Scientists respond to Gore's warnings of climate catastrophe

MessageCarter does not pull his punches about Gore's activism, "The man is an embarrassment to US science and its many fine practitioners, a lot of whom know (but feel unable to state publicly) that his propaganda crusade is mostly based on junk science." http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm

            Scientists respond to Gore's warnings of climate catastrophe
            "The Inconvenient Truth" is indeed inconvenient to alarmists
            By Tom Harris
            Monday, June 12, 2006

            "Scientists have an independent obligation to respect and present the truth as they see it," Al Gore sensibly asserts in his film "An Inconvenient Truth", showing at Cumberland 4 Cinemas in Toronto since Jun 2. With that outlook in mind, what do world climate experts actually think about the science of his movie?

            Professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, in Australia gives what, for many Canadians, is a surprising assessment: "Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention."

            But surely Carter is merely part of what most people regard as a tiny cadre of "climate change skeptics" who disagree with the "vast majority of scientists" Gore cites?

            No; Carter is one of hundreds of highly qualified non-governmental, non-industry, non-lobby group climate experts who contest the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are causing significant global climate change. "Climate experts" is the operative term here. Why? Because what Gore's "majority of scientists" think is immaterial when only a very small fraction of them actually work in the climate field.

            Even among that fraction, many focus their studies on the impacts of climate change; biologists, for example, who study everything from insects to polar bears to poison ivy. "While many are highly skilled researchers, they generally do not have special knowledge about the causes of global climate change," explains former University of Winnipeg climatology professor Dr. Tim Ball. "They usually can tell us only about the effects of changes in the local environment where they conduct their studies."

            This is highly valuable knowledge, but doesn't make them climate change cause experts, only climate impact experts.

            So we have a smaller fraction.

            But it becomes smaller still. Among experts who actually examine the causes of change on a global scale, many concentrate their research on designing and enhancing computer models of hypothetical futures. "These models have been consistently wrong in all their scenarios," asserts Ball. "Since modelers concede computer outputs are not "predictions" but are in fact merely scenarios, they are negligent in letting policy-makers and the public think they are actually making forecasts."

            We should listen most to scientists who use real data to try to understand what nature is actually telling us about the causes and extent of global climate change. In this relatively small community, there is no consensus, despite what Gore and others would suggest.

            Here is a small sample of the side of the debate we almost never hear:

            Appearing before the Commons Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development last year, Carleton University paleoclimatologist Professor Tim Patterson testified, "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years." Patterson asked the committee, "On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?"

            Patterson concluded his testimony by explaining what his research and "hundreds of other studies" reveal: on all time scales, there is very good correlation between Earth's temperature and natural celestial phenomena such changes in the brightness of the Sun.

            Dr. Boris Winterhalter, former marine researcher at the Geological Survey of Finland and professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, takes apart Gore's dramatic display of Antarctic glaciers collapsing into the sea. "The breaking glacier wall is a normally occurring phenomenon which is due to the normal advance of a glacier," says Winterhalter. "In Antarctica the temperature is low enough to prohibit melting of the ice front, so if the ice is grounded, it has to break off in beautiful ice cascades. If the water is deep enough icebergs will form."

            Dr. Wibjörn Karlén, emeritus professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden, admits, "Some small areas in the Antarctic Peninsula have broken up recently, just like it has done back in time. The temperature in this part of Antarctica has increased recently, probably because of a small change in the position of the low pressure systems."

            But Karlén clarifies that the 'mass balance' of Antarctica is positive - more snow is accumulating than melting off. As a result, Ball explains, there is an increase in the 'calving' of icebergs as the ice dome of Antarctica is growing and flowing to the oceans. When Greenland and Antarctica are assessed together, "their mass balance is considered to possibly increase the sea level by 0.03 mm/year - not much of an effect," Karlén concludes.

            The Antarctica has survived warm and cold events over millions of years. A meltdown is simply not a realistic scenario in the foreseeable future.

            Gore tells us in the film, "Starting in 1970, there was a precipitous drop-off in the amount and extent and thickness of the Arctic ice cap." This is misleading, according to Ball: "The survey that Gore cites was a single transect across one part of the Arctic basin in the month of October during the 1960s when we were in the middle of the cooling period. The 1990 runs were done in the warmer month of September, using a wholly different technology."

            Karlén explains that a paper published in 2003 by University of Alaska professor Igor Polyakov shows that, the region of the Arctic where rising temperature is supposedly endangering polar bears showed fluctuations since 1940 but no overall temperature rise. "For several published records it is a decrease for the last 50 years," says Karlén

            Dr. Dick Morgan, former advisor to the World Meteorological Organization and climatology researcher at University of Exeter, U.K. gives the details, "There has been some decrease in ice thickness in the Canadian Arctic over the past 30 years but no melt down. The Canadian Ice Service records show that from 1971-1981 there was average, to above average, ice thickness. From 1981-1982 there was a sharp decrease of 15% but there was a quick recovery to average, to slightly above average, values from 1983-1995. A sharp drop of 30% occurred again 1996-1998 and since then there has been a steady increase to reach near normal conditions since 2001."

            Concerning Gore's beliefs about worldwide warming, Morgan points out that, in addition to the cooling in the NW Atlantic, massive areas of cooling are found in the North and South Pacific Ocean; the whole of the Amazon Valley; the north coast of South America and the Caribbean; the eastern Mediterranean, Black Sea, Caucasus and Red Sea; New Zealand and even the Ganges Valley in India. Morgan explains, "Had the IPCC used the standard parameter for climate change (the 30 year average) and used an equal area projection, instead of the Mercator (which doubled the area of warming in Alaska, Siberia and the Antarctic Ocean) warming and cooling would have been almost in balance."

            Gore's point that 200 cities and towns in the American West set all time high temperature records is also misleading according to Dr. Roy Spencer, Principal Research Scientist at The University of Alabama in Huntsville. "It is not unusual for some locations, out of the thousands of cities and towns in the U.S., to set all-time records," he says. "The actual data shows that overall, recent temperatures in the U.S. were not unusual."

            Carter does not pull his punches about Gore's activism, "The man is an embarrassment to US science and its many fine practitioners, a lot of whom know (but feel unable to state publicly) that his propaganda crusade is mostly based on junk science."

            In April sixty of the world's leading experts in the field asked Prime Minister Harper to order a thorough public review of the science of climate change, something that has never happened in Canada. Considering what's at stake - either the end of civilization, if you believe Gore, or a waste of billions of dollars, if you believe his opponents - it seems like a reasonable request.

            Tom Harris is mechanical engineer and Ottawa Director of High Park Group, a public affairs and public policy company.

Starchild writes

Good for Jeb Bush.

Jeb Bush interfered with the election in another
country. As a politician, I do not see how you can
approve that. As a Libertarian, I cannot approve of
that. Whether we like the Sandinistas or not, the
people of Nicaragua deserve to choose their own
government.

So you're saying that the suicide bombers in Iraq
bear no individual responsibility for their actions
because they are "just following orders?" This

doesn't

sound very libertarian.

Libertarians believe in international law. You cannot
blame a soldier for following lawful orders. If he
survives his mission or not has nothing to do with its
legality. If the attacker mingles with the civilian
population and then blows himself up, he has indeed
committed a war crime. But if the attacker drives his
vehicle into a military target, killing himself and
the enemy, he has heroically "taken out a target".

Undermining the transition may have been as much or

more of a motive than personal profit in some cases
[of looting].

What a convenient excuse for common thieves! Yes,
Iraqis can now tell each other they hate the Americans
and so have a right to steal from the government
America runs.

When you talk about a $2000 per person tax bill, you

*are* talking about per capita, which is what I said
was meaningful.

You are right. In fact we have the wealth to pay a
$20,000 to $30,000 per person government debt.
However, in such rich times, the government has no
excuse to own any money at all.

A volunteer "army" or civilian force liberating

people

by applying force against *others* who are

oppressing them,

on the other hand, is *very much* possible. It's

what often

happens in a revolution.

Revolutions only occur when people believe they can
get things by using force against the owners or
rulers. Marxism, for example, fuels great revolutions
because it promises to divide up the wealth of an
upper class. How can a violent revolution against the
clerics in Iran replace them with a "government more
respecting of freedom and human rights"? The CIA
could install another right-wing government with
enough money and weapons. Perhaps secular Marxists
could offer a better state-run utopia with the oil
money.

I would not describe Al Qaeda as a group "formed to

overthrow

oppressive regimes," but rather as a terrorist

organization

seeking to implement an extreme form of Islam.

Wikipedia describes Al Qaeda as a group formed to
overthrow oppressive regimes, the USSR and their
puppets in Afghanistan:
"The origins of al-Qaeda can be traced to the Soviet
invasion of Afghanistan, when a cadre of non-Afghani,
Arab Muslim fighters joined the largely United States
and Pakistan-funded Afghan muj?hid?n anti-Russian
resistance movement (a guerrilla war against Soviet
occupation forces and the Soviet-backed Afghan
government).

How do you explain Libyan dictator Muammar Khadafy's
decision to abandon weapons of mass destruction

after

seeing the examples of Iraq and Afghanistan?

Bush did not name Libya in the "Axis of Evil".
Without threats from the USgovt, and with the USgovt
desperately seeking success stories, Khadafy made a
deal. What did he give up? Nuclear bombs he did not
have yet which nobody wants to use anyway?

Again I think you are badly mistaken if you think
that autocrats like the Islamic clerics running Iran
are able to maintain power *only* when there is an
external threat.

Dictators can also use an internal threat instead of
an external enemy. In Iran, they shot the hated
officials of the Shah immediately, and drove the
wealthy Europeanized citizens out of the country. I
do not think clerics really have any internal
scapegoats. The have no illegal aliens, no marrying
homosexuals, or anybody else to blame. They came to
power calling the US the "Great Satan", and as long as
the US lives up to that name in Iran, the clerics can
remain in power.

do you think that U.S. government troops are more

cowardly [?]

I do not know. But for one reason or another, the
USgovt worries about very small casualty rates.

18,000 to 29,000 deaths. According to the survey

data, children aged

below 18 years comprise 12% percent of the deaths

due to warfare.

I would trust the peer-reviewed scientist rather than
the politician or blogger. Still, you cannot excuse
killing even so few as 18,000 people, or 2500
children.

Looks like the game is over...

May they rest in peace.

domestic opposition to intervention in Iraq may have
-- no, almost certainly *did* -- influence Bush to

ignore

the advice of his generals

If he knew he could not do it right, he had less
reason to do it at all.

Why do you think USgov was still under any

obligation to abide

by its part of the treaty in the face of such

repeated violations?

