How do I answer the pre-emptive strike arguments?

[Inverse Icarus]

Originally posted by johncmcleod
Azazel, since when is it our job to judge who's evil and who's not? Since when are we the world police? And, is it our problem?

we stepped up a while ago. we can't just step back down.

do like the idea of being the world police? no. but we did it, and if we just went back into isolation again we'd still be prey to terrorists with a grudge. it's the way it is.

If what you said is true, then another country, let's say Russia, would have the right to invade us after the Vietnam war. If we could invade a country because we say they're evil (even if they are) then the gov could call an innocent nation evil and then invade them.

anyone here want to defend the Vietnam war to any substantial degree? righty-o.

lets not forget russians in afghanistan, either. pretty much every nation with a speck of power has done something they regret.

[Willem]

Originally posted by UberKruX


lets not forget russians in afghanistan, either. pretty much every nation with a speck of power has done something they regret.

That was the Soviet Union, not Russia.

[Inverse Icarus]

Originally posted by Willem


That was the Soviet Union, not Russia.

someone's not up on their beatles

why couldn't we say that Vietnam was in "old america", or "cold war america"? surely, those were different times.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Azazel
My main reason for supporting the process of his removal from power is that he is an evil dictator that has caused the death of many people in his country. The other arguments are just cherry on the cream topping.

Why not some other guy?
a) He's one of the ones that are easier to remove.
b) If there is a better candidate ( from the point of possibility of removal, as well), I say, go ahead. But if he's the best possible, I'll be ok with that too.

Azazel, this is the main reason I support the war too. Several years ago, when Milosevic began his war of ethnic cleansing in Yugoslavia, I was appalled. At the time, I wholly supported direct American intervention into the conflict. We did not intervene for very long time. While Clinton procrastinated, thousands of Croatians, Bosnians and Kosovars were raped and killed by this madman.

I don't think the world should tolerate people like Milosevic or Saddam. We should go after them all.

The issue of disarmament is somewhat of a pretext that justifies the war legally. But in reality the reason we are going after Saddam is because he's a brutal dictator and we are liberating Iraq. This ultimately is the same reason why we went after Milosevic and his brutal régime.

Last night, Peter Jennings interviewed two organizers of today's New York antiwar protest. He asked them why they were against the war. Neither of the them gave a clear answer. At best I could understand from what they said was that they were against the war because of the overall trends in US foreign-policy. They, of course, did not state what those trends were. Their answer amount at to a nonanswer.

While the organizers do not say so, I think they also believe that the primary reason why we're attacking Saddam's régime is to liberate Iraq. They are against that. It establishes a rule that United States is willing to use force against dictators, most particularly against anti-American dictators. Of course historically, most anti-American dictators are Communists.

Also, on a slightly different topic, I have heard reports that the French were not going to cooperate with United States and Britain at all on admistration of Iraq. They said they were not going to release the UN money in French banks that are the Iraqi oil proceeds earmarked for the UN oil for food program. In other words France will not support humanitarian aid for Iraq so long as the US and UK are in charge.

Who allowed France to steal the UN money?

[GePap]

Ned: it would be wise to stop believing that somehow you "know" what people "really" think. I venture to guess you are not a mind reader, so unless someone tells you otherwise, you can only judge someone mindset by their words and actions.

Also, on a slightly different topic, I have heard reports that the French were not going to cooperate with United States and Britain at all on admistration of Iraq. They said they were not going to release the UN money in French banks that are the Iraqi oil proceeds earmarked for the UN oil for food program. In other words France will not support humanitarian aid for Iraq so long as the US and UK are in charge.

Who allowed France to steal the UN money?

How is that stealign the UN's money? The French are saying: UN money to be used for UN run and controlled programs, not for programs solely controlled by individual members. Now, if the administration of Iraq is given over to the UN and not to the governments of the uS and UK, thts a different thing.

[Agathon]

It's not wholly about oil but the arguments that it isn't at all about all are fatuous.

This is not about getting more oil for the US but about being in control of supplies. A US in the dominant position in the Gulf is also in a position to deny oil to its rivals or potential rivals.

