Illegal Wars

[marharth]

At least he didn't enter the war on false pretenses. :rolleyes:

 

Sorry to change the topic, I know this thread has moved on, but I thought this statement deserved a little more discussion than it got. First off, I'm a staunch liberal and voted for Obama. Just saying this to show that what I'm about to say does not come from any sort of feeling of NEED to contradict everything that man does like some people seem to have.

 

Anyways, I found his comments regarding the need for military action to prevent a humanitarian disaster completely disingenuous. If our agenda there were entirely moral then I could name a dozen other places around the world where people are being massacred that we could have sent our military to intervene that barely even got a mention in the media. Second, history has shown that imposing no-fly-zones doesnt prevent the winning side from massacring the other side just as they intended to in the first place.

 

When you look at what we have done in places like Iraq and Libya and the reasons we have been given for those actions, they do not make much sense when considering places where we have done nothing at all.

 

As a result, I do think we have gone to Libya under false pretences. It's just a little bit more convenient to say that it's for moral reasons than to give the real reasons that might be less desirable to hear.

I don't even think its for moral reasons.

 

I see two reasons we are doing this.

 

1. To help allies.

 

2. To make the US government look like they support freedom, they were a bit late with the stuff in Egypt and they didn't want to miss out on this.

 

It is not for moral reasons, there are many other dictators around the world.

 

I am a bit surprised how bad the rebels are at this whole war thing.

 

They can hardly fire a gun, they are not structured, they commonly misfire heavy weapons, and they don't know what the f*** their doing.

 

A no fly zone won't do a thing, but ground troops won't make it better for anyone.

[Aurielius]

Within the context of our current Rules of Engagement of providing limited Air Superiority in support of the Libyan Rebels it is fallacious in the extreme to believe that this will not require boots on the ground to bring this affair to a conclusion. Who's boots is the 64k question. What has bothered me from the onset of this engagement is that neither the President or Secretary of Sate can define who exactly the opposition actually is and what political aspirations they really have beyond the nebulous goal of regime change. Using the concept of interference on moral grounds in what is clearly a Civil War begs the question of where does this doctrine end? Does this mean we are to come to the aid of all insurgents that are being repressed worldwide? All prior empires have failed due to overextension of their military commitments in relation to their ability to sustain them. Many times before I have advocated pragmatism in conflict not because it is moral but because it makes sound military sense, if Libya was in our national interest to salvage or interfere I might be more sanguine about the lack of direction and leadership that we are evincing, but the nations whose interest it is really in are European not American. If the French and Germans wish to keep their oil tap flowing then let them put their blood and national treasure in the balance to protect their interests. Last but certainly not least I object to asking our pilots and aviators to serve under foreign command, something that we have never permitted before ( no disrespect meant to our Canadian neighbors). NATO though a fine organization is hardly streamlined enough to make rapid tactical changes that are going to be required , warfare by committee is a guarantee of an inconclusive military result.

[grannywils]

Within the context of our current Rules of Engagement of providing limited Air Superiority in support of the Libyan Rebels it is fallacious in the extreme to believe that this will not require boots on the ground to bring this affair to a conclusion. Who's boots is the 64k question. What has bothered me from the onset of this engagement is that neither the President or Secretary of Sate can define who exactly the opposition actually is and what political aspirations they really have beyond the nebulous goal of regime change. Using the concept of interference on moral grounds in what is clearly a Civil War begs the question of where does this doctrine end? Does this mean we are to come to the aid of all insurgents that are being repressed worldwide? All prior empires have failed due to overextension of their military commitments in relation to their ability to sustain them. Many times before I have advocated pragmatism in conflict not because it is moral but because it makes sound military sense, if Libya was in our national interest to salvage or interfere I might be more sanguine about the lack of direction and leadership that we are evincing, but the nations whose interest it is really in are European not American. If the French and Germans wish to keep their oil tap flowing then let them put their blood and national treasure in the balance to protect their interests. Last but certainly not least I object to asking our pilots and aviators to serve under foreign command, something that we have never permitted before ( no disrespect meant to our Canadian neighbors). NATO though a fine organization is hardly streamlined enough to make rapid tactical changes that are going to be required , warfare by committee is a guarantee of an inconclusive military result.

 

 

Well put, Aurielius. Although I do not always agree with everything you say, and not even everything here; I certainly give credence to most of it, even if I do not like to. In any event, you have once again stated it clearly and concisely, and I give you kudos for that.

 

[Harbringe]

One things when trying to define illegal wars is to understand that war in and of itself is a crime ,and I understand that sometimes there just doesn't seem to be any other chose , but war is a descent into barbarism and brutality and is a failure of civilization .This has been understood for thousands of years by empires throughout the ages and all this UN sanctioned this, or US Congress permission that, is just our way in the modern day of making a heinous business (war) more palatable ,but it doesn't change its underlying nature.

