Would You Support Military Action?

[Winstonm]

Find one place in any post that I have that suggests a position on Iran

 

Can't find one on Iran, but god help the people of Iowa if you are ever in charge. :lol:

 

Let me rephase the three types of war:

The offensive war

The defensive war

The Boogeyman under the bed war.

 

Well, that explains Iowa - an ear of corn can be used as a lethal weapon - and enough corn mash could surely be construed as Weapons of Mass Destruction. :)

[Winstonm]

The latest news:

 

The International Atomic Energy Agency said in its report that Iran was being unusually cooperative and had reached an agreement with the agency to answer questions about an array of suspicious past nuclear activities that have led many nations to suspect it harbors a secret effort to make nuclear arms. The agency added that while Tehran’s uranium enrichment effort is growing, the output is far less than experts had expected.

 

“This is the first time Iran is ready to discuss all the outstanding issues which triggered the crisis in confidence,” Mohamed ElBaradei, the I.A.E.A. director general, said in an interview. “It’s a significant step.”

 

The usual response:

 

But the Bush administration and its allies, which have won sanctions in the United Nations Security Council in an effort to stop Iran’s uranium enrichment, saw the latest report as more evidence of defiance, not cooperation.

 

Defiance of playing their role as the Evil Empire, maybe. It must be really hard to make a good case for war when the enemy is not cooperating.

[pbleighton]

Type One would be an "offensive" war, or perhaps more properly a war of conquest. Conquest does not require land as the asset sought, of course. Power, position, whatever. Attaining something not held.

 

Type Three would be a type of "defensive" war. I'd call it a reactionary war, reacting to a threat that is known and present.

 

Type Two would be something in the middle. You are not trying to attain something. Rather, you are attempting to stop someone from attaining something. One might say that this is an "offensive" war because you are trying to attain superiority, but that asset is already held. One might say it is a defensive war, because you are attempting to preempt a threat that is not yet known or present, in a sense.

 

Type Two and Type One are both offensive wars, and both illegal under the U.N. Charter, which prohibits unilateral military action except in the case of Type Three.

 

Both are war crimes.

 

The Nuremberg Charter defines “Crimes against Peace” as “planning, preparation, initiation or waging of wars of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties or participating in a common plan or conspiracy to wage an aggressive war.”, and goes on to say "to initiate a war of aggression . . . is not only an international crime, it is the supreme international crime.”

 

The U.S. is signatory to and subject to the U.N. Charter, which is certainly an international treaty. The Charter forbids one country from unilaterally attacking another except in self defense. Kofi Annan declared that the United States invasion of Iraq was “illegal”.

 

It's clear, and quite limited. It doesn't say it's OK to invade when Country A doesn't like Coountry B's government, or thinks that it may become a threat in the future, or doesn't like B's actions, or even if it thinks that B is itself guilty of war crimes. The recourse is the Security Council.

 

You've made a distinction without a difference within the category of offensive wars.

 

Peter

[kenrexford]

Type One would be an "offensive" war, or perhaps more properly a war of conquest. Conquest does not require land as the asset sought, of course. Power, position, whatever. Attaining something not held.

 

Type Three would be a type of "defensive" war. I'd call it a reactionary war, reacting to a threat that is known and present.

 

Type Two would be something in the middle. You are not trying to attain something. Rather, you are attempting to stop someone from attaining something. One might say that this is an "offensive" war because you are trying to attain superiority, but that asset is already held. One might say it is a defensive war, because you are attempting to preempt a threat that is not yet known or present, in a sense.

 

Type Two and Type One are both offensive wars, and both illegal under the U.N. Charter, which prohibits unilateral military action except in the case of Type Three.

 

Both are war crimes.

 

Peter

So?

 

If a nation in fact has set up nuclear missiles pointing your direction and has stated an intention to use them, if that has occurred, and I'm not saying that it has, but if it has, then waiting for an attack gets you millions of dead and moral superiority. Preemption gets you the nomenclature of a war criminal and not millions of dead.

 

The problem with the old definitions of aggression are that the old terms dealt with old realities. An attack could be repelled once begun.

 

In the nuclear age, however, that luxury is not available. All we have any longer is mutual destruction.

