Ann Coulter: Liberal Arguments: Still A Quagmire

georgeob1 wrote:

We have very different views of the many French armed interventions in Francophone African nations, mostly to protect French commercial interests.

Can you expound on this? You seem to be suggesting some kind of equivalence between (some of) them and the invasion of Iraq - what post-colonial armed interventions are you thinking of, specifically? I can't come up with any right now, from the top of my head, none that would suggest any such equivalence, in any case.

0 Replies

Nimh,

I don't posit any equivalence between the numerous French interventions in their former African colonies and the U.S. intervention in Iraq. The French were acting to protect the lives and commercial interests of French expatriates living in these countries. The United States is attempting to limit the effects of Islamic fundamentalism, terror and tyranny. I believe our motives and purposes are far superior to theirs.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

I don't posit any equivalence between the numerous French interventions in their former African colonies and the U.S. intervention in Iraq. The French were acting to protect the lives and commercial interests of French expatriates living in these countries. The United States is attempting to limit the effects of Islamic fundamentalism, terror and tyranny. I believe our motives and purposes are far superior to theirs.

I wasn't so much talking equivalence of motive as much as equivalence of scale. When did the French invade and occupy countries in Africa, in post-colonial times?

I still - predictably - don't think that you showed any "actual" link between Saddam's regime, that this war went out to overthrow, and "Islamic fundamentalism", by the way. Tyranny, I agree on. Terror - you're talking of Saddam's support to Palestinian groups, I assume, considering no actual link to Al-Qaeda has ever been shown?

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

I agree that there are lessons for us in the study of history. In relation to this particular issue, I would suggest that everyone look at the Nuremberg War Crimes trial. Some of the most grievous charges involved "waging aggressive war:" i.e. "the planning, preparation, initiation, and waging of wars of aggression, which were also wars in violation of international treaties, agreements, and assurances" (see the relevant portions of the indictment here).

The trials at Nuremberg were victor's justice. The Allies wrote the rules, provided the judges, and conducted the trials. The contemporaneous trials of Japanese generals included some likely serious miscarriages of justice. Together they were certainly better than summary executions of the various leaders, but hardly constitute an enduring model for international law.

Indeed it would be very difficult to make the case that the UN is doing any better in the trials of Serbian and Croatian leaders and similarly in the proceedings in Rwanda.

Nazi Germany and Japan did indeed engage in aggressive war to control and expropriate new territory and wipe out local populations. Are you suggesting that there is a meaningful similarity between the actions of the U.S. in Iraq and theirs?

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

I still - predictably - don't think that you showed any "actual" link between Saddam's regime, that this war went out to overthrow, and "Islamic fundamentalism", by the way. Tyranny, I agree on. Terror - you're talking of Saddam's support to Palestinian groups, I assume, considering no actual link to Al-Qaeda has ever been shown?

The danger that Islamic terror - of the kind that was behind the attacks on us in New York and the several that preceded it - presents to the United States (and to the Western World) does not proceed exclusively from al-Qaeda, even though it was the specific agent for most of them. It has more to do with the internal struggle within Islam between the forces of social, economic, and political modernization (in the Western sense) and those of fundamentalism, fanaticism, rage, and tyranny, - much as I described earlier. We are engaged in a war to ensure that the former, and not the latter, dominates the Islamic world's relations with the West. The stakes are fairly high in this struggle and its dimensions go well beyond either al-Qaeda or Iraq . Indeed its domain extends from Mindinao to the suburbs of Paris. The quibbling over WMD finds and other relatively trivial and narrowly defined legalisms ignores this overwhelming historical fact. This is serious business and the quibblers are not serious critics.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

The danger that Islamic terror - of the kind that was behind the attacks on us in New York and the several that preceded it - presents to the United States (and to the Western World) does not proceed exclusively from al-Qaeda, even though it was the specific agent for most of them. It has more to do with the internal struggle within Islam between the forces of social, economic, and political modernization (in the Western sense) and those of fundamentalism, fanaticism, rage, and tyranny, - much as I described earlier. We are engaged in a war to ensure that the former, and not the latter, dominates the Islamic world's relations with the West. The stakes are fairly high in this struggle and its dimensions go well beyond either al-Qaeda or Iraq.

Again, just so I get it right - you consider "9/11" a legitimate enough ground for fighting wars against any regime in the Muslim world we consider to represent the values of "fundamentalism, fanaticism, rage, and tyranny"? Basically, as long as the Muslim country we're attacking can be argued to be a "baddie" country, we're in our right, because of 9/11?

Can other countries, in your eyes, legitimately invoke the same standard of "self-defence"?

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Again, just so I get it right - you consider "9/11" a legitimate enough ground for fighting wars against any regime in the Muslim world we consider to represent the values of "fundamentalism, fanaticism, rage, and tyranny"? Basically, as long as the Muslim country we're attacking can be argued to be a "baddie" country, we're in our right, because of 9/11?

Can other countries, in your eyes, legitimately invoke the same standard of "self-defence"?

You have deliberately (and purposefully)over-simplified the proposition, however the basic answer is - Yes.

0 Replies

Just for the record...

There are MANY smart people that work for the government. Many of them have studied international law their entire professional lives and have made lucrative careers out of studying the UN charter and conventions that apply to it. If we have invaded anyone, it was done legally and legitamately.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

You have deliberately (and purposefully)over-simplified the proposition, however the basic answer is - Yes.

No - I'm trying to cut through the smoke and get to the bottom line of what threshhold you're actually proposing when it comes to starting wars.

If I sound a little sharp it expresses mere amazement at what you seem to be proposing, no ill will of any kind.

Apologies for any other impression I may have made.

0 Replies

Nimh,

I appreciate your purpose and accept the integrity of your motives. That's why I gave you a direct answer. It, of course, can be twisted and distorted to "prove" the rightness" of awful things by any of the many sophists of this world (and thread).

I believe there is little that ought to amaze in my view of this matter. One does not have to study much of the history of mankind (and European civilization in particular) to see that it corresponds well with the facts of the behavior of successful civilizations. I don't at all suggest that there is anything in the present conflict that is in any way elevating or desirable. Indeed it is, at best, a grim necessity: better only than the available alternatives.

Perhaps you believe that the world has entered a new era, utterly unlike all that has preceded it. I don't share that view.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Just for the record...

There are MANY smart people that work for the government. [..] If we have invaded anyone, it was done legally and legitamately.

Now that's rhetorics ... <grins>

There's many smart people with similar educations working for the UN and the German, French, etc governments as well ... they disagree. Seems like we're going to have to make up our own minds ;-)

0 Replies

I agree.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

The trials at Nuremberg were victor's justice. The Allies wrote the rules, provided the judges, and conducted the trials. The contemporaneous trials of Japanese generals included some likely serious miscarriages of justice. Together they were certainly better than summary executions of the various leaders, but hardly constitute an enduring model for international law.

Well, yes, Nuremberg and Tokyo were examples of "victor's justice." But the annoying thing about them is that they are "enduring models for international law." Indeed, because the crimes laid out in the indictments took place before the adoption of the UN Charter, the prosecutors made it clear that those acts were prohibited under the state of international law prior to the creation of the UN. In other words, waging aggressive war would contravene international law, regardless of whether there was a UN Charter or not.

georgeob1 wrote:

Indeed it would be very difficult to make the case that the UN is doing any better in the trials of Serbian and Croatian leaders and similarly in the proceedings in Rwanda.

On the contrary, the Hague war crimes tribunal has been enormously successful.

georgeob1 wrote:

Nazi Germany and Japan did indeed engage in aggressive war to control and expropriate new territory and wipe out local populations. Are you suggesting that there is a meaningful similarity between the actions of the U.S. in Iraq and theirs?

I hesitate to tread on this ground for fear of invoking Godwin's Law (even though I'm responsible for bringing up the Nuremberg example in the first place -- my bad). I will, however, say this: Bush, as the victor in this latest war, is very fortunate that war crimes trials are examples of victor's justice.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Just for the record...

