# Bush: "we misnamed the war on terror"



## joaquim (17 Aug 2004)

Hello everyone, 

Something important happened during an electoral debate between Bush and Kerry 10 days ago (link below). Bush said: 

"We actually misnamed the war on terror. It ought to be the struggle against ideological extremists who do not believe in free societies, who happen to use terror as a weapon to try to shake the conscience of the free world. "

Wow! That was step #1 in the winning of this war. And journalists, as usual, did not get the point. 

Everything the western world has done since Sept 2001 has merely postponed the fight. Step #2 is to correctly rename this war. Step#3 is to bring new types of weapons, i.e. ideological (including theological). Step #4 is to recruit the majority of the democratic world in this fight (many special interest lobbies have done it, it can be done again). Step #5 is to be persistent, because they have been around for a long time: the extremist ideology Bush is talking about is the same that drove the Saracens, the Moors and the Turks to invade medieval Europe.

A concerned civilian.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/july-dec04/snapshot_8-6.html


----------



## scm77 (17 Aug 2004)

FYI it wasn't a debate.

FYI2, that really isn't that important.  They're basically the same thing.  Instead of the "war on terror" it should be called war on "idealouge extremeists who commit terror".  No big deal.


----------



## Fusaki (17 Aug 2004)

The problem with waging a war on "Terrorism" is that its such a huge grey area with no specific enemy. Bush's new definition means nothong new. In my opinion, someone has to come out and set a concrete goal for this war. Why fight if you don't have a standard for success?


----------



## scm77 (17 Aug 2004)

There is a standard for success.  The war will be successfull when all terrorists/violent islamic extremeists are whiped off the earth.  Which as everyone knows will take decades.


----------



## Gunnerlove (17 Aug 2004)

I can believe the link between terrorism and the Taliban. Without a doubt they were/are a group of religious fanatics and through their actions or inaction sponsored state sanctioned terrorism against other nations. Thus the invasion of Afghanistan could be and was justified to the world.
Now Saddam was a brutal dictator but to call him a religious fanatic is not consistent with his actions or policies throughout his term. If he was going to strip women of their rights then he had what thirty years to do it. The man drank and collected wine, not something a fanatical Muslim would do. The stereotype just does not fit. It is far to easy to label Saddam and the combatants in Iraq as "ideological extremists", and that is what the media reports because it makes for black and white easy to digest news. 

Now my question would be who are they at war with in Iraq? 

joaquim everheard of the Spanish Inquisition or the war on witchcraft? were they great examples of ignoring ideology in the face of reason on the part of Christians? Or the fruit of ignorance?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (17 Aug 2004)

scm77 said:
			
		

> There is a standard for success. The war will be successfull when all terrorists/violent islamic extremeists are whiped off the earth. Which as everyone knows will take decades.



Why not" when all terrorist/violent extremists are wiped off the earth" ?    PS. Use the spellcheck


----------



## Gunnerlove (17 Aug 2004)

So this is just a war against Islamic terrorists? Now I get it. All others are free to roam.

America is still coming to grips with the changing face of fear. For the longest time the enemy was Communism and you could sum up your enemies by naming the handfull of countries with a different economic system. You could control and influence nations with economic sanctions and the threat of nuclear annihilation.

Now since Sept 11 you have learned of a new enemy, the individual. The individual is very frightening because you can't really go to war with an individual, or use economic sanctions or the threat of destruction to control an individual. But you can ride the bus with an individual work with an individual etc. Just look at the Beltway sniper. 

A nation did not blow up the trains in Spain it was individuals. Kind of like it was individuals that blew up the Ryder truck in Oklahoma.


----------



## scm77 (17 Aug 2004)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Why not" when all terrorist/violent extremists are wiped off the earth" ?   PS. Use the spellcheck



You are correct.  Religion shouldn't be a factor.  I apologize.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (17 Aug 2004)

Gunnerlove said:
			
		

> Now Saddam was a brutal dictator but to call him a religious fanatic is not consistent with his actions or policies throughout his term. If he was going to strip women of their rights then he had what thirty years to do it. The man drank and collected wine, not something a fanatical Muslim would do. The stereotype just does not fit. It is far to easy to label Saddam and the combatants in Iraq as "ideological extremists", and that is what the media reports because it makes for black and white easy to digest news.



I don't see where anyone is calling Saddam a "religious fanatic": the point is that Saddam and these religious extremists share a totalitarian aspect to their ideologies and use terrorism (i.e., attacks directed at civilians) as the means to further their ends.

Much as years ago the Royal Navy declared wars on Slavery and Piracy, the enemy is the idea itself: those that participate in, benefit from and/or support the idea are only the targets.  This can be a difficult concept to grasp (there have been numerous articles published which incorrectly suppose that war cannot be declared on 'an idea'), so I suspect that Bush was only trying to simplify the concept by creating a more tangible enemy.  The notion that terrorist attacks are often carried-out at the individual level, while terrifying (and certainly increasing the need for vigilance), is only incidental to the concept.


----------



## Fusaki (17 Aug 2004)

My point is that there isn't much to distinguish a "terrorist" from any other enemy of the state.

Terrorism is not limited to attacks on civilians, not in the mainstream definition anyways. The USS Cole is proof of this. Even ourselves as a civilized western nation have resorted to attacking civilians only 50 years ago during the carpet bombing missions WW2. I'd say that our parents and grandparents arn't barbaric, just desperate to win the war. The targets of terrorists are not the distinguishing factor here.

The term "Terrorist" does not apply to all non-soldier combatants either. We are perfectly willing to train revolutionaries while at war. As well, there are also Terrorist nations. If uniformed soldiers or intelligence agents support a terrorist government, that would make them terrorists as well.

The term "War on Terrorism" could easily mean war against anyone who is willing to take violent action against the west. What about a foreigner who has been granted amnesty by a country that has a less then violent disagreement with the west? Do we go to war with them too? At that rate, we will be alienated from the rest of the world in no time.

Without a clear definition of who are terrorists, how can you defeat them? The first step to problem solving is to identify the problem. But sometimes it seems like the need to avenge the deaths of 9/11 is getting in the way of a thought out strategy.


----------



## Brad Sallows (18 Aug 2004)

Enough of the problem has been identified to start work.  The niggling over details can be done concurrently.


----------



## Gunnerlove (18 Aug 2004)

Ghostwalk good points and I really liked the last paragraph. 

John while I do believe you can go to war against an idea I doubt success can be achieved. If an idea could be defeated I would not believe Darwin is right and the KKK would not hate everyone. Your two examples would be wars against the acts of slavery and piracy not the ideas. We have been trying to stop slavery and piracy (let alone the idea of both) for centuries and we have failed.

Trying to create a tangible enemy makes sense only when you can't identify a your real enemies, and in the war against terrorism they are individuals with ideas and beliefs not nations.


----------



## dutchie (18 Aug 2004)

I have tried to make similar points to Gunner and Ghostwalk on previous threads, but due to poor choice of words (mine) and an obstenant audience, I was unsuccessful in convincing anyone of anything (my ranking shows the effect of this). 

I will try and make my points again:

The War on Terror is separate from the War in Iraq. The WOT legitimately is targeting Terrorists in general, and Al-Quaida/Bin Laden specifically. The War in Iraq is directed at Saddam Hussein, a dictator who has brutalized his own people, but has done nothing to the US other than thumb his nose at them. He also has no known strong ties to Al-Quaida or any other terrorists group. 

The West was justified in attacking Afghanistan/Taliban as there were clear links between Afghanistan, the Taliban, Bin Laden, and 9/11. 

The US et all were not justified in invading Iraq because there is no evidence he possessed or was attempting to acquire WMD, nor was he planning any attacks on the US/West (other than Israel, which pretty much the entire Middle East despises).

The US has done to Iraq what Iraq did to Kuwait in 1991. They invaded a much weaker sovereign country with no provocation, under false/fabricated pretenses.

This is MHO


----------



## Brad Sallows (18 Aug 2004)

>He also has no known strong ties to Al-Quaida or any other terrorists group.

I see the message has changed.  It used to just be "no known ties".

Have you considered the possibility that an attack on Iraq - by anyone who cared to do so - was always justified provided Hussein was removed?


----------



## axeman (18 Aug 2004)

in other persons eyes the attack on  so-damned insane  was also terrorism ? the police go stop resisting arrest when they start to wail on you but what happens when some one goes stop assaulting me ?


----------



## dutchie (18 Aug 2004)

Brad - In short: No.

The end does not justify the means. Just as beating a suspect to illicit a confession is not justified. (Not that I am equating these two things). I do not see the removal of a foreign dictator as the business of anyone except the citizens whom he rules over. The exception being when that dictator threatens others outside his nation to a significant enough extent to justify the carnage resluting from war. The other exception being crimes against humanity (Genocide, etc) within a nation (ie - Rwanda). In this case, the immediate issue (and the focus of the 'liberators') should not be the removal of the Dictator, but the cessation of the genocide.


Re: "I see the message has changed"......please explain. I didn't modify my post......so are you saying I have changed my wording from a previous thread? If so, I freely admit to changing my choice of words, the reasons for which were explained in my original post.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (18 Aug 2004)

joaquim said:
			
		

> "We actually misnamed the war on terror. It ought to be the struggle against ideological extremists who do not believe in free societies, who happen to use terror as a weapon to try to shake the conscience of the free world. "



Well, joaquim, I agree with you.  I think the statement was important, but the underlying message even more important.  

The War on Terror is a far too distant term and allows citizens to see it as something the government handles at arm's length and shouldn't affect their daily lives.

Bush's restatement is far more accurate and if carried by the media should make the threat far more personal which it needs to be.




Matthew.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (19 Aug 2004)

> Your two examples would be wars against the acts of slavery and piracy not the ideas. We have been trying to stop slavery and piracy (let alone the idea of both) for centuries and we have failed.


I am talking about the legitimacy of the ideas, not their existence per se. I'm not trying to claim that they no longer exist at all, but rather than both slavery and piracy are nowhere near the problem they once were: it wasn't the case that all slave owners or all pirates had to be killed in order to de-legitimize the ideas.  There no longer are 'state sponsors' of slavery or piracy.  As with terrorism, there were always slave-traders and pirates 'within our midst,' but the menace to society that they represent has been greatly reduced.  To me, this is clear precedent for the war on terrorism and what victory will entail (similarly, there is still the odd Nazi running-around, but that doesn't mean that WW2 wasn't won).



> He [Saddam Hussein] also has no known strong ties to Al-Quaida or any other terrorists group.


Strong, or otherwise this is patently and demonstrably false.  If you want an intelligent debate, I suggest doing a little research before tossing-out conjecture as fact: even a basic Google search.  Here's two articles about Saddam's relationship with Abu Nidal: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/08/25/wnidal25.xml ; and Palestinian suicide bombers: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/04/03/world/main505316.shtml



> I do not see the removal of a foreign dictator as the business of anyone except the citizens whom he rules over.  The exception being when that dictator threatens others outside his nation to a significant enough extent to justify the carnage resulting from war.


Well Saddam has a very long history of threatening â Å“others outside his nationâ ? and there was no indication that he was about stop.  He was certainly aiding and abetting terrorism, even if you buy the rather implausible â Å“he no longer had any interest in WMDâ ? line.



> The other exception being crimes against humanity (Genocide, etc) within a nation (ie - Rwanda). In this case, the immediate issue (and the focus of the 'liberators') should not be the removal of the Dictator, but the cessation of the genocide.


