On the brink of war [Archive]

pascal

19-Mar-2003, 16:32

Canada dont like it too. http://www.economist.com/world/na/displayStory.cfm?story_id=1632848Even so, Canada has—along with Britain—traditionally been one of the United States' closest allies. The two countries have a joint defence command, and have fought many wars together; Vietnam was the main recent exception. But whereas one Canadian in three draws comfort from living next to the superpower, a similar number finds such proximity threatening. Suspicious of raw power, Canada has always been a strong supporter of multilateralism and the United Nations.

So it is not surprising that Iraq is causing much friction. Mr Chrétien has called for the weapons inspectors to be given more time, wants all measures to be decided by the UN, and has been reluctant to commit forces to the Gulf. Some of his supporters have been more outspoken. Last month, Carolyn Parrish, a backbench MP from Mr Chrétien's Liberal Party, said to reporters, when she thought the microphones were off, “Damn Americans. I hate those bastards.” That earned her no official reprimand, merely applause when she later appeared on a television talk-show.

Also see that Tony Blair is in trouble with his own party.

Joe DeFuria

19-Mar-2003, 16:34

it is important to open up your ears when the world is trying to talk to you, i hope that people will come to understand this soon.

Yup.

That's why I'm grateful that this adminstration did open up his ears and listened to what the world had to say. The administration simply disagrees.

I do believe, Kyle, that you are a big proponent of people agreeing to disagree, correct?

Or are you really trying to say that we should just agree with what others say, just based on the fact that others are saying it and using their own blck-mail and bullying tactics to try and persuade us?

kyleb

19-Mar-2003, 16:42

i am a proponent of people working things out in constrictive ways, and only agreeing to disagree for periods that they cannot find it within their hearts to do otherwise. i belive that all life comes around eventually, assuming the conditions are good; this goes for the crops in the field as well as us who tend to them. also, yes i know you think it is time to get out the insecticide; but insecticide can hurt more than it can help in many situations and my experience still requires me to disagree with such action in this case.

oh and not i never support going for black-mail and bullying tactics; that is why it really troubles me to see a good friend of mine shipping of any day while stating clearly himself that he does not belive our current action is called for but insists that he will have enough money to buy an new computer when he gets back and it will surely be better than going to jail for breach of contract. :(

Joe DeFuria

19-Mar-2003, 16:48

i am a proponent of people working things out in constrictive ways,

So am I....though I assume you mean constructive. ;)

and only agreeing to disagree for periods that they cannot find it within their hearts to do otherwise.

So am I. The problems come in when one person dictates that someone else's "heart" should be able to hold out longer.

i belive that all life comes around eventually, assuming the conditions are good;

Agree, for the most part.

also, yes i know you think it is time to get out the insecticide; but insecticide can hurt more than it can help in many situations

Agreed.

and my experience still requires me to disagree with such action in this case.

And my experience tells me otherwise. So maybe we can leave it at that.

Silent_One

19-Mar-2003, 16:52

i am a proponent of people working things out in constrictive ways

con·strictive adj.

1.) To make smaller or narrower by binding or squeezing.
2.) To squeeze or compress.
3.) To restrict the scope or freedom of; cramp:
:cry:

pascal

19-Mar-2003, 16:57

Or are you really trying to say that we should just agree with what others say, just based on the fact that others are saying it and using their own blck-mail and bullying tactics to try and persuade us?Who is blackmailling US Joe? France? Russia? China? Canada? Mexico? Most EU? the UN?

Or they just want to disarm Sadam and honestlly see no need of force now?

30 countries means only 1 in 6 countries agree with it. What is wrong?

Joe DeFuria

19-Mar-2003, 16:57

oh and not i never support going for black-mail and bullying tactics; that is why it really troubles me to see a good friend of mine shipping of any day while stating clearly himself that he does not belive our current action is called for but insists that he will have enough money to buy an new computer when he gets back and it will surely be better than going to jail for breach of contract. :(

So now the military is black mailing its soldiers, right? You have some shallow friends, by the way. Do you have any friends that are in the military and support the war?