 

The modern would may need a different definition of an act of aggression. If the battle field is no longer a front line but is instead the entire globe, if crossing a border has a new parallel of programming a computer guidance system to cause a missle to land inside the others' border, then new definitions must be used.

[pbleighton]

So?

 

If a nation in fact has set up nuclear missiles pointing your direction and has stated an intention to use them, if that has occurred, and I'm not saying that it has, but if it has, then waiting for an attack gets you millions of dead and moral superiority. Preemption gets you the nomenclature of a war criminal and not millions of dead.

 

The problem with the old definitions of aggression are that the old terms dealt with old realities. An attack could be repelled once begun.

 

In the nuclear age, however, that luxury is not available. All we have any longer is mutual destruction.

 

The modern would may need a different definition of an act of aggression. If the battle field is no longer a front line but is instead the entire globe, if crossing a border has a new parallel of programming a computer guidance system to cause a missle to land inside the others' border, then new definitions must be used.

 

So I don't support the U.S. committing war crimes, and you do. That's a form of moral idiocy, but, hey, this is a free country.

 

Peter

[luke warm]

So?

 

If a nation in fact has set up nuclear missiles pointing your direction and has stated an intention to use them, if that has occurred, and I'm not saying that it has, but if it has, then waiting for an attack gets you millions of dead and moral superiority. Preemption gets you the nomenclature of a war criminal and not millions of dead.

 

The problem with the old definitions of aggression are that the old terms dealt with old realities. An attack could be repelled once begun.

 

In the nuclear age, however, that luxury is not available. All we have any longer is mutual destruction.

 

The modern would may need a different definition of an act of aggression. If the battle field is no longer a front line but is instead the entire globe, if crossing a border has a new parallel of programming a computer guidance system to cause a missle to land inside the others' border, then new definitions must be used.

 

So I don't support the U.S. committing war crimes, and you do. That's a form of moral idiocy, but, hey, this is a free country.

 

Peter

strange sentiment from someone who defines morality as subjectively as he does...

[TimG]

If a nation in fact has set up nuclear missiles pointing your direction and has stated an intention to use them, if that has occurred, and I'm not saying that it has, but if it has, then waiting for an attack gets you millions of dead and moral superiority. Preemption gets you the nomenclature of a war criminal and not millions of dead.

 

The problem with the old definitions of aggression are that the old terms dealt with old realities. An attack could be repelled once begun.

 

In the nuclear age, however, that luxury is not available. All we have any longer is mutual destruction.

How is it that all we have is "mutual destruction" and "not millions of dead"?

[TimG]

So I don't support the U.S. committing war crimes, and you do. That's a form of moral idiocy, but, hey, this is a free country.

Isn't the idea of a war crime already something of an idiocy?

[pbleighton]

Isn't the idea of a war crime already something of an idiocy?

 

Explain?

 

Peter

[Al_U_Card]

Well, it is certainly redundant. Not quite an oxymoron.

[TimG]

Isn't the idea of a war crime already something of an idiocy?

 

Explain?

It's war.

[pbleighton]

It's war.

 

Ah, I see. You see no difference between:

1. On a small scale:

Soldiers on opposing sides killing each other in battle, versus soldiers on one side going into a village inhabited by noncombatant citizens, rounding up everyone, including children, and killing all of them.

2. On a large scale:

A war of conquest and domination, such as the Nazis in WW II, and a country fighting the invasion, as did the Allies.

 

It all sorts of blurs together for you?

 

Peter

[whereagles]

Military action on Iran would be an act of piracy.

[TimG]

It's war.

 

Ah, I see. You see no difference between:

1. On a small scale:

Soldiers on opposing sides killing each other in battle, versus soldiers on one side going into a village inhabited by noncombatant citizens, rounding up everyone, including children, and killing all of them.

2. On a large scale:

A war of conquest and domination, such as the Nazis in WW II, and a country fighting the invasion, as did the Allies.

 

It all sorts of blurs together for you?

 

Peter

Genocide is wrong, not because it is against the rules of war, but because...well, it's wrong.

 

I think it is silly to attempt to codify what are appropriate and inappropriate war actions.

 

I also think that rules of war desensitize us to the realities of war. Being justified in action because the rules say it is OK lessens the consideration of the consequences.

[Winstonm]

It's war.