And then what?

In any event: 





> Enough of the problem has been identified to start work.  The niggling over details can be done concurrently.


100%


P.S> Gunnerlove, this is not a problem or a complaint, but my nickname is I_am_John_Galt, which is a reference to a character in a book (Atlas Shrugged); it took me off guard to be addressed as â Å“John,â ? and so took me a bit to realize you were responding directly to me.  Regards, Tim


----------



## dutchie (19 Aug 2004)

I_am_John_Galt said:
			
		

> Strong, or otherwise this is patently and demonstrably false.   If you want an intelligent debate, I suggest doing a little research before tossing-out conjecture as fact: even a basic Google search.   Here's two articles about Saddam's relationship with Abu Nidal: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/08/25/wnidal25.xml ; and Palestinian suicide bombers: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/04/03/world/main505316.shtml
> 
> 
> Well Saddam has a very long history of threatening â Å“others outside his nationâ ? and there was no indication that he was about stop.   He was certainly aiding and abetting terrorism, even if you buy the rather implausible â Å“he no longer had any interest in WMDâ ? line.
> ...



I specifically chose the word "strong" for a reason. It is easy to paint a picture with paper trails, mysterious intel sources, etc that Saddam had ties to terrorists. It is quite another story to support these accusations with real proof (ie-Taliban/Bin Laden). The burden of proof required to invade Iraq was not met to a satisfactory level. Saddam had no stronger ties to terrorism than other arab states. Terrorism COULD have been a reason to invade Iraq, if the ties were there. The US govt themselves did not go to great lengths to try and claim Saddam was being removed due to terrorists links. My point was to eliminate 'Links to Terrorism' as an excuse to invade.

I have not accused you (or anyone else) of not doing your homework, so don't accuse me. Do you know me? No. How do you know that I have not done my homework? Because I disagree with you? 

Re:Saddam has a long history....not going to stop: Yes, he does have a long history....BEFORE the original Gulf War! He had no capacity to attack anyone with success. Saddam was not a threat to anyone outside his own borders. 

Re:and then what (Genocide) - As I stated in my original post, military action is justified against a foreign government on grounds of genocide. Full stop/end of discussion.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (19 Aug 2004)

Caeser;

The terrorist-related claim regarding the invasion of Iraq was not some nebulous concept of 'strong' ties to terrorism: it was that Saddam had provided safe harbour for terrorists.   The first link I provided gave the example of Abu Nidal, who at the time was the most wanted terrorist in the world.   Two more examples off the top of my head are Abdul Yassin (from the '93 WTC bombing) and Abu Abbas (most infamously because of the Achillie Lauro incident) who was actually caught by the Americans in Iraq last year (trying to escape to Syria - hmmm).   You cannot conceivably know this information and claim that Saddam was not providing safe harbour to terrorists.

On the other hand, if you still claim that there was some heretofore unknown criteria of 'strong' ties, (reference my second link) if paying terrorists to commit acts of terrorism does not constitute a 'strong' tie what on earth could?   If you had said that ties to 9/11 specifically had not been proven, you might have a point.   But then again, that wasn't the claim was it?

Saddam not a threat?   If you don't count all of the Kurds and other Iraqis he killed after the first Gulf War, there's still the troop build-ups that threatened Kuwait.   Given his links to the Palestinian suicide bombers, I suspect that there are a lot of Israelis that would disagree with you, too.   If you had said that he wasn't a direct threat to the United States, you might have an arguable point.

Re: genocide: Okay, you invade this hypothetical country and stop the genocide without destabilizing the government.   THEN what do you do?   Leave and ask them politely not to do it again?   Stick around indefinitely?   How could you hold the gov't accountable without effecting regime change?


----------



## Gunnerlove (20 Aug 2004)

Thanks for the tip Tim we all know what assuming does.

Never even heard of the book but as "Atlas Shrugged is the "second most influential book for Americans today" after the Bible, according to a joint survey conducted by the Library of Congress and the Book of the Month Club", I should probably read one of the top two.


I wonder how much the families get from Saudi Arabian charities for each suicide bomber? Any proof that he was training/ supporting terrorists?


----------



## dutchie (20 Aug 2004)

John Galt: If you read my original post, I clearly stated that Saddam was not/did not plan any attacks on the West/US with the exception of Israel. This disclaimer allowed for the obvious and well documented evidence that Saddam sponsored terror attacks on Israel. 

In regards to your point that Saddam had ties to terrorists not directly targeting the US, I would agree. I didn't qualify my assertion that Saddam had no ties to terrorist groups that have targeted the US directly, but I should have. 

We can argue terror ties all day long, but the FACT is: the US government did not invade Iraq on grounds of terrorist links/'War on Terror', but on the pretense of WMD. Those pretenses have proven to be false, if not fabricated. To justify the invasion after the fact based on loose information that was not considered strong enough (by the US, not me) prior to the action is weak. It is so weak in fact that the US government is not even claiming this. 

In regards to: "if you had said that he was not a direct threat to the US, you might have a point....but Israelis would disagree with you" Read my post, that is exactly what I said: "nor was he planning any attacks on the US/West (other than Israel, which pretty much the entire Middle East despises)." I also specifically stated in my last post: "Saddam was not a threat to anyone outside his own borders.", so your point regarding Kurds is moot.

Re:your challenge regarding genocide. I stated in my second post: "...the immediate issue (and the focus of the 'liberators') should not be the removal of the Dictator, but the cessation of the genocide." I did not state that the removal of the dictator was not a priority, just that the cessation of the Genocide should take precedence. 

My question to you is this: knowing what we know about the claim of WMD, knowing what we know about Iraq's military capabilities AFTER the '91 Gulf War, knowing the threat that other Arab states pose to US security (Iran, Saudi, etc) what justified the US in invading Iraq?


----------



## Brad Sallows (20 Aug 2004)

"The end does not justify the means" is one position in moral philosophy.  Another is that both ends and means must be considered.  The latter underpins the principle of proportionality (between military necessity and humanity) in the conduct of war (but not necessarily as casus belli).  Furthermore, omission of a moral duty can be morally wrong.

Possession/development of WMD was not the sole reason advanced for war; it simply became the cause celebre in the press.  Please do not lose sight of that FACT.

If "crimes against humanity" is an exception justifying intervention, then intervention was justified in Iraq unless you are prepared to deny that Hussein's government committed any crimes against humanity.  "Crimes against humanity" includes, but is not limited to, "...murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population, before or during the war, or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds in execution of or in connection with any crime within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, whether or not in violation of the domestic law of the country where perpetrated..." from the Nuremburg Rules of 8 Aug 1945 (recognized by the "Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and CrimesAgainst Humanity").

If the dictator is the source of the crimes and has proven to be unswayed by diplomatic entreaties and embargo, surely the immediate issue is the removal of the dictator.  I am prepared to read arguments that not all means short of war had been exhausted, except the excuse of "more time" which simply implies all means had been tried.  To repeat the same course of action expecting a different outcome is considered a loose indication of insanity.

The original anti-war message (granted, not necessarily your position) was "no known ties to Al-Qaeda".  The modification to "no known strong ties" would be a modification of that (granted, not your own) original position.


----------



## dutchie (20 Aug 2004)

Brad: I have a few issues with some of the things you've stated.

1-Re: _"The end does not justify the means" is one position in moral philosophy.  Another is that both ends and means must be considered."_ - I agree wholeheartedly, but there were alternatives to military action.

2- Re_:"The latter underpins the principle of proportionality (between military necessity and humanity) in the conduct of war (but not necessarily as casus belli)." _ Please explain this in plain language. I am neither a law student nor a poli-sci proffesor.

3- _"Possession/development of WMD was not the sole reason advanced for war; it simply became the cause celebre in the press." _ - Cause celebre or not, the President stated very little else in his address' to the nation/intl community regarding his reasons for invasion (prior to invasion). His treatment of the Kurds, constant violations of the UN sanctions, etc, were merely used as 'supporting evidence', not the 'main charge'. To claim now that the original 'charge' (WMD) is not valid, but that the invasion is justified solely on these other issues is, as stated earlier, weak.

4-Re_:"If "crimes against humanity" is an exception ......." _ - This would have been a valid reason to invade Iraq, but again, this was not the stated reason for invasion. The only reason the whole 'Crimes against Humanity' thing was put in my original post was to counter a possible rebuttal to my statement, "I do not see the removal of a foreign dictator as the business of anyone except the citizens whom he rules over....The other exception being crimes against humanity (Genocide, etc)". I was not suggesting that Saddam had not committed these acts, but rather, that military intervention in Rwanda, Kosovo, etc WAS justified. Like it or not, the Intl community does not tend to act on Crimes against Humanity until a massacre has happened, or is happening (ie-Rwanda). This, to my knowledge, was not the case in Iraq.

5-Re_:"I am prepared to read arguments that not all means short of war..."  _ - By extension, that is what I am saying. I said the war was not justified, but it could have been had some basic requirements been met: a) International agreement and UN resolution(s) authorizing invasion b) All other diplomatic avenues exhausted (related to 'a'). 


I will pose the same question I posed to 'John Galt': Knowing what we know about the claim of WMD, knowing what we know about Iraq's military capabilities AFTER the '91 Gulf War, knowing the threat that other Arab states pose to US security (Iran, Saudi, etc) *what justified the US in invading Iraq*? 

I look forward to as straight frorward an answer as I have given you.


----------



## Brad Sallows (20 Aug 2004)

What were the alternatives to military action that had not yet been tried and failed?

In plain language, proportionality is a principle by which "ends" (military advantages) are compared to "means" (actions with results contrary to humanitarian good, eg. collateral casualties and property damage) to determine whether military action is justified.

Bush spoke on several occasions about justifications for war.  WMD was not the only cause stated.  It matters not whether WMD was the primary cause advanced by Bush or the primary cause by popularity in the press (ie. merely because it dominated discussion).  The original WMD "charge", based on what was known and believed at the time, is as valid now as it was then - it can never be otherwise since it was an assessment at one period in time and not a certainty.  Different information and assessments now are relevant only if a new decision is being taken now; they cannot be cast back in time.  Anyone can second guess a decision with more information at a later time - so what?

If any one of several causes for war is sufficient, then it matters not if all but one are absent or weak.  By definition, one sufficient cause is enough.  To my knowledge, and the world at large prior to the war, Hussein was reasonably believed guilty at least of "persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds".  Those are crimes against humanity.  If crimes against humanity are sufficient causes for war, there was at least one sufficient cause for war.  Note that is true regardless whether that was specifically advanced as a cause for war; even if the WMD cause could be negated by hindsight - it can't, as noted above - the humanitarian intervention cause would alone suffice (although rightful intentions could be called into question).

Commonly accepted conditions for just war are: just cause, proportionality (of political "ends" sought relative to "means" employed and the bad effects thereof) , reasonable chance of success, public (open) declaration, legitimate authority, last resort (all other options exhausted), rightness of intentions.

My opinion is that the conditions of proportionality, success, and open declaration were clearly satisfied.  Disputed are just cause, legitimate authority, last resort, and rightness of intentions.

As explained above, at least one just cause was provided regardless how all causes were relatively emphasized.

