The War On Iraq has started.

[epicstruggle]

If you havent heard, President Bush plans to address the american people tonight at 8pm easter(3am gmt). After seeing todays development, where the 2nd resolution was remove from consideration. This can only mean the president plans on anouncing/declaring war. Or it could be a last chance to convince saddam to leave into exile.

In either case saddam can measure the end of his brutal, terrorizing regime in hours. In my opinion he might only have 72-96 hours if even that. :cheer:

later,

 

[Joe DeFuria]

I am only disappointed that they are not calling for a final vote on a new resolution. I want to see where each country officially stands. I do understand the political reason for not presenting a new resolution for a vote, but that's just it: it's a political reason.

Given Bush's comments at his last press conference, I'm willing to wager that Blair convinced Bush to not press for the resolution, and he's doing it as a favor to Blair. But that's pure conjecture on my part.

Now, I only pray that Sadam chooses to leave.

If not, I pray for the Iraqi people.

God's Speed to all the U.S. / allied forces.

 

[RussSchultz]

Given Bush's comments at his last press conference, I'm willing to wager that Blair convinced Bush to not press for the resolution, and he's doing it as a favor to Blair.

Why would Blair not want another vote? (other than avoiding the embarrassment). Or, more to the point, why would specifically Blair not want another vote?

Now, I only pray that Sadam chooses to leave.

Fat chance, but it would be nice.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Why would Blair not want another vote? (other than avoiding the embarrassment). Or, more to the point, why would specifically Blair not want another vote?

Because Blair faces much harsher criticism in Britain than Bush does in the U.S. with regard to UN support. In other words, while it can be politcially embarassing both for Bush and Blair, Bush still has the backing of the majority of Americans, regardless of a U.N. vote. Whereas I believe the UK sentiment is mostly "if the UN says OK, then OK...if not, then it's not OK."

Bush would of couse receive more support in the U.S. if he had U.N. bakcing, but it's not political suicide for him without support.

Also (as I implied), Bush specifically said they he would call for a vote, and each country would "show its cards." I don't believe Blair had made any such promise. So Bush actually stands to be more politically embarrased by this move to not call for a vote.

Fat chance, but it would be nice.

Agreed.

 

[kyleb]

Why would Blair not want another vote?

that is another serious issue i have with this situation, by accepting Blair's support we are in ourselves supporting anti-democratic ideology. this holds true for the support of Spain as well. honestly, i am not convened that the majority of the people in this country want war, it seems to me to be more of a vocal minority. granted, that last part is debatable but i doubt anyone could raise a good dispute for the first two points.

Fat chance, but it would be nice.

Agreed.

at this point i feel that i have to agree to that as well. but i still belive there is room to work on this without initiating violence and i am disappointed that the only such option our government is willing to accept is that of exile. i see it along the same lines as telling a man to get out of his own house or get his ass kicked for standing up for himself.

 

[BenSkywalker]

i see it along the same lines as telling a man to get out of his own house or get his ass kicked for standing up for himself.

That's a good analogy, but you forgot to mention he's beating the shit out of his wife and kids constantly and pointing guns at the neighbors.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

honestly, i am not convened that the majority of the people in this country want war, it seems to me to be more of a vocal minority. granted, that last part is debatable but i doubt anyone could raise a good dispute for the first two points.

You've got that half right. There is a vocal minority, but that is the "anti-war" crowd, including the "Hey, look at me, I'm a movie star with an ignorant opinion".

Anyway (March 13):
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,81023,00.html

"A FOX News poll conducted this week finds 71 percent of Americans support using U.S. forces to disarm Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and 20 percent oppose. Support has been at about the same level for the last eight weeks.

Also:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-03-16-poll-iraq_x.htm

By a 2-to-1 ratio, Americans favor invading Iraq with U.S. ground troops to remove Saddam Hussein from power. Not since November 2001 have they approved so overwhelmingly. Nearly six in 10 say they're ready for such an invasion "in the next week or two."

But that support drops off if the U.N. backing being sought by the United States, Britain and Spain Monday is not obtained. If the U.N. Security Council rejects a resolution paving the way for military action, only 54% of Americans favor a U.S. invasion. And if the Bush administration does not seek a final Security Council vote, support for a war drops to 47%.

