Black Dog

Technically no, as those occurances were part of the civil order under Saddam. Note that atrocities under Saddam, horrific as they unquestionably were, were limited primarily to the regime's political oppossition. Under the current set of circumstances, violence, daeth and destruction are far more indiscriminate. But general crime and lawlessness are also epidemic. Business is boooming in the black market (since most goods are in short supply). Violent crime, including kidnapping and murder has been on the rise since the occupation began. Obviously you haven't been paying attention to the nature of the insurgency. Three's no central leadership, no central ideaology. The whole works is a mish-mash of former fighters from Saddam's forces, tribal groups, and a small number of foreign jihadis (a small faction that has been overwhelmingly responsible for teerrorist activities). the only unifying charateristic all the factions seem to share is the ouster of the U.S. from Iraq. It just so happens that the U.S.'s handling of the war from Day One set the stage for the current state of affairs. I wonder how uniformly your standards apply. 27 Die in Suicide Attack in Baghdad as U.S. Troops Hand Out Candy and Toys US airstrike near Mosul kills civilians What's the difference?

This: Was a response to this: What my reply stated was that, yes, german atrocities were commited in the sevice of the German state and the Nazi ideaology. In other words, the Wermacht was simply "doing what they believed in". the Yugoslav Army was doing "what they believed in' when it perpetrated massacres in Bosnia and Kosovo. The Red Army was doing what it belived in when it crushed the Prauge Spring. And so on. Conclusion? The same principles which guide the Canadian soldier (that is: service to country and cause) have, historically, led to great crimes. That is in no way comparable to saying "Canadians are evil", but an acknolwedgement of the ultimate moral bankruptcy behind the enterprise of war. See "To the Victor the Spoils" by Sean Longden. No not all soldiers are willing. But obviously, given the prevelance of atrocities committed by armed forces, I think there is something to the theory that once the social prohibition on killing is removed, the door is open to other acts of inhumanity. Interesting you mention the resistance to firing weapons. There's a book I highly reccomend called "On Killing" by Dave Grossman, a retired US Army Ranger and psychologist whose thesis is that taking another human being's life is a highly unnatural act which can only be overcome through conditioning designed to break down existing mores and norms and to accept a new set of values that embrace destruction, violence, and death as a way of life. The same psychology that enables killing in combat also enables the commission of atrocities, even by "civilized" soldiers acting according to the accepted norms and rules of war. I don't discount the possibility that anyone, you and me both included, can be conditioned to kill.

The two situations (military occupation by a foreign power versus civil governance) are simply not analagous. The U.S. invasion precipitated the breakdown of the civil order in Iraq, therefore it is the occupiers' responsibility under international law (and their own standards) to uphold civil order. By summarily dismissing the entire Iraqi army, police, and security forces shortly after the war (without a back-up plan for maintaining order), the U.S. S. created the conditions for increased crime and lawlessness. Furthermore (as evidenced by the flurry of post-Saddam looting) the U.S. failed to fulfill its obligation to maintain public order. The only way your analogy would work is if the government of Canada first disbanded the RCMP, instituted mrtial law, but neglected to intercede in the resulting civil strife.

Your scenario begs the question of what is currently preventing Shia militias from taking on the burden of security (the obvious answer being that such a tactic would further enflame sectarian tensions and lead to a full-blown civil war instead of the simmering civil strife we're currently seeing). Is that a desirable outcome?

What's your point? Simply because predictions of doom and gloom in Germany after the war were not borne out, it does not stand to reason that the same is true of Iraq.

In other words, if the death does not get reported, it doesn't get tallied.

In practice, Werwolf amounted to next to nothing Postwar Iraq Is No Germany, Historians Say Other recent defeatist headlines: Violence marches on More. Gunmen kill 24 Anyone who thinks there's any comparison to be made between the levels of post war violence in Iraq today and Germany 60 years ago is just plain wrong.

AG, you need to take a look and see the logical inconsistencies in yiour argument. You say: Yet you also acknowledge the historical realities of Canadians being given official sanction to commit atrocities here: .So, if Canadians can be convinced to kill surrendering enemy forces, what makes you so positive they cannot be convinced to undertake other atrocities? Further, what distinguishes acts of collective punishment inflicted by the Nazis (such as the destruction of villages in reprisal for resistance activities) from acts of collective punishment committed by Canadians (executing surrendered SS members)?