 

Ah, I see. You see no difference between:

1. On a small scale:

Soldiers on opposing sides killing each other in battle, versus soldiers on one side going into a village inhabited by noncombatant citizens, rounding up everyone, including children, and killing all of them.

2. On a large scale:

A war of conquest and domination, such as the Nazis in WW II, and a country fighting the invasion, as did the Allies.

 

It all sorts of blurs together for you?

 

Peter

Genocide is wrong, not because it is against the rules of war, but because...well, it's wrong.

 

I think it is silly to attempt to codify what are appropriate and inappropriate war actions.

 

I also think that rules of war desensitize us to the realities of war. Being justified in action because the rules say it is OK lessens the consideration of the consequences.

Good points. It makes me wonder how many more would oppose this war if the Vietnam era media were still operational - bringing visuals of the horrors of war into our living rooms each night via the 6 O'Clock News.

 

Interesting that there are movies coming out soon to emphasize this very aspect of the Iraq war - too bad they won't be made madatory classroom audio-visual learning in the No Child Left Behind program; it is also too bad that in Iraq the learning program seems to be No Child Left Unharmed.

[luke warm]

~~I also think that rules of war desensitize us to the realities of war.  Being justified in action because the rules say it is OK lessens the consideration of the consequences.

yeah... i remember an *old* star trek episode with that theme... these two planets were so "advanced" that rather than actually waging war they would periodically allow a few thousand of their citizens to step into a machine that killed them... they avoided the appearance of war in that way... it had been going on for generations and would supposedly never cease, until kirk put an end to it... the horror of war is the only thing that can cause the end of war, he said... i personally don't think war will ever stop, horror or no horror

[pbleighton]

Genocide is wrong, not because it is against the rules of war, but because...well, it's wrong.

 

Well, OK, but...

 

I think it is silly to attempt to codify what are appropriate and inappropriate war actions.

 

Then on what basis do we prosecute people who you (presumably) would have prosecuted? Think Lieutenant Calley.

 

Are you proposing a separate set of international laws which would replace war crimes?

 

I also think that rules of war desensitize us to the realities of war. Being justified in action because the rules say it is OK lessens the consideration of the consequences.

 

Not if you take into account legal versus illegal wars, i.e. it can (and, at least for one or more sides in any given conflict, always is) be a crime.

 

Iraq is not *OK*.

 

It is a crime.

 

Peter

[TimG]

Then on what basis do we prosecute people who you (presumably) would have prosecuted?  Think Lieutenant Calley.

I don't know who Lieutenant Calley is.

 

[Edit: I knew of the incident, just didn't recognize the name.]

 

I also think that rules of war desensitize us to the realities of war. Being justified in action because the rules say it is OK lessens the consideration of the consequences.

 

Not if you take into account legal versus illegal wars, i.e. it can (and, at least for one or more sides in any given conflict, always is) be a crime.

 

I don't understand. Are you suggesting there are would-be tyrannical dictators out there that first considered that their actions would constitute war crimes and instead decided on more benevolent ways?

[Al_U_Card]

~~I also think that rules of war desensitize us to the realities of war.  Being justified in action because the rules say it is OK lessens the consideration of the consequences.

yeah... i remember an *old* star trek episode with that theme... these two planets were so "advanced" that rather than actually waging war they would periodically allow a few thousand of their citizens to step into a machine that killed them... they avoided the appearance of war in that way... it had been going on for generations and would supposedly never cease, until kirk put an end to it... the horror of war is the only thing that can cause the end of war, he said... i personally don't think war will ever stop, horror or no horror

 

If capitain Kirk had been intelligent, he would have forced the leaders of the two sides to include themselves obligatorily in the next in line for oblivion. Put a stop to war? Only when those who declare war are obliged to be in the front lines. Then it would stop fast.

[pbleighton]

I don't understand. Are you suggesting there are would-be tyrannical dictators out there that first considered that their actions would constitute war crimes and instead decided on more benevolent ways?

 

Not at this time, but countries make wars, and norms of international law can, in the long run, have an effect. If the U.S. populace was less xenophobic and aggressive, and more attuned to international law, we wouldn't have invaded Iraq.

 

I'm not saying that this is either a quick or easy process,. In fact, it is the opposite. However, with the increasingly powerful destructive technolgy we are acquiring, we had better learn to behave - the consequences of war become more lethal every decade. One of the ways we can accomplish this is through establishing international behavioral norms, and one way to accomplish this is through international law.