Since Congress approved war, legitimate authority may be denied only if the authority of nations to initiate war independently of the UN is categorically denied.  UN Charter enthusiasts will never concede legitimate authority; it is doubtful any nation sufficiently powerful to pursue its own interests will cede authority to the UN.  Theory is trumped by reality whether we like it or not.

Satisfying the condition of last resort seems to hinge on the opinion of how much time was enough for sanctions, diplomacy, and inspections to work their magic and turn Iraq into an international law-abiding, WMD-free state which posed unreasonable threats to neither its neighbours nor citizens.

The final question is one of rightful intentions.  Unless it can be proven that at no time humanitarian considerations were advanced, then the worst that can be claimed is mixed intentions with self-interests primary and humanitarian interests secondary.

Note that the degree of outrage required for the international community to act in concert against humanitarian crimes is morally an unacceptable standard, particularly since the international community almost never acts, and rarely (if ever) does so in a timely manner.

Since France categorically excluded the possibility that a new UNSC Resolution could be introduced and passed, the option of UNSC authorization was in fact exhausted.  Since the US did not act unilaterally, there was "international agreement" (which is a meaningless standard unless there is some well-defined quorum).  Under sanctions, Hussein chose guns over butter.  To WMD inspections, Hussein was obstructionist.  What other diplomatic avenues had not been exhausted?

>Knowing what we know about the claim of WMD

That is irrelevant to the cause for war at the time, but would militate against a cause for war today.

>knowing what we know about Iraq's military capabilities AFTER the '91 Gulf War

Extant conventional capabilities were irrelevant (and were in any event sufficiently capable with Hussein's will to post a humanitarian threat to Iraqis).  Extant WMD capabilities were not the sole basis of the WMD cause for war; intentions, history, and developmental capabilities were.

>knowing the threat that other Arab states pose to US security (Iran, Saudi, etc)

That is also irrelevant since there is no doctrine or moral rule stating that a threat may not be addressed unless all threats, and in particular all greater threats, are first addressed.  Can you think of any area of human endeavour in which we must not do anything unless we can do everything?

>what justified the US in invading Iraq? 

The historical causes based on the historical assessments.


----------



## nULL (20 Aug 2004)

Caeser said:
			
		

> The end does not justify the means. Just as beating a suspect to illicit a confession is not justified. (Not that I am equating these two things). I do not see the removal of a foreign dictator as the business of anyone except the citizens whom he rules over. The exception being when that dictator threatens others outside his nation to a significant enough extent to justify the carnage resluting from war. The other exception being crimes against humanity (Genocide, etc) within a nation (ie - Rwanda). In this case, the immediate issue (and the focus of the 'liberators') should not be the removal of the Dictator, but the cessation of the genocide.



It's easy to say that the Iraqi citizens had a responsibility to overthrow Hussein, but that just isn't so. It's easy to point out instances such as the French and American revolutions as instances where the populace threw out an unpopular leader (or established such things as the Magna Carta) but I hardly think that reflects the reality of the world today. If you want to be the guy at the front of the group of reformist Iraqi citizens going toe-to-toe with the Special Republican Guard to throw out Hussein, go for it; I'll be in my shop, trying not to get picked up by the secret police. The Kurds had the best chance to do away with him after the first Gulf War, and we all know how that turned out. The ends shouldn't have to justify the means, but they sometimes can, and often do. Is Iraq better off at this exact moment of time? That's hard to say. Will it be better off in 20 years? Definetely. And what is the "war on terror" if not a long term investment on our security?


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (20 Aug 2004)

Caesar;

How can you claim that links to Palestinian terrorists aren't links to terrorism?!?!?  Is your argument that we have not proven Saddam's links to terrorists (except the ones to which we have proven links)?  There is a real logical disconnect there ...

What do we now know about Saddam's WMD programme?  Well for one, we now know (as we did prior to invasion) he was clearly violating the terms of the '91 Gulf War ceasefire (various UN resolutions), but that the certain members of the UN Security Council were determined to continue to cut him slack (kinda reminds you of the rearmament of the Rheineland, eh?).  Here's plenty more information on Saddam's WMD programme: http://globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iraq/index.html

Are you actually trying to claim that it is is a 'FACT' that the US Government didn't claim that the invasion of Iraq was under the aegis of the War on Terrorism?  That's a whopper!  I actually don't recall the debate being quite as you frame it (i.e., US arguing Iraq not part of the War on Terrorism, other nations claiming it was).  I think that is your argument, but you should be claiming it the position of the POTUS!

Maybe the threat to Kurds is moot but what about Kuwait?  Saddam still had a standing army of something on the order of 300,000 troops, along with an unkown number of chemical weapons, and sent them rushing to the Kuwaiti border several times (twice, at least) subsequent to the Gulf War.  How are the feelings of other Middle East nations towards Israel in any way NOT a non sequiteur when the question is whether Saddam was a threat?

I don't understand what point are you trying to make about genocide ...  that it's bad and we should stop it?

In short, the US WAS justified in in vading Iraq, because Saddam was clearly breaking the terms of the ceasefire and administartive means to rectify this had been exhausted (legality), he undoubtedly supported terrorism (legitimacy), and UNSC members stated that they "would not" pass a resolution that endorse invasion.


----------



## Brad Sallows (20 Aug 2004)

>It's easy to point out instances such as the French and American revolutions as instances where the populace threw out an unpopular leader (or established such things as the Magna Carta) but I hardly think that reflects the reality of the world today.

That's an interesting point.  Back then the authorities had weapons not much more sophisticated than what was available to the revolutionaries.  Today there is usually significant overmatch of even a poorly equipped army over the citizenry.  A revolution is unlikely to succeed unless it has a sugar daddy providing arms and funds.

Rhetorical observation: if the Cubans or North Koreans or Iranians were to rise against their regimes tomorrow and the US did nothing but provide arms, ammunition, and money - no advisors, no presence, studied indifference at the UN - it would be interesting to see who sides with the people against their oppressors, and who sides against anyone supported by the US (or simply thinks they should be handicapped by being denied US support).  It would certainly provide some clarity to the pretenses of moral posturing.


----------



## dutchie (21 Aug 2004)

Brad:

1-"_Different information and assessments now are relevant only if a new decision is being taken now; they cannot be cast back in time.  Anyone can second guess a decision with more information at a later time - so what?"_ - If we cannot second guess a decision that has affected (and ended) thousands of lives, what can we second guess? And the US didn't simply make an 'Honest Mistake', they knew the Intel was bad, but sold it to the world as fact anyway. 

2-Re:"If any one of several causes for war is sufficient, then it matters not if all but one are absent or weak. By definition, one sufficient cause is enough" "Commonly accepted conditions for just war are: just cause, proportionality (of political "ends" sought relative to "means" employed and the bad effects thereof) , reasonable chance of success, public (open) declaration, legitimate authority, last resort (all other options exhausted), rightness of intentions." - So, if one of the 'Just Cause Conditions' is 'Reasonable Chance Of Success', and all you need is one 'Just Cause Condition', then by proxy, the US could invade any nation it liked, as long as it had reasonable chances of success. Based on your posts you are reasonable intelligent, but you need to seriously reconsider this theory. The same reasoning can be applied to the 'Conditions': public disclosure and rightness of intentions. 

3-Re:"Since Congress approved war, legitimate authority may be denied only if the authority of nations to initiate war independently of the UN is categorically denied.  UN Charter enthusiasts will never concede legitimate authority; it is doubtful any nation sufficiently powerful to pursue its own interests will cede authority to the UN.  Theory is trumped by reality whether we like it or not." - a)-the US Congress may have authority in the US, but it has zero authority in Iraq. b) The UN by it's existence denies the right of other nations to invade others without provocation or other just cause, unless UN authorization is given prior. c)- Theory being trumped by reality does not also make that theory invalid. If you trump (break) the law, does it make the law invalid? 

4-Re:"Satisfying the condition of last resort seems to hinge on the opinion of how much time was enough for sanctions, diplomacy, and inspections to work their magic and turn Iraq into an international law-abiding, WMD-free state which posed unreasonable threats to neither its neighbours nor citizens." - Diplomacy had not been exhausted. The French did deny the US authority to invade Iraq, but only under circumstances at the time. If the US had credible evidence of WMD, then the French could not have withstood the International pressure to cede action. Of course, if the US had real and true evidence of WMD, I would not be arguing their invasion either. Further, Iraq did not pose a threat to anyone outside it's borders, especially with US troops surrounding her borders.

5-"That is also irrelevant since there is no doctrine or moral rule stating that a threat may not be addressed unless all threats, and in particular all greater threats, are first addressed.  Can you think of any area of human endeavour in which we must not do anything unless we can do everything?" - I would agree. My point was that the US cannot claim that Iraq posed the most serious risk to US security.

John Galt: The Palestinians pose a threat to Israelis, not Americans. I am arguing US action in Iraq, not Israeli action in the West Bank. In regards to your point regarding WMD/violation of the '91 sanctions. Those sanctions are the UN's, not the US's. Action for violations must come from the UN. And yes, I am arguing that the US gov doesn't claim to have invaded Iraq as a part of the War on Terror. Iraq couldn't piss over the Kuwaiti border without 50,000 allied troops watching, so no, they were not a threat to anyone outside Iraq. Yes, of course Genocide is bad. Read my post again, I don;t want to explain my point a 3rd time. And finally, don't confuse the old resolutions with the US proposal to invade. The UN has the authority to take action against Iraq in cases of violations of the UN sanctions, but the US doesn't.


----------



## nULL (21 Aug 2004)

> "The Palestinians pose a threat to Israelis, not Americans.



In that part of the world, saying that both Israeli and American interests are legitimate targets isn't quite a stretch. The threat from Palestinians however is one of logistics; Israel is a much easier target to strike. For instance, not too long ago, 3 American diplomats were targeted and eliminated from a roadside bomb while traveling in a convoy in Gaza.    



> And finally, don't confuse the old resolutions with the US proposal to invade. The UN has the authority to take action against Iraq in cases of violations of the UN sanctions, but the US doesn't."



Individual countries are the only ones that can "take action". The UN can but offer legitimacy.


----------



## Brad Sallows (21 Aug 2004)

1.   You can *learn* from second-guessing a decision in light of new information some lessons about your sources and your decision process to apply in future.   You can only second-guess the original decision (ie. whether you would make it again or not) *by re-evaluating the same information you had at the time you made the decision*.   It's pointless to lament after the market crashes that one should have not bought stock.   At the time one bought the stock one presumably had good reasons for doing so.   What are your grounds for asserting the US "knew the Intel was bad" since the overwhelming concensus among nations, and particularly at the UN, was that Hussein had and was developing WMD?

2.   No.   Please read carefully.   One of the *just war* conditions is "reasonable chance of success".   Another is "just cause".   A sufficient cause is by definition enough for war, but for the war to be just the cause must be just and all the other *just war* conditions must be met.   Example: shooting down another country's fighter aircraft over its own airspace may be a cause for war, but if the purpose is merely revenge and the damage of war exceeds the worth of one aircraft and one person's life it would surely not be a just war.

3.   "Just war" theory only requires the authority to be legitimate in the sense that a government of a nation has a recognized authority to declare war; a hotheaded mob of citizens or a branch of a religion does not.   As for the UN, jurisdiction without the will or means to enforce it is useless.   By its mere existence, the UN does nothing.   By its Charter, it claims powers and rights it can not enforce.   The sovereignty of nations has collided with transnationalism in the past 60 years, and transnationalism is giving way.   That is what I mean by reality trumping theory.   I believe transnationalism will pass as did communism and nations will remain sovereign, loosely guided by the strictures and conventions of international law so long as international law does not gravely subvert national interests.

