Posted on 02/17/2003 12:23:31 AM PST by kattracks
Edited on 05/26/2004 5:12:12 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
The context is the war against terror. This is not a war on all terrorism everywhere--strictly those terrorist groups which operate on a worldwide basis against the US. We are not fighting the IRA or the Tamil Tigers or the Shining Path guerillas, which operate on a local, national basis."
There are some interesting implications to your statement. You state that the "war on terror" is directed solely against those who target the US. It is obviously not directed against those terrorists who attack states which have been declared enemy or "rogue" states by the US government. This is a fact which is not lost on many people outside the US. When Reagan declared the first "war on terrorism", the US-sponsored Contra terrorism in Nicaragua was in full swing.
Another curious distinction you make is that between "worldwide" and "local" terrorism. It is funny that you should mention the IRA. This terrorist organization has received a lot of funding from US citizens, and IRA terrorists have been known to travel to the US and parts of Europe. I guess that makes it transatlantic terrorism.
No legal or moral argument supports the conclusion, that a country only has the right to defend itself against "worldwide" terrorism, but not against "national" terrorism. There is no significant difference between US-sponsored Contra terrorism and Al Qaeda terrorism, except that one is in the interests of the US, and the other is clearly not.
Again - support of terrorism against everybody else and the declared intention to fight terrorism which is directed at oneself, does not make a good combination.
"My comment about training in the US, is that that would fit the analogy with Iraq; they have trained al Qaeda in Iraq. The Sandinistas seem to have been trained mostly in Honduras. If Nicaragua attacked Honduras to wipe out the training camps, that would be similar to a US attack on Iraq."
Analogies easily lead to wrong conclusions. I would rather that we talk about legal principles. If you support the principle, that every country has the right to attack another country which sponsors terrorism, then Nicaragua clearly had (maybe still has) the right to bomb the US. The US gave training and material support (including air reconnaissance) to the Contra terrorists. Some Contra leaders were trained at Fort Benning. The US has even been condemned by the world court for its actions. You will not find a more clear-cut example.
How? Does "he is a bastard, but he is our bastard" ring a bell? The US government has been cooperating with rulers of questionable mental health all over the world. That does not seem to be a problem. It was no problem for Donald Rumsfeld, who visited Saddam Hussein on Dec. 20, 1983 to assure him of US support for his war against Iran. And it certainly was not a problem when Saddam Hussein was waging a war of aggression against Iran and "killing his own people". The Reagan administration even prevented Congress from imposing sanctions on Iraq for the massacre at Halabja.
"As to Harry Truman; if I were in his position and had to forestall a landing in Japan, knowing how hard the Japanese fought at Saipan, Okinawa, and Iwo Jima, I would have used the bomb, too."
Obviously you, Harry Truman, and Saddam Hussein have something in common: all three of you are willing to use weapons of mass destruction, when it suits your interests.
"Stating that Harry Truman used WMD on a civilian population does nothing to advance your central proposition that Saddam can be left alone with his toys."
You are misstating my proposition. The point is, that Iraq - if it has WMD - is no more dangerous than any other state which possesses these weapons.
That may be construed as an argument for universal disarmament.
"Credulity will get you killed."
And going to war guarantees survival. Yeah, right.
"If he were cooperating at all, he would have handed over the bad stuff. He's not, because the survival of the regime depends on holding on to those weapons."
Saddam Hussein has no problem controlling his people with conventional means. The only threat to his rule comes from the US. The US government has stated its intention to depose Saddam - WMD or no WMD. How can the alleged possession of WMDs prevent regime change? It makes no sense at all, because the US administration has stated time and again that the reason for invading Iraq are WMDs.
"MAJOR ASSUMPTION: Hussein is only interested in personal survival."
That is a reasonable assumption, considering that Saddam Hussein has survived for decades in a very hostile environment.
"MAJOR ASSUMPTION: Hussein does not want to use WMD for fear of retaliation."
Again, Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons in his war with Iran, but not against Israel or US troops. All evidence suggests that he is a very calculating character.
"The fly in that ointment is that Hussein has, throughout the nineties, continued stockpiling VX, other nerve agents, and bioweapons as if they were going out of style."
The same is true for the United States. If it is perfectly reasonably for the US government to stockpile WMDs, why is Saddam Hussein a sociopath if he does the same?
