Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic - If John McCain was president which country would he invade?

Speak Korean Now!

Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!

Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

If John McCain was president which country would he invade?
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee

Joined: 25 May 2003

Posted: Tue Oct 21, 2008 7:35 am Post subject:

The UN is selective and corrupt. In fact it was on Saddam's payroll. It is not a place where dictators and police states have the same voice as democracies. There is nothing to show that its decisions are moral or just.

Gopher

Joined: 04 Jun 2005

Posted: Tue Oct 21, 2008 7:42 am Post subject:

The Bobster wrote:

The man is wiser than many of us ever dreamed.

See?

rusty1983

Joined: 30 Jan 2007

Posted: Tue Oct 21, 2008 7:47 am Post subject:

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote:

The UN is selective and corrupt. In fact it was on Saddam's payroll.

It is not a place where dictators and police states have the same voice as democracies.

There is nothing to show that its decisions are moral or just.

But it is the law. The countries involved have agreed to go by its criteria.

There is nothing to show justification for Bush's war in Iraq, but then again no one really did anything to stop him, so *beep* it I guess.

It isnt the law then is it? It's ineffective. But as far as legal and illegal wars go it is probably the best benchmark.

The Bobster

Joined: 15 Jan 2003

Posted: Tue Oct 21, 2008 10:09 am Post subject:

bacasper wrote:

In the US, Congress declares it.

This is uninformed. The US Congress has not made an official declaration of war since the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor in 1941. By your definition, then, every use of the American military since then has been illegal.

Without actual declarations, Congress assents and approves war when it allows funding for the military to continue. The US Congress approved and assented to the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan and has continued to do so for the occupation and the struggle against insurgent forces in both countries. Every year Congress has had the means and opportunity to end the Iraq War/Occupation. This has not happened. It is legal by every test of American law that I know.

It is, however, not wise nor will history ever show it to be beneficial to the US. Way past time to end it.

rusty 1983

Quote:

A legal war would be one where the UN; after exhausting all other possibilities, decided that the only course of action was to go to war.

Again, unfortunately untrue, and going by what you've said, of course, every use of any of the world's military forces since the UN was founded San Francisco in 1945 has likewise been illegal, with the sole exception of the Korean War - which, oddly enough, was not called a war, but rather a "police action," since the stated purpose was to enforce the UN resolution that repudiated and rejected the aggression from the communist and Soviet-backed North.

War is diplomacy carried out by other means. Diplomacy is warfare carried out by other means. It is as absurd to talk about an "illegal war" as it is to talk about an "illegal earthquake" - and one man's "unjust war of aggression" is another one's "justifiable struggle for liberation."

It almost never works to assign moral values to actions in pursuit of benefit or perceived risk of survival, and those who do are usually trying to manipulate you. But that is where you end up when you start talking about whether a war is "legal" or not. I think this might be in the small category of things Gopher and I will agree about, by the way, though personally (aside from cases of self-defense against naked aggression) I think wealthy and powerful nations have a responsibility to the species put a stop to genocide, e.,g., Bosnia, Angola and Sudan.

I've been opposed to the Iraq Adventure since the bombs first started falling on Baghdad, and like most liberals I've felt a sense of moral outrage over what I've had to witness - mostly, though, I've had a very strong conviction that it's just not good for America, for a host of reasons, one of them being that in any war we will have to do things that later no sane person can be proud of. If you can't be proud of it, you have to be able to say there was no other choice, and I don't think anyone can say that with a straight face about Saddam's Iraq. He was no threat to us.

It's one reason I've supported Obama from early on, because his opposition to the war has likewise been based on what is good for the country. A lot of Obama's supporters will never ever see a war anywhere that they could approve of, but that is not him, and even a cursory reading of his speeches and public statements will show that he has been vocal in opposition to the military in Iraq from the start but just as vocal in support of continued and expanded force being used in Afghanistan.

The problem with moral outrage is that it often ignores what is necessary in reaching for what is good. Despite what you may assume from my avatar, I do know that some wars are necessary - but it is in the nature of war that we need to do things that are morally outrageous and unjustifiable by any other standard than sheer need ... and that's why any nation that engages in it must feel and know with certainty that such necessity exists, that it is not a matter of whim, and ability and preference.

And that is pretty much what history has shown us about the toppling of Iraq, and the occupation that continues, that it was pretty much something some people in Washington thought would be a cool thing to do, they had the means at their disposal, and so they decided to do it.

And the rest of us let them.

And, of course, one reason the US Congress has not taken legal action against the Bush administration for deception and criminal malfeasance is that most of the sitting members, Republicans and Democrats alike, are complicit, because they had the power to stop the whole thing a long time ago and chose not to.

rusty1983

Joined: 30 Jan 2007

Posted: Tue Oct 21, 2008 12:42 pm Post subject:

True. Not going to call it a 'war' are they?

bundangbear

Joined: 03 Feb 2004
Location: www.youtube.com/bundangbear

Posted: Tue Oct 21, 2008 1:08 pm Post subject:

He would invade Iran, of course, then hit Vietnam, because you know he still has a grudge, using the G word and all! Sad! www.youtube.com/bundangbear GO NOW!

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee

Joined: 25 May 2003

Posted: Tue Oct 21, 2008 3:09 pm Post subject:

rusty1983 wrote:

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote:

The UN is not the law.

Saddam never gave up his war. Saddam's regime was illegitimate .

If the UN was a group of moral actors acting for the sake of justice that would be one thing, it isn't.

For the record the US couldn't even get permission to hit back for 9-11 from the UN.

rusty1983

Joined: 30 Jan 2007

Posted: Tue Oct 21, 2008 4:16 pm Post subject:

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote:

rusty1983 wrote:

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote:

Alright man, the guy above had me, no such thing as 'legal and illegal wars'.

Display posts from previous:

	Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4
Page 4 of 4

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe