Murock

Would Bush Still Have Gone To War?

Recommended Posts

Accusing me of calling you names because you can't refute my points eh?

I've already refuted your points. Start reading. I hear they got a deal on 'Hooked oh Phonics'. You seem like you can use it.

You haven't refuted a single point that I've made while I have refuted every single infantile attempt by you to make any point whatsoever. You haven't answered my questions because you can't. The Truth hurts doesn't it?

Godless people such as yourself always use such tactics when they are losing an argument.

You're the one who called me an idiot. lol

As for godless... you haven't answered the 10 questions I asked. You don't even know you OWN religion, so don't try and preach.

I have answered all of your questions and left you with your head spinning - and you know it. Now you've resorted to calling me names out of desperation. I've heard that it hurts to be humiliated the way in which you've been humilated in this thread but I never thought that you'd resort to such shameless tactics. But then you are a pagan book worshiper so I should not be too suprised I suppose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

qawsedrftgzxcvb,

Still doesn't explain the false uranium document. Bush is a liar, as is Gore, as is Clinton, as is Kerry. However Clinton got a BJ out of his lies. Bush got my f*king friends killed for f*king oil. It wasn't easy to hear one of my friends die in Iraq.

Do you really expect anyone to believe that? Haven't you any shame at all? You dishonor the memory of those brave and patriotic men and women who gave their lives to defend this country when you make up stories like this. Stick to Wiccan and Buddhism for your fair tales.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
qawsedrftgzxcvb,
Still doesn't explain the false uranium document. Bush is a liar, as is Gore, as is Clinton, as is Kerry. However Clinton got a BJ out of his lies. Bush got my f*king friends killed for f*king oil. It wasn't easy to hear one of my friends die in Iraq.

Do you really expect anyone to believe that? Haven't you any shame at all? You dishonor the memory of those brave and patriotic men and women who gave their lives to defend this country when you make up stories like this. Stick to Wiccan and Buddhism for your fair tales.

Funny, I'd assumed that he meant Uday & Qusay....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I wasn't implying the Japanese were innocent. As I said it was just a piece of trivia. Most people don't know.

On top of that Japan attacked us for a reason. There were things going on before Perl Harbor.

Useless trivia which can only have been presented to further advance your implicit contention that Japan had some retaliatory justification for attacking the US. Which cannot be soundly claimed since the Japanese offcially admit that their fears of overwhelming western economic sanctions were no justification for launching war. If anyone of the two Powers had a legal justification to attack, it would have been the US, given that Japanese bombers unprovokedly sunk an American gunboat evacuating US civilians during the Sino-Japanese precursor war to WWII.

SEC. RUMSFELD:  We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.

How does Rummy know where they are and they magically dissapear?

500 tons is a LOT of stuff.

Five hundred tons of gas equals one million pounds. After UNSCOM, after UNMOVIC, after the war, after the U.S. Army inspectors, after all the satellite surveillance, it is difficult in the extreme to imagine how one million pounds of anything could refuse to be located.

I responded to your assertion that 500 tons of WMD cannot stay hidden and presented contemporary cases indicating precisely the opposite. Far larger amounts of WMDs massing far, far more than 500 tons have remained fiendishly hidden in China. And Japan has a problem with abandoned and forgotten WMDs which its forces themselves had designed, manufactured and hidden half-a-century ago. Hidden in their very own country, no less. And they are only now discovering and surveying the extent of the ecological damage. Contentions which you apparently did not contest and which I presume you have accepted.

As for the UNMOVIC, just before the war it did locate biochemical WMDs, delivery systems, and research material which Iraq refused to destroy since UNSCOM was forced out in 1998. Stuff which the US Sec Def had stated remained in Iraq inaccessible to arms inspections in garve violations of UNSC1441. Stuff such as:

50 deployed Al Samoud 2 missiles

Various vehicles, engines, and warheads related to the AS2 missiles

2 large propellant casting chambers

14 155 mm shells filled with mustard gas, the mustard gas totalling approximately 49 litres and still at high purity

Approximately 500 ml of thiodiglycol

122 mm chemical warheads

chemical equipment

224.6 kg of expired growth media

These items may well prove to total 500 tons, which I can estimate if I care nitpick the issue. I won't.

