No Room for Logic (foreign policy)

Great Debates
41

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Shodan *
Well, before the mods edit this, I will respond to this from the silly column you posted:
What he seems to be saying is that Bush’s foreign policy would make sense if we signed an agreement with the North Koreans, even though they haven’t kept the last one we signed with them.

[quote]

As far as I can tell, they weren’t first to break the agreement, we were. And they only broke the agreement ** a few weeks ago**, which is quite a bit after the Bush administration made it clear that they weren’t going to hold up their end.

Based on facts in this case the people who can’t be trusted to keep a contract are Bush and his buddies, not NK.

The 1994 agreement shut down their plutonium bomb project. At the time it was shut down, we speculate that they might have had enough for 2 bombs, (or might not, we aparently don’t know and they aren’t telling). But in any case that project was shut down, until just a few weeks ago.

In return, we were supposed to build a light water reactor and have it running by 2003, (i.e. now). It’s not running, it’s not even close to running.

Now, in the mean time (around 1998?) they started up a uranium bomb project (with help from Pakistan?). Now a lot of people are saying this violated the ‘spirit’ of the 1994 agreement. Maybe it did, but so frigging what?. It did not violate the agreement that they made with us, which was about shutting down their plutionum bomb project, and not about anything else.
So, can we count on them to keep an agreement? It appears so. but we better make sure that we spell out what we don’t want to do, and make sure that the uranium bomb is part of the agreement this time.

42

Darn, and I just got a container with “VX GAS - ONLY FOR USE IN KILLING CANADIANS” printed on it for Christmas. I suppose you want me to return it to Sears.

I never get to have any fun.

43

Well, Sam absent such evidence, what do we do? Shall we rely on the powers of Perle, Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld to peer into the swirling murk of Saddams mind? Or is scrying by entrails the perferred method of determining the future? It has much history to recommend it, though, of course, Miss Cleo has far more “brand recognition” when it comes to precognition.

Yet, somehow, I remain a bit uncomfortable with clairovoyance as an instrument of international policy.

44

Well, if anybody were to use a nuke on the US it would hurt the economy. Iraq has no nukes and isn’t going to get any nukes. It is pure demagoguery to posit not just a hypothetical, future attack, but an imaginary, hypothetical, future capability for an attack as an excuse for an unprovoked invasion. Should we go around attacking every country that doesn’t have nukes just in case they get them? Bush’s rationale for an invasion becomes more desperate and reaching every day. (Where arethose WMDs, Junior?). Sadly, thouigh, I fear it doesn’t matter. Junior is completly fixated on Iraq as the cure for all his problems. It is a war which would require no courage, leadership ability or strategic input on his part, and yet he (a guy who ran like a deer when it was his time to serve) will be able to proclaim himself a war hero after it’s over. He will be like Caligula claiming a triumph after his “victory” over the sea. It’s a completely bogus war, staged purely for the aggrandizement of a spoiled little child-king. I can’t understand why intelligent people don’t recognize blatant propaganda when they hear it. I’ve been less insulted by phone commercials than I am by this administration.

45

I must rise in immediate protest when Dio makes unflattering comparisons between phone commercials and the stern, no nonsense wisdom of the Bush Admin! What next from his febrile, left-of-center imagination? Carrot Top for President? Mr. T for Sec. Defense?

(Although, this last has something to recommend it. How better to insure that our potential enemies, and our allies as well, crap thier pants and blubber thier solidarity and submission.)

46

Diogynes: <<The difference is one of those nations can hurt us (North Korea) and the other one can’t.>>

False.

<<“Preventative” is another word for illegal. >>

Also false. It is not illegal to enforce Security Council resolutions.

<<Bush simply has no legal>>

Yes, he does. Cf the cease-fire agreement between the US /UN and Iraq in 1991. Cf. the numerous UNSC resolutions Iraq has since violated. Cf. the latest UN resolution.

<<or moral right>>

Sure he does.

<<http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2533897.stm#pdf>>

That ALONE provides the moral right to remove Hussein. The question is is it in the best interests of the U.S. to do so?

