Implications of the Bush Doctrine: Coalition of the willing to free the west bank

[Imran Siddiqui]

I think that you could even argue quite persuasively that if one were to follow the Bush doctrine to it's logical conclusion, any country could attack any other, at anytime, for virtually any reason, forever.

Isn't this EXACTLY what has been going on for time immemorial? They spin it to make it sound 'just', but it basically is for any reason (mostly power) which some flowery language to make is sound better.

Many people say thast it is the fear of retribution that keep everyone in line...not some internalization of norms.

That is true. Most people will usually not do something because they are afraid to go to jail, not because it is 'immoral'.

To use your rape example, there would be many, many more rapes if the practice was legal. The fear of jail time prevents a lot of it.

[korn469]

Isn't this EXACTLY what has been going on for time immemorial?

well this has also been a failed policy for that exact same amount of time, no nation has ever been able to establish a lasting peace through conquest alone, and many of the most enthusiastic followers of might makes right built empires that crumbled after a very short span of time

might alone doesn't make right, and there is usually something more backing up swords and tanks, some ideas of legitimacy buried in that flowery language, and for those times that it is just flowery language is the times that the military gains will amount to nothing

even in the middle ages people realized that might make right wasn't enough of a justification and came up with the divine right of kings, which is similar to china's mandate from heaven

but i was asking is undermining what little authority the U.N. has a good idea? I'm not positive, but it doesn't seem to be

That is true. Most people will usually not do something because they are afraid to go to jail, not because it is 'immoral'.

To use your rape example, there would be many, many more rapes if the practice was legal. The fear of jail time prevents a lot of it.

i would say some people won't do things out of fear of jail time, but i think that many people have an ethical center that guides them between right and wrong outside of the fear of punishment, i believe that altruism is just as powerful an emotion as fear of punishiment in decision making

granted without somebody to stop the rapists more rapes would occur though

[Az]

Yes. India could have smashed Pakistan well before it would have nukes. They were afraid of the internal and international consequences of invading another country.
Again: if you state that if a country can invade another...well it just CAN, the consequences could be very very dangerous.

The results are clear, but once again, what does this has to do with Intl. law?

Azazel: we don't live in ancient times. If we are unwilling to follow ancient codes of conduct among peoples within states, why on earth should they matter to issues between states?

My entire point is that nothing has changed since, in Intl. conduct.

Isn't this EXACTLY what has been going on for time immemorial? They spin it to make it sound 'just', but it basically is for any reason (mostly power) which some flowery language to make is sound better.

even in the middle ages people realized that might make right wasn't enough of a justification and came up with the divine right of kings, which is similar to china's mandate from heaven

these are EXACTLY the flowers Imran was talking about.

well this has also been a failed policy for that exact same amount of time, no nation has ever been able to establish a lasting peace through conquest alone, and many of the most enthusiastic followers of might makes right built empires that crumbled after a very short span of time

"a very short span of time" is relative. Most of these might makes right empires have lasted much more than the US, for example.

[korn469]

these are EXACTLY the flowers Imran was talking about.

so all philosophy is just flowery language that lacks any substance or meaning? while i don't believe in the divine right of kings i think that it was more than just flowery language, that it was an attempt to find something beyond the sword

you and imran are ignoring the principles of political legitimacy

"a very short span of time" is relative. Most of these might makes right empires have lasted much more than the US, for example.

Alexander the great's empire didn't
Charlemagne's empire didn't
Ghenghis khan's empire didn't
Napoleon's empire didn't
the Aztec's didn't

while the romans did, they brought more to the table than conquest, they brought romanization with them, which is far more than might makes right

those are all right off the top of my head, if i'm missing tons of empires built only on conquest and occupation then please share with me

but doesn't anyone else think that by the US losing in the U.N. and having to go outside of U.N. authority, after trying to get it, that it undermines the power of the U.N. and it deals a setback to international law, and brings us closer to your might makes right idea of world politics? also doesn't anyone else think that might makes right is a bad thing?

[Az]

so all philosophy is just flowery language that lacks any substance or meaning? while i don't believe in the divine right of kings i think that it was more than just flowery language, that it was an attempt to find something beyond the sword

Not all philosophy. The vast majority of the philosphy used to back up an agressive war, and sometimes, even a defensive one.

Remember the crusades? If they were really about the muslims, then why was constantinopolis sacked?

you and imran are ignoring the principles of political legitimacy

No, we're explaining to you how it really works, cutting around the bullshit.

Alexander the great's empire didn't

Actually 3 rather vast empires existed for hundreds of years. His own empire certainly didn't die of lack of morality of conquest. It was his premature death.

Charlemagne's empire didn't

Once again, it lasted for a hefty amount of time. There are few examples of any sort of political entity surviving for that long, in that time.

Ghenghis khan's empire didn't

I beg to differ. Hundreds of years.

Napoleon's empire didn't

Indeed. that's actually a good example. ( Btw, I think that his wars were very often very ethical. If he'd come out victorious over Russia, for example, serfdom would've been abolished 50 years earlier. ).

the Aztec's didn't

The spanish crashed their party.

Now for my examples:
Rome, Persia, Babylon, Britain, Ottomans, spring to mind.

and "Romanization" was but a byproduct. Their reasoning for that war for their own people was "For the glory of Rome". If that's not might makes right, then I don't know what is.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by korn469
Well using that logic, couldn't Syria, France, and Russia for example propose a resolution saying that they were going to lead a coalition of the willing to "liberate" the west bank, and then if the US vetos it, as long as they have 9 votes have the same justification for was as the US has in Iraq?

A "coalition of the willling" has been formed against Israel several times, somehow those buggers seem to not only still be here but expand thier territory each time.

[korn469]

DD

A "coalition of the willling" has been formed against Israel several times, somehow those buggers seem to not only still be here but expand thier territory each time.

Israel came to mind because I know in the past the US has vetoed resolutions condemning Isreal even though 9 or more nations voted for it

but yea like i said, nobody who might want to is going to beat the IDF in a conventional war

Azazel

unlike the united states all of those empires splintered shortly after the death of the primary conquerer, none of them maintained a unified state...that would be like saying the US is a continuation of William the Conqueror's empire, which it obviously isn't

also you and Imran are ignoring the most important questions I asked

do you think that ignoring a rejection from the security council undermines the power of the U.N. in particular and international law in general?

also doesn't this lower the threshold for military aggression across the world, and damage mechanisms for diplomatic resolutions to problems?

i'm not against toppling saddam, but it just seems like the US lost a diplomatic battle, and that we are damaging an effective instrument of American policy (the U.N.) for short term gain. I'm sure that in 1953 overthrowing Mossadegh in Iran and replacing him with the Shah seemed like a great idea but it's long term consequences look pretty bad to me, and I would say that this current situation is one of the consequences of that CIA backed coup. We should look into the long term effects of any policy we choose to follow.

[Chemical Ollie]

Originally posted by korn469
DD
...

We should look into the long term effects of any policy we choose to follow.

"Long term" to an American President is the same thing as "next term"...

[Imran Siddiqui]

well this has also been a failed policy for that exact same amount of time, no nation has ever been able to establish a lasting peace through conquest alone

And is peace always the best route? If a fascist rises up in the country next door, isn't it more 'moral' to go in and remove him?

Of course, we will sweep under the rug that at the same time, it will increase the power and standing of the invading, 'moral' power .

might alone doesn't make right, and there is usually something more backing up swords and tanks, some ideas of legitimacy buried in that flowery language, and for those times that it is just flowery language is the times that the military gains will amount to nothing

Flowery language and those 'ideas' simply are reasoning to the people for wars designed to increase power in some way.

Even the most 'moral' wars have behind them an increase in power. There was a reason we went into Kosovo and not Rwanda. The relative power gains from each action was a great factor.

Their reasoning for that war for their own people was "For the glory of Rome". If that's not might makes right, then I don't know what is.

Might makes right, with the flowerly language to hide true motive.

Read your Machivelli, korn . The Prince, not the Discources on Livy .

do you think that ignoring a rejection from the security council undermines the power of the U.N. in particular and international law in general?

No and no. The UN has only once authorized force in its history (Korea). For the US to ignore UN rejection simply would be following history. International law can be read in different ways on this issue as well (pro and anti war).

[LoneWolf]

Referring to the original post, well yes, that "precedent" (if you can call it that, that nations are sovereign and can act where they see fit) is being "set" (the Euros used to do this regularly), but the question is purely hypothetical, since we know that our current adversaries (not the Iraqis) have no balls.

