|
|
|
Subject:
RE:To BSL The concept of preemptive self defense
bsl
7/12/2002 9:41:16 PM
|
| John,
First, I apologize for a tone which may have
seemed less than polite.
Re: Allies and treaties
Treaties are nothing but formal declarations
of policy. They're not necessary to create
alliances. What treaty did America have with
Britain during WW2? (Lend Lease is the one which
comes to mind. It was clearly not the basis of
the alliance.)
The absence of a treaty of alliance between America and Israel does not mean there is no alliance.
There is. It's been stated, many times, by American statesmen and is often used as a reason to criticize America by people throughout the Islamic world.
Re:Proportionality
" Should the response be commensurate with the level of aggression?"
I'd put it that the action ought be commensurate
with the (realistic) level of threat.
Re:"why just Iraq?"
It's not just Iraq. Iraq happens to be the center
of public discussion about the next likely focus
of American activity. But, in point of fact, Mr.
Bush and his senior people have said, many, many
times over the last ten months that we're in a war
which involves enemies in a number of different
areas. Afghanistan was one. Iraq is another. It's
by no means the only other country, although it
might turn out to be the last overt, major
arena of conventional fighting. Or, it might not.
But, generally, why Iraq?
One of several reasons is that it is perhaps the
worst overall threat of the greatest harm to
America and American interests, plus the center
of the worst threat of nuclear, biological, and
chemical attack, either directly, or through
third parties. Another reasons is that it seems
as if the American Administration has come
to look on Iraq as key to a number or regional
issues, including, notably, the Arab-Israeli
problems. IOW, that it is such an exacerbating factor that regional stability is impossible as
long as Hussein, or anyone like him, controls
Iraq. Not that he's the whole problem. Not even
most of it. But, an essential element. A sine
qua non for any hope of regional stability.
Re: Afghaninstan
Is this really a problem for you? Interests change
according to circumstances. Did Britain not absolutely believe, along with America, that
alliance with and support of Stalin during WW2
was necessary in the interest of defeating Hitler?
Did that mean that Churchill and FDR actually
supported Stalin? Certainly not. For a time, interests coincided so that supporting the Soviet
war effort was also an American and British interest. That didn't mean we had accepted the
legitimacy of the Soviet system or that we supported expansion of Soviet power.
We supported the Afghan war against the Soviets as part of our larger war against the Soviets. That
didn't imply that we supported the Afghans we
helped in all ways in all things, forever.
None of this is remotely alien to British foreign
policy. You've done this sort of things for centuries, including the 20th century.
Re: Causes of war
The point was that you've been complaining about
fighting before a country is attacked. I've pointed
out that, in fact, it's often the case that war
has started **before** the attack and suggested,
thereby, that you might look more closely at the
specific areas you're speaking of, and see that,
in fact, "war" may already exist.
Every time an Iraqi missile battery locks onto
an American or British fighter in Iraqi airspace
according to the terms of the settlement of the
Gulf War, it's committing an act of aggression.
More so when the battery launches a missile.
And, so on.
The condition of a sneak attack on a potential
enemy out of the clear blue sky is less common
than you seem to assume.
bsl
|
| |
|
|
|
