This is a featured issue.
War is what
politics itself, starting with diplomacy
?, was invented to avoid. The threat or potential of political violence
? on a large scale has always prompted at least some people to seek another solution. However, the belief that "
without hawks, the doves are pigeons" persists:
pacifism has never been a very popular position. A notion of "
just war" has been defined by Christian
? least since Aquinas
?.
War is also pervasive in language. When the
ontological metaphor of
attack and defense is invoked, to compare to
crime or
poverty or even love, a situation is being analogized to war. This tends to have predictable consequences, such as "
choosing up sides", or engaging in
adversarial process.
Terms such as proxy war
?, pre-emptive war
?, guerilla warfare
?, asymmetric warfare
? and
terrorism all imply specific military doctrine
?s. As
China and
Iran have risen to become at least regional power
?s, the
information warfare and aided insurgent
? doctrines seem likely also to rise, as they do not so directly expose the main funder or motivator of combat to response.
Positions
[+] Position: All war is wrong.
What the world needs instead of an endless
war on terror is object lesson in grace, peace, and love.
Is this really the
pacifist position?
[+] Position: The US should call off the war on terror and change US foreign policy?.
"all that really needs to happen is for the U. S. to alter its policies and the problem would go away. . . the attacks were some country's 'retaliation' against our selfish, bully-like, isolation,etc. foreign policies"
[+] Position: The measures the US and Canada have taken are working to protect our citizens.
Though it may be unpleasant,
George W. Bush and the US government has done it's job - protecting US citizens - there has been no major terrorist incident since 9/11. Current and new
wars should be continued on the same counter-terrorist strategy
?:
* Denial of safe havens in which terrorists can train and equip members.
* Restriction of funding of terrorist organizations.
* Degradation of terrorist networks by capturing or killing intermediate leaders.
* Detention of suspected and known terrorists. See the section below for further details
* Getting information, through various techniques, such as interrogation, from captured terrorists of other members of their organization, training sites, methods, and funding.
* Expanding and improving efficiency of intelligence capabilities and foreign and domestic policing.
[+] Position: Terrorism is crime and therefore a police matter.
"Tell me, exactly, who we should bomb to make it all better." Attacks on civilians are strictly a law-enforcement/intelligence matter, and bringing military force into it makes it worse.
Tom Tomorrow said: "It should go without saying that no decent person believes this act should go unpunished, that the men responsible should not be brought to justice. Anyone who confuses a desire to avoid responding to the senseless slaughter of civilians with more of the same--a desire to, perhaps, avoid World War III--anyone who confuses this with a desire to do nothing...sees the world in much too simple of terms.
Only After Afghanistan
Hesiod says: "You might argue that we had a moral purpose in our actions in Afghanistan. I agree. But, when the Taliban fell, and Al Qaeda scattered to the four winds, it became a totally different proposition."
The Bush Administration has hyped the risk of terrorism in order to gain power. This position is articulated here at Daily Kos
?:
"Ultimately, this is symptomatic of Bush's skewed priorities. Bush expects its armed forces to do the dying in pursuit of his 2004 re-election effort."
[+] Position: A referendum should be held in the occupied nations on how long foreign troops should remain
Canada, and the other western nations should make a formal request to the official leaders of Iraq and Afghanistan to hold referenda in their countries, asking their citizens whether the foreign troops should stay in their countries, or go home.
The only justification remaining for either of these wars is the notion that the west is in some way “helping” the citizens of these countries, that they want our help. Most of the arguments surrounding these wars tend to deal with whether we actually are helping them, and whether they want our help in the first place. So, let's ask them.
If they vote for western nations to help them out, then those nations should do just that. However, if they vote for the western nations to leave, then they should get the heck out of there.
- argument for: A referendum with a clear question, and filled with international observers is the best way to get a final answer to the question of whether western nations should be involved in these wars. It would effectively end the debate in the west once and for all.
Sources and resources
The Glittering Eye
Towards a taxonomy of positions on the War on Terror in the blogosphere