Here is point of basic philosophical difference. I believe that war is and will continue to be a permanent condition of mankind.
Of course, neither of us can logically prove our positions – but we can better understand the assumptions underlying our viewpoints.
This “unbroken line” of which you speak consists of what, exactly? And how, exactly, does any of this consist of aggressive military acts against the US? You continue to argue that Iraq’s compliance or non-compliance with UN resolutions makes American military action necessary and unavoidable. This might be true, if, and only if, the US recognizes the UN’s superior authority in this regard. There isn’t the slightest reason to believe this is so. Quite the opposite. Our Leader has stated unequivocally that he will proceed without the UN if he so chooses, the UN has been invited to the party, the party will go on if it demurs.
As to “assigning legitimacy” to Saddams claims, you seem to have overlooked the qualifying “some”. Please note that the word does not mean “entire” nor “sufficient”, just “some”. It does not speak volumes, it speaks very little indeed. I suggest your revision of my syntax is erroneous, if not deliberate.
I have. You don’t agree. If I hadn’t, what are you so strenuously rebutting?
The Pearl Harbor event is offered as the clearest possible example, breaking the matter down into bite size chunks for the clearly impaired. You need not offer an air strike on Tallahassee, merely a direct military assault by the State of Iraq on the State of America. I am far too lazy to craft your arguments to my ends, I much prefer to let them stumble about helplessly. Perhaps this is cruel. I shall reflect on that.
That would be the “events years gone by” category.
Your citing of the Cuban Missile crisis is most appreciated. (I was living on a SAC air base at the time, and I remember it most vividly. Would that I didnt). I regard the resolution of that crisis as one of the few truly hopeful bright spots. Kennedy was massively pressured by his military staff to take immediate violent action (including the utterly loathesome Curtis LeMay). In the name of peace, and humanity, he took a risk and won. We all won. If any man truly deserves a paradise stocked with hot and cold running Marilyn Monroes, it is he. George Bush is no John Kennedy. He ain’t even Ted Kennedy.
No need. Quite well aware. As well as “quod erat demonstrum”. And “tres partes omnia Gallia divisa est”. If you find my arguments distasteful to the point of nausea, please be assured that you are under no obligation to read them, much less respond to them, if they are a source of unresolved stress. Put you feet up, have a nice cup chamomile tea. Read a bit of Emily Dickinson. I will be bereft, of course, but somehow I will find the strength to go on.
I withdraw that. Upon reflection, it is clear that I have confused your contempt for my argument with contempt for pacifism. Nonetheless, I find it highly unlikely that you will make any stirring defense of that noble ideal any time soon.
Further, I note that though you are eager to take me to task line by line, my concluding argument as to the necessity for non-military resolutions has escaped your notice. May I take that as signifying your complete and unhesitating agreement? If so, let me be the first to congratulate you on the clarity of your thought! Here’s your white hat.
If that is so, mankind is doomed. Period. As a pessimist, I think it likely. As a father and a man, I must nurture hope. It is scant light in a world so dark. But it is light, nonetheless.
Don’t worry, there will be no U.S. invasion of Iraq.
As the U.S. government in '91 was aware, the Iraqi dictatorship would not have survived if the Kurdish liberated area had been protected.
The Americans gambled that Europe would not act, and so be accomplice and divided. The old-fashioned territorial imperialism was rehabilitated, in Turkey, then in Yugoslavia, in China. So the U.S. army stayed in Saudi-Arabia, and so some Arabs got mad enough to kill themselves flying into buildings (probably the U.S. government expected something like it, but did not mind).
The war is for world hegemony, against Europe and China. But actually the U.S. is worse off this way.
To make peace, abroad and at home, the U.S. should help the Kurds, give them back Kirkuk and the oil there, convince Turkey to free ‘their’ Kurds.
