Do you think the U.S.A. should go to war with Iraq?

[Stratocaster]

*Originally posted by elucidator *
**Well, sugarpants, your logic is twisted beyond all recognition.

**What the…? How did you know my nickname?

**You similtaneously base the legitimacy of American action on UN authority, then deny that same authority if it does not align with US policy.

**No, I based the justification of a U.S. military action on Iraq’s own actions. UN resolutions may reflect the wisdom of an international community, one that recognizes the egregious offence inherent in these actions. In this instance, they did, so it’s a convenient equation.

**When I point out that other nations, including ourselves and Israel, flout that same authority, you suddenly become hard of hearing (Who? What?)

**Please! You asked me whether U.S. allies were exempt and I answered unequivocally, no. You also asked an open-ended, unspecific question regarding my moral disapproval of other nations, and I asked for clarification. Cut the bullshit and ask a specific question. Unlike some in this thread, I will answer it.

**
Neither is it the US’ privilege to make such a judgement.

**I disagree. Why shouldn’t we make a judgment that is moral?

** 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? **

Why is it so hard for you to grasp that endless repetition of something doesn’t render it truth? How can you simultaneously applaud Kennedy for proposing military action without a preceding military action and villify Bush for doing what you believe is the same? What should possibly keep us from doing that which is moral (other than some twisted, circular logic that defines the moral as immoral–i.e., the world according to elucidator)?

[elucidator]

How can you simultaneously applaud Kennedy for proposing military action without a preceding military action and villify Bush for doing what you believe is the same?

Well, duh! The installation of nuclear missiles in Cuba was a clear threat. Nonetheless, there was an element of hypocrisy therein, as we were not troubled by having our nuclear missiles on Russia’s doorstep. Further, so far as we knew, the USSR had a credible strategic threat: they might, in fact, be able to win a war with the US.

You’re not seriously suggesting that either of these apply to Iraq? Nah, you wouldn’t do that. That would be stupid. Wouldn’t it.

If Iraq were to actually launch a military attack on the US, they would get thier asses kicked from here to next Sunday. You and I both know that Iraq poses no credible military threat to the US.

Put another way: Iraq attacking Kuwait and the US attacking Iraq are morally equivalent. In neither case is a credible threat implied or proven, both are instances of the aggressor pursuing policies entirely of its own volition. Which is contrary to international law. Now, you may disagree with the foundation of that law, and prefer some more realistic formulation like “The Big Dog is always right”. However, the law of the jungle is not international law, international law is that which has been agreed upon by the nations. Wars of aggression are illegal according to that standard, regardless of what crimes the victim nation may have commited at some time in the past.

For such action to be legitimate, according to that law, the UN must approve such action. They have not. Its that simple.

Nonetheless, Our Leader has stated without hesitation that he does not consider the US bound by such conventions, if the UN “shirks its duty”, the US will proceed regardless. Referring to Iraq’s non-compliance with UN sanctions as justification is the very acme of hypocrisy coming from an outlaw nation.

If you are to claim that non-compliance with UN resolutions is relevent to the issue, you must accept the UN’s authority to make decisions of international law, which, by definition, must include the US as being subject to those decisions. If you deny America’s duty to adhere to such international law, you forfeit any claim to legitimacy that might arise from such law.

Getting any clearer yet, scooter?

[elucidator]

By the way, you’re not Scylla, are you? The parallels in opinion and rhetorical style are uncanny. Did you by chance have a twin, seperated at birth, something like that?

[Stratocaster]

*Originally posted by elucidator *
**Well, duh! The installation of nuclear missiles in Cuba was a clear threat.

**Well, duh, right back at ya, genius. Your philosophy seems to have shifted just a tad. You said:

**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.

**I must have missed the story about the Cuban missile launch that hit the U.S., the one that gave our threat its moral authority. Sharpen up your pencil and work this one out, bigshot. This oughta be good.

**You’re not seriously suggesting that either of these apply to Iraq? Nah, you wouldn’t do that. That would be stupid. Wouldn’t it.

**I will leave the nonsensical posts to others more capable than I.

**If Iraq were to actually launch a military attack on the US, they would get thier asses kicked from here to next Sunday. You and I both know that Iraq poses no credible military threat to the US.

Put another way: Iraq attacking Kuwait and the US attacking Iraq are morally equivalent. In neither case is a credible threat implied or proven, both are instances of the aggressor pursuing policies entirely of its own volition. Which is contrary to international law. Now, you may disagree with the foundation of that law, and prefer some more realistic formulation like “The Big Dog is always right”. However, the law of the jungle is not international law, international law is that which has been agreed upon by the nations. Wars of aggression are illegal according to that standard, regardless of what crimes the victim nation may have commited at some time in the past.

For such action to be legitimate, according to that law, the UN must approve such action. They have not. Its that simple.

**I can’t, yet again, explain to you why Iraq has already provided provocation and created a clear threat to the region. I am exhausted repeating points that you can’t seem to grasp. I will, one last time, quote that great American, elucidator, with the following:

**It is a founding principle of international law that aggressive war, even if dressed up as “pre-emptive war” is illegal and immoral. We are more than mere signatories to this, we are the founders and enforcers.

**You can’t seem to find it in you to address this. Try real hard. What about the U.S. proposal is inconsistent with the role you describe here? Isn’t our dear president simply doing the duty assigned to him by God, the UN and elucidator? It makes me misty just thinking about it.

