First strike and your out!

[jaguar]

aw man, i'm gonna have to start thinking...
its the holidays....

The use in force in self-defence is only justified to the extent that you believe it is necessary.

Well thats rather convenient. What a smoke-and-mirrors turn of phrase, how about something that is not so open ended like the 'maximum justifiable extent'.

[elSicomoro]

Originally posted by juju
Don't forget that his post was one big run-on sentence. He misspelled the word "because". The phrase "While nice on paper" should have been surrounded by commas. Also, the word "facts" should have been singular.

Baby steps juju...baby steps.

[MaggieL]

Originally posted by jaguar
aw man, i'm gonna have to start thinking...
its the holidays....

Feel free to begin anytime now. :-)

Well thats rather convenient. What a smoke-and-mirrors turn of phrase, how about something that is not so open ended like the 'maximum justifiable extent'.

The *world* is rather open-ended, don't you think?

Look, I happen to believe people have the right to defend themselves. Further, I don't believe they need to wait for assault to become battery to be justified in doing so. Why give the bad guys the advantage?

There's a sticker you can buy in pilot's shops; it's intended to be placed on mirrors. It reads "You are looking at the person responsible for your safety."

[jaguar]

Cheap shots aside in the context of foreign relations what 'you believe is nessacary' could apply to bloody anything, its utterly silly and becomes contextually irrelavent. 'Afghanistan helped train some guys that flew a plane into a building so we nuked everything from Saudi Arabia to India'.
Of course nations have a right to defend themselves with pre-emptive strikes, they are often nessacary, 1967 would be a good example but to put no limitations on it is plain dangerous. Sure you can claim it it was nessacary but its stupid, the maximum justifiable action has that keyword justifiable - you have to be able to rationally justify your actions to the international community and your own people.

The *world* is rather open-ended, don't you think?

What interesting nonarguement. Your point? It doesn't even make sense. I don't think you even understand what i mean, that statement is the political equilivent of a blank cheque, it can be used to valide utterly anything.

I've got an odd feeling were talking at cross purposes, you're off on another libertarian 'right to gun people down in the street for looking at you funny' rant and i'm talking foreign relations.

[tw]

Originally posted by MaggieL
Look, I happen to believe people have the right to defend themselves. Further, I don't believe they need to wait for assault to become battery to be justified in doing so. Why give the bad guys the advantage?

You and Curtis LeMay advocate same when he said that we were already at war - just that the public did not yet know it. Good thing for us that smarter people prevailed over LeMay - repeatedly. You advocate same thoughts by Tojo when Japan planned Pearl Harbor. Where is your logic different from those extremists? They too felt threatened and therefore advocated surprise attack. You say same thing.

Reality: responsible nation must be attacked before it can attack or it must be part of an international body whose members have been attacked (ie Nato, UN). That is fundamental to international law AND to US principals.

Fundamental in US history is what we have learned from our mistakes. However those lessons from history are what you call foaming and ranting - which I regard as a personal insult because you could not distpute the facts.

You advocate the mentality of Tojo. Robert Kennedy's quote applies to same right wing extremist thinking - that we can attack anyone we want IF we only feel threatened. You advocate policies dangerous to US integrity and in direct violation of international law - by totally ignoring everything only because you feel threatened. Apparently a post full of history is too difficult for you to understand - so you insult?

Where is this so dangerous nation you fear? Iraq? Why is Saddam still there? George Sr 's advisor - same men in George Jr's administration - so screw up - so failed to perform their jobs - that Saddam is still there. Sounds more like revenge - which also is not a legitamete reason for war. If the US public is mislead into promoting a surprise attack, then maybe the public will not rise up against a right wing extermist administration. Only one in denial of international law, against US principals, and in love with an administration that fears would advocate the oh-so silly 'axis of evil' and surprise attacks.

