VYAZMA, thank you for your responses. I’m just trying to get a handle on where you stand.
First, the US went to war with the Nazis because we saw a threat to the order of our territories and resources as expressed through certain allied interests.
So was the U.S. going to war with Nazi Germany a just war?
As far as terrorist attacks. That's not war! Terrorist attacks are most often the extreme expression of ideals.
Bin laden's own words (and actions, in my opinion) disagree:
In August 1996, bin Laden declared war against the United States...He issued a fatw against the United States...entitled "Declaration of War against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places. [Emphasis added.]
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden
Rocinante-So was the U.S. going to war with Nazi Germany a just war?
Yes from both the objective and subjective stances. IMHO
Objective for all the reasons I have listed here and in other threads lately. If a nation was a person....that's what that person would do. Protect resources.
It's not a person, it's a nation. And that's what a nation would do if it had the ability.
Now subjectively, it was just because the Nazis were waging a war of naked aggression. On a large scale. Conquering whole nations at will.
The subjective side as a sidenote, is where the Flag waving comes in, and the dutiful call to arms, the ideals, etc etc...The US participation in WWII against the Nazis was a war
in which this dutiful call to arms(ideals) could be pretty well justified.
Bin laden's own words (and actions, in my opinion) disagree:
In August 1996, bin Laden declared war against the United States...He issued a fatw against the United States...entitled "Declaration of War against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places. [Emphasis added.]
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden
Well obviously this is semantics. And this could open up a whole new topic of discussion.
In short, lets give you the benefit of the doubt and say it was war.(which doesn't really fit the definition at all on a number of levels, and I disagree.)
In this case they were fighting a war for ideals we'll say. But as you quoted here above. They were also fighting the war for Territory(and the attendant resources)
Territory in this instance being "holy places".
But again wars are fought between nations. Bin Laden's organization isn't a nation. They have no territory or country.
But they are obviously fighting for assumed territory and resources.
In both scenarios, the territory and resources comes first. Ideals can be tagged on to suit the specific purpose. But the over-riding ideal is property(territory and resources).
The definition and interpretation of property and rights to property. However they are interpreted. That interpretation is usually manifested into
"ideals" sometimes more aptly than others we'll say.
I agree that al-q’aeda is not a nation-state. But I disagree that a nation-state is required on all sides for it to be considered a war. Al-q’aeda would have territory if they could. So by your definition, once they get one little piece of dirt carved out for themselves, then the definition changes. That’s all that they are missing in their war. They have their own flag, fighters, a group of people with shared and common beliefs, weapons, desired goals, attack plans and plenty of killing of people. Ignoring all those aspects (especially the killing) of their war by demanding they must have borders is missing the big picture.
Insisting that a nation-state with defined borders on a map is a prerequisite before it can be properly defined as a war is refusing to accept the changing realities of the 21st Century. That’s like saying today’s cell phones are not phones at all because they don’t have cords, rotary dials and bells. The underlying concept is still there - talk to other people over a distance. It was a phone when Bell made it then. It is a phone when Apple makes it today. It was a war when Germany had borders on a map then. It is a war when al-Q’aeda kills thousands today.
Rocinante, I didn’t want to move this to a discussion about the definition of war or nations.
Wars are fought over resources and territory.
Al Queda is fighting a war for resources and territory. They use the ideals part to get whackos to crash planes into buildings.
There's been discussion as to how and why we invaded Iraq.
Whatever the justification was, objectively the ends justified the means.
Interesting thread and since you and Rocinante seem to be covering a lot of bases I'm trying to keep my peanut gallery comments to a minimum - but just running through this from top again - your 2nd sentence caught my attention.
Does that comment imply that you think our invasion of Iraq was a success?
There's been discussion as to how and why we invaded Iraq.
Whatever the justification was, objectively the ends justified the means.
Interesting thread and since you and Rocinante seem to be covering a lot of bases I'm trying to keep my peanut gallery comments to a minimum - but just running through this from top again - your 2nd sentence caught my attention.
Does that comment imply that you think our invasion of Iraq was a success?
That is a great question CC!! I don't really know. I would have to say partly. To be honest I haven't looked too deeply into it.
Mainly because it was such a debacle from so many other angles.
Bin laden's own words (and actions, in my opinion) disagree:
In August 1996, bin Laden declared war against the United States...He issued a fatw against the United States...entitled "Declaration of War against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places. [Emphasis added.]
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden
Well obviously this is semantics. And this could open up a whole new topic of discussion.
In short, lets give you the benefit of the doubt and say it was war.(which doesn't really fit the definition at all on a number of levels, and I disagree.)
In this case they were fighting a war for ideals we'll say. But as you quoted here above. They were also fighting the war for Territory(and the attendant resources)
Territory in this instance being "holy places".
But again wars are fought between nations. Bin Laden's organization isn't a nation. They have no territory or country.
But they are obviously fighting for assumed territory and resources.
In both scenarios, the territory and resources comes first. Ideals can be tagged on to suit the specific purpose. But the over-riding ideal is property(territory and resources).