I can't believe you are losing arguments to the pro-war morons. I haven't heard one good argument from that side yet.

[johncmcleod]

Invading a country because they are evil is abuse of power. If we're going to do this, then that gives other countries the right to invade another nation just because they are 'evil'. This would justify the Iraq-Iran war. Iran's leaders were pretty evil, so that means Saddam could go in. Germany could've said, Poland evil, I should be able to invade him. If we should be allowed to go into Iraq even if the rest of the world says no then that means we could go in and take over another country because we say they're 'evil'. How would you feel if another country called us 'evil' and then took us over?

What's wrong with the UN? Nations could abuse power easily without it. With the UN, many nations can be kept in check. It's a place where all the world leaders have say and if it's the world's will for something to be done, that can be clearly shown.

Let's say there was no UN. Country A invades Country B. This is a war of aggression, so Country C sends in forces to defend Country B and invade Country A. Is this fair? It is unfair for A to invade B, but is it fair for C to say what can be done and what can't be done? With the UN, there are certain rules that everyone has a say on.

It's the people of Iraq's problem that they have a bad leader, not ours. We're removing the Iraqi people's leader without even asking them. We may have a hunch they don't like him, but there hasn't been an official vote asking if Saddam should be in power.

Agathon, if the pro-war arguments are so bad, they why didn't you answer Azazel's?

[Urban Ranger]

Does the police lock somebody up just because there's a chance he might commit a crime? Clearly we don't. People are innocent until proven guilty. So are countries.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Does the police lock somebody up just because there's a chance he might commit a crime?

Do you not see a difference between domestic law and international law?

[Urban Ranger]

So Saddam Hussein is a nasty bastard. He has killed people. This didn't stop the US from propping him up during the Iran-Iraq war. This didn't stop Cheney from shaking hands with him. This didn't stop the CDC from selling nice little bugs to him. He has always been that way. Clearly, that is not a reason why GWB wants to invade.

So Iraq has some chemical and biological weapons. First of all, as it has been pointed out repeatedly, these are not terribly effective weapons. The Tokyo subway sarin gas attack (as contrasted to the arson in the Seoul subway) is a clear indication of this. Secondly, there are countries that have nuclear weapons, and the US couldn't care less. So, this is not a reason.

So, Iraq has violated UN resolutions. So has a number of other countries, say Turkey and Israel. It's not like the US care about such violations.

So what other reasons can the pro-war faction proffer?

[Goingonit]

The problem with the UN is that it is controlled by the majority of countries, who really suck. I mean, imagine for a minute we just took away the UN and asked Qatar, Libya, Laos, San Marino, Paraguay, Zambia, Niger, Slovenia, Micronesia, Nauru, Yemen, Turkmenistan and Tunisia [for example] to lead the world. That would really suck, wouldn't it? But in the UN General Assembly, this is for all intents and purposes exactly what's happening.

And what would happen if we didn't attack countries for being evil? We'd get more Rwandas. It's the world's responsibility to prevent genocide and gross human rights abuses.

We need the entire world (or at least that small part of the world which cares about human rights) to stand up and say, "we won't stand for this anymore!" We need the entire world to stop the Saddams and the Kim Jong Ils. The only reason the United States is going alone is because none of the other countries will accept this responsibility.

In my mind, the whole WMD thing is not the strongest case for war, but rather Saddam's gross human rights abuses and genocide attempts.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Do you not see a difference between domestic law and international law?

What international law? It's not like the US is following it.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
What international law?

The one you were naively refering to in the post I quoted. Don't be purposefully dense.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
The one you were naively refering to in the post I quoted. Don't be purposefully dense.

I am not aware that international law allows a country to attack another one pre-emptively, particularly without as much as an iota of evidence of so called "threats."

[GePap]

This war is in no way a pre-emptive atatck. At best, you can call it a preventive attack, a classfication for which there is absolutely no documnetation.

If you ask the lawers at the State Department and white House, they will tell you that in their legal eyes, Iraq has violated the conditions for the cease-fire in 1991 and thus this war is nice and legal.