Punkus recently brought up the idea of going to war go end starvation. People have gone to war over many issues in the history of the world. What I wanted to know, is what you think is worth going to war over.

Also, regardless of what the purpose of the war is (e.g. starvation, oppression, tyranny, terrorism, conquest, genocide, etc.) How long should a nation attempt other diplomatic measures before going to war?

If you're opposed to war at any cost, please instead explain how you would resolve issues such as starvation, oppression, tyranny, terrorism, genocide, etc.

-- Jeff

__________________
"Government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem." --Ronald Reagan

Diplomatic Measures should never be abbandoned but if negotiations are going nowhere before any combat has taken place then you shouldn't hold back a military strike for to long (as long as the threat is serious and imminent).

Apologies in advance Shane, but you didn't really say anything here.

Basically, you feel that we shouldn't stop diplomatic approaches but eventually we should go to war (which tends to stop diplomatic approaches) if the threat is "serious or imminent".

If the threat is serious (say, a nation with an irrational or unstable leader is building nuclear weapons), then you're saying that we shouldn't hold back "too long" (I presume too long would be if that nation actually used that nuclear weapon, personally I think that would be WAY too long).

Alternatively, if the threat is imminent (say, an increase in severity or frequency of attacks on our citizens or allies), then you're saying that we shouldn't hold back "too long" (I presume too long here would be when the other nation declared war on us first (e.g. Pearl Harbor, Dec 7, 1941)).

From your post, I can gather that you at least find war acceptable in certain circumstances. What are they? Are there issues that you wouldn't find war an acceptable solution for? For example, if a tyrant is trying to kill off citizens of his nation because they follow a certain religion or have a certain ethnicity, but that tyrant posed no threat to your country, would you think it worth going to war just to protect those people?

It is easy to say if someone is threating you or attacking you directly that you should defend yourself. It is harder to defend those who need your help when there's no compelling reason, other than basic humanity, to do so. Would you support warfare for this purpose?

-- Jeff

ps Thanks for at least posting.

__________________
"Government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem." --Ronald Reagan

Too long doesn't mean too late Jeff, by too long I meant hitting them before they hit us, we have the luxury of being able to do this because any nation in the world who wants to challenge us hasn't got enough resources to do so thus they would have to spend years building armies and expanding their income to pay for it.

I find war to be an acceptable responce in many cases, not just in defence, I am happy that we got rid of Hussien even if we were lied to about the real motives in the first place, I would be fine about the allies going into Iran to stop that crazy fuck building nukes, but I sure as hell wouldn't want to be fighting there. I like look at going to war through the eyes of myself if I was in the army, the only war I would want to personally fight in was if my nation was under the threat of being invaded etc. I find it to be selfish to say we should go to war with him, her and them if you arn't prepared to go to where you think we should destroy and physically help the war effort.

Nicely put Shane. I like the idea of hitting them before they hit us, but the reality is that they can indeed hit us first (if not continually) while we negotiate (pick any embassy bombing, hijacking, car bombing, homicide/suicide bombing, etc. from any terrorist group). These actions are called terrorist, but if a third world nation nation wanted to damage a world leader, these would be reasonable tactics for them to use. Lets face it, history is full of examples of smaller groups staging quick hit and run attacks on much larger opponents (nobody stood toe-to-toe with the Romans at the height of their empire, yet Rome did indeed eventually burn). Also, hit and run attacks are notoriously inexpensive and hard (or impossible) to trace. A nation could be attacked by another nation and "dismiss" it as a terrorist attack.

Let's say (theoretically) that a country wanted to attack Australia. They could recruit 100 commandos and give them time released aerosol canisters for the dispersement of Anthrax. Send them, "on vacation", to various major cities in Australia. Have them plant several of these canisters in air vents (in shopping malls for example) with time triggers and then return home. A month later, thousands or millions in Australia are sick or dying from inhaled Anthrax. This type of attack would probably be attributed to terrorists (who would gladly claim credit) but it could easly be from another nation bent on the destruction of Australia. The cost for such an attack would be pretty low and it would be possible to never see the build up. For that matter, several such widespread attacks could pave the way for an actual military exercise and presto, Australia falls to a tiny nation that couldn't ordinarily match them militarily. Ok, there is the reality that if anyone attacked Australia, the US would stand with Australia, so the military exercise would have to take that into account, but if the US were tied up elsewhere, who knows?

It is a sad truth that old people declare wars but the young fight them. I'm not old, but I am beyond the age where the US military would accept me in combat. They'd probably accept me as a consultant or analyst, but that wouldn't be in a war zone. Nonetheless, I still have to consider that there are things worth going to war for, and the reality is that I have children that may end up in war in their lives if certain things aren't handled today. As such, I don't only look at war through the eyes of someone in the army today, but through the eyes of my children in the future if something isn't done today.

