I see that both sides are accusing each other of ignorance, but I think it's worth pointing out that this will snowball into an unstoppable cycle of hatred and violence. That much should be clear to both sides. We'll soon see the same tit-for-tat situation in Israel on a global scale. What it will lead to, I don't know. But I'm hoping it won't lead to a scenario right out of Fallout.
Is it really wrong to say "I've had enough"?
Bush and the people who blindly rally around him love to say how they "hate our freedom". But I have to ask, what freedom? There is absolutely NO room for dissent or discussion of the issues in the mainstream arena. If you choose to not follow the status quo, you're either marginalized as mad protestor or convicted as a member of Al-Qaeda.
The US should learn to look inward and question its own values before assuming the role of judge, jury, and executioner over the whole world.
I'm sure this questions was asked in this thread already, but I'll have to ask again: Now who's freedom is Iraq currently threatening?
Watching too many replays of Bush saying "They hate our freedom."?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Was in response to stupider's comments of "no war, no way, no how." and "You could show me 100% irrefutable proof and I'd still be anti-war." Being able to make that statement in a country that people died to keep free, shows that some ideals are worth fighting and even dying for, regardless of his "no war, no way, no how." position. So whether the Iraq situation is one or not, some things are worth going to war.
It makes little sense for the US to have been more popular under the Clinton administration. After all, Clinton waltzed into Kosovo / the Balkans without the UN's support. All he had was a small multi-national coalition, just like Bush has now.
As well, Clinton didn't declare war, I guess. All he did was lob patriot and tomahawk missiles at Sudan, Afghanistan and Iraq. <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
He munged up the 'peacekeeping' mission in Somalia as well.
Face it, it's just hip to diss Bush because he's clearly a moron, but he's no more hawkish than Clinton. And Clinton didn't even have as much of a precedent. He didn't have two of the tallest buildings in the world collapse, the pentagon attacked, etc. under his watch.
Our freedoms have yet to be threatened by Saddam. Pre-emption is not allowed nor should it ever be. Liberty is founded on that principle. You're free until you cross the line. Once the line is crossed, you're accountable. Never before.
Sorry it sucks for you 'war mongering folks' but such is law and I hope you're never able to change it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
International law has long recoqnised the right of a nation to act pre-emptively, in the face of an immediate threat. While you could strongly and convincingly argue that Iraq is no immediate threat to the US or the rest of the western world, to say pre-emption is not allowed by international custom or law is wrong. Even the UN refused to comdemn Isreal for it's preemptive strikes in '67
"Where it is understood as "anticipatory self-defense," the customary right to preempt has its modern origins in what is known as the CAROLINE incident. Here, during the unsuccessful rebellion of 1837 in Upper Canada against British rule, it was established that the serious THREAT of armed attack may justify militarily defensive action. In an exchange of diplomatic notes between the governments of the United States and Great Britain, then U.S. Secretary of State Daniel Webster outlined a framework for self-defense which did not require a prior attack.
Some legal scholars argue that the right of anticipatory self-defense expressed by the CAROLINE has now been overriden by the specific language of the United Nations Charter. In this view, Article 51 fashions a new and more restrictive statement on self-defense, one that relies on the literal qualification of a prior "armed attack."
This narrowly technical interpretation ignores that international law cannot compel any state to wait until it absorbs a devastating or even lethal first strike before acting to protect itself. Significantly, both the Security Council and the General Assembly refused to condemn Israel for its 1967 preemptive attacks against certain Arab states, thereby signifying implicit approval by the United Nations of Israel's lawful resort to anticipatory self-defense."
"True, the word is not to be found in the UN Charter. But, as the Charter recognises, every country has 'the inherent right' of self-defence - a right which 'nothing in the present Charter shall impair', a right which was not given by the Charter but which long pre-dated it. And that right has equally long been recognised as including pre-emption.
The reason is obvious: it would be unjust as well as unrealistic to expect a state to sit idly by with its thumb in its mouth, waiting resignedly to be struck by another. Getting one's retaliation in first is widely regarded as whimsical. Rather is it realistic - and lawful.
International law is unlike municipal law in that its rules can be made and changed not alone by specific decree or agreement but by a history of state practice. Pre-emption is a notable instance of that.
