Just wondering,
When all these other nations do decide to preempt - based on the US model, granted - will the peanut gallery oppose their actions or will it hypocritically sit around and say “told you so,” reflexively continuing to attack the US even as other nations launch wars of aggression? Note: there is supposed to be a moral framework under all the various postures and postions one takes, something deeper than “the US sucks, always.”
In all likelihood, Iraq is nuke-free, too, albeit for very different reasons.
Why do people keep, saying in this threads and others, that all wars are now justified if you feel threatened. Do we all just forget about what Iraq does and has done.
They fought a war with Iran for something like 8 years. They’ve used chemical weapons. They took over Kuwait and had to be removed by force. During that war they lobbed missiles at Israel for no good military reason. They’ve tortured & killed they’re own citizens, and finally, they are in violation of numerous Security Council resolutions. This is all in the last 15 years or so.
You find another country that acts this badly & I would agree that ** someone ** would be justified in attacking them in their own self defense.
Let’s back up for a minute here…
Has there ever been any proof given that Iraq is the primary potential source of WMD for ‘terrorists’? I keep hearing that knocking over the government of Iraq will ‘prevent terrorism’ or ‘lessen the threat of terrorism’.
Um…how? It’s not like they used WMD on 9/11.
I’ve always thought that Iraq was a priority for the administration prior to 9/11 and that linking it with terrorism gives them an excuse.
As I understood the president’s speech, the reason we are going to war is that Iraq has failed to live up to the cease fire agreement following the first Gulf War. The ‘maybe’ connection between Saddam and terror groups is the reasoning behind why we don’t have another twelve years to let him continue to disarm, or start to. So, in light of 9-11, we cannot wait until whenever to take care of the problem, which is disarmament. We have to wait until Saddam is taken care of before we begin with countries like N. Korea, Iran, and France. Oh, wait, France is an ally. Right-o, they can stay.
By this justification, we would have had ample reason to invade Japan and West Germany in 1957. Think of the things they’d done in the 15 years previous to then!
Heck, Bush said we couldn’t even wait one year. Why? It’s a mystery.
The problem is, there’s a ‘maybe’ connection between a lot of places and terror, including our buddy Pakistan, as SimonX pointed out. By this logic, we can pre-emptively attack all such places, which was my point.
We have to??
Who’s making us? Who’s got the gun to our head, forcing us to put Saddam atop our agenda?
The world seems to be turning some sort of corner with respect to nuclear weapons: it seems that any mid-sized country that wants nukes badly enough, can become a nuclear power. That scares me a hell of a lot more than anything Saddam could give to the terrorists. Weaponized anthrax or sarin gas might kill hundreds or thousands; a small nuclear bomb can kill hundreds of thousands.
RTF:
Absolutely 100% is pretty extreme, as is the way that you are stretching my analogy beyond its bounds.
My analogy is very correct as it applies to the question raised in your OP. That is all that it was meant to do.
To repeat; the question that you raised is that the “Bush Doctrine” seems to you to be a rationale for attacking anybody capable of being a threat.
My analogy demonstrates why this is a fallacy. Bush has not and did not argue to attack any country simply because it was capable of inflicting damage on us.
To suggest otherwise is I beleive a deliberate misconstrual.
Bush is arguing against vicious unrestrained dogs that have attacked in the past and are kept in an unsafe manner.
Those present quite a different “potential” than the neighbors’ nice friendly yellow lab.
I don’t understand why you seek to deliberately misconstrue Bush’s meaning here to try to suggest he’s arguing otherwise.
Do you not understand that when we talk about the “potential” to cause harm and damage from a country like Iraq under Sadaam Hussein, that that is a very different thing then the “potential” from, say, Canada?
Canada is larger and I assume miltarily more powerful than Iraq. They are also closer and “potentially” a more pressing threat.
The difference of course is that Iraq is vicious and Canada is not. While Canada posesses a greater potential for harm it is not anywhere near the danger.
Similarly my neighbors’ yellow lab has an extreme potential but almost a neglibible danger because it is not prone to violence.
But Iraq has extreme potential but negligible danger. While he is prone to violence, his teeth have been filed down, and he is securely staked in his yard.
Your house is blocks away, and your children are not in imminent danger. Some of his neighbors are likewise concerned as you, but most are not, and the rest of the community does not agree that the dog must be put down.
The fact that you choose to do so does not mean that you are providing a community service, no matter how you might like to portray it. It just makes you a prick and a bully - judge, jury, and executioner. It is vigilantism, at best.
It is a dangerous precedent to set. What if some other neighbor blocks away determines that your loving family pet is represents a danger to your neighbors, and then acts on it?
Maybe, just maybe, part of the moral framework is the idea that our elected leaders ought to pay attention to what we citizens say. If I get the impression that Saddam Hussein gives a fart about my criticisms of his regimes, I’ll focus my attention on his regime.
But I’m a citizen of the United States, and so my responsibility is to hold my own government acccountable.
Daniel
Wouldn’t we have said the same thing about the Taliban? “Sure, they brutalize and oppress their citizenry, but they’re not a threat to us, so why should we do anything?”
Maybe if the stable governments of the world had the guts to take those bastards out a few years before 9/11, NYC would still have a couple of really tall buildings downtown. They didn’t, they just wrung their hands and claimed there was nothing they could do. We waited for them to prove how dangerous they were, and they sure as hell did.
Brutal dictatorships like the Taliban and Saddam (and a number of others, I’m sure) should not be allowed to stay in power.
Please re-read the portion of his speech I’ve quoted. I don’t think it’s a misconstrual at all.
That the 1991 cease-fire imposed some restrictions on Saddam is a legal fig-leaf at most; it is distinctly not why Bush says he must be dealt with. On the terms Bush has laid down, he makes the world’s moral duty (as he sees it) quite clear: Saddam must be brought down because of the danger he presents.
