| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/07/2007 04:03:52 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
It isn't necessary to set out a reason or purpose to effect an invasion. |
I'd be interested in seeing an example of an invasion that occurred without a reason or purpose. |
|
|
|
12/07/2007 04:09:27 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
It isn't necessary to set out a reason or purpose to effect an invasion. |
I'd be interested in seeing an example of an invasion that occurred without a reason or purpose. |
How about this one? Oh wait, that was a "Just Cause" action. "Mr. President, why did you invade Grenada?" "Just 'cause!" |
|
|
|
12/07/2007 04:14:03 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
It isn't necessary to set out a reason or purpose to effect an invasion. |
I'd be interested in seeing an example of an invasion that occurred without a reason or purpose. |
Don't you mean "valid" reason or purpose?
You don't call having some 300,000 Americans -- more than half of them armed -- residing somewhere for more than four years an "occupation"? Heck, you only have to "occupy" a residence for 30 days (or maybe less) before you can register to vote ... Establishing a "Provisional Authority" has the sound of taking over governance too ... |
|
|
|
12/07/2007 04:19:36 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
It isn't necessary to set out a reason or purpose to effect an invasion. |
I'd be interested in seeing an example of an invasion that occurred without a reason or purpose. |
Of course, you mis-represent what was said, which is clearly that "Any stated purpose or reason is not a necessary component to the definition of the word 'invasion'" ... |
|
|
|
12/07/2007 04:31:00 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Originally posted by RonB:
How is one to know the proper time to enter a war? The U.S. is getting slammed as we speak for a) not entering the war ( genocide ) in Darfur, and b) entering the war in Iraq. |
To state the obvious, the U.S. didn't "enter" the war in Iraq; the U.S. INVADED Iraq and CREATED a war that did not already exist. |
Sorry Judith, but you are wrong - the U.S. did not INVADE Iraq.
|
You truly are delusional.
Message edited by author 2007-12-07 16:31:57. |
|
|
|
12/07/2007 04:40:23 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
It isn't necessary to set out a reason or purpose to effect an invasion. |
I'd be interested in seeing an example of an invasion that occurred without a reason or purpose. |
How about this one? Oh wait, that was a "Just Cause" action. "Mr. President, why did you invade Grenada?" "Just 'cause!" |
Realizing that the extent of your knowledge is pretty much tied to what Wikipedia returns when you search, you might consider reading more than the summaries. The entry you link details the reason/purpose given for the invasion. |
|
|
|
12/07/2007 04:40:40 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
It isn't necessary to set out a reason or purpose to effect an invasion. |
I thought the purpose was to find Saddam's weapons of mass destruction, which were "in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat." |
|
|
|
12/07/2007 04:42:59 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
It isn't necessary to set out a reason or purpose to effect an invasion. |
I'd be interested in seeing an example of an invasion that occurred without a reason or purpose. |
How about this one? Oh wait, that was a "Just Cause" action. "Mr. President, why did you invade Grenada?" "Just 'cause!" |
Realizing that the extent of your knowledge is pretty much tied to what Wikipedia returns when you search, you might consider reading more than the summaries. The entry you link details the reason/purpose given for the invasion. |
Er... sorry, but wiki ain't my main source for this particular nugget, it's a convenience link. And I was waiting for some wit to point out that this particular article contained "reasons", right alongside, you may have missed, those reasons why it was a bullshit invasion. |
|
|
|
12/07/2007 04:44:22 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
[quote=RonB] How is one to know the proper time to enter a war? The U.S. is getting slammed as we speak for a) not entering the war ( genocide ) in Darfur, and b) entering the war in Iraq. |
To state the obvious, the U.S. didn't "enter" the war in Iraq; the U.S. INVADED Iraq and CREATED a war that did not already exist. |
With everyone throwing dictionary definitions around (again), it's obvious this thread demands absolute accuracy from all participants. So let's not forget that the war most certainly already existed and was in a temporary lull due to a cease fire having been signed. I'd also point out the decade of overflight, no-fly zones being imposed on portions of Iraq, and periodic skirmishes that preceded the current phase of the war.
