Bush's Death Squads

[evil twin]

[ QUOTE ]
And the OP is all about distortion. He constantly distorts not only the actions and views of political leaders he disagrees with, but also the views of other posters here, in an effort to make them look ultra-extreme when they are not. This is either intentional lying and manipulation for rhetorical purposes, or it's a form of delusion/paranoia.

[/ QUOTE ]
It's his point of view. One that I and many others share. You think we're delusional, we think you hawks are delusional. So what's new?

[BluffTHIS!]

evil,

We all have a variety of views. But hopefully other than sarcasm and joking, we try to have honest debates, which means disagreeing about the interpretation of facts and situations, but doesn't include intentional misrepresentations of the views of other posters or politicians. And the only other explanation for statements that otherwise would clearly be misrepresentations is that they are delusional/paranoid.

I think you are carrying too far the notion of responsibility for bad things happening. Likewise: if democracy succeeds in Iraq, those who would allocate all the credit for it to Bush and the USA would be taking the notion of credit too far. Will not the Iraqis too deserve great credit if a democratic government eventually wins out and stabilizes in Iraq?

Also, regarding the hypothetical biker example: there were bad things happening even before you entered the fray. You didnt create those bad things, but Bush ot the USA didn't create all the bad things that happened under Saddam's rule, either. In both cases bad things happened both before and after the intervention. So it is fallacious to ascribe full blame (or credit) for what happened after the intervention, to the intervening parties.

[Chris Alger]

[ QUOTE ]
If this were a major and long-standing phenomenon (the Shiite vs Sunni death squads), then I would probably agree to some extent.

[/ QUOTE ]
You are using extreme myopia to exclude what's relevant about U.S. complicity with Iraqi atrocities. The real event -- the "this" you mention -- amounts to the usual pattern: with flimsy pretext (often citing its concern for human rights), the U.S. uses mass violence or subversion to replace a government it doesn't like with one it does. The new regime commits grotesque human rights violations. The U.S. then ignores or downplays the crimes of the new regime while trying to whitewash the record with propaganda bespeaking the new regime's supposed commitment to democracy, human rights and other worthy goals. "This" is something we've seen time and again for the last 60 years. Who can seriously doubt that if Iraq was able to use death squads to crush the insurgency by murdering all conceivable opponents, that the U.S. would claim victory and continue to support all manner of atoricites, no matter how much worse they were than Saddam's?

[ QUOTE ]
It is false logic to lay for blame everything bad that happens, or everything bad the new government does, at the feet of the U.S. and Bush.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree (my title was obviously sardonic), but this is your technique. After all, you (and Bush and the right generally) tried to justify the invasion of Iraq on the grounds that Iraq's pension for all Palestinian families killed in conflict for Israel turned Palestinian suicide bombing into (your phrase) a "cottage industry." In other words, Iraq was so responsible for Palestinian suicide bombing that thousands of Iraqi civilians must die in order to replace the government. Although Iraq's Palestinian policy was little different from those of other U.S.-supported Arab regimes (who also provide pensions to suicide bomber families), it is exhibit A of the claim that the U.S. "saw a threat in Iraq . . . because [Saddam] was a state sponsor of terror." (Bush, last week).

Another parallel is Palestine. The U.S. demands that the Palestinians must remain unfree as long as their minscule government fails to completely disarm all Palestinian terrorists, even though no U.S. official claims that the PA is directly to blame for any acts of terror. The standard that the pro-Israel camp universally accepted was that no serious negotiations can take place until the PA stops horrors which are beyond even the control of Israel, something obviously bordering on the impossible. Yet in Iraq the standard is this: the U.S. didn't organize and order the death squads and therefore can't be fairly blamed for anything they do.

