Acts of War

[juliod]

Judging by the thread in the apologietics forums, the current conflict in Lebanon has left a lot of people unsure what to think. Below are some points I want to make which might be good subjects for debate.

1) Every nation (including Israel) has the inherent right to unleash war on people they consider to be enemies. They do not have to engage in any formal justification, or even explain to anyone why they are doing it.

2) But the nation making war does have to look to the present and future in order to show that the war will make things "better". It must be expected that political constituents and international partners will hold a war-making nation accountable.

3) The mere utility of war as an instrument of policy is extremely doubtful. It is not likely that this conflict will make things "better" (for Israel or anyone else) in the short or long term. The use of conventional forces has dropped clean of the chart since WWII. No military action has yielded tangible benefits for any nation. Israel's many conflicts has not resulted in security and stability. India and Pakistan fought 4 wars and yet resolved none of their differences. Many nations (including the US and the Soviet Union) fought protracted counter-insurgencies, and universally lost. War among lower-tier nations has an equally dismal record over the last 50 years.

4) Individuals also have a right to wage war, but under the risk that they will be treated as a criminal rather than a combatant.

5) Residents of an area have an inherent right to defend against all threats, domestic or foreign. This right is absolute, and no one need obey conventions or legalisms in the defence of their homes and neighborhoods. This leads, however, to some of the most nasty internal fighting, ethnic cleansing, massacre, etc. Powers that seek to control such areas will treat these insurgents as criminals or (usually) worse.

6) The distinction between war and crime is entirely in the hands of the conventional powers. A nation decides how to respond to an incident involving non-nation-states. For example, we decided to respond to 9/11 with a "war" on terror. We decided against the alternative, which was to proceed under a law-enforcement paradigm. Given the well-established dis-utility of warfare, this was probably a mistake.

7) All people have the right to be treated well when captured, even if the "other side" does not do so. All persons have rights, all the time. If a prisoner is an acknowledged combatant, then they must be freely released as soon as the conflict is over. If the prisoner is a "criminal" then they have the right to a speedy trial in a proper forum with a genuine legal process. The current US practise of claiming that certain "illegal combatants" do not have rights is a shameful stain on our national character and history that I never expect to be expunged.

DanZ

[Cephus]

And we also smashed Al Qaeda's training facilities, killed large number of Al Qaeda fighters, wreaked havoc with their logistical capabilities, drove the rest of them into the mountains, and have not experienced another attack on our soil since 9/11.

We didn't experience an attack on our soil before 9/11 either, that doesn't mean we were responsible for it, only that nobody tried. If a terrorist wanted to wander into the US and blow up just about anything they wanted to, they could with pretty much no opposition. Heck, the southern border is wide open, just walk across it carrying a suitcase nuke if you want, nobody is going to stop you.

Bush is pushing the idea that he's responsible for keeping the US safe, I submit that he's more responsible for putting the US in a lot more danger by pissing off the entire Muslim world. They might not have liked us much before, they positively hate us now. I'm surprised they're not just lining up to get suicide bombs strapped on.

[juliod]

We didn't want bin Laden. We still don't. He's just a convenient excuse to go forcing our will on people in the Middle East.

I'm arfaid I have to agree with this. It seems that Osama yo Momma is more valuable to our government free and making the occasional broadcast than imprisoned in The Hague.

Notice how, coincidently, we have failed to bring to justice (or even investigate) the only WMD attack on the US in history: the anthrax mailings of 2001. When was the last time you heard anything about them?
You'd think, given that we hear WMD WMD WMD WMD all the time about Iraq, Iran, NK, Syria, etc etc, that we'd have at least a passing interest in prosecuting these crimes.

DanZ

[Metatron]

Bush knew nobody would buy an invasion of Iraq as the first stop in his magical, mystical World Terrorism Tour since we couldn't justify them having anything whatsoever to do with 9/11 so he picked another target that had a government that was an embarassment to the US (since we had backed them in the war with Russia and they turned into a bunch of sick bastards) so off we went to Afghanistan. Once people were used to the idea of the war, Bush and Cheney lied about their reasons for wanting to go into Iraq and pulled their invasion, just like Bush had been planning since day one of his administration.

We didn't want bin Laden. We still don't. He's just a convenient excuse to go forcing our will on people in the Middle East.

