Our World-Historical Gamble.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

http://www.techcentralstation.com/1051/ ... 51-031103A

- By Lee Harris.

[Patrick Degan]

Tripe.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Tripe.

That's an incredibly intellectual answer. No doubt everyone is in awe of your brilliance.

[Montcalm]

Interesting comparison WWI unprovoked attack by Germany they lost the war,WWII unprovoked attack Japan lost the war now the USA will attack Iraq............

[Patrick Degan]

The article merited a one-word summing up. Considering that the writer proceeds on an extended exercise in contorted logic to essentially excuse the ripping up of sixty years worth of international law which sprang from the ruins left over from the last person who claimed the right to wage pre-emptive war; dismissing as one cause of the Middle East crises this country's largely one-sided support of Israel, indulging the most astounding leaps of logic about Islamists wanting to take over the whole world, failing to question the absurdity of having made disarmament demands of a dictator who we failed to compel surrender from, and in toto simultaneously justifying and excusing-in-advance a doctrine which will open the door to perpetual warfare, "tripe" was actually a rather mild term to employ for the piece. Apropos and quite self-evident to anybody who isn't completely lost in some private world of pure theory.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Did you read his prior two articles? They are important for understanding this one, I grant, though since I'd already posted them here about twice I thought it inappropriate to do so again. In your case I doubt it will change your opinion, but if you have not read them yet I can provide the links here in this thread.

[Axis Kast]

The article merited a one-word summing up. Considering that the writer proceeds on an extended exercise in contorted logic to essentially excuse the ripping up of sixty years worth of international law which sprang from the ruins left over from the last person who claimed the right to wage pre-emptive war; dismissing as one cause of the Middle East crises this country's largely one-sided support of Israel, indulging the most astounding leaps of logic about Islamists wanting to take over the whole world, failing to question the absurdity of having made disarmament demands of a dictator who we failed to compel surrender from, and in toto simultaneously justifying and excusing-in-advance a doctrine which will open the door to perpetual warfare, "tripe" was actually a rather mild term to employ for the piece. Apropos and quite self-evident to anybody who isn't completely lost in some private world of pure theory.

“Sixty years worth of international law” my ass. The French sold weapons and broke the prohibitions of their own arms embargo as early as this past January. Let’s discuss that lovely operation in Kosovo, approved retroactively by a United Nations Security Council that at first passed no resolution on the topic.

You want to talk about a study in self-serving preemption? Why don’t we travel to Cote d’Ivoire, where the French Foreign Legion and elements of their parachute formations are currently “cleaning up shop” after a protracted campaign against Liberian rebels and anti-government thugs? You want to talk about United Nations legitimacy?

Dismissing our support for Israel? No, we recognize that problem fully. What would you have us do about it? Abandon Sharon’s government and allow the inevitable slaughter that would follow Israel’s isolation?

If “disarmament demands” are, as you say, “absurd,” then why shouldn’t enter Iraq and use force to compel safety?

Perpetual warfare? I think not. Protracted but necessary peacekeeping? Certainly.

[Patrick Degan]

The article merited a one-word summing up. Considering that the writer proceeds on an extended exercise in contorted logic to essentially excuse the ripping up of sixty years worth of international law which sprang from the ruins left over from the last person who claimed the right to wage pre-emptive war; dismissing as one cause of the Middle East crises this country's largely one-sided support of Israel, indulging the most astounding leaps of logic about Islamists wanting to take over the whole world, failing to question the absurdity of having made disarmament demands of a dictator who we failed to compel surrender from, and in toto simultaneously justifying and excusing-in-advance a doctrine which will open the door to perpetual warfare, "tripe" was actually a rather mild term to employ for the piece. Apropos and quite self-evident to anybody who isn't completely lost in some private world of pure theory.

“Sixty years worth of international law” my ass. The French sold weapons and broke the prohibitions of their own arms embargo as early as this past January. Let’s discuss that lovely operation in Kosovo, approved retroactively by a United Nations Security Council that at first passed no resolution on the topic.

Ah, the "two wrongs make a right" argument.