The U.S. is responsible for putting and keeping the current Iraqi government in power. It "advises" all its offices, trains its troops and police, helped draft its constitution. Without the U.S., that government would not exist. Even if one doubted that, U.S. responsibility for the crimes of the Iraqi government (which include many months of human rights abuses -- according to the State Department -- in addition to the current spate of death squad killings) has to be at least equal to its responsibility for anything good that government has done. If the U.S. is indeed only observing helplessly from a distance, it would make no sense for Bush to brag last week that his policy has created a "free Iraq" that "serves as an amazing example . . . for people who are desparate for freedom."

My point is that supporters of the war tend to be hypocrites. Saddam's human rights abuses and "links" to terror purportedly justified mass violence and deprivation not just against Saddam but against Iraqi civilians generally. Yet more direct U.S. links to a regime that condones death squad violence are something that cannot possibly justify violence against the U.S. or its citizens or troops, and indeed are something for which the U.S. cannot even be fairly blamed, any more than bystanders can be blamed for failing to intervene in violence that has nothing to do with them at all.

So all your talk about human rights and democracy amounts to so much hot air that you can't take seriously yourself.

[Exsubmariner]

And this happened right here inside the US.

And so did this.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If this were a major and long-standing phenomenon (the Shiite vs Sunni death squads), then I would probably agree to some extent.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are using extreme myopia to exclude what's relevant about U.S. complicity with Iraqi atrocities. The real event -- the "this" you mention -- amounts to the usual pattern: with flimsy pretext (often citing its concern for human rights), the U.S. uses mass violence or subversion to replace a government it doesn't like with one it does. The new regime commits grotesque human rights violations. The U.S. then ignores or downplays the crimes of the new regime while trying to whitewash the record with propaganda bespeaking the new regime's supposed commitment to democracy, human rights and other worthy goals. "This" is something we've seen time and again for the last 60 years. Who can seriously doubt that if Iraq was able to use death squads to crush the insurgency by murdering all conceivable opponents, that the U.S. would claim victory and continue to support all manner of atoricites, no matter how much worse they were than Saddam's?

[/ QUOTE ]

You can only go on what's happened thus far in Iraq, when assigning blame or credit for events in Iraq. And thus far the reports of such death squad muders being frequent, are, according to the report you posted, all very recent. That as I pointed out means little time has passed to determine rtghe extent and origin of the problem, or what to do about it.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It is false logic to lay for blame everything bad that happens, or everything bad the new government does, at the feet of the U.S. and Bush.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree (my title was obviously sardonic), but this is your technique. After all, you (and Bush and the right generally) tried to justify the invasion of Iraq on the grounds that Iraq's pension for all Palestinian families killed in conflict for Israel turned Palestinian suicide bombing into (your phrase) a "cottage industry." In other words, Iraq was so responsible for Palestinian suicide bombing that thousands of Iraqi civilians must die in order to replace the government.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, you manage to find a way to mischaracterize my positions. My support for the Iraq war had little to do with Saddam's support for the Palestinians (although that was indeed somewhere way, way down on my list of reasons--just another reason, but a minor thing compared to Saddam's mass murders, genocide, torture/rape/execution chambers, and the potential threat of WMD programs).

[ QUOTE ]
The U.S. is responsible for putting and keeping the current Iraqi government in power. It "advises" all its offices, trains its troops and police, helped draft its constitution. Without the U.S., that government would not exist. Even if one doubted that, U.S. responsibility for the crimes of the Iraqi government (which include many months of human rights abuses -- according to the State Department -- in addition to the current spate of death squad killings) has to be at least equal to its responsibility for anything good that government has done.

[/ QUOTE ]

The government has been hampered by much strife and battle. Let's see what good the government may yet do after it (hopefully) stabilizes. However, the prior government's evils are well known. Also, you cannot logically lay ALL the goods or evils of the new government at the feet of Bush, for to do that would deny any responsibility on the part of others...like the Iraqis, for instance. The death squads have many causes, not just Bush.

[ QUOTE ]
If the U.S. is indeed only observing helplessly from a distance, it would make no sense for Bush to brag last week that his policy has created a "free Iraq" that "serves as an amazing example . . . for people who are desparate for freedom."