It does appear UNMOVIC destroyed the bulk of the remaining useable and locatable Iraqi WMDs, materials which should have been disposed of almost a decade ago. But that's with the benefit of hindisght. The Coalition couldn't have known this for a certainty, could it now? Not especially given Saddam's proven deceptions and obfuscations, even in the face of the many UNSC Resolutions designed to pierce the shield provided by his opaque behavior.

If one must be intellectually truthful without relying unduly on perfect hindsight, one can conclude that the Coalition chose to err on the side of caution in invading a known hostile opponent, was politically compelled to choose in such a manner due to the enemy's record of deceiving UN arms inspectors on his WMD capabilities for the twelve years ever since he invaded his neighbor. The last-minute discoveries of the UNMOVIC could have only added fuel to the fires of suspicions, suspicions which were further inflamed by the discovery of previously-unreported and proscribed missile systems and low-level biochemical research programs. This is one of the more balanced viewpoints which attempts to derive an explanation for the WMD debacle, which assigns greater weight to the likelihood of lower-level incompetence rather than the certainty of high-level conspiracy. IMHO, it is probably closest to truths as is currently determinable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You haven't refuted a single point that I've made while I have refuted every single infantile attempt by you to make any point whatsoever

Maybe if you open your eyes and read what I have posted you'd see different.

Start reading.

I have answered all of your questions and left you with your head spinning - and you know it.

No you have not.

Now you've resorted to calling me names out of desperation.

You're the one who called me an idiot. Wow you're having trouble keeping track of who said what.

I've heard that it hurts to be humiliated the way in which you've been humilated

lol

You're the one dodging questions.

Do you really expect anyone to believe that?

Do I care if you believe it? I didn't know him all that well. He didn't want to go. Yet he was needed to secure Bush's oil!

Stick to Wiccan and Buddhism for your fair tales.

Lol, you're not an Agnostic at all.

Which cannot be soundly claimed since the Japanese offcially admit that their fears of overwhelming western economic sanctions were no justification for launching war. If anyone of the two Powers had a legal justification to attack, it would have been the US, given that Japanese bombers unprovokedly sunk an American gunboat evacuating US civilians during the Sino-Japanese precursor war to WWII.

You're correct. However the US did push Japan to the wall. The mentality of the people at the time was still of honor and warriorship.

I responded to your assertion that 500 tons of WMD cannot stay hidden and presented contemporary cases indicating precisely the opposite. Far larger amounts of WMDs massing far, far more than 500 tons have remained fiendishly hidden in China. And Japan has a problem with abandoned and forgotten WMDs which its forces themselves had designed, manufactured and hidden half-a-century ago. Hidden in their very own country, no less. And they are only now discovering and surveying the extent of the ecological damage. Contentions which you apparently did not contest and which I presume you have accepted.

I'd need proof to believe that. I can see your point, however I find it hard to believe. China is much larger then Iraq.

-"Iraq probably has stocked at least 100 metric tons and possibly as much as 500 metric tons of CW agents."

President Bush

Rose Garden

October 2, 2002

As you can see the 500tons I mentioned aren't the ONLY WMD claim. It's only part of it.

As for the rest of your statement you're saying Iraq HAD WMDs beforehand. So you're saying we chose to invade to be safe rather than sorry. Very poor excuse to invade another nation. Let's invade China if that's the case (no offense to the Chinse people on the board, just an example).

I don't doubt Iraq had it at one time. I don't doubt it's a better idea to get rid of them. I think we sould have played the politcal game better to get rid of WMD/Saddam.

Tracker, thank you for reminding me intelligent people exists.

As for Mustafa you hate Islam, you hate Wiccanism, you hate Buddhism... can't we all just get along. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

qawsedrftgzxcvb,

As for Mustafa you hate Islam, you hate Wiccanism, you hate Buddhism... can't we all just get along. 

Well you're entitled to your opinion, as if it mattered to me.

You know I've spoken with a lot of people online and discussed nearly every topic with them that you can think of but never have I met a soul more lost than you are. You are quite possibly the most confused person I've ever had the dubious pleasure of meeting.

