Saddam Captured

bonkey

Originally posted by sovtek
Of course the NATO bombing encouraged the exponential killing of Europeans, both Serbs and Kosovars.

Regardless of whether it did or not, I was interested to hear today that Israel are considering taking their own case against Saddam Hussein. They are currently determining whether or not his Scud-launches against their nation during the Gulf War - as attacks on civilian areas etc. are classified as war crimes.

I somehow doubt that the US will oppose this, and indeed I am inclined to agree with them and the Israelis.

Whats interesting, though, is that they (the US) are equally unlikely to accept that their own bombing of civilian areas and civilian facilities when ousting Milosevic should also classify.

Then again...as some (British, I think) interviewee or reporter commented on CNN the other night....war crimes are only carried out by the losers of a war.

jc

Yoda

The Iranians are making their bid for a complaint against him. I guess what they and the Israelis want is for him to be tried by everyone, not by just the Iraqis. I am not sure what the point of that is. He's obviously headed for life in prison or for a firing squad or beheading or whatever.

bus77

Ive heard Bush say over and over again "It is up to the Iraqi people" and in the same sentence "The decision must stand up to international scutiny"

What to do with Mussolini was left up to the Italian people, they shot him in the head then hung him up by his heels(along with his mistress) naked.

Something like that would be a bit embarasing to our eyes. So asuming Bush doesnt really meen "The people" he must meen the Iraqi courts?
And the chief justice of the courts has already stated that exucution is on the menu.
I dunno anything about Iraqi law but Im sure that means hanging or beheading.

I know they are "rebuilding" the Iraqi law system,
does that meen they are rewriting the Iraqi laws, makeing the death penalty something more "civilised" to US eyes, like lethal injection or -THE CHAIR-?

bonkey

Originally posted by Yoda
I guess what they and the Israelis want is for him to be tried by everyone, not by just the Iraqis. I am not sure what the point of that is.

Well, one part of me would say that its to exact restitution - probably in the form of cash - from Iraq. I'd be firmly opposed to this, though, especially seeing as how the US is asking everyone to waive existant debt which was incurred by Saddam, and aren't going to honour the contracts which were put in place under Saddam. If they are effectively trying to wipe the slate clean, then hopefully thats what they will do. I'd be interested in hearing the opinions on this issue of those who are, ummm, more fully supportive un general of the US than I am. I'd be even more interested in hearing it before the US expresses its position

On a more humane level, just as many Iraqi people can now begin to obtain closure on the whole thing, so too will many Iranians and Israeli people. The wrongs done to them will be acknowledged and justice will have been served for that specific crime. Yes, punished is punished, and dead is dead, but to a victim its often important that the penalties be about their suffering rather than someone elses. This, for me, would be the prime reason to look to have additional charges brought against Hussein. I would not support, however, any notion that the bringing of charges by a foreign nation gives them some right to try him themselves, especially not before he has answered to whatever charges are brought by his own nation.

jc

SkepticOne

Originally posted by bus77
Something like that would be a bit embarasing to our eyes. So asuming Bush doesnt really meen "The people" he must meen the Iraqi courts?
And the chief justice of the courts has already stated that exucution is on the menu.
I dunno anything about Iraqi law but Im sure that means hanging or beheading.

A tribunal system is in the process of being set up to deal with former Ba'athists. It is likely that this will be modified to deal with Saddam. It won't be perfect as there are few Iraqi judges that haven't been tainted in some way by the former regime, but from Saddam's point of view it will be better than being released to an angry mob to be ripped apart on the streets.

It would be better still if he could be tried in the Hague but there doesn't appear to be support for this from the US or the US appointed Iraqi Governing Council.

Victor

Originally posted by bonkey
Well, one part of me would say that its to exact restitution - probably in the form of cash - from Iraq.

Doubtful, they would do it for the moral outrage bit, but of course they bombed Osirak in 1984, so they have to tread carefully. As best I know, no Israelis have been killed by Iraq since the 1967/73 wars although some Jews have been expelled from Iraq.

http://home.eircom.net/content/reuters/worldnews/2168629?view=Eircomnet

Israel planned to kill Saddam after 1991 Gulf War
From:Reuters
Tuesday, 16th December, 2003
By Dan Williams

HERZLIYA, Israel (Reuters) - Israeli commandos planned to assassinate Saddam Hussein at his uncle's funeral after the 1991 Gulf War, but the mission was aborted after five soldiers were killed in training, officials say.