You want to talk about a study in self-serving preemption? Why don’t we travel to Cote d’Ivoire, where the French Foreign Legion and elements of their parachute formations are currently “cleaning up shop” after a protracted campaign against Liberian rebels and anti-government thugs? You want to talk about United Nations legitimacy?

So because the French did it on a small scale, that entitles the U.S. to do it on a large scale, eh? Again, "two wrongs make a right" as a defence of your position; regardless of its intellectual and moral bankruptcy.

Dismissing our support for Israel? No, we recognize that problem fully. What would you have us do about it? Abandon Sharon’s government and allow the inevitable slaughter that would follow Israel’s isolation?

And I said such a thing where...?

If “disarmament demands” are, as you say, “absurd,” then why shouldn’t enter Iraq and use force to compel safety?

Pathetic strawman argument on your part. I said, if you recall, that it was absurd of us to have made "disarmament demands upon a dictator we had not compelled surrender from". Absent a decisive victory against Saddam Hussein in 1991, which was not a stated war aim, the practicality of issuing subsequent demands for Iraq's disarmament was absurd. We did not control the country after the war. Hence the present dilemma. In light of these unfortunate facts, however, war is not the sole alternative to the problem of Saddam Hussein. Deterrence and containment certainly prevented Hussein from invading any of his neighbours for twelve years, and Hussein is in no position to reverse that situation any time soon, if at all.

And to answer in advance the inevitable regurgitation of the Party Line on your part, unless Saddam Hussein presents the active threat of imminent hostilities against U.S. interests or allies in the region, such as the initial invasion of Kuwait in 1990, pre-emptive action has no political, intellectual, or moral justification, no matter how much effort goes into cobbling one together.

Perpetual warfare? I think not. Protracted but necessary peacekeeping? Certainly.

The doctrine of pre-emptive war negates peacekeeping by definition. Particularly in the wake of the inevitable counter-reaction to follow when the logic of this doctrine must lead to an eventual effort to subdue the entire Middle East to achieve the alledged "peacekeeping" aim by force.

[Axis Kast]

Ah, the "two wrongs make a right" argument.

There is no “right” or “wrong” to international law; merely precedent.

So because the French did it on a small scale, that entitles the U.S. to do it on a large scale, eh? Again, "two wrongs make a right" as a defence of your position; regardless of its intellectual and moral bankruptcy.

Moral bankruptcy? Morals do not exist on the international forum; only winners and losers.

Your position was that preemption had never been attempted before. My assertion is that it has – regularly.

And I said such a thing where...?

You implied that the article dismissed important anti-American sentiments in the Middle East as relates to Israel. I assert they are unimportant where Iraq’s disarmament is concerned.

Pathetic strawman argument on your part. I said, if you recall, that it was absurd of us to have made "disarmament demands upon a dictator we had not compelled surrender from". Absent a decisive victory against Saddam Hussein in 1991, which was not a stated war aim, the practicality of issuing subsequent demands for Iraq's disarmament was absurd. We did not control the country after the war. Hence the present dilemma. In light of these unfortunate facts, however, war is not the sole alternative to the problem of Saddam Hussein. Deterrence and containment certainly prevented Hussein from invading any of his neighbours for twelve years, and Hussein is in no position to reverse that situation any time soon, if at all.

And to answer in advance the inevitable regurgitation of the Party Line on your part, unless Saddam Hussein presents the active threat of imminent hostilities against U.S. interests or allies in the region, such as the initial invasion of Kuwait in 1990, pre-emptive action has no political, intellectual, or moral justification, no matter how much effort goes into cobbling one together.

Deterrence and containment have failed as a result of fumbling over the past twelve years and under sixteen separate resolutions. Today, Hussein has been able to take the first steps toward producing prohibited missiles, imports aluminum tubes that might be fashioned into nuclear centrifuges – do you really believe that a rocket-artillery program will manifest itself if Hussein didn’t take advantage of the expertise of client nations twenty-four years ago when not yet under embargo? -, and produces drones capable of sowing chemical payloads. Inspectors and even official intelligence have been wrong before. They missed key warning signs in Israel, took two years to locate bore holes in the Kalahari Desert developed for South Africa’s nuclear program, and were unable to uncover North Korean development up to the present day. Hussein currently supports terrorism in Palestine, some of it responsible for the deaths of American citizens. No deterrence or forced compliance approaches this important problem – which has in the past resulted in Hussein’s resources being subtly channeled into the hands of al-Qaeda’s representatives. Clearly, Hussein represents an imminent threat.

