There has been much debate over the current war with Iraq. That debate has included such statements as "it's about oil" and "there aren't any WMD". Many of those who are making those comments can be categorized as Democrats, Clinton supporters, or on the "Left" politically. (Please note that IMNSHO there are people who do not fall into those categories who are also asking those questions and people who fall into those categories who support the current war with Iraq... that previous statement was admittedly a "generalization" and is based in part on the large contingent from the entertainment industry who fit the comment.)
Dana Sheets pointed out in a thread that the U.S. doctrine of defending the oil rich middle east as part of our national interests originally came from President Jimmy Carter... (The Carter Doctrine) and that, as we all know, President Carter was a Democrat. Thank you for that great information/insight.
With that in mind, I ask you:
Which U.S. Military actions were (or weren't) acceptable to you and why?
Here is the list to chose from:
World War I
World War II
Korean War
Vietnam War
Iran
Grenada
Panama
Iraq I (Operation Desert Storm)
Columbia
Somalia
Rwanda
Haiti
Macedonia
Bosnia
Ecuador
East Timor
Kuwait (II, not Desert Storm)
Liberia
Albania
Congo
Gabon
Sierra Leone
Afghanistan I
Sudan
Iraq (1-1/2, flyover missions)
Afghanistan II (going after Al Queda)
Iraq II (the current war with Iraq)
One other tidbit of information that I will point out is that from 1946 to the end of 1991, the U.S. deployed Military troops in eight foreign campaigns. from 1992 to 2000, the U.S. deployed military troops in at least forty separate foreign locations. (Note: neither stat includes the U.S. forces that have been deployed at foreign U.S. bases such as Okinawa, Germany, Korea, Phillipines, etc.) Therefore, the list above is not complete, but it gives a good place to start this discussion.
Remember, discuss the question at hand (and related facts).
Which U.S. Military actions were acceptable?
-
Kevin Mackie
- Posts: 671
- Joined: Wed Sep 16, 1998 6:01 am
Kevin’s KEY
(A)= Acceptable; US and allied interests gravely affected otherwise
(U) = Unacceptable
(CW) = Civil War
(H) = Humanitarian concerns
NOTES:
Some I’ve noted as acceptable even while being a civil war, I believe action was required to stop wholesale slaughter of non-combatants. (That’s also a good cause to continue the war against terrorism). I don’t hold this same view universally in all cases, such as the Balkans, which should have been policed by the European community. We can’t be expected to police the entire planet.
Any action taken in the Middle East, I feel is acceptable due our interests in 1) energy to live, 2) defends our lives against terrorism.
World War I (A)
World War II (A)
Korean War (U) (CW)
Vietnam War (U) (CW)
Iran (A)
Grenada (A)
Panama (A)
Iraq I (Operation Desert Storm) (A)
Columbia (A)
Somalia (A)(H)
Rwanda (A)(H)
Haiti (A)(H)
Macedonia (U) (CW)
Bosnia (U) (CW)
Ecuador (U) (CW)
East Timor (A)
Kuwait (II, not Desert Storm) (A)
Liberia (A)
Albania (U) (CW)
Congo (A)(H)
Gabon (A)(H)
Sierra Leone (U) (CW)
Afghanistan I (A)
Sudan (A)(H)
Iraq (1-1/2, flyover missions) (A)
Afghanistan II (going after Al Queda) (A)
Iraq II (the current war with Iraq) (A)
(A)= Acceptable; US and allied interests gravely affected otherwise
(U) = Unacceptable
(CW) = Civil War
(H) = Humanitarian concerns
NOTES:
Some I’ve noted as acceptable even while being a civil war, I believe action was required to stop wholesale slaughter of non-combatants. (That’s also a good cause to continue the war against terrorism). I don’t hold this same view universally in all cases, such as the Balkans, which should have been policed by the European community. We can’t be expected to police the entire planet.
Any action taken in the Middle East, I feel is acceptable due our interests in 1) energy to live, 2) defends our lives against terrorism.
World War I (A)
World War II (A)
Korean War (U) (CW)
Vietnam War (U) (CW)
Iran (A)
Grenada (A)
Panama (A)
Iraq I (Operation Desert Storm) (A)
Columbia (A)
Somalia (A)(H)
Rwanda (A)(H)
Haiti (A)(H)
Macedonia (U) (CW)
Bosnia (U) (CW)
Ecuador (U) (CW)
East Timor (A)
Kuwait (II, not Desert Storm) (A)
Liberia (A)
Albania (U) (CW)
Congo (A)(H)
Gabon (A)(H)
Sierra Leone (U) (CW)
Afghanistan I (A)
Sudan (A)(H)
Iraq (1-1/2, flyover missions) (A)
Afghanistan II (going after Al Queda) (A)
Iraq II (the current war with Iraq) (A)
-
Gene DeMambro
- Posts: 1684
- Joined: Sat Dec 12, 1998 6:01 am
- Location: Weymouth, MA US of A
There's one that's left out that you might want to add: Lebanon.
