US expert slams WMD 'delusions'

[Timber Loftis]

There was an incident a couple of years ago when a senior Israeli figure said that if Iraq attacked Israel with chemical weapons they would retaliate with nuclear ones and the country would "cease to exist".

Maybe, but despite the numerous SCUDs lobbed into Israel by Saddam during Gulf War Part I, Israel did NOT retaliate, I note.

Regarding the quote that if the only policy is "an eye for an eye" everyone ends up blind, I not that it is untrue. Those who have not taken an eye do not lose an eye.

Aside from that, I'm enjoying some really poignant observations from both sides of the issue.

For my own part, I sympathize with the plight of those beseiged by enemies on all sides, as Israel is. I also not that Black Baron is quite astute in pointing out that Israel gave Palestine numerous opportunities to curtail the terrorists. Palestine not only failed to do so, it also voiced support of many terrorist activities.

On the other hand, I cannot abide by claiming land as your own when it is the sovereign territory of another state.

[Cerek the Barbaric]

Originally posted by Mouse: Actually Cerek, what I was trying to do was to focus some thought on the justification for a pre-emptive attack on a sovereign state purely on the basis of the accusation that is has the potential or intention to possess WMD's at some point in the future. To me, the invasion of Iraq has established a worrying precident. Can you contemplate a stable future world where all one country or alliance has to do is accuse another of such a potential or intention to establish a legitimate reason to go to war? Just imagine if the PRC decided to invade Taiwan citing Iraq as a precident.

That is a good point, Mouse. And I agree that using the mere suspicion of WMD's as the primary justification for a pre-emptive strike does set a very disturbing precedent. If Iraq had been found to have WMD's by the U.N. teams (in violation of the numerous sanctions against them), then it would have provided a better justification for the U.S. to take action against them (cause I seriously doubt the U.N. would have done anything other than issue more sanctions and/or criticisms at Iraq for violating the sanctions already handed down). Still, even if they had WMD's, attacking them pre-emptively sets a rather dangerous precedent unless it could also be shown irrefutably that they had intentions of using those WMD's or selling them to terrorists.

On the other hand, if an enemy professes continued hatred towards your country and fully supports terrorists organizations that have promised to kill Americans at every opportunity - then you have to decide how many casualties you are willing to suffer before taking measure to prevent future loss of innocent lives.

Originally posted by Mouse: On the subject of Israel and the Palestinians, all I would say is when the only policy is "an eye for an eye", everyone ends up blind.

That's a cute cliche', Mouse, but it doesn't "work" in reality. Do you honostly believe Palestine will stop sending suicide bombers into Israel if Sharon suddenly declared they would stop ALL retaliatory strikes?

The other situation where the cliche' is applies is in discussions of the Death Penalty. Again, it's a great catch phrase that gives opponents of the D.P. a warm, fuzzy feeling of intellectual and moral superiority - but it also doesn't apply to most D.P. cases. People like Ted Bundy, Wayne Gacy, and other serial killers WILL kill again if they get a chance. The incident that finally led to Ted Bundy being captured AND sentenced to death was the brutal death of some sorority girls that he savagely bludgeoned to death with a piece of firewood. Before this incident, Bundy had been very careful in selecting his victims and had taken them to remote spots. But this night he simply couldn't control himself and his murderous tendencies. Why not? Because he had just recently escaped from jail after being locked up for 2.5 years and hadn't had a chance to exercise those homicidal impulses he had. Once he got out, he literally lost all control.

The point is that there ARE cases where the ONLY way to prevent any future deaths is to KILL the person that cannot control their urge to kill others. That is not "an eye for an eye", nor is it vengence. It is justice.

[Black Baron]

Mouse-note that Sharon did not retaliate for several long weeks against the palestinians ("Tkufat ha -havlaga"-the time of no retaliation, of containment). If you think that they stopped, you are wrong. Sharon showed the entire world that palestinians will carry out their bombings regardless of our action.

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by Mouse: Actually Cerek, what I was trying to do was to focus some thought on the justification for a pre-emptive attack on a sovereign state purely on the basis of the accusation that is has the potential or intention to possess WMD's at some point in the future. To me, the invasion of Iraq has established a worrying precident.

Actually, no it doesn't. Why? Because the Iraq situation was unique. Iraq had been a naughty little boy in the past and had been ordered to open up its programs for inspection, expunge its weapons, and abandond weapons programs. Iraq was under the threat of continued action if it failed to do so, and in fact there was never an end to the 1991 Gulf War, but merely a cease fire. So, for precedential value, Iraq is too unique to really provide anything. I hope your ministers have this argument under their hat if our gummint tries to use Iraq as a precedent for anything.

[shamrock_uk]

Originally posted by Black Baron: Mouse-note that Sharon did not retaliate for several long weeks against the palestinians ("Tkufat ha -havlaga"-the time of no retaliation, of containment). If you think that they stopped, you are wrong. Sharon showed the entire world that palestinians will carry out their bombings regardless of our action.

Agreed. But its about breaking the cycle. If Israel stopped all agression towards the Palestinians, then sure, some attacks would continue because a minority of Palestinians hate the Jews for irrational reasons. The difference would be that recruitment to these groups will almost cease completely because the average Palestinian would no longer see any justification for it.