“Moral justification?” I don’t need any. Might makes right. We’ve enough to bowl over Hussein and end his flow of support (indirectly) to al-Qaeda while terminating his weapons programs in the process. Good enough for me.

The doctrine of pre-emptive war negates peacekeeping by definition. Particularly in the wake of the inevitable counter-reaction to follow when the logic of this doctrine must lead to an eventual effort to subdue the entire Middle East to achieve the alledged "peacekeeping" aim by force.

Tell that to the French in Cote D’Ivoire or the British in Sierre Leonne. They’ve done both quite well despite threats from external sources such as Liberia.

[Dahak]

?Moral justification?? I don?t need any. Might makes right. We?ve enough to bowl over Hussein and end his flow of support (indirectly) to al-Qaeda while terminating his weapons programs in the process. Good enough for me.

Oh boy...
That makes you look so stupid...
The last time someone thought that way, the World plunged into a total, terrible war. You really must be applauding Hitler under your desk...

[Axis Kast]

It's fact. If you don't think the Russians wouldn't jump to cut us off at the legs, you're wrong. The French are trying to do it even now.

This world is hardly governed by anything approach real "law."

We've got to do whatever it takes to prevent Hussein from posing a threat to the United States of America.

[Patrick Degan]

Ah, the "two wrongs make a right" argument.

There is no “right” or “wrong” to international law; merely precedent.

Pre-emptive war precedents: Hitler 1939; Japan 1941. That's sort of why it's considered illegal today.

So because the French did it on a small scale, that entitles the U.S. to do it on a large scale, eh? Again, "two wrongs make a right" as a defence of your position; regardless of its intellectual and moral bankruptcy.

Moral bankruptcy? Morals do not exist on the international forum; only winners and losers.

In a word, bullshit. You should be careful of endorsing an argument which endorses blanket aggression. Hitler claimed the same right in 1939.

Your position was that preemption had never been attempted before. My assertion is that it has – regularly.

Yes, World War II. Hussein's invasion of Kuwait. Both triggered war as a result and threatened or destroyed international order.

And I said such a thing where...?

You implied that the article dismissed important anti-American sentiments in the Middle East as relates to Israel. I assert they are unimportant where Iraq’s disarmament is concerned.

And that means abandoning Israel to its fate? Yet another strawman on your part.

Deterrence and containment have failed as a result of fumbling over the past twelve years and under sixteen separate resolutions.

And Iraq has conducted how many invasions since being pushed out of Kuwait twelve years ago? Zero? Thought so.

Today, Hussein has been able to take the first steps toward producing prohibited missiles, imports aluminum tubes that might be fashioned into nuclear centrifuges

Oh good Cthulhu, not the aluminum tubes lie again. That's been thoroughly discredited as it's been pointed out how the aluminum is not of sufficent grade to be useful in uranium centrifuges and could only be made so at considerable expense and effort —far more so than simply attempting to seek a back-channel for the import of said items.

and produces drones capable of sowing chemical payloads.

Based on that very poor video of a fighter jet which may have been dumping its fuel prior to a gears-up landing.

Inspectors and even official intelligence have been wrong before. They missed key warning signs in Israel, took two years to locate bore holes in the Kalahari Desert developed for South Africa’s nuclear program, and were unable to uncover North Korean development up to the present day.

So, if the evidence doesn't exist or can't be found, we merely assume it does and charge ahead absent an actual act of war on the part of Iraq.

Hussein currently supports terrorism in Palestine, some of it responsible for the deaths of American citizens. No deterrence or forced compliance approaches this important problem – which has in the past resulted in Hussein’s resources being subtly channeled into the hands of al-Qaeda’s representatives. Clearly, Hussein represents an imminent threat.