I know you better than you know yourself. You're a wayward Muslim who is ashamed of his roots. You've had a difficult time here in America and rather than stand up and fight for your beliefs as a Muslim your answer has been to reject Islam as not being worthy of you. When in fact it is the other way around - You were not worthy of Islam.

Your abandoning of Islam has left a hole in your gut that you've tried endlessly to heal through this religion or that or even through practicing several religions at once. None of which ever quite measure up - never quite fill that hole. Sad...

Go back to Islam. That is what you really seek. That is the only thing which will ever heal you. Go back before it's too late.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You know I've spoken with a lot of people online and discussed nearly every topic with them that you can think of but never have I met a soul more lost than you are.

bitin yer words:

Well you're entitled to your opinion, as if it mattered to me.

:lol:

I know you better than you know yourself.

Wow, you have magical powers!

I espeically like how you observed me for 2 years. Are you a child molester?

:P

You're a wayward Muslim who is ashamed of his roots.

I'm working on indifference. I'm trying to relieve myself of shame.

You've had a difficult time here in America and rather than stand up and fight for your beliefs as a Muslim your answer has been to reject Islam as not being worthy of you.

Quite the opposite.

I have difficulty seeing a good future for the human race. More reason I seek mysticism. In mysticim people must reject the world. I hope I can do the same.

When in fact it is the other way around - You were not worthy of Islam.

I am not the judge of that.

However I can't say you're too far off either. I just don't know.

Your abandoning of Islam has left a hole in your gut that you've tried endlessly to heal through this religion or that or even through practicing several religions at once.

Ouch!

Actually my faith started to falter after a very large depression few years back.

None of which ever quite measure up - never quite fill that hole. Sad...

You know that was an arrow to my heart. :-(

(no joke on this one)

I am seeking mysticism. What would you do? I don't have a teacher. Materialism isn't working.

Go back to Islam. That is what you really seek. That is the only thing which will ever heal you. Go back before it's too late.

You sound like my rabbi.

Religion is a way to express spirituality. I'm not a perfect Buddhist, Jew, Christian, nor Muslim. I am curious about other faiths. I have Wiccan friends. It's my human nature to be curious about people. I'm sorry if you find my friendship with a Wiccan offensive. I didn't expect to take part in a ritual, I was 'just there'. I had no idea what was going on at first.

Look Mufasa (your new name*)... I know my diction might seem angry at times, but I'm pulling you leg left and right (notice the smilies). I don't hate you, I acutally like you more and more every post... probably more than I should. I know it's wrong to get kicks from your posts, but at least you're makine me happy. :-p

Plus I like to argue.

I don't take pieces of religions and make one up. I follow the concrete rules and use portions of other religions when I can. Is it wrong for me to take part in a Christian mass? Is it wrong for me to wash my hands when saying a Jewish prayer? Is it wrong for me to love knowledge? There is much of religion that I don't discuss because of sheer complexity. Is it so wrong?

I know OF pagan faiths, but I don't follow them. I know better than to mess with the mystics. G-d may protect me, but I remember these words "Don't tempt G-d"

.

I thank you again for the kick in the butt.

For some reason you're starting to look out for my soul... are you my guardian angel? :wub:

Anyhoo, *I love you Mufasa*.... in a non-sexual way. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

qawsedrftgzxcvb,

Are you a child molester?

No. Why? Lonely?

Quite the opposite.

I have difficulty seeing a good future for the human race. More reason I seek mysticism. In mysticim people must reject the world. I hope I can do the same.

Talk about high drama... :rolleyes:

Ouch!

Actually my faith started to falter after a very large depression few years back.

You have an anger problem - nothing more complicated then that. You hate yourself - I don't blame you.

I am seeking mysticism. What would you do? I don't have a teacher. Materialism isn't working.

What you need is a Psychiatrist. Stop whinning about what you don't have. Be grateful that you are alive and for all that you do have. Pull your head out of your ass and go back to Islam.

P.S. Don't "argue" - discuss or debate only. This is not a place to argue like a petulant three year old who isn't getting his way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You're correct. However the US did push Japan to the wall. The mentality of the people at the time was still of honor and warriorship.

