There’s a HUGE difference between preventive wars and pre-emptive wars.
Iraq was NOT a pre-emptive war. It was a preventive war.
Now pre-emption has become newspeak for preventive.
If Iraq was an imminent threat to the US then the war is not an agressive war. It is part of a long sanctioned tradition of "preemption “Upon detecting evidence that an opponent is about to attack, one beats the opponent to the punch and attacks first to blunt the impending strike.”
As we all know, “For centuries, international law recognized that nations need not suffer an attack before they can lawfully take action to defend themselves against forces that present an imminent danger of attack. Legal scholars and international jurists often conditioned the legitimacy of preemption on the existence of an imminent threat—most often a visible mobilization of armies, navies, and air forces preparing to attack.”
IMHO, one could make the case that the need to “adapt the concept of imminent threat” as laid out in the National Security Strategy Chapter V*, led to the actual adaptation the “concept of imminent threat,” in the national security strategy of the USA to include the threat presented by “rogue states and terrorists” and thus a change in what qualifies as preemption.
If Iraq was not an imminent threat to the US then the war may’ve been an example of a “preventive war”. Preventive war is based on the concept that war is inevitable and that it is better to fight now while the costs are low rather than later when the costs are high. It is a deliberate decision to begin a war."
As Confucius analected, “If language is not correct, then what is said is not what is meant; if what is said is not what is meant, then … morals and art will deteriorate [and justice will go] astray … Hence there must be no arbitrariness in what is said. This matters above everything.”
As I already load the dice quite a bit vis-a-vis the Bush Administration, I don’t know that it’s entirely “fair” to blame Iran’s quest for nuclear weapons entirely on them (BushCo). Fact of the matter is that for all the negatives that one can come up with for engaging in illicit development of nuclear weapons, there’s undoubtably a certain amount of prestige/respect that comes along with having them. Beyond that, and even in the absence of the lunatic PNAC strategy for the region, Iran might well feel the need for the assurance of MAD should a potencial conflict arise with the now rather numerous members of the nuclear club in their neighborhood, i.e., Israel, Pakistan, India, Russia, China…and US controlled Iraq and Afghanistan.
As for them being “safer” without nukes, how so? Do you honestly think the US would go ahead and strike Iran if they knew it had the capability of producing retaliatory nuclear strikes against Israel? Remember, MAD worked for close to 50 years, no reason to think it won’t in the future. Unless of course, someone gets pushed to the brink…then all bets are off. But again, I must remind people that it isn’t Iran doing the pushing.
That said, I am all for nuclear disarmament – however, if the whole idea was little more than a pipe-dream prior to the Bush regime, it appears that now even the dream has evaporated.
Oh I agree that if Iran successfully develops a nuclear deterrent, it will be in a safer position. The problem is if it seen to be attempting to develop that deterrent it risks putting itself in a far more dangerous position.
I would call you netherland-centric - but that’s not possible, is it? I mean, Germany took you over with three soldiers on goats - also begs the question what would you know about warfare/stopping agression? You start watching Fox News or something?
Oh, and dim-witted? If telling someone to fuck themselves with a claw hammer is what passes for wit in your part of the world, I’ll just stay here - in a nation of non-capitulating victors.
Y’know, I’m American and I’m getting…no, scratch that. I’ve BEEN tired of the “We saved your asses in WWII! Bow down!” bullshit. Cut it out. You make us sound like the tired, old, middle-aged accountant who was a football star in high school and talks about his glory days every chance he gets, boring family and friends to tears…
Americans must have a chip planted in their brains at birth which tells them “we are superior to the people in all other countries. We can attack who we want, when we want, and never be held accountable. We never make a mistake, ever , etc.”
You must have avoided getting the implant somehow.
Vietman ring any bells? Meanwhile keep boasting and threatening/talking down to all and sundry; sooner or later history will come around full circle and bite you right in the arse.
jayjay - I made reference to Netherlands capitulation and their conquest - not one point about “we saved your asses!” Is that implied? If it was, I was referencing his countries military history, and trying to get my digs into him. I am also sick of the “We saved your asses” shit too.
ZombiesAteMyBrain - Now it’s “American’s must have a chip in their brains” bullshit. Please. Most of the people on this board are liberals and disagree with the current administration - please don’t tell me American’s have some kind of master race syndrome.
RedFury - The US is doing what it has to do, because nobody else will do it. Nobody has a better idea for dealing with Iran that is feasable. Not the UN, not the EU, not China nor the Soviet Union. You want holy hell? Israel will do something stupid if we don’t do something reasonable soon. That’s what’s facing us.
Don’t tell me that some of them don’t have ‘a master race syndrome’. I’ve read enough posts here attempting to justify Bush’s lies, the invasion of Iraq, the torture of prisoners - also posts which speak of people who live in other countries with contempt, because they do not agree with American policies abroad.
Look at your post to redfury, above. The US could have acted more responsibly in reining in Israel, if they hadn’t vetoed every UN decision which attempted to make Israel behave responsibly towards its neighbours.
Why does the US have to take action against Iran? Why does the US have any say in whether other countries have nuclear power or weapons?
The USA currently has the world’s largest nuclear stockpile - why is it OK for them, and not for other countries who are threatened by them? Why don’t the USA disarm, instead of bullying other countries?
They have a huge political lobby paying off politicians of all ilk. Just how it is, and I never said it was right. It makes America do stupid things - but a nuclear enabled Iran doesn’t help anyone.
I don’t have an answer, maybe if the UN was structured differently so that there wasn’t Veto power for every silly thing by adversarial countries, it would be different. But that’s not how it is and because of it the UN is impotent. The US has the largest stockpile of nuclear weapons, which is/was a legacy from the cold war. I can’t tell you why we haven’t disarmed since, but again a nuclear enabled Iran doesn’t help anyone.
Christ, it’s inane arguements like this that place me in the unenviable position of appearing to defend Iran. I’m refuting the logic, not supporting the country ok, got that?
It depends on your point of view, because a nuclear enabled Iran certainly helps Iran doesn’t it?
I bet if you took a vote of the world, just as many countries would say the US was threat as they would say Iran.
Yes, I understand your point - America attacked Iraq because they didn’t have nuclear bombs, but won’t attack North Korea because they do and now the Bush administration is threatening Iran - what’s Iran to do/what lesson should Iran take from this?
Well, I’m saying we should stop them from getting them - others are not saying in particularly that Iran SHOULD have them, but just that in principle, the US has no foundation or any moral superiority to tell anyone what to do.
A lot of leaders, even in the EU, use America as a way of fomenting nationalism and securing their standing. Don’t tell me the rise of the EU and the world opinion turning against America were not related.
Well, there’s also that pesky nonproliferation treaty which obligates us to aid countries in the peaceful uses of atomic energy. When we start telling countries that they cannot process their own uranium, under threat of invasion, we make a mockery of that treaty.
86.9% of the world thought that the USA was the greatest threat to world peace in 2003, as opposed to North Korea 6.7% and Iraq 6.3%. There’s a helluva difference between these figures - and Iran and Syria didn’t rate at all. http://www.hebig.org/blog/threatpoll.php
Don’t have the troops?
We’ll pull them out of Iraq and put them in Iran.
It’s a win-win.
They get to destabilize the only long term self-sustainable Islamic state in the Middle East (the oil has to run out at some point, fellas). As a bonus, they get to blame Iraq being a failed State on the necessity of redeploying our troops to deal with Iran forcing us to pull out too soon.
The stickiest course of action Iran could choose at this point would be total cooperation.