Do you advocate an attack on Iraq only because George Jr advisors fear a man who survived their mismanagement? Let not forget their biases and why we cannot just accept what they say - (ie. mythical 'dirty nuc' bomber so that the Haliburton 'cooked books' story did not get top billing). Saddam exposed that Cheney, et al were not doing their job. Thank you Margaret Thatcher who put the backbone into George Sr after Cheney, et al removed it. Now MaggieL wants to attack Saddam only to revenge the mistakes of George Sr's right wing senior staff members - or is it just due to fear?

First learn lessons of history. Read Robert Kennedy's Thirteen Days and show us why the Kennedy's were so wrong. They must be wrong to give your position any credibilty. Currently your logic is identical to a war monger who foams at the mouth - all emotion and uneducated by history lessons. I thought you were better informed than to think like Tojo - and then insult others you cannot dispute.

[MaggieL]

Originally posted by tw
]Currently your logic is identical to a war monger who foams at the mouth...

You're pretty close to invoking Godwin's Law with "Tojo", there, sport.

A long, impassioned post is correctly described as a "rant". I'm confortable with my position as stated. Deal with it, don't deal with it, matters not. I won't bandy words with those who simply label their views "reality" as if that meant or proved something.

[MaggieL]

Originally posted by jaguar
Cheap shots aside in the context of foreign relations what 'you believe is nessacary' could apply to bloody anything, its utterly silly and becomes contextually irrelavent.

Not really. It's the standard by which any person or nation will judge the need to defend themselves. And after it's over, they'rll be second-guessed by everybody else, and face the judgement of history.

Of course nations have a right to defend themselves with pre-emptive strikes, they are often nessacary...

My point exactly. And afterwards the actor will stand judgement as to the "necessity" of his actions, as Iseael did.

I've got an odd feeling were talking at cross purposes, you're off on another libertarian 'right to gun people down in the street for looking at you funny' rant and i'm talking foreign relations.

Seems to me the same principles apply in macro as in micro. No matter how much fun it may be to deal in lofty abstractions and call it "foreign relations", it still comes down to rather gritty interactions between real people.

I'm sorry you find the idea of armed law-abiding citizens so repugnant, but it's how we live here and it seems to work pretty well. I'm much more comfortable here than across the river where only the cops and politicians are legally armed.

If you don't distinguish libertarianism in general (and the right for law-abiding citizens to be armed, in particular) from "the right to gun people down for looking at you funny", there's very little ground for discussion of anything close to that topic. You simply don't seem to be able to picture anyone arming themselves without an endless TV-like bloodbath ensuing immediately.

[Nic Name]

Originally posted by MaggieL

And after it's over, they'rll (sic) be second-guessed by everybody else, and face the judgement (sic) of history.

The winner gets to write the history.

[jaguar]

I don't want to get into gun laws again, its a long and pointless arguement.
Foreign relations are in some ways like relations like people, only far more baseless. People do silly things, people do things not in their best interest, for nations this is very rare, usually smaller tinpot dictatorships. Ideals, principles, ethics mean sweet fuck all. As a result a nation like the US has to answer to noone but itself for its actions, noone has the power to inflict punishment on it. Being a GIC doesn't matter when you're king of the hill.

If you don't distinguish libertarianism in general (and the right for law-abiding citizens to be armed, in particular) from "the right to gun people down for looking at you funny", there's very little ground for discussion of anything close to that topic. You simply don't seem to be able to picture anyone arming themselves without an endless TV-like bloodbath ensuing immediately.

I live in a safe community without guns, why risk the change? There is no need. Hell i'm generally libertarian, i'd rather see a society with crime and drugs than an overcontrolled civilized 'paradise' Brave New World style but when the average person has to carry a gun to feel safe, i beleive something is very wrong. Pontificate civil rights all you want, it doesn't change that fact in my eyes.

[elSicomoro]

Originally posted by jaguar
I live in a safe community without guns, why risk the change? There is no need. Hell i'm generally libertarian, i'd rather see a society with crime and drugs than an overcontrolled civilized 'paradise' Brave New World style but when the average person has to carry a gun to feel safe, i beleive something is very wrong. Pontificate civil rights all you want, it doesn't change that fact in my eyes.