For example, Britain and Australia went twice to war against Germany last century without anybody shouting 'anarchy', even though Germany had attacked neither of us, and indeed both times had made great efforts to convince that it had no intention of attacking. Likewise, when the United States declared war on Germany in 1917, no evidence existed of an imminent attack on the USA."
<strong>The rally focussed on how morally wrong it is to bomb civilians and accept that as "collateral damage", that bombing Iraq WILL NOT make the United Satates any safer and that you have some arrogant bastards with a black-and-white understanding of world politics and very questionable motives in the White House.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Was there anyone questioning the morality of U.N. sanctions that take thousands of Iraqi lives?
I definitely agree that the folks in the White House are very "black & white" in their understanding, I would also levy the same charge at those who protest the human impact of a potential war while ignoring the human impact of the sanctions that have been around for years. I suspect they haven't been paying attention.
As I see it the U.N. will not simply stop punishing Iraq. Please correct me if I'm wrong but even if there is no war there will still be sanctions. Iraqi civilians will still die because of U.N. action, only we don't see sanction-caused deaths on TV.
[quote]<strong>...I feel very strongly that it is our patriotic duty to question what the administration is doing.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Absolutely. Absolutely.
There is no greater or nobler objective for a citizen in a democracy to make his voice heard, be it by vote, protest, letters to congressmen/senators, whatever. It is very nice to see people hold the flag up as a symbol of the freedoms they have to petition their government for a redress of grievance, to peaceably assemble to speak their minds freely without fear of repercussion.
Without opposition there can be no democracy, I certainly hope that I don't give the impression that I dislike or disapprove of protest.
[quote]<strong>why not the following: lift the economic sanctions and not attack Iraq, so Iraqi civilians will be spared.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Lift the economic sanctions and not attack Iraq. What about the fact that Saddam would then be an even more powerful evil sadistic bastard?
Do we just keep U.N. officials patrolling Iraq forever?
Also, targeted assassination is heavily frowned on by the U.N. I don't think it's particularly wise, either, could cause more destabilization than a war, because then you would just be without a leader and no occupying force.
[quote]<strong>The United States were much more popular (at least in Europe) before Bush jr. took office.</strong><hr></blockquote>
More popular then than now, yes, but still not very popular.
I think, to be honest, that Dubya's country-boy ways simply have allowed the French to be more vociferous with the anti-American strain that has always been there. Hence their ignoring Clinton saying "unholy axis" and going apeshit when Bush says "axis of evil."
Europe liked Clinton more because Clinton was far more willing to kiss Europe's ass and say what they wanted to hear.
The answer to my question was supposed to be in there, but all I found was...
Nor do we have any differences over the goal of eliminating Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. For that matter, if Saddam Hussein would only vanish, it would without a doubt be the biggest favor he could do for his people and for the world. But we think this goal can be reached without starting a war.
He stops on that thought there. No mention of how it will be reached only that it "can be reached." (Well, aside from Saddam simply vanishing off the face of the Earth, perhaps he's asking his chosen deity to take care of it for him.)
Are there other weapons of mass destruction? That's probable. We have to find and destroy them.
And then what?
What about the people of Iraq whose potential suffering you are using as a political tool?
Leave them hanging once again?
Just so we get the goals clear here.
Also, did I say anything about 'no war at all costs'? Keep your arguments straight please.
Firstly, where did I 'struggle' to provide 100% proof?</strong><hr></blockquote>
First up: you would struggle versus you have struggled.
Next, the *only* way to change things, even evil dictators, is through war. Wrong.
Finally, defensive (not pre-emptive) wars are a different matter and confusing the two is unhelpful.
Like you say, if everyone thought like me then there would be no problem as no-one would attack each other and there would be no need for defensive wars.
What you don't say is that if your idea of pre-emptive wars against countries that look at you funny gains currency then a whole lot more people will get dragged into defensive wars.
So Groverat, if you are so pro-war, why haven't you signed up to join the Army? What are you doing in Texas, why aren't you in the gulf? Everyone who disagrees with the mighty Groverat is a moron or uniformed? What a laugh. You know more than MIchio Kaku, who has written several books on the US nuclear arsenal, not to mention was instrumental in formulating string theory, and unlike you, has actually fought in a war.
