Justifiable War?

General discussions of interest to readers and fans of Harlan Ellison.

Moderator: Moderator

User avatar
Moderator
Site Admin
Posts: 10607
Joined: Sun Jan 15, 2006 12:17 pm
Contact:

Justifiable War?

Postby Moderator » Thu Aug 06, 2009 3:36 pm

(Moved from another thread.)


FrankChurch wrote:Remember, we attacked South Vietnam. Ho Chi Minh was not the evil one it was Diem, the democratically elected leader of South Vietnam. He was killed, because the South wanted to control their economy. The US called that Communism, because they wanted to help their buddies France control the economy. The North invaded later. The majority of deaths were in the south.


Yep. That's because all combatants decided that was where the war was. (If the South had invaded the North, that's where the war would've been fought.)

FrankChurch wrote:The Gulf War was illegal because we didn't have a war resolution voted on by Congress. The UN should have sent peacekeepers. There's even possible evidence that Saddam invaded because he thought we told him to. There were also border issues.


UN peacekeepers would have been useless under an Iraqi-occupied Kuwait, and the actions were taken by the US as part of a UN-sanctioned military action. We undertook our role as enforcer of the UN resolution as part of a genuine international coalition.

Such actions don't require Congressional approval, and -- if you would please look up the term -- was justifiable under international laws.

FrankChurch wrote:Afghanistan was also illegal. The Taliban told Bush that they would give him Osama, if Bush gave them evidence that he did 9/11. Bush refused and invaded. Remember, Richard Clarke told us that Bush wanted to invade Iraq instead. There was also evidence that an invasion of Afghanistan would create famine that would kill around 3 million people. It didn't happen, but it could have.


A military response to an attack is a legitimate and recognized use of power by the international community. Bin Laden's organization was recognized, early, on, as the responsible party, and he their leader.

Guys: Look up the difference between "Justifiable" and all the other terms you guys are now introducing into the debate.
- I love to find adventure. All I need is a change of clothes, my Nikon, an open mind and a strong cup of coffee.

User avatar
Ezra Lb.
Posts: 4547
Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2004 8:02 am
Location: Washington, DC

Re: Justifiable War?

Postby Ezra Lb. » Fri Aug 07, 2009 10:37 am

OK I just don't want to refight the Vietnam war or the first Gulf War for that matter. So I'll stick with current events.

I believe that Saddam Hussein was such an evil monster that it was going to be necessary at some point to confront him in a direct way. Our pre-invasion strategy did keep him constrained but was never more than a interim solution. HOWEVER, the activities of the Bush admin were criminally stupid. Five minutes after we formally withdraw (if we ever do) the country will collapse into ethnic/religious civil war. In the best case scenario we will wind up with a pro-Iranian strongman/dictator.

Obama has toned down the War on Terror rhetoric but govt spokesmen are still mighty ambiguous about our actual long term goals in Afghanistan. They keep blurring the difference between the Taliban and Al-Queda. What is our criteria for success? What does "winning" mean? Can we "win"? Not to be cynical but my impression is that our actual long term goal is to maintain a permanent presence in the region.

My default position is to oppose any military action that does not directly spring from an actual defense of our country. No more wars that are simply adjuncts to our political policy!
“We must not always talk in the marketplace,” Hester Prynne said, “of what happens to us in the forest.”
-Nathaniel Hawthorne, The Scarlet Letter

User avatar
Steve Evil
Posts: 3519
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2004 3:22 pm
Location: Some Cave in Kanata
Contact:

Re: Justifiable War?

Postby Steve Evil » Fri Aug 07, 2009 11:00 am

There are some wars that are justifiable; but I prefer the term "necessary". Sometimes there is just no alternative.

But too often, there is.

User avatar
FrankChurch
Posts: 16283
Joined: Wed May 28, 2003 2:19 pm

Re: Justifiable War?

Postby FrankChurch » Wed Aug 12, 2009 6:55 pm

Hey, guys, cracker jack boxes are not good places to find facts.

Barber, we bombed south vietnam before there was any north Vietnamese coming in. We bombed the south Vietnamese, not the Viet Cong, who didn't come down.

