When should "pre-emptive" be considered? [Archive]

TheChadd

21st January 2007, 10:56 PM

Useless hypothetical. First off, the question about preemption is generally NOT one of whether or not it's OK in principle (because almost everyone actually agrees it is, given the right situation), but rather what the threshold should be. Your question contains no information in that regard, and so any possible answer to it will be correspondingly useless.

Sorry, what I essentially mean is that if you consider the thresh-hold to be an imminent threat to your nations security or some such measure, then would you accept that thresh-hold being applied by other people, not necessarily against your nation, but perhaps to nations which you feel are quite decent. My point is to suggest that perhaps the 'golden rule' would be good to remember in any analysis of what thresh-hold it would take for you to accept pre-emptive war.

And second, it's not our approval or disapproval of such ideas which protects or threatens us from states which might consider such a thing. Want to guess what does protect us against preemptive strikes by other countries? You only get one try, though.

My purpose wasn't to claim that your approval or disapproval protected you.

Do you think that convicted murderers should go to jail? If you were convicted of murder, would you want to go to jail?

Except with my example you don't necessarily have to be a united states citizen. If you're a united states citizen merely change 'united states' to some other western nation.

Darth Rotor

22nd January 2007, 05:13 AM

My question is, at what point does a country or group of countries decide to act? I know there are those whose answer is "never," and those whose answer is, "anytime you feel like it," but I'm sure most people would fall somewhere between those two extremes. Is pre-emptive military action ever justified or wise? If so, when? Or is it always wrong and stupid? If not, when?
Justification? What is this, St Augustine redux? I'd hope we were past that, and on to realist foreign policy modes.

The threshold, if you don't care for the "in our own self interest, stop me if you think you have the balls" approach of GW Bush or Saddam Hussein (Kuwait annexation), is easily derived:

Convince all 15 members of the UNSC that it is in their interest to launch a pre emptive UN, multilateral operation, and it passes the legitimacy test pretty easily. Not saying that is an easy method, but the process of selling it to the disparate cast of clowns at the UNSC will include the justification.

If that isn't tenable, any nation or bloc of them (see NATO vis a vis Serbia 1999) determines that their interests are are best served by armed action -- and dare anyone else to do something about it. The justification is "we need to in order for things to be better down the road."

What it boils down to is this: if you can, you will, providing you think you can handle the downstream political price.

"Should" enters into it with that last consideration foremost, or does in a rational policy calculus.

"If our team does this, is the mid to long term political risk something we can mitigate or resolve?" Justification is relative to viewpoint. To claim a single viewpoint for measuring justification is to ignore the reality of the multipolar political climate of the day. Looking for a pure moral answer, an airtight justification that meets all tests, is therefore fruitless -- there are too many competing national interests and angles to approach competing interests from. You can meet a "close enough to be good enough" standard via the UNSC consensus case.

DR

69dodge

22nd January 2007, 06:24 AM

It should be considered whenever there is a threat.

It should be used whenever the cost of doing so is outweighed by the benefit.

The hard part is figuring out what the likely costs and benefits are, but if you know those, the decision is easy.Threat to whom?

Cost to whom?

Benefit to whom?

69dodge

22nd January 2007, 06:28 AM

Fallacy of appeal to selfishness.Selfishness?

Is he not saying precisely the opposite? That we shouldn't think only of ourselves but of the other guy too?

Wolfman

22nd January 2007, 06:48 AM

I have several problems with the concept of a "pre-emptive" strike.

First, if you're going to argue that pre-emptive strikes are acceptable, then that means that they are acceptable for any country. Iran, for example, would be justified in launching pre-emptive strikes on American targets if they felt that the U.S. represented a legitimate threat, and that such attacks would lessen the power/ability of future attacks on Iran.

Arguing that one particular country should have some sort of 'right' to carry out pre-emptive strikes, while other countries do not, is just plain hypocritical in my opinion. And such an argument ends up leading only to a self-reinforcing cycle of violence that makes conflict more likely.

Second, it lends itself too easily to abuse (such as the situation in Iraq), where a country attacks or invades another country based on intelligence that later turns out to be wrong. Not only have you then succeeded in starting a conflict that wasn't going to happen, but what're you going to say..."Oops, sorry about killing those people, it was a mistake"?

I might accept an argument for pre-emptive strikes in one situation only; and that is a situation where the majority of the world's nations are in agreement that a particular nation/group represents a legitimate threat. For example, if Iran stated that they had developed a nuclear weapon, and intended to use it against Israel, I would support the idea of international "pre-emptive actions" to prevent such an attack.

But no single nation should, in my opinion, have the right to make such a decision. If they have proof of a significant threat that requires action, let them present that to other nations, and take action only if the international community agrees with their assessment of the threat. In most cases, the public exposure of such information, and the combined censure of the international community, will likely serve as a deterrent to aggression, and render pre-emptive strikes unnecessary.

I recognize that this is far from an ideal world. And yeah, if I felt my own country was under threat from another country, I would personally like to be able to take action to prevent that. But this isn't a personal issue. It is an international issue. And in today's world, more than at any other time in human history, the decisions of one country do affect other countries in significant ways. I believe that for the long-term benefit of humanity as a whole, we have to stop thinking in terms of selfish regional terms, and start seeing ourselves as a real international community.

Ziggurat

22nd January 2007, 03:39 PM

I have several problems with the concept of a "pre-emptive" strike.

First, if you're going to argue that pre-emptive strikes are acceptable, then that means that they are acceptable for any country. Iran, for example, would be justified in launching pre-emptive strikes on American targets if they felt that the U.S. represented a legitimate threat, and that such attacks would lessen the power/ability of future attacks on Iran.

You think Iran is going to care whether or not we might consider their preemptive strike justified? Of course not. That's a quaint and silly concern, and will have no relevance in their decision-making. They'll make that calculation on their own, and if they arrive at the conclusion that they will benefit from striking first, they WILL strike first, and no opinion we could possibly hold will change that. The way to prevent preemptive strikes against yourself has always been, and WILL ALWAYS BE, the threat of retaliation.

Arguing that one particular country should have some sort of 'right' to carry out pre-emptive strikes, while other countries do not, is just plain hypocritical in my opinion.

Has anyone actually expressed that opinion? Because I haven't seen it, and I know I haven't expressed it.

I might accept an argument for pre-emptive strikes in one situation only; and that is a situation where the majority of the world's nations are in agreement that a particular nation/group represents a legitimate threat. For example, if Iran stated that they had developed a nuclear weapon, and intended to use it against Israel, I would support the idea of international "pre-emptive actions" to prevent such an attack.

That viewpoint doesn't hold together either. This statement means that preemption can only be justified based upon public opinion, not upon the actual facts of the case. And if a threat materializes and can only be acted upon immediately, without time to inform the world and sit around debating it, what then?

Or let's make this real specific: was Israel's attack on Osirik justified?

But no single nation should, in my opinion, have the right to make such a decision.

Not according to the UN. The UN considers it the right of EVERY nation.

In most cases, the public exposure of such information, and the combined censure of the international community, will likely serve as a deterrent to aggression, and render pre-emptive strikes unnecessary.

That's laughable. When Saddam invaded Kuwait, did he fear international censure? No, he did not. Did international censure make him withdraw from Kuwait? No, it did not. Would censure before the act have disuaded him? You'd have to be stupid to think it could have. Dictators do not care about the "combined censure of the international community".

Darth Rotor

22nd January 2007, 03:45 PM

Dictators do not care about the "combined censure of the international community".
Raul Cedras for fifty, Alex. :) The OAS embargo that cut off trade to Haiti didn't get him out, the 82d Airborne in C-130's and C-141's on the way to Haiti did. An old friend of mine missed a combat jump thanks to the Powell-Carter velvet glove over that iron fist.

DR

billydkid

22nd January 2007, 04:04 PM

Well, isn't the answer to that obvious? Pre-emptive should be considered when you are actually pre-empting something. Which we were not in Iraq and we knew it.

Darth Rotor

22nd January 2007, 04:05 PM

Well, isn't the answer to that obvious? Pre-emptive should be considered when you are actually pre-empting something. Which we were not in Iraq and we knew it.
Who is "we," billy, and what did anyone actually know, rather than surmise?

