View Full Version : Debate between Iraqi man vs Little Girl
epicstruggle
15-Mar-2003, 09:28
Saw this link over in the R3D forums.
Listen to this:
http://komo1000news.com/audio/kvi_aircheck_031003.mp3
You have to listen just for this line: "...simplistic Nicklelodian diplomacy". Bad ass clip. :D
later,
wow, they sure did a good job berating a young woman; i imagine would have been even more empowering to them if they had a few more people on their side to tell her how foolish they think she is. also, i found it sad the way the radio guy at the end said he did not want to go to war but was still defending the cause with such vigor, and more worried how he will be accepted by people down the line than the lives of the people he will most likely wind up killing. :cry:
Joe DeFuria
15-Mar-2003, 16:42
wow, they sure did a good job berating a young woman;
Naive woman, you mean. She did a good job of dodging the question. So why don't you give it a shot.
"How exactly will leaving Sadam in power, promote peace and justice in Iraq"
Discaimer: The purpose of going into Iraq is not to out Sadam. Ousting Sadam is the means to the end, which is disarming Iraq. I don't want this to go off topic about "why we're going into Iraq." Or if we should go into Iraq regardless of disarming...just to get rid of Sadam. I just want to hear the question answered.
no i did not mean niaive at all, i never got a chance to hear her talk long enough to draw such a conclusion for myself.
epicstruggle
15-Mar-2003, 21:48
wow, you sound just like her though kyleb. Dodging the question. :D
later,
i found it sad the way the radio guy at the end said he did not want to go to war but was still defending the cause with such vigor
Of course nobody wants war, but he defends the cause with vigor because he believes in it and thinks it's a just cause - which God forbid, is worthy of war if it comes to it.
This is hardly sad, it's quite honorable. If anything you're the sad one.
And more worried how he will be accepted by people down the line than the lives of the people he will most likely wind up killing.
Were you ever the benefactor of any education, seriously? That comment isn't to be taken literally, but rather is a euphemism for how history will decide (eg. handshake) who was right in their polarized ideologies: Military Disarmerment (he's in the Army) or Andrea (Peace-Protester).
I sware, if people weren't so damn dumb....
She did a good job of dodging the question. So why don't you give it a shot.
By "Playing the Ping-Pong" - just like her.
We need more people like this on CNN instead of these "technical analysts" who have no personal interests or personal experiences.
so you are saying something along the lines of; after all, the good guys always win; and have the forces and the weaponry to take on the world without a hitch. so we are obviously the good guys and anyone who gets in the way has a vial and retched love of terror and tyranny, not to mention those hate-mongering, anti-Semitic, and anti-American bastards in Europe who laughingly come off like they can tell us what to do. there is no argument better than than the victory that is investable; might makes right and we damn sure cannot be wrong with logic like that.
is that how you feel Vince?
also epicstruggle, i dodgeing any question, i made it very clear that i do was not given enough information to come to a conclusion. if you do not feel you need the level of information i do to make your own conclusion, i would like to respect that; but you are makeing it very hard with the utter lack of respect your are showing me.
is that how you feel Vince?
I take it this is in some way directed at me.
so you are saying something along the lines of; after all, the good guys always win; and have the forces and the weaponry to take on the world without a hitch. so we are obviously the good guys and anyone who gets in the way has a vial and retched love of terror and tyranny, not to mention those hate-mongering, anti-Semitic, and anti-American bastards in Europe who laughingly come off like they can tell us what to do. there is no argument better than than the victory that is investable; might makes right and we damn sure cannot be wrong with logic like that.
I reinstate my previous question of contemplation ability on your part after this.
That has absolutly NOTHING to do with what I said; the beliefs of myself or that radio host. I suggest you reread my post, this time actually reading and comprehending what I said, and then get back to me.
Because, just like in that Radio Dialog, I refuse to be drawn into another argument that has no facual basis other than: (a) Your inability to comprehend what I'm stating and (b) Your need to create harsh language and a polarized situation that puts you diametrcally opposed to me at all costs; including - as you did here - by including things which I've never stated, never supported, never implied.
i got the impression i did based on this:
That comment isn't to be taken literally, but rather is a euphemism for how history will decide (eg. handshake) who was right in their polarized ideologies: Military Disarmerment (he's in the Army) or Andrea (Peace-Protester).
epicstruggle
16-Mar-2003, 00:42
Kyleb, I mean no disrepect to you, but to your view point. Its a fine line, but I dont like/dislike people on their view points. Most of my friends are against any war. I abhor the way they think but I am very good friends with them. What I dont like about the anti war movement is that instead of answering simple questions, they have to resort to arguments/reasons that are emotional, and not logical.
The argument that is worth least of all is that innocent people will die. Did you ever think that if sadam didnt park his weapons near civilians, or areas for civilian purposes, that we could minimize deaths to a couple hundred. But the man your defending (Sadam) by not forcebly removing him will do anything to stay in power. Thats why I wish that you (anti war movement) would answer the question posed by the Iraqi man in the mp3:
"How exactly will leaving Sadam in power, promote peace and justice in Iraq?"
I do hope kyleb (or anyone else against the war) would please take the time to answer the above mentioned question. Thank you.
later,
the problem is that we, or at least i, belive there is only one logical reason to kill; in direct defense of life, and you can call it emotional if you want but i consider it very rational. besides all sorts of arguments can be thrown together to claim that killing will be done in the name of a greater good and in the long run we will see that it was truly for the best. however, i see those arguments and reasons as the ones that i see as emotional and not logical; my logic prevents me from believing that any of us can divine the future. it seems that this is why our opinions conflict. :(
epicstruggle
16-Mar-2003, 06:52
I can understand the arguement where you would only kill to defend your life. However, I think in that situation saddam wins. Why should the US bother helping out any country until it was in direct threat. I take it then kyleb that you were not for the first gulf war. Since the US was not in direct threat. Had we not stoped him then what would have stopped him from taking over another one or two Middle East countries giving him control over most of the oil in the world. Plus he would more than likely killed many many civilians who would have opposed him.
later,
I dont know any anti war activist who thinks peace and prosperity will be promoted by leaving saddam in power... that is just beside the point...
The 3 main points why war in Iraq is not a good idea:
1- He might have wmds we dont know about that may be unleashed by a war to remove his regime. Millions may die...