Sigh...... I didn't think this conversation would devolve this quickly into the usual Michael Moore, Bush is Evil Conspiracy Theory crap...ahh well.

So let's get this straight. Al Qaeda crashing airplanes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon and killing over 3000 people had NO BEARING on Bush's decision to invade Afghanistan??????

He said to himself: "Holy Cow, I've been looking for some worthless podunk Muslim country to beat up to further my diabolical plan to conquer Iraq and those idiots from Al Qaeda have handed to me on a silver platter!!!! MUHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!

Give me a break!

[Metatron]

We didn't experience an attack on our soil before 9/11 either, that doesn't mean we were responsible for it, only that nobody tried.

Really. How about:

1993
Feb. 26, New York City: bomb exploded in basement garage of World Trade Center, killing 6 and injuring at least 1,040 others. In 1995, militant Islamist Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman and 9 others were convicted of conspiracy charges, and in 1998, Ramzi Yousef, believed to have been the mastermind, was convicted of the bombing. Al-Qaeda involvement is suspected.

Not to mention these attacks on U.S. assets abroad:

1998
Aug. 7, Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania: truck bombs exploded almost simultaneously near 2 U.S. embassies, killing 224 (213 in Kenya and 11 in Tanzania) and injuring about 4,500. 4 men connected with al-Qaeda 2 of whom had received training at al-Qaeda camps inside Afghanistan, were convicted of the killings in May 2001 and later sentenced to life in prison. A federal grand jury had indicted 22 men in connection with the attacks, including Saudi dissident Osama bin Laden, who remained at large.

2000
Oct. 12, Aden, Yemen: U.S. Navy destroyer USS Cole heavily damaged when a small boat loaded with explosives blew up alongside it. 17 sailors killed. Linked to Osama bin Laden, or members of al-Qaeda terrorist network.

[Metatron]

Notice how, coincidently, we have failed to bring to justice (or even investigate) the only WMD attack on the US in history: the anthrax mailings of 2001. When was the last time you heard anything about them?
You'd think, given that we hear WMD WMD WMD WMD all the time about Iraq, Iran, NK, Syria, etc etc, that we'd have at least a passing interest in prosecuting these crimes.

DanZ

1. I don't see the relevance of this.

2.What the heck are you talking about?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_anthrax_attacks

Investigation

A reward for information totalling US$2.5 million is being offered by the FBI, U.S. Postal Service and ADVO, Inc.

As of 2006, the anthrax investigation seems to have gone cold. Authorities have traveled to four different continents, interviewed more than 8,000 individuals and have issued over 5,000 subpoenas. The number of FBI agents assigned to the case is now 21, ten fewer than a year ago. The number of postal inspectors investigating the case is nine.

The FBI and postal inspectors are in the process of preparing an internal report reviewing the history of the investigation. The report will include a list of "persons of interest" and the latest on the scientific tests used on the anthrax material. Investigators still have not determined the lab used to make the anthrax.

If you limited your remarks to say that the investigation has not been successful then you would have a good case. But to say that there has been no investigation is patently ridiculous.

[Cephus]

I'm arfaid I have to agree with this. It seems that Osama yo Momma is more valuable to our government free and making the occasional broadcast than imprisoned in The Hague.

Osama is the best friend Bush ever had. Without Osama, Bush's Worldwide Campaign of Terror would never have gotten off the ground. If you think Bush's ratings are in the dumper now, imagine how it would have been had he been forced to rely on just his foreign and domestic policy over the course of his first term? He'd have been a one-term wonder just like his father.

Notice how, coincidently, we have failed to bring to justice (or even investigate) the only WMD attack on the US in history: the anthrax mailings of 2001. When was the last time you heard anything about them?

Of course, we don't care about these things. Bush waits until his ratings are in the toilet and people question what we're doing, then declares an Orange alert. Why? We don't know, they never say. Could it be that Orange is a code-word for "We need to distract the public from asking too many questions"?

[Cephus]

So let's get this straight. Al Qaeda crashing airplanes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon and killing over 3000 people had NO BEARING on Bush's decision to invade Afghanistan??????

He said to himself: "Holy Cow, I've been looking for some worthless podunk Muslim country to beat up to further my diabolical plan to conquer Iraq and those idiots from Al Qaeda have handed to me on a silver platter!!!! MUHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!

Give me a break!

Believe what you wish. It is a documented fact that Bush was looking for a way to get into Iraq from day one of his administration. There is no way he could have gotten the go-ahead to go into Iraq immediately after 9/11, there simply was no evidence linking Saddam to Al Qaeda (not like it stopped him from making it up or anything). The immediately obvious choice was Afghanistan, a nation that was already an embarassment to the US and who had clear cut ties to Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda. But Afghanistan was simply a pit stop on his way to Baghdad. For all of his crowing about the Global War on Terror, it's funny that the only place we've really put a lot of time and money is into a nation with nothing whatsoever to do with that war. Oh sure, Bush tried to lie about it, he tried to fabricate reasons why we should think he's justified, but in the end, it comes down to "Saddam tried to kill my daddy", and for that, we're billions of dollars in debt, thousands of soldiers dead and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis dead.

Was it worth it? Not to anyone rational.

[Metatron]

It is a documented fact that Bush was looking for a way to get into Iraq from day one of his administration.

Okay, I'll bite. What is this documented fact that you are referring to?

There is no way he could have gotten the go-ahead to go into Iraq immediately after 9/11, there simply was no evidence linking Saddam to Al Qaeda (not like it stopped him from making it up or anything). The immediately obvious choice was Afghanistan, a nation that was already an embarassment to the US and who had clear cut ties to Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda. But Afghanistan was simply a pit stop on his way to Baghdad.

So let me get this straight. Your saying that if Iraq had not been a factor, Bush would have IGNORED a direct attack on the United States by Al Qaeda which killed over 3000 people? That's ludicrous!

For all of his crowing about the Global War on Terror, it's funny that the only place we've really put a lot of time and money is into a nation with nothing whatsoever to do with that war. Oh sure, Bush tried to lie about it, he tried to fabricate reasons why we should think he's justified, but in the end, it comes down to "Saddam tried to kill my daddy", and for that, we're billions of dollars in debt, thousands of soldiers dead and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis dead.

I agree that the Iraq invasion has been a strategic blunder that had little or nothing to do with the attack of Al Qaeda. I even agree that Bush coined the unfortunate term "War on Terror" and used the attack of Al Qaeda and subsequent counter-attack against Afghanistan as cover for his decision to deal with Iraq.

You apparently, however, do not seem to think that a direct attack on U.S. soil and the murder of over 3000 people is sufficient provocation for an American counter-attack on Al Qaeda. I guess your solution was to ignore them and hope they go away while they gleefully thumb their noses at you and prepare for their next attack?

[juliod]

the anthrax investigation seems to have gone cold. Authorities have traveled to four different continents, interviewed more than 8,000 individuals and have issued over 5,000 subpoenas.

I don't want to get distracted by this side-issue, but this doesn't add up.

If there really was an investigation, why are the headlines like "Anthrax: FBI Yawns" and "Is the FBI dragging it's feet?" They didn't even start an investigation of the prime suspect until the FAS blew the story.

Why would they travel to "four different continents" when it is known that the perpetrator lives and works in the DC area? Why would they interview 8000 people when the FAS could narrow the list of suspects to about 20 from only public sources?

And of course, this is the only WMD attack in US history. Strange outcome.

DanZ

[Metatron]

the anthrax investigation seems to have gone cold. Authorities have traveled to four different continents, interviewed more than 8,000 individuals and have issued over 5,000 subpoenas.

I don't want to get distracted by this side-issue, but this doesn't add up.

If there really was an investigation, why are the headlines like "Anthrax: FBI Yawns" and "Is the FBI dragging it's feet?" They didn't even start an investigation of the prime suspect until the FAS blew the story.

Why would they travel to "four different continents" when it is known that the perpetrator lives and works in the DC area? Why would they interview 8000 people when the FAS could narrow the list of suspects to about 20 from only public sources?

And of course, this is the only WMD attack in US history. Strange outcome.

DanZ

By prime suspect I assume that you mean Steven Hatfill, the man outed by Nicholas Kristof as a "person of interest" in the "Anthrax: FBI Yawns" and other articles in the NY Times. Last time I checked the FBI had declined to prosecute Hatfill and he currently is in the midst of a multi-million dollar defamation suit against both Kristof and the NY Times.

Oh, and I'll sleep better at night knowing that Barbara Rosenberg has her crack forensic teams at the Federation of American Scientist hard at working cracking the case.