First up: you would struggle versus you have struggled.
Next, the *only* way to change things, even evil dictators, is through war. Wrong.
Finally, defensive (not pre-emptive) wars are a different matter and confusing the two is unhelpful.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I never brought up pre-emption, I was responding to a post from bunge, and I was only stating that it is a matter of international law and is seen as having some legitimacy. I don't actually see action against Iraq as pre-emptive. I would see it as following through with the terms of the agreed upon cease-fire.
[quote]Originally posted by stupider...likeafox:
<strong>
Like you say, if everyone thought like me then there would be no problem as no-one would attack each other and there would be no need for defensive wars.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
And then the real world comes and bites you in the ass. Unfortunately, there are people like Milosovic, Hussein and Hitler, whose actions demand attention and action.
[quote]Originally posted by stupider...likeafox:
<strong>
What you don't say is that if your idea of pre-emptive wars against countries that look at you funny gains currency then a whole lot more people will get dragged into defensive wars.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Actually, what I did say, was that pre-emption was considered lawful, only when taken in very narrowly defined circumstances. Again, I don't consider action against Iraq pre-emptive, so there isn't any point debating the merits of pre-emption, as i don't see the tie in here.
With regard to the pre-emptive vs defensive war argument, I think the question is whether this would in fact be considered a new war, or the resumption of war after the Gulf War cease-fire has been broken. Just throwing that out. I'm sure you could rationalize it either way.
1967 was legit. I think an attack on North Korea is almost legit. Iraq is not an emminent threat. Preemption cannot be for a potential threat, that would have been a better way to put it.
It's equatible to normal law. If someone is charging at you with a weapon, you can shoot them first, you don't have to wait until you've taken the first hit. You can't look at someone and see they have a knife/gun/nuclear bomb and shoot them because you're afraid they'll attack.
<strong> What about the people of Iraq whose potential suffering you are using as a political tool?
Leave them hanging once again?
Just so we get the goals clear here.
Also, did I say anything about 'no war at all costs'? Keep your arguments straight please.</strong><hr></blockquote>
In my understanding the goal is zero WOMD, health of the people be damned. If the health of the people improves, that's a positive side effect of eliminating the threat of WOMD.
As bad as things are in Iraq, the state of the people (and of the WOMD for that matter, although that's a different argument) in North Korea is far worse than in Iraq.
If the goal is helping people, Iraq isn't first on the list. If the goal is WOMD, I think dealing with Iraq could be considered before dealing with North Korea, not because the situation is worse but because it's an 'easier' solution.
<strong>With regard to the pre-emptive vs defensive war argument, I think the question is whether this would in fact be considered a new war, or the resumption of war after the Gulf War cease-fire has been broken. Just throwing that out. I'm sure you could rationalize it either way.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Sorry if the pre-emption argument is mucking things up.
If it's a case of a broken cease-fire, with whom was the cease-fire signed? The US or the UN? If it's the UN, then the US does NOT have the authority to unilaterally enforce the cease-fire. If it was with the US, then the case for the US is much easier. We'd have to look into details, but I'd be willing to bet that a cease-fire signed with the US was broken and any response to a breach as outlined in that cease-fire would be legit.
If it's a UN cease-fire, then we're back to either the US is enforcing the UN laws (not possible) or the US building its own case for war (pre-emption.)
I'm willing to look at any of the three cases above, only one of which leads cleanly to war. I do think that this option (that the cease-fire was officially with the US) is the lease likely though.
What are your suggestions on how to end this in a peaceful way?
Pretty please with sugar on top.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Inspections and containment has worked for the past 10 years. It's worked with the USSR and with China. Sure it may not be pretty like in a TV show (when the bad characters inevitably die and the "good" characters who have done bad die accidentally) but the advantages are:
tens of thousands (probably more) civilian lives are saved
soldiers lives are saved
the region is more stable, nuclear powers like Pakistan are more stable
The monetary costs are smaller than war.
Without war diplomacy and negotiation have a chance. In the 90's Israel and Palestine were negotiating. No they did not reach a lasting peace but in those years they were not killing eachother as much. Even the process of a failed negotiation is better than a war. Did the war in Afganistan stop Al Qaeda? What's with all the duct tape and plastic? Where did trail-by-jury go? Wheres Osama?