Message edited by author 2007-12-07 16:48:51. |
|
|
|
12/07/2007 04:48:20 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
It isn't necessary to set out a reason or purpose to effect an invasion. |
I'd be interested in seeing an example of an invasion that occurred without a reason or purpose. |
How about this one? Oh wait, that was a "Just Cause" action. "Mr. President, why did you invade Grenada?" "Just 'cause!" |
Realizing that the extent of your knowledge is pretty much tied to what Wikipedia returns when you search, you might consider reading more than the summaries. The entry you link details the reason/purpose given for the invasion. |
Er... sorry, but wiki ain't my main source for this particular nugget, it's a convenience link. And I was waiting for some wit to point out that this particular article contained "reasons", right alongside, you may have missed, those reasons why it was a bullshit invasion. |
Hold that thought. If and when the conversation starts talking about the validity of reasons rather than whether or not they are simply required to exist, you'll be ready with something to add. |
|
|
|
12/07/2007 04:48:56 PM · #36 |
| Oooo, you're just so dern clever! |
|
|
|
12/07/2007 04:51:15 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
It isn't necessary to set out a reason or purpose to effect an invasion. |
I'd be interested in seeing an example of an invasion that occurred without a reason or purpose. |
How about this one? Oh wait, that was a "Just Cause" action. "Mr. President, why did you invade Grenada?" "Just 'cause!" |
From your Wikepedia article:
"U.S. officials cited the murder of Bishop and general political instability in a country near its own borders, as well as the presence of American medical students at St. George's University on Grenada, as reasons for military action" |
|
|
|
12/07/2007 04:55:14 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
It isn't necessary to set out a reason or purpose to effect an invasion. |
I'd be interested in seeing an example of an invasion that occurred without a reason or purpose. |
How about this one? Oh wait, that was a "Just Cause" action. "Mr. President, why did you invade Grenada?" "Just 'cause!" |
From your Wikepedia article:
"U.S. officials cited the murder of Bishop and general political instability in a country near its own borders, as well as the presence of American medical students at St. George's University on Grenada, as reasons for military action" |
*Yaawwwn*.... " "Not a single American child nor single American national was in any way placed in danger or placed in a hostage situation prior to the invasion. The Congressional Black Caucus denounced the invasion and seven Democratic congressmen, led by Ted Weiss, attempted to impeach Reagan."
Even Thatcher, Reagan's pet European counterpart, was pissed off. "This action will be seen as intervention by a Western country in the internal affairs of a small independent nation, however unattractive its regime."
But anway, surely Wikipedia presents only one side of the coin, right? |
|
|
|
12/07/2007 04:59:34 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
It isn't necessary to set out a reason or purpose to effect an invasion. |
I'd be interested in seeing an example of an invasion that occurred without a reason or purpose. |
Don't you mean "valid" reason or purpose? |
No, I don't.
Originally posted by GeneralE:
You don't call having some 300,000 Americans -- more than half of them armed -- residing somewhere for more than four years an "occupation"? |
No, I don't. The people are not prevented from bearing arms, nor from freely traveling about the country. If you consider checkpoints to be an incumberance to that freedom, then the U.S. is "occupied" as well, as I have been stopped at checkpoints several times in my travels about the U.S.
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Heck, you only have to "occupy" a residence for 30 days (or maybe less) before you can register to vote |
Residence is not the only requirement that must be met in order to register to vote.
Originally posted by GeneralE:
... Establishing a "Provisional Authority" has the sound of taking over governance too ... |
Taking over governance is not the same as occupation. I've known of townships in the U.S. that went bankrupt and had governance taken over by the state - it was hardly considered an occupation. |
|
|
|
12/07/2007 04:59:57 PM · #40 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Even Thatcher, Reagan's pet European counterpart, was pissed off. "This action will be seen as intervention by a Western country in the internal affairs of a small independent nation, however unattractive its regime." |
Sounds like historical precedent to me. What's the big deal about invading Iraq?
Btw I don't think Wikipedia only tells one side of the story, but I do chuckle at the objectivity of such phrasing as "pet European counterpart".
