tcpip | Leaving Iraq, Self-Determination of Nations, Adventures!

Leaving Iraq, Self-Determination of Nations, Adventures!

Australia is leaving Iraq, after costing 2.3 billion in public funds. A legal brief has been sent to the International Criminal Court claiming John Howard committed war crimes in authorising the invasion. Kevin Rudd's comments lend credibility to the claim, saying that the invasion was conducted "without a full and proper assessment". I am glad we are washing our hands of this tawdry affair. The invasion was without ethical or legal justification and the only reason a similar writ hasn't been served on George W. Bush is because the United States is a rogue nation in its failiure to join the International Criminal Court. Getting Bush on trial is going to be a task for the American people alone.

On a related matter I have recently ended up in a bit of a debate with my religious colleagues concerning the self-determination of the Tibetan people. In the last two issues of the Beacon they have published an article by Michael Parenti who rejects a utopian potrayal of Tibet as an independent regime. My criticism of the article (last page, second issue) is that none of this deals with the basic principle of self-determination of nationalities. The lengthy response by the editors utterly fails to address this basic matter. As a result of their failure, I've joined the Australia-Tibet Council.

Went to see the latest Indianna Jones film on Saturday. It's a significant step down from the eighties classics; not a disaster, but if I'd known beforehand what it was like I wouldn't have bothered to see it at the cinema. Gaming has been good with an excellent session of RuneQuest: River of Cradles (example story in lin) last Sunday (and with a new player, Sam) and with good developments in the two PBeM games that I'm running. I also have another RPG-related annoucement to make, but that's going to have to wait until the next post ;-)

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Seeing GWB get his in a legal sense sure would be nice and refreshing. Like nationalistic lemonade. Sigh. We'll see... I have hope, though.

And yes, I realise "hope" is just another 4-letter word. On the bright side, the current situation in the States doesn't make me miss Ze Homeland too much. Heh.

Glad to hear Australia is leaving the Iraq Mess. Only 2.3 billion? You lucky bastards. (there's an "if we were really lucky..." joke in there, I just know it)

I still need to see the new Indy movie. Yeah, I know I made a comic concerning it-- but the truth is I still have yet to see it. Seems like the consensus is: wait for the DVD.

Thankfully the turnaround time on DVD release is like 3 months after the movie leaves the theatres.

Only 2.3 billion? You lucky bastards.

You know, I thought of the people of the US when I posted this... What is it now? 300 billion? How many hundreds of lives?

As for the poor Iraqis...

Seems like the consensus is: wait for the DVD.

*nods* Cate Blanchett's character (a more complex villian) had real potential... but apart from that there wasn't too much to really recommend. The flow was better than some of the early films... But the supernatural elements were a little too over the top.

Actually, last I heard it was over 4,000 US military personnel dead and around 30,000 wounded, with over a million Iraqis killed in violent conflict according to one study. According to another it's 50,000. But in any event it's definitely more than hundreds of lives. (Wikipedia - Casualties). Also, there's currently a $501 billion bill on our heads, which with interest is apparently in the trillions. Well, to be fair, that includes Afghanistan. ;) (Wikipedia also.)

You. Lucky. Bastards.

The financial cost is so high that the numbers barely make sense unless expressed as a per capita value (which comes to roughly $1650 USD.

As for the cost to Iraqis... Heck, if one wants to calculate that same figure in their case that's almost $24000 USD each.

Instead the US is in a war which it cannot afford and, regardless of strict military successes (cf., Vietnam), cannot win.

Little wonder Bush is largely considered to be the worst President ever.

The article by Michael Parenti is interesting, but seems to be following the same route as many politicians: Let's discuss the ends and not care about the means, especially if it involves loss of personal choice. Tibet as a whole may be better off now than they would have been without the Chinese takeover, but it should have been their choice. Similarly, even if the Iraq invasion by the USA had turned out to be a success, that doesn't mean the USA had the right to make the decision for them.