The definition and interpretation of property and rights to property. However they are interpreted. That interpretation is usually manifested into
"ideals" sometimes more aptly than others we'll say.
Wikipedia isnt the best of sources. Interestingly, here is what wikipedia itself says
Wikis, including Wikipedia and other wikis sponsored by the Wikimedia Foundation, are not regarded as reliable sources.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_source_examples#Are_wikis_reliable_sources.3F
Beyond that, people have a tendency of exagerating when a war has started
The organization has become for this generation what communism was for their parents and grandparent: a monolithic evil force inimical to their very way of life. If pressed most American would define Al Qaeda as an organization created by Osama bin Laden to make war on the United States because... he hates "our way of life". The local political issues motivating bin Laden and those who follow him received little attention in the United States as does the complex and evolving nature of al-Qaeda. The decision to dub the struggle against al Qaeda a "Global war on Terrorism" reflects a cold war mentality that sees international affairs as a Manichean contest between good and evil.... a broad ideological struggle between worldviews has replaced traditional rivalries between power blocs and alliancesThe "New" Terrorism: Myths and Reality
By Thomas R. Mockaitis, former Eisenhower Chair at the Royal Military Academy of the Netherlands
page 51
http://books.google.com/books?id=MRecbU3FHmoC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Myths+and+reality&hl=en&sa=X&ei=pnHTUYGuLsXuyQH4xoCQBQ&ved=0CEgQ6AEwBQ
The medias deception mentioned has been documented by Phillip Giraldi
http://original.antiwar.com/giraldi/2012/04/03/the-islamophobia-excuse/
For a more funny presentation see
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6przuCU822w (this is sort of going off the topic 9-11)
Well put, Abdul. I’m not sure that you interpreted the Wikipedia’s claim to mean they were disclaiming themselves as means to obtain truthful information. It would imply that you couldn’t trust even this article. Their point of discussion likely centered on the acceptable criteria for fair documenting in formal papers and arguments. I think most people understand that it is wise to question a source like Wikipedia as adequate proof for formal arguments. But as the document you refer to says, making use of the linking and knowing how and when they denote titles, can help people aim for the the official sources.
Doesn’t everyone know by now that the oil economy is an international market?
It doesn’t matter who controls the oil (not much, anyway) in terms of the oil coming to market. But it does matter what the nations who profit do with the money.
What would Saddam Hussein do with oil profits? Build up Kurdish enclaves and help them prosper? Build quality hospitals and schools for the Shiites? No, of course not. Hussein wanted regional power. Once off the hook for U.N. sanctions he’d revert to type and compete with Iran in terms of arms, including developing weapons of mass destruction. And that’s exactly why regime change was the goal in Iraq, not oil. We’re not controlling the oil in Iraq. China’s positioning to do that (in part because of President Obama’s ineffective diplomacy with Iraq).
An Iraq friendly to the West can control its own oil. We’d be fine with that.
At present our main problem with Iraq is the resurgence of radical Sunni (al Qaeda) sects. China controlling the oil’s not that huge a problem. It helps improve the market for selling Jeeps made in China, for example. The biggest problem in Iraq is the security problem, just as it was before the war.
We had Iraq's oil for decades. We attacked to protect that oil!!
Saddam obviously was going to start talking to other parties about that oil.
Oil's a global market. If Hussein sold it to China Iraqi production still brings the price of oil down internationally. It doesn't really matter who gets it except under conditional like an embargo. We're about to let Canada sell the oild from its oil sands to China instead of shipping it to U.S. refineries. Or do you predict we'll attack Canada to prevent that from happening?
As far as terrorist attacks. That's not war! Terrorist attacks are most often the extreme expression of ideals.
Terrorism is the new way of war. At least until somebody figures out something better (using the term advisedly). The key to successful war is always technological and tactical advantage. Terrorism offers poor nations a tactical advantage against advanced nations, so that's why they use it. But electromagnetic pulse weapons or cybersabotage may eventually serve as the tactical advantage that renders nuclear deterrence obsolete and returns us to the era of catastrophic world war.
Insisting that a nation-state with defined borders on a map is a prerequisite before it can be properly defined as a war is refusing to accept the changing realities of the 21st Century.
Exactly. War is historically a violent tool in the political toolbox. Sometimes nations are the ones playing politics. Other times it's churches or ethnic groups. War is available to any political group as a means of accomplishing its aims. And the ways of war are as infinite as the imagination. The West tried to codify the rules of war. That's what the Geneva conventions were all about. The asymmetrical mode of war preferred by terrorists rejects the Geneva conventions, largely because the small and radical sects judge that they have no chance of success by that set of rules.
Oil's a global market. If Hussein sold it to China Iraqi production still brings the price of oil down internationally. It doesn't really matter who gets it except under conditional like an embargo. We're about to let Canada sell the oild from its oil sands to China instead of shipping it to U.S. refineries. Or do you predict we'll attack Canada to prevent that from happening?
Thanks for letting us Canadians sell this oil, but I guess you aren't apparently aware that most of the oil here is shipped through pipelines that go directly to the States. In fact, the pipelines dip South into the States before they are allowed to go back North into Ontario. (That is, America is given precedence over our own country's concerns for the oil.)