I live in a safe community with guns, why change that?

Jag, just to make sure, you do know that not everyone here feels that they need a gun to feel safe, right? I'm not trying to give you a hard time...I just want to make sure that you are aware of that.

I could go outside my apartment right now at 1am Eastern Time, walk around the entire neighborhood without a gun, and not sweat it. You might call it overcontrolled, but I'd argue that most people don't think twice about it, b/c it's just not a big deal. In the end, it all comes back to the difference in cultures between you Aussies and us Americans.

[jaguar]

Yea i know you don't, that seem to have been maggies line a few times, i've forgotten the other massive war we had over this but something like that came out. After all, she carries it for safty right?

[Tobiasly]

Originally posted by seer
Why didn't we attack some country when the USS Cole got bombed?

Because, as Maggie is trying to point out, defending oneself means taking measured responses to perceived threats. Sometimes that means attacking back, or attacking beforehand, and sometimes that means something else.

In the case of the USS Cole, it appears that, in hindsight, security in that instance may have been a little lax. So we took steps to correct that. Now that we have had a massive attack on U.S. soil, we see that we've miscalculated the threats that other groups pose.

Don't let tw's tangents fool you, he has plenty of facts to back up whatever he says but tends to be quite selective in the evidence he presents. Anyone who thinks our big beef with Iraq is due to revenge is sadly mistaken. There is no way that W would start a war against a middle eastern country because of pride. He simply doesn't have that kind of standing to be able to pull it off without good reason.

Of course they're not gonna come out and publicly disclose the evidence we have, but you can bet we'll share it with our allies. Many of those allies are rather cool to the idea right now, which makes the burden of proof for the Bush administration that much more.

If our country took as passive a position as you endorse, we would have fallen long ago. But don't worry, those of us who are in the military do our job regardless of people who second-guess at every turn. In fact, we do our job in order to protect the right of people to second guess at every turn. So you can feel safe to ride your hydrogen-powered bike and talk about how wrong it is to defend our interests.

That is one area where I agree with you.. fuck oil. I can't wait until we develop a viable alternative to fossil fuels, so all these countries who have accumulated so much wealth and power simply because they happen to be sitting on a big pile of dinosaur juice will fade away and actually be forced to work for their world standing.

[elSicomoro]

Originally posted by Tobiasly
But don't worry, those of us who are in the military do our job regardless of people who second-guess at every turn. In fact, we do our job in order to protect the right of people to second guess at every turn. So you can feel safe to ride your hydrogen-powered bike and talk about how wrong it is to defend our interests.

You're in the military? Very cool. What do you do?

[MaggieL]

Originally posted by sycamore

Jag, just to make sure, you do know that not everyone here feels that they need a gun to feel safe, right? I'm not trying to give you a hard time...I just want to make sure that you are aware of that.

That could be a stretch, since you both make the unwarrented leap from "feel safer when armed" to "can't feel safe unless armed" without even blinking. Casting armed citizens as paranoid is a classic hoplophobe maneuver, of course.

Syc, do you suppose it's possible that one reason that your neighborhood is so safe is that a number of your neighbors *are* armed themselves? Including (but not limited to) the 3% that hold concealed carry permits? Of course, if that bothers you, you *could* move to Camden, Baltimore, DC or St. Louis, places more consonant with your philosophy.

As long as some people in a community are willing to defend themselves, there's a protective effect that extends to the other members of the community (or alliance; NATO comes to mind). Whether they support it (or even deserve it) or not.

[tw]

Originally posted by Tobiasly
Of course they're not gonna come out and publicly disclose the evidence we have, but you can bet we'll share it with our allies. Many of those allies are rather cool to the idea right now, which makes the burden of proof for the Bush administration that much more.

