Iraq - Still, In Fact, Going On

[droid]

Bullshit.

That was a joke. A JOKE!

...that parody of an article you posted...

Ok, here we are again, and I hate to have to make the point for the umpteenth time, but you are misrepresenting me for the umpteenth time, and its completely blatant.

This is your claim.

To be fair to craner, droid often dismisses links as "garbage" without further elaboration, or sometimes "The author wrote something else I disagreed with, ergo it's garbage".

And the example you use above in context, in which I give quite extensive elaboration:

There was collaboration between Zionists and the Nazi's prior to WWII and then again (far more damningly in my eyes, and completely unmentioned in that parody of an article you posted), between 1940 and 1942 when Zionist paramilitaries Lehi/the Stern gang twice attempted to form an alliance with Italian and German fascism, offering to help with the transfer of European Jews to Palestine in return for help to oust the British and set up a totalitarian Jewish homeland. A prominent member of Lehi, Yitzhak Shamir, served twice as president of Israel in the 80's.

The links to fascism don't stop there either - there is the famous 'natural alliance' of zionism and the neo-fascist Lebanese Phalange, links to far-right Latin American terror groups and governments, and Israel's opposition to various UN resolutions condemning neonazism & fascism...

And this is the Nth time Ive caught you at this.

Please stop.

 

[craner]

Well, the USSR is not exactly a bad example of ideological interventions, is it?

 

[vimothy]

Indeed not.

 

[droid]

Sure, they were clearly motivated by humanitarian concerns in their desire to protect Afghan democracy. In fact they had a much better legal case than Iraq, seeing as they were invited by the Government.

Shame about how they handled the post-invasion period, but in principle, it was all fine.

 

[craner]

But they weren't trying to protect democracy, were they? It was the logical outcome of the Brezhnev Doctrine. Therefore ideological.

 

[vimothy]

Perhaps because they were all equally badly planned?

But why were they all so badly planned?

 

[vimothy]

In my view, the West is generally incapable of this form of intervention (forced regime change + large-scale social re-engineering), even as it is drawn to it as the most legitimate exercise of military power.

 

[craner]

Can you explain why, though?

 

[sadmanbarty]

In my view, the West is generally incapable of this form of intervention (forced regime change + large-scale social re-engineering), even as it is drawn to it as the most legitimate exercise of military power.

Japan? Germany?

 

[droid]

But they weren't trying to protect democracy, were they? It was the logical outcome of the Brezhnev Doctrine. Therefore ideological.

Of course they were. Taraki came to power at the head of a popular revolution, began a campaign of secular modernisation and was beset by violent Islamist rebellion. Brezhnev refused repeated requests for military aid and intervention and only relented after it became clear that the legitimate government was under serious threat from armed insurgents, compounded by Amin's assassination of Taraki.

Perfectly legitimate, humanitarian intervention.

 

[droid]

even as it is drawn to it as the most legitimate exercise of military power.

In relation to Jus ad Bellum, can you outline your opinion of how Iraq fulfilled the criteria - Legitimate authority, Precedent wrong, Proportionality etc...

 

[craner]

I think you misunderstood us. We're not saying that the Soviets were launching humanitarian intervention in the manner defined by, say, I dunno, Blair's Chicago speech. We're saying they did so on ideological grounds, as defined by themselves.

 

[vimothy]

Mutually incoherent goals (on the one hand, conquest; on the other, liberation) and a refusal to face up to the reality that secular liberalism isn't the default condition of humanity.

 

[vimothy]

Japan? Germany?

But not so many examples since then.

 

[droid]

I think you misunderstood us. We're not saying that the Soviets were launching humanitarian intervention in the manner defined by, say, I dunno, Blair's Chicago speech. We're saying they did so on ideological grounds, as defined by themselves.

Three points.

Clearly the Soviet's brand of humanitarianism differed from the Wests - thats a truism.

To suggest that Blair/Bush's 'humanitarian intervention' wasnt ideological is ridiculous.

You misunderstand me. Im not making the case for the legitimacy of the Soviet invasion, Im using it to delegitimise the invasion of Iraq.

 

[craner]

No, I get that you're not defending the Soviet invasion, I'm just puzzled by your suggestion that it was not ideological.

Also, I fully accept that Blair's definition of humanitarian intervention was ideological, as were the ideas of the neoconservatives (which do not track precisely to Bush, Rumsfeld, Rice, or Powell...Cheney is a more interesting case, though). But I thought that was what you weren't arguing: that, in fact, it was cynical imperialism that motivated them.

 

[craner]

The separate definitions of human rights deployed by the West and the Soviet bloc was not a truism, it was an actual ideological gulf.

 

[droid]

No, I get that you're not defending the Soviet invasion, I'm just puzzled by your suggestion that it was not ideological.

Also, I fully accept that Blair's definition of humanitarian intervention was ideological, as were the ideas of the neoconservatives (which do not track precisely to Bush, Rumsfeld, Rice, or Powell...Cheney is a more interesting case, though). But I thought that was what you weren't arguing: that, in fact, it was cynical imperialism that motivated them.

Im suggesting that in both cases it was 'cynical imperialism' that motivated them, also, strategic ambitions, access/control to/of resources/markets, power projection, internal politics.

Yknow, like pretty much every other war in history?

 

[droid]

FFS, you just have to look at the Iraqi constitution and the carve up of the commercial & energy sectors to see exactly what kind of 'democracy' was on offer.

 

[droid]

Did you actually buy that stuff? Seriously?