Every single one of my friends that are in the military, or have been in the military, haven't talked one bit about money at all. They talk about doing what's right.

kyleb

19-Mar-2003, 16:58

lol, ya i meant constructive. :oops:

but it was the spellchecker's fault, not mine! it is evil i say! :twisted:

:wink:

but seriously, i could leave it at that if it wasn't a fact that i am apparent to this by way of citizenship and i greatly enjoy of making use of my liberties insured as an American. however, we have already been though how the conditions when you feel it is time to metaphorically break out the insecticide and i have explained how i disagree; so i do agree that there is no reason to drag that portion of the discussion back up between us at this point. however, please note that i edit my last post with a few more responses to you which i hope you might consider.

Joe DeFuria

19-Mar-2003, 17:03

Who is blackmailling US Joe? France? Russia? China? Canada? Mexico? Most EU? the UN?

The examples in the first post "threatening" to perform actions that the U.S. would prefer not to happen if we go through with the operation.

Or they just want to disarm Sadam and honestlly see no need of force now?

Oddly, they don't want to see force, but they have no problem with supplying us air space and land passage. But they are standing up based on principal, right?

30 countries means only 1 in 6 countries agree with it. What is wrong?

The first thing that is wrong is, that it's more like 45 countries. 15 or so give "private" support. That concept is itself alrarming no matter how you look at it...that 15 countries support us, but are "afraid" to publically admit it?

(Edit: Secondly, all I see is 45 countries that "support". I don't see any list of countrys that "oppose" and a thrid list of countrys that say "no comment" (abstain.))

Finally, nothing is wrong at all. One set of countries feels one way, including the one, the U.S. that feels it has the most to loose by ignoring action. Another set of countries feels another way.

There is disagreement. Nothing wrong at all.

nutball

19-Mar-2003, 17:17

Also see that Tony Blair is in trouble with his own party.

Blair has been in trouble with certain elements within his party ever since he was elected leader (never mind elected Prime Minister), in general the pinko lefties. I'd be surprised Blair if actually gets pushed out. A lot of his MPs disagree with him over this particular issue, but in the longer term they're worried about their own seats in Parliament which are a lot safer with Blair at the helm.

pascal

19-Mar-2003, 17:43

Who is blackmailling US Joe? France? Russia? China? Canada? Mexico? Most EU? the UN?

The examples in the first post "threatening" to perform actions that the U.S. would prefer not to happen if we go through with the operation.

IMHO those are not blackmailling but are reactions. Nobody said " I will do this if you do that".

Or they just want to disarm Sadam and honestlly see no need of force now?

Oddly, they don't want to see force, but they have no problem with supplying us air space and land passage. But they are standing up based on principal, right?

They dont want to use force now without exausting peacefull means to disarm Iraq.

30 countries means only 1 in 6 countries agree with it. What is wrong?

The first thing that is wrong is, that it's more like 45 countries. 15 or so give "private" support. That concept is itself alrarming no matter how you look at it...that 15 countries support us, but are "afraid" to publically admit it?

Secondly, nothing is wrong at all. One set of countries feels one way, including the one, the U.S. that feels it has the most to loose by ignoring action. Another set of countries feels another way.

There is disagreement. Nothing wrong at all.[/quote]

Also some governments have trouble supporting US like Turkey.
IIRC Blair lost THREE ministers up to now.

I feel unconfortable with all above.

Heathen

19-Mar-2003, 18:36

IIRC Blair lost THREE ministers up to now.

Er not really, two of them were under secretaries and Robin Cook's always been a bit of an oddball (Leader of the House of Commons). Interestingly the only real minister whoo looked they'd resign didn't.

Joe DeFuria

19-Mar-2003, 19:14

IMHO those are not blackmailling but are reactions. Nobody said " I will do this if you do that".

No, the threatened "to do this, if you do that." Whether or not they do remains to be seen.

They dont want to use force now without exausting peacefull means to disarm Iraq.

Neither does the U.S. Thing is, we believe all possible peaceful means HAVE been exhausted.

Why isn't this ever understood? Disagree with it if you must, but don't imply that we don't believe that any additional "peaceful" means are doomed to failure.

