What to do about North Korea...?

Thomas Borchert wrote:
Cjcampbell,

Would we have the right to attack a country that was harboring those
who planned 9-11, funding their activities, and training them? Would
you consider that country to have attacked us?


Well, my hometown of Hamburg, Germany, should have been a goner way
before Iraq, if that was the reason the US did it.

Possibly so. As I said, I am interested only in peace. If the USA
showed forbearance in not attacking Hamburg, then that is fine with me.

But I was not thinking of Iraq. I was thinking more along the lines of
Afghanistan.

I really do not claim to have the answers as to what constitutes an
attack that requires a response. I am fishing for what you and Jose
think. I am aware that you believe that attacking Iraq was a mistake.
As for my own opinion on it, I must remain silent. But I am genuinely
interested in your rationale as to why it is okay to attack Germany but
not Iraq, even though Iraq actually did kill US citizens and allies
quite frequently.

Thomas Borchert wrote:
Cjcampbell,

Would we have the right to attack a country that was harboring those
who planned 9-11, funding their activities, and training them? Would
you consider that country to have attacked us?


Well, my hometown of Hamburg, Germany, should have been a goner way
before Iraq, if that was the reason the US did it.

Possibly so. As I said, I am interested only in peace. If the USA
showed forbearance in not attacking Hamburg, then that is fine with me.

But I was not thinking of Iraq. I was thinking more along the lines of
Afghanistan.

I really do not claim to have the answers as to what constitutes an
attack that requires a response. I am fishing for what you and Jose
think. I am aware that you believe that attacking Iraq was a mistake.
As for my own opinion on it, I must remain silent. But I am genuinely
interested in your rationale as to why it is okay to attack Germany but
not Iraq, even though Iraq actually did kill US citizens and allies
quite frequently.

Cjcampbell,

But I am genuinely
interested in your rationale as to why it is okay to attack Germany but
not Iraq,


To put Iraq and Nazi-Germany in the same basket in this context is beyond
ridiculous.

May I suggest you just google back 3 years? The arguments have all been
posted here even though it is not the main topic of the group.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

On Mon, 10 Jul 2006 08:32:24 +0200, Thomas Borchert wrote:

Well, my hometown of Hamburg, Germany, should have been a goner way before
Iraq, if that was the reason the US did it.

If we're comparing this to Afghanistan, then it pays to be mindful of the
fact that Germany as a political entity didn't/doesn't support the
terrorists. In fact, it considers them criminals and works to hunt them
down.

I'm pretty sure that Hamburg is safe, therefore, from the US.

The situation with Pakistan is far less clear, in my opinion. It's an
interesting left hand/right hand case.

- Andrew

Recently, cjcampbell posted:

Jose wrote:

When a nation attacks us, we have the moral right to defend
ourselves, to attack back, and to defeat the enemy. When a nation
attacks our allies, we have the obligation to our allies, according
to the terms of our alliance, to help them defend themselves - in
exchange presumably they would do the same or some equivalent for us.
[...]
In the case of 911, we were not attacked by a nation. We were
attacked by a handful of rogue individuals. We have the right and
moral obligation to root them out and destroy them and their support
structure. However, we do not have the right to attack other
countries just because they "look the same", nor do we have the
right to use this attack as an excuse to the American People to wage
war on other countries not involved.


Would we have the right to attack a country that was harboring those
who planned 9-11, funding their activities, and training them? Would
you consider that country to have attacked us?

Apparently not, given that Bin Laden et al are very likely in Pakistan. We
knew that, and attacked Iraq. Hmm.

Apparently a lot of people believe he did by paying rewards to suicide
bombers' families, firing missiles at our planes, etc.

He was firing missiles at our planes in *his* airspace. Hardly surprising.

Let us suppose that an enraged man who cannot be reasoned with bursts
into your home screaming that he is going to kill you and your entire
family. He points a gun at you. Do you wait for him to fire first
before you shoot him, or do you shoot first? What if he is out in the
public street?

Let's not gloss over your assertion that he "...bursts into your home..."
If he had burst into your neighbor's home, do you rush in with a gun and
start shooting? When your stray bullet kills one of your neighbors, what
should be the consequences?

Neil

Would we have the right to attack a country that was harboring those
who planned 9-11, funding their activities, and training them? Would
you consider that country to have attacked us?

That depends on the extent to which they were backing the terrorists.
Bear in mind that the United States is also harboring terrorists,
funding their activities, and training them. We might not like it, one
branch of our government might be trying to root them out while another
branch of our same government is giving them scholarships, paying food
stamps, and teaching them how to fly. It could be construed as criminal
negligence that even faced with actual reports to relevant government
officials about the "odd" behavior and training requests that the 911
pilots manifested, our government ignored these reports, gave them
visas, and aided and abetted them. (We'd certainly call it "aid and
abet" if it were Pakistan that did that).