4.   Or, France could have withstood pressure.   All France had to do was exercise its veto in the UNSC and claim (with no proof necessary) that other means had not been exhausted.   That's the diplomatic beauty of "other means" - a negative can't be conclusively proven; exhaustion of other means can't be conclusively proven.   It is as plausible to believe France would do anything to protect Hussein in pursuit of France's economic interests as it is to believe there was some threshold of evidence that would cause France to abandon Hussein.   The threat Iraq was believed to pose outside its borders had nothing to do with conventional forces which were screened by US forces.   The threat was the movement of weapons across borders uncontrolled by the US (Syria, Iran).


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (22 Aug 2004)

Caeser said:
			
		

> John Galt: The Palestinians pose a threat to Israelis, not Americans. I am arguing US action in Iraq, not Israeli action in the West Bank.


You seem to be trying to redefine the debate, but the pretense was 'War on Terrorism' ('War on Terror,' actually) NOT 'War on Terrorism _in the United States only_.'   Perhaps you disagree or you think that Saddam's ties weren't 'strong' enough to warrant invasion/regime change, but to argue that it wasn't part of the justification for war is ridiculous.



> In regards to your point regarding WMD/violation of the '91 sanctions. Those sanctions are the UN's, not the US's. Action for violations must come from the UN.


This is incorrect: action comes from the _members_ (states) of the UN _directly_: have a look at the UN Charter itself, if you don't believe me.   http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/




> And yes, I am arguing that the US gov doesn't claim to have invaded Iraq as a part of the War on Terror.


If you've done 'your research,' how could you possibly make this statement?   This kind of stuff destroys the credibility of your other arguments.   Here is a direct quote from Bush's "President Bush Discusses Progress in the War on Terror" speech of 12 July 2004: 

_"Three years ago, the ruler of Iraq was a sworn enemy of America, who provided safe haven for terrorists, used weapons of mass destruction, and turned his nation into a prison. Saddam Hussein was not just a dictator; he was a proven mass murderer who refused to account for weapons of mass murder. Every responsible nation recognized this threat, and knew it could not go on forever."_ http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/07/20040712-5.html



> Iraq couldn't piss over the Kuwaiti border without 50,000 allied troops watching, so no, they were not a threat to anyone outside Iraq.


50,000 troops handcuffed by UN pacificsm against 300,000 Iraqis?   Attempted assassination of a former US President?   I'd say that was a threat!   You are also again forgetting about the Israelis (or do they not count?) ...



> Yes, of course Genocide is bad. Read my post again, I don;t want to explain my point a 3rd time.


Well then what point are you trying to make?   I'm not aware of, nor can I conceive of, any instances where any natioin has (would) used the excuse of regime change in order to stop a genocide!



> And finally, don't confuse the old resolutions with the US proposal to invade. The UN has the authority to take action against Iraq in cases of violations of the UN sanctions, but the US doesn't.


You are missing the point: Saddam violated the terms of the cease-fire of the first Gulf War ... and as, nULL posted, the UN has no capacity to take action (although it has been proposed).


----------



## Gunnerlove (22 Aug 2004)

Wasn't Saddam at the top of the US target list? I guess when you try to assassinate someone with a PGM it is not really an assassination attempt so one should not hold a grudge.


----------



## dutchie (23 Aug 2004)

John Galt:

The US has used the War on Terror as a justification for the War in Iraq AFTER the WMD were not found, and a new reason was required. Show me a quote where Bush states that regime change/invasion of Iraq is being done for the primary reason of attacking Terror, quoted before invasion.

I also agree with your statement re: force/UN. I will clarify my original statement. Yes, only member states can act, but the authority remains with the UN, not the individual states.

Re:50,000 troops, etc: the allied troops in Kuwait prior to the invasion were handcuffed only in regards to invading Iraq. If Iraq had invaded Kuwait (or Saudi Arabia for that matter), there is no way those Iraqi troops would get 5 feet without being crushed.

Brad:

I don't want to start splitting hairs over definitions, but second guessing means re-evaluating a decision in light of new info. 

In regards to: _"No.  Please read carefully.  One of the just war conditions is "reasonable chance of success"....._ - you clearly stated in your post earlier that only one 'condition for just war' is required, and that 'reasonable chance of success' was one condition, and I quote from your post, "_Commonly accepted conditions for just war are: just cause, proportionality..., reasonable chance of success...." and "My opinion is that the conditions of proportionality, success....were clearly satisfied.....As explained above, at least one just cause was provided regardless how all causes were relatively emphasized." _ You have now broken up the determination of legitimacy of the war into two separate categories: Just Cause for War, and Just War. I want to know what your 'Just War' conditions are, and how the US met them, as I am arguing that they have no legitimacy in Iraq.

In light of this challenge to your 'theory', I ask you again: What gave the US the right to invade Iraq? 


Re:"I believe transnationalism will pass as did communism and nations will remain sovereign, loosely guided by the strictures and conventions of international law so long as international law does not gravely subvert national interests." - the sovereignty of Iraq has been violated, due to the immoral actions of another sovereign nation blindly persuing it's own national interests with no regard for the principles, ethics, and ideals it claims to epitomize (democracy).

If you don't see even a slight inconsistency in the US position pre/post invasion regarding the basis of legitimacy for the war, then we have no common ground, and therefore, this debate will go no where.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (23 Aug 2004)

Caeser said:
			
		

> The US has used the War on Terror as a justification for the War in Iraq AFTER the WMD were not found, and a new reason was required. Show me a quote where Bush states that regime change/invasion of Iraq is being done for the primary reason of attacking Terror, quoted before invasion.


Well. first of all, you are now changing your argument which previously stated that the War on Terror was "separate" from the invasion of Iraq.  Now you want me to prove the primacy of one over the other?  That wasn't my point!  If you are conceding my point (that the invasion of Iraq was a part of the War on Terror) why don't you just admit it?  Nevertheless, here is a quote from Bush's statement on 26 Feb 2003:

"On a September morning, threats that had gathered for years, in secret and far away, led to murder in our country on a massive scale. As a result, we must look at security in a new way, because our country is a battlefield in the first war of the 21st century.

We learned a lesson: The dangers of our time must be confronted actively and forcefully, before we see them again in our skies and in our cities. And we set a goal: we will not allow the triumph of hatred and violence in the affairs of men. (Applause.)

Our coalition of more than 90 countries is pursuing the networks of terror with every tool of law enforcement and with military power. We have arrested, or otherwise dealt with, many key commanders of al Qaeda. (Applause.) Across the world, we are hunting down the killers one by one. We are winning. And we're showing them the definition of American justice. (Applause.) And we are opposing the greatest danger in the war on terror: outlaw regimes arming with weapons of mass destruction.

In Iraq, a dictator is building and hiding weapons that could enable him to dominate the Middle East and intimidate the civilized world -- and we will not allow it. (Applause.) This same tyrant has close ties to terrorist organizations, and could supply them with the terrible means to strike this country -- and America will not permit it. ... 

The current Iraqi regime has shown the power of tyranny to spread discord and violence in the Middle East. A liberated Iraq can show the power of freedom to transform that vital region, by bringing hope and progress into the lives of millions. America's interests in security, and America's belief in liberty, both lead in the same direction: to a free and peaceful Iraq. (Applause.)

The first to benefit from a free Iraq would be the Iraqi people, themselves. Today they live in scarcity and fear, under a dictator who has brought them nothing but war, and misery, and torture. Their lives and their freedom matter little to Saddam Hussein -- but Iraqi lives and freedom matter greatly to us. (Applause.)

Bringing stability and unity to a free Iraq will not be easy. Yet that is no excuse to leave the Iraqi regime's torture chambers and poison labs in operation. Any future the Iraqi people choose for themselves will be better than the nightmare world that Saddam Hussein has chosen for them."

I have never argued that the threat WMD was not of primary importance in the justification of the invasion: I am refuting your "FACT .. [that] the US government did not invade Iraq on grounds of terrorist links/'War on Terror' ... [and the idea that they tried to] justify the invasion after the fact [by using the War on Terrorism]  ... so weak in fact that the US government is not even claiming this."  http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/02/20030226-11.html

You are wrong in that the War on Terrorism WAS the justification of the invasion of Iraq before, during and after the action.  You would know this "FACT" with only a very minimal amount of Google search time.  You might also discover that the WMD argument itself is _part_ of the War on Terrorism justification, as the threat was specifically that Saddam could  provide WMD _to terrorists_ who could/would use them against America and her allies (and you should be able to figure that out from the speech above, too).



> I also agree with your statement re: force/UN. I will clarify my original statement. Yes, only member states can act, but the authority remains with the UN, not the individual states.


And what was the implication of the UN agreeing that Saddam had violated the cease fire?



> Re:50,000 troops, etc: the allied troops in Kuwait prior to the invasion were handcuffed only in regards to invading Iraq. If Iraq had invaded Kuwait (or Saudi Arabia for that matter), there is no way those Iraqi troops would get 5 feet without being crushed.


Possibly, although by that rationale, Saddam was never a threat (sure he invaded Kuwait and Iran, but he was pushed-back and never really had a chance, right?) ... you also fail to account for the threat he posed to people who don't live in Kuwait.


----------



## Brad Sallows (23 Aug 2004)

Second-guessing may, but does not by definition have to, include hindsight.  Second-guessing command decisions is a popular pastime among military history enthusiasts; the more objective ones limit themselves to what was known at the time the decision was made.

I wrote of causes for war, stating the obvious - one sufficient cause is enough cause - and then went on to discuss just causes (as opposed to unjust causes) and where just cause fits into the overall framework of just war for those who, while accepting that there were several potential causes for war, are concerned that a war be just before it be initiated.  Please state an entire sentence or sentences in which you believe I stated only one of the just war conditions must be met for a *just war*, as opposed to one sufficient *pretext, or cause, for war* being enough cause for war (just or unjust).

It is important to understand the concept of "sufficient" because some of the people opposed to the war have tried to craft the following argument: the sole or primary cause for war was the existence of WMD; because no WMD have been found (in any quantity of consequence), there was no pretext for war.  This is wrong, for several reasons:
1) Existence of WMD was not the issue; concerns were quite clearly expressed over development of WMD.  (SotU address, January 2002 - the "Axis of Evil" speech.)  These concerns were shared by other nations and bodies including the UN.
2) WMD may yet be found in large quantity, and evidence still exists that Hussein was pursuing WMD capability.  Knowledge after the fact is irrelevant to the case for war in any event.
3) The WMD cause was not the sole cause for war (and here is where "sufficient" becomes important).  Any one other sufficient cause, whether primary or secondary, whether just or unjust, is enough cause for (just or unjust) war.

>In light of this challenge to your 'theory', I ask you again: What gave the US the right to invade Iraq?

Just war theory is not mine.  It has been around for centuries.

Here is a template of "just war" conditions for removal of an oppressive regime, then:

1) Just cause - to end grave crimes against humanity.
2) Proportionality - the damage of war is anticipated to be acceptable compared to the year after year toll of suffering and death caused by the regime.
3) Reasonable chance of success - the invader will likely defeat the regime's armed forces.
4) Open declaration - a simple statement of intent, with or without preliminary warnings.
5) Legitimate authority - any duly constituted government following its legal process for making war (or coalition of such governments).
6) Last resort - regime fails to heed directives to cease crimes against humanity and is not compelled by diplomatic or economic pressure.
7) Rightness of intentions - the purpose is pursuit of the just cause and not some hidden agenda (eg. "for the oil").

