The Grand Diversion

"The wrong war"; "I will reach out to our allies" (but not these allies).

If Kerry can deliver belly laughs like this for four years, I may vote for him.

Comments

[cahmd]

Point of fact: Post Pearl Harbor the United States was concerned that Japan and Germany might use pre-established airfields in certain Latin American countries, including Mexico, to either bring in agents or mount attacks against the US. My father, who was in the FBI, was sent into Mexico to verify whether such landing sites existed shortly after Pearl Harbor. His cover story was that he was tracking down a bank robber. Needless to say no potential or actual airfields were found. However, does anybody doubt what the response of the United States would have been if these airfields did exist and the Mexican government had refused to deny their use to the Axis powers?

[MaDr]

Like Kerry belly laughs? I do not have links for the following so can not authenticate them. But in the finest tradition of the Lmsm, I believe them to be true, if possibly inaccurate.

"The vast majority of our imports come from outside the country."

"If we don't succeed, we run the risk of failure."

"One word sums up probably the responsibility of any Governor, and that one word is 'to be prepared'."

"I have made good judgments in the past. I have made good judgments in the future."

"The future will be better tomorrow."

"We're going to have the best educated American people in the world."

"I stand by all the misstatements that I've made."

"We have a firm commitment to NATO, we are a part of NATO. We have a firm commitment to Europe. We are a part of Europe."

I'll stop here. Little surprising coming from that intellectual giant and unsurpassed orator and public speaker.

[fmonkey]

http://www.snopes.com/quotes/candidate.asp

[abb1]

Your government criminally invaded and occupied a sovereign state, killed tens of thousands of innocent people, wrecked the whole region, made your country look like a rogue nation in the eyes of most people on earth - and that's the laughing matter?

Sheesh.

[Lurking Observer]

abb1:

I think you misdirected that last email. That should have gone to Saddam Hussein.

Under the various UNSCR's of 1991, as well as UNSCR 1441, material violation of those resolutions meant that a state of war would exist. Since the 1991 Gulf War did not end (it had a cease-fire), material violations of the cease-fire (including shooting at US and UK aircraft) also mean that the war was back on. Since none of the UNSCRs were rescinded, under international law, it is not at all clear that in 2003 there was a "criminal invasion," any more than there was a criminal invasion and dismemberment of a sovereign state in 1999 in Serbia (regarding Kosovo)---you'll recall that that also occurred without benefit of a UN authorization, killed thousands of innocent people, etc., etc., etc., etc., etc.

Indeed, it would be worth noting, here, that if North Korea were to restart the Korean War (e.g., by shooting down American aircraft), it does not require a UN resolution to authorize force---the UNSCR's of 1950 are also still in effect.

[abb1]

Nonsense. You make a lousy lawyer, let alone the fact that killing tens of thousands of innocent people and occupying and looting countries is not a matter of silly lawyering, buddy.

1991 Gulf War cease-fire was between UN and Iraq and the UN didn't authorize the invasion, as you, perhaps, know. No-fly zones were also illegal and Iraq was right to shoot at the US and UK planes.

And if you are such a stickler for the UN resolutions, why don't you demand Israel to end 37-years military occupation of the WB, Gaza and a few other places? There are something like 80 UN resolutions they violate every day.

[Lurking Observer]

abb1:

For someone who claims to understand the law, I refer you to the obvious difference between a Chapter VI and a Chapter VII resolution.

All of the resolutions regarding Israel were Chapter VI resolutions. As such, they are essentially non-binding. Notice that there is nothing in any of those resolutions regarding the UN taking action.

The resolutions regarding Iraq, on the other hand, were undertaken as Chapter VII resolutions. Very different beasts, concluding with the call for all member nations of the UN to act in support of the resolutions (but, as usual, leaving precisely what form said contributions should take to member states). This was the same sort of resolutions that authorized the US to act in Korea.

C'mon, abb1. Make it a little tougher, won't you? I've met high school students who are better versed in the fundamental differences in UN resolutions (and know better than to try and throw that canard around).

