catapult magazine

i was reading an article in sunday’s chicago tribune which explained that if the united states were to invade iraq for the reasons currently cited by our government, we could be charged with violating an international law under which seven top nazis were found guilty at nuremberg.

the tribunal in the nazi war crimes case quoted 19th century US secretary of state, daniel webster, in its decision: “Preventive action in foreign territory is justified only in case of ‘an instant and overwhelming necessity for self-defense, leaving no choice of means, and no moment of deliberation.’” so, if we were to pre-emptively attack iraq, we would not be doing so to stall an imminent iraqi attack, but to prevent a possible attack in the future. essentially, our actions would be contradictory to international law.

then i remembered all of the US wrangling over the international criminal court (ICC) this summer. essentially, the US agreed to the ICC only after the UN security council granted a year-long immunity period for US citizens, during which US troops could not be charged with war crimes.

hmmmm . . . interesting.

And I’ll give the de-stabilization issue its own box. Dan, I don’t like where this argument leads. One could say allowing Hussein to produce WMD will make the Middle East more stable. The Mid East will be so afraid of Hussein, they will definitely remain as subservient as his own people have been the last several years. According to this de-stabilization argument, one could also say allowing Hussein to control oil production will hurt the U.S. economy, which will in turn de-stabilize the economy of the world. I’m not saying the U.S. ought to conquer Husssein to take control of the region’s oil, of course. I’m just saying that arguing for stability can get us into trouble.

Can’t we just say as good democratic citizens we think the world will be a better place if the People decide for themselves? Rather than let Hussein use fear as a weapon to get the people to do what he wants, we must stand up for democratic principles and oust the man standing in the way of a more democratic (and therefore better) Middle East!!!! (insert smiley face holding American flag here, but notice the ambiguously sardonic—or sardonically ambiguous?—tint to the left eye)

first off, reading over my last post, i hope nobody read my comment as condescending when i called a certain group of people naive. it wasn’t meant that way.

That said, grant, i can’t tell where you’re coming from. You say that “according to the definitions of terrorism established by bush… hussein clearly fits” but don’t give any clue as to whether you think this is a good thing or not.

I also don’t quite understand why you seem to be so unconcerned that bush’s motivation for attacking (and potentially killing many innocent civilians) is largely political.

since we’re in the habit of giving de-stabilization issues separate boxes… :)

sure, the issue of stabilization could lead to many absurd arguments, but so could anything. What is this whole thing about if not stability? The U.S. wants a stable world order, so they feel that they must ‘take care of’ those states or organizations that are upsetting that stability. right?

How about the idea of the U.S. trying to restabilize themselves by finding another country to focus on. Was it a line from “Canadian Bacon”?: “Nothing brings the country together like a good war?”
I can’t help but think 90% of this war banter is an attempt at putting a false facade on an introspective interest, not completely geared toward the protection of freedom/“our way of life”. How much is political narcissism/hubris?
The moral high road the U.S. tries to take in their foreign policy sickens me more often than not. I apologize for the sarcasm, but it seems to be frequently substantiated.

It’s time for democracy to get it’s own box. How about if the US and Britain listened to virtually EVERY other country in the world who opposes invasion. That might be an example of a democracy of sorts don’t you think? Rather than America’s current dictatorship of world affairs.

And please don’t get the impression that poor Dan is stuck up there in puny Canada and is jealous of the powerful USA. My main motivation is not anti-Americanism. Contraire. All is see is a country which is hated by much of the world but doesn’t understand why. So instead of taking steps to improve its image, the USA goes ahead with something that just confirms in the minds of millions of people what they already suspected. Namely that the extremists were at least partially justified in crashing planes into those nice scyscrapers.

The best anti-terrorism measure would be to spend the billions they’d spend on the war and feed it into a world-wide public relations sceme that would target Islamic fundamentalists. And think of how much fun it could be! TV ad campaigns, Bush could have photo ops feeding Egyptian orphans, the CIA could form “Al Qaida 2,” a fundamentalist islamic group that would be way cooler than Al Qaida and do better stuff and have a better looking guy than Osama as leader. The possibilities are endless!!!! What happened to good ol creativity?