Military censors lifted an 11-year-old ban on reporting the plan on Monday, allowing newspapers to publish details of the aborted 1992 mission just days after the ousted Iraqi leader was captured by U.S. forces in Iraq.

The plan, meant to retaliate for Iraqi Scud missile attacks on Israel during the 1991 Gulf War, was shelved after the deaths of five soldiers in a rehearsal of the mission for generals, causing a national scandal.

The plan called for Israeli commandos to be dropped deep in Iraqi territory several kilometres (miles) from a cemetery where Saddam was expected at the funeral of an uncle believed by Israeli military intelligence to be near death.

The soldiers would have fired a specially adapted "smart" missile with a small camera in its nose, allowing them to target Saddam amid a crowd of officials, family members and bodyguards attending the funeral.

"We realised we would have to find something that was emotionally so important to him that he would not send a double," Major Nadav Zeevi, the former intelligence officer for the mission, told Israel's Army Radio.

Fearing assassination, Saddam was known to have more than one double.

Zeevi, who was in charge of preparing intelligence information on opportunities to hit Saddam, concluded that the best option was to strike him at the funeral of Saddam's beloved uncle who was suffering from diabetes and was on his death bed.

FUNERAL PLOT

"We realised that his (uncle's) funeral....would be important enough for him (Saddam) to go personally," Zeevi said.

The plan to kill Saddam was developed after the 1991 Gulf War, when he fired 39 Scud missiles at Israel, though the Israeli government never got as far as approving it.

At the time Israel came under intense pressure from its ally Washington not to respond to the Scud attacks for fear of turning the U.S.-led war against Iraq into a wider, Arab-Israeli conflict.

Military analysts have said that undermined Israel's stature and deterrence capability in the region.

"Israel's deterrence was seen to have been seriously harmed by its decision not to retaliate for the Scud attacks. Hitting him...was seen as vital strategically," said one security source, who did not want to be identified.

Israelis were never fully informed about the background to the "Tse'elim-B disaster" -- named after the training base in the southern Negev desert where the accident occurred in November 1992.

At the time Israel suspended the press credentials of two foreign correspondents based in Israel, accusing them of breaking censorship for reporting the commandos may have been training to assassinate Saddam.

Officials then would not confirm the veracity of the report.

"The mission would have given a prestigious achievement (to Israel)," military analyst Ron Ben-Yishai told Israel Radio.

Victor

Originally posted by Hobbes
if they tried Saddam in Iraq and he was found innocent and let free.

Crushed by the jubilant crowd, he might fall down the court house steps and be killed ....

Sand

This is to render Sand's viewpoint naive - no offence lol. If we accept that sovereignty and social contract theory are principles in international relations, then under no circumstances with the exception of self-defence when directly attacked can we intervene in another society - and this is not as a left-winger or anti-war supporter, this is as a political analyst.

Flogen has already responded with the meat of what I would probably have said but Id also ask how this viewpoint sits with your socialist instincts Eomer? The only ones who should not be oppressed are those strong enough to overthrow their dictators on their own. If they are too weak to do so then it is better they are oppressed rather than any intervention by a democratic power assist them. Doesnt seem too "workers of the world unite" to me.

States do not intervene for humanitarian reasons. Ever.

Granted. And states can achieve humanitarian aims by intervention without having it entering their reasoning. Overthrowing Saddam makes sense from a strategic point of view as it allows the US to remove its troops from Saudia Arabia. It makes sense to have a friendly democratic government installed rather than a dictator who can turn on them at any time as Saddam showed. It makes sense for them to get the Iraqis standard of living rising asap as it will reduce the attacks on their troops. All selfish reasoning, but it leads to benefits for the Iraqis nonetheless.

There is a reason why powers have not a right of humanitarian intervention - and it is in any textbook on international relations.

Theres no rule book saying they shouldnt have it - Clinton attempted to define such a right with his Somalian adventure - it didnt go thrillingly on the ground but it was justified under the need to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe in the country, the same for Kosovo. Slowly but steadily armed intervention on humanitarian grounds is becoming a reality, mostly an american one but its successes such as Kosovo and the cost of the absence of such a policy as seen in Rwanda and Srebinica means its something which should be encouraged.

