Piano World Home Page Forums Restricted and Archives The Coffee Room Il Duce's Justification for Attacks on The United States

Copied from a Different Thread

You are exactly right, James. This is why the US and other intelligent nations have shied away from justifying preemptive strikes. Il Duce's regime has justified it for everyone in the world.

Il Duce has told the world there is justification to attack another country if you decide they are a clear and present danger to you. He then goes on and makes direct threats against all sorts of countries and groups -- showing the United States to be a clear and present danger to them. By his own words, he has justified any and all attacks on American soil by these groups who see us as an enemy who is ready, willing and able to attack them.

But we are different, people will say. We do good in the world. We only want to make the world safe. We are the good guys, they are the bad!

Not in their minds. In their minds, they are good and we are evil. And Il Duce has told them what a country is justified in doing when another country they percieve to be evil threatens them with bombs, troops, invasions.

And so, there is not a rogue state in the world, not a terrorist group in the world that does not now have justification to attack the United States. And, Il Duce, who is supposed to be protecting us, has given them not only the justification, but the words to use to justify it.

Welcome back George. I see we're back to equating our president with an Italian dictator. That's nice. Have fun. I guess we could wait until a few thousand of our people are gassed or nuked and see how we feel about it moving against Iraq then but I doubt if the present Administration will let things go that far if they can help it. Talk to ya later bud. I gotta go.

Welcome back!!!

George, congratulations on reaching post #20. It was enjoyable learning a bit about you, your pianos, your taste in piano music, and even reading your take on politics without the name calling. Go ahead, blast Bush by equating him to a war criminal today; you patiently waited to do it.

But before you completely fall back into that style, stop and think: didn't you feel better, and weren't your points more readily discernable when you weren't engaged in the histrionics? Didn't you get more relevant response to your points when you didn't alienate half your audience just by your choice of vocabulary?

I want to sincerely compliment you on 20 good posts. I feel as if I know you a bit better now. I'm in a bit of a rush at the moment, so my reply to the content of your post will be brief.

I refuse to accept the notion that you and shantinik seem to be espousing; that the administrations of Iraq and the United States are morally equal, and that for the U.S. to possess weapons of mass destruction is no better than Iraq having them. I refuse to accept the moral relativism embodied in the proposition that for us to threaten to take pre-emptive actions to ensure our safety gives moral endorsement for a similar position from Iraq. To accept that position requires one to think that "we" are no more right than "they" are. And I'm sorry, regardless of whether others around the world may disagree, personally, I couldn't even kill enough brain cells via lobotomy to adopt that stance.

We have a moral right, and obligation, to discern right from wrong, and good from bad. I can look at the situation, and without the slightest problem, discern that while not perfect, we are good, and Saddam is bad. Once I settle that issue, I have no problem with the "right" side adopting a security policy that I would not accept my opponent having. We are not one world, as Paul Harvey would say. We are not equally good. And right must protect itself from bad.

I believe that if the case can be made to the American people that Saddam is a clear & present danger, we have every right to attack pre-emptively. I'm close to agreeing that the threat is imminent, but I'm not quite there yet. Before fully accepting that (and thereby agreeing with a pre-emptive strike), I would want to see the President Bush take his case directly to the population, as President Kennedy did during the Cuban missile crisis. Show us good intelligence photos, share documents, whatever. Before any paradigm-shifting pre-emptive attack, the president owes that to the American people.

That wasn't brief, and, now I'm really behind here. Welcome "back" George - I think.

We have no other countries with us. Not in Europe nor the Arab countries. Tony Blair presents a facade of support but he is highly criticized by his countrymen as Bushes lacky. They have as much or more to lose as we do. It depends on which expert one listens to. Some believe it will alienate the Arab countries and turn them against us. The fall of Hussein could splinter the country into several factions all of which hate us. Are we prepared to occupy Iraq indefinitely? We need to look at this very closely. I really do not want another Vietnam. Mutually assured destruction kept the Soviet Union at bay and they had thousands of nuclear warheads aimed at us. Toppeling a dictator has never worked. One as bad always takes his place. Countries creat their own leaders one way or another. There are thousands of Hitlers and Huseins in the world just waiting for the right conditions to manifest themselves and allow them to come to power.

?

Citing just two relatively recent examples, Hitler and - dare I say? - Il Duce?

What some around the world dislike about us is our lack of resolve to stand up for what we say we believe and represent. Too many times, we've gone wobbly in the face of what was, in relative terms, rather minor opposition. We've been pegged, correctly, by many as not really having the stomach to stick to our words when the chips were down. A very strong case could be made that by taking the right position, and actually sticking with it even if it becomes difficult, will actually enhance our respect in many parts of the world.