Grant, you might be right about destabilization. But the fact remains that the USA is not threatened by Iraq in a substantial way. The scuds can hit Israel, but not even Europe. Even if Iraq gets nuclear weapons it doesn’t threaten the US. American intelligence would see the warhead from a satelite and then they could shoot a patriot missile directly at it and it would blow up in Sadam’s face so to speak. With horrific results. But I still want to have someone explain to me how a pre-emptive strike can be justified on the basis that the US is threatened by Iraq.

Grant, you essentially said it’s because Bush has a job to do. Americans expect something to happen, so he’s making something happen. In that case, he is jeopardizing the future the US in exchange for his short term political gain. I’ll buy none of it. It’s selfish on his part. Plain and simple. Of course there is the possibility that he actually believes that this is the right thing to do, in which case I have lost all vestiges of faith in the moral compass of this man.

perhaps the bush administration should take the plank out of its own eye before going after specks in others’ eyes. we still haven’t arrested anyone for the whole anthrax scare from last year and a sniper is running around the washington d.c. area killing random targets. so, yeah, restabilizing ourselves first might be a good idea. but, this administration doesn’t seem real confident or competent when it comes to domestic issues (hence the wag-the-dog concerns).

the fact of the matter is that we will have to deal with a post-hussein iraq regardless of how this plays out. i don’t think anyone is suggesting that leaving hussein in power is a viable long-term solution.

but i also don’t think that ousting hussein is even the best anti-terrorism strategy. even if the best case scenario came to pass and we managed to establish free elections post hussein, the shiite muslim majority in iraq (about 65%, the same branch of islam currently holding power in iran) would almost definitely take control of the government. this would essentially create an even more potent breeding ground for anti-american terrorist cells.

and then there are those pesky ethical questions about giving every country democracy . . .

do we think that the iraqi people are all eager for a democratic system of government? are we prepared to play the nation-building game again? aren’t we just going around cramming what we think is best down other nations’ throats and isn’t that what we went to vietnam and north korea to prevent the communists from doing? what other countries should we go and give democracy to after iraq?

so where does that leave anything? i don’t know . . . i just know that i have problem with killing thousands of innocent people while trying to get to the “bad guys”. and i have a problem with the way the bush administration has dealt with this whole issue. usually military force is used as the last option after all diplomatic means have been exhausted, but bush and cheney have been beating the war drums since they got out of the gate.

enough out of me for now.

oh yeah, i forgot about the essence of a dictatorship and how that kind of plays against the theory that if iraq were to develop nuclear weapons they would immediately use them. saddam hussein is not on an islamic jihad; his end goals are not the complete destruction of the united states because he thinks we’re morally corrupt (ala bin-laden).

he is a military dictator. he craves power. if he were to deploy a nuclear weapon on israel or the US (or any other country for that matter), the international community would be politically justified in retaliating with nuclear power. and then saddam wouldn’t be in power anymore, would he? the only reason for a dictator to develop WMD is to stay in power by defending against attack with the mere threat of using such weapons on the attacker (US vs. soviet union, pakistan vs. india).

this is another reason the tactics used by the US thusfar in this situation have been counter-productive. if we were to attack at this point, saddam might have resigned himself to the idea that he has nothing to lose and use the weapons he currently has (be they biological, chemical, etc.).

oh, and dan . . . admit it, you canadians and your cultural mosaic have always been jealous of we americans and our melting pot. okay, now i’m done. until later, of course . . .

Thanks Rob. I just want to say that Hussein is HATED by his people. It’s possibly the most hated regime on the planet. He has 7 spy agencies spying on the people and spying on each other. It’s a regime based on fear and lies. There’s no doubt that Iriqis will be happy to get rid of Hussein. Thrilled even! At the same time I can’t see them being all to gleeful about 200,000 American troops policing the country and dictating their future.

i’m listening to the congressional debate about the proposed resolution to give president bush the authority to use military force as he sees fit. during the debate, one of the congressman said that the only thing the iraqi people hate more than saddam hussein is the united states. so, dan, you’re right. the iraqis probably wouldn’t be too thrilled with the US coming in and taking over their country.