I ask again - Darkforum.com - Dark Stories, Dark Art, Poetry, Photography, Debates and Discussions

Feroluce · **I ask again -** 03-27-03

Is it really worth it?

Don't give me this shit about "we have a right to protect ourselves" because as of yet, no threat has been established.
Don't tell me that "we have to liberate Iraq" that's not in question, the timing is.

Was setting this dangerous precident worth it?

Quote:

By Jane Macartney, Asian Diplomatic Correspondent
SINGAPORE (Reuters)
It sounds like an arcane debate among wordsmiths. But the distinction between pre-emptive and preventive war, drawn by President Bush in ordering the U.S. invasion of Iraq, could change the face of war.

Galvanized since the September 11 attacks by a need to protect the homeland, Bush has tossed aside, if not quite torn up, the U.N. Charter on war.

Strict conditions exist to undertake pre-emptive war and Bush has bypassed those to launch a preventive war, analysts say.

In simple terms: imagine a row with your neighbor over an overhanging branch. You see him advancing on the bough with his buzzsaw running. You may pre-empt his attack.

But if you just suspect he's been to the hardware store to buy a saw, you may not burn down his garden shed to prevent him taking a slice out of the disputed greenery.

Bush's preventive action is an innovation in contemporary history and opens the way for others to follow suit.

"While it is not true that the U.S. has been able to establish a new norm of prevention, other expedient states may use the U.S. action as justification, even though they are likely to be roundly condemned," said Chris Reus-Smidt of the Department of International Relations at the Australian National University in Canberra.

WHO WOULD DARE?

There is reason to doubt whether any state would have the courage to take on such condemnation. But many may feel they are next in the firing line.

Thus the ramifications are far-reaching, not just for countries with perceived enemies on their borders such as India and Pakistan, but also for Iran and North Korea -- the two nations that Bush bracketed with Iraq in his "axis of evil."

"This is tectonic," said Uday Bhaskar of the Institute of Defense Studies and Analyzes in New Delhi.

"Before March 20 there had been a sense since the end of World War II to the end of the Cold War that a certain consensus existed about the use of force and how that should be regulated.

"It sets a precedent," he said. "This is a threat to stability, an action that induces anxiety. The question is why can't it be a France next time, or an India?"

Analysts fear that the period of relative peace since the birth of the United Nations after World War II, with its strict charter injunction against the use of force, could now be in serious jeopardy.

"The doctrine of pre-emptive war has profoundly destabilizing implications for international society," said Reus-Smidt.

"The legal restriction of the use of force to unequivocal acts of self-defense and international peace enforcement actions is one of the principal reasons for the radical decline in interstate wars, even as the number of states has multiplied."

WHERE ARE THE LIMITS?

Few nations have flouted the U.N. charter that lays out specific conditions for the use of pre-emptive force. Two extraordinary exceptions are Israel's 1981 strike on Iraq's OsIrak nuclear plant and the 1967 Six Day War, said Reus-Smidt.

"The major innovation of the Bush doctrine is the idea of prevention, and the war in Iraq can be seen as the first example of this," said Reus-Smidt.

He said Washington, rebuffed in the U.N. Security Council in its quest for world backing to pre-empt Saddam Hussein's suspected weapons program, had opted to act preventively.

That opens a Pandora's Box.

"It's not clear what the limits are," said Hilary Charlesworth, professor at the Center for International and Public Law at the ANU.

"This leaves the perception of threat in the eye of the beholder."

It reinforces fears of the United States going it alone, snubbing the international community when it suits it, for example on the Kyoto treaty on global warming or the International Criminal Court.

The United States has acted as other countries have throughout history, which is to look for the international law that suits them. And it was that free-for-all approach that the U.N. charter was aimed at halting.

"We could be going back to a pre-U.N. charter world and I find that worrying," said Charlesworth.

Of course, what goes unspoken is that the United States regards itself as an exception, and knows that it can probably get away with a preventive war because it has more toys, and more powerful ones, than anyone else in the playground.

MORE SACRED THAN OTHERS

"The related political and diplomatic question is 'are we redefining sovereignty?"' said Bhaskar. "It's an Orwellian kind of sovereignty in which some are more sacred than others."

Analysts believe that deterrence may work in this new world, and thus a nuclear-ambitious North Korea may not be next. But what, asked one, would stop China taking a swipe at Taiwan?

"What will be the restraints?" said Charlesworth. "International law is enforced by a sense of reciprocity and this is doing away with the fabric of international law."

Some say international law may have to change to ensure relevance in a world threatened by rogue states and suicide hijackers.

When Osama bin Laden's Islamic revolutionaries flew planes into the World Trade Center, they may not only have transformed the course of history, but have wrought upheaval in the rules of war.

"After September 11, in a world in which unprovoked acts of terrorism could cost hundreds of thousands of lives, deterrence and passive self-defense are not enough," The Australian newspaper wrote in an editorial on Thursday.