Economic contests are weak justifications for going to war. The worst economic shock of the past half-century was the one OAPEC countries inflicted on certain Western nations when they raised crude prices tremendously in the 1970s. Not one of the victims chose to wage war against the Arab oil-regimes. There was no and still is no commonly-accepted principle in international Laws of War which recognizes unprovoked aggression as justifiable by any form of warrior or martial code.

The strategic reason for the Japanese' pre-emptive campaign against US pacific forces was their militarized government's policy of aggressive Imperialism, plain and simple. This goal was self-evident given that their concurrent war of conquest against the Chinese was not due to any Chinese economic threat, perceived or real. Also note that the Imperial Japanese Navy and Army were rather aptly named, given the services they rendered the Emperor and his warlike Prime Minister.

I responded to your assertion that 500 tons of WMD cannot stay hidden and presented contemporary cases indicating precisely the opposite. Far larger amounts of WMDs massing far, far more than 500 tons have remained fiendishly hidden in China. And Japan has a problem with abandoned and forgotten WMDs which its forces themselves had designed, manufactured and hidden half-a-century ago. Hidden in their very own country, no less. And they are only now discovering and surveying the extent of the ecological damage. Contentions which you apparently did not contest and which I presume you have accepted.

I'd need proof to believe that. I can see your point, however I find it hard to believe. China is much larger then Iraq.

Here is the situation on long-lost and finally-found (after 58 years!) Japanese WMD in Japan itself, of all places. I'll post the comprehensive link on china's even worse situation once I relocate it.

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/T342724.htm

Japan may have more than 100 WW2 gas dump sites

TOKYO, Nov 28 (Reuters) - Japan vowed on Friday to conduct stringent surveys after initial studies found that poison gas left over from World War Two may have been dumped in more than 100 sites throughout the country.

Japan has long been under fire over chemical weapons it abandoned in China after the war, but concern has risen that compounds used in such weapons may also pose a threat at home after several recent incidents in which people became ill.

An official at the Environment Ministry said a survey it carried out in June found 138 suspected chemical weapons disposal sites in 41 of the nation's 47 prefectures.

"We will conduct further surveys in areas where this is needed," the official said.

The survey took place after residents of Kamisu, a town slightly north of Tokyo, complained of health problems and tests of their well water yielded levels of arsenic 450 times higher than mandated by government safety standards.

The contamination was believed linked to chemicals produced by the wartime military for use as weapons..."

As you can see the 500tons I mentioned aren't the ONLY WMD claim. It's only part of it.

As for the rest of your statement you're saying Iraq HAD WMDs beforehand. So you're saying we chose to invade to be safe rather than sorry. Very poor excuse to invade another nation. Let's invade China if that's the case (no offense to the Chinese people on the board, just an example).

Your position would be reasonable if the US and the UK were not already engaged in a decade-long low-level war against Saddam's defiant regime, if he had not been caught by the UNSCOM (to everyone's surprise) hiding massive WMD stocks and development projects between 1991- 1995, if he had not instigated the abandonment of UNSCOM disarmament missions in 1998 thereby ratcheting up the mistrust level enormously, if he had voluntarily reinvited the disarmament missions back beforehand instead of being forced into doing so by last-minute pressure, if the entire UNSC membership had not seen fit to condemn and sanction Iraq based on their shared consensus that Saddam was deliberately hiding proscribed WMD in defiance of UNSC edicts, and if the major intelligence agencies had not shared a common consensus that Saddam's government was running active deception and misdirection programs to hide proscribed stuff. China's leaders did nothing like these things during that time, and they voted with their peers to sanction the ones who did.

With the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, maybe we all know better by now. But's then that's the nature of hindsight, not wisdom. Were the Coalition leaders wise to pursue a pre-emptive course of action against a hostile known to invade other nations unprovoked, known to harbor terrorists, known to develop and seek proscribed WMD and to hide them, and known to break sanctions and treaties in bare-faced defiance of the high council of world powers?

