“Something I want to make clear on this point-WE ARE NOT THE BAD GUYS! We are not going around just killing innocent Iraqi's for sport, the only ones we intend to kill are the insurgents.”

That points to the essence of the question. Can we can do no wrong if our intentions are good? Was it noble for the Spanish to bring the natives Christianity? Sure they had to kill some ‘insurgents’ but look at Latin America now, the majority of the population is Christian.

Neglecting to even consider weather Christianity is some how relatively superior to other cultural traditions. Does the "good" of christianity make the murders, enslavement, and stealing of resources irrelevant?

Are the means always justified given our ends? If they are then it’s irrelevant that we can pull up websites with hundreds of pictures of burned dead babies and soccer fields in fallujah, In fact any criticism of the war, its tactics, or our intentions there are also irrelevant as long as we have “stated” noble ends. Furthermore we can contextualize any ‘bad examples’ with good ones and find a balance that is acceptable within our ideological framework. So I do not criticize you for your position. I just hope you’re considering the issue at had from as many perspectives as possible.

”As far as Iraq's desire for democracy goes, I think that how many Iraqi's have registered to vote is a great semblance of their desire for it to happen.”

That is great~! Unfortunately their government has been structured in a way that there elections will have little bearing on the ‘liberalization’ of there oil resources, or the capacity of the people to reduce the size and presence of US military personal in that country.

Ultimately elections could “improve” the Iraqis position, as the elections will act an additional legitimization tactic so that the ‘insurgents’ can be targeted more effectively and with less international scrutiny. (PDA) But let’s remember one of the reasons “Saddam” was such a “bad guy” was because of the way that he controlled his domestic population though violence. The US will have to escalate its violent repression which will in the short term increase reprisals but in the long run it should work. Violence works, it worked for Saddam, it will work for US. I suppose our violence is justifiable because we have Nobel intentions that those that oppose US simply do not understand? They simply don’t understand we know what is best for them.

"87% express little or no confidence in U.S. coalition forces?" What and where was that poll taken, frankly I am not too concerned with what the likes of France, Germany, Russia, China, or even Canada thinks about it.”

Why should you be, we have a very well crafted narrative that is not inclusive of the poisons of others.

”It will of course take awhile for that to be realized, years even, their democracy is just beginning, they will have lots of problems.”

Very good point. In other words our ends are idealized and we can’t expect them to materialize how we idealized them. Then what are we left with? Only the means in which we peruse those idealized ends.

That is where I see strength; God and morality, in making the way you peruse change reflect the change that you seek.

I would argue that the way this war was conducted did reflect the change the administration wanted. They want a ‘democracy’ but a democracy that is friendly to our interests. The administration has every intention for the Iraqis to be free but it has to be the freedom we provide them. If people oppose that then we can kill them.

That would explain why Venezuela democracy is labeled as “bad” while Iraqis democracy is a beacon of hope. It largely has to do with how inline the governments are with the American interests, not really “freedom” however you would measure it.

in response to "where do you stand" by Reggie (he has a similar template to mine ;)

"Now you would think everyone in the world who values freedom would be rooting for the Iraqis to have it, but they are not"

I think people of the world do stand for Iraqi freedom only its freedom from what they would call US imperial democracy. They share the view with the majority of Iraqis who see the US presence in Iraq as an occupation (1) rather then an everlasting liberation and freedom as our US government has labeled it.

“And overseas, it's the same thing. France, Germany, and other countries are gloating about the messy Iraq situation.”

Exactly who should be blamed for the “messy” Iraq situation? Do Iraqis really hate freedom so much? The domestic US population was told that they were liberating the people there. The US administration proclaimed the people of Iraq would be welcoming us with roses.

The question I would have for you is at what point in terms of slaughtering the resistance does the Iraqi project lose its moral high ground? Say 20% of the population in Iraq will never accept the parameters of type of imperial democracy and freedom that the US is providing. Should we accept our Governments response as saying those Iraqis universally hate freedom and we should kill anyone that resists our messianic vision for their future?

