Preventive War Opens Way to New Rules on Conflict

[186k\sec]

Reuters:
Thu March 27, 2003 02:05 AM ET

By Jane Macartney, Asian Diplomatic Correspondent
SINGAPORE (Reuters) - It sounds like an arcane debate among wordsmiths. But the distinction between pre-emptive and preventive war, drawn by President Bush in ordering the U.S. invasion of Iraq, could change the face of war.

Galvanized since the September 11 attacks by a need to protect the homeland, Bush has tossed aside, if not quite torn up, the U.N. Charter on war.

Strict conditions exist to undertake pre-emptive war and Bush has bypassed those to launch a preventive war, analysts say.

In simple terms: imagine a row with your neighbor over an overhanging branch. You see him advancing on the bough with his buzzsaw running. You may pre-empt his attack.

But if you just suspect he's been to the hardware store to buy a saw, you may not burn down his garden shed to prevent him taking a slice out of the disputed greenery.

Bush's preventive action is an innovation in contemporary history and opens the way for others to follow suit.

"While it is not true that the U.S. has been able to establish a new norm of prevention, other expedient states may use the U.S. action as justification, even though they are likely to be roundly condemned," said Chris Reus-Smidt of the Department of International Relations at the Australian National University in Canberra.

WHO WOULD DARE?

There is reason to doubt whether any state would have the courage to take on such condemnation. But many may feel they are next in the firing line.

Thus the ramifications are far-reaching, not just for countries with perceived enemies on their borders such as India and Pakistan, but also for Iran and North Korea -- the two nations that Bush bracketed with Iraq in his "axis of evil."

"This is tectonic," said Uday Bhaskar of the Institute of Defense Studies and Analyzes in New Delhi.

"Before March 20 there had been a sense since the end of World War II to the end of the Cold War that a certain consensus existed about the use of force and how that should be regulated.

"It sets a precedent," he said. "This is a threat to stability, an action that induces anxiety. The question is why can't it be a France next time, or an India?"

Analysts fear that the period of relative peace since the birth of the United Nations after World War II, with its strict charter injunction against the use of force, could now be in serious jeopardy.

"The doctrine of pre-emptive war has profoundly destabilizing implications for international society," said Reus-Smidt.

"The legal restriction of the use of force to unequivocal acts of self-defense and international peace enforcement actions is one of the principal reasons for the radical decline in interstate wars, even as the number of states has multiplied."

WHERE ARE THE LIMITS?

Few nations have flouted the U.N. charter that lays out specific conditions for the use of pre-emptive force. Two extraordinary exceptions are Israel's 1981 strike on Iraq's OsIrak nuclear plant and the 1967 Six Day War, said Reus-Smidt.

"The major innovation of the Bush doctrine is the idea of prevention, and the war in Iraq can be seen as the first example of this," said Reus-Smidt.

He said Washington, rebuffed in the U.N. Security Council in its quest for world backing to pre-empt Saddam Hussein's suspected weapons program, had opted to act preventively.

That opens a Pandora's Box.

"It's not clear what the limits are," said Hilary Charlesworth, professor at the Center for International and Public Law at the ANU.

"This leaves the perception of threat in the eye of the beholder."

It reinforces fears of the United States going it alone, snubbing the international community when it suits it, for example on the Kyoto treaty on global warming or the International Criminal Court.

The United States has acted as other countries have throughout history, which is to look for the international law that suits them. And it was that free-for-all approach that the U.N. charter was aimed at halting.

"We could be going back to a pre-U.N. charter world and I find that worrying," said Charlesworth.

Of course, what goes unspoken is that the United States regards itself as an exception, and knows that it can probably get away with a preventive war because it has more toys, and more powerful ones, than anyone else in the playground.

MORE SACRED THAN OTHERS

"The related political and diplomatic question is 'are we redefining sovereignty?"' said Bhaskar. "It's an Orwellian kind of sovereignty in which some are more sacred than others."

Analysts believe that deterrence may work in this new world, and thus a nuclear-ambitious North Korea may not be next. But what, asked one, would stop China taking a swipe at Taiwan?

"What will be the restraints?" said Charlesworth. "International law is enforced by a sense of reciprocity and this is doing away with the fabric of international law."

Some say international law may have to change to ensure relevance in a world threatened by rogue states and suicide hijackers.