When has a war on terror ever worked? It did not work in Ireland. It did not work in Israel. It did not work in Chechneya (sp.?). The only thing that works is long slow negotiations and trying to solve the root causes. Kill one terrorist and two more takes their place.
Many people in this forum complain about the lack of consistency with protestors. Is anyone ever completely consistent about anything? No. The same arguement could be made, asking "what message is sent by an administration that is willing to negotiate with a country that has nuclear weapons (N. Korea) and but will not negotiate with a country that does not have nuclear weapons (Iraq)? The message is that rogue states should try to develope nuclear weapons if they want to protect themselves from the US.
Why did we not invade the USSR, China, Cuba, Nicaragua? Looking back, do you think we should have invaded those countries?
Engagement, consistent pressure and inspections do work, if given the time.
Unfortunately Bush has painted himself into a corner; the one thing you do not ever want to do in the course of foreign affairs.
<strong>Why did we not invade the USSR, China, Cuba, Nicaragua? Looking back, do you think we should have invaded those countries?</strong><hr></blockquote>
speaking of inconsistencies...when all of the rhetoric of "rooting out terrorism" (whatever that means) was flying around post-9/11, I remarked to a colleague that if this was going to be applied consistently, we'd be invading England and Ireland soon. They clearly can't solve their IRA problem....
Get your facts right, French exports to Iraq are less than 0.2% of their total exports.
About your signature line "Free Speech": I hope you didn't fail to notice that freedom of the press/free speech was one of the first things to fall by the wayside after Sept.11</strong><hr></blockquote>
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> Mother ****er it hurts from laughing too much <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> How did freedom of speech "fall by the wayside after Sept.11"? You'd have to be very ******* **** to think that.
[quote] Europe liked Clinton more because Clinton was far more willing to kiss Europe's ass and say what they wanted to hear.
<hr></blockquote>
Clinton sure didn't kiss England's ass like the current administration or the two prior. It's Bush's arrogance, idiocy and big swinging dick mentality that have Europe hating us. If he wasn't such a dick and showed a little finesse and willingness to listen to other countries he'd prolly have a coalition by now.
<strong>I see that both sides are accusing each other of ignorance, but I think it's worth pointing out that this will snowball into an unstoppable cycle of hatred and violence. That much should be clear to both sides. We'll soon see the same tit-for-tat situation in Israel on a global scale. What it will lead to, I don't know. But I'm hoping it won't lead to a scenario right out of Fallout.
Is it really wrong to say "I've had enough"? </strong><hr></blockquote>
Oh god not the tired old "cycle of violence" crap? Here's a little information. Civilized democracies tend not to go to war with one another. Their citizens tend to express themselves in the media and public gatherings rather than bombing and killing. Creating civilized democracies based on free markets is a great way to stop the "cycle of violence".
[quote]Originally posted by rampancy:
<strong>Bush and the people who blindly rally around him love to say how they "hate our freedom". But I have to ask, what freedom? There is absolutely NO room for dissent or discussion of the issues in the mainstream arena. If you choose to not follow the status quo, you're either marginalized as mad protestor or convicted as a member of Al-Qaeda. </strong><hr></blockquote>
This is such a stupid statement it's almost not even worth replying to. "absolutely NO room for dissent"? WTF are you talking about? We have marches rallies, congressmen and women speeking out about this. Just because some "marginalize" you doesn't mean you aren't free. It means you're free to do what you want and they are free to marginalize you. Freedom is a two way street. But I'm sure you don't like that. You'd rather have freedom mean "people have to listen to me and take me seriously or else..." or else I don't know what. Freedom of speech does not mean "right to be heard".
[quote]Originally posted by rampancy:
<strong>The US should learn to look inward and question its own values before assuming the role of judge, jury, and executioner over the whole world.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yea we did that. Saddam is an evil tyrant that refuced to comply with the other 17 or so UN reslolutions. Iraq is building WoMD that threaten the world, most of which Israel. Part of the Arab Muslim war against the Jew. But ... I'm a realist not an idealist.
Comments
Is it really wrong to say "I've had enough"?
