Let's Set the Criteria for War Ourselves

There seems to be a lot of talk recently that the U.S. is going to invade Iran.  There is even talk the U.S. may use nuclear weapons.  This talk SHOULD be completely ridiculous, but sadly in today's political climate it is not.  We need to have guidelines to tell us when war should be an option and when it is not.

So why don't we make some.  Why don't we say exactly when war is an allowable choice and when it is not.  And why don't we make clear that it will not be acceptable to go to war outside of those terms.  Below the jump are my suggestions for what such terms should be.  If anybody has better ideas for when we should attack foreign nations, or what we should pledge to do if this occurs outside of these guidelines, please do comment.  They should be something that will not paralyze our nations ability to defend ourselves, yet prevent wars of aggression George Bush or any other president may declare.

If 10 million people could promise to shut down this country in the event of an immoral attack on a foreign nation, this would hopefully prevent our leaders from taking such immoral actions.

For a nuclear attack:
1) A nuclear attack on an American city or military forces by a foreign government shall be sufficient reason for a nuclear attack on that government.
2) There shall be NO OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES in which the use of nuclear weapons by the US government shall be acceptable.

For a conventional attack:
1) Any nuclear attack by a nation on any human target shall be sufficient reason for a conventional attack.
2) Any significant, direct attack on an American city or military forces, or on those of its allies, shall be sufficient reason for a conventional attack.
3) Any massive humanitarian disaster caused directly by a foreign government shall be sufficient reason for a conventional attack.
4) Any declaration of war by a foreign government on the United States shall be a sufficient reason for a conventional attack.
5) Any other aggressive, extenuating circumstances shall require the agreement at least four-fifths of the duly elected members of each house of Congress to be a sufficient reason for a conventional attack.

If the United States attacks a foreign government with nuclear weapons outside of in retaliation for a direct attack, we promise to use any means of protest necessary, violent or non-violent, until all of those responsible for such attacks, directly or indirectly, resign from power and are turned over to the custody of the United Nations.

If the United States attacks a foreign government by conventional means outside of those criteria listed above, we promise to use any means of non-violent protest necessary until all of those responsible for such attacks resign from power.

•  Tip Jar

  I know the diary is a bit over the top, but I'm getting pissed as hell from all this Iran talk.

  by Power on Thu Apr 13, 2006 at 01:36:32 PM PDT

  •  Over the top?

    No mate, you are right on the money.

    In a democratic republic (this one used to be one), the authority to go to war must be given by the people.

    The President DOESN NOT HAVE THE RIGHT to use the nation's military in wars of choice.

    If Congress is not willing to exercise its prerrogative on this subject, all representatives involved should be held responsible for their criminal dereliction of duty.

    by RaulVB on Thu Apr 13, 2006 at 01:55:58 PM PDT

•  I like it, but the devil is in the details

  I like the idea of your declaration, but I think the devil is in the details:

  • Most have decided that Iraq was sold on misinformation.  Who will decide what a "significant direct attack on an American city or military forces" is?  For example, would the Cole bombing qualify?  
  • Could this declaration lead to Administration operatives attacking Americans to instagate a war?
  • And who would we trust to tell us who was behind a terrorist act?  I certainly wouldn't trust the CIA with the time of day.

  by Helpless on Thu Apr 13, 2006 at 02:24:06 PM PDT