Éomer of Rohan

Quoted from Flogen
basically, what that quotes says is that, for example, if you see someone being attacked and beaten on the street, you should not try to help as you are thus endangering yourself.. the only reason you should attack the attacker is if you are directly in danger (as in you are the next victim).

Id have to disagree with this if thats what you mean. dont get me wrong, i am opposed to this war (as i think you are), but this frame of mind is quite careless and inhumane...... the thing is humanity wasnt Bush's reason to attack, it was his fear (realistic or not) of his own safety and his want for his own oil supply, however i dont think this topic should turn into yet another slagging match about the reasons, so lets not go there.

This is what Flogen said so since you Sand, are using it to reply to my arguments, I will begin by arguing with this. It is much more serious than what Flogen is pointing out - the situation is one whereby in the hypothetical street, if Person A is attacked by Person B, then Person C will come to rescue Person A - agreed so far? In doing this, Person C is risking his own safety out of a moral regard for the safety of Person A.

In reality, what is happening is that Person C would be risking the lives of Persons A and B, plus D and E somewhere down the road. All hypothetical. The grit of the matter is that social contract theory, which provides the legitimacy of ANY state, including democracies and is the reason which is behind the executive powers of state (read Hobbes' Leviathan for some insight), would be in jeopardy when a state, on a humanitarian errand, risks the lives of the people it has a social contract with - ie, by intervening in Iraq, they have endangered the lives of every British and American person on earth. This is unnacceptable - and what makes it more unacceptable is that they have seriously hurt the hypothetical Person A, killed Person B (which we're not going to quibble over since people wanted Person B dead in the first place) and this may have impacts on Persons D (Iran), E (Syria), F (Saudi Arabia) and so on, which means many millions more than just those in the 'democratic' west are being affected - we do not and cannot have the moral responsibility to play God in circumstances where our immense military capacity allows us that option, we as a race, humans, are not yet mature enough while we still have the capacity to at the same time serve other means which are not morally driven.

Quoted from Sand
Granted. And states can achieve humanitarian aims by intervention without having it entering their reasoning

Very glad you brought this up - the two most 'successful' invasions of any country (which were not claimed as humanitarian, which is a post-Cold War concept in actuality) are Vietnam/Laos and Tanzania/Uganda. Now, Vietnam, we can certainly NOT describe as a democratic country - it is a Stalinist dictatorship; Tanzania on the other hand is a democratic nation. Neither of these states mentioned humanitarian intervention in their justification to the UN which, if I recall fell under Article 55 (I think, but I will look it up) of the UN Charter, which is self-defence, based on incursions into each country by the other.

So, the result? A puppet Ugandan government was established and a puppet Laosen government was established and there was no 'speechact' about human rights - it was a knife-thrust to secure control of these countries. A humanitarian law of intervention justifies not just one of these but BOTH - Vietnam as the more progressive state, WOULD have had the right (under all current drafts of such legislation) to intervene in Laos. This is far from right since Vietnam is far from a model state - but yet since it does not commit genocide, there is no distinction between what it did and what the USA has done in Iraq, it was just for different reasons (and let's be clear, 'human rights' was acknowledged by senior members of the US Government not to have been the sole reason for intervention regardless of what the retro-propagandists want us to believe). Vietnam established a mini-empire. There is another excellent reason for no right of intervention on humanitarian grounds.

Quoted from Sand
Theres no rule book saying they shouldnt have it - Clinton attempted to define such a right with his Somalian adventure

Therein lies another good point; the reason for democratic non-involvement in such affairs is absolutely clear; the USA went into Somalia and pulled out as soon as a few troops were killed as a result of the political backlash that might occur. This hurt the situation a good deal more than it helped - democracies are, like it or not unstable, and although the attitude of certain Americans has changed regarding losses while conflict is ostensibly related to their own safety it may not remain this way - and so we have reinforcement of the earlier points I made regarding abuse, inconsistency and hurt to an indigenous population.

Quoted from Sand
If they are too weak to do so then it is better they are oppressed rather than any intervention by a democratic power assist them

Assist is not an option. If assistance occurs it is by accident (which you pointed out in your previous post) and the reason for non-intervention is that sometimes, in fact most times I would go so far to say, this 'accident' does not occur at all.