**OK, just as an example, how’s about the current economic sanctions in place against Iraq. The ones in place right now, that is. Are you aware of their origin? These were also in all the papers. Why do you hold such affection for the notion that Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait is some distant memory, with no relevance to current affairs? Oh, I know! Because otherwise your argument collapses. Sorry I asked.
**Um, what gave you the idea that I believe this to be the case? It’s you who seems fixated on this.
**No, it makes U.S. military action justifiable. I will ask one more time, though, your continuous refusal to answer this does speak volumes, why you feel the U.S. should shirk its responsibility to enforce the very international law you introduced to this thread with such enthusiasm?
**Please see my immediately prior question. If the UN decides to shirk its duty, why should we?
**OK, if you want to parse words…you understand that to assign “some” legitimacy is to assign legitimacy, correct? It likewise speaks volumes that you are now back-pedaling regarding what you really meant. Have the courage of your convictions. If poor Saddam had any degree of righteousness on his side, back him up! It’s about time the world stopped kicking this poor guy while he’s down.
**This is an annoying tendency, chief. Saying something is true doesn’t make it so, despite what you may believe. Go re-read your “moral imperative” against this particular military action. Read every post since then, and please point out to me where you have clarified THE MORAL ARGUMENT you orginally advanced. Show me where you have demonstrated that the argument you made is not “one size fits all” silliness.
**elucidator, old chum, can you mean me? This has become quite amusing. So that’s why you introduced a logically fallacious argument. So that a dim bulb like me could understand you. You’re OK!
**Man! I am burned! Have mercy on me. This is far worse than having you actually answer my questions with some form of a cogent response. You cad, you.
**Now I get it. You need only repeat the same thing several dozen times without any support, then it becomes truth. I should have realized that earlier.
**No problem. You feel like an old friend at this point. Maybe we can exchange Christmas cards.
**Is it really lost on you that Kennedy won by threatening military action? Come on, chief, this is bad even for you. You’re making my argument.
**If you believe “argumentum ad nausuem” refers to the queasiness your posts create, I do indeed suggest you crack open your old latin textbooks again for a refresher.
OK, for the clearly impaired (whoever they are), let’s try again. You said:
**To which I responded:
**This would not constitute my having missed your brilliant close. Having responded to it, and all. You get what I mean, or shall I run through it again? Oh, wait, did you actually think I needed to find some form of an actual argument in that heaping pile of bullshit you closed with? elucidator, pal o’ mine, I am far too lazy for that. Anyway, just give it a few more minutes, and I’m sure Stoid will be in to nominate you for a Nobel Prize for it.
Ah, well. Somewhere in this celebration of sarcasm there are glimmers of argument. It behooves me to respond,
Firstly, the “unbroken string” comment I misunderstood. I thought you were talking about some string of Iraqi actions that constitute provocation. Obviously, you could not have. My mistake.
It does nothing of the sort. If the US purports to act as a member of the UN, it must necessarily defer its judgement to that body. If it proposes to act unilaterally, and every indication is that is exactly the intent, then it must, by that aforementioned law, show that it specificly is acting in self defense to military agression. Iraq has to hit first. Assurances from Miss Cleo, or even your august self, that it intends to do so is not sufficient.
As to Mr. Kennedy’s threat of violence, well, of course. May I underline the word “threat”. If you read the history, you will discover that diplomacy was the key, the offering of a face saving gesture to Kruschev (i.e., the removal of American missiles from Turkey). But this thread is not about threats, or diplomatic manueverings about those threats. It is about going to war with Iraq
Continuing: (my post in progress leaped away to the page)
It is not up to us, as a member, to decide what the governing body should or should not do. Tennessee cannot decide on its own initiative that the United States is “shirking its duty” as regards the perfidy of Canada, and declare war on its own. Mexico cannot commit the Organization of American States to attack Haiti.
If the issue is Iraqi compliance with UN resolutions, then the US must defer to UN judgement. Outside of that, the only legitimate cause for war is a direct, military attack on the US.
