What I've heard about Iraq

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:
Immoral: Since the war was designed to insure that a huge number of people would not die some day soon as a consequence of Hussein having retained WMD, it's not invading that would have been immoral.

No, it's immoral to invade and kill dozens, if not over a hundred thousand people just 'in case' someone had a WMD. We basically killed a WMD worth of people to ensure something of which there was significant doubt. Your 'defense by offense' philosophy is sickening.

Not really. A "WMD worth of people" could be as many as a million. In case you've missed it, we're not living in the 1930s anymore. Now we have weapons one single one of which could destroy an entire city. Hussein had had WMD, used them, lied about them, deceived the inspectors, etc. Inexplicably he claimed to have destroyed them, yet had no real evidence that he had done so. In a world with weapons of this sort, and with someone like Hussein, we cannot wait for certainty that might come in the form of a plague spreading through the United States or a mushroom cloud where Los Angeles used to be. Millions of lives could have been snuffed out. We had to be sure. We had been trying to get this guy to verifiably destroy the weapons for a dozen years. You're living in some past world in which military threats comes from a naval armada that lands and uses gunpowder.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:
Illegal: Well first of all, wars have been extralegal and simply assumed to be such for almost all of recorded history. We should never put our defense in the hands of any non-American legislative body. But the invasion probably was "legal" anyway, since it was designed to enforce Hussein's surrender in Gulf War One, and there were UN resolutions preceding it which could be interpreted as authorizing it.

We made an agreement with the UN. We broke that agreement by ignoring their rules. We couldn't wait for other countries to find out information. It was illegal by any means you want to judge wars by. We should be held just as accountable as other gov'ts forced to pay reparations to the populaces they destroy under illegal premises.

Even you, in your delusional world, can see how weak your last line was.

Cycloptichorn

For 99.9% of human history, wars have simply been recognized as inherently extralegal. We must never be held accountable to a foreign legislature for our own defense. But even by your standards, one could make a case that the fact that our attack was to enforce Hussein's Gulf War One surrender treaty, and the fact that recent treaties authorized consequences for non-compliance provided the legality that you want.

0 Replies

Get this through your skull, Brandon!

Offense is not Defense!

We have done almost nothing to defend our borders and our home country. What we are doing is offensive in nature. It is despicable. If we cannot allow others to perpetrate actions which may kill thousands of people, then by the same rationale WE cannot be allowed to perpetrate actions which kill thousands of people.

By your logic, we should kill everyone who isn't an American; we cannot take the chance that one of them could someday hurt us.

Sheesh!

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Get this through your skull, Brandon!

Offense is not Defense!

We have done almost nothing to defend our borders and our home country. What we are doing is offensive in nature. It is despicable. If we cannot allow others to perpetrate actions which may kill thousands of people, then by the same rationale WE cannot be allowed to perpetrate actions which kill thousands of people.

You consistently underestimate the number of deaths that might result from one use of one WMD. If it carried a plague, I can see it wiping out millions. If it were nuclear, and the people who did not die immediately were thrown into the count, certainly the death toll would be at least a hundred thousand, if not more. We have the right just as a matter of self-defense to prevent a latter day Hitler from acquiring these weapons.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

By your logic, we should kill everyone who isn't an American;

How can anything I have ever posted be here be interpreted to mean that all non-Americans should be killed? This is an outrageous lie on your part and if you ignore this question, I will post it again and again until you explain yourself.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

...we cannot take the chance that one of them could someday hurt us.

Sheesh!

Cycloptichorn

Only where there is history and evidence to show that it is a real possibility, not just when it might be theoretically possible.

0 Replies

Who is the judge of this, Brandon? You? I don't think so. I certainly wouldn't put the strategic future of this country in the hands of someone who consistently, and persistently, misunderstands the difference between offense and defense.

We do not have the right to invade countries and kill thousands of people based upon suppositions. Period. You cannot make an argument that we can without returning to the might-makes-right scenario, which basically would make you a facist.

Quote:

How can anything I have ever posted be here be interpreted to mean that all non-Americans should be killed?

You've stated plenty of times that countries cannot be allowed to acquire WMD. The best way to keep them from doing that is to eliminate them all. As you've stated many times, we can't take a single chance with this one. Aren't you concerned with national security, Brandon?

On another note, Show me the steps that have been taken to increase our security here in the states. Significant steps, b/c we all know security is the reason we're at war, so we should have taken great strides in accomplishing this. What has been done?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:
How can anything I have ever posted be here be interpreted to mean that all non-Americans should be killed?