If you were morally and politically responsible for the security and prosperity of 300+ million citizens and allies, and were to consider the sad history of unresponsive policies and complacent behavior which resulted in a catastrophic defensive weakness, would it be so obviously the no-brainer choice to "carry on" in the face of unrevealed dangers with politically safer and easier practices which had utterly failed thousands in your capital cities? Given, on which side of the probabilities would you choose to err, if you only could, if you desired the continued safety of your nation and people above all else?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i was glancing at 'bowling for columbine' on my tivo last night, and it had a bit of a timeline on misc invasions/govt installations/etc.  there were a LOT of them since 1970 that i was more or less unaware of.

I'm watching the movie now...

What the hell! The 'funny' part is when it says that the goverment was officially helping Iraq and Saddam to win the Iranians, while CIA was secretly giving weapons to the Iranians to fight back the Iraqis... :blink:

Divide Et Impera

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The funnier part is the Iranians accepted stuff from the Great Satan all the while knowing the Iraqis were buying some stuff or accepting agro-industrial loans from the US. You have to hand it to those tyrannical theocrats in Tehran - they know how to look out for their own interests even if they have to deal with the Devil himself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Economic contests are weak justifications for going to war.

Not at all.

Large military spending is good for the econ. Remember the military budget.

How would the Union like it if the South went bye bye (remember the North was at a deprecission).

Even back in high school they taught was was usually good for the econ.

What the hell! The 'funny' part is when it says that the goverment was officially helping Iraq and Saddam to win the Iranians, while CIA was secretly giving weapons to the Iranians to fight back the Iraqis...

that's how it works

you let them fight and you're the winner in the end

welcome to the savage world of the 4th Yuga

...while knowing the Iraqis were buying some stuff or accepting agro-industrial loans from the US

lot of materials were funnel through Israel and other mid east nations

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Economic contests are weak justifications for going to war.

Not at all.

Large military spending is good for the econ. Remember the military budget.

How would the Union like it if the South went bye bye (remember the North was at a deprecission).

Even back in high school they taught was was usually good for the econ.

That old claim about the American civil war being good for the North's economy only holds at best for the American civil war. Big wars fought without mobilization and rationalization towards a total war-footing usually result in stagnating growth and even recession. Vietnam War spending led to the (budgetary) demise of Johnson's 1960s Great Society and preceded the recession of the 1970s and the following stagflation. The useful thing about Vietnam was that it beggared the Soviets far worse than it did the West, tipping their previously hegemonistic movement into passive detente, decline, and eventual collapse. Which is not an economic success story so much as a geopolitical one. You can argue this is also "good for the economy" but then it would stretch the cause-effect chain across epochal uncertainties better explained by moral pursuits than economic ones.

The costs of the 2003 Iraq War may lead to a similar short-term recessionary trend. OTOH, having world oil availability assured (especially given China's distortingly high demand) is worth the the cost. We do not always find certain profit in seeking security when the goal itself is not easily predictable.

There is still no accepted principle in international Laws of War which legitimizes an unprovoked war of regression on the basis of an economic rationale. The US cannot legitimately "make war" internationally just because it will help pump-prime its military-industrial sectors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whoops, I meant to post "There is still no accepted principle in international Laws of War which legitimizes an unprovoked war of aggression on the basis of an economic rationale."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"There is still no accepted principle in international Laws of War which legitimizes an unprovoked war of aggression on the basis of an economic rationale."

international law is pretty much an oxymoron

it was illegal for China to test nukes where they did

it was illegal for the US to test nukes where they did

it was illegal for the US to pull out of the nuclear treaty with Russia

That old claim about the American civil war being good for the North's economy only holds at best for the American civil war.

old habits die hard

Big wars fought without mobilization and rationalization towards a total war-footing usually result in stagnating growth and even recession.

the war period itself has a good chance to provide a rising econ

we did it in WWII

The US cannot legitimately "make war" internationally just because it will help pump-prime its military-industrial sectors.

that's why you have politics

this isn't just a US thing

it's globabl, the US is actually pretty lenient about it

conflicts can be good for us

example:

The Israeli, Palistianian conflict bring the Saudi family and American compaines $$$.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"There is still no accepted principle in international Laws of War which legitimizes an unprovoked war of aggression on the basis of an economic rationale."

