My Position Against The Positions For This War.

1) Agreed there is no consensus of opinion, just as there is no consensus that the world isn't flat, or that premeditated murder for the sake of personal profit constitutes an immoral act, or that Motzart was more musically talented than Jennifer Lopez is, etc. There are always dissenters..hence my sue of 'almost without exception'...but it is as conceded as an issue like this may be. Arguing against the moral imperative for justification of military aggression would be akin to arguing that slavery isn't a viable economic option in the modern world. It can't be proven, but if you have studied in the filed for a day or more, it is an accepted maxim. My worldview was constructed on the information in this filed that I gathered, not the other way around, and as I said in another post, I was, before becoming aware by virtue of study, quite succeptible to approving of a war for the sake of it's excitment...hardly the position of someone predisposed to edit the information he has spent years studying/teacjing in order to fullfill some latent pacifistic view. Moving beyond yet another allusion to my bias, and trying to overlook the snide 'even you' remark in your first paragraph, I will point out that what you call totality, and dismiss because of what I 'admited' were exceptions, I called 'most', and allowed for same...and you can save the personal shots like 'tooting your own horn' in the future if you want me to respond. If you want to dismiss my view as pacifistic, despite evidence to the contrary, that is an arguable point, but when you again reduce this to supposing my motives for stating my opinion, question my honesty in my research, or tryto ridicule my position as self-agrandisement, you both miss the point of this thread, and coem very close to speaking to yourself, as I have clarified that I want to argue the facts and positions here, not take part in another mud-slinging contest.

If you have read any of the experts I mentioned, there isn;t much doubt. All of them list essentially what I stated as foundation principles and/or conclusions of their study in the field. But they are hardly alone...I simply do not have the time or space to prove one expert you question after another...it would be an endless venture. I would point out that Norman Schwarzkopf quoted the very same 'maxim of military philosophy' that i premised my positions on during his television show on The Great Wall of China...as an unquestioned principle of same. If you would care to offer an alternate interpretation of Sun Tzu, who repeatedly states that the primacy of military thinking is how to avoid war if and when possible, such as:

" Unless directly endangered do not engage in warfare. The ruler cannot mobalize the army out of personal anger. The general can not engage in battle because of personal frustration...Anger can revert to happiness, annoyance can revert to joy, but a vanquished state cannot be revived, the dead cannot be brought back to life."

....or when he states that " the commander who makes war where there was peace owes ( the world, or the people..diff. int.) all of the explanation, and assumes the burden of all that ensues...the commander who makes peace where there was war is owed by all."

There are endless examples...and remember, this is a man who wrote the Bible of Eastern military thinking, was himself a famous general during one of the bloodiest periods in human history, and and who advocated 'total war' when war was necessary...hardly a shrinking violet. But he states the theme that I cited over and over again.Clausevitz, who also is an advocate of total warfare when war is necessary ( and would, for example, look at something like the Geneva Concention as a contradiction arrived at only to make us feel more civilised and secure about something which is neither ) also states that going to war is the most far-reaching, profoudly dangerous and
improperly thought out decision a state's commander makes, and calls for extensive and constant measuring of the means against the end. Fuller calls warfare the most misused tool of power in history...and all of them, as indeed do almost all militart thinkers of any consequence, that war is a very serious business often practiced by those taking it very lightly, usually not at grear personal risk ( in modern times.) Napoleon, who knew a thing or two about war ( and before we get off on another enjoyable but irrelevant sidetrack, I cite him as an expert on the nature of support for a war, not on whether aggressive warfare is justified...seperate discussion already covered), said that thre two easiest people to convince that a war is justified are the soldier who has yet to see it first hand, and the politician who never will. I can go on and on...it's not really a matter of debate within the field: The burden of justification lies squarely on the shoulders of those who propose to start a war on another country, not on those who disagree, or propose finding alternate solutions.

As for 'fought improperly', it usually has to do with a seperation of objectives and means, tactics, or strategy, but isn't really germaine, just mentioned insofar as the general scorn military experts have for wars waged by politicians. Ever heard the expression " Politicians are the ones who start wars, generals and soldiers are the ones who have to end them."? It becomes more and more true in America the farther the upper class/political elite get from the class of men who have comprised the vast majority of our combat serving armed forces in the last half century.

2) Re: regressive thinking...I t can be seen that way, but alternately so can the argument you are making...ie, if you determine that any war can be rationalized away ( again, a stance I have not made..but for the purpose of argument)and as such dismiss those objections, you can, regressively, determine that any war can be justified. You could always contend that there will alway be other options, s that now is always as good a time as any for war...I have not made an absolute statement to the effect that war is never the answer...I jave said that A) the history of warfare, B) the nature of warfare, and C) the evolution of global diplomacyare all clear indications of the absolute need for the highest demands of justification to be placed on those proposing war rather than those opposing it. I agreed that this stance does not come with inherant dangers and potential costs...but it is a far smaller price to pay. You cite WWII...I will address your faulty but common reasoning about 'apeasement' later, but 1st let me deal with your WWII analogy...