Hindsight is 20-20.

DR

billydkid

22nd January 2007, 04:22 PM

Who is "we," billy, and what did anyone actually know, rather than surmise?

Hindsight is 20-20.

DR

Please, not the 20-20 thing. No, no, no, you don't get off that cheaply. We are not talking about hindsight. Many, many people had the foresight to see what the Iraq invasion really was and what it would turn into. You try to descredit them by saying, essentially, "Well they didn't really know. They just happened to be right." Horsecrap. A lot of people knew and a lot of people tried to say and a lot of people were smeared and slandered for doing so. And those people who did the smearing and slandering ought at least to have the dignity to be honest about it. No, I"m not referring to you. I don't remember conversations with you before the invasion. I'm referring those people whether on the national level or in a forum like this who felt comfortable questioning the patriotism of anyone who didn't blindly accept the gospel of Saint George.

Yes, by we I mean the USA. And we should reserve our "pre-empting" for those rare times when there actually is a danger that needs pre-empting.

billydkid

22nd January 2007, 04:26 PM

69dodge

22nd January 2007, 05:05 PM

You think Iran is going to care whether or not we might consider their preemptive strike justified? Of course not. That's a quaint and silly concern, and will have no relevance in their decision-making. They'll make that calculation on their own, and if they arrive at the conclusion that they will benefit from striking first, they WILL strike first, and no opinion we could possibly hold will change that. The way to prevent preemptive strikes against yourself has always been, and WILL ALWAYS BE, the threat of retaliation.Preventing preemptive strikes on ourselves is different from deciding whether we should strike someone else preemptively.

If you were in charge, would you make the calculation the same way you think Iran would? Namely, if we'll benefit and there's little chance of retaliation, then strike away and who cares whether it's justified?

TheChadd

22nd January 2007, 05:10 PM

You think Iran is going to care whether or not we might consider their preemptive strike justified? Of course not.

The point is that in a world where nations consider pre-emptive war as acceptable on equal terms with each other, the question of whether or not Iran needs to consider a pre-emptive strike on the US would probably be void.

That's a quaint and silly concern, and will have no relevance in their decision-making.

Yes it is, but surely the apparent thresh-hold by which the US would launch a pre-emptive strike/war would figure into it. With the way in which the US marched into Iraq on such hazy grounds, against the UN etc, surely you can see how that might influence them to build nuclear weapons to pre-empt any possible action against them?

The way to prevent preemptive strikes against yourself has always been, and WILL ALWAYS BE, the threat of retaliation.

Yes, that is true. So you see ultimate peace/global security comming around by all the nations of the world having ICBM's equipped with multiple nuclear warheads?

Has anyone actually expressed that opinion? Because I haven't seen it, and I know I haven't expressed it.

People don't even seem to bother considering it. It's like it's a given thing that the US will have sole authority.

That viewpoint doesn't hold together either. This statement means that preemption can only be justified based upon public opinion, not upon the actual facts of the case. And if a threat materializes and can only be acted upon immediately, without time to inform the world and sit around debating it, what then?

I agree. The only time I can ever see 'pre-emptive' strikes being justifiable would be in situations where a war is all but formally declared or if there is an immediate risk. There's no need for the majority world opinion to be on your side, but you should know that in the aftermath you will be held accountable -The US has no such problem.

Or let's make this real specific: was Israel's attack on Osirik justified?

As justified as any attack on their own nuclear facilities by nations fearing attack from them would be.

Not according to the UN. The UN considers it the right of EVERY nation.

I agree, but I think the goal should be to dwindle down the possibility, not escalate it.

Ziggurat

22nd January 2007, 05:26 PM

Yes it is, but surely the apparent thresh-hold by which the US would launch a pre-emptive strike/war would figure into it.

Once you get into the question of what the thresholds should be, well, that becomes much more complicated, and there's planty of room for disagreement. But it's an irrelevant question until you conceed that preemption is acceptable. And for some strange reason, not everyone has figured out that of course it is.

With the way in which the US marched into Iraq on such hazy grounds, against the UN etc, surely you can see how that might influence them to build nuclear weapons to pre-empt any possible action against them?

This too is irrelevant, since they've been working towards nuclear weapons since well before our Iraq invasion, and because frankly dictatorships have NEVER needed any external motivator to pursue the acquisition of power.

Yes, that is true. So you see ultimate peace/global security comming around by all the nations of the world having ICBM's equipped with multiple nuclear warheads?

I don't see ultimate peace/global security happening at all (certainly not when dictatorships still exist), so that's a nonsensical question to begin with as far as I'm concerned. But the reality is, dictatorships WILL try to acquire those things, whether or not we threaten them in any way. In fact, if we pose no threat to them at all, and promise never to pose such a threat, then what could ever stop them from trying to get such weapons? Dictatorships and democracies are not the same, and there's no paradox, hypocracy, or inconsistency in allowing democracies actions that I would try to deny to dictatorships.

People don't even seem to bother considering it. It's like it's a given thing that the US will have sole authority.

In other words, you're assuming the position of other members of this board in the absence of any expressed opinions. You might want to reconsider that as a debating tactic.

I agree. The only time I can ever see 'pre-emptive' strikes being justifiable would be in situations where a war is all but formally declared or if there is an immediate risk. There's no need for the majority world opinion to be on your side, but you should know that in the aftermath you will be held accountable -The US has no such problem.

"held accountable" is a meaningless phrase. There are consequences to preemptive strikes, and the US isn't immune to them. And "immediate risk" is a subjective call. So the only substantial thing you really object to, as far as I can tell, is a particular decision to engage in a preemptive war, not the principle in general. Which is fine, but that's all it is.

As justified as any attack on their own nuclear facilities by nations fearing attack from them would be.

That's not an answer. I didn't present a hypothetical, I presented a real-world case, so responding with a hypothetical (other unspecified nations carrying out unspecified attacks in response to unspecified perceptions of unspecified threats) doesn't cut it. A yes or no is what the question requires for an answer. Explain that answer all you want to, but it's not an answer unless it's got a yes or a no.

Ziggurat

22nd January 2007, 05:33 PM

If you were in charge, would you make the calculation the same way you think Iran would? Namely, if we'll benefit and there's little chance of retaliation, then strike away and who cares whether it's justified?

That's just it: there IS no justification other than costs/benefits (plus some risk analysis - how likely are various possible costs and benefits), never has been and never will be. For a democracy like the US, with lots of allies and trading partners, the costs can include much more than just the direct military response from the target, and as I said there's plenty of room for disagreement about how to weigh various costs, but it still boils down to the same basic idea. The only difference with Iran is that there are lots of things which we would consider costs (for example, collateral damage) which the mullahs likely do not.

fishbob

22nd January 2007, 11:49 PM

Art having trouble with a concept - here referring to 'pre-emptive strikes'.
Note that the Iraq invasion was the former.A strike is a single event, of short duration. What Bush Sr did in Iraq in 1991 was more than a strike. What Bush Jr has done is even less strike-like.

Francesca R

23rd January 2007, 02:49 AM

way to prevent preemptive strikes against yourself has always been, and WILL ALWAYS BE, the threat of retaliation.Or pre-empting a pre-emptive strike with a strike . . .

Darth Rotor

23rd January 2007, 09:06 AM

Please, not the 20-20 thing. No, no, no, you don't get off that cheaply. We are not talking about hindsight. Many, many people had the foresight to see what the Iraq invasion really was and what it would turn into. You try to descredit them by saying, essentially, "Well they didn't really know. They just happened to be right." Horsecrap. A lot of people knew and a lot of people tried to say and a lot of people were smeared and slandered for doing so. And those people who did the smearing and slandering ought at least to have the dignity to be honest about it. No, I"m not referring to you. I don't remember conversations with you before the invasion. I'm referring those people whether on the national level or in a forum like this who felt comfortable questioning the patriotism of anyone who didn't blindly accept the gospel of Saint George.

Yes, by we I mean the USA. And we should reserve our "pre-empting" for those rare times when there actually is a danger that needs pre-empting.
The "know" was directed at the absence or presence of WMD. Anyone with a clue knew that Powell was right about this, at least: "If you break it, you buy it."

