(no subject)

[jazzfish]

Thanks to jude (and her father) we have a transcript of Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV)'s speech before the Senate from three days ago. "The doctrine of preemption -- the idea that the United States or any other nation can legitimately attack a nation that is not imminently threatening but may be threatening in the future -- is a radical new twist on the traditional idea of self defense."

My thoughts on War in Iraq are still a bit nebulous, but I can't really see it as being, in the long run, a Good Thing. So Hussein is an evil dictator-- so are tons of other foreign despots. No reason to launch Uhmerikun imperialism.

Must go; type later.

Maybe it'll be a rotten February after all.

Comments

[ndkid.livejournal.com]

Although a good sound bite, it reads like hyperbole to me... pre-emptive strikes, or even rationalizing them as forms of self defense, aren't really new, even on the national level.
But the difference is most of the others these days are *our* evil dictators. I mean, really, how many Mid-East dictators don't at least pay lip service to America? Saddam really does represent the exception rather than the rule in defying American rules. (Though I am proud of France et al. for actually standing up against American war-mongering for a change; no matter how I personally feel about war with Iraq, I think the world redeveloping backbone is a good thing.)

[jazzfish]

pre-emptive strikes, or even rationalizing them as forms of self defense, aren't really new, even on the national level.

Show me. Seriously; my twentieth-century history is a bit iffy. Show me a pre-emptive retaliatory strike (get them back before they get us!) that *didn't* make things worse, after about, say, WWI era.

the difference is most of the others these days are *our* evil dictators.

This, of course, makes it right to go to war against only the ones that won't support us. Don't start.

how many Mid-East dictators don't at least pay lip service to America?

Why limit it to the Mid-East? The war is emphatically Not About Oil. Fidel Castro and Kim Jong Il come immediately to mind, and I have no idea who's in charge in Iran these days but I doubt they're terribly friendly. Palestine. Various Balkans.

Having said that, I *would* appreciate a good pro-war screed. But I haven't been able to find anything that addresses Byrd's concerns.

[ndkid.livejournal.com]

Oh, I didn't realize that we were requiring both post WWI *and* that the repercussions weren't worse. The examples that were foremost in my mind were pre-empts against Native Americans (I can't remember if you're one of the people who dislikes that term; if so, I apologize.). My only good examples in the modern era are of gurrilla wars like Vietnam, where soliders might walk into a village and slaughter based on reports of enemies working out of that village, regardless of whether they thought the enemy would continue to work out of that village, whether the enemy was currently there, etc.

Right or wrong, can you name a war that isn't based on side one trying to exert control over side 2? I mean, that's practiaclly the definition of the cause of war. As a result, I think arguing that Saddam isn't our dictator is no *less* a reason to go to war than any other... it's just a matter of whether war is ever justified, then.

Really, I think there are only two possible excuses (unless you count the general control-exerting noted above as its own excuse) for this target practice:
a) Pre-emptive strike
b) We're doing the Iraqi people a favor

I'm not sure I've seen a document that puts both together for an arguement... most tend to stress one or the other. In all, I think you can take anything from the last Gulk War that doesn't mention Kuwait, and it'd probably apply for this one... those two arguements haven't really changed since then.