2- The war may expand regionally and involve nuclear Israel and topple friendly regimes in oil powerhouses like Saudi Arabia and other regimes with wmds like Pakistan. Many pro western regimes in the area are not in strong positions of power. This assumes a bad campaign in Iraq... if it lasts months insetad of weeeks and kills hundreds of thousands or millions instead of just a few hundred or few thousands... A very possible scenario.
3- The war may expand into a clash of civilizations between muslim and western christian\secular worlds... this would be a disaster with possibly no end in sight. God only knows what might happen if things get this bad.
War in Iraq is a bad intervention in a bad place at a bad time by a bad president...
Frances' idea (and Russia and China's ect...) of war under 1441 as a last resort (once the diplomatic and inspection process is complete on a schedule established by UN inspectors) would probably see, after a non-compliance result, an enhanced common front in the UN on Iraq and possibly include virtually all the muslim world and if executed in a gradual escalation could topple the Iraqi regime with far less risk than now...
I dont agree with France though. Recent bios of Saddam seem to indicate a bit of a martyr complex. His long sought fantasy of uniting the arab world could be had by dying in Baghdad but only after causing a wider war to occur is scary. If he has even modest wmds he could drag Israel in if he can cause enough harm there. Does anyone think a war involving Israel nuking Iraq wont be seen by many muslims there as justification for some kind of renewed jihad? I just hope Israel doesn't feel it should trade a few hundred or couple thousand of Israelis for a nuke killing hundreds of thousands if not millions of muslims... I also hope Saddam doesn't have worse than what he bothered to declare he has...
epicstruggle
16-Mar-2003, 08:47
I dont know any anti war activist who thinks peace and prosperity will be promoted by leaving saddam in power... that is just beside the point...
The 3 main points why war in Iraq is not a good idea:
1- He might have wmds we dont know about that may be unleashed by a war to remove his regime. Millions may die...
He might also try to resume his conquest of the middle east and use his wmds killing milliions, ontop of the millions he has already killed. If I had to choose which of these 2 bad options to deal with, I would rather take him out, with the possibility of massive casualties, than have him dictate the terms of where and when to use his wmds.
2- The war may expand regionally and involve nuclear Israel and topple friendly regimes in oil powerhouses like Saudi Arabia and other regimes with wmds like Pakistan. Many pro western regimes in the area are not in strong positions of power. This assumes a bad campaign in Iraq... if it lasts months insetad of weeeks and kills hundreds of thousands or millions instead of just a few hundred or few thousands... A very possible scenario.
No offence but Israel will not get into this fight. I think Pres. Bush has made it very clear that if saddam uses his wmd the US keeps the option open to use wmds on him. No use for Israel to get pulled in without any gain for them.
3- The war may expand into a clash of civilizations between muslim and western christian\secular worlds... this would be a disaster with possibly no end in sight. God only knows what might happen if things get this bad.
Actually Iraq has a secular govermnent. Only lately has Saddam embraced the Islamic religion. So should not be much of a clash of civilization. There seems to be rumors that a woman might be in charge of Iraq, now that might rufel some feathers. Hope that gives the women of Iraq some backbone to stand up for themselves.
War in Iraq is a bad intervention in a bad place at a bad time by a bad president...
Actually I think Bush might turn out to be one of this countries best president. And currently 2nd only to Blair in regards to current leaders around the world. Pax within weeks if not days you will be proven wrong.
Pax within weeks if not days you will be proven wrong.
Yes, the number of people who will receive a warm, steamy cup of the proverbial STFU will easily exceed the number of casualties by many orders of magnitude.
Pax, the vast majority of anti war types I know do not think the way you do. Which is sad, b/c frankly those are the best arguments (debatable as they may be) to be anti war in Iraq at this point.
Most of them believe in weird conspiracy theories usually involving Bush in some sort of weird oil schemes as well as promoting puppet regimes in some form of US global domination plans; others pretty much just for the principle of being anti violence no matter what the cost.
Even others pretty much b/c its bandwagon, and protesting something fills them with rightous indignation, and that feels good.
I can't tell you how many Europeans STILL think Saddam has no WMDs, and that this is some US ploy to get their oil.
I have serious problems with these types (and you can find them on this board), simply b/c logic and reason seem to go way over there head. Instead they have to resort to ad hominums, and endless moralizing.
Chalnoth
16-Mar-2003, 22:08
1- He might have wmds we dont know about that may be unleashed by a war to remove his regime. Millions may die...
True. Would most likely be unleashed against Israel. However, just as Saddam assaulted Israel in the Gulf War, I think they'll be smart enough to not move.
At the same time, for long-term peace in the region, an all-out war with Israel vs. her neighbors may provide enough blood to make grief outweigh anger long enough for a more lasting peace than we've seen in the region for decades. I'm not really trying to say that I would encourage this, but that the everyday lives of the survivors of such a terrible war will likely be much better off than if things go on for decades at their present low simmer. So it's a huge tradeoff, and certainly not one I'd like to make a personal decision on.
2- The war may expand regionally and involve nuclear Israel and topple friendly regimes in oil powerhouses like Saudi Arabia and other regimes with wmds like Pakistan. Many pro western regimes in the area are not in strong positions of power. This assumes a bad campaign in Iraq... if it lasts months insetad of weeeks and kills hundreds of thousands or millions instead of just a few hundred or few thousands... A very possible scenario.
I doubt it. Bush has been working very closely with the surrounding nations in order to prevent this. Nobody really likes Iraq in the area, which makes it much easier to get them to turn a blind eye (at least...many are offering support). Given the track record of the US military in the past 15 years, I seriously doubt any nation will decide to go to war against the US. The main points here are even if all nations in the region allied against us (aside from Israel, of course), not one could escape without a significant amount of damage. And certainly not one would want to risk being the only one out (unless there's another insane leader out there, besides Saddam...).
3- The war may expand into a clash of civilizations between muslim and western christian\secular worlds... this would be a disaster with possibly no end in sight. God only knows what might happen if things get this bad.
I somewhat doubt it. The most we'll likely see is an escalation in terrorist activities. The Muslim nations just don't have that much military might.
Goragoth
17-Mar-2003, 00:30
I can't see how anybody would suppport the USA going to war without UN approval. I have more faith in the UN making an intelligent decision than the Bush administration (or any other single government for that matter). If the USA does defy a UN resolution I think it should be kicked out of the UN in shame and all UN countries should start boycotting the US as a rogue state because that is exactly how it is behaving. War is a bad thing but sometimes neccessary, I see that. But to go against a direct order by the UN security council (and it looks like this will happen) is plain wrong.