[Oerdin]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
We have about 20% of what would normally be available - and zero if the **** hits the fan with the DPRK while we're engaged in Iraq.

In that case you do what Eisenhower did during the Korean war when the red Chinese started to hint they'd make a move towards Taiwan. Eisenhower made a public statement saying on no uncertain terms that any Chinese move against Taiwan would bring about an automatic and over welling American nuclear response.

We didn't have the forces to guard Germany, fight in Korea, occupy Japan, and fight in Taiwan so he relied on the nuclear deterent. Lastly Taiwan is an Island which has a fairly sizable military. The red Chinese can try to paradrop some infantry but in order to be successful they're going to have to get large numbers of arty, tanks, and APCs onto the island and the only way to do that is by ship.

Compared to the Chinese the U.S. has absolutely over welling navel superiority. Right now we have four carriers in the Gulf but that still leaves four more carrier battle groups and numerous other warships free to deal with other threats.

[Straybow]

Free the West Bank of Arafat's cronies and friends, terrorists all? Yes perhaps there should be a coalition of the willing raised up for that.

Originally posted by korn469
but doesn't anyone else think that by the US losing in the U.N. and having to go outside of U.N. authority, after trying to get it, that it undermines the power of the U.N. and it deals a setback to international law, and brings us closer to your might makes right idea of world politics? also doesn't anyone else think that might makes right is a bad thing?

First, nothing can undermine the power of the UN; it has none. It is only a meeting grounds for cooperative action. Syria didn't wait for UN authorization to re-occupy Lebanon in 1991, but you don't hear folks complaining about that. Clinton barely bothered to involve the UNSC in either B-H or Kosovo except to test how much Russia would support the Serbs. For support Clinton went to NATO.

Might makes right is a bad thing, but to do nothing would be worse. Using might for an equivocal good is better than failure to oppose an unequivocal evil. If we hadn't been brought into face-to-face conflict with Hussein 12 yrs ago we could (and should) say it isn't our business. It has become our business as a result of the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and we need to finish our business.

[korn469]

imran

is peace always the best route?

no it's not, you are quite right about that, but military action does have consequences, and i think that any military action we undertake should be considered very carefully

straybow

Free the West Bank of Arafat's cronies and friends, terrorists all? Yes perhaps there should be a coalition of the willing raised up for that.

point taken
for the sake of everyone involved in that particular conflict i really would like to see some sort of fair settlement reached

the west bank was just the first thing that came to mind

Clinton barely bothered to involve the UNSC in either B-H or Kosovo except to test how much Russia would support the Serbs. For support Clinton went to NATO

that is exactly why i would have preferred for the US to just go into Iraq unilaterally in the first place, instead of to get a diplomatic black eye and then look like a bully

despite what Bush says Iraq isn't an immeadiate threat to US security, and since we did goto the U.N. I think we should wait back down on the rhetoric some, and get this resolution passed and then get Saddam, hell who knows maybe we could even get french peace keepers to help us in the transition period

well i'd love to argue some more but i'm headed off for spring break! laterz people

[Sprayber]

Originally posted by korn469
that is exactly why i would have preferred for the US to just go into Iraq unilaterally in the first place, instead of to get a diplomatic black eye and then look like a bully

I'll agree with you there. With a lot of Europeans opposed to Bush as soon as he was elected, I can't see where he thought they would follow him on Iraq.

well i'd love to argue some more but i'm headed off for spring break! laterz people

You wanna trade destinations?

[GePap]

Comparoing modern situations to ancient empires is absurd. The underpinnings of legitmacy in governance have changed to dramatically. The notion of individual and national sovereignty were non-existent back then. today, everyone thinks, evryone, that who rules should be decided somehow by either individuals acting together, or by a "nation" as one. In that sense, we dicsount the ability of "nation" to be based ont he political overlordship: you are who you are for socio-ehtno-cultural economic reasons, and based on those, you decide who rules you. back in anceint times who rules you defined those traits. The Romans not only conqured space, they made that space Roman. We do not plan to make Iraq American...we lack the legitimacy to make any spot on earth outside the US American by choice. As someone said, individual are to be seen as citizens, not subjects.