You've stated plenty of times that countries cannot be allowed to acquire WMD. The best way to keep them from doing that is to eliminate them all. As you've stated many times, we can't take a single chance with this one.

I have never stated that "countries cannot be allowed to acquire WMD." Not once. What I have consistently stated is that a few countries all the way to one end of the evil dictator spectrum cannot be allowed to. I have clarified over and over that I do not advocate applying this to most countries.

Now you have done nothing remotely like finding a quotation from me advocating killing all non-Americans, which you have outrageously accused me of advocating. Find a quotation from me that says or implies this, or admit that you are a liar.

0 Replies

Quote:

What I have consistently stated is that a few countries all the way to one end of the evil dictator spectrum cannot be allowed to.

Who draws and decides where this line is? You? Someone else? What if someone decides that we cannot be allowed to? Would you give them the moral right and authority to attack, and lay down your arms?

Let's use a little logic here.

IF WMD are easy for small groups, and not just gov'ts, to get these days

AND according to your claim, any amount of aggression is justified in the name of defense against something that can kill 'millions,'

THEN the only sure way to keep it from happening is to kill everyone who isn't the US.

If you don't kill everyone, you are leaving a chance open for destruction of the US. If you're going to leave chances open for the US to be hurt, then you aren't doing your job in national defense.

This line of reasoning is of course silly, but used to point out how equally silly your 'defense through offense' reasoning is. You cannot show how we are fighting a defensive war, b/c the facts have bourne out that there were no WMD there to defend against. You cannot show how we have significantly increased homeland security, b/c we haven't. Therefore; even you must agree that we are on the offensive.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:
What I have consistently stated is that a few countries all the way to one end of the evil dictator spectrum cannot be allowed to.

Who draws and decides where this line is? You? Someone else? What if someone decides that we cannot be allowed to? Would you give them the moral right and authority to attack, and lay down your arms?

Let's use a little logic here.

IF WMD are easy for small groups, and not just gov'ts, to get these days

AND according to your claim, any amount of aggression is justified in the name of defense against something that can kill 'millions,'

THEN the only sure way to keep it from happening is to kill everyone who isn't the US.

If you don't kill everyone, you are leaving a chance open for destruction of the US. If you're going to leave chances open for the US to be hurt, then you aren't doing your job in national defense.

This line of reasoning is of course silly, but used to point out how equally silly your 'defense through offense' reasoning is. You cannot show how we are fighting a defensive war, b/c the facts have bourne out that there were no WMD there to defend against. You cannot show how we have significantly increased homeland security, b/c we haven't. Therefore; even you must agree that we are on the offensive.

Cycloptichorn

It is kind of a stretch to go from me saying that someone like Hussein cannot be allowed to possess doomsday weapons, to you accusing me of advocating killing all non-Americans because one of them might pose some kind of threat in the future.

0 Replies

So what? You feel perfecly comfortable with deciding who and who not should be in power, which countries can or cannot make what decisions, and what physical objects can or cannot be owned by certain people. It must be nice to have such perspective.

What's to keep someone with your attitude from deciding that everyone who disagrees with America has to go? It's obvious that such an attitude is dangerous.

Now, how about telling me what significant ways we've improved our homeland defenses? B/C, it's a defensive war, as you keep saying.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

All I really need to say on this, is "Thank God Cyclops isn't in charge of our National Defense."

Okay, I'm done.

0 Replies

Hell, I'll second you on that one!

I'd be embarassed to have the job. We have precious little in the way of 'defense' going on these days.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

So what? You feel perfecly comfortable with deciding who and who not should be in power, which countries can or cannot make what decisions, and what physical objects can or cannot be owned by certain people. It must be nice to have such perspective.

What's to keep someone with your attitude from deciding that everyone who disagrees with America has to go? It's obvious that such an attitude is dangerous.

Now, how about telling me what significant ways we've improved our homeland defenses? B/C, it's a defensive war, as you keep saying.

Cycloptichorn

The fact that people make some decisions and feel justified, does not mean that anyone is justified in making any decision. The fact that someone decides that sex offenders must regsiter themselves does not justify someone else in deciding that members of some religion must. The former is reasonable, but the latter is not. The fact that one is justified in opposing some of Nazi Germany's actions does not imply that one is justified in opposing any action of any country. If you are not capable of deciding the difference between right and wrong and acting on it, what good are you?

Homeland security is very inadequate and requires a great deal of future work. On the other hand, we cannot defend every conceivable target against every conceivable form of attack 24x7 forever and hope to be protected. It is simply impossible. Protection will require offense too, pre-emptively attacking some people as they plan our murder or as they plan steps which would probably result in the same thing.

