Do I want to leave the decision of when to go to war up to the president? Absolutely. That is one of his enumerated powers under the Constitution. Congress can "declare" war, but it's the president that ships the troops out. Congress cannot order the military into war; they can declare that a state of war exists between the U.S. and an enemy state, but Congress cannot send troops into battle. Let's stick to THAT rule, for now.
We can debate whether or not the war in Iraq is legal. By even the strictest interpretation of Congress' 2001 authorization to president Bush...
to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons..."
...this current conflict in Iraq is quite legal. But the Constitution is vague on at least one point: Article One Section Eight of the Constitution says "Congress shall have power to... declare War;" however, that passage provides no specific format for what form legislation text must have to be considered a "Declaration of War" nor does the Constitution itself use this term.
The President's powers are not as vague in this regard as Congress offered on September 14, 2001, the functional equivalent of a "Declaration of War". But since the Constitution does not provide that those exact words are even necessary, the debate of rules in this regard is therefore unnecessary... functionally moot. The president can send troops into any engagement that seeks to protect American interests and American citizens, and he doesn't need a declaration of war. What he does need is Congressional support to fund the engagement beyond the immediate threat. Example: Reagan's snap invasion of Grenada.
So yes, Bush can send troops wherever they are needed for X number of days, without Congress. He does have to justify their continued presence beyond the honeymoon.
Now, do I extend this rule to future presidents? Of course. Would I be visibly, emotionally, and spiritually upset to see, say, president Obama attack Israel?
Do I really have to answer that?
But beyond this rule, the Geneva Convention covers just about everything else.
Your other hypotheticals are not worthy of discussion at this time because:
a) the United States of America is NOT a terrorist-sponsoring nation, nor is itself a rogue nation.
b) the United States of America does not attack arbitrarily, willy-nilly, any nation to rob them of their dignity, liberty, or natural resources. When America invades, it does so to protect its own borders, national interests, or those of its allies, or to put an end to roguery... as in the first and second Barbary wars.
For some perspective, there has only been in the entire history of the United States of America 5 FORMAL declarations of war. There has been 12 military engagements (wars or mini-wars) authorized by Congress (including Afghanistan and Iraq). And there have been over 125 instances where the president sent troops into harms way WITHOUT prior express military authorization from Congress; to include Korea (1950), the Philippine-American War (1898-1903), and Nicaragua (1927). And I don't recall hearing of any overt challenges against the presidents of the day for supposed "War-Crimes."
This whole War-Crimes issue is founded entirely upon one segment of society's intense dislike of President George W. Bush. The anti-war, peace-at-any-price crowd.
As for Iran. Iran may be a sovereign nation but it is a rogue nation. Iran trains Iraqi militia and sends them back across the border with weapons that kill not only American soldiers and support personnel, but Iraqi troops and civilians. That is an act of war.
Are we at war with Iran? According to the wording of the September 14, 2001 Joint Resolution, Yes.
The real question ought to be: Do we want to "actively" engage Iran in Iran? We're already engaging their agents and weapons in Iraq. The only difference would be location and escalation.
. . . . .
Peace is a lovely ideal; one for which we should all strive. But we cannot lower our guard. Not all nations desire to live in peace with the world. Not all nations respect its neighbor's or the world's sovereign borders. Islam, for all it means "submission" cares nothing for submitting to the rule of western law, and therefore does not respect its neighbor's or the world's sovereign borders. Islam's "submission" is the attitude Islam's neighbor's and the world must adopt to have peace (and a pseudo one at that) with Islam.
Is the U.S. readying for an Attack on Iran? I sure hope so! Not to invade arbitrarily, but to have a plan on the table should no one else be willing to take the bomb out of Islam's hands.
103 Comments:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
the United States of America is NOT a terrorist-sponsoring nation, nor is itself a rogue nation.
But one of my questions was WHO gets to decide which nations are "rogue nations?" Who sets the defintion? Our president alone? Surely you would not give such power to one person?
As to your assertion above, the people of Nicaragua who were under seige from US sponsored contra terrorists would be glad to let you know otherwise. The people affected by US support of bin Laden and Saddam Hussein would be glad to let you know otherwise.
Don't you think it a bit naive to say that, just because our presidents may have authorized support for dictators and terrorists, that they aren't dictators or terrorists?
include Korea (1950), the Philippine-American War (1898-1903), and Nicaragua (1927). And I don't recall hearing of any overt challenges against the presidents of the day for supposed "War-Crimes."
Are you not familiar with Mark Twain's (and others') outspoken condemnation of American Imperialism involved in the Phillippine war?
U.S. troops stationed on the rim of the volcano fired down on the Filipinos for four days until all 900 were dead -- including women and children. Twain wrote that “General Wood was present and looking on. His order had been, ‘Kill or capture those savages.’ Apparently our little army considered that the ‘or’ left them authorized to kill or capture according to taste, and that their taste had remained what it has been for eight years, in our army out there -- the taste of Christian butchers.”
...Twain wrote that “the government thenceforth made the sly and treacherous betrayal of weak republics its amusement, and the stealing of their lands and the assassination of their liberties its trade.” The country also lost its self-respect, he observed, “but after a little ceased to be troubled by this detail.”
Likewise, there was, indeed, opposition to the Korean and Nicaraguan "little wars" (and in Nicaragua, we set up the oppressive Somoza regime as the dust settled from all our invasions that began in 1927 in that little war).
Whether or not they used the charge of war crimes at the time, I could not tell you, but as you can see from Twain's language, the charges against our actions have been quite strongly worded.
Finally, regardless of whether or not the US was charged with war crimes for its actions, clearly we have taken actions and instituted policies that do fall under the category of "war crimes," attacks on civilians, torture, indiscriminate killing. A thing is what it is.
Which brings us back to the problem of moral relativism (ie, sometimes, targeting and killing civilians is not a war crime and not bad and sometimes it is).
I do not take his opinion on matters as any proof of crime or act of charity. I have no reason to doubt his sincerity or commonsense, but neither will I place his take on the American-Philippine War as though it were an official entry in the Congressional record.
Anecdote, fine. But the final word on the incident he describes... for I must assume he did not personally witness it, but the incident rather was relayed to him by a third party... no. Not gonna do it.
Today even the 2001 Congressional Authorization wouldn't authorize action against Iran. Al Quaeda In Iraq aren't in fact affiliated with Al Quaeda in Afghanistan. They don't coordinate. They don't share a command structure. The only things they do share is a name and an opposition to the US.
9/11 + Iraq = FAIL!
I will concede, though, that the congressional authorization was horribly worded and shame on them for writing it thusly. It was not intended as an open-ended war-without-end on terrorism whenever and wherever our president finds a boogeyman. We are not free to willy-nilly drop bombs on Somalia, Iran, Montana or any place that our president deems reasonable. That would be a war crime.
And my question still remains, WHO gets to decide if a nation is a rogue nation?
The 9.11 Commission was flawed. It was partisan. It ignored facts. It came to a conclusion it desired to come to, rather than the conclusion facts would naturally have led it.
From the 2001 "Use of Force" Resolution:
"...or harbored such organizations or persons..."
Iraq harbored members of al-Qaeda.
Sorry if that intrudes upon your sense of "fact," but truth is truth, and sometimes it hurts.
So, you suspect the bipartisan Commission ignored facts and issued a partisan report.
Are you saying that:
Thomas Kean - Republican governor of New Jersey
Fred F. Fielding - Counsel for Bush, Reagan and Nixon
Jamie Gorelick - former Counsel for the Dept of Defense
Slade Gorton - Republican senator
John Lehman - Secretary of the Navy under Reagan
James Thompson - Republican Governor of Illinois
Are part of a vast conspiracy to make Bush look bad because they are haters of Bush? Is that your position?
I'm asking because that seems a bit strange to me. Do you think these conservative Republicans have some other reason for twisting truth (children kidnapped? Paid off?) or that they were simply fooled by someone who wished to make Bush look bad?
I think you owe some hard-working Democrat and Republicans an apology.
You're insane. She's one of the reasons 9.11 was possible! Her and Bill Clinton!
Bush is far from inept. Your BDS is showing.
I agree.
Very fine piece. You've done yoeman's work here and removed any need for me to comment further on the previous post. Based on comments on this thread, however, not everyone can see it.
" So when common sense and consensus says it would be stupid to invade Iran, that's how it should be?"
Should it ever, yes. The real problem, though, is who's common sense? (I'm using the leftist strategy for debate here.) It's pretty plain that should certain people of the right-wing persuasion see attacking Iran as common sense, Dan would call it stupid. Should any leftist politician so decide, all will be well.
It's helpful to remember the recent Pentagon report based on captured Iraqi docs that showed the extent to which Hussein supported various terrorist orgs as well as his desires and plans to reconstitute his WMD programs ASAP.
The "test" lies not in the votes of men but rather the evidences of decent societies and cultural superiority. The west does not worship death.. Islam does.The west does not hang, stone, or behead women, gays, or apostates. The west does not threaten to wipe other sovereign nations off the face of the map.
These "tests" are unspoken and unwritten except on the hearts of men and societies that embrace the belief in man's inherent right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It is written on all those things we in the west take for granted.
What is the west to think of a man who would kill five-thousand of his own people just to test his biologicals? We dare not invade such a country because it would be unjust? A war crime?
Why does the Left cry about Darfur? They want the U.S. to do something. Do what!? Invade a sovereign nation? Oh the humanity!
And there's the evidence.... America recognizes the humanity of the individual. The west overwhelmingly recognizes this. The east, and Islam, largely does not.
The rules you would employ would see American cities nuked, because America has no right to stop a nation from doing as it will. Not until lives are lost will YOUR rules decide it is okay to step up.
A rogue nation, therefore, is any nation that does not play by the rules established by the majority. Iran is in the minority. She must play by the rules or be declared rogue and subject to isolation, marginalization, and yes, even invasion. They kill their own people for things the west would never dream of, and we cannot allow them to spread their mental disease beyond their own blighted borders
Sooo, by your reasoning, then, when a majority of the world found the US guilty of war crimes for actions committed in Nicaragua, then the US was declared a rogue nation and should have submitted to isolation, marginalization and, yes, even invasion? Or at least facing the punishment doled out for committing those war crimes?
If that's what you're saying, I agree.
You and I agree that, when oppression is happening, something ought to be done.
We agree that we ought to obey our own rules and laws, as a rule.
We seem to disagree on what to do with a nation that is "rogue." Marshall advocates not adhering to ANY codes of behavior or rules. This would pave the way for war crimes to happen if we truly went that direction.
We do agree, though, that if a nation is not following rules (as defined by a body larger than just our president) - dangerously or oppressively so - that that nation should expect consequences from the larger body of world opinion ("She must play by the rules or be declared rogue and subject to isolation, marginalization, and yes, even invasion") - this should be true whether it's a tiny weak nation like Iran or a big superpower like Russia or the US.
(You may not agree with that last bit, but to be morally and practically right, it's a vital point.)
That still begs the question: WHAT defines "not behaving by the rules" or "rogue nation." WHAT rules? International law? I didn't think you all had much respect for international law, but it's something I support. If you do, too, we can count that as an agreement.
Huh? That's a bold statement-- I want names and numbers. But if you mean the World Court... an extension of the corrupt United Nations. Sorry, not good enough.
"You and I agree that, when oppression is happening, something ought to be done."
You and I do NOT agree.
"I didn't think you all had much respect for international law..."
Can't speak for Marshall, but for myself I do not respect international law as wielded by the U.N. and its kangaroo court. I might have gained some respect for international law if it had enforced the 17 resolutions against Saddam, but instead forced a few "rogue" nations to do the job it should have done.
Our biggest divide in understanding one another, is this clingy-ness you have for tangible constructs such as international law. Yes we should follow the laws of OUR nation, and those laws we are treaty-ed into, but you consistently ignore in your rhetoric the necessity of the occasional bending and breaking of man's law. God's law trumps it. Again, I'd rather stand before God having defended a nation from obliteration than to stand before Him with the lame excuse of "but the laws of our nation said..."
Good luck with that, Dan, should it come to that.
You and I do NOT agree.
You think NOTHING should be done? I thought you said earlier that something should be done when people are being oppressed or when there's a potentially dangerous tyrant. Are you saying now that you DON'T think that anymore??
I apologize if I misunderstood you, I thought we were in agreement that oppression should not go untended.
Our biggest divide in understanding one another, is this clingy-ness you have for tangible constructs such as international law.
You said earlier, "A rogue nation, therefore, is any nation that does not play by the rules established by the majority." I took that to mean that you expect Iran to abide by the rules of the majority.
What rules do you wish Iran to abide by if not international rules? Do you wish Iran to abide by US rules? I apologize, again, if I misunderstood you, but then what do you mean?
but you consistently ignore in your rhetoric the necessity of the occasional bending and breaking of man's law. God's law trumps it.
And who exactly gets to decide when "man's law" needs to be ignored in favor of God's law - at the national or international level, that is. Of course, we as individuals have the right and obligation to follow God's rules, but are you suggesting that a president should say, "You know what? Forget those war crimes laws on our books, I think God wants me to destroy Israel..."? Or Iran or whichever nation that president thinks God wants destroyed.
I don't trust national leaders enough to give them the power to do that.
Again, I'd rather stand before God having defended a nation from obliteration than to stand before Him with the lame excuse of "but the laws of our nation said..."
This presumes a more perfect knowledge than we have, I'd suggest. Suppose you wiped out Iran because you thought God wanted it and you get to heaven and God says, "What the heck were you doing??!! You killed innocent men, women and children! Iran was no threat to Israel!! I would have managed Iran, I don't need you to take it upon yourself to play Me and take actions that kills little children! You fool! Depart from me, I never knew you!!"
You're assuming that you can know that Iran might be an actual threat and therefore we ought to "take action," even if it breaks our laws. The problem with this is you are assuming a sort of omniscience and we're just not equipped with that sort of knowledge.
THAT is why the US has not traditionally engaged in first strikes. We're conservative, that way and recognize the horrible immorality of such actions.
Might it be said in return that perhaps our biggest divide is your clingy-ness for tangible constructs such as Weapons of Mass Destruction?