The sovereignty of any nation is violated when it is invaded.  So what?  Be it resolved: nations must respect sovereignty only when the bearers of sovereignty respect their own peoples.

Which is the more morally praiseworthy: to stand by offering words of censure while one person tortures and abuses another, or to intervene violently?  If you believe nations should be judged differently in moral terms (if indeed they should be judged in moral terms at all, which I will stipulate here for now), please explain why.

>If you don't see even a slight inconsistency in the US position pre/post invasion regarding the basis of legitimacy for the war, then we have no common ground, and therefore, this debate will go no where.

Both proponents and opponents of the war have been indulging in spin control after the fact and consequently have developed inconsistencies in their pre- and post-invasion arguments.  That is to be expected.  The pre-war stances should still be judged purely in terms of what was known at the time.


----------



## dutchie (23 Aug 2004)

Brad:

Re: "_Please state an entire sentence or sentences in which you believe I stated only one of the just war conditions must be met for a just war, as opposed to one sufficient pretext, or cause, for war being enough cause for war (just or unjust)."_ - As requested: you stated, "Commonly accepted conditions for *just* war are: just cause, proportionality (of political "ends" sought relative to "means" employed and the bad effects thereof) , *reasonable chance of success*, public (open) declaration, legitimate authority, last resort (all other options exhausted), rightness of intentions.

My opinion is that the conditions of proportionality, success, and open declaration were clearly satisfied.   Disputed are just cause, legitimate authority, last resort, and rightness of intentions.

As explained above, at least *one just cause was provided regardless how all causes were relatively emphasized.*"

I have complied with your request for the exact quote. Now if you could, please explain how a nation can JUSTLY attack another based soley on the grounds that they will win.

As well, re: _">In light of this challenge to your 'theory', I ask you again: What gave the US the right to invade Iraq? Just war theory is not mine.   It has been around for centuries."_ - please answer the actual question: What gave the US the right to invade Iraq?

Re: "_The pre-war stances should still be judged purely in terms of what was known at the time." _ - I have been arguing the following: 1)-that the WMD claim was unfounded, and that therefore the Invasion and subsequent occupation should be called into question. 2)-The US did not make an 'honest mistake'. They were either incompetant or they fabricated intel. As to which category they fall into is irrelavant, either way, they bear 100% of the blame for this error. If they had made an honest mistake, I would be arguing how to fix the mess now, while assigning no blame to the US for this 'honest mistake'.

John Galt: Re: "_On a September morning...... we are opposing the greatest danger in the war on terror: outlaw regimes arming with weapons of mass destruction.." _ - I will concede the point that Bush mentions the Invasion of Iraq as a part of the War on Terror, but he is still basing his justification for war on WMD, not terrorist links in Iraq. The Terror link is directly attributed to WMD. So if no WMD, no basis for terror accusation.

Re:"_And what was the implication of the UN agreeing that Saddam had violated the cease fire?"_ - What is your point? The authority lies within the UN, if you want to argue what the UN should have done, perhaps another thread is in order.

Re:" you also fail to account for the threat he posed to people who don't live in Kuwait." - name one nation he posed a threat to outside Iraq (a reasonable threat not some wild theories of WMD being passed from Iraq to terrorists)?


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (23 Aug 2004)

Caeser said:
			
		

> John Galt: Re: "_On a September morning...... we are opposing the greatest danger in the war on terror: outlaw regimes arming with weapons of mass destruction.." _ - I will concede the point that Bush mentions the Invasion of Iraq as a part of the War on Terror, but he is still basing his justification for war on WMD, not terrorist links in Iraq. The Terror link is directly attributed to WMD. So if no WMD, no basis for terror accusation.


No, the issue of WMDs made a bad problem worse: other justification included freeing the Iraqi people from a murderous tyrant.  Reread the last three paragraphs of the quote I provided.  Saddam's pursuit of WMD is PART of the accusation!  By your rationale, we could skip the 3rd and 4th paragraphs and pretend the invasion had nothing to do with WMD!!!



> Re:"_And what was the implication of the UN agreeing that Saddam had violated the cease fire?"_ - What is your point? The authority lies within the UN, if you want to argue what the UN should have done, perhaps another thread is in order.


Iraq violated Resolution 687 (acknowledged by Resolution 1441), which was a temporary suspension of Resolution 678, which authorized the use of force.  This was the legal basis for invasion and has nothing to do with subjective judgement of what the UN 'should' have done..



> Re:" you also fail to account for the threat he posed to people who don't live in Kuwait." - name one nation he posed a threat to outside Iraq (a reasonable threat not some wild theories of WMD being passed from Iraq to terrorists)?


I also already mentioned Israel and the US (attempted assassination): the former of which you groundlessly dismiss and the latter you haven't even mentioned.  I think you are getting confused between 'threat to peace and security' and 'invasion of another country using conventional forces'.  The UN Charter talks about "any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression" (i.e., massing troops at the Kuwaiti border) and "the maintenance of international peace and security": not about credible threats to other county's sovereignty (which seems to be your position).  Interestingly, all of the members of the Security Council (certainly at the time) believed the "wild theories of WMD being passed from Iraq to terrorists."


----------



## dutchie (23 Aug 2004)

John Galt:

Re:"_other justification included freeing the Iraqi people from a murderous tyrant." _ - so, when exactly did the US go to the UNSC in attempt to authorize force against Iraq *based on links to terror not attributed to erroneous evidence (WMD)? *  If you don't address these issues to the UN, but invade based on fraudulent intel (WMD), you can't turn around and say, "well, he also had links to terror, so were still good to go..." This totally circumvents the diplomatic process. 

Re:"_Iraq violated Resolution 687..."_ - I ask you again: what does this have to do with action taken by the US without the UN's approval? The US has no authority to enforce UN sanctions without prior UN approval.

Re:"_the former of which you groundlessly dismiss and the latter you haven't even mentioned."_ - Threats to Israel by an Arab nation is neither rare, nor a threat to the US. An assassination attempt is not terrorism. Terrorism is an attack on a civilian populace, usually for political means, with the intent of affecting some change or otherwise favorable result to the perpetrators, by causing terror or fear of further attack on the populace as a whole. The President is not a civilian, and if you can call assassination conspirators terrorists, then many former (and the current) presidents could be called terrorists (JFK, for one).

Re: "_Interestingly, all of the members of the Security Council (certainly at the time) believed the "wild theories of WMD being passed from Iraq to terrorists."_ - if this is the case, then where is the security resolution condemning it?


----------



## dutchie (23 Aug 2004)

Does anyone else have an opinion on the issues brought up by John Galt, Brad Sallows or myself?


----------



## Brad Sallows (23 Aug 2004)

You quoted the list of conditions for just war and my assertions that three of the seven were satisfied, four of the seven were disputed, and my explanation why the first of the seven was satisfied.  I think I see the confusion.  I did not explicitly state that all seven conditions must be satisfied; I assumed that since I dicussed each of the seven in the context of Iraq the reader would interpret that all seven must be satisfied.  If only one condition must be satisfied, I would only have had to prove one.  So to clarify: all seven of the conditions for just war must be satisfied if a war is to be deemed just; "just cause" is one of the seven conditions; a single sufficient "just cause" is all that is necessary for that one condition to be fulfilled.  Otherwise, the war is unjust.  (If there are conditions of which I was unaware that have been included in just war theory, then by all means add them to the list.)  I do not intend to address your straw man of justifying a war on the basis of feasibility of victory because that is a misinterpretation of just war theory.

I am not sure how you mean your question ("the right to invade") to be interpreted.  Do you mean right as in "freedom" (negative right) or "entitlement" (positive right)?  Do you mean right as in simple provocation (casus belli), or fulfillment of the entire set of conditions for just war?  The pragmatic view is that nations conduct themselves as they please subject to the consequences of their actions.  The idealistic view is that nations should never conduct war except just war.  Note that even self-defence is not protected: the "reasonable chance of success" condition precludes self-defence against hopeless odds.  Reverse the question: on what grounds do you think the US had no right to invade?  Moral grounds?  Legal grounds?  Other grounds?

Your contention that the WMD cause was unfounded is admirable but indefensible unless you can prove your allegations of fabrication or incompetence.  As I've written repeatedly, hindsight doesn't matter.  You can't prove a nation obstructive to inspections has no WMD unless you forcibly examine it.  Even with an apparently co-operative nation you can't have certainty.

Do you believe Hussein's regime should have been tolerated by the community of nations indefinitely or not?


----------



## clasper (24 Aug 2004)

Caeser said:
			
		

> Does anyone else have an opinion on the issues brought up by John Galt, Brad Sallows or myself?



I agree with Caeser in that I wish the invasion was handled in a different way.  But for some strange reason, Bush didn't see fit to consult me before invading, so my brilliantly conceived plan involving diplomacy and force cannot be proven right or wrong, merely irrelevant.  In terms of the conduct of the war, the question of whether a decision made a year and a half ago was "just" or not isn't that important.  The IMPORTANT question is: Where do we go from here?

In terms of the upcoming election in the US, the question of whether Bush acted justly (or fabricated intelligence, or whatever) is an important one, but the few people on the forum that have the right to vote in the election probably won't be swayed by arguments on either side.


----------



## joaquim (24 Aug 2004)

Caeser said:
			
		

> Does anyone else have an opinion on the issues brought up by John Galt, Brad Sallows or myself?



Wow, heated debate here!

First, it is important to understand that the concept of nation-state is foreign for Middle-Easterners. Their allegiance is based on familial, racial and religious ties. Most have not recognized the lines drawn on maps by the British and French 60 years ago. Therefore, the western world is, for the first time, fighting a war against an ideology rather than a country. The rules of engagement developed for war against nation-states are not very useful here.

Second, what an Arab country has, the others will soon have. We were all reminded of this with the AQ Khan ring of nuclear technology smuggling. Saddam had a large arsenal of dangerous weapons, mainly conventional but still deadly, as witnessed by the daily roadside bombs these days. It was important to put in place in Iraq a regime more friendly to the west to control these weapons.

Third, Middle Eastern, especially Arabs, have a veneration for "the strong man". Saddam was the most visible of these Arab champions. Its removal was a very strong proof of the superiority of the western model over the islamic model.

Fourth, the critics of the war in Iraq, starting with Caeser in these pages, have a point. Iraq was not a sufficiently large threat to justify the death of over 1000 western soldiers, mainly American. Frankly, Iran is a greater threat. I would rank North Korea not far behind. But all these would be nothing without the money and venom spewing from the house of Saud. If I controlled the US fire power, I would have replaced them first.

Finally, I want to say that, despite the abundance of anti-war sentiments among Canadians, we are all very proud of you guys.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (24 Aug 2004)

Caeser said:
			
		

> John Galt:
> 
> Re:"_other justification included freeing the Iraqi people from a murderous tyrant." _ - so, when exactly did the US go to the UNSC in attempt to authorize force against Iraq *based on links to terror not attributed to erroneous evidence (WMD)? *  If you don't address these issues to the UN, but invade based on fraudulent intel (WMD), you can't turn around and say, "well, he also had links to terror, so were still good to go..." This totally circumvents the diplomatic process.