So where were the mass graves containing thousands of bodies? Again: atrocities occured. Savage war crimes were commmitted. Body Count: War in Kosovo Was Cruel, Bitter, Savage; Genocide It Wasn't (Note: the WSJ is no left wing source, but a solid establishment paper. Also note that the authour, Danierl Pearl, was later executed by Islamic militants in Pakistan) Where did I say that? So what you seem to be saying is that killing is only wrong when it deviates from the standards set down by the military brass. Yet many Nazi atocities were committed within the boundaries of the Wermacht's rules of engagement (for example, massacres of Belgian villages were considered acceptable responses to resistance activities). There are countless examples throughout history of military personnel either going outside accepted RoE or receiving official sanction to commit atorcities. You are taking it as a matter of faith that Canadians would somehow be unique among history's fighting forces in their inability to commit atrocities. Under the right circumstances, probably.

Frankly, that's just wrong. For one thing, Al Qaeda doesn't really exist anymore in terms of being a cohesive organization with central leadership etc. Rather, Al Qaeda has become an ideological movement, its adherent scattered and operating independantly. This is a direct result of the "war on terror", which to date has had the equivilant effect of of destroying a dandelion by scattering its seeds across the lawn. It's hard to argue that thousands of Iraqis would have suddenly taken up arms against their occupires if there was no occupation, nor would foreign jihadis flock to Iraq to learn tactics and establish ties with other factions if the U.S. hadn't stepped in. So its safe to say that the war in Iraq has most definitely given Al Qaeda a boost, whereas yopur speculation that not invading Iraq would have given Al Qaeda a boost is mere speculation. Since we are dealing with the present realities, the point that western responses to terror to date have not hindered terrorism, but have advanced the cause of the "enemy" is decidedly NOT moot. There may be some value in that the 9-11 attacks place dteh U.S. in a Catch 22 situation, but its interesting that the one main course of action that hasn't been put forward (that is: a re-evaluation of foreign policy and an decrease in foreign entaglements) is the only one that would have likely reduced the terrorist threat to western nations.

Fighting escalates, as the U.S. begins drawing down it's troop commitments, emboldening the insurgency, which begins recieving training and equipment from Iran and China. Ethnic strife continues to grow, as political dithering continues to delay the governmwent from establishing its trappings. On the ground, things will get even worse as corruption and mismanagment continue to hamper resconstruction eforts. The Iraqi military will remain an ineffective fighting force. The U.S. withdraws all but a handful of troops, garrisoned in heavily fortified and isolated permanent bases. In a last ditch effort, Iraqi politicos decide to pursue a strategy of decentralization to create separate Kurdish, Sunni and Shiite areas. Just prior to the ratification of the new Federated States of Iraq's constitution, a massive and well-organized insurgent assault (featuring armour, air support and a suspiciously large number of caucasians carrying M-5 rifles) routs the battered Iraqi Security forces and ousts the government. New Iraqi central government established under a Sunni stongman. Plus ca change, plus c’est la même chose.

Dude, you should really read your own sources. If you'l look at the WaPo article again, you'll notice this little sidebar:

Derision. Woe betide the president that would take a hatchet to the Pentagon's budget. There are millions of Americans whose livelihoods depend on the permanent war economy and millions of American companies who's bottom lines are dependant on the welfare program that is military spending.

My mistake. What happens when federal expenditures exceed revenue? Social Security?

Fedweral government revenues did increase loast year. But prior to that, total federal revenues declined to their lowest level since 1959. Yes, revenues in early 2005 were higher than expected, However, administration estimates of deficit levels for the coming years appear unrealistically low and also fail to account for any spending increases (for example, the OMB's recent Mid-Session Review includes no funding after 2006 for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan or for the broader war on terrorism.) Immigration could help if immigration rates were increased. Current U.S. immigration rates are at about 1 milion immigrants a year (obviously not all will be of working age) . At current rates, the number of Americans under the age of 20 will increase by five percent, the number of working age Americans (age 20-64) will increase by 24 percent, and the number of senior citizens will jump by at least 112 percent over the next 40 years. So we're not just talking a matter of replacing the current workforce, but paying for the one that has gone before. Whether they withdraw from Iraq is not realy relevant to the question of spending. An Iraq pull out (and assuming they don't go after Iran next) will curb costs, but note that military spending to date (For Fiscal Year 2005 it was $420.7 billion, up from $399.1 billion in fiscal '04, while the budget request for 2006 is $441.6 billion) does not include costs of Iraq, Afghanistan or homeland security. As it stands, military spending eats up half of the U.S.'s discretionary spending budget (compared to the next largest items, education and health,which eat 6.9% and 6.1% of discretionary budget, respectively). Anyone who thinks this is a sustainable state of affairs (also given unknowns like potential terorist attacks or future military adventures) is whistling past the graveyard.