As I said, the U.S. population is MORE supportive of action if we get U.N. approval (which is expected), but the majority still favor action even without it. Also interestingly, this poll exactly backs my opinion that Blair talked Bush into it.

Bush stands to lose popularity if a vote is not called for, vs. actually calling a vote and not getting backing.

 

[Silent_One]

i see it along the same lines as telling a man to get out of his own house or get his ass kicked for standing up for himself.

That's a good analogy, but you forgot to mention he's beating the shit out of his wife and kids constantly and pointing guns at the neighbors.

...And with a S.W.A.T. team outside!

 

[Vince]

I am only disappointed that they are not calling for a final vote on a new resolution. I want to see where each country officially stands. I do understand the political reason for not presenting a new resolution for a vote, but that's just it: it's a political reason.

While I personally value whats best for Blair before that of the UN; I can't help but think this is for the better. There's no reason to f*ck the UNSC through global embarrasement by having the vote vetoed and then attacking anyways. Atleast this is *percieved* as less harsh as the UN isn't even in the pre-war loop, and general public impression seems to be important in much of the world.

 

[kyleb]

i see it along the same lines as telling a man to get out of his own house or get his ass kicked for standing up for himself.

That's a good analogy, but you forgot to mention he's beating the shit out of his wife and kids constantly and pointing guns at the neighbors.

actually i simply didn't bother to mention it, but i do wonder if you have forgot the abuse he has been subjected to himself as well as how much effort he has put into resolving his own intolerant behavior though. or how people are metaphorically and quite literally beating the shit out of their wife and kids constantly and pointing guns at their neighbors all over our own great country and all around the word as well. i also wonder if you realize that they do this throughout their lives as they have been constantly beaten and threatened themselves. most importantly though, i think we should realize that threatening people and beating the shit out of them is not going to convince anyone that such things should not be something we initiate.

 

[DemoCoder]

Because sometimes the police force is corrupt or overly aggressive does not mean we should not have police, and we should not assist those held hostage, or jail those who are lashing out at others.

I'm frankly amazed how apologetic you are for Saddam. Would you prefer to see the Taliban back in power as well?

 

[DeanoC]

Because Blair faces much harsher criticism in Britain than Bush does in the U.S. with regard to UN support. In other words, while it can be politcially embarassing both for Bush and Blair, Bush still has the backing of the majority of Americans, regardless of a U.N. vote. Whereas I believe the UK sentiment is mostly "if the UN says OK, then OK...if not, then it's not OK."

Bush would of couse receive more support in the U.S. if he had U.N. bakcing, but it's not political suicide for him without support.

Also (as I implied), Bush specifically said they he would call for a vote, and each country would "show its cards." I don't believe Blair had made any such promise. So Bush actually stands to be more politically embarrased by this move to not call for a vote.

Thats partly the reason but the more serious one, is that currently the war is legal (according to the top legal men in the US and UK). IF a 2nd resolution was put forward which explicitly asked for war and LOST if may then be illegal (Losing the resolution could remove war from the UN 1441 "serious consequences" ).

The UK can not join an illegal war and the US wants the UK with them (for obvious reasons), so the problem was removed.

 

[duncan36]

I wonder if he'll be wearing a falsie small mustache in a nod to his biggest hero?

 

[Joe DeFuria]

IF a 2nd resolution was put forward which explicitly asked for war and LOST if may then be illegal (Losing the resolution could remove war from the UN 1441 "serious consequences" ).

The UK can not join an illegal war and the US wants the UK with them (for obvious reasons), so the problem was removed.

Why don't the "non war" UN Security Council nations draw up their own resolution, making it "illegal" for the U.S. to take action?

I don't think there was any doubt that the Bush/Blair resolution would be "defeated" in any case via a veto by France/Russia. So it seems to me that they knew the resolution would be defeated from the onset which may technically make it illegal. (Correct?)

The only thing that may have changed, is the actual number of security counsel countries voting in favor of action. (Majority or not). Would that impact the resulting "legality" of action?