The Gulf War peace was signed with a real coalition,
France, Egypt,Saudi Arabia, UAE, Canada etc. The UN
controlled the disarmament of Iraq. The US had no
right to continue the old war without the others.
George Bush tried to claim he had a "coalition of the
willing". In the end, even Turkey backed out. He got
a UN resolution to continue the arms inspections, but
not to attack. The US Ambassador to the UN, John
Negroponte, stood before the world and said the UN
resolution contained "no trigger for war". The UN
quite publicly announced that it would consider a
second resolution if necessary to force compliance.

Irag was in full compliance the UN inspections and the
peace agreement at the time when Bush ordered the
attack. George Bush should be impeached and tried for
war crimes and probably violations of domestic law as
well.

Harland Harrison

Starchild writes:
> USgov pressure against the Marxist-oriented
Sandinistas in Nicaragua,
> for example, helped result in forcing them to hold
elections in 1990,
> which they subsequently lost. They have not
recovered power to this day.

That "US pressure" was the disgraceful Iran-Contra
affair. The Sandinista, Daniel Ortega, had become
president of Nicaragua in a legitimate election. His
country had just overthrown the US-imposed dictator,
Somoza. Admiral Poindexter, Oliver North, and Caspar
Weinberger, hired mercenary groups to attack the

newly

elected government of Nicaragua. They were convicted
of felonies for that and for selling weapons to

Iran,

(at hugely inflated prices), in violation of the US
embargo. ( At the time, the administration supported
Iraq in the 1-million fatality Iran-Iraq war.) Some
journalists suspect the CIA also smuggled cocaine to
the US to finance the Contras. President Reagan

tried

to lie about it all, but got caught. George H. W.
Bush, on his last day in office, pardoned

Weinberger.

Poindexter, freed on a technicality, started the
agency that is illegally reading this message.

Daniel

Ortega ran for President last term and again this
year. Jeb Bush bought attack ads in newspapers in
Nicaragua to defeat him.

Good for Jeb Bush. The Sandinistas are basically
Marxists. When they
were in power, they became allies of Cuba and other
communist regimes,
and were seeking to export communist-style revolution
to El Salvador.
With Daniel Ortega at their head, they had already
seized power and
held it for several years when they won an election
which was boycotted
by the major opposition and had serious problems (see
article excerpt
below). Their policies were a disaster for the
Nicaraguan economy, as
might be expected. Without U.S. government aid to the
Contras, legal
and otherwise, they would quite likely still be
holding power as their
mentor Fidel Castro is in Cuba, but fortunately for
the Nicaraguan
people they gained the opportunity of another election
after much
government resistance, and voted the Sandinistas out
in a landslide
from which they have been unable to make a comeback.

Starchild writes
> Good for Jeb Bush.

Jeb Bush interfered with the election in another
country. As a politician, I do not see how you can
approve that. As a Libertarian, I cannot approve of
that. Whether we like the Sandinistas or not, the
people of Nicaragua deserve to choose their own
government.

  Another country, another state, another city, another neighborhood, another block, what's the difference? People are people (as Depeche Mode put it). I don't think the government that runs Nicaragua *belongs* to the people of Nicaragua. Isn't it fundamentally based on coercing them to pay for it whether they like it or not (same as the U.S. government and others)?

  So when you say they deserve to choose their own government, my response is that everyone deserves to *be* his or her own government, except to the degree that a larger force is necessary to protect life, liberty, and property and prevent force/fraud. And the important thing actually is not whether someone personally chooses the leaders of that larger force, but whether they will uphold his/her freedom or not. There are many people in Nicaragua who don't want (and don't deserve) the Sandinistas running their lives, but are too poor to pay for a bunch of ads against them as you say Jeb Bush did. If some wealthy Nicaraguan were to run a bunch of pro-Sandinista ads, how is that any less unfair to them than what Bush did? Just because that other wealthy person was a Nicaraguan? Why should that matter?

  If I were to travel to Nicaragua and share my opinions about the Sandinistas with some people I talked to there during the period before an election, I might also be "interfering" in the election of another country. But it's also free speech! And so is what Jeb Bush did. Do you believe that free speech stops at national borders?

> So you're saying that the suicide bombers in Iraq
> bear no individual responsibility for their actions
> because they are "just following orders?" This
doesn't
> sound very libertarian.

Libertarians believe in international law.

  Libertarians believe in freedom. To the extent that international law upholds freedom, it makes sense for libertarians to support it -- but only to the extent that it does.

You cannot
blame a soldier for following lawful orders.

  That depends what the orders are. Laws are only as good as the people who make them. Even torture may sometimes be "legal." Listen to the USgov attorney general.

  "The law? Slavery was the law, dammit. Don't tell me about some *law* -- 186,000 miles per second, *that's* the law!"
-Richard Boddie, 1996 Libertarian candidate for U.S. Senate

If he
survives his mission or not has nothing to do with its
legality.

  Agreed, and the mission's legality has nothing to do with its morality.

If the attacker mingles with the civilian
population and then blows himself up, he has indeed
committed a war crime. But if the attacker drives his
vehicle into a military target, killing himself and
the enemy, he has heroically "taken out a target".

  I'm with you on these points. There is a difference between killing military and civilian personnel. I would reserve the term "heroically" for actions that actually serve the greater good, but I can go along with saying that a suicide bomber who takes out a military target has died bravely and honorably. I even think the 9/11 attackers were brave. Not heroic or honorable -- indeed despicable -- but it undeniably takes courage to hijack planes and fly them into buildings. Deliberately killing civilians should be considered a war crime and punished harshly.

> Undermining the transition may have been as much or
more of a motive than personal profit in some cases
[of looting].

What a convenient excuse for common thieves! Yes,
Iraqis can now tell each other they hate the Americans
and so have a right to steal from the government
America runs.

  I'm sure some of them felt that way. But whatever their motives, the looters were individually responsible for their actions.

> When you talk about a $2000 per person tax bill, you
*are* talking about per capita, which is what I said
was meaningful.

You are right. In fact we have the wealth to pay a
$20,000 to $30,000 per person government debt.
However, in such rich times, the government has no
excuse to own any money at all.

  You surprise me! I didn't think you went farther toward anarchism than I do. I don't think governments should be *printing* money, but I wouldn't go so far as to say they shouldn't own any money at all.

> A volunteer "army" or civilian force liberating
people
> by applying force against *others* who are
oppressing them,
> on the other hand, is *very much* possible. It's
what often
> happens in a revolution.

Revolutions only occur when people believe they can
get things by using force against the owners or
rulers. Marxism, for example, fuels great revolutions
because it promises to divide up the wealth of an
upper class. How can a violent revolution against the
clerics in Iran replace them with a "government more
respecting of freedom and human rights"? The CIA
could install another right-wing government with
enough money and weapons. Perhaps secular Marxists
could offer a better state-run utopia with the oil
money.

  Revolution is always a gamble. But there is great desire for more freedom in Iran. Read about how many Iranians are going to Dubai and other Gulf States where they can get a taste of Western life.

> I would not describe Al Qaeda as a group "formed to
overthrow
> oppressive regimes," but rather as a terrorist
organization
> seeking to implement an extreme form of Islam.

Wikipedia describes Al Qaeda as a group formed to
overthrow oppressive regimes, the USSR and their
puppets in Afghanistan:
"The origins of al-Qaeda can be traced to the Soviet
invasion of Afghanistan, when a cadre of non-Afghani,
Arab Muslim fighters joined the largely United States
and Pakistan-funded Afghan muj?hid?n anti-Russian
resistance movement (a guerrilla war against Soviet
occupation forces and the Soviet-backed Afghan
government).

  Al Qaeda may have been formed in this manner, but that is not the most relevant characteristic to use in describing the organization today. It is a terrorist group seeking to implement an extreme form of Islam. Think about it -- the Taliban were among the most oppressive regimes in the world, and they were running Afghanistan, the very country that Al Qaeda initially came together around trying to liberate from the Soviets.

  So was Al Qaeda trying to overthrow the oppressive Taliban regime? No, Al Qaeda was working arm in arm with the Taliban, because they represented the kind of Islamic extremism favored by Al Qaeda.

> How do you explain Libyan dictator Muammar Khadafy's
> decision to abandon weapons of mass destruction
after
> seeing the examples of Iraq and Afghanistan?

Bush did not name Libya in the "Axis of Evil".
Without threats from the USgovt, and with the USgovt
desperately seeking success stories, Khadafy made a
deal. What did he give up? Nuclear bombs he did not
have yet which nobody wants to use anyway?

  Libya was on the USgov State Department's list of terrorist-supporting nations, and USgov had been at odds with Khadafy for years. Reagan ordered air strikes against LibyaGov facilities in 1986. Just because Bush did not mention Libya in one particular speech hardly shows that Khadafy could not have been afraid of being a target if he didn't change his policies. I think he was influenced by the examples of Iraq and Afghanistan, and I'm sure he realized that with most of its cities and people near the Mediterranean coast, the country just south of NATO bases in Italy, etc., Libya would be a relatively easy target for USgov air and sea power.

> Again I think you are badly mistaken if you think
> that autocrats like the Islamic clerics running Iran
> are able to maintain power *only* when there is an
> external threat.

Dictators can also use an internal threat instead of
an external enemy. In Iran, they shot the hated
officials of the Shah immediately, and drove the
wealthy Europeanized citizens out of the country. I
do not think clerics really have any internal
scapegoats. The have no illegal aliens, no marrying
homosexuals, or anybody else to blame. They came to
power calling the US the "Great Satan", and as long as
the US lives up to that name in Iran, the clerics can
remain in power.

  The United States government lives up to that name in Iran in the clerics' imaginations only. And they do have lots of other potential scapegoats to choose from: Israel, the country their president said should be wiped off the map, and the Jews in general; Western culture and its adherents within "their" country; the "heretical" Sunni version of Islam; the Gulf states, for employing "their" people as second class citizens in relatively low-paying jobs and exposing them to Western culture, etc.

> do you think that U.S. government troops are more
cowardly [?]

I do not know. But for one reason or another, the
USgovt worries about very small casualty rates.

  I submit to you that the anti-intervention movement and its effect on public opinion is a major cause of this worry.

> 18,000 to 29,000 deaths. According to the survey
data, children aged
> below 18 years comprise 12% percent of the deaths
due to warfare.

I would trust the peer-reviewed scientist rather than
the politician or blogger. Still, you cannot excuse
killing even so few as 18,000 people, or 2500
children.

  I'm not "trusting" either source. I'm looking at the description of the two studies, and finding the methodology of the UN study more reliable in this case. Of course it is still a tragedy if 18,000 people die. But one must also look at the alternatives. Prior to the USgov intervention, even more Iraqis were allegedly dying as a result of the UN economic embargo, this according to a number of left-wing sources at the time. Arguably the invasion saved lives, because the likely political alternative to invading would have been continuing the embargo.

> Looks like the game is over...

May they rest in peace.

  What's the point of taking that quote out of context and pairing it with "May they rest in peace," other than to make the blogger look insensitive?

> domestic opposition to intervention in Iraq may have
> -- no, almost certainly *did* -- influence Bush to
ignore
> the advice of his generals

If he knew he could not do it right, he had less
reason to do it at all.

  Less reason, but perhaps still enough reason given the alternatives. Not that I think it was the best choice he could have made, but it was better than not invading and continuing the sanctions, or dropping the sanctions and effectively letting Saddam have free reign in Iraq.

> Why do you think USgov was still under any
obligation to abide
> by its part of the treaty in the face of such
repeated violations?

The Gulf War peace was signed with a real coalition,
France, Egypt,Saudi Arabia, UAE, Canada etc. The UN
controlled the disarmament of Iraq. The US had no
right to continue the old war without the others.
George Bush tried to claim he had a "coalition of the
willing". In the end, even Turkey backed out.

  While the U.S. and British governments have supplied most of the troops, dozens of countries contributed forces to the 2003 invasion or its aftermath (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multinational_force_in_Iraq#List_of_nations_in_the_Coalition ).

He got
a UN resolution to continue the arms inspections, but
not to attack. The US Ambassador to the UN, John
Negroponte, stood before the world and said the UN
resolution contained "no trigger for war". The UN
quite publicly announced that it would consider a
second resolution if necessary to force compliance.

  I concede the invasion was quite possibly in violation of international law.

Irag was in full compliance the UN inspections and the
peace agreement at the time when Bush ordered the
attack. George Bush should be impeached and tried for
war crimes and probably violations of domestic law as
well.

  You may be surprised that I agree Bush should be impeached and tried for war crimes. Not for violating international law -- that does not constitute a "war crime" and is not even necessarily a bad thing -- but for insufficient efforts to conduct the invasion in a manner consistent with protecting civilian life. I'm not sure he should be convicted, but I'm in favor of pursuing the process. I would love to watch him be cross-examined by a competent lawyer.

Yours in liberty,
        <<< starchild >>>

Harland Harrison

Subject: Re: [lpsf-discuss] Nuclear weapons/Iran/Iraq

> Starchild writes:
> > USgov pressure against the Marxist-oriented
> Sandinistas in Nicaragua,
> > for example, helped result in forcing them to hold
> elections in 1990,
> > which they subsequently lost. They have not
> recovered power to this day.
>
> That "US pressure" was the disgraceful Iran-Contra
> affair. The Sandinista, Daniel Ortega, had become
> president of Nicaragua in a legitimate election. His
> country had just overthrown the US-imposed dictator,
> Somoza. Admiral Poindexter, Oliver North, and Caspar
> Weinberger, hired mercenary groups to attack the
newly
> elected government of Nicaragua. They were convicted
> of felonies for that and for selling weapons to
Iran,
> (at hugely inflated prices), in violation of the US
> embargo. ( At the time, the administration supported
> Iraq in the 1-million fatality Iran-Iraq war.) Some
> journalists suspect the CIA also smuggled cocaine to
> the US to finance the Contras. President Reagan
tried
> to lie about it all, but got caught. George H. W.
> Bush, on his last day in office, pardoned
Weinberger.
> Poindexter, freed on a technicality, started the
> agency that is illegally reading this message.
Daniel
> Ortega ran for President last term and again this
> year. Jeb Bush bought attack ads in newspapers in
> Nicaragua to defeat him.

Good for Jeb Bush. The Sandinistas are basically
Marxists. When they
were in power, they became allies of Cuba and other
communist regimes,
and were seeking to export communist-style revolution
to El Salvador.
With Daniel Ortega at their head, they had already
seized power and
held it for several years when they won an election
which was boycotted
by the major opposition and had serious problems (see
article excerpt
below). Their policies were a disaster for the
Nicaraguan economy, as
might be expected. Without U.S. government aid to the
Contras, legal
and otherwise, they would quite likely still be
holding power as their
mentor Fidel Castro is in Cuba, but fortunately for
the Nicaraguan
people they gained the opportunity of another election
after much
government resistance, and voted the Sandinistas out
in a landslide
from which they have been unable to make a comeback.

----------------------------------------------------------
---
"What Does the United States Want from Nicaragua?"
(from
http://www.digitalnpq.org/archive/1984_85_fall_winter/what_US.html
)

"On June 23, 1979, the United States voted for a
resolution by the
Organization of American States (OAS) that called for
"the immediate
and definitive replacement of the Somoza regime" and -
the holding of
free elections as soon as possible".

"When Somoza fled a month later, the United States
immediately
recognized Nicaragua's new government and sought
friendly relations
with it. With Congressional support, the
Administration furnished large
amounts of emergency food, reconstruction funds and
development
assistance. For the next 18 months, the United States
was the largest
donor of foreign aid to Nicaragua.

"The result was not what we had hoped or wanted.
Nicaragua's new
government had wide popular support at first, but
discontent grew as
the Sandinistas revealed their Marxist tendencies and
proceeded to
renege on their commitment to support pluralism and to
hold free
elections. The implications became evident just as
deliveries of U. S.
aid were peaking: the Sandinistas brought in thousands
of Cuban
advisors, some of whom assisted a Soviet-backed
Sandinista plan to
advise, train and arm guerrillas in El Salvador. The
Sandinistas began
a massive military buildup, and refused to support an
open and
democratic system.

"By 1984, when elections were finally held in
Nicaragua, the situation
had come full circle. Potential opponents had the same
chance as they
had during the 1974 election of Somoza as President,
i.e., none, Press
censorship was extensive. Organized gangs - the
so-called Turbas
Divinas ("divine mobs") - regularly broke up rallies
of non-Sandinista
parties and harassed individual candidates..."
----------------------------------------------------------
---

> > So a suicide bomber himself bears no
responsibility
> for
> > the deaths of the civilians he kills with his
> roadside bomb?
> > So you believe that individual criminals are not
> responsible for their own actions
> > in a time of war?
>
> Wrong. Civilians are individually responsible, but
> commanders, during war, are responsible for whatever
> effect their orders cause. Soldiers must obey
orders.
> Their commanders bear legal responsibility for
> whatever the soldiers do. A soldier who obeys an
> obviously illegal order, such as torturing a
prisoner,
> faces prosecution also, but that in no way relieves
> his commander of the primary responsibility for the
> crime. The commanders issuing the orders bear full
> legal responsibility for whatever death or damage
they
> cause.

So you're saying that the suicide bombers in Iraq
bear no individual
responsibility for their actions because they are
"just following
orders?" This doesn't sound very libertarian. But
although you don't
explicitly say so, it does sound like you are placing
the blame for the
deaths caused by suicide bombers and roadside bombs on
the insurgent
commanders who gave the orders to carry out those
attacks, rather than
on the U.S. military.

> An occupying army has the obligation to maintain the
> civil order. The US deliberately dissolved the Iraqi
> forces which could have done so. The US became
> responsible for the ensuing chaos. Bush could have
> blamed another military organization operating in
the
> area, but not common criminals. Destroying the civil
> protection is no different than destroying the water
,
> irrigation, or sewage facilities. Causing famines or
> epidemics would certainly be war crimes. Causing
> looting and murder is no different.

I agree that major mistakes were made during the
immediate
post-invasion period, and the U.S. government bears
some responsibility
for creating the situation that led to the looting.
But overall blame
must be shared with the individuals who actually did
the looting,
because it makes no moral sense to hold them blameless
for actions they
took of their own free will. I suspect that a good
portion of the
looters were people associated with the former regime,
who would have
been in the best position to know where the assets
were and have access
to them. Undermining the transition may have been as
much or more of a
motive than personal profit in some cases.

> > Per capita debt, or debt as a percentage of GNP,
are
> more meaningful
> > statistics than mere debt totals.
>
> I strongly disagree. Our government has no excuse
for
> ever-increasing debt in the face of US prosperity
and
> tax revenues. They borrow to keep the voters in
> ignorance of the actual cost of their programs. If
> voters received a $2000 per person tax bill to raise
> the $1/2 trillion per year needed for the war, they
> would change party. We can excuse Jean Val-Jean for
> stealing a loaf of bread in the face of starvation.
> We cannot excuse a rich person stealing things he
does
> not even need.

I can't argue with any of that, but it doesn't refute
the point I was
making. When you talk about a $2000 per person tax
bill, you *are*
talking about per capita, which is what I said was
meaningful.

> > Surely you would agree that people have the right
to
> overthrow oppressive regimes,
> > and to seek aid from any quarter in doing so? I
> also suspect that people worldwide
> > donate more money to secular causes than to
> religious ones, and that there are more
> > are more volunteers in secular organizations than
in
> religious ones.
>
> Raising a civilian, volunteer, army to "liberate"
> people by force sounds impossible to me. Al Queada
is
> a civilian, volunteer, army formed to overthrow
> oppressive regimes. Have they liberated anyone? Can
> a secular volunteer corps compete with their jihad?

We have to be careful with the wording here. I would
agree that
"libertarian people by force" is impossible if what
you mean is forcing
people to be free. That would be an oxymoron, because
the definition of
being free is an absence of force being imposed upon
you.

A volunteer "army" or civilian force liberating
people by applying
force against *others* who are oppressing them, on the
other hand, is
*very much* possible. It's what often happens in a
revolution. Of
course I would not describe Al Qaeda as a group
"formed to overthrow
oppressive regimes," but rather as a terrorist
organization seeking to
implement an extreme form of Islam. I also understand
their operatives
are often subsidized for living expenses, if not
necessarily getting
outright paychecks. That was apparently true in the
case of the 9/11
operatives.

> > Fear is not always a bad thing. Governments should
> fear the the people they govern.
> > Sometimes those people can use a little help
> instilling that fear.
>
> US aggression does not frighten the governments; it
> frightens their citizens. The citizens turn to their
> own oppressive governments for protection. This
> worked to keep the Soviet Union together for half a
> century. It worked to keep Hussein in power in Iraq
> for 12 years. It keeps the theocracy in power in
Iran
> today.

How do you explain Libyan dictator Muammar Khadafy's
decision to
abandon weapons of mass destruction after seeing the
examples of Iraq
and Afghanistan? I also think you will have a
difficult time finding
evidence to support the argument that the Soviet Union
stayed together
for half a century because the people of Russia and
the other Republics
supported the Soviet government out of fear of the
United States
government. On the contrary, most people living under
Soviet rule hated
and feared that regime and its secret police far more
than they feared
the United States.

> > Do you really believe that oppression is only
> possible when there is an external enemy?
> > That if it wasn't for USgov's hostility toward
them,
> the rulers of Iran would
> > embrace homosexuality, women's rights, etc.?
>
> The theocracy would not have power in Iran if the
> USgov did not threaten them. Only a few Iranians are
> such Islamic extremists. But just as a few
homophobic
> Christian organizations gained control of national
> politics since 9-11, the theocracy took control of
> Iran after the bloody revolution against the
> US-imposed "Shah". The brutal war with Iraq, and now
> the threats of a US and Israeli attack with nuclear
> weapons, keep that theocracy popular. Do the people
> of Iran think that embracing more "sin" would
actually
> diminish the wrath of George Bush and the Neocons? I
> doubt it.