We did this in 1962, to keep Vietnam from independently creating their own economy, an economy not relying on our investments. We did not want a positive attempt at socialism, because it may "infect" the entire region. Not Communism, socialism. We wanted Vietnam to serve our corporate interests and didn't want the east to think that independent nationalism was a good idea. We wanted to rule by force, as is the case with modern empires.

On the Gulf War, there is evidence that we bought off the Security Council to do our bidding, but the security council did not authorize military attack on Iraq, it only authorized that Iraq go along with mandate 660, that said that Iraq must leave Kuwait. It didn't authorize that the US could bomb Iraq. We also did war crimes there, against the Nuremberg laws. We bombed civilians in Iraq, an aggressive war, clearly illegal. There is also the fact that Bush Sr. refused to accept a peaceful negotiation. Iraq was willing to leave Kuwait, on certain conditions, but Bush wanted to wage war and didn't listen, defying international law. We bombed Mosques, schools, hospitals, clearly illegal.

We also invented propaganda so that the world community would be outraged and the congress would be gulled. We used a PR firm to make up a story that Iraqi soldiers were throwing babies from incubators. It was believed by several law makers, who used that to seal their vote for force--force, not a war resolution.

You also don't mention that the Arab League was strongly apposed to our intervention. The real reason we went was to secure Iraqi oil fields and guard Saudi Arabia's oil from possible takeoever by Hussein. We wanted to control the oil.

Hussein may have had valid border disputes with Kuwait that led to the invasion. There is even some evidence that the US may have even given him the green light. Hussein may have misrepresented something April Glaspie had said. Remember, at one time Hussein was our friend. Bush gave him economic credits not long before the Kuwait invasion.

We cannot play the victors here, guys. All Bush's are scum. They all have the hearts of snakes.

User avatar
Moderator
Site Admin
Posts: 10607
Joined: Sun Jan 15, 2006 12:17 pm
Contact:

Re: Justifiable War?

Postby Moderator » Wed Aug 12, 2009 7:56 pm

Frank. PLEEEEASE go back and reread. The phrase "more justifiable" is different from "justifiable".

As regards Vietnam, I have entirely too close a relationship with people who actually fought the war and made decisions regarding it to want to engage your second-person theories further.

In the First Gulf War: The Arab League felt diplomacy had not been given a chance, but Saddam was in Kuwait and massing his forces at the Saudi border. Somewhat different that Gulf War 2. And the Arab League was hardly unified in their opposition. Using the same caveats as WW2, this was a far more urgent situation. Gulf 2 was not. I might suggest you read Storm Center: The USS Vincennes and Iran Air Flight 655: A Personal Account of Tragedy and Terrorism by Will and Sharon Rogers for a fairly good and accurate story of the military and political events that were shaping the middle east and helped lead up to the first war.

When you've read it, we can talk.

Just sayin'.
- I love to find adventure. All I need is a change of clothes, my Nikon, an open mind and a strong cup of coffee.

User avatar
FrankChurch
Posts: 16283
Joined: Wed May 28, 2003 2:19 pm

Re: Justifiable War?

Postby FrankChurch » Thu Aug 13, 2009 1:30 pm

I have to read a book by someone, but my evidence will be ignored or bulldozed over? What about all this stuff about listening to other people's ideas?

You have a billion books that say very crazy things, defended by people who seem really rational, but at the same time are wrong, wrong, wrong, fore and aft.

You know people who fought in Vietnam and know people who had some expertise in the war and that means my "secondhand" information will be ignored. But, good ole Frankie better not ignore the "second hand" information by some people who write some book that conforms with a certain photogs preconceived notions about the first Gulf War? I love you dearly, Barber, but you do live in a different galaxy then me? lol.

So if a cop says that police brutality is a myth, using Barber's logic, we should ignore the "second hand" information from a black activist, even if that activist has all the right numbers.

If a General goes on MSNBC and says Saddam has WMD and has ties to Al Quaida, we should trust his military knowledge, unlike some "second hand" boob like Frank Church who reads the Nation, which says that that General is full of shit and should shine one on. No, Sir. In Barber's world the experts run the world. I guess news reporting should be banned, since that is "second hand" knowledge. Next time I will just trust what the President says. Sheesh.

