French and Russian Collaborations with Saddam Hussein Begin to Surface

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Darius871
For that matter, what major effect did Milosevic's antics have on American national security?

None that I can see. That's one of the reasons why I was against the intervention.

[Darius871]

Then why did you say it was reverse for you? We both agree that we had nothing to gain from the war in Kosovo, neither economically nor geopolitically, and I'm guessing you agree that we benefited economically and geopolitically from the war with Spain.

That's really all I was saying, in response to Ned's saying "I do not know how one can distinguish Kosovo from Cuba."

[Ned]

Darius, I think the presence of the Platt amendment was vital so that business would feel safe in investing in Cuba. If a country is torn by strife and revolution, or is weak and not able to defend itself from a takeover by a foreign power, investment is risky.

Because of the Platt amendment, American capital and investment pored into Cuba. I understand that just before Castro, Cuba had the highest standard of living in Latin America.

A similar guarantee to Iraq could result in a hugh influx of US and European capital.

But there may be a problem in this as well. The presence of too many Western innovations is what caused the Ayatollah to become anti-Shah in Iran. Womens rights were particularly aggravating, IIRC. We may be well advised to keep a low profile for the time being.

[WRangler Rhymer]

Thank you Spain!

[Darius871]

Ned: just for the sake of discussion, I'll ask you to describe how the war with Spain fulfills ALL of these criteria:

1. A just war can only be waged as a last resort. All non-violent options must be exhausted before the use of force can be justified.

2. A war is just only if it is waged by a legitimate authority. Even just causes cannot be served by actions taken by individuals or groups who do not constitute an authority sanctioned by whatever the society and outsiders to the society deem legitimate.

3. A just war can only be fought to redress a wrong suffered. For example, self-defense against an armed attack is always considered to be a just cause (although the justice of the cause is not sufficient--see point #4). Further, a just war can only be fought with "right" intentions: the only permissible objective of a just war is to redress the injury.

4. A war can only be just if it is fought with a reasonable chance of success. Deaths and injury incurred in a hopeless cause are not morally justifiable.

5. The ultimate goal of a just war is to re-establish peace. More specifically, the peace established after the war must be preferable to the peace that would have prevailed if the war had not been fought.

6. The violence used in the war must be proportional to the injury suffered. States are prohibited from using force not necessary to attain the limited objective of addressing the injury suffered.

7. The weapons used in war must discriminate between combatants and non-combatants. Civilians are never permissible targets of war, and every effort must be taken to avoid killing civilians. The deaths of civilians are justified only if they are unavoidable victims of a deliberate attack on a military target.

Only 100% will be a passing grade.

[Ned]

3. A just war can only be fought to redress a wrong suffered. For example, self-defense against an armed attack is always considered to be a just cause (although the justice of the cause is not sufficient--see point #4). Further, a just war can only be fought with "right" intentions: the only permissible objective of a just war is to redress the injury.

All the rest of the points should be self-evident. If you dispute any, let's discuss them furhter.

As to 3), it appears that we sent the Maine to Havana to protect American citizens who were threatened during the fighting in Cuba between the Spanish army and revolutionaries. The Maine blew up. This was our "pretext" for armed invention into the conflict.

[gsmoove23]

The explosion of the Maine is the lamest excuse for war in history(change that to American history). No proof was ever found that it was done by the spanish. Our ship was in Havana, which is controlled by the spanish. It blew up, the Spanish did it.

[Ned]

gsmoove, talk about lame, think of the Japanese excuse for invading Manchuria? Their railroad blew up. History says that the Japanese themselves blew their own railroad up as a pretext. But I have never seen a documentation of this.

Turning to the Maine, doesn't seem just a bit suspicious that the Maine blew up in Havanna harbor? Hundreds of Americans were killed. This alone suggests that America had nothing to do with sabotaging their own battleship.

Recall also that United States began beating the war drums during World War I when the Germans deliberately sank the Lusitania, killing hundreds of Americans.

Next consider the cause of World War I: the assassination of the Archduke. Here only one Austrian lost his life, but he was an important Austrian

I to go on, but you see the pattern. There is an underlying major cause for hostilities and a spark. The spark provides the legal justification.

When Caesar crossed the Rubicon, he did so because he said he was protecting the rights of the Tribunes. This however was not the real cause of the war, was it?

[gsmoove23]

Ned, thats why as an afterthought I put American history.

Turning to the Maine, doesn't seem just a bit suspicious that the Maine blew up in Havanna harbor?

Turning to the Maine, it does seem a little bit suspicious, but the evidence was lacking, as opposed to the Lusitania where we were quite certain it was hit by the Germans. During the Maine incident the spark was already lit, we wanted war and lucky for us a reason popped up out of nowhere, nevermind why was the Maine in Havana harbor to begin with, I don't think we were invited and certainly if we were worried about our citizens we could have asked to evacuate them with Spanish assistance.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Ned
gsmoove, talk about lame, think of the Japanese excuse for invading Manchuria? Their railroad blew up. History says that the Japanese themselves blew their own railroad up as a pretext.

Is anyone here defending the Japanese invasion of Manchuria?

Originally posted by Ned

This alone suggests that America had nothing to do with sabotaging their own battleship.

While I wouldn't be surprised if we destroyed our own battleship, I'm not saying that's what's happened. Most believe that it was just a freak accident that was conveniently seized upon.

Long story short, IMO the Maine explosion doesn't fit the 3rd Criterion. I guess you could make the case that at the time, after the inquiry declared it wasn't an accident, the government was justified in going to war. In retrospect, however, when it's been proven more or less that the Maine just had an accidental explosion, it's hard to say. Perhaps the war shouldn't be called unjust, since as far as we could know at the time it was an attack, and it should rather just be called a ****-up.

[Ned]

Darius, thanks. It is rare on this forum for people to actually listent to someone's else's argument, let alone agree that it might be valid.