There are MANY smart people that work for the government. Many of them have studied international law their entire professional lives and have made lucrative careers out of studying the UN charter and conventions that apply to it. If we have invaded anyone, it was done legally and legitamately.

Is this meant ironically?

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

Perhaps you believe that the world has entered a new era, utterly unlike all that has preceded it. I don't share that view.

This is highly relevant. Many times I feel like I am discussing the modern world with people who can't get over the paradigims (it's a valid use for the word!) of decades past.

Some seem stuck in cold war times and I do not mean this as an insult. After all they could be vindicated by a regression and I could turn out to be the 'idealist'.

But yes, I DO think the world has entered a new era. Unlike all that has preceded it. I can provide thousands (if I had the time, millions) of relevant factors that have never existed before.

Heck have a look at the medium you are communicating on. Has any other era featured such a medium for communication? You would not even be communicating with nimh in another era.

In short yea, it's a new era. You try to make it sound idealistic and romanticised but the bottom line is that it IS a new era.

Disclaimer: which of the old paradigims remain is another question.

0 Replies

The overall economic growth of the U.S. can then be attributed to the Democrats over the past 53 years. Interesting.

0 Replies

Craven,

Yours is an attitude that has been proudly proclaimed many times in recorded history. It has always been proven wrong.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

McGentrix wrote:
Just for the record...

There are MANY smart people that work for the government. [..] If we have invaded anyone, it was done legally and legitamately.

Now that's rhetorics ... <grins>

There's many smart people with similar educations working for the UN and the German, French, etc governments as well ... they disagree. Seems like we're going to have to make up our own minds ;-)

They may disagree, but they are also unable to prove the illegitimacy of our invasion and subsequent occupation. They are right to disagree with it, just as we here have many idealogical disagreements. But, as I am always right here, the US is always right on the world stage*.

*disclaimer for the humor impaired: That last sentence is a joke

0 Replies

George,

That is patently false. Please try to substantiate it.

Like I said, you confuse simple recognition of reality with idealistic romanticizing of the reality.

I know damn well that human nature hasn't changed. The world has, despite your attempt to either ignore the change or downplay its significance.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

There is,of course also the ghastly history of European wars since the start of the 15th century. History is a more or less continuous stream. [..]

Perhaps you believe that the world has entered a new era, utterly unlike all that has preceded it. I don't share that view.

Craven wrote:
yes, I DO think the world has entered a new era. Unlike all that has preceded it.

Craven, Yours is an attitude that has been proudly proclaimed many times in recorded history. It has always been proven wrong.

That's not all true though, I mean - basically, we're talking questions of war, peace, legality and its constraints on the behavior of political entities, right? I'm no expert on pre-20th century times, I must admit, but I don't think there has been quite the continuity you suggest in those matters?

After all - when, at the beginning of the modern era, a world of counts, dukes and kings, defending their respective fiefdoms through more or less freebooter groups of mercenary soldiers, faded out to make place for a reality of standing armies of nation-states, fitted into a system of nation-wide military hierarchy and military discipline, the norms and rules of warfare changed greatly too. A "new era" was ushered in then, too, which led to the formulation of newly applied rules of warfare and accompanying disciplinary measures - both in the realm of states and that of individual soldiers.

This had nothing to do with a change in "the underlying appetites and drives that motivate us humans", but everything with a new resolve of political sovereigns to change the order of military and legal affairs, so as to facilitate an international order that better assured the stability and security of their country, too.

Why would a subsequent change of the times not result in a similar determination to develop ways to better assure international stability and security, considering the existing ones have failed - such as the ways that have been developed gradually, in (flawed) steps, after 1918, 1945 and 1989? New codes, rules and systems to determine such questions of war, peace, legality and its constraints on the behavior of political entities?

(*lol* - I didn't know I'd end up waxing all philosophical when I started this post ;-)

0 Replies

Ann Coulter: Liberal Arguments: Still A Quagmire

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know