Joe DeFuria
17-Mar-2003, 01:14
I can't see how anybody would suppport the USA going to war without UN approval. I have more faith in the UN making an intelligent decision than the Bush administration (or any other single government for that matter). If the USA does defy a UN resolution I think it should be kicked out of the UN in shame and all UN countries should start boycotting the US as a rogue state because that is exactly how it is behaving.
As as U.S. citizen, I could give a rats ass if all the UN countries started "boycotting" us or not (whatever that means). We'll adjust. Be careful what you wish for.
FYI, I have less faith in the U.N. in making a prudent decision when it comes to matters of U.S. defense, than the Bush administration. In fact, I have less faith in the U.N. to do much of anything meaningful at all, other than to scratch eath other's backs.
And another FYI...If the U.S. does attack Iraq, then I don't believe they will be violating any "resolution." There just may not be a resolution supporting it.
I can't see how anybody would suppport the USA going to war without UN approval.
And I can't see how any Ameican would be willing to give their very sovereignty up to a foreign entity. If your an American, I take it you never studied the Constitution and/or Framers? Which would be a problem.
another FYI...If the U.S. does attack Iraq, then I don't believe they will be violating any "resolution." There just may not be a resolution supporting it.
As I stated once before, we are infact in a state of de facto war with Iraq due to their blatent and multiple violations of the '91 cease-fire accord. UNSC 671 (?) is the relevent one IIRC.
i always thought sovereignty was something that existed only within the borders of the nation and something we should apply to other nations as well, at least unless there is overwhelming international support to do otherwise. it always seemed to me that the "do unto others..." thing applied at this level too.
Goragoth
17-Mar-2003, 03:49
How can the US possibly justify attacking Iraq all on its own without the approval of the rest of the world (ie UN) but be outraged at Iraq attacking Kuwait (first Gulf war). Is it because they are right and Iraq is wrong? I'm sure Iraq thought it was perfectly justified in attacking Kuwait (some argument about it being a province of Iraq a long time ago or something, I don't remember the details). The US cannot just do as it likes, it is a member of the UN and if the UN should mean anything then its members must go through the UN security council before declearing war on other countries. Its called democracy, the thing that America supposedly stands for. My country (New Zealand) does not support the war by the way, not that that means anything. :)
Democracy is better than dictatorship and the world government is the UN but the USA is behaving like a dictator (you know, metaphorically speaking). With this they are in complete contradiction to what they stand for. Don't get me wrong, I think the world is a better place with the US being here and all. I just think that for stability and peace to come to this world we need a world government like the UN but for it to work its members need to listen to it and not go off and do what they like just because they can.
RussSchultz
17-Mar-2003, 04:15
I'd be all for the UN taking charge in this situation. Sadly, they haven't. They have, for the most part, proven themselves to be about as effective as the League of Nations, which is to say not really at all.
well saddam hasn't started any wars in quite a while, so how can you say that they have been ineffective? do you mean ineffective at keeping us from starting a war?
How can the US possibly justify attacking Iraq all on its own without the approval of the rest of the world (ie UN) but be outraged at Iraq attacking Kuwait (first Gulf war).
Wow, you still don't get this. One final time I shall try in the easiest, most 'Nickalodean' terminology I can apply.
Iraq invaded Kuwait in '90. The UN fought Iraq out. Iraq, the agressor, signed a cease-fire agreement. This means the UN stops fighting based on conditions. Iraq has violated these conditions for 12 years during which 17 UNSC resolutions and 30+ SC presidential directives were broken. This invalidates the cease-fire agreement of '91. Thus, the UN attacks Iraq for this.
If you still can't comprehend or agree to these facts, then you have no buisness talking about the subject.
Its called democracy, the thing that America supposedly stands for.
The United States is a Federalist Republic thats guided under the Constitution. We're a Sovereign state whose citizens and constitution's vitality and safety are the foremost concern and of paramount importance to the elected officers. To the leadership of the US, the UN and their decisions are second fiddle to the Constitution.
This is how it works, I realize that especially to those in contemporary Europe where the nationaistic boundries have disappeared this seems useless, but to the country (eg. US) whose Aegis the EU sat protected under for the last 50 years - it's the rightous way, it the just way, it's the only way. This is the course of action the United States must embark on to protect it's people.
well saddam hasn't started any wars in quite a while, so how can you say that they have been ineffective? do you mean ineffective at keeping us from starting a war?
Ineffective at containing Saddam's aggression via virtual states and his preventing the ongoing and illegal WMD programs and the development of fieldable weapons based on these programs.
Must I again post the massive list of UN resolutions and SC presidential orders he's broken over the past 11 odd years?
The UN is as ineffective at containing Saddam and his WMD programs as the League of Nations and the Treaty of Versailles was at preventing the Nazi build-up[ of the 1930s.
Goragoth
17-Mar-2003, 05:25
Iraq invaded Kuwait in '90. The UN fought Iraq out. Iraq, the agressor, signed a cease-fire agreement. This means the UN stops fighting based on conditions. Iraq has violated these conditions for 12 years during which 17 UNSC resolutions and 30+ SC presidential directives were broken. This invalidates the cease-fire agreement of '91. Thus, the UN attacks Iraq for this.
Fine, but it is the UN's decision to go to war again not the US's. The United States is not the most important country in the world just because it has the largest military. I guess this is just one of those things we should agree to disagree on though since its one of those things. The level of patriotism displayed by Americans never ceases to amaze me but I guess it means that its leaders are doing something right :D
I can't say I've been following the whole thing too closely and that is why I can't really say if a war would be justified or not, I simply don't know all the facts. I believe the leaders of the UN do however and that they will make an informed decision.
All the arguments about how the UN is incapable to act and so on are the same arguments that can be made as to why we should have dictators rather than democracy. Sure, democracy is not perfect but it sure as hell beats a dictatorship. And yes, I'm fully aware of the events sorounding the Treaty of Versailles and the League of Nations appeasement strategy that failed misereably but I think the situation is different now and the UN has proved to be capable of action when needed during its 50 or so years of existance.
epicstruggle
17-Mar-2003, 08:54
@Goragoth: I read your posts and am amazed at how naive your points are. Lets see, where should I start?
The UN has shown itself to be useless, and some might argue that it has been detrimantal(sp?), to stability, to peace, to protection of the weak. Case and point: Yugoslavia, Rawanda, USSR (under stalin), North Korea, Cambodia, ..... Where was the UN when there was the need for them to be there protecting against genocide in one form or another. Ill tell you where, debating, planning,discussing, arguing, BUT NOT ACTING. And humanity suffered.