international law is pretty much an oxymoron

it was illegal for China to test nukes where they did

it was illegal for the US to test nukes where they did

it was illegal for the US to pull out of the nuclear treaty with Russia

But then these actions aren't in the category of "unprovoked war of aggression". International Laws of War are as useful as UN or WTO principles. Meaning, these will be observed when all sides need to resolve issues and promote common behavior which are of shared importance to all. Wars more than anything else give rise to hard common issues. Such as status of belligerency, operational escalation/de-escalation, protections for civilians and POWs, respect of neutrals' right-of way and trading, accepted uses of WMDs, local or general modes of truce or surrender, conduct of negotiations through third parties, etc.

Big wars fought without mobilization and rationalization towards a total war-footing usually result in stagnating growth and even recession.

the war period itself has a good chance to provide a rising econ

we did it in WWII

During WWII, US industry was mobilized to produce on a total war-economy footing. This was done to avoid economic distortions due to supply-side scarcity and resultant rationing which leads to inflationary effects. The wartime restructuring allowed the US to avoid the the kind of economic imbalance traps which came to roost after Vietnam - the result of Johnson's and Nixon's decisions to finance the war on the back of a peacetime economy. And during WWII, the US also got to off-line the industrial capacities of its current enemies/future competitors, about half of what passed for the "G7" of those days. None of these useful conditions apply to recent conflicts.

The US cannot legitimately "make war" internationally just because it will help pump-prime its military-industrial sectors.

that's why you have politics

this isn't just a US thing

it's global, the US is actually pretty lenient about it

conflicts can be good for us

example:

The Israeli, Palistianian conflict bring the Saudi family and American compaines $$$.

These conflicts do result in indirect profits going to US and other foreign firms, yet we don't see the US or Saudi Arabia joining and broadening these wars just to pursue some pump-the-war-economy strategy. There are observable limits to the international behavior of nations, even Superpowers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course he would have because the war had nothing to do with WMD. It had nothing to do with Saddam's treatment of his people either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But then these actions aren't in the category of "unprovoked war of aggression".

That depends on the perception people who parties.

Disregarding an international law is no better than Saddam disregarding international law.

Meaning, these will be observed when all sides need to resolve issues and promote common behavior which are of shared importance to all.

I don't recall the US and China having any issue resovled over neutron bomb testing.

Such as status of belligerency, operational escalation/de-escalation, protections for civilians and POWs, respect of neutrals' right-of way and trading, accepted uses of WMDs, local or general modes of truce or surrender, conduct of negotiations through third parties, etc.

If needed disregard the laws and break them when needed. We do it, our allies do it, our enemies do it.

None of these useful conditions apply to recent conflicts.

Israel vs Palestine.

Winners: suppliers in Saudia Arabia and USA. Those people don't represent either nation but they do make profit that falls into the economic pool for those nations.

These conflicts do result in indirect profits going to US and other foreign firms, yet we don't see the US or Saudi Arabia joining and broadening these wars just to pursue some pump-the-war-economy strategy. There are observable limits to the international behavior of nations, even Superpowers.

If I'm making money pulling strings I'd keep it that way. Why do I need to get my hands dirty?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But then these actions aren't in the category of "unprovoked war of aggression".

That depends on the perception people who parties.

Disregarding an international law is no better than Saddam disregarding international law.

Pulling out of nuke limitations and testing treaties are not the same legally, operationally, or geopolitically as unprovoked wars of aggression. We need not rely on fallible perception to determine the difference between failed treaties and unprovoked wars, only on objective observation and a knowledge of history.

Meaning, these will be observed when all sides need to resolve issues and promote common behavior which are of shared importance to all.

I don't recall the US and China having any issue resovled over neutron bomb testing.

That's an issue of geopolitical contest and escalation during peacetime. The observance (or lack) of Laws of War during actual wartime is something else.

Such as status of belligerency, operational escalation/de-escalation, protections for civilians and POWs, respect of neutrals' right-of way and trading, accepted uses of WMDs, local or general modes of truce or surrender, conduct of negotiations through third parties, etc.