When Osama bin Laden's Islamic revolutionaries flew planes into the World Trade Center, they may not only have transformed the course of history, but have wrought upheaval in the rules of war.

"After September 11, in a world in which unprovoked acts of terrorism could cost hundreds of thousands of lives, deterrence and passive self-defense are not enough," The Australian newspaper wrote in an editorial on Thursday.

That is a view that may hold sway at the Pentagon and in the White House, but stirs anxiety among legal and defense experts.

"What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander," said Bhaskar. While other countries may lack the will, or indeed the might, to follow in U.S. footsteps they may be sorely tempted.

"The net effect of all of this is that it greatly increases the risk of wars, preventive and pre-emptive," said Reus-Smidt.
-------------------------------------------------------------http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=1EXX0PGWWGUQUCRBAEKSF EY?type=focusIraqNews&storyID=2456632

[Mike S]

Simplistic (as usual)

186 most other countries don't follow normal conventions anyway.. so the piece is pointless and (in typical form for you) is just more of you propagandistic anti war bullshit.

If China decides to go into the country of Taiwan - the aren't going to justify it by saying we went into Iraq.. if you think they will you are diluting yourself (more)

If China goes after Siberia it wont be because they are preempting a Russian threat.. it will be to take the resources they think historically are theirs.. if you think other wise your (still) diluting yourself

If India and Pakistan go at it wont be because we went into Iraq.. its because they've been at each other for years.. if you think other wise you're diluting your self (again)

Fact of the matter 186 is that if some country actually feels threatened in some way the first thing they're going to do now is come to us (over the UN) in order to do something about the matter. Our displaying to the world that the farce that was this "established" order doesn't work and that we will go and clean your clock will let countries know who are thinking on acting up that it aint gonna fly.

MS

[186k\sec]

Reuters = bullshit'

heh,,
right Mike, just shows how fucking blind & in bed you are..

[Mike S]

Originally posted by 186k\sec
Reuters = bullshit'

heh,,
right Mike, just shows how fucking blind & in bed you are..

Oh yes 186 reuters can equal bullshit just like fox can and just like the BBC can etc and so on.. wake up junior

But more to the point I was directing the term "bullshit" at you.

MS

[186k\sec]

im not surpised -
the fact remains - this war has set a new precident - allowing for more 'pre-empting' by other nations with the tendancy to do so....


the article is a good one, its your response that is righty tighty Bullshit.

[Boyd Main]

Originally posted by Mike S
Simplistic (as usual)

If China decides to go into the country of Taiwan - the aren't going to justify it by saying we went into Iraq.. if you think they will you are diluting yourself (more)

If China goes after Siberia it wont be because they are preempting a Russian threat.. it will be to take the resources they think historically are theirs.. if you think other wise your (still) diluting yourself

If India and Pakistan go at it wont be because we went into Iraq.. its because they've been at each other for years.. if you think other wise you're diluting your self (again)


By extrapolation, you are saying that the reasons the Bush Administration give for going to war are lies too. Either that, or you actually are arrogant and deluded (yeah, that's the way it's spelled) enough to believe that America is the only nation that produces politicians who are moral and don't lie.

[Hookups]

Originally posted by Boyd Main


Either that, or you actually are arrogant and deluded (yeah, that's the way it's spelled) enough to believe that America is the only nation that produces politicians who are moral and don't lie.

He is. He also doesn't believe that our presidend did coke and drove drunk.;)

[Mike S]

Originally posted by Boyd Main


By extrapolation, you are saying that the reasons the Bush Administration give for going to war are lies too. Either that, or you actually are arrogant and deluded (yeah, that's the way it's spelled) enough to believe that America is the only nation that produces politicians who are moral and don't lie.


WOW - that's a leap.. and of course you will extrapolate from just about anything you possibly can the notion Bush's administration lies....so I'm not surprised. :rolleyes:

No the premise of the article was that now that we've adopted a policy of pre-emption that others will follow suit because we "upset the international order". I called bullshit. My reason for calling bullshit was that most of the world doesn't follow international conventions when it comes to making war or aggression so the entire idea that we somehow upset something that - for the most part - doesn't exist any way is ridiculous.

