On "pre-emptive defence"

Or Syria.

You’re Bogarting the joint, cjb. Puff, puff, pass. :smiley:
The failure of the Iraqis to provide evidence that WMDs they admitted they had have been destroyed is evidence that they still exist. To analogize, bloody clothes, a spent bullet, and a smoking gun is evidence of murder even if you can’t find the body.

Of course neither report “indicates” what Saddam intends to do with his WMD - neither report addresses that issue. They address capabilities, not intentions.
Your naivete that a regional war in the Middle East involving WMD would not cause global instability is charming. This ain’t Australia attacking New Zealand - this is the area that supplies the majority of the world with its oil.

Sua

Failure to provide evidence of destruction of an object you had is not ‘evidence’ that it still exists. It may prompt a strong belief, but it is not evidence. Consult a lawyer of your choice.

I did not say that the reports indicate what Saddam intends to do, I said that they do not indicate that he is using WMD (‘uses’ was the word I used). They indicated this by showing that he had little capability in this area. The point of the OP was ‘pre-emptive defence’, so what he is doing now is important. Of course, if he attacks the US I would expect the US to defend itself. The point is that the reports indicate he has little WMD capability, so he is unable to mount a credible threat.

I did not say that a regional war in the ME would not threaten global stability. I said that Iraq is not currently threatening world stability, but, if left alone he might threaten regional stability. I agree that, after that, we could have world instability (though not necessarily). If we sold him unlimited nuclear weaponry, he might bomb Israel. If we made him head of NASA he might go to the Moon.

The point is that we are not letting him alone, all the evidence we have suggests that he is currently not a great threat, and that therefore there is no obvious reason for a pre-emptive strike.

By the way, what is a ‘toke’, and ‘Bogarting the joint’?

Ummmm, OK. Can I consult myself? :smiley:

“Sua, could you come over here?”
“Yeah, Sua, whaddya want?”
“Well, cjb says I should consult an attorney on the above evidentiary question, and your the closest one.”
“Hmmm. Let’s take a look.”

Let’s lay this out.

  1. Undisputed evidence - including admissions by the Iraqis - establishes that X amount of WMD existed in Iraqi hands.

  2. Certain amounts of those WMD were destroyed by UNSCOM. Therefore, the evidence demonstrates that those amounts of WMD no longer exist.

  3. Considerable amounts of WMD were not destroyed where they could be verified by UNSCOM. The Iraqis claim that they unilaterally destroyed the remaining WMD. The Iraqis provide no evidence that this unilateral destruction occurred. In other words, the Iraqis have presented no evidence that the missing WMD was destroyed. (Thinking that the Iraqis did in fact destroy the remaining WMD is the “belief” here - a position taken without evidence to support it.)

  4. Accordingly, the undisputed evidence that the non-UNSCOM-destroyed WMD exists has not been rebutted. Ergo, the evidence of record demonstrates that those WMD still exist.

SuaSponte, Esq.

Well, a lot of people are not convinced.
Time: Cheney’s remarks may be directed primarily at Capitol Hill, where lawmakers insist the White House has yet to make a convincing case that the risks of going to war are outweighed by the risks of not going to war

Washington Post: Britons Grow Uneasy About War in Iraq Prime Minister Tony Blair, the Bush administration’s closest foreign ally in its campaign against Saddam Hussein, is facing deepening opposition to Britain playing any military role in overthrowing the Iraqi leader.

When was the last time Libya, or Syria, invaded another country? Or launched a missile at a country with whom it was not at war?

If Libya or Syria were threatening their region and beyond, and producing weapons of mass destruction, and not living up to the conditions that they agreed to live up to in order to not be annihilated in a previous war with the U.S., I guess the U.S. would have a keener interest in them as well.

Do you really not get that? Or is it just fun to be contrary?

>> Do you really not get that?

It seems many people do not get that. Many of those people are in the US Congress, in the British Parliament, leaders of most European nations, etc. It seems an awful lot of people do not get it. The countries surrounding Iraq, who would be the first to be hit, do not get it and said they want no part of this war. In other words, very few people get it and they all work for the President of the US. Not a good sign when the President of the US sees the world totally differently from the rest of the world, including most of his own Congress.

Well, SuaSponte, I have no difficulty with your analysis. We are in agreement that Iraq probably has some WMD. I thought that was never in doubt.