The rest of your post can best be summed up as a victory dance. It would be churlish of me to point out that it’s half time and you’re down 42-zip and your quarterback is on life support. Especially when your having such fun tearing down the goalposts.
But just in case you catch on, I’ll punt one for you. What specific military action by Iraq poses an undeniable assault to the United States, comparable to Pearl Harbor or some such other. Failing that, as you must, what clear and present danger to the US is posed by Iraq, such that the radical response of war is unavoidable? Keep in mind, testimony that Saddam is an evil, evil man is not sufficient. So is Vlad “the Impaler” Putin, whom our leader is pleased to cozy up to and play kissy-face, under the adorable nickname “pooty-poot”. (Kruschev would have launched every missile in his arsenal. Ah, the good ol’ days, eh?)
**No problem. Having made that concession, will you now actually respond to the point?
**Nonsense. What gives you the idea that our membership creates this obligation?
**Dude, if you simply hold this to be axiomatic, just say so and I’ll stop looking for an argument. There is nothing in international law that says only a direct military hit is justification for another military action (again, use the Cuban missile crisis as an example, since you seem to like it so much).
**And had the Soviets refused to respond to diplomacy, in the manner that, say, Saddam has currently, what would have been the result? What would Mr. Kennedy have done then if his bluff had been called? What would have met your approval?
By the way, it has not escaped my notice that you are very selective in the questions you will respond to…
Yep, if you say so.
Well, gee, maybe being a signatory to the UN Charter? Not that it has meant much to us when it comes to beating up on smaller countries that annoy us, ie, Grenada (ahhh, the glory of Operation Urgent Fury. Did you see the movie Clint Eastwood made about our brave boys confronting the crack elite bulldozer driving Cuban commandos? Thats ok, nobody else did either.)
We did sign it, you know. Had our fingers crossed, apparently.
Dude, it is axiomatic. That is the substance and foundation of international law, that aggressive war without clear and present necessity is a crime against humanity. You mean to tell me you don’t even get that?
As it turns out, unbeknownst to us, the threat of Russian ICBM’s was vastly overestimated, they didn’t have nearly the firepower or the accuracy we thought they had. If diplomacy had failed, at most a few hundred thousand Americans would have died, as well as several million Russians.
Would I have approved? Lord, no! Would you?
This is an understatement. The U. N. Charter says
As I read this, any sort of war is a violation, even in the face of a clear and present danger.
**Let me word it differently. Why would our membership require us to ignore the moral path, if and when the UN shirks its stated duty?
**Gotcha. I will waste not another atom of effort attempting to argue with someone who sees something as defying argument.
**I do. I understand that this is what Saddam perpetrated. Don’t you even get that? The irony, it’s, it’s…so palpable…
As it turns out. Right. So, should I surmise from your stated disapproval that you do not actually approve of Kennedy’s handling of this situation, since the loss of life was a possible outcome? Or do you actually believe unsupported threats are a valid, viable, ongoing political strategy?
And having just so stated, you proceed to argue.
Well, then, perhaps the coalition should have taken out Saddam in '91. They didn’t, and that’s that. But that fact does not give the US a permanent warrant to pick up and continue whensoever it suits our fancy. Perhaps I misunderstand again: are you seriously suggesting that Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait justifys American military action ten years after the fact?
Of course. Its done all the time. In this particular instance, it saved lives. Millions of them. I trust such an outcome does not dismay you.
**Man, now you got me. You’re right. Everything I’ve stated is wrong (sob!).
**Mother of God, even you can’t be this…all right, I’ll refrain, given the forum. Yes, elucidator, yes, although I have not made myself clear previously, I do, in fact, suggest that Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait, combined with its subsequent flouting of the will of the international community, warrants American military action should the current inspections (or Iraq’s lack of cooperation with said inspections) show that this continues to be the case. Sorry to drop this bomb on you so sudden like. I should have given you a hint.