That is a view that may hold sway at the Pentagon and in the White House, but stirs anxiety among legal and defense experts.

"What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander," said Bhaskar. While other countries may lack the will, or indeed the might, to follow in U.S. footsteps they may be sorely tempted.

"The net effect of all of this is that it greatly increases the risk of wars, preventive and pre-emptive," said Reus-Smidt.

masochist · **Re: I ask again -** 03-27-03

Quote:

Originally posted by Feroluce
It reinforces fears of the United States going it alone, snubbing the international community when it suits it, for example on the Kyoto treaty on global warming or the International Criminal Court.

The United States has acted as other countries have throughout history, which is to look for the international law that suits them. And it was that free-for-all approach that the U.N. charter was aimed at halting.

"We could be going back to a pre-U.N. charter world and I find that worrying," said Charlesworth.

Of course, what goes unspoken is that the United States regards itself as an exception, and knows that it can probably get away with a preventive war because it has more toys, and more powerful ones, than anyone else in the playground.

i'm scared. the last paragraph [of the bit i quote] is so so true.

Jordyn · 03-27-03

oh everything about this war is...whacked! but it is on it's way, and now the important thing in my opinion is that we should be more concerned with it being over as quickly as possible and the least amount of lives lost possible....i don't think bush will pull out of this war until he wins...he's got a lot of soldiers and toys of destruction left, there's still the draft he can put into effect, to sum it all up, is it really worth arguing if the war is justified or not, it's killing people, i think priorities need to change and focus reestablished...especially if the pentagon is now accepting the fact this is not going to be a short and glorious war, but a very long war with casualities on both sides...does protesting for peace really matter anymore? personally i don't think it was worth it, but bush and his administration has made if very clear he doesn't care what other people think.

John Preston · 03-27-03

World War 3, if it does occur, will probably have US on one side with perhaps a few small allies, and then the rest of the world trying to blow up the US for being abusive toward every country in the world for no reason.

(antihero) · 03-27-03

considering the kinds of stuff Saddam does to his own people, i'd like to THINK there's some benevolence in what we're doing. however, i don't think that's really why we're at war. there's also the whole question of whether or not it's our business; i don't like feeling that my country is the world's annoying hall monitor.

Jordyn · 03-27-03

even i disliked the hall monitor...they were snotty little brats!

Dark Messiah · 03-27-03

I agree that the war will increase fear of wars, and probability of war, in at least the near future (probably for at least a decade, maybe more). I can also understand the anxiety that other nations might feel, that we might be going after them next. I still think the war is justified morally, however, if not legally. A nation should not be allowed to inflict atrocities on it's civilians as long as it doesn't immediately threaten it's neighbors.

Billy the Kidd · 03-27-03

"A nation should not be allowed to inflict atrocities on it's civilians as long as it doesn't immediately threaten it's neighbors."

Im confused...does that mean then that if it DOES threaten its neighbors its ok for them to commit atrocities on its civilians?

And besides a nation shouldnt be able to plunder another nations oil reserves in the name of "saving" that nations people from a monster we helped to create, or to bring food to those weve starved with our sanctions.

Dark Messiah · 03-27-03

It means that the current attitude most countries have is "If it doesn't affect me, I don't care." It's ironic that this attitude governs the UN, since it runs contrary to that group's purpose.

I agree on your second point, although not on the third. Is it a better alternative to let them starve?

Dyshade · 03-28-03

hhmmmm... plundering oil eh???

I do not think that is the case... if it were we have easier options closer to home without the waste of so many resources.... we have spent 45Billion on this war so far.... no way are we going to see a return anywhere near that amount even if we were to as you say plunder those oil wells.... once the Iraqis decide on a government it will go back to them... as well as the US is seeking to start up the UNs little oil for food and medicine program.... and this time hopefully all those supplies go to the people who need them and not to a regime that already has too much money....

John Preston · 03-28-03

America, and many other countries, are trillions of dollars in debt. Spending a crapload of more money doesn't really hurt them

Corporate Pig · 03-30-03

Quote:

Originally posted by Dyshade
.... once the Iraqis decide on a government it will go back to them... as well as the US is seeking to start up the UNs little oil for food and medicine program.... and this time hopefully all those supplies go to the people who need them and not to a regime that already has too much money....

Oh really...
Do you really think that Iraq is going to "choose" its form of government ?
Fuuny, shows how you dont listen to the 'apparent' president.
Even further, just recently while meeting at Camp David, Bush and Blair were disagreeing on Iraq - Well on what to do once Sadam is removed.
Blair wanted the UN to go in, etc, etc..
Bush wanted the US Military to run the country, or well at least "HE WILL" decide.

Quote:

WASHINGTON - The Pentagon is planning to give a major role in a future Iraqi government to controversial exile opposition figure Ahmed Chalabi and members of his Iraqi National Congress, according to Bush administration officials.

