Posted on 06/22/2009 7:37:25 AM PDT by aic4ever
Your words here suggest that I would be inviting trouble by degrading defensive capabilities. On the contrary, I believe the U.S. has a right to maintain its defensive military capabilities, but I don't believe that the U.S. should make war upon another State unless the other State has first committed an act of war against us.
The bottom line: I don't believe in wars of aggression.
I think you are playing word games. How would a war without "aggression" be fought? If you perhaps mean that you don't believe in preemptively striking a threat, fine, but what is an act of war?
Having a defensive capability is good (e.g. wearing body armor), but when a thug points a gun, do you have to wait for him to pull the trigger before your react? Of course not.
Similarly if Iran or N. Korea develop technologies toward the development of nuclear weapons - all the while making clear their intentions; at what point do you consider the weapon pointed?
Instead of giving a definition, allow me to suggest an example.
If the North Korean government deliberately fires a missile at Hawaii, that's an act of war. I would strongly favor immediate and total military retribution.
If the North Korean government deliberately fires missiles in the vicinity of allies such as Japan and South Korea and the U.S. is obliged by treaty to act on their behalf, then that is...okay, I guess.
Same thing goes for Iran.
Now, if the U.S. did indeed want to pursue a war against Iran, it already has legitimate justification to do so, as the Iranian government directly supports attacks on U.S. armed forces operating in Iraq as part of a lawful war there. Whether the Iranian government is also developing nuclear or other "weapons of mass destruction" is not relevant as justification for a war, unless prohibited by treaty or considered an act of war by an ally that the U.S. is bound to protect, again, by treaty, though I would think it would serve to strengthen an already existing justification, e.g., the attacks on U.S. armed forces lawfully operating in Iraq.
but when a thug points a gun, do you have to wait for him to pull the trigger before your react? Of course not.
I'll give you that, but of course, you also don't go deliberately looking for trouble.
If I had my way, the U.S. would do the following: 1) continue developing robust defensive capabilities, including a missile defense shield, foreign intelligence, active and ready-to-deploy armed forces, etc.; 2) stop importing oil and other energy resources from potentially hostile powers, as their energy exports are the source of their power, and instead rely on domestic energy sources supplemented with "sustainable" energy and energy imported from allies such as Canada; and 3) make it abundantly clear to the entire world that the U.S. will not hesitate to act immediately should another State attempt to make war on the United States or on any ally that the U.S. is legally bound to defend.
However, I would posit that you don't have to go deliberately looking for trouble. in order for a thug to point a gun.
And that's why the U.S. at all levels should be prepared to make war, but only as a last resort and with appropriate justification.
Agreed.
(of course “appropriate justification” is always the sticking point it seems 8^)
Well, in the case of the North Koreans, either they actually have nuclear weapons, or they are just bluffing. If they do have them, and they try to use them against the U.S., then they are batsh*t crazy and should be stopped immediately.
Otherwise, for now—close scrutiny is all that’s warranted. After all, they may just be rattling sabers as a proxy of China.
That appears to be an argument that you can present in a free republic to try to convince your fellow citizens, but it is not a Constitutional restraint argument.
From the most ancient times countries have seen hostile intent coupled with capability to be justification for action, and its been shown to have merit, which is why so many of your fellow citizens disagree with you. Better to bleed a little today than be bled out tomorrow.
Do you consider it proper to, as an agent of the state, enter families' homes and monitor their behavior, simply to ensure that they are not beating their children?
No, but that is a completely different issue than the one I posed to you, which you failed to answer. I certainly agree that intervention can go too far, but so can anything. You want to argue that its prohibited in any form.
After all, you would be accomplishing some good, right?
You've completely retreated from your Constitutional argument, to making a distinction of degrees. Why is that? Of course the issue of when and how to intervene is debatable, and it should be open and robust. But that is not what you started out arguing. You stated that it would be unconstitutional to do anything. I stated that you are flat wrong.
Please reference where in the Constitution you are finding the prohibitions of which you speak relating to foreign actions.
Act immediately at the "attempt to make war"? That sounds like a preemptive strike to me. I thought you wanted to wait until they actually made war. After all, an attempt is up to interpretation.
So how many chances does NK get to attempt to hit the United States, and how do you know that they didn't miss on purpose? At what point did Japanese intent become an attempt? When they planned the attack, when their ships left harbor, when their planes launched, when they entered our airspace, or when the first weapon detonated? Would we have been the aggressor if we had hit their fleet on December 6th? If so, would that have been a bad thing?
Fighting as a last resort almost always means fighting from a position of weakness and giving all advantage to the enemy. The Dutch fought as a matter of last resort in both World Wars. They were quickly occupied both times.
We should fight when we determine that it is the best of available options. Given the high price of war, that alone would guarantee prudence.
Of course, the definition of "last resort" varies from person to person. For me, I cross that threshold when the penalty for waiting becomes unacceptable. The British and the French made a point of forestalling war as a last resort from 1936 onward. You may recall that didn't work out so well. They gave up the advantage to an enemy that was all too willing to play their game.
So what to say about those who support an "Unjust War"?
“I love a dog. He does nothing for political reasons.”
Will Rogers
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.