Also some governments have trouble supporting US like Turkey.

Point? Other governments "outwardly oppoesed" like Germany, don't seem to have trouble letting us use their bases, airspace, etc. That doesn't "comfort" you in the same way that Turkey having "trouble" gives you discomfort?

IIRC Blair lost THREE ministers up to now.

And it doesn't comfort you that public UK support for involvment has been increasing?

kyleb

19-Mar-2003, 19:27

The examples in the first post "threatening" to perform actions that the U.S. would prefer not to happen if we go through with the operation.

threat requires imposition, while you might prefer they did not withdraw their current support; that is clearly a case of standing ones ground and not a threat by any definition of the word. telling a man to take up arms and fight or go to jail is a threat, even if when it is done by contract.

Joe DeFuria

19-Mar-2003, 19:48

So. what you're saying is, it's no imposition to us or anyone else if Russia doesn't sign the "landmark treaty with America on the reduction of nuclear arsenals."

PurplePigeon

19-Mar-2003, 20:03

On a related note to the original post, the New York Times has an article headlined "Negative Views of U.S. Are Increasing in Europe, Poll Finds" http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/19/politics/19CND-POLL.html (you have to register to read it).

The poll showed a serious disconnect between Americans and their traditional allies. While 59 percent of Americans supported a war to remove Saddam Hussein, only 39 percent of Britons and 13 percent of the Spanish favored military action.

Still, it's interesting that:

The antipathy to Mr. Bush and the United States is all the more striking because most of the European nations firmly believe that the people of Iraq would be better off if Saddam Hussein is removed from power and disarmed by the United States and its allies.

By wide margins, they agreed that the Middle East region would be a more stable place after a United States-led ouster of Saddam Hussein. Russia and Turkey were the only exceptions.

Based on this poll, I suspect that sentiment towards the US could actually swing to the positive side if the war can be won without any significant casualties. However, if more than a few innocent citizens are killed, negative opinions towards the US could become even more entrenched.

It will also be interesting to see if any sort of WMD will be used in the war by Iraq, and once the coalition wins (I don't think there's any real doubt about winning, quite frankly), to what actual extent WMD were being developed by Iraq. One of the impediments to forming a pro-invasion opinon is that to the general public, there seems to be insufficient concrete evidence available of a sizeable and currently active chemical or nuclear weapons program in Iraq. Indeed, you have comments from UN inspectors like this (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,917323,00.html):

A UN weapons inspector who returned from Iraq yesterday said today that the US had given them wrong and misleading information about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.

Jorn Siljeholm, 48, a Norwegian scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, spent 100 days in Iraq as part of the UN inspections team.

He told the Associated Press that assertions by US officials, including the US secretary of state, Colin Powell, about Iraq's arsenal and its attempts to hide it, did not tally with his own findings.

"None of their hot tips were ever confirmed," he said, adding: "I don't know about a single decontamination truck that didn't turn out to be a fire engine or a water truck."

So, although there have been claims of classified intelligence showing Iraq currently has WMD, that hard evidence has not been made available to the public. Fair enough, since that might compromise the invasion... But, at some point during the war, the coalition had best uncover those WMD -- otherwise, there will be a real loss of credibility. And if there are substantial civilian casualties as well, the world community will be outraged.

Crusher

19-Mar-2003, 21:10

So, although there have been claims of classified intelligence showing Iraq currently has WMD, that hard evidence has not been made available to the public. Fair enough, since that might compromise the invasion... But, at some point during the war, the coalition had best uncover those WMD -- otherwise, there will be a real loss of credibility. And if there are substantial civilian casualties as well, the world community will be outraged.

I am fairly confident they will. It basically boils down to who you believe.

On the one hand, you have a ruthless dictator, who has usurped his country's finances and waged war on neighboring countries for territorial and religious reasons, and has not provided overwhelming evidence or records that he has complied with the agreement set for him over a decade ago.

On the other hand, you have the elected leader of a free country, who is making a fixed salary from doing his job, and has intelligence from one of the best government agencies in the world backing him, who is waging war in order to protect his own country in response to terrorist attacks brought upon it, and has everything to lose by doing so if he isn't right in his position.