The move has sparked a new round of bitter feuding within the U.S. government over the shape of any post-Saddam authority in Baghdad, even as American and British troops battle in Iraq to oust Saddam's regime, the officials said.

The Pentagon's No. 3 official, Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith, has drafted a list of Iraqis who would hold key positions in an interim Iraqi government, according to two U.S. officials with long experience in Iraqi affairs.

Under the scheme, half the posts to govern Iraq's 18 provinces would be given to the Iraqi National Congress, or INC, a long-feuding coalition of Iraqi exiles now operating out of Kurdish-controlled northern Iraq, said the officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

"As best we can tell, there is nobody in the Iraqi armed forces who knows or likes" Chalabi, said Kenneth Pollack, a former CIA and White House specialist on Iraq.

Chalabi, a former banker, was convicted in absentia in Jordan of embezzlement. The CIA severed its relationship with the INC after it was unable to account for millions of dollars in covert U.S. aid.

refer: Post-war effort faces obstacles on leadership front

Oh...
So Iraq has to be attacked to "free" the people.
Yet you wont even allow them to choose their own form of government.
The Pro-war campaigners are so hipocritical in their arguments, yet dont realise, as they never look at the "bigger picture"

The key question to ask is: Why is the Pentagon deciding who will run the country, and not allowing the people of Iraq - who they claim to be "freeing" ?

Dyshade · 03-30-03

Quote:

Originally posted by Corporate Pig
Oh really...
Do you really think that Iraq is going to "choose" its form of government ?
Fuuny, shows how you dont listen to the 'apparent' president.
Even further, just recently while meeting at Camp David, Bush and Blair were disagreeing on Iraq - Well on what to do once Sadam is removed.
Blair wanted the UN to go in, etc, etc..
Bush wanted the US Military to run the country, or well at least "HE WILL" decide.

Oh...
So Iraq has to be attacked to "free" the people.
Yet you wont even allow them to choose their own form of government.
The Pro-war campaigners are so hipocritical in their arguments, yet dont realise, as they never look at the "bigger picture"

The key question to ask is: Why is the Pentagon deciding who will run the country, and not allowing the people of Iraq - who they claim to be "freeing" ?

If the Pentagon chooses the Government our President will likely see a lot of opposition from people here..... and from some of his closest allies in this war..... once the war is over and Saddam toppled the UN should move in and help Iraq provide itself a government.... please do not assume I am ignorant.... I do disagree with some of the intentions of the US government as to why they went to war over there yet I do agree that Saddam was past his time..... he needed to be taken out at any cost....

So I would hope that Iraq gets the chance to choose its own Government.... if not I hope the one provided for them is a peaceful one...... by the way... it is not my fault that we have such a wishy washy bastard of a president over here in the US.... I can't keep straight what he says from day to day....

Corporate Pig · 03-31-03

Quote:

Originally posted by Dyshade
So I would hope that Iraq gets the chance to choose its own Government.... if not I hope the one provided for them is a peaceful one...... by the way... it is not my fault that we have such a wishy washy bastard of a president over here in the US.... I can't keep straight what he says from day to day....

Every indication has been from the very outset; that the US intends to replace the Iraqi government, with one which is more "compliant" with US Administration wishes.
Nothing more, nothing less...
to the extent the very idea of holding a DEMOCRATIC ELECTION within Iraq, would not dare ever be raised by the US Administration.

Good example.. just have a look at Afghanistan.
And where's their democartic election ? Opps, thats right,.. its actually now a facist state under US Military control.

A 'wishy washy bastard' of a president.. is getting close.
A moronic idiot, who cant even speak English, is another way Id term the idiot.
Good example: A George Bush quote:

Quote:

Question:
My question is for the federal government -- not just for Orlando, but for everywhere -- what is being done to encourage travel? I've seen a few commercials, not just within the country, but abroad, what a great place to come --

Mr Bush:
Well, there's a marketing plan. One of the things -- if you noticed how I started off my talk here -- I've got a rather large microphone these days, and I've been encouraging people to travel. I think the best thing we can do in America to -- first of all, you can't make people do what they don't want to do. I mean, if they're not interested in traveling, they're not going to travel. On the other hand, if they're worried about security on airplanes, we can do something about that.

Remarks by the President in Town Hall Meeting
Orange County Convention Center
Orlando, Florida : December 4, 2001
Refer:http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...011204-17.html

Necropolis · 03-31-03

I personally dont think oil is the reason, just the side dish....
Hmmm... Now I know I watched this a little differently... you see... on September 11th I wasn't affected by the holocaust like others were (I'm desensitzed in certain ways), so I avoided DF. But it means I observed this in cold blood.
But what I see is this on Sept 11, the oh-so-strong America was proven it could be able to be beaten. In shock the wars on terrorism started, the world was scared. America was supposed to be invicible, but someone managed to hurt it, well and good...
The terrorism war did not asuge these fears though... somehow America needed to prove that it was still strong... And here is where Iraq enters the picture...