Re: I want to change direction slightly -- SPEAK UP

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, [3], 4 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 13:01:51 03/14/03 Fri
Author: Arkady
Author Host/IP: NoHost / 148.183.241.15
Subject: Re: I want to change direction slightly
In reply to: Richard 's message, "I want to change direction slightly" on 08:19:25 03/14/03 Fri

Well, it seems that one MUST conclude that the founders intended for there to be such a thing as "war", and for Congress to be the branch with the power to declare it. You're right to point out that it's not black and white what we say is "war" and what we say doesn't rise to that level. However, I think that still brings us back to the problem that, if the Constitutional provision is to mean ANYTHING, some sort of "war-like" action by the President must be banned unless Congress first declares war. If not an all-out invasion with the purpose of regime change, what woud be banned?

>I don't think you would argue that Iraq is not a threat
>to our security.

Yes, it is a threat. Same with North Korea. Same with China. Or Cuba. Or Syria. Or Iran. Hell, same with Russia or Israel (both have been caught spying on us, and that is a threat to our national security). That doesn't mean we have to invade them all.

The decision of whether or not to invade is a balancing act: are we likely to gain more than we lose? Unless we can answer "yes" with great confidence, prudence suggests we err on the side of avoiding war. In this case, it's very hard to say. There are legitimate arguments that we stand to benefit by taking out Hussein, and also legitimate fears about all the potential negative side effects. In my own case, I've concluded, based on my overall appraisal and "gut feeling", that we gain a little more than we lose if we are able to invade with proper authorization (which will minimize the negative side-effects), and that we lose a lot more than we gain if we invade without proper authorization and without anything amounting to international consensus (which will really increase the magnitude of all the unintended consequences).

As such, I'd support invasion if we could get the votes, and I oppose it in the current situation. Where my call would be tougher would be if we had much more widespread support for invasion throughout the world, and our desire to invade with authorization was only blocked by the veto of Russia or China -- a single nation whose opinion isn't terribly well-respected through most of the world. That's not the current situation, but if we end up there, that's about where I'd see the balancing point between likely gains and likely losses. For example, if the Security Council vote goes "yes" with a sizeable majority, and China is the only significant country to vote "no", I would (exceedingly grudgingly) support invasion.

>Then we have the problem of inconsistency. It takes a
>very sharp legal, moral, and emotional scalpel make a
>distinction between Iraq and places like Kosovo or
>Bosnia.

I don't think so. Imagine that Hussein was sending his troops into Kurdish areas to commit mass murder and rape, with the intention of driving the Kurdish people out of his country. Further imagine that Bush was supporting targeted strikes on Iraqi military facilities and troops, with the narrow goal of halting this ethnic cleansing. Surely many liberals would object, but many more would not. Certainly we wouldn't have entrenched opposition from countries like Germany and France. All these countries and people would naturally make a distinction between a war of conquest and a narrow use of force designed to stop genocide. In fact, didn't we have something similar actually happen, when we first imposed the northern no-fly zone? I don't remember massive street protests back then.

>Can you convince me that the liberal support of (or at
>least lack of opposition to) military action in Southern
>Europe and opposition to military action in Iraq is not
>based on liberal dislike of President Bush and support
>for President Clinton.

Liberals don't reflexively oppose Bush. Both in this country and around the world, most supported Bush's war in Afghanistan. Germany, one of our current adversaries, was one of our biggest supporters back then. It is not Bush the man who inspires the opposition, it is primarily Bush's plan that does so.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

That doesn't convince me -- Richard, 15:01:37 03/14/03 Fri
- Re: That doesn't convince me -- Arkady, 19:11:58 03/14/03 Fri