 

[kyleb]

i am not apologizing for Saddam by any means and i supported the action on the Taliban as the just as much of the world did; but like so much of the world i also do not feel that the current situation calls for such aggressive action as was used in Afghanistan.

of course we should have police but i do not like the idea of sending or troops out to police others while there is corruption running rampant amongst our own. we wind up replacing their corruption with our own and in the process many people will die, both those who oppose us and some who do not. it this effort was to stop a war, i would have already joined the fight; however, i do not want to start a war and i am disheartened at the fact that so many people will not try harder to avoid such things themselves.

also i want to comment on this directly:

...we should not assist those held hostage, or jail those who are lashing out at others.

i understand that you are being sarcastic but i hope you might realize that it is not always easy to see the difference between the two, and it is often times easy to be misled as it is often easy for others to mislead. that is why it is important to consider the opinions of everyone, that is why we have courts and juries and diplomacy. respecting others and their opinions is what has made our society great, while intolerance has only worked to destroy that effort. as humans we all forget this at times, but the more we use that as justification for our actions the more we encourage such injustice.

 

[kyleb]

I don't think there was any doubt that the Bush/Blair resolution would be "defeated" in any case via a veto by France/Russia. So it seems to me that they knew the resolution would be defeated from the onset which may technically make it illegal. (Correct?)

do you mean that if they drew up a proposal for war and it was vetoed, then the war would be illegal? or am i just misunderstanding your question?

 

[Joe DeFuria]

do you mean that if they drew up a proposal for war and it was vetoed, then the war would be illegal? or am i just misunderstanding your question?

That is the question I'm asking. I don't know if a resolution that didn't obtain majority backing would make it any more "technically illegal" than a resolution that had a majority, but was veoted by a permanent member of the security council.

 

[John Reynolds]

Just got this email here at work (bearing in mind I work on a very large Air Force base):

With all of this talk of impending war, many of us will encounter "Peace Activists" who will try and convince us that we must refrain from retaliating against the ones who terrorized us all on September 11, 2001, and those who support, proliferate and harbor terror.

These activists may be alone or in a gathering.....most of us don't know how to react to them. When you come upon one of these people, or one of their rallies, here are the proper rules of etiquette:

1. Listen politely while this person explains their views. Strike up a conversation if necessary and look very interested in their> ideas. They will tell you how revenge is immoral, and that by attacking the people who did this to us, we will only bring on more violence. They will probably use many arguments, ranging from political to religious to humanitarian.

2. In the middle of their remarks, without any warning, punch them in the nose.

3. When the person gets up off of the ground, they will be very angry and they may try to hit you, so be careful.

4. Very quickly and calmly remind the person that violence only brings about more violence and remind them of their stand on this matter. Tell them if they are really committed to a nonviolent approach to undeserved attacks, they will turn the other cheek and negotiate a solution. Tell them they must lead by example if they really believe what they are saying.

5. Most of them will think for a moment and then agree that you are correct.

6. As soon as they do that, hit them again. Only this time hit them much harder. Square in the nose.

7. Repeat steps 2-5 until the desired results are obtained and the idiot realizes how stupid of an argument he/she is making.

8. There is no difference in an individual attacking an unsuspecting victim or a group of terrorists attacking a nation of people. It is unacceptable and must be dealt with. Perhaps at a high cost.

We owe our military a huge debt for what they are about to do for us and our children. We must support THEM AND OUR LEADERS at times like these.

We have no choice. We either strike back, VERY HARD, or we will keep getting hit in the nose.

Lesson over, class dismissed.

 

[kyleb]

but the reason i do not agree is because i do believe that Iraq is planing to hit us. you on the other hand i am a bit worried about after seeing the instructions which you were given and are now passing around.

 

[Heathen]

Quote:
do you mean that if they drew up a proposal for war and it was vetoed, then the war would be illegal? or am i just misunderstanding your question?


That is the question I'm asking. I don't know if a resolution that didn't obtain majority backing would make it any more "technically illegal" than a resolution that had a majority, but was veoted by a permanent member of the security council.

If a proposed resolution is vetoed by a pernament member of the UN security council it becomes null and void. In effect it never existed so te qustion of legaility is somewhat irrelevant.