Or your clingy-ness to somebody's (our president? I'm still not sure who you're advocating make this call) - somebody's ability to discern "God's Will" as to when we should ignore our own laws and commit war crimes. THAT to me seems to be a big sticking point.
You seem to be saying that in general we ought to obey our own laws and not commit war crimes. BUT, you seem to be saying, sometimes our leaders (president) will have to choose to ignore our laws and commit what, according to our laws, are war crimes in order to be pleasing to God.
I'm saying that I don't trust our gov't enough (or anyone's gov't enough) to let them make that sort of decision. If a president were to say, "God's told me to wipe out Iran for the safety of Israel, even if it means we're committing war crimes," it sounds like you're saying you're okay with that.
BUT, if a president were to say the same thing about Israel ("God told me to wipe out Israel...") you're saying, I believe, that you DON'T want the president to take that sort of action. I'm saying, that is why we have rules and standards. Because we are not a theocracy where some leader can suddenly decide to chuck our laws and go with his "gut feeling" on what God wants.
That would be a scary, lawless sort of world that you seem to be advocating there.
I have no illusions that our laws are any more perfect than we are, but they are there for a reason. We are not a nation that makes decisions based on "gut feelings," or at least, we shouldn't be.
Sooo, by your reasoning, then, when a majority of the world found the US guilty of war crimes for actions committed in Nicaragua, then the US was declared a rogue nation and should have submitted to isolation, marginalization and, yes, even invasion? Or at least facing the punishment doled out for committing those war crimes?
If that's what you're saying, I agree.
Seems to me that Dan believes that the United States is a rogue nation that should be isolated, marginalized, and invaded.
If this qualifies as patriotism, I wonder what would qualify as the opposite.
But in fact what we do militarily must be in accord with the rest of the world. We get very little of our oil from the middle east. Our allies on the other hand are much more dependent on the oil output of Saudi Arabia, Iran and Syria. Right now gas in Great Britain is $9 per gallon (and you thought we we're paying a lot). Prices are similar in France, Germany and Pakistan, China, Russia and Italy. What do you think these countries responses if we attack one of the middle east's major oil producers? Conversely our allies have great economic leverage against Iran. But conservatives don't recognize the power of such clingy ideas as economic and diplomatic warfare.
Beyond of course the economic imposibility of attacking Iran there are also the bare facts of Iran's politics, which you seem ignorant of. Mahmoud Ahmidinajhad is an elected president. He was elected primarily for his domestic policy agendas. The Iranian people have been very disappointed in his foreign policy statements and distractions. He will most likely lose his bid for reelection. Second is the fact that amazingly Iran has one of the most open and pro-western cultures in the middle east. Women can have jobs, and are allowed to wear western dress. They have a capitalistic economy. They practice democratic governance.
Iran is not completely western, and certainly their moral and social laws are not what we see as humane, but they are much better than many other regimes.
A president that disregards the constitution and our nation's laws to pursue a personally revealed religious truth, must answer for his actions eventually before our secular laws. That is the fact. We have laws to say that things are disallowed and set the punishments for doing disallowed things. But we authorize and empower men and women to dispense justice to bring mercy and temperance to those laws. If a president genuinely needs to go beyond our laws to keep the country safe then he better be damn sure that he can prove the need after the fact.
1) Bent does not know what he's talking about when he writes, "Saddam Hussein never had a link to Al Quaeda. The 9/11 Commission took pains to state that fact in their report."
The fact is, their final report claimed "no collaborative operational relationship" but still documented ample evidence refuting the conventional wisdom that the report asserted no link whatsoever -- not that that matters to some people, even four years later.
I agree that the commission was partisan and not as effective as it should have been, but it didn't make the sweeping claims that Bent thinks it did.
2) In the same disappointing comment, Bent writes:
Al Quaeda In Iraq aren't in fact affiliated with Al Quaeda in Afghanistan. They don't coordinate. They don't share a command structure. The only things they do share is a name and an opposition to the US.
This is odd: Bent admits that the two groups share a common enemy and even a common name, but that doesn't qualify as an affiliation?
The logic of this position is near total impotence in the face of a decentralized enemy: if "Al Queda in Cleveland" committed some horrifying act against us, I guess Bent thinks we could respond, but we couldn't do anythin against an "Al Queda in Tuscon" until that specific group also directly attacked us.
The safe and sane position is this: it doesn't much matter whether you play under the same coach or meet in the same locker room, if you put on al Queda's jersey, you're on their team.
If this qualifies as patriotism, I wonder what would qualify as the opposite.
Yes, it IS patriotic to speak out against corruption of American ideals. I agree with our founders in this regard.
"It is the duty of the patriot, to protect his country from its government."
~Thomas Paine
"If ever time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin."
~Samuel Adams
“The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive.”
~Thomas Jefferson
“If once the people become inattentive to the public affairs, you and I, and Congress and Assemblies, Judges and Governors, shall all become wolves. It seems to be the law of our general nature, in spite of individual exceptions.”
~Thomas Jefferson
“All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to = remain silent.”
~Thomas Jefferson
What you do mention is that Iran's president is democratically elected. Of course, candidates for the office must be approved by the government itself -- a recurring theme in Iranian politics -- but that too doesn't bear a mention.
And you mention how Westernized Iran's culture is, but you don't mention that Iran's government is the oldest and still the most prolific sponsor of terrorism against the West, that its government is seeking to acquire nuclear weapons and that it's expressed an interest in seeing the only Western democracy in the Middle East obliterated from the map.
But while whitewashing America's enemies, you don't hesistate to demonize your own, writing that "conservatives don't recognize the power of such clingy ideas as economic and diplomatic warfare."
This is nonsense, and a gross distortion of conservatives' belief that diplomacy and even economic sanctions are often ineffective without the credible threat of military force, and that these non-military approaches may sometimes need to be replaced with the use of that force.
But the tendency is clear: you're willing to omit a lot of inconvenient truths to make Iran look good, and you're willing to lie outright to make American conservatives look bad.
If this qualifies as patriotism, I wonder what would qualify as the opposite.
But surely we agree on this? Surely Bubba, Eric and Marshall agree that if they think the US were committing war crimes then the true patriot would be trying to hold that country accountable, while the cowards and do-nothings would be saying, "whatever."
You DO agree that we ought to stand opposed to our country when it is wrong, don't you? If so, then it just comes down to the specifics of a given situation, for surely we agree on the Ideal?
You weren't just talking about criticism of corruption or even war crimes, and that wasn't what I was criticizing. I made clear what I think is unpatriotic: your apparent belief that the United States is a rogue nation that should be isolated, marginalized, and invaded.
(To distort my comment -- and to say that I "burped" that comment -- is hardly an expression of the Christian charity that you so frequently encourage others to practice.)
I wasn't criticizing dissent, per se, but the much more radical position of believing that the United States should be invaded. These are two grossly different things, and an unwillingness or inability to discern the difference is evidence of the very moral relativism that you supposedly oppose.
You do this a lot, Dan, invoking a principle in very selective ways. You are very unprincipled in the principles to which you appeal.
For instance, here you appeal to opposition against the moral relativism that suggests that truly identical acts are morally different, but you are frequently guilty of this very same relativism when you conflate truly different acts, like mere dissent against our government and a belief that our nation should be invaded by foreign powers.
I would argue that you engage in moral relativism when you criticize the deliberate targeting of civilians: you imply that this is the issue even though our government typically takes great pains to minimize such casualties. You engage in it when you write how we're not free to drop bombs "willy nilly" on places like Montana or Iran as if A) the decision would be arbitrarily made and B) the differences are negligible between the government in Tehran and the one in Helena, at least regarding the propriety of the use of American military force.
William F. Buckley repudiated the moral equivalency between the Soviet Union and the United States this way: if one man pushes an old lady into the path of an oncoming bus, and another man pushes an old lady out of its path, we shouldn't denounce them both as men who push old ladies around.
But you seem to do exactly that. Indeed, the United States has supported despotic regimes, but it has usually been because it's the "least bad" option, because the direct promotion of democracy and individual liberty wasn't immediately possible.
(More moral means were not possible in part because people just like you and Bent were more focused on attacking Reagan than our real enemies. As much as the Left has complained about our supporting dictators, one would think that they would support a real sea change from that realpolitik and support the democratization of Iraq and Afghanistan, but it's becoming clear that the problem isn't how American interests were defended -- by dictators we propped up through proxies or by representative governments that our troops have nurtured with their own blood -- but the mere fact that American interests are being defended abroad.)
For the United States, supporting cooperative tyrants is very imperfect means for advancing the moral end of promoting Western values of individual liberty. For our enemies, tyranny is the point. This distinction eludes you entirely, and that's because you're hip-deep in moral relativism.
In another instance, you keep invoking the principles of American conservatism and our founding fathers, but you do so very selectively: you must do so in order to support the socialism -- i.e., the "intelligently regulated" free market -- you deem necessary for the sake of social justice, sustainable living, environmental protection, and whatever other reasons you can conceive. Whether the war in Iraq is an abuse of the federal government's power, at least the U.S. Constitution does explicitly enumerate waging war as one of the government's duties.
For what it's worth, I think the war in Iraq compares favorably to how Thomas Jefferson actually governed from the White House: he waged war against the pirates on the Barbary Coast, without a formal declaration of war from Congress. But your invocation of Jefferson can be nothing but unprincipled in light of your disdain for the ideas of limited government and individual liberty in the spheres of property rights and market economics.
You say you oppose moral relativism, but you engage in such relativism to paint an inaccurate and despicable equivalency between the United States and her enemies. And you talk about American conservatism and cite useful quotes from our founding fathers, but your support for massive economic regulation belies any ostensible commitment to individual freedom and to constitutionally limited government.
You do the very same thing when it comes to Christianity, claiming to defend what's biblical while writing off inumerable passages of the Bible, dismissing even crucial passages as atrocities, errors, and inrelevancies.
At least you're consistent when it comes to being inconsistent.
But surely we agree on this? Surely Bubba, Eric and Marshall agree that if they think the US were committing war crimes then the true patriot would be trying to hold that country accountable, while the cowards and do-nothings would be saying, "whatever."
Do we agree that patriotism is defined as love for one's country?
You believe that it's patriotic -- i.e., loving of one's country -- to believe that the United States should be "submitted to isolation, marginalization and, yes, even invasion"?
Love of country is not incompatible with the belief that it should be invaded, which would probably result in the dissolution of its government and would almost certainly result in the killing of at least some of its people?
That seems a far cry from a mantra that you've repeated quite a few times, as you do here:
"To suggest that all this 'love your enemy, overcome evil with good,' talk allows for sometimes killing them (and their children and neighbors) is to do damage to our language."
So:
- Love of country is wholly compatible with the belief that it should be invaded by foreign powers.
- "Love your enemy" is wholly incompatible with waging war on your enemy, even if that war is to hold that enemy accountible for its actions.
You can't love your enemy and support war being waged against your enemy, but you can your country and support war being waged against it.
Huh.
For what it's worth, I do think that, if a person thinks invasion by a foreign power really is in his country's best interest, then it can be said that he is patriotic, that he loves his country even if he's horribly (and perhaps dangerously) misguided.
But if a person does support a foreign invasion of his own country, his love of country can be reasonably questioned.
And I see my question remains unanswered: if a person supports the invasion of the United States by a foreign power, just what position would call into question his patriotism?
Apparently, Dan thinks the only answer is disagreeing with Dan about how wicked this country is.
Then let me be clear, I invoked Eric's words (which included the "invade" idea) to say that I think countries that commit war crimes should be held accountable. I don't desire that our nation be invaded. I DO want us to be held accountable.
My apologies for making it seem as though I favor an invasion. Now you know I don't and can understand the difference between my actual position and what you've suggested.
"...this clingy-ness you have for tangible constructs such as international law."
The United States of America operates under its own charter, Which we affectionately refer to as "The Constitution." We do not subject ourselves to International Law except where treaty dictates. We are not a member of the World Court. President Bush recently tried to get a Mexican national on death row in Texas a new trial in International Court, but the U.S. Supreme Court shot it down. As they should have. We are a nation governed by the Constitution, not International Law.
This is a disturbing trend here in the U.S.; judges and courts referring to international law in their decisions. In schools children are being taught to view their lives and responsibilities in global terms. But we do not live in a global society. The world is certainly on the cusp of one, but until we join the EU as a member nation, our laws trump international laws. We are an American society, despite international commerce, and the borders network news and entertainment open for us. We are Americans. Our duty is to America and the Constitution. Let me reiterate that.... This is America. We are governed by American law, and those treaties that affect our international policy.
You do acknowledge American Law in your rhetoric, as you should, but you appear to hold the laws and opinions of the world in higher regard. You are certainly a citizen of the United States, but you also appear, by virtue of your rhetoric, to claim citizenship with the world. Nothing wrong with that, per se, that is until you actively argue that the world's law and opinion should supersede that of America's.
It is true, as Bubba pointed out, that the U.S. has on occasion propped up one bad regime over another. The U.S. propped up Saddam over Iran's Ayatollah Khomeini. Neither men were worthy of U.S. support by themselves, but Saddam was considered the lesser of evils against Iran, especially after the fall of the Shah and the Hostage Crisis... which was but one nail of many in Carter's political coffin.
Nicaragua was another difficult decision. In the early to mid seventies the Somoza government embezzled hundreds of millions in foreign aid that poured in from around the world after the earthquake that leveled Managua. Carter, to his credit, couldn't support the Somoza government because of its corruption, but neither could he support the FSLN (Ortega's Marxist butchers). Reagan, on the other hand made a choice, albeit not a very pretty one, and supported the Contra rebels. When Ortega's new regime declared his six-year "State of Emergency" during which civil and human rights were suspended, it seems now that Reagan chose to support elements of the old Samozan guard, the Contras, as a lesser evil to the Marxist regime of FSLN and Daniel Ortega. This is neither a whitewash of American culpability that followed, or a complete and wholly accurate history, just a little background for those who don't remember the time.
The point being, America chose a lesser evil (a corrupt government) over a Marxist government. As America was still in the midst of the Cold War, Marxism was naturally viewed as the greater evil. Strictly from MY perspective, it is easier by far to allow a corrupt government to continue for a time in the hope that events and reforms can change the government, than to allow ANOTHER Marxist regime to flourish so close to America.