As for the business of "silly lawyering," I was hardly the one to raise the specious argument that the Iraq War was "illegal," or "criminal." One wonders what your thoughts were in 1991---was that war just as illegal and criminal, despite the presence of UN authorization (Chapter VII), a broad coalition, etc.?

And, as usual, the idea that the absence of UN authorization might, therefore, mean that the war in Kosovo, your own backyard (if you really are a European) one that your own mighty armed forces did nothing to prevent, was also illegal and criminal? Does all that dithering bother you at all? OR was the need to act so overwhelming in that case that abiding by the rules of international law would suddenly be "a matter of silly lawyering"?

It's so hard to know, in a post-modern mindset, when reasons matter and when they don't....

[MaDr]

fmonkey

Thanks for the link. I didn't get it there, but it's good to have something to fall back on.

[abb1]

A war is a criminal war if it's not a war of self-denese, if it can't be avoided. That's all the lawyering you need to know in this case.

You kill tens of thousands of innocent people to dominate them, to loot their country, to build military bases on their land, to implement some wacky social engineering ideas - then you say it's funny - and then you talk about resolutions and chapters to justify it? You got no shame, buddy.

[Lurking Observer]

I take it, abb1, that in Europe, the law means what you want it to mean, in that PoMo way of yours?

Wars can always be avoided. All you have to do is surrender.

But to wit:

Would Britain and France deciding to go to war in 1938, over the Sudetenland, be illegal or criminal?

Was the 1991 Gulf War criminal?

Was the Kosovo war criminal?

For that matter, what was the justification for sending British troops to Sierra Leone, French troops to Cote d'Ivoire, or Belgian troops, lo these many years ago, to Congo (Dragon Rouge)? In each case, of course, people could choose not to go to war, yet they did so anyway. Makes you kinda wonder what legal means after a while, if a law is simply ignored by all concerned.

I mean, abb1, in a previous thread, even you suggested that the Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia might be legal. Why? It was not a Vietnamese genocide that they were acting against. It was the acts of the government in charge, in a sovereign country (as you so kindly note above) next door. And the Vietnamese remain in charge, thanks to a puppet government. Legal? Illegal?

Apparently, legality becomes an issue only when it involves the US (and, presumably, Israel). If France supports an invasion (such as in Serbia over its province of Kosovo), does that automatically make it legal?

[abb1]

I said that Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia, IMO might've been justified on humanitarian grounds. I have no idea if it was legal or not.

You might be able to find various reasonable justifications for 1991 Gulf War, for the Kosovo war, for Sierra Leone, even for the Chechnya war.

But if you cut the crap, there is no reasonable justification for the 2003 Iraq invasion. No reasonable impartial person would find your 'cease-fire' stuff and all the rest it convincing. Trust me.

[Cecil Turner]

"But if you cut the crap, there is no reasonable justification for the 2003 Iraq invasion. No reasonable impartial person would find your 'cease-fire' stuff and all the rest it convincing. Trust me."

And the search for the "reasonable impartial person" goes on. Which is precisely why the plan to involve "allies" in go-to-war decisions isn't being embraced (and why Kerry's supporters are in such a dither to convince us that the only sensible interpretation of "global" is "complete").

[abb1]

Vast majority of the humanity are reasonable impartial persons. Having a reasonable justification for going to war is the most natural requirement for going to war. No amount of spin will help you obfuscate something this obvious.

[Cecil Turner]

"Vast majority of the humanity are reasonable impartial persons."

Like either of us? Nonsense. You think the world is less safe when the US exercises military power, and that the ramifications endanger you. I think the world is less safe when Islamist extremists are emboldened, and it's advisable to exercise military power to keep them in check. Neither of us is in any sense "impartial."

Similarly, no reasonable person is "impartial" when it comes to their own security. And this particular example, which featured a breakdown of the global system for collective security, affects everyone. I'd estimate the number of "reasonable impartial persons" at very close to zero.