I too agree with the removal of Sadam Hussein. I agree that there were huge mistakes in the intelligence that justified the decision to go to war. What I can't stand is people saying that we were lied to. A lie is a conscious decision to tell a falsehood when someone knows the truth. There isn't any evidence that anyone lied about Hussein, they simply didn't know the whole truth. I recall the speeches made and I recall from the language used that we suspected certain things, and had some evidence, but that the evidence was far from certain. Nonetheless, if the evidence and suspicions were true (and every intelligence agency in the world agreed that they were very likely), then we had to act because of what we knew of Saddam Hussein. That isn't a lie, it wasn't then and it isn't now. The fact that the suspicions and evidence appear to have been wrong doesn't make the statements lies. It simply makes them wrong.
I also remember that in December of 2002, before the coalition attacked Iraq, discussing whether it made sense to attack Iraq. My statement back then was that Saddam Hussein needed to be removed. He had killed hundreds of thousands or even millions of his own people. He had shown disregard for treaties he had signed. He had brutally treated people in his own country and that of Kuwait and he wasn't about to comply with UN resolutions. Even back then, that was my justification for support of the war. WMDs were simply one reason, one that was probably false. There were many others.
So don't talk about being lied to. There wasn't any lying involved, most people simply focused on one issue and when the WMDs didn't appear, they forgot the rest of why we did what we did.

-- Jeff

__________________
"Government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem." --Ronald Reagan

Rome didn't fall to hit an run attacks, they fell due to financial problems, many barbarian tribes attacking them (going toe-to-toe), division in society due to the empire being to spread out over many lands with different cultures, vandals and religious controversy, the fact that the empire physically divided in two, unrest in the ranks of their government and supposedly lead pipping.

Untill I see proof that we wern't lied to due to falsified "intellegence" I will assume your/our governments are guilty of lieing untill proven innocent just like they assumed for Hussein.

Bravo on this comment. There was much said in this statement. If anything is serious and imminent it is the threat of your home not being secure or your way of life not being safe or sound. Albeight attacks on your homeland or political ideology that hinders relations if not with your country but for the common good. (Pol Pot, Hitler, Hussein, et cetera)

This usually happens in political theory or the actual threat of violence. Hence; The Revolutionary war, The US Civil war, Pearl Harbor and 9/11. If you had notice before many of the war and conflicts many negiotations had taken place. Or where we had allowed ourselves to be slapped in the face nurmerous times.

And with terrorists one should never negotiate. Even US Police Swat teams have diplomatic measures to take. One if not heard often enough is to never negotiate. Give the enemy the idea they are in control or enough rope to hang themselves.

Proof that they didn't lie? You're asking for proof of a negative (extremely difficult if not impossible). It's like me asking for your proof that you didn't cheat on your exams in school years ago. Burden of proof must always be on the accuser.

The fact is that the UN, every major intelligence agency (worldwide), prior administrations, even people opposed to President Bush's administration all believed that WMDs were there, or at least "unaccounted for."

The language used was that Saddam Hussein hadn't accounted for war materials. That isn't to say that he had them, he may have already disposed of them, but he hadn't provided the required evidence of their destruction under international supervision to the U.N.

In January of 2003, President Bush said "The United Nations concluded in 1999 that Saddam Hussein had biological weapons sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax -- enough doses to kill several million people. He hasn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it."
Note that this language is not saying that they were there. It is saying that he hasn't accounted for them as he was required to do by the Cease Fire treaty from the 1991 war (which he signed) and by many UN resolutions.

Also "The United Nations concluded that Saddam Hussein had materials sufficient to produce more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin -- enough to subject millions of people to death by respiratory failure. He hadn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it."
Again the language is that Saddam Hussein hasn't lived up to his responsibility to account for the material.

The text of the 2003 State of the Union address makes it clear that Saddam Hussein had the responsibility to account for disarmament because of UN resolutions and because of treaties he'd signed, not because the US simply suspected him.

All that aside, as I said, WMDs were only one of many reasons for the war in Iraq. Violation of UN resolutions were another, humanitarian concerns another, his abuses of power were another and his support of terrorism (if not specifically Al-Qaeda) was a very compelling reason. It is known that Iraq's goverment paid the families of suicide bombers. This is an open support (and endorsement) of terrorism.

I fail to see the lie here.

