Preparing for More War?

[Winstonm]

U.S. sending third aircraft carrier to the Middle East

 

Associated Press

Tuesday, July 10, 2007

 

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates: The United States is sending a third aircraft carrier to the Middle East, the U.S. Navy said Tuesday in a move that bolstered U.S. military capability at a time of tension with Iran and stepped-up operations in Iraq.

 

 

Will there be war with Iran?

[mike777]

U.S. sending third aircraft carrier to the Middle East

 

Associated Press

Tuesday, July 10, 2007

 

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates: The United States is sending a third aircraft carrier to the Middle East, the U.S. Navy said Tuesday in a move that bolstered U.S. military capability at a time of tension with Iran and stepped-up operations in Iraq.

 

 

Will there be war with Iran?

No, if we do not mind Iran having Nukes. If we stop threatening everyone or anyone who wants nukes it seems we can live in peace and not war.

 

OTOH if you think war is the lesser evil than someone(iran)(you) getting nukes.

 

Too bad we never seem to have this discussion.

 

To be fair I am still trying to understand why British docs want to kill Brits. Is this some war or just some criminal act that the police should handle?

[Winstonm]

OTOH if you think war is the lesser evil than someone(iran)(you) getting nukes.

 

Too bad we never seem to have this discussion.

 

To be fair I am still trying to understand why British docs want to kill Brits

 

I think this is a valid discussion point. My viewpoint is that war is never a lesser evil, especially wars of agression - which is the essence of preemptive warfare.

Your statement sounds to me like you believe there will be war.

 

No, if we do not mind Iran having Nukes.

 

Whether or not we mind seems irrelevant; whether or not we have the right to militarily stop them seems to be the correct question. Which then leads to further questions of how do we know their objectives and what intelligence can be trusted to give us that answer, after the Iraq WMD intelligence fiasco.

 

However, when the dial is turned up to nuclear capabilities, the risks mount. At the same time, what is the reason that Iran has less right to nuclear arms than Pakistan, India, or Israel? How can there not be some way of allowing nuclear fuel creation while monitoring for arms creation?

 

And btw, I understand those "docs" were PhDs, not physicians. And the car could not have blown up. There is more damage threat in L.A. from a random drive-by shooting than was produced by this car. Weird.

[mike777]

OTOH if you think war is the lesser evil than someone(iran)(you) getting nukes.

 

Too bad we never seem to have this discussion.

 

To be fair I am still trying to understand why British docs want to kill Brits

 

I think this is a valid discussion point. My viewpoint is that war is never a lesser evil, especially wars of agression - which is the essence of preemptive warfare.

Your statement sounds to me like you believe there will be war.

 

No, if we do not mind Iran having Nukes.

 

Whether or not we mind seems irrelevant; whether or not we have the right to militarily stop them seems to be the correct question. Which then leads to further questions of how do we know their objectives and what intelligence can be trusted to give us that answer, after the Iraq WMD intelligence fiasco.

 

However, when the dial is turned up to nuclear capabilities, the risks mount. At the same time, what is the reason that Iran has less right to nuclear arms than Pakistan, India, or Israel? How can there not be some way of allowing nuclear fuel creation while monitoring for arms creation?

 

And btw, I understand those "docs" were PhDs, not physicians. And the car could not have blown up. There is more damage threat in L.A. from a random drive-by shooting than was produced by this car. Weird.

1) If you believe that war is never the lesser evil, I think that stops the discussion.

Just start your question with that first, it helps.

2) If you think whether we have the right to do something or not is the most important question, fair enough. Just start with what rights we do have and where they came from.

3) I think most leaders think the most important war question is what is in the best nat. interest, not whether they have the right or not to go to war. If I understand your point if something is in a country's best nat. interest but they do not have the right to do it, they should not do it, fair enough. Just make that clear. Again just tell us what rights a country have and where those rights come from.

 

btw I have no idea what you are talking about or what point you are trying to make about the latest brit attack. Yes I thought they were docs and do you suggest just to handle it as something of less importance than a random drive by shooting? Your claim or point is confusing to me.

[the hog]

Winston, given the rhetoric and the bullshit that is going on, I suspect there will be war with Iran. The basic self interest of the modern nation state lends itself to an aggressive foreign policy. Btw this is not "Yank bashing", my country is just as bad as yours in this respect.

 

Mike, there are times, and this is one of them, that I just sit at my PC and shake my head at your posts. You are either deliberately trying to wind up people with comments like "Again just tell us what rights a country have and where those rights come from", or else, well 'No" I won't mention the alternative - it would be insulting.

[helene_t]

Yes I think there will be war with Iran. In another thread Todd asked what the probability is that some event (real or made up) would occur that gave Bush an excuse to stay in power after the next elections. Starting a war would improve the odds.

[Winstonm]

3) I think most leaders think the most important war question is what is in the best nat. interest, not whether they have the right or not to go to war. If I understand your point if something is in a country's best nat. interest but they do not have the right to do it, they should not do it, fair enough. Just make that clear. Again just tell us what rights a country have and where those rights come from.

 

You expose your Straussian philosophy - what most leaders think is supposed to be irrelevant in our republic - it is a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

 

Of course, the Strauss philosophy is not compatable with the U.S. constitution and its concepts of limited government and checks and balances. And many leaders throughout history have led their countries into war in the national interest - people like Hitler, Hirohito, Hussein.

 

I can easily tell you the rights of the country - they are whatever the people allow. At least, that's how it is supposed to work.

 

So that is the starting point of the debate - do we the people believe we should go to war to stop Iran's nuclear development?

[Winstonm]

Winston, given the rhetoric and the bullshit that is going on, I suspect there will be war with Iran. The basic self interest of the modern nation state lends itself to an aggressive foreign policy. Btw this is not "Yank bashing", my country is just as bad as yours in this respect.

 

It's like a low key build up to Iraq. But will it be the U.S. or Israel who finally pulls the trigger?

[mike777]

Winston, given the rhetoric and the bullshit that is going on, I suspect there will be war with Iran. The basic self interest of the modern nation state lends itself to an aggressive foreign policy. Btw this is not "Yank bashing", my country is just as bad as yours in this respect.

 

 

 

 

Mike, there are times, and this is one of them, that I just sit at my PC and shake my head at your posts. You are either deliberately trying to wind up people with comments like "Again just tell us what rights a country have and where those rights come from", or else, well 'No" I won't mention the alternative - it would be insulting.

 

I respect Winston and no I am not trying to rile him up or "get him" I think he has interesting ideas, that just seem to border on pacifism.

 

I will just post this and leave the thread alone. I am interested if anyone thinks the USA should ever project its military power without the written permission of the UN. This would mean not acting at times if we think it is in our nat. interest but the UN denies us.

 

Look forward to reading your comments and will stop responding.

 

Winston brought up the term rights of a country I did not. I just tried to discuss that Winston seems to want to talk about in this thread. I did not mention the word rights first.

 

Ron not for the first time your posts (edited, nevermind...)

Yes if you believe decisions are made on the basis of a country's rights then you should explain further. You seem to just want to push the whole issue under the sheets. In fact based on Winson's latest post it seems he believes a country has the right to do anything if the people want it.

 

I see this complaint often. If the person starting the thread wants to discuss rights, lets.

 

 

I hope our leaders would not go to war if the people want it but our leaders feel it is not in the best interest of our country. I call that leadership, not reading and following the polls.

 

 

 

Winston you seem to blame Hitler, and other leaders and not the people. Do you forget that Hilter was elected. Yes, I do believe people get the leadership they deserve and take resp. for. You seem to not believe that. You seem to think people are just victims.

 

Again this is an issue you bring up not me.

 

I repeat no, I do not think the case for war with Iran has been made. Just as I said I did not think the case for war with Iraq was made. Heck I still do not understand what winning the war in Afghanistan means but it seems no one cares about that.

 

If you think war is never justified or the lesser evil, fair enough, I respect your opinion even if I strongly disagree with it. If you think we should never go to war in the modern age, fair enough. If you think we should then tell us when. Its your thread, not mine.

 

btw yes, our leaders have led us into war, unpopular wars often without the backing of the people. I am reading about Adams and Jefferson and the Barbary pirates war now. Heck most of the population USA had no idea who these guys were and Congress fought them tooth and nail. They thought building a Navy was a huge waste of money that could be better spent on other things.