Previously when we shared evidence, our allies were in total agreement. The current administration has no viable evidence for their positions on 'axis of evil', removing Arafat, attacking Iraq, or even for the latest nonsense called Star Wars. Therefore allies will be rather cool. We have loyal friends who hope to ride out 4 embarrssing years of George Jr or hope to get him educated.

There is no enemy to be surprise attacked. That need to surprise attack is simply the same introverted fears that Tojo and MaggieL would use to "be comfortable". Unfortunately surprise attack is the same concepts that historically caused disasterous consequences for previously billigerent nations. Nations that surprise attack in violation of international law often don't get to write history.

Iraq is not the threat some of us would foolishly and illogically perceive it. But this administration is driven by a need to remove Saddam - and anyone else they fear - by first making a conclusion and then seeking facts to support that conclusion. Our allies are cool to supporting evidence for George Jr's ravings about 'axis of evil' because the evidence does not exist - is not credible. They are uneasy with George Jr's need to attack his personal fears based upon invalid facts.

Our allies are cool to George Jr's 'axis of evil' because it makes no sense once they saw the evidence. They are cool to unilateral attacks because even countries at most risk, after seeing the evidence, don't agree with this extreme right wing president. Turkey, a country so angry at Saddam, was going to open their own separate military offensive during the Gulf War. Now even Turkey sees no justificaton in George Jr's evidence. Their generals say so outrightly in reviewing plans as to where to base the Iraq attack. The only Middle East nation - the only - that sees justification to attack Iraq - Sharon's Israel. That is scary.

60 Minutes, I believe it was, recently did a piece on Kuwait - a country so happy with the US that they changed the name of a street from 'Baghdad' to 'Bush'. However this president is so out of touch with the world that the name Bush no longer has good connotations in Kuwait. Their leaders have also seen the evidence and just don't agree with the warmonker George Jr administration. Their leaders instead, like their people, no longer have the great admiration for the US as existed 10 years ago. The attitude change is even being demonstrated in how people dress less in western clothes. George Jr and company are that much out of touch with the world as to undermine close relations even between America and Kuwait.

Those such as MaggieL, who would agree with George Jr, cannot provide logical facts for their feelings. MaggieL must outrightly ignore lessons of history when she advocates the same extremist attitudes we now know almost turned the Cuban Missile Crisis into nuclear war. MaggieL advocates war just like Curtis LeMay ("bomb them back to the stone age") because only a perceived threat is evidence enought to attack. That is what she adovates. If a threat is perceived, then a military attack is justified - consequences be damned.

There is no axis of evil. There is currently an American president so naive as to actually undermine moderate movements in Iran. George Jr has actually empowered the clerics in Iran at the expensive of moderates who would move to be friends to the US. But then extremists, like Tojo, Kim Il Sung, etc always see enemies hiding everywhere and must preemptively attack those mythical threats. Ironic how insecure this George Jr administration is to advocate same.

Saddam is there because George Jr's right wing advisors screwed up. His advisors so cannot forget it as to look for any reason to attack and blame Iraq. They looked so hard for any evidence connecting Saddam to the WTC collapse even though there was zero reasons to even look. Be very suspicious of anything that the George Jr administration says. Our allies, including laterly Tony Blair, found George Jr's claims at the G8 to not be credible. George Jr got no support from any other G8 nation for his 'axis of evil' concepts - just tacit silence. There are zero reasons to unilaterally attack anyone - which is why American allies are so cool to an administration they hope will demonstrate more intelligence than they did during the Chinese spy plane incident.

Why are American diplomats received now only by lower level diplomats at Egyptian airports? George Jr does not have credible evidence for his right wing positions which is why Mubarak intentionally and publically canceled a meeting with Colin Powel - an outright slap in the face to George Jr. - who sees enemies hiding everywhere.

Our allies across the world don't see credibility in George Jr's evidence. Why then is that missing evidence justification for surprise attacks - like Tojo and Gen Curtis LeMay would advocate? This administration is scary, in part, because some Cellar dwellers even support those anti-American principals.