Do you simply take our governments position regardless of the wishes or consequences for the Iraqi population? If I poll was conducted that established that say 93 percent of the population wanted us to leave would that be irrelevant to the Administrations mission of freedom? What if we are able to establish a proper “democratic” client state, will you break with the party line if that government begins to kill a lot of people? Did you go against the US government’s position when we were working with Saddam? Did you criticize that relationship? If so why? If killing and torturing people are wrong is it wrong when a client state does it in the name of stability or in the name of freedom?

“And until they develop a smart policy to defeat the Islamic killers, they're just spitting in the wind.”

There is a great deal of literature available that proposes very detailed strategies and courses of action that do not include invading and occupying countries while simultaneously securing our safety.
If your actually interested in reading some I would recommend the Project on Defense Alternatives(PDA). The Iraqi Election "Bait and Switch" article is very informative; I would love to hear what you have to say about it.
Furthermore resources such as the PDA and zmag, have been predicting the current situation in Iraq before we invaded, while the US Government has been consistently painting a much different picture. I guess I am exposing my personal bios in I tend to believe people that predict what going to happen rather then put out propaganda so that the domestic population can buy into their agenda.

Keep in mind the neo-con agenda is perfectly logical and laid out very clearly in the Project for a New American century and else where. The invasion of Iraq is well calculated response to very serious issues such as peak oil theory and the rise of competing economies in Asia. I just think it is problematic to try and bring “freedom” to people and simultaneously maintain our geo-political hegemony as a lucky coincidence.

So if you chose to respond here are my questions:
1. How many Iraqis would we or our Iraqi collaborates have to kill before you would think the occupation was a bad idea? Or is their no limit to the death and destruction we can wield as long as it is in the name of freedom? At what point would you have criticized our government for supporting Saddam though the worst of his atrocities?
2. Do you read alternative Literature on the subjects at hand? I try to read a great deal of neo-con literature such as the project for new American century and conservative papers and blogs? have you ever heard of Noam Chomsky? The Propaganda Model? do you ever watch democracynow.org
3. Do you support the teachings of Martin Luther Kingand by extension the fundamental teaching of most of the worlds religions? Or would you side with the government and corporate media that turned against MLK once he universalized his critique of the injustices being perpetrated around the world?

1) May 2004: 87 percent express little or no confidence in US coalition forces; 92 percent view coalition forces as occupiers, rather than liberators or peace keepers. (Independent Institute for Administration and Civil Society/CPA).

The legitimizing effect of the electoral exercise in Iraq

"The election will succeed in one important respect: it will confer greater legitimacy on the Bush administration's project in Iraq. This will allow a more vigorous prosecution of the counter-insurgency war."

Read full article: The Iraqi Election "Bait and Switch": Faulty Poll Will Not Bring Peace or US Withdrawal
Project on Defense Alternatives Briefing Report #17 by Carl Conetta

in response to: "Gee, I wonder what the left would say about Martin Luther King, today, since he was always invoking the name of God and quoting from the Bible"

I would really encourage you to check out:
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/01/17/164233
that is the democracy now special on MLK. That is what the real left is saying about him today.

It’s quite tragic that the “left” has been represented so poorly in the collective mental environment, for its people like MLK which are its foundation. God evoked as the underling moral fabric of our collective reality is the most powerful truthful understanding of God that you can have.

MLK teachings are my understandings morality. Does he represent yours? Did he still represent your perspective once he turned his critique towards the power structures that reinforced the prevailing injustices of system?

Or would you join in the government and corporate Medias critique of MLK? Such as Time magazine which called the beyond Vietnam speech a "demagogic slander that sounded like a script for Radio Hanoi" or Washington Post declared that King had "diminished his usefulness to his cause, his country, his people.”. Listen to the speech is that how you feel after listening to it? These corporate entities quickly turned their back on the God and morality that MLK was teaching once it questioned their hegemony.

Do these corporate entities and government public relations personal represent you? Or does the morality and justice of MLK teachings have more persuasion? Please listen to what Martin Luther King had to say about God and I would be interested in hearing what you have to say about him.

in response to Civilian deaths in Iraq

>>Except that in Iraq we're not talking about the insurgents killing people in the crossfire, we're talking about them targeting civilians to be murdered deliberately.