1) Unless you want to argue another accepted historical premise, WWII was a direct result of WWI. WHich makes it, and not via some arbitrary, endless sequence of quantum theorist rationale, but directly attributed through cause/effect analysis, the result of a clearly non-justified war. Whether or not, once set in motion, those chain of events would have best been dealth with without war is another matter.

2) Even in a more accute sense, the French decision to send in the troops ( to occupy the Ruhr ) was a direct instigating factor for the rise of Hitler...and, hence, the war.

3) But the 3rd most important factor to consider when dealing with the just war rationale for WWII as a parallel for today is this: Had Hitler thought that way, there would have been no war. And before you respond by saying that we are compelled to react to the other, remember that in this case we are the aggressor. Were hussein to be invading other nations we would be able to cite the need to respond to conditions other parties have established, as we did in '91. But that is not the case here...we are the ones starting the war, ipso facto we are the ones in control of establishing the conditions of rationale for the war. We are in a situation where we could decide not to act aggressively,and there would be no war, no conquest, and no invasions...unlike '39, or '91.

4) Clearly my Rule of Law standard appealed to the moral and common sense stipulations for requiring less of a burden of proof on those proposing war in a responsible society than it did to some non-existent law...Although there is something akin to that, in the 1947 UN definitions of justifiable military actions, where under self-defense the idea of pre-emptive or preventative warfare is strictly and specifically named as an act of aggression, not defense. But I was talking about the fact that have not proven our case for this war to the world opinion we have held every other nation the planet accountable to for the last 50 some years...We can dismiss that as irrelevent, as Kruschev did, but as we said of Kruschev, that merely makes our contempt for the world apparent to all but ourselves.

5) This one has me baffled...How do you argue the standard for righteous conduct with someone who assumes that we are right because we agree with ourselves that we are right? I'll start with a dictionary...

jin-go-ism: n. Extreme nationalism marked esp. by belligerent foreign policy... or Belief held by nation that it's assumed superiority directly legitimizes[ it's aggressive actions towards nations it assumes to be inferior./I]

To decide that Being right + having might = obligation to act in available situations to do right is completely subjective. It is built on the ( I thought obvious ) assumption that we are right. Virtually every nation in history has gone to war supported by a populace which believed it was doing the right thing, including Germany in 1939. In other words, of course we think we're right...or we wouldn't have gotten this far. The final judgment of the rightness or wrongness of a country's actions when dealing with another country can hardly be held within that same country...that's absurd. We're right because we....ohmygosh...think that we're right!?!?!? As a justifcation for war!!?!?!?!?

I have said that we need to seek the highest standard, but this would be the lowest. Name me 3 nations of any version of 'responsible government', including the Germans in '39, who went to war thinking that they were wrong. It can't be done, because it's an automatic, and in no way a means to determine when and where we are right in a final sense. The best option we have for this, and I agree that it's imperfect, but, like the excuse we use for Democracy, it's the best thing going, is that of world opinion...the same one, as mentioned, we held all other nations accountable to.

To assume we are right, and therefore justified, when the world says otherwise is, I'm sorry if you don't like it, but still...jingoism, plain and simple. If we don't assume we're better, therefore right, how do we conclude that the world is wrong where we are right? So are you going to deny that this is jingoism? Continue to base all your conclusions on the 'fact' that we are right in support of your contention that we are right? Or are you going to, in a final irony, say that jingoism is only wrong for others...because we are better?

6) I never said that Europe colonzed Africa out of pure motives...I said that many of those who initially brought a jingoistic mindset of European superiority as a justification for intercession in African affairs did so with what they considered to be 'pure' motives...Please read the post before refuting it.I know how we are prone to skip ahead when we think we know where the other person is going, but in this case I was obviously making the distinction noted above...as the impure colonization of Africa which followed their more noble antecedants was my entire point about the dangers of jingoism even if this time we really are right ( which I deny, but for the sake of argument ).

7) Re: McVeigh being ridiculous...again, re-read my post. I was talking about the perception of association based on geographic/national origin, and the dificulty in proving it's reality...As you agree that there is no direct proof of a link between 9-11 and Iraq, my point stand regarding the perception that we are doing this as self defense re: 9-11. And we have, in fact, sponsored terrorists...the Contras, for example. Who are we to decide that we can invade others because there might be proof that they have done likewise, just not 9-11!?!