I would tend to believe the latter, no matter how much you may hate his speaking abilities.

Also, as far as the reports not being made to the public, I've heard numerous reports that missles loaded with VX have been moved into southern Iraq. Those still count as weapons of mass destruction, don't they?

Vince

19-Mar-2003, 21:28

Also, as far as the reports not being made to the public, I've heard numerous reports that missles loaded with VX have been moved into southern Iraq. Those still count as weapons of mass destruction, don't they?

From what I heard last night, the command of the Basra region (eg. South Iraq) was given to a man named Ali Hassan al-Majid. He's a cousin of Saddam's whose better known by the name Chemical Ali for his orders to use Chemical munitions against the Kurds. Appearently, he's one of the best Iraq generals at using Chemical weapons and did so sucessfully in the Iran-Iraq war.

Silent_One

19-Mar-2003, 21:47

'Chemical Ali' ready to kill Iraqi civilians
http://www.americasnewspaper.com/left.shtmlIraqi leader Saddam Hussein is planning attacks on his own people in the event of a U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, and his top operative, a general nicknamed "Chemical Ali," has been put in charge of southern Iraq to quell any civilian uprisings, U.S. officials say.
........ A U.S. military official said that at least two Republican Guard divisions are believed to be armed at this moment with chemical artillery shells.
The belief among military planners is that Saddam has nothing to lose in unleashing weapons of mass destruction, as the goal of the coalition troops is to capture or kill him and oust his hard-line Ba'ath party regime.
A sign that Saddam is serious about attacking civilians comes in reports from inside Iraq that Gen. Ali Hassan al Majid, or "Chemical Ali," has been placed in charge of military activities in southern Iraq.
Considered a war criminal by human rights groups, Majid commanded the 1988 chemical weapons attacks on the Kurds.
He also oversaw the brutal occupation of Kuwait in 1990 and 1991. After the 1991 war, he commanded the Republican Guard divisions that brutally put down a rebellion by Shi'ites in Iraq's southern marshlands.
"He is a senior adviser to Saddam. He is known as an enforcer for the regime," said a U.S. intelligence official, who asked not to be named. "He is used to put down uprisings and maintain order."

PurplePigeon

19-Mar-2003, 22:17

I am fairly confident they will. It basically boils down to who you believe.

On the one hand, you have a ruthless dictator, who has usurped his country's finances and waged war on neighboring countries for territorial and religious reasons, and has not provided overwhelming evidence or records that he has complied with the agreement set for him over a decade ago.

On the other hand, you have the elected leader of a free country, who is making a fixed salary from doing his job, and has intelligence from one of the best government agencies in the world backing him, who is waging war in order to protect his own country in response to terrorist attacks brought upon it, and has everything to lose by doing so if he isn't right in his position.

I would tend to believe the latter, no matter how much you may hate his speaking abilities.

Actually it's two elected leaders :)

As far as it betting a matter of who you believe... Well, I too tend to believe the latter, but that is tempered by the realization that elected officials are still prone to: (1) deception (or the milder variant, 'spin'), (2) poor judgement. That belief has to be justified at some point by producing concrete evidence that the war is necessary when all is said and done.

I disagree with the comment that the elected leaders "have everything to lose." Actually, the stakes seem much higher for Saddam Hussein -- ie. death. For Bush and Blair, I think the worst that could happen is that their political career would go down the tubes and history would think poorly of them.

In a way, I would be more assured of the correctness of the decision to go to war if the stakes were higher for the elected representatives in some way, as a type of "checks and balances" approach. ie. if Iraq's capabilities were severly overestimated and additionally many innocent people died, some higher level of accountability is required (maybe something along the lines of the international criminal court).

Also, as far as the reports not being made to the public, I've heard numerous reports that missles loaded with VX have been moved into southern Iraq. Those still count as weapons of mass destruction, don't they?