DR

mbp

23rd January 2007, 11:33 AM

However, there is little doubt (at least by me) that early action against Hitler in 1938 or 1939 could have saved the world a lot of trouble and grief, and in that sense might have been considered pre-emptive.
Agreed. But had they actually done so in 1938 would the people living in that world afterwards also have thought it a justifiable and "good" war?
Whatever bad happens during a pre-emptive war is there for all to see. But the bad things you've prevented are only hypothetical precisely because you've prevented them.
And a world in which Nazi Germany was defeated in 1938 (or whatever the latest feasible time is) could well have seen major wars both in Europe and between Japan and the US anyway. What would Stalin have done if given five more years to prepare himself?

Upchurch

23rd January 2007, 12:17 PM

Want to guess what does protect us against preemptive strikes by other countries? You only get one try, though.Before 9/11, I'd have said nukes. Now, I have no idea. What?

Ziggurat

23rd January 2007, 01:04 PM

Before 9/11, I'd have said nukes. Now, I have no idea. What?

"Nukes" is only a subset of the answer, which is our military power. As 9/11 itself showed, it's not perfect protection against others striking you first, but it's the best option available in an imperfect world (and no, that does not preclude using other methods to augment the threat of military retaliation).

Art Vandelay

24th January 2007, 12:23 AM

Selfishness?

Is he not saying precisely the opposite? That we shouldn't think only of ourselves but of the other guy too?Leaving aside for the moment whether this applies here, there's a logical fallacy that basically goes like this:
1. Get your opponent to admit that they would not want some rule applied to them (thus appealing to their selfishness).
2. Next, appeal to their aversion to hypocrisy by saying that they should not apply to the rule to others.

First, if you're going to argue that pre-emptive strikes are acceptable, then that means that they are acceptable for any country.That does not follow.

Arguing that one particular country should have some sort of 'right' to carry out pre-emptive strikes, while other countries do not, is just plain hypocritical in my opinion.I'd rather be alive, and facing your accusations of hypocrisy, than dead and respected. The US has rights that Iran simply does not have. That's not hypocrisy, that's a recognition that different situations deserve different responses.

But no single nation should, in my opinion, have the right to make such a decision. If they have proof of a significant threat that requires action, let them present that to other nations, and take action only if the international community agrees with their assessment of the threat. And if they disagree? Or if they agree that the nation will be destroyed, but don't care? Why should no country have the right to defend itself, yet have the right to condemn another nation to destruction by refusing to back a defensive action?

Also, I think that the distinction that Esperdome mentioned should be repeated: a pre-emptive strike is rather different from a pre-emptive war. When the Allies shelled Omaha beach, that was a pre-emptive strike. It needs no more justification than any other strike of the war. If a country launches a pre-emptive strike with which they are not already at war, then that will presumably spark a war, and it is the pre-emptive war, not the pre-emptive strike, that is really the issue.

I'm referring those people whether on the national level or in a forum like this who felt comfortable questioning the patriotism of anyone who didn't blindly accept the gospel of Saint George.Can you provide any names?

Art having trouble with a concept - here referring to 'pre-emptive strikes'.
A strike is a single event, of short duration. What Bush Sr did in Iraq in 1991 was more than a strike. What Bush Jr has done is even less strike-like.Fishbob is having trouble with honesty. I said that the invasion was a strike. I never said that "what Bush Jr has done" is a strike. Obviously, the occupation is not a strike. Furthermore, this completely ignores the context of the comment, in which it was contrasted with a pre-emptive war, which it was not (the war began in response to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait).

geni

24th January 2007, 12:56 AM

However, there is little doubt (at least by me) that early action against Hitler in 1938 or 1939 could have saved the world a lot of trouble and grief, and in that sense might have been considered pre-emptive.

Pre-emptive action by who? France? Got stopped by rather a lot of landmines. Britain? Needed the time for a militry buildup. The soviet union? No thankyou and in any case needed 3 years to get it's militry in order. The US? launching an invasion from across the atlantic would have been tricky.

My question is, at what point does a country or group of countries decide to act?

When it can certianly win or when the cost of not doing so is unaceptably high.

69dodge

24th January 2007, 01:12 AM

I'd rather be alive, and facing your accusations of hypocrisy, than dead and respected. The US has rights that Iran simply does not have. That's not hypocrisy, that's a recognition that different situations deserve different responses.No doubt Iranians would rather be alive than dead too. So that, at least, doesn't differentiate between you and them. What does?

(I don't mean to imply that nothing does. Only that it's not very interesting just to assert that the US has rights that Iran doesn't, without explaining what those rights are or why the US has them and Iran doesn't.)

Puppycow

24th January 2007, 02:09 AM

I've been reading a rather interesting article that relates to this subject. It's call Why Hawks Win, and it appeared in Foreign Policy magazine. Link here (http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=3660).

If you agree that preemption is OK in principle, and the only question is where to draw the line, then you also have to accept the risk that mistakes like Iraq and Vietnam will be made from time to time. During Vietnam, we believed that we faced an existential threat from Communism, which required us to make sure a little country in Southeast Asia didn't fall into the hands of the monolithic International Communist movement. Clearly, we miscalculated the risks. In Iraq we clearly miscalculated the risks again.

World War 2 is probably the best example of when preemption might have worked, but we don't know how history might have unfolded. On the other hand, look at World War I (which planted the seeds for WW2): most historians agree that this was about the most pointless war in history, and it started because of a military doctrine of preemption.

So I'm not quite saying never, but I do think it should be almost never. Plus, when we preempt, then even if the calculation was right, it cannot be proven and it may have less obvious negative consequences. People will point to us as the aggressor, and there is no easy and uncontroversial casus belli we can point to. We may suffer more guilt and self doubt. This may lead us to make the wrong decision later, when a real threat emerges.

So instead, we should probably focus on diffusing tensions, staying alert to danger and prepared, constantly improving and adapting to emerging threats, and waiting for the rest of the world to evolve. See what soft economic power and culture can do. We shouldn't be surprised that different parts of the world are evolving at different rates. We are the most powerful country, so we shouldn't forget to think about how we appear from the rest of the world's perspective.

Art Vandelay

26th January 2007, 10:39 PM

(I don't mean to imply that nothing does. Only that it's not very interesting just to assert that the US has rights that Iran doesn't, without explaining what those rights are or why the US has them and Iran doesn't.)The US is a democracy, it doesn't sponsor terrorism, it hasn't agreed to not develop nuclear weapons, doesn't put out hits on foreign nationals for writing books it doesn't like, respects (most) human rights, is a hegemon, doesn't use chemical weapons, doesn't use child soldiers, doesn't conscript soldiers, etc.

World War 2 is probably the best example of when preemption might have worked, but we don't know how history might have unfolded.Pre-emption wouldn't really have been necessary. By the time Germany invaded Poland, it had been in violation of treaties for years. And if Clinton had invaded Iraq back when it first started violating the cease fire, we wouldn't have to deal with justifying a "pre-emptive" action.

On the other hand, look at World War I (which planted the seeds for WW2): most historians agree that this was about the most pointless war in history, and it started because of a military doctrine of preemption. Really? I've usually seen it explained it as entangling alliances, with the mechanics of mobilizations contributing.

Darth Rotor

27th January 2007, 09:50 PM

And if Clinton had invaded Iraq back when it first started violating the cease fire, we wouldn't have to deal with justifying a "pre-emptive" action.

Art, GHW Bush was president when Saddam first violated the terms of the cease fire: 90 days after it was imposed.

The failure to back up the cease fires began on the watch of the man who implemented them, a man whose policy of hope in the worthiness of the UN without American starch in its spine was an exercise in willful myopia.

DR

WildCat

28th January 2007, 06:11 AM

The soviet union? No thankyou and in any case needed 3 years to get it's militry in order.
More than that, the Soviets were allied w/ Germany and participated in the invasion of Poland. It wasn't until June 1941 when this alliance broke apart when Germany turned and declared war on their former ally.