Have to run...will address your 2nd post, especially the common mistake re: appeasment in a subsequent post.

 

Important post-edit...Above point no. 1..Should read arguing AGAINST slavery not being a viable...etc.

 

Failure to achieve our objectives re: leadership changes is hardly a distinction between Cold War policy, either morally or historically, as both Castro's continued reign and breathing prove.

It is way too easy to dismiss the entire " We can't assume that we have pure motives here, or the moral imperative it would take to declare that we know better than the world, and invade another nation based on same, and then call all evidence to the contrary either 'history' or 'mistakes'. It is not a 'mistake' to attempt to actually attempt to overthrow the governemnt of another nation...It is not like we tripped on the way to the office, and the coup went off...It can only be regarded as a continuation of national policy, especially given that we have a huge record of doing exactly this. If we are to assume that something as significant as forcefully involving ourselves in the power structure of another nation's government actually was just a mistake, the kind of thing we do without propoer forethought, than that is an even worse condemnation of our ability to continue to assume that we know better for other nations, let alone better than the wolrd in general.

Whether you feel the majority of our actions fits your view is beside the point...We're not talking about an even-or sitatuation when it comes to assuming we are 'right' enough to use military action on another nation in support of our 'rightness'...Were we to have an unblemished record it would still be a damaging and more costly venture to set aside the established value of global opinion for our own reasons...but to do so knowing we are capable of both ulterior motives and 'mistakes' makes our position of global authority without any support but our military ability to do so.

 

1) re: annexation...have dealt with different forms of and motives for imperialist conquest, especially from the perspective of what the powers that be say to their public at the time at length. So have others in this thread. As does the Athens point...will deal with there, as it requires less 'typing'...But to say, like everyone else, including the USSR, that we feel that we have reasons which superced the UN definition, and thereby entitle us to engage in pre-emptive and/or preventative war fare would be just another example of the we are better/right because we just knowthat we are better/right. thinking much dealt with in this thread.

2) Appeasement...excellent...here we go..Appeasement does not, did not, and factually should not in any way be construed as equating to permitting a foreign power to do as it chooses within the confines of it's own borders...Appeasement as it refers to Hitler/Germany in the 30s was the practice of allowing German territorial aggression towards other nations and in fact giving the Germans portions of foreign nations in return for German agreement to be satisfied with those gains alone, ie to be appeased. It was not at this time anything to do with rectifying wrongs within Germany itself...that was never considered. The jewish issue was not, repeat, NOT an international issue of significant concern, or indeed awareness at this time. The only foreig concern of any note at the time regarding internal german issues was it's adherance to or breaking of conditions of the Treaty of versailles...conditions which we have come to agree were causes of the war, not preventions of same...and whose biggest adherants, such as Hitler, later came to admit were 'unworkable, unrealistic, and indeed unacceptable'. It was recognized, even then, that warfare as a means of rectifying internal wrongs of another nation was a slippery slope, and subjective as hell...and, via Versailles, actually a cause of war rather than a prevention of one, however legitimate it's intentions...

So yes, the continent which lived through the repercussions of the Treaty of Versailles is very well versed in the effects of enforcing foreign policies on other nations as a means of danger avoidance.

3) Once again, I say 'probably the most' and you change it to 'every', and then attempt to refute it on it's absolute nature, and the exceptions I name to same...You are arguing with yourself when you do that.

4) I have defined jongoism previously, and have asked you to point out how our actions are not premised that definition without using jingoism itlself ( ie, " we are right, unlike the others, because we are right.") I will respond to that same argument here when you address it.

Re: Rome/Germany and absolute power structure, three points...

1) Rome was NOT an absolute power structure during the Republic, which encompasses most of it's early conquests...the Triumverate you speak of lasted ( If you mean the 1st ...not really a triumverate, but often called so now) approximately 12 years...before it's existence Rome had already conquered, in the principle of pre-emptive or preventative self-defense, Italy, Sicily, Africa, Macedon, Illyracum, Switzerland, Southern France, Spain, Asia Minor, Greece, Corsica, Sardinia, Portugal, much of what is now Hungary, Austria, and environs...all under the same 'diffused leadership' which protects us from following similar paths. It is that exact transformation from a 'responsible government' to an Imperial tyrant which I see as a frightening prallel...it didn't happen overnight, but took place in little stpes, each of them justified in the name of fear, glory, or practicality...a lessening of civil power here, an aggressive military conquest of a potential threat threre...and the whole way along, like boiling a frog to death slowly, the people took each step with the powers that lead them there because thet bough into the rationalizations or the ideas of glory. To say that our system prevents that even as we are in the process of comprimising that system is faulty reasoning, even if it was historically accurate, which as pointed out, it isn't.

