Black Dog

So your solution is what? To get more politicians on the corporate teat? As near as I can tell, you seem quite in favor of anyone with money being able to overwhelm the electorate with their message. Again: you want teh best democracy money can buy.

That's not how it works, unfortunately. How long have human rights organizations been trying to call attention to abuses in Tibet, Myanmar, Uzbekitsan, Colombia, Africa and elsewhere? How much play do these campaigns get in the mainstream? They can shout this from the mountain top and it won't make a difference if no one is listening. Therefore, it becomes necessary to use high-profile cases like the torture at Abu Gharabi to raise the organizations profile. There's no doubt that the coverage of this scandal has created an awareness of these humanitarian orgaizations and of the work they do. Hopefully, that will translate into broader support for campaigns against abuses in other parts of the world. I'm not sure what you expect these organizations to do, Hugo. Do you expect Amnesty International to miraculously solve every humanitarian crisis, or that the Red Cross is negligent because lesser known human rights abuses aren't being trumpeted from the front of every newspaper? These are good organizations doing good work, yet you constantlly deride them. If only you had even a smidgen of criticism for the Donald Rumsfelds of this world, people who give lip-service to human rights and democracy while backing the worst crimes of thugs like Saddam Hussein or Suharto. They are the one's most worthy of scorn and censure, for they are the ones with the power to stop these crimes, yet do nothing.

Despite what Harper says, this is not a free speech issue, it's about keeping the democratic process in the hands of the people, not just those with money to burn on political action campaigns. Exactly. And who knows, maybe people will have to get a little more involved in the process, instead of just voting along party lines, or for the candidate with slickest PR campaign. Otherwise, we'd end up like the States: the best democracy money can buy.

More... Behind the scenes, US tightens grip on Iraq's future And more: WMD intelligence "deliberately misleading": Powell *take note of how Powell's own handlers try to pull him off the air. Not mentioned, of course, is the fact that the intelligence on Iraq was routed from the CIA through the D.O.D and the Office of Special Plans, which routinely rewrote the CIA's intelligence estimates on Iraq's weapons programs, removing caveats such as 'likely,' 'probably' and 'may' as a way of depicting the country as an immediate threat. Of course, seeing as how the Republicans are the party of personal responsibility, we can expect Powell to step down anyday, right? Right?

Yadda yadda yadda. If you feel the war is justified based on legal niggling (can I also expect you to support a U.S.-led coalition to bring regime change to Israel too?) fine. But as I've said, and will say no more, the war was "sold" on the basis that Saddam had "stockpiles" of WMD that posed an "immediate" threat to world stability. There wa sno basis for immediate military action. the sanctions were working. The inspections were working. I'm not defending the methods or the objectives of the insugency, only stating that it is their right to resist an occupying foreign army. Gee, and who benefits from high oil prices...hmmm... Care to back that up? I look around I see Halliburton (Cheney's old pals) getting lucrative deals, I see Betchel, Fluor, Louis Berger and Parsons. All are US-owned and headquartered. Anyway, oil (who controls the supply and who profits) is the cornerstone of the U.S. policy vis a vis Iraq, and has been for a while. Sounds like good ol' fashioned imperialism to me, wot? Really, we must keep an eye on these savages, gawd knows they can't be trusted to manage their own affairs. Pass me a crumpet, Major. Does that figure actually not include the deaths incurred during the Iran/Iraq war? How many during the sanctions? Not to defend Saddam, but I think the numbers lie. More to the point, are we judging killers by volume now? Are the 10,000+ Iraqis that have died in the past year any better off than they were? Are their families? It's looking more and more like the Bush regime has no plan for Iraq, indeed, lacked a plan from the outset, and it's Iraqis who pay the price. :angry: I don't remember any nukes on 9-11, but whatever. To be frank, that's crap. The whole doctrine of "preemptive" war is crap. You cannot fight terrorism with brute military force. Turn over civil adminstration to the UN for a quick transition to a new governing council. Announce a date for internationally overseen regional elections. Withdraw the bulk of combat troops, focus on training Iraqis to do the job of keeping the peace and give them the means to do so. Send the meassage to the Iraqi people: "we've screwed up, so we're letting you take over. If you need help, we and the international community will oblige." I really don't know if this is the solution. But I can tell you that the deeper the U.S sinks, the less chance Iraq will ever flourish as a democracy.

Haven't been looking. Cypress, maybe? Oh really? Could it be because the U.S. atrocities in Iraq happen to be the top story today? Why I open the newspaper and what do I see? U.S. atrocities in Iraq! The rest is bull, too, as even a cursory glance at the main page of any of these organization's web sites wil reveal the scope of their work. Here are the top headlines from HRW. Amnesty: Cuba Search Camobodia It's all there. I don't believe you actually did look, because it took me one minute to find those pages. I think it's an example of how entrenched preconceptions die hard, even in the face of evidence. It seems you see the words "U.S. atrocities" and blank on everything else.