My old high school history teacher, Mr, Murphy, when he taught US History taught a maxim (which I;m sure can be attributed to another source that I've long since forgotten) that no nation has permanent friends and no nation has permanent enemies, but all nations have permanent self-interests.
One of the reasons Pres. Bush gives for invading Iraq is the depravity of Hussein in gassing his own people. And a corollary to that is the President's belief that the Iraqi citizens will benefit from having a dictator thrown off of their yoke.
Another reason in that Hussein is producing WMB, in violation of UN mandates, etc. A corollary to that is the President's assertion that said WMD can easily be given to terrorist, placing US and allied interests at grave risk.
So an ancillary question can be: What set of circumstances legitimately constitutes "legitimate" military intervention by the US?
Ultimately we always need to act in our own self interest-insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and securing the blessings of liberty and all that.
As to the original question: a legitimate case can be made that all were a necessary action, either to protect US and allied interests (like some are claiming we are doing in Iraq now) or just to prevent deplorable human suffering (like some are claiming we ar doing in Iraq now).
Gene
My old high school history teacher, Mr, Murphy, when he taught US History taught a maxim (which I;m sure can be attributed to another source that I've long since forgotten) that no nation has permanent friends and no nation has permanent enemies, but all nations have permanent self-interests.
One of the reasons Pres. Bush gives for invading Iraq is the depravity of Hussein in gassing his own people. And a corollary to that is the President's belief that the Iraqi citizens will benefit from having a dictator thrown off of their yoke.
Another reason in that Hussein is producing WMB, in violation of UN mandates, etc. A corollary to that is the President's assertion that said WMD can easily be given to terrorist, placing US and allied interests at grave risk.
So an ancillary question can be: What set of circumstances legitimately constitutes "legitimate" military intervention by the US?
The problem is we can't have it both ways re: international coalitions. Many on these pages have shown a dislike and contempt for the UN and NATO, yet we use the violaion of the UN resolutions as a justification for invading Iraq. And what makes the humanitarian crisis in Somalia so radically different than the humanitarian struggle in Bosnia? And what makes an overseas military action worthy of US involvement vs. one that ought be handled by others?I don’t hold this same view universally in all cases, such as the Balkans, which should have been policed by the European community. We can’t be expected to police the entire planet.
In a day and age where the world is getting smaller and smaller, where one small regional conflict in a far off can gravely affect US and allied interests, why not, where the reasons for US involvement, on a case by case basis, can be legitimately stated?We can’t be expected to police the entire planet.
Ultimately we always need to act in our own self interest-insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and securing the blessings of liberty and all that.
As to the original question: a legitimate case can be made that all were a necessary action, either to protect US and allied interests (like some are claiming we are doing in Iraq now) or just to prevent deplorable human suffering (like some are claiming we ar doing in Iraq now).
Gene
Last edited by Gene DeMambro on Mon Apr 21, 2003 6:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Where is Iraw? Does that term collaborate the raw parts of Iran and Iraq? That was a play on words to significantly amplify your last paragraph, right? I love it, Gene.
Reads as if you had a good history teacher, and his words may provide the answers to your question. To extend his [MM's] words I only add that might makes right and it is better to be feared than loved.
The US is a warring nation and absolutely does well conducting them most of the time. Mr. Bush may think that either the UN consists of corrupt lizards or the members have lilly livers and that f-word country as well. If so, he is to be commended.
Will you also celebrate the reopening of the Iraq-Israel pipeline with Sharon? That may give Israel more funds to purchase more US weapons etcetera. Self-interests? Naw, can't be. Maybe I'll be then able to get a job designing software for oily valves rather than stealthy Radar and they can name a town after me in the desert and call it al-moulton. Woohoo!!!
Reads as if you had a good history teacher, and his words may provide the answers to your question. To extend his [MM's] words I only add that might makes right and it is better to be feared than loved.
The US is a warring nation and absolutely does well conducting them most of the time. Mr. Bush may think that either the UN consists of corrupt lizards or the members have lilly livers and that f-word country as well. If so, he is to be commended.
Will you also celebrate the reopening of the Iraq-Israel pipeline with Sharon? That may give Israel more funds to purchase more US weapons etcetera. Self-interests? Naw, can't be. Maybe I'll be then able to get a job designing software for oily valves rather than stealthy Radar and they can name a town after me in the desert and call it al-moulton. Woohoo!!!
Always with an even keel.
-- Allen
-- Allen
-
Gene DeMambro
- Posts: 1684
- Joined: Sat Dec 12, 1998 6:01 am
- Location: Weymouth, MA US of A
No, Allen, it was a typo 
Two quotes I like in response:
"There is a homely old adage which runs: 'Speak softly and carry a big stick; you will go far.'"
-Theodore Roosevelt, 1903
"No man is justified in doing evil on the ground of expediency."
-Theodore Roosevelt, 'The Strenuous Life,' 1900
Might makes right is used by bullies.
Gene
might makes right
Two quotes I like in response:
"There is a homely old adage which runs: 'Speak softly and carry a big stick; you will go far.'"
-Theodore Roosevelt, 1903
"No man is justified in doing evil on the ground of expediency."
-Theodore Roosevelt, 'The Strenuous Life,' 1900
Might makes right is used by bullies.
Great, so instead of friends, we breed a whole host of enemies.it is better to be feared than loved
Gene
Gene DeMambro wrote:There's one that's left out that you might want to add: Lebanon.
Good enough. Add Lebanon to the list... As I said, it wasn't a complete list, but it was what I came up with at the time.
While that may be the root question, it seems that situations dictate different reasons, so just stick with the list (and others not listed if you think of them) and say which were acceptable, which weren't... and why.What set of circumstances legitimately constitutes "legitimate" military intervention by the US?
Compare each case and let us know the answers to your questions.The problem is we can't have it both ways re: international coalitions. Many on these pages have shown a dislike and contempt for the UN and NATO, yet we use the violaion of the UN resolutions as a justification for invading Iraq. And what makes the humanitarian crisis in Somalia so radically different than the humanitarian struggle in Bosnia? And what makes an overseas military action worthy of US involvement vs. one that ought be handled by others?
"and all that"... hmmm...In a day and age where the world is getting smaller and smaller, where one small regional conflict in a far off can gravely affect US and allied interests, why not, where the reasons for US involvement, on a case by case basis, can be legitimately stated?
Ultimately we always need to act in our own self interest-insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and securing the blessings of liberty and all that.
Perhaps... perhaps not... go down the list and make a legitimate case for each action... Just to see if it can be done... I'm not so sure one way or the other.As to the original question: a legitimate case can be made that all were a necessary action, either to protect US and allied interests (like some are claiming we are doing in Iraq now) or just to prevent deplorable human suffering (like some are claiming we ar doing in Iraq now).
-
Don Rearic
- Posts: 697
- Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2002 6:01 am
- Location: Absurdistan
- Contact:
In this case we are in, it is better to be feared than loved. Syria has started to sweat and they have now closed their border with Iraq. Saddam's son in law became persona non grata in Syria and had to return to Iraq where he was promptly arrested.
North Korea has backed off and there is talk that it is N. Korea who has initiated further talks, not the other way around.
After 9-11-01, everyone loved us except radical islamists. That's a given as they blew up our buildings here and abroad.
Everyone poured out the warmest sympathies.
I see a pattern here among those who vehemently support gun control too.
Everyone loves the victim. After 9-11-01, everyone was wonderful to us. When we started to get pissed and make the decision that it was not going to happen again as easily as it did before, all that love and support went right out the goddamned window.
Everyone loves the elderly until one of them smokes some turd coming through the living room window at 3:00 am, then there has to be a "decision" if the elderly person should be prosecuted or not. But if the elderly person gets stomped in their own home or even killed, there will be all manner of wailing and carrying on for them.
Same thing when it comes to other forms of Self-defense.
Get your ass kicked in High School, the Teachers and Administrators have a victim to feel sorry for. If the person dares to defend themselves, they are suspended with the attacker(s) (it is not up for debate, it is a fact).
When you're a victim, everyone will love you. When you start to take down the apparatus that makes you one, some people lose their mind over it.
It is better to be feared and be alive than to be battered and loved posthumously.
North Korea has backed off and there is talk that it is N. Korea who has initiated further talks, not the other way around.
After 9-11-01, everyone loved us except radical islamists. That's a given as they blew up our buildings here and abroad.
Everyone poured out the warmest sympathies.
I see a pattern here among those who vehemently support gun control too.
Everyone loves the victim. After 9-11-01, everyone was wonderful to us. When we started to get pissed and make the decision that it was not going to happen again as easily as it did before, all that love and support went right out the goddamned window.
Everyone loves the elderly until one of them smokes some turd coming through the living room window at 3:00 am, then there has to be a "decision" if the elderly person should be prosecuted or not. But if the elderly person gets stomped in their own home or even killed, there will be all manner of wailing and carrying on for them.
Same thing when it comes to other forms of Self-defense.
Get your ass kicked in High School, the Teachers and Administrators have a victim to feel sorry for. If the person dares to defend themselves, they are suspended with the attacker(s) (it is not up for debate, it is a fact).
When you're a victim, everyone will love you. When you start to take down the apparatus that makes you one, some people lose their mind over it.
It is better to be feared and be alive than to be battered and loved posthumously.
Stultorum infinitus est numerus
Generalizing, Don has a point... and Generalizing, Gene has a point...
But as I said before... what about the list of U.S. conflicts?
