Blood for Oil; Or Rather, War for Resources?

[piff]

In today's day and age, most Americans agree that going to war for money is a wrong thing to do. I also agree with that, but allow me to play devil's adcovate.

Resources are what keeps a nation afloat and its people cared for. Without money, a nation cannot prosper, nor can it ever prosper. Nations need money at all costs for the best of its citizens. In times of financial crisis, going to war for money or resources is acceptable, as proven by the ancient Assyrians, the American idea of Manifest Dynasty, and Nazi Germany.

The ancient Assyrians were one of the first civilized cultures known to man. They had a written alphabet somewhere between 3000 BC and 2000 BC. They also built two of the first major world cities, Ashur and Arbel. The Assyrians became reknowned for their agricultural abilities in their early history, as they were in the center of the fertile cresent. Outside forces recognized this, and attempted to take the lands from the Assyrians multiple times. Many times the enemies were unsuccessful, but much of the farmland was destroyed in the process, driving Assyria into famine. To solve this problem and protect its people, Assyria attacked surronding cultures in all directions for their farmlands. In this process, the Assyrians gained their primary distinction, their military power, but this all stemmed from a need for more land.

The American Manifest Dynasty was an ideal that the United States were to stretch from the Atlantic to the Pacific to make the US a thriving world power. The US did go to war with just about anything in the way of this goal, and today the US is one of the top economic and military superpowers.

Before Hitler gained power, Germany was in the worst depression the world had ever seen. Wheelbarrels full of money were needed to buy a loaf of bread. People were starving, and the nation was collapsing becuase of the harsh penalties placed on Germany because of WWI. After Hitler came to power, he illegally rebuilt his military, and used it to create jobs and take other lands to get his people out of depression, and he was successful to a degree. Germany was on its way to becoming western Europe's first third world country, but Hitler turned this around through the use of force and gave his people life again.

It is clear that military power is needed in times of financial crisis to remove that country from its economic distress. This can even relate to the US today. Gas prices continually raising is a dilema that must be solved in the US, as it is causing all other industries to raise their prices, but paychecks are not raising simultaniously. This is driving people into debt, bankruptcy, and poverty. If war is needed to correct this, so let war be done.

[5Ws]

Another one of those threads???

[piff]

I got the idea from the Lebanon thread, but since that wasn't the main idea, I decided to start one from this viewpoint because no one ever argues for it.

[Moosashi]

You're right, an offensive war benefits the aggressor if he wins, and the Bush administration understands this. I think it's a bad philosophy for a country to follow because you can't win them all - Germany lost twice. All the warlike nations I can think of were destroyed or seriously damaged by war.

Going to war for economic gain is also a serious moral problem, especially for a democracy (on a side note, can anyone think of a war that occurred between two democracies? it came up in discussion in a sociobiology class). A country that espouses freedom and opportunity for everyone must strictly follow a code of ethics. We must define certain things we just will not do to improve our economy or increase our power. Offensive war, which I am against, could be one such thing. There are others that I firmly believe in and that I've articulated in the ANWR thread. If we have no national conscience, we will destroy the world by trying to stay ahead at any cost.

[IDupedInMyPants]

The problem with war for resources is that the economic boost is temporary. If the same people remain in charge of military decision-making, then you'll start seeing the same war-hawking when the benefits of the war dry up. Whether it's spoken or not, peace begins to be seen as an economic problem rather than a desirable state of security, and the economic return to normalcy at the end of one offensive will be justification for the next offensive instead of being justification for pursuing sound fiscal and monetary policy.

Somebody smart once said that if your only tool is a hammer, then every problem will be a nail, and that's pretty much how people work. For a nation to prosper, it needs real, sustainable economic strength, and even constant war historically does not provide this. You need people in charge who can actually differentiate between economics and security, and the people who have only hammers at their disposal need to be summarily banned from all leadership positions for the sake of both economics and security.

[piff]

While most democracies' goals are to protect liberties and such, what if there were a democracy that was concerned for itself first? Does the obvious moral dilema exist?

I can think of a time when two democracies fought. War of 1812. While GB wasn't completely a democracy, the Parliment was still powerful.

If all countries are out to stay ahead at all costs, do they all keep each other in check, not allowing anything to happen? While all of the larger countries would go for their own choice of weaker country without interference from another large country, would the small countries create an effective system of alliances to keep the world from war?

Finally, it is true that most aggressors, if they lose, are in worse shape than they started, but in many cases, how much worse is it than they began? All losers that you can probably think of did not start in a great position, while most aggressors starting from dirt poor to fairly well off who won ended up in a spot uch better than they started. If a country (not the US, in this case) is near internal ruin, and they decalre war and lose miserably, how much worse off are they?

[Moosashi]

While most democracies' goals are to protect liberties and such, what if there were a democracy that was concerned for itself first? Does the obvious moral dilema exist?
If a democratically elected government will do anything for economic growth, then it cannot be trusted with its people's freedom.