Four times, CIA director George Tenet has said that no evidence of an Iraq/Al-Qaeda link exists. The problem of Hamas and Abu-Nidal has been combatted through standard anti-terrorism measures long before the so-called War on Terrorism was promulgated. Unfortunately, it is not possible to catch every plot; neither can terrorism be stamped out by brute military force. Intelligence and counter-terrorism operations are what is needed to fight an amorphous security threat of this nature.

“Moral justification?” I don’t need any. Might makes right.

Funny, that's what Hitler said.

We’ve enough to bowl over Hussein and end his flow of support (indirectly) to al-Qaeda while terminating his weapons programs in the process. Good enough for me.

Too bad George Tenet says you're wrong about Iraq and Al-Qaeda. Beyond that, weapons programmes in and of themselves are not sufficent reason to launch a war. Or will you be advocating an invasion of North Korea anytime soon?

The doctrine of pre-emptive war negates peacekeeping by definition. Particularly in the wake of the inevitable counter-reaction to follow when the logic of this doctrine must lead to an eventual effort to subdue the entire Middle East to achieve the alledged "peacekeeping" aim by force.

Tell that to the French in Cote D’Ivoire or the British in Sierre Leonne. They’ve done both quite well despite threats from external sources such as Liberia.

The difference is that active threat to French and foreign nationals posed by revolutionary chaos in Cote D'Ivorie exists, that France's insertion of 2500 troops is in response to a somewhat strained interpretation of an agreement between the two countries signed in 1962 to provide military assistance in the event of invasion or attack by an outside power, and that said action has the backing of an agreement by ECOWAS and UN authourisation. That is not unilateral action no matter how much you wish to believe otherwise. Which even further undermines your argument.

[Darth Wong]

"Tripe" was a charitable description. Look at these quotes:

The war with Iraq will constitute one of those momentous turning points of history in which one nation under the guidance of a strong-willed, self-confident leader undertakes to alter the fundamental state of the world.

You can almost hear him jerking off to a picture of Shrubby as he types this. There's a difference between an essay and masturbation in prose.

All of these positions are fatally undercut by the fact that they appeal to the outmoded conceptual categories of an earlier epoch - an epoch in which all the relevant actors in an international conflict were playing by the same basic rules. They were all nation states, each deploying a foreign policy - in both war and peace - that was designed to advance their own interests, where these interests could be easily predicted by the other actors in the conflict.

...

For if we in fact lived in a world where concepts like self-determination and Realpolitik could be applied, there would be no crisis, since there would be no Saddam Hussein in Iraq, nor terrorist organizations like Al Qaeda, nor conflicts like the Israeli-Palestine conflicts - for in such a world the players would all be limited to making rational calculations and pursuing predictable policies

In short, he believes that the world's various crises are completely inexplicable through self-interest, when in fact they are quite easily explicable through group self-interest. In short, his entire argument is predicated upon a critical failure of imagination, essentially saying "I don't understand what's going on here, so HULK SMASH!"

Too stupid to recognize the obvious self-interest inherent in radical Islamist behaviour or the self-interest in Hussein's obvious motive to cling to power, or the self-interest in Israel's desire to accumulate territory through aggressive "settlement" vs the equally obvious self-interest in Palestinian desire to make Israeli incursions into their territory as uncomfortable as possible, he throws up his hands and declares that because he is too blindingly stupid to understand the motivations of others, they must be "madmen".

Then, he goes on to explain how states should be defined:

There is, of course, nothing to keep one from applying the purely honorific title of "state" to the Palestinians, for example, just as the English are perfectly entitled to dub a popular singer a Knight, though it would be dangerous to rely on him to defend the realm. But merely to call the Palestinian community a "state" does not and cannot transform it into a viable subsistent entity if those who govern and decide its course are utterly lacking in a sense of what is realistically available to them.

In short, if we decide that the leadership of a state is not being rational, then we can unilaterally declare that it is NOT a state at all, and thus can be treated as rubbish and divided up for spoils.

6: THE THREAT OF A "ROGUE" NUCLEAR STRIKE

...