Or you could just wallow in your preconceptions. Whatever. It's not like you'll vote NDP anyway. That is, to be blunt, bullshit. Your attacking the NDP on the basis of your own characterization of them as a radical leftist party. It's a bit like asking "have you stopped beating your wife." Or, to turn the tables, I'd like to state categorically that the Canadian Alliance is nothing more that an extremist party of religious zealots and bigots who's only goal is to turn Canada into a vassal state of the U.S.A. and to enrich themselves and their corporate friends at the expense of the average citizen. I challenge anyone to prove me wrong, but be warned: my minds already made up. . really aren't very useful except in a battle of mindless rhetoric. Bingo.

I posted a link to the ND's party policies, which you ignored. I'm not here to breast feed you, especially since you've shown no interest in doing anything more than sniping. No debate as to why certain policies are unsound. Just keep using "socialist" as a perjorative and whacking away at the "hardened leftist" straw man. Attaboy. Like I said, you're mind is made up, why should I wast emy time?

That's politics: it gets ugly. The Alli...er..Conservatives shouldn't have to worry, though, since surely they've exorcised all their demons like Larry Spencer and Stockwell Day, right?

Pssst...moderates (by definition) don't come from either side of the political spectrum. Can't stress that point enough. Conservative economic policies have failed in their stated aims at every level. Even in oil-rich Alberta, where the government must resort to creative accounting to hide its flush coffers, health crae, infrastructure and education are decaying.

WHAM! And the straw man takes a punishing blow! "Tax income earners": well, it's more productive than taxing people who don't have any money. Very insightful. D'ya even know what "progressive taxation" means? Well, it does sound like you could use adult supervision... And where, pray tell, will all the money for our big throbbing military come from, what with all them tax cuts, hmmmm? Why bother? You already have your preconcieved notions firmly in place and aren't all that interested in doing anything but spouting them off. What's yer point, exactly?

That's what progressive taxation is for sunshine. Is that from the Cons handbook? "Don't let your total ignorance of the facts get in the way of a good straw man." NDP policies.

Tweedledum and Tweedledee? Yeah: a commintment to balanced budgets, adequately funded social programs=communism.

If you build it they will come. Got some articles, issues, ideas on the Canada/US subject? Then post 'em. Canadian politics and international affairs happen to be pretty hot topics at the moment, don't you know. Another dig at the CBC, presumably for...what exactly? Too much international coverage? I liek lots of international coverage, especially in the age of globalization. We could be more self-absorbed and inward-looking, I suppose. But then we'd be more like the U.S. media which doesn't give two craps about anything beyond its borders or directly involving Americans. This, in turn, creates a kind of cultural myopia that leads to feelings of superiority, as well as rampant ignorance about the way the rest of the world is.

No reason they can't do both. And I skimmed the UN's main site and found lots of material on third world economic and social development and human rights. As far as the "UN-backed human-rights organisations" you mentioned, which one's? Amnesty International does yeoman's work campaigning for human rights all over the world, as does Human Rights Watch, and the International Red Cross. I think accusing any of these organizations of letting things slide in the third world is, at best, a misrepresentation. The United Nations Human Rights Watch Amnesty International Red Cross Then of course you get into regional complexities, liek Turkey's (another western friend and human rights abuser) opposition to an independant Kurdisstan. But I agree: that would probably be the best deal: a group of semi-autonomous provinces in a loose confederation woul dmake a good solution.

Well, if the west is to maintain it's positioning as the leader in domestic human rights, then I don't see why we shouldn't push for more change. And, given teh spread of AIDS, the scourge of poverty, overpopulation, disease and war in the Thid World, I don't have a problem with abortion or sex ed. Three civilian deaths do not a "resistance" make. the Werewolf amounted to nothing. There was no major campaign of sabotage. There was no destruction of water mains or energy plants worth noting. In fact, the far greater problem for the occupying forces was the misbehavior of desperate displaced persons, who accounted for much of the crime in the American zone. German historian Golo Mann summed it up in The History of Germany Since 1789, "The [Germans'] readiness to work with the victors, to carry out their orders, to accept their advice and their help was genuine; of the resistance which the Allies had expected in the way of 'werewolf' units and nocturnal guerrilla activities, there was no sign. …" Antony Beevor observes in The Fall of Berlin 1945, wrote: "the Allies found that Werwolf was a fiasco. Bunkers prepared for Werwolf operations had supplies for 10-15 days only and the fanaticism of the Hitler Youth members they captured had entirely disappeared. They were no more than 'frightened, unhappy youths'. Few resorted to the suicide pills which they had been given to escape the strain of interrogation and, above all, the inducement to commit treason. Many, when sent off by their controllers to prepare terrorist acts, had sneaked home. Perhaps. For example, is there a reason Iraq could not exists as three or four seperate, semi-autonomous states?