I can think of a time when two democracies fought. War of 1812. While GB wasn't completely a democracy, the Parliment was still powerful.
But Parliament did not represent most of the people in Great Britain.



If all countries are out to stay ahead at all costs, do they all keep each other in check, not allowing anything to happen? While all of the larger countries would go for their own choice of weaker country without interference from another large country, would the small countries create an effective system of alliances to keep the world from war?
The result is what you have today in the Middle East, Southeast Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa, not a peaceful world. In the mid to late 19th century and early 20th, the behavior of powerful countries was exactly as you described. When their empires grew too troublesome, they were abandoned and we must deal with the mess.


Finally, it is true that most aggressors, if they lose, are in worse shape than they started, but in many cases, how much worse is it than they began? All losers that you can probably think of did not start in a great position, while most aggressors starting from dirt poor to fairly well off who won ended up in a spot uch better than they started. If a country (not the US, in this case) is near internal ruin, and they decalre war and lose miserably, how much worse off are they?

Going back to Germany's example. Their situation at the end of WWI reflects the consequences of their policies before WWI, when it was a prosperous and very militarily powerful nation. Strictly speaking, its treaties got it into the war, but Europe was a tinderbox at the time and Germany was the most martial and aggressive.

Also, a very poor country that starts a war of conquest is not likely to win. The aggressor and its allies (few if the country is poor) are the only parties that stand to gain, so the rest of the affected world will fight to preserve the status quo. Other countries will also recognize the aggressor's poverty, especially after lessons learned in WWII, and bring overwhelming force to bear.

[Omikron8]

Going to war for money/resources is "wrong"? Yes it is

Will it happen a lot in the future? Wait until the upcoming oil energy crisis and see :)

[Steel_Avatar]

I would expect any competent government to look after its own interests (those of its citizens) before anyone else. I voted to elect a government that would represent me, not some random nation thousands of kilometres from here.

That being said, engaging in wars for profit doesn't seem like it would be in the best interests of a nation's citizens. The risks associated with such action would outweigh the benefits, at least in my calculus. Think about it: You become international pariahs, run the risk of retaliatory actions, and thus endanger the lives of your citizens.

[Stoutwood]

Every war has had an economic reason at the heart of it. There is also no such thing as a "moral war".

[Fallen Creation]

The American Civil War was a war between two democracies.

[Namyeknom]

War in general is wrong. While there are circumstances that justify war, they usually only reveal themselves in hindsight. Also, in general even for the winner of a war, the benefits rarely outway the costs. Permenantly occupying a country, especially when you'll more than likely have rebel groups trying to stop you at every turn is immensely draining on resources. The Romans managed alright, but they weren't buying million dollar tanks.

The benefits of war are usually that they push public attention away from internal problems and give the people something to believe in. This is what Hitler did. It wasn't the second world war that rebuilt Germany, but it was the belief that Hitler instilled in the people.

The age of the mass media has somewhat ruined this, as live video feed of your army getting blown to bits tend to put a dent in public belief.

Also the whole 'govenments should look after their own' is as close to say people can do whatever they like as long as they do it somewhere else. Using that thinking, Hitler could of built as many concentration camps as he liked as long as he only gased foriegners.

As a final point, can a civil war be between two anythings? Technically its one country fighting itself, its only after its finished that a seperate country comes into being (or not, depending on the outcome).

[HAMC8112]

Every war has had an economic reason at the heart of it. There is also no such thing as a "moral war".

What about the crusades?

[Namyeknom]

What about the crusades?

Damn, I'd forgotten to talk about them!

[Drosselmeier]

Going to war for economic gain is also a serious moral problem, especially for a democracy (on a side note, can anyone think of a war that occurred between two democracies? it came up in discussion in a sociobiology class).

Here's a list:
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/demowar.htm

EDIT: There were economic and social reasons behind the crusades. For example, there were far too many young armed dudes running around without purpose or aim. This led to small wars and other general bloody messiness around Europe. The crusades were a way of putting all those young knights to work, projecting the force outwards instead of letting them go around waging internal war, purposeless war on neighbours or becoming bandits.

There were also trade related reasons but I'd have to study up to be able to say anything about that, and I'm drinking my morning coffee, so...

[HAMC8112]

Here's a list:
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/demowar.htm


I think we need to define democraty first because for instance the Greek Democraty's like Athens are not really democratic as we understand it.

[Drosselmeier]

I think we need to define democraty first because for instance the Greek Democraty's like Athens are not really democratic as we understand it.

The guy who wrote the article goes into that, IIRC.

My opinion is, you can't define democracy too narrowly. If you do it will be hard to find actual democracies in the sensible world, making the argument about democracies never fighting wars pointless.

EDIT: My argument in his words, to clarify:

3. Statistically insignificant sample: As we trim more and more dubious democracies from our list, we certainly make the statement that "democracies don't fight each other" truer, but we also make it a lot less impressive. If there are only 2 functioning democracies in the world (think, for example, the United States and Switzerland, ca. 1855), then peace between them is no big surprise. After all, how many times have two Mormon countries gone to war with one another? Or two nations led by people named Leslie?