Sure, he’s attacked in the past, with our OK or what he had reason to regard as such. But not since. Doesn’t that suggest that he’s not being kept in an unsafe manner?
I don’t remember bringing Canada into the discussion. But Canada’s a stable democracy. Most countries in the world aren’t. Some are our allies one year but not the next. Iran was our buddy until Khomeini. Iraq was our buddy until we crossed signals on Kuwait. Pakistan wasn’t our buddy until 9/11, and there will probably come a time when they’re on our shit list again.
Cheesesteak: *"Wouldn’t we have said the same thing about the Taliban? “Sure, they brutalize and oppress their citizenry, but they’re not a threat to us, so why should we do anything?” *
But the Taliban were not a threat to us–certainly not a direct threat. Al Qaeda was and remains a direct threat. Invading Afghanistan after 9/11 was justifiable to large swath of world opinion b/c the Taliban were known to have harbored and encouraged Al Qaeda. There is no such link between Saddam’s Iraq and Al Qaeda–or to any other terrorist organization that poses a threat to the United States or its allies.
The entire argument for preemptive action against Iraq rests upon what Iraq might do (provide weapons to terrorist organizations) based on what it has done (invade regional neighbors years ago; oppress its people). Don’t you see a serious logical disconnect there? a transparent flimsiness? Hence, not only is preemption itself a dubious doctrine, but this particular case for preemption (especially compared to North Korea) is incredibly thin.
The rest of what one hears is smoke and mirrors: like the inane attempts to connect Saddam to Osama; or the hypocritical attempts to portray American policy as driven by the desire to liberate unfree peoples when the United States has a very spotty record on supporting human rights abroad.
Uh, no. Al Qaeda had held a press conference and declared “jihad” against the US and US interests.
Saddam has only threatened the US in response to US threats to Iraqi sovereignty.
Al Qaeda participated in numerous terrorist attacks against US interests prior to 9/11, and the US intelligence agencies knew they were a continuing threat to the US and to US interests.
The CIA does not believe that Saddam represents a threat to the US or US interests, unless attacked.
The world community supported the US in routing Al Qaeda from Afghanistan. And I don’t remember any such international discussions about removing the Taliban from power prior to 9/11. Who trained Al Qaeda in guerilla tactics in the first place?
The world community has balked at supporting the use of force against Iraq.
So let me repeat: Al Qaeda declared war on the US. Saddam had never threatened the US. We had reason to believe that Al Qaeda would continue to attack US interests. We have no reason to believe that Saddam would (for he would then suffer the same fate as the Taliban).
The worst result of this unilateral action is that we reinforce and perpetuate the conditions that led to the 9/11 attacks - we will be at greater risk of terrorist attack (not from Saddam, mind you, but greater risk nonetheless).
You seem to be getting hysterically absurd.
So, you think we should just leave alone the guy who is running suicide bomber training camps and who is dressing his troops in US and UK uniforms for the express purpose of murdering his citizens and blaming us?
Allow me to direct your attention to The National Security Strategy of the United States of America, released by George W. Bush in September 2002. A few relevant quotes should illustrate nicely:
I think it’s spelled out rather clearly. Bush’s defense policy - in his own words! - includes the ability to carry out pre-emptive strikes, and the targets are those entities, either groups or states, that are perceived as either able now or in the future to cause harm to the United States. Bush has clearly and plainly argued for this. Your assertion is false.
Demise - have you got cites for any of that?
Cite, please?
And you accuse RTFirefly with getting hysterically absurd?
Clearly, you understand that, even if true, Iraq couldn’t get away with killing civilians in US uniforms if the US didn’t have 250K troops ready to invade. I think we all recognize that countries have a right to self defense, and the same speculative reports that you reference also suggest that US special ops are already operating within Iraq’s borders.
And on your first point, who taught the 9-11 hijackers how to fly commercial airliners?
Bush’s speech last night was infuriating (additionally) for his reliance on UN resolutions in support of going to war on the heels of his failure to even press for a vote on his most recent effort to obtain UN approval of such action. This strikes me as exceptionally cowardly. Either say we are doing it despite our failure to get a vote, or don’t do it. Don’t claim UN authority when you know damn well you don’t have it.
For my money, he could have spared us 14 minutes of airtime if he’d just been as plainspoken as he likes to be: “Saddam, I’m a-callin’ you out!” That’s all this was. And I am hard pressed to recall anything like this in history. Has there ever been a case of a leader of a nation calling upon the leader of another nation to get out in 48 hours? Wouldn’t this also still leave the Baathists in power?
There’s been a Primus song running through my head lately, and Scylla’s oh-so-valid analogy suggests that I post some of the lyrics.
Too many puppies are being shot in the dark.
Too many puppies are trained not to bark.
At the sight of blood that must be spilled so that
We may maintain our oil fields.
Too many puppies
Too many puppies are taught to heel.
Too many puppies are trained to kill.
On the command of men wearing money belts that buy
mistresses sleek animal pelts.
Too many puppies.
If brutal dictatorships should not be allowed to stay in power, we need to see some kind of International organization agree with that. They need to sit down detailing exactly what constitutes a “brutal dictatorship” and decide on exactly what should happen if a brutal dictatorship occurs. Ideally, this ought to be a largely legal proceeding involveing fair trials of the brutal dictators involved. They also need to draft a plan for returning the country involved to the people, and that plan should detail how long a country should be allowed to remain occupied. Then they ought to consistantly and impartially follow the rules they have made. If all this happened, I would truely believe that we are dedicated to keeping people away from brutal dictatorships.
But what we are doing right now does not resemble that at all. What I see is vigilanteism at best.