 

Europe just paid a ransom, Sweden for one a million dollars. Even the Brits paid with the strongest navy in the world.They only asked for 250,000$ from the usa. They could not understand why everyone would pay, it was far cheaper and easier, and the usa coming half way around the world spending millions to fight when they could get out cheaply for 250,000$

[mike777]

Yes I think there will be war with Iran. In another thread Todd asked what the probability is that some event (real or made up) would occur that gave Bush an excuse to stay in power after the next elections. Starting a war would improve the odds.

 

I hope these posts are in jest.

 

 

Do you really belive this. This is really Absurd. ;)

 

Bush starts a war with Iran to stay longer in office? ROFL

[Gerben42]

Bush starts a war with Iran to stay longer in office? ROFL

 

I don't see what's funny about this. In fact I find it worrying. We saw what Bush is capable of, why not this? It's usually something like "We're in a war, not a time to change the commander in chief, let's postpone elections until it's over."

[sceptic]

Bush starts a war with Iran to stay longer in office? ROFL 

 

Hm, does not seem that far fetched

[helene_t]

Bush starts a war with Iran to stay longer in office? ROFL

I believe many wars were started by regimes that were about to loose domestic support and needed an external enemy. The effect of war is that people forget their domestic problems. It becomes un-patriotic not to support the government, even a very bad government, in times of war. George Orwell described this very well in his "1984" in which the TV news spent most of it time on wars. It was unclear in the novel whether those wars were real or made up, but that didn't matter.

 

Idi Amin's war on Tanzania, Sadam Huseins war on Iran and Miloseviic's wars on Croatia and Bosnia are examples of this. The most notorious example is probably the Arab countries' attitude towards Israel. The Falkland war and Bush senior's war on Iraq are other examples. While both were provoked and it could be argued that neither Bush senior nor Thatcher "started" a war, both were certainly eager to accept the invitation. Btw Argentinia may have invated the Falklands for the same reason.

 

It is charateristic for the present U.S. government that they talk about external threats in order to appeal to the citizens fear of being labeled as non-patriots.

 

That Bush is going to stay in power may not be the most likely scenario. Rather he may launch a war to favor a hawk candidate, especially if the democrats run an anti-war candidate like Obama. Or, if he thinks that the democrats are going to win anyway, he may just want to leave the country (and the rest of the World) in as bad a shape as possible.

[Echognome]

I have no opinion on what Bush is capable of, but I do not think that he would think any of it would lead to him staying in office longer. We have had term limits in place for many wars without the question of changing the law being brought up.

[the hog]

"I am interested if anyone thinks the USA should ever project its military power without the written permission of the UN. This would mean not acting at times if we think it is in our nat. interest but the UN denies us."

 

To answer this quickly and to the point -"No". I don't believe any country should interfere in any other country militarily or with sanctions unless you have the go ahead from the UN. I know many think the UN a joke, but it is the best wev'e got. To act unilaterally is arrogant.

[helene_t]

I am interested if anyone thinks the USA should ever project its military power without the written permission of the UN.

I think the UN bureaucracy is too slow to make military decision at tactical level. When the case is less urgent, such as the two later Gulf wars, I think it's better to go through the UN bureaucracy and then accept any decision they make. Of course if it's about protecting U.S. interests, ultimately the U.S. government is responsible to the U.S. people and not to the U.N. But trying to export democracy to Iraq without the U.N.'s decision seems a bad idea.

[pbleighton]

I think that it is very unlikely that the U.S. will invade and occupy Iran. We have a LONG imperialiast history (for our victims' own good, of course B) ), which persists to this day: see Vietnam and Iraq (twice). Vietnam taught us a lesson, which lasted until the first Gulf war. Indeed, one of Bush I's motives was to unlearn the lesson of Vietnam. He was smart enough to not invade, so there was no immediate lesson there. However, it did increase Muslim resentment of the West in general and the U.S. in particular. This resentment has been shown to have consequences...

 

I think Iraq has taught us the same lesson, so we probably not invade and occupy Iraq. We (or Israel) may attack with air power, a lesser but still tragic mistake for either country. I think and hope that the odds are against it. The pro-Western Iranian exiles who hate the present regime have said don't bomb, if you do the regime will use nationalistic hatred to stay in power for another fifty plus years.