See the section of the article called "Democracy", under "Basically It Depends on the Definition".

[Anakha1]

What about the crusades?

A series of unprovoked wars to take land and force others to convert to one's own religion? What on earth is moral about that? The crusades were some of the most immoral wars in history.

The American Civil War, WWI and II were the only wars I can think of that had any sort of moral cause attached to them.

[HAMC8112]

A series of unprovoked wars to take land and force others to convert to one's own religion? What on earth is moral about that? The crusades were some of the most immoral wars in history.

The American Civil War, WWI and II were the only wars I can think of that had any sort of moral cause attached to them.

I posted more in reaction to the "Every war has had an economic reason at the heart of it."

I dont think that the crusades had an economic reason at the heart of it. No doubt alot of people got rich or richer in the crusades but as a whole they( the crusades) were religion based IMO.

As to morals, make sure you do not use modern day moral standards to evaluate the crusades, i think we need to see to the morals at the time.

[Anakha1]

I posted more in reaction to the "Every war has had an economic reason at the heart of it."

I dont think that the crusades had an economic reason at the heart of it. No doubt alot of people got rich or richer in the crusades but as a whole they( the crusades) were religion based IMO.

As to morals, make sure you do not use modern day moral standards to evaluate the crusades, i think we need to see to the morals at the time.

Ah. I thought we were solely talking moral wars, here. Sorry.

They may have thought they were doing the right thing, but the morality of the time was highly misguided by todays standards. I think misguided morality is still immoral when it harms others, but that's just my opinion.

[HAMC8112]

They may have thought they were doing the right thing, but the morality of the time was highly misguided by todays standards. I think misguided morality is still immoral when it harms others, but that's just my opinion.

Certainly true, but we are talking hindsight here. Take the people a 1000 years from now, they will have a different set of morals than we have now, they will find our morals to be misguided aswell.

[Moosashi]

Defining a democracy shouldn't be too hard. The criterion would be whether or not a large majority of the people in the country have a real say in policy. Before women's suffrage then, the USA was not a true democracy and women's rights suffered as a result. The democracy must also be functional; it's not enough for a piece of paper to say everyone has a vote. If corruption and violence prohibit the actual process, then no democracy. If that narrows the sample size too much, fine, the question is unanswerable, but we should not employ a lax definition of democracy just to answer the question of war between democracies.

I think there are two sides to the religious war coin. On the one, the individuals involved in the prosecution of the war are firm believers and believe whole heartedly that god(s) are on their side. From this standpoint it could be viewed as a "moral" war, whether or not we believe these morals to be "good." On the other, religious wars typically seem to involve the liberation or conquest of land that the agressors feel their god has reserved for them, so from this perspective, religious wars, even those as fundamentally driven as the Crusades and Islamic Jihad, are wars of conquest with religion only as an initial justification and means of culling support.

[Drosselmeier]

As I said, even the crusades were dependant on economic and social factors. Even though religion may have been an important motivator there would have been no crusades had it not been for the whole socio-economic bit.


Defining a democracy shouldn't be too hard. The criterion would be whether or not a large majority of the people in the country have a real say in policy. Before women's suffrage then, the USA was not a true democracy and women's rights suffered as a result. The democracy must also be functional; it's not enough for a piece of paper to say everyone has a vote. If corruption and violence prohibit the actual process, then no democracy. If that narrows the sample size too much, fine, the question is unanswerable, but we should not employ a lax definition of democracy just to answer the question of war between democracies.

Even with a fairly narrow definition you can find examples of democracies going to war against each other. I think the original question, wether democracies ever fight each other or not, has been answered.

I sense thread drift. Let's get back to the blood for oil question.

I'd say, it's only justified if your people is being starved by a wealthier nation. Only out of necessity and against an unfair economic oppressor. Of course, then it becomes a matter of fighting for a negative freedom rather than a war motivated by greed.

US blood for oil wars do not fit in and is not just.

[Stoutwood]

I posted more in reaction to the "Every war has had an economic reason at the heart of it."

I dont think that the crusades had an economic reason at the heart of it. No doubt alot of people got rich or richer in the crusades but as a whole they( the crusades) were religion based IMO.

As to morals, make sure you do not use modern day moral standards to evaluate the crusades, i think we need to see to the morals at the time.

In addition to the reasons that Dross stated, you are also forgetting that the Catholic Church made plenty of money from Christian's pilgrimages to Jerusalem. When the Islamic Empire took over that area, they let the Christians come for a little bit, then shut it off. You are also forgetting that the Church basically controlled all of Europe, and saw an excellent opportunity to grab more land from the Moslem Infidels. Simply paint the whole thing up as a religious war, and you have thousands of ignorant louts pounding at the gates of the Islamic Empire in the name of Christianity.

