Excellent! You may be starting to understand. Instead of being comfortable with war-making as a default reaction to uncertainty, some of us are more comfortable withholding our approval until we are presented with actual, verifiable, on-going or eminent actions against our country.
Not too long ago, that would’ve been considered a given, even among the most hawkish of conservatives.
Yet another example of December’s Dimwitted Display of Disingenous Democrat-Drubbing.
I think you mean “imminent,” not “eminent.”
Thanks, Eva. One of those…
I’m pretty sure he meant “Eminem”, personally. 
I’m in favor of disarming Eminem through a regiment of inspection and sanctions.
Doh!
Hey Eva; I meant “regimen”, of course…
:o
wring made a similar point. “anyone ‘Might’ do something horrendous to us. My next door neighbor might. He has guns. he has dogs. He has shifty eyes. But in the eyes of the law, I may not take aggressive action against him absent a real threat. Not merely that there’s capabilities…”
You both have a point. There’s a parallel between law enforcement and, but there are also differences. Countries and regimes are not individuals. International law lacks the clarity of constitutional law.
Also, I think judgment should be used to distinguish between different countries and their potential risks. E.g., I wouldn’t be particularly worried if Denmark were suspected of developing nuclear weapons. Denmark hasn’t invaded its neighbors and supported terrorism. At least, not for several centuries. But, I don’t think we should have given Saddam Hussein the benefit of the doubt. YMMV.
ours did, quite substantially. and, apparently, as reality is playing out the mere appearance of potential threat, in the case of SH was sufficient in your eyes, vs. a much more reality based threat in the case of NK (there’s substantial proof that they’ve got capabilities, and they’re physically quite a bit closer, close enough to reach American soil).
Yes, your imminence.
Well, the former would certainly have had a whole different meaning.
If the threat is imminent, it’s eminent, and if a regiment of regimes is required to quell the Eminem enemy, then we must immanentize the eminence!
Good heavens, I think I just chanelled Don King.
<channelling Mike Tyson back at 2trew’s Don King>
I threaten the embolism on Eminem, 'cause of the regulating required to condone the ambulatory.
</Mike Tyson>
Then let’s remove the law. Suppose the American government collapsed tomorrow and the Constitution and federal and state law were to be unenforced by any legitimate authority, leaving people to fend for themselves and organize themselves with contracts. A good approximation of international reality.
Would you be morally or ethically justified in killing that neighbour now because of his dog, his rifle, and his shifty eyes?
If that level of justification for killing one’s neighbour because accepted standard, what do you think would happen?
You are of course absolutely correct in stating that a person/state’s track record changes the likelihood of threat. Iraq could not be trusted with nuclear weapons; Denmark could. Iraq could not be trusted with a stockpile of chemical weapons; Canada could. But what you fail to acknowledge is that the United States had no reason to think Iraq was building nuclear weapons. It’s becoming pitifully obvious it was all a crock. There was no uranium from Africa. The aluminum rods thing meant zilch. And the much-promised secret evidence of WMDs? Vanished.
I think you’re overstating the case. I’d agree that the US’s indications of an Iraqi nuclear program were less than fully conclusive. But, we had several indications, such as:[ul][]The aluminum rods.[]Their past nuclear efforts.Reports from some defectors[/ul]I would add that our uncertainly was 100% Saddam’s fault. If he really didn’t have WMDs or WMD programs, he could have fully cooperated with the UN inspection program and proved it. His lack of full cooperation suggested that he had something to hide.
december, do you work for the Bush Administration?
As usual what you think is fairly worthless, as well as an abuse of the verb to think.
Let’s see, the alumimium rods have long been debunked as not in fact useful for nuclear purposes at all, I believe even before this damn fool war the Administration had to admit that.
So that leaves us with the past and some unsubstantiated reports by defectors.
Well, ain’t it fucking beautiful.
Bloody excuse making.
Amazing how many of those “indications” turned out to be false. Amazing that some of those were known to be false by the Administration, (African nuclear hoax) were still used by Bush directly.
Amazing how we provide Cite after Cite of legitimate information, and yet what do we get back? Far-right Op-ed pieces, and already discredited theories. You do know that repeating a lie doesn’t make it true– right?
Sure, there was an “imminent threat”- to his re-election.
Next on Fox News Channel, administration sources have told us the Eminem nuclear threat is real, and that the Bush Administration is considering massive tax cuts for the wealthy and a media-embedded invasion of Eminem to coinside with the release of the latest record unemployment figures and defict numbers. Halburton has already received a 30 Billion dollar no-bid contract to rebuild Eminem after Operation Rapper Freedom.
No, I’m sorry, i’m going to have to step in here. What you are patently failing to understand is arguing from general principles is not valid.
The right to pre-emptive self defence only applies to America, which by definition, can do no wrong and can abrogate itself the right to lay down what are and are not acceptable ways to organise socities and economies.
Similarly while you might not be justified in attacking your neighbour, because by your own words you have shown yourself not to be one of the Righteous, December would be.
Is that any clearer?