International conventions only exist in the minds of people who care to follow them. We, the Europeans, the Aussies (& the Kiwis), The Canadians and the Russians (sometimes) tend to pay attention to these things. Most of the rest of the world does not.

Like it or not Boyd we do go about things in a manner miles above the rest of the world.

In fact Boyd as we speak We,the British, the Aussies, the Poles & the Spaniards have battle field lawyers pouring over the rules of war to make sure the right ordinance is used in regards to the target and what the target is adjacent to. So much for our destroying international conventions.. the only reason they exist is because people like us choose to observe them.

Arrogant and deluded.. No.. just not naive like you.






MS

[Boyd Main]

What I see in regards to America's actions in relation to international rules/law/conventions is a game of pick and choose. When it is convenient and politically expedient, the rules are held up as if they are sacred (i.e. this whole business of the white flag deception) and yet at every other turn they are disregarded as irrelevent or not in "America's Interests" or counter to the constitution. No consistency.

And this is the second time this week that I'm going to have to call you out on this "most of the rest of the world doesn't give a damn" BS. I'm not sure what part of your xenophobic, ignorant, arrogant, anglo-centric, atrophied little brain it's coming from, but the "rest of the world" consists of, by-and-large, not lawless countires run by expansionist meglomaniacs, but of small nations who's very security depends on the type of multilateralism, and international conventions upheld by, for example, the UN.

[Effendi]

Originally posted by Mike S

Like it or not Boyd we do go about things in a manner miles above the rest of the world.

Hahahahahahahaha....what an Idiotic statement..

Mike, have you Ever LIVED anywhere else in the world outside of SLC and Seattle. Your arrogant ignorance is what makes you the epitome of the "Stupid American"

Please list for me the things that suggest we go about things "Miles above the rest"

Start with Nukloor treaties and move on through Environmental issues.

So much for our destroying international conventions.. the only reason they exist is because people like us choose to observe them.

You mean like Kyoto.....or the International criminal courts that might find that our Alli "Sharon" is actually a murderous butcher not unlike Saddam, who incidently was "Our Boy" for many years against them wretched and untrustworthy iranians.....lol

Arrogant and deluded.. No.. just not naive like you.
MS

So you really suggest that you are NOT Arrogant and deluded.....lol

I will say that you are not Naive, just a heart of double standard stone..you understand clearly who you serve......Yourself!!

Scott!!

[ZupanGOD]

Originally posted by Boyd Main
What I see in regards to America's actions in relation to international rules/law/conventions is a game of pick and choose. When it is convenient and politically expedient, the rules are held up as if they are sacred (i.e. this whole business of the white flag deception) and yet at every other turn they are disregarded as irrelevent or not in "America's Interests" or counter to the constitution. No consistency.

Examples?

And this is the second time this week that I'm going to have to call you out on this "most of the rest of the world doesn't give a damn" BS. I'm not sure what part of your xenophobic, ignorant, arrogant, anglo-centric, atrophied little brain it's coming from, but the "rest of the world" consists of, by-and-large, not lawless countires run by expansionist meglomaniacs, but of small nations who's very security depends on the type of multilateralism, and international conventions upheld by, for example, the UN.

If you ask me the UN has not been a successfull body in the last few decades of upholding peace and security.

[shrugs]


Later guys!

Jason

[186k\sec]

No the premise of the article was that now that we've adopted a policy of pre-emption that others will follow suit because we "upset the international order". I called bullshit. My reason for calling bullshit was that most of the world doesn't follow international conventions when it comes to making war or aggression so the entire idea that we somehow upset something that - for the most part - doesn't exist any way is ridiculous.

calling horseshit on your bullshit!
the only established country that has 'not follow international conventions' until just recently is the USA! - we know we're top cheese, we know we couldn't get UN approval for an invasion, ie, final support from the internation community... so the bush administration 'called bullshit' on the validity of the UN & international community, once it was clear they were not going to validate his plan of attacking Iraq. So, indeed the admin. has set a new precident... its just that simple, your unwillingness to examine this further, and simply dismiss it as bullshit, only underscores you MO - anything & I mean ANYTHING that doesnt reflect a nice glittery light on your beloved administration - must be fabricated..