If needed disregard the laws and break them when needed. We do it, our allies do it, our enemies do it.

I can agree these practices can lapse, but only in exceptional circumstances. Given a choice, most real armies would rather follow wartime "best practices" unless they were extremely hard-pressed. Or deluded as to the effectivity of the proscribed methods they used, i.e. WWII Allied bombing of Axis cities, Hitler's "cleansing" of Soviet political officers, the murderous Japanese defense of Manila and Okinawa, North Vietnamese mass atrocities in Hue, barbaric Palestinian terror attacks on civilians.

Accepted practices of war can be self-regulating to a degree unknown to unsuspecting civilians. They may be disregarded but to do so almost always invites the hardest consequences, which is why professional militaries and wise political leaders adhere to them whenever possible. For example, the manner by which the WWII Allies suppressed the German EPW rebellion in Canada had very direct consequences on Allied POWs in Germany, which is why it was put down with great care in accordance with the laws and practices of War.

None of these useful conditions apply to recent conflicts.

Israel vs Palestine.

Winners: suppliers in Saudia Arabia and USA. Those people don't represent either nation but they do make profit that falls into the economic pool for those nations.

Suppliers in Saudia Arabia and USA, but not Arabia and America themselves. Israel's military establishment and to a great extent its economy is funded by enormous amounts of direct and indirect American foreign aid. The US as a whole has never derived a net financial gain from supporting one side in this civil war, because neither total economic restructuring nor a conflict of total mobilization is the case here. Which exceptional situation is what you were attempting to validate as a routine outcome of most if not all wars.

These conflicts do result in indirect profits going to US and other foreign firms, yet we don't see the US or Saudi Arabia joining and broadening these wars just to pursue some pump-the-war-economy strategy. There are observable limits to the international behavior of nations, even Superpowers.

If I'm making money pulling strings I'd keep it that way. Why do I need to get my hands dirty?

Well then, we are agreed there are observable limits to the international behavior of nations, for even Superpowers do not routinely launch unprovoked Wars just to pump-prime their military-industrial sectors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pulling out of nuke limitations and testing treaties are not the same legally, operationally, or geopolitically as unprovoked wars of aggression. We need not rely on fallible perception to determine the difference between failed treaties and unprovoked wars, only on objective observation and a knowledge of history.

hm...

French refuse to sign nucler ban treaty and they test a nuke.

Israel refueses to sign a nuclear ban treaty and they test a nuke.

Why would our great chimpanzee of a leader pull out of the treaty?

That's an issue of geopolitical contest and escalation during peacetime. The observance (or lack) of Laws of War during actual wartime is something else.

so basically follow international law during peacetime and throw it away during wartime

not a great law is it

I can agree these practices can lapse, but only in exceptional circumstances.

those "exceptional circumstances" are called when it suits a party the best

Accepted practices of war can be self-regulating to a degree unknown to unsuspecting civilians. They may be disregarded but to do so almost always invites the hardest consequences, which is why professional militaries and wise political leaders adhere to them whenever possible.

Hardest of consequences? Yes karma can be the iron claw. However, disregard for civilians in war is very common.

Israel launch attacks that will knowingly damage civilians.

Palestinians launch attacks that will knowingly damage civilians.

The US marines killed POWs in Afghanistan.

Russians does it.

China does it.

Suppliers in Saudia Arabia and USA, but not Arabia and America themselves

Lockheed Martin sounds American to me. The Saudi Royal family sounds Saudi to me.

The US as a whole has never derived a net financial gain from supporting one side in this civil war

not the US directly, but companies in the US

Which exceptional situation is what you were attempting to validate as a routine outcome of most if not all wars.

Let's see Cambodia, Kurdish revolt, Afghanistan, South America...

Well then, we are agreed there are observable limits to the international behavior of nations, for even Superpowers do not routinely launch unprovoked Wars just to pump-prime their military-industrial sectors.

"What we did we had planned for 25 years."

Patience is a virtue.

We've done it in the past. It's not done left and right, but it happens.

Civil War

WWII

Gulf War II

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

French refuse to sign nucler ban treaty and they test a nuke.