Half of the people who don't respect us have the attitude due to our proven track record of vacillation and, therefore, unpredictability. The other half just don't like us, for any number of reasons, and nothing we do, right or wrong, will ever change that. We need to show the first group that we can have the courage to back up our talk. And I don't give a tinker's dam about the second group.

I do not find a moral equivalency between the United States and Iraq. I don't even find a moral equivalency between Saddam and Il Duce. Clearly there is not.

However, I believe Il Duce has set policies and is making statements that place the United States in a very vulnerable position.

When the President of the United States, no matter who he is, sets rules for engagement, the world listens and they are given an immediate credibility because they are the policy of the United States.

Il Duce has said a preemptive strike is acceptable if a country is a direct threat to another country. Now, you and I may see a difference between how the United States would act under such a rule, but others will not be so sensitive in their compliance. What they hear is that they can attack without provocation if they feel there is a direct threat.

So, what does Il Duce do? He makes a direct threat -- and worldwide one. A very specific threat to over throw the government of Iraq. And a less specific threat that the United States will go anywhere and use any force it deems necessary if it so wishes to eliminate terrorism -- a classification of warriors the world does not agree on.

If you are the leader of Iraq or some other country that has American-defined terrorists in it, you have now received a direct threat from the United States and, under what you and the entire world has heard Il Duce say, you have the right to make a preemptive strike against the country which made the threat -- in this case, the United States.

Thus, as I see it, Il Duce has placed this country at peril. He has provided the justification for a preemptive attack on the United States (such as the one on 9/11) for anyone who feels they are threatened by the United States.

Anyone here may disagree about whether these others have the right or if they are truly threatened, but we have to see things through the eyes of those who do not like us, who consider us the enemy. And in their eyes, Il Duce has justified their style of warfare.

NOT a smart thing to do.

On the question of whether Iraq is a clear and present danger to the United States? The problem with the way the Il Duce regime is substantiating this is that what they use to justify it are all criticisms that can be made against the United States, which is what I am saying and I think Shantinik is saying. And by using these justifications to attack Iraq, Il Duce is simply giving justification to those who would attack us.

Consider again, the view of this argument by those outside of the United States who neither trust nor like us.

It is argued that Hussein should be attacked because he has the capacity for biological warfare and has used it in the past. But so does the US and so have we in the past. If we justify attacking Iraq for this, our enemies can justify attacking us for this.

It is argued that Hussein should be attacked because he is trying to get nuclear weapons to use against his enemies. But the United States already has them and it has used them in the past. If we justify attacking Iraq for this, our enemies can justify attacking us for this.

It is argued that Hussein should be attacked because he is trying to acquire long-range missiles and could deliver nuclear and chemical weapons. The United States has those weapons. If we justify attacking Iraq for this, our enemies can justify attacking us for this.

It is argued that Hussein should be attacked because he will enter sovereign countries and over throw the government. The US has just done that in Afghanistan. If we justify attacking Iraq for this, our enemies can justify attacking us for this.

Now, we all may see the weapons of the US and what we have done as totally justified and used very scrupulously. The problem we face though is -- again when viewed by those who do not like us and feel we are immoral -- if the United States can justify attacking Hussein for these reasons, then they can justify attacking the United States for these reasons.

In our last war with Iraq, Hussein had clearly broken international law by invading another country. The world understands a reaction to that. But today, the justification Il Duce is giving for attacking Iraq can be turned right around and justify attacking us.

Again, not a smart move.

If Il Duce is going to lead us to war in Iraq, he is going to have to show a direct threat to the United States itself. Not a threat to Israel. Not a threat to the poil fields which the Arabs view as theirs not ours. Not a threat to anyone other than the United States. He has not done this yet. Perhaps he can, but he has not done this yet. Until he does, any action we take against Iraq for the reasons Il Duce has given can be used by our enemies to take action against us.

Moral eqivalency? No, not in my mind. But in the mind of our enemies who attacked on September 11? Yes. And Il Duce is simply giving them a way to justify further attacks.

What "some" around the world, respectively Europe, dislike about the US is WHAT you believe and represent, not your inability of carrying it out. What we dislike is the imperialistic attitude of the current and past US administration.

Well, if you take the right position. A war on Iraq currently is not considered the right decision in Europe.
So, if that's what you mean I sincerely doubt that it will enhance the US's respect, at least not in Germany.
As others have pointed out already, most European countries are not seeing the US being threatened by Hussein and therefore don't see the justification for a war.

What "some" around the world, respectively Europe, dislike about the US is WHAT you believe and represent, not your inability of carrying it out.