In hindsight, it was not the smartest decision. Better to have just let them kill each other.... but then, should America have stayed out of it? And allow tens of thousands of people be murdered between the two competing regimes? Blessed are the peacemakers? Should someone have stepped in?
the problem in our understanding Dan, is you selectively (and effectively, since most people don't bother to learn things for themselves) choose your rhetoric to present only one side. Then you conflate that one side into a horrendous crime against humanity of which some American president (typically Republican) is guilty.
In other words, you paint rouge on the cheeks of those you support and condemn the flaws and pimples as products of a vast right-wing conspiracy.
But to get back to my original point. You give the appearance of one ready to don the scarf and uniform of a child of the world, loving the world and its laws, above those of your own country.
And your repeated references to an American president bombing Israel is disturbing. I haven't decided whether this is done simply for shock value, to goad me personally, or whether you believe Israel could possibly deserve such. I understand the concept and rhetorical construct of "turning the tables" but to repeatedly choose Israel for American invasion and destruction, even for the sake of argument, gives the false impression that Iran could be morally and socially superior to Israel.
I do wonder whether you think that the patriotism can be questioned, of those who would support a foreign invasion of the U.S.
(Or those who preach from the pulpit that the murder of 3,000 American civilians is chickens coming home to roost. Or those who attended that preacher's church for literally decades.)
(Or those who plotted and committed acts of domestic terrorism, resulting in the murder of your fellow Americans. Or those whose political careers were practically christened by a fund-raiser hosted by one such unrepentant terrorist.)
I also wonder what specific actions you think are permissible in holding the United States government accountable for its supposed war crimes: if we're the rogue state you think we are, just what makes you think we'll heel because of some little declaration from the Hague? What do you think should be done if we don't?
But I would most like to see how you would answer your own question of who determines what actions constitute war crimes and which governments are guilty of such crimes and are therefore rogue nations.
Personally, I don't think that any regime that isn't even ostensibly limited by a written constitution has any legitimate voice in crafting laws that would limit the behavior of other nations. They are not governed by the rule of law themselves, so they have no say-so on the rule of law that would be imposed on others.
I also do not believe that a regime that does not have the consent of the governed has any legitmacy in deciding international law. No nation that prevents truly free elections has any right to cast a vote itself in an international body.
In other words, because it treats constitutional democracies as morally equivalent to tyrannical dictatorships, the United Nations is not a legitimate arbiter of international law.
If you disagree, I don't see how you're not guilty of moral relativism.
I would have much more support for a "League of Democracies", but beyond the likelihood that member nations would still vote their interests and not on principles, the big problem is that, while such limited membership would increase legitimacy, it would do nothing about authority: it would have the authority to dictate the rules of war for the U.S. and the U.K., but not for China or North Korea.
There isn't a sovereign source of governmental authority at the international level. Period.
If you set up an all-inclusive body like the U.N. as that authority, you're granting tyrannies the same moral authority as democracies: such a body is inherently illegitimate.
If you create an exclusive body like a League of Democracies, you end up excluding precisely those dictatorial regimes whose behavior is historically the most atrocious.
And... either way, you end up disproportionally hamstringing those Western democracies who are the best hope for resisting and defeating tyrannical governments. This entire discussion isn't really about holding all nations equally accountable for their behavior, and in proportion to the horrors of their worst acts: it's about holding the United States accountable. Because much of the Left thinks that the United States is inherently sinful, we will never have paid enough for what we have done to Native Americans, blacks, women, gays, Nicaraguans, Afghanis, and the civilians of Dresden and Hiroshima and -- guess what? -- the Left will never quite get around to holding North Korea accountable for the truly disgusting oppression of its people, or holding Iran accountable for continuing to seek nuclear weapons either to obliterate Israel or blackmail Europe.
And while the United States is put on trial time and again, year after year, the world will keep moving, and our enemies will grow in strength.
A less utopic (and therefore, much more practical and much less disastrous) approach is to leave world affairs in the hands of its sovereign states, letting those states deal with each other using diplomacy in all its forms: treaties in most circumstances, and warfare when it's necessary.
That won't mean that might makes right, but the right will ultimately be defended by might, which is a far safer bet than subjugating democracies to international bodies that lack either the intention or the capacity to effectively answer the most dangerous enemies of civilization.
..::CORRECTION::..
Everywhere "tangible constructs" appears, replace it with "intangible constructs"
For while "written law" is tangible in that you can hold up a sheet of vellum with Law beautifully written thereon, laws hold far more weight as written on human flesh; they are constructs of our conscience. What we deem to be right and wrong as dictated by our conscience.
The most recent contact between OBL and Saddam was in 1999. The Iraqi dictator had no connection with the 9-11 attacks. In what way does that place Iraq in "nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons..." That's the criteria the 2001 Congressional Authorization sets out.
AL Quaeda did not form until after the US invasion. So it is circular logic to say we have the right to invade a country to fight an enemy that only formed after we invaded the country. And the adjective specious might be added when you add the fact that Al Quaeda in Iraq isn't a part of the organization that attacked us on 9-11. It all goes back to that 2001 Congressional Authorization.
Eric: "In other words, [Dan] paints rouge on the cheeks of those [he] supports and condemns the flaws and pimples as products of a vast right-wing conspiracy."
"...or harbored such organizations or persons..."
My statement about "a personally revealed religious truth," came from the discussion between EL and Dan of presidents' faiths leading them to attack either Iran or Israel. I didn't mention George Bush at all in that comment. I was speaking generically. I think your own super-sensitivity is showing there.
My other statements about Iran were to give context to this bashing that EL was giving the country. If our goal is to militaristicaly promote democracy then we'd do better to turn our guns to Saudi Arabia. If we want to secure the safety of Israel we should be looking at Egypt. If we're gonna kill people to keep them from nukes, then we need to be discussing Pakistan. Iran should be much further down our list of military targets.
Thirdly Bubba takes a few stabs at the idea that countries and ideologies can battle in ways beyond bullets and bodies. He doesn't mention how economic warfare toppled the Soviet Union. He doesn't answer how our culture is invading and will eventually change China. He also doesn't answer the very real problems posed by our allies dependence on middle east oil. Can we attack a major oil producing country in that region without the tacit agreement of Great Britain, Germany and France? Not to mention Pakistan and China?
1) You write, "The Iraqi dictator had no connection with the 9-11 attacks." This is true; this is also not disputed. The Bush Administration never claimed a direct link between Iraq and 9/11, and the conventional narrative that it did is a lie.
2) You quote the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists, which was ratified in September 2001, but this was not the authorization for force against Iraq, which was ratified in October 2002. Even in the Wikipedia entry for the former, it includes this in the heading:
"Not to be confused with Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002."
3) I didn't write or imply that we invaded Iraq because of AQI. I'm just pointing out the obvious fact that your claim that they "aren't in fact affiliated" with AQA is nonsense: those names weren't an unfortunate coincidence, but rather a reflection of the fact that they are different franchises of the same organization, even if that organization has less of a central command structure.
AQI arose after the invasion. It isn't a justification for invading Iraq -- and was never presented as such by me, or by the Administration -- but their presence there now is a darn good reason not to declare defeat.
You write that it's specious even to connect even AQI -- not Hussein's Baathist regime, but al Queda in Iraq -- with the 9/11 attacks. You write that "Al Quaeda in Iraq isn't a part of the organization that attacked us on 9-11."
This is the sort of thing I'm embarrassed to see other people write.
If some nut in west Tennessee were to form an organization called Al Queda in Memphis, he would not have ipso facto been part of the conspiracy to conduct the 9/11 attacks, but it's still self-evident that he's declaring an allegiance with the organization that conducted the attacks. It doesn't matter if he has never met another member of the terrorist organization; it doesn't matter if he is acting entirely on his own; he has clearly joined al Queda.
What you apparently want is that we not take these people at their word. By their very name, the terrorists in AQI have joined ranks with those who attacked us on 9/11. For reasons I cannot fathom other than the most knee-jerk opposition to Bush or the U.S. (or both), you think that their express allegiance is irrelevant.
The position is literally deranged.
I apologize if you should think that's what I've said. I have not said that, not did I intend it.
What I DID say was to point to what you had said, Eric ("A rogue nation, therefore, is any nation that does not play by the rules established by the majority."), and then I asked you, "By what rules are you going to hold Iran accountable?" If you dismiss the notion of international rules (you appeared to support it earlier, are you saying now that you DON'T support "playing by the rules established by the majority"?), then on what grounds will you hold them accountable?
Is the rule you are advocating that ALL nations are accountable to US law? Will the US likewise, be accountable to all other nations' laws (I doubt seriously you are advocating that)?
The thing is, Eric, you and others here have come out in favor of breaking our own laws and committing war crimes if somebody (the president?) says the cause is right and just. If you are advocating sometimes committing something as horrifying as war crimes, it seems like the onus is on you and yours to tell us by what rules we shall know when it is acceptable and right to commit war crimes.
I hope you can appreciate how confusing the position you all seem to be advocating is for many of us.
It sounds like you are saying:
1. We OUGHT to obey US rules.
2. But sometimes, we ought NOT obey US rules.
3. The US ought not obey international rules.
4. Other nations ought to obey international rules.
5. When someone (the president and the Southern Baptist Convention, maybe?) decides that some nation is a rogue nation, then we are obliged to obey no rules. We may drop nukes, torture, whatever. It's all good.
6. But, of course, torture and dropping nukes by the bad guys is always wrong.
7. And it's usually wrong for us to do it, UNLESS we're dealing with a "rogue nation," then it is good and acceptable for us to engage in such activity.
8. The way we know a nation is a rogue nation is if they do not "play by the rules established by the majority."
9. But if the US does not play by those rules, well, that's good because international laws don't apply to us...
And on it goes. I hope you'll appreciate that many find your position less than clear and not a little lawless and vague and up to the whims of the president or some as-yet-unidentified group.
Thirdly Bubba takes a few stabs at the idea that countries and ideologies can battle in ways beyond bullets and bodies. He doesn't mention how economic warfare toppled the Soviet Union. He doesn't answer how our culture is invading and will eventually change China. He also doesn't answer the very real problems posed by our allies dependence on middle east oil. Can we attack a major oil producing country in that region without the tacit agreement of Great Britain, Germany and France? Not to mention Pakistan and China?
1) The Soviet Union also collapsed because it attempted to keep up with an American military buildup, including SDI.
2) I didn't know I was expected to "answer" a question about western culture and China, a question that was never raised.
3) I'm not sure you've addressed the "very real problems" of letting Iran become a nuclear power. I'm not saying that attacking Iran would be easy and cost-free, but I'm not sure you've considered the costs of doing nothing of any real use.
In general, I really am a fan of non-violent means of dealing with other nations, but from Iran's current aid to those who are killing Americans in Iraq going all the way back to the hostage crisis, I'd say that Iran has long ago declared war on us.
The only questions are, when we will recognize that we are already at war with Iran, and what will be the costs in the interim?
But I tell you this. China and Pakistan get a lot of oil from Iran. They aren't going to be happy about us interrupting their economies. Both of those countries are already nuclear capable.
Great Britain is NOW paying $USD-9 for a gallon of gas. How would they feel about us attacking a major middle east oil producer? Great Britain is a nuclear capable nation. So are France and Russia.
So far neither Bubba or EL in their warmongering jingoism have addressed this issue.
If I made as many idiotic comments in a single thread about a single subject as you have, I would be a little more reluctant to continue to weigh in.
Instead, you continue to embarrass yourself.
You point out that Britain, France, China, Russia, and Pakistan are all already nuclear nations, but what's your point? Is even China or Russia going to declare nuclear war on us if we use military force against Iran? Does the fact that democracies like France and rational tyrannies like China have the bomb make it any more intelligent to allow a madman like Ahmedinejad to aquire nukes?
Though you accuse me (wrongly, as if that's a shock) of not addressing the costs of acting against Iran, I will reiterate that I don't doubt acting against Iran would have negative consequences on the global economy and on our other international relationships. What you have yet to count is the cost of inaction: are the costs of waiting for Iran to get nukes really worth the short-term benefits of ignoring the problem?
You say that agencies estimate Iran is 4-10 years away from getting a nuke, but there was pretty substantial consensus in 2002 that Iraq had WMD's. If we were wrong to trust our sources then, is it altogether prudent to trust them unquestioningly now? Is it worse to stop Iran a decade before it gets nukes, or to wait to act a week after its first demonstration of a successful nuclear arsenal?
None of these questions you seem willing even to consider. You're too busy accusing me of "warmongering jingoism," which reinforces my earlier point.
You'd rather villify your political opponents than deal seriously with the very dangerous enemies of Western democracy.
The point being, America chose a lesser evil (a corrupt government) over a Marxist government.
This would be more accurately stated as:
The point being, America chose a lesser evil (a corrupt government that strove to overthrow Ortega using illegally US-sponsored and funded terrorism) over a Democratically-elected Socialist -leaning government.
The Sandinistas overthrew the corrupt and oppressive Somoza regime (which had been installed and propped up for 50+ years!! by the US) and, within a couple of years, elected Ortega and as a whole, the People were quite pleased with the direction of the gov't. It was not a perfect democracy by any means, but it was a democracy with economic decisions made by the People.
This is the problem with what you have left unsaid: WHO GETS TO DECIDE WHICH REGIMES ARE "ROGUE"? Reagan chose to overthrow a sovereign democratic nation by USING TERRORISTS!! based on him deciding rather arbitrarily that Nicaragua was a "rogue" nation.
This can not stand. It is the flaw in what you appear to be advocating. We can't just let our presidents say, "hmmm, I don't like THAT democracy, I will call them 'rogue' and overthrow them. And I can do it using terrorism!"
THIS IS NOT THE AMERICA THAT WAS INTENDED. That was an ugly parody of American values that undermined our true values and caused great harm to world peace. Not to mention the 30,000 Nicaraguans killed by Reagan's terrorists!
We are a nation of laws and rules.