Again I think you are badly mistaken if you think
that autocrats like
the Islamic clerics running Iran are able to maintain
power *only* when
there is an external threat. I frankly can't see what
would make you
believe such a thing.

> > What do you think of the prospect of sending UN
> > or USgov troops to Darfur?
>
> Troops are needed to protect civilians in Darfur. We
> should not use US troops, however. They are too
> expensive, too afraid of casualties, and too brutal.

They also tend to be more effective and less corrupt
than the troops
employed by African governments, but I'll grant they
are relatively
much more expensive. As far as being afraid of
casualties, do you think
that U.S. government troops are more cowardly than
those of other
governments, or would you agree that the fear of
casualties is actually
a *political* rather than a morale problem, caused by
the
anti-intervention movement in the United States
undermining support for
USgov military operations overseas in general?

Nevertheless, I'm not insistent on USgov troops going
to Darfur. I'd
be happy to see any force go there that was capable of
stopping the
genocide and was not going to create new problems.

> But the situation is so bad that the US should just
> pay for food and troops from African countries. Tom
> Lantos should be pushing an appropriation instead of
> staging his phony arrest outside of the Sudan
embassy.

I don't support any government-to-government foreign
aid. Too much of
it is wasted. And I only support government military
action because
there is no viable private alternative. That is not
true in the case of
humanitarian aid, where there are many non-government
organizations
capable of handling such missions. USgov's
humanitarian role should be
limited to affording military protection to NGOs and
their workers in
conflict zones, and using its bully pulpit to
encourage people to
donate to them (and/or making such donations
tax-deductable). And if
USgov pays for soldiers in the military forces of
other governments to
intervene, again it should issue the paychecks
directly to those
soldiers to eliminate the possibility of skimming.

> > That Lancet study was apparently based on
> extrapolation,
> > not an actual body count, and the methodology used
> appears
> > rather suspect (see for example
> >
>
http://www.casi.org.uk/briefing/041101lancetpmos.html
>
> The Lancet paper proved the attack on Iraq killed at
> least 100,000 and suggested as many as 298,000
> possibly died using less conservative standards of
> proof. The link you provided,(above), actually
> defends the Lancet article from a politically
> motivated criticism by the Blair government of the
UK.

You're right, that link is actually dedicated to
defending the Lancet
article, although it does mention some of the
allegations against it.
But here is a much better and more detailed critique:

http://www.seixon.com/blog/archives/politics/lancet_study/
index.html#a000003

An excerpt from the end of that link is revealing,
because it
describes a later UN study that had much better
methodology (many more
interviews to confirm actual deaths, and covering a
broader range of
regions in Iraq) than the Lancet study:

----------------------------------------------------------
-
"The [Lancet] study leaves us with this final
challenge:

"In view of the political importance of this conflict,
these results
should be confirmed by an independent body such as the
ICRC, Epicentre,
or WHO.

"OK then. How about the UN Development Program? They
just released a
study a little over a week ago. Let's see what they
had to say.

"'The number of deaths of civilians and military
personnel in Iraq in
the aftermath of the 2003 invasion is another set of
figures that has
raised controversy. The Living Conditions Survey data
indicates 24,000
deaths, with a 95 percent confidence interval from
18,000 to 29,000
deaths. According to the survey data, children aged
below 18 years
comprise 12% percent of the deaths due to warfare.'

"UNDP says 24,000 deaths, and makes no mistake in
saying that this is
civilians and military personnel. How was this survey
set up, did it
have the same pitfalls as the Lancet study?

"'In each governorate, 1,100 households were selected
for interview,
with the exception of Baghdad, where 3,300 households
were selected.
The sample thus consisted of 22,000 households. Of
these, 21,668 were
actually interviewed.'

"Well then. Looks like the game is over, Dr. Roberts
[lead researcher
in the Lancet study]. But fear not, the media is
carrying the torch you
lit and will most likely not let it go. Your lie that
100,000 civilian
Iraqis have died as a result of the Iraq war will live
on in the hearts
and minds of every anti-war person in the world who
have heard it, and
they'll never let it go. You can now place yourself in
the same company
as Michael Moore: failing to influence a presidential
election, but
managing to create a Big Lie to live on beyond your
years, to enslave
the masses."
----------------------------------------------------------
-

As described elsewhere in the link above, Dr. Roberts
of Lancet
admitted in an interview that he opposed the invasion
of Iraq, and that
he deliberately sought to get Lancet's results
released before the U.S.
election. No bias there!

As noted above, a United Nations study found 24,000
deaths including
both civilian *and* military forces in Iraq. Perhaps
you have
persuasive evidence to support a theory that this
study missed over
76,000 civilian Iraqi deaths?

But in the meantime, please check out the link for a
much more
detailed analysis of why the 100,000 figure should not
be believed:
http://www.seixon.com/blog/archives/politics/lancet_study/
index.html#a000003

> > Congress certainly could pass a resolution calling
> for
> > the withdrawal of Al Qaeda from Iraq. I believe
you
> call
> > for IsraelGov to take certain actions regarding
the
> > Palestinians, yet Congress does not get to vote
> directly
> > on that either. Of course Congress could apply
> pressure on
> > IsraelGov as a way of enforcing its wishes, but it
> could
> > also adopt measures to increase pressure on Al
> Qaeda.
>
> Since the USgovt claims to have put all the pressure
> on Al Qaeda possible, I do not see how Congress
could
> call for Al Qaeda to do anything. Would the
> resolution say, "Withdraw from Iraq and the price on
> your leader's head will go down by $10,000,000" or
> what?

Congress could certainly do that. They could pass
just about any
resolution they wanted. My point was simply that you
are not limited to
calling for things to happen only when you are in a
position to
personally influence whether they happen or not. As a
candidate, you
have a bully pulpit to say what *ought* to be done by
*all* responsible
parties. I think it's misleading to imply that one
side is more
blameworthy than the other by focusing all your blame
on them when you
admit here that the reason you criticize one side and
not the other is
because you think you have influence over one side and
not the other.

> > When critics of intervention fault USgov for
failing
> > to do what their own opposition has made
politically
> > problematic, and say that certain things should
have
> > been done when they at the time opposed sending
more
> > troops in order to do them, it seems a bit unfair
> > and hypocritical to me.
>
> Opposition to the war began long before the attack.
> Bush knew the political climate he faced and
continued
> anyway. In fact, generals told him he needed more
> troops from the begining, but he ignored, (even
> fired?), those generals.

Yes, but the point is that domestic opposition to
intervention in Iraq
may have -- no, almost certainly *did* -- influence
Bush to ignore the
advice of his generals who told him more troops were
needed to get the
job done properly. Why would he have overruled their
military advice
about such a matter, unless there was a political
motivation to do so?

> > IraqGov was *not* following the peace agreement.
For
> example, it
> > regularly tried to shoot down coalition aircraft
> which were allowed
> > in its airspace under the terms of the agreement.
It
> often blocked
> > or stonewalled inspections
>
> Wrong. Iraq was indeed following the peace agreement
> but the US was violating it. Iraq was cooperating
> fully with the inspections and even destroyed its Al
> Samoud II missile system over a technicality. The US
> unilaterally imposed the No Fly Zones which the
peace
> treaty did not include. The administration cited UN
> Res 688 as its only authority, but Res 688 makes no
> mention of any such thing:
>
> http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres0688.htm

"Saddam Hussein's Defiance of United Nations
Resolutions
Saddam Hussein has repeatedly violated seventeen
United Nations
Security Council Resolutions (UNSCRs) designed to
ensure that Iraq does
not pose a threat to international peace and security.
In addition to
these repeated violations, he has tried, over the past
decade, to
circumvent UN economic sanctions against Iraq, which
are reflected in a
number of other resolutions. As noted in the
resolutions, Saddam
Hussein was required to fulfill many obligations
beyond the withdrawal
of Iraqi forces from Kuwait. Specifically, Saddam
Hussein was required
to, among other things: allow international weapons
inspectors to
oversee the destruction of his weapons of mass
destruction; not develop
new weapons of mass destruction; destroy all of his
ballistic missiles
with a range greater than 150 kilometers; stop support
for terrorism
and prevent terrorist organizations from operating
within Iraq; help
account for missing Kuwaitis and other individuals;
return stolen
Kuwaiti property and bear financial liability for
damage from the Gulf
War; and he was required to end his repression of the
Iraqi people."

- From http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/01fs/14906.htm

This site lists numerous UN Security Council
resolutions, many of
which note that IraqGov was violating other
resolutions. For instance,
a UNSC resolution passed in 1996, according to the
site, "'Deplores'
Iraq's refusal to allow access to UN inspectors and
Iraq's 'clear
violations' of previous UN resolutions."

While UN resolution 688 did not specifically
authorize creation of the
"no fly" zones, it was a step that was taken *after*
IraqGov violated
the resolution by attempting to repress legitimate
uprisings of the
Iraqi people, specifically the Kurds in northern Iraq
and the Shi'ites
in southern Iraq, and a reasonable step to ensure
compliance with that
resolution (see
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/events/crisis_in_the_gulf/
forces_and_firepower/244364.stm for a straightforward
account of this
history which notes the shakiness of claims that the
UN resolution
authorized "no fly" zones, but also makes clear the
sequence of events).

> > What do *you* think the consequences for violating
> the peace treaty should have been?
>
> George W. Bush violated the peace treaty, killing
> hundreds of thousands of people. The punishment
> should be impeachment followed by criminal trial for
> any laws which he or his subordinates violated.

By the time of the invasion, Saddam's regime had been
cited *again and
again* for violating various UN resolutions. Leaving
aside the ample
moral justification for the invasion simply on the
basis of removing a
repressive regime, it seems to me that while the
USgov-led coalition
invasion may not have been supported by any UN
resolution, it was
IraqGov that had specifically violated UN resolutions,
and it seemed
pretty clear that its pattern of doing so was
continuing over a period
of time.

If USgov violated any promises made to Saddam's
regime by resuming
conflict with the 2003 invasion, this occurred long
after Saddam had
violated many times over his promise to comply with UN
resolutions. Why
do you think USgov was still under any obligation to
abide by its part
of the treaty in the face of such repeated violations?