It looks like Kevin is the only one who's gone out on a limb and addressed each conflict on the list! There are plenty of conflicts there and innumerable reasons for the U.S. getting involved in each one. There are also innumerable reasons to critique or perhaps criticize many of them. Think about them and why one may be acceptable and another not acceptable... and this might be the opportunity to point out how different Presidents have handled the foreign conflicts around the world during their administration.
The thought that got me to start this thread was the fact that much criticism has been made towards the current (Republican) administration for a policy of going into Iraq to defend/secure oil, then Dana Sheets pointed out that such policy was first introduced as the Carter (a Democrat) Doctrine. An interesting revelation given the current state of protest from some. Therefore, in an effort to find out exactly what is considered an acceptable reason for deployment of our U.S. military men and women into harm's way, I asked the question and listed some of the deployments that came to mind...
So, I ask again... What was acceptable or unacceptable about the various uses of U.S. military force in each of these cases? Along that same line, given the posts so far, explain why a deployment might be acceptable, but the way that deployment was handled was unacceptable... or vice-versa.
Food for thought, discussion and debate...
But as I said before... what about the list of U.S. conflicts?
It looks like Kevin is the only one who's gone out on a limb and addressed each conflict on the list! There are plenty of conflicts there and innumerable reasons for the U.S. getting involved in each one. There are also innumerable reasons to critique or perhaps criticize many of them. Think about them and why one may be acceptable and another not acceptable... and this might be the opportunity to point out how different Presidents have handled the foreign conflicts around the world during their administration.
The thought that got me to start this thread was the fact that much criticism has been made towards the current (Republican) administration for a policy of going into Iraq to defend/secure oil, then Dana Sheets pointed out that such policy was first introduced as the Carter (a Democrat) Doctrine. An interesting revelation given the current state of protest from some. Therefore, in an effort to find out exactly what is considered an acceptable reason for deployment of our U.S. military men and women into harm's way, I asked the question and listed some of the deployments that came to mind...
So, I ask again... What was acceptable or unacceptable about the various uses of U.S. military force in each of these cases? Along that same line, given the posts so far, explain why a deployment might be acceptable, but the way that deployment was handled was unacceptable... or vice-versa.
Food for thought, discussion and debate...
-
jorvik
I can understand the use of military force for immoral reasons. In power politics there is only really self interest. I think that it would be hard to discuss any of the examples given, WW1 and WW2 for example you would have to be a historian to really understand the motives, and I think that they were economic more than anything else.
As regards Iraq I really didn't like all the lies spewed out ....first it was Iraq had to get rid of WMD, let the inspectors in......which they did, then the US didn't want a change of government then they did, then the oil was not going to be exploited ...now it is, there was not going to be a permenant US presence....now there is.
Panther .....on another thread ( I think).....you said that it had been discovered that Iraq had been destroying WMD 24/7, going back to my first point about Iraq they were doing everything asked of them.....the goal posts just kept on moving.
That is what I don't like ....we are getting lied to...and it's just so darned blatant it gets really offensive.
I know I've strayed off the point of this thread...but that is why ( I at least) was opposed to this war......I suppose its a bit like people getting fired up about Clinton using armour in Waco and not in the places he should have( Mogadishu).......the lies and duplicity of politicians. You just feel like saying hang on I didn't vote for you to do this without my say so ( Mr.Blair) and as far as I'm concerned that is undemocratic.
I've already mentioned about Clinton going to Ireland to see the IRA ( so I don't exactly have warm feelings for him) what some folks won't know is that We sent our troops into Northern Ireland to protect the Catholics......who were very likely to be wiped out by the Protestants. I say this because I wasn't aware of Clinton's stance on Mogadishu and Waco ( which was an absolute disgrace)......so you might not be aware of that.
As regards Iraq I really didn't like all the lies spewed out ....first it was Iraq had to get rid of WMD, let the inspectors in......which they did, then the US didn't want a change of government then they did, then the oil was not going to be exploited ...now it is, there was not going to be a permenant US presence....now there is.
Panther .....on another thread ( I think).....you said that it had been discovered that Iraq had been destroying WMD 24/7, going back to my first point about Iraq they were doing everything asked of them.....the goal posts just kept on moving.
That is what I don't like ....we are getting lied to...and it's just so darned blatant it gets really offensive.
I know I've strayed off the point of this thread...but that is why ( I at least) was opposed to this war......I suppose its a bit like people getting fired up about Clinton using armour in Waco and not in the places he should have( Mogadishu).......the lies and duplicity of politicians. You just feel like saying hang on I didn't vote for you to do this without my say so ( Mr.Blair) and as far as I'm concerned that is undemocratic.
I've already mentioned about Clinton going to Ireland to see the IRA ( so I don't exactly have warm feelings for him) what some folks won't know is that We sent our troops into Northern Ireland to protect the Catholics......who were very likely to be wiped out by the Protestants. I say this because I wasn't aware of Clinton's stance on Mogadishu and Waco ( which was an absolute disgrace)......so you might not be aware of that.