[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously it must be given more time.

[ QUOTE ]
My point is that supporters of the war tend to be hypocrites. Saddam's human rights abuses and "links" to terror purportedly justified mass violence and deprivation not just against Saddam but against Iraqi civilians generally.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not hypocrisy to use force in removing a tyrannical regime. When force is used, of course some undesired bad things generally happen.

[ QUOTE ]
Yet more direct U.S. links to a regime that condones death squad violence are something that cannot possibly justify violence against the U.S. or its citizens or troops, and indeed are something for which the U.S. cannot even be fairly blamed, any more than bystanders can be blamed for failing to intervene in violence that has nothing to do with them at all.

So all your talk about human rights and democracy amounts to so much hot air that you can't take seriously yourself.

[/ QUOTE ]

We have very different perspectives on most of these things. However, I think you are carryiong the notion of subsequent or attached responsibilities a bit too far at least. With this death squad business, let's see what happens--it's relatively new yet as far as such high frequencies of killings go. You look for results too quickly IMO.

[Chris Alger]

"doesn't include intentional misrepresentations of the views of other posters or politicians"
The only representation I made of another politician consisted of quotes from the White House website. So how could that have been an "intentional misrepresentation" of something the White House said?

[Chris Alger]

"Just because we helped set up a democratic government in Iraq . . ."

A "democratic government" that allows death squads to operate with impunity. I'll accept your definition of what constitutes minimally acceptable democratic conduct the next time you advocate making even more "democratic governments" by force of arms.

[Chris Alger]

[ QUOTE ]
"little time has passed to determine the extent and origin of the problem, or what to do about it."

[/ QUOTE ]
This is just your double standard again. How many days after Baghdad fell were you claiming that Iraq had been "liberated?" You claim in this very post that U.S. policy amounts to "overthrowing a tyrannical government," a claim that is dishonest if the replacement regime is also a tyranny. But what is a government that supports or tolerates death squads killing dozens a day other than tyrannic?

When it comes to the upside of U.S. policy, you brag immediately. When it comes to horrible downsides, you argue that events are still recent and that we have to withhold judgment.

[ QUOTE ]
My support for the Iraq war had little to do with Saddam's support for the Palestinians (although that was indeed somewhere way, way down on my list of reasons--just another reason, but a minor thing compared to Saddam's mass murders, genocide, torture/rape/execution chambers, and the potential threat of WMD programs).

[/ QUOTE ]
Saddam's support for Palestinian terrorists was actually one of your better arguments. Saddam wasn't in the process of carrying out "genocide" or "mass murders" when we invaded, or even in the several years prior. He didn't have death squads grabbing dozens of people people off the street every day. "Potential threat of WMD programs?" I thought you guys had admitted that this was an embarrassment (which you're perhaps admitting by watering it down to "potential . . . programs"). And this government has torture chambers and "rape" chambers too. (BTW, Uday's or whosever it was "rape room" turns out to have been fabricated). "Execution chambers"? U.S. policy in Iraq has "executed" more than 30,000 people -- and those are just documented civilian deaths (what Bush has equated with the total body count). How many people did Saddam execute in 2002?

[ QUOTE ]
Also, you cannot logically lay ALL the goods or evils of the new government at the feet of Bush, for to do that would deny any responsibility on the part of others...like the Iraqis, for instance. The death squads have many causes, not just Bush.

[/ QUOTE ]
To repeat, I don't deny this. I contend that we can give Bush or the U.S. govt. as responsibility for the death squads roughly to the degree that we can credit them for things that have improved. They might not like these things (although that's not necessarily true), sectarian strife and killing were a predicted, forseen consequence of the invasion and began weeks after the U.S. took over. They followed as a result of our actions. Claiming credit for the good that followed while denying (or withholding until later) blame for the warned-of atrocities is irrational and dishonest.

[Chris Alger]

.