Please tell me where UN has acted without the US support to stop a massacre/genocide from occuring, Im sure there is one or two cases but I dont think I can recall any of them. Where is the UN when it comes to Tibet, or dont they count.
Goragoth I wont even agree that "we should agree to disagree with each other". I wont even acknowledge your arguements since they are so ridiculous. I think you should read up on how the UN has failed as a body in protecting nations/people under threat. After Iraq invaded Kuwait the US had to drag along france into agreeing to kick Iraq out of there.
Lets take how the UN has dealt with Iraq for a second. There have been estimates that over the last decade almost ONE MILLION civilians(mostly children) have died due to sanctions. These sanctions agreed by the UN and Iraq have obviously faile unless you believe that ONE MILLION casualties is just the cost of diplomacy. :roll: If we continued for another decade of diplomacy another million could die. Do you not see that action is what is needed. And this action has been stalled by countries with direct interest with the current Iraqi government, mainly france, germany, russia. These countries need the the current regime to stay in power to keep their BLOODY contract intact. But they have succesfully hijacked the peace movement to suite their needs.
I think of the US as the parents and you ,Goragoth, the UN, and some of the countries in the UN, as children who have not had a chance to grow and mature. Its might not be your fault as the US has protect many countries from any sort of threat for so long, that we might have stunted your growth. Its time for the kids to shut up, take their medicine, got to bed and shut the door behind them. The parents are now going to take care of business (hopefully in the bedroom :) ).
BTW
My country (New Zealand) does not support the war by the way, not that that means anything. Actually it doesnt. When the worlds fate rest in the balance and the only country that can decide humanities fate is New Zealand, well we are in the shitter and should just kill ourselves at this point. :roll: Should the US care whether or not every little dinky country says. Its sad that we have had to troll around africa for votes because france, germany, russia, china have not had the balls to stand up to Iraq.
later,
Your post doesnt deal with the fact of what the UN is... Its just a meeting place. If any NATION INCLUDING THE US doesnt do anything about a given problem thats occuring at a given time then nothing will happen at the UN. A failure of the UN is a failure of the US and France and Russia ect...
The UN has become a whippin boy for the ignorant. Had any country made a case and put a strong resolution forward at the time when Rwanda or Yugoslavia was occuring its likely something would have been done.
Now its not the UN thats blocking the current war its a member of the UN... Annan and his forebears never had any authority or ability to do anything because they were never given that to start with...
epicstruggle
17-Mar-2003, 10:24
Your post doesnt deal with the fact of what the UN is... Its just a meeting place.
Please see click this link:
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/peacekpg/data/pcekprs1.htm
if you need it in graph format:
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/peacekpg/data/pcekprs1.htm
Go ahead and believe what you will pax. As long as you can sleep at night in your bed. We will try and make sure those that are in refugee camps, or those who have nothing at all get some hope, even if we have to do it alone if we have to.
later,
but didin't those troops go to stop wars areadly in progress epicstruggle?
epicstruggle
17-Mar-2003, 14:51
but didin't those troops go to stop wars areadly in progress epicstruggle?
I some times think you just like to disagree with me kyleb. :)
which war was stopped in 2000, 1999,1998,1997,1996,....,1947. I dont doubt that some wars were stopped but, are you saying a war was stopped every year for the last 50 some years.
I think you misunderstood the post you were commenting on kyleb. Let me recap what was said. Pax is/was under the impression that the UN is only a meeting place. I replied by trying to state that the UN also has a peacekeeping force. SO the UN can do more than meet and talk, they can do stuff if they wanted to. This is where you said what you did. Not sure how it fitted in. :)
sometimes i do like to just disagree with what you say kyleb, :wink:
later,
Those all come from the member countries, they dont hire/fire 10's of thousands of soldiers each year ... they are also most certainly not arbitrarily assignable.
epicstruggle
17-Mar-2003, 15:27
Those all come from the member countries, they dont hire/fire 10's of thousands of soldiers each year ... they are also most certainly not arbitrarily assignable.
sigh, the point is that the UN has direct control over a number of troops. they wear blue helmets, they carry guns, they do things assigned by the un. do i have to draw a picture to make it any more clear.
later,
They do not have direct control, they cannot make up a new peace keeping task and re-assign those troops.
You are assigning authority to what is nothing more than a buraucracy.
Joe DeFuria
17-Mar-2003, 16:02
You are assigning authority to what is nothing more than a buraucracy.
At which point the question becomes: of what real vaule is such buraucracy without authority?
but Joe, authority is supposed to come from the masses; at least that is how i understand it is spoused to work in a democracy, even a representative one.
but didin't those troops go to stop wars areadly in progress epicstruggle?
I some times think you just like to disagree with me kyleb. :)
lol, no that is not it at all, i simply chose a bad term there with the word "war." while there was not a declaration of war in many of those situations, there was widespread fighting at the time, so the UN stepped in to maintain order, not to rip it apart and rebuild a new one.
Joe DeFuria
17-Mar-2003, 18:36
but Joe, authority is supposed to come from the masses; at least that is how i understand it is spoused to work in a democracy, even a representative one.
Interesting...so if the representatives in the U.N. are not elected democratically, or at least appointed by democratically elected leaders, where does that leave us?
Answer: the U.N. is not a democratic institution.
I know that in this country, all of our law-making representatives are elected democratically. Since Iraq is the direct issue at hand, one would think it'd be prudnet to have Iraq's representative one of democratically elected origin, no?
Authority comes from law and from susequent enforcement of that law.
To my knowledge, there is no law authored by U.N. representatives stating that it is illegal for us to go into Iraq. There are laws stating that Iraq is to be fully disarmed or face "serious consequences." (Gotta love that term. Purposely vague for the purpose of every side supporting the resolution to "save face"...:roll: )
if the representatives in the U.N. are not elected democratically, , or at least appointed by democratically elected leaders, where does that leave us?
were that is the case it leaves us in that position precisely, but many officials are appointed by democratically elected leaders, and some from democracies where the peoples opinion is being ignored. that is the position i have trouble with.
Authority comes from law and from susequent enforcement of that law.
that sounds like a might makes right argument again which is one i have never been able to accept. i belive that authority comes from respect and that should only be the case when it is clear that the alleged authority is behaving respectably.