And so I repeat: On what basis are you suggesting that we say, "Okay, with THIS nation, we can ignore our values, morals and laws and we can go ahead and commit war crimes because I (says some Rogue president) have decided it should be so."
No, no, no, a thousand times, no.
That's my opinion. But what do you say? What rules shall we adhere to? On what basis do we ignore our own laws?
Bush made it abundantly clear following 9/11 that every nation supporting terror should be on alert. Hussein made a public announcement of paying $25K to the families of suicide bombers. Sounds like terrorism support to me.
Also, even though Pakistan has nukes, they have not made the insane pronouncements Mahmoud has made. Is it troubling for Pakistan to have them? Perhaps, but so far, they've not made any threats of which I'm aware.
As I've looked into the history of the Nicaraguan story, I've yet to find where we installed Somoza. Supported, yes. Installed, not as far as I can tell. Installed and supported by a several Dem presidents and a couple of moderate Republicans. I've also noticed that our involvement under Reagan was not "criminal" at first, but eventually the Dem Congress (no surprise there) chose to to cut off aid to the Contras fighting the communist Ortega and Reagan saw fit to continue. Again, that might not have been the best idea, maybe yes, maybe no. I fully believe you overstate the love the people had for Ortega, though at the time of his first coming to power, the people were ready for any change. Later, not so much, but Ortega had gotten the election laws changed to enable him to regain the presidency with only 35% of the vote. If he was so freakin' popular, why was THAT necessary? You also seem to disregard the forced displacement of native Indians by the Sandinistas and the deaths that went along with it. Dissappearances and killings were not unheard of at their hands. But, as so many leftists do with regards to Iraqi civilian deaths, you lay Nicaraguan deaths at the hands of those rejecting communist rule and Reagan. Yeah, yeah, I know you've spoken to some old woman, and I'm sure a few others, but we have people like you in this country so willing to believe crap, why would it be different in the third world? To be totally school yard about it, you're type supported both evils in that country, from FDR to the Dem congress during Reagan's term. My type fought against the commies, and as the spread of such was still going on pretty strongly, I continue to give Reagan props for recognizing the greater evil communism was.
My apologies then, for the use of the word, installed. Here's is a timeline with some info about how he came to power with our help and stayed in power with our help.
But probably any source I offer you, you will not trust, so there you go.
I've also noticed that our involvement under Reagan was not "criminal" at first, but eventually the Dem Congress (no surprise there) chose to to cut off aid to the Contras fighting the communist Ortega and Reagan saw fit to continue.
Again, you all are reframing history, choosing to call people who engaged in terrorism contras and whitewash their documented abuses. You are ignoring the fact that the Sandinistas led a popular people's revolution and were democratically elected.
For my part, I gladly admit they were a flawed democracy. There were abuses. There were probably some illegal deaths. And this is not a good thing.
But then, they were restarting a gov't after a revolution that deposed an oppressive regime that had been in power for some 50 years. The people of Nicaragua (and I've been there, I've talked to them, I've friends who live there) were happy with the way things were going. Their literacy had jumped from one of the lowest in Latin America to one of the highest. Their health care had improved. Child mortality was down.
They were a sovereign nation and the US had no right to support terrorists to overthrow it.
So, I repeat: BY WHAT RULES are you wanting to live by?
As far as I can tell, you seem to be living in fear and your best answer is "Might makes Right," and rules just don't apply to us because we're the most powerful nation in the world. And therefore, you support keeping a MASSIVE GOV'T spending program going to keep us with the largest most expensive expansive deadly military in history.
I would suggest that the American people, our founding fathers, and basic human morality (let alone Christianity) would reject that approach IF it's what you're saying.
So, what rules are you suggesting we live by? Who decides which nations are rogue and therefore expendable? By what authority?
This debate is not about Nicaragua except as an example of how the best of intentions can go horribly awry. There are unintended consequences in every action, every single person makes, and neither laws nor rules can make accommodation for infractions... unless you break the law, bend the rule, and force accommodation for circumstance.
As for war crimes, it's a crime to not feed prisoners of war so, technically, should a single prisoner miss a single meal, for whatever reason, that is a crime of war... a war crime. But in your world a crime is a "crime," and in typical liberal knee jerk fashion it is promptly labeled "Horrifying" because surely this was intentional-- despite the fact that it may not have been.
Your confusion appears to lie in your inability to recognize that even "good" law-abiding nations can do stupid things, and because something untoward occurs as a result, it is therefore a "war crime."
Stealing is a crime, but even Ben will argue that stealing to feed ones family is at worst, a morally-gray offense suffused with mitigating circumstance-- in other words, gray areas the strict letter of the law cannot make accommodation for.
You're beginning to remind me of Inspector Javert from Victor Hugo's Les Miserables, so obsessed with the letter of the law that you've lost sight of humanity and its God-granted basic human dignities. You certainly adopt this role in regard to George W. Bush. Eighteenth century France had an excessively harsh and overall abominable justice system. Is that the kind world you want to live in?
My rules hold a nation's history into account; their rhetoric, their actions toward their neighbors, circumstance, intention... and any number of other things. Your strict adherence to the word of law stifles your ability to deal fairly and justly. All laws do this to one degree or the other.
Only God Himself has the ability to deal solely in absolutes. We men must weigh the actions... the fruits... of other men and nations before passing judgment.
. . . . . . . .
In case I have nothing more to say this evening:
Tomorrow begins my weekly three day tour-de-force of work, work, and more work. I'll try to keep up, but my comments will be fewer in number. Have fun, and play nice.
IF you're saying that their are times when we can commit war crimes - when another nation is a "rogue nation" - who decides what makes for a "rogue nation?"
By what standards?
Do you mean if they break international law?
Simple questions for a serious topic. Some here are advocating the US break our own laws and commit war crimes, I'm asking on what basis.
And Eric, I'm guessing you understand the difference between "missing a meal" and 30,000 deaths, rapes, maimings, destruction of villages. I've met with the victims of US terrorism in Nicaragua. It was not a "missed meal" that we're talking about. We're talking about serious war crimes.
On what basis?
WHAT rules? I've asked repeatedly and you have not provided any that I've seen. I apologize if I've missed them, just point me to them so I can read the answer to these questions:
Who decides who is a rogue nation?
On what basis?
Nice chronology. I have to concede with one caveat, that being that going back to the dawn of time won't cut it. It is just the same as anti-Christian goofballs going back to the Crusades to make their point. In addition, the piece says at one point that the US was expelled, and then in the next, that the US left Somoza in charge. How could we have left anyone in charge if we were expelled? Doesn't make sense.
But more importantly, you seem to think that a few anecdotal stories of people you know seal the deal. Do you believe there was no one in East Berlin who thought it was the place to be? Or in China right now? Yet in each place where communists rule, there are plenty who wish things were otherwise. So you've spoken to a few who are pissed at Reagan. Those Reagan supported were not getting the bennies the others got because they rejected their commie rulers. So you whitewash or minimalize their suffering and highlight the "terrorism" they allegedly perpetrated. The Sandinistas perpetrated many horrors and blamed their opponents, a common practice of communist regimes. You seem to believe that because Ortega was re-elected that he was beloved and the chosen one, when I've explained he changed the rules to his advantage. If he was universally supported by his own people, he could have won with a larger percentage of the vote. He didn't. Your argument is Reagan hatred, just as you now suffer from Bush hatred.
Why are you going on about the rules? I believe the positions of Eric and Bubba have been reasonably explained.
For myself, I'll try to be more explicit.
Whatever rules of decency and international understanding are now in play work for me just fine as long as everyone else is on the same page. Rogue nations are those that, like Iran, send weapons to those we fight, provide space in Iran for training to fight against us or our allies, and make constant threats as does Mahmoud and Hussein. I hardly consider it a war crime to send planes to demolish a nuclear facility that is in the process of building weapons, when the nation that has such a facility has done the things that Iran has done. Obvoiusly anyone within that facility is likely to sustain injury or worse, and that goes with being a part of the problem.
Let's look locally.
In this country, we have numerous gangs that terrorize communities all over. We have street gangs, biker gangs, and other form of organized crime, all who deal in criminal activities that serve to damage the freedom and rights of innocent, law-abiding people. It is illegal in this country to be a vigilante, but if I thought law enforcement people were systematically eliminating elements of the above mentioned groups, it would please me greatly. I know our laws require the arrest and imprisonment of vigilantes. And we probably should continue doing so. But the vigilantes are doing a great service doing away with those who threaten the safety of fellow Americans.
The cops know who the bad guys are. The Int'l community knows who the rogue nations are. Not playing hardball allows for them to complete their plans. I know it's a dangerous game, but blatant offenders gain power by the inaction of good people. You want a smoking gun. What you really get is a smoking city. True despots are easy to identify. We know them by their actions and words. No one in our government has in any way been acting in such a manner. We have a president who calls evil by it's name and you want to quibble and wonder what if the bad guys felt the same way. The bad guys already feel a bit more insidious and malevolent. If you have trouble telling the good guys from the bad guys, then perhaps you should go back to singing Kumbaya and leave such matters to those with clear vision.
Your question of who decides is a question that goes both ways. You want a decision by popular vote? Who's to say that the majority would be right? We have half a nation that can't tell the difference between Bush and the scumbags that we fight. We elect our president to lead and make such decisions on our behalf. There's no voting on every decision that faces him. He takes advice, looks at data and intel and makes his decision. That's how it works.
As Eric has said, we are not a terrorist sponsoring nation or a rogue state. The Constitution gives the prez the power to decide where to send troops and quite frankly, you'd have no problem if the decision was always to keep the troops home, no matter how many people suffer as a result. It's naive to ever try to equate our presidents, at least the ones we've had, to dictators and terrorists. It's shameful in fact and contemptable.
If the authorities do not enforce the law... and the United States of America does NOT enforce immigration laws... then the law is broken.
. . . . .
To you, Dan, I can only say read my last response very carefully, and repeatedly. Sooner or later you'll find the answers you seek. I have been clear. But I guess because I didn't annotate each point with a sequence of numbers or letters you're having difficulty. Not trying to be snarky here, I'm just tired and have a long day ahead of me tomorrow.
I will clarify one point.
Question: Who decides which nation is "rouge"?
Answer: The "Rouge" nation itself.
By its very actions and rhetoric it tells the world community exactly what it is. The United States is NOT a rouge nation. Iran, and North Korea certainly are.
If the man across the street has a history of sexual abuse, and spends much of his time watching the local swimming pool with a pair of binoculars, chances are that man is a sexual violation waiting to happen. The same with Iran, which has a history of violence-- toward westerners in particular --and a tongue primed with rhetorical violence. Iran has demonstrated its lack of respect for the sovereignty of other nations, and its utter disregard for the civil rights of not only its own citizens but non-muslims as well. They fund and supply Hezbollah whose stated goal is the destruction of Israel...
ERGO: Iran is truly a rouge nation. A prime sponsor of terrorism and terrorists.
Good Heavens, Dan. Can you not see the logic in that? Why continue this any further if you can't even recognize THAT much? All you're doing at this point is wasting my time.
"By its very actions and rhetoric it tells the world community exactly what it is."
There isn't a "check-list" for determining who is and who is not a rouge nation. It's a matter of degrees... a stacking of straws upon a camel's back. Sooner or later the "façade of civility" collapses, and the rouge nation is thereby known.
Marshall said:
Rogue nations are those that, like Iran, send weapons to those we fight, provide space in Iran for training to fight against us or our allies, and make constant threats as does Mahmoud and Hussein.
So, Marshall appears to be saying the rule is (although you've made the US the center of the universe in your answer, so correct me if I'm wrong) that it makes one a rogue nation to send weapons to other nations? Is that the rule? To make constant threats? To provide space for training soldiers/terrorists?
I suppose you know that the US does or has done all of these. So are you saying that the US is a rogue nation?
(I'm looking for a rule that applies to the world, because you can't expect Iran to abide by US rules, surely?)
Eric said:
By its very actions and rhetoric it tells the world community exactly what it is. The United States is NOT a rouge nation. Iran, and North Korea certainly are.
SO, are you saying that if a nation has a history of invading other nations and behaving belligerently, they are a rogue nation?
What rules have they broken to be considered a rogue nation that the US has not also broken?
It seems to me that both of your vague answers would indict the US as a rogue nation. Help me understand your position because the more y'all talk the less I'm seeing if you are advocating lawlessness or if you're calling the US a rogue nation, by your definitions of what rules ought apply.
[You know, it might help if you were to say:
You are a rogue nation if you commit X action
X action shows that you are a rogue nation because it violates the rule found here:___________ (and provide what rule they're breaking - y'all haven't addressed the second quesetion, by what authority? It seems y'all are simultaneously saying nations ought to abide by some international rules, but the US doesn't have to).]
1. We OUGHT to obey US rules.
2. But sometimes, we ought NOT obey US rules.
3. The US ought not obey international rules.
4. Other nations ought to obey international rules.
5. When someone (the president and the Southern Baptist Convention, maybe?) decides that some nation is a rogue nation, then we are obliged to obey no rules. We may drop nukes, torture, whatever. It's all good.
6. But, of course, torture and dropping nukes by the bad guys is always wrong.
7. And it's usually wrong for us to do it, UNLESS we're dealing with a "rogue nation," then it is good and acceptable for us to engage in such activity.
8. The way we know a nation is a rogue nation is if they do not "play by the rules established by the majority."
9. What that means is, if a nation:
a. sells or gives arms/military support to a "bad" country or leader
b. makes threats to other nations
c. provide training space for soldiers/terrorists from other nations
d. If they "behave like" a rogue nation, then they are a rogue nation
10. But if the US does not play by those rules or if the US behaves in some of these same ways, well, that's good because international laws don't apply to us...
As to: Why am I going on about the rules?
Because some here are advocating war crimes and atrocities - breaking our own laws. Killing innocent people. Deadly serious stuff.
I want to know under what circumstances we ought to commit war crimes and break our own laws. It is a very reasonable question.
Your answers, thus far, on the other hand...
So, is this your best answer as I've outlined above? And, if so, then it would appear that you are calling the US a rogue nation. I guess except that one of your rules appears to be "but the US doesn't apply for all this - we're a special situation and above these rules."
Is that your final answer?