Individual freedom and democracy?

What we dislike is the imperialistic attitude of the current and past US administration.

Because it reminds Europeans of their past glory which they let dwindle away??
Because Europeans have matured beyond imperialism?...to antisemetism?

Nici,

I like you, so don't take this the wrong way, but who saved Germany from Hitler? Friends usually support their friends.

Derick

So far, we have examined this issue in terms of the question, "does Saddam Hussein represent a danger to us as a people". Many have maintained that he does not or, at least, that such a danger cannot be or has not, so far, been demonstrated. Fair enough. I believe that once he has the capability (if he does not already) he would not hesitate to attack us. I cannot prove that and it is doubtful that, as the bar seems to be set right now, it will never be proved to some people's satisfaction until people are actually dying on our soil.

Let us now look at the question from a slightly different perspective. Does anyone really believe that, once Saddam Hussein acquires WMD capability, he will not use it on somebody? Israel, Iran, Saudi Arabia, or fill in the blank? His track record for restraint is not so good in this respect unlike our own (despite obfuscation that suggests that because we used them sixty years ago and never again through many armed conflicts we represent as much danger to the world possessing them as Iraq. At least in the eyes of the "world"). If not then why is he in such a lather to possess them?

If he uses them on someone does anyone seriously think that the US could just "sit it out"? Even if we can resist the same handwringing and cries to "so something" by those same people, in the same way, that got us involved in the Balkans (and who oppose us at present), could we really just sit through a major disruption of the world's oil supply?

I know that fighting for oil sounds ugly to us all but a collapse of the world economy can be far more ugly. We can engage in finger pointing about our (and the world's) dependence on Middle East oil and the lack of alternative energy sources but that does not change the state of the world now or for the foreseeable future.

So you see, it really is not a choice of fighting him or not fighting but whether we do it now or later. That is what I believe anyway and I believe that view is also shared by many in Washington on both sides of the political spectrum.

Looking at ourselves through the eyes of the "world" is not necessarily a bad thing but believing that our so-called friends will be consistent in what they perceive as a danger to them or us or pretending that our enemies even require a "justification" to attack us does not change the simple fact that Saddam Hussein in possession of WMD represents a grave danger to us and the rest of the "world" and must be stopped. If not now, when? If not by us, by whom?

Taking him on later may make taking him on now look like a square dance by comparison.

DT,
do you view imperialism as a glory, something to be proud of? I don't.
Has Europe overcome imperialism? I think so.
Have we replaced it with antisemitism? I don't think we are particularily antisemitic on the whole but there sure are tendencies, I have to admit. Tendencies which we have to fight and overcome just like imperialism.
Does this mean I'm not allowed to critises the imperialistic attitude in another country?
Especially when this country has shown that it doesn't have to rely on imperialistic behaviour in order to remain the world's leading power.

Derick,
I see a difference between the US fighting Hitler and the possible war on Iraq, don't you?

Friends should support their friends, no doubt. I'd be the first to stand up for this principle. So do you mean we (Germany and the rest of Europe)have to support all and every war the US is willing to have with another country on the basis that you freed us from Hitler? And that we are not allowed to express our opinion about what the US is planning on doing for the same reason? Being friends (if you'd like to call it that) also means to be critised by the other.
This doesn't mean that we won't support you if there is any need for support. We've already done so. The point I'm trying to make is that we don't see the need, at the moment.

I think our main point of difference is what does imperialism mean. The definition I've seen is that imperialism entails taking control of more area/countries, etc. through physical means. This has expanded a little to include economic means. Is there glory in that? I'm sure that there are those who look back to the days when Europe was the major power of the world and consider them the good, old days, the glory days. Did European countries do it when they had the ability? Yes, of course. Did they quit because they overcame the imperialism urge or because their power waned? I believe the former is a direct result of the latter. Is the U.S. trying to influence the direction other countries head? Of course, we're looking out for own interests. Is the U.S. trying to take permanent control of other countries as an imperialist would do? No. Freedom is too valuable to us.

On Being Disliked

The term "imperialism" would suggest that we are, in some way , attempting to build an empire. Certainly our past behavior would not suggest that we have that tendency since we have, militarily, overrun huge chunks of this planet and have not extended our territory as a result ( the Europeans certainly never behaved this way). We just gave it back to the indigenous people. Unless there has been a major shift in American sentiment that I have not noticed, I would not expect this to change any time soon.

Nici,

DT made some very good points. But let me add that Saddam is like a little Hitler. He's gassed his own people. And, according to US intelligence, he's got weapons of mass destruction. Remember most Germans looked the other way when Hitler came into power. Some knew what was going on. Most, probably, did not.

