"Consider what norm the administration’s planned attack will set for the world. The United States will be declaring not simply verbally but by using its overwhelming armed force that a state may justly launch a war against another much smaller and weaker state even though it cannot prove that the enemy represents an imminent, direct, and critical threat, or show that the threat could not be deterred or managed by means other than war. It need only claim that the regime and its leader are evil, harbor hostile intentions, were attempting to arm themselves with dangerous weapons, and might therefore attempt at some future time to carry out their hostile aims, and that this claim as to an opponent’s potential capabilities and intentions, a claim made solely by the attacking state and not subject to any international examination, justifies that state in eliminating the allegedly dangerous regime and leader preemptively."
Current Events » in reply to Re: An essay
A particularly good point.
The whole thread (56 posts)
- yet another good view from the anti-war perspective
- A lot of fallacious argumentation
- Re: A lot of fallacious argumentation
- I'm glad we agree then. Once we are done with Iraq will will insist that the other countries you mentioned disarm od WMD
- Re: I'm glad we agree then. Once we are done with Iraq will will insist that the other countries you mentioned disarm od WMD
- I'm glad we agree then. Once we are done with Iraq will will insist that the other countries you mentioned disarm od WMD
- Re: A lot of fallacious argumentation
- Re: An essay
- the anti-war perspective
- cleaned up and de-Cr'd version of the same text
- One size doesn't fit all
- Re:
- Re: Re:
- The point of reason
- Re: Re:
- A lot of fallacious argumentation