This isn't a new strategy. ALL wars are economic, but religion is oftentimes used as propaganda to get the people to fight. If you said "um, we want some more money, and those guys over there have some factories and land that could give our revenue a boost", people would be a little more reluctant to give their lives for your cause.

[Madness]

I like the point youre raising Piff. I've often thought about it. Since the beggining of time wars have been fought. Countries would attack other countries in attempt to gain power, resources etc. Whoever was strong at the time won, and the losing side didnt complain, it would wait and when it was strong enough it would conquer back. This is how things worked.
Today's world tries to stop this, and I'm not sure if it's possible. Countries still want to gain power over others, but it's done more secretly.

Maybe it shouldn't be considered wrong to want your own good over that of others. We think we are civilized enough to solve everything without violence, I dont know.
Just thoughts, which seemed similar to the ones youve raised, so I felt like posting them.

[Stoutwood]

I think major wars are finished. We may see little bush (no pun intended) wars like this one in Iraq from time to time, but the days of WWII-style wars are over. Henry Kissenger suggests that the term "superpower" is gradually shifting from a military term to an economic one. Let's face it, the U.S. could roll over any country that it got into a war with, but this no longer matters. Fancy ships, big strong tanks, and stealth fighters are becoming nothing more than a waste of money.

[piff]

I think major wars are finished. We may see little bush (no pun intended) wars like this one in Iraq from time to time, but the days of WWII-style wars are over. Henry Kissenger suggests that the term "superpower" is gradually shifting from a military term to an economic one. Let's face it, the U.S. could roll over any country that it got into a war with, but this no longer matters. Fancy ships, big strong tanks, and stealth fighters are becoming nothing more than a waste of money.

All it really takes to throw off this balence is a strong dictator. If a Hitler popped up in China, you damn well better believe there will be a huge war.

Steel, great article. I'm reading it now.

EDIT: Seeing as how I never really researched this topic much, I'm out of counter-rebuttals if I don't want to continually repeat myself.

[Stoutwood]

All it really takes to throw off this balence is a strong dictator. If a Hitler popped up in China, you damn well better believe there will be a huge war.

Steel, great article. I'm reading it now.

EDIT: Seeing as how I never really researched this topic much, I'm out of counter-rebuttals if I don't want to continually repeat myself.

Yes, that would be intelligent of China, to start a war with it's largest trading partner. The co-dependence between the two countries won't be changing in the forseeable future, since the Human Rights activism of the European countries doesn't mix well with China's domestic policies. Frankly, I see the U.S. going to war with the European Union before they go to war with China, but that won't happen for pretty much the same reasons. Globalization marks the end of major wars.

[Drosselmeier]

You're right about world wars stout. There might still be huge wars in the not too distant future though. India and Pakistan are both prett big countries, for example.

[Damnatorius]

Yes, that would be intelligent of China, to start a war with it's largest trading partner. The co-dependence between the two countries won't be changing in the forseeable future, since the Human Rights activism of the European countries doesn't mix well with China's domestic policies. Frankly, I see the U.S. going to war with the European Union before they go to war with China, but that won't happen for pretty much the same reasons. Globalization marks the end of major wars.

well, a hitler popping up was meant as a war hungry dictator type, one who wasn't thinking too rational about stuff like that I guess... =p
It seems most unlikely though that a war with china would errupt in the near future for the reasons you gave :)
And the european union would have to unite before something like a war happening, they can't even agree about a european army yet, so nothing to worry about there :D

[Steve_Kow]

A democracy certainly can go to war for selfish reasons, if that's what the majority wants... ;)

[jmervyn]

Going to war for money/resources is "wrong"? Yes it is

Balderdash... it is the most common, and rational reason. If you can't get what your nation needs, you take it by force.

War is hardly immoral in itself, but it is the final result of societies attempting to resolve problems - and these societies often have immoral rationale for war (read Tai-Pan if you don't grasp my meaning).

The Crusades certainly had economic rationale, but when Muslims recently decided that they want an apology (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43372), they forgot that they were the instigators on a grand scale (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=19674). Shame on the Pope...


US blood for oil wars do not fit in and is not just.
grow up, Dross...

1. These were hardly ''blood for oil" - though Ilad might disagree - more like "blood for potential market leverage".
2. Morality was 2nd stage - Iraq was one of the most horrific debacles of human rights long before one of the more notable proponents of human rights (yes, the Americans) entered the spotlight.
3. Morality has only nominal relationship to the post-conflict status. The war I fought, and the war Americans are fighting today, only has causal relationship to the subsequent state of human affairs. Iraq may wind up with a more totalitarian gov't than Iran has; I believe Shrub has more geopolitical awareness than your average bear, and sensibly realized that the Iraqi society already had the potential of creating a nationalist society, rather than the mediaeval sect-oriented attitudes of its strongest neighbors. Seeding democracy, as it were...

