Is the election a rubber stamp on pre-emptive war?

[wtmusic]

That is by far the most troubling question we need to ask ourselves in its aftermath. Is it OK to invade another country, to kill thousands upon thousands of their people because we feel threatened, because they might have nuclear weapons, because they might one day get them, because they want to get them, because one day they might want to get them...

The UN charter prohibits attacking another sovereign nation unless the nation itself is under "armed attack". The framers of this document, written months after the end of WWII, knew exactly what was required to maintain world peace. Though that phrase is ambiguous (like much of our Constitution deliberately so) there is no stretch of interpretation wide enough to include our current foray into Iraq.

This is not only a violation of a document we have signed and to which we have pledged our adherence--it is a violation of the fundamental moral principle of aggression being justified only in self-defense. And when thousands die--thousands of innocent men, women, children, families like yours and mine--it's not enough to shrug it off with "Saddam had it coming". It is a brutality beyond the scope of any justification whatsoever, outside of any religion or moral conscience. It is unconscionable, and makes me ashamed to be American.

I never thought I'd see that day. And without trying to sound melodramatic I will resist that trend to my last breath. I will not support our troops because I don't support what they're doing. The brave soldiers like Camilo Mejia who went to prison instead of participating in this awkward hatchet-job of foreign policy--those are the troops who deserve our support, and who will continue to get mine. </rant>

[The Backlash Cometh]

1. That's how Republicans think.

And if that is how Bush is selling it, then we should use his words against people who voted for him. That's our comeback. Make up the list of mandated mistakes that the Bush Administration is claiming.

[democratreformed]

2. Unfortunately, I believe that the results of the election show that we

care more about telling each person how to live that maintaining world peace. I don't think it particulary says that pre-emptive war is okay and embraced - just that we don't care - other things are more important.

[wtmusic]

6. And that in itself

is sickening-- the issue of whether gays should be entitled to certain rights taking precedence over destroying the lives and property of brown people overseas.

My God, are we that afraid?

[democratreformed]

7. Yes, it is the one thing that, when I dwell on it, makes me want to bawl

like a baby. Strength and commitment though - we have to have those. I just can't give up.

[wtmusic]

11. I can't either

Hope springs eternal. :thumbsup:

[Yavin4]

3. Yep.

The sky's the limit for the PNAC.

[mazzarro]

4. I will guess so since the chimp&Co* are already claiming broad

mandate to do whole lot of things - that may include pre-emptive wars on any country they deem threatening. And Congress which is even more safely in their control while surely oblige with another free-willing authorization "to keep America safe" resolution.

[kiahzero]

5. It wasn't preemptive war.

It was "preventative" war.

So, no.

[wtmusic]

8. Well

Here's a legit source that calls it "pre-emptive"--take your pick.

http://www.asil.org/taskforce/oconnell.pdf

If you want to be distracted by semantics, help yourself. :eyes:

[kiahzero]

12. It's not semantics, it's a legal distinction.

Preemptive war always has been and always will continue to be legitimate in international relations.

"Preventative" war is a realtively new concept, and is not considered legitimate.

In order to get their war, one of the things the Bush team had to do was continually refer to their preventative war as preemptive. This put the less intelligent members of the opposition in the position of attacking preemptive war, which was a waste of time.

[wtmusic]

13. That's news to me

Do you have any links which support that

"Preemptive war always has been and always will continue to be legitimate in international relations.", or that

"Preventative" war is a realtively new concept, and is not considered legitimate."

Both seem to contradict the ASIL paper, which is thoroughly documented.

[kiahzero]

14. Here's one quick source

http://www.un377.net/hr141/resolution.html

Whereas President Bush has declared in a variety of documents and fora that the United States has the right to unilaterally exercise military action, including preemptive nuclear strikes, against nations that have not attacked the United States, creating what has been termed the `doctrine of preemption' ;

Whereas the doctrine of preemption contemplates initiating warfare against a nation that might not pose an imminent threat of harm to the United States and far exceeds the commonly understood view, set out in the Charter of the United Nations and recognized in international and United States law, that nations enjoy the right of self-defense, and that such self-defense might include undertaking military action to prevent an imminent attack;

Whereas the doctrine of preemption represents a radical departure from the official position of the United States since the adoption of the Charter of the United Nations;

Whereas the doctrine of preemption threatens to set a dangerous precedent that might then be cited by other countries, including other nuclear powers, to justify preemptive military action against perceived threats;

Whereas United States policy has long recognized the value to our national security of advancing the respect for and adherence to the international rule of law;

Whereas actions that diminish the international consensus on normative legal behavior and leave open the prospect that nations will readily resort to military force outside of those normative boundaries increase international instability and undercut the national security interests of the United States;

Whereas the doctrine of preemption contradicts the Charter of the United Nations to which the United States is a signatory, which, as a result of its ratification by the United States, is incorporated into United States law, and which reads, in part, `All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations' (Article 2, section 4);

Whereas the Charter of the United Nations, while disallowing preventive war, does not preclude military actions of self-defense, reading in part, `Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to maintain international peace and security' (Article 51); and

[wtmusic]

15. WADR

your source contradicts your own assertion that "Preemptive war always has been and always will continue to be legitimate in international relations":

"Whereas the doctrine of preemption threatens to set a dangerous precedent that might then be cited by other countries, including other nuclear powers, to justify preemptive military action against perceived threats"...

[kiahzero]

16. Read the entire thing

They are referring to Bush's bogues "doctrine of preemption," which, as I said, is actually preventative war, which is what it later mentions as unjustifiable.

[Mz Pip]

9. It's a rubber stamp

for them to do whatever they damn well please. And whatever they do will cause endless damage to this country.

It will be worse than Nixon. These folks really believe they have a mandate(just like the last time) only this time it wil be worse.

War, deficits, erosion of civil rights. You asked for it America, you got it. Bend over.

MzPip
:dem:

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

10. Perception IS reality

And whether or not this is a rubber stamp is irrelevant. The rest of the world sees this as our entire country's rubber stamp on EVERYTHING Bush has done the last 4 years. You think the world hated us before? You ain't seen nothin' yet. They were holding out hope that this was just a mistake that would be corrected. They saved their opinion of us until we had a chance to right our wrong. But we didn't make things right. And now we WILL, in some way, shape, or form, feel their wrath in the near future.