They would, if there's hard evidence. Intelligence information might suggest that, and it may well be true... But until those missiles are captured or used, those reports don't count as evidence to me.

pascal

20-Mar-2003, 14:10

More negative reactions: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2867913.stmBlix criticises US 'impatience'

Many inspectors felt their missions was prematurely ended
Former chief weapons inspector Hans Blix has expressed regret over US "impatience" to go to war with Iraq - and suggested Washington had little interest in peaceful disarmament from the outset.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2867027.stm"If we install the rule of force in place of international security structures, no country in the world will feel secure," Mr Putin said.

Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Kong Quan said the military operation violated the principles of international law.

"They ignored the opposition of most countries and peoples of the world and went around the UN Security Council to being military action against Iraq," he added.

The Vatican said it was "deeply pained" by the conflict and deplored the interruption of peace efforts.
Now everybody will blame US if anything goes wrong. IMHO it was not smart going without UN consensus.

pascal

20-Mar-2003, 14:28

More on Putin:Putin Demands Swift End to War With Iraq

Thursday March 20, 2003 11:50 AM

MOSCOW (AP) - Russian President Vladimir Putin demanded Thursday that the United States quickly end its attack on Iraq, and said the use of military force against Saddam Hussein was not justified.

Russia, along with France and Germany, opposed any resolution in the U.N. Security Council that would have sanctioned the use of force. President Bush withdrew the resolution on Monday.

``Russia demands the swiftest end to military action,'' Putin said at the start of a meeting with top officials. ``The military action against Iraq is a big political mistake.''

Putin reiterated his belief that military action wasn't necessary to determine if Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, and if so, to disarm Saddam Hussein.

``The military action in Iraq is being conducted in spite of world opinion, in spite of the principles and norms of international law and the U.N. Charter,'' Putin said. ``This military action cannot be justified.''

Putin said the U.N. Security Council should quickly address the crisis. He has been outspoken in his condemnation of military action in recent days, after weeks of silence while diplomats at the United Nations wrestled over the standoff.

``If we allow international law to be replaced by the right of might ... then one of the main principles of international law, the principle of the inviolability of the sovereignty of states, will be thrown into question,'' he said.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-2494683,00.html

chavvdarrr

20-Mar-2003, 14:41

I am fairly confident they will. It basically boils down to who you believe.

On the other hand, you have the elected leader of a free country, who is making a fixed salary from doing his job, and has intelligence from one of the best government agencies in the world backing him, who is waging war in order to protect his own country in response to terrorist attacks brought upon it, and has everything to lose by doing so if he isn't right in his position.
Elected?? by whom? by Kondoleesa, or his brother? Is there someone who believes that US people are so dumb that they can't count BY HAND ?
Waging war to protect his country??? sheeeesh that's good. I never know Iraq was attacking USA. When ? Or maybe you can show evidense ?
Everything to lose? What can he lose? USA pretend to be ABOVE the law. So much above that NOT ANY AMERICAN SOLDIER, NEVER to be put on trial i in other country. WHATEVER he did. Perhaps being US citizen means USman is a BETTER man? Another , better race?
How long before deciding to clear inferior people off the face of the planet? After all USA have the biggest chem arsenal in the world. All these war-facilities need to work, to make "goods", money. And besides money don't smell. Even oil money don't smell. Can you believe that wasn't discovered by USA ??? Can you believe this war is for "rights" not for the oil?
If you do believe then you're brainwashed. Letting others to decide what's good/bad/moral is easy. Thinking with your head is hard. Yet that's what makes a man different from the monkey.

I would tend to believe the latter, no matter how much you may hate his speaking abilities.

Also, as far as the reports not being made to the public, I've heard numerous reports that missles loaded with VX have been moved into southern Iraq. Those still count as weapons of mass destruction, don't they?
Nope. You can believe in Church, in God. Believing in politic, whatever is his name is STUPID. Even if his name is Bush 2nd. Or Putin, Saddam, Blair, Hitler, Stalin.

So Iraq perhaps has "mass destruction" weapons. Are you saying that USA, UK, Russia, China, etc DON'T HAVE ? The stronger can have, the smaller can't ? See above. 70 years ago there were people who believed in this. more than 50 mln paid the prize.