[abb1]

What you said is not a matter of partiality, it's a matter of judgment. Everyone wants to be safe and almost everyone wants to avoid killing innocent people (some care less, some more).

In my judgment those extremists that threaten me are driven by anti-imperialist motives and the fact that many of them are Muslims is coincidental. Thus in my judgment more imperialism will cause more terrorism.

You, apparently, view this as a some kind of a religious conflict that can be solved by terrorizing the Muslim world. Yours is a tiny minority view, very immature, IMO.

Nevertheless: even in your world invading the only secular ME Arab country shouldn't make sense. Even in your world invading Iraq should not be equal emboldening Islamist extremists. Even in your world a war should have at least some justification, unless you're advocating randomly attacking countries with a large number of Muslims at random intervals, or something like that.

[Cecil Turner]

"You, apparently, view this as a some kind of a religious conflict that can be solved by terrorizing the Muslim world."

The religious nature of the conflict should be obvious, even to you (if not, ask yourself why suicide bombers are so prevalent). And while it may not be able to be "solved," the terrorists become vastly more effective when they have state sponsorship. My view is that state sponsorship of terrorists is an act of war, and we should deter such aggression . . . by force if necessary. (And I'm also not convinced that's a minority view.)

[abb1]

Methods aren't important. Marxist fighters in Central America and Muslim fighters in the ME are the same phenomenon - people who feel oppressed are fighting against those who they feel are trying to keep them down.

State sponsorship is not important. In fact, in this round it's much less important than during Marxist anti-colonialist and anti-imperialist movements of the 60s, 70s and 80s. State sponsorship only provides money. These guys have money. With enough money they can buy weapons and everything they need (which is not much) anywhere, even from the US.

This is all nonsense. You can only get so far by fighing symptoms. What we need to do it to stop messing with these people's internal affairs, leave them alone. Then they'll leave us alone. Live and let live.

[Cecil Turner]

"What we need to do it to stop messing with these people's internal affairs, leave them alone."

Good idea. Let's get a list of demands from Al Qaeda, and we'll try to make them all happy. Then when the next group of Islamist bombers decides to emulate their success, we can try to appease them, too. I'm sure that'll work just fine. Why don't you get your candidate to propose that as his foreign policy, and we'll see how it works out.

[abb1]

Yes, they do have a list of demands. Many of their demands are reasonable. The Bushies - to their great credit - already made them all happy by removing troops from Saudi Arabia. If our government was smarter and cared more about us, it would've also kept out of Iraq and kicked Israelis out the WB, Gaza and Golans. These are all reasonable demands that need to be met. And then, hopefully, Islamist bombers will have nothing else to demand. End of story.

[abb1]

Always excellent Chris Floyd writes about "extraordinary renditions": Dirty Glass. Enjoy.

[Cecil Turner]

Hmm, maybe you could you tell me why US troops were in Saudi Arabia in the first place? Or, for that matter, why the Israelis were in the West Bank, Gaza, and the Golan? Again, I'd love to see your candidate try this line of reasoning. Unfortunately, even he's not quite that stupid.

[abb1]

I don't have a candidate, I speak only for myself.

Why anyone's troops are anywhere outside their own country? Usually to dominate the place, to control it. Soviet troops used to be stationed all over Eastern Europe. No more. Why were they there in the first place? You know the answer. Why would it be anything different with the US or Israel? I see no reason.

[Cecil Turner]

US troops were in Saudi Arabia after Iraq invaded Kuwait. Israeli troops occupied the various adjoining territories after the last time they were used in an invasion attempt. In neither case was "leaving them alone" sufficient to deter aggression. And sorry abb1, but I'm looking for a somewhat informed discussion . . . and this doesn't qualify. Cheers.

[Lurking Observer]

So, abb1, US troops in Western Europe and Soviet troops in Eastern Europe were the same thing, eh? Exactly what, then, were the US actions in Europe that were counterparts to the Soviet actions in East Germany in 1953, Hungary 1956, Czechoslovakia 1968, and around Poland 1981?

