Here are my pertinent remarks:
Yankee Doodle said...
Let's put this in context. Here was the remark, and my response:
"compromise as a first option in preference to violence is surely a stance that you can endorse"
Not absolutely. There are some ideologies and some parties with whom there can be no compromise, no retreat at all, not even the slightest hint of surrender or weakness.
And, while I disagree with President Bush and his crew, I do, in principle, agree with the concept of pre-emptive war, a right addressed in our Constitution.
The US Constitution makes the following statement with reference to pre-emptive war in Article I Section 10:
"No State shall, without the Consent of Congress,... engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay."
Intended as a last resort prior to being overrun by an enemy clearly poising for an attack, the founders of our nation very clearly intended the option to be open to states to take the fight to an enemy, even without Federal permission, rather than wait for an attack at the enemy's discretion. It is a state right vis-a-vis the Federal government, but the intent behind the right is clear enough.
I cannot think of an occasion when a "pre-emptive war" was just and legitimate; as far as I can tell, all historical examples are examples of power-hungry political leaders abusing the concept. Hitler comes to mind here.
The fact that the principle has been so consistently abused in no way invalidates the principle, any more than foul language or hate speech by some parties would invalidate the concept of Freedom of Speech.
While Anonymous is reading the US Constitution, s/he might wish to note that Federal treaties, like the US Constitution, trump state constitutions; Federal treaties do not trump the US Constitution.
It should be further noted that Pearl Harbor and 9/11 both trump a treaty outlawing war. Furthermore, when the US fought in Korea and in the first Gulf War, it was with the full blessing of this international community whose judgement is here so esteemed, just as US action in the wake of Pearl Harbor and 9/11 had broad international support.
Undoubtedly some here will make noise about the abuses of that international support under the current US Administration. I am not here to defend our 43rd President.
Finally, I should like to point out, regarding these prized norms of international etiquette, that if all of a sudden the UN makes a rule that there shall be no more Freedom of Speech, that does not make it so -- and it matters not whether El Presidente Bush and his neocon crowd, or their Clintonite opposite numbers, go along with it, or even like it: our rights are our rights, endowed by our Creator, and I for one will not give them away for any reason at all, most emphatically to include the disapproval a hostile left-wing crowd that believes in neither our rights nor our Creator.
16 October 2007 00:42
Anticant is a very smart guy, and a nice person. He has a good crowd of readers, too. His blog is definitely "a civilised debating space for the exchange of information and views about politics, society, and the human condition", as advertised; and, if anything, I am the one bringing the neighborhood down.
Well, hey, Anticant was one of the first people who came to mind when I knew I had to choose "Thinking Bloggers" -- ya gotta admit I have good taste!
Having said that, this crowd is just a wee bit left of center.
("Oh, say it isn't so, Yankee!")
Stop in and visit, and remember to wish Anticant a belated Happy 80th Birthday if you haven't already done so.
By the way: if I've offended anyone, please notice that one label for this post is "Funnies" -- and that's more than the Muslims and the Neocons get! (Sorry, Muslim & Neocon friends -- maybe you can get Sheikh bin Mahfouz to sue me.)