Joe DeFuria

20-Mar-2003, 14:48

Putin said the U.N. Security Council should quickly address the crisis. He has been outspoken in his condemnation of military action in recent days, after weeks of silence while diplomats at the United Nations wrestled over the standoff.

Perhaps Putin will author a new UN resolution demanding the U.S. cease action or face "serious consequences."

Joe DeFuria

20-Mar-2003, 15:09

Elected?? by whom?

The people of the United Sates.

Is there someone who believes that US people are so dumb that they can't count BY HAND ?

Hmmm...perhaps the same people who believes the US people are so dumb that they would punch the wrong hole in a ballot?

I can see you're another disgruntled liberal who just can't "accept" the fact that Bush won the election. Please, just get over the shock of it all and move on.

Waging war to protect his country??? sheeeesh that's good.

Yup. Good indeed.

I never know Iraq was attacking USA.

That's because they aren't. That's not why we're going to war, nor was it EVER the reason stated for going to war. I thought that was perfectly clear?

Everything to lose? What can he lose?

Reelection which is what motivates shallow people into taking courses of action....they fear not getting re-elected so they take the popular position, rather than what they feel is the right position.

USA pretend to be ABOVE the law.

No, we prefer to enforce a law agreed to unanimously by the UN security council.

Perhaps being US citizen means USman is a BETTER man? Another , better race?

Nope. Not at all.

How long before deciding to clear inferior people off the face of the planet?

Inferior people, or oppressive regimes that are a threat to us, and in material breach of unanimously approved resolutions.

After all USA have the biggest chem arsenal in the world.

And like Sadam, we've demonstrated such wreckless use of them as well, right? :roll: And every nation in the world as agreed that the U.S. , like Iraq, should not posess or develop them, right?

but I guess the nations of the world supporting 1441 did so just because they felt they were a superior race compared to the Iraqis...is that it?

All these war-facilities need to work, to make "goods", money. And besides money don't smell. Even oil money don't smell. Can you believe that wasn't discovered by USA ??? Can you believe this war is for "rights" not for the oil?

Yes, I can. Can you believe this war is to disarm Iraq and not for oil?

If you do believe then you're brainwashed.

Thanks for letting me know.

Letting others to decide what's good/bad/moral is easy.

Absolutely. Deciding for yourself what is good/bad/moral is what should be done, after consdering all the information and arguments on the issue.

Thinking with your head is hard.

Yes, and so is doing the morally right thing, particularly in the face of opposition. It's so much easier to give in to pressure and not do what you feel is right.

So Iraq perhaps has "mass destruction" weapons. Are you saying that USA, UK, Russia, China, etc DON'T HAVE ?

No, whatever gave you that idea?

The stronger can have, the smaller can't ?

No, the more responsible can, the less responsible can't. The ones who were so irresponsible that the UN drafted a resolution PRHOBITING them from having them can't.

Silent_One

20-Mar-2003, 15:39

I found this a little bit interesting for those who like to talk of nations for and against this action-http://www.heritage.org/Research/MiddleEast/wm225.cfm

"Coalition of the Willing" Already Larger than the 1991 Gulf War coalition"

To date, there are 42 countries that have joined the Coalition of the Willing--not including Canada, Germany, and France, which have recently offered conditional support. This does not include all of the 15 nations that have offered quiet support. The number of nations to date already eclipses the 1991 Gulf War coalition, which had 38 countries.

Heathen

20-Mar-2003, 15:44

Perhaps Putin will author a new UN resolution demanding the U.S. cease action or face "serious consequences."

He can try except that the US and UK would use their veto the second he opened his gob, of course he could get together with France and Germany and decalre 'an axis of countries that while not evil are generally disagreeable' to conduct military action. Hmm, us (UK & US) vs them. Well I'd know who I'd back looking at their track record in wars. :twisted:

Joe DeFuria

20-Mar-2003, 15:50

He can try except that the US and UK would use their veto the second he opened his gob,

Heh...what would be funny and pointed actually, is if such a resoltion were drafted, and the US/UK did sign it! Then leave it up to the UN to implement the "serious consequences." :)

chavvdarrr

21-Mar-2003, 08:59

I can see you're another disgruntled liberal who just can't "accept" the fact that Bush won the election. Please, just get over the shock of it all and move on.
Personally I don't care WHO is president of USA. All nations deserve people who rule them - democracy right? However, watching from distance, last elections were a fars. IMHO. And I do care if man who have so much power in his hands can keep it under control - there was an old song "when a man with the power can't keep it under control... some heads are gonna roll" - that's what I'm afraid.