[Aurielius]

One things when trying to define illegal wars is to understand that war in and of itself is a crime ,and I understand that sometimes there just doesn't seem to be any other chose , but war is a descent into barbarism and brutality and is a failure of civilization .This has been understood for thousands of years by empires throughout the ages and all this UN sanctioned this, or US Congress permission that, is just our way in the modern day of making a heinous business (war) more palatable ,but it doesn't change its underlying nature.

 

War is a crime? An interesting point of view and if you could cite just one decade in human history that there has not been warfare it might have more philosophical weight. This utopia that you aspire to is in itself admirable but not realistic. So for the time being I prefer sanctioned conflicts over the free form variety, is it not better to have some rules rather than none?

[DeTomaso]

Peaceful conflict solution aiming at a win-win goal is always a workable alternative.

The opponents just have to come down a few notches, trying to understand the people on the other side, what they really want and what they reject, what they actually mean, what they have to offer and what we have that they perhaps need. Talks on an equal footing, that is something decisive our rulers and diplomats have not yet learned from history, probably because they don't have to risk their lives on the battlefield when things go wrong and because they are not familiar with role playing. Instead they take their own role and the lifestyle behind for absolute. And that is often a deadly error.

We haven't yet seen Western diplomats talking to the Taliban or other groups in the game. What we see are exclusively talks about the other side, today they talk about Ghaddafi, it's political self-expression of its best that plays on delimination, exclusion and demonization that aims at a win-lose goal. And it goes both ways. That is just ridiculous.

Edited April 4, 2011 by DeTomaso

[Harbringe]

One things when trying to define illegal wars is to understand that war in and of itself is a crime ,and I understand that sometimes there just doesn't seem to be any other chose , but war is a descent into barbarism and brutality and is a failure of civilization .This has been understood for thousands of years by empires throughout the ages and all this UN sanctioned this, or US Congress permission that, is just our way in the modern day of making a heinous business (war) more palatable ,but it doesn't change its underlying nature.

 

War is a crime? An interesting point of view and if you could cite just one decade in human history that there has not been warfare it might have more philosophical weight. This utopia that you aspire to is in itself admirable but not realistic. So for the time being I prefer sanctioned conflicts over the free form variety, is it not better to have some rules rather than none?

 

I never aspired to any connotation be it utopian ,realism or otherwise .I merely stated what it is .A decade where in there was no war is a meaningless juxtaposition and has no relevance ,that would be like saying if there was a decade where in no one told the truth , the nature of truth is made valid or inversely invalid by such an action .Completely pointless.

[Aurielius]

One things when trying to define illegal wars is to understand that war in and of itself is a crime ,and I understand that sometimes there just doesn't seem to be any other chose , but war is a descent into barbarism and brutality and is a failure of civilization .This has been understood for thousands of years by empires throughout the ages and all this UN sanctioned this, or US Congress permission that, is just our way in the modern day of making a heinous business (war) more palatable ,but it doesn't change its underlying nature.

 

War is a crime? An interesting point of view and if you could cite just one decade in human history that there has not been warfare it might have more philosophical weight. This utopia that you aspire to is in itself admirable but not realistic. So for the time being I prefer sanctioned conflicts over the free form variety, is it not better to have some rules rather than none?

 

I never aspired to any connotation be it utopian ,realism or otherwise .I merely stated what it is .A decade where in there was no war is a meaningless juxtaposition and has no relevance ,that would be like saying if there was a decade where in no one told the truth , the nature of truth is made valid or inversely invalid by such an action .Completely pointless.

First off, I gave you credit for more than just making broad sweeping statements of what 'truth'' is but if you would like to be arrogantly dismissive then I guess I can return the favor. Warfare has been viewed as an extension of political will for as long as civilization has been in existence. All the empires have utilized warfare as such, far from seeing it as a descent into barbarism they have seen it as a necessary tool of statecraft. There has been no pacifistic empire ever, that actually had other political entities adjacent to it's borders. So far from being understood as some universal truth that warfare is a descent into barbarism many cultures have embraced it as a way of existence. Only the theological community not the political community have seen warfare as reprehensible and not even all of them would ascribe to your theorem of self evident truth. The only statement that you made that holds water in a real world context is that war is a dirty business, to that I would agree. The very fact that we have had warfare despite the many attempts to curtail, modify, codify and ameliorate it's excesses proves that it serves a purpose to states and has no prospect of leaving the world stage for the foreseeable future. The best that can be hoped for is a consensus of what is a necessary war and for the time being that judgment has been placed in the hands of the UN for better or for worse. Whenever someone tells me they have a lock on the 'truth', thats when I get out my hip waders and shovel.

