 |
| |
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
 |
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by jimmytrick
Well Boris. It would be fair to say that few saw Hitler as being as serious a threat in the 30s as he turned out to be.
|
I think we can make reasonable, quantifiable comparisons here that demonstrate Hussein isn't remotely as dangerous as Hitler was in 1938. Hussein's military was smashed in 1991 and remains weak, he has no airforce really to speak of, he doesn't even control all of his own country, and his economy is in tatters. He's far less of a threat to anyone than he was back in 1990.
quote:
I still fail to see how Iraq's complete disregard for the agreements that ended the Gulf War do not translate into a "just cause". |
Iraq has disregarded some for years without any penalty. The U.S. didn't take severe action then...what has changed to make it so now?
Regardless, I don't see that as "just cause" because, frankly, I don't think the first war was adequately justified. So the causes haven't become suddenly just with passage of time.
quote:
Seems like willful blindness on the part of the anti-war crowd. |
I'll take that over willful warmongering any day. 
quote:
If you think an invasion of Iraq is a mistake, then say so. It's certainly a justifiable view. |
I have said so, many times, thank you.
quote:
But don't bullshit people by claiming that the US is morally wrong in this case. Talk about intellectual dishonesty... |
If I believe the U.S. is morally wrong in this case, that is neither bullshit nor intellectually dishonest. That's simply how I feel about it. It's not opinions that are dishonest, it's the rationale behind them.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:23
|
|
The US is just as morally wrong now as it was 10 years ago, and as morally wrong 10 years ago as it was to enter, say, WW1.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Capt Dizle
|
|
Upon what foundation, dear David, do your moral beliefs lie?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
|
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
I'm hardly a warmonger. I don't want the US to attack Iraq unless diplomacy fails, but I'm not blind to the threat the Saddam Hussein poses, which is significant even if it doesn't even come close to the threat of Hitler. If Saddam Hussein is close to nuclear weapons, then the US has the right and the duty to eliminate that threat. We're the good guys in this whole deal, which isn't too hard considering who we're up against. |
I don't believe Hussein poses a "significant" threat to U.S. interests. He is contained, has been since 1991, and hasn't posed a significant threat to anyone since the Gulf War.
As for nuclear weapons, as we just learned this week, other "evil" nations have nukes, and we're not beating the drums to invade them. Nor should we--how hypocritical it is of us to decry nations with nuclear weapons when we have more than everyone else combined, and we're the only country that has ever used them against civilian enemy targets. If we're content to let a country like Pakistan live peacefully with its nukes, I fail to see why we should be charging into Iraq under such a justification. We have no "right" to do this, I disagree vehemently about that. We certainly don't accept any foreign power dictating our nuclear arsenal, do we?
And no, we're not the "good guys." We're not the bad guys. It's not a melodrama, for christ's sake.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Drake Tungsten
|
 |
Knee deep in alien womyn...
Oct 2001
time: 14:23
|
|
Boris, like many people you can't seem to recognize the obvious differences in the strategic situations of North Korea, Pakistan, and Iraq. North Korea shouldn't have been allowed to gain nukes, but luckily it is countered by a nuclear China and Japan, which can go nuclear whenever it wants to. The world would be better off if Pakistan didn't have nukes, but it is countered by a nuclear India. Notice how you need nuclear weapons to contain a nuclear power?
Now look at Iraq. What regional power is there that can counter a nuclear Iraq? Israel is one, but do we really want Israel and Iraq in a nuclear standoff? Iran is another possibility if we allow them to build nukes, but do we really want Iran and Iraq in a nuclear standoff? The only safe choice is for the US to continue to maintain a large force in the Middle East to contain a nuclear Iraq. That is a great idea, since we all know how much the Islamic fundies like a continuing US military presence in Saudi Arabia... 
If Iraq goes nuclear, the chances of the whole region destabalizing is very high. Nuclear arms races are never good, particularly when the adversaries hate each other as much as Israel, Iran, and Iraq do.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:23
|
|
JT,
quote:
Upon what foundation, dear David, do your moral beliefs lie? |
You won't like any answer I give, so I'm not going down that road with you 
Drake,
quote:
It's amazing the lengths some people will go to in order to defend a murderous dictator... |
Oh really? So, then, on the basis of superior firepower, the US has the right to dictate where Iraqi aircraft may and may not fly within Iraq?
So, then, if Canada had enough strength, they should be able to enforce no-fly zones over, say, Minnesota?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:23
|
|
quote:
Unlike in Civ 2, cease-fires don't expire after 15 turns in the real world. |
The cease fire came about as a result of a war fought unconstitutionally by the United States, and was ultimately the stronger power telling the weaker power what to do. I don't consider it to be legit, in those circumstances.