Reelection which is what motivates shallow people into taking courses of action....they fear not getting re-elected so they take the popular position, rather than what they feel is the right position.
Hey, loosing reelection.... how about to compare with loosing his life?

No, we prefer to enforce a law agreed to unanimously by the UN security council..........

Inferior people, or oppressive regimes that are a threat to us, and in material breach of unanimously approved resolutions
1st there is no resolution for war.
2nd You do think THERE ARE inferior people? Who decides who good who's bad? CIA?
3rd 1441 has nothing to do with war.
4th Which oppresive regimes? Do you make difference between "oppressive regimes that are threat to us" and "oppressive regimes that are not threat to us" ? What about Israel (possesing nukes and killing palestinians), what about Saudi Arabia (hardly a democracy), Turkey (20% of their 50mln are kurds, and saying "I'm a kurd" is a crime) etc, etc.
Back in 80's Saddam was "good". In 90s, talibans were "good" . He who seeds wind, will harvest storms....

Yes, I can. Can you believe this war is to disarm Iraq and not for oil?
No. Sorry, but I can't. Yes, Iraq will be disarmed. But that is NOT the primary motive. That's a lame excuse, for US citizens.

Thanks for letting me know. (brainwashed)
Sorry. But I think you're not stupid.

Absolutely. Deciding for yourself what is good/bad/moral is what should be done, after consdering all the information and arguments on the issue. Yes, and so is doing the morally right thing, particularly in the face of opposition. It's so much easier to give in to pressure and not do what you feel is right.
(Y)

chavvdarrr

21-Mar-2003, 09:16

Which nations? Albania, Macedonia, etc. etc
They "support" because that's what suppose to be "safe". No one wants to be next target. And many of these are simply "bought" - with promises for investment, for taking part of "after-war dining table", money (for those who want money)
Bother to see how big is support from simple people in these countries?
2% where I live. But we "support". Who needs such support?
Obviously - CNN. After all winners write the history. 42 nations. More than in 1991. Pheewwwwww. How great!

DemoCoder

21-Mar-2003, 09:36

I can see you're another disgruntled liberal who just can't "accept" the fact that Bush won the election. Please, just get over the shock of it all and move on.
Personally I don't care WHO is president of USA. All nations deserve people who rule them - democracy right? However, watching from distance, last elections were a fars. IMHO. And I do care if man who have so much power in his hands can keep it under control - there was an old song "when a man with the power can't keep it under control... some heads are gonna roll" - that's what I'm afraid.

Well, maybe you should learn a bit more about the American electoral process before you open your mouth.

#1 The US president is elected by the electoral college, not by the popular vote
#2 Bush won the electoral college by a statistically insignificant amount
#3 Gore won the popular vote, by a statistically insignificant amount

Conclusion: The election was a wash, because there was no clear majority. Every voting system has an error rate, and there are always the people who didn't get to vote because they got caught in a traffic jam, when the margin comes down to less than 1/2% of 100 million people, I simply do not care which one "got more" under either the popular vote, or the electoral college system.

But it is disingenous to say that Bush "stole" the election. He was elected, by roughly 1/2 of the people. Gore was also elected, by roughly 1/2 the people. Both had statistically equal numbers of people behind them, and in such a situation, you may as well flip a coin, and choose one. Instead of "flipping a coin", Bush won on a technicality. He is the legitimate president of the US, elected by the people.

To here Europeans tell it, Bush had no popular support, was a minority candidate, and won by a coup d'etat. They simply don't understand that something truly amazing happened: Americans were almost evenly divided.

Let's say that after a full and complete tally, Bush wins by 1 popular vote. Do you really think this means Bush actually "won" in any real sense? How many people tried to vote that day, but were disenfranchised because of circumstances beyond their control? Do you really think any election this close can truly represent the will of the people?

In most elections, one president soundly beats the other, in both the electoral college and the popular vote, and there is absolutely no ambiguity in the result. Even if you through away 5% of the figures to "error" or "accidental disenfranchisement", usually one candidate wins by a large margin.

The 2000 elections were a dead heat, a bizarre occurance.

The worse you can say about the 2000 elections is that Americans couldn't decide who to elect, and Bush merely won by default on a legal technicality.

But to take moral outtrage and claim a "stolen" election is ridiculous. Gore wouldn't have been any more legitimate. 50% of the country would have simply thought that Gore stole the election.

Gubbi

21-Mar-2003, 10:25

What puzzles most europeans is that Gore got half million more votes than Bush, yet still did not become president. This doesn't harmonize well with most peoples notion of democracy

The fact that is was due to some technicality in the U.S. voting system doesn't change that.

Most other countries use a system of electorates but with compensation electorates for the individual error (vote remainders)

Cheers
Gubbi

DemoCoder

21-Mar-2003, 11:25

In voting theory, it is well known that every voting system has flaws that can cause bizarre outcomes that do not reflect the popular will, or balance of power. Choosing between each one, simply depends on which bad outcomes you are willing to accept. e.g. "run off" systems have their own "bizarre-once-in-a-lifetime" circumstances that can come up.

The US founders were deeply mistrustful of the masses. They also needed to balance the powers of the states. So they designed a system to prevent the popular election of dictators, and they designed a system that forces presidents to cater to the interests of minority states as well.

I am not saying the electoral college is the best system possible, nor is the Senate. However, it was very successful in creating a strong union of states, something the EU is struggling with now.

You have to remember that we didn't even elect Senators in the beginning (not until 1913). You voted for your local state governor and legislature, they they appointed Senators to the Senate, almost as a sort of ambassador to Washington, since before the Civil War, states had way more autonomy.

It would help Europeans if they stopped viewing the US as the modern centralized nation state it is today, and look at the US from a historical perspective, as it was a collection of states that formed a strong union, just like the EU. The constitution, as setup for the original states, hasn't changed much since then. (rightfully, it was intentionally made difficult to alter, so that rights could not easily be taken away)

The Electoral College system is the last line of defense against electing a Hitler. It is possible for some states to use a "faithless elector" to "dissent" against the popular mass vote of the US, and essentially "veto" the choice of the people, if the election is close. It may seem like it would never have to be used, and it may seem unfair, but the majority if not always right.

What I like about the US system is it has so many levels of indirection, that it prevents radicalism, and allows balances to be checked at many levels. It splinters up power and puts it in opposition against itself. Grid-lock is built in. I prefer slow, deliberative bodies, that take a long time to do something, and only after there is overwhelming consensus.

Thus, not only does the current whim of the people, the popular vote, have to be in place, but past whims of the people, electors, governors, senators, judges, also have to agree. This means people cannot change their minds too quickly, too radically, because any current political fad is held in check by judges, senators, and governors who were put into place years before. Progressive change requires popular agreement not just among *current people*, but also has to be in agreement of those a few years ago.

Now, the executive branch is a different matter. Theoretically, the executive branch should be held in check by Congress when declaring war, thus, it should be more deliberative. Moreover, the judicial branch could judge whether or not the legal basis for a particular action is consistent with constitutional law. Unfortunaltely, since WW2, the checks and balances against the hoops the executive branch has to go thru in order to declare war has been watered down.

In other areas, the executive branch is fairly restricted (e.g. spending authorization). But ironically, while the president's can unilaterally declare new spending, he can unilaterally carry out foreign wars (not convert missions, which are a different matter)

I don't like the way European states don't need super-majorities to enact radical changes, the way coalitions can form and alter the direction of the government almost instantly, e.g. how radical greens, being a minority, can actually wield much power. Basically, I don't like any political structure that accelerates political change, rather than attempt to slow it down and make it more deliberative. I especially don't like structures that give radicals a powerful voice, instead of forcing them to make their views become the mainstream view, before they can wield such power.