The UN has no peacekeeping force. It has only those forces alloted to it on a mission basis by those countries willing to ghive it some of its tropps for a given mission on a given time. None of this is the UN's will or authority here. Any country can refuse to help it or its resolution... Its just a meeting place UNTIL a country or countries decides to enforce a resolution...
The problem with giving any authority to an international body would mean for a country to lose part of its sovereignty. That didnt happen in 1945. European countries have done it tho but not to the UN but to the EU.
The issue remains the same. The UN has no regular means at its disposal other than to organise meetings of the international community. Its yealry budget is a tiny 6 billion. Considering the many humanitarian programs it has to run along with its various international committees its amazing the UN fonctions at all.
Joe DeFuria
17-Mar-2003, 19:33
but many officials are appointed by democratically elected leaders,
Many does not equal all. Isn't "all" a democracy?
..and some from democracies where the peoples opinion is being ignored. that is the position i have trouble with.
Where is the "the people's" opinion being ignored, vs. the people's opinion not agreed with.
In what representative democracy are the elected officials bound to take polls and do the "popular" thing? And why do you label such instances as the officials IGNORING what the people are saying, vs. not agreeing that their position is in their best interest?
that sounds like a might makes right argument again which is one i have never been able to accept.
No, that's a "laws are democratically drawn up" argument (which is "right"), but such laws are only meaningful if there is a means to enforce them,with "might". Might does not give one the ability to make laws. Might gives you the ability to enforce the laws that were already passed because they were deemed to be "right."
EVERY security counsel member of the U.N. believed it was "Right" to draw up and sign 1441. EVERY security council member agreed that "serious consequences" should result for not complying with it.
And all I've heard so far from those that agree that 1441 is not complied with (which is everyone), but don't support war, is not what the serious consequences should be....just that it "shouldn't be forcible removing of Sadam's regime"
i belive that authority comes from respect and that should only be the case when it is clear that the alleged authority is behaving respectably.
What kind of circular argument is that? Authority comes from respect, but it must be "clear" that the authority is behaving, uh, respectably?
It's clear to ME that the U.S. is behaving respectably. They've gone to the U.N. The U.N. has agreed that Sadam needs to disarm "or else."
Sadam has not disarmed.
So I have no issue at this time with the U.S. authoritive action to enforce 1441.
At which point the question becomes: of what real vaule is such buraucracy without authority?
That is a silly question, if a buraucracy becomes autonomous it is a buraucracy no longer. Buraucrats are there to implement decisions taken higher up the food chain, in this case by the member countries, that is just how things work.
Joe DeFuria
17-Mar-2003, 20:02
At which point the question becomes: of what real vaule is such buraucracy without authority?
That is a silly question, if a buraucracy becomes autonomous it is a buraucracy no longer. Buraucrats are there to implement decisions taken higher up the food chain, in this case by the member countries, that is just how things work.
It's not a silly question, imo.
What happens if only one or two member countries are willing / able to implement decisions taken "higher up on the food chain." What happens if the vast majority of resources at the disposal of the Buraucrats come from one or two of the members?
Such a situation is inherently flawed IMO. It was workable in the immediate post-war world, and even in the cold-war world with two superpowers in more or less direct opposition it was workable. But in this world with "one" superpower....in has inherent issues, and it again comes down to trust.
1) In a buracracy where the superpower doesn't have more than an "equal" say in matters:
Does the U.S. trust the other nations to not abuse the U.S. and it's resources, by "unfairly" sucking it's resources dry through initiatives that are wasteful and nothing but self-serving?
2) In a buracracy where the SuperPower is given much more than equal say:
Do the other countries trust the U.S. not to abuse its own power?
What kind of circular argument is that? Authority comes from respect, but it must be "clear" that the authority is behaving, uh, respectably?
that is part of circle of life from what i have seen of it. it is the same grounds that i have many great authorities in history oppress i society and eventually fall from not paying heed to; and the same grounds that when followed built this nation, as well as many others, into wonderful places to live. i can see that were your opinions on democracy are far different from mine; from what you have said i cannot help but think that you feel democracy should be nothing more than a kingdom with a "choose your dictators" clause for the people, that is not democracy to me.
Joe DeFuria
17-Mar-2003, 20:30
that is part of circle of life from what i have seen of it.
And from where I see it, you don't allow Bush to "start" this circle of life anywhere.
i can see that were your opinions on democracy are far different from mine;
Apparently.
from what you have said i cannot help but think that you feel democracy should be nothing more than a kingdom with a "choose your dictators" clause for the people, that is not democracy to me.
Um, from what you have said, I cannot help but think you feel democracy should be nothing more than mob rule. That is not good to me. My how easy it is to over-generalize and make idiodic statements. :roll:
You know what sounds like good democracy to me?
Electing representatitves, with having regularly scheduled and frequent opportunity to elect someone else to replace them should you feel they are not doing a responsible job. That doesn't sound like any dictatorship that I know of.
What about when you have a two party system with no real way out and not much difference in their stances.
Joe DeFuria
17-Mar-2003, 21:07
You first have to convince me that there's no real differences in their stances. I don't buy into that for one instant.
Aside from that, there will never be any "representative", whether there is one, two, or 50 political parties, that can fully represent each and every single one of my views on various issues. That doesn't mean I shouldn't vote for the person whom I think best represents my views / philosophy, and let the chips fall where they may.
1) In a buracracy where the superpower doesn't have more than an "equal" say in matters:
<snip>
2) In a buracracy where the SuperPower is given much more than equal say:
The council is not part of the buraucracy.
You apparently do not understand what the arguement was about, how the council reaches their decisions is entirely irrelevant. Epicstruggle contended that the UN could make decisions such as to commit troups to new peace keeping operations outside of the meetings of its members, which is quite clearly ridiculous. Take away the councils and all that is left are the buraucrats, necessary but not what defines the UN ... to all extents and purposes the UN is just a meeting place, as pax contended.
Not that it matters anymore, wether you dragged your opinion into a post on a totally different subject or not you still got to make your point and Im sure you can find people to respond to it ... just not me :)
And from where I see it, you don't allow Bush to "start" this circle of life anywhere.
none of us get to "start" the circle, it has been around far longer than any of us. as for instigating violence; i do not let myself start such things and i have yet to find any reason to stand behind others that do.
Apparently.
but i am not alone by any means:
"I subscribe to the principle, that the will of the majority honestly expressed should give law." --Thomas Jefferson: The Anas, 1793.