If someone puts a gun to your head and makes you sign over all your possessions to that person, it's not legally binding, after all. Or, if you kill someone, and the police coerce testimony out of you, the testimony is inadmissible, right?
Point being, you can't use your position of strength to make others bend to your will in civil society, so why should you be able to do it in international relations?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Felch
|
 |
Germantown, Maryland
Sep 2001
time: 00:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by David Floyd
The cease fire came about as a result of a war fought unconstitutionally by the United States, and was ultimately the stronger power telling the weaker power what to do. I don't consider it to be legit, in those circumstances.
If someone puts a gun to your head and makes you sign over all your possessions to that person, it's not legally binding, after all. Or, if you kill someone, and the police coerce testimony out of you, the testimony is inadmissible, right?
Point being, you can't use your position of strength to make others bend to your will in civil society, so why should you be able to do it in international relations? |
Blah blah blah . . .
I've heard it before. Seriously, you need a reality check. Congress authorized President Bush to use force. Thus it was constitutional. Declarations of war don't need to be labled as such.
If the coercion that we used on the Iraqis is unlawful and not binding, then how was the coercion used by Hitler on the Czechs lawful and legally binding? It was the stronger power telling the weaker power what to do.
Do try to be consistent. You seem so eager to bash America and applaud Nazism that you choke on your own foot.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:23
|
|
quote:
I've heard it before. Seriously, you need a reality check. Congress authorized President Bush to use force. Thus it was constitutional. Declarations of war don't need to be labled as such. |
Congress can issue a declaration of war in any way it wants to. Obviously, though, it must be recognized by Congress as a declaration of war in order to be one. We can't just assume that Congress means a declaration of war unless they say it is one - that would make no sense.
So, Congress can declare war by farting in the general direction of a country, as long as Congress makes it known that the fart equates to a DoW.
In the case of the Gulf War, they did not do that. Hence, they attempted to illegally transfer an exclusive power of Congress to the Executive Branch, without a Constitutional Amendment. The President, acting on authority he never had because Congress was never able to give it, created a war with Iraq - in effect, declaring war himself by virtue of attacking bombing and invading Iraq. This violated the Constitution, which gives only Congress the power to make war.
Since only Congress has the power to declare (and thus make and initiate) war, and since Congress has no Constitutional authority to transfer their exclusive powers to another branch, the Persian Gulf War must have been unconstitutional.
quote:
If the coercion that we used on the Iraqis is unlawful and not binding, then how was the coercion used by Hitler on the Czechs lawful and legally binding? It was the stronger power telling the weaker power what to do. |
Certainly, and Hitler was just as wrong in seizing Sudetenland as Hussein was in seizing Kuwait. But just as France and Britain had no business intervening militarily, the US had no business intervening militarily either.
My point is not that Hitler had some legal authority to seize Sudetenland, or anywhere else (except for the remilitarization of the Rhineland, I fail to see how that was anyone's territory but Germany's, especially given the huge degree of German popular support there), but that Britain and France had no right to go kill Germans (and allow Britons and Frenchmen to be killed as well) over the matter.
quote:
Do try to be consistent. |
I don't think you'll find consistency is one of my problems.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Capt Dizle
|
|
David, at what point do you believe France and/or Britain would have been justified to declare war on Germany?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:23
|
|
The point when Germany attacked them, of course. That is, France and only France would have been justified if Germany attacked France, and Britain and only Britain would have been justified if Germany attacked Britain.
That means I don't believe they should have gone to war over Poland (and they were also inconsistent to NOT declare war on the Soviets over Poland, not that they should of, of course).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:23
|
|
Fine, then - as a Christian, I believe that morality ultimately comes from God.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Capt Dizle
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by David Floyd
The point when Germany attacked them, of course. That is, France and only France would have been justified if Germany attacked France, and Britain and only Britain would have been justified if Germany attacked Britain.
That means I don't believe they should have gone to war over Poland (and they were also inconsistent to NOT declare war on the Soviets over Poland, not that they should of, of course). |
So in your world view you create a situation where one agressor nation can pick off one country at a time until they conquer the entire world? That at no point other nations have the right to ally for survival?
That would have been ducky for Hitler.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Capt Dizle
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by David Floyd
Fine, then - as a Christian, I believe that morality ultimately comes from God. |
Thanks for the response. I don't know why you thought I wouldn't like that answer though.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:23
|
|
The myth of 'appeasement' is a terrible one, since it greatly devalues the abilities of diplomacy to solve problems and inverably calls for military actions. It is also batlantly flase, if one starts to look at the logic behind the myth of appeasement.