We have more and more politicians getting away with this in little steps in recent years. We're supposedly better off if a terrorist can't take a drink onto a plane, so it's deemed worthwhile spending billions of dollars and inconveniencing millions of travellers by not allowing them to carry a drink onto an international flight. We're supposedly better off if our ISP filters our internet content, so we're going to be forced to pay millions of dollars to have slower internet connectivity.

These are all manifestations of the same problem: Those in power deciding when we will be better off, without any regard for the concept of individual freedom.

Tibet as a whole may be better off now than they would have been without the Chinese takeover, but it should have been their choice.

Exactly right, as is your parallel with Iraq.

One of the remarkable (in a bad way) comments in Parenti's article is towards the conclusion: "Whether Chinese rule has brought betterment or disaster is is not the central issue here. The question is what kind of country was old Tibet".

What utter nonsense! This pathological obsession with what a backward theocracy was like some sixty years ago has no relevance whatsoever to the fact that there is a brutal occupation now which murders people because of the conscience, which is systematically destroying a culture and denies even the most trivial human rights.

When I'm not so furious about this I may even compose a more subtle letter to Dr. Parenti and hopefully point out this terrible misjudgement.

Yes, that gets me too, that somehow the wrongs of the theocracy were worse than the torture of monks and nuns and other innocents.

ISTR either the Dems in the House of Reps or Obama and Clinton saying they had no intention of impeaching Bush, I really do worry that he and Cheney will be given a pardon by the incoming president, regardless which party the new president is from :/

I dunno, the US Iraq policy is a pretty good demonstration of what happens when a brutal theocracy comes to power.

+1 :-)

ISTR either the Dems in the House of Reps or Obama and Clinton saying they had no intention of impeaching Bush

*nods* Part of the grand battle for the "middle ground" means that few politicians are prepared to take up the battle against anything remotely considered legal. Which means it's up to people themselves...

2.3 billion? If only the U. S. had spent that much. We'd have withdrawn after 56 hours!

Not that I fancy the ICC or other governing bodies with global jurisdiction (and really, if they were effective, the U. S. would have been prevented from invading Iraq in the first place), but yes, I would gladly see Bush and his neocon cronies put on trial, not just for atrocities committed in Iraq but for all other crimes the government has committed against its own citizens.

Yes, the figures the US has spent on this invasion are ... incredible.

There's nothing wrong per se with the ICC or similar bodies- it's just another level of federated jurisdiction. The great problem is when such organisations step beyond their scope.

Next post?

Tease.

Just a few more details to fill in first..

It's going to be good :-)

I was in a similar conversation about Tibet recently, although it was substantially more low-brow (kind of an interesting political application of the principle "as above, so below" to the Internet). It may indeed have been a mess under the regime of the Lamas, but it was their mess.

Indeed. If the population really didn't like it the regime could have been overthrown internally. After all that is what a revolution is supposed to be; not unrequested "liberation" from external forces.

I'm trying to decide if I should write in with views on the ICC, Bush, and the War in Iraq, or not. My fingers twitch as my brain advises that wanking on a topic for the sake of some moderate disagreement may not, in fact, be the best use of my ever-vanishing pool of available time. ;)

Oh go on. I don't mind moderate disagreement, as long as it actually is presented in a civil manner and contributes new knowledge. I'm sure you'll do both :-)

This post brought to you after the deletion of my first post. I decided to scrap my first effort and start from scratch. There are a couple points I want to make.

First, I don't believe that President Bush's actions would ever earn him a conviction as a war criminal in any court, ICC or otherwise. This is not to say I condone any of his stances or beliefs, but after examining the generally slippery definition of "war crimes," it seems to me that the term "war criminal" (and any prosecution that might arise from it) is reserved almost entirely for those men and women who perpetrate nothing less than systematic genocide against another people. The international community, in the rare cases that it does launch a military intervention, almost always waits for evidence of such persistent persecution before doing so.

