humanities.philosophy.objectivism

On Mar 16, 3:52 pm, Gordon Sollars wrote:
> In article <39c6c33e-17d6-415f-9f79-dee454619f76
> @m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, cbel...@bellsouth.net says...
>
> > = The doctrine of anticipatory self-defense is very old
> > For the ancient Greeks, notably Sparta, it was common.
>
> Try to keep up with the reading, Charles.  I have already cited the
> Caroline Doctrine.
> ...

I am saying (1) Caroline Doctrine does not matter *directly* in any
case; it is a fact that the Bush administration was presenting a case
to make new international law, not out of thin air, but on precedent
and not without prior attempts at peaceful resolution nor as an excuse
for aggression; and(2) Bush never invoked the Bush Doctrine.

You accepted "Potroast"'s false premise in the first place, probably
because you share his dead-end pacifist notions. [IOW, you are
libertarian who accepts, and not an Objectivist who rejects, that IOF
Principle applies to nations as it does to individuals.]

Essentially the whole argument for the Bush Doctrine applying to the
War in Iraq is wrong, even though it is true that the Administration
argued for that possibility at the time.


>
> > Remarks made by Charles Hill, Diplomat in Residence and Lecturer in
> > International Studies, Yale University; Research Fellow, the Hoover
> > Institution, Stanford University.
>
> > THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION PREEMPTION DOCTRINE AND THE FUTURE OF WORLD
> > ORDER  January 2004 . . .
>
> This is much the same argument made by Taft and Buchwald in their
> "Preemption, Iraq, and International Law".  It's bogus.  As I have
> argued:
>

Taft's argument I believe was that the U.N. charter itself implies the
right to preemptive self-defense, but literal and even fairly loose
reading of the Charter does not support that. Hill's argument is that
the U.N. is not enough, and never should be expected to be enough to
cover everything as it was not to be a wholesale replacement of
International Law.

Again, none of that matters unless you wish to make a case for
substitution of national sovereignty of any nation by U.N. Charter,
and that cannot be done. You might say the U.N. rejects the use, or
the threat of the use, of armed forces against any U.N. country not an
aggressing nation under the pretext (real or imagined) of combating
terrorism, and the Bush Doctrine says "forget you, U.N." if need be.
Again, be that as it may, Bush never implemented the Bush Doctrine.


>
> The Bush Doctrine is a clear departure from the Caroline Doctrine.  Even
> Bush's apologists recognize this.
>

Yes, and that is a good thing, should it ever be needed. I think a
very possible scenario was that Iran might have intervened overtly,
rather than just covertly, in Iraq, and without actually attacking any
U.S. troops and certainly not invading U.S. soil. The Bush Doctrine
could have meant the bombing of Tehran and any other sites in Iran
until Iran capitulated and stopped their activity. Such a Doctrine
would have come in handy in the Viet Nam War against Cambodia and Laos
and have made things open on both sides rather than covert, as VC and
NV regulars were all over those countries with the full knowledge and
acquiescence of the powers and the people in those countries. But
then, that was a proxy war not meant to actually be won. Kennedy and
the Cuban missile crisis and the MAD of the Cold War are variants of
pro-active anticipatory self-defense, not really outlined by anything
in the U.N. charter or the Caroline Doctrine

> > This *would* be
> > contrary to international law as formulated since 1945 *except* for
> > the presumption encompassed by the phrase in Article 51 concerning
> > "the capabilities and objectives of today's adversaries"...
>
> Here is Article 51:
>
> Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of
> individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against

I misspoke. That would be superimposing Caroline within the new
context of international terrorism by non-State entities onto article
51 and the fact that the U.N charter was intended to be *subsumed*
under existing, and future, international law and not a replacement,
nor impediment. Current International Law ought not to clearly
recognize the distinctions made in nineteenth century International
Law (implicit in the U.N. Charter) between "civilized" states that
were sovereign members of the family of nations and "uncivilized
states" that were excluded from the realm of international law. The
War in Afghanistan itself can be considered in this nebulous area of
war in "uncivilized" states. The fact of the matter was that the
government of Afghanistan did not, nor its people, nor its regular
State military, ever engage in the attacks of 9/11, nor presented an
imminent threat to the people of the United States. If Article 51
cannot be interpreted to take into account the changing circumstances
of modern times (already begun in 1945), and the emergence of non-
State entities working within States, then it is useless. Kofi Annan
himself said as much in a speech in 2003 when he said that if the U.N.
cannot work up a collective U.N. solution to international terrorism,
he would not be surprised (not condoning, of course) that more nations
than the U.S. will engage in unilateral preemptive action.



> Your ability to find the phrase "the capabilities and objectives of
> today's adversaries" in that text goes well with your inability to find
> the phrase "impose no obligations...except of a negative kind" in "Man's
> Rights".  

I am willing to admit I misspoke, as I had edited out some remarks
that made a transition in thoughts in that case. You, on the other
hand, still have neither been able to justify your false
interpretation of one phrase in Rand's writing or admit that you were
dead wrong in that interpretation. You throw around "Bush is an idiot"
with such intellectual disregard as to make Barrack Obama's pastor,
friend and political adviser, Rev. Wright, seem to be a open-hearted,
free-thinking humanist.