Yours in liberty,
<<< starchild >>>

> --- Starchild <sfdreamer@...> a écrit :
>
> > Harland,
> >
> > My further responses are interspersed with your
> > comments below...
> >
> > > Starchild,
> > >
> > > By many measures, the USgov actually is the
worst
> > > government in the world.
> >
> > By many measures, certainly. However, when an
> > organized effort is made
> > to rank countries by taking a number of relevant
> > characteristics of the
> > governments that rule them into account, as do the
> > Fraser and Heritage
> > institutions, Reporters Without Borders, Amnesty
> > International, etc.,
> > it becomes fairly clear that USgov is nowhere near
> > the worst in the
> > world. In fact I believe that all of the
> > organizations listed above,
> > which tend to use criteria in their respective
areas
> > of analysis that I
> > think libertarians would generally agree with,
rank
> > the United States
> > well *above* average.
> >
> > > It keeps the highest
> > > percentage of its population in prison, has
> > several
> > > times the WMD of the rest of the world, follows
> > its
> > > citizens to other countries to collect taxes on
> > money
> > > earned and spent there, accumulates the largest
> > debt
> > > in history,
> >
> > Per capita debt, or debt as a percentage of GNP,
> > are more meaningful
> > statistics than mere debt totals.
> >
> > > attacks and undermines peaceful
> > > governments all over the world, and does so will
> > > enjoying comparative safety and the largest tax
> > base
> > > in history.
> >
> > Who was it who said that the mere absence of war
is
> > not peace? Many
> > tyrannies preside over relative "peace" and
> > stability. A government's
> > legitimacy, or lack thereof, does not turn solely
on
> > whether or not it
> > is "peaceful" as that word is conventionally
> > understood.
> >
> > > Even so, the USgov might appear on the side of
> > > freedom. But the side of freedom rarely involves
> > > promoting conflict. Fear makes governments
> > > oppressive. Look what happened in the US after
> > 9-11.
> > > Threatening oppressive regimes makes them more
> > > powerful at home, and usually more oppressive.
The
> > > USgov may pose as a "liberator" but in reality
it
> > > promotes fear and oppression.
> >
> > The above is not necessarily always true. USgov
> > pressure against the
> > Marxist-oriented Sandinistas in Nicaragua, for
> > example, helped result
> > in forcing them to hold elections in 1990, which
> > they subsequently
> > lost. They have not recovered power to this day.
> >
> > Dissidents like Burmese Nobel Peace Prize winner
> > Aung San Suu Ki (sp?)
> > often remain alive because the regimes which
oppress
> > them fear
> > international reaction if they simply have these
> > dissidents killed.
> >
> > Fear is not always a bad thing. Governments should
> > fear the the people
> > they govern. Sometimes those people can use a
little
> > help instilling
> > that fear.
> >
> > > Governments do have "sovereign rights", by
> > definition,
> > > but they have no other rights. No government has
> > any
> > > "right to exist", for example. Human rights
trump
> > > sovereign rights.
> >
> > What rights do you think "sovereign rights"
entail,
> > if they do not
> > even include the right to exist? Part of the
> > definition of the word
> > "sovereign" is sole or final authority. Obviously
> > therefore,
> > individuals and governments cannot both have sole
or
> > final authority
> > when their jurisdictions overlap -- one or the
other
> > must be sovereign.
> > I believe it is the individual.
> >
> > > As libertarians we believe that
> > > human rights include property rights and
extensive
> > > individual civil liberties. We believe all
> > government
> > > powers derive from the people governed.
> > >
> > > If we did live in that ideal world, "a world
where
> > > governments never acted against each other", the
> > > government of Iran would not be oppressive. It
> > would
> > > have no "Great Satan", by which they mean the
US,
> > to
> > > justify their excesses.
> >
> > Do you really believe that oppression is only
> > possible when there is
> > an external enemy? That if it wasn't for USgov's
> > hostility toward them,
> > the rulers of Iran would embrace homosexuality,
> > women's rights, etc.?
> > With all due respect, I think that is naive. The
> > corrupting influence
> > of power is not dependent upon the existence of
> > critics.
> >
> > > I would certainly never
> > > donate to any private campaign to "remove a
regime
> > and
> > > replace it" by violent means. I signed a pledge.
> >
> > Against *initiation* of force. Surely you would
> > agree that people have
> > the right to overthrow oppressive regimes, and to
> > seek aid from any
> > quarter in doing so?
> >
> > > And
> > > I would never expect such a tactic to work
against
> > a
> > > theocracy, no matter who tried it. Faith can
> > always
> > > raise more donors and volunteers than secular
> > charity.
> >
> > Just because a regime is a theocracy does not
> > automatically make it
> > popular with the people. I also suspect that
people
> > worldwide donate
> > more money to secular causes than to religious
ones,
> > and that there are
> > more volunteers in secular organizations than in
> > religious ones,
> > although I could be wrong about that and I know of
> > no ready way to
> > check.
> >
> > > You do have a duty to speak out against
oppression
> > by
> > > a government. In no way does this translate into
a
> > > right of another government to launch economic
or
> > > military acts of war. If military intervention
can
> > > improve human rights, it is certainly
acceptable.
> >
> > I'm glad you are not in knee-jerk opposition to
> > intervention. What do
> > you think of the prospect of sending UN or USgov
> > troops to Darfur? Can
> > you name or hypothesize any intervention which
> > strictly involves human
> > rights, and not U.S. national interests, by USgov
> > military forces in
> > another country that you would support? I'm
curious
> > what your criteria
> > are.
> >
> > > This was neither the case, nor the intention in
> > Iraq,
> > > and does not appear to be the intention in any
> > attack
> > > on Iran.
> >
> > I think the human rights issue was a necessary
> > ingredient in the
> > campaign against Saddam. If the Baathist regime he
> > headed had been a
> > democratically-elected government generally
> > characterized by the rule
> > of law and respect for human rights and property
(at
> > least to the
> > extent that Western European governments match
this
> > description), I
> > submit that the invasion would not have taken
place.
> >
> > > USgovt opposition to Saddam Hussein DID make him
> > > stronger, and stronger, at home.
> >
> > Actually it *removed* him from power. It *might*
> > have made him
> > stronger if the invasion had not taken place.
> >
> > > George Bush did
> > > capture him, but did so by destroying the
country
> > of
> > > Iraq. Iraq is still fighting back. The 100,000
> > > people were killed by the initial Shock and Awe
> > > invasion, according to the epidemiologists
writing
> > in
> > > the most respected medical journal, the Lancet.
> >
> > That Lancet study was apparently based on
> > extrapolation, not an actual
> > body count, and the methodology used appears
rather
> > suspect (see for
> > example
> >
>
http://www.casi.org.uk/briefing/041101lancetpmos.html
> > ).
> >
> > > I do not know how I can "call for a withdrawal
of
> > Al
> > > Queda". Congress does not get to vote on that.
In
> > > fact, I don't think any government votes on
that.
> >
> > Congress certainly could pass a resolution calling
> > for the withdrawal
> > of Al Qaeda from Iraq. I believe you call for
> > IsraelGov to take certain
> > actions regarding the Palestinians, yet Congress
> > does not get to vote
> > directly on that either. Of course Congress could
> > apply pressure on
> > IsraelGov as a way of enforcing its wishes, but it
> > could also adopt
> > measures to increase pressure on Al Qaeda.
> >
> > > The USgovt is in fact responsible for the people
> > > killed by the "insurgency".
> >
> > Fully responsible? So a suicide bomber himself
> > bears no responsibility
> > for the deaths of the civilians he kills with his
> > roadside bomb? If you
> > do think the suicide bomber is at least partly
> > responsible, I'd be
> > curious to hear what percentage of the blame you
> > would apportion to him
> > and what percentage to USgov.
> >
> > > An invading army has an
> > > obligation to protect the civilian population.
The
> > US
> > > military has not done so. They let Baghdad be
> > looted.
> > > They fail to police the territory.
> >
> > These are legitimate criticisms. I do note however
> > that the failure by
> > USgov to devote sufficient troops to take the
steps
> > you fault them
> > above for not taking, stems in part from domestic
> > political pressures
> > against military intervention outside the United
> > States. When critics
> > of intervention fault USgov for failing to do what
> > their own opposition
> > has made politically problematic, and say that
> > certain things should
> > have been done when they at the time opposed
sending
> > more troops in
> > order to do them, it seems a bit unfair and
> > hypocritical to me.
> >
> > > They even claim
> > > the insurgents are not soldiers covered by
Geneva
> > > Convention. If so, the insurgents have no
> > "commanders
> > > responsible for their actions". The insurgents
> > must
> > > be criminals, civilians who take advantage of
the
> > > situation.
> >
> > So you believe that individual criminals are not
> > responsible for their
> > own actions in a time of war? Why should the
concept
> > of personal
> > responsibility be tossed out the window any time
> > there is an invasion?
> >
> > > An occupying army has an obligation to
> > > protect the population from the inevitable
> > consequence
> > > of destroying their police forces.
> >
> > I think an occupying army has an obligation to
make
> > a *reasonable
> > effort* to protect the population under such
> > circumstances. But when
> > other elements are directly opposing such efforts,
> > there can be a limit
> > to how much protection can be achieved.
> >
> > > This war did not start 16 years ago. The Gulf
War
> > > ended with a peace agreement which Iraq was
> > following
> > > at the time George Bush attacked them.
> >
> > IraqGov was *not* following the peace agreement.
> > For example, it
> > regularly tried to shoot down coalition aircraft
> > which were allowed in
> > its airspace under the terms of the agreement. It
> > often blocked or
> > stonewalled inspections.
> >
> > > They were even
> > > destroying their own conventional weapons to
> > comply
> > > with it. Remember how George Bush announced his
> > > attack? "Saddam and his sons must leave Iraq.
> > Their
> > > failure to do so will result in military
action".
> > > That was not in the peace treaty nor the UN
> > > Resolutions. Bush just made it up. (He also lied
> > > again. The next day Ari Fleischer explained that
> > even
> > > if Saddam left, "the troops will still go in".)
> >