Puppycow

28th January 2007, 07:41 PM

Pre-emption wouldn't really have been necessary. By the time Germany invaded Poland, it had been in violation of treaties for years. And if Clinton had invaded Iraq back when it first started violating the cease fire, we wouldn't have to deal with justifying a "pre-emptive" action.Point taken, but there are different qualities of casus belli. In WW2, one could argue, by waiting for Pearl Harbor, we had a perfect casus belli that was easy for everybody to understand and instantly united the whole nation behind the war effort. Germany violating its treaty obligations wouldn't have moved isolationist to say that we should get involved in another European War. I think that there is a big practical value in that emotional unity that the Japanese gave us.

Really? I've usually seen it explained it as entangling alliances, with the mechanics of mobilizations contributing.
I think that "the mechanics of mobilizations" is another way of saying what I'm saying. The way way I recall, from my history classes, was that if not strictly preemption, the Germans wanted to take the military initiative and so they were ready to attack when anybody said "Boo!"

Puppycow

28th January 2007, 07:42 PM

DPM

TheChadd

31st January 2007, 06:29 PM

Leaving aside for the moment whether this applies here, there's a logical fallacy that basically goes like this:
1. Get your opponent to admit that they would not want some rule applied to them (thus appealing to their selfishness).
2. Next, appeal to their aversion to hypocrisy by saying that they should not apply to the rule to others.

Well this is a moral question is it not? It is merely applying the 'golden rule' which most christians/humanists claim to follow.

First, if you're going to argue that pre-emptive strikes are acceptable, then that means that they are acceptable for any country.That does not follow.

Can you show how it doesn't follow? If you're arguing in favor of the principle of pre-emptive strikes you either have to demonstrate why that principle should only apply to your country or it does mean your argument is an argument applicable to any nation.

I'd rather be alive, and facing your accusations of hypocrisy, than dead and respected. The US has rights that Iran simply does not have. That's not hypocrisy, that's a recognition that different situations deserve different responses.

How is the result of walking away from pre-emptive warfare going to mean your death? I'm sure those that are arguing against it would actually claim you'll be safer without a possible nuclear arms race between russia/china/usa that such policies are drawing us towards.

The US is a democracy,

The majority of the population of the US routinely disagree with the decisions their leaders make - This has been true of all administrations in recent history.

it doesn't sponsor terrorism

Not only does it sponsor terrorist groups, it does terrorism its self i.e. The contras in Nicaragua, The mujahideen in afghanistan, the entire cuban fiasco?

it hasn't agreed to not develop nuclear weapons,

This is a good thing? The US is building ever more deadly nuclear weapons, ******** all over the NPT.

doesn't put out hits on foreign nationals for writing books it doesn't like,

Of course, unless they actually start to wield some power that's a threat to their commercial interests.

respects (most) human rights,

A joke. The US is a blemish on international law, human rights - Guantanamo.

doesn't use chemical weapons

Vietnam? Not to mention they're the ones building evermore deadly chemical weapons.

doesn't use child soldiers

Doesn't need to.

doesn't conscript soldiers, etc.

Just buys mercenaries.

Upchurch

1st February 2007, 04:14 AM

Not only does it sponsor terrorist groups, it does terrorism its self i.e. The contras in Nicaragua, The mujahideen in afghanistan, the entire cuban fiasco?
Terrorists are very different than freedom fighters because of the spelling.

Apologies to Eddie Izzard

Darth Rotor

1st February 2007, 07:38 AM

A joke. The US is a blemish on international law, human rights - Guantanamo.

Just buys mercenaries.
I note you are not typing this in Japanese, mate.
DR

TheChadd

1st February 2007, 07:54 AM

I note you are not typing this in Japanese, mate.

Are you trying to argue I should be quiet and just be thankful for US action against japan?

1) It was in their interest to halter japan anyway.
2) Japan never had any plan to invade Australia, the closest it came was a suggestion by one of the navy commanders, but it was rebuked.
3) Without the embargo's of the US/UK Japan never would have needed to go to war anyway.

Darth Rotor

1st February 2007, 08:53 AM

Are you trying to argue I should be quiet and just be thankful for US action against japan?
I will observe that ingrates who use standard rhetorical tropes offer little worth reading.
Without the embargo's of the US/UK Japan never would have needed to go to war anyway.
Never? Post Hoc much? I take it you are familiar with the racialist component of Japanese Imperial motivations: Asia for the Asians? Communists were not the only people on the planet who wished to uproot and change the Western Imperial footprint in Asia.
Following the Japanese attacks on South East Asia in late 1941, Australia was attacked itself during the Air raids on Darwin, February 19, 1942, resulting in at least 243 civilian and military deaths. Australian troops were sent home from the Middle East to defend the country from a feared Japanese invasion of Australia. This invasion did not occur, however, and the Japanese did not ever intend to invade the Australian mainland.[1]
Dr. Peter Stanley (2002). He's (Not) Coming South: The Invasion That Wasn't
Dr Stanley's work considered, you seem to assume away a lot, considering the proposed limits of the maritime security perimeter and the East Asian Co Prosperity Sphere. Presuming no long term strategy of getting a grip on Australian resources seems to recast Japanese Strategy before Midway as identical to post Midway strategy.

Midway Island reasonably defined the intended eastern limit of the maritime buffer zone. Peel back the onion a layer, and look at what opportunities arise when a successful (rather than the disaster that occurred) occupation of Midway (and intendent defeat of the US carrier force) buys Imperial Japan the time to fortify the maritime buffer zone.

What is the point of the airfield on Guadalcanal? What of the operations in New Guinea?

One can well argue that operations in China were the strategic main effort. The effort into Australia was potentially a resource drain and a long line of communicaiton. Bounding the buffer North of Australia was an option, but success opens new doors.

To presume that no operations, on a strategic time horizon, would "ever have been undertaken" against Australia ignores the momentum that success can give to strategy. Success at Midway, success in China. Why not pluck the next grape off of the vine?

Thanks to how Midway turned out, we'll never know.

DR

Ziggurat

1st February 2007, 08:58 AM

3) Without the embargo's of the US/UK Japan never would have needed to go to war anyway.

Yeah! Screw all those yellow people! If Japan invades China, that doesn't count as war.

Art Vandelay

1st February 2007, 10:13 PM

Well this is a moral question is it not? It is merely applying the 'golden rule' which most christians/humanists claim to follow. It's taking the golden rule to an absurd extreme. If I were a murderer, I wouldn't want to be sent to jail. Does that mean I shouldn't send murderers to jail? That's ridiculous.

Can you show how it doesn't follow? Apparently you are ignorant of even the most basic rules of debating.

If you're arguing in favor of the principle of pre-emptive strikes you either have to demonstrate why that principle should only apply to your country or it does mean your argument is an argument applicable to any nation.No, it doesn't. False dichotomy.

:confused:

[quote]Not only does it sponsor terrorist groups, it does terrorism its self i.e. The contras in Nicaragua, The mujahideen in afghanistan, the entire cuban fiasco? Cite?

This is a good thing?Yes. Not promising to not build nuclear weapons, and building nuclear weapons, is better than promising to not build nuclear weapons, then building them anyway.

Of course, unless they actually start to wield some power that's a threat to their commercial interests.Huh? Are you claiming that the US has put out hits on people for writing books it doesn't like?

A joke. The US is a blemish on international law, human rights - Guantanamo.Compared to Iran? As for international law, name one treaty the US has violated.

Vietnam? Are you claiming that the US used chemical weapons in Vietnam?

Doesn't need to.Neither did Iran.

Just buys mercenaries.What does that mean?

1) It was in their interest to halter japan anyway."halter" is a noun, not a verb.

3) Without the embargo's of the US/UK Japan never would have needed to go to war anyway.The embargo's what?

TheChadd

1st February 2007, 10:36 PM

It's taking the golden rule to an absurd extreme. If I were a murderer, I wouldn't want to be sent to jail. Does that mean I shouldn't send murderers to jail? That's ridiculous.

Yes... it does. If you're not willing to apply that standard to yourself, then how do you come off passing it on others?

No, it doesn't. False dichotomy.

