/rant

The ends justify the means, and if the means means letting Saddam torture then so be it.

If it isn’t their families being tortured or if they can’t derive any benefit from it, it doesn’t seem real to them.

Hypocrisy implies an inconsistency between their actions and beliefs, but to me there is no inconsistency between the Absolute Power they want and the means they are willing to get it.

No mention of the enforcement of law; nor of the reality that only humans are enforcing human law on earth. And humans make mistakes.

Abu included criminal abuse, mostly not torture (threats of dogs, not actual dogs killing people. At least one dog bite – each bite was torture.) Gen Karpinski was fired in Jan., 2004; she’s also been demoted.

You are a hypocrite, like most anti-war folk who say they oppose torture. Is torturing 100 people better or worse than torturing 200? or 500? or 1000?

Everybody who’s honestly against torture will say all torture is bad, but less is always better than more.
So how many Iraqis did Saddam kill/ torture in custody in his last 3 years? 500? 1000? 5000?
I really don’t know. I believe it’s in the 1000 – 10 000 range (smaller range than the Lancet’s silly body count).
What do you believe about how many Saddam killed in custody?

Were more Iraqis killed in custody under Saddam, or under the US?

Neo addressed your hypocrisy in earlier posts — you cowardly Anon who wants to “keep his hands clean”.

You prolly voted for Clinton in 1996, after he lied about “no genocide” in Rwanda — but he kept his hands clean. If so, you supported the torturous deaths of some 600 000.

Grackle, the UN exists, but I don’t like it, support it, nor have much faith in it. I think the US should establish a Human Rights Enforcement Group to take military action, in extreme cases, against non-democracies who are excessively violating human rights.

Yes, they thought it through. The political alliance they had was for removing Iraq from Kuwait and even the British were not into toppling Saddam. They also felt that we had weakened him enough that the ensuing civil war would take him out (which, obviously, didn’t happen) or if it didn’t then we had set him back at least ten years. During that time they hoped that sanctions and weapons inspectors would stop him (they didn’t), and,lastly, we still had the option of removing him and time to get allies for that. You seem to be under the impression that nothing other than “Civil war – run run run!” was what they said when it wasn’t even close. This is well documented.

You seem to also forget that Powell, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Pearle, Wolfowitz, and quite a few of the OIF planners were also the main strategic planners for Desert Storm (note strategic, not tactical). They were quite aware of why Bush Sr. did what he did considering they were the ones who helped make the decision.

You can’t praise the people who made the first decision and denegrate the people who made the second as they are the same people.

This is why many people do not give ideas such as that much respect. Your ideas are based on trusting you, that you have fully researched the situation and have given a well thought out idea. When, in fact, you have obviously missed quite a few simple, easily verfiable, and important details. Since your basic thesis is that this type of logic (logic based on incomplete data) is invalid and makes the person making it bad/wrong you shoot yourself – you are doing it just as bad, if not worse, than those you are denigrating. You loose most, if not all, of your credibility doing that to anyone who is not already a believer.

Ignoring Saddam was not an option. People can refuse to acknowledge that reality if the choose, but we were either going to let him do what he wanted, when where and how he wanted or we were going to have to deal with him. That is a fact.

What is happening in Iraq is not a civil war yet, but the truth is if the neo cons are failures..what about those liberals who for years complained about the US not liberating the poor and oppressed and who treated the UN and its edicts like the word of God? Are they now saying that might makes right and only fools really think brown swarthy Muslims can rule themselves?

That sounds like an admission of failure on the part of liberal democracy to me.

To think that at the very moment Churchill said this his government was holding thousands upon thousands of German and Italian detainees in prison camps, none of whom had any prospect of receiving a judgement before his peers. What a hypocrite!

“The Anglo-American tradition going back to the Scottish Enlightenment (and Montesquieu) however holds that you have to let things develop on their own, and interfering just creates an artificial set up.”

Quite aside from the fact that I think this mistates the enlightenment postion, I wonder how the hell things in Iraq were supposed to “develop on their own” when the entire country was crushed under the boot of a heinous dictatorship. Removing that boot was undoubtedly necessary for any sort of natural developments to occur.

The question “what would it take to make you change your mind about neoconservatism” is a very good one, even if it may not have been intended that way. Ultimately the idea underpinning the neo-con agenda is that all people, when given the choice and understanding that choice, will choose to live under something resembling liberal democracy. This hypothesis is very hard to prove or disprove. Is it then an article of faith?

Much I heartily disagree with those who believe that the actions of a dozen crazies in blowing up a mosque prove that Iraqis want to be ruled by a dictator, I think it’s a question that deserves attention. It’s undeniable that at all sorts of points in history large majorities of various populations have opted for the strong man over democracy. I do think that if the US and her allies do in fact make a whole hearted attempt to provide the conditions for Iraqi freedom, over an extended peiod of time, and after all of that the Iraqis elect the next Khomeini, I would have to conclude that the idea is likely worng. But the victory of a minority of fascist thugs or religious fanatics (of whatever party) would prove no such thing.

The best way to get rid of a hornet’s nest is to wait until the hornets are dormant or sleeping. Use poison to kill the hornets, and, when you’re sure there’s no activity in the nest, remove it.

Using a baseball bat is a poor option, but allowing the hornets to take over your house or garden is even worse.

We did nothing about the hornet nest in the first Gulf War. The US let it keep stinging for 13 years in hopes that the Chief Hornet would relent & try to live peacefully. I think 13 years is long enough to “think it through.” My basic tenet is: First, “make sure no harm comes to the US & its allies,” with a corollary of “put American interests first even if the volatile elements of a particular country may opt for civil war.”

From “Jews Without Mercy,” p.viii:

“I am obliged to write it (this book)because I have, except for a few comic moments, always been pleased to be a Jew. The gift deserves to be defended.”
Anti-Semitism?

Even Kamels should know something before Talking.