As for my socialist 'workers of the world unite' idea, the state is not a representative of working peoples, democracy or not, since the present system of democracy (being called bougeois democracy by political analysts for a reason) is more effective at fudging issues and inspiring careerists to take up politics rather than interesting the working class. Therefore, the working people, to help another working people MUST overthrow their own state before they can begin internationally - but even then, the revolutions must occur at a time of grave capitalist instability and depression. But that is miles off topic...

Victor

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
Very glad you brought this up - the two most 'successful' invasions of any country (which were not claimed as humanitarian, which is a post-Cold War concept in actuality) are Vietnam/Laos and Tanzania/Uganda. Now, Vietnam, we can certainly NOT describe as a democratic country - it is a Stalinist dictatorship; Tanzania on the other hand is a democratic nation. Neither of these states mentioned humanitarian intervention in their justification to the UN which, if I recall fell under Article 55 (I think, but I will look it up) of the UN Charter, which is self-defence, based on incursions into each country by the other. ... So, the result? A puppet Ugandan government was established and a puppet Laosen government was established and there was no 'speechact' about human rights - it was a knife-thrust to secure control of these countries. A humanitarian law of intervention justifies not just one of these but BOTH - Vietnam as the more progressive state, WOULD have had the right (under all current drafts of such legislation) to intervene in Laos. This is far from right since Vietnam is far from a model state - but yet since it does not commit genocide, there is no distinction between what it did and what the USA has done in Iraq, it was just for different reasons (and let's be clear, 'human rights' was acknowledged by senior members of the US Government not to have been the sole reason for intervention regardless of what the retro-propagandists want us to believe). Vietnam established a mini-empire. There is another excellent reason for no right of intervention on humanitarian grounds.

Interesting you pick Laos and not Cambodia. I think the Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia was justified insofar as it stopped the genocide. My statement does not legitimise the invasion of Iraq, as the genocide had long stopped. It is one thing not to intervene when your neighbour has a fight with his wife - you **must** do so when he tries to murder her. (Similar examples would be South Africa in Swaziland, India in the Seychelles)

Separately, Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam has previously all been parts of French Indochina and the Vietnamese could have merely **claimed** they were reunifying the country.

But aren't we drifting off topic?

Sand

In reality, what is happening is that Person C would be risking the lives of Persons A and B, plus D and E somewhere down the road. All hypothetical.

Hypothetically they may be. If they do not intervence they are certainly risking the life of Person A. Fear of possible repercussions means that we are paralysed. Afraid to do anything for fear of making things worse. Your analysis ignores the fact that by not intervening when Person A is at risk, Person B may then be encouraged to attack Person D - if we do not intervene then they will be encouraged to take on Person E, and if we do not intervene then Person F until we actually break with the foolish philosophy of non-intervention and decide we will intervene. Does this remined you of a period of time leading to the greatest waste of human life in the previous century?

we do not and cannot have the moral responsibility to play God in circumstances where our immense military capacity allows us that option, we as a race, humans, are not yet mature enough while we still have the capacity to at the same time serve other means which are not morally driven.

Ah, an avowed communist who believes in God? Tell me - should the oppressed be looking to God to help them or their powerful, freedom loving democratic neighbours?

Vietnam as the more progressive state, WOULD have had the right (under all current drafts of such legislation) to intervene in Laos.

I wouldnt regard Vietnam as progressive, but I understand were viewing it from different ends of the political spectrum.

Vietnam established a mini-empire. There is another excellent reason for no right of intervention on humanitarian grounds.

Japan invaded China on the grounds of self defence - it doesnt preclude self defence as a valid reason for military action. And you said yourself that Vietnam did not justify its invasion under humanitarian grounds.

This hurt the situation a good deal more than it helped - democracies are, like it or not unstable, and although the attitude of certain Americans has changed regarding losses while conflict is ostensibly related to their own safety it may not remain this way - and so we have reinforcement of the earlier points I made regarding abuse, inconsistency and hurt to an indigenous population.