Of course! Hollow threats made on an ongoing basis will certainly form the basis of a sound strategy. Now I get it. Kennedy is to be appluaded, so long as he never really intended to follow through.
Also, I just want to point out that I am still sorry you continue to be so selective in which points you wish to address. This may jeopardize your Nobel Prize.
Well, Israel has on a number of occassions “flouted the will of the international community”. Are American allies exempt? Does you moral dissapproval apply to all nations, or just those that annoy the United States? Are you operating under the delusion that the world as a whole is uniformly cheering as the USA marches off to war, as a shower of flowers and cries of joy rain down on our troops? Or, to put it another way, are you off your rocker?
If, tomorrow, the General Assembly meets in extraordinary session and votes against war with Iraq, you will be content to stand down? No, wait, you’ve already covered that. If the International Community “shirks its duty”, then it is up to the paragon of all virtue, the USA, to step in its place. That is, if the International Community flouts the will of the International Community.
Huh?
Oh, about Kennedy. I have no idea. I think there’s a good chance he didn’t know what he would do either. However, even the hollowest threat from a nuclear armed superpower is something to give pause. As it happened, it worked.
And, yes, I do, point of fact, believe that an outcome that avoids a landscape littered with corpses is a good outcome. Kennedy is to be applauded because it worked.
Let me pose the alternative. You are Kennedy. Curtis LeMay comes to you and says “Lets take the Russkies now, while we still can. Lets not wait and let them develop thier defensive and offensive capabilities. Clearly, they mean us ill, they have so stated, and thier actions underline thier words. We will lose a few hundred thousand, but we will exterminate millions of Russians, and no one will dare defy us again”
What would you have said?
**Nope, I don’t believe they should be. What could possibly have given you the idea I believed that?
**You’ll have to clarify this. My disapproval of what? Of what other nations?
**Why do you think I believe this? Does it somehow make you more secure to assign random beliefs to me?
**Man, your cleverness just continues to reach new heights.
Sorry, cupcake, this doesn’t follow. If the UN continues to sanction Iraq (as it has) without holding it responsible for its disobedience, then the UN has simultaneously recognized that Iraq pisses on the international community’s will while shirking its (the UN’s) duty to do anything about it. That this is irresponsible is not the U.S.'s fault. And if the UN abandons its sanctions, it will render its prior decrees completely illogical, given the fact that Iraq still has not complied. Again, this would not be the U.S.'s doing.
By the way, thanks for carrying on the proud tradition of debating only those issues most to your liking.
**Please answer the question. Is he to be applauded specifically because he made a hollow threat? If so, what should he have done if his bluff was called? “I don’t know, and he probably didn’t either” effectively renders Kennedy’s ploy lucky, not effective.
I would have considered this wrong. Since you asked.
“Effective” is the wrong word here. Insert “brilliant” or “insightful.” It turned out to be effective nonetheless.
Well, sugarpants, your logic is twisted beyond all recognition. You similtaneously base the legitimacy of American action on UN authority, then deny that same authority if it does not align with US policy. When I point out that other nations, including ourselves and Israel, flout that same authority, you suddenly become hard of hearing (Who? What?)
Neither is it the US’ privilege to make such a judgement. The US is a member of the UN, not the other way around. As in my previous example: Tennessee cannot suddenly decide that the US has failed in its responsibility to protect Canada’s strategicly vital supplies of whale blubber, and march off to invade. Mexico cannot claim OAS legitimacy in support of a unilateral policy of invading Haiti.
The whole issue of UN approval is rendered moot by Our Leaders statements to the effect that its his way or his way, take your pick.
Be that as it may: Iraq has not attacked the USA, nor is there irrefutable evidence that such an attack is imminent. Absent those conditions, an American attack on Iraq is 1) immoral and 2) illegal. Such is the international law that we are signatory to. What part of this is so hard for you to grasp?