Anyway, wonder if anyone really can come up with an example of invasion w/o reason. |
|
|
|
12/07/2007 05:05:04 PM · #41 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Even Thatcher, Reagan's pet European counterpart, was pissed off. "This action will be seen as intervention by a Western country in the internal affairs of a small independent nation, however unattractive its regime." |
Thanks for proving the point I made earlier. The U.S. will be denounced no matter which action ( or lack of action ) it takes. |
|
|
|
12/07/2007 05:08:05 PM · #42 |
Got to agree with Ron here. The collation forces certainly haven't done a good job of conquering Iraq
Just so I can throw a dictionary definition in too
1. To defeat or subdue by force, especially by force of arms.
2. To gain or secure control of by or as if by force of arms: scientists battling to conquer disease; a singer who conquered the operatic world.
3. To overcome or surmount by physical, mental, or moral force: I finally conquered my fear of heights. See synonyms at defeat.
|
|
|
|
12/07/2007 05:09:01 PM · #43 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Louis:
Even Thatcher, Reagan's pet European counterpart, was pissed off. "This action will be seen as intervention by a Western country in the internal affairs of a small independent nation, however unattractive its regime." |
Thanks for proving the point I made earlier. The U.S. will be denounced no matter which action ( or lack of action ) it takes. |
I think she was annoyed because it made it difficult to drop off nuclear missiles just up the road from my home.
|
|
|
|
12/07/2007 05:09:44 PM · #44 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
It isn't necessary to set out a reason or purpose to effect an invasion. |
I'd be interested in seeing an example of an invasion that occurred without a reason or purpose. |
I didn't say that invasions have occurred without a reason or purpose. I said it isn't necessary to SET OUT a reason or purpose in order to effect an invasion, as the definitions you supplied were implying. The U.S. certainly effected an invasion of Iraq according to the definitions of the word "invade" that I cited. |
|
|
|
12/07/2007 05:13:45 PM · #45 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
It isn't necessary to set out a reason or purpose to effect an invasion. |
I'd be interested in seeing an example of an invasion that occurred without a reason or purpose. |
I didn't say that invasions have occurred without a reason or purpose. I said it isn't necessary to SET OUT a reason or purpose in order to effect an invasion, as the definitions you supplied were implying. The U.S. certainly effected an invasion of Iraq according to the definitions of the word "invade" that I cited. |
I think it is required, for any of a number of reasons. Domestic political backing (initially), making sure other countries aren't going to attack you in turn to prevent it from happening, keeping your allies as allies, etc, etc. There has to be a reason. From 'they are an imminent threat' to 'they have it, we need it, we're taking it' there is always a reason and it is always given because there is some necessity for doing so. |
|
|
|
12/07/2007 05:15:16 PM · #46 |
Why we attacked Iraq:
Originally posted by The President:
First, without a strong inspection system, Iraq would be free to retain and begin to rebuild its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs in months, not years.
Second, if Saddam can crippled the weapons inspection system and get away with it, he would conclude that the international community -- led by the United States -- has simply lost its will. He will surmise that he has free rein to rebuild his arsenal of destruction, and someday -- make no mistake -- he will use it again as he has in the past.
Third, in halting our air strikes in November, I gave Saddam a chance, not a license. If we turn our backs on his defiance, the credibility of U.S. power as a check against Saddam will be destroyed. We will not only have allowed Saddam to shatter the inspection system that controls his weapons of mass destruction program; we also will have fatally undercut the fear of force that stops Saddam from acting to gain domination in the region.
Snip
The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world.
The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people. Bringing change in Baghdad will take time and effort. We will strengthen our engagement with the full range of Iraqi opposition forces and work with them effectively and prudently.
Snip
Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people.
And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them.
Because we're acting today, it is less likely that we will face these dangers in the future. |
|
|
|
|
12/07/2007 05:19:42 PM · #47 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
I think it is required, for any of a number of reasons. Domestic political backing (initially), making sure other countries aren't going to attack you in turn to prevent it from happening, keeping your allies as allies, etc, etc. There has to be a reason. From 'they are an imminent threat' to 'they have it, we need it, we're taking it' there is always a reason and it is always given because there is some necessity for doing so. |
of course there has to be a reason, they just aren't limited to the narrow list that RonB found in a particular definition of the word.