This does not settle the issue of whether or not George Bush is a war criminal on some absolute moral level, but I do not believe he would be found as such in any court of law. I'd like to draw one additional points from the "war crime" question.

You state: Getting Bush on trial is going to be a task for the American people alone. As an American, I'd like to note that I would be categorically, absolutely, and entirely against any attempt to bring
Bush to trial, not because I believe his actions were right or just, but because the last thing I want to see my nation do is spend the next four years dissecting the actions, beliefs, and motivations of the President who spent the previous eight years running the country. There are far bigger fish to fry, and far more important matters to attend to. Even if I believed that allowing Bush to go free constituted some type of fundamental sin, I believe it would be a far greater sin to focus on Bush at the cost of paying attention to the innumerable environmental, political, and social issues that badly need attending to. Bush's actions will inevitably be debated as certain policies are hopefully rolled back, but the debate over Bush, the man, should be kept to a minimum.

Finally, I'd like to note that condemning the invasion of Iraq as "illegal" as never made much sense to me. I won't go into this in great detail, because my views on the topic are fairly straightforward. I consider nations (the democratic ones, at least) to be the ultimate repositories of political power. International organizations (including the UN), are bodies that nations form to conduct business, negotiate treaties, etc. While these are useful structures, membership within them is voluntary, and the international body cannot, in my opinion, claim any true authority over member nations. This is a fine hair to split, so let me try to make it clear.

Any organization, international or otherwise, is free to set rules that an applicant country must agree to obey if they wish to join. It therefore follows that an international organization is free to penalize a member, should that member break one or more rules. In such cases, however, the nation is free to withdraw from the international organization and its judgement. As an individual, I cannot settle a dispute with the federal government simply by withdrawing from the country and renouncing my American citizenship. Nations, however, are free to remove themselves from any organization whose rules they no longer wish to be bound by. This fact, in my opinion, makes the "illegal" argument rather silly.

OK, in response...

Basically I disagree with the suggestion that the actions of the Bush presidency should be ignored in favour of a forward-looking agenda, because I disagree that the two are mutually exclusive.

Secondly, all works between signatories of the UN Charter are "illegal" under the agreements of that charter. The only body which can legally authorise military force between inter-state disputes is the UN Security Council.

Since the Security Council's construction virtually guarantees a null vote save in cases of unanimous consent, I view such "laws" as trivial inconveniences at best, backed neither by practical enforcement nor moral judgment. (It would be one thing, if, for example, one could trust the permanent members of the Security Council to *only* intervene on moral/ethical grounds.)

To be fair, however, my view is not US-centric and applies equally to all countries. I am, in fact, a general fan of international community, coalition building, and the use of international fora to find alternative conflict resolutions that do not involve the use of force. I do not see these entities as exercising legitimate supra-legal authority over any nation in absolute terms, but I do not dismiss their improtance.

Ahem. Typo is my previous comment.

"Secondly, all ~~works~~wars between signatories of the UN Charter are "illegal" under the agreements of that charter."

Since the Security Council's construction virtually guarantees a null vote save in cases of unanimous consent

Not only do I consider that a good thing, I also reiterate that all signatories to the UN Charter are bound by their agreement to abide by this. To engage in an act of war against another state contrary to the approval of the UN Security council is a breach of international law and, in a natural law framework, a breach of contract.

One final note:

I actually disagree with you when you state that the Iraq was was without ethical justification. Although the Bush Administration never sought to explicitly justify the war in these terms, the ethical arguments for the invasion were, in my opinion, the strongest of all. Hussein was a mass murderer by any standard. His sons, had they succeeded him, might well have been worse.

One of the only reasons I reluctantly backed the war when it started, in fact, was because I hoped the end result would be a much improved situation for the Iraqi people. Of all the various fuck-ups that've occurred in the past six years, the fact that the Bush Administration had no post-invasion plan is what angers me the most. I was willing to overlook (or at least accept) a great deal if the end result had been a vastly improved situation for the Iraqi people. Long term, this may still be the end result, but any stability and freedoms that emerge from Iraq in the years to come will have evolved in spite of actions taken by this Administration.