**Nonetheless, Our Leader has stated without hesitation that he does not consider the US bound by such conventions, if the UN “shirks its duty”, the US will proceed regardless. Referring to Iraq’s non-compliance with UN sanctions as justification is the very acme of hypocrisy coming from an outlaw nation.

If you are to claim that non-compliance with UN resolutions is relevent to the issue, you must accept the UN’s authority to make decisions of international law, which, by definition, must include the US as being subject to those decisions. If you deny America’s duty to adhere to such international law, you forfeit any claim to legitimacy that might arise from such law.

Getting any clearer yet, scooter? **

You are a veritable beacon of insight, kissy-face. I will point out, one more time for you to ignore it, that the UN resolutions have no moral authority simply because the UN made them. In this instance they have moral credibility because they are right. When that circumstance ceases to exist, it will be our moral obligation to do what is right, not what the UN dictates. Getting any clearer yet, you silly boy?

[Stratocaster]

*Originally posted by elucidator *
**By the way, you’re not Scylla, are you? The parallels in opinion and rhetorical style are uncanny. Did you by chance have a twin, seperated at birth, something like that? **

No, but we became blood brothers one time at summer camp. Then when he gave his seat to me on the lifeboat when the Titanic went down, I swore I’d carry on his mission to install a one-world fascist government. Hope that clears it up for you.

[december]

*Originally posted by elucidator *
**Neither is it the US’ privilege to make such a judgement. The US is a member of the UN, not the other way around. **

elucidator, your position would seem to require considerable faith in the UN. Would it change your mind if UN arms inspections in Iraq had tipped off an Iraqi weapons facility prior to the arms inspection?

[elucidator]

Bobalooie
No difficulty in the first instance. Glaringly obvious, really. The Soviet Union did, in fact, represent a clear and present danger. It had nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them. Iraq has sand. Unless, of course, Fearless Leaders recent dire warnings of intercontinental drone aircraft armed with nuclear anthrax should prove credible. If anything that man says should prove credible, I recommend purchasing an umbrella to protect yourself from the pig flop falling from the sky.

I will leave the nonsensical posts to others more capable than I.

Not at all, pooty-poot! You have no rival.

You can’t seem to find it in you to address this. Try real hard. What about the U.S. proposal is inconsistent with the role you describe here? Isn’t our dear president simply doing the duty assigned to him by God, the UN and elucidator? It makes me misty just thinking about it.

Only in that it abrogates the role, and the authority, of the UN. In that it presumes that no legal authority exists above our will. Hence, illegal. You may find that legal structure tiresome, and wish to muscle it aside, as do many of your ilk. That is, in fact, another issue entirely. I have not assigned any role to Fearless Leader, nor has the UN. I cannot speak to authority assigned by God, and I do not accept that you do either.

You are a veritable beacon of insight, kissy-face. I will point out, one more time for you to ignore it, that the UN resolutions have no moral authority simply because the UN made them. In this instance they have moral credibility because they are right. When that circumstance ceases to exist, it will be our moral obligation to do what is right, not what the UN dictates. Getting any clearer yet, you silly boy?

Again, that is another issue, not germane to the question of legality. The man who mugs you on the street has made his own determination of property rights, he simply assumes that the local laws have “no moral authority”, whereas he has a gun. You wish to apply this principle internationally? Why then not abolish the UN entirely, if it fails to achieve the moral clarity of ourselves?

One might derive the impression that you wish to supercede any liberal nonsense about “world government” with the simple and practical method of world domination. By us, of course, as we are the unfailingly moral beacon of the world, the final champion of peace, freedom, and human dignity. Well, except Viet Nam. And Grenada. The Phillipines. Chile. Guatemala. Nicaragua…

[Stoid]

*Originally posted by Bob *
**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.
**

Well, if this is the way we’re gonna do things from now on, I say we should kick Germany and Japan’s ass a little more, just for good measure. How about every five years or so, just so no one gets any ideas.

[Stratocaster]

*Originally posted by Stoid *
**Well, if this is the way we’re gonna do things from now on, I say we should kick Germany and Japan’s ass a little more, just for good measure. How about every five years or so, just so no one gets any ideas. **

Jesus Christ, Stoid, why don’t you parachute into the end of this thread and add something pointless? Try to at least create the illusion you read the intervening posts. It’s all right to disagree, but to pretend this issue has not even been discussed is asinine.

As for my pal, elucidator, I can only say that the pooty-poot name really, REALLY hurt. I thought we were friends. Also, it has become too laughable how you completely ignore any point or question that makes your position untenable.

Your endless repetition without answering direct questions has become tiresome, and it’s not even fun to point out the idiocy of your posts any more (it’s too easy–do you really think anyone believes you addressed the unambiguous contradiction of yours I pointed out in my last post?).

Anyway, see you in the funny papers, bubba.

[elucidator]

Well, Bob if “Pooty-poot” is good enough for Vlad “The Impaler” Putin, I hardly see how you can feel slighted. After all, it was coined by a man who was very nearly elected President, and was installed with just as much ceremony as a real one gets.

Thank you for your patience. No doubt, as soon as the devastating contradictions you allude to become clear to me, I will be much chagrined and chastened. So far thier crushing impact has escaped me. But it would be churlish of me to interrupt your victory dance with niggling facts. Enjoy.

[Stoid]

Originally posted by Bob Cos *
** It’s all right to disagree, but to pretend this issue has not even been discussed is asinine.*

Gosh, now I’m all wounded and stuff.

[elucidator]

It’s good for you. It builds character.