> > What do *you* think the consequences for violating
> > the peace treaty
> > should have been? Keep in mind that there were
> > already economic
> > sanctions in place, and that Saddam's regime was
> > evading those as well.
> >
> > Yours in liberty,
> > <<< starchild >>>
> >
> > > --- Starchild <sfdreamer@...> a écrit
:
> > >
> > > > Harland,
> > > >
> > > > Libertarians in the United States spend most
of
> > > > their political energy
> > > > opposing the U.S. government (USgov), and
> > > > understandably so. A drawback
> > > > of this circumstance, however, is that it can
> > become
> > > > force of habit to
> > > > automatically oppose USgov even in situations
> > where
> > > > to do so is *not*
> > > > to side with freedom, for example when USgov
is
> > in
> > > > conflict with
> > > > another government, or regime, that is much
more
> > > > oppressive. I think we
> > > > should regularly remind ourselves that as bad
as
> > > > USgov is, most of the
> > > > world's governments are even worse in most
> > respects.
> > > >
> > > > We are in agreement that governments are not
> > > > persons. Because they are
> > > > not individuals, they have no sovereign
rights.
> > But
> > > > they can have track
> > > > records. Authoritarian leaders often do seek
to
> > stir
> > > > up fear and hatred
> > > > against enemies abroad. An even more common
> > tactic
> > > > among them is to
> > > > attempt to hide their crimes behind the shield
> > of
> > > > "national
> > > > sovereignty" and to use nationalism to stir up
> > > > opposition to "foreign"
> > > > intervention, when in reality they themselves
> > are
> > > > the worst enemies of
> > > > "their own" people.
> > > >
> > > > I trust that as a libertarian, you would agree
> > that
> > > > the regime in Iran
> > > > is highly oppressive, and that if we were
living
> > in
> > > > a world where
> > > > governments never acted against each other,
that
> > you
> > > > would donate to a
> > > > campaign to remove the regime and replace it
> > with a
> > > > government more
> > > > respecting of freedom and human rights.
> > > > Unfortunately however, the
> > > > tendency among oppressive regimes to use
> > nationalism
> > > > to bolster their
> > > > own positions by focusing on enemies abroad
> > means
> > > > that the accusation
> > > > of bolstering a regime's domestic standing
that
> > you
> > > > level against the
> > > > U.S. government with regard to the Iranian
> > regime
> > > > would apply equally
> > > > to a *non-government* campaign against the
> > Iranian
> > > > regime.
> > > >
> > > > Assuming you believe that it's OK and even
good
> > for
> > > > individuals and
> > > > voluntary groups to speak out against
oppression
> > and
> > > > human rights
> > > > abuses around the world, we must accept that
> > tyrants
> > > > seeking to use
> > > > such attacks to bolster their domestic
standing
> > > > simply comes with the
> > > > territory. Therefore this is not a point that
> > can
> > > > fairly be argued
> > > > against USgov in the present circumstances,
> > since it
> > > > is a criticism
> > > > that could equally apply to the kind of
> > libertarian
> > > > campaign against
> > > > IranGov that we would all presumably support.
> > > >
> > > > Oppressive regimes only benefit from
opposition
> > > > abroad when that
> > > > opposition is muted or ineffective. Obviously
> > USgov
> > > > opposition to
> > > > Saddam Hussein's rule did not ultimately make
> > him
> > > > stronger, since he is
> > > > now out of power and sitting in jail. Nor --
to
> > use
> > > > an example you
> > > > should appreciate -- does it appear to me that
> > the
> > > > unpopularity of the
> > > > Bush administration among much of the world
has
> > > > improved Bush's
> > > > domestic position. Many other examples could
be
> > > > given, but I hope the
> > > > point is clear. It is important that we, the
> > people
> > > > of the world, speak
> > > > out and act against injustice, and not be
shamed
> > > > into silence by the
> > > > false doctrine that our righteous anger
against
> > > > oppression merely helps
> > > > the oppressors.
> > > >
> > > > You refer to the "axis of evil" as
"imaginary."
> > Is
> > > > this because you
> > > > think there is no significant cooperation
> > between
> > > > the regimes in Iran
> > > > and North Korea, or because you think the
> > actions of
> > > > those regimes are
> > > > not, on the whole, evil?
> > > >
> > > > You also say that George Bush is killing more
> > > > innocent Iraqis every
> > > > day. Do you really care about the innocent
> > Iraqis?
> > > > If so, you should be
> > > > willing to consider *all* possible solutions
for
> > > > improving their
> > > > condition, and not only those solutions which
do
> > not
> > > > involve military
> > > > intervention by other governments.
> > > >
> > > > Right now, Iraq has a government which came to
> > > > power in elections
> > > > generally recognized as fair. USgov and allied
> > > > military forces are in
> > > > Iraq as guests of that government. They are
> > there
> > > > attempting to put
> > > > down an insurgency which along with attempting
> > to
> > > > destroy the country's
> > > > infrastructure, does not merely have a
reckless
> > > > disregard for civilian
> > > > life (a charge which can often be justifiably
> > > > leveled against the U.S.
> > > > military), but whose policy has been the
> > *deliberate
> > > > targeting* of
> > > > civilians for abduction and killing. This is
not
> > an
> > > > insignificant
> > > > distinction -- it is the difference between
> > > > manslaughter and murder. I
> > > > also know of no efforts by the Iraqi
insurgents
> > to
> > > > disavow Al Qaeda, a
> > > > murderous terrorist organization which should
be
> > > > recognized as the
> > > > enemy by all civilized people and which
appears
> > to
> > > > be playing a major
> > > > role in the insurgency.
> > > >
> > > > I believe that a principled, objective (rather
> > than
> > > > knee-jerk
> > > > anti-USgov) anti-war position would oppose
> > > > withdrawal of U.S.-led
> > > > coalition forces from Iraq at this time, since
> > their
> > > > withdrawal would
> > > > likely create a power vacuum that would
> > exacerbate
> > > > the conflict rather
> > > > than ending it, and result in an increase
rather
> > > > than a decrease in the
> > > > rate of civilian casualties.
> > > >
> > > > And a principled, objective (rather than
> > knee-jerk
> > > > anti-USgov)
> > > > anti-intervention position would demand the
> > > > withdrawal of Al Qaeda from
> > > > Iraq at least as strongly as demanding the
> > > > withdrawal of the USgov
> > > > military from Iraq. Since you appear to be
> > publicly
> > > > calling for the
> > > > withdrawal of USgov forces regardless of what
Al
> > > > Qaeda in Iraq does,
> > > > will you also publicly call for the Al Qaeda
to
> > get
> > > > out of Iraq
> > > > regardless of what USgov does there?
> > > >
> > > > Yours in liberty,
> > > > <<< starchild >>>
> > > >
> > > > P.S. - You attribute 100,000 deaths of
innocent
> > > > Iraqis to the USgov
> > > > military. How many deaths of innocent Iraqis
do
> > you
> > > > attribute to the
> > > > insurgency, and how do you arrive at those
> > numbers?
> > > > Surely it is not
> > > > your position that since USgov allegedly
started
> > the
> > > > war (I would argue
> > > > that it really started in 1990 when Saddam
> > invaded
> > > > Kuwait), the
> > > > insurgents are not to blame for any deaths,
and
> > no
> > > > matter how many
> > > > people they kill now, USgov, not them, will be
> > > > primarily responsible
> > > > for those deaths? If that is your position,
then
> > to
> > > > be consistent you
> > > > must blame the Japanese regime during WWII,
> > rather
> > > > than the Truman
> > > > administration, for the bombing of Hiroshima
and
> > > > Nagasaki, since they
> > > > started the war.
> > > >
> > > > > May I point out that if citizens are not
their
> > > > government, then a
> > > > > government
> > > > > is not a person? So, we cannot conclude that
> > any
> > > > regime has a "record"
> > > > > and
> > > > > should be "banned" from a sovereign right.
But
> > > > dictators use the trick
> > > > > of
> > > > > describing a foreign government as a hated
> > > > individual or despicable
> > > > > group,
> > > > > to keep their own citizens frightened and
> > willing
> > > > to kill. George Bush
> > > > > started the Iraq war by leveling accusations
> > > > against "Saddam", but
> > > > > went on
> > > > > to kill 100,000+ innocent Iraqis, (and kills
> > more
> > > > every day). Verbal
> > > > > attacks on Kim Jong Il of North Korea
> > descended to
> > > > his short stature
> > > > > and
> > > > > personal appearance, before nuclear fuel
> > > > enrichment by Iran become the
> > > > > main
> > > > > thrust of the administration against the
> > imaginary
> > > > "axis of evil".
> > > > >
> > > > > Dictatorial governments, in fact, need to
have
> > > > enemies. Threats and
> > > > > sanctions make them stronger at home, not
> > weaker.
> > > > The US ruled Iran for
> > > > > decades through the puppet Shah-en-Shah, (a
> > > > commoner declared "King of
> > > > > Kings"), by involving Iran in the cold war
> > against
> > > > the USSR. The
> > > > > theocracy
> > > > > took over by declaring the US as the enemy.
It
> > > > actually benefits from
> > > > > the
> > > > > opposition of the US government to maintain
> > its
> > > > political control.
> > > > >
> > > > > No government should enjoy a "privilege" of
> > > > nuclear weapons. (As a
> > > > > Libertarian I wonder who should administer
> > such
> > > > privileges? The UN,
> > > > > George
> > > > > W. Bush, or God?) But the US keeps enough
> > nukes to
> > > > destroy every
> > > > > capital
> > > > > several times over. The place to start
tearing
> > > > down the nuclear evil,
> > > > > is not
> > > > > in Teheran, but in Washington.
> > > > >
> > > > > Harland Harrison
> > > > > Libertarian for Congress
> > > > > 12th District (San Mateo-San Francisco, CA)
> > > > > http://Harrison2006.LPSM.org
> > > > >
> > > > > > Derek,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You mean so the U.S. government could
> > retaliate.
> > > > If people wouldn't
> > > > > > associate themselves with national
> > governments
> > > > so much, there would
> > > > > be
> > > > > > less incentive to attack civilians as a
way
> > of
> > > > attacking or
> > > > > influencing
> > > > > > those governments.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > We agree on this much however -- the
regime
> > in
> > > > Iran should not be
> > > > > > allowed to acquire nuclear weapons.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > To those who disagree with that, I urge
you
> > to
> > > > consider whether you
> > > > > > think it's OK to ban someone with a record
> > of
> > > > initiating violence
> > > > > from
> > > > > > owning a firearm. Or whether it's a good
> > idea to
> > > > prevent someone who
> > > > > > expresses an interest in committing
violence
> > > > against children from
> > > > > > working in an elementary school. If so,
then
> > I

(Message over 64 KB, truncated)

I don't think the government that runs Nicaragua
*belongs* to the people of Nicaragua... If some
wealthy Nicaraguan were to run a bunch of
pro-Sandinista ads, how is that any less unfair
to them than what Bush did?

Jeb Bush has no business trying to elect the
government of Nicaragua because he is not subject to
its laws. The ads in this case deceptively looked
like they came from the US government, also. When
John Huang funneled money from the government of China
to the Democrats in 1996 most Americans were angry and
several people went to jail.

Even torture may sometimes be "legal."
Listen to the USgov attorney general.

I strongly disagree. An order to torture prisoners is
always illegal under international law, including the
Geneva Conventions, Convention Against Torture, and
customary law. Soldiers, however, only face
prosecution for obeying orders they know to be
unlawful. The "torture memos" thus provided an excuse
for the subordinates carrying out the policy. Ordering
the creation of those documents demonstrated both
knowledge and premeditation. The President and several
cabinet members should be investigated and someone
tried for war crimes on that evidence alone.

Deliberately killing civilians should be
considered a war crime and punished harshly.

Killing civilians is considered a war crime everywhere
else on earth. The administration refuses to admit
that it has criminals among its soldiers. That would
damage its image making political attack and eventual
prosecution more likely.

I don't think governments should be *printing*

money,

but I wouldn't go so far as to say they shouldn't
own any money at all.

That was a typo. Excuse me. I meant to write that the
USgovt should not OWE any money. The LP platform does
state that the govt should not have any assets but I
disagree. I think the government should own exactly
enough revenue producing assets to support its
necessary operations without taxes.

Al Qaeda may have been formed in this manner,
[to fight oppressive governments} but that is
not the most relevant characteristic to use in
describing the organization today. It is a
terrorist group seeking to implement an extreme
form of Islam.

Right! The Bolsheviks in Russia came to power when
the oppressive Czar was overthrown. The Chinese
Communists came to power by overthrowing the
oppressive aristocrats. The Reign of Terror in France
followed the Revolution there. The Cuban freedom
fighters wound up with Castro governing Cuba. As Al
Qaeda also demonstrates, organizing violent attacks on
the leadership does not often lead to freedom. It
leads to tyranny by the fighters who join the battle.

I think he [Khadafy] was influenced by the examples
of Iraq and Afghanistan

OK. I know that George Bush wants you to believe that.
It seems to demonstrate that he can push people
around successfully. However, Khadafy had changed
course considerably in 1999 when he gave up the
accused bombers of Pan Am flight 103 and agreed to
compensate the victims. Libya is a Socialist
government. Without the Cold War to back him up,
demonizing the West did not go over well any more.

The United States government lives up to that name
[the Great Satan] in Iran in the clerics'

imaginations only.

I disagree. Many people even in this country believe
George Bush is about to attack Iran with nuclear
weapons. That counts as "Satanic" with me. True or
not, I am sure some citizens in Iran believe it.

Although the Iran government can find many external
potential enemies, as you point out, they have few
internal scapegoats. If Iranians had the assurance of
security in isolationism, the potential foreign
enemies trick just would not work more. As long as
the people can be made to fear nuclear bombs from the
US, (and they lived on the front lines of potential
nuclear war for decades), they will cling to any
government which offers protection.

What's the point of taking that quote
out of context and pairing it with
"May they rest in peace," other than to make
the blogger look insensitive?

It shows how insensitive we are being. Our government
killed so many people that we cannot even count them;
it deliberately makes counting them difficult; it even
hides the beautiful flag-draped coffins of its own
soldiers from our eyes; while we argue over 18,000 or
100,000 human lives lost.

Arguably the invasion saved lives, because the

likely

political alternative to invading would have been
continuing the embargo... [Invading] was better than
not invading and continuing the sanctions, or

dropping

the sanctions and effectively letting Saddam have

free

reign in Iraq.

Actually, the likely result of finishing the
inspection process would have been a quick end to the
sanctions. I believe that would have been a good
thing. Rumsfeld seemed quite happy to let "Saddam
have free reign in Iraq" while Iran and Iraq were
fighting a war with poison gas.

I agree Bush should be impeached and tried for
war crimes. Not for violating international law
... but for insufficient efforts to conduct the
invasion in a manner consistent with protecting
civilian life.

Failing to protect civilians IS against international
law. I agree that charge should be brought against
George Bush also.

Harland Harrison

--- Starchild <sfdreamer@...> a �crit�:

> Starchild writes
> > Good for Jeb Bush.
>
> Jeb Bush interfered with the election in another
> country. As a politician, I do not see how you can
> approve that. As a Libertarian, I cannot approve
of
> that. Whether we like the Sandinistas or not, the
> people of Nicaragua deserve to choose their own
> government.

  Another country, another state, another city,
another neighborhood,
another block, what's the difference? People are
people (as Depeche
Mode put it). I don't think the government that runs
Nicaragua
*belongs* to the people of Nicaragua. Isn't it
fundamentally based on
coercing them to pay for it whether they like it or
not (same as the
U.S. government and others)?

  So when you say they deserve to choose their own
government, my
response is that everyone deserves to *be* his or
her own government,
except to the degree that a larger force is
necessary to protect life,
liberty, and property and prevent force/fraud. And
the important thing
actually is not whether someone personally chooses
the leaders of that
larger force, but whether they will uphold his/her
freedom or not.
There are many people in Nicaragua who don't want
(and don't deserve)
the Sandinistas running their lives, but are too
poor to pay for a
bunch of ads against them as you say Jeb Bush did.
If some wealthy
Nicaraguan were to run a bunch of pro-Sandinista
ads, how is that any
less unfair to them than what Bush did? Just because
that other wealthy
person was a Nicaraguan? Why should that matter?

  If I were to travel to Nicaragua and share my
opinions about the
Sandinistas with some people I talked to there
during the period before
an election, I might also be "interfering" in the
election of another
country. But it's also free speech! And so is what
Jeb Bush did. Do you
believe that free speech stops at national borders?

> > So you're saying that the suicide bombers in
Iraq
> > bear no individual responsibility for their
actions
> > because they are "just following orders?" This
> doesn't
> > sound very libertarian.
>
> Libertarians believe in international law.

  Libertarians believe in freedom. To the extent that
international law
upholds freedom, it makes sense for libertarians to
support it -- but
only to the extent that it does.

> You cannot
> blame a soldier for following lawful orders.

  That depends what the orders are. Laws are only as
good as the people
who make them. Even torture may sometimes be
"legal." Listen to the
USgov attorney general.

  "The law? Slavery was the law, dammit. Don't tell
me about some *law*
-- 186,000 miles per second, *that's* the law!"
-Richard Boddie, 1996 Libertarian candidate for U.S.
Senate

> If he
> survives his mission or not has nothing to do with
its
> legality.

  Agreed, and the mission's legality has nothing to
do with its morality.

> If the attacker mingles with the civilian
> population and then blows himself up, he has
indeed
> committed a war crime. But if the attacker drives
his
> vehicle into a military target, killing himself
and
> the enemy, he has heroically "taken out a target".

  I'm with you on these points. There is a difference
between killing
military and civilian personnel. I would reserve the
term "heroically"
for actions that actually serve the greater good,
but I can go along
with saying that a suicide bomber who takes out a
military target has
died bravely and honorably. I even think the 9/11
attackers were brave.
Not heroic or honorable -- indeed despicable -- but
it undeniably takes
courage to hijack planes and fly them into
buildings. Deliberately
killing civilians should be considered a war crime
and punished harshly.

> > Undermining the transition may have been as much
or
> more of a motive than personal profit in some
cases
> [of looting].
>
> What a convenient excuse for common thieves! Yes,
> Iraqis can now tell each other they hate the
Americans
> and so have a right to steal from the government
> America runs.

  I'm sure some of them felt that way. But whatever
their motives, the
looters were individually responsible for their
actions.

> > When you talk about a $2000 per person tax bill,
you
> *are* talking about per capita, which is what I
said
> was meaningful.
>
> You are right. In fact we have the wealth to pay a
> $20,000 to $30,000 per person government debt.
> However, in such rich times, the government has no
> excuse to own any money at all.

  You surprise me! I didn't think you went farther
toward anarchism than
I do. I don't think governments should be *printing*
money, but I
wouldn't go so far as to say they shouldn't own any
money at all.

> > A volunteer "army" or civilian force liberating
> people
> > by applying force against *others* who are
> oppressing them,
> > on the other hand, is *very much* possible. It's
> what often
> > happens in a revolution.
>
> Revolutions only occur when people believe they
can
> get things by using force against the owners or
> rulers. Marxism, for example, fuels great
revolutions
> because it promises to divide up the wealth of an
> upper class. How can a violent revolution against
the
> clerics in Iran replace them with a "government
more
> respecting of freedom and human rights"? The CIA
> could install another right-wing government with
> enough money and weapons. Perhaps secular Marxists
> could offer a better state-run utopia with the oil
> money.

  Revolution is always a gamble. But there is great
desire for more
freedom in Iran. Read about how many Iranians are
going to Dubai and
other Gulf States where they can get a taste of
Western life.

> > I would not describe Al Qaeda as a group "formed
to
> overthrow
> > oppressive regimes," but rather as a terrorist
> organization
> > seeking to implement an extreme form of Islam.
>
> Wikipedia describes Al Qaeda as a group formed to
> overthrow oppressive regimes, the USSR and their
> puppets in Afghanistan:
> "The origins of al-Qaeda can be traced to the
Soviet
> invasion of Afghanistan, when a cadre of
non-Afghani,
> Arab Muslim fighters joined the largely United
States
> and Pakistan-funded Afghan muj?hid?n anti-Russian
> resistance movement (a guerrilla war against
Soviet
> occupation forces and the Soviet-backed Afghan
> government).

  Al Qaeda may have been formed in this manner, but
that is not the most
relevant characteristic to use in describing the
organization today. It
is a terrorist group seeking to implement an extreme
form of Islam.
Think about it -- the Taliban were among the most
oppressive regimes in
the world, and they were running Afghanistan, the
very country that Al
Qaeda initially came together around trying to
liberate from the
Soviets.

  So was Al Qaeda trying to overthrow the oppressive
Taliban regime? No,
Al Qaeda was working arm in arm with the Taliban,
because they
represented the kind of Islamic extremism favored by
Al Qaeda.

> > How do you explain Libyan dictator Muammar
Khadafy's
> > decision to abandon weapons of mass destruction
> after
> > seeing the examples of Iraq and Afghanistan?
>
> Bush did not name Libya in the "Axis of Evil".
> Without threats from the USgovt, and with the
USgovt
> desperately seeking success stories, Khadafy made
a
> deal. What did he give up? Nuclear bombs he did
not
> have yet which nobody wants to use anyway?

  Libya was on the USgov State Department's list of
terrorist-supporting
nations, and USgov had been at odds with Khadafy for
years. Reagan
ordered air strikes against LibyaGov facilities in
1986. Just because
Bush did not mention Libya in one particular speech
hardly shows that
Khadafy could not have been afraid of being a target
if he didn't
change his policies. I think he was influenced by
the examples of Iraq
and Afghanistan, and I'm sure he realized that with
most of its cities
and people near the Mediterranean coast, the country
just south of NATO
bases in Italy, etc., Libya would be a relatively
easy target for USgov
air and sea power.

> > Again I think you are badly mistaken if you
think
> > that autocrats like the Islamic clerics running
Iran
> > are able to maintain power *only* when there is
an
> > external threat.
>
> Dictators can also use an internal threat instead
of
> an external enemy. In Iran, they shot the hated
> officials of the Shah immediately, and drove the
> wealthy Europeanized citizens out of the country.
I
> do not think clerics really have any internal
> scapegoats. The have no illegal aliens, no
marrying
> homosexuals, or anybody else to blame. They came
to
> power calling the US the "Great Satan", and as
long as
> the US lives up to that name in Iran, the clerics
can
> remain in power.