<<whatsoever to invade a defenseless country >>

Iraq has an army. They are not ‘defenseless.’ But even if they were, or defenses were weak, that would be yet another argument for regime change.

Where did you get the foolish notion that wars ought to be fair fights?

<<for what they “might” do in some fantasy world of the future.>>

Sure we do. Israel was right to take out Iraq’s nuclear plant 20 years ago, too.

I don’t take gambles I can’t afford to lose. Letting Iraq develop nukes, and then taking the chance that he won’t overrun Kuwait again, or go after Saudi Arabia, or pop a nuke in Tel Aviv out of spite, is a gamble I don’t want to lose.

<<If he goes through with this, he is literally a war criminal. >>

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Like Clinton for bombing Belgrade <rolling eyes.>

You can screech that tired old line all you like, but it wouldn’t make it true. Besides, you don’t even seem to care.

Saddam Hussein is a real war criminal, but you never seem to mention that. It doesn’t seem to carry a lot of weight with you.

<<Such an unprovoked act >>

Wrong. Iraq provoked us when they flagrantly and willfully violated the terms of the cease fire and tried to murder George Bush Sr.

<<of purely self-serving aggression >>

Actually, that’s not true either. A lot of other people’s interests will be served by an American initiated regime change–not least of which will be the Iraqi people. Israel’s long-term interests will be served. Saudi Arabia will be safer. Kuwait will be MUCH safer. Prospects for peace in Palestine will improve without Iraqi support of terrorism. So the Palestinian people will be better off without Saddam Hussein. Iran will be better off. Anyone who would like to sell goods and services to the Iraqi people, but who can’t yet, will be better off. The Kurds and Shiites of Iraq would certainly be better off.

So indeed, there are lots of people in a position to benefit from a US attack.

Your assertion that a US attack is “purely self-serving”, like so much else about your post, is false.

47

If that country is under a dictator that has a proven record of attacking his neighbors and using poison gas on civilians, I’d say it definitely deserves consideration.

I nuke your flimsy straw man!

48

Thanks for clearing that up, Diogenes. I had been worried that Iraq might get nukes because they’ve been working on them for years. Now I can relax. :rolleyes:

49

Nope. North Korea signed the treaty in 1994. We were aware a few weeks ago (publicly) that the underground facilities they started building some years ago were being used to enrich plutonium for bombs.

Sam Stone has a list of the chronologyhere.

FYI, the agreement was not simply to shut down one bomb project, but to freeze their nuclear weapons program altogether. Which they never did, nor (apparently) intended to do.

I thought the treaty was between the US and North Korea (along with the UK?). We agreed to provide food and fuel oil, and they were going to freeze their nuclear weapons program, while we built them a civilian reactor that could not be used to enrich fissionable materials for bombs. We sent them food and oil, but declined to continue to do so when it was clear that they had not lived up to their end of the bargain. I don’t believe that the treaty was the result of a UN resolution or anything, if that is what you mean.

Good thing Bush got their approval, isn’t it then?

Don’t know. I suppose I will consider it more if it ever comes up.

Now, if some nation invades another, is driven out, signs a cease-fire agreeing to fulfill certain conditions designed to reduce the threat that they will attack again, and then repeatedly violates the agreement, and then some hideous attack happens that makes it clear how bad the problem of international terrorism and lawlessness is, and the UN approves the actions of some superpower to enforce the agreement, then I would say it was pretty darn legal and appropriate. Don’t you agree?

Regards,
Shodan

50

Gee, Shodan where to start?

Treaties, I suppose. My reference to authority depends on your use of “legality”. A treaty is, of course, an agreement between nations, nothing more. The partners in a treaty might submit to arbitration (World Court, UN) if either or both think that the other has abrogated said treaty. They might just mutually shrug thier shoulders and ignore it. But nobody, but nobody, ever signs a treaty that gives the other guy the right to kick yer butt if he decides you haven’t lived up to the letter of the law. Surely you don’t imagine that if Norway tresspassed against the Fisheries Treaty, that would legitimize a use of force?