Perhaps some things haven't been made clear.jorvik wrote:As regards Iraq I really didn't like all the lies spewed out ....first it was Iraq had to get rid of WMD, let the inspectors in......which they did, then the US didn't want a change of government then they did, then the oil was not going to be exploited ...now it is, there was not going to be a permenant US presence....now there is.
Iraq was supposed to disarm in the area of WMD in 1991. They didn't. The original UN inspector was vetoed by the French, Germans and Russians and we ended up with the current one. The UN inspectors claimed they were being inhibited from their job in the early 90s and withdrew. Finally, they were allowed back in and again they muddled around with obvious deceptions occuring. (Admitted by them in UN reports) Regardless, one issue has always been disarming Iraq of WMD.
There are those in the US who have called for the removal of Saddam for over a decade. It wasn't an issue in the previous administration for various reasons and became one in the current administration.
At no time has the official US policy been to exploit the oil of Iraq for anything other than the people of Iraq, regardless of the sentiments and desires written on this forum.
And at no time has there been a claim made that there will be a permanent US presence in Iraq. In fact, people are asking how long before the pull-out.
Not true. The report I saw which quoted the captured Iraqi official stated that Saddam ordered the destruction of WMD after the current war had started.Panther .....on another thread ( I think).....you said that it had been discovered that Iraq had been destroying WMD 24/7, going back to my first point about Iraq they were doing everything asked of them.....the goal posts just kept on moving.
Maybe... Maybe not... Different people have different takes on things.That is what I don't like ....we are getting lied to...and it's just so darned blatant it gets really offensive.
You might find that there are those who will find "acceptable" reasons for all of the actions of Mr. Clinton... and those who will find every action of Mr. Bush "unacceptable"... and vice-versa.I know I've strayed off the point of this thread...but that is why ( I at least) was opposed to this war......I suppose its a bit like people getting fired up about Clinton using armour in Waco and not in the places he should have( Mogadishu).......the lies and duplicity of politicians. You just feel like saying hang on I didn't vote for you to do this without my say so ( Mr.Blair) and as far as I'm concerned that is undemocratic.
I've already mentioned about Clinton going to Ireland to see the IRA ( so I don't exactly have warm feelings for him) what some folks won't know is that We sent our troops into Northern Ireland to protect the Catholics......who were very likely to be wiped out by the Protestants. I say this because I wasn't aware of Clinton's stance on Mogadishu and Waco ( which was an absolute disgrace)......so you might not be aware of that.
-
Rick Wilson
A key of my own:
(NEI) = I do Not have Enough Information for me to assess competently
Simply my opinion:
World War I A
World War II A
Korean War U
Vietnam War U
Iran A
Grenada A
Panama A
Iraq I (Operation Desert Storm) A
Columbia A
Somalia A
Rwanda A
Haiti A
Macedonia A
Bosnia A
Ecuador NEI
East Timor NEI
Kuwait (II, not Desert Storm) NEI
Liberia NEI
Albania NEI
Congo A
Gabon NEI
Sierra Leone NEI
Afghanistan I NEI
Sudan A
Iraq (1-1/2, flyover missions) A
Afghanistan II (going after Al Queda) A
Iraq II (the current war with Iraq) A
(NEI) = I do Not have Enough Information for me to assess competently
Simply my opinion:
World War I A
World War II A
Korean War U
Vietnam War U
Iran A
Grenada A
Panama A
Iraq I (Operation Desert Storm) A
Columbia A
Somalia A
Rwanda A
Haiti A
Macedonia A
Bosnia A
Ecuador NEI
East Timor NEI
Kuwait (II, not Desert Storm) NEI
Liberia NEI
Albania NEI
Congo A
Gabon NEI
Sierra Leone NEI
Afghanistan I NEI
Sudan A
Iraq (1-1/2, flyover missions) A
Afghanistan II (going after Al Queda) A
Iraq II (the current war with Iraq) A
-
Dana Sheets
- Posts: 2715
- Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2002 6:01 am
Panther has asked a parallel question which I will paraphrase as:
"What is a rubric that can be used to determine "acceptability" of military action on the part of the U.S." This is obviously a partial list, and I'm not yet assigning values to each letter, no do I know what the scale should be (i.e. once you have 5 reasons or a score of 45 we will engage in military action.) Please feel free to add to or comment on how this is structured.
The obvious ones are easy: (in no particular order)
A. A soverign state declares war on us and attacks our soil (territories included)
B. An ally (like Canada) gets war delcared on them by a soverign state and we enter the war to defend our ally
C.
D.
The semi-obvious ones are less easy
E. A regime harbours a large faction that has declared war on the us. (This is the Taliban model)
F.
G.
H.
I.
The hardest ones are ones where nobody has declared war on anybody and we're taking military action to "police the peace". I'm not saying that I agree with all the things I'm about to list - but I think they are ones used in the past to justify military action.