Yes the failure to see through the policy hurt - but it did not mean the policy was without merit, simply that it was not seen through. The US pulled out because of the Mogadishu street battle between the Rangers and the militia in which 18 US soldiers died - whilst the political impact of the those deaths is understandable maybe Americans are waking up to the fact that confronting situations like the Somalian one is better, even with such death tolls, is better than waiting for them to come calling with 4 jumbo jets and a death toll of 3000 civillians. Given that the US is no more willing to accept casualties, and have accepted hundreds of casualties so far in Iraq then its encouraging that interventions will be seen through - if only for the selfish reasoning of preventing terrorist hotspots bringing it all home to the U.S.

Assist is not an option. If assistance occurs it is by accident (which you pointed out in your previous post) and the reason for non-intervention is that sometimes, in fact most times I would go so far to say, this 'accident' does not occur at all.

So by eliminating assistance as an option, except accidentially, you are apparently saying it is better for them to be oppressed - this seems very Darwinist for a communist Eomer?

As for my socialist 'workers of the world unite' idea, the state is not a representative of working peoples, democracy or not, since the present system of democracy (being called bougeois democracy by political analysts for a reason) is more effective at fudging issues and inspiring careerists to take up politics rather than interesting the working class.

Agreed to some extent but democracy represents more than just the working class. And the working class should not be nationally defined - if anything I had imagined communism was very internationalist , rejecting nationalism as an invention of the upper classes to divide them. And yet you seem happy with a "Tough - theyre not our problem" philosophy as regards intervention.

Éomer of Rohan

Quoted from Sand
Hypothetically they may be. If they do not intervence they are certainly risking the life of Person A. Fear of possible repercussions means that we are paralysed. Afraid to do anything for fear of making things worse. Your analysis ignores the fact that by not intervening when Person A is at risk, Person B may then be encouraged to attack Person D - if we do not intervene then they will be encouraged to take on Person E, and if we do not intervene then Person F until we actually break with the foolish philosophy of non-intervention and decide we will intervene. Does this remined you of a period of time leading to the greatest waste of human life in the previous century?

This hypotheticality is getting to be a pain in the ass. Attacking persons D and E, which you may or may not remember would immediately and automatically constitute a breach of the peace - because they are sovereign nations and not a population within a given state, as person A would be within Person B. Therefore, while you are correct in pointing out that the second world war was caused by ignoring the invasion for example of the Sudetenland, the Rhineland or the breach of Treaty of Liepzig (?), it was not caused by the Nazi persecutions such as Crystallnacht - which therefore eliminates your parallel.

To put it simply, a state invading another state is automatically reason for intervention but while it does not breach the peace, there is no grounds for intervention, including on humanitarian basis for reasons previously outlined.

Quoted from Sand
Ah, an avowed communist who believes in God? Tell me - should the oppressed be looking to God to help them or their powerful, freedom loving democratic neighbours?

Come now Sand, this was a pointless jibe; as for believing in God, you are well aware that I do not, but it does not mean that people will not understand the metaphor 'playing God' does it? And you have, by making this jibe, neatly sidestepped the issue I raised regarding this.

Quoted from Sand
I wouldnt regard Vietnam as progressive, but I understand were viewing it from different ends of the political spectrum

I wish I knew whether your misreading was deliberate or accidental. I never said that Vietnam was progressive - I said it was more progressive than Laos and certainly more progressive than Cambodia, another nation in which it intervened - I would not think that you would dispute this.

Quoted from Sand
Japan invaded China on the grounds of self defence - it doesnt preclude self defence as a valid reason for military action. And you said yourself that Vietnam did not justify its invasion under humanitarian grounds.

Japan vs China was straightforward imperialism. And no, Vietnam did not declare humanitarian grounds as reason BUT the POINT I am making was that under the logic currently employed by the USA, and yourself in so far as you are arguing for a legal right or duty of intervention, they COULD have - and hence we would have a Maoist dictatorship being legally able to establish a mini-empire.

Quoted from Sand
whilst the political impact of the those deaths is understandable maybe Americans are waking up to the fact that confronting situations like the Somalian one is better, even with such death tolls, is better than waiting for them to come calling with 4 jumbo jets and a death toll of 3000 civillians.

This avoids the point - yes, some Americans now want to intervene in Iraq on humanitarian grounds BUT a) this was not the only reason for intervention in iraq and b) when one compares US non-intervention in other humanitarian cases to the actual intervention in Iraq, it is certified that the primary reason for intervention was not human rights violations or we would have seen the toppling of the Burmese government, the Turkish government, a nuclear war with Russia several times over etc etc. Secondly, that some Americans are allowing for greater casualties CAN CHANGE and we would have other Somalias and this cannot be allowed.

Quoted from Sand
So by eliminating assistance as an option, except accidentially, you are apparently saying it is better for them to be oppressed - this seems very Darwinist for a communist Eomer?

I am eliminating assistance through military intervention including accidentally (which for the record is the only time it occurs - a point which you agreed with when you agreed with my point that states don't intervene for humanitarian reasons ever).
There are other forms of intervention and it is not Darwinist, it is the only option open unless workers in the developed West are prepared to throw off capitalist exploitative states and themselves commit to establishing socialism internationally.

Quoted from Sand
Agreed to some extent but democracy represents more than just the working class. And the working class should not be nationally defined - if anything I had imagined communism was very internationalist , rejecting nationalism as an invention of the upper classes to divide them. And yet you seem happy with a "Tough - theyre not our problem" philosophy as regards intervention.

At no point have I nationally defined the working class. It is a fact that the working class is divided by national borders and within those borders they fall under the domination of seperate states - the working class of one state must seize control of that state in order to help the workers in another state seize control of THAT state - therein lies the socialist answer to the problem.

lili

last news :
americans used gaz to catch saddam.

sovtek

Originally posted by lili
last news :
americans used gaz to catch saddam.

Got a link?

Originally posted by Sand
Does this remined you of a period of time leading to the greatest waste of human life in the previous century?

The Cold War interventions in Vietnam/Laos/Cambodia/Guatemala/Nicaragua/Chile/El Salvador/Angola/Congo.....etc etc?

lili

well, it's more a rumour than an information, by the way we will not have the opportunity to see what the american army has shot to confirm it.
i imagine that if the guy in his hole do not want go out, it would be risky to go down without a minimum of safety.

Sand

Well this is going a good deal off topic now but I guess its okay seeing as its way down the front page now.

This hypotheticality is getting to be a pain in the ass. Attacking persons D and E, which you may or may not remember would immediately and automatically constitute a breach of the peace - because they are sovereign nations and not a population within a given state, as person A would be within Person B. Therefore, while you are correct in pointing out that the second world war was caused by ignoring the invasion for example of the Sudetenland, the Rhineland or the breach of Treaty of Liepzig (?), it was not caused by the Nazi persecutions such as Crystallnacht - which therefore eliminates your parallel.

No one mentioned nations - flogen didnt, I didnt. Flogens exact hypothetical example was a person being attacked on the street. The philosophy of non-intervention is that unless you are directly threatened you shouldnt intervene. Well, maybe youre allowed to help the person after hes been beaten to within an inch of his life and the person beating him has wandered off but by no means do you get between the attacker and his victim. To do so would threaten his sovereignty - by exstension your arguing that a politcal leader has the right to do *anything* so long as he can get away with it domestically. That mightnt be your personal belief but its the logical result of your philosophy.

To put it simply, a state invading another state is automatically reason for intervention but while it does not breach the peace, there is no grounds for intervention, including on humanitarian basis for reasons previously outlined.

Interesting - a state attacking another state is *automatically* reason for intervention. This despite abuse of such precedents as in Manchuria - or maybe even 9/11 according to some. Whereas humanitarian principles *should* never be reason for intervention, because of the potential for abuse of such a precedent if it was set.

Hmmmmmm.

Come now Sand, this was a pointless jibe; as for believing in God, you are well aware that I do not, but it does not mean that people will not understand the metaphor 'playing God' does it? And you have, by making this jibe, neatly sidestepped the issue I raised regarding this.

Well it is a jibe but not a pointless one. As a communist, who *is* exactly supposed to play God if not the state? Remember that it was Gods will that the meek (i.e. the poor ) would inherit the earth (i.e. shut the **** up, accept your lot and dont expect anything from your betters and youll get a great deal in heaven you suckers ) - opium of the masses or somesuch wasnt it? The whole communist ideal was that God was not going to make life better for the poor, the poor/working class were going to have to make life better for themselves by seizing the means of production, doing away with the kulaks and "playing God" themselves.