The other parallels also began as 'responsible governments but gradually changed in the face of percieved threats, internally and externally, which allowed the powers to rationalize the citizens agreement of surrendering thier principles for the sake of practicality...


2) I haven't explained myself properly if you think that the US has to have an unblemished record of acting in it's self interests alone to refute it's position as arbiter of global justice in the face of global opposition. It is that it would take an unblemished record the other way to even begin to justify that stance in the first place...and we don't have it. It's not like every nation with a better than .500 batting average gets to decide the future for every lesser power with a lower avg. It's that our position right now is based on a claim of moral certainty in the face of world objection which our record does not permit us to assume...and then there's the whole other argument of past behaviour being an indicator of future behaviour which, while not universal, is relevent. And then there's the damage doen by the most powerful nation overlooking world opinion because it can and agrees with itself that it is right in doing so despite not allowing other nations to make that same determination...but again, seperate argument.


And you can take your thinly veiled " If you don't like it, leave...un-American etc. " crap and post it elsewhere...You don't consider them balanced? I have dealt with that...my opinions arose out of my interpretation of the facts, not the reverse, and I have already clarified that I posses no pre-existing bias on any of the issues surrounding this war other than my stances outlined in my principles, which are, especially no. 2, the rejection of bias, not evidence of one.


3) Seeing said intersection and assuming the right to militarily act on it's behalf are 2 seperate issues, and dealt with before. History merely backs up the postiion of the 1st principle I mentioned which directs the assumtion of responsibility in favour of being not justified in doing what we are doing rather than the reverse.

4) Iraqis are not Spartans? I agree...unless 80% of the Iraqi population are slaves ( Helots) over whom the Iraqis have the power of life and death, as was the case in Sparta. But I think that it is accpetable to assume that Iraq is contrary enough to our way of thinking to make the comparison, even if the Iraqi's fall a little short of being as less responsible by our definition.

I have said before that anyone who defends our right to aggressively involve ourselves in the region of Iraq and cites the Kurds as an example is on very, very thin ice. And I stated the Athenian motivation with the benefit of academic hindsight...there would have been no 'proof' at the time of that either, as the most discussed reasons for the agrression was the potential dangers of the opposing governemnts ot the 'freedom ' of Athens, and the obviousness of the superiority of the Athenian system in Athenian eyes which justified it's enforcement on other, less advanced regions...sound farmiliar?

5) Don't get this point...please clarify.


6) Wrong...the nature of our government prevents some engagements which our own people do not consider justified...harldy the same thing. There are examples in our history of both military actions without popular support ( ie justification in your version) and of us thinking we were justified when we weren't ( wars with Natives, 1812, etc.) And from an impact level, we don't need to directly attack those who can defend themselves to put ourselves in a position where our national security is compromised and without support by virtue of our agrression. See the experiences of Louis XIV for historical examples of the danger of taking on repeated 'lesser' powers.

7) "They make a desert and call it Peace" Tacitus...

And the quote you cite was, as it should be, an appeal to "internal defiance of injustice" not foreign invasion.



4) Universal rights is not something you give to others by conquering them...it is something that is taken for themselves, as we did. As soon as you restrict even one of the universal rights of another people in pursuit of granting them their Universal rights, you have abandoned the position of Defender of Universal Rights, and have said that it is up to you to decide what universal rights of tohers constitue acceptable loss in order to achieve other, presumably more important or numericaly significant universal rights for those who survive your freedom by force method. It doesn't work from the standpoint of Universal Rights, as we have already been responsible for the deaths of many Iraqi civilians, nevermind the single one it would take to refute the argument of the argument for us having a moral compulsiuon to invade in the name of absolute inviability of Universal Rights...This is not an argument for statistical comparison...ie SH kills more than we do, so we're better. You are arguing for the justice of our cause based on the absolute nature of Universal Rights as a means to overlook global will, and as we have deprived Iraqi civilians of their universal Rights in the process, we have no stand on this issue. universal Rights are universal, and not subject to statistical relativity. Either it ir right or wrong to deprive people fo them...there is no quota of acceptable violations which we are below but SH has surpassed.

Have to run...will finish later.

 

Admin...wanted to post an update in this thread, but it needs to be moved first. Thanks.

 

Umm..I really don't want to break the spirit of the new rules re: D&D vs. Hangout...so please could you move this to the other forum so I can make the point I want to? I'm not nagging...just assuming that if it hasn't been done yet, my post was missed, or at least in danger of being missed.


Thanks again.

 

A-Ha! See, that's why you're among my favorite posters right there...