humanities.philosophy.objectivism

> > On Mar 15, 7:33 pm, Gordon Sollars wrote:
>
> > > Bush did not say the threat was "imminent" - if it had been imminent, he
> > > could have kept to the Caroline Doctrine. Rather, the argument is:
>
> > On the one side you are saying "preemptive" means "imminent".... on
> > the other you are saying Bush is saying his definition of preemption
> > didn't mean imminent? Then why call he call it preemption in the first
> > place? And while technically he didn't use the word "imminent" (sort
> > of like your link)....,,,
>
> He wanted the the prestige of "preemptive". He wanted to claim that he
> was still within international law. Remember, e.g., the U.S. government
> does not torture, because that would be against international law.
>
> > Absolutely." - White House spokesman Ari Fleischer answering whether
> > Iraq was an "imminent threat," 5/7/03
>
> > "This is about imminent threat." - White House spokesman Scott
> > McClellan, 2/10/03
>
> What do you expect from someone in the role of White House spokesman.
> We are completely in sound bite territory here.
>
> > "Iraq poses a serious and mounting threat to our country" -. Donald
> > Rumsfeld, 1/29/03
>
> A "serious and mounting threat" need not be "imminent".
>
> > Some have argued that the nuclear threat from Iraq is not imminent -
> > that Saddam is at least 5-7 years away from having nuclear weapons. I
> > would not be so certain. And we should be just as concerned about the
> > immediate threat from biological weapons. Iraq has these weapons." -.
> > Donald Rumsfeld, 1/29/03
>
> Note that Rumsfeld does not say the threat is "imminent"; rather, he
> focuses on uncertainty. We are uncertain how imminent it is, so we
> should act as if it were imminent because of the size of the threat.
>
> > "The Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency."-- President Bush,
> > 10/2/02
>
> > "The world is also uniting to answer the unique and urgent threat
> > posed by Iraq" President Bush, 11/23/02
>
> What was the context? Look, it is not surprising - to me anyway - to
> see Bush want to claim the threat is "urgent" or "imminent", while at
> the same time having his policy wonks argue that, technically,
> "imminent" is no longer necessary. That is just "arguing in the
> alternative".
>
> > "This man poses a much graver threat than anybody could have possibly
> > imagined." - President Bush, 9/26/02
>
> Again, the size of the risk is the issue.

Those quotes took me all of ten minute search to find.. I'm pretty
sure there are great many more comments of this sort leading up to
Iraq war The cumulative effect of such comments was clearly to
encourage a sense of urgent doom on the horizon. Sort of like your
article that doesn't say specifically "imminent".. I'd say the pattern
of comments is suggestive of the idea the threat was imminent.

> Potroast, old boy, there is indeed a body of international law that
> "existed prior". I am sitting here looking at a book that contains 1745
> pages of international law, and another book of 1500 pages about the
> first book.

Yeah I'm probably projecting because the idea of preventative or
preemptive war seems so archaic to me. It's not like ancient Rome
where one notices a fleet of ships are amassing off one's coast
anymore (or tanks during WW1). In the modern world the window from the
great leader saying "attack"... to full blown nuclear war is minutes
or hours not days or weeks. This effectively boils down the concept
of imminent threat to psychoanalyzing leadership rather than any
specific military activities.

The real issue here isn't the past.... it's how useful is the
distinction today? Does it make sense to keep giving politicians the
opportunity to weasel there way into starting more wars using
"preemption" as an excuse? We already know it didn't accomplish much
positive in Iraq. If anything I think Americans are at far greater
risk today than they were on 9/11.

If Republicans win in 08 it seems probable they are going to push
for a war with Iran just like they did with Iraq. They are going to
pull of the same "preemption" attack bag of tricks. I think this
would be a huge mistake. Not because the US couldn't beat Iran in a
war but the day after there would be another state with terrorist
activities to govern. (and I believe Iran is far more prepared than
Iraqiis to do this)

Where Bush is going wrong is he thinks that by decapitating
leadership he can change attitudes. Religion is different than
politics though. People see themselves answerable to God not
leaders. The terrorism in Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc is mostly
leaderless. They will literally lurk for centuries waiting for an
opportunity. I know in Greece christians waited nearly 400 years to
rise up against the Ottomans for independence. (and lets not forget
the Christians originally took out the Romans who were ruthless at
first too)

> > Perhaps we are caught up a bit in semantics with the "is: but to me
> > it appears the law must have already changed. Bush has already used
> > it to attack Iraq in practice right?
>
> I invite you to consider the possibility that the law has not changed,
> and that the U.S. government *broke the law*. Once a customary rule
> becomes (international) law, it remains law until it is replaced by an
> another custom that becomes law. So far, other nations have not
> embraced the Bush Doctrine - but it is early in the game.

In my book.after all the legal and philosophical arguments are said
and done...the ultimate gage of the current laws land is force. If
Bush broke the law then he would be in a US jail. That he's not
speaks for itself.