Communists happily played God when it suited them. God was no more likely to rescue the Iraqis from Saddam than he was to reward the poor in heaven. Communism was willing to play god to advance the poor here and now - but your telling me we should be waiting for some act of God to deal with the likes of Saddam?

I wish I knew whether your misreading was deliberate or accidental. I never said that Vietnam was progressive - I said it was more progressive than Laos and certainly more progressive than Cambodia, another nation in which it intervened - I would not think that you would dispute this.

I wouldnt consider *more* progressive as the criteria for having the right to make humanitarian interventions. Vietnam might arguably be more progressive than Cambodia - but neither was progressive relative to say nations which respected private property, held free and fair elections to elect representitive governments and upheld a basic level of human and civil rights. Apartheid South Africa might have been more progressive than say Cambodia ( and probably Vietnam too ). Still doesnt mean they can justify an invasion on humanitarian grounds to depose an oppressive dictator when theyre denying the majority of their own citizens the right to vote.

Japan vs China was straightforward imperialism.

Your getting confused between the reality and the justification. Japan justified its invasion on the basis that China attacked Japanese interests. As you said above this gave them the *automatic* right to retaliate.

This avoids the point - yes, some Americans now want to intervene in Iraq on humanitarian grounds

Could we agree then that given that american citizens are represented by elected officials who pay at least semi attention to their views that intervention may have had something to do with humanitarian grounds - even it was not used as the justification initially? See your point about Japan and China above.

b) when one compares US non-intervention in other humanitarian cases to the actual intervention in Iraq, it is certified that the primary reason for intervention was not human rights violations or we would have seen the toppling of the Burmese government, the Turkish government, a nuclear war with Russia several times over etc etc. Secondly, that some Americans are allowing for greater casualties CAN CHANGE and we would have other Somalias and this cannot be allowed.

I love this. You beat the US with a stick for breaking the cardinal rule of international politics that you cant intervene for humanitarian reason - i.e. to depose a dicatator. Then you beat them with a stick for not intervening for humanitarian reasons for the past few decades. And whilst you allow for 9/11 changing the mindset regarding casualties theyll accept you dont allow it could lead to a change in the U.S. attitude to dictatorships which are breeding grounds for Al-Queda and its cronies?

I am eliminating assistance through military intervention including accidentally (which for the record is the only time it occurs - a point which you agreed with when you agreed with my point that states don't intervene for humanitarian reasons ever).

Yeah - states never have really, - though like Somalia and Kosovo there seems to be the seeds of a change. I dont doubt that if Iraq wasnt Iraq then the US would probably not have invaded and would have retained the status quo of slowly starving Iraqis with sanctions instead. God forbid military intervention. Despite that, the possibility of a philosophy where states like the U.S. are encouraged to view dictatorships as being bad for them, rather than useful allies against enemy-of-the-week is a good thing. They lacked the follow through on Somalia, and Iraq has far too many factions involved in the decision to go to war that it would be like asking who started WW1. Kosovo is an example of where military intervention on humanitarian grounds proved better than the non-intervention of Srebinica and Rwanda.

At no point have I nationally defined the working class. It is a fact that the working class is divided by national borders and within those borders they fall under the domination of seperate states - the working class of one state must seize control of that state in order to help the workers in another state seize control of THAT state - therein lies the socialist answer to the problem.

Isnt that utterly messed up? - the borders of a state that is not socialist are sacred, and cannot be crossed unless for imperialistic reasons - unless of course a self declared peoples republic is doing the border crossing in which case its all right. So the USSR would have had this right, China would have, Cuba would have but France for example wouldnt. Oh I know, none of the above states were really communist cry the communists in the crowd - they were....something else - but hey theyve got to be more progressive by left wing standards than France and given your views on Vietnam/Cambodia that *more* progressive is the determinant then thats all that counts.

well, it's more a rumour than an information, by the way we will not have the opportunity to see what the american army has shot to confirm it.

Hey, given the choice between a rumour on Indymedia and the US Army I know who I and most people would believe.

i imagine that if the guy in his hole do not want go out, it would be risky to go down without a minimum of safety.

Its the age old battle between practicality and idealism. Personally imo they should have just sent down the least popular private and not dared to use gas. That makes them as bad as the nazis:|