Implications of the Bush Doctrine: Coalition of the willing to free the west bank

[TheStinger]

Originally posted by Sloth
This is NOT true. From the times of Iliad on, some wars have been "right" and some "wrong". And while it is true that power has been an important factor in deciding which is which, there is a lot more to it than that.
Note that while it is in general true that "the victor writes history", in general he tries to manipulate WHAT really happened not the MORAL righteousness of his deeds.

Well the i assume the victor wrote the Illiad and he didn't make a very good job of making the Trojan war look just. Going to war over a woman

She would have to be something really special

[Sloth]

She was trust me

but Homer realized the truth of your objection and from book IV (I believe ?) the war is "justified" by the "betrayal of Pandarus".

[TheStinger]

Homer could justify a war if it involeved recovering some nice pork chops(peppered prefereably)

[Az]

From the times of Iliad on, some wars have been "right" and some "wrong". And while it is true that power has been an important factor in deciding which is which, there is a lot more to it than that.

the Trojan war was right? There were very little "right" wars, generally, mostly the civil uprisings, and a few other wars, like the war of the US against the N. African pirates ( which wasn't completed), and WWII.

Note that while it is in general true that "the victor writes history", in general he tries to manipulate WHAT really happened not the MORAL righteousness of his deeds.

In ancient times, morals had nothing to do at all with war, noone tried to conceal the fact that the wars were fought for the glory of the empire. the first moralistic ( which doesn't say that they're ethical, that just means that they're made because of certain morals that weren't right ) wars were fought because of religion.

Then, in the dark and middle ages, religion has been really established as the stuff of power, the wars were being fought over "they don't believe in the same god"( Xians Vs. Muslims ) and "they did something bad to us", which is simply a justification of "for the glory of the empire" of previous days, which btw kept its presence as well.

The empiral age and the reinessance saw the strong return of "for the glory of the empire", which went on till WWII. In all previous cases, both sides of the war treated their citizens in very similar ways, and therefor, any war wouldn't change their status very much, or at all, and thus was simple squabbling.

WWII was probably the first war that had two sides that were really distinct in their inherent ethical levels.

[Sloth]

Originally posted by Azazel

There were very little "right" wars

I agree. But here we are not discussing what WE (me and you) think.
We are discussing if a "moral consensus" (at least in the eye of one of the combatants and some of the third parties) is necessary to start a war. In my opinion the answer is a loud YES.
The Trojan war was "just"? In that sense yes: and Homer goes out of his way to convince you of that. It gives you not one but two reasons.
And this has been true throughout history.
It's true that very often the justification has been week and "woolf and lamb" situations have often arisen.
But in my opinion going through the cynical way by saying "might is right" is far worse as this de facto opens the door for any kind of atrocity.

[Az]

I agree. But here we are not discussing what WE (me and you) think.
We are discussing if a "moral consensus" (at least in the eye of one of the combatants and some of the third parties) is necessary to start a war. In my opinion the answer is a loud YES

was there an agreement between all the nations in the world that the trojan war is right? didn't think so. Were most of the wars that way? nope. Were the just wars of liberations that way? nope, since most of the third parties were just as bad as the opressor that was thought, and didn't have any will that the war of liberation would take place.

Does the fact that there is a concensus make something right? makes somenthing the way it should be? I guess the south had the right to keep it's slaves then. ( let's not get into the debate whether the US civil war was about slavery, I am just using it as an example.)

But in my opinion going through the cynical way by saying "might is right" is far worse as this de facto opens the door for any kind of atrocity.

Noone says that this is the way it should be. but this is DEFINETLY the way it is, currently.

[Sava]

Nobody would win a China vs US war. Neither could conquer each other on the ground. Both have nukes. 'Nuff said.

The Bush doctrine is dangerous because what if India or Pakistan decided to follow it? Israel has shown that the occupation of a people only breeds more terrorism. Unfortunately for the US, Bush doesn't seem to think about the real-world consequences of his actions.

[Drake Tungsten]

The Bush doctrine is dangerous because what if India or Pakistan decided to follow it?

Again, do you really think India and Pakistan have not launched preemptive strikes on the other because of a respect for international law? They don't attack because the other side has nukes and the will to use them, not because the UN says they shouldn't...

[Sloth]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
[Again, do you really think India and Pakistan have not launched preemptive strikes on the other because of a respect for international law? ...

Yes. India could have smashed Pakistan well before it would have nukes. They were afraid of the internal and international consequences of invading another country.
Again: if you state that if a country can invade another...well it just CAN, the consequences could be very very dangerous.

[GePap]

Azazel: we don't live in ancient times. If we are unwilling to follow ancient codes of conduct among peoples within states, why on earth should they matter to issues between states?

There are a few assumptions running around that I find dangerous. One of them is the : the US is omnipotent" one. Yes, I do not question that the US could defeat in a one to one battle any other concventional military in the world, if we take nukes of the table. But first, nukes are on the table, and second, most of the dangers we face today are not from conventional enemies but from unconventional ones. It was not some states missile that took down the WTC. Big militaries solve military problems: only where the military and political problems are intertwined do they solve the political issues as well: everyone here seem to regard the IDf as invincible in the ME: they can beat any Arab army, or perhaps all the Arab armies combained. Yet, has this power allowed them to beat the Palestinians into submission? Did all that power win them Lebanon? There are limits to the power of conventional military force, and counting on your military to solve everything is a great recipe towards solving nothing.