Apparently a lot of people believe [Saddam] did [attack us] by paying rewards to suicide
bombers' families, firing missiles at our planes, etc.

What planes did he attack? I believe they were all planes that violated
his soverign airspace.

As to paying rewards to suicide bombers' families, that's not an attack
on the United States, and I don't think we have the right to stop it.
Here we pay rewards to jobless drifters, faith based institutions, and
drug dealers. There are many government programs that can be construed
to support the actions of evil people. Be careful, houses are made of
glass.

Is it just Republican politicians that you do not trust, or do you not
trust any of them?

I don't trust any of them. I don't know what "Republican" has to do
with what I am saying.

Well, Iran's president is a Holocaust-denying politician (do you trust
him more than your own politicians?) who has publicly stated on the
floor of the United Nations that he believes it his personal
responsibility to bring about Armageddon. He wants Israel, our ally,
destroyed.

What he believes and wants is one thing, what he does is another.

He has sent supplies, men, arms, and money to people who use
them to attack our soldiers. By these criteria he has attacked both us
and our allies. Would you suggest attacking him? Or would you wait for
him to acquire a nuclear weapon and use it on Jerusalem or Berlin
before attacking him?

What were our soldiers doing at the time?

Let us suppose that an enraged man who cannot be reasoned with bursts
into your home screaming that he is going to kill you and your entire
family. He points a gun at you. Do you wait for him to fire first
before you shoot him, or do you shoot first? What if he is out in the
public street?

This is a credible threat, and I would shoot as soon as he pointed the
gun at me or my friends. I would not subsequently go out and shoot
everyone else who looked like him.

I can give you a simple, complete, and foolproof answer to all these
questions, once you supply me with a number that is greater than six and
less than four.
Obviously. Are you saying that your own philosophy has painted you into
a logical corner?

There are some problems that just have no solution. In these cases, it
is even =more= important not to take actions that make the situation
worse. I don't advocate caving in to their demands, and I don't think
there is a general answer to the question, except this is something we
just have to live with and accept, if we are not going to "destroy the
village in order to save it".

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

On Mon, 10 Jul 2006 17:35:58 +0000, Jose wrote:

Bear
in mind that the United States is also harboring terrorists, funding their
activities, and training them. We might not like it, one branch of our
government might be trying to root them out while another branch of our
same government is giving them scholarships, paying food stamps, and
teaching them how to fly.

To what aviation students are you referring?

[...]

Apparently a lot of people believe [Saddam] did [attack us] by paying
rewards to suicide bombers' families, firing missiles at our planes,
etc.

What planes did he attack? I believe they were all planes that violated
his soverign airspace.

A pair of no-fly-zones were enforced as a consequence of Iraq's defeat
after having invaded Kuwait. I'm not sure that "sovereign" applies in
that case, given that the no-fly-zones were to ensure the enforcement of
the cease fire to which Iraq had agreed.

- Andrew

Bear
in mind that the United States is also harboring terrorists, funding their
activities, and training them. We might not like it, one branch of our
government might be trying to root them out while another branch of our
same government is giving them scholarships, paying food stamps, and
teaching them how to fly.

To what aviation students are you referring?

No specific reference, although the 9-11 terrorists were given visas by
our government despite warnings by their CFIs that they were up to
something suspicious. Osama Bin Laden himself was trained and supported
by the United States. We give out welfare money with little regard for
criminality; granted our system may be broken, but that would not be an
excuse if it were our enemy claiming the same things.

A pair of no-fly-zones were enforced as a consequence of Iraq's defeat
after having invaded Kuwait. I'm not sure that "sovereign" applies in
that case, given that the no-fly-zones were to ensure the enforcement of
the cease fire to which Iraq had agreed.

I'm sure Iraq considered itself soverign, despite its defeat.

Politics is not so simple that we can simply walk around knowing we are
right, and imposing ourselves on others. The world is getting much too
small for that.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jose wrote:
But you appear to think that there are wars we should be in. Which are
those? Can you think of a single argument in favor of going to war
with, say, Hitler or Tojo that does not apply equally well to Saddam,
Kim Il Sung, the leaders of Iran, or of Somalia?

In short (but mindful that real life is never this simple),

When a nation attacks us, we have the moral right to defend ourselves,
to attack back, and to defeat the enemy. When a nation attacks our
allies, we have the obligation to our allies, according to the terms of
our alliance, to help them defend themselves - in exchange presumably
they would do the same or some equivalent for us.