 They aren't turning around and saying this: *they've been saying it all along*, if you'd been bothered to listen.  I have provided you with direct quotes from Bush that demonstrate this: if you are going to refute it, please provide ANY EVIDENCE that does not consist solely of your own impression or opinion (this is what what I was writing about when I referred to 'presenting conjecture as fact').



> Re:"_Iraq violated Resolution 687..."_ - I ask you again: what does this have to do with action taken by the US without the UN's approval? The US has no authority to enforce UN sanctions without prior UN approval.


 AGAIN, if you'd been bothered to do ANY research, or even read my post above, you would know that 678 provided that authority specifically.



> Re:"_the former of which you groundlessly dismiss and the latter you haven't even mentioned."_ - Threats to Israel by an Arab nation is neither rare, nor a threat to the US. An assassination attempt is not terrorism. Terrorism is an attack on a civilian populace, usually for political means, with the intent of affecting some change or otherwise favorable result to the perpetrators, by causing terror or fear of further attack on the populace as a whole. The President is not a civilian, and if you can call assassination conspirators terrorists, then many former (and the current) presidents could be called terrorists (JFK, for one).


This bordering on the ridiculous: it is "War on Terror" not "War on Terror Against the United States and no-one else" ... Israel has many enemies in the Arab world: how does this imply in ANY way that Saddam was not a threat to them?  On top of which, the US protects it's ALLIES (of which Israel is one).  The President is technically not a civillian: a retired President is.  Regardless, the point, as I originally stated, is that it is a war on Terrorism as an IDEA: it doesn't have to be against the US specifically: you may not agree, but that IS the justification they used.  And the other day they caught a Hamas operative videotaping the Chesapeake Bay Bridge (that's IN the US, by the way): http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/bal-te.md.hamas24aug24,1,476086.story 



> Re: "_Interestingly, all of the members of the Security Council (certainly at the time) believed the "wild theories of WMD being passed from Iraq to terrorists."_ - if this is the case, then where is the security resolution condemning it?


I give up.


----------



## dutchie (24 Aug 2004)

Brad:

Re:'Just Cause/Just War': I understand your point now, and I actually agree with most of it.

Re_:"I am not sure how you mean your question ("the right to invade")"_ - 
I was asking the question in a general sense, but to 'clasify' the question, I would say I'm asking whether or not they have satisfied the conditions for just war. I will, however, answer all of the possible questions you proposed:

1)-_Do you mean right as in "freedom" (negative right)? _ Yes, they are free to invade. I understand this to be the theory of whether or not a nation has the _general_ right to invade another. This is purely philosophical and general, and does not directly pertain to any specific war or invasion, just that in principle, nations have the free will to invade.

2)- _or "entitlement" (positive right)_? I am not sure what this means.

3)- _Do you mean right as in simple provocation (casus belli), _   - No. The US has not proven (to me), that they were sufficiently provoked to justify the war. Again, as stated earlier, lack of co-operation with the UN is UN business. Enforcement of its resolutions, deals, etc with respect to Iraq is enforced by the member nations, but the authority to act lies with the UN. In regards to being provoked via WMD, again, they have not proven to me (or the UN) that Iraq possessed these.

4)- _fulfillment of the entire set of conditions for just war?_ - No. I agree with most of what you stated regarding fullfilled/disputed conditions. The US has fulfilled: success, and open declaration. The US has not (in my opinion) satisfiedroportionality,just cause, legitimate authority, last resort, and rightness of intentions. You stated proportionality was satisfied, I would argue that the US losses alone do not justify this war. As well, there is a lot of other negative ramifications: Iraqi losses (civilian and military), damage to infrastructure, the US image in the Arab world, the brutality committed against US civilians and Iraqi prisoners, the rift caused between the US and some European countries, the damage to the UN legitimacy throughout the world (including the places where they do a lot of good work - the 3rd world), etc.

5)-"_The pragmatic view is that nations conduct themselves as they please subject to the consequences of their actions.   The idealistic view is that nations should never conduct war except just war.   Note that even self-defence is not protected: the "reasonable chance of success" condition precludes self-defence against hopeless odds."_ - I agree with this completely, but would add that guerrilla warfare is a good option for a nation under attack from a vastly superior foe, even against all odds. But conventional defence would indeed be foolish.

6)-_on what grounds do you think the US had no right to invade?   Moral grounds?_ - I argue that the war is immoral because it is does not satisfy the conditions for just war (specifically proportionality, just cause, legitimate authority, last resort, and rightness of intentions). _Legal grounds?_ - The US approved war through congress, so as far as domestic law (US law) is concerned, it is legal. I suspect it might contravene an international law regarding unprovoked aggression/war, but I have no reference for that. _Other grounds?_ - There is one other aspect of the war that I feel is unjust, but it is strictly subjective, and hence I have not brought it up thus far: The US openly states it actively sponsors democracy throughout the world, but has denied basic human rights to detainees from Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere.If the US wants to be seen as furthering the cause of democracy in Iraq (or anywhere else) it must act in a democratic way. If they deemed these detainees POW's, they would be subject to the Geneva Convention, and torture would be a war crime (something that has clearly happened). But the US administration has fought vehemently against this distinction. If they are considered criminals in a traditional sense, then they would be subject to all the rights and privileges of ordinary US criminal suspects. This they also have fought. Instead, they have called them terrorists, not bound by either the Geneva Convention, nor any law giving basic rights to criminal suspects. The US Supreme Court disagrees, and has deemed that they are entitled to all of the rights of any person charged with a criminal offence in the US, including due process. By fighting all attempts to grant these detainees the human rights they deserve, they contradict their claims they are trying to bring democracy to that corner of the globe.

7)- "_Your contention that the WMD cause was unfounded is admirable but indefensible..." _   - I contend that it is the US that has to prove that the WMD exist. I cannot prove something does not exist. How can I show an absence of something? Do I show you an empty file folder and say the file doesn't exist? Absence of evidence (me proving there is no WMD) is by definition not provable. It is the absence of the proof that they did/do exist that removes legitimacy from the US claim. 

8)-"_Do you believe Hussein's regime should have been tolerated by the community of nations indefinitely or not?"_ - No. I do not believe that his regime should have been tolerated indefinitely. More pressure, time, and effort could have been spent to avoid war. Had all avenues been exhausted, the war would be more defendable.

Clasper:

Re:"_my brilliantly conceived plan involving diplomacy and force cannot be proven right or wrong, merely irrelevant._" - I could not disagree more with this statement. Questioning decisions made by our political leaders is an essential right and responsibility of everyone. The very concept of democracy hings on this.

Re:"_the question of whether a decision made a year and a half ago was "just" or not isn't that important.   The IMPORTANT question is: Where do we go from here?" _ - I agree that 'where we go from here' is important, but it does not preclude us from examining the basis for the war. The two can be done simultaneously, and in fact, you should establish the legitimacy (or lack thereof) of the war before discussing 'where to go from here'. For example, if you establish that the war is unjust, what you do next will be very different than what you would do if it was justifiable.

Re:"_the few people on the forum that have the right to vote in the election probably won't be swayed by arguments on either side" _ - again, does it mean you can't/shouldn't make the argument anyway?


----------



## dutchie (24 Aug 2004)

Brad:

Re:'Just Cause/Just War': I understand your point now, and I actually agree with most of it.

Re_:"I am not sure how you mean your question ("the right to invade")"_ - 
I was asking the question in a general sense, but to 'clasify' the question, I would say I'm asking whether or not they have satisfied the conditions for just war. I will, however, answer all of the possible questions you proposed:

1)-_Do you mean right as in "freedom" (negative right)? _ Yes, they are free to invade. I understand this to be the theory of whether or not a nation has the _general_ right to invade another. This is purely philosophical and general, and does not directly pertain to any specific war or invasion, just that in principle, nations have the free will to invade.

2)- _or "entitlement" (positive right)_? I am not sure what this means.

3)- _Do you mean right as in simple provocation (casus belli), _   - No. The US has not proven (to me), that they were sufficiently provoked to justify the war. Again, as stated earlier, lack of co-operation with the UN is UN business. Enforcement of its resolutions, deals, etc with respect to Iraq is enforced by the member nations, but the authority to act lies with the UN. In regards to being provoked via WMD, again, they have not proven to me (or the UN) that Iraq possessed these.

4)- _fulfillment of the entire set of conditions for just war?_ - No. I agree with most of what you stated regarding fullfilled/disputed conditions. The US has fulfilled: success, and open declaration. The US has not (in my opinion) satisfiedroportionality,just cause, legitimate authority, last resort, and rightness of intentions. You stated proportionality was satisfied, I would argue that the US losses alone do not justify this war. As well, there is a lot of other negative ramifications: Iraqi losses (civilian and military), damage to infrastructure, the US image in the Arab world, the brutality committed against US civilians and Iraqi prisoners, the rift caused between the US and some European countries, the damage to the UN legitimacy throughout the world (including the places where they do a lot of good work - the 3rd world), etc.

5)-"_The pragmatic view is that nations conduct themselves as they please subject to the consequences of their actions.   The idealistic view is that nations should never conduct war except just war.   Note that even self-defence is not protected: the "reasonable chance of success" condition precludes self-defence against hopeless odds."_ - I agree with this completely, but would add that guerrilla warfare is a good option for a nation under attack from a vastly superior foe, even against all odds. But conventional defence would indeed be foolish.

6)-_on what grounds do you think the US had no right to invade?   Moral grounds?_ - I argue that the war is immoral because it is does not satisfy the conditions for just war (specifically proportionality, just cause, legitimate authority, last resort, and rightness of intentions). _Legal grounds?_ - The US approved war through congress, so as far as domestic law (US law) is concerned, it is legal. I suspect it might contravene an international law regarding unprovoked aggression/war, but I have no reference for that. _Other grounds?_ - There is one other aspect of the war that I feel is unjust, but it is strictly subjective, and hence I have not brought it up thus far: The US openly states it actively sponsors democracy throughout the world, but has denied basic human rights to detainees from Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere.If the US wants to be seen as furthering the cause of democracy in Iraq (or anywhere else) it must act in a democratic way. If they deemed these detainees POW's, they would be subject to the Geneva Convention, and torture would be a war crime (something that has clearly happened). But the US administration has fought vehemently against this distinction. If they are considered criminals in a traditional sense, then they would be subject to all the rights and privileges of ordinary US criminal suspects. This they also have fought. Instead, they have called them terrorists, not bound by either the Geneva Convention, nor any law giving basic rights to criminal suspects. The US Supreme Court disagrees, and has deemed that they are entitled to all of the rights of any person charged with a criminal offence in the US, including due process. By fighting all attempts to grant these detainees the human rights they deserve, they contradict their claims they are trying to bring democracy to that corner of the globe.

7)- "_Your contention that the WMD cause was unfounded is admirable but indefensible..." _   - I contend that it is the US that has to prove that the WMD exist. I cannot prove something does not exist. How can I show an absence of something? Do I show you an empty file folder and say the file doesn't exist? Absence of evidence (me proving there is no WMD) is by definition not provable. It is the absence of the proof that they did/do exist that removes legitimacy from the US claim. 

8)-"_Do you believe Hussein's regime should have been tolerated by the community of nations indefinitely or not?"_ - No. I do not believe that his regime should have been tolerated indefinitely. More pressure, time, and effort could have been spent to avoid war. Had all avenues been exhausted, the war would be more defendable.