Bush and the people who blindly rally around him love to say how they "hate our freedom". But I have to ask, what freedom? There is absolutely NO room for dissent or discussion of the issues in the mainstream arena. If you choose to not follow the status quo, you're either marginalized as mad protestor or convicted as a member of Al-Qaeda.
The US should learn to look inward and question its own values before assuming the role of judge, jury, and executioner over the whole world.
<strong>
The United States were much more popular (at least in Europe) before Bush jr. took office.
"</strong><hr></blockquote>
I can confirm that for the french part ( i do not read nor live in germany).
<strong>
I'm sure this questions was asked in this thread already, but I'll have to ask again: Now who's freedom is Iraq currently threatening?
Watching too many replays of Bush saying "They hate our freedom."?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Was in response to stupider's comments of "no war, no way, no how." and "You could show me 100% irrefutable proof and I'd still be anti-war." Being able to make that statement in a country that people died to keep free, shows that some ideals are worth fighting and even dying for, regardless of his "no war, no way, no how." position. So whether the Iraq situation is one or not, some things are worth going to war.
As well, Clinton didn't declare war, I guess. All he did was lob patriot and tomahawk missiles at Sudan, Afghanistan and Iraq. <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
He munged up the 'peacekeeping' mission in Somalia as well.
Face it, it's just hip to diss Bush because he's clearly a moron, but he's no more hawkish than Clinton. And Clinton didn't even have as much of a precedent. He didn't have two of the tallest buildings in the world collapse, the pentagon attacked, etc. under his watch.
[ 02-17-2003: Message edited by: Eugene ]</p>
<strong>
Our freedoms have yet to be threatened by Saddam. Pre-emption is not allowed nor should it ever be. Liberty is founded on that principle. You're free until you cross the line. Once the line is crossed, you're accountable. Never before.
Sorry it sucks for you 'war mongering folks' but such is law and I hope you're never able to change it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
<a href="http://www.freeman.org/m_online/aug02/beres2.htm"; target="_blank">Striking first under international law</a>
International law has long recoqnised the right of a nation to act pre-emptively, in the face of an immediate threat. While you could strongly and convincingly argue that Iraq is no immediate threat to the US or the rest of the western world, to say pre-emption is not allowed by international custom or law is wrong. Even the UN refused to comdemn Isreal for it's preemptive strikes in '67
"Where it is understood as "anticipatory self-defense," the customary right to preempt has its modern origins in what is known as the CAROLINE incident. Here, during the unsuccessful rebellion of 1837 in Upper Canada against British rule, it was established that the serious THREAT of armed attack may justify militarily defensive action. In an exchange of diplomatic notes between the governments of the United States and Great Britain, then U.S. Secretary of State Daniel Webster outlined a framework for self-defense which did not require a prior attack.
Some legal scholars argue that the right of anticipatory self-defense expressed by the CAROLINE has now been overriden by the specific language of the United Nations Charter. In this view, Article 51 fashions a new and more restrictive statement on self-defense, one that relies on the literal qualification of a prior "armed attack."
This narrowly technical interpretation ignores that international law cannot compel any state to wait until it absorbs a devastating or even lethal first strike before acting to protect itself. Significantly, both the Security Council and the General Assembly refused to condemn Israel for its 1967 preemptive attacks against certain Arab states, thereby signifying implicit approval by the United Nations of Israel's lawful resort to anticipatory self-defense."
<a href="http://www.henrythornton.com/article.asp?viewArticleID=708"; target="_blank">Another site on pre-emption</a>
"True, the word is not to be found in the UN Charter. But, as the Charter recognises, every country has 'the inherent right' of self-defence - a right which 'nothing in the present Charter shall impair', a right which was not given by the Charter but which long pre-dated it. And that right has equally long been recognised as including pre-emption.
The reason is obvious: it would be unjust as well as unrealistic to expect a state to sit idly by with its thumb in its mouth, waiting resignedly to be struck by another. Getting one's retaliation in first is widely regarded as whimsical. Rather is it realistic - and lawful.
International law is unlike municipal law in that its rules can be made and changed not alone by specific decree or agreement but by a history of state practice. Pre-emption is a notable instance of that.