Um, from what you have said, I cannot help but think you feel democracy should be nothing more than mob rule. That is not good to me. My how easy it is to over-generalize and make idiodic statements. :roll:
see quote from Jefferson above. also take into account that the current "mob" might be more inclined to be civilized if their opinions were more respected by their governments. it is very much a two way street in any society.
You know what sounds like good democracy to me?
Electing representatitves, with having regularly scheduled and frequent opportunity to elect someone else to replace them should you feel they are not doing a responsible job. That doesn't sound like any dictatorship that I know of.
that is a dictatorship in between elections in my book, or more precisely a somewhat popularly elected technocracy. i really do not belive that is what our founding fathers wanted us to become; i honestly do not see why anyone could want that with a good heart.
Joe DeFuria
17-Mar-2003, 21:59
none of us get to "start" the circle, it has been around far longer than any of us.
You missed my point.
We seem to agree that Respect and Authrority are not automatics. They are earned more or less based on actions takem.
You are not giving Bush a chance to prove his "worthiness" of having respect. You do not feel that the manner in which the action against Iraq is carried out makes any difference. You oppose any action, but based on what? You are not allowing Bush to establish himself in your so-called "circle of life".
as for instigating violence; i do not let myself start such things and i have yet to find any reason to stand behind others that do.
And yet, you continually fail to recognize that we don't feel that WE are the ones starting this violence. It started back in the Gulf war, was never fully resolved, and the terrorist actions of 9/11 just brought everything to a head.
"I subscribe to the principle, that the will of the majority honestly expressed should give law." --Thomas Jefferson: The Anas, 1793.
So then why don't we run this country as a true democracy, and just "put everything up for a vote?"
Or do you think that's what we should do?
also take into account that the current "mob" might be more inclined to be civilized if their opinions were more respected by their governments. it is very much a two way street in any society.
And also take into account that the current "mob" might not fully appreciate all the implications a decision has, and that the "mob" does not have access to every piece of information that the representatives do.
Do you have children, Kyle?
that is a dictatorship in between elections in my book,
OK, so you think the U.S. is "dicatatorship between elections" then? Or do you think our representatives are ok...as long as all of their actions on every issue are dictated by polls. (In which case, what difference does it make which representatives are elected in the first place?)
That is no different than mob rule in my book.
or more precisely a somewhat popularly elected technocracy. i really do not belive that is what our founding fathers wanted us to become; i honestly do not see why anyone could want that with a good heart.
Back to attacks on "motive" again, right Kyle? Leftists are all the same. Make simplistic and emotional attacks on motive or character, and just ignore results and the actual plan and arguments themselves.
I don't see how anyone with a good heart could allow Sadam's regime to continue, even if they posed no threat to the U.S. at all. Obviously, anyone who doesn't favor Sadam's removal has a black hole where his heart should be. How could anyone speak highly of democracy, and at the same time support a Tyannical dictatotor of which the attrocities are so well documented and known?
I can play more of these games too. But to what end? Unfortunately, they don't address the issue at hand, and are only inflamatory, but what they hell...
Our founding fathers charged the U.S. governement with first and foremost, protecting the United States citizens from foreign attack. Our president was sworn in to uphold that constitution. I honestly do not see how anyone with a good heart could want to see this nation destroyed.
DemoCoder
17-Mar-2003, 22:06
Direct democracy doesn't work. It's bad enough that we have to do our taxes, and vote every 2 years. But do you expect everyone to do their homework and make informed decisions on each and every nuanced political issue? To watch testimony from lobbyists and experts on each side?
We'd never get any work done, nor any vacation. The fallacy that many policy wonks commit is that they think everyone is as interested in politics as they are, so the ideal system would be one where everyone can vote on everything. Little wonder that most people who support direct democracy are other college students, tenured professors, or people who do nothing but spend their time thinking about politics.
In the real world, people have distinct passions and interests, and our civilization rose to great heights on specialization. I elect someone to sit in committees all day hashing out law, listening to constituents, so that I am free to do other things. I simply do not want to put the effort in that my representatives do, and if I didn't put that level of effort in, my vote would essentially be an IGNORANT one, like the vast majority of those cast today: vote by party line or sound bite.
I grant these people a limited monopoly on power for a 2, 4, or 6 year term, mostly based on my agreement with their espoused philosophy and character. At the end of this time, I review their record, and choose to keep them, or hire someone else. This is exactly how you hire someone in business. They can fake the job interview, but sooner or later, I will figure out they are not qualified.
To call this a dictatorship is ludicrous. Congress and the President are constrained by the Constitution. The President is constained by Congress. Congress is constrained by the Judiciary. And all are constrained by the People, albeit, indirectly.
For very limit times, only if someone is willing to commit political suicide, can they ignore these constraints. Sure, people can still launch illegal actions in our government. But to have each and every government action reviewed by the people in real time would bring this country to a standstill, and still result in violations of human rights, as the majority are often the biggest violators.
Bush could order martial law tommorow, disband congress, and have the CIA kidnap and torture top news media executives. Just how long do you think he would last in office before impeachment. The military, courts, congress, and people would immediately be in opposition, and if he didn't resign, I'd say 1 week before proceedings start.
Result: no dictatorship.
epicstruggle
17-Mar-2003, 23:14
authority is supposed to come from the masses; at least that is how i understand it is spoused to work in a democracy, even a representative one.
were that is the case it leaves us in that position precisely, but many officials are appointed by democratically elected leaders, and some from democracies where the peoples opinion is being ignored. that is the position i have trouble with.
kyleb, could you please inform me where your from? Id like to know what type of government you grew up in. You might have mentioned where you lived but I hope you can repeat it.
The reason I as is that you do not know the type of government the United States of America has. For many decades schools in the US have done a bad job of explaining the real difference between a democratic and a republic form of government. I hope to educate/inform you of the differences. I hope you also ponder the consequences/implications of each type of government.
First let me quote you from 2 of the most important documents ever written by man.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Article. IV.
...
Section. 4.
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.
Second, Id like to tell you that the United States of America has a Republic for of government. Please see above for sources. :) Why is this important. Ill tell you why, there are major differences between what a government can and cannot do depending on its type. Let me explain the differences.
-democracy
In a democracy the "majority rules" - and the minority loses. A hypothetical example can demonstrate the idea. Pretend that you're a land owner, and that I would like to buy some of your property. You don't want to sell this property because it's been in your family for several generations. In a democracy, I could gather a dozen other land owners together, proposing that we divide your land between us. We will allow you to vote on the proposition, because this IS a democracy after all -- and you will lose thirteen to one. That's a democracy!
