commits the war crimes here? The US for invading Iraq or Saddam for genociding the Kurds? The idea that the US should be brought to justice for bringing Saddam to justice creates a sort of contradiction. The fact the institutions of international law do not understand this demonstrates that they should not be viewed as valid authorities.

Sovereign states make war. As such the idea of an "illegal war" is absurd and makes no sense in light of political philosophy. It's an oxymoron.

Concern. on Apr 07, 2008 at 06:36 PM:

Johanan, Out of curiousity, are you a Holocaust denier as well?

Johanan Raatz on Apr 07, 2008 at 07:28 PM:

"Johanan, Out of curiousity, are you a Holocaust denier as well?"

No. You apparently missed my point completely here. I was critiquing how things like starting wars are put on par with genocide. Genocide is far far worse than merely starting a war.

Wars have been started for eons. It would be ridiculous to assume that anyone who starts a war is automatically a "war criminal" as war is itself extralegal.

Now whose the real war criminal. Saddam for committing genocide of Bush for aggressively overthrowing him?

JF on Apr 07, 2008 at 09:42 PM:

The Nuremburg Tribunals were used to prosecute the Nazis for war crimes. If you feel they were invalid, then on what grounds were the Nazis war criminals? As a side note, the Nazis also carried out a campaign of "counter-terrorism" called "Terror Against Terror". But as all honest people know, the Nazis were not carrying out "counter-terrorism", they were carrying out terrorism. The same holds true with the US "War on Terrorism". As far as the "vast majority of other statistics" having much lower casualty counts, that is because they are not total estimates, they are tallies of reported deaths. But the vast majority of deaths go unreported for obvious reasons. The methods used by ORB and Lancet are standard methods for measuring casualties, and they were the only studies to use "scientific methods". The UK's Department of International Development said that the Lancet's study was "if anything, an underestimate." I think the same can be said about the ORB study since it excluded the two most violent provinces. You do know that the US trained, funded, and armed Saddam Hussein right? You do know that the Iraqi people tried to overthrow Saddam in 1991 and the US opposed their effort to do so right? The US is not rebuilding Iraq, they are destroying Iraq. When I submitted this editorial I did not include the phrase "in order to rebuild Iraq". The US should be forced to pay reparations because they committed the supreme international crime against that country. How that money is used should be up to Iraqis, not Americans. It's their country, what is left of it.

Aaron Jeske on Apr 08, 2008 at 09:23 AM:

Its funny how you think a totalitarian regime such as Sadaam's Iraq somehow has the same legitimacy as our own government. The US has been and should not consider dictators as a form of government, because the sheer nature of their rule does not represent a representative government.

Another dead horse that keeps getting beaten is our prior support for Iraq/Afghanistan. The answer to that is simple, we choose the lesser of two evils at the time. Iraq over Iran and Afghanistan over the USSR. Just because we decieded to do so does not make us hypocrites. It's in the old saying, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" The fact is the US has had many strange bedfellows throughout all of its history. If you payed attention at all in Historyclass you know that the USSR was our reluctant ally in WWII, but we then fought a cold war for the better part of 50 years afterwards. Thats the way things happen sometime.

Johanan Raatz on Apr 08, 2008 at 09:58 AM:

"The Nuremburg Tribunals were used to prosecute the Nazis for war crimes. If you feel they were invalid, then on what grounds were the Nazis war criminals?"

The Nazis should have been prosecuted for crimes against humanity. The fact that they were prosecuted for "war crimes" was fine for that instance because they deserved to get it anyway for the Holocaust, but it set a bad precedent for the future.

The idea of "war crimes" and "illegal wars" is problematic in itself because war is inherently extralegal. So these terms are oxymorons to begin with. As such they can only be used as tools for the winner to stick it to the looser. If Hitler had won he could have prosecuted America and Britain for "war crimes."

The end result gets a little ridiculous. Let's say we unilaterally invaded the Sudan without provocation. We would be guilty of war crimes. With this the international community could have our leadership prosecuted for "war crimes." The sick irony of this though is that they are currently not doing anything about the real crime (the genocide in Darfur). Iraq presents a similar problem.