- Do you think that the patriotism can be questioned, of those who would support a foreign invasion of the U.S.?
- What specific actions do you think are permissible in holding the United States government accountable for its supposed war crimes: if we're the rogue state you think we are, just what makes you think we'll heel because of some little declaration from the Hague? What do you think should be done if we don't?
- Most importantly, how you would answer your own question of who determines what actions constitute war crimes and which governments are guilty of such crimes and are therefore rogue nations?
About Nicaragua, your concern for justice and your opposition to historical revisionism appear to be like many of your other principles: extremely selective.
You act like a full-blown Marxist apologist the way you so passionately and unequivocally criticize the perceived sins of the United States while making every effort to legitimize the Sandinistas.
"This will not stand."
"No, no, no, a thousand times, no."
Have you ever been so passionate in defending the United States from its very dangerous enemies, as you are here in criticizing the United States? I sincerely doubt it.
But your conviction and moral clarity becomes suddenly quite muddled when discussing other governments.
"For my part, I gladly admit they were a flawed democracy. There were abuses. There were probably some illegal deaths. And this is not a good thing.
"But then..."
Ah. "But then." Now there's a phrase I doubt we'll often see you apply to Reagan or Bush.
After conceding that there were probably -- only "probably" -- some eggs that were broken, you go back to praising the omelet made in the wake of the glorious revolution: the same things Castro's apologists have pointed to for decades, education and health care.
Bent described Iran's president as democratically elected without noting that the Supreme Leader is the true head of state or noting that candidates for president must be approved by the Iranian government. Likewise, you harp on the claim that the Sandinistas' regime was democratically elected without noting, as Marshall does, how strained that claim can be. Just how democratic is a state where only one political party is permitted?
(It's a kind of compliment to the classical liberalism of the Western democracies that despotic regimes routinely emulate democratic mechanisms, at least superficially: it's an acknowledgement that consent of the governed really does lend a unique legitimacy to a government. How many Soviet satellite states called themselves "democratic republics"? It's a continued shame that so many useful idiots seem willing to take that description at face value.)
But, most strikingly, for all your complaining about how others reframe history, you ignore the biggest elephant in the room.
The Soviet elephant.
I don't believe there's one mention of the fact that the Soviets and the Cubans aided the Sandinistas throughout their revolution and their rule.
Nicaragua was yet another front in the Cold War, another conflict-by-proxy between the United States and the Soviet Union.
By ignoring this reality, you portray the Sandinistas as a purely "homegrown" organization rather than an extension of Soviet power, and you portray their revolution as a purely internal affair rather than yet another attempt at Soviet expansion.
Your narrative is that the big mean American bully interfered with a domestic, democratic revolution, when the reality is that our efforts were an attempt -- however flawed or misguided you think they may have been -- to prevent the Soviet Union from establishing another dictatorial satellite state in the Western Hemisphere.
Personally, I wish there would have been better options than supporting the Contras, and it's a shame people like you limited our options because of anti-anti-Communism -- in this case, a hatred for Reagan that trumped concerns about an expanding Soviet Empire.
Even with the context of the Cold War, and of Soviet involvement in Nicaragua, reasonable people can probably disagree (to some degree) on the efficacy, the morality, and the legality of the actions of the Reagan Administration.
But your attempt to ignore that context shows that your concern isn't a fair assessment of American foreign policy in light of an accurate record of history.
It's character assassination on a national scale.
Such behavior would be bad enough if there were no consequences, but there are very serious consequences for such reflexive self-loathing: it threatens to paralyze us in the face of truly dangerous totalitarian enemies, to render us impotent in the defense of the American values that you claim to value so very highly.
Your ahistorical attacks on our country's foreign policy is thus unethical and imprudent.
The Sandinistas overthrew the corrupt and oppressive Somoza regime (which had been installed and propped up for 50+ years!! by the US) and, within a couple of years, elected Ortega and as a whole, the People were quite pleased with the direction of the gov't. It was not a perfect democracy by any means, but it was a democracy with economic decisions made by the People.
This is the problem with what you have left unsaid: WHO GETS TO DECIDE WHICH REGIMES ARE "ROGUE"? Reagan chose to overthrow a sovereign democratic nation by USING TERRORISTS!! based on him deciding rather arbitrarily that Nicaragua was a "rogue" nation.
Note:
1. Dan doesn't just blame the U.S. for the Contras, he also blames us for the regime the Sandinistas overthrew.
2. Dan concedes that theirs "wasn't a perfect democracy by any means", but by writing that the Sandinistas overthrew an oppressive regime, he implies that their government -- with its many Marxist, ostensibly democratic economic "reforms" -- wasn't also oppressive.
(Dan seems to have a real blind spot when it comes to the principle of individual economic liberty.)
3. Dan says that the Contras were terrorists (sorry, "TERRORISTS!!") while not noting the, um, guerilla tactics that the Sandistas employed to overthrow the prior regime.
4. Ignoring Soviet expansion not only in that they aided the Sandinistas but also in that it was a factor in American Cold-War calculations, Dan asserts that Reagan "rather arbitrarily" decided to support the Contras. Ronald Reagan wasn't just wrong, Dan thinks he was capricious.
In no way could this analysis be considered fair or remotely objective, and it continues to highlight Dan's partisan selectiveness when it comes to facts and principles.
I've allowed that the Sandinistas were not a perfect democracy. But from sources on the ground, most atrocities (by far - not even a contest) in the Contra war were committed by the Contras, who were funded by the US which was opposed to the Ortega gov't, and so since they were underfunded and fighting a war against a vastly wealthier US-backed insurgency, they turned for support to the Soviets. You find that surprising?
Regardless, the point I'm making (and which you're trying to twist into a partisan issue when it is clearly not) is that they were a sovereign democratic state. We had no right to try to overthrow them. It was against our values and against our laws.
And this is why I'm asking you and the others here: What rules are you advocating? Who gets to decide who is a rogue nation based on what criteria?
I don't have a say in how Nicaragua runs herself. I am not a resident there. If I lived in Nicaragua, I'd criticize it most harshly for its leaders' bad behaviors. But I DON'T live in Nica, I live in the US.
It's like this: If I have a 15 year old son who beats up a 7 year old child, I will be outraged at my son. Now, when he tells me that the child was throwing stones at him, I understand more completely, and STILL I am outraged with my son. Why? Because he is MY son and I am the one responsible for teaching him how to live and it is just wrong to beat up 7 year olds when you're 15.
What part of this are you not understanding?
I will also reiterate that I've specifically asked you questions that you have yet to acknowledge, much less answer.
It doesn't seem to me that you're simply asking questions, as here you're making very specious claims about American foreign policy, and at your own blog you've taken to using your arguably unfair and inaccurate summary of ELAshley's position to bash conservatives in general.
(I seem to remember that you used to be quite keen on insisting that others should cite what people actually wrote rather than use summaries, but even then you had no problem crafting bad-faith summaries of what others have written.)
About your admission that the Sandinistas were aided by the Soviets, your claim is ahistorical nonsense, but it's not surprising to see you blame America first: you claim that it's America's backing of the Contras that led to Soviet involvement.
This is untrue. The reason Reagan aided the Contras was that, alongside Soviet-backed Cuba, Nicaragua was already fomenting Marxist revolutions in other Latin American countries, such as El Salvador. The degree to which the Soviet Union directly aided Nicaragua before the Contras can be debated, but what can't is this: before the U.S. ever decided to intervene, Nicaragua was already behaving as a Soviet satellite and was facillitating the expansion of Soviet power in the Western Hemisphere.
The point you say you're making -- "that they were a sovereign democratic state. We had no right to try to overthrow them. It was against our values and against our laws." -- still involves a strained claim that the Nicaraguan government was truly democratic and even ignores the Nicaraguan efforts to foment revolutions among its neighbors.
You whitewash our enemies while villifying the United States.
First, again I think you're being quite selective in invoking America's ideals. Its central premise of individual freedom has always included economic freedom, but when asked if you support a truly free market, your response was not just no, it was "hell no."
Even focusing on the issues you raise here, you don't seem too interested in the rule of law when it comes to evaluating the legality of the supposedly intelligent economic regulations you advocate: the U.S. Constitution does not give the federal government the expressed power to regulate prices or other market factors, but that doesn't bother you.
And your outrage over the death of the innocent rings hollow since I've never seen you write anything passionately against abortion: one of the few times I find that you've mentioned abortion, here you're critical of opposition to abortion, writing that it is "either absent from Jesus' teachings or actively opposed by Jesus' teachings".
("Hey, I'm against abortion-as-birth control. But clearly Jesus never spoke directly to abortion." This is not an exhibit of any sort of outrage against the holocaust of legalized abortion on demand.)
But even if I were to accept that you're sincere in your inconsistent defense of American ideals, the second problem is that you aren't simply more critical of the United States than of other countries: you're dishonestly critical.
You can argue, for instance, that Reagan's support of the Contras was immoral or illegal, but it certainly wasn't capricious, so it's grossly unfair to accuse Reagan of acting "rather arbitrarily."
Likewise, it's unfair to claim that Nicaragua was more democratic than it was, or to whitewash the Sandinistas' violent, oppressive behavior by simply saying their government "wasn't perfect."
It's one thing to hold your son to a higher standard than other people's children. It's another thing entirely to treat other children as more angelic than they are and to criticize your son for things he didn't do. Such behavior isn't healthy and loving, it's abusive and hateful.
But even if your criticism was from a consistent application of American ideals (it isn't) and from a fair and honest evaluation of history (it isn't), it is still dangerous to America's ideals to hold what you call a "special rage" for its sins.
By making the perfect the enemy of the good, you're enabling the truly bad.
By harping on the United States as an imperfect and inconsistent defender of Western civilization and its principles of individual liberty, you're giving room to those who are our wholehearted enemies, who seek the destruction of our civilization and who actively oppose its principles.
A true defender of American principles would not making punishing America for its deviations from those principles a priority over repudiating those who actively oppose those principles.
What can I say about a person whose "special rage" against his own country overrides both his country's best interests and even the long-term defense of its noble principles? At best, his stated love for HIS country is real but woefully misapplied. At worst, it's a useful fiction providing cover for the hate he bears for his country.
1. While it may not seem to you that I'm simply asking questions, that is primarily what I'm doing.
2. I have responded to some misconceptions/misperceptions of what I've said when people have wandered over to other areas, but I've primarily been simply trying to get answers to the questions I'll repeat below.
3. I don't believe it's an unfair summary of Eric and Marshall's positions, as I've repeatedly asked them to get their feedback ("are you saying....?" "Do you mean...?") with even going so far as offering up a summary (twice!) of what I'm understanding them to say (which I've made clear here and on my blog) and asked for response ("So, is this your best answer as I've outlined above?").
4. Since it was based on what they actually said and since I have had no corrections, I'm inclined to think that this is what they're saying. BUT, I'm glad for them to correct me where I'm wrong. I'm asking for them to do so.
5. From where I sit, it sounds like they're advocating breaking our laws and I'm asking them, "on what basis?" Because they (and you) are the ones who at least sound like you're advocating breaking US law and commiting war crimes, I think these are reasonable questions to ask and to expect answers.
6. Marshall has stated (and none of you have disagreed) "With them [so-called "rogue nations"], rules don't count. Against them, rules tie our hands and make us vulnerable. Nothing is off the table when dealing with such nations."
7. I'm asking THESE questions, which have been unanswered or vaguely answered (especially the ones asking "on what grounds?":
a. Who decides which nations are "rogue nations?"
b. On what criteria are they to be considered "rogue nations?"
c. Who decides that, "okay, now that we've determined they're rogue nations, I will now break the law against torture and unprovoked attacks, but I won't break the laws against targeting civilians?" ie, how far will we go once we start breaking the laws and who decides?
d. If our president decides to do so because it strikes him/her as a good idea, will you protest if we disagree and charge him with war crimes, which, after all, he has committed?
e. If we don't believe the US is obliged to obey international law, on what basis will you decide if other nations have crossed a line and can therefore be attacked?
Because they (and you) are the ones who at least sound like you're advocating breaking US law and commiting war crimes, I think these are reasonable questions to ask and to expect answers.
And me? Based on what? I can speak for no one else, and let the others defend themselves, because they can do so quite well, but what specifically have I wrote that makes you think that I advocate breaking US law and committing war crimes?
You have spoken supportingly of Reagan's illegal activities in Nicaragua and so it sounds as if you are okay with such, but you tell me.
I'd be glad to hear that you disagree with Marshall and Eric and think we ought NOT break our laws when it comes to activities as serious as war crimes and invading other countries and assassinations and the like.
It's just when you write things like, "I wish there would have been better options than supporting the Contras," it sounds like you're agreeing with Reagan that, despite our laws and a specific demand from Congress to keep out, you agree with supporting those terrorists.
Feel free to correct me.
c. Who decides that, "okay, now that we've determined they're rogue nations, I will now break the law against torture and unprovoked attacks, but I won't break the laws against targeting civilians?" ie, how far will we go once we start breaking the laws and who decides?
d. If our president decides to do so because it strikes him/her as a good idea, will you protest if we disagree and charge him with war crimes, which, after all, he has committed?
I believe the Bush Administration has not taken the position that it has broken any law, much less that it has committed war crimes. You're stealing more than one rhetorical base to presume otherwise.
(Though I note that you think Bush's actions struck him as a good idea. I suppose this is a step up from saying Reagan acted "rather arbitrarily," but it's not much of one.)
I'd be glad to hear that you disagree with Marshall and Eric and think we ought NOT break our laws when it comes to activities as serious as war crimes and invading other countries and assassinations and the like.
I don't see where ELAshley or Marshall advocated that the U.S. President should violate U.S. law: to say that you've summarized it thus and they haven't corrected you is quite literally an argument from silence.
And your presumption of what qualifies as "war crimes" is more base-stealing.
It's just when you write things like, "I wish there would have been better options than supporting the Contras," it sounds like you're agreeing with Reagan that, despite our laws and a specific demand from Congress to keep out, you agree with supporting those terrorists.
I believe the Reagan Administration held the position that laws like the Boland Amendment did not prevent the administration from funding the Contras through non-federal sources, and I believe the administration denied the charge, for instance, that the Contras indiscriminately targeted civilians.