You’re very right about that. Deliberately attacking civilians on the assumption that they are cooperators with the invading force or the terrorists is bad practice. I assume you condemn both practices as I do. (As you correctly point out its not morally right to go around shooting unarmed civilian and voting officials. That is clearly a violation of any moral code of conduct. Likewise delivering air strikes on questionable “intelligence” and slaughtering a weeding party or civilian dwellings is not of high moral standing. I will assume you agree with me that those choices represent poor judgment.

<>I imagine you will point to intention. ie the “Terrorist” intends to kill civilians while the US does so in its benevolence. This statement certainly has some validity. But I doubt such rational caries much weight in the eyes of the victim.
You may also point to the scale of such killings. But for this we should take into account context. Maybe those “terrorists” would be bombing Iraqis if we did not invade I guess there is no way to tell.

Furthermore how would we measure “success” could we build a giant scale and stack up the bodies of all those killed in this conflict and put on the other side all those that potentially would have been killed without the invasion? At what point would it cease to be a valid form of rationalization, 10 to 1, 5 to 1, 1 to 1? Or are there some problems with that that form of rationalization? Certainly the disaster in Iraq is pale in comparison to Clintons indirect killings during the sanctions. (sorry for my gross negligence on numbers in the previous post I meant .5 to 1.5 but I now take this to be my opinion of those facts: a fair assessment of the human cost of sanctions, section 5.7)

>>That doesn't make targeting civilians native to the country an acceptable means of making war. Blow bomb a US convoy and that's an act of war. Shoot unarmed civilian voting officials in the back of the head - that's murder.

Again I agree, but statistically the insurgents are targeting police stations, and US convoys. Although again we could bring out some imaginary scale showing "them" targeting unarmed civilians more the "we" are but by accedent I am not sure how productive that would be.

>>Never assume ANYTHING the UN says to be true. see the a fair assessment

>> >>I am not concerned about if the dead were suicidal resisters or defenseless civilians >>You should be. It's a vital difference.

True but at this point in the post I had sort of transitioned in to an emotional state.. Where I am expressing the universal value in human life…I feel bad when people die, just like how I morn for every solder that dies and his family that must struggle on.

I feel really sad when people are killed in wars but certainly understand what you mean by war being necessary in certain cases but in deconstructing the rational I often find them not to be justifiable.

If I had to build a scale of true rational for this Iraq war conflict for example I would likely point to peek oil theory, potential of OPEC moving to the ERUO and how Iraqs resources play a crucial role in maintain US hegemony. (Its no mystery why the strong players in the ERUO based economies where reluctant to jump on the Iraq bandwagon).

The justifications for war is always been filled with heart warming redirect, in almost every case I can think of. (ie democracy liberation, freedom for all, salvation through Christianity, salvation though Islam etc)

>>Actually, there's no relationship between the level of civilian casualties and the justness of the cause itself. There may not be any just civilian casualties at all, but that doesn't mean that the overall objective of the war is unjust.>>

>>Opposing war solely because it is war and is therefore 'bad' is irrational. War fought to stop evil and prevent even greater, more indiscriminate bloodshed, is sometimes a necessary evil to promote the greater good.

Wow... Never seen it stated so clearly, the means are irrelevant to the ends. But was this originally not an argument about the means of the “insurgents” being wrong. Was their indiscriminate bloodshed not something evil? I imagine you will point out that the resistance does not seek greater good and hence their cause is unjust and hence so are their actions. And you might point to intent, and historic context.

Regardless, I wholeheartedly disagree with the concept of means not representing the ends, for example I would support Iraq resistance if it was nonviolent, and I condemn it for its attacks on civilians. But I also understand I am not in a position of some of the resisters; where my country has been invaded and friends and family members murdered so I don’t know what I would do in that situation likely release my preoccupation of means vs ends. Likewise it makes no sense whatsoever to blame the US military personal for what they do in pursing the ends that they ordered to peruse, and on that point I imagine we agree.