Israel refueses to sign a nuclear ban treaty and they test a nuke.

Let me repeat, pulling out of nuke limitations and testing treaties are not the same legally, operationally, or geopolitically as unprovoked wars of aggression.

so basically follow international law during peacetime and throw it away during wartime

not a great law is it

Laws and practices observed during peacetime are different from those during war. Duh. If you are looking for perfect Law there isn't any.

I can agree these practices can lapse, but only in exceptional circumstances.

those "exceptional circumstances" are called when it suits a party the best.

Obviously. They are still exceptional.

Accepted practices of war can be self-regulating to a degree unknown to unsuspecting civilians. They may be disregarded but to do so almost always invites the hardest consequences, which is why professional militaries and wise political leaders adhere to them whenever possible.

Hardest of consequences? Yes karma can be the iron claw. However, disregard for civilians in war is very common.

Israel launch attacks that will knowingly damage civilians.

Like many, you misunderstand the laws of war. There is nothing that bars discriminating military operations in residential communities which harbor an actively hostile opponent who retains effective responsibility for the area and its civilians. The Protocols are rather specific on that, and Israel has been careful to adhere to the rules as much as possible. The same can't be said for the Palestinians, obviously. Strictly speaking, greater protections for non-combatants and their property are only due when responsibility for them devolves commensurately. That the Israeli military goes beyond this minimum by avoiding the use of indiscriminate methods of urban warfare (such as the Russian's ROUT destruction of Grozny) is a credit to their prowess as well as humanity.

Palestinians launch attacks that will knowingly damage civilians.

Palestinians launch attacks that will knowingly and specifically target civilians. This is proscribed behavior in direct contravention of the oldest set of the Laws of War.

The US marines killed POWs in Afghanistan.

Russians does it.

China does it.

No military in wartime can completely avoid intentional and unintentional violations of the laws of war. What differentiates them in total is what each does about it. The US and many Western militaries are known for subjecting reported incidents and those involved to military investigation and peer judicial review, for punishing proven perpetrators up to Generals and Admirals in courts-martial, and for distributing at the very least monetary compensation to victims of whatever nationality. The US military in particular has a a propensity for publicizing such cases, both as a remedial measure and as a policy example to its members. Which is infinitely more than is usually the case with most militaries in most dirty wars on this planet.

Lockheed Martin sounds American to me. The Saudi Royal family sounds Saudi to me. Not the US directly, but companies in the US.

As I said, the US as a whole has never derived a net financial gain from supporting sides in the Israeli-Palestinian civil war.

Let's see Cambodia, Kurdish revolt, Afghanistan, South America...

And neither has the US as a whole ever derived net financial gains from supporting or engaging in these wars, either. Afganistan alone is being given $1Billion/year gratis on top of contributions from other countries, while the Kurds were afforded military protection and humanitarian aid which costs over a decade ran to Billions of dollars. And surely you are not going to claim that the latest intervention in Haiti is going to result in a net profit, when its main geopolitical rationale was to just to minimize the cost of repelling surges of illegal immigrants.

That less-than-total victories are "cost centers" is the rule and not the exception. Which does not explain your focus on the few exceptions in an attempt to present these as the norm.

Well then, we are agreed there are observable limits to the international behavior of nations, for even Superpowers do not routinely launch unprovoked Wars just to pump-prime their military-industrial sectors.

We've done it in the past. It's not done left and right, but it happens.

Civil War

WWII

Gulf War II

The Civil War was a tragedy, WWII was a necessity. These conflicts would have been fought even absent an economic incentive. Economic pump-priming and capacity restructuring was mainly a bonus, and a rather contingent one at that. After all, if the Union or the Allies had lost their wars, where would your nice economic incentives be?

As for Iraq, the tab is $80 Billion and rising, of which at least $20 Billion directly benefits Iraqis and their infrastructure. And crude prices have not gone down due to the parallel increasing demand from China, which has aborted any downward price pressure on the OPEC. China derived real economic gains from this war without incurring any cost, while Iraq has been handed a humongous giftcheck courtesy of American taxpayers. Are you willing to claim that the War was intentionally fought with their economic interests in mind?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now