Bush Supporters' Aftermath Thread IV

FreeDuck wrote:

I don't know, I think it is a fair conclusion. I'm embracing your practicality argument. Whether or not what we did, or what any of the nations did in your examples, was legal, the fact is that nothing will be done about it. No stink will be made. It is defacto legal.

Quote:
Right or wrong are at best determined in an historical context based on an analysis of motivation and outcome.

Yes, but you yourself say that it's not right or wrong but legality that we are talking about. And further that legality is practically determined by enforceability.

I realize there is considerably more to what you have to say, but doesn't it really all come down to that?

I'm not arguing with you one way or the other, btw. I really don't know whether what we did was legal or not. I happen to believe it was wrong because it wasn't in self defense (I believe) and actually was against our self interest long term. But I realize that those are my (idealistic) opinions based on my values.

I don't think we really have any argument. I bvelieve Foxfire and the others are locked in an intense, but basically meaningless argument over legality in which both contending sides confuse the legality issue with competing interpretations of what is right or wrong.

The UN is an association of sovereign nations. It is not the government of the world. Moreover considering its inherent limitations and the many contradictions it must deal with, not to mention the venality and corruption that have crepr in through many decades, it can be truly dangerous to assume that it can function as one.

Perhaps we agree that the rightness or wrongness of our actions in Iraq will await the judgement of history. We shall see if our long-term interests were well-served, just as we shall see the long term effects of what is advocated by those who oppose the war.

Almost none of our wars were motivated purely by self-defense. Certainly our wars with Mexico and Spain involved no self defense. We voluntarily entered WWI in the niave assumption that we would somehow end all wars, when in fact we were duped by the British & French to put our cannon fodder into the Western Front so that they could withdraw hundreds of thousands of troops from Europe to put into their campaign for empire in Mesopotamia and Syria (the precursor to our present troubles in that region). Our President had been actively campaigning to get us involved in WWII for at least three years before the Japanese finally solved his political problem by attacking Pearl Harbor. I think the only war we have fought that can be truly described as involving only self defense was the early 19th century campaign against the Barbary Pirates of Tunis, Algeirs and Morrocco.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

I think the only war we have fought that can be truly described as involving only self defense was the early 19th century campaign against the Barbary Pirates of Tunis, Algeirs and Morrocco.

At least that was the beginning of the US Navy .... and the start of the US military presence around the world.

(I like the [in German] name American-Tripolitan Wars - better than Barbary Wars, btw.)

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

I don't think we really have any argument. I bvelieve Foxfire and the others are locked in an intense, but basically meaningless argument over legality in which both contending sides confuse the legality issue with competing interpretations of what is right or wrong.

The UN is an association of sovereign nations. It is not the government of the world. Moreover considering its inherent limitations and the many contradictions it must deal with, not to mention the venality and corruption that have crepr in through many decades, it can be truly dangerous to assume that it can function as one.

Perhaps we agree that the rightness or wrongness of our actions in Iraq will await the judgement of history. We shall see if our long-term interests were well-served, just as we shall see the long term effects of what is advocated by those who oppose the war.

Almost none of our wars were motivated purely by self-defense. Certainly our wars with Mexico and Spain involved no self defense. We voluntarily entered WWI in the niave assumption that we would somehow end all wars, when in fact we were duped by the British & French to put our cannon fodder into the Western Front so that they could withdraw hundreds of thousands of troops from Europe to put into their campaign for empire in Mesopotamia and Syria (the precursor to our present troubles in that region). Our President had been actively campaigning to get us involved in WWII for at least three years before the Japanese finally solved his political problem by attacking Pearl Harbor. I think the only war we have fought that can be truly described as involving only self defense was the early 19th century campaign against the Barbary Pirates of Tunis, Algeirs and Morrocco.

I think we are in agreement, including about your assessment of our past wars, though I could make an argument that the definition of "self defense" and "interests" could be stretched to cover WWII and possibly others. But I don't think I'd start that argument with you, george, as you definitely have the upper hand with regard to history.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

I have nothing further to add to the "legality" debate. The issue comes down to a dispute between those who argue that no action is ever permissable without an explicit enabling resolution from the Security Council detailing in explicit terms what can be done, and those who argue that sovereign nations retain the right to act in their self-defense and interest, broadly defined. There is no reconciling these disparate points of view - they rest on how one interprets the UN Charter and how one imagines the world really works.

