First of all, that was Panama, not Grenada.
Second of all, the invasion of Panama was indeed effectively a police raid. Carried out by the US military. On the soil of a sovereign nation. Taking over and occupying said nation. In order to arrest a single man. The chief of state of that nation, who enjoyed diplomatic and sovereign immunity from arrest. For violations of US law. Committed outside of the jurisdiction of the United States.
All of this was done without UN approval.
Stoid is protesting 14 years too late (at least).
As for you, Tejota, if Ashcroft had sworn out a warrant for the arrest of Hussein and said warrant had been properly signed by a federal magistrate, would the invasion have been acceptable?
What if the release of that evidence would have meant the deaths of the operatives who had supplied it to us? Would you have demanded the needless deaths of people just to satisfy your desire for justification? Especially when such information would’ve changed very few minds, anyway? (After all, it seems that most war protesters weren’t claiming that Saddam had no WMDs, only that they didn’t care, because “War is not the A.N.S.W.E.R.”)
I was mildly against the war in the sense that I did believe we were OK morally to invade, but that I thought it was not in the long term interest of the USA. I have no beef w/ Bush, so on the issue of the war, I will believe it was the right thing to do if:
We don’t see any 9/11 type of terrorist attacks agains the US in the next, say, 3 yrs.
The gov’t in Iraq 5 yrs after the US gets out of there is at least vaguely still democratic.
#1 is a real toughy because it’s so hard to know, if we do have an attack, whether or not it would’ve happened w/o the war.
I don’t see why people have this love affair w/ the UN. Now that we’re in there, I’m happy to see the US (w/ the Brits) go about setting up the new gov’t. We’ll catch a lot of flack for be imperialists, but I think we’ll do a better job than some UN committee of navel contemplators.
Ashcroft, no. Not his jurisdiction. (unless there was a direct 9/11 connetion, in which case yes). But the International War Crimes tribunal would have jurisdiction.
A properly authorize warrent would have justified a raid-in-force. But not one as large as the current invasion, nor one with the goal of conquering the entire country rather than just removing the subject of the warrent to face trial.
On the other hand, the precedent that the a war crimes warrent would allow extradition-by-force would put Henry Kissenger in danger, so maybe we don’t want to do that.
This is a bullshit example. It’s always possible to disconnect information from the people who source it and still have it be information. When the intelligence people talk about the risk of comprimising sources and methods. They mean that they have memos that contain actual people’s names and dates and times of intercepts. It’s fine to remove some of that detail before you publish to protect “sources and methods”. But nonsence to suggest that every bit of information has to be kept secret to protect lives. That’s pure fantasy.
Assuming some bizarre case where it isn’t pure fantasy, You get the people out. then you release the information and declare your war. It’s not like the USA needs the element of surprise in order to win a war against Saddam. But it most assuredly does need the global perception that it is acting justly in order to win the peace.
The people of Iraq manage to put together a cohesive government that is neither corrupt or subject to US whims
UN plays a major role in re-construction
The US gets out of the region before creating more terrorists and anti-US feelings, but only after stability in Iraq is assured (this is the toughie, almost a koan).
Warning, the following was overheard on the radio, so I have no cites to back it up. And it may sound a bit conspiracy-ish, but I’ll throw it out there anyway.
The interview was with one of the special-ops officers who was a major contributor to Moore’s book “The Hunt for Bin Laden”. He was a long time special-ops agent and was quite proud of the work they did in Afghanistan, using 200 special ops people to organize the Afghani resistance and oust the Taliban. When asked about Iraq and al-queda, he said he personally held in his hands evidence (including passports,communications and funding) linking the Iraq government and al-queda. He claimed there was clear links the Iraqi government was funding them, along with the governments of Iran and Pakistan. He didn’t elaborate, mainly because he went on to the next question. (I’ll get back to this).
He was asked about the current war with Iraq. He was not happy, he said we were doing it all wrong. The proper way to do it was with special ops again, organizing the Iraqi resistance and backing them with US firepower. Having the Iraqi people liberate themsleves. (He had great respect for the Afghanis, saying 10,000 of them alone would kick Iraqi’s ass and he was very upset that we have all but forgotten them in the way of funding and humanitarian aid). He was pissed because he said the way they waged this war was for a reason, to show off their weapons and get more funding for defense in the future. He had no love for Tommy Franks and said this whole war, while we would still win, was in response to the Ahghanistan war. If 200 guys could take down a whole country without all the precision guided bombs, new tanks and hundreds of thousands of troops then it would look bad on the armed forces in general (and especially during funding time). So, they waged full out war instead. It was quite and interesting take on things.
Now back to his “proof”, why wouldn’t this be made public? Perhaps to protect certain people, perhaps to infiltrate and get close to those government officials, perhaps to avoid having to take on Iran, Iraq and Pakistan all at once (surely that would be seen as an attack on Islam). There may be legitimate reasons for holding back information or the reasons might be a little more complicated.
Just thought I’d share, although I do not claim this as “proof” of anything. IMHO, the only way most of those who protested this war would change their mind is if it was Gore calling the shots instead of Bush.