International conventions only exist in the minds of people who care to follow them. We, the Europeans, the Aussies (& the Kiwis), The Canadians and the Russians (sometimes) tend to pay attention to these things. Most of the rest of the world does not.[quote]
so, if the Europeans Russians, and Canadians pay attention to international conventions, then why arent they on the battlefeilds? supporting their ally -USA in our quest to liberate Iraq.?
the answer is simple, they know it is not valid.
[quote]Like it or not Boyd we do go about things in a manner miles above the rest of the world.

except when it comes to diplomacy vs. war and staying within the confines of international law..

In fact Boyd as we speak We,the British, the Aussies, the Poles & the Spaniards have battle field lawyers pouring over the rules of war to make sure the right ordinance is used in regards to the target and what the target is adjacent to. So much for our destroying international conventions.. the only reason they exist is because people like us choose to observe them.

they need lawyers to tell the military how much gun powder to use, and how to aim it...???? -no wonder shit is going haywire every day..

& we have elliminated international conventions by choosing NOT to observe them when they prove to be problematic to our warmongering & oil prospects!

[Mike S]

Originally posted by Boyd Main
What I see in regards to America's actions in relation to international rules/law/conventions is a game of pick and choose. When it is convenient and politically expedient, the rules are held up as if they are sacred (i.e. this whole business of the white flag deception) and yet at every other turn they are disregarded as irrelevent or not in "America's Interests" or counter to the constitution. No consistency.

And this is the second time this week that I'm going to have to call you out on this "most of the rest of the world doesn't give a damn" BS. I'm not sure what part of your xenophobic, ignorant, arrogant, anglo-centric, atrophied little brain it's coming from, but the "rest of the world" consists of, by-and-large, not lawless countires run by expansionist meglomaniacs, but of small nations who's very security depends on the type of multilateralism, and international conventions upheld by, for example, the UN.


Oh get a grip Boyd.. Its neither xenophobic, ignorant, arrogant or Anglo-centric. Its a fact.

The rest of the world doesn't give a damn. If they did they wouldn't be taking the stand people like you do in support of Saddam. YOU are a prime example of not giving a shit. If it don't effect your piss fuck little island it aint a problem. Pathetic. WE choose to spend blood and treasure doing the worlds heavy lifting, We bankroll the various international welfare schemes, We provide the muscle for your useless fucking debating society and when that morally bankrupt group up international eunuchs wont get off their corrupt, coward asses to finish the job they originally started ..WE do it for em. The world has a problem Boyd.. sure it goes to the UN.. then asks how is America going to help?

And you have the nerve to bring up Consistency!!? I'll bet you even made that statement with a straight face you UN boot licking fool.

Besides endlessly bitching or standing with their fucking hand out at us Boyd what has the rest of YOUR world EVER done!?

You perceive things the way you do because you come from one of these tiny countries that in lieu of economic, cultural or military power relies on an undemocratic debating society that doesn't uphold its own resolutions as a means to empower itself.
a morally and intellectually bankrupt endeavor.

And don't talk to me about our constitution - you're the jackass who in a post several months ago suggested we forgo some of our constitutional protections in order for our legal system to jive with the rest of the worlds. You wouldn't appreciate the first thing about the Constitution.
You and people like you use it when it suits you and would burn it just as quickly if that served your twisted statist purposes.


Arrogant my ass Boyd.. Its called pride and maybe if that bastion of multilateralism you worship had something to be proud of these days that intellectual black-hole resting on your shoulders might be able to comprehend the concept.

MS

[Mike S]

Originally posted by 186k\sec


calling horseshit on your bullshit!
the only established country that has 'not follow international conventions' until just recently is the USA! - we know we're top cheese, we know we couldn't get UN approval for an invasion, ie, final support from the internation community... so the bush administration 'called bullshit' on the validity of the UN & international community, once it was clear they were not going to validate his plan of attacking Iraq. So, indeed the admin. has set a new precident... its just that simple, your unwillingness to examine this further, and simply dismiss it as bullshit, only underscores you MO - anything & I mean ANYTHING that doesnt reflect a nice glittery light on your beloved administration - must be fabricated..



except when it comes to diplomacy vs. war and staying within the confines of international law..



they need lawyers to tell the military how much gun powder to use, and how to aim it...???? -no wonder shit is going haywire every day..

& we have elliminated international conventions by choosing NOT to observe them when they prove to be problematic to our warmongering & oil prospects!