For example, Britain and Australia went twice to war against Germany last century without anybody shouting 'anarchy', even though Germany had attacked neither of us, and indeed both times had made great efforts to convince that it had no intention of attacking. Likewise, when the United States declared war on Germany in 1917, no evidence existed of an imminent attack on the USA."
[ 02-17-2003: Message edited by: Tulkas ]</p>
<strong>Why would anyone protest against justice and good?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm going to hope you forgot your sarcasm tags. I've already laid out my views on the first page.
<strong>The rally focussed on how morally wrong it is to bomb civilians and accept that as "collateral damage", that bombing Iraq WILL NOT make the United Satates any safer and that you have some arrogant bastards with a black-and-white understanding of world politics and very questionable motives in the White House.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Was there anyone questioning the morality of U.N. sanctions that take thousands of Iraqi lives?
I definitely agree that the folks in the White House are very "black & white" in their understanding, I would also levy the same charge at those who protest the human impact of a potential war while ignoring the human impact of the sanctions that have been around for years. I suspect they haven't been paying attention.
As I see it the U.N. will not simply stop punishing Iraq. Please correct me if I'm wrong but even if there is no war there will still be sanctions. Iraqi civilians will still die because of U.N. action, only we don't see sanction-caused deaths on TV.
[quote]<strong>...I feel very strongly that it is our patriotic duty to question what the administration is doing.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Absolutely. Absolutely.
There is no greater or nobler objective for a citizen in a democracy to make his voice heard, be it by vote, protest, letters to congressmen/senators, whatever. It is very nice to see people hold the flag up as a symbol of the freedoms they have to petition their government for a redress of grievance, to peaceably assemble to speak their minds freely without fear of repercussion.
Without opposition there can be no democracy, I certainly hope that I don't give the impression that I dislike or disapprove of protest.
[quote]<strong>why not the following: lift the economic sanctions and not attack Iraq, so Iraqi civilians will be spared.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Lift the economic sanctions and not attack Iraq. What about the fact that Saddam would then be an even more powerful evil sadistic bastard?
Do we just keep U.N. officials patrolling Iraq forever?
Also, targeted assassination is heavily frowned on by the U.N. I don't think it's particularly wise, either, could cause more destabilization than a war, because then you would just be without a leader and no occupying force.
[quote]<strong>The United States were much more popular (at least in Europe) before Bush jr. took office.</strong><hr></blockquote>
More popular then than now, yes, but still not very popular.
I think, to be honest, that Dubya's country-boy ways simply have allowed the French to be more vociferous with the anti-American strain that has always been there. Hence their ignoring Clinton saying "unholy axis" and going apeshit when Bush says "axis of evil."
Europe liked Clinton more because Clinton was far more willing to kiss Europe's ass and say what they wanted to hear.
bunge:
[quote]<strong>*linked article*</strong><hr></blockquote>
The answer to my question was supposed to be in there, but all I found was...
Nor do we have any differences over the goal of eliminating Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. For that matter, if Saddam Hussein would only vanish, it would without a doubt be the biggest favor he could do for his people and for the world. But we think this goal can be reached without starting a war.
He stops on that thought there. No mention of how it will be reached only that it "can be reached." (Well, aside from Saddam simply vanishing off the face of the Earth, perhaps he's asking his chosen deity to take care of it for him.)
Are there other weapons of mass destruction? That's probable. We have to find and destroy them.
And then what?
What about the people of Iraq whose potential suffering you are using as a political tool?
Leave them hanging once again?
Just so we get the goals clear here.
Also, did I say anything about 'no war at all costs'? Keep your arguments straight please.
<strong>
Firstly, where did I 'struggle' to provide 100% proof?</strong><hr></blockquote>
First up: you would struggle versus you have struggled.
Next, the *only* way to change things, even evil dictators, is through war. Wrong.
Finally, defensive (not pre-emptive) wars are a different matter and confusing the two is unhelpful.
Like you say, if everyone thought like me then there would be no problem as no-one would attack each other and there would be no need for defensive wars.
What you don't say is that if your idea of pre-emptive wars against countries that look at you funny gains currency then a whole lot more people will get dragged into defensive wars.
<strong>
First up: you would struggle versus you have struggled.