J. A rogue nation makes nuclear weapons
K. A rogue nation uses biochemical weapons on their own people
L. A rogue nation engages in ethnic cleansing
M. A rogue nation makes biochemical weapons
N. A rogue nation engages in the targeted oppression of certain parts of the population (South Africa Model)
O.
P.
Q.
R.
S.
T.
U.
V.
W.
X.
Y.
Z.
Additional items to take into consideration:
AA. Size of the nation
BB. Military strength of the nation
CC. Cost of war (human and fiscal)
DD. Risk of loss
EE. International Support
FF. On our soil vs on their soil
GG. Length of war
HH. Public support
II. Congressional Support
JJ. Conventional Warfare
KK. Biochemical warfare
LL. Nuclear warfare
MM. Secondary warfare (if Turkey invaded Iraq)
NN. Occupation (responsibilities and cost)
OO. Reconstruction (responsibilities and cost)
PP. International popular Political climate
QQ.
RR.
SS.
TT.
I'd the war-gamers like SAIC already have rubrics like this and they're already in use. Anyway - as I said this is a draft - pull apart at will.
Dana
"What is a rubric that can be used to determine "acceptability" of military action on the part of the U.S." This is obviously a partial list, and I'm not yet assigning values to each letter, no do I know what the scale should be (i.e. once you have 5 reasons or a score of 45 we will engage in military action.) Please feel free to add to or comment on how this is structured.
The obvious ones are easy: (in no particular order)
A. A soverign state declares war on us and attacks our soil (territories included)
B. An ally (like Canada) gets war delcared on them by a soverign state and we enter the war to defend our ally
C.
D.
The semi-obvious ones are less easy
E. A regime harbours a large faction that has declared war on the us. (This is the Taliban model)
F.
G.
H.
I.
The hardest ones are ones where nobody has declared war on anybody and we're taking military action to "police the peace". I'm not saying that I agree with all the things I'm about to list - but I think they are ones used in the past to justify military action.
J. A rogue nation makes nuclear weapons
K. A rogue nation uses biochemical weapons on their own people
L. A rogue nation engages in ethnic cleansing
M. A rogue nation makes biochemical weapons
N. A rogue nation engages in the targeted oppression of certain parts of the population (South Africa Model)
O.
P.
Q.
R.
S.
T.
U.
V.
W.
X.
Y.
Z.
Additional items to take into consideration:
AA. Size of the nation
BB. Military strength of the nation
CC. Cost of war (human and fiscal)
DD. Risk of loss
EE. International Support
FF. On our soil vs on their soil
GG. Length of war
HH. Public support
II. Congressional Support
JJ. Conventional Warfare
KK. Biochemical warfare
LL. Nuclear warfare
MM. Secondary warfare (if Turkey invaded Iraq)
NN. Occupation (responsibilities and cost)
OO. Reconstruction (responsibilities and cost)
PP. International popular Political climate
QQ.
RR.
SS.
TT.
I'd the war-gamers like SAIC already have rubrics like this and they're already in use. Anyway - as I said this is a draft - pull apart at will.
Dana
-
Le Haggard
- Posts: 116
- Joined: Fri May 02, 2003 3:38 am
- Location: Ballard area of Seattle, Washington State
Hello Everyone,
I'm new here, though I have been reading for a while, and so I will keep this relatively simple. I don't have any "appropriate" or "inappropriate" designations for military actions. I do have some additional things to add to the other considerations to think about.
* What determines justification for military action?
---Direct attack on US Soil?
---Clearly identified enemy?
---Maintaining US Resource Supply from another nation?
* As a motive for war: Who decides which culture/regime is the "right" one to overthrow and which to protect? What determines who is morally "right"?
---Should only those living in the culture be able to decide if it should change or not? If they want change or protection of their culture, should others assist them? (i.e.: US Revolutionary War and US Civil War)
---Do we have a right to tell others how to live and how to run their governments? Why? (The US would balk if someone tried to tell us how.)
---Should paternalism (forcing something for another's "own good") ever be justified from outside cultures? If so, when? (Manifest Destiny?)
*What is a valid justification for initiating a war (also called "preemptive war") and what can be construed as a "first attack" from either side?
---Does another group/government building up weapons but not using them against us constitute an attack? (Waco? Activities in Idaho? The NRA may be in trouble.)
---Does dislike of our country constitute a threat? How about disagreement an attack? (France?)
---Desire to spread democracy? (also called Imperialism or nation building)
*Will these considerations be seen the same in 1 year from now? 5 Years? 10? 50? 100? The view changes with time.
I could go on, but that's a short list to start off a very complex issue in a multicultural world. Mind you, I'm a philosophy major and this is right on topic with the social and political philosophy I'm studying and discussing lately. Tough issues...tougher questions...no black and white answers from my view.
PANTHER: Great Forum! Good Thread! I appreciate the opportunity to debate. I love Debate! Hope you don't mind my drop in.