0 Replies

DrewDad wrote:

Moishe3rd wrote:
Obviously, you haven't seen the clips and have no idea of how they were made.

Actually, while I have only viewed a few of the clips, I have read about how the clips were made. Obviously, you are making assumptions that you should not make.

I maintain that while the clips might be interesting, they are only anecdotal evidence. And I believe them to be slanted.

You are free to disagree.

Of course they are anecdotal evidence, you anecdolt.
So is this whole thread, not to mention this whole forum; not to mention almost everything you happen to hear or see or read about Iraq.
What's your point on that?

And they are slanted, how?
In what direction?
By whom?
I suggest you look again...

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

In case you've missed it, we're not living in the 1930s anymore. Now we have weapons one single one of which could destroy an entire city.

Were we in possession of WMDs in the 1930s? Not that I know of, but I'd certainly be happy to learn of them. Of course, in the 1940s we did develop WMDs, known as atomic bombs, which, of course, could destroy an entire city.

Brandon9000 wrote:

For 99.9% of human history, wars have simply been recognized as inherently extralegal.

Er, what? For 99.9% of human history, wars were regarded as heroic endeavors which, by "right of conquest" -- a legal term (though not used throughout that 99.9%) -- could provide you with lots of nice goodies, known as spoils, and most definitely not as "extralegal".

0 Replies

Moishe3rd wrote:

DrewDad wrote:

I maintain that while the clips might be interesting, they are only anecdotal evidence. And I believe them to be slanted.

You are free to disagree.

Of course they are anecdotal evidence, you anecdolt.

I did not give you carte blanch to insult me. Furthermore, I do not find your arguments persuasive.

0 Replies

bayinghound wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
In case you've missed it, we're not living in the 1930s anymore. Now we have weapons one single one of which could destroy an entire city.

Were we in possession of WMDs in the 1930s? Not that I know of, but I'd certainly be happy to learn of them. Of course, in the 1940s we did develop WMDs, known as atomic bombs, which, of course, could destroy an entire city.

My point was that he was engaging in thinking more appropriate to a period in which WMD did not exist, and certainly were not available to small and unsophisticated entities.

bayinghound wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
For 99.9% of human history, wars have simply been recognized as inherently extralegal.

Er, what? For 99.9% of human history, wars were regarded as heroic endeavors which, by "right of conquest" -- a legal term (though not used throughout that 99.9%) -- could provide you with lots of nice goodies, known as spoils, and most definitely not as "extralegal".

Not extralegal, huh? Okay, genius, what international legal approval did the US seek before declaring war in 1941???

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

Not extralegal, huh? Okay, genius, what international legal approval did the US seek before declaring war in 1941???

The authority was asked for from and granted by the US Congress. The US Congress, as you are likely aware, is the legislative arm of our government and its consent is required for declarations of war. Further, the declaration was made completely in accordance with the Geneva Convention and the war was conducted mostly in accordance to the same.

The war was not extralegal ... which means, "that which is beyond the province of law, not regulated by law."

War has, through 99.9% of human history, been declared -- and executed by -- those authorities in charge of shaping and executing the law, who, ipso facto, were acting ipso jure. K, genius?

Brandon9000 wrote:

My point was that he was engaging in thinking more appropriate to a period in which WMD did not exist, and certainly were not available to small and unsophisticated entities.

Fair enough.

0 Replies

bayinghound wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
Not extralegal, huh? Okay, genius, what INTERNATIONAL legal approval did the US seek before declaring war in 1941???

The authority was asked for from and granted by the US Congress. The US Congress, as you are likely aware, is the legislative arm of our government and its consent is required for declarations of war. Further, the declaration was made completely in accordance with the Geneva Convention and the war was conducted mostly in accordance to the same.

The war was not extralegal ... which means, "that which is beyond the province of law, not regulated by law."

War has, through 99.9% of human history, been declared -- and executed by -- those authorities in charge of shaping and executing the law, who, ipso facto, were acting ipso jure. K, genius?