User avatar
Moderator
Site Admin
Posts: 10607
Joined: Sun Jan 15, 2006 12:17 pm
Contact:

Re: Justifiable War?

Postby Moderator » Thu Aug 13, 2009 1:46 pm

Frank - You defeat your own argument. I do listen to what you state, and you cite your own sources sources (many of which I have checked out). I am asking for the same respect. I have repeatedly asked that you try to examine these issues evenhandedly and from both sides of the issue and you have very pointedly refused, insisting that our sources are wrong and that only yours are the correct ones. I disagree with that approach, and feel that the truth is often in the middle -- and best served by people who can study and understand both sides.

That is the basis for my statement.
- I love to find adventure. All I need is a change of clothes, my Nikon, an open mind and a strong cup of coffee.

User avatar
FrankChurch
Posts: 16283
Joined: Wed May 28, 2003 2:19 pm

Re: Justifiable War?

Postby FrankChurch » Thu Aug 13, 2009 1:51 pm

Speaking of Kuwait, it seems they want reparations from Iraq:

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/co ... 64031.html

Second-hand knowledge? Sure, but Robert Fisk is the leading reporter in the world on the middle east. Guess what? Fisk agrees with me about the Gulf War. Kuwait was stealing oil from Iraq. If some state, say Mexico was stealing oil from us, would be be at war with Mexico? Actually, we already are. The drug war is, in effect, a war against the people of Mexico.

On Vietnam: Daniel Ellsberg, I'd suspect would agree with me about the war. He was inside the government, before leaking the Pentagon Papers. Ray McGovern, a CIA whistleblower, I'm sure agrees with me. I know Howard Zinn does. Remember, he was a bomber in the good war. Gore Vidal was as well. Vidal was an insider in the Kennedy White House. He knows Kennedy attacked South Vietnam. Leaked government documents pretty much prove it. This boy also uses first hand documents. hhe.

Barber's a hoot.

User avatar
FrankChurch
Posts: 16283
Joined: Wed May 28, 2003 2:19 pm

Re: Justifiable War?

Postby FrankChurch » Thu Aug 13, 2009 1:56 pm

The entire elite support Barber's other side. I cannot avoid it. I read what I can and tend to trust my radical sources, since they are not defended by corporations and big elite interests, who tend to skew most debates.

Barber, if the "other side" is so confident in their conclusions, then why do they exclude radicals from their media? Chomsky, Alfie Kohn, Zinn, Palast, Bugliosi, Parenti, Roy, Ali, cannot get on Sixty Minutes, but Bill O'Reilly can. Ann Coulter can get on the Today show, but not Greg Palast. What is this vital middle so afraid of? When we have an honest media, then we will talk.

User avatar
Moderator
Site Admin
Posts: 10607
Joined: Sun Jan 15, 2006 12:17 pm
Contact:

Re: Justifiable War?

Postby Moderator » Thu Aug 13, 2009 1:57 pm

FrankChurch wrote:If a General goes on MSNBC and says Saddam has WMD and has ties to Al Quaida, we should trust his military knowledge, unlike some "second hand" boob like Frank Church who reads the Nation, which says that that General is full of shit and should shine one on. No, Sir. In Barber's world the experts run the world. I guess news reporting should be banned, since that is "second hand" knowledge. Next time I will just trust what the President says. Sheesh.


As a matter of point, a certain General who is a fried of the family, went before the United Nations and insisted Saddam had WMD. I said at the time I questioned the stories based on the motivation of the Bush Administration. In fact, my father and I got into one heck of a brouhaha over it.

To question the experts you have to listen to them first. And in order to listen to them accurately, you cannot arrive at their points with your personal opinion already biased against them.

And using your police brutality point, Obama erred recently by making a comment before knowing the full story. I'm still a big fan of the man, but have to point at this incident and make note that he's doing the same thing. But his comment doesn't dismiss the fact that we have a lot of actual evidence -- not anecdotal but actual, solid evidence -- that such brutality exists.