[jmervyn]

I think major wars are finished. We may see little bush (no pun intended) wars like this one in Iraq from time to time, but the days of WWII-style wars are over. Henry Kissenger suggests that the term "superpower" is gradually shifting from a military term to an economic one. Let's face it, the U.S. could roll over any country that it got into a war with, but this no longer matters. Fancy ships, big strong tanks, and stealth fighters are becoming nothing more than a waste of money.

Stoutwood, I'll have to trout you on this one... Yes, the prevalence of brush fire conflicts would lead people to presume this. The reality behind it is that nationalist cooperatives will be the true causes behind wars, just as they were 50 years ago. Massive global wars are just as much a potential reality as they always were. Anyone thinking that the USSR's position in WW2 was initially that of an innocent bystander, raise your hand (I'll trout you too...)

[Drosselmeier]

grow up, Dross...

1. These were hardly ''blood for oil" - though Ilad might disagree - more like "blood for potential market leverage".


That makes it any better you think? You're either fine with war for profit or you're not. I'm not. In fact, violence in general for profit is a bad thing. You're saying that of course, if we need it there's nothing wrong with taking it by force. Pardon my hyperbole, but isn't that just about as bad as saying that if you want it it's your right to take it by force? Why is it ok on a national level but not on an international? Some of us are trying to build an international order preventing this sort of thing and you're not helping. *cough brownshirt cough*

About that spreading democracy thing... heh... let's be honest to ourselves. Neither you nor I buy that one. I'm not going to say Iraq does not have possibilities she lacked before the war, but I seriously doubt that spreading democracy was Bush's original intention.

[Drosselmeier]

I just read one of your articles jmerv. The one about apologizing for the crusades. While the author had a sound point or two it was mostly pretty disturbing. Towards the end the article turned into a freaking revisionism-fest spiced up with some Islam-bashing.


Thus, while at times -- particularly the Middle Ages -- some Christians might have viewed **** with disdain, Christianity as a religion certainly does not.

:rollseyeswildly:

[DrunkPotHead]

Pardon my hyperbole, but isn't that just about as bad as saying that if you want it it's your right to take it by force?
That made me think of armed robbery... which is illegal.

[Drosselmeier]

That made me think of armed robbery... which is illegal.

That's exactly what I'm talking about. The hyperbole is silent, uhh... hidden, or something. It's there though, and those two are the same.

[jmervyn]

That makes it any better you think? You're either fine with war for profit or you're not. I'm not. In fact, violence in general for profit is a bad thing. I'm not either in the abstract, but that doesn't mean it isn't the most common rationale. If a country wants or needs something, and cannot achieve it, war is the so-called last level of diplomacy...


You're saying that of course, if we need it there's nothing wrong with taking it by force. Pardon my hyperbole, but isn't that just about as bad as saying that if you want it it's your right to take it by force?I'm not sure what you're trying to say here, but I'm not saying that rights have anything to do with it. Your nation would be just as likely to go to war if something in their national interest couldn't be achieved by peaceful means, and you as a citizen would expect it. Luckily for you, your national needs aren't at all difficult to achieve - but imagine if, say, the U.K. refused to stop dumping nuclear waste off your shores? Or Finland was sitting on your water supply?


Why is it ok on a national level but not on an international? Some of us are trying to build an international order preventing this sort of thing and you're not helping. *cough brownshirt cough*
Many people, myself included, have nothing but suspicion regarding so-called international order, whether imposed externally or not. Check out your own continent's history if you don't grasp what I'm implying. I'm not saying that we shouldn't be a 'good neighbor', but it'll be a cold day in Hades before I let your gov't tell mine what to do, and I expect you'd feel the same.

(BTW, nice to see you joining Ilad in carelessly throwing around labelling associated with your contient's last 'order' and trivializing the slaughter it caused... maybe a little more research before you start calling names would be appropriate.)


About that spreading democracy thing... heh... let's be honest to ourselves. Neither you nor I buy that one. I'm not going to say Iraq does not have possibilities she lacked before the war, but I seriously doubt that spreading democracy was Bush's original intention.Quite wrong ; I believe in it wholeheartedly. But I also know that Americans wouldn't have gone to war for it, and that toppling a devout enemy after our nation suffered a greivous attack was Shrub's foremost concern.


Yes, these links suck, but so do the 'blood for oil' arguments (http://themiddleground.********.com/2004/07/busting-conspiracy-theories-1-blood.html) - I suspect that's because nobody sensible really believes in them. They ignore reality, and at best represent a minor reason why the war was conducted. If they *were* truthful to the extent implied, I'd be paying far less at the pump than I do - or even more likely, I'd personally have been involved in siezing the southern oil fields back when I was in the area. It makes no sense (to other than tin-hatters, that is) for us to have not siezed the oil when we had international backing, for us to have boycotted the production for as long as we did, or for us to be going through the economic 'pain' we currently are, if we were simply intent on pillage in the manner that the left wishes to portray it.

[HAMC8112]

That made me think of armed robbery... which is illegal.