Yeah twist reality some more 186.. the war is a product of Iraq not living up to its ceasefire obligations and our actions are justified under the articles of same. THE UN.. or the debating society formally known as the UN- has proven itself to be the body that will not abide by its own conventions due to its inaction. YOU are a fool who clings to this idiot diplomacy fantasy.. its patently obvious after 12 years and no disarmament that it was not working. It is also a fact that diplomacy has not EVER work historically with a tyrant.
Its also patently obvious via witnessing how absolutely ruthless and immoral this regime is that they had no intention of abiding by those cease fire articles.

You are the type of person who would have been tongue clucking "peace at any price" in '38 and conveniently "not seeing" the Germans taking care of their "Jewish problem" ..content to sit on your hands just as long as the problem wasn't directly in your back yard.
Disgusting.


You clinging to your mentally vacant "war mongering-war for oil" rhetoric just shows me how not serious you and your opinion should be taken at this point.


MS

[Boyd Main]

Originally posted by ZupanGOD


Examples?

Okay, here's two recent and topical ones: 1) Geneva Convention. In Afganistan, US captures enemy, but fails to accord them the rights assured under Geneva Convention, citing obscure and questionable interpretation. In Iraq, US soldiers captured and filmed for TV by Iraq military. "Waaaa waaa waaa, booohoooo, they're not honoring the Geneva Convention" says US Defense Department. Example enough? Maybe not, so here's another... 2) The UN. America justifies violating the charter of the UN, because Iraq is violating a resolution of the UN. Pick and choose? You bet.

[Mike S]

Originally posted by Boyd Main
Okay, here's two recent and topical ones: 1) Geneva Convention. In Afganistan, US captures enemy, but fails to accord them the rights assured under Geneva Convention, citing obscure and questionable interpretation. In Iraq, US soldiers captured and filmed for TV by Iraq military. "Waaaa waaa waaa, booohoooo, they're not honoring the Geneva Convention" says US Defense Department. Example enough? Maybe not, so here's another... 2) The UN. America justifies violating the charter of the UN, because Iraq is violating a resolution of the UN. Pick and choose? You bet.


Sorry Boyd Geneva convention spells out what is an enemy combatant and just because you - clearly not a legal scholar - think the interpretation vague.. doesn't mean anything.
I'll trust our courts, our justice department and our military JAG over some kiwi statist's opinion on the law anyday -- next.
The US did not violate the charter of the UN. The UN failed to live up to its own cease fire agreement and resolutions.. proving that it - not us - will approach ITS OWN conventions piecemeal when it suits it..


Both of the examples you have presented are useless.

Try again .. or is that the best you can do?



MS

[Boyd Main]

Originally posted by Mike S

You perceive things the way you do because you come from one of these tiny countries that in lieu of economic, cultural or military power relies on an undemocratic debating society that doesn't uphold its own resolutions as a means to empower itself.

True. And you percieve things the way you do because you come from the biggest baddest most arse-kicking country in the world. You got all the bombs - you do what you damn well please!!!! Nice one Mike, might is right!!!!

Anyway, I think we've derailed a little in our debate here. I shouldn't have even brought up the UN, as it seems to have stimulated some sort of (amusing) verbal catharsis on your part. What I was getting at is the fact that you have recently made some rather sweeping and inaccurate statements such as:

Originally posted by Mike S
...most of the world doesn't follow international conventions when it comes to making war or aggression...

and I want to make sure I understand what you are saying. By "most" I think it'd be correct to assume you're talking about greater than 50%, probably closer to 80-90%, as a standard accepted definition of "most". By my calculations, and according to your reasoning that would be something like 160-180 nations on this planet who make war and aggression with disregard to international convention. There is no mention of time frame in your statement, but I suppose that a window of, say, the last 20 years or so, is a reasonable one when discussing actions of nations, given that the examples of Japan and Germany show that once a bad guy, not always a bad guy.

So, can you come up with examples from 160-180 different nations in the last two decades instigating aggression that is counter to international convention? Somehow I doubt it. Outside of the English speaking world and Europe, believe it or not, there are actually large swaths of the globe filled with peace-loving countries. Most of South East and Far East Asia, with the glaring exceptions of Nth Korea and Indonesia, is a pretty peaceful place.

