Condi Rice's trip to Iraq, proof positive of quagmire..

[Freak]

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]

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. 

 

["Legapp" Stands for "Legal Application"]

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.

[Freak]

If you agree with self-defense then the ends sometimes do justify the means. In which case pre-emptive strikes may sometimes be justified.

["Legapp" Stands for "Legal Application"]

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 

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

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?

[nesnut]

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. 

[Freak]

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. 

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

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.

[nesnut]

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?