A source that would be able to provide good, concrete evidence on the whereabouts of WMDs would likely be a high-ranking Iraqi official, or a person who has direct contact with the weapons. If Bush says, “We have knowledge of a base just south of Basra that contains some VX and some weapon-grade plutonium”, then guess what? Saddam now knows that we have insiders. Moreover, he knows that these are insiders with knowledge of, or access to, those specific weapons. You think it’ll be that hard to flush them out?
As to getting the people out before war… umm, sure. “Uh, hey Saddam? I need to go out of the country for the weekend. That’s alright, isn’t?” He’d be dead before he finished his sentence. Security was tight in Saddam-era Iraq. People didn’t come and go as they please.
Jeff
Ok, my $0.02. I am decidedly pro-America…errr…war. But I would certainly change my mind about it if a some of the following were to happen:
It turns out that the UN is in fact still relevant and have some sort of mission that is in line with what passes as mainstream “American” thought. As opposed to looking to replace the US as the only world superpower and set up a one-world government where China, Cuba, Korea and Syria are considered bastions of human rights.
It comes to light that France, Germany and Russia’s refusal to oust Saddam was not at all related to the fact that they were supplying him with weapons in exchange for oil contracts.
The Iraqi people, now no longer in fear for their lives and the lives of their friends and family STILL vote to have Saddam in command because, gee, the rapes and torture really broke up the monotony of the hot desert afternoon.
George Bush and the administration decide that they had enough of ridding the world of terrorism after Afghanistan and Iraq and just let the hotbeds of Anti-American hostility be. If they are not going to finish what they started and cave to leftist opinion than why bother to start?
Just one liberal admits they were wrong about any of this (or anything in general) without trying to spin it into “yeah, see, that is what we were saying all along, you just mistakenly thought we meant the exact opposite”
It turns out Katie Couric et al, weren’t unhappy the coalition managed to win the war and spare as many lives (coalition and Iraqi civilian) as possible, it is just that their cat died and that is why it seemed they were down about the outcome.
Ok, that seems like a lot of bitter for 2 cents, but I bought in bulk.
:dubious:
Ok, here’s a fact. The Congressional Research Service says that the US has never engaged in a preemptive war (pre-2003). Here’s a quote:
"The historical record indicates that the United States has never, to date, engaged in a ``preemptive’’ military attack against another nation. Nor has the United States ever attacked another nation militarily prior to its first having been attacked or prior to U.S. citizens or interests first having been attacked, with the singular exception of the Spanish-American War. The Spanish-American War is unique in that the principal goal of the United States military action was to compel Spain to grant Cuba its political independence. "
(can be found, in part, on page S9874 in the Congressional Record of the 107th Congress, http://thomas.loc.gov - I can’t link a temporary page.)
Futher, a definition of preemptive war: “The deployment of U.S. military forces in support of U.S. foreign policy, without their engaging in combat, is not deemed to be a preemptive use of military force. Preemptive use of military force is also deemed to be an action addressed at a specific and imminent military threat, requiring timely action.”
And let’s look at customary international law: “It will be for [Her Majesty’s Government] to show, also, that the local authorities of Canada, even supposing the necessity of the moment authorized them to enter the territories of the United States at all, did nothing unreasonable or excessive; since the act, justified by the necessity of self-defence, must be limited by that necessity, and kept clearly within it.” (Damrosch, International Law: Cases and Materials (2001)).
Just because there is a perceived threat to the interests of a country does not mean that that country may be justified in taking pre-emptive military action. There has to be an imminent threat (of force) and a proportional use of self-defense. Please explain how Panama, Bosnia, Haiti, or any other country on your list threatened to use military force against the United States.
The decision to go to war will never magically become the right decision for the time it was made. All objections to deciding to do what was done will always persist. Any attempt to change that requires Orwellian re-writing of history.
BUT
2. There are things that could happen that show that, against the odds, the decision to go to war was a fortitious mistake- like tripping and finding a twenty dollar bill. I sort of agree with the OP in the reasons why, but I’d add one:
Bush declares his goal accomplished and stops persuing his doctrine of Eternal War against other nations without international cooperation.
The true mark of a coward is hiding in words and excuses when action is necessary… I don’t expect you to understand that.
**
Wow. Quite possibly the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard on this board. Courage is not deciding to act for action’s sake. Courage is dedicating yourself to a clear goal, then accepting all responsibility and cosequences of that goal.
The true mark of a coward is not being willing risk to your personal safety… making no personal sacrifices. The true mark of a coward is doing everything in your power to avoid responsiblity for your actions. The true mark of a coward is lashing out in violence.
Get your morality straight. The way you put it, anyone who stops to think is a puny little coward. I dont want to live in your world.