I simply said if you're going to argue for pre-emption by your nation and not others you must explain why that is the case (you actually did attempt to do in your post, claiming that the US doesn't support terrorists, supports democracy etc)

Cite?

You really need someone to cite the US support for the mujahideen in afghanistan? Or the funding to the contras in Nicaragua? Do a google search.

Yes. Not promising to not build nuclear weapons, and building nuclear weapons, is better than promising to not build nuclear weapons, then building them anyway.

A marginal difference.

Huh? Are you claiming that the US has put out hits on people for writing books it doesn't like?

Not specifically books, but if they start to spread an idea/gain popular support for an idea the US doesn't like? Then yes.

Compared to Iran? As for international law, name one treaty the US has violated.

Try looking at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicaragua_v._United_States

Are you claiming that the US used chemical weapons in Vietnam?

Agent Orange? Napalm?

Neither did Iran.

Maybe, I'm not a big fan of Iran either.

What does that mean?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_military_contractor

"halter" is a noun, not a verb.

It's both:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/halter

The embargo's what?

Nevermind, I've already been framed as a racist due to that comment and I doubt many here would accept my claim that the embargo/war only happened as the US didn't like the idea of a consolidated powerhouse in Asia.

Art Vandelay

2nd February 2007, 12:50 AM

Yes... it does. If you're not willing to apply that standard to yourself, then how do you come off passing it on others?You're not following. There's a difference between wanting and willing.

I simply said if you're going to argue for pre-emption by your nation and not others you must explain why that is the case (you actually did attempt to do in your post, claiming that the US doesn't support terrorists, supports democracy etc)No, what you said is that either the US has a better claim to pre-emption than no other country, or it has a better claim to pre-emption than every country.

You really need someone to cite the US support for the mujahideen in afghanistan? Or the funding to the contras in Nicaragua? Do a google search.I don't have the patience for your strawman BS. If you're not willing to defend your claim, at least have the decency to say so, rather than making up some other claim and pretending that's the one I'm challenging.

A marginal difference.A marginal difference?!? It's a huge difference!

Not specifically books, but if they start to spread an idea/gain popular support for an idea the US doesn't like? Then yes.Cite?

Try looking at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicaragua_v._United_StatesWikipedia has anchors, you know. If think that something in that article supports your claim, then link to it.

Agent Orange? Napalm?CIte that either were used as chemical weapons?

Maybe, I'm not a big fan of Iran either.But that's the issue. Not whether the US has fallen short of perfection, but whether Iran is significantly worse than the US.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_military_contractorI asked you what you meant, not for a link to wikipedia.

TheChadd

2nd February 2007, 01:31 AM

You're not following. There's a difference between wanting and willing.

Of course you may not want to do it lol

No, what you said is that either the US has a better claim to pre-emption than no other country, or it has a better claim to pre-emption than every country.

I don't think I said that, but nevertheless... do you have a problem with:

I simply said if you're going to argue for pre-emption by your nation and not others you must explain why that is the case (you actually did attempt to do in your post, claiming that the US doesn't support terrorists, supports democracy etc)

I don't have the patience for your strawman BS. If you're not willing to defend your claim, at least have the decency to say so, rather than making up some other claim and pretending that's the one I'm challenging.

I'm sorry, but you musn't be following. You said (refering to the US):
it doesn't sponsor terrorism

I pointed to the contras, the mujahideen...

You then said that's a strawman :/

A marginal difference?!? It's a huge difference!

The only 'huge difference' is how trustworthy you are, this problem is dwarfed by the fact that you're producing nuclear weapons whether you lie or not.

Not specifically books, but if they start to spread an idea/gain popular support for an idea the US doesn't like? Then yes. cite>

Cuba... Do you know about the history?

Wikipedia has anchors, you know. If think that something in that article supports your claim, then link to it.

The article as a whole, if you read it, supports my claim. The US broke international law by funding the contras in Nicaragua...

CIte that either were used as chemical weapons?

You really need a citation to believe that Agent Orange / Napalm were used as chemical weapons in vietnam? I'm not going to perform basic google searches for you when you've already shown you'll just show disdain/disinterest in any article I present.

But that's the issue. Not whether the US has fallen short of perfection, but whether Iran is significantly worse than the US.

Can't I not support nuclear pre-emption / nuclear weapons for both countries?

I asked you what you meant, not for a link to wikipedia.

The link explains what I mean... There are PMC's in iraq. These groups are essentially mercenaries.

Ziggurat

2nd February 2007, 06:12 AM

Napalm?

Napalm is an incendiary. It is not a "chemical weapon" (same with white phosphorous, BTW). It cannot be used as a "chemical weapon" even if you wanted to unless it isn't ignited, but it wouldn't do much and never was used that way.

TheChadd

2nd February 2007, 07:45 AM

I honestly see little difference in burning people to death using potent chemicals or poisoning them with a herbicide than gassing someone... but that's what the law (you correctly point out) does seem to state :)

Darth Rotor

2nd February 2007, 07:52 AM

Chadd:

Napalm is an incendiary. Chemical weapons are such things as nerve gas, tear gas, mustard gas ( a mild form) Sarin, etc.

Agent Orange is a defoliant. It's a bit of a stretch to conflate the term "chemical weapons" which is normally used to discuss nerve gas or mustard guas, with an exotic weedkiller, whose purpose is not as an antipersonnel weapon.

That said, it did not have a benign effect.

There are PMC's in iraq. These groups are essentially mercenaries.
Yes, some of them are. According to the US GAO, up to 40% of them are operating in that capacity, while the bulk of the rest are working in more mundane tasks such as food service, truck driving, IT support, construction, etc.

This came up in discussion last week (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2287765&postcount=18).

ETA: oops, looks like I was beat to the punch.

Chadd, while it is true that dead is dead, the precision in terminology is important.

DR

Tricky

2nd February 2007, 08:04 AM

Pre-emptive against the US? Maybe we'd better run through a quick checklist.

Do they have WMDs? Check.
Have they ever used WMDs? Check.
Have they ever launched an unprovoked invasion of another country? Check.
Is their leader a questionably sane autocrat who surrounds himself with sycophants? Check.
Does the leader violate the rights of the citizens? Check.
Do most of the citizens think their leader is bad? Check.

:yikes: Guess we'd better watch out for the bombers.

Art Vandelay

2nd February 2007, 01:44 PM

I'm sorry, but you musn't be following. You said (refering to the US):

I pointed to the contras, the mujahideen...

You then said that's a strawman :/No, you're the one not following. You claimed that the US supports terrorism. I asked for a cite for that claim. Instead you supported the claim that the US supported the mujahideen. Strawman.

The only 'huge difference' is how trustworthy you are, this problem is dwarfed by the fact that you're producing nuclear weapons whether you lie or not.Nuclear weapons dwarf trustiworthiness? Sorry, I'd rather deal with an honest country with nukes than a dishonest one without them, and I'd MUCH rather deal with an honest country with nukes than a dishonest one with them.

Cuba... Do you know about the history?:rolleyes:
If you're going to make a claim, how about making a claim, rather than engaging in this cryptic BS?

The article as a whole, if you read it, supports my claim. The US broke international law by funding the contras in Nicaragua..."International law" is a rather meaninglessphrase. I asked you for an example of the US breaking a treaty.

I'm not going to perform basic google searches for you when you've already shown you'll just show disdain/disinterest in any article I present.Your articles aren't responses to my posts.

Can't I not support nuclear pre-emption / nuclear weapons for both countries?That's not the issue.

The link explains what I mean... There are PMC's in iraq. These groups are essentially mercenaries.No, it doesn't. I'm not an idiot; I know what the word mercenary means. So don't treat me like an idiot. I asked you what you meant, not for an explanation of what a mercenary is.

TheChadd

2nd February 2007, 02:53 PM

No, you're the one not following. You claimed that the US supports terrorism. I asked for a cite for that claim. Instead you supported the claim that the US supported the mujahideen. Strawman.

And the Contras... How is that a Strawman? To prove the US supports terrorism i used examples.

Nuclear weapons dwarf trustiworthiness? Sorry, I'd rather deal with an honest country with nukes than a dishonest one without them, and I'd MUCH rather deal with an honest country with nukes than a dishonest one with them.