My point was and continues to be that while WW2 was perhaps conducted in accordance with laws on the treatment of prisoners and so on, the US did not and would not have sought anyone else's approval. We went to war simply because we perceived the need to, and any foreign body telling us to stop would certainly have been told to stay out of our affairs. The purpose of my question was to ask you to specify the foreign legal body the approval of which was sought before Congress declared war. We sought no such permission nor would we have granted anyone the ability to have a say. Hence, extra-legal. The historical precedent for countries seeking permission of any foreign body to go to war prior to a few decades ago is almost non-existent. When a country decides it needs to fight a war, it does. Hence my use of the word, extra-legal.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

My point was and continues to be that while WW2 was perhaps conducted in accordance with laws on the treatment of prisoners and so on, the US did not and would not have sought anyone else's approval. We went to war simply because we perceived the need to, and any foreign body telling us to stop would certainly have been told to stay out of our affairs. The purpose of my question was to ask you to specify the foreign legal body the approval of which was sought before Congress declared war. We sought no such permission nor would we have granted anyone the ability to have a say. Hence, extra-legal. The historical precedent for countries seeking permission of any foreign body to go to war prior to a few decades ago is almost non-existent. When a country decides it needs to fight a war, it does. Hence my use of the word, extra-legal.

You appear not to know the meaning of exta-legal.

The meaning of extra-legal is, and I repeat, "that which is beyond the province of law, not regulated by law."

To say that our declaration of war on the Axis in 1941 was extra-legal because we did not appeal to a foreign authority makes no sense. It would be the same as to say that because in the United States we do not appeal to a foreign authority when we prohibit murder is "extra-legal".

Furthermore, there are numerous historical examples of states asking the permission of an international body to wage war. The Medieval period is fraught with such requests from the Pope, for example.

In any case, my point remains that war is neither "extra-legal" now nor, indeed, has it ever been "extra-legal". This is because those in charge of making Law are in charge of making War.

When a country decides to fight a war, it does so legally, because the authorities are legally vested with the power to declare war, which is why, saying that it does so extra-legally is, frankly, nonsense, and to say so repeatedly shows a certain disdain for meaning altogether.

0 Replies

bayinghound wrote:

The meaning of extra-legal is, and I repeat, "that which is beyond the province of law, not regulated by law."...When a country decides to fight a war, it does so legally, because the authorities are legally vested with the power to declare war, which is why, saying that it does so extra-legally is, frankly, nonsense...

It makes perfect sense, because I was referring only to international law. I was not intending to discuss a country's internal mechanisms for initiating war. When it is said these days that the invasion of Iraq was illegal, most of the time, what is meant is a reference to international treaties. When I said that war has usually been considered inherently extra-legal, I was responding to such an assertion, and I meant that throughout history, countries which have conducted wars have rarely attempted to satisfy any international laws or treaties which regulate when they may or may not go to war, even as we did not seek any such foreign permission slip to declare WW 2. My point was that it makes no difference whether we did or did not follow the UN Charter or UN resolutions regarding Iraq, because we ought not to allow ourselves to be governed by international law with respect to initiation of wars. I meant extra-legal with respect to laws between nations. Do you get it yet?

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

When I said that war has usually been considered inherently extra-legal, I was responding to [the assertion that the war on Iraq was illegal], and I meant that throughout history, countries which have conducted wars have rarely attempted to satisfy any international laws or treaties which regulate when they may or may not go to war, even as we did not seek any such foreign permission slip to declare WW 2."

To begin with, whether or not we did not seek foreign permission to declare war in WW2, whether countries have generally sought to satisfy international covenants when declaring war, and whether or not the declaration of war is subject to provisions of international law, and thus "extra-legal", are discrete points, which you have muddled.

In WW2 our declaration of war was firmly within the boundaries of the established conventions of international law. International law (which is not a single straightforward entity, by the way) did not have a provision saying that any country must seek the approval of an international tribunal prior to declaring war. In respect to international law, therefore, our declaration was not "extra-legal". Indeed, a declaration of war itself, as opposed to say, a sneak attack on Pearl Harbor, is an act to satisfy international conventions of war.

Further, throughout 99.9% of history international law did not have a provision saying that any country must seek the approval of an international tribunal prior to declaring war. Therefore, with respect to international law "throughout 99.9% of human history" the declaration of war has not "been recognized as inherently extralegal."

Further, throughout a great portion of history, nations have sought the permission of an international tribunal to wage war, namely the Apostolic See.

Further, though this is beyond whether it is "extra-legal", there is no provision of international law to which the United States is subject that says that a country must surrender its sovereign right to declare war to a foreign body.

If you meant to say that the US ought not to surrender its sovereign right to wage war to a foreign authority, well, then, I agree with you, but it has basically little relationship to ...

Brandon9000 wrote:

For 99.9% of human history, wars have simply been recognized as inherently extralegal.

which, if it were true, would strongly butress your argument from the perspective of precedent. But, in fact, it is not true.

0 Replies

What I've heard about Iraq

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know