It might take ten or twenty years; even fifty years for the current 'suicide bomb' generation to pass on. But eventually, it would stop.

I know your response is going to be "what rubbish, we can't just sit here and let people suicide bomb us without taking any action" and it would be a very reasonable point. But the alternative is to continue the cycle of aggression and then we will have suicide-bomb -> military retaliation -> suicide bomb etc for the next 100, 200 or 500 years. Somebody has to break the cycle.

The odds of convincing the Palestinians to do this are most small, plus as it is Israel in Palestinian territory rather than Palestinians in Israeli territory, the onus would naturally be on the Israeli's to make the first move.

If military retaliations stop, with every suicide-bomber that blows himself up there is one less terrorist left. With the current retaliation system in place, there are ten more waiting to take his place.

The best solution that I can see is to build your security fence, but do it all on Israeli land, and not use it to annex additional Palestinian territory. Stay out of Palestine for fifty years and Israel will have no more Palestinian terrorist problems.

Before you criticise this for being over-simplistic and completely unworkable, consider that Israel's tried it "your way" for the last fifty years and the security situation is now worse than ever. Surely anything is better than this...

[ 06-11-2004, 10:14 AM: Message edited by: shamrock_uk ]

[shamrock_uk]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: quote: Originally posted by Mouse: Actually Cerek, what I was trying to do was to focus some thought on the justification for a pre-emptive attack on a sovereign state purely on the basis of the accusation that is has the potential or intention to possess WMD's at some point in the future. To me, the invasion of Iraq has established a worrying precident.

Actually, no it doesn't. Why? Because the Iraq situation was unique. Iraq had been a naughty little boy in the past and had been ordered to open up its programs for inspection, expunge its weapons, and abandond weapons programs. Iraq was under the threat of continued action if it failed to do so, and in fact there was never an end to the 1991 Gulf War, but merely a cease fire. So, for precedential value, Iraq is too unique to really provide anything. I hope your ministers have this argument under their hat if our gummint tries to use Iraq as a precedent for anything. [/QUOTE]I would agree with Timber for very different reasons. Yes, Iraq is unique and no, it doesn't set a precedent. Largely because the US has intervened militarily without being attacked first in other countries every one or two years for the last half a century. There is no precedent here, merely a continuation. The only difference is that the world has finally woken up because Iraq was on a larger scale.

[ 06-11-2004, 10:15 AM: Message edited by: shamrock_uk ]

[Mouse]

For those who did not dig deeper into my previously posted link, here is some more food for thought.

[Mouse]

And a further link here.

For those of you who wonder if I'm compromising my "neutrality" as a Moderator by posting on this topic, please don't fret It's only by trying to understand the logic behind different interpretations of world events that you can come to a balanced view. Some of what I recommend may be "left leaning" some may be from the other side of the political spectrum, but it's all food for thought.

[Black Baron]

Shamrock your reasons are lacking.

1)we were under constant attack from arabian thugs for more than 100 years. The entire reason for IDF were these thugs, that grew bolder with each year due to Britain's policy of watching through their fingers and several other reasons.

2)We started to use this tactic several years ago, and not 56 years ago (our state is 56 not 50, thankyouverymuch ). In order to win we must fight for several more years. Now we see that our way of fighting is successful. The number of our civilian casualties is very low.
As a matter of fact it is declying (sp?) constantly, so our way is correct.

3)Due to the education system in PA and due to the Zealot way of islam there, the majority of young palestinians that do not remember (or do not know) the more happy days priour to 1-st intifadah, hates us. They will always hate us because they are told so. If you think that if we will pull out they will stop hating us you are wrong. Imams will find another "reason" to hate us. Compare by the way to our "peace now" and "entire generation wants peace" movements, as well to our parlament fractions that want "peace now". I also want peace, the question is about the quality of such an agreement not about the peace itself. Also compare to our education system that has lesons of tolerance and democrasy.

4)You forget the A factor. A is for Arafat. Compare the number of bombings prior to that *********** and after. He wants violent struggle, power and glory, and without this war he will have none of these.

5)We have iran, syria and Company. They sponsor terrorism and will see to more bombings regardless of our attempts for peace.

6)Name one serious reason for why the bombings of this generatiopn will stop with this generation, provided we do nothing but search for peace in diplomatic manner.

[Stratos]

Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric: The point is that there ARE cases where the ONLY way to prevent any future deaths is to KILL the person that cannot control their urge to kill others. That is not "an eye for an eye", nor is it vengence. It is justice.

I would call it 'practical neccessity' rather than justice. It can never be justice to punish a person for a crime they haven't commited yet, even if you feel absolutely certain they will commit it.

Consiquently, the War in Iraq, for example, could only be considered 'just' (or something in that direction) if the entire war was all about punishing Saddam for what he had done, NOT for what he might do with his alleged stockpile of WoMD. It could be argued, on the other hand, that getting rid of Saddam would be the most sensible and pragmatic thing to do if he poses a threat, but I wouldn't call it justice then.

I know you didn't say the thing about Iraq above, that was just an example to illustrate my point.