When I refer to an ethical justification I am specifically making use of the standards of a just war. Hussein may have been a mass murderer, but it was well recognised that even prior to the war that the conflict was going to cause more suffering than it would prevent.

At times I'm embarrassed to be a United States citizen. The people saying that the Bush Administration "hijacked" the country are right; Gore Vidal called it a coup d'etat. GWB & his administration is the worst in our nation's history. The $10 billion (US) spent each month for this war, the use of private, for-profit mercenary soldiers, intelligence officers and other contractors in lieu of the U.S. military with the resultant legal murkiness about accountability especially for war crimes, the suspension of the Geneva Convention (aka torture/water boarding as part of "enhanced" interrogation), the suspension of federal legal protections for "detainees" at Guantamo and elsewhere abroad, "extraordinary rendition" of prisoners/detainees to Egypt and elsewhere for explicit torture, all the lies used to market the war to the U.S. public as well as deceive the Congress.

I don't know why my nation has not brought impeachment proceedings against Bush, Cheney and others. It needs to be done. I've written, but don't have significant political clout personally. Our media often doesn't bother reporting protests any more, as it did during U.S. involvement in Viet Nam.

Yes, I would very much like to see the Bush, Cheney et al, brought forward to the World Court for war crimes. Even if prosecuted only in absentia would be better than nothing. I hope the next U.S. president is much wiser and more ethical. GWB has been the world's greatest terrorist for 5-6 years now! I'm more than ready for a positive change.

Glad you're enjoying gaming; I haven't played RuneQuest in years. Thanks also for the Indiana Jones report; I'd heard elsewhere that it wasn't very good.

The fact that you weep for your nation, indicates the degree of loyalty to the United States - and for very good reason. Despite the bumpy road (not the least in the treatment of different "races"), I have nothing but the utmost respect for a state that was genuinely founded on the principles of personal liberty, the separation of church and state and - although oft-ignored - common ownership of natural resources.

These days will pass. Keep the strength, keep fighting, and America will again become a state which people respect rather than despise.

I've considered moving from the U.S. on a few occasions; however, I believe it's better for me to stay here to do what I can to make a positive difference. I'm certainly going to vote, advocate, etc. as best I can. Thank you for your encouraging words.

Re: Racism: I think the concept of different "races" is erroneous. Certainly there are different ethnicities; however, we're one species. It's also clear that individual differences are more significant than any so-called (and I think, suspect) differences purportedly measured between groups of different ethnicities. (That is to say, I think all the studies I've seen measuring such differences are flawed.)

wow, "war crimes" is strong language... although it does make a lot of sense. i kept wondering what the US/UK/etc were doing there. literally, i'm not saying this to be ironic or anything. i'd be sitting in front of the TV thinking, "wait, these people have no business being there... what are they doing there again?" and i'd feel so ignorant for thinking so. but then maybe everyone else was just as confused... i don't know.

Well the limitations of war crimes as defined by the ICC are pretty specific and I can't say I've seen the brief. One of the important limitations is that the breaches must be "part of a plan or policy or as part of a large-scale commission of such crimes" rather than isolated instances.

I don't think however there is much question that the invasion itself was illegal. Only the UN Security Council has the right to organise interventions of member states.

Preferably those involved should have no perceived vested interest either. To a degree, I actually opposed the use of Australian troops in Timor Leste on those grounds and I can certainly see what many Indonesians were not terribly keen on that either. If time was permitting I would have probably preferred a peace-keeping force of Swedes, Bolivians, Canadians and Algerians!

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Leaving Iraq, Self-Determination of Nations, Adventures!

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

I weep for my nation

Re: I weep for my nation

Re: I weep for my nation

no subject

no subject