Because I do wish that better options were available, it does not follow that I believe this particular option was illegal and that the Contras were terrorists.
You act as if, even though I defend Iran-Contra, I still agree with your evaluation of its legality and morality. This is bizarre, partially because my defense has been in response to your distortions of the historical record. You've been villifying Reagan while whitewashing the Sandinistas, and I've been calling you on it, so I can't imagine what would make you think I accept your premises in general.
Part of the problem is an appeal to international law.
There is no such thing as international law.
You can't point to a discrete, concrete set of laws contained a specific text or series of texts, issued by a legitimate governing body that has a truly global authority.
No such body exists. A truly global body would contain member states that have no regard for the rule of law or consent of the governed, both being necessary for the legitimacy of the laws that member states would craft.
International law is a fiction, but it's not even an especially useful one. Both theoretically and in actuality, its primary result is to hinder the actions of the most moral nations -- the Western democracies -- not the worst tyrannies. The United Nations is far more likely to induce Western Europe to abide by some silly "fair trade" laws that it would ever do anything truly productive to end any number of third-world genocides.
(When Bush appealed to the UN regarding Resolution 1441, he didn't rally the body to act, he didn't discredit the body as corrupt and useless to the degree that was needed, and he didn't even prevent the screeching about a "rush to war" because his opponents don't argue in good faith.)
But the important thing is not that international law is a hindrance, it's that it's a fraud.
The United States government is subject to its own Constitution and to the treaties it ratifies according to the rules mandated by the Constitution, and according to the stipulations that are given upon ratification.
The United States is subject to no other manmade laws.
The U.S. shouldn't appeal to international law to rein in rogue states, because doing so gives undue legitimacy to a phantom figment. Instead, it should, first, use its military according to the justifications that preceded thinks like the Kellog-Briand Pact: in response to acts of war, such as harboring a group that committed an act of war against us (the Taliban), attacking our allies or flagrantly violating the cease-fire agreement that ended the last war (Iraq I & II), or attacking our embassy and arming groups who are killing our soldiers (Iran).
Second, the United States should act in full recognition that we live in an unsafe world, and that our totalitarian enemies will find very clever ways to do the most damage to our national interests while giving us the toughest case to justify a response. They'll do things like indirectly attacking our allies by supporting proxy groups to overthrow their governments, or like supporting decentralized terrorist organizations that provide the most psychological bang for the buck while retaining plausible deniability.
We must resist these explicit enemies to Western civilization and its noble values of human liberty. Dan, your efforts to retain a "special rage" for your own country -- "I DON'T live in Nica, I live in the US" -- is positively counterproductive.
I couldn't agree more. I only referred to that particular construct because it's something Dan understands-- I didn't intend to muddy the waters.
The United States is subject to no other manmade laws."
I do believe I said as much.
How can I call you to respond on my behalf? You do such a fantastic job with every comment of yours I read, so it would save me a lot of time. It humbles me to a large degree. Kudos upon kudos to you, sir.
Eric,
Regarding my earlier response, I was speaking of violent criminals, specifically gangsters of all stripes. They are not hidden to authorities, and many times to people in the neighborhoods being victimized by them. In those cases, where they have exacted a heavy toll with civilian deaths and terror, vigilantism sounds like a good idea. But more so is the law enforcement community having their hands uncuffed so that they can act decisively and with extreme prejudice. Like our foreign tormentors, these people run wild due to laws that inhibit, rather than enhance enforcement. It's a cliche that some scumbag got off on a technicality, ala, Obama's buddy Ayers. A simple "Oops! My gun went off!" by some bright cop would save the public a lot of money and heartache. When scumbags, whether foreign or domestic, can no longer stand the heat, they go away and hide. This is a fact of life that has been buried with liberal bleatings for the criminal as a victim and on the worldwide scale costs thousands of innocents their lives.
Dan says he concerns himself with America because it's his country. That's exactly the place whence comes my position. I don't freakin' care what other countries do as long as they don't piss us off. It's as simple as that. I take the time to study as best I can the people for whom I cast my votes. I'm certain that our current president is a good man who sees foreign scumbags in the same light as do I and as such, his decisions to act, if not every single action, has been sound, especially when compared to the inaction of his predecessor.
So here's my basic rule of thumb: We're friendly with those who are friendly, and we are devastatingly savage with those who are not. Friendly peoples need have no fear of us. We do not seek to exploit anyone. We at times must choose between the lesser of two evils and I, for one, will not later accuse our own of propping up or supporting those who were less evil than the other option.
It's kinda funny in a pathetic, maddening way, that in a variety of other areas, libs like Dan will speak to the complexity of the issue, but here, when thousands, or perhaps millions of lives are at risk, they think there can only be one path. As has been stated, we must live in the world as it is, making decisions based on the options circumstances provide and hope against hope that we haven't f'd up too badly. People like Reagan and Bush Jr have had the courage to actually make decisions rather than hope bad people will suddenly turn good. I can forgive any misteps they make, and I can easily tell on whom shame and blame truly belong for suffering Dan believes lie at their feet.
It's perfectly clear to me that the
principles Dan invokes are not really his: they're just tools of rhetoric, to be used when convenient and discarded when he's done.
His principles aren't rooted in the Constitution. In a comment to the blog entry of his I referenced earlier, he argues that we're constrained to international agreements because Article VI of the Constitution constrains us, but in advocating government regulation of the economy, he doesn't seem to care that neither Article I Section 8 nor any other part of the Constitution gives Congress the power to so regulate our lives.
His principles aren't rooted in the words and deeds of our Founding Fathers. He'll cite Jefferson when it's convenient in criticizing the war in Iraq, but he ignores President Jefferson's use of military force against the Barbary pirates. Just as the Constitution doesn't constrain his support for what is essentially socialism, the Founding Fathers' numerous writings about the importance of economic freedom and private property rights are unimportant to his values.
And -- and Dan's probably not going to like me for writing this -- I think it's particularly clear that his principles aren't even rooted in the Bible. He'll appeal to the Bible to justify his support for "social justice" (as Progressives define it) and to weigh in on what is and isn't Biblical, but he rejects the authority of innumerable passages of the Bible, often passages that are absolutely essential to its unique character.
Dan dismisses as "atrocity" any passage in which the Old Testament records that God caused calamities to befall people or commanded something that we don't fully understand. By his logic, the flood, Abraham's willingness to sacrifice Isaac, and the Passover and the death of all the firstborn in Egypt are all untrustworthy as divine revelation. He has concluded that at least one of the Gospels' two genealogies of Christ is inaccurate, and he has written that the atonement -- the New Testament's primary and central explanation for why Jesus died -- "meant something" to the ancient Jews but is implicitly irrelevant for today.
He says all this because he is clearly judging the Bible by some other, external standard -- perhaps nothing more than his own conscience and his own understanding.
Honestly, I don't know why Dan appeals to the rule of law and to conservative skepticism of limited government, to the Constitution and to the Bible.
Perhaps it's not because he really values all these, but he knows that we do, and he thinks we can be persuaded either to agree with him or at least to shut up in shame if he can make a clever appeal to these things. Perhaps he wants to value these things and wants to make the square peg of his real principles fit these variously round holes. Perhaps he has no explicit, well-defined principles that guide his life: no principles, only positions, and he appeals to these authorities to lend his positions weight.
I frankly don't know.
What I do know is that I cannot accept the claim that Dan's religious principles really do spring from the Bible, and that his political principles really are grounded in the words and deeds of our Founding Fathers. His allegiance to these are too inconsistent -- they're frankly too conveniently discarded -- for these to be the fount of his belief system.
If Dan does have firm principles that explains when the Constitution matters and when it doesn't, and whether or not a passage of the Bible is authoritative, he ought to argue from those principles. The Constitution and the Bible aren't reliable substitutes for his real principles, and it's unwise to pretend that they are.
Marshall, one of the worst things about appealing to international law -- and to "war crimes" unless we're referring to breaches of a country's explicit military code or an agreement between civilized states on the rules of engagement -- is that there is no legitimate court with the authority and the ability and the willingness to enforce international law fairly.
Western democracies might submit to an international court of justice -- perhaps in a naive belief that their enemies will be inspired by their example of compliance rather than encouraged by a display of weakness, or perhaps because they simply think it's the right thing to do -- but in doing so they would entrust their safety to an organization unwilling to ensure that safety.
When the cops are so weak or corrupt that they don't dare enforce the law against gangsters, it's actually worse for society for law-abiding citizens to surrender their right to self-defense in trusting, perhaps with good intentions, the police to do their jobs.
I recommend this article, by Andrew McCarthy at NRO, about the perils of international law. One peril is that it's such a nebulous thing: judges will appeal, not to treaties we ratified in consideration of the stipulations we asserted on ratification, but the as-is text of the treaty or even treaties we never ratified.
But he also has a very good line that "the conduct of international relations is predominantly a political process, not a legal one."
Talk about courts and trials is largely out of place in matters of foreign affairs: treaties and wars are the proper tools.
Again, there is no legitimate authority at the global level that could author -- much less enforce -- international law.
The nations exist, in effect, in the Hobbesian state of nature. Rational, civilized states can hash things out at the table, but we must realize that the clash between democratic Western civilization and its various totalitarian competitors must sometimes be settled on the battlefield.
This isn't a matter of "might makes right," where military victory decides what is moral and good: it's a matter where military victory is often the only thing that can protect what already truly is moral and good.
We should guard our national sovereignty in matters of defense most jealously. I think Dan wants to argue that we largely ceded that sovereignty with actions like joining the United Nations; I disagree, but even the fact that one can make that argument, however weakly, is a good reason to take a good look at the treaties to which we've agreed, with an eye to withdrawing from those that put our national interests at risk.
Doing so might prompt our enemies to withdraw from treaties they don't like. I can see no consequence of their doing so that overshadows the immense benefits of making clear our right to use military force.
And doing so might prompt others to insist that we have no legal right to withdraw from a treaty. My response would probably include the observation that the treaty they insist is eternal probably also binds them from using force against those who would withdraw from it: such a withdrawal wouldn't constitute a direct attack on their sovereignty, etc. My response would certainly include the assertion that we have the right to use military force to defend our right to use military force.
The latter's reaction would make abundantly clear who really doesn't trust the United States, who thinks the U.S. military is the central focus of evil in the modern world, and who thinks the role of international bodies like the U.N. isn't to protect us but to constrain us.
It would be both liberating and greatly clarifying. It's almost liberating enough just to know that my position is both nearly blasphemous to some and still firmly grounded in logic and reality.
As I noted in my earlier response to you, Marshall said, AND I QUOTE:
"With them [so-called "rogue nations"], rules don't count. Against them, rules tie our hands and make us vulnerable. Nothing is off the table when dealing with such nations."
[~quote from Marshall Arts]
Is that clear enough for you? "NOTHING IS OFF THE TABLE" - no laws or rules should bind us when dealing with them, that is what Marshall is saying. I've asked him, "Is that REALLY what you mean?" and I think it is, since it's what he said, but he can always let me know if I'm misunderstanding him.
And despite all the twisting of my words and positions (I'll be generous and assume you're just ignorant of what I believe and unable to comprehend my words rather than deliberately lying), the questions remain unanswered clearly (and I'll keep them short so as to not confuse anyone):
1. Shall we obey US law?
2. IF we don't believe in international law, on what basis shall we tell Iran, Iraq, Somalia or whoever else what they can and can't do?
2. Since International Law (as Bubba so eloquently elucidated) is a figment, the only law we as a nation have is that contained with our Constitution, the body of U.S. Code, and the moral law written on everyone's heart.
If we see starving children and families being murdered in Sudan, and it is within our means and capabilities to intervene, we should. We MUST. It is a moral imperative. Any nation that would treat its own people so is "rogue". If they refuse to bow to pressure, more pressure should be applied until something breaks: either their will, or their military.
Evil men must be opposed. Anything that is not of God is sin. Islam is therefore sin. Which makes Ahmadinejad an unrepentant sinner. Unless he finds Christ he is doomed to an eternity in hell. I can't make him believe, but if he makes one untoward advance on ANY other sovereign nation (which he is already doing) we are obligated to step in if no one else will. God's law trumps man's law in this regard. God made the rules: Love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, strength, and body, and love your neighbor as yourself.
If you love your neighbor you will not sit idly by while evil men nuke their cities. Even if it means your own people seek to hang you for it.
I think I know what confuses you. If our law says that we shouldn't be shooting people, what do we do with those who insist on doing so? These people are rogues. If a show of force convinces them to lay down their arms, great. If it doesn't, what then? Why, we shoot them of course. We have then violated our own laws against shooting people.
This translates to the int'l realm as well. If Iran will not desist in supporting obviously terrorist groups, nor desist in sending their own people to assist those we fight in Iraq, nor desist in creating WMDs for use against us or our allies, such as Israel, they are indeed a rogue state and serious actions need to be taken for the benefit of all. What could be more plain? I support helping the Iranian people depose their own corrupt and malevolent leaders. But we can't force them to act on the world's timetable, so additional actions are likely required. Those actions may include, and probably do include, strategic attacks on their nuclear facilities. I'd prefer they be in coordination with resistant forces within Iran, but again, time may be of the essence. Allowing jerkwads like Mahmoud and the Mullahs access to nukes is akin to criminal negligence.
Of what Marshall and ELAshley themselves have written in this thread, I haven't seen a clear and unambiguous support of the idea that the President should ignore U.S. law.
I will admit that Marshall's latest comment at least suggests that, if our laws prevent an appropriate response to terrorists, they should be defied; I would like to see him clarify his position.
Myself, I believe that a law that unduly hinders our efforts at national defense shouldn't be ignored: it should be changed. They only time it should be ignored -- and, then, only temporarily -- is if it's impossible to change the law in time.
For instance, suppose that it was illegal on 9/11 for U.S. forces to shoot down a hijacked American airliner even if it's clear that the airliner would probably be used as a weapon. Bush didn't have the opportunity to make such a decision, but if he had the choice of violating U.S. law as-then-written to shoot down one of the hijacked planes to save the lives of potentially thousands of other Americans, he should have done so immediately and then later pushed for the law to be changed.