I'm not dismissing your points at all, I'm asking that you give me the same courtesy you're demanding for yourself. So far, when I HAVE engaged in a debate, my points are dismissed and you insist I'm simply blind to the crimes of The Man. But when I make the same suggestion???

See your post above.
- I love to find adventure. All I need is a change of clothes, my Nikon, an open mind and a strong cup of coffee.

User avatar
FrankChurch
Posts: 16283
Joined: Wed May 28, 2003 2:19 pm

Re: Justifiable War?

Postby FrankChurch » Thu Aug 13, 2009 2:09 pm

No, the point is, we cannot trust people in power--period! "Governments lie," as IF Stone has said. When a general says something, I am first skeptical, because he defends applied power--that power normally lies to defend it. We just differ on sincerity. You believe that people in power can be sincere, I believe that they mostly lie to cover for power.

You must admit that you do tend to quote from the official record?

User avatar
Lori Koonce
Posts: 3538
Joined: Sat Jun 23, 2007 12:10 pm
Location: San Francisco California
Contact:

Re: Justifiable War?

Postby Lori Koonce » Thu Aug 13, 2009 2:13 pm

FrankChurch wrote:No, the point is, we cannot trust people in power--period! "Governments lie," as IF Stone has said. When a general says something, I am first skeptical, because he defends applied power--that power normally lies to defend it. We just differ on sincerity. You believe that people in power can be sincere, I believe that they mostly lie to cover for power.

You must admit that you do tend to quote from the official record?



And you only quote from the VERY far left. I have the strong feeling that the truth is somewhere in the middle.

But, unless you're willing to treat both sides with skepticism, you'll never figure it out.

User avatar
FrankChurch
Posts: 16283
Joined: Wed May 28, 2003 2:19 pm

Re: Justifiable War?

Postby FrankChurch » Thu Aug 13, 2009 2:18 pm

What's somewhere in the middle mean? The left have better sources, period. I look at other beliefs and with years of rational comparing, I have come to the conclusion that my radical ideas are closest to the truth. What's wrong with that?

Look at polls, I am in the mainstream of thought. Kiss.

User avatar
Lori Koonce
Posts: 3538
Joined: Sat Jun 23, 2007 12:10 pm
Location: San Francisco California
Contact:

Re: Justifiable War?

Postby Lori Koonce » Thu Aug 13, 2009 3:17 pm

FrankChurch wrote:What's somewhere in the middle mean? The left have better sources, period. I look at other beliefs and with years of rational comparing, I have come to the conclusion that my radical ideas are closest to the truth. What's wrong with that?

Look at polls, I am in the mainstream of thought. Kiss.


You do realize that the most UNRELIABLE thing is a poll right?

I mean if I talk to 10 women in the Midwest, and they all say they are against abortion, then saying 100 precet of women think abortion is wrongis s a correct statement of the facts, right?

Well, from a statistical pov, it's totally wrong. You took too small a sample, first of all, and second of all you didn't poll a variety of women.

Argumentation is the study of argument and how to do it effectively. One of it's basic premises is that all parties involved in the argument have to be willing to be proven wrong. It seems to me that whenever I or anyone else presents you with facts, or even opinion that doesn't jive with what you choose to believe, we are either dismissed outright, or ignored totally.

In areas like this one, one usually gets the respect they give Frank and even if you don't admit it, I'm sure you feel it.

Lori.

User avatar
Ezra Lb.
Posts: 4547
Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2004 8:02 am
Location: Washington, DC

Re: Justifiable War?

Postby Ezra Lb. » Thu Aug 13, 2009 3:58 pm

Frank emoted

No, the point is, we cannot trust people in power--period! "Governments lie," as IF Stone has said. When a general says something, I am first skeptical, because he defends applied power--that power normally lies to defend it. We just differ on sincerity. You believe that people in power can be sincere, I believe that they mostly lie to cover for power.

I'm glad you're seeing the light about Hugo Chavez. :wink:
“We must not always talk in the marketplace,” Hester Prynne said, “of what happens to us in the forest.”
-Nathaniel Hawthorne, The Scarlet Letter


Return to “General”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests