Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: Condi Rice's trip to Iraq, proof positive of quagmire..  (Read 1310 times)

Freak

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 4899
  • What's your agenda?!
    • AOL Instant Messenger - smileyill4663
    • Yahoo Instant Messenger - smileyill
    • View Profile
Re: Condi Rice's trip to Iraq, proof positive of quagmire..
« Reply #10 on: April 04, 2006, 06:14:21 PM »

if hussein was still on the loose some of you guys would be still naysaying...

even if all iraqis got together and formed a unified government and the fighting stopped...

you still would be complaining...

some of us have gotten used to the complaining...

do you really think it helps?


Even if Iraq was currently in a peaceful state right now, you're right: I would still be naysaying, because I don't believe the ends justify the means.  "Pre-emptive war" is b.s., and I'll stand by my opposition to it regardless of the ultimate outcome.

Well if you intend to stick to that axiom you'd better be prepared for you and your loved ones to die rather than ever defend yourself or them, a noble stance. I applaud you if you're sincere.

Personally I believe in a duty to protect, though, the means most certainly bear close scrutiny.
Freak is the best, Freak is the best!  Thank you! Thank you! Thank you!
I don't like calling you Freak, I'd rather call you  Normal Nice Guy.

Freak

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 4899
  • What's your agenda?!
    • AOL Instant Messenger - smileyill4663
    • Yahoo Instant Messenger - smileyill
    • View Profile
Re: Condi Rice's trip to Iraq, proof positive of quagmire..
« Reply #11 on: April 04, 2006, 06:32:48 PM »
Well if you intend to stick to that axiom you'd better be prepared for you and your loved ones die rather than ever defend yourself or them, a noble stance. I applaud you if you're sincere.

Personally I believe in a duty to protect, though, the means most certainly bear close scrutiny.

You sound soooo much like a lawyer.  :D

 :(
Freak is the best, Freak is the best!  Thank you! Thank you! Thank you!
I don't like calling you Freak, I'd rather call you  Normal Nice Guy.

"Legapp" Stands for "Legal Application"

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 1638
    • View Profile
Re: Condi Rice's trip to Iraq, proof positive of quagmire..
« Reply #12 on: April 04, 2006, 07:03:47 PM »

if hussein was still on the loose some of you guys would be still naysaying...

even if all iraqis got together and formed a unified government and the fighting stopped...

you still would be complaining...

some of us have gotten used to the complaining...

do you really think it helps?


Even if Iraq was currently in a peaceful state right now, you're right: I would still be naysaying, because I don't believe the ends justify the means.  "Pre-emptive war" is b.s., and I'll stand by my opposition to it regardless of the ultimate outcome.

Well if you intend to stick to that axiom you'd better be prepared for you and your loved ones to die rather than ever defend yourself or them, a noble stance. I applaud you if you're sincere.

Personally I believe in a duty to protect, though, the means most certainly bear close scrutiny.

I'm certainly not against self-defense, but terms like "pre-emptive war" have been used by nations over hundreds of years to justify acts of aggression.  In the case of the U.S., our war against Native Americans and the Mexican-American war, for instance, both were claimed to be "defensive." In hindsight it's easier for us to see that they were not, just as Iraq is not.

Worse, it takes our focus away from fighting the only proven threat to America: terrorist activity by individual groups.  I would argue the best defense against this is intelligence-gathering, not military action.
I am officially a law school graduate : )

Freak

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 4899
  • What's your agenda?!
    • AOL Instant Messenger - smileyill4663
    • Yahoo Instant Messenger - smileyill
    • View Profile
Re: Condi Rice's trip to Iraq, proof positive of quagmire..
« Reply #13 on: April 04, 2006, 07:33:51 PM »
If you agree with self-defense then the ends sometimes do justify the means. In which case pre-emptive strikes may sometimes be justified.
Freak is the best, Freak is the best!  Thank you! Thank you! Thank you!
I don't like calling you Freak, I'd rather call you  Normal Nice Guy.

"Legapp" Stands for "Legal Application"

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 1638
    • View Profile
Re: Condi Rice's trip to Iraq, proof positive of quagmire..
« Reply #14 on: April 04, 2006, 11:52:26 PM »
If you agree with self-defense then the ends sometimes do justify the means. In which case pre-emptive strikes may sometimes be justified.

I guess I would say that the ends aren't sufficient to justify unethical behavior.  This doesn't mean that you can't do anything that would have a positive effect.

So in the case of self-defense (or defense of others), your behavior is a specific response to an aggressor.  For me, I would say it is ethical to defend yourself or other against someone who constitutes a clear and present danger, regardless of the outcome (such as utimately failing to protect the other). 

Where it gets tricky is if you were in a position where you could kill one innocent person to save many other people.... I'm sympathetic to this argument, but I know that I personally could not.  Luckily it's not something that pops up in everyday life  ;)
I am officially a law school graduate : )

! B L U E WAR R I O R..!

  • LSD Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 8173
  • "make a friend who was once a stranger" br.war.
    • View Profile
Re: Condi Rice's trip to Iraq, proof positive of quagmire..
« Reply #15 on: April 05, 2006, 12:32:51 AM »
If you agree with self-defense then the ends sometimes do justify the means. In which case pre-emptive strikes may sometimes be justified.

so...since hussein invaded quwait...at which point of finally taking him out did this become or uncome "pre-emptive"?


seriously, freak...am aye the only one who understands this little facet?
If you prick us, do we not bleed?  
  if you tickle us, do we not laugh? if you poison  
  us, do we not die? and if you wrong us, shall we not  
  revenge? m.of v. w.shaka                                             speare

nesnut

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 3777
  • Law School is thiiiiiiiis big!
    • View Profile
Re: Condi Rice's trip to Iraq, proof positive of quagmire..
« Reply #16 on: April 05, 2006, 12:31:58 PM »
i think what's at issue here is whether there is sufficient reason to believe that harm is posed by the other party.  The problem with pre-emptive/preventive policies of this kind is precisely what Legapp stated earlier: it's all based on what you belive may be true, not what you can factually prove.  Shooting first and finding out later that your assumptions were correct is a horrible way of distributing justice- imagine if our own system functioned in a similar manner. 
- P-dub Club: Minister of Entertainment & Recreation
 - Keeper of the Konami Code
 - Co-Founder & Supreme Chancellor: Kick Ass 80s Law Firm: The Law Offices of KTJA & Nesnut,  APC
 - Official Rant-Master of LSD
 - Head of Harem (per Lily)
 - Official Purveyor of Soup of the Revolution

Freak

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 4899
  • What's your agenda?!
    • AOL Instant Messenger - smileyill4663
    • Yahoo Instant Messenger - smileyill
    • View Profile
Re: Condi Rice's trip to Iraq, proof positive of quagmire..
« Reply #17 on: April 05, 2006, 10:11:44 PM »
i think what's at issue here is whether there is sufficient reason to believe that harm is posed by the other party.  The problem with pre-emptive/preventive policies of this kind is precisely what Legapp stated earlier: it's all based on what you belive may be true, not what you can factually prove.  Shooting first and finding out later that your assumptions were correct is a horrible way of distributing justice- imagine if our own system functioned in a similar manner. 

Unfortunately "sufficient reason" is not as objective as it sounds. Furthermore, neither is "prove." In criminal trials we require "beyond a reasonable doubt." Though a bit narrower, "reasonable" can and often is different for different people especially if they have different information. Additionally, in criminal trials the jury is not given all the evidence because some of it is considered more prejudicial than relevant (often prior convictions are excluded).

Now if Iraq's prior actions were excluded from the jury would we still have attacked? Probably not, but is that information relevant? Probably and so is the intelligence information we don't have. Basically, without information that's still classified & expertise we don't have, we cannot honestly assert that a reasonable doubt existed that Iraq didn't have WMDs.

Oh and King Hippo has seriously mislead you with his jocular opinion of law school.  ;)
Freak is the best, Freak is the best!  Thank you! Thank you! Thank you!
I don't like calling you Freak, I'd rather call you  Normal Nice Guy.

! B L U E WAR R I O R..!

  • LSD Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 8173
  • "make a friend who was once a stranger" br.war.
    • View Profile
Re: Condi Rice's trip to Iraq, proof positive of quagmire..
« Reply #18 on: April 06, 2006, 01:52:33 AM »
doesn't genocide  or "crimes of aggression" follow the rationale for an invasion operation or course of military action to remove the aggressor?

the removal operation of hussein was not pre-emptive...it was a continuance.
If you prick us, do we not bleed?  
  if you tickle us, do we not laugh? if you poison  
  us, do we not die? and if you wrong us, shall we not  
  revenge? m.of v. w.shaka                                             speare

nesnut

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 3777
  • Law School is thiiiiiiiis big!
    • View Profile
Re: Condi Rice's trip to Iraq, proof positive of quagmire..
« Reply #19 on: April 06, 2006, 12:25:58 PM »
i think what's at issue here is whether there is sufficient reason to believe that harm is posed by the other party.  The problem with pre-emptive/preventive policies of this kind is precisely what Legapp stated earlier: it's all based on what you belive may be true, not what you can factually prove.  Shooting first and finding out later that your assumptions were correct is a horrible way of distributing justice- imagine if our own system functioned in a similar manner. 

Unfortunately "sufficient reason" is not as objective as it sounds. Furthermore, neither is "prove." In criminal trials we require "beyond a reasonable doubt." Though a bit narrower, "reasonable" can and often is different for different people especially if they have different information. Additionally, in criminal trials the jury is not given all the evidence because some of it is considered more prejudicial than relevant (often prior convictions are excluded).

Now if Iraq's prior actions were excluded from the jury would we still have attacked? Probably not, but is that information relevant? Probably and so is the intelligence information we don't have. Basically, without information that's still classified & expertise we don't have, we cannot honestly assert that a reasonable doubt existed that Iraq didn't have WMDs.

Oh and King Hippo has seriously mislead you with his jocular opinion of law school.  ;)


lol- what can I say- king hippo had the same pre-law school intelligence as Bush did for the iraq war  ;)

and I agree with everything you said- we can't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he didn't have WMD- and we can't prove he did, either.  that's the inherit problem- and using his invasion of kuwait as a reason justifying our actions could be seen as irrelevant- he was hostile to his neighbors, but so is israel and syria and a lot of other nations in the area.  If we are going to use crim law standards, one could argue that prior action has no bearing on subsequent action, and that it is improper chracter evidence- especially, again, in light of the neighborhood Iraq is in.  In the end, however, you are absolutely correct- reasonableness is subjective, and that makes policy considerations difficult.

Blue, genocide and crimes of agression certainly demand action- no doubts about that.  but what that action is, and how we mete out justice for these actions, are politically relevant.  Not punishing Sudan, for example, or the Saudi Arabians or Israel is just as bad as not going after saddam.  How do we explain nailing Iraq but not these others? 
- P-dub Club: Minister of Entertainment & Recreation
 - Keeper of the Konami Code
 - Co-Founder & Supreme Chancellor: Kick Ass 80s Law Firm: The Law Offices of KTJA & Nesnut,  APC
 - Official Rant-Master of LSD
 - Head of Harem (per Lily)
 - Official Purveyor of Soup of the Revolution