"The same holds true with the US "War on Terrorism".

Ok your apparently inbibing the same kind of screwed up philosophy that much of the international community has adopted. (more on this later) Look you need to be able to distinguish America from Nazi Germany. Terrorism against a free society like ours is in no way comparable to resistance actions taken against a totalitarian state. The actions of America against terror are to protect a free society the ones done by the Nazi's are to shore up a totalitarian state. Big difference.

"As far as the "vast majority of other statistics" having much lower casualty counts, that is because they are not total estimates, they are tallies of reported deaths."

When the unreported deaths differ from the reported ones by an order of magnitude their is a serious problem with the methodology you use. (I'll get to this in more detail in a minute) You simply can not have a million deaths go unreported with absolutely no hard evidence showing up.

"But the vast majority of deaths go unreported for obvious reasons."

It is still pretty hard for the vast majority of figures to miss the mark a whole order of maginitude though. Especially when all of the other figures just happen to coincide around another locus.

"The methods used by ORB and Lancet are standard methods for measuring casualties, and they were the only studies to use "scientific methods".

It only makes sense to use that kind of statisical sampling though when you have evidence that the deaths are universally widespread. The methods they used are the ones in epidemiology uses for an epidemic that spreads uniformly throughout a region. We didn't uniformly carpet bomb the place.

The only way to get casualties that high is if we used a couple of nukes, systematically exterminated Iraqis or carpet bombed the place. And you could then back the results of pretty easily by simply finding masses of bodies to photograph. This is not consistent with the kind of evidence people who promote these kinds of statistics have been able to produce.

"You do know that the US trained, funded, and armed Saddam Hussein right?"

Yes but his regime was not a rogue state then and we were using him to combat a rogue state.

"You do know that the Iraqi people tried to overthrow Saddam in 1991 and the US opposed their effort to do so right?"

Yeah and Bush Sr. was an idiot for not allowing it. That we can agree on.

"The US is not rebuilding Iraq, they are destroying Iraq."

Sorry but we have been actively rebuilding it. http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/rpt/60857.htm

Besides that Bush doesn't want the war to continue anymore than you do. It's whats dragging his approval rating into the toliet. It would make no sense for him to not be trying to rebuild Iraq.

"How that money is used should be up to Iraqis, not Americans. It's their country, what is left of it."

All of our reconstruction projects are being done with the approval of their democratically elected government. The funding we put into their society IS being left up to them.

"The US should be forced to pay reparations because they committed the supreme international crime against that country."

I have philosophic problems with what you are defining as a "supreme international crime" here. The very fact that the international community can not distinguish between Nazi's who invaded peaceful countries and Coalition Forces who invaded a human rights abusing dictatorship, but allow intra-state genocides to occur without any actions taken against those states at all is indicative of the fact that they are too blind to even properly define a "war crime."

An analogous situation would go something like this. A cult leader has locked down his compound and started sacrificing the children of his followers. The only trouble is that the police and the feds have become senile. In the name of equal rights they let the cult leader continue. A band of vigilantes have enough of this and invade the compound. After shooting the cult leader and accidentally killing some innocent people in the process. The cops finally decide to take action- against the vigilantes who have decided to do what the cops were supposed to have been doing. You have to admit whether the vigilantes deserved reprisal or not this situation is mighty screwed up.

In this case the international community is senile. The fact that they can't distinguish freinds from enemies demonstrates that their authority can no longer be treated as legitimate. It's almost as though the police department were at some point not able to distinguish the good guys from the bad guys. If they can't do that they can't do their job. In which case their position becomes null and void.

Johanan Raatz on Apr 08, 2008 at 10:22 AM:

"Its funny how you think a totalitarian regime such as Sadaam's Iraq somehow has the same legitimacy as our own government."

Aaron; I think he's coming from a Rawlsian political philosophy. Rawls's philosophy was notorious for not being able to make a freind enemy distinction. That said it isn't exactly "bad" it's just senile.