The US is not an empire, nor does it have the power to be an empire. Our basic founding notions invalidate the idea of empire. Many people keep refergin to Rome: perhaps the lesson to learn is not that the Empire lasted for so long, but that once Rome begun to think as an empire, the Republic fell.

[Chemical Ollie]

Originally posted by GePap

...

The US is not an empire, nor does it have the power to be an empire. Our basic founding notions invalidate the idea of empire. Many people keep refergin to Rome: perhaps the lesson to learn is not that the Empire lasted for so long, but that once Rome begun to think as an empire, the Republic fell.

Why would a non-empire have aircraft carriers?

[Az]

You wanna trade destinations?

GePap: I agree. but that my and Imran's points still stand strong.
We already had a debate about this, didn't we?

[Imran Siddiqui]

GePap: What do you think it means when we say 'it is not in our interest' to go to say Rwanda, but it is to go to Serbia? What is 'our interests'? It's a nice way of saying that we won't get any gains in power or resources by going somewhere.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Olaf Hårfagre
Why would a non-empire have aircraft carriers?

To project air-power on the Ocean.

States currently having aircraft carriers or helicopter carriers:

The US, UK, France, India, thailand, Spain, Brazil, Italy, Russia.

Argentina had an old one which might no longer by commisioned.

Azazel: I think that argument has many invalid points;

Once you became an Ottoman subject, your alliegence was to the master, and most medeival thinkers did believe that a subject had to, unless something trully dire was afoot, to remain loyal to their sovereign. All the long lasting empires sought to create a common identity: The Aztec's are a poor example in that they were a short lived empire, more of a confederency of tribe who had many enemies. The Inca were much better at creating a sense of unity, which is why Inca ressiatnce lasted for over 150 years while aztec resistance went away right quick. Napolon's empire did not last cuase he never sought to create anyting like a united identity: he did not annex huge portions of land to France but instead kept lands as associate powers.

As for Imran's points about Machiavelli: he enevr says might makes right. All he says is what you can do to remain in power. And his rules are not that difficult to understand. It is better to be feared than loved cause love is fickle, but remeber.. never be hated, cause hate oercomes fear. May I point out that machiavelli ends his discourse to the Prince explaining why Republic is the best form of government. Tha doies not sound like a ight makes right guy.

[Imran Siddiqui]

he [never] says might makes right. All he says is what you can do to remain in power.

Well no duh! But he undoubtably says 'might makes right', you simply have to hide it. And why would backing a Republic over a Monarchy make you ANY less of a 'might makes right' guy? If you really understand international politics, there is only one conclusion: might makes right underlies everything. The mighty make the rules that everyone else lives by. The weak follow.

[PLATO]

There are several points that I want to make:

1.) The US is NOT the agressor in Iraq eithier legally or morally. The 1991 cease-fire agreement was just that...the coalition would cease attacks if Iraq took specific actions. The UN validated the cease fire agreement. No one disputes that Iraq violated the terms of this agreement. Since Iraq was the original aggressor and the cause of the conflict, then by definition, they still are.

2.) 17 UN resolutions have called for Iraqi compliance with the mandates of the cease fire agreement. One has mentioned "all necessary means" and another "serious consequences". The international legal justification for war exists now. Upholding UN resolutions when authorized (yes, one could debate the meaning of "serious consequences", but the US made no secret of their interpretation before the resolution passed 15-0), cannot be called aggression as Iraq is a member of the UN and subject to the security council's mandate to maintain security in the world.

3.) Iraq is known to have attacked neighboring countries. Iraq is known to have manufactured chemical and biological weapons. Iraq is known to have used chemical weapons both internally and internationally. Iraq is known to have supported terrorism. Iraq is known to have attempted to assasinate foriegn leaders. Iraq is known to have summary execution of its own people. These facts are not in dispute. This is a moral justification for war.

4.) The proposed security council resolution is being proposed only due to the popular outcry against war, (Which is understandable-no one wants war.) and to clarify time limits for action that has already been approved . The dispute continues to be weather the time is now or later...not weather action might be necessary or not. Does anyone think that the French honestly believe that Iraq will come into full compliance?

5.) Ignoring a French veto will NOT set any kind of precedent. The legal basis for attack already exists under UNSC authority. This would not be the case in the scenario's discussed earlier in this thread.