In that case, if I understand you correctly, the proper conservative response would be "so what if the war was illegal? There are more important values than always obeying international law." Indeed, if we were talking about NATO's war against Serbia, I would even agree. That war one arguably was illegal, and probably was justified by considerations other than legality under international law.

But in my experience, "so what?" is not the response one usually gets from Republicans when one challenges the legality of the Iraq war. Most Republicans I know maintain that attacking Iraq was a legal move after all. Is that a false impression I have of Republicans?

0 Replies

GeorgeOb1 writes

Quote:

I don't think we really have any argument. I bvelieve Foxfire and the others are locked in an intense, but basically meaningless argument over legality in which both contending sides confuse the legality issue with competing interpretations of what is right or wrong.

If it appears that I have been arguing an issue of legality, I definitely need to brush up on my communications skills as that was certainly not my intent. I think I have been consistent that there is no legal authority but our own that determines whether we (or any other sovereign nation) may or may not go to war. On the issue of legality, my only observation is that there has been no UN resolution or statement that has pronounced the invasion of Iraq as an illegal act despite the cacophony from Bush-bashers declaring it illegal because there was no UN resolution authorizing it.

My point here is to defend the President who did not make the choice without foundation or broad concurrence re the reasons for it as those on the Left maintain, and to defend him and the troops now in an effort to bring a positive and lasting conclusion to the war. They would have us admit defeat now, tuck our tails, and go home so that Bush's humiliation will be complete. I do not see that as a worthy goal and will continue to say so.

There will be plenty of time later for post mortems on whether the invasion was or was not a dumb move. The time for that is not now when we have boots on the ground in harms way. We either root for the team to win or we condemn them to defeat. There are way too many out there who really seem to want that defeat so they are justified in their condemnation of the Commander in Chief.

0 Replies

The British at least thought it imperative to get a UN resolution authorising an armed incursion into Iraq. That's why so much effort and time was expended, pre facto, in trying to obtain one.
That's partly why so many lies were spun, trying to get one.

British generals knew that they could be hauled before an international tribunal, without one, on charges of war crimes. They said so.

Our chief law officer, Mr Blair's old friend, perjured himself in stating that the attack would be legal if we went ahead without one. The "judgement" by which he claimed to come to that conclusion is a very dubious piece of work, by all accounts.

0 Replies

Your laws may be different. Ours allows the President to deploy troops on his own authority and requires consent of Congress for prolonged deployment and only Congress can declare war. Our President has fulfilled all legal requirements in this regard and did so before he deployed the troops. Congress has consistently provided funding for the effort as I presume so has Parliament in Britain and this is also a form of consent.

That some now bow to pressure from Bush-hating armschair quarterbacks or think it is politically advantageous to now say they were somehow deceived and if they had only known, they would never have agreed to the invasion is not only dishonest but despicable. By saying this they admit they are either liars or they are completely incompetent. Every last one of them should be voted out of office.

0 Replies

Yes, our laws are different; the president must get the approval of congress because that's the only way wars are funded.

The Iraq war is an exception, because the information Bush and his administration shared with congress were erroneous, misrepresented, and speculative. We don't start wars on wrong info; that should be a crime against humanity.

We all know now that Bush lied when he said congress had the same intel.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

In that case, if I understand you correctly, the proper conservative response would be "so what if the war was illegal? There are more important values than always obeying international law." Indeed, if we were talking about NATO's war against Serbia, I would even agree. That war one arguably was illegal, and probably was justified by considerations other than legality under international law.

But in my experience, "so what?" is not the response one usually gets from Republicans when one challenges the legality of the Iraq war. Most Republicans I know maintain that attacking Iraq was a legal move after all. Is that a false impression I have of Republicans?

Thomas, perhaps I am not accurately following your meaning here.. In the first place, I have demonstrated that the legality question is basically unanswerable and that most of the arguments surrounding it are merely the rhetorical devices used so abundantly on both sides as a mask for their perceptions of right or wrong. I don't speak for "most Republicans" , however I have more or less equal contempt for the legality arguments put forward on both sides of this issue.

Your example of Bosnia is certainly apt, though I'm not sure what was your point in making it. Do you intend it an an example of the insufficiency of the "legality" question in some real world situations? If so, then we agree, at least in part.

I do not view the Security Council as the sole source of legality in making war. The observable actions of the world's major powers from China to Russia, Germany, France, Britain, Spain , The United States, and many others have repeatedly demonstrated their willingness to use military force without any reference tio the Security Council over the decades since WWII. Consider the Chinese war with Vietnam in the mid 70s , Russias many incursions into its former empire and of course the Soviet adventures; Britain and France's colonial wars and the French proclivity to use military force in their Francophione former colonies in Africa --- I could list numerous other examples. The obvious conclusion is that the Security Council is decidedly not a reliable source of what is accepted as law by the community of sovereign nations.