I'm not sure Marshall's position wildly deviates from mine. If it does, I disagree with him, but -- considering that, in your blog, you quoted a lunatic op-ed as if you were quoting the U.N. charter -- I'm much more willing to give Marshall the benefit of the doubt than I am to presume that you're quoting him fairly.
I would appreciate if Marshall clarified his position. I would also appreciate if you provided the context of your quote.
I believe I have answered your questions thoroughly. I'll do so again for clarity's sake.
1. Shall we obey US law?
2. IF we don't believe in international law, on what basis shall we tell Iran, Iraq, Somalia or whoever else what they can and can't do?
1. Yes, except in the most dire emergencies.
2. We base our actions on how foreign policy was conducted prior to this figment of international law. We hold other nations to treaties that they've signed and from which they haven't withdrawn: in Iraq's case, Hussein invited a U.S. invasion by repeatedly violating the cease-fire that ended the last war. And, we respond to acts of war: in Iran's case, from the hostage crisis to their current material support of terrorists who are targeting American troops in Iraq.
I've answered your questions. If you're genuinely interested in an actual discussion rather than merely finding fodder for your blog, you should answer mine.
I will repeat them again:
- Do you think that the patriotism can be questioned, of those who would support a foreign invasion of the U.S.?
- What specific actions do you think are permissible in holding the United States government accountable for its supposed war crimes: if we're the rogue state you think we are, just what makes you think we'll heel because of some little declaration from the Hague? What do you think should be done if we don't?
- Most importantly, how you would answer your own question of who determines what actions constitute war crimes and which governments are guilty of such crimes and are therefore rogue nations?
You have not even acknowledged the existence of these questions, much less attempted to answer any of them.
Perhaps your concern for seeing reasonable questions answered is not all that consistent, and it should be added to what is now a growing list of things you invoke and then ignore when it's convenient.
In lieu of international law -- which I contend is fictitious -- the United States is not impotent to act on the world stage. We can justly respond to violated treaties and to acts of war.
As to your questions:
Do you think that the patriotism can be questioned, of those who would support a foreign invasion of the U.S.?
Anyone's patriotism CAN be questioned. Is it fair to question someone's love of country (or patriotism) if they support a foreign invasion? It might depend on the circumstances. German nationals who loved their country in the 1940s probably should have supported the overthrow of their nation by some means. If they were incapable of doing so themselves, then, yes, in that case, Love of Country could have supported an invasion.
In the US? I think things have gotten very bad. But I don't think things are so bad that we ought to be hoping for invasions. For one thing, I'm generally against invasions unless there is an eminent threat (as noted in all these questions I've been asking y'all).
So, if someone were hoping for an invasion of the US, it would be in my mind a VERY bad idea to support. Still, I could see someone who loved their country and thinking it was going down the wrong road - desparately so - voicing that sort of sentiment, so no, I don't guess I would question their patriotism. I'd question their wisdom.
As Lincoln noted:
"The people are the rightful master of both congresses and the courts. Not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert it."
Or as Jefferson noted:
"Every generation needs a new revolution."
What specific actions do you think are permissible in holding the United States government accountable for its supposed war crimes: if we're the rogue state you think we are, just what makes you think we'll heel because of some little declaration from the Hague? What do you think should be done if we don't?
Good question. Some possible options...
1. The people of the US would stage an uprising (peacefully, hopefully) and demand that our gov't be held accountable. This is my preferred option.
2. Sanctions, economic or otherwise. In a world with one superpower, a bully nation that places itself above the law and a citizenry unwilling to confront it, this is difficult.
3. An education campaign to reach out to the responsible people of the offending nation asking that they stand up to their gov't. This, of course, approaches fomenting revolution, but as Jefferson noted, that is not necessarily a bad thing.
4. Pulling their resources to physically hold the offending nation accountable is an option - not one that would end well, but it is an option and the more a superpower nation puts itself above the law, the more it would be considered.
5. Another, illegal option, would be that people from around the world might consider resorting to guerilla warfare against this nation. A horrible option but one that the offending nation should expect if it consistently puts itself above the law.
Understand, I'm only endorsing the first option in the US. But, I'm saying that the others are ideas that WILL be considered and increasingly so, the more any superpower places itself above the law.
Most importantly, how you would answer your own question of who determines what actions constitute war crimes and which governments are guilty of such crimes and are therefore rogue nations?
I favor supporting a World Court of some sort. Ideally, in a democratic nation such as ours, the people would demand their leaders abide by the rules. We in the US have crafted some good laws. We've led the way in many ways of setting up standards of how "good" nations should behave. God bless those US ideals!
Our Congress is our balance to the power of the president and if a president is crossing a line, as many presidents have, Congress should hold that president accountable. Unfortunately, Congress has failed to do its duty too often.
I'm generally in favor of bottom up/local first solutions. If I can deal with a problem in my community, I should deal with it. If not, I should appeal to the authorities in my community. If my community is not dealing with the problem, the city or state should intervene. If there is a failure there, the feds should intervene. Failing that, I'd hope that the world body would intervene.
In places like Rwanda, the Sudan, the Phillipines, and on and on (to varying degrees), the locals have failed to provide solutions to human rights issues. When people are dying, it is time for international intervention.
Therefore, we need workable plans and procedures in place. Taking these problems one at a time as they arise has proven itself to be a failed approach. A world court or UN solution is also going to be a failure. Nonetheless, we need to work to improve or replace these existing solutions with the best model we can manage.
Seems to me.
I appreciate your answers. Regarding the last question, you reply by mentioning a "world court" that presumably tries national governments according to the laws written by the "world body" that you also mention.
These vague terms beg a very important question that relates to the problems I've been trying to highlight.
Does this "world body" include all nations, or not?
If it doesn't, it's a regional or idealogical alliance like NATO or OPEC, and it would not have the authority to enforce the laws it writes upon non-member states.
But if it does include all nations, then you advocate a governing body that -- despite your earlier criticism of moral relativism -- seats immoral tyrants alongside the Western-style democracies. Because those dictatorial regimes ignore the rule of law and the consent of the governed and are themselves illegitimate, any laws they helped craft would also lack any real legitimacy.
I asked, how would you answer your own question of who determines what actions constitute war crimes and which governments are guilty of such crimes and are therefore rogue nations?
Your answer is a "world body" and a "world court."
For now and for the forseeable future, no such court would have any real authority or legitimacy. If you care about those things, an appeal to a world court is only superficially less absurd than an appeal to the Wizard of Oz.
And, more importantly, such an appeal is dangerous because you advocate that Western democracies cede much of our sovereignty regarding our own defense to a body that is either fictitious or fraudulent. Your position would render the West impotent to defend itself from its very dangerous enemies.
Unless the Irannian military attacked a United States asset, then the United States has no business commencing hostilities with Iran.
Bent, international law, as crafted by the United Nations, has no legitimacy because the organization includes member states who do not recognize the rule of law and do not have the authority that comes with the consent of the governed.
It's absurd to suggest that Marshall and I do not think that the U.S. has obligations to other nations. We do, through the treaties we ratify and through God's moral law; we just deny the legitimacy of international law.
And I note that you continue to give as much room to our enemies as possible.
Unless the Irannian military attacked a United States asset, then the United States has no business commencing hostilities with Iran.
From the hostage crisis, to its support of terrorist organizations that have murdered Americans and other Westerners, to its current provision of material support to terrorists within Iraq who are targeting American troops, the Iranian government has committed numerous acts of war against the United States and its allies.
But because most of these acts of war did not involve "the Irannian military attack[ing] a United States asset," you want to give them a pass.
You do this even though you just wrote, "When we meddle in other nations politics--we should be called to account." [emphasis mine]
You attack the United States for "meddling" while you will apparently condemn Iran only if they engage in a full frontal assault.
Says you. We, as a world, can do anything we want. We can choose to live in an every nation for itself, every nation makes its own rules kind of a world, or we can strive to reach consensus on some basics.
As Ben noted, we have already done so in the real world.
Is a World Court a perfect solution?
Absolutely not.
Would there be questions about its legitimacy?
Certainly.
But you tell me: If I'm in a neighborhood where there are rules about littering on paper that people agreed to follow. Suppose some neighbor - Jim - moved in and didn't want to follow those rules.
Neighbor Bob decided (on his own) that HE would enforce the rule and demand the Jim clean up his litter. They get in an argument, fisticuffs follow, defacing of property, etc.
Now, the neighborhood committee intervenes and criticizes Bob for taking matters in his own hands. Then they work with Jim - talking to him, explaining why the litter rules exist, finding out what his problem with the rules are, etc.
Who comes closest to having the authority to make any decisions in this neighborhood? Jim, Bob or the Neighborhood group?
I vote for the neighborhood group.
I don't begin with those assumptions. I don't accept the idea of American exceptionalism. I don't accept the idea of maximal militarism. I see it as a failure of imagination to see America's strength only in militaristic terms. I see it as a failure of imagination to see America's possibilities of action on the international stage in only terms of attacks and bombing and assassinations.
In practical cold-blooded terms the Iraq War has created over 1-million refugees. It has caused the death of 200,000-400,000 Iraqi citizens. It took America's militaristic might to do so much evil.
"Bent, international law, as crafted by the United Nations, has no legitimacy because the organization includes member states who do not recognize the rule of law and do not have the authority that comes with the consent of the governed."
What an idea. Because there are corrupt congressmen and senators the laws passed by the United States aren't valid. That's the point you're making when it is translated into domestic politics. Of course this is ludicrous. Our country's founding documents are sound and moral so even though future generations of lawmakers may be corrupt the integrity of our laws still stand. The same is true of the UN. It's charter is solid and moral and even though some of the member nations are corrupt it does not tarnish the legitimacy of the organization. even member nation has to be recommended by the UN Security Council, upon which the US has a veto. If there are corrupt members it is because the US allowed them to be installed.
"From the hostage crisis, to its support of terrorist organizations that have murdered Americans and other Westerners, to its current provision of material support to terrorists within Iraq who are targeting American troops, the Iranian government has committed numerous acts of war against the United States and its allies." Isn't reaching back to the 1980's for justification a bit sad. I've seen reports that the so called material support for Iraqi insurgents is fairly thin and non-specific to Iran. Is a country whose air force is 15 years old a significant threat to the United States? Of course this touches upon another of Bubba's beliefs. That no one anywhere can harm an American citizen in any way without be totally destroyed. I however do not ascribe to the idea of a nuke for an airplane.
"You attack the United States for "meddling" while you will apparently condemn Iran only if they engage in a full frontal assault."
Again we run up against Bubba's base assumptions of political reality. If the only punitive actions you accept are militaristic then yes you could take my words in that fashion. If you accept that there can be diplomatic and financial and economic punitive actions though. My true meaning becomes clear.
If we keep talking maybe Bubba will finally understand what other people think. Understanding Bubba is pretty easy once you master a few basic assumptions.
As I write this, I see Bent added another, more inane response to Bubba. He makes the assumption that Bubba, and likely Eric and myself, deny the merits of diplomacy or economic actions as legitimate tactics of persuasion. This is stupid since the discussion obviously begins at a point after such things have been tried and failed.
Bent's seen reports. Fine. I'll go along with what the military leaders on the ground are saying in regards to Iran's interference. And it doesn't take a political science professor to understand Bubba's point in listing Iran's sins since the hostage crisis to now. Also, it doesn't take a brand new bomber to deliver a single nuke capable of murdering tens of thousands. Get a freakin' clue.
"Myself, I believe that a law that unduly hinders our efforts at national defense shouldn't be ignored: it should be changed. They only time it should be ignored -- and, then, only temporarily -- is if it's impossible to change the law in time."
As my moniker suggests, I am a student of martial arts. I've been involved at some level for about 30 years. I also lift when I can muster the motivation. As much as I enjoy it all, I don't do it to be a hard ass. I do it because hard asses exist. I recall while still a school boy a made-for-TV movie regarding a woman being mugged. It happened on a street where it was near impossible for the residents to not have heard her screams for help and indeed the movie was about the attitude of "I don't want to get involved". I hate that attitude and feel that everyone with a heart needs to find a way to get involved, even if it's just calling the cops on the phone. Good people need to stand up to bad people, and the sooner the better.
I feel the same regarding our nation. We are indeed a mighty nation and despite some of the scumbags that are home-grown, we are generally a generous and helpful people. If we determine that a foreign leader is beyond diplomacy and unmindful of the effects of economic sanctions upon his people, as was Hussein, we have a moral obligation to overthrow him ASAP.
Our laws make such action difficult in most cases. Too many of our people want to see even more hamstringing laws on the books to block any such benevolent action, which is what it truly is. It disgusts me and I hold such people in contempt because of the danger in which it puts innocent people. So I agree that such laws should be changed. We should never advertise ourselves as being unwilling to be the most savage and barbaric nation on earth. When we advertise that we won't engage in "torture", a term the left refuses to define with examples, we become less of a threat to evil. Before this push for "civility" by the Bush-bashers, for they are the current culprits in our disarming, we never had to use anything barbaric if we didn't want to. The mere threat of such things would have been enough in most cases. But now, no such threat exists and we are the worse for it.
So it works like this: Bad guys act bad and we respond by first talking and trying to find ways to convince the bad guys of the error of their ways. As that fails, we enlist others in the region to do likewise if we can. As that fails, we begin economic strategies, asking others to join it if they will. Then we increase such pressures with the threat of more serious consequences. Then we kill them. When another bad guy rears his ugly head, we say, "Do you remember bad guy #1?" When liberal nations of the UN-like bodies complain, we tell them, diplomatically, that when the people of the bad guy needed help, they sat on their hands, so they can all now pound sand.
Having the military might, together with the proven will to use it, will alone deter many a scumbag. This will greatly enhance the effectiveness of all other strategies for dealing with the bad guys. Good guys will never fear us, for we will never act in such a manner towards good guys.
The United States of America could be the most powerful nation in history and remain so forever. She could be totally invulnerable to any and all attacks. But if we allow scumbags to push around other people, we are nothing. Yeah, diplomacy first and always. But never say never regarding the use of force to do good in the world.
That's my position in the simplest terms.
Very true. That's how it works all the time.
In the comic books.