Many people say thast it is the fear of retribution that keep everyone in line...not some internalization of norms. Usually, people who say this like to cmpare states to people, or draw examples form history and such. Well, let me ask everyone here: which reason is trully more important when it comes to why YOU don't commit crimes (of whatever size): is it because the fear of getting caught is so great you are afraid to do it, and if there was no punishment, you would do it, or is it because you think it would be wrong to do it? To ask it another way. If rape was decriminalized tomorrow, would you go out and rape someone?
Values do matter: Do people in the US support this war simple cause they can? Or do they do it cause they think..well, we are right in doing it? Hearing all the people on this forum that support war, all of them say: "its the right thing to do, we must uphold the UN's word..blah, blah". Those are appeals to values, not power. There are trully very few sociopathic wars out there. Even Hitler believed he was fighting for a cause, a set of values.

The US has two types of partners going into this war: those they forced to be with us, by threats of punishment, or the withholding of carrots, and those that actually believe. The Us can always count ojn a coolition of the first kind. we are big enough. But getting allies of the later type requires some set of common beliefs which force simply cannot create. If Spain and the UK are with us against Hussein, it is only because Iraq has the UN record it has. Which means that fundamentally, even the few allies of belief we do have have yet to buy the full package of ideology driving the Bushies to war, and that is not a good sign for this new "grand startegy" we have.

If this war does trully break up the notion of international colective security (which means most together) then overall, international security goes down, not up.

[Arrian]

Yes. India could have smashed Pakistan well before it would have nukes. They were afraid of the internal and international consequences of invading another country

Then why is it that there were 3(?) wars between Pakistan and India prior to them going nuclear?

-Arrian

[Ned]

Korn, there is a major difference between one country attacking a neighbor for the purpose of conquest and a coalition of a number of countries trying to reverse such a conquest and disarm the aggressor.

If France put together a coalition to wage war on Israel to liberate Palestine, it would be illegitimate because Israel was not the aggressor in '67. Besides, they would have to wage war on the US as well. France does not need that, now do they?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Arrian


Then why is it that there were 3(?) wars between Pakistan and India prior to them going nuclear?

-Arrian

India's objective has never been to smash Pakistan. they could have, but to what end? Besides, india and Pakistan did not go nuclear simultaneously. India probably had the ability ot make nukes by 1975. Pakistan certaintly did not. There was a window during which India was nuke capable and Pak. not, and India always had a superiority in conventional forces.

Korn, there is a major difference between one country attacking a neighbor for the purpose of conquest and a coalition of a number of countries trying to reverse such a conquest and disarm the aggressor.

That applies only to Iraq in 1991, not today. Iraq is not the aggressor in this case. Even if you classify them as ultimately responsible, they are not the aggressors.

[korn469]

Ned

like GePap said, in Gulf War 2 Iraq is not the aggressors, and basically you are saying a US lead invasion, occupation, and reorganization of the Iraqi government is wrong.

also even if Israel wasn't the agressor, and lets say in 1967 it had of occupied and then annexed all of Egypt, I doubt anyone would have recognized those claims.

My thinking is this, when Bush went to the U.N. he was basically lending creadability to the idea that the U.N. has legitimate authority to authorize force. He was asking the world for a mandate, and that mandate was a U.N. resolution that implied the US had the right to "disarm" Iraq. However, any 8th grader in model U.N. knows that even a single veto will kill your resolution, and obviously Bush should have known this too. No matter how much he paints the French or people who don't agree with him on the security council as people on the wrong side of history, basically they can prevent him from having the U.N. authorization to use force that he sought out in the first place. There are rules, and Bush (or somebody in his administration) knew the rules before Bush took this to the U.N. Obviously somebody must have advised him on the possibility that this resolution could fail, and hopefully they told him that this would hurt America's prestige and legitimacy abroad.

Before Bush took this to the U.N. weapon inspectors weren't in Iraq and Bush could have ordered punative air raids with the stated goal of trying to "disarm" Iraq since it refused to cooperate with previous U.N. resolutions. These air raids could have been on the same scale as the proposed awe and shock air raids rumored to be in planning. Instead of simply trying to target WoMD we could have attacked presidential palaces, head quarters, communications, the republican guard, and the security agencies in Iraq, in the hopes of destabilizing Saddam's government. If not we could have certainly dealt a huge setback to the Iraqi arsenal. All of this could have been accomplished in a relatively short amount of time, so that it would be over with before any kind of opposition movement could form. During the interim the CIA could help beef up the opposition, and a year later do the same thing, with the hopes that the opposition would overthrow Saddam. We don't need to invade to disarm him, but we are, and we are going to do it after bringing it before the U.N. and then failing to get the authorization we needed.

That is what disturbs me, if we are such a hyperpower, why can't we get this resolution passed? Shouldn't hyperpowers be as diplomatically capable as what they are militarily? America can't rely on unilateral military action alone to meet its objectives, a couple of 50-200 billion dollar wars and troops moving from one country to the next will certainly errode support at home. In many ways we need the U.N. just so we don't have to completely rely on unilateral military action, and since we have more carrots and sticks than all of the other nations in the U.N. the more we can do to strengthen it, the better off we are for the moment. Yet by undermining the authority of an organization that we created and that we can't disband seems to hurt US interests.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
MtG: "Actually, US military power is the last thing, just about, especially now, when it's overcommitted playing with the "Axis of evil.""

The USA still has naval/aerial assets in the region that could provide a problem for any Chinese invasion.

We have about 20% of what would normally be available - and zero if the **** hits the fan with the DPRK while we're engaged in Iraq.