Is Offensive War Ever Justified?

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
And Iraq is not just talking. They're just not doing, what they were told to do to end the Gulf War, as I said.

Look at WWII, as another example.
Japan was to not have a military. They accepted the terms and had no military.
Iraq accepted terms, and promptly renigged.

But where is the proof. The whole idea is that Bush is going in even though he cannot provide proof for this. And that is not right. Even more worrying is the claims at first that the US and Britain did not give the weapons inspectors targets where they suspect WOMD's are. However I have read that Colin Powell said that they have provided the info now.

Well awaiting the results. Not that Iraqis can do much... you can't really be transporting WOMDs or reshuffing the positions now, when the country is scanned non-stop. If it is there we will find it. What's the rush for the war?

[orange]

Japan has a 'military' perse, they're just forbidden to use it for anything other than defensive purposes.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Ozz
That is a "Police Action" not a offensive war.

Meaningless double talk.

[SlowwHand]

Originally posted by OneFootInTheGrave


But where is the proof. The whole idea is that Bush is going in even though he cannot provide proof for this. And that is not right. Even more worrying is the claims at first that the US and Britain did not give the weapons inspectors targets where they suspect WOMD's are. However I have read that Colin Powell said that they have provided the info now.

Well awaiting the results. Not that Iraqis can do much... you can't really be transporting WOMDs or reshuffing the positions now, when the country is scanned non-stop. If it is there we will find it. What's the rush for the war?

Where is proof of what? That there were conditions that were to be met?
What don't you get?

[DinoDoc]

OFITG: Iraq's 'unaccounted for' weapons

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Originally posted by SlowwHand



Where is proof of what? That there were conditions that were to be met?
What don't you get?

Where is the proof of WOMD's. And Iraq merely expelled the weapons inspectors in 1998 or 1999 because they rightly accused them of spying.

Now... wasn't the war being waged because of WOMD's? There is still no proof of them.

*I have to go, my wife is coming ... I am of to see LOTR finally... anyway just reply if you can be bothered I'll catch up later

[Jac de Molay]

I'm still eagerly awaiting the "smoking gun" intelligence on WMD's that the Administration said they had.

Bush will have his little war, no matter if it's moral or not. What's sickening is the Administration's insistence that war can still be avoided even as it masses more troops and hardware to the region- a rather cynical manipulation of the bully pulpit.

[Tripledoc]

Originally posted by OneFootInTheGrave
What's the rush for the war?

Speed is one of the decisive factors of war. Then there is the rise in oil prices, the unemployment, the US deficit, the diplomatic impetus - the desperation.

[SlowwHand]

It's not Bush's little war, Dave.
That's cool though. I'm done argiung, mostly because it doesn't matter.
You, and David Floyd, and Tandee, and OFITG can just sit back and collect the benefits.

[Ozz]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Meaningless double talk.

Doublespeak, would be more like it.

The governments are commiting criminal acts or they
have already started an offensive war. Hense "police
action" like Korea and Yugoslavia, and should have
happened in 1930s Germany amoug many other places.

Can the UN launch an offensive war?

[David Floyd]

And Iraq is not just talking. They're just not doing, what they were told to do to end the Gulf War, as I said.

But the Gulf War ITSELF was an offensive war against Iraq, waged by an international coaliton. Whatever Iraq might have done to Kuwait - and Kuwait was a dictatorship too - they did nothing to us.

Iraq accepted terms, and promptly renigged.

First of all, a contract signed under duress is not a valid contract, and secondly, it's spelled "reneged".

[Zero]

STOP! Let me clear some matters.

Are you asking is offensive war ever [/u]morally[/u] justifiable?

In addition you cant answer this question without building up an arguement that War alone is ever morally justifiable!

[Garth Vader]

And Iraq is not just talking. They're just not doing, what they were told to do to end the Gulf War, as I said.

Look at WWII, as another example.
Japan was to not have a military. They accepted the terms and had no military.
Iraq accepted terms, and promptly renigged.



I am not going to defend Iraq's compliance because it has been spotty. But what about US compliance? The No-fly zones weren't part of any UN resolution, nor agreed to by Iraq. What recourse does the defeated have when the victor wants to exact more blood after war is concluded?

As for WW2 parallels, it was different, Japan and Germany were completely conquered, agreed to unconditional surrender, occupied and goverened by the occupiers.

[Comrade Tribune]

I think most would agree that war in a clear and present case of self-defense is justifiable.

In all other cases it is -in theory!- not; however, no one except an unpersonal eternal force, such as God or History, can force nations to account, so the moral viewpoint concerning this question is largely irrelevant.

In the present case: The US of A have no right whatsoever to attack -or even threaten!- Iraq; however, they will not be stopped by arguments. You can only stop force with force. Bin Laden is right about this.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune

In the present case: The US of A have no right whatsoever to attack -or even threaten!- Iraq; however, they will not be stopped by arguments. You can only stop force with force. Bin Laden is right about this.

The ceasefire was conditional.

It appears the conditions were breached.

I think the restraint showed by the allied forces has been surprising.