Once he achieves nuclear weapons deployment, containment fails. Saddam can then hand a bomb over to a cutout, such as Al Qaeda, and sit back and watch the fun. You want to take those kind of risks with one of our cities? Thanks, but no thanks.
The argument that a nation might in some distant future become a threat is very problematic, to say the least. If applied universally, it allows every nation to attack any other nation "preemptively".
"North Korea is uniquely dependent on China. That's one lever right there."
It seems to me that you do not understand the relationship between North Korea and China. It is precisely because of political backing by China, that North Korea is challenging the US.
The "one side" was pretty weak - the Contras were unable to take and hold even a small village. This shows just how little support they had within the general population.
"While there may have been terrorist acts by the contras, I dispute that was an official policy, and it was definitely not US policy. I do not see the equivalency with an al Qaeda or Palestinian group that officially targets citizens."
The CIA trained the Contras in torture techniques; the manuals provided by the CIA explicitly called for attacks on civilian targets, as well as kidnappings and murder of teachers, doctors and key officials.
The ill-equipped Contras did not stand a chance against the Nicaraguan forces. Without the help of US air surveillance they would not have been able to evade the Sandinista army. Instead of attacking military targets, the Contras resorted to hit-and-run terrorism against "soft targets" - with tacit and occasionally outspoken approval of the US government.
By attacking hospitals, schools, bridges, and farms, the Contras were able to bring the Nicaraguan economy to a virtual stand-still, as well as inflicting tens of thousands of civilian casualties. The systematic torture and murder of civilians by the Contras is well documented; you should not have much trouble finding articles and books about this topic. No one can relieve you of finding out things for yourself.
"The aims of the IRA are local to Ireland. Their target is England and its government. That makes them local."
Terrorism directed at the US is local to the US, according to your definition. Maybe you wish to define the US as spanning the entire globe?
"You would be hard pressed to say the US ever supported terrorism, since you are using the disputable example of the Contras."
The US has been condemned by the world court for its actions in Nicaragua, including its mining of Nicaraguan harbors. That can hardly be called disputable.
"No doubt our disagreement about the Contras is what gave rise to the phrase 'one man's terrorist is anothers freedom fighter'."
Even Osama bin Laden is a freedom fighter to some. This problem appears as soon as one accepts "the calculated use of violence or threat of violence to attain goals that are political, religious, or ideological in nature...through intimidation, coercion, or instilling fear" -- which happens to be the official definition of terrorism (US Army Operational Concept for Terrorism Counteraction, TRADOC Pamphlet No. 525-37, 1984).
"I think we can agree that when the Contras did so, they were wrong to do so."
And the US government is wrong to actively support dictators, despots, and terrorists - even helping them to come to power.
There is no such thing as "probation" in international law (except for "enemy states" like Germany -- but that is a different matter entirely.) The UN Charter explicitly states that the use of force is only acceptable in self-defense against an immediate and present danger.
Resuming an armed conflict after more than 11 years is clearly a violation of international law.
Saddam Hussein has never threatened to use WMDs against the US, except in defense against an attack. Iraq does not even have long-range delivery systems, which makes the alleged threat somewhat implausible.
Your premise seems to be: A belief that a nation or leader -- even though it is not stated by that nation or leader -- is threatening another, is enough to justify using military force in order to disarm that nation.
The problem with that premise is obvious: belief does not guarantee rightness. This becomes apparent when the argument is applied universally. North Korea believes that it will be attacked by the United States (the "axis of evil" speech might have been a clue). Therefore North Korea is justified in attacking US bases in South Korea. India believes that Pakistan is a threat. This justifies India in preemptively nuking Pakistan.
If that principle is extended to include NGOs, it even justifies Al Qaeda in attacking US military targets, like the USS Cole and soldiers stationed in Kuwait.
"Also, a UN resolution dictates that Iraq must allow weapons inspectors free access to his country to check for weapons that it has been decreed that he can not have and there is a no- fly zone in Iraq."
It is worth noting that the UN Security Council does not have to conform to international law -- there is no provision to have the World Court review Security Council resolutions. However, the resolutions calling for the disarmament of Iraq explicitly state that the entire Middle East is to be disarmed. This actually makes sense. But of course this fact does not even appear in discussions about this topic, as it would affect some of the most important allies of the US.
And just to prevent any confusion: the "no-fly zone" has been established by the US, not the UN.
"Whether or not international law specifically allows for 'probation' is besides the point; he IS under a type of probation."
That is the crux of the matter -- international law is irrelevant, or so it seems.
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.