South Asia has its hotspots, notably India/Pakistan, but whatever war and aggression goes on between those two is largely played by the rules.

The Middle East is perhaps the one spot on the globe where your statement may hold true, but by no means does it constitute "most of the world". Africa is a tricky one, as there has been some brutal tribal warfare over there, although even that has been limited in geographic extent.

South America has become a pretty peaceful place of late, not a lot of rule-breaking aggression and war there lately. Moving up to Central America, most of the recent conflicts there have been of the internal type, and therefore of limited relavance in this discussion. West to the Pacific and North to the Carribean, we find idyllic island nations too busy luring tourists to start illegal wars.

Finally we hit North America. Mexico, although as corrupt as all hell, and brutally repressive, hardly stands out as an international scofflaw. Same for Canada. But now we come to the crux of the issue - the grand old US of A. Now I undertstand that to a lot of people like you, Mike, the USA is very important - so much so, that you could be forgiven for thinking that it accounts for more of the world than it actually does. So if you accept that America is now waging a war against all international order and convention, well yes, then I could see where that fact, combined with your overinflated sense of America's place in the world, could lead you come to the conclusion that "most of the world doesn't follow international conventions when it comes to making war or aggression". I, however, am not convinced.

[Mike S]

Well lets just start with parts of the world that have, in the past couple of years, experienced war or aggression.
Then Boyd, if you like, we can nit pick at particular ones.

But.. I think by just looking over the list you might get an idea by what I mean by most of the world.

Algeria
Angola
Burundi
Côte d'Ivoire (Ivory Coast)
Eritrea
Ethiopia
Liberia
Nigeria
Rwanda
Sierra Leone
Sudan
Tanzania
Zimbabwe
Uganda
Democratic Republic of Congo
Israel/Palestine
Iraq
Turkey
Kurdistan
India
Pakistan
Kashmir
Sindh
Sri Lanka
Nepal
Colombia
El Salvador
Guatemala
Venezuela
Indonesia
East Timor
Myanmar (Burma)
Afghanistan
Tajikistan
Tibet
China
Northern Ireland
Basque Country (Spain)
Albania
Croatia
Kosovo
Macedonia
Serbia-Montenegro
Russia
Chechnya

And of course the US experienced agression on Sept 11 by people who had no concern for any international conventions.

If I left a few places out excuse me.. I was just going off the top of my head.

And Boyd I believe I said you come a country that lacks the same military, ECONOMIC and CULTURAL power we do.. funny you just focus on the military aspect...
Typical tho..

MS

[Boyd Main]

Originally posted by Mike S

And Boyd I believe I said you come a country that lacks the same military, ECONOMIC and CULTURAL power we do.. funny you just focus on the military aspect...
Typical tho..


Excuse me. I should have said just 'cos you got da'bombs, da'greenbacks and da'maccy-Ds, you can do what you damn well please. Either way might (=POWER, whether it be military, economic, and/or cultural) is right. Which, in my opinion, is a piss poor way for the world to operate.

Oh, and nice list there Mike. There's a little too much in it to be debated this late on a Friday, save for pointing out that, Shit, some of the world is fucked up, but certainly not most. And finally, we can't give up hoping that that list get shorter, not longer in the coming years.

Have a good weekend, and don't watch too much foxnews.

[Mike S]

Originally posted by Boyd Main


Excuse me. I should have said just 'cos you got da'bombs, da'greenbacks and da'maccy-Ds, you can do what you damn well please. Either way might (=POWER, whether it be military, economic, and/or cultural) is right. Which, in my opinion, is a piss poor way for the world to operate.

Oh, and nice list there Mike. There's a little too much in it to be debated this late on a Friday, save for pointing out that, Shit, some of the world is fucked up, but certainly not most. And finally, we can't give up hoping that that list get shorter, not longer in the coming years.

Have a good weekend, and don't watch too much foxnews.

You too Boyd.. always fun "jousting" with ya.


MS

[186k\sec]

You are the type of person who would have been tongue clucking "peace at any price" in '38 and conveniently "not seeing" the Germans taking care of their "Jewish problem" ..content to sit on your hands just as long as the problem wasn't directly in your back yard.
Disgusting.

this statement goes to show how much Mike assumes about people he has never met.. the statement is way off base, just like much of his right wing schpeal,
see, its simple for Mike to accuse, speculate, and label - because he can only see black & white . see, the truth is I am not a peace at any price believer.. nor only affected by problems in my own back yard..
Fact of the matter is - this is just another example of the shallowness & niavety of Mikes statements. talk about Disgusting, you take the cake man.