You did, apparently, miss Taguba's report, which chonicled an array of physical and mental abuse that went well beyond the boundaries of human conduct. But I guess if the victim lives, there's nothing wrong with alittle brromstick sodomy, eh? Is this the new moral reletavism of the right? Are we now reduced between simply choosing between lesser evils? Never said it was a conspiracy, just that the official line doesn't jibe with what our eyes see. That remains to be seen, depending on the results of the investigation. We're in full bureaucrat coverup mode now. Unless you actually buy the whole "bad apples" excuse? Do you just skim the headlines? Of course. I don't play favorites. (But I doubt there's any bars in Mecca). What does this hav eto do with anything?

I'm not disputing the fact that many Muslim countries suffer from a lack of freedom. However, this often leads to people confusing correlation with causation and blaming Islam itself for the lack of fredom, when it is merely one factor among many.

"Seems" is the operative word. This sounds like another one of those canards that gets tossed around without much backing. I don't think a exclusive club of "have" countries is the way to bring about peaceful change in the rest of the world. These are the sam epeople who are propping up the "tin pot" dictators you mention, because it's good for business. Is there any reason to think an exclusive club of democracies would behave any different? I expect the rest of the world would look at such a body as an imperialist old boys club bent on keeping the third world in its place. [quibble]Actually there was no post-war resistance in Germany, but that reallt is beside the point.[/quibble] I think this kind of characterization of the insurgency is not only wrong, but dangerous. It's not a single, monolithic entity, but a number highly factionalized groups (often organized along tribal lines) that includes Saddam loyalists, religious factions (like the Mutqada al-Sadr's milita), foreign mujahhadeen and nationlist elements. The problem with applying a universal identity to the insurgency is that it leads to "one solution fits all" thinking. The sheer complexity of the situation requires complex thinking. Never mind teh domestic response: what about the response from the Arab world, the very people who need to be onside if the alleged democratic experiment is to succeed? How would images of teh U.S. bombing the bejeezus out of the very people they claim to be liberating play internationally? Nonetheless, i get your point. Well, that's a scary thought. Interesting idea. Totally ignores the realities of international relations in an attempt to paint a pictuire of acorrupt and instrangient UN bent on foiling the U.S. bid to spread democracy and cute puppies the world over. Nevermind that tthe U,.S. has consistently failed to pony up millions of dollars in back dues to the UN or that the U.S. continuously vetoes resolutions against Israel, and abrogates international treaties on a whim. If the UN, or othe rinternational body, is to function, all nations must have a equal voice. Certain members, be they the US or France or anyone else, should not operate outside the paramaters of the very laws they agreed to abide by simply because they have the power to do so.

No I certainly recognize other factors were at play (of course, we would disagree on what they were), but the WMD was the main hook of the case against Iraq. When human rights, etc. were mentioned, they were usually tucked in after lofty appraisals of Saddam's WMD threat. Of course there's room for improvement. I think much of the problem lies with the power of the Security Council, especially, especially the veto. But is that any reason to scrap the entire body of international law? The same argument can be made that China's atrocities, as well as thouse perpetrated by western nations go unpunished by virtue of the power disparity between east and west. I disagree. While a military victory may look good on paper and for the cameras, the current situation in Iraq was utterly predictable (in fact, many on the anti-war side predicted a long, drawn out guerrilla conflict). I expect other nations on the U.S.'s hitlist are taking careful note of the Iraqi insurgency and preparing themselves accordingly. I agree. Continued support of some of the world's worst regimes totally undermines the west's stated interest in spreading democracy. But it seems economic and political realities always trump human rights.

I see were getting down to the nitty-gritty legalise. As such, I'll keep letting the lawyers do the talking: 1441 was not that resolution. The "all necessary force" quote was in reference to the text of 678. Th eonly mention of the consequenses for violating the extensive term sof 1441 was at the end: However, what those consequenses were would be determined by another meeting of the UNSC. Again, previous resolutions vis a vis Kuwait were no longer valid, as coalition states still required SC approval before resuming hositilites. Furthermore, the argument can be made that 687 was further breached by the U.S. and UK when intelligence operatives were passed off as UN weapons inspectors. Link This itself constituted a "violation of a provision essential to the accomplishment of the object or purpose of the treaty" (as set down in the ceasefire).