Johanan Raatz on Apr 08, 2008 at 10:23 AM:

"Nevertheless one may say of it that it fiddles while Rome burns. It is excused by two facts: it does not know that it fiddles, and it does not know that Rome burns." ~Leo Strauss on modern liberalism

JF on Apr 08, 2008 at 11:16 PM:

The Iraqi government is not democratic because elections were highly flawed. They have elections in Egypt too, that doesn't make it a democracy.

JF on Apr 08, 2008 at 11:19 PM:

Here's my political philosophy:

3 "Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. 4 "Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted. 5 "Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth. 6 "Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied. 7 "Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy. 8 "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God. 9 "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God. 10 "Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness' sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

James on Apr 09, 2008 at 08:45 AM:

71% of Iraqis want troops out of Iraq NOW.

I think the Iraqis know of the situation a LITTLE better than Johanan "I'm obsessed with Rawls" Raatz or Aaron "believes anything the government says" Jeske.

Johanan Raatz on Apr 09, 2008 at 09:09 AM:

"The Iraqi government is not democratic because elections were highly flawed. They have elections in Egypt too, that doesn't make it a democracy."

They are fledging democracy but they are true democracy. They had over one hundred parties in their first democracy, and one the vast majority of their populace participated in the election process. It seems we've given them a democratic society that's far more active than even our own.

So if they aren't a democracy then neither are we.

Johanan Raatz on Apr 09, 2008 at 09:26 AM:

JF;

"Here's my political philosophy:"

OK:

and from prophet to priest,everyone deals falsely. 14They have healed the wound of my people lightly,saying, 'Peace, peace,'when there is no peace. ~Jeremiah 6:13-14

This reminds me alot of the "peace" movement. You can't have peace when there are terrorists crawling all over Iraq. Pulling out of Iraq will produce more violence not peace. So calling it the "peace" movement presents a falsehood. The only way to have peace is to see the war to completion.

"Blessed are the peacemakers,"

What do you think were trying to do there right now?

Johanan Raatz on Apr 09, 2008 at 09:35 AM:

"71% of Iraqis want troops out of Iraq NOW."

Well then we had better kill the rest of the insurgents and terrorists really fast so can finish up the war and be able to leave. However, we can't shirk our responsibilities there though and leave the Iraqis at the mercy of those we are fighting in the area.

"I think the Iraqis know of the situation a LITTLE better than Johanan "I'm obsessed with Rawls" Raatz"

Well at least I'm in the neoconservative intellectual category now.

"Aaron "believes anything the government says" Jeske."

Aaron's attitude is also appropriate:

(1) Let every person be subject to the governing authorities; for there is no authority except from God, and those authorities that exist have been instituted by God. ~Romans 13:1

JF on Apr 09, 2008 at 04:20 PM:

It's not a democracy because it wasn't a legitimate election. We're killing Iraqi civilians right now, that is not peace. It does not follow from "Love your enemies".

As far as the US being a democracy:

We have a one party state with two somewhat different factions, with a lot of overlap. Business party has a couple of factions. You find some differences between Democrats and Republicans. What should you do when they differ, that is up to you. Do you want to live in a democratic society or do you want to live in the society we have? Remember our society is not a democratic society and is not intended to be. If you take a course in political theory at a major university they will teach you that America is not a democracy. America is, what is called in technical literature, a polyarchy. It is the term invented by the leading democratic theorist, Yale Professor Robert Dahl. The idea goes back to James Madison and the foundation of the Constitution. A polyarchy is a system in which power resides in the hands of those who James Madison calls "the wealth of the nation, the responsible class of man." The rest of the population is fragmented, distracted, allowed to participate. Every couple of years they are allowed to vote, but they have little choice among the "responsible men," "the wealth of the nation." That's the way the country was founded. It was founded on the principle explained by Madison and the Constitutional Convention, that the primary goal of government is "to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority." The Constitution was then designed to ensure that, and there has been a lot of struggle over it through the years, a lot of victories have been won by the public and it is not the same as it was two centuries ago. But that remains. It remains the elite ideal and it is a constant struggle. Most of the public is well aware of it. Take the November 2000 elections. Among intellectuals, educated people, there was a great deal of outrage about the elections being "stolen," and article after article about the Supreme Court shenanigans, and so on. If you read through that literature, which was vast, you find that the constant refrain was that no one could understand why the public didn't care. The public is a game among intellectuals. The public just didn't care. It was never an issue among the public. Why wasn't it an issue? Attitudes in the US are very carefully monitored, business wants to know what people are thinking. There is, at Harvard, at the Kennedy School of Government, a project called the Vanishing Voter Project, where they study closely the attitudes of people towards the government. Turns out on the eve of the [2000] election, before the election, before Florida and the Supreme Court, about 75% of the population didn't think there was an election going on at all, at least as far as they were concerned. Their attitude towards the election was that it was some kind of business involving rich contributors, political leaders, and the public relations industry, which is training the candidates to say meaningless words, which they don't understand, that they think will pick up a few more votes. Well, that's 75% of the public, so of course they didn't care which side the Supreme Court handed the election to. Most people voted against their own interests, and consciously. They knew it didn't matter much. The public was supposed to vote on what are called "qualities" not issues, like 'do you like the guy?' That was the issue in the election. People didn't even know where candidates stood on issues. And it is not because they're stupid, it was extremely hard to figure out where the candidates stood on issues. The candidates are trained to make it hard. Most of the issues that the public cared about weren't even allowed to come up. So the major issues, if you look at public concerns, the major issues have to do with economic affairs. International economic affairs, what is called "globalization," trade deficit, job security, etc. None of those issues came up. Those issues are not brought up in the elections. The Free Trade Area of the Americas was coming up, there was going to be a summit of the Americas in a couple of months. Issues on which the public has extremely strong opinions, but none of it could be brought up in the elections for a very simple reason. If you look at attitudes, there is a very sharp difference between elite opinion, which is strongly in favor of these policies, and the public, which is strongly opposed to them. Therefore it can't come up in the election. It didn't. These issues are unmentioned. Virtually none of the public knew that the Free Trade Area of the Americas was coming along. So what do you do? You have to decide whether you want to live in a democratic society or not. If you want to live in the kind of society James Madison envisioned, that is a choice, but it is not necessary. Over the last hundred years there has been a very substantial extension of the right of the population of the ability to participate and make a difference. It is not overwhelming and there is always a struggle to beat it back, but there is no reason why that can't continue. That is the alternative. It is not a matter of naming one party or another, but changing the whole framework of which politics persists largely because of the extremely narrow concentration of economic power, which removes from the public arena most decisions that belong there. There is a major movement now to remove them even further. Well, you don't have to accept this.

Johanan Raatz on Apr 09, 2008 at 05:46 PM:

You had a long post so I will answer some now and try to answer some later;

"It's not a democracy because it wasn't a legitimate election."

The vast majority of people voted in it. Also their were so very many parties that it would be hard for it to even be "bought out" by economically powerful factions. By any reasonable definition it was perfectly legitimate. I believe I pointed that out in my last post.

"We're killing Iraqi civilians right now,"

We're killing insurgents to protect Iraqi citizens from their attacks. Just because some of them are native born terrorists does not mean we are "killing civilians."

"that is not peace. It does not follow from "Love your enemies"."

If we pulled out now. Many, many, many, more people would die than have died, even if you hold to the million+ statistic. Pulling out would not be the opposite of loving your neighbor, and the opposite of loving your enemy by providing him a free and democratic society to change his ways in.

Johanan Raatz on Apr 09, 2008 at 06:00 PM:

"Do you want to live in a democratic society or do you want to live in the society we have? Remember our society is not a democratic society and is not intended to be."

No I do not want to live in a "pure" democracy if that is what you mean.

"If you take a course in political theory at a major university they will teach you that America is not a democracy."