-republic
In a republic, nothing can outvote your individual rights! They are unalienable. If the land belongs to you it doesn't matter if I have a hundred friends, a thousand friends, or a hundred thousand friends! YOUR PROPERTY IS YOUR PROPERTY! It is the government's fiduciary responsibility to protect your rights. If you are in doubt, read your copy of the Declaration of Independence. Right after "...life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" it says, "That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed".
one reason why democracy is not an ideal form of government:
Every day more and more people go on welfare. The government gives them money which it has taken from you in taxes. Since a majority of people in this country already get some kind of aid from the government, do they have the right to vote for more of your paycheck? If so, how much can they take? Fifty percent? Seventy five percent? One hundred percent? This is democracy in action. At this point, wouldn't it be easier for people who were still working to just go on welfare? If everybody is on welfare, there wouldn't be anyone left to tax, and the system would collapse.
(from http://www.badnarik.org/info/republic.html)
please see this page also for more info:
http://w3f.com/patriots/democracy.html
Now why does this matter. Popular opinion should matter very little to elected officials. However, since they need to get elected they sometimes pander to polls to get elected. Now if you have a leader like President Bush, who would rather do his job and not pay attention to what polls say, then you have a real leader. There have been many situations where public opinion outweighed the correct thing to do, ie slavery, suffarage, wars.
Leaders of this country should do things based on the best interests of its people and not what the public thinks should be done.
I might add more later. I have to go have dinner. :)
ps im posting this in one other thread.
later,
it seems you posted this in two threads epicstruggle, but i will copy my responce here:
i am sorry but i don't rightly have a simple answer for your question as i am from a lot of places. i was born in Kentucky and sense then lived in Alabama, Kansas, Texas, and D.C. as well as over seas in both Korea and Germany. i am currently back in Eastern Kansas, and the majority of my family reside in New Mexico, Texas and in central Kansas. oh, and i agree with Russ, your concepts of democracy and republic are rather shaky in my book.
also as to your quotes which i unfortunately neglected to comment on in the other thread, i want to point out the fact that were created to apply to within the borders of the country there were created in. the were also intended for others to imitate, but nothing in them suggest that we should step out of our own boarders to enforce those ideals. also, please take note of the language used in the constitution:
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.
our current agenda of attacking, invading and policing foreign violence is by no means indorsed by the quote you presented.
Joe DeFuria
18-Mar-2003, 05:51
our current agenda of attacking, invading and policing foreign violence is by no means indorsed by the quote you presented.
I disagree, and it's troubling to see your interpretation.
Was 9/11 not an "invasion"?
If we believe (as the President does) that the Iraqi regime can play a key role in another similar invasion, the constitution endorses the government to protect us from that. It does not preclude any type of action, so long as it is for the purposes of "protection".
I didn't think that was even debatable.
What is debatable, is whether one believes that Iraq is a threat from which we need protection. Not that we can't attack Iraq if we identify it (or its regime) as a contributor to an invading force.
i do not understand your position on this Joe as it seems to me that if i accepted it seems to be that i would have to also support Hitler as he started his war out of frear of invasion as well. i highly doubt that you support Hitler's actions but i do not see how you can consider them any different other than by the scale of the atrocity, and such an argument is not enough to sway my opinion on this.
Joe DeFuria
18-Mar-2003, 06:56
i do not understand your position on this Joe
That's the first thing you've said all night that makes sense. Obviously, you don't understand it, and it saddens me. :(
epicstruggle
18-Mar-2003, 08:12
kyleb, the president is doing what is need to protect this country. Like joe said this country has been invaded, by people who hate the very idea of freedom. We need to root these people out and make sure that they do not have somewhere else to regroup.
later,
doh, i missed this thread.
anyway, epicstruggle; i cannot bring myself to belive that anyone hates the idea of freedom and not see this act as something that will serve to protect our country or our freedom. i see that other people belive that but i do not find logic in it myself. :(
Nagorak
21-Mar-2003, 06:11
"How exactly will leaving Sadam in power, promote peace and justice in Iraq?"
More importantly, how does leaving George W. Bush in power promote world peace, unity and stability?
How does leaving George W. Bush in power keep our country from going bankrupt due to fiscal mismanagement?
See, it's easy to ask slanted questions to promote your view point... If only issues were really that simple.
Personally, I will be interested in seeing whether we really setup a democracy in Iraq. I give even odds to the administration "changing plans" again and just going with another "friendlier" dictator.
Joe DeFuria
21-Mar-2003, 12:48
More importantly, how does leaving George W. Bush in power promote world peace, unity and stability?
Read the rest of this thread, where it's been discussed ad nausem.
the entire world believes that Sadam should be disarmed, in the interests of peace, unity and stablility: see countless UN resloutions culminating in 1441. The difference is, the U.S. appears to be the only one serious about it.
No, again, please answer the relevant question at hand. The question that the "little girl" constantly dodged, which the Iraqi asked point blank. This is only indirectly related to the war. But it is a valid question for those who claim that Sadam shouldn't be rmoved from power:
"How exactly will leaving Sadam in power, promote peace and justice in Iraq?"
See, it's easy to ask slanted questions to promote your view point... If only issues were really that simple.
Issues aren't simple. Solutions are not as simple as a piece of paper either. Sometimes, solutions are tough and are not without sacrifice.
Thank god we have an administration that understands that.
How does leaving George W. Bush in power keep our country from going bankrupt due to fiscal mismanagement?
The same way keeping Ronald Reagan in power with the same fiscal policies and philosophy lead to bankruptcy...it didn't.
I have more faith in the UN making an intelligent decision than the Bush administration (or any other single government for that matter).
I cannot believe someone from a free country would truly believe that, but I guess it is good to have faith in something.
How can the US possibly justify attacking Iraq all on its own without the approval of the rest of the world (ie UN) but be outraged at Iraq attacking Kuwait (first Gulf war). Is it because they are right and Iraq is wrong?
LOL you should do stand up, lets see Iraq invaded Kuwait to keep Kuwait, we are not invading Iraq to keep it, perhaps you do not see that. You may believe that the US will stay there and steal all their oil, and if so say that is your belief, but otherwise what you say makes absolutely no sense.