Edited April 4, 2011 by Aurielius

[grannywils]

Harbringe, I gotta tell you what. My politics tend to side more with yours generally; but you really don't want to go toe to toe with Aurielius on this one. First of all, the guy knows his facts and his history, and second of all I believe in this one he may be leaning towards the truth, as much as it pains me to say it. I abhor war just as much as you do; but I do not believe there is any document stating it's illegality; and I do unfortunately believe that there are and have been many times in history for this nation and for others where there has been no other alternative. It must be built into the structure of any viable government.

[Harbringe]

Harbringe, I gotta tell you what. My politics tend to side more with yours generally; but you really don't want to go toe to toe with Aurielius on this one. First of all, the guy knows his facts and his history, and second of all I believe in this one he may be leaning towards the truth, as much as it pains me to say it. I abhor war just as much as you do; but I do not believe there is any document stating it's illegality; and I do unfortunately believe that there are and have been many times in history for this nation and for others where there has been no other alternative. It must be built into the structure of any viable government.

 

Tsk Tsk now your being irrelevant .Maybe this will help .War is a concept unto itself , much like the other big concepts of love , hate , truth, etc.So take love for example ,if someone brings you flowers does that define love or is that a characteristic of that love .Same thing for all these codifications or legalism that Aurielis refers to in regards to war (none of which is untrue in his 2nd post except the theological reference) over the centuries are they what define war itself or are they what define the characteristics by which we practice or engage in war. This is what I was speaking to, Aurielis went off on his own tangent of utopianism and realism ,making analogous examples that had no relevance to what I had said . If that is dismissive or arrogant then I am sorry but I am not going to respond with any measure that gives it merit, not when its unrelated to what I had said.

 

This concept that war is a crime (or in ancient times referred to as evil) is not new and is not mine ,it predates all the subsequent codifications. It is not only the purview of theological thinkers but military strategists such as Sun Tzu who understood what it was then proceeded to write his Art of War on what was the most efficient means and strategies in carrying it forth ,Greek philosophers who's thoughts on war were translated by Greek play writes into tragedies , drama's and parables usually involving a focus of a hero figure in some moral dilemma. Political/philosophical thinkers such as Thoreau .Nietzsche ,Clausewitz have all echoed and contributed to this evolution of the practices ,means and reasons for war yet never denying its inherent nature.

 

In fact Clausewitz got himself into trouble with the ruling elites (Royalty) of Europe where in a book he wrote (who's title escapes me) he devoted 3 or 4 chapters to the nature of war .The first dealing with its inherent criminality , the second dealing with the morality of going to war (as in is their a morality basis by which you can go to war) , thirdly what are the legitimate means and practices by which one can proceed to war and engage in.If there was 4 chapters can't remember if it was something more or a summation of the previous 3 .Anyhow this got him into trouble because the ruling class took it to be that he was implying they were all criminals and when brought forth to answer for this he explained to them that War is a crime and that it can never be made legal (not in the sense of right and wrong) but it can be made legitimate and the means of that legitimacy is a question that you the ruling elites will need to discern and decide.This satisfied them and got him off the hook.The chose of words legal and legitimate were carefully chosen words as legal carries with it a connotation of right or good , while legitimate carries a connotation of appropriate or needful.Two different things.

 

This is where the misconceptions of war arises and has been accomplished through various means be it nationalism ,patriotism , propaganda and even the legalisms of such things as UN approved, Congressional approval or Royal assent or whatever .This isn't a broad conceptual theory or idea , it has been practiced for hundreds if not thousands of years ,whats surprising and even sad is that even in this age of information people still come to define what war is by these methods ,which is why when things go bad or not as intended we start hearing phrases like it lacked mission focus or clear objectives and that may be true but it didn't arise after the fact , it was there from the get go because people misconstrue (many politicians and leaders purposefully) what the nature of what it is that they are getting themselves into.

 

Think of it this way if War is a crime then those very means such as doctrines or conventions that have been developed over time that Aurielis speaks of would be inherently necessary to the practice of war, now wouldn't they.That's one of the basic reasons they try to codify it in the first place ,still doesn't change its nature , just the means in which we practice it.I wasn't propagating that because it is a crime that it somehow dis-annulled anything done by any legalistic convention , in fact it would be exactly the opposite ,it is a crime after all. Sorry but that would be Aurielis going off on his own inference , his own implication of what I was saying.Hey he could of asked am I understanding you right but no he went off on his own in effect putting words in my mouth ,so to speak.

 

So in conclusion Aurielis has still not understood what it I was saying and is somewhere out in left field riding aimlessly around in his wagon , only difference is now he has you (Granny) riding shotgun and though you may be bewildered as to how you find yourself in such a situation ,you can at least take solace in that you got him out in left field and with a little work you can convert him. go granny go. (God that was a lot of fun to say lol)