Tell me this, Marshall, if there were "bad guys" with military might and the will to use it, by your reasoning, you will roll over and surrender, right?
"1. The people of the US would stage an uprising (peacefully, hopefully) and demand that our gov't be held accountable. This is my preferred option.
2. Sanctions, economic or otherwise. In a world with one superpower, a bully nation that places itself above the law and a citizenry unwilling to confront it, this is difficult.
3. An education campaign to reach out to the responsible people of the offending nation asking that they stand up to their gov't. This, of course, approaches fomenting revolution, but as Jefferson noted, that is not necessarily a bad thing.
4. Pulling their resources to physically hold the offending nation accountable is an option - not one that would end well, but it is an option and the more a superpower nation puts itself above the law, the more it would be considered.
5. Another, illegal option, would be that people from around the world might consider resorting to guerilla warfare against this nation. A horrible option but one that the offending nation should expect if it consistently puts itself above the law."
. . . . .
So... it's okay for foreign nations to do this to the U.S., but should an American president do it he is a war criminal?
1. Peaceful demonstrations never work with Muslim nations. With ANY nation. Governments are not inclined to change policy just because people get out in the street, chant and wave signs. It didn't work in Tiananmen Square!
2. Sanctions don't work either except to anger the rogue state and level undo pressures and suffering upon the [largely (depending, of course)] innocent populous.
3. What do you suggest? Reeducation camps? How do you implement that-- let alone enforce! --without an invasion? Typically when rogue nations institute reeducation camps you end up with Kmer Rouge offenses! Killing fields! Six Million Jews baked in a pie!
4. Pulling together a "Coalition of the Willing"? What if the rest of the world is too weak and thus unwilling to sign up, which is typical more often than not? Cowboy diplomacy? Someone's got to do it if no one else will.
And finally! The pièce de résistance!
5. Guerrilla warfare on foreign soil!!? What about all the sanctimony you've peppered your comments with over Reagan's war in Nicaragua? An insurgency? Isn't that what we were heavily engaged in in Iraq?
YOU ACTUALLY RECOGNIZE THAT THOUGH SUCH AN ACTION IS "ILLEGAL" YOU WOULD STILL BREAK "THE LAW" TO COMMIT WAR CRIMES!!!!???????
"A horrible option..." to be sure, "...but one that [Dan Trabue hypocritically allows as necessary against...] "...the offending nation." [In fact, such a rogue nation] "should expect if it consistently puts itself above the law."
Bravo, Mr. Trabue!!! "Touché!!! You really taught us all a lesson, didn't you?
I think I'm going to throw up....
A crime against peace the U.N. is both too incompetent and too corrupt to do ANYTHING about. They allowed Saddam to ignore 17 resolutions against him. Oil for food. U.N. peace keepers raping villagers. And the list goes on and on.... Because of these scandals alone the U.S. should have pulled out of the U.N. The United States of America cannot in good conscience subject itself to a global body that can't even enforce its own resolutions, or abide by its own laws; and whose ministers steal and rape from the counties they claim to govern.
"I don't believe in American Exceptionalism"
Listen, y'all believe in boogeymen and monsters and that the US has the right to tell the rest of the world what rules to follow all you want. Live your life in fear and advocate for the Biggest Gov't ever. Whatever.
I've tired of this demonization.
Just once more to point out how you twisted my words to make a shallow political point.
Eric SAYS I said this:
You advocate the following against the U.S., but you castigate me for implying we do the same to Iran?
What I actually said was this:
Understand, I'm only endorsing the first option in the US. But, I'm saying that the others are ideas that WILL be considered and increasingly so, the more any superpower places itself above the law.
I was hoping that when I said, "UNDERSTAND" that you would understand. I apologize for expecting too much from you in that regard.
- We shouldn't consider using military force against Iran because -- never mind their support of Hezbollah and other terrorists, and never mind what they might do with nuclear weapons if they ever got them -- their air force is too immature and therefore they pose absolutely no threat to American security.
- Iran may have committed acts of war against us as early as the late 1970's, but that was such a long time ago: the statute of limitations expired, and it doesn't matter that recent history establishes a record of antagonism against the Western democracies.
- The evidence that Iran is providing material support to those terrorists in Iraq who are targeting American troops is very thin: in matters of determining whether an act of war occurred, Ben will trust our enemies more than our own military.
- Finally, it doesn't really matter if the evidence is airtight: the murder of Americans is hardly a reason for the American government to go to war.
Again we should compare the extremely measured rhetoric that Ben uses to defend Iran with the words he reserves to attack those who disagree with him on political issues: "warmongering jingoism."
Ben, Dan, and those like them just can't work up the same passion to defend the United States that they do to attack American conservatives.
Dan, when you appeal to such fictitious and fraudulent ideas as a "world court," you have little business accusing Marshall of comic-book logic.
He's exactly right that the credible threat of military force does deter our enemies: our deposing Iraq's Baathist regime is a very good reason while Libya is now significantly more cooperative in dismantling its WMD programs.
(And, more on this particular subject in a moment, when you suggest that other nations might engage in guerilla warfare in response to our foreign policy, you yourself invoke a credible threat of the use of force to deter the United States from certain actions. I guess it's only comic-book logic when you don't like when it's been used.)
You're also in no position to say that we here "advocate for the Biggest Gov't ever."
You advocate a "world body" and "world court" that would cause the Western democracies to cede their fundamental right to self-defense, and your support of government regulation -- accurately described as socialism whether you will ever admit it -- means that you have a far greater desire for government power to increase.
You really don't believe in individual liberty that is protected by a constitutionally limited government. Acting like you do to score rhetorical points is not honest.
But to be honest myself, you did make clear that you would only personally support a peaceful domestic uprising out of those five options -- options that included "guerilla warfare against this nation" -- but what's troubling is that you would mention those other options as "some possible options" in the first place.
What did I ask?
"What specific actions do you think are permissible in holding the United States government accountable for its supposed war crimes: if we're the rogue state you think we are, just what makes you think we'll heel because of some little declaration from the Hague? What do you think should be done if we don't?"
If you don't think guerilla warfare is permissible, why did you include it in an answer to my question, what specific actions do you think are permissible?
If you don't think guerilla warfare should be done, why did you include it in an answer to my question, what do you think should be done?
It is clear that you immediately backed away from those other options, but it's not clear why you listed them to begin with. It needlessly muddied the issue, and you could have just as easily pressed the "Backspace" key and erased those other options if they weren't your real answer.
Whether these were the reasons why those other options were included I can't say, but it's worth noting two effects of your including such options:
1) You appear less naive. If you had answered "peaceful domestic demonstrations" and that's all, the sheer impracticality of your position would have been more clearly seen.
2) You can have your cake and eat it too:
Understand, I'm only endorsing the first option in the US. But, I'm saying that the others are ideas that WILL be considered and increasingly so, the more any superpower places itself above the law.
You won't endorse guerilla warfare against the United States, but you didn't seem to mind invoking the threat of guerilla warfare to keep us in line.
"Tell me this, Marshall, if there were "bad guys" with military might and the will to use it, by your reasoning, you will roll over and surrender, right?"
There's nothing in my reasoning that should suggest any such thing to reasonable people. As I stated, scumbags will be deterred. We faced two military powers in the 1930s and 40s and aside for the 1930s & 40s versions of people like you, we faced them courageously. The point here, and I want you to really pay attention, is that I don't equate the United States of America with scumbags. Good people will not be cowed by evil. Not all of them, anyway, and usually there are enough to defeat evil if allowed to do so.
It's not a question of what other nations might do if they adopt my attitude, it's a question of whether or not they are justified in doing so on OUR terms. We cannot, nor should we worry too much about, how other nations view our actions if our actions are righteous and justified. If other nations take action against us, for whatever reason, we judge those actions on OUR notions of righteousness and justice. You seem to have far more faith that other nations will act with equal consideration of the interests of others. I see no reason to believe that that could ever be true, nor do I see the logic in it. What makes you think they are more willing to be so selfless? The leaders of other nations, that is, the other good guys, are in place to think of THEIR best interests, or more specifically, the interests of their own people.
At this time, there's no reason to suspect Great Britain is a threat to the world. There's no reason to suspect that Israel is a threat to the world. There's plenty of reason to suspect that Mahmoud and the Mullahs are a threat to the world. Should we act against them, even going so far as to launch an air strike on their nuclear facilities, I frankly don't give a flying rat's ass what the world community thinks about it. If they can't see the wisdom of prohibiting Ahmadinijad's access to nuclear weapons, then they are not worthy of our concern for their opinion.
"I've tired of this demonization."
Are you referring to our proper characterization of Ahmadinijad as a threat, or your demonizing of your own country? In either case you're simply and pathetically wrong.
"Good question. Some possible options...
"Options" as in plural; more than one. In fact you listed five.
"1. The people of the US would stage an uprising (peacefully, hopefully) and demand that our gov't be held accountable. This is my preferred option."
Your "preferred" option, but not the only one you could see yourself endorsing.
As to your rebuttal:
"What I actually said was this:
Understand, I'm only endorsing the first option in the US. But..."
Yes, you said that too, but semantically speaking it is an absolute contradiction to item number one. And you insert "But" right after contradicting yourself, creating yet another contradiction. Your language is so confused and convoluted the only who knows what you're saying is you. You say one thing [possible options/my preferred option], then you repent and say you're "ONLY endorsing" the first option, and before you even finish the thought you change again by beginning a sentence with "But" as if to say you can see how, and a time wherein you could support the others IF...
You were hoping that when you said, "UNDERSTAND" that I would understand. What you need to apologize for is expecting anyone to understand where you're coming from when you don't even understand how you got into that particular rhetorical maze. If you're not even clear in your rhetoric how can anyone else "clearly" understand you?
You're a very bright man, sir. You have helped me to hone what little skill I have. But this is truly disappointing. You have contradicted yourself and you can't even see it, much less own up to it.
Thing is, I believe Bubba is right, you don't seem to have any clear principles, only positions. This is where you stand on X issue, and if anyone stands differently they get the "surely..." speech.
Now, you can take your ball and go home if you wish (but you're welcome to stay), but if you do, you lose the argument. And you demonstrate the truth of Bubba's characterization: Positions, not principles.
There is something seriously wrong with America today, and it has nothing to do with Cowboy Diplomacy and our failing light of respectability in the hearts and minds of global neighbors. Ben sees the idea of American Exceptionalism as "horse shit" [his words]. And I admit that the concept is a double edged sword to toss into the debate, but Ben is the one who threw it out there.
The problem with his, and Liberalism's characterization of "exceptionalism" is that it denotes a complete loss of faith. And in terms of American Exceptionalism, without faith in the greatness of this country, Ben and Liberalism are all too willing to sacrifice the very things that made America a great nation; willing to give away too much of the ideals and monuments that make this nation so unique. Inherent in this is the construct: "I however do not ascribe to the idea of a nuke for an airplane."
Four planes hijacked. All four downed in one manner or another. Our retribution was just, but Ben equates our growing concern over Iran acquiring nukes with irrational fear as expressed in a desire to nuke Iran ourselves. Nevermind that I never mentioned nuking Iran. Neither did Marshall or Bubba. Instead, it was Dan who made mention dropping nukes, in his list [Comment: May 28, 2008 12:41 PM] of things WE have APPEARED to say... which we did not. Dan dropped the ball, and Ben picked it up and ran with it.
But this is the problem with Democrats and Liberals, they believe the lies more readily than the truth. Lies are sexier than truth. The venom that comes from Liberal blogs far surpasses what you'll find at Conservative blogs. They make allowances for their own while crucifying their ideological betters for every little infraction. They draw to themselves shysters and carpetbaggers always willing to say a few "evils" about the religious right and believe every word that spills from their cancerous lips. As much as I detest Michael Savage and his own brand of demagogy, he is absolutely right that Liberalism is a mental disorder. It takes a diseased mind to rationalize abortion.
It is ironic, in a way, that while on the one hand the Left refuses to accept the idea of American Exceptionalism, yet on the other seeks to reshape America into its own image of exceptionalism... an exceptionalism predicated on tearing down the national walls of American perception to rear up new "global" walls where "Americans" cease to think of themselves as Americans, but rather, citizens of the world.
Liberalism will ultimately be the death of America unless "Americans" stand up an fight. To paraphrase Dan: Unless men of good conscience "stage an uprising" [peacefully, hopefully, but if not, guerrilla warfare and open insurrection], the evil of Liberalism will triumph, and America will become exceptional no more-- mediocre, if that.
--------------
The only reply I have to your tiring screed again liberalism is this. The best thing America could do. Is dig wells in Africa. In Africa more children die from poor water quality every week than are killed by abortion in the US in an entire year. The fact that American conservatives place blastocysts above African children is the truth of how self-centered and arrogant conservatives are. And water quality in Africa isn't the only issue where conservatives show their childish arrogance. It's simply the best issue to demonstrate that that American Exceptionalism places small US problems ahead of huge global problems. America could be a global moral force, but not as long as conservative insist on framing every issue in terms of American Exceptionalism.
Isn't this exactly what we're doing now, according to you and Dan? Hypocritically going out into the world to *Fix* the world, while ignoring the [social] ills in our own country? Besides which, I'd wager that 80% [at least] of abortions are beyond the blastocyst stage, which begins at day 5, and consists of only 70-100 cells. Beyond the 10th day it ceases to be a blastocyst. Most women don't even know their pregnant on day 30, let alone day 10.
and you think my argument is tired?
Sources please. And should we find this to be true, are they importing this to our country as terrorism did on 9/11 and other infamous dates? Are they importing it to other countries, like Spain and England and other places that dealt with mass murder by terrorism?
"In Africa more children die from poor water quality every week than are killed by abortion in the US in an entire year."
Sources please. With about one million per year aborted (not counting those killed by chemicals in birth control pills) I'd say Africa should be out of people by now. But like Geoffrey continually does at his blog, you make the silly assumption that talk regarding one issue means no attention whatsoever is paid to other issues. Try again.
As for your comments regarding exceptionalism, I have no problem considering my country exceptional. It is. It even offers the chance for the confused to bitch about American exceptionalism. That's pretty darned exceptional if you ask me.