This Berg thing is getting weird. First we have the revelations that Berg was held by coalition authorities for some unknow reason, visited by the FBI several times and released after his family launched a lawsuit against Rumsfeld.only to disappear three days later and then murdered. Now it seems like Al Q'eada may not even have been responsible: Link Curioser and curiouser...

I'm aware of that. My point remains as above: If he were to develop WMD, and continue his violations of UN resolutions, the international community could act, provided his accusers could demonstrate that the breach was serious enough to warrant miliary action. Prior to last March, his deceit and non-compliance were deemed sufficient to waarrant another esolution (1441), but that did not authorize immediate use of force, nor did it automatically authorize unilateral military action to effect regime change in Iraq. Here's another view. 1441 only warned of "serious consequenses". What those consequenses would have been would have been up to the Security Council.

Okay, let's accept for a moment that Saddam's dynasty, despite its isolation from the world community, an atrophying military, a bloated beauracracy and the ongoing effects of 13 years of rigourous sanctions, was still poised to rule Iraq in perpetuity. That fact still doesn't make the concept of arbitrary "regime change" any more palatable. As horrible as Hussein was, and as unpleasant as the thought of leaving him and his sadistic brood in power, the dictates of international law and simple common sense do not allow for his removal by an outside military force. The broader issue is whether the U.S., by virtue of its military and economic might and self-proclaimed status as the world's moral policeman, has the right to impose "regime change" on any nation it sees fit. Under international law (law to which the U.S. is signatory and therefore constrained by) nations may use military force only in self-defence (this was the rationale which was used to defend the invasion of Afghanistan). Under the UN Charter, pre-emptive military strikes are permitted only when a direct attack is imminent, all other options have been exhausted and there is no time for deliberation (the Iraq invasion fulfilled none of these critera). The laws against preemptive war were put in place for a good reason: they codified a standard of conduct that would prevent aggression and military expansionism of the sort that plunged the globe world into two bloody world wars in half a century. When nations violated that standard, the UN would act (the first Gulf War being a prime example). Which brings us to Iraq as a humanitarian venture. There's no doubt the people of Iraq suffered terribly under Saddam Hussein and deserved (and still deserve) a chance to live in a free society without fear. But it is the (seemingly) complete arbitrainess of targets that condfounds this argument. Saddam was bad, but there are others who are equally awful, if not worse. One current friend of America is Uzbekistan's President Islam Karimov, who's deeds include arbitrary arrest, torture and extrajudicial killings of political opponents (including boiling prisoners to death). Last year, Washington gave Uzbekistan $500 Million in aid, $79 Million of which went staright to the police and security forces responsible for much of the regimes crimes. Currently, the U.S is building permemnant military bases in the Central Asian state taht will give them a strong foothold in the region and access to teh area rich natural resources. What about Saudi Arabia? Remember? The monarchy that funded Al Q'aeda, spawned Osama bin Laden and several 9-11 hijackers, and represses its own people with torture and arrest? This brutal, repressive anti-democratic state still enjoys a cozy relationship with the U.S., a relationship reflected in the personal and business relationship between Saud Prince Abdullah and Bush (so cozy that Prince Abdullah wa sshown the plans for the Iraq invasion before Seceratary of State Colin Powell). Don't the people of these countries deserve freedom too? Evidently not. Is it any wonder, then, that given America's past and current fondness for nuzzling and nurturing thugs and dictators around the globe, that their moral authority and motivatyions should be called into question? As I said elsewhere, if the U.S. was genuinely interested in building Arab democracies, they would have started somewhere like Saudi Arabia or Kuwait, where they could have used economic and political clout to leverage peaceful democratic reforms. Instead they chose to ram democracy down the throats of the Iraqi people in a flawed and ill-conceived and probably doomed adventure that has cost America its international credibility, post-9-11 sympathies, hundreds of lives and billions of dollars. Tens of thousands of Iraqis have lost their lives, the country is a lawless mess on the cusp of civil war and there seems to be no plan for the new, "democratic" Iraq.

But were these violations serious enough to constitute an unprcedented shift in interantional relations (preemptive war)? Ritter again: DId I ever deny Saddam had WMD programs? Did I deny that he wouldn't revive them if he could? No. Once again, you're misrepresenting my arguments to bolster your own. My point was that, in spite of non-compliance, inspite of all the niggling over "Weapons of mass destruction-related program activities" ( a far cry from the "stockpiles" that were cited repeatedly prior to the invasion), Saddam did not pose a immediate threat to the west or his neighbours and was not likely to become one at any point in the near future. Based on this, a preemptive war outside the mandate of the United Nations, was unecessary and, ultimately wrong.