Clasper:

Re:"_my brilliantly conceived plan involving diplomacy and force cannot be proven right or wrong, merely irrelevant._" - I could not disagree more with this statement. Questioning decisions made by our political leaders is an essential right and responsibility of everyone. The very concept of democracy hangs on this.

Re:"_the question of whether a decision made a year and a half ago was "just" or not isn't that important.   The IMPORTANT question is: Where do we go from here?" _ - I agree that 'where we go from here' is important, but it does not preclude us from examining the basis for the war. The two can be done simultaneously, and in fact, you should establish the legitimacy (or lack thereof) of the war before discussing 'where to go from here'. For example, if you establish that the war is unjust, what you do next will be very different than what you would do if it was justifiable.

Re:"_the few people on the forum that have the right to vote in the election probably won't be swayed by arguments on either side" _ - again, does it mean you can't/shouldn't make the argument anyway?


John Galt:

You seem quite annoyed that I have not answered your questions, but I specifically asked you to provide evidence that the US went to the UNSC with evidence of terorrist links not attributed to WMD. You response was not to answer the question, but instead you accused me of not reading your posts, and to turn around and ask me to prove something doesn't exist. As stated above, one cannot 'prove' something does not exist. One can assume something doesn't exist when no credible evidence to the contrary is presented. You have given me quotes from Bush, but as you can probably summize from my posts, I do not view his views as gospel, especially when I read them on the internet. 

So instead of responding to your sort-of question, I will ask you kindly to answer the question I asked in my last post: 'When did the US go to the UNSC accusing Iraq of terrorist links?' Do not include accusations based on erroneous intel, (ie - any link to terrorism attributed to Iraq's possesion of WMD. As well, as assasination attempts are not terrorism, don't include any reference to this either).


Re:"_AGAIN, if you'd been bothered to do ANY research" _ - Don't make assumptions about what I have or have not done. I asked you a specific question, but you didn't answer it. I will ask you a third (and final) time: "What does a UN resolution authorizing force have to do with unilateral action taken by the US?" The US didn't act with the UN's approval, so the UN resolution is irrelevant. Just as we as citizens cannot enforce the laws of Canada without the Crown's approval (judiciary appointment).


Re_:"This bordering on the ridiculous: it is "War on Terror" not "War on Terror Against the United States and no-one else" ... _ " - Are you claiming that the US attacked Iraq due to terror threats to Israel? Did Israel request this action on their behalf? If not, terror threats to Israel do not justify the US invading Iraq. Again, if there were threats to Israel that DIRECTLY threaten the security of the US, then that should have been brought to the UNSC, but it wasn't. I cannot provide proof of this, as it is by definition impossible to prove something doesn't exist. You could refute this however, by providing evidence that those allegations were brought to the UNSC (and the UNSC approved those allegations).

Re_:"it doesn't have to be against the US specifically"_ - It _*does*_ have to be against the US for the US to LEGITIMATLY wage war on a soverign nation. The US might state that it is 'waging a war on terrorism wherever we find it', that's fine, but if that involves the invasion of other nations based on perceived (but unproven) threats to a third party, then that is wrong, for so many reasons.

Re:question:"where is the security resolution condemning it? response:I give up." - This is obviously frustrating for you, but the fact is that invasion of another country is a serious matter, and justification must be thorough, complete, and irrefutable. If the UNSC had credible evidence of terror links from Iraq that threatened the US, then there would have been a UNSC resolution, or at least a condemnation. There is no resolution/condemnation, ergo, the claim that this is fact is not proven.


----------



## Brad Sallows (25 Aug 2004)

The problem with waiting for provocation is that the provocation the US is trying to prevent is the detonation of a nuclear weapon or release of toxic chemicals on its own soil.  By the time the provocation has occurred, or even when it is imminent, is too late; prevention, rather than pre-emption or reaction is the desired end-state.  That drives the US tp act on balance of probability, not beyond reasonable doubt or with certainty.

I cannot resist pointing out again that the only way authority to act lies with the UN is if nations maintain the fiction the UN has that authority.

>I would argue that the US losses alone do not justify this war.

Ask yourself that in 10 years when you can compare 2002-2012 for the Iraqis to 1992-2002 in terms of suffering and loss of life.  Then it will be easier to see whether the removal of Hussein has been worth the cost.

The US, the UN, the nations of Europe: all of these claim to support democracy and human rights.  Which among them is perfect?  Perhaps instead of measuring the conduct of the US against the top end of the yardstick it should be compared to its peers with a dose of political reality thrown in.  There is a third category after PoW and domestic criminal: that of someone who commits crimes against humanity.  Such criminals are not entitled to the privileges of PoW and we have already seen (Nuremburg trials) that they can be detained and tried above the jurisdiction of any national court.  Note that "democracy" and "human rights" (as in the treatment of prisoners) are two entirely separate issues; one may be present without the other.

>More pressure, time, and effort could have been spent to avoid war.

And of course more Iraqi lives under the Hussein regime must be added to what could have been "spent".  You can find estimates of wrongful Iraqi deaths (not to forget all other types of human rights abuses) per year over the past few years.  Presumably that annual death toll, then, is part of the acceptable cost of avoiding war.  How does that annual death toll stack up against the annualized death toll of Iraqis and others (including US soldiers) since the war began?


----------



## clasper (25 Aug 2004)

Caeser said:
			
		

> Clasper:
> 
> Re:"_my brilliantly conceived plan involving diplomacy and force cannot be proven right or wrong, merely irrelevant._" - I could not disagree more with this statement. Questioning decisions made by our political leaders is an essential right and responsibility of everyone. The very concept of democracy hangs on this.


Hence my comment about this being important in terms of the US election.   In terms of improving the current geopolitical situation, it's pretty irrelevant.   Now that I think about it, it is an interesting theoretical discussion on the causes and justifications for war.


> Re:"_the question of whether a decision made a year and a half ago was "just" or not isn't that important.   The IMPORTANT question is: Where do we go from here?" _ - I agree that 'where we go from here' is important, but it does not preclude us from examining the basis for the war. The two can be done simultaneously, and in fact, you should establish the legitimacy (or lack thereof) of the war before discussing 'where to go from here'. For example, if you establish that the war is unjust, what you do next will be very different than what you would do if it was justifiable.


Actually, I disagree here.   There are many problems in Iraq right now, and many of them are caused by westerners, whether we were there "justly" or not.   Withdrawing now because we weren't supposed to be there in the first place won't necessarily clean up the mess we've made.   If we set out to also solve some problems that Iraqis caused without our help, the burden for proving whether or not it is just has changed significantly in the last year and a half.   The cat is already out of the bag.


> Re:"_the few people on the forum that have the right to vote in the election probably won't be swayed by arguments on either side" _ - again, does it mean you can't/shouldn't make the argument anyway?


No, it doesn't mean you can't make the argument anyway.   Have fun tilting at those windmills.


----------



## dutchie (25 Aug 2004)

Brad:

Re:"_the provocation the US is trying to prevent is the detonation of a nuclear weapon or release of toxic chemicals on its own soil."_  - it is one thing to suggest that Saddam had the capacity to create chemical or even nuclear weapons, it is quite another to suggest he had even a sliver of hope of detonating those weapons on US soil. There is no credible evidence of these weapons, as indicated by the Blix inspections, even with the obstruction from the Iraqis. As far as delivery to US soil is concerned, Iraq had two options: 1) - create or acquire an ICBM: not likely. Anyone suggestion this was even remotely possible with the US spying on Iraq 24/7 is fooling themselves. 2)- deliver the weapons to the US in a clandestine way (cargo container, terrorists, etc): not really a realistic possibility, and certainly no evidence of even an intention to do this, as far as I can tell.

Re:"_By the time the provocation has occurred....it is too late; prevention, rather than reaction is the desired end-state.  That drives the US tp act on balance of probability, not beyond reasonable doubt or with certainty." _  - It might drive the US to lower the burden of proof required to act, but it does not lower the level required by the rest of the free world. Even if the US was acting on 'balance of probability', I would argue that because the US acted on intel it knew was false, and no other basis for invasion was put forth to a level that would meet the 'balance of probability' requirement, then the invasion is still unjustified, even with this lower proof requirement. 

Re:"_the only way authority to act lies with the UN is if nations maintain the fiction the UN has that authority."_ - all UN member nations (including the US) have signed a document attesting to the UN's authority in these matters. One could argue that the UN has lost it's effective authority due to it's lack of action in previous crisis'. I would counter that argument with the claim that the US has lost it's moral authority to claim to be acting in the best interests of peace and international democracy based on it's record of supporting coups of democratically elected leaders, it's record of consistant violations of the Geneva Convention, etc. 

Re:"_Then it will be easier to see whether the removal of Hussein has been worth the cost."_ - Removal of a tyrant is one thing (I have argued that it is the responsibility of Iraqis), but to remove him under false pretenses, while flaunting international opinion, and acting before all other non-violent means have been exhausted is quite another. I would be far less indignant about this situation if the US had seriously tried to avoid invasion, and used war as a true last resort.

Re:"_The US, the UN, the nations of Europe: all of these claim to support democracy and human rights.  Which among them is perfect?" _ - none of them are perfect, but only the US has invaded Iraq (except Britain). "_Perhaps instead of measuring the conduct of the US against the top end of the yardstick it should be compared to its peers with a dose of political reality thrown in."_ - It is the US that has determined how they are measured. They have always claimed to be the example of democracy that all others should model themselves after. By claiming to be the pinnacle of democracy, the expectation is that they act in a way that reflects that.

Clasper:

Re:"_Withdrawing now..."_ - the violation of Iraq has already occurred, and nothing can change that. I do not propose immediate and total withdrawal of all coalition troops from Iraq, that would be adding insult to injury. The US (and others) have a duty to attempt to repair the damage they have done, physically, politically, etc. A good start would be to kick out US contractors (Haliburton et all) and hand the contracts to Iraqis. People forget that the Iraqi people, despite Saddam's tyranny, were highly educated and their technology and infastructure was of a very high caliber (compared to other Arab nations). They have the ability. This would go a long way in improving the image of the US in Iraq. Hand over to the Iraqis of real political power, hand over of responsibility for security monitoring to the UN, and other 'withdrawal' type moves might not be a bad idea either. I don't, however, pretend to have all the answers on how to fix the situation, but that does not preclude me (or anyone else) from objecting to how the mess was created in the first place.


----------



## Infanteer (25 Aug 2004)

Well, my head is somewhat spinning.   Despite all the legal and philisophical arguements surrounding the morality of the invasion of Iraq, the fact remains that America acted as it did in response to 3,000 dead civilians following attacks based from a certain geopolitical region.   We can debate the finer points of the invasion for another four pages, but I think Brad struck the real blow in the first page with his statement that _Enough of the problem has been identified to start work.   The niggling over details can be done concurrently._

Bottom line is, the morality of the act is irrelevant as America can do as it sees fit to secure itself and there is not a thing we Canadians, the French, or the United Nations can do about it.   This is as true now as it was 2500 years ago when Thucydides stated that *"since you know as well as we do that right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must."*


----------



## dutchie (25 Aug 2004)

This thread appears to be running out of steam as pretty much all possible arguments have been stated (and restated several times in some cases). 