But then again, war is not.

[llad12]

But then again, war is not.

Aye, but then the rub becomes: Is it moral to perpetrate a war without provocation?

Is it moral to attempt to assassinate a foreign leader when you know that innocent civilians will perish in such an action? Is this not a cold, calculated, pre-meditated action?

Do you believe that our govenment would really care ... if the main export in this region was coca beans or figs?

[llad12]

I also know that Americans wouldn't have gone to war for it, and that toppling a devout enemy after our nation suffered a greivous attack was Shrub's foremost concern.

Yes ... we should have attacked Mexico after 9/11 ... there is still a lot of oil in the Golden Trend down there that we could reclaim as ours. :eek:

[HAMC8112]

Aye, but then the rub becomes: Is it moral to perpetrate a war without provocation?

Is it moral to attempt to assassinate a foreign leader when you know that innocent civilians will perish in such an action? Is this not a cold, calculated, pre-meditated action?

Do you believe that our govenment would really care ... if the main export in this region was coca beans or figs?

About it being moral or not is really besides the point, no? If we are going to war and we are going to be sentimental about it we will loose the war.

If we could cut a war short by assasinating the enemy leader i am all for it, nevermind the innocent civilians that get killed in the assasination, think of our own soldiers that will not die on the battle field because of cutting the war short. Unless the life of enemy civilians means more to you than our own people.

[Necrolestes]

Ah, but assassinations can produce martyrs, who can rally more people to a cause than any living leader and cause more civilian casualties. That has the tendency to turn public opinion against the aggressor.

[HAMC8112]

Ah, but assassinations can produce martyrs, who can rally more people to a cause than any living leader and cause more civilian casualties. That has the tendency to turn public opinion against the aggressor.


Ah yes, public opinion, but wouldnt the public opinion of the enemy already be against us? And indeed martyrs, they can be a bad thing, however that is something that would be considdered when making the plans for the assasination, sometimes it is better to have a dead martyr than a competent enemyleader.

[llad12]

If we could cut a war short by assasinating the enemy leader i am all for it, nevermind the innocent civilians that get killed in the assasination, think of our own soldiers that will not die on the battle field because of cutting the war short. Unless the life of enemy civilians means more to you than our own people.

I don't consider innocent civilians: the "enemy" ... nor do I consider this war justified or moral.

We were not attacked.

This is a war of aggression, planned long before 9/11, no matter what spin you wish to put on it.

[Drosselmeier]

Luckily for you, your national needs aren't at all difficult to achieve - but imagine if, say, the U.K. refused to stop dumping nuclear waste off your shores? Or Finland was sitting on your water supply?

Are we talking needs or wants here? Being able to drive a 10mpg SUV isn't the same as having access to drinking water. I made this same point in an earlier post.


Many people, myself included, have nothing but suspicion regarding so-called international order, whether imposed externally or not. Check out your own continent's history if you don't grasp what I'm implying. I'm not saying that we shouldn't be a 'good neighbor', but it'll be a cold day in Hades before I let your gov't tell mine what to do, and I expect you'd feel the same.

I still think there should be some form of commonly agreed to principles governing international affairs. Victors justice is completely devoid of principle and when I look at my continent's history I see that it is responsible for just as much misery as whiny appeasement.


(BTW, nice to see you joining Ilad in carelessly throwing around labelling associated with your contient's last 'order' and trivializing the slaughter it caused... maybe a little more research before you start calling names would be appropriate.)

It was mainly a joke on Ilads expense, sort of. There is a tiny bit of warning in it though.

Maybe I'm a pessimist while you're not. Throwing fairness overboard for the sake of national profit can lead to all sorts of nastiness. I see clear parrallells if I take the death camps out of the picture. Extreme and limitless nationalism is a bad thing for those on the other side of the border and at times for those on the inside who disagree. When you let your own wishes cancel out the rights and needs of others you're heading down a dangerous path. Don't tell me: "It could never happen in America."


Quite wrong ; I believe in it wholeheartedly. But I also know that Americans wouldn't have gone to war for it, and that toppling a devout enemy after our nation suffered a greivous attack was Shrub's foremost concern.

Why does Bush support and cooperate with regimes that stand for the things he claims to fight against? What about all those central asian hell holes ruled by madmen who torture and murder their own population when it speaks against them or belong to the wrong ethnic group?

[DrunkPotHead]

But then again, war is not.

The only difference is scale (if the war is done for profit). See the hypocracy?

[jmervyn]

Are we talking needs or wants here? Being able to drive a 10mpg SUV isn't the same as having access to drinking water. I made this same point in an earlier post. Split hairs much? I'm tickled that the EEEVIILL SUV's have turned up in this... but as the U.S. experiences higher & higher prices at the pump, our national interests are obviously threatened. Most of our states are larger than European countries; we don't have the luxury that the small size affords you in either governance or distances, so public transportation is completely out of the question in many situations.