What I disagreed with was the statement,

‘The failure of the Iraqis to provide evidence that WMDs they admitted they had have been destroyed is evidence that they still exist.’

on the grounds that failure to provide evidence is not evidence of something, and you seem to agree with that. Failure to provide evidence is nothing. Your analysis, with which I agree, is that we must revert to earlier evidence, which shows that some WMD capability exists, and I am happy to take the cited reports on face value. You will note that all my posts assume that these are correct.

My point, which I am sorry to keep stressing, is that for a pre-emptive strike to have any semblence of morality it needs to be justified by showing an obvious, immediate danger from your opponent, and these reports do not show this. If anything, they show other states as more dangerous.

The natural assumption of most of the rest of the world is that a proposed attack on Iraq is not a justified, pre-emptive strike with which we could agree, and join in with. It looks much more like an action justified by internal political reasons. Even this would not be so bad, if it were not for our belief that the result would be a polarisation of West/Arab opinion which would take years to overcome, and meanwhile provide fertile ground for more terrorist actions.

Sometimes it is fun to be contrary but I’m not doing it here.

I do get it. But I don’t agree with it. I don’t see why it is necessary.

Iraq seem to be bending, hopefully inspectors can get back in and get full disclosure. Israel is being hawkish. This could go very pear shaped very quickly. I don’t see the reason to risk so much when there’s hope of a peaceful route still there.

Iraq have not been linked with Sept. 11th. They do not seem to me threatening the US with anything other than basically telling you to go fuck yourself.

If war is needed then go to war. I just don’t see that it’s needed yet.

On its face, your “obvious, immediate danger” test doesn’t work, and is actually probably immoral itself.
First, in many cases, by the time the threat of obvious and immediate, pre-emptive action won’t work, For an example, let’s talk about nukes and Iraq. Back in the 80s, Israel destroyed Saddam’s nuclear reactor. It was utterly pre-emptive, with no obvious or immediate danger - Iraq was a long way away from building nukes at the time. However, had Israel done the “moral” thing and waited until the danger was obvious and immediate - i.e. the nukes were built - the strike would have been useless.

Quite simply, nukes are a lot easier to hide than a nuclear reactor. If Israel had blown up the reactor after the nukes were built, Saddam wouldn’t have been able to build any more nukes, but he still would have had the nukes already built (reasonably presuming he would have been smart enough to scatter them in storage around the country). And the US would have faced a nuclear-armed Saddam in the Gulf War. Pleasant thought.
Second, in other cases, while it still may be possible to end the threat after it is obvious and immediate, the cost in human lives could be considerably higher. In the case of Iraq, if Saddam gets nukes, and then we pre-emptively invade, he may use them - and we may use them back in response or to destroy his remaining ones. We still topple him, but at a cost of lives magnitudes higher than an earlier strike. Under the Just War Theory, it is immoral to delay when such may be the result.

Other responses:

Actually, they don’t. You ignore the other part of the analysis - intentions. If amount of WMD were the only criterion of dangerousness, than Russia would be the most dangerous nation in the world, hands down, and the debate would be over whether to pre-emptively invade Russia. But we have a very high level of confidence that Russia has no intentions of using its WMD.
We have no such level of confidence regarding Saddam. He has both demonstrated that he is aggressive - starting two major wars during his reign - and that he will use WMD - having used chemical weapons against both the Iranians and his own people. The threat he poses is considerably higher than that posed by North Korea or Syria, to look at two of the nations who mention, even if they have more WMD. Except for minor skirmishes on land and at sea, the North Koreans haven’t attacked anybody in almost 50 years, and they have never used WMD. The Syrians, except for some duels with the Israelis and some internecine conflicts in Lebanon (where they were invited in by the government of the day), haven’t attacked anyone since 1973.

First of all, there is nothing natural about the assumption. It’s a belief, one that may or may not be supported by the evidence. That’s what debate is about. Sadly, IMO, too many people are making this unnatural assumption, and aren’t actually looking at the evidence.
Second, one thing really annoys me. Just about everyone I’ve talked to and debated this about agrees that an attack on Iraq is justified if Iraq gets nukes. Well, everyone - including the head of UNSCOM - agrees he will get nukes. It is irrational to wait until the enemy gets a more powerful weapon before attacking. But anyway…
FTR, the “internal political reasons” argument is hooey. No one in the US is rallying for war with Iraq or threatening to vote out our current ruling idiots if the US doesn’t attack. My impression is that the majority of the the majority that favors war with Iraq do so with trepidation - we don’t want to, but we recognize the necessity.

Sua

yojimbo:

**
Believe it or not, I agree with you.

But I also believe that Saddam Hussein can’t be allowed to develop and have WMD. Under any circumstances.