For that matter, does this apply to the British, French, Canadian, and Dutch troops that were stationed in Germany? Were they all there to control it, to dominate the place? NATO, the alliance of captive nations, akin to the Warsaw Pact, eh? One wonders what is keeping NATO together now---one would've thought that it would be Europe desperately seeking to throw off the yoke of US oppression and imperialism, given the parallel behavior you seem to draw between the US and the USSR?

[abb1]

Well, are you implying that Iraq was about to invade SA all that time after 1991? I find it somewhat less credible than the Soviet claim that the western Europeans were about to invade Poland.

And you got your Arab-Israeli wars wrong: in 1967 Israel attacked and invaded Egypt and Jordan first.

Which is quite irrelevant, really, it was 37 years ago. Over 3 million people have been living under military occupation there for 37 years now, their land and their resources chipped away little by little. That's one of the greatest crimes of the century; I am not aware of a military occupation going on for that long in the 20th century.

[abb1]

LO,
when NATO was created it certainly did have exactly the same role as the Warsaw pact. It was instrumental in establishing fascist regime of 'black colonels' in Greece, for example. It used Klaus Barbie (the butcher of Lyon) to hunt French communists and labor leaders and destroy their organisations. Pretty much the same was going on in Italy. You can find all this info on the web if you are interested. Not to mention US troops in Germany, Japan and especially Korea - some really bad things happened there post-war, at least as bad as anything the Russians did in Eastern Europe - or worse.

Now, I suppose NATO and other US military presence still serves as a guarantee that these countries remain our 'allies', but in much lesser degree of course. But I don't doubt for a second that if a communist party gains a majority in, say, Italy (not likely, I know), you'll see something very similar to the Prague Spring of 1968.

So, there you go, I hope I answered your question.

[R C Dean]

The bankruptcy of abb1's position is revealed here:

After we give in to all their current demands regarding tactical withdrawals from various places in the Middle East "hopefully, Islamist bombers will have nothing else to demand. "

Except we all know that this is utter bullshit on two counts.

First, the Islamonutters are demanding far more than abb1 admits. Their current list of demands includes the extermination of Jews in Israel, not just tactical withdrawals on her borders. They also want back in control of Afghanistan, want control of Iraq and Saudi Arabia, and also want to reestablish Muslim domination of Spain and various other parts of the world that were ever under the Muslim boot. They have already said they won't stop until they get all that, and we all know they want even more.

Second, and more fundamentally, fanatics are not simply going to go home if you give in to their demands. You get more of what you reward, so if we reward terrorists by giving them everything they want, we can predictably expect to get more terrorists.

[abb1]

Sorry, Tom, I hope you don't mind if I try to finish this one. I won't comment in your new threads.

First, the Islamonutters are demanding far more than abb1 admits.

Domination of Spain is your pure fantasy.

Their wanting to dominate in Afhganistan, SA, Iraq, etc. is none of your business. If enough people in these countries want them to dominate - then why shouldn't they? If people in these countries don't support them - it's up to these people to defeat the extremists. There is no other way.

Jews in Israel have to learn to live in peace with their neighbors - there is no other way. It's up to them to learn how to do it, I don't feel I should be involved in this. If they can't learn how coexist peacefully - they should get out of there, it's simple as that.

Granted, Muslim extremists may have some unreasonable demands for the westerners. I agree with you that these demands have to be rejected. But first their reasonable demands need to be met. Otherwise they will continue having wide-spread support of ordinary people in their countries.

Second, and more fundamentally, fanatics are not simply going to go home if you give in to their demands.

Of course they are. As long as you keep coming into their countries with guns they'll keep fighting. As soon as you live them alone they'll stop bothering you and forget about your existence.

They don't ever threaten Brazilians or, say, Swedes - why do you think that is? Swedes have much more free and open society than the US - more openly sexual, more liberal, more tolerant - and no one attacks them. Muslim extremists just don't care - that's why. And they wouldn't care about the US either if the US didn't have emperial ambitions.

Cheers.