Next, the *only* way to change things, even evil dictators, is through war. Wrong.
Finally, defensive (not pre-emptive) wars are a different matter and confusing the two is unhelpful.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I never brought up pre-emption, I was responding to a post from bunge, and I was only stating that it is a matter of international law and is seen as having some legitimacy. I don't actually see action against Iraq as pre-emptive. I would see it as following through with the terms of the agreed upon cease-fire.
[quote]Originally posted by stupider...likeafox:
<strong>
Like you say, if everyone thought like me then there would be no problem as no-one would attack each other and there would be no need for defensive wars.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
And then the real world comes and bites you in the ass. Unfortunately, there are people like Milosovic, Hussein and Hitler, whose actions demand attention and action.
[quote]Originally posted by stupider...likeafox:
<strong>
What you don't say is that if your idea of pre-emptive wars against countries that look at you funny gains currency then a whole lot more people will get dragged into defensive wars.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Actually, what I did say, was that pre-emption was considered lawful, only when taken in very narrowly defined circumstances. Again, I don't consider action against Iraq pre-emptive, so there isn't any point debating the merits of pre-emption, as i don't see the tie in here.
<strong>...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Tulkas,
1967 was legit. I think an attack on North Korea is almost legit. Iraq is not an emminent threat. Preemption cannot be for a potential threat, that would have been a better way to put it.
It's equatible to normal law. If someone is charging at you with a weapon, you can shoot them first, you don't have to wait until you've taken the first hit. You can't look at someone and see they have a knife/gun/nuclear bomb and shoot them because you're afraid they'll attack.
<strong> What about the people of Iraq whose potential suffering you are using as a political tool?
Leave them hanging once again?
Just so we get the goals clear here.
Also, did I say anything about 'no war at all costs'? Keep your arguments straight please.</strong><hr></blockquote>
In my understanding the goal is zero WOMD, health of the people be damned. If the health of the people improves, that's a positive side effect of eliminating the threat of WOMD.
As bad as things are in Iraq, the state of the people (and of the WOMD for that matter, although that's a different argument) in North Korea is far worse than in Iraq.
If the goal is helping people, Iraq isn't first on the list. If the goal is WOMD, I think dealing with Iraq could be considered before dealing with North Korea, not because the situation is worse but because it's an 'easier' solution.
<strong>With regard to the pre-emptive vs defensive war argument, I think the question is whether this would in fact be considered a new war, or the resumption of war after the Gulf War cease-fire has been broken. Just throwing that out. I'm sure you could rationalize it either way.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Sorry if the pre-emption argument is mucking things up.
If it's a case of a broken cease-fire, with whom was the cease-fire signed? The US or the UN? If it's the UN, then the US does NOT have the authority to unilaterally enforce the cease-fire. If it was with the US, then the case for the US is much easier. We'd have to look into details, but I'd be willing to bet that a cease-fire signed with the US was broken and any response to a breach as outlined in that cease-fire would be legit.
If it's a UN cease-fire, then we're back to either the US is enforcing the UN laws (not possible) or the US building its own case for war (pre-emption.)
I'm willing to look at any of the three cases above, only one of which leads cleanly to war. I do think that this option (that the cease-fire was officially with the US) is the lease likely though.
<strong>To all anti-war folks:
What are your suggestions on how to end this in a peaceful way?
Pretty please with sugar on top.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Inspections and containment has worked for the past 10 years. It's worked with the USSR and with China. Sure it may not be pretty like in a TV show (when the bad characters inevitably die and the "good" characters who have done bad die accidentally) but the advantages are:
tens of thousands (probably more) civilian lives are saved
soldiers lives are saved
the region is more stable, nuclear powers like Pakistan are more stable
The monetary costs are smaller than war.
Without war diplomacy and negotiation have a chance. In the 90's Israel and Palestine were negotiating. No they did not reach a lasting peace but in those years they were not killing eachother as much. Even the process of a failed negotiation is better than a war. Did the war in Afganistan stop Al Qaeda? What's with all the duct tape and plastic? Where did trail-by-jury go? Wheres Osama?
When has a war on terror ever worked? It did not work in Ireland. It did not work in Israel. It did not work in Chechneya (sp.?). The only thing that works is long slow negotiations and trying to solve the root causes. Kill one terrorist and two more takes their place.