No such thing. The UN has, by no stretch of the imagination, given approval for an invasion of Iraq. Not even close. Nope. El Wrongo Todamento.

Thats a sticking point. From the git-go GeeDubya has not hesitated to threaten unilateral action if the UN doesn’t play ball. I don’t think you can simultaneously claim the legitimacy of the UN while rejecting its authority.

If the UN says “OK, war” GeeDubya will go to war.
If the UN says “Nope, not war today” GeeDubya will go to war,

Such a splendidly unilateral attitude does not sully itself with petty questions of “legality”.

Nope. I also note the creative new way of shoehorning 9/11 into the discussion. “Makes it clear”, indeed.

51

Ok, now I know you’re talking out of your ass. For the record. One does not enrich plutonium. Only urainium needs to be enriched to make it bomb grade. (enrichment is separating the heavy, more radioactive isotope u238 from the more common isotope u235 in order to get bomb-grade material.)

For a plutonium bomb, any old isotope will do. But without restarting their breeder reactor (which they did just a couple of weeks ago). *they wouldn’t have any plutonium new to “enrich” * if that were even a meaningful concept. One does not dig plutonium out of the ground [sub](thank god)[/sub]

One can dig uranium out of the ground and then either 1) enrich it or 2) shove it into a breeder reactor and turn some of it into plutonium.

NK had a program to use method 2 to build a bomb. We bribed them to shut this program down and they did. They kept that promise, so far as we know until just a couple of weeks ago.

Clearly, you havn’t bothered to become even minimally aware of the facts, so why don’t you go do a little homework and come back when you know a little bit about the subject at hand K? :frowning:

[sub]enriched plutonium indeed…[/sub]

52

Cite? How exactly can Iraq hurt us?

Yes it is, when it’s done without UN sanction. W. is not the official UN security resolution cop. He is just as subject to UN authority as Iraq is. It’s ridiculous to argue that he has a right to enforce UN authority by defying UN authority.

By your logic, any other country that feels like it has the right to attack the US for its human rights abuses.

Iraq doesn’t have much of an army. Wars don’t have to fair, but they do have to justified… This is no different than Hitler invading Poland.

Israel was wrong to take out Iraq’s nuclear plant. Iraq is far from the only country that wants to get the bomb. Why is OK to gamble that Iran won’t nuke Israel? And why is it America’s responsibility to protect Israel anyway?

Exactly.

I care a lot about my presidents committing war crimes, and if Bush violates international law, or assassinates another head of stae, he is a war criminal, by definition. You can say it’s OK for him to commit war crimes, but that doesn’t mean he’s not a criminal.

Sure he’s a war criminal, so what? We’re supposed to be better than he is.

Violating the cease fire is a UN issue, not an American one. The attempt on Bush Sr. was thoroughly responded to by Bill Clinton almost a decade ago.

Attacking Iraq will only destabalize the area even more. If Iraq actually has any WMDs (doubtful) they would almost certainly use them on Israel. Relations with the Muslim world would be further damaged. Let me give you a clue. Peace is safer than war, so let’s can the Orwellian double speak. The only reason Bush wants to do this is for his own political image.

53

Diogynes: <<This is no different than Hitler invading Poland.>>
Thanks for providing yet another entry for Hickory6’s Big Book of Why Liberals Lose Elections. <rolling eyes.>

54

Page one: money
Page two: Lies
Page three: More money

55

Are you talking treaties, or cease-fire agreements?

The treaty with North Korea indeed does not have any clauses entitling the US to invade upon violation, which is, accordingly, not in the plans (for more reasons than legalities, as is clear to us both). Violations of the cease-fire with Iraq do. It is, after all, a cease-fire agreement - i.e. “If Iraq does thus-and-so, the US and its allies agree to stop bombing the crap out of it. If they don’t toe the line, back to war. Sign here.”