There are many logical and rational reasons to say what the US is doing is bad, such as where do you stop when it comes to removing jerks like Saddam, or In the past war has not been an especially apt tool for instating democratic governments, the list goes on, but say something that makes sense, not sensation.
well there is plenty of money to be made even if we don't steal their oil.
http://www.corpwatch.org/issues/PID.jsp?articleid=6008
Crusher
24-Mar-2003, 08:08
The question is, did Halliburton get the contracts because its former CEO is the vice president, or was Cheney chosen to run as vice president because he was the CEO of a successful international company that has proven itself to be worthy of major defense contracts? I don't think there is overwhelming proof one way or the other, and you could easily argue it from both sides. Until someone finds out that a single penny has been paid to Cheney as a direct result of Halliburton winning this contract, it doesn't bother me one bit. Someone has to do the work, and AFAIC Halliburton is as good as anyone. And as long as they're doing the work, I don't have a problem with them making a profit from it. I don't think any business would do what they're doing as a charity, and it's not like the government is just giving the company money, they're still earning it. The money would be spent whether it was Halliburton, Chevron Texaco, or Bob's Tent Rentals putting up the tents.
demalion
24-Mar-2003, 10:41
Wow, such a morasse. I am fond of seeking clear statements being made, and I think that is being hindered in some places in here. Unlike my usual posts, I do not have access to sufficient facts to make definitive conclusions, since we are discussing things in all the full splendor and complexity of the political, military, and diplomatic landscape. What I can do is present some thoughts that occur to me, and why I think they are important...feel free to disagree, and I'm confident there are many valid reasons for doing so, but I'm primarily trying to share my thoughts, not defend them.
First, my emotional outlook. My primary regret in leaving the military was that it seemed at the time that there was the possibility that I might be called upon to act to defend my country (this was after the USS Cole and tensions in the middle east were rising). This regret is not because I relish the idea of taking life, but because it remains very important to me to live up to my ideals, and what I looked forward to was placing my actions, my training, and my life on the line for supporting some things I think are very important...the simplest word some of these things is "freedom", but fully articulating what it is would make this post even more long winded.
This does not make me a "Hawk", and I suspect some of you may be surprised by the outlook of some of those who fight...joining the military does not require a love of war.
What I think is being mixed together in the discussion is on one hand the idea that perfect action is the only action that we can ever take, and on the other that an action that in the final analysis is justified is completely justified in all facets.
I wish I was there as part of this action in Iraq. Not because I view it as a perfect act, not because I'm sure it is the only way to have resolved the issue, but because I believe that it is the type of action I could have died attempting with a clean conscience. That last is a question I was lucky enough to never have to answer "no" to and still act, as I would have had to to the limits of my conscience because of the oaths I swore.
My belief of the above does not mean I don't view many of the criticisms levelled at the Bush administration as valid. My problem with some of the peace protestors, such as the woman in the recording at the start of the thread, is that they view their ideals as the whole of the issue regarding this war, and ignore the reality that people are dying and suffering in the meantime.
I think the illusion that is common is that inaction is different than action...what it often is in a world with interests and agendas other than your own (as an individual or nation) is allowing someone else's actions to occur.
I think the primary action of taking out Saddam Hussein by force is an unavoidable and correct action, but that is simply because I don't see another way available in a reasonable time frame, and I think the man in that recording is of the same mind, even knowing that his relatives may be killed in the process.
There are a host of other actions that have occurred, however, that many of those supporting the war seem to tend to ignore. I think some of them have been driven to this stance because of the natural polarization that occurs when people dispute something they feel strongly about.
We've made a complete disaster of our foreign policy. That is my opinion, perhaps not the most qualified :lol:, but it is what I believe nonetheless. I think this very regrettable, potentially disasterous in the future in terms of promoting the simple ideal of freedom worldwide as the pereception moving forward will be that what we are promoting is our will, which makes it that much easier to oppose for the political expediency of whomever has a conflicting interest. The problem is, that given the track record for behavior we establish, those who propose that are not necessarily wrong.
I doubt it is irretrievable, but I don't think the wisest course is to seek to correct something done wrong after simply not trying our best to do it well when it was in the process of being done, the more complex the action that has to be corrected, the less wise I think it is.
I really don't know how to properly articulate the dismay of the "sit down and shut up you smaller countries" mentalities that are prevalent in some comments. Those same countries would "sit down and shut up" to China by the same rationale...or are they automatically justified in their actions against the interests and wishes of weaker countries? Though I really tend to share the negative viewpoint of the political maneuverings of the leaders of some specific European countries (I'll give you two guesses), I happen to think the response we've given to that behavior is little better...and that little is purely because it is my best guess that the result as far as the future of the Iraqi people will be better, balanced against my worries about the long term effects on our actions and the actions of others in the future regarding some of those smaller countries we discount.
This is not to say I oppose the idea of the US acting alone in a considered fashion, but that in conjunction with being able to act alone, the particular attitude of response to other nations being displayed will and has caused more problems than necessary.
Another thing that dismays me is the mentality of praise for Bush acting as he has. It is easy to justify acting against Iraq to yourself. It is easy to give the order based on your political support at home...it's not like he sees to the carrying out of all his decisions by himself. It is not easy to negotiate a path to such action in the face of the interests of other countries and manage to be perceived as doing right, and it is the test of managing that type of difficult task that is important when you aren't the only one in the world with interests (which we aren't, believe it or not) in a world growing more and more ruled by politcal/economical interactions.
I see some make an issue of his honesty...well, honesty is a virtue, but it is not the only one. I think you can be an honest wise man, or an honest bully, and I see much of the latter mentality in my country as led by Bush. But this opinion is a matter of second guessing...what I take primary issue with is the words of praise for him that seem blind to me...finding fault with him does not mean I actively condemn him for this war we are in, and above you can find the reasons why.
As to further details of political and economic complexities domestically and abroad...anything is possible, but what I've stated is what I think is important about what is well established so far.
Hawk/Dove....I really hate such labels. I don't recall a "labelled" viewpoint yet that encompassed all I believed on an issue, and war is as complex an issue in the real world as there is.
It really is possible to support the war, yet recognize that wrongs might be and might have been done in the process. I think you should face up to and recognize those wrongs...not to spend all your time condemning those who decided on action, but to acknowledge and learn from them as mistakes to prevent in future, and hold yourself responsible for in the present. I also think that knowing what is wrong, you should not ignore what is right, such that in blindly avoiding such wrongs leads you to ignore the other wrongs that might result from that avoidance.
vBulletin® v3.8.6, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.