Many people in this forum complain about the lack of consistency with protestors. Is anyone ever completely consistent about anything? No. The same arguement could be made, asking "what message is sent by an administration that is willing to negotiate with a country that has nuclear weapons (N. Korea) and but will not negotiate with a country that does not have nuclear weapons (Iraq)? The message is that rogue states should try to develope nuclear weapons if they want to protect themselves from the US.
Why did we not invade the USSR, China, Cuba, Nicaragua? Looking back, do you think we should have invaded those countries?
Engagement, consistent pressure and inspections do work, if given the time.
Unfortunately Bush has painted himself into a corner; the one thing you do not ever want to do in the course of foreign affairs.
[ 02-17-2003: Message edited by: wwwork ]</p>
<strong>Why did we not invade the USSR, China, Cuba, Nicaragua? Looking back, do you think we should have invaded those countries?</strong><hr></blockquote>
speaking of inconsistencies...when all of the rhetoric of "rooting out terrorism" (whatever that means) was flying around post-9/11, I remarked to a colleague that if this was going to be applied consistently, we'd be invading England and Ireland soon. They clearly can't solve their IRA problem....
<strong>
Get your facts right, French exports to Iraq are less than 0.2% of their total exports.
About your signature line "Free Speech": I hope you didn't fail to notice that freedom of the press/free speech was one of the first things to fall by the wayside after Sept.11</strong><hr></blockquote>
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> Mother ****er it hurts from laughing too much <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> How did freedom of speech "fall by the wayside after Sept.11"? You'd have to be very ******* **** to think that.
[ 02-17-2003: Message edited by: Scott ]</p>
<a href="http://www.reason.com/0303/bagge.shtml"; target="_blank">http://www.reason.com/0303/bagge.shtml</a>;
More work by the author:
<a href="http://www.peterbagge.com/comics/online.html"; target="_blank">http://www.peterbagge.com/comics/online.html</a>;
<hr></blockquote>
Clinton sure didn't kiss England's ass like the current administration or the two prior. It's Bush's arrogance, idiocy and big swinging dick mentality that have Europe hating us. If he wasn't such a dick and showed a little finesse and willingness to listen to other countries he'd prolly have a coalition by now.
<strong>I see that both sides are accusing each other of ignorance, but I think it's worth pointing out that this will snowball into an unstoppable cycle of hatred and violence. That much should be clear to both sides. We'll soon see the same tit-for-tat situation in Israel on a global scale. What it will lead to, I don't know. But I'm hoping it won't lead to a scenario right out of Fallout.
Is it really wrong to say "I've had enough"? </strong><hr></blockquote>
Oh god not the tired old "cycle of violence" crap? Here's a little information. Civilized democracies tend not to go to war with one another. Their citizens tend to express themselves in the media and public gatherings rather than bombing and killing. Creating civilized democracies based on free markets is a great way to stop the "cycle of violence".
[quote]Originally posted by rampancy:
<strong>Bush and the people who blindly rally around him love to say how they "hate our freedom". But I have to ask, what freedom? There is absolutely NO room for dissent or discussion of the issues in the mainstream arena. If you choose to not follow the status quo, you're either marginalized as mad protestor or convicted as a member of Al-Qaeda. </strong><hr></blockquote>
This is such a stupid statement it's almost not even worth replying to. "absolutely NO room for dissent"? WTF are you talking about? We have marches rallies, congressmen and women speeking out about this. Just because some "marginalize" you doesn't mean you aren't free. It means you're free to do what you want and they are free to marginalize you. Freedom is a two way street. But I'm sure you don't like that. You'd rather have freedom mean "people have to listen to me and take me seriously or else..." or else I don't know what. Freedom of speech does not mean "right to be heard".
[quote]Originally posted by rampancy:
<strong>The US should learn to look inward and question its own values before assuming the role of judge, jury, and executioner over the whole world.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yea we did that. Saddam is an evil tyrant that refuced to comply with the other 17 or so UN reslolutions. Iraq is building WoMD that threaten the world, most of which Israel. Part of the Arab Muslim war against the Jew. But ... I'm a realist not an idealist.