You clinging to your mentally vacant "war mongering-war for oil" rhetoric just shows me how not serious you and your opinion should be taken at this point.

your pro-war-probush opinions are no different to me, you have proven to invariably cling by default to *Anything* they (43 & his co-horts) want you to believe.. no questions.. you just simply take it as face value gospel, ....then belittle others who question it, or raise valid concerns...
fuck if I care, that you dont take my opinion serious. - its the last thing I want from a blind ass sell-out such as yourself.

[186k\sec]

originally posted by Mike S:

No the premise of the article was that now that we've adopted a policy of pre-emption that others will follow suit because we "upset the international order". I called bullshit. My reason for calling bullshit was that most of the world doesn't follow international conventions when it comes to making war or aggression so the entire idea that we somehow upset something that - for the most part - doesn't exist any way is ridiculous

Iran threatens preemptive strike on US

August 20, 2004

In a marked escalation of a war of words between Iran and its arch-enemies Israel and the US, Tehran has for the first time threatened a preemptive strike against US troops in the region.

"We will not sit [with arms folded] to wait for what others will do to us," Iran's defence minister, Rear-Admiral Ali Shamkhani told Al-Jazeera TV yesterday when asked if Iran would respond to a US attack on its nuclear facilities.

"Some military commanders in Iran are convinced that preventive operations which the Americans talk about are not their monopoly.

"America is not the only one present in the region. We are also present, from Khost to Kandahar in Afghanistan; we are present in the Gulf and we can be present in Iraq," said Shamkhani.

An exchange of threats between Israel and Iran in recent weeks has led to speculation of a repeat of Israel's strike against Iraqi nuclear facilities at Osirak in 1981.

But analysts say such an attack is unlikely because of sensitivity to the US position in Iraq and the fact that Iran's nuclear facilities are scattered around the country.

Asked about the possibility of an American or Israeli strike against Iran's atomic power plant being built in Bushehr, Shamkhani added: "We will consider any strike against our nuclear installations as an attack on Iran as a whole, and we will retaliate with all our strength.

"Where Israel is concerned, we have no doubt that it is an evil entity, and it will not be able to launch any military operation without an American green light. You cannot separate the two.

"The US military presence [in Iraq] will not become an element of strength [for Washington] at our expense. The opposite is true, because their forces would turn into a hostage" in Iranian hands in the event of an attack, he said.

Earlier in the week, a commander of Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards was quoted as saying that Tehran would strike the Israeli reactor at Dimona if Israel attacked the Islamic republic's own burgeoning nuclear facilities.

"If Israel fires one missile at Bushehr atomic power plant, it should permanently forget about Dimona nuclear centre, where it produces and keeps its nuclear weapons, and Israel would be responsible for the terrifying consequence of this move," General Mohammad Baqer Zolqadr warned.

Iran's controversial bid to generate nuclear power at Bushehr is seen by arch-enemies Israel and the United States as a cover for nuclear weapons development.

Iran insists that its nuclear intentions are peaceful, while pointing at its enemy's alleged nuclear arsenal, which Israel neither confirms nor denies possessing.

Shamkhani also warned that Iran would consider itself no longer bound by its commitments to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in the event of an attack.

"The execution of such threats [to attack Iran's nuclear installations] would mean that our cooperation with the IAEA had led to feeding information about our nuclear facilities to the attacking side, which [in turn] means that we would no longer be bound by any of our obligations" to the nuclear watchdog, he said.

http://smh.com.au/articles/2004/08/19/1092889287704.html

[NotoriouS]

Originally posted by 186k\sec
Analysts fear that the period of relative peace since the birth of the United Nations after World War II, with its strict charter injunction against the use of force, could now be in serious jeopardy.

There was never any period of relative peace. Never. There was relative peace among developed, first-world nations. North America and Europe have lived out the last 60 years in peaceful relaxation. Not so for the rest of the world.