 

Back to your point about dictators: as norms strengthen, the probablity of international retaliation, possibly military, but also with effective sanctions, increases dramatically. I was involved many years ago with the movement to boycott investment in South Africa. It worked.

 

What is your alternative to international laws, including war crimes laws?

 

Should we just wait around for WW III, and sigh at the injustice of it all?

 

Peter

[jtfanclub]

If capitain Kirk had been intelligent, he would have forced the leaders of the two sides to include themselves obligatorily in the next in line for oblivion. Put a stop to war? Only when those who declare war are obliged to be in the front lines. Then it would stop fast.

Actually, that's the story. The daughter of one of the leaders ends up on the Enterprise and demands sanctuary, as she's next in line to be killed. Part of the point of the story is that it doesn't make a damn bit of difference whether the leaders are included or not. Fanatics don't care if they die, as long as the cause is right.

 

I guess since you think it would stop you, it would stop most people.

 

It was clearly a war crime for us to attack Nazi Germany. After all, what had they done to us? Only blown away a few ships carrying weapons to Russia and Great Britian, clearly an act of self defense. We should have fought the Japanese and negotiated with the Germans- they get Russia, Europe, Africa, and the Middle East, and leave the rest of the world alone. I'm quite sure they would have agreed.

 

At least that would get rid of most of these moronic arguments.

 

And as far as Iran? Our troops are already shooting at their troops and vice versa. By what definition are we not already at war?

[helene_t]

Put a stop to war? Only when those who declare war are obliged to be in the front lines. Then it would stop fast.

Or those who declare war have to pay a fee of a billion bugs. Or they just get shut.

 

I think if the electorate wants war, it's the dirty job of your leaders to start that war. Of course there could be something wrong with your political system so that the electorate votes for something which they in some sense "shouldn't" have voted for, but that applies to any political problem. Nobody would suggest that politicians who vote for (say) public garbage collection have to collect the garbage themselves.

[mike777]

insane world

 

 

lets assume we are shooting/killihundreds of dafur or africans

 

 

what War..

 

I mean legal...usa war are we in?

 

 

I just do not know

 

but the real issue is

 

 

most of us do not care...about...most of these tinywars

 

look at british....

the issue is not....the war...but can they win???????

[rbforster]

At least if Iran launched their nuke on a good old fashion ICBM we'd know who shot it and which country to reduce to radioactive slag.

Hyperbole aside, why would it be right for the US to reduce the entire country to radioactive slag?

If the cold war taught us anything it's that credible deterrence is about all you've got when both sides have nukes. Whether or not it's right, it's important for us to claim that massive retaliation is our policy (not like Hillary, who's been backpedalling since she made some stupid statements about categorically not using nukes on Iran). It can't hurt anything to have the policy on the off chance it works, and we can decide later (hopefully never) about who to nuke when someone hits us first.

 

You might argue deterrence is unlikely to be effective against either terrorists or religious fanatics (possibly including the current Iranian leadership), and you'd probably be right. Sadly having irrational enemies means that a preemptive first strike looks more like the best rational action. (and I mean this entirely from the game theory perspective, not the "let's start a war for self-aggrandizement" perspective of the current administration)

 

As for believing Iran's protests about "peaceful power generation," they are clearly as full of it as some of the intelligence on the Iraq situation. They're building breeder reactors which are much more complicated technically and less effective at power generation, but they are good at producing plutonium for making bombs. That alone should make their intentions clear, but the fact that they claim the need it for their civilian energy needs when they are sitting on 9% of the world's oil reserves is just ridiculous.

[Gerben42]

(not like Hillary, who's been backpedalling since she made some stupid statements about categorically not using nukes on Iran)

 

Maybe stupid from the point of winning votes but sensible otherwise. I know the EU would never forgive the USA for using nuclear weapons again. It is a weapon so evil that you would not use it on your worst enemies. Using it would alienate the US even from its closest friends like the UK and probably even Israel.

 

Even though I don't agree with it, I for one can understand the Iranian policy, it was forced upon them by the Bush administration. Iran is afraid that someone as erratic as Bush in the White House may attack them, and a nuclear bomb on their side might be the only thing to stop this.