Before 9/11 the first question that an intelligent person would think upon hearing such a scenario is why on earth would anyone want to do such a thing. But it is no longer our first question. Our first question is who will do it first? And that is the difference 9/11 made. Like 9/11, this kind of attack would have no Clausewitzian justification - indeed, from a realistic point of view it can serve no purpose. But the same is most emphatically not true if those who chose to use nuclear devices were merely acting out of a fantasy ideology.

Still doggedly pounding on his idiotic belief that the motivations of radical Islam are completely opaque to analysis and devoid of intelligible self-interest motive, he declares that 9/11 proved that any nation can and will use nuclear weapons with no rational motive, even if it causes their own devastation. In short, not only does he argue that a nation with sufficient resources to acquire a functional nuclear weapon would be run just like Al-Quaeda, but he fails to recognize that Al-Quaeda's are intelligible, despite his claims of absolute opacity.

This is where we must move beyond Clausewitz. For how do you fight an enemy whose goal is simply to create a world-historical disaster that will annihilate the current world order in its entirety?

Ah, I see. The enemy is a James Bond supervillain who wishes to destroy the world so he can rebuild it in his own image. Perhaps this idiot has been watching too much "The Spy Who Loved Me" or "Moonraker" (two of the worst films in the history of the franchise, I might add). No doubt he will quote radical Islamic nonsense to support his claim, as if florid rhetoric is proof of collective insanity.

After looking through it, I wonder if this person even lives on the same planet we do.

[weemadando]

Tripe.

Seconded. With an utter.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

It's fact. If you don't think the Russians wouldn't jump to cut us off at the legs, you're wrong. The French are trying to do it even now.

This world is hardly governed by anything approach real "law."

We've got to do whatever it takes to prevent Hussein from posing a threat to the United States of America.

Both the French and the Russians have an economic stake in keeping Hussein in power. However, the French . . . as wishy-washy as they are, will jump on-board with the United States when it looks like an American victory is assured.

Now I hope that last part of your statement was sarcasm. The last few times anybody took on a stance like that, we wound up with things such as the United States' protracted campaign against the American aboriginals (the Native Americans,) as well as World War 1 and World War 2. As it is, Hussein poses no real threat to the United States. Yes, he's a psychotic dictator who gasses his own people and makes dissenters vanish from their homes at night, but he can't really threaten the United States. He can only threaten American interests in the area (Kuwaiti and Saudi oil fields, and Israel.)

Some would say he funnels money to Al-Quaeda. That's probably true, but Al-Quaeda gets a lot of funding from people living in a lot of other Arab nations, such as the United States' stalwart ally Saudi Arabia. Do you propose that we invade that country too? And while we're at it, we can invade Syria and Egypt and Jordan and any other country with ties to terrorism. Hell, let's just turn the entire region into one gigantic American hegemony (Not that that would necessarily be such a bad idea, except the United States would probably hand it all over to Israel, and they're just as much a bunch of violent fundamentalist assholes as their neighbors.) It'd be like the old British empire all over again.

He's a threat to his region, but he's no direct threat to the United States. That is why I support war, but I do not believe the United States is justified in going in alone. The only place the United States has any business unilaterally attacking right now is North Korea. Like Iraq, they also have a psychotic dictatorship. Like Iraq, North Korea could conceivably menace American interests (South Korea and Japan.) However, North Korea is a direct threat to the United States. They have nukes, and they talk like they're itching to set one off on the American west coast. Iraq, however, is an international problem. It should be solved with joint action. It shouldn't be used as Shrub's own Klintonesque 'Wag The Dog' scenario.

[Vympel]

Should have stumbled on this thread sooner. After all- we got the pleasure of seeing Axis Kast' morally bankrupt world view.

[Sriad]

It's fact. If you don't think the Russians wouldn't jump to cut us off at the legs, you're wrong. The French are trying to do it even now.

This world is hardly governed by anything approach real "law."

We've got to do whatever it takes to prevent Hussein from posing a threat to the United States of America.

Your word choice is most gratifying, as "posing" as a threat is all Saddam can really hope to do.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

After looking through it, I wonder if this person even lives on the same planet we do.