I still think there should be some form of commonly agreed to principles governing international affairs. Victors justice is completely devoid of principle and when I look at my continent's history I see that it is responsible for just as much misery as whiny appeasement.Of course it would be nice to have international standards. But history is filled with such concepts being ridden roughshod over by those outside of the 'civilized' equation. I've seen a large number of rightie articles about the inability of European law to cope with Islamo-fascist barbarism, and prior to the USSR's breakup, Moscow considered Islam their #1 threat.


Maybe I'm a pessimist while you're not. Throwing fairness overboard for the sake of national profit can lead to all sorts of nastiness. I see clear parrallells if I take the death camps out of the picture. Extreme and limitless nationalism is a bad thing for those on the other side of the border and at times for those on the inside who disagree. When you let your own wishes cancel out the rights and needs of others you're heading down a dangerous path. Don't tell me: "It could never happen in America."
I'm pessimistic in the micro sense, but not as much in the macro. Unbounded nationalism is an obviously bad thing, but unbounded internationalism has the potential of being far worse. Or don't you listen to your buds in the anti-globalization camp?


Why does Bush support and cooperate with regimes that stand for the things he claims to fight against? What about all those central asian hell holes ruled by madmen who torture and murder their own population when it speaks against them or belong to the wrong ethnic group?This smacks of the same facetious argument I've heard before, regarding why Shrub didn't attack North Korea, Iran, or Saudi Arabia. Or better yet, everyone at the same time. America doesn't just turn on our allies like a mad dog - if we did, France would have been a cinder by now for their ongoing undeclared war (since the 1970's, I think?) and Israel would have been hung out to dry. Do I like it that we support Pakistan and Saudi Arabia? 'Course not. But the devils we know & work with is far better than the hate-spewing mullah or Pol Pot wannabe we can't.

[Drosselmeier]

Split hairs much? I'm tickled that the EEEVIILL SUV's have turned up in this... but as the U.S. experiences higher & higher prices at the pump, our national interests are obviously threatened. Most of our states are larger than European countries; we don't have the luxury that the small size affords you in either governance or distances, so public transportation is completely out of the question in many situations.

Not much hair splitting going on here. There's a real difference between having to go to war because you don't like to ride the bus and going to war because someone's cut off your water supply. Surely you can see that.

My country is larger than California. Public transport works just fine for us. Buses, trains, subways. And so on.


Of course it would be nice to have international standards. But history is filled with such concepts being ridden roughshod over by those outside of the 'civilized' equation. I've seen a large number of rightie articles about the inability of European law to cope with Islamo-fascist barbarism, and prior to the USSR's breakup, Moscow considered Islam their #1 threat.

So it's a war against Islam now, is it? It really shouldn't matter what the Soviets said. The fact that they were threatened by Islam says more about them than it does about Islam, and you know that. They had Christianity and Judaism on that list as well.

The only problems we've had so far in dealing with criminals is cooperation across borders. Unless we rip up the Schengen treaty the only way to go is more international cooperation between police agencies. The problem isn't primarily terrorists though. It's organized crime. The only cases of law enforcement breakdown concerning terrorism I can think of is the Netherlands being a bit lax and screwing the rest of us over. Don't quite remember the details...

I don't see what this has to do with international efforts to prevent individual nations going off to war for profit. It's really only the first two sentences from the above quote that are on topic, and in response to them I can only say, If the U.S. and Europe said that there will be no aggressive warfare or heads will roll, that would carry some weight at least.


I'm pessimistic in the micro sense, but not as much in the macro. Unbounded nationalism is an obviously bad thing, but unbounded internationalism has the potential of being far worse. Or don't you listen to your buds in the anti-globalization camp?

I'm not anti-globalization. Never have been. I don't have anything against internationalism. I'm pretty close to being an EU federalist even (gasp goes here).

The only problem I see with globalization and international trading treaties at the moment is the tendency rich nations have of forcing poor nations into trade agreements that favour the rich. If done properly globalization would be a great thing. If done unfairly it's just a continuation of that old colonialism/imperialism game.


This smacks of the same facetious argument I've heard before, regarding why Shrub didn't attack North Korea, Iran, or Saudi Arabia. Or better yet, everyone at the same time. America doesn't just turn on our allies like a mad dog - if we did, France would have been a cinder by now for their ongoing undeclared war (since the 1970's, I think?) and Israel would have been hung out to dry. Do I like it that we support Pakistan and Saudi Arabia? 'Course not. But the devils we know & work with is far better than the hate-spewing mullah or Pol Pot wannabe we can't.

So, being a pragmatic, Bush is free to spread democracy when it's convenient and to support dictators when that seems like the way to go. Your idealism is truly inspiring. We no longer doubt you when you say democracy was the real reason for the Iraq war.

[raffster]

It is clear that military power is needed in times of financial crisis to remove that country from its economic distress. This can even relate to the US today. Gas prices continually raising is a dilema that must be solved in the US, as it is causing all other industries to raise their prices, but paychecks are not raising simultaniously. This is driving people into debt, bankruptcy, and poverty. If war is needed to correct this, so let war be done.

