Protestantism

» Brian Tubbs - Just War

I thought I'd strike up a new thread, since we're debating this issue in several. Why not bring it to focus on one?

It is my position that peace is only possible if justice can be achieved. I realize there is a Wilsonian quality to what I'm saying, and frankly, as a historian, I see a LOT of Wilsonianism in George W. Bush.

Migisi has more or less made the argument that war is only justified when directly attacked. Is it?

Let's consider Iran...

Should we allow Iran to get nuclear weapons?

Right now, the United Nations and the European nations in particular are taking the lead on Iran. But if Iran keeps going with its nuclear program, does anyone here doubt that we will have one of two choices....

Let Iran build nukes or attack them.

Neither scenario is appealing. The preferable option is to use diplomacy and economic pressure to persuade Iran to stop its nuke program. Well, we're doing that - and it ain't working. So, we are getting closer and closer to a D-Day decision.

My point is that, as tragic as war will be, it will be necessary eventually -- if Iran doesn't back off.

And please don't respond to this with "Well, we have nukes - why can't they?" This isn't the place for an academic discussion on some kind of nuke fairness doctrine. This is where the rubber meets the road. If Iran gets nukes, it will be a drastic situation. And every informed and objective observer of the Middle East knows that.

» Brian Tubbs - Another scenario

Iran is just one example of where war (outside of a response to direct attack) could be justifiable.

What about a nation that has the ability to send the U.S. economy into a major depression? I'm NOT talking about profits for oil companies here, so please don't get started on that propaganda train.

But if a foreign power could take over the Middle Eastern oil supply and then ally with Chavez and possibly the Russians - it would be absolutely DEVASTATING to the US economy. Any idiot (sorry) knows that.

Should we stand by and let that happen?

Of course, we should pursue diplomacy and trade, yadda, yadda. I got it. But what if that doesn't work?

Think about it. Should we allow a hostile foreign power to send us into a second "Great Depression" where up to 25% (if not more) of our workforce is unemployed, where whole industries collapse, businesses are gutted, and tens of millions lose everything they have?

Should the US allow the above to happen?

Another scenario....

What about an ally?

Should the US allow a hostile foreign power trample on and destroy (either militarily or economically) an ally? If so, what does that say about our commitment to our allies?

Pink, this will hit home with you. What about South Korea? You know, there are hundreds of thousands of people languishing in North Korean concentration camps right now. That would've been the fate of South Korea, had the NK invasion succeeded.

But, thanks to veterans like Phil, South Korea is a free country today.

Now, to everyone, please don't just go off on one aspect of this post and the last - and ignore the other points.

My main point here is that there are several scenarios in which war is justified - and many of them have nothing to do with a direct military invasion of one's own country.

So, when I say that our veterans have fought to protect America's vital security interests, that's what I mean.

» Brian Tubbs - One last point...

To Migisi, Pink, and others conscientously committed oto peace, let me acknowledge that the just war scenarios I've laid out in the preceding posts put us on a...

SLIPPERY SLOPE

I acknowledge that, and the USA has not always managed that slope correctly.

Once you accept the premise that protecting America's economy, for example, is a just aim of foreign policy (including, if necessary, the waging of war) -- and I do (to some extent) accept that premise)....

...then, at that point, you have to be extremely careful, because you may end up waging a war to not simply PROTECT the American economy, but rather to fatten the pockets of a particular SEGMENT of America's economy.

This happened in the US-Mexican War. Not all our war aims were unjust, but one of them certainly was. The southern plantation elite wanted more slave territories - and they cast a greedy eye on Mexico's land. Now, again, not all of America's war aims were that shady, but we can't deny that expanding the interests of the slave-holding elite was ONE of the war's aims.

And I would submit that there were probably echoes of shadiness in ALL of our wars, including our clearly justifiable ones - like World War II. Howard Zinn's flagship text points this out. (You see, Pink, I'm more open-minded than you give me credit).

» pink101 - Just War

In response to Just War posted by BrianTubbs:

.

.
Now, how can I take exception to anything you say without you accusing me of attacking you?
.
But, I will take a shot at it. You wrote, If Iran gets nukes, it will be a drastic situation. And every informed and objective observer of the Middle East knows that.
.
Drastic? How's that? Israel is said to have in excess of 300 nuclear devices and Pakistan is said to have somewhere around 50. I don't know how many India has; but, Russia supposedly has around 3,000.
.
Now, let's suppose Iran gets one. So? What about it? What would it mean that you call Drastic? Would it mean that Israel's threat against all its neighbors would be diminished somewhat? Would you expect Iran to use a nuclear bomb if they had one?
.
The ONLY reason any nation like Iran would ever employ a nuclear bomb would be if their destruction as a sovereign state was at stake and in immediate danger of totally being wiped out. That's the ONLY reason they would ever use a nuclear device. In fact, it might be a good thing if Iran had such a bomb. We should take the ideas involved off the tables of ideology and put it on the tables of scientific investigation.
.

-- posted by pink101

» pink101 - Deep Frames

.
I might recommend you spend some time learning how spin doctors make their living. There is a concept known as framing and one known as deep framing.
.
You entire position is based on a certain set of frames. Those frames are entirely hypothetical and don't mean squat.
.
It would be just as easy to frame the discussion with an orientation toward peace rather than trying to prove the necessity of any war.
.
I have an idea if I messed with you long enough and got a bunch of others to mess with you and your family and friends that--sooner or later--I could get you roused up enough to start some kind of a fight--either physical or legal.
.
We've been messing with the Arabs for over a hundred years now. It's time to admit to that and to try to enter into a conversation to put that bull roar to an end. You are a person with particular interests in history. Read the history of how Persia got messed up--a nation that had existed longer than any other on earth. Read the stories of how oil got to be the big issue over there.
.
Add that up to some history about the development of such groups as the "Sons of Allah" that is such a terrible force in Islamic Fundamentalism. Read about the way the Brits messed over the Egyptians. Read about the Ottoman Empire and Palestine a people that hadn't come into the modern age as yet. Read about the development of Zionism during the nineteenth century in Europe. There is more than enough to read for anyone to gain a fairly comprehensive view of reality int he Middle East.
.
BUT, you have to stop thinking in the deep frames of the ideologies you follow.
.
Easy--give it a chance.
.

-- posted by pink101

» redback - Just War

In response to Just War posted by BrianTubbs:

"This is where the rubber meets the road. If Iran gets nukes, it will be a drastic situation."

No...I won't say what you exhort me not to say. But too many decisions of yesterday are relegated to the: That's history, get over it."

I just have a profound hope that the USA and other nations..incl rogue states...will stop that way of thinking without having to get the other side to stop first.

Your point cited above is a no-brainer, Brian. But aren't we between a rock and a hard place? That fountain of knowledge...wikipedia:

"US intelligence has predicted Iran is about a decade away from manufacturing the key ingredients for a nuclear weapon."

seems to sum up the situation in 2007. True or false? This outsider only has opposing spin to absorb wabout ho's telling the least lies on this issue. Today's key ingedient seems to be a total disbelief in Iran's claims of peaceful use...that they (also) won't have weapons of mass destruction. And a US impatience with how the rest of the world is dealing with the problem.

-- posted by redback