I sometimes think that personal comfort is the primary motivating factor behind pacifism. It's worse for America to cause 1,000 deaths than it is for Hussein to cause 100,000 deaths, because you can mentally dissociate yourself from those 100,000 by virtue of their distance. Not so with the 1,000 caused by your own country. Now you have to think about it, now your view of the world as a peaceful place is shattered. Thus, pacifism.

[Red Skye]

Originally posted by Mike S
Well lets just start with parts of the world that have, in the past couple of years, experienced war or aggression.
Then Boyd, if you like, we can nit pick at particular ones.

But.. I think by just looking over the list you might get an idea by what I mean by most of the world.

Algeria
Angola
Burundi
Côte d'Ivoire (Ivory Coast)
Eritrea
Ethiopia
Liberia
Nigeria
Rwanda
Sierra Leone
Sudan
Tanzania
Zimbabwe
Uganda
Democratic Republic of Congo
Israel/Palestine
Iraq
Turkey
Kurdistan
India
Pakistan
Kashmir
Sindh
Sri Lanka
Nepal
Colombia
El Salvador
Guatemala
Venezuela
Indonesia
East Timor
Myanmar (Burma)
Afghanistan
Tajikistan
Tibet
China
Northern Ireland
Basque Country (Spain)
Albania
Croatia
Kosovo
Macedonia
Serbia-Montenegro
Russia
Chechnya

And of course the US experienced agression on Sept 11 by people who had no concern for any international conventions.

If I left a few places out excuse me.. I was just going off the top of my head.

And Boyd I believe I said you come a country that lacks the same military, ECONOMIC and CULTURAL power we do.. funny you just focus on the military aspect...
Typical tho..

MS

so 45 out of 193 countries = most of the world?
nice "proof," mike

[186k\sec]

I sometimes think that personal comfort is the primary motivating factor behind pacifism. It's worse for America to cause 1,000 deaths than it is for Hussein to cause 100,000 deaths, because you can mentally dissociate yourself from those 100,000 by virtue of their distance. Not so with the 1,000 caused by your own country. Now you have to think about it, now your view of the world as a peaceful place is shattered. Thus, pacifism.

first, - who ever said I was a pacifist?
youre showing your dumbness once again..

second..
your are right, i will consider the deaths of my countrymen with higer regard than others.. I put thier concerns and jeopardy first. - I weight the loss with the benefit.. and to me - its still comming up VERY unballanced... the cost is outwieighing the benefits in my book,..

Also..

please let me know where you are getting your figures. Im not convinced they are accurate..

[ZupanGOD]

Originally posted by Boyd Main
Okay, here's two recent and topical ones: 1) Geneva Convention. In Afganistan, US captures enemy, but fails to accord them the rights assured under Geneva Convention, citing obscure and questionable interpretation.

And what rights are those? And what was the obscure and questionable intereptation exactly?

In Iraq, US soldiers captured and filmed for TV by Iraq military. "Waaaa waaa waaa, booohoooo, they're not honoring the Geneva Convention" says US Defense Department. Example enough? Maybe not, so here's another...

Bah what ever. Can't you come up with better examples? I think I'll give you a second shot at it. I'd hate to be left with the impression that you have the magnifiicent ability to describe the enemies violations of the treaty as miniscule while trying to illustrate in great lengths how your own country is the ultimate violator. If I wanted to hear such trash I'd go listen to anti-war speeches and burn a US Flag or two.

2) The UN. America justifies violating the charter of the UN, because Iraq is violating a resolution of the UN. Pick and choose? You bet.

explain..

-Jason

[ZupanGOD]

Originally posted by Notorious Abe


There was never any period of relative peace. Never. There was relative peace among developed, first-world nations. North America and Europe have lived out the last 60 years in peaceful relaxation. Not so for the rest of the world.

I sometimes think that personal comfort is the primary motivating factor behind pacifism. It's worse for America to cause 1,000 deaths than it is for Hussein to cause 100,000 deaths, because you can mentally dissociate yourself from those 100,000 by virtue of their distance. Not so with the 1,000 caused by your own country. Now you have to think about it, now your view of the world as a peaceful place is shattered. Thus, pacifism.

Heh. Well put.

Appearently relative peace is measured by whether or not there is envolvement from the United States. If the US isn't involved this means everything is peachy and we all have "relative peace"

Bahh what a joke

-Jason