Le'
I'm new here, though I have been reading for a while, and so I will keep this relatively simple. I don't have any "appropriate" or "inappropriate" designations for military actions. I do have some additional things to add to the other considerations to think about.
* What determines justification for military action?
---Direct attack on US Soil?
---Clearly identified enemy?
---Maintaining US Resource Supply from another nation?
* As a motive for war: Who decides which culture/regime is the "right" one to overthrow and which to protect? What determines who is morally "right"?
---Should only those living in the culture be able to decide if it should change or not? If they want change or protection of their culture, should others assist them? (i.e.: US Revolutionary War and US Civil War)
---Do we have a right to tell others how to live and how to run their governments? Why? (The US would balk if someone tried to tell us how.)
---Should paternalism (forcing something for another's "own good") ever be justified from outside cultures? If so, when? (Manifest Destiny?)
*What is a valid justification for initiating a war (also called "preemptive war") and what can be construed as a "first attack" from either side?
---Does another group/government building up weapons but not using them against us constitute an attack? (Waco? Activities in Idaho? The NRA may be in trouble.)
---Does dislike of our country constitute a threat? How about disagreement an attack? (France?)
---Desire to spread democracy? (also called Imperialism or nation building)
*Will these considerations be seen the same in 1 year from now? 5 Years? 10? 50? 100? The view changes with time.
I could go on, but that's a short list to start off a very complex issue in a multicultural world. Mind you, I'm a philosophy major and this is right on topic with the social and political philosophy I'm studying and discussing lately. Tough issues...tougher questions...no black and white answers from my view.
PANTHER: Great Forum! Good Thread! I appreciate the opportunity to debate. I love Debate! Hope you don't mind my drop in.
Le'
Welcome to the forum...
Le'
Good questions/points. Welcome to the forum. If you've been lurking for awhile, then you know the rules of the forum/debate/game/whatever... I, too, like to discuss issues. It helps me learn and grow, whether that is in the form of changing/modifying my exisitng position or in strengthening my existing belief. I'm glad to have you join in.
Take care and be good to yourself...
Good questions/points. Welcome to the forum. If you've been lurking for awhile, then you know the rules of the forum/debate/game/whatever... I, too, like to discuss issues. It helps me learn and grow, whether that is in the form of changing/modifying my exisitng position or in strengthening my existing belief. I'm glad to have you join in.
Take care and be good to yourself...
==================================
My God-given Rights are NOT "void where prohibited by law!"
My God-given Rights are NOT "void where prohibited by law!"
-
D.A. Downing
- Posts: 10
- Joined: Mon May 05, 2003 3:43 pm
A gift from our allies
A letter to the London Observer from Terry Jones (ex Monty Python).
*******************************************************************
I'm really excited by George Bush's latest reason for bombing Iraq: he's
running out of patience. And so am I! For some time now I've been really
pissed off with Mr Johnson, who lives a couple of doors down the street.
Well, him and Mr Patel, who runs the health food shop. They both give me
queer looks, and I'm sure Mr Johnson is planning something nasty for me,
but so far I haven't been able to discover what.
I've been round to his place a few times to see what he's up to, but he's
got everything well hidden. That's how devious he is. As for Mr Patel,
don't ask me how I know, I just know - from very good sources - that he
is, in reality, a Mass Murderer. I have leafleted the street telling them
that if we don't act first, he'll pick us off one by one. Some of my
neighbours say, if I've got proof, why don't I go to the police? But
that's simply ridiculous. The police will say that they need evidence of a
crime with which to charge my neighbours. They'll come up with endless red tape and quibbling about the rights and wrongs of a pre-emptive strike and all the while Mr Johnson will be finalising his plans to do terrible
things to me, while Mr Patel will be secretly murdering people.
Since I'm the only one in the street with a decent range of
automaticfirearms, I reckon it's up to me to keep the peace. But until
recently that's been a little difficult. Now, however, George W. Bush has
made it clear that all I need to do is run out of patience, and then I can
wade in and do whatever I want! And let's face it, Mr Bush's carefully
thought-out policy towards Iraq is the only way to bring about
international peace and security. The one certain way to stop Muslim
fundamentalist suicide bombers targeting the US or the UK is to bomb a few
Muslim countries that have never threatened us.
That's why I want to blow up Mr Johnson's garage and kill his wife and
children. Strike first! That'll teach him a lesson. Then he'll leave us in
peace and stop peering at me in that totally unacceptable way.
Mr Bush makes it clear that all he needs to know before bombing Iraq is
that Saddam is a really nasty man and that he has weapons of mass
destruction - even if no one can find them. I'm certain I've just as much
justification for killing Mr Johnson's wife and children as Mr Bush has
for bombing Iraq. Mr Bush's long-term aim is to make the world a safer
place by eliminating 'rogue states' and 'terrorism'. It's such a clever
long-term aim because how can you ever know when you've achieved it? How will Mr Bush know when he's wiped out all terrorists? When every single terrorist is dead? But then a terrorist is only a terrorist once he's
committed an act of terror. What about would-be terrorists? These are the
ones you really want to eliminate, since most of the known terrorists,
being suicide bombers, have already eliminated themselves.
