JamesMorrison wrote:Craven de Kere, Thanks for your response.
I do feel I understand your analogy to my logic where you state in your post of Thu May 15, 2003 10:33 am:
Quote:"The logic you employ would suggest that should any thug indicate to you what they want you to do if you want to stay alive (say, leave your house and take your kinds) and if it is not done to the thug's liking and he kills you it was your responsibility."
Analogies are subjective indeed. Replace logic wiith thinking and my sentence would have been a safer one.
JamesMorrison wrote:This analogy seems to imply the thug is the U.S. and the wording obviously implies Iraq's leaders as those whose lives are at risk if the premises are not vacated. I accept that.
Given this analogy is supposed to be mapped onto the Iraqi situation pre-war I perceive a different analogy:
The police (U.S.) demand the thug (Saddam) to throw out his shotgun that he presently is using to hold his kids (Iraqi people) hostage. If not, the police inform him they cannot guarantee him or the kids safe passage. This is an especially tense situation because the police have intelligence from his recently escaped wife that the thug has already used the weapon on his only daughter and step-son who resided in the Northern and Southern section of the house respectfully.
I guess our difference lies in the legitimacy of the authority demanding eviction. As an exercise let's assume the UN decided it had to take military action and did so thereby affording any UN chosen coalition to possess legal authority. This would allow us to substitute the moniker "UN" for "thug" in your analogy and "Police" in mine.
Not in my opinon. I do not equate the US with the UN. I'd posit that it misses the point entirely yet illustrates it at the same time. We'll have to disagree in the mandate we percieve the US to have and whether an entity that chooses to award itself authority is in any way comprable to an entity that, despite it's inadequacies in the minds of some, is representative of the will of a far greater majority in the world, which would be the neighborhood in our analogies.
Mandate is paramount to my analogy. I do not seek to equate the US to thugery but the main defense against thuggery is that the desire of individuals does not supercede the desires of the whole.
JamesMorrison wrote:
Quote:"I maintain that the justifications for the war along the lines of "we told them what to do to avoid it" both ignore the question of whether those warnings were given at a point of no return as well as ignore the question of whether the demands that allegedly transfer all the responsibility of a pre-emptive invasion to the invaded are using some outstandingly convenient logic."
Perhaps we might substitute the "we" with "The UN" would this remove the sting for some? Being the French were factually in the sole position of making the military conflict either "illegal", by casting their veto, or legal, by a positive vote, under the UN umbrella could one consider the UN's legal military action against Iraq "Unilateral"?
Once the war was obviously not going to be rubber stamped by the UN the US avoided the UN and sought to place as much blame on France. I posit that your above question ignores Germany (yes, no veto) and Russia's positions. More importantly it was overwhelmingly unpopular among the citizenry of most nations, even some whose government bucked public opinion.
Among the neighbors of the nation that was a "regional threat" the war was popular in very few corners.
I don't seek to be pedantic but I find the analogy severey flawed. If you seek to call the US the policeman maybe it would be relevant to note the lack of jurisdiction, the protected neighbors not wishing the self appointed sherrif's actions and the district court refusing to grant authority, despite the low opinion the self proclaimed sherrif has of the court.
JamesMorrison wrote:Of course if one is of the belief that "War should never be an option" my efforts at persuasion are for naught.
One is not, one has a hearty interest in war. One simply places great import on the
casus belli and the rule of law. One finds that if actions justified to few, despite the degee to which it is rationalized by some and considered justified, and is permissible one has litle recourse against anyone with strong convictions and the ability to implement his desires. When one is in agreement with the objective it is undertandably not as much of an issue as when one does not agree with the issue but simply lacks the brute force to thwart it. One also likes saying one, it makes one happy and one smiles cheesily.
And when the neighborhood realized that Mr Smith can do what he wants despite the court's rulings it's plausible that there will be cause for concern. See, Mr Smith's kids might not find Mr Smith's authority as a threat but that does not justify it to the neighborhood.
JamesMorrison wrote:There is another concept which states something like " The U.S should have waited for...X... before taking action". This assumes to ignore the belief stated just above and implies the U.S. should have acted and just questions reasons and timing thereby relegating the decision to a judgment call.
Hardly a logical conflict, it should have waited until the UN approval, which would have been forthcoming if the US could prove that their accusations of WMD possesion, the
casus belli, were truthful. Yet the evidence was not disclosed at that time and seems to still be classified with the US inspectors also not afforded access to the intel that was referenced with such absolute certainty while seeking the legal justification for war.
Unless the intel was vague and subjective enough that the intel could not have been maintained and the WMDs that were alledged with certainty slipped through the now combing fingers I might add.
JamesMorrison wrote:I don't agree with the U.S.'s initial diplomatic handling of this, it makes me suspicious. I won't presume to speak for you but my argument begins at the moment GW stated we would "disarm Iraq no matter what". Yours seems to start sometime before that.
I'd not mind you speaking for me if it resembled my opinion, if you look up my comments dating back more than a year ago on other forums you will see that i had one simple precondition.
Convince the world that it is necessary. Convince the world that the alledged threat to their security is real. Then convince them that the war was the best way to go about it. pre-emption is a tricky patch to navigate, I simply like more in way of checks and balances to such actions. I find the lack of said checks and balances to be more of a threat to security than WMDs have shown to have been.
I am simply glad I'm not on the wrong end of the ability to act upon individual interests.
I too think this thread would be diminished by her departure.