Is Offensive War Ever Justified? - Page 2

OneFootInTheGrave · January 9, 2003, 13:01

Quote:

Originally posted by SlowwHand
And Iraq is not just talking. They're just not doing, what they were told to do to end the Gulf War, as I said.

Look at WWII, as another example.
Japan was to not have a military. They accepted the terms and had no military.
Iraq accepted terms, and promptly renigged.

But where is the proof. The whole idea is that Bush is going in even though he cannot provide proof for this. And that is not right. Even more worrying is the claims at first that the US and Britain did not give the weapons inspectors targets where they suspect WOMD's are.

However I have read that Colin Powell said that they have provided the info now.

Well awaiting the results. Not that Iraqis can do much... you can't really be transporting WOMDs or reshuffing the positions now, when the country is scanned non-stop. If it is there we will find it. What's the rush for the war?

orange · January 9, 2003, 13:03

Japan has a 'military' perse, they're just forbidden to use it for anything other than defensive purposes.

DinoDoc · January 9, 2003, 13:04

Quote:

Originally posted by Ozz
That is a "Police Action" not a offensive war.

Meaningless double talk.

SlowwHand · January 9, 2003, 13:06

Quote:

Originally posted by OneFootInTheGrave

But where is the proof. The whole idea is that Bush is going in even though he cannot provide proof for this. And that is not right. Even more worrying is the claims at first that the US and Britain did not give the weapons inspectors targets where they suspect WOMD's are.

However I have read that Colin Powell said that they have provided the info now.

Well awaiting the results. Not that Iraqis can do much... you can't really be transporting WOMDs or reshuffing the positions now, when the country is scanned non-stop. If it is there we will find it. What's the rush for the war?

Where is proof of what? That there were conditions that were to be met?
What don't you get?

DinoDoc · January 9, 2003, 13:11

OFITG: Iraq's 'unaccounted for' weapons

OneFootInTheGrave · January 9, 2003, 13:12

Quote:

Originally posted by SlowwHand

Where is proof of what? That there were conditions that were to be met?
What don't you get?

Where is the proof of WOMD's. And Iraq merely expelled the weapons inspectors in 1998 or 1999 because they rightly accused them of spying.

Now... wasn't the war being waged because of WOMD's? There is still no proof of them.

*I have to go, my wife is coming

... I am of to see LOTR finally... anyway just reply if you can be bothered I'll catch up later

Jac de Molay · January 9, 2003, 13:14

I'm still eagerly awaiting the "smoking gun" intelligence on WMD's that the Administration said they had.

Bush will have his little war, no matter if it's moral or not. What's sickening is the Administration's insistence that war can still be avoided even as it masses more troops and hardware to the region- a rather cynical manipulation of the bully pulpit.

Tripledoc · January 9, 2003, 13:14

Quote:

Originally posted by OneFootInTheGrave
What's the rush for the war?

Speed is one of the decisive factors of war. Then there is the rise in oil prices, the unemployment, the US deficit, the diplomatic impetus - the desperation.

SlowwHand · January 9, 2003, 13:23

It's not Bush's little war, Dave.
That's cool though. I'm done argiung, mostly because it doesn't matter.
You, and David Floyd, and Tandee, and OFITG can just sit back and collect the benefits.

Ozz · January 9, 2003, 13:33

Quote:

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Meaningless double talk.

Doublespeak, would be more like it.

The governments are commiting criminal acts or they
have already started an offensive war. Hense "police
action" like Korea and Yugoslavia, and should have
happened in 1930s Germany amoug many other places.

Can the UN launch an offensive war?

David Floyd · January 9, 2003, 14:32

Quote:

And Iraq is not just talking. They're just not doing, what they were told to do to end the Gulf War, as I said.

But the Gulf War ITSELF was an offensive war against Iraq, waged by an international coaliton. Whatever Iraq might have done to Kuwait - and Kuwait was a dictatorship too - they did nothing to us.

Quote:

Iraq accepted terms, and promptly renigged.

First of all, a contract signed under duress is not a valid contract, and secondly, it's spelled "reneged".

Zero · January 9, 2003, 14:41

STOP! Let me clear some matters.

Are you asking is offensive war ever [/u]morally[/u] justifiable?

In addition you cant answer this question without building up an arguement that War alone is ever morally justifiable!

Garth Vader · January 9, 2003, 14:56

And Iraq is not just talking. They're just not doing, what they were told to do to end the Gulf War, as I said.

Look at WWII, as another example.
Japan was to not have a military. They accepted the terms and had no military.
Iraq accepted terms, and promptly renigged.

I am not going to defend Iraq's compliance because it has been spotty. But what about US compliance? The No-fly zones weren't part of any UN resolution, nor agreed to by Iraq. What recourse does the defeated have when the victor wants to exact more blood after war is concluded?

As for WW2 parallels, it was different, Japan and Germany were completely conquered, agreed to unconditional surrender, occupied and goverened by the occupiers.

Comrade Tribune · January 9, 2003, 14:56

I think most would agree that war in a clear and present case of self-defense is justifiable.

In all other cases it is -in theory!- not; however, no one except an unpersonal eternal force, such as God or History, can force nations to account, so the moral viewpoint concerning this question is largely irrelevant.

In the present case: The US of A have no right whatsoever to attack -or even threaten!- Iraq; however, they will not be stopped by arguments. You can only stop force with force. Bin Laden is right about this.