  The United States government lives up to that name
in Iran in the
clerics' imaginations only. And they do have lots of
other potential
scapegoats to choose from: Israel, the country their
president said
should be wiped off the map, and the Jews in
general; Western culture
and its adherents within "their" country; the
"heretical" Sunni version
of Islam; the Gulf states, for employing "their"
people as second class
citizens in relatively low-paying jobs and exposing
them to Western
culture, etc.

> > do you think that U.S. government troops are
more
> cowardly [?]
>
> I do not know. But for one reason or another, the
> USgovt worries about very small casualty rates.

  I submit to you that the anti-intervention movement
and its effect on
public opinion is a major cause of this worry.

> > 18,000 to 29,000 deaths. According to the survey
> data, children aged
> > below 18 years comprise 12% percent of the
deaths
> due to warfare.
>
> I would trust the peer-reviewed scientist rather
than
> the politician or blogger. Still, you cannot
excuse
> killing even so few as 18,000 people, or 2500
> children.

  I'm not "trusting" either source. I'm looking at
the description of
the two studies, and finding the methodology of the
UN study more
reliable in this case. Of course it is still a
tragedy if 18,000 people
die. But one must also look at the alternatives.
Prior to the USgov
intervention, even more Iraqis were allegedly dying
as a result of the
UN economic embargo, this according to a number of
left-wing sources at
the time. Arguably the invasion saved lives, because
the likely
political alternative to invading would have been
continuing the
embargo.

> > Looks like the game is over...
>
> May they rest in peace.

  What's the point of taking that quote out of
context and pairing it
with "May they rest in peace," other than to make
the blogger look
insensitive?

> > domestic opposition to intervention in Iraq may
have
> > -- no, almost certainly *did* -- influence Bush
to
> ignore
> > the advice of his generals
>
> If he knew he could not do it right, he had less
> reason to do it at all.

  Less reason, but perhaps still enough reason given
the alternatives.
Not that I think it was the best choice he could
have made, but it was
better than not invading and continuing the
sanctions, or dropping the
sanctions and effectively letting Saddam have free
reign in Iraq.

> > Why do you think USgov was still under any
> obligation to abide
> > by its part of the treaty in the face of such
> repeated violations?
>
> The Gulf War peace was signed with a real
coalition,
> France, Egypt,Saudi Arabia, UAE, Canada etc. The
UN
> controlled the disarmament of Iraq. The US had no
> right to continue the old war without the others.
> George Bush tried to claim he had a "coalition of
the
> willing". In the end, even Turkey backed out.

  While the U.S. and British governments have
supplied most of the
troops, dozens of countries contributed forces to
the 2003 invasion or
its aftermath (see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/

Multinational_force_in_Iraq#List_of_nations_in_the_Coalition

I don't think the government that runs Nicaragua
*belongs* to the people of Nicaragua... If some
wealthy Nicaraguan were to run a bunch of
pro-Sandinista ads, how is that any less unfair
to them than what Bush did?

Jeb Bush has no business trying to elect the
government of Nicaragua because he is not subject to
its laws. The ads in this case deceptively looked
like they came from the US government, also. When
John Huang funneled money from the government of China
to the Democrats in 1996 most Americans were angry and
several people went to jail.

  The non-initiation of force principle does not allow only self-defense, but also the defense of others. Jeb Bush need not be subject to the laws of the Nicaraguan government in order for his seeking to influence an election in Nicaragua to be morally justified. Same would go for John Huang, except in his case he was acting as the agent of an authoritarian regime, rather than trying to tilt the outcome in a more pro-freedom direction. What Huang did was judged illegal in the U.S., but that is not why it was immoral.

  Conversely, what Bush did was apparently legal, since I don't hear anything about him being prosecuted or fined in Nicaragua, but that's not why it was moral. Of course if you are making a legalistic argument based on national sovereignty, then by that logic you must concede that the government of Nicaragua has the right to set its own laws in this matter, and if they want to allow non-Nicaraguans to pay for advertising in Nicaraguan elections, that's their business and not yours.

Even torture may sometimes be "legal."
Listen to the USgov attorney general.

I strongly disagree. An order to torture prisoners is
always illegal under international law, including the
Geneva Conventions, Convention Against Torture, and
customary law. Soldiers, however, only face
prosecution for obeying orders they know to be
unlawful. The "torture memos" thus provided an excuse
for the subordinates carrying out the policy. Ordering
the creation of those documents demonstrated both
knowledge and premeditation. The President and several
cabinet members should be investigated and someone
tried for war crimes on that evidence alone.

  My comment above about torture being legal was partly facetious. I don't really think it is legal in the U.S. However in some countries, torture probably is legal. I don't think the ban on "cruel and unusual punishment," for example, is universal. Without researching what the Geneva Convention and Convention Against Torture say, and which governments have signed them, I couldn't necessarily say for sure whether torture in a given instance was legal or not. But since torture is immoral, it's really beside the point.

Deliberately killing civilians should be
considered a war crime and punished harshly.

Killing civilians is considered a war crime everywhere
else on earth.

  That's a very broad statement, I don't really know what you mean by that. Everywhere else except the White House? That's hardly the case. How about the jail cells of North Korea, for example?

The administration refuses to admit
that it has criminals among its soldiers.

  To the contrary, I think the administration's position has been that a few soldiers have acted criminally, that it is a case of "bad apples" rather than a systemic problem. Indeed USgov prosecutors have already prosecuted and convicted some soldiers for their roles in the Abu Ghraib incidents. I presume we both feel there should be further prosecutions, but to say that the administration refuses to admit any soldiers have acted criminally is simply untrue.

That would
damage its image making political attack and eventual
prosecution more likely.

I don't think governments should be *printing*

money,

but I wouldn't go so far as to say they shouldn't
own any money at all.

That was a typo. Excuse me. I meant to write that the
USgovt should not OWE any money. The LP platform does
state that the govt should not have any assets but I
disagree. I think the government should own exactly
enough revenue producing assets to support its
necessary operations without taxes.

  Oh -- now I'm less surprised! 8) Where the LP platform ( http://www.lp.org/issues/platform_all.shtml ) says government should not "be allowed to hold assets" (Article 2, Section 5), I believe it is referring to fixed assets such as investments or land holdings outside of land directly being used for government buildings or facilities. I don't interpret it to mean governments cannot have any operating funds.

Al Qaeda may have been formed in this manner,
[to fight oppressive governments} but that is
not the most relevant characteristic to use in
describing the organization today. It is a
terrorist group seeking to implement an extreme
form of Islam.

Right! The Bolsheviks in Russia came to power when
the oppressive Czar was overthrown. The Chinese
Communists came to power by overthrowing the
oppressive aristocrats. The Reign of Terror in France
followed the Revolution there. The Cuban freedom
fighters wound up with Castro governing Cuba. As Al
Qaeda also demonstrates, organizing violent attacks on
the leadership does not often lead to freedom. It
leads to tyranny by the fighters who join the battle.

  I agree that this has usually been the case historically, and it is another good reason why non-violent change is preferable to violent revolution, where such change is possible. But as Kennedy said, those who make peaceful change impossible make violent change inevitable.

I think he [Khadafy] was influenced by the examples
of Iraq and Afghanistan

OK. I know that George Bush wants you to believe that.
It seems to demonstrate that he can push people
around successfully. However, Khadafy had changed
course considerably in 1999 when he gave up the
accused bombers of Pan Am flight 103 and agreed to
compensate the victims. Libya is a Socialist
government. Without the Cold War to back him up,
demonizing the West did not go over well any more.

  True enough. However there's a significant lag time between the end of the Cold War and 1999 however, and even between 1999 and 2003 when Khadafy gave notice he was throwing in the towel on weapons of mass destruction. I think the timing of that move was not coincidental.

The United States government lives up to that name
[the Great Satan] in Iran in the clerics'

imaginations only.

I disagree. Many people even in this country believe
George Bush is about to attack Iran with nuclear
weapons. That counts as "Satanic" with me. True or
not, I am sure some citizens in Iran believe it.

  Iran's rulers have been using the "Great Satan" label for years, long before the idea of a nuclear attack on Iran was raised. And in any case, they use it to apply to the United States as a whole, not just Bush or his administration. Do you really think USgov is more Satanic, or evil, than IranGov?

Although the Iran government can find many external
potential enemies, as you point out, they have few
internal scapegoats. If Iranians had the assurance of
security in isolationism, the potential foreign
enemies trick just would not work more. As long as
the people can be made to fear nuclear bombs from the
US, (and they lived on the front lines of potential
nuclear war for decades), they will cling to any
government which offers protection.

  I disagree. Since the U.S. and Iran were allies when the Shah was in charge, it should be obvious to most people in Iran that USgov's animosity is not directed at them, but rather at the government presently controlling Iran. Therefore maintaining that government gives them *less* security with regard to the U.S., not more. If you don't think they understand that, you must have a pretty low opinion of their intelligence.

What's the point of taking that quote
out of context and pairing it with
"May they rest in peace," other than to make
the blogger look insensitive?

It shows how insensitive we are being.
Our government
killed so many people that we cannot even count them;

  Please speak for yourself. I don't think I'm being insensitive, and it's not my government.

it deliberately makes counting them difficult; it even
hides the beautiful flag-draped coffins of its own
soldiers from our eyes; while we argue over 18,000 or
100,000 human lives lost.

  I'm with you there. USgov should practice full disclosure of casualties and not hide photo opportunities from the media. Of course this secrecy is not specific to the conflict in Iraq, but is just part of a larger trend of government secrecy which has gotten worse under the Bush administration.

Arguably the invasion saved lives, because the

likely

political alternative to invading would have been
continuing the embargo... [Invading] was better than
not invading and continuing the sanctions, or

dropping

the sanctions and effectively letting Saddam have

free

reign in Iraq.

Actually, the likely result of finishing the
inspection process would have been a quick end to the
sanctions. I believe that would have been a good
thing. Rumsfeld seemed quite happy to let "Saddam
have free reign in Iraq" while Iran and Iraq were
fighting a war with poison gas.

  Somehow I doubt there would have been a quick end to the sanctions. But whether there was or not, in the eventual absence of sanctions, inspections, or military overflights by coalition aircraft, I believe that Saddam *would* have renewed his attempts to acquire weapons of mass destruction. That would have been as unacceptable as for them to be acquired by IranGov. Not to mention further repressing the Iraqi people, and failing to live up to the other treaty terms such as compensating Kuwatis for theft and damage caused during the invasion of Kuwait.

I agree Bush should be impeached and tried for
war crimes. Not for violating international law
... but for insufficient efforts to conduct the
invasion in a manner consistent with protecting
civilian life.

Failing to protect civilians IS against international
law. I agree that charge should be brought against
George Bush also.

  Fair enough. I was referring to international law as it was allegedly violated by USgov's invasion of Iraq.

Yours in liberty,
        <<< starchild >>>

P.S. - I have deleted the previous exchanges attached to this email, since it was getting quite long.