Being honest on the nuclear issue does not make you an "honest country", just honest on that issue - Which is of little comfort...

If you're going to make a claim, how about making a claim, rather than engaging in this cryptic BS?

I've already provided you a wikipedia link to the international court's decision against the US in the contra case... I can't get any less cryptic then how I'm being without typing out all the facts for you, referencing them etc. A link serves the same purpose.

"International law" is a rather meaninglessphrase. I asked you for an example of the US breaking a treaty.

If you read the article you'd find determinations about whether they broke various treaty's were not allowed to be made by the court, but they most certainly did.

That's not the issue.

It is for me.

No, it doesn't. I'm not an idiot; I know what the word mercenary means. So don't treat me like an idiot. I asked you what you meant, not for an explanation of what a mercenary is.

I didn't explain what the word mercenary means. The link wasn't to a dictionary or anything, it's a link about PMC's of which there is a large amount of mercenaries.

Chadd, while it is true that dead is dead, the precision in terminology is important.

I'll retract my statement about chemical weapons then as it's really a fairly low priority point to my argument.

Yes, some of them are. According to the US GAO, up to 40% of them are operating in that capacity, while the bulk of the rest are working in more mundane tasks such as food service, truck driving, IT support, construction, etc.

Yep.

Ziggurat

2nd February 2007, 03:05 PM

TheChadd

2nd February 2007, 03:13 PM

Would you prefer to burn them to death with impotent chemicals?

I don't think burning people to death is ever a very nice option, but doing so with such very potent chemicals as phosphorus seems to me to be taking it much further.

Ziggurat

2nd February 2007, 03:17 PM

Can't I not support nuclear pre-emption / nuclear weapons for both countries?

You can support whatever you want, but supporting some things is likely to lead to a rude awakeing when reality does not conform to your desires.

Here's an unfortunate fact of life: if the US were to remove its nuclear weapons arsenal, the incentive for dictatorships and rogue states to try to acquire nuclear weapons themselves would INCREASE, not decrease. They don't care whether or not we're being hypocritical, they don't care whether or not we've got double standards, they care about what power THEY can weild. And if they could get nuclear weapons while we abandoned ours, they would have a LOT of power. A nuclear-free world might be nice, but unilateral disarmament by the US doesn't lead there. Same thing with preemption: not supporting preemption for the US will in no way decrease the likelihood of our enemies ever using preemption. No state will EVER forswear preemption and actually mean it - the only real differences will ever be the particular thresholds they're willing to accept.

Ziggurat

2nd February 2007, 03:18 PM

I don't think burning people to death is ever a very nice option, but doing so with such very potent chemicals as phosphorus seems to me to be taking it much further.

Much further than what? :confused:

TheChadd

2nd February 2007, 04:41 PM

Here's an unfortunate fact of life: if the US were to remove its nuclear weapons arsenal, the incentive for dictatorships and rogue states to try to acquire nuclear weapons themselves would INCREASE, not decrease.

Can you explain why 'dictatorships and rogue states' would be more likely to try to acquire nuclear weapons if the US removed its own arsenal? Are you saying that the US's nuclear arsenal serves as a deterant? Because I really don't see that.

They don't care whether or not we're being hypocritical, they don't care whether or not we've got double standards, they care about what power THEY can weild.

I don't think they care about our hypocracy either. I do think they care about their own security though.

And if they could get nuclear weapons while we abandoned ours, they would have a LOT of power.

I'm not necessarily in favor of the US completely abandonning their nuclear weapons, merely reducing the number of nuclear weapons and taking steps towards a future where we won't have to worry about them.

A nuclear-free world might be nice, but unilateral disarmament by the US doesn't lead there.

The US has thousands more nuclear weapons then even their closest rival, while the other nuclear powers need to start arming down I think it's obvious the country who should be making the most positive steps in that reguard is the US. But we don't even see the US going in that direction, we see the development of even further nuclear weapons technology.

Same thing with preemption: not supporting preemption for the US will in no way decrease the likelihood of our enemies ever using preemption.

Yes it will. Can't you see that the more pre-emptive a nation is willing to be towards others the more those others may have to consider pre-emption in their strategy?

Much further than what?

Burning people.

Ziggurat

2nd February 2007, 05:14 PM

Can you explain why 'dictatorships and rogue states' would be more likely to try to acquire nuclear weapons if the US removed its own arsenal? Are you saying that the US's nuclear arsenal serves as a deterant? Because I really don't see that.

It's really quite simple. Relative power matters. With a large US arsenal, the acquisition of a small nuclear arsenal would not put a rogue state close to par with the US in terms of power. Without any US arsenal, even a small nuclear arsenal in the hands of a rogue state would put them on par with the US. The cost to develop a small arsenal is the same in either case (and it's considerable), but the benefit to them is much greater if we do not have a large arsenal. Therefore, they would have a much larger incentive to acquire nuclear weapons if we were to disarm. It's quite elementary, and I really don't know why it isn't obvious to everyone.

I don't think they care about our hypocracy either. I do think they care about their own security though.

When have we ever threatened a dictatorship just because they were a dictatorship? We never have.

I'm not necessarily in favor of the US completely abandonning their nuclear weapons, merely reducing the number of nuclear weapons and taking steps towards a future where we won't have to worry about them.

We cannot wind the clock back on the existence of nuclear weapons. They exist. If you want to not have to worry about them, you need to make things such that the only people with them are not people you worry about having them. For example, I really don't like France. I think they're backstabbing cynical opportunists who actively try to undermine American interests. But I'm not worried about their nuclear weapons. So, how do we get to a world in which we don't have to worry about the people who have nuclear weapons? Democracy, I'm afraid, is the only avenue open to us. And even a decrease in the US arsenal doesn't help get us there.

The US has thousands more nuclear weapons then even their closest rival,

Good. That discourages new entrants, because why even start the race if you can't compete?

Yes it will. Can't you see that the more pre-emptive a nation is willing to be towards others the more those others may have to consider pre-emption in their strategy?

No, actually, I can't, because no one has ever outlined the logic for that statement in a way that doesn't ascribe to dictatorships the same motives that democracies operate under.

Burning people.

Burning people to death is further than just burning people, yes. That's what you DO in war: you kill people.

Art Vandelay

3rd February 2007, 12:28 PM

And the Contras... How is that a Strawman? I've already explained that. How about actually reading?

To prove the US supports terrorism i used examples.I asked for cites, not examples of where you CLAIM the US supports terrorism.

Being honest on the nuclear issue does not make you an "honest country", just honest on that issue - Which is of little comfort...Are you seriously claiming that a country that has promised not to develop nuclear weapons has just as much right to develop nuclear weapons as one that hasn't so promised?

I've already provided you a wikipedia link to the international court's decision against the US in the contra case...And that somehow magically has something to do with Cuba? You're not making any sense.

If you read the article you'd find determinations about whether they broke various treaty's were not allowed to be made by the court, but they most certainly did.It's "treaties", not "treaty's". And if you're going to make a cliam, provide a cite. As I said, wikipedia has anchors.

It is for me.Then go somewhere else. 69dodge asked me a question. I provided a response that I considered an answer to THAT QUESTION. Now you're challenging my response on the basis that it isn't an answer to a completely different question. Learn some manners.

I didn't explain what the word mercenary means. The link wasn't to a dictionary or anything, it's a link about PMC's of which there is a large amount of mercenaries.But the question is what you meant by your statement.

TheChadd

3rd February 2007, 04:17 PM

It's really quite simple. Relative power matters. With a large US arsenal, the acquisition of a small nuclear arsenal would not put a rogue state close to par with the US in terms of power. Without any US arsenal, even a small nuclear arsenal in the hands of a rogue state would put them on par with the US. The cost to develop a small arsenal is the same in either case (and it's considerable), but the benefit to them is much greater if we do not have a large arsenal. Therefore, they would have a much larger incentive to acquire nuclear weapons if we were to disarm. It's quite elementary, and I really don't know why it isn't obvious to everyone.

The reason why I don't think it's obvious is because while the benefit may increase, this probably has a marginal effect on the incentive because if the US even reduces its self to 300 nuclear warheads, that's still more than enough to bring them to their knees if they get out of line.