Bugs ****ing Bunny · January 9, 2003, 15:52

Quote:

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune

In the present case: The US of A have no right whatsoever to attack -or even threaten!- Iraq; however, they will not be stopped by arguments. You can only stop force with force. Bin Laden is right about this.

The ceasefire was conditional.

It appears the conditions were breached.

I think the restraint showed by the allied forces has been surprising.

chequita guevara · January 9, 2003, 16:04

What restraint? We've been bombing them almost daily for years. It's a friggan undeclared war going on there.

Bugs ****ing Bunny · January 9, 2003, 16:05

So declaration isn't much of a retrograde step?

chequita guevara · January 9, 2003, 16:07

Got me there.

Imran Siddiqui · January 9, 2003, 17:20

Is Offensive War ever justified?

Yes.

When is it justified?

When you can convince more of the people out there than the other side can.

David Floyd · January 9, 2003, 17:30

Quote:

When you can convince more of the people out there than the other side can.

So, again, your position is that the morality of war is determined by a poll?

Laz,

Quote:

The ceasefire was conditional.

It appears the conditions were breached.

But the ceasefire came about as a result of immoral actions by the US and allies.

Az · January 9, 2003, 17:31

now THAT'S realpolitk.

Imran Siddiqui · January 9, 2003, 17:54

Quote:

So, again, your position is that the morality of war is determined by a poll?

Yes... all morality is determined, basically, by polls.

David Floyd · January 9, 2003, 18:04

Quote:

Yes... all morality is determined, basically, by polls.

So, in 1800, slavery was OK, but today, it magically isn't OK?

Imran Siddiqui · January 9, 2003, 18:09

Yes.

And not magically, but because of a change in opinion by the people. If you consider that magic, so be it.

Btw, your evidence that it was 'OK' in 1800 is that it was legal. Remember, laws are written down morallity.

GePap · January 9, 2003, 18:17

Offensive, Aggresive war is never justified: which is why no one ever wages "aggresive" wars.

Pre-Emptive wars, int he face of an imminent threat are justifiable (note: the US has shown NO imminent threat from Iraq)

Defensive wars 1.0 (when someone invades you or an ally with which you have a defense pact) are always justified.

Defensive wars 2.0 (wars waged to defend the international system, with the expressed approval of international bodies[such as the first Gulf War]) are always justified.

Defensive wars 2.1 (wars waged in defense of others, when a pact does not exist, and the international community has not given tacit consent) can sometimes be justified, given the nature of the offense against the group one states they are helping.

While I agree with Imran on the changing nature of morality, the current systme is rigid enough so that for a war to be viewed as justified one has to play by the rules, no matter how powerfull (hence they way the US had to go to the UN).

Imran Siddiqui · January 9, 2003, 18:20

Quote:

While I agree with Imran on the changing nature of morality, the current systme is rigid enough so that for a war to be viewed as justified one has to play by the rules, no matter how powerfull (hence they way the US had to go to the UN).

Well, of course, these days, the morality of the system has rules. The system always has rules, but who is to say this system will not change? I mean look at 1903 compared to 2003. Who could have predicted the world (and the morality of war) would change so much?

SlowwHand · January 9, 2003, 18:26

Quote:

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp

The ceasefire was conditional.

It appears the conditions were breached.

I think the restraint showed by the allied forces has been surprising.

Absolutely. It's not like they were given a chance, or two, or three, or on and on; until 11 years passed.
U.N. troops, to include American, were asked to contain Iraq.

This is way overdue. Some of you should have seen it as "Work In Process", beginning 9/11. It was stated. It was in queue.
You should have paid more attention to Bush and Blair, instead of making cute little remarks.
You could have been in Canada by now.

Kramerman · January 9, 2003, 18:55

Quote:

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
What restraint? We've been bombing them almost daily for years. It's a friggan undeclared war going on there.

With few exceptions, bombs have only fallen from the planes enforcing the no-fly zones when they have been shot at by Iraqi anti-aircraft defenses. The no-fly zones, remember, are there to protect the kurdish minority in the north, and that other one that is in the south (cant recall the name).

Quote:

Is Offensive War Ever Justified?

It depends. Many good examples and arguements have already been given.

Kman

gsmoove23 · January 9, 2003, 19:03

Conditions were breached? Thats the only reason people can come up with for war in Iraq here? I'm sorry if I don't see how not turning over or accounting for WMD that may or may not be there and we haven't been able to find any evidence for after 2 months of inspection is worth going to war for. And if the WMDs do exist it has already been demonstrated to us that they wouldn't be used during the first Gulf War.

War to liberate Kuwait was certainly justified, I see no justification for this one.

Jac de Molay · January 9, 2003, 19:37

Quote:

(note: the US has shown NO imminent threat from Iraq)

I guess the rationale is that there are strategic interests and regional allies that are threatened, although these same folks seem to play down any imminent threat, and have even maintained diplomacy with Iraq in some instances. Go figure.

Quote:

This is way overdue. Some of you should have seen it as "Work In Process", beginning 9/11. It was stated. It was in queue.

.

I dont wanna hear one peep out of you the next time two countries, say Pakistan and India, start throwing down for the same reasons the US is giving for war. One preemptive strike is no better or worse than any other, right?