Ok, so you claim that we held Saddam Hussein as guilty until proven innocent? I disagree with your characterization. Saddam Hussein wasn't being assumed guilty, he was in noncompliance with the Cease Fire treaty and several UN resolutions. That isn't an assumption of guilt, it is factual. We know that he didn't "... submit to the [UN] Secretary-General, within fifteen days of the adoption of the present resolution, a declaration of the locations, amounts and types of all items specified in paragraph 8 and agree to urgent, on-site inspection as specified below". He didn't "unconditionally accept the destruction, removal, or rendering harmless, under international supervision, of: (a) All chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities; (b) All ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometres and related major parts, and repair and production facilities" -- UN Resolution 687 accepted by Iraq on April 6, 1991 (emphasis and formatting changes mine, link is a .PDF). Yes, Iraq did provide some early reports, but they weren't complete and later statements, by Iraq, proved that to be the case. These are indisputable facts. I won't quote the whole of the resolutions involved, but he wasn't in compliance. That isn't an assumption of guilt, it is proven guilt. Not guilt of having WMDs, but guilt of non-compliance with the procedures to destroy them and provide verification of their destruction under international supervision.
The fact is that nobody could possibly "know" whether he had or didn't have WMDs because of his non-compliance. If he had complied, we'd have "known" with great certainty whether he did or didn't have these weapons.

Sorry, Shane, but you're simply not looking at this fairly. It would be fair to say, for example, that the CIA (and the rest of the world) made mistakes on the intelligence. It would be fair to say that the CIA disregarded evidence to the contrary (although it did come from sources deemed unreliable). It would be fair to say that the coalition forces, and specifically the U.S. have mishandled much of the occupation. It would be fair to say that they didn't anticipate the problems that have occurred. It is not, however, fair to say that they lied about WMDs because they didn't and couldn't (due largely to Hussein's own non-compliance) "know" the truth of the situation.

Ok, where was point 2? Oh yes. Iran is looming on the horizon. Knowing what we believe we know about Iran, and its leader, where do you stand on Iran? You've said that you'd support a war to stop the nukes; what if we go into Iran and don't find any evidence of a nuclear weapons program. What if we find that Iran was only using their reactors for civilian uses and research and experimentation? What if we're making a mistake on our intelligence assessment of that nation? Would you say that you were lied to again?

-- Jeff

__________________
"Government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem." --Ronald Reagan

Very well, I will grant that the governments probably didn't know the intellegence was bullshit.

Iran is a different situation then Iraq, we had weapon inspectors in Iraq trying to find something but found nothing, we assumed they had some, we are assuming Iran want some, we actually know they are running a nuclear program, but not sure what for and since we can't trust Iran we have to assume the worst and stop them one way or another for our own saftey.

We know Iran is running a nuclear program. We believe they are trying to build weapons. We might be wrong. This is the very nature of the intelligence business. We can rarely know things.

"Knowing" things requires trusted human beings on the ground in foreign countries. This is difficult when you don't have human beings who can blend in. Most intelligence information that is gathered today is electronic (including emails, telephone calls, sattelite imagery, etc.), but electronic information can be false or (sometimes intentionally) misleading. There is very little human intelligence because very few people with the clearance to know something will betray that trust. For example, nuclear engineers in Iran are highly cleared by the Iranian government. They are likely well compensated and believe in their government's goals. As such, they aren't likely to knowingly call up the CIA and tell them what they know. They also aren't likely to smuggle out documents or other evidence of Iran's plans.

The CIA theoretically could send an American of Iranian descent into Iran to infiltrate their nuclear research areas, but doing so is extremely difficult and rarely works (plus they'd first have to find one that was willing to try). They'd have to set up someone and hope they could provide a clean enough background for that person that the Iranian government would clear him into their program. This is extremely unlikely (so unlikely that the CIA doesn't regularly try such missions as there isn't enough success to justify the cost). Instead the CIA hopes to recruit "agents" from the Iranian public, generally these are either paid informants, or more rarely, informants who have some objection to the way their own government does things. Quite often, these people dislike their own actions (they feel they are betraying their country and therefore give false information) and also, quite often, they are wrong. Because of this, human intelligence of this sort is often deemed unreliable.

All of this leads to the undeniable fact that we can't really "know" much about secret projects in any hostile nation (or even friendly ones for that matter). That being said, we still have to act in the best of intentions with whatever intelligence we have, don't we?

As it turns out, you and I appear to agree on Iran, and despite the WMD mess, we've both stated that we're happy with Saddam Hussein's removal. The question still remains though, for what other issues would you support war?

Would you support war to stop starvation in a country? Institutionalized torture and/or rape? Slavery? Genocide? Terrorism? Tyrrany? Female mutilation? Just wondering.

-- Jeff

__________________
"Government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem." --Ronald Reagan