Perhaps Mr Bush needs to wipe out everyone who could possibly be a future terrorist? Maybe he can't be sure he's achieved his objective until every Muslim fundamentalist is dead? But then some moderate Muslims might convert to fundamentalism. Maybe the only really safe thing to do would be for Mr Bush to eliminate all Muslims? It's the same in my street. Mr
Johnson and Mr Patel are just the tip of the iceberg. There are dozens of
other people in the street who I don't like and who - quite frankly - look
at me in odd ways. No one will be really safe until I've wiped them all
out. My wife says I might be going too far but I tell her I'm simply using
the same logic as the President of the United States. That shuts her up.
Like Mr Bush, I've run out of patience, and if that's a good enough reason
for the President, it's good enough for me. I'm going to give the whole
street two weeks - no, 10 days - to come out in the open and hand over all
aliens and interplanetary hijackers, galactic outlaws and interstellar
terrorist masterminds, and if they don't hand them over nicely and say
'Thank you', I'm going to bomb the entire street to kingdom come. It's
just as sane as what George W. Bush is doing - and, in contrast to
what he's doing, my policy will destroy only one street.
*******************************************************************
I'm really excited by George Bush's latest reason for bombing Iraq: he's
running out of patience. And so am I! For some time now I've been really
pissed off with Mr Johnson, who lives a couple of doors down the street.
Well, him and Mr Patel, who runs the health food shop. They both give me
queer looks, and I'm sure Mr Johnson is planning something nasty for me,
but so far I haven't been able to discover what.
I've been round to his place a few times to see what he's up to, but he's
got everything well hidden. That's how devious he is. As for Mr Patel,
don't ask me how I know, I just know - from very good sources - that he
is, in reality, a Mass Murderer. I have leafleted the street telling them
that if we don't act first, he'll pick us off one by one. Some of my
neighbours say, if I've got proof, why don't I go to the police? But
that's simply ridiculous. The police will say that they need evidence of a
crime with which to charge my neighbours. They'll come up with endless red tape and quibbling about the rights and wrongs of a pre-emptive strike and all the while Mr Johnson will be finalising his plans to do terrible
things to me, while Mr Patel will be secretly murdering people.
Since I'm the only one in the street with a decent range of
automaticfirearms, I reckon it's up to me to keep the peace. But until
recently that's been a little difficult. Now, however, George W. Bush has
made it clear that all I need to do is run out of patience, and then I can
wade in and do whatever I want! And let's face it, Mr Bush's carefully
thought-out policy towards Iraq is the only way to bring about
international peace and security. The one certain way to stop Muslim
fundamentalist suicide bombers targeting the US or the UK is to bomb a few
Muslim countries that have never threatened us.
That's why I want to blow up Mr Johnson's garage and kill his wife and
children. Strike first! That'll teach him a lesson. Then he'll leave us in
peace and stop peering at me in that totally unacceptable way.
Mr Bush makes it clear that all he needs to know before bombing Iraq is
that Saddam is a really nasty man and that he has weapons of mass
destruction - even if no one can find them. I'm certain I've just as much
justification for killing Mr Johnson's wife and children as Mr Bush has
for bombing Iraq. Mr Bush's long-term aim is to make the world a safer
place by eliminating 'rogue states' and 'terrorism'. It's such a clever
long-term aim because how can you ever know when you've achieved it? How will Mr Bush know when he's wiped out all terrorists? When every single terrorist is dead? But then a terrorist is only a terrorist once he's
committed an act of terror. What about would-be terrorists? These are the
ones you really want to eliminate, since most of the known terrorists,
being suicide bombers, have already eliminated themselves.
Perhaps Mr Bush needs to wipe out everyone who could possibly be a future terrorist? Maybe he can't be sure he's achieved his objective until every Muslim fundamentalist is dead? But then some moderate Muslims might convert to fundamentalism. Maybe the only really safe thing to do would be for Mr Bush to eliminate all Muslims? It's the same in my street. Mr
Johnson and Mr Patel are just the tip of the iceberg. There are dozens of
other people in the street who I don't like and who - quite frankly - look
at me in odd ways. No one will be really safe until I've wiped them all
out. My wife says I might be going too far but I tell her I'm simply using
the same logic as the President of the United States. That shuts her up.
Like Mr Bush, I've run out of patience, and if that's a good enough reason
for the President, it's good enough for me. I'm going to give the whole
street two weeks - no, 10 days - to come out in the open and hand over all
aliens and interplanetary hijackers, galactic outlaws and interstellar
terrorist masterminds, and if they don't hand them over nicely and say
'Thank you', I'm going to bomb the entire street to kingdom come. It's
just as sane as what George W. Bush is doing - and, in contrast to
what he's doing, my policy will destroy only one street.