[list=1]
[li] A large cache of deployable weapons of mass destruction was found ready, or nearing completion–a large cache, mind you, not a few shells with pesticide on them. [/li][li] In a couple years, the government in Iraq is a respectable government without being an American client state. This means that it’s considered respectable to the rest of the Middle Eastern states, meaning that it has good relations with them as well as Europe and the U.S.[/li][li] On the balance of things, the forces of freedom are strengthened in the Middle East, meaning that people become more free in terms of rights and opportunities. Syria becomes something of a pariah, while Jordan becomes more internally and internationally respectable. All governments in the area have to make at least a show of serving their citizenry, not for fear of U.S. invasion, but because a popular wave of democratic sentiment is rising among Arabs, Persians, and Palestinians.[/li][li] On the balance of things, the U.S.’ diplomatic relations are strengthened, rather than injured, by GWB’s blowing past the U.N. and the U.S.’ traditional allies.[/li][/list=1]A lot of this sounds like the end justifying the means, and it is. I would rationalize it under the doctrine of double effect, but really, in my heart, I would be breathing a sigh of relief that Bush’s horrific gamble paid off handsomely in moral terms, and the the world is actually a better place. It doesn’t justify the war post facto, but the result is better than without it.
You do realize this is impossible, right? If Iraq becomes prosperous and free, it will not have good relations with other Arab nations, by virtue of the fact that it’s prosperous and free. The other Middle Eastern governments don’t like democracy, because it represents a threat to their totalitarianism, and the governments make sure the people agree with them.
You’ll notice that I didn’t say “democratic” government, which was intentional. I’m sceptical of grafting a ready-made democracy onto Iraq, for the reasons that Collounsbury outlined in his thread, namely that the region has no good history of democratic governments or tradition, so one can’t expect Iraqis to be born again enlightenment liberals.
It could be a respectable government though, with some form of representation for the people that fosters the institutions that support democracy (such as the rule of law). With its oil reserves, it could be prosperous. It could become like Iran without the mad mullahs in charge. It could be the country that tips the scales towards representative governments in the region, and that would be good without offending the sensitivities of Saudi Arabia et al. If the pendulum swings towards somewhat respectable governments like Jordan, more repressive countries like Saudi Arabia and Yemen are pressured to at least appear less dictatorial than they are, and that’s a start.
Consider the “rat out” factor. If oodles of Nasty Weapons exist, several hundred people know about them. It just not possible to make anything major in the way of WMD’s without involving a lot of folks. Any or all of those people are in a position to rat out Saddam.
OK, now maybe we can say they had no opportunity previously, Iraqi security was too efficient (on a par with our FBI, leak-proof), there was no way to get to a secure phone and call the CIA. So that covers the “protecting the secret source” Bushwah.
But thats all gone now. Poof! Anyone is a position of ratting out Saddam simply has to know that that is the ticket to a green card, a million bucks and a hot date with J. Lo. Lead pipe cinch.
So if the weapons exist, why arent snitch candidates beating a path to the nearest Army Intelligence unit? What could possibly restrain them from such an opportunity to cash in, big time?
Notice that they aren’t even mentioning it anymore. Now, its all about “liberating the Iraqi people”, our noble crusade of selfless courage. But that’s not the way it was sold to us, it was sold to us that Iraq was a threat, a dire threat, them or us.
We just beat the living crap out of a hollowed out third world military machine that probably couldn’t beat Belgium.
Why does the rest of the world have to tie in with Mainstream American Thought? You’re further to the right than just about the whole of Europe. Your culture is fundamentally different to that of the world’s largest Democratic Republic, India. Why should a body designed to represent everybody have to decide that what everybody else thinks is irellevant unless it matches the US?
First Order Bullshit. Number one, China, Cuba, Korea and Syria are not considered bastions of human rights. Number two, the one world government is the goal of Global Federalists, like myself, and many of us bought Reves’ argument back in the fifties that the UN wasn’t going to be any more than a jumped up League of Nations. You can’t have a global federation and still recognise National Sovereignty in all circumstances, which the UN charter specifically mentions.
I’ll tell you right now, it wasn’t. Nothing to “come to light” about there.
Nice, but you didn’t invade because of Human Rights abuses, did you?
Is Afghanistan now not a hotbed of Anti-American hostility? I don’t think I got that memo.
Ah, I see you don’t listen much. However, regardless of whether this is a banal slur on a group of people you just don’t like because of their politics or not, this has nothing to do with “the war” whatsoever. Unless you’re referring to Pro-War liberals.
As for changing my mind about the war, well, nothing. We should not have been in this situation in the first place. The reason we were here was because of monumental fuckup after monumental fuckup in the past. To support this war, no matter if the outcome is positive or negative, is to say “yeah, it’s ok if we make stupid decisions, as long as we fight wars to put the problem right in the end.” No, that’s not OK.
As of right now, we need to stop thinking about how many wars we’re going to fight to put an end to opressive regimes or rogue states, and start thinking about what we can do, starting now, to make sure that we do our damndest to avoid war. So no more propping up dictators. No more selling weapons to dodgy regimes. Let’s have some positive, straightedged, consistent approaches to foreign policy, and let’s start sacrificing some Sacred Cows that everyone is too scared to get rid of, despite the fact that they don’t work and never have worked and won’t work in the future.
If we have more wars, be they “inevitable” or “necessary” or whatnot, I’ll still oppose them, still protest them, because they’ve only come around in the first place because of historical fuckups by people with their heads wedged up their arses. They’ll take place with my tiny little voice saying, if anyone cares to listen “now look what you did!”