You do realize that once Saddam is taken out it will cost the US billions of dollars to station peace-keeping forces in Iraq. These forces would be necessary to stabilize the entire middle east. Why on earth would the US want to start a war and spend billions of dollars for no reason?

And, those peace-keeping forces would not only be in our (US) best interest, but also all of Europe as well.

Derick

George

Thank you for articulating the concerns many of us have so well.

There is an article on the front page of the LA Times this morning. Headline: "US Returns to theory of Iraqi Link to September 11. Washington Is Overriding FBI, CIA Doubts on Meeting in Prague, Official says."

The article states that while the FBI and CIA have "deep" doubts that there is an Iraqi connection, the White House is going back to claims that Mohammed Atta met with an Iraqi agent in Prague and this is the link between Hussein and 9/11.

This of course is not a new story. What is interesting is that both the FBI and the CIA see this as unimportant after tremendous analysis. But the White House is overrriding these findings when it tries to make its case for an attack on Iraq.

Who in the White House is in a position to have more information than the FBI and CIA on this? Why is the White House going to such lengths that it is ignoring its own investigative arms to make arguments which those who do this for a living feel are erroneous?

Nici is expressing a view that one reads throughout the European press, not to mention the Middle Eastern press and the Asian press. And why would they not think this way if this is the type of thing the White House is doing -- ignoring its own investigative agencies?

This is NOT the process of good decision making. It certainly is not the basis upon which we should be sending American troops into harms way.

I knew I shouldn't have peeked in here during work. There's so much and so many I want to respond to, and at length, and won't have a chance to until this evening. Dang!

Might this be the article to which you are referring? Of interest is the following quote:

"A federal law enforcement official said Thursday, however, that the FBI has been reviewing Atta's possible ties to Iraq, including travel and phone records, with "renewed vigor" in recent weeks. He said he didn't know whether any clear connections had now been found, but he called the case one of the "more urgent" priorities for the bureau."

Which does not indicate to me that the FBI considers this to be a settled matter.

At any rate, I feel that revenge for 9/11 is much less of a justification for eliminating Saddam Hussein than many of the others already put forth.

George's continual references to Bush by another name, reminds me of a beautiful woman with a bad case of halitosis. You'd like to get close enough to listen to what she is saying, but why bother?

As far as whether we go to war with Iraq, that die has been cast already. If Saddam does not allow inspections, or evidence is found that he has tried to supply WMDs to terrorists, he's toast.

Read a few military publications, folks. Our capabilities have increased, while his defensive abilities have decreased. The M1A2 is twice as deadly as it's predecessor. Our smart bombs are better. The Super Hornet is now in service. And our soldiers are still the world's best. Without a wave of support by the Iraqi populance, the conflict would be short, and decisive.

Personally, I'm more worried about the transfer of Russian military technology to China, and the subsequent Russian-Chinese war games that have been scheduled. Plus the fact that China is rapidly building a blue water navy. Straits of Formosa, anyone?

Imperialistic America? While I would be the first to assert that the last century, was the American Century, and historians will one day look back, and chronicle this nation as the most infuential and powerful of it's day, neither the American people, nor their leaders of whatever political persuasion, have any desires for any of the trappings or possesions of what classicly would be considered an empire.

Are we going to be the World police? Let Germany, France, Japan, Italy, Spain, etc, do their part. If they feel threatened then perhaps we might join them. They are as intelligent as we are and able to evaluate the situation. Just because we are the most powerful and rich does not give us the right to tell other countries what to do. "America right or wrong?" Gimme a break! We tried that in the 60's and it flew back in our faces. Ever notice how presidents who never engaged in combat are the most anxious to get it on? What would Eisenhower do in this situation? I think he would wait and see. The world is full of people who posses nuclear bombs who hate us. I guess they do not have enough oil so we leave them alone. Solving one problem creates 10 others. I really think it will be a big mistake to attack Iraq unilaterally. It will be a bigger mistake to bully other countries into joining us. Let them take the lead. I am not ready for our children to die. War is just a bunch of old farts sending young men and women to their deaths. Anyone who votes for this should have to lead the attack. I am a little suprised that Dubya is so gung ho since his Dad backed off. After all Bush Sr. and Hussein are old buddies. We cannot go after someone because we think they might do us harm. We need better proof than we currently possess. Oh, what the heck. One, two, three, what are we fighting for? Dont ask me. What the heck. Next stop is old Iraq. Well its five, six, seven, open up the Pearly Gates. There ain't no time to wonder why, Whoopee we're all going to die! (Thanks Country Joe and the Fish.)