The UN resolution to enforce the sanctions is the product of the US pushing for authorization of regime change and invasion, and other countries trying to curry favor with both sides, by trying to get the US to invade but with enough wiggle room that they can blame the US if the invasion goes sour, and/or for all problems that occur in Iraq subsequent to the invasion. Which is why they have authorized action to enforce the cease-fire agreement, but are trying to argue that no action should be taken. They are trying to eat their cake (because they expect the US to invade), and have it too (by being able to act innocent after Iraq is defeated and thus curry favor with the Third World and appease the Islamic militants at home and abroad.)

“Don’t send terrorists after us - we never said the US should invade. Send terrorists after big mean USA, who did all those nasties to the poor innocent Iraqi children. Bad USA!”

And no offense, Tejota, but you can in fact enrich plutonium.

Cite. Although you are correct that the North Koreans are trying to enrich uranium for bombs. My bad.

Interesting standard. Saddam is a war criminal, but that doesn’t matter. If Bush tries to stop Saddam from committing crimes, that makes Bush a war criminal, and that does matter.

This may not be Godwin’s Law in action, but your position is too ridiculous to argue. You lose.

Regards,
Shodan

56

You left something out. The cease-fire agreement is under UN auspices, and partakes of the UN’s recognized legitimacy in matters of international law. The UN did not pin a tin star on the US and say “Here! We authorize you to make our decisions for us, and apply such force as you deem appropriate.”

Hence, GeeDubya’s demand that the UN enforce its resolutions as regards Iraq is hypocrisy. We don’t demand that the UN enforce all its resolutions, that would be sticky, given our allegiance to Israel, who has batted aside any number of such resolutions. The hypocrisy is compounded by Our Churchill’s insistence that should the UN fail to abide by our diktat, America will proceed unilaterally.

You cannot, in the same breath, claim the legitimacy of authority while denying that authority.

57

Let’s see if I’m following this: The UN behaves dishonorably by failing to enforce many of its resolutions. You say Bush is a hypocrite for trying to get the UN to be honestly enforce its Iraq resolutions. Do you think it would be better to allow the UN to be consistently feckless? I don’t see how.

Or, do you think the US should work to get the UN to enforce resolutions that the we oppose, just for the sake of consistency? :confused:

Your argument about the resolution being under UN auspices would make sense if the US attacked outside of the UN. But, it’s certainly proper for a member of the UN to lobby for action by the UN.

58

Well, they did pass a resolution authorizing enforcement of the cease-fire agreement.

Why does the UN pass resolutions, if they don’t want them enforced? How does this give them any authority at all?

The UN is talking out of both sides of its mouth. It wants the cease-fire enforced, but not by taking any action.

As I mentioned, I believe the motive is to get the US to do what everybody needs done, but in such a way that everyone can blame the US for it all. The US does the heavy lifting and gets its hands dirty, the rest of the world gets to pretend to a sense of moral superiority and to condemn the US, and the terrorists are appeased. Everybody is happy.

The UN is asking the US to do the impossible. Enforce the cease-fire, but don’t hurt anyone’s feelings. Saddam respects nothing but force, but force is out of the question.

The UN is acting (again) as nothing more than a hot-air generator, saying to the US “Solve this problem. Be aware in advance that anything you do will be wrong.”

Business as usual.

Regards,
Shodan

59

And let’s not forget the real difference between the U.S. removing Saddam and Hitler invading Poland: The U.S. will FREE people who are ENSLAVED. Hitler was ENSLAVING people who were FREE.

This is a distinction that seems to be overlooked sometimes. And that’s why that stupid comparison was offensive.

60

Not according to Hitler. According to Hitler he was freeing them from the terrorism of the partisans. In fact, the rhetoric used by Hitler and Bush are eerily similar.

And, as far as the U.S. “freeing the Iraqis,” this is quite unlikely. In the Third World, the U.S. has a 100% success rate in avoiding democracy wherever it has had the power to do so. Everywhere the U.S. has either supported or installed dictatorships. This is almost certain to be the case in Iraq. The U.S. will install a dictator that is subservient to the interests of Wall Street.