Having said that, Infanteer brings up a very good point, which was also brought up by Brad: The US (or anyone else) is free to invade anyone they want, as long as they are willing to accept the consequences. The greater the might of that nation, the more free they are to do as they please. (I am of course paraphrasing both Infanteer and Brad). I agree with this entirely. But just as the US has the free will to do as it pleases, I have the right to question their actions. My actions are not irrelavant, just as my vote in an election, although miniscule in impact on it's own, is not irrelavant.

re:"_America acted as it did in response to 3,000 dead civilians following attacks based from a certain geopolitical region."_ - I disagree. As stated, I do not believe the US invaded Iraq as part of the War on Terror (or because of 9/11). I have indicated my basis for this belief clear in this thread, which I trust you have read (although I don't expect you, or anyone else to agree with me). Second, just because the 9/11 attacks were based out of the Middle East, it does not legitimize the invasion of a specific nation within that region, with no other proven ties to the attacks.


----------



## Brad Sallows (25 Aug 2004)

Hussein's prospects of delivering a weapon were not really at issue; the prospects his weapons might come into the hands of terrorists who then might smuggle them into the US was an issue.

"There is no credible evidence of these weapons...even with the obstruction from the Iraqis."  Do you mean "especially with the obstruction"?  Obstructionism was part of the problem, not something which allayed US concerns.

Has it been proven the US acted on intel it knew was false, or is that still conjecture?

The UN Charter was signed in 1945.  I think the bait-and-switch the organization has conducted will ensure its demise, but only time will bear that out or not.  And what is this record of consistent violations of the Geneva Convention of which you speak?  Has someone been documenting a trail of US abuses since 1949?

>By claiming to be the pinnacle of democracy, the expectation is that they act in a way that reflects that.

That is one view.  Another is to simply decide what the appropriate and reasonable standards are for yourself and apply them.  I wouldn't accept someone's claim to be the Pope at face value.


----------



## dutchie (25 Aug 2004)

Brad: as stated in the previous post, I feel this discussion/thread has just about run its course, but I will continue to reply to your points for the time being. It seems we have made our positions clear. I understand your position, and I suspect you understand mine. Having said that.......

Re:"the prospects his weapons might come into the hands of terrorists who then might smuggle them into the US was an issue." - the smuggle option is what I meant by, "deliver the weapons to the US in a clandestine way (cargo container, terrorists, etc): not really a realistic possibility, and certainly no evidence of even an intention to do this, as far as I can tell." I guess we disagree. I feel the US should have to prove this contention to a higher level than you do.

Re:"_Do you mean "especially with the obstruction"?_ - What I meant was, that even with the suspiciousness of the Iraqis obstructing Blix (which suggests, but does not prove, guilt), the US cannot claim that Iraq had WMD. My original wording was confusing.

Re:"_Has it been proven the US acted on intel it knew was false, or is that still conjecture?"_ - it is based on the various investigations as well as the fact that no WMD have been found in Iraq in 1.5 years of occupation.

Re:"_The UN Charter was signed in 1945.  I think the bait-and-switch the organization has conducted will ensure its demise, but only time will bear that out or not."_ - That might be true, but the demise hasn't occurred yet, and until then, whether you agree or not, the US is still bound by the Charter.

Re:"_And what is this record of consistent violations of the Geneva Convention of which you speak?"_ - the US has a history of torturing PoW's (Iraqi prisons, Guantanamo Bay, Vietnam, etc.). Torture, of course, is against the Convention. 

Re:"_Another is to simply decide what the appropriate and reasonable standards are for yourself and apply them."_ - I agree. But it appears my standards for their conduct, and the US' standards are different. _"I wouldn't accept someone's claim to be the Pope at face value."_ - I don't fully understand this. Do you mean that you wouldn't accept someone's claim that they were as meritous as the Pope? (if so, I probably would have chosen a different example of someone of high moral fibre).


----------



## Brad Sallows (25 Aug 2004)

>not really a realistic possibility

What are your grounds for believing the frontiers of North America are not porous?

Regarding intel, "knew it was false" implies earlier in time.  Perhaps you should rephrase "now knows was incorrect".

>the US has a history of torturing PoW's (Iraqi prisons, Guantanamo Bay, Vietnam, etc.). Torture, of course, is against the Convention.

Please cite some evidence of torture at G'Bay.  International groups have been invited in and, while the accommodations may not have been entirely to their liking, I do not recall claims of torture.  Also, what is your evidence of a US history of torturing PoWs in Vietnam (as opposed to the actions of individuals acting against their training and government policy)?  What I am asking you to address is your contention of "record of consistant violations".  You should replace "record of consistent" with "recent isolated instances of".

When it comes to standards of judgement, it suffices to point out that if you permit yourself to judge someone by standards they define you are by definition using subjective rather than objective standards.  I prefer to set my own standards of judgement.


----------



## Infanteer (26 Aug 2004)

Caesar, you have to choose to get off the fence at some point, because the Iraqi regime clearly represented "the bad guys".   We can hum and haw about all your detailed points forever (as this thread seems to indicate) but eventually, you have to choose whether you want to fight the war here








or here









or one can simply render themself useless and irrelevent with these folk....


----------



## Acorn (27 Aug 2004)

joaquim said:
			
		

> First, it is important to understand that the concept of nation-state is foreign for Middle-Easterners. Their allegiance is based on familial, racial and religious ties. Most have not recognized the lines drawn on maps by the British and French 60 years ago. Therefore, the western world is, for the first time, fighting a war against an ideology rather than a country. The rules of engagement developed for war against nation-states are not very useful here.



That is only partially true. Middle-Easterners include Israelis who have a clear concept of nation-state. If you mean Arabs, you would be closer to correct, but not completely. There is a concept of pan-Arabism, but it is trumped by tribalism. The lines drawn by colonial powers (more than 60 years ago, by the way) tended to be geographically defined (and, where possible, geometrical).



> Second, what an Arab country has, the others will soon have. We were all reminded of this with the AQ Khan ring of nuclear technology smuggling. Saddam had a large arsenal of dangerous weapons, mainly conventional but still deadly, as witnessed by the daily roadside bombs these days. It was important to put in place in Iraq a regime more friendly to the west to control these weapons.



One quibble is that AQ Khan is not an Arab. In any case, this is clearly not the case as some Arab countries are far more advanced than others in areas such as CBRN reasearch.



> Third, Middle Eastern, especially Arabs, have a veneration for "the strong man". Saddam was the most visible of these Arab champions. Its removal was a very strong proof of the superiority of the western model over the islamic model.



The strong man transcends most cultures, even our own. The Western model has not demonstrated itself as stronger to Arabs because democracy is a messy system that requires people to accept decisions that they didn't vote for. Arabs don't understand that, because they cannot conceive of anyone in power giving it up.

A discussion of cultural differences is probably beyond this thread, and maybe this forum.

xxx


----------



## dutchie (27 Aug 2004)

Brad:

Re:"_What are your grounds for believing the frontiers of North America are not porous?"_ - they are porous, as evidenced by 9/11. But I don't believe they were penetrable by Saddam through conventional means (ICBMs) or unconventional means (terrorists as mules). Yes, Saddam COULD have used terrorists to bring WMD (if he had them, which has not been proven) to the US, but so could any nation. 

Re:"_evidence of torture..."_ - Amnesty Intl, about 3-4 months ago, released a statement indicating the US govt was mistreating prisoners in Cuba during interrogations. As 'enemy combatants' (the US terminology), they fall under the Convention. This mistreatment amounted to torture (according to the release), which contravenes the Convention. As far as the visit to the prison in Cuba, it is not surprising that no obvious signs of mistreatment were found. Didn't Saddam open up his prisons to Intl groups amid claims of torture? I think we can all agree that in Saddam's case, there was indeed torture occurring, but like the visit to the US prison, nothing was found.

Infanteer:

Re:"_you have to choose to get off the fence at some point..."_ - I have indeed come off the fence. Since you brought it up, I will tell you how my opinion of this war has evolved in the 1 and a half years since it started. At the beginning, I was glued to the TV as everyone was, in 'shock and awe' as it were. I supported the war, mainly because I felt Saddam was a monster and was lucky to escape this fate in the '91 war. Even then, however, I felt that this was more about finishing off a job started in '91 than about terrorism. But as time went by I realized that the basis for this war was false, and worse, that it appeared the US govt misled the world regarding the intel used. This has been beaten to death in this thread, so I'll leave it at that, but I want to make this absolutely clear: *I would likely be in support of the war had the US found WMD in Iraq, or otherwise proven they existed prior to invasion.* Even though I disagree with the idea of regime change, my disapproval of this would be out weighed by my belief that Saddam was a threat to peace while he possessed these WMD. The proof is not there, however.

My objection to the war goes against most of my political beliefs. I am normally very pro-US/West, except this instance. I am very much right-wing oriented politically. My personal morals, ethics, and values usually are reflected in my political orientation, except this case.

Regarding the statement you made with all those pretty pictures: As a citizen, my opinion of this war IS relavant, and it is my duty to challenge things I don't agree with. As a citizen, I do not fight the war, so therefore, I cannot choose where to fight it. As a Soldier, I do not choose where to fight. I do what I'm told, where I'm told to do it, and the manner in which I'm to do it. Of course, Canada didn't go to Iraq, but if I was a US soldier, I would not even consider dodging my duties, while my buddies went to Iraq, some never to return. I would do my best to bring absolute destruction to the enemy, even if I felt that I was sent there unjustly. And no, I wouldn't use the 'conscientious objector' to avoid my duty.


----------



## Infanteer (27 Aug 2004)

Sorry if that post seemed to question your professionalism as a soldier, I did not intend for that to be the message.

However, I find it unfortunate that you have decided to wrap your entire theory on the "justness" of the war upon the presence of WMD.

To me, taking down one dictator in a region full of totalitarian and fundamentalist regimes that would like nothing better to do then hold Western Civilization for ransom due to the fact that, through a twist of fate, they have come to sit upon a great share of the driving force for our economic well being.   I am happy with the fact that Syria, Saudi Arabia, Iran (and to some extent Pakistan) are all feeling the pucker factor by the fact that the US and Britain will no longer revert to no fly zones or cruise missile attacks.   To me, that is where the progress was made and thus our interest of the war in Iraq lies.

I could care less about whether a few WMD were kicking around in Iraq.   I don't think they were as destabilizing regionally as others would like to believe; Saddam really kept them around to promote the "big man" image and gas his own restless Kurds and revolutionary Shiites.   If he decided to try and force a regional _tete a tete_ with them (ie: shoot them into Israel) the Israelis could (and probably would) turn Baghdad into a glass parking lot.

As well, if the real enemy (Al Qaeda and their teammates) wanted a WMD to target US military forces or civilian centers with, they could probably just walk into a reactor in the Ukraine and buy enough to get what they wanted.   Perhaps, with Abrahms and Challengers sitting on the edge of their source of moral support, they'll be forced to think twice about it.

Cheers,
Infanteer


----------



## Brad Sallows (27 Aug 2004)

AI will of course take the most generous (to its principles and politics) view, but that doesn't change this fact: mistreatment is not torture.  If no obvious signs of mistreatment were found, then on what grounds is the accusation of mistreatment founded?

_Lawful_ combatants are protected by the Geneva Conventions.  _Unlawful_ combatants are not.  (There are other internationally recognized minimal rights of detainees which must of course be observed.)


----------