<>But what course of action do you leave those who would prefer not to be occupied or converted into a client state by the US? You agree they have a right to attack the military, and die given the occupiers overwhelming strength. But at what point would the means of killing these people intrude on the ends we are perusing? Maybe we could put out a number early on so that when that many people are killed we can stop and say wait a second I guess it was not such a great plan to take the Iraqi resources and bring them democracy at the same time after all. Obviously we would need to count the puppet government’s actions as well, for example if they peruse the “Salvador” option at how many dead will we stop supporting the puppet regime and withdraw our troops? How many did Saddam kill before we stopped supporting him? Or was our support somewhat inline with our economic interest? Will your ideology ever be able to go against what you know to already be true?

I am willing to partake in an ideological shift…if say at the end of the month all the violence ends and freedom is brought to everyone in that country. I will say "shucks I guess the "means" are irrelevant and "ends" can be achieved regardless of what bad things had to happen in the process” But somehow I know that those are idealistic goals with no real bearing on the reality of attacking and invading a country. Yet our government talks about freedom as if they are just around the corner. If we can’t achieve this idealism then why are we there? the pursuit of that idealism. How are we perusing that idealism?

Are the mass killings and incarceration of resistors and “terrorist” (people who have lost sight of means and ends and are engaged in gross human rights violations) also part of that idealism of democracy and freedom? When do we take the hard look at how our means and ends are matching up?

in response to: Civilian Deaths in Iraq: Bad Methodology on Parade

Since you imply that the invading force has a right to kill any military opposition, you must simultaneously believe that those who chose to militarily resistance to the occupation have the right to do so. Hence there is no “loss” in slaughtering the military opposition as they have chosen the suicidal course of action to resist the invading group which has clear military superiority.

That element of war is clear, it appears that you are primarily expressing concern with the “misrepresentation” of civilian deaths caused at the hand of “terrorist/insurgents” vs the “US or the UK”.

I am not sure if invading forces are completely absolved of responsibility when violence ensures between the resisters and those that are put into power by the invading force. The death of civilians that die in the “crossfire” of that conflict cannot be solely be attributed to either side of the conflict. The rational choice argument caries a great deal of weight given the power dynamics of the situation. The resistance is going to chose gross violations of human rights when faced with the impossibility of traditional military resistance given the total domination of the invading force.

The invading force can’t really be absolved of all secondary deaths that resulted from the predictable cause and effect of their actions. It was quite predicable that people would not like to be occupied; I think the power elites even acknowledged that much.

The point of counting all the death weather caused by on one side or the other is to relate the number of deaths to the death rate to pre state of invasion levels. Your point is in of itself is a valid observation. The current death rate may be well below what it was when the US and other nations provided to Saddam support through some of his worst atrocities. This was of course followed by Saddam taking some personal initiatives to slaughter a great deal of people and the US government enforcing some pretty heavy duty sanctions causing; mass starvation and biological warfare in the form of targeting civilians through infrastructure destruction. For example destroying water treatment facilities and then taking steps to prevent their reconstruction, causing a huge spike in water toxicity and infant mortality rates. (UN estimates what 5-1.5 million children killed which I assume to be true).

So yea given the gruesome history of things the situation could be worst. But I get the feeling that you offer this as a justification for the invasion and continued occupation. I may be wrong so correct if I am but just because we are killing less people then previous totalitarian regimes in the region, is no justification for all the killings we are participating in.

I know when I see images of football fields of dead bodies in Falluja, I am not concerned about if the dead were suicidal resisters or defenseless civilians just that we just destroyed a city and I can’t understand the morality of doing so. (I understand the strategic elements for doing so but that rational wash away quickly with my tears) When I see dozens of pictures of mutilated children being pulled out of rubble form air raids, I know that the slaughter that was supported by my country is not just. I hope you will listen to Martin Luther King Jr, why I oppose the war in Vietnam speach for a must more eloquently stated rendering of my position in relation to the morality of invading a contry to bring the peace.