Which speaks to the way this conflict has been cast: not as a conflict of nationalities or states, but as a "clash of civilizations". Islam versus the West. Of course none of the comparisons stand up to scrutiny, as the situations are not directly analagous: there was no "war on Catholiscism" being preached in Ireland, nor were foreign troops occupying Indian soil. It's not hard to grasp that some individuals will identify with the broader identity of Islam over national ones. And in the climate of the war on terror (seen by Muslims everywhere as another chapter in the west's historic assault on Islam itself), where an "us versus them" mentality is cultivated by leadership on both sides, it's easy to see why some of "us" would identify with "them". Okay: why? What is it that is so appealing about this ideaology? What is it's pulll on otherwise westernized individuals liek thos ebehind the London blast? Actually it doesn't seem to be about casualties as much as it is about creating a climate of fear. The World Trade Centre wasn't selected for the number of people that it contained, but for its symbolic value. Casulaties are secondary.

Oh and as for your claims about the percision of NATO airstrikes, I just came across this: The Kosovo cover up

I never said there weren't atrocities: quite the opposite. However, there's no evidence they were on the scale NATO said they were. Oh and two BBC articles you link to support my thesis that the major atrocities were spurred by the NATO air campaign: 120 dead is indeed a horrific tally, no question. It was indeed a war crime. However, it was not genocide. Yes. And I'm not saying it's a phenomenon limited to Germans, given the number of atrocities committed on a daily basis by military personnel. I don't accept it because I don't think it's true. Once you tell someone that murder is justifiable in service of a cause, once that barrier is broken down, it's a fairly simple matter to extend that same leeway to anyone who stands against said cause, even if they are women and children. I'm certain that, under the right set of circumstances, even the most most upstanding Canadian soldier could and would point their weapon at a woman or child and pull the trigger.

How many Cuban emigres oppose Castro, despite their never having set foot in Cuba? How many Americans of Irish descent supported the IRA? How about the Air India bombing? How many sectarian conflicts carry over across genarational and physical borders? Plenty. What's your point (other than your usual one that all Muslims, especially Arabs, are evil)? As I said above, such behaviour is clearly not confined to Muslims.

Obviously someone or something convinced them to strike against thei rhost country. Did they do it because they hated the freedoms they enjoyed as UK citizens, then? I don't think Canada's immigrant experience and that of the UK are analagous.

The crazy conspiracy seems to have also gripped the British authorities. Police seek London bombing mastermind

If there's no question of him breaking the law, why the grand jury investigation? As for the facts of the leak: Under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982--a crime is committed when a government official "intentionally discloses any information identifying" an undercover intelligence officer. Rove is said to have told Time's Matt Cooper that Joseph Wilson's wife (according to the e-mail from Rove) "apparently works at the agency on wmd issues." he may not have said "Valerie Plame, but the law makes no distinction. By disclosing Wilson's wife's relationship to the CIA, Rove was passing classified information to a reporter, information that identified an undercover intelligence officer. Furthermore, even if one disregards the AAPA, there's still the matter of Rove uttering false statements and the possibility taht he could be indicted under the Espionage Act for willfully communicating "information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States". Those are the facts. What's your spin?

Weak Case Against Milosevic has Hague in 'a panic'

A case against NATO NATO war crimes: the complaint No such grave was found. Where are the bodies? No genocide. No justification. See, we hav ethis thing in our country called "due process": its one of thos ethings that separates us from the tyrranical regimes we expressly oppose. yet here's a case wher ethousands were denied the right of due process of law. How is that at all defensible (even if you do not agree, you are justifying internment). You're squirming a bit now. You're trying to tell me that Nazis may have initially beleived in the cause and joined up (thus, according to your reasoning, fulfilling their duty as good citizens). Yet, once they saw what there country stood for (despite the central role of anti-semetism and racial purity in the Nazi ideaology), they wanted to back out but couldn't under penalty of death (even though there was no such penalty). If that were the case, how were the Nazis able to run anad maintain such an efficient killing machine? Somebody must have beleive dthat seving his country and killing innocents were one in the same. Why is it so hard to accept that everyone is capable of performing barabaric acts? Indeed, the more power a person has, the more youi convince them of the rightness of their cause, the more likely they are to commit such acts. All soldiers have the right to refuse to obey an illegal order. Obviously there were Nazis who refused and, by your own admission, were reasssigned, not killed. So you're just wrong. (Incidentally, any Canadian soldier who didn't want to fight faced death or jail. That sounds like being forced to do something, doesn't it.)

PR I think the question was about someone (ie. justice of the Peace) who refused to perform gay marriages for reasons other than religiious ones. I don't think they have any kind of protection. Nor should they.