When a nation attacks a non-allied nation, we have no moral obligation
to send our children to risk their lives in something that is none of
our business. In fact, we have an obligation to stay out of it.

In the case of 911, we were not attacked by a nation. We were attacked
by a handful of rogue individuals. We have the right and moral
obligation to root them out and destroy them and their support
structure. However, we do not have the right to attack other countries
just because they "look the same", nor do we have the right to use this
attack as an excuse to the American People to wage war on other
countries not involved.


Would we have the right to attack a country that was harboring those
who planned 9-11, funding their activities, and training them? Would
you consider that country to have attacked us?


Hitler and his allies attacked us (with Japan as the proxy).

Saddam did not. (at least not since 9-11)


Apparently a lot of people believe he did by paying rewards to suicide
bombers' families, firing missiles at our planes, etc.

There is a difference between an attack, a threat of attack, and a
threat of threat of attack. Blurring the line risks turning us into the
very demon we claim to fight. It must be done with extreme caution,
because there is no hindsight, and I don't trust our politicians to have
foresight.


Is it just Republican politicians that you do not trust, or do you not
trust any of them?

Do you really think the world would be better off if we simply allowed
Islamic extremists to destroy Israel, unite all of the Middle East and
South Asia under an aggressive Islamic flag, overrun some more African
nations, and threaten Europe and America with nuclear weapons?

No. But our inaction may not cause it to happen. In fact, our =action=
may hasten it. We are dealing with a differnet kind of enemy.


Well, Iran's president is a Holocaust-denying politician (do you trust
him more than your own politicians?) who has publicly stated on the
floor of the United Nations that he believes it his personal
responsibility to bring about Armageddon. He wants Israel, our ally,
destroyed. He has sent supplies, men, arms, and money to people who use
them to attack our soldiers. By these criteria he has attacked both us
and our allies. Would you suggest attacking him? Or would you wait for
him to acquire a nuclear weapon and use it on Jerusalem or Berlin
before attacking him?

Let us suppose that an enraged man who cannot be reasoned with bursts
into your home screaming that he is going to kill you and your entire
family. He points a gun at you. Do you wait for him to fire first
before you shoot him, or do you shoot first? What if he is out in the
public street?


What do
you suppose we would have to do to appease these people in order to
finally stop the killing and find peace?

I don't think they can be appeased. Nor can they be destroyed.


So we just cave into their demands?

I think, if you want to work for peace, that you need to find serious
answers to these serious questions...

I can give you a simple, complete, and foolproof answer to all these
questions, once you supply me with a number that is greater than six and
less than four.


Obviously. Are you saying that your own philosophy has painted you into
a logical corner?

Recently, cjcampbell posted:

Jose wrote:
I suspect that 2,539 (plus 3 more today) American families think we
have already lost.

Agreed. But that's the way it is in all wars.

Including wars we shouldn't be in.


Now you have me curious. I have no dog in this fight, you understand.
I have committed myself towards working for peace. Nevertheless, I am
well aware that I am able to do so only because there are others who
are willing to break the peace in order to protect the lives of me, my
family, and all that I know.

But you appear to think that there are wars we should be in. Which are
those? Can you think of a single argument in favor of going to war
with, say, Hitler or Tojo that does not apply equally well to Saddam,
Kim Il Sung, the leaders of Iran, or of Somalia?

(rest snipped for brevity)

The differences between these examples are significant, and IMO, those
that can't tell the difference are those that believe any aggressive
action can be justified after-the-fact. Before *any* action was taken,
Hitler attacked other nations. The case could be made that action could
have been taken to stop Hitler sooner; so history taught us that lesson.
Tojo's direct attack of the US is the reason we retaliated; we didn't do
so on the mere notion that he may have had the capability to attack us and
might have wanted to.

As soon as Hussein attacked Kuwait it was time to move. The world agreed,
and he was immediately suppressed; Hussein posed no *real* threat to
anyone since that time.

Iran is a situation where we are still experiencing the repercussions from
our fiddling with their government since the early '50s. That mistake has
cost us dearly in the region, and we have little choice but to ride it
out. Sadly, our attack of Iraq has only complicated matters and created
new problem that will have repercussions for decades (if not centuries) to
come.

Korea is another situation where the world has contained the aggression of
the North, and won't really do much beyond that. Those living in the
region have the most at risk, and they do not appear to be of the opinion
that NK should be attacked a la Iraq. "Most thinking people" would agree.

I don't believe that wars will end in our lifetime, but I do think that we
can act more responsibly than we have acted by attacking Iraq. It was a
stupid, ill-informed move, and compounding that with other stupid,
ill-informed moves won't make matters better.

Neil