RTF:
We didn’t let the dog out.
In the analogy the property lines aren’t literal. For Saddam the property lines are living up to the precondition of disarmament. By not doing so he has crossed that line, and we are legally jusified to address matters.
I personally think we should wait until Saddam actually obtains viable nuclear weapons. I envision him using them to attack Israel. Israel could then retaliate in kind. Maybe Iran could join in too, and Libya.
The whole Middle East would burn and we could feel good about having seen the road to a diplomatic resolution run its course.
Your analogy is faulty in two respects:
a) The “dog” is not currently on your property.
b) You put in the balance your childrens life against a couple of dogs. Remeber that these “dogs” are actually innocent men, women and children living in Iraq, thousands of whom are now doomed to die.
pre-emptive strike or unprovoked murder ?
I think the world has largely rallied around the Peace position, not because they feel like partying and they’ve got nothing better to do, nor because they think Saddam is a saint that should remain in power forever, but because this is the explicit and final proclamation of a very, very shady doctrine of “strike first, ask later”, which, if you think about it for a moment and scratch off the paint of the shining beautiful war machines, can only lead to a bleak, hopeless, dark, sad future.
The early bits were a clear “screw you” to the UN and the International community who didn’t agree with the US take.
I couldn’t make it past this part
Fuck. The “It’s the oil, stupid!” argument just got a lot stronger.
Fuck,
Steven
Nice argument Scylla, and I’d be all for you if you managed to prove the dog was a threat to your kids.
But herein lies the problem with the Bush policy. He has failed to convince the appropriate governing body that this particular dog is a significant enough threat to warrant removal.
Frankly, I am much more afraid of the damage his administration has done to our credibility to wield the world’s mightiest army than I am of any damage Saddam could potentially do to us.
But let’s amp up your argument a bit and see if it still works.
What if removal of the dog required potential or actual killing of relatively innocent people? Children even? Would the possibility of it hurting your kids be worth you actually having to kill another kid?
Let’s say you went through initial and appropriate steps with the city and they issued a warning to your neighbor with the understanding that you would get their approval before removing the dog, would you be legally justified in removing the dog by force if you failed to convince your city government that it was necessary to do so?
btw, KILLER blimp story.
I just keep thinking of all the news stories when kids or adults get mauled by a dog(s) and the neighborhood (when interviewed by the press) claims that they have called the city repeatedly about these “potentially” dangerous dogs, and that the owners of these dogs should have been cited long ago, and if the city would have taken the problem more seriously, that the life (or injury) of the victim would have been avoided. Usually after the first attack, the city takes notice and remove the dangerous creatures off of the owner’s property and relocates the animal to shelter to destroy it.
Didn’t Saddam already bite a child named “Kuwait” twelve years ago?
Well…
Despite all of the rhetoric, The UN, France, Germany, and for that matter the security council, does not have the responsibility of securing the US from further terrorism, The argument of there being an “appropriate governing body” dosen’t wash with me.
Bush, on the other hand, is charged with that EXACT responsibility. I’ll grant that this probably ain’t gonna do it, but it is certianly better than doing nothing. I’ll give you a different take on that dog scenario;
There’s a rabid dog wandering about the neighborhood, he’s generally left people alone, but he’s still a danger nonetheless, then one day he bites Todd. Now Todd tells everyone, even the mayor, that he was bit. Problem is, nobody believes the guy who was bit, because the rabid dog takes care of the rabid cat overpopulation in the neighborhood, and the other people want the dog around, even though they don’t really want to admit it. Todd is now afraid of the dog, and what he may do to his son.
So Todd, after exhausting every avenue he can think of with the city, picks his rifle off of the wall, and goes out to look for the dog.
Is Todd wrong? Or is Todd protecting his interests? I’d go with the latter, myself.
I’m hopeful that there is more than meets the eye with our intel. But either way, I’m loathe not to support the fighting men and women of the US armed forces. They’re out there, so we don’t have to be, and none of our opining is going to change any of that, or, for that matter, make a bit of difference about the war.
I just hope that if and when this conflict takes place, that it does so with as little human destruction as possible
Although it seems like Saddam Hussein isn’t giving that any consideration…I suppose it’s better to burn out, than to fadde away…
Because we all know the whole world will go to hell if the United States doesn’t micromanage everything. If it weren’t for the United States, this world would be a big steaming nuclear puddle of mud! Thank God for the United States- the only entity capable of maintaining world peace!!!
You’re missing some important details.
Todd used to feed and tender for the dog, because he needed it to fight another bigger, meaner, dog.
The dog actually didn’t bite Todd, merely barked at him. Todd, on the other hand, had kicked the dog’s arse. The dog could be holding a grudge.
Todd’s father told him not to bother with the dog, because it will die soon from the disease.
Gee, scr4, you don’t think that’s a good enough reason to go to war? Come on! We can’t sit idly by and just let such a situation continue: here’s a country that might build a bad thing, which they might pass on to some bad group or other, who might do something bad to us. We have to take action!
The Bush doctrine: A good foreign policy crisis is always a nice distraction from Dubya’s mismanagement of domestic affairs.
If we are so unconcerned with the UN, you’d think we’d stop using “Saddam isn’t fulfilling UN resolutions” as a reason to invade his country. If we want to thumb our nose at the UN, that’s one thing, but if we are going to turn around and rely on the UN resolutions to legitamize our war, that’s not cool. Besides, you’d think that if this war was so neccesary to world peace, someone would agree with us.
Huh? This war is certainly going to do something. Soldiers on both sides, as well as Iraqi civilians, are certain to die because of our actions. Who’s life are you willing to sacrifice so that you can feel like you are “doing something”?
Remember that these are real people. People with families. People with hopes and dreams. People with shopping lists, and best friends, and things they are looking forward to. And they are going to die, not by an act of nature, but by the willful act of humans. Left alone, these people would live long and meaningful lives. But instead they are going to die.
And, if terrorism is our big concern, we’re making ourselves look mighty incopetent, considering that Saddam has no real ties to terrorism, Iraq is a secular state that opposes Islamic fundamentalism, and none of the terrorists that have been popping up are even Iraqi.
**
Okay, first off, we’re dealing with people, not dogs. So let’s make this dog the neighbor’s uncle. I’m assumeing that the “Todd” is the US. If so, I must have been asleep when the Iraq made an attack on the United States. No wonder none of the neighbors believe Todd. Somehow the entire news media managed to miss that catastrophic event!
I’m guessing you are trying to equate the 9/11 attacks with the dog biting Todd. So in this case we have a dog that kind of looks like the neighbor’s dog biting Todd. And now Todd is afraid of his neighbor’s dog (or uncle) for…well for some reason at least.
**
[/quote]
And in the process kills a few of the neighborhood kids. Meanwhile, Todd also takes over the neighbor’s house, steals the lawn furniture, and gives the house to his mother-in-law to live in while making the neighbor’s family run around acting as pool-boys.
**
You can do both at the same time.
**
Don’t keep your hopes up. If they had compelling evidence- even if it was highly classified- they wouldn’t waste their time showing us all this constant stream of painfully lame excuses for evidence.
**
**
They are there because of the choices of a somewhat democratically elected government that the people can somewhat influence and change. We do have the power to choose the course of our nation. And we should use that.
And it is perfectly possible to love and support your nation and its people while also having an opinion about how your nation should be conducting itself.
I hope that, too, although even if it does end up going smoothley, that doesn’t make it right. And remember that Saddam is pretty busy considering what it means to give up his people to the hands of invaders, reducing the country to occupied territory and leaving them under the rule of a foreign governement halfway across the globe. I don’t like Saddam, and I wish he was not the leader of Iraq, but I do recognize that he has motivations that are opposed to our purposes but still more complex then him simply being “evil”. And remember, he’s not going to be the one to fire the first bullet in this war, nor will he fire the last.
I just can’t wait (sarcasm intended) for some other country to use the “Bush Doctrine” to bite us back in the ass.
China: “Taiwan is a threat to our sovergnty! We must pre-emptively attack now!”
North Korea: “South Korea and Japan are threats to our country! We must pre-emptively attack now!”
India: “Pakistan is a threat to our nation! We must pre-emptively attack now!”
Israel: “Iran is a threat to our existence! We must pre-emptively attack now!”
At least in the past you could use a combination of the United Nations and internation peer pressure to keep these problems contained. But after the United States crosses this line of allowing pre-emptive attacks, it’ll be open season – after all, if the sole superpower on the planet can flaunt a flimsy excuse to wage war on another country, why can’t they apply the same standards?
Heaven help us all.
In that case, your original analogy is absolutely, 100% false. And I quote:
In the sense of living up to the disarmament precondition, he has of course “left the property”. (Mind you, that makes it a really bad analogy to begin with, but never mind that now.) But he hasn’t “attacked and bitten the children of other neighbors” while “hav[ing] left their property” at any time since that ‘property line’ came into being.
And this is the problem: yeah, Saddam’s a stinker. And having to live in a country he rules over would be absolutely horrible. (Though the same is true for a whole bunch of other rulers in the world that aren’t anywhere near getting on our radar screen.) While he had, or thought he had, our permission or approval, he invaded two of his (literal) neighbors. But since the last Gulf War, he’s only been a nasty guy within his own borders.
Of course, he might someday aid our enemies, and he’s got the capability of doing so. But he’s not the only one, which takes us back to my OP.
And as rjung has pointed out, other countries in the world can use this logic too, in unpleasant ways. The existence of some tenuous legal case in the present instance, that satisfies only those who want to be satisfied by it, won’t make a bit of difference with respect to those floodgates we’re opening. To those who expand on the Bush Doctrine in the future, it’ll be a distinction without a difference.
Japan: “USA will threaten our control over Asia in a few years, we must destroy their Pacific Fleet in Pearl Harbor now!”
Who Knew? Pearl Harbor wasn’t an act of war after all! Shame on us for overreacting!
buttonjocky, this was exactly what I was addressing in my OP. Sure, Bush is charged, as CinC, with protecting the US. The question is, how far out does our ‘defensive’ perimeter extend?
The point of my OP is that the Bush Doctrine places that perimeter so far out that it could be used as a justification to attack practically anyone.
I loved the Bush speech. especially
"War crimes will be prosecuted, war criminals will be punished and it will be no defense to say, “I was just following orders.”
As there seems to be questionable legal legitamancy for the war, which side was he addressing his comments too?
:snort:
rjung had it on target- what’s to prevent the Chinese from deciding that Taiwan is a threat to them and must be taken by force? This notion that we must attack anyone who might pose a threat in the future is akin to shooting all the dogs that live three blocks away on the chance that one might get loose and bite your children.
The speech was typical Shrubprattle, I suppose the Iraqis are still scratching their heads trying to figure out what “new-cue-luhr” weapons are. So first the speech must be translated into English and then into Arabic for them to understand.
I suggest the next target should be Switzerland. This nation without a coastline managed to win the America’s Cup- so let’s go out and sink the Swiss Navy!
They have already. The only thing that stops them is the knowledge that the US and their allies will see this as a cause for war.
Similarly with North Korea, and most of the nations bordering Israel.
Regards,
Shodan