0 Replies

Well, France has in most - if not all, to lazy to look it - former colonies a permanent military presence, under the terms of a defense agreement.

Those defense agreement are with all - pergaps the one or other exclusion former colonies since they became independent.

Despite that small addentum I kind of agree with with the conclusions of your response.

0 Replies

Oh, and some wars after WWII are commonly called wars - but a war was never declared: e.g. the Falkland war, the football war ...

0 Replies

...like "police action"...

0 Replies

McTag wrote:

The British at least thought it imperative to get a UN resolution authorising an armed incursion into Iraq. That's why so much effort and time was expended, pre facto, in trying to obtain one.
That's partly why so many lies were spun, trying to get one.

British generals knew that they could be hauled before an international tribunal, without one, on charges of war crimes. They said so.

Our chief law officer, Mr Blair's old friend, perjured himself in stating that the attack would be legal if we went ahead without one. The "judgement" by which he claimed to come to that conclusion is a very dubious piece of work, by all accounts.

A sniveling search for cover is not the same thing as principled virtue.

It is certainly true that in one of the more ironically amusing events of the century, the British military establishment, the former policemen of the world and bearer of the white man's burden, and just seventy years earlier the (almost) conquorer of Mesopotamia, - suddenly discovered its inner virtures and longing for probity. Never mind that the truth was that it didn't trust its politicians enough to be willing to carry out the intended policy of its government. Virtue??? Hardly.

0 Replies

It is certainly true that President Bush has failed to mobilize enduring national or international support for his "War on Terror" or the intervention in Iraq he initiated. The Afghanistan operation has been more successful as has his approach to the containment of the lunatic regime of North Korea. However, the failures appear to dominate the scene now.

Bush's rhetorical deficiencies are evident and they may, as some fear, indicate deeper strains of belligerence and misplaced zeal. Alternatively they may be merely superficial. Time will tell and historical figures very often appear very different in the light of history from the contemporary evaluations of them. Harry Truman was reviled, even considered a national embarrassment while he was in office: the judgement of history is entirely different. Similarly John F. Kennedy, who was the darling of the media and public mind throughout the western world, is now seen as woefully unprepared to deal with the serious issues before him and very seriously lacking in judgement on key issues that plagued the country for decades afterwards.

We can't know the thoughts and inner motivations of our elected leaders. We can, however judge the likely merit and effect of their actions. I am very skeptical of criticisms based on the presumption that the critic can somehow see the inner man, his thoughts and motives. Experience warns that this is a hallmark of prejudgement or positions taken based on other, unstated motives - inherently suspect and unreliable.

I believe that we are faced with a challenge presented by a dysfunctional\, unstable and outraged Moslem world, whose roots go back to centuries of conflict, colonialism and exploitation, mostly at the hands of the Western European powers and Russia. I believe the matter of Israel adds to the problem significantly, but that even without it we would still be faced with this challenge.

I believe the United States has been excessively and uncritically supportive of the worst impulses of Israeli governments - and Bush has continued that pattern. This is an evident result of the domestic political action of Jewish Americans determined to create a Zionist homeland at all costs. The contemporary absence of such domestic political forces in the nations of Europe is an obvious result of their actions and complicity in exterminating their Jewish populations during WWII - hardly a virtue on their part.

I also believe there is an element in American historical culture, one that goes back to the Puritan settlers in New England, that tends to interpret our own situation in biblical terms - seeing the Protestant settlers as a chosen people themselves in search of Zion. This may also be a factor in our too unquestioning support of the excesses of israeli governments.

For all its errors and past excesses, I believe the West has much to offer the world and is right to decisively meet the challenge of a resurgent but deranged Islam. It is simply a fact that this must be done in an environment of rapid change in Asia; poverty and stagnation in Africa; and increasing competition for natural resources.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

On the issue of legality, my only observation is that there has been no UN resolution or statement that has pronounced the invasion of Iraq as an illegal act despite the cacophony from Bush-bashers declaring it illegal because there was no UN resolution authorizing it.

Please compare your words with the words of the UN Secretary General:

Quote:

UNITED NATIONS, Sept. 16 -- The United States and its military allies Thursday challenged U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan's statement that last year's invasion of Iraq was an illegal act that violated the U.N. charter, and they defended their decision to topple Saddam Hussein's government.