Anyway if you want to reject the principle of universiality (that what law applies to us applies to others) then why all the lies about spreading democracy etc? It's the least the nation could do.

When have we ever threatened a dictatorship just because they were a dictatorship? We never have.

Correct (in fact the US has even installed several dictatorships). Dictatorships can go on killing, raping and crushing their populations and the US generally won't care. The criteria seems to have alot more to do with economic interests.

We cannot wind the clock back on the existence of nuclear weapons. They exist.

Agreed, but that doesn't mean any nation needs to posess them. There are some extremely powerful biological weapons too but for the most part the only nation keeping stock of these is the US.

If you want to not have to worry about them, you need to make things such that the only people with them are not people you worry about having them.

I can understand that but many in the world don't think the US is the best nation to have nuclear weapons, for them.

Good. That discourages new entrants, because why even start the race if you can't compete?

I'm glad you see it now! Why would they start a race against the US, knowing they can't compete... are they just lunatics that want to get a dirty bomb into the US to hurt some civilians ? (possible, but doubtful) Maybe it's because it's an act of Self Defence?

No, actually, I can't, because no one has ever outlined the logic for that statement in a way that doesn't ascribe to dictatorships the same motives that democracies operate under.

Can you outline why we'd give two power systems (while different) diffent thoughts when it comes to their self defense?

-------------------

I've already explained that. How about actually reading?

You already explained the US involvement in Nicauagra?

I asked for cites, not examples of where you CLAIM the US supports terrorism.

Can you explain to me why you don't think they're good examples?

Are you seriously claiming that a country that has promised not to develop nuclear weapons has just as much right to develop nuclear weapons as one that hasn't so promised?

Yes. The difference between the country that lied and the country that simply carried out what they wanted to do (in the US's case, knowing no one can stop them) is marginal.

And that somehow magically has something to do with Cuba? You're not making any sense.

So you admit that what the US did in Nicauagra was an act of terrorism? Oh and so you explicitly want examples of US terrorism in cuba?

The Cubans also cite the admission by Luis Posada Carriles that he was recruited by the CIA becoming a trainer of other paramilitary forces in the mid 1960s.[15] Posada, alongside Orlando Bosch, is accused by Barbados, Trinidad and Tobago, Guyana, Cuba and Venezuela of organising the terrorist bombing of the aircraft Cubana 455,[16] and according to Peter Kornbluh of the U.S. National Security Archive, "is a terrorist, but he’s our terrorist", referring to Posada's relationship with the U.S. government. In 2006, the U.S. Justice Department described Posada as “an unrepentant criminal and admitted mastermind of terrorist plots and attacks on tourist sites.” Though the Bush administration has yet to prosecute Posada for the admitted crimes.[17] The Cubans also cite the involvement of FBI attaché Joseph Leo, who admitted multiple contacts with one of the convicted bombers of Cubana 455, Hernan Ricardo, before the attack.[18]

On May 18, 2005 The U.S. National Security Archive posted additional documents that claim to show that the CIA had concrete advance intelligence, as early as June 1976, on plans by Posada to bomb the airliner. The archive also alleges that he remained in contact with the CIA until June 1976.[9] When questioned on the matter Posada stated "The FBI and the CIA don't bother me, and I am neutral with them," he said. "Whenever I can help them, I do."[19] The Cuban ambassador to the U.N. claimed that Posada had been "doubly employed by the Government of the U.S." both before and after the bombing of the Cubana aircraft.[11] After escaping from prison in Venezuela, Posada, who boasted of his attack on the plane, went to work alongside CIA operative Felix Rodriguez under Richard Secord supplying the Contras.[20]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_state_terrorism_by_United_States_of _America

It's "treaties", not "treaty's". And if you're going to make a cliam, provide a cite. As I said, wikipedia has anchors.

You can find them yourself from the wikipedia page. I use wikipedia because it seems to me to be a fairly unbias source that will generally filter information on such contraversial topics.

But the question is what you meant by your statement.

What I meant by saying the US buys mercenaries? That they're setting up a chain of deniability while allowing some fairly scrupulous people to run around carrying guns.

Ziggurat

4th February 2007, 08:09 AM

Agreed, but that doesn't mean any nation needs to posess them.

Nations WILL posess them. WE cannot change that. And we cannot improve things by giving them up ourselves. You think Russia is at all interested in getting rid of its arsenal, for example? No, of course not.

There are some extremely powerful biological weapons too but for the most part the only nation keeping stock of these is the US.

So you have evidence that we still maintain stockpiles of weaponized biological agents? If you simply meant strains of the diseases, well, you're wrong about us being the only ones keeping them. And biological warfare has lost appeal for major powers because it's far too crude and unpredictable a weapon to be very useful - there is no real military advantage (and many disadvantages) they have over nuclear weapons, so why bother?

I can understand that but many in the world don't think the US is the best nation to have nuclear weapons, for them.

Well, that's nice for them. Many in the world also think it's OK to kill a person for switching religion, or being gay, and that beating your wife is the prefered method of establishing matrimonial harmony. You think I'm going to change my mind about those topics based on their popularity?

I'm glad you see it now! Why would they start a race against the US, knowing they can't compete... are they just lunatics that want to get a dirty bomb into the US to hurt some civilians ? (possible, but doubtful) Maybe it's because it's an act of Self Defence?

That they cannot compete with the US reduces incentives, it does not remove them. They can still compete with (and, they hope, dominate) their neighbors. As far as being lunatics, well, that's not quite the issue. Consider AQ Khan. Did he have the cooperation of his government in his nuclear black market? If yes, then that means that dictatorships will cooperate with each other to acquire nuclear weapons, increasing the threat substantially. If there are a sufficient number of nuclear-armed dictatorships, then a single dictatorship may indeed resort to nuclear terrorism, because the terrorist act might not be traceable to them (or they might gamble that it wouldn't be).

If Khan did it on his own (the official story), then that means that dictatorships cannot even control their own nuclear programs, and the threat of proliferation beyond state actors is considerable indeed whether or not the leaders of those dictatorships intend it.

Can you outline why we'd give two power systems (while different) diffent thoughts when it comes to their self defense?

Hmm... why might I treat democracies differently than dictatorship? Such a puzzle. I mean, they can both sit at the UN, so how different can they really be? :rolleyes: See if you can figure out why I might treat them differently. And here's an alternative question: why on earth would you treat them the same?

Art Vandelay

4th February 2007, 02:22 PM

Anyway if you want to reject the principle of universiality (that what law applies to us applies to others) then why all the lies about spreading democracy etc? It's the least the nation could do.More BS.

You already explained the US involvement in Nicauagra?That's not what I said, you lying jackass.

Can you explain to me why you don't think they're good examples?Can you eplain to me why I shouldn't smack you upside the head with a 2x4? I don't have an patience for your idiotic arguments from ignorance.

Yes. The difference between the country that lied and the country that simply carried out what they wanted to do (in the US's case, knowing no one can stop them) is marginal.So signing a treaty doesn't create any obligations? If we don't even have the concept of an enforceable contract, then the idea of "international law" is complete crap.

So you admit that what the US did in Nicauagra was an act of terrorism?What, are you crack?

You can find them yourself from the wikipedia page. So instead of taking five seconds to cut and paste the link, you're just going to tell me to go search for them? You're an arrogant prick.

What I meant by saying the US buys mercenaries? That they're setting up a chain of deniability while allowing some fairly scrupulous people to run around carrying guns.But instead of saying that, you posted a bunch of cryptic BS.

You've shown yourself to be completely unwilling to engage in civil debate.

TheChadd

4th February 2007, 03:59 PM

Nations WILL posess them. WE cannot change that. And we cannot improve things by giving them up ourselves. You think Russia is at all interested in getting rid of its arsenal, for example? No, of course not.

So you'd get rid of the NPT? It seems to me that while all of that may very well be true, we can't know until the US starts backing down their weapons or at the very least stops invading nations and meddling in their affairs. While few/no nations may be willing to stop manufacturing nuclear weapons even after such a reduction at least the US would be slightly more moral when it tells other nations to do so. With the current situation all I can see is another nuclear arms race in the future, this time with many more players.