... Terrorism offers poor nations a tactical advantage against advanced nations, so that's why they use it.
Yeah, like the technologically advanced capabilities of the box cutter!!? ...and the super-intelligent brains it must take to recognize that pilots don't lock their doors? These must have taken years and years and millions of dollars to pull this one off!
Rocinante, I didn't want to move this to a discussion about the definition of war or nations.
That's fine, and I understand. And thanks for answering my side questions. But I don't know what else to discuss regarding your original claim about the Iraq war being about oil. It is a conspiracy theory plain and simple. It is not grounded in facts. Just saying, "Everyone knows this" doesn't make it so.
You have every right to your opinion that the war was wrong or a mistake. But your original "elementary" claim of, "We invaded Iraq for oil" in your first post of this thread is a conspiracy theory that any skeptic should reject after careful evaluation. But you apparently haven't rejected it. So all I can do is point out the flaws in your conspiracy theory (see Brian Dunning's Skeptoid article I posted) and hope you honestly reevaluate your position. But I've learned the hard way from attempting to have prolonged, logical and rational discussions with Troofers and other conspiracy theorists not to get into a long discussions with them about their favorite CT. They rarely seem to abandon their conspiracy theory.
Don't let your facetiousness shield you from the point that Canada wants to send the oil to the U.S. via the Keystone Pipeline but will find another buyer if the U.S. turns its nose up at the opportunity to buy it (thus controlling its destination by that simple action).
, but I guess you aren't apparently aware that most of the oil here is shipped through pipelines that go directly to the States.
Are you serious? What would that have to do with my point, where I specifically mentioned the oil from tar sands (slated to move through the proposed Keystone pipeline)?
... Terrorism offers poor nations a tactical advantage against advanced nations, so that's why they use it.
Yeah, like the technologically advanced capabilities of the box cutter!!? ...and the super-intelligent brains it must take to recognize that pilots don't lock their doors? These must have taken years and years and millions of dollars to pull this one off!
Did you read what I wrote?
Terrorism offers an advantage to those who can't afford to spend much on war. Box cutters are cheap. And they worked.
How can you fail to see the point?
Doesn't everyone know by now that the oil economy is an international market?
It doesn't matter who controls the oil (not much, anyway) in terms of the oil coming to market. But it does matter what the nations who profit do with the money.
What do you mean not much anyway?
We're not controlling the oil in Iraq. China's positioning to do that.
Yeah, that's exactly what I said.
An Iraq friendly to the West can control its own oil. We'd be fine with that.
Right, very good. Very good. So it does matter who controls the oil. And oil isn't simply an international commodity.
Large nations have strategic long term interests in who controls the oil, or the countries with the oil more specifically.
At present our main problem with Iraq is the resurgence of radical Sunni (al Qaeda) sects. China controlling the oil's not that huge a problem. It helps improve the market for selling Jeeps made in China, for example. The biggest problem in Iraq is the security problem, just as it was before the war.
Rocinante, I didn't want to move this to a discussion about the definition of war or nations.
That's fine, and I understand. And thanks for answering my side questions. But I don't know what else to discuss regarding your original claim about the Iraq war being about oil. It is a conspiracy theory plain and simple. It is not grounded in facts. Just saying, "Everyone knows this" doesn't make it so.
Yeah, that's ok if you don't know what else to discuss.
I have an idea for you...why don't you briefly discuss the reasons we invaded Iraq.
Bryan-Don't let your facetiousness shield you from the point that Canada wants to send the oil to the U.S. via the Keystone Pipeline but will find another buyer if the U.S. turns its nose up at the opportunity to buy it (thus controlling its destination by that simple action).
Well Bryan that shouldn't matter right? If it's an international market like you said....we can just buy it from who ever it is piped to. Yeah just buy it at the price quoted on the Ticker down at Wall St.
So what does the pipeline matter?
Doesn't everyone know by now that the oil economy is an international market?
What do you mean not much anyway?
Sometimes one country will embargo another. Under normal conditions it doesn't matter. Come time of war it can matter a bunch (one of the reasons we ended up in conflict with Japan. Japan expanded in the Eastern rim largely to secure access to oil resources).
We're not controlling the oil in Iraq. China's positioning to do that.
Yeah, that's exactly what I said.
Right, so if we attack nations in order to control oil then we should attack Canada. No?
An Iraq friendly to the West can control its own oil. We'd be fine with that.
Right, very good. Very good. So it does matter who controls the oil. And oil isn't simply an international commodity.
Large nations have strategic long term interests in who controls the oil, or the countries with the oil more specifically.
Sure it matters who controls the oil. But hadn't you asserted that we attacked Iraq so that the U.S. could control the oil?
Wow what a cool fun fact!
It's a cool fun fact that undercuts your argument about Iraq. We're not controlling Iraq's oil. We get less of it now than we did before the war. And that's fine, because the reason for the war was security, not that we wanted to control Iraq's oil. Our current primary interest in Iraq is not what it does with its oil but what it does about the terrorists that live within its borders. Security was always the primary concern, and oil access was a lesser concern in the realm of security.