 

In addition, accumulated Muslim resentment would increase. Not a good idea. Attacking Iran would be an act of instant gratification, ignoring future consequences.

 

BTW, Mike, you miss the point once again (you are remarkable). U.N. approval is neither necessary nor sufficient for us to attack a country. The issue is actually quite simple. We should attack a country when it commits an act of war against us. Preemptive war is both self-destructive and morally wrong.

 

Peter

[Gerben42]

We should attack a country when it commits an act of war against us.

 

Which no country has done since Pearl Harbor...

[Al_U_Card]

Morality and the lack of same.

 

As long as there is profit to be made by the manufacturing and the use of weapons then there will be war and rumors of war.

 

Wake up. Bush is only doing what he is told. Extend the conflict, expand the theatre, exterminate resistance to our domination.

 

You want conflict of biblical proportions? It is coming to a neighbourhood near you....and very soon. As soon as you continue to allow it to continue and expand.

 

Stop the madman now, before it is too late. (It is already too late for all the people that have died because of your inaction, but think of all the lives that you can save that Bush and his murderous gang have yet to kill.)

[Winstonm]

Winston you seem to blame Hitler, and other leaders and not the people. Do you forget that Hilter was elected. Yes, I do believe people get the leadership they deserve and take resp. for. You seem to not believe that. You seem to think people are just victims.

 

Hitler was indeed elected. The avenue to sole rule is unimportant. What is important is the decisions made by the rulers afterwards. My point is that the Leo Strauss school of thought is the antithesis of the U.S. consitution - that sole rule is to be avoided above all else.

 

At this point, I do not think we can rule out any possibility from the core group in power, no matter how absurd it may on the surface seem. With changes in laws and executive orders, it is possible for the office of the president to appoint itself a virtual dictator in times of crisis - and the "crisis" definition is rather large and vague.

 

I do no know if Bush has the gall, but Cheney has shown enough contempt for the rule of law and disdain for other ideology to be seen as capable of virtually anything to promote his agendas.

[Al_U_Card]

Armageddon

 

The ultimate conflict of good against evil.......all things being relative....just who gets to be evil?

[pbleighton]

Which no country has done since Pearl Harbor...

 

You could make a case that the Afghani government, by sheltering Al Qaeda, had entered into an active alliance with a group which had indeed comitted an act of war against the U.S. This is a murky case, and I don't think we have handled Afghanistan well at all, but there was some justification in that invasion. The problem was that, *if you break it, you own it*, and Bush has been consistently irresponsible in this respect, as in others.

 

Peter

[Winstonm]

The U.S. is in no position to begin a campaign of conquest and occupation against Iran, which to me makes the possibilities even more chilling - the only option available is an air campaign, and that could involve the use of nuclear arms.

 

For those who support war against Iran, I can only submit that you had better be 100% correct that it would prevent a future detonation of a nuclear device within the U.S. - there is no other viable reason for war. The consequences of being wrong in this assumption are too horrific to imagine. Can the nuclear risk ever be contained, though, as Russia and Pakistan are also possible sources for terrorist devices?

[pbleighton]

More and more countries will have nuclear weapons. We had better get used to it.

 

Peter

[luke warm]

~~Whether or not we mind seems irrelevant; whether or not we have the right to militarily stop them seems to be the correct question. ~~

it all comes back to this, eh? but we had a pretty long thread a year or so ago on 'right' vs. 'wrong' from a philosophical viewpoint, and if memory serves you have no basis to call an action right or wrong since (you can correct me if i'm wrong) neither exist, objectively... as for 'right', in your opinion does might make right? if not, what does? opinion? polls?

BTW, Mike, you miss the point once again (you are remarkable). U.N. approval is neither necessary nor sufficient for us to attack a country. The issue is actually quite simple.  We should attack a country when it commits an act of war against us. Preemptive war is both self-destructive and morally wrong.

mike missed no point, he asked a question.. and his question was answered by ron and helene... it's my opinion that mike is misunderstood by a lot of posters, i just don't know whether it's purposefully done.. his questions are thought provoking and, unfortunately, are usually answered shallowly (imo)

 

as for your "morally wrong" statement, you have no basis for making it... you are one of the people who deny such a thing exists, or who define the term in such a subjective manner as to make it useless