He does, but mentally the Islamofascists don't. The failure of so many people to understand something which is really very simple - I mean, for example, someone who genuinely believes the world was created 12,000 years ago in an instant by the will of a Supreme Being; they live in a totally different conceptual reality than a scientifically rational person does - and the failure to recognize this is going to have terrible consequences. Fortunately those consequences may be minimized by the fact that the people in power in certain nations, at least, have recognized a threat, at least, and are instinctively reacting against it if nothing else.

[Gandalf]

Interesting comparison WWI unprovoked attack by Germany they lost the war,WWII unprovoked attack Japan lost the war now the USA will attack Iraq............

Don't mean to be nitpicky but Austria-Hungary started the war by shelling Belgrade.

[Darth Wong]

After looking through it, I wonder if this person even lives on the same planet we do.

He does, but mentally the Islamofascists don't.

I fail to see how he has demonstrated himself to be particularly more rational than the Islamic fundies; he's just a better wordsmith.

The failure of so many people to understand something which is really very simple - I mean, for example, someone who genuinely believes the world was created 12,000 years ago in an instant by the will of a Supreme Being; they live in a totally different conceptual reality than a scientifically rational person does - and the failure to recognize this is going to have terrible consequences.

Does that mean you think we should declare war on Alabama?

Fortunately those consequences may be minimized by the fact that the people in power in certain nations, at least, have recognized a threat, at least, and are instinctively reacting against it if nothing else.

Yes, a lot of people really do hate Alabama.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

The failure of so many people to understand something which is really very simple - I mean, for example, someone who genuinely believes the world was created 12,000 years ago in an instant by the will of a Supreme Being; they live in a totally different conceptual reality than a scientifically rational person does - and the failure to recognize this is going to have terrible consequences.

Does that mean you think we should declare war on Alabama?

No: The difference is that in one region - Alabama - the religious beliefs exist inside of a culture of Reason, which has been steadily overtaking and replacing the religious culture since the Age of Enlightenment and the French Revolution. The American Revolution and the French Revolution in effect were wars on religion, along with the "Year of Revolution", 1848. Religion in the West has been dead as a political force after Napoleon, and the actions of the Founding Fathers pointed the way in that regard. America has had a less thorough and violent expunging of religion than Europe, but the general trend is the same.

This has not occured in the Muslim world. It needs to occur, however, and since the Muslim world is so completely mired in history that the realistic chance of successful development of such a movement on a widespread scale is unfeasable, our own security demands that we do it for them.

[Darth Gojira]

Does that mean you think we should declare war on Alabama?

Why not?

[Enlightenment]

http://www.techcentralstation.com/1051/ ... 51-031103A

The author goes to great lengths to morally justify neo-imperialism under the guise of a neo-white man's burden while making a great effort to avoid describing his own position in these terms.

It's a wonderful work of propaganda on par with the likes of Mein Kampf and the Communist Manifesto.

[Stuart Mackey]

http://www.techcentralstation.com/1051/ ... 51-031103A

- By Lee Harris.

Well that was bollocks. I agree with Wong, Invade Alabama. Its obviously the source of Christain fundiism, and the USA supports it

[Eleas]

No: The difference is that in one region - Alabama - the religious beliefs exist inside of a culture of Reason, which has been steadily overtaking and replacing the religious culture since the Age of Enlightenment and the French Revolution. The American Revolution and the French Revolution in effect were wars on religion, along with the "Year of Revolution", 1848. Religion in the West has been dead as a political force after Napoleon, and the actions of the Founding Fathers pointed the way in that regard. America has had a less thorough and violent expunging of religion than Europe, but the general trend is the same.

This has not occured in the Muslim world. It needs to occur, however, and since the Muslim world is so completely mired in history that the realistic chance of successful development of such a movement on a widespread scale is unfeasable, our own security demands that we do it for them.

To put it quite bluntly, America has not the right, nor the inclination, nor the ability, to make this a war to inject rationality and secularism into Iraq. This is a holy war - the aggressor said so himself. The ties between Iraq and Al-Quaida are uncertain at best, so that's not the reason. Furthermore, this is no workable way of replacing a head of state. At best, you get a puppet government, Vichy-style. How long could the US keep that up, I wonder?

And thus I keep wondering whether the US wants oil, prestige, live-fire exercises, or to strike another blow for Gawd.