We live in a democratic republic. That is superior to a pure democracy because a pure democracies allows the majority to vote against universal principles which produces democratic failures. When that happens democracy contradicts itself and the whole system collapses. The American revolution produced a democratic republic which has culminated in the greatest political experiment of all time. The French revolution produced a pure democracy and very quickly the whole thing disintegrated into mass guilotinings and eventually disolved into a military dictatorship under Napolean. (not that I don't think Napolean was cool, but the fact he was necessitated by pure democracy demonstrated the failure of pure democracy.

"A polyarchy is a system in which power resides in the hands of those who James Madison calls "the wealth of the nation, the responsible class of man."

A good society needs wise statesmen to lead it. A pure democracy can vote against civic virtues because excellence is itself always in the minority. As such democracy is only appropriate when it has a republican base.

"It remains the elite ideal and it is a constant struggle. Most of the public is well aware of it."

Standards of excellence in society is always elite by definition. It is something that excels above the average so this is a good thing.

"Turns out on the eve of the [2000] election, before the election, before Florida and the Supreme Court, about 75% of the population didn't think there was an election going on at all, at least as far as they were concerned"

Um alright. I've done some investigation into this over the years and the supprising truth is that Bush did win the first election. A liberal organization did a recount after the election by the standards advocated by Gore and Bush still won. Now 2004 is somewhat different. The evidence there suggests that the Republicans may have rigged Ohio. However more evidence suggests that the Democrats may have rigged Wisconsin. So if we swap the states Bush still wins the election.

Johanan Raatz on Apr 09, 2008 at 06:12 PM:

"It is not a matter of naming one party or another, but changing the whole framework of which politics persists largely because of the extremely narrow concentration of economic power,"

I wrote an article last week on the topic of capitalism's effects on democracy. The conclusion I came to is that this kind of concentration is needed as it is a vital tool for statesmen to use to correct democratic failures when they occur:

http://uwmpost.com/article/52/25/3333-Capitalism-and-Democracy

As such they are often a vital component in maintaining a healthy society.

"which removes from the public arena most decisions that belong there."

Yes but also often ones that do not as I pointed out in my article last week.

"You have to decide whether you want to live in a democratic society or not. If you want to live in the kind of society James Madison envisioned, that is a choice, but it is not necessary. Over the last hundred years there has been a very substantial extension of the right of the population of the ability to participate and make a difference."

I would prefer Madison's society, as a republic is fundamentally superior to a democracy. Now democracy is a good feature to add as it ensures that the laws of republics are kept within reasonable bounds. However, pure democracies have no safeguards to prevent the majority of people from making the wrong choices.

Johanan Raatz on Apr 09, 2008 at 06:26 PM:

"There is a major movement now to remove them even further. Well, you don't have to accept this."

I know. I'm a part of that movement. I'm writing an article on the political philosopher Hobbes next week where I will explain my position on this in greater detail. For now I will point out that this is a structural necessity as the society that was created in 1776 largely believed in the universal principles it was founded on. Today moral relativism is rampant largely due to the negative influence of critical theorists and the people like John Rawls who facillitated them. Because of this, a different structure of government is needed to keep up with changes like these. As this movement is very necessary for wise statesmen to properly govern society by universal principles.

Here is a clip of one of my favorite neoconservative intellectuals. It sums up my views on this very concisely:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvNoKmORYMM

I think this is where the real change needs to take place.

Johanan Raatz on Apr 09, 2008 at 07:57 PM:

Jeff;

Here is another article I wrote on democracy (in this case in relation to foriegn policy).

http://uwmpost.com/article/52/8/2566-Democracy-doesn-t-equal-freedom-

One of the problems I have with pure democracy is that if allows people's rights to be at the whim of the majority.

Wake up on Apr 11, 2008 at 10:02 PM:

War is over. Occupation has arrived. How long is a black hole? The same as the Iraq occupation will last. 4000 soldiers have died. The same argument for Vietnam lives again. The President sleept through History class. Honor the Troops, with bringing them Home, Now.