Replies

To: rdb3 I'd like to put some money on opposition. 3-to-1 odds on a sure thing? 98 posted on 9/14/02 7:39 PM Pacific by hchutch

You might lose.

While I support the troops is any field of combat to which they are commanded (they are my countrymen, no matter where the politicians send them), I was against the 1991 war against Iraq -- then AND now (I haven't changed my opinion on the subject). Kuwait is not an American State. I never bought the "free flow of oil" argument either; Saddam did not intend to drink Kuwait's crude, he intended to be the one selling it (he needed the cash after a long war, as our "ally", against Iran).

So I never bought into the 1991 war. That's the way I see it, and I've never seen an argument compelling enough to change my opinion.

Since 1991, there have been a couple of actionable incidents involving Iraq... it is reasonably alleged that they supported the Trade Center bombing in 1993; it is reasonably alleged that they attempted Assassination against an American Citizen (a certain George HW Bush) in 1993. Both of these incidents probably represented a legitimate Law-of-Nations casus belli against Iraq, which could possibly justify a military response -- of course, it could be counter-argued that the intermittent bombing of Iraq (which I did not support) and the starvation Sanctions against Iraq (designed to restrict Iraqi oil export... waidaminnit, wasn't the fear of "restricted oil export" the justification for the 1991 War?) in fact were a military response against Iraq.

Which brings us to the present day.

IF the Blair Dossier were to establish a factual and well-evidenced record of Iraqi training and support for the Al Queda lieutenants who planned the 9-11 WTC attack, I'm an open-minded man and I believe in punishing those individuals who actually contributed to the 9-11 attacks... always have. I say: bring on the dossier.

So it might not be an entirely "sure bet" that those who oppose this effort on FR will still oppose it.

But I would close with this thought, for pro-War conservatives... if it is not morally necessary to establish a linkage between Iraq and Al-Queda before the bombs start dropping, why would anyone care about the Blair Dossier? Why on earth would it matter?

I would instead suggest the curmudegonly reservation that if the Blair Dossier contains the evidence for Iraqi involvement in 9-11 which is alleged, it will only serve to validate a fundamental contention of libertarian Just War doctrine: if you're going to bomb somebody, it is a morally good thing to have a reason for doing so.

Just grist for the mill (grin).

Best, OP

I'm more than a hawk. I'm a "pax american" kind of guy.

Establish forward staging areas to make potential enemies incapable of developing and coordinating plans.

That said, do I require some courtroom type record of evidence to justify an attack. Absolutely not!

If I reasonably believe, for example, that my life is threatened, I will react against the threat. In most cases, it will be justifiable at some level in a court. I might receive some criminal negligence or lower-level manslaughter charge, but the good news is that I'm still alive as is my family.

Nations, however, operate with a different court system. Their is no prison for those guilty of negligence or manslaughter. There's shunning, of course, but businessmen will take care of that in short order.

If I am president and I believe there is a credible threat, I take out the threat. That's what "preserve and defend the constitution of the u.s." means to me. There is wisdom in preemption.