Here's another definition picked mostly at random (the first I came across that made my point) An invasion is a military action consisting of armed forces of one geopolitical entity entering territory controlled by another such entity, generally with the objective of either conquering territory, altering the established government, for humanitarian purposes, or a combination thereof. An invasion can be the cause of a war, it can be used as a part of a larger strategy to end a war, or it can constitute an entire war in itself.
Message edited by author 2007-12-07 17:21:35.
|
|
|
|
12/07/2007 05:22:21 PM · #48 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by routerguy666:
I think it is required, for any of a number of reasons. Domestic political backing (initially), making sure other countries aren't going to attack you in turn to prevent it from happening, keeping your allies as allies, etc, etc. There has to be a reason. From 'they are an imminent threat' to 'they have it, we need it, we're taking it' there is always a reason and it is always given because there is some necessity for doing so. |
of course there has to be a reason, they just aren't limited to the narrow list that RonB found in a particular definition of the word.
Here's another definition picked mostly at random (the first I came across that made my point) An invasion is a military action consisting of armed forces of one geopolitical entity entering territory controlled by another such entity, generally with the objective of either conquering territory, altering the established government, for humanitarian purposes, or a combination thereof. An invasion can be the cause of a war, it can be used as a part of a larger strategy to end a war, or it can constitute an entire war in itself. |
It's always conquer or plunder as far as I can tell, no matter how it may be worded in a speech beforehand. |
|
|
|
12/07/2007 05:27:22 PM · #49 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Why we attacked Iraq:
Originally posted by The President:
First, without a strong inspection system, Iraq would be free to retain and begin to rebuild its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs in months, not years.
Second, if Saddam can crippled the weapons inspection system and get away with it, he would conclude that the international community -- led by the United States -- has simply lost its will. He will surmise that he has free rein to rebuild his arsenal of destruction, and someday -- make no mistake -- he will use it again as he has in the past.
Third, in halting our air strikes in November, I gave Saddam a chance, not a license. If we turn our backs on his defiance, the credibility of U.S. power as a check against Saddam will be destroyed. We will not only have allowed Saddam to shatter the inspection system that controls his weapons of mass destruction program; we also will have fatally undercut the fear of force that stops Saddam from acting to gain domination in the region.
Snip
The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world.
The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people. Bringing change in Baghdad will take time and effort. We will strengthen our engagement with the full range of Iraqi opposition forces and work with them effectively and prudently.
Snip
Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people.
And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them.
Because we're acting today, it is less likely that we will face these dangers in the future. |
|
Well now don't forget this:
Project for the New American Century
PNAC - wiki
|
|
|
|
12/07/2007 05:33:12 PM · #50 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by routerguy666:
I think it is required, for any of a number of reasons. Domestic political backing (initially), making sure other countries aren't going to attack you in turn to prevent it from happening, keeping your allies as allies, etc, etc. There has to be a reason. From 'they are an imminent threat' to 'they have it, we need it, we're taking it' there is always a reason and it is always given because there is some necessity for doing so. |
of course there has to be a reason, they just aren't limited to the narrow list that RonB found in a particular definition of the word. |
Judith's original charge was:
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
To state the obvious, the U.S. didn't "enter" the war in Iraq; the U.S. INVADED Iraq and CREATED a war that did not already exist. |
My narrow list included the first and foremost definition given in each of the dictionaries I looked at, and were germain to that context ( creating a war ).
The definitions that she countered with:
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
"to enter forcibly or hostilely; come into as an enemy"
"to intrude upon; infringe; violate"
"to enter with armed force"
"to encroach upon"
"infringe on, trespass, interfere with" |
may technically be used to define "invade" but are not germain to the point of her charge - that of creating war.
One country can "intrude", "infringe", "violate", "enter with armed forces", "encroach upon", "trespass", or "interfere with" without creating war. In fact, U.N. peacekeepers have done ALL of those things and their actions have NOT been considered acts of war.
On the other hand, if a country's armed forces entered another country for the purpose of plundering, pillaging, occupying, or taking possession, it would be considered as an act of war by most civilized peoples.
|
|
