Since we're kinda talking about it...
I want to bring up for discussion something that, in my mind, doesn't get NEARLY enough attention: Even if there had been WMD's, without international backing, we were absolutely in the wrong by invading.
We (Americans) always talk about our morality (we are after all, the moral Super Power (slight eye roll)). For there to be a moral reason to invade a country (in your own interest*), you must have 1) already been attacked, 2) have INCONTRIVERTIBLE proof that an attack is imminent or 3) INCONTRIVERTIBLE proof that resources used in an attack or meant to be used in an attack systematically (ie via the government or with government approval) came from that country. Yes, this means that there is a decent chance that people will die before you have justification for invasion. But given the stakes involved, I think that the bar necessarily must be quite high. Geez, at least have the international community mostly behind you!
The invasion of Afghanistan was completely justified, as the "moral" justification was eminently fulfilled.
I point this out because I feel that anyone who voted for this war was DEAD WRONG. And worse than shame needs to be piled on the architects of the war. I don't feel that the doctrine of pre-emption gets enough discussion. It's odious. Think about other regimes that have used it: the USSR (Afghanistan), Saddam's Iraq (Kuwait) and certainly not least, Nazi Germany (Poland and to a lesser extent, the Sudetenland).
Please note that I am *not* saying that invasion is always wrong, nor that the use of force is never necessary. I am just saying that when something as important as warfare abroad is concerned the threshold for action needs to be extremely high, if you are to claim any "morality" in it.
Your thoughts?
GreenWave
* I say in your own interest because humanitarian missions, such as Kosovo, would have a different set of "triggers". It is duly noted that there has been a shift in the rationale for the war to a humanitarian explanation recently. I just don't buy that for a minute.
We (Americans) always talk about our morality (we are after all, the moral Super Power (slight eye roll)). For there to be a moral reason to invade a country (in your own interest*), you must have 1) already been attacked, 2) have INCONTRIVERTIBLE proof that an attack is imminent or 3) INCONTRIVERTIBLE proof that resources used in an attack or meant to be used in an attack systematically (ie via the government or with government approval) came from that country. Yes, this means that there is a decent chance that people will die before you have justification for invasion. But given the stakes involved, I think that the bar necessarily must be quite high. Geez, at least have the international community mostly behind you!
The invasion of Afghanistan was completely justified, as the "moral" justification was eminently fulfilled.
I point this out because I feel that anyone who voted for this war was DEAD WRONG. And worse than shame needs to be piled on the architects of the war. I don't feel that the doctrine of pre-emption gets enough discussion. It's odious. Think about other regimes that have used it: the USSR (Afghanistan), Saddam's Iraq (Kuwait) and certainly not least, Nazi Germany (Poland and to a lesser extent, the Sudetenland).
Please note that I am *not* saying that invasion is always wrong, nor that the use of force is never necessary. I am just saying that when something as important as warfare abroad is concerned the threshold for action needs to be extremely high, if you are to claim any "morality" in it.
Your thoughts?
GreenWave
* I say in your own interest because humanitarian missions, such as Kosovo, would have a different set of "triggers". It is duly noted that there has been a shift in the rationale for the war to a humanitarian explanation recently. I just don't buy that for a minute.
posted by GreenWave at 3:50 PM
<< Home