I apologize piff if my reply sounds as though I have taken your thread totally out of context (if the reason for your post was shedding some light on another post that was made on a similar subject which I did not read) but...

taking your message on a "micro" level, so you're saying that it's fine with you (not perfect, just fine) if your next door neighbor becomes bankrupt, unable to feed his children and becomes totally poor, in desperation trespasses into your property, beats the crap out of you (even kills you and your whole family) and takes over all your belongings. And in the same token, since he is victorious, he will not be punished (just like those who win a war).

In my book violence should be used only under life and death circumstances to defend one's life or a loved-one's life. But to use it [violence] to gain prosperity stems from pure greed and wanton desire. I believe that the United States can sustain its economic "powerfulness" without engaging in wanton and senseless destruction. It is greed that propels all war.

And if you agree with me, it is love and compassion that should keep the world going around, not hate and greed...

Make love, not war.

[HAMC8112]

The only difference is scale (if the war is done for profit). See the hypocracy?

I dont see the profit part of it actually, i live in Belgium, where iirc 75 to 80% of the oil used comes from Irak. Without it the country would crumble into the dark ages, Europe would become kinda unstable. Basicly we cannot survive without a stable Irak, the US is providing such a thing, at high cost!

I for one salute the US and say Thank You.

[jmervyn]

Not much hair splitting going on here. There's a real difference between having to go to war because you don't like to ride the bus and going to war because someone's cut off your water supply. Surely you can see that.

My country is larger than California. Public transport works just fine for us. Buses, trains, subways. And so on.
And therefore, all Yanks are self-indulgent fatarses who won't take the bus to save their lives? Sorry, doesn't wash - how much of your country (sorry, I just remember it is cold there) is clustered around cities, and specific routes?

And I'm not saying that public transport is a complete failure in the U.S., or that there aren't individuals who ARE lazy & so forth. However, it is simply not practical on a national scale, in just the way that it isn't in China, Russia, Australia, or even India. Trying to make a sweeping statement of this nature is like conservatives trying to damn all welfare recipients in the same fashion.


So it's a war against Islam now, is it? It really shouldn't matter what the Soviets said. The fact that they were threatened by Islam says more about them than it does about Islam, and you know that. They had Christianity and Judaism on that list as well.I'd disagree. Without getting back into one of the religious sniping threads, the USSR viewed Islam as aggressively nationalistic on an international level. The concept of an Islamic super-nation built on the subjugated territory of others was a known reality to them... though it seems like the French have forgotten their role in that episode of history.



So, being a pragmatic, Bush is free to spread democracy when it's convenient and to support dictators when that seems like the way to go. Your idealism is truly inspiring. We no longer doubt you when you say democracy was the real reason for the Iraq war.
Fine. Please go attack whoever is encroaching on your fishing grounds currently, or better yet, go slaughter the Chinese because of their human rights abuse record. And send a postcard letting us know how it all works out.

[DrunkPotHead]

I dont see the profit part of it actually, i live in Belgium, where iirc 75 to 80% of the oil used comes from Irak. Without it the country would crumble into the dark ages, Europe would become kinda unstable. Basicly we cannot survive without a stable Irak, the US is providing such a thing, at high cost!

I for one salute the US and say Thank You.

So killing people and attacking a country unprovoked is ok as long as it's good (but not necessary) for your country? I'm not convinced.

Belgium or any other country being thrown in the dark ages is not Iraq's problem unless Iraq attacks your country. Your [country] killing people to continue your lifestyle... sounds like a bank robbery on a large scale.

[HAMC8112]

So killing people and attacking a country unprovoked is ok as long as it's good (but not necessary) for your country? I'm not convinced.

You make it sound like Hitler on the rampage, however, i think the"truth" lies somewere in between... probably.

Unprovoked is IMO the keyword here, Irak under Sadam wasnt exactly a country where the people lived in peace. They were tortured and they lived in fear, many 100.000's were put in massgraves. Remember when the Koerdish people were massacered with poisongas? No WMD's someone said.

We stood by and did nothing. It seems to me that for the first time someone with the power to do it actually stood up and did it, if i were American Bush would get my vote. Well, if they didnt take my political rights away as they did here.


Belgium or any other country being thrown in the dark ages is not Iraq's problem unless Iraq attacks your country.

It is not so simple, as with many things in life. The way in wich the world is structured today would not permit for Belgium to fall into the darkages, for alot of country's would tumble with it. Chaos in €urope is not a good thing, it means free reign for Russia, or do you really think that this Poetin guy is a "Democrat".



Your [country] killing people to continue your lifestyle... sounds like a bank robbery on a large scale.

This has been happening for as long as man exists. Do not let the good times fool you, when things will turn saur in the world (wich they will when the oil is almost gone) it will be survival of the strongest*.

*: thinks of Belgian army and starts crying.