Would Kerry? Really?
One Steven Sturm, blogger at ThoughtsOnline, presents a convincing case that Kerry would NEVER use preemptive war to defend America, no matter what "plans" the Senator claims to have . . .
Read the whole argument at the link above; it is a compelling one.
I am going to prove my hypothesis that, while Kerry claims to be willing to take pre-emptive military action, in reality he is not. In order to do so, I’m going to stipulate to a number of conditions as I advance my arguments. I don’t believe that one could take issue with these stipulations – but I stand willing to entertain arguments to the contrary.
Stipulation #1: The war with Iraq is not an example of a situation that measures up to Kerry’s standards for justifiable pre-emptive military action. I think this is obvious, as he has said so many times.
Stipulation #2: The lack of a ‘genuine coalition’ is not what made Kerry determine the Iraq invasion to be the ‘wrong war’. Some might take issue with this one, but I’ve never heard Kerry say that this war would have been the ‘right war’ had ‘only’ some other countries signed on to the effort.
Stipulation #3: There is no difference between a country attacking us directly and providing support to a surrogate (country, group or individual) who attacks us. In both cases, the country will be deemed to have attacked us.
Stipulation #4: Attacking a country that has attacked us (or given support to those who have attacked us) is retaliatory in nature, and not pre-emptive, which, by definition, requires taking action in advance of an actual attack.
Stipulation #5: We would only use military force in advance of an attack if we believed that we were subject to attack – either by a particular country or by its surrogates. Taking military action lacking any such belief would be aggressive and not pre-emptive in nature.
What situations would give rise to us believing we were subject to an attack? Obviously, something along the lines of “I’m coming to get you” or “I’m going to help those who are coming to get you” would qualify. Were a country to take actions such as massing troops on our border, loading troop ships to sail to the United States, laying siege to our military bases overseas or so on, this too would also satisfy this test.
Read the whole argument at the link above; it is a compelling one.
posted by Adjoran at 4:38 AM
4 Comments:
Go back to the link you gave and read my comments and you will see what I think of the flawed hypothesis.
Oscar ~ I saw your comments. Readers will note that I was showing mercy in not responding.
If you insist, I shall try to squeeze the time to go dissect them later, unless someone beats me to it. To avoid embarrassment, you should try to acquire at least a nodding familiarity with a subject before you try to post upon it.
No. Please. Dissect my arguments. The least you could do after saying I'm wrong and implying ignorance is state the fallacies in my argument.
I didn't "imply" ignorance on your part. I stated it flatly.
I replied at TOL, since that is where your remarks in question are posted.
http://thoughtsonline.blogspot.com/2004/10/i-am-going-to-prove-my-hypothesis-that.html
Post a Comment
<< Home