POLL: The repercussions of a US attack on Iraq

[max401]

Quote from candletrader:



Stealing is a perceived ulterior motive... if the international community mandates an attack on Iraq, one must rise above perceptions of ulterior motives and go with the global, legally mandated consensus (and any war ramifications flowing out of this consensus)...

I am totally against a unilateral, illegal attack on Iraq, because the USA will be acting outside the remits of international law, in all probability out of economic interest... however, a legally mandated action mitigates the possibility (but doesnt eliminate it) that those taking part in an attack will be doing so for noble reasons (since they have the backing of the international community, representing a plethora of interests, but having come together on the legal backing for war)...

This is why I will stand 100% with the USA on any attack on Iraq which is legally mandated... and is also why I cannot stand with the USA if she acts illegally...

Sorry, that doesn't dispose the question of your "No blood for oil" rantings and the paradox that has you now painted into a corner.

 

[candletrader]

Quote from max401:

Sorry, that doesn't dispose the question of your "No blood for oil" rantings

It does...

My position is crystal clear, and is encapsulated in the post that you have glanced at but have failed to digest...

 

[daniel_m]

maybe it does candle...

but it wouldn't be clear from reading your earlier posts.

your moral outrage at the behaviour of the US is now tempered by, "well, having said all that, if we get license to do it, i'm behind it 100%"

that's kinda wishy washy wouldn't you say?

 

[candletrader]

Quote from daniel_m:

maybe it does candle...

but it wouldn't be clear from reading your earlier posts.

your moral outrage at the behaviour of the US is now tempered by, "well, having said all that, if we get license to do it, i'm behind it 100%"

that's kinda wishy washy wouldn't you say?

I put my faith in the international community to decide whether or not a US attack on Iraq has a legal justification... again, I refer you to my very first post on this thread... the premise to this thread is the context of an illegal attack on Iraq, NOT a legal attack...

All my posts following the premise contained in the FIRST post of this thread are therefore in the context of an illegal, non-mandated attack.... with a different premise (namely a legally mandated attack), I am at liberty to have a different point of view...

 

[daniel_m]

but if america is ostensibly attacking iraq out of fear or WMDs while really wanting to steal her oil and spread her empire into the middle east, how does international support for such action lead you to discard your moral concerns simply because such action is now deemed 'legal'?

it could very well be that you value 'legality' (which in this case would seem to be a euphamism for 'popularity') over 'morality', but given your earlier outpourings of emotion it's just strikes me as very weird...

 

[candletrader]

Quote from daniel_m:

but if america is ostensibly attacking iraq out of fear or WMDs while really wanting to steal her oil and spread her empire into the middle east, how does international support for such action lead you to discard your moral concerns simply because such action is now deemed 'legal'?

it could very well be that you value 'legality' (which in this case would seem to be a euphamism for 'popularity') over 'morality', but given your earlier outpourings of emotion it's just strikes me as very weird...

You have evidently miserably failed to digest even the basic gist of the post immediately preceding the one to which I am replying... everything I have said on this thread has been in the context of my introductory post to this thread and the assumptions contained therein...

If war is legally mandated, then we are on the same ideological team... now that's a revelation, ain't it?

 

[msfe]

Hitler on the Nile

By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF


here's so much chest-thumping, so many alarums about Iraqi menace, that I sometimes feel that the only patriotic thing to do is to invade Iraq and plow salt into its soil.

So it's useful to conjure a conservative war hero like Dwight Eisenhower and consider what he would do if he were president today. After his experience with Hitler, Ike would stand up to the lily-livered pussy-footing peaceniks and squish Saddam Hussein like a bug, right?

No, probably not.

Eisenhower, who led the European Allies to victory in World War II and was president from 1953 to 1961, faced a crisis in Egypt similar to today's and effectively chose containment rather than invasion. Likewise, even when faced with the threat of weapons of mass destruction, President John F. Kennedy chose to contain Cuba rather than invade it, and President Ronald Reagan chose to contain Libya rather than invade it. I hope we have the courage and discipline to emulate such restraint by Eisenhower, Kennedy and Reagan today and choose containment over war for Iraq.

In Ike's case, he faced a man perceived in the West as a far greater menace than Saddam is today — Gamal Abdel Nasser of Egypt.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/25/opinion/25KRIS.html

 

[daniel_m]

hmm, i think i've digested (and understood it, even) quite well.

you're content to let the international community decide whether an attack is 'legal' or not.

and i'd be the last person to deny you the right to change your mind.

my question to you is that if america truly is intent on stealing iraq's oil, how will the international community's mandate to do it make it less of a crime? (morallly speaking)

or, are you saying that you are content to let the international community decide whether america's actions constitute stealing or not?
in that case, i'd like to see you withdraw your assertions -- stated with utmost certainty -- that america is only attacking iraq for its oil. ('blood for oil')

 

[daniel_m]

Quote from msfe:



Eisenhower, who led the European Allies to victory in World War II and was president from 1953 to 1961, faced a crisis in Egypt similar to today's and effectively chose containment

similar? in what way? in that both incidents occurred in the middle east?

and let's not forget, the israelis brits and french (for once) were taking care of business...and america had the question of soviet support for nasser to contend with...

Likewise, even when faced with the threat of weapons of mass destruction, President John F. Kennedy chose to contain Cuba rather than invade it,

i always admire the ability to draw parallels where none exist...

 

[candletrader]

Quote from daniel_m:

hmm, i think i've digested (and understood it, even) quite well.

you're content to let the international community decide whether an attack is 'legal' or not.

and i'd be the last person to deny you the right to change your mind.

my question to you is that if america truly is intent on stealing iraq's oil, how will the international community's mandate to do it make it less of a crime? (morallly speaking)

or, are you saying that you are content to let the international community decide whether america's actions constitute stealing or not?
in that case, i'd like to see you withdraw your assertions -- stated with utmost certainty -- that america is only attacking iraq for its oil. ('blood for oil')

In the context of the premises laid out in my introductory post (namely that any forthcoming war is not legally mandated), there is absolutely no need to withdraw anything I have said... and that, Daniel, is what this thread is about: an assumption of a non-mandated war... everything that I have said has been in the context of my opening post's assumptions... that is WHY I so carefully laid out my assumptions...

In the context of a radically alternative premise (namely that the war is legally mandated by the international community), then I am wholeheatedly your ideological buddy...