So you have evidence that we still maintain stockpiles of weaponized biological agents? If you simply meant strains of the diseases, well, you're wrong about us being the only ones keeping them. And biological warfare has lost appeal for major powers because it's far too crude and unpredictable a weapon to be very useful - there is no real military advantage (and many disadvantages) they have over nuclear weapons, so why bother?

http://online.sfsu.edu/~rone/GEessays/germtreatylimits.html

Perhaps deniability is an advantage? I don't know.

Well, that's nice for them. Many in the world also think it's OK to kill a person for switching religion, or being gay, and that beating your wife is the prefered method of establishing matrimonial harmony. You think I'm going to change my mind about those topics based on their popularity?

True, but I think you'd find the majority would also say your nation is sovereign and you may work out what you want to do together.

Hmm... why might I treat democracies differently than dictatorship? Such a puzzle. I mean, they can both sit at the UN, so how different can they really be? See if you can figure out why I might treat them differently. And here's an alternative question: why on earth would you treat them the same?

Because when it comes to 'self defense' and the nations imperial ambitions then all that really matters is that they're a power player.
----------------------------
You've shown yourself to be completely unwilling to engage in civil debate.

I think if any objective person goes through our arguments they'll see you've been the one being overbearing, rude and evasive. I'm not going to respond to you any more art.

Art Vandelay

4th February 2007, 08:35 PM

Let's review: you claimed that the US supports terrorism, then listed a bunch of situations in which, you imply, the US supported terrorism. I asked you to support your implicit claim that these were examples of the US supporting terrorism. You instead simply said "You really need someone to cite the US support for the mujahideen in afghanistan? Or the funding to the contras in Nicaragua?" I then pointed out that that was a strawman: I hadn't challenged that the US supported the Mujahideen, I challenged that the US supported terrorism. You then accused me of not following. I pointed out that you were the one not following. You still didn't get it. You claimed that "To prove the US supports terrorism i used examples." But you never proved that those were actually examples of the US supporting terrorism, so your point was crap. When I pointed out that you hadn't proved that they were examples of the US supporting terrorism, you asked me to prove that they weren't examples. And when I said "I've already explained that." where "that" was how this was a strawman, you replied "You already explained the US involvement in Nicauagra?" which was a ridiculous, dishonest question. That's apparently how you work. You simply make up some pice of crap, then attribute it to the other person.

Also, 69dodge asked me how the US and Iran are different, and I said, among other things, that the US had a better record of human rights, and then you argued with me, saying that the US didn't have a good human rights record. I said that the issue was whether the US had a better record, and you arrogantly declared that wasn't the issue.

When I said that Iran engages in conscription, you replied with the non sequitur that the US hires "mercenaries". When I asked you to explain, you instead posted a useless limk to wikipedia. Only after several proddings did you give an explanation, an explanation which had little to do with what you had previously posted.

When I ask you for an example of the US violating a treaty, you linked to an article on the Contras, without providing any explanation at all how that is a cite. Only after repeated prodding did you admit that it was actually a cite for the US violating "international law", a vague and meaningless charge. You tried to weasel out of it by claiming that the US also violated a treaty, but you never presented any evidence for that claim.

You claimed that "if they start to spread an idea/gain popular support for an idea the US doesn't like? Then yes [the US puts out a hit on them]." When I asked for a cite, you replied "Cuba... Do you know about the history?" Which is yet another example of your arrogance; instead of supporting your claim, you simply make a cryptic response, implicitly declaring "I have no need to support my claim. My time is worth so much more than yours, you should do all the work. If you just look at this example, it will become obvious why my claim is true." When I asked you to explain your reference to Cuba, you then switched over to talking about Nicarauga. And then you have the gall to declare "I can't get any less cryptic". If you can't possibly be any less cryptic than (and that's how it's spelled, by the way; "than", not "then") simply naming a country, then, when asked for explanation, refer to a completely different country, then you have serious problems. Then you continue on "...without typing out all the facts for you, referencing them etc. A link serves the same purpose." Apparently you're too freaking special to have to actually type out the facts. Instead, I'm supposed to follow the link, read an entire article, instead of just the part that you're referring to (because you're too damn lazy to provide the link to that part), and then try to figure out what you think supports your position. And when I asked what that has to do with Cuba, you replied "So you admit that what the US did in Nicauagra was an act of terrorism?" I said nothing even close to that. You made up a completely bizarre claim, then pretended that I made it. For you to respond with that is simply inexcusably rude.

You owe me an apology for your repeated and egregious acts.

Oh, and by the way, you apparently don't know what the word "scrupulous" means: "That they're setting up a chain of deniability while allowing some fairly scrupulous people to run around carrying guns."

TheChadd

4th February 2007, 10:09 PM

billydkid

5th February 2007, 06:12 AM

Would someone please explain to me why the answer is not simply - When you are actually preempting something?????

Ziggurat

5th February 2007, 08:30 AM

So you'd get rid of the NPT?

Get rid of it? No. I'd just recognize its flaws: namely that because it can be cheated on so easily (as it has been so often) by dictatorships, we cannot act as if every nation will abide by it. They won't, REGARDLESS of what we do, and our actions must account for that.

While few/no nations may be willing to stop manufacturing nuclear weapons even after such a reduction at least the US would be slightly more moral when it tells other nations to do so.

Why is it more moral to do something that only makes YOU feel good but does nothing to actually improve the situation? What a strange concept of morality you have.

With the current situation all I can see is another nuclear arms race in the future, this time with many more players.

And you've made no argument to indicate in any way that this arms race you predict would be prevented or even slowed down by our unilateral disarmament. In fact, the ONLY benefit you can actually point to is that we would be more "moral", an intangible and undefined benefit if I ever heard one.

http://online.sfsu.edu/~rone/GEessays/germtreatylimits.html

Perhaps deniability is an advantage? I don't know.

No, you quite evidently do NOT know. Let's revisit your actual original claim:

"There are some extremely powerful biological weapons too but for the most part the only nation keeping stock of these is the US." No indication exists in this story that actual biological weapons were ever constructed for the program it describes, not that anything from that project is still being kept in stock. So you made an assertion, you cannot back it up, and the piece of evidence you evidently THOUGHT backed it up does nothing of the sort.

True, but I think you'd find the majority would also say your nation is sovereign and you may work out what you want to do together.

The sovereignnty of a democracy is worth respecting. The sovereignty of a dictatorship means nothing more than the ability of its ruler(s) to inflict whatever their will is, by whatever means they choose, on their population. The "sovereignty" of dictatorships deserves no respect.

Because when it comes to 'self defense' and the nations imperial ambitions then all that really matters is that they're a power player.

Is that why YOU are treating dictatorships and democracies the same?

I'm not going to respond to you any more art.

Then why did you respond to him again?

Art Vandelay

5th February 2007, 03:00 PM

Ok then why don't you think supporting the contras/the mujahideen is terrorism?Do you still not get it? You're supposed to say why it was, not ask me to prove a negative.

Well that's why I gave you a link to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicaragua_v._United_States it lays out the best evidence there is that the US has supported terrorists in a specific case.If you had wanted to present that as evidence of terrorism, then you should have presented it as evidence of terrorism, rather than presenting it in such a way as to suggest that it is evidence of the US violating a treaty, then weaseling out of that.

The point being that it's a trivial point whether the US has a better human rights record (I'm not sure whether it even does)... You first tried to claim that the us had a poor human rights recod. Now you claim that the point is that it doesn't matter.

All you had to do was visit the link and you would have understood.I did visit the link. And it failed to magically inform me that you were trying to imply that the US was trying to create deniability.

The only reason this was not ruled a violation of the UN charter was because the US did not allow the court to make rulings based on such treaties.Then what was the point of linking to it in the first place?

... And I think that'll just about do it. While there are some points I could clarify in the rest of your post there, there's way too many insults/spelling complaints for me to be bothered.You didn't address any of my major points. There were no spelling complaints in my most recent post, and my insults were well deserved. You have been insulting me with your dishonest, illogical, contemptuous and arrogant posts.