Annan made his comments Wednesday when a reporter for the BBC questioned him about the war's legality, saying, "From our point of view and the U.N. charter point of view, it was illegal." The U.N. chief previously voiced his opposition to the invasion on the grounds that it lacked Security Council approval, which he says is required by the U.N. charter, and has challenged White House claims that the war has made the world safer from international terrorists.

source

0 Replies

georgeob, The Afghanistan war is not more successful. The Taliban and al Qaida is growing, and more of the warlords are controlling that country than the government. If that's a win, I'm not sure how that's determined.

0 Replies

Bush Promises Strong Effort to Counter Resurgent Taliban
U.S. to Extend Troop Increase in Afghanistan, Take Fight to Enemy Forces Before Their Spring Offensive

By Peter Baker and Karen DeYoung
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, February 16, 2007; Page A15

President Bush vowed yesterday to make a sustained new military and political effort to beat back resurgent Taliban forces as he turned his attention back to Afghanistan and a conflict that has been overshadowed for the past couple of years by the larger war in Iraq.

Bush announced that he will extend a temporary increase of 3,200 U.S. troops in Afghanistan "for the foreseeable future" and urged Congress to give him $11.8 billion more to accelerate training, reconstruction and counter-narcotics programs. He also insisted that NATO allies should drop restrictions on their forces in Afghanistan and join the fight against Islamic extremists.

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
On the issue of legality, my only observation is that there has been no UN resolution or statement that has pronounced the invasion of Iraq as an illegal act despite the cacophony from Bush-bashers declaring it illegal because there was no UN resolution authorizing it.

Please compare your words with the words of the UN Secretary General:

Quote:
UNITED NATIONS, Sept. 16 -- The United States and its military allies Thursday challenged U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan's statement that last year's invasion of Iraq was an illegal act that violated the U.N. charter, and they defended their decision to topple Saddam Hussein's government.

Annan made his comments Wednesday when a reporter for the BBC questioned him about the war's legality, saying, "From our point of view and the U.N. charter point of view, it was illegal." The U.N. chief previously voiced his opposition to the invasion on the grounds that it lacked Security Council approval, which he says is required by the U.N. charter, and has challenged White House claims that the war has made the world safer from international terrorists.

source

Why? How does what he said have anything to do with what I said? Or do you consider Kofi Annan to BE the United Nations? Given his track record, wouldn't that worry you a bit if that was true? If not, I suggest you petition your government to put him in charge of all German policy, security, and all economic matters.

And let's mark this post as another evidence that you continue to be unresponsive to what I did say.

0 Replies

Don't you realize you are wasting your time, OE?

Fox -

Quote:

On the issue of legality, my only observation is that there has been no UN resolution or statement that has pronounced the invasion of Iraq as an illegal act

Annan -

Quote:

Annan made his comments Wednesday when a reporter for the BBC questioned him about the war's legality, saying, "From our point of view and the U.N. charter point of view, it was illegal."

You are 100% wrong. Your pathetic counter argument is akin to claiming that Bush doesn't speak for America. Just admit it and move on rather than continuing the foolishness, for once.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

McTag wrote:
The British at least thought it imperative to get a UN resolution authorising an armed incursion into Iraq. That's why so much effort and time was expended, pre facto, in trying to obtain one.
That's partly why so many lies were spun, trying to get one.

British generals knew that they could be hauled before an international tribunal, without one, on charges of war crimes. They said so.

Our chief law officer, Mr Blair's old friend, perjured himself in stating that the attack would be legal if we went ahead without one. The "judgement" by which he claimed to come to that conclusion is a very dubious piece of work, by all accounts.

A sniveling search for cover is not the same thing as principled virtue.

It is certainly true that in one of the more ironically amusing events of the century, the British military establishment, the former policemen of the world and bearer of the white man's burden, and just seventy years earlier the (almost) conquorer of Mesopotamia, - suddenly discovered its inner virtures and longing for probity. Never mind that the truth was that it didn't trust its politicians enough to be willing to carry out the intended policy of its government. Virtue??? Hardly.

George, sometimes you still have the capacity to surprise.
Snivelling search for cover, you say? I think a little prejudice is showing through.

You have misunderstood my post, which was nothing to do with "virtue". Simply, legality or otherwise of the proposed action.

They needed to be assured it was legal. They thought it was illegal. I do, too.

0 Replies

Bush Supporters' Aftermath Thread IV

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know