So, lets begin by indentifying the myth:
In the mid 1930's the Western powers appeased Hitler, letting him make further and further gains, believing that thorugh this course, they would give Hitler enough so that he no longer would want war. they were wrong, and thus precipitated World war 2, the Holocaust, and so forth. The lesson we must learn is never to negotiate with dictators, and that only a strong hand will serve us.
Now, there are arguments to be made both against the 'factual side' of the argument, and specialy against the 'lesson'
1. France and britain were both democracies. the people did not want war. In the end, governments of democracies are beholden to the wishes of the people. they may take actions to alliviate or try to steer a course, but still, Chamberlain was no dictator. He was hailed by the people when he returned. It is higly disingeneous to fault men who had grown with WW1, who's horrors in many ways equalled those of WW2, for not wanting war. Also ignored is the fact that it was chamerlain who started to increased appropriations for war that enabled britian to catch up to germany in terms of armaments by 1940. Britain and france were in some ways less prepared for war in 1938 than late 1939. And also always forgotten is that the appeasement ended. France and Britiain did not have to declare war on Germany once it invaded Poland, anymore than they had to declare war when the germans occupied the rest of Czechoslovakia in march '39.
2. The defeat of the allies and german gains should be attributed not to pre-war allied diplomacy but to failures by allied general staffs during the war. Had France and Britian stopped germany in 1940, we would not all know about the great 'appeasement' myth.
The first test of non-appeasement was actually japan. US action towards japan can in no way be seen as appeasing Japan'. Once japan occupied French indochina tha US stood firm and begun an oil and steel embargo that could have brought down the Japanese economy to force Japan to leave. Did this firm hand, lack of appeasement, lead to peace? NO. War came anyway.
If one decided to view Yalta as appeasing Stalin, as many commentators say, then it must be seen as successful appeasement. stalin got what he was given (eastern europe) and stopped there, and there was never a war between the US and the USSR over europe.
makign dilomacy based on cliche catchphrases is highly dangerous. The key to good diplomacy is ignoring history and looking at motives, ours and theirs.
war with hitler came not because of appeasement- had the allies taken a firm hand, war still would have come. we don't know the possbile outcome- perhaps the allies do better, perhaps worse, who knows, but it was not apeasment that led to war, it was the fundamental difference in security aims: Hitler wanted to create a grand german empire- this view could simply never be reconcilled wth the security aims of any other state in the region. the appeasement myth makes every dictator out to be Hitler-with an insatiable thirst for empire. This is an overly simplistic view: not every dictator wants a thousan year reich.
The Point of diplomacy is this: discover what his security aims are; compare them to yours; seek cosible compromise. if compromise is possible, then diplomacy can work. If no compormise exist, then diplomacy will fail.
How does this work with US and Iraq? well, if the basic US security aim is an iraq without weapons of mass destruction, and we assume the basic security concern of the iraqi regime is survival, then a diplomatic solution is possible, as long as some sort of deal is struck that gets iraq to disarm while giving it security assurances (this is what PRNK wants). Now, if US security concerns call for a democratic Iraq, then compormise is not possible.
So: damn the 'appeasement myth'. What do you think the US basic security concerns are? what do you think the Iraqi regime's basic security concerns are? Then look for possible compromise. If you see one, then a diplomatic solution possible. if not, then war is coming. The false lessons of history are no loner necessary.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:23
|
|
quote:
So in your world view you create a situation where one agressor nation can pick off one country at a time until they conquer the entire world? That at no point other nations have the right to ally for survival? |
No, any nation can ally with any other nation. They just have no right to force individuals to fight. If they want to raised a volunteer army paid, equipped, and supplied using private or voluntary funds, that's another thing, but people shouldn't be forced to participate in a war with which they disagree.
And further, I don't see how this would have helped Hitler that much. Hitler was doomed by trying to take on the US and the Soviet Union at once. Once nations are at war, they can cooperate however much they want to defeat a common enemy (they still can't institute conscription, though, and they must have a way to allow individuals to opt out of paying for the war - although in WW2, this would not have been a big problem). The Franco-British alliance and going to war over Poland didn't do jack **** to stop Hitler.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:23
|
|
One could also argue that using WW2 as an example is ridiculous to begin with, because the problem itself was created by the Treaty of Versailles, which was unfair, and the ultimate problem, one could say, was the result of empire-building, colonialism, and nationalism. If